It seems in cryptozoology as well as paranormal investigations credibility is out the windows. People grasping for evidence are willing to post complete garbage as evidence. Is this good for the field? Does bad evidence become excepted as more people post it? It seems common sense is no longer used by these style groups.
Lets look at class A reports from a bigfoot page.
It was between 2am and 3 am when a noise woke me up. I looked out in the yard to see a bigfoot between 3 and 4 feet tall trying to break into my shed. I turned on the light and it ran off.
Ok now when did bigfoot take up breaking and entering? Why would it pick the shed as opposed to the house? It sounds like more of a person trying to break in.
As I was out walking at 2am I spotted what appeared to be a bigfoot head looking at me from a dumpster. It startled me and it disappeared as I ran away. I went for help and as we came back we found a racoon in the dumpster, was the bigfoot trying to rescue it?
Well once again it was a class A, I would of thought it may have been the racoon's eyes they saw and as it saw them it startled it so it fell into the dumpster.
Yet another class A The sun had set and it was getting dark when I spotted this creature back in the woods, this was about 100 yards away and i spotted a creature that was between 11 and 11 1/2 feet tall. It soon disappeared.
Now its getting dark, the distance is great and yet they can see a creature in the woods? I would think it was their eyes creating it, as hunters know in low light you start to see many animals out of shapes.
Yet another Class A This one sounds strange right away. I was two years old out behind the farm picking berries when a large white creature stood up 2 to three feet from me it was almost twice as big as me. I ran back to the house scared. Ok the mother reported we had a large white poodle at the time. None of the family saw anything.
Ok why was a two year old 50 yards from the house by himself? Could he have seen the poodle stand up looking over the bushes for him? Thats what the mother thought.
Wouldn't it be better to only posts claims that were harder to debunk? I would think your credibility is gone once you start posting these.
Well I think the credibility is gone with those who use common sense when looking at these particular claims. That's why I am always a little amused when I hear that there have been "numerous" Bigfoot sightings..because all the ones I read are like the ones you posted. Either that, or they are outright lies that get shown up later.
I've seen the same thing with Nessie and with the Yeti, and giant thunderbirds. None of these things have ever actually been proved. Does that mean they don't exist or that they never did? Not necessarily. But misperceptions and hoaxes won't help find the truth about it.
Great post UnR and very interesting question.
Whether it's Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, Theology, Demonology or Ghostology we're dealing with human nature and the mixed bag of beliefs that it entails.
credibility is out the windows Very true in most cases because people are driven by emotions, faith and preconceived beliefs and biases.
Why bother to spend time and effort looking for the underlying truth when a pre-existing belief can be slotted right into place?.
People grasping for evidence are willing to post complete garbage as evidence. OH how I wish I had a Dollar everytime I saw garbage posted as evidence - for 'evidence' read - personal anecdote or subjective interpretation of what the witness decided was 'paranormal'. I've seen it time and time again - absolute rubbish posted as veridically valid evidence for supernatural beliefs - reiki, dowsing, crystal healing, our old friend the Ouija Board, Franks box and homeopathy to name a few. What's worse is that there are groups out there that actually boast and post about this and believe they're actually helping people, pushing the envelope of knowledge and contributing towards our ultimate understanding of the paranormal when in effect they're maintaining and building upon the superstitious beliefs that should have been consigned to the wastebin of human ignorance at the same time as the qu'ran, the bible and the torah. But surprisingly when challenged and asked to submit their findings for scientific scrutiny that may prove their claims one way or the other they shy away because IMO they don't want their bubble to be burst.
I've seen the same thing with Nessie and with the Yeti, and giant thunderbirds. and poltergeists, demons, shadow people etc.
Does that mean they don't exist or that they never did? Not necessarily. Quite right UnR. They existed in some form or they would never be consistently reported time and time again. The issue is - are we dealing with human error or are we hearing genuine reports of actual supernatural creatures that defy the laws of known science?.
But misperceptions and hoaxes won't help find the truth about it.
Too true, nor will blindly believing what we hear or read, patting the original witness/second/third hand storyteller on the back and saying 'Well done, great ghost/monster/demon experience, no further questions' instead of asking relevant questions (however intrusive or offensive to the persons 'beliefs' and certainties of their experience the line of questioning may appear) in order to actually get some way towards the truth of their experience. IMO if you don't want to be questioned about your experience or desire to have others offer their opinions (that heaven forbid might disagree with your own) then don't post them on a forum - stay private, keep quiet, revel in your beliefs and those you've gathered around you - just don't get upset when others don't share your views on your interpretation of reality.
DB
I find potential issues with credibility, on both the part of the critic and the person experiencing. For the person that believes they are witness to a special paranormal event, human tendencies are active in most people's interpretation of said events. What I mean by this is: Everybody wants to be unique, just like everybody else! As a result, the unexplainable and paranormal are the quickest ways to be considered something special outside of the mundane person that you really are. Most hoax artists are simple attention seekers going to large measures to ensure they get attention. The large quantity of hoaxes makes the relatively small number of authentic experiences seem insignificant, and then hastily cast aside as scientific outliers. These genuine events are then considered to have a scientific explanation, which either the investigators are not science-savvy enough to discern, or science has not come to a determination on yet. Yes, the credibility of those that claim the paranormal lies on a very thin line.
Unfortunately, where there is great reason to question the claimer's credibility, this then leads to issues with the credibility of the investigators. This issue is primarily one of bias. Investigators, with decades of experience, might have had 80-85% of their cases (possibly higher) be confirmed hoaxes, or misunderstandings. The remaining %'s are then cast aside as similar hoaxes or misunderstandings, which cannot be sufficiently explained, due to the investigator's lack of knowledge. This poses a great problem for the credibility of such investigators, because they are coming to hasty determinations which may or may not be accurate to the situation. I take The Last Exorcism into reference here, as the movie does a good job to depict both of the issues that lie with such people.
The #1 most important thing, for an investigator, is to remain impartial and unbiased to every situation. They should take in each claim and event as if they had never been to another one like it, but handle that situation with the experiences and tricks they have learned, from before, to debunk it. Easier said than done, as many debunkers ("investigators") tend to keep looking for these instances, just to disprove them. There, they are not trying to discern the truth. They are trying to prove their own theories right. Bias ends up being a pretty big factor, harming their own credibility as well.
The upsurge in interest in paranormal activity seems to have brought forth more " investigators " who are more interested in proving,as DB stated, thier own preconceived beliefs & baises than actually searching for what is true or even possible.
It does reflect poorly on those that seek real answers.
Charletons will usually be revealed as such.Unfortunately, we usually only get the initial stories & not the follow ups that disprove the fakers.
Unfortunately, we usually only get the initial stories & not the follow ups that disprove the fakers.
Very good point Lightkeeper - especially when the media seizes on a story and focuses on the paranormal element. What then usually happens is that the story is investigated by a credible group who uses the correct science based methodology and an explanation is found (a recent 'blue ghost' caught on a gas station CCTV comes to mind - see link). By the time the ghost/demon/monster has been debunked the media have moved onto other stories and don't show the results of the investigation that clears up the mystery.
This happens on a larger scale in the minds of the population at large who recall significant cultural paranormal markers such as Roswell, The Exorcist (based on a true story), Amityville as being evidence in support of the paranormal but have not had the opportunity to see the evidence against these being genuinely paranormal events.
DB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1LSopuxQ...r_embedded