Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Guessing on the motivation behind reports and assigning percentages probably is not very useful Woah! Wait a second! Is guessing on the motivation behind reports only reserved for those that claim they are attention seekers, liars, or hoaxers? One doesn't have to guess. One only needs to read the reports to feel through one's bootsoles that the "motivation" hooey is just that. They saw an animal; couldn't be more plain. If one, you know, reads them. Sorry, gang. In science one cannot just whistle past the evidence. So, yes, focusing on the testable evidence is the only way to remove ambiguity and guesswork. I agree, so maybe we can all look at the testable evidence before claiming people are seeking attention, lying, or hoaxing, eh? I am wondering what the "testable evidence" is for the proposition that all of this is a crock. "People lie and hoax" ain't it. People bomb houses; but mine hasn't been. People smoke crack; but I don't. Here is testable evidence: footprints. We know what a bigfoot print looks like, down to fine detail. Here is more: when you go where these incidents happened, you will find this. Working for NAWAC. That is science; that is testing evidence. Branco, I actually do spend quite a bit of time in the outdoors. [snip] I wouldn't expect to find any BF evidence either. You aren't looking. Being 'outside' does not count. Not knowing what bigfoot evidence is ...well, that's kinda problematical, too. He probably won't see bear moose or deer evidence ...unless he sees one of them. All right, maybe he will see what *everyone recognizes* as evidence. What is the evidence for what no one recognizes as real? (OK, fine, I only saw bigfoot tracks once. You can't all be me.) But being outside doesn't count. It is the ability to *think - deeply and thoroughly - about being outside,* along with an abiding interest in what lives out there, and what travels out there, and the blinkers frequently worn by the latter, and why, that fills in the picture. edit - it seems like I'm picking on you dmaker, it's not that, it's just that I missed you! LOL! I did too. Shoot it's starting to sound like the BFF again.
Guest Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Would sighting reports hold up in a court of law? No. If a murder case hinged on whether or not Bigfoot is real, does anyone honestly think the judge would accept "Well your honor, lots of people say they saw one."? As someone who doesn't think Bigfoot exists the only purpose sighting reports serve, is to keep my attention. If nobody ever said they saw one I would not be here. Aside from that, stories are useless, my mind needs biological evidence or even a clear video before it will change, I'm not going to think Bigfoot is real just because a police man and a fireman said so.
chelefoot Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Bigfoot is a one trick pony in the form of the PGF. Prior to it we had tall tales and Ray Wallace and after it we have Rick Dyer and Todd Standing. Oh wait I forgot about those snazzy new portals opening up in a forest near you................. Crow, why are you the only one who keep keeps bringing up Doc J?
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) My interest in bigfoot is strong, perhaps even as strong as some enthusiasts who believe the creature may be real. It's just that my interest is focused on the psychology and the myth. More specifically how the myth, or participants in the myth, resist challenges. I find that stuff to be pretty fascinating. That does not mean that I am here to shout down the conversation with bigfoot does not exist every chance I get. I will, however, challenge incorrect assertions. But if someone wants to observe the a modern myth like this functions, this is the place to be. This is where you can see, first hand, how enthusiasts protect the myth. Also, if I am wrong and bigfoot were ever to be discovered, then this would also be a great place to be. It is fascinating to watch a modern myth and to be able to participate in it and observe its workings. I'd love for bigfoot to be real. I know proponents will scoff at that, they almost always do. But it's true. There is something about the wildman of the woods that I think spooks and intrigues like almost no other myth. I'm not sure why, and maybe the answer to that question might lie somewhere in this topic. Who knows? I am not here to be antagonistic. I am not here to ruin the fun. I do want to participate respectfully, and objectively. No doubt, I have a different opinion than most here in this forum. That should not be a crime, if handled properly. At the end of the day, we're all just footers of a different type. Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker 3
Cotter Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 People smoke crack; but I don't. I'm guessing that some on here would disagree! LOL! *ducking and running* :-)
ShadowBorn Posted September 2, 2015 Moderator Posted September 2, 2015 Yes, let's do that. So far, the testable evidence, when tested, has failed to support the claim. When discussing anecdotes, particularly those with no supporting testable evidence, what is one to examine in your opinion? There is nothing to test. There is just a story. Hence, why assigning a motivation to something that can never be ascertained, will not aid you in your pursuit of bigfoot. Dmaker I totally agree with you on this. You can come here and talk about what you have seen or experience but in reality it is just a story. Unless it has testable evidence that it can back up the story then it will always just be a story.
Cotter Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 @dmaker - I agree that Ohio is not the Congo, not in the least. But as far as ruggedness and terrain, I would say that the Rocky Mountains, Redwood Nat'l Forest, and many other areas (including pert near the whole of Canada) are indeed comparable. Combine that with the potential range as seen in other apex predators, a few passing through Ohio is not out of the question.
Guest DWA Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 And remember that North America possesses unparalleled camouflage, compared to which the Congo is, essentially nothing: Denial that this thing could possibly live here. There could be half a million of them in Ohio...and we'd be right where we are. (The evidence is pretty clear that there are more than "a few passing through" Ohio, like other states in the east the wildness of which is consistently underestimated by those who haven't been outside there.)
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 I understand where you are coming from, Cotter. It is one aspect of this topic that interests me--the various degrees of tenability around alleged bigfoot habitat accepted among proponents. On one end of the spectrum you have folks like MIB who recently stated that anywhere that a human could get lost, is potentially bigfoot habitat. His assertion, if I recall correctly, was uncaring of proximity to civilization. People can, and do, get lost in the small forested areas that dot otherwise urban or suburban sprawls. All it takes is a few square kilometers of forest and people get lost. I find it highly untenable that a population of 9 ft apes could exist undetected in such an area. Probably quite a few proponents would agree. On the other end of the spectrum are folks similar to you who are more comfortable when bigfoot is only to be found in rugged, remote areas. But the problem is that the reports come from both of those ends and everything else in between. If you are going to assert that anecdotes are the key to the truth about bigfoot, how do you explain that?
Cotter Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Good thoughts there dmaker. I totally agree that we have a wide spectrum to wade through here. (were you around when that shel k dion gal from treepeekers joined the forum for like 6 hours?) OMG! Obviously, NOBODY knows what these creatures are, what they do, or even if they exist (hence this discussion), but how I approach it is I try to envision how likely a reported behavior or location is compared to other animals. I do assign BF with a bit more cognitive ability than your average bear or lion however (which can range of hundreds or thousands of miles). I find it untenable as well that a group of, I'll even say 5 foot primates could live in a small area. I however don't find it untenable that they could be in that area passing through, taking cover, etc. We see that behavior in wild animals as well. Everyone's BS meter is calibrated differently, with some being extremes on both ends.....and that's where a lot of debate comes from. Folks that perceive what is possible and what is not. Regarding anecdotes, I don't think they are THE Key to the truth. But if one is to actually find and document this creature, I think it behooves said person to look at the reports, judge them based on their own level understanding and BSery, and go from there.
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) "Regarding anecdotes, I don't think they are THE Key to the truth. But if one is to actually find and document this creature, I think it behooves said person to look at the reports, judge them based on their own level understanding and BSery, and go from there." - Cotter Absolutely. If I believed bigfoot to be a real animal and I wanted to find one, what other resource would I have to use as a starting point? I'm not denying the value of reports in that respect. So far, however, reports have not lead to the collection of any physical evidence that has been verified to have come from a bigfoot. In fact, quite the opposite. If bigfoot is not a real animal, then reports are just springboards for a wild goose chase. If bigfoot is real, then they are better than just striking off in to the woods randomly. Perhaps. "Obviously, NOBODY knows what these creatures are, what they do, or even if they exist (hence this discussion), but how I approach it is I try to envision how likely a reported behavior or location is compared to other animals. I do assign BF with a bit more cognitive ability than your average bear or lion however (which can range of hundreds or thousands of miles)." -Cotter If bigfoot is smarter than a bear, then surely bigfoot can chart a better course to get from A to B? One that does not take it so close to civilization. Surely this smart, elusive creature that (according to some) wants to avoid mankind, would not stomp right through suburbia to get to its destination? That makes no sense. Maybe for a less intelligent animal, but surely not for the sasquatch people? Edited September 2, 2015 by dmaker
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Most of America is thoroughly explored every year and from the looks of things, the way Sasquatch avoid people out in large forested areas, they could probably do the same near suburban areas without much difficulty. I realize that's hard to believe.
Branco Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Well WSA, you offered to enlighten the young man anyway. I guess some folks just don't want to know. It's a shame he hasn't put that kayak in the Tombigbee and shoveled it on down to the Alabama River junction. I suspect that after the first night, the folks fishing the river would think he had a 25 HP Yamaha on the back of that contraption. The feller shore has got a thin skin. I 'member some of his posts back when he was a young'en, and I figure your statement 'bout him was pretty tame compared to some of his.
dmaker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Most of America is thoroughly explored every year and from the looks of things, the way Sasquatch avoid people out in large forested areas, they could probably do the same near suburban areas without much difficulty. I realize that's hard to believe. Hard to believe, yes. But who cares about belief? What can you prove?
Branco Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) And remember that North America possesses unparalleled camouflage, compared to which the Congo is, essentially nothing: We also need to remember that the Congo natives themselves had been aware of the Gorillas for a few million years before they were "discovered" by white man's science. I'll make a wild guess that the first white men who "explored" the area paid little attention to the natives's anecdotal accounts of the existence of such creatures. The NA's here on this continent have no doubt been aware of BF for plus or minus 20, 000 years. More anecdotal accounts not worthy of consideration by the all-knowing "white eyes" who have been here a whopping four or five hundred years. It's a macho/ego thing; some folks are born with the belief that they have the intellectual ability to determine the validity, or lack thereof, of any other person's "anecdotal" account of something about which they themselves are totally ignorant. Pompous, egotistical and childish bores who would requires special ed to achieve the status of a moron. Just read a remark from a group of scientist who estimated that 86% of earth species and 91% of ocean species have yet to be classified by science. Edited September 2, 2015 by Branco 2
Recommended Posts