Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 As.I.Said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Over and over and over and....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Yes. Now focus. OK? Think about this some. Beacons as always light your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Were you there? Tell us all about it. How many reports have you read? Tell us all about it. This coming up with lame excuses to rule out reports that one wasn't even there for is the kind of non-analysis we really need far less of. Since you weren't there for them either, does that mean you're finally done trying to rule in these reports? We tried telling you they were nothing but unsubstantiated stories. Edited April 23, 2014 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 It is not how many of these you read, but how you read them. The point being guys, is that any report standing in isolation is easily ignored or waved off. Trying to see how one corresponds to another, and why, is an essential investigative skill. Just reading these only as individual reports, without that bigger picture focus is a very efficient way of seeing trees but not forests. You can pick off individual reports until the cows come home, and it won't mean a thing to the bigger picture. I can do it all day long too, right along with you, if I chose to. When I read these, I ask questions like: Who are seeing/hearing/smelling these animals? What do those people do for a living? Why are they where they are at the time they see them. Does the background show credibility? Where are they seeing them, in the main? What behaviors are coming through, consistently? What about the humanity of the witnesses are coming through in their choice of words, details and emotions? Do you feel the person behind the words? Why or why not? Does there experiences match yours in any way, on even just a mundane, everyday sense of things? Etc., etc., etc..... Really, I could go on endlessly about the gradations of information contained in these reports. They are a goldmine for those who want to entertain the idea of getting to something maybe bigger than the individual parts. At the most basic level, there is one fact that all who engage with this mound of data must grapple with: There is no "typical" witness. That right there must be explained, by someone. If you are not offering up theories that support that unavoidable conclusion, you are not contributing to a greater understanding, in my opinion. Case in point: You want to identify academics/professional/expert witnesses in this database? Boom. That is just from a rapid scan of the titles for only a portion of the reports, and not from actually looking at reports by witnesses. Based on that sampling, I can assure there are plenty more that are not identified in that manner. Or just about any other description of person you would care to name (with some assumptions).. Male, female, old, young, rich, poor, rural, urban, on foot, in cars, working, recreating, farming, goofing off, doing drugs, drinking, not doing drugs, not drinking, good vision, bad vision, brave, cowardly, shy, smart and some really, really, dumb folks too. As I said, I could go on, an on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Over and over and over and....... Yes. You're definitely familiar with that drill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 And then there are the reports you hear that aren't published, or documented in any way, from the people you know, friends and family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I am always just gob-smacked by the lack of curiosity exhibited in the reactions we sometimes see to this information. You don't have to consider it proof of squat, and you know what? I DON'T consider it proof of squat, but it should at the very least compel a body to maybe say to themself: I don't have a real plausible explanation for this that fits all the permutations of information I'm seeing here, except possibly it is what the witnesses are describing, and it bothers me that I don't. I can tell you also, with a high degree of certainty, I don't have a reputation in my family and my community at large for being gullible, at all. So, if I am/we are being woofed, it is pretty much going to surprise not only me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 It is not how many of these you read, but how you read them. The point being guys, is that any report standing in isolation is easily ignored or waved off. Trying to see how one corresponds to another, and why, is an essential investigative skill. Just reading these only as individual reports, without that bigger picture focus is a very efficient way of seeing trees but not forests. You can pick off individual reports until the cows come home, and it won't mean a thing to the bigger picture. I can do it all day long too, right along with you, if I chose to. When I read these, I ask questions like: Who are seeing/hearing/smelling these animals? What do those people do for a living? Why are they where they are at the time they see them. Does the background show credibility? Where are they seeing them, in the main? What behaviors are coming through, consistently? What about the humanity of the witnesses are coming through in their choice of words, details and emotions? Do you feel the person behind the words? Why or why not? Does there experiences match yours in any way, on even just a mundane, everyday sense of things? Etc., etc., etc..... Really, I could go on endlessly ... ...As I said, I could go on, an on. [some snippage occurred in shipping and handling] I could too. But let me sum up: bigfoot skeptics have their eyes on the wrong prize. They want to win the argument, not get to the bottom of this. When in a rush, investigative chops are the first things to go out the window. They are almost utterly absent among bigfoot skeptics, why, I am still trying to figure out. But I'm betting I have a pretty durn good SWAG on that. As WSA said, I could go on and on. But read that post I quoted instead; and then ask yourself why the true heavyweights in this field are those with extensive experience in animals, outdoors and relevant science informing their formidable investigative chops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) ^^ You don't consider it proof? Just a couple of months back you were lobbying to have bigfoot tentatively classified on the basis of the current evidence, most of which you and DWA talk about are the BFRO reports. I am sure you do not have a reputation for gullibility among your friends and family. Based on your comments here over the past couple of years I would say I think that you have a confirmation bias going on with bigfoot and that you can take as credible, or potentially credible ( Sasquatch Ontario), that which should be treated with far, far more skepticism or dismissed outright ( Sasquatch Ontario). Just my polite opinion, since you brought it up. Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 ^^^Please just start reviewing your life and what it has taught you just a tad more stringently. Might hurt. But in the longer run it would certainly help. Don't give me anything about confirmation bias. You are exhibiting one of the strongest a priori biases I have ever seen, from anyone, in anything. It's a very effective set of blinders, in fact it just has me in awe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Fair observation dmaker, but I didn't come to the field with any confirmation bias that I can see, really (Yeah, I know if you have bias, how do you KNOW you have bias, but....) Like a lot of us here, I got pulled in to it by things I just couldn't explain, and I still can't. I'm not sure bias is really needed to have real curiosity about the information found in these reports. I sometimes introduce friends to that data who either have no preconceived ideas about it, or who are leaning towards the skeptical view. Almost without exception, they land on the HOLY CRAP THIS IS REAL! side of the debate, and I give them all the standard "rational" explanations to consider as well. But no, I don't consider them proof. They couldn't be. I'm entertained to speculate what this animal is by jumping right to that assumption that it IS, but I don't really recall ever lobbying for some kind of classification. DWA makes a case, as I recall. If you were to wake me up at 2:00 with a flashlight and demand to know what I thought, I'd probably say some variety of human, but who the hell knows? The S.A. discussion was a weird thing for a lot of us. My only point on that was I didn't initially know what it was. I saw a lot of folks rushing to put their marker down on black/red, but none with any real authority that I could see. As I asked then, "Does anyone here know what a Saquatch is supposed to sound like?" Absent that information, I didn't think it necessary to have any opinion at all. As it turns out, there is at least one guy who probably DOES know what a Sasquatch should sound like, if Saquatch are real and make sounds: Scott Nelson. When I read that he confirmed it sounded like no other vocalizations he'd analyzed, that did it for me. You see, some know more than others, and their expertise really should be given greater weight. I've always been impressed with Nelson's work, and I use it whenever it is appropriate. If there is an explanation that fits, it should be given attention. The current skeptical explanations for the sighting database just don't fit, and it is a screaming question that needs better attention, I believe. Edited April 23, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 ^^ Well, we certainly differ on the satisfactory skeptical explanations for the sightings. I am quite confident in believing them to be a collection that is deliberately ( in some cases) manipulated to create the illusion of a connected history of encounters with an animal that is consistently described. The skeptical explanation fits perfectly well with a social construct. In my opinion, proponents simply do not want to accept this. For whatever reason(s) bigfoot must be real. Ok, the evidence, specifically the lack of evidence, clearly says otherwise. But like most things in life that people can get emotionally invested in, that truth will refuse to be realized no matter what happens. Because one thing I can assure you of is that bigfoot will never be discovered. Therefore, ardent proponents need never waiver. Bigfoot discovery will be just around the corner...but never arrive. It will always be this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) That is a possible explanation, of course. For this social construct to be viable though, you've got way too many moving pieces to account for, too many players and a very, very long period of time. Not to say it never could happen, but it would pretty much be on a scale, duration and complexity unprecedented in human history. I could name you a few before now, and you can too, but not as big as this would be. Let's just agree it would be THE mother of all social constructs. As I always say, if it truly IS a construct, that explanation is far more compelling than even the rather mundane explanation that it is just an animal, flesh and blood, doing what animals do. Really, I've never found the idea of BF all that remarkable. The known and explained world is far weirder than a beast that appears, on all major counts, to be remarkably like the most populous critter on the planet. The one and only thing it has going against its acceptance is the idea we are all alone here, and have been for as long as its ever mattered. Once you break that barrier, and it is a very disturbing barrier to break, it is an easy conclusion. As for "never", and like my Old Man is fond of saying, "Never is a very long time." I'm not really worrying about a lack of discovery in my lifetime, and when I'm gone, I'll worry even less! I'm not so much invested in discovery, or not, as much as I'm just plain curious. Your explanation is one of the contenders out there, but it comes up short for me on too many crucial points for me to consider it a likely one. Edited April 23, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 "That is a possible explanation, of course. For this social construct to be viable though, you've got way too many moving pieces to account for, too many players and a very, very long period of time. Not to say it never could happen, but it would pretty much be on a scale, duration and complexity unprecedented in human history." WSA Not at all. Examine the number of people who believe in alien abductions, ghosts, other cryptids, psychics, or even Elvis still being alive. Take your pick of many phenomena that rely strongly on anecdotal evidence while having no verifiable physical evidence to bring to the table. This is nothing new or even unprecedented nor nearly as mind boggling in its size and execution as you seem to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts