Forums

I still check BFF occasionally to see if there are any recent topics of interest. However, a lot of the material and debates in BFF seem to go through repeat cycles.   For field research topics of interest and in my region (CA, OR, and WA), I have moved on to Facebook and interact with non-anonymous field researchers in private Facebook groups.   I find it more rewarding to deal with folks who I have actually met in the field, many who have more years of field experience and/or that have focused on particular aspects (like audio recording or thermal imaging or other technical aspect) and are willing to share their expertise.

^^ Yeah, I view cases where the witness is the victim as a hoax or an accidental hoaxer as insufficient evidence.  It's not the witness's fault (assuming they're not part of the hoax) for reporting something they see.  Take the Prince Edward Island video or some 20-inch tracks that occurred in Harrisburg, PA (I think, I'm not looking that up right now) which were an admitted hoax.  If an innocent witness stumbled across the filming or the tracks and honestly thought that they had witnessed something bigfoot related, it's not their fault they were hoaxed.   I think that research groups undervalue identification of hoaxes (or they do it behind the scenes and don't let on that they do it).  When looking at reported encounters in the northeast, you can find patterns in the relationships between probable bona fide encounters.  And the relationships between encounters that are likely hoaxed bear indicia of hoaxing, making their patterns distinct from the other patterns. 

I would create a separate variable to code a report as either a likely hoax or not, so that I could see at what level hoaxes are happening most frequently.  There are at least 2 possible forms of hoaxing when it comes to witness reports. One is the witness as the perpetrator of the hoax and the other is the witness as the victim of a hoaxer. For example, did the witness create the fake print, or is the witness playing into the hand of a hoaxer? I suspect this latter scenario is very difficult to confirm. I suppose there's also the "accidental hoaxer" -- that Bigfoot researcher banging on trees, making Bigfoot calls, and scaring the hell out of nearby campers who subsequently submit a report to the BFRO!     

Emphasis added above.  The primacy of Class B (non-sightings, as I understand it) reports may be due to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet reporting every freaking sound, falling branch, and dropping acorn to the BFRO.  Thus, the input was deluged with sounds and smells, rather than sightings.  It may also be that as Finding Bigfoot progressed over time, they did more harm than good.  I.e., people didn't want to report a possible sighting to a group which (unfairly or not) was tarred as seeing a horse in a thermal and saying it might be Bigfoot.  Yes, I know that fell on the producers trying to make a buck, but not everyone came to the Bigfoot Forums and learned about how the show's producers were fighting a war with the Bigfoot researchers.         Regardless of the type of interaction between the Bigfoot and the human observer, the question is how credible are the encounters.  Most of your Level 0 and Level 1 encounters are insufficient to conclude that a Bigfoot was encountered because the animal making the calls or tree knocks, or throwing stones, or stinking up the forest, or tromping through the forest was not seen, so the possibility exists that there was a bird calling (and the witness is unfamiliar with bird calls and songs), there was a really annoying woodpecker nearby, there were acorns falling and hitting stones, making it look like stones were thrown, or the witness was mishearing what they thought were bipedal footprints.  All of that is in addition to witnesses with Bigfoot on the Brain, i.e., every sound in the forest is Bigfoot.     If a witness actually saw a Bigfoot (regardless of whether Bigfoot saw the witness) and provides details consistent with the exterior factors of the sightings, then there is a reasonable probability that the witness saw a Bigfoot.  As an example of inconsistent details, a witness who was in a fast-moving vehicle on a busy road claimed to see a "Bigfoot" for 5-10 seconds and roughly 100 yards away in a field where the crop created at least some lack of clarity.  The witness proudly proclaimed that because she was "interested in Bigfoot" she went into observation mode - in essence, admitting a predisposition to see Bigfoot.  Then she provided details that are inconsistent with seeing something 100 yards away (go to your local football field with a friend and stand at either end to see what you can see with a clear line of view and spending minutes, not seconds, of observation.   You should include a "Level 0," for hoaxes and probable hoaxes.  They are out there.       I have 183 BFRO reports that I have independently evaluated based on what they put on their website.  Of these,    I've concluded that 4 are outright hoaxes 33 provide insufficient details to conclude that an encounter actually occurred 21 provide enough details to conclude that the witness may have seen a Bigfoot 4 are more likely than not to have been a Bigfoot encounter   Yes, that means that I have to go back and analyze 121 more reports.  For any faults they have, at least the BFRO puts in enough details to allow an independent review or analysis of a claimed encounter and for everyone to make their own assessment.  Other groups fall far worse in my database.  (One group has 6 hoaxes and only 3 encounters where a witness may have seen a Bigfoot out of 30 reports; the vast majority so far fall into the "cool story, bro" category.       

Looks pretty cool and seems like it would scrape reports up to the current date. The python coding is beyond my capabilities, sadly. Other datasets I've reviewed all include the BFRO data but not all the variables and not reports from the last couple years. The most comprehensive is the SSR dataset with the BFRO reports, John Green reports, and reports from various regional Bigfoot research groups.   One question I had of the BFRO data was about the types of interactions witnesses were reporting. David Daegling in his book Bigfoot Exposed argued that most Bigfoot encounters are "mundane" -- the witness sees a Bigfoot, there's a brief period of mutual recognition, and then the Bigfoot just walks away. This certainly wasn't my impression.    To get a sense of what witnesses are reporting, I pulled a random sample of BFRO reports of encounters that happened between 2010 and 2022 and then read and coded the witness descriptions (this is the "observed" variable in the BFRO dataset). I created the following coding scheme:  Level-0: These are asynchronous encounters. That is, there’s evidence that a Bigfoot might have been in the witness’s current location, as shown by foot tracks, scat, stray hairs, tree breaks, etc. [this would map to the BFRO Class C] Level-1: This and the remaining levels are synchronous encounters. In Level-1 there is evidence of Bigfoot currently in the witness’s proximity, as demonstrated by loud calls, tree knocks, stone throws, strong odors, bi-pedal footsteps, etc. Bigfoot is believed to be nearby but there is no visual confirmation. [this would map to BFRO Class B]  Level-2: This adds visual confirmation but the sighting is one-directional. There is no indication from the witness that the Bigfoot was aware of the witness’s presence. [this gets into BFRO Class A but depends on observability] Level-3: This introduces mutual recognition between the witness and the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot simply acknowledges the witness and then casually turns away and disappears into the forest. "Mundane". [this seemed to be what Daegling wrote about; the P-G encounter would fit here]  Level-4: These are aggressive interactions with Bigfoot, as demonstrated by Bigfoot bearing teeth, chest pounding, yelling or roaring, charging, or similar behaviors targeted at the witness. Level-4 is often characterized by competition between the witness and Bigfoot, whether for home territory, hunting grounds, or specific prey animals. [I would put Mike Wooley's encounter and Wes Germer's encounter here, as examples]   Turns out most encounter reports fall into Level 1 and Level 2... and most of these cases are susceptible to alternative explanations and readily dismissed by debunkers. I suspect few even consider filing a report for Level-0, though cases like Cripple Foot and the Skookum Cast fit here.  Level-3 cases were infrequent (~10% of cases) and Level 4 non-existent.  Here's how my sample of 102 cases breaks down: overall (top chart) and by BFRO's Class A and Class B.