Consistency In Sighting Reports

[Guest]

Interesting subject, if I may toss around another thought, people are dynamic human beings who uniquely and individually represent all levels of the socioeconomic ladder. Consistencies and inconsistencies may differ in various ways for various reasons. As was mentioned previously, roads are roads to many but few recognize differences between road and shoulders of roads.

 

People at large define anything that vehicles pass over as a road right? Well ... there are highways, roads, streets. two track dirt paths and so forth. Each are defined by the purpose they serve, and each may differ width in accordance to their local jurisdiction. Therefore, if something large steps across "road" but is actually residential street then naturally it take fewer steps to cross than a more modern highways.    

 

If we toss in the emotional and physiological effects of people, the jolt and shock of encountering so unnaturally against orthodox textbook learning, our vision tends to become smaller. For example, if four people who claim to be witnesses of a crime and questioned, one or more will either see something relative others did not notice or three of four may each have different interpretations of they observed.

 

It does not necessarily mean anyone is wrong. It just means the four witnesses in my example above may rely on their own personal learning and understanding to describe what that see. In that case, it does require some skill in ferreting out and separating the meat from potatoes.  

 

When I read BF reports I look closer for "key" words as a signature pattern. Words commonly used to describe something in repeatable patterns. In my opinion, there has been an exponential increase in sighting reports since say, 1965!  Arguably, one could easily point to increasing populations as a factor for one, technology that didn't exist in forty something years ago, but more than that .... a breeding population.

 

I hope this helps a little bit ....

[David NC]

I was grabbed by a giant squid off of my boat while tuna fishing, but was able to get away and report it. I tell all the press and get attention from the scientists studying them. I wait 6 months and come forward and tell the truth in that I lied about the event, that way all previous study and reports and any reported in the future will all be lies.   Is this how it works?

[WSA]

You can't appreciate the degree of integrity in the database until you've spent lots and lots of time. Reading the reports is only just the last step, and the least of it.  We 'Muricans love the Cliff Notes version of things, which explains a lot about our collective ignorance on most subjects too. There are no shortcuts and this is to the everlasting frustration of those who haven't spent the time yet.  Wish it weren't so, and you can flay me all you want for stating this. It won't change a thing though. And I don't mean to say I've made some kind of heroic investment here. There are many others who have made a much greater investment.  I will flatter myself to say I do respect knowledge, experience and expertise in others. When I recognize somebody who has that greater skill and experience, I shut the ____up and listen to them. Interestingly, those who have invested the greater effort than me wind up saying things that extend my own nascent conclusions.    

[Guest]

Good post WSA, a pleasure reading it!

 

Hello David NC, I am sorry to hear of your experience. Your encounter apparently did not conform to somebody else's reality. So the next step they discount your experience as something untrue .... is that about right? Remember it was the so called academia and scientist who refused to acknowledge the existence of bigfoot as though their word is somehow more truthful and final. I do not place a lot of stock in anything they have to say on matters such as these. I simply don't.  

[Guest]

Really interesting topic for discussion, that as yet, hasn't been beaten to death IMO.

 

Most do not truly know what they have witnessed other than something out of the ordinary and not something they are familiar with.

 

They know it isn't a bear or something else of the norm that could result in an misidentification if they are woods-wise and accustomed to the norm..

 

Large, hairy, bi-pedal, quiet, stealthy are a few things that seem prevalent.

 

But each sighting is unique and might include other attributes such as vocalizations, tree knocks, or rock throwing which seem to be fairly consistent in many reports.

 

Never really got into the feelings of *dread* or other seemingly psychic demonstrations.

 

Heck, I've never had an experience so I don't really know.

 

But, I have set parameters of what I am willing to believe and what I will not accept.

 

For those of us sans experiences, I think we have to do so.

[WSA]

Hello HRP...yeah, I didn't attach much signifigance to my getting spooked. If I had to say though, I'd be willing to wager it was a lion, possibly stalking me or at least being interested. I've hear way too many people relate  stories of having had that feeling before actually spotting a cat, or a cat track. We are very well adapted animals, and sensing a predator is hard-wired into our brains. Need proof? Your genes still extant in the world! 

[Celtic Raider]

In today’s world consistency in Bigfoot reports is next to meaningless.  There is far to much information out there in the form of videos, book and internet to have the potential witness truly describing a unique from scratch event.  I’ve never seen Bigfoot and I no Long believe Bigfoot is out there but here is a sighting I've created just from my own research an exposure to the issue.

 

It was the Saturday before Thanksgiving 1990 when I had my sighting.  We had driven up to the Adirondack preserve in northern NY State for the weekend.  Our hotel was in the town of Saranac Lake near Lake Placid.  I hadn't been to Saranac since the early 70’s but it hadn't changed all that much.

 

The morning of my sighting I had decided to hike a trail that lead up to an overlook where  we used to hike to as college students.  My companion stayed in town to antique shop.  I drove approximately.  Â¾  of a mile to the trail head and set out on the one mile hike up to the overlook.  It was a crisp morning slightly hazy and overcast but there was no threat of precipitation which at that time of year can be full blown snow up there.  But the woods were free of snow and the forest floor was ripe with the fresh fall of the Autumn leaf shed.  The trail itself is well worn and goes nearly in a straight line to the summit and overlook.  While there are only slight meanderings there are two other trails that intersect with the main trail.  One trail at about mid way leads to a rough camping area and the other close to the summit is a game trail that crosses the main one.  I took my time up the trail reliving the times I had hiked it with  old cohorts from school now spread to the winds and out of touch.  But the thoughts brought mostly smiles.

 

I reached the summit around 10:30AM and scouted around for any of the telltale remains of my long ago visits.  We used to scratch initials and dates on the stone outcropping.  However the site has been in use steadily and the rocks are well marked over by more recent passers by.  But the view was as spectacular as ever and gives a good reminder of how vast New York State is, especially the Adirondack preserve.  I stayed up there for about 25 minutes then began the descent.  I was feeling clear and vigorous as only the mountains can make you. 

 

Towards the mid way point I was beginning to plan the rest of the day and I was approaching the camp trail when my sighting occurred.  From my position on the main trail I could see the camp trail where it intersected with the main.  As I was slightly higher I had a good view of the woods and camp trail.  My eye caught a dark shape moving along the camp trail heading towards the main trail.  I could make out it’s motion was in strides as if a person on the trail.  I was perhaps 20 yards away and I was taken by the uniform dark brown color of the entity.  I first thought why would a UPS delivery person be up here on a Saturday?  It was very much the color of a UPS uniform.  I stopped walking and focused on this thing.  After a few seconds I suspected it wasn't a person.  I crouched down behind a wild blueberry bush to be as inconspicuous as I could be.  After about a dozen strides this thing was at the intersection of the two trails.  I had a perfect profile view of it.  It was covered in medium dark brown hair of different lengths between 1 and 4 inches I estimate.  It was clearly on two legs and possessed longer than usual arms if it was indeed a person.  It didn't proceed on the trail instead it turned to it’s left to look in my direction.  I felt a surge of apprehension and hoped it wasn't interested in me.  Fortunately it stayed put and I observed it’s face.  It was a vaguely human face of  ancient proportions.  Apelike and very hairy.  It’s eyes were dark and gorilla like but there was a sense that it’s gaze was feeding into a more active mind than a gorilla’s. It looked in my direction for about 10 seconds then scanned across the trail and down it as if deciding on a direction.  It stepped onto the main trail and briskly strode down it.  I stayed put for a couple of minutes wanting distance from it.  Eventually I rose to my feet and finished my descent.  Analyzing my sighting I estimate it was about 7 feet tall weighing around 300 pounds but it moved smoothly and quietly.  I did come to where it left the main trail and took to the woods.  Its passage was scarcely noticeable and I never heard it at all.

 

Back at the hotel I didn't tell my companion what I had seen.  I simply implied that some things were the same and some things were different there.

 

You raise a good point Crowlogic in that anyone with any interest in the subject has in this day and age such copious amounts of easy to find data that if one were to invent a sighting, it could be made to conform to several of the most common 'traits'. As you have shown above this is easy to accomplish and embelish with 'facts' which are generally thought about Bigfoot.

 

One thing that instantly puts me off some reports (and would make me suspicious of your above report), is when someone recounts too accurately, without any kind of hesitation or uncertainty. I have been told by family and friends in the military and law enforcement that when questioning someone if they recount everything perfectly it's a sure sign they are lying!

 

For example, I had an intruder try to gain access to my home a few years ago. It was around 4am and I was asleep, I am a light sleeper and woke up and instantly suspected something was not as it should be. I got up and went down stairs wherupon the door between the lounge and kitchen was open (I always shut it before going to bed), I proceeded into the kitchen and saw the window had been opened and saw a figure directly outside the window who had obviously just exited through the kitchen window. We were no more than 6 feet apart but I cannot for the life of me remember what he looked like, what colour hair he had or what he was wearing (apart from it was dark). All I can remember doing is grabbing a fish filleting knife, fumbling to unlock the back door (which took ages in my rage) and chasing him up the garden in vain! I was face to face with a guy 6 feet away and all I could tell the police officer when they arrived was that he was caucasian, wearing dark clothing and some kind of hat/cap and a lot smaller than me (I am 6'2" and 230lbs) and lucky I had not long had a sports related knee surgery which prevented me from catching him!

 

I supect a genuine sighting (assuming this animal did exist of course) would be under similar emotional circumstances, the witness could be very excited or fearful, maybe have an obscured view or take a few moments to register. I would not expect a long, detailed account with many features listed, maybe an estimate of the colour, overall size and an odd feature such as long arms or massive shoulders for example.......

[Guest]

Some of the best detailed reports come from those under duress immediately after the fact while the information is fresh and before they begin to doubt what they seen. In other words, I am referring to an excited utterance ...  spoken with complete spontaneity... though I wouldn't readily discount any report out of hand due to the fact that people are generally incredibly sensitive of their anonymity and being ridiculed for reporting it ... The quality of the BF reports lies in the lap of the individual taking the report, or lack of investigative skills thereof. 

[salubrious]

I supect a genuine sighting (assuming this animal did exist of course) would be under similar emotional circumstances, the witness could be very excited or fearful, maybe have an obscured view or take a few moments to register. I would not expect a long, detailed account with many features listed, maybe an estimate of the colour, overall size and an odd feature such as long arms or massive shoulders for example.......

 

When I had my encounter my mental state was more surprise than anything else. I was in my truck on a major hiway, and really was not feeling like I was in danger, partially because I had the idea for a while that I was seeing a pile of dirt in the road as I was approaching it. At any moment I could have stomped the gas and my trusty 350 V8 with its Edlebrock enchancements would have jetted me out of there. So I felt fairly safe, even if after a while I started thinking that this thing was nearly half the size and weight of my truck, maybe I should be careful...

 

IOW I don't think you can count on fearful in all sightings.

[MIB]

An assumption of fear, asserted as a filter to separate truth from falsehood, is going to be unreliable .. in other words, its use to separate truth from fallacy it is itself fallacious.  Ironic. 

 

MIB

[Guest]

IOW I don't think you can count on fearful in all sightings.

 

 

I agree. I think/know most would be surprised at just how fast a sighting occurs.

 

Might be some fear, but I would assume that would be a secondary or *after the fact* feeling.

 

Not in all cases but I would think in most.

Edited October 29, 2014 by HRPuffnstuff

[MNskeptic]

Eyewitness reports are unreliable. Memory is unreliable. Most reports are mis-identifications or outright fraud.

These are the most common responses to eyewitness reports. I get all that and think for the most part that is true. However, there are clearly outliers in the sighting reports that I have a hard time dismissing as one of the normal rationalizations.

Salubrious' experience is a perfect example. As a skeptic, I naturally try to categories his report, like all others I come across, as a mis-ID or fraud or unreliable for any number of reasons. Maybe he's on hallucigens or something. I don't know. However, Saubrious comes on here, puts his story out there, and sticks to it in a way I find rather credible. He seems pretty confident in what he saw and recounts his experience in a lucid, matter of fact, and articulate manner. Then, look at his behavior. Why would a fraudster, assuming for argument sake he was one, come on this board and participate in discussions over a long period of time, with over 2,000 posts? I'm not picking on Salurious, but only use him as an example of some one who has devoted a lot of energy to the subject of BF after coming out with his report. What does some one like him gain by doing so? That's why I can't discount his experience. I think he's looking for validation and answers to what he saw, same as many other witnesses who come forward and devote a lot of energy to the BF phenomenon over a long period of time without financial or other apparent motivation.

So, with all the problems surrounding memory and eyewitness accounts, all of which are legitimate, the outliers like Salurious' encounter are what keeps me interested in this subject.

MNSkeptic

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

It depends on how one looks at the subject. I expect that there will be variation among all reports, precisely because everyone views all things through their own personal filters. So when attempting to determine consistencies one has to stick only to the facts. What the creature physically did, and to a lesser extent what physical characteristics it possessed. Increased height, over the human average, is a consistent attribute. But height is very subjective when one does not actually measure the creature, so how much personal judgement comes into play? The way I look at this problem is first to determine what most people view as "tall."

Most people are in the 5 foot range, and a tall person is over 6 feet. A person who was 7 feet tall would be viewed as exceptionally tall by the average person, therefore I think that when the height of a sasquatch stands out to a witness, we can be assured that the creature is at least 6-7 feet tall.

 

I think that the most consistent attribute among reports is the behavior of the sasquatch after it knows it has been seen. In almost every single case it will flee the area. I have noticed that often times when the animal is not claimed to have fled, it does not know it has been seen. There is also much consistency the hair color, in that the hair is usually dark, followed by a lighter shade that tends towards white or grey. This consistency exists globally, or at least in all places with similar encounter reports, as does the fact that sasquatch seem to flee from observation.

 

Another consistency I've noticed is that the sasquatch always seem to be doing mundane activities that would be expected of such an animal. They are either eating, drinking, walking, etc...There are not a plethora of reports that claim sasquatch are flying around the skies, or doing other things that are physically impossible. Instead the consistency is in the fact that they are doing what an animal should be doing. So if people are inventing such things out of their imaginations, they do not have very good imaginations.

 

Consistency does not necessarily need to be present to make the idea of sasquatch viable, especially if they are intelligent. Reasoning and thought breeds diversity, and the only consistencies would be found in the things that the animal must do to survive. Things like entertainment, inquisitiveness, etc., would exist on a less consistent basis in my opinion, and might account for certain variations in the sighting reports. I do not claim that is definitely what is occurring, but it is a possibility. Another reason consistency may not be expected has to do with how many different things the animal does everyday. If the average sasquatch performs 50 different activities per day, then whenever they are seen there is a 1/50 chance that they will be doing any one thing. Therefore one would expect that, on average, 50 different reports could exist without the activities of the sasquatch overlapping. Someone could easily look at this and conclude that the reports have no consistency in them, and that this somehow makes the idea of sasquatch less likely, when it does no such thing.

[Celtic Raider]

When I had my encounter my mental state was more surprise than anything else. I was in my truck on a major hiway, and really was not feeling like I was in danger, partially because I had the idea for a while that I was seeing a pile of dirt in the road as I was approaching it. At any moment I could have stomped the gas and my trusty 350 V8 with its Edlebrock enchancements would have jetted me out of there. So I felt fairly safe, even if after a while I started thinking that this thing was nearly half the size and weight of my truck, maybe I should be careful...

 

IOW I don't think you can count on fearful in all sightings.

 

Absolutely agree, that's why I said 'the witness could be very excited or fearful'. I think if this animal is to be photographed clearly and unambiguously it will be done by someone like yourself who is at a position where they feel safe or slightly removed from the action (as you did in your truck). I don't expect a highly accurate, calm and collected report or clear, well focused photo from someone who's come face to face with the animal at a turn in a trail for example. (sounds like a nice truck by the way, love those big 'ol V8s )

 

 

Eyewitness reports are unreliable. Memory is unreliable. Most reports are mis-identifications or outright fraud.

These are the most common responses to eyewitness reports. I get all that and think for the most part that is true. However, there are clearly outliers in the sighting reports that I have a hard time dismissing as one of the normal rationalizations.

Salubrious' experience is a perfect example. As a skeptic, I naturally try to categories his report, like all others I come across, as a mis-ID or fraud or unreliable for any number of reasons. Maybe he's on hallucigens or something. I don't know. However, Saubrious comes on here, puts his story out there, and sticks to it in a way I find rather credible. He seems pretty confident in what he saw and recounts his experience in a lucid, matter of fact, and articulate manner. Then, look at his behavior. Why would a fraudster, assuming for argument sake he was one, come on this board and participate in discussions over a long period of time, with over 2,000 posts? I'm not picking on Salurious, but only use him as an example of some one who has devoted a lot of energy to the subject of BF after coming out with his report. What does some one like him gain by doing so? That's why I can't discount his experience. I think he's looking for validation and answers to what he saw, same as many other witnesses who come forward and devote a lot of energy to the BF phenomenon over a long period of time without financial or other apparent motivation.

So, with all the problems surrounding memory and eyewitness accounts, all of which are legitimate, the outliers like Salurious' encounter are what keeps me interested in this subject.

MNSkeptic

 

 

Very good post, I find it very hard to dismiss some reports like Sulubrious' and feel it's a little insulting to just kind of infer 'you must be mistaken', even though I'm very much on the fence regarding Sasquatch........

[BobbyO]

Eyewitness reports are unreliable. Memory is unreliable. Most reports are mis-identifications or outright fraud.

As per the case with most skeptical viewpoints I see on this forum, what you have written above is nowhere near as black and white and as basic as what you attempt to make it sound.