Misidentification

[Guest DWA]

[just holds head]

[Guest]

I guess that's kind of like "believing in bigfoot". I've never wasted time on "not believing in" anything. I figure we either know or we don't know. Once we've seen or experienced it, then we know...always & forever, & nothing anybody says or does can change what we know.

 

For instance, how do you know that what you are seeing & hearing isn't really there? Maybe you just have a gift for seeing & hearing a little more than the average person. Who is qualified to tell you that it's just your imagination?

 

They say "The veil is thinning". For some of us it's thinning faster than for others.

"Not believing" is not an active stance but more like a lack of stance. I don't spend a lot of time disbelieving but don't think about it much, although there is some scientific thinking out there that the future can possibly impact the present. If that is true then there is some potential for precognition to be real. Although I wouldn't spend a dime on any of the psychics I've come across (well not after the first few times I got cheated out of my money) because they are not really seeing the future. Most nearly everyone of the ones I see today use techniques called "cold reading" or "hot reading" or at least that's the way it looks. I am the sort to say that if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck it is probably a duck.

[Sasfooty]

Although I wouldn't spend a dime on any of the psychics I've come across (well not after the first few times I got cheated out of my money) because they are not really seeing the future.

 

I wouldn't spend a dime on them either, although I know of a few that are the real thing. I have a friend that lives 1100 miles away & had never seen this place until a couple of weeks ago. She has routinely described the house, the yard, the location & appearance of certain trees & the house that I grew up in, among many other things, & did it all for free.

 

She's not into predicting the future, but I don't like knowing the future anyway. I've had a few unsolicited glimpses of it other than the blue truck, & it's a little unnerving.

[Guest]

I used to have an astrologer who was extremely accurate for me. I've never found another like that. Still not a believer but hey...

[Wingman1]

Define 'successful'!

As far as I can tell there are no insects, lower order animals, birds, or fish that can perform the following

* Dream up and build cities with towering buildings.

* Compose beautiful symphonies.

* Landed on the moon.

and these are only a few of the things that humans are capable doing. I'd say that is being successful

and then some. 

[southernyahoo]

I wouldn't spend a dime on them either, although I know of a few that are the real thing. I have a friend that lives 1100 miles away & had never seen this place until a couple of weeks ago. She has routinely described the house, the yard, the location & appearance of certain trees & the house that I grew up in, among many other things, & did it all for free.

 

She's not into predicting the future, but I don't like knowing the future anyway. I've had a few unsolicited glimpses of it other than the blue truck, & it's a little unnerving.

 

I must have missed something about the blue truck. I own one so....should we ever meet?

[Sasfooty]

That would be nice, SY. You should have been here last night. They were up to no good out there & I haven't even checked the apple tree yet.

 

The blue truck post was 705.

[Wingman1]

An eyewitness report is nothing more than a starting point, not evidence! In order for it to be evidence,

an available body of facts or information is required to indicate whether the subject matter is true or valid.

Since the subject in question is an eyewitness report there are no body of facts or information other than

what the eyewitness states. That report will need to be really scrutinized to determine if there are certain

factors present. If the report is so far out of the realm of possibility, it should be set aside. If the report is

in line with other reports that have been deemed worthy of further research then by all means follow up

it. Anything physical gleaned from the investigation that cannot be explained is the actual evidence. That

evidence now needs to be scientifically tested, falsified, and validated and then added to the puzzle. If the

evidence is usable in solving the puzzle, then it will be added to that process. An anecdote is really nothing

more than a starting point. Even if BF is proven to be an extant species the anecdote will not be proof of

BF, it will just be proof that eyewitness did in fact see what he or she claimed to see! nothing more.

[Guest]

"Even if BF is proven to be an extant species the anecdote will not be proof of

BF, it will just be proof that eyewitness did in fact see what he or she claimed to see! nothing more."

 

Actually more like it would be claim but not evidence or proof of witnessing bigfoot even if bigfoot is real. People misidentify objects and animals all the time. A misidentified bear here, a hallucination there and a real bigfoot sighting in another undisclosed location can all look the same to people who weren't there but are only listening to a report. I hallucinate cats all the time. Just because cats are real doesn't mean my hallucinations are real cats.

[Guest]

Hmmm?

[Guest DWA]

How do you guys live in a world where you perceive everyone else's sense of perception as completely fallible?  How do you get in a car and drive?  How do you trust your own ability to determine if a woman is attractive or not?  How do you manage to actually urinate in the toilet instead of on the floor?  Do you even perceive your own flatulence to be obnoxious?

 

The very fact that you can make it through the day without a sequence of perceptional disasters is because you, and all of the people around you are, in fact, able to accurately perceive the world the majority of the time and avoid catastrophe.

 

It flies in the face of the thesis that all people are terrible witnesses all of the time.

 

Get real!

Quoting this, once again, for major truth.  This may in fact be the most compelling evidence for sasquatch:  that people living their daily lives as successfully as any of us - many of them carrying weapons or driving - insist they saw this, and describe it consistently.   They aren't hallucinating; they can't be innocently mistaken...and there is no other reason to doubt them, at all.

 

Oh yeah, all the footprints vouched for by relevant experts, and the film that ties the two elements together with consummate elegance and parsimony.  Other than those.

An eyewitness report is nothing more than a starting point, not evidence!

Well, a lot of us believe that the totally plausible picture of a temperate-zone opportunist-omnivore bipedal primate - bolstered by all sorts of subtle details that most people just don't know are basic primate characteristics - that the reports paint serves as evidence, and very compelling at that.  That picture would have to be painted by a team of professional scientists.  Only the vast majority of the witnesses aren't scientists at all.

 

But one story is just one story.  Anybody can make up one story.  When it gets beyond stretchy is when you tell me they're all made up.  Or all hallucinations.  Or - least likely of all - that it's all kinds of random wrongness.  No fabric stretches like that.

Edited January 8, 2015 by DWA

[dlaw]

I think John Greene catalogued 3-4,000 reports himself.  If 99% of them were misidentifications, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc., then that still leaves 30-40 that are true and accurate.  And if only one is true, that means BF's exist.  Just sayin'.

[Guest]

dlaw

 

3000 to 4000 reports are a small percentage of wilderness reports overall. They could easily be the mistaken reports in a sample of all nature reports.

Quoting this, once again, for major truth.  This may in fact be the most compelling evidence for sasquatch:  that people living their daily lives as successfully as any of us - many of them carrying weapons or driving - insist they saw this, and describe it consistently.   They aren't hallucinating; they can't be innocently mistaken...and there is no other reason to doubt them, at all.

 

Oh yeah, all the footprints vouched for by relevant experts, and the film that ties the two elements together with consummate elegance and parsimony.  Other than those.

Well, a lot of us believe that the totally plausible picture of a temperate-zone opportunist-omnivore bipedal primate - bolstered by all sorts of subtle details that most people just don't know are basic primate characteristics - that the reports paint serves as evidence, and very compelling at that.  That picture would have to be painted by a team of professional scientists.  Only the vast majority of the witnesses aren't scientists at all.

 

But one story is just one story.  Anybody can make up one story.  When it gets beyond stretchy is when you tell me they're all made up.  Or all hallucinations.  Or - least likely of all - that it's all kinds of random wrongness.  No fabric stretches like that.

So glowing red eyes, UFOs, teleportation and telepathy all having been mentioned in reports are not mistaken? These are certainly not normal primate details. You seem to think most people have no knowledge of primate anatomy as if humans weren't primates too. Plenty of details therefor anyone to draw on. Most bigfoot reports do not even have the basic ape details beyond hairy, large, and with hands and feet. Facial details vary from report to report where they are described. Reports ARE inconsistent. We would expect that from mistaken identities but not from a real population of real animals. Even if people are meeting bigfoot they are making mistakes in their descriptions which would be perfectly normal.

[BobbyO]

I think John Greene catalogued 3-4,000 reports himself.  If 99% of them were misidentifications, hallucinations, hoaxes, etc., then that still leaves 30-40 that are true and accurate.  And if only one is true, that means BF's exist.  Just sayin'.

This is why the 99% figure is way off.

I know it's easy for me to say but even if I hadn't seen one, if we had 10,000 reports and kind of agreed that 99% of them were mis id's meaning 1% were sightings of a legitimate animal, the high probability is that the 1% would then be incredibly low as you're dealing with something that is actually real (1%) and that then the probability is that sightings of them from people saying they saw an upright hairy primate would actually be much more higher than 1/100 of people reporting that being correct.

[Wingman1]

My feelings here are that it is really counter-productive to discount any report until it is found that there is reason to do so. I understand that many people

after analyzing a report are left with many different conclusions, but applying the correct amount of due-diligence to the analysis will undoubtedly allow

any researcher to determine which reports have merit, and which ones don't. Now there are also those that continue to re-iterate their point that reports

can be hoaxed and are therefore unreliable. I am sure there hoaxed reports submitted, but to say that they all are hoaxes is a bit Disingenuous. If one wishes

to continue with this negative mindset, well good luck with that.

 

 I think Dr. Meldrum said it best - "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence that has been garnered certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered

type of bi-pedal primate in our forests." Which makes sense. This unfortunately is where the problems start. In science there has been a distinction made

between the conduct of science and the spirit of exploration. This bolsters Scientists of today to mostly wait at their lab benches, not exerting any effort to

see if there really is something to the legend. They will however be happy to examine any good evidence, especially a body if we bring one in. This is where

science shoots itself in the foot, because the fact is that if there is a large ape-like entity alive and kicking in our midst that has not been recognized and classified,

it will be a profound blow to the credibility of modern anthropology. It is because of this fact according to Dr. Meldrum that many sensible scientists now leave

the door of unbelief cracked open a tiny bit. Can anyone say "Tenure"

 

Yes, It is correct that reports can't analyzed, tested, and falsified by the standard scientific process in use today. It is somewhat beyond me that

anyone would or even could dispute that fact. Reports are not evidence either. Calm down DWA and hear me out! A report is a retelling of an

experience told by someone to someone else. The content of that report is what needs to be brought into focus. Reports can be data-mined

for ton of useful and workable information, such as:

 

*location and physical layout of the area to help determine if the area is a transit route or an area theywould remain in for a period of time due the

  abundance of food sources and water that is there.

*Description of the entity (Height, weight, and color) coupled with any type of behavior.

*Activity - What was it doing? was it foraging, or just walking in a certain direction.

*Interview the witness which can go a long way in establishing an amount of credibility.

*Determine if this report compares with other reports from the same area. Commonalities,

  and trends need to be identified if possible.

 

Now the researcher can go to the area of the sighting, and this is where you will find trace evidence! If you find that there is an enormous amount

of forest duff on the ground, you may not find any tracks, especially if the substrate is hard packed. In that case one must focus on the other targets

such as hair, scat, etc... and this one gets overlooked due to unfamiliarity, but always try to zero in on anything that seems out of place.  The lack of

this kind of investigation has in a large part dictated the conditions that we find ourselves'  in today.

 

So, are these reports more than just stories? Can the persistent and remarkably consistent accounts by eyewitnesses from all walks of life be simply

dismissed as a product of mass hysteria, hallucinations, or delusion? It is one thing to casually dismiss a report from the comfort of their armchair,

but it is quite another thing to look into the eyes of an experienced outdoors-man and tell him he/she is mistaken, or worse yet a Liar!  I for one am

definitely not comfortable doing that. Many see this as a betrayal of scientific principles to decline to examine and consider evidence because after all,

creatures like the BF "Cannot exist, therefore they Do Not exist" so why be bothered with questionable evidence. It is quite sad that in 2015 this atmosphere

continues to exist in some scientific circles.

 

And yes! there a fair amount of mis-identifications that happen and are reported. It happens! No one is perfect, not by a long shot. I know it can be

hard for some to swallow that big humility pill, but it has to be done if we ever really intend to solve this so called mystery. Now suffer no delusions

here folks, this will never be solved on this forum! It will be the researchers in the field spending countless hours and dollars that will win the day!

For those here that think they have this all figured out, (We don't really have any of those here do we?) well just sit down with a glass of milk and

take that big ol humility pill and you'll feel better in the morning.

 

Oh yeah! How about this guy huh!

 

Swedish biologist Dr. Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century set out to catalog the whole of nature, laying the foundation for the modern

scientific discipline of Taxonomy. From his excursions throughout the known world he was able to identify a myriad of new species,

but it was the persistent stories of unusual and elusive animals that got his attention. He set out on mission to try and discover them.

Now can anyone guess how he did that? Yep, he went to the various jungle tribes in South America and gathered every eyewitness

report, or story if you will that he could find since he was smart enough to realize the underlying importance of these indigenous peoples

accounts. He was able to document many of the animals that we know today as the Orangutan, the Chimpanzee, and the Baboon. And

all by relying on those pesky, supposedly unreliable anecdotal stories from jungle tribesmen.

Who'd have thunk it!

 

Carry on................

Edited January 9, 2015 by Wingman1