What's The Deal With Proponents?

[dmaker]

"That is not at all difficult to do" could not be a bigger marker of someone who isn't engaging the evidence on any significant level.  One might just as well get a t-shirt made.

 

People with no experience of great apes in the wild are giving detailed descriptions of great-ape morphology and behavior, commonly known only to primatologists.  In many cases these descriptions predate the confirmation of similar features by primatologists for the known great apes.  (Only one example:  the first ape to be confirmed as eating meat?  Sasquatch.)

 

"Large number of reports that have completely incongruent features?"  bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong.  See, you gotta show you're keeping up rather than fishing for absurd numbers that don't reflect, basically, anything.

 

LOL. Sasquatch confirmed eating meat?? That is a good one. Sasquatch has not even been confirmed to exist much less anything else, yet you are claiming "confirmed" traits?  Wow..

Edited October 20, 2014 by dmaker

[salubrious]

I've already answered your question, in one form or another. The physical descriptions that I have read describe a large ape--with some variations here or there. That is not at all difficult to do. And,here is where it gets a bit tricky, if I am correct and bigfoot does not exist then you did not, in fact, see a couple of them lounging in the middle of the road, but instead imagined it ( submitted with due respect and not intended to ridicule). In which case the details can be conjured out of what you imagine a large ape to look like. It is no shocking notion, to me, that most people will imagine a large ape in mostly the same fashion.

 

There is also a large number of reports that have completely incongruent features. How do you explain those? Perhaps the frailty of human recall and perception? Perish the thought. Bigfoot witnesses are infallible. 

 

As far as my estimation at the chance of bigfoot existing? Perhaps I should have used a more ludicrous number like 0.000000000000001%  Is that better?

 

Let me be clear: the chance of bigfoot existing is, in my opinion, essentially zero.  I don't know for a fact that it does not exist, but the chance of me being wrong is essentially zero. Hence why I gave you a number close to zero.  I should have used a more ridiculous number it seems.

 

First, the latter: essentially zero or actually zero? So your position is similar to that of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the population of the Universe is zero, due to the fact that the actual population is 0.something with so many zeros that any significant digits out there are likely the figment of someone's imagination?

 

Of course you don't know me, so my credibility must therefore be zero, but from my perspective of course your response is also equally merit-less as it fails to address the question at all ('large ape' is a poor descriptor for starters- when you see them, they don't look like apes! Seriously, the best description is that they look like a person in a Bigfoot costume, a really good BF costume). Instead as a distraction you want all the divergent reports explained. I will do that: they represent the minority of reports, falling off the bell curve. That there is a bell curve is significant.

 

Interestingly also, apparently there are a lot of reports/encounters that have occurred because someone sighted a BF while in a vehicle. In that regard my sighting/encounter is not that unusual. And FWIW, they were certainly not lounging! The act of lounging suggests a chilled state of being, and they were anything but chilled!  

 

I get that you simply don't accept any of the evidence thus produced, and given the extraordinary nature of BF,  I see that as a perfectly reasonable response. There is IMO no good way to resolve the BF Existence Dilemma as a result, unless by some amazing chance you have your own encounter. That's really it in a nutshell. Prior to my own experience I gave BF no thought or credibility either right up to the point where I was confronted by their reality. That BTW is the sole reason I am active here at all. This site has been really nice in the respect that I have met others (online) that have also had encounters, and their descriptions describe the creatures I saw extremely well. How could they know what the things that I saw looked like?? There really are not many viable explanations and BF being real is one of the few.

[Guest DWA]

I think we have already tried to explain a bell curve to bigfoot skeptics.  What it is about them:  they don't understand bell curves any more than they understand any other aspects of evaluating evidence.

[hiflier]

One of few here that doesn't, actually (what it is about bigfoot skeptics:  with everything/turn turn turn/they find a reason/ turn turn turn...)

 

That is so not true...

 

Not changing my steadfast stalwart From Post One principle here, which is:

 who cares about ANY one report...?

 

I do. And you should....

 

This field and don't we see it here all the time gets led down blind alley after blind alley by the silly focus on The Latest Thing (usually a piece of trash, but hey).

 

Hey, ain't no blind alley on this. But it IS trash. Read the report.

 

Dang if I am looking for it, ferpetesake.  I honestly have better things to do.  Put it in front of me, right here, at the very least.

 

This is not good- and you're not looking good right now Mr. "I've-read-all-the-reports." That means you've read this one as well? Doubt it. And you complain about dmaker not reading? Give it a rest.  It evidently DIDN"T raise an eyebrow with you though which tells me you either just glossed over it like the rest.......Or......you DIDN"T read it at all. Which is it? Please tell me you've thoroughly read ALL the reports.

 

I might humor you then; but I guarantee you the humor will come with:

 One report.  Don't mean nuthin'.

 

But that's where your logic falters. One report should be all a person like you needs to support you're position. That said one report IS as important as 5,000. Especially THIS report. Am I jogging that memory sufficiently enough yet?

Edited October 20, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

And not telling me what report one is talking about.  OK.  Look, games may be fun but I don't come here to play some of them, and this is one.  One has to love this:  OK, Mr. Read-All-The-Reports:  which one am I thinking about NOW...?

 

(Of course I have read it...whichever one it is.)

 

No, my logic is pretty airtight on this one.  Anyone can fake, lie, hallucinate or whatever ONE report.  When you are telling me that the volume and consistency are all attributable to that...well, you better prove that, because otherwise it's risible in the extreme.

 

Sorry, but I do things that are worth my time.  This:  so not.

 

I really wish folks would get up on how to think about this, I really do.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,
 

And not telling me what report one is talking about.  OK.  Look, games may be fun but I don't come here to play some of them, and this is one.  One has to love this:  OK, Mr. Read-All-The-Reports:  which one am I thinking about NOW...?
 
(Of course I have read it...whichever one it is.)

But I already told you which one and even where to find it....so....you've got time to repeat yourself 6800 times? Then you've got time to look this up. It might take a guy with your experience in report reading about a minute or less to put your finger on it. Why are you being so difficult about this. You could've easily found this when I first posted instead of wasting time composing reasons why you won't. You're making no sense here.
 
No, my logic is pretty airtight on this one.  Anyone can fake, lie, hallucinate or whatever ONE report.  

 

That should tell you something....you're getting warmer. Isn't this fun?

 

When you are telling me that the volume and consistency are all attributable to that...well, you better prove that, because otherwise it's risible in the extreme.

 

Never said that, nice try.
 
Sorry, but I do things that are worth my time.  This:  so not.

 

Obviously wasting my and your time telling me why you won't follow through on this is a better use of your time. Fabulously unreasonable logic. No one is going to swallow that for the umpteenth time.
 
I really wish folks would get up on how to think about this, I really do.

 

Yes let's all get up on the practiced art of avoidance.  I think we all need to know how to waste bandwidth and could take some serious lessons from you. Tell you what.......Instead of responding here.....read the report.

Edited October 20, 2014 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

The 0.05% is a made up number that accounts for the fact that I am not omniscient. It is a meaningless number, much like most of the numbers tossed around here.

I guess the " Fisher " comment was wasted then..

Let me be clear: the chance of bigfoot existing is, in my opinion, essentially zero. I don't know for a fact that it does not exist, but the chance of me being wrong is essentially zero..

No no no no.

0.5% is nowhere near 0% dm ..

0.5% is 1/200, 2/400, 20/4,000, 400/80,000, 800/160,000, 8,000/1,600,000, **** healthy numbers right there for sure.

0% is 0/200, 0/400, 0/4,000, 0/80,000, 0/160,000 and 0/1,600,000.

Isn't it horrible when people take a flippant comment so literally dm ?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49084-1-in-10000-sasquatch-sightings-are-likely-to-be-true/

Edited October 20, 2014 by BobbyO

[hiflier]

Hello BobbyO,

 

Hmm. Looks like hardliners from both camps are taking a bit of a beating here wouldn't you say? Dmaker somewhere around a non-zero and DWA who's bell doesn't sound off when reading a non-vetted report.  and can't tell the difference between none being true, all being true, or only some being true. And even if some are true I don't think he knows which ones. I can say the same about dmaker. They are both blinded by what I call an artifact of perception.

 

What I will say is that at least for dmaker there is the lack of scientific proof on his side. But for DWA there are folks like yourself that have seen them. Maybe that's why he won't read report ID 992565 in the JWG d/b. He will if I post the report's contents as will everyone else but apparently won't until I do. Probably just as well.

Edited October 20, 2014 by hiflier

[sheri]

Then why don't you just post it hiflier ? You have no room to talk seeing how you constantly go after DWA. I don't think dmaker needs your help. Lack of scientific proof means nothing to those of us who have seen them. So what dmaker thinks means nothing to us either.Then there are people who know someone who has seen one and believe them because they know the person and know the person is honest. Of which I believe DWA has mentioned before, he knows such a person and if 1 person has seen one then so have other's. To just ignore this fact or think everyone is hullucinating, making crap up, or seeing some other animal is ridiculous.

[hiflier]

Hello sheri,

 

Hey there! It's been a while since we've spoke, hope you're doing well. And no, I won't post the report. I've given it's location which is actually on this Forum on the "In The Field" board under "Applied Scientific Methods". Ya can't miss it. It's easy for anyone to find. I've given the ID number and everything. If DWA doesn't want to make that little tiny bit of effort for that tiny little bit of time then it says a lot to me about what he says about himself. So no, I won't post it. He's wasted ten times the effort at saying "no" to become rather humorously ridiculous and it's becoming fun for me now to see how much more time he will waste saying "no". It's a guy thing.

 

This isn't about what dmaker or DWA think is true; it's way bigger than that and if DWA would take a moment to look at the report he'd SEE that. Ever see the set up where the person at the grocery store pulls the bottom grapefruit from the grapefruit pyramid? What happens? Yep, it all comes down. Consider that scenario as possibly being a fair metaphor to report #992565. Not that everything will fall apart but the report is something I liken to that one grapefruit. There are some here who have pieced this together already and some who haven't.

 

DWA never will if he doesn't read and vet the report. When he does I think he'll actually smile a bit. Hey you have to admit this IS a puzzle, a mystery of sorts. I think it good to have one every now and then. Besides it's not like I haven't given any clues is it? I invite you to jump in and have a look at how ol' hiflier thinks. Once someone gets this I'll start a new thread. It too will be about proponents; but it will go down a completely different path. So lighten up. Believe me the serious stuff will be later.

Edited October 21, 2014 by hiflier

[dmaker]

http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/(S(naszfiyo34yse5ubvnavlgym))/SearchResult.aspx?i_incident_id=992565

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

 

*sigh*

 

Ah well, fun while it lasted. Now it will be easier for DWA to vet it so I guess It's a good thing. Thanks.

 

It's also nice to know that If anyone needs to see a report then just as a hardline skeptic and voila'!. Nice move.

 

Could be time for me to start that thread, eh?

Edited October 21, 2014 by hiflier

[David NC]

I do not get it. The only thing I seen in that was a location which is the edge of a recreational area? If you stand at that location you are on the edge of a baseball field in Canonsburg, PA. That ball field is surrounded by some very large suburbs with not enough trees for anything to hide behind. If that is the factual data and not changed to save some ones privacy I would pass that report over and keep looking.

[hiflier]

Hello David NC,

 

Not to worry. Remember, this supposedly occurred 23 years ago. Things change? I won't say more here as at this point I WOULD be off topic. I only mentioned this in this thread because I am of the opinion that proponents need to do more for their cause than just READ reports. They need to UNDERSTAND the reports. Stay with it and you'll see where this goes............it's new thread time. The title may surprise some.

 

See? More mystery. After all it IS almost Hallowe'en isn't it?

 

BOOOWWAAAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I would agree that such beliefs are extremely difficult to support, for a variety of reasons. It is extremely important to establish that proponents of the hypotheses you mentioned are the minority where bigfoot supporters are concerned, and that it would be fallacious to dismiss the entire theory based on the opinions of the minority. I understand that you were not engaging in such behavior, or even suggesting it, and I only mention it because I am sure it does occur among certain non-believers. Even though I do not attribute any supernatural abilities to sasquatch, I think it is important to attempt to understand why some might believe such things. I have discovered that often times there are more gullible individuals who hop on any and every conspiracy bandwagon. If it has been proposed, they take it as fact. I think it is this type of behavior which leads some to take the beliefs of others where supernatural sasquatch are concerned and adopt them as their own, even though the evidence is more sparse than that which is available for bigfoot as a whole.

 

Considering the entire body of evidence for the existence of sasquatch, whether one believes it is sparse or extensive, it cannot be argued that the paranormal aspect arises in anything but the smallest percentage of that available evidence. Thus it stands to reason that one would be more justified in placing their faith in that evidence which is the most expansive, as it has a larger probability of being accurate. Then there are those who attribute paranormal or supernatural abilities to bigfoot based on their own personal experiences. It cannot be claimed that these people are making a mistake by basing their opinions on the small percentage of the supernatural sasquatch evidence that is available, or that they are simply riding the bandwagon in that respect, because their belief is from direct experience, which is the most powerful form of personal evidence available. These people are much more justified in their beliefs, whether they are correct or incorrect.

 

I believe that the potential for error in their experiences arises from misinterpreting those personal experiences. As a general rule people know what they've experienced. I do not doubt that they experienced something in the majority of these instances, but that they are possibly attributing their own fear response to something like infrasound, or are somehow misinterpreting one of the many biological reactions that occur when one is experiencing a frightening or strange event for which they have no comparison in their lives. Having seen a sasquatch, and knowing the emotions that I felt, I can confidently say that fear is definitely a factor. And the fear that I experienced was extremely primal, and was unlike the fear response I am accustomed to experiencing. I attribute this to the novelty of my experience, caused by an external stimulus but that takes place internally, within my brain and body, as opposed to being caused by an external stimulus that somehow controls what is going on internally. The former makes more sense than the latter.

 

If people were accustomed to having these types of experiences, and were thus more attuned to their potential reactions, then I would be much more receptive to the idea that these individuals knew exactly what was occurring throughout their sighting, but considering they have no everyday experiences to which they can draw a comparison, I feel that they are much more likely to misinterpret what is going on. This is how I justify my belief that people usually are correct in their judgements when seeing a sasquatch, yet how they can be incorrect when trying to interpret the non-physical and highly subjective elements of the experience.

 

Moving on, let's take some of the more plausible ideas, such as bigfoot having a pet of some kind. That is an experience that is not highly subjective, as the witness would be observing a physical occurrence, and there is no need for interpretation. Now if that witness attempted to explain why bigfoot had a pet, that would be much more subjective in that it is opinionated. Do I believe that bigfoot keeps pets? No, I don't. Do I believe it is possible, or that in isolated incidents such a thing could occur? Of course. Even chimpanzees and gorillas, and probably other primates, when in captivity and thus in a position to be exposed to more human behaviors, keep pets insofar as they are allowed. This has been documented. Even animals in the wild that have a predator-prey relationship have been known to form friendly relationships. So to think that a highly intelligent animal like sasquatch could not, in isolated incidents, take a wild animal as a pet is ridiculous. The main variable would likely be the wild animal itself, the pet, as opposed to the sasquatch. The sasquatch would be the animal attempting to "domesticate" the other animal, and whether the sasquatch succeeds will be largely dependent on the receptivity of the intended pet. I mean bigfoot is likely smart enough to know how to attempt to feed an animal, and sometimes that is all that is necessary, over an extended period of time, to form a master-pet relationship.

 

So the idea of a pet and the more "out there" idea of telepathy are not comparative in their likelihood. I gave some of my reasons for believing adherents to bigfoot and supernatural beliefs are incorrect in their judgements, and why I think they make such mistakes, but I don't want to end this post without pointing out that there are other reasons that people might hold such beliefs. I do not want anyone to think that I am insulting their beliefs by stating that they are "riding the bandwagon" for instance. There are few such individuals that I have noticed on this site, although I have noticed them in greater numbers on other sites, so I know they exist. This website, despite the fact that there is a major rift between believes and non-believers, is quite unique in my opinion, and the vast majority of our members are logical people, and the relationship among the various types of personalities seems to "work." Although I never understood why non-believers, not skeptics, would frequent a bigfoot site, I am quite glad that they do. Disagreements exist even among bigfoot believers, but without anyone to argue for the non-existence of bigfoot we would likely neglect that argument altogether...and it is pretty much THE main argument where the entire world is concerned. And even if one believes in a supernatural bigfoot, and I do not happen to agree with you, do not let the beliefs of others dictate your own beliefs. I would rather someone alter their beliefs based on good reasoning and arguments as opposed to intimidation or "riding the bandwagon," as I stated earlier. I just think that some people will be apt to hide their beliefs because everyone else disagrees with them, when they should not do this.