The Ufo Photo/video Numbers Vs Bigfoot

[MNskeptic]

I've spent a fair bit of time absorbing what's available out there on the UFO phenomenon. There is some pretty compelling stuff out there. But, even with a substantially greater body of video and photo evidence vs. the BF phenomenon, not to mention all of the other data that is available re. UFO encounters, just try to use that to convince UFO skeptics or non-believers with that stuff. Like BF, the body of (greater) evidence has convinced how many skeptics of the possibility we are being visited?? Probably not many. The UFO community is going to need a body on a slab, too...and even then I doubt skeptics would be convinced it's not some kind of hoax.

MNskeptic

[Guest]

The only thing UFO's and bigfoot have in common is that photographs of either one are always blurry.

Well that and Sighting Reports by people of all walks of life.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Yes, but in the case of UFOs the sightings don't uniformly line up with what a primatologist or field biologist would consider prime habitat for aliens.

[Guest Divergent1]

Bigfoot sightings lining up with habitat needs on the face of things would seem significant but there are also many other animals that could be mistaken for bigfoot at a distance or in low light conditions that match that profile. Until you rule that out then it really isn't significant. As for profiles for UFO sighting patterns, there are some patterns that might indicate an objective, but just like in bigfoot's case, it is only an assumption.

[Guest DWA]

No, you don't really need to rule that out, and a good read of the sighting reports makes that clear.  Most observers could not have seen anything else that is known to exist in North America.  They clearly describe great-ape features and behaviors, shared by nothing else on the continent.  There's no report that I have read - and I doubt you'll find many, if any, who have read more - that left me with a scintilla of possibility that they saw and misidentified a known animal.  They were badly impaired; flat lying...or they saw what they saw; and I never read anything in a report that would lead me to seriously suspect the first two.

 

It's a well-known psychological principle that people whose minds are operating properly, and the reports leave no reason to believe they weren't, don't see things they are familiar with and morph them into the unknown.  Most sighters' reports make it pretty obvious they just knew this wasn't real.  Until they saw one.  These are the people that are least likely to hallucinate a sasquatch; there is no reason, not even wishful thinking, for them to do so.

 

One doesn't need to rule out a vanishingly-unlikely hypothesis; that's a red herring.  Science has always operated on the principle that an observation is taken at face value unless there is very good reason - and "people see things, you know" isn't - to do otherwise.

[dmaker]

"  There's no report that I have read - and I doubt you'll find many, if any, who have read more - that left me with a scintilla of possibility that they saw and misidentified a known animal.  They were badly impaired; flat lying...or they saw what they saw; and I never read anything in a report that would lead me to seriously suspect the first two."  DWA

 

 

In other words, you believe every report you read? If not a single report has ever left you with the impression of a mistaken identity and you never seriously suspect mitigating factors like dishonesty or intoxication, then you must truly believe every single report you read.   Huh, that explains a lot...

 

 

" It's a well-known psychological principle that people whose minds are operating properly, and the reports leave no reason to believe they weren't, don't see things they are familiar with and morph them into the unknown"  DWA

 

Citation please. I can link to you peer reviewed papers that state exactly the opposite. Human recall is notoriously unreliable. Also, you feel you can discern someones mental health from reading a report on the BFRO?  Seriously? Sub-clinical psychosis can be ruled out by what you read on a bigoot database on the Internet?  That's impressive. 

Edited October 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^And then there's tilting at windmills.  We all have our own windmills, don't we.

[Bonehead74]

No, you don't really need to rule that out, and a good read of the sighting reports makes that clear. Most observers could not have seen anything else that is known to exist in North America. They clearly describe great-ape features and behaviors, shared by nothing else on the continent. There's no report that I have read - and I doubt you'll find many, if any, who have read more - that left me with a scintilla of possibility that they saw and misidentified a known animal. They were badly impaired; flat lying...or they saw what they saw; and I never read anything in a report that would lead me to seriously suspect the first two.

DWA, do you rely on the written reports alone to reach your conclusions, or have you followed up with face-to-face interviews of the witnesses? When doing the latter, I've come across reporters who I deemed were either delusional, lying, or simply unreliable, even though their submitted reports seemed totally legit.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Bonehead74

[Guest DWA]

Doesn't matter.  There's way too many and they're way too consistent; the footprint analysis backs them up; and there's a film that ties both of those together in the neatest way imaginable...and we didn't have nearly this much evidence the day that film was shot (although we still had a LOT).

 

How many interviews have you felt that way about?  That still leaves way too many.

 

My point is that no one has provided a theory for how all of this is happening - other than "unlisted primate" - that either I can buy or that is backed up by evidence.  George Schaller and Jane Goodall haven't gone out and interviewed lots of people...and their take, as scientists, is the same as mine.

 

That evidence coming in weekly lines up perfectly with evidence 50, nay, 150 years old, to me, is telling.

 

My BlueSignature below; Barackman says what I think as well as anyone has.  And he's interviewed LOTS of people.

Edited October 4, 2014 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Plenty to disagree on here, but what I think is also significant is that less people are spending

time in remote areas than 30 years or so ago.  Perhaps this explains why no significant increase in

the bigfoot video captures seems to be occurring, or is it that so many people are being ridiculed

for presenting such video's that people are more wary to present them at all!  My conclusion

of less people spending time in remote locations is based on the fact that we have become

increasingly technology dependent and that has lead to an aversion to remote locations.  Some

of my own decisions have been made strictly based on cell phone availability.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[dmaker]

" Plenty to disagree on here, but what I think is also significant is that less people are spending

time in remote areas than 30 years or so ago. " LCB

 

Where do you get that from?  Sorry, just noticed the answer to my question. You made it up.

Edited October 4, 2014 by dmaker

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Well it didn't take long to verify my assumption,

 

read story below,  Less Americans Spending Time Outdoors, which shows precisely what I am saying, but really the idea was a no brainer, sorry Dmaker.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18698731

[dmaker]

So then why wasn't bigfoot confirmed back when so many more people were roaming the outdoors?   Works both ways, you know...

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Well it was back in 1967, maybe you heard of the film clip

[Guest]

^^^And then there's tilting at windmills.  We all have our own windmills, don't we.

yes you do