Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[roguefooter]

Don't think I've ever read, wrote or heard of any encounter report which was submitted as "being evidence of something", but all were presented "as factual information" -some of which have of course have not been. I see no reason to expect that a 10 second encounter with a Bigfoot by a hunter, fisherman, hiker , etc  which the witness chose to disclose as an actual event would be, or could be, "supported by evidence". It would simply be a statement of fact. As I said before, if your are are wanting evidence to evaluate each of the tens of  thousands of encounter reports that have been published, you are barking up the wrong tree. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Here, let me clarify for you. Presenting an encounter is telling a story, nobody expects evidence or proof to be presented from telling a story.

 

Presenting it as factual information or evidence in a debate or discussion of Bigfoot here on the forum is going to be met with expectations of presenting something to back up the claim.

 

If I had an encounter it would be factual to me and to me only. I know it would hold no weight in any discussion to try to present it as anything more than just a personal encounter because it could not be backed up in any way. For anyone to say something like "It's a fact because I've seen it" is a fruitless argument no matter how you slice it.

 

 

Just so that you understand; I have clearly seen three of the subject animals over a period exceeding 30 years. That FACT has been made known a few times on this and other forums, and on different BF research sites. I was not submitting "claims", I was stating facts. If you are expecting "evidence" of my personal encounters; you are SOL. 

 

Just like I said, nobody is going to expect evidence from STORIES, but if you want to present them as facts in any argument then evidence is expected. Nobody here is SOL but the claimant, because without evidence it's only a story to others. It holds no weight in any debate.

 

 

I would not expect that the "millions" of people who live in New York, Chicago, D.C., etc.have had much of a chance of seeing a BF. It is very nonsensical to think otherwise.

 

When you quote mine and deliberately take things out of context then of course it's going to be nonsensical. I was referring to millions of people living, recreating, and working in the woods. I thought that was pretty obvious, no?

 

 

Yes, thousands of those people have seen them. Few of them that live, work or "recreate" in the woods carry a camcorder or camera at eye level while performing those functions. Even if they did, any images they were able to capture would not be accepted as proof on anythings and discounted by skeptics. (And I suppose they would have to do that since they have no point of reference.) Hundreds of hunters each year see the things, but after seeing one, shooting it to pacify the skeptics' constant need for proof  never crosses their mind. It's actually "pretty simple" for someone who has never been around BF to simplify a way to "substantiate" their existence. Give it a go for a few years and report back.

 

Going back to your original comment that "If you're looking for proof, it's in the field" means that you're chances are so slim that only thousands out of millions have seen them. Out of those thousands, not a single one has come out with proof.

 

It boils down to this- if you're looking for proof, go out in the field. You most likely will never find that proof in your lifetime, but it's a good blanket excuse and allows people to keep making unfounded claims with nothing to back it up.

 

 

It's pretty obvious you have not done your home work. Not gonna do it for you.

 

You made the claim, now you expect me to back it up? That seems to be the common theme around here with so many unfounded claims.

 

That means I could make up anything I want, and then expect you to waste your time looking it up because it most likely is just a load of bunk. That's pretty convenient.

Edited September 23, 2013 by roguefooter

[roguefooter]

How can we trust all of these anecdotal accounts of being in the woods and not seeing Bigfoot? Without some kind of proof to back up the claim, they are just stories. We have already heard how eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

 

Is it possible that at least some of these millions of people have actually witnessed a Bigfoot and it just did not register, or they misinterpreted the sighting as a hallucination or a more common animal? ( Tongue firmly in cheek)

 

That's the whole point- it's all anecdotal and unreliable. Loads of people not seeing Bigfoot holds just as much weight as people claiming to see them. It doesn't add up to anything of substance.

 

 

 

 

If thousands of people have found evidence, then where are the thousands of pieces of evidence that have been found? You're catching on now.

 

You're not making any sense here. It's not "evidence" if you can't present it. The only thing this tells me is that these "thousands of people" you're referring to have NOT found evidence.

Edited September 23, 2013 by roguefooter

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Interesting stuff recorded last night with the recorder sitting near marsh on flat tree section from a cut. First something investigates the recorder and messes with the cover I places on it, an upside down clay dish. Then later coyotes go off as some stick smacking, hitting is going on, realize we only have softwoods near the marsh, marsh ashes, really soft. Then later yet another visit with some stick tossing, breaking, and some weird sounds accompanying. I really don't know what to make of it.....You need speaker amplification to hear some of the details, it makes the sounds more understandable, the weird twook sound and some clacking sounds definitely will not be heard on your lap top alone, HOOK UP SOME SPEAKER WITH VOLUME CONTROL, AND BLAST IT,...converting the files to mp3 allows file size to be usable, but it changes my levels, I am not sure how to improve that part yet...

inestigation 1 moves recorder.mp3

sirens coyotes tree knocks.mp3

investigation 2 stick break.mp3

weird twook sound and stick toss.mp3

slow stick break.mp3

Edited September 23, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot

[JDL]

That's the whole point- it's all anecdotal and unreliable. Loads of people not seeing Bigfoot holds just as much weight as people claiming to see them. It doesn't add up to anything of substance.

 

 

 

You're not making any sense here. It's not "evidence" if you can't present it. The only thing this tells me is that these "thousands of people" you're referring to have NOT found evidence.

 

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.

[dmaker]

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. 

[Skookum Chuck]

There is a difference between a witness describing an encounter, and presenting an encounter as being evidence of something or as factual information. The latter claims are what people expect to be supported by evidence, not the simple telling of a story.

 

Don't think I've ever read, wrote or heard of any encounter report which was submitted as "being evidence of something", but all were presented "as factual information" -some of which have of course have not been. I see no reason to expect that a 10 second encounter with a Bigfoot by a hunter, fisherman, hiker , etc  which the witness chose to disclose as an actual event would be, or could be, "supported by evidence". It would simply be a statement of fact. As I said before, if your are are wanting evidence to evaluate each of the tens of  thousands of encounter reports that have been published, you are barking up the wrong tree. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Also nobody here has suggested any sort of entitlement for anything other than expecting simple common courtesy to back the claims you make on a forum. If this is a problem then you probably shouldn't be making claims that you have no intention of backing up. 

 

Let's talk out that. I respectfully and with "simple common courtesy" ask you to point me in the direction of some of the "claims" of any sighting or encounter reports that have been published on this forum that have "been backed up" by compelling evidence since they were posted. I don't  HAVE a problem understanding the expectations and/or the intended purpose of this forum. With the expectations you have that any and all statements of fact published here should be backed up with evidence, "then you probably "should not be" wasting your time by reading the posts.

 

Just so that you understand; I have clearly seen three of the subject animals over a period exceeding 30 years. That FACT has been made known a few times on this and other forums, and on different BF research sites. I was not submitting "claims", I was stating facts. If you are expecting "evidence" of my personal encounters; you are SOL. 

 

 

There is nothing extraordinary or nonsensical about millions of people NOT seeing Bigfoot. 

 

I would not expect that the "millions" of people who live in New York, Chicago, D.C., etc.have had much of a chance of seeing a BF. It is very nonsensical to think otherwise.

 

With millions of homes located in wooded areas and people that live, recreate, and work in the woods, it's pretty simple to substantiate that these people aren't seeing or witnessing anything given that there is nothing substantial to suggest otherwise. 

 

Yes, thousands of those people have seen them. Few of them that live, work or "recreate" in the woods carry a camcorder or camera at eye level while performing those functions. Even if they did, any images they were able to capture would not be accepted as proof on anythings and discounted by skeptics. (And I suppose they would have to do that since they have no point of reference.) Hundreds of hunters each year see the things, but after seeing one, shooting it to pacify the skeptics' constant need for proof  never crosses their mind. It's actually "pretty simple" for someone who has never been around BF to simplify a way to "substantiate" their existence. Give it a go for a few years and report back.

 

An extraordinary claim would be "four hundred years of the more than ten thousand credible sightings of Bigfoot that have been reported".

I have yet to see or even hear about "ten thousand" sightings, and wonder how anyone could possibly know if they're credible or not. What did you base these claims on?

 

It's pretty obvious you have not done your home work. Not gonna do it for you.

 

If thousands of people have found evidence, then where are the thousands of pieces of evidence that have been found? You're catching on now.

Plussed Branco. Excellent

[JDL]

Trust me, on the day a type specimen is presented, every skeptical scientist that sees grant money in bigfoot will be racing to collect all of the information, anecdotal or otherwise that is currently pooh-poohed by some on this forum.

 

The argument here is not about the value of the information, but about how the value of the information is perceived.  One can honestly say that certain information has no value to them, but cannot declare that the information has no intrinsic value whatsoever.

[Sunflower]

At my age I have seen the back ends of lots of creatures and so far I haven't made any mistakes whatsoever.................

 

Casual campers might have a problem I agree but those people are probably not inclined to find a hairy people forum and report that they saw a shadow that looked like the back end of a hairy guy. 

 

So there's that...........

 

Most that come here have an idea that something unusual was at or near their camp and they probably tried to rationalize everything it could be and when those don't fit then they might consider the possibilities.............

[Guest]

I'd figure the anecdotals will magically become behavioural observations when the type specimen is procured...

 

If you're really interested in finding one for yourself, treat them as such now.

[JDL]

^^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. 

 

The day after a type specimen is presented, the anecdotal evidence will be scrubbed for its consistency as would-be researchers seek to establish a predictive baseline set of characteristics and behaviors before setting out.  There is value in this. 

 

Also, as direct observation occurs, most of it anecdotal from grad students shaking in their boots because they are observing and interacting with something more than a computer screen, the data from the neophytes will be compared to the anecdotal data from the experienced woodsmen that has previously been dismissed by the neophytes.  Sadly, the neophytes, who previously dismissed the information from the experienced woodsmen out of hand, will lack the experience necessary to provide fully meaningful context (beyond the fact that the neophytes require a change of underwear) and, as wisdom dawns, the neophytes may look upon the information provided by experienced woodsmen with greater respect.

[norseman]

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. 

 

Your simply playing the odds.

 

If anecdotal accounts could be tested and you had to bet the farm on either a Bear account or a Squatch account? You'd bet on the Bear..........

 

Nobody cares if someone saw a Bear last night...........but if the person saw a Squatch? Then that opens up a giant can o'worms.

 

[dmaker]

Everyone plays the odds here to one extent or another. It's terribly tiresome. I say no Bigfoot based on things like zero irrefutable evidence ever having been found anywhere. 

 

Believers and proponents are playing the odds that their hand will never be called when they say things like the clock doesn't start ticking until serious efforts have been launched to find Bigfoot. They get to say that and then move the goalpost whenever necessary by saying things like NAWAC and all the other amateurs don't count. So then they never have to show their cards. 

 

So it's a ridiculous stalemate with both sides playing odds. 

[norseman]

Not true.

 

A witness is not playing the odds like you are. Non witness proponents are playing the odds............yes.

 

But there is a distinction between the two, witness and proponent.

[dmaker]

A witness, yeah maybe you are right on that one. 

[norseman]

I'm not saying that it proves anything D........you know that.

 

But if I saw it tomorrow, it would no longer be a question of probabilities, at least for me.