OkieFoot Posted September 5, 2015 Moderator Posted September 5, 2015 WSA, on 08 May 2014 - 10:26 AM, said: ....Still, if any report describes the witnesses' occupation as "house painter", I stop reading..... Why? Perhaps the quality of the report may be lacking, but you'll never know without reading it. Perhaps the report will be vague or inconsistent but you'll never know without reading it. It's not like you can just identify one profession and banish them from the land of credibiility as "liars" just based on their profession. (That's a softball, people. Hit it out of the park.) (my reply) I've thought about this too on occasion and I think you make a fair point. Speaking in a general sense, there seems to be a perception with some that people with more education and more of an "intellectual" profession have more credibility than a plumber or an appliance repairman. It seems to me that a blue collar maintenance worker has eyesight as good as a wildlife biologist and they can see if a creature has long arms or great height or huge bulkiness. It doesn't take more education to see this. Should reports from your blue collar, lesser educated type people be regarded with more suspicion for that reason? Is there any evidence that says we should? It shouldn't make a difference whether a sighting is reported by a professional of degree or a non professional of no degree. Most likely it does not. However once the reporting is in the realm for others to review is where things fall rapidly into the hands of the non professional degree population. The case of NASA's Mars photos is a perfect example of pop culture non professionals getting hold of what the professional community has delivered and turning it into a circus. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are no PHD Astrophysicists posting videos and photos of Mars showing mysterious valleys where strange glyph s and remnants of civilizations. But there are a lot of Joe Blows doing it. Where bigfoot is concerned the landscape is so littered with comic book story lines that even most high school dropouts should be able to see through. Does anyone think for a moment that dogman can possibly exist? Or that demon guarded bigfoot portals exist? Any biologist worth their salt knows that there is no precedent for an animal like dogman and that a variety of different bigfoot types does not support the obvious rarity of the thing. But if you haven't had the education and or you've decided to toss your education out the window then dogman and everything else has a place on the stage. Science didn't create bigfoot or dogman. A few minor scientists have given a nod to bigfoot but the lion's share of the mythology is perpetuated by non science. That's the way it should be; each report should be judged on its own. Not to say that's how it is. I do understand that people with more "impressive", or "professional" backgrounds could be considered to maybe have more credibility due to having a professional reputation they don't want to damage. On the second bolded part: people that watch shows like Mountain Monsters probably think it exists, along with some other monsters.
Bodhi Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Hello Bodhi, I've heard that not all things I read on the internet are really true; but of course I read that on the internet so who knows.... Sounds like something right out of the Department of Redundancy Department. Yeah, my apologies hiflier I didn't notice that this thread was originally started last year. I'm not sure why or how these threads get rebooted but it happens a lot. That said I need to do a better job of checking the date for the original post so I don't waste time in these rebooted/rehashing threads. My error though, duly noted.
WSA Posted September 8, 2015 Author Posted September 8, 2015 The "house painter" quip was just a weak joke on my part.The source of a report is an important point, maybe the most important point aside from the description of what was witnessed. If the witness is a long time resident of the area where the sighting occurred, or especially if they have an occupation that requires them to be outdoors most of their time, they bear listening to just a little more. Those trained in observation, such as LEO's are also given a smidge more credibility. Just the way life is. You consider the source and make your judgments accordingly. Applying a "one size fits all" approach is simple and convenient... and will lead you to an erroneous conclusion most of the time. (Why is it that some here are always wanting to talk about unicorns, dragons, sea monsters and UFO's? It seems the subject at hand is too much to handle without leaping to some other (perceived) analogous subject)
hiflier Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Hello Bodhi, Hey my friend , I've done, and we've all done it, but the reason I posted the line was because a friend of mine years ago said it when made a comment that folded back on itself. I think it was when I said something like "hey, it was desa-vu all over again". That's when he used the Department of Redundancy Department line. So your comment about reading on the internet that some things on the internet were untrue kinda brought up the circular mental amusement park. It was all in jest. A similar comment that fits the "Department of Redundancy Department" is saying that I was wrong when I thought I was wrong Edited September 8, 2015 by hiflier
Bodhi Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 ah, roger that hiflier. Yeah I was going for a "funny" on that one, glad it hit the mark. Sorry if this is O.T.
hiflier Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Hello Bodhi, Yep it did. And me too (OT that is.)
Explorer Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Here is another BFRO case from a wildlife biologist (supposedly). Took place in CA - Tuolumne County back in 1993. Wonder where that guy is now and how he has incorporated his sighting/experience with his wildlife biologist training. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2886
Explorer Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Class B report from Fisheries Biologist - while hiking/camping in the Marble Mountain Wilderness in CA back in 1977. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5637
Explorer Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Class A report from wildlife biologist technician in Humboldt County-CA back in 2000. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1727
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 Posted April 30, 2017 Been to this spot could of happened this is 7200 acres where you cannot walk easily off trail swamp and bog !
FarArcher Posted May 1, 2017 Posted May 1, 2017 On 5/8/2014 at 2:40 PM, DWA said: ^^^As somebody who has chased bears he's seen, big ones, I find myself wondering, often, how I'd react to a sasquatch close up. As in shoot or no shoot? Or do you speak of how high on your pucker factor things ratchet up? 'Cause they can ratchet up pretty fast, and pretty tight!
Guest DWA Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 On 5/1/2017 at 5:35 PM, FarArcher said: As in shoot or no shoot? Or do you speak of how high on your pucker factor things ratchet up? 'Cause they can ratchet up pretty fast, and pretty tight! Oh, the latter. I don't carry, so the latter it would be. I don't suspect that a transient encounter, in which the animal fled the way most bears I have encountered do, would worry me subsequently any more than those did. A closer more prolonged encounter might. But until it happens, all I can do is wonder.
Art1972 Posted May 7, 2017 Posted May 7, 2017 Didn't realize at first that this thread goes back to 2014, but since it got bumped, and I just read through the entire thing, there's a glaring omission in the discussion about whether a biologist's witness account holds more credibility. 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. Now, the main reason i don't attribute any higher level of credibility, is that the report cited from the OP in this case, is from a biologist who made a report on an anonymous reporting site, and although the veracity of the biologist's profession may have been followed through on, this biologist is still playing it very safe by making a report of this kind. Did he go to his boss, or on the local news, or include his name and credentials while making his report ? No, he did not, and so therefore it's (as several others have already stated) its just another anecdotal story, from a person who happens to be a biologist at the local zoo/animal park. I get it... the fear of ridicule is powerful enough to keep some witness's quiet. Adding the fear of professional/career suicide is a whole other rationale for not coming forward in a more public way. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted May 7, 2017 Posted May 7, 2017 (edited) This was a great report and interesting read. Thanks for sharing. I would no more believe himore than anyone else. He has obviously done very little reading on the subject matter. There is a fossil record of similar primates. I do agree the creature most likely does not exist. Not documented and not proven Edited May 7, 2017 by Patterson-Gimlin
Recommended Posts