georgerm Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Peter and I have emailed and spoken on the phone a few times. He lives just up the coast from me in Oregon. He has been a big game hunting guide in India and went after bigfoot with cameras in Nepal. He has pursued bigfoot in many fantastic expeditions and his BF work has been thorough and true. I'm really sad to hear this development. Paying uncle Sam tax money is difficult when we see so much wasted on foreign countries, military protection for others, and over spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 5, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) What has someone dodging taxes got to do with this subject and why is someones personal life splashed over the general discussion part of this forum ? What is wrong with you Drew, seriously ? Get a life !!!! Edited February 5, 2014 by BobbyO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Bigfoot is not REAL, NO MATTER THE COST TO ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just speculatin'... Good people coming on bad stuff is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.justice.gov/usao/or/news/2013/20131205_byrne.html No money in Bigfooting eh? A new low in Skepticland has been achieved. Shame on you, Drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 5, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Peter and I have emailed and spoken on the phone a few times. He lives just up the coast from me in Oregon. He has been a big game hunting guide in India and went after bigfoot with cameras in Nepal. He has pursued bigfoot in many fantastic expeditions and his BF work has been thorough and true. I'm really sad to hear this development. Paying uncle Sam tax money is difficult when we see so much wasted on foreign countries, military protection for others, and over spending. Fraud is fraud, there IS no excuse. I agree what is a bigfoot discussion about a person's court case doing in this forum's threads? If Byrne was a member would it make a difference? Do you know that he is NOT a member? At best this should be in Campfire Chat or perhaps in the Tar PIt if the thread starter could ante up and join. Edited February 5, 2014 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) You saw the part about $85,000 accounts overseas and 30 trips over 45 days in foreign countries? Which he is required to divulge if he gets SSI? Between 1992 and 2012, Byrne traveled outside the U.S. for more than 30 days at least 15 times, on some occasions remaining outside the U.S. for more than four months. I think that's fifteen trips of more than thirty days over a period of twenty years. Probably to visit family in England? Hardly what you wrote there Drew, but I can see how the SSI and DHL would frown on that as it must be more than a vacation and visiting family. Between 2009 and 2012, Byrne also maintained bank accounts with Barclays of England and Wells Fargo where he held more than $85,000 at one time, and failed to disclose these bank accounts to SSA and DHS. Not sure if that money was from any compensation reportable as income, though gifts of cash might be considered income along with the book royalties. It's sad he isn't better off at his age. Edited February 5, 2014 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) It says OVER 85K it doesn't say how much is in the accounts. I don't think it is referencing how much is in the account, but that a threshold of 85,000 that must be disclosed has been reached. I don't think this is any implication of him ONLY having 85,000 in each account, but OVER 85,000 in each account. Yes, my recitation was in correct- it was 15 trips of 30 days or longer. When I did that in my head it came to 450 days, that is where I got the 45 from. This shouldn't be off limits. It is a prominent Bigfooter who has plead guilty to fraud. The documents are public domain. You are quick to oust hoaxers who are members here, but when one is actually CONVICTED of a federal offense of hoaxing the government(fraud), it becomes "The lowest point of Bigfoot scepticism". That is a joke if you think that. Edited February 5, 2014 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Dissapointing Edited February 5, 2014 by GEARMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 West Point Honor Code: A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. Since its inception, more people have been dismissed from the Academy for tolerating an honor violation (a violation in and of itself), than for lying, cheating, or stealing. Why is this important? What's at risk if people in positions of authority (military, academic, or field research, etc.) are found to be liars? It calls into question every professional position, opinion, statement, or act on record by that person. The amount doesn't matter. The reason doesn't matter. Integrity matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 ^^^^^^ Agreed. All I am taking exception to is the flawed logic that Peter Byrne got RICH off of squatching...... I mean does Donald Trump try to hide his wealth so he can collect food stamps? Surely not. Maybe my idea of being rich is different from somebody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Too often people confuse exposure with success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The fact that Peter was a serious bigfooter and didn't hoax from what I'v read, is a plus in my book. He has contributed much to 'bigfootery' which makes him a prime cadidate for this discussion. His life as a 'bigfooter' and a so-called 'big spender' is fair game for discussion in my opinion. Hunting season is not open on Peter. Seems like this topic is hitting some nerves of forum friends. Let's just cool our jets............... Drew, they seem to be making out Peter as a tycoon with thousands upon thousands in off-shore accounts. Is this the way you see it? If $85k is his sole off shore-account, then he was no tycoon but a poor 88 year old man. And yes, fraud is fraud, no matter at what income level. If we sell a car and fail to disclouse a problem, is this fraud? Uncle Sam only comes after the big spenders. Was Peter a big spender? Was he living with family in England cheaply or in a lavish hotel? I don't know but will ask him. He probably has a cabin in India where he is a member of a prestigous consevation group. Someone mentioned royalties from books as not being income. Seems like regular income to me. If the book is a typical seller, then expect a small check in the mail each month. I wrote a book on landscaping once, self published, and collected a few checks in the mail each month. My distributor went under, and I never found another to take their place = end of book dream.......poof. Bottom line, he was a leader in 'bigfootery' and stress and shame from this can easily kill an 88 year old man. Don't know about you, but I'm going to find the facts. I may even drive a few hours up the coast when he gets home. His emails indicated he was out of the country. We were communicating about pictures of possible bigfoot remains found in northern Caifornia. His emails suddenly stopped and know why now. Read about Peter. http://petercbyrne.com/greatsearches.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I do agree with one good reason for discussing this here, and it has nothing to do with whether BF research is profitable, or not. (Fact is, I'm sure, like many endeavors, some make a good living, and some others fail miserably). Mr.Byrne's criminal activity is relevant to impeach his veracity on other matters. In other words, if you are convicted of a dishonest act, which rises to a certain level (recent felony, crime of moral turpitude) it might indicate you've been untruthful in other aspects of your life. This principle of impeachment is codified in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and most state Rules as well. If one is a BF researcher, I'm afraid it does cast at least a suspicion that he was less than honest in reporting his findings. That is, of course, a rebuttable thing, and I will trust those who know Mr. Byrne to weigh in on that. Aside from that aspect of it, I'm going to say it is none of my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 West Point Honor Code: A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. Since its inception, more people have been dismissed from the Academy for tolerating an honor violation (a violation in and of itself), than for lying, cheating, or stealing. Why is this important? What's at risk if people in positions of authority (military, academic, or field research, etc.) are found to be liars? It calls into question every professional position, opinion, statement, or act on record by that person. The amount doesn't matter. The reason doesn't matter. Integrity matters. Excellent post JDL. Integrity does indeed matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) The only thing I would be cautious about is wholesale chucking evidence there's no reason to chuck on "integrity grounds." That's just what P/G deniers do when they can't address what's on the film. They allege that he was late paying for this, didn't return that, deceived Gimlin....um, guy, what is on the film? Then there's the "convicted hoaxer" thing tossed at Paul Freeman, who far as I hear wasn't hoaxing. As far as concerns the overall sasquatch evidence, this is a non-event. Sad, but irrelevant to why we're here. Edited February 5, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts