Guest Darrell Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I take it Darrell that you have a different definition for the word evidence, one that I must not have been previously aware of I work with evidence every day. In fact im taking a break from analyzing a rather large amount of evidence for a fraud case Im working on. Evidence has to lead to a conclusion based on fact. Your evidence does not. It might for those who are proponents of this phenomian, but for those who can apply critical thinking it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 ^^^Sheesh, a man wishes for more entertainment. Something to make him, well, open the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 7, 2014 I work with evidence every day. In fact im taking a break from analyzing a rather large amount of evidence for a fraud case Im working on. Evidence has to lead to a conclusion based on fact. Your evidence does not. It might for those who are proponents of this phenomian, but for those who can apply critical thinking it is not. I work with evidence a lot too as I am an engineer. Right now I have these bits of evidence: 1) rock clacks heard outside a friend's cabin window, by myself and my girlfriend. The owner of the cabin has heard the sound on a different occasion. 2) A trackway of 5 footprints, each about 17" in length, found about 1/4 mile northeast of the cabin site. 3) A powerful set of woodknocks, heard nearby by the cabin owner, frightened him enough that he simply got in his car and left. 4) unusual wood structure, found about 1/2 mile south of the cabin site, wherein none of the logs were sawed, and two of the branches made of oak, with no oak trees nearby (so not the work of wind). Nor the activity of humans, according the landowner. A year later the structure had been taken apart. These bits of evidence are all fact. They have led me to the conclusion that an entity with hands that has very large feet and walks barefoot in the middle of nowhere, is active in the vicinity. Having seen a BF myself from only 8 feet (unambiguous circumstances), one conclusion is that a BF is the cause of the phenomena, in particular the rock clacks and trackway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 How you interpret the data is important. Crucial even given the lack of proof. You interpret the data as coming from a bipedal hominid. But that is not an objective conclusion. Nor is it universal. The data is: Something that looks like bipedal tracks were discovered. Some noises were heard in the night. A unusual ( subjective term) display of branches and logs was found. Your conclusion is your own. They are not evidence of bigfoot, that is your interpretation. It could just as easily be something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 7, 2014 Well you do have your own interpretation based on the text I have provided. There is some distortion as a result. For example something I did not mention earlier is that I have taken several tracking classes that were pretty intense. So the tracks were some of the more straightforward sign. We also tested the possibility that the rock clacks were not in fact coming from directly by the window of the cabin. They don't sound the same further away- the cabin is located at the head of coulee, which has its own acoustic signature. Also not mentioned earlier is the cabin is perched on a slope, so the window in question is a about 8 feet off the ground. In other words, alternative explanations were sought. We were forced to reject them. The owner of the cabin thought the whole thing was pretty funny until that woodknock episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I wasn't there so I don't know what it was, and it doesn't sound like the people that were there know for a fact what it was either. I don't fill gaps in knowledge with bigfoot though. Once you do that you are going from saying I don't know to making a claim that requires evidence and support. And from what you have said so far, you do not have evidence that is not ambiguous nor that reaches the burden of proof for your claim. So I'm going to stick with " I don't know" and leave off the trailing bigfoot hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 7, 2014 I understand that completely! What it really came down to was who could be clacking rocks in the yard? One thing was sure- it had to be someone with hands. So that meant either human or BF- not really any other candidates. The question then became, as it often does in cases like this, who would do such a thing in such a remote area? They would have had to hike in over some really steep and uncertain terrain at night, without light to guide them and do so silently, as there is considerable brush in the area. I had not gone to sleep by the time this happened and in later tests we were able to show that there were no approaches to the area wherein one would not make noise. I was able to rule out my hosts pretty easily (at the time I did not know that rock clacking is a known primate behaviour, nor that BF is known for it too) as there was only one way they could have gotten out of the cabin to do such a thing to prank me. Because I have already had a close-up unambiguous experience, Occam's Razor was available to me, whereas it might not for someone else who is still having doubts about BF's existence. So in this case BF is actually the simpler explanation. What we often see with evidence is that it exists within circumstance, without which it exists entirely out of declaration, IOW our will to make it so. As such it is impossible to be entirely objective. We do have to be subjective at some point, even if that is only to use our senses to ascertain that a certain meter does indeed have a certain reading. Remove the circumstance, remove the declaration and all clues, all evidence then has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) "What it really came down to was who could be clacking rocks in the yard? One thing was sure- it had to be someone with hands. So that meant either human or BF- not really any other candidates." How can you say with absolute certainty that anyone was clacking rocks in the yard? You leap from that assumption to very quickly ruling out everything but an unlikely ( in your mind) hoax to bigfoot. You then offer as further substantiation your previous personal anecdote to back up your line of thinking. That does nothing, however, to raise this situation above yet another unsupported anecdote. Anecdote plus anecdote does not equal proof. The original story is no more believable by adding your personal experience. If anything it might introduce an element of bias that renders you predisposed to attributing noises in the night to bigfoot. However, you seem to wish for it to make the choice of bigfoot obvious. I assure you it does not. That you heard a noise outside the cabin at night is data. That the noise is caused by a pair of hands clacking rocks together is your interpretation with no supporting evidence at all. Edited March 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 8, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2014 Ya gotta have hands to clack rocks together. We found the rocks- you could see where they had hit each other. I know deer don't do that. Nor canines. Funny thing, they were placed on the ground on top of some leaves, right beside each other. IOW they were pretty obvious. Someone could have hoaxed but I had not told anyone that I had had an encounter back then, so that explanation is pretty weak. In my field data and evidence often work out to be the same thing. Is this a semantic issue?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 "What it really came down to was who could be clacking rocks in the yard? One thing was sure- it had to be someone with hands. So that meant either human or BF- not really any other candidates." How can you say with absolute certainty that anyone was clacking rocks in the yard? You leap from that assumption to very quickly ruling out everything but an unlikely ( in your mind) hoax to bigfoot. You then offer as further substantiation your previous personal anecdote to back up your line of thinking. That does nothing, however, to raise this situation above yet another unsupported anecdote. Anecdote plus anecdote does not equal proof. The original story is no more believable by adding your personal experience. If anything it might introduce an element of bias that renders you predisposed to attributing noises in the night to bigfoot. However, you seem to wish for it to make the choice of bigfoot obvious. I assure you it does not. That you heard a noise outside the cabin at night is data. That the noise is caused by a pair of hands clacking rocks together is your interpretation with no supporting evidence at all. If you watch a BF show every unknown thing is from BF. If you watch a ghost or paranormal show everything unknown is from a ghost or whatever else they're searching for. It really is pretty laughable if you bear that in mind. Ya gotta have hands to clack rocks together. We found the rocks- you could see where they had hit each other. I know deer don't do that. Nor canines. Funny thing, they were placed on the ground on top of some leaves, right beside each other. IOW they were pretty obvious. Someone could have hoaxed but I had not told anyone that I had had an encounter back then, so that explanation is pretty weak. In my field data and evidence often work out to be the same thing. Is this a semantic issue?? Problem is you jump to BF as the culprit. If you'd been searching for Aliens then they would be the 'logical' suspect, if you'd been looking for 'ghosts' obviously they would then be the guilty party... the list goes on and on. Just because it's unknown does not give you the ability to infer it is any particular thing much less a completely unproven primate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 8, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2014 ^^ I think you missed the part where I had already seen two real close up and personal. Had I not I would regard your comment as 100% how it is. Nor do I expect anyone to believe me. Its not important; I had the experience and it is what it is. Without the experience a lot of this is nonsense 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The BRC probably will be the entity that delivers Photo or DNA evidence before anyone else. Just discovered their videos last weekend and thought they were pretty AJ squared away. I tried to search here for any traffic about them but could not find anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 If you watch a BF show every unknown thing is from BF. If you watch a ghost or paranormal show everything unknown is from a ghost or whatever else they're searching for. It really is pretty laughable if you bear that in mind. Problem is you jump to BF as the culprit. If you'd been searching for Aliens then they would be the 'logical' suspect, if you'd been looking for 'ghosts' obviously they would then be the guilty party... the list goes on and on. Just because it's unknown does not give you the ability to infer it is any particular thing much less a completely unproven primate. The insanity of it all! Plussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 12, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) ^^ I think you missed the part where I had already seen two real close up and personal. Had I not I would regard your comment as 100% how it is. Nor do I expect anyone to believe me. Its not important; I had the experience and it is what it is. Without the experience a lot of this is nonsense Plussed, and if I could I'd plus again.For those of us that have had sightings, I personally think individually, they are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as unfortunately, they can't prove anything. There would be millions who don't believe us, or think we were wrong in what we saw for whatever reason but overall, we matter not. Those of us who have had sightings are the only reason this subject is even on the fringes of the mindset of many. More fool the people who continually dismiss us however as it truly is your loss. Edit to add : I personally am not dumb enough to attribute anything and everything to Sasquatches and if I'm not mistaken, you'll generally find the people that do haven't normally seen them in the first place, but they are the people that are craving to and ultimately, will try anything to prove it to themselves an others. The majority of witnesses that I've spoken to just simply aren't that hungry because many have had their fill. Edited March 12, 2014 by BobbyO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2014 Edit to add : I personally am not dumb enough to attribute anything and everything to Sasquatches and if I'm not mistaken, you'll generally find the people that do haven't normally seen them in the first place, but they are the people that are craving to and ultimately, will try anything to prove it to themselves an others. The majority of witnesses that I've spoken to just simply aren't that hungry because many have had their fill. Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts