Ok, This Might Sound Harsh, But..........

[Guest keninsc]

Hello keninsc,

Don't know if this helps?

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/classify.asp

"Report Classification System:

All reports posted into the BFRO's online database are assigned a classification: Class A, Class B, or Class C. The difference between the classifications relates to the potential for misinterpretation of what was observed or heard. A witness might be very credible, but could have honestly misinterpreted something that was seen, found, or heard. Thus, for the most part, the circumstances of the incident determine the potential for misinterpretation, and therefore the classification of the report.

Class A

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.

Class B

Incidents where a possible sasquatch was observed at a great distance or in poor lighting conditions and incidents in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view of the subject are considered Class B reports.

For example, credible reports where nothing was seen but distinct and characteristic sounds of sasquatches were heard are always considered Class B reports and never Class A, even in the most compelling "sound-only" cases. This is because the lack of a visual element raises a much greater potential for a misidentification of the sounds.

Class B reports are not considered less credible or less important than Class A reports--both types are deemed credible enough by the BFRO to show to the public. For example, one of the best documented reports ever received by the BFRO is a Class B report from Trinity County California. It involved a very credible witness who backpacked into a remote area that has a history of sasquatch-related incidents. He described various occurrences around his camp at night that are strongly suspected to be sasquatch-related. The report is still considered Class B though because there was no clear visual observation to confirm what was heard outside the tent.

Almost all reports included in the database are first-hand reports. Occassionally a second-hand report is considered reliable enough to add to the database, but those reports are never Class A, because of the higher potential for inaccuracy when the story does not come straight from the eyewitness.

Class C

Most second-hand reports, and any third-hand reports, or stories with an untraceable sources, are considered Class C, because of the high potential for inaccuracy. Those reports are kept in BFRO archives but are very rarely listed publicly in this database. The exceptions are for published, or locally documented incidents from before 1958 (before the word "Bigfoot" entered the American vocabulary), and sightings mentioned in non-tabloid newspapers or magazines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BFRO's report classification system rates the circumstantial potential for misinterpretation, not the credibility of the witness or how interesting the report is. If you are checking the Recent Additions page periodically for new reports, or to steadily gain a better understanding of behavior and geographic range, you should pay attention to both Class A and Class B reports."

You may be new at this so I thought I could help bring you up on things a bit And don't worry, there are others who even though they've been here longer have never looked at this information.

 

 While I do appreciate your posting this for me I'm afraid that I'm not into all this classification of sightings, or compartmentalizing sightings. While I do respect the BFRO I think they aren't truly interested in really finding Bigfoot. That's not intended to be a slight to them, but all they really do is basically teach people to do what they do on the TV show. Go out in the woods, scream and tree bang then listen for something to scream or tree bang back. Record it and post it on their website then high five each other of finding some great evidence.

 

It's only great evidence if the critter is proved to be for real, and at this time there is no proof. It's the old case of the cart before the horse. Sorry, if it ain't been proved to be real then all the footprints, recorded screams and infrasound projection and inter-dimensional gobbledygook is just so much water under the bridge, I call it mental masturbation, but that a term I stole from a guy I worked with many years ago.

Keninsc- Actually If I were you at this juncture I would at the very least know what constitutes a game animal, what constitues a varmit and what the hunting regulations pretaining to your perticular state are. Also you may want to identify what your target is in knowing what it is also, just saying.

 

Actually I do and there is no laws that deal with a Bigfoot. Yes, I know what you're going to say before you say it. It's an urban legend, it's not real and it doesn't exist, never did. However, I promise not to shoot you even if you are wearing a monkey suit, although I might see how fast I can make you run.

[BobbyO]

...Just so everyone knows I'm quite ashamed of my conduct and have apologized to the Admins, and will make a private apology to BobbyO...

Good for you, man. Speaks well of your character, and glad to have you aboard.

 

So, anyone who was shocked, offended, fainted at the keyboard, wet themselves..

Hey, didn't do any of those things. Too busy hoping everything would turn out for the best. Looks like my patience was rewarded

As Ken brought the PM to the public forum, I'll say don't count your chickens yet Hiflier.

Ken apologised, but then said he still thinks i was playing word games so based on that, I see no reason why he'd be apologising..

He either apologises as he sees the error of his ways and understand I wasn't playing word games or he doesn't, so therefore why should he apologise if he still thinks I was playing word games ?

It's either one or the other, it can't be both.

I won't accept an apology when a sentence later he tells me he still thinks I was lying.

No chance.

While I do appreciate your posting this for me I'm afraid that I'm not into all this classification of sightings, or compartmentalizing sightings. While I do respect the BFRO ........

Ken you are completely missing the point again.

He posted that to show you why I used the word classified.

Not what the rights or wrongs of the BFRO are in your opinion or what you think of sightings or what people do with them.

[Guest keninsc]

Well, I do. You wouldn't want me to lie about that would you? Jeez, haven't we had enough of that? The apology was for going off on you, apologizing for bad manners is not nor should it be an endorsement of anything else. I still think you were playing a word game intended make your post sound unchallengable.

 

Let's don't play games, that still my opinion. Apology for bad manners not withstanding.

[BobbyO]

You was wrong about the " speaks well of your character " part Hiflier, clearly.

And I'm glad I never held my breath..

[Guest keninsc]

As Ken brought the PM to the public forum, I'll say don't count your chickens yet Hiflier.

Ken apologised, but then said he still thinks i was playing word games so based on that, I see no reason why he'd be apologising..

He either apologises as he sees the error of his ways and understand I wasn't playing word games or he doesn't, so therefore why should he apologise if he still thinks I was playing word games ?

It's either one or the other, it can't be both.

I won't accept an apology when a sentence later he tells me he still thinks I was lying.

No chance.

Ken you are completely missing the point again.

He posted that to show you why I used the word classified.

Not what the rights or wrongs of the BFRO are in your opinion or what you think of sightings or what people do with them.

 

It really doesn't matter who it's from or what level of whatever you feel they hold. I do read the reports they post and try to glean what information I can from it. Yes, I have my own ideas and my own beliefs but then so do we all. So. if I tell you that I've read "classified" reports about Bigfoots that doesn't make you think secret reports from some government agency that makes you think of the Bigfoot classification of sighting on the BRFO's webpage? Yeah, right.

[Guest]

No. I wouldnt want to kill a bigfoot.

 

But even more, I dont wanna try and fail to kill a bigfoot. Because he/she would certainly defend themselves, and he/she would not fail to do so.

 

And even if you drop the squatch with one shot, what's to say his buddy isnt just out of sight in the treeline?

 

If you respect nature, nature will tend to respect you a bit more, and I dont subscribe to this idea people have of "oh, look, a living thing, I'm gonna kill it!"

Edited March 17, 2014 by ForestTone

[norseman]

Ken?

 

BobbyO spends countless hours classifying reports into "categories" so that we "pro kill" hunters at Project Grendel have a better shot at putting Grendel on a slab.

 

He? Is not your enemy.........but you have plenty here, I assure you.

 

I would suggest you apologize properly to BobbyO quickly so that you can enter the circle of wagons promptly, because the war party is beginning to form up and circle the wagons.

 

You, Bobby and I? We are the minority.

[Guest keninsc]

No. I wouldnt want to kill a bigfoot.

 

But even more, I dont wanna try and fail to kill a bigfoot. Because he/she would certainly defend themselves, and he/she would not fail to do so.

 

And even if you drop the squatch with one shot, what's to say his buddy isnt just out of sight in the treeline?

 

If you respect nature, nature will tend to respect you a bit more, and I dont subscribe to this idea people have of "oh, look, a living thing, I'm gonna kill it!"

 

And I respect your choice, so too please respect mine. You know full well that if I shot one and got it out to a reputable university and they did all the DNA and scientific study on it then released it at a proper press conference, you'd be intent upon watching it as would anyone else.

So, I take it it's safe to say you have no liking for John Audubon, founder of the The Audubon Society. He shot all the birds he draw up and posed them so he could get his artwork of them right. Same thing with me, while I don't want to shoot a Bigfoot there is a bigger picture to consider, one where they are protected and safe from human predation, but they can't have that if they aren't proved to be real and nothing will do that except a body and possibly more because could be called a fluk.

Ken?

 

BobbyO spends countless hours classifying reports into "categories" so that we "pro kill" hunters at Project Grendel have a better shot at putting Grendel on a slab.

 

He? Is not your enemy.........but you have plenty here, I assure you.

 

I would suggest you apologize properly to BobbyO quickly so that you can enter the circle of wagons promptly, because the war party is beginning to form up and circle the wagons.

 

You, Bobby and I? We are the minority.

 

I do not want him to be an enemy, I didn't come here to make enemies. I came here to see what I can learn from other and compare notes so to speak. I have little time or care to kiss his ring and worry about not offending him or anyone else. However, let's get real he's wanting to be admired from atop Mt. Olympus like he's some grand puba with some mystical knowledge. He's like me, he's just another guy trying to find Bigfoot. If Bobbyo has issues with that then he's just going to have issues with it. Now I am sure that once he gets over the shock of my being unimpressed with his lofty stature in the Bigfoot community then we'll probably be able to get along just fine. But there's an old saying, "Mine points to the ground when I stand up too." 

 

Now I apologized to him publicly and privately for having called him a lair. That was given in it's most sincere and heart felt way, but what do I see when he replies? The same as you can see, an apology isn't enough, he now wants to me to crawl upon my belly to him and graveling, prostrate on the floor to the higher mind and beg him for forgiveness, for having questioned him in the first place. That sound like the guy you're telling me is such a great guy? Really? That's a guy I really don't want anything to do with from the start. As I said, he might come around and have some civility but until then I think it best we simply avoid each other for a bit. I've had to do this in the past on other board with some guy who's been there since before the bloody internet came into being, so this is nothing new to me.

Edited March 17, 2014 by keninsc

[Guest]

Oh, I love the Audubon Society, they have done some great things for the bird hobby and as a self-proclaimed bird nerd, they are aces in my book. But no, I am not a fan of the man himself. 

 

However, John James Audubon was a naturalist in the old-school. There were no DSLR cameras to capture a bird in a moment in time to document later, there was no vast internet full of information, pictures, and databases. And, there was less awareness and appreciation for nature. John James Audubon died in the late 1800's... long before we'd seen the mass decline in species worldwide that we've seen in our lifetime, long before we'd seen species go extinct by our hand. Sure, it had happened, but there was less awareness. 

 

 

(As for the ultrasound topic, if you have a habit of falling unconscious in the woods and peeing your pants, with a gun in your hand, please remind me never to allow you to take me into the woods. Ever.)

Edited March 17, 2014 by ForestTone

[See-Te-Cah NC]

So. if I tell you that I've read "classified" reports about Bigfoots that doesn't make you think secret reports from some government agency that makes you think of the Bigfoot classification of sighting on the BRFO's webpage? Yeah, right.

 

Context, Ken. There are "classified" reports, i.e. - the government keeping their findings secret, and then there's a report that has been "classified," i.e. - It has been placed into a specific category to allow for comparisons to other reports, or to allow for it to be validated in other areas such as proximity, actual contact, eyewitness sightings, etc.

 

I believe there's a lack of basic understanding between you and BobbyO. Surely it can be resolved in a gentlemanly manner.

[BobbyO]

So. if I tell you that I've read "classified" reports about Bigfoots that doesn't make you think secret reports from some government agency that makes you think of the Bigfoot classification of sighting on the BRFO's webpage? Yeah, right.

You're making yourself look so silly with every post now so much so that I've gone past the stage that you angered me with calling me a liar, that now I feel sorry for you.

Ken, do yourself a favour, search "SSR " on this forum, check out what's it's all about, check out how it's done, check out who does it, check out what terminology is used and why, then look at how red you've become in the mirror..

[Guest keninsc]

Oh, I love the Audubon Society, they have done some great things for the bird hobby and as a self-proclaimed bird nerd, they are aces in my book. 

 

(As for the ultrasound topic, if you have a habit of falling unconscious in the woods and peeing your pants, with a gun in your hand, please remind me never to allow you to take me into the woods. Ever.)

 

.....and yet they killed birds in the beginning, but now you love them.

 

Just for giggles when did I ever say that happened to me?

You're making yourself look so silly with every post now so much so that I've gone past the stage that you angered me with calling me a liar, that now I feel sorry for you.

Ken, do yourself a favour, search "SSR " on this forum, check out what's it's all about, check out how it's done, check out who does it, check out what terminology is used and why, then look at how red you've become in the mirror..

 

I've a better idea, let's just ignore each other for a while. Maybe in time we can be civil to each other.

Context, Ken. There are "classified" reports, i.e. - the government keeping their findings secret, and then there's a report that has been "classified," i.e. - It has been placed into a specific category to allow for comparisons to other reports, or to allow for it to be validated in other areas such as proximity, actual contact, eyewitness sightings, etc.

 

I believe there's a lack of basic understanding between you and BobbyO. Surely it can be resolved in a gentlemanly manner.

 

 

I've tried that but it seems that isn't enough for him. Hey, I threw out the the open hand of friendship and got slapped for it. Only happens once with me.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

OK, if that's how you feel. Just remember that this isn't going to continue to be personal on the open forum.

[BobbyO]

And I respect your choice, so too please respect mine. You know full well that if I shot one and got it out to a reputable university and they did all the DNA and scientific study on it then released it at a proper press conference, you'd be intent upon watching it as would anyone else.

So, I take it it's safe to say you have no liking for John Audubon, founder of the The Audubon Society. He shot all the birds he draw up and posed them so he could get his artwork of them right. Same thing with me, while I don't want to shoot a Bigfoot there is a bigger picture to consider, one where they are protected and safe from human predation, but they can't have that if they aren't proved to be real and nothing will do that except a body and possibly more because could be called a fluk.

 

I do not want him to be an enemy, I didn't come here to make enemies. I came here to see what I can learn from other and compare notes so to speak. I have little time or care to kiss his ring and worry about not offending him or anyone else. However, let's get real he's wanting to be admired from atop Mt. Olympus like he's some grand puba with some mystical knowledge. He's like me, he's just another guy trying to find Bigfoot. If Bobbyo has issues with that then he's just going to have issues with it. Now I am sure that once he gets over the shock of my being unimpressed with his lofty stature in the Bigfoot community then we'll probably be able to get along just fine. But there's an old saying, "Mine points to the ground when I stand up too." 

 

Now I apologized to him publicly and privately for having called him a lair. That was given in it's most sincere and heart felt way, but what do I see when he replies? The same as you can see, an apology isn't enough, he now wants to me to crawl upon my belly to him and graveling, prostrate on the floor to the higher mind and beg him for forgiveness, for having questioned him in the first place. That sound like the guy you're telling me is such a great guy? Really? That's a guy I really don't want anything to do with from the start. As I said, he might come around and have some civility but until then I think it best we simply avoid each other for a bit. I've had to do this in the past on other board with some guy who's been there since before the bloody internet came into being, so this is nothing new to me.

Where to start with this one, seriously ?

He apologised for calling me a liar, but then said he still thinks I'm lying in the next sentence yet expects me to accept the apology, hilarious.

Now I don't know how people are brought up in South Carolina, but from where I come from that's not how it works.

Enjoy your Sunday boys and girls, I need to start my descent from Mt Olympus because I want to go to bed..

 

I've a better idea, let's just ignore each other for a while. Maybe in time we can be civil to each other.

Yeah that's a much better idea, you're right Ken.

Don't look at what the SSR is so therefore don't understand what it is or what terminology is used or who does what within it but just ignore it all, great idea.

I need to get ideas like that now and again that can solve issues.

[Guest]

Never heard this one but it is a perfect example of unsubstantiated deep past pseudo proof.  Actually not really proof but a means to add substance to something that exists without substance so far.  A dozen men shot a few and all but one ended up dead?  Exactly how big then is a Bigfoot clan/family?  Must be huge and if it occurred in the age of repeating rifles then there really must have been many.  If so why so invisible?  Of course the return party didn't find anything other than the shredded men and bent rifles?   Where can this account be read?  Where did you hear it?

 

 

 

I agree, sources please. I'd like to read such an account, it'd really be something if it was true.

.....and yet they killed birds in the beginning, but now you love them.

 

Just for giggles when did I ever say that happened to me?

 

 

 

 

John James Audubon killed birds because there was no precedent information on them, and it was the 1800's. If you think science and our studying the planet hasnt changed drastically since then, well... I dont know what to tell you. Several of the species Audubon shot for his studies have since gone extinct... if naturalists of the time could have predicted that, perhaps they would have invested in better binoculars rather than insisting on killing their subjects. The fact remains that everything on this planet is a finite resource, and I tend to look upon killing for any reason other than necessity with disdain. Population statistics aside... you're dealing with living animals here, and in the case of Sasquatch, quite intelligent animals at that. It just doesnt sit right with me, that's all. If Bigfoot exists, we'll find one eventually. Until then, it's probably in their best interest that we dont ever discover them. It's usually downhill from there for the species.

 

And the ultrasound thing wasnt directed at you, but at an earlier post in the thread.

Edited March 17, 2014 by ForestTone