Jump to content
Guest

Misidentification

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

"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."

 

That.

 

One doesn't have to search for a five-armed bigfoot with cowboy boots talking on a cell phone.  But to say something *just can't be* is generally not what scientists do. 

 

An essential part of the bigfoot-skeptic take on reports is "since sasquatch can't be real, this must be what happened."  They'll say they aren't doing that.  But then they'll say that a thermal image that is just not a cow must be a cow.  (Example, purely hypothetical.  :spiteful: )  If sasquatch is real, gang, it is a *mundane*, get used to it, explanation for sightings.

 

As in:  if something is real, makes no matter whether it "just can't be" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I'd like to know how what I saw is misidentification.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

^

Me too. Animal one year, long trackway in snow another, both in the same drainage, only 10km apart. Neither was mis-ID, or hallucination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingman1

Hey Sal and BCW, I don't doubt you guys at all! If my post above somehow offended you in anyway, then I

definitely apologize because that was not my intent at all. The post was aimed at the people I like to call radical

skeptics, and the denialists. I believe that when someone comes across BF at less than 50 yards or so, it is almost

impossible to misidentify something. I have read that bears are the no. 1 animals misidentified as a Sasquatch, and

that may well be the case at distances over 150 yards, but at 50 yards or less there is virtually no way to misidentify

what is standing in front you. At that range, one can easily distinguish between the two. I am not going to do what a

lot of others do, and that is asking you to substantiate your claims. That comes awfully close to insulting you both.

I have read both of your posts for quite some time now and I see in no way whatsoever that you are being disingenuous!

Do I give everyone a "Get out of jail free" card, absolutely not! Your posts, personalities, and beliefs tells me you two are

pretty much above reproach in this regard. That could change of course, but highly unlikely IMO. I'll tell you this, I can't

even begin to imagine what went through your minds during that encounter. For me that would have been very cool, very

scary, but still cool!

 

It is just that there seems to be a problem of distinguishing reports from proof. To say that an anecdote cannot be

verified by the current scientific method should be obvious!  Sightings reports are really nothing more than one

person telling another something, but the value of reports is that they do contain important information. The information

can then be used to build a case so to speak. Reports only indicate things, not prove them. Now I have to mention the

fact that somehow both sides of that argument have put forth some valid points, but I don't know if that is progress, or

just an anomaly. It is beyond me that this subject is argued back and forth between many people here for well over 8

pages in many different threads! Will this behavior ever stop? probably not! I guessing at this point we need to realize

that you just can't fix stupid!  It seems that some are born to argue and get the last word in no matter what! At first the

arguing was a little irritating, but now I see it as an entertainment factor and it definitely makes me laugh! There are some

very good discussions that I think benefit quite a few people, and it's a shame they all can't hit that same mark.

Edited by Wingman1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

No offense taken :)

 

I have had people tell me that it was misidentification in the past. I just wonder how in the heck that could have happened, given the size of the thing and how close I was, and how good the lighting was.

 

What is really at stake here is how challenged some people are in their world-view, in which such a thing does not exist, is the stuff of myth and nightmares. Of course that goes out the window in a heartbeat when you are confronted with the reality, but for those that hear about it second hand, I find that they can be quite vehement as the challenge to their view of reality might be pretty profound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite

      Few, if any, Bigfoot pundits have interviewed every witness to every encounter and no investigator, no matter how experienced, is an infallible human lie detector.  Reports of encounters can be analyzed to determine whether one believes that a specific witness encountered a Bigfoot, but the evidentiary standards applied in evaluating an individual case are not applicable in a scientific sense.  In other words, one can evaluate, after reading a report and interviewing a witness, whether one believes that the specific person making that specific report encountered a Bigfoot, or misidentified a common animal, or is sincere but not telling the truth (e.g., lacks mental capacity to be truthful), or is maliciously fabricating a report.  Whatever one thinks of any individual report, that information is insufficient to meet the necessary scientific standard of proof.  No matter how many people or scientists read a report, and no matter how many reports are read, nothing can be evaluated conclusively other than the probable veracity of each individual report.  Analyzing a large number of reports and encounters may lead someone who has not seen a Bigfoot to believe that it is more likely than not that Bigfoot exists, but it is still inadequate prove existence in a scientific sense.  

 

 

      Individuals who have seen a Bigfoot and who are not seeking to convince others of what they saw need not provide any information.  But those individuals, whether they have encountered a Bigfoot or not, who are trying to persuade others that Bigfoot exists have the burden of providing sufficient evidence to prove existence.  It doesn't matter how many people believe that encounters occurred - one Halloween night in the 1930s, millions of Americans believed that Martians were invading the northeast.  Large numbers of people heard these reports, evaluated these reports, and believed these reports that Martians were invading; large numbers of people were wrong.  

 

   Until a body is on a slab so that numerous scientists can take tissue samples and inspect the physiology of a specimen , the existence of Bigfoot will not be scientifically established.  

 

Now someone help me find a way to tie this back into misidentification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dlaw

Antfoot,

i think you're hallucinating again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

well dlaw would you expound on why my supposition that the few bigfoot reports are not a minor subset of all outdoor reports? or am I hallucinating about something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

      Few, if any, Bigfoot pundits have interviewed every witness to every encounter and no investigator, no matter how experienced, is an infallible human lie detector.  Reports of encounters can be analyzed to determine whether one believes that a specific witness encountered a Bigfoot, but the evidentiary standards applied in evaluating an individual case are not applicable in a scientific sense.  In other words, one can evaluate, after reading a report and interviewing a witness, whether one believes that the specific person making that specific report encountered a Bigfoot, or misidentified a common animal, or is sincere but not telling the truth (e.g., lacks mental capacity to be truthful), or is maliciously fabricating a report.  Whatever one thinks of any individual report, that information is insufficient to meet the necessary scientific standard of proof.  No matter how many people or scientists read a report, and no matter how many reports are read, nothing can be evaluated conclusively other than the probable veracity of each individual report.  Analyzing a large number of reports and encounters may lead someone who has not seen a Bigfoot to believe that it is more likely than not that Bigfoot exists, but it is still inadequate prove existence in a scientific sense.  

 

 

      Individuals who have seen a Bigfoot and who are not seeking to convince others of what they saw need not provide any information.  But those individuals, whether they have encountered a Bigfoot or not, who are trying to persuade others that Bigfoot exists have the burden of providing sufficient evidence to prove existence.  It doesn't matter how many people believe that encounters occurred - one Halloween night in the 1930s, millions of Americans believed that Martians were invading the northeast.  Large numbers of people heard these reports, evaluated these reports, and believed these reports that Martians were invading; large numbers of people were wrong.  

 

   Until a body is on a slab so that numerous scientists can take tissue samples and inspect the physiology of a specimen , the existence of Bigfoot will not be scientifically established.  

 

Now someone help me find a way to tie this back into misidentification. 

I'll try to help with that.

 

Misidentification is a classic way to explain something away by someone who wasn't there.  It is an excellent way to avoid assessing the reports.  You could not be more right that sightings cannot be proof.  But, in conjunction with other information and copious forensic evidence (which the footprints are in the strictest scientific sense), they can, as you say, lead one to the reasoned conclusion that it is more likely that the animal exists than that any of the outlandish alternative scenarios is the truth.

 

If you pre-label the reports as something, lie hoax misidentification hallucination whatever...voila!  No need to assess them, because you know, they *could* be what you say they are.   And if no one is listening to qualified people saying, yeah, could be, but given x and y and z and a and b, etc., it is extremely unlikely...well, you get to sleep on it without looking stupid until somebody brings you a body.

 

After which, trust me, you are gonna look like one of the stupidest scientists ever, Mr. Scientist.  Right under your nose, all along; many a well-read and considerate layman right there years, even decades before you, and...um, where were you, Pops...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...