That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
[Image: IMG_293347396927311_zpsv87q80xk.jpeg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like pablo's post
08-12-2014, 03:18 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 03:22 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 03:07 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Before I dismantle another one of your hypocritical, diversionary, and lazy posts, whose substance you will conveniently ignore or edit out of your response, I'm gonna wait a few hours and see if you can get a siiiiiiingle person to agree with you. I don't think you have gotten a single like from anyone on a single one of your responses to me... oh but oh wait that's right I forgot it's not cause you're wrong or blatantly hypocritical or your total lack of objectivity on your favorite brand of Woo....it's due to TTAs "inner circle" conspiracy to make you look bad and to upvote me 'cause we are all just tots BFF's.

Right, riiiiiight.. I forgot.

Hobo

Oh please, put that big ass maniacal ego of yours in a straight jacket for awhile, okay?

So you are saying that we need to wait a few hours for another of your brain-dead fucktard ambiguous posts so I can ignore it again?

Hey, I'm down with that.

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 04:17 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 03:18 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 03:07 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Before I dismantle another one of your hypocritical, diversionary, and lazy posts, whose substance you will conveniently ignore or edit out of your response, I'm gonna wait a few hours and see if you can get a siiiiiiingle person to agree with you. I don't think you have gotten a single like from anyone on a single one of your responses to me... oh but oh wait that's right I forgot it's not cause you're wrong or blatantly hypocritical or your total lack of objectivity on your favorite brand of Woo....it's due to TTAs "inner circle" conspiracy to make you look bad and to upvote me 'cause we are all just tots BFF's.

Right, riiiiiight.. I forgot.

Hobo

Oh please, put that big ass ego of yours in a straight jacket for awhile, okay?

So you are saying that we need to wait a few hours for another of your brain-dead fucktard ambiguous posts so I can ignore it again?

Hey, I'm down with that.

Big Grin

I know your down with that, ignoring the content and criticisms in peoples posts is your established behavior. You can call my posts brain-dead and fucktarded till you are blue in the face but your opinion is not gonna bother me because a.) you're a mentally unstable whack job on this subject and b.) not a single person has expressed any agreement with you on this subject. At all. Even once. Drinking Beverage

So you can continue attempting, poorly, to be witty or clever but if you think I'm taking serious the complaints about my ego from a person who thinks a secretive inner circle of atheists are going out of their way to target him all special like.... then I'm just gonna laugh at you. Some more.
So much hypocrisy.

Honestly I'm waiting cause I have other things to do at the moment then spank your whack-a-doo ass and also 'cause if the community here thought I was wrong on this subject I'd seriously consider their advice and let it go..like I did the first time when you bailed. I let it go and I let it go civilly while stating I relate to the time issues. I tried to bury the hatchet and I let it go. I nearly upreped you, but you YOU just could not let it go so you just dishonestly shifted your attempts to prove your position, a point in this forum that has been near universally rejected as incorrect and fallacious, to a new thread.

Don't talk to anyone about ego there Sally, I had already dropped the subject entirely till you started playing your semantic word games again in a new thread trying to prove a point you already demonstrated you couldn't defend in the last one. Once your drop this stupid woo bullshit and except your lack of objectivity on the subject as witnessed by everyone who has commented on the subject....I'll go back to being civil and treating you like any other +rep member of the forum.

Seriously ask your self why no one agrees with your presupposition, your methods, or your conclusions.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
08-12-2014, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 08:25 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(07-12-2014 09:44 PM)Free Wrote:  I don't argue that eyewitness accounts are not enough. My entire point here is whether or not credible eyewitness testimony can add to the equation of probability.

I would answer it might, depending on the circumstances and the event but with one HUGE caveat and that is eyewitness testimony has been shown to be unreliable.

Stress adds to unreliability and so does distance, weather, time spent observing, context, time of day and light conditions. In my opinion 12 credible eyewitnesses can all see the same thing, come to a similar conclusion (because of schemas, see below) and all be mistaken as to what they actually saw. Incredible as this first sounds it has been shown to be true in experiments.

"Many people believe that memory works something like a videotape. Storing information is like recording and remembering is like playing back what was recorded. With information being retrieved in much the same form as it was encoded. However, memory does not work in this way. It is a feature of human memory that we do not store information exactly as it is presented to us. Rather, people extract from information the gist, or underlying meaning.

In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them. We make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas, which are a way of organizing information.”

"Schemas are therefore capable of distorting unfamiliar or unconsciously ‘unacceptable’ information in order to ‘fit in’ with our existing knowledge or schemas. This can, therefore, result in unreliable eyewitness testimony.”

"In his famous study 'War of the Ghosts', Bartlett (1932) showed that memory is not just a factual recording of what has occurred, but that we make “effort after meaning”. By this, Bartlett meant that we try to fit what we remember with what we really know and understand about the world. As a result, we quite often change our memories so they become more sensible to us.

“It seems, therefore, that each of us ‘ reconstructs ’ our memories to conform to our personal beliefs about the world.”

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitne...imony.html

http://Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely ...s Accounts

"Mistaken or flawed identification has assumed a newfound prominence in recent years: It's been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted. "
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...cy&f=false

Interesting stuff.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
08-12-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 04:25 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(07-12-2014 09:44 PM)Free Wrote:  I don't argue that eyewitness accounts are not enough. My entire point here is whether or not credible eyewitness testimony can add to the equation of probability.

I would answer it might depending on the circumstances and the event but with one HUGE caveat and that is eyewitness testimony has been shown to be unreliable.

Stress adds to unreliability and so does distance, weather, time spent observing, context, time of day and light conditions. In my opinion 12 credible eyewitnesses can all see the same thing, come to a similar conclusion (because of schemas, see below) and all be mistaken as to what they actually saw. Incredible as this first sounds it has been shown to be true in experiments.

"Many people believe that memory works something like a videotape. Storing information is like recording and remembering is like playing back what was recorded. With information being retrieved in much the same form as it was encoded. However, memory does not work in this way. It is a feature of human memory that we do not store information exactly as it is presented to us. Rather, people extract from information the gist, or underlying meaning.

In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them. We make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas, which are a way of organizing information.”

"Schemas are therefore capable of distorting unfamiliar or unconsciously ‘unacceptable’ information in order to ‘fit in’ with our existing knowledge or schemas. This can, therefore, result in unreliable eyewitness testimony.”

"In his famous study 'War of the Ghosts', Bartlett (1932) showed that memory is not just a factual recording of what has occurred, but that we make “effort after meaning”. By this, Bartlett meant that we try to fit what we remember with what we really know and understand about the world. As a result, we quite often change our memories so they become more sensible to us.

“It seems, therefore, that each of us ‘ reconstructs ’ our memories to conform to our personal beliefs about the world.”

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitne...imony.html

http://Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely ...s Accounts

"Mistaken or flawed identification has assumed a newfound prominence in recent years: It's been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted. "
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...cy&f=false

Interesting stuff.

That is interesting, however, can you provide an example in which there were multiple- say 6, 8, 10 or more- eyewitnesses in a specific case in which all of them were proven to be unreliable?

I constantly see people posting information such as what you have posted, but are you willing to acknowledge that the information you posted says nothing about multiple eyewitnesses of the same event?

You see, this is what my whole point is, and many people here constantly bring up the eyewitness testimony thing as it applies to a singular witness, but it does not apply to multiple eyewitnesses.

Now, I am not saying that multiple eyewitnesses who describe the same thing the exact same way cannot be all wrong. What I am saying is that the odds of 12 eyewitness all being wrong cannot be compared to a singular witness being wrong.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 04:40 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 04:25 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I would answer it might depending on the circumstances and the event but with one HUGE caveat and that is eyewitness testimony has been shown to be unreliable.

Stress adds to unreliability and so does distance, weather, time spent observing, context, time of day and light conditions. In my opinion 12 credible eyewitnesses can all see the same thing, come to a similar conclusion (because of schemas, see below) and all be mistaken as to what they actually saw. Incredible as this first sounds it has been shown to be true in experiments.

"Many people believe that memory works something like a videotape. Storing information is like recording and remembering is like playing back what was recorded. With information being retrieved in much the same form as it was encoded. However, memory does not work in this way. It is a feature of human memory that we do not store information exactly as it is presented to us. Rather, people extract from information the gist, or underlying meaning.

In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them. We make sense of information by trying to fit it into schemas, which are a way of organizing information.”

"Schemas are therefore capable of distorting unfamiliar or unconsciously ‘unacceptable’ information in order to ‘fit in’ with our existing knowledge or schemas. This can, therefore, result in unreliable eyewitness testimony.”

"In his famous study 'War of the Ghosts', Bartlett (1932) showed that memory is not just a factual recording of what has occurred, but that we make “effort after meaning”. By this, Bartlett meant that we try to fit what we remember with what we really know and understand about the world. As a result, we quite often change our memories so they become more sensible to us.

“It seems, therefore, that each of us ‘ reconstructs ’ our memories to conform to our personal beliefs about the world.”

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitne...imony.html

http://Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely ...s Accounts

"Mistaken or flawed identification has assumed a newfound prominence in recent years: It's been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted. "
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...cy&f=false

Interesting stuff.

That is interesting, however, can you provide an example in which there were multiple- say 6, 8, 10 or more- eyewitnesses in a specific case in which all of them were proven to be unreliable?

I constantly see people posting information such as what you have posted, but are you willing to acknowledge that the information you posted says nothing about multiple eyewitnesses of the same event?

You see, this is what my whole point is, and many people here constantly bring up the eyewitness testimony thing as it applies to a singular witness, but it does not apply to multiple eyewitnesses.

Now, I am not saying that multiple eyewitnesses who describe the same thing the exact same way cannot be all wrong. What I am saying is that the odds of 12 eyewitness all being wrong cannot be compared to a singular witness being wrong.

As for multiple witnesses, under the same circumstances, I don’t see why they all could not have seen the same thing, described the event, and still come to the wrong conclusions.

In an earlier post I mentioned the Fatima event where thousands of people say the saw the sun “stopped” or “moved in odd ways”. You may discount a few but thousands? Did the sun really stop in the sky? Many people can be mistaken in what they saw during any event.

Its pretty obvious to me that your mind is made up, that you believe there is no way that 12 reliable witnesses didn’t see an unidentified craft do some unxplained aerial aerobics. I presented the possibilty of schemas, a drone, and I throw in now the possibility of an optical illusion.

I would like for you to admit that there is a very real and high probability that what the twelve eyewitnesses describe has almost certainly a natural explanation.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
08-12-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
One more paper describing the unreliability of memory.

Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable by Marc Green PhD

Excerpt:

"4. Memory is personal

Human memory does not exist so that an observer may accurately report previously seen events. The actual, physical events are merely grist for the mill of interpretation. Each witness extracts an interpretation that is meaningful in terms of his own beliefs, experiences and needs. Once the interpretation occurs, the events themselves become relatively unimportant. Moreover, since each person interprets the events in terms of his own world view, different eyewitnesses observing the same event may have different interpretations and different memories. To put it succinctly:

"We do not see what we sense. We see what we think we sense. Our consciousness is presented with an interpretation, not the raw data. Long after presentation, an unconscious information processing has discarded information, so that we see a simulation, a hypothesis, an interpretation; and we are not free to choose” (Norretranders, 1999).”

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/ey...emory.html

One more thing, all these studies underline the need for corroborating evidence from objective sources such as radar, photograph or video sources in addition to the human testimony most specifically when describing anything that appears to be violating the laws of physics!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
08-12-2014, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 06:08 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 05:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 04:40 PM)Free Wrote:  That is interesting, however, can you provide an example in which there were multiple- say 6, 8, 10 or more- eyewitnesses in a specific case in which all of them were proven to be unreliable?

I constantly see people posting information such as what you have posted, but are you willing to acknowledge that the information you posted says nothing about multiple eyewitnesses of the same event?

You see, this is what my whole point is, and many people here constantly bring up the eyewitness testimony thing as it applies to a singular witness, but it does not apply to multiple eyewitnesses.

Now, I am not saying that multiple eyewitnesses who describe the same thing the exact same way cannot be all wrong. What I am saying is that the odds of 12 eyewitness all being wrong cannot be compared to a singular witness being wrong.

As for multiple witnesses, under the same circumstances, I don’t see why they all could not have seen the same thing, described the event, and still come to the wrong conclusions.

In an earlier post I mentioned the Fatima event where thousands of people say the saw the sun “stopped” or “moved in odd ways”. You may discount a few but thousands? Did the sun really stop in the sky? Many people can be mistaken in what they saw during any event.

I understand how you may want to make the comparison between the Fatima thing and the O'Hare thing, but here's a few points to ponder:

a)O'Hare witnesses did not know each other and were not expecting to see anything.
b)Fatima witness all gathered there with the expectation of seeing something extraordinary.

a) Many O'Hare witnesses did not know that anyone else was viewing the craft at the same time they were.
b) Fatima witnesses all began to see something unusual when a religious leader yelled out that something strange was going on with the sun.

a)None of the O'Hare witness demonstrated any preconceived beliefs in UFos or aliens.
b) All the Fatima witnessed were religious.

These are just some of the big differences between teh two events, and it is these massive differences that need to be considered when evaluating whether or not the comparison between the two events is actually fair.

I do not believe we can fairly compare the two events at all.

Quote:Its pretty obvious to me that your mind is made up, that you believe there is no way that 12 reliable witnesses didn’t see an unidentified craft do some unxplained aerial aerobics.

Actually, I placed my position at 90%, but not conclusive. There's always room for doubt.

Quote:I presented the possibilty of schemas, a drone, and I throw in now the possibility of an optical illusion.


Schemas is a possibility, I admitted that. However, like I said, we have multiple eyewitness here, not a singular eyewitness, and we need a better example for multiple eyewitnesses. You Schemas example does not seem to apply very well to multiple eyewitnesses since it is clearly geared to a singular witness.

You suggested a drone, but I find logical problems with that. Firstly, 8 years ago, there were no commercial drones. Secondly, the object described was too large to account for a drone. Thirdly, if it was a military drone or some kind of secret military craft, then why place it dangerously over a public airport where anybody can see it?

Optical illusion? Sure, that's possible. Problems? Alleged "craft" was reported as moving straight up.

Quote:I would like for you to admit that there is a very real and high probability that what the twelve eyewitnesses describe has almost certainly a natural explanation.

Almost certainly? No. about 50/50 if you been reading my posts on the other forum correctly.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 05:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  As for multiple witnesses, under the same circumstances, I don’t see why they all could not have seen the same thing, described the event, and still come to the wrong conclusions.

In an earlier post I mentioned the Fatima event where thousands of people say the saw the sun “stopped” or “moved in odd ways”. You may discount a few but thousands? Did the sun really stop in the sky? Many people can be mistaken in what they saw during any event.

I understand how you may want to make the comparison between the Fatima thing and the O'Hare thing, but here's a few points to ponder:

a)O'Hare witnesses did not know each other and were not expecting to see anything.
b)Fatima witness all gathered there with the expectation of seeing something extraordinary.

a) Many O'Hare witnesses did not know that anyone else was viewing the craft at the same time they were.
b) Fatima witnesses all began to see something unusual when a religious leader yelled out that something strange was going on with the sun.

a)None of the O'Hare witness demonstrated any preconceived beliefs in UFos or aliens.
b) All the Fatima witnessed were religious.

These are just some of the big differences between teh two events, and it is these massive differences that need to be considered when evaluating whether or not the comparison between the two events is actually fair.

I do not believe we can fairly compare the two events at all.

Quote:Its pretty obvious to me that your mind is made up, that you believe there is no way that 12 reliable witnesses didn’t see an unidentified craft do some unxplained aerial aerobics.

Actually, I placed my position at 90%, but not conclusive. There's always room for doubt.

Quote:I presented the possibilty of schemas, a drone, and I throw in now the possibility of an optical illusion.


Schemas is a possibility, I admitted that. However, like I said, we have multiple eyewitness here, not a singular eyewitness, and we need a better example for multiple eyewitnesses. You Schemas example does not seem to apply very well to multiple eyewitnesses since it is clearly geared to a singular witness.

You suggested a drone, but I find logical problems with that. Firstly, 8 years ago, there were no commercial drones. Secondly, the object described was too large to account for a drone. Thirdly, if it was a military drone or some kind of secret military craft, then why place it dangerously over a public airport where anybody can see it?

Optical illusion? Sure, that's possible. Problems? Craft was reported as moving straight up.

Quote:I would like for you to admit that there is a very real and high probability that what the twelve eyewitnesses describe has almost certainly a natural explanation.

Almost certainly? No. about 50/50 if you been reading my posts on the other forum correctly.

50/50 that this was alien? Wow. OK.

You know what they say...”To a hammer all problems look like a nail”.

Anecdotal example: One of the things I do is teach fish identification. I take volunteers and students out to do surveys of speciation out on the reef. When we get back to the dock we review the surveys and I have observed the following - the neophytes make many mistakes but are quick to acknowledge them when challenged. The experts make very few mistakes but will butt heads repeatedly when challenged and will change their opinion reluctantly, if at all, even when conclusive evidence has been presented (such as a photo).

The neophytes may know 50 species and over report these and totally ignore unknown ones. The experts may know 300+ and are constantly looking to find new ones and extend known ranges for known species. They have a bias towards finding and reporting what falls outside the “normal” range.

The airport personnel are familiar with aircraft. Some of these might have been neophytes and the others real experts, the breakdown doesn’t matter in this instance. Neither group recognized the “craft”. The former will say I don’t know what it was but it could have been an aircraft I’m unfamiliar with. The latter, not having recognized it either and thinking of themselves as experts, will be biased towards reporting a non-earthly craft on the strength of their knowledge base. Their very expertise predisposes them to make a wrong assumption BECAUSE they couldn’t ID the craft. “I didn’t recognize it, it had to be alien.”

Food for thought.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
08-12-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(08-12-2014 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand how you may want to make the comparison between the Fatima thing and the O'Hare thing, but here's a few points to ponder:

a)O'Hare witnesses did not know each other and were not expecting to see anything.
b)Fatima witness all gathered there with the expectation of seeing something extraordinary.

They sure as hell were expecting to see aircraft over an airport!

(08-12-2014 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  a) Many O'Hare witnesses did not know that anyone else was viewing the craft at the same time they were.
b) Fatima witnesses all began to see something unusual when a religious leader yelled out that something strange was going on with the sun.

OK

(08-12-2014 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  a)None of the O'Hare witness demonstrated any preconceived beliefs in UFos or aliens.
b) All the Fatima witnessed were religious.

All of the O’Hare witnesses were expecting to see aircraft overhead as I said above.

(08-12-2014 05:39 PM)Free Wrote:  These are just some of the big differences between teh two events, and it is these massive differences that need to be considered when evaluating whether or not the comparison between the two events is actually fair.

I do not believe we can fairly compare the two events at all.

I disagree

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: