On the Topic of Encounter Reports

[dmaker]

7 minutes ago, DWA said:

There is no reason to assume this guy didn't see something corresponding to his description of it

It seems some others here would disagree with that assessment. 

18 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Yes, as a matter of fact I do, but I take it you already know that, and are just trying to discredit me

Do you think believing that aliens created bigfoot is harmful to credibility?

[7.62]

32 minutes ago, Branco said:

No Sir. According to witnesses there are at least two white-haired ones, and possibly a third. One now is old, decrepit and short tempered. It is believed that is the one that has a bedding area atop a large beaver lodge out in an old cypress swamp. I'll try to find a photo of that bedding place which was taken by local guy and posted on an AR sports forum. 

 

The old booger has aggressively escorted several hunters out of the woods just before dark.

Thanks for the info.

I had never heard of an Albino

[Guest DWA]

5 hours ago, Redbone said:

I have trouble reading fictional stories or novels because i don't particularly enjoy the writing style. This report seems like it was produced by a story teller.

There's no reason to presume that, which means one can't. Unless one has direct evidence that it's a story, and there is none, than it can't be presumed prima facie to be one.
 

It includes a lot of extra fluff, trying to frame the scene.

Once again, that's an assumption. Many people will include details. Look at the laugh-a-minute videos on YouTube.  Virtually no backstory.  THAT'S a flag, yellow only, but might indicate that the person doesn't want to be tripped up. Or just wants to get this over with because hey, just a joke, right? It also indicates that the person might not be Shakespeare, or might think the account won't be taken seriously, both prime reasons we have follow-up.  Many people know that a detailed recollection of the day can help research, even though they might not be certain of which things are most useful.  And many people think that's just the way to tell someone what happened.  No negative conclusions can be drawn based on what we know.

As somebody who enters these reports in our database, i can appreciated the detailed descriptions, but something seems off to me.

To make your database maximally useful, you'd have to shelve that feeling and file this one.  There's no reason not to. And this is the same thing I say to people who have had encounters:  your assertion what precisely it was doesn't make you right, although it is an interesting piece of info to add.  My disagreeing with your assessment, likewise, could not be the "something off" I use to flush your report. One person's assessment is a very dangerous thing in this field.  In any field.

 

"Narrow Eyes" is kind of a red flag and I'd think a creature this large would not have "Small nostril holes"

Nope.  No flags there.  This is an individual's eyewitness account, and those are terms he used, not taxonomical features examined by specialists.  Fault here - and ain't it always - is on the followup investigator if those terms aren't clarified in the followup. Humans - and apes - have wide variations in facial appearance.

 

A Non Compliant gait? How else would we notice knee flex bowing slightly backwards?

Again, the investigator didn't do proper diligence here.  It does not sound as if a best effort was made to tease this out.  Should have been.  We don't know what the compliant gait looks like to everyone seeing it, nor what it might appear like from all angles to all observers.

 

5 hours ago, Martin said:

Claims to be terrified and scared for his/their lives on multiple occasions in a area frequented by civilians yet never notifies authorities.......  then waits 41 years to file a report.

 

Super sketchy.

Nope.  Why wouldn't anyone be scared confronting something like this? This guy was all alone.  If you saw something like this in the middle of your wedding reception, and weren't scared, there'd be something wrong with you. And you have the guy's own buddy, who didn't say anything until he was pretty certain his friend had seen what he had.  People clam up because Martins don't believe them and make fun of them.  And the authorities are frequently the worst.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by DWA

[Twist]

42 minutes ago, DWA said:

This report goes very firmly on the pile.

 

For those who haven't yet read me saying that:  there is nothing, flat nothing, in this report that would lead anyone to suspect the witness to be lying, hallucinating or otherwise in error about the basic nature of what was seen.  And there are, OK, didn't count, but like 10 guidebook-standard markers - and by the way, most people would have zero idea of what those are, because they're too busy looking for "red flags" and there are none here - in the account.

 

There is no reason to assume this guy didn't see something corresponding to his description of it, which is why he contacted the BFRO, because that's what it reads like.

 

So is every positive report just a gut feeling regarding bf with you or are you willing to list the 10 guidebook standard markers?

 

Always you are quick to point out your standards but never do you define them.  

[Redbone]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

To make your database maximally useful, you'd have to shelve that feeling and file this one.  There's no reason not to. And this is the same thing I say to people who have had encounters:  your assertion what precisely it was doesn't make you right, although it is an interesting piece of info to add.  My disagreeing with your assessment, likewise, could not be the "something off" I use to flush your report. One person's assessment is a very dangerous thing in this field.  In any field.

 

Just to be clear... I enter all reports into the database whether I believe them or not. They are all scored on things that do not include my feelings. BUT... I also don't just dismiss any report out of hand, including this one. What gets me is that the descriptions are so consistent from report to report. Without the "narrow eyes" this report it would fit right into what I would expect.

 

I was only so critical of this report because it was the subject of the original post. I have read so many reports that certain things jump out at me from time to time.

You should read more reports, then you'd know what I am talking about (That's a joke, in case it's not obvious enough)

Edited June 14, 2017 by Redbone

[Guest DWA]

I'm just always careful to note two things:

 

1. The amazing consistency of the reports; and

2. The need to remember that not all terminology will be scientific, that witnesses get varying levels of good-enough but not perfect looks, etc. (which makes the consistency all the more amazing...were they not all describing a similar thing, which makes it kind of what one would expect, kind of like 5000 people describing a robin who'd never seen one before)

 

There sure enough seemed to be something going on here.

 

(I probably should note here my recognition that I kinda busted Tal's chops on the follow-up.  Um, sorry there, Tal, and maybe I should try this follow-up thing for a bit, eh? but I do have this tendency to go with practically every one I read:  why not more questions about this thing x?  (y...z...a...b...)

Edited June 14, 2017 by DWA

[FarArcher]

That comment about the eyes close together  .  .  .  mine had his eyes way higher on his head than a human - they don't have much of a forehead, so trying to describe it is at best, awkward.

 

And the one I saw, as I've described lacking proper terminology - I said there was something "wrong" with his knees and something "wrong" with his ankles.  

 

Now, according to Branco, I had nothing to really worry about - but this thing was butt ugly, huge, and I wasn't sticking around as once I was clear - had to check the seat of my britches for lumps.

 

I know many would say. "Well if I'd been there  .  .  ," and I call BS.  You have no clue what you'd do.

 

And armchair cynics bring absolutely nothing to the table.

[Guest DWA]

Right.  Someone once used "foot rolling" and another "foot curled like the letter C" to describe the flexibility that the description would lead one to believe is due to the mid-tarsal break in the sasquatch foot.  Many people describe the sagittal crest or the prognathous jaw with lay terms that make it pretty obvious that's what they saw.

 

With all the problems that anyone should expect with people of all walks of life describing what they saw...we still have the consistency.  Boy, I'd want to think about that were I most people.

[Twist]

Boy, ever considered the fact that people do read and consider things yet come up with different conclusions than you?  ..... I know, mind blown for you.......

[WSA]

What popped out for me are a couple of inferences....strong ones...that tend to undermine the idea this witness made this up out of whole cloth. The fact that ( so far) none of this learned and esteemed company has noted these conclusions bolsters the idea this man could not have deliberately inserted these details with a realistic hope it would sandbag his story. As I always say, people are bad liars. Here are just a couple of tells, flagging the probability of truth for us. 

 

 

[Branco]

26 minutes ago, DWA said:

(I probably should note here my recognition that I kinda busted Tal's chops on the follow-up.  Um, sorry there, Tal, and maybe I should try this follow-up thing for a bit, eh? but I do have this tendency to go with practically every one I read:  why not more questions about this thing x?  (y...z...a...b...)

DWA: I understand your point exactly. I talked to the witness many times, and tried to zero in on his description of the eyes, head shape and that odd leg configuration. He was steadfast in his belief that the eyes were closer set than he would have expected. As for his head shape, although he did not say the word, nor did I even mention it, I believe what he meant was that the chin was wide and the head tapered to a coned peak. The thing about the "backward flex" of the legs, I could not figure out exactly what he meant, nor could he describe any better than he did.

 

Now having said that, I want to state that his description of the leg movement is not unique. In a report I investigated from near the Robert F. Henry Lock & Dam in Lowndes County, AL two witness saw a BF crawl over a guard rail and started to cross the road in front of them late one night.They said when it stood upright its legs at the knee joint moved as if the animal had been injured by a vehicle. They slowed down because they thought it was crippled. Once it took a wobbled step, the legs straightened and it ran quickly across the road and stepped over the opposite side guard rail. 

In the long report I wrote about a female BF the local folks called "The Black Thing", that BF was either born with a birth defect or badly injured at some time to cause her eyes to be vertically offset. Her feet were also shaped much differently than  typical BF's, more like that of the combination of a chimp's and ape's foot, and curved like a banana.

 

(If I'm not mistaken, both of those reports were posted on this forum.)

 

I firmly believe that in some cases inbreeding causes some of the unusual characteristics sometimes reported by witnesses.  

[Twist]

 

16 minutes ago, WSA said:

What popped out for me are a couple of inferences....strong ones...that tend to undermine the idea this witness made this up out of whole cloth. The fact that ( so far) none of this learned and esteemed company has noted these conclusions bolsters the idea this man could not have deliberately inserted these details with a realistic hope it would sandbag his story. As I always say, people are bad liars. Here are just a couple of tells, flagging the probability of truth for us. 

 

 

 

Either come out with your ideas on this or not.  You are coming off as if you have some superior knowledge in regards to ciphering randomly submitted reports.  The air of arrogance does not suit you well. 

[Branco]

When asked questions about certain features or details a witness might have seen during an encounter with a creature he/she had never believed existed, and that person thinks for a while and says, "I'm sorry, I just don't know", that means a lot. 

[JustCurious]

What I find in the report is that the estimated foot length/height/stride measures fit well with Fahrenbach's normative distributions.  The stride length can be attained by a runner, but all indications in the report are that the creature was walking, so it's outside the norm for a human (actually almost double),  The red or pink eye color is normal for an albino.  The basic description could apply to bigfoot. 

 

It's hard to tell whether the reportee is a detail oriented person and that is the reason for so much detail, or if in the retelling numerous times details have been added.  The model motorcycle is consistent with the timeframe.  The location exists.

 

Personally, I think the basic details are facts as the reportee knows them, but the squinting, snarling face details may be additions after the fact to make the story scarier. 

[wiiawiwb]

The narrow eyes comment caught my attention immediately and added credibility from my perspective. How many here remember the phenomenal pictures of sasquatch that Nightwing, of the old BFF forum, created? 

 

The eyes in his pictures were narrowly-spaced apart.