Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Incorrigible1

    Incorrigible1

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      17,857


  2. Trogluddite

    Trogluddite

    Sésquac


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      1,380


  3. OldMort

    OldMort

    Engaged Member


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      1,009


  4. Explorer

    Explorer

    Sésquac


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      837


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/30/2025 in Posts

  1. 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.
    1 point
  2. 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!
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...