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

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.

1 person likes this

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? [media=]

[/media]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've had the KMZ file from the link below loaded on my Google Earth for a few years now, and I can spend hours wandering through obscure corners of the US looking at some of the sightings that are linked in the file. Much to my surprise, many of them are pre-1967, and just by the sheer volume of the reports one does wonder why people would be continuing to propagate a hoax for so long, and so widespread. Looking through the reports, it also becomes clear that a vast majority of them are submitted by people who have no wish for fame, and wish to remain anonymous - reflective perhaps of a genuine desire to simply report a sighting of a creature so outside of the realm of human encounter that they just want an answer. Forget the last ten years of cable TV and have a look at the historical records, I for one find them fascinating.

http://penn.freeserv...om/bigfootmaps/

The link to download the KMZ files onto Google Earth (should you want to) is just below the second map.

Edited by Macroramphosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many of them are pre-1967

I've had the KMZ file from the link below loaded on my Google Earth for a few years now, and I can spend hours wandering through obscure corners of the US looking at some of the sightings that are linked in the file. Much to my surprise, many of them are pre-1967, and just by the sheer volume of the reports one does wonder why people would be continuing to propagate a hoax for so long, and so widespread. Looking through the reports, it also becomes clear that a vast majority of them are submitted by people who have no wish for fame, and wish to remain anonymous - reflective perhaps of a genuine desire to simply report a sighting of a creature so outside of the realm of human encounter that they just want an answer. Forget the last ten years of cable TV and have a look at the historical records, I for one find them fascinating.

http://penn.freeserv...om/bigfootmaps/

The link to download the KMZ files onto Google Earth (should you want to) is just below the second map.

BFRO reports seem to dominate or am I wrong (lower map)? So I'll take a few days and go through BFRO for all states and see what the pre-1967 reports add up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BFRO sort of pulled a sort of power move back in the early nineties from what I understand getting a number of older groups to align themselves with them. Then when they got the show they're popularity soared and many other groups have fallen in with them. I recall watching a documentary on PBS about such group, they included Cryptic and UFO groups.......let's see if memory serves it was the late seventies? Possibly early eighties? Anyway, at that time a lot of the old school guys were starting to get older and less active and were often at odds with just about anyone else, group or individual, who tried to make a connection with them. Then in the mid-nineties this opened the door for the BFRO to come in and pick up a lot of former groups.

The politics of the Bigfoot organizations have become almost as interesting as the search for Bigfoot. Then you have guys like Rick Dyer come in and create a following when he's a know, and not just known but widely known to be a hoaxer. Then the movie comes out which he's been screaming about and it's a let down.......then he says, just wait and I'll release the body in another six months. The whole thing is a train wreck and I just can't look away......much as I'd like to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The BFRO sort of pulled a sort of power move back in the early nineties from what I understand getting a number of older groups to align themselves with them. Then when they got the show they're popularity soared and many other groups have fallen in with them. I recall watching a documentary on PBS about such group, they included Cryptic and UFO groups.......let's see if memory serves it was the late seventies? Possibly early eighties? Anyway, at that time a lot of the old school guys were starting to get older and less active and were often at odds with just about anyone else, group or individual, who tried to make a connection with them. Then in the mid-nineties this opened the door for the BFRO to come in and pick up a lot of former groups.

The politics of the Bigfoot organizations have become almost as interesting as the search for Bigfoot. Then you have guys like Rick Dyer come in and create a following when he's a know, and not just known but widely known to be a hoaxer. Then the movie comes out which he's been screaming about and it's a let down.......then he says, just wait and I'll release the body in another six months. The whole thing is a train wreck and I just can't look away......much as I'd like to.

Using any of these databases for proving/disproving anything is a crap shoot as far as I'm concerned, but they're all we've got and are constantly referred to by skeptic and believer alike.

So, in the context of the databases, I conclude information. It is not that I believe the databases are full of any useful information. They'd require a lot more scrutiny, imo, for that.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No, not exactly. But there are a number of myths about polygraph and many of them the police have allowed to keep going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using any of these databases for proving/disproving anything is a crap shoot as far as I'm concerned, but they're all we've got and are constantly referred to by skeptic and believer alike.

So, in the context of the databases, I conclude information. It is not that I believe the databases are full of any useful information. They'd require a lot more scrutiny, imo, for that.

That's the thing, other than it's a database full of stuff about Bigfoot sighting which may or may not be true, there is little else to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the documentary dismissing a large percentage of database reports (as I reported in my OP), apparently wiki has done this as well.

http://bfro.net/gdb/classify.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that I believe the databases are full of any useful information. They'd require a lot more scrutiny, imo, for that.

The very BFRO link you point us to in the post above indicates that some quite serous scrutiny has already taken place - what would you have done ? Purely as a matter of interest.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The very BFRO link you point us to in the post above indicates that some quite serous scrutiny has already taken place - what would you have done ? Purely as a matter of interest.......

Yes, it was a pro-BFRO report link. It did nothing to convince me of their reporting objectivity and thoroughness, though. I'll have to reread it, but didn't it say they clean house of only 1-2 reports a year? I've also found example today where they claim X total listings for a county when there are less. And I'm only on my first state.

What do I distrust about the BFRO? Thousands of reports, not all CLASS A's, but some then declared as definitive bigfoot activity by some field researcher after briefly checking out a story, sometimes by phone, sometimes not at all. I find their practices shoddy, unscientific, lacking objectivity, and a host of other adjectives.

Have you watched Finding Bigfoot? You'll get the idea.

These reports, resulting in a crowded not sparse mass of dots on a map, have not resulted in any scientifically confirmed evidence. Yet they tout this database of reports claiming confirmed bigfoot activity or sightings by the researchers who "investigate".

They also include reports that have not been "investigated" in their database. If it's in their database and makes it onto a map, I have to believe it is confirmation? They want me to do just that.

Why should I believe Mary Smith saw a bigfoot in 2006 in her backyard in Maryland? It was tall and hairy and smelled. Just because it is listed on some pro-bigfoot database? Why would I do that? The animal is yet proven to exist.

What do you specifically find scientific and credible about the BFRO database or other maps compiling sighting data from bigfoot organizations? What evidence backs it up for you?

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Contrary,

I put little store by the name BFRO. I know the reputation surrounding them. However I do find it interesting, as I said earlier, at the number of reports in that database, many of which are of course not actually BFRO reports, but merely exist under that banner now after the demise of some of the older, OTHER, organisations. Of course, I assume that the reports have been actually submitted and are not fabrications of the BFRO volunteers. The sheer volume of material adds some credibility to the BigFoot myth, for me.

Scientifically, I cannot dispute the map and the locations of the reports, as I am not in a position to be aware of anything that should persuade me otherwise. Regretfully, for a layman such as myself, scientific proof is something we cannot dispute or prove otherwise throughout our lives, on a multitude of subjects, situations and other conditions. In fact, in the case of BigFoot, since their existence has neither been disproved nor proved, we should all still be on the fence. I am neither a skeptic, not a devoted believer, but I do have an open mind.

Last, but by no means least, I have a friend who is a professional hunter and guide in the Everglades. He has been a part of that ecosystem (or so it seems to me, grin) for many many years. I asked him a long time ago about BigFoot or the Skunk Ape, as it is sometimes referred to here in FL. He laughed in my face. However, things have changed in the past two years. He has ruefully admitted to me that he has become aware of "something" in the swamps that defies his understanding of the natural ecosystem. He's found tracks, "nests" and branches broken and arranged in a manner most bemusing, and he admits that he has no idea how these conditions originate apart from the fact that the animal which is responsible has two legs and is invariably large. He's a devout Christian, and the existence of something he cannot explain is both curious to him and annoying. As a well known guide he refuses to let anyone know his feelings, but has talked with me because he knows I have an interest in the subject and will not mock him. He says he is also aware of a couple of his fellow guides who have also had strange experiences. Like a lot of backcountry folk they are tight-lipped and refuse to divulge much more.

But, before we jump to the "primate" conclusion, I must add that he agrees with me on a salient point. Neither of us can understand why a large animal, if it is one, does not leave scat or half-eaten food or the remains of kills. He says it's almost as if something is just passing through, not living full time in the the area he knows so well, but just touches down and moves on again. He's almost on the verge of admitting it might not be of this world, but perhaps another - that's the feeling I get.

It's a thought process that I feel a great deal of sympathy for sometimes, since there is a vast database of all sorts of Fortean, cryptic, supernatural and paranormal experiences out there in mankind's history, and I sometimes think we have an awful lot yet to learn about so much. I have no doubt the scientists will have fun for the foreseeable future finding out some of the answers, be it proof of BigFoot, a breakthrough in light-speed travel, or the discovery of further dimensions of existence. Likewise, there is no doubt UFO's exist, but what are they ? Real ? Holograms ? Interdimensional machines ? A hallucination ? Swamp gas is not an answer for any of the five sightings I have had in my life, neither is a weather balloon. Something is afoot, even if aliens are not the answer.....

Oh, and no, I have not seen the TV program you refer to. I very rarely watch TV at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But, before we jump to the "primate" conclusion, I must add that he agrees with me on a salient point. Neither of us can understand why a large animal, if it is one, does not leave scat or half-eaten food or the remains of kills. He says it's almost as if something is just passing through, not living full time in the the area he knows so well, but just touches down and moves on again. He's almost on the verge of admitting it might not be of this world, but perhaps another - that's the feeling I get.

Hello!

Yes, this would sure explain BF's seemingly supernatural qualities.

I had a friend who had a close sighting too. I know what that is like to come to terms with.

---------------------------------------------------------

IMO:

However science "should" or "should not" respond to the question of the existence of bigfoot, I've heard/read some scientists interviewed on bigfoot state, matter-of -factly, they do not believe the animal exists. I'll side with them.

Reading through exactly what qualifies for a dot on a map of bigfoot encounters, that is reading through all the reports, caused me to seriously question the criteria and investigative techniques used to earn a dot.

Watching Finding Bigfoot's (=BFRO) techniques, interviews and confirmations, has only confirmed for me to seriously question what qualifies as a--

*high-five* "You, my friend, did indeed encounter a sasquatch!"

*adds another dot on the map*

*puts another encounter report in the database*

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm

"They were able to extract DNA from the tissue found on the threaded bloody screws and found it was identical to human DNA, except it had one nucleotide polymorphism .....that nucleotide that was different, it was one shared with chimpanzees. They were able to extract DNA; it was primate DNA; they knew they were looking at the DNA structure of a sasquatch. The DNA said ‘primate’ but not quite human and not quite non-human primate... just one of the base pairs is deviated from ours! (Bobbie Short)"

It was an exceptional story later to be highlighted in a documentary by Monster Quest of teh History Channel

I find this part interesting:

"... and discovered that the underside of the board retained a partial bloodstain defining a footprint likely to total 18 inches, some hairs, and some tissue adhering to the screws."

18 inches... and that is supposed to be HUMAN? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is just so much wrong here...

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..

No, it's a strange creature with two backsides.. Biased might be the word you were after.. {sorry, couldn't resist..}

Cool! Link to the peer reviewed results, thanks.

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

Chrisz, I mean no offense by this, but your response is so inane (to me), I really can't repsond to it. Why are you so afraid of a machine?

when the machine was designed I am sure the desogners had no idea who - in the future - would be tested. No human is perfect, therefor no machine is either.

But it is an *attempt* at chasing down liars/truth tellers.

What exactly have *you* done to chase down the truth?

And what exactly do you call "objective"... Someone in here declaring - without evidence - that all people reporting seeing BigFoot are liars??

Uh huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Spnebreaker, I really do gwet the point.

Tyhe problem is that you an dothers in here are convinced that every time a sighting occurs, it is nothing more than good old Jeremy, yet none

of us were there. how can you be more positive than the witness?

In many cases, the witnesses had clear views of the beast in daytime. And they claimed they could not be mistaking.

Many in here claim that s/he *had* to be mistaking, aka "seeing Jeremy". You know why....

PREJUDICE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.