WSA Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 This might be more properly a topic for the Sightings tab, but I thought it dovetailed nicely with things we've been discussing lately on the GBD board. It is pertinent to sighting reports, their reputation for credibility and what can be gleaned from them. To wit, this one posted just today: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=57471 I and some others here have always been of the opinion the serious study of this question is an interdisciplinary one. Applying conclusions and reading between the lines are learned skills, and it leads the careful reader to draw conclusions about probability. And, unless the sighting report is for YOUR encounter, that is the most you can hope to get out of them, but that is plenty. So what stands out for you in this report? Tell me, and I'll tell you what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) What stands out to me is how sore these guys must be jumping a 7' ditch on 1970's dirtbikes lol ! Seriously, the arm lengths and foot sizes sound pretty cookie cutter and standard.. the description of the triangular head, narrow eyes and small nostrils are what are interesting. Interesting report. Edited June 13, 2017 by Twist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 There's much more there. Much. But yeah, the steel coil rear struts? L5-S1'ville for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Im definitely spoiled by my two track quads which are 250r's or my dune quad a DS650 Good suspensions make the ride lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) I have trouble reading fictional stories or novels because i don't particularly enjoy the writing style. This report seems like it was produced by a story teller. It includes a lot of extra fluff, trying to frame the scene. As somebody who enters these reports in our database, i can appreciated the detailed descriptions, but something seems off to me. "Narrow Eyes" is kind of a red flag and I'd think a creature this large would not have "Small nostril holes" Quote During our discussion, he hesitantly mentioned that when the animal was walking away there was something odd about the way its legs flexed at the knees, appearing to bow slightly backward. He was unable to adequately define or explain the apparent anomaly, and neither can this investigator. A Non Compliant gait? How else would we notice knee flex bowing slightly backwards? Edited June 13, 2017 by Redbone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Claims to be terrified and scared for his/their lives on multiple occasions in a area frequented by civilians yet never notifies authorities....... then waits 41 years to file a report. Super sketchy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 Thanks for playing, Martin and Redbone...here's a copy of the home game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 1 hour ago, WSA said: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=57471 So what stands out for you in this report? Tell me, and I'll tell you what I see. I believe that particular BFRO report is a good example of how well-devised some hoaxes can be. The biggest red flag is perhaps the fact that he and his friend supposedly had a grand total of four clear sightings, each in different places, and at different times within Arkansas. The way he describes the physiology of the first white one that he supposedly saw while on a motorcycle makes it even less convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) If that was as deep as you were able to go with it, that would be a very logical conclusion OS. There are reasons why this report makes sense, reasons that require other knowledge and which are indices of reliability. And those exist in LOTS of reports, and LOTS of them are overlooked. I picked this one only because it was the most recent. I could have picked many others, for other details, but for the same reason. And BTW, not that it is significant for the point I'm making here, but there are scores of reports of encounters where the witness was either on a ATV, motorcycle or bicycle. The most obvious reason for that probably is because that is how most people are traveling in the woods these days. Edited June 13, 2017 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I'm retracting the opinion I just posted. I went over the report a second time, and now believe it's in all likelihood legitimate, and not a hoax. I'll have to go through it more carefully when I have time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) A quick search for "ATV" activity (there's no choice for just motorcycle) yields 64 reports including the one referred to in this thread. "Hiking" yielded 517. "Bicycling" is not a field we can choose. We use "Other" but that returns search results that are way too broad. Edited June 13, 2017 by Redbone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 Which is a nice stat to know Redbone, thanks. So we know that really is a non-issue for purposes of assessing credibility. Or is it....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 WSA, Based on just the BFRO database, what's your wild guess as to the % that are legit BF experiences, all classes of reports included or you can comment on Class A's only for the sake of keeping it to visual encounters only. I personally would put the number at maybe 35% at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Another thing to add, I probably experience more deer on the roadside while riding my motorcycle than I do when camping in the National Forests in mid/upper Michigan. Obviously deer are not BF but just throwing it out there. So far this year, I've been on 2 camping trips totaling 7 days and have put 1200ish miles on my bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) One way to get a rough idea of the number of legitimate reports is to take the number of reports relative to the population of the state, and compare it to other states. For instance: From Washington state you receive 160 reports per million people From Oklahoma you receive 40 reports per million people The number of hoaxers would be about the same in each state relative to the population, so given these statistics, you can determine that at least 75% (roughly) of the reports from Washington state are legitimate. If you can determine that Sasquatch exist in Oklahoma as well, and that it's not all hoaxes, the percentage for Washington state can be estimated to be much higher. Using that method, along with others, I would estimate that at least 85% of the reports publically available in the BFRO database are legitimate. It might seem high, but it's actually a fairly conservative estimate. Edited June 13, 2017 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts