Misidentification

[Cotter]

I'd be curious to see what the number of follow-ups that come back with " I don't think the person saw a bigfoot"

 

I can't speak for the BFRO as a whole, but I have a couple pals that do follow ups.  You'd be surprised at how many make the cut (or don't).

 

My one pal rejects far more than he pushes to get published.

But, YMMV.

[Guest]

Wasn't Smeja's report up close and personal? Do you think he shot and killed a Bigfoot?

I believe what I said I believe. I believe up close sightings are rarely misidentifications. Which leaves actual accurately described encounters, mentally or emotionally imcompetence, or liars for fun or profit. I think Justins' encounter fits two of these categories.

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

The statistical predictability of evidence is itself evidence, perhaps the best evidence of all, short of a personal sighting,

 

 

 

That is correct. And all we are using are the actual reports that are substantiated to come up with the statistical probabilities.

 

Then there are all the people (like myself) who never file a report.

[dmaker]

^^ How are they "substantiated" ?

[Guest]

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46643-misidentification/page-2#entry828232

In JDL's encounter, there was mis identification of a subject as something else, why being in clear view of that subject.  I concede that my previous statements as to almost all clear sightings may be wrong, or is wrong, Recalling his recounting of his experience leads me to believe that maybe a lot of the up close clear sightings are indeed misidentifications. Purposeful identifications. As a defense mechanism to cope with an unexpected situation that one may have no idea how to process or deal with in the here and now, and a reverting to or else a mental exercise to equate what is in front of ones' eyes with something else which can be dealt with more easily. That is just my summation of what I thought happened. I am not qualified to pyschoanalyze anyone or how they react to anything of course.  I add another category to what I think reports are. People who are lying for fun or profit. People who are mentally incapacitated in whatever manner. People who saw and accurately described what they saw. People who saw and purposefully inaccurately described what they saw in reverse species discrimination. Anecdotally, JDL, I have talked with Rangers, who while not saying there were Bigfoots at Fort Lewis, would not say that there weren't either. This was years ago, before I knew anything or had any interest in the subject, just messing with my guys after overhearing their conversation. Could've and probably was just an older soldier messing with a private, but he wouldn't deny it when I asked him if he really believed in that stuff.

Edited April 22, 2014 by people booger

[salubrious]

 Recalling his recounting of his experience leads me to believe that maybe a lot of the up close clear sightings are indeed misidentifications. Purposeful identifications. As a defense mechanism to cope with an unexpected situation that one may have no idea how to process or deal with in the here and now, and a reverting to or else a mental exercise to equate what is in front of ones' eyes with something else which can be dealt with more easily.

 

Tell you what, if/when your brain turns over in your head and comes around to the fact that what you thought it was is actually a really really big ape- that's a weird feeling. That's why I think bearidolia is more common than we think.

 

[Guest DWA]

Someone used the term "reverse misidentification" and resurrected the assertion that more bigfoot are misidentified as people, than people misidentified as bigfoot.

 

I agree with the assertion and I guess the term is as concise and understandable as any other.

 

In every encounter I've ever had, and you can check this for the ones I've submitted on this forum and on the BFRO, my first assumption was not that I was observing a bigfoot.  My first mental identifications were:

 

[snipsnipsnip]

 

So my point is that in every case, in every encounter, I first assumed that what I was seeing or hearing was not a bigfoot, but something else.  It wasn't the other way around where someone says, "There's a bigfoot!", and it turns out to be something else.

Right.

 

This is what people do.  And this, interestingly enough, is precisely why bigfoot skeptics come up with the wacky excuses they do for why people aren't seeing bigfoot but something else...like those wacky things you thought you were seeing.

 

We attempt - really really hard, as the reports show - to rationalize the impossible (to us) in terms of what we know.  No matter how wacky it might seem to us, it nonetheless 'fits,' because we are using things we know about to fill in the blanks.  The plain simple logical explanation - that our eyes are, for the trillionth time, not playing tricks on us - is 'impossible,' therefore untenable.

Edited April 22, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Wait, so let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. It's possible that people are misidentifying Bigfoot sightings as bear on purpose (which I agree likely happens) but it's not possible that people are misidentifying bear sightings as Bigfoot by mistake?

Does the term human error have any meaning to at all?

[Guest DWA]

I didn't say either thing, and I doubt either thing happens much.

 

I think people try to figure out what it is they're seeing.  And when they can't come to terms with it, they try - and frequently fail, as the reports make clear - to explain it in terms they are familiar with.

 

Given the numerous - way too - physical differences, why would one assume that people are seeing something they know, and making a mistake it's almost impossible to make, like, say, calling a horse a unicorn?  And insisting on it, no matter what?

 

And making that assumption the reason for tossing out all eyewitness accounts?

 

HUNH?

[JDL]

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46643-misidentification/page-2#entry828232

In JDL's encounter, there was mis identification of a subject as something else, why being in clear view of that subject.  I concede that my previous statements as to almost all clear sightings may be wrong, or is wrong, Recalling his recounting of his experience leads me to believe that maybe a lot of the up close clear sightings are indeed misidentifications. Purposeful identifications. As a defense mechanism to cope with an unexpected situation that one may have no idea how to process or deal with in the here and now, and a reverting to or else a mental exercise to equate what is in front of ones' eyes with something else which can be dealt with more easily. That is just my summation of what I thought happened. I am not qualified to pyschoanalyze anyone or how they react to anything of course.  I add another category to what I think reports are. People who are lying for fun or profit. People who are mentally incapacitated in whatever manner. People who saw and accurately described what they saw. People who saw and purposefully inaccurately described what they saw in reverse species discrimination. Anecdotally, JDL, I have talked with Rangers, who while not saying there were Bigfoots at Fort Lewis, would not say that there weren't either. This was years ago, before I knew anything or had any interest in the subject, just messing with my guys after overhearing their conversation. Could've and probably was just an older soldier messing with a private, but he wouldn't deny it when I asked him if he really believed in that stuff.

 

In each of my sightings, I first assumed that I was looking at some sort of strange human until it was very clear that the subject was not human.  A matter of first ruling out the most likely explanation.  I guess you could call it misidentification, but keep it in context.

In the early encounters it was the lack of knowledge that such things could exist, lack of a frame of reference that was the most critical issue.

[Incorrigible1]

That's realistic and honest.

 

Both skofftics and True Believers could learn a little from that posting. Thanks, JDL.

[dmaker]

I didn't say either thing, and I doubt either thing happens much.

 

I think people try to figure out what it is they're seeing.  And when they can't come to terms with it, they try - and frequently fail, as the reports make clear - to explain it in terms they are familiar with.

 

Given the numerous - way too - physical differences, why would one assume that people are seeing something they know, and making a mistake it's almost impossible to make, like, say, calling a horse a unicorn?  And insisting on it, no matter what?

 

And making that assumption the reason for tossing out all eyewitness accounts?

 

HUNH?

I'm not saying "toss out" all eye witness accounts. I don't care what you attribute the cause of the report to, be it misidentification, paraedolia, being hoaxed, hoaxing, hallucination, or outright lying, the bottom line is they are, all of them, still just anecdotes. They cannot be used to prove a species. One cannot apply the scientific method to an anecdote.  They are just peoples claims and, as such, have a very limited use as evidence. They are too subject to the things I listed above. The reports show nothing conclusive other than people like to say they saw a bigfoot.

 

This is not a court of law. Lining up any number of people willing to testify that they saw a bigfoot will never take the place of real, physical evidence. The type of physical evidence that when analyzed returns results that support the bigfoot hypothesis. So far, that has not happened. That is what is required to move this thing forward. Nothing even close to that has happened. So until, or if, that ever happens focusing on the reports that undoubtedly contain examples of everything noted above and expecting that to be enough to spark a massive scientific interest is foolhardy. 

 

If someone, anyone, could bring forward the type of evidence that is actually required here, you would see the scientific community react the way you want them to. They will not, however, react to stories, hoaxes, blurry photographs and shaky footage. Bring some interesting physical evidence ( not dog hair, or bear hair, or ambiguous and often hoaxed tracks) and you will get the reaction you want.  Keep pointing to all the stories and nothing is ever going to change. 

Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest LarryP]

 

If someone, anyone, could bring forward the type of evidence that is actually required here, you would see the scientific community react the way you want them to. They will not, however, react to stories, hoaxes, blurry photographs and shaky footage. Bring some interesting physical evidence ( not dog hair, or bear hair, or ambiguous and often hoaxed tracks) and you will get the reaction you want.  

 

Is that what the "scientific community" told you?

 

If so, specifically which members of the scientific community communicated that to you? 

[Guest DWA]

^^^"Scientific community" = "generally ignant about certain topics"

 

Why care what they think when they have thoroughly demonstrated to me that they have no place at the intellectual table when it comes to this?

[dmaker]

^^ LOL. Yet you constantly deride every scientist other than a scant few who embrace bigfoot while on the other hand bemoan the lack of a wider scientific participation as the main reason bigfoot has not been discovered yet. 

 

You have the few scientists that are on board and the rest who are not. You chide the rest for not getting on board and say why should I care what they say or what it would take to engage them, and then on the other hand say we need them to get engaged.

 

You're very confusing.