Misidentification

[Guest DWA]

^^^...and I'm glad somebody said that who says it better than me.  (More diplomatically, too.  Were I ever interviewing for a diplomatic job...well, I'd be doing it just to cause trouble.)

[Guest]

Not a possibility.  

It is a possibility, just not one you want to consider.

You said it yourself, whatever made these wood knocks had hands. Since you want to discard all other possibilities that preclude intentional wood knocking you can't also preclude human sources as well since humans also have hands and have been known to imitate Bigfoot for various reasons. If there were Bigfooters in the same area trying to use wood knocks to elicit a Sasquatch response and the witness wasn't aware of their presence in the woods it would stand to reason that they could mistaken that for actual Bigfoot activity. Without any further investigation I would consider that one of the most likely explanation, but in would still explore the area in question just in case.

[Guest DWA]

We live in an age where one person's opinion is equal to another, and everyone rates an equal forum. Very democratic, and dissensus can be sometimes useful, but it is largely useless for getting to the bottom of complex problems quickly and efficiently. That is what we have here. This is just a quirk of our times, which I hope and trust will pass. We should avoid that like grim death when we see it, I think. Somebody who has lived in a certain location, and has spent considerable time getting intimate with that landscape is, de facto, an expert. If one doesn't have the calories or will to go toe-to-toe with that expertise, fine, I get that, but at least have the courtesty to admit you don't and acknowledge you don't really know, absent that.

 

Worth noting.  We call it "The Information Age," but the problem is that the information is, in unprecedented quantities, being (1) generated and (2) assessed by the inadequately qualified, if not downright incompetent.  Not everyone is an expert, but now more people than ever in history can look, to the uninformed, like one.  

 

Take the BFRO database.  That is 99% the work of the people filing the reports and following up...and 1% the work of some guy who can generate a database program.  That says nothing about "Finding Bigfoot."  One doesn't have to be a scientist to create a database; file a report; or follow up on one.  One can both create that database; and make a hash of it with a badly done TV program.  Which requires quite a bit of investigative chops to separate the [poopies] from the shinola.  And one doesn't have to be a scientist to do it.  But one has to have a fair mix of scientist and detective qualities to make sense of it.  Or to tell whether someone else is, or not.

 

Instant 'analysis' has become the parlor game of the internet.  Pretty easy, though, to make the call oneself on most of the 'analysis'.  Problem is, most don't apply themselves sufficiently to that task, even if they could do much better at it if they did.

 

Most of the appeal to 'science' is appealing to people, who may or may not be applying science, which is a process.  That isn't getting applied sufficiently to this topic.

I doubt any one of our local anti-foots has ever looked an eyewitness in the eye and had them tell them what they saw,heard or smelled. That is just the kind of effort you need to make if you want to have any bona fides for objectivity, I think.

 

And.Count.On.That.

It is a possibility, just not one you want to consider.

You said it yourself, whatever made these wood knocks had hands. Since you want to discard all other possibilities that preclude intentional wood knocking you can't also preclude human sources as well since humans also have hands and have been known to imitate Bigfoot for various reasons. If there were Bigfooters in the same area trying to use wood knocks to elicit a Sasquatch response and the witness wasn't aware of their presence in the woods it would stand to reason that they could mistaken that for actual Bigfoot activity. Without any further investigation I would consider that one of the most likely explanation, but in would still explore the area in question just in case.

You could not have misread my post more efficiently, but this is typical of bigfoot skeptics.

 

I *did* consider it, and told you precisely where it would fit on the scale of possibilities.  Keep in mind it's either two guys in the same group separating to knock, which is so dumb that betting on it...?  or two different groups, just happening to be in this guy's hearing at the same time.

 

Just from my knowledge of the Park, I'd cut my bet on both from a dime to a penny, and be sure I didn't have a better use for the penny first.

 

How this works.  To one, that is, who isn't unconsciously prefacing everything one thinks with:  since this is impossible...

 

Science - shoot, life - is a constant process of dropping the non-betting propositions.

Edited May 1, 2014 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

Acknowledge the fact that your subjective bias towards belief in sassy allows you to treat sighting reports of elves, fairies, chupacabras, dogmen, UFOs, alien abductions, or Elvis differently even though you have no way to determine if the reports are coming from the same people.

 

Bill, the premise behind this argument (which you keep repeating) is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized.

 

But, not only is that false and nothing more than play on words, it is a  straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable by using false comparisons, or analogies, if you will.

 

So your Pink Unicorns and Santa Claus gambit is not helping your argument, it's hurting your argument.

[dmaker]

^^ No. Unprovable is unprovable.  It is your subjective bias that leads you to think that anonymous bigfoot anecdotes that are unprovable, should be treated differently than other unprovable anecdotes.  

 

 

If the nature of the anecdotal claim renders it unprovable then that is all there is to it. It's unprovable.  It is not because it is a bigfoot claim, it is because the nature of the claim is one that cannot be proven. For example, there is a bigfoot in that box ( Schrodinger we'll call him) is an example of a provable bigfoot claim. Open the box, say hi to shrody and the claim is proven. However, " I saw a bigfoot last night in my backyard" is unprovable by it's very nature. Replace bigfoot with Elvis, or Santa or a raccoon, or a bobcat, it makes no difference. The claim cannot be proven, period. 

 

All bigfoot anecdotes fall into the category that renders them unprovable. Even if one traveled to a claimed encounter spot and there was footie picking his teeth and whistling Dixie, it still does not prove the claim. It just proves he is there right now.  No one can prove, or disprove, what someone claims to have seen. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by dmaker

[salubrious]

^^I'm the first to admit that my sighting is unprovable. Really wish I had gotten a shot with the camera. In the meantime (which will likely be the rest of my life) the best I can do is come off a bit like a nutcase with matters regarding BF...

 

BTW, with regards to your signature line? Its no mystery to me. Just because a person has a sighting/encounter does not mean that they think science and psychology don't exist! They two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

[dmaker]

^^ Re: sig line. Of course, you are correct. The statement was not made by me, and I don't think it is meant to encompass all footers, but to more reflect those that insist that hallucinations and other perfectly normal psychological factors have zero play in bigfoot sightings. 

[ohiobill]

JDL - I know you have had multiple encounters with sassy, I've read them and even discussed them here with you. I didn't mean to imply that I feel your subjective bias opens you up to believing in any particular sassy attribute or behavior. Specifically, I believe your personal stance regarding sassy allows you to more easily believe other sassy reports even though you have no objective way to determine the truthfulness of any other report resulting in a subjective bias that no impartial review should (or will) apply to the reports. Your willingness or ability to believe in them does not make them evidence. 

 

Subjective bias doesn't come from the storyteller - it comes from the reviewer. If I came here and recounted a story of a blue Coke can w/o a photo it would certainly not be evidence. True or not it would be no more than an anonymous account that you would base your belief in subjectively somehow based on how I post. I could dress the story up somewhat by saying that different colored cans were placed at different points in the line so that maintenance workers would know when to stop the line for oiling the different presses and molds used or I could say that blue cans were randomly placed throughout the line to check photo defect sorters due to the speed of the line if I was tailoring my story towards engineers. I could make a broader appeal to human nature and make my story scary by saying that when I picked up a blue can off the floor one of the workers there began vomiting and ran away. I could say that another worker put on rubber gloves and took the can away from me before telling me that there had been a fatal accident there that morning and that the red paint reacts with iron in the blood before turning blue just like the color of veins. It's not evidence, it's a story when you don't actually experience it and it's hard to remove subjective bias from your review.

 

Even though you had an encounter and know deep in your heart that the number of bigfoot in existence isn't zero you can't consider anyone else's story to be evidence because you truly don't know whether they had an encounter or not because it might just be a blue coke can story. You can't expect anyone to consider your story as evidence because they don't know if you really did either. By taking the subjectivity out of the review you arrive at an account that you use for data. 

[JDL]

You impute thought processes to me in which I do not engage.

 

I consider other reports data and evaluate them accordingly.  My only bias is the reverse of the denialist's bias.  Since I know them to exist, I'm past the question about whether or not the subject of the report can exist to begin with.  Shed of that "burden" I then evaluate the report for consistency, degree of confidence, and value.

 

None of the reports I read have any value to me with regard to proving bigfoot's existence.  That's no longer a question for me.  As a matter of fact, I generally don't go out of my way to read reports at all any more, because the vast majority only say I saw or heard a bigfoot here at this particular time and place.  That is meaningful geographic data, and if the bigfoot happens to have some sort of distinctive coloring, that can add value with regard to possibly tracking that individual, but the statement "I saw a bigfoot" is a big "So what" to me because it provides little or nothing in the way of new information for me, little or no value, no matter how reliable it is.

 

I will tune into a report if it engenders discussion due to ancillary data that may provide additional insight into their behavior, intelligence, how they interact, etc.  This is more meaningful to me and has greater value.

 

And if a report includes Fortean aspects, I assign a low rating to it with regard to consistency, degree of confidence, and value.

 

When a bigfoot is caught, you will marvel.  If that bigfoot, after being caught, demonstrates the ability to mindspeak, I will marvel.

Edited May 1, 2014 by JDL

[indiefoot]

BF reports are only anonymous to us, not to the people who take the reports and decide whether they will be published.

 

Unprovable does not mean false nor does it change the likelihood of being either true or false.

 

Finally, potential BF evidence, including sighting reports, looks different when you know it could be the real deal.

[hiflier]

Hello indiefoot,

Nice post. But nevermind the knowing part, BF reports look different even if one only THINKS they exist. There are plenty of proponents here that have not had the "knowing" part.........like myself.

[Guest LarryP]

^^ No. Unprovable is unprovable.  It is your subjective bias that leads you to think that anonymous bigfoot anecdotes that are unprovable, should be treated differently than other unprovable anecdotes.  

 

 

If the nature of the anecdotal claim renders it unprovable then that is all there is to it. It's unprovable.  It is not because it is a bigfoot claim, it is because the nature of the claim is one that cannot be proven. For example, there is a bigfoot in that box ( Schrodinger we'll call him) is an example of a provable bigfoot claim. Open the box, say hi to shrody and the claim is proven. However, " I saw a bigfoot last night in my backyard" is unprovable by it's very nature. Replace bigfoot with Elvis, or Santa or a raccoon, or a bobcat, it makes no difference. The claim cannot be proven, period. 

 

All bigfoot anecdotes fall into the category that renders them unprovable. Even if one traveled to a claimed encounter spot and there was footie picking his teeth and whistling Dixie, it still does not prove the claim. It just proves he is there right now.  No one can prove, or disprove, what someone claims to have seen. 

 

The quote below says you're dead wrong to dismiss all testimony as "unprovable".

 

 

"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."

 

- Albert Einstein

[hiflier]

Hello LarryP,

Empirical means it must actually go through a physical testing process so it doesn't apply here.

From Wikipedia:

"In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement."

Edited May 2, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

I *did* consider it, and told you precisely where it would fit on the scale of possibilities. Keep in mind it's either two guys in the same group separating to knock, which is so dumb that betting on it...? or two different groups, just happening to be in this guy's hearing at the same time.

Like I said, I would still investigate the area just in case. I still won't preclude the possibility it was a human that did it, since the witness didn't see what made the noise. That you would isn't very scientific.

DWA said:

How this works. To one, that is, who isn't unconsciously prefacing everything one thinks with: since this is impossible...

That's as bad as prefacing everything with: It can only be one thing. Edited May 2, 2014 by Leftfoot

[dmaker]

The quote below says you're dead wrong to dismiss all testimony as "unprovable".

 

 

"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."

 

- Albert Einstein

I was careful to make the distinction between unprovable and provable in my post. How you missed that is beyond me.