I have independently researched 3 sighting reports. Two of a BFRO origin and one put forth by two blog personalities. I was able to track down the exact location of each occurrence from the report description. BFRO reports had the least details but ended up being the most credible. Details matched the location and terrain. Not only that but I found evidence that something was using a path down to a river at the first location. That led to exploration on the other side of the river, a game trail of sorts, even though nothing with hoofs used it, and ultimately my first BF footprint find. The second BFRO report reported a BF was visiting a campground at night. Investigation did not find anything at the campground but a half mile away I found a BF footprint in the mud on a lake shore. Both occurrences led to my investigation and footprint finds. So BFRO and other reports, do have the potential to lead to new finds or even encounters if you get there soon enough. The third investigation had its own thread in this forum. The location was find-able from the description but the report on the blog was full of inaccuracies and geographical errors. The moon played a big factor in the sighting report but would not have been visible at the location due to terrain and supposed date and time of the event. . Geographical problems could be due to non-familiarity with the area but as stated were many miles in error. So with this report the devil was in the details. I suspect that if the event happened at all, it was mostly story telling embellishment that created all the discrepancies. The longer between an event and the investigation the more likely that the details will have changed with each telling. Throw in the desire for entertainment content, desire to get credibility for a blog following, and you cannot be sure what you are getting.