Jump to content

The other side of the coin


vinchyfoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I actually put  more credence when a hunter or hiker says he thinks he saw a bigfoot than when  a bigfoot researcher claims they saw one .

 

I might go as far as saying I might put more credence in the Columbia law student who never went camping before.

I've watched 100's of videos of researchers if not 1000's and many not all but I'm going as far as saying most  researchers  everything is a bigfoot in the woods to them.

 

Every sound , every stick break , every splash  you name it.

 

 

 

 

 

Not to good researchers! You are referring to 'fringe believers They are a misguided race onto their own. They are not researchers!

I too have read many hundreds of reports (I do not believe that there are 'thousands' of them  out there! )

I got tired of watching videos 15 years ago. All of them were debunked!  I have debunked vocalizations with Thomas Steenburg! The only researchers that I associate with are those of high honesty and authenticity! And they are few and far!

I am no elitist! But I am a sceptic! This does not mean that I am not open minded! But it does mean that if you make a claim, then you had better have the proof to back it up!

Come and listen to my podcasts!

Click on the podcast page and go to West Coast Sasquatch Research

The shows are free! There are 11 of them so far. another coming out next week!

I am not trying to buffalo you. Just tell you the truth of the way Sasquatch World is going to have to be more honest! And people are going to need to be more honest with each other! And it is starting to go that way! Which is the good news!

Oh yes! There are interviews too!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
7 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

The only researchers that I associate with are those of high honesty and authenticity! And they are few and far!

With the exception of one person, anyone I've researched with has been a person I believed to be both honorable and truthful.  So my experience has been the opposite of yours.

 

7 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

But it does mean that if you make a claim, then you had better have the proof to back it up!

What about those who saw a large footprint but didn't have casting materials, those who had a sighting but it happened too quickly to capture on film, or those who heard a scream, or wood knock, but didn't have their sound recorder on? Those are people you aren't interested in listening to? That could mean you'd never hear about reports from several people who might have had a similar experience in a similar area, providing a pattern, that you would never know about because you wouldn't be interested in engaging with them without proof. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

With the exception of one person, anyone I've researched with has been a person I believed to be both honorable and truthful.  So my experience has been the opposite of yours.

 

What about those who saw a large footprint but didn't have casting materials, those who had a sighting but it happened too quickly to capture on film, or those who heard a scream, or wood knock, but didn't have their sound recorder on? Those are people you aren't interested in listening to? That could mean you'd never hear about reports from several people who might have had a similar experience in a similar area, providing a pattern, that you would never know about because you wouldn't be interested in engaging with them without proof. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking for my self screams or howls in the woods or tail slaps are common for anyone who has spent time in the woods either waiting a couple of hours for dawn in a tree stand or night time fishing.  A life time of doing this you hear all kinds of sounds at night that if a person or persons who want's to convince him or herself be it sound , thermal or  stick breaks they are having an encounter , they convince themselves . They are not lying but truly believe they are encountering bigfoot. I think as we said it comes down to each individual case and the people involved .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

Not to good researchers! You are referring to 'fringe believers They are a misguided race onto their own. They are not researchers!

I too have read many hundreds of reports (I do not believe that there are 'thousands' of them  out there! )

I got tired of watching videos 15 years ago. All of them were debunked!  I have debunked vocalizations with Thomas Steenburg! The only researchers that I associate with are those of high honesty and authenticity! And they are few and far!

I am no elitist! But I am a sceptic! This does not mean that I am not open minded! But it does mean that if you make a claim, then you had better have the proof to back it up!

Come and listen to my podcasts!

Click on the podcast page and go to West Coast Sasquatch Research

The shows are free! There are 11 of them so far. another coming out next week!

I am not trying to buffalo you. Just tell you the truth of the way Sasquatch World is going to have to be more honest! And people are going to need to be more honest with each other! And it is starting to go that way! Which is the good news!

Oh yes! There are interviews too!

 You could spend weeks on youtube watching people with bigfoot channels trying to tell you this stuff was done by a Sasquatch  . I commented on one once because I could see with my eyes it was a squirrel that had moved down a tree and was told I was crazy and didn't  know what I was talking about :D They wanted to see a bigfoot peeking and that's what they saw . I hope one day I do have an encounter with one .  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

........I too have read many hundreds of reports (I do not believe that there are 'thousands' of them  out there! ).........

 

There are well over 3000 entries in the BFRO database alone, and there are several other databases out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

There are 7,532 reports in the SSR here at BFF.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

There are well over 3000 entries in the BFRO database alone, and there are several other databases out there.

 

BFRO just published report # 69394.   Yeah, that's well over 3000 entries.     If we were to say there are 3000 entries published, there are still another 66000+ unpublished in their database assuming their report generator uses a conventional one-up algorithm for assigning report numbers.   Oregon Bigfoot has over 1400 published reports and over 1600 unpublished and they're not a big or very active group.   There are many, many active groups taking reports that we never hear about, don't have access to.

 

My guestimate, from a one-time insider perspective points to somewhere now around 150,000 reports on file with various groups.    Certainly less than 50%, and possibly as low as 20%, of the total are published.  But they ARE in the databases .. anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't belong talking about databases in the first place.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

BFRO just published report # 69394.   Yeah, that's well over 3000 entries.     If we were to say there are 3000 entries published, there are still another 66000+ unpublished in their database assuming their report generator uses a conventional one-up algorithm for assigning report numbers.   Oregon Bigfoot has over 1400 published reports and over 1600 unpublished and they're not a big or very active group.   There are many, many active groups taking reports that we never hear about, don't have access to.

 

My guestimate, from a one-time insider perspective points to somewhere now around 150,000 reports on file with various groups.    Certainly less than 50%, and possibly as low as 20%, of the total are published.  But they ARE in the databases .. anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't belong talking about databases in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

BFRO just published report # 69394.   Yeah, that's well over 3000 entries.     If we were to say there are 3000 entries published, there are still another 66000+ unpublished in their database assuming their report generator uses a conventional one-up algorithm for assigning report numbers.   Oregon Bigfoot has over 1400 published reports and over 1600 unpublished and they're not a big or very active group.   There are many, many active groups taking reports that we never hear about, don't have access to.

 

My guestimate, from a one-time insider perspective points to somewhere now around 150,000 reports on file with various groups.    Certainly less than 50%, and possibly as low as 20%, of the total are published.  But they ARE in the databases .. anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't belong talking about databases in the first place.

Quantity does not make quality!

I was responding to someone who used report numbers to bolster their point of view!

Anecdotal reports are next to useless, without corroborating evidence!

That was established on these boards over 15 years ago.

But! I am not here to argue or defend any point of view!

Just give me the 'facts' derived from those many thousands of pieces of data. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
2 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

 

Quantity does not make quality!

I was responding to someone who used report numbers to bolster their point of view!

Anecdotal reports are next to useless, without corroborating evidence!

That was established on these boards over 15 years ago.

But! I am not here to argue or defend any point of view!

Just give me the 'facts' derived from those many thousands of pieces of data. :)

Perhaps you remember a poster that placed great store in reading numerous reports.

DWA believed the more reports the more it proved bigfoot existence.

He's gone now, banished for his pig-headedness.

Quality of reports is paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
11 hours ago, Grandcherokee said:

Anecdotal reports are next to useless, without corroborating evidence!

 

 

Let me understand your position.  If a dozen reports, with uncorroborated evidence, come from one narrowly-defined area where the people saw a sasquatch crossing a jeep trail, that information would be useless to you?

Edited by wiiawiwb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
On 7/7/2021 at 3:10 PM, norseman said:


Not quite. You know I’m a pro kill proponent. But no body parts ever? That’s simply not true.

 

There are tons and tons of bones in the fossil record that could represent a Sasquatch. And I don’t think the debate is over in North America either.


http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2019/12/more-on-erectus-calvaria-from-chapala.html

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science

 

We still need a body. But there is no question Hairy ape men came before us. And some supposedly became extinct very recently.  So it makes it fun to read reports and get out and look.

 

Thanks for the links. I of course am fully aware man apes did definitely exist. 

Just not in the here and now. 

 

As for North America. I agree with you. I can see no good reason why they did not exist here. Despite the lack of a fossil record presently.

 

Again just not in the here and now. Only a real specimen will ever convince me otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 3:54 AM, wiiawiwb said:

With the exception of one person, anyone I've researched with has been a person I believed to be both honorable and truthful.  So my experience has been the opposite of yours.

 

What about those who saw a large footprint but didn't have casting materials, those who had a sighting but it happened too quickly to capture on film, or those who heard a scream, or wood knock, but didn't have their sound recorder on? Those are people you aren't interested in listening to? That could mean you'd never hear about reports from several people who might have had a similar experience in a similar area, providing a pattern, that you would never know about because you wouldn't be interested in engaging with them without proof. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I said nothing about 'not' engaging them.Nor did I say anything about not hearing their story! But if they had no evidence to back up their claim..no matter how good their story was..it is still all 'anecdotal'. report! And in the end an anecdotal report is still.."He said! She said"! It may be good for cross referencing down the road. But as a 'stand alone' without corresponding evidence it is just a story.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...