Opinions on the BFRO?

[Rockape]

Matt Moneymaker. Appropriately named. I got no beef with someone making a living from it though. The guy has done a lot for the BF community and it's not like he's making so much cash he's sailing the world on his yacht.

 

My only complaint with him is he's so eager to believe he becomes gullible, like the "Matillda" thing. He needs to be more skeptical. Lots of goof folks in the BFRO though.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

I have mellowed a bit on the BFRO over the past year.

 

I still find a lot of the people involved with it a bit cringey and I am uncomfortable with the accusations that they filter a lot of their reports...but, if people want to pay huge amounts of money and sign NDAs to go on an outing...good for them.  

 

It's a constant struggle to balance time and resources to devote to the search for these things.  If someone is able to fund themselves to be able to search full time...good for them.  If you can sell tshirts and coffee mugs in order to devote yourself full time to this sort of stuff...have at it.  I am a capitalist.  Capitalism is good. 

 

I honestly don't even get upset anymore about the real out there types like Dr Johnson.  The people who support him financially are the same people who will always spend money on that sort of thing...snake oil, miracle cures, or wisdom from the stars.  I don't take them seriously, but I don't get upset over it.  

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

If you can sell tshirts and coffee mugs in order to devote yourself full time to this sort of stuff...have at it.

 

Um...or books?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Especially books.

[WSA]

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. Back in the day, nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought that there could be a compendium of that size and degree of accessibility.  I get that we are largely a population of non-readers, boy do I.  We've had many epic debates here with some skeptics and scoftics. What those opponents mostly had working against them, I'm convinced (aside from a general lack of outdoor experience) was a noticeable lack of reading comprehension skills, and/or lack of motivation to read at all, along with a deficit in the area of deductive reasoning and critical thought. The BFRO database, and the story it tells, require at least a little bit of those abilities.  Once you  realize this, the story that is there becomes coherent. To me, if the BFRO and MM disappeared tomorrow, that single legacy would justify all else it might be guilty of perpetrating.

[NatFoot]

3 hours ago, 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. Back in the day, nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought that there could be a compendium of that size and degree of accessibility.  I get that we are largely a population of non-readers, boy do I.  We've had many epic debates here with some skeptics and scoftics. What those opponents mostly had working against them, I'm convinced (aside from a general lack of outdoor experience) was a noticeable lack of reading comprehension skills, and/or lack of motivation to read at all, along with a deficit in the area of deductive reasoning and critical thought. The BFRO database, and the story it tells, require at least a little bit of those abilities.  Once you  realize this, the story that is there becomes coherent. To me, if the BFRO and MM disappeared tomorrow, that single legacy would justify all else it might be guilty of perpetrating.

Not sure what you said there triggered a downvote.

 

I believe you're spot on. I don't think I wouldve ever truly latched on with interest had that online database not been available when my curiosity was peaked.

 

I read enough there to be open to reading more, found the BFF and am still here today almost 15 years later.

[Incorrigible1]

11 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

Not sure what you said there triggered a downvote.

 

I believe you're spot on. I don't think I wouldve ever truly latched on with interest had that online database not been available when my curiosity was peaked.

"What those opponents mostly had working against them, I'm convinced (aside from a general lack of outdoor experience) was a noticeable lack of reading comprehension skills, and/or lack of motivation to read at all, along with a deficit in the area of deductive reasoning and critical thought."

 

You believe that is "spot on?"

Disparaging intelligent people that don't necessarily believe as he does?

That diatribe certainly deserves a down vote.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, 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. Back in the day, nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought that there could be a compendium of that size and degree of accessibility.  I get that we are largely a population of non-readers, boy do I.  We've had many epic debates here with some skeptics and scoftics. What those opponents mostly had working against them, I'm convinced (aside from a general lack of outdoor experience) was a noticeable lack of reading comprehension skills, and/or lack of motivation to read at all, along with a deficit in the area of deductive reasoning and critical thought. The BFRO database, and the story it tells, require at least a little bit of those abilities.  Once you  realize this, the story that is there becomes coherent. To me, if the BFRO and MM disappeared tomorrow, that single legacy would justify all else it might be guilty of perpetrating.

Its not that skeptics cannot read. Nor that they haven't read enough. Its that anecdotal reports will never take the place of physical evidence. Not a 1000, not 100000000. And not the whole body of the BFRO report system. Not worth one pinkie bone.

 

It should be seen as a tool to a means of an end.

 

And not the end.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Exactly Mr Norse.

Reading is essential,but in the case of large undocumented man apes only a specimen will suffice.

 

 

[WSA]

Umm...It is a tool, and I certainly don’t declare it is definitive for anyone. When that confirmation does come, and come it will, the value of that tool will only go up. Until then, don’t let the evidence you don’t have discount the evidence you do.

[vinchyfoot]

On 9/3/2020 at 1:52 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

"What those opponents mostly had working against them, I'm convinced (aside from a general lack of outdoor experience) was a noticeable lack of reading comprehension skills, and/or lack of motivation to read at all, along with a deficit in the area of deductive reasoning and critical thought."

 

You believe that is "spot on?"

Disparaging intelligent people that don't necessarily believe as he does?

That diatribe certainly deserves a down vote.

 

"IF" the database is only part of the totality of reports, the ones that Moneymaker wants put forward in favor over others, it's only part of the narrative, and an attempt to control the narrative. I've heard they do this from more than one source. As such, if it's only part of the story, then it's suspect. The BFRO is a business, not a research group.

[Incorrigible1]

Vinchy, I'm not sure why you quoted my posting, rather than the one from WSA.

[VAfooter]

2 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

"IF" the database is only part of the totality of reports, the ones that Moneymaker wants put forward in favor over others, it's only part of the narrative, and an attempt to control the narrative. I've heard they do this from more than one source. As such, if it's only part of the story, then it's suspect. The BFRO is a business, not a research group.

 

I have also heard that they do mot publish some reports to keep the area private for their own investigations. Fact is that only part of the database has been opened for public review. I am unaware of what the percentage is at this point. Do their investigators have access to the whole database?

[vinchyfoot]

18 hours ago, VAfooter said:

 

I have also heard that they do mot publish some reports to keep the area private for their own investigations. Fact is that only part of the database has been opened for public review. I am unaware of what the percentage is at this point. Do their investigators have access to the whole database?

 

Fair and interesting question.

[hiflier]

I have heard some BFRO people say "yes" to that. But even then I wonder if there aren't "two sets of books" so to speak.