I have a "high degree of certainty" that this bf sighting is just as likely (or even more likely) to be that of a bear. As for the smell, it could have been coming from dead rabbit by the side of the road. Also, why didn't they shine their spot light on whatever it was since they already had it out and ready? (not to mention the driver hitting his brights).


Class A Sighting Report






Regarding the footprints and feces in the plowed field report HERE. I'm not saying someone hoaxed the prints, but the distinctive arch and the fact that whatever (or whoever) it was walked quite a ways out into an open field to defecate and the back into the woods (like they wanted to make sure it was noticed by whoever would be working there the next day) sure raises a possible red flag to me. To bad they have no conclusive results of the fecal sample DNA test... Maybe an independent lab would have better luck.

No offense but its really getting to the point that you begin to wonder why there even IS a Class B sighting category.

I have to agree with you there. Also, I think it is also suspicious that there just happened to be a clutch of turtle eggs buried directly in front of the squatter.. and that these eggs weren't damaged by the plow the day before. I am not a turtle expert but I have to wonder why a turtle would leave the safety of the woods to travel 30 feet into a plowed (dry) field to lay it's eggs? Hmmmmm.....

Do you know that the tests were not done by an independent lab?

Do you know if it is difficult to do DNA testing on fecal matter or how many labs in the US will attempt DNA tests on fecal matter?

Of the labs that are able or willing to test fecal samples, do you know how many would test BF related samples?



Is it possible that the eggs were lain in the overgrown fallow field before it was plowed?

Is it possible that the eggs were damaged and exposed by the plowing and that the scent of the eggs may be what drew the animal into the field in the first place?

Just a few questions I had as I read your posts. The answers to these questions, among others, may effect how you feel about the credibility of the sighting and the investigation.

Roll Tide Roll

supposing the eggs were disturbed by the plowing, and the creature was attracted by the smell,

and the creature squatted in the field to eat the eggs. it'd be part of the normal digestive process (paristaltic action) to defecate while eating. my fish do it all the time. i have to put the dogs out after every meal so they can do their thing.

just smelling food cooking can start paristaltic action. you smell food, your mouth starts to water a little, your tummy growls. it's a process. things start moving

gael


not saying for sure thats what happened there, but it could be

Why do I suddenly have to go to the bathroom?

It said at the bottom of the report that the fecal matter was sent to the BFRO for testing and that the tests were inconclusive. (probably because they were stored in a freezer). If they had been sent to an independent lab for testing you'd think it would have mentioned it.

Independent labs are a business. They will test whatever you want them to and charge you accordingly.

They aren't testing for BF DNA, since no known samples exist to compare it to. I assume they test to see if they are the feces of known animals.


The report said the turtle egg shells were dug up from their original nest and the shells left in a pile right in front of the pile of feces. If they had been dug up by a plow you would expect them to have been scattered along the ground for a short distance behind the plow.

I'm not saying it isn't what they suspect, I'm just saying it can't be ascertained "with a high degree of certainty" for a class A rating, expecially considering there was a distinctive arch in the footprint.

I don't know how close a BF digestive system is to that of a fish or a dog, but I do know that I certainly don't have to defecate whenever I eat...

You will all be happy to know that one of the classifications on my reports was changed. Others within organization thought it should have been a class 'B' when I thought it should not have been an 'A'.

Other reports were not changed....

Not arguing with anyone about it, majority rules right....

Still luv u guys.

mel

Quit eating at Dennys huh ?

I'm no turtle expert either, but I do know that turtles will leave a perfectly nice stand of timber to lay their eggs in open ground. At our camp on the river, we have turtles coming from 4 different directions out into the yard to dig holes and lay their eggs when there is a perfectly good "bottom" there that you would think they would use. And, I have seen possum and coons dig these eggs up and consume them on the spot. Sometimes there'e even possum and coon poop right beside the holes they'd been digging in.

Califb,

I am not trying to be argumentative here, nor am I trying to belittle you, but your criticisms are simply based on the misreading of the report and incorrect assumptions.

The classification system does indicate classifying trackways as "Class A" under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances were met in this case.

Does this require some subjective decisions? ALWAYS

Does this prove absolutely that the evidence was not faked? NO

Does it mean that known animals can be excluded and that the evidence was collected under firm guidelines and seems credible? YES



The report says that the samples were sent BY the BFRO not TO the BFRO. You simply misread the report.

You assume that storing a sample in the freezer somehow led to an inconclusive test. Freezing was precisely what the lab recommended in this case.

Your assumption seems incorrect.



You assume that DNA labs will do anything for anyone. Most, if not all, labs are very busy and most of their work is either for research organizations or law enforcement. This work usually has very pressing time constraints and is very important. If John Doe sends them a pile of scat collected by amateurs under undetermined circumstances for unstated purposes and asks the lab to compare it to every known animal in the world, I doubt if the lab would even respond and would probably throw the sample away.

Again, your assumption seems incorrect.

Even if by some miracle the lab did respond, testing under those circumstances would require an almost limitless budget?

If you assume a limitless budget, I can assure you that assumption is most definitely incorrect.

There are other assumptions that seem incorrect, but the examples above should be sufficient. I was in a quandary about whether to respond to you again or not. I tried to respond in a more delicate manner the first time. If I respond again, it appears as though I am being unkind. If I don't, some may consider your assumptions and criticisms valid when they are not. Though your assumptions are incorrect, I find that some seem common on the BFF, especially the ones relating to DNA from scat samples. That is why I have taken time to respond, and have done so publicly. I hope I have not hurt your feelings in the process.

The BFRO is comprised of volunteers who conduct investigations at their own expense in their spare time. The BFRO has connections with labs that will do work for them, but their requirements are very stringent and they will not test just anything the BFRO sends to them, nor will the BFRO send them just anything. Most of the reports the BFRO deals with, at least 2/3's of them, are hoaxes or jokes, so they are very sensitive to catching those before they waste time and money on them. They try very hard to publish only the ones they feel are legitimate and much thought is given to the classification considering ALL the circumstances, many of which cannot be revealed to the public for a variety of reasons. Many times classification is not a black and white issue. There are often many shades of gray involved.

Do investigators make mistakes? Certainly.

Should those mistakes be corrected? Certainly.

Will corrections be made on the basis of misread portions and incorrect assumptions?
Definitely not.

These types of questions are best settled through submitting a comment through the BFRO web site. That way it does not appear that you are trying to belittle the BFRO publicly, and it does not seem that we are trying to belittle you publicly if we respond.

Best regards,

Roll Tide

I don't think its a matter of the wrong classification being used in reports. I think its a matter of needing to overhall the classification system itself. Just my $0.02.

Were the pictures of the tracks and casts ever posted somewhere?

You know, califb, with all due respect, you probably will do better on this board if you change your tone a bit. As far as I can tell, you are brand new to bigfooting and a photographer by trade, and yet you throw out statements below like you are an expert.

Isn't this your sighting? Photographer hears early morning vocalizations near Lake Oroville

I suspect others could come in here and say with a "high degree of certainty" that the growl you heard was that of a bear. Bears can, and do, stand up. I've seen huge bear in that area before. How come you didn't get out of the car to look? But even though you didn't see anything or find any prints, the outstanding BFRO investigator that interviewed you gave you the benefit of the doubt, classified your experience as Class B, and added it to our website.

Just some advice...you are among some of the best bigfooters in the world on this forum. You will benefit greatly from them if you are willing to learn.

With all due respect Kathy, there are no 'Experts' in Bigfoot research.

I have heard people who have been in this field of research for years make incredible assumptions in their statements with no basis of scientific fact.

Are we going to adopt the Voldemort method of critisizing everyone who has not been a bigfoot researcher since the 1960s ? I hope not.

No, I agree...no one should throw out their opinion like they’re an expert because there are none...that is what I thought I was trying to say. However, I do put more trust in statements from someone who has been doing it longer than a week...and who don’t criticize others for having experiences similar to their own....

The BFRO's classification system is better than the BRP's was. I have their book and I find it quite lacking. Everything can be improved though and I think that is what people are talking about here.

Maybe not experts in the bigfoot sense. But there are experts in several different aspects of related fields to qualify them as a good judge on whats likley true and what is likely not.

Also if this were a "normal " field of study in the first place there are several here who would indeed qualify as experts based on knowledge and experience with evidence, interviewing and yes, time spent doing so.

My 2 cents:

Okay - lets put that to the test.

Hands up who here has been trained and certified as an 'Expert' by the legal profession to conduct analytic interviewing of witnesses and conduct evidence collection to a forensic level?

[quote=califb,Nov 7 2004, 06:07 PM] [/QUOTE]
I don't know how close a BF digestive system is to that of a fish or a dog, but I do know that I certainly don't have to defecate whenever I eat... [/quote]
I can see you haven't ever tried a handful of raw turtle eggs, have you? Pretty darned slick stuff. Don't try that at any fancy french restaurant unless you have a clear shot at the privy, and track shoes on.
BSF

agreed, but at the first smell of food the paristaltic action starts, regardless. humans have the basic training given to us by our parents at about age 2, so we have a bit of control over the end results. i'm not sure about apes.

gael

Why does it have to be a someone certified legally? I would think that dozens of interviews with people both bigfoot related or not, would be as much as a qualifier for that as a document stating so.
But if legality is a sticking point ,then on this board alone, I can think of at least a dozen who would most likely meet those terms,though there probably are more than I'm, or any of us, are unaware of.

That's peristaltic activity (relating to peristalsis)

sorry....I've been a medical transcriber for 25 years. I can't help myself......really. It's a weakness.

I'm also the BFRO reports editor. I just threw that in.

I don't know why we are getting hung up on the idea of experts. The history of science is a litany of mistakes and bull-headed obstinancy. (Let's call them some of the best mistakes we've ever made as a species..) The point is, even the experts are wrong.

Right now, every scientist has at least one wrong idea stuck in his or her head. Most of them have a lot more than one. It's just the state of the art right now. Presently, we don't know much about anything, and a lot of what we think we know is wrong.

So, there isn't any need to throw out an appeal to expertise here. We must always appeal to sound reasoning, remembering that most of the time we are going to have to settle for "I don't know."

Because we are dealing with evidence, and therefore the legal rules of evidence collection should apply.

Just because someone has conducted 50 'Bigfoot' interviews doesn't mean they are doing it right, and in fact I have seen instances in cryptozoology where a poorly performed interview has destroyed any chance of getting evidence from a witness.

So...your position would be that unless someone is legally and professionaly trained as an intereviewer, in evidence collection, forensics, or whatever...then they have no business being in the sasquatch "reasearch" field?
Would we hold completely to that standard, there would be effectively no research going on at all.
I am "officialy" trained in none of the above...but when the time comes, I am confident that common sense and a bit of research will allow me to perform the duties effectively.
Most of it is simple common sense, and a bit of applied knowlege....mostly common sense. Such basics as securing the location(in the event of evidence collection), proper gathering and storage of any physical evidence, proper documentation of the location and conditions, all of this type of information, at least in sufficient form to document an event, is readily available to those who would seek it out(and I do think it behoves any of us who may find ourselves in a situation requiring such activities, to take the time to research and plan for the eventuality).
Proper interviewing techniques are a bit more difficult to "learn", as much of it simply comes with practice...but again, the basics, what to ask, what not to ask, what kinds of things to look for and key in on...are readily available.
So...while formal training in any of the above fields is certainly a big advantage...I don't feel it is a requirement to persue activities in this field.
Also...I suspect that raw fieldcraft, the ability to discern natural phenonmenon from "unnatural"(I use this in obviouly loose terms, as Sasquatch obviously is a "natural" phenomenon itself), and act upon it, is to be found more often then not, in "amatures" who may not have a great deal of formal field training..but have spent a lifetime in the field.
No doubt that on occasion, the chance for gleaning some information is lost due to a tainted or poorly conducted interviews by "amatures"...but given the stories to be seen on the eveing news on any given day, that particular unfortunate occourance would appear to not be limited to the amatures......indeed, I suspect people may be far more comfortable with an "amature" talking in a relaxed and courteous way, then they might be with many of the professionals that are out there.

That is a very good point Jim. If you break down the various aspects of bigfoot research, there are experts. Bigfoot research isn't just about witness interviewing and collecting evidence. There are several folks in here that are experts in tracking humans and wildlife; forest environments; Native American folklore; the history of bigfoot; primate dermal ridges; primate and early human foot structure; etc. And we do have folks that are trained police officers and physiologists that conduct interviewing of witnesses.

There is no rule that you have to have a Ph.D. in any of these subjects, but you do have to be generally accepted by the bigfoot community that you know what you are talking about. That takes time....

That isn't what I said at all.

What I am getting at is that if people throw the word 'expert' around in this field, then they should be prepared to explain what makes them an expert.

I haven't seen *any* experts in evidence collection and interviewing to a forensic level, with the exception of Chillcut.

I have seen some incredibly smart and experienced people in this field such as Meldrum, yourself, Kathy M, Jean Roche, Debbie Martyr etc.

But an 'expert' is something altogether different.

Getting back to the whole point of this thread.......

It seems to me that part of the problem is that there are no solid rules for assigning classes in BFRo reports - differnt investigators follow their own sets of rules and their own methods.

I could be talking out of my ass here, but this is how it appears to me.

Unless there is some consistancy across the board, then people will always wonder what BFRO reports are reliable and which ones are not.

Unless they are all 100%, then the usefullness of a sightings database is limited.

Paul, you've got a typo in that sentence....

It should read:

"I have seen some incredibly smart, cute and experienced people in this field such as Meldrum, yourself, Kathy M, Jean Roche, Debbie Martyr etc."

You're right - Debbie Martyr was a real babe

Sorry if I have pissed anyone of with my rantings in this thread - I'm having one of those argumentative weeks

I guess I don't understand....what difference does it really make if a report is Classified A or B? How does a classification system make a group more/less credible? Our classification system is completely arbritary...meant in part to help folks with little time to read the best stuff. The fact that a report is even on the website means that the investigator found the report credible and posted it. What you don't see are the other classifications of unusable, hoaxes, likely misidentifications, etc.

Yeah, we could probably do a better job being more consistant, but you are talking about a hundred volunteers spread through-out the country doing what they can, when they can. What we really need is to give our report editors the ability to change classifications when needed.

cool. probably when dictating reports the docs would say the patient had good paristaltic activity, meaning they had clear bowel sounds. but from what i remember in nursing school (mind you, that was 19 years ago) the actual process is called paristaltic action. then again it could be a regional thing. we were trained that certain adverse reactions to certain drugs were called EPR's only to find that many people call the EPS.

i work in psych now, and do very little medical nursing (thankfully)

gael

reports editor! *i* wanna job like thaaat. as howard stern would say waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa lol

You need a spankin'.....

AMEN!!!

Fair enough, but the implication seemed to be there.

Well this seems straightforward enough - why can't they at the moment?

You know how when you walk up to a group of people who are talking, and you say something you think is on point, but they keep on talking like you didn't say anything at all, and then you have to walk away all awkward and stuff?

That is what I am doing right now.

The trick is to make everyone else think that they should be talking about whatever it is your point was about.

What, are you talking to me now as I walk away? Sheesh, that's even more embarassing!



I bet I had something stuck on my teeth and no one would tell me either..

Just 'cause I thought the topic was interesting, Professional or Expert investigators (not neccessarily of bigfoot) do not really have all that difficult of requirements.

PI an Bounty hunter

Two forms of legally certified proffesionals in investigation.

I was talking about experts in the forensic sense Jim, not minimum standards for Bounty Hunters.

Actually, the term "expert" means:

A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

Under the real definition of the word, there probably are several BF experts on this board. It has nothing to do with certifications of any kind, legal or otherwise.




The last time I identified myself as an expert in anything was when I was in my early 20's (when everyone is an expert in everything, but not quite as expert as they were when they were 18) Although I know much more now than I did then, I find I am less an expert in anything the older I get.

At the time I was told that the definition of an expert is:

A former drip under pressure.


Enough said.