Campsite Destroyed

[clubbedfoot]

Morning CF, You got it partly correct. Let’s try it again, I’ve said from the beginning there is no evidential proof period. To rise to that level accusers have to meet the evidential burden to even raise that question in court just for instance. What everyone seems to confuse evidence with is circumstantial opinion of proof absent compelling proof yes, evidence is fact, fact is evidential truth, opinions are circumstantial and based on personal opinion.

 

Somebody says the incident here but somebody else says oh yes, we went there but local people have different references or names of things around so we went to the general area and found nothing. Is that evidence? No. Is that an investigation?

 

Somebody says I seen something, somebody asks where and the voice says by Yacolt, near Sunset Falls but to locals the area is Muppet Mountain. So there is admitted confusion from the onset. The search team says as much in the document. When they do a final search it comes a month later after excessive rain and they still failed to locate anything.

 

Then there is the document and 17 things embedded in that paper that wrongly skewed objective opinion.  Here is a brief illustration of how damaging and one sided the document was. Just follow a brief scenario.

 

Illustration Example:

 

If you applied for a job and the somebody (employer) hired me to check you out and I agreed, but he says hold on second I reserve the right like or pass on any applicants. I’ll give you two piles to check and clean meaning investigate and complete.

 

In this pile they are good and this pile are candidates that I don’t particularly care for. I don’t care what you do but I don’t like their neighborhood, I don’t like their personal looks or physical attributes maybe I like their answers but they have the right educational and experience background or maybe they were born or bred of the right stock.

 

My client tells me to investigate using five different objective points and they name for me, and they are:

 

There is no evidence that I could find

Did not occur or not have occur

Could not have occurred

Confusion

Hoax

 

My client also instructs to me to be fair but interject those terms 17 times. When I am doing some walk and talks I am interjecting those five terms listed above the candidate doesn’t get the job because everyone believes what they heard or read rather than pull back the curtains. When I am and closing out my investigation with any references or character references you listed and I prod and poke for answers and once again I hint and use those terms leading my questions to your references.  When I am finished everyone spoken to or receiving a correspondence from has a completely different opinion of you … that is exactly what was employed in that document. You may walk away wondering what happen but the truth of the matter you were intentionally destroyed. Now them what I just shared with you is basic misinformation and disinformation that's how easy and troubling it works. You received for free what costs me money to learn.

 

 

 

So people should just take their word for it? Have no opinion? 

 

I understand the evidentiary question....proving corporial existence of Bigfoot in a court of law ....sans a body....you'd have just as much luck proving tooth fairies are real....

 

Having said that...... in layman's terms.... I think that a big footprint (in conjunction with a person's story) could  be circumstantial evidence that they saw a BF....

Edited May 6, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[Guest]

Point# 1 SC guys are witnesses. What the gentleman claim they observed makes it Direct evidence.

 

Point# 2  What anyone infers from that is called circumstantial evidence. On a two step ladder Circumstantial evidence is the lowest rung on the ladder in law but we're speaking of real life right? 

 

I do as a matter personal opinion believe these thing exist, in fairy tale form but in real form. That is a matter of opinion. Nothing discussed here forces you or anyone else to change their opinion either way CF. I am providing this as a courtesy as a means in the hope that somebody will recognize there is much more to consider than jumping from point A to point Z without anything in between.  On to your question of having a footprint along with circumstantial evidence now, I believe that changes the matter entirely to a whole new step in my opinion of course. 

 

What I brought out yesterday was basically that all along the way some here were passing judgment on two people who may or may not have observed something. Were you present when this sighting occurred? I wasn’t either so how can I find guilt and accuse them of something I have no direct knowledge of? Unless it is my intent to harm or destroy somebody how can I leap from knowing to something that did not occur if I wasn't a direct eye witness to it?

 

Did I read the document sure what I gleaned from the document presented there was:

1. The coordinates did not match where the SC guys claim they did
2. By their own admittance, WASRT identified confusion over local names and references to geographical points 
3. There were obvious issues with what was claimed and the Moon Phase
4. There was confusion over the exact or precise location
5. Communication between SC guys and WASRT broke down
6. WASRT did a recon or preliminary scout of the general area not exact area
7. WASRT did a final check one month later after days of excessive rain and found no evidence   
8. The document was chocked full of negative suggestions by my count there were 17

I believe a foot print or hair samples or freshly broken and or uprooted trees or combination thereof with the sighting would be the pimple to pop, but it didn’t work out like that. But how could you possibly locate footprints weeks later after excessive raining conditions?    

 

I don’t place any fault at the doorstep of WASRT for this however, they demonstrated a willingness to get out and check and called like it was without prejudice either way. It’s unfortunate but things happen.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[clubbedfoot]

And eye witness testimony is highly scrutinized in a court of law....e.g., cross-examination that can offer prior inconsistent statements to impeach witness testimony....you're correct in saying that eyewitness testimony is direct evidence in a court of law.. But that direct evidence in some circumstances has been the exact opposite of the truth and the court frowns upon perjury....

 

But their story is not involved in the legal system.....This isn't a question of guilt or innocence....This is a BF forum where stories should be put under the microscope...

 

 

IMHO....There is no passing of judgment let alone intent to harm or destroy someone by simply stating that I don't >50 % buy into a story that isn't

exactly "airtight"....

Edited May 6, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[Bonehead74]

Point# 1 SC guys are witnesses. What the gentleman claim they observed makes it Direct evidence.

What the gentlemen claim they observed also makes it anecdotal evidence.

Point# 2 What anyone infers from that is called circumstantial evidence. On a two step ladder Circumstantial evidence is the lowest rung on the ladder in law but we're speaking of real life right?

Not to be pedantic, but any inferences one makes are again based on anecdotal evidence.

I am providing this as a courtesy as a means in the hope that somebody will recognize there is much more to consider than jumping from point A to point Z without anything in between.

Your use of the unqualified "somebody" implies that you believe that everyone here who is critical of Wes and Woody's story has been incapable of taking all the known evidence into account and making a judgment without jumping to unwarranted conclusions. That is both presumptuous and condescending.

What I brought out yesterday was basically that all along the way some here were passing judgment on two people who may or may not have observed something. Were you present when this sighting occurred? I wasn’t either so how can I find guilt and accuse them of something I have no direct knowledge of? Unless it is my intent to harm or destroy somebody how can I leap from knowing to something that did not occur if I wasn't a direct eye witness to it?

With such a philosophy, how on earth did you perform your job as a law enforcement officer? How many crimes did you investigate which you were a direct eyewitness to vs. the number where you were dependent on weighing the testimony of a suspect or witness? Was it your practice in the latter cases to take them at their word (especially when you were aware of evidence which directly contradicted their testimony) since you weren't present for the event in question? Edited May 6, 2015 by Bonehead74

[MIB]

plused plused omg plused !!!  thank you

Edited May 6, 2015 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

Does anyone else find it strange that Gumshoeye is attacking the investigators, not the witnesses who are the source of all the confusion as to location, moon phases, and other discrepancies in the report? He wants to apply legal principles to the investigation of BF. That is a poor model to use for something that should be scientific in nature and needs different methodology. As far as witness reports being direct evidence, nearly every week in this country someone in prison is released from wrongful imprisonment because of false statements by witnesses in criminal trials. DNA testing that was not available at the time shows that the perpetrator of the crime was not the person serving time. A well known lawyer defense lawyer in this area constantly reminds people that the legal system is not set up to find truth. In many cases truth is prevented from being given as testimony because it might be prejudicial to the defendant. The legal system is about precedent based case law not truth. And that sort of precedent based system in science perpetuates dogma and discounts truth.

Edited May 6, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[MIB]

YES.   I smell agenda.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Bonehead,

 

An investigators job is to gather as much direct evidence from as many people (plural) as possible.

 

This certainly wasn't the case with Wes & Woody. And certainly isn't the case in a preponderance of BF sightings.

 

However, knock yourself out & 'judge' away.

 

However, you might want to give yourself an out & call it an 'opinion'.

 

In my humble opinion.

[Bonehead74]

You act like making a judgment is some odious act. It's not. It is how we make decisions all day, everyday. We simply weigh our observations, known facts, past experiences, and the word of others to decide where to put our faith.

Is my position an opinion? Certainly, but it is an educated and informed opinion, and one as objective as can be. Are all opinions equally valid? If so, why the hate for mine? If not, why act like an opinion that disregards uncomfortable details is superior to one that attempts take all the known facts into account?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bonehead74

[clubbedfoot]

You act like making a judgment is some odious act. It's not. It is how we make decisions all day, everyday. We simply weigh our observations, known facts, past experiences, and the word of others to decide where to put our faith.

 

mmmm......thinking is bad....mmmm.....okay.....

Edited May 6, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Well, Bonehead, it's one thing to make judgment calls concerning yourself/behavior based on past experiences.  Something entirely different to make judgments about someone else due to not knowing a thing about them & their long term arc in life.

[Bonehead74]

That is foolishness. Sorry. Conmen, grifters, and dishonest types of all stripes can only hope their marks are that naive.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Well, Bonehead, here's a for instance:

You have purple skin <---- a judgement

I think you have purple skin <---- an opinion

[Bonehead74]

YES.   I smell agenda.

 

[Bonehead74]

Well, Bonehead, here's a for instance:

You have purple skin <---- a judgement

 

I think you have purple skin <---- an opinion 

 

That is in no way a judgement as was previously defined:

We simply weigh our observations, known facts, past experiences, and the word of others...

 

Do any of those conditions apply to your unsubstantiated statement of fact that I have purple skin? No, they don't. Judgements rely on at least some raw materials to reach their conclusions. Your example has exactly none. Sorry again.

 

 

ETA: I feel it is important to note that opinions are, by their very nature, based on judgements.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bonehead74