Most Compelling Encounter Reports, To You Personally?

[Guest DWA]

There are a number of things that can make an encounter report stand out, among the many you have read.  At the moment, these are the ones to me, although I need to note my opinion of the overall evidence wouldn't change much had these never occurred.  (That's how much there is.)

 

How about yours?  Which ones and why?

 

SKEPTICS NOTE:  This is not an "existence" thread.  We have places to discuss that, so keep it there.  I'm only interested if you can *prove these false.*  You can't.

 

Most compelling hairy hominoid accounts to me personally:

1. Patterson/Gimlin, 1967
2. Mount Baldy, MT 2012 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974
3. Gary Samuels, Guyana 1987 
4. Edward W. Cronin, Nepal 1972
5. Manitoba Shooting, 1941 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552
6. Oklahoma Prairie (photos), 2000 http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos 
7. WA sighting, 2007 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160
8. Peguis, Manitoba video:  

Factors:

1. Film; analyses by directly relevant disciplines; accounts of principals; no behaviors consistent with hoax
2. Track photo; remote location; description of trackway (a number of compelling trackway accounts)
3. Scientist identifying self by name; colleague heard animal's call and came to fetch him thinking was him
4. Scientist identifying self by name; multiple witnesses (several scientists); Schaller comment; description of trackway
5. Most compelling account of a shooting with completely plausible backstory
6. No alternative explanation for photos; backstory 100% scan
7. Multiple witnesses; no alternative explanation for photos
8. Other than P/G, only video which looks like a possibility and 100% backstory scan

 

[roguefooter]

Not really relevant to the topic but after reading a couple of those reports I have to say that the interviewers are terrible. They constantly feed information to the person.

 

This one is especially bad-

 

Manitoba Shooting, 1941 http://www.bfro.net/...ort.asp?id=9552

 

The interviewer constantly tells the story himself, like he's reminding or encouraging the witness throughout rather than letting him tell the story himself. All the witness has to do is agree/disagree or add to it.

 

This one here not as bad but the interviewer still tries to paint the subject as apelike, while the witness has to correct him. That is terrible interviewing:

 

 

WA sighting, 2007 http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=23160

[Guest DWA]

Not really.  I'd disagree firmly on both.  Which doesn't really make any difference, as you yourself note.  In both cases it is very clearly the witness's story, with the interviewer getting needed - and they were - clarifications.  That's why you do follow-up interviews.

Edited June 11, 2015 by DWA

[roguefooter]

I didn't say it didn't make a difference. I said it wasn't really relevant to the topic of people's personal favorites.

 

When an interviewer pushes a witness by telling story the story themselves, then it could lead to confirmation bias. It could also add details to reports that create a false consistency with other reports.

 

Look at how the interviewer tries to turn the subject into an apelike creature, while the witness constantly denies it:

 

 

Investigator: From that picture it appears the figure is down on all fours.

Witness: Don't think so, I don't think the hands were on the ground.

Investigator: You don’t think it’s walking with its knuckles?

Witness: Everything else moved but the arms didn't. They were just kind of there.

Investigator: So you didn't see any big arm movement, like when a gorilla walks quadrupedally?

Witness: I didn't see the arms moving at all.

Investigator: So it is walking hunched over but not down on all fours?

Witness: I didn't notice it being down on all fours.

Edited June 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

Nope. That is called adroit clarification. Interviewer thought just what I did and asked the same things I would have. A good follow up is skeptical. The witness remains in firm control of his narrative.

[roguefooter]

So continuously pushing the same thing over and over even when the witness says no is "clarification"? That sounds more like persuasion (ala Greg Long). Adroit only along the lines of confirmation bias.

 

It's interesting when you actually start reading these reports you find things like this. The Manitoba interviewer does the same thing when talking about the bigfoot's girth.

 

An interview should only allow the witness to create the story and specifics of an encounter, not the interviewer. There should never be any instance where the witness actually needs to maintain control of the narrative, it should only be his narrative alone. This makes me wonder how much more of this exists in other reports.

[Guest DWA]

He's not pushing the same thing over and over. Read the very words posted. Not what he's doing. He's clarifying. That is all he is doing. The very words posted could not do a better job of making the precise point.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The most compelling for me is the Patterson film. After that it's The Siege at Honobia and the NAWAC's research. There's a lot of others that I consider compelling, but for me these are the top 3.

Edited June 11, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

It's hard to really contest Patterson Gimlin as the foremost single piece of evidence. I tend to think of NAWAC more as a body of work but they definitely are the most serious people going right now.

[LeafTalker]

Great thread, DWA. Looking forward to looking at the reports you referenced in your original post! 

 

Like many here, I like JDL's reports. These are just two of the three I think he has on the BFRO site:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5770

 

And also like many here, I think Salubrious' encounter was pretty amazing: 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29115-colorado-sighting-of-two-bf-in-the-road/

 

Of course, reading about other people's experiences can never be quite as much fun as having your own, and I wouldn't trade my experiences for anything; but as the next best thing, these reports are pretty great.  

 

And for accounts of ongoing encounters, Chris Noel's "Sasquatch Rising 2013" is hard to beat. 

[bipedalist]

Most telling to me was an anonymous mayor of a Wyoming town recounting his childhood sighting at dawn while attending the mtn herd as a child.  

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

There are a number of things that can make an encounter report stand out, among the many you have read.  At the moment, these are the ones to me, although I need to note my opinion of the overall evidence wouldn't change much had these never occurred.  (That's how much there is.)

 

How about yours?  Which ones and why?

 

SKEPTICS NOTE:  This is not an "existence" thread.  We have places to discuss that, so keep it there.  I'm only interested if you can *prove these false.*  You can't.

 

Most compelling hairy hominoid accounts to me personally:

1. Patterson/Gimlin, 1967
2. Mount Baldy, MT 2012 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974
3. Gary Samuels, Guyana 1987 
4. Edward W. Cronin, Nepal 1972
5. Manitoba Shooting, 1941 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552
6. Oklahoma Prairie (photos), 2000 http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos 
7. WA sighting, 2007 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160
8. Peguis, Manitoba video:  

Factors:

1. Film; analyses by directly relevant disciplines; accounts of principals; no behaviors consistent with hoax
2. Track photo; remote location; description of trackway (a number of compelling trackway accounts)
3. Scientist identifying self by name; colleague heard animal's call and came to fetch him thinking was him
4. Scientist identifying self by name; multiple witnesses (several scientists); Schaller comment; description of trackway
5. Most compelling account of a shooting with completely plausible backstory
6. No alternative explanation for photos; backstory 100% scan
7. Multiple witnesses; no alternative explanation for photos
8. Other than P/G, only video which looks like a possibility and 100% backstory scan

 

How can you even consider the Peguis sighting?  The head on the bloody thing is HUGE! and it moves like a guy that's not seeing well where they're going.  It's distant, short and shaky.  You questioned me on another thread well this is the video I was referring to.

[roguefooter]

He's not pushing the same thing over and over. Read the very words posted. Not what he's doing. He's clarifying. That is all he is doing. The very words posted could not do a better job of making the precise point.

 

Right, the need to clarify as if the guy doesn't want to believe anything he said. Even throwing in a 'gorilla arm moving' example right after the guy said "the arms didn't move".

 

If that's clarification then the guy must be pretty dense.

 

 

 

And for accounts of ongoing encounters, Chris Noel's "Sasquatch Rising 2013" is hard to beat. 

 

Isn't that the book where he claims the Rick Dyer dead Bigfoot story is real?

[Guest DWA]

Great thread, DWA. Looking forward to looking at the reports you referenced in your original post! 

 

Like many here, I like JDL's reports. These are just two of the three I think he has on the BFRO site:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5770

 

And also like many here, I think Salubrious' encounter was pretty amazing: 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29115-colorado-sighting-of-two-bf-in-the-road/

 

Of course, reading about other people's experiences can never be quite as much fun as having your own, and I wouldn't trade my experiences for anything; but as the next best thing, these reports are pretty great.  

 

And for accounts of ongoing encounters, Chris Noel's "Sasquatch Rising 2013" is hard to beat. 

Thanks, Leaf.  I don't think I have actually read those yet.

 

WRT the Cronin 1972, I mention his book on another thread.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51441-does-anyone-have-or-have-read-this-book/

 

As I note there, it is a tour de force, maybe the most eloquent statement I have read from a scientist on the hairy hominoid matter, maybe the most underrated read on the topic there is.  I'd never heard of it until I got the book; I knew of the track find but didn't think he'd mention it given the total taboo on the topic in scientific circles...and he gave it an entire chapter.  There is almost no read on this I can recommend more highly; it is the scientific mind at its glittering anthracite best.  That track find is essentially proof of yeti, far as I am concerned; but only someone who is prepared to think about this the way a scientist does would get that.

Edited June 12, 2015 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Leaf (and Salubrious):  I just did go back to the Salubrious thread Leaf links, and I hadn't really been there before.  One of the most compelling threads running through the evidence is that just about every conceivable interaction possible with an animal, someone has had with these animals.  That one?  Couldn't make it up.