Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

In the case of the owner of the grooming video, as explained by HRP, the main concern is privacy. The land has been in the family for quite a while, and he isn't wanting unwarranted attention or trespassers.

Is there a "You Are Here" sign in the video? Just askin'...I get as frustrated as any skeptic over this kind of thing. The "I have seen" or "I have" pictures, videos, etc, but won't share because of *Insert reason here*. The ridicule will always be a factor but in my opinion, it only serves to further ridicule our "cause" when such claims are made and then...they're just claims.

Don't lambast me too much, oh mighty ones.

[Cotter]

I see your point banana (that sounds weird) as a proponent, I'm frustrated as well. I think some of these pics/vids could be released w/o compromising the location or the person's identity.

But then we just end up with a bunch of Hovey photos...all suspect b/c of the anonymous submitter.

But, such is life in the world of 'footery.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Without having seen the video myself I can't say whether there are any features in the video that a knowledgable person might identify for location. I certainly understand your concerns regarding the frustration of people noting they have a video but can't or won't release it, I'm in your boat!

I can say that I'm aware of a recent incident where a researcher posted a picture online of an outing that raised a ruckus because it included a feature that could have helped someone else identify the location. I myself was also involved in an unfortunate "outing" of a sighting location because the original sighting report had enough details to help me find the exact location, now the sighting report is no longer available per witness and researcher request.

Researchers often have to rely on witness sighting reports and have to abide by witness requests for anonymity and sighting location protection. Otherwise researcher credibility for future witnesses being able to trust them is degraded. If the next witness googles the researcher's name only to find out they "outed" the last witness or revealed the landowner's location, then the chances are they aren't going to make that call.

Until the stigma associated with being a BF witness goes away or the real possibility of having private property over run by overenthusiastic researchers, then we will likely continue to have presentation of evidence from witnesses or researchers that relies on anonymity and nondisclosure of location.

[Midnight Owl]

The general public opinion of a Bigfoot witness is highly skeptical and can be very harsh. The multitude of pranksters and deceitful charlatans only makes this view even more solid with the public. With that, most witnesses have enough sense not to openly expose their personal life to this kind of unwarranted treatment for doing nothing more than telling the truth to what happened to them. Secondly, they were not paid for nor do they owe any third party proof of what they experienced.

With that said, I have more questions than answers as to why and how these subjects avoid detection, yet they freely move about with groups of researchers literally a stones throw away! Things happen out there I have no clear understanding or explanations for. To the casual observer, it sounds and looks like a typical cop out or an excuse, but to those who have been there and done that, it is the way of life! They do what they do and it has been recorded that way for hundreds of years and will not change any time soon.

My opinion is they will reveal themselves when they get ready not before. Nothing we say or do will change it.....

[salubrious]

With that said, I have more questions than answers as to why and how these subjects avoid detection, yet they freely move about with groups of researchers literally a stones throw away! Things happen out there I have no clear understanding or explanations for. To the casual observer, it sounds and looks like a typical cop out or an excuse, but to those who have been there and done that, it is the way of life! They do what they do and it has been recorded that way for hundreds of years and will not change any time soon.

I've pointed to Tom Brown Jr's Tracker School (http://trackerschool.com) many times on this site (to the dismay of a few who've heard about it a few too many times- my apologies...). But he does teach in his Scout classes many of the techniques that BF seems to use: being invisible in plain sight, silence even walking in dry leaves, use of visual dead zones, concentric rings, avoiding direct observation (for some reason this attracts attention) etc. I figure if a human can do these things, it'd be a snap for one that has natural camo!

[Guest RayG]

So you might reconsider the temperature as being quite possible- this sighting is supposed to be well out of town.

Except the report says... "As he was leaving [Malta] he noticed the temperature on the bank said it was 40 degrees below zero."

So this was not well out of town, this was the temperature as recorded outside the bank in Malta.

Generalizing here, but I just find it surprising how a report can be considered Class A, when no on-site investigation took place, sometimes the report is months, years, or even decades old, and the sole criteria seems to be how impressive the report sounds, or how sincere and credible the witness appears over the phone. If it were me, I wouldn't classify ANY report like that as a Class A, I'd be more likely to give it a C or D rating at best.

Bottom line, when I start looking really closely at these 'thousands' of reports, too many of them just don't cut the mustard.

RayG

[Guest]

I see your point banana (that sounds weird) as a proponent, I'm frustrated as well. I think some of these pics/vids could be released w/o compromising the location or the person's identity. But then we just end up with a bunch of Hovey photos...all suspect b/c of the anonymous submitter. But, such is life in the world of 'footery.

Cotter,

You can call me "BS" for short. LOL However, what those initials usually stand for does not reflect my character in any way.

There is zero doubt the bigfoot world is full of all sorts of characters. You should see (and some of you know) the dialog that goes on in some of the FB groups. Threats of lawsuits over slander, libel, plaigerism, etc, for the most trivial things all the while detracting from what is supposed to be a common *ahem* cause.

So, while skeptics, outside persons, etc, hear and see claims from the "I won't tell/show" camp AND then they hear of the perpetual and often vicious infighting amongst "ourselves", it only serves to bring more ridicule.

I've lurked on BFF for several months now...piping up occasionally here and there. There are lots of great folks doing lots of great things but that's not dramatic nor newsworthy (for the most part). Something so fantastic demands a stage and there are more than enough folk playing king of the hill for that.

Show us the pics. Show us the videos. It does no good, in my opinion, not to show them. Release them through a legal firm or a "credible" source. Anonymity can be maintained.

[Guest poignant]

Hear hear.

Get a legal firm to back you up, open the floodgates, and build the critical mass already.

Make the truth about sasquatch irresistible.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Generalizing here, but I just find it surprising how a report can be considered Class A, when no on-site investigation took place, sometimes the report is months, years, or even decades old, and the sole criteria seems to be how impressive the report sounds, or how sincere and credible the witness appears over the phone. If it were me, I wouldn't classify ANY report like that as a Class A, I'd be more likely to give it a C or D rating at best.

The report classification system is something started by the BFRO I think. Class A is a visual sighting, Class B is hearing or seeing evidence without actually seeing the BF, Class C is 2nd hand reporting (ie. "I know this guy that had a sighting or something weird happen...").

The report you are talking about is a visual sighting of a BF, therefore it is class A. The classification system doesn't assign a value of how reliable or probable the report is, although the BFF database is entering such a system now.

The witness for Class A report #33257 seems to be mistaken about how cold it was in Malta in January 2011. A weather report for the general area show the coldest it got in Malta that month was 33 below, and that was on January 31st.

Do you have a link to that weather report? From the report it seems rather vague whether the witness remembers the exact date other than "winter of 2010/2011". He does note there is a full moon, which would place it on/about January 19, 2011 or February 18, 2011. In February the Malta, Montana station recorded a low of -38ºF.

[Guest RayG]

According to the BFRO, a Class A report doesn't have to be a sighting, it could be footprints.

<snip>"Class A reports involve clear sightings in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. For example, there are several footprint cases that are very well documented. These are considered Class A reports, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low."</snip>

Do you have a link to that weather report?

Sure do. Right here.

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

Here's the weather information sight I found for Malta, Montana for February 2011.

[Guest]

Hear hear.

Get a legal firm to back you up, open the floodgates, and build the critical mass already.

Make the truth about sasquatch irresistible.

It already is irresistible.

[salubrious]

Except the report says... "As he was leaving [Malta] he noticed the temperature on the bank said it was 40 degrees below zero."

So this was not well out of town, this was the temperature as recorded outside the bank in Malta.

Wait a minute. I seem to recall this report- he said it was 33 below, but the Bank said 40 below (if its anything like the bank near my house that would not be all that weird- any way we can find out how accurate the bank thermometer is?). So he is saying something different from the bank. The 'sighting' was also well out of town... Was this because he found out some other way? Like a reading on the dash of his truck? Sounds like this one could do with more investigation...

[Guest RayG]

Nope, it mentions 40 below twice, but the only 33 on that report page is the 33 in the number of the report -- 33257. I gave a link to that specific report back in post #349, but you can also type 'bfro report 33257' into google and get a positive result.

Given the detail he was able to see at a distance of 100 feet (like the eyes being 5" apart), it would have been worth asking what kind of flashlight he had.

Makes me wonder if the investigators of these reports ever call the witnesses back for clarification on things that don't make sense. You know, the investigator talks on the phone with the witness, takes notes, and then really investigates after they hang up the phone. They check for things like weather conditions, confirm dates that police or tow trucks were dispatched to that specific area, and not just from the witness, but from the actual records, etc. etc.

In this particular case, the only things we know is that the investigator 'spoke' to the witness for an hour and a half (on the phone or in person?), their family has a good reputation in the community (has nothing to do with the sighting), and he believes the witness is credible (means absolutely nothing).

RayG

[salubrious]

Makes me wonder if the investigators of these reports ever call the witnesses back for clarification on things that don't make sense. You know, the investigator talks on the phone with the witness, takes notes, and then really investigates after they hang up the phone. They check for things like weather conditions, confirm dates that police or tow trucks were dispatched to that specific area, and not just from the witness, but from the actual records, etc. etc.

In this particular case, the only things we know is that the investigator 'spoke' to the witness for an hour and a half (on the phone or in person?), their family has a good reputation in the community (has nothing to do with the sighting), and he believes the witness is credible (means absolutely nothing).

Very good points IMO. The BFRO interviewed me on my sighting, but we spent more time on the phone talking about *his* sightings. This in-depth stuff could really help in validating some of the reports.