Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[Castro]

I think it might be something like this:

There is a population of people who truly believe in bigfoot. Let's call them A.

There is a smaller population of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot. Let's call them B.

There are some members of population A in population B but B is not a strict subset of population A. It is, in fact, dominated by population C which is comprised of people who claim to have seen a bigfoot but do not actually believe in bigfoot.

Population C is disproportionately important in bigfootery because these people not only make up the majority of the claims, but they are the ones pushing the growth of population A. This includes your Pattersons, Biscardis, Meldrums, Byrnes, etc.

I think you sum it up very well.

 

[William Parcher]

Drew, you haven't given an example of Mothman believers who shun or won't support Mothman eyewitnesses.

 

[EHocking]

I'm not sure what is being proposed that I wouldn't or would agree with.

The strawman that HH proposed was that we were all in lock-step behind you,

The WP™ sponsored premise [on this forum] is that around 90-98% of Bigfoot "encounters" involve outright "deception" in some form/manner ... Leaving "true belief" and "honest misidentification" just barely fractions of the total...

 

[William Parcher]

The strawman that HH proposed was that we were all in lock-step behind you,

Oh yes, I agree that not everyone is in agreement with me and that of course I have said that it is my speculation and not a fact. I think I started out saying the "great majority" or "vast majority" of reports are fiction and then may have clarified that to be "more than 90%", or something like that.

I don't know if anyone has estimated the grand total of encounter claims as many of them are not formally published or tallied. You could have a person who made a single post on the BFF saying "I saw a Bigfoot last weekend" and never said anything about it again either publicly or privately - that is still an encounter claim but it is unlikely to ever be documented or counted. You could have a guy who tells a friend that they saw a Bigfoot and never tells anyone else and it stops right there. That is still another encounter claim but it won't be documented either.

It could be that the grand total of encounter claims is over 100,000 but that too is speculation. Some Bigfooters will say that the number is higher than estimated because there are people who see Bigfoot but then never tell anyone about it because of the "ridicule factor".

 

[HarryHenderson]

The strawman that HH proposed was that we were all in lock-step behind you,

Just for clarity's sake, my point about that was (trying to be) rhetorical in that I wasn't actually unifying us all into a single "in lock-step" line of Parcher's Proponents™, nor was I expressing my true belief or not in his 5 year mission to boldly go wh... Mudcat had simply said he/she thought a "majority" (of BF encounters) were "just mistaken", which is in complete opposition to WP's contentions, of which we don't wholly disagree with even if we do on the specific percentages. Literally thousands of reports a year and the "majority" of them are just mistaken? An elk's hind end only looks like Bigfoot from a few very specific angles out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. "Just don't make no sense."

 

[William Parcher]

An elk's hind end only looks like Bigfoot from a few very specific angles out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. "Just don't make no sense."

A guy once watched an elk's butt stalk a pig then leap on it and throw it against a tree for the kill.

But there could be added mistakes such as if you see a monkey fly out of an elk's butt it might look like a thrown pig. Or the flying monkey might look like a baby Bigfoot jumping off of mommy. As you say though the angle of view has to be just right for that.

BTW, I'm coming out with a cologne called Parcher's Proponents.

 

[Mudcat]

Mudcat had simply said he/she thought a "majority" (of BF encounters) were "just mistaken", which is in complete opposition to WP's contentions, of which we don't wholly disagree with even if we do on the specific percentages. Literally thousands of reports a year and the "majority" of them are just mistaken? An elk's hind end only looks like Bigfoot from a few very specific angles out of an almost infinite number of possibilities. "Just don't make no sense."

It doesn't have to make sense. In bad weather, poor lighting conditions, long distances, with lack of sleep, under the effects of alcohol... Hell, even in ideal conditions I don't think it's necessary to even see a living creature to witness a Bigfoot. A downed tree could become Bigfoot under the right conditions, so yeah. An elk's hind quarters could very well be confused for Bigfoot.

Which is why I disagree with WP.

 

[William Parcher]

It doesn't have to make sense. In bad weather, poor lighting conditions, long distances, with lack of sleep, under the effects of alcohol...

So when they sit down at their computer to write their encounter report are those conditions in effect again?

 

[LTC8K6]

This is what I meant in earlier posts.

I can believe the brief sightings are simply errors. I can believe that a fleeting glimpse or a 10 second encounter could result in misidentifications.

I can't believe that an adult person watched a bear or an elk or a stump, etc., for a minute or more, and still thought it was bigfoot.

I also can't believe the stories where the witness claims to have had a very good look at the subject, even if only for a short time.

The pig hunting story, for example. That's not a misidentification.

This story has the witnesses getting a very good look at the subject, so I wouldn't call this a misidentification, either.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=45049

 

[William Parcher]

A sighting hoaxer is also going to fabricate the duration of viewing. Do I tell them I saw it for 10 seconds or 10 minutes?

 

[Mudcat]

So when they sit down at their computer to write their encounter report are those conditions in effect again?

Aren't most encounters unreported? In any case I don't see why those conditions wouldn't apply to certain witnesses as they report their encounter(s).

In any case, it only takes a single moment to 'see' a Bigfoot and not that very long to build on what they 'seen'.

Make no mistake, eye witnesses are not reliable.

 

[William Parcher]

Aren't most encounters unreported?

I don't know how to answer that.

As an aside, I don't seem to recall you being an active poster in Bigfoot threads here. Have you been observing Bigfootery for a long time?

 

[LTC8K6]

A sighting hoaxer is also going to fabricate the duration of viewing. Do I tell them I saw it for 10 seconds or 10 minutes?

Sure, that fits right in.

The longer the encounter, the more likely it's a hoax?

The shorter the encounter, the more likely it's a mistake?

Then again, a fleeting glimpse story is far less likely to even be checked on...

 

[Resume]

In any case, it only takes a single moment to 'see' a Bigfoot and not that very long to build on what they 'seen'.

If you glimpse a flash of fur from an ass end of a moose, then claim "I seen one!" you're already engaging in dishonesty.

Make no mistake, eye witnesses are not reliable.

Many bigfoot proponents claim they are indeed reliable. This of course is because "eyewitnesses" are pretty much all they have for evidence.

Read a few "reports" from here: http://www.bfro.net/, and tell me how honest you think these folks are.

 

[dmaker]

A guy once watched an elk's butt stalk a pig then leap on it and throw it against a tree for the kill.

But there could be added mistakes such as if you see a monkey fly out of an elk's butt it might look like a thrown pig. Or the flying monkey might look like a baby Bigfoot jumping off of mommy. As you say though the angle of view has to be just right for that.

BTW, I'm coming out with a cologne called Parcher's Proponents.

I don't often wear cologne. Could you start a cult instead? k, thx.

 

[Mudcat]

As an aside, I don't seem to recall you being an active poster in Bigfoot threads here.

Is that a problem?

Have you been observing Bigfootery for a long time?

Probably not as long, chronologically speaking, as some of the other posters here but I have been for a while.

I don't know if witnesses are being honest with their sightings because I don't have enough to go on, but even if I assumed that each and every witness is a hundred percent truthful I don't believe they've seen a Bigfoot. This is not a contradiction.

 

[comncents]

It could be that the grand total of encounter claims is over 100,000 but that too is speculation. Some Bigfooters will say that the number is higher than estimated because there are people who see Bigfoot but then never tell anyone about it because of the "ridicule factor".

"Aren't most encounters unreported?"

I've come to realize that this is "footy logic". Footers claim the ridicule factor as a way of saying there are many more encounters than reported. That would be logical IF most or all reports were actual sightings AND there was evidence of people being ridiculed. If you think that the vast majority of sightings are made up stories, then there is really no ridicule factor...i.e. there's not a bunch of people making up stories and then not reporting them, at least in terms of adding to the quantity of "real sightings". Also, if the "ridicule factor" was real, people wouldn't be packing rooms for the Finding Bigfoot town meetings would they?

 

[comncents]

Face it, reporting a sighting is the first Merit Badge in BLAARGing.

 

[Mudcat]

Also, if the "ridicule factor" was real, people wouldn't be packing rooms for the Finding Bigfoot town meetings would they?

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings also have a lot of people in them, yet I doubt most participants would own up to needing to go to them.

 

[Resume]

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings also have a lot of people in them, yet I doubt most participants would own up to needing to go to them.

Admitting you have a problem, owning it, apologizing to those you hurt are all a part of the steps, aren't they?


Kinda like this. "My name is Resume and I'm a bigfoot LARPer."

BTW: Those "townhall" meetings are on the damn TV show, so yeah, they're owning up to it.