Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Resume]

According to me. I don't need to agrue this fact. When you have three independent eye witness accounts that are consistent and from credible, "nothing to gain, nothing to lose persons," this creates a "pattern" that is commonly used as coorberative evidence in Criminal Court. Only in the court of public opinion is this not enough. (I must agree that eyewitness testimony in and of itself is a weak argument w/o any evidence.)

Please use the quote function so one can tell who you're addressing.

 

[Drewbot]

Bigfoot must be stupid
http://jimmohr.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-bigfoot-does-not-exist.html

 

[LTC8K6]

According to me. I don't need to agrue this fact. When you have three independent eye witness accounts that are consistent and from credible, "nothing to gain, nothing to lose persons," this creates a "pattern" that is commonly used as coorberative evidence in Criminal Court. Only in the court of public opinion is this not enough. (I must agree that eyewitness testimony in and of itself is a weak argument w/o any evidence.)

And those three credible independent eyewitnesses would easily be trumped by some actual evidence, wouldn't they?

For example, they all report seeing a bigfoot in a certain area at a certain time, but it turns out that there's a security camera in the area, and it shows something else in the area at the time, that obviously fooled them.

There go your eyewitnesses.

Too bad actual evidence of bigfoot is sorely lacking, huh?

 

[Drewbot]

I love how Bigfoot witness have "nothing to lose, nothing to gain".

Have you ever heard of: in need of attention, fitting into a group, or a need to rationalize something that they are afraid of( i.e. hallucination)?

As a cop, you might know that people who fall asleep at the wheel often say they saw something in the road, before they veer into the ditch. You may have also driven back down the road to look for the "tire in the road", "the dog crossing the road", or "a tree falling into the road". Of course when you don't find these things, you probably still write the ticket for failure to control vehicle, but you probably know that these things were sleep hallucinations.

 

[DennyT]

Fringe science magazine declares a new primate species (Orang-Pendek). Artist creates portrait amazingly similar to Munns' Patty.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/f1c47396.png[/qimg]

And on the seventh day Munns rested.

 

[George Kennedy]

Sort-of. For instance, if you are a predominately left handed person, chances are you will automatically walk with a dominant left foot.

When each of us walks across a floor, (wood or tile for instance) we will leave contact residue from our shoes on the floor. This concept is no different than a tire losing tread over a period of time. You do not actually see the tread being left on the road but it has to be going somewhere.

When a person who has walked across a floor wearing a shoe with rubber bottoms transfers invisible rubber residue onto the floors surface, this can often be detected through the use of a blue/black light.

Two people may be wearing the exact same pair of Nike tennis shoes. If both subjects are considered "suspects" of a crime, one may be ruled out through a process of elimination by examining the contact prints left at a crime scene and comparing them to the shoes themselves.

If a predominately left footed person is wearing the Nike, chances are their left shoe will display more wear....same goes for the right footed person.

When looking at a Sasquatch, human, deer, or whatever print, much "common sense" has to come into play during the examination. If the alleged Sasquatch print is simply way to perfect, if there is no signs of weight shift or distribution I would immediately assume that it was a fake. There should be naturally noticeable changes in gate and flex due to terrain change etc. Also, does the depth of the print match the proportional size of a being large enough to create it?

There is not a "check list" we have to determine fact or faked. Only trial and error, commom sense and good judgement. Most importantly, experience. I have never tracked Sasquatch so I am only applying what I know from law enforcement to this concept.

In my opinion, the techniques would be transferrable. I realize that for every opinion, there is many more opposing opinions.

 

[George Kennedy]

One must ask, "If American's drive 8 million miles a day and yet we have never found one road killed bigfoot." Then, how many of us have found road killed American's every day?

I realize this does happen, but how often does it happen?

According to our statistics, we have millions and millions of Americans yet rarely do we come across human road kill. I am sure less than 1 percent of the population would be killed by accidental human vs. car incidents.

Does this fact lead a rational thinking person to believe that human beings are on the decline? Maybe we don't really exist. Safer driving? Maybe we are all living in a dream.

 

[George Kennedy]

I agree. However, my recent interest in this topic is because of my account with one of these creatures that I did not believe existed either. I am not of the crowd who "needs to fit in." College graduate, West Virginia State Police Superintendents Award of Excellence recipient. retired Trooper, school teacher.

The last thing in the world I need to do is ruin my credibility by claiming I saw a large hairy beast that wasn't real.

Many people make up stories, many tell the truth and are "lumped" in with the former rather than the latter.

 

[George Kennedy]

Yes, physical evidence wins out every time over eye witness testimony only. However, eyewitness testimony is vital to any case.

 

[Resume]

According to our statistics, we have millions and millions of Americans yet rarely do we come across human road kill. I am sure less than 1 percent of the population would be killed by accidental human vs. car incidents.

You can't be serious? Since you are a former LEO, can you tell me what happens to a traffic accident victim? I mean usually.

College graduate, West Virginia State Police Superintendents Award of Excellence recipient. retired Trooper, school teacher.

Most LEOs I talk to tell me that when there are five witnesses to an incident, they get five different stories. Unless of course there is an ulterior motive to those stories matching.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, does bigfoot know what a car and a road are then?

These tracks are as flat, lifeless, and fake as you can get, yet they are still accepted by much of the footer community. Why?

 

[George Kennedy]

You can't be serious? Since you are a former LEO, can you tell me what happens to a traffic accident victim? I mean usually.

Most LEOs I talk to tell me that when there are five witnesses to an incident, they get five different stories. Unless of course there is an ulterior motive to those stories matching.

Those guys need to go back and get some real training. I can look at an accident scene and virtually understand what has happened prior to interviewing witnesses. Rule #1: Never interview witnesses together. Never.

Seriously, someone wants to throw out a quote earlier about never seeing Sasquatch road kill. My understanding is that "those" who are informed about the potential of a thriving sasquatch community say there may be 1500 in the entire nation. Do the math-that is all I'm saying here.

I have personally worked one pedestrian death in 20 years. I sometimes averaged working 33-35 vehicles collisions per month. (This is a rare occurance.)

Most drivers, (even those extremely intoxicated) will automatically react by steering away from any roadway obstruction, thus leading to single vehicle accidents.

Take bigfoot out of the picture. You have to approach matters like this from a logical stand point. Quite looking at "what if" and "yeah but" because you end up spinning your wheels and never accomplishing anything.

I can take any criminal case that I have ever won and attack it enough to cast doubt. Even with a written statement of confession, video recorded confession, what ever.

Defense attornies will say, the written confession was forged and his client (who coincidentally is now wearing a suit and decided to get a haircut) will weep toward the jury and agree. Or, the defense attorney will bring in an "expert" witness to state that the evil Trooper "cropped" the video of his God fearing client's video taped confession.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has been reported by eyewitnesses to be a duck.......it is 99.999% of the time...a duck. Even if I don't have the duck's corpse.

 

[George Kennedy]

So, does bigfoot know what a car and a road are then?

These tracks are as flat, lifeless, and fake as you can get, yet they are still accepted by much of the footer community. Why?

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas1.jpg[/qimg]

I must agree. Without knowing anything more about this scene other than looking at you picture, they do look like wooden cut out feet.

My first impression would be that these are not real.

 

[Resume]

.
Seriously, someone wants to throw out a quote earlier about never seeing Sasquatch road kill. My understaning is that "those" who are informed about the potential of a thriving sasquatch community say there may be 1500 in the entire nation. Do the math-that is all I'm

This is not "understanding" but someone pulling a number out of their rectal duct. There is no math to be done. And as far as your investigative skills, at least in this case, I'm not impressed

 

[George Kennedy]

And those three credible independent eyewitnesses would easily be trumped by some actual evidence, wouldn't they?

For example, they all report seeing a bigfoot in a certain area at a certain time, but it turns out that there's a security camera in the area, and it shows something else in the area at the time, that obviously fooled them.

There go your eyewitnesses.

Too bad actual evidence of bigfoot is sorely lacking, huh?

First, I would make sure to check the area and view the video footage myself prior to interviewing witnesses.

Second, you are absolutely right when it comes to eye witness testimony. Many times when eyewitnesses get together they will greatly influence what the other person did or did not see. Sort of....filling in the blanks for that person.

I have learned through numerous interviews of eyewitnesses who have observed the same crime, that they usually view the crime happening in the same way, but they may interpret the act differently simply based on personality, etc. Ex. If someone is afraid of guns/knifes, they may distinctly remember seeing the gun/knife but can't tell you a thing about the persons appearance.

The second eye witness may be greatly offended by the use of foul language. They can't recall seeing a weapon but they remember hearing a loud deep man's voice shouting curse words and making threats prior to seeing the victim "hit the ground."

The third eyewitness may not be startled by cursing/violence, and they regularly shoot weapons or carry a knife. This eyewitness can often times simply cooberate what the other witnesses have said. Further adding that the suspect was a large white male wearing a denim jacket and having a beard and long dark hair.

Coincedentally, the suspect is a large white male, he has a very deep voice, he was carrying a black 9mm pistol and he was wearing a denim jacket when arrested. (Oh yeah, the guy can't get out two sentences w/o horrible cursing too.)

Each witness views the crime differently.......but exactly the same way.

To an unlearned investigator this would appear to be an unreliable eyewitness account. To a seasoned investigator, these people are credible, believable, and would make great witnesses before a jury in court. (If their eye witness accounts are presented with proper prespective to the jury hearing the case.)

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I must agree. Without knowing anything more about this scene other than looking at you picture, they do look like wooden cut out feet.

My first impression would be that these are not real.

This is the first time you have actually looked at any evidence with us instead of talking in vague generalities and useless analogies.

When you add up ten thousand tracks that look like wooden cut-out feet, none of them gain any more credibility simply because there are a lot of them.

Instead what you conclude is that faking tracks is common. When you look at the variety, from cripple-toe to Wallace peas-in-a-pod, and see 'footers gullibly accepting all of them as real, then you also learn something about human nature.

Even Jane Goodall flatly admitted she wanted bigfoot to exist because she was a "romantic". She's never offered one scintilla of evidence from studying the matter because it isn't her area. But she is widely cited as some kind of authoritative backing for bigfoot's existence.

 

[Resume]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, has been reported by eyewitnesses to be a duck.......it is 99.999% of the time...a duck. Even if I don't have the duck's corpse.

But we're not talking about ducks. That you're trying to equate evidence for a duck with evidence for a heretofore undiscovered upright primate is amusing. And telling.

 

[GT/CS]

George,
Because you think you saw a bigfoot has nothing to do with whether or not bigfoot exists and the first thing you should know as an investigator is that you need to get that enounter out of your head and don't let it cloud your judgment.

If you want to argue about the existence of the creature you would do best to stay with facts and look at everything objectively.

For all you know you may have seen a poacher in a monkey suit.

 

[LTC8K6]

But we're not talking about ducks. That you're trying to equate evidence for a duck with evidence for a heretofore undiscovered upright primate is amusing. And telling.

Yep.

A duck can be positively identified from it's tracks, it's feathers, it's noises, it's blood, it's feces, etc.

A bigfoot cannot...

 

[DennyT]

This is the first time you have actually looked at any evidence with us instead of talking in vague generalities and useless analogies.

When you add up ten thousand tracks that look like wooden cut-out feet, none of them gain any more credibility simply because there are a lot of them.

Instead what you conclude is that faking tracks is common. When you look at the variety, from cripple-toe to Wallace peas-in-a-pod, and see 'footers gullibly accepting all of them as real, then you also learn something about human nature.

Even Jane Goodall flatly admitted she wanted bigfoot to exist because she was a "romantic". She's never offered one scintilla of evidence from studying the matter because it isn't her area. But she is widely cited as some kind of authoritative backing for bigfoot's existence.

I don't often cheerlead but in this case I'll make an exception: rah!