Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Thanks for the insights, Chris.

You're welcome.

And a story is just a story. Without any supporting evidence nothing can be verified. So whether it is personal opinion or pure whimsy that leads one to dismiss an anecdote, who really cares? The truth of it cannot be determined either way.

A story is indeed just a story, but the details are part of the supporting evidence. With some investigation these details can either support the story or blow it out of the water. I guess if one really cares about the validity of the story they can investigate it in the proper way. I'm not assigned to investigate this one so like some, I don't care whether it pans out or not.
As far as dismissing stories or anecdotes, I guess that depends on your personal level of interest or involvement.

Anecdotes don't bode well for much of anything.

Other than to say, "If the shoe fits" I agree. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Other than to say, "If the shoe fits" I agree. Chris B.

More like if the stomper fits.

 

[Drewbot]

http://www.livescience.com/19178-tracking-belief-bigfoot-infographic.html

This lack of evidence hasn't stopped enthusiasts, however. The reason could be human nature: We want to believe. "The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations," said Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University, back in 2008.

We tend to? or Some tend to?

 

[Resume]

We tend to? or Some tend to?

Well, in this case, 30%. Which is some.

 

[dmaker]

You're welcome.



A story is indeed just a story, but the details are part of the supporting evidence. With some investigation these details can either support the story or blow it out of the water. I guess if one really cares about the validity of the story they can investigate it in the proper way. I'm not assigned to investigate this one so like some, I don't care whether it pans out or not.
As far as dismissing stories or anecdotes, I guess that depends on your personal level of interest or involvement.



Other than to say, "If the shoe fits" I agree. Chris B.

My bold. For me to consider any anecdote as significant then the truth of the report must be confirmable by some method other than further testimony, i.e. objective evidence in the form of photographs, video footage or ideally objective forensic evidence. Without such, there is no way to determine the truth of the story and it remains simply a story.

Minus the aid of a time machine and shared sensory organs, the anecdote in question ( any bigfoot anecdote for that matter) is not falsifiable nor is it repeatable. Investigate it all you want, not sure what that will prove. Particularly in this case. Does one expect there to be tracks still there? Would the faint whiff of hunter still linger in the air? Investigation in these cases, at best, just leads to more ambiguous evidence ( tracks or stick structures, etc) and then subjective interpretation of said evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

What about the Texas Pig Throwing Bigfoot story? Did it get blown out of the water, or what happened to that one?

 

[dmaker]

The giant pig tosser has entered into bigfoot canon as far as I can tell.

 

[Resume]

By what metric does Dr. Don Meldrum use to come up with his footie numbers? Which bigfoot anecdote report can he point to and claim "that's a winner!"

It's just ridiculous, campfires stories about campfire stories on top of campfire stories.

 

[Paul Holland]

I've been searching for this famous pig-tossing report. This is the best I could find. Is it the one?

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547

 

[William Parcher]

Is it the one?

Bingo!

 

[Resume]

I've been searching for this famous pig-tossing report. This is the best I could find. Is it the one?

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547

Winner-winner, feral hog dinner. "Grrrr!! Whoop-whoop!!"

 

[Paul Holland]

Kind of Bigfoot Volleyball...fascinating.

 

[William Parcher]

I guess Chris would say that the details supported the pig-tosser investigation and that's why it wasn't blown out of the water.

Thousands and thousands of Bigfoot sighting reports have not been blown out of the water because when they were investigated by Bigfoot Believers they were found to have supporting details.

Bigfoot believers believe Bigfoot reports. With that, we are getting somewhere productive.

 

[Drewbot]

I love hauling this out.

 

[Paul Holland]

It's really even more impressive than a toss...he just slapped the thing through the air!

 

[Resume]

Very tall, very heavily built, female, similar to most bigfoot pictures/drawings that one sees

Yeah, it's the congruency of the report data that's so compelling. I mean how could all these folks be reporting the same thing? Without discrepancies?

Minus the hog-slapping of course.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I don't have a strong opinion on the story, I just wanted to point out that the blaze orange detail might not be the deal-breaker it was being presented as. I think other details might be more telling. The excessive anonymity, for instance, although it didn't initially strike me until brought up.

You did more than that. You continue to lobby for the ghille suit despite how wrong your initial just-so story proves to be. Look at this, incredible as it is:

Also, a 2-second google search for "ghillie suit archery" reveals the sale of ghillie suits at archery gear sites, photos of use their on the ground, and discussion of merits of use in archery overall.

Yes indeed it does, in complete support of exactly what I said. I googled what you said - and here is the top entry, from Archery Talk:


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=119045

lol: THE VERY FIRST RESPONSE:

If you use a ghillie suit make sure you practice in it. A friend mine got his bow tangled up somehow with his

SECOND ENTRY is a MODIFIED SUIT WITH NO ARMS:

Tee Shaggie made by Rancho Safari is made by bowhunters no arms to snag

Third entry is home made. FOURTH entry:

I'm concerned that a ghillie suit will get caught in my string when i flip arrows.

... and the next, and the next, and the next one too: all saying the SAME THING.

One wears a sweatshirt over the arms. Others cut up portions of the suit. These greatly increase the ease of identification as a human.

That's why it was so obvious to me that you have never hunted with a bow. I don't want to beat you up too badly here but want to stay focused on what you did: you made up "plausible" reasons for assigning as much truth to the made-up story as you could.

Selective attention: Ignore the fact no season is open when claimed.

Rationalization: It happened during the bow-only season, so no blaze orange.

And these two are contradictory! I gladly point this out as human nature: we have such a difficult time agreeing to deceptive actions that we explain them away when they are being practiced right in front of our eyes.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

In KY, bow season opens the first Saturday of September. This year 2014, it opened on the 6th of September. So depending on where the backdrop of this sighting saga is set, the last days of August are not as far away from the first Saturday of September.

That doesn't mean the sighting is good either though, it means we have to look at the info closer. Bow hunters in KY start their corn pile, (conveniently located a short distance from their stand), about the middle of July. Most pull some new field corn and begin the pile. Later they put out dry ear corn or shell corn and check their corn pile fairly regularly. Have some deer been taken in late August? Yep. It's not legal but it has happened. And it'll happen again.

My point is, to dismiss the story as bogus on the grounds that the guy could not have been deer hunting at that time is not logical until we know the complete setting and background of the story. As I said above , it still doesn't mean the sighting is good or true. But how the sighting is investigated or not investigated determines how much we know about it.

A simple dismissal based on a personal opinion without investigation does not bode well for one's credibility. Chris B.

Wonderful, thanks!

Two-hundred twenty two words to say: he was poaching.

Three words you couldn't say. Manipulative players never want to say their dumbest things directly like this. Because yeah, it sounds really dumb. But let's roll with it.

This friend of Mudcat is POACHING one day and comes across another hunter who was ALSO POACHING, lol.

You need TWO people hunting illegally in this made-up story in order to improve its plausibility.

This is like the excuses made up for Roger Patterson's unworkable film development timeline: the invention of the clandestine porn lab developer working on a Saturday to develop the film (not) shot on Oct. 20. This is how far people will go: making up absurdities even beyond the original storyteller's. Because they really are vested in saying they believe.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Not even in the top three, assuming you mean Alaska.

As far as hunting licenses issued per capita, it's Pennsylvania. Texas and Michigan are next and I think Wisconsin is fourth.

Now, if you're counting poachers and violators (peg bead fishermen) then Alaska is miles ahead of everyone!

Yes, they are: but not for the reason you think. Much of what the native Alaskans are doing doesn't even have legal seasons but they do it under sheer exercise of cultural rights and defiance of authority, and federal court subsistence decisions have bolstered that behavior while tying the state's hands.

Even international treaties on whale harvesting were violated with impunity by the natives. When the world formed their little whaling commission and established a moratorium on hunting, the Eskimos just formed their own: the Eskimo Whaling Commission. They went on hunting. They issue themselves licenses. lol. There is an example where every member of a village is involved in hauling a whale onshore for butchering and not one of them has a license.

They do spring duck hunts and when one is threatened with arrest, they march in together and demand entire villages be arrested. I'd go to jail for it. This is 15% of the population owning over 30 million acres of land in addition to the Feds allowing subsistence on just about ALL federal land. This means killing moose and trading meat for gasoline - no problem. It's legal and there isn't a license category for that with the state.

As a commercial fisherman, I watched rampant illegal fishing - no license for that, and I have to say I don't want the state or feds running in there and arresting these people for it. Underage boys - giggling when we drift by them. Because we both know exactly what they are doing. Selling fish eggs, catching them early and putting them in snowbanks to freeze before season - I have seen it all.

So yes, I include that. Why shouldn't I? It's the truth.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Yes, they are: but not for the reason you think. Much of what the native Alaskans are doing doesn't even have legal seasons but they do it under sheer exercise of cultural rights and defiance of authority, and federal court subsistence decisions have bolstered that behavior while tying the state's hands.

We get that here in Wisconsin with walleye spearing.

Absolutely no need for it, it's wasteful and harms the fishery as a whole; but it gets done because it's always been done.