I ran across a paper on indicators of deception in written narratives taken by law enforcement personnel that gives fascinating information on the differences in the way information is relayed in writing by those telling the truth and those attempting to deceive.

HERE

Although the entire paper is worth reading a couple of the more interesting pages of information (that can be applied directly when determining the likelihood of whether a written bf encounter is deceptive or not) are found in pages 16:

"In recounting an incident, most suspects and victims include additional information, both before and after the incident itself. In the present study, the narratives were partitioned into three sections -- the prologue, the criminal incident, and the conclusion partitions. A narrator who provides a prologue that is much longer than the criminal incident or the conclusion partitions may be delaying the discussion of the incident by focusing on previous actions. Rabon described narratives with very long prologues as being deceptive on their form, and therefore worthy of further scrutiny. Driscoll found that short introductions, less than one third of the length of the narrative, were an indication of veracity. Although the length of the prologue partition is the focus of this research question, the relative lengths of all three narrative partitions were examined."

and page 19:

"Telling the truth is significantly easier than inventing a lie. The lexical selection is more complicated for deceivers than for truth-tellers, because deceptive communicators must choose words carefully to avoid detection. Deceivers draw from their entire vocabulary in an effort to convince another person of their own innocence, rather than simply conveying the truth.

The syntax of deceptive discourse also can differ from that of truthful discourse, as the deceiver elaborates, qualifies, and modifies in the continuing effort to convince. Truthful discourse from perceived events is less cognitively complex because it is bound closely to reality. When recalling truthful, experienced events, it is therefore easier to provide concrete rather than abstract accounts. Individuals who perceive that negative consequences will result from the detection of their deception frequently exhibit greater behavioral changes than those not under stress.

The more motivated one is to avoid being detected in deceptive communication, the more obvious the deception becomes. Edelmann explained the reason for this paradoxical motivational impairment effect. When a deceptive individual is highly motivated to avoid detection, the effort to control nonverbal signs of deception often results in over-controlling one's behavior. This, in turn, draws attention to the unexpected behavioral signs."


A perfect example of a written encounter that fits into the "very likely to be deceptive" category is the recently added BFRO encounter HERE.

Another very recent example of someone attempting to deceive and then exhibiting an inappropriate anger response when questioned regarding a claimed bf footprint is Here.

Kewl!

Belle

I did not add this report to my map of the area SHNF
just don't believe BF would let them get within 10 yards and them come out in the open after he or she walked away.
Also the location near cut-n-shoot is a good distance from any part of the SHNF would have to cross private property to get there.
The report states there in Montgomery county would have to cross county line into San Jacinto to reach SHNF.

There's somewhat A thread on Body language....
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...80&#entry190105

Recently someone on the board was very insulting toward me when I said that I could usually tell if an encounter was going to be fiction just by reading the first few lines, but it has been proven that the areas of the brain that are accessed when recalling an actual event and when creating a story are completely different. It isn't just what is said that is the big tip off, but how they say it. Lying well is extremely difficult and the harder someone tries to appear truthful the more clues their subconscious gives out that they aren't. The trick to spotting deception is learning what to look for. That thread you posted about the Yowie was hillarious. I don't know how I missed getting in on the feeding frenzy...

I can't stand LIARS !!!
AAARRRGGGGHHH!!!!
ALL HOAXERS MUST "DIE" !!!!

To maybe see more examples of this, maybe take a look at known hoaxers reports? I havent read the linked document yet, but as with everything, its contextual and you have to take in many, many factors such as the intelligence of the witness, their perception of how their story will be received, their fears, their anticipations, maybe even their religion. All Im saying is that there is no definative way to tell when someone is lying. The best teacher is experience and, unfortunately, exposure to liar after liar.

Speaking only for myself I have a few thoughts of caution about that particular article and its application to the Texas case.

I think it's a good article to read and to have in mind as you investigate, but you must remember that people recounting tales of bigfoot encounters might have other reasons than deception for feeling they wouldn't be believed.

In literary theory a critic might also remark on the lengthy prologue and consider that an indicator of anxiety in the author. Once you have that "fact", you look for reasons. In this case, you can find reasons for the anxiety: he's telling a story he might well think no one will believe (and he may find difficult to believe himself), and also, a very important point, he's a combat veteran. That experience in itself produces enormous anxiety, which would then show through in every facet of the writers life, even something as simple as describing a true event (and especially, again, if one is afraid he or she won't be believed).

So there are two reasons right off the bat that the first example offered probably isn't a good one to use to test the findings in that paper. I have some doubts the work in that paper will ever bear a lot of fruit in this endeavor, because the hypothesis assumes that it is the case that truthful people wouldn't feel anxiety in telling what they know, but in this case that is far from necessarily true.

I have a hunch the investigator on that report, a former intelligence officer, has his own ways of testing for veracity.

Double post.

I'm failing to see where thats an important point. Being a combat verteran means no more than him being a janitor at a local high school in terms of crediblity or ability to report the facts,if thats whats meant. That makes it sound very cut and dried when it's not.The person depite any combat experience is still the same person and though somewhat changed by the experience of combat or any short or long term stressfull sitiuations, they basically remain the person they were before hand.

They could be gullible still if they were previously,or prone to jumping to conclusions as anyone else. Combat does not make someone more likely to be truthful,nor does it make them better able to report 'facts' of what they saw,if indeed they sa anything or imagined it. Sometimes its quite the opposite.

If its this particular report in question is being used as the basis of what you're saying then I'd worry more about the repeated possible encounters mentioned at the end.
In case you hadn't noticed, in many cases ,several individuals making and taking reports tend to ascribe bigfoot activity to almost any occurence that happens after an initial sighting and/or report. If its unexplained or strange in any way it must be a bigfoot. Its far easier to justify it that way , than it is to actually go look or research other possible causes. The really sad part is ,its a trend that seems to be on the rise as of late.

Jim, I just want to point out that I did not say a combat veteran is more likely to tell the truth, I said that there are other reasons people might experience anxiety and this would show in their writing habits too, which clouds the usefulness of this particular method even further when considering combat veterans.

So that much is cut and dried, to the point of tautology -- anxiety producing events produce anxiety. Since there is a population of people who have the diagnosis "anxiety disorder" of some kind or other, for this method to be really useful there ought to be a way to test for it.

But even if you could, the simple act of writing down that you saw a bigfoot is probably pretty anxious stuff for a lot of people.

Nope. Some people actually thrive on it. The worse it gets the better they perform, either because of training,attitude or experience.

The work Califbrefers to is a valid and valuable tool, however, I would caution it is not infallible. The investigator still has to look at the whole picture to determine the probablilty of veracity or deception.

One thing that needs to be done to increase the accuracy of your "diagnosis" is to "norm" the subject. If it is a F2F interview you need to engage the subject in conversation where he is asked a number of questions that he has no need or reason to lie so you can see what his presumably truthful reactions are. When dealing with written material, the more material they have written you can read that you can presumably assume (I know, I know - ass/u/me) they are being truthful with, the better you can spot the deviances from the norm that Califb talks about. Some people will have a style that may seem deceitful when viewed in isolation that is in fact their normal style.

In verbal interviews and example would be the invocation of deity. Generally when someone uses a statment like, "I swear to God!" their is like a 80%+ chance tey are being deceitful. Some people, however, because of strong religious belief or just plain old habit, may invoke deity in innocence.

The technique is valid and useful as long as you keep it in context.

I agree with jimf in that one's occupation has very little, if anything, to do with telling the truth or being deceitful.

"Norming" the subject will help minimize the "anxiety factor." People may experience strong emotions when reliving an incident that stongly impacted them emotionally, but the points Califb made about the truth being expressed in simpler language still generally applies.

That isn't what it said at all. They are explaining the differences in the syntax, style, and structure of a persons written truthful recollection of actual events when compared to a persons fabricated written account of events that never took place. It said that the greater the desire of the writer to avoid discovery of the fabrication the greater the level of stress he experiences, which is transfered in his writing style because he uses more and more of his creative thought processes, which in turn expose even more of his written clues to deception, like a vicious circle.

Could you break down just what in the Texas report makes you believe it is fabricated? I for one would like to know what it is that is provoking doubt in your minds about that report. What written parts of the report in your individual opinions are deceptive? Do you also think the Investigator was deceptive in his/her comments?

Elaborate please.

Sure. According to the research the report found HERE is an excellent example of this writer showing a high level of probable deception by the high number of irrelevant and unnecessary details and information he has included prior to writing about the actual supposed encounter. This is an attempt to convince the reader that the large amount of information he gives (regardless of whether that information is relevant to the report or not) the more credible his report will appear. It is also meant to embellish the account with so much peripheral information for the reader to process that the actual deception will be obscured.

For example, the writer attempts to cover all possible bases should his report be questioned by going into specific detail on exactly when he and his family moved to that area, exactly how and when he noticed the logging road, what the status was of the sub-division at the time as compared to now (as the reason why the encounter can not be researched today), his childhood hiking history, the weather conditions for five months prior to the beginning of his hikes, what his job status was at the time in case someone asked why he was not at work that day, his specific daily hiking routine and distance accomplishments for days prior to the day of the "encounter", what he saw on each excursion, how often the creek crossed the road, and even his lawn care activities prior to the hike in question. (Before you ever get to read about the actual encounter you are thinking "Who the hell cares about all of that crap... I wish this guy would get to the friggin point!").
(see below)



Compare this guys fabricated encounter to one that is MUCH more credible HERE. Where the writer gives only pertinent necessary information and gets right to the point...

Now finally we get to dissect the "meat" of his story:



Ok, this is a HUGE red flag here. Either the guy is suicidal, completely brain dead, or he's flat out lying. Here he says that something "quite robust in size" that he thinks is "probably a bear or a hog" (both, by the way are known to be extremely dangerous and unpredictable in the wild) that is only 25 yards away from him - and sometimes as close 15 yards (45 feet), it is obviously stalking him, he is all alone, unarmed, and walking in a heavily wooded area more then two miles from home (they "played the cat and mouse routine for 20 to 25 minutes" and a fast walker can walk a 15 mile on level ground, and then he said he ran all the way home afterward), and he stops to take a pee? Do I even have to comment on the ridiculousness of that?

But wait, it gets even better... (Now remember, he still thinks this is a bear or wild hog.)



Hmmmm... yeah, that's what I would have done.. I'm an idiot, unarmed, alone in the woods, being stalked by a bear or wild hog.. Hey, I think I'll see how close I can get! I'm sorry, I could go on but this farce insults my intelligence to the point that I am unable to continue.... I just can't believe the BFRO was outsmarted by this guy.

Wasn't speaking to you. Read prior for clarification it wasn't even the same context or subject.

Ooops.. Sorry, my bad. :doh:

Some things to consider before we tar and feather this person and his report:

Sam Houston National Forest has a very high encounter/sighting rate. Probably the highest in Texas. Craig, if you are reading this, can you comment?

With the way encounters are reported at the BFRO ala "serve yourself", and with no point of reference on how this person writes, its impossible to say one way or another, from one report, whether or not he is lying. He may typically write like that and there is no obvious reason to suspect his story is fabricated.

If you read some of the other reports at the BFRO, you might notice more, or less, detail. Again, the degree of formality, informality, details etc. are dependent upon many factors that the average reader must take into consideration. Just because someone includes superflous details doesnt make them dishonest. Its sometimes called "Diarrhea of the mouth" or "wordy".

The BFRO and other orgs get a lot more information from those that report encounters than what they put on the website. Their reputation is at stake. Therefore, they are going to do all that they can to ensure that they only present encounters that have passed their equivalent of a "smell test". What the criteria is for that, is anyones guess. Maybe someone who has that knowledge can elaborate here. Having said all this, can the orgs be fooled? Of course.

I know in the past, when I have to report on something officially or I have to produce a written report, I include as many details as possible simply because what might seem benign to you or me may be important to someone else. For example, on my research trip, I plan to record a whole buttload of data (weather, wind direction, activities, even clothing worn). Some of it might not mean squat to anybody, but because Im not experienced in field research to know what is pertinent and what isnt, Im going to include it all and let the pro's sort it out later. So, given this, should my report or observations be suspect because I might include a lot of "meaningless details"?

Califb you’ve raised a very interesting topic here. Detecting deceit in a person’s written or verbal account of an incident, whether it is BF related or otherwise, has always been an interest of mine and is one of the first things I attempt to do when evaluating such accounts.

On somewhat of a tangent, I find it amazing how often, in my day-to-day discourse with the folks I deal with, I’m fed lines of BS. And as you pointed out, it’s usually in the form of excessive details or jargon to blur the issue or make the individual appear more trustworthy or competent than they truly are. I don’t make an issue out of it most of the time because it’s just not worth it. But when necessary, I’ll play with them even of for nothing other than to see them squirm when they’ve realized the jig is up. But what’s really sad is that the average person doesn’t realize how often they’re being BS’d and frequently taken advantage of. Here’s a quote I found which offers an interesting perspective on human nature:

“When listeners hear material they don’t grasp, they assume the fault is with them, not the speaker. So, if the listener considers themselves fairy intelligent, why, the speaker must be brilliant!”

No prob.

Honestly ? This being in the initial report bother me more than anything.
My top 10 questions would be ,based on whats written mind you and not actually speaking on the phone or in person with this individual.

The first thing that comes to my mind at least ,is he reports this , and in the other witnesses, stories section both are listed as "none". Leaves a huge question mark on that part of it IMO.

This also went on for a period of three years by his own admission , with no other actual sightings mentioned, no proof (written about at least, i.e., footprints,hair,pic,prior or outside witnesses/source for corroboration ,investigation etc.)

Most bigfoot witnesses,in my experiences at least,research the subject after the initial sighting and do not attribute every sound heard or smell near them to a bigfoot without some proper reasoning for it. One encounter does not a habituation/habitation make.Though these days,IMO only, it seems to be whats happening frequently after an initial encounter, to me thats a huge red flag.

Those listed with several of the reasons Cailfb listed previously would make me wary from the get go.

I'm sure yall could have done a much better job with all of the infinite pearls of wisdom I've read here.

Some things written previouly on the original subject.

Are You Telling Me the Truth?

Some very good points, DB. This goes right along with APT's assessment, who probably (by way of his profession) has dealt with a LOT of liars and truth-tellers. I consider myself very capable of deducing whether a perceived threat is BS or legit. Occasionaly, I have been proven wrong (on very few occasions). The info calif provided is very good as long as it is considered a set of guidelines, rather than direct indicators. Really, it's like the stock market. We can do the research, learn the ratio formula's, and study the market. But without inside info, there is a great deal of intuition, guesswork needed to beat the odds. It's really both a science and an art, if you will. If someone could ever get it right every time, they would be very famous, indeed.

I agree and have a few problems with the process used in the FBI link provided by Jim as outlined below:

This from the Research Overview section:



The italicized words above do not lend a lot of credibility to this method in my mind. It was not a fact that research results stabilize after 30 observations but that they tend to stabilize. That leads me to believe the control group used may not have been the right number of people because of a tendency, not of proof it was a good control number. How does one prove something like that though? some things cannot be proven in fact.

Secondly the investigators with what might have been an inaccurate control group as mentioned above concluded 30 statements were truthful. How did they conclude that? Was it proven as a fact or did they just sit down and decide by looking at the statements 30 belonged in the truthful stack and 30 were lying through their teeth. This is not an exact science. Neither is investigating reports. If the FBI is relying on tendencies and conclusions how is a research group to do any better with their witnesses? We conclude they are reliable and credible. Do we know that without a doubt? No, not by the statements alone. Even polygraphs are not reliable.

Considering how many guilty people have walked out of courtooms free from conviction and how many innocent people are waiting in prisons for some hope of a bad conviction being overturned I dont' see how this can be used as any guide to go by. Without proof, conclusions and tendencies and reasonable doubts are all you have to work with. That's the same thing organizations are working with where there is no proof or evidence. We conclude the reliability of a witness by what they say. We determine their honesty by their reports and interviews when facts are not in evidence the same as the judicial system.

There are no proven hard and fast rules that are 100% reliable.

We do the best we can do and that's ALL we can do, same as everyone here.

Just my humble opinion.

PS wasn't it the FBI who was found to have all those boxes of documents of terrorists chatter outlining their plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol of D.C. and did absolutely nothing with that information??

I hope they've perfected their techniques of telling when somebody is being deceitful or truthful since then. Not sure I'd use them for a good example to go by. :rolleyes:

I think that's why they use the words "tend to" and "appear to" because there are other factors that can have an impact on a persons writing style. Unfortunately the FBI has had it's share of "misconceptions", but they're all we have right now (yikes). Anyway, I'm still convinced that the report from the hiker in the SHNF is a bunch of baloney.. But that's just my opinion :goodguy:

That was all I wanted to hear you say CalifB. There ARE other factors that can have an impact on a person's writing style.

While the BFRO isn't all we have right now it is the best there is until something better steps up to the plate.

Do you know of other sightings in the SHNF or in and around the area? Have you been to the area and done extensive field research there? Have you talked to others who have been in the area and have experience in the area? Without these to factor in, which the investigator has, I don't believe you have enough information to make an informed opinion that it's baloney, just because it doesn't fit a certain writing style. There are other factors that can have an overall impact, not just the writing style.

I respect your opinion. I hope you respect mine. I deem the report credible.

Well crap. I was gonna post a page full of links from differen't sources but it'd be pretty much rhetorical at this point. 412,000 articles via a google search on the subject for both sides of the argument depending on your key words,I'm sure there's more.

The flip side of the whole thing is that some people are just plain horrible witnesses. You can ask all the right questions. tear the crap out of thier testimony and it will still ring as false even if they're being truthfull in the events as they recall them. They ARE jus that bad at eporting what they see and filling in the blanks of there memories with "romantic' tendencies, and misidentifications.

You can take any bigfoot report on the net, and apply the same criteria listed above and elsewhere and find nearly every one of them to be false by that criteria.

The part that gets me though, as I stated above, are the claims of repeat visitation by bigfoot to this person in question who submitted the report. Without the witness even seeing anything further and assuming it to be related to bigfoot.

I know there are certain reasons that some info is not included in all reports. For witness pretection,by request, for preservation of the integrity of the location etc. thats a given. But by the same means remember that given the incompleteness of the report as its posted publicly by the BFRO,GCBRO,TBRC or whoever its going to raise both questions towards credibility and likely hood of a report being true or false.

All reports should be viewed this way even if you're the one follwing it up and you can attest to the veracity of the witness.Anyone who interviews a witness or follows up on a report and believes 100% that everything they've been told is truthfull and exact,is either asking the wrong questions,or needs to find another hobby.

Unless you saw it for yourself or found the evidence to corroborate it, nothing is a fact and should be viewed as such. Even then,if it is your sighting in question and you don't question it, then you should stop and call it good,there's nothing more for you to accomplish unless you're out to prove they exist.

LOL Yep, I think we agree on that point.



Good Lord, I agree with you here too. we're 2/2!



I'm going to have to part ways with you here though.

If there is a high incidence of known activity in your area, and it is historically enriched in encounters from years past up through the present, and you've heard reports of encounters from others, whom you trust, that are similar or exactly like what you are experiencing, would it not be possible to "think" you could be experiencing that same sort of activity? It would not be too much of a stretch to entertain the thought, would it? I agree with you on the above some people do not make good witnesses and if it were a court of law they would probably be passed up for more eloquent witnesses, but if that poor witness is all you have, you do the best with that you have. In my opinion all incidences of occurrence should and must be investigated including those witnesses that are not talented with words, or are perhaps way too talented with words. As you stated, there is information in the background that the average reader is not accessing that completes the story. You of all people know this. The report looks suspect to you because you do not have all of the story. I am not saying this is the case with this report and am not intimating in any way shape, or form, anything other than what is read in the public portion of the report that you've all seen. It is fun and entertaining to shred these reports here on the forum, and perhaps hones the debate skills and perception, but without all of the facts at your disposal it's a moot point, and pretty meaningless unless it is for the fun of it.

Let's say there are ripples on the water of your favorite fishing hole. Something just made one helluva splash and there are ripples but you didn't see it. Is it a fish? Did you see that fish? Do you know that was a fish? It could be a fish, the signs are there, the habitat looks good, lots of food sources. It's always been a real honey hole, but the damn water is murky and you can't see. It didn't jump out where you were looking. Is there fish there or not? Unless you see it jump out of the water or you can see it on a depth finder you have no idea if it was a fish. All you know is something big jumped out of the water or into the water and made those ripples. It could have been any number of things that made those ripples but it wasn't necessarily a fish. You aren't putting any in the boat. The same principles apply to an area that is rich in bigfoot sightings you didn't see one, but all of the signs are right. It's been a honey hole. You believe there are bigfoot there, but is it really? You have to go on what you know, the history of the area and what the signs are telling you. (This is making me want to go fishing. If you dont' hear from me for the rest of the day it will mean I'm fishing! )



What's the solution...don't publish it? If we started holding reports that are not 100% complete including internal information, 100% credible, believable, concisely written by the witness with correct spelling and grammar, and acceptable to all, there would be precious little ever posted. Yall wouldn't be reading much at all coming out of the BFRO because every report is unique. The BFRO would be accused of hoarding back information and not releasing it to the public and that would open up another can o' whup-ass over here on the boards because we're being greedy, and secretive and not publishing much of anything at all for the public. We're going to be lambasted no matter what.



How does one go about attesting to the 100% veracity of a witness? You talk to them, interview them, you cannot interrogate them or beat the truth out of them. Nobody believes everybody 100% on anything. There is always that seedling of doubt. If everyone who has one microscopic question or doubt at all about whether the witness is 100% truthful about every minute detail, and could not possibly have been mistaken about the time of day or whether it was a Tuesday or maybe Thursday were to stop publishing those reports there wouldn't be any reports to read. Now we're back to hoarding information again. Yall know we have it but we're not sharing. :doh:



Again, what would you like for the organizations to do? Beat statements of truth out of witnesses who are incapable of making eye contact or do not have a good command of the English language. Are you saying unless a report has physical evidence chuck it? There aren't any 100% sure thing reports. Even the Patterson Gimlin film has its critics who will not, under any circumstances, entertain thoughts of a sasquatch walking through Bluff Creek. Being a BFRO member in the past you know witnesses are questioned during interviews. Cripes Jim, do you want everyone to think the BFRO is a bunch of idiots who don't question anything of anyone and post reports willy nilly just because a witness heard a hoot or saw something hairy run through the bushes without follow-up? This is the same organization you've defended valiantly in the past when you were a member. Nobody is perfect, not you, or me, or anyone on this board, or in the BFRO. We do the best we can with the information we are given and the investigations we conduct. Wouldn't that be the same thing any of you would do? Investigate to the best of your abilities and then publish your report with the information you gleaned from your best efforts? If not, are you hoarding information?

I luv ya madly Jim. You're my buddy ...but we're disagreeing on some points here. That, in no way affects my feelings for you, little brother, it just means we aint seeing eye to eye at the moment. It probably also means we'll both argue the horns off a billy goat

Disclaimer: This in no way is meant to reflect the opinions of the BFRO and is solely my opinion.

So what I'm hearing is that since the BFRO has no real way of verifying what is reported so they weed out the most obvious hoaxes and post the rest for the reader to determine whether or not it is legitimate (which is really all they can do). I did notice that the investigator did not mention in his conclusion that he felt that the report was credible after speaking with him on the phone as they sometimes do. (I still can't get over the fact that he said he stopped to pee when he thought he was being stalked by a bear alone and unarmed in the woods, and then tried to see how close he could get to it). The deception in this account goes way beyond his writing style...

I noticed about the report is that he starts off saying it is a logging road and then right before he notices the creature he changes it to a trail... Logging roads don't suddenly become trails or those big trucks would have to back all the way out right?



Also:



It was crouched down and remained perfectly still and then it was suddenly lying prone? How did it accomplish this radical change in position while remaining perfectly still?

And:



It is lying flat on it's stomach hiding it's face ten yards (thirty feet) away in thick brush and he can tell how tall it is?

And:



Just it's head huh? Every single legitimate report of a bf turning to look at anything says they have to move their entire upper bodies to turn their heads and look, especially "abruptly". The Gimlin film shows a perfect example of this.


And:



So now he knows he is being stalked by not one, but two creatures.. at least one of which he has verified as a Bigfoot, and he slows his pace!???

And:



Now he knows there are two of them, and one is VERY large, and yet he STOPS and stands there watching them for several seconds?

And:



He walks backward down the trail for a dozen yards or more (at least 36 feet) with these Bigfoot standing there looking at him

And finally:



He doesn't decide this until just NOW?. He never mentions being frightened.. I have to wonder why he has no "flight or fight response" like any normal person. Anyone this dense shouldn't be allowed out of the house on his own.... or just maybe it's all poorly thought out fiction.

Just a few things cause I'm honestly having fun with this. Nothing like a good debate that for once doesn't include the drawing of red circles. :lol:

Granted. But attributing so many possibly less...'exotic' causes to smells,sounds shadows or especially "feelings of being watched" in the woods seems a little less interesting doesn't it? Far easier to say it was a bigfoot than to actually go and find out for yourself that it was an armadillo or something. Of course I of all people know this. How many likely hoaxes or jokes did I dump ? 300? 400 ? Myane thats why the narrative bothers me some, I am overly skeptical and usually with good reason.
If there is information thats not made public its far easier to say so and why it isn't. Like confidentiality purposes, witness protection ,control of the area etc. I don't think anyone can discount that as being not only a right but a neccisity these days as far as garnering and investigating reports. But for the witness to claim that these ..what the word possiblities all point back to being BF related without checking further himself before reporting it over such a long period that does indeed smack of romanticism. Like you said,you know me, so you also no I have no fear ( or common sense) of running off into the swaps to chase down the source of those sounds in the dark. Easier to do given the limited number of animals within an aquatic area. Fish,bugs,gators etc. And also the splash leaves more evidence of a creatures size by the rillpe effect and isn't just a sound of an unknown animal in the woods with no evidence of its passing other than the sound and the witnesses own fear of the unknown based on earlier possible encounters. Nope,simply saying that when a report is viewed publicly and its incomplete for whatever reason, questions or disbelief should be expected . And even the best investigator should never believe any person 100% regarding a sighting. You can have the best witness, the best sighting ever, and it still shouldn't be the be all end all of reports, a doubt no matter how small should always remain.Please don't read more into what I said than whats there. You know me better than that. Doing the best you can with whats presented is all anyone can ask, and I know for a' fact' you do more than most would or could if they wanted to. Just don't blame anyone else for being critical based on what they see in front of them, they dont have the info you or I do (at times) same as we don't have theirs. That and as with all org.s and some individual, there are some investigators I wouldn't trust to investigate the contents of a grocery bag.Luv ya too hon, and last I looked there's no shortage of billy goats in the world at the moment. To me this is just really interesting and unlike some of the threads lately keeps me on my toes, because I both respect and love the hell out of you. :)

Califb . Do me a favor ( No Not that,Get your mind out of the gutter . ) Apply the same critiques you made to this report.

7904

I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Jimmy Joe Bob

Ah...the red circles....Lord have mercy we don't need any more of those!

I've been out planting trees so I haven't gotten caught up here yet.

I do love a good debate with someone who's good at it and doesn't become patronizing or overheated. The fact we're such good friends only makes a battle of wits more fun!

I'll get back to ya. I think you've made some really good points I gotta figure out if I agree or disagree and I just skimmed through your post so far and haven't been able to give it some solid thought. I hope you haven't gone and said something I agree with, the fun will be over



CalifB I'll let the investigator discuss the report with you. I'm past that. Debating Jim is way more fun that rehashing the rehashed.

7904..that's a good one Jim. I'll be interested to see what she comes up with here. I gotta read all the goodies on that one myself.

T

edit .

2915 is very interesting as well. How about a critique on that one?

Oh now see you gave it away. You weren't supposed to do that. I wanted a completely unbiased critique on an unknown investigator's report and you spoiled it.

Foul!

Interesting report. I remember reading it not long ago. I believe she is relating an actual experience. I don't see any red flags, contradictions, or suspicious actions or reactions at all. She is to the point, concise, and gives the expected details without adding unnecessary peripheral information. I give it a 8 out of 10 on the probability scale (with the Gimlin film being a 10 and the hiker in SHNF report being a 2).

He may be telling the truth since the report does not have any of the expected excessive insignificant information. Although I do find it a little troubling that he doesn't know at the beginning of the report if there were five or seven of them that went on the camping trip, but that could have been an unintentional error when he was writing the report. I do think since teenage boys are especially fond of pulling pranks on their buddies there is a high likelihood of the scream being from some other source then the person suspects. I have to wonder what information the second party that was contacted by the researcher could have substantiated about the report since the original reporter says that he was the only one who witnessed the screams. I am going to give the report a semi-neutral 6.5 out of 10.

okay...how about submitting a sighting you have investigated for an open board critique? Methods used, witness statements and your findings. I think in the spirit of fairness we should be able to look at a sighting you've investigated and give an opinion. How about it. CalifB?

Teresa

How about a report that I personally made to the BFRO back in September? Although it isn't an actual sighting, and I can't even say for sure if it was a bf encounter or not. Although right after my experience I found out that there were several reports of sightings near there, one just about 100 yards away.. The BFRO report excluded some of the information I gave such as the exact location, I guess so the area wouldn't be invaded by bounty hunters. The day after submitting the report I received a telephone call from a very famous and respected person in the bf community (I wont say who here without his permission but I'll tell you privately if you'd like). He told me that he had a very similar experience in the same general area. I have absolutely no problems answering any questions and would gladly submit to any polygraph or brain mapping testing to verify what happened. My report is HERE

Ok I did both of those reports.. 7904 I met the witness in person on site with two other investigators,thats after several phone conversations and emails exchanged.

The area was searched , both egress and entrance points as well as call blasting in the area later that night and searching for other signs of passing or other "evidence" both at the exact location and in the area.

the witness was also interviewed in person for nearly , correct me if I'm wrong on this ( you know who you are, so I'll leave it up to you) for nearly 4-5 hours.

On 2915
The first question I have is why do you think it was a teenager,or a group of teenagers? The witness is actually older than I am. Its a group of fishing and hunting buddies who regularly( or at least used to) go down there for recreation every year. The secondary person was contacted to verify that they were indeed in the area as described in both time frame and that the primary witness had also described the encounter to him pretty much verbatum as he reported to the BFRO.
Also I've been as close to that area as I possibly could without renting a boat for myself ( had the mosquito bites to prove it as well) and a pic of a very large gator from that same day thats poste on this forum. Also in the company of a second investigator to the area as well. From as close as I could get via car. Flamingo,Fl. the are and terrain is exactly as described.

So with that said ,I have to ask. Is it the persons writing style that makes the difference? Or is it what's being written in the report itself?

And secondly , no this isn't meant as a dig or anything so don't take it that way. have you investigated any sighting reports yourself by speaking to witnesses either by phone or in person ? If so to you what would make a report more or less truthfull in regard to both the reasons why and those descibed as less than honest ,based on the criteria in the thesis and the other links in this thread ?

Never mind the last part, you were apparently posting at the same time I was.

I don't know what made me think it was a group of teenagers or young adults. That's a good question. I'll have to think about that for awhile . :doh: Maybe a Starbucks caramel frappuccino will help clear my head...

I think the question was valid, Jim. CalifB have you ever investigated a report (other than your own) If so, how and with what procedures have you conducted your investigation(s)?

Since we're talking about your report, why didn't you get out and look to see what was making the noise? Why was no picture taken? You had what could have been the shot of a lifetime had film in the camera, and had been taking pictures, so why not snap one off of whatever it was back there at your passenger side tail light? What kind of truck was it? Full size? Longbed? Short bed? Stepside? dual axle? Extended cab? Club cab? Crew cab? I'm asking these questions to inquire what the distance was from the tail light to where you were sitting looking backward out of the window? Were you taking pictures from inside of the truck or outside before? Was it an automatic transmission or a manual transmission requiring you to mash both the clutch and the brake pedal which would light up the tailgate section of the pick-up in order to start the engine? Did you mash the brake pedal, lighting up the tail gate section of the truck so you could have seen what was back there? Was there a cargo light that could have been turned on that would have assisted in illuminating the cargo/tailgate section of the pick-up? Did you turn it on if there was? If there was and you didn't, why?

When were you aware there were sightings in that area...before or after you had your experience? With the mountain side at your driver's side window, is it possible the sound could have deflected off the upward slope at your driver's side of the pick-up and sounded much closer than it actually was or could it have come from a more southerly direction as opposed to southwesterly direction, or could the mountain have affected the sound to make it appear to be coming from higher up than the cab of your pick-up? Exactly how tall is the cab of your pick-up? Sound traveling in valleys can travel a great distance and it is said a normal speaking voice can be heard a great distance in a mountainous valley region. With that in mind is it possible the animal wasn't very close at all and the vocal was a trick of the wind in the mountainous area? Mountains affect wind direction and current, and could affect which direction the sound was coming from. Could this have been the case? Did you have a flashlight with you? What was your mental state at the time? Relaxed? a little spooked at being out in the dark alone? Do you wear glasses and if so were you wearing them at that time? It seems something standing right there at the back of your tail light would have been seen if you have normal 20/20 vision with or without correction since you had been sitting there long enough to take some pictures so your eyes should have been adjusted to the dark at that point, and yet you were not able to see what it was back there at your tailgate? Why do you think that is? These are not questions to inflame or upset, these are questions that are valid. What do you believe it was that you heard? why do you believe it was moving fast when nothing could be seen? Were footfalls heard? Did you return later to take pictures of the area or to check for tracks or other evidence? If not, why? Why did you drive away instead of checking the scene at that time for the source of the vocalization and/or evidence? In your statement you said it was dangerous. What made you think that?

Just some of the questions that ran through my mind while reading your report. Obviously, your report was investigated by one of my colleagues, and a person I consider a personal friend. His ability to investigate your report is, in my mind, beyond reproach, and is not at issue here at all. I just thought of some extra questions that I have, and I'm asking them out of curiosity, not as a BFRO curator or investigator myself and in no way am I asking as a representative of any organization.

I have no idea what brain mapping is unless you are speaking of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or angiography (MRA) or possibly a proton emission scan(PET) which would do little to prove or disprove your credibility unless you had a brain tumor or other physical diagnoses such as a mass lesion, infarct, or ischemia in the quadrant of the brain that would cause hallucinations or change in temperment or personality, or unless a lesion or clot perhaps might be impinging on the optic nerve causing a problem with your eyesight. I don't think that would be a definitive diagnostic tool in this case. It is widely known that polygraphs are highly unreliable and do not stand up in court, so that would be a complete waste of time.

What we actually have is a class B report, your word as a witness of what happened without any evidence, since you drove away instead of getting out with your camera, and did not see or photograph the animal, which would have made it a class A sighting report, no track finds, I assume you didn't go back and look for tracks later, no hair, or evidence of any kind, only some other stories in the area from other people who may or may not be credible, by your own criteria, and the investigation of a BFRO curator (whom I have the utmost respect for, and all the confidence in the world in, frankly) but nevertheless a member of the BFRO who investigated your report to the best of his ability with the information he had to work with, and yet you run down that very investigatory technique here giving one of Jim's reports a 6/10 and the other an 8/10 was it?

If I were to rate you as a good or bad witness just for the purposes of this board, given your criteria and the other criteria given here in this thread, it would rank very low in the face of what could have been a sighting, vocalization, track finds and other evidence such as hair samples, and your extraneous statement without any proof, that it was dangerous when you didn't know what "it" was.

Your investigatory skills given the criteria that has been posted in this thread including your own opinions of what an investigator should do or should have done, in your case, would amount to something around a 5 (being generous) on your own scale of investigatory perfection with how you handled the investigation end of your own encounter. Have you investigated any sightings reports?

Thank you, you have proven my point nicely with your own sighting and your actions surrounding it from an investigatory standpoint had you been the investigator for your own sighting right there on scene. Incidentally, this is another of those cases where the person says, I had a camera it was loaded with film and...well....no...I didn't get a picture None of us are perfect and who knows what we'll do when that golden opportunity arises...stand there and pee on a bush looking right at the animal the length of the bed of a pick-up away, or cut and run before we even know what it was that scared us. I don't think any of us can throw stones when we live in glass houses unless of course you have good insurance coverage.

Why the obvious underlying hostility? If I have been rude to you in any way I apologize, it was not intended. That being said I will continue to answer your questions in a friendly, non hostile manner.

As far as Jim's question, he said to disregard the last part of his post, so I did. Have I investigated a bf encounter? I don't know why you ask the question or what difference it makes but no, not a bf encounter specifically, but I was a legal assistant from 1983 until 1995 and took down many legal statements from clients and witnesses for restraining orders, child custody orders, and orders to show cause. Does that count?

Why didn't I get out and look to see what was making the noise? My ONLY thought at the time was in self preservation. Whatever was making that noise wanted me gone immediately and I was more then willing to comply.

I do have pictures that were taken shortly before the incident. They came out poorly (it was a new digital camera and I wanted to see if it took decent pictures at a distance in the dark.. it doesn't).

Why didn't I take a picture of whatever was making the sound? I not only had my camera with me, I had it in my hand at the time and was so surprised and rattled that I never even thought about taking a picture. All I wanted to do was to get out of there as fast as possible.

I am including a pic of my truck so you can see how the driver would not be able to see something above and behind the passenger side tail light. It is a full size GMC 4 wheel drive with an extended cab and a 6 foot (short) bed with a 5 speed manual transmission, an 8 cyl 350 engine, I don't have to step on the brake to start the truck, just the clutch. and it has no cargo light.

I was taking pictures leaning out of the drivers side window just before it happened. When I heard the sound and looked back all I could see was darkness but the distance from me to my tail light is about (one of the guys should know this right away) say, ten feet maybe? But it sounded like it ended at an distance of several feet above the back passenger side corner of my truck bed, like above the height of the top of the rear window on my truck.

I am including a picture of the dam I found online with the area I was parked in circled in red (sorry jim). I am also including a overhead drawing showing my approximate position on the roadway and the area that the sound originated from and where it ended up.

Prior to this happening I was not aware that there had been any encounters anywhere near the dam on that side of the lake. Over the years I had heard of a couple of sighting several miles away on the other end of the lake (it is huge) and to the East of the lake, but sighting reports in Northern California is something you hear about all of your life and you never really think about it. When I got home I immediately ran a search on wildlife around Lake Oroville and couldn't find anything that sounded as large as whatever this was, so I broadened my search to include bigfoot and that is how I found out about the other sightings, the BFRO and this forum.


I can't answer any of your questions about wind deflecting sound or mountains bouncing sound waves because I really don't know anything about sound dynamics.

I had no flashlight with me that I can recall, maybe in my tool box (the pic of my truck was taken before I got a tool box. (It is a diamond plate Husky brand that opens in one large door, not two separate doors, and extends over the bed rails on either side of my truck bed. It also covers approx 6" of the lower portion of my rear window).

At the time of the incident I was just sitting and watching the lights, which were quite beautiful. You could see lights way down the valley almost to Sacramento it was so clear (by clear I mean lack of smog in the Valley, which is common).

I wasn't the least bit afraid prior to the incident since the only way in was the one road and I could see anyone coming all the way across the dam (see dam photo).

No I don't wear glasses to drive. Only reading glasses, (as anyone over the age of 40 can relate to). The reason I couldn't see behind me is because the entire area behind me was in deep shadow from the hillside.

Regarding your brain mapping statements, you should read about it before jumping to those kind of conclusions.

http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?87&sci
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...5_wirelies.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1543

Of course it's a class B report... that's why it says Class B right on it. The classification is and was of no concern of mine. They could have classified it as a class Z for all I cared.

I had no way of knowing that it was Jim that sent in the report about the campers in the swamps of Florida. I said in that I was neutral on it. I didn't "run down" anything. You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I was not rating the investigator or the investigative technique. They print exactly what the person submitting the report sent in and I was rating MY OPINION of the likelihood of the report being of an actual bigfoot or bigfoot sound, as opposed to some other creature or something the person who made the report made up. I NEVER said it was a bigfoot that growled at me, I specifically said that I did not know what it was. I would rate my own report at only the likelihood of a bigfoot at a 6 since there is no way of knowing for sure WHAT it was, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the skill or abilities of the investigator or his techniques.

And lastly, I would very much like to know why you are so hostile toward me.


My truck. Taken a few years ago.

The dam with the Feather River below. The photo is looking East.

My approximate position