Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[Guest DWA]

You know, Crow is just the latest in a string of at least twenty guys Exactly, and I do mean Exactly, like him I've seen on this board.  He hasn't said one original thing in all of the posts I've seen.  Nor is his stance anywhere near original.  The only people to whom his arguments are new are new members of the board and himself.

 

I'm pretty sure that Proselytizing to the Deluded is the sole motivation.  There are few that can keep that up, precisely because it involves saying the same tired stuff over and over (FOOLS FOOLS FOOLS!!!!!  YOU ARE ALL FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLS...!!!!!!!)  OK, thanks, next street corner, bud.

 

Most folks are on here because they have had an experience, or have a general interest in bigfoot.  Others are on here simply because they like messing with the sincere members.  Eventually they tire of their own game and fade away.

 

...borne out by the number on my Ignore list that are now either Inactive or Banned.

 

It's fun to talk reality; perpetuating fantasy in the face of reality apparently gets old, fast (in relative terms).

Edited June 3, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

What a hoot, when 90% of North Americans don't know who Ray Wallace is.  Gotta stop fixating on the dross, Crowbrah.

But 90% of Americans have television, most can read books and go to the movies.  Then there is the internet.  You don't need to know who Ray Wallace was to know how to talk bigfoot sighting.  I knew the lingo way before Wallace came forward.  However the seeds of NABFC were planted by hoaxers.

[Guest DWA]

Doesn't matter.  All sideshow.

[Guest]

Exactly why should bigfootism be awarded such a pass?  When dealing with reasonable topics that carry with them a reasonable catalog of  truth giving the grace of doubt is worthy.  But we're not dealing with a subject that was forged withing the bounds of truth.  It's exactly the opposite.  Virtually every person alive today is aware of bigfoot because of the hoaxing of Ray Wallace.  

 

According to that theory, we logically shouldn't have electricity, due to all the quacky "electric cures" in the mid 19th century invalidating it out of existance.

[guyzonthropus]

Also, access to television, books, movies, and the internet has precious little bearing upon the truthiness of any given subject, especially one that challenges big money industries, land use and allocations, and the notion that we are the dominant life form, not to mention the sole remaining species of the human lineage, and a possible link to the governments involvement with extraterrestrials(depending on how one views things...)

So, just because people have seen FB, saw Harry and the Hendersons("see billy, he's friendly!") maybe even googled "bigfoot" once when no one was watching,doesnt mean they have done so because of Wallace. The main impact he had was to make people who dont really look into the research, reports, and accumulated evidences, trivialize the whole matter, discredit those involved, and not worry about the kids when they go camping.

A good majority of people still believe there is only one...so sightings from the various regions just contribute to the " myth" as what one creature could possibly ger around like that?

In my current view, ray wallace was a foundational element of the agenda of disinformation that shrowds the issue of sasquatch, in that his actions,publicity, and claims served to difuse the momentum of interest and research to a degree. At our current stage, shows such as FB, and the rest, are presenting the beings as something they are not, mere NA primates or wood apes(as well was questionable techniques for encountering them), choosing not to broach any of the traits that might suggest something quite a bit more, somethings that bring into question our society's take on nature, knowledge and ourselves.

[beerhunter]

I don't know about all the bantering, I just got back from a week in Northern Minnesota and had no BF encounters, noises, or sightings.

[ohiobill]

Sounds like fun, how was the fishing?

[beerhunter]

Sounds like fun, how was the fishing?

The fishing was great, caught and released many walleye, ate a few,.and my boat landed it's fill of lake flies.

[ohiobill]

You can keep the flies up there! I love walleye, you're making me envious. Rain has screwed up planting and fishing here in OH. 

[WSA]

We continue to see those who would discount ALL (that would be EVERYthing, sum total, no exceptions, couldn't happen, no way) the sighting reports and the information they contain by fiat. We also get absurd statements from these individuals who posit they believe "1%" of the information contained there, or some similar, trivial fraction.  (Here's some news for the latter group...if you truly believe 1% of the reports, guess what? You believe in Sasquatch 100%)

 

Context is everything on this question of sighting reports. I'm not just talking about any context you can tease out of the details given by the witness but (and here's the really, really, really important part) the context of your own experience.  Those who read these reports and merely go "meh" are telling me they lack the experience and personal context to make sense of them. No fault in that, in and of itself, we all have  led different lives. BUT...if you don't also have the sense to defer to others with broader experience, that is just stubborn pride and pig headedness.  This life is all about knowing who has answers you don't, and listening to them. There are tons of people I listen to, and tons of others I do not. The trick is learning the difference. On this topic, if you've a long stretch of time in one location, you are, in my view, a de facto expert on what goes on in those environs. I'll know if you are by what you choose to describe to the investigator. I know THAT because I've spent time in other places and in other contexts getting similar subject matter expertise. There is no magic to this, or anything particularly extraordinary about it. All of us do it, only some of us acknowledge that it matters is all. 

[ohiobill]

It absolutely matters, just not the way you suggest. It's not magic, it's called bias and you are required to exclude it when you are actually searching for the truth. If you are just playing around I suppose it's ok to apply any filters or context you want. It's certainly not science and it won't advance the field but it it makes you feel better about yourself or the field in general somehow it can't hurt when we are talking about anecdotal evidence that we all know science won't accept. 

 

We know for a fact that all the reports aren't true. We know that sassy isn't seen everywhere it's claimed. We know that every scenario tested so far in a rigorous scientific context has been found wanting. 

[WSA]

The myth of the completely disassociated researcher is just that Bill. We all bring the context of experience to any evidentiary analysis. If fact, too much in the other direction and you get a researcher who can't process the evidence. Every great discovery required observation and applying the context of human experience.  Field research is no different. A researcher who knows his or her bailiwick intimately (and you call that "bias") is going to be an exponentially more efficient and accurate observer. I don't see this axiomatic point as subject to reasonable disagreement. I just don't.  We see many here who do an end-run around the evidence by wanting this to not be true, and it just is not. Am I biased for knowing fire burns and not questioning whether this flame will do the same? Hardly. 

[ohiobill]

Yes, it's bias if you hear an unusual sound similar to an owl on land you are intimately familiar with and ascribe it to sassy with no other reason. It's not the relationship to the surroundings in that example, it's pure personal bias. A rose by any other name...

[WSA]

Oh, granted. But this is not the kind of evidence I find most compelling and gets winnowed out pretty easily. The REAL bias I see on any given day around here is the idea that a sighting is anything BUT what the witness claims it to be. That shuts it down pronto and no learning occurs. I've said this often: People lie in predictable ways, and not many are that good at it either.  You can toss tons of stuff if you chose to do that (and I do) and still come up with some very, very compelling stuff that defies any off-hand explanation. The off-hand explanation is a guaranteed thought-stopper.  Those who let themselves hang-out in that zone of uncertainty though are the ones who will crack this.  No short cuts. No casual dismissals allowed in scientific observation and knowledge. just the slow drip-drip of observation piled on observation and conclusive fact resulting.  At some tipping point, the much vaunted requirement of conclusive proof recedes in significance, or it is at least overtaken by the cumulative evidence. I think we are there.

[ohiobill]

All bias is REAL regardless of whether you realize you are applying it or not and it's sometimes very difficult to control. If you apply yourself you will improve with practice.

 

People, all 7 billion + of us, are unique and have our own agendas and biases. You are applying a bias when you feel you can winnow results down on the basis of your extremely limited experience when dealing with all of humanity and come up with some meaningful conclusions without investigation of evidence. Once you realize your limitations and biases you can design an experiment where your personal bias can be removed as much as possible and you can move forward. Obviously, evidence other than sighting reports will be needed since science won't accept sighting reports when it comes to recognizing a previously unknown animal. As you say, NO SHORT CUTS. Hopefully you will bring your results back here and share!