I have a dog kennel where I raise and sell puppies. Every night when I get up out of the bed to go to the bath room I look out my window to check my kennels. My bathroom window looks out over my dog kennels. I don't turn on my lights while doing this because it obstructs my view.
I thought I was seeing things. There standing on the other side of the pens was a 7 to 8 ft hairy creature. The dogs were all in their houses as if cowering and it was deathly quiet. He was standing facing the dog pen at which point he turned to the east walked about three steps then he turned to the north and stood there. That's when I went and got my mother. She saw it too but not as clear as I. It stood there after my mom came in then it walked into the woods.
My house is surrounded on three sides by woods. It very secluded. Every night it's here and we are terrified. It screams often. My children have heard it. I know I sound like a fruit cake I don't tell anyone because I feel like people will think I'm crazy. I'm buying motion lights to see if it will make him go away. If you know of any other method to chase him away, please, please let me know.
There is no man that lives here. He's here every night, we can hear him scream. I don't know if neighbors have heard or seen anything. I don't want to be made fun of.
View the full article
this is a great texas bigfoot encounter very detailed. thanks bill 
Sounds like the investigations that followed up the report pretty much showed it to probably be nothing.
I have to state that this follow up investigation appears to have been professionally and objectively done. They reported findings with no conclusions.
VERY refreshing and impressive compared to ........ ( you know)
I have to state that this follow up investigation appears to have been professionally and objectively done. They reported findings with no conclusions.
VERY refreshing and impressive compared to ........ ( you know)
My interpretation is a bit different. There are two witnesses involved in the sighting. Possibly activity is ongoing. There is some indication of suitable (at least temporary) habitat. TBRC are continuing (or at least plan) to investigate further.
It sounds like they are taking this seriously. I agree that it sounds like a professional investigation, at least as far as that is possible in this field.
It sounds like they are taking this seriously. I agree that it sounds like a professional investigation, at least as far as that is possible in this field.
Well PF, you gotta admit
The alleged sighting occured in Nov 2003 as did the investigation apparently- if it hasnt produced fruits by now after 5 years, its doubtful it ever will
The alleged sighting occured in Nov 2003 as did the investigation apparently- if it hasnt produced fruits by now after 5 years, its doubtful it ever will
longtabber,
> The alleged sighting occured in Nov 2003 as did the investigation apparently-
> if it hasnt produced fruits by now after 5 years, its doubtful it ever will
I did overlook that. I assumed this was a new report being brought to our attention. That's generally the case with the BFRO reports that are pointed out in this way, and I neglected to note the date. Since there is no mention of whether further investigations took place, and if so what the results were, I'm not sure if the date is pertinent. Either they never went back (for whatever reason), they went back and nothing happened, they went back and something happened and they never got around to updating the website, or they went back and they are keeping the results under wraps. From what I've seen of BF website databases, all these are possibilities.
Your initial statement seemed to concern whether the report was true ("showed it to probably be nothing"), not whether it was substantive (fruitful). If the report were from a different organization, and there was a lot of 'activity' once the investigators showed up, would that make it legitimate?
On the other hand, from my perspective, I think that if we use the amount of hard evidence gathered after a sighting as our criteria for judging whether a given report is legitimate or not then we probably have to throw out 90+% or so of reports. If we used incontrovertible proof as our yard stick, we would have to throw out all reports. Most sightings are associated with little to no physical evidence and continued investigation by researchers seldom produces further documented activity. The case isn't atypical in these traits.
The report gives indication that the researchers found it credible. At no point do I notice the opposite. Those are the only pertinent facts I pointed out.
Regards,
P.F.
> The alleged sighting occured in Nov 2003 as did the investigation apparently-
> if it hasnt produced fruits by now after 5 years, its doubtful it ever will
I did overlook that. I assumed this was a new report being brought to our attention. That's generally the case with the BFRO reports that are pointed out in this way, and I neglected to note the date. Since there is no mention of whether further investigations took place, and if so what the results were, I'm not sure if the date is pertinent. Either they never went back (for whatever reason), they went back and nothing happened, they went back and something happened and they never got around to updating the website, or they went back and they are keeping the results under wraps. From what I've seen of BF website databases, all these are possibilities.
Your initial statement seemed to concern whether the report was true ("showed it to probably be nothing"), not whether it was substantive (fruitful). If the report were from a different organization, and there was a lot of 'activity' once the investigators showed up, would that make it legitimate?
On the other hand, from my perspective, I think that if we use the amount of hard evidence gathered after a sighting as our criteria for judging whether a given report is legitimate or not then we probably have to throw out 90+% or so of reports. If we used incontrovertible proof as our yard stick, we would have to throw out all reports. Most sightings are associated with little to no physical evidence and continued investigation by researchers seldom produces further documented activity. The case isn't atypical in these traits.
The report gives indication that the researchers found it credible. At no point do I notice the opposite. Those are the only pertinent facts I pointed out.
Regards,
P.F.
An odd report, but interesting.
>>>Your initial statement seemed to concern whether the report was true ("showed it to probably be nothing"), not whether it was substantive (fruitful). If the report were from a different organization, and there was a lot of 'activity' once the investigators showed up, would that make it legitimate?
No, a reporting agency means nothing. It makes no difference whether the TBRC, you or I report it. The ONLY thing that matters is FACTS and DATA to support the account. ( otherwise, its just another tale) "Legitimacy" of a report is wholly meaningless.
>>>On the other hand, from my perspective, I think that if we use the amount of hard evidence gathered after a sighting as our criteria for judging whether a given report is legitimate or not then we probably have to throw out 90+% or so of reports.
Lets go to throwing out 99.999%. At least then, there might be valid data to analyze. Otherwise, you have junk data skewing whatever facts you may have.
>>>If we used incontrovertible proof as our yard stick, we would have to throw out all reports.
Thats not a bad thing and if one takes them to "science" ( whoever that is) thats the FIRST thing thats going to happen anyway.
>>>Most sightings are associated with little to no physical evidence and continued investigation by researchers seldom produces further documented activity. The case isn't atypical in these traits.
Then they are still at 1%- a long way to go
>>>The report gives indication that the researchers found it credible. At no point do I notice the opposite. Those are the only pertinent facts I pointed out.
Thats all subjective. These "researchers" have no factual basis ( and probably not the training or experience) to make a credibility assessment so their "findings" arent facts but simply unsubstantiated personal opinions
No, a reporting agency means nothing. It makes no difference whether the TBRC, you or I report it. The ONLY thing that matters is FACTS and DATA to support the account. ( otherwise, its just another tale) "Legitimacy" of a report is wholly meaningless.
>>>On the other hand, from my perspective, I think that if we use the amount of hard evidence gathered after a sighting as our criteria for judging whether a given report is legitimate or not then we probably have to throw out 90+% or so of reports.
Lets go to throwing out 99.999%. At least then, there might be valid data to analyze. Otherwise, you have junk data skewing whatever facts you may have.
>>>If we used incontrovertible proof as our yard stick, we would have to throw out all reports.
Thats not a bad thing and if one takes them to "science" ( whoever that is) thats the FIRST thing thats going to happen anyway.
>>>Most sightings are associated with little to no physical evidence and continued investigation by researchers seldom produces further documented activity. The case isn't atypical in these traits.
Then they are still at 1%- a long way to go
>>>The report gives indication that the researchers found it credible. At no point do I notice the opposite. Those are the only pertinent facts I pointed out.
Thats all subjective. These "researchers" have no factual basis ( and probably not the training or experience) to make a credibility assessment so their "findings" arent facts but simply unsubstantiated personal opinions
> No, a reporting agency means nothing. It makes no difference whether the TBRC, you or I report
> it. The ONLY thing that matters is FACTS and DATA to support the account. ( otherwise, its just
> another tale) "Legitimacy" of a report is wholly meaningless.
My point was that I've been seeing a lot of drive-by-postings along the lines of "Oh, well, this report is from group X. They're a bunch of hoaxers, so this report must be too." Group X is allegedly a bunch of hoaxers because they have a lot of "activity" under certain conditions. In this case when investigators showed up, the opposite happned, and activity decreased. In short, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't have activity when the investigators show up.
I'm getting tired of people assessing reports based on their preconceived notions only. So, when I saw what you said I looked at the report, expecting to see some *reason* you were dismissing it. Other than the fact that they didn't bring back a dead BF body, or any other physical evidence, I didn't find anything "wrong" with the report. Its anecdotal, and nobody ever claimed it was anything else. So the report seems to fail because it doesn't live up to your personal standards, whatever those are, not because there is any reason to cast doubt on the claims.
> Lets go to throwing out 99.999%. At least then, there might be valid data to analyze. Otherwise,
> you have junk data skewing whatever facts you may have.
Actually, originally I had down 99+%, but I removed it so as not to seem overly argumentative. We don't want that around here. Fine, lets throw out *all* the reports without hard evidence, all the reports that somebody (somewhere) claims are fake (etc.). What do we have left? Well, lets see... nothing?! I've heard a few claims of DNA tests over the years that have come back an an unknown higher primate, but I haven't seen them mentioned lately. Dermal ridges can supposedly be faked, let alone footprints. We have people *claiming* to have been in the Patty suit (yadda yadda). For every claim there is a counter claim, welcome to the party. Frankly, other than the fact that there will likely be many more anecdotal reports to add to the piles we already have, there isn't very much that is absolutely certain in this field. Forums are for *discussing* a subject, absolute certainty will be found by getting a *body*, or at least a signficant biological sample. So, if absolute certainty is the only acceptible standard, taking cheap shots at reports, witnesses, and researchers on a forum isn't going to accomplish what you say is of value.
> Thats not a bad thing and if one takes them to "science" ( whoever that is) thats the FIRST
> thing thats going to happen anyway.
Other than putting the cart before the horse, there is nothing wrong with that idea. Its certainly an option to skip right to the horseless carriage, and I'm not going to stop you. While the rest of us are wasting our time looking at all these pointless, anecdotal sightings trying to *understand* the phenomena, through a glass darkly, you can go do that and show the rest of us how wrong we are.
> Then they are still at 1%- a long way to go
You're welcome to do better. For the rest of us, 'rotten' results are better than no results, and a lot of us think the results aren't that rotten. Frankly, a lot of people are trying very hard to achieve that one percent, and the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't earn them disrespect. And, no, witnesses who can't hand out hard evidence on a silver platter don't deserve disrespect either. If you actually have 'FACTS and DATA' to demonstrate that the case in question is 'probably nothing', then please provide these. Otherwise, it would only be honest to state that it is only your opinion that this is the case, based on no personal investigative effort.
> Thats all subjective. These "researchers" have no factual basis ( and probably not the training
> or experience) to make a credibility assessment so their "findings" arent facts but simply
> unsubstantiated personal opinions
Well, its a relief that there is none of that in this thread. Other than myself, and the initial post, of course. 8)
Its your opinion that anecdotal reports have no value. What value they have depends upon what you are trying to accomplish with them. Uncertainty is not an unknown quantity in science. Scientists manage uncertainty, they don't run away from it in sheer terror. Good scientists know what they don't know, and assume much of what they think they know is wrong. What are concrete scientific facts today, based on hard evidence, can be 100% wrong in a decade. This is not an exaggeration, I've experienced this myself.
Its your opinion that "99.999%" of reports have "have junk data". If it isn't just your opinion, please demonstrate your technique for determining what parts of reports are defective, and release your exhastive statistical analysis that led you to believe that most of the information available today is false. This would be of great value to the community. If your position is that anecdotal reports are worthless because they consist of nothing but opinion, why should your arguements be more persuasive if they are built of the same material?
> it. The ONLY thing that matters is FACTS and DATA to support the account. ( otherwise, its just
> another tale) "Legitimacy" of a report is wholly meaningless.
My point was that I've been seeing a lot of drive-by-postings along the lines of "Oh, well, this report is from group X. They're a bunch of hoaxers, so this report must be too." Group X is allegedly a bunch of hoaxers because they have a lot of "activity" under certain conditions. In this case when investigators showed up, the opposite happned, and activity decreased. In short, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't have activity when the investigators show up.
I'm getting tired of people assessing reports based on their preconceived notions only. So, when I saw what you said I looked at the report, expecting to see some *reason* you were dismissing it. Other than the fact that they didn't bring back a dead BF body, or any other physical evidence, I didn't find anything "wrong" with the report. Its anecdotal, and nobody ever claimed it was anything else. So the report seems to fail because it doesn't live up to your personal standards, whatever those are, not because there is any reason to cast doubt on the claims.
> Lets go to throwing out 99.999%. At least then, there might be valid data to analyze. Otherwise,
> you have junk data skewing whatever facts you may have.
Actually, originally I had down 99+%, but I removed it so as not to seem overly argumentative. We don't want that around here. Fine, lets throw out *all* the reports without hard evidence, all the reports that somebody (somewhere) claims are fake (etc.). What do we have left? Well, lets see... nothing?! I've heard a few claims of DNA tests over the years that have come back an an unknown higher primate, but I haven't seen them mentioned lately. Dermal ridges can supposedly be faked, let alone footprints. We have people *claiming* to have been in the Patty suit (yadda yadda). For every claim there is a counter claim, welcome to the party. Frankly, other than the fact that there will likely be many more anecdotal reports to add to the piles we already have, there isn't very much that is absolutely certain in this field. Forums are for *discussing* a subject, absolute certainty will be found by getting a *body*, or at least a signficant biological sample. So, if absolute certainty is the only acceptible standard, taking cheap shots at reports, witnesses, and researchers on a forum isn't going to accomplish what you say is of value.
> Thats not a bad thing and if one takes them to "science" ( whoever that is) thats the FIRST
> thing thats going to happen anyway.
Other than putting the cart before the horse, there is nothing wrong with that idea. Its certainly an option to skip right to the horseless carriage, and I'm not going to stop you. While the rest of us are wasting our time looking at all these pointless, anecdotal sightings trying to *understand* the phenomena, through a glass darkly, you can go do that and show the rest of us how wrong we are.
> Then they are still at 1%- a long way to go
You're welcome to do better. For the rest of us, 'rotten' results are better than no results, and a lot of us think the results aren't that rotten. Frankly, a lot of people are trying very hard to achieve that one percent, and the fact that they haven't gotten there yet doesn't earn them disrespect. And, no, witnesses who can't hand out hard evidence on a silver platter don't deserve disrespect either. If you actually have 'FACTS and DATA' to demonstrate that the case in question is 'probably nothing', then please provide these. Otherwise, it would only be honest to state that it is only your opinion that this is the case, based on no personal investigative effort.
> Thats all subjective. These "researchers" have no factual basis ( and probably not the training
> or experience) to make a credibility assessment so their "findings" arent facts but simply
> unsubstantiated personal opinions
Well, its a relief that there is none of that in this thread. Other than myself, and the initial post, of course. 8)
Its your opinion that anecdotal reports have no value. What value they have depends upon what you are trying to accomplish with them. Uncertainty is not an unknown quantity in science. Scientists manage uncertainty, they don't run away from it in sheer terror. Good scientists know what they don't know, and assume much of what they think they know is wrong. What are concrete scientific facts today, based on hard evidence, can be 100% wrong in a decade. This is not an exaggeration, I've experienced this myself.
Its your opinion that "99.999%" of reports have "have junk data". If it isn't just your opinion, please demonstrate your technique for determining what parts of reports are defective, and release your exhastive statistical analysis that led you to believe that most of the information available today is false. This would be of great value to the community. If your position is that anecdotal reports are worthless because they consist of nothing but opinion, why should your arguements be more persuasive if they are built of the same material?
>>>In this case when investigators showed up, the opposite happned, and activity decreased. In short, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't have activity when the investigators show up.
No, its normal for the crime to be long done when detectives arrive- it all goes back to the fruits of the investigation. In this case specifically- it appears that a good and proper investigation was done ( with the resources available to this individual) and the result was zilch. Thats not a desirable result obviously but it happens. Theres a difference between a proper investigation thats unfruitful and a bad investigation out of the gate.
>>>So the report seems to fail because it doesn't live up to your personal standards, whatever those are, not because there is any reason to cast doubt on the claims.
Actually, I "praised" this particular report but at the end of the day, the "bottom line" is: "did you catch a fish- yes or no?" ( its hard to deep fry the one who got away) Thats not my personal standard- thats simply the way ity is
>>>So, if absolute certainty is the only acceptible standard, taking cheap shots at reports, witnesses, and researchers on a forum isn't going to accomplish what you say is of value.
"evidence" that is verifiable is the ONLY evidence that matters- A legitimate critique of an "investigation" by those capable and qualified to do so is hardly a "cheap shot"
>>>Its your opinion that anecdotal reports have no value. What value they have depends upon what you are trying to accomplish with them
Yes, if you want a good story- yes, you want a case for legitimacy- not a chance
>>>Uncertainty is not an unknown quantity in science. Scientists manage uncertainty, they don't run away from it in sheer terror.
Legitimate uncertainty is one thing- unqualified speculation is another
>>>Its your opinion that "99.999%" of reports have "have junk data". If it isn't just your opinion, please demonstrate your technique for determining what parts of reports are defective, and release your exhastive statistical analysis that led you to believe that most of the information available today is false.
Thats been done by several- check them out
>>>If your position is that anecdotal reports are worthless because they consist of nothing but opinion, why should your arguements be more persuasive if they are built of the same material?
Thats not my "opinion"- thats reality
No, its normal for the crime to be long done when detectives arrive- it all goes back to the fruits of the investigation. In this case specifically- it appears that a good and proper investigation was done ( with the resources available to this individual) and the result was zilch. Thats not a desirable result obviously but it happens. Theres a difference between a proper investigation thats unfruitful and a bad investigation out of the gate.
>>>So the report seems to fail because it doesn't live up to your personal standards, whatever those are, not because there is any reason to cast doubt on the claims.
Actually, I "praised" this particular report but at the end of the day, the "bottom line" is: "did you catch a fish- yes or no?" ( its hard to deep fry the one who got away) Thats not my personal standard- thats simply the way ity is
>>>So, if absolute certainty is the only acceptible standard, taking cheap shots at reports, witnesses, and researchers on a forum isn't going to accomplish what you say is of value.
"evidence" that is verifiable is the ONLY evidence that matters- A legitimate critique of an "investigation" by those capable and qualified to do so is hardly a "cheap shot"
>>>Its your opinion that anecdotal reports have no value. What value they have depends upon what you are trying to accomplish with them
Yes, if you want a good story- yes, you want a case for legitimacy- not a chance
>>>Uncertainty is not an unknown quantity in science. Scientists manage uncertainty, they don't run away from it in sheer terror.
Legitimate uncertainty is one thing- unqualified speculation is another
>>>Its your opinion that "99.999%" of reports have "have junk data". If it isn't just your opinion, please demonstrate your technique for determining what parts of reports are defective, and release your exhastive statistical analysis that led you to believe that most of the information available today is false.
Thats been done by several- check them out
>>>If your position is that anecdotal reports are worthless because they consist of nothing but opinion, why should your arguements be more persuasive if they are built of the same material?
Thats not my "opinion"- thats reality
Sorry for the delay, I am a bit under the weather. Will get back to "rough-housing" ASAP.
Regards,
P.F.
Regards,
P.F.
If true, what a great spot to hang out. Maybe BF took off when new people arrived.
The title bothers me. Isn't "adult" and "women" a bit redundant? Why not just "two women"? We kind of figure they were adults because most women are...although I have a sister in law that never quite grew up but what can you do about a fifty yr old women who still dresses like a teeny bopper and smokes a couple packs a day? Not much I guess.
I think I need some sleep now.
Redwolf..upping her post count one rambling message at a time...
I think I need some sleep now.
Redwolf..upping her post count one rambling message at a time...
Maybe the new lights with motion sensors worked. Doesn't necessarily mean the account was false if nothing else happened. Maybe he just moved on.
Interesting situation, but wouldn't the info given be much more useful if we knew the alleged location?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.