Misidentification

[Guest DWA]

I find BF to be much more interesting as a phenomenon once you realize that its actually a real creature. Beyond that I don't care to argue all that much as the skeptics often bring up some pretty tired arguments, none of which are true, about something with which they've had zero experience.  OTOH I am very willing to discuss it and answer questions. It seems to me a lot of people who have had real experiences are probably similar. I'm pretty sure some would concede that misidentification could be an issue; others will not based entirely on the nature of their encounter.

 

The forum is a nice venue, as we don't have to give out our names and phone numbers. That is indeed an issue- it was pretty obvious after my encounter that it was not going to be a good idea to broadcast the fact that it had happened. I have good friends that I simply won't talk about this issue, others where I will, all having to do with how I perceive their world view and their ability to handle something like this; also whether it will damage my relationship with them.

 

If I had not had the experience things would be easier! On this matter its simply a fact that your world view will get shaken up if you ever have a real encounter; if that never happens you are probably better off.

This.

 

The only open-minded people I have talked to on this issue acknowledge both the possibilities and the obvious, elephant in the room facts, such as:

 

Tell someone, anyone, you know personally that you have seen one of these things, and you have changed your relationship with that person.  A random bettor (with no other information but that, mind) could make a fortune saying that relationship just changed for the worse.

Edited April 29, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

dmaker

So your opinion is there is no actual animal and all of us believers are just an interesting sub culture.

Not that I completely agree with his other talking points, but the Bigfoot community is by definition a subculture:

Wikipedia said:

In sociology, and cultural studies, a subculture is a group of people within a culture that differentiates themselves from the larger culture to which they belong. The term subculture has become deprecated among some researchers, who prefer the term co-culture, in order to avoid the connotations of inferiority associated with the "sub-" prefix. While exact definitions vary, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture."

For example, there are subcultures for videogamers, Star Trek fans, bicyclists, and Renaissance Fair enthusiasts. These are all subcultures to which I personally belong.

This.

 

The only open-minded people I have talked to on this issue acknowledge both the possibilities and the obvious, elephant in the room facts, such as:

I'm open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists, but those you term scoftics are right about one thing. Anecdotes by themselves are not evidence.

 

DWA said:

Tell someone, anyone, you know personally that you have seen one of these things, and you have changed your relationship with that person.  A random bettor (with no other information but that, mind) could make a fortune saying that relationship just changed for the worse.

In my general experience, if your relationship with someone changed for the worse just because you claimed to have seen a Bigfoot then it wasn't likely a good relationship to begin with. Then again, I live in the south. People are always claiming they have had an encounter with UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, or whatever else.

[dmaker]

Oh, that's only one thing it is.

 

Another thing is...welllll, one finds that kind on street corners.  And one is not significantly more impressed then, either.  Well, wait.  Some of the ones that one finds on street corners have bothered to arm themselves with facts.

 

For anyone to think that misidentification is a serious factor to consider in sasquatch encounter reports simply labels one as unfamiliar with the evidence.  I can say with certainty that if one is coming here expecting to be educated in the evidence...well, no, one comes here to discuss it with like-minded people. 

 

Although I will say that some spend enough time here to get a significant amount of education.  If, you know, one were open to that sort of thing.

I don't think that misidentification is a significant factor. 

[Guest LarryP]

I have good friends that I simply won't talk about this issue, others where I will, all having to do with how I perceive their world view and their ability to handle something like this; also whether it will damage my relationship with them.

 

 

 

All of my experiences occurred on my best friends property and he did not react well when I initially told him.

 

But once he and I had a chance to sit down and have a face to face discussion about what happened he realized that I was dead serious and he changed his attitude.

 

However, there are a lot of people that I've known for years whom I would never say anything to them because I know it would be a big mistake to do so.

[ohiobill]

 

 

Although I will say that some spend enough time here to get a significant amount of education. 

The education received is worth what exactly? People claiming to have DNA evidence they can't produce? Misinformation telling people that calls to 911 won't get a response? At some point believers have to face reality - all the stories, BFRO reports and databases aren't evidence and they aren't producing results of any kind. If they were evidence they would be testable and repeatable. If they were reliable eyewitness accounts they would be just like your local fishing or birdwatchers report - you could use them to see or catch some sassy.

 

There are no urban communities being harassed by clans of sassy regardless of the education you may receive here - it's not happening. There is no petroleum industry dark age conspiracy, no government cover-ups and no body in a freezer.  Does sassy outnumber bears? Is the sassy population in the US above 300,000,000?  Is sassy speaking a mix of spanish and bronze age hebrew? Can some "special" folks see them when they are in another dimension while the rest of us can't? Are clans of sassy traveling through the sewers in urban areas near you? Are sassy riding trains, wearing overalls and smoking? What education do you need when answering these questions?

 

 

[WSA]

If there is one meme I see repeated here that I would like to escort to the trunk of a car, blindfold, gag and drive to the Meadowlands and summarily dispatch it is this: "Evidence I don't find compelling I don't consider proof, which means it is not evidence", and also its demon-twin, "If you can't test it, it isn't evidence."

 

Could we once and forever quit confusing this already confusing subject with expressions like these, pretty please?

 

I get that you don't consider a lot of things to be "proof" to you, and you might be shocked to know many proponents don't either, BUT... whether you find it persuasive or not, it is evidence. Please stop saying it is not. Something you can point to, describe, question somebody about, investigate, map, photograph or post about on an internet forum to help explain your opinion IS evidence (and not necessarily proof, yeah, we get it).    

[dmaker]

You're confusing the point a bit more WSA. Anecdotes are not testable, therefore the scientific method cannot be applied to them, therefore they do not qualify as scientific evidence.  

 

Does that help?   Anecdotes do not have the same value in science as they do in a court of law. So often people here get confused because they are constantly comparing the value anecdotes have in legal testimony vs the comparatively small value they hold as scientific evidence.  Anecdotes have an use insofar as plotting reports and devising a plan for an expedition or something, but they will never be more than that. 

 

Scientific evidence, they simply are not. 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

From the above:

 

"Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims"

 

"The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method."

Edited April 29, 2014 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

Oh he understands that, he's just unwilling to concede the point. Testimony such as a statement like "If I called the cops and told them a bigfoot was right in front of me eating two of my children

1) I'll never see a cop, because

2) they're too busy laughing.

Period." can be entered into evidence in a court of law but really isn't evidence in any sense of the word. It's nonsense in any type of scientific setting just like trying to base existence of a bipedal ape on courtroom rules of evidence. 

 

I get that you place a lot of stock in eyewitness sightings but understand it isn't evidence of existence. If you truly believe it is so then you believe in fairies, UFOs, chupacabras, dinosaurs, loch ness monsters, dog men, lizard men and every other cryptid because there are eyewitness sightings of every one mentioned. It's all or nothing if you want to play by these rules and every eyewitness account holds the same value as the veracity can't be determined even by lawyers on the internet. 

[Guest Urkelbot]

Well where are all these ghost, UFO, dog men Internet databases with "class A" anecdotal accounts with similar narratives?

[ohiobill]

Umm, right here on BFF for starters. You can read first hand eyewitness accounts - just go to General Bigfoot Discussion and look through the threads or use the search function.

[WSA]

I see we are going to have to do this the hard way. Let's go for a ride....no... sit in the front seat. I'll sit back here. :-)

 

But, I would just suggest to you that you aren't listening to me in your haste to repeat back to me what I've already said, and which I've already told you I agree with. 

 

You don't want to see the word, "scientific" come within a country mile of the word "evidence" as used to describe many categories of information cited here. Got it, check....but then, get this too: It still is evidence. It is just not the kind you put any weight on, or even care to dignify with any glimmer or recogntion as such.  Go on, you can say it!  When you do, you only recognize the process that any reasonable person employs as he/she tries to bring order to the world around them.   

 

Really and truly, if we don't have a common agreement on even what words we are using to classify information we want to discuss, there is no hope of progress on any front.

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

 

"Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims"

 

"The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method."

 

 

 

And for decades most of the scientific community dismissed the stories from the native peoples about small people the size of Hobbits as nothing more than folklore and myth.

 

 

But now we have Homo floresiensis.

[Guest DWA]

Oh he understands that, he's just unwilling to concede the point. Testimony such as a statement like "If I called the cops and told them a bigfoot was right in front of me eating two of my children

1) I'll never see a cop, because

2) they're too busy laughing.

Period." can be entered into evidence in a court of law but really isn't evidence in any sense of the word. It's nonsense in any type of scientific setting just like trying to base existence of a bipedal ape on courtroom rules of evidence. 

 

I get that you place a lot of stock in eyewitness sightings but understand it isn't evidence of existence. If you truly believe it is so then you believe in fairies, UFOs, chupacabras, dinosaurs, loch ness monsters, dog men, lizard men and every other cryptid because there are eyewitness sightings of every one mentioned. It's all or nothing if you want to play by these rules and every eyewitness account holds the same value as the veracity can't be determined even by lawyers on the internet. 

It is evidence of existence.  This is getting tiresome, gang!

 

What it is not is proof, and continued inability to distinguish between the two isn't helping the discussion any.

 

 

The education received is worth what exactly? People claiming to have DNA evidence they can't produce? Misinformation telling people that calls to 911 won't get a response? At some point believers have to face reality - all the stories, BFRO reports and databases aren't evidence and they aren't producing results of any kind. If they were evidence they would be testable and repeatable. If they were reliable eyewitness accounts they would be just like your local fishing or birdwatchers report - you could use them to see or catch some sassy.

 

There are no urban communities being harassed by clans of sassy regardless of the education you may receive here - it's not happening. There is no petroleum industry dark age conspiracy, no government cover-ups and no body in a freezer.  Does sassy outnumber bears? Is the sassy population in the US above 300,000,000?  Is sassy speaking a mix of spanish and bronze age hebrew? Can some "special" folks see them when they are in another dimension while the rest of us can't? Are clans of sassy traveling through the sewers in urban areas near you? Are sassy riding trains, wearing overalls and smoking? What education do you need when answering these questions?

 

 

 

With what - definitely not the evidence - does anything in this post have to do?

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

I get that you place a lot of stock in eyewitness sightings but understand it isn't evidence of existence. If you truly believe it is so then you believe in fairies, UFOs

 

 

NARCAP

 

http://www.narcap.org/Technical_Reports.html

[WSA]

"People who dismiss sasquatch sighting reports as lies, mistakes or hallucinations are not noted for giving the matter much thought, but perhaps they should spend a little time on this question: If they are all imaginary what reason would there be for the time estimates to differ according to the sex of the witness or according to the number of witnesses?" John Green

 

So, moving on, once we agree that all such reports are, by definition, evidence (Yes, yes, NOT scientific evidence....) you get to your criteria for considering the weight you give it, if any.  Any care to give this question by John Green a whack?