Some Thoughts On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony

[masterbarber]

I am led to believe that if you speak to any police officer or psychologist, they will tell you that eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. People who witness serious crimes or accidents are obviously in heightened states of excitement or anxiety, and this can have an effect on what they are seeing, or what they think they are seeing. This means they can perhaps misidentify things.

It can also be notoriously, deadly accurate. It depends on their level of involvement during an incident and how they react to stress/stressful situations.

Uninvolved bystanders/witnesses can be extremely helpful during investigations.

These usually come to light when there is supporting video footage(security cams, for instance)and it's compared to what some of these witnesses report. Whatever the information, it is important that an investigator seek supporting evidence of a report. It all starts with the character of the witness/reporter. Obtaining a hand written (or typed) report by the witness, in-depth multiple interviews with that witness to review pertinent allegations, interviewing family and friends, etc...

Physically going to the "sighting" location with the witness(es) is important. Take measurements, photographs, search for/collect any evidence, etc...

The most important thing is that when you discover or perceive a red flag, stop and work through it until you reach a supportable conclusion. It's not enough that a witness "seems" credible. You want to shore that up considerably through information gathering. If there are BF investigators currently doing this level of witness investigation (because that comes first) then they should be commended.

What puzzles me, though, is that if you take away the crackpots and barefaced liars, you are left with seemingly sane, credible witnesses who are definitely seeing something.

This is probably the most difficult stage to arrive at. It takes alot of work to get to this point.

ETA:

Keep in mind if you are planning to post these reports for public review, that it will be your credibility that comes under scrutiny, whether you choose to disclose your witness/circumstances/etc... or not.

Edited September 19, 2010 by masterbarber

[BobbyO]

I just stumbled upon this one, it's one of those one's that really sway towards the rea deal in my opinion & the witness talks about why it was not a Mis ID..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=25280

[dopelyrics]

BobbyO: I am a Red Mancunian, sir!

[BobbyO]

BobbyO: I am a Red Mancunian, sir!

Then you'll be happy right now..

[Guest]

BobbyO - That's a good report you linked to there. Made by a biologist who after having a sighting, the very next day saw a bear and was easily able to say, "What I saw was not a bear." The comparison is very helpful, IMO.

I'm with many of you. Certainly some of the reports can be explained away, but I find it a hard pill to swallow that all of them are lies/hoaxes, miss-identifications, or hallucinations. What's interesting to me is that if Sasquatch is not a real flesh-and-blood animal, it will be just as remarkable than if it is! The amount of research, time spent, etc. on a mythological creature, a combination of strange factors will be a huge lesson in human psychology, to say the least.

[Guest parnassus]

MonsterQuest in February did some staging to see how accurate eyewitnesses might be in judging size of Mothman cutouts. It seemed that the witness generally overestimated the size.

The perception during the event is then stored as a memory, memories of perceptions are often shaped by subsequent events and conversations. Filling in gaps is one way to think of it, but even more radical changes can occur, depending on what input the witness gets.

Edited September 19, 2010 by parnassus

[dopelyrics]

Parnassus: Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing I mean, thank you.

Another thought on this. Are there many sightings in the winter months, when bears should be hibernating? Again, taking out the liars, surely someone may not mistake a bear for a bigfoot, particularly if the bear should be snuggled up asleep somewhere, perhaps midway through its hibernation.

Best.

Lee

[BobbyO]

Parnassus: Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing I mean, thank you.

Another thought on this. Are there many sightings in the winter months, when bears should be hibernating? Again, taking out the liars, surely someone may not mistake a bear for a bigfoot, particularly if the bear should be snuggled up asleep somewhere, perhaps midway through its hibernation.

Best.

Lee

Yeah good shout Lee & something i've though about before, especially the further North you go..

But saying that, do Bears in the more Southern States still hibernate even though the Weather isn't as bad as the more Northen States & Canada in the Winter ??

[Guest]

yes, bears do hibernate in the southern states, though not nearly as long. They wake up periodically to relieve themselves and occassionaly feed.

Only in the farthest north Usa and Canada do you have true winter long

hibernation.

dav

[georgerm]

If BF runs by you on a trail going full speed and disappears in the bushes, there will be lots of room for misinterpretation. Yes, and many report bears when it was BF or BF when it was a bear. However, if BF steps out into the trail and you lock eyes and the sighting goes on for a long period, then misidentification is not a factor. Now if BF then begins to approach you and growls, then you start to run, you know what you saw.

BFRO sends out investigators to interview eye witnesses, and they only publish reports that past the smell test. They have stated hoaxers usually decline to be interviewed. Look how many reports there are for Oregon. I've read them all and there are new one coming in. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=or

Reading BFRO reports are entertaining and a great way to learn about BF. There are too many credible reports for some form of mass hysteria to be responsible for BF sightings or simple misidentification. Here is a BF report and the witness says no way it was a bear.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=10097

Edited September 21, 2010 by georgerm

[Guest cryptidon]

I just stumbled upon this one, it's one of those one's that really sway towards the rea deal in my opinion & the witness talks about why it was not a Mis ID..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=25280

What I find most interesting about reports is what the reporter does, or does not do as a result of the sighting. I'm somewhat skeptical of anyone who reports seeing an 8' unknown, upright animal silently sprinting through underbrush, and then decides to relinquish their bicycle and go check it out. I wouldn't claim that he didn't have an encounter, but I find it interesting that he chose to stick around.

Another element in the context of that report is it references the boat sighting report - which was investigated and debunked by a BFF member. Even the gentleman that made the initial report participated in the thread. The investigation indicated that the object in the photograph was a man - and that just over the rise in the photo was a clear area with a structure. Can't remember if it was a station of some kind or a cottage. My memory is like a sieve. Hopefully somebody else remembers this one? It's unfortunate that the report 'stays on the books' so to speak.

There are a number of encounter descriptions that to my mind, leave little doubt that people are experiencing something way out of the ordinary.

[Guest]

;Profiled on the show MonsterQuest (the History channel), “the Monster of Whitehall†the Bigfoot creature reportedly stands 7 to 8 feet tall, strange high pitch screaming, walks like a gorilla hunched over. Several police officers reported a Bigfoot sighting in 1976, and the original officers have recently passed polygraph tests, for the show.;

dont anyone tell kitakaze he will be down there in a minute debunking it. HI Kit, where have you been?

There was a case being discussed on the old forum about an Indian Reservation cop that got chased by one after responding to a prowler call. He had the presence of mind to hang is mike out the window of his patrol car as he drove away with the creature pacing him screaming. The dispatch recorder got the sound on tape.

Yet the "skeptics" would claim this report too is "not credible".

Same with the White Mountain Apache case documented on the Bigfoot Lives video. In that case the supporting evidence was tracks (which were cast) and hair samples (sent to the state Game and Fish lab, idented as "unknown animal").

[Guest Ambermae]

Mulder

Do you have a link or anything for the cop being chased case, i'd really like to read that or even hear the recording if you know where i can get it

[Guest]

^You're in luck...it was on the old forum, so I thought it was lost for good but I just found a new source:

http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=2&pid=529765

I have a copy of the "scream" that another poster slowed down for analysis somewhere on my hard drive I think.

[Guest alex]

Humans can be horribly inaccurate in identifying things, but they can also be incredibly spot on too

I suggest all debunkers watch national geographic's incredible human body

Edited September 23, 2010 by alex