On the Topic of Encounter Reports

[FarArcher]

It's possible that some of that gray, or "white" may be akin to silverbacks.

 

Age.

[Branco]

On 6/13/2017 at 2:14 PM, 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.

Dang! I guess I needed you as a tutor before I wrote those numerous crime scene, vehicle accident and witness statement reports for the those three law enforcement agencies, the hundreds of analytical reports I wrote for the research labs here and in Brazil, and the hundreds of consumer fraud investigations reports in the South/Southeast states.

  

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

Well heck; that's odd. I've testified in hundreds of cases in county, state and federal courts - in over half those cases as an expert witness - and have never  had a judge, juror, arbitrator, plaintiff's or defendant's attorney complain about my reports "including a lot of fluff, trying to frame the scene", although many of those entities have expressed their appreciation for the details contained in those reports. Many times, specifically based on the contents of the reports, the civil cases were settled out of court, and the persons charged in criminal cases changed their pleas to guilty. What you call "fluff", others may call details pertinent to the investigation.  

 

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

As someone who has tediously and carefully investigated reports of Bigfoot activity, and shared those findings as formatted written reports on one or more of six internet forums and print publications, I would certainly appreciate your criterion for determining "when something seems off to me."

 

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

Would that be "fluff" opinions, or does those conditions conflict with you own personal observations?

 

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

Interesting questions.

 

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.

H'mm!

 

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.

You did consider that this one was an albino; which in itself indicates other possible physical abnormal features, right?

 

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.

Care to explain what your criterion for determining when "certain things jump out" at you?

 

 

Bottom line: So based on your "beliefs" that, (1) You considered the report troublesome because you didn't like the writing style, (2) sounded like it was produced by a story teller, (3) it contained a lot of extra fluff, trying to frame the scene, (4) you saw red flags about the narrow eyes, (5) You thought the creature should not have had small nostril holes, (6) some nonspecific "something" seemed off to you, and (7) you've read so many reports that "certain (unspecified) things jump out at me (you) from time to time", you concluded and recorded that the "Confidence" rating for this report was "low".and claim it was "scored on things that do not include my (your) feelings."

Chilling to think what would have happened if I had included such ill conceived comments in responses to questions while on the witness stand. B'rrrr  

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Branco

[hiflier]

^^^^

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 50 plusses for that!

[Twist]

47 minutes ago, Branco said:

Bottom line: So based on your "beliefs" that, (1) You considered the report troublesome because you didn't like the writing style, (2) sounded like it was produced by a story teller, (3) it contained a lot of extra fluff, trying to frame the scene, (4) you saw red flags about the narrow eyes, (5) You thought the creature should not have had small nostril holes, (6) some nonspecific "something" seemed off to you, and (7) you've read so many reports that "certain (unspecified) things jump out at me (you) from time to time", you concluded and recorded that the "Confidence" rating for this report was "low".and claim it was "scored on things that do not include my (your) feelings."

Chilling to think what would have happened if I had included such ill conceived comments in responses to questions while on the witness stand. B'rrrr  

 

 

All reports are going to be viewed and interpreted differently by each individual.  His interpretation is no more right or wrong than your own at this point in the BF game.  We are still dealing with an unknown.  You can disagree with his opinions but that does not make your own any more valid.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by Twist

[Guest DWA]

^^^That is actually wrong.  Science tells us how to treat evidence.  What Branco is saying is:  you can't just toss a report because of...anything he is saying, up there, that you can't toss a report for.

 

And from a scientific standpoint,  HE.IS.RIGHT. Because the difference is: toss or keep?  Science says:  KEEP.  From a strict scientific standpoint, Branco's take on the report is the extremely clear choice.

 

Thinking that science gives us *no way to lean*?  That's wrong.  This is the very reason many of us here can see an animal in the evidence:  we know *which way science says lean.*

 

This one goes firmly on the pile, as a potential sasquatch encounter.  Science puts a period at the end of that sentence.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[WSA]

You will just have to take my word for it that I did not even notice (or even anticipate) that Branco was the investigator of this report when I pulled it off the BFRO database and posted it here.  I make a habit of concentrating only on the contents of the reports, and I don't ever pause to see whose work product it might be. Still, now that I do know, I have to admit it certainly enhances my original conclusions.

 

As to the supposed "fluff" in the content?  Any investigator knows a lack of detail is the surest sign of a fabrication, and this is also known to fabricators as well. They know the more details they give, the more chance there will be errors and contradictions. This is why, in every police procedural you've ever watched, the interrogating cop never says, "We have your statement, so there isn't any reason to ask you further questions about the crime..." Plus too, liars just aren't that creative. When they try to be, they very often fall on their face.

[Redbone]

Branco... I was offering an opinion on why I thought it 'could' be a fabrication.

You do know I wasn't talking about your part of that report correct? Or are you the witness?

 

Also if you read through the rest of this thread you'll see I didn't dismiss this report out of hand.

It scored 4 out of 10 in the system that doesn't include my feelings. That's not exactly a high rating.

 

I did not consider that an albino bigfoot might have narrow eyes. I know nothing about albino animals except that they are white.

While you have had direct contact with the witness and find him credible, the rest of us have not had contact. All we have to go on is what was written.

 

Quote

My friends and I would work on our motorcycles, and then ride them in the woods at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock, AR. (back when they let us do such things ).
The day started off normal, with my friends Loren P., Jerry W., Tommy B., Jim O., and myself riding our motorcycles.
There was a ditch about 6 feet deep, and 7 feet wide and we took turns jumping it.
I was on a yellow Suzuki 185 motorcycle with a stinger exhaust system on it.
I was jumping the ditch and almost crashed my motorcycle, and thought I had better quit before I got hurt.
My friends all wanted to keep jumping the ditch, so I decided to ride East along a dirt trail that ran parallel to the ditch.
I was in no hurry since I was not familiar with the trail, and was just enjoying the ride.
I had ridden about 20 minutes or so when I saw what I thought was a white motorcycle going South.

 

That's the 'fluff' I'm referring to. I'd write something like this...

 

"Me and 4 friend were riding motorcycles in the woods at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock (back when they let us do that). Not wanting to hurt myself, I rode off alone while my friend were jumping a ditch. After about 20 minutes, on a trail heading east, i noticed a white object moving south towards me. At first I thought it was a motorcycle, and stopped so we would not collide. It was no motorcycle..."

 

Do we care that the motorcycle was yellow? Did we need to know the names of all if his friends? Did we have to know the ditch was 6 feet deep and 7 feet across?

Every one of these details is probably true. The more truthful statements that get included in a report, the easier it is to sell your credibility.

 

Does this mean any of it is a lie? not necessarily.

 

One question for you? Did you attempt to contact any of the other witnesses mentioned in this report?

Jim O. might have a lot to say on the matter if he's still with us. If not then I apologize for my insensitivity.

 

have a nice day

 

Quote

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.

Care to explain what your criterion for determining when "certain things jump out" at you?

Regarding this report, it's the extra detail that jumps out at me (as explained above)

Edited June 16, 2017 by Redbone

[Guest DWA]

28 minutes ago, Redbone said:

Branco... I was offering an opinion on why I thought it 'could' be a fabrication.

Well, no doubt it could be.  One thing I could do now is write a **** good bigfoot report.  But would I want to do that?  Would I want to see how far my lie would go?  Who does that?  Safe to say "not many," and on that, I am thinking, whatever might be the possibilities...filing it.  (As I think you said you would/did; and that would be the right thing to do.)

 

Quote

Also if you read through the rest of this thread you'll see I didn't dismiss this report out of hand.

It scored 4 out of 10 in the system that doesn't include my feelings. That's not exactly a high rating.

No, it might not be.  But I'd still consider this no *less* likely than the ones I might personally consider *more* compelling. And maybe this is where I say where I fall on these.  I don't consider my personal compelling-meter - which might like yours include some pretty solid stuff - to say "junk" or "true" unless I have evidence of "junk." (He says bigfoot collision; the hairs test out deer and the damage to the car is consistent with that.)  If it winds up on "this incident could have happened like the witness says," file.  Done. That info about the individual could be important to research down the line.

Mattafack, I just had a rethink about the car example.  Let's say we talk to the service manager; he says the guy was shvitzing through his clothes on a 55-degree night with a 15 mph breeze.  He kept looking over his shoulder like he's expecting the bigfoot to come in the shop door now.  The manager never saw anything like this.  And as the follow-up investigator...something really unusual seems apparent here.  Might he, just possibly, *make up the collision* (to be with a bigfoot, not a deer) to make me believe that he saw *what he saw*?  Which may be why he hit the deer? I'd file the report; I'd say "damage looked like deer, plus deer hair..." and note that maybe he was using the damage to make a case he badly wanted to make because he saw what he saw.  (Then there's hitting the deer the bigfoot was chasing,..)

 

I did not consider that an albino bigfoot might have narrow eyes. I know nothing about albino animals except that they are white.

While you have had direct contact with the witness and find him credible, the rest of us have not had contact. All we have to go on is what was written.

True.  And while I have said more than once, really? No more follow-up than that? If the witness *could have had* that experience, file it.

 

Quote

 

That's the 'fluff' I'm referring to. I'd write something like this...

 

"Me and 4 friend were riding motorcycles in the woods at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock (back when they let us do that). Not wanting to hurt myself, I rode off alone while my friend were jumping a ditch. After about 20 minutes, on a trail heading east, i noticed a white object moving south towards me. At first I thought it was a motorcycle, and stopped so we would not collide. It was no motorcycle..."

 

Do we care that the motorcycle was yellow? Did we need to know the names of all if his friends? Did we have to know the ditch was 6 feet deep and 7 feet across?

Every one of these details is probably true. The more truthful statement that get included in a report, the easier it is to sell your credibility.

I consider this like Patty.  Skeptics try to find all kinds of holes...but none of them relate to what is on the film.  I think that some people actually do include detail designed to sell their credibility.  But I think that is *to sell "I saw this thing."* I see nothing wrong with that unless *evidence* tells me something else happened here from what the witness tells me.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[Redbone]

Quote

Bottom line: So based on your "beliefs" that, (1) You considered the report troublesome because you didn't like the writing style, (2) sounded like it was produced by a story teller, (3) it contained a lot of extra fluff, trying to frame the scene, (4) you saw red flags about the narrow eyes, (5) You thought the creature should not have had small nostril holes, (6) some nonspecific "something" seemed off to you, and (7) you've read so many reports that "certain (unspecified) things jump out at me (you) from time to time", you concluded and recorded that the "Confidence" rating for this report was "low".and claim it was "scored on things that do not include my (your) feelings."

Chilling to think what would have happened if I had included such ill conceived comments in responses to questions while on the witness stand. B'rrrr  

1- yes

2- yes

3 -yes

4- yes (but I had not considered that it might be an albino trait)

5- absolutely (but again maybe an albino thing)

6- Not exactly non-specific. Mostly it was the extra details or 'fluff" as I called it.

7- The reports are rated two different ways in our database. A 0-10 scale (this report was a 4) and a 4 category 'opinion' (Complete, Moderate, Somewhat, and Low).

I've only given a 'complete' rating to the PGF film report (it also achieved a very rare "10" rating). If I'm highly convinced it will get a "Moderate" all the rest get "Somewhat" or "Low". This one got a low, and I've explained why. What more can I say? Anyone studying the database or reports are free to exclude my 'opinion' and probably should. If you look at the plethora of reports entered by Bobby O in the Pacific Northwest, many (if not most) are unrated, by his choice.

 

I'm not on a witness stand offering facts for a case. I'm on an internet forum offering an opinion.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Redbone

[Guest DWA]

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

You will just have to take my word for it that I did not even notice (or even anticipate) that Branco was the investigator of this report when I pulled it off the BFRO database and posted it here. 

 

Nor did I know it was him when I was mashing the investigator's chops; I'll be more careful about that in future

I make a habit of concentrating only on the contents of the reports, and I don't ever pause to see whose work product it might be. Still, now that I do know, I have to admit it certainly enhances my original conclusions.

I've read more than enough of his reports to wonder why I was coming down on him so bad

 

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

 

As to the supposed "fluff" in the content?  Any investigator knows a lack of detail is the surest sign of a fabrication, and this is also known to fabricators as well. They know the more details they give, the more chance there will be errors and contradictions. This is why, in every police procedural you've ever watched, the interrogating cop never says, "We have your statement, so there isn't any reason to ask you further questions about the crime..." Plus too, liars just aren't that creative. When they try to be, they very often fall on their face.

When you read the 'backup' to a joke video on YouTube:  there is never any backstory and I mean never.

 

[Branco]

On 6/13/2017 at 2:14 PM, Redbone said:

X (two hours ago)

I'm not on a witness stand offering facts for a case. I'm on an internet forum offering an opinion.

 

Thank you for revealing " the scoring card" and explaining how it is intended to be used. Clearly all those six "fluff" items that you mentioned & I recounted have absolutely nothing to do with your chore of counting points. You are indeed offering facts; the numerical confidence number obtained by reading a chart. 

 

Surely you can see and understand that without clarification, intermingling your fluff opinions with the discussion of one of the forum's data base reports would be confusing to some of the more .....ah... ancient members.

 

Regards! (Put in back in the holster, this digital gunfight is over.) 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Branco

[Redbone]

no problems - If I were you I'd have probably reacted similarly.

 

A point will come where we'll be discussing a siting where I know the witnesses. I'm 100% convinced it happened to them, because I know them and how it changed their lives. Anybody else reading the report will probably be much less convinced. Spoiler - (it's this one) or click here to see the wayback machine archive which includes the missing pictures.

 

And.... If we ever submit my son's siting, we might be skewered because it included glowing eyes. It's really the only remaining reason it's not already a published report. BFRO investigators were there when it happened and investigated the same day (1 am siting, 2 pm investigation), finding a hand print. It happened at a location that was supposed to remain secret, but Finding Bigfoot ruined it by telling the world where we were at the 2014 Iowa expedition (and yet I still make people look it up). When people start shouting that my own son is lying, watch how defensive I get...

 

now...back to this report...

If I were to enter the second sighting as a separate database entry, it will score a 5, based on multiple witnesses.

"About a year later" leaves a little guesswork about the date, but I'll probably enter it anyway. I'll also have to take a guess at the drop zone location.

 

Furthermore, based on the contents of this thread I'll bump my database "opinion" from low to "somewhat".

Edited June 17, 2017 by Redbone

[Branco]

33 minutes ago, Redbone said:

I'll also have to take a guess at the drop zone location.

If you get on Google Earth and do a search for "All American Drop Zone, Camp Joseph T. Robinson, AR" it may zero the spot. If not, just zoom in on the northern part of the base, just a tad south of the northern Pulaski County line, it will show up as what looks like a two-runway air strip. (The USAF base at Jacksonville, AR still use that drop zone for the same purpose as they did then.) 

 

Furthermore, based on the contents of this thread I'll bump my database "opinion" from low to "somewhat".

Well, whoop-dee-do!  

[ShadowBorn]

" A point will come where we'll be discussing a siting where I know the witnesses. I'm 100% convinced it happened to them, because I know them and how it changed their lives. Anybody else reading the report will probably be much less convinced. Spoiler - (it's this one) or click here to see the wayback machine archive which includes the missing pictures "

Redbone

This to me is very typical behavior for me.  Where they will follow ridge lines .  The map shows many paths where deer will follow from field to field  and use the woods as a path. It almost seems like they were on a hunt and happen to come across the fisherman. They were not sure of the subjects and decided to find out. But again this is just my opinion.   But I have often found tracks on ridges  where I have also found deer tracks as well. as well as around lakes and rivers.. But I am not sure how they hide there tracks  but they do it well.