Guest DWA Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Wrong. Evidence that is substantial in appearance and content is what will find it's way into the media's line of sight. No it won't. Everyone serious about the topic knows that they don't understand what substantial, in appearance or content, even means. They would not know that if they saw it. All of the hoaxes start out good and good looking. Now there's evidence of someone not paying attention. REALLY...???? What crummy evidence real or fake have made it to the general public via the media or even the bigfoot world? All.Of.It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 So far, the only evidence for Bigfoot that has made its way to the media is the PGF. Everything else was just claims. These false claims won't look so good if one applies skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Owl Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What people hoax, think or accept has absolutely no bearing or weight on what eye witnesses have seen or experienced for themselves. What does become very old is having your integrity questioned time and again for only telling the complete truth of what happened to you out there. Yes, the jokers and deceitful charlatans have given the skeptical public plenty of fodder to discredit and reject new information on this subject, but numbers do not lie and never change! If you forensically consider the multitude of documented incidents spanning hundreds years in hundreds of places and the recorded history by the Native People through cave paintings and totem figures, something is lurking about out there that is not easily seen, understood or given to any easy explanation. Something that will probably not change in my remaining lifetime, but is real none the less. I don't consider it a waste of time sharing the truth of things that have happened to me out there with interested folks. What has drastically changed is trying to debate or prove anything to those who have made up their minds this is all a bunch of worthless junk. That will not change either... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 2, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2015 Wrong. Evidence that is substantial in appearance and content is what will find it's way into the media's line of sight. The endless circumstantial evidence of the single track or distant sighting long ago stopped bearing weight. The only place the mundane circumstantial evidence is counted is in the bigfoot proponent camp. I suppose content of poor quality what the media will invest in? All of the hoaxes start out good and good looking. What crummy evidence real or fake have made it to the general public via the media or even the bigfoot world? I'm sorry, but the above comments seem contradictory. You open the statement by saying no to my prior post, and then in the succeeding sentences proceed to show how it must not be evidence unless accepted by media. Put bluntly, this is not a scientific approach. To anything. If you wait for the media to accept it prior to it being considered real, then you have a host of things that really aren't real that you must also accept- UFOs and ghosts amongst them. As pointed out earlier, media likes to sell media, so they print stuff that is sensational whether real or not. So I want you to consider that your yardstick is inadequate in this case. Real evidence is not sensational for the most part. It is what it is and is not subject to our opinions about it. You simply have to accept that evidence is going to be what it is, whether a single footprint of unusual providence or a close up high definition video of a BF family grooming each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I'm sorry, but the above comments seem contradictory. You open the statement by saying no to my prior post, and then in the succeeding sentences proceed to show how it must not be evidence unless accepted by media. Put bluntly, this is not a scientific approach. To anything. If you wait for the media to accept it prior to it being considered real, then you have a host of things that really aren't real that you must also accept- UFOs and ghosts amongst them. As pointed out earlier, media likes to sell media, so they print stuff that is sensational whether real or not. So I want you to consider that your yardstick is inadequate in this case. Real evidence is not sensational for the most part. It is what it is and is not subject to our opinions about it. You simply have to accept that evidence is going to be what it is, whether a single footprint of unusual providence or a close up high definition video of a BF family grooming each other. The issue of the media and the evidence is that evidence that is tied to a big event like PGF , Freeman, Georgia is what will be in the media. I've said it before the media can't use grandma seeing bigfoot behind the 711. In the public domain the bigger the evidence event the better. In the bigfoot community a stray hair, print or sound can engage many to invest a lot of time on it. But it's two different worlds. If I am the program director for a TV station I can't waste space on the little things regardless of how enticing the little things might be to some. This is what I mean by evidence and big event. It is that which makes it out to the public. Can you furnish anything that runs counter to this? There is a fine line between the scientific open mind and the foolhardy. I can only say to a person who is in the camp of belief that you won't appreciate what no longer carries weight or substance until you cross the line into non belief. I fully appreciate every BF researcher out there with every tool they can muster and in every novel way they can find to apply those tools. My expectations are not raised by the appreciation. Edited June 3, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 "There is a fine line between the scientific open mind and the foolhardy." And you have crossed it, brah. You keep talking about belief and non-belief. How many times are we going to have to tell you it is not about that? Probably too many, because you can't even keep track of the RPM you are generating here. Spinning like a top, man. You don't fully appreciate bigfoot researchers; you insult them with your every post. Probably more times than I see...as I really stopped really reading them long ago. You are one of the easiest people to respond to I have met here; your every post is another exhibit in the pitfalls opening constantly under the un-scientific mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 3, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 3, 2015 The issue of the media and the evidence is that evidence that is tied to a big event like PGF , Freeman, Georgia is what will be in the media. I've said it before the media can't use grandma seeing bigfoot behind the 711. In the public domain the bigger the evidence event the better. In the bigfoot community a stray hair, print or sound can engage many to invest a lot of time on it. But it's two different worlds. If I am the program director for a TV station I can't waste space on the little things regardless of how enticing the little things might be to some. This is what I mean by evidence and big event. It is that which makes it out to the public. Can you furnish anything that runs counter to this? Here is the problem you are up against. There is plenty of evidence, but it seems that unless it has gotten the attention of the media, its not likely that it will get your attention either, at least that is the picture painted by the above post. So when someone produces a photo of a footprint, because media might not have anything to do with it (perhaps because the person who shot the photo does not want to be ridiculed by the media in the event that the media decides to go that way regardless how substantial the evidence is) then it appears that you won't have anything to do with it either. That's fine but you need to understand that your position is not science-based and it is that simple. Now if you want to engage science, then you have to look into the small events that pepper American life. For example, why was I able to find that trackway I mentioned earlier? It was in such an unlikely place (to start with, no paths in the area, no roads at all so its not a hoax, lots of brush, mosquitoes, ticks, briars) and even the landowner had not been in that area for 20 years or so. So how were there barefoot tracks in the area?? I've thought a lot about in the last several years- the simple explanation is still BF. The arguments for it being the tracks of a human are considerably more complex. I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) One of the least-understood aspects of this: Not being recognized by science doesn't make something unlikely! (This makes every scientific discovery "unlikely." Um...really...??) The Occam explanation is one that takes this into account. One has to explain all the possibilities; a white black bear with purple polka dots is not more likely just because the black bear is recognized by the society. Neither is an eight-foot person in black hoodie sweats on a 90-degree day a "simpler" explanation than a sasquatch; neither is someone being mistaken about details it appears they were in great position to see, that ruled out "human" to them. It is generally accepted that the "simplest" explanation for what a person saw is: something that looks most like what they are describing. Edited June 3, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The media does indeed present the "grandmother saw bigfoot behind 7-11" kind of stories, then the whole group of newscasters, even the weatherman, share in a hearty chuckle, thereby negating any possible validity of the report, and questioning the coherentcy of the witness, not to mention reinforcing the idea that only ridicule will resort if one opts to report a sighting of one's own. And, of course, the Sykes project received a few night's attention in the media, as they proclaimed that none of the many samples proved to be from unknown organisms, so"still no sign or proof that the legendary bigfoot is actually real" Naturally this was followed by whimsical laughter and "aint they just crazy" mirth on the part of the anchors once the piece was over. Continuation of the agenda of misinformation......theres something only the hill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) One of the least-understood aspects of this: Not being recognized by science doesn't make something unlikely! (This makes every scientific discovery "unlikely." Um...really...??) The Occam explanation is one that takes this into account. One has to explain all the possibilities; a white black bear with purple polka dots is not more likely just because the black bear is recognized by the society. Neither is an eight-foot person in black hoodie sweats on a 90-degree day a "simpler" explanation than a sasquatch; neither is someone being mistaken about details it appears they were in great position to see, that ruled out "human" to them. It is generally accepted that the "simplest" explanation for what a person saw is: something that looks most like what they are describing. So human observation is accurate? Humans know what they are seeing and describe what they see accurately? In the early 1980's when I was working for a magazine I used to drive my 1952 Jaguar to work once a week weather permitting. Well one morning one of the young guys in sales pokes his head into my office and tells me that on his way in that morning he saw a Jaguar just like mine for sale at a gas station. My car was not a common model they made less than 3000 of them so I quizzed the kid for details. He told me just like my car only the color was silver not green. He insisted I should go down and see it. So at lunch I drove over and saw the Jaguar for sale. Yes it was a silver Jaguar but that's where the accuracy ended. My car was a 1952 coupe XK 120 and I was looking at a 1969 silver E-Type roadster. But the kid saw a low slung car with wire wheels and a long nose and pegged it for my model. In fact the E-Type is nothing like and XK. So human beings get things wrong. They can mean well but they get things wrong. In arguments about size proponents will argue down 15 feet tall bigfoot claims saying how people are not good at judging size. Edited June 3, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And the relationship this has to bigfoot sightings is, as has been explained here many times, pretty much nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Ouch!! Next...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 And the relationship this has to bigfoot sightings is, as has been explained here many times, pretty much nil. It illustrates that human beings are not 100% reliable witnesses not matter what they are reporting. You know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 He doesn't know this. At least he doesn't accept it. He trusts that people are incapable of lying. The record of people having lied about BF should have some affect but yet Science and Common Sense proves him wrong each time. "Hey look kids, Big Ben and Parliament" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Perhaps its not so much that he trusts that people are incapible of lying, but, rather, that people are capible of speaking the truth...... Edited June 4, 2015 by guyzonthropus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts