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.

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.

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.

“…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.

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.

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…

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.

“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.

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