Misidentification

[JDL]

Conversely, there are those thinking any movement in the woods is bigfoot, that bigfoot exists in "pest" numbers in some locations, that bigfoot regularly forays into civilization.

 

"He is here, he is there, he is everywhere, so beware." Mark of the Mouse

 

I keep trying to get the coin to stand on edge, but it keeps falling down on one side or the other.

[indiefoot]

Odd that I could have hallucinated a male version of Patty in 1962, never having heard of such a creature. The adults that lived there had, and rushed out of the house with weapons when I told them what I had seen. The man that lived there was a deputy sheriff and was convinced that something big had been sleeping in one of his sheds.  I learned later that several area residents, including my aunt had experienced encounters.

 

I have trouble with the hallucination being so similar, where are the pink and blue ones, or the 50 footers?

[Guest]

 

I have trouble with the hallucination being so similar, where are the pink and blue ones, or the 50 footers?

 

I don't think hallucinations are responsible for most of Bigfoot sightings, it's certainly possible some witnesses have hallucinated their encounters but it's likely that is the minority report.  What I think is far more likely, even more likely than misidentification, is the power of suggestion.  You have a handful of legitimate sightings, possibly some missidentification of a bear, and suddenly everyone starts seeing them.

[roguefooter]

Sidestepping nothing.  To take the whole encounter literature and toss it for "human issues" without review is a silly proposition to anyone familiar with it, which just shows who is...and who isn't.

 

Apparently alternate human possibilities can't exist here, the Bigfoot witnesses just aren't human. That would explain all the non-human encounters I guess.

 

You wonder why scientists don't bother with this field. Science is about looking at all possibilities, and the resistance to other possibilities here isn't even worth their time.

 

You reap what you sow.

 

 

So what does bringing Fairies to the discussion serve? Is it just an attempt to paint BF witnesses and Fairy witnesses with the same brush. I am disappointed when I see folks turn to fallacies to try and muddy the water in otherwise healthy discussions, JMO.

 

I already explained that it was two common examples of a 'witness to an unverifiable encounter'- nothing more. It amazes me that people here can't look beyond the subject matter. Yep, we just can't have a comparison with something like 'fairies'.

 

Instead we'll talk about alternate dimensions, shape-shifting, psychic powers and mindspeak..

 

You just can't make this stuff up.

 

 

But some have claimed that all bigfoot witnesses are mistaken all of the time. 

 

Example? Or should I just expect another question avoided?

 

 

Yes, sadly, when the threads get derailed into the same old opponent vs proponent argument.

 

Yeah like when people avoid questions and focus instead on the arguer and not the argument.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46643-misidentification/page-7#entry828869

 

Since you felt the need to throw 'pathology' into the mix, maybe we should look at that as a possibility for Bigfoot sightings? It would certainly explain a lot.

Edited April 8, 2014 by roguefooter

[daveedoe]

I was in Skagway Alaska on an Alaska cruise a few years ago. I was talking to a local who worked at the Alaska state tourist information center. We were chatting and he says to me "lots of tourist spotting Bigfoots." So I asked "black bears?" he said "yep. " He then tells me every year when the cruise ships start coming in the Bigfoot sightings go way up, mostly misidentifications of black bears. 

 

One more thing it amazed me how many flatlanders would ask what elevation are we at cruising through the inside passage. LOL

[roguefooter]

What I am to understand here, is that folks that do not know each other, or have ever been 'into' bigfoot, just randomly decide to hallucinated ape-men?

How many fire breathing dragon hallucinations are out there?

 

You mean like this in China?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SywoIsKFS3s

 

I'd say that pareidolia is essentially a form of hallucinating. Notice that the sightings directly correlate the social belief.

Edited April 8, 2014 by roguefooter

[Guest]

One more thing it amazed me how many flatlanders would ask what elevation are we at cruising through the inside passage. LOL

 

Had some tourists ask a fellow employee at yellowstone, at what elevation do deer turn into elk? Swear to you! 

[Guest]

I don't doubt that misidentifications do happen particularly when it comes to bears [ or maybe even coke machines if there are tourists knocking about as described by Simplyskyla] but I did start this topic off referring to close sightings.

 

Im not being facetious but how many bigfoot reports do you get from visitors to the bear enclosure at the local zoo ? Or how many visitors complain that the zoo is trying to pass monkeys/apes off as bears or vice versa. 

 

As an experiment show your young kids pictures of various bears, monkeys and apes. I'm pretty sure they'd be able to tell the difference because those images are ubiquitous so a real-life encounter isn't necessary. If kids can do it then an adult would have no problem.

 

I'd think that misidentification is due to a poor sighting.

 

Talking of bears and bearing in mind Oxford Yeti DNA analysis pointing to species of bear, I assume consideration has been given to similar in US. I was watching one of those megafauna documentaries which reconstructed the short-faced bear. I guess it was a scientific reconstruction and it appeared to have less of a snout and longer legs. Any takers ?

 

ROD

[Guest]

 Many of the people who have made eyewitness reports, many of whom are commenting on this thread, did not report ambiguous, far away, obscured or otherwise situations prone to misidentification. They reported that saw something very clearly from a short distance away. The only reasonable assumptions are that they saw what they said they saw and described, or they are not being honest, or they are severely mentally, emotionally or medically challenged.  I believe all these scenarios are represented in reports. Which means I believe some did see what they said they saw, many who are on this forum and topic thread. I believe they are quite competent enough to differentiate between known things and things not known, and I do not think they are lying or incapable of interpreting reality. I am quite capable of disbelieving close sighting eyewitness reports. I think many reports are indeed of the dishonest and mental, emotional and medically challenged scenarios. I know of someone whose encounters always seem to include every cryptid known, plus ghosts and ufos. I think if the History Channel aired a program on a new cryptid that their next encounter would surely include the new cryptid too. Whatever my own degree of naivety, I believe some people are actually honest, and competent.

[dmaker]

But some have claimed that all bigfoot witnesses are mistaken all of the time. 

Mistaken does not equal hallucination. Mistaken can include just about anything. It can include intoxication, hallucination, paraedolia, mistaking a common animal or person, etc, etc.

 

In my opinion all reports are either mistakes or lies. But that is not a narrow band of options. It's actually quite wide.

"Which means I believe some did see what they said they saw, many who are on this forum and topic thread. I believe they are quite competent enough to differentiate between known things and things not known, and I do not think they are lying or incapable of interpreting reality"  Peoplebooger

 

But why? I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am simply asking this question objectively. What makes you convinced of the above? Do you know these people? Have you met them in person? Do you even know their names?  Quite often people don't even truly "know" their friends or co-workers as well as they think they do. Anonymous posters on a forum dedicated to what almost the entire world views as a fringe topic, or an adult fairy tale? You think therein will be a bastion of truth and perception? I would expect differently to be honest.  

 

I truly think that the human element is not examined strongly enough in this phenomenon. Humans make mistakes. Human hallucinate and humans lie. These things happen every day. To think they have little bearing on bigfoot reports is wishful thinking or outright willful ignorance.

Edited April 8, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I don't think hallucinations are responsible for most of Bigfoot sightings, it's certainly possible some witnesses have hallucinated their encounters but it's likely that is the minority report.  What I think is far more likely, even more likely than misidentification, is the power of suggestion.  You have a handful of legitimate sightings, possibly some missidentification of a bear, and suddenly everyone starts seeing them.

Where's the "everyone?"  Why would people want to see something they are genuinely upset to tell someone they saw?

 

Doesn't happen, generally speaking.

"There is no answer that a skeptic could give that will satisfy someone who flat out refuses to accommodate the notion that they may be wrong"

Except that there is. I live in a world in which Sasquatch is a distinct possibility and, on the basis of purported evidence, I am very much open to that possibility. I could also very well be convinced of the opposite but that is unlikely to happen on the BFF (mission statement is....?) where 'it just stands to reason' arguments from the cod-sceptical all and sundry abound and mostly have about as much weight as a fairy scat.

Exactly.  I might be wrong.

 

But the evidence says I am not.

 

That's the determinant, and the only one, of what I think about this.

If no one gives me any reason to suspect my take on the evidence is wrong - you could be hallucinating your whole life.  Wanna bet that? - what reason would I have to change it?  "Insanity attack" is the only one I can come up with.  Open to, you know, others...

[Guest]

Why would people want to see something they are genuinely upset to tell someone they saw?

 

They probably didn't want to 'see' Bigfoot. Which is why they get upset about it and hesitate to report what they've seen or what they thought they saw.

DWA said:

Doesn't happen, generally speaking.

It surprises me just how little you understand human nature.

[JDL]

In my opinion all reports are either mistakes or lies. But that is not a narrow band of options. It's actually quite wide.

 

You and I agree that there are plenty of mistaken reports out there and that there are plenty of reasons that contribute to mistakes.

 

I'm glad you preface your first sentence, however, with "In my opinion...".  I'll point out that this is not skepticism based on a philosophy of doubt, which preserves the possibility that some reports are true.  You, instead, speak from the certainty of personal belief, i.e. that all reports must be mistakes because bigfoot do not exist.  This places you in direct conflict not only with those who believe bigfoot does exist, but also with those who know for a fact that they do exist due to prolonged, close, unmistakeable encounters, in some cases with multiple witnesses. 

 

Were you to have a direct, unmistakeable, encounter, you would no longer be able to maintain your current beliefs, unless you chose to discard faith in yourself.  I believe that some people actually do this for a variety of reasons.

 

So, have you actually had an encounter, as I suspect?  Are you here on the board as a means to resolve the disparity between your belief and your experience?

[Guest DWA]

^^^That is a definite possible explanation.  There's more than one case of it out there.  Some people who were "sure" they weren't real became so sure they were crazy when they found out they were wrong that they simply stopped being the same person, tossing utterly activities and places that used to be central to who they were.

 

It doesn't really make sense to have that level of conviction when there is really nothing supporting it.

That's the logical underpinning for "you can't prove a negative."

[dmaker]

You and I agree that there are plenty of mistaken reports out there and that there are plenty of reasons that contribute to mistakes.

 

I'm glad you preface your first sentence, however, with "In my opinion...".  I'll point out that this is not skepticism based on a philosophy of doubt, which preserves the possibility that some reports are true.  You, instead, speak from the certainty of personal belief, i.e. that all reports must be mistakes because bigfoot do not exist.  This places you in direct conflict not only with those who believe bigfoot does exist, but also with those who know for a fact that they do exist due to prolonged, close, unmistakeable encounters, in some cases with multiple witnesses. 

 

Were you to have a direct, unmistakeable, encounter, you would no longer be able to maintain your current beliefs, unless you chose to discard faith in yourself.  I believe that some people actually do this for a variety of reasons.

 

So, have you actually had an encounter, as I suspect?  Are you here on the board as a means to resolve the disparity between your belief and your experience?

Good gravy, no. I have never had an encounter. Hopefully, this will be the end of this line of inquiry.  Believe me, or not. It's up to you. I am still in the woods all year long. I mountain bike, hike, cross country ski and kayak remote tributaries of Lake Erie alone. No, I have zero fear of 8ft apes running around Ontario woods.

Edited April 9, 2014 by AaronD
removed attacking the arguer