Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WGBH said:
So what's the big deal SY? I can talk about it here, if I am asked. I am fine with that.
Click to expand...



No problem, John...:)...I wasn't inferring that you shouldn't discuss your sighting here.

I was just providing some info for you, as a head's-up as to the direction the conversation was inevitably heading. That's all.


I'm glad that you're discussing it here......because, as I pointed-out in a previous post...as far as I'm concerned, the more you talk about your sighting, on any board (without seriously contradicting yourself, of course) the stronger the weight it carries.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'm glad that you're discussing it here......because, as I pointed-out in a previous post...as far as I'm concerned, the more you talk about your sighting, on any board (without seriously contradicting yourself, of course) the stronger the weight it carries.
Click to expand...

"The stronger the weight it carries"?

Towards what? Proof of the existence of Bigfoot? Even if consistently related, it is still a 27 year old sighting made by a 9 year old boy whose memory, as a grown man, is as fallible as any other. Really, not that much different than a thousand other pieces of anecdotal evidence-except, possibly, even less reliable because it is being recounted after a significant passage of time.

How is that weighty evidence towards the existence of Bigfoot?

(No offense intended, John.)
 
desertgal said:
"The stronger the weight it carries"?

Towards what? Proof of the existence of Bigfoot?
Click to expand...


In a word....No.


Never will you see this report on the NBC Nightly News...


"Earlier today, Charlie in Cinncinnati threw a nutty like you wouldn't believe, swearing up and down that he actually saw a real Bigfoot....going so far as to hold his breath for 4 minutes, till he turned blue and croaked.

Scientists say there's NO WAY he ever would have given his life for the cause, unless he truly did see such a beast...therefore, scientists are hailing this event as tragic proof positive of bigfoot's existence.
Case closed".



"Eyewitness sighting reports" of Bigfoot will never rise to the level of hard, undeniable proof of Bigfoot's existence.
 
Desertgal wrote:

"The stronger the weight it carries"?

Towards what?
Click to expand...



In-between the two (known) extremes of hard proof, and nothing....there is an un-known gray-area...of "weight"...defined in terms of "probabilities".


That 'gray-area' (probabilities....chances...odds) is where the varying strengths of Bigfoot sighting reports lie.
 
Last edited:
Gray area might be synonymous with blurry... like Bigfoot.


"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here!"

Mitch Hedberg
 
SweatyYeti said:
In-between the two (known) extremes of hard proof, and nothing....there is an un-known gray-area...of "weight"...defined in terms of "probabilities".


That 'gray-area' (probabilities....chances...odds) is where the varying strengths of Bigfoot sighting reports lie.
Click to expand...

A 27 year old memory of a then 9 year old boy increases the probability of the existence of Bigfoot?

Huh.

I saw Santa Claus when I was nine. Granted, Santa has never been proven to exist, and most insist he is just a fable made up to sell merchandise, but he sure has been seen by a lot of kids over the years. So, that must increase the probability that he does exist.

Sorry, but the only probability that increases with anecdotal sightings of Bigfoot is the probability of reinforcing belief in his existence. They do not increase the probability of his existence.

William Parcher said:
Gray area might be synonymous with blurry... like Bigfoot.

"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here!"

Mitch Hedberg
Click to expand...

I love that quote. :D
 
Last edited:
(I) Gotta give Kitakaze an A+ for his 'passionate effort' in trying to convince WGBH things are not always as they seem. And doing it with a consistent respect for WGBH's very real angst. Sadly, I don't think it's gonna change his mind at this juncture. There is always hope though, and the fact WGBH has only been 'back' into Bigfooting just a few years gives hope he'll 'see the light' soon enough. And while I won't pretend to understand the 'trauma' he experienced in his 'sighting', it seems to me that a believable, 'reasonable explanation' of it all would substantially diminish if not alleviate entirely the after-effects he's been experiencing all these years. Or not.

I wonder if hearing/experiencing/reading REAL cases/stories/instances (involving more 'everyday' activities than Bigfooting) where it was clearly proven (sooner or later) a 'witness' was completely mistaken and otherwise simply wrong about what he/she said they 'saw and experienced'...would help? No? 'Cause I don't think he's convinced he SAW Bigfoot™ near as much as he's convinced his MIND ISN'T/WASN'T playing tricks on him.
 
Last edited:
desertgal said:
A 27 year old memory of a then 9 year old boy increases the probability of the existence of Bigfoot?

Huh.

I saw Santa Claus when I was nine. Granted, Santa has never been proven to exist, and most insist he is just a fable made up to sell merchandise, but he sure has been seen by a lot of kids over the years. So, that must increase the probability that he does exist.

Sorry, but the only probability that increases with anecdotal sightings of Bigfoot is the probability of reinforcing belief in his existence. They do not increase the probability of his existence.



I love that quote. :D
Click to expand...


Just to add here: The more sightings, the LESS likely of its existence. Everytime someone sees a bigfoot, and finds no evidence, the less likely it is for it to exist, since every added sighting opens for opportunities for evidence to be gathered
 
desertgal said:
A 27 year old memory of a then 9 (17...actually) year old boy increases the probability of the existence of Bigfoot?

Huh.

I saw Santa Claus when I was nine. Granted, Santa has never been proven to exist, and most insist he is just a fable made up to sell merchandise, but he sure has been seen by a lot of kids over the years. So, that must increase the probability that he does exist.

Sorry, but the only probability that increases with anecdotal sightings of Bigfoot is the probability of reinforcing belief in his existence. They do not increase the probability of his existence.
Click to expand...


Throw in a "Yup" with that "Huh". :)


One big difference with your 'Santa' analogy.......how many 17 year olds report seeing Santa Claus? How many 35 year olds report seeing him? How many 50 year olds report seeing him?


Nice try, desertgal....but perhaps you can find a more realistic analogy.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Throw in a "Yup" with that "Huh". :)


One big difference with your 'Santa' analogy.......how many 17 year olds report seeing Santa Claus? How many 35 year olds report seeing him? How many 50 year olds report seeing him?


Nice try, desertgal....but perhaps you can find a more realistic analogy.
Click to expand...

Sweaty does have a point: However, he does not address the fact that as each sighting is reported, the verifiable evidence stays the SAME? It seems like whenever this creature is reported, every "Physical case" is full of contradictory reports, bogus tracks, and artificial fibers "Unknown hair" is viewed as high ranking evidence.
 
HarryHenderson said:
(I) Gotta give Kitakaze an A+ for his 'passionate effort' in trying to convince WGBH things are not always as they seem. And doing it with a consistent respect for WGBH's very real angst. Sadly, I don't think it's gonna change his mind at this juncture. There is always hope though, and the fact WGBH has only been 'back' into Bigfooting just a few years gives hope he'll 'see the light' soon enough. And while I won't pretend to understand the 'trauma' he experienced in his 'sighting', it seems to me that a believable, 'reasonable explanation' of it all would substantially diminish if not alleviate entirely the after-effects he's been experiencing all these years. Or not.

I wonder if hearing/experiencing/reading REAL cases/stories/instances (involving more 'everyday' activities than Bigfooting) where it was clearly proven (sooner or later) a 'witness' was completely mistaken and otherwise simply wrong about what he/she said they 'saw and experienced'...would help? No? 'Cause I don't think he's convinced he SAW Bigfoot™ near as much as he's convinced his MIND ISN'T/WASN'T playing tricks on him.
Click to expand...


I agree Harry, Kit and most of the people involved in this thread make it very interesting and they have great ideas. The thing is, I never came here trying to get them to change my mind. Although, if a strong enough reason came up, I may have. It just didnt. I heard the same things I have always encountered before.

I love learning new things and there are smart people here to teach me. I would love to get research ideas and constructive research criticism from the people here. I just do not need negativity and ridicule. I get plenty of that already. I know it is silly to most of you that we are out there chasing a imaginary ape man through the woods, but I am not a liar or a bad person. I guess I am just wierd. We do not need to be nasty to each other.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Throw in a "Yup" with that "Huh". :)


One big difference with your 'Santa' analogy.......how many 17 year olds report seeing Santa Claus? How many 35 year olds report seeing him? How many 50 year olds report seeing him?


Nice try, desertgal....but perhaps you can find a more realistic analogy.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, because the idea of a large hominid roaming the North American continent for centuries without anyone getting a single shred of verifiable proof of his existence is so much more realistic than the myth of Santa Claus...after all, adults see Bigfoot, and adults are NEVER mistaken, NEVER make stuff up, NEVER scam, NEVER hallucinate, NEVER dream, etc....:rolleyes:
 
desertgal said:
Well, sure, because the idea of a large hominid roaming the North American continent for centuries without anyone getting a single shred of verifiable proof of his existence is so much more realistic than the myth of Santa Claus...after all, adults see Bigfoot, and adults are NEVER mistaken, NEVER make stuff up, NEVER scam, NEVER hallucinate, NEVER dream, etc....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Desert, while one is based on real people( Santa Claus WAS real. Saint Nicholas is proof), the other one is believed to be a modern version of Gigantopithecus Blacki, yet with ZERO evidence of on NA!

I would take my chances with SANTA!:p
 
makaya325 said:
Desert, while one is based on real people( Santa Claus WAS real. Saint Nicholas is proof)
Click to expand...

No, and I've explained this to you before. The Saint Nicholas you keep referring to was Saint Nicholas of Myra, and he was NOT the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The Santa Claus myth began with a satirical fiction written by Washington Irving, and the only common denominators between Saint Nicholas of Myra and Irving's Saint Nicholas were the name, and that they both had Dutch origins. Irving's fictional character evolved into "Santa Claus", used to promote commercial sales at Christmas time.

Saint Nicholas of Myra lived the qualities that encouraged the Catholic Church to confer sainthood upon him. Santa Claus is a marketing tool. To insist they are one and the same makes light of the compassionate and humanitarian efforts of the real St. Nicholas.
 
Last edited:
desertgal said:
No, and I've explained this to you before. The Saint Nicholas you keep referring to was Saint Nicholas of Myra, and he was NOT the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The Santa Claus myth began with a satirical fiction written by Washington Irving, and the only common denominators between Saint Nicholas of Myra and Irving's Saint Nicholas were the name, and that they both had Dutch origins. Irving's fictional character evolved into "Santa Claus", used to promote commercial sales at Christmas time.

Saint Nicholas of Myra lived the qualities that encouraged the Catholic Church to confer sainthood upon him. Santa Claus is a marketing tool. To insist they are one and the same makes light of the compassionate and humanitarian efforts of the real St. Nicholas.
Click to expand...

The above is not wholly accurate, though pieces of it are. The Dutch Sinter Klaas, aka the Northern European figure of "Father Christmas" is far older than Irving's story, stretching back to medieval times -- and possibly before, if we can accept the similarities between the Germanic god Wotan and the various elements of "Father Christmas" (under many names in many nations) as he is depicted/portrayed/imagined today. In short, Santa Claus is just another name -- the American one -- for an ancient figure of Yule and the Winter Solstice.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled bigfoot discussion. (Interestingly, the two are related, bigfoot and Santa, insofar as both have ties to the "Wild Man of the Woods" figure known the world over. But that is not really the topic here, and I apologize for the sidebar.)
 
Vortigern99 said:
The above is not wholly accurate, though pieces of it are. The Dutch Sinter Klaas, aka the Northern European figure of "Father Christmas" is far older than Irving's story, stretching back to medieval times -- and possibly before, if we can accept the similarities between the Germanic god Wotan and the various elements of "Father Christmas" (under many names in many nations) as he is depicted/portrayed/imagined today. In short, Santa Claus is just another name -- the American one -- for an ancient figure of Yule and the Winter Solstice.
Click to expand...

--Thread drift--

Thanks for the correction-interesting info. Still, my point remains - Mak should not confuse the St. Nicholas of Irving's story with St. Nicholas of Myra. :)

--End Thread Drift--
 
desertgal said:
No, and I've explained this to you before. The Saint Nicholas you keep referring to was Saint Nicholas of Myra, and he was NOT the basis for the Santa Claus myth. The Santa Claus myth began with a satirical fiction written by Washington Irving, and the only common denominators between Saint Nicholas of Myra and Irving's Saint Nicholas were the name, and that they both had Dutch origins. Irving's fictional character evolved into "Santa Claus", used to promote commercial sales at Christmas time.

Saint Nicholas of Myra lived the qualities that encouraged the Catholic Church to confer sainthood upon him. Santa Claus is a marketing tool. To insist they are one and the same makes light of the compassionate and humanitarian efforts of the real St. Nicholas.
Click to expand...


What i believe, is that an old ancient myth, involving presents, promoted and supported bf's existence. BTW, i just spoke to bf!

Makaya: So, bf, how r u gonna dead wit the jref on your Pregnant sun tan lotion? Sry to say, patty, but me and WP think you looked a little "Flabby" in Both pictures. Im sorry to say! Lmao
 
desertgal said:
Well, sure, because the idea of a large hominid roaming the North American continent for centuries without anyone getting a single shred of verifiable proof of his existence is so much more realistic than the myth of Santa Claus...after all, adults see Bigfoot, and adults are NEVER mistaken, NEVER make stuff up, NEVER scam, NEVER hallucinate, NEVER dream, etc....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



The basic...(or 'root')...difference between the possibility of Bigfoot's existence, and the possibility of Santa Claus' existence lies in the concept of "plausibility".

Before weight can be assigned to a piece of evidence...the subject's (of the evidence..."Bigfoot", or "Santa") basic 'plausibility' needs to be determined.

One simply considers whether the basic idea of another species of bipedal primate existing is plausible......and, is the basic idea of a guy flying around the world in one night, in a sleigh being 'driven' by magical reindeer, bringing presents to all the kids in the world plausible?


Another example:

Suppose, for example, that a reasonably reliable source tells me...

(a) that President Clinton has vetoed legislation that places restrictions on trade with China and...

(b) that Newt Gingrich has switched to the Democratic party.

Most people would be much more confident of the truth of the first report than of the second, even though the source is identical.

The difference lies in the a priori plausibility of the claims.
Click to expand...


Here's a link to the article:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom