Guest

Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

283 posts in this topic

Insightful patterns and trends can be found in both the witnesses’ alleged perceptions and metadata such as time and location. In my experience, there are a more clues that can allow people to distinguish between real and fake than the vast majority of researchers realize, and with more sampling of honest reports, one tends to gain more leverage when it comes to distinguishing between honest and dishonest accounts

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have independently researched 3 sighting reports.    Two of a BFRO origin and one put forth by two blog personalities.    I was able to track down the exact location of each occurrence from the report description.     BFRO reports had the least details but ended up being the most credible.       Details matched the location and terrain.    Not only that but I found evidence that something was using a path down to a river at the first location.   That led to exploration on the other side of the river, a game trail of sorts, even though nothing with hoofs used it,   and ultimately my first BF footprint find.     The second BFRO report reported a BF was visiting a campground at night.      Investigation did not find anything at the campground but a half mile away I found a BF footprint in the mud on a lake shore.        Both occurrences led to my investigation and footprint finds.     So BFRO  and other reports,   do have the potential to lead to new finds or even encounters if you get there soon enough.    The third investigation had its own thread in this forum.     The location was find-able from the description but the report on the blog was full of inaccuracies and geographical errors.   The moon played a big factor in the sighting report but would not have been visible at the location due to terrain and supposed date and time of the event.     .    Geographical problems could be due to non-familiarity with the area but as stated were many miles in error.    So with this report the devil was in the details.     I suspect that if the event happened at all, it was mostly story telling embellishment that created all the discrepancies.    The longer between an event and the investigation the more likely that the details will have changed with each telling.   Throw in the desire for entertainment content, desire to get credibility for a blog following,    and you cannot be sure what you are getting.       

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've followed up on many reports in various ways for various reasons.   It's worthwhile to know what reports come from an area you're going to visit so if you have a few minutes you can look for yourself.

 

The only published reports I could definitely debunk came via PacWest Bigfoot.    I have not dug into a single one of their reports which has not crumbled under close scrutiny.   The events could not have occurred as described because the location details do not allow it.

 

I haven't seen very many unpublished reports that I could debunk.   In one case, examining the raw data, I found a single witness who had submitted several nearly identical reports from different locations.    I talked to the site owner and those reports are flagged as questionable now pending further investigation.   IMHO the person is either deliberately hoaxing or has a specific brand of bigfoot on the brain.   I'm not writing them off entirely because one location has a couple other unpublished reports.   Moreover, my aunt was driving past the place on the crooked little 2 lane highway that follows the river and her car was hit from behind ... not top, not side ... by a chunk of branch which was apparently thrown from behind as she rounded a 15 mph corner.

 

There are two take-aways from that.   One is that just as we have to be careful not to accept reports to readily, we also have to be careful not to dismiss them too readily ... that is, if finding truth is a goal.    The other is that even if a report from a place can be shown to be a hoax does not mean the place is not a good place to check.  

 

As an example of the latter, take Sru Lake where Linda Newton-Perry tried to perpetrate her hoax.   I've been there many times over the last 45 years.   It's legit, incredibly legit, as bigfoot "turf" goes.   Her lies take nothing away from it in that regard. 

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Linda Newton-Perry and hoax,    a Todd Standing movie,   Discovering Bigfoot,     just started playing on Netflix.       Much is cobbled together footage that includes Meldrum and Bindernagel.   Those scenes are absolutely painful to watch watching the way he tries to lead them into saying what he wants them to say.     Of course we have some puppet heads peeking through the foliage to fill out the footage.     I still say if you can get past the bombastic know it all attitude and propensity for fabrication of Standing,    he could have made a credible documentary that passes the smell test.   But his type has to insert their personality into everything and in doing so destroys any credibility in the process.      .  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a funny feeling about Todd Standing.   I think he's had a legitimate sighting or the like, couldn't produce evidence, so he tried to create some and got caught.   That could happen to a lot of people who invest too much ego and are too motivated to redeem themselves, save face, etc.   Now he's trying to get someone like Meldrum to vouch for him as if that erases the hoaxing.  Instead, it pull Meldrum down by association.  

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably right on about Standings authentic experience.    But as many of us know,  those experiences do not often lend themselves to getting recorded.   And if your stated goal is to produce marketable video's,    you have just put yourself into a situation that may not be achievable.   Fossey did not go into the field to produce movies for public distribution, her goal was to learn about Mountain Gorilla behavior.     The video we have from her efforts at that are the result of her acceptance by the gorillas,  not her cinematic prowess.   Standing got it all backwards and failed with expecting believable cinematic results to portray his own experience.    Had he just put disclaimers into his videos about recreations, he could have avoided his credibility mess of trying to pass off stuff as authentic.     Finding Bigfoot has done that their whole history.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Speaking of Linda Newton-Perry and hoax,    a Todd Standing movie,   Discovering Bigfoot,     just started playing on Netflix.       Much is cobbled together footage that includes Meldrum and Bindernagel.   Those scenes are absolutely painful to watch watching the way he tries to lead them into saying what he wants them to say.     Of course we have some puppet heads peeking through the foliage to fill out the footage.     I still say if you can get past the bombastic know it all attitude and propensity for fabrication of Standing,    he could have made a credible documentary that passes the smell test.   But his type has to insert their personality into everything and in doing so destroys any credibility in the process.      .  

 

Yep, I witnessed the co=opting of Meldrum and Bindernagel in that whole painful to my eyes event. 

 

I know Bindernagel had a clue.  Why would anyone put disclaimers on anything when he has a track record of hiring actors to film a "real" BF movie and had a sister as the make-up artist?!  Really?1

 

The guy tripped over somebody elses research area, I wouldn't even consider him a reliable reporter if he had a real event occur?!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing’s ultimate goal in this field has always been money, and his methods are a strong sign of venality. Much of his effort went into fabricating photos and videos sasquatch, and selling them to people who don’t know any better.

 

Most fake researchers don’t have money as a motive. Instead, they tend to role-play on YouTube and online forums for attention, and interestingly, sometimes provide fake support for each other. Also interesting is that most of them at least initially had a genuine interest in this subject, but the desire to role-play quickly got the best of them.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Standing was pretty much vilified for hoaxing by the BF research community we got a good look at what might happen to someone who does bring out "the body"   by the research community reaction to Justin Smeja's claim of having shot a BF.     Some screamed hoax and some believing he really shot two BF, were ready to string him up for murder.    I think the reaction by the research community was really a surprise to Smeja.  .  It is naive to believe that you will be some sort of famous hero to everyone.  That hope by many who are just looking for attention ignores the real history of people like Bob Gimlin who have lived the role for real.   Attention can be both in good and bad forms.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 2:11 PM, SWWASAS said:

The second BFRO report reported a BF was visiting a campground at night.      Investigation did not find anything at the campground but a half mile away I found a BF footprint in the mud on a lake shore.        

Did it not occur to you that the print was human since finding human tracks on a lake shore half a mile from a campground is almost infinitely more plausible than an undocumented giant ape?

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my theory that even undocumented animals are capable of leaving prints.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Investigation did not find anything at the campground but a half mile away I found a BF footprint in the mud on a lake shore

Quote

Did it not occur to you that the print was human since finding human tracks on a lake shore half a mile from a campground is almost infinitely more plausible than an undocumented giant ape?

 

I agree with Dmaker but with the exception that the BF footprint would have to be more defined as far as size and width where it does not relate to humans. We can assume that yes there were humans at this camp site and that yes they must have been around that lake. At some point these humans must have gone bare footed. Again this is assumption on our part or more my part since we were not the ones who were there that investigated this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demaker:      Oh I would never have thought a footprint could have been human?    I always assume them human if they are near human size.       But there is one little problem with your supposition.     According to Guiness Book of world records,  the human with the largest human footprint now alive,  has a foot that is now 16 inches in  length as reported in 2016.    He is only 21 so his feet are still growing.    Jeison Rodrigues lives in Venezuela.       My footprint find measured 17.4 inches.    A full 1.4 inches longer than the largest known human presently alive.          It was laid down in mud on the lakeshore and had dried some that day.    If anything it was longer before the mud dried.     Quite frankly I do not even get excited about a footprint shorter than  14 inches because that puts them in the upper region of the human norm.     So do you still think it was a human footprint?    Meldrum has examined the print and thinks it is a female BF.   But we know what you think about rogue scientists who actually look at evidence.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dmaker said:

Did it not occur to you that the print was human since finding human tracks on a lake shore half a mile from a campground is almost infinitely more plausible than an undocumented giant ape?

This footprint size issue comes up periodically and most people do not know a lot about human footprints.      The human with the largest footprint known that was documented died in 1940.    He was a victim of Gigantism and his footprint was 18.5 inches long.    Mr Rodriguess took the record sometime after 2013.       His first record was 15.79 inches at age 19.      Tall NBA players are known to have large feet but most are inches shorter than these record holders.    While shoe size is roughly equivalent to length with the smaller shoe sizes,   the relationship does not hold for larger shoe sizes.    Mr Rodriguess shoe size is 26.  Oneil and other larger foot NBA players wore size 22 which is 14 11/16 inches.           My footprint find was Aug 27, 2013 to give you some idea of when it was.    And that was not the largest one so far.       So when someone has 16 inches or larger BF casts,   there is literally no chance they might be human.    Additionally ShadowBorn touched on something that I have discussed with Mendrum about my footprint find.   Do not assume that all BF footprints have to have a very wide foot.  That fact threw me.       Female BF footprints are not only smaller in size but much narrower than mature male BF prints and  look much more human like.   As a male BF matures,  its footprint likely gets broader so support it's huge weight.   Certainly female human footprints are similar with relation to human males related to height and weight.     Anyway a BF researcher has to be familiar with human feet related to size.    I fully suspect that some famous BF trackway events were human footprints because when they are in the range of human norm,    juvenile BF males and females might make the BF to human differentiation very difficult.  

 

 

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.