Consistency In Sighting Reports

[Guest]

Everything BF is consistently inconsistent, when asked to repeat details of a sighting I'm quite certain you will find lots of inconsistencies as well. Far more weight should be given to multiple witness events than a single witness in this field.

[jayjeti]

We can't concern ourselves with 500 years ago.  They saw sea serpents and dragons too, also Griffins.  Did you find anything wrong with the report I created?  The problem is we've long past the point where testimony has value. 

 

That's apples and oranges.  There were a large body of hairy wild men sightings in the 19th and early 20th centuries that are still being seen by a large volume of people today.  How many people actually reported seeing sea serpents long ago and how many are claiming to still see them today?  There is no comparison.  Flying fire breathing dragons is mostly Hollywood.  How many Europeans actually claimed to see them, and how many see them today besides in a movie theater?  This is really a bad comparison.  I read an article last year claiming there had been around 2,300 reported BF sightings in North America since 2007, and it estimated that for every reported sighting 100 might go unreported. If you get the picture its not just a few nut jobs and pranksters.  Many notable people including Park Rangers and law enforcement, including Canadian mounted police have seen them.  There are variables, but the common consistency is unusually tall, hairy, man like creatures.

 

You write, " The problem is we've long past the point where testimony has value."  

 

That is an unusual statement, that those testimonies have no value.  

 

Previously you wrote this, "In today’s world consistency in Bigfoot reports is next to meaningless."

 

These are idealistic statements, not realistic statements.  Of course consistency in reports means something, and multiple testimonies do have value.  You claimed due to video, books, and the Internet the consistency of reports is tainted, but this ease of information is a product of the later half of the 20th century and is therefore a mute point since the consistency of reports go back hundreds of years and are consistent with the reports of today, and to say that is meaningless or has no value is not a sensible argument.

Edited November 11, 2014 by jayjeti

[BobbyO]

 

In today’s world consistency in Bigfoot reports is next to meaningless.  There is far to much information out there in the form of videos, book and internet to have the potential witness truly describing a unique from scratch event. 

 

 

On an individual basis, yes.

 

On a collective basis across hundreds and thousands of reports if analysed thoroughly, utter rubbish.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There are many "consistent" reports from the 1800's and the better part of the 20th century among people who did not have access to video, or books, or the Internet to color their observations, and saying people who give consistent accounts today are somehow tainted by prior knowledge of these descriptions ignores the generations who were exempt from such exposures.   It is not a sound argument for the non-existence of bigfoot, nor is it a good argument against sightings today being consistent with those of yesteryear who were not exposed to this wealth of information, since the consistency is likely because they are witnessing what people long ago also witnessed.

There are stylized sketches and paintings of dragons, Griffins and sea serpents too creating a recognizable images.  Does this mean those creatures were real?  You've missed that I created a phony sighting based just on what I've learned from media.

 

The ease of information gathering is the very reason the Bigfoot myth has ballooned in the last half of the 20th century.  Do you think the Georgia hoax could have had legs if not for mass media?  While the mythology is getting modern events tacked onto it like DNA and heat tracking it goes nowhere and when it does it goes right into the tent under the Bigfoot Circus Bigtop.  In today's world some folks have perfected lying with a straight face.  

Edited November 11, 2014 by Crowlogic

[jayjeti]

 

The ease of information gathering is the very reason the Bigfoot myth has ballooned in the last half of the 20th century. . . .  In today's world some folks have perfected lying with a straight face.  

 

This perfected lying, as you say, is singling out many of us out as liars.  During my first experience I had difficulty believing what I was seeing - a hairy man about 8 feet tall making high pitched screams louder than is possible for a human to make.  

 

This ease of information age has helped people come forward with what they've experienced.  My first experience was in my young adulthood but I rarely ever told others what myself and five others experienced.  This was before the Internet which has ballooned the availability of resources, one of which is helping people like myself come forward and learn more about this phenomenon you call a myth, although in actuality I believe you are wondering if they are real since you are exposing yourself to information that the general public does not entertain.  

[Guest]

“Some lies are more believable that truth.†– Anonymous Gypsy Proverb

If someone is here is spinning tales or creating a Gordian Knot of falsehoods then, call them out.

[MIB]

Hmmm ... if you're going to call someone out, be sure you can prove that they are lying first.    Otherwise, you not only damage someone's reputation, you add to the spirit of dissent and ire that is often pervasive here.   If someone is truly lying, I think they should be thrown out, but if you accuse them and are wrong, you should be thrown out instead.   In other words, we should be cautious about casting the first stone.   That's why I think it best to get someone's whole story ... to judge the whole story, not just the pieces we hope to hear or the pieces we intend not to hear.

 

MIB

[Guest thermalman]

Unfortunately, there is no way of proving a story on a website forum.

[Guest DWA]

On an individual basis, yes.

 

On a collective basis across hundreds and thousands of reports if analysed thoroughly, utter rubbish.

It really gets tiresome to keep hearing that the consistency in the reports is easily explainable as....

 

No it's not; and to say it is is to telegraph that one is thoroughly unfamiliar either with the reports or with thinking about them.

 

Science is analyzing data.  Say what one will, the reports count; and analyzing them is critical to a thoughtful take on this topic.

[Guest]

I agree, Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to say that.

[David NC]

I think the underlying game play on this and scoftics, is that Sasquatch is a human psychological/imagination construct created in the 1950's boosted by the PGF. There is a modern Sasquatch construct and you can see it in the film industry. Riddle me this then, why are the large body of reports not supporting the same thing that the movie industry is portraying as Sasquatch. If the Hollywood Bigfoot construct is the truth then the large body of the reports should be like the boggy creek monster, and the series of other "monster" bigfoot movies. The majority of the reports do not support this. The majority of the reports support an unknown, bipedal, hominid, that is reclusive when faced with human contact and very rarely is aggressive except for defending it's self and young.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Sure is Bobby. Lot's of different versions out there with and without the swaying detail. Listened to a few interviews with Todd and he always stresses the swaying/rocking aspect.

Here's a pretty comprehensive version here:

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/neiss/

For the record CL I reckon I would have filed your report into the BS pile.

Read several similar reports where you can pretty much guess when someone is telling a tale and not relating a genuine experience. The ststoryteller works hard to paint a picture when actually the cold hard facts matter much more than setting the scene.

OTOH most people are not articulate speakers or writers.  I have been both a writer and a trained observer.  Had I been interviewed I would because of my training include many details.  A person's mindset at the time of a sighting can have a huge influence on what they say they saw and interrupt what they saw.

Whats your point Crow? sorry but isnt it common sense that anyone can make up a sighting? and i thought you were done posting here or did i read your post wrong ?

Isn't it common sense that that in today's world there is more than enough information on the subject to fabricate false stories.  As such reportage's are even more suspect now than ever before.

[Guest Crowlogic]

On an individual basis, yes.

 

On a collective basis across hundreds and thousands of reports if analysed thoroughly, utter rubbish.

Negative on the rubbish Bobby.  Folks can add sighting after sighting with all of the necessary details and still they are fake but can add to a mountain of uniformity.  If I want to say I saw an elephant in my back yard I won't say it was pink, I'll say it was gray because that's what the conscientious demands.

This perfected lying, as you say, is singling out many of us out as liars.  During my first experience I had difficulty believing what I was seeing - a hairy man about 8 feet tall making high pitched screams louder than is possible for a human to make.  

 

This ease of information age has helped people come forward with what they've experienced.  My first experience was in my young adulthood but I rarely ever told others what myself and five others experienced.  This was before the Internet which has ballooned the availability of resources, one of which is helping people like myself come forward and learn more about this phenomenon you call a myth, although in actuality I believe you are wondering if they are real since you are exposing yourself to information that the general public does not entertain.  

My connection to the subject stems from long ago when the field was a mystery still with possibilities to be real.  I don't wonder if they are real now.  I will call a few footers liars as they have been proven to be liars and hoaxers.  I still maintain that people can see things and report them as something else for any number of reasons.

[salubrious]

Crow, not to put you on the spot, but heck, this is the BFF and we're all good friends-

 

How do you parse out my story? Any questions you would like to ask?? Would it make any difference at all what the answers are?

 

Unfortunately, there is no way of proving a story on a website forum.

 

My story can't really be proven out at all, forum or no. I can tell you this though (not that its worth anything either): my friends believe me, but that is only because they know me.

[jayjeti]

 

My connection to the subject stems from long ago when the field was a mystery still with possibilities to be real.  I don't wonder if they are real now.  I will call a few footers liars as they have been proven to be liars and hoaxers.  I still maintain that people can see things and report them as something else for any number of reasons.

 

I have to believe that some part of you wonders if they could be real.  Maybe you've reached the conclusion it's all fantasy, misidentification, and lies but you probably still wonder a little.  Here are some things that should give you pause.  There are over 60 different names for this creature among the various North American Indian tribes who all have legends of these manlike hairy people.  Most of the non-native people who have had encounters know little to nothing about these Indian legends and are not influenced by them.  Among the thousands of sighting reports over the "centuries" there are some very credible people who witnessed these things with others, sometimes groups of people seeing this creature.  And on this site you can converse with a number of people who have encountered it.  Last June I made two footprint casts 17 inches long in a wilderness area of SW Oregon.  We were not traveling on a trail, we were roughing it through the forest, and there was very little debris in the tracks meaning they were not old.  There was no one out there where we were that would have made them for us to find.