Guest

Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

184 posts in this topic

Ok, im obviously new to this forum, and hope i didnt break any rules with my thread title, but its important for me to state how i feel about a person who is obviously big in the bigfoot research community. Me personally, ive researched this topic since i was in middle school, im now 46 years old, so i got over 30 years into this thing. Im NOT a field observer, just a researcher thru books, footage, comparative science, etc. I have a background in many different subjects and have a gift for tying things together that seem to come from very different roots.

Ok, now on to the subject matter. I used to frequent BFRO, run by Matt very frequently. I still go there from time to time to read the latest reports. I joined his forum over there, and made a post about what i truly feel is what bigfoot is all about, and got slammed by Matt as being PARANORMAL, and that he DOESNT APPROVE or broach anything PARANORMAL. I laughed because BIGFOOT ITSELF is paranormal (outside the norm) whether he says so or not. Paranormal doesnt mean ghosts, etc. means OUTSIDE the norm........ Now, this stance he takes, he is trying, like MOST bigfoot researchers, to make bigfoot FIT into a distance or side relative to humans..... They want to stake claim to finding a MISSING LINK that is walking around in the forest, and refuse to broach anything that is metaphysical in any way. They keep missing or IGNORING the obvious: These beings, even though they are very stealthy, obviously have abilities that are PARANORMAL in the sense that they can become invisible, they have telepathic powers, etc. etc. This is WHY its hard to interact with these beings and FIND one so to speak. I have seen numerous video clips, where these beings disappear in the clip ( the Freeman clip is a perfect example).

In closing, Matt has a lot of influence, and even more now that he has the reality show, and i feel its hurting more than anything, because he refuses to open up to anything. I trully feel that HE HIMSELF doesnt believe in "bigfoot", that bigfoot is got to me a hairy human that he has to prove exists, but hairy human is not the end all of this subject. Anyway, hope i havent offended anyone, ill make more posts on the subject, not moneymaker, but bigfoot, lol...........

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problems Moneymaker may have, but refusal to see value in the "psychic Bigfoot" hypothesis is not one of them, in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM does discourage discussion of paranormal attributes of BF because if BFRO is associated with paranormal then it will reduce the credibility of BFRO in the eyes of potential scientific contributors (Meldrum et al) or mainstream media. I don't fault him for this, since their goal is to list BF as a species and it will be a much harder task if peer review also has to go through paranormal bits. Much better in MM and BFRO opinion to keep to the straight and narrow definition of BF as a biological entity that is not as intelligent as man and is most likely an ape.

If MM/BFRO were to open up discussion of or research in telepathy etc. then their credibility will take a hit, funding would likely dry up, and they would lose the momentum they have.

Instead of beating on the MM pinata, just use this forum for a wider range of discussion.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invisible, telepathic bigfoot.

You got all that w/ no field research whatsoever? All those other guys must feel like real idiots right about now.

I can't help myself: Let's have a list of videos that show invisible bigfoots. And where in the Freeman video do you see his son...err, his bigfoot, disappear?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I joined his forum over there, and made a post about what i truly feel is what bigfoot is all about, and got slammed by Matt as being PARANORMAL, and that he DOESNT APPROVE or broach anything PARANORMAL. I laughed because BIGFOOT ITSELF is paranormal (outside the norm) whether he says so or not. Paranormal doesnt mean ghosts, etc. means OUTSIDE the norm........

Welcome to BFF.

par·a·nor·mal

[par-uh-nawr-muhl]

adjective

of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

"Paranormal" certainly does have a connotation of being supernatural, or beyond what is natural. I'm not a fan of Moneymaker by any stretch, but bigfoot isn't necessarily paranormal. There are those here that believe they are, that they're capable of dematerialization and "mind-speak" telepathy, but that's still an unproven opinion. Those with the best self-proclaimed opportunity to prove anything seem remarkably least willing to do so. Odd, that..... Or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM does discourage discussion of paranormal attributes of BF because if BFRO is associated with paranormal then it will reduce the credibility of BFRO in the eyes of potential scientific contributors (Meldrum et al) or mainstream media. I don't fault him for this, since their goal is to list BF as a species and it will be a much harder task if peer review also has to go through paranormal bits. Much better in MM and BFRO opinion to keep to the straight and narrow definition of BF as a biological entity that is not as intelligent as man and is most likely an ape.

If MM/BFRO were to open up discussion of or research in telepathy etc. then their credibility will take a hit, funding would likely dry up, and they would lose the momentum they have.

Instead of beating on the MM pinata, just use this forum for a wider range of discussion.

interesting point of view bfsleuth. makes sense, but in my estimation, SCIENCE will never be given the greenlight to admit the existence of bigfoot. i mean, the patterson film way back in the 60s should have been enuf, lol.... anyway, my point of view is, certain information is controlled, example, back about 7 years ago, i saw a sasquatch clip on youtube. it was in south or central america, cant remember, but the footage is the BEST footage ive ever seen. I mean, these villagers had been getting regular visits, so, they were waiting on it and took some amazing footage of one hiding in a field, and as they approached, it took off and ran to the left into some trees about 30 yards away and this thing was moving. they were no more than 20 yards from it, it was tall and slender and this thing was MOVING FAST. my dumb self, DIDNT download the clip. i KNOW for a fact this was no costume. youtube took it down, i WONDER WHY??????? anyway, my estimation, science, paranormal, etc. its been proven, they got tracks, hair, footage, my estimation the government know they real, soo waiting on scientific or government validaty in my point of view is a moot point that may never happen. anyway, you posted a veery good point of view about why moneymaker doesnt wanna go down that road...............

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry - MM and his positive/negative impact aside - I don't agree that, as you say:

Quote-

"These beings, even though they are very stealthy, obviously have abilities that are PARANORMAL in the sense that they can become invisible, they have telepathic powers, etc. etc."

I don't believe this is obvious. It has been reported:

a. They can become invisible

b. They have telepathic powers

Yes. This has been REPORTED, but that does not make it obvious. I can report that I have seen a big clown sitting in a UFO above the clouds that sprays out water, and that is what we know as rain.

That doesn't make it obvious.

For arguments sake, I will concede that those things could be possible - (even though they have not yet been determined to be fact on this particular planet.)

So, no offense intended, but if Matt's denial of those ":OBVIOUS" facts is what you base your opinion of his negative impact on the field on....I must at least disagree with your premise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, the psychic bigfoot sounds just about as plausible as most of the other theories I've heard.

Edited by nona
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there other psychic animal species? Clouded leopards, maybe, because of their legendary stealth?

Nope. The mythification of bigfoot continues.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, the psychic bigfoot sounds just about as plausible as most of the other theories I've heard.

exactly. thats my point. science has proven, if you take a queen ant miles from its nest, and kill it, the ants will go haywire because, somehow, THEY KNOW the queen is dead. is it paranormal?? science, whatever it is, it happens. as far as bigfoot is concerned, the point i was making, and nona hit it on the head is: approach bigfoot with ANYBODY who doesnt study the phenomena, and they gonna say you are nuts and or paranormal. thats why i laughed at MONEYmaker..... To most people, bigfoot is the creature on the beef jerky commmercial, thats how they view it..........

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there other psychic animal species? Clouded leopards, maybe, because of their legendary s

No. Not their stealth. It's their ability to predict lotto numbers that makes them psychic. And it's their unwillingness to share those numbers that makes them just plain mean in my book.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. thats my point. science has proven, if you take a queen ant miles from its nest, and kill it, the ants will go haywire because, somehow, THEY KNOW the queen is dead.

umm... citation please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second krakatoa. It'd love to see that study. From what I know about ants, they'll continue going on life as normal until the 'smell' of the queen's pheromones dies off at which point they'll be co-opted by a young queen in the colony already or they'll go haywire as you say. It's possible to, with the correct timing, kill the queen as the smell is fading, but that doesn't mean the events are connected by any means. But then again, I'm not an entomologist either.

In all honesty, the psychic bigfoot sounds just about as plausible as most of the other theories I've heard.

Why do you think this? Assuming that sasquatches exist as a species, wouldn't it be more rational to assume that they are creatures like zebras, monkeys, lions, and whales, rather than possessing never-before-documented abilities such as invisibility or telepathy? I think it's a much farther stretch to assume that there's a multi-dimensional, invisible, mind-reading, 7' foot tall ape/wild man in North America than it is to assume that there's a 7' tall ape/wild man in North America. Considering we've never seriously documented multi-dimensional creatures, invisible creatures, or mind-reading creatures before. So I'm curious as to why you hold the psychic sasquatch on the same plausibility level as a non-psychic one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dudes name is money maker....& im betting hes done just that.& if MM is a problem for BF'ery, then he's just one of many possible problems.......imo.

I dont subscribe to the paranormal bit personally,

but just as an observation, when it comes to paranormal vs. non paranormal..... both camps seem to have provided about the same amount of undeniable proof.......imo.mellow.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything we cannot at first understand is thought to be magic or extra normal. BFs might just be very good at what they do.

As a side note a BF account in another language might have been mistranslated. "Disappeared into the woods" might be translated as " disappeared", for example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites