WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I think it is just an objective truth that no other phenomenon carries as large a body of subjective acccounts that hang together as well as these do. I don't claim to have any superior insight into UFO's or ghosts, and I don't see it my place to have an opinion on everything, especially matters I've not reasearched, so I'll pass on a detailed comparison....but I'll only say this, on that: There are many kinds of ghosts claimed to have been seen along with their various supernatural manifestations, and the kinds of flying saucers and species of alien life forms could fill books (and I guess they do). BF is described only as we all know it to be, and when I say "Bigfoot" to you, a picture comes to mind that we both share. If that weren't true, we would not find ourselves all here, discussing it as a common idea. It is just this kind of consistency that piques my interest on the subject. We humans make up all kinds of crap, but we are very, very bad at coming to a consensus on ANYTHING, especially things that cut across cultural, racial and socio-economic boundaries. Those just don't happen, unless they are a commonly experienced reality. When you do find that, it pays to give it attention, I think. As for Elvis... what? You DOUBT that?
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 ^^^Exactly. When I say nothing with this pattern of evidence has failed to be confirmed other than this (because the search isn't even on yet), that is precisely what I mean.
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Let's detail some of the reported bigfoot traits, shall we? Large, hairy primate. 6 - 14 ft ( not very consistent there) Shy and elusive Bangs on walls and peeks in windows and plays with its whole family in peoples backyards Lives in the remote PNW No, wait it lives in every corner of North America It has 5 toes, no 3 toes..no 4 toes. It speaks several languages.. It has infrasound It can communicate telepathically It has an invisibility cloak It smokes cigars It is vegetarian It is a rapacious predator and lover of meat It can hop dimensions Understands what a camera is and how to avoid and even, in some cases, operate one. Rides rail cars like a hobo It has bioluminescent eyes ( cause that would be REALLY helpful at night, lol) Trains other animals to hunt for it Can mimic just about anything in its environment perfectly, be it man or machine. Can project artificial sounds across large distances I do not see this consensus that points to a common ( or even possible) animal. I see a social construct that just gets more absurd every year when newer and more ridiculous claims are made. Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 When one can't suss the ridiculous from the ones that make sense, one has revealed, rather neatly, one's problem. Which I pointed out to you the last time you did that. The ability to conduct science requires the ability to separate [poopie] from shinola. Which is very clearly not evenly distributed through the population.
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) The leader of the organization that maintains the database that you reference daily is responsible for some of the more ridiculous ones in that list. And you wonder why the credibility of the reports in that database are ever called into question? If the leader makes stuff up on the spot then I'm not going to have much faith in the organization or anything they maintain. We're to trust that from the top down they diligently suss the ridiculous from the sensible when their leader is on tv failing very miserably at that very task? Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Like.I.Said. The ability to do what I am talking about requires knowing, which one would if one thought about it, why your first sentence is totally irrelevant. ...which I've pointed out here only...wait....um...54...78....224 times now.
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) ^^ I see, so you are agreeing that the leader of the organization that maintains the database that you adore lacks the ability to do what you do. That is what you must be saying since he is clearly not " doing what you do", i.e. sussing out the ridiculous from the sensible. So he lacks the required knowledge and has not thought about it like you have( in your own words here). Yet, we are to completely embrace everything in his database? No thanks.... Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Nope, I didn't say that. But I'll let you unravel that. It's not worth my time, based on experience, to help you through that too much.
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 What I think you'll find in the sighting database is how mundane those reports really are. Nothing at all woo-woo in there, to speak of. No cigar smoking, train hopping or clairvoyant traits (possibly the last one only to the extent that all sentient beings seem to have some sort of quantum connection to other sentient beings...and that isn't exactly news to anyone with a dog). On the whole though, except for the size of the animal, we do just about everything it does, only with less hair! I'm not really concerned with the beliefs of the staff of the newspaper I read, as long as they report the news accurately, you know? People believe all kinds of weird stuff, even about well known animals. Even though my grandfather believed a rattlesnake was fast enough to strike a passing bullet, it didn't mean it could. Your cat can suck the breath out of a baby, right? The list is long.
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 ^^^Right. For anyone who knows his animals and his outdoors: these are garden-variety wildlife encounters, with a slightly non-standard (and that's our fault) animal.
MIB Posted April 23, 2014 Moderator Posted April 23, 2014 What I think you'll find in the sighting database is how mundane those reports really are. Nothing at all woo-woo in there, to speak of. No cigar smoking, train hopping or clairvoyant traits (possibly the last one only to the extent that all sentient beings seem to have some sort of quantum connection to other sentient beings...and that isn't exactly news to anyone with a dog). On the whole though, except for the size of the animal, we do just about everything it does, only with less hair! I'm not really concerned with the beliefs of the staff of the newspaper I read, as long as they report the news accurately, you know? People believe all kinds of weird stuff, even about well known animals. Even though my grandfather believed a rattlesnake was fast enough to strike a passing bullet, it didn't mean it could. Your cat can suck the breath out of a baby, right? The list is long. If the investigator following up on a report carefully asks the witness if there are any aspects they left out of the report that they'd like to discuss, without specifically mentioning any and thus leading the witness, they'll often get "woo" stuff verbally that the person left out. That points to one of two things. First, the way the questions are worded on the report forms may (deliberately or accidentally) lead the witness to omit that part. Second, people seem more comfortable discussing that verbally than they are to put it in writing. MIB
WSA Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Interesting insight MIB. What is your connection to the reporting process, if I might ask? If what you are saying is true, it seems some editing of the more fringe-y stuff is happening. Can you confirm that, and what are the possible motivations for that? I mean, are we leaving out accounts of levitation, mind-speak and x-ray vision? Although I have had some times when reading some accounts shared by BFF members here when I've said to myself, "Riiiiiiight!", for the most part, all first-hand encounters discussed here are (as DWA describes them to be) garden variety wildlife sightings. Some folks for instance question habituation accounts as impossible even if they themselves have had a BF encounter independentlyin their life. To them I say, "If you've seen one, once, why could not somebody see the same thing, only much more frequently?" There is no good reason why not.
roguefooter Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 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. Nobody said that they're not interesting and I agree that they would "entertain the idea of getting to something maybe bigger than the individual parts", but that doesn't equate into what they're being presented here as. These reports are only bits to motivate and maybe move towards something bigger. A map to finding gold is only worth something to the guy looking for gold. It's not gold in itself and there is no way to know if it's even valid until after the gold is found.
MIB Posted April 24, 2014 Moderator Posted April 24, 2014 WSA - I'd rather be a little vague about my role. I can't really say anything that could be verified without completely outing myself and I don't want to do that, so .. take what I say as an interesting anecdote if you wish, I won't take it personally. You asked about motivation. What I believe is this: in one way or another, it comes down to insecurity, to trying to maintain as "respectable" an image as possible and avoid ridicule. The witness is in a pretty vulnerable state generally with their world view turned on its head really wanting someone to validate them, to tell them they're not crazy. They fear the investigator's ridicule. They leave out most all but the bigfoot part from the initial report submission most of the time. It's only when, through the interview process, if the investigator seems trustworthy, that the witness will fill in the additional blanks. IMHO a bigfoot investigator walks a fine line needing to avoid both adversarial interrogation on one hand and coaching the witness on the other. At the same time, the investigator will probably put their name on the report, too, and want to appear credible, want to make their organization appear credible, and make bigfooting as a whole seem credible. (Whether they've really thought through their motives or not. ) In that context, they're probably going to suppress the "woo" and just include the "acceptable" bigfoot part in the report. At some level, it's all about image, about pressure to conform. Maybe not consciously, but it's there. There is a lot of stuff in the body of reports, published and unpublished, that makes me raise and eyebrow but for the most part, it's a questioning eyebrow, not a condemning eyebrow. The more I know the more I appreciate how truly little I know. It's humbling. MIB 2
Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 The witness is in a pretty vulnerable state generally with their world view turned on its head really wanting someone to validate them, to tell them they're not crazy. They fear the investigator's ridicule. They leave out most all but the bigfoot part from the initial report submission most of the time. It's only when, through the interview process, if the investigator seems trustworthy, that the witness will fill in the additional blanks. That's one of the reasons why I chose not to submit a report. Because if I was going to do it then I felt that I was obligated to tell them everything and I had no idea who I might end up dealing with.
Recommended Posts