The Skeptics Head Scratchers Reports.

[kitakaze]

 

For me, I cannot dismiss even the majority of reports as misidentifications or hoaxes. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of the majority of reports being hoaxes or misidentifications is quite small. And seems exponentially so when one adds more reports as time goes on, not to mention the quite logical belief that there have been more unreported sightings, over the years, than the total of reported sightings we have. 

 

I do not know why some people think this way. More is not better. This is not better...

 

That doesn't look good and hmmm and compelling. That looks absurd, especially when there isn't a single verifiable case of this...

 

There is a reason why the Bigfoot sightings map looks like the UFO sightings map and it has nothing to do with anything other than human culture...

 

 

"The lack of any bit or piece of Bigfoot after so many hundreds of years is extremely powerful and meaningful evidence of its nonexistence. A kind of evidence that trumps. It's like a big hammer that pounds on all the stuff that the believers put forth." - William Parcher

[LeafTalker]

MODERATOR STATEMENT

 

Folks, Dr Johnson is a member here and thusly deserves the same respect as any other member!

KB

 

Thank you, KB!!!!

 

SY, that's a good story, thanks for posting it.

Yet I'm skeptical because the witness says he was really scared, it was a life-changing event, was scared in his home and would close the curtains, nightmares, the event took away his joy of hunting, etc.

Yet after questioning, he says a couple of weeks later, he was out hunting again a mile away and a something bumped his deer stand, and on another incident, something stole a deer kill...

He kinda contradicted himself there... but who knows, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

 

I think what that witness reported is very common. Many people are scared to death when they have an encounter -- but a lot is going on in our consciousness, under those circumstances. And after some time goes by, those other thoughts start to emerge. People start to realize that there might have been more going on than they realize -- and part of that realization comes because they're able to see some significance in the fact that they're still here to talk about what happened. 

 

So some people, after a long (or not-so-long) period of feeling immobilized by such an experience, may find their curiosity grows to the point where it outweighs the fear, and back they go into situations just like the one where they had their experience. 

 

Seems to happen over and over and over. 

 

So I agree, it looks contradictory, but I believe it's not. 

 

Might be an interesting idea for a new thread, to ask how many people have had this exact same experience (unless it's been discussed here a thousand times already). (I have certainly experienced something similar, where something that originally frightened me took on new meaning and became interesting in a new way after some time had passed.)

[JanV]

I do think that a lot of reports are misidentifications. Particularly the ones that have only a partial view of the animal - ones where the reporting witness sees only a patch of brown fur at a distance, or something like that. Also the ones that report strange cries which really could be something quite different.

That being said, there are many reports that seem straight forward and seem to contain similarities in description and actions that seem to describe BF. The fact that many of these reports pre-date TV and the Internet lends validity to them.

[Guest zenmonkey]

MODERATOR STATEMENT

 

Folks, Dr Johnson is a member here and thusly deserves the same respect as any other member!

KB

oh wow did not know that! seems like every other day I read about someone being on the forums I've seen on tv crazy place!

Edited December 27, 2013 by zenmonkey

[southernyahoo]

Thanks for posting that SY. That's one of the best encounter tales I have ever heard. Everyone should listen to it, because it's a great, scary encounter story. It might well be my favorite.

 

I have been to Zwolle Louisiana (they have a lot of nerve calling that a town) and also to Many La. and I could well believe BFs could live in those woods. When they say "in the middle of nowhere" that's the kind of place they mean. Those are some thick backwoods.

 

And I've heard that guy tell his story several times, and he's very consistent.

 

Despite all that, I don't believe him. For one thing, I don't believe anyone who had that happen would go back into the woods, especially in the dark. And when someone claims they have had multiple sightings, it throws up a huge red flag for me. If they were that easy to find, we'd have a body by now.

 

Too bad, it really is a great story. But that's all it is, a big ol' story.

 

Truth be told, Some of these folks that have had encounters like this become investigators of sorts, sometimes on their own, and sometimes they join a group. I think we would all at least try to come to grips with it and maybe even conquer our fear, such that it wouldn't take the outdoors away from us. I don't doubt that one could not feel the same in the woods alone after something like that, but hunting with a buddy might be different. He wouldn't be the first I've met that had multiple incidents or encounters either.

 

This one would be another, and trust me, he was equally scared. Like Nathan's experience in interviews, this witness could not hide the emotions while listening to recordings that were similar to what he heard in his encounter. These emotions do not well up inside liars.

 

http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/282

 

You'll note the similar agressive sounds , showing the teeth ,and the leaping from tree to tree while stalking prey.

Edited December 28, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Rockape]

Well, I've heard of people who have been mauled by bears, but still go back into the woods, so I guess this guy could do the same. But still, he claims to have seem them on several more occasions, and I just have a hard time believing that.

[dmaker]

I must admit that there is nothing in any report that makes me scratch my head so to speak. There are, however, aspects of reports that when I read them move them from possible misidentification to something else. For example reports that claim day light sighting with prolonged, unobstructed viewing that include details that simply could not be a misidentification of a known animal. A bear, up close, does not look like a large, upright primate. When a witness claims viewing a large, upright primate in detail then I immediately assume either a hoax, victim or perpetrator, or an hallucination brought on by the many things that cause human beings to suffer such episodes. None of them make me scratch my head and think, hmmm, must be a squatch. 

 

Large animals like massive primates leave behind plenty of evidence. Hallucinations do not. Large animals leave behind things like a fossil record, or hair, or scat, or corpses. Real, large animals are caught on film every day. Strangely, these films are not blurry, grainy, or even ambiguous.  In my opinion, if Bigfoot were real we would not have a complete absence of this type of evidence. Real evidence mind you. Not evidence that can be easily faked such as tracks. Real animals, even notoriously shy and elusive ones like wolverines for example, get caught on film and can be successfully tracked even. Hallucinations, tall tales and hoaxes, however, do not.

Edited December 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Incorrigible1]

Another aspect is that witnesses viewing other large mammals aren't reluctant to provide extant evidence. Oddly not so with the big guy.

[Trogluddite]

Dmaker, 

 

Using, for the sake of argument, the example of the prolonged, unobstructed viewing of an animal moving swiftly through difficult terrain (deep snow covered by ice) that slows humans down to a slog, and which ends with the animal that looks a lot like a large, upright primate w/in spittin' distance of the witness - who has a weapon, but rationally decides that, "nope, I need a bigger weapon and I'm not gonna' shoot this thing and tick it off" - leaves us with the following possibilities:

 

The person saw a large, upright ape               - it's possible

Misidentification                                                - seems to be ruled out by the prolonged, and ultimately close-up, viewing of the

                                                                           critter

 

Hoax (played on an unsuspecting victim)          - seems to be ruled out by the difficult terrain that limits a human's ability to run

                                                                            rapidly and the relatively poor decision of pulling a hoax on a person armed

                                                                            with a weapon (and who is not in on the hoax)

 

Hallucination (an unknowing falsehood)            - I'm not a psychologist but that's either a heckuva hallucination or I want some

                                                                            of what he's smoking; I'll grant that its possible for a limited number of people

                                                                            to experience such explicit hallucinations w/o realizing that its not real, but I it

                                                                            seems unlikely that there are enough such individuals to account for the

                                                                            numerous reports

 

Hoax (by perpetrator) or flat out lie                   - I'm sure that there are reports/"evidence" that are knowing and deliberate lies

                                                                           (or knowing and deliberate decisions to ignore the more plausible explanation,

                                                                            i.e., an elk wallow held out as bigfoot eating fruit Roman style) but....

 

    Lies are easy to tell the first time but difficult to maintain.  I would love for a psychologist who has clinical experience (and the requisite knowledge of professional studies) to weigh in on this as I only have anectdotal information, old age, and experience to draw on.  I would probably end up typing for an hour (or more), but I'll just leave it at two points.  First, its equally illogical to dismiss an account as a lie, without more, as it is to accept every account as truthful, without more. Second, the easiest lie to get away with is a simple lie told by a single person.  When a lot of people are trying to tell a lie to support each other's lies (w/o coordinating their stories), the lie has to revolve around the easiest points to remember & synchronize.  While I'm new to this particular rodeo (bigfootery), that's not what appears to be happening.

 

   Don't expect to convert you, but I'll put out that there's probable cause that bigfoot exists - that is, a reasonable man, considering all the available evidence, could conclude that bigfoot exists.  Another reasonable man, considering the same evidence, might conclude differently, but that does not necessarily mean that either has made an objectively wrong decision with the information available at that time....

 

Cheers,   

 

(edited twice to try and clean up the columns and make it readable)

Edited December 28, 2013 by Trogluddite

[Guest Theskwerl]

As I read this I noticed that some doubt the hunter because he goes back out into the woods to hunt, well I have been badly hurt by horses trying to ride and such and I still keep trying to ride. I go into the woods and they terrify me because of past experiences, but again there are times were I don't have any other choice.

Perhaps its the same for this man. Do I think everyone is telling the truth? Good grief no...but something is going on.

Just my thought.

[Trogluddite]

Another aspect is that witnesses viewing other large mammals aren't reluctant to provide extant evidence. Oddly not so with the big guy.

 

In the 1800s, where you could round up a posse and shoot wild beasts and cattle rustlers, many towns/areas tried to do exactly that

 

Some more recent reports include admissions that the witness shot at the bigfoot - a bit astounding given that "I thought I was shooting at bigfoot" is unlikely to be a viable defense to manslaughter or negligent homicide

 

Both historical and more recent reports include witnesses who lined up a shot but wouldn't (couldn't?) pull the trigger because they could not clearly rule out that the target was a human being - not likely to have that problem w/buffalo, elephants, rhinos, etc.

 

A few reports include the witness's observation that they knew that their weapon was the wrong weapon and that they expected to die or made a (rational?) decision that not shooting (the wrong weapon) was the best course of action. 

 

As a whole, not sure I'd characterize all of this as an odd reluctance to put one down....

 

regards...

[Incorrigible1]

And in the 2000's?

[Trogluddite]

For the more recent reports (can't recall if they occurred in the 90's, 00's or 10's), it's usually an unexpected encounter by a hunter who wishes they had a bigger weapon. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

A reports stands or falls on the credibility of the witness.  Therefore all anonymous reports can be dismissed.  

 

However difficult you believe it is to read other reports and come up with something consistent to them (and it really isn't that difficult) then the 'better' reports are simply the ones that have done a better job of this.Some are bound to do a better job than others.

 

Remember also when talking about statistics that reports do not come from a random sample of people.  They come from the following :

 

1.  People who are willing to make up stories about seeing Bigfoot

2.  People who are prone to misidentify other things as Bigfoot

3.  People who have actually seen Bigfoot.

 

It is my belief that there are easily enough people in America falling into 1 and 2, that we don't need to postulate a 3 in order to arrive at the number of sighting reports we have.  If Bigfoot exists, then we will have a group 3,  but you cannot use the claimed existence of a group 3 as evidence for Bigfoot's existence.  That's circular.

[Trogluddite]

A reports stands or falls on the credibility of the witness.  Therefore all anonymous reports can be dismissed.  

 

That's certainly not true - while an anonymous report or a second-hand report or a first-hand report that has not been further investigated may be given reduced weight, the credibility of an anonymous report can still be judged on the internal and external consistency of the report. You may decide to summarily dismiss all anonymous reports, others could give them full credit.  Still others may consider the report but give it dimished weight because the person wishes to protect their private life from abuse. 

 

However difficult you believe it is to read other reports and come up with something consistent to them (and it really isn't that difficult) then the 'better' reports are simply the ones that have done a better job of this.Some are bound to do a better job than others.

 

Remember also when talking about statistics that reports do not come from a random sample of people.  They come from the following :

 

1.  People who are willing to make up stories about seeing Bigfoot

2.  People who are prone to misidentify other things as Bigfoot

3.  People who have actually seen Bigfoot.

 

It is my belief that there are easily enough people in America falling into 1 and 2, that we don't need to postulate a 3 in order to arrive at the number of sighting reports we have.  If Bigfoot exists, then we will have a group 3,  but you cannot use the claimed existence of a group 3 as evidence for Bigfoot's existence.  That's circular.  It's also circular to argue that all reports must be from people lying and making mistakes, therefore one doesn't need to consider the possibility that bigfoot exists. 

 

The evidence for existence of bigfoot is not "the claimed existence" of witnesses.  The evidence is the statements of individuals who describe a large, bipedal ape in sufficient detail to rule out misidentification or victim of a hoax. Of course, it's possible that each of these unrelated witnesses decided to make up a single story and then never make up another one; to coordinate their stories in advance so that they establish a coherent tapestry that includes a wide variety of terrain/habitat, animal behavior, variety of height/weight/color/hair length and circumstances; and that they all swore a blood oath to never, ever, ever break the sacred bond of the Bigfoot Lying Club so that their hoax exists in perpetuity.

 

It's possible that's the more plausible explanation.