Class B Sighting Threshold

[BobbyO]

There are tonnes with no follow up made public at the bottom MIB, for sure.

[MIB]

Go look at their recently published reports link.   Start going backwards through the reports, then tell me how far back you had to go to find one without a followup.  There are 14 reports published since March 1.  Every one of them has a followup.  

 

I'm not a BFRO fan but suggesting they're not doing followup is ... beyond wrong. 

 

So far as rating systems, which was supposed to be the topic I think, no letter grade system is going to be adequate.   Perhaps a grid with a bunch of check box "was X observed" where X could be knocking, vocalizations, tree thrashing, rock throwing, bad smells, kidnapping infants, etc.   Maybe assign a percentage value ... 75% loud might mean intimidation ... not sure how you kidnap 75% of an infant though.

 

MIB

Edited March 28, 2015 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

I have submitted three reports starting back in 2011. As of this minute, other than a producer from "Finding Bigfoot", I have not had any response or contact from anyone at BFRO. None of my reports are in their database which means that they have been ignored. The last time I looked, the latest report for Clark County WA which is the location of the reports was in 2008. If they ignore reports for whatever reason, one can assume that their database is incomplete to say the least. I have gotten all kinds of excuses from BFRO individuals, including them telling me there is some sort of internal war within WA BFRO, and a huge backlog of reports, but none of the excuses make any sense when you compare what I reported to other far more recent published reports that have absolutely no supporting evidence. One would think that pictures of footprints and audio recordings would be of some interest to BFRO. Apparently not! Geesh back to you!

I just checked the data base. The last Clark County WA report was Aug 2003

Edited March 28, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[VAfooter]

For the last few years, BFRO published reports have always had follow-ups (as far as I am aware). You have to go back to the mid to early 2000's to start getting reports with no investigator comments.

 

A welcome change in my view.

[BobbyO]

Go look at their recently published reports link.   Start going backwards through the reports, then tell me how far back you had to go to find one without a followup.  There are 14 reports published since March 1.  Every one of them has a followup.  

 

I'm not a BFRO fan but suggesting they're not doing followup is ... beyond wrong. 

 

 

MIB

 

 

Well i am a BFRO database fan and i'm telling you that there are tonnes of reports in their database that don't have follow ups in them.

 

Yes they do seem to add follow ups in recent years, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are still dozens of reports that have little to no follow ups on them within that database.

 

If you don't believe me, then that's up to you.

 

I am responding to you saying "I don't think any BFRO report gets published without vetting and an interview." just for clarity's sake.

[SWWASAS]

I told you my statement about BFRO would trigger a response. My point to MIB is that BFRO apparently vet or evaluate reports and do not include them or publish them in their data base for some reason. They do this without contacting the submitter. I would not know that if I had not submitted reports with no BFRO response or inclusion in their data base. The problem with that approach is that means their data base is not a data base. If they pick and choose those they choose to include, for whatever reason, then it is an entertainment blog and not a data base. Don't get me wrong. I read the reports nearly every day. I just find it strange and disappointing to know that areas I might be interested in, could be having sighting reports that are not included for some reason.

[1980squatch]

More likely than being ignored is your submits are being held close to the vest. My report was followed up with via email exchanges and published fairly soon, a few months. It was a 30 year old sighting so has zero research value, but provides a good read on their site... Ignored reports do not result in FB producer calls.

[BobbyO]

I told you my statement about BFRO would trigger a response. My point to MIB is that BFRO apparently vet or evaluate reports and do not include them or publish them in their data base for some reason. They do this without contacting the submitter. I would not know that if I had not submitted reports with no BFRO response or inclusion in their data base. The problem with that approach is that means their data base is not a data base. If they pick and choose those they choose to include, for whatever reason, then it is an entertainment blog and not a data base. Don't get me wrong. I read the reports nearly every day. I just find it strange and disappointing to know that areas I might be interested in, could be having sighting reports that are not included for some reason.

Well I have been told by a BFRO investigator face to face that they do hold back reports for reasons only known to them but thought to be because report x is in an area of sustained activity.

I would then add that that would probably be because they don't want a certain area to be over run with people looking for Sasquatches.

Don't forget that they don't even let you on an expedition costing the best part of $400 if you don't sign an NDA regarding the location of the expedition.

All of this IMO is their prerogative and is entirely up to them.

They are without doubt the most high profile Sasquatch research group out there and how they then conduct their business and deal with the informations hat comes in to them is entirely their call.

They have no obligation to share everything that they receive publicly.

[SWWASAS]

I have been told that also. I can understand how "Finding Bigfoot" wants material for its shows. That is how they get their audience for the "Town Hall Meetings". My attendance at that was mentioned by the producer. I have also been told that good stuff is withheld so that local BFRO researchers can check out the area before it is published and the area is overrun by others. At this point I do not know what to believe. Both of those excuses, pretty much support my contention that the BFRO reporting system is something other than a data base. One could call it an intelligence gathering system, but if it is that, are we sure who it is for? And you are right that they can do whatever they want with the report, and for that reason, I no longer submit reports. The last thing I want is other researchers messing up my relationship with the locals. For all I know that was part of the reason I have lost contact with that tribe in my research area.

Edited March 28, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Just to clarify, one more time, the clarification of the clarification:

 

I have read many many reports - on both BFRO and NAWAC databases - that have essentially zero followup.

 

I don't care.  In most cases the report is so consistent in every way with so many others I have read that having some investigator tell me "I don't think he/she was lying" is really irrelevant.

I should note that most of those were filed well before "FB," and at the very least since the advent of that show, they all get it.

[Guest]

OP only those who live with the bfs can ever hope to fathom their secrets fully. Lucky me. I would argue there are different levels of class A sightings as well- from seeing a bf at 300 yards through a bino-scope to being allegedly potato-sacked like Albert Ostman.

[Trogluddite]

Maybe they don't publish the Class D(elusional) reports.  I would hasten to add I'm just kidding, but that's still funny, I don't care who you are. 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I've noticed in the past when reading sighting reports that some Class A's are worth more than others, and the same goes for the other classes as well. But the way the BFRO does their classification system, it is based on the likelihood for misidentification. Thus, even footprints can be considered Class A, even though I would rather have only visual sightings of a bigfoot as the top class. I just feel those are important enough to warrant a separate class.

 

Here is the BFRO's description of a Class B encounter, taken directly from their website:

 

"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."

 

I would have to agree with those who described combinations of evidence. Smelling something foul may or may not be indicative of a bigfoot, but if you smell something foul in conjunction with other strange occurrences, this may offer a stronger indication of the presence of a sasquatch. So I think a report like I describe should be rated higher than a report with no other evidence to bolster it. Part of the problem however is the fact that sometimes you're dealing with witnesses who have experienced things over a long period of time. Do you take these earlier occurrences into account when attempting to classify their most recent event? It becomes pretty obvious that there is a problem with classifying things in a black and white manner. Such a system is necessary for sure, but I feel that to make it more accurate it would need to be a bit more complicated and involved. But then people would likely get confused, so it does make sense to go with a simpler system.

 

I think the way the BFRO has done it is interesting, again considering that it is all about the potential for misidentification. I mean I can live with such a system, even if it is not what I would have done. They have hit on something very important though, which is classifying a sighting based on the likelihood of it being a bigfoot. I think that a system should go something like this: Visual sightings in a class by themselves, with varying degrees. A sighting with no likelihood for misidentification would be a Class A1 sighting or something like that. Then Class A2 could be for visuals with a higher likelihood of misidentification. Footprints could be Class A, but maybe like Class A4, or maybe give them a different notation, like Class A-F, AF, AF1, AF2, or something similar. Any other physical evidence could be Class A, just denoted by lower sub-classes or whatever.

 

All non-visuals, including smells, sounds, and events with no direct sighting could be Class B. Then you could denote them based on likelihood of being a sasquatch, having Class B1, B2, etc...That would be better than breaking up classes for smells, sounds, etc., because these might be combined in a single encounter. Reports with multiple non-visual elements like smells and sounds, and which lean heavily towards being a bigfoot encounter, would be Class B1 I suppose. This way would not be perfect, but it would not lump such different sightings into only a small number of classes. I'm sure there is a better way of doing it than what I mention, but you get what I'm saying. To reply directly to the OP's analysis, I would have to say that it all depends on the sighting. If you hear something in the dark, it would depend on what you hear. The same goes for smelling something. A "creepy" feeling should be something that is considered last, and this should not be given much importance considering that some people are more easily creeped out than others. Smells and sounds, while they can be misinterpreted, are more concrete. Meaning that more people are likely to describe something similar, as opposed to "feeling" something similar. It really just depends, and I do not think you can lump everything together and claim they have low standards just because of their description. Their actions in analyzing a sighting are what counts.

[MNskeptic]

Took my dog for a walk down the Mississippi River bank. She could run off-leash and swim there to her hearts content. I look ahead. What is she doing?? My dog was rolling in something intentionally. I walk up to investigate. My dog was rolling herself in the most disgusting smelling, rotting, oozing dead fish. You could not believe the smell...wet dog in combination with putrid dead and decaying flesh. It was overwhelming. Got home, cleaned her up and researched her behavior. Turns out this is common behavior in many predatory mammals, including dogs.

If it's dark outside, and you hear sounds in the brush near you while also noticing a horrible smell, chances are it's something very common to the area. Perhaps even my dog!

Let's keep checking ourselves people. Bigfoot-on-the-Brain is a real syndrome that we need to continually guard against.

MNSkeptic

[Guest]

Not meant to humor you MN skeptic, but if you ever smelled a Sasquatch, and I hope someday you do, you will never again mistake it for anything else … there would be no denying the fact. Similarly, if you ever smelled dead, dying, burned or decayed human beings you would never forget it … A Sasquatch stink is completely overwhelmingly powerful, and it exudes somewhat of a strange yet unearthly odor the likes of which you will not forget easily.