Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 But at this point almost all reports after Finding Bigfoots airing are worthless IMO. The show has either brought more witnesses out, or caused more people to make things up. I think it might be some of each. For me.. the face to face meeting with a witness, is critical. I throw in a couple casual friendly questions.. to look for consistency in a story. I also talk a bit about "Finding Bigfoot" to see if folks have watched it. Could an amateur investigator like me, still be fooled ? .. absolutely, by someone that is good, and bent on fooling me. But certainly not as easily, as in a phone conversation or an exchange of emails, only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Well, the show is firstly entertainment. It's called reality TV but it's clearly heavily, heavily edited and seems like it might be mostly scripted. The show is a for-profit endeavor. Nothing wrong or sneaky there. We all pretty much know this I am sure. Sure BFRO is legally a nonprofit organization, but, trust me, these not-for-profit corporation officers may have salaries and benefits adding up to a pretty big profit motive for them personally, rather than for the organization. The show, in its third season and headed for a fourth, is for profit and is strongly linked to the BFRO. Any pretense to scientific inquiry or objectivity evaporated the minute a contract for a show was signed. Their statements about their pursuit of empirical evidence are obsolete. It's high time they changed how they bill the BFRO on the website. They don't have to declare that lucre is their reason for living, but a rewording of the homepage is certainly in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Do Cliff and Bobo agree with you that it should take on a more scientific approach? Do they have any say, really, in what content is provided to the viewers? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Some are good, some are bad, some are useless and they are all FASCINATING to me. I love to read/hear personal reports and stories. If you are having experiences and encounters, write them down immediately, with all the details you can remember. The mind does forget and change things to accomodate it's own version of reality. Write everything down. Then you'll always have something to refer to and it'll stay much clearer, especially if you have had multiple encounters, like me. I have a notebook where I write everything related to bigfoot - my reports, my non-event reports (where nothing happened), my research, my notes. It's helpful if you are serious. Edited January 6, 2013 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Pam, I've talked with both of them bout it, and I even talked with their producer when they were planning to film my group the Oly Project for their Washington show. Seems like they all agree, and they were planning on taking that approach for our episode, that is until Moneymaker found out I'd be involved. I'll just say he wasn't to happy about the Oly project being involved and it was killed quick. I think the problem is science doesn't translate to ratings. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Sure BFRO is legally a nonprofit organization, but, trust me, these not-for-profit corporation officers may have salaries and benefits adding up to a pretty big profit motive for them personally, rather than for the organization. The BFRO is not a non-profit organization. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) Well, the show is firstly entertainment. It's called reality TV but it's clearly heavily, heavily edited and seems like it might be mostly scripted. The show is a for-profit endeavor. Nothing wrong or sneaky there. We all pretty much know this I am sure. The show, in its third season and headed for a fourth, is for profit and is strongly linked to the BFRO. Any pretense to scientific inquiry or objectivity evaporated the minute a contract for a show was signed. Their statements about their pursuit of empirical evidence are obsolete. +1 (when I am able!) Absolutely agree. I'm in the UK where I think we are on the second series. I managed to sit through one episode from series 1 which I found to be pathetic television and have never bothered to watch it again. However this is mostly true of all 'reality' TV. Edited January 8, 2013 by the parkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Good Topic! Witnesses come only through being a part of some type of action. If you call or contact someone reporting something you fundamentally became the reporting person or complainant afterward you become witness to something through observing a specific action. To the point, replying to eye witness accounts is always good business and just good professional etiquette. In law enforcement witness reliability are critical. The effectiveness of a witness statement and an interview dependent upon the investigator's ability and skills to obtain factual information from witnesses, complainants and suspects. A good investigator will elicit much of the information to determine whether or not there is fact or fraud from even the most simple minded witness. Investigative news reporters use similar skills. From my experience though, people in general, do not know what is needed to make a good report. The Basics: Who, What, Why, Where, When, are basic points to start. For illustration purposes when stepping away from a long career, I step into this forum because I sincerely bellieve this creature is real as any wild animal roaming woods today and I have a little more time for leisure. While reading and studying some of the topics throughout the various mediums I am still knodding my head in disbelief that folks still debate good or poor witness statements considering vast numbers who cannot believe such creature exists. Nevertheless, when a resident who is otherwise by all acounts a law adibing member of the community calls police reporting "blood curdling screams like a woman being tortured," in the woods late at night, or calling police reporting authorities a "hairy giant monkey crossing the road" and immediately eyes roll and smirks begin. Suddenly this witness, the formerly good law adibing member of the community is deemed, unfounded or nuts. And yet, if that same person, a law adibing member of the community calls police reporting they "were just robbed," the police officers go and locate a suspect based on that persons information and physical description and there are determined to a good competent witness. The same is not true with everyday citizens who for reasons of fate and fate alone encounter something so outrageously outside reality that it leaves them in shock, and when they report it suddenly they are not a good witness. I have read some "after action" reports or otherwise known as investigator summaries a few BFRO investigators and I have to admit that I am very impressed, but I think too many investigators can be arbitary and therefore many useful witness reports are overlooked, discarded, or discounted outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) IMHO, at some point you have to believe someone. You can't believe everyone, but I think it is important to understand that not everybody is lying. Eye witness testimony can land someone in prison for life, but when it comes to Sasquatch research, people have a trough time accepting anything. I've taken reports from policemen, judges, forest rangers and preachers. If you can't have an open mind then you should probably look into a different field of research. Just saying. DR An open mind should alsp consider seriously that every witness could be lying, delusional, mistaken and/or hoodwinked. Just because it boggles the mind to think that way doesn't rule it out unless you have closed your mind to that option. Edited January 9, 2013 by antfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Antfoot, my mind is open in many directions. Having seen two myself, and tracking several individuals in my research career I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they're real. That being said, I do think over 80% of reported encounters and sightings are attributed to miss-identification, over active imagination or outright lies, but to entertain the possibility that all reports are fake is completely absurd IMHO. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The set of people who have hallucinations at least once in their lives is considerably larger than the number of people who have claimed to see bigfoot. So yes, I'm serious. It could be this way. I am only including it as a possibility. I want bigfoot to be real too you know. But I have noticed during this life weird life of mine that reality and my desires aren't usually on the same track. I accept the possibility that the world is just plain boring. Hallucinations don't leave tracks on the ground. Statistical data is just that statistical data. It can help you narrow down searches and give plausible explanations for a majority of sightings. But it's not the end all be all exclamation point to the mystery. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Derek, it's been a while since I looked at the OP site but the last time I did I was not impressed with the photos that were posted. I have not generally been impressed with photos on most sites for that matter. So, even though I count you among the more honest seeming among bigfooters I don't really know you. How am I supposed to decide that you really are as honest as you seem? Keeping an open mind includes leaving such things open to doubt. A GOOD hoaxer would be convincing yes? Your claim is only a claim but even if you are completely honest about what you saw, you could be mistaken. I get flack and dismissed a lot on this forum because I bring up the hallucination card. I have been told over and over that "I would know if I was hallucinating" or "I know what I saw" But speaking as someone who does hallucinate I can say "No you probably can not know when youre hallucinating" I have a hard time knowing and I have been having them for decades. Someone who is not used to them will be even less likely to recognize a hallucination especially considering the stigma attached. I assume you have material evidence that you believe confirms your experiences: some fur, some footprints, maybe a nibbled apple. These have not been accepted by science as evidence of bigfoot for many years and without Ketchum's say so they aren't really evidence yet. You are part of a team of like-minded researchers and for all you know you may all be prone to hallucinations of bigfoot. Ketchum could possibly be trying to work you for some purpose of her own and could be stringing you along. This isn't really all that extreme if you consider what happens to some people who believe they've been abducted by ufos. It's amazing how much evidence you can find to support a delusion and the right (or wrong) crowd can keep you going for a long time. Not that I'm saying you're hallucinating. That would require a doctor. You also sound quite reasonable to me and that is one of the reasons I think you perhaps are really seeing them. I simply hold out that I am not really able to tell from my remote location what you've experienced. Even the stories that have come off as hallucinations to me I tend to keep open as possibles. I don't know what really happened. I wasn't there and my witnessing could be suspect too. Forensics is the key. I trust that much more than eye-witness testimony. Hallucinations don't leave tracks on the ground. Statistical data is just that statistical data. It can help you narrow down searches and give plausible explanations for a majority of sightings. But it's not the end all be all exclamation point to the mystery. Well, I don't think I attributed footprints to hallucinations but anyone with a mischievous or cruel streak could easily fake footprints. Nor did I claim that that was the only way to explain the phenomenon. It is one way. And it could suffice. Not very satisfactory though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 antfoot, you are correct, forensics is the key. Hold that thought just a little longer You will look at the pictures on my website a little differently. Have a great day. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Derek, it's been a while since I looked at the OP site but the last time I did I was not impressed with the photos that were posted. I have not generally been impressed with photos on most sites for that matter. So, even though I count you among the more honest seeming among bigfooters I don't really know you. How am I supposed to decide that you really are as honest as you seem? Keeping an open mind includes leaving such things open to doubt. A GOOD hoaxer would be convincing yes? Your claim is only a claim but even if you are completely honest about what you saw, you could be mistaken. I get flack and dismissed a lot on this forum because I bring up the hallucination card. I have been told over and over that "I would know if I was hallucinating" or "I know what I saw" But speaking as someone who does hallucinate I can say "No you probably can not know when youre hallucinating" I have a hard time knowing and I have been having them for decades. Someone who is not used to them will be even less likely to recognize a hallucination especially considering the stigma attached. I assume you have material evidence that you believe confirms your experiences: some fur, some footprints, maybe a nibbled apple. These have not been accepted by science as evidence of bigfoot for many years and without Ketchum's say so they aren't really evidence yet. You are part of a team of like-minded researchers and for all you know you may all be prone to hallucinations of bigfoot. Ketchum could possibly be trying to work you for some purpose of her own and could be stringing you along. This isn't really all that extreme if you consider what happens to some people who believe they've been abducted by ufos. It's amazing how much evidence you can find to support a delusion and the right (or wrong) crowd can keep you going for a long time. Not that I'm saying you're hallucinating. That would require a doctor. You also sound quite reasonable to me and that is one of the reasons I think you perhaps are really seeing them. I simply hold out that I am not really able to tell from my remote location what you've experienced. Even the stories that have come off as hallucinations to me I tend to keep open as possibles. I don't know what really happened. I wasn't there and my witnessing could be suspect too. Forensics is the key. I trust that much more than eye-witness testimony. Well, I don't think I attributed footprints to hallucinations but anyone with a mischievous or cruel streak could easily fake footprints. Nor did I claim that that was the only way to explain the phenomenon. It is one way. And it could suffice. Not very satisfactory though. No, but I am.......some thing that is made up in the human mind doesn't leave trace evidence behind of it's passing. And yet we see plenty of trace evidence out there. So in my mind at least some sort of mass delusion is out. Although it's certainly plausible in certain cases. And no, I'm not suggesting that tracks are a way of explaining to science that a real species exists out there. And no it's not easy to fake tracks that would fool everyone. I've seen tracks that defy explanation. Tracks like this: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/keller-WA09.htm Defy explanation. I would love to see someone strap on some mud stompers and walk through deep snow with an eight foot stride, seriously I would like to see how the hoax is accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kchuskey Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 No, but I am.......some thing that is made up in the human mind doesn't leave trace evidence behind of it's passing. And yet we see plenty of trace evidence out there. So in my mind at least some sort of mass delusion is out. Although it's certainly plausible in certain cases. And no, I'm not suggesting that tracks are a way of explaining to science that a real species exists out there. And no it's not easy to fake tracks that would fool everyone. I've seen tracks that defy explanation. Tracks like this: http://www.bigfooten...keller-WA09.htm Defy explanation. I would love to see someone strap on some mud stompers and walk through deep snow with an eight foot stride, seriously I would like to see how the hoax is accomplished. Maybe they were wearing stilts. Just saying... Anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts