Guest

Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

206 posts in this topic

thats funny.. the same thing happened to me. a few years ago.. they let me back in after I rallied that I read detailed native american accounts of bigfoots peculiar paranormal qualities on the bfro site... matt seems like a meathead... his quest to meet bigfoot on the physical plane is his own.. and he wants it to be an animal so he can "catch it" thats cool.. i think bringing an intelligent empathic intuitive into the field is worth a shot however..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder to folks, this is a discussion about a public figure, whom has a television series, if he and his/her show is hurting Bigfoot research, or even creating awareness for such.

This is not the place to drum up old vendettas, personality conflicts, or even go on about anyone's idiosyncrasies unless they are pertinent to what they are putting forth in their public appearance.

The Staff here at the BFF has kept this thread up to discuss the question at hand and not to use this as a platform to make personal attacks.

That being said, name calling, will not be tolerated.

Arguments about research philosophies, conduct on the program in relation to public viewpoint of our research all fair game.

Please keep this in mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may not be making friends but he's not hurting the cause. Look at the audience the Finding Bigfoot animal planet show is reaching. International exposure is all good no matter who's on the tele. JMO.

Edited by tracker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue because few people are willing to even consider it even though it is within a large percentage of reports. There is something to it that can't be ignored and so the goal should be to try and understand!

What percentage of reports are not hoaxes? What percentage of those are not misidentifications? What percentage of those claim paranormal attributes? What percentage of those are not tricks of the senses?

I'm pretty sure of those questions, the last would be the hardest to quantify.

So: Why can't it safely be ignored in the pursuit of those avenues that offer concrete data to work with?

For instance, the Native Americans who believe BF is not just a dumb animal. Also, any non-Native American believers that subscribe to their beliefs and their way of life.

When reports mention BF as being psychic, or disappearing into thin air, or mimicing sounds of owls/coyotes/etc, the reports shouldn't automatically be disregarded as fanciful tales from "psychic invisible shapeshifting bigfoots from Mars believers". Saying this is disrespectful to Native Americans who were living here in concert with Nature long before the Europeans arrived.

1 - mimicry isn't paranormal by any strectch.

2 - So saying someone's mythology doesn't square w/ current scientific understanding is disrespectful? That's a pretty low threshold for offense. I'd suggest that is a personal problem for you and for those Native Americans who are thin-skinned enough to take offense.

While you and they are working on toughening up your respective delicate sensibilities, perhaps you could fill me in on a couple other NA myths:

Tell me: What say you about Grandfather Thunder? Valid hypothesis in determining the nature of thunder that should be fully vetted, or is it ok for science and the rest of us to dismiss it as a fanciful tale to explain a mysterious phenomena to those w/out the means to fully investigate it?

How about the Paiute myth on why the North Star is stationary? Is it disrespectful to say: "err... no, that's not quite right, see there's this collection of certain gasses which under enough pressures of gravity create a nuclear reaction..."? Or should science bend over backwards and research fully the claim that stars can be created by powerful Indian chiefs?

Why are you so opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science?

Where exactly did I ever say I was opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science? I enjoy a good work of fiction as much as anyone, for one. For another, OP said science had proven psychic powers in ants. I requested a citation. And finally, I am completely open minded to all sorts of things conventional science has trouble with. Either things that I have experienced myself, or things that I feel science (particularly at a quantum level) has yet to quantify or to explain away.

But there is a particularly useful thought tool when working with unexplained phenomena called "Occam's Razor". It's one I use to great effect. For instance, I've seen two UFO's in my life. Once that on further investigation was simply the refraction of light from a moving car working magic with the droplets of water on my windshield; a trick of the senses. The other I have no good explanation for. Simply because I have seen one that in my mind the jury is still out on doesn't mean the other was real, and doesn't even mean the unexplained one was from outer space or filled with invisible bigfoots.

I don't claim offense when science scoffs at the prospect of using resources on more promising avenues of research than on the study of UFOs. I don't wail that science doesn't take the topic of UFOs more seriously. I don't demand scientists open their minds. For goodness sake, in the history of mankind, has there ever been a more open-minded pursuit than science that has harnessed open-mindedness with more profound effect?

I'd submit that any reports of disappearing or shape-shifting bigfoots beneath the dappled canopy of your average forest are the same thing as my first UFO: a trick of the senses. Certainly, science allows for the possibility of darned near anything, under the correct set of circumstances. Applying Occam's Razor, I'd posit that the circumstances for an invisible sasquatch don't generally occur within your average arboreal habitat.

Please try to answer my original question too: What value does a supernatural/paranormal prong of an investigation accomplish? As others pointed out, if bigfoots can turn invisible at will, or shapeshift, or use their jedi mind tricks to convince us these aren't the 'foots we are looking for, what possible reason does anyone have to research that which cannot be proved?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt's legacy will always be the BFRO, and its amazing data base.......hail to Matt for that. But he will never have a meaningful Bigfoot sighting using the silly methods they use on his new TV show, or past shows for that matter......this is pure entertainment and television. IMO.....visible technology has been proven NOT to work time and time again. The Big Lug ain't dumb.

Agreed. When will MM figure out that the show isn't about bigfoot, but instead is a reality show about the people who look for bigfoot?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Krakatoa said: What percentage of reports are not hoaxes? What percentage of those are not misidentifications? What percentage of those claim paranormal attributes? What percentage of those are not tricks of the senses?

I'm pretty sure of those questions, the last would be the hardest to quantify.

So: Why can't it safely be ignored in the pursuit of those avenues that offer concrete data to work with?

Only these were asked of me.

What I do know is that 'I' have experienced elements related to Sasquatch that do not fit within our standard measure of investigation. I am not going to try an hoax myself and I have kept some of those experiences to myself too. I know full well that I have not been fooled by my senses because events were very real. I also know that others have related experiences that are very similar to mine. I'm not going to get into the particulars of mine or others here either as that would send this thread way off topic. If you have not had any such experiences yourself, well then I guess its just not yours to experience. It would be up to you to try and follow or investigate further if you wanted. But without experiencing yourself, there is a good chance you wouldn't comprehend the experiences anyhow. There are others here who have had these experiences and so we will pursue exploration in that direction as it happens and w/o having to justify.

It shouldn't be ignored because doing so only robs the investigation of reported behaviors / events that are relevant to the encounter. Just because we don't yet have a measuring gauge to pick up these things, doesn't mean that someday we won't. And if such elements are repeatedly part of encounters, aren't they somehow relevant? Is ignoring them responsible? Is that good science?

1 - mimicry isn't paranormal by any strectch.

That was my point.

Please try to answer my original question too: What value does a supernatural/paranormal prong of an investigation accomplish?

I will respond to this briefly if you don't mind since it parallels your last to me. There are those who are sensitive to these elements, and so little by little they can provide a conduit to help understand what the rest can't. Tackling these unknowns has to begin somewhere. Just because you or I can't communicate with them at will doesn't mean others can't. It would be the outside viewers prerogative on whether to listen or take it seriously, because likely such claims will come w/o much supporting evidence. That it seems is also the nature of certain mysteries.

I also know from a few ex bfro people that these claims have been in a fair number of reports. What is done is either these elements are redacted or some reports are just sent to the round file. Is it responsible to redact some of it and take the rest of a report seriously?

I can understand why they do it too. That is their prerogative as well, and it will likely keep them from answering the mystery, which is just fine with me when seeing how the org is run.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - mimicry isn't paranormal by any strectch.

You're right, but what about mimicry thru shapeshifting so BF appear as a wolf or crow? I'm not sure about this one either, but the NA community claims they are capable of this. The point is that we can't throw out any reports just because they seem "out there".

2 - So saying someone's mythology doesn't square w/ current scientific understanding is disrespectful? That's a pretty low threshold for offense. I'd suggest that is a personal problem for you and for those Native Americans who are thin-skinned enough to take offense.

Conventional science is mechanistic in that it attempts to explain an animals behavior by breaking it down into parts as if it the were a machine and trying to model it's characteristics using mathematical equations. Native Americans view Nature as an inseparable holistic entity. My point is that maybe science, with exception of astrophysics, has not matured enough to explain the invisible energies that surround us. I think that conventional science is arrogantly (disrespectfully) assuming they have all the answers, when it's clear that they don't.

While you and they are working on toughening up your respective delicate sensibilities, perhaps you could fill me in on a couple other NA myths:

Tell me: What say you about Grandfather Thunder? Valid hypothesis in determining the nature of thunder that should be fully vetted, or is it ok for science and the rest of us to dismiss it as a fanciful tale to explain a mysterious phenomena to those w/out the means to fully investigate it?

Grandfather Thunder is a metaphor that NAs attach to legends and folklore in order to analogize the meaning of mystical phenomena, similar to the way biblical stories are told. You can either dismiss the tales or believe them, I just happen to think there's a lot of truth in them.

How about the Paiute myth on why the North Star is stationary? Is it disrespectful to say: "err... no, that's not quite right, see there's this collection of certain gasses which under enough pressures of gravity create a nuclear reaction..."? Or should science bend over backwards and research fully the claim that stars can be created by powerful Indian chiefs?

I never said that all NA folklore is true, but I do believe that when BF behaviors mirror what an NA legend describes, we might want to pay a little bit more attention to a non-scientific explanation.

Where exactly did I ever say I was opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science? I enjoy a good work of fiction as much as anyone, for one. For another, OP said science had proven psychic powers in ants. I requested a citation. And finally, I am completely open minded to all sorts of things conventional science has trouble with. Either things that I have experienced myself, or things that I feel science (particularly at a quantum level) has yet to quantify or to explain away.

Do whatever you're comfortable with.

But there is a particularly useful thought tool when working with unexplained phenomena called "Occam's Razor". It's one I use to great effect. For instance, I've seen two UFO's in my life. Once that on further investigation was simply the refraction of light from a moving car working magic with the droplets of water on my windshield; a trick of the senses. The other I have no good explanation for. Simply because I have seen one that in my mind the jury is still out on doesn't mean the other was real, and doesn't even mean the unexplained one was from outer space or filled with invisible bigfoots.

I think Occam's Razor has it's value, but I feel it's used by science all too frequently. Maybe the phenomena IS outside our level of understanding and DOES NOT have a simple explanation.

I don't claim offense when science scoffs at the prospect of using resources on more promising avenues of research than on the study of UFOs. I don't wail that science doesn't take the topic of UFOs more seriously. I don't demand scientists open their minds. For goodness sake, in the history of mankind, has there ever been a more open-minded pursuit than science that has harnessed open-mindedness with more profound effect?

There was a time that everyone thought the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of our solar system. Should everyone have accepted that as truth just because it was outside our level of understanding?

I'd submit that any reports of disappearing or shape-shifting bigfoots beneath the dappled canopy of your average forest are the same thing as my first UFO: a trick of the senses. Certainly, science allows for the possibility of darned near anything, under the correct set of circumstances. Applying Occam's Razor, I'd posit that the circumstances for an invisible sasquatch don't generally occur within your average arboreal habitat.

I respect your beliefs, but I disagree with them.

Please try to answer my original question too: What value does a supernatural/paranormal prong of an investigation accomplish? As others pointed out, if bigfoots can turn invisible at will, or shapeshift, or use their jedi mind tricks to convince us these aren't the 'foots we are looking for, what possible reason does anyone have to research that which cannot be proved?

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I don't consider myself a researcher, because I don't feel the need to prove their existence. I think if you enter the woods with the intention of trying to find, photo, film, kill, capture or trick a BF, you will probably never see one. The show themselves on their own terms, not when we want them to smile for a photo op.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do know is that 'I' have experienced elements related to Sasquatch that do not fit within our standard measure of investigation. I am not going to try an hoax myself and I have kept some of those experiences to myself too. I know full well that I have not been fooled by my senses because events were very real...

It shouldn't be ignored because doing so only robs the investigation of reported behaviors / events that are relevant to the encounter.

I also know from a few ex bfro people that these claims have been in a fair number of reports. What is done is either these elements are redacted or some reports are just sent to the round file. Is it responsible to redact some of it and take the rest of a report seriously?

Last first: You understand that I can't possibly comment on such a thing right? While this isn't a court of law, I think I'll just claim "hearsay" and let that go. Far too many variables at play.

You know what you experienced. Stick with me here. I don't discount your claims at all. It may have all happened exactly as you remember.

I believe however, in the well documented capacity for people, regardless of their experience leading up to an event (and particularly a traumatic event), to see details that weren't there, and leave out details that were.

Not purposefully, and not maliciously, but just errors between the sensory input, and the processed output.

Regardless, and accepting these experiences at face value:

What possible value do they hold for a scientific exploration of the topic? If science cannot quantify or qualify the phenomena, then of what use is the phenomena to the scientific method?

You are basically telling science: "Go look for bigfoot, but you'll need a psychic to find it."

This is an absurd proposition, both in concept and in practice. "There are those who are sensitive" you say... well, says who? If you want science to use a tool, prove the tool's value scientifically.

I could go into long detail about the nature of proof vis-a-vis the the tools implemented in the history of scientific discovery, but I think it rather a diversion from what should best be looked at as a logical and deductive exercise.

So let me simplify the situation -- If we take the entire gamut of sightings as either completely accurate representations of what happened, or as hoaxes,

Either A: All non-hoax sightings are of paranormal bigfoot, able to turn invisible at will and completely avoid detection at their discretion, or when those powers are not disabled for any reason;

or B: Some non-hoax sightings are of paranormal bigfoot, and others are constrained by the same laws of physics as the rest of us apes.

In either case, it appears to me that the most likely way to discover proof of existence remains a scientific approach grounded in empiricism & rationalism.

So how does allowing for an invisible bigfoot in your plans help whatsoever when, by definition: You. Will. Not. Find. An. Invisible. Bigfoot?

I mean, having a psychic around saying "I feel that an invisible bigfoot is near" just isn't going to cut it with very many people, scientist or otherwise.

In the end, you and other paranormal 'foot adherents may be absolutely correct. But w/out empirical proof of 'foot, there odds are extremely low for any zoological or sociological gain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, but what about mimicry thru shapeshifting so BF appear as a wolf or crow? I'm not sure about this one either, but the NA community claims they are capable of this. The point is that we can't throw out any reports just because they seem "out there".

Does the earth rest upon the back of a giant tortoise? A group of people once believed that very thing. Are we able to discard that belief, yet?

At least we have some damned fine folks out there, diligently searching and working hard to provide physical proof of the existence of bigfoot. If those folks are ultimately searching for a shapeshifting, electronics spoiling, telepathic woods-ninja, what's the use? Any logical statement can be brushed aside, parried and countered by simply saying, "You'll never find them, they owl-hooted and turned into a wolf."

With all due respect, skip that. It's a preposterous stance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, but what about mimicry thru shapeshifting so BF appear as a wolf or crow? I'm not sure about this one either, but the NA community claims they are capable of this. The point is that we can't throw out any reports just because they seem "out there".

We shouldn't? So if a report comes in that the Bigfoot hordes are about to construct a singularity to destroy the Earth, we should immediately raze the forests to defeat the bigfoot menace?

Conventional science is mechanistic in that it attempts to explain an animals behavior by breaking it down into parts as if it the were a machine and trying to model it's characteristics using mathematical equations. Native Americans view Nature as an inseparable holistic entity. My point is that maybe science, with exception of astrophysics, has not matured enough to explain the invisible energies that surround us. I think that conventional science is arrogantly (disrespectfully) assuming they have all the answers, when it's clear that they don't.

So this is the point where out of respect for you and NA's I shouldn't say you are wrong, even though you are egregiously in error both in the fundamental presumption and the practice of science?

You can either dismiss the tales or believe them, I just happen to think there's a lot of truth in them.

So you claim there is truth to the Grandfather Thunder myth? Could you specify which sections are true?

I never said that all NA folklore is true, but I do believe that when BF behaviors mirror what an NA legend describes, we might want to pay a little bit more attention to a non-scientific explanation.

But a scientific explanation is required for any of this pursuit to mean anything to the masses, wouldn't you say? If you cannot prove the existence of 'foot, then what possible reason is there to attempt to convince others of its existence?

There was a time that everyone thought the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of our solar system. Should everyone have accepted that as truth just because it was outside our level of understanding?

Not entirely accurate example, but to respond to your intent: Certainly science is perpetually playing catch-up. But ironically, science essentially rejected mythology to get to the truth of the round Earth. So if you were to be true to your current argument: Yes, people should have accepted as truth the Earth was flat since so many myths stated it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the earth rest upon the back of a giant tortoise? A group of people once believed that very thing. Are we able to discard that belief, yet?

At least we have some damned fine folks out there, diligently searching and working hard to provide physical proof of the existence of bigfoot. If those folks are ultimately searching for a shapeshifting, electronics spoiling, telepathic woods-ninja, what's the use? Any logical statement can be brushed aside, parried and countered by simply saying, "You'll never find them, they owl-hooted and turned into a wolf."

With all due respect, skip that. It's a preposterous stance.

Both camps can learn from each others experiences. If someone chooses to follow a more conventional path, that's fine. Ditto for a less conventional path. It's their choice about whether they are open or closed minded or a little of both. I'm just suggesting that it might not be wise for organizations such as BFRO to cull reports based on scientific dogma. It's up to MM to make his own choices, I just don't happen to agree with him or his tactics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say I'm with " PragmaticTheorist" on this. I've spent a good portion of my 61 years on the McKenzie. Fishladder rapids ain't exactly what you would call a remote , untraveled Sasquatch area. Especially in the late Spring thru early Fall, when it's populated with campers and fisherman. Not to mention that it wouldn't take much for some of the locals that laugh at anyone even suggesting that Bigfoot may exist, to sneak out and do a bit of Howling and Tree Thumping to sandbag Moneymaker. Who incidentally is doing nothing but living up to his name IMO.

The "video" accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish. It was nothing more than free advertising for the River Guide business and Ike's Pizza. I've watched all of the episodes, and they lend a smack of baffoonery to the whole Bigfoot issue.

I want to believe they exist, and I try to convince skeptics not to laugh it off as something from the "Tin Foil Hat crowd", and there is a possibility that they do exist.

However, thanks to Moneymaker's Dog and Pony show the effort has been set-back considerably. "Well, that's what a Bigfoot does!" "Yup... That was a Squatch all right!" "There's a Squatch in these woods!" Bull Crap!! For all he knows they could eat cotton candy, fly kites and do needle point. He would do much better trying to De-bunk rather than claim to know beyond doubt. He comes across as a Snake Oil vendor.

A good friend and skeptic that I have been trying to get to open his mind to the chance of Bigfoots existance, saw the show, called me and said, "That guy's a phoney idiot!" I'll have to say, I tend to agree...

He's doing nothing more than marginalizing serious researchers.

Edited by D B Cooper
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say I'm with " PragmaticTheorist" on this. I've spent a good portion of my 61 years on the McKenzie. Fishladder rapids ain't exactly what you would call a remote , untraveled Sasquatch area. Especially in the late Spring thru early Fall, when it's populated with campers and fisherman. Not to mention that it wouldn't take much for some of the locals who laugh at anyone even suggesting that Bigfoot may exist, to sneak out and do a bit of Howling and Tree Thumping to sandbag Moneymaker. Who incidentally is doing nothing but living up to his name.

The "video" accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish. It was nothing more than free advertising for the River Guide business and Ike's Pizza. I've watched all of the episodes, and they lend a smack of baffoonery to the whole Bigfoot issue.

I want to believe they exist, and I try to convince skeptics not to laugh it off as something from the "Tin Foil Hat crowd", and that there is a possibility that they do exist. However, thanks to Moneymaker's Dog and Pony show the effort has been set-back considerably. "Well, that's what a Bigfoot does!" "Yup... That was a Squatch all right!" "There's a Squatch in these woods!" Bull Crap!! For all he knows they could eat cotton candy, fly kites and do needle point. He would do much better trying to De-bunk rather than claim to know beyond doubt.

A good friend and skeptic that I have been trying to get to open his mind to the chance of Bigfoots existance, saw the show, called me and said, "That guy's a phoney idiot!" I'll have to say, I tend to agree...

I have to disagree, for whatever philosophical differences I have with the BFRO, Matt's show could dig up something compelling.

That fire hall meeting of his? Was brilliant! We all have our gifts in life, and while Matt may not exhibit good "bush craft", etc? He certainly has a knack for management and collecting eye witness accounts.

And that certainly doesn't hurt anything in our search for the creature.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure they lend any more bafoonery to BF than any other media, and to this extent you have to place the appropriate blame on the media companies.

I want to believe they exist, and I try to convince skeptics not to laugh it off as something from the "Tin Foil Hat crowd", and that there is a possibility that they do exist. However, thanks to Moneymaker's Dog and Pony show the effort has been set-back considerably. "Well, that's what a Bigfoot does!" "Yup... That was a Squatch all right!" "There's a Squatch in these woods!" Bull Crap!! For all he knows they could eat cotton candy, fly kites and do needle point. He would do much better trying to De-bunk rather than claim to know beyond doubt.

This is imho the best line in this thread to match the thread title. If MM is hurting "the bf field" it is due to this "know beyond doubt" know-it-all presentation.

"For all he knows they could eat cotton candy, fly kites and do needle point."

Yes, but he's not the only one, there are a lot of other "experts" around with this same behavior.

.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, thanks to Moneymaker's Dog and Pony show the effort has been set-back considerably. "Well, that's what a Bigfoot does!" "Yup... That was a Squatch all right!" "There's a Squatch in these woods!" Bull Crap!! For all he knows they could eat cotton candy, fly kites and do needle point. He would do much better trying to De-bunk rather than claim to know beyond doubt. He comes across as a Snake Oil vendor.

Every ringmaster knows how to draw a crowd. When the circus comes to town, posters are everywhere, a parade ensues, and every local resource is exploited to get the citizens to come to the "Greatest Show On Earth!" MM has mastered the art of bigfoot marketing, and has now learned the hard way that there are entrepreneurs out there that are even more slick than he is! The carnival barker has become an exhibit in his own sideshow. Unfortunately, the rest of the research team members are lumped in with the freak show.

Whether or not a second season of hilarity will ensue is up to the producers and the Discovery Network. Despite what MM may think, he is replaceable, as there are a slough of other bigfoot researchers that want their proverbial 15 minutes of fame. The show can be cancelled mid production, and AP can choose to stop airing any show that it wants. He is the pawn, the puppet, the subordinate. Of course, MM will go out kicking and screaming in defiance, and I have to admire that part of his "Never Say Die" attitude, however futile.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites