I'm new to this board, so if this has been brought up before, I apologize.
The thing that always bothers me about reports is how accurate the description of the bigfoot is. There are some reports, where the person has a face to face encounter and the description is probably very accurate. However, most sightings are from a distance and it always seems the person reporting can spot very minute details about the creature. I don't know if I could be that accurate if I had to describe something I seen at 100 yards away (and probably scared half to death at the time too). If I see something at 100 yards, I can tell you if it's brown, grey or black...but, I don't know if I'd be able to tell you if it's fur, hair or some other material. And weight, no way I'd be able to accurately guess at the weight of something from 100 yards away. For height, if I had something to judge against, like a tree..I might be able to give a good guess..but, if it's an open field, no way.
There's an exercise I've seen in college as well as law enforcement, where a room full of people are sitting in class, just listening to the lecture at hand. Suddenly, the door bursts open and someone comes in and makes a scene. After the disruptive person leaves the classroom, the teacher has everyone write down a description of what that person looked like. The descriptions vary A LOT, and that's with someone you saw up close. So, I always wonder just how accurate the descriptions of Bigfoot are. If you expect Bigfoot to be 8 ft tall and weigh 350 lbs..more than likely, those will be the figures you turn in if you ever see one. I'm sure there are exceptions, and some people are really good at this type of stuff and could really pick out features and remember them. But, I think for the most part, the average eyewitness citizen won't be that accurate with key details.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Jerry
Full Version: Accurate descriptions
It is true that the average Joe Blow is not the most credible witness! Part of the training for say...R.C.M.P officers is to watch a 1 minute video of them having to answer a nighttime call. I saw this on one of those cop programs.
On the screen two shadowey characters bolt out of an open doorway and race down the nighttime back alley. [ The officers interact with the video and with their guns drawn call out the the two felling men to stop.]
One of the men turn around and point something at the police officers.. the officers go "Bang! Bang!
After the lights come up they are asked to describe the two men, and was any of them carrying a gun, to justify gunplay.
The two men were seen only for about ten seconds..most of that time was spent running away with their backs to the camera.
Both officers had a somewhat different discription of the two...but the man who turned towards the camera did have a waepon when the tape was played back!
[ Civilians who witnessed the same tape were not sure how many men were running down the alley, could really describe neither of the parties and did not remember seeing any weapon! ]
On the screen two shadowey characters bolt out of an open doorway and race down the nighttime back alley. [ The officers interact with the video and with their guns drawn call out the the two felling men to stop.]
One of the men turn around and point something at the police officers.. the officers go "Bang! Bang!
After the lights come up they are asked to describe the two men, and was any of them carrying a gun, to justify gunplay.
The two men were seen only for about ten seconds..most of that time was spent running away with their backs to the camera.
Both officers had a somewhat different discription of the two...but the man who turned towards the camera did have a waepon when the tape was played back!
[ Civilians who witnessed the same tape were not sure how many men were running down the alley, could really describe neither of the parties and did not remember seeing any weapon! ]
Note: In MY opinion, this 'topic' isn't getting the attention it probably deserves. 
Anyway, I 'basically' agree. I wonder how many times a 3 second glimpse/encounter has been 'embellished' so as to offer a 'far more accurate description' of what was 'seen' than what was ACTUALLY seen?!? How many times have we passed, say, a pedestrian that popped out of nowhere on the street and had a 3 second 'encounter' and then 30 seconds later couldn't even tell you what color pants he/she had on. Many times I bet. And during said 3 second pedestrian 'encounter', we're not even needing to decipher what it is we're seeing, it's usually apprent it's a person so our minds are not ALSO needing to compute WHAT it is we were seeing, only what said 'person' looked like. Unlike a Bigfoot where we'd not be sure WHAT it is first. To have a 3 second glimpse of something mostly 'unknown' to our minds, i.e. Bigfoot, it seems pretty difficult that we'd be able to expound on it much more than "it was big and hairy".
Now, I think with the group here especially, there's not near as much 'credence' put in reports that are of an encounter that lasts mere seconds compared to ones of say 30 seconds or 2 minutes etc., BUT they're not totally discountable either as any 'normal' person seeing a Bigfoot can pretty easily discern a 'large hairy biped' from say, a mountain lion. Bears, probably not as easy BUT not all '3 second sightings' happen in areas where bears are known to exist. In my opinion, the question is not so much what were the exact physiological details of the 'entity' as much as WHAT it was - a bear, a hippie or a Bigfoot. Exact eye color is almost moot.
The one thing that often strikes me as giving a story more credibility than say, exact details of it's 'brow ridge', is when there's a description of its 'demeanor'. When encountering most 'wild animals', you can often and somewhat easily uncover it's 'fight or flight' decision within milliseconds of seeing it (or is that, its seeing you?). It seems that's not always the case (in proportion to the number of sightings) with Bigfoot. There's often reported an almost 'awkward moment' in there where neither one of the 'participants' (man & Bigfoot) knows exactly 'what they're going to do' about what's just occured (man sees Bigfoot). Also, many times there's a description of some noticeable expression/action by Bigfoot that is definitively above and beyond the norm associated with most known wild animals. "...unconcerned but purposeful retreat", "...knowing look", "...intelligent expression on its face", "...curious but cautious stare" etc. etc. Those are not the kinds of 'things' you'd think one would want to, think to or feel the need to make up and surely not as easy to notice/decipher on regular animals.
"Harry"
Anyway, I 'basically' agree. I wonder how many times a 3 second glimpse/encounter has been 'embellished' so as to offer a 'far more accurate description' of what was 'seen' than what was ACTUALLY seen?!? How many times have we passed, say, a pedestrian that popped out of nowhere on the street and had a 3 second 'encounter' and then 30 seconds later couldn't even tell you what color pants he/she had on. Many times I bet. And during said 3 second pedestrian 'encounter', we're not even needing to decipher what it is we're seeing, it's usually apprent it's a person so our minds are not ALSO needing to compute WHAT it is we were seeing, only what said 'person' looked like. Unlike a Bigfoot where we'd not be sure WHAT it is first. To have a 3 second glimpse of something mostly 'unknown' to our minds, i.e. Bigfoot, it seems pretty difficult that we'd be able to expound on it much more than "it was big and hairy".
Now, I think with the group here especially, there's not near as much 'credence' put in reports that are of an encounter that lasts mere seconds compared to ones of say 30 seconds or 2 minutes etc., BUT they're not totally discountable either as any 'normal' person seeing a Bigfoot can pretty easily discern a 'large hairy biped' from say, a mountain lion. Bears, probably not as easy BUT not all '3 second sightings' happen in areas where bears are known to exist. In my opinion, the question is not so much what were the exact physiological details of the 'entity' as much as WHAT it was - a bear, a hippie or a Bigfoot. Exact eye color is almost moot.
The one thing that often strikes me as giving a story more credibility than say, exact details of it's 'brow ridge', is when there's a description of its 'demeanor'. When encountering most 'wild animals', you can often and somewhat easily uncover it's 'fight or flight' decision within milliseconds of seeing it (or is that, its seeing you?). It seems that's not always the case (in proportion to the number of sightings) with Bigfoot. There's often reported an almost 'awkward moment' in there where neither one of the 'participants' (man & Bigfoot) knows exactly 'what they're going to do' about what's just occured (man sees Bigfoot). Also, many times there's a description of some noticeable expression/action by Bigfoot that is definitively above and beyond the norm associated with most known wild animals. "...unconcerned but purposeful retreat", "...knowing look", "...intelligent expression on its face", "...curious but cautious stare" etc. etc. Those are not the kinds of 'things' you'd think one would want to, think to or feel the need to make up and surely not as easy to notice/decipher on regular animals.
"Harry"
I think a lot of it has to do with confirmation bias and retrospective falsification.
I think most of the intricate details are added later when the storyteller tried to recreate the scenario in their mind. Usually adding things they think they should have seen or wanted to see. It is very common with most people and applies to about every subject imaginable.
They may have read some Bf related subjects since their encounter and have the influence of other peoples descriptions invading their memories. Kind of like "alien abductions" and the general descriptions. (I think some type of birth trauma flashback or something applies though in that case, different topic though) What they heard will become a percieved reality in their minds.
I think most of the intricate details are added later when the storyteller tried to recreate the scenario in their mind. Usually adding things they think they should have seen or wanted to see. It is very common with most people and applies to about every subject imaginable.
They may have read some Bf related subjects since their encounter and have the influence of other peoples descriptions invading their memories. Kind of like "alien abductions" and the general descriptions. (I think some type of birth trauma flashback or something applies though in that case, different topic though) What they heard will become a percieved reality in their minds.
QUOTE(SkunkHunter @ Apr 4 2004, 11:22 PM)
I think a lot of it has to do with confirmation bias and retrospective falsification.
I think most of the intricate details are added later when the storyteller tried to recreate the scenario in their mind. Usually adding things they think they should have seen or wanted to see. It is very common with most people and applies to about every subject imaginable.
They may have read some Bf related subjects since their encounter and have the influence of other peoples descriptions invading their memories. Kind of like "alien abductions" and the general descriptions. (I think some type of birth trauma flashback or something applies though in that case, different topic though) What they heard will become a percieved reality in their minds.
I think most of the intricate details are added later when the storyteller tried to recreate the scenario in their mind. Usually adding things they think they should have seen or wanted to see. It is very common with most people and applies to about every subject imaginable.
They may have read some Bf related subjects since their encounter and have the influence of other peoples descriptions invading their memories. Kind of like "alien abductions" and the general descriptions. (I think some type of birth trauma flashback or something applies though in that case, different topic though) What they heard will become a percieved reality in their minds.
Very true Skunk!
There is a very famous profiler who works out of Seattle (I think). She works with people who have suffered severe trauma..rape victims..murder witneses..etc!
She practices under the belief (Which she proves on a consistant basis) that the whole story is in there. Just like a 30 second movie..in color. with all of the details. If retrieved properly the sub conscious mind can replay the scene back to you, ahead, reverse, stop motion..anyway you want it.
But it take a certian technique and time to draw it out.! Her most difficult cases are when the police, or others ,try to lead the witness into remembering something, hoping to jog their memories. At this point the subconscious is very open to suggestion and will incorporate other things into the actual memory. But with time...these can be seperated, to give an accurate account of what happened.
But if someone in the early stages of the investigation were to ask the victim.."Was the car red or blue?"....a part of the subconscious would amend the memory, to add a car, even though it was not a car, but a van! This is an oversimplification of the process. But I am just putting it out there as part of the whole witness accuracy thing!
GC,
I believe this is the person you are referring to:
For the complete article, go to: http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/bl-boylanbio.htm
Maybe she could give a class to us someday? hmmmm
Just a thought...
Uffda
I believe this is the person you are referring to:
QUOTE
Jeanne M. Boylan has been a full-time practicing facial identification specialist for over 23 years and on thousands of cases for agencies from local and state police to all facets of federal investigative agencies. (Secret Service, FBI, US Postal, US Customs, etc.)
She is the first to employ "academics” to the to the process of preparing suspect renderings on criminal cases and has taken the field from its age old simplistic and highly contaminating process of a sketch artist showing catalogs of facial features to eyewitnesses to compile a sketch, and has instead and at last elevated it into a new academically based and professional discipline that takes into account the intricacies of how memory obtained under traumatic conditions actually stores detail as well as how to retrieve recall without distortion.
Accuracy is paramount as with mass media capabilities today, a graphic suspect image can lead (as well as mislead) an entire investigation. Crucial early hours in a case are often at stake; agency man-hours and departmental dollars are spent pursuing leads which stem solely from a suspect image and agency credibility is put on public display.
The key to accurate suspect images is in the understanding of the complexity of memory, perception and the powerful psychology of trauma.
Top memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington, author of “Eyewitness Memory” and “Witness for the Defense” lauds Boylan’s techniques as "ground breaking” saying to the Los Angeles Times, “That she was able to pierce the eyewitness contamination on the Klaas case is remarkable. You ought to either bottle her and sell her [talent] or analyze her to death in hopes that her skills can be taught to others.”
Dr. Jonathan Schooler, a world-renowned expert and researcher in eyewitness recall calls Boylan, "substantially ahead of her time.” He adds, “She’s corrected the mistake investigators have historically made by underestimating this highly complex task. Remarkably, she’s managed to find the crack in the wall between visual and verbal/mental processing while circumventing the pitfalls of both.”
She is the first to employ "academics” to the to the process of preparing suspect renderings on criminal cases and has taken the field from its age old simplistic and highly contaminating process of a sketch artist showing catalogs of facial features to eyewitnesses to compile a sketch, and has instead and at last elevated it into a new academically based and professional discipline that takes into account the intricacies of how memory obtained under traumatic conditions actually stores detail as well as how to retrieve recall without distortion.
Accuracy is paramount as with mass media capabilities today, a graphic suspect image can lead (as well as mislead) an entire investigation. Crucial early hours in a case are often at stake; agency man-hours and departmental dollars are spent pursuing leads which stem solely from a suspect image and agency credibility is put on public display.
The key to accurate suspect images is in the understanding of the complexity of memory, perception and the powerful psychology of trauma.
Top memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington, author of “Eyewitness Memory” and “Witness for the Defense” lauds Boylan’s techniques as "ground breaking” saying to the Los Angeles Times, “That she was able to pierce the eyewitness contamination on the Klaas case is remarkable. You ought to either bottle her and sell her [talent] or analyze her to death in hopes that her skills can be taught to others.”
Dr. Jonathan Schooler, a world-renowned expert and researcher in eyewitness recall calls Boylan, "substantially ahead of her time.” He adds, “She’s corrected the mistake investigators have historically made by underestimating this highly complex task. Remarkably, she’s managed to find the crack in the wall between visual and verbal/mental processing while circumventing the pitfalls of both.”
For the complete article, go to: http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/bl-boylanbio.htm
Maybe she could give a class to us someday? hmmmm
Just a thought...
Uffda
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.