Guest Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Compelling reports to me are like mine. Daylight or car-headlight encounters. Ordinary witnesses, not researchers, I don't care in the least if they are Military/LEO/Scientists or anything else. BF and witness both move off, no violence no threats no drama. No evidence, no footprints, no photos, no film - most of the time the existence of such lowers the believability to me. Good thread DWA ... Now I am confused how can someone say that? Compelling reports are like mine? … Must be some mistake. Edited June 15, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 As I said, compelling means different things to different people. Some (and I may or may not be correct that 1980squatch is one) may be uncomfortable with people who spout their credentials. Me too, which is why I consider the mainstream's opinion on this unworthy. It is supported solely by credentials and not by the practice of science, which I always look for. If you have seen one of these, and you have asked yourself: what did I see? and gone over and over and over that answer, and have zero good reason to doubt the evidence of your own eyes...congratulations! You have actually applied scientific method, which is nothing more, really, than careful thinking about observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=35352 Has to be true...they didn't pick up. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=26396 This one because the description matches exactly the PA trail cam shot of what some dismissed as a "mangy bear" , but others saw as a juvie Sasquatch. This description predates that photo, if I'm correct. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27888 Would you fabricate a story and tell it for almost 60 years? Do you know anyone who would? These pre-PG reports, if verified, make a very compelling case to me. That said, it is not clear if there was a confirmation of contemporaneous accounts to local law enforcement. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7113 All the markers of credibility present here...investigator noted this account by two witnesses made him a believer. Typical narrative from witnesses who never had BF on his radar, and then applies the experience to explain other peculiar circumstances in the past. Perfectly sensible application of evidence to explain the heretofore unexplained. Science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Gum and DWA, I feel that way for several reasons. The normal reaction of a witness is not to collect evidence, and here I assume the witness (as nearly all of them tend to be) is not a researcher or a community insider in any way. Not only will they not take pics, video, or fire weapons even if those tools are at hand, but will not return to the scene later to look for anything. Also, an animal going about it's business will not be leaving evidence most of the time. Thus, the presence of evidence can be considered suspicious, if it is not definitive. And, it makes sense that encounters in which the BF and the witness behave like what I saw and experienced would tend to be more compelling to me - just a normal observational bias. Lastly, credentials are not relevant in witnessing BF, period. There are no credentials to prepare you for that experience, or make you more believable if you claim one. On a personal note, I have scientific credentials now, but as a witness was just a country boy in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=35352 Has to be true...they didn't pick up. And even thinking of using your clubs for anything but golf? NO KNOWN ANIMAL! can prompt such a response. Come ON, watch the Golf Channel a bit! http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=26396 This one because the description matches exactly the PA trail cam shot of what some dismissed as a "mangy bear" , but others saw as a juvie Sasquatch. This description predates that photo, if I'm correct. I have seen few things more shameful than scientists that I respected - and still do despite this - feebly attempting to debunk the Jacobs photos. Sometimes the urge to "look skeptical" makes people look silly instead. People would actually *superimpose Internet pictures of bear skeletons* on the photos in ways that, well, you just can't do if you're a scientist. What's your scale? You moved *nothing* in that image? Just trying that. Come ON. This is not an opinion: I don't know what that is...and neither do you. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27888 Would you fabricate a story and tell it for almost 60 years? Do you know anyone who would? These pre-PG reports, if verified, make a very compelling case to me. That said, it is not clear if there was a confirmation of contemporaneous accounts to local law enforcement. This didn't start with Bluff Creek, people! 19th Century newspaper reports echo today's sightings. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7113 All the markers of credibility present here...investigator noted this account by two witnesses made him a believer. Typical narrative from witnesses who never had BF on his radar, and then applies the experience to explain other peculiar circumstances in the past. Perfectly sensible application of evidence to explain the heretofore unexplained. Science! One skeptical canard blown to smithereens by a casual reading of the reports: there is no way in H.E.Doublesticks that almost any of the reports is describing a misidentification of a known animal. Tell me that's a source of any of this and you have identified yourself as ignorant of the evidence. Edited June 16, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43120 Had to include this one for the drawing and the nice track. I'm intrigued by this one especially as I've spent many nights on the ground in the immediate environs. Let's just say the area is as wild and fecund as anything you'll likely find in the Deep South. It is a "no-go" zone from June through the first frost. Just too damned thick, and trails close up. Only place I've ever been in backcountry and unknowingly walked in a circle. Spooky feeling, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=799 From another area I know well. The details of the description give credibility to this account for me. Love the whole, "I'm a goin' fishin', my baby's goin' fishin' and BF goin' fishin' too" vibe of the encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Gum and DWA, I feel that way for several reasons. The normal reaction of a witness is not to collect evidence, and here I assume the witness (as nearly all of them tend to be) is not a researcher or a community insider in any way. Not only will they not take pics, video, or fire weapons even if those tools are at hand, but will not return to the scene later to look for anything. Also, an animal going about it's business will not be leaving evidence most of the time. Thus, the presence of evidence can be considered suspicious, if it is not definitive. And, it makes sense that encounters in which the BF and the witness behave like what I saw and experienced would tend to be more compelling to me - just a normal observational bias. Lastly, credentials are not relevant in witnessing BF, period. There are no credentials to prepare you for that experience, or make you more believable if you claim one. On a personal note, I have scientific credentials now, but as a witness was just a country boy in high school. I got it thanks for explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43120 Had to include this one for the drawing and the nice track. I'm intrigued by this one especially as I've spent many nights on the ground in the immediate environs. Let's just say the area is as wild and fecund as anything you'll likely find in the Deep South. It is a "no-go" zone from June through the first frost. Just too damned thick, and trails close up. Only place I've ever been in backcountry and unknowingly walked in a circle. Spooky feeling, that. I've done that once too. I had a buddy with me who likely had even less excuse than I did. That said: skeptics don't think about this much, period, but they think even less about how much drawings by the witness add to a report. It makes very clear the witness saw nothing known; none of us could think it possible for a human being to make such a mistake...were this not the topic. Sure, right they made it up. I forgot. They did something you wouldn't; no one you know would; no one they know would; and no Facebook friends of the latter would. Riiiiiight. You do this all the time, don't you. OH. "People" do that. No they do not. No phenomenon even close to this exists in the history of our species. Stop. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=799 From another area I know well. The details of the description give credibility to this account for me. Love the whole, "I'm a goin' fishin', my baby's goin' fishin' and BF goin' fishin' too" vibe of the encounter. He's in his thirties and constructs all this detail about something that happened in middle school. Know what? People don't do that either. No they do NOT. I have never seen anything shown to be fake that had 1/32nd of a paragraph of plausible backstory. Stop. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=31176 I tend not to talk about this one much but it's a particularly compelling trackway find. The distance between the tracks; the photographed single track - so subtly unlike anything faked that that can probably be safely ruled out - and the length of the trackway (make that: CAN be safely ruled out). Oh, and look at the substrate. No. No faker is making a track in that. Not that deep; not that many. And *putting a mid-tarsal break in the track*? NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 There are many compelling stories on the BFRO site, I have have been reading them at work time lunch. But one of my all time fav's was from the late Canadian sasquatch researcher Leo Selzer, he was on a show a few years back and it is here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/midnightwalkers/2011/12/15/leo-selzer-of-prince-george My fav story is a sighting that happened at a gravel pit, I won't spoil it for those who want to check it out but listen to the program at 55:58. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts