Jump to content
WSA

Bf Sightings By Wildlife Biologists

Recommended Posts

wiiawiwb

I'll beg to differ with both of you.  Let's say that two people had a sighting.

 

Person number one is a Manhattan city boy who ventures away from Wall Street once a year when he goes to enjoy the fresh air of the Adirondacks. He takes a walk in the woods and hears something ahead, then sees something rustling in the bushes. He thinks it looks really big. Oh my God, a monster. He runs away trembling cloaked in fear.

 

Person number two is a wildlife biologist who makes it his career to study the behavior of wild turkey. He is in the forest almost every day and knows the pattern of turkey behavior and everything else that calls that area their domain. He sees a branch break, bushes ahead are violently shaken and he sees an upright, bipedal animal and looks closely at its method of locomotion as its walks off into the woods.

 

Does anyone really want to make a case that there is no difference between the credibility of the two individuals and what they saw?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1980squatch
15 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Person number two is a wildlife biologist who makes it his career to study the behavior of wild turkey. He is in the forest almost every day and knows the pattern of turkey behavior and everything else that calls that area their domain. He sees a branch break, bushes ahead are violently shaken and he sees an upright, bipedal animal and ... Oh my God, a monster. He runs away trembling cloaked in fear.

 

Fixed it for you... :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coffee2go

Interesting exchange in this thread.  I don't remember reading it back when it was originated.

My personal opinion on who is more believable has nothing to do with education.  I think anyone who isn't living under a rock has got to know something about wildlife and can tell a bear from an upright bipedal Sasquatch when the sighting is in daylight with an unobstructed view.  Especially when the description doesn't fit a known animal.  I also don't think that someone who wants to remain anonymous should not be believed.  I am more apt to believe sightings that come from anonymous people simply because I don't think they are trying to seek attention.

 

What I have noticed about skeptics is that they are skeptical about everything.  Those that I know don't believe in anything they haven't seen or experienced for themselves.  No matter how much evidence you put in front of them, they have their own explanation or reasons to deny it. 

 

Each one of us thinks and processes information in our own way.  To some everything is either black or white and others have an open mind and the ability to consider that there are still unknowns in this world. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:09 AM, JDL said:

I'd take Joe Sixpack over the city boy any day, and if Joe Sixpack hunts regularly, I'd give him the same credibility as the biologist.

 

No one is prepared for a first encounter, and people who live on the land generally have better knowledge of it than someone who does not, no matter what their education level.

 

It is a bias to consider rural people to be less intelligent or reliable than any other group of people.

 

 

I have long said, many times here in fact, that most scientists are little better than narrowly-competent techies, who have been trained in the canon of their field and not in how a scientist addresses anomalies.  In fact, get them out of that narrow specialty and there's nothing that special about them.  I totally agree.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA
On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:40 PM, Art1972 said:

Let's look at it this way....

"Joe Six-pack" a local mill worker and known member of his community, goes into the woods and has what he believes is a Sasquatch siting.  

"Holly Troutnetter" a state fisheries biologist is working near a creek, and observes a Bigfoot sipping water from the creek a hundred yards downstream, until it sees her and bolts off into the woods. 

 

Aside from their knowledge (or lack ) of local fauna, and considering their difference in education, is there really any reason to find Holly's report more credible than Joe's?   In my opinion no, there is not..... not at least based on their knowledge of what they believe they've seen. The difference of Holly being in a science oriented profession, does not make her a more credible witness- unless she's willing to stick her neck out and make a claim in a public setting.***  Joe can do so, and if he's not taken seriously, he'll get some strange looks from people for a while, and take some ribbing from co-workers, but if Holly does so- she's jeopardizing her career, her reputation, and has alot more at stake than Joe does. 

...and just read that.

***Very much that. (My emphasis there.) There is no way I put a scientist who stays anonymous over a layman.  In fact I would say the former is welshing on her duty to the scientific community.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:09 AM, JDL said:

I'd take Joe Sixpack over the city boy any day, and if Joe Sixpack hunts regularly, I'd give him the same credibility as the biologist.

 

No one is prepared for a first encounter, and people who live on the land generally have better knowledge of it than someone who does not, no matter what their education level.

 

It is a bias to consider rural people to be less intelligent or reliable than any other group of people.

 

 

I am an educated chemist and I completely agree with you on the misconceptions of the level of intelligence of those who are of the land and the rural areas.

Share this post


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

×