Lab Practicum: Follow-Up Investigation

[Guest]

It looked real to me, but what do I know? It walked funny, but it was on snow and rocky terrain. Shrugs, It could be a BF or a bear, or not. 

Edited November 30, 2014 by SweetSusiq

[Doc Holliday]

yes, HF.... the damage has been done and not enough band aids in the box to fix it.

 

thanks to those elements  BFery will always  be a tongue in cheek piece on the local news , if mentioned at all outside of pop TV shows.

 

might be nice to turn the tide, but we are swimming against the current there.

[hiflier]

Hello SweetSusiq,

 

Shrugs, It could be a BF or a bear, or not. 

 

And that's the point. The reports DWA brought to the table simply were not enough in the strength of their data to make the definitive call. Either the questions weren't asked of the witnesses or the information to the public is screened. On the latter point I have not a small amount of difficulty understanding the landscape in that regard. Oh, I know about being the first one to the money and all that, but apparently, if the proof is with that man behind the curtain, then we've yet to have a Toto to pull it aside. We DO however get the smoke and mirrors of the big wizard's face with the firy jets blasting. All I've ever asked for is the truth. Why is that so hard. I simply can't for the life of me think that it's somehow better to jerk us around.

 

.......might be nice to turn the tide, but we are swimming against the current there.

 

Agreed. There's just too much power clamping down on honest, transparent reporting. I don't think I've ever seen the media as bad as it is now. The public's perception of what BFery is all about is toast. Actually I could say that about many other subjects as well- all the way up through finance but that's not for here.

 

I'm tellin' ya: dump the TV's folks. At least you'll be down to believing half of what you read and none of what you hear. And that's probably the BEST that anyone can hope for. Three years ago I decided to stop watching Truman grow up. Some of you may know what I mean by that.

Edited November 30, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

Truman show lol.

Hiflier still flyinghigh i see

[hiflier]

Hello ItsAsquatch,

 

You betcha! "Truman" was a great movie and I sooo appreciate that you caught the thought. On topic, what do you think? Is the lack of data written in those two reports just the result of laziness on the part of two different investigators and their groups or are they written for the public all watered down purposely. To me they are like mini versions of "Finding Bigfoot" where no one watching gets a dang thing that's any good. I'm beginning to laugh rather derisively these days when I read reports from the BFRO.

 

But hey I'm nothing if not a cynic. Prolly ain't too healthy LOL.

Edited December 1, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

Observations from a 2-post-a-day guy.

 

It is only in the past year or so that I've had the time to wander around the BFRO report database, and I think there is merit in DWA's thread, and the questions it has raised. When I read some of the BFRO reports I am left with the same questions all of you are.

I am no expert on the inner workings of the BFRO.

I am assuming that the investigators who follow-up with the reporting parties are volunteering their time and effort, and are not paid. If that is correct then first off kudos to them for taking the time to do the work.

At the end of the report where the follow-up investigator is identified and his/her expertise is listed there are folks who's life experience includes everything from lay person to retired law enforcement to PhD's and everything in between.

Is it possible that the online database represents only a synopsis of the actual report, and all of the questions that have been talked about here are in the database somewhere?

If not then the investigative process appears deeply flawed.

There should be a standardized form used throughout the initial report filed by every witness reporting a new event. Same form, every time. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with one that hits the critical data points and builds value into the database. Many of the questions you folks have brought up about the example reports should be in there.

Creating a standardized process for reporting suspected BF events and conducting the follow-up investigation isn't rocket science. It take training and understanding and the ability to listen to people and ask the right questions. If the initial report and follow-up contact interview brings the case to a level where skilled investigators are needed to pick up the case and run with it the BFRO either has people with the professional experience to do the job or it should reach out and get them.

I think that the sooner we, as a group,  arrive at a standardized investigation process the better, for every reason imaginable.  Based on the observations made in this thread either we don't have that process or it isn't being adhered to, or all of the information isn't being made public.

Moving on, we do have to overcome a long history of hoaxes, scammers and other people who've fouled the field. That's just a fact, and it sucks.

The way we overcome that is with solid investigations, one right after the other, squared away and factual. These should become second nature to the initial investigators who are collecting the basic facts. The basics are not difficult to teach, or learn, and become good at.

The other elephant in the room I see is the identification, collection and preservation of evidence,  physical, forensic, trace and other...such as film, digital media, etc.

This should be conducted with as much professionalism as possible.

If it interests you go down to yer local community college that has a law enforcement program and check out the textbooks in the book store regarding evidence law in your state and the  collection and preservation of evidence for the basic AA degree and directed at a patrol type person.

The course work is no joke.

Now, we ain't gonna be CSI but if we want to be seen as competent we need to play the way the professionals play. When the day finally comes that someone brings forth a portion of a body, like a partially decomposed hand, bone or some other irrefutable evidence and it is sent in for processing the battle will only be starting.

Once the lab work is back and it is found to be what we believe it is the game will be afoot.

The naysayers will leave no stone unturned in their effort to discredit the entire process; to find a place where it was improperly collected, preserved, stored, or it's exact whereabouts from the moment it was found until delivered to the forensics lab was not accounted for.

There will be huge egos riding on this deal, careers and most of all...money. Lots of money, so they will spend a fortune to try to poke holes in it and the people who recovered it.

If they can't find a hole in the work the investigators have done and the conclusions the data supports our case becomes that much stronger.

The foundation for that kind of work and preparation for working that case needs to be laid down now, before the "big event" takes place.

[Guest]

Lazy snd unexperienced. The investigator in that Florida report above did not look for footprints or any other sign or ask any questions at all not much of a follow up report

[Guest thermalman]

Seems to happen quite often with most researchers. So much focus on the primary clue that the secondary forensic elements are ignored, otherwise there would be more definite yes or no answers to their findings.

Edited December 1, 2014 by thermalman

[hiflier]

Hello Northfork,

 

There is a standardized questionnaire. But I for one don't think all the aswers are given to the public at large- like us.

[Guest DWA]

And here's another one: the follow-up witness asks virtually zero questions.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=46746

No: "cone-shaped head" and "hair shined when lights hit it" ain't cutting it. (Although, sure, any commonly-reported characteristic is helpful. One must make every effort to get guidebook-quality, head-to-foot detail. Or else, why bother at all with follow-up?

"Now, we ain't gonna be CSI but if we want to be seen as competent we need to play the way the professionals play."

No kidding, Northfork. The goal of the investigator is to write a description that could go, in its entirety, into a North American mammal guide. You get as close as you can, asking the witness as many questions as possible to get a head-to-foot description of what the witness saw.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I've heard that folk only get a passing glimpse of bigfoot and the hip to camera ratio is almost non existent for photographic purposes.

 

Or you're completely wrong.

 

Your thousands and thousands of sighting reports and their (in)consistencies: out the window.

 

Umm see how this works?

Edited December 15, 2014 by chelefoot

[Guest DWA]

No, you don't.

 

Your first sentence is correct except when it isn't which is often; most people aren't going to even think of the camera if they're holding it (read reports); and if they do think of it the shot will suck...except when it doesn't.  Patty is a pristine capture and look what's happened to it.

 

Your thousands and thousands of whatever they are you won't say:  don't even make it to the window.

 

Rugman = Not Making Mammal Guide

Edited December 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=46826

 

And here's another gem, in which the investigator comes up with *zero* description of what the witness saw.  This is a classic example of It Musta Been a Squatch Because This Guy Syndrome.

 

Get the witness's description of what he saw, head to foot, in absolutely as much detail as the witness can provide.

 

The most compelling aspect of the encounter literature is that witnesses are clearly and consistently describing wild primates ...with no previous experience of wild primates.  But this is because we have so many descriptions.

 

Whoops.

Edited December 28, 2014 by DWA

[chelefoot]

I don't know DWA, this report just lacks something (a detailed description for one - as you pointed out).  It's awfully coincidental that he guy knew the BFRO guys, and that they just so happened to be in the area.

[Guest DWA]

That, chele, is totally my point.  No matter what the circumstances of the report, it's not going to add anything to the database unless the fullest possible description is given by the witness.  A skeptic could easily go, two believers high-fiving each other.  Big deal.

 

The critical problem bigfoot skeptics have with discrediting eyewitness reports as a body - aside from their sheer number - is that they have to postulate thousands of copycats...or a continent-wide consortium of fakers comparing notes...or a small core of conspirators making everything up.  (Or as noted below something even less likely.)  These people not only have to be world-class scientists but world-class fiction writers.  Everyone familiar with the clear fakes ahd hokum stories knows that one thing they uniformly lack is a comprehensive description of a higher primate, right down to behavioral and physical characteristics generally known only to primatologists.  Everyone familiar with copycats knows they COPY - something that is clearly not being done here.  As WSA likes to put it:  we ain't that good.  Laymen are describing the compliant gait; the sagittal crest; the midtarsal break; the prognathous jaw; and numerous habits otherwise known only among the great apes, using the full range of terms available to every socioeconomic breakout on the continent.  They're being backed up by a huge number of footprints bearing subtle markers of authenticity that experts hold virtually impossible to fake.  Then one has a film that couldn't tie those two major threads of evidence together more neatly.

 

Anyone who thinks the reports unreliable, or probably faked...or what most bigfoot skeptics think is happening even though it is the least likely scenario of all, a random concatenation of various kinds of false positives, a likelihood Occam would laugh at given the consistency on features generally known only to specialists...is showing that either they haven't read them, or they haven't thought about what they've read.

 

Nothing is more basic to science than this:  if one has not thoroughly examined the evidence, one is unqualified to make an informed assessment of it.

 

The more descriptions there are, the more unlikely the already almost-impossibility of a comprehensive false positive is.  But no one is helping by failing to add to the pile, and this one really doesn't.  This is an important and too-frequent mistake of amateur investigators:  being so sure it's a bigfoot that they don't properly assess what the witness saw.