I was wondering if BFRO uses video when they are interviewing witnesses of alleged sightings. I realize some people might not want to be videotaped to maintain their anonymity, but I think there are many benefits to doing this. If others could view the interview at a later date, it could be more closely scrutinized for any inconsistencies or hints of falsehood. Personally Ive never interviewed anyone , but would love to see and hear some of the more convincing stories, especially those accounts given soon after the sighting.
ohio_squatcher
Full Version: Video taping sighting interviews
I'm speaking out of school since I'm not in the BFRO, but from what I understand, most of their interviews are conducted over the phone. Best you could do would be to record the audio, but then only if the interviewee is OK with it since to do so without their consent is a crime in many states (like mine).
I think getting a recording of the interview would be great whenever possible.
I think getting a recording of the interview would be great whenever possible.
I've gotten into the habit of recording the interviews I do by telephone. And yes, I make sure it is okay with the witness to do so prior to turning on the tape recorder. I just find that it makes it so much easier to do the interview. I can focus on the questions I have for the witness without having to try and write up the answers as I'm talking with them. Makes for a much easier interview, IMHO. And of course, I have the tapes stored for reference should I want to review them in the future.
As for video recording a witness, sure, I'd do that too if I were speaking to them in person and they were agreeable to it.
As for video recording a witness, sure, I'd do that too if I were speaking to them in person and they were agreeable to it.
QUOTE(Fishbone35 @ Nov 16 2004, 03:49 PM)
I've gotten into the habit of recording the interviews I do by telephone.
Good idea, Tim.
By the way, when I have been able to video the witnesses, in every case, it's only served to solidify their credibility as far as I was concerned. In other words, videotaping a witness has never led me to catch someone perpetrating a hoax or lie. It's been my experience that it's strengthened the testimony, not weakened it.
Here's something I posted a year ago in "The Ultimate Sasqautch Video" thread. I think it was a really neat idea.
EDIT: One bit of "confirmatory evidence" I should have included is whether or not the investigator's dog Alerted when taken to the site (if fresh).
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Oct 20 2003, 09:55 AM)
Below is a 1-page article of mine on this topic that was published in the August Bigfoot Co-Op. It is much less ambitious than what’s been suggested above, but more realistic. It requires little money (e.g., no $100,000 for Computer-Generated Imagery, which is what it cost S:LMS), and little co-operation among individuals. It suggests that researchers and organizations who’ve interviewed witnesses go back to them and get their testimony on tape—ideally at the spot where the sighting occurred, to help viewers visualize what happened. The only reenactment that might be done would be a human following Bigfoot’s footsteps.
They’d then post a notice informing TV producers of the availability of their videos in a “room” devoted to centralizing such notices on someone’s website, such as Bobbie’s, or BFRO’s, or TBRC’s, or BFF’s. (You could set up a “pinned,” empty thread in “Independent Research” devoted to this, bipto. But do it fast—we don’t want more than one “central” database!)
A few afterthoughts have occurred to me.
1. Prior to “B-Day,” most TV producers might prefer to interview witnesses themselves. But being able to preview witnesses by viewing the interviews researchers’ had made would enable them to determine which tales and witnesses would make good TV. (Hopefully, having done so, they’d give the original researcher a finder’s fee! Perhaps interviewees could agree, formally or informally, with researchers that they'd require TV producers to do this.)
2. To facilitate that, producers should be given the capability to preview the taped interviews on their computer. This would mean, in cases where witnesses would prefer to be seen only on a TV show, but not over the Net, that producers would have to apply for a password to view those tapes. Another way to preserve their privacy would be to omit their names and locations, except state. This would also help ensure that producers had to go to the interviewers to gain access to their witnesses.(Bobbie’s site currently has a room where videos can be selected for viewing. I don’t know how much work it would be for other sites to provide video downloads.)
3. Authors could be interviewed for hours, putting most of the essential points in their books on tape. Such authors would probably not want these tapes available for indiscriminate viewing on the Net, as they would diminish sales of their books (or would they?!), so once again a system of passwords, each good for only one user (presumably a producer or one of his aides), would need to be in place. (This password system could be implemented months or years after the basic system had been put in place.)
----------------------------------------
Let’s Videotape Testimony & Create Documentaries
Roger Kni
Witness testimony has more impact the closer it hits to home. The ultimate impact occurs, therefore, when the witness is oneself. Next is hearing about a sighting from a trusted relative or friend, followed by reading about an encounter by a stranger one has heard of and respects. Near the bottom of the list is hearing about written testimony by strangers one doesn’t know. But (with rare exceptions) this is the only contact the general public now has with witness testimony. Even for believers, testimony in a book is only a shadow of the reality being described. If we were to be in more intimate contact with such testimony, it would have more impact. In other words, videotaped testimony of credible-seeming witnesses is desirable. Seeing it would counteract the dismissiveness of scoftical dogma, which implies witnesses are Fools or Liars All.
Any persons and organizations that produced such tapes would not only Do Good immediately (which is the purpose of my suggestion), they would also (eventually) Do Well—Very Well. In the weeks after B-Day, there would be a tremendous demand by TV (and radio) broadcasters for footage related to Bigfoot. There would be no time for them to go out and interview more than a few witnesses themselves. They would therefore have to pay well for the rights to videotape that’s already been shot. The Western Bigfoot Society’s collection of videotaped talks by buffs and witnesses might be worth up to a million, perhaps. And a one-hour high-quality videotape of witness testimony might bring in an amount over six figures, if it were re-broadcast a great many times. That would happen if there were high viewer demand. For example, Dan Perez estimates that the impact of B-Day would be as great as the moon landing. If so, virtually the whole country would be glued to its TVs for weeks to learn about BF, even to the point of repeatedly watching previously shown material. That would create a seller’s market for BF videos, and lead to repeat payments to licensors.
Until that happy day, such tapes might be shown over the Internet, perhaps, or on cable TV, or as part of talks by Bigfoot believers. But the producers should license only limited use of their product, so they’d be in a position to benefit from a price rise come B-Day. My hope is that this potential profit will loosen the purse strings of backers.
Here are some attributes I’d like to see in such videotapes:
• On-screen text supplementing the interviews; this text should include a web-page URL where further details on the sighting could be found. The text could deal with peripheral matters, the interview could deal with the actual sighting, plus its aftermath.
• “Best-case” compilations; i.e., those with some or all of the following:
o Visual conditions were good and the sighting was more than a glimpse,
o There were multiple witnesses,
o There was some confirmatory evidence (footprints, odor, etc.),
o Witnesses had high presumptive credibility (police, military officers, clergy, etc.)
• Sighting-locations shown, and the sighting perhaps re-enacted somehow.
• Validation of testimony by the new breed of portable, unbeatable lie detectors.
Investigators who’ve established relationships with witnesses should buy a tripod for their digital videocamera (digital for ease of editing on the PC), buy a book on videotaping techniques (or hire a professional videotaper), and obtain consent by phone or letter for an on-camera interview. Witnesses who were shy of publicity at the time of their sighting may be more willing to go public now. Or they could be promised that the tape would not be shown until BF’s existence were proven. Some BF website should help put these documentarians together with producers who’d package their interviews, and should post a list of tips for conducting video-interviews.
They’d then post a notice informing TV producers of the availability of their videos in a “room” devoted to centralizing such notices on someone’s website, such as Bobbie’s, or BFRO’s, or TBRC’s, or BFF’s. (You could set up a “pinned,” empty thread in “Independent Research” devoted to this, bipto. But do it fast—we don’t want more than one “central” database!)
A few afterthoughts have occurred to me.
1. Prior to “B-Day,” most TV producers might prefer to interview witnesses themselves. But being able to preview witnesses by viewing the interviews researchers’ had made would enable them to determine which tales and witnesses would make good TV. (Hopefully, having done so, they’d give the original researcher a finder’s fee! Perhaps interviewees could agree, formally or informally, with researchers that they'd require TV producers to do this.)
2. To facilitate that, producers should be given the capability to preview the taped interviews on their computer. This would mean, in cases where witnesses would prefer to be seen only on a TV show, but not over the Net, that producers would have to apply for a password to view those tapes. Another way to preserve their privacy would be to omit their names and locations, except state. This would also help ensure that producers had to go to the interviewers to gain access to their witnesses.(Bobbie’s site currently has a room where videos can be selected for viewing. I don’t know how much work it would be for other sites to provide video downloads.)
3. Authors could be interviewed for hours, putting most of the essential points in their books on tape. Such authors would probably not want these tapes available for indiscriminate viewing on the Net, as they would diminish sales of their books (or would they?!), so once again a system of passwords, each good for only one user (presumably a producer or one of his aides), would need to be in place. (This password system could be implemented months or years after the basic system had been put in place.)
----------------------------------------
Let’s Videotape Testimony & Create Documentaries
Roger Kni
Witness testimony has more impact the closer it hits to home. The ultimate impact occurs, therefore, when the witness is oneself. Next is hearing about a sighting from a trusted relative or friend, followed by reading about an encounter by a stranger one has heard of and respects. Near the bottom of the list is hearing about written testimony by strangers one doesn’t know. But (with rare exceptions) this is the only contact the general public now has with witness testimony. Even for believers, testimony in a book is only a shadow of the reality being described. If we were to be in more intimate contact with such testimony, it would have more impact. In other words, videotaped testimony of credible-seeming witnesses is desirable. Seeing it would counteract the dismissiveness of scoftical dogma, which implies witnesses are Fools or Liars All.
Any persons and organizations that produced such tapes would not only Do Good immediately (which is the purpose of my suggestion), they would also (eventually) Do Well—Very Well. In the weeks after B-Day, there would be a tremendous demand by TV (and radio) broadcasters for footage related to Bigfoot. There would be no time for them to go out and interview more than a few witnesses themselves. They would therefore have to pay well for the rights to videotape that’s already been shot. The Western Bigfoot Society’s collection of videotaped talks by buffs and witnesses might be worth up to a million, perhaps. And a one-hour high-quality videotape of witness testimony might bring in an amount over six figures, if it were re-broadcast a great many times. That would happen if there were high viewer demand. For example, Dan Perez estimates that the impact of B-Day would be as great as the moon landing. If so, virtually the whole country would be glued to its TVs for weeks to learn about BF, even to the point of repeatedly watching previously shown material. That would create a seller’s market for BF videos, and lead to repeat payments to licensors.
Until that happy day, such tapes might be shown over the Internet, perhaps, or on cable TV, or as part of talks by Bigfoot believers. But the producers should license only limited use of their product, so they’d be in a position to benefit from a price rise come B-Day. My hope is that this potential profit will loosen the purse strings of backers.
Here are some attributes I’d like to see in such videotapes:
• On-screen text supplementing the interviews; this text should include a web-page URL where further details on the sighting could be found. The text could deal with peripheral matters, the interview could deal with the actual sighting, plus its aftermath.
• “Best-case” compilations; i.e., those with some or all of the following:
o Visual conditions were good and the sighting was more than a glimpse,
o There were multiple witnesses,
o There was some confirmatory evidence (footprints, odor, etc.),
o Witnesses had high presumptive credibility (police, military officers, clergy, etc.)
• Sighting-locations shown, and the sighting perhaps re-enacted somehow.
• Validation of testimony by the new breed of portable, unbeatable lie detectors.
Investigators who’ve established relationships with witnesses should buy a tripod for their digital videocamera (digital for ease of editing on the PC), buy a book on videotaping techniques (or hire a professional videotaper), and obtain consent by phone or letter for an on-camera interview. Witnesses who were shy of publicity at the time of their sighting may be more willing to go public now. Or they could be promised that the tape would not be shown until BF’s existence were proven. Some BF website should help put these documentarians together with producers who’d package their interviews, and should post a list of tips for conducting video-interviews.
EDIT: One bit of "confirmatory evidence" I should have included is whether or not the investigator's dog Alerted when taken to the site (if fresh).
QUOTE(ohio_squatcher @ Nov 16 2004, 12:59 PM)
I was wondering if BFRO uses video when they are interviewing witnesses of alleged sightings...
Yes, whenever possible!
The main difficulty with interviewing witnesses is the different approach people have.
For example, two different people could ask the same question two ways.
1) Did you notice any unusual odour at the time of the sighting, and if so what did it remind you of?
2) Did it smell like a wet dog ?
Obviously, there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct an interview - there is a real danger of leading a witness, telling them about stuff they wouldn't have a clue about, but as soon as you have asked something like 'did you see anything that looked like a bedding area or nest', then you have pretty much contaminated the witness.
Witnesses should be handled very carefully at all times - I think recording interviews so that other investigators can peer-review is not just a great idea, it is an absolute must.
For example, two different people could ask the same question two ways.
1) Did you notice any unusual odour at the time of the sighting, and if so what did it remind you of?
2) Did it smell like a wet dog ?
Obviously, there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct an interview - there is a real danger of leading a witness, telling them about stuff they wouldn't have a clue about, but as soon as you have asked something like 'did you see anything that looked like a bedding area or nest', then you have pretty much contaminated the witness.
Witnesses should be handled very carefully at all times - I think recording interviews so that other investigators can peer-review is not just a great idea, it is an absolute must.
The TBRC has videotaped eyewitness testimonies in the past. We have done this on several occasions. It is helpful to be able to reference when conducting an investigation.
QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 16 2004, 04:39 PM)
I think recording interviews so that other investigators can peer-review is not just a great idea, it is an absolute must.
Yup. Good thinking...
*scribbles note*
i was interviewed(video) two days after my encounter, in the exact area of my sighting. just being there creeped me out all over again 
i think it helps, for future cross refrencing to look for bf actions in certain situations.
i think it helps, for future cross refrencing to look for bf actions in certain situations.
I spoke to a member of BFRO this week on a follow up, he recorded our phone conversation. He did ask if I was ok with it up front.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.