Why the lack of responsiveness from the BFRO?

I’ve seen several insinuations (or even outright accusations) that the BFRO is not responsive to outside input, whether it be a helpful suggestion or outright criticism. In one sense, these claims are correct. In another, they are uninformed and misguided.

I’m sure many of you have submitted comments to the BFRO website, perhaps even a report. Maybe you’ve gotten a response. Maybe you haven’t heard anything and you have wondered why.

The first reason is the sheer volume of submissions. I went through all the reports and comments submitted in 2004 and came up with these staggering numbers.

2,453 reports were submitted to the BFRO website in 2004. That's an average of 6 to 7 report submissions (including junk) each day.

1,869 comments were also submitted last year, or an average of about 5 comments each day.

Throw in the myriad of threads, phone calls, e-mails, PMs, etc. and the demand for some kind of interaction with investigators boggles the mind.

Everyone in the organization earns their keep some other way. They also presumably have a life outside of investigation. Even our most flexible and determined investigators can only close a few reports or respond to a few comments each week.

The second reason is that every investigator is not given free reign to do whatever they want with the website or the reports—for better or for worse. For example, if there is a problem someone has with a particular report that is not mine, the most I can personally do is notify the investigator of the report. If they don’t want to respond to whatever input is provided, that’s their prerogative. Going over someone’s head and editing or even removing their report steps on a few toes as you might imagine. Very few people in the BFRO are granted the authority to second-guess the judgment of other investigators. That policy has its plusses and minuses.

The website is also subject to those same conditions. Very few people can change things on the website. Sometimes, broader input and review is sought from all BFRO members regarding what is posted, sometimes it’s not. Again, the most I can do as an investigator is notify the people who can do something about it. Beyond that, it’s out of my hands.

The BFRO is often viewed as an entity with a single mind, sort of a homogeneous, monolithic institution. In reality, we are a collection of individuals, and we all bring different skills and knowledge to the group. We all have different responsibilities accorded to us. We don’t always agree on everything (surprise, surprise), and I would certainly like to see many things be different. But, for the most part, this motley crew has done OK for itself.

Nicely put Jud.

Jud, any idea what percentage of these reports are by members adding previously reported incidents to the database, and what percentage are completely new reports?

RayG

I guess the X factor is the number of BFRO members.

If they are overwhelmed it is thier own fault. I can think of 4 people that I have talked to in the last month who are bigfoot investigators. They do have applicable expertise in their profession that would be within the BFRO's expectations. These people also spend a lot of time in the field aggressively seeking answers. All 4 people have made themselves available to the BFRO to serve in one role or another within the past 2 years. The BFRO's response was either "thanks, but no thanks.", or no response at all.

Having BFRO members overwhelmed does not benefit anyone or the study.

Very well said Jud.....I think I should state for the record that I was very happy with how the BFRO handled the case here in Vigo County once all the facts were brought to light. You guys do a great job with what you have available to you (limited resources and limited time to utilize those resources in). You all deserve a very hearty thanks from all the rest of the BF enthusiast community. I hope you all know we appreciate all that you guys (and gals) do for this field.

My experience with the BFRO has been positive in every way,
this BFRO member was professional, responded in a timely manner ( not a resent report either!) My guess he spent several hours of his time on this. I was offered help in the future if needed and they were just a phone call away.
Thanks again

Thanks for the kind words Texan, it's great to hear about positive experiences. People just don't realize how much time and effort is put into trying fo follow up on reports.

In one months time, I placed over one hundred calls to individuals throughout WA, OR, ID and British Columbia, Canada. Racked up a phone bill of well over 250 dollars and stack of gas recipects of 240 dollars. There is much more involved in doing follow up investigations that others don't realize.

As a curator, I see the other investigators putting in the same time I did, the money, all for what, to listen to people that took the time and effort to try and find someone that would believe them, what they saw, heard or smelled.

As a first timer years ago, I never told anyone about what I saw because of the negative feedback that I would receive from it. Now, I look forward to helping others understand that they are not crazy, there is something out there, and they will not be laughed at when retelling of their encounter. Sure there are numberous idiot reports telling us to get real lives, bigfoot was hanging out our yard last nite and got high with us. It's my postion within the BFRO to try and weed out the false reports and publish the credible ones.

It takes alot out of you. the calls, the travel. But when you do connect with witnesses, it is wonderful. To see that relief lifted from there shoulders after the barrage of questions and walk throughs of the sites.

That's right I chose to do this, I should not complain and I am not. Just trying to show the rest of the folks here that are waiting for their call after submitting a report. Give us time, we will get to you. I do this with all the extra time that I have. If you need someone right away, I can be contacted here... I have always stated myself as BFRO in some threads, always defended them and mostly defended myself from the armchairs.

It's been a good couple of years and look forward to the additional experiences.

Jud's comments are good enough for me.
I think the BFRO and the TBRC are the best things going for bf research, right now. Others are doing a good job. But then again, some are crackpots!

All that great info...is there any way, or plans to find a way, to cull through it for a specific data search? At some point the info will become so overwhelming that it will be moot to try to retrofit a searchable database. Hmmm, as I write I'm assuming you probably have one just for members, no?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean Ray, but I'll try to respond.

Very few reports are duplicate reports. Sometimes, a witness will submit a report twice just because of a technical glitch. It's pretty obvious when that happens, and the duplicate is categorized as unusable. I'd say only 1% to 2% of reports are duplicates.

If you mean what % of reports are older reports (like the Ape Canyon incident) and are added by members instead of directly by witnesses, I don't have a good feel for that. The vast majority of reports published these days are submitted directly by witnesses.

I hope that answers your question.

The number of members isn't the real measure here. It's not a matter of counting up the number of reports and comments and dividing by the lines on a roster. We have members, both curators and investigators, who have duties other than responding to reports and comments.

Jimmy Chilcutt, for example, is a curator. His expertise is in dermatoglyphics. No one expects him to respond to reports and comments, but that doesn't mean he isn't valuable to the organization.

We have investigators whose primary role is editing. Before reports or other website pieces are published, they are subjected to the red pen of our editors. They take care of polishing the investigator comments in reports, so that there aren't any glaring problems with spelling and grammar. They also remove report information that would identify the witness or the exact location if the witness wants that kept confidential. That task alone keeps them plenty busy, I assure you.

Just to use myself as another example, I haven't published a report since September. I have been spearheading other initiatives. If you were to ask people like Fishbone, ARsquatch, and Hairy Man if I've been a slacker because I'm not currently publishing, I'm fairly sure they would say no.

Of course, we also have investigators and curators who are primarily responsible for responding to comments, speaking to witnesses, and investigating and publishing reports. Sometimes things come up in their lives that require they take a break from the BFRO for a while. Unemployment, new baby, serious illness, family death.... every circumstance is different. Life doesn't stop going 100 mph just because one is in the BFRO.

Being a volunteer organization, individual investigators are expected primarily to self-monitor and self-motivate. Each person knows how much they can take on given their personal situation. We aren't paying anybody for this either, so investigators have to find their rewards for investigation in the work itself. A number of people who couldn't self-motivate and didn't know how to take the initiative on their own have come into the BFRO like powerhouse investigators only to fade away after losing their initial enthusiasm.

Occassionally, the BFRO does assess how it's doing with reports and comments, and investigators are prompted to do more when possible. No one likes to be the bad guy telling people to straighten up and pick up the pace, and folks can get a little prickly when they feel that someone is nagging them, whether they deserve it or not. There are only so many carrots and sticks a volunteer org can employ.

As far as adding new investigators, that's a tough one. I can tell you that a premium is placed on trust. There have been some investigators admitted to the organization who were later found to be engaging in behavior that can only be described as unethical.

After a few high profile incidents like that, the curators became very wary of adding investigators too quickly. Once bitten, twice shy. A freeze on new investigators was in place for a good amount of time while the organization reassessed the process of screening and admitting new investigators.

That process is still being discussed and worked out. However, I can say a few things that are certainly mentioned frequently by members. No matter what their qualifications, it is very important that someone in the BFRO know the person and can vouch for them. New investigators may also have a period where they are volunteers working reports with only a preliminary level of access. The expeditions also provide an opportunity for us to get to know folks we would not meet otherwise. If investigators or curators have any reservations regarding a potential investigator, their concerns are taken seriously.

The BFRO also tries to recruit investigators specifically for areas of the country where there isn't an investigator presence. If someone is a non-BFRO Oregon investigator who wants to work Oregon reports, Oregon reports are already mostly covered by current investigators. Having a new Oregon investigator work reports in South Carolina can be done, but usually both the investigator and the curators prefer that people live in their area of investigation. Familiarity with a region goes a long way in allowing one to assess reports.

Given all those factors, I'm sure you'll understand why I find comments like this one to be unwarranted:



I hope that helps.

There are some additional database tools available internally to BFRO members. I think improved querying functionality is something that everyone, BFRO or not, would benefit from.

I don't see it happening any time soon, but it is on the to-do list.

hi everyone i was just at the bfro website they just put a great update about their resent expedition to nm. so check it out. bill green ct sasquatch researcher..

DITTO-

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I am pro BFRO and I am just an outsider looking in.

I will just use my own observations as an example. Reports of late coming from Indiana have had Dr. Farhenbach doing follow ups. Three of the four people that I mentioned live in Indiana. I think they are qualified to do follow up's, which would give Dr. Farhenbach time to use his expertise on other BFRO related issues.

In the long run I know my comments mean nothing. I am glad that the BFRO exists and has kept it's integrity.

No problem, GF. I'm all for a greater local BFRO investigator presence in the mid-West and the Great Plains.

A new investigator in Illinois was recently added. That state and the surrounding states (like Indiana) are now getting some much needed attention, as some of you might have noticed. That investigator wasn't known to us until he attended one of the expeditions.

You'll notice that this year there are some East Coast expeditions. That will allow the BFRO a chance to get to know local researchers in areas where we could really use them. Maybe one of your friends will end up going to one.

Expeditions aren't the only channel to becoming an investigator, so let's please not get into that buying-your-way-into-the-BFRO garbage. However, they do allow Matt Moneymaker to speak with interested persons extensively over the phone and during the expedition. That process is immensely valuable to him as he considers new investigators and whether they would be appropriate for the BFRO.

Goof,

First, you keep bringing up these people you know that want to be BFRO. Do you know if these people have submitted requests? If they have and haven't gotten a response, tell them to re-submit a short profile to the BFRO. As a side, the BFRO does not pull people in without getting to know them first. We have been burned severely by people who sound terrific on paper but seem to be another person when we start working with them.


As for Dr. Fahrenbach. Just try to tell him NOT to take reports! Geez, the guy likes doing it and has the time! Why take that pleasure away from him?

Redwolf

Boy, have we ever....

hi everyone wow thats great the bfro are finaly doing expeditions on the eastcoast. maybe they will do one in connecticut i hope. bill green

that would be me.

John,

I know there were some real differences between you and Matt, and you had your share of frustrations. However, IMHO, you are certainly not among the people that I had in mind as having burned the BFRO.

Have you been vocal about the concerns which resulted in your departure? Yes.

Have you been malicious and destructive? No.

I respect that.

To be fair, the BFRO MAY be one of the best organized research orgs out there, but they're far from perfect.

Two recent examples of that are:

1. The "Seige at Honobia" incident. I've read everything I could find about this, from BOTH sides of the issue. I read all of the incarnations of the official report I could find, and watched as it was edited down and edited down and finally turned into a hollow shell of the original report.

I found it interesting that as the report was scaled back, the amount of complaining on the part of the BFRO researchers grew in direct proportion. At first, even Matt M was all over it, implying that "this could be it" (ie, the incident that finally produced concrete proof). But the more the family refused to cooperate with BFRO's agenda (to establish a research operation), the less enthusiastic the BFRO became about the situation.

In the end, the "final report" ( read a copy over at ABF) made it sound like this was "much ado" about essentually nothing, and there was a lot of (implied) blame placed on the family for that.

For Timberghost's part, he expressed his displeasure at the BFRO response several times. Each time he was met with not only increasing questions not only about his attitude, but his credibility as well. This continued to escallate until finally he withdrew from the discussion, which was interpreted by the BFRO supporters as "proof" of his unreliability (ironic since even BFRO admitted there was ample evidence of BF activity in and around the property).

2. What happened to my friend MissouriBeliever. The researcher who contacted his boss and 'outed' him could very well have cost him his job. I know that the researcher has reportedly denied having done so (as has been stated by Hairry Man), among others, but I also know that MB told me directly that "He (MBs boss) told me (MB) that some guy called from a 'bigfoot research organization' about a sighting on my (MBs) property..." MB did NOT say anything to his boss previously. There is no way his boss could have known unless the researcher told him (directly or indirectly).

That to me is just not professional.


And that's just TWO cases where the BFRO fails to live up to its rep. Anyone who's read these forums knows there are more questions about it and it's operations than that. But anyone who isn't a BFRO booster seems to inevitably be marginalized as somehow not being reliable...

So, what's your point? If the "family" decided to refuse to allow the BFRO to establish a research operation, why the hell should the BFRO remain enthusiastic about the "situation"? Last time I looked the BFRO was a RESEARCH group. Would it have done any good to persue the matter when, according to you, they had been told thanks but no thanks by the "family"? It doesn't sound like the BFRO was the one who dropped the ball on that one, IMO.

I see you're still beating a dead horse on the situation with your buddy MB. The questions that were asked in the "other" thread have never been answered, though it does sound like MB is getting his memory back now on what was supposedly said to his boss. Hummmm. Once again, if he didn't want his work finding out what he was reporting, why would he leave that number as a call back number. Do you honestly blame the BFRO for that mistake on MB's part?

I am in no way saying that the BFRO is perfect, and yes mistakes are made. It just seems like it's easier to throw the blame at them in situations like this rather than take any of the blame for his error.

hi mulder i just reported my sighting of a sasquatch to the bfro a couple days ago. i figure its going to take time for them to contact me about it. im very patient. bill green.

1. My point is that the less the family let BFRO "run the show" the more BFRO tended to disparge their credibility (or at least "damn them with faint praise"). I've read TGs version of events, and the investigators were VERY peremptory with him and his relatives in one moment, then the next refusing to even get off the porch when "the show" started. They refused to gather potential evidence (from the blood trail). They left TG and his relative in the bushes with angry 'squatches about when they were SUPPOSED to be watching their backs.

Why was none of THIS in the "official" report? If the BFRO is truly as objective and scientific as it claims, it would not "massage the facts" to make them look good and the family bad just because they didn't agree with the org's objectives.

2. MB DID answer everything asked of him. The confusion around some of his statements arose primarily because people were taking different posts about different points in time and getting their order confused.

But, in the end, like TG, he got piled on because he didn't wholeheartedly embrace the prevailing "research uber alles" mindset that seems to rule here. For that reason and that reason alone, he was labled a "fraud".

My $.02...

Frankly, it makes no difference to me what the BFRO do with their reports or comments - I simply don't think it is important any more.

This thread is about explaining what’s behind a lack of response from the BFRO. That’s not the case in either of the instances you are citing.

I sought out the investigator who contacted Missouri Believer and posted in that thread regarding what he told me about the call. You also spoke to Hairy Man about it, and, presumably, also about the expeditions. That constitutes a response, even if it is not satisfactory to you.

Timberghost also got a response. It was just different from what he wanted.

Threads already exist regarding both of these matters. In one of them, you said you would no longer post about it.



Apparently, it just applies to that thread.

You are still trying to paint the BFRO with a broad brush. Every report, every contact, every field investigation, every website piece is the primary responsibility of one person in every instance. We do coordinate and work as a team in many instances, but even then there is always one person who is primarily responsible. Who that is depends on the instance. Sometimes it might be just the investigator making the phone call. Sometimes it might be Matt Moneymaker.

Regardless of whether the criticism is merited or not, you are still condemning many based on interactions with a few.

I’ve done what I could to address your concerns. I’m sorry that’s not sufficient for you.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I've contributed some reports to the BFRO myself,

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=62
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=63
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=64
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=65
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=66

and was trying to get a feel for how many of those 2,453 reports were contributions of older reports that had not been followed up by the BFRO.

RayG

Two points:

1. Re MB: He said NOTHING to his boss about bigfoot. How then did his boss know? Your "response" continues to beg the question, at best, and essentially calls MB A liar without using the words. I tried to come up with some alternate scenario as to how the boss could have gotten that information (ie, call-id, etc) and have been informed that is not an option.

That leaves either MB or the BFRO guy as the source for the info. MB denies that it is him. He has NO reason to lie about it. That leaves the BFRO guy. Maybe it was an accident, and he just didn't remember "the script" or something, I don't know and can't speak to that. But all trails point back to him.

2. For the record, I am not saying that the entire BFRO organization is worthless. Indeed, I peruse the BFRO site for new reports on a regular basis. They are well organized (as far as I can see) and are doing valuable work.

They DO also have a "dark side", however, one that seems to come to the fore whenever they are questioned or criticized, or when a reportee doesn't see things their way. Timberghost got a good dose of that, IMO. MB was well on his way to getting it too, but he left before things got worse than they did.

There's no shame in making mistakes. People do it all the time. But when BFRO makes a mistake, it always seems to come down on everyone around the situation BUT the BFRO.

I know I should've just kept my mouth shut. This conversation's gone about the way I expected it would. But after nearly a page of people essentailly giving the org a "pass" on some of its practices, I just couldn't keep quiet any more.

I know you don't give a rat's a** what I think, but I'm gonna say this anyways: this sort of thing is why more people who have experiences with our large hairy associate don't come forward. As it stands, I wouldn't recommend anyone who had a significant event happening (like Timberghost's) to come to the BFRO for help unless they were prepared to basically turn themselves entirely over to BFRO direction for the duration.

How many people do you REALLY think are prepared to do that? And are you (the org) willing to loose the opportunity to gain information by maintaining that attitude? You didn't get as much as you wanted at Honobia, but you could have gotten a lot more than you did.

Likewise with MB, by your actions, you cost yourselves information you COULD have had with just a little more care and discretion.

If I were a "pro" BF researcher, I'd be saddened by that thought.

Huh, that's funny, from what I understand the Kiamichi guys were shooting into the dark at all times of the day and night, hence the need for law enforcement to get involved, and the researchers hesitancy to investigate in the surrounding area.

Of course, it was theorized this same gunfire is what attracted the sasquatch in the first place, they learned to associate this with food. Amazingly this overcame the natural instinct all animals share to flee from gunfire, including humans.

Time answers questions, and the Kiamichi guys have nothing happening like that now, wonder why? They still hunt, correct? They still shoot their guns? I guess sasquatch overcame the compulsion to follow gunfire, either that or the show is over. :rolleyes:



Oh now it's gotten more specific from this:

Hey, Mulder,

Did your buddy MB get fired or something ?

It is more specific, yes, and ENTIRELY consistent...

Did MB claim to know word-for-word what the researcher said?

No.

Did the boss know things that he shouldn't have, given that MB didn't tell him?

Yes.

You are calling the BFRO investigator a liar "without using the words", who knows for sure what the truth is... were you there?


You haven't been here long enough if you believe that. There has been plenty of criticism of the BFRO on these pages, that statement is your opinion and is not the fact.


Yeah you should have, you said you would in the other thread. Again see above.


Why would you even call for an orgs help unless you wanted the help? What does that mean to you? That the investigators should spend their own money to meet you based on an internet report and a couple of phone calls without the expectation that they would have something to say about how the investigation was run? If that’s your expectations call the press to report it and a security firm to cover your back.


Maybe, depends on if you buy the story or not, I'm not sure that I do. I haven't seen one piece of physical evidence concerning those reported encounters. You believe them on their word only, are you so sure?


OK he's over at Kiamachi now, is he getting the help he so richly deserves? I'll wait for the defining evidence and I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long, long time.

And what advice would the Kiamichi guys give?

"Shoot it!!!!! SHOOT IT!!!!!! Oh wait, gunfire ATTRACTS sasquatch...."

1. No I wasn't there, and yes, I suppose that I am. I don't like to use that word openly, but all the evidence points towards it. If you want to pin the error on MB, then it falls to you to show how doing such a thing (outing himself to his boss) would benefit him. He came to this fourm ANONYMOUSLY. He communicated to the researcher(s) ANONYMOUSLY, and with the understanding that that anonymity would be respected. Why then would he turn 180 degrees and out HIMSELF?

I've asked variations on this question before, and have yet to get a response.

2. I've seen a lot of criticism yes, and it always seems to be met with the same response from the BFRO posters: they dodge, weave, and outright "beg the question" with an undertone of "we're PROFESSIONALS, don't questions us". A poor attitude, IMO.

3. I have no problem with investigators be rigirous (sp?), or skeptical. I wouldn't expect them to put themselves out there as you suggest "just because".

By the same token, if I were going through what TG went through (and what MB experienced to a MUCH lesser extent), and I were terrified for my family because something large and potentially dangerous were lurking about, then I'd be a bit peeved if the people I turned to for expert advice came in more concerned about their research agenda than in helping me protect my family. Wouldn't you be too?

Go back and re-read the ORIGINAL posts about what was going on at Honobia, not the "gutted" later versions. Go back and read MB's original posts. Then look at the responses they got. They're eerily similar, and I don't blame EITHER of them for not being thrilled with them. Thankfully, in both cases, I understand that private contacts were made that were MUCH more helpful.

4. You don't believe Timberghost's experiences... Funny, even Matt M had to admit there WAS activity on the property, though in the end he tried to make it seem much more "minor league" than it apparently was. Don't believe MB and I either? Well, I can't help you there. We were there, you weren't. But we're just a couple of "reportees", aren't we?

(last point) I never claimed that "defining evidence" would come from MBs and my experiences. But we could have at least added to the body of evidence, if the investigators hadn't botched the opportunity. Could Honobia have delivered such evidence? I think it likely, if BFRO hadn't been so ham-handed in it's approach and more willing to help deal with the situation "as it lay" at the time.

My opinion, FWIW...

Mulder

Ive followed this MB problem from the other thread and now its spilling over into this thread thanks to your inability to let it alone.

Why MB was so afraid of his wife knowing there might be a problem on thier property that he gives the BFRO the only contact number as of his BOSSES phone ( that incidently he shouldnt have been using for personal calls) is clearly a huge blunder on MB's part and no one elses. End of debate. He has no one to blame but himself. Its quit clear that he's redirecting his anger to the BFRO and the people who were really trying to offer some help. Thats just flaky behavior, maybe Im niave but if this was really the big huge hairy problem he made it out to be and if It was indeed my problem my wife would have known about it and I would have done whatever it took to resolve it. What happened his BF problem? Did it all of a sudden go away when the BFRO made a supposed mistake? More energy and time has been spent on this continuing bashing of the organization than on his alleged problem. I do question MB,s credibility now.

You are clearly still at work trying to bad mouth the BFRO and thier methods since you wont let this thread die. If you want to go on this anti BFRO crusade then go back to the kiamichi board were you have plenty of company.

No, but he could easily have been, and it may yet cost him opportunities for promotion. Credibility is SUPER important at his job, just like it is with LEOs.

(For the record, I'm not saying anything more than MB has posted publicly elsewhere, so I don't feel like I'm 'adding' to his exposure...)

First of all, your own rules should apply to you. What exactly did MB's boss say? What were the exact words? First he said he had no clue what was said to his boss, but it had to do with knowledge the boss should not have had. Then you spoke for him and said it had something to do with squatch being on the property. THEN it got even more specific, yet not enough for an exact quote of what exactly was said.

But then you turn it on Judaculla, who did you a favor by looking into the matter FOR YOU, by saying he has called MB a liar. How has Judaculla done this? He hasn't. He presented what was told to him, just like you are doing with MB. However, you did say this:



Does this then qualify as an extraordinary circumstance? Will any mention of the BFRO also qualify? This wasn't giving a pass, Judaculla gave an explanation. And if you think about it's not all that extraordinary, it makes perfect sense, he basically said the BFRO is all a group of humans who volunteer their time and resources and simply cannot contact witnesses as soon as a report arrives.

So now who is the liar?

To clarify: his wife knew about the problem, she just didn't concur about the source of said problem. And yes, I HAVE been in on one of those discussions, so I know whereof I speak. MB was just trying to find a way to talk to someone about it in a situation where he could discuss it openly without further problems at home.

Should he have arranged a contact at work? That's debateable. But that didn't give the researcher the right to call his BOSS about it. MB gave specific instructions about where and WHEN to call so HE would be the one who got the call.

And it STILL didn't give the researcher the right to "out" him to his boss. I know it's claimed that BFRO researchers aren't supposed to do that, but apparently this one DID for some reason (see my responses above).

Your post (to me) typifyies the response of the BFRO supporters on this forum. The BFRO never makes mistakes. If a mistake is made, it MUST someone else's fault. And how DARE anyone say a bad thing about BFRO?

But you're right...I'm not going to accomplish anything...except remind people of the truth...

When I call someone a liar, I usually use the word "liar." .



Perhaps your friend is mistaken. Perhaps the investigator is mistaken. I don't know.



Thank you.



You're still talking about the org like it was one entity. We are not the Borg. We are individuals.



Hmmmm.... I took my own time to contact an investigator over whom I have no authority and quizzed him about a report that was his responsibility. I guess giving a rat's a** would constitute interrogating him until he confessed to his error and coercing him to publicly apologize.

By the way... you're welcome.



I did care initially about what you had to say, even though I found it to be confrontational and holier-than-thou.

I don't care any more.

Alright, enough is enough, I'm going to cut through the crap and get to the point and forget this childish game.

You want to go to the Kiamichi guys and get advice? It's so much better over there? In my opinion there is no comparison between the Kiamichi guys and the BFRO, and here's why.

When I first started surfing the net for forums on Sasquatch, I was immediately welcomed here. The people I got to know personally I found to be good people. I decided to go to the Kiamichi board to see what it was all about.

I felt like I had walked into Satan's butchershop. Not just the talk about how to kill a Sasquatch, not just the gun talk, but the blatant posting of real pictures of human death. I was told the person who posted those pictures works for SAR, and imagine if I saw that everyday. Yeah well I got news for you and anybody else, I've seen my friends and family shot and torn apart and I still have respect for life and death and find the posting of such images not only unethical but outright EVIL. Also, my Grandfather started the SAR in the scouting program, volunteered most of his life to SAR, is recognized even after his passing, and he would've kicked that guy out IMMEDIATELY. That's a frikkin DISGRACE to the entire SAR program, and the allowance of images on the Kiamichi's site reflects on their disturbing mentality as they laugh along.

Mulder, you seem confused as who has posted debating the charges you present as all belonging to the BFRO and who doesn't. Many who have responded to you are not, myself included.

But I will say this every person I have met so far in the BFRO I am PROUD to call my friend. I trust them implicitely to watch my back in the field. We've shared good times and bad, celebrations and tragedies. I've been friends with many BEFORE they were even BFRO. They are trustworthy, kind, patient, DEVOTED, loyal, would do anything to help a person in need. THAT is why I doubt these claims. I do not know the investigator in Missouri, but you have been creating a blanket statement on the BFRO as a whole and that is my friends.

You may go against your own word and remind people of this event, and as long as you do I will be here to defend them.

Again it's one guy' word against another. You weren't there neither was I. You can choose to believe who ever you want to, so can I and anyone else here. What you or I say won’t make any difference, we weren’t there. You are the only one that has said that BF was mentioned to his boss, I’m not saying that you aren’t telling what you believe to be the truth, but it does differ from what he originally said.


Again unless you've read every thread here you haven't seen it all. And why wouldn't the BFRO defend themselves and their friends? You are.
Your posts could be construed as copping a superior attitude, so what the hell is the difference?


Why would anyone call a Bigfoot organization for protection? Why not call the police or animal control? That never made sense to me. Call the cops, tell them that something is happening around your place and you fear for your family's safety, that’s what they get paid for. The only way you wouldn't get a response is if you told them BF was responsible. That’s what bugs me, if you want investigation call investigators, if you want protection call the authorities, what's so tough about that? Don’t blame the BFRO because someone called the wrong place for the type of help they wanted, I don’t see anywhere on the website where it advertises itself as Bigfoot exterminators.


Matt can have his own opinion, that's OK with me, doesn't mean I or anyone else has to agree with it.
I never said I didn't believe you, not saying I do either. Personally I don't much care, I don't expect to see anything come out of this anyway other than posturing. I forget was there an actual Bigfoot sighting or are you still unsure what it was?



Yep, mine too.

And yet.... the ONLY number he gave as a contact number was his boss's, rather than his home or cell number. Yep, he sure was worried about his 'credibility'.

I don't for one second believe that the person who made the phone call to the only number MB submitted in his report would EVER compromise witness confidentiality in this way... and yes, I DO know who made the call.

So in essence, before you say it: Am I saying that I think MB's lying? Pretty much.

Missouri Believer sat in chat night after night on his computer at work. I believe that is how his boss learned things he shouldn't have, not from any phone call from a BFRO investigator.

I also believe that if indeed a BFRO investigator did what is alleged, that the BFRO will deal with that investigator appropriately within the organization. How that is done is none of my concern, nor anyone else's outside the organization.

the bfro must get alot sightings etc everyday etc so please be patient with them. i would like the bfro to add at least 1 photo of a area of a sighting so this way we can see if its the right area for sasquatch. bill green

Wow...If this was only applied to other research groups that are continually blasted, for what in essence would be the exact same merits being made in these very quotes, well...wouldn't that be something?...

Nah... It'd never happen...what I was thinkin?...

Cant believe I didnt get involved in all this arguing. Everyone knows I am an ardent (insert fav org here) basher and hater :rolleyes: . Then again I am getting tired and dont care anymore about the Bf field and I have no cards in this particular game.. I just have interest in the folks I met online while learning about Bf and I like to pop in here and see how they are doing.

God forbid!

Look, I know I come off as harsh and maybe even "holier than thou"...please try to understand that I've watched my friend go through all this, first the actual experience (part of which I shared, and it WASN'T fun), then what's happened here.

In my opinion, the line between honest questioning and unnecessary inquisitorial-ness got crossed by a number of people posting here. I also get the strong impression from some of the responses that any and all problems that have arisen are the responsibility of my friend, and my friend alone. I don't think that's fair, considering what I know of the incident and the character of my friend.

Could my friend have done things differently? Maybe. In hindsight, maybe he even should have. He was trying to get help as best he could in a VERY stressful situation, without causing more problems at home AND without 'outing' himself anywhere else. In the end, it blew up in his face. It was the worst of all end-scenarios, save that he was able to get some advice that helped.

Beyond the personal experience, I think this sequence of events also reflects to a degree on the larger situation vis a vis the willingness of witness to come forward. Would YOU put yourself through all this? Honestly?

Anyways, this fight's done. I know I've made enemies here by standing by my position as passionately as I have. Looking back, I could have been more tactful myself and SHOULD have been.

For that, I apologize. I've been a jerk, but I shouldn't've been an UNGRATEFUL jerk. You made an effort, and I do thank you for that.

Maybe we can put this bad blood aside and proceed from here in a less confrontational manner. I for one am going to make every effort to do so...