Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Believable Evidence?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Believable Evidence?

Post  YSPR on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:00 pm

I have my own thoughts and process that I run stuff through to make a determination on presented evidence to conclude if it is good, bad or hoax. I agree that there is an abundance of evidence provided; my problem is that I do not believe it to be quality evidence when looked at on its own merits.

So do you take all of the evidence and add it together and does that equal Bigfoot?

Or do you look at each piece in reference to the time, location, events, persons involved and possible motives and then try and substantiate a conclusion that is logical for that individual event?

Below is my general take on the majority of the evidence categories.

• Photo / Video - The Patterson and Gimlin being the gold standard at this time IMO, with as many proponents for as against for authenticity. – IMO the video on its own is very compelling, but the back-story of those involved hurts the overall credibility.
I believe the majority of all photos and videos to be hoaxes or so unidentifiable that they provide no evidence. There are a few that are interesting, but there is no verifiable way to prove one way or the other.

• Eyewitness accounts comprise the majority of Bigfoot evidence. - Because the majority of these reports usually take place by accident and at inopportune times, they become nothing more than noted stories in my process. (No way to test or prove one way or the other) I believe that the majority of these (85-90%) are misidentifications of normal animals, while others are downright hoaxes. There are a few that I think have some merit to them, but without actual evidence to back them up, they carry little weight IMO.

• Tracks - Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence: something left the tracks. The question then becomes what left them, animal or human. Misidentification and hoaxing explain away 90 percent of the tracks IMO, but again there are a few that are really hard to dismiss.

• Hair, blood and flesh – To date the majority of these have been associated to know animals. The few that are unknown are disputable between proponents and skeptics, and have not definitively proved a new species one way or the other. I really thought that this was going to be a slam dunk by now and we would have great motivation to believe and further research, but as far as I know, there still isn’t a golden nugget being agreed upon. (I don’t even want to talk about the coming research, if it ever comes out we will see how it holds up to scrutiny)

• Vocalizations – The Sierra Sounds are considered a great example, with the Samurai chatter being the most notable. Most other soundings are comprised of guttural grunts, howls, and growls. I believe this to be the easiest thing to misinterpret and or hoax. Again there are a few that are interesting, but as far as I know no one has a video of Bigfoot vocalizing and making any of those sounds. (No way to test or prove one way or the other)

• Wood Knocking – this is noted in many eyewitness accounts and practiced by many researchers and layman to elicit a response. As with the vocalization, as far as I know no one has a video of a Bigfoot performing this. (No way to test or prove one way or the other)
avatar
YSPR

Posts : 88
Join date : 2012-08-13
Location : USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Believable Evidence?

Post  Holt on Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:22 pm

This-

Or do you look at each piece in reference to the time, location, events, persons involved and possible motives and then try and substantiate a conclusion that is logical for that individual event?
avatar
Holt

Posts : 19
Join date : 2012-09-10
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Believable Evidence?

Post  Green911 on Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:49 am

Or how about both. Putting all the evidence together to form the opinion that yes BF exists and evaluating each individual piece for individual incidents.

elephant
avatar
Green911

Posts : 140
Join date : 2012-08-17
Age : 50
Location : Sacramento, CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Believable Evidence?

Post  Mr.Lee on Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:16 pm

Eyewitness accounts is the only evidence I need to believe. You can't say they're all wrong & you can't say they are all valid but some have to be real. The fact that people have being seeing a large hairy bipedal creature for hundreds of years & all over the world is impossible to ignore.

Mr.Lee

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : California unfortunately

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Believable Evidence?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum