153 replies to this topic

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

Sorry that it brings you bad memories, but sadly the pic is of my ugly mug. No disrespect taken. Maybe I need a different pic. Lol. I am about as far from a bully as you can get. More of a zen Buddhist actually. I'll see what I can do.......

sorry, that came out harsher then I intended. I wasn't implying that you were the bully or anything. peace?

~

Quote

Can you give examples of "DNA always coming back as human?"

Better yet, a source that clearly demonstrates that these so-called DNA samples (that always come back as human; according to you) came from a Bigfoot.

yes i can actually - the yeti finger bone that was tested and found to contain human DNA. that is the most recent one that springs to mind. there have been other cases too. a quick googling will find the most recent ones.

[3amfright]

*Shrugs*

Then perhaps I am the only one willing to look at eye witness reports & attempt to build & collect data without bias. The door will remain open for anyone who is willing to at least try & if I do have some people participate I'll willingly share my progress here .

[3amfright]

The first place I am beginning is with a book by John Green he released in 1980 "Encounters with Bigfoot" where a good part of it is newspaper articles describing encounters. I can't assume that the articles have not been altered in their retelling in the book. I also can't guarantee I'll be able to access the originals as I live in Pennsylvania & most of the sitings stretch from California to Oregon & those articles could be on micro film for all I know. What I can do though is look for what isn't on micro film. Collect what I can online, most newspapers now a days are uploading their old archives to online ones that you can search & explore. I know so because my paper that I work at has done it as well & begin there.

It wont be easy & it will be time consuming but it is where I am starting at along with personal experiences anyone on here may be willing to share.

[hucksterfoot]

Bavarian Raven, on 19 February 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

yes i can actually - the yeti finger bone that was tested and found to contain human DNA. that is the most recent one that springs to mind. there have been other cases too. a quick googling will find the most recent ones.

Congratulations! You just gave an example of a human finger.

Now, how about a clear example of a Bigfoot that doesn't start with "I believe." One that you can preface with the word fact; then follow that up with a demonstrable fact.
:]

[vitruvian12]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

*Shrugs*

Then perhaps I am the only one willing to look at eye witness reports & attempt to build & collect data without bias. The door will remain open for anyone who is willing to at least try & if I do have some people participate I'll willingly share my progress here .

If you are dealing with eye witness accounts then you will never escape a built in bias.  To ignore this is fooling yourself right from the start.

[3amfright]

It is not the eye witnesses account I am looking to make unbiased. It is my own & the information I can pull from the account.

Do skeptics dismiss an encounter out right simply becaused it happened? Or do they look at the account & draw a conclusion from factors they require?

Just as believers who have not had an experience rely on encounters to validate their facts & beliefs?

My goal, personal or shared, is to start with the one common thing both share - witness reports, & gather evidence that has no intention to lead in any specific direction.

That alone can be enough for people to dismiss. That's ok with me. The fascination is in exploring the research. Not in having a predicted result.

[aquatus1]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Do skeptics dismiss an encounter out right simply becaused it happened? Or do they look at the account & draw a conclusion from factors they require?
Just as believers who have not had an experience rely on encounters to validate their facts & beliefs?
My goal, personal or shared, is to start with the one common thing both share - witness reports, & gather evidence that has no intention to lead in any specific direction.

Perhaps, if it is truly your goal to find a common point of agreement, it would be better to determine what the skeptical viewpoint is.  If you start with the above rhetorical question, you are already at a point where you are encountering disagreement.  Implying that this disagreement comes from being close-minded is not going to get you closer to a commonly accepted starting position.

[3amfright]

The previuos post from myself was an honest open question towards skeptics. I truly don't know how they think nor do I believe they all think alike.

But I won't deny that the only way to approach any research is with an open mind.

I guess I don't understand why what I'm asking for seems unrealistic.

Or is it only unrealistic to those not interested? In which case then I don't understand why they would be here. <- serious questions & honestly looking for understanding.

[aquatus1]

Now you are on the right track.

[DieChecker]

3amfright, on 18 February 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I can't tell you where you would begin, I think for every person it would be different. I'm an artist by trade, one of my skills honed over time is how things work anatomically. Muscle laid over bone structure & how they interact with everything else that in the end creates the person or animal that you see.

That would be part of the problem. Not much good video or many pictures of Bigfoot exist, other then blobsquatches, and moving shadows. It is hard to analyize something that you can't see clearly.

Quote

If I were to restart with Bigfoot I would go back to the collection of eye witness reports. The best forensic artists do not do drawings based upon known facial or body structures. Instead they base it off of shapes. You don't ask if the creatures nose was shaped like a bear. You ask if it was square, circular, rectangle or even just a line (hey, they could have lost their nose ). That's how I would treat the reports. With those four shapes alone you could build entirely knew shapes.

Of course the hard part is being able to go back to eye witness reports, especially if the witness has passed. Lol, never said it would be easy or perfect but it's something I'd like to try.

That sounds like a fine idea. As long as you are doing it for yourself. You're not going to proove anything to anyone who does not want to believe. And those that are open to the idea already are open.

Many of the eyewitness reports have very interesting and fine detail. Many are from very close range.

Some people will say to stay away from the BFRO, but they do have a large collection of stories/reports and they often do send "investigators" out to locations to see what is there and measure stuff and talk to witnesses, even after years and years. So there is some research that can be done there.

I'd stay away from any story that uses the term "Squatch". This is hillbilly speak for bigfoot, but is used mostly by those looking for money in the bigfoot field... and crazed True Believer hobbiests.

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Do skeptics dismiss an encounter out right simply becaused it happened? Or do they look at the account & draw a conclusion from factors they require?

Many times it is enough that someone claims to have seen a bigfoot for the Skeptics to conclude they are a fraud and a liar. But, it is my belief that many times these people are innocent and did see something real. Whether it was a bear, or homeless person, or an unidentified ape, they did see something.

I usually am very dismissive of photos. As most of them are single photos and show something dark and stump-like back in the woods, or show something so far away that it could easily be a person with a dark coat on.

3amfright, on 20 February 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Or is it only unrealistic to those not interested? In which case then I don't understand why they would be here. <- serious questions & honestly looking for understanding.

You will probably recieve the same answers everyone else does... Skeptics don't see any evidence. They don't see any bones. They don't see any DNA. And thus all bigfoot encounters reported MUST be lies, or hallucinations, or shadows, stumps, or just a fellow hiker in a dark coat.

Edited by DieChecker, 20 February 2012 - 02:16 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

3amfright, on 20 February 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

The previuos post from myself was an honest open question towards skeptics. I truly don't know how they think nor do I believe they all think alike.

But I won't deny that the only way to approach any research is with an open mind.

I guess I don't understand why what I'm asking for seems unrealistic.

Or is it only unrealistic to those not interested? In which case then I don't understand why they would be here. <- serious questions & honestly looking for understanding.

I don't doubt your sincerity, Jessica or your earnestness in trying to break some kind of new ground with this.  Here is where the Bigfoot argument (cryptozoology in general really) starts to break down for me personally.  

A person is entitled to all their own opinions, their beliefs, their feelings.  However people aren't entitled to their own facts.  That is what science as I understand it is trying to establish all the time - facts that are the same for everyone.  Thats why trying to get something peer reviewd is such an onerous pain in the a$$.  Because if something is going to recognized as a fact for everyone, its got to be a REALLY solid fact.  Its got to be backed up by solid evidence that can be documented, tested, pulled apart and put back together in a lab.  Its got to be a dead or live Bigfoot that can be studied, tested, pulled apart and put back together.  THEN all of the reports will come in line as corroborating evidence.  

But the eyewitness reports all by themselves contain no facts as defined by science.  I don't think most of the people who claim to have seen a Bigfoot are liars - I think most of them are good, honest people who are mistaken, mislead by pareidolia, confirmation bias, or lack of knowledge.  Those things aren't sins, but they are reality.  Its a reality that every trial lawyer knows.  An eyewitnesses' testimony can be utterly ruined by an experienced lawyer, because lawyers know what the weaknesses of eyewitness testimony are - namely that they are generally not demonstrable fact but instead subjective interpretations of a situation.  

Now where your approach breaks down is that you want to base a whole body of research on eyewitness testimony.  I'm sorry but to borrow a phrase, you are building your house upon the sand.  Find some facts and base your research on that and you have a house built on the rock.  

I'm not questioning your intelligence, your decorum, your enthusiasm, or your dedication.  I believe that you want to do something wonderful and change everything.  What I'm questioning is your idea to try and pull facts out of eyewitness testimony.  How will you determing which witnesses were mistaken in which details?  How do you sort out who has confirmation bias, or whose encounter was a case of pareidolia?  OR how will you know which rare few are fraudsters and liars?  There is just no possible way.  Because none of them contain any assertions that can't be explained by other phenomenon.  

Thanks for reading and I hope that what I'm saying is coming across with the respect that I intend it to come across with.

[evancj]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

I guess, I'm looking for an approach that would get skeptics & believers alike to work together & not by attacking one another. To get people to commonly & willingly agree with open minds that there is something to be explored of the legends. Of course only if people want to. For me, it would filter out all the other opinions & base a theory only on what I have knowledge of basing it on. That would be anatomy & how it functions. It is likely there would be no conclusion & anyone looking for one would be looking to close a door permanently. If the sightings or footprint castings suddenly stopped, then I would close the door, until that happens though I would like to see the approach to Bigfoot be less biased on both parts & mutually agreeable to what can be pointed at.

*Shrugs* I can't promise a productive outcome more than just listing & collecting data. But how much of science has been just that until that data has been found to be worth something or to add to something, even on just a level of understanding?

That might be more sentences than you like.

If you want commonality, and mutual agreement on universal standards, try the scientific approach. Unfortunately the problem with using science is most believers reject it.

Edited by evancj, 20 February 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[psyche101]

3amfright, on 19 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

It is not the eye witnesses account I am looking to make unbiased. It is my own & the information I can pull from the account.

Do skeptics dismiss an encounter out right simply becaused it happened? Or do they look at the account & draw a conclusion from factors they require?

Just as believers who have not had an experience rely on encounters to validate their facts & beliefs?

My goal, personal or shared, is to start with the one common thing both share - witness reports, & gather evidence that has no intention to lead in any specific direction.

That alone can be enough for people to dismiss. That's ok with me. The fascination is in exploring the research. Not in having a predicted result.

Skeptics tend to put a lot of investigative work into trying to qualify a prosaic explanation for said event. Despite common misconceptions, skeptics also seem to in general understand the outdoors, and have some experience in it. I always figure that is part of the makeup of a skeptic. That when one is well versed with a certain area, when some wild claims abound from said area, a budding skeptic questions the wild claims and it balloons from there. All of a sudden one is faced with the reality of the situation, not the medias hyped up spin.

However, how many descriptions from people "who have nothing to gain" or "have no reason to lie" are merely seconds long glances, sometimes these minimal glances are from a car travelling at speed, yet these people try to give height ranges, hair color, even eye color and or expressions! One has to wonder how such is possible from a fleeting glimpse. Or in another instance, some claim to be able to tell you if a face was wrinkled, and again eye color at distances of 100 meters or so, which I do not believe is humanly possible.
I think such reports making such superhuman claims can be instantly dismissed? And because such rubbish exists, many will be vigilant of others making claims. From there the effect snowballs, and at the end, the reason for believing the tale to begin with is highly distorted and convoluted anyway. I do not think giving the benefit of the doubt in every instance is beneficial toward resolving an answer.
But there is fascination, people are seeing something, but what? Personally I think much of the answer lies with the humble hobo. The trail is enticing, even if the end result turns out to be mundane.

Edited by psyche101, 20 February 2012 - 04:44 AM.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 20 February 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

That would be part of the problem. Not much good video or many pictures of Bigfoot exist, other then blobsquatches, and moving shadows. It is hard to analyize something that you can't see clearly.

DieChecker, on 20 February 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Many times it is enough that someone claims to have seen a bigfoot for the Skeptics to conclude they are a fraud and a liar. But, it is my belief that many times these people are innocent and did see something real. Whether it was a bear, or homeless person, or an unidentified ape, they did see something.

I agree, but not everyone. I think there are some genuine reports as you say, but I think these reports will more likely lead in with something like:

I saw a Large Man, creature or bear

not

I SAW BIGFOOT!!!!!

I think that is something of a red flag.

[hucksterfoot]

Then there's that PGF cul-de-sac.