Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Q-C

Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide 2011

51 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

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

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just so much wrong here...

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..

"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..}

they have DNA evidence of a new hominid species

Cool! Link to the peer reviewed results, thanks.

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?

let me see them skip around that.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.