WSA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Post Script: Bill, by "on the ground", I mean just that. This animal lives outside. No amount of armchair study will get you any insight into that habitat and the sighting reports that come from there if you don't spend appreciable time in it. There is a reason hunting guides are used, and why they command the prices they do. If you've not spent a good chunk of your time on the planet under forest canopy or the like, there is much you don't know. I'm not saying I know if this applies to you, or not. I'm just saying it is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ^^^I'm gonna go just a weetad further out on the limb than you do on that second to last sentence. I think I do know. Doesn't matter how much time you spend outside...if you can't take it apart six ways to Sunday. You can; I can; and on this topic...you gotta, and no two ways about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 "This thing you know + this thing you know = this thing you now know" Right. And how do you "know" , i.e. determine the truth of a matter? You test it. You attempt to falsify it. None of this can apply to an anecdote. Sure it can! And does! NAWAC followed anecdotes right into a mess a bigfeets! And they've all seen one! (You're jealous aren't you.) Anecdotes are testable: this thing can be found here. If you, um, you know, like, LOOK. "He did it, Your Honor!" is a testable premise at the very heart of our legal system. It's tested by what we soffistikates call a "jury trial." Anecdotes in zoology, gorilla, dingiso, saola, thank you, are tested by what we call "field work." You cannot "know" the truth of an anecdote since it cannot be tested to determine the truth. It is not scientific evidence. Been over this. That is PROOF. That's what "scientific evidence" is. That's what you call PROOF. Therefore you are not "knowing" anything by sifting through hundreds or thousands of them other than people report seeing, hearing and smelling what they describe as bigfoot. But some of us do other things with them, mystical, magical, hard to understand brain stuff. Thinking. Sorting. Collating. Checking against our experience. Noting that nothing like this has ever happened that hasn't been proven eventually, so when a critical mass gets interested, this will be too. Brain stuff. But you cannot ascertain the objective truth of even a single report therefore you are only "knowing" that the report was filed and what was claimed. Beyond that, all you have is cool story bro. Any claims otherwise simply demonstrate that you do not understand the true nature of anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Which I find odd for a self proclaimed scientist. Which I'm just showing my chops on once again. While you are illustrating WSA's well-painted picture of your, um, problem with all this. Chicken on the menu today. Doc in the background. Yum yum. Why do you insist on ignoring scientific basics? No, anecdotes are not testable and falsifiable. I dare you to find one real scientist that will claim otherwise. What you describe is called investigation, NOT falsification. Scientific evidence is not "proof". Scientific evidence is something that the scientific method can be used to investigate, i.e. it MUST be testable and it MUST be falsifiable and repeatable. This is grade 4 science yet you continue to deny the truth of it while still calling yourself the best scientist ever. It matters not what happens in a court of law. Biology is not a court of law. And you know what? Witnesses in court lie too! No, it's true. They do. People lie and people are mistaken every single day in this world. Even about crime details. Even about bigfoot. What methods are used in court have nothing at all to do with biology or the scientific method. Your point in using that analogy only serves to underline your lack of understanding regarding scientific evidence and the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ^^^DOOD. We have established who is ignoring scientific basics. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 No, you claim it be me, then clearly demonstrate it to be you. Constantly you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) ^^^Yes, but you have to show something that makes people talking to you think anything other than, well, he's got this all made up in his mind. Back on the topic. LCB: latest? As I think we've pretty much established that "urban" bigfoot is first, not exactly riding the subway and second, a definitely plausible idea...what's developing your way? Edited June 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It is not a plausible idea. Why would you think it is a plausible idea? What evidence is there to support that idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 WSA - Obviously you are capable of making mistakes, your human and it's why reports should be examined rather than taken at face value. I'm not sure I'd characterize your mistake as a clerical error, more a loss of situational awareness which is why I related it to sassy reports. Your cognitive bias is more pervasive perhaps but loss of awareness in your surroundings could be more acute resulting in stress, cause activation of the fight or flight response, and make you more susceptible to feeling threatened when dealing with a dark figure at night and lead you to a possibly incorrect report of a sassy encounter in an urban setting. Not sure what fears you feel I possess? Perhaps you made another mistake and misread my post or are responding to a post in a different thread? I have no problem asking questions or asking for documentation when reports would reasonably lead me to the possibility that corroboration could exist. I have plenty of questions - it's answers and corroboration that are hard to find. In fact, I have some unanswered questions you apparently missed in my last post if you want to help - Do you think it's unreasonable to expect the same of sassy reports? Would you expect someone to call 911 and speak to the police about a large threatening presence in the local park that had them scared terribly? Would you expect claims of property damage caused by a sassy to be investigated by the police? Again, I've yet to see sassy jumping around on my roof or tearing up my fence while I stand idly by. Do you spend a lot of time watching your roof and fence for sassy visits? Do you feel that by applying a constant vigil to your roof and fence you will increase your odds of an encounter? Do you feel it's necessary to hire a hunting guide to look for urban sassy or is this a reference to forest people? I'm having trouble following where you are trying to go with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Bill...I should live so long. Over and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 After 75 pages of no Urban BigFooT we can't even find a Suburban BigFooT. Come on. Seriously; There are no FigBootS dumpster diving in Michigan. I'll gladly take the warning point on this one. Nonsense and Horse Puckey. I'll take one too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted June 4, 2014 Author Share Posted June 4, 2014 Yah DWA, I have been recording sporadically to see if anything is worth digging further into, so far no indication of the pair that I heard and was able to fairly well document in recordings last year. My yote's are not at all present so far, which is probably due to the young being nurtured, and the Marsh tubers are slowly reaching maturity. I think I will have a better idea as this month roles along. My research really began in August of last year, but the encounter took place in July. July 4rth and July 12th. So to say the least I am holding my breath to see if they decide to return for another summer. My best guess is that they were around for several months, my recordings indicated quite a few odd things like loud tree knocking and setting off the coyotes, and occasional vocalizations of various kinds. The stuff was fairly subtle with the exception of the tree knocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 Well keep us posted. Thread hijackings do happen; but I'm most concerned with the ones actually trying to figure this out. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted June 4, 2014 Author Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) In response to how I know whether BFRO reports can be trusted or should be dismissed. I base my conclusion on the surrounding evidence. If I cannot find suitable habitat and a means of travel to and from that habitat, well then I am suspicious to say the least. What I have found really enlightening in the cases I have presented relative to this thread is that I find definite correlations to other sightings, and passages to and from those areas to other sighting areas, greenways, train tracks, bike paths, easements, and rivers. Google earth opened my eyes, as well as reading the reports and weighing the accounts to see whether they seem legitimate on a case by case basis, and thus far very few seem obviously hoaxish in nature. I am sure that many are hoaxed, but I think they are a relatively small portion of the whole, and in most cases stand out as such.....thread high jacking is not an issue for me, argue on and on..... Edited June 4, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) With anything like this, a biologist looks to the evidence. There are too many reports of similar behavior in similar areas to simply dismiss them, particularly in the light of known animals' behavior (primates specifically). Edited June 4, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 4, 2014 Share Posted June 4, 2014 So what is it DWA? Will the police come if you call 911 and mention bigfoot? You have yet to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts