My two cents

Squatchmaster G wrote:

SassyCrotch wrote:Saying fake footprints starting with Ray Wallace in 1957 proves all others are fakes, or that Sasquatch must be non-existent is foolish.

Well I guess I'm lucky that I never said that, eh?

SassyCrotch wrote:If people don't believe or refuse to even open their mind to the possibility of Sasquatch existence, then why waste your time and energy posting so often on a website or forum that explores it?

What on earth makes you think that I'm not open to the possibility that Sasquatch exists? I said earlier in the thread that I definitely was open to that possibility. You need to work on your comprehension skills.

CMcMillan wrote:I am not using a loose definition I am using the actual definition.

You're using a non-scientific definition to argue against a scientific viewpoint. In this context the definition you are using is inadequate.

So Science doesn't use the same Language as other people? They have Secret definitions for common American words.

CMcMillan wrote:So Science doesn't use the same Language as other people? They have Secret definitions for common American words.

Science has used the same language for centuries, it's the common usage which has changed.

So the science usage of Evidence is different than what forensic science uses?
Or the legal Police or Legal profession?

It would be helpful in this discussion to define the terminology you are using. CM has done so and you dispute her definition. In order to continue the discussion please post the deffinition of "evidence" you are using.

CMcMillan wrote:So the science usage of Evidence is different than what forensic science uses?
Or the legal Police or Legal profession?

The criteria for scientific evidence is not exactly the same as legal evidence.

DPinkerton wrote:It would be helpful in this discussion to define the terminology you are using. CM has done so and you dispute her definition. In order to continue the discussion please post the deffinition of "evidence" you are using.

If the aim is to verify an a posteriori hypothesis that the existence of a cryptid is plausible then researchers need to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the empirical evidence they collect. The evidence also needs to be unbiased and complete - they can't just cherrypick the 'good' data and ignore the data they don't like without a very clear methodology. The evidence needs to be converted into quantitative data so it can be properly assessed.

Do you people not understand that a scientific study requires data of the highest possible quality and that if portions of the data used in their research can be shown to be incorrect then that could call the entire study into question? All those tables and graphs in scientific papers aren't there for decoration, they're absolutely essential if the conclusions are going to withstand any scutiny.

If you're wondering where anecdotal evidence fits into all that, Vol 1 of The Journal of Cryptoloology (2012) says "Catalogued eyewitness reports are an outcome of a long process that includes acquisition (ie, the perception and original event), retention (ie, memory), retrieval (ie, recollection), transmission, and recording. At each and every stage, biases may creep in, which means that accessible reports may represent a very inaccurate and imprecise sample of what was actually seen."
That's the evidential requirements from a scientific journal specifically about the study of cryptids. These are the standards required across the board.

This thread keeps going a circular way which reiterates and emphasizes what I originally said. Bigfoot evidence is not good scientific evidence. The rigorous methods to prove or disprove it as established fact are a different matter than deciding something warrants further investigation or collection of evidence. Just look at the Ketchum paper. It's the little paper that could......or might not.

I think that this cryptid warrants investigation and the collection of more and better evidence. The evidence from a scientific standpoint does not stand up to scrutiny as yet.

I don't need all the evidence to exist beforehand to think that this thing might exist.

Hey, some people like to argue and that's alright too. I'd rather argue about what is being presented as evidence rather than whether it's very existence is a proven fact.

Just make your mind up that it can exist while there is yet no solid proof. Proof enough for you and me is good enough to seek the gathering of evidence and make it a scientifically recognized fact.

.ydobyna gnipleh t'nsi sdrawkcab krow ot gniyrT

If really good evidence for Bigfoot ever does get presented then people like paul830 and me will be needed to back it up. People like CMcMillan and Tzieth are clearly no good at talking rationally and usefully to scientifically-minded people.

Some of us already know that they exist because we've seen them with our own eyes. Likely hundreds of thousands of people dating back to the 1700s give or could give first hand accounts of witnessing these spectacular creatures. For us the existence question doesn't exist. It's also a hard subject to discuss so having a place to come and share with others without ridicule, and derisive commentary would be great. Unfortunately, those places only exist in real world gatherings,and certainly not on internet forums, that's ok. For me it's hard to discuss my experiences with those that say oh please tell us what happened, and subsequently request scientific proof of such an event. The question of existence for them is the basis for their interest. I understand, but have no desire to explain or especially argue. LOL Those who have seen, smelled, heard, and felt are well past that question. It's a shifted paradigm. Everyone is welcome here, but we sure don't have convince one another.

What irritates me is the bomb throwers, the scoftics, and those who deem tens of thousands of first hand eyewitnesses liars, or lunatics. No one likes to be called a liar, especially when what happened to them was so traumatic, and life changing. It's unfortunate, that many here don't share their experiences, because they've experienced that very sort in their real lives and it stifles their willingness to open up.

I know better than to tell a witness that they're a liar or that they were hallucinating. Like I said earlier, the eyewitness accounts are the only thing that keeps me interested in Bigfoot.
However, the topic of proving Bigfoot's existence to the wider world requires more than anecdotal evidence, and that's what we've been talking about in this thread.

Gonna tread into a minefield here.
Any eyewitness accounts of some dude named Jesus of Nazareth? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John lived after the alleged crucifixion.
Gospels by Mary Magdalen, and James, brother of Jesus (his contemporaries) have been declared either apocryphal or heretical by the church long ago. As well as recently for one by Judas Iscariot.
Any evidence? The actual Crucifixion Cross splinters? Shroud of Turin? Medieval paintings?

See any parallels? I might be more inclined to believe in Sasquatch than Jesus Christ.

Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure this isn't the forum for debating the existence or non-existence of Jesus. That's a rather large and complex monkey wrench.

On another note eye witness accounts I cannot dispute and wouldn't try to. A person's experience is their experience. It's more than a little confrontational to decide that someone is a liar without proof. Calling someone a liar puts the burden of proof on yourself. Clearly I might know less because I wasn't there. Their credibility would be the factor that decides how much I would believe their story or might not. That doesn't mean I'm certain that it happened. If I feel they are credible I would hear them and entertain the idea without assuming further judgement.

Noblesavage, you're right. No one should be assumed to be lying first. If a person has convinced themselves that bigfoot's don't exist and someone claims direct experience and knowledge of them as fact, deciding first that they are a liar IS ignorant. The information is not there to do this and must be allowed to be presented as is. Being encouraged to talk is a better way to pool experiences and information.

Noblesavage, you're right. No one should be assumed to be lying first. If a person has convinced themselves that bigfoot's don't exist and someone claims direct experience and knowledge of them as fact, deciding first that they are a liar IS ignorant. The information is not there to do this and must be allowed to be presented as is. Being encouraged to talk is a better way to pool experiences and information.

Agreed the stories carry a lot of interest for me also and I would not call anyone a liar that was willing to tell theirs. But being interested and listening should not be confused with belief. As I consider the majority of all sightings as misidentifications and imagination. There are some that cannot be so easily dismissed, and those are the ones that keep me coming back.

Saying you don't believe a Bigfoot eyewitness report does not mean you are saying that person is lying. That is an assumption that enables proponents to paint skeptics with a negative brush. Personally, I think outright lying accounts for a small number percentage of reports. Mistaken identifications and pareidolia probably account for more than hoaxing or lying. There is also the chance of sub-clinical psychosis in the witness that can create tendencies towards ADHD, dissociation, depression and make the mind, and memory, play tricks. The mind is not a digital recorder and people do see things that are not there quite frequently.

That wouldn't explain multiple eyewitness reports, trained observers describing facial expressions, aggression, rock throwing, bipedal running, etc. It goes on and on. The fact is there are thousands of eye witnesses describing a creature that doesn't fit neatly into a nice little box with the label mistaken i.d. If you'd rather believe otherwise then go ahead. I personally find it naive, and there is nothing anyone can tell me that will convince me what I witnessed was a bear, or a figment of my imagination. No, what many of us have seen is exactly what we saw. There is no compulsion to convince you. It is insulting however for someone to broad brush all eye witnesses as mistaken or mentally incompetent simply because they've never had such an experience.

Understood, NS. And while you may find my comments insulting, unfortunately I must stand by them. In the absence of an actual Bigfoot, I'm not going to take the word of anyone, no matter how many of them there may be. Neither is science. Confirmation will require a bigfoot or a piece of one. And to date, we do not have that. But if you, and all the others who claim to have seen one are correct, then time should prove me wrong, right? I hope you're not holding your breath. Myths tend to be pretty enduring.


Oh, and technically speaking, yes the reasons I stated could actually explain away every single eye witness report. Oh, and I never once said mental incompetence. Sub-clinical psychosis have been documented in just exactly the types of people you mentioned: teacher, principals, doctors, law enforcement, etc.

Here's a link to an interesting article from The Journal of Psychology (Cognition and Belief in Paranormal Phenomena: Gestalt/Feature-Intensive Processing Theory and Tendencies Toward ADHD, Depression, and Dissociation) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/JRLP.140.6.579-590

I've read the article you referenced. One would be less than objective if they didn't consider it's merit when considering an individual eye witness.

I think you are being overly dismissive, and failing to give weight to the overwhelming number of descriptive sightings and experiences, that when considered objectively in their totality, bring the psychosis question full circle and place it at the feet of those who would dismiss tens of thousands of eye witness reports stretching back to the 1700s as mentally disordered, or unable to differentiate common animals from what they attested to have witnessed.

Well in the absence of any definitive proof after 45 or so years of the Bigfoot phenomenon, then things like that article start appearing like the more sane option. It's a whole lot better than liar, liar pants on fire. At least I am trying to posit some sort of explanation for why there are so many reports of a Bigfoot, and yet, to date, no actual proof of a Bigfoot has ever been produced. Sure, there is a mountain of anecdotal or conditional evidence, but a mountain of that type of evidence still does not advance the claim one inch. That pile keeps getting bigger and bigger, while nothing concrete has ever been produced. The scales of evidence are so poorly out of balance with good evidence vs weak evidence that one just has to start to wonder at some point that maybe there is something else going on besides a giant, hairy ape running amok in North America.

Ok... It's ok if you desire proof in the form of a body..specimen..etc.

I don't, because I already know. It's not necessary for me to convince you to have an open mind to their existence. I'm fine the way things are. It's enough for me to know they do.

It's definitely not worth arguing over a mute point for me personally. If what you deem a mountain of evidence doesn't convince you of the possibility, it certainly makes no difference to me. I just pointed out that I felt that was less than objective, or naive, and that painting those who courageously share their experience at the risk of ridicule as mentally compromised, or mistaken in each and every single case was a little obtuse. It's acceptable for me that you are wondering if other possibilities, beyond a giant, hairy ape running amok in North America. I don't need you to believe. Enjoy your curiosity and exploration of a subject you deem a product of group psychosis spanning centuries of American History(not 45 years), crossing cultures of North American inhabitants, and defying the laws of probability that trained observers and multiple witnesses seeing the same fictitious creature at the same time were indeed seeing what they claimed to see.

No problem. You cannot make me believe, and I cannot make you un-believe. But for the record, I do give BF a 1% chance or so of being real. And that's not sarcasm, that is just about where I would place the odds were someone offering a bet on it.

The thing that makes this go on and on is that while I can NEVER disuade you, nor am I trying to actually, I could be so easily persuaded if someone could just actually produce this creature that everyone claims to see. That would be fantastic. No more Chewtilda videos, no more bear dna, or dog hair, or carpet fibres, or faked tracks, or Finding Bigfoot Town Liar sessions, but a real, bona fide Bigfoot would be marvelous. I'd clap just as loudly as you.

dmaker wrote:No more Chewtilda videos, no more bear dna, or dog hair, or carpet fibres, or faked tracks, or Finding Bigfoot Town Liar sessions, but a real, bona fide Bigfoot would be marvelous. I'd clap just as loudly as you.

While you say you will clap loudly...will you apologize to all the "liars"?

Absolutely I would. I would sincerely apologize in as many forums as I could possibly do so, and I would do it openly and whole heartedly. I don't imagine my crow banquet would stop for some time.

But I would like to add something. If BF were proven to be real, that does not wipe from the record the liars, and the hoaxers ( nor does it actually verify every eye witness report on record, but why bother to split hairs at that point) . The liars and hoaxers would still be guilty of what they did. While I have no issue with apologizing to those that had genuine sightings, let's not crucify me too quickly lest some of those liars or hoaxers be the ones helping you to hoist me up.

They don't get a pass, either way.

dmaker wrote:Absolutely I would. I would sincerely apologize in as many forums as I could possibly do so, and I would do it openly and whole heartedly. I don't imagine my crow banquet would stop for some time.

But I would like to add something. If BF were proven to be real, that does not wipe from the record the liars, and the hoaxers ( nor does it actually verify every eye witness report on record, but why bother to split hairs at that point) . The liars and hoaxers would still be guilty of what they did. While I have no issue with apologizing to those that had genuine sightings, let's not crucify me too quickly lest some of those liars or hoaxers be the ones helping you to hoist me up.

They don't get a pass, either way.

dmaker I love your posts on the BFF, keep it up!