Class 4: Questionable

This classification applies to sound or vocalization-only reports, with no corroborating evidence, and to second-hand reports. While the observer(s) may be reliable, the possibility of misinterpreting outdoor sounds and nocturnal vocalizations can be great. These reports will not be made available for public review, but they will remain in the TBRC database as Class 4 reports.

That's the way it's gotten. Used to be that sound-only reports weren't even published, even if it was a screaming-banshee vocal, but now someone could trip over a pile of crap in the woods, claim bigfoot left it there, and it'd get published.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, did it take one or two BF to knock it over?

Things seemed to have changed a lot, or perhaps gradually over time. Any theories on what made things head towards that direction? I don't know any of the key characters well enough to make a valid comment on it.

...I have read on here that the "mass exodus" occured around 2005...

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, did it take one or two BF to knock it over?

The " Commercialization of Bigfoot" section at the Squatchopedia entry for the BFRO briefly addresses the departures.

I've got this can.
It's called "Whoop Ass."
I don't know what to do with it.

Sir Ken Robinson said:

If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong ?

I've got this can.
It's called "Whoop Ass."
I don't know what to do with it.

I ask my wife this question and she said "yes"

I've got this can.
It's called "Whoop Ass."
I don't know what to do with it.

Encouraging people to report bigfoot sightings over hearing a falling tree years ago, makes me turn away. and never look back. See ya BFRO. ;-)

(Phone rings, call is answered.)

Matt: "Hello"

Norcal: "Hi, is this Matt from the BFRO?"

Matt: "Uh, yea, can I help you?"

Norcal: "Yes, I'd like to report several hundred thousand bigfoot sightings."

(Conversation carries on for several minutes.)

Matt: "Wow, Norcal, so everywhere you've logged throughout your life must be a bigfoot hotspot."

(Dial tone)

(Phone rings, call is answered.)

Norcal: "Yes, I'd like to report several hundred thousand bigfoot sightings."

(Conversation carries on for several minutes.)

Matt: "Wow, Norcal, so everywhere you've logged throughout your life must be a bigfoot hotspot."

(Dial tone)

I know this response probably runs against the anti-BFRO grain of many on this forum but I don't see any problem with the admin recommending the filing of a report based on the tree fall incident. I don't think the admin was suggesting that when a tree falls a Bigfoot must have caused it. That's just ridiculous. I think the admin was taking his cue from the reaction of the residents; displaying unorthodox fear to the tree fall and mentioning to their guests that it was a Bigfoot. I think he suspected, due to other BF reports from that area, that the homeowners may have their own familiarity with BF activity and that the opportunity to explore that possibility shouldn’t be lost. In fact, in making the recommendation to file the report the admin stated “a noise that long ago might not mean much, but they could have 'more to the story' with interesting experiences before and after." I’m not responding to this post simply to defend the BFRO but to address what are clearly unfair allegations against their admin. As in any scientific research, such open indications of bias, prejudice and personal vendetta severely discredit the fruits of the research. I’m an equal opportunity Squatcher. I’ve got no axe to grind and no favorites to play. I’m just pointing out the truth as I see it.

' I’m just pointing out the truth as I see it.

Cool, and fair enough. If you think a falling tree years ago constitutes a sighting report, and that I'm being unfair in calling them out on it you are free to do so. I still think its rediculous. It seems to be an ongoing trend lately with the BFRO reports. To me it just shows how a self proclaimed "scientific" organization, is far from it. Reports made of this nature are useless in all meanings of the word. What exactly was unfair, biased or prejudice about this in your mind? Please tell me how this thread has in any way "severely discredited" anything. I would like to suggest that its their actions that discredit themselves. Not the other way around.
The original thread was linked to. The information is there for anyone to read and decide for themselves. How were any "clearly unfair allegations made?

Riverrun said “If you think a falling tree years ago constitutes a sighting report...”

I clearly don’t think that, as mentioned in my post when I said “I don't think the admin was suggesting that when a tree falls a Bigfoot must have caused it. That's just ridiculous.”

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHHHHHHH

Posted: March 9th, 2009 10:21 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this report especially interesting. We have friends that live in Anne Arundel county. Pasadena, Maryland. In August 2003, we were visiting with them at their home. We were sitting on the back deck talking about 9 or 10 pm. The deck backed up to a wooded area. All of a sudden from the woods there was a tremendous crashing sound. It was so loud, everybody ran for the sliding glass door to get inside. Our friend, Jim, said jokingly, "ah, don't worry, it's probably just Bigfoot". His wife became really terrified and began locking all the inside doors and didn't want anyone to go back outside. Now, these people had lived there for over 20 years and Jim is retired military, not a guy too afraid of anything. It was odd to me that this sound was so frightening to them. I now regret that I didn't question them about the comment and why they felt that way. I looked on google maps and this report is very close to their home and it sparked this memory for me. I never reported it bcause it was so inconclusive and could have been anything, but it was LOUD and scary. Sorry story is so long, I just felt the need to share this. If it would help the cause I'll post it. Maybe the Admins. could let me know. Thanks, Nancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby, some have entertained angels, unawares" Hebrews 13:2.






ssm129
Approved


Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 441

Posted: March 9th, 2009 11:43 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy: Your story is very interesting. What exacly did the crashing sound like? Was it trees falling over, bushes being uprooted, etc?

I wonder if your friends ever SAW or HEARD anything that would lead them to rush inside and lock the doors like that. You have to ask them and let us all know Now you have piqued my interest.






nancyg
Approved


Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 89

Posted: March 9th, 2009 12:31 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually ssm, it happened in August 2006. We had been there in '03 but that's not when it happened, it was '06. Thank goodness for my husband's memory!

The sound was like a large tree falling, but very close to the house in the woods. It was not windy, because I don't like wind, so I would not have been outside if it was windy. I just found the reaction of our friends so strange, how scared they were by it and why mention Bigfoot? My husband and I have decided to call them soon and ask them if they remember the incident and what they thought. I remember it being very loud and we all jumped. Now, like I said, they have lived there a long time and used their deck almost year round. Had they never heard anything like this before? When we get to talk to them, I'll ask them about sightings and sounds and if there is something of interest to us, I'll decide with the help of the Admin. if it's worth posting. I also wish we would have investigated the woods the next day, but they had so much planned for our visit, we just never thought about it, darn!!! It's funny how that report triggered this, because I really haven't thought about it since it happened. We'll see. BTW there were 6 witnesess to this, myself, my husband, our friends , their grown son and his girlfriend at the time. The women all ran for the door and their son, a big, strapping 25 year old, nearly knocked us over trying to get in the house. Comical now when I think about it, but at the time is was scary!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby, some have entertained angels, unawares" Hebrews 13:2.






Bossburg
Administrator


Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1556

Posted: March 9th, 2009 01:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nancyg: Your friends could place a report with the BFRO. That way an investigator could, with their permission, visit the location if applicable. A noise that long ago might not mean much, but they could have 'more to the story' with interesting experiences before and after.

Here's the link to the sighting report form:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/submitfm.asp

Thanks,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bossburg

I don't and never claimed to see anything in the subject posting that presents evidence of a "Sasquatch Sighting." Maybe the landowners have experienced some level of Sasquatch activity which may be inferred from the posting but I never claimed there was a sighting. I've already exhaustively detailed why I think the posting is worthy of follow-up research and that fact alone would justify the submission of a report. Let's be clear about one thing in particular, the submission of a report doesn't mean it's going to automatically be posted on the BFRO website. It only means that one of their investigators (typically in the region from which the reported activity originated) is going to contact the person who submitted the report and try to gather additional information so that they can evaluate the value and credibility of the report. If the report is deemed to contain sufficient indicia of likely BF activity then it will be labeled accordingly and possibly posted on the website. If not, then the information gathered in the whole report process stays somewhere (archives?) where their investigators/members can refer to it for whatever value it may lend to future BF research in that area or as a whole. At least that's how I understand that organization to function with regard to reports. I've explained myself three times already. Do you have any explanation for your stance that the posted information is unworthy of further investigation or follow-up other than “it was only a tree fall?” Heck, if I even know of anyone who lives in the proximate vicinity of other BF reports I'm gonna be curious if they've ever heard or seen anything. You’re make that level of curiosity sound ludicrous and there’s more than just proximity to go on here.

So basically you wanna bitch about someone calling them out, but you cant point out exactly what in those posts justifies any sort of sighting report. Uh, ok.

I suspect that some of the animosity felt towards the BFRO stems from the fact that they have some of the better toys in squatching .....

I presented the reason why the admin suggested that a report be made when I said "I think the admin was taking his cue from the reaction of the residents; displaying unorthodox fear to the tree fall and mentioning to their guests that it was a Bigfoot. I think he suspected, due to other BF reports from that area, that the homeowners may have their own familiarity with BF activity and that the opportunity to explore that possibility shouldn't be lost." (Taken directly from my post.)

"Jim, said jokingly, "ah, don't worry, it's probably just Bigfoot". His wife became really terrified and began locking all the inside doors and didn't want anyone to go back outside. Now, these people had lived there for over 20 years and Jim is retired military, not a guy too afraid of anything. It was odd to me that this sound was so frightening to them." "I looked on google maps and this report (referring to a class B on the website) is very close to their home." (Taken directly from the subject post.)

The landowner's comment begs the question of why attribute the tree fall to bigfoot? The landowner's conduct of displaying terror in front of house guests and locking all the doors and preventing anyone from going outside, also begs the question, what is she so terrified of? Throw in the fact that this event transpired in an area of previous reports of BF activity and that leads to the presumption that these landowners may have had their own history of BF experiences and activity and that my friends is worthy of further inquiry.

Admin later posts "maybe he would explain why he mentioned Bigfoot when he heard that noise. You know how people tend to say truthful things but claim they are joking at the time? Well, maybe that was the case. It's possible your friend DOES know more." (Taken directly from the subject post.) I think this was an astute psychological analysis by the admin. I agree completely with this. Why joke about bigfoot after an event like this? Because naming the object of the fear helps to diffuse the tension and fear of the person making the joke.

Another poster then comments that "things said in jest during "stressful" situations usually give a way a little on what’s going through a persons mind." (Exactly)

Ok, are you all with me so far? Well, add this evidence all up and you have enough reasonable probability to believe that those landowners have an inordinate fear of BF that may have been derived from local activity that it is worth further inquiry. I don't think that conclusion is unreasonable. You are entitled to think it is. I also think your opinion would be different if it was your buddy telling you about this event and not a posting on the BFRO. I'm not picking on anyone because they disagree with me concerning what constitutes evidence worthy of further investigation. I was calling out Riverrun for how I believe he misrepresented the subject posting, including the admin's response, and I was making the point that such obvious bias doesn't help the BF cause.

I suspect that some of the animosity felt towards the BFRO stems from the fact that they have some of the better toys in squatching (regularly posted reports, an organized and searchable database of reports, google earth overlays, organized expeditions...etc). When I was a kid, some friends had cooler toys than I did or than my other friends did. Sometimes the friend with the cooler toys didn't always play how we wanted to play. But too bad. They were his toys. We didn't spend our time bad mouthing our friend about it. So the admin over at the BFRO makes a judgment call that you all might disagree with. Fair enough. But if you are going to misrepresent the basis for his decision and call him lame and go off on him and his toys, well, I'm gonna call foul. Just like I'd do over at his forum if someone pulls the same stunt on Riverrun or any of you guys here. The reasons why I'm willing to say something is because it's more than a game to me; I'm passionate about the subject of BF. I'm trying to do my part to improve the perception of BF in the eyes of the other undecided fellas watching us play.

the closest one (about 10 feet away) was holding a piece of metal from the heicopter and stood on 2 legs at least 7 1/2 feet tall, covered in hair except for the face, which looked like a chimp, the one behind him(15 feet away) was dragging part of the pilot's body from the wreckage, he (or she) was larger than the first one, however it was stooped while dragging the body. My estimate was over 8 feet tall with the same facial features. I only saw the 3rd one briefly 40 feet away as it was fleeing.

"It was 2 o'clock in the morning and the moon was a quarter full," recalled Moneymaker. "Suddenly, there he was, an eight-foot-tall creature, standing 15 feet away, growling at me. He wanted to let me know I was in the wrong place."

I suspect that some of the animosity felt towards the BFRO stems from the fact that they have some of the better toys in squatching

Hi

I am pretty sure i have posted at least 50 times of more that i like the BFRO reports, There part of the whole BF thing for me, Ya got to read em and weed out the good and the bad, I don't get into the who is who and all that stuff cause to me there just another bunch of folks putting out what they seem to be a good product,
What i do seem to have a bit of a problem with and it has an effect on credibility is the fact that there also selling a product and that pretty much in my book is called a business, And that to me automatically puts them in a questionable category . . There lies the problem cause the conflict of interest is all over the place.

Peace
Tim

Yeah I'm skeptical of that Georgia report as well for many reasons, including those you mention. But no matter where I go on the internet to read sighting reports I'll always find reports that rank pretty low on my personal credibility scale. How do we know if any of them are true anyway? In the final analysis all BF reports can't amount to more than entertainment value and we all perform our own value judgments of the credibility of each report we read. Some sites seem to screen their reports better than others. The way I look at it, the BFRO does as good a job as it can with the resources it has. I suspect that even those that don't like the BFRO still go there to read the reports posted because in general they are a worthwhile read. As far as Matt, I've never met him or spoke to him but the BFRO is his baby and he can do with it as he wants. I'm pretty grateful to him for putting the effort in that he does and providing us all with all the reports, searchable database....etc.

The whole point of that post was to ask the question why. Why publish something you can debunk in a read through, or claim it was investigated and look for corroborating evidence when its obviously someones "story" and not a genuine sighting? Why?
This is right from the head of their organization. Also, why not publish your own sighting? Why ban people for asking about it? Why publish reports where someone "heard thrashing in the bushes" and no other corroborating evidence other than rustling leaves. (yes it has been done, i could refer you to a few if need be)
Why publish obviously useless or bogus reports? Why when you have a website dedicated to publishing sasquatch sightings do you avoid publishing your own sighting?
I'd really love to hear your perspective on that, as a supporter of the BFRO.