A Gift For The Bff

[BobbyO]

I think things like the finer details of witness descriptions are open to some serious problems.

 

If you want proof of that, just watch the extra's of the Harry and the Henderson's film, i'm serious too, some of the finer descriptions of what people thought they were seeing were so far away from the truth it was scary, especially where things like facial features descriptions were concerned. 

[hiflier]

Hello All,

One thing I noticed, and this has to do with how people's perceptions get influenced by those that do NOT study the report data or read the books. I was perusing the thread about Cabela's weird animal weekend held last February. I Googled the event and a webpage also came up about a crypto event weekend elsewhere. That event featured a darwing contest for children and 10 of the drawings were displayed on the website. Too many of the drawing were of a Sasquatch with snarly teeth and an angry face. I wonder now what the children in the next generation are being told and fed about the subject.

I was a bit discouraged with the idea that to them Bigfoot is a dangerous creature. I know that it is possible and some reports do talk about Sasquatch showing an agressive side but most of what I've read demonstrate that most of the encounters are such that curiosity and evasiveness is the rule. Kids will grow up and find things out for themselves of course but the artwork was self-evident in that among children that are aware of Bigfoot at least a few of them see the creature in a somewhat malevolent light.

Edited November 16, 2013 by hiflier

[Airdale]

I just found this thread also hiflier, thanks for the long hours and dedication.

 

WRT your observation above, I suspect there are at least two likely contributing factors. First, kids seem to be somewhat predisposed to see "monsters" in even ordinary, recognized creatures. I suspect that, had the drawing assignment been to depict a gorilla, a similar percentage would have been depicted in the same manner. At age six, my Mom took me to the local theater to see "Old Yeller" when it first came out. We did not even have a tv at the time and I was quite impressionable. My take away from that movie was the wild boars; I had nightmares featuring wild boars for years afterward, and also shied away from movies starring animals in general. Even 56 years later I've never watched that movie again and never care to.

 

Second is the more obvious one, that Bigfoot/Sasquatch (with the exception of "Harry and the Hendersons") is generally depicted as an aggressive, blood thirsty creature in movies. Even "Finding Bigfoot" generally equips the CGI creatures used in their recreations with a fearsome visage, and the roaring, slathering animation that begins and ends each segment is not likely to engender warm fuzzy thoughts about Sasquatch personalties.

[hiflier]

Hello Airdale,

I think your post has said it best. Finding BF could be a bit less melodramatic from what I've been reading. And yeah, I had my monsters under the bed as well, in the closet, outside the window...everywhere really LOL. Last time I looked though they weren't there........WHEW!

Oh yes, and thank you for the kind words

Edited November 17, 2013 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

Don't forget Guys, you'd never hear about real bad aggressive and beyond reports, because i highly doubt anyone would live to tell the tale..

[hiflier]

Hello BobbyO,

 

Yeah, if they're as smart as folks say then the baddies would hide the evidence............the 411's?........Shudders! BTW I'm running across some early indications that nose shape could be an interesting avenue after all. I'll keep you posted (pun intended).

[Hammer102492]

Hello All,

I'd like to bring the nature of research to the surface a bit. I do get the impression that many members here on the BFF would like to see a good picture of the Sasquatch dilemma above the usual round and round dialogue that goes on to the frustration of more than of few of you. The Habituators are out of reach for the most part as they keep things fairly off limits for most being a cadre of secretive folks for their own good reasons. We've all seen the maps, charts and graphs that look good and help with a kind of sightings layout but offer little in the way of gaining a foothold for most who want more in the way of a solid look at the the true situation of what it is to deal with a Sasquatch.

 

I started reading your thread, but only got as far as the first paragraph.  I can't read more until I ask what you mean by that?   I've posted on the Habituation thread and I'm the last person who anyone could ever call secretive.  Actually, I'm the opposite.  So what was your question?  Forgive me for not reading further.  I got stuck on that.

 

Thanks,

Hammer

[hiflier]

Hello Hammer,

 

Thank you, a fair question. The Habituators are a caring cadre of Humans who wish to keep Sasquatch safe from harm. It's a policy they strongly adhere to and is the first and foremost reason they do not divulge the locations of the activity they have been fostering. A policy I fully understand and respect. They have come under much pressure from some and have been criticized for being secretive and accused of making their stories up because they will not provide what some deem to be satisfactory proof of their experiences. I am not one of those folks and accept the Habituators at their word.I do not need them to prove to me what they say is true and I could get myself into hot water for saying so- I don't care really. It's why I said this: "The Habituators are out of reach for the most part as they keep things fairly off limits for most being a cadre of secretive folks for their own "good reasons".

 

I hadn't seen habituation in the John Green database nor did I expect to. Truth be known, my first exposure to it was on this Forum. I had at first expressed my concerns that the Habituators were possibly exposing Sasquatch to some risk but was assured that was not the case. Several PM's were exchanged and an understanding was reached which is a good thing.  

 

I hope this helps.

[Guest lightheart]

Hey Hiflier,, I will be interested to see what the data about nose shape indicates. There is so much raw information to be mined there. Your work on this is truly appreciated.

[hiflier]

Hello lightheart,

 

Wow, thank you! I'm humbled by the compliment. Yes, there is much to be realized in the data. I've greatly enjoyed the process. Not much left to do now but see what it tells us. 

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I'm in the process of yet a bit more fine tuning. An example would be that in the "Creature" file if one reads the variables across the top row, left to right, then you'll see that some are out of logical order. The database came that way for the most part and I was more interested in organizing the more major blocks of data. After the Nov. 9 revision I took a break. After all it had been nearly three months of tweaking the hard stuff and I was brain fried.

 

Now it's time for the final push. When I say logical order I mean placing the Sasquatch physical descriptions in proper sequence. As in literally head to toe. This will make the process of finding a description easier knowing that the data starts at the head, to include all aspects like ears, chin, head shape, brow shape etc, then moving down to the neck, then the shoulders, arms, torso, legs.........you get the idea. AND you can understand too that, while this revision isn't absolutely necessary, it will have the effect of speeding up a research process should one wish to avail themselves of one.

 

Logically ordering the "Incident" and "Footprint" database will be looked at as well. All in all, the time frame involved for the revision processes since day one, to me is reasonable considering the size and content of the database itself and the condition it was in when first received. I wish I could just let things stand as they are but as I do searches and sorts for various reasons and I'm finding I have to search all over the place for some of the variable(s) I want to use. I've known this for a while now but wasn't motivated to make the final changes. Now I am. So I'm going to.

 

At each phase I've shown my work so that everyone can see that the revisions have evolved without changing the data which I always thought was important as part of the documentation process for tracking the evolution of the revisions. Some may call it tranparency or chain of accountability, but whatever it's called i've always worried about being suspected of fudging the data and have endeavored to keep myself out of that particular pitfall.

Edited November 25, 2013 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

Keep up the great work.  The great thing about the JG database (aside from the fact that he was decades ahead of everyone else and saved information that most likely would be effectively lost) is that if anyone has questions about the accuracy of the rearranging you did, they can download they're own copy and compare it to the newer, better database.

[hiflier]

Hello Trogluddite,

 

Thank you for the encouragements. What you said about John Green not tossing out the smallest details has proved to be the real value of his work. Was the man meticulous? you betcha he was! The database is self evident in that regard. My guess is that there have been those who have had his database for a while now like perhaps the BFRO but after looking at it in it's original state figured ir wasn't worth the effort to organize it. No doubt that they have been here though and have been downloading the revisions as they come up.

 

But you know? That's perfectly fine with me if that were the case as I would consider it  a compliment. If I never did this but kept it to myself then I would be no different than them. If John Green saw fir to give the database to anyone who wanted it then who am I to treat it differently. I've thoroughly enjoyed the distinction.