I NEED TO ADD THAT WE LIVE IN A TIME WHERE INTEREST IN THESE CREATURES IS ON THE UPSWING.

TELEVISION SHOWS GET HIGH RATINGS AND ARE REPEATED OFTEN. WEB SITES GET MILLIONS OF HITS WHEN A BIGFOOT STORY OR NEW INF IS POSTED. IT ISN’T LIKE THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE PATTERSON FILM WHERE TELEVISION NEWS IS INTERVIEWING BIG GAME HUNTERS NIGHTLY FROM THE FIELD LEADING OFF THE NEWSCAST AS THEY ARE HOT ON THE TRAIL.

OUR GOLDEN AGE IS THAT OF CABLE AND THE INTERNET. PEOPLE CANT GET ENOUGH BIGFOOT. WE AS PSEUDO INVESTIGATORS NEED TO HAVE THE CREDENTIALS AND PRESENT OUR INFO AS UNBIASED AS POSSIBLE AND STAY AWAY FROM THE LUNATIC FRINGE.

IF YOUR SUBJECT IS COLLECTING ORB PICTURES WHILE OUT SQUATCHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO FIND A MORE GROUNDED SUBJECT. IT WONT BE HARD AS SIGHTINGS ARE ON THE UPSWING AS PEOPLE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IN DISCUSSING THEM.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS RENEWED INTEREST. THE MORE MAINSTREAM THE SUBJECT THE MORE FOLKS WILL REPORT SIGHTINGS. WE HAVE TO DISAVOW THE LIKES OF BISCARDI AND BECKJORD AND SHEALEY AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS LIED OR CHARACTER IS IN QUESTION OR JUST PLANE BORDERING ON MENTAL INSTABILITY. ITS SAD CAUSE IF BISCARDI WASN’T INVOLVED IN THE MARX HOAX PICTURES AND HADN’T BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE OR BEING MADE A FOOL OF HE MIGHT JUST BE ALMOST ACCEPTABLE. I SAY THIS CAUSE HE HAS SOME INROADS ON CERTAIN RESERVATIONS AND ACCESS TO A LARGE POOL OF POSSIBLE WITNESSES.

while there may be a decent investigator or few in the BFRO, they are by and large amateurs with no experience leading even less experienced noobs.

proper investigations begin with no assumptions and well thought out and planned interviews. all this ” the witness seems credible” crap is just an assumption that is taken for fact. if any thing seems anything then it really isnt is it.

i remember on BFRO report posted as a class B encounter. in it the couple begin with how deeply they believe in “bigfoot”. they go on with how many of their former “experiences” they now attribute to “bigfoot” after they learned things about “bigfoot” on the Internet.

they stated they went out to see if they could find “bigfoot” on their camping trip. it isnt too hard to see that this couple was so primed and desired to see a bigfoot so much they would have had an encounter in the camping isle at wal-mart. their experiences were some bird type calls possibles and whistles along with feelings of being watched. dont quote me as i am paraphrasing from memory.

ofcourse these folks encounter shouldnt be posted as a bigfoot encounter of any class. they were so over informed/misinformed that everything they see/hear/feel was bigfoot related. the investigator stated they seemed credible and were well educated on bigfoot.

this couples report is no different than one generated by the horrendously leading questions of a poorly trained/untrained interviewer. an example would be an interviewer asking or making statements like was the creatures hair reddish like so many people report or was it a different color. did the creature swing its arms. was the head domed. or like when the interviewer has a friendly discussion about bigfoot before asking the questions in an attempt to develop a rapport or gain the trust or make the subject comfortable.

both the couples sighting and one generated by poor interviewers are junk. they were both predetermined by experience and planting of information. as evidence they are useless and should never be reported or placed into any public database as a bigfoot encounter of any class or type because they arent. they are just story’s embellished by panted info and are not in any shape way or form evidence of any kind.

investigators all to often fail to verify even the most basic facts like time of day, weather, season etc. they interview with leading questions and doing so they plant information. this isnt something they set out to do it is just something those who are ignorant of basic techniques of interview and investigations do.

the BFRO picks their investigators based of ow many camping trips they go on and seem to frown upon independent and critical thinking. this isnt speculation its is simple observation and hearing from current and former members.

being the only scientific group or a scientific group [depending on who you talk to] would seem to indicate the need for proper training. it shouldnt matter the state of ones belief in the unknown rather their ability to investigate interview and present a final summation of the facts. these include the witnesses written or signed dictation of their testimony, the interviewers questions and follow up, the status of all facts that can be verified [after all if they lie about basic things whats the weight their testimony is to be given] . all of these things are importiant as they paint a picture of the report gathering process.

in the investigators report its importiant to include his questions to determine if they led the witness to any summation or they made the witness think that certain descriptive terms are more importiant to the interviewer. this is importiant because people want to be believed and they want to impress. if they feel certain things will make the interviewer believe or like them better they will use them, and probably do so unconsciously just out of instinct or human nature. this is one reason why eyewitness testimony can be so poor or unreliable.

simple training classes will provide investigators with these tools. even self initiated research can do so but roll play and instructor review is importiant to insure proper application of skills. this training isnt expensive and should be an over riding factor in selection as an investigator. untill it is the deficit it creates is just one more thing in our field as a whole that lowers its standing.

dont get me wrong, there are excellent investigators/interviewers out there. some learned thru professional training others are self taught and honed their skills thru trial and error. sadly the vast majority are sorely lacking in these skills. this leads to poor investigation poor fact gathering and out right ineptness that leads to the discarding of info that otherwise would/should be importiant.

this is one area that greatly reduces the integrity of our field. people look at the product of these investigations and interviews and discard them because the evidence and testimony was collected improperly. the very disturbing fact is that this is so easily corrected if not for the arrogance and ignorance of us who do such things.

people need to quit thinking they are scientists, crime scene investigators, FBI interrogator’s, or CIA intelligence agents. they need to realise they are plumbers, teachers, bankers, students, truck drivers and ordinary people who have an interest in finding something unknown/unproven . then they will realise that they are really in need of importiant education before they can competently conduct interviews and investigations. when such education and experience is considered mandatory the fruit of all our work will be considered solid, untainted and properly collected by outsiders and not the aimless collection of story’s and folk tales.

if i can learn such things then i know anyone can and they can do so easily and quickly.

simple Internet searches of how to conduct an interview or investigation will start the new untrained but eager investigator in the proper direction. it will be time and energy well spent. it will help you properly collect and document information.

I tend to agree with DARHOP. I’m not questioning the man’s truthfulness, but let’s wait until one is caught, shall we?

I do agree though it is not uncommon for those critters to be on the loose in the swamps.

Helpfule report, nevertheless.

I welcome his report from Florida.