Expedition Bigfoot :Travel Channel

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, Madison5716 said:

I bet they get a TON of reports, and either can't keep up or only post their favorites that have the best story. No blaming, it's their prerogative. I'm sure they get a bunch of hoaxers and idiots, too. 

I have heard all the BFRO explanations.     Most things in the data base are unknown noises off it the distance  (yawn!)      My first encounter report included:     repeating vocalizations between two BF,    foot fall sounds and breaking underbrush,     a giant thud of the BF seeing or smelling me and going into a crouch,   a rapid wood knock warning to the other BF that had been whooping,    and a picture of a juvenile.    If that did not generate BFRO interest I guess they assumed I am a hoaxer or idiot.      It makes you wonder what other events more remarkable have been ignored.      What gauls me most is that Cliff Barackman knows me.       I simply cannot accept their explanations as to why my report is not in their data base.     It has to go well beyond what BFRO excuses have been to date.       

[BlackRockBigfoot]

31 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

This is disturbing. It essentially proves that if there are a combined 7000 reports in the BFRO, Green, Byrne, and other files, there have been multiple thousands of reports to said organizations that never got recorded, not to mention the scores of thousands of encounters prior to 1967 that died with the witnesses and the scores of thousands of encounters that never get called in to anybody due to fear. 

 

In short, the data used to extrapolate a North America sasquatch density at 2000 to 5000 individuals is potentially way off, meaning many more creatures than I am lent to accept.

Agreed.

 

Garbage data in, garbage data out.  If an organization is cherry picking reports, then any statistical information that they provide is suspect... whether it is intentional or a result of lack of manpower or apathy.

[Redbone]

While disappointed in how many reports actually get published by BFRO, I can also sympathize. I'm presently staring at 4000 John Green reports, trying to get them entered into the SSR database. Some days I'm gung-ho, and others I lazily scan through to find the easy ones, ignoring the ones that are more difficult to locate. I like 'seen while driving' reports best, as they usually have the best time and location information.

 

Anyway, I think the BFRO has an unmanageable backlog, and too few investigators working on them. I'd guess there are thousands of encounters that have gone there to die.

 

That said.... we can publish any report we please right here on this forum. I actually did that for a few sightings found in online articles, or that I was a part of, or found on Youtube videos, to get them into the SSR. Below  is an example of one I knew about that was not 'officially' published.  If anybody wants their encounter into the SSR, just look over that form (based on John Green's database - see link below) and add as much info as possible.

 

They can stay anonymous, and nobody has to contact you directly. Enter said encounter into the appropriate sub forum here: https://bigfootforums.com/forum/4-sightings/

Most importantly, let me know you'd like it entered into the SSR and I'll import into the form and into SSR. If you don't want date and location known (within 10 miles or so), then the SSR is not for you.

 

 

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

.........My first encounter report included:     repeating vocalizations between two BF,    foot fall sounds and breaking underbrush,     a giant thud of the BF seeing or smelling me and going into a crouch,   a rapid wood knock warning to the other BF that had been whooping,    and a picture of a juvenile.    If that did not generate BFRO interest I guess they assumed I am a hoaxer or idiot........

 

..........or, "This is a great location for Expedition #347! Don't publish it."

 

Have you noticed a bunch of idiots there whooping, hollering, smoking dope, drinking beer, and having big campfires?

[BlackRockBigfoot]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

..........or, "This is a great location for Expedition #347! Don't publish it."

 

Have you noticed a bunch of idiots there whooping, hollering, smoking dope, drinking beer, and having big campfires?

A place like that is probably good for at least 3 expeditions.  20 people a piece at 300 bucks a head.  

 

Why put that information out for the hoi polloi to find out about and come stink up the place for free?  Moneymaker has got thermal drones to purchase.  

 

Oh wait.  He wants those donated.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Redbone said:

While disappointed in how many reports actually get published by BFRO, I can also sympathize. I'm presently staring at 4000 John Green reports, trying to get them entered into the SSR database. Some days I'm gung-ho, and others I lazily scan through to find the easy ones, ignoring the ones that are more difficult to locate. I like 'seen while driving' reports best, as they usually have the best time and location information.

 

Anyway, I think the BFRO has an unmanageable backlog, and too few investigators working on them. I'd guess there are thousands of encounters that have gone there to die........

 

Out of plusses for the day, your post deserves much more than a plus anyway, Redbone. Your work will long outlive you, and I appreciate it (it will long outlive me, too). 

 

Even more than Green, BFRO, and other data collectors, the work of combining and collating previous data collections is a huge job, but will serve even after "discovery".

 

Thank you. 

1 minute ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

A place like that is probably good for at least 3 expeditions.  20 people a piece at 300 bucks a head.......

 

The only reason they might have to limit it to 3 expeditions is that the USFS might fine them for an un-permitted commercial operation........unless the USFS is getting a permit fee..........

[BlackRockBigfoot]

4 hours ago, Redbone said:

While disappointed in how many reports actually get published by BFRO, I can also sympathize. I'm presently staring at 4000 John Green reports, trying to get them entered into the SSR database. Some days I'm gung-ho, and others I lazily scan through to find the easy ones, ignoring the ones that are more difficult to locate. I like 'seen while driving' reports best, as they usually have the best time and location information.

 

Anyway, I think the BFRO has an unmanageable backlog, and too few investigators working on them. I'd guess there are thousands of encounters that have gone there to die.

 

That said.... we can publish any report we please right here on this forum. I actually did that for a few sightings found in online articles, or that I was a part of, or found on Youtube videos, to get them into the SSR. Below  is an example of one I knew about that was not 'officially' published.  If anybody wants their encounter into the SSR, just look over that form (based on John Green's database - see link below) and add as much info as possible.

 

They can stay anonymous, and nobody has to contact you directly. Enter said encounter into the appropriate sub forum here: https://bigfootforums.com/forum/4-sightings/

Most importantly, let me know you'd like it entered into the SSR and I'll import into the form and into SSR. If you don't want date and location known (within 10 miles or so), then the SSR is not for you.

 

 

I echo Hunster's sentiment.  

 

Hats off to you.  That is a monumental task.  

[hiflier]

30 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Out of plusses for the day, your post deserves much more than a plus anyway, Redbone. Your work will long outlive you, and I appreciate it (it will long outlive me, too). 

 

Got your back on that one  Problem now though is I'm now outa plusses for this one:

 

23 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Hats off to you.  That is a monumental task

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by hiflier

[BlobSquatch]

I can't watch this crap. It smacks of Texas flip n' move style trash tv from the git-go.

 

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Got your back on that one  Problem now though is I'm now outa plusses for this one:

 

 

I have you all covered.

[hiflier]

 Cool.  

[Redbone]

1 hour ago, BlobSquatch said:

I can't watch this crap. It smacks of Texas flip n' move style trash tv from the git-go.

 

Agreed... I watched the first episode and didn't see any reasons why I should bother watching the second. I'm sure somebody here will let us know if something NEEDS to be watched in future episodes.

 

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, Redbone said:

...........I'm sure somebody here will let us know if something NEEDS to be watched in future episodes.

 

IF is a really huge word........and I'm sure it won't come into play in this circumstance. I certainly don't have the time to waste watching and waiting for any pleasant surprises.

 

TV is wasted life. 

 

 

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

TV is wasted life

 

DANG! For want of a PLUS. Haven't had one for ten years. Don't miss it.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

30 minutes ago, Redbone said:

Agreed... I watched the first episode and didn't see any reasons why I should bother watching the second. I'm sure somebody here will let us know if something NEEDS to be watched in future episodes.

 

Eh. It's not great, but it is a cut above most cryptozoology themed television.  

 

I am kind of watching it out of spite after the derogatory comments that the Finding Bigfoot crew made online.  

 

It will probably be like most of these shows.  Maybe 20 minutes of action spread over 8 episodes.  

 

I will more than likely completely lose interest after the third or fourth episode, and tune out completely.  It's on in the background as I do other stuff.

Edited December 19, 2019 by BlackRockBigfoot