How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[Guest DWA]

It has always blown my mind too that so many reports are dismissed, and the reason for this is nothing more than personal bias. Some reports likely should be dismissed, but out of the thousands of sightings that have been reported only a very small percentage need to be accurate for us to conclude that sasquatch is genuine. Really, if just one of these reports is accurate, then sasquatch must be real, barring escaped gorillas and other primates. I have long believed that the sighting record is the best evidence available at the moment, because it is the only evidence that allows us insight into various aspects of sasquatch movement, behavior, etc...

 

And it is true that some individuals, sometimes due to their professions, make better witnesses than other individuals. A person who is trained to observe and remember as much of a scenario as possible, especially in times of high stress, are going to be the people who make excellent witnesses, since they are less likely to be wrong about what they are describing. We will get a more accurate picture of what they actually saw. I can understand there being skepticism in many aspects of eyewitness testimony, and not just in the realm of sasquatch sightings, but at what point are there enough sightings to conclude that there is actually something going on? I think this is the question you are asking as well. And it is a great question in my opinion.

 

I have heard the claim that the human brain does not remember details in high stress or fear situations, such as a sasquatch encounter, but what about those who are trained for this and deal with fear and stress on a daily basis? Police officers, military personnel, etc.? And another thing that blows my mind is that even if people have a hard time remembering exactly what occurs in a certain situation, don't you think they would see enough to know the difference between a bear and an 8 foot tall monstrosity that is covered in hair? I think just about anyone could distinguish between the two. When I had my sighting, there was no doubt in my mind as to what I was looking at, considering there is nothing else it could have been.

 

There are just not enough situations out there to explain away every single sasquatch report. It is sad that so many people choose not to believe their fellow man, especially considering just how many people have filed sighting reports. And most people estimate that only a small percentage of sightings actually get reported to a sasquatch research group, or to the police, or to anyone who would keep records and make them available to the public.

 

So I throw my hat into the ring of dumbfoundedness when it comes to not understanding just why some people refuse to see the evidence that is staring them in the face. And it is also sad that so many people must have a sighting to believe sasquatch exist. And I think this for the same reason I already mentioned, which is that there is ample evidence. But many choose to not only ignore this evidence, but go OUT OF THEIR WAY to dismiss it outright. In fact, some of the explanations for sightings are so out of this world that it makes more statistical sense for sasquatch to be real, than for what was seen to have been caused by something else.

 

I always like to make the connection with UFO's. I could see how my argument could be applied to that area of research, however, when dealing with lights and objects in the sky, a person is much more apt to get what they are seeing wrong. This is for a variety of reasons, including the fact that most people are not accustomed to measuring distance in the sky, or height, and they do not know what airplane lights look like, or all the manner of natural phenomena that can appear in the sky. So in that field there actually is a much higher probability of making a mistake, and providing an unconventional explanation for something conventional. The only reason I mention this at all is just in case someone attempts to use the same arguments I made against me in the alien arena, lol.

Plussed.  Particularly that the sightings are by far the most compelling evidence.

 

Talk footprints all you want; talk Patty all you want.  But above you see just why the sightings are the cheese here.  Does anyone really think there is any scenario whereby thousands of random liars, hoaxers, truth-stretchers and badly impaired people (seeing a bear as an ape DOES NOT HAPPEN, gang) could give us a guidebook description of a species, complete with ecological profile?

 

Sure that's happening.  Wanna bet it?  A centuries-old familiy-owned business, with a code of omerta that would make the Mafia look like Sally Jessie Raphael, is more likely.  So is the most intriguing - we have to document this! - mental health issue in the history of humanity.  So is a Universal Hoaxers' Guild operating way under the societal radar, people comparing notes precisely and like mad, with just the right touch of nuance to make it all look 'natural,' code of omerta ditto.

 

Shoot, Sasquatch Are Extraterrestrials is a lot more likely.

 

And you are betting those.  No way we try to find out what's going on as curious people might.  We just bet one of those.

 

Oh.

 

OK.

 

Not to worry about UFOs, Jiggy.  There may be a lot of them.  But consistent?  In no way.

And this about that so-stressed-out-they-imagined sasquatch noise.

 

Stop it.

 

Craziness exists in the world.  Does that mean you are crazy?

 

Buy one of the scenarios above, you just might be.

Self selecting sample.

 

EVERYONE who wants to hoax a Bigfoot story has reported one.

 

Yeahright.  Come on.

 

You know, some evidence to support that outlandish theory would be nice.

 

I mean, that's what the proponents are doing.  So no pie in the sky 'til the proponents are done.  Handle that?

[dmaker]

While it may be interesting and compelling and even "cheesy" to you, it is still just anecdotal evidence and that type of evidence is not scientific evidence. Some rules of the game you just can't change.

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

There are no black mountain lions, and as far as we know there never have been.   They don't come in black.

 

And as long as no evidence that this assessment is wrong is taken seriously, that 'truth' will remain.  (Hmmm.  Doesn't that sound familiar.)   If other cats come in black, what says this one absolutely cannot?  But we know what happens when everyone who says they saw one is deemed out of the box crazy.

 

Although some of the kitties claimed to be big cats leave me scratching my head, mistaking a cat-sized cat for a lion-sized cat doesn't make the witness stupid, immature, drunk, mentally ill, or agenda-laden. 

 

You may not be able to prove it.  But I can tell you I would make no such mistake, I'd bet most people wouldn't, and if you did, I am down for a significant amount of  money for you being one of the above.

While it may be interesting and compelling and even "cheesy" to you, it is still just anecdotal evidence and that type of evidence is not scientific evidence. Some rules of the game you just can't change.

 

And AGAIN the obdurate refusal to discuss this whole evidence vs. proof thing in the privacy of one's head.

 

The eyewitness testimony says, if you aren't interested, just what are you interested IN, Mr. Scientist?

 

Some rules of the game you just can't change.

[dmaker]

^^ Sorry, DWA, but I don't see your question or point in the above. Could you rephrase please?

[Guest DWA]

 

Although some of the kitties claimed to be big cats leave me scratching my head, mistaking a cat-sized cat for a lion-sized cat doesn't make the witness stupid, immature, drunk, mentally ill, or agenda-laden. 

 

I should add that, just like "those loony deluded amateur researchers have been doing an EXCELLENT job searching for that hallucination of theirs,"  "those nutty deluded crackpot eyewitnesses are only human" shouldn't scan with anyone either.

 

Reading reports it is simple enough to see that if these people are not seeing precisely what they say they are, they are either lying through their teeth or should be hospitalized before they hurt someone.

[dmaker]

I'm just saying that eye witness reports are what they are: which is not evidence that science can use to prove anything. So I don't understand the constant group admiring of the witness database. But this seems to be what a lot of folks get charged up about, you in particular DWA. And I can't understand why that would be. Would you not want to focus more attention on the testable evidence for Bigfoot? Something that could actually be used to advance the claim? No amount of anecdotal cheese is going to accomplish that.

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

If you can't use eyewitness testimony to prove anything, well, you didn't go to enough science classes.  Simple as that.

How many times does this have to be explained?

 

Thousands of people are seeing something.  To be this consistent about it, they'd all have to be primatologists, sharing notes.

 

But they aren't and they aren't.

 

Pick your response to this:

 

I'm a jaded cipher and am going to stick to mouse lemurs that I can feel with my own two hands.

 

OR

 

Hmmmm, that's interesting.

 

I know which one is the scientist, and which one is the mouse-lemur technician.

[dmaker]

That is interesting. Could you please provide a link to where anecdotal evidence is now considered scientific evidence and be used to prove a scientific fact? That would be great.Thank-you.

Perhaps Wiki has not been updated since your proclamation that anecdotal evidence is now acceptable as scientific evidence and can constitute scientific proof:

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[15] It is the opposite of scientific evidence.[16] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Evidence does not equal proof but it's useful.  Good fact to know if one's going to be a scientist and doesn't want me looking down my nose at one.

 

ta-ta.

[dmaker]

"Evidence does not equal proof but it's useful."

Now that is correct. It is in direct contradiction to a couple of other statements you made in this thread in the past 30 minutes, but at least it is accurate.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^I can't wait to see the contradiction which didn't happen pointed out.

[dmaker]

"If you can't use eyewitness testimony to prove anything, well, you didn't go to enough science classes. Simple as that."

Here is one for you..

That is not at all congruent with:

"Evidence does not equal proof but it's useful" ( in a discussion about anecdotal evidence)

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Just from reading some of the other threads I am confused somewhat that eye witness encounters are sometimes dismissed out of hand, the conventional wisdom from law enforcement, tv and such proving that the same is very unreliable and I have seen, and have even conducted training showing that people do make mistakes in their recollection of events, and are thus, vulnerable to recounting them erringly. By the same token, I do believe many people when they retell of events, many people are dead on. Some were trained observers, sniper schooled trained or veteran recon guys. Some were not. Some were just intelligent observant, cool headed people. ...

 

I know this is a tough question, believing those you are not familiar with, and true anyone can type anything on the internet, but at some point a preponderance of legitimate sightings by credible witnesses has to have some weight.

 

Well, this is the point, the "some weight."  Science can never accept eyewitnesses as proof. 

 

But at some point, one has to look at scientists and say they simply aren't doing their job.  And we're way past there with sasquatch.

 

Now lots of people look at scientists as high priests whose word is incontrovertible.  But science, the practice, is about curiosity, and the level of expressed mainstream curiosity about the eyewitness testimony for sasaquatch is almost tantamount to dereliction of duty.  Problem is, too many people are too cowed by scientists to bother to recognize the host of mistakes they make every day, for the most petty and non-technical of reasons.  So when scientists say, this isn't happening, trust me, too many people just trust them, instead of asking them the question they should be prepared to answer:

 

On what do you base that?  Show me how you got there.

 

I asked that question.  Meldrum and Krantz gave me clear and detailed answers.  Their mainstream buds?

 

[crickets]

 

Don't show me any curiosity about what these people are seeing; don't show me any evidence that your take is correct; and I'm not so sure about those degrees you say you have.  You are supposed to USE them.

 

Eyewtinesses are critical to science.  Why else would park and wildlife officials ask visitors to log their sightings, which they do routinely?  Why else do biosurveys?  Can one only see with an advanced science degree?

 

Nope.  Eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses, degrees or no.  And if there is no reason to doubt them, one doesn't.

[dmaker]

But there is reason to doubt them. Reasons? Take your pick:

 

• No fossil record for Bigfoot.
• Not one single piece of biological evidence has been confirmed to come from a Bigfoot. 
• No decent explanation for the above absence of physical evidence.
• Numerous examples of people mistaking what they reportedly saw. 
• A long, rich history of hoaxing. (Do all hoaxers have some sort of shared physical trait? Can we identify them on sight? No, of course not. So no one is above suspicion in that regard ultimately. So yes, the history of hoaxing is relevant here) 

That's just a quick start...

Edited June 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Not reasons to mistrust eyewitnesses.  Sorry.

 

We just found out that 1 in 13 people may have mid-tarsal break!  And how long has science literally had that information *in its hands*?

 

All that stuff you are listing is just evidence which, set against the eyewitnesses, indicates that they're missing another doozie.  They do it all.the.time.

 

Numerous examples of people mistaking what they reportedly saw. 

 Craziness exists.  Blindness exists.  So.  Are you crazy and blind?

 

Precise.same.argument.