vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Feb 11, 2009 17:40:03 GMT -5
www.darkglobe.net/team/training/fools_gold_route.htmlAbout half way down the page, type "fishermen" in your Edit-Find menu window and you'll find this mention of a couple of fishermen being scared by a Sasquatch up Debeck Creek on the West side of Pitt Lake. This was not that long ago, Aug. 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Mar 18, 2012 16:51:37 GMT -5
you'll find this mention of a couple of fishermen being scared by a Sasquatch up Debeck Creek on the West side of Pitt Lake. This was not that long ago, Aug. 2003. Hopefully they come forward some day with their story. It would be nice if more people reported it, right away.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 14, 2012 12:35:44 GMT -5
given it was some drinkin' good ol' boys who were just providing a quick ride for them, it comes across to me like they were maybe throwing a tale at them to make them worried once they were dropped off.
i don't put any stock in this, as it is already third and fourth party info. plus, if it was any plausible sighting, one would think the story would have been somewhat elaborate and held more importance. they mentioned this with the less importance than what socks they wore.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on May 14, 2012 17:12:20 GMT -5
given it was some drinkin' good ol' boys who were just providing a quick ride for them, it comes across to me like they were maybe throwing a tale at them to make them worried once they were dropped off. i don't put any stock in this, as it is already third and fourth party info. plus, if it was any plausible sighting, one would think the story would have been somewhat elaborate and held more importance. they mentioned this with the less importance than what socks they wore. You don't offhandedly dismiss information. In August 1986, Thomas was able to investigate the Chilliwack River/Cow Creek sighting precisely because he took hearsay information seriously. Without talking to a witness and/or visiting a scene, a serious investigator has no way of determining the plausibility of a sighting report. The area in an around Debeck Creek has a history of sightings that stretch back decades.
|
|
Sean V.
Has opinions now!
Alberta Sasquatch Researcher
Posts: 256
|
Post by Sean V. on May 14, 2012 17:15:55 GMT -5
You don't offhandedly dismiss information. Agreed. Alot of the Alberta reports that I have collected started off vague, but upon further investigation turned up quite a few more details.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 14, 2012 20:41:00 GMT -5
i agree. by all means, from an investigator point of view, no report should be ignored. but, i'm not an investigator and wasn't speaking from that side.
i just think that if it was a substantial incident, and not just someone hearing a noise or claiming a rock was thrown at them, that there would have been much more detail given by the guys in the boat and the hikers. i'm guessing it wasn't an actual sighting if it was anything.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 15, 2012 20:51:40 GMT -5
You don't offhandedly dismiss information. In August 1986, Thomas was able to investigate the Chilliwack River/Cow Creek sighting precisely because he took hearsay information seriously. Without talking to a witness and/or visiting a scene, a serious investigator has no way of determining the plausibility of a sighting report. The area in an around Debeck Creek has a history of sightings that stretch back decades. Darn - I need that "LIKE" button again ;D
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 16, 2012 15:44:35 GMT -5
You don't offhandedly dismiss information. Agreed. Alot of the Alberta reports that I have collected started off vague, but upon further investigation turned up quite a few more details. but, how many of those have turned up any evidence of bf? i can answer that for you........none, zero. see what i'm getting at? simple, basic heresay is just that. and especially when significant time has passed since. going to a location well after is simply too late. my recent experience is a prime example. those tracks i found a week ago are now completely underwater and gone forever. i don't believe they were bf anyway, but even-so, even a short week later was too late to go back and look. and let's not forget the expense and time involved with going and investigating reports. one cannot just act on all. only the strongest should be considered for in-depth study. simple sightings and heresay should be pinned on a map at best. i could make up a story tomorrow, about a friend i talked to years ago, who's grandpa had a friend who swears he saw bf one day while hiking. there is absolutely no reason to take that as a possible sighting. it is simply a story. yet, what's funny is usually those with better substance, such as photos and video, or prints, or hair or scat samples, those are the ones that usually turn out to be bs. that makes the reports/stories with zero support to go with them seem like the stronger ones. and that's because they rely on our belief and hope in them. there's no evidence to support them, but, there's also no evidence to then completely dismiss them either. that's what keeps the bf belief going. there are thousands and thousands of sightings that cannot be proven, and the same time, cannot be disproven. but does it not seem frustrating that with the advancements in technology that we now have, and the substancial increase in searchers, we are still no closer? the best "evidence" almost 45 years later is still the the patterson footage? myself, i find this reason to seriously start having more doubts in it then believing stronger.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 16, 2012 19:32:17 GMT -5
A friend of the family mentioned in passing a while back that is his hometown in Sumatra, these hairy bums keep coming down from the hill begging for food. Took me less than a 1/4 second to do a double-take. He is unknowingly talking about the Orang Pendek, as if they were no different than us seeing bears or coyotes. So I believe him? Yes Is it hearsay (his word)? Yes So basically, it comes down to faith of the witness. If you were to tell me about a sighting someone had, then with each "iteration" I'd be more and more skeptical. However hearsay is a great and powerful tool is used properly.
Richard
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 25, 2012 11:37:48 GMT -5
no, hearsay is just that, hearsay. and it's second-hand at best. quite often, it's third, fourth, and fifth hand. and also, usually significant time has past. so there would be no way of finding anything relevant even if the site was gone to and looked at.
it's amazing how easily the bf community in general, just accepts stories and claims with nothing that backs them up.
i'm on a fishing/outdoor site. on there, they take no claims without something that backs it up. i added to a thread that was discussing how no lake trout exist in okanagan lake. i know for fact that they do. but when i posted that, i was bombarded with responses. proof was demanded, it was implied that i was lying, and my suggestion was also called crap. i was quickly reminded that the site doesn't take reports and claims seriously just based on words. they want some support to go along with. many guys added their pieces of studies, etc, that stated that lake trout aren't in the lake. and many believed they weren't because they fish the lake alot and have never, ever caught one.
now, i added that just because someone hasn't caught one doesn't prove anything. there is no way of ever knowing what all may inhabit a large body of water. and i knew that a simple photo wouldn't appease anyone. i could have used a photo of a laker on kal lake or a laker from kal taken over to okanagan for a picture. luckily, i had even better for them. i know my fish, and know what a certain fish isn't especially. we knew without doubt that what we had caught was a lake trout. so not only did we have photos, we went a step further. we knew how lake trout were strongly believed to not be in the lake. i always claimed that they were, but my fishing partners were like the others and doubted it. so when we caught one, we removed a scale and sent it in to be dna tested. just to have an official confirmation. and my one fishing friend is also a guide on the lake, and works with the d.f.o. guys as well. so not only was it confirmed dna-wise, a reputable guide on the lake confirmed it as well as the fisheries. i provided this info to the site and was still doubted. not until one of them phoned not just the guide, but also the fisheries guys did he then comfirm what i was saying. and even then, he still said that, sure one's been caught, but their #'s are surely so low that they aren't a real catchable species in the lake.
now this was regarding a known fish species, not the ogopogo. and these guys demanded proof to back up claims. a complete about-face compared to bf sites, where proof is never needed and stories are readily applauded and added to the data-base.
|
|