Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

[Guest WesT]

Thanks for the info Trogluddite. What happened to ohiobill? I thought he was all sure of himself on this. Guess he lost interest for some reason.

[Guest DWA]

ohiobill has the certainty of those whose information base allows them to be blissfully certain.

[Guest]

There are the Oroville, CA police reports from the 70's(?). There was also an officer on a reservation in OK(?) that was being chased by a BF in his cruiser. He keyed the mike so that dispatch could hear it's heavy footfalls and screaming. Sorry, I don't have a link to either of those.

[Wheellug]

Biologists?  Would not Dr John Bindernagal's reports over the years count?  

Wouldn't John Myionczynski - bioligist, also count?

[Guest Stan Norton]

I'm predicting that they won't be the right kind of biologist. After all, they believe in bigfoot so we must consider them beyond the pale...

[dmaker]

"Dmaker's challenge is simply silly.  And none too surprising.

 

What is this about "not of BFRO origin"?  Come ON people. 

 

This is what WSA and I mean when we talk about people who don't know how to think about this, or what to think about.

 

If you honestly think that those guys on "Finding Bigfoot" are making up all those reports, I'd probably laugh my head off to see the list of the 10 biggest scams ever put over on you.

 

Anyone who knows how BFRO gets those reports - and knows anything, at all, about "Finding Bigfoot" - knows that there is no source of information on this topic better, anywhere, than the BFRO database.  That the BFRO has decided to make bad TV instead of doing what I'd be doing with that database simply shows that they aren't exactly the sharpest scientists.  But that info is legit...until you prove to me it isn't.  And the clouds you've seen in your coffee don't count.

 

So feel free to use the BFRO reports.  They are the voice of the people.  No mouthpieces involved. 

I never said that Matt et al were making reports nor have I ever said the organization is fabricating reports. My issue with the BFRO database is that it is made up mostly with anonymous anecdotes. They have a low value as evidence because the truth of them can never be determined. You cannot apply the scientific method to an anonymous anecdote.  They can have some investigative value if you believe they are truthful and can lead you to some bigfeets. But as proof of a species, they have no value at all. 

 

Anyone who thinks all the info in those reports is legit is displaying a strong confirmation bias and zero critical thinking. 

 

 

"But that info is legit...until you prove to me it isn't."

 

Uhm, the burden of proof is a basic scientific concept. Perhaps you should refresh yourself on that there Mr. Self Proclaimed King of the Scientists.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Why do you think the reports are anonymous?

 

And wrong AGAIN!  Put the hand out!  [RAP!]  Any entrant in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its viewpoint.  We've been over and over this.

 

You've provided none for yours.  And you won't for that one.  Almost 4,000 posts of "no proof" ain't cuttin' it, Legfeet.  Why aren't you posting these on the Scientific American and Nature websites?  THAT'S where they should be going.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DWA

[norseman]

I followed up on a BFRO report over by red lodge Montana and the location given on the google earth map was not the location. I don't know if it was negligence or skulduggery.

But regardless D maker, I think we have provided you with some of the info you requested, yes?

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

Anyone who thinks all the info in those reports is legit is displaying a strong confirmation bias and zero critical thinking. 

 

 

 

 

Just as anyone who thinks some of the info in those reports is NOT legit is displaying a strong confirmation bias and zero critical thinking.

[Guest DWA]

I followed up on a BFRO report over by red lodge Montana and the location given on the google earth map was not the location. I don't know if it was negligence or skulduggery.

My issue with blanket dismissals of BFRO reports is a classic case of tossing the baby with the bath water.

 

They aren't making them up.  What they do with reports after the reports are posted might be somewhat problematical sometimes.  But nobody's giving me a good alternative explanation for all these reports.  I'm not seeing dismissing them.  Non-scientific in the extreme.  Shows...gimme a sec here...a strong denial bias and zero critical thinking.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I followed up on a BFRO report over by red lodge Montana and the location given on the google earth map was not the location. I don't know if it was negligence or skulduggery.

But regardless D maker, I think we have provided you with some of the info you requested, yes?

Yes, thank-you Norseman.

^^^Why do you think the reports are anonymous?

 

And wrong AGAIN!  Put the hand out!  [RAP!]  Any entrant in a scientific discussion must provide evidence for its viewpoint.  We've been over and over this.

 

You've provided none for yours.  And you won't for that one.  Almost 4,000 posts of "no proof" ain't cuttin' it, Legfeet.  Why aren't you posting these on the Scientific American and Nature websites?  THAT'S where they should be going.

Weren't you and others pointing out just a couple of weeks ago how most of the reports are anonymous because of the horrible consequences to your life if you admit to thinking you saw a bigfoot? 

 

Now they are not anonymous?

 

I have provided plenty of evidence for my viewpoint. If you are unable to understand it, refuse to understand it or dismiss it simply because it disagrees with you, then I cannot help you with that. 

 

Oddly they don't often discuss bigfoot on Scientific American or Nature. 

[dmaker]

It's as simple as this DWA:

 

You believe bigfoot to be a real animal. To support this you rely most heavily on anecdotal evidence. You also point out alleged footprints and expert testimony supporting that evidence. There is also some emphasis placed on native lore from proponents as well. You also believe strongly that the PGF contains footage of a real creature. 

 

I believe bigfoot is not a real animal, but is a social construct born of hoaxing. To support this I can point out many, many proven examples of hoaxing with bigfootery. This fabrication crosses various types of evidence: footprints, reports, photographs and video footage. To also support my position is the lack of biological evidence that holds up under scrutiny. Many samples have been provided in the past and they all come back as known animals, synthetic, or too degraded to analyze. The biological evidence to date has failed miserably.

 

To offer an alternative source for the many sighting reports I point to the history of fabrication and deceit that can easily be found in this phenomenon as well as other sources such as the much documented faults and weaknesses of human perception and the ways that certain mental illnesses such as schizophrenia can cause a person to experience something that never actually happened. Articles in scientific journals documenting this are many and easy to find. 

 

The photographic and video evidence, as it were, to date is horribly ambiguous. Terms like blobsquatches are used freely by both skeptic and proponent. Hoaxing bad bigfoot video seems to have become a popular past time on youtube. Sadly, even the bigfoot video evidence that is not universally panned by both sides is still too ambiguous to prove anything, i.e. the PGF. 

 

Footprints also have been analyzed and many have been proven to be fabrications, even sometimes after a bigfoot expert has declared them genuine. Features such as dermal ridges are not universally accepted and have also been demonstrated to be easily reproduced as an artifact of the casting process. 

 

But, for me, the ultimate damning point that obliterates the bigfoot argument is the utter lack of proof after all this time. Bigfoot is everywhere, yet no one can get a sample of one, a photograph of one, or video footage of one that is clear and unambiguous. When I add up the points I previously mentioned with the complete absence of real, solid evidence it quickly becomes clear that bigfoot only exists in the minds of those that believe.

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please note that I have made my case calmly, rationally and without emotional rhetoric or deliberately talking down to you. I stated your position I think fairly and with respect. I would appreciate it if you could try to craft your response with similar consideration. 

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

But we don't want the proof that reports can be safely tossed to come out of your head.  We want that to be PROVEN.  Sorry, it's gotta be, or science is slacking and we have the PROOF.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ Thank-you. You have just perfectly illustrated the issue with anecdotal evidence. I cannot prove a report is false anymore than you can prove that it is true. Therefore it cannot be used as scientific evidence. You cannot test it for truth. It's that simple. 

 

Now I have said numerous times that there may be some investigative value in them if one wishes to follow up on them and see if one can find a bigfoot in the area. To date there is no proof of that every happening is there? So I am not saying toss them. Do what you want with them, but I think you place far, far, far too much importance on them as evidence. 

[Guest DWA]

Nope, they're testable, and "the investigative value" is precisely how those who think they have that - like NAWAC - are testing them.

 

Not proven yet...once again...what science is there for.  Any time they want to do their jobs.  I place precisely the correct importance on them as evidence, which is:  until scientists explain, through field work and not WAGging, what is causing them, what is causing them is unexplained, and the people we charge with that explanation need to get on the stick.