Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Explorer

Bigfoot Sightings In Daylight By Multiple Witnesses At Less Than 30 Ft

Recommended Posts

zenmonkey

Excellent work, Explorer. You obviously have a much better grasp of how to use that database than I do, and I really apreciate what you've done with it. This is exactly what hiflier was hoping people would do with his work, I believe.

Couldn't of said it better myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Chem E.  Will do.

 

*bows*

 

You guys (Chem E's) are certainly cut from a different cloth.  Congrats on yer success!

 

OK, sorry for the derail.  Just get excited when I meet another Engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiggyPotamus

This is quite interesting. Thanks for posting this. I have long believed that it is unlikely for a witness to misidentify a known animal, and mistake it for bigfoot on top of that. The only time I find this viable is when there are obstructions, and no clear viewing path. A bear who is standing on its hind legs, whose image is broken up by the trees and branches, probably could be mistaken for a bipedal animal. The witness would just be seeing this tall, hairy creature, and in such an instance the imagination could fill in the gaps.

 

But take that same scenario, and remove all the obstructions from between the subject and witness, and suddenly the odds of a person misidentifying that bear as a bigfoot drops to almost nothing. At least in my opinion. A bear just doesn't look like a sasquatch when you can clearly see it. And when a bear is on all fours, it looks even less like a sasquatch. People can get confused often, but mainly when it comes to minute details, names, faces, etc. NOT when it comes to seeing an 8 foot tall bipedal mountain monster. Something like that is easy to see, and hard to miss, when it is in the open. Anyway, I am getting off track.

 

I just wanted to say that if we dismissed ALL bigfoot reports except for those where the witness had an unobstructed view, then either bigfoot exists, or ALL of those people are lying or were themselves hoaxed. You could take off 10% of the reports just by some off chance a person did misidentify a known animal, although I don't think they would. It is sort of like how you can say that people hallucinate. Ya, they do, but how many people here actually hallucinate or have hallucinated? Maybe one or two, and that was on maybe one occasion when there was some internal problem, etc. It is not something that happens often. It is possible, but unlikely. That is how I feel it is with misidentifying a known animal for sasquatch, when that animal is out in the open and easily seen. It can happen, but it is not probable.

 

Especially if the person is a hunter or outdoorsman, and knows what animals look like. Plenty of reports from such people. Also, the number of reports that you mentioned were in the database, reports were the view was wide open and the subject nearby, seems too low to me. The BFRO reports are not the same as Green's database are they? Or what I mean is that are there many overlapping entries between the two? I wouldn't expect that to be the case. So when you add all the BFRO reports to the Green reports, you get an even larger number of reports that were unlikely to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello JiggyPotamus,

A better question might be whether or not the BFRO even has that metric. I still find it stupid that John Green saw that it was better to show ALL his data and the BFRO still makes one sift through reports one at a time. I mean WHO can remember the details of the first report by the time the fourth one is called up. There are around 8,000 in the BFRO. Over 4,000 in JWG's. But in JWG's one gets to see 'em all and actually perform those functions we saw Explorer do so well.

@ Explorer,

Can't thank you enough for the demonstration of an amazing tool for research. Data gaps or not there's TONS of info there. I've offered to help folks do what you've done but you are definitely the one for that job!

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

BFRO Report 5697:  I was 35 feet away, my brother was thirty feet away, and our friend, David was eight feet away from it.  Nothing between us and it but sagebrush shin high on it.  Middle of the afternoon.  Full daylight.

 

 

Three boys encounter sasquatch in eroded terrain

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697

 

That's an amazing report, JDL! Clarity, detail, personal reactions. 
While they may not fit the thread topic, I would enjoy to read your
other submissions to BFRO. 
 
I do hope you write for publication. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Branco

 

Three boys encounter sasquatch in eroded terrain

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697

 

That's an amazing report, JDL! Clarity, detail, personal reactions. 
While they may not fit the thread topic, I would enjoy to read your
other submissions to BFRO. 
 
I do hope you write for publication. 

 

The most detailed and well written BF report I've EVER read. Yeah, I would like to read the others as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lake County Bigfooot

When I younger I managed a gas station that bordered a large county forest preserve.  One early morning I

pulled into the lot to witness a smallish hairy man vacating our dumpsters and heading into the preserve.  The

immediate assumption was that of a bum, un kept, covered in dirt, clothing was a question mark.  I saw him wonder

off to the woods.  Several other employees observed this type of behavior and the appearance was always the same.

I think our minds go to placing the person into a comfortable frame of reference, to suppose it was truly a wild man

was not even possible.  Yet knowing what I now know that could have been a younger squatch and we simply were

victims of our own perceptions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I believe that these animals have a dual advantage over anything else in scavenging from our environs:

 

1.  Most don't believe they exist, which let's just say complicates the reporting process;

2.  They present a sufficiently humanoid profile to deflect critical review by passersby who aren't close enough to catch the anomalies...and might even quickly turn and go farther away to avoid confronting the "derelict."

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Look at this report below.

 

Not too many people think that basketball players (a frequent reference in describing the animal's build, and it would be applicable here, I think) scavenge from garbage dumps.

 

But how far would one need to be away from the subject depicted to go, poor guy, let's not make things any worse...?

 

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36218

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

DWA- interestingly enough my aunts 12-ft. distance of two Sas. was behind a dumpster with a searchlight between her a and Sas. making for a outline but with enough perseption to know they had hair. She said "they had followed her, 30 ft. behind(she had a flashlight) on her way to the campground showers/restrooms in the middle of the night. She said when she came out she didn't notice them until she heard something in the direct of the dumpster and notice two 7-8 ft. tall creatures as tall as a basketball player. After she looked at them they didn't move or vocalize. We all figure they were after what was in the dumpster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

Thanks Explorer and hiflier for the work you have done on the database!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

DWA- interestingly enough my aunts 12-ft. distance of two Sas. was behind a dumpster with a searchlight between her a and Sas. making for a outline but with enough perseption to know they had hair. She said "they had followed her, 30 ft. behind(she had a flashlight) on her way to the campground showers/restrooms in the middle of the night. She said when she came out she didn't notice them until she heard something in the direct of the dumpster and notice two 7-8 ft. tall creatures as tall as a basketball player. After she looked at them they didn't move or vocalize. We all figure they were after what was in the dumpster.

 

I think it's kind of funny how often I hear "if they did stuff like raiding livestock and crops and dumpster diving, we'd have confirmed them by now" in the face of considerable evidence that just those sorts of things are occurring and the animal remains unconfirmed.

 

There must be a reason for it.  As I can never discount evidence because of what I want to be true, I've got to think that general denial that this critter could be out there combines with humanoid appearance to provide a pretty effective camouflage that makes these activities, for sasquatch, no more dangerous, and perhaps safer, than wild foraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer

JDL,

I read your BFRO report and was dumbfounded.

I believe it is these daylight/multiple witness/close proximity reports (that can’t be so easily dismissed) that should be getting more attention and investigation.

I was surprised that your 3 reports are the only BFRO reports from Washoe County -Nevada and that BFRO has only 8 reports in Nevada.

 

Darrell,

I don’t know how thorough JWG and his colleagues investigated and interviewed all multiple witnesses (included in his first person category).

I realize not all 8 cases listed above are of the same quality; but that is what we get when we apply the chosen filters to the database.

Maybe the JWG personal files on each case have much more detailed information on the sources/case than what is on the database.

I believe BFRO is trying to do a more thorough job of vetting all witnesses. I believe that when witnesses are related (husband and wife, brothers, father and son) usually there is just one report submitted, but then this report is followed-up with interviews of others.

 

JiggyPotamus,

I don’t know how much overlap (if any) is there between the JWG Database and the BFRO database. I believe you are right in that doing this analysis on the BFRO database will uncover more cases that meet the filtering criteria.

Also, if an analyst went thru the JW Green’s files in more detail, he/she might be able to estimate the actual distance to a BF creature (for some cases) instead of just placing the N/A for not available.

Some of those distances could be calculated based on the descriptions from eyewitnesses (many of which were seen by the highway close to the cars).

Hiflier is correct that we can’t do this type of analysis with the BFRO database as it is constructed. But, I will like to ask the same question of that database. JDL, thanks for bringing your case up, otherwise I would not have found it. Who knows how many more cases like that exist in BFRO.

If I had to add more filters, I would add duration of sighting and age/skill of eyewitness (giving higher credibility to hunters).

 

However, in the end, all we still have are stories that are harder to explain away.

Edited by Explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello Explorer,

As far as duration filters go it's hard, or should I say impossible, to determimine a quantifying metric when some reports list a time duration as "considerable". That's a tough one. Other time frames are more specific I didn't think there would be much need to filter reports in that regard though. Two minutes or twenty minutes doesn't really make much difference in establishing detailed descriptions IMO. It is of course amazing when a witness tells of watching a creature for more than five minutes! I'll wager five minutes of seeing a Sasquatch would seem like five hours as the sight must be rather overwhelming.

I tend to trust a creature's description a bit more as the length of observation increases though. I've been using some websites to look at some regional logging histories and correlating them with the "Unusual Trees" field in the database. That my friend is going to take some time if it's even necessary LOL.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×