MIB Posted July 21, 2015 Moderator Posted July 21, 2015 Now I might be wrong.... but I think confirmation bias to hard at work here. These mundane things can all be explained in nature, but the person with BOTB will become irate if you suggest reasonable causes for their "encounters". On a surface level, I agree. What I think you're failing to do, which is what I was trying to point out, is look into **how and why**. The triggers and mechanism matter a very great deal. If you only look at superficial, you only find superficial. It's easy to dismiss in that sense ... an alternate example of confirmation bias. (gigantor -- you're right, a sufficiently intense non-visual can have the same effect especially if repeated. "sufficiently intense" depends on the person experiencing it, we're all different.) MIB
Northern Lights Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 I hear about it all the time: Someone goes out in the woods. They hear a tree limb fall, they feel pine cones falling, the apple they put out moved... they hear an owl. They tell others a BF broke a limb, tossed pine cones at them, moved the apple and mimicked an owl. Now I might be wrong.... but I think confirmation bias to hard at work here. These mundane things can all be explained in nature, but the person with BOTB will become irate if you suggest reasonable causes for their "encounters". It's happens constantly in this field. It happened to Les Stroud during one of his shows. A tree fell over, and he wigged out. He even said that if it continues, he was going to have to leave.
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2015 Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) This is subject to what all scientists would agree would be standard field procedure: 1. What could it be? 2. What is the evidence backing each possiblity? 3. Now...what is the likelihood of each possibility? If sasquatch is real - a conclusion to which the evidence points - there are a number of circumstances in which, for example, the something-with-hands that makes a noise unique to something-with-hands might be MORE likely than the "most likely" possibility. Which could be practically applied to areas getting a number of, say, wood-knocking reports. Edited July 21, 2015 by DWA
Recommended Posts