Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tricky said:
A few bickery off-topicky posts sent to AAH. Please don't be bickery and off-topicky.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
Click to expand...

Needed more cat.

(that thing that went to that place, I mean)

So, John, how long after you had the original experience did you start having the nightmares?

When would you say it was the worst?
 
RayG said:
WGBH, I just wanted to illustrate another example of eyewitness accounts that were incorrect.

Remember the London subway rider that was killed by London police a few years ago because they were convinced he was a terrorist? Eyewitness accounts of the incident were quite unreliable:

Some said he was Asian - he was Brazilian
Some said he jumped over the subway turnstile - he went through the gate in a normal fashion
Some said he was wearing a winter coat - it was a denim jacket
Some said he was wearing a bomb with wire hanging down from it - he was not
Some said he tripped and fell getting on the train - the police caused him to fall
Some said the police challenged/warned him prior to shots being fired - they did not
Some said passengers were told to get off the train prior to the shooting - they were not
Some said he was shot 4, 5, 6, 8 or 11 times (actually 11 in total)

How could both police and eyewitnesses be so mistaken? Surely the police are cool-headed, better trained, and have greater observational skills than regular civilians? Surely the witnesses were credible people, well-educated, not on drugs, not blind, not lying, and not mentally challenged? Why were these mistakes made?

Because our memories and perceptions are not perfect.

RayG
Click to expand...


Ray, for every Suspect being mistaken, how many are correctly identified? Police and eyewitnesses are correct many times on the news. Homo sapiens are not that dumb. It seems like you are trying to use ONE SPECIFIC case to point out unreliability concerning testimony. Yes, no one is perfect, but we are not to be underestimated concerning what we see. during Some of the times we report something, we are dead on.
 
makaya325 said:
Ray, for every Suspect being mistaken, how many are correctly identified? Police and eyewitnesses are correct many times on the news. Homo sapiens are not that dumb.
Click to expand...

There you go again, offering assumption as fact. Any cop can tell you, and I know Longtabber will agree, that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Even immediately following a crime, when the memory should be freshest, eyewitnesses can be mistaken about weight, height, hair color, eye color, build, clothing, shoes, actions, statements, lighting, weather, etc. There are a multitude of factors that affect observation and memory. Do a little research, and see how many people have been mistakenly identified in a lineup, or wrongfully accused based on eyewitness accounts. For that matter, look and see how many times 20 different witnesses will offer 20 completely different accounts of the same event. It's not a matter of being dumb. Human memory is supremely fallible, and humans can be decidedly inaccurate in their observations-especially under stress.

Police are "more accurate on the news" in what way? In relating details of a crime? Of course they are. They don't rely solely on eyewitness accounts. It's called "evidence" and it helps them piece the details of the crime together.

"Some of the time" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
 
Last edited:
desertgal said:
There you go again, offering assumption as fact. Any cop can tell you, and I know Longtabber will agree, that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Even immediately following a crime, when the memory should be freshest, eyewitnesses can be mistaken about weight, height, hair color, eye color, build, clothing, shoes, actions, statements, lighting, weather, etc. There are a multitude of factors that affect observation and memory. Do a little research, and see how many people have been mistakenly identified in a lineup, or wrongfully accused based on eyewitness accounts. For that matter, look and see how many times 20 different witnesses will offer 20 completely different accounts of the same event. It's not a matter of being dumb. Human memory is supremely fallible, and humans can be decidedly inaccurate in their observations-especially under stress.

Police are "more accurate on the news" in what way? In relating details of a crime? Of course they are. They don't rely solely on eyewitness accounts. It's called "evidence" and it helps them piece the details of the crime together.

"Some of the time" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Click to expand...

You are trying to point out few cases to make people look unreliable, when in fact there are times where eyewitnesses alone have been accurate.
 
makaya325 said:
You are trying to point out few cases to make people look unreliable, when in fact there are times where eyewitnesses alone have been accurate.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there weren't.

You said one case does not prove that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. You said human beings are not to be underestimated about what they see. You are wrong.

I said that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I didn't cite any cases.

Try reading. Try learning. The Internet is for more than trolling message boards.

The Unreliability of Eyewitness Identifications

Eyewitness Identification: Cognitive Aspects

That is just a small dosage of 45,500 results which indicate that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable:

Google Search: reliability of eyewitness accounts.

Show some information that backs up your assertions that human beings "are not to be underestimated about what they see", and that the unreliability of eyewitness accounts is limited to a few cases. Folks here are interested in critical thinking, not baseless assumptions and anecdotes you make up as you go along.
 
Last edited:
desertgal said:
I didn't say there weren't.

You said one case does not prove that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. You said human beings are not to be underestimated about what they see. You are wrong.

I said that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I didn't cite any cases.

Try reading. Try learning. The Internet is for more than trolling message boards.

The Unreliability of Eyewitness Identifications

Eyewitness Identification: Cognitive Aspects

That is just a small dosage of 45,500 results which indicate that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable:

Google Search: reliability of eyewitness accounts.

Show some information that backs up your assertions that human beings "are not to be underestimated about what they see", and that the unreliability of eyewitness accounts is limited to a few cases. Folks here are interested in critical thinking, not baseless assumptions and anecdotes you make up as you go along.
Click to expand...

I was assuming that it is viewed that, since eyewitnesses are not always perfect, that they must be wrong about things that lack evidence. Instead of dismissing them, you should be looking to see if their is any consistency in sightings in specific geographical regions, in certain parts of the year, and how frequent they occur. That, my friend, is not due to eyewitness unreliability, but that of an animals ecological niche, even thought bigfoot reports dont share this.
 
Last edited:
Rayg's terrorist analogy is useless. One thing all of the witnesses had in common is that they ALL identified him as a HUMAN, not a bear, wolf, or otter, so that shows people are good at identifying what species is what. People know the difference between a ghillie suit and a 9ft tall behemoth.
 
WGBH,

I have some honest questions for you.

You expressed much confidence that the creature you saw was nine feet tall by six feet wide (at the shoulders).

Do you stand firmly behind this, or are you (even somewhat) doubting the estimated measurement's accuracy based upon what a recreation of this creature might look like?

Furthermore, and forgive me if this has been answered, but where did the six foot shoulder estimate originate from and how did you come to this?

Do you stick by the estimated height of nine feet and the estimated shoulder width at six feet?
 
makaya325 said:
I was assuming that it is viewed that, since eyewitnesses are not always perfect, that they must be wrong about things that lack evidence.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning has now descended into the inane.

If there is no evidence to support eyewitness testimony, it cannot be proven to be either right or wrong. It is merely an anecdote, and has no value without evidence to support it.

Instead of dismissing them
Click to expand...

I haven't. Without evidence to support them, they remain anecdotes. Neither dismissed nor valuable.

You should be looking to see if their is any consistency in sightings in specific geographical regions, in certain parts of the year, and how frequent they occur. That, my friend, is not due to eyewitness unreliability, but that of an animals ecological niche, even thought bigfoot reports dont share this.
Click to expand...

I'm not your friend. And you are simply babbling now.

I presented evidence to back up my statement that eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. I have met my burden of proof. You have not. Your claim is that eyewitness testimony is more often reliable than not. Prove your claim. Or, at least, back up your claim. Or back up a claim.
 
makaya325 said:
Rayg's terrorist analogy is useless. One thing all of the witnesses had in common is that they ALL identified him as a HUMAN, not a bear, wolf, or otter, so that shows people are good at identifying what species is what. People know the difference between a ghillie suit and a 9ft tall behemoth.
Click to expand...

Longtabber, if you see this, would you explain to genius here what is wrong with his statement? I realize he's forgotten more about investigating than you will ever know, but it might be worth a try. ;)
 
makaya325 said:
Rayg's terrorist analogy is useless. One thing all of the witnesses had in common is that they ALL identified him as a HUMAN, not a bear, wolf, or otter, so that shows people are good at identifying what species is what. People know the difference between a ghillie suit and a 9ft tall behemoth.
Click to expand...

I see. So, by that reasoning, at least some of the eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot must be true. So, you do believe in Bigfoot.
 
ColMD said:
WGBH,

I have some honest questions for you.

You expressed much confidence that the creature you saw was nine feet tall by six feet wide (at the shoulders).

Do you stand firmly behind this, or are you (even somewhat) doubting the estimated measurement's accuracy based upon what a recreation of this creature might look like?

Furthermore, and forgive me if this has been answered, but where did the six foot shoulder estimate originate from and how did you come to this?

Do you stick by the estimated height of nine feet and the estimated shoulder width at six feet?
Click to expand...


Again, if you are asking if I made the animal stand still while I measured it, NO. It was well over the 8 ft mark , therefore around nine. The shoulders were between 5 and 6 ft wide.
 
desertgal said:
I see. So, by that reasoning, at least some of the eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot must be true. So, you do believe in Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

I did not say that. I said that people CAN Potentially be good eyewitnesses, maybe not all of the time, but perhaps rarely.
 
WGBH said:
Again, if you are asking if I made the animal stand still while I measured it, NO. It was well over the 8 ft mark , therefore around nine. The shoulders were between 5 and 6 ft wide.
Click to expand...

John, why would you say that? That wasn't what ColMD was asking at all. I don't think he was asking for you to simply repeat yourself but rather how you determined the size. The height you said you knew because you played soccer and the net is 8ft but where did you mention establishing the shoulders of the thing you saw from the waist up?
 
makaya325 said:
I did not say that. I said that people CAN Potentially be good eyewitnesses, maybe not all of the time, but perhaps rarely.
Click to expand...

Which has exactly been my point. That eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable does not mean that it is 100% unreliable. There are, and have always been, fairly accurate eyewitness accounts, but none of them should be used as the sole evidence to support a case.

Why didn't you just say you agreed nine posts ago, and saved us both the trouble of arguing it out? Dang.
 
desertgal said:
Which has exactly been my point. That eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable does not mean that it is 100% unreliable. There are, and have always been, fairly accurate eyewitness accounts, but none of them should be used as the sole evidence to support a case.

Why didn't you just say you agreed nine posts ago, and saved us both the trouble of arguing it out? Dang.
Click to expand...

Darn it, error on me. I agree with your points Desert. Even though eyewitnesses cant be used to support a specific incident, cant we use them to lead us in the right direction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom