Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide 2011


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,095 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:56 AM

There is just so much wrong here...

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 24 April 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

They can settle it if they really want to.  Administer a polygraph test to anyone that agrees to take one. that is objective.
Forgive my hysterics.  A polygraph test, even if it was accepted as accurate which they are NOT, would only tell you that the person believes their memory of an event.  It tells you nothing about whether that person has deluded themself or changed their memory subtly or comprehensively over time, nor does it take into account that our perceptions of reality are just that - perceptions.  I can show you hundreds of simple optical illusions that will conclusively prove that perceptions are just that - they are not reality.

Objective?  You need to look that word up..

Quote

"Biassed" is blowing off 90% of sightings on a whim.
No, it's a strange creature with two backsides..   Biased might be the word you were after..  {sorry, couldn't resist..}

Quote

they have DNA evidence of a new hominid species
Cool!  Link to the peer reviewed results, thanks.

Quote

they have recorded audio evidence of a new hominid species.
Cooler!  I'm absolutely fascinated by how you can determine that a new species is involved, from a recording - again, a link on that please?

Quote

let me see them skip around that.
Let's see you skip around those links and the correct definition of 'objective'...

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#17    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,193 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:26 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 23 April 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

I turned it on late and only watched about 20 minutes or so. So I can't answer how or why they dismissed 90% of worldwide sightings.
I will watch it again when i can catch it.
I watched the entire show. However I don't recall how the 90% figure was arrived at. I say make it a cool 100 and be done with it.....  :lol:

Posted Image

#18    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,151 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:55 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 23 April 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

2. They had a chart that showed by dates how the bigfoot sightings exploded after the Patterson Gimlin Film (1967)

View on Vimeo.



Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#19    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:18 PM

View PostRafterman, on 25 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Who is "they" and have "they" submitted this evidence to any peer reviewed journals?


Really!?

So if out of 100 witnesses 95 gave positives, you think there is a good chance that they are all false positives? Amazing!

If it were the case that polygraph tests failed that regularly, you better believe that polygraph test results would have no place in a court of law or anywhere else,
unless you simply want in invert the results.

you 'fraid?

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#20    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:20 PM

View Postscowl, on 25 April 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

[/size]

Polygraph tests aren't objective. You can literally hire someone to give you a polygraph test to "prove" your lies are true.


LOL! yuh.

It's called "waving the old magic wand". A lot of folks in here are expert at it, too



PS: try to get to other responders later. sorry, gotta run

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 03 May 2013 - 07:21 PM.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#21    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:16 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 03 May 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Really!?

So if out of 100 witnesses 95 gave positives, you think there is a good chance that they are all false positives? Amazing!

If it were the case that polygraph tests failed that regularly, you better believe that polygraph test results would have no place in a court of law or anywhere else,
unless you simply want in invert the results.

you 'fraid?

I could care less about polygraph tests.

My question was in response to your ascertain that "they" had DNA evidence.

So again, which peer reviewed journals have "they" submitted this evidence to?

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#22    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,151 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:50 AM

I am hoping QC is ok......She has not been on in  a while.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#23    Timonthy

Timonthy

    Placid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,760 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:00 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 24 April 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Administer a polygraph test to anyone that agrees to take one. that is objective.
"Biassed" is blowing off 90% of sightings on a whim.
I have no doubt a polygraph test would suggest they're telling the truth.

Problem is that the thing they thought they saw would not have been bigfoot.

Edit: Usually I would say 'would most likely not have been' or something similar. But all the news and stories and witnesses with no definitive evidence is slowly closing my mind to the possibility of bigfoot existing.

Edited by Timonthy, 04 May 2013 - 01:04 AM.

Posted Image


#24    justcalmebubba

justcalmebubba

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 229 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:frankston texas

  • there are many things that bump along in the nite but there are sum of us that bump back

Posted 04 May 2013 - 08:44 AM

i saw big foot last night yeap shure did  he was being tounted by 3 smart asses holding a bag of jack links beef jerky well 2 smart asses  the 3rd went through a porta potty!

i saw big foot last night yeap shure did  he was being tounted by 3 smart asses holding a bag of jack links beef jerky well 2 smart asses  the 3rd went through a porta potty!

i saw big foot last night yeap shure did  he was being tounted by 3 smart asses holding a bag of jack links beef jerky well 2 smart asses  the 3rd went through a porta potty!


#25    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,265 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:27 AM

Someone posted this on my FB page. What do you think? Big Foot calls or something else?


#26    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:52 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 03 May 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Really!?

So if out of 100 witnesses 95 gave positives, you think there is a good chance that they are all false positives? Amazing!

If it were the case that polygraph tests failed that regularly, you better believe that polygraph test results would have no place in a court of law or anywhere else,
unless you simply want in invert the results.

you 'fraid?

I think you're missing the point.

Let's say Steve goes out for a walk and sees what he believes is a Bigfoot.  It's actually, a men called Jeremy wearing a big dark coat, Steve doesn't know this, as it's from a fair distance and through a bit of foliage.

If Steve were to take a Polygraph test, he would say "I saw a Bigfoot", and the test would say he's telling the truth.

Steve IS telling the truth, but Steve didn't see a Bigfoot.

As for Polygraph tests in Court.  Only in the US, and even then, ONLY in 19 states.  And even then only in certain circumstances.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#27    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,806 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:36 PM

View PostBeany, on 06 May 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

Someone posted this on my FB page. What do you think? Big Foot calls or something else?

Sounds human to me. What would the sounds produced by a very large barrel chested creature sound like? Idk


#28    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:21 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 14 May 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

If Steve were to take a Polygraph test, he would say "I saw a Bigfoot", and the test would say he's telling the truth.


And if Steve had been frightened by this encounter, the polygraph would say he was lying because it would indicate high stress levels when asked anything about it.


#29    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:57 PM

View Postscowl, on 14 May 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

[/size]

And if Steve had been frightened by this encounter, the polygraph would say he was lying because it would indicate high stress levels when asked anything about it.

That would depend on the person doing the test.  Stress level is only one part of the modern Polygraph test, 'interpreting' the polygraph data is a skill, I'd guess a skilled Polygraphologist could interpret fairly accurately even if the subject was a frightening one.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#30    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:33 AM

The only thing a polygraph will tell you is if the person is telling the truth, and that does NOT mean that it is the actual truth, just that they believe it's the truth.  

Stress levels can be compensated for because, let's be honest, if you're getting a polygraph then odds are you're a little nervous to begin with, even if you are telling the truth. Now there are cases where a subject is so nervous that they're results are inconclusive. What's supposed to happen is the test is regiven a couple times so the operator can get a sense on the subjects responses. The reality of this is, the test is rarely given more than once.

The biggest thing with a polygraph is whether the subject actually shows up for the test or if they repeatedly miss the test or reschedule, then that becomes a red flag for the police. Not proof of anything mind you, but it does indicate they might have some reservations that need further investigation.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users