The dangers of wishful thinking when doing sasquatch investigations

[Explorer]

I have never seen the work of Chris Noel (that he posts on his YouTube channel titled "Impossible Visits") until last week.

 

The title of his 2-year old documentary video "How to See a Sasquatch" piqued my curiosity, so I watched the 1 hour 38 min video (see link below).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlpssL94Gso&t=627s

 

Unfortunately, what the video showed was how folks who have BF in their brain can be self-deceived by noises and animals that they can't identify and how random tree debris can become BF tree structures in their mind. 

 

IMHO, none of the evidence presented in this video was indicative of BF presence.  Nonetheless, Chris gives the impression that these creatures live very close to his neighborhood and every odd noise or odd tree structure that he runs into is made by the sasquatches.

 

I think this video is a good example of the dangers of wishful thinking when going out in the field looking for evidence.  

 

Even if folks are knowers, they need to slow down when it comes to alleged evidence.  They should subject the evidence to some type of peer review before publishing/sharing it, and realize that their observations are truly biased by their beliefs.

 

This documentary climaxes in what is supposed to be a sasquatch climbing a tree.

 

However, other video reviewers have examined the creature and have determined that it was a porcupine. 

 

Despite the alternative hypothesis of a porcupine (which is very convincing and in my mind conclusive), Chris did not back down and revised his original claim, but instead created another video to support his claim.

Below is link to Chris Noel's 2nd video, insisting that the creature is not a porcupine. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB9a5H9sFP0

 

This looks really sad, and should be a warning for all those researchers out there publishing YouTube videos to slow down and get expert wildlife reviews before jumping to conclusions.

 

Brent Dill, who runs "The Tall Ones" YouTube channel with a critical thinking hat on, reviewed this claim 2 years ago and posted 2 good critical videos.  See links below.

 

I think he makes a compelling and clear case that that video footage was of a porcupine.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogj-W76-Xo4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyhKTBZCFK0

 

In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.

 

[wiiawiwb]

8 hours ago, Explorer said:

In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.

 

Even those experienced in the woods can sometimes be fooled. It's usually best to reserve judgment until more can be learned about a particular scenario.

Edited November 9, 2023 by wiiawiwb

[Backdoc]

11 hours ago, Explorer said:

self-deceived by noises and animals that they can't identify and how random tree debris can become BF tree structures in their mind. 

 

They go in with a mind-set bigfoot is not just real but COMMON.  Thus, they expect to see bigfoot everywhere.  In this way, anything they can't immediately identify is probably bigfoot.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Explorer said:

Chris gives the impression that these creatures live very close to his neighborhood and every odd noise or odd tree structure that he runs into is made by the sasquatches.

 

This is what I call the Finding Bigfoot Embarrassment.   It goes something like this:   These Finding Bigfoot types think they can tell you what Bigfoot's favorite color is, what baseball team bigfoot cheers for and what it usually eats.    Every twig snap-which could easily be explained -has got to be bigfoot.   

 

 

This does massive damage to the serious study of the concept of bigfoot.  Any serious person who might think or lean toward Bigfoot will not want to be thrown in with people like this. They know they would end up looking as foolish.   The credibility is lacking, and the passion turns each twig snap into a 'squatch'

 

11 hours ago, Explorer said:

Despite the alternative hypothesis of a porcupine (which is very convincing and in my mind conclusive), Chris did not back down and revised his original claim, but instead created another video to support his claim.

 

This need to double down when presented with a more refined set of facts is a huge danger.  

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Explorer said:

In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.

 

 

 

It all goes to the story where a man shown ink blot tests cards by his doctor:

 

 

Doctor:  "What do you see?"   

Patient:  "Sex".   

(This happens for 10 pictures in a row).   

Doctor "You seem to have sex on your mind."   

Patient:  "Don't blame me, you are the one who is showing me all the dirty pictures."   

 

 

 

 

Until the Meldrums, and Munns. and others are allowed to be the face of the serious study of bigfoot, we will continue endure the Finding Bigfoot Embarrassment as the face of Bigfoot study.

[norseman]

I hear Bigfoot calls that are obviously coyotes all the time, recorded by researchers. I have viewed hundreds of pictures of leaf faces on this forum. I I have seen pictures of what I call Forest divots attempting to be cast…..

 

I approach this from a hunters standpoint. I don’t ascribe Coyote calls to Elk, because I am not after a recording. I don’t take pictures of bushes that look like Elk, because I am not after bushes. And I don’t make a fuss over ancient forest divots filled in with pine needles. I need FRESH sign! 
 

Because I need to make physical contact with what I am hunting! Elk hunting isn’t about showing off your Bull Elk hoof cast at the next Elk conference. Or lots of pictures of bushes that look like Elk. No. It’s about a head on the wall and meat in the freezer. 
 

And I have been there! I’ve been that hunter that has chosen an area where Elk were 6 months ago, but they ain’t there now. Very frustrating. Looking at old sign every where. 
 

Maybe as researchers advance in skill? They will start to better discern the noises and sign in the forest? Maybe there will be an internal drive to separate the wheat from the chaff? Let’s face it. Most people have nothing in common with the woods anymore. But I applaud a subject like Bigfoot challenging people to go out and explore and learn. But we as a community need to be patient with them.

 

As far as pro Bigfooters seeing a Bigfoot under every bush? I think it’s all about ratings. Which is why I worry about manufacturing evidence with these shows. Unlike Elk there is always a nagging suspicions with Bigfoot…..could this be a hoax?

[BC witness]

Well said, norseman.

[guyzonthropus]

Yeah, I don't see many elk hoax videos on YouTube

 "OH look at the majesty! And that rack!"

 film shows a shopping cart covered by a blanket with an old style TV antenna sticking up from handle! Lol