Guest Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 The rules are being ignored Mike and it is a sad day for those who do have scruples and shows what a joke this forum has become regarding fairness and decorum. I think the horrible lynch-mob mentality is because many people's great hopes for vindication of their beliefs (i.e. Melba Ketchum's DNA study and Mr. Erickson's film) have fizzled out and died leaving these people angry and looking for a place to direct their anger. What he said! BF is based on hoaxing, that is all there is, that and wishful thinking. BF does not exist, and although I was once convinced it did, once I came to these forums, I was a complete sceptic within six months. But it is still somewhat enjoyable to watch the show! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Glad I tolerate that we can provide your entertainment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 What he said! BF is based on hoaxing, that is all there is, that and wishful thinking. BF does not exist, and although I was once convinced it did, once I came to these forums, I was a complete sceptic within six months. But it is still somewhat enjoyable to watch the show! haha I disagree that BF is based on hoaxing. Do you live near California Summitwalker? I can personally lead you to some physical evidence that you can keep for your very own if you like. There are proponents who give BF paranormal like attributes. Myself having issues with glowing eyes (not reflective), zapping and ESP. They provide part of the spectrum of opinion that makes the BFF so popular though. There are skeptics who have resorted to hoaxing themselves. Myself having issues with the justifications offered in hoaxers defense. They also provide a part of the spectrum. I myself just had to take a break to put that back into perspective. As a "knower" it is hard to take that I usually find myself in the skeptic and sometimes scoftic camp on most reports/evidence. Now there are hoaxing skeptics! Frustrating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 What he said! BF is based on hoaxing, that is all there is, that and wishful thinking. BF does not exist, and although I was once convinced it did, once I came to these forums, I was a complete sceptic within six months. But it is still somewhat enjoyable to watch the show! haha Proof BF does not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 What he said! BF is based on hoaxing, that is all there is, that and wishful thinking. BF does not exist, and although I was once convinced it did, once I came to these forums, I was a complete sceptic within six months. But it is still somewhat enjoyable to watch the show! haha summitwalker, In your opinion that is. Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 From the web: A man who led tour groups on a hunt for Bigfoot met up with the long arm of the law instead, and got fined for doing business on federal lands without a permit. Matt Pruitt was leading a group expedition for The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization at the Buffalo National River Park in Arkansas in February when he and his group of 31 people were stopped by two park rangers. Pruitt was slapped with a hefty $525 fine for a lack of a commercial use permit. The organization typically charges as much as $500 to go along on searches for the mythical creature in various locations across North America. That's between the group and the gullible -- unless they're conducting their hunt on federal land. “He was given money by people to lead them on an expedition,†Karen Bradford, chief ranger at Buffalo National River Park, told FoxNews.com. “When you complete any sort of transaction you become a concessionaire and need the proper permit.†Pruitt conceded in a posting on his blog that he didn't do enough research on rules and regulations. “After scouting that location and having been very impressed with the area, I decided to conduct the expedition there. I immediately scoured their website to see if I needed any specific permits or passes to conduct such an effort there,†Pruitt wrote. “I assumed that I had fully acquainted myself with the necessary information related to the usage rules and regulations of the park. I was wrong, and I paid for that mistake.†Pruitt paid the fine online Friday according to local reports in Arkansas. "It was a fairly innocent mistake,†Pruitt said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “At first they were very concerned that we were filming, that we were trying to get away with commercial filming without a permit. Once those concerns were satiated, there were other concerns." The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization often films expeditions as part of the Animal Planet Series, "Finding Bigfoot." Pruitt’s expedition at Buffalo National River Park was not being filmed. Despite being fined for lack of a permit, it would have been likely that Pruitt would not have been able to obtain one. “It’s highly unlikely that he would have gotten a permit if he applied for one," Bradford said. "It’s not normal practice to issue them for expeditions to find Bigfoot." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/bigfoot-explorer-stomped-with-hefty-fines-for-lack-permit/#ixzz2C7bneWVr I'm not accusing anyone of hoaxing, but 31 people x $500 = $15,500. - motivation to hoax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Comncents you clearly don't look into the things you post about. Did you even read Pruitt's blog or did you just assume the article was accurate. Many people here know Matt personally. Your suggestion that he would hoax anything is pretty offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I did not read the blog, nor did I accuse anyone of hoaxing. I specifically said I wasn't accusing anyone of hoaxing. I am asking if charging money for expeditions is a motivation to hoax..several comments in this thread indicate that money is a motivation to hoax - so where does this fit? I gues this type of question is off limits - so nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 14, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Transformer, on 25 October 2012 - 03:47 PM, said: The rules are being ignored Mike and it is a sad day for those who do have scruples and shows what a joke this forum has become regarding fairness and decorum. I think the horrible lynch-mob mentality is because many people's great hopes for vindication of their beliefs (i.e. Melba Ketchum's DNA study and Mr. Erickson's film) have fizzled out and died leaving these people angry and looking for a place to direct their anger. What he said! BF is based on hoaxing, that is all there is, that and wishful thinking. BF does not exist, and although I was once convinced it did, once I came to these forums, I was a complete sceptic within six months. But it is still somewhat enjoyable to watch the show! haha How appropriate that you quote a member telling us how moribund we all are for being angry believers yet (she) spent a good deal of her summer and fall making sure she kept current with all the witnesses that know that Sasquatch is a real entity. Yes, Ketchum may be overdue or even a dollar's worth of dna short of a SNP..... but that doesn't take anything away from those of us that have witnessed the very biped this forum glorifies. You were a complete skeptic in six months of reading BFF? It took me six or more months of nonstop research to put myself in a position for a sighting. Maybe you took the wrong turn Summitwalker?! Edited November 14, 2012 by bipedalist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I did not read the blog, nor did I accuse anyone of hoaxing. I specifically said I wasn't accusing anyone of hoaxing. I am asking if charging money for expeditions is a motivation to hoax..several comments in this thread indicate that money is a motivation to hoax - so where does this fit? I gues this type of question is off limits - so nevermind. I would encourage you to read the blog because Matt does a great job of breaking down his personal costs vs. what was brought in. He basically broke even, so there wasn't a motive to hoax, in this particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Despite being fined for lack of a permit, it would have been likely that Pruitt would not have been able to obtain one. “It’s highly unlikely that he would have gotten a permit if he applied for one," Bradford said. "It’s not normal practice to issue them for expeditions to find Bigfoot." Wouldn't that be a violation of Pruitt's rights as a citizen to have the same access to public lands as any other citizen? If they permit organized expeditions/campouts/ect of ANY kind, it is a violation of his basic rights to deny him access based on his objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The quote is probably out of context. I doubt that they would actually deny him a permit for conducting a business operation as long as the proper paperwork was done and any needed fees paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Wouldn't that be a violation of Pruitt's rights as a citizen to have the same access to public lands as any other citizen? If they permit organized expeditions/campouts/ect of ANY kind, it is a violation of his basic rights to deny him access based on his objective. The BFRO should not be denied access to any state/national park. BUT they should be denied making a PROFIT for their organization from an expedition on state/national land. Any extra monies should go to the park. After all, they (the BFRO) are not a non profit organization. Edited November 14, 2012 by JohnCartwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Each National Park administers their concessions for guiding or other activities within their park differently. For example, some parks will grant a monopoly on guiding climbing trips to a single company by bid, while others will grant multiple concessions for a fixed fee. Any time someone guides a group in a NP and charges a fee for the service there will be a fee required by the NP. In the case of Matt Pruitt he contacted the NP and thought he had followed their rules. However, after entering the park with his group they had a different take on the matter. For anyone that has ever called a government agency to try and get advise about what the rules and regulations are for activity "X", then you know that if you talk to three different people you are apt to get three different answers. All that being said, I agree with the concept that being able to charge fees for guiding BF expeditions can be a motivation to hoax. However, if anyone is trying to get rich by conducting said expeditions I think you need to seriously reevaluate your business plan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Maybe they don't like ,what they perceive to be, fraudulent activities taking place on their land. Edited November 14, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts