SRN- The Sasquatch Research Network

[hiflier]

Ever read a report and think gee, if a follow up could've happened right away then maybe, just maybe, there would be a chance of successfully documenting a Sasquatch? This thread is for discussing that follow-up. It would be nice if not too much negativity enters into the picture, beyond talking about practical pros and cons, but instead members here will take the time to think about the subject of discovery and give some good consideration toward this idea: a network.

 

Off the bat, it would require that the BFRO gets bypassed. In fact it would require that most normal Bigfoot websites that people report to get bypassed. In order for that to happen people would need to know that there is a new more direct, more responsive program in the neighborhood. The idea came to me a while back after seeing members here speak of their own follow ups after witnesses contacted them directly. The concept from there was envisioning that on a wider scale.

 

An example would be that an investigator who lives in say, Portland, Maine. wouldn't have to travel three hours to Eustis to follow up a report because there would be people within 20 miles of Eustis that could do the follow up. in real time as soon as the report came in. That is where the knowledge of the Sasquatch Research Network would have to be made known to the general public but it's obviously would have to involve more than just that. 3-5 people within 20 miles of the report is probably the best number of folks to go into the field. There could be more but not everyone will always be available.

 

I will let it go at that and look for questions or input on the details of such a network which will be more interesting than just someone coming onto the tread and generally saying that any such plan won't work. It will definitely be more enjoyable to take the high road and look for ways that it CAN work. The floor is open  

[WSA]

Right, it could most definitely bring something to the effort, or at least, as they say in Jersey: Couldn't hoit. BUUUUT... here's the obstacle:

 

I haven't done any kind of review of the BFRO database to quantify this, but my experience is that usually you have many days (Weeks? Months? YEARS?!!) between the sighting and the report. That is just how it is with people who see something this astounding and unexpected. They typically need a long, long time to process it. OTOH, the guy who sees one and says, "Oh, look at that. A Sasquatch" probably already has all the tools he needs to do a competent follow-up and probably wouldn't avail himself of resources that might let his personal cat out of the bag either. 

 

 

[hiflier]

A good post, WSA. No system would be perfect of course including this one. But the goal would be that witnesses would eventually know that there is a quick response along with being able to stay in the loop on any progress in their report. I see this as a series of roughly overlapping circles. The best way to describe the layout might be to imaging the system with respect to the points of a compass. one circle would be in the center and the people around that center would have contact with each other. Lets say for configuration's sake that there are four people equidistant from each other along the circle. To the North is another circle which also has four people and also another circle group to the South . Obviously in the real world these circles wouldn't be anywhere near circular.

 

There would be no reason for the Souh circle to be in contact with the North circle but both circles would somewhat overlap the center one. The southernmost person in the middle circle could be in contact no only with the other people in the center circle but also with the people in the southern circle. The same would apply to the person on the North side of the center circle and those in the Northern circla. The people Eas and West in the center would have contact with their respective cells East and West. And, as North and South, the East and West circles would have no reason to have each other's contact info.

 

So at any given time no more than four people would be involved in a follow up either within a circle or any overlapping areas in whatever direction.. As I mentioned these wouldn't be perfect circles as terrain would be a major actor in the configuration of thee mice-regions of investigators. And depending on the nature of the evidence any given group wouldn't have to have everyone show up at the sight of the report. But if it is an actual sighting then things like patrolling roads around the area of the sighting could be launched, or even people with drones could be asked to fly them in a search of the area. In an ideal world a witness could have at least one person on site within the hour to take the report and conduct an interview with a type written questionnaire the would ask about 100 of all of the right questions. This is only a very basic overview of such a network.

 

At the same time a general report and status update could be sent out to all network members in North America. Something a software and IT person would have to set up. And yes, skeptics would, or should, be welcome.

[Wolfjewel]

WSA said: "... my experience is that usually you have many days (Weeks? Months? YEARS?!!) between the sighting and the report... They typically need a long, long time to process it. OTOH, the guy who sees one and says, "Oh, look at that. A Sasquatch" probably already has all the tools he needs to do a competent follow-up....."

 

True! But I believe there are other folks who, right after a sighting, need someone to talk to so they won't end up in the first category (giving a much later report.)

 

When I was in a local UFO group (spin off of MUFON), a woman once contacted us after what she thought was a UFO experience with missing time. I was given her name and contact info, but because it was late Nov.,I didn't call her until after Christmas. She did give information, but her original agitated state had gotten much calmer. She said she really needed someone to talk to right after this unusual and possibly traumatic event happened. (I felt bad that I hadn't called her right away, but I had no idea then of the urgency.)

 

So, in similar cases with sasquatch reports, I think Hiflier's idea of people nearby - boots on the ground and ears to listen - would be valuable. If we can get enough people. Before we recruit investigators, who would train the investigators?

[hiflier]

Looking at this from another direction, how well would a Sasquatch who is say, 25 years old know the territory it dwells in- or in keeping with a migratory viewpoint- visits. Things change, trees fall, forest roads get grown over, new roads get put in- both paved and unpaved as needed. and areas suffer wildfires as well as floods, as well as logging activities, so on an annual basis might any of these upheavals result in a sighting? Sure, why not. It might be like me living in a house and then leave for a while and someone come in and renovate it without my knowledge. I might end up walking out the wrong door or walk to what used to be my kitchen and end up in a den.  I'd be a little disoriented for a while. It makes me curious about a habitat that is different so a Sasquatch walks a familiar direction but the doors have been switched around and it gets seen.      

[Arvedis]

Such a process would be very difficult and time consuming to control and vet.  All individuals and groups start off with the best of intentions but keeping it that way would be a challenge.

 

As mentioned, training would be a problem and you end up with uneven results like the BFRO and other orgs and well meaning event mappers.

[MIB]

Right.  And failure to control via inadequate vetting likely comes with liability.   When those issues have been addressed, the result looks just like every other bigfoot research group's web site and investigation "team".   Rather than reinventing the wheel and starting with zero reports, it's more productive to join one of the groups and assist them.    They've likely got mounds of reports needing investigating, mounds of raw data you may access as an investigator for deriving trends, and so on, plus having access to people with experience investigating and probably subject matter experts in various investigation / documentation techniques like track casting, finger printing, tracking, and so on.  

 

MIB

[bipedalist]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

Looking at this from another direction, how well would a Sasquatch who is say, 25 years old know the territory it dwells in- or in keeping with a migratory viewpoint- visits. Things change, trees fall, forest roads get grown over, new roads get put in- both paved and unpaved as needed. and areas suffer wildfires as well as floods, as well as logging activities, so on an annual basis might any of these upheavals result in a sighting? Sure, why not. It might be like me living in a house and then leave for a while and someone come in and renovate it without my knowledge. I might end up walking out the wrong door or walk to what used to be my kitchen and end up in a den.  I'd be a little disoriented for a while. It makes me curious about a habitat that is different so a Sasquatch walks a familiar direction but the doors have been switched around and it gets seen.      

 

Well I think you can safely assume that most Sasquatch that are not heavily migratory know the lay of the land down to the last twig of their domain and better than the back of their hand in pitch black.  That has been my experience in close-up. 

 

Now also, there are many nonpublished reports in the BFRO research experience.   They research areas reported by others sometimes "BEFORE" sightings occur and give advice and suggestions for those who want to "stay off the map".   How many?  Can't say for sure.  But I know in my instance their assistance helped facilitate a sighting by just the consultation experience and moral support.  Yes, I had some top researchers assist me for sure.....    that may not be an everyday event across the country in similar circumstances however. 

 

Their nonpublished reports probably get followed up on much more rapidly if it is going to become one of their expedition sites or a Finding Bigfoot episode focus I would think but don't count me in the know on that. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, Arvedis said:

Such a process would be very difficult and time consuming to control and vet.  All individuals and groups start off with the best of intentions but keeping it that way would be a challenge.

 

As mentioned, training would be a problem and you end up with uneven results like the BFRO and other orgs and well meaning event mappers.

 

19 minutes ago, MIB said:

Right.  And failure to control via inadequate vetting likely comes with liability.   When those issues have been addressed, the result looks just like every other bigfoot research group's web site and investigation "team".   Rather than reinventing the wheel and starting with zero reports, it's more productive to join one of the groups and assist them.    They've likely got mounds of reports needing investigating, mounds of raw data you may access as an investigator for deriving trends, and so on, plus having access to people with experience investigating and probably subject matter experts in various investigation / documentation techniques like track casting, finger printing, tracking, and so on.  

 

MIB

 

And that's part of what this thread should be addressing. So rather than shooting anything down, figuring out ways to work out such issues would be better and more positive IMO. In an ideal world this concept would work. But it isn't an ideal world is it. and as I said no system will be perfect. Even the BFRO isn't perfect. I've read many report Both in the BFOR and subsequently in our own SSRs where details that would be helpful were missing either because they weren't made public or they weren't requested by the interviewer. In the case of an interviewer, they should be working from a typed up questionnaire, not just thinking up questions off the top of their heads.

 

As far as the process being time consuming? Yes it would be, but there aren't that many sightings so it would be more like one group out of hundreds would go into the field maybe but once a year at most. It's not the number of follow ups done as much as the quality of those follow ups that count. And obviously since there's such a low number of actual sightings, or footprint finds, I wouldn't see this as a real chore beyond locating the people that would actually be willing to be involved, see what their interest is and experience, and help them understand the interview process. If two or three go into the field and don't want to do much beyond the initial interview it's up to them.

 

The basic idea is to receive a report, contact anyone in the area, have one person conduct the interview and the others begin canvassing the roads around the location of the event. I truly think that the latter is something that wouldn't require anyone to be all that physically active as much as having good powers of observation and know what to look for. In that respect any given group might meet once a year to go over any plans for who goes where in the effort to surround any location where an event took place. Having cameras ready or videos on their dash boards to catch anything moving away from the sighting location would be all that would be required. No one has to shoot the thing, just document it.

 

If there is a second contact away from the sighting's location then a direction of travel can be determined and the group in the adjacent pertinent circle can be notified. That way the creature could be generally tracked for quite a distance. If outlying groups see nothing then it could be a sign that the creature or creatures have hunkered down in an area close by. So this thread really is about the possibility of having people/proponents available to document the event and increase the chances of for a subsequent encounter. In other words, doing nothing results in gaining nothing- which is what we have now and is what we have dealt with for many years. So I think this is worth at least some consideration.  

[Brian]

I think it's a great idea !  I have not been able to find any research groups around the Tampa area for BF other than BFRO and you have to be invited to join them.  I went to their first annual meeting in Tampa this year.  It was OK.  The only part that I found interesting was the witnesses who had sightings telling their story.  Which of the five none are on the BFRO site.   Anyway I think there are a lot of sightings that are never reported.  Either they are not sure what just happened or are afraid of ridicule!  At the meeting they said they could not investigate all of the reports they get and after a phone conversation if they did not find it creditable they do not follow up on them. So who knows how many go unchecked.  And as to what Wolfjewel said about how it affects some people, one lady who had a BF cross the road in front of her and her husband  would still cry when she told her story a month after the event. It definitely shook her up !   If something comes from this I would be in up to 100 miles of Tampa 

[hiflier]

Thank you for your input Brian. As someone who sounds pretty serious about the subject It good to see you wade in. May I be candid? Why wait for the "If something comes from this"? Why not just begin? It is grassroots after all. As I said, it will take time. Time to let the public know, get the idea passed around to see if anyone is interested, time to look at a map to see the configuration of everyone's location- if one is lucky enough to get people to participate, And whatever else one can think of to get the ball rolling. This thread is to bring out those points and others such as setting up a website and having it private to research members. And yes, sorry to say, it would have to be private. And the website needs to exist for the sake of communicating help, advice, and I think it's important to have access to tools such as interview forms to print out as well as it being a way that individuals in the groups can see progress reports from different events.

 

This isn't like Ghostbusters where one needs to rent a space somewhere LOL but there should be some kind of central contact capability. Beyond that there's no reason to not look into starting a local group. To be clear this isn't particularly a group that goes out LOOKING for Sasquatch or a Skunk Ape. This isn't like the BFRO in that each group in autonomous, not connected to an organization, no monies will be involved, and is strictly all volunteer. One group probably will not know who the members are in another- and that's fine as long as there are overlaps to have the network work smoothly no matter where a sighting happens or a report comes in.

 

An actually sighting need an immediate response and a fast plan to surround an area, a footprint or a trackway isn't as time sensitive and perhaps only one or two folks need to check it out. A howl, or other SUSPECTED unknown while important too isn't time sensitive unless the activity is going on and can be witnessed by members of a group. Without a doubt, the SIGHTING is the most critical to have a fast response on. I truly think that if a second sighting a occurs after the first and is seen by a group member from a road that surrounds the area of the initial sighting then the network will immediately be proved invaluable. That alone might create an influx of people to create their own groups to connect with the whole.  

 

[Brian]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

Thank you for your input Brian. As someone who sounds pretty serious about the subject It good to see you wade in. May I be candid? Why wait for the "If something comes from this"? Why not just begin? It is grassroots after all. As I said, it will take time. Time to let the public know, get the idea passed around to see if anyone is interested, time to look at a map to see the configuration of everyone's location- if one is lucky enough to get people to participate, And whatever else one can think of to get the ball rolling. This thread is to bring out those points and others such as setting up a website and having it private to research members. And yes, sorry to say, it would have to be private. And the website needs to exist for the sake of communicating help, advice, and I think it's important to have access to tools such as interview forms to print out as well as it being a way that individuals in the groups can see progress reports from different events.

 

This isn't like Ghostbusters where one needs to rent a space somewhere LOL but there should be some kind of central contact capability. Beyond that there's no reason to not look into starting a local group. To be clear this isn't particularly a group that goes out LOOKING for Sasquatch or a Skunk Ape. This isn't like the BFRO in that each group in autonomous, not connected to an organization, no monies will be involved, and is strictly all volunteer. One group probably will not know who the members are in another- and that's fine as long as there are overlaps to have the network work smoothly no matter where a sighting happens or a report comes in.

 

An actually sighting need an immediate response and a fast plan to surround an area, a footprint or a trackway isn't as time sensitive and perhaps only one or two folks need to check it out. A howl, or other SUSPECTED unknown while important too isn't time sensitive unless the activity is going on and can be witnessed by members of a group. Without a doubt, the SIGHTING is the most critical to have a fast response on. I truly think that if a second sighting a occurs after the first and is seen by a group member from a road that surrounds the area of the initial sighting then the network will immediately be proved invaluable. That alone might create an influx of people to create their own groups to connect with the whole.  

 

hiflier, I get all that ! And I do spend a lot of time in the woods. I went to the BFRO hoping to maybe find some like- minded people. There were maybe 15-20 people when I talked to one guy and showed him my pictures he just wanted to know where I found them yeah right ! So for now it's just me and one other person. I am trying to get more and as for setting up a website would like to do that too! like you maybe in time. It seems like my post hit you the wrong way. I do not expect you to do all the work and then give me a call ! I just said it sounded like a good idea and would be interested ! As for me I want to see one in person and maybe prove they exist !!! And I will keep doing just that.

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, Brian said:

As for me I want to see one in person and maybe prove they exist !!! And I will keep doing just that.

 

Well I certainly get THAT LOL. And welcome to the Forum which I was remiss in saying when I saw your first post. Also I appreciate you clarifying the 'work' part  Indeed, Brian, all in time, And maybe if you can get a circle of folks together in the next year you chances might improve on that front. There are people here in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts that might wish to increase their chances too. It will again take time to become a known and trusted quantity in the eyes of the public but if the philosophy of the group and how they would operate once a report comes in then I think those who witness an event might be very excited to think they could possibly see the creature again on video or in a photograph that was taken somewhere around the area in which they saw it.

 

I can see where a couple of successes could snowball the whole idea, too. Once confidence builds in the methodology it just may hasten or at least initiate more scientific interest unless the pressure to stay out of it is too great. We stand a chance of learning so much more about this creature if something like this ever takes off. Imagine being able to track a Sasquatch or a group of Sasquatches for several hundred miles by being able to assess travel direction through the network as it's observed crossing roads which invariably it MUST DO to get from point 'A' to point 'B' and beyond. The flipside of course is determining with certainty the territorial nature of the creature as well as get a fell for how many there are say, in a 500 mile radius?

 

If there is a better way to do all of this then I'm all ears. In truth though I think researchers have tried everything else and spent a lot of money doing whatever it was that didn't work. I seriously don't think working as isolationists has as good a chance of success if history is any indication. Gimlin and Patterson had incredible luck but it took them three weeks in the field, a lot of planning, a lot of expense and in the end suffered public's response on many levels. If a program like this was in place? Who knows.  

[Arvedis]

22 hours ago, Brian said:

I have not been able to find any research groups around the Tampa area for BF other than BFRO and you have to be invited to join them... If something comes from this I would be in up to 100 miles of Tampa 

 

If you are into adventure and a lot of laughs then Tim Fasano is your man.  Just know, he has a long checkered history in bigfootery as starting off as a credible researcher and then becoming an admitted online troublemaker.  He is a colorful character.  He just played his hand kinda wrong in a lot of ways.  In this online world, you don't get many second chances to improve your reputation.  He has some good areas for sightings nonetheless and is worth looking into as long as you are not uptight about things.

[SWWASAS]

The problem is getting fresh reports to work with.    Newspapers and TV media are pretty much the only way to get current reports not filtered through the BFRO apparatus.  No one has really explained to me satisfactorily what their process is but it seems to take a very long time.     I think it  is a good idea to get Forum contacts in your local area, and if something comes up, grab the forum member and head out.    I did that when I felt as if I had been chased out of one area and did not want to go back in alone.     We worked out sharing finds and location secret protocols to our satisfaction before going into the field.  That has evolved into a two way exchange of information even though we only were in the field together that one time.   Honestly if you trust someone with research area locations,   it avoids the likelihood of stumbling into each other in the field and not knowing what is going on or messing up some game camera traps they might have set.   I have preferred solo field work but at times would certainly have preferred to have someone out there for mutual support.    If you take a vehicle by yourself into some areas you are pretty much at the mercy of vehicle reliability once you are out of cell phone range.   I have been in that situation for most of my field work.    Probably not a prudent thing to do.  

 

There are clusters of us in certain areas and there is little reason I can come up with for being isolationist field researchers.    I guess some people think they are going to catch the golden ring and don't want to share the prize.   A better way to look at it is if there are two of you,  and you have an encounter,   it just becomes twice as believable.