Good Interview with Matt Moneymaker

[VAfooter]

7 hours ago, MIB said:

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.

 

That is what filters are for.  

 

 

7 hours ago, MIB said:

Someone has to weed those out before presentation which means that someone still has to read them all.  :(

 

Just a quick scan should tell the reviewer if it is obscene or not. If they average 12 new reports a day (I have no idea how many they really have, but that seems reasonable), that should take 10-15 minutes just to ensure nothing inappropriate gets through. It should also tell them if it is worth holding back for further investigation or not. The BFRO should be pretty good at sorting out the good from the bad at first glance by now.

 

4 hours ago, norseman said:

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

 

I have seen the same thing on multiple occasions. It happened on Highway 123. Well, there is no Highway 123 there, but nearby is Highway 231. Or it happened on Johnson Road east of town. No Johnson Road east of town, but there is one NW of town. I cannot say if the witness accidently messed it up, the investigator accidently messed it up (they should not be rewording the report in the first place), or it was purposely altered. I just noticed it it happened more than what seemed like coincidence to me. Yes, being the poor, pitiful nerd I am, I used to take every report (and from any other database I could find as well...) and then try to locate it on the map and even looked at it with Google Street view if possible to see if the account matched the map info. Pray for me...

 

 

46 minutes ago, BobbyO said:

 

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..;)

 

Should be fairly easy to shuffle all the bogus reports into the Quack folder. Label it as such. SSR could totally ignore those and still be OK. But you are correct, it could be a major headache for data folks.

 

Bottom line is that it is Matt's database and he can do what he wants with it. My opinion on it does not count for spit. Just think it would be helpful to have it all out there for public consumption. 

[MIB]

10 minutes ago, VAfooter said:

Bottom line is that it is Matt's database and he can do what he wants with it. My opinion on it does not count for spit. Just think it would be helpful to have it all out there for public consumption. 

 

The questions .. helpful to whom?   And is the guy paying for it one of the people it helps?    I'm guessing here that if Matt felt that it was financially beneficial, he'd already be doing it, so if he's not ... there's a reason and it's not mere oversight.    That means it is quite possible that if I were TRULY in his shoes, not just flapping my gums to puff myself up, that I'd likely make the same choices he is making.   Anyone who didn't isn't actually wearing his shoes, they're just blow smoke.    If we want him to do something different, we have to offer incentive that he isn't already getting.   I don't know what that is, just know it is needed.

 

MIB

[VAfooter]

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

The questions .. helpful to whom? 

 

Perhaps researchers in areas where he does not have his own. Maybe the locals have seen the same sort of stuff and it might be a piece of the puzzle that helps them out. Maybe not. In my view, worth a shot....

 

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

I'm guessing here that if Matt felt that it was financially beneficial, he'd already be doing it, so if he's not ... there's a reason and it's not mere oversight.

 

Correct. As far as I can tell, there would be no financial gain for Matt or the BFRO if they released that info. In fact, it might cost them (somebody else makes the BIG discovery based on "his" data and provides a type specimen; thereby making a lot of money from the discovery). On one hand you have a financial interest and on the other you have a discovery interest. The two trails are not mutually exclusive, but more often than not, probably do not line up together. In my opinion (and it is opinion only), if you really want to solve the mystery, you put everything out there for others to use as well. And yes, I know that most almost all researchers do not publicize their information, so Matt is like the other 99.98% of researchers in that regard. 

 

Of course, if I were in Moneymaker's shoes, I might be doing exactly what he is doing. I certainly cannot blame him for making a decent living (I presume he makes a decent living from it) from the BFRO brand. Wish I had thought of it three decades ago. He has done an outstanding job of making the BFRO a brand that is well known, at least among a certain segment of the population. 

[Twist]

^^^ This right here.   Anyone that wants to complain about the BFRO database is more than welcome to do their own thing.    Easy to sit back and judge from our couches.     Post  too many bogus reports and your database is fluff.    Don’t post enough and your database is holding back.  Damned if they do, Damned if they don’t.    Guess it better to hold to your own beliefs and take the fluff from both sides.    Glass houses, stones, and all that mess.

 

Edit: my post was in response to MIB.   

Edited April 26, 2022 by Twist

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

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.........

 

........Sad but true..

 

Yeah, I believe that. Sad, indeed.

 

So we're probably seeing most of the good reports. 

[bipedalist]

@VAfooter 

Quote

...(somebody else makes the BIG discovery based on "his" data and provides a type specimen; thereby making a lot of money from the discovery)...

 

I would say spot on, possession is 9/10ths of the law, also passing the bar is 99% of being a lawyer and not a BF Org President. 

[norseman]

20 hours ago, VAfooter said:

 

Perhaps researchers in areas where he does not have his own. Maybe the locals have seen the same sort of stuff and it might be a piece of the puzzle that helps them out. Maybe not. In my view, worth a shot....

 

 

Correct. As far as I can tell, there would be no financial gain for Matt or the BFRO if they released that info. In fact, it might cost them (somebody else makes the BIG discovery based on "his" data and provides a type specimen; thereby making a lot of money from the discovery). On one hand you have a financial interest and on the other you have a discovery interest. The two trails are not mutually exclusive, but more often than not, probably do not line up together. In my opinion (and it is opinion only), if you really want to solve the mystery, you put everything out there for others to use as well. And yes, I know that most almost all researchers do not publicize their information, so Matt is like the other 99.98% of researchers in that regard. 

 

Of course, if I were in Moneymaker's shoes, I might be doing exactly what he is doing. I certainly cannot blame him for making a decent living (I presume he makes a decent living from it) from the BFRO brand. Wish I had thought of it three decades ago. He has done an outstanding job of making the BFRO a brand that is well known, at least among a certain segment of the population. 

I would prefer simple honesty to wild goose chases in the woods.

 

Don't produce bogus reports to carry some sort of narrative. Just say we don't share reports…

[WSA]

Got to give MM his due props, no matter what impression he might give.  The impression he gives to me though is of a guy trying to make his mark in a field through lots of hard work, while navigating through a minefield of personalities, all of whom are clamoring for attention and giving their opinions. His comparison of the sighting report process to putting a microphone/recorder on a random street corner and then expecting to get something useful from that information is pretty spot-on. Ask any BFF moderator about that, I'm sure.

 

I remember very well that one of the first searches I ever did on my first desktop I ever owned was, "Was the Patterson Film a Hoax"?  This led me straight to the BFRO database and I haven't stopped reading the reports yet.  Some of us here might have not even been born, or were too young to even be aware of it at the time, but the ability to compile and organize these sightings, and to make them accessible at the click of a button, was a paradigm shift of gargantuan proportions. I give much of the credit for that to Moneymaker.  Well, him and Al Gore of course.       

[BobbyO]

On 4/27/2022 at 12:03 AM, VAfooter said:

 

Should be fairly easy to shuffle all the bogus reports into the Quack folder. Label it as such. SSR could totally ignore those and still be OK. But you are correct, it could be a major headache for data folks.

 

I wouldn't wish doing that on anyone, the amount of hours it would take would be horrible and i think you'd need human eyes on it and not a filter.

 

Having ability like i have to see in, i personally think what they are doing is ok and am fine with the garbage they're not sharing publicly, but that's just me. 

[Huntster]

Actually, keeping and analyzing data on manufactured reports is just as much scientific as analyzing plausible reports. It would test Glickman's theories.

 

http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

 

 

 

[Hoekler73]

On 4/23/2022 at 8:31 PM, Explorer said:

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.

 

 

 

I have to agree it was an interesting interview, and the relaxed tone made it more of a conversation than a collection of sound bytes or a promotional piece for the BFRO/ Finding Bigfoot. It was an enjoyable interview to listen too, and I'd even say it was one of the better ones I've heard from Dixie Cryptid as well.

[Hoekler73]

On 4/24/2022 at 9:06 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.

Although I see your point about the number of reports not being released, the interview actually provides some perspective on this topic.

 

He states quite logically that they do not release reports till after they have been fully investigated. I'd imagine this would help greatly reduce the number of people interfering with an active investigation by flooding the area with people "sightseeing". They also reiterate that the BFRO Database, although public, is meant to first and foremost be a tool for actual serious investigstors.

 

I guess if an individual has that much interest in the unpublished reports, they could of course become a BFRO Investigator and be granted access to those reports.

[WanderingLorax]

I have a sighting report on file with the BFRO. At the time of the report, I thought that I was just leaving a note for someone to contact me. My descriptions were vague at best. I didn’t hear from anyone for a year or so. I had forgotten that I even filed a report by that time. 
Then one night I got a call from the researcher. He told that he almost didn’t call me because of how vague I was. I had a long, interesting talk with him that evening. And my sighting was added to the website. 
I have a feeling that the only reason he bothered calling was because it was a visual sighting. I would imagine that more than a few reports are poorly written by the hunt and peck method. I know mine was. 
 If anyone is interested, the report number is #27028. I see now that it is classified as a Class B. 

[ShadowBorn]

5 hours ago, WanderingLorax said:

I would imagine that more than a few reports are poorly written by the hunt and peck method. I know mine was. 

What is your meaning of the " Hunt and peck method " of writing a report.  I never even knew that their was a method of writing a report when someone has had a sighting. Yes,  a vague report could be looked over and not be reported and posted. If you said that you wrote your report vague. Then that must mean that you were not sure on what you saw.

5 hours ago, WanderingLorax said:

At the time of the report, I thought that I was just leaving a note for someone to contact me. My descriptions were vague at best. I didn’t hear from anyone for a year or so. I had forgotten that I even filed a report by that time. 

I did see how the BFRO have their Report sighting report set up. It is a process that might weed out people who want attention.  I am thinking as a investigator to go through all those reports . They could be just choosing what fits them as an actual sighting. This is why I said that your sighting might have not caught his eye since it was so vague in description. I am not sure that the researcher came to your report because it was a visual. There could have been another report that could have clicked back to your report.

 

That is the thing with the BFRO. That there is history in the BFRO reporting systems on these creatures. Matt was on to this. He needed the funding and he received it. Through his Bigfoot tours.  Now he has all this data coming into his website and not enough people to go through it. The tours is a very good way to judge people and teach people to become investigators for the BFRO. 

[WanderingLorax]

Hunt and peck refers to having to search for the letter you want on the keyboard and using your index fingers to type after you have found it. I can’t type. I’m better at it now, but far from efficient. This makes typing out a report very time consuming. That’s why I tend to keep things short. If I have a long reply or thread, know that it took me a while to complete it. You only have 30 minutes to type you report at the BFRO website. 
As for not being sure of what I saw, I knew what I saw.  I didn’t know how to type it out on another format and paste it in at the time. But, I see why you would think that. It’s a bad habit of mine to not take the time to explain what I want to get across in writing. I’m actually way better at it when writing with pen and paper.