Encounters That Go Unreported

[JDL]

True

[Guest insanity42]

I doubt there is a method to determine how many encounters go unreported though more than likely it does happen.

Another important consideration would be the other factors that relate to Bigfoot sightings. In short, in order to see a Bigfoot, you must be in their habitat.

 

Therefore, people that live in rural areas, have a greater chance of seeing one, vs people that live in urban areas. You'd also have to consider recreational activities like hunting, camping, hiking, etc.

 

To get an accurate number, you'd have to poll people that are commonly in BF habitat. Otherwise, the numbers would be skewed.

 

Another interesting question would be; even though you've not seen one, do you know somebody that has?

 

I've done some research along this.  According to 2010 Census data, roughly 75% of the country's population resides within 5% of the land, meaning we're fairly densely packed into a small total area.  I can look to see if it included municipality type or not, I do not recall. 

 

The US Fish & Wildlife Service conducts surveys and the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation survey had a lot of data as to types of activities, amount of time spent, whether it was at home, away from home, and where people lived.

 

https://www.census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html

 

Approximately 12% of the population goes hunting and/or fishing throughout the year.  Hunters represent approximately 4% of the population and spend an approximately 21 days hunting and takes approximately 19 trips a year, or about a day per trip.  There wasn't data as to where hunters go, but this sounded like many hunters around my area, in that on opening day they travel a short distance down the road to either their property or a friend's property.

 

Another note on reports, specifically eyewitness memory, a recent study that challenges the blanket dismissal that commonly occurs.

 

Wixted, John T.,  et al.  "Initial Eyewitness Confidence Reliably Predicts Eyewitness Identification Accuracy." American Psychologist, vol. 70, no. 6, pp 515-526.

 

Abstract

Eyewitness memory is widely believed to be unreliable because (a) high-confidence eyewitness misidentifications played a role in over 70% of the now more than 300 DNA exonerations of wrongfully convicted men and women, ( forensically relevant laboratory studies have often reported a weak relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy, and © memory is sufficiently malleable that, not infrequently, people (including eyewitnesses) can be led to remember events differently from the way the events actually happened. In light of such evidence, many researchers agree that confidence statements made by eyewitnesses in a court of law (in particular, the high confidence they often express at trial) should be discounted, if not disregarded altogether. But what about confidence statements made by eyewitnesses at the time of the initial identification (e.g., from a lineup), before there is much opportunity for memory contamination to occur? A considerable body of recent empirical work suggests that confidence may be a highly reliable indicator of accuracy at that time, which fits with longstanding theoretical models of recognition memory.  Counterintuitively, an appreciation of this fact could do more to protect innocent defendants from being wrongfully
convicted than any other eyewitness identification reform that has been proposed to date.

 

Additionally, there is a major review paper forthcoming that will further question the blanket dismissal.

[coffee2go]

Unreported sightings could also include misidentified sightings.  i.e. someone saw something and thought it was a bear, etc. when it was actually a bf.

[MIB]

Reliability of identifying individual people the witness is not familiar with in a lineup of similar people is very different than reliability of identifying a particular species when the witness is familiar with all but one.

 

Think about it.   I think it would be hard to pick the right individual from a lineup of similar humans, similarly dressed, with similar features.   Line up 6 cops in uniform and identify the one that stole your donut.   On the other hand, a person who is familiar with 5 of 6 species being asked to identify the one that doesn't fit?   If you line up a badger, a deer, a bear, a bigfoot, a possum, and a raccoon, I think it would be reasonable to expect a high percentage of people who were outdoor people to pick the bigfoot from the lineup.  

 

Suggesting that there's a connection between witness inability to identify a suspect and witness inability to identify a SPECIES lacks rational credibility.   Nobody should be disingenuous enough to suggest it and nobody should be foolish enough to fall for it.  

 

MIB

[Twist]

Solid point MIB. I do however question eye witness accounts regarding size and mass. In some cases the fear may make the monster seem taller or heavier than it really is but that is a topic maybe more suited for the giants thread.

[MIB]

That is sometimes true, but on the other hand, fear is an assumption that is not always warranted.  

 

As I've said other times, I've had two definite sightings and a third highly probable.  (Difference is positive ID vs elimination of alternate IDs)   There was no fear involved in any of those instances.   Once surprise, once curiosity, and once humor.  

 

So far the only time I recall being scared it was too dark to see.  I have no idea how big the bigfoots were ... I suspect one was an infant.  I was afraid of what the infrasound (or at least I presumed it was infrasound at the time) was doing to me.   The effects were extremely unpleasant and I wasn't sure they wouldn't be fatal. 

 

There seem to be no absolutes in this.   Best guesses, averages, but along with them, frequent and substantial exceptions.  

 

+++++

 

Anyway, on topic, I wish I had not filed my report with BFRO.   I found the interview to be unpleasant and confrontational.  I went to them trying to understand what I'd experienced, didn't know I was volunteering for interrogation practice.   I won't put myself through that again.    

 

MIB

Edited December 19, 2015 by MIB

[Guest]

Sounds like BFRO does GOOD investigation techniques? Im sure, as we have seen on THIS board and others, there is ALOT of BSing that goes on with BF, and they do everything they can to VET you if you have a ''sighting''.

 

We just had a story a month ago, that people said was BS, even though it was just a story.

 

As for the general topic of unreported events, probably 40,50, 60 to 1, from knowing people in the know who have some feelers out. There are tons of tree-knocks and even sightings that go unreported, or they don't know enough to report it. 100/1??

 

Its way up there.

 

Even the Dogman Vic Cundif talks about people who just talk to him, that he does not even TALK about, its all hush hush, and its in the hundreds apparently. And we will never hear about those ones, and those ones are ''good'' ones.

[southernyahoo]

   On the other hand, a person who is familiar with 5 of 6 species being asked to identify the one that doesn't fit?   If you line up a badger, a deer, a bear, a bigfoot, a possum, and a raccoon, I think it would be reasonable to expect a high percentage of people who were outdoor people to pick the bigfoot from the lineup.  

 

Suggesting that there's a connection between witness inability to identify a suspect and witness inability to identify a SPECIES lacks rational credibility.   Nobody should be disingenuous enough to suggest it and nobody should be foolish enough to fall for it.  

 

MIB

 

 

I agree, and that's why people who know Terry might believe him. I also get tired of the argument that witnesses can't tell a hairy biped from other wildlife when the subject was seen in the open like patty. A five year old could do it accurately in most cases if they were picking out body forms in a line up.  I doubt witness skeptics really want to see that study done.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Let's assume for a moment that only one in 20 bigfoot sightings get reported.  Does it matter?  Does it matter if there is 20 times more possibly activity out there?  The proponent base better hope there isn't  since the the more theoretical  activity without a body undermines the case for existence.  Better hope there's 20 times less activity.  At least then there's an excuse for the thing not being confirmed after all this time.

[WSA]

I am always bemused when this trope about how, you know, eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, blah, blah, blah. As if. As if the fact that witnesses confuse one "Heavy set male with long hair and beard" with another translates to anything useful to explain a BF identification. So,  your BF witness is prone to confuse a 10' tall, 800 lb animal with what else, exactly?  Yet this unexamined statement gets trotted out without question. It is a serious lapse in effort to think one conclusion matters to try and explain the other. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy logic.  

[dmaker]

News Bulletin: People lie sometimes.

 

 

 

It's shocking, I know.  WSA,  If you were a prosecuting attorney then no one in your county would ever go to jail. They would just have to say "bigfoot did it" and you would drop the charges. Your deputies might have a hard time finding all the criminal bigfeets running around though.

Edited December 22, 2015 by dmaker

[coffee2go]

Yes, people do lie sometimes.  But, why would thousands of people lie? Some who never heard of a bigfoot and have nothing to gain? 

As for the large percentage of unreported sightings, the majority of people who report want to remain anonymous to avoid the risk to their reputation and sometimes their career.  Others won't even file a report anonymously out of fear their identity will be discovered.

 

Why would someone on this forum report their sighting knowing that skeptics on this site will post remarks questioning their truthfulness or sanity?  There are people who are deeply affected by name calling and ridicule and those people will never report a sighting or activity, not here or anywhere. 

 

Staying on topic, I think I have just relisted a couple of reasons why a large percentage of encounters are unreported.

[MNskeptic]

Coffee, some skeptics on this site - me included - actually think that the many, many good eyewitness reports are some of the best 'evidence' for the existence of this creature. Maybe I'm gullible though.

[dmaker]

Yes, people do lie sometimes.  But, why would thousands of people lie? Some who never heard of a bigfoot and have nothing to gain? 

As for the large percentage of unreported sightings, the majority of people who report want to remain anonymous to avoid the risk to their reputation and sometimes their career.  Others won't even file a report anonymously out of fear their identity will be discovered.

 

Why would someone on this forum report their sighting knowing that skeptics on this site will post remarks questioning their truthfulness or sanity?  There are people who are deeply affected by name calling and ridicule and those people will never report a sighting or activity, not here or anywhere. 

 

Staying on topic, I think I have just relisted a couple of reasons why a large percentage of encounters are unreported.

Why? Because people like attention.

[Terry]

Coffee, some skeptics on this site - me included - actually think that the many, many good eyewitness reports are some of the best 'evidence' for the existence of this creature. Maybe I'm gullible though.

 

Yep!

 

t.