dmaker Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 I doubt that very much. That is, of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt about your being honest about your bigfoot sighting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) The most persistent point regarding any report is that every single witness providing any bit of data about Bigfoot appears to be sincere yet despite that apparent sincerity of dozens/hundreds/thousands of these witnesses no case has provided even a single piece of verifiable objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny or meets the predefined standard of new species recognition. Not one… That’s 0% conversion rate doesn’t mean that they are all lying – many appear to truly believe what they claim to have experienced. Most of these people are honest and seriously trying to understand exactly what happened. We are taught to trust our own senses and if they saw a giant hairy biped then that is what they saw (unless there is objective evidence of deceit to state otherwise) but that doesn’t necessarily mean that what they subjectively saw was the same as what was objectively there - we don’t really see with our eyes we perceive with our minds. Our minds are geared towards filling in the blanks. Bigfoot may be simply illusive rather than super elusive: It cannot be demonstrated that Bigfoot doesn’t exist but the above examples demonstrate that many people can and do see Bigfoot in moments of uncertainty/ambiguity. People can and do see Bigfoot even when there is no creature to be seen... Can dozens/hundreds/thousands of people be mistaken? Yes. Among the billions of people on this earth every single one can and has been mistaken about many, many things. It can happen any time to all of us. No-one is infallible. No-one... Edited March 18, 2016 by Night Walker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) You conveniently discount a lot of evidence. The PGF, I will reiterate, has never been proven to be a fake. On the contrary, forensic analysis using modern techniques has shown that the subject in the film is not human. You claim that there is no evidence. That is not true. There simply is no evidence that you have not subjectively discarded. Edited March 18, 2016 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 I did not say there was no evidence - I said that there is not a single piece of verifiable objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny or meets the predefined standard of new species recognition. I love the PGF but it does not satisfy the pre-existing criteria. Not releasing the original for scrutiny is not helpful in that regard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Ok, fine, get out there and find one. Even if you don't manage to drag one in you may see one for yourself and give us a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) Ok, fine, get out there and find one. Even if you don't manage to drag one in you may see one for yourself and give us a rest. That is exactly what I have been doing. It's a wonderful journey that may have no end point though. I'm ok with that... Edited March 19, 2016 by Night Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 (edited) Most interesting thread. My evidence is quite simple really. As far as I know and have been made aware of there is no specimen to analyze and catalog . I am not of course affiliated with any government agency so, I could be wrong. Edited March 19, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 On my return trip from Vancouver yesterday (Air Canada hop to Sea-Tac) I was seated next to a forester in his early 60's who lives on Vancouver Island. When I found out he was a forester I told him of my encounters and he mentioned some of his experiences, so there's at least one such guy, Kit, that has encountered them going about the normal business of forestry and has simply chosen not to make an issue of it in his career. He was pretty matter of fact about it. I'm sure he's not the only one. Skeptics ridicule witnesses. Witnesses decide to keep evidence to themselves. Skeptics point to lack of evidence. Self-fulfilling skeptical gratification. Would some experiences include any of the following terms?... Rock/pinecone throwing. Tree breaks. Stick structures. Weird noises. Sudden wildlife, insects included, silence. Would some of those experiences not include the following?... Bigfoot in logging truck grill. Bigfoot bones. Shot dead Bigfoot. If yes to the former and no to the latter, I thank you for the anecdote and extend my apologies for having to use what is without doubt in my personal experience one of the most hideous travel experiences possible for mankind - SeaTac Airport. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Would some experiences include any of the following terms?... Rock/pinecone throwing. Tree breaks. Stick structures. Weird noises. Sudden wildlife, insects included, silence. If Bigfoot is not objectively real but is subjectively experienced as being real (ie illusive rather than elusive) then the above factors, combined with, say, a sudden rush of adrenaline, could serve to generate the Bigfoot experience among individuals and in group settings – perhaps even creating a visual sighting if the situational ambiguity was just right (“I know what I saw!â€)… Bigfoot as legend-trip… that’s awesome! Shows like Finding Bigfoot, then, effectively spread that legend-tripping culture to a broader audience by demonstrating how it can be done… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 ^Night Walker you have nailed it very, very well. Those who claim sightings or encounter frequently do later go off on a religious or spiritual metaphysical. Two that come to mind are Albert Ostman and most recently Matt Johnson. If I recall BTW Ostman was supposedly writing a book around the time of his death where he was going to tell the full story of his encounter and yes by then he had gone deeply woo on it. It does indeed seem like a mild external stimuli creates a mega elaborate post stimuli construct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 ^Night Walker you have nailed it very, very well. Those who claim sightings or encounter frequently do later go off on a religious or spiritual metaphysical. Two that come to mind are Albert Ostman and most recently Matt Johnson. If I recall BTW Ostman was supposedly writing a book around the time of his death where he was going to tell the full story of his encounter and yes by then he had gone deeply woo on it. It does indeed seem like a mild external stimuli creates a mega elaborate post stimuli construct. woo n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo". woo woo Unfounded or ludicrous beliefs ludicrous adjective: so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing. Such "experiences" can be deeply personal and profound - certainly not unfounded, nor foolish, nor unreasonable, nor amusing. A term like "woo", therefore, is not accurate and is inappropriate in this context... I think that the process of legend-tripping may be a bit more elaborate than just mild external stimuli creating a mega elaborate construct. It's ritualistic in some ways - perhaps tapping into something primal. Potentially, under the right set of circumstances, anyone could get a similarly profound experience. Belief may not even be necessary - maybe just the suspension of disbelief. Would certainly make for an interesting experiment but may not meet ethical criteria so perhaps Reality TV may be the way to go... it'd be like taking Finding Bigfoot to the next step - Really Finding Bigfoot ! or Finding Bigfoot for Yourself ! (which is essentially what people do when they go out researching/legend-tripping Bigfoot anyway)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 ^ All speculative and grasping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 ↑ Absolutely ,pretty much like alleged sightings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Not the same. A sighting is a direct 1st person account. It's only speculative if the circumstances were not clear to the witness himself. What skeptics do is speculate on all sightings without regard for the quality of the witness or the circumstances of the sighting based solely on their own belief system. The skeptical process is a step removed, derivative to the sightings themselves and, more often that not, subjectively dismissive based on nothing more than the premise that bigfoot do not exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) However, if they don't exist then circumstances can not possibly be clear and factual . While there is a difference ultimately the result is the same. The skeptical process can include the sighting, reputation and the quality of the sighting. For instance I may not accept that the creature is real, but there are very credible sightings that keep me hoping. Up to and including one in particular I learned about from this forum. Edited March 21, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts