hiflier Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Hello All, For myself I see no benefit in continuing this thread much further. Suffice it to say I share some of the sentiments posted here. But most I appreciate those who understood the underlying principles brought out and hope this serves as encouragement to do the deeper work and work with clearheaded thinking and an eye for detail. I think it important to not become jaded but instead have a resolve to take the time when doing the research. Take a report, or a group of reports from a region or single source, and read carefully. It's like following an author or a movie director to see what else they've written or produced. Look into the author of a report, try to get some history perhaps. For myself? I'm going back to John Green's database and look for more examples of encounters where folks walked away with physical evidence. And then.....well.....just do what I usually do......dig deeper. One never knows what one will find. @DWA, For yourself you may not necessarily need this sort of stuff but if I'm lucky enough once in a while to reach a source that has physical evidence I'd be happy to let you know. It's always interesting to think about what could come of such finds. Maybe we can all share anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Hiflier: I'd love that. It's just that I think that we'll get to the answer quicker if we follow what's defined by the normal curve the evidence seems to be creating. NAWAC is doing that. If they could actually spend real time out there we'd know by now. Shoot, we oughtta take up a collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, The curve as you put it hasn't really done all that much so OK, I'll get to work. ....The reports have frequency and coherence, Frequency? Definitely! Coherence? Not always. Edited October 24, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Hiflier, here is a subset of class A sightings: -witness only submits one sighting -witness was not brave or reckless -no evidence, pics, video -witness does not wish to be identified -no claims of ongoing activity That is a big chunk of them, heck it might be most. It will not lead to many lies, but it will not lead to BF either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Divergent1: but you have already told me you don't read them. Forming an opinion about what they are without reading them - or standing idly by and not touching them and saying there is nothing we can do here - is the sloppy thinking. The opinion I, a few others here, and a number of scientists by the way, have formed reading them has been formed by a rigorous scientific approach. We are engaging the evidence, the only way science ever moves off the dime to proof. Now, if by "valid body of evidence" you mean proof, that is also sloppy thinking and indulged in by too many here. The constant confusion of compelling evidence with proof is flat stagnating this discussion. The reports have frequency and coherence, which makes them, in scientific terms, inherently compelling. Thousands are seeing something; are coming forward against a wall of ridicule to report it; most of them were among the ridiculers before they saw one...and you are saying nothing can be done with them? What value, then, does science add to the community at large? Answer: this is the value it adds. What it does elsewhere it must do here. As Bindernagel and Meldrum correctly point out, scientists have an obligation to address this subject that they are not living up to. Once again: thousands of sightings; thousands of tracks; all internally consistent; and a film and associated tracks that tie the sightings and footprints together in the neatest conceivable way. Sloppy thinking is coming to the logical conclusion? I don't think so. The way to separate the chaff from the wheat is painfully obvious. Bigfoot researchers, to the shame of the professional scientific community, are showing the way. And it is called fieldwork. Inc1, take something for that. MIB is right, and it is getting tiresome. Oh I have read some of them, not all 10,000, but when I first got here I spent a lot of time reading what was here and then on other sites. I've said before I'm more impressed with clusters of reports in the same geographical area and time frame. Especially if the witnesses don't know each other, have similar reports, and without those reports being contaminated by a local news story. If some of the reports are false then it does jeopardize the body of evidence as a whole. That means you can't depend on the frequency and consistency unless you rule out a few things during the interviewing process. I would place more relevance on personal interviews than I would phone interviews because the researcher can get a feel for the area, the dynamics of the family, and better clarify details. I agree that the sheer number of reports indicates that people are seeing something, and that is what makes this topic interesting. I am not going to sit up on a forum dedicated to bigfoot and tell a witness they didn't see what they say they saw. That is totally insulting, however, it doesn't have anything to do with whether I believe them or not. My opinion has nothing to do with their experience as they perceived it and subsequent belief. I might be wrong because all I am basing that opinion on is intuition, intuition based on a lot of missing variables. Which leads me back to your stated position. All I'm saying is your reasoning for accepting all of the reports unequivacally as evidence is not scientific since vetting reports requires a lot of time, energy, money, and training to do it correctly. It can't be done simply by reading a report. Like everyone else, you simply have an opinion. I don't have an issue with your opinion but with the process that you describe using to arrive at that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 No, it can't be done by reading one. It has to be done by reading A LOT of them; by putting one's experiences of animals, people, the wilderness and the woods to work on them; thinking about, given what one has read, what a 100% false positive would require; and most importantly, stacking each new report against everything else, not doing a "truth or trash?" assessment that is generally impossible. And again: no one's talking about proof, or about "accepting" all of them "unequivocally". But one is talking about being able to do zero with them from an armchair. The simplest and cheapest and best way to do them is the way NAWAC is doing it...and that is a way that, yes, requires a lot more time energy and money than NAWAC can bring to bear given that it's totally pro bono. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Hello DWA, ....The simplest and cheapest and best way to do them is the way NAWAC is doing it...and that is a way that, yes, requires a lot more time energy and money.... LOL. What was that? Some kind of tricky bait 'n switch logic there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 If Keating fabricated a encounter to make himself more significant, then I have to wonder if he wouldn't fabricate details in the sighting reports in his newsletter to make them more interesting to his readers. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 No, it can't be done by reading one. It has to be done by reading A LOT of them; by putting one's experiences of animals, people, the wilderness and the woods to work on them; thinking about, given what one has read, what a 100% false positive would require; and most importantly, stacking each new report against everything else, not doing a "truth or trash?" assessment that is generally impossible. And again: no one's talking about proof, or about "accepting" all of them "unequivocally". But one is talking about being able to do zero with them from an armchair. The simplest and cheapest and best way to do them is the way NAWAC is doing it...and that is a way that, yes, requires a lot more time energy and money than NAWAC can bring to bear given that it's totally pro bono. Don't you do your report reading from an armchair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2014 I know I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Don't you do your report reading from an armchair? Why, of course I do. But unlike some people here, I bring much else to the table. Still waiting to hear what that is, for, you know, some people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Oh, so for the rest of us mere mortals, we can do nothing from an armchair, but you, well that is different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Oh, so for the rest of us mere mortals, we can do nothing from an armchair, but you, well that is different? I guess our arm chair fu isa weaka sauce!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 ^^ Apples and Ganymede...how stuff works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Yep, baby elephants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts