This is how the BFRO classifies reports, BTW.
BFRO Database History
The BFRO web site was built and launched in 1995. It was the first web site to provide a collection of bigfoot/sasquatch sighting reports. In fact, it was the first web site to provide a database of sighting reports of any type of elusive phenomena. The early success and popularity of the BFRO site led to a minor proliferation of other web sites applying the same formula, to UFO reports, ghost reports, etc. There were also a few web sites attempting to imitate what the BFRO pioneered with bigfoot/sasquatch sighting information. Unfortunately many of those bigfoot web sites were, and still are, filled with fabricated sighting reports, sometimes written by the webmasters themselves, in order to generate updated site content.
The BFRO site has always received more than 95% of the credible bigfoot/sasquatch sightings reported over the Internet, and it is the only collection of bigfoot reports from across North America that have actually been investigated by researchers to determine credibility. The BFRO's researchers and investigators collectively spend a great deal of time and effort sorting through and investigating sighting reports to determine which are credible enough to display to the public. The BFRO has a large network of experienced volunteer investigators across the U.S. and Canada who use various methods to determine the credibility of reports.
None of the modern reports in the BFRO's online database are made public without some kind of investigation. The nature of these investigations vary. The most complex investigations involve field searches with experienced trackers and wildlife biologists, surveillance projects, and lab analysis of forensic evidence. The less complex investigations involve phone interviews and other steps to verify the relevant information. If a witness cannot be contacted and interviewed, etc., the report is not considered credible. Credible witnesses are usually eager to have their sightings investigated, even if they don't want the information posted online.
In the absence of a serious, diligent filtering process, any collection of sighting reports submitted online will be comprised mainly of fake reports. The ratio of fake to credible reports submitted online to the BFRO is roughly 10 to 1, hence a continuous process of "separating the wheat from the chaff" is absolutely essential for a credible online database of reports.
Sighting reports sent to the BFRO are analyzed, evaluated and investigated with techniques and approaches derived from the legal profession, law enforcement, and investigative journalism. The legal profession often relies exclusively on witness testimony to determine facts. In a court of law conclusions are determined under various standards, such the "more likely than not" standard, and the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Every day in court rooms across America, legal conclusions are handed down based solely upon witness testimony, and often upon the testimony of a single witness, and often under the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In these situations the evaluation of a witness is almost entirely subjective.
The use of subjective evaluation is what separates the legal perspective of witness testimony from the scientific perspective. Witness reports are considered "anecdotal evidence" by science, mainly because they are not testable. Yet many scientists are wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always precedes and leads to the collection of scientific evidence. In the history of science, scientific evidence has never been collected or even pursued until there has been enough anecdotal or indirect evidence at hand to merit an effort to collect the testable evidence. Thus without the collection and evaluation of anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence, there would be no scientific discoveries at all. This is the intrinsic relationship between the two types of evidence. Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence, but they are what leads us to the scientific evidence. With respect to the pursuit of an unclassified species, the collecting of credible sighting reports is an essential part of the scientific process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Classification System
Reports posted into the BFRO's online database after September 2000 are assigned a classification. The two classes of posted reports are Class A and Class B.
Class B reports are not considered less credible, or less important, than Class A reports. Class A and Class B reports are the ones deemed credible enough by the BFRO to show to the public.
The difference between Class A and Class B reports relates to the potential for misinterpretation of what was observed or heard. A 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 reports involve clear sightings, in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. There are few footprint cases that are very well documented. Those are considered Class A reports as well, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low.
Credible reports where nothing was seen, but distinct and characteristic sounds of sasquatches were heard, are considered Class B reports, and never Class A, even in the most compelling "sound-only" cases. They are never Class A because the lack of a visual element raises the potential for a misidentification of the sounds.
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.
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 not listed publicly in this database. There are exceptions 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.
Class B reports are just as important as Class A reports. 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 occurences 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.
Incidents wherein a possible sasquatch was observed at a great distance, or in poor lighting conditions, or in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view of the subject, are considered Class B reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BFRO's report classification system rates the circumstantial potential for misinterpretation, not the credibility of the witness, or how interesting the report is. If you are checking the Recent Additions page periodically for new reports, or to steadily gain an better understanding of behavior and geographic range, you should pay attention to both Class A and Class B reports.
If you encounter a report that seems to have been misclassified, please feel free to let us know via our Comments form.
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/classify.asp
