norseman Posted March 14, 2016 Admin Author Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) Crowlogic wrote: Correct and yet a great many take the bait for dogmen and Thunderbirds. BTW Flores Island is a tiny place. Most American counties cover more area. ------------------------------- Who cares about the dogman or the thunderbird? We are talking about cryptid hominids in this thread. And Flores is an island that belongs to the lesser sundra island chain that covers 14,300 square kilometers. And that doesnt count the rest of micronesia. Its a big place, and the possibility that something may still exist is plausible, unlike dogmen. Edited March 14, 2016 by norseman
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 Norse I wonder if I found the wrong Flores. There a Flores in the Azores region and it's likely no more than 100 sq miles in area.
norseman Posted March 14, 2016 Admin Author Posted March 14, 2016 The island of Flores that the Hobbit was discovered from is in Micronesia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flores
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 Norse yes entirely different from the tiny Azores speck. Are there reports or history of the residents encountering Hobbit?
norseman Posted March 14, 2016 Admin Author Posted March 14, 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_gogo
southernyahoo Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 Again, your only counter argument when presented with documentation is "I don't want to believe it". It's getting pretty thin intellectually. Documentation? Reports and stories are a form of documentation, albeit rather down the pecking order of what constitutes substantial verification. I'd not consider it intellectually thin to ask if film or video exists of the remarkable claim of seagoing bigfoot. What is a report, if not intellectually thin? I concede that individual reports are thin evidence taken alone, but they are data points and should be treated as such. Collectively, the data provided by the reports is either consistent or inconsistent. One must have a means for analyzing the consistency of the data and to determine if it has been somehow skewed. Properly analyzed, with consideration for provenance and consistency, potentially useful information can be gleaned. I agree, the researchers use sightings as location data coupled with viable habitat knowledge. Then they need to know what sign or sound to key on. The sighting / encounter reports again provide data to work with. There is objective scientific consistency between the reports and collected data by researchers.
bipedalist Posted March 15, 2016 BFF Patron Posted March 15, 2016 ^ Exactly, if there was not concordance I never would have had my sighting...... but it helped to have spent many months reading as many reports as I could before the outset. I love the arguments of substantial verification, evidence that is not proof, anecdotal reports that have to be thin and can't be substantial and finally proof that cannot be because there is no chain of custody/evidence. It is a lovely tautology but it is what it is..... or isn't rather.
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I stand corrected. Hobbit is a very viable candidate to be perhaps still going. I'm not sure why I considered it having some from a what is now a cold climate. Perhaps it had something to do with mini Mamouths that were island bound which appeared not long ago..
Incorrigible1 Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Documentation? Reports and stories are a form of documentation, albeit rather down the pecking order of what constitutes substantial verification. I'd not consider it intellectually thin to ask if film or video exists of the remarkable claim of seagoing bigfoot. What is a report, if not intellectually thin? I concede that individual reports are thin evidence taken alone, but they are data points and should be treated as such. Collectively, the data provided by the reports is either consistent or inconsistent. One must have a means for analyzing the consistency of the data and to determine if it has been somehow skewed. Properly analyzed, with consideration for provenance and consistency, potentially useful information can be gleaned. I agree, the researchers use sightings as location data coupled with viable habitat knowledge. Then they need to know what sign or sound to key on. The sighting / encounter reports again provide data to work with. There is objective scientific consistency between the reports and collected data by researchers. Or quite possibly stories beget stories.
Rockape Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I stand corrected. Hobbit is a very viable candidate to be perhaps still going. I'm not sure why I considered it having some from a what is now a cold climate. Perhaps it had something to do with mini Mamouths that were island bound which appeared not long ago.. mini Mamouths?
Incorrigible1 Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I stand corrected. Hobbit is a very viable candidate to be perhaps still going. I'm not sure why I considered it having some from a what is now a cold climate. Perhaps it had something to do with mini Mamouths that were island bound which appeared not long ago.. mini Mamouths? On special this week at Sonic. Delish. 1
norseman Posted March 15, 2016 Admin Author Posted March 15, 2016 I stand corrected. Hobbit is a very viable candidate to be perhaps still going. I'm not sure why I considered it having some from a what is now a cold climate. Perhaps it had something to do with mini Mamouths that were island bound which appeared not long ago.. mini Mamouths? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegodon
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I stand corrected. Hobbit is a very viable candidate to be perhaps still going. I'm not sure why I considered it having some from a what is now a cold climate. Perhaps it had something to do with mini Mamouths that were island bound which appeared not long ago.. mini Mamouths? mammoths
southernyahoo Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Or quite possibly stories beget stories. You may never know without some systematic way of finding the truth for yourself in the field. You'll be forever second guessing all information. Forever incapable of knowing what's real information and what is copycat information. 2
georgerm Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I know the animals are here in Australia, I don't need further proof AS I said I have seen 5 animals in the past 20 years, we don't have bears so there is no mistaking what I saw "I know what I saw" is precisely the issue - EVERYBODY knows what what they saw when it comes to Bigfoot despite the complete lack of objective confirmation whether they see him stepping behind a tree or stepping into an interdimensional portal... Marvin Gaye has some words of wisdom: People say believe half of what you see Son and none of what you hear While one's personal subjective experience of Bigfoot may be perceived as real (and powerful and even life-changing) the objective evidence does not support it being an objectively real creature. It is not crazy to subjectively experience things differently to objective reality - it is an integral part of being human... happens to us all... Perhaps the question, then, is not "What type of creature is Bigfoot?" but "What is the Bigfoot experience?" or "Why do some people experience Bigfoot while others do not?" Yowiie, you may need to reply to those that are interested in your bigfoot experiences. Your experiences are of interest to me, and I appreciate your postings here.
Recommended Posts