Opinions on the BFRO?

[vinchyfoot]

11 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

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."

 

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

The BFRO is a business plain and simple, fueled by Moneymaker's fear of actually having to work a job, and since they don't make all reports visible, they are attempting to control much of the narrative. The community needs a workable alternative. 

[Trogluddite]

11 hours ago, VAfooter said:

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

Hmm.  I honestly hadn't noticed it with older reports and often times could literally put a pin in my map in the yard on the correct side of the house in question.   

 

23 minutes ago, BobbyO said:

 

Trog ? 

 

How dare you ? 

No! What I meant was, isn't that database of reported sightings?  I was wondering what I was missing if the SSR is not a database of reported sightings.

 

Wait - did the rules change while I was gone and we can't talk about in the non-premium section?? Is someone going to have to send a 'squatch assassin to my house now that I've let the secret out??

[BobbyO]

8 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

 

No! What I meant was, isn't that database of reported sightings?  I was wondering what I was missing if the SSR is not a database of reported sightings.

 

 

Ahhh ok, i got ya now..

[hiflier]

It isn't a secret. It also isn't a secret that access to the SSR is a Premium Membership perk

[VAfooter]

3 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Hmm.  I honestly hadn't noticed it with older reports and often times could literally put a pin in my map in the yard on the correct side of the house in question.   

 

In many cases this is true, but for whatever reason (deliberate or inadvertent), there are items in some cases which effectively hide the location of the incident. Not that it makes a lot of difference in any event.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, VAfooter said:

 

In many cases this is true, but for whatever reason (deliberate or inadvertent), there are items in some cases which effectively hide the location of the incident. Not that it makes a lot of difference in any event.

I have first hand knowledge of this skullduggery. Reports should be accurate in location.

 

Which does NOT facilitate science. If I cannot find the same landmarks as seen in a presumed video or photo? I cannot measure it.

[Marty]

It's a shame that most evidence is locked away from the public, I understand ridicule but I feel people need thicker skin in that regard, if it wasn't mostly private there might be an advancement in the field because people would be able to read the data and come up with fresh, new ideas on how to capture better evidence. Hell, this whole mystery might've been solved by now. Having the same people gatekeep and control the narrative is not healthy in a scientific field. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Marty

[Arvedis]

40 minutes ago, Marty said:

It's a shame that most evidence is locked away from the public, I understand ridicule but I feel people need thicker skin in that regard, if it wasn't mostly private there might be an advancement in the field because people would be able to read the data and come up with fresh, new ideas on how to capture better evidence. Hell, this whole mystery might've been solved by now. Having the same people gatekeep and control the narrative is not healthy in a scientific field. 

 

Nothing is hidden. It's just how the BFRO chooses to run their operations. It's a loosely governed private citizen thing with no authority, knowledge or anything relevant to anything. It started as any other crackpot idea but Matt moneymaker got lucky when a millionaire with nothing else to do with his time got involved. Otherwise, it would likely not even be in public view and Matt would not be able to afford dying his hair blonde pretending he is an LA celebrity.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Arvedis

[SWWASAS]

23 minutes ago, Marty said:

It's a shame that most evidence is locked away from the public, I understand ridicule but I feel people need thicker skin in that regard, if it wasn't mostly private there might be an advancement in the field because people would be able to read the data and come up with fresh, new ideas on how to capture better evidence. Hell, this whole mystery might've been solved by now. Having the same people gatekeep and control the narrative is not healthy in a scientific field. 

The real shame is when someone decides to become a field researcher, you need a place to start.    Any data base that is kept current can be very valuable to a wanna be researcher.     In full disclosure and honesty,  in spite of often being critical of the BFRO,  when I decided to do field research,  I went to the BFRO data base to try to determine locations that might be active.    At the time I was not aware of any other data bases.     Finding an active area is the most difficult part of BF field research.    While some believe they are behind every tree,  that cannot be further from the truth.    Through sighting reports I narrowed down  where to look even though some were over 10 years old.   Starting with a road sighting report,  at the location I scouted around and found evidence of movement down an embanckment and a direction of travel.    That led me up a mountain that had a history of vocalizations over a decade before.    That was logical in that it linked two separate BFRO reports.    I found a trail crossing footprint with the direction of travel up the mountain side.   Logging pushed me and any BF off the mountain to the South. into the area that turned into my active area for about 10 years.     Intuition,  supposition of what BF were doing,  a push of clear cutting North to South,  then frequent footprint finds all led to the active area.   If I can do it anyone can.     It is worth noting, that other areas that are more remote and more squiatchy, but lacking sighting reports,  have not yielded so much as a single footprint find to me.    That suggests to me that when BF becaome comfortable in an area,  they are very reluctant to leave, even with human encrouchment.      It takes loss of cover by logging to displace them from a favored territory.  

[Trogluddite]

59 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Any data base that is kept current can be very valuable to a wanna be researcher.   

And any database that is kept current is a huge manpower drain.  If I'm lucky, I can add a complete and accurate report to my northeast US database in a half-hour or so.  Throw in the problems Norse & VAFooter noted with inaccurate reports, and it can take 3 hours to 3 days, sleuthing through old maps, old internet entries, etc. to try to find a more accurate location, more accurate date, etc.

 

While it may be far from perfect, the BFRO database is a good free database.  Premium members can access the SSR here.  Hiflier has made John Green's (RIP) old database available as well.

[wiiawiwb]

8 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

The BFRO is a business plain and simple, fueled by Moneymaker's fear of actually having to work a job, and since they don't make all reports visible, they are attempting to control much of the narrative. The community needs a workable alternative. 

 

If he can make a good living from his intellect and business acumen rather than through his brawn, more power to him!

[Redbone]

4 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 Hiflier has made John Green's (RIP) old database available as well.

It's not RIP. It's here... 1200+ John Green reports are now posted on this website, and you can search them in the SSR. https://bigfootforums.com/forum/160-john-greens-sightings-database/

[Trogluddite]

^^

Man, I'm having a tough time getting back on track.  I was referring to John Green himself as having passed.  That being said, congratulations Redbone on converting JG's database.  I had not noticed that addition to the sightings section of the forum.

[Redbone]

This video is mostly about Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO, and how they are vetting reports. I also posted it on the thread for this specific report.

Very long story short, the tracks were made by a moose.

 

He goes back and forth with Moneymaker a little bit before visiting the site and meeting the witnesses.

If you want to see an interesting take on BFRO practices from another BF organization, then take the time to watch the video.

 

As one who reads almost all new reports, I have seen a trend in the last year. Recent reports are coming in and being published with little or no investigation at all. Most of these are done by MM himself. This alone does not make them inaccurate, but it's BFRO's claim that they vet all reports. That is simply not true.

 

I know many BFRO investigators, and if they published a report, then they did at least some investigation. I treat BFRO reports as important information to glean through, thus my commitment to the SSR entries. I do not accept every report as fact, except for the one I submitted, and a few from witnesses that I know personally. That said, even my own report is anecdotal, and I have no expectations that I will be believed. I'm ok with that, and will always try to be careful about what I claim. Don't throw out all the reports just because a few are shown to be inaccurate.

 

 

[vinchyfoot]

7 hours ago, Redbone said:

This video is mostly about Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO, and how they are vetting reports. I also posted it on the thread for this specific report.

Very long story short, the tracks were made by a moose.

 

He goes back and forth with Moneymaker a little bit before visiting the site and meeting the witnesses.

If you want to see an interesting take on BFRO practices from another BF organization, then take the time to watch the video.

 

As one who reads almost all new reports, I have seen a trend in the last year. Recent reports are coming in and being published with little or no investigation at all. Most of these are done by MM himself. This alone does not make them inaccurate, but it's BFRO's claim that they vet all reports. That is simply not true.

 

I know many BFRO investigators, and if they published a report, then they did at least some investigation. I treat BFRO reports as important information to glean through, thus my commitment to the SSR entries. I do not accept every report as fact, except for the one I submitted, and a few from witnesses that I know personally. That said, even my own report is anecdotal, and I have no expectations that I will be believed. I'm ok with that, and will always try to be careful about what I claim. Don't throw out all the reports just because a few are shown to be inaccurate.

 

 

 

Saw this last night, the guy does a good job with this, and one thing it exemplifies is the major flaw with the BFRO is Matt Moneymaker. He is no closer to solving anything than anyone else, and this back and forth between this guy and MM shows this. MM makes declarations as fact and has never even been to the place. It more than calls much if not all of their information into question. At one point in the back and forth, MM claims he's "improving the data", massaging it maybe, to support the MM narrative? That's long been my suspicion, the BFRO is too big for it's own good when all things come through one such flawed individual.