All the opinions and accusations regarding the BFRO management and commercial ventures has gotten me thinking more about their database.

The organization has been collecting reports for 10 years or so, and probably at a faster rate than previous databases (like John Green's). I suspect that Green's is more accurate, because it was collected in a different manner. BFRO's, in a volunteered emailed format, might attract more prank reports than Green's did, but I think it still has great merit as a collection of reports.

John Green's database has been collected over a 40 year or so period, and thus, isn't digitized yet. As I understand it, he is in the process of digitizing it, but admits that it is a tremendous amount of work inputting it, and he admits slowing down with age (I certainly understand that!).

I think such databases in a searchable, sortable electronic database program is a tremendous tool. It can provide the ability to quickly show trends in locations, times, dates, possible movement/migrations, etc.

The Green and BFRO databases are private property. I'm hoping that these precious tools aren't lost to dedicated researchers and investigators. From what I've read, Mr. Green is a very intelligent and cooperative man, and I suspect he has made plans to insure that his database will be available to someone he trusts.

I'm not so sure about the BFRO database. I'm hoping it can survive any internal organizational problems and continue to collect data in the manner in which it was set up.

I also suspect that since it collects data in electronic form, it is inputted into a searchable, sortable database, and thus is already in a format which enables quick, easy analysis.

Any thoughts, especially from those close to Mr. Green and BFRO?

I agree Hunster. I think that the BFRO database is great and is a valubale tool.

I hope that Mr. Green's database is acessible to the public. That would be a dream come true.

The BFRO has a great database, with no doubt. Some reports could be handled better and some shouldn't hold a Class A standing IMO. Regardless what people think about the BFRO and its current problems, that is the only thing that holds water, and keeps the org a float.

Sean

Perhaps counterintuitively, the BFRO database has proven to be extremely useful to my statistical research for precisely that reason.

Sure would!!!

C'mon........

Dont you guys find it odd the number of type A reports on that thing. If there were that many, the thing would be found by now.

perhaps?

i have said this before but if an org like the bfro or other large groups are going to pay for the bandwith for the database's i would also like to have a page or access to an area where all the reports they dont classify.i wouldnt mind paying a small ammount to access these reports. it would be interesting to see why an investigator didnt classify a report. jmo

i also hope we dont come to a day where these are lost.

i also think it would be a great idea to have access to a copy of the databases. i would pay for a copy on cd or dvd. it would save the huge job of copying it your self. if your allowed?

Hunster wrote:


Let me just add something to this...
For those of you who learned about Bigfoot/Sasquatch through groups like the BFRO by way of the internet..I would like to enter this caveat with regards to John Green's report files.

First;
Submitted reports from others were not written up like BFRO reports..with follow-ups etc.
There was no internet back then..and computers for home use still only appeared in children's shows like The Jetsons!
People like John Green and Dahinden and their peers (did they have any?) lived in a world of phone conversations..face to face interviews..postage stamps and travel restrictions. There was nothing at their fingertips unless they painstakingly created it themselves.

Second:
Many reports in John Green's database are sightings mailed to John from all over the PNW...and elsewhere in the US and Canada. These could take on the form of newspaper articles and clippings from magazines.
Everywhere that the name Sasquatch or Bifgoot appeared someone would somehow make sure that a copy got to John Green.

Third:
Many of these reports are only a paragraph or two long....some only a few sentences. Back in those days you had to take what was available. Of course as you rise up from the 50's into the 60's and 70's and 80's..the reports flesh out more.
Of the more thorough reports, were those which John Green himself, investigated

Probably the more critical minded will find those submitted reports ( which for one reason or another not followed up on by John Green. ) on the wanting side. Because they have been weaned on paragraphs and paragraphs of detailed information of sightings a'la BFRO and such

Personally I find them ( John Green's collection of sightings ) very exciting to read..if for nothing else then their historical value.
The details of the submitted reports might not be there in the amounts needed today to form an opinion as to whether or not a report is true. but you do come away with the idea..why would any of these witnesses have a reason to lie. And to hold themselves up to ridicule.
Many of these people who made these reports were sober, clear headed respected members of society. A person's word meant more back in those days.

John Green by anyone's opinion a masterful interviewer..and collector of Sasquatch information over the decades. I would just advise anyone not to look at his achievement through the eyes of a BFRO database burning, keyboard jockey! You will not be fulfilled.

As for me? I get all tingly reading anything from his data base! :notworthy:

Maybe someone Like Rick Noll..who has seen a great deal more of john Green's reports could explain it better then myself..

Part of what I do for a living is database administration. Some key things to remember when dealing with databases;

The record is only as good as the data that went in it.

I fear that the BFRO, in their rush to have as much 'evidence' as possible may allow more into their database than they prohibit. You can often go to several sites and read the same reports. Which brings me to my next point;

Duplication of records leads to innaccurate record sets.

Ideally, you would want stringent controls on this. The orgs should communicate amongst themselves to discuss submitted reports to prevent this. Of course, I doubt this is likely to happen. :-)

A classification system is a good idea, but too broad and you include a lot of extraneous info..too narrow and you miss a lot. And finally;

Reports that are deemed suspicious or unsubstantiated should never be included in a research database. Period. Place them in their own 'suspicious or unsubstantiated' DB, outside of the primary research DB.

I know the orgs all have reports in their DB's that are suspicious or unsupported by facts. Heck, a lot of them end up posted here :-)

I could'nt agree more Sean...most of their report are done with a follow-up.

hi everyone i think the gcbro database and tbrc database about sasquatch are good but some of the sightings there need serious follow up to them in my opinion. thanks bill green

It was John Greens and Rene Dahindens collections of reports that hooked myself. Even if alot of their "data base" has not been confirmed or investigated there is an old saying, "where there is smoke, there is fire".

Bitter Monk suggested using a leeching program if anyone was that concerned about the databases. I've never heard of one of those, so I guess I'll sit on the sidelines and wait for the fall out. :rolleyes: