Quoted:
Holy shit!! A “Class A Sighting”….  Has to be legit!

Quoted:




Report Classification System
All reports posted into the BFRO's online database are assigned a classification: Class A, Class B, or Class C. The difference between the classifications relates to the potential for misinterpretation of what was observed or heard. A given witness might be very credible, but could have honestly misinterpreted something that was seen, found, or heard. Thus, for the most part, the circumstances of the incident determine the potential for misinterpretation, and therefore the classification of the report.

Class A
Class A reports involve clear sightings in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. For example, there are several footprint cases that are very well documented. These are considered Class A reports, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low.

Class B
Incidents where a possible sasquatch was observed at a great distance or in poor lighting conditions and incidents in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view of the subject are considered Class B reports.

For example, credible reports where nothing was seen but distinct and characteristic sounds of sasquatches were heard are always considered Class B reports and never Class A, even in the most compelling "sound-only" cases. This is because the lack of a visual element raises a much greater potential for a misidentification of the sounds.

Class B reports are not considered less credible or less important than Class A reports--both types are deemed credible enough by the BFRO to show to the public. For example, one of the best documented reports ever received by the BFRO is a Class B report from Trinity County California. It involved a very credible witness who backpacked into a remote area that has a history of sasquatch-related incidents. He described various occurrences around his camp at night that are strongly suspected to be sasquatch-related. The report is still considered Class B though because there was no clear visual observation to confirm what was heard outside the tent.

Almost all reports included in the database are first-hand reports. Occassionally a second-hand report is considered reliable enough to add to the database, but those reports are never Class A, because of the higher potential for inaccuracy when the story does not come straight from the eyewitness.

Class C
Most second-hand reports, and any third-hand reports, or stories with an untraceable sources, are considered Class C, because of the high potential for inaccuracy. Those reports are kept in BFRO archives but are very rarely listed publicly in this database. The exceptions are for published, or locally documented incidents from before 1958 (before the word "Bigfoot" entered the American vocabulary), and sightings mentioned in non-tabloid newspapers or magazines.

Quoted:

Says the guy who mindlessly plodded right through my carefully placed, bare-footed tracks left the snow in front of the International Bigfoot Museum, when they were closed due to weather lack of interest?

Quoted:

Okay, I'm going to stop sh!tposting and attempt to form a semi-coherent thought.

If one holds a materialist worldview, i.e. the physical world is all that there is, then believing in Bigfoot would be a tall order. As others have pointed out, such a large animal would leave physical evidence and we would surely have found it by now.

However, if one holds a worldview that acknowledges the existence, or at least the possibility, of something outside of this world, then more possibilities are open. All Christians, and most theists, accept the existence of angels and demons - living intelligences that are somehow outside of our everyday physical world, yet can interact with it and even take physical form at times.

If we hold to a classical Christian worldview, we already accept the existence of three distinct categories of living beings:
-Creatures that are rational, but not (always) physical - angels and demons
-Creatures that are physical, but not rational - animals
-Creatures that are both rational and physical - humans

Is it then that much of a stretch to consider the possibility of creatures that are neither rational nor (always) physical? Something like an angel, but without as much intelligence, created for a purpose that we might not understand, seems entirely plausible with a Christian worldview. In fact, the Bible seems to describe some kinds of "inter-dimensional" or "angelic" animals, such as the horses that pulled the chariots of fire in 2 Kings 6:17.

I'm still somewhat skeptical of Bigfoot's existence, but I'm going to keep my .450 Bushmaster handy just in case.

Click To View Spoiler

Quoted:

I had forgotten about it, too.  I tried to find the photos, but I've got nothing.  In my mind's eye, I took photos.  Not only did NSA find my photos, and delete them, but the also resequenced the photo file names ... leaving no gap in the sequential numbering.  Fuckers.

It's shit like this, where the fucking feds hack my network, pour through my photos, take and erase the photos of a simple footprint prank in Portland; shit like this that makes me think they might be hacking other networks, networks and drives where dude have pretty damn fucking clear photos of bigfoot ... and make them blurry.  And leave like they were never there.

In hindsight, I thought the number of dick pics from the federal agents was a bit unusual at the time.  Not that unusual, but a solid 2.3 standard deviations from what I normally get.  

On one hand, it's free dick pics.  But, on the other hand, it's illegal search and seizure.  But, then again, it's still free dick pics.  But, moreover, it's illegal activity that conspires to hide a huge, furry, man-eating hominid in suburban Toledo.

Or, I just didn't take photos of the footprint caper, in the first place.

Quoted:


So, that's not anything that Roosevelt witnessed. It was told to him by someone who knew someone that it happened to. The guy telling Roosevelt could have been lying, or the guy that told him could be lying. Either way, you cannot use it as proof. It is merely hearsay, which is not admissible in court. What we want to see or hear, in order to believe there's a bigfoot, is real evidence, not hearsay, not someone's story. In order to prove they exist, you must have a body, bones, photos or videos that are conclusive, and not blurred out or so far away you can't tell.

That's what I'm saying, we've been here 400 years, and there is no conclusive evidence of their existence. None.