Misidentification

[dmaker]

I love all the abuse that gets heaped on sasquatch reports by people here who then look all around, Mr. Innocent, and go:  huh?  What abuse?  Hilarious.

Abuse? Forum rules alone preclude that. Spare us the melodrama please.

It's a total staple of the bigfoot-skeptic schtick.

 

They consider the very idea ridiculous.  They make fun of it.  But no, people who see them are everyday normal people doing an every day normal thing that, you know, all their friends do.

 

Please.  It's a transparent nonstarter.

 

When you see a sasquatch, your world has been utterly rocked, and you risk destroying your reputation by breathing a word to anyone, right down to the people you trust most in life.

 

It's a fact; it's proven; and denying it is, well, just not healthy.

Yet thousands of people still report it. That's a puzzle alright

[Guest]

What could anyone possibly be concerned about when making a BF report?

I don't know, that would depend on a number of factors. Depending how they make the report (over the Internet rather than to the police) the worst they might be greeted with is skepticism, which is what they should be treated with anyhow. If they live in certain communities, reporting Bigfoot sightings might make them the topic of gossip at the very most.

Considering that the possibility of the existence is too widely accepted in this country, where people love a good mystery, I doubt that any witness making a report will much to fear making such a report. Witnesses of the Boston Marathon bombings got more flak from conspiritards, quite frankly.

[Guest DWA]

You guys slay me.  Drop the crutch.

People have far less than zero incentive to report sasquatch sightings.  Or else...you can give me all their real names, can't you?  Go.

[Guest]

I think they would have more to gain from it, reporting the encounter as opposed to keeping it to themselves. I'm not talking fame or fortune, either.

[dmaker]

You guys slay me.  Drop the crutch.

People have far less than zero incentive to report sasquatch sightings.  Or else...you can give me all their real names, can't you?  Go.

Yet there are thousands of reports that prove you wrong. You can't have it both ways.

 

In fact, Finding Bigfoot has shown that weekly on national tv people have no qualms about raising their hands in front of their community members for the opportunity to share their bigfoot encounter. Where is the damnation and social pariah there? 

 

It's quite ironic how you daily strive to impress with the volume of reports and then on the other hand try to convince people that no one in their right mind would be stupid enough to report a bigfoot sighting. So where do all the reports come from? Who are all those people on Finding Bigoot waiting in line to share their stories with no anonymity, in fact quite the opposite.

 

Something doesn't jive here with the evidence. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest LarryP]

Bigfoot reports are generally anonymous so what's the concern?

 

You answered your own question.

 

The very fact that most people don't want their identity revealed on the BFRO report is evidence of their "concern".

 

Again, nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by making a report.

 

Case in point:

 

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/comments/article/20140403/NEWS01/304030022/Group-discusses-Bigfoot-sightings-across-state

[Guest DWA]

Yep.  Of all the "bigfoot can't be real because of this" lines, "nobody should have any problems making a report ...so bigfoot isn't real"  is one of the most flat-earth, a plain flat denial of something that couldn't be clearer than it is.

[dmaker]

DWA, I am not saying that, and frankly, your response is a bit nonsensical. What I am saying is that the evidence does not support your claim. You claim that no one would be motivated to report a sasquatch sighting. You claim they cannot even trust those closest to them. But the report database has thousands of people that did just that and on television we have hundreds of people who have either shared their story or raised their hand indicating they have a story to tell. There is no anonymity to hide behind on TV. 

 

So who are these courageous souls that are willing to risk it all to share a bigfoot story?  They must be truly exceptionally brave and rare...except there are thousands of them.

 

Look to our very own Nathan Footer. I don't think reporting his sighting has ruined his life. In fact, he seems quite content now to spend all his time in enthusiastic  pursuit of the alleged creature. 

 

I'm sorry but your claim that reporting a bigfoot sighting will bring ruin to your life feels more like a myth.  That is my point if you care to address it, but please do not again pretend that I am saying something else only so you can repeat your stale rhetoric yet again.

Edited April 26, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

The.Evidence.Supports.My.Claim.  Done.

 

I have addressed every 'point' - they aren't; points must be supported by evidence - you have made times beyond counting here.

 

I know precisely what you are saying.

 

You don't.

 

(I mean listen to this guy.  Pretty evident; he doesn't read reports.  Thousands, sure.  Almost all anonymously; with dozens and dozens and dozens of accounts of jobs threatened, and lost, and relationships ruined, and lives irrevocably altered for the worse, by the disclosure.  But why read, when knowing means knowing you're wrong?)

Edited April 26, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Ah yes, the old, I'm right because I say so, mmmmkay?  That's about what I expected. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by dmaker

[Terry]

So few people these days know their wildlife species, flora and fauna that misidentification is highly reasonable and expected.  Most of our Canadian Indians know even less it seems.  I took the eastern cougar reports for the govt. for years and you would not believe what folks reported as being cougars.  Deer lying down were big ones!  People don't leave the trails, pavement or the couch yet report sightings with certainty.  In 50 years they won't even recognize a **** robin!

 

t.

[Gotta Know]

DWA, do what I did: just block the guy. I decided that engaging on any level with a person who has no true interest in BF (instead only his ego and twisted need to always be right) is not something I want any part of. I'm here to learn and share and to be open to  possibilities, and this imposter is only here to minimize and disrupt. And in a mean-spirited way, to boot.

 

The day is a whole lot brighter without this person's special kind of energy in it. Try it and see!

[dmaker]

The.Evidence.Supports.My.Claim.  Done.

 

I have addressed every 'point' - they aren't; points must be supported by evidence - you have made times beyond counting here.

 

I know precisely what you are saying.

 

You don't.

 

(I mean listen to this guy.  Pretty evident; he doesn't read reports.  Thousands, sure.  Almost all anonymously; with dozens and dozens and dozens of accounts of jobs threatened, and lost, and relationships ruined, and lives irrevocably altered for the worse, by the disclosure.  But why read, when knowing means knowing you're wrong?)

I would imagine that the people at town halls on Finding Bigfoot are pretty representative of those that file BFRO reports or bigfoot enthusiasts in general. Where is their concern for the most terrible consequences to their life after going on TV to talk about bigfoot? We have 4 seasons and 47 episodes and during each episode you probably have 3 to 4 people that get on TV with their tale and three times as many at least that raise their hands on TV indicating they have a story to tell, giving us roughly 376 people willing to not only confess to a bigfoot sighting in front of their fellow community members in the town hall, but on NATIONAL TV. Zero anonymity and pretty wide exposure to boot. 

 

376 people. How do you explain that? When, according to your claim, no one in their right mind would even whisper about bigoot to their most trusted family members even?  Yet here we have almost 400 willing to do just that on TV, no less. Add in the number of BFRO reports that are not anonymous and the number of people that have been interviewed in numerous other bigfoot documentaries and you have a fairly large number of people that don't seem bothered at all by the idea of talking about their alleged bigfoot encounter. 

 

You want to talk about evidence? Fine. Right there across 4 seasons of Finding Bigfoot is evidence of quite a few people doing, or eager to do, exactly what you claim no one would ever want to do. How would you explain that exactly?

Edited April 26, 2014 by dmaker

[MIB]

dmaker -

 

Couple different points to make to address that.  

 

1: IF you actually watched the show and paid attention, you'd also remember that there are several witnesses who did not want their faces shown and had their voices disguised.   Not everyone who goes on the show is as casual about it as you seem to be suggesting.

 

2: Two of my friends have been approached by the show's producers and declined because they didn't want the publicity.   They now express regret for filing their reports.

 

3: Not all of those people who went on the show have been threatened with violence by family members who "feel humiliated" by the publicity in the context of something they find embarrassing.  I have been.

 

It may all be a big joke to you but it is not a big joke to everyone.  

 

MIB

[roguefooter]

You answered your own question.

 

The very fact that most people don't want their identity revealed on the BFRO report is evidence of their "concern".

 

Again, nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by making a report.

 

 

You only need to take a look at YouTube to see the average prankster likes to keep things vague and anonymous. To them it's just a simple laugh to see how many people take it seriously and then they move on. Being anonymous means you can do it over and over again without anyone knowing. They don't tend to attach their name to their prank unless they're looking to make a name for themselves.

 

Do you think things would be different if we used YouTube as a measuring stick for reliability? You have written testimony like BFRO (with really nothing to gauge authenticity) and then you have the video sightings- two different mediums. If we went by the video sightings what do you think the percentage of pranking would be?

Edited April 26, 2014 by roguefooter