http://www.harrisonline.com/links/2007/05/color-changing-card-trick.htm

This is a short and stunning demonstration, by skeptic and psychologist Dr Richard Wiseman, that underlines the degree to which expectation can badly distort eyewitness perception — even under clear, well-lit, near-optimal viewing conditions.

It is obvious a few people had some things to say about this topic, and it wasn’t even about a “mystery fish photo”!

I especially wish to thank those who have been able to restrain their desire to make personal attacks, and keep this on a higher intellectual plane. Good for most of you.

For those that have engaged in ridicule, silly, or illogical comments, even in the midst of these postings, at least you showed yourself openly for what you tend to feel about this subject.

What I would appreciate, however, is to not be made a tool of any comment makers’ attempts to make a point about another party who may post here. Please leave me out of such comments. Take responsibility for your own thoughts, and do not use my name as some form of third-party defense or offense. Or even in your own concept of a love or hate triangle. Thank you.

I am quite able to speak for myself, and don’t take kindly to being made part of an example that comes via someone else’s point of view, which may have nothing to do with my own sense about a person, their stance, or the facts.

“Most Bigfoot reports come down to “I saw something big and hairy, and it wasn’t a bear.” Even assuming that’s true, that is a NON-description; it just says what the person thinks it wasn’t, not a positive identification of a Bigfoot.”

Did I ever tell you Ben Radford doesn’t read sighting reports? Do we now have proof?

Virtually without exception, Bigfoot sighting reports clearly describe something big, hairy, and BIPEDAL, with a hominoid’s face and numerous other extremely consistent characteristics. People from coast to coast, north to south, not having met or compared notes, are seeing the same animal.

Or they’re all lying.

Your bet, Ben.

“Loren himself admits this when he (quite correctly) states that the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications. So that’s pretty well a proven fact.”

This is one of the most exciting statements ever offered in the search for the sasquatch. We have a scoftic ADMITTING THE CREATURE EXISTS.

Here’s the syllogism.

1. Loren [Coleman], Himself, states that the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications.

2. This statement is a “proven fact” by simple dint of Loren, Himself, having said it.

3. Loren Coleman says the sasquatch exists.

4. This statement is a proven fact by simple dint of Loren, Himself, having said it.

Ben, I’m almost in tears. Finally the blind do see!

NO ONE, ANYWHERE, OF SOUND MIND AND DECENT EYES MISTAKES ANYTHING HE ENCOUNTERS IN THE WOODS FOR A SASQUATCH. Hyperanalyzing a blobsquatch is not an example of this phenomenon, as of course we all know.

Or, the critter exists as a proven fact. Choose, Ben. Either way, thanks!

Just a couple of things I wanted to get out. First of all, I guess you could say I am a scientist and I know a lot of other people here are either scientists or of a scientific mind. DWA, springheeledjack, Things-in-the Woods, and Mnynames spring to mind (sorry for anyone I left out.) Daryl Colyer certainly seems to know what he is talking about and I understand Kathy Strain is a scientist as well.

I am pleased that no one here ever tries to play some sort of expert card and dismiss what the others are saying out of hand. And Kathy, I know you meant no disrespect to DWA and SHJ with your comments and that you were not addressing me at all. The fact is, even scientists within the same field do not always agree on everything and there can be some pretty heated debates. And then to add to that, you have scientists in different fields converging here (anthropology, Things-in-the-Woods is archeology, I myself am a biology and zoology man, and so on.) My point is, no one here is necessarily wrong, we just have different ideas about how to go about the same ultimate goal, which is to find the truth. This exchange of ideas is essential to furthering that cause I feel and is important for developing scientific and useful hypothesis as well as ways to better analyse what is found concerning Bigfoot. I highly value this site because all of us, from different fields, different backgrounds, and different experiences can come together and talk like this on a subject we all obviously love in a mostly open minded way. Again, thank you all.

One more thing that I thought about concerning these reports. I feel that witness reliability is a key factor and that has been well addressed here. i don’t think anyone here disputes that. But I also think we should remember that not only honest, reliable people are going to see Bigfoot. And not all honest, reliable people are honest all of the time. Some bogus reports could be well within expected physical or behavioral parameters for this creature and sneak into the data pool. It is good that organizations such as the TBRC go through such great lengths to evaluate these reports, but unfortunately it is fallible.

So I wonder if there is a way to keep all of the reports in the database and rather than throw the suspect ones away, come up with a rating system of some kind that would reflect the assumed reliability level of the report? That way there could be the ones that are solid grouped together, the less reliable ones grouped together, and on down to purple headed aliens. That way, the expertise of the researchers compiling the reports is utilized by grouping together the most reliable reports, yet individuals can still feel free use the other reports if they wish by looking under headings for less reliable ones. I do not know how feasible this is. Just an idea.

One was 15 miles west of 395 but the other was some 50 miles east of there. Nearly the whole NE quarter of the state is somewhat arid but heavily forested, except for small areas like near Pendleton which is prairie.

All NE Oregon is great elk habitat. These are my annual hunting grounds. There are streams and other water bodies in practically every drainage. I’m not so sure its bigfoot that is so confined to a narrow corridor you reference, but 395 may simply generate more people who therefore enable more encounters. On the SE part of the state of course it becomes arid high desert.

It’s a narrow “strip” that is about 150 miles long from the Oregon-Washington border running down between Pendleton and LaGrande, stretching roughly down along and to the east of Highway 395. It’s a swath that is about 20 - 40 miles wide. The rainfall there in that strip is higher than in the immediate east or west, averaging between 20 - 40 inches of annual rainfall, and there are a number of reported encounters in that “strip.” To the east and west of that “strip,” much of the environment is very arid (like West Texas) and the annual rainfall totals drop significantly, averaging well below 20 inches in much of the area, and very few or no reported encounters. Now, back over in the western third of the state, the rainfall totals increase dramatically, as do the number of reported sasquatch encounters. It’s very much the same as in Texas (except with Texas the western portions are arid, and the eastern portions are wet and heavily forested).

I bet that it is in that eastern Oregon swath that you have had those encounters that you spoke about in your post.

I’m not looking for a case for Satan, I sure hope you aren’t.