Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots? (2)

[LeafTalker]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Of all the encounter reports I've read, only this guy truly stands out as an exceptional case in this regard. All the others were experiencing true shock and terror, or were just too uncomprehending to make sense of it enough to act as we would want them to. He is of the ice water instead of  blood variety and a whole different breed of cat:

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=57053

GREAT report, WSA. And the fun part of reading reports like this is that it confirms (for the millionth time) that the BF will not hurt you. So when all the readers of reports like these then have THEIR encounters, they can make the same friendly gestures, instead of running for the hills. (And I don't think the person in the report has ice water in his veins; that suggests he's mean and cold, and I think it's the opposite.... And you would have the same nice-person stuff in your veins if YOU saw one, WSA -- if you haven't already seen one.)

[WSA]

Speaking of wasting time...

 

I do know their are roughly two categories of people in situations like that LeafTalker, and I'd like to think I would, but I think it is just as likely I'd crap my shorts and run!  Half of me would like to find out what I'm made of, and the other half would prefer not to.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, WSA said:

Not lost on me, no. Is it lost on you this kind of sighting is reported like, I dunno, .00000003% of the time? And personally, as Salubrious explains in detail, the risk/benefit analysis can happen in a second, and the result is most likely always to be, "Ummm....don't think so." 

 

Let me ask you something Dmaker, and this is something that is germaine to this question, as it applies to everyone that thinks it is an easy thing to consider documentation over self-preservation. Have you, personally, ever had to contend with an animal (or even a human) in the wild that had the eminent capability of killing or inflicting grievous bodily injury on you? I'm talking about a true flight-or-fight episode. If you've not, I wouldn't consider you to have the relevant experience to weigh in with an opinion that really should matter to anyone.  Care to tell us?  

 

How is this relative to the veracity of Internet stories?

[salubrious]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

I've not said that Sal should haven taken a picture. My point was that sitting in the middle of the road forcing traffic to go around you is about as conspicuous as you can get. 

 

 

I agree. But the thing is, it was a dark night, and on a road that was not seeing much traffic. I was the only car I saw for the entire length of hiway 62 from Ridgeway until the turnoff to Telluride. I'm sure they heard my truck coming from a few miles off. And although they did not turn to look at me, it was obvious they were really agitated. So something weird was up (as if BF isn't weird enough) so I would not take my experience as a median example.

 

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Why would he assume life threatening? From his account, the animal barely moved. 

 

To answer that, try being really really close to an animal of any type that is much much larger than yourself. Then add to that a hint of the boogyman and you might get a feel for it.

 

1 hour ago, Starling said:

 

 

That's a great story, no doubt about it. But what I take from it primarily is that this thing was caught sunning itself out in the open. It's fallible...like any other living creature. And if one can be caught in a distracted moment like that, or sitting in the middle of a road, then their legendary elusiveness 'ain't all that' is it. And dangerous or not they're subject to the same natural laws that govern any other creature. Added to that...they're massive. So somethings definitely wrong with is picture. 

 

The thing that is wrong is that people think they are dumb like other animals. What if they are smarter than humans? They have a big enough head- which suggests a bigger brain. I think the ones that get seen by whatever means are doing it with intention (as the ones I encountered) or are just plain screwing up.

 

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

 I will never comprehend why anyone gives any BFRO report any sort of consideration at all. 

 

 

That's easy. They are about the only place you can go to where the reports, bogus or not, are categorized. Before transistors there were only vacuum tubes. That sort of thing.

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If someone is cherry-picking a freak report in a serious debate, then the onus is on them to present reasons for why that report is true. This is inherently flawed though; if dmaker were to show that the report is true, then he's undermining his main theory (non-existence of the enitity). 

 

Regardless of how one approaches it though, it's a freak report. It doesn't contain the behaviour that witnesses experience 99.9%+ of the time.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[MIB]

That's why statistics are important ... establish averages, establish standard deviation, THEN you can truly know what is an outlier and what merely is odd from a gut feel perspective.    There's a lot of strange seeming things in bigfooting that are only strange to (sometimes deliberately) uninformed who are going by "gut" without doing real science .. which includes real math.  

 

It's that seemingly weird, but appropriately consistent, stuff that interests me.    There may be new / undiscovered physical principals at work which someone gets to discover .. if they'll only risk the ridicule that comes from doing actual science and **looking** rather than scoffing.

 

MIB

[7.62]

5 hours ago, LeafTalker said:

GREAT report, WSA. And the fun part of reading reports like this is that it confirms (for the millionth time) that the BF will not hurt you. So when all the readers of reports like these then have THEIR encounters, they can make the same friendly gestures, instead of running for the hills. (And I don't think the person in the report has ice water in his veins; that suggests he's mean and cold, and I think it's the opposite.... And you would have the same nice-person stuff in your veins if YOU saw one, WSA -- if you haven't already seen one.)

 I would like to also think that but that is suggesting that all of those creatures have the same personality and disposition .

I don't believe that's the case because that would be like thinking since that bear didn't attack or hurt me then all bears or for that matter all people are friendly .

 I've also read all the 411 cases and there's some cases where the person was snatched with other people not more than 100 feet away with no evidence of an animal attack. One case in particular  ,only thing found was coins scattered on the ground and one boot and the tool belt he was wearing and a strand of clothing stuck on a barbed wire fence .What ever took him was powerful enough to lift him up side down and over a fence before he was able to make a sound . The book never says it was a bigfoot but it leaves it up to your own conclusion to make.

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by 7.62

[LeafTalker]

Bigfoots aren't bears. They're people. And fer shur, there are bad people. But there seem to be a lot fewer nasty BFs than nasty humans. Percentage-wise, you're in much better shape in the presence of a strange BF than you are in the presence of a strange human. 

 

 

 

 

[ohiobill]

I think they are bears quite often, sometimes people, sometimes they are even ground squirrels or rabbits that make scary noises in the woods for people that go out wanting to be scared. What they aren't is overall-wearing, chain-smoking brakemen on your local freight train. They aren't living anywhere near downtown Chicago. They aren't living in Sassyfoot's side yard without leaving physical sign that could be tested. 

 

Fer shur, squatch are true blue sweethearts until they start beheading folks, kidnapping them Missing 411 style, attacking in waves at Ape Canyon, throwing rocks at NAWAC or going straight up Boggy Creek style. The only consistent thing in all the stories told is that they remain inconsistent stories. Statistically, what conclusions can we draw from that data? Forest people or wood apes? Sweethearts or monsters? Which group of observers are right? All, some, none? 

 

The truth is that none of the stories matter without evidence to back them up. That's why they didn't rely on stories in the Cascades. They used proven techniques that work on all known species to come up with answers rather than just ask for story submissions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, salubrious said:

 

I agree. But the thing is, it was a dark night, and on a road that was not seeing much traffic. I was the only car I saw for the entire length of hiway 62 from Ridgeway until the turnoff to Telluride. I'm sure they heard my truck coming from a few miles off. And although they did not turn to look at me, it was obvious they were really agitated. So something weird was up (as if BF isn't weird enough) so I would not take my experience as a median example.

 

 

To answer that, try being really really close to an animal of any type that is much much larger than yourself. Then add to that a hint of the boogyman and you might get a feel for it.

 

 

The thing that is wrong is that people think they are dumb like other animals. What if they are smarter than humans? They have a big enough head- which suggests a bigger brain. I think the ones that get seen by whatever means are doing it with intention (as the ones I encountered) or are just plain screwing up.

 

 

 

That's easy. They are about the only place you can go to where the reports, bogus or not, are categorized. Before transistors there were only vacuum tubes. That sort of thing.

 

 

I think it's crazy talk to think that something like Bigfoot is smarter than a human.

 

But all Apes are smart. Crazy smart compared to other mammals. No. They will not solve fusion anytime soon.

 

But consider the intelligence of a Chimp, and then consider the probable Intelligence of something much closer to humans...say Homo Erectus. I think it's safe to say it would scare us and rival us in certain situations.

 

 

Also, I don't think we can just make blanket behavioral statements about an Ape species. It's not a static thing. In the above video the Chimp learns to float a peanut out of a tube to consume it.

 

Why would a Bigfoot risk being seen on a blacktop road? What could it possibly be doing there? It could be a learned behavior with rewards. Such as simply taking in the warmth of the blacktop after the sun goes down. Snakes utilize this as we know. It could be licking road salts from the road. Many states apply road salt and sand during winter and the stuff hangs around all year. Sometimes the state will bring a sweeper along in spring to sweep it to the ditch. Animals get hit on the road way all the time and could be a source of protein as well.

 

Lastly humans have built roads almost every where. Many of the forest roads in the Gifford Pinchot national forest are paved. Presuming Bigfoot is real? I think it's rather silly to think that a large omnivore would never cross a road for the risk of being "seen". It would be forced to follow food sources, mates, seasons, etc.

 

So reports that see Bigfoots by or on roadways I don't think should be dismissed offhand because it's an elusive creature.

[gigantor]

Ok, I'm gonna try to help members improve their debating skills...

 

I think many times members are drawn into trying to justify fallacies. This is a favorite technique of skeptics, yours truly included.

 

Sometimes, the correct response is to reject an incorrect premise, instead of trying to justify it. Unfortunately, it happens over and over again. Listen up...

 

You should pause and think about the question / challenge being posed. You'll find many a premise is just an assumption, yet members will dive right in trying to justify it. It is an error. Once you try to justify an invalid premise, it's over, you lost the argument.

 

Example:

 

skeptic: "All claimed BF howls are coyotes calling females".

proponent: "no, the recording that I have is not a coyote, I compared it to all known wildlife recordings in the area and none match".

skeptic: "bs, post the recording so we can evaluate it".  Or " post an example of a howl that's not a coyote, any recording..."

 

You see?  you have already accepted the fallacious claim that all howls are coyotes, and now you're trying to defend that position. You have now volunteered to provide conclusive evidence of a howl which is not a coyote. You lost.

 

Realize the hasty generalization, "all claimed..."   and many other forms of it. Appeal to authority... "all real scientist reject BF is real..." etc.  Do not accept it.

 

Simply point out that the assumption is incorrect or not a fact. It's an assumption.

 

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I've lost track of all the fallacies commonly committed by "skeptics" who try to support the theory of non-existence. It's more than any other theory I've ever seen in all my time witnessing debates of controversial topics. 

 

The good news is that it won't last forever. We may soon enough see a final nail in the coffin, and it's quite a doozy

 

 

[dmaker]

9 hours ago, gigantor said:

Ok, I'm gonna try to help members improve their debating skills...

 

I think many times members are drawn into trying to justify fallacies. This is a favorite technique of skeptics, yours truly included.

 

Sometimes, the correct response is to reject an incorrect premise, instead of trying to justify it. Unfortunately, it happens over and over again. Listen up...

 

You should pause and think about the question / challenge being posed. You'll find many a premise is just an assumption, yet members will dive right in trying to justify it. It is an error. Once you try to justify an invalid premise, it's over, you lost the argument.

 

Example:

 

skeptic: "All claimed BF howls are coyotes calling females".

proponent: "no, the recording that I have is not a coyote, I compared it to all known wildlife recordings in the area and none match".

skeptic: "bs, post the recording so we can evaluate it".  Or " post an example of a howl that's not a coyote, any recording..."

 

You see?  you have already accepted the fallacious claim that all howls are coyotes, and now you're trying to defend that position. You have now volunteered to provide conclusive evidence of a howl which is not a coyote. You lost.

 

Realize the hasty generalization, "all claimed..."   and many other forms of it. Appeal to authority... "all real scientist reject BF is real..." etc.  Do not accept it.

 

Simply point out that the assumption is incorrect or not a fact. It's an assumption.

 

 

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to ask for a recording of a howl before blindly accepting that the person even has a recording and that it is not a coyote. It also perfectly acceptable to listen to the recording and say it sounds like a coyote, to me.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

Or we can simply admit, as common sense and science requires, that stories aren't evidence and we can stop pretending there is some sort of magical equivalence that can be gained. A story about a coyote howling from the top of the Sears Tower holds the same weight as the story of a squatch clan running a garlic trading business in someone's backyard. They are extraordinary claims that should require extraordinary proof from even the most credulous of people. They aren't evidence in any way, shape or form. 

[hiflier]

32 minutes ago, dmaker said:

It is, however, perfectly reasonable to ask for a recording of a howl before blindly accepting that the person even has a recording and that it is not a coyote. It also perfectly acceptable to listen to the recording and say it sounds like a coyote, to me. And the sound,too, may very well BE a coyote but some effort on both sides to clear up the matter would be appreciated.

 

 

 

Then it would be perfectly acceptable for the proponent to ask you to produce a sonogram that matches the coyote sound to the supposed BF sound. Besides saying something 'sounds' like a coyote doesn't mean that it is, outside of your own play book. And it may BE a coyote but some effort from either side to demonstrate that would be appreciated 

Edited June 30, 2017 by hiflier