Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

[ohiobill]

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.

Right here WesT, waiting for some corroboration about urban sassy reports. Did you find some? I know it's hard to believe someone on the internet but I have no problem with the possibility of sassy existing. I do have problems with reports that state claims like sassy climbing on your roof or damaging your fence in urban/suburban neighborhoods with no corroboration from neighbors or police reports when property damage is claimed. 

 

I'd expect a shy reclusive sassy to stay away from such areas but I could understand occasional fleeting glimpses from wildland/urban interfaces. I can't understand how some folks can have recurring activity with neighbors just feet away yet no police reports. I also can't understand why DWA would ever state that calling 911 will get no response if sassy is involved if these reports provided by Norse and Bobby are legit??? 

 

I've seen these reports before, there are others and even other 911 calls. What I've asked for and haven't received is corroboration of claims where official reports should be available. I don't think you need a hunting guide or some sort of special power to see an urban sassy who is regularly visiting your neighborhood regardless of what an internet lawyer might tell you. You could use a camera phone or call the police - either way we should have some sort of proof if these types of claims are occurring with the regularity that's reported. Do you find my argument unreasonable?

[Guest]

I'm pretty much on the same page.

The vast, remote wilderness in N. America is often cited as a reason Bigfoot can elude detection. The idea of urban apes kinda contradicts that.

[dmaker]

also

that program doesn't exist

 

 

Not yeti  

 

 

 

 

...couldn't resist.

O.K. dmaker, you and an inductivist like me will never agree, plainly. Falsifiability (was it that Popper  guy?) as a positive attribute for evidence is not something I'm ever going to subscribe to. In my world, and in my profession, very few things are capable of being found to be categorically falsifiable.  As a matter of fact, almost all of it is presumed to not ever be (even expert "scientific" evidence) and that doesn't keep the trier of fact from reaching perfectly suitable and final conclusions.  My opinion is that it is a trope that excuses intellectual incuriosity and substitutes hyper-logic for the truth of observable nature. As much as some will lust for the neat nesting boxes of empirical truth, I'd just offer the unsolicited advice that too much of that and you can get bent out of shape pretty quickly, I believe. The opposite of that is probably also true though. In the middle is probably where both of us should land on this point.

Sure. My opinion is that you choose to reduce the importance of falsifiability in an effort to place false ( no pun intended) emphasis on anecdotal evidence. Which is, ironically, very much against true science. You appear to allow your confirmation bias to create an attitude where you get to say well fine, science won't treat my bigfoot stories as importantly as I want, so I will just strip falsifiability out of the equation so that I can go on exclaiming how import bigfoot fiction is.  

 

There is no observable nature in an anecdotal report. It doesn't matter how things are done in a court of law. Why you and DWA constantly drag this back to that analogy is beyond me. Scientific evidence, is not "expert" evidence. It is evidence that can be investigated using the scientific method. As in it must be repeatable, it must be falsifiable and testable. What is so hard to understand about that?  Scientific evidence is neither good nor bad, it just is. It is just criteria that have to be met in order for a type of evidence to also be considered as scientific evidence. And anecdotal evidence does not cut it for obvious reasons. Regardless of how they did things in last weeks rerun of Matlock.

 

 

But if you are truly seeking the truth of any matter, you would not so casually dismiss falsifiability. And if you cannot see the sense of that, then I cannot help you.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker

[HOLDMYBEER]

I thumbed through the thread and saw no mention:  Deputy Dennis Heryford of the Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office, prints documented and cast, report written, in 1982; and Deputy Verlin Harrington, Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office, report written, 1969.

[southernyahoo]

Of course hard data can be falsified. That is why it can be considered scientific evidence. That is why it can be tested and falsified or proven true. I would expect the annals of science to be full of examples of falsification as that is how the scientific method works. It is a great distinction that matters, the falsification of evidence. That is why anecdotes do not qualify as scientific evidence.  This is not that hard to understand. 

 

 

Do you think there is anything testable in the reports Dmaker?

[Guest LarryP]

I recall reading or hearing that many of these encounters by Forestry Service Rangers are not kept in any official files. That way they don't have to send them in if they get a request under the FOIA, as it only pertains to official files. I think I recall they were considered "personal" files and not kept in any central location but rather kept at individual stations offices.

 

Which is why NARCAP exists for pilots.

[dmaker]

 

Do you think there is anything testable in the reports Dmaker?

 

No. You disagree?  Please demonstrate.

 

 

From wiki:

"Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means thatcounterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist"

Edited June 5, 2014 by dmaker

[southernyahoo]

Some reports and legends suggest there is a type of being that makes a particular sound described in a single word. It is found in literature, legend and contemporary reports reputed to be made by a wildman or Sasquatch.

 

Hypothesis....There is a biological entity that makes this sound and often heard by people. The sound could be made by a known animal and is therefore falsifiable.

 

To test.......conduct audio surveys to collect possible examples of the sound and confirm with witnesses of it's similarity or compare with other previously recorded example also suspected to be from a bigfoot..

[Guest]

That nuisance of a word "evidence"...what can we do with it?

 

Lets pretend gorillas are a intelligent species with their own advanced society. The jungles in which they dwell are their cities, and our cities are inhospitable jungle. Lets say that they are having an issue with gorillas reporting sightings of soft, bipedal, humanoids. The scientists among them scoff at the claims and demand PROOF. What proof can the layman gorillas provide?

 

Here we are, all over the planet and a gorilla couldn't prove that we exist. Have there been any reports of humans being left in the jungles thus giving gorillas a chance to prove we exist?

 

All of this is said to show that perhaps we simply don't have the means to prove BF exist? Yeah I know, we are the pinnacle of this planet and our science is infallible, but so far we haven't done so. What is the reason? There's only two explanations I can come up with. Either our science is insufficient to prove they exist, as a species more primitive than us would encounter, or if that isn't the case and BF is as I assume not as advanced as we are and are receiving HELP from someone who is more advanced than we.

[Trogluddite]

I recall reading or hearing that many of these encounters by Forestry Service Rangers are not kept in any official files. That way they don't have to send them in if they get a request under the FOIA, as it only pertains to official files. I think I recall they were considered "personal" files and not kept in any central location but rather kept at individual stations offices.

That is an accurate statement as to how the Freedom of Information Act and most state FOI acts, which tend to parallel the FOIA, works.  (Yep, did quite a bit of this law as well.)  

 

If an agency maintains an official system of records, they are potentially releasable.  If I, an agency employee, maintain my own notebook to keep track of such things as a matter of personal interest, such notes don't have to be released.  

[Guest WesT]

Do you find my argument unreasonable?

Reports that state claims like sassy climbing on your roof or damaging your fence in urban/suburban neighborhoods with no corroboration from neighbors or police reports when property damage is claimed. 

I find your argument flawed yes. What you're describing are police reports where a homeowner has called the police to report vandalism of their home and/or property and a homeowner would need this police report to make an insurance claim. So imagine a homeowner turning in a police report to their home insurance agency to make a claim and the police report say's a BF is responsible for said damage...........      "Claim Denied".

[ohiobill]

So your argument is that the reason folks with sassy frolicking on their roofs or tearing up their fences not calling the police or taking a picture of sassy is mainly due to insurance coverage limitations? Is the insurance cabal also responsible for silencing the neighbors of these unfortunate people who are the targets of urban sassy?

[Guest WesT]

No. My line of thinking on this is, any homeowner in their right mind wouldn't file an insurance claim with a police report attached to it that stated an unproven creature was responsible for said damage. Homeowners want to collect on an insurance claim don't you agree?

[ohiobill]

Wouldn't their insurance cover it regardless? Would your insurance company cover it if a bear or human caused the damage? 

I still don't understand what is keeping the people having these encounters from grabbing photos and why wouldn't their neighbors be noticing the destruction and calling the police?

[ohiobill]

Do you think that folks are currently paying out of pocket in these situations since they can't involve the police?