Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 23, 2015 Author Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) I guess I have illustrated my point of the thread with the Jacob's photo as an example, the point simply being that we need to step back from anything that is purported as evidence, to objectify ourselves, to be skeptical knowing that in most case, not all, sasquatch are not the explanation. When we cannot come to any other conclusion it still does not mean it is sasquatch, it simply is unidentified, as is the case with my recordings. When we have activity coupled with a foot print, or an unmistakable photo or video, well now we have something approaching evidence. All evidence can be rated according to it's ability to be faked or hoaxed, the PGM film according to Munns gets a high rating in terms of the difficulty of being hoaxed. Certain track finds lend an even higher rating to the ability to be hoaxed, that is what I am getting at. What is truly evidence, and what is simply belief. I believe the photo under my name might be sasquatch related activity, but the probability is weak at best, most likely human. None the less I like to entertain such belief for whatever fanciful reason. That is simply not logical nor is it scientific considering the probability of a human origin. Edited November 23, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
coffee2go Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 Reading your original post, LCB, it seemed like you were giving up on your belief regarding acitivity in your area. As I have continued reading this thread, I think that you have evaluated your findings again and maybe, just maybe, you are rethinking your evidence. I came to this forum while trying to find answers to sounds and smells that I was experiencing near our cabin. I began setting out recorders at night and was able to explain many sounds as coming from owls and possible rock clacks by river otters. I have yet to explain the wood knocks that are very loud and are usually followed by knocks farther away. These occur in the middle of the night and are more frequent in very early spring or late fall. The cabin is in the NE corner of MN. I am not one to think that every sound or track is a sasquatch and by nature (and education) tend to over-analyze things.
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 To me, the assessment of evidence must take the volume of other consistent evidence into account, along with the probability that any other possible actor was responsible. If you haven't explained the wood knocks (and how often does a person, really, hit a tree once or twice and that's it?)...then sasquatch, according to scientifically-evaluated evidence, is a high-order probability.
Twist Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 What scientifically-evaluated evidence is there that BF does wood knocks? As far as I know it's speculative at this point.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 23, 2015 Author Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Hello Coffee2Go, if it were that easy to give up on the notion that what I have experienced here in NE Illinois was Sasquatch related, I think I would have done that already. I am just re-thinking how I go about determining what is simply my belief vs what is evidence. Of course humans could be responsible for wood knocking we both have recorded, but we both feel that is not that likely or logical given the timing and the areas we record. To present such a belief we both share might be Sasquatch to those who might not have taken such a leap of faith to admit to such a creature, well to them it seems illogical. I am simply trying to vet how to present ideas and possible evidence to people who might not share the belief. I encourage you to pursue the recording and attempting to document what is making those knocks, and by all means do share them with us. I was afraid to do so at first, but what I found was that I could not simply deal with what I thought were compelling incidences without having someone to filter it through. I am no different now, I am seeking to re-define how I make an argument for the creatures existence with substance rather than belief. Substance being defined as nearly irrefutable proof something is caused by Sasquatch, an unmistakable print or photo or video are some of my standards. Until I can produce something in that regard it falls under my belief. Well as you can see this a whole lots of semantics. Edited November 23, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
MIB Posted November 23, 2015 Moderator Posted November 23, 2015 Backing up a step ... If you hear knocks and assume it is a sasquatch, you should test it by trying to see the sasquatch making the knocks. I don't think anyone argues that it needs verification, right? However, to step from "might be a human" to "is a human" should, logically, require the same verification. Until you have positive confirmation of one answer or the other, you merely have an unconfirmed unknown. Equating probability of an answer to proof of that answer, without actual confirmation, is invalid no matter what "answer" is selected. That's faith, not science. MIB
Yuchi1 Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 IMO, "believing in BF" is where the fatal flaw (disillusionment) is germinated. It clouds pragmatic thinking and sows the seeds for expectations that manifest themselves in blurry photographs, dubious footcasts, audio misrepresentations, and piles of cash and time wasted on "expeditions" and/or affiliation with most all the so-called BF Research groups. A FTF observation is likely 99.44% the luck of being in the right time at the right place and 99.9999% of the time when not on a so-called BF Expedition. Instead, go hiking, camping, fishing or hunting sans any BF expectations as that's when the FTF will likely occur. Need any substantiation of such? Read 99.9999% of the BF sighting reports submitted. If you are then fortunate enough to have that observation of something that defies all previously accepted paradigms, count yourself among the few, the proud, the knowers. 1
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 What scientifically-evaluated evidence is there that BF does wood knocks? As far as I know it's speculative at this point. We know the sounds happen. We know that the animal has been seen by eyewitnesses making them, and that the sounds are otherwise associated compellingly with a lot of bigfoot encounters, and that there isn't anything else that evidence says is producing them (and I have read few if any for which a person or a woodpecker is a reasonable alternative). Scientists evaluating the evidence say the animal's real; so anything this closely connected with them should be considered a potential part of the whole package. Proof is not how science works. Most of the questions answered in science don't prove anything. But they lead to everything that's been proven. If a scientist had to prove every single answer he gave every single question he asked...we would never have gotten science. Speculation leads to every single scientific finding. Proof does not equal evidence. The things that lead to proof...usually aren't proof. If sasquatch are real...they wood knock. The evidence says they're real.
dmaker Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) We don't know the animal has been seen making them, we know people claim to have seen the animal making wood knocks. These are not the same thing. Actually, I don't recall any reports that claim to have seen a bigfoot performing a tree knock. Would you care to link some, DWA? I can't find any mention of a report where the person claimed to see a bigfoot actually making the wood knock. I did find comments like the below: "No Bigfoot has ever actually been seen beating a tree or creating such a sound, but there has been reports of people hearing the sounds of distant wood knocking throughout forests." http://www.bigfoothunting.com/hunting/bigfoot_wood_knocking.shtml Edited November 23, 2015 by dmaker 2
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 Backing up a step ... If you hear knocks and assume it is a sasquatch, you should test it by trying to see the sasquatch making the knocks. I don't think anyone argues that it needs verification, right? However, to step from "might be a human" to "is a human" should, logically, require the same verification. Until you have positive confirmation of one answer or the other, you merely have an unconfirmed unknown. Equating probability of an answer to proof of that answer, without actual confirmation, is invalid no matter what "answer" is selected. That's faith, not science. MIB Right. The compelling connection of wood knocks to sasquatch (and if you discount all that because it isn't proven...you really don't know how science works) is sufficient, in and of itself...to maintain an open mind on the question. Which always means: you hear knocks...you ask yourself what that might be...and you evaluate alternative possibilities.
Twist Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 I don't disagree that if BF exists that it's doing these supposed wood knocks. I can agree they would be part of the potential product. But I still don't see this as scientifically evaluated science. That's where I always disagree, when statements are made to be facts regarding the behavior of a yet unproven animal. Prove the animal then prove it's behavior. Believed behavior can be a huge part of proving said animal but it's anecdotal at best until the animal is proven. IMO.
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 Statements aren't being "made to be facts," other than that the statements are happening; there are lots of them; the descriptions are consistent in ways that descriptions of an animal are (i.e., not "big hairy ape man" but characteristics - many not known to laymen to be so - shared by members of the Hominidae); and forensic evidence (footprints) seems to be backing them up. If there is no prima facie reason to chalk anecdotes up to something other than what they are purported to describe ...one doesn't. It's not about jumping to conclusions ("it's not real" or "anything purporting to be sasquatch probably isn't," now that's jumping to conclusions). It's about holding an open mind and looking for more and better evidence. But that search always follows what the evidence purports to describe...because why wouldn't it?
dmaker Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 DWA, could you please link to some of these reports where people claim to witness a bigfoot doing the wood knock? Thanks. 1
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2015 Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Hello Coffee2Go, if it were that easy to give up on the notion that what I have experienced here in NE Illinois was Sasquatch related, I think I would have done that already. I am just re-thinking how I go about determining what is simply my belief vs what is evidence. ...I am no different now, I am seeking to re-define how I make an argument for the creatures existence with substance rather than belief. Substance being defined as nearly irrefutable proof something is caused by Sasquatch, an unmistakable print or photo or video are some of my standards. Until I can produce something in that regard it falls under my belief. Well as you can see this a whole lots of semantics. The standards you note might be good for proof, but they aren't required for evidence. I haven't experienced as much in the field as you have; but I have experienced stuff in the field for which science doesn't have an easy alternative explanation. Plus, there's everything I've seen and read. What is the chance - how much would I bet - that *all of that,* as consistent as it is both internally and with what we know about other animals, particularly those similar to what this seems to be...that *all of that* adds up to a delusion? I wouldn't bet a thing I wasn't totally OK with losing. Only a fool would. That's not belief. That's *evidence.* You may not have proven this to your satisfaction yet; but like the other researchers out there...you're following *evidence.* Edited November 23, 2015 by DWA
Recommended Posts