Poll: When Do You Think Field Researchers Should Release Information?

[Guest]

Release nothing until the investigation is complete.

[Guest]

I voted option 2 because for most that would be the way to go. There is always room to improve. We are still in the gathering phase until a body or a superb video to add to the DNA samples galore comes along. Those will bring out the big guns with the scientific credibility capital to take BF into mainstream science and academia. Any completed study must by natural course be followed by more. To verify or refute. The best and most insightful science wins.

Will the poll results be juxtaposed against the Ketchum Report thread activity?

[Guest]

If I were to take this question at face value, I would probably vote #4 - tell no one until investigation is complete - but when I start to think about it, that answer sort of falls apart. What I mean is that I doubt all field researchers are cut from the same cloth and any given team may not be the most qualified to conduct and close an investigation. Given the lack of an actual physical specimen, I'm inclined to think that you would have to bring in others from the Bigfoot Community just to make for a well rounded investigation.So I guess that technically leaves me with #2.

Plus, as the number of people involved grows, I doubt any sort of significant find (whatever that means) could be kept under wraps for long anyways.

ETA: Until there actually is a physical specimen, can any investigation that is not determined to be a hoax actually be considered closed?

Edited October 23, 2012 by ScottG

[Guest Transformer]

Do not release anything until the investigation is completed and you are willing to to release ALL information and answer ALL questions except anything that would identify witnesses or locations.

[Guest]

What would you say about someone who is not an investigator? For example, say a camper obtains awesome video footage, maybe even depicting a bigfoot performing some physical feat not humanly possible, thereby adding to the likelihood that it's legitimate. Should they post it right away?

[HOLDMYBEER]

No, even that piece of evidence has to be vetted (or authenticated) since fakery knows no bounds. In my book even an investigator would should have their

'evidence' properly collected, vetted, and documented by another qualified, independent investigator.

[Guest Transformer]

No, even that piece of evidence has to be vetted (or authenticated) since fakery knows no bounds. In my book even an investigator would should have their

'evidence' properly collected, vetted, and documented by another qualified, independent investigator.

There are very, very, very few "qualified" investigators given what is accepted as evidence in this field.

[Incorrigible1]

No, even that piece of evidence has to be vetted (or authenticated) since fakery knows no bounds. In my book even an investigator would should have their

'evidence' properly collected, vetted, and documented by another qualified, independent investigator.

You're saying it's amazing what you might be able to do, even wearing a bigfoot suit, if I stuck a pin into one of your lower cheeks?

[HOLDMYBEER]

As for the poll...... history has shown sasquatch researchers to be their own worst enemies. They usually go public before things get sorted, evidence properly vetted and an investigation documented to a published report. Then they usually go through an evolution of having their credibility challenged to the point they regret having said anything at all.

An investigation should be conducted, all evidence properly identified, collected, vetted and the entire investigation documented in a report that is available for review. Otherwise it's just an anecdote with pictures.

And I will say it before someone else does: " This isn't no gol' darn criminal case.....this is bigfoot". That's precisely my point. Murders and rapes are commonplace....they happen every day, every where. We are talking about something way more profound than a criminal case and, at least in my mind, a whole lot harder to comprehend.

[Guest wudewasa]

Whenever they want to release evidence, if ever. Remember, the public isn't entitled to any of this.

[Guest poignant]

While I understand that the public is not entitled to any of the evidence, it would be nice if the researchers present little bits and pieces in a one-directional manner, i.e. public listens/watches, and there is no dialogue.

[Rockape]

I didn't vote because I did not see the "I want to see it all immediately but it's the researchers own right to decide when to do so" option.

I know, I'm a troublemaker.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Rockape

[Guest]

I voted for withholding evidence until the investigation is complete, if it's a simple investigation.

However, if it's a whole body or identifiable parts, post everything you can with every measurement you can get, height comparisons, weight comparisons and hundreds of pictures ASAP online at every BF site and at Youtube and every other place you can possibly imagine. Do it LIVE if possible.

The bodies and evidence seem to disappear if the finder waits.

Edited October 24, 2012 by madison5716

[Guest thermalman]

I took the vote Melissa. Will be interesting to see the end results.

[Martin]

Depends if you call hearsay evidence or not.