Opinions on the BFRO?

[SWWASAS]

On 9/7/2020 at 12:23 PM, vinchyfoot said:

 

Preserving "Op-Sec" on an ongoing investigation and the related location should be standard protocol for any serious Researcher, that much is understandable, I was referring to those reports that don't fit the business model.... that was more the way I heard it said of them.

 

Any contact from Find Bigfoot would disprove what I was told by a BFRO member that the show and the group are not connected, which is obviously bunk. They clearly are. I have also personally seen them attempt to usurp other folks areas, which is why although I acknowledge there are good members within the group, the upper management isnt to be trusted.

No sarcasm necessary, that is literally correct.

I have been told stuff by BFF members who are also BFRO members that are not true.      The first was that the organization simply had not yet had enough time to investitigate my sighting report.   The second being that the organization in WA lacks invistigators and they should get to it in 3 or 4 years.    The first was disproven by the Finding Bigfoot producer call.    Now the fact it has beein over 10 years since the reports were made suggests that it will never be investigated in a manner they supposedly do by contacting me.     I suspect that the BFRO organization runs on two levels.    One shared by most of the membership and another higher echelon level that does not follow the same rules.     It could be that the Forum members operate at the first level and are simply not aware of how things really work.    I did not keep a copy of the on line reports I made,  but I have wondered if the fact that I stated I was an active BF researcher had some impact on the lack of investigation.     I have wondered if they are so sold on their own field methodology, that the methodology of researchers not associated with the organization would be dismissed or discounted.    I do not know how they determine the location of their expeditions.   Anyone who researches an active area could be perceived as being a compeditor or perhaps if the BFRO can determine where the active area is,  they would pretend not to investigate the area so they could conduct private or paid expeditions in the area at some time in the future.  

[Marty]

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

 

Are you disputing use of the word Sasquatch? Maybe people should say "alleged" or "possible" Sasquatch? Not sure what your point is.

Their reaction says it all about them, and it is something I see even with Moneymaker time to time, these cats don't understand that the evidence they tote around is extremely dubious even with context. I've seen the thermal and it's really crappy, you really can't discern it over someone in a hoodie, so getting aggressive towards someone who is being quite reasonable with their assessment is the general idea I get with the BFRO and tbh, community in general, it's almost a race to prove it exists rather than challenge it. Extraordinary claims, yadda yadda. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Marty

[Arvedis]

41 minutes ago, Marty said:

Their reaction says it all about them, and it is something I see even with Moneymaker time to time, these cats don't understand that the evidence they tote around is extremely dubious even with context. I've seen the thermal and it's really crappy, you really can't discern it over someone in a hoodie, so getting aggressive towards someone who is being quite reasonable with their assessment is the general idea I get with the BFRO and tbh, community in general, it's almost a race to prove it exists rather than challenge it. Extraordinary claims, yadda yadda. 

 

I don't think many people will dispute the BFRO lacks evidence as much as anyone else does. Fending off trolls is a universal exercise. Social media is a nuisance for everyone to deal with.

 

I just realized another pet peeve but I don't want to feed the trolls. For a long time, there has been a reactionary sect of Bigfoot trolls who attack people who post their images and findings. It could be junk but whatever.The thing is, no one is saying "this is evidence." We all know blurry is blurry. Regardless, people should be able to post and discuss their findings, whatever it is, without troll attacks. The immaturity has forced credible bf researchers to quit.

[Marty]

I agree with that sentiment, no one should feed ppl who are doing nothing productive in their discussion, however I also am in the camp of not showing proof unless it can stand on its own, personally I think sending off stuff like the Sierra thermal as valid evidence is laughable to a general populace who still regard the creature as mythology, I do agree it does make us look even crazier even tho ppl are free to share what they capture. I guess for me personally I just don't give blobsquatches the time of day at all.  

[Arvedis]

I guess I don't have context from the screen shot. Did Cliff or someone say a thermal image was evidence of the existence of bf or was it posted as 1 piece of research that could contribute to more investigation? I'm no BFRO fan but I think they are usually very cautious about their own claims.

 

Cliff is a member here. Yo @Cliff Barackman. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Arvedis

[GuyInIndiana]

1 hour ago, Arvedis said:

 

The immaturity has forced credible bf researchers to quit.

 

Meh. It's just made a lot of us keep our evidence to ourselves, and if people ask where the evidence 'is'... we just say "It's out THERE. Go find it for yourself. It's not my job."

 

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Marty said:

I agree with that sentiment, no one should feed ppl who are doing nothing productive in their discussion, however I also am in the camp of not showing proof unless it can stand on its own, personally I think sending off stuff like the Sierra thermal as valid evidence is laughable to a general populace who still regard the creature as mythology, I do agree it does make us look even crazier even tho ppl are free to share what they capture. I guess for me personally I just don't give blobsquatches the time of day at all.  

There is a major disconnect in what the Bigfoot community calls evidence and what Biologists call evidence.

 

 

[SWWASAS]

22 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

I don't think many people will dispute the BFRO lacks evidence as much as anyone else does. Fending off trolls is a universal exercise. Social media is a nuisance for everyone to deal with.

 

I just realized another pet peeve but I don't want to feed the trolls. For a long time, there has been a reactionary sect of Bigfoot trolls who attack people who post their images and findings. It could be junk but whatever.The thing is, no one is saying "this is evidence." We all know blurry is blurry. Regardless, people should be able to post and discuss their findings, whatever it is, without troll attacks. The immaturity has forced credible bf researchers to quit.

I am certainly on the same page as you with regard to the trolls.    Probably a lot of people who might be thought to be BF researchers that have quit are like myself.      At one point I had a youtube channel and was posting research results on line.      That is like putting out meat to attract vultures with regard to the trolls.   There is a segment of society that seems to feed on ridicule of others.   While there were a few people who subscribed with genuine interest in the topic,   the majority of responses were from millennial idiot trolls who probably think their neighborhood park is the woods.    I got tired of the daily abuse from these people and finally deleted all of my posted videos and for the casual observer probably seemed like I got out of research.    I just went underground for a few years.   After my bout with COVID I decided to share more with forum members.    More out of fear that what I know will be lost.   .     I had been holding back quite a bit as far as locations etc.      If anyone on the forum does research in SW WA,   I would be happy to divulge locations via private messaging.    I will not share anything with BFRO members.   While my research area has gone inactive due to logging,   in 10 or 20 years the forest could have regrown enough to provide the cover for BF to return to the area.    They seemed to be very reluctant to leave when the logging rolled through the area.    I will not be around in 20 years but perhaps some of you will.  

Edited January 30, 2021 by SWWASAS

[vinchyfoot]

21 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I am certainly on the same page as you with regard to the trolls.    Probably a lot of people who might be thought to be BF researchers that have quit are like myself.      At one point I had a youtube channel and was posting research results on line.      That is like putting out meat to attract vultures with regard to the trolls.   There is a segment of society that seems to feed on ridicule of others.   While there were a few people who subscribed with genuine interest in the topic,   the majority of responses were from millennial idiot trolls who probably think their neighborhood park is the woods.    I got tired of the daily abuse from these people and finally deleted all of my posted videos and for the casual observer probably seemed like I got out of research.    I just went underground for a few years.   After my bout with COVID I decided to share more with forum members.    More out of fear that what I know will be lost.   .     I had been holding back quite a bit as far as locations etc.      If anyone on the forum does research in SW WA,   I would be happy to divulge locations via private messaging.    I will not share anything with BFRO members.   While my research area has gone inactive due to logging,   in 10 or 20 years the forest could have regrown enough to provide the cover for BF to return to the area.    They seemed to be very reluctant to leave when the logging rolled through the area.    I will not be around in 20 years but perhaps some of you will.  

 

I might offer the advice that you don't divulge locations. I have a few that are long term investigations, and the last thing I need is a bunch of idiot n00bs going into the area and screwing up the balance of things.

[SWWASAS]

I completely agree about divulging locations  if it involves the BFRO.  I would only privately disclose locations at this point and only to people I select.     I am only aware of one forum member that works this area and we trust each other with location information.   There may be others but they have to approach me and gain my trust.    My point is that I am not going to be able to do field work that much longer and I do not want location information that might help to other researchers lost.     My process  of finding my research area worked at least once.    However I now that the area has gone inactive,  I cannot seem to pull off finding another active area.  Not that I have given up trying at this point.    All it would take is a couple of sighting reports or footprint finds in a given area.  

[JKH]

Perhaps of interest.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/halibut_effect.asp

[Dom]

I like the BFRO I think they have a good data base and I’ve went on a couple expeditions with them. It was fun and informative when it comes to Sasquatch. They go all over if they come back to my area I would go again.

[Trogluddite]

On 8/5/2020 at 2:46 PM, Huntster said:

....I bet they're a non-profit organization.

They definitely are not a 501(c) non-profit.  The BFRO is incorporated in California and under the laws of that state had to identify itself as an entertainment company (rather than, say, a hospitality or service company).  I will note for anyone that wants to find them that there are at least two BFRO threads extant before this one - both may be available only to premium members.  IIRC, one focused on a near implosion of the BFRO and the other was specific as to the expeditions.  I believe, but will not swear, that the information required to find the BFRO's business license is in one of those threads.

 

On 8/5/2020 at 5:14 PM, norseman said:

...I also followed up on a BFRO report in Montana when I was working in the oilfield. The location was not the location. There was no way to know if I was 500 yards away from the sighting or 5 miles.....

 

 

On 8/5/2020 at 6:07 PM, VAfooter said:

.... 

in the past, when I went to collaborate the BFRO report with Google Earth, there were a number, more than I can attribute to just human error, that had identifying information about the location wrong. ....

 

For both Norse & VAfooter, not sure where I saw it, but sometime after Finding Bigfoot went big, they announced that they were going to start obscuring location data.  They also started putting bigger boxes on their map set to hide precisely where an encounter occurred.  They stated that the primary basis for doing this was to protect the privacy of witnesses.  Which is a good idea - I've been to the specific location of two New York incidents reported on in the Baby Bigfoot episode and have been able to identify other specific homes and phone numbers from reports made before they adopted that policy. 

 

 

On 9/3/2020 at 10:17 AM, WSA said:

I am not a member, nor do I have any truck with the BFRO beyond a devotion to reading the sighting reports...and I do that religiously.  It might get under emphasized how much that database has contributed to awareness and knowledge. .... 

 

Same as what WSA said - not a member and no collateral involvement with the BFRO but their database AND the reports they make public are a gold standard for the 5 W's of an encounter.  Compare certain other "research" groups whose reports read, "Yeah, I saw a bigfoot at Aunt Em's house and shot it and made steak out of it."  And weak tea like that gets posted as an "encounter."

 

On 9/7/2020 at 1:10 PM, gigantor said:

This thread is a great example of why we decided not to start a sightings database in the BFF.

 

What the heck is the SSR?? I must be confused. Often am.

[VAfooter]

27 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

For both Norse & VAfooter, not sure where I saw it, but sometime after Finding Bigfoot went big, they announced that they were going to start obscuring location data.  They also started putting bigger boxes on their map set to hide precisely where an encounter occurred.  They stated that the primary basis for doing this was to protect the privacy of witnesses.  Which is a good idea - I've been to the specific location of two New York incidents reported on in the Baby Bigfoot episode and have been able to identify other specific homes and phone numbers from reports made before they adopted that policy. 

 

My research showed their ambiguity started mid to late 2000's (~2005-2010), if not before. Long before FB was a thing.

 

29 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

What the heck is the SSR?? I must be confused. Often am.

 

Standardized Sightings Record Project (SSR)

 

[BobbyO]

11 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

What the heck is the SSR?? I must be confused. Often am.

 

Trog ? 

 

How dare you ?