Misidentification

[Guest LarryP]

 

My point, Larry, is that the life ruining consequences of reporting a bigfoot does not seem to be as universal as you and others seem to claim.

 

 

Where did I claim that it was "life ruining" ?

 

And my point to you remains the same.

 

You constantly claim that you don't believe that BF exists and you've never had a Class A, B or C experience.

 

So the reality is that you have no idea how you would react if you did. Yet not only do you think you can describe the scenery of a place you've never been, you also think you know how it "feels" to be there.

 

You don't.

[Guest DWA]

Leftfoot:  your point is meaningless.

 

There is a point beyond which one stops scrutinizing the reports, and starts asking some very basic questions:

 

1.  Why are so many people doing this?  When there is no incentive to do it?

2.  Why pick THIS over all the other things there could be to do this about?

3.  How is this amazing consistency - reported for nothing else that hasn't been proven - coming about?  (This is the litmus test of people who don't know what they're talking about.)

4.  Where is all this other evidence - just as consistently reported, and aligning smoothly with the reports - coming from?

 

The reports have already been scrutinized far more than way too much.  It's time to confirm the animal, 50 years ago, in fact.  WAY past time.

BTW:  I've only started on the questions that anyone of true scientific bent should have been asking, and seeking answers to, long ago.

[dmaker]

Where did I claim that it was "life ruining" ?

 

And my point to you remains the same.

 

You constantly claim that you don't believe that BF exists and you've never had a Class A, B or C experience.

 

So the reality is that you have no idea how you would react if you did. Yet not only do you think you can describe the scenery of a place you've never been, you also think you know how it "feels" to be there.

 

You don't.

You're obfuscating the point. I am not trying to describe the scenery of any place. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people that don't seem too concerned about the grievous consequences of reporting a bigfoot. Which stands in stark contradiction of some claims here. 

Edited April 27, 2014 by dmaker

[MIB]

dmaker -

 

I'll absolutely grant you that.   For some people it's a huge deal, for others, no problem at all.  It varies with the person's personal and employment situation and the attitudes of the people around them.   That isn't even black and white for any one witness, never mind for all witnesses.   

 

Stating things as absolutes, explicitly or implicitly, is adding a lot of "heat" to this ... discussion.   All sides are guilty.

 

MIB

[Guest]

Let's get back on track. This thread is about misidentification after all.

I am willing to concede that of the thousands of reports, some can be attributed to misidentification and some can be attributed to hallucination and some can be attributed to deceit, weather by prankster or by prank-ee, but you are left with the ones that don't fall into those categories. These are the reports that help compile an ever growing list of circumstantial evidence. These reports are never intended to be the end all be all for Bigfoot proof, only a starting point for further investigation, which, in my estimation, is the point of this forum.

[dmaker]

I understand your point drodigue, but I don't have a category of " genuine bigfoot sighting".  If one believes in bigfoot then, yes, one might find it useful to approach the reports and attempt to ***** them and classify them like you have mentioned above. I am glad that you understand that they are circumstantial evidence and are quite a long way from being proof of anything other than people report seeing bigfoot. 

dmaker -

 

I'll absolutely grant you that.   For some people it's a huge deal, for others, no problem at all.  It varies with the person's personal and employment situation and the attitudes of the people around them.   That isn't even black and white for any one witness, never mind for all witnesses.   

 

Stating things as absolutes, explicitly or implicitly, is adding a lot of "heat" to this ... discussion.   All sides are guilty.

 

MIB

I'm sure there must be some factors at play here that determine why someone would choose anonymity. The people around them? Perhaps. Though Finding Bigfoot have been in almost every state and managed to find bigfoot friendly communities and members every single time. Now either they are uncannily lucky or in general communities across the USA are more bigfoot friendly than one might think. 

 

Also as mentioned above when someone does choose anonymity it may not always be for the reasons you assume. Pranksters don't want to be called on their BS so they are more likely to choose the anonymous route. 

[Guest LarryP]

dmaker -

 

I'll absolutely grant you that.   For some people it's a huge deal, for others, no problem at all.  It varies with the person's personal and employment situation and the attitudes of the people around them.   That isn't even black and white for any one witness, never mind for all witnesses.   

 

 

An  example are all the reports that involve more than one witness where some of them don't want their names associated with the report, but others don't care.

 

In my case,  I'm a business owner and I know potential and existing customers run searches on me and my business all the time.

 

The last thing I need is for a customer, or worse, a potential customer coming across my name and experience on the BFRO.

 

It is people with dmaker's mindset who would react negatively if they did end up finding out.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I demand the names of EVERY anonymous poster in the history of Bigfoot sightings on the internet.

 

Without them this Process cannot proceed Scientifically.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

The last thing I need is for a customer, or worse, a potential customer coming across my name and experience on the BFRO.

 

It is people with dmaker's mindset who would react negatively if they did end up finding out.

 But oh no!  They would NEVER do that.  They say that all the time.  One just has to take them at their word.

 

Right...?

[Guest]

An  example are all the reports that involve more than one witness where some of them don't want their names associated with the report, but others don't care.

 

In my case,  I'm a business owner and I know potential and existing customers run searches on me and my business all the time.

 

The last thing I need is for a customer, or worse, a potential customer coming across my name and experience on the BFRO.

 

It is people with dmaker's mindset who would react negatively if they did end up finding out.

I would think that anyone who found you on the BFRO would be an ally of yours. I know that if I became aware that someone near me had an experience, I'd want to pick their brains for a while myself. I might not buy a product but I might all the same. Business will not likely suffer just because of that. I've done business with people that I've thought were absolute kooks and I'll bet many others have as well.

Leftfoot:  your point is meaningless.

 

There is a point beyond which one stops scrutinizing the reports, and starts asking some very basic questions:

 

1.  Why are so many people doing this?  When there is no incentive to do it?

2.  Why pick THIS over all the other things there could be to do this about?

3.  How is this amazing consistency - reported for nothing else that hasn't been proven - coming about?  (This is the litmus test of people who don't know what they're talking about.)

4.  Where is all this other evidence - just as consistently reported, and aligning smoothly with the reports - coming from?

 

The reports have already been scrutinized far more than way too much.  It's time to confirm the animal, 50 years ago, in fact.  WAY past time.

BTW:  I've only started on the questions that anyone of true scientific bent should have been asking, and seeking answers to, long ago.

Question 1. Pranksters get merriment out of it and some even make money doing it. Individuals experiencing a hallucination will likely try stop thinking about it by "getting it off their chest." Bigfoot is also a popular meme and many may just be jumping on the band wagon to garner some of the attention they see their neighbors getting.

 

Question 2. Why not bigfoot? There are others who report UFOs, psychic experiences, and ghosts for instance. Different strokes for different folks. Bigfoot is just another flavor.

 

Question 3. The people who report bigfoot sometimes have similarities to people who report UFOs, psychic experiences and ghosts. Lots of anecdotal material but little to no evidence for their report's accuracy.

 

Question 4. What evidence? Anecdotes are not real evidence of anything other than people reporting bigfoot (or UFOs, psychic experiences or ghosts). Out of all of the reports of vacations in the wilderness we only have a relative handful of reports describing an encounter with a bigfoot.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

You guys slay me.  Drop the crutch.........Or else...you can give me all their real names, can't you?  Go.

 

I think it's time to stop the antagonistic dialogue and just talk. Of course there are names. You know it and I know it and so don't a lot of other people. This day and age one has to consider identity theft and all kinds of other dangerous internet and phone scams to deal with. As far as ALL their names? Don't be ridiculous. Though most of what you've said in this thread IS ridiculous in that you always take the debate to the extreme edges of what is sensible. You want names PM me- but there will be a catch . I've got lots, along with addresses, phone numbers, emails, you name it. I'm saying this because I'm sooo tired of your empty challenges that carry about as much weight to me as to be hilariously irrelevant. I've already said your credibility with me is pretty much shot but here you are just rolling along trying to be clever. Yep. ridiculous.

Edited April 28, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I would think that anyone who found you on the BFRO would be an ally of yours. I know that if I became aware that someone near me had an experience, I'd want to pick their brains for a while myself. I might not buy a product but I might all the same. Business will not likely suffer just because of that. I've done business with people that I've thought were absolute kooks and I'll bet many others have as well.

Question 1. Pranksters get merriment out of it and some even make money doing it. Individuals experiencing a hallucination will likely try stop thinking about it by "getting it off their chest." Bigfoot is also a popular meme and many may just be jumping on the band wagon to garner some of the attention they see their neighbors getting.

 

Question 2. Why not bigfoot? There are others who report UFOs, psychic experiences, and ghosts for instance. Different strokes for different folks. Bigfoot is just another flavor.

 

Question 3. The people who report bigfoot sometimes have similarities to people who report UFOs, psychic experiences and ghosts. Lots of anecdotal material but little to no evidence for their report's accuracy.

 

Question 4. What evidence? Anecdotes are not real evidence of anything other than people reporting bigfoot (or UFOs, psychic experiences or ghosts). Out of all of the reports of vacations in the wilderness we only have a relative handful of reports describing an encounter with a bigfoot.

No, actually, all of those questions have been discussed here, many times, and none of your answers hold water.

[Guest]

dmaker

I understand your position of not having a category for "genuine bigfoot sighting", many people dont believe in this subject. What I don't understand is you dont seem willing in any way to allow for the possibility that any of this could be true. As I said earlier, I conceded that many of the sightings could be misidentification, hallucination or hoaxes but not all. You do not seem willing to concede anything. So if you are unwilling to have your point of view altered, why are you here?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Keep in mind that one thing he has been most adamant about is everyone else changing a point of view based on evidence, while he insists on a point of view based on, well, nothing, exactly, but what he badly wants to think.

[dmaker]

^^ Bigfoot is even more interesting as a phenomenon once you realize there is no actual animal involved. Then it becomes a rather fascinating sub-culture that utilize logic and "facts" in a rather intriguing manner let's say. 

No, actually, all of those questions have been discussed here, many times, and none of your answers hold water.

IOW, I'm right because I said so, mmmmkay?