Bigfoot and Multiples.....

Posted June 6, 2000

 I've been considering a situation which exists, and presents itself often,  in relation to reports of Bigfoot phenomena and the methods of evaluation  used by Bigfoot researchers. I believe this to be a situation which
 presently evades a reasonable explanation. Perhaps some of you have  thoughts or information which would lead to a better understanding...........

 Basically, I am referring to a prevalent practice among many Bigfoot  researchers...... The acceptance or non acceptance of a sighting or report  based almost entirely on the presence or absence of various significant factors, some of which I will call "multiples".

 As elements of a report are taken into consideration conclusions are formed. A reflection of researcher's views, opinions and understanding, is  combined with the evidence presented. 

If "multiples" can be determined this
 will have great influence in the final conclusion by the researcher, as to  the validity of the report.

 Much time and effort is required when evaluating Bigfoot sighting reports.  The researcher will have developed a method of 'filtering' (sometimes  unconsciously) which is necessary. Researcher is generally influenced by  the presence of "multiples" (I will give examples below) which can, if  misunderstood, lead to incorrect conclusions and unsubstantiated  evaluations of evidence.

 Reports that do not fit criteria, although they may be entirely factual and  accurate, may be systematically rejected, while other reports which tend to meet criteria, but may in fact be fabrication or misinformation are more readily accepted.  Subsequently, conclusions attained by researchers utilizing this  "multiples" method of evaluating reports, cannot always be considered  totally reliable. There is the possibility of misrepresentation of true  statistics.

 Another unfortunate result of the use of "multiples" when evaluating Bigfoot  sighting reports, is the tremendous amount of valuable statistical  information which is lost as a result of underestimating or misjudging the  value and perhaps relevant diversity of evidence.

 I understand the need to CAREFULLY evaluate individual reports. It is a  huge responsibility, it seems therefore, one must be careful not to base  opinions on general conjecture or guesswork when presenting what will be  viewed as factual information. Research must provide evidence that reflects  the true nature, (including the more unfamiliar types) of evidence, even  though it may not support popular opinion.

 Examples of Multiples:

 1. Multiple sightings by one individual
 There have been and continue to be many instances where a researcher will dismiss a Bigfoot report(s) based on the fact that the witness claims to  have had multiple sightings or encounters. ( Datus Perry among the most  notable for claiming to have had multiple sightings). 

Witnesses who encounter this often stop reporting sightings, or may become determined to  prove what they have experienced. Those who are not able to prove what they  have seen, often become withdrawn. If the experiences continue, the  individual often lives with skepticism from others while dealing with  remarkable situations. This is a dilemma which leaves the individual
 feeling alienated from others, even members of his/her own family. 

This is a sad scenario, In the worst of cases individual may resort to fabricating evidence to convince others. This is bad for all involved.  In any case, VERY valuable information is lost.

 2. Multiple or uncommon types of Bigfoot creatures in a report.  Multiples of creatures tend to be generally acceptable, however a witness reporting to have seen for example "twin children", or perhaps a pregnant female would more likely encounter skepticism by the researcher regarding the validity of the report, than someone who reports seeing one adult or even a single child.

 This type of witness is an individual who has gone beyond a casual sighting,  the information this witness can share is relatively untouched territory.  For this reason, this witness stands an even greater chance of
experiencing  alienation than the person who has a one time, in "passing" sighting. Who can you find to talk to with about this!!! 

Finding this type of information  is rare, but would prove vital in understanding the behavior of the Bigfoot creature. A researcher who dismisses this type of information has lost an enormous educational opportunity

3. Multiple individuals reporting seeing the same phenomena:
 When multiple witnesses report seeing the same phenomena, researchers are generally more inclined to take the report seriously. Although, if these  witnesses claim to have seen Bigfoot creatures on more than one
 occasion.....credibility seems to lessen with each subsequent sighting  report even though there is more than one witness.

 Multiple individuals having a sighting have the support of others and are generally in much better shape regarding the experience than those mentioned  above. Although the individuals who have had a sighting alone may indeed  have more diversified and valuable information, it is the witnesses who have had the sighting with others who will most likely pursue the subject  publicly. These may become "overnight experts", while others with more
 involved detailed sightings remain unknown.   

I believe the occurrence of multiple individuals having repeated sightings  is less likely to occur, there is a greater likelihood that it will happen to the individuals mentioned above.  Here again, witnesses have potential to provide great informative evidence, it is also easier to find fabricators as more than one person would have a difficult time matching details.

 4. Multiples used for the purpose of determining the validity of a report:
 I do not know of any statistical evidence that would allow a researcher to  dismiss for example, a report of twin Bigfoot children, as multiple births are common in almost every known species of animal. A bipedal primate who bears some resemblance to man, should be no exception.

 Dismissal of multiple reports based on multiple sightings by an  individual (s) can be a great mistake. Since humans have areas in which they  prefer to inhabit, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Bigfoot creatures do as well. This overlapping or commonality of territorial lines would certainly give opportunity for the event of multiple sightings.

 Carene

If you do not find what you need here, we have a search box towards the bottom of this page that will assist you.

And don't forget all the other science resources for dinosaurs and paleontology.  Also, our huge selection of science kits

We have coloring books, doodle art, crafts, games, & puzzles, to name but a few.  Check out our toy store and other great pages.

Check out our Bookmarks and Labels

See also Sticker Craft Kits for Every Day and for Families Who Travel

Also See Sticker Crafts