Eye Witness Accounts: Good, Bad, Or Useless?

[Guest]

Eye witness accounts come up all the time in posts and are augured back and forth as to the whether or not they can be considered evidence. So I'm starting a post where this issue can be aired out.

Frankly, there is much generalizing about how reliable eye witness accounts can be.

Some would say they are evidence.

Some would they are all junk.

And many find themselves in the middle of these two extremes.

Where are you?

Frankly, I believe them to more credible than most people would, but that's just me. I'm not a scientist obliged by scientific rigor so I tend to fall of the side that they are a lower for of evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Granted no scientist worth his degrees would take eye witness accounts at blind faith, and this is where the rub takes place. Some feel not all accounts can be wrong, others feel that because a large portion are (or most likely are) erroneous (hoaxed, misidentification, lies, etc) that all are thus erroneous. But I believe the truth to be somewhere in the murky middle.

Below is a link to one of the largest studies ever done (27,000 participants) on memory with some interesting results as the the accuracy of memory.

http://m.guardiannews.com/science/blog/2012/mar/02/psychology-neuroscience

I'm sure there is much more out there in regards to memory, but I

Thought this would be a jump off point.

[Guest]

Without eye witness accounts, we have nothing. As much as they can vary... they should all be documented, compared , and considered. Are they all true ? Probably not. Is there anyone out there gifted enough to sort out the truth from the fiction, from just reading about it on this forum ? That is the question.

[Guest]

Human memory of events is flawed and unreliable. It's a wonder "eye-witnesses" are even allowed at trials any more.

And we remember some of what we see--that we were paying attention to. If we were not focused on it, we probably won't have "noticed" it.

That said, it's our best source of information. We lack good photographs and video. Our best graphic evidence is sketches done from witness descriptions. Our best physical evidence is footprints--easy to fake, unfortunately--, and hair, etc., that is still under analysis, shall we say.

Here is how I think of it:

Read as many reports as you can, and sort them by characteristics (in my brain).

--Commonalities emerge: real, smelly, hairy, fast, fond of throwing things, gigantic, loud, stealthy, tree damage, tree knocks, etc. (Top file drawer, accepted)

--Interesting uncommon items: wearing jeans, smoking, holding a gallon jug, that kind of thing. (Drawer 2, keep, don't believe yet)

--The questions emerge: round head v cone head? Ones with snouts? What colors are they exactly? Are there several kinds? (For the In-box)

Some very unlikely items get thrown out and get the whole report ditched--we don't see the reports on most sites, but an example is a bf driving a car (I made these up) (scary, hunh?) or it sent me a valentine. (Trash can)

Not conclusive, not final, not great, but all we have right now. Ultimately, keep filing and remember that the bigfooter's best friend is their calm and patient spirit.

[salubrious]

There are a number of eyewitnesses on this forum. Would any of their testimony be helpful? At least you can get a little closer to the witness than a BFRO report.

[Guest]

Of course, keep in mind that lay person observations are classed as "unreliable eyewitness anecdotes" and observations by "approved" persons (ie "scientists") are "field data"

[HOLDMYBEER]

It's really pretty simple. Some people are better witnesses than others. But no matter how good the witness, a witness's observation has to be vetted. The vetting process will discover corroborative evidence or evidence that contradicts the witness's allegation. The key is recognizing the evidence. Many people don't realize the different forms of evidence that can be brought to bear on a witness's credibility.

The bottom line: no witness's statement should account for much without corroboration. I have yet to meet the investigator that can always detect deception from a simple witness statement.

[Guest]

Good.

[Guest]

I'm scared of spiders.

When I say how big a spider is to whoever is nearby that can go kill it for me, they always come back and tell me it wasn't as big as I said it was.

I do not lie about the size of a spider. Perhaps fear of them makes them much larger in my perception of them.

Just sayin

[Guest]

Sure fear influences the details. But when your friend came back he/she didn't say it was grasshopper.

[bipedalist]

Good, but most are excellent in this modern day drive to be the one with the brass ring. Of course those that will settle for corroded pot metal rings are a dime a dozen and they fill up the majority of forum news.

[Guest]

Eye witness accounts of clear sightings are very valuable, and there are enough of them that I take them seriously.

[Guest]

Sure fear influences the details. But when your friend came back he/she didn't say it was grasshopper.

Right, so it wasn't a grasshopper. ( That made me giggle. )

But how big, how scary, how close, how fast, etc.

[BobbyO]

Eyewitnesses are a base to which you can build on, assuming that they're telling the truth of course.

From initial eyewitnesses, you can then start to put pieces of the jigsaw together and attempt to get stronger evidence of whatever it is the situation is regarding, which i believe is needed.

It's true however that the human brain doesn't have anywhere near the retention levels that many that think it has as many think that humans are the be all and all of everything.

Even for key events, the memory only retains a small amount of key moments and key moments would be what most believe the brain actually would retain, but it doesn't, well it does, but around 30%-40% and i can say this safe in the college of studies done on professional sports coaches.

[Guest]

Anecdotal evidence is as reliable as someone's word, so basically it isn't. However, a study of anecdotal evidence, and the creation of a database that shows a substantial pattern then can be used to either show that something might exist, or more importantly utilized to find a creature.

Eyewitness events, IMO, are of little use outside of points of data to create a larger objective vision of what is happening.

Basically, if a lot of people see BF somewhere, BF is probably there and should be looked for in that area. On an indiviual level, each story is fairly useless and unreliable.

St. G-

[Guest]

As I read accounts I judge their likely accuracy against what I have read regarding apes and human evolution as I think I understand them. I am intrigued by evolution and ecology and so such an approach works for me but does not necessarily give a correct answer (I'm not much trained this way and have only read this stuff in my leisure time). I also compare stories to my hallucination experiences and have quite often found myself saying "episode" very quickly. On this I am perhaps a better expert than I am on the scientific front. I have also read about the fallibility of human accuracy as witnesses and can attest to being pretty poor at it myself, so I suspect that plays a big part as well.

After reading (oh I don't know, a few hundred or so?) stories I am only really moved by about two dozen or so. That's bigfoot only though as I've read only a handful of yeren or yowie stories for instance and am unfamiliar with Asia and Australia in terms of geography and cultures. But even those atories that intrigue me mean essentiually nothing scientifically as most of them have no real evidence. By real I mean the evidence can be construed as something else that does not support bigfoot as a real thing just as easily as it can be used to support bigfoot. As a result it doesn't offer any real support for the reality of bigfoot.

I'm familiar with this logic as I've used it in one form or other most of my life trying to figure out what was real and what wasn't.

Basically, if a lot of people see BF somewhere, BF is probably there and should be looked for in that area. On an indiviual level, each story is fairly useless and unreliable.

St. G-

BF can possibly be a cultural phenomenon. Just because a lot of people witness them does not mean there is truth to them. Bigfoot witnesses are a decided minority compared to the rest of the world. Some might argue that if bigfoot is real then more people should see them. Simply saying they are shy and stealthy is not necessarily truth. It is a hypothesis at best and a completely untested one at that. If bigfoot is unreal then it would be completely false also. A decided minority of hallucinations can easily account for all bigfoot sightings I suppose. That is also a hypothesis and also untested.