If you had a report posted up on a website that was found to contain a blatant lie from the witness. What would you do if you could?


I bring this up because of a report I double checked on.
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9385

The first time it was online the witness claimed to be in the Army for 6 years. ALL of them in Special Forces. That is a BS statement by the witness and imnpossible to achieve.

Now the report has been edited to omit the lie of spending the ENTIRE 6 yrs in Special Forcces.



I know the witness still may have had an actual encounter, but what does the person telling a big fib right off tell you about them. Should the report stay up? Should just the lie be edited out? The whole Service related thing be edited out? Or the entire report pulled?
Why edit out just the BS but leave up the claim they were a soldier? Maybe thats BS as well just to make them seem more credible? Would it be better to remove everything related to the lie?

Personally I would remove the report.

What would you do? and Why. There may be a good reason that I have not thought of. I certainly cant think of a good reason to leave it as I hate liars, but maybe some have other reasons.

Flame away.

I have no tolleration for lies - I would have a seperate section of the database for people who have submitted dubious report.

I would place it there with a note saying why it has been placed in the 'dubious' pile.

But then I don't look after the BFRO database do I ?

I say REMOVE IT & add a "footnote" explaining the "what" & "why".
Credibility is always of paramount importance here.
Liars will not be tolerated !
What goes around, comes around & your lies will catch up to you !
Save the "embellishments" for around the campfire.....there's no place for it here in BF Research.

Again...

That is a tough one, ok. Pulling the report may possibly be depriving poeple of information, while leaving it may be subjecting them to BS. Leaving it minus the offending comment, may be allowing the reader to be mislead unknowingly, while removing the statement, but including a BS meter flag would possibly ruin the credibility of all reports in the eyes of some (plus offend the individual who filed the report). I would be for including it, with a warning and some sort of a BS meter rating. Of course the rating would be arbitrary, subject to the feelings of the person monitoring the site. People should hear all reports, but if one stinks, they should have that info available to weight against any info gleaned from the report.
BSF

My favorite part was the “hard hitting power from a military round such as a 7.62mm”
The SKS fires a 7.62x39 round about like a 30/30 ballistic. Definitely not a Hard hitting round.
It seems to me he was thinking of the 7.62Xx51 AKA .308 Winchester. A considerably more powerful round.

But any greenbriar who has been to small arms school or been around Camp McCall knows the difference.

NOI

It looks like this poll needs an additional option (or two). (That's why I haven't voted.)

Remove it!!! Leaving any part of it up would just bring into question the credibility of the bfro.

Remove it. Bury it. List the submitter or 'liar' as such on a publicly accessible section so that other investigators will know the name for the future. There is no room or tolerance for liars when it comes to this phenomenon.

Such as...?

Skunk hunter, As I understand it, the report said He was in the military for 6 yrs, , He also stated that he was in SF, and a vet. I dont see the problem??? enlighten me as the the problem. I didnot read where you say he was in SF for 6 yrs....

Per haps when they first took the RP they printed it wrong, , and he had them correct it. , or he made a typing mistake, and went back to fix it later...

maybe ;leave the report up and notate the lie and the circumsatces of the lie and advise the readers to give it what weight it will.



i say if the investigator can ferrit out the truthfullness of the rest of the report he should notate the lie or embellishment and leave it up. I know, from taking reports about crime or events, sometimes people will embellish their experience related to the incident that would make them look to be a better wittness.I ad this just for thought as it might be related.

How about having a seperate classification(in the bfro case), such as 'credibility in question' or 'credibility not verifiable'. That way they shouldn't take the credibility hit as an organization AND they are still keeping the 'information' available for those that really feel they need to see it.

BB

I like it, BBF.
BSF

Please. Your input is extremely valued. What should have been added?

I am learning from this as to why or why not leave it.

Thats what they edited out. The first draft he claimed to be in SF for his entire 6yr service. I dont think they printed it wrong. I think they saw some people here, former service members and some who are still active see the discrepancy and they removed the questionable claim.

Ok.

I will say that the encounter may certainly have happened. but the other claim ruins it for me and makes me not want to care about his encounter. I guess thats my main gripe.

....... ....... You got it, A P T !

At first I was going tos say we needed another option. One that considered the nature of the lie. However the more I think about it I can't support any dishonesty within the report.

However, that doesn't make the sighting invalid. Researchers should keep those reports in private notes and share accordingly. There are a bunch of you that do serious field work, and that information should be shared amongst you. However, I really don't need that information myself, so don't post it. But if a report turns out to be an obvious hoax, don't pull label it as such.

I'm not going to comment on this report. I just want to speak to the idea of making a spectacle of report submitters who are suspected-rightly or wrongly-of having fabricated or greatly embellished their story.

This idea, while it may satisfy our inner need to expose and punish the hoaxers, is ultimately self-defeating. I say that for two reasons.

First, real witnesses who see an organization that uses such tactics will be very reluctant to submit their stories to that org. They are already laughed at by friends and family, and are hesitant to tell anyone about it after having that experience.

When a witness submits their report, they expect and trust that they will be treated with respect. Rightly so. They get enough grief already. If they believe for a second that you are going to treat them poorly, bye-bye. That's exactly what a public flogging of suspicious report submitters is going to accomplish.

Second, the last thing I want to provide the hoaxers is a training manual on what not to include in their report or interview. With enough of those kinds of reports (if they were truly hoaxes), the fabricators can hone their craft by studying those that didn't get through. No thanks.

My two cents...

If there is doubt, toss it out.

Judaculla, you are right on, I agree.

But...

If everyone who reports a sighting gets treated with respect and their sighting is thouroughly investigated by all means possible and practical, the organization will get that reputation and no one should fear ridicule from them.

If after an exhaustive invesitgation you find the monkeysuit and the the wooden feet in the trunk, well... that could be posted discretely at the end of the report.

Something very interesting we have here at BFF... Those members who are banned stay banned and all their posts are labeled as banned member. The list of banned members is relatively small.

Good insight. I am glad to see differing opinions about this issue. Good learning esxperience in what others would do, what I would do, and more importantly what I can learn from this.

Judaculla makes an excellent point...
This is all goes to ETHICS & CREDIBILITY...
The mainstream already has us on the fringe and our HONOR IS ALL WE'VE GOT until we bring one in.
You know how "They" are so quick to embrace us BFers only as HOAXERS & LIARS, ANYWAY !!
At the very least, let's be Ethical EEdiots !

There are no ethics to be considered in being objective when it comes to verifying the reports. They are either verifiable and stand on their own merits or they do not.

As 'investigators' of this phenomenon, we have a duty to be as skeptical as possible to rule out common explanations before we rule it as something unexplained let alone, Bigfoot related.

The only place where ethics plays a part is when we determine what we are hearing is BS and what do we do about it. Jud brings up some good points..the harsh treatment of liars and hoaxers might put off those wishing to make a legitimate report, however, I contend that if the event is legitimate, its going to withstand the various litmus tests performed by investigators and others. The worst that can happen is that its deemed inconclusive. Thats not exactly calling someone a liar or a hoaxer.

I have a question about this report, was it written by the interviewer or by the interviewee? If the person was interviewed and the interviewer wrote down the information, it could be possible the question of the witnesses military service (specifically being in the SF entire carreer) was a miscommunication. Maybe the mistake was caught but already posted and that is why it was changed. Do I believe the report? I haven't even read it, it's just that there could be any human error here to label the witness a liar IMO.

I know that the law relating to witnesses testifying under oath states "if any part of a persons testimony is found to be knowingly untrue, then his entire testimony must be rejected as false". In this case I think the person should be contacted to allow them to explain the statement in question since it is possible that it was a typo or honest mistake.

I guess what lesson should be learned here is to not to jump to conclusions without all the facts....

It wasn't a lie that was edited....it was a typing error and poor sentence structure that was removed.

Let me give you an example:

Report 9555 on the BFRO reads: As you pass through on the east bound side on Hwy 80, just before Donner Pass, there is a truck inspection station.

Logically, someone reading that would think that the truck inspection station is on the east side of 80, right before you get to Donner Pass? But that's wrong...what the witness meant to say was HE was headed east....and he passed a truck inspection station. The station is really on the west side of Highway 80.

Now, is that a lie? No, just poor sentence structure. If the investigator edited that to make it sound correct, once it was already published, would you all jump on his case for editing it?

There is a fine line between asking questions to find out the true intent of a sentence vs. jumping down someone's throat and yelling "lie" before it can be explained. I know I would be more responsive to someone if they said, "Hey Kat, that report you just published has something that confuses me. Is that truck inspection station on the east or west side of Highway 80"...and I'd try to answer your questions, check with the witness to verify info, and/or change something in the report that is confusing. If your questions lead me to believe the witness was telling a fib, then I would appreciate it that you brought to my attention in a helpful manner.

What I continue to preach is that we are all here for the same purpose, to discover this species. I welcome comments/threads on my reports (in fact I'm getting jealous that I haven't had a thread in a while), but I would hope to be approached in a respectful manner.

Just my .0000002 worth....

True. It is also all that a witness has!

I don't know about the rest of you, but if a story is found to be 1/10th lie, I don't put much stock in the rest of it anyway. Why? A liar told it to me. It is tainted testimony.

I mean c'mon, guys, we're talking about a proven liar telling you he just saw a 7 ft- 10 ft hairy man-ape walking on two feet in the wilds of North America, probably with no other witnesses anywhere around. And you want to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Don't they also require at least "above average trustworthiness"?

That all being said, I like the idea of putting a "credibility questioned" asterisk beside the report, but leaving it posted. Readers Beware!

I disagree with Jud only on the point of producing a manual for hoaxers. All they have to do is hang around here for a while and they can learn what we look for in a good report. Shoot, I could probably write one off the top of my head that would pass muster. And if I couldn't, you probably could!

I voted to remove the report. Lies are the same as hoaxes. LIES. Any credibility the taleteller may have had is blown away making the report useless and a mockery of sincere reports.

In this case I think the idiom "One bad apple spoils the whole barrel" applies.

Imagine a 3rd party, hearing about the phenomenae, googles and comes up with reports from BFRO. Now when this guy or gal sees that some of the reports are from liars but left up, he or she is going to chuckle and possibly wonder if we are so hard up for reports that we'll take any story no matter how non-credible.

Granted, about 20 percent of the other reports are probably complete BS. However, short of kidnapping the reporter and feeding him or her truth-serum, there is really no way to totally verify the truth of the report.

Hairyman, I knew there was a reason I liked you, I said that in the beginning that it could be a mistake...

And YES, when everything is striped away. All we have is are word i.e. Honor.