Sept 17Th Bf Reported In Va.

[JDL]

Why does he pan away from it at the end of the segment?  Why do we only get this much of the film?  If it were real, he'd have as much video as possible, right up to the point where it disappeared under water and beyond.

 

Too convenient just to get a short clip.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

 

Very true. Science is based on observation and examination of that observation. The saying is "once is chance, twice is coincidence, thrice is pattern". That's why in medical sciences there are organizations with the sole purpose of surveillance.

 

Anyhow, according to the Virginia Big Foot research organization's website, there are other sightings in Bedford County http://virginiabigfootresearch.org/?tag=bedford-county

[Bodhi]

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

MIB,

 

I see the claim that there is evidence enough to warrant serious research. But I submit that many scientists have looked at the evidence for the yeti and sasquatch. Most have walked away out of frustration caused by the myriad hoaxers and enthusiastic amateurs who gum up the methodical scientific method. I would point you to the original Tom Slick expeditions which have examples of both of these problems. Also, the National Geographic and the Perkins expeditions. Even Joe Rogan became frustrated/disgusted with the "woo" surrounding the topic and that guy loves this sort of thing.

 

It's not that it hasn't been attempted it's just that it's never borne fruit.

 

IMO, To expect the continued attention of scientists at this point doesn't seem fair to me unless some novel evidence is collected.

[Guest DWA]

 

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

 

Very true. Science is based on observation and examination of that observation. The saying is "once is chance, twice is coincidence, thrice is pattern". That's why in medical sciences there are organizations with the sole purpose of surveillance.

 

Anyhow, according to the Virginia Big Foot research organization's website, there are other sightings in Bedford County http://virginiabigfootresearch.org/?tag=bedford-county

 

What bigfoot skeptics don't seem to be able to get their arms around.  The entire mainstream attitude toward sasquatch is an utter violation of science at its very core.

[Incorrigible1]

Rather than thousands of posts on a bigfoot forum, DWA, perhaps consider going to the source: mainstream science. Take up your crusade with actual scientists. Prove to them the error of their ways. Or stay here and continue posting sour grapes comments.

[Faenor]

I'd feel bad for those poor scientists

[coffee2go]

interesting. so the things which clicked for me: woman didn't report what she claimed to have seen for two days, the deputy sent out didn't find anything although the woman claimed to have seen prints two days later, the dispatcher had not gotten such a call in 10 years on the job/ the woman is new to the area (I'd love to know where the anonymous woman is from, it might be very interesting).

Those are the items which red flagged for me.

 

What parts of the report sparked for you O.D. and prompted you to post the report?

Just trying to stay on topic and discuss the contents of the article.

 

This is a quote from the article: 

"I know this is going to sound crazy,†said the woman in a  call to Bedford dispatch on September 9. 

The woman told the dispatcher she was driving up Route 43, toward the Peaks of Otter, around 11:40p.m. on September 9.

 

I didn't see anything about the woman waiting for 2 days to report the sighting.  Both the sighting and report were on Sept. 9th (according to the article).

 

Another quote:  "A deputy checked out the area and didn't see anything."

 

What does "checked out" mean?  It doesn't say anything about the deputy going to the area immediately, that the woman accompanied him, or that he even got out of his car to look for footprints.  Assuming he did a thorough investigation is merely speculation if you are going by the contents of the article.

[Bodhi]

 

interesting. so the things which clicked for me: woman didn't report what she claimed to have seen for two days, the deputy sent out didn't find anything although the woman claimed to have seen prints two days later, the dispatcher had not gotten such a call in 10 years on the job/ the woman is new to the area (I'd love to know where the anonymous woman is from, it might be very interesting).

Those are the items which red flagged for me.

 

What parts of the report sparked for you O.D. and prompted you to post the report?

Just trying to stay on topic and discuss the contents of the article.

 

This is a quote from the article: 

"I know this is going to sound crazy,†said the woman in a  call to Bedford dispatch on September 9. 

The woman told the dispatcher she was driving up Route 43, toward the Peaks of Otter, around 11:40p.m. on September 9.

 

I didn't see anything about the woman waiting for 2 days to report the sighting.  Both the sighting and report were on Sept. 9th (according to the article).

 

MY ANSWER: "After assuring the dispatcher she hadn't been drinking, the woman offered no explanation why she waited two days to call.  She says she went back in daylight." - See the 8th (eight) line of the article.

 

 

Another quote:  "A deputy checked out the area and didn't see anything."

 

What does "checked out" mean?  It doesn't say anything about the deputy going to the area immediately, that the woman accompanied him, or that he even got out of his car to look for footprints.  Assuming he did a thorough investigation is merely speculation if you are going by the contents of the article.

 

MY ANSWER:   Not sure why you're asking me about this point but if I was the cop who drew the short straw on this one I'd point to this quote from the 911 call:

 

"The woman says the creature's footprint was bigger than her two feet together, end to end.  She wears a size 8 shoe.  She says the creature was holding its baby the way a human would.

Caller: "The baby was looking right at me."

The woman told ABC 13 the baby looked just like Chewbacca from “Star Warsâ€."

 

The baby sasquatch looked like chewbacca from start wars. I give the cop all the credit in the world for looking at all.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

 

Just trying to stay on topic and discuss the contents of the article.

 

 

This is a quote from the article: 

"I know this is going to sound crazy,†said the woman in a  call to Bedford dispatch on September 9. 

The woman told the dispatcher she was driving up Route 43, toward the Peaks of Otter, around 11:40p.m. on September 9.

 

I didn't see anything about the woman waiting for 2 days to report the sighting.  Both the sighting and report were on Sept. 9th (according to the article).

 

Another quote:  "A deputy checked out the area and didn't see anything."

 

What does "checked out" mean?  It doesn't say anything about the deputy going to the area immediately, that the woman accompanied him, or that he even got out of his car to look for footprints.  Assuming he did a thorough investigation is merely speculation if you are going by the contents of the article.

 

 

The entire truth thing - to say nothing of the entire how-the-world-works thing - is highly inconvenient to bigfoot skepticism.

Edited September 29, 2015 by DWA

[Faenor]

Baby chewbacca brings Bigfoot skeptics to their knees

[Guest DWA]

^^^let me quote:

 

"Some denialist claptrap."

 

Did I get it all right?  Hard to tell when one doesn't read them anymore.

Edited September 29, 2015 by DWA

[Faenor]

Denialist claptrap useless against the baby chewbacca. What a wookie!

[Bodhi]

lol. you two fellows crack me up.

 

On another note and to the person to whom I was replying::

Coffee2Go;

 

Let me know your thoughts once you verify that I'm correct on those points.

 

If you were a cop, would you rush over to investigate?

Edited September 29, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

MIB,

 

I see the claim that there is evidence enough to warrant serious research. But I submit that many scientists have looked at the evidence for the yeti and sasquatch. Most have walked away out of frustration caused by the myriad hoaxers and enthusiastic amateurs who gum up the methodical scientific method. I would point you to the original Tom Slick expeditions which have examples of both of these problems. Also, the National Geographic and the Perkins expeditions. Even Joe Rogan became frustrated/disgusted with the "woo" surrounding the topic and that guy loves this sort of thing.

 

It's not that it hasn't been attempted it's just that it's never borne fruit.

 

IMO, To expect the continued attention of scientists at this point doesn't seem fair to me unless some novel evidence is collected.

 

 

That is a good thing because those scientists do not have the aptitude to do that kind of research.  As I mentioned in medical sciences, there are organizations devoted to surveillance. Every report is taken into consideration. For example if someone reports to the CDC's and FDA's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System that their hair fell out after having a flu shot,  the scientists have to investigate that report. Other scientists would automatically label hair loss after a flu shot as a hoax. But the ones at VAERS examine evidence to make sure it isn't a hoax before labeling it as such.

[dmaker]

^^Hmmm, that is not how our resident scientist describes proper science. He discards paranormal bigfoot reports as separating the wheat from the chaff and signal from noise, etc. Every bigfoot report must be investigated, no matter how ridiculous?