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

#46    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,245 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

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

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:19 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 15 May 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

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.

I pretty much agree with  your assessment.

And if only ONE BigFoot witness was taking the polygraph test the negatorists in here would have a solid argument.
However, when you test thousands of people saying the same thing and the vast majority of test results come up "+", you have to give way to science.

It's funny, you mention "polygraph test" in here and several people will scramble to say why it could never work on BF witnesses.

Are you all scared?

If the polygraph test is good enough to be evidence in a court of law, then perhaps the negatorists should be a little more respectful of its capabilites.

"I ain't afraid of no results" LOL

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


#47    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,245 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

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

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:21 PM

View Postscowl, on 15 May 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

It's not even that good. It will just tell you that whether or not a subject was experiencing stress when responding to a question. For example if you saw a stranger kill your wife in front of you, a polygraph would likely indicate that you killed her because you experienced stress when recalling who killed her.

Scowl, come on, man. Do you really think that is true?

If that was true, polygraph test results would have no place whatsoever acting as evidence in a court of law.

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


#48    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,245 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

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

Posted 17 May 2013 - 04:29 PM

Just a quick comment here, from the OP: 1. The team was able to debunk 90% of the worldwide 10,000 sightings. Or so the narrator told us.

The team appears to have taken the tact that since reportings went way up after the PG film, that those additional winesses must be hoaxers just
trying to have a little fun with it all.

I take the tact that the PG film made people less afraid then to come out and say what they witnessed.

So, seeing as tho the "team" never tried to ajudicate the matter any better than taking only one side, I take their "90%" figure and throw into the trash bin.

just my opine, of course

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


#49    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,481 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:00 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 17 May 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Just a quick comment here, from the OP: 1. The team was able to debunk 90% of the worldwide 10,000 sightings. Or so the narrator told us.

The team appears to have taken the tact that since reportings went way up after the PG film, that those additional winesses must be hoaxers just
trying to have a little fun with it all.

I take the tact that the PG film made people less afraid then to come out and say what they witnessed.

So, seeing as tho the "team" never tried to ajudicate the matter any better than taking only one side, I take their "90%" figure and throw into the trash bin.

just my opine, of course

Imo,
Both sides can apply all kinds of interpretations to the "data".

We can each accept or dismiss numbers and percentages  to support our own belief all day long.

That doesn't change the fact that we have no animal specimen to back up any of these reports,
and take them from mere questions to answers. From "you gotta believe me" to "here is my  irrefutable evidence".

If I'm expected to accept the existence of this creature simply because of the volume of reports, then likewise I will also use the volume of reports to point out the improbability of not having obtained any irrefutable evidence.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 17 May 2013 - 10:12 PM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#50    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,481 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:25 AM

And from the Horse's Mouth:
Here's some possible insight into the throwing out of 90% of reports, from a BFRO investigator himself, Stan Courtney, in an article from 2011.

"Although he [Stan Courtney] believes only a small percentage of Sasquatch sightings are ever reported, as much as 50% are hoaxes while another 35% involve something but do not contain enough information to say what it was, he said. That leaves only about 15% of reported encounters that have some measure of legitimacy."

"Has Madison County Been Visited by Sasqatch?" by Steve Rensberry Troy-Time Tribune
BFRO media article #648 found under reports Illinois, Madison County

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#51    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,874 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 18 May 2013 - 02:43 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 17 May 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Scowl, come on, man. Do you really think that is true?

If that was true, polygraph test results would have no place whatsoever acting as evidence in a court of law.



The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)


Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.
Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.................

..................  http://www.apa.org/r.../polygraph.aspx




What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?

Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).  

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy.  
  • California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
  • Georgia, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.
  • Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.
The states in which polygraphs are inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  In these states, even if both parties wish to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very rare scenarios).
  • Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts.
  • Other states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause (to obtain search warrants).


Our Wolf's Memorial Page

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users