Jump to content

1 In 10,000 Sasquatch Sightings Are Likely To Be True.


Recommended Posts

Bonehead74

"Bears are most likely to be mistaken for a man-like creature, he said. But very rarely, perhaps one in 10,000 sightings is a Sasquatch."

Dr.Meldrum

I saw this quote from Dr.Meldrum from the recent Honobia Bigfoot Conference. (http://okwnews.com/news/whatzup/106158-honobia-bigfoot-conference.html )

What is most instructive here is that the above "quote" is actually an excerpt from the article, and not a direct quote from Dr Meldrum. Whether this was understood by dmaker when he started this thread is something I can only speculate about. Context is key in cases like this, and as Meldrum's email to Wingman1 shows, there was no context because he never made the "quoted" statement to begin with.

Soooo...

Five pages debating a statement that was never made. Bigfootery is nothing if not consistent.

Edited by Bonehead74
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
BFF Donor

Having read every BF sighting report I can get my hands on since becoming interested in the topic I tend to think based on the narrative of many reports that more BF are initially misidentified as bears than the other way around.    We expect to see bears in the woods.     The report narrative usually says the witness sees what they assume is a bear until it either stands up and walks away on two legs or it is already upright then walks away on two legs by doing something unlike a bear.     You skeptics are going to love this:   A non believer is not going to see a brown shaggy thing, and jump the conclusion it is anything but a bear until it does something very unbear like, like walk away an extended distance on two legs or the witness gets a good look at it to change the first impression of the witness.    A believer is likely to assume anything, including a bear is a BF, because he really wants to see one,   until it does something unbigfoot like as walking away on all 4s or they see the snout and shoulders of a bear.   Hopefully at that point a believer is still objective and identifies it as a bear.      A BF that stays down on all 4 is more likely to be identified as a bear by either believers or non believers in any situation of limited visibility or great distance.     Any numbers to quantify the misidentification rate is pure conjecture if the animal, no matter what it is, does nothing to distinguish itself, and contradict the first impression.    A BF that ambles off on all 4s then goes out of sight is likely to be never identified for what it is since they commonly turn away and walk off.    Like wise an upright bear that goes out of sight may not be identifiable as such either.   Our brains recognize anything by comparing what we see to what we have experienced in the past or seen in books and pictures.    The brain sort of does a mental cross out thing, crossing stuff off the list of possible things until there is something similar in memory to what a witness is seeing and the brain accepts that recognition.    In most cases that is a bear since few have seen a BF.    

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Xion Comrade

Looks like someone has totally taken his words out of context, but if not those numbers are absolutely ridiculous and expose him as a lackluster researcher. If you ask me people are going to mistake bigfoot for bears(When they aren't outright missing and ignoring signs of in-your-face activity altogether, which is what almost always happens) rather than the other way around...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to see why you're focussing on the 9,999 and not the 1 ?

Exactly! How many have to be true for the Big guy(and gal) to be real?

 

 

I think it was probably an off the cuff remark as well...............I didnt hear the quote say anything about a study

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lightheart

I think a lot of in your face evidence gets ignored, XC ......most are hiking , birding, running, riding a bike, looking at their cell phones, listening to music, etc. Bigfoot does not exist in the everyday reality of most people.

As you know they are extremely stealthy. The ones in my area of the state seem to have ducking down to a science. If you didn't know they were there you would think you had imagined even what you just saw. Even as tall as they are they can duck and be super low to the ground in a matter of seconds. Then in two steps they are behind a bush or tree. I have caught a glimpse of them twice off about 150 to one side. They have probably done the same thing another forty times and I just didn't see them. They like to know what people in their forest are up to. (:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
MODERATOR

I think a lot of in your face evidence gets ignored, XC ......most are hiking , birding, running, riding a bike, looking at their cell phones, listening to music, etc. Bigfoot does not exist in the everyday reality of most people.

As you know they are extremely stealthy. The ones in my area of the state seem to have ducking down to a science. If you didn't know they were there you would think you had imagined even what you just saw. Even as tall as they are they can duck and be super low to the ground in a matter of seconds. Then in two steps they are behind a bush or tree. I have caught a glimpse of them twice off about 150 to one side. They have probably done the same thing another forty times and I just didn't see them. They like to know what people in their forest are up to. (:

Lightheart

you hit right on top of a nail on this statement. You are not fast enough to look you miss them.

I will be pm'ing you an answer with in the week on what you had asked me.Just give me time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SSR Team

Ahhhh what a surprise, the comment was " a bit of hyperbole ".

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpÉœrbÉ™liË/ hy-PUR-bÉ™-lee; Greek: ὑπεÏβολή hyperbolÄ“, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

A complete waste of bandwidth, as per usual.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh what a surprise, the comment was " a bit of hyperbole ".

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpÉœrbÉ™liË/ hy-PUR-bÉ™-lee; Greek: ὑπεÏβολή hyperbolÄ“, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

A complete waste of bandwidth, as per usual.

I quoted the article directly and provided a hyperlink to the source. Be sure you are directing your ire at the articles author.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did he come up with these numbers if he himself has never sighted one?

 

Hi SB....

 

*touches nose*

 

Meldrum has never publicly stated he has seen a BF, in that you are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MarkGlasgow

Recently had a long discussion with Jeff Meldrum and was taken aback by his passion and enthusiasm for the subject.

He did state that he was no longer interested in 'anecdotal' Bigfoot evidence which may, or in this case may not, have led to the comment that got DMaker so excited.

Meldrum is of course in no position to guess what percentage of sightings are genuine. Ironically when he now has one of his own to add to the pile.

Edited by MarkGlasgow
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...