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

#1    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,662 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

  • "I'm an optimistic, don't know." Onslow

Posted 23 April 2013 - 06:40 PM

Last night, I caught a show that has played often called Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide 2011. It is a two-parter and is composed of a team of scientists (including Dr. Meldrum) who analyze bigfoot sightings from around the world. I believe the show has aired repeatedly on Discovery and History(HD).  I think it may be offered on Youtube too.

Anyway, the two things I found interesting were:

1. The team was able to debunk 90% of the worldwide 10,000 sightings. Or so the narrator told us.

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


So, going down to 1000 sightings from 10,000 and what looked to me like well over 90% of those sightings occurring after the Patterson Gimlin film of 1967. You aren't left with much ado about the sightings, imo.

The shows team of scientists was  obviously composed of bigfoot enthusiasts, except for a couple of obligatory skeptics on the team.

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.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 23 April 2013 - 06:41 PM.

Keep your eyes wide open and don't run!

P.S. Just to be clear, because sometimes I am not. I do not believe...
in the existence of a large previously unknown undiscovered hairy biped roaming North America.
But I like to hear the accounts, read the books, watch the shows, discuss and argue about the phenomenon.

#2    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 24 April 2013 - 04:34 AM

Sighting.......from where? What was their source for these sightings? Then ask yourself, "If they were from all over the world, did they send a team to research every one of them?" What criteria did they use to determine the validity of the sightings? I know that we in here have to determine what we're being told second hand, either from a witness or a person who told them the story. Don't get me wrong they could be right but how do we know they simply aren't just blowing off people's sightings? We can't know without knowing what the criteria or guide lines were supposed to be.

Mind you, I'd be just as wary of someone claiming that 90% of the sighting reported were all true.


#3    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,662 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

  • "I'm an optimistic, don't know." Onslow

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:16 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 24 April 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

Sighting.......from where? What was their source for these sightings? Then ask yourself, "If they were from all over the world, did they send a team to research every one of them?" What criteria did they use to determine the validity of the sightings? I know that we in here have to determine what we're being told second hand, either from a witness or a person who told them the story. Don't get me wrong they could be right but how do we know they simply aren't just blowing off people's sightings? We can't know without knowing what the criteria or guide lines were supposed to be.

Mind you, I'd be just as wary of someone claiming that 90% of the sighting reported were all true.

Agreed, I said i had no idea how they came up with their criteria for judging sightings. But this was somewhat of a pro-bigfoot show, imo.

However, the dating of easily more than 90% of sightings (shown on a graph) occurring after the PGF is also important.  As well as the point made that tales of bigfoot sightings traveled from West (PNW) to East over the subsequent years after PGF.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 24 April 2013 - 05:17 AM.

Keep your eyes wide open and don't run!

P.S. Just to be clear, because sometimes I am not. I do not believe...
in the existence of a large previously unknown undiscovered hairy biped roaming North America.
But I like to hear the accounts, read the books, watch the shows, discuss and argue about the phenomenon.

#4    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 24 April 2013 - 05:48 AM

I could have told them that. Hell, I'd never heard of Bigfoot until that film was on the local news. Then suddenly, you started hearing more and more about people seeing them. Mostly in the northwest, but as time passed you started hearing about sightings further east and south. Then in the late eighties I saw some documentary on TLC or one of the channels about Bigfoot-like creatures being all over the country and up into Canada.

I'd been hiking and camping all over the country and in all my travels I'd never encountered a Bigfoot, seen any sign of one or anything, now i had talked with a couple people who thought they might have seen one and claimed to have found tracks. However, I didn't put a lot of stock in their stories because, to be brutally honest, I simply didn't know them well enough to know if they were just making it up or just telling a cool story around a campfire.

It wasn't until my friends told me of their encounters and I encountered a funky odor that I began to sit up and take notice.

While I agree that the stat about most sighting having occurred post PGF isn't something you can just blow off, it is significant, but all that could mean is now people are more open to the possibility and are looking. That sort of the way it is with me, could I have overlooked something before or did I simply not see what was there because I wasn't actually looking for it? Who knows?


#5    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,662 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

  • "I'm an optimistic, don't know." Onslow

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:12 AM

I see what you mean. For me, it just isn't likely that giant creature sighting reports explode so conveniently after 1967.  If they had been consistently encountered all along and all across the country there would be plenty of retro-reports, lacking a definitively dated west to east trend as well. These are almost entirely new (post-PGF) sightings, again with a west to east dating trend, not people with old pre-1967 sightings coming forward from east and west at the same time.


Also the PGF might have instead easily been the _ _F of southeast Georgia or northwest Texas or Maine.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 24 April 2013 - 06:19 AM.

Keep your eyes wide open and don't run!

P.S. Just to be clear, because sometimes I am not. I do not believe...
in the existence of a large previously unknown undiscovered hairy biped roaming North America.
But I like to hear the accounts, read the books, watch the shows, discuss and argue about the phenomenon.

#6    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 24 April 2013 - 07:07 AM

Personally, it's hard for me to reconcile all the different descriptions, colors, sizes, footprint sizes, but if you check there are some accounts of "creatures" being hunted by people in the colonial times in Florida and Mississippi. Then there are references to "giant men" in Georgia, western South and North Carolina, eastern Tennessee by natives and early colonist, now they aren't so detailed and they talk about then as though they were people, sort of like "wild men". Now these could be just some re-telling of tall tales or even stories of a large man which had grown with every retelling.

I've heard of Bigfoots being ten feet tall and possibly taller, by the same token, I've heard of them being five to six foot tall. Now if you allow a rational progression of thought, you realize the smaller ones could be adolescents or females and the taller ones could be full grown males. And, variations in color are things that you can see in even common animals squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, deer, etc. Darker, lighter slight variations in color patterns. So, color variations in Bigfoots aren't so shocking but it's the wide variations that strikes me, everything from albino to black, to blond, orangey-brown.

Both the sighting that I was told about by my friends took place in Georgia and the second one is very close to where Stardrive is looking and where his friend had his encounter that he wrote about here. Strangely, I've hiked not far from the sight of the now infamous PGF, never saw a thing out of the ordinary.

Edited by keninsc, 24 April 2013 - 08:00 AM.


#7    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

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

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

They can settle it if they really want to.

Administer a polygraph test to anyone that agrees to take one. that is objective.
"Biassed" is blowing off 90% of sightings on a whim.

they have DNA evidence of a new hominid species, they have recorded audio evidence of a new hominid species.

let me see them skip around that.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 24 April 2013 - 08:03 PM.

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

~ Justin ~


"It is easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled"   ~Mark Twain~


#8    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

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


they have DNA evidence of a new hominid species, they have recorded audio evidence of a new hominid species.



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

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

#9    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

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

Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:50 PM

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.


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


#10    Godofcats

Godofcats

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 April 2013 - 02:23 PM

Debunking 90% of 10,000 sightings. They must have been at it for weeks.


#11    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,155 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:28 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 24 April 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Both the sighting that I was told about by my friends took place in Georgia and the second one is very close to where Stardrive is looking and where his friend had his encounter that he wrote about here. Strangely, I've hiked not far from the sight of the now infamous PGF, never saw a thing out of the ordinary.
I brought up jtheats account because, up until that time, I was only mildly interested in the subject. And seeing that his encounter occured a scant 10 miles from where I live, I was curious if there were any other reports from the area. Some of the first reports I read were from the Marion area, Hungry Mother Park to be specific. The same area where your friend said he saw one.

Posted Image

#12    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,025 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

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

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:31 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)





Any idea about where in the show?

I have it downloaded, but do not want to watch more then 2 minutes. I will cut it, and post a video if I can find it....

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



they have DNA evidence of a new hominid species, they have recorded audio evidence of a new hominid species.






:no:

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

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


#13    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 27 April 2013 - 04:13 AM

View PostStardrive, on 26 April 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I brought up jtheats account because, up until that time, I was only mildly interested in the subject. And seeing that his encounter occured a scant 10 miles from where I live, I was curious if there were any other reports from the area. Some of the first reports I read were from the Marion area, Hungry Mother Park to be specific. The same area where your friend said he saw one.

Yep, that was the area alright. Man? I really got to get up there and have a look around before i get too old.


#14    Tia

Tia

    The Naughty Angel.

  • Member
  • 6,272 posts
  • Joined:25 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Blue Mountains

Posted 27 April 2013 - 05:58 AM

You know what's funny, my older brother as a late teen use to tell me he and his friends were going out at night to look for yowies. I use to laugh at him so much and still believe it was an excuse to the parents for a night of drinking etc.

I had seen the patty film when I was little on the UM show and it freaked me a bit but at the same time it was in the US not near me and by my teens it didn't concern me.

I wasn't on some sort of 'creature' quest they came to me as an adult. First hand experience normally is the driving force for one to except these things and I can understand that.

I would also be happy to under go a polygraph test the person chosen by any scientific team.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi.
HEY I WON!

#15    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 27 April 2013 - 06:46 AM

Oddly enough, it wasn't until my friends confiding in me that I became interested in the whole Bigfoot thing. I mean, yeah, I read accounts of sightings and I saw the PGF, but after having spent so much time out in the wilderness myself and never seeing one or coming across tracks or anything, so I sort of blew it off as misidentifications, or over reactions to seeing a bear or some other known creature. This happened much later in my life and now I really would like to do some serious investigations of my own and now I don't have the time, means or sadly the health I once had in order to do these things.

I wish I'd done this earlier in life. C'est la Vive.

I'd add that in the days of my mis-spent youth, an excuse of looking for a Bigfoot might well have been an excellent excuse to get out and do some drinking with my friends, chase girls or some such devilment that youths are prone to do. I know, I'll pause for you to recover from the shock. Of course back in my day we didn't have the internet, cell phones or social media. Christ, we didn't even have cable TV yet, so getting out of the house and away from parental oversight was always seen as a positive thing.

Same is probably true today........but to a lesser degree.

Edited by keninsc, 27 April 2013 - 07:37 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users