Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[King of the Americas]

In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection.

He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment.

My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average.

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright.

That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe.

 

[Drewbot]

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair.

If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it.

 

[King of the Americas]

The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair.

If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it.

You just completely ignored the results of the experiment...

The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this.

If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them.

 

[Drewbot]

You just completely ignored the results of the experiment...

The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this.

If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them.

My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example?

Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up.

Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color?

 

[King of the Americas]

My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example?

Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up.

Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color?

My roommate explained that it would have been impossible for everyone to identify 'race', in his shooting incident, because the guy never turned toward the students, even 'gender' would have been difficult to identify positively.

The point the the experiment was, I believe, to show that details disappear or become something else. While the basic generalized story remains intact.

The woman saw a tall hairy something. She may not be able to distinguish which BF that she almost hit out of a line-up, but she DID witness a tall hairy 'something', rather than a nothing.

 

[Vortigern99]

Also, possible carnivore owing to fossil remains of another species found inside a certain specimen.

Can you point a source for the bold part?

I am aware only of jaw fragments and teeth fossil remains with diet having been inferred based on teeth wear patterns.

Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone?

 

[makaya325]

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

This statement has no basis in reality. Besides man, there exists no great ape that is predominantly carnivorous. In fact, being carnivorous would be a negative for Gigantopithecus, due to the view that it was a slow moving quadraped, incapable of catching fast prey.

Are we going to believe that Gigantopithecus was a carnivore, based on nothing but wishful thinking and for bigfoot agenda setting?

OR

Should we believe it to be a large, Bamboo consuming herbivore?

 

[JcR]

I want Bigfoot's Third permanent molar. I think we'll see an Interdimensional devise embedded there.

 

[makaya325]

Or ectoplasm

 

[JcR]

Attempting to tune in the Bigfoot.

Must try Harder... Think of nice soft Bunnies...

 

[HarryHenderson]

As a general response to KotA, the circumstances of the classroom 'incident' are not the same as the circumstances of the driving incident. While in class, one isn't in the same position of having to maintain essentially 100% of their attention to an endeavor that, done improperly, can KILL you. In class, if you fall asleep somebody might put your finger up your nose in a comedic pose - fall asleep on the road and you DIE. Totally different contexts.

The point is, maintaining 'concentration' on the road, even if it is somewhat second nature when you're an experienced driver, makes for a completely different 'state of awareness' than casually sitting in a mostly consequence-free environment. What you would be able to recall (and describe) seeing in a classroom setting would not be the same as a situation involving a vehicle driving down the road.

I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable.

 

[makaya325]

Dont forget that the Individual is in motion and cant get the best look at the subject.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone?

So, guess I'll stick with the info from Ciochon`s site... Nine years would be more than enough to prepare & publish a paper on this if it were real. A giant carnivore primate would be top-quality material.

 

[Drewbot]

I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable.

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

 

[makaya325]

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

Are you sure about that?

Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting

What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No.

Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan

 

[kitakaze]

What else could you see?

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved?

 

[makaya325]

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved?

Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities?

 

[kitakaze]

Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities?

Do you see a consistency in your argument? I don't (unless you count consistently out of it). Let's review.

Drew said...

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

That means he's talking about people struggling to stay awake at the wheel and often seeing things that were never there at all, stump or otherwise.

You replied...

Are you sure about that?

Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting

What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No.

Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan

1) You weren't really giving consideration to what Drew was saying and barely comprehending what you did. He was saying that the Bigfoot would make up a very small part of the tons of cases where somebody saw something that wasn't there when they were trying to stay awake behind the wheel.

2) You asked what else could be seen, making Bigfoot the most likely and predicating the argument on the presence of a physical catalyst for hallucination such as a tree stump.

I pointed out that there are all sorts of other humanoid analogues for a hallucination of some fantastical being...

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

The result is that you're not really paying attention or participating in a coherent way. Let me ask you, what do you think it is that you're arguing in favour of right here and now in this thread?

 

[Aepervius]

In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection.

He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment.

My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average.

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright.

That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe.

""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other.

With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...

 

[King of the Americas]

""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other.

With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...

The students correctly relayed 'what' happened. They did not or could not say 'who' did it.

The witness here said she saw a creature running upright, so 'I' hold that's what she saw.

Bears can 'stand' upright, and even take a few steps, but they don't 'run' upright.

The other difference is that the thing DID 'turn toward the witness', unlike the class room experiment.

Could the students have mistaken the shooter as a dwarf or a child? I don't recall my roommate mentioning a mistake that big. Although admittedly, I wasn't privy to any of the details beyond what my roommate said about what 'he' remembered.