roguefooter Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) Who's conflating what? Every time someone talks bigfoot, you bring up fairies. This is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep the issue. Are Bigfoot witnesses somehow different than fairy witnesses? The only sidestepping here is your own bias, trying to distance one from the other. What I'm talking about here is witness testimony of unverifiable subject matter- in that they are the same. Your argument only holds water if you can convince someone to believe that all witnesses are unreliable all of the time. As justification for this you proffer that some witnesses are unreliable some of the time. This is not proof that all witnesses are universally fallible under all circumstances. There is a margin of error in all witness testimony. Our senses are only as good as each individual person, which we are all different. That means some testimony are more unreliable than others. If you can dispute this then please do so. If the argument holds no water then you should easily be able to punch a hole in it. So please show me one single human that isn't fallible under any circumstance. By your argument you should be able to present at least one. How many times do people give an accurate description of a perpetrator that leads to apprehension of someone that then confesses? I'm sure that the frequency of this happening is also significant. Here you're talking about a testimony that becomes verifiable- how does that relate in way to Bigfoot testimony? It doesn't. Isn't the frequency of Bigfoot testimony being unverifiable also significant? So eyewitness testimony is reliable unless it is of a Bigfoot? That's not what I said. There is a big difference between something that is verifiable versus something that isn't. The probabilities weigh heavily in favor of those things that are verifiable. I am more than open to Bigfoot's existence, otherwise I wouldn't have spent that past few years here being critical and impressed with the PGF. Even though it has put me on the fence there is still nothing definitive about it- it can fall either way. The problem with Bigfoot in general is that there is really nothing at all that can be considered reliable- not the testimony, not the videos, not the tracks, etc. Hoaxing has been prevalent in all of these things from the very beginning. If it all weren't so easy to fake then maybe the optimism would be higher. It also doesn't help that the majority of testimony is unverifiable and starting to move into the paranormal in order to explain away the lack of verification. I know that our senses aren't perfect. You can't see a bullet after it is launched from a gun but it can kill you. Nevertheless I trust my senses well enough to drive a car and respond to email. Not sure I would leave the house otherwise but maybe I might walk through a window and not know it the way you are talking You trust your own senses because you have no other choice for function of your daily life and survival. Trusting your own senses has nothing to do with whether they are right or not. That trust leads to many accidents on a daily basis. People opening a virus in their email. There are even people who have walked into glass doors and through windows. Every one of your points are very common and happen daily. You can either fear it or trust it- it just depends on you. Yes there are people that fear daily life and won't leave their house, that's also common. Edited April 7, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yep, mucho issue sidestepping going on here. The question (fairies must be kept 100 light years away from this topic, which is a biological question, not a scoffer lark) is not whether people are fallible. It is whether they are right. When thousands of them are applying consistent descriptions that ring bells with primate experts the way to bet is that they are. Way life is. Really, it's time to stop talking about pills and weed and alcohol and delusions, and wonder what it is they are seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ^Just as you are sidestepping real human issues as if they don't exist to Bigfoot witnesses. Pills, weed, and alcohol- this is a typical stereotype. Low electrolyte levels can happen to anyone and can cause hallucinations as well. Misidentification is also ridiculously common. I have PTSD, I've learned that my own senses are not 100% reliable but I trust them enough for daily function. How is it that Bigfoot witnesses are somehow exempt from all of this? It's getting pretty ridiculous the level of denial and arrogance here. People SEE Bigfoot, people SEE fairies- yet you want to discredit the latter in order to not have any association. They must be a different kind of people, not the same. We have primate experts, who also seem to like being on TV and cashing in on the field. That must count for something. This is not about what we want to associate with ourselves, because as a human you have no choice. Bigfoot witnesses are still human aren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Are Bigfoot witnesses somehow different than fairy witnesses? The only sidestepping here is your own bias, trying to distance one from the other. What I'm talking about here is witness testimony of unverifiable subject matter- in that they are the same. There is a margin of error in all witness testimony. Our senses are only as good as each individual person, which we are all different. That means some testimony are more unreliable than others. If you can dispute this then please do so. If the argument holds no water then you should easily be able to punch a hole in it. So please show me one single human that isn't fallible under any circumstance. By your argument you should be able to present at least one. Here you're talking about a testimony that becomes verifiable- how does that relate in way to Bigfoot testimony? It doesn't. Isn't the frequency of Bigfoot testimony being unverifiable also significant? That's not what I said. There is a big difference between something that is verifiable versus something that isn't. The probabilities weigh heavily in favor of those things that are verifiable. I am more than open to Bigfoot's existence, otherwise I wouldn't have spent that past few years here being critical and impressed with the PGF. Even though it has put me on the fence there is still nothing definitive about it- it can fall either way. The problem with Bigfoot in general is that there is really nothing at all that can be considered reliable- not the testimony, not the videos, not the tracks, etc. Hoaxing has been prevalent in all of these things from the very beginning. If it all weren't so easy to fake then maybe the optimism would be higher. It also doesn't help that the majority of testimony is unverifiable and starting to move into the paranormal in order to explain away the lack of verification. You trust your own senses because you have no other choice for function of your daily life and survival. Trusting your own senses has nothing to do with whether they are right or not. That trust leads to many accidents on a daily basis. People opening a virus in their email. There are even people who have walked into glass doors and through windows. Every one of your points are very common and happen daily. You can either fear it or trust it- it just depends on you. Yes there are people that fear daily life and won't leave their house, that's also common. There you go again. Not even those who conducted the perception studies you cite go so far as to claim that all people misperceive all of the time, yet you persist in asserting this. So I can only conclude that this is a matter of obstinance and that further argument would simply be a case of everyone getting dirty and the pig loving it. "It" being the attention received. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I know I hallucinate but I would pit my observational skills against yours any day. You do not know what hallucinations are like if you think you would never have one or if you think they mean you are incompetent. Misidentification is also ridiculously common. I have PTSD, I've learned that my own senses are not 100% reliable but I trust them enough for daily function. How is it that Bigfoot witnesses are somehow exempt from all of this? It's getting pretty ridiculous the level of denial and arrogance here. People SEE Bigfoot, people SEE fairies- yet you want to discredit the latter in order to not have any association. They must be a different kind of people, not the same. We have primate experts, who also seem to like being on TV and cashing in on the field. That must count for something. This is not about what we want to associate with ourselves, because as a human you have no choice. Bigfoot witnesses are still human aren't they? I believe I understand now. This isn't simply a matter of flawed logic, it is also a matter of projection. Logic, or the lack thereof, I can address directly. Where pathology is concerned, I can only offer sympathy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ^Are you somehow exempt JDL? Just like I said, it's getting pretty ridiculous the level of denial and arrogance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 There you go again. Not even those who conducted the perception studies you cite go so far as to claim that all people misperceive all of the time, yet you persist in asserting this. So I can only conclude that this is a matter of obstinance and that further argument would simply be a case of everyone getting dirty and the pig loving it. "It" being the attention received. I never stated that they misperceive all of the time. Where did I say this? I also never cited any perception studies. I have no clue what it is that you're rambling about here aside from ignoring all of my questions posted to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I think there's some difference between a person having a clear sight of an unknown animal and reporting that, and a belief in faerae which leads the witness to explain a phenomena in those terms. I did click on the fairy sightings link but didn't get very far as they seemed to be merely coincidences concerning cats and missing cheques and someone mentioned lights in the woods. I guess I'm basing that on my view of the natural world which doesn't really have room for a supernatural fairy element. Some similarities in fairy folklore and certain ET activities lead me to consider that there may be something to it but it's neither ET or Tinkerbell and more to do with the witnesses themselves. Perhaps a reaction to a phenomena like an epileptic to strobe lighting. ROD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I did click on the fairy sightings link but didn't get very far as they seemed to be merely coincidences concerning cats and missing cheques and someone mentioned lights in the woods. Read on, and discover how owl hoots are really not, and rodent bites are really not, and pebbles landing on one's camper are sure sign of bigfoot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) I have. IMO a lot of it is lame but because I don't rule bigfoot out completely then I'm willing to entertain what I think sound credible sightings. Of what I don't know. I do expect though that the sightings are investigated as far as is possible, and where you do have to file under interesting on just a say-so I'd rely on a general impression of the witness Obviously I wouldn't consider that proof but it would be more to fit in with a general background picture. ROD Edited April 7, 2014 by Detroit Soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ^Just as you are sidestepping real human issues as if they don't exist to Bigfoot witnesses. Sidestepping nothing. To take the whole encounter literature and toss it for "human issues" without review is a silly proposition to anyone familiar with it, which just shows who is...and who isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Sidestepping nothing. To take the whole encounter literature and toss closely examine it for "human issues" without review is a silly proposition to anyone familiar with emotionally invested in it, which just shows who is...and who isn't. Your post contained a few errors. I fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 That would be a "nope," with emphasis. The way it read is the way it is. You just did what I say scientists should never do - toss the whole thing unreviewed because they are emotionally invested in it being something else. The mainstream's attittude toward this is 100% emotional. No science is in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Does anyone believe that the Bigfoot phenomenon and the Fairy phenomenon are an apples to apples comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Does anyone believe someone can make the same posting in a multitude of threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts