Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Vortigern99]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

 

[makaya325]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

I found both of his not sure encounters quite fascinating, especially from a strict (Scientifically speaking) individual. To tell you the truth, I look up to him.

 

[desertgal]

I am amazed that an individual, such as yourself, can be so scientific and strict when it comes to standards of evidence.

Yeah, cause you wouldn't expect that of someone who has a lifetime career in law enforcement to his credit.

If you intended the above as an insult to LongTabber, you really need to knock it off. This is questionable, but I've still reported it, and I'll let the mods make the call. You've taken potshots at him before about being a BF proponent, and it got old the first time.

 

[WGBH]

What you may find amazing here at the JREF is that I get beaten up about this from BOTH sides of the fence, believer and scoftic. From believers I get "how can you doubt the credibility of this evidence because you are a witness to this creature." From the scoftics I get "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer."

Well, I am skeptical of evidence. I take my research very serious. I approach it in a scientific and skeptical way. I look at ALL other possibilities when investigating. I do not see that as the wrong way. This is the correct way and the way I was taught. I do not see Bigfoot behind every tree or hear one with every sound in the woods. Nor do the researchers I work with.

I DO NOT buy into the authenticity of the skookum cast, the Myakka photos, and most of the Bigfoot film footage. I KNOW that print castings, as interesting as they might be to some, ARE NOT evidence to the scientific community.

We need clear video or photo evidence or a specimen.

 

[makaya325]

Yeah, cause you wouldn't expect that of someone who has a lifetime career in law enforcement to his credit.

If you intended the above as an insult to LongTabber, you really need to knock it off. This is questionable, but I've still reported it, and I'll let the mods make the call. You've taken potshots at him before about being a BF proponent, and it got old the first time.

Why would you report it? This is not an insult to Longtabber. This is appraisal to long for helping me keep a little bit of faith left in bigfoot.

 

[desertgal]

Why would you report it? This is not an insult to Longtabber. This is appraisal to long for helping me keep a little bit of faith left in bigfoot.

Maybe...if so, you won't have a problem. But, you've gone after him before on the subject of his being a BF proponent. If this is sincere, great. If not, the mods have a heads up.

 

[makaya325]

Maybe...if so, you won't have a problem. But, you've gone after him before on the subject of his being a BF proponent. If this is sincere, great. If not, the mods have a heads up.

Ok, I see what your doing. I have no problem discussing it with the mods. I am just fascinated with Long's mindset of evidence because it is very interesting. A high ranking official like him makes me want to believe.

 

[JPK]

Wow. I have actually made it through this entire thread and found it very interesting. Thanks everyone. I think I figured some things out. Perhaps Bigfeet (is that the plural of BigFoot?), actually eat bears. Perhaps they eat just enough of them to keep the sightings of bears low but there are enough of them to sustain the BigFeet population. Just a thought.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you know why? Because someone of your character arouses my curiousity.

I am amazed that an individual, such as yourself, can be so scientific and strict when it comes to standards of evidence. I still remember your "Acid test" when it comes to strength of evidence. Yet what really amazes me is that the same individual i described above is actually a PROPONENT of bigfoot, based on his two unsure encounters (80% sure) of the beast. It makes me feel relieved that there is someone a proponent can look up to, and that individual is you, Longtabber Pe.

Sincerly,
"Little Mak"

How many times now, has LT told you he does not wish to discuss his encounter ?

Once someone has told you they don't want to discuss something with you, you need to drop it.

Quit spamming all the Bigfoot threads..

 

[Vortigern99]

For the record, the word "scoftic" does not apply to me. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope that anyone who feels this term to be an inaccurate representation of their critical thought processes will speak up and out against the blanket use of this invented and derogatory term to describe "anyone who doesn't ascribe to woo claim x".

There is already a word to characterize my methods of discerning fact from conjecture, and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a second term, especially one meant to be dismissive and derogatory, in order to replace a perfectly good, solid, functional English word.

My mind is open to all possibilities. Furthermore it is attuned to the discernment of verifiable, corroborated, quantifiable evidence over spurious, unsupported and unsupportable claims. Any claim to the contrary is to admit not knowing or understanding, and not caring to know or understand, the workings of my mind, my will, or my senses.

WGBH, I have never said "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer", nor even thought anything of the sort. I have never written or spoken a derogatory word against you. It is my opinion, after exchanging messages with you and observing your reaction to alternate explanations for what happened to you, that your mind is closed to anything but the "fact" that you saw a real bigfoot. You will not even consider other possibilities as viable alternatives. It is your mind that is closed, you who "scoff" at perfectly reasonable and rational explanations for certain events.

ETA: That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your final two paragraphs, below.

What you may find amazing here at the JREF is that I get beaten up about this from BOTH sides of the fence, believer and scoftic. From believers I get "how can you doubt the credibility of this evidence because you are a witness to this creature." From the scoftics I get "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer."

Well, I am skeptical of evidence. I take my research very serious. I approach it in a scientific and skeptical way. I look at ALL other possibilities when investigating. I do not see that as the wrong way. This is the correct way and the way I was taught. I do not see Bigfoot behind every tree or hear one with every sound in the woods. Nor do the researchers I work with.

I DO NOT buy into the authenticity of the skookum cast, the Myakka photos, and most of the Bigfoot film footage. I KNOW that print castings, as interesting as they might be to some, ARE NOT evidence to the scientific community.

We need clear video or photo evidence or a specimen.

 

[WGBH]

For the record, the word "scoftic" does not apply to me. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope that anyone who feels this term to be an inaccurate representation of their critical thought processes will speak up and out against the blanket use of this invented and derogatory term to describe "anyone who doesn't ascribe to woo claim x".

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

There is already a word to characterize my methods of discerning fact from conjecture, and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a second term, especially one meant to be dismissive and derogatory, in order to replace a perfectly good, solid, functional English word.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

My mind is open to all possibilities. Furthermore it is attuned to the discernment of verifiable, corroborated, quantifiable evidence over spurious, unsupported and unsupportable claims. Any claim to the contrary is to admit not knowing or understanding, and not caring to know or understand, the workings of my mind, my will, or my senses.

You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

WGBH, I have never said "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer", nor even thought anything of the sort. I have never written or spoken a derogatory word against you. It is my opinion, after exchanging messages with you and observing your reaction to alternate explanations for what happened to you, that your mind is closed to anything but the "fact" that you saw a real bigfoot. You will not even consider other possibilities as viable alternatives. It is your mind that is closed, you who "scoff" at perfectly reasonable and rational explanations for certain events.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

ETA: That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your final two paragraphs, below.

Thanks

 

[Vortigern99]

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

Fine. I'm setting the record straight in case there was any question, since you were not specific in your use of the term.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever thought it for longer than it takes to consider the possibility of something and then dismiss it. I do not believe you are lying about your encounter; I believe you are mistaken, and unwilling to consider alternate explanations for your experience. Recently I have gone on record as disagreeing with others who have opined that you're lying. Again, I hope that sets the record straight.

As to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast", I don't know that I've ever used that term with regard to you (it's not one I employ often), but if I have I don't really understand why you would find it offensive. When I was a BF proponent I would not have bristled at the term. "Enthusiast" just means someone who is interested or "enthusiastic" about the idea of BF. Insofar as you are haunted by your experience rather than pleased, I suppose I do begin to see why you object to the term. But in general, it is not considered an insult and, as kitakaze has recently shown, it's sometimes used by BF proponents/researchers to refer to themselves.

Either way, now that I know it offends you, I'll refrain from using it in regards to you.

You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

It occurs to me that you do not understand the methods of skepticism and critical thought. It is not a system of dismissiveness and outright rejection, but one of careful consideration of data. The foundation of this system of thinking is to accept the possibility that any given proposition might be valid, or it might be invalid. The deciding factor is evidence. As LONGTABBER once said to me, "Show me the data." Otherwise all you have is a "might be", a "maybe" and a "possibility". When the data at hand directly refutes that possibility, you can safely reject the likelihood of the proposition being valid.

In your case, WGBH, you have rejected the possibility that hallucination and/or some form of perceptual distortion caused you to see what you think you saw. Yet you have no evidenciary basis for this rejection. It's an emotional response, an argument based in personal incredulity. "I know what I saw was real, therefore it must be real." On the other hand, my own rejection of the validity of your sighting is based, not on an emotional, incredulous response, but on the careful examination of the claim compared to the biological likelihood of a breeding population of stinking 9' man-apes going undetected in a relatively small wilderness area of the eastern US, despite 50 years of searching by hundreds or thousands of seekers nationwide, and despite every other species of animal in the area having been catalogued and classified, down to the tiniest microbe. No scat, no hair, no bones, no fossil remains, no blood, no evidence of any kind that is not hoaxable and that can be independently verified as real and valid.

I would like BF to be real -- I really would! -- but the data says otherwise. It just isn't there.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

You're not hurting my feelings. Will you please quantify your response? How do you find them lacking? In what way can hallucination and/or perceptual distortion of some kind be safely removed from the list of possible explanations for your sighting? On what basis can you reject the idea that you hallucinated the event, esp given the fact that fatigue, isolation and stress -- all of which you've said at one time or another were facets of your experience -- are all known and documented precursors to hallucination?

 

[kitakaze]

From the PGF section of Melissa Hovey's SFB board removed from public view:

Incidently I've cancelled my subscription to the JREF. I came to the realization after observing the thread WGBH was participating in was deteroiating into the typical adolesent nonsense that JREF is famous for. I do however find it interesting that some of the sewer mongers of JREF are required to be mature and civilized here. So now at least its civilized sewer mongers.

Crow is such a nice person. She is talking about Kitakaze and others being mean to me at the JREF. I can handle myself. I just ignore the people who are nasty to me. No big deal.

I wasn't aware I was being mean or nasty to you. I can pull up the many compliments and words of support I've been offering you but I don't think I'll find anything mean or nasty. I don't believe that not thinking you really saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape amidst the civilization of the Virginia/North Carolina state line qualifies as being mean or nasty. I mean, c'mon. Look at the place we're talking about. An alleged encounter in 1982 first reported in 1998 after a long bout of alcoholism and being discussed 27 years later. I think there is a lot of room for perceptual distortion there but that's just me. Your comment at SFB really doesn't seem fair to me. I'm a little let down that you would speak that way about me when I'm not around. I've liked you since we first got into constructive debate at you SFB and you told Melissa and others to chill out and realize I'm not trying to be insulting or make things personal when I am debating Bigfoot issues. Oh well, I still wish you luck on your road to freedom from irrational fear and nightmares.

I think you've seen now that log would disagree with being called nice:

Me nice? I just got tired of having to suffer those sludge heavers gladly anymore. The last time I was actually nice was on October 22 1998 lol! What passes for nice with me is my impeccibility.

So would I:

Damn this dump couldn't even keep it civil for two more pages. I know the usual suspects oh so well. But kid I've decided to cancel my subscription to this cesspool. Goodbye ****ers! See you in Hell!

John, maybe you or someone can pass on to log that despite her little spazzo meltdown flip-off to Serenity Now, that even moreso than the SFB, the JREF has rules regarding civility and enforces them fairly and rigourously. Unlike the SFB, the JREF does not allow cursing and profanity and also does not kick out people for civil and informed debate. You yourself abstained as an administrator from the pathetic, laughable, and intellectually cowardly decision to have me banned from your board and I respect that. For all your irrational fear of being in the woods, you are not half as cowardly as people like Melissa Hovey or Washingtonian. I know you don't agree with that opinion of mine but I'm sure you can see where it comes from.

 

[WGBH]

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

Fine. I'm setting the record straight in case there was any question, since you were not specific in your use of the term.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever thought it for longer than it takes to consider the possibility of something and then dismiss it. I do not believe you are lying about your encounter; I believe you are mistaken, and unwilling to consider alternate explanations for your experience. Recently I have gone on record as disagreeing with others who have opined that you're lying. Again, I hope that sets the record straight.


Vort, I know you never called me a liar, but I get called a liar constantly.

As to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast", I don't know that I've ever used that term with regard to you (it's not one I employ often), but if I have I don't really understand why you would find it offensive. When I was a BF proponent I would not have bristled at the term. "Enthusiast" just means someone who is interested or "enthusiastic" about the idea of BF. Insofar as you are haunted by your experience rather than pleased, I suppose I do begin to see why you object to the term. But in general, it is not considered an insult and, as kitakaze has recently shown, it's sometimes used by BF proponents/researchers to refer to themselves.

Either way, now that I know it offends you, I'll refrain from using it in regards to you.

Thank you for finding the words I was looking for. I am not enthusiastic about Bigfoot. It is something I must do.


You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

It occurs to me that you do not understand the methods of skepticism and critical thought. It is not a system of dismissiveness and outright rejection, but one of careful consideration of data. The foundation of this system of thinking is to accept the possibility that any given proposition might be valid, or it might be invalid. The deciding factor is evidence. As LONGTABBER once said to me, "Show me the data." Otherwise all you have is a "might be", a "maybe" and a "possibility". When the data at hand directly refutes that possibility, you can safely reject the likelihood of the proposition being valid.

Vort, I cannot show you data from a encounter that happened to me over 27 years ago. Heck, I am not even sure that I can find the exact area that it happened at. I am helpless to do anything but stand here and tell what happened to me and hope for the best.

In your case, WGBH, you have rejected the possibility that hallucination and/or some form of perceptual distortion caused you to see what you think you saw. Yet you have no evidenciary basis for this rejection. It's an emotional response, an argument based in personal incredulity. "I know what I saw was real, therefore it must be real." On the other hand, my own rejection of the validity of your sighting is based, not on an emotional, incredulous response, but on the careful examination of the claim compared to the biological likelihood of a breeding population of stinking 9' man-apes going undetected in a relatively small wilderness area of the eastern US, despite 50 years of searching by hundreds or thousands of seekers nationwide, and despite every other species of animal in the area having been catalogued and classified, down to the tiniest microbe. No scat, no hair, no bones, no fossil remains, no blood, no evidence of any kind that is not hoaxable and that can be independently verified as real and valid.

I would like BF to be real -- I really would! -- but the data says otherwise. It just isn't there.

I would like for it not to be real, but it was. It was right there in front of me. For me to say that it was a hallucination would be lying to myself.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

You're not hurting my feelings. Will you please quantify your response? How do you find them lacking? In what way can hallucination and/or perceptual distortion of some kind be safely removed from the list of possible explanations for your sighting? On what basis can you reject the idea that you hallucinated the event, esp given the fact that fatigue, isolation and stress -- all of which you've said at one time or another were facets of your experience -- are all known and documented precursors to hallucination?

I reject it not only on my opinion, but the opinion of a professional. Please do not expect me to comment on it publicly.

 

[WGBH]

I wasn't aware I was being mean or nasty to you. I can pull up the many compliments and words of support I've been offering you but I don't think I'll find anything mean or nasty.

That is the problem Kit, you can't even recognize the hurtful things you say. Before you ask me to "prove my claims" by copying and pasting them, I am not interested in that argument, I can deal with it. You know when I lost my temper and why I did it. I told you right here on this forum. Don't play coy.

I posted that quote on SFB in a attempt to diffuse a situation that Crow may have started that I did not want. I was making light of the situation by saying I am OK and I can handle myself here on the JREF fine. That is all I intended. It was not a attack on you and it was a mistake to use your name.


I don't believe that not thinking you really saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape amidst the civilization of the Virginia/North Carolina state line qualifies as being mean or nasty. I mean, c'mon. Look at the place we're talking about. An alleged encounter in 1982 first reported in 1998 after a long bout of alcoholism and being discussed 27 years later. I think there is a lot of room for perceptual distortion there but that's just me.

You have made this opinion very clear. I get it.

Your comment at SFB really doesn't seem fair to me.

I understand, but see my above comment.


I'm a little let down that you would speak that way about me when I'm not around. I've liked you since we first got into constructive debate at you SFB and you told Melissa and others to chill out and realize I'm not trying to be insulting or make things personal when I am debating Bigfoot issues.

But you are not around there Kit. You were thrown out for behavior not wanted on that forum by its owner. The fact that you or I may not agree with those rules is not the point. If you want to post there you abide by them.

You have no idea how many times I attempted to defuse the situation regarding you and the rest of the admin. I argued on your behalf on the admin forums constantly. Only for you to turn around and do the same things you were warned about again and again. You took it out of my hands Kit. News flash, If it was not for me you would have been tossed long before you were.


Oh well, I still wish you luck on your road to freedom from irrational fear and nightmares.

Thanks


John, maybe you or someone can pass on to log that despite her little spazzo meltdown flip-off to Serenity.

No Kit, I DO NOT like to pass things from forum to forum, but I was forced to above.

 

[tsig]

I reject it not only on my opinion, but the opinion of a professional. Please do not expect me to comment on it publicly.

You just did. Hint: If you don't want to talk about things on a public form then don't mention them.

 

[WGBH]

You just did. Hint: If you don't want to talk about things on a public form then don't mention them.

Hint: I meant the diagnosis.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

I guess so simply for the non BFF posters here so my "position" is clear and the QUALIFICATIONS that go along with it. ( there are very narrow goalposts)

I ignored Mak's repeated requests simply because of the source- not because of anyone elses inquiry here or I have issue discussing them. ( plus the thread space they would take up)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3996&st=693

Neither situation was a "positive" ID of a creature referred to as a BF. ( both incidents cover about 2 pages there)

I can rule out a human/hoax/prank on the first one simply because of the ice, speed, "unique" sound and size.( and I doubt a human would have made it thru that hail of magnum duck loads and a few 00 rounds without screaming, dying or trying to communicate)

That one is rather unique simply because of the timing ( late 60's early 70's- not really sure of the year) because I'm not certain ( being in coastal SC during those days) I even knew what a BF was or even heard the term.

I do remember the term BF didnt really register until several months later when prints were in the paper and there was a short article. ( i was thinking bear even tho that chance is remote- we did get one every decade or so)

I also question my own memory because of degradation, looking thru a kids eyes, nowhere near the training/experience/knowledge I do now, fear factor,etc.

I do know that nothing has indicated even a possible situation of a similar encounter since then from myself or dozens of deer/duck hunters who literally live there and hunt. Like the PGF, after 40 odd years, one would think there would be multiple events in the same area.

The second incident was a little different because of the location, circumstances, equipment and number of trained people observing the incident.

That one is a little more difficult to discount. It registered on thermals, NVG's by trained observers, was observed for a significant amount of time, walked by 2 separate objects giving a reasonably accurate height estimate and acted "animal like". ( like it was pulling up grass clumps etc- ie articulating unlike one might expect a human drunk on a range would do)

Downside is, fuzzy images from the old equipment, we didnt go look

Thats pretty much it. They were what they were and nothing more.

I try to make my position clear that those 2 experiences do put me in the BF "proponent" category simply because I acknowledge the legitimate POSSIBILITY that such a creature exists. ( since others have tried to hang me on this before, let me put it like this. My "human" half is about 51-49 in favor of such a creature existing- my "vulcan" half is about 99.9-.1 against it. When the 2 come together my vulcan half prevails)

That said, "evidence"?- my accounts have no more meaning, evidenciary support or legitimate scientific value than all the rest. I couldnt "prove" them with a gun to my head. I acknowledge that freely before anyone inquires and i'm good with that.

Just because I have had 2 questionable experiences ( I've had many actually over the years in various areas but only those 2 have a BF as a possible answer) is not license to go off stating my experiences as a BF and nothing else nor does it legitimately default to BF simply because in the absence of actual certainty thats a "popular" answer. Its also not an excuse for me to invalidate my training,experience and professional standards because at some level it "suits" me.

See, with me, I dont know ( or care) if BF exists or not. I have no dog in the fight like these "researchers" do. I'm not going to mourn if it doesnt or alter my life if it does. If at some point,either/both of my incidents turn out to be something else- oh well, I just thought i saw something that might have been a BF but was mistaken. End of incident.

I have no option but to judge my own 2 NOT SURE encounters by the same yardstick I judge everything else by and they simply come up INCONCLUSIVE. ( just like all the rest that are not obvious fakes)

The bottom line is that there is ZERO reliable PHYSICAL evidence of such a creature, anecdotal accounts from a zillion witnesses ( MINE included) carry extremely little weight on the whole issue (10,000 x 0 still equals zero) and based on all known biological examples the probable existance of such a creature even under ideal circumstances is very remote. None of that changes because I happen to have had 2 situations that MAY have been a BF to ME.

OK Mak- you happy now? I've "discussed it here".

Anyone has any further inquiries, feel free to ask. They were what they were ( and not what they werent)

 

[Drewbot]

LT is basically a kook, with a logic streak.

He can't explain his contact, but his logical nature doesn't allow him to say it is an UNCLASSIFIED BROWN HAIRY PRIMATE WITH STANKINESS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

 

[Marduk]

Yes I was hoping it was my friend and his father because I was ready to leave. I had already been sitting there 4 hours. I was not terrified until I realized what it was I was witnessing.

Before the internet age, I had no idea who to report a Bigfoot encounter to. I googled Bigfoot one day in 1998 and I saw the B.F.R.O. web site and filled out the sighting report form. A few weeks later I was contacted by a researcher and interviewed. After that I never talked about it again until 3 years ago.

wait, it was 16 years until you reported this to a group collecting reports and they accepted it. thats the problem right there, its not the people seeing enigmas in the forest who are the issue, there are always enigmas in forests, its what theyre for, its the fact that the groups collating the evidence have no rational scepticism whatever. Please go to your local police station and tell them you'd like to report someone for stealing your wallet 16 years earlier and see what they say.