Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[captain koolaid]

Mudcat-How about this? Your friend did see a Sasquatch, and rationalized it in his mind to turn it into a hunter even though the description doesn't make sense nor does it fit with a hunter.

That sounds pretty dubious. How about this? The friend did see a sasquatch and it transformed into a hunter using Bigfoot morphing powers. It's the only logical answer.

 

[tsig]

That sounds pretty dubious. How about this? The friend did see a sasquatch and it transformed into a hunter using Bigfoot morphing powers. It's the only logical answer.

Maybe his friend is a sasquatch passing as human to spread disinformation.

 

[The Shrike]

I remember this line of reasoning from the BFF. If people see hunters that they mistake for bigfoots then they must also see bigfoots that they mistake for hunters. In fact, the same logic applies to anything we substitute for hunters in the previous sentence. All you need are bigfoots on the landscape to make it true.

 

[Resume]

I remember this line of reasoning from the BFF. If people see hunters that they mistake for bigfoots then they must also see bigfoots that they mistake for hunters. In fact, the same logic applies to anything we substitute for hunters in the previous sentence. All you need are bigfoots on the landscape to make it true.

That's the tricky part of the deal. Like dmaker, I now think NL is having us on.

 

[Resume]

I do have to conclude, given the candy incident, the corn pile,the frantic inability to swap batteries and the now hunter who saw a sasquatch but fooled himself into believing it was just a hunter, that NL is simply trolling. I suspected as much with the candy tossing story, but this sasquatch turned hunter nonsense pretty much sealed the deal. No offense, sir, but you are having a lark, that you believe, is at our expense.

And you say you are not dishonest? Have you counted enough coup? What's next? A photo of a chimp that's really a gorilla?

That's the best proponents can come up with. Some skeptics didn't immediately realize a photo was incorrectly captioned. Therefore bigfoot.

 

[Correa Neto]

Mudcat-How about this? Your friend did see a Sasquatch, and rationalized it in his mind to turn it into a hunter even though the description doesn't make sense nor does it fit with a hunter.

And you really wonder why some people think you are just pretending to believe in bigfoot? And complain about?

If its actually belief, then there's some urge to "see" bigfoot everywhere and its not really rational.

 

[Mudcat]

Mudcat-How about this? Your friend did see a Sasquatch, and rationalized it in his mind to turn it into a hunter even though the description doesn't make sense nor does it fit with a hunter.

Which is more likely to you?

1. A man saw a hunter and for a moment thought he saw a Bigfoot.
2. A man saw an undocumented, supposedly rare animal that occasionally are bigger than bears and fooled himself into thinking it a person.

 

[comncents]

Odd. The misidentification was short in duration, but real for a moment, it seems. I thought the story a rather good one, illustrating how an honest person can mistakenly think he perceives a bigfoot and then use intelligence to correct his perception.

For me, "misidentification" (in terms of BF) is when someone sees something, in this case a guy in a gillie suit, and thinks that it is Bigfoot, but never realizes it is not Bigfoot. They then go on to report a "real bigfoot sighting".

This guy never claimed to have seen a real BF. If anything, this story (if true) is a good illustration of why misidentifications are not a major source of BF reports. A brief glimpse of something might be turned into a BF by wishful thinking, but anything that is viewed for more than a moment is going to show its NOT BF.

 

[Resume]

For me, "misidentification" (in terms of BF) is when someone sees something, in this case a guy in a gillie suit, and thinks that it is Bigfoot, but never realizes it is not Bigfoot. They then go on to report a "real bigfoot sighting".

This guy never claimed to have seen a real BF. If anything, this story (if true) is a good illustration of why misidentifications are not a major source of BF reports. A brief glimpse of something might be turned into a BF by wishful thinking, but anything that is viewed for more than a moment is going to show its NOT BF.

Of course a brief glimpse of something translates into "I don't know" rather than "seen me one."

 

[bruto]

For me, "misidentification" (in terms of BF) is when someone sees something, in this case a guy in a gillie suit, and thinks that it is Bigfoot, but never realizes it is not Bigfoot. They then go on to report a "real bigfoot sighting".

This guy never claimed to have seen a real BF. If anything, this story (if true) is a good illustration of why misidentifications are not a major source of BF reports. A brief glimpse of something might be turned into a BF by wishful thinking, but anything that is viewed for more than a moment is going to show its NOT BF.

Of course a brief glimpse of something translates into "I don't know" rather than "seen me one."

Both reasonable answers, depending on where you draw some boundaries. I figure if a person sees a man in a ghillie suit and says "I thought for a moment I saw a bigfoot," then it's a small and temporary misidentification. The difference is that this person kept thinking, where bigfooters, it seems, do not. That the person in question thought even for a moment that it might be a bigfoot seems interesting.

Since it's just an anecdote and of dubious provenance, one can't make too much of it one way or another. But I have known a few people who, once they've made a wrong assumption, cannot shed it no matter how convincing the argument may be against it, including further observation. Wishful thinking or some other factor turns off correction. Many people can think their way past a mistake, but some cannot.

 

[Paul Holland]

OMG...I've been reading this thread with some interest and finally went online to see what some different ghillie suits look like.

I'm ready to attribute every Bigfoot sighting to a bloke in a ghillie suit!

 

[William Parcher]

When Bigfoot begins its annual migration...

 

[LTC8K6]

OMG...I've been reading this thread with some interest and finally went online to see what some different ghillie suits look like.

I'm ready to attribute every Bigfoot sighting to a bloke in a ghillie suit!

Well, they don't look human, so how come all those people in ghillie suits don't result in a shooting now and then?

 

[LTC8K6]

Which is more likely to you?

1. A man saw a hunter and for a moment thought he saw a Bigfoot.
2. A man saw an undocumented, supposedly rare animal that occasionally are bigger than bears and fooled himself into thinking it a person.

Big is relative...

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5437f6b6ecad04cc2be71697-900-901/shaq-yao-ming.jpg

 

[Paul Holland]

When Bigfoot begins its annual migration...

That's awesome. Like a Sid and Marty Krofft casting call.

 

[Paul Holland]

Well, they don't look human, so how come all those people in ghillie suits don't result in a shooting now and then?

You definitely want to stay away from known areas of Footer activity in one of those!

 

[Resume]

You definitely want to stay away from known areas of Footer activity in one of those!

Well, most footer activity seems to be farting around the campfire and finding errant linty Good N Plenties in the leaf litter.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfooters are everywhere and many are going to be armed for hunting and other reasons. They certainly aren't known for shooting guys in ghilles. They aren't even known for shooting bipedal bears that they thought were Bigfoots.

They might not even really believe that Bigfoot exists and are instead pretending that.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Kentucky is 40,409 square miles and it has a population of 110/sq mi. It's a popular tourist destination and is the location of a lot of agricultural and industrial business. I'm sorry, but if there is such a thing as Bigfoot it's not here in Kentucky because it would've already been discovered by now.

More hilarious by the post. Indiana has over 180 persons per square mile as compared with Kentucky's 110 per square mile. 63% higher population density.

So you claim to "deduce" it must have been in a state with a MUCH HIGHER population density?! And fewer alleged bigfoot sightings too.

You also claimed there was a deer season open in Kentucky in August. Not true:

https://app.fw.ky.gov/seasondates/

It's pretty clear you are just making stuff up off the top of your head, without the slightest interest in any fact-checking about your own stories.

Notice the absolute refusal to go back to the alleged original story-teller to ask vital questions like there being no hunting season open at the time of the alleged hunting incident and the requirement to wear blaze orange....

This is such a bizarre comment:

I couldn't be assed to follow up on the story

What? You said you have known this guy for YEARS and that you work with him. So why is it so horribly difficult to go ask a simple question?

That is remarkable! But if he doesn't exist of course, that would explain why it is such a huge deal to ask.

I figure if a person sees a man in a ghillie suit and says "I thought for a moment I saw a bigfoot," then it's a small and temporary misidentification.

I'm curious why it is so important to ignore the fact there was no hunting season open at the time of this made-up story and the fact blaze orange is required of hunters.

It seems to me the need for misidentification is so important that the actual facts are completely irrelevant.

Same thing with this newly invented category of "temporary misidentification". We are not talking about that. We have been talking about sightings that people report as bigfoot sightings.

So you come along and use the fallacy of definition to invent a different, non-relevant category in order to bolster the claim about misidentifications.

In short: misidentifications are common because so-called "temporary misidentifications" happen. That is the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion.

So far, we have yet to hear an example that passes even the slightest scrutiny, like states which have no deer season at the time of the alleged deer hunting event, or the requirement for blaze orange and the alleged hunter being incapable of seeing the blaze orange.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

OMG...I've been reading this thread with some interest and finally went online to see what some different ghillie suits look like.

I'm ready to attribute every Bigfoot sighting to a bloke in a ghillie suit!

Then you better also be prepared to describe bigfoot as having an orange vest, orange cap, orange gloves, or whatever the requirement is.

As a lifelong hunter, and living in a state with probably the highest density of hunters per capita, I don't know anyone nor even heard of anyone that uses a ghillie suit. I am sure people do, but this sounds to me much more like someone just inventing what they think hunters do that in their mind explains misidentification.

Because lying is just too hard to accept.