Misidentification

[Guest]

There is only one skeptical contention that makes sense given what skeptics think about the topic:

 

Every single bigfoot sighting is a hallucination or a mistake.

 

How can one argue that something isn't real by saying it's possible that a sighter is wrong?  The sighter is and must be wrong, every single time, or the assertion really means nothing.

 

And how about that?  The assertion really does mean nothing.

False dichotomy here. Even a skeptic can hold out hope for a true sighting. A skeptic will not simply accept on word alone. To a great many of us, a sighting can be of a real bigfoot but we will not declare the report to be true without physical evidence. And that does not have to be a body on a slab.

[Guest DWA]

Every phenomenon for which this volume, consistency, and pattern of evidence exists has long been confirmed by science.

 

Except this one.

 

Were I a scientist worth my sheepskin I'd want to know why that was.

 

The only fun position to take in science is the one backed by the evidence.  That all this adds up to a false positive is NOT backed up by the evidence.  It simply is not, and done.

Misidentification - getting back on that OP - is an insignificant factor in sighting reports.  The evidence simply bears this out.

[Guest]

 

 

 

You seem to be conflicted regarding what constitutes a "paranormal" experience versus a normal experience, regarding hallucinations. 

 

FYI- There are also many cases where people thought they must be hallucinating, but then realized that they were not hallucinating.

 

So it works both ways. As you have noted, "it could be many things". And one of the many things is that it really was not a hallucination.

 

Just because a might be a real sighting does not mean hallucination or misidentification are poor suggestions to explain the event. It IS possible that someone saw a real bigfoot but without evidence, the report is irrelevant. Anecdotes only mean a phenomenon has occurred but not that the phenomenon was a real appearance of a bigfoot.

^^^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.

If there is no such thing as bigfoot, then misidentification is the likeliest explanation. Even many reports are certainly misidentifications even according to believers on this site who disbelieve "woo" aspects or any story that contradicts their personal hypotheses about bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

Aren't you making a presumption there?  Of course it would be true if there were no such thing as bigfoot!

 

The evidence, however, says there is.

Because one can't chalk the sightings up to misidentification.  What eight-foot biped are people confusing with bigfoot?

[Guest]

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.

You are assuming that all bigfoot reports are reports of bigfoot and mistaken reports. All bigfoot reports can easily be mistaken reports of animals and/or events that are reported accurately elsewhere and elsewhen. Tens of thousands of reports of bigfoots are much less than reports of bears. It is entirely possible that bigfoot reports are merely a mistaken subset of bear reports.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not reasonably.  Not by a reasonable person who has read them.  No way.

 

Not too many here have either seen more bears or read more bigfoot reports than yours truly.

 

People are, count on it, seeing bigfoot and thinking bear.  That's the way the human mind works.

 

It doesn't work the other way.

[Guest]

A quick Google search shows that in 2008 2.3 million Americans were incarcerated. I'm guessing that unless every one of those 2.3 million Americans strolled into the courtroom and admitted their guilt, a vast majority of them were put their by eyewitness testimony. While I'm sure mistakes do happen, you cannot make me believe that anything more than a very tiny fraction of those people were put there by misidentification. Our system could not withstand that.

Some people are out for fame, some for money and some just like playing practical jokes so I am sure that there are reports that are just plain unreliable. But please do not insult my intelligence by insinuating that none are reliable.

[Guest]

"Volume and consistency" don't apply in the case of Elvis (or Nessie, or UFO, or ghost, or etc.) reports.

 

I'd think that's abundantly clear.

This is my problem with bigfoot skepticism; it's naïve.

 

"I saw Elvis" isn't the same thing as "I saw a bipedal figure.  It had the following features/did the following things."  Not even close.

 

People aren't just saying "I saw bigfoot."  They CAN'T; bigfoot doesn't exist, right? 

 

So they describe - from scratch - what they saw.

 

(If you saw Elvis, you saw an impersonator.  Pretty obvious, eh?)

People who claim to have seen bigfoot can easily fabricate their experience by utilizing details they heard about or saw on television or the movies or newspaper reports or from numerous books. They can do this deliberately or they can do it unconsciously. Bigfoot is not an unknown creature to most Americans.

OK, then...who's to say they're wrong?  Not the scientific approach, is it?

 

But then...none of those other things leave footprints, and we don't have a film of any of them, either.  Not to mention a number of things for which we have proof, to which they are very similar.

(Forgot.  Film of Elvis impersonators - humans, pretty clearly, who only look superficially like Elvis - and footprints, whenever Elvis impersonators cross mud or snow.)

Actually, who is saying they are wrong? Skeptics pose possibilities about the sightings or events but I don't recall anyone on this forum saying they were actually wrong.

OK, then...who's to say they're wrong?  Not the scientific approach, is it?

 

But then...none of those other things leave footprints, and we don't have a film of any of them, either.  Not to mention a number of things for which we have proof, to which they are very similar.

(Forgot.  Film of Elvis impersonators - humans, pretty clearly, who only look superficially like Elvis - and footprints, whenever Elvis impersonators cross mud or snow.)

Actually, who is saying they are wrong? Skeptics pose possibilities about the sightings or events but I don't recall anyone on this forum saying they were actually wrong.

The only scientific approach is to take sightings at face value.  If, of course, one understands what that means.

 

What isn't scientific is to say:  well, some people are mistaken sometimes.  So of course all of these are, all of the time.

 

That's called True Belief.

Can you show us one commentator on this forum saying this?

Every phenomenon for which this volume, consistency, and pattern of evidence exists has long been confirmed by science.

 

Except this one.

 

Were I a scientist worth my sheepskin I'd want to know why that was.

 

The only fun position to take in science is the one backed by the evidence.  That all this adds up to a false positive is NOT backed up by the evidence.  It simply is not, and done.

Misidentification - getting back on that OP - is an insignificant factor in sighting reports.  The evidence simply bears this out.

Not true as far as I know. Could you post a few examples for us?

Aren't you making a presumption there?  Of course it would be true if there were no such thing as bigfoot!

 

The evidence, however, says there is.

Because one can't chalk the sightings up to misidentification.  What eight-foot biped are people confusing with bigfoot?

Don't you read my posts? Hallucinations are one and I do not know why you can't accept that mistaken identity is an obvious explanation. I have yet to hear you or anyone else explain why someone (even a hunter) can't possibly ever make a mistake.

^^^Not reasonably.  Not by a reasonable person who has read them.  No way.

 

Not too many here have either seen more bears or read more bigfoot reports than yours truly.

 

People are, count on it, seeing bigfoot and thinking bear.  That's the way the human mind works.

 

It doesn't work the other way.

Not in my experience. As I posted above, Bigfoot reports can easily fit into the bear report paradigm. Just because YOU say you saw a bigfoot does not tell me that you saw a bigfoot. There are enough reports that do not come across as true for me to take your reports at face value or anyone else's for that matter. I am not a truth-teller or savant able to divine the motives, beliefs and perceptions of others. Nor are you.

A quick Google search shows that in 2008 2.3 million Americans were incarcerated. I'm guessing that unless every one of those 2.3 million Americans strolled into the courtroom and admitted their guilt, a vast majority of them were put their by eyewitness testimony. While I'm sure mistakes do happen, you cannot make me believe that anything more than a very tiny fraction of those people were put there by misidentification. Our system could not withstand that.

Some people are out for fame, some for money and some just like playing practical jokes so I am sure that there are reports that are just plain unreliable. But please do not insult my intelligence by insinuating that none are reliable.

Considering nearly half of them are incarcerated for carrying drugs which is a "forensic" sort of crime detection I think your numbers are both spurious and irrelevant. Many cases are based on eye-witness testimony which is much less reliable than forensic evidence. There is NO WAY around that. While there are many guilty people in prison, the subset that is innocent of the crimes they were tried for is smaller. Bigfoot stories are a smaller portion of the over all wilderness reports about bears or humans or etc.

[salubrious]

^^ FWIW 'bear' does not fit my sighting. The post above is written in absolute form; if that is what was intended that renders it false. If OTOH you meant 'some sightings' then that is a different matter.

[Guest]

Because one can't chalk the sightings up to misidentification.

 

I pretty sure one could, but that's not a possibility you're willing to consider.  In my opinion, that makes you one of the last people I'd be willing to let judge if a particular sighting is a Bigfoot or not.  You're not doing your due dilligence if you aren't willing to be skeptical.

 

DWA said:

 

What eight-foot biped are people confusing with bigfoot?

 

Have you ever heard of the mothman?  It is a cryptozological creature that was sighted in West Virgina in the 1960s, said to be a cross somewhere between a moth and a man.  The whole thing was ultimately dismissed as misidentification of owls and planes, neither of which look anything like moth or man.

 

Which is why I don't think people need see anything like a Bigfoot to see a Bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

I may have to give up, soon, on folks getting the point here.

 

One doesn't, in decent mental health, mistake a bear for an eight-foot bipedal ape.  I have NEVER read a report that could have been a bear unless the person were instantly hospitalizable or flat lying.

 

But most people here clearly don't read them.

 

Misidentification may be flatly RULED OUT! as a significant factor in bigfoot reports.  Not an opinion.

[Guest]

Ant

could you tell me where you got your "nearly half" statistic? I'd at least like to see what source you are quoting. And I disagree with your "forensic" theory. Every trial involves human beings sitting on a witness stand testifying. Weather they are testifying to what they saw at the scene of the crime or the tests that they ran in a lab, they are still telling the story of their involvement with the case.

[Guest]

I may have to give up, soon, on folks getting the point here.

One doesn't, in decent mental health, mistake a bear for an eight-foot bipedal ape. I have NEVER read a report that could have been a bear unless the person were instantly hospitalizable or flat lying.

But most people here clearly don't read them.

Misidentification may be flatly RULED. OUT! as a significant factor in bigfoot reports. Not an opinion.

i agree. how could anyone possibly mistake a bear for a upright walking man like creature?

[Guest]

  Not an opinion.

 

But it is an opinion, and a wrong one.

 

And I'll say it again:  Your opinion is wrong.

 

Your opinion ignores every single alternate theory there is in favor of one conclusion and one alone.  I don't think you are unintelligent so the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that you're invested in that conclusion and are performing confirmation bias.

i agree. how could anyone possibly mistake a bear for a upright walking man like creature?

 

You're kidding, right?

[roguefooter]

 

One doesn't, in decent mental health, mistake a bear for an eight-foot bipedal ape.  I have NEVER read a report that could have been a bear unless the person were instantly hospitalizable or flat lying.

 

 

Listen to little Ethan at 1:50 and Moneymaker's ridiculous response:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N8A-92x-Qo

 

Walking on all fours and then pulling itself up by a tree on two feet- sounds like a bear to me. Moneymaker says bears can't do that- LOL.

 

Big head, furry ears, mange..