David NC Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 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. But the kid did see a Jaguar and not a Kubota tractor. Seeing a large, dark, hairy creature running on two legs and going faster than a human can on that terrain and the "scientist" and "experts" say it is was a bear, yeaahhhh who's out of touch with reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 ^^^Right. Kind of it. Seeing something you'd guess is eight feet tall and 500-700 pounds and "definitely not a man"...only it was a bear, RUNNING ON TWO LEGS, faster than anything you have seen...or a big kid dressed in all black top to bottom, no hint of clothing breaks anywhere, in fact all hair? Not the same as making a mistake I would DEFINITELY make IDing car models. If the essential difference isn't crystal clear...yep, out of touch is the inescapable verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 But the kid did see a Jaguar and not a Kubota tractor. Seeing a large, dark, hairy creature running on two legs and going faster than a human can on that terrain and the "scientist" and "experts" say it is was a bear, yeaahhhh who's out of touch with reality? By the time the kid got to the office about 15 minutes from seeing the car he had already constructed in his mind that he had seen an example of my car. So let's see both cars are two door and both share a similar design theme with proportions but neither car resembles the other. Also by virtue of the traffic flow the silver car would have been visible from anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes depending on the traffic and traffic light. 30 seconds is way longer than most bigfoot sightings and this was is bright sunshine at a distance of no more than 60 feet. This is a classic case of being aware of from another situation and constructing it to fit that other situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Everything you say there is YOUR ASSUMPTION what a person would see. He saw just enough to get himself in trouble; I might not even recognize it as a Jaguar. But everybody gonna know an eight-foot bipedal ape screams "doesn't belong, I definitely know what I saw." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 By the time the kid got to the office about 15 minutes from seeing the car he had already constructed in his mind that he had seen an example of my car. So let's see both cars are two door and both share a similar design theme with proportions but neither car resembles the other. Also by virtue of the traffic flow the silver car would have been visible from anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes depending on the traffic and traffic light. 30 seconds is way longer than most bigfoot sightings and this was is bright sunshine at a distance of no more than 60 feet. This is a classic case of being aware of from another situation and constructing it to fit that other situation. No, that's on the scale of confusing a girl for her sister, not confusing a girl for her dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Identified another root cause of Crow's issue here, I believe. If you think seeing a BF is analogous to getting a sports car's model and year wrong, well, I can't really offer much help there I am afraid. Just give us one in the ballpark/realm of "natural world" Crow, and we'll talk again, 'kay? But I guess an example of somebody confusing a mule for a horse just won't make the point. (Well, it does. Just not yours.) Glad we got that issue identified though. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I'm used to the country and what roams around in the woods of the PNW. I'm now living in a southern city with lots of parks. I'm out of my normal surroundings plus I have a condition that can affect my perception of things at times. I was out walking in one of our lovely parks here the other day with my daughter. I happened to glance up ahead along the path and saw what I thought for a moment was a Centaur. It took several seconds to process what I was seeing to figure out the illusion. It was a man walking ahead of his giant dog. For a moment I thought I was seeing the back end of a mythological creature. The variables affecting a sighting are many. I personally don't think I would mistake anything in my home territory in my younger years for bigfoot had I had the honor of seeing one. I don't think sightings are a topic that can be covered with one blanket scenario such as memory failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Your last sentence. There is no chance worth talking about that any of the sighting reports I have read are analogous to your "centaur" example. To say that that's what happens requires a presumption that simply cannot be made in science. Just as proponents need to prove their point, skeptics need to prove theirs; and blanket assumptions of what "people do" are in no way describing what I have read on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Some people think that when a "witness" sees something, he's hoping to see a squatch and misinterpreting any human, bear, or stump he sees as a squatch. In my experience, it's just the opposite. When you run into one, it's a shock to begin with, and your mind immediately tries to tell you that it is just a man, or is just a bear, or is just a stump. You literally want it to be something common, because being confronted with something that is not supposed to exist (according to eminent experts like the OP), is not a comforting experience. As your mind rules out a stump (because stumps don't walk), or a bear (because bears don't walk and act like men), or a man (because no man is that impossibly large and hair covered), you are forced to face the reality, that guys like the OP don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Pretty much. The typical eyewitness is a scoftic who just got an abrupt battlefield conversion. To say otherwise is to profess one's ignorance of the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2015 So human observation is accurate? [snip] In arguments about size proponents will argue down 15 feet tall bigfoot claims saying how people are not good at judging size. OK- one of the two that I saw had to be at least ten feet. I say this because seated on its rear, the top of its head was at 6 feet. I know this because that is the middle of the passenger side window of the truck I was driving at the time. We were on level ground, and the subject was only inches from my passenger side door. Is using a vehicle I knew extremely well an OK method of judging height? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 No, because it conflicts with Crow"logic"'s "findings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The sighting reports have a staggering number of height comparison references, and it is not really surprising at all. Something is spotted next to something, and that something becomes your yardstick. Why? (Here's a real mind-blower for y'all, I know...) Because that is what people do. Whether it is that twisted limb on the sweet gum tree the ice storm broke off last Easter, that patch on the barn siding Uncle Billy nailed up right before he shipped out to Iraq, or the bluebird house Vernon nailed up three summers ago, even though I told him there weren't no bluebirds around here, and weren't never gonna be either, but he had to try, and do you know I turned out to be right.... People being people, doing what people do. Mind blowing, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The sighting reports have a staggering number of height comparison references, and it is not really surprising at all. Something is spotted next to something, and that something becomes your yardstick. Why? (Here's a real mind-blower for y'all, I know...) Because that is what people do. Whether it is that twisted limb on the sweet gum tree the ice storm broke off last Easter, that patch on the barn siding Uncle Billy nailed up right before he shipped out to Iraq, or the bluebird house Vernon nailed up three summers ago, even though I told him there weren't no bluebirds around here, and weren't never gonna be either, but he had to try, and do you know I turned out to be right.... People being people, doing what people do. Mind blowing, I know. OMG it was 12 feet tall or it was 10 or 9 feet tall. Here is what they say they are seeing. And best of all it's everywhere and better yet almost undetectable. That tallest bigfoot in my illustration is 12 feet tall. I measured the pole when I staged the photo. Edited June 5, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2015 Ok. Um ... do you have a point? If so, could you state it? Y' know, 'cause "OMG" I can't read your mind? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts