Poll: Please Describe For Me......

[Guest]

I work in the Philippines where this forum is blocked. 

 

Yet another government conspiracy to deny the people the truth?

[dmaker]

It was blocked for me when I was in Iceland as well. 

[Guest]

A global conspiracy!

[Will]

 

 

I stopped searching upon finding the first repetitive posting of "my reading of hundreds/thousands of reports proves the creature's existence," 

Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Many on here lean towards belief even though they have never seen one, much of that is from the eyewitness reports. 

 or the "it's the fault of science/scientists they haven't come to my conclusion, regarding sightings,"  I rest my case.

I'd say many believe this also.

 I rest my case.

Looks like you have more work to do.

Looking forward to that list Incorr.

 

Please post it in the general forums, and not the tar pit, so those of us at home can play along too

Why don't you join the TP.

Edited August 19, 2014 by will

[Old Dog]

A global conspiracy!

 

 

I think you're on to something.

[Guest]

Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Many on here lean towards belief even though they have never seen one, much of that is from the eyewitness reports. 

 

The eyewitness reports initially reported from Ferguson, MO said the Gentle Giant was shot in the back.  The physical autopsy evidence shows he was shot in the front.

 

Eyewitness evidence can be misleading.

[Guest DWA]

Maybe, but not exactly talking about comparables here.

[Bonehead74]

The eyewitness reports initially reported from Ferguson, MO said the Gentle Giant was shot in the back. The physical autopsy evidence shows he was shot in the front.

Right, but no one claimed it was a bear on two feet that was shot. In other words, there was no confusion about what was involved, only about the mechanics/details of the shooting.

[Guest]

There's no maybe about it -- if Wilson fired shots at the Gentile Giant when his back was toward him, not a single one of those shots hit.  All shots entered from the front, per the released results of the physical examination portions of two of the three autopsies performed (I haven't heard any results from the federal autopsy).  This proves that eyewitness testimony can be 180° off from reality -- literally.  And this event occurred at mid-day in the middle of a street, not in a deep, dark forest at night.

 

People often see what they want to see, or what they wish they had seen.  This doesn't mean all eyewitness reports of bigfoot sightings are wrong, but it is likely that many, at minimum, are, and that all should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

We have plenty of eyewitness reports; what we need is forensic evidence.  The fact that 32 'hair' samples purported to be cryptic hominoids were recently determined to be anything but tells me that the vast majority of eyewitness bigfoot encounters have a psychological rather than a biological explanation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest DWA]

Well, actually, they don't tell me that.  They tell me that hair samples and sightings are two different things, and that people collecting evidence don't exactly have pro chops.

 

With regard to that shooting, we have first, fog of war (rapid action in confused circumstances including flying bullets); second, different angles; and third, different motivations - keep him out of trouble/get him in trouble/keep the rabble from rising/just help out best you can etc.  All those are gonna have a primary influence on how I take the stories.  And I'm not stopping with the first set of questions.  And no matter how many stories there were, they were limited, not only by those three above factors but likely others I didn't list, and number.  That is, there weren't thousands of them, from across a continent.

 

The vast majority of sasquatch sightings I have read of have none of those problems; indeed it is hard to understand how a person would ever want to report something like this, and further how, on so many technical points of primate behavior and anatomy, so much lines right up.  Pretty sure amateur primatologists aren't either filing them or fluffing them; they read just like the folk telling them would say such things (amazing how many rural and lay equivalents of "sagittal crest" and "prognathous jaw" there are).  The witness is:  certifiable (which must be backed by evidence); lying (ditto); or they saw just what the text says they did.  ("Innocent misidentification" could be filed "certifiable."  I see; that was an eight-foot bipedal cow.)  Until we know:  what they saw remains untested let alone uncertain.

 

Not really comparable.

[Will]

The eyewitness reports initially reported from Ferguson, MO said the Gentle Giant was shot in the back.  The physical autopsy evidence shows he was shot in the front.

 

Eyewitness evidence can be misleading.

Ahh but many more reports told the real story.

[Guest]

 nevermind

Edited August 21, 2014 by people booger

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Reporting the thread and you've all reached a new low.

[chelefoot]

MODERATOR STATEMENT

 

This thread is a poll. The OP asked for minimal discussion. Please respect his requests.

 

Back to the topic... Have you sent in the questions? Otherwise, please move along.

[Guest]

From will:  "Ahh but many more reports told the real story."

 

The autopsy results released so far, the delayed purported accounts from Wilson's perspective, and eyewitness reports that contradict the initial, obviously erroneous reports don't tell us the real story.  At this point they serve to remind us that there are at least two stories to be told and, hopefully, that both parties to the incident have civil rights that need to be respected.

 

An investigation is needed to compile the various anecdotes and the physical evidence before a grand jury can determine whether Wilson should be charged with any crime.  In criminology, like in bigfootology, anecdotes alone (especially when some conflict) are not enough upon which to base a final conclusion.

 

From DWA:

 

Well, actually, they don't tell me that.  They tell me that hair samples and sightings are two different things, and that people collecting evidence don't exactly have pro chops.

 

One of Sykes's coauthors, Rhettman Mullis, is a long-time bigfootologist with graduate training in science.  I believe he helped Sykes procure and vet some samples.  Meldrum screened some of the samples from what I understand.  Is there a priori documentation of concern about the qualiy of the samples submitted?  I'm not aware of any.

 

With regard to that shooting, we have first, fog of war (rapid action in confused circumstances including flying bullets); second, different angles; and third, different motivations - keep him out of trouble/get him in trouble/keep the rabble from rising/just help out best you can etc.  All those are gonna have a primary influence on how I take the stories.  And I'm not stopping with the first set of questions.  And no matter how many stories there were, they were limited, not only by those three above factors but likely others I didn't list, and number.  That is, there weren't thousands of them, from across a continent.

 

The vast majority of sasquatch sightings I have read of have none of those problems; indeed it is hard to understand how a person would ever want to report something like this, and further how, on so many technical points of primate behavior and anatomy, so much lines right up.  Pretty sure amateur primatologists aren't either filing them or fluffing them; they read just like the folk telling them would say such things (amazing how many rural and lay equivalents of "sagittal crest" and "prognathous jaw" there are).  The witness is:  certifiable (which must be backed by evidence); lying (ditto); or they saw just what the text says they did.  ("Innocent misidentification" could be filed "certifiable."  I see; that was an eight-foot bipedal cow.)  Until we know:  what they saw remains untested let alone uncertain.

 

Not really comparable.

 

Many report PTSD-like symptoms after a purported bigfoot encounter. most sightings are at night and in the woods in less ideal visual condirions than the Ferguson shooting, and everyone who has a purported encounter has his own agenda, motives, and biases.  As such, I see a lot of simularities.

 

There are substantial variation in phenotype and behavior among sighting reports.  Some purported bigfoots have a saggital crest, some don't.  Some have a hominid-type face, others a canid-type face.  Some are shy, some are belligerent.  The differences are so great that some suggest there are multiple species of cryptid hominoids roaming North America!!

 

Like in Ferguson, the anecdotes are not grounds for a final conclusion, but they are grounds for a meticulous, structured investigation.

Edited August 26, 2014 by AaronD
to remove borderline moderating