Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yes... Many sounds coming from the bush or woods can be considered unidentifiable, only to later on come up to a river and see a small water filled pool by its side with a stick from a bank side slapping up against the rocks like a drum or coyotes walking into view... That's why humans invented language and developed other senses to enhance or corroborate the original observations. Humans, unless trained, fail to discern the differences between sounds as well as they do smell and sight. Smell only at short distances and sight only with adequate lighting. So only "trained" humans can discern known sounds from yet unknown ones, as well as smells and what they see ? What kind of training do I need... higher education ? Maybe I should just shut and sign up, and join the intellectuals ...lol. Are there scholarships available for the middle class and needy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Sas, The evidentiary weight that is exerted from those reports is enormous. So many experienced, credible people have described the same animal/ person in very similar ways, yet you dismiss them without a pause. Edited February 12, 2012 by indiefoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Not speaking for Sas, but "you dismiss them without a pause" is a huge slap in the face. Far from dismissing them without a pause, he has repeatedly "dismissed" them after much debate, study, discussion etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Whaaa? If you mean anecdotal sightings accounts, do you not see how they are the least reliable as evidence of an undescribed organism? That is a slap in the face to thousands of good folks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You must understand, indiefoot, that unless you are one of the Annointed High Priests of Science, you are nothing but an unwashed, stupid heathen who must be led to the Sacred Truth of Accepted Knowledge by your betters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How so? As evidence goes, it is the least reliable form. How is that a slap in the face? Surely you've debated this beforw in some other thread, since you have a post count of over 900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How on earth is all this face-slapping going to get us any closer to solving the mystery of bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It is less reliable than other forms, by far, unless of course thousands of reports just keep coming in, and despite some fantastical claims associated with some, there is a core area that shows a remarkable consistency in the basic description,then of course, it starts to get a little more reliable. Especially if you take the time to have a look at how diverse the witness's are. "Humans from all walks of life have encountered bigfoots, including police officers , Border Patrol SIS Agents , park rangers , military personnel during training , Forest Service Law Officers , Forest Service Patrol Officer , security guards , Forest Service smoke jumpers , Recreation Area Supervisors , Boy Scouts , Game Wardens , animal control officers , United States Geological Survey employees , US Postal carriers , as well as ministers and moonshiners ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I have seen this debate and have seen the sighting database dismissed casually. I find it says much about the skeptical view point as displayed on these forums. Those sightings are by far the most compelling reason people give credit to the phenomenon. You see it stated in these forums time and time again. You dismiss the witnesses. Dismissing eyewitness testimony wholesale is lazy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 12, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 12, 2012 ...... and, poor science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How on earth is all this face-slapping going to get us any closer to solving the mystery of bigfoot? RayG The Bigfoot community could really use the help of the skeptical community to refine what we are doing. Stop using science as a club and give us advice on how to satisfy your needs in this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How on earth is all this face-slapping going to get us any closer to solving the mystery of bigfoot? RayG Yes indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Maybe a thread, with some input from the skeptics on field notes, how much documentation? How to structure the documentation, thoughts on building a good data base, for tracking statistics,and reference, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How to look for and handle evidence in the field without diminishing it's value in the process. If you don't like what's going on then teach the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 How to look for and handle evidence in the field without diminishing it's value in the process. If you don't like what's going on then teach the right way. Wow - I've met people here who don't "get" me, but your last few comments take the cake. You couldn't be more wrong that I dismiss the anecdotal sightings without consideration. They are by far the most compelling evidence produced for bigfoot to-date, and absolutely the thing that keeps my interest. People keep claiming to see bigfoot, and I find that fascinating. I want to know why that is. The intellectually lazy thing, however, is to conclude that if people are reporting bigfoots that they must be seeing bigfoots. It takes a lot more reading to understand potential explanations that don't involve a "real bigfoot" explanation, and it also takes courage to admit "I don't have a good explanation for that account." Why do I think a non-real bigfoot must be invoked to explain all those sightings? Well, because the number of sightings is much too large and the encounters far too casual to explain an organism so rare and elusive that it's never been collected and described. Some people have trouble understanding my point of view on this, but I would find "bigfoot" far more plausible as a real species if there were, say, just a handful of anecdotal accounts. If that was the case, then the sightings would better fit the observation of something that's never been collected. The thousands of reports tells me that other explanations are more likely. So something is amiss, and the way forward is to confirm that which we can know, i.e., obtain a specimen and get is scientifically described. If all you've got to report is that you saw a bigfoot, then there's nothing more you can do. There's nothing anyone has done wrong if they think they've seen a bigfoot and they report their sighting. The problem though is - as I must have written here dozens of times - I can't write out a specimen tag to describe a new species based on your anecdotal account. It doesn't matter how convincing the witness or the details of the account might be, the account is anecdotal, and it doesn't get us any closer to a zoological description of a new species. Maybe 10 people report an anecdotal account of the same creature - maybe 100, maybe 1000 - it doesn't matter. The accounts, both individually and collectively are anecdotal, and there is no amount of them that can suddenly reach a threshold at which any one of them must therefore be considered factual beyond any doubt. Of the more than one million species that have been described since formal taxonomy began in the 18th Century, not one has ever been published (or at least legitimately recognized) based solely on the anecdotal accounts of people who claim to have seen it. We need physical evidence to do that, and it's no one's fault that that hasn't happened yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts