SRN- The Sasquatch Research Network

[hiflier]

A good post SWWASAS. I touches on some very key points such as vehicle problems. And I agree with the Forum membership being a good go-to if one doesn't know people personally who are not eye rollers. As far as the media thing goes I think ALL of that will eventually get bypassed entirely if folks are careful. I also thing that a grassroots network will be less likely to filter data since everyone is in for the same reason. Still careful handling of the data will be very important. I see the network as a pseudo-covert bunch who KNOWS that the media isn't their friend. And maybe more critical than that, a level of secrecy should probably be instituted in order to minimize any 'official' tainting of the general operation.

 

Yeah, I know, it sounds a bit off. But let's face it, a find like Sasquatch WILL shake everything up big time and I mean everything. If finding a real creature is the goal- which indeed it is- then I think we all know what has to happen and how things should be handled to insure that a find can occur unhindered. So IDK, maybe a website ISN'T such a good idea, and even this Forum might be shooting holes in the entire thing. If this needs to be a tue grass roots thing, which I think it must be, then it will probably take longer to get things off the ground. Then again if reports start coming into the network first then what could be on the network's side might be something that could be the most important thing......time.

Edited December 30, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Because of the nature of an undertaking like this, everyone should be able to conduct an interview of the witness. It will be easier to do that and more consistent across the board if everyone conducts the same interview using the same questionnaire no matter where an incident occurred. I mentioned that once on the scene an actual interview could take an hour- maybe more. Obviously the most expedient approach is for a team to know two things: the location of the sighting and the location of the witness. The closest person to the witness will be the first to arrive and so should begin the interview.

 

Since everyone will know what questions will be asked there will be no reason for anyone else to jump in with a question and risk upsetting the witnesses train of thought. I think it important to have no distractions. In fact the rest of the team should be scouting the roads around the event for the creature who was reported. As for the questionnaire itself? I had generated a 75-question paper about a year and a half ago just for such purposes. I did it after another researcher requested it. 

 

If anyone wishes to see the actual questionnaire I would be happy to post it.   

[Brian]

hiflier. I bough a book on amazon that is by William Jevning  Bigfoot Field Work 101 it does cover a lot of the questions you should ask a witness It's a place to start they made since to me !!! 

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

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.

I have seen his junk will not happen that is not me !!!!!!!!

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Because of the nature of an undertaking like this, everyone should be able to conduct an interview of the witness. It will be easier to do that and more consistent across the board if everyone conducts the same interview using the same questionnaire no matter where an incident occurred. I mentioned that once on the scene an actual interview could take an hour- maybe more. Obviously the most expedient approach is for a team to know two things: the location of the sighting and the location of the witness. The closest person to the witness will be the first to arrive and so should begin the interview.

 

Since everyone will know what questions will be asked there will be no reason for anyone else to jump in with a question and risk upsetting the witnesses train of thought. I think it important to have no distractions. In fact the rest of the team should be scouting the roads around the event for the creature who was reported. As for the questionnaire itself? I had generated a 75-question paper about a year and a half ago just for such purposes. I did it after another researcher requested it. 

 

If anyone wishes to see the actual questionnaire I would be happy to post it.   

 

hiflier,

 

We had plans to do just that a few years ago. To have our own sightings database parallel to the SSR. Were going to develop a standardized interview, accessible via the web with decision trees and eveything.

 

We started the design stages and then it died from lack of interest and disagreements over how to handle the confirmed reports. Some of us wanted to have member researchers investigate them, other didn't and the SC feared liability. Here is the thread in the premium section.

 

[hiflier]

Good to know, g  Sorry to hear about the lack of interest/disagreements part. Not surprised I guess as much as disappointed to know that this could have been up and running all this time instead of lying dormant and nearly forgotten except for a few like yourself. Is it ridiculous to even think about giving it another go? I mean I understand the SC's position and think it valid but if the concept isn't supported by, or affiliated with, the BF in any way then maybe as an independent volunteer endeavor it might have a chance?

 

Just so everyone knows, this thread is not for organizing such an effort. It's only to discuss the feasibility and brainstorm the idea. See if there's a consensus of opinion on even how to proceed and maybe talk about the initial issues in setting anything up- like maybe what your previous experience had taught you. Personally? I think it would be extremely dynamic, dramatic, and interesting to see an investigation unfold in very close to real time. Maybe all that is needed is a YouTube channel? A place to upload videos as soon as they occur? But then there still needs to be a place to file a report and gain witness contact. But that's what this thread is for- to iron stuff like that out. Thank you for bringing some important history to the fore front. Is there something that can be learned from it? No doubt there is.

[BC witness]

hiflier, please do post your questionnaire, or a link to it. I'd like to compare it to the one that Thomas uses for all his interviews.

 

Our local group tries to respond to all reports as quickly as possible, but we often don't get reports until days or weeks after the event. In the last couple of years, Thomas and I have managed to get to report sites within 24 hours on only 2 occasions. A large part of that problem is that those who are unfamiliar with the subject, who have an encounter, have no idea where or how to contact us. There are 3 local websites that link to one or more of our members, but it seems that people still have trouble finding them to make contact. Thomas does an excellent job of promoting the subject through his presentations at regional libraries, museums, and events, as does Bill "Bigfoothunter" through his tour advertising, but that doesn't seem to be quite enough to get all encounter reports quickly enough to be effective in our response.

[MIB]

On 12/28/2017 at 9:58 AM, hiflier said:

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.

 

I hope my comments were not perceived as negativity.   Problems cannot be solved until they are identified.   The issues I mentioned are issues I've already encountered in various ways both working with organized groups investigating reports as well as working with independent researchers on projects.   Either answers must be identified or the problem has to be redefined to nullify them.  The thing that does NOT work is ignoring them and hoping they'll go away.   I was trying to help, not trying to discourage you.  Perhaps I jumped in too quickly to discuss problem solving before the momentum was established.   If so, I apologize.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

MIB, think nothing of it. I mean really, I didn't see anything as being negative so it's all good. There are problems that can be foreseen and some that cannot, plain and simple and you pointed that out very well. I saw it as more of a caution to not rush the process and be smart. Thank you  

 

BC Witness here's a PDF of the questionnaire. It isn't perfect and some wording could be better clarified but it does cover a lot od points that are pertinent:  BF Questionaire.pdf

[gigantor]

There are a bunch of issues you have to resolve in order to get something like this working:

 

1) who is going to be in charge? Somebody has to be responsible and have the ultimate say.

 

2) will it be a nonprofit organization?

 

3) how are you going to raise money to pay for the various activities necessary to run the organization?

 

4) will you reimburse members who go out and investigate a sighting?

 

5) if a member does an investigation and gets the "money shot", who owns the material?  Can the member sell it and keep all the profit?

 

Etc, etc

 

We found that we could not overcome some of these issues.

[hiflier]

With all due respect to you, gigantor, running this idea as an organization is exactly what will doom it from the beginning. I will try to address your points:

2 hours ago, gigantor said:

1) who is going to be in charge? Somebody has to be responsible and have the ultimate say.

The best thing I can say about that is that the person in any group who ends up the point person, that being the one closest to the event location will be in charge- but only where the interview of the witness is concerned. The rest of the group will, or should be, only concerned with cutting off, or trying to sight/follow a creature until a direction of travel is determined. Their main duties should be establishing a watch perimeter on the roads around the event location. I do think only one person in an area should get the initial report though, conference call the rest in the group, find out who's closest to the witness/event site and then it will be just following the guidelines from there.

 

Not everyone will be available at the drop of the hat so adjustments will be mad as needed. some groups may have 10 volunteers, some only 3. 

 

2) will it be a nonprofit organization?

There will be no organization to BE non-profit, profit, or otherwise. It's all volunteer with each group being autonomous. In other words the group two circles say, to the East, won't know who's in the group two circles to the West unless they choose to get more organized themselves. Any decisions on how to do that if they wish is up to them

 

3) how are you going to raise money to pay for the various activities necessary to run the organization?

Again, there is no official organization and since researchers currently looking fund themselves in the field this will be no different. A researcher who plans to go out for an expedition will take hours to prepare, and many hours in the woods. Also any equipment expenses are out of pocket. If a group member wishes to use their equipment then it would be helpful of course. 

 

4) will you reimburse members who go out and investigate a sighting?

No. If someone doesn't want to be involved they won't be. And there's just not that many sightings to jump on. I don't see any event in a given circle lasting more than an or two before closing down or passing pertinent info onto any people adjacent to the initial contact in order to maintain any pursuit of a creature if necessary. It's more like a zone defense in sports where the creature gets picked up by folks down it's assumed line of travel.

 

5) if a member does an investigation and gets the "money shot", who owns the material?  Can the member sell it and keep all the profit?

That, again would be up to how the each group arranges its own protocols. I think the best way to view it is the same as if one isolated researcher went out on a weekend to try and have an encounter ends up having one. It would be a good incentive to urge people to respond to a sighting if they though they would have proprietary ownership of any 'money shot' rights. It makes the most sense.

 

We found that we could not overcome some of these issues.

I think if each member of a group could agree on the guidelines I've mentioned then there would be not so much to overcome. Also at the very least an agreement could be reached to at least get their name mentioned as being instrumental in the search and any success the search may result in. There is no way notoriety wouldn't be good for anyone. If anything it may foster more reports coming to a person who happens to be closest to any future witnesses if the witnesses are aware that there is someone close to them that they can contact. I can give an example of that but it would take time to set it up.

 

[gigantor]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

With all due respect to you, gigantor, running this idea as an organization is exactly what will doom it from the beginning. I will try to address your points:

 

 

hiflier, I think you're not looking at the whole picture. Step a little bit further back.

 

Legal reasons you need an organization:

* You are going to attract reports via a website or 800 number, right?  That means you have to purchase a website, a phone line and advertise it, which means you need a "brand" i.e. an "organization".

 

* To advertise, purchase a website or phone line you need a bank account.

 

* to have a bank account, you need to either pay taxes or be non-profit.

 

* If you don't want to get sued in case somebody gets injured or they injure somebody, you need a "waiver" signed by the members. It would idemnify the organization and its members.

 

* You have to have a way of enforcing standards, making sure hoaxers, idiots or crazy people don't go out there and discredit the brand. Imagine if Biscardi, Ketchum or Smerna joined a group.

 

30 minutes ago, hiflier said:

5) if a member does an investigation and gets the "money shot", who owns the material?  Can the member sell it and keep all the profit?

That, again would be up to how the each group arranges its own protocols. I think the best way to view it is the same as if one isolated researcher went out on a weekend to try and have an encounter ends up having one.

 

I disagree. What about the people who do a lot of work in the background, like design and run the website, input the data, etc?

 

[starchunk]

4 hours ago, gigantor said:

There are a bunch of issues you have to resolve in order to get something like this working:

 

1) who is going to be in charge? Somebody has to be responsible and have the ultimate say.

 

2) will it be a nonprofit organization?

 

3) how are you going to raise money to pay for the various activities necessary to run the organization?

 

4) will you reimburse members who go out and investigate a sighting?

 

5) if a member does an investigation and gets the "money shot", who owns the material?  Can the member sell it and keep all the profit?

 

Etc, etc

 

We found that we could not overcome some of these issues.

 

 

For profit, hinders priorities, the BFRO is a prime example of that.

[BC witness]

Thank you, hiflier, for the pdf. It's very similar to the format that Thomas uses during his interviews, which he records, either audio if by phone, or video, if in person.

[SWWASAS]

2 hours ago, starchunk said:

For profit, hinders priorities, the BFRO is a prime example of that.

For heavens sake,   given the infighting reported in the the BFRO by their own members,  don't use that as a model of an organization.  Besides I consider them into adventure tourism or television entertainment rather than a research organization since those activities have always taken priority over what else they do.    I noticed Animal Planet was running "Finding Bigfoot" reruns a day or two ago.    That normally means they intend to start running unseen episodes soon.   I need to be mindful not to throw things at my expensive new TV if I watch it again.    

[Trogluddite]

I can quantify WSA’s question about delays in reporting encounters.  I’ve added 393 BFRO reports to my database.  For those 393 reports 106 (27%) were reported within one month, 51 (13%) were reported more than one month but within one year of the encounter, and 235 (60%) were reported over one year after the encounter. Since I essentially have a random sample of BFRO reports, I would expect the overall numbers to look similar.

Hiflier, good questionnaire.  I’ve noted in several different threads that there is no Uniform Bigfoot Encounter Report as there are Uniform Traffic Accident Reports or Uniform Criminal Investigation Reports.  This is a problem as at least some groups post woefully inadequate factual information in their published reports.  I would imagine that the SSR wrestles with the same problems of having missing or vague information on reports.