Good Interview with Matt Moneymaker

[MIB]

As an ex report investigator, the problem with just presenting the reports w/o filtering is that .. people suck.   The problem is there are quite a few prank reports .. not truly hoaxes .. which are grossly sexually explicit, not fit for a family audience and many others are simply profane to that same degree.    Much the same as seen today on most social media platforms except that the "jerks" (insert your favorite expletive here) that submit these don't even have accounts to "put in jail", they are totally anonymous.   Someone has to weed those out before presentation which means that someone still has to read them all.  :(

 

MIB

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

Much the same as seen today on most social media platforms

 

We have similar problems, for example, vinchyfoot the troll keeps creating new accounts after we banned him, I wish he would get a life, what a looser.

 

[ShadowBorn]

There was a time when the BFRO was having problems within it's ranks. @gigantorsaid that they are in need of help with filtering out their reports. I did hear Matt say that in some of these trips that he does . He recruits BRFO members .  I have never really placed those trips as a way to meet people and vet them for the group. 

 

What was the count of reports that he still has to go through? like 75000 or more? I have notice that when I have gone on the BFRO site to look up for any current reports in Michigan. He seems to be the only investigator. A little odd. So people are still looking to the BFRO. But it does seem like he does need investigators. But you just cannot send anyone. So maybe this is a problem?  vetting out the right investigators.

 

You hear rumors about a person, But you find out later that they are all wrong. He has put his time into the game.  

[eyeonfoot]

10 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

There was a time when the BFRO was having problems within it's ranks. @gigantorsaid that they are in need of help with filtering out their reports. I did hear Matt say that in some of these trips that he does . He recruits BRFO members .  I have never really placed those trips as a way to meet people and vet them for the group. 

 

What was the count of reports that he still has to go through? like 75000 or more? I have notice that when I have gone on the BFRO site to look up for any current reports in Michigan. He seems to be the only investigator. A little odd. So people are still looking to the BFRO. But it does seem like he does need investigators. But you just cannot send anyone. So maybe this is a problem?  vetting out the right investigators.

 

You hear rumors about a person, But you find out later that they are all wrong. He has put his time into the game.  

 

Following the reports from the "Recently Added" page I've noticed that also, he seemed to be the main guy doing the witness follow ups. 

[ShadowBorn]

So, you have notice that too. Is there something going on within the BFRO? or is it just a slow process on getting investigators?

 

[Incorrigible1]

30 minutes ago, eyeonfoot said:

 

Following the reports from the "Recently Added" page I've noticed that also, he seemed to be the main guy doing the witness follow ups. 

That allows serious researchers, like Dr. Meldrum, to concentrate on their work.

[MIB]

43 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

vetting out the right investigators.

 

That is a major problem for any group.

[norseman]

Science relies on accurate data so that any scientist can reproduce what you have claimed.

 

I see the BFRO data base as nothing more than a story telling tally sheet. Basically it says…. Look at all our reports! Bigfoot must be real!

 

When I’ve investigated some BFRO reports? The location description doesn’t add up. I can’t find the site of the encounter.

 

I’ve had a insider tell me this is because they don’t want people going to the site and screwing up their research. Well…. Scientifically you might as well as well point a shotgun at your foot and pull the trigger. 
 

For example, I make a report that a flying saucer lands in my backyard. I report it to a investigating body. And they take the report but change the location by one mile. So follow on investigators go to the reported location and find….NOTHING. 
 

a) As the investigator finds ZERO collaborating evidence? He or she assumes….

 

1) The report was fabricated by the witness.

2) The witness did not see what they thought they saw.

3) The body that the witness made the report to does shoddy work.

4) The body that the witness made the report to are liars.

 

b) If the investigator is a skeptic? Then a bogus report is just more ammunition for their gun. And a very good way to get the whole mystery dismissed by the public and decry witnesses as crack pots. And if the flying saucer really did land in someone’s back yard? What a shame this report gets tossed out….

 

It MUST end!

 

Why has the PGF withstood the test of time? Todd Standing has much more clear and concise footage of Bigfoot than the PGF….

 

Here is why. We KNOW where the film site was. And it was gone over with a fine tooth comb. We know the length of logs, the width of trees, the depth of footprints. We can watch Patty make the foot prints. This isn’t a short film in which the owner will not divulge the location of the film! It has WITHSTOOD the scrutiny…. Full stop.

 

The BFRO should be taking accurate reports. And they should share that accurate report with pro investigators and skeptics alike. Because the TRUTH will stand on its own merits. Only a LIE needs protection from a tape measure or a magnifying glass.

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

 

We have similar problems, for example, vinchyfoot the troll keeps creating new accounts after we banned him, I wish he would get a life, what a looser.

 

Play stupid games…. Win stupid prizes.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

2 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

We have similar problems, for example, vinchyfoot the troll keeps creating new accounts after we banned him, I wish he would get a life, what a looser.

 

Lol.  The bitter guy who was being ‘persecuted’?  
 

[gigantor]

4 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Lol.  The bitter guy who was being ‘persecuted’?  
 

 

Yeah, vinchyfoot, zeebob889,  sayfred and now, eyeonfoot.

 

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

For example, I make a report that a flying saucer lands in my backyard. I report it to a investigating body. And they take the report but change the location by one mile. So follow on investigators go to the reported location and find….NOTHING. 

 

It's not really even that simple.

 

Suppose it is an older report.   We've seen that shows like FB trigger people to report events that occurred years in the past.    Lack of evidence available at the time of investigation does not mean there was no evidence immediately at the time of the report.   Whether that matters depends on the hat you're wearing.   If I'm looking at that strictly as a report investigator, there's nothing to verify .. dead end.   If I am looking at that as a researcher, it remains a data point from which I can fill out my map to guide future research a little further assuming I believe it is credible.

 

So beyond purposeful misdirection by the person investigating the claim, there's also the consideration of time and purpose.

 

I am not sure there is much to be gained by going on-site to investigate a report other than to ascertain its credibility.   If finding the bigfoot there were going to work, it would have worked 50 years ago when Dahinden and others were rushing to the sight of every report to look for bigfoot.   If learning something new about bigfoot is the purpose, I doubt the probability of that as well.   We're not learning new things, we're collecting repeats of the things already documented.    I don't see any "ah-hah" moments occurring.    The people do have those are ridiculed by those who haven't yet, even here, and learn quickly to keep their mouths shut to avoid abuse.   Think about the number of people even here who have been written off as crackpots based on .. not going and examining what they've claimed, but simply their claims not aligning with what we already insist is true.

 

MIB

[norseman]

21 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

It's not really even that simple.

 

Suppose it is an older report.   We've seen that shows like FB trigger people to report events that occurred years in the past.    Lack of evidence available at the time of investigation does not mean there was no evidence immediately at the time of the report.   Whether that matters depends on the hat you're wearing.   If I'm looking at that strictly as a report investigator, there's nothing to verify .. dead end.   If I am looking at that as a researcher, it remains a data point from which I can fill out my map to guide future research a little further assuming I believe it is credible.

 

Science doesn’t believe or disbelieve. It may be impossible to investigate a report because it’s too old. But it’s absolutely impossible to investigate a report because your in the wrong location.

 

Quote

So beyond purposeful misdirection by the person investigating the claim, there's also the consideration of time and purpose.

 

Sure. But I’m not addressing that. Other than the more sites that are investigated in a prompt manner? And found credible? The more robust your data base is!
 

Other wise it’s just a act of faith and a bunch of colored dots on a map.

Quote

 

I am not sure there is much to be gained by going on-site to investigate a report other than to ascertain its credibility.   If finding the bigfoot there were going to work, it would have worked 50 years ago when Dahinden and others were rushing to the sight of every report to look for bigfoot.   If learning something new about bigfoot is the purpose, I doubt the probability of that as well.   We're not learning new things, we're collecting repeats of the things already documented.    I don't see any "ah-hah" moments occurring.    The people do have those are ridiculed by those who haven't yet, even here, and learn quickly to keep their mouths shut to avoid abuse.   Think about the number of people even here who have been written off as crackpots based on .. not going and examining what they've claimed, but simply their claims not aligning with what we already insist is true.

 

MIB

 

Isn’t credibility worth it? That’s the gain.

 

Securing a type specimen is what’s going to tell us what it’s vision is and what it had for dinner. Not suggesting that investigating a past event will give us that.

[BobbyO]

21 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Bobby, what percentage of them would you estimate are garbage?

 

Ooooohhh a lot H, don't quote me on it but for sure a large portion of them, 75% plus kind of thing easy, and i wouldn't be surprised if it was north of 85% too, that direction.

 

And that is due to  a number of reasons including the obvious 'I saw a Sasquatch and he ate my shoe' type of bogus reports of which there are far more than you'd imagine, seemingly daily, and so so so many with just a real lack of any kind of detail at all for it to be considered a legit report.

 

Sad but true..

[BobbyO]

23 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. 

 

That does't sound much fun for the data guys VA, we'd become completely obselete there with all the junk in the mixer that's for sure, and that would be to the disadvantage of the subject overall imo.

 

I shudder at the thought of it and what would become of the SSR..;)