Hoaxes, Hoaxers, Frauds, And Con-Men In The Bigfoot Community

[Guest]

What will Ed do next? I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him.

Perhaps he will pop up as Ketchum's next PR officer.

[Guest]

<p>

Wow, Melissa Hovey nailed it when she explained why she never believes anyone till she sees the evidence. It really makes you question your beliefs when you realize that people will go to such great lengths to perpetuate their lies. I feed like an idiot. i have been taught a lesson, and it was fairly painless. Imagine the people who invest money with the Bernie Madoffs of this world and learn the same lesson the hard way.

I don't know if I "nailed it or not" it's just a good frame of mind to have. Please don't feel bad that you were taken in (if you were) by this latest hoax. It happens and that is nothing to beat yourself up over. You will react differently to the next big story though - I guarantee it. You are human and, as a human, there are some things we just have to experience to understand. You should never just accept the opinions of others as fact (not even mine or others who have been around the community longer)- look for the answers yourself. That is the best advice I was ever given when I was new to this community. Life is a series of learning experiences. At least that's how I look at things. As far as I am concerned this is over. One more story proven untrue. But, in the interest of full disclosure - let me add this. At the request of a forum member - I did send a private message to Ed Smith requesting to speak with him by phone (sometime around noon the day this all ended). I did not tell him why I wanted to talk to him - I simply sent him a message on the MABRC and sent him my phone number. I intended to try and have a recorded conversation with Ed Smith by phone. Why? Because Ed had already given many internet radio interviews, for which he had time to prepare. I did not want to give him that option. But; He never responded. This was the only message he completely ignored. Which told me quite a bit. I did not have a chance to discuss this with all of you, as the cancellation of the "Bridging Team" (I still think that was a stupid name) happened the very night I sent that message to Ed. I just wanted to make sure no one thought I had ignored the request made by the forum member. But as I said, this is over as far as I am concerned, and I wish you all --- all the best</p> Edited January 15, 2013 by Melissa

[Rockape]

For me the MABRC's problem is that if nothing else they are guilty of being extremely gullible.

And I have heard from people I DO trust that the MABRC stomped down anyone who along the way on this Ed Smith debacle tried to raise a red flag, some even banned from the forum for their dissent.

For me one of the best things the BFF has going for them are the number of skeptics here and how they are allowed to voice their opinion. Tossing them out would result in a MABRC situation where you end up with nothing but a bunch of "That's a Squatch'ers" who readily buy into anything being sold. It's an unhealthy situation.

I also don't like that the MABRC hid a lot of this information to those who do not join. That makes it look like nothing but an attempt to drive up their membership and induce clicks on their site.

MABRC seems to think they did nothing wrong but if nothing else they have made many people even more cynical of the BF world and the people in it.

Then there is the arrogance, "We don't owe an apology to anyone". Seems they want to blame everyone except themselves. The statement put out was just a bunch of horse hockey and an attempt to deflect any blame from themselves.

Well, MABRC has made their bed, now they can lie in it.

[Hairy Man]

<p>

I also don't like that the MABRC hid a lot of this information to those who do not join. That makes it look like nothing but an attempt to drive up their membership and induce clicks on their site.

You do know that there are areas here on the BFF that you have to join in order to see, right? How is that different from the MABRC? It just sounds to me you just plain don't like them and no matter what they do, you aren't going to be happy.

Then there is the arrogance, "We don't owe an apology to anyone". Seems they want to blame everyone except themselves. The statement put out was just a bunch of horse hockey and an attempt to deflect any blame from themselves.

I don't think they owe anyone anything.</p>

[Martin]

The "Final Statement" even extended to criticizing 3rd parties who had offended MABRC Leadership in the past. Why was that even in there?

The use of "Final Statement" in the title is arrogant to me as well. As if they speak from a position of authority...

[Rockape]

<p>You do know that there are areas here on the BFF that you have to join in order to see, right? How is that different from the MABRC?

Yes, I know that as I am a premium member. The difference I see is that you don't have to become a premium member to see topical threads such as The Ketchum Report or Operation Persistence and many others. The premium section is there so members can discuss things such as religion and politics that could not be discussed in the regular forum, plus the infamous Tar Pit where tongues are unleashed. That's why you have to be a certain age to join, things are discussed that the kiddies shouldn't read.

It just sounds to me you just plain don't like them and no matter what they do, you aren't going to be happy.

No, I don't like them. Before this Ed Smith thing broke I had no truck with them.

But since, they have made it clear just how petty and childish they really are. From their "The Forum BFF doesn't want you to know about" (Really? I know about the MABRC forum because of the BFF) to their crappy attitude to everyone since then. I've seen nothing but arrogance and obstifucation from them (by the way, did you know that Ed Smith is gay?) and have seen how they come here to attack folks who offer an opposing point of view. Thankfully the BFF allows that. I'm entitled to my opinion and I am sorry if the MABRC folks don't like it.

I don't think they own anyone anything.</p>

Maybe not, but it would have been a step in the right direction instead of trying to sling mud on others and deny they did nothing wrong.

[Guest]

You do know that there are areas here on the BFF that you have to join in order to see, right? How is that different from the MABRC? It just sounds to me you just plain don't like them and no matter what they do, you aren't going to be happy.I don't think they own anyone anything.

Thank you.

[Hairy Man]

I'm not talking about the PMP area. There are sections you can't see in the regular forum that are hidden unless you are a member.

They took down the BFF statement from their forum in an effort to improve relations. I commend them for it. I know many members of the MABRC and they are very good people.

[Guest]

Just a hypothetical:

What would be the greatest Bigfoot hoax of all time? A DNA study that has been going on forever? Is it possible or even probable that human contamination, as most experts have been claiming all along, is the unknown primate? What if this has been known for a long time inside this camp? What if this camp has kept up the charade for financial reasons? Would this not be worse than the Ed Smith hoax?

[Guest]

In my case as a whole, I have had some past experience.

Tim

Thanks. Once I get to a computfer I will give you a couple of facts which I know from this entire affair. This smartphone keypad is killing me.

[Martin]

Just a hypothetical:

What would be the greatest Bigfoot hoax of all time? A DNA study that has been going on forever? Is it possible or even probable that human contamination, as most experts have been claiming all along, is the unknown primate? What if this has been known for a long time inside this camp? What if this camp has kept up the charade for financial reasons? Would this not be worse than the Ed Smith hoax?

IMHO, If Ketchum has done the work and failed to meet the standard of peer review then good on her for trying.

If she has fudged the info or created data then she's a hoaxer and she would damage her reputation as well as those who vouched for her.

Financial reasons are are irrelevant. either she has the goods or she does not have the goods. If she fakes the goods then she's a hoaxer.

I don't believe anyone suggests that Ketchum has made this study up from whole cloth.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

**This is an official Moderator Statement**

This topic is turning into a "Bash Fest" and that will not be tolerated. Please cease and desist this behavior immediately!

Hiding posts and edits have become numerous. Punitive actions will be doled out should this behavior continue.

I understand the frustration. However, I've been fooled before and all of you have been, too. There is no need to disrupt the topic or slam a particular group for their mistake. Like you and I, hopefully they've learned from the experience and will take actions in the future to prevent this type of thing.

**This is an official Moderator Statement**

[Guest]

IMHO, If Ketchum has done the work and failed to meet the standard of peer review then good on her for trying.

If she has fudged the info or created data then she's a hoaxer and she would damage her reputation as well as those who vouched for her.

Financial reasons are are irrelevant. either she has the goods or she does not have the goods. If she fakes the goods then she's a hoaxer.

I don't believe anyone suggests that Ketchum has made this study up from whole cloth.

I don't believe the study is made up, but I beleive it is quite possible, it has been known for some time that the results are very flawed. If their is any truth to the rumor that Smega's DNA was not ruled out as contamination, then from the point it was possibly known to be inaccurate, then one most start to consider if something might be fraudulent.

[Martin]

^ That is a testable result on one of many samples if what we are hearing is true. We will see the results at some point unless she announces that she was just "dragging this process out while running an internal investigation".

IMHO, " If she has fudged the info or created data then she's a hoaxer and she would damage her reputation as well as those who vouched for her."

[Guest]

That again is part of the suspicion, those that vouched for her are pretty quiet. If we only had the name of one person associated with this study. This for me is where the comparison to Ed Smith comes in.