Explorer Posted April 24, 2022 Posted April 24, 2022 I liked this interview because you get to listen to Matt in a relaxed honest conversational way and he takes his time to explain issues/stories in detail. At the beginning of the interview, he goes over his 1995 Ohio encounter that led him to create the BFRO. He then explains why the BFRO was needed, the work it does and how it is organized. He mentions that about 75 K reports have been submitted but only about 5 K have been posted on the public database. The main reason given to not post all of the reports is the lack of resources and time to investigate them. Of interest (at ~1 hr 4 min), he states that he does not consider glowing eyes, zapping, and mind-speak to be woo and paranormal but just part of the bigfoot phenomena. He draws the line on portals and other weirder stuff. Glad that Cameron Buckner did this interview in order to inform the public about the BFRO directly from the founder. 1
Huntster Posted April 24, 2022 Posted April 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Explorer said: .........He mentions that about 75 K reports have been submitted but only about 5 K have been posted on the public database. The main reason given to not post all of the reports is the lack of resources and time to investigate them.......... Wow! That's a significant detail. 1
wiiawiwb Posted April 24, 2022 Posted April 24, 2022 I suspect that they've culled the best or most promising ones first with the rest sitting in a bin to be reviewed at a later date. Anyone one of us could go through a pile of a hundred reports and determine quickly which ones were of interest and which ones were not. 2
VAfooter Posted April 24, 2022 Admin Posted April 24, 2022 This shows the big problem I have with BFRO. They only release 1 in 15 cases (~ 7%). Put them all out there and let the people decide. OK, they can hold the ones they are actively investigating or seem promising. If they do not feel that a report is credible, then put a flag on it saying so, but let the people at least see it. Maybe, just maybe, someone else in that area had a similar experience and could help collaborate it. 2 1
ShadowBorn Posted April 24, 2022 Moderator Posted April 24, 2022 Hey! Enjoyed the interview. Sure, it could need a lot of improvements. Those camping trips and the money they charge. Not a bad idea on vetting and searching for people that will fit in good with the BFRO. There were a lot of complaints here on this forum about Matt and the BFRO. But the times have changed. I like their sighting in Ohio. He really picks up on the mind site of the creature. We do a lot of things that we believe that we are hiding from this creature. But instead we are really giving away our position to them. It is good of him not to lower himself to mock those who have mocked him. That showed a lot of restraint on his part. He could have used that podcast to get back at those folks. It was a great podcast. I really enjoyed the heck out of it. Thanks Explorer. If it was not for his reports on the BFRO I would have never have had my encounters. Thanks Matt.
Maxwell Tarpley Posted April 25, 2022 Posted April 25, 2022 Thanks for sharing this link. I like the Dixie Dude, puts out great content. and this was a really good listen. MM said a few funny things. "Its nobodies saying that Finding bigfoot hurt the subject ...." Pretty sure that was Les Stroud's words. MM also had some pretty negative notion of David Paulides , which isnt surprising . but to me they are somewhat similar in Matts description of David , Cocky and arrogant bla bla .
BobbyO Posted April 25, 2022 SSR Team Posted April 25, 2022 On 4/24/2022 at 2:06 PM, VAfooter said: This shows the big problem I have with BFRO. They only release 1 in 15 cases (~ 7%). Put them all out there and let the people decide. OK, they can hold the ones they are actively investigating or seem promising. If they do not feel that a report is credible, then put a flag on it saying so, but let the people at least see it. Maybe, just maybe, someone else in that area had a similar experience and could help collaborate it. VA i can assure you, soooooo many are absolute garbage. I don't blame him/them for not posting them. 1
bipedalist Posted April 25, 2022 BFF Patron Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) On 4/24/2022 at 6:06 AM, VAfooter said: This shows the big problem I have with BFRO. They only release 1 in 15 cases (~ 7%). Put them all out there and let the people decide. OK, they can hold the ones they are actively investigating or seem promising. If they do not feel that a report is credible, then put a flag on it saying so, but let the people at least see it. Maybe, just maybe, someone else in that area had a similar experience and could help collaborate it. Exactly, corroboration is the acid test of sighting reports to me. If I had not learned of a nearby sighting in their database, I probably would not have had my sighting and added to the conundrum called BF. @BobbyO I can assure you many thought my sighting was garbage too but I chose not to have it listed publically not that they would have. Met some cool investigators in my turf pre-sighting, Leigh Culver, Matt Pruitt and a female researcher whose name I have long since forgotten. Also, had a long-term audio feedback consultation with Stan Courtney as a result of my pre- and post-sighting and encounter experiences. So there are some good BFRO elements/personnel. @Explorer Quote Of interest (at ~1 hr 4 min), he states that he does not consider glowing eyes, zapping, and mind-speak to be woo and paranormal but just part of the bigfoot phenomena. It is this part that I verified too during my research and sighting experience. Not so much any zapping or mindspeak but enough trickster and infrasonic activity to make up for the lack of the latter. Edited April 27, 2022 by bipedalist Leeward spelling 1
BobbyO Posted April 25, 2022 SSR Team Posted April 25, 2022 10 minutes ago, bipedalist said: @BobbyO I can assure you many thought my sighting was garbage too but I chose not to have it listed publically not that they would have. I'd bet all the tea i China that my interpretation of 'garbage reports' are nowhere near what your report would have been B, and you're gonna have to trust my judgement on that one..;)
bipedalist Posted April 25, 2022 BFF Patron Posted April 25, 2022 Got your back brotha! No more pluses for me today!
VAfooter Posted April 25, 2022 Admin Posted April 25, 2022 4 hours ago, BobbyO said: VA i can assure you, soooooo many are absolute garbage. I don't blame him/them for not posting them. I understand that a decent portion of them may be garbage, but let the public decide. If someone says they saw a purple BF with glowing orange hair, riding a green horse with three heads and eating a lemon snow cone, and a reader believes it, well, cannot really help that... Just saying that if all of them are out there for the public to inspect, it could/would add to the evidence database if someone else had a similar encounter/experience. And like I said, if BFRO really thinks a report is bogus, give it an F rating indicating that we (BFRO) believe the report is total crap. Put a disclaimer on it that the BFRO has not investigated it yet. Might even draw a few more researchers into the organization. People then have the option to believe or not. I just think that there is good evidence that may never see the light of day due to the staffing shortages (for lack of a better term) at BFRO that could advance the knowledge of the topic if it were public. 2
Huntster Posted April 26, 2022 Posted April 26, 2022 7 hours ago, BobbyO said: VA i can assure you, soooooo many are absolute garbage. I don't blame him/them for not posting them. Bobby, what percentage of them would you estimate are garbage?
eyeonfoot Posted April 26, 2022 Posted April 26, 2022 13 hours ago, VAfooter said: I understand that a decent portion of them may be garbage, but let the public decide. If someone says they saw a purple BF with glowing orange hair, riding a green horse with three heads and eating a lemon snow cone, and a reader believes it, well, cannot really help that... Just saying that if all of them are out there for the public to inspect, it could/would add to the evidence database if someone else had a similar encounter/experience. And like I said, if BFRO really thinks a report is bogus, give it an F rating indicating that we (BFRO) believe the report is total crap. Put a disclaimer on it that the BFRO has not investigated it yet. Might even draw a few more researchers into the organization. People then have the option to believe or not. I just think that there is good evidence that may never see the light of day due to the staffing shortages (for lack of a better term) at BFRO that could advance the knowledge of the topic if it were public. I agree with this, an accurate reflection of the actual information can be discerned by the public, I can understand some filtering, but if the percentiles presented above are accurate, that's a whole lot of filtering. I'd like to see the whole body of information.
gigantor Posted April 26, 2022 Admin Posted April 26, 2022 I guess you guys missed the part where he said they don't have enough resources.
eyeonfoot Posted April 26, 2022 Posted April 26, 2022 1 hour ago, gigantor said: I guess you guys missed the part where he said they don't have enough resources. Maybe they need a recruitment drive in some places.
Recommended Posts