Sasquatch Class "A" Encounter Questionaire

[1980squatch]

You are sort of taking a journalist approach to this, in the sense you seem to be covering all possible aspects of an encounter.  In reality, I'm not sure there are any John Greens out there anymore, what you have is researchers doing these interviews.   They will want relevant info for their own uses, as opposed to reporting an event impartially.  So location/time/date info is key, behavior information as well, less important will be the physical details.  Critically important is any information relevant to determination of the encounter being real or not.

 

Getting into the weeds, note that if one can provide the exact location (for both the BF and themselves) and rough time of day (and this should be possible), Google Earth makes many of the first 32 questions  unneeded - those can be determined later.  You ask about weight, consider instead just asking width.  You can calculate the weight later without asking the witness to do cubic mathematics on the spot (note Salubrious's answer!).  You ask about the shape of the nose, then lead the witness with human or ape.  I would suggest just allowing whatever answer.  You ask about a brow ridge, but that is a technical anthropological term.   Even referring to "evidence" seems a BF community term.  Ask specifically about prints or the potential of hair.

 

I would suggest asking if you saw the hands/feet/toes, not if the BF had them.  Perhaps replace the "history of sightings" question with "do you know of any similar events among your neighbors"?  You can look up the BFRO/NAWAC/SSR/GREEN data yourself later.

 

It may seem counter-intuitive but you actually want to ask as few questions as you can, so cutting those out that you can determine yourself is critical.

 

I'm not an investigator, but have survey design and survey research experience.

 

 

[salubrious]

23 hours ago, hiflier said:

Hi salubrious, I don't get the dropped the ball part. Doesn't sound right for some reason.

 

I've not tried to contact them since, so that's speculation on my part.

[hiflier]

Hey, 1980, good suggestions and yes, John Gree of course was a journalist and this questionnaire I based on his database's column/variables/headers. I referred to the database because it seemed pretty thorough and I, not being an experienced interviewer, found it helpful  Your suggestions are also very helpful and I thank you for them. I also thought this would perhaps be a good thing to have on this Forum for anyone new coming in who hasn't had anyone to discussing their sighting with.

 

They might be able to look it over and come up with details that registered but got overshadowed by the experience itself where talking about the event took center stage. Thought it might slow down the brain's process to a point where they could better focus on details if they had a way to remember such in the way of small details. They may feel good to be part of the process of figuring out what it was they saw and help the bigger cause for discovery. And I very much appreciate your input on this.   

[WSA]

"Alcohol, drugs or OTHER medications?"   You probably need to break that one down into:

 

1. Alcohol within __ hours of sighting, intoxicated or not?

2. Prescribed or non-prescribed drugs within __hours that may have altered or distorted perception?  

 

What time window the investigator wants to use is up for grabs. When I depose somebody I always ask both questions up front, and generally narrow it down by phrasing it as "since you woke up this morning" as well as "before you went to sleep last night."

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Here is some more relevant topic for a 98% accurate data base that could then be used for *science*

Are there at least two witnesses that do not know each other and have a good reputation?

Was the sighting in the clear and at close range.

Is there a clear cast that shows foot structure and high definition in a quality substrate?

Do you have a clear photo, film, etc.

 

Then have an interview by an intelligence interviewing specialist trained in CIA level or similar debriefing techniques for deception, eliciting confessions, tells, etc.

 

Use a lie detector while you're at it, voice stress analysis.

 

Do not use your standard "bigfoot investigator" (whatever that is) unless meeting the level of a professional investigator with training in the above techniques and experience in human policing or security. A science background in animal science and field data collection techniques would also be nice.

 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I edited it but timed out so here is my full reply.

 

Here is some more relevant topic for a 98% accurate data base that could then be used for *science*

Are there at least two witnesses that do not know each other and have a good reputation?

Was the sighting in the clear and at close range.

Is there a clear cast that shows foot structure and high definition in a quality substrate?

Do you have a clear photo, film, etc.

 

Do you have at least two witnesses and a good cast? 

Do you have a cast and a video or picture?

Do you have a very good picture or video?

 

Or for grins several different unrelated scientists that are not bigfotologists that can agree on detail of anatomy of one sighting.

 

The standard is two stand alone resources, irrefutable.

 

Like patterson or gimlin and a cast or a video.

 

Then you just get a lively debate, but absent the body you will never be any more sure.

Many scientists can accept that data and the reason is it's from two witnesses unrelated to each other. you have casts, a video. So there is your gold standard.

 

The footprint collection of Dr. Meldrum, a couple of the other decent videos, photos and you probably have less than 200 reliable data sets mostly from the PNW.

 

What you are trying to eliminate are even the good hoaxers that know the field and how to craft false reporting so it gets into a class "A" database.  To eliminate sincere but misguided sightings and false identification that are witness error. Only 100% reliable which is where the 2 percent error comes in.

Standard errors of deviation occur even in two source highly validated data for whatever reasons.

Over 5% and the data is not useful for precise operations, less than 60% accurate and you're pretty much guessing about any parameter that can be sued in a data operation as far as having any confidence.

 

Then have an interview by an intelligence interviewing specialist trained in CIA level or similar debriefing techniques for deception, eliciting confessions, tells, etc.

 

Use a lie detector while you're at it, voice stress analysis.

 

Do not use your standard "bigfoot investigator" (whatever that is) unless meeting the level of a professional investigator with training in the above techniques and experience in human policing or security. A science background in animal science and field data collection techniques would also be nice.

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

...Do not use your standard "bigfoot investigator" (whatever that is) unless meeting the level of a professional investigator with training in the above techniques and experience in human policing or security...

 

Might as well toss all of our current databases then and wait until we can find someone qualified to take a statement.

 

OK folks....do over.

Edited August 11, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

58 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Might as well toss all of our current databases then and wait until we can find someone qualified to take a statement.

 

OK folks....do over.

Well probably the P-G film was reported as where the others, the tracks, films..

Knowing the ones you have a location, a film, a track, or someone like John Greene, Bindernagel, Meldrum, and a corroborating witness if possible. Then make sure you have a professional interview any new evidence using those parameters you can start of with a hundred or two.

 

The point being data more than 2% wrong introduces further errors. 2% is a statistical anomaly, anything more is just introducing that much error to any subsequent calculation, which compound the error and ultimately makes that data useless. You could go into data science but that would mean reading a textbook on scientific data and databases and what that entails so I'm giving a dumbed down explanation.

 

If you don't really care about science databases and whats required then it realy doesn't matter does it.

Let science bend to the standards I guess, after all it is what it is. (less than 60% accurate for a class sighting by an off the cuff guestimate).

 

Data in databases also degenerates over the time. 

 

To illustrate a point as to what is not whoo whoo as far as standards of evidence.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[1980squatch]

18 hours ago, salubrious said:

I've not tried to contact them since, so that's speculation on my part.

 

They post reports on their public site at their discretion.  I suspect they found the behavior aspects of your encounter interesting enough to keep close to the vest.

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/10/2016 at 8:16 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

...

If you don't really care about science databases and whats required then it realy doesn't matter does it.

Let science bend to the standards I guess, after all it is what it is. (less than 60% accurate for a class sighting by an off the cuff guestimate).

 

Data in databases also degenerates over the time. 

 

To illustrate a point as to what is not whoo whoo as far as standards of evidence.

 

 

I like the chart, although perhaps there could be more explanation around what it really means, although getting the general gist is easy.

 

I would certainly like to see some references.

 

With respect to data quality, I don't remember encountering your "2%" figure before. I did  some limited reading on the topic a long time ago, wrote a couple of papers about data base conversion and data quality, and worked on resolving data quality problems. It has been 15 years since I seriously did data analysis and data quality work. Although I was formally trained in statistics, anything I learned on data quality was through my efforts at self-teaching, and trying to fix data quality issues - systemic and other, in very large health insurance data bases.

 

I have long wondered about the implications of the large uncertainty for published reports for Sasquatch footprints and encounters. I am surprised about your contention that "2%' error is some magic number, and would have to see the arguments in more detail.

 

My training was in experimental psychology, and the data in any psychology experiment is very, very noisy. I equate noise to data error, but perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

MikeZimmer,

 

You don't want noisy data in a hard science if you can have non noisy data instead.

I forget how I arrived at the magic number but is probably based on something I read a long time ago.

I worked with 100% knowable data and so was able to get that to 75% to 98% but mostly in the 95% to 98% range.

 

I can read up on it to give a fuller answer when I have more time.

 

But if you think about factoring 2% data field by another 2% inaccurate data field you start getting much higher error rates and introduce uncertainty to your calculations. 

 

As much as a sanity check as anything else.

 

Depends on how important the result is, if not important you can have a 100% error rate, or flip a coin and get a 50% error rate.

 

Might be appropriate for Biggy if flipping a coin you can determine existence vs nonexistence.

 

Or even whether you "believe"  a report to be true and accurate.

 

But you need a standard for accuracy and there you run into the second problem with BFRO data.

 

For instance "location" for a sighting, what is the definition for establishing a baseline?, within 2.cm or somewhere within 200 miles.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[MikeZimmer]

Cryptic Megafauna, I don't know what protocols are followed in BFRO assessments to weed out likely fraudulent reports, nor the guidelines for recording data. It could be that their protocols are good, their staff well trained, the audit procedures in place, and overall the quality of data is not bad. Given my experience in data quality in other areas, I would not count on it being all that tight. Generally, there is not a deep understanding of the issues, and there are many dimensions to getting good data. In short, without publication of these methods, we are in the dark on the BFRO process - what it is, how good it is, how well it is followed, and so on.

 

Good data is expensive in terms of time, which usually translates into money. It also requires expertise, and even with my work experience, I am far from an expert. I imagine most have given the issue no thought at all.

 

Interviewing techniques are clearly another study entirely, and they need trained, and probably gifted people to apply well.

 

The issue of data quality in softer research areas are somewhat different than those found in the hard sciences, so there may be some risk in applying principles from one field to another. I have not thought it through myself, but it may account for some of the comments I see on this site from those presenting themselves as scientists ,which do not correspond to my understanding of investigation methods based on my courses in research methods and statistical analysis. I also did work on data from field biology which is perhaps a harder science than experimental psychology, but not conducted to the standard of chemistry or physics.

 

A big question for me is how do we manage to get some consistency of reports, regardless of the system in place. Is there a filtering bias leading to non-conforming reports being ejected? Of course, reports go back way before the BFRO, and there are other people and organizations as well collecting reports. This goes to DWA's contention that there is a consistency in reports over geographical areas and over the decades that is best explained by the existence of a real creature. I tend to agree with him. It needs its own topic, and maybe someday I will start one. I think I have threatened to do so in the past.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Consistency is created by establishing protocols and providing documentation as well as in documenting quality procedures adhered to and rating quality.

Say I had a report with a film, two famous witnesses, and foot prints casts and photographs.

But my location accuracy was within 20 miles and time accuracy was within two years.

This is reported and goes into some database.

At a later date one of the famous witnesses was chatting in some online forum  and an investigator joins the thread and interviews the witness and creates a second report not realizing it is already in the database and so adds another entry that is 30 miles off the real target and 3 years off the real timeline.

Another reader of the forum uses forum discussion of the sighting to file a third fictitious report but is it convincing because the details are so realistic and is accepted as a legitimate report.

We now have three bigfoot over several years within 30 miles of each other.

 

Researcher B wants to study habitat since the accuracy is all over the place he cannot figure out what time of year the animals are in what type of habitat so abandons the project.

 

There is also no way of filtering out the bad data or prevent it getting in in the first place.

 

Even if you could get accurate data it would be disguised otherwise every yahoo would be out tearing up sighting locations and trying to get famous. So a public accurate database will never happen anyway. Many sightings in the BFRO are generalized as to location for that very reason. One reason you get sighting location data for the middle of large cities. The margins of error are huge, of course.

 

The you make your algorythm to try and extract scientific structure for analysis the noise drowns the signal and instead of useful results you wind up with discussions on boards like this about why bigfoot likes downtown Seattle ("hint" it's the availability of starbucks as a strict scientific correlation of data points) So the conclusions become the habitat and location are starbucks and seattle  or bears are Bigfoot and that is a direct outgrowth of your non sane data approach.

 

So my guess there are the high value datasets but they are privately held and strictly use prints, actual locations and witnesses who would pass a standard CIA review.

 

More relevant to a thread like this would be starting off with creating a weighting system and a standard that is hard science.

 

For instance a location within 100 feet would be a very high value and within 200 miles a very low value.

 

Reported immediately with an accurate date and time a very high value. A much later date from memory a very low value.

 

An unobstructed close view by 2 witness that do not know each other a very high value.

 

Interviewed by an FBI trained investigator with a background in anthropology and fish and game and gets high credibility a high value, interviewed by Joe schmoe a very low value.

 

You get the idea, there is a lot more to it than that.

 

You also need to create reporting procedures and document how the steps are to be entered, formats, number values, procedural details, anything that anyone could possibly have a question about who was making a report or wanted to know how the data is created. Something that is a gold standard and does not rely on personal connections and personalities but technical documents on what specifications are to be followed and how and under what circumstances and with what know exceptions.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[MikeZimmer]

6 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

 

You also need to create reporting procedures and document how the steps are to be entered, formats, number values, procedural details, anything that anyone could possibly have a question about who was making a report or wanted to know how the data is created. Something that is a gold standard and does not rely on personal connections and personalities but technical documents on what specifications are to be followed and how and under what circumstances and with what know exceptions.

 

 

Yep, this corresponds pretty much to my thoughts on the issue. I was the procedures guy in an Information Technology development shop for a significant part of my career, and the fundamental issues are similar.

 

I just don't know what standards various organizations are using, if they have documented methods, if people are trained, if there is an effective quality control function, and so on. I would be surprised to find one that was somewhat rigorous, because in my experience it is very hard to work that way - requiring, time, money, training, management support, .... and it is often not that much fun. Resistance to the methodologists from the doers is the norm in the working world, ameliorated only if you have a clear high level commitment to some standard.

 

 

[MIB]

Yeah, that's not likely to happen if you're relying on volunteer enthusiasts.   Might if you had paid professionals.  

 

The data I see is good enough.   Line of best fit rather than all exactly on the curve.   That's about as good as it gets in field biology.   If you ever get data so perfectly predictable there is no variation, you're being hoaxed.  

 

MIB