Where Are The Sasquatches In The OP??

[Explorer]

14 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 To be honest, many have suffered from a lack of success and as result gone Woo ( a free ticket out for the brain when you have done everything and still come out with nothing ), they no longer not see the need to chase reports or data.  They think they can have a habituation site in the side yard next to the bird feeder.  

 

 If they have not gone Woo then they simply drop the subject out of frustration, doing anything for 8 to 10 years with no direct success can eat at a person.  They come in with preconceived notions about how things are going to happen and become disappointed.  Failure is the biggest blow in this subject and eventually wipes away almost every name under the title of researcher.

 

 The truth is these are not creatures you can just go find and film.  They are likely very rare, fear human contact and just plain don't hold a position in any given place long enough to be advanced upon. People have a hard time grasping that something is better at the game then they are.  The fear of failure or being wrong is the only thing that keeps money and time from this subject. 

 

Good post, Nathan!

 

I have also seen BFRO leaders in CA, OR, and WA come and go.

 

Not sure if I would pin the main causation of their exit on their frustration with lack of progress.  Although I agree that frustration with lack of progress is a big part for why most people interested in this topic loose interest.

 

Many of the BFRO leaders that I have met are smart, professional, and dedicated.  Those who have exited the BFRO organization have arrived at their own personal conclusion for many different reasons.

• Some of them realize that the BFRO model is not the best model to capture evidence (for example 10+ people hiking at night with red lights making whooping sounds and banging trees, which is typical in past BFRO expeditions that I have attended).
• Some of them realize that the BFRO model is more of a social organization with all the politics associated with it and they are not interested in that.
• Some of them have experienced extraordinary events that they cannot explain and that do not fit the BFRO “model”. They are either rejected for their “woo beliefs” or realize that they are not being honest with themselves by continuing with the organization.
• Some of the realize that the BF phenomenon is more difficult to crack than they thought and are not willing to spend the time, energy and family sacrifices required to make a small dent.
• Some of them realize that they are putting a lot of time, resources, and money into an organization whose benefit to them is limited (ego trip as leader, social network, access to private database) and that is not moving the field forward. 
• Some of them feel they can do a better job with by themselves or with a smaller group of local dedicated researchers.

 

I wish we could interview and do a real statistical poll on all past BFRO expedition leaders/investigators to find out why they exited the organization. It certainly would be insightful. If I was in charge of BFRO, I would conduct exit interviews of people who leave the organization to keep statistics and learn.

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

...........I wish for fewer people out there not more, so the reduction in active BFRO members in the field is music to my ears.

 

After reading your post, I initially agreed that fewer people in the field might be a good thing, but that fewer people processing reports is clearly a negative thing. But "in the field" offers multiple meanings. I particularly think that organized bigfoot expeditions are the "in the field" kind of thing that might be the best kind of "field work" that should go, as opposed to people frequenting potential areas of sasquatch presence and collecting footprint casts, photographing nests, and potentially obtaining good quality video or carcass of an actual creature.

 

A backlog of report processing is a disaster, even when a good percentage of reports are fabrications or misidentifications. Just as disastrous is reduced collection of trace evidence and the insight its discovery and analysis can provide. 

 

The BFRO offered great promise, it has unfortunately and predictably fallen short of its potential, and I'm very disappointed to write that.

[hiflier]

29 minutes ago, Explorer said:

Some of them realize that they are putting a lot of time, resources, and money into an organization whose benefit to them is limited (ego trip as leader, social network, access to private database) and that is not moving the field forward

 

That would be a big one for me if I was an investigator.

 

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The BFRO offered great promise, it has unfortunately and predictably fallen short of its potential, and I'm very disappointed to write that.

 

Others feel that way too, Hunster. There is a solution but it wouldn't ever have a snowball's chance of being implemented: New leadership. Moneymaker would never step down though I think he should.

Edited February 10, 2019 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, Explorer said:

 

Good post, Nathan!

 

I have also seen BFRO leaders in CA, OR, and WA come and go.

 

Not sure if I would pin the main causation of their exit on their frustration with lack of progress.  Although I agree that frustration with lack of progress is a big part for why most people interested in this topic loose interest.

 

Many of the BFRO leaders that I have met are smart, professional, and dedicated.  Those who have exited the BFRO organization have arrived at their own personal conclusion for many different reasons.

• Some of them realize that the BFRO model is not the best model to capture evidence (for example 10+ people hiking at night with red lights making whooping sounds and banging trees, which is typical in past BFRO expeditions that I have attended).
• Some of them realize that the BFRO model is more of a social organization with all the politics associated with it and they are not interested in that.
• Some of them have experienced extraordinary events that they cannot explain and that do not fit the BFRO “model”. They are either rejected for their “woo beliefs” or realize that they are not being honest with themselves by continuing with the organization.
• Some of the realize that the BF phenomenon is more difficult to crack than they thought and are not willing to spend the time, energy and family sacrifices required to make a small dent.
• Some of them realize that they are putting a lot of time, resources, and money into an organization whose benefit to them is limited (ego trip as leader, social network, access to private database) and that is not moving the field forward. 
• Some of them feel they can do a better job with by themselves or with a smaller group of local dedicated researchers.

 

I wish we could interview and do a real statistical poll on all past BFRO expedition leaders/investigators to find out why they exited the organization. It certainly would be insightful. If I was in charge of BFRO, I would conduct exit interviews of people who leave the organization to keep statistics and learn.

 

All good points.    Some are thrown out if they do not believe the BFRO party line.     Their field methodology is so different than mine, it goes against everything I have learned with my own experiences.   Quite frankly I do not understand much of their methodology.   The only thing I can figure is it works to satisfy and give some level of experiences to large groups on expeditions.   

 

As far as sharing data with others outside the organization, it is structured minimize sharing.     Expedition members sign a non disclosure agreement.    Reports are filtered and held back to allow members to do their own investigations and field work.    The system is designed to benefit the BFRO at the expense of data sharing and furthering knowledge about BF.    

 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

..........As far as sharing data with others outside the organization, it is structured minimize sharing.     Expedition members sign a non disclosure agreement.    Reports are filtered and held back to allow members to do their own investigations and field work.    The system is designed to benefit the BFRO at the expense of data sharing and furthering knowledge about BF.    

 

I'm going to assume that the best and most recent reports and active, ongoing events are the ones most likely to be held back. 

 

Do you think these top quality reports are acted upon by decent investigators? Do these people have investigative freedom? Does BFRO as an organization or do its leaders inject themselves into an investigators ongoing work? 

 

Could a BFRO investigator use the organizations system to quietly find a fresh, ongoing activity and quietly investigate it for months before sharing his findings with the organization?

[NathanFooter]

16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I'm going to assume that the best and most recent reports and active, ongoing events are the ones most likely to be held back. 

 

Do you think these top quality reports are acted upon by decent investigators? Do these people have investigative freedom? Does BFRO as an organization or do its leaders inject themselves into an investigators ongoing work? 

 

Could a BFRO investigator use the organizations system to quietly find a fresh, ongoing activity and quietly investigate it for months before sharing his findings with the organization?

 

 Q 1:  Yes and no, it is a mixed bag on that one.  Some investigators want to crank out a report ASAP and others will hold back until they believe they have a bit more substance. 

 

 Q 2:  I do believe that many good reports fall in good hands ( not all see the light of public day ) but this is not always the case.

 

 Q 3 & 4:  Investigators have freedom in the cases they take on and leadership does not ( from what I have seen ) step in and take over.  The investigator can request to partner with ranking members for assistance in a case.

 

 Q 5:  Yes, they can hold the case long term as they see fit, they are putting in their time and money into checking out these situations and most often use their own tech to monitor.

[SWWASAS]

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I'm going to assume that the best and most recent reports and active, ongoing events are the ones most likely to be held back. 

 

Do you think these top quality reports are acted upon by decent investigators? Do these people have investigative freedom? Does BFRO as an organization or do its leaders inject themselves into an investigators ongoing work? 

 

Could a BFRO investigator use the organizations system to quietly find a fresh, ongoing activity and quietly investigate it for months before sharing his findings with the organization?

One of the three reports I submitted, none of which were investigated,   convinced me that they not only hold back reports but investigate them on their own without interaction with the person reporting.     I was very descriptive about the exact location in the report.   With a map one could find the exact spot from the description.      It was where I would normally park to do research in my active area.    The report was about chest slapping when I urinated in front of a BF.    Of course with the area very active, I was there at least twice a week.  A few weeks after submitting the report I discovered a spray can marking on a tree at the exact spot where the BF had to be standing.        The surrounding area had already been logged and my active area was designated a Special Management area.    The spray can marking was not there before and had nothing to do with logging or the Special Management area which used different colors.       I suspect it was made by an investigator to mark the location to make it easier for other BFRO members to find the spot.    Subsequently to that, I would find tire marks indicating someone was parking there frequently and footprints.       Before the report,   I never found any evidence of parking in that area, or any footprints.     I suspect it was BFRO activity but if you subscribe to government cover up I may have alerted someone else.     I have not revealed that location on the forum, only to the BFRO.  

[Huntster]

6 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

....... The report was about chest slapping when I urinated in front of a BF.    Of course with the area very active, I was there at least twice a week.......

 

Did you actually observe the chest slapping, or did you hear it?

 

Did the activity eventually die off? If so, have you been able to ascertain a reason that it died off?: ie, seasonal movement related to food availability or weather? Do you think the activity there could resume? Perhaps thete is something there that could be attracting them?

 

You were neve contacted by a BFRO investigator? 

[NathanFooter]

6 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

One of the three reports I submitted, none of which were investigated,   convinced me that they not only hold back reports but investigate them on their own without interaction with the person reporting.     I was very descriptive about the exact location in the report.   With a map one could find the exact spot from the description.      It was where I would normally park to do research in my active area.    The report was about chest slapping when I urinated in front of a BF.    Of course with the area very active, I was there at least twice a week.  A few weeks after submitting the report I discovered a spray can marking on a tree at the exact spot where the BF had to be standing.        The surrounding area had already been logged and my active area was designated a Special Management area.    The spray can marking was not there before and had nothing to do with logging or the Special Management area which used different colors.       I suspect it was made by an investigator to mark the location to make it easier for other BFRO members to find the spot.    Subsequently to that, I would find tire marks indicating someone was parking there frequently and footprints.       Before the report,   I never found any evidence of parking in that area, or any footprints.     I suspect it was BFRO activity but if you subscribe to government cover up I may have alerted someone else.     I have not revealed that location on the forum, only to the BFRO.  

 

 I have seen your reports I believe and if memory serves not one  of them have been assigned, as I mentioned before we don't have many investigators here in WA these days.   I am 1 of 3 or 4 active investigators ( active being a loose term ) in the western cascades.  I live in Kent WA so for me that area is a long drive.

[SWWASAS]

I suppose what bothers me about submitting a report is not being contacted.   I have not made incredible claims.     If my reports were thrown out or used in any manner without investigative contact,   without contact with me, the BFRO cannot assess my credibility.    They pretend to evaluate credibility with the reports they do publish.   Many of their published reports are pretty mundane when you get right down to it.   

[NathanFooter]

  I will admit there are many reports I would like to look into but at this time I am fairly preoccupied with some areas that keep producing reports and events. 

 

 

 

[SWWASAS]

20 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Did you actually observe the chest slapping, or did you hear it?

 

Did the activity eventually die off? If so, have you been able to ascertain a reason that it died off?: ie, seasonal movement related to food availability or weather? Do you think the activity there could resume? Perhaps thete is something there that could be attracting them?

 

You were neve contacted by a BFRO investigator? 

Heard it.    Reported in on the forum and there was some discussion about it.    Submitted the BFRO report.    Never contacted.       

 

The area was a hot spot in my research area.   Designated as a DNR Special Management area.   The attraction I found out through investigation was there was a collapsed lava tube that fed an artesion well.   Pure spring water available year round.      Once the area next to the SMA was logged, there was no cover to move around and activity stopped after a couple of weeks.  

 

I suspect that when they did the timber marking for the logging sale,    the DNR guys found evidence of BF activity just like I had.   I would find frequent footprints.   They attempted to reduce damage by designation of the area as a Special Management area.   I think BF needs continuous cover to feel comfortable moving around.     Anyplace that requires open travel is not frequented in daylight hours.  

[NCBFr]

17 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 I have seen your reports I believe and if memory serves not one  of them have been assigned, as I mentioned before we don't have many investigators here in WA these days.   I am 1 of 3 or 4 active investigators ( active being a loose term ) in the western cascades.  I live in Kent WA so for me that area is a long drive.

 

Aren't many of the BFRO investigations are done over the phone?  

[BobbyO]

On 2/10/2019 at 2:14 AM, NathanFooter said:

 

 To be honest, many have suffered from a lack of success and as result gone Woo ( a free ticket out for the brain when you have done everything and still come out with nothing ), they no longer not see the need to chase reports or data.  They think they can have a habituation site in the side yard next to the bird feeder.  

 

 If they have not gone Woo then they simply drop the subject out of frustration, doing anything for 8 to 10 years with no direct success can eat at a person.  They come in with preconceived notions about how things are going to happen and become disappointed.  Failure is the biggest blow in this subject and eventually wipes away almost every name under the title of researcher.

 

 The truth is these are not creatures you can just go find and film.  They are likely very rare, fear human contact and just plain don't hold a position in any given place long enough to be advanced upon. People have a hard time grasping that something is better at the game then they are.  The fear of failure or being wrong is the only thing that keeps money and time from this subject. 

 

Wonderful dose of realism right there !

[BobbyO]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

 

The BFRO offered great promise, it has unfortunately and predictably fallen short of its potential, and I'm very disappointed to write that.

 

I've only ever viewed the BFRO as a magnificent Database, 2 mins of listening to their main man led me to that conclusion.

 

For the Database alone, i'll always be personally incredibly thankful as it yields so much for me.

 

The rest is just the usual nonsense people ego's, and people and ego's are very hit and miss..;)