26 Responses to “When Seeing Is Not Believing?”

1. springheeledjack responds: June 1st, 2007 at 2:04 am

   My main problem with the example is that it has really nothing to do with eyewitness expectation so much as it has to do with eyewitness focus.

   The emphasis of the video is kept on the cards, while using filming/camera focus to keep our attention on the cards while the color changes are made into the background.

   This is apples and oranges when compared to eye witness sightings in the crypto arena. Magic is all about mis-direction and getting the audience to focus on something besides the trick that is really being played (in this case, ironically, the card trick is used to mis direct while the camera and actors are performing the real trick).

   For eye witness testimony concerning Big Foot (since that seems to be our main topic for conversation these days), it is not about someone being fooled purposefully, unless we’re talking about hoaxers trying to put something over on eye witnesses (then I’d say you may have something relevant–but that is good food for catching hoaxes before they get okay-ed as real encounters).

   In the woods, there is not an active “scam” or trick being played so much as it is the witness coming across something and then trying to make sense of it. The witness may have to interpret data due to 1) distance, 2) unfamiliarity with environment or local zoology, or even 3) lighting, but as I said, unless you’re talking solely about hoaxes, the witness is focusing on something that is out of their normal experience.

   In fact, I would say this example helps to prove the power of concentration and focus by the observer. And if someone in the woods sees something moving across their field of vision, then I would be inlcined to guess the average person would probably focus in on that “something” and at least pick up some reliable details that could have weight to it: was it moving on two legs or four; was it hairy; was it man sized; was it moving like a man/woman, etc.

   In addition, in the hunt for BF, the longer the encounter, the more time one has to interpret whether indeed it is a bipedal creature, whether it is a real person or something more, etc. (whereas with the magic trick, you are given as little time as possibly to contemplate possibilities).

2. springheeledjack responds: June 1st, 2007 at 2:06 am

   oh, and I’m going to be out of town for a few days, so keep arguing this one until I get back…:)

3. Daniel Loxton responds: June 1st, 2007 at 2:22 am

   Springheeledjack writes,

   And if someone in the woods sees something moving across their field of vision, then I would be inclined to guess the average person would probably focus in on that “something” and at least pick up some reliable details that could have weight to it: was it moving on two legs or four; was it hairy; was it man sized; was it moving like a man/woman, etc.

   I agree that this isn’t a direct analogue to Bigfoot sightings, but it certainly is instructive: in this case, two primates sit in our field of vision for a good long while without our being able to accurately report the colors of their torsos or background. That seems to me to underline the problem of misidentification (particularly in areas where known species of similar dimensions and coat share habitat with reported sasquatches, as in the Pacific NorthWest).

4. Daniel Loxton responds: June 1st, 2007 at 2:32 am

   (PS: One reason this was a fun item to share here is that there’s an aspect to the film that could be interpreted as quite supportive of Bigfoot. Anyone catch it?)

5. skeptik responds: June 1st, 2007 at 5:24 am

   BF! There’s a bigfoot watching the recording!!

6. mystery_man responds: June 1st, 2007 at 11:34 am

   Well, this is an interesting little experiment, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare a card trick too much with what occurs with Bigfoot sightings. This experiment seems to show that people can focus very strongly on one thing to the exclusion of other things, but the fact remains that they are nevertheless focused on that one thing. I just don’t see how this points to people misidentifying what they see in the forest because what this trick demonstrates is that if someone saw a Bigfoot out in the woods, they would be extremely focused on it. They might be focused on it to the point of not paying attention to other details in the landscape but they are undoubtedly focused on what they are looking at. So for instance you could change the colors of the trees and rocks or whatever, but the witness is locked on that Bigfoot to an extant that they would be pretty fairly certain of what they are seeing even though the background details remain fuzzy. I agree with Springheeledjack that to me, this experiment seems to prove the power of witness concentration. I would think this experiment would be more detracting to eyewitness testimony if people noticed the other background details at the expense of what we were watching.

7. Ceroill responds: June 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am

   Interesting as a demonstration.

   At least they didn’t do like one of those “what’s the reality behind Roswell” shows. I’m not saying there is or isn’t anything to ufo’s or anything else, just commenting on the way this particular show was done. They had a big elaborate hoax constructed. They had folk invited to ‘investigate’ an alleged ‘ufo crash site’, with specific events and props and such provided to fool the suckers into feeling they were experiencing a real event/site. They gloated about how easy it is to fool people, and took the attitude that since they could so readily hoax these folks, then ergo all unexplained events are bogus. It seemed to be a hybrid of debunking show and practical joke show. I just found it to be very insulting to my intelligence. Unlike this demonstration.
   Ok, I’m done now. Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

8. DWA responds: June 1st, 2007 at 11:43 am

   There it is. I was kind of hoping for this.

   When people see a sasquatch, this tells me, they aren’t mistaking it for something else.

   They are FOCUSING on it, to the extent that they aren’t being distracted by background or by anything else but what they are, later, pretty clearly describing.

   I think that in most of the sighting reports I’ve read, mis-identification can be pretty clearly ruled out. This substantiates that.

9. mystery_man responds: June 1st, 2007 at 11:51 am

   And the reason those two “primates” sit in the background without us be able to tell torso color is because we are not watching those two people. We see people everyday all the time and are desensitized to it. How many times can you recall what the people you meet everyday are wearing? However, if someone down at the office were to wear something bizarre or out of the ordinary, you would remember it clearly. I think that seeing Bigfoot could be considered bizarre and out of the ordinary. The people in this clip are not the focus of the video, but rather the card trick they are performing, so of course no one is intently watching the two people in the background. If someone were to see Bigfoot, that would be the “card trick” for them and I would gather they would be watching it carefully enough to notice the color of its torso. If there was a Bigfoot sighting, can that really be compared to not paying attention to two nondescript humans in the background while being asked to focus on a magic trick? I think it is apples and oranges.

10. DWA responds: June 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Blast it, mystery_man, stop poaching my posts!
    What you said. But I”m gonna post anyway.
    I can remember two people of my acquaintance WITH ICE BLUE EYES. One was a high school teacher; in, I seem to remember, not one of my classes; can’t even remember his name. One was a woman I dated for a bit. I can tell you little else about the man. The woman wore shorts of some kind once or twice; less on a few other occasions. More a couple of times. Clothes of some type. Her hair was some kind of blondish, kinda short. ICE BLUE EYES. I never see those. They look, well, kinda woo-woo.

    Dated a woman for six years. I think her eyes might have been green. If they were, can’t be sure of the shade.

    We don’t focus on stuff that seems to fit. We focus on what makes us focus. That’s what this shows.

    Those sas sighters aren’t seeing bears. Their descriptions are how I know. They are FOCUSED. They get hair color and length right - as well as eyes, facial features, expression, proportions, etc. - because everything about this critter doesn’t fit.

    You focus on the cards because everything is designed to make you focus on the cards. People. Clothes don’t look odd. You might remember the faces. Focus on the cards; something there isn’t gonna fit, we’ve been warned.

    If an attractive woman walked up to me, spoke to me for ten minutes, left, and a cop came up, pretty clearly looking for her, five minutes later, I’d be able to tell him she was clothed, if she was. What was she wearing????? Um, clothes, I told you that. If she had the, er, assets, I might, that’s might, be able to tell you what was, er, surrounding those, er, assets. Eye color? Might get it, might not. Hair color? If style length framing of face etc. were attention getting, might be able to even give you the color. Maybe. Jewelry? Yeah, might have had that. Wristwatch? Er, didn’t ask her the time.

    I’m a dad. Sometimes I have to tell myself: remember, ferpetesake, what they are wearing. Um, where is her birthmark again? A cop might ask. I will then focus on this task, like a monk. I will have to, to remember a jot of it. That would be the time to send a sasquatch right past me; I might not notice. I HAVE TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE KIDS ARE WEARING. IF I LOSE THEM, SOMEONE MIGHT NEED TO KNOW.

    Point made, over and over, I think.

11. kamoeba responds: June 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    I noticed the woman’s clothing change and the background change but not the man’s clothing change or the tablecloth. I think I was tipped off right away by the atypical way this card trick was filmed. I’m not sure how this is supposed to show the unreliability of cryptid eyewitness accounts. It seems a lot closer to Moe telling Curly to watch his raised left fist, then Moe gouges his eyes with his right hand.

12. mystery_man responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am

    Another little thought here. I happen to help out with field work myself here in Japan from time to time. I have studied tanuki and Japanese giant salamanders in the wild and I can recount enough details to pick out individual specimens or recognize interesting traits. Funny, I couldn’t tell you what the other people who were in on the excursion were wearing or if they changed their socks halfway through the field study to see if I noticed or not. But I made the observations and did the studies on the animals I needed to. Here’s a scientific experiment for you, see how many field biologists follow up on their research and make good observations on the animals they are intently scrutinizing instead of showing us deceptive card tricks and trying to pass that off as some sort of proof that people cannot make accurate observations of what they are trying to observe.

13. mystery_man responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am

    As a matter of fact, I don’t even want to limit it to professionals. Find out how many people are making accurate, important visual judgement calls on a daily basis, period. Or do an experiment on people who don’t recall seeing something they actually did see for reasons such as repressing the memory or not wanting to believe what they saw. I don’t have a psych degree but I am fairly sure that people I work with can be relied upon to make good observations and that the people that make important visual judgements every day can be somewhat trusted. I see the skeptic viewpoint in many ways, but there is more to be studied on visual perception other than all of the intricate ways that people must be making mistakes with what they see.

14. mystery_man responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am

    In short, this is a magic trick, a deceptive optical illusion like any other magic trick. In my opinion, it says no more about the observational skills for Bigfoot witnesses than it says for any witness of any other known animal. If it is suppossed to be some proof of visual fallibility, then it can be applied to any other field as well, indeed any other area where visual perception is used. I don’t see how this particular experimant can be aimed solely at cryptozoology as it tells as much about eyewitnesses in mainstream fields or crime scenes as it does anyone who has ever seen crytid. Everyone can be fooled by a magic trick, not only people who are looking for Bigfoot.

15. Ceroill responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    One point I’d like to make about this demonstration is that it really isn’t even a good magic trick. It only works because our point of view is forcibly restricted several times to prevent us from seeing what else is going on. That is roughly analagous to saying “Ok, now close your eyes” then changing your shirt, and when eyes are opened again seeing if the audience noticed the difference. To my mind this makes it not a fair test of perception vs distraction/misdirection. At least, not the card trick/color changes of costume and such.

    The only real tests of perception here are later in the film when ‘all is revealed’ and you do or don’t notice the switch of card decks and the presence of the guy in the gorilla suit in the background.

    But I do agree with Mystery Man and others that showing how one’s perceptions can be concentrated/narrowed or even showing they can be distracted really doesn’t say anything about field observations. Unless they want to show that someone spotting something anomalous is so distracted by it or so concentrating their attentions on it that they are not paying attention to the rest of the scene around them. Isn’t that a desirable thing in a field observation?

    Or perhaps it’s meant to show that those who are out looking for something else (Ivory Billed Woodpecker for instance or giant salamanders) would be unlikely to notice a Bigfoot walking by, and therefore invalidate all sightings but those specifically seeking the beastie, or those where the encounter is of the intrusive variety where the BF (or whatever) WAS the distraction (”It crossed the road right in front of us!”).

    To me this point of view would seem to reinforce the importance of scientific field searches for someone’s favorite unrecognized critter.

16. kamoeba responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Yeah, this trick is incredibly lame when you take into account that the ‘color-changing card deck’ isn’t on camera the whole time. Had it been shown on camera for the duration of the clip, the color change to the deck would have been more startling. But then if they did that, they couldn’t “fool” us in the end by changing their clothing, the tablecloth and the background (and also complete the “color change” to the deck of cards). This clip does nothing to prove their point.

17. DWA responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Guys. Excellent points. Or, to borrow a word from our card-playing friends, stunning points.

    Occam says that if you describe a bipedal ape, that’s most likely what you saw.

18. DWA responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    ceroill says:

    “To me this point of view would seem to reinforce the importance of scientific field searches for someone’s favorite unrecognized critter.”

    For the reason I just stated - but yeah, that one too - couldn’t agree more.

    If this directly or indirectly leads to a successful search, those who made this film may be proud of their contribution to science.

    But not unless that happens.

19. DWA responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    You know what I’m thinking, mystery_man?

    If we follow the line of reasoning presented here, a full-scale search for the Asiatic lion - very likely still residing over its entire range - is a top-level priority. All these people who have for all these years been seeing tigers? LIONS ARE VERY BIG CATS, TOO.

    Sound silly to you?

    I’d agree.

    About as silly as someone living in bear country seeing a bear, and thinking it’s an eight-foot bipedal ape. (In most of bear country, only the biggest get anywhere near seven feet on their hind legs. And now you have those short “arms” and the fact that bears can’t even walk on their hind legs. And the witness saw a bipedal animal, doing 40.)

    These tricks are EXPENSIVE man, and they’re not even proving anything but what we’ve been saying: look for the APE.

    OK, maybe being played for rubes upsets us a bit. Sorry.

20. Ceroill responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    DWA- GASP! You mean…the simplest explanation is not always that someone is either hallucinating, scamming, or stupid? That…just maybe people really do sometimes see what they see? Gee. What a concept.

21. DWA responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    ceroill: Not like I wanted to scare you or anything.

    But here goes.

    You’re right there; I’m right here. We’re having a conversation.

    Close your eyes.

    What am I wearing….?

    HOLY COW OPEN THEM….DID YOU SEE THAT!?!?!?!?!?

    [sigh] figures…once again, I’m the only witness…

22. Ceroill responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    DWA, amazing how that happens, huh?

    Y’know…I suspect that some of the controversy has to do with human psychology. As Douglas Adams said in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: “Humans are not proud of their ancestors and rarely invite them round for dinner.” No, I’m not saying BF is an ancestor. Just using an illustrative quotation.

23. DWA responds: June 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    And here’s the clincher - Daniel was right! There IS something in here “that could be interpreted as quite supportive of Bigfoot” - and here it is:

    “…the degree to which expectation can badly distort eyewitness perception…”

    In other words, a substantial number of people who report sasquatch sightings went into the woods so sure they would see one that they were prepared to distort anything they saw to the extent that it would represent itself to them as a bipedal ape.

    This does not happen to rational people. And the encounter reports make clear that this is not happening to the people who file them.

    And here’s another one:

    “…areas where known species of similar dimensions and coat share habitat with reported sasquatches…”

    If you have read a lot of sighting reports, you will know that this is a simple misstatement. No species with anything close to similar dimensions and coat shares habitat with the sasquatch.

    I keep saying it, and it appears this must continue.

    READ SIGHTING REPORTS.

24. mystery_man responds: June 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    I would even add to that DWA and say that most people who go out into Bigfoot habitat are indeed not out looking to see one. A good number of people who see Bigfoot were out hunting or camping, or any number of activities other than Bigfoot hunting. I would even say that many of those who happen to make a sighting may not even believe in Bigfoot anyway, which makes it especially bizarre for them when they do see one. These people would be more inclined to try to write off what they saw as a bear or elk and yet you get seasoned hunters and outdoorsmen who probably know the difference and would like to take the mundane explanation claiming that a Bigfoot is indeed what they saw.

    I just think we should be careful of spending too much time trying to discredit eyewitness testimony and perceptive capability. To say that eyewitnesses are always making mistakes and cannot be trusted to accurately process what they see is to say that we cannot trust our perceptions in all sorts of other situations. I dread to think what sort of implications this would have on the value of field observations from biologists or anyone in any line of work that utilizes one’s senses.

    What about all of the witness testimony in other situations that turned out to be accurate? What about sightings of unknown animals that ended up being discovered and found to look just like eyewitnesses said? Are we to throw out these positive identifications and accurate observations in order to cherry pick the possible reasons why a witness can’t be seeing what they said they did? Of course human perception can be faulty at times, but let’s not overlook that this is not always the case and in fact human observations can be quite accurate as well.

25. springheeledjack responds: June 4th, 2007 at 12:57 am

    Look at that…I go away for a few days and you guys fill up the post.
    Good points all!!!

    The only thing I will add is that I did not catch any of the color changes in the background. However, I did early on figure out that the woman was in on whatever was going on–not sure if it was her manner or how she was saying things, but I suddenly realized she was in on the gag.

    My point? While I did not pick up on the trick of the eyes, I figured something else out that was going on in the deception.

    My real point (no it’s not my suuuupernatural powers of observation)? The point is, in the wilderness you come across a phenomenon (in this particular case BF), and you react—scared, intrigued, whatever. Now chances are you are not going to get every detail. And maybe this video does prove that you will overlook quite a few things and focus in on whatever strikes you at the moment.

    BUT, whatever the case, the fact is, you identify that you have come across some phenomenon and most likely something that is not part of your normal experience (that IS what you are going to focus on–it’s what catches your attention), and unless you have only a split second to see something, chances are, as a rational (though not completely accurate) witness, you are going to try to rationalize it as a bear or some other critter until it does not stack up.

    Now not everyone will do that, but if you think about your own observations, if you see something strange in the sky, most likely you do not go bright, flying, probably UFO. When I see something like that, even if odd, I watch it for as long as possible, trying to get a better view until I can make some rational decision. Only after I have ruled out every other possibility, do I then start to consider the weird or non-standard, and no I have never personally seen a UFO. Though my dad claims to have back in the 40’s. But that’s another web site!

    As I said, somewhere up there in the post-stratosphere. I agree that details can be skewed, overlooked or even fabricated by a desire to rationalize, but it does not discount the observers ability to make factual estimations about whether something was walking on two legs or four, whether it was hairy, and whether it appeared to be man-like, etc.

    That is what I got out of the movie up there. Thanks Daniel.

26. DWA responds: June 4th, 2007 at 9:05 am

    mystery_man and SHJ: more good points.

    Everything we know about perception can be boiled down to one thing: we depend upon rational people to perceive accurately, and to report accurately what they perceive.

    This is why, even with paranormal stuff, my tendency is to just say that science can’t (or won’t) confirm the phenomena, rather than to say those folks are Just Seeing Things. Rational people - and we should be very, very scared if everyone reporting cryptid sightings can simply be kissed off as irrational - don’t see things, as a matter of course. What the above flick shows us is that people perceive selectively. We screen, all the time. If we did not learn this skill of selective perception we’d be unable to progress past infancy. Most of the changes going on in that thing I didn’t even notice. I was focused on the cards (and not even that much on them; I’ve never been much for cybermagic).

    People seeing the sasquatch are seeing something that behaves an awful lot like the sort of things science can confirm. It’s their ability to selectively focus on the unexpected that tells us this, and it’s our ability to rely on what reliable people say about the unexpected that propels the search for new things that has always been the fuel of good science.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|