Woman records eerie 'Bigfoot' howling in Ohio

[Resume]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

Of course no one is talking proof there is none, duh. And there is no supportive evidence either so we move to "probability" and that is all about weighing supportive evidence and there is none. So probability of BF being real way less than zero.

And separate witnesses with the same account is very weak because people have been salted seasoned to have an expectation what if it were real a BF would look like at this point the fact everyone does report the same thing is another nail in the coffin its anything but BF.

 

 

Yeah, human beings are pattern-recognizing animals, primed to see what they hope, wish, or even fear.  Better to see the tiger (or black panther) that isn't there, than to miss the one that actually is.  Fly-fishing author (and raconteur) John Gierach talks about a snag in his favorite trout river that when approached from a certain angle, looks exactly like a angler, or  just what one would expect to see in a trout river; he says it fools him every time.  I can vouchsafe that observation because I've had that experience myself.

As Feynman once famously quipped, " . . . The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.  You have to be very careful about that."  Fringe believers often violate that principal and indeed are not very careful about that; one might even suggest they are cavalier in that regard.

Then there is in-group agreement, and just plain bull ****ting . . . 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Resume

[the13bats]

13 hours ago, Resume said:

Fly-fishing author (and raconteur) John Gierach talks about a snag in his favorite trout river that when approached from a certain angle, looks exactly like a angler, or  just what one would expect to see in a trout river; he says it fools him every time.  I can vouchsafe that observation because I've had that experience myself.

Now in some cases we dont have rational minds on it, the person turns walks away accepting the only explanation can be bigfoot. And some whe hear the claim and will scoff at anyone who doubts the story.

[stereologist]

On 8/17/2022 at 10:34 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Who's talking "proof" here? I'm looking for probability. And yes, the more separate witnesses with the same account, the more probable the account is true. 

Not true. Take the Fatima sun miracle story. Lots of people reported seeing the Sun dance in the sky.

What happens with witnesses is that they end up modifying their story to fit the story others tell. Their actual memories are modified as well.

[Resume]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Not true. Take the Fatima sun miracle story. Lots of people reported seeing the Sun dance in the sky.

What happens with witnesses is that they end up modifying their story to fit the story others tell. Their actual memories are modified as well.

Indeed.

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/memory-manipulated

Quote

Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, is one of the nation's leading experts on memory. Her experiments reveal how memories can be changed by things that we are told. Facts, ideas, suggestions and other post-event information can modify our memories. The legal field, so reliant on memories, has been a significant application of her memory research. Loftus has been an expert witness or consultant in hundreds of cases, including the McMartin preschool molestation case, the trial of Oliver North, the trial of the officers accused in the Rodney King beating, and litigation involving Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby and the Duke University Lacrosse players. She has been honored by APA’s Review of General Psychology as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century and she received the 2016 John Maddox Prize which recognizes the work of individuals who promote sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, facing difficulty or hostility in doing so.

An excerpt from the podcast:

Quote

Kaitlin Luna: So your research tells us something I would think is unsettling about our minds, that our memories aren't set in stone, that they're basically subject to manipulation. So can you explain that a bit more?

Elizabeth Loftus: One of the things that I and other people who do similar work have shown is that once you have an experience and you record it in memory, it doesn't just stick there in some pristine form you know waiting to be played back like a recording device. But rather, new information, new ideas, new thoughts, suggestive information, misinformation can enter people's conscious awareness and cause a contamination, a distortion, an alteration in memory, and that's the kind of thing that I've been studying for the past many decades.

Kaitlin Luna: And how can human memories be manipulated?

Elizabeth Loftus: They can be manipulated when people talk to each other after let's say some crime is over that they may have both witnessed. They can be manipulated when they are interrogated by an investigator who maybe has an agenda or has a hypothesis about what probably happened and communicates that to the witness even inadvertently. People can be manipulated when they see media coverage about an event, let's say it's a high publicity event that is talked about a lot on television or newspapers. In all of these cases, the opportunity is there for new information, not necessarily accurate information, to contaminate a person's memory.

Memory manipulation/revision is an established, reliably observed phenomenon, as opposed to footie-foo-foo.

[rashore]

Folks, knock it off with the bickering and making it personal. Keep it to the OP topic and within the site rules please. 

[Resume]

Quote

On the strength of six eyewitnesses’ lineup identifications, Lydell Grant was sentenced to life in prison in 2012 for the murder of a young Texas man, Aaron Scheerhoorn, who was stabbed to death outside a Houston nightclub in 2010.

All six of those eyewitnesses were wrong.

Thanks to the work of the Innocence Project of Texas, new DNA testing on biological material collected from underneath the victim’s fingernails cleared Grant and implicated another man, Jermarico Carter, who police said confessed to the killing. Carter has now been indicted for the murder by a grand jury, and Lydell Grant was released from prison.

But faith in eyewitnesses runs so deep that despite the overwhelming proof of Grant’s innocence, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals initially refused his exoneration request. Instead, they asked that the six eyewitnesses who originally testified against Grant respond to his claims of innocence. Finally, almost a year later, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared Grant “actually innocent” on May 19, 2021.

This was in Texas; Grant was lucky he wasn't sent to death row.

https://theconversation.com/6-eyewitnesses-misidentified-a-murderer-heres-what-went-wrong-in-the-lineup-134767

Edited August 21, 2022 by Resume

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

"more witnesses" makes it more probably true. I'm a mathematician, I know a little about probability.

And yes we have gone over it, so manty times. Yet it is YOU that keeps butting ME with your astounding information, thinking you will "convert" me

Forgedaboudit, Trelane. You are wasting OUR time

You might want to consider that the probability is not affected by more witnesses. Anyone claiming to be a mathematician knows how that happens.

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And that is your very weak opinion.

What if 3 people said they saw a deer? would you believe them?

It's not opinion but a fact. And seeing a deer is why my friend's brother is dead. He was shot because he was a deer

[stereologist]

A great example of a large number of witnesses misidentifying something and all agreeing incorrectly about the event was at Marfa Texas where I met 40 people pointing to a so-called mystery light in the desert that I figured out was a car by using binoculars. None of the people there insisting it was a mystery light and definitely not a car looked through my binoculars.

Another great example is all of the people that saw the Phoenix Lights and decided that it was a giant UFO. There was corroborating evidence in the form of a video that shows it was not a giant UFO but independent lights.

 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

A great example of a large number of witnesses misidentifying something and all agreeing incorrectly about the event was at Marfa Texas where I met 40 people pointing to a so-called mystery light in the desert that I figured out was a car by using binoculars. None of the people there insisting it was a mystery light and definitely not a car looked through my binoculars.

Another great example is all of the people that saw the Phoenix Lights and decided that it was a giant UFO. There was corroborating evidence in the form of a video that shows it was not a giant UFO but independent lights.

I never said it *eliminated* the possibility, I said it made it LESS probable.

For example: One witness sees a cigar shaped UFO in the air over Seattle. Later a second witness said he saw the Goodyear blimp in the air over Seattle.
You see? Without the 2nd witness a false report of UFO would have been recorded and unchallenged. The more witnesses the better, but that is not perfect.

[Resume]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Wrong. The more conforming witnesses the more the story is apt to be a true account and not a misidentification. Also, it lessens the chance of hoax.
 

Nope. As has been repeatedly demonstrated.

[Resume]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

More people on the same incorrect account most certainly requires conspiracy if this is a HOAX, and I said that earlier.

No, it just means more people are incorrect. This is demonstrated in the flawed testimony of six eyewitnesses detailed in the citation in post #67.  Just because you choose to ignore inconvenient facts that destroy your position doesn't mean those facts do not exist.  Your assertion that multiple eyewitnesses somehow "lessen the probability" of those witnesses being mistaken flies in the face of reality and virtually guarantees false convictions as in the case of Lydell Grant.

Clearly the method to discover the truth of a thing allegedly witnessed is to search for corroborating evidence.  Unless of course one is not interested in the truth.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

I simply provide information that supports my comments. What you do with it is of no concern to me. 

 

What he does with them mostly is ignore them.  

[the13bats]

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And that is your very weak opinion.

What if 3 people said they saw a deer? would you believe them?

And we have another epic fail from EoTs

Deer are proven to exist BF however doesnt even have evidence to support it you use that example and call my opinions weak...too funny.

[Myles]

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Wrong. The more conforming witnesses the more the story is apt to be a true account and not a misidentification. Also, it lessens the chance of hoax.
And I have seen all I need to know about your math ability. Remember: Integral of Tan(x)dx? You didn't even have a clue. Please!

I agree with Earl on this statement.  The more people who claim to see something, the less likely it is to be a hoax.  

However, the difference is minimal.  If 1 person claims to see bigfoot, and gathers no physical evidence, the chances of it being a true sighting is less than .05% (I'm making these numbers up).  If 2 people claim to see the same bigfoot, and gather no evidence, the chance rise to .06%.  If a dozen do, the chances may or may not rise, but it means they saw something, maybe a bear or man in a suit.  

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said it *eliminated* the possibility, I said it made it LESS probable.

For example: One witness sees a cigar shaped UFO in the air over Seattle. Later a second witness said he saw the Goodyear blimp in the air over Seattle.
You see? Without the 2nd witness a false report of UFO would have been recorded and unchallenged. The more witnesses the better, but that is not perfect.

Then you will claim the 8 who saw a Goodyear blimp were wrong, its how you roll.

[the13bats]

51 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree with Earl on this statement.  The more people who claim to see something, the less likely it is to be a hoax.  

However, the difference is minimal.  If 1 person claims to see bigfoot, and gathers no physical evidence, the chances of it being a true sighting is less than .05% (I'm making these numbers up).  If 2 people claim to see the same bigfoot, and gather no evidence, the chance rise to .06%.  If a dozen do, the chances may or may not rise, but it means they saw something, maybe a bear or man in a suit.  

Not really, depending a bit on the hoax several have fooled many people so no, the number of witnesses doesnt really help,

This doesnt only apply to bigfoot, there are countless people who see illusions and go away sure it was real.

[Resume]

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

Not really, depending a bit on the hoax several have fooled many people so no, the number of witnesses doesnt really help,

This doesnt only apply to bigfoot, there are countless people who see illusions and go away sure it was real.

When hundreds of witnesses see Teller catch a bullet in his teeth, is it less likely to be a hoax?

[the13bats]

10 minutes ago, Resume said:

When hundreds of witnesses see Teller catch a bullet in his teeth, is it less likely to be a hoax?

My point exactly, and as i said some do believe illusionists are really magical.

[Resume]

And circling back to poke at this a bit more.

Quote

"When you see something like this, it becomes very personal," Megargle said. "It kind of becomes your creature."

Megargle said people in three cars reported seeing Bigfoot walk across an intersection.

"They saw the same thing," Megargle said.

So what we have here is a claim upon a claim: Megargle claims that people in three cars claimed to see a footie crossing a road.  There is exactly zero evidence corroborating this claim.  The numbers here are vague, statistically insignificant, and any "probability" assertions here cannot possibly examine the veracity of the claimants or control any confounding factors.  The only way to do so would be through further investigation, and examination of any new evidence or data.  That's how one examines truth claims.

[the13bats]

16 minutes ago, Resume said:

And circling back to poke at this a bit more.

So what we have here is a claim upon a claim: Megargle claims that people in three cars claimed to see a footie crossing a road.  There is exactly zero evidence corroborating this claim.  The numbers here are vague, statistically insignificant, and any "probability" assertions here cannot possibly examine the veracity of the claimants or control any confounding factors.  The only way to do so would be through further investigation, and examination of any new evidence or data.  That's how one examines truth claims.

Yep, i have a collection of documentaries and sometimes out of bordom and OCD ADD i will research a story, the old 70s "in search of" was notorious for having unique to their show tales,

Other docs are the same lots of dead ends the cases were not recorded or reported as the shows and witnesses claimed so it was about entertainment not crediblity or integrity.

[Resume]

28 minutes ago, the13bats said:

My point exactly, and as i said some do believe illusionists are really magical.

Stage magicians, conjurors, and frauds worldwide regularly hoax scores of observers. Randi once debunked James Hydrick, a fraud who claimed the ability to turn then pages of a book with psychic powers; he fooled scores of eyewitnesses, yet was easily defeated when Randi placed styrofoam around the book, which prevented Hydrick from surreptitiously blowing on the pages. Hydrick later admitted to being a fraud.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Resume

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said it *eliminated* the possibility, I said it made it LESS probable.

For example: One witness sees a cigar shaped UFO in the air over Seattle. Later a second witness said he saw the Goodyear blimp in the air over Seattle.
You see? Without the 2nd witness a false report of UFO would have been recorded and unchallenged. The more witnesses the better, but that is not perfect.

Here is what you posted: "the more separate witnesses with the same account, the more probable the account is true.  "

That is your opinion and that turns out to be incorrect. There is plenty of scientific evidence that is not the case.

[the13bats]

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is what you posted: "the more separate witnesses with the same account, the more probable the account is true.  "

That is your opinion and that turns out to be incorrect. There is plenty of scientific evidence that is not the case.

What does seem a fact most of EoTs opinions are wrong, im willing to stand corrected but he doesn't post supporting evidence so i have nothing to work with.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I agree with Earl on this statement.  The more people who claim to see something, the less likely it is to be a hoax.  

However, the difference is minimal.  If 1 person claims to see bigfoot, and gathers no physical evidence, the chances of it being a true sighting is less than .05% (I'm making these numbers up).  If 2 people claim to see the same bigfoot, and gather no evidence, the chance rise to .06%.  If a dozen do, the chances may or may not rise, but it means they saw something, maybe a bear or man in a suit.  

What has been pointed out quite a few times in these threads is that eyewitnesses are not that good and for a number of reasons. How often do many eyewitness accounts report multiple shooters when there is only one? That's a simple question isn't it? How many shooters? It's wrong at many such events. That's like asking how many toes in a bigfoot cast. I still can't get an answer on that question, yet we have many many many pro-bigfoot people promoting tracks and they can't figure that one out.

When there is something like a bank robbery witnesses often get the car color wrong, the number of robbers wrong, whether or not they held guns, but they get the basic thing right - they robbed a bank. Now take your bigfoot example. They saw something. They couldn't quite figure out what they saw. One says bigfoot. The other agrees. The basic thing they got right is - they weren't sure what they saw.