Leaderboard

When researching reports I have usually noticed that the witness interview lacks much in the way of information. I don't know why that is. Lets say for the sake of discussion that this is talking about what the BFRO and the BigfootForum's Class A reports. Those are the ones where a Sasquatch, or what the witness claims is a Sasquatch, is actually seen. I have read tons of reports, mostly on the BFRO and the gaps in most the reports are numerous. Now I can imagine that it's possible each investigator might have their own set of questions that they ask the witness(s) when they communicate with them but I was also wondering if there is a standard questionnaire that is used or a certain protocol followed when taking any witness statements. Is there such a standardized list of questions that is always asked no matter who does the interview? If not I've been working one up that I think is fairly thorough. It's based on the variables in the column headers of the late John Willison Green's database and is pretty comprehensive for a questionnaire. You see I think witnesses in telling their story forget things. Things that they saw but forgot to mention at an interview- especially if certain questions regarding the encounter never got asked. Then too there may be a lot of that information that doesn't make it to the thumbnail sized reports that most of us read. The way things are now anyway one can't really do much research that leads to anything but the widest of generalities concerning any pattern recognition. And only being able to read one report at a time kind of perpetuates that syndrome. It's probably too late to go after the finer details of past interviews but future interviews IMO would be better served if a standard questionnaire that was large in scope and points of detail were used when meeting with witnesses. And too they would see such an interview as being extremely professional and thorough and may therefore have the confidence to relax and remember more details from the encounter if the interviewer leaves no stone unturned. I will post it next to keep it separate from any text so if anyone wants to print it out they may do so. This probably is nowhere near complete so if you can think of any questions I will consider adding them to the questionaire and then repost it with the new questions included. I've been wanting to do this for quite a while. Thanks.

You are sort of taking a journalist approach to this, in the sense you seem to be covering all possible aspects of an encounter. In reality, I'm not sure there are any John Greens out there anymore, what you have is researchers doing these interviews. They will want relevant info for their own uses, as opposed to reporting an event impartially. So location/time/date info is key, behavior information as well, less important will be the physical details. Critically important is any information relevant to determination of the encounter being real or not. Getting into the weeds, note that if one can provide the exact location (for both the BF and themselves) and rough time of day (and this should be possible), Google Earth makes many of the first 32 questions unneeded - those can be determined later. You ask about weight, consider instead just asking width. You can calculate the weight later without asking the witness to do cubic mathematics on the spot (note Salubrious's answer!). You ask about the shape of the nose, then lead the witness with human or ape. I would suggest just allowing whatever answer. You ask about a brow ridge, but that is a technical anthropological term. Even referring to "evidence" seems a BF community term. Ask specifically about prints or the potential of hair. I would suggest asking if you saw the hands/feet/toes, not if the BF had them. Perhaps replace the "history of sightings" question with "do you know of any similar events among your neighbors"? You can look up the BFRO/NAWAC/SSR/GREEN data yourself later. It may seem counter-intuitive but you actually want to ask as few questions as you can, so cutting those out that you can determine yourself is critical. I'm not an investigator, but have survey design and survey research experience.

I think there is something to what you're saying but I'm not sure "worthy" is the correct spin. I think that has too much character judgement involved. Instead, I think it is "tested and approved". I think the crux is predictability of your response, not whether or not you're a good or bad person. Predictability comes down to two factors ... whether your emotional reaction is readable via your body language, then whether your response to a particular stimulus is consistent. I think what happened in my case is I was subjected to a particular stimulus many times and I reacted consistently each time. The stimulus was fairly intense fear. The response was to take a defensive position, become hyper-aware of my surroundings, and move carefully out of the area. I didn't panic. I didn't freak and start shooting at shadows. The thing that changed the whole picture was when I finally got fed up, decided I'd had enough, and went back right at dusk to see what was going to happen. I left my flashlight in my pocket and went for a walk in the dark right through the middle of the space they'd been chasing me out of. Since then, nada. Indications they're around but no "push", nothing directed at me. None of that bothers me. That pattern follows what humans do when confronted with others that don't share a language by which they can communicate. The only bothersome point is when I go somewhere new and it seems the test results from the old place are already known ... across quite a few hundreds of miles. The mechanism behind that is a puzzle. Could be some kind of woo communication. Could be changes in me I'm telegraphing through body language. Don't know ... and I won't learn it here. MIB

Shadow - you ask, "What does the UK defense department have to do with a Bigfoot on a roaming, mobile device?" One jumps out at me. If some of these things could be capture - taken alive - especially young ones, the weaponization of such a physically capable beast would be of great military value. At night, you'd have a scout/recon point man that would be almost invincible. When it would come to LRRP patrols, your range is limited by what you can carry. With just one of these things in your group, you could double what the LRRP team could carry - likewise doubling their range, or doubling their weapons mix. For night raids, just one of these things could impart great destruction on opponents - between their night vision and ability to just rip opponents apart. Or worse - be trained with kinetic weapons. Reinforced areas in very difficult terrains would no longer be able to rely on their natural barriers as the previous possibilities allowed for. Supersoldiers. That might grab a defense department's attention.

And how many have been shot with the shooter still among us and bragging about it?

The Bigfoot Times, July 2016. All about the late John Green. Don't miss this issue. For more go to www.bigfoottimes.net