Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 ^^ I agree. But you constantly charge people with disproving eye witness reports. That is a false charge. It cannot be done. They are untestable. By your own words, " If it can't be proven and can't be unproven..." Well eye witness reports cannot be proven or unproven. So stop telling people that they have to disprove every single eye witness report from now on please. That would be great. Oh, I don't tell them to do that. I tell them to accept the only reasonable alternative: Press for mainstream involvement in proving this animal. That simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 And the funny thing about it is: There is nobody who would get better instant credibility from the public doing just what a jury does than scientists. I mean look at it! The mainstream doesn't even have to look at the evidence for everybody to think they've done it, because, I mean, listen, they're giving an opinion...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Eye-witness testimony can never be used alone. Not in science, not in court. Testimony is always anecdotal evidence as it requires physical proof to substantiate it. In science, everything is needs to be able to be replicable. That doesn't mean testimonials don't count at all, but they can't be held to a high regard on their own either. They have a place, but they need something else to support them. They are a good start or a good finish, but the meat of the evidence is going to come from the physical side of things. Not to get drawn into this particular imbroglio again....but your statement about eyewitness testimony is flatly untrue. It does not require backing by physical proof in a courtroom. All that is required is a person to raise their right hand and swear or affirm to tell the truth...and start talking. Is testimony backed by physical evidence more compelling? Absolutely. Required? No. This is why I've always said there are folks on death row (and many of them rightfully convicted) put there by less evidence than there is for the existence of this animal. Juries have very little problem with looking an individual in the eye, hearing their story, and evaluating their credibility. This is a very useful and ordinary skill, which seems to be beyond the reach of the scientific community. No one is on death row based on ONE eye-witness testimony alone. Multiple eye-witnesses is very different. If we had multiple eye-witness accounts posted, they'd be taken more credible than single witness stories as well. And while the countless testimonies given about sightings all over the world are compelling, there aren't many reports from different sources of the same sighting. And any prosecutor that has zero physical evidence and only a single eye witness to testify, has no case to begin with and is grasping. Credibility is useful and ordinary, but it has zero place in the scientific community because science relies on a repeatable hypothesis, not words. If you could test a person's testimony, you'd be able to produce physical evidence in the first place. Trust me, eye-witness accounts are important in this field, I just think too many put an overabundance of faith into them instead of treating them as the starting point in a bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grifter9931 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) And if you chose not to share that experience, then why share any at all? And if you choose to not participate, like the some fisherman/sailors who are witness to giant sharks etc or the loggers who for the most part say nothing of their personal BF adventures. Then that is totally reasonable, its a private part of your world. I'm not asking this out of frustration, but a sincere desire to understand why you seem frustrated with people who won't behave in a manner that makes you comfortable. Why do you (or anyone else for that purpose) get to decide how everyone else, witness, researcher, investigator, habituator, is allowed to participate in the highly undefined world of "bigfooting"? Why are they obligated to "do it this way or not at all"? Because at some point, these "interactions" become tall tales... And the person saying it becomes A great "story" teller.... Also I can reciprocate that same feeling of why you wouldn't want to share something so amazing with others?? It's why you post these "interactions isn't it? Or you have a different motivation. I would love to hear it. If makes any amount of sense, my question would be answered and I would keep on looking for ways to help out the cause in any which way I can. For the amount of ridicule and out right scorn that "BF" scientist/researchers/believers get from other researchers and scientist, if you had the opportunity to show to the naysayers/non believers who "on a good day is saying to your entire field that you are either crazy, stupid or just filled with flat out Liars" that here is evidence we have worked hard and tirelessly to collect and we are making strides to better under this amazing creature in its natural habitat. Ease up on the ridicule and give us the the time/chance to show the world what we have accomplished.... Nope, what it seems to be is that you would rather keep it all to yourself. And then get offended at the accusations that you are just being disingenuous and outrageous. And that's the polite way of saying that. I maybe wrong.... You aren't obligated to do anything for anyone. But if you make some pretty outrageous claims, have the common decency to at least back it up. The community supports you, with dialogue and healthy debate/questions. The reason being, is that you are claiming to have a more intimate working knowledge of something that we all care about. Edited May 31, 2013 by Grifter9931 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 GuyInIndiana - he is not deciding how anyone can participate, he's asking a question. No one is obligated to share anything including an answer to his question (which no one has answered other than the same old "we don't have to if we don't want to") but he is still entitled to ask it. Agree whole heartedly. When someone makes a claim, they are tossing their story out there. It is only natural that they be questioned about things that make others curious. Sure they don't have to answer, but they have to know how that will be viewed by most. That's why I asked why someone who has no intention of answering those questions would even put themselves through it. Don't put a claim or a story out on an open forum and then get your panties in a bunch if someone questions it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Agree whole heartedly. When someone makes a claim, they are tossing their story out there. It is only natural that they be questioned about things that make others curious. Sure they don't have to answer, but they have to know how that will be viewed by most. That's why I asked why someone who has no intention of answering those questions would even put themselves through it. Don't put a claim or a story out on an open forum and then get your panties in a bunch if someone questions it. I would say that BFMSE (before my SSq encounters) that to look at this with all honesty... if someone else had come to me with the same lengthy story I would definitely question the authenticity of their story. I would listen with an open mind , but I would have probably deep down not believed them. Having put my experience and blog (about SSq origins) out there to those I trust I certainly have made a decision to open myself up to curiosity and questioning, and its easy to get ones feeling hurt from someone who disagrees with you...if you let it. It is not their fault for questioning or even doubting, but what for me is paramount it how I react to it. I think I can say without breaking any rules that anyone who flat out denies is a fool , just as the same holds IMO for anyone who sees a SSq under every rock. The question I often ask is that why do those who flatly disregard spend so much time here, I must ask do they spend any of the rest of their time on things they do believe in. (hypothetical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 ^^ I agree. But you constantly charge people with disproving eye witness reports. That is a false charge. It cannot be done. They are untestable. By your own words, " If it can't be proven and can't be unproven..." Well eye witness reports cannot be proven or unproven. So stop telling people that they have to disprove every single eye witness report from now on please. That would be great. Oh, I don't tell them to do that. I tell them to accept the only reasonable alternative: Press for mainstream involvement in proving this animal. That simple. Surely you can't be serious? You tell people to do just that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 DWA....dmaker......don't make me pull this car over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Well, you are gonna need to, because dmaker needs to get out. He has one of two things to do. And he knows what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Actually I don't. What are my options again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Why does nobody ever point out that all Bigfoot eye-witness evidence comes from a self selecting sample, and that this must obviously be factored in when attaching any weight to the number of sightings? Edited June 1, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I don't think "SLOP" can be factored into BF eyewitness accounts due to the predisposition for the eyewitness to be biased towards outdoor activities in the first place. For example, you would have to factor in the number of eyewitness accounts originating in Mid Town Manhattan New York with those from Twisp Washington. It isn't a reliable anomaly that can be factored in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 The question I often ask is that why do those who flatly disregard spend so much time here, I must ask do they spend any of the rest of their time on things they do believe in. That is a very good question. Why would someone who is absolutely convinced that BF does not exist feel compelled to register and post on a forum about BF? Why does nobody ever point out that all Bigfoot eye-witness evidence comes from a self selecting sample, and that this must obviously be factored in when attaching any weight to the number of sightings? self selecting sample is a false assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Eye-witness testimony can never be used alone. Not in science, not in court. Testimony is always anecdotal evidence as it requires physical proof to substantiate it. In science, everything is needs to be able to be replicable. Sadly, that's not true in court. There are lots of folks in prison today who were convicted solely on the basis of testimony by eyewitnesses. That being said, eyewitness testimony is pretty much the most unreliable form of evidence known. Studies have shown this for decades. For instance: Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory. Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories. Or look up Frederick Bartlett's experiments in the 1930s involving the retelling of Native American folk tales, usually known as the War of the Ghost experiments. EDIT: Frederick Bartlett, not Alan Bartlett. Edited June 1, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 self selecting sample is a false assumption. No it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts