Misidentification

[Guest]

Yes, you have.

[JDL]

I've never really understood why anyone would want to abduct aliens.

[dmaker]

They make great pets.

[salubrious]

Until they get too big.

[JDL]

They don't grow as fast if you unplug them at night.

[Guest LarryP]

I've never really understood why anyone would want to abduct aliens.

 

 

Depending on which neighborhood you originated from, we're all aliens, JDL.

[JDL]

Evidently.

[Guest LarryP]

And whatever you do, don't ever trust Trip Advisor!!

 

Even if you've been there before.

 

Because that's all anecdotal. 

[Guest]

I think a lot of our alien situation is caused by those people who have had aliens and released them into the wild, or put them out in distant neighborhoods when they became to big, like boas and python and monarchs and other exotic species.

[Wingman1]

Why do these kind of threads always become a back and forth argument! This was supposed to be a discussion about misidentification and seemed to start out that way,

but ended up being another proof and evidence merry-go-round between believers and skeptics. First off, anecdotal evidence is never considered to be proof of existence

for the obvious reasons. IMO anecdotal evidence that has been investigated to ensure there are no other explanations available and you are left with the idea that " Hey,

there just might be something to this" should be the catalyst for further investigation! Personally, I could care less about what some of the skeptics on this thread think! It

has always puzzeld me as to why a person that absolutely does not believe in BF even browses through any BF related site! (actually I do have an idea for why they do,

but am not allowed to say it here!) I don't believe in Ghosts, Goblins, Vampires, or Psychic Phenomena, and you will never catch me on of those types of forums. it would be pointless! I have heard some skeptics say that they come here to re-educate the BF community, save us from our ignorance and to see the err of our ways! Yeah - you hang on to that dream fellas! This burden of proof business is ridiculous to me as well. I don't have to prove anything to anyone nor will I ask for any opinions. The only people that I would take the time to provide proof to would be the scientific community. It is an amazing display of arrogance the likes of which I have not seen. On the other hand I think that healthy skepticism is needed (when applied correctly!) to be a checks and balances mechanism in the process of investigation, and keep it on an even keel. For me, I don't need to have everything proven to me by someone else, and that in no way makes anyone better, smarter, or wiser than me! If I want proof, I will find it myself. Why these people aren't ignored on this forum is beyond me! Everything discussed here is for the benefit of the forum members and guests, not for one single person that thinks they are somehow automatically entitled to positive proof and then belittle the person that does not offer it to them! Don't get me wrong everyone has a right to free speech and have opinions, but for some of you hardcore skeptics, the next time you have thought, just let it go!!! This world would not be much fun if there were no mysteries left. Science never has and never will be able to prove anything beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, and if you think that it will, you had better pack a big lunch and bring a pillow because you are going to be waiting a while

[Doc Holliday]

I've never really understood why anyone would want to abduct aliens.

 

perhaps  the probing ?.......... for some anyways

[bipedalist]

Hey now!  Don't be dissin' grits!  Grits are wonderful!!  You just ain't never had 'em fixed right. 

 

There's cheese grits.

Grits n' gravy  (and you can have sawmill gravy, sausage gravy, redeye gravy, etc.)

Grits n' molasses

Grits n' jelly

Grits with sugar

Grits with butter and salt

Grits with cinnamon and sugar

Grits n' syrup

Grits n' strawberry preserves

and on and on.

 

It's like Bubba Blue said about shrimp, there's a bazillion ways to fix 'em.

 

You missed grits with butter and sugar or brown sugar!  LOL

[salubrious]

-and Eggs Sardeau with shrimp, spinach, hollandaise and a touch of garlic. Yum.

[Guest DWA]

 Interviewers might be better able to elicit important information if they consider alternative ways of looking at the situation. Some (if not many) seem intent on only a bigfoot explanation and don't press the necessary buttons with the witnesses. Cultural differences are evident all over the US and Canada and just how well versed are the interviewers at assessing these differences? Those who seek to improve the "legitimacy" of bigfoot research need to address this among other matters. Railing against the skeptics because we don't understand the situation (and hence don't accept as true) is nothing to do with us.

 

Maybe.  But I simply don't see this as an excuse to ditch the entire evidence base as unworthy of followup.  (What about the footprints, which trained scientists connect with the animal people are seeing?)  It's not a rational conclusion, as there isn't a rational basis for a lot of people to be doing this.

I don't think I know anyone on this site who claims there is no such thing as bigfoot. Many claim there is no actual evidence (I'm one of them) but that is not the same thing. Many of us seem to disagree on what is actual evidence of course.

 

For longer than there has been science, people have accepted and followed what the proponents in this case consider evidence, and found just the thing it appeared they would find if they did it.

Well bears are well known and indeed even in streets (especially around garbage cans and birdfeeders) but on top of that, even if all of the bigfoot reports were true and valid, there is no reason that a bear couldn't also be in the neighborhood. However there is also no reason a bear couldn't be the inspiration behind the bigfoot reports. How many people are going to call the BFRO or log on here to tell about bear reports? Only the people who thought they saw a bigfoot would make the calls and possibly hoaxers also.

 

I'm not sure exactly what the point here is, but there isn't a reason a rational person could accept to put 'bear' behind all bigfoot reports as a means of dismissing them en masse.  Seeing a known and immediately postulating an unknown as the source is simply not something people tend to do.  (And many witnesses describe their strident - and ultimately unsuccessful - efforts to put a known, like a bear, to the unknown that they saw.)  That otherwise rational people are actually trying to put this all down to misidentified bears is sufficient evidence of how little they have thought about this subject.

 

There are many possible interpretations of such data and they need to be ruled out one by one with evidence.

 

No, not really.  There is more than enough evidence to simply search for the pretty well-described animal that appears to be causing it.

There is no answer that a skeptic could give that will satisfy someone who flat out refuses to accommodate the notion that they may be wrong.

 

And there really shouldn't be.  The constant experience of every minute, of practically everyone in the real world, indicates:  um, yep, you saw that, and don't listen to anyone who wasn't there postulating some malfunction as the reason you are wrong.

 

 

misidentification pertaining to Bigfoot must be common.

 

 

I don't think so.  I think most people seeing a known thing don't jump to pinning it on something they can't even tell people they saw without being branded off in some way.

 

But back to misidentification, we all read every year about hunters, some very educated hunters shooting other hunters because they shot at a deer or bear that ended up being a human. Now that is misidentification. So someone seeing something moving quickly through a dark forest could be easily be misidentified. 

 

That's not really the same thing.  A trigger-happy hunter is somebody who is in the woods for the wrong reason.  They do what they do because they want to shoot something, and they don't identify a target before shooting.  Bigfoot sightings tend to be by people who were very focused on the thing they saw, as an errant hunter just as clearly was not.

[Guest]

"And there really shouldn't be.  The constant experience of every minute, of practically everyone in the real world, indicates:  um, yep, you saw that, and don't listen to anyone who wasn't there postulating some malfunction as the reason you are wrong."

 

Um, no, not really. Did you read about how I have hallucinations? Those aren't really there and should not be construed as real just because human experience says that we see things that are really there. We are not perfect and our senses are not perfect. We make mistakes. Admitting that we may be mistaken is more perfect than denying so. Humans have made mistakes every day of their lives. That should inform us of our accuracy rate.