Consistency In Sighting Reports

[MIB]

Did you actually read that?   Just curious.  If so, could you explain how that can be construed to be "evidential confirmation" of anything?    It seems to be a "fluffy" article lacking any substance whatsoever.  

 

The only mention of hair, at all, is "scientists at Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology in Switzerland" which is what we have been referring to here as the "Sykes study".    This is not the same as new information, this is basically like yet another research paper citing the same ol' thing we already have.

 

MIB

[Guest]

To masterbarber and HRPuffnstuff both:

 

It seems to me if you think that then you haven't been paying attention.

Oh I've been paying attention. Close attention.

 

Been around this community for a long time and while I respect your opinion I do not need you or anyone else to tell me that what I've witnessed is not accurate.

 

I'd wager masterbarber feels the same way as he has been around as long as I have.

 

We know what we're doing and posting.

 

I think we can both smell something wrong when things do not add up.

Edited October 31, 2014 by HRPuffnstuff

[Guest thermalman]

Did you actually read that?   Just curious.  If so, could you explain how that can be construed to be "evidential confirmation" of anything?    It seems to be a "fluffy" article lacking any substance whatsoever.  

 

The only mention of hair, at all, is "scientists at Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology in Switzerland" which is what we have been referring to here as the "Sykes study".    This is not the same as new information, this is basically like yet another research paper citing the same ol' thing we already have.

 

MIB

Trying to sound like some other member proclaiming redundancy. Drives you nuts, doesn't it?

[the parkie]

I've always noted that there seem to be many reports of the creatures gently swaying back and forth when stood otherwise still amongst the trees. Not sure what would be behind this behaviour but does seem to be quite commonly reported.

[BobbyO]

I've always noted that there seem to be many reports of the creatures gently swaying back and forth when stood otherwise still amongst the trees. Not sure what would be behind this behaviour but does seem to be quite commonly reported.

Nervousness or anxiousness ?

The one I saw done it but not quick, just a slow sway, but a sway nonetheless.

Pretty sure Chimps do it too don't they ?

Edited November 2, 2014 by BobbyO

[Guest]

I am new here, sort of a lurker, but feel like this is something I can add to the conversation with.

I was a "professional interviewer" for most of my career. There are a few things that I liked to do when getting statements.

Never interview witnesses together. Always alone.

In BF research, I would want the witness as comfortable as possible. Project a casual but professional and personable image... one where the witness has no reason to suspect you think they are lying. Don't be an ass, or a know-it-all, or let your mouth or body show them you think they are lying. You can think it, but don't show it. You've put aside the time to take the statement and they have agreed to give it, so get all you can.

 

-Get your statement as soon as possible after the incident. And document the heck out of it. Record it if possible. (Then, transcribe it, so you can read and evaluate it.)

If there is physical evidence...stuff you want to take pictures of get the witness on tape describing the tree break, or how tall the thing was, etc. on this, the first interview.

 

-Go back and interview the witness again, a week or two after the initial investigation interview. Have a copy of the transcript of the first statement.

When you do so run through the questions in the same order, then ask for the statement in chronological order again. Don't jamb up the witness if minor things are not exactly the same as the first time. People make honest mistakes in memory when not lying or attempting to fabricate. It is your job as the interviewer to be able to read them and know the difference.

 

-Go back again, 10 days or so after the second interview, and run through it verbally again, apply less pressure if possible. Same program...but the taping of the evidence is optional.

 

If you are really interested in learning the body language of the human species see if you can find a course on interviewing/interrogation that is open to the public. You will learn a lot. This field is about 60% art and 40% science.

The art comes with time, and, frankly is very dependent on your interpersonal skills. The science is based on all the rest...the proven body language
"tells" and the rest. People spend 30 years refining this skill, but you can get a lot better and therefore a heck of a lot more confident in your ability to find the truth in just a year or two.

Sometimes you just can't do anything but talk on the phone with a witness.

If that is the case you need to factor that into your evaluation of the evidence presented. You were not able to see the whole picture.

That doesn't mean gleaning trends or other items of evidence value isn't possible by the process of reviewing reports...quite the contrary. Just be able to weigh the data with an honest evaluation of the source and the interviewer's skill.

Fascinating stuff, to me anyway.

[Guest]

Welcome aboard Northfork!  Your post rang the bell... The "tell" was indeed in the message.

[Guest]

Welcome aboard Northfork!  Your post rang the bell... The "tell" was indeed in the message.

Thank you. I lurked a long time before joining, and still mostly lurk. On the rare chance something comes along that I feel I can contribute something to I will pitch in. This is, based on my research anyway, the best BF forum out there, and I am thankful to be a small part of it.

[Guest]

Norfolk - I agree, I think it stands above all others. Another Hat tip for the moderators and administrators of this forum. About your comment above, clever assemblage of words but I get it .... Good to see you onboard, and happy lurking!

Edited November 4, 2014 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Thank you. I lurked a long time before joining, and still mostly lurk. On the rare chance something comes along that I feel I can contribute something to I will pitch in. This is, based on my research anyway, the best BF forum out there, and I am thankful to be a small part of it.

Thanks for your input as an interviewer Northfork and I would hope those who do so regarding BF would heed your advice.

 

Hope you join in the conversations more often.

 

You're right. The BFF is the best forum regarding the subject IMHO as it welcomes all POV's, has the best members, and is well managed.

[jayjeti]

Hello All,

 

When I read "crossed the road in three strides my mind usually conjures up a two lane road- one lane each way- as most sightings seem to be rural. But that's just me. Sometimes the road name or route number is given or a general locale which can be researched.

 

Considering this thread is about consistency in sighting reports, that sounds like a consistent distance for bigfoot walking strides.  I believe a lot of two lane roads are around 15 feet or so wide, which three steps would be 5 feet between steps.   Four or five foot strides are common walking strides, running can produce much greater distances.  I made two footprint casts I found in Oregon and heel to heel was 46 inches, which is almost 4 feet, although what I found was not the usual inline walking, but it had side stepped up hill.  But I tried to put my feet beside those two casts and it was a really hard stretch. The casts I made were 17 inches long.  The heel was five inches wide and near the toes it was 6 inches wide.  No arch in a bare foot (again typically "consistent").

Edited November 6, 2014 by jayjeti

[jayjeti]

I've always noted that there seem to be many reports of the creatures gently swaying back and forth when stood otherwise still amongst the trees. Not sure what would be behind this behaviour but does seem to be quite commonly reported.

 

Maybe that is part of how the try not to be seen, since being still makes them harder to see, and swaying slowly is not as detectable as a sudden movement.  Speaking of swaying from side to side, in 2010 a man witnessed a possible burial ritual of an infant in a hollow tree stump decorated with four gray squirrel tails suspended from the top edge of the stump. Four sasquatches were swaying from side to side while making grunting sounds. But it appears they discovered the witness and dispersed, and the witness got out of there too. When the witness came back the next day all he found in the stump was a little dark hair, blood, and a large piece of old deer hide.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/story-about-conservationists-encounter.html

[the parkie]

I would take things that you read on that website with an enormous pinch, nay pillar, of salt.

Nervousness or anxiousness ?

The one I saw done it but not quick, just a slow sway, but a sway nonetheless.

Pretty sure Chimps do it too don't they ?

I didn't realise that chimps did it too, did a quick google search and it appears you are right. There appear to be few behaviours or situations under which they sway, one of which seems to be a display of dominance ie communicating that "this is my turf" - although I need to read up on it properly - but the fact that they do it at all I find very encouraging in terms of possible evidence in the right direction.

Excellent.

[MarkGlasgow]

I've been spending a lot of time recently going back over the old BFRO sightings database so this topic is right up my street at the moment.

One characteristic that crops up quite often when folks have the rare opportunity to view a BF for a slightly longer period than usual. BF's are reported to rock or sway slightly from side to side when they stand still (noted also by Bobby and Parkie above).

This is a detail which isn't a widely recognised attribute and always seems to lend some additional credence to a sighting for me at least.

Are some sightings fabricated? Of course they are.

Are some sightings misinterpretations or errors of judgement? Undoubtedly.

Are ALL reported sightings made up stories or misidentifications? Every single one of them? Even the ones made by folks I know and trust? Even the ones made by trained observers?

Edited November 7, 2014 by MarkGlasgow

[jayjeti]

I've been spending a lot of time recently going back over the old BFRO sightings database so this topic is right up my street at the moment.

One characteristic that crops up quite often when folks have the rare opportunity to view a BF for a slightly longer period than usual. BF's are reported to rock or sway slightly from side to side when they stand still (noted also by Bobby and Parkie above).

This is a detail which isn't a widely recognised attribute and always seems to lend some additional credence to a sighting for me at least.

 

 

Here's a sighting report from the mid 20th century of one swaying.

 

"Seeley Lake Glacier Creek Area, Montana

October 1959

 

"Roy W. Rye, a university educated experienced bear hunter from Billings, Montana was out hunting grizzly in the early afternoon upon seeing large tracks in the snow he noticed a creature resting its head and arms on a fallen tree five or six feet above snow.  It had a large flat head, sloping shoulders, stubby ears, short neck, was brownish gray haired.  It screamed and rocked from side to side and slobbered.  Four men disappeared in this area in two years.  Broken rifle found.  This report was published in "Montana Sports Outdoors" in December of 1960 and in "Saga Magazine" in January of 1961.. JG BC Archives."

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/oldermontana.htm