I just recently watched a Bigfoot program on the Discovery Channel that had a panel of scientists and experts to objectively weigh various pieces of evidence to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of BF. I think it was titled "Sasquatch". Anyway, I was listening to some of the witnesses claims. Bear in mind that these are ordinary people who just by chance had the rare opportunity of encountering a BF. What really annoyed me was that many of these witnesses all of the sudden became experts in physics and primate anatomy. There was one segment where witnesses filmed a BF running across a clearing in a mountainous region. Personally, I thought it looked like some stubby guy hauling a-s-s across the field in a fur suit but I'm not an expert! During the interviews, the witnesses and BF investigators make these outrageous claims like "no human could run that fast" or "the mechanics of the BF's motion is impossible to duplicate by a human". Well after the video was examined in a high tech lab they returned to the very same clearing and hired a sprinter to imitate the footage. After the experiment, it turns out that the BF was under 6 ft tall and the sprinter was able to run several times faster than what ever was in the video. In another segment, investigators who have recorded BF vocalizations claim that human vocal cords were incapable of producing such sounds. Of course, after the tapes were analysed by primate experts, they could not rule out that the sound were made by a human. Based on this program, I question how credible witnesses and investigators can be with their claims particularly when they make these outrageous statements with no merit whatsoever.

Fence sitter,

You make a good point. In many reports the credibility or capability of the witness(es) as an observer remains a question mark. Even when video footage or experienced investigators are involved. In Bigfoot: Legend Meets Science (?) the reports are very objective, without slant for or against the featured claims.

I would suggest some alternative testing regarding the running bigfoot. More along the lines of contrasting body motion and limb movement of real people running the same speed as compared to the supposed bigfoot in the video.

I don't know what could be done to further test the sounds, if anything.

The other material on the program is excellent. Jimmy C's presentation of dermal ridges is scientifically solid and offers "real" evidence of actual hominid footprints.

Additional support for footprint claims is solidified by the bell curve study where footprint dimensions are shown to be consistent across a broad range of casts. Given the number of variables applied from each cast this is highly conclusive in ruling out hoaxes.

The skookum cast is so unique that a panel of scientists are unable to identify any known creature that could create such an impression.

And finally, the DNA testing was inconclusive. This is not a "negative", it's simply not a "positive".

I realize that your topic is related to witness credibility, but in reference to the show as a whole the evidence in some cases is irrefutable; in others it's at the very least highly compelling.

My feeling is that people will often exaggerate a claim when they are excited about something. Often only because their senses were on overload and the memory is so strong that the experience is heightened in their mind. I try to keep that in the back of my mind when hearing sas stories. With regards to the Discovery channel show, I see those deficiencies, but the solid evidence leaves me even more convinced.

I deal with this kinda stuff all the time involving wildlife.People saying they saw something and didnt.People making stuff up from their own sick mind.Stories change but liars stay the same.I have heard it so much I can tell in about 10mins if their telling the truth or not.I always ask,where,what time,how many,the size,the seemed intentions and if approaching or leaving,ask these three time and the story starts to change with each question.But I have no ideal why people exaggerate,unless their story has to be bigger than the last persons..

I find; being an honest person that it's easier to remember the truth than to remember an embellished story or things that never happened.

I also find that certain things I have encounted or seen, if you tell the truth it is always the same truth no matter how many years after the FACT>

Sometimes im asked do I memorise some things as its almost exact each time I tell it.

Well put.And I see you know what I mean...

The problems mentioned and countered are real, the names have been changed or not included to protect the innocent Embellishment is a major problem with some folks. They don't mean to go that route and in their minds they probably haven't at all. Perhaps 3 observers in some cases would have 3 different stories or takes. It can be difficult to determine possible accuracy in some claims and so some reports simply are on the fence. In the case of the 50 50 ones I would hope that they dont make public view regarding publishing. TH had significant comments imho.

BF_Fence_Sitter: I think your general comment has some merit. When I was reorganizing my BF files recently I read a statement in Track Record (I think) about how some witnesses think they are now "instant experts" on everything related to BF. (A search on that phrase at the IBS site might locate the quote I'm thinking of.) But relatively few witnesses are like that--it's just that we hear about the ones who are.

Regarding the "Memorial Day footage" (of the running BF), I think it's fishy mainly because someone here pointed out that it looked a bit pooped at the end of its run. But I don't think it was debunked as thoroughly by the TV show as you seem to think. Here's a link to a post by Peregrine on another thread critiquing the show's assumptions, followed by a post in the same vein by Steamrunner.

Concerning witnesses, an investigator has to question and ponder. I ask for a written statement before the interview, if possible. Then I slowly go over the statement during the interview to clarify every claim.

For instance, while interviewing two brothers, I asked the writer (the youngest) about a dead goat that he had mentioned extensively. When I did, the older brother gave him a dirty look. BTW, I usually video-tape my interviews if the participants will allow me. I asked the older brother what was wrong? He kind of ignored me and while looking at his brother, asked him why he included that in his report. The younger brother looked kind of sheepish and said he didn't know. The older brother looked at me and said to disregard the dead goat. The neighbor was a lousy farmer and there had been a dead goat laying in the field for a few months.

If I hadn't done this in-depth questioning, I would be trying to fit the dead goat into the incident. Was this part of the BF's predatory ways?, for instance.

Finally, I use the interviews to determine if the area with the sighting is worthy of more research. I don't need the witnesses story to convince me that BF exists. That I know for sure, but I try to determine if an incident did actually occur and if it was possibly a BF. This helps me map my future research areas.

Generally, I have found witnesses statements to be accurate in the fact they saw/heard something, but inaccurate in details. Yes, they do embellish, but on the other hand, they do have information that could be invaluable to my research.

A month or so ago I watched a program on one of the science channels (Discovery, TLC, The Science Channel- sorry I can't recall) which was about psychology and the human mind (again don’t recall the shows title). In one segment they did an interesting experiment regarding the recollection of witnesses to a "strange" event.

The experiment involved a group of ten or so people who believed they were partaking in a nature hike through an area of desert. What they didn't know, was that along their hiking route, a staged scene was set up depicting what appeared to be some type of "crash" site. Odd metallic debris had been strewn around, men in military type uniforms and haz-mat type suites were there and the area had been cordoned off with the typical yellow tape. The group "inadvertently" came upon this scene during their hike and was offered quick glimpses of the scene before they were ushered away by the men in uniform.

A week or so later, the group members were interviewed about the hike and the crash scene obviously came up. When the witnesses started to recollect what they had seen, it was amazing how their recollection (some more than others) included details which were not present at the site.

Traumatic experiences are rarely recorded in a witness's mind in an objective, rational manner and I think that most alleged BF incident could be classified as traumatic to some degree. No one can be faulted for that, as it is a human fallibility. Investigators obviously need to consider a certain "exaggerative factor" when interviewing witnesses.

I like your approach with the written statement misfitguy.

A couple of thoughts.
The human brain is very complex and will "fill in" details based on the observer's past experiences. This is normal. Where there is a series of interviews or a prolonged interview the witness will remember and add details...all of which should be suspect.
The witnesses are often asked to provide estimates of distance, weight, height, color, speed etc. Most people will try to accomodate this request - a desire to please the interviewer - but very few, I think, can be accurate. I suspect that it would behoove the interviewer to do a few simple tests on a potential witness by asking them to estimate distance and weight, etc. of some objects in the current environment and take note of the responses.
This has nothing to do with a witness who engages in deliberate falsehood or exaggeration. It has everything to do with the way we think and human nature.

It seems that you were talking about the segment called,"Bigfoot meets Science." The supposed Bigfoot running across the field was the memorial day footage? I personally was glad to see a scientific based show concerning Bigfoot. The footage seemed like nothing special, the sound was not explained by another animal sound which seems to be the EXCUSE for many Bigfoot recordings. I will be talking personally to the professor very soon about this show and sounds.

The show was goodBill's Hominid Artworkwasmussen@stx.rr.com[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7]

Most eye witnesses will very there story depending on back goround and training. Add a dramatic event such as a BF and this can greatly changed and magnify. I have a freind who drives a water truck for a logging company out of Sonora CA. the water truck drivers are the first in every moning to insure the roads are not dusty. 3 years ago he and a friend were above Strawberry going in on a Monday to get the roads wet. They encountered what they described as a Circus bear, because of it`s ability to walk over 500 ft across a clearing on just two feet. They both witnessed it and both to this day have a differn`t account of what they saw one is certain it was a bear trained to walk of it`s feet because there is no `such thing as a BF` and in no way could have been an ape like creatue, my other freind is sure he say what he believes to be a BF creature. My piont being witness discriptions very with people acording to their passed. All eye witness accounts should keep this in perspective. any attorny will tell you that an eye witness account is the weakest evidence in any case. it is the same with BF encounters

See, now I recall that the Esteban fellow thought that *behavior* to be what he called *reacting to its environment*, in that he thought the *animal* may have slowed down, as it knew the safetly of cover was close.

Either that, or the guy in the suit was, as you said, *pooped*..

Just to add a bit in the "Truth v. Lie" area gleened from recent training... When interviewing / interrogating, the truthful subject, when recalling the matter at hand, will not give the events in exact chronological order. Their "story" will jump around as items come to mind and the recollection steers them through their mind. The untruthful subject will give their account in complete chronological order from start to finish. Simply because they have had to fabricate the events and place them in order to tell the story. Asking for specific events with fairly specific times will unnerve an untruthful subject because they are now having to actively search their memory for what they "think" they said previously... Just a snippit for thought.

I also am a witness to that show, if it's the same, thinks called "Americas Apes" or something. You are right in your details ect. you forgot to mention the baby looking growth in height of Sas as it entered the woods after the run across the field. I taped it and watched a couple times. Also they talked about the muscle popping out of the Pat Sas which they said a suit like that wasn't possible back then. Would any of you dress up in a suit to scare strangers? I asked this recently on another board, who would go through the trouble; one person brought to light the fact that a BF prank is a good way to get shot!



full size pic