Class A; November 2006; Iowa, Lee County

View the full article

a class "A" sighting if i ever heard one.


come on man really!!!!! this is a non sighting. maybe a possible sighting but well I'm just saying.

i also cant stop laughing about how you talk to some one and decide, that from the over the phone conversation, you find them credible.

a persons credibility comes from their background, their ability to relay the story and answer multiple questions posed in different ways and over several interviews. first they have to verify basics of the story like weather description of the location and any other items that can be independently verified. then comes the thorough interview. the investigator can not suggest anything in forming their questions. all this is basics that these large groups should insist on. the training for this can be done in many or the classes and seminars done by reputable trainers all over the country. prices can be a bit steep but we want proper information collected don't we? I'm not talking the "i took a course in interviewing job applicants in my collage courses" training. I'm talking criminal investigations and interviews and or training in conducting corporate internal investigations.

one can develop this ability over the years but they need to learn from being skeptical and not from being an apostle of the religion that is squatching. this work has no place for the true believers. the true believers and faithful that believe in bigfoot like the easter bunny, santa, the tooth fairy and the great pumpkin like charlie brown and other kids can not do this properly.

you can not assume anything. set out to debunk and prove wrong. this will allow you to determine what evidence is actually able to be considered.

Kinda makes one wonder what the "A" stands for. A few suggestions come to mind but don't bear repeating.

I dont think there is one report from the BFRO that does not say that. They all say, "I spoke to the witness by phone and found them to be credible." Do they publish every report, even the ones that are suspect? Sometimes after reading the report even if it is a non event or a bit crazy I wonder if the investigater is being politicaly correct and letting the report speak for itself.

so i take it that anything on the bfro web site should be taken with a grain of salt? i thought they were one of the more reliable sources.

There are far more unpublished reports in the BFRO database than there are published ones.
The info in their database is no more or less reliable than any other database (IMO), and theirs is quite a bit larger than most.

Plenty of people will tell you to favor one group's information over another's, which to me is like choosing teams or taking sides. There may very well be faulty info in anyone's reports or databases, and I think it's a mistake to disregard reports that may be accurate simply because of the source.

My advice: Don't allow yourself to fall into an "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to scrutinizing reports. Judge each and every one based solely on it's individual merits.

In the case of this report, I just don't know. Maybe a forensic sketch could shed some light on what this person saw.