Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) But once we prove BF's existence, they will be able to go back over the stories and start accepting some of them. That's how it's done. But how would you evaluate them to determine which ones to "start accepting?" If someone captured a real, live bigfoot today, that would not give us any better indication that any of the reports you've posted in this thread were accurate. It would only demonstrate that there is such a thing as a bigfoot. Bigfoot being real does not preclude every story you've posted from being anything other than a story. Do you really believe that a bigfoot busted out an ambulance and we have no evidence to confirm such an event? edited: Sorry, I attributed the ambulance bigfoot story to you, but you didn't post that one! Edited May 27, 2011 by Saskeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Yes, mainstream science does not accept BF is real, I was speaking member here who disagree and believe BF to be real when I discussed researching a report. You are right, even If every single report is thoroughly and carefully researched, it wouldn't do much for science until a body is on a table. However, If that times comes, you will have some well researched reports to study from rather than a handful of urban legends and campfire stories that are useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 27, 2011 But how would you evaluate them to determine which ones to "start accepting?" If someone captured a real, live bigfoot today, that would not give us any better indication that any of the reports you've posted in this thread were accurate. It would only demonstrate that there is such a thing as a bigfoot. Bigfoot being real does not preclude every story you've posted from being anything other than a story. Do you really believe that a bigfoot busted out an ambulance and we have no evidence to confirm such an event? edited: Sorry, I attributed the ambulance bigfoot story to you, but you didn't post that one! You would still have to work at separating wheat from chaff (bigfoot had my baby.....) in the archive of stories, but the plausibility of these reports through the eyes of science would sky rocket. At least science would then sit up and start digging through them and possibly providing some answers. And new reports would be taken much more seriously.....and we wouldn't have to rely on private clubs to organize and archive them. You would simply call your state wildlife dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 27, 2011 I agree with this 100%, thank you very much. I figure where there's smoke, there's fire. There are so many stories, so much eyewitness testimony, no way are 40,000 eyewitness reports all lies, hallucinations or misidentifications. Combined with the excellent hard science, I figure it's probative. But yes, to science, all of the stories are lies. But once we prove BF's existence, they will be able to go back over the stories and start accepting some of them. That's how it's done. I find some stories very compelling, many others though? Not so much. Certainly there is a lot of hoaxing and story telling go on around this subject. But there is a lot of story telling that goes on around elk camp as well. I think it's human nature to embellish one's own story, although generally there is a kernel of truth to it as well. Who knows? At some point the metal has to meet the meat, or it's all bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 But how would you evaluate them to determine which ones to "start accepting?" If someone captured a real, live bigfoot today, that would not give us any better indication that any of the reports you've posted in this thread were accurate. It would only demonstrate that there is such a thing as a bigfoot. Bigfoot being real does not preclude every story you've posted from being anything other than a story. Do you really believe that a bigfoot busted out an ambulance and we have no evidence to confirm such an event? No, but in terms of BF behavior, we could start accepting some of the eyewitness testimonies, especially the ones that are repeated over time. I mean BF behavior in the wild, not human interaction. Henner Fahrenbach has already done this. How do you know which reports are true? That's what linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, cops, intel agencies, psychologists, judges, juries are supposed to do. You have to look at the totality of the evidence presented and try to figure out what is credible and what is not. You know full well that eyewitness testimony (anecdotal evidence) is used in behavioral write-ups of known species in wildlife science. I recently read an overview of the California wolverine and much of the behavioral biology consisted of reports from old trappers and Indians. In the absence of new research, it's good enough, and a lot species are damned hard to observe in the wild by guys going out looking to do just that. Once BF gets proven, and of course it will, then all of these old stories will be shown as true in their totality because we will have new reports and they will either be verified or viewed in a new context. Yes, BF's get hit by cars and trains. Usually they bounce away, but sometimes they do not and die. Of course cars hit them. Yes, BF's get shot and killed by humans with guns. Many other times, people shoot at them and the BF is just wounded. Yes, BF's bury their dead in a variety of ways. Of course they do. Once something gets proven, all the old "lie" reports get looked at in a whole new way. Plus new reports will be much more credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 You would still have to work at separating wheat from chaff (bigfoot had my baby.....) in the archive of stories, but the plausibility of these reports through the eyes of science would sky rocket. At least science would then sit up and start digging through them and possibly providing some answers. And new reports would be taken much more seriously.....and we wouldn't have to rely on private clubs to organize and archive them. You would simply call your state wildlife dept. Of course. Present situation (BF does not exist) Report says hunter shot BF. Report is a lie, BF does not exist. Report says car hit BF and killed it. Report is a lie, BF does not exist. In the future, after inevitable discovery (BF exists) Report says hunter shot BF. There's a body or a wounded BF that ran away. Report is analyzed in a whole new way and evaluated seriously as true or false as a cop does with his witnesses. Some will be true, others not. Report says car hit BF and killed it. Investigate, if true, there would be a police report and probably a writeup in the local papers as well, maybe a TV news crew filming. Discovery changes everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Except there are different hierarchies of govt Jodie... Consider CIA It took ten years for them to find a seven foot tall Middle Easterner on dialysis. I think there are bureaucratic issues inherent in every branch of our government, as well as in other countries. I just can't see a big bigfoot, UFO, whatever kind of cover up going on for very long without someone talking since you can't change human nature. The bigger the organization gets the more apt they are to mess things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 At least science would then sit up and start digging through them and possibly providing some answers. To what questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Do not bring issues from other forums here. Lets get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 No, but in terms of BF behavior, we could start accepting some of the eyewitness testimonies, Sure, we could make some general assumptions about bigfoot from the totality of the anecdotes. For example, we could rather safely assume that bigfoots have a North American distribution and habitat rather similar to that of black bears. We could also be confident that the population is small and sparsely distributed. This would have zero bearing, however, on specific claims offered without corroborating evidence, such as habituation stories or the men-in-black kinda stuff you had been uncritically spouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) What part of "Let's get back on topic" was unclear? Edited May 27, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 27, 2011 To what questions? What is biological and what is superstition in the reports. Based on the study of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Oh you may be right.....I don't know what anybody means anymore. Really! Maybe we should abandon ship for safety sake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) Because he's never seen one. If you've seen one...and I mean "really see one"...no type specimen on a slab is necessary. Amen to that 8footer. Knowing for a *fact* that something exists when everyone around you thinks that you are stupid and/or uneducated to believe such *nonsense* gets old really fast.. Edited May 27, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 (edited) Why o Why must these threads always end up in an argument? Has anyone shot a sasquatch,(also, since 1958, known as a bigfoot) lately? Edited May 27, 2011 by Kane2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts