Guest Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 ^^I wonder how many of our resident skeptics spend no time in the woods and instead spend their time with Xbox and World of Warcraft. . same % as believers probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I spend a fair bit of time in the woods. In fact, got a few blisters from my 10 km hike yesterday in the woods. Though, I have to say, I see absolutely zero relevance in comments like that. As if simply spending time in the woods allows one to make claims without evidence and them carry more weight. Does that work both ways? A skeptic who spends more time in the woods than any ten proponents combined, does his/her skepticism carry more weight? And what about all of our fine members from the UK? They don't get to hold a valid opinion since they have,most likely, spent probably no time in a North American forest? I am sorry, but slinking around the woods looking for Bigfoot does not add weight to an opinion--be that skeptic or proponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 The day after a type specimen is presented will have zero impact on anecdotal reports. They are what they. Not a single one of them can be tested or falsified even if a wood ape is dragged from the brush. A specimen would make this argument rather moot for quite a few people I would think, but it does not validate a single report. Think of it like this. You say you saw a bear last night. Bears are a known taxon therefore you in fact saw a bear. Of course, that is not true and does not follow. You could have mistaken the rear end of a moose, or a shadow or whatever. That is my whole point with witness reports. They are not testable, so they are just stories. I disagree, because it becomes exponentially more probable that some roports and their information is true, and with a specimen, you could certainly test the information against observations of your own and of the creature itself. Sightings always precede the discovery whether you are a scientist or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 How will you treat this same information on the day after a type specimen has been presented? Differently, I expect, and therein is one's bias revealed. It has nothing to do with bias. Not that I've already stated a dozen times that I'm a fencesitter or anything.. That same information is still anecdotal no matter how many specimens are found. They're not going to suddenly become verifiable. Seriously guys, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 I disagree, because it becomes exponentially more probable that some roports and their information is true, and with a specimen, you could certainly test the information against observations of your own and of the creature itself. Sightings always precede the discovery whether you are a scientist or other. I understand about sightings preceding the discovery. But I think you are missing my point. Just because a Bigfoot is found cannot confirm any past sighting. It might increase or decrease the probability based on comparing descriptions, but it still cannot, irrefutably, confirm any previous sighting. Only a time machine could do that. But it feels like I'm splitting hairs here. For my part, I would abandon this discussion instantly. It just wouldn't be worth debating. The discovery would not suddenly make true that which is not. All the reports that were faked will still be faked. But there would be no point in focusing on investigating that when there is real Bigfoot to discuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 If a type specimen is brought in? It's not going matter one way or another...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 That same information is still anecdotal no matter how many specimens are found. They're not going to suddenly become verifiable. Seriously guys, come on. Let's change that sentence to read: "That same information is still little known, entertaining and factual accounts of happening involving Bigfoot." (And if it will make nay-sayers feel better, we'll (anyone who has posted about their experiences with Bigfoot) be more serious when we discuss the subject again.) ---------- From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition. Anecdote, 1. Originally, little-known, entertaining facts of history or biography. 2. A short, entertaining account of some happening, usually personal or biographical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 ^Sure, it's factual to that person. That doesn't mean it just transfers over as fact to anybody else. Fun with semantics again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) Fun with semantics again. -------------- Sorry. Seriously. Edited September 24, 2013 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) Sorry folks, evidence is purely subjective if it does not allow autopsy, most of us who have been exposed to experience have had to battle whether that constitutes true evidence, I know it does not, and that most of what I could demonstrate could be discounted. To those of us who have been pushed or pulled, or enticed, to this side of the fence, we only are truly interested in knowing what we think we know is really there to know, basically what the hell is bigfoot, we know it exists, but we grapple with how, why, where, when, and who, and everything in between.....and then what is the significance of that discovery, and does that change our understanding of our own existence and sojourning on the earth...And now I step out into the dark hoping once again to experience, and maybe discover a bit more, maybe find something slightly more convincing, you see the torture of the Urban Bigfooter, I will never get that ultimate encounter, my brand are just to craftly and secretive... Edited September 24, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 rougefooter is right. It isn't factual to anyone except the person themselves, or if there were other's with them during their sighting. I posted my sighting so it would help you LCB and there were other's who thought I should. It's nice talking to people who have had sighting's and experiences with them. I didn't post it to make believer's out of anyone. If someone doesn't believe me, I fully understand that. Why should they. At one point in time I didn't either. Your brand ? LOL, I have never heard them refered to that way. It seems from what I have read they are all pretty crafty and don't really want to be seen most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) Screwed up my edit, oh well. LCB- I'm looking at a map of the Chicago area and it just looks like city surrounded by more city with a few small wooded areas, which I'm sure are usually populated with people. Do you think a Bigfoot could really hide from people in that area and stay hidden? Also how would it travel? Edited September 24, 2013 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 I understand about sightings preceding the discovery. But I think you are missing my point. Just because a Bigfoot is found cannot confirm any past sighting. It might increase or decrease the probability based on comparing descriptions, but it still cannot, irrefutably, confirm any previous sighting. Only a time machine could do that. But it feels like I'm splitting hairs here. For my part, I would abandon this discussion instantly. It just wouldn't be worth debating. The discovery would not suddenly make true that which is not. All the reports that were faked will still be faked. But there would be no point in focusing on investigating that when there is real Bigfoot to discuss. Actually sightings coupled with hair finds and DNA study could prove a past sighting true. So I'm still not buying the idea that all past sightings are forever unsubstantiated. Past evidence collected establishes habitat and range. It would be very important post discovery in conservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 Rougefooter, I am sure that on the outskirts, and in areas attached by greenways, these animals can indeed remain hidden, albeit by maintaining a purely nocturnal existence. This is not far fetched, the only thing that makes us doubt is the shear size of the creature. Almost all of the sightings in this area are late night or early morning, except one that was caught moving during the day on a bike trail. That is not to say that I think they can get that close to the city of Chicago itself, that would be highly difficult, but anywhere 30 miles out connected to greenways is somewhat possible, and when you get a little further, more habitat exists. The number of creatures in this large area is probably less than 10 and I think maybe much less than that, say a family group to the south, and one west, and one north, that would be about right given the number of sightings, very few creatures produce very few sightings. Pure hypothesis on my part.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Yah, ravines, utility line cuts, abandoned rail corridors, there's lots of acknowledged wildlife corridors in urban areas. Coyotes seem to make 2 mile forays into my city at night, eat a few cats. I think we're hitting a "Life will find a way" point with them as they recolonise the continent, cramming themselves into ever more marginal niches. I don't expect them to be hanging around outside soup kitchens for a few more years yet though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts