The witness was pretty sure the animal didn’t exist until the witness saw one.

Under those circumstances, people who know will tell you, you are far more likely to think an ape a bear than you are to think a bear an ape. You don’t pigeonhole a sighting under “unknown animal” unless you know it is.

This is just human nature, and logic, at work.

People know just what they are seeing, and they report it.

False choice.

1) Sightings are plentiful. As John Bindernagel says, these animals are being seen far more often than the public realizes.

2) The sightings are rarely if ever reported to anything other than sas websites. Which, of course, carry virtually no weight with the mainstream scientific community. Even when witnesses report to sas websites, which, remember, are actively LOOKING FOR REPORTS, they frequently feel compelled to include in the account that they are NOT crazy and NOT seeing things.

In virtually every case I have read – and I’ve read hundreds – of witnesses telling other people what they saw, the response was: ridicule. It is THE universal response to cryptid sightings. Exceptions? Sure. But I’ve rarely read an exception that didn’t also note that the exception was, in the event, indeed that. One person believing you sure doesn’t seem to swing science, does it?

“That and the fact that the minute witnesses come forward with testimony on a cryptid they do get people who not only scrutinize their testimony (which IS a good thing), but who actively try to discredit their claims at all costs…”

There it is, well stated, in a nutshell. And here’s what gets me about these so-called skeptics:

1) they weren’t there;

2) their debunkings almost invariably include theories wackier than what the person says he saw;

3) they almost invariably have no expertise even remotely related to the topic at hand. Sorry; psychology doesn’t count. Particularly when you are presuming out of hand that the person is a nut. (Or seeing things; which people, contrary to popular belief, almost never do unless they ARE insane.)

But thanks for playing.

And the real point of this thread is exactly what Thudfactor said up there–”is that Skepticism Unchained causes us to discard evidence out of hand”

That and the fact that the minute witnesses come forward with testimony on a cryptid they do get people who not only scrutinize their testimony (which IS a good thing), but who actively try to discredit their claims at all costs–there is a huge difference between scrutinizing testimony for accuracy and sincerity and just trying to discredit testimony for the sake of proving a negative (which I will lay on the scoftics).

Is there really a shortage of Bigfoot sightings? The above seems to suggest that there are sightings all the time, but few are reported. Yet often Bigfoot proponents argue exactly the opposite: that there are huge numbers of sightings, therefore at least some must be credible.

Which is it? Are the sightings plentiful, therefore good evidence for Bigfoot? Or are the sightings sparse because of “fear of ridicule”?

I would consider myself privileged to have seen such a wonder, but aside from that, my lips would be mum except for my mother and two other people whom I could trust.

And MAYBE you good folks here.

NOBODY likes ridicule.

I agree with DWA and GAVINFUNDYK. I would add that science has become the “final arbiter of truth” (to use the philosopher Quine’s famous phrase) and as such it fosters in society and our ordinary reality an attitude of “if it cannot be seen, it does not exist.” As such, any eyewitness report, not matter how accurate, truthful-sounding, or compelling, is almost certainly going to be discounted.
So, no thank you, Bigfoot researcher, but I’ll keep my wondrous sighting to myself.

I once heard a Bigfoot eyewitness who hunted it for many years and saw it three times and SHOT at it (I don’t remember his name but he was featured in Cryptomundo) responding to why he did not try to FILM it when it was in front of him—to the effect—”If they did not believe Roger Patterson and his film, why are they going to believe me?”

‘Nuff said.

Part of the problem is most persons, including scientists, don’t seem to comprehend how big the forests are in the Pacific Northwest, or in other areas. They assume that if there is a map of an area, it must be fully explored. Which is completely untrue.

Let’s face it, mountain gorillas weren’t supposed to exist in Rwanda (I think), until they were “discovered” in the 1950’s! And large primates are expected in Africa.

But, scientists are not going to be of much help. At least until Bigfoot is found, and someone can take credit for it.