The Skeptics Head Scratchers Reports.

[JanV]

Please take a look at the BFRO website/ reports/ Monterey County, California/ February 2002/ Dusk sighting by hunter on Fort Hunter Ligget.

Sorry I can't post the link right now.

I am curious as to what you think of this one. It is not anonymous.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

 

 

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.   

 

Do you honestly find it impossible that the people making later reports have simply read the earlier reports?  I'm not saying that that HAS happened, but it seems obtuse in the extreme to deny that it could have.

 

Of course, many have admitted to their reports being hoaxes.  Equally obviously, we only continue to talk about the ones where people haven't.

 

 

" It's also circular to argue that all reports must be from people lying and making mistakes, "

 

I am not arguing that.  I'm saying that you can't argue either way, as Bigfoot either exists, or it doesn't.  Both these cases could produce the spread of reports we see.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Terry]

This is why I scratch my head.  Wait, I mean shake my head...

 

"Jack Lapseritis, a Bigfoot researcher from Tucson, Ariz., has written a soon-to-be-published book entitled, "The Psychic Sasquatch, a UFO Connection." Lapseritis said he and others have communicated with Bigfoot telepathically and have watched the creatures "dematerialize."

Lapseritis said conventional Bigfoot investigators have not found the creature because they are limited in their belief that Bigfoot is "simply a relic hominid that never became extinct."

"That really may be true," Lapseritis said in a telephone interview. "But in addition to that, (Bigfoot) may literally be, as I've discovered, a paraphysical, interdimensional native people that have told me and other people telepathically that they were brought here millions of years ago by their friends, the star people."

Mower definitely believes there's a supernatural aspect to Bigfoot, and that this mysterious being is more than some gorilla-like animal running loose in the wilderness."

t.

[MIB]

I've seen bigfoot.   However ... I raise the same eyebrow when it comes to Lapseritis as you do.    Anyone who, as he does, presents themselves as the privileged keeper of arcane knowledge who will share it with us if we stroke their egos with enough oohs and aahs ... I interpret as a narcissist pleading for attention.    Even if bigfoot is somehow ET, Lapseritis is still a grade A triple prime whack job.

 

MIB

[JanV]

Please take a look at the BFRO website/ reports/ Monterey County, California/ February 2002/ Dusk sighting by hunter on Fort Hunter Ligget.

Sorry I can't post the link right now.

I am curious as to what you think of this one. It is not anonymous.

Fort Hunter Liggett. ( corrected misspelling ).

[Guest Boolywooger]

Here you go JanV. 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5463

[Trogluddite]

Llawgoch,

 

Do you honestly find it impossible that the people making later reports have simply read the earlier reports?  I'm not saying that that HAS happened, but it seems obtuse in the extreme to deny that it could have.

 

Simply put, it is equally obstreperous to insist, without evidence, that all reported encounters are simply spin-offs from an original lie or set of lies.  I am certainly not positing that "all reports are truthful."  However, I am pointing out the difficulty in the argument that "all reports are untruthful (or misidentification or victim of a hoax). 

 

 

JanV,

 

Not sure if you're asking for my $0.02, but ....

 

* There's a lot of details in the statement that can be cross-referenced against external sources. 

 

*  The statement is internally consistent, although one or two things struck me as peculiar embellishment (i.e., puffed up dramatic flair).  Having said that, its hard to say w/o a good follow-up investigation whether that's just an artifact from a quickly written, imperfectly edited report or a thread that can be used to start unraveling a hoax. 

 

* The "follow-up" investigation report is sorely lacking.  In many of the BFRO reports, this section includes information that answers immediate questions one might have or expounds upon something that is unusual about the report.  For example, in this report, was the witness asked whether he might have nodded off, sitting silently in the woods.  His answer would add value in evaluating whether he is reporting events as they actually occurred to him or trying to embellish a made up story.  

[Guest]

My all time favorite and from Georgia. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2218

[Trogluddite]

^^^^

Clearly just a bear

[Guest Llawgoch]

Llawgoch,

 

Do you honestly find it impossible that the people making later reports have simply read the earlier reports?  I'm not saying that that HAS happened, but it seems obtuse in the extreme to deny that it could have.

 

Simply put, it is equally obstreperous to insist, without evidence, that all reported encounters are simply spin-offs from an original lie or set of lies.  I am certainly not positing that "all reports are truthful."  However, I am pointing out the difficulty in the argument that "all reports are untruthful (or misidentification or victim of a hoax). 

 

 

You seem to not be picking up on my point at all.  It is not that all reports are spin offs from an original report.  It is that all reports COULD be spin offs from an original report,  Equally, some reports could be genuine.  Numbers of reports cannot change this situation.  They could be copying earlier ones, or they could be genuine.  Therefore, they offer nothing to anyone trying to determine whether or not Bigfoot exists.

To try and put this in simpler terms, one report that could be false is worthless.  Most people would agree this.

 

However some people seem to believe that ten thousand reports that could be false have more value than one that could be false.

 

They do not. Especially when the reports come from a self selecting sample of people.

 

If a random sample of 10,000 people shows that 6,000 claim to have seen Bigfoot, this has statistical value.

 

If a website soliciting reports of Bigfoot finds 6,000 reports of Bigfoot (or 10,000) this has no statistical value.  Any value those reports have is on their individual merit, which is tied up, exclusively, with the credibility of whoever is making that report.

[gigantor]

If a website soliciting reports of Bigfoot finds 6,000 reports of Bigfoot (or 10,000) this has no statistical value. Any value those reports have is on their individual merit, which is tied up, exclusively, with the credibility of whoever is making that report.

 

Only if you assume BF doesn't exist. Basically, you are using a logical fallacy. Even assuming that all reports to date are false, it doesn't mean that the next report will also be false. And given the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. you cannot prove that BF does NOT exist, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

It is valuable to collect these reports given that it is plausible that BF exists. Further, if it does exist and one day a type specimen is collected, the reports will have statistical value. So it is wise to collect them and classify them, and fun to do it anyway.

 

Are you suggesting reports shouldn't be collected?

 

[edited for clarity]

Edited December 29, 2013 by gigantor

[Guest Stan Norton]

The statistical usefulness of any database of encounter reports is obvious and you can derive some interesting insights from what is clearly not a standard survey methodology (ie random anecdotes). So the premise that reports are of no statistical value is false. To dismiss anecdotal information is scientifically moronic.

However, it is the use of standard sampling methods which makes any set of observations more valid, not the characteristics of the observers. For example, a simple garden birdwatching survey will be undertaken by folks with a huge range of birding knowledge, from none to much: it is the methods used that bring statistical validity not the knowhow of the participants. However, all sorts of anecdotal records can be and are used by biologists to provide useful knowledge of numbers, range, movements etc without insistence upon standard sampling methods.

I often think that if sasquatch encounter reports were viewed in the context of all trips into the outdoors (ie if everyone going out wrote a short report about their day) we would see that positive reports were a vanishingly small percentage of the total (thus usefully countering the adsurd scoftical notion that there must be hordes of sadquatch everywhere) and we would have a more statistically useful database.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Only if you assume BF doesn't exist. Basically, you are using a logical fallacy. Even assuming that all reports to date are false, it doesn't mean that the next report will also be false. And given the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. you cannot prove that BF does NOT exist, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

It is valuable to collect these reports given that it is plausible that BF exists. Further, if it does exist and one day a type specimen is collected, the reports will have statistical value. So it is wise to collect them and classify them, and fun to do it anyway.

 

Are you suggesting reports shouldn't be collected?

 

[edited for clarity]

 

 

You do not at all have to make that assumption.  And for the last time, I am not trying to use anything to prove Bigfoot does not exist.  I am saying that you cannot use weight of reports, especially in the numbers that currently exist, to argue that Bigfoot does exist.  Can you not see the difference between the two?  It is possible for information to not have any bearing on one side of an argument or another, while still being potentially useful information for other purposes.

 

My point is simply that somebody trotted out the old "Statistically speaking, the likelihood of the majority of reports being hoaxes or misidentifications is quite small. " line, which is not in any way the case.

The statistical usefulness of any database of encounter reports is obvious and you can derive some interesting insights from what is clearly not a standard survey methodology (ie random anecdotes). So the premise that reports are of no statistical value is false. To dismiss anecdotal information is scientifically moronic.

However, it is the use of standard sampling methods which makes any set of observations more valid, not the characteristics of the observers. For example, a simple garden birdwatching survey will be undertaken by folks with a huge range of birding knowledge, from none to much: it is the methods used that bring statistical validity not the knowhow of the participants. However, all sorts of anecdotal records can be and are used by biologists to provide useful knowledge of numbers, range, movements etc without insistence upon standard sampling methods.

I often think that if sasquatch encounter reports were viewed in the context of all trips into the outdoors (ie if everyone going out wrote a short report about their day) we would see that positive reports were a vanishingly small percentage of the total (thus usefully countering the adsurd scoftical notion that there must be hordes of sadquatch everywhere) and we would have a more statistically useful database.

 

 

And the same answer to you.  I dismiss these reports in the context of being useful in proving Bigfoot's existence.  They may well be useful to those who accept the existence of Bigfoot and wish to study it, but then it is up to such people to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

Your bird analogy is flawed in that it is the interpretation of the data that is done by skilled individuals; I am not suggesting that knowledge of Bigfoot makes a report more credible.  In a bird survey the starting point is that people are not lying about the birds they see; experience tells us (presumably) that they do so in insignificant numbers so the credibility of the witnesses is not the point at issue.

[Guest LarryP]

I've seen bigfoot.   However ... I raise the same eyebrow when it comes to Lapseritis as you do.    Anyone who, as he does, presents themselves as the privileged keeper of arcane knowledge who will share it with us if we stroke their egos with enough oohs and aahs ... I interpret as a narcissist pleading for attention.    Even if bigfoot is somehow ET, Lapseritis is still a grade A triple prime whack job.

 

MIB

 

I've never met Jack in person. But I did have a 30 minute phone conversation with him about a year and a half ago and I can assure you that he is not a "narcissist pleading for attention", nor a "grade A triple whack job".

[LeafTalker]

I agree, Larry. I've listened to hours and hours of interviews with Jack Lapseritis, and I have never heard anything that would lead me to label him that way.