Guest DWA Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) ^^^You're saying what skepticism is; I'm not. What I'm saying is what people who style themselves skeptical on this question say. I'd agree with JDL that it's not skepticism. Acquaintance with reports should be sufficient to show that of the possibilities you list, only 1, 3 and 5 are possible for almost all of them. Almost none I've read could be a casual, honest misidentification by a mentally and physically healthy person. One simply couldn't bet that option, which leaves hallucinating, lying...or what they say they saw. Edited April 18, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 18, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 18, 2014 Anyone that maintains that all bigfoot sightings MUST be hallucinations or mistakes is in truth a denialist, not a skeptic. The term I use for this, while not entirely accurate, is 'skoftic'; the sighting is dismissed out of hand without investigation. Definitely not a skeptic! I have no trouble with the skeptical position whatsoever- this stuff is nutty enough, why should I expect someone to believe me?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skunkapetracker Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The only thing in Florida that could be mistaken for a Skunk Ape would be a black bear (Or possibly a VERY large boar). Lucky for me, they are not prevalent in my area. If I do happen across one, I know enough about their behaviors to be able to properly identify them. I spent enough time around them in Tennessee, even had a mamma bear bluff charge me a couple times. Her cubs were up in a tree where I could not see them, and I came way too close for either of our comfort. The interviews I have conducted in my area were the witness saw fur/hair or close up movement have been ruled out as bears as well. I can not imagine how often it must happen in grizzly country, it would drive me nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 (edited) Actually skeptics must think that every single bigfoot sighting MIGHT be a hallucination or a mistake. A skeptic preserves the possibility that bigfoot may be real and provable. Which is exactly what I and others have been pushing in the thread from the beginning. Hence the term 'possibility'. ^^^This is my point: what IS the point about constantly saying "they could be wrong" when, well, they could NOT be wrong, and one hasn't a shred of evidence pointing to the likelihood that they ALL are? This thread has no point unless "Misidentification" is a likely cause of a universal false positive. It simply isn't. What's the point of always saying it's NOT wrong when it could be? It's called healthy discussion, two sides of the coin. Just because people don't want to hear all the possibilities doesn't mean they shouldn't be thrown on the table. If we pushed only one viewpoint around here then it wouldn't be discussion, it would be a support group. The majority of sightings out there are neutral- meaning there isn't a shred of evidence to support anything about it. So then they become open to any possibility. It could be the truth, it could be a lie, it could be misidentification, etc. Almost none I've read could be a casual, honest misidentification by a mentally and physically healthy person. Except that you know nothing about those people or the actual event other than what they wrote. Look how many people supported Smeja's story- they were confident of his story, he definitely saw what he saw and his story was legit. Yet that dead Sasquatch could only produce a chunk of bear meat. Edited April 18, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Except that you know nothing about those people or the actual event other than what they wrote. Look how many people supported Smeja's story- they were confident of his story, he definitely saw what he saw and his story was legit. Yet that dead Sasquatch could only produce a chunk of bear meat. To be fair though, look at the countless number of people who still support Dyer, Ketchum, Biscardi, and Standing.....Hell i'de say most of the "bigfoot community" does. Alot of people iv'e seen take a interest will believe anything without question for sure. I once saw a video where a real big group of people were following some poor dude with a brown backpack through the woods seriously thinking he was a stinking bigfoot, dude was probably freaked out to the max! It made my eyes swim to see how many people believed that Animal Planet mockumentary about mermaids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 that is true Xion Comrade, people as a group are certainly gullible. Although I do not trust people in groups, I do think individuals can be reliable. I think people of good character are capable of being believed. The question of this thread is of misidentifications, of which I agree that maybe most sightings can be. I think though that those reports in clear conditions, from a few feet away, for a reasonably long period of observation are not misidentifications. Which is where the 'rub' is, it appears. I think either these witnesses saw exactly what they described, just like most anyone would be able to do if they saw any known thing, or they are lying for fun or profit, or they are indeed mentally/emotionally lacking. Eyewitness reports reliability aside, people, even small children around the world correctly describe things they see everyday. If one believes the thing alledgely observed can not exist, logically they would have to work backwards from that position, and ascribe one of the aforementioned possiblities to the report, liar, or imcompetent, or crazy. I do not think that every witness is a liar, nor crazy, nor incompetent, after reading the reports, learning about the reporters, and in some cases getting to know the witness. But I go purely from my own observations, judgements and life experiences, all of which are subjective and can not be quantified or backed up by data. I do have a good record of a lifetime of correctly judging people character, so I will continue to go with what I got. Whatever is going on with reports, I don't agree that the up close ones are misidentifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The first thing I did when I began to study the BF phenomenon was read all of the available reports.... all of the Class A and maybe half of the Class B. I assumed and still do the groups that publish them sort out the ones they have lower confidence in. I don't see misidentification as a large problem with the data base. I see more with the ones that come through the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I think though that those reports in clear conditions, from a few feet away, for a reasonably long period of observation are not misidentifications. Which is where the 'rub' is, it appears. I think either these witnesses saw exactly what they described, just like most anyone would be able to do if they saw any known thing, or they are lying for fun or profit, or they are indeed mentally/emotionally lacking. Eyewitness reports reliability aside, people, even small children around the world correctly describe things they see everyday. If one believes the thing alledgely observed can not exist, logically they would have to work backwards from that position, and ascribe one of the aforementioned possiblities to the report, liar, or imcompetent, or crazy. I do not think that every witness is a liar, nor crazy, nor incompetent, after reading the reports, learning about the reporters, and in some cases getting to know the witness. But I go purely from my own observations, judgements and life experiences, all of which are subjective and can not be quantified or backed up by data. I do have a good record of a lifetime of correctly judging people character, so I will continue to go with what I got. Whatever is going on with reports, I don't agree that the up close ones are misidentifications. Wasn't Smeja's report up close and personal? Do you think he shot and killed a Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^^^NO. Where's the bigfoot? You keeding me? STEAK???????????? Did the Manitoba guy kill one? You bet he did. Where's the bigfoot? WHO CARES!?!??!!?!??! It's pretty obvious. Smeja: no. MN guy? Of course! When you are clearly out looking for air time, I laugh at you unless you have proof. When you aren't; your story completely scans; and I have no reason to call you a liar...why should I? And once again, people. IT IS THE VOLUME AND CONSISTENCY. IT IS NOT ANY ONE...TWO...OR FIFTY STORIES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) ^Well gosh that explains everything. Just say this guy is legit, other guy isn't. Makes sense. IT IS THE VOLUME AND CONSISTENCY. IT IS NOT ANY ONE...TWO...OR FIFTY STORIES. Does the volume and consistency of Elvis sightings mean he's still alive and in hiding? In that case I better start carrying around an autograph book. Edited April 19, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Elvis is dead?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Does the volume and consistency of Elvis sightings mean he's still alive and in hiding? In that case I better start carrying around an autograph book. So you're saying that you have compared the "volume and consistency" of all Elvis sightings to all of the Class A sightings on the BFRO since August 16, 1977, and based on that research you've determined that Elvis is dead and BF doesn't exist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^It means volume and consistency of reports doesn't just automatically equate validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, comparing Elvis sighting reports (minus any empirical data to back up your assertion) to Class A BF sighting reports is a false analogy (overgeneralization and distortion) which you were trying to use to invalidate any and all Class A BF reports. Plus there is far more "volume and consistency" of Class A BF reports. So much so that it is statistically impossible to dismiss all of them as invalid misidentifications, lies or hoaxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^It means volume and consistency of reports doesn't just automatically equate validity. Nor does a patently illogical position, no matter how many times you parrot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts