New direction for IR&DA forum?, Split from another thread. Options

[JanV]

[bipto]

For reference, here's Angie's post:

Well, I'm back. I had to take care of one of my new years resolutions yesterday. I cleaned out my closet.

Back to the subject at hand. Terry seems to be upset that I challenged the CBO to match me evidence for evidence.

I'll admit that I wasnt in the best state of mind when I posted that. I still stand by it though. That night I had pretty much had enough of all the BS that is posted in the BF community. For the first time in months I browsed other message boards. After wasting my time for an hour or so, I posted that. I was being a little rash by saying "show ME the evidence". I really dont want to have a look see at their evidence since there is no way in hell I would give them my address or phone number. It would be best if they just posted their evidence publicly. Put it up on their website. And why is that too much to ask? They are more than willing to put up their "stories". I am so sick and tired of this group and MGs group and GCBRO....and any others that I am too disgusted to mention. People out there that make all these outrageous claims. Im not outright calling anyone a liar but, really, they need to provide some evidence that what they are claiming is true. You'd think that that is what they would do....but NOOOO, they just keep on claiming a bunch of crap and everyone else is supposed to believe it. People withhold info because they dont want their secrets being revealed. "They'll just have to get out in the field and work for it" they say. "I had to work for it, I'm not going to hand it over for free." "Everyone else is a bunch of arm-chair researchers." "Nobody works as hard as me." "BFs dont do this or that. I know but I'm not going to tell you because it is my little secret."

And then we have the "others"...."I shot a BF. Got blood and guts but I'm not going to prove it." "I've been socializing with BFs for 50 years but I'm not giving any evidence for anyone to see. Just my outrageous stories." "Hell yeah! I know the penis sizes of 4 different male BFs! But I dont have any hair, DNA, casts, pictures, video, or any other kind of physical proof." "Well, I toss marshmallows to BFs on a regular basis but I dont have any physical proof either." "I hid in a dumpster, with a BIG gun...full intentions of killing a BF but when he showed up...well, I just changed my mind and didnt feel like killing him....now I'm retired....AND I have no physical proof." "I get growled at and an occasional rock thrown at me pretty regularly...at my "hotspot", but I dont even have any audio to back my words up, let alone any other kind of physical proof."

Oh, and there is a BUNCH more crap being said. I'm just sick of it all. This stuff does nothing but hurt the BF communitys credibility. It also messes up my own investigations. Not that I actually believe what they say..but I do waste time contemplating it...then I find myself out "in the field" investigating...going over possibilities in my head and then I'm like No that was said by that nutcase....no proof was ever given to validate that claim...and then I'm really feeling like an ass when I'm out on a hill or in a valley hollering "NNNNAAAAAWWWWKKK" and then later find out that the one who said that meant "friend" also has nothing to back up her words. In fact, she is now claiming many more absurd things.

Then, luckily we have some who realize the importance of eliminating this BS. They investigate. They actually take the time to try and either prove the validity of these people or show them for the CROCK that they are. A good example is when JCs neighbors were contacted. JC wasnt showing any proof. So ask the helpful neighbors. You know? The ones who are so gracious to donate blankets and food....Their answers did not validate JCs claims. And then what? It gets accused that the search engine used to locate them neighbors is flawed. That makes all the difference! Just because ONE person THINKS the engine is flawed...that shoots that investigation all to s**t. Give me a break!

All this crap just makes the BF world seem like a big joke. I guess it is a game to some. I dont see how so many people can not take this seriously. This is a big thing here. An unknown hominid. This whole concept will change the world as we know it. But yet some just wanna toy with it. Some want to profit...whatever. Some want to make up a bunch of stories for attention.... Some want to be so gullible as to claim everything is BF related... Some want to horde thier evidence...like it is doing them any good. Seems to me that if everyone collectively pooled their knowledge then we'd start getting somewhere.

Yeah. My challenge still stands at the CBO. I can match their evidence right now. I have film with tree-breaks. I have and can take more pictures of tree-twists. I can match any one of MG/JCs blobsquatch photos. I tell you what though....I'd like to extend that challenge for the year of 2004. I also will make that challenge to any other group out there. Show your evidence publicly and I'll show mine. Dont really need to waste your time on tree twists and snaps...I've seen enough of those to last me a lifetime. This whole year I will gather evidence. I will post it as I gather it.

I've only been at this for just over three years now and I bet I will have the most evidence posted at the end of 2004. I can hear the flames and rebuttals to this post already. I dont care either.....people can make their excuses....I'm not buying it anymore.

Sorry for the wording and such....Im not in the frame of mind to worry about spelling, punctuating and proper English right now.

[/bipto]

Angie's post gave me an idea!
Brian or Moderators .... What about setting up another forum for members to post items that they consider "hard evidence" that they or friends have collected? Perhaps pictures, sounds, etc. It would be great if it could be a blind forum...the posters could be given a number or something if they didn't want to use their names for whatever reasons. The Mods could know who they are and that would keep out EB, etc.
Or perhaps it could be a part of the Resource site?
The reason I suggest this is that obviously the field researchers among the BFF posters might have more information than they are willing to share (at least I hope so) on the open forum. Yet we might all benefit by sharing some results.
Hmmmm.
Jan

[bipto]

Jan, I think that's a really good idea and have been thinking about it since reading Angie's post. To a certain extent, the Independent Researcher's forum is supposed to be that kind of place, but it's never really taken off and might not be 'positioned' correctly to get that kind of posting. My idea was to slightly repurpose it for that kind of use.

Unfortunately there's no way that I know of that would allow members to post anonymously without opening up that entire section to unregistered posting (which I will not do for obvious reasons). If we took this approach, all the posters would be know. In a way, I think I prefer that, though it might keep participation down a bit.

If we did it, I would want there to be clear guidelines that only serious findings be posted. That is, only stuff thought to be actual sign of bigfoot. Also, I'd want the members to respond in a way that would not 'scare off' anyone. That isn't to say they can't challenge the evidence, but only to keep the discourse as professional as possible. Also, those putting up the evidence would need to understand that this is the BFF and they won't get a free ride under any circumstances.

Any other thoughts?

[bipto]

"Why is nobody voting in the poll?" he wondered before going to bed.

[nightwing]

Cause' I didn't see it until now
voted that I thought that was what it was for..
(although, it does on occasion drift).
I do think there should still be room in it for discussin of techniques, methods, and other things not directly evidence related..but will for sure back you whatever you do..

This post has been edited by nightwing: Jan 6 2004, 12:33 AM

[StacyInMI]

Ditto what NW said. I do think Jan's idea of having the option to post evidence anonymously has some merit, although I'm not completely comfortable with it, as it might open the door for a lot of crackpot blobsquatch pics, which could turn that section of the forums into a joke....still, it could be worth a trial run to see what happens.

OH...just saw where Bipto addressed that. Yep, better to leave it the way it is.

Might be a good idea also for some folks with other pics that they haven't posted yet (footprints, etc.) to toss a couple up there and get the ball rolling (hint, hint)...

[RogerKni]

Eureka! (Maybe.) Require any post that submits evidence to be pre-screened, and require any posts that submit such evidence to start a thread. That way, since there shouldn't be many such posts, and since the ones that included pictures or sound files could (in principle) all be filtered out of non-initial posts (which would require a moderator's OK), the costs in moderator time would be low, and yet things could be kept under control.

One hopefully minor drawback is that some posts in response might also want to include visual evidence for the sake of comparison. One wouldn't want to bar such posts. The solution would be to require moderator approval for them also, but (touch wood) there shouldn't be many such posts.

What about posts where the evidence is textual, such as the recent analysis of a BF nest by a BFRO member? Mightn't someone sneak such an item in under the radar as the second item in a Trojan-horse thread started by a confederate? That's getting too paranoid, I think. We can burn that bridge when we come to it.

EDIT: Likewise, if it's important not to scare off contributors, response-posts could also be vetted for diplomacy (not a leading feature in this field!) by moderators. This would be more work, but the importance of this line of discussion in the overall BF Quest is so great that it might be justified, at least as a pilot project. If it proved to be too much work, this feature could be abandoned or re-jiggered somehow.

EDIT: (Last-minute tweak on the above.) Perhaps thread-starters would be given the option of requesting moderator-vetting of response-posts. Thick-skinned evidence posters (half the total?) could thus spare the moderators some work by saying, in effect, "Bring 'em on!"

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jan 6 2004, 09:09 AM

[Shorebreak]

Good idea - my only comment would be "poster beware!"

If it's not a good shot you do two things at once - open yourself to criticism and credibility questions, and open the forum in general to criticism and credibility questions.

IMHO

[Angie]

I think this section would be good for these posts. Originally I figured that I would eventually start a thread or something. The tough thing is weeding out the BSers. There are already threads that could be put in this category. The skookum cast thread belongs here. Also, DDAs thread where he posted his pictures. There were other threads from other members as well. They told their story and posted what evidence they collected. I realize that people wont have all-convincing evidence to post. I certainly dont.

Hard to explain how I was feeling when making those challenges. I just figured that the claims I mentioned should have some kind of evidence to support them. JCs case is self explanatory-after 50 years seems like there would be something there. The GCBRO incident claims to have physical evidence but nothing has ever been shown....Not to mention EastTexSteves "jaw-dropping" evidence. I would think that the retired Skunkhunter, after studying and getting a BFs pattern down to a T that he would have had something, other than his story, to back that up...nope. And, if you are tossing marshmallows to BFs a few feet into the trees, seems like you could have gotten some video, sound or track evidence to corraborate....havent seen any.

I really dont know which things would be inconsequential and which things people would like to view. I know that I said not to bother with photos of tree breaks and such but I thought of one example that might bring something to the research aspect. I know of a permanent tree-stand that has been there for like over 10 years. There are 3 different twisted trees surrounding it. The trees look to have been made around the time the stand was put up. Now, were the trees twisted by BFs? Is there any correlation to them and the stand? If I was to post this in the evidence thread I would post pictures of all the twists and the stand. I would then draw a diagram of the scene. But then, is this evidence not worthy of being posted? It is not conclusively BF related but it is curious.

Like I said, people probably dont have conclusive evidence. So what exactly are we supposed to include in this category? All I would like to see is some evidence supporting peoples words. I've had enough of all the crazy claims. Because of them, I am on a mission this year. Rather than focus on my main area where I have been using subtle tactics because of trying to habituate, I am going hunting them in different areas....not to kill. It is a totally new strategy for me. In the habituation case, I wouldnt try obtaining film because of all the info saying that BFs will be chased off by cams. I was focusing on building trust. This year I will be in different areas. I have some ideas that I am very optimistic about. More strategy involved. I also have more equipment to use in gathering physical evidence. I dont plan on obtaining clear pictures but I do think it very possible that I can produce some vocals, casts and other activity. Another form of evidence that I rely on are my dogs. I could get video of how they react when a BF is near and video of them when they are not. This is by no means conclusive of anything but would people be interested in seeing for themselves the change in behavior that dogs have?

So, what exactly can this be turned into? What kind of evidence should be produced? Peoples testimonials backed by anything other than just their words. Heck, even some other witnesses that were present would be helpful. Like, say when we heard that sream. I could get statements from the others that were present and their take on it. I dont know...originally I said I could match CBOs evidence, meaning tree twists and breaks. I can also match MG/JC evidence. All I need do is take a picture of some treeline and let everyone use their imagination to find all the blobs.

It just seems that something needs to be done to make the BF community advance in research. People need to share their info collectively. We need to work on this together. Forget all the selfish reasons for doing otherwise. And, hell, if you have some good pics or something, then, by all means, sell it or take it to other media....but also post it in this community so others can maybe learn and have a better chance of obtaining evidence.

As you can see, I am still confused as to what exactly I am going to produce and how to go about it. I am no help...sorry Bipto. As far as hoaxers posting crap...well there would have to be some guidelines. In some cases it is easy to tell the difference in made up stories and real ones. The information accompanying the evidence would probably be the deciding factor on whether the person is being real or not. Would people have to judge for themselves or would the moderators make the call on whether it is believable or not?

It would be great to have a place to post everyones stuff collectively. I dont want to be the only one participating in this thing.....but then, you saw how my challenge was taken. The CBO banned me for making it....they obviously are not going to participate. Who else will?

Sorry about rambling and jumbling my thoughts. I just dont know how this is going to work....You the man, Bip. What do you think?

[SkunkHunter]

Kina sorta.

Maybe not just for an individuals possible evidence. But maybe others and bring up something they saw and needed some hard critical thinking on it to make their decision. In the spirit of how the "Comments on This Statement" thread was born, this could be as useful.

For example, someone sees a photo posted somewhere and would like it to be evaluated by the toughest crowd posible, I say lets make it that. Remember the squatch photo taken from the off road enthusiasts? We all did some good critique on it. Actually I dont think it was put under the microscope anywhere else. All I ever heard was "Hey , did ya see that neat photo?" --- "Yeah."---- "So what is the verdict?"----"I dunno" This would be a great place for folks to bring it up.

There are lots of things I came across while getting into Sasquatch and it seemed like no in depth detailed critique was available for most of the sounds, photos, and other interesting things.


I think it should be a different section though. More along the lines of "What do You Think Of??????" The IR&DA section should be more for those who have tried something and feel it may benefit others. or offering tips and advice.

[chronic]

For example, someone sees a photo posted somewhere and would like it to be evaluated by the toughest crowd posible, I say lets make it that

Yeah, that makes sense. Admit, up front, that the particular section is for getting your photo/story/audio mercilessly criticized (or possibly a ). As long as one knows they're entering a VERY skeptical room and should leave their sensitivities at the door, then I think it's a great idea.

[Mike I]

I think it is a great idea, sort of a Board of Review for evidence, photos, sound, etc....

[sasquatchin]

I think it should be 'members only', keeping things 'in the family' so to speak.

my 2 cents

[jimf]

I originally voted no opinion...but after further reading...id guess some of the ideas have merit...but at the same time one of the reasons I havent posted things like tree breaks and such..is becuase they're easliy torn apart anyway..usually by me as I'm driving home....I think alot of us ..if we had something worth critiquing or something that was worth the effort of at least getting other opinions on would post it anyway...I would at least....

[Sean V]

Good idea - my only comment would be "poster beware!"

If it's not a good shot you do two things at once - open yourself to criticism and credibility questions, and open the forum in general to criticism and credibility questions.

IMHO

Poster Beware. That is a really good thing to say.

It better be the best shot ever, at least Patterson film quality, or this forum will tear it apart, probably chasing off the new member in the process.

So yes, Poster Beware.

[nightwing]

nay SFS..but it needs to be better than the MG-esque stuff...
We have had many things posted here and NOT torn up..it's all about the attitude of the person who posts it..
Come in with a chip on your shoulder, demand that we accept it as absolute truth without backing, and yep, stand back for the carnage.
Come in with an honest interest in seeing what you have...and not DEMAND we just believe without any other proof..and likely a good reception will be forthcoming.
(JMHO...and not wanting to argue about certain alleged shootings where we already know we differ in opinion).

[SABRE]

I voted that I thought that's what it was already for but I guess it could be tweaked a little to better comply with Angie's idea.

Definitely agree with Shorebreak that some type of pre-posting warning be given. "Poster Beware- Leave Your Egos at the Door" kind of thing.

I think Roger's thought on requiring new evidence to be posted in its own thread is a good idea. Also, having mods "screen" new evidence may be doable but having them screen replies I think would be too much work and contrary to the free-speech spirit of BFF.

Finally, perhaps a good response to ridiculous "evidence" would be no response at all. Silence sometimes sends the loudest message.

[Angie]

Back again. I've still been thinking about how to work this out so we can get something going. I think Roberts post of that picture would be perfect for this category if we had a story to go along with it. All the person would have to do is explain what was going on when he took the picture.

Maybe there could be a warning to contributors in the thread/section. Instead of the poster claiming "Here is a picture of a BF." They could say "Here is a picture, I dont know what it is. Any feedback is welcome." Supply a written account of what transpired and that's that. I think people are more accepting if it is not claimed to definitively, be a BF. I mean, sure, you can say "I believe it to be BF, but that's just my personal opinion." No need to get bent out of shape if others say it isnt.

I mean, look at the change in reception that Mark A. got from his "hat" thread to his audio thread. The way he went about it made a world of difference.

Something along the lines of "Written accounts with supportive evidence collected." Bip could supply a starting post explaining what the thread was for and suggest how to present your evidence. If people still wanted to claim that their proof was definitive then they can take the heat from the other posters, like Mark did.

[bipto]

OK, there's a new subforum for IR&DA specifically for members to have their findings critiqued and reviewed by other members. This is not for the general review of other people's findings, only for the review of your findings.

Let me know what you think.

[edit] Oh yeah, I've also moved a few threads in there. If you think there's any others that should go in there, just say so.

[scotto]

Might be a good idea also for some folks with other pics that they haven't posted yet (footprints, etc.) to toss a couple up there and get the ball rolling (hint, hint)...

I'm all for that. If someone has a pic and they want to remain anonymous, have somewhere for it to get posted where they won't feel like they might get a personal attack or some ridicule......I'll bet there a quite a few pics out there that might be shown, I for one would just love some new material to mull over.

[GrandCherokee]

Yeah...but...

That was before a year of Blobsquatches..funky footprints..and weird people..
To actually invite such would be.....? :willies:

[scotto]

That was before a year of Blobsquatches..funky footprints..and weird people..

Maybe I am one of those "weird" people, but blobsquatch is better than nosquatch, not in ALL cases, but someone has got to have a pic out there somewhere worth checking out. Dontcha think? I want some new stuff!

[GrandCherokee]

That was before a year of Blobsquatches..funky footprints..and weird people..

Maybe I am one of those "weird" people, but blobsquatch is better than nosquatch, not in ALL cases, but someone has got to have a pic out there somewhere worth checking out. Dontcha think? I want some new stuff!

Yeah, I can see that..and there might be something interesting out there...but then you get people posting about it ...and commenting ..and stuff!
Before long shots ring out! :pinch: Submitters flee the room crying! Meanie heads break open the champaign..
And threads get closed! :yuck:

...then there is the added problem of finding someone who would be brave enough to post such?

We will have to meet the fresh new faces in the introduction thread and send them to this special room, where they are good naturedly asked to send in possible BF pictures for the members to admire.....

This post has been edited by GrandCherokee: Nov 26 2004, 03:43 PM

[scotto]

Yeah, I can see that.

You can see what? That I AM one of those weird people?

[GrandCherokee]

Yeah, I can see that.

You can see what? That I AM one of those weird people?

someone has got to have a pic out there somewhere worth checking out. Dontcha think

...is what I was referring to! Way to keep someone on their toes!

[bipedalist]

Jan, I think that's a really good idea and have been thinking about it since reading Angie's post. To a certain extent, the Independent Researcher's forum is supposed to be that kind of place, but it's never really taken off and might not be 'positioned' correctly to get that kind of posting. My idea was to slightly repurpose it for that kind of use.

Unfortunately there's no way that I know of that would allow members to post anonymously without opening up that entire section to unregistered posting (which I will not do for obvious reasons). If we took this approach, all the posters would be know. In a way, I think I prefer that, though it might keep participation down a bit.

If we did it, I would want there to be clear guidelines that only serious findings be posted. That is, only stuff thought to be actual sign of bigfoot. Also, I'd want the members to respond in a way that would not 'scare off' anyone. That isn't to say they can't challenge the evidence, but only to keep the discourse as professional as possible. Also, those putting up the evidence would need to understand that this is the BFF and they won't get a free ride under any circumstances.

Any other thoughts?

Wonder why this thread never really took off?