Night Walker Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 Confirmation bias? So I am not qualified to differentiate what I experienced but you want to see my picture? It must be a rock throwing bear that leaves human shaped 20 inch footprints that knows how to generate infrasound too? Don’t take it personally – we are all prone to confirmation bias (myself included). There is no reason to question your sincerity but there is every reason to question the accuracy of your claims. How, for instance, do you hear sounds below what is humanly audible let alone determine its source? Perhaps you are attributing particular feelings/sensations to infrasound and then attributing that to Bigfoot which is a fine example of a double-barrelled confirmation bias… But perhaps not. The bias, in this example, may be all mine. After all, you do also claim to have objective evidence to support your position in the form of a picture of Bigfoot taken after it had been whooping for several minutes. So, yes, I would like to see your picture. May I, please? I am confronting my bias head-on by requesting to see your evidence – it could be a game-changer for me… The question is: Would the picture support your position (ie Bigfoot is real – here it is!) or mine (ie that you sincerely but inaccurately believe that your picture shows Bigfoot but without actually doing so)? If the picture is not as you claim then would it not be fair to question the accuracy of your other claims (ie those claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever)? If you are not ready to confront your own bias or to challenge the accuracy of your own perceptions/cognitions/memories then perhaps it would be best for you NOT to share your Bigfoot picture. The mystery of Bigfoot is always better than the reality… 1
Night Walker Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) Night Walker I am trying to understand what you mean by confirmation bias as well? How would you intrepid this ? I just do not understand? I can see how the PGF could have been hoaxed and how it could have been planned. Maybe it was, but we were not there so we can only judge by what has been examined. My judgment goes only by what I observed and what I saw and it is not the same. But this does not mean what is on this film is not real. Everything I intrepid is by what I have observed. Does that give me the right that I should call them liars for filming some thing that can be very real? No, not at all, For the things that they did on that day make good sense. If they were just walking their horses while filming a perfectly nice day at the same time searching for Bigfoot. While happening to walk upon a creature and them catching it on the last part their film. Then what is so wrong with this that they had to go back to get what they needed to make casting of tracks that was left. For my self this makes perfect sense, since they were searching who knows how long. They must have thought that they would probitily never find nothing and were ready to give up. This also makes sense why they would not take nothing with them as well and leave their evidence kit at camp. It would make perfect sense for a hoaxer to have every thing with them and be ready. It would also make sense that they would only have a single track cast that would not be far of a trail and easy to find. If we look at Wallace and the way he made his track line and where he made his tracks, how easy were they to find. Not to many hoaxer are going to go into deep woods just to fool people, hoping that some one will run into their fake tracks one day. I do not go looking for tracks, but tracks some how find there way on my path as I look for deer. Could they be hoaxed maybe, but from what I have experience I know they are not. So I cannot deny what is on the PGF, but in my view it is not what I saw. Did you photograph the footprints that you found? If so, may we see the picture(s)? Edited June 2, 2016 by Night Walker
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2016 Posted June 2, 2016 I think Roger and Bob believed they filmed a real bigfoot. Their actions follow the logical coarse of someone who had encountered a real bigfoot. There is always the exact opposite of confirmation bias, (disconfirmation bias), where all information is regarded as a contaminant and infects and ruins all consistent repeating evidence to the point that nothing is legit. 2
MIB Posted June 2, 2016 Moderator Posted June 2, 2016 SY ... Yes. That's at least as big a problem, particularly dealing with the ill-informed public at large, but also with a few particularly noisy, straw-grasping denialists here. MIB
chelefoot Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I think it would take a person with absolutely no prior interest in this subject either way to not be somewhat biased when reviewing the "evidence" because I feel the bias is equally an issue whether a proponent or skeptic.
SWWASAS Posted June 4, 2016 BFF Patron Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Confirmation bias? So I am not qualified to differentiate what I experienced but you want to see my picture? It must be a rock throwing bear that leaves human shaped 20 inch footprints that knows how to generate infrasound too? Don’t take it personally – we are all prone to confirmation bias (myself included). There is no reason to question your sincerity but there is every reason to question the accuracy of your claims. How, for instance, do you hear sounds below what is humanly audible let alone determine its source? Perhaps you are attributing particular feelings/sensations to infrasound and then attributing that to Bigfoot which is a fine example of a double-barrelled confirmation bias… But perhaps not. The bias, in this example, may be all mine. After all, you do also claim to have objective evidence to support your position in the form of a picture of Bigfoot taken after it had been whooping for several minutes. So, yes, I would like to see your picture. May I, please? I am confronting my bias head-on by requesting to see your evidence – it could be a game-changer for me… The question is: Would the picture support your position (ie Bigfoot is real – here it is!) or mine (ie that you sincerely but inaccurately believe that your picture shows Bigfoot but without actually doing so)? If the picture is not as you claim then would it not be fair to question the accuracy of your other claims (ie those claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever)? If you are not ready to confront your own bias or to challenge the accuracy of your own perceptions/cognitions/memories then perhaps it would be best for you NOT to share your Bigfoot picture. The mystery of Bigfoot is always better than the reality… Don't take it personally?. You sound just like my neighbor when I told him that I had found and documented a bigfoot footprint. He basically said since BF does not exist, perhaps it was not a footprint but some sort of natural formation that just happened to look like a 20 inch footprint. In other words I am not capable of determining if something is a footprint or not. Perhaps you have a Masters Degree in biology like he does?. Interestingly he never asked to see the evidence I had, only that since science did not accept the existence of bigfoot, therefore bigfoot does not exist and I must be mistaken. That thought process sounds like our resident skeptics. I have known the man for years and he has trusted his life to me flying. But he cannot accept my judgement that something is a footprint, much less a bigfoot footprint. I would say that he exhibits a form of bias similar to your own. I was upset with him and told him so. He apologized but only made it worse. Basically his apology was such that someone had to conclude I was delusional or just plain nuts to conclude that I had found a BF footprint because he refused to allow the possibility that I might be correct. I have never brought up the subject again even though I have found several more footprints and had several encounters including the one where I got the photograph. As I have explained before to the forum I will not publish the photograph on line. I have nearly enough material for a book, and I do not want my photographs, especially that one, in the public domain. Other authors have advised me to hold it back so I do not have copyright issues with someone that claims the photograph as their own after a book is published. If it has never been published before the book, they cannot have a copy preexisting the book. It is also in still in the camera and will remain there until the book, if any, is published. I have shown it to several people including some of our famous PHD's at conferences. I will show it to anyone that asks but in the form of an 8/10 that never leaves my hands. No it does not provide proof of BF. No picture does or ever will. As a matter of fact since it is a small juvenile, one could conclude that it is some African or South American ape and I took the picture in some jungle. I haver been to Africa or South America so while it may not be photographic evidence of bigfoot, it is photographic evidence of a wild ape living in the Pacific Northwest that was being carried by something massive that approached me. Finally, proof or not, you skeptics, as many of us know, are dead wrong. We have many witnesses on the forum who know without doubt that bigfoot exists. Providing proof of that is the hard part. Only a body on a lab table or a live bigfoot in captivity will prove it at this point. So personally I am not going to jump through skeptics hoops in a vain attempt to furnish evidence on demand when only that body will provide any acceptable proof. You all know it but continue to imply that evidence held back is something fabricated or the result of "confirmation bias" on my part. Edited June 4, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 2
guyzonthropus Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 You'd think someone so invested in science, such as your neighbor, would know better than to disregard mounting evidences and thousands of basically consistent eyewitness accounts of an unrecognized species. Dismissing such is straying from the path of The Method. But that's a old observation, no less valid now, but one familiar to most anyone here.. It's tragic that academia is producing such resistant minds, especially in the sciences.
guyzonthropus Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 Centuries of eyewitness accounts, PGF, audio of large mammals unknown to those who study such, hair samples, fecal samples(has anyone had a thorough assay of the parasite load, that alone would prove quite significant were species specific forms found, but unknown in the known species of the region from which the sample was removed. This could also provide some insight to its phylogeny) the "unknown primate" DNA samples (which certainly merit cross comparison to determine if the anomalous elements are consistent or at least fall within a reasonable range of commonality) and just how many print castings are there now, would you imagine? A good few displaying aberrant dermatoglyph patterns of a complexity that until recently would have been a bit of a task to "take it to the substrate" as it were. If that is still not enough to incite interest and inquiry, on an academic level, within the fields of, say, genetics, taxonomy, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, evolutionary biology and comparative A&P,to name a few, on the possibility that even just one of those thousands of indicative events or artifacts is indeed genuine, for if that is so, then there's a lot of catching up to do, and the race is on. It surprises me that there have been no multi-discipline research teams put together by one or more unversities(perhaps even comprised of specialists from different universities, then sharing the data, each for their own pursuits) with better funding, latest tech, and grad students to do the grunt work. Certainly, similar research/study has been initiated on considerably less credible evidences, only the subject wasn't an unrecognized uber-primate whose acknowledgement by the scientific community could well cause quite some upheaval on a number of levels. But yeah ...I'd say it's mounting...none too fast ..but neverless 2
Incorrigible1 Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 ....thousands of indicative events or artifacts.... Of which oral reports, legends, and tales seem to be the bulk of which anything is provided. It should be obvious that just ain't cutting it, Charlie. It's all a will-'o-the-wisp, footprints that evidently never lead to a maker, buffalo and bear hairs, and a 50 year old film.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 SY ... Yes. That's at least as big a problem, particularly dealing with the ill-informed public at large, but also with a few particularly noisy, straw-grasping denialists here. MIB Whoa pardner better throw 'er in reverse and get that reply on the proper road. Now about those straws. For generations human beings have been building shelters and blinds. Now when bigfootism was entering it's death throws without great sighting reports and with one too many hoaxers allowed into the VIP room something was needed to recharge the batteries. Yessir no use getting that monkey suit Clem them footers know how to spot em now. So the idea was hit upon to focus on the "artifacts" biggie makes and leaves in it's wake and looky looky the woods is full of em and they don't cost nothing to make. So we can all enjoy bigfoot archetecture and pretend Bobby Bow Hunter's 2014 blind is a bigfoot structure of mystery purpose. And when Sammy Survivalist overnighter shelter is discovered it's bigfoot motel time. No straws on my end but why not get us a good video of them bigfeets building them ultra rustic condos.
SWWASAS Posted June 5, 2016 BFF Patron Posted June 5, 2016 The neighbor guy, I just talked to him this morning, is one of those know it alls that thinks he is intellectually superior to most people. He basically has been in academia most of his adult life. High school biology teacher then adminstrator up to the superintendent of schools level. Was a PHD candidate at one point but he had issues with his department head and they did not allow him to continue his PHD work. I get the impression he does not have the curiosity to be a researcher but is happy to learn and regurgitate scientific dogma. Anyway if someone said they had found something and had pictures I would have looked at them. I think people like him in the science mainstream will be hard to persuade even when that body has been on the lab table. They will doubt those that examined it. 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 ....thousands of indicative events or artifacts.... Of which oral reports, legends, and tales seem to be the bulk of which anything is provided. It should be obvious that just ain't cutting it, Charlie. It's all a will-'o-the-wisp, footprints that evidently never lead to a maker, buffalo and bear hairs, and a 50 year old film. I sense an upcoming crow logic alliance. I keep a Bigfoot in the basement for times like these rhymes with these.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 ....thousands of indicative events or artifacts.... Of which oral reports, legends, and tales seem to be the bulk of which anything is provided. It should be obvious that just ain't cutting it, Charlie. It's all a will-'o-the-wisp, footprints that evidently never lead to a maker, buffalo and bear hairs, and a 50 year old film. I sense an upcoming crow logic alliance. I keep a Bigfoot in the basement for times like these rhymes with these. The dragon in the garage is already spoken for.
hiflier Posted June 6, 2016 Author Posted June 6, 2016 The dragon in the garage is already spoken for. You think that's something? Come have dinner with me and all my invisible friends. I really get a kick out of 'em. You will too.
Recommended Posts