Guest BFSleuth Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 The only thing the Park Service cares or makes a decision about is whether you have paid your fees and have proper insurance or bonding to host a paid group on park lands. If you are leading a climb or rafting trip or similar high risk activity they may also require additional documentation such as training in your activity and perhaps first aid training. They have no jurisdiction or consideration whether a group is looking for a crypto creature or not. If you have a paid group then you need to comply with their concession requirements... end of story.
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) 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. Why? There are countless examples of organizations running profit based business on public lands. That is why there is a permit system. They already do allow this via that system. Edited November 15, 2012 by kbhunter no religious references allowed
Guest Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 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 Feel better?
Guest Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Why? There are countless examples of organizations running profit based business on public lands. That is why there is a permit system. They already do allow this via that system. So by your definition a church group should be not allowed since God is a fraud right ? If the permit rules and regulations were being followed, there would not have been a problem for the BFRO, right? There are laws for that and it is not relevent to this conversation at all.
Guest Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 So, you're at the carnival, walking by the sideshow and the barker says "come see the two-headed cow!" On the outside of the tent is a painting of a large two-headed bull chasing a farmer through the field. So you pay your $1 and go into the tent. What you see is a two-headed fetus cow in a jar - does that constitue a Hoax? What is the definition of hoax in terms of BF? I think everyone will agree that intentionally making up an encounter, filming someone in a suit and claiming it is real or putting down fake tracks is hoaxing, but what about the "gray" areas. At what point is exaggerating or mis-representing evidence, omitting relevant information, or claiming that "We KNOW sasquatch __________(fill in the blank)" become hoaxing? How about all the "confirms" such as "the cross-over step" or "tree-peeking" or attributing every other noise in the woods to BF? - as someone's tag line here reads "Someone stole my sandwich - must be bigfoot". I know where my personal line is, where is yours? When I go to the sideshow, I pretty much accept the fetus cow in the jar and not the live two-headed bull - it is a sideshow. What should we expect from the world of Bigfoot?
yowiie Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Speaking of hoaxing, is there any further news on the Elbe trackway
Cotter Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 I haven't heard anything recently about the Elbe Trackway. And of course, as you are aware, some of the alleged players are not talking about it. I haven't seen the new BF Times yet to see if there has been any updates or retractions printed.
Guest Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) My understanding of the current state of affairs is thus: the hoaxer(s) sit comfortably behind a wall of silence and refuse to engage the actual evidence against him/them. The SC is still debating whether or not to perma-ban anyone caught hoaxing. And there the situation sits, with no end in sight. Everyone else seems to have taken the "nothing to be done" stance and is trying to move on. Unfortunate, because ultimately it means we still have a snake in our midst, ready to strike again, but the membership has no authority to act where Admin cannot. Edited November 15, 2012 by Mulder
Incorrigible1 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Close, but no cigar. As in the creature from which this forum springs, proof positive is a tough thing to capture. Edited November 15, 2012 by Incorrigible1
Drew Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 What if someone hacked into one of those digital highway signs, and changed the words to: "CAUTION: INJURED BIGFOOT IN ROADWAY- PLEASE SLOW DOWN" Would that be a bannable hoax? or are you talking about just hoaxing with a costume or footprints? Certainly when it got taken down, some would claim that there was a government cover up, to deny any responsibility for changing the sign due to there really being an injured BF in the roadway, and that there never was a hacker.
Cotter Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Well I tell ya, it'll be a long while before I get the eraser out to remove the asterisk next to a couple posters' names. But short of donning my Web Wilder hat and pulling all night stake-outs (with song and dance of course), I can only keep my ear to the ground and a watchful eye on the weeds.... ;-)
Guest Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 What if someone hacked into one of those digital highway signs, and changed the words to: "CAUTION: INJURED BIGFOOT IN ROADWAY- PLEASE SLOW DOWN" Would that be a bannable hoax? or are you talking about just hoaxing with a costume or footprints? Certainly when it got taken down, some would claim that there was a government cover up, to deny any responsibility for changing the sign due to there really being an injured BF in the roadway, and that there never was a hacker. Drew, I've said it before, and apparently I need to say it again: you would be calling for my head, or Dr Meldrum's, or Derek's or DDA's on the proverbial pike if any of us pulled a stunt like Elbe. It is very telling that you continue to dismiss/minimize/overlook it when a Skeptic crosses the line.
Guest Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 I'm still waiting for this proof that the hoaxers have actually been identified, all I've seen is a bunch of hearsay. Kinda hard to ban someone without the documentation to prove their guilt.
ShadowBorn Posted November 16, 2012 Moderator Posted November 16, 2012 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. John I totally agree with your assesment, our parks are in badly needed funding and that any extra monies made by any expidition should go to the parks.I dissagree with any hoaxing and that any proven hoaxer should be outed and placed on a list of known hoaxers just like under age sex offenders.This way we can weed out what is real from the fake and who is who.
Recommended Posts