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

[Guest gershake]

Since I haven't bothered to read all 8 or 9 pages of this, somebody may have already pointed this out. But has anybody here stopped to think that the hoax may be that there is a BF in a box, but "Ed" may have got another offer that he couldn't refuse? Things like that happen....

Where did all the skeptics run off to? They aren't very good skeptics if they haven't given this some serious attention.

I just didn't want to embarrass myself by being the first person to suggest it...

[Sasfooty]

Well, feel free to jump right in since it's been suggested.

Everybody seems to be so convinced that the whole idea of catching one is ridiculous, that they embarrass themselves by totally overlooking other possibilities, & beating the popular hypothesis to death.

Get a grip skeptics!!!! Does anybody in this discussion know for sure that there wasn't one "in a box"?

[Guest gershake]

To be fair, all we ever had about this was Ed Smith's word. Why should we choose to believe the initial story instead of choosing to believe his follow-up claim that it was all made up? It works both ways, of course (why should we now believe him that he's only made it up). We don't have great reasons for either choice.

[Guest GoLd]

gershake,

When he was confronted by the MABRC, with the info from Kulls, he recanted everything, admitted to making it all up and then came on to the BFF to gloat about it.

I really hope that you are trying to be ironic with that statement.

GoLd

[Sasfooty]

I don't know one way or the other, & really don't care. But I think it's funny watching all the "I-told-ya-so" going on, like it's cut & dried that he was lying about the BF in a box, but he's telling the truth now.

So what if he came here & "gloated? Maybe he needed to be convincing.

[Guest gershake]

gershake,

When he was confronted by the MABRC, with the info from Kulls, he recanted everything, admitted to making it all up and then came on to the BFF to gloat about it.

I really hope that you are trying to be ironic with that statement.

GoLd

I didn't know he talked about in other places than the BFF! Was it on a podcast?

[Martin]

The "Daisy in a box" story was tragically flawed from the start.

Is it reasonable to think that a group that spends millions and millions on land, equipment and personnel for 10+/- years would go to a bunch of minor web-forum personalities and squatch-bloggers for promotion?

Did the parties involved think that they were approached because they had something to add that the highly funded Orig-6/Quantra science team couldn't afford? Were they used because they were susceptible and sufficiently arrogant to bite? Those are the some of the questions I have.

I agree that this was a masterful hoax when targeted to specific personality type. I can't imagine it ending with a web confessional. I hope Ed makes a documentary!

Edited January 16, 2013 by Martin

[Guest GoLd]

I didn't know he talked about in other places than the BFF! Was it on a podcast?

Ok. . . . so apperently irony was'nt the point. Enjoy the possibility that it was a lie, wrapped in an enigma, ensconsed in a riddle which only masqueraded as an untruth.

GoLd

[Guest gershake]

Thanks for answering my question.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Good job ~ GoLd

As has been demonstrated, a little home work and some digging around on the different BF related sites, and most times you will find the answers long before it gets circulated around here.

Tim

[Guest GoLd]

Thanks for answering my question.

Gershake,

It can be found on the same podcast site that had his original declaration that Daisy was in a box, it is sandwiched in between the Ed Smith podcasts where they discussed what type of paper was used to draw up the articles of incorporation for the O-6, and the podcast discussing what type of buffet they were going to have at daisys quinceanera.

GoLd

Edited January 16, 2013 by GoLd

[Guest gershake]

Thanks!

[Guest]

Since I haven't bothered to read all 8 or 9 pages of this, somebody may have already pointed this out. But has anybody here stopped to think that the hoax may be that there is a BF in a box, but "Ed" may have got another offer that he couldn't refuse? Things like that happen....

Where did all the skeptics run off to? They aren't very good skeptics if they haven't given this some serious attention.

First Ed admitted this was a hoax all by himself.

Secondly - he gave out two days (last Friday and this past Monday) as the potential dates for the "Press Conference" (remember he said Quantra had hired a PR firm) - then when he released a statement to say the "Bridging group" was dismissed - he said he didn't know when the press conference would be... This actually surprised me when I read it - because Ed must have thought Darren was not telling those in the "bridging group" everything - as Ed said it would happen by Monday at the latest and I have no reason to doubt Darren on this. Also Darren said to me after Eds written statement, "I guess we will just have to wait with everyone else till Monday to see if there is a press conference" -- further cementing this past Monday as the date of the Press Conference Ed was telling Darren about.

Ed told us (through Darren) that the problem was the Public Relations firm, hired by Quantra couldn't reach an agreement with Ed on when to allow the bridging group to see "Daisy'... But, before this all ended - this press conference had two possible days - last Friday and this past Monday.. Now, he just doesn't know..

This only says one thing to me. There will be no press conference because there is no "Daisy in a box" - otherwise, what in the world are they waiting for?? LOL. I think Steve Kulls said it best - this "press conference stuff is nothing more than picking up the rug from behind you - and putting it in front of you." That's all it is.

[Cisco]

Mel

I read your earlier post and you make some very good points that I had not considered. You're correct in that we, the Bigfoot community, are all affected by hoaxers. I also understand your point, regarding the MABRC as a whole. However, I don't entirely agree they were all innocent. I have always trusted what you post and I'm grateful you included some details of your conversations with Darren and Randy. It has spread more light, at least in my mind, about the involvement of the MABRC.

It's apparent that Darren was very forthright with you and relayed whatever info he had, in an honest and straightforward manner. However, it does not explain the zeal and aggression in which they went about defending Ed Smith.

I think most people are willing to accept that Darren, Randy and the MABRC did not know Ed was hoaxing them. However, in their conversations with you, their tone seemed to be one of neutrality. Along the lines of "lets wait and see." However, they were not always singing that tune, so to speak. There were times in which they defended Ed like he was their brother. They scorned questions about Ed and the Quantra group and vigorously attacked anybody that dared to question the validity of Ed's claims.

You see the dilemma? With you, they take a stance of being neutral with no expectations, one way or another. However, prior to Ed's admission, they were singing a different tune. Just take a look at some of the posts on their forum. In fact, Dr. Mathew Johnson was quickly attacked for announcing "Daisy in a box" was not true.

If they really were neutral and had a "wait and see" attitude, I would have expected responses that were a bit more tempered.

There have been some posts in this thread from people that were "run off" the MABRC or berated for questioning the stories from Ed Smith. If Darren, Randy and the MABRC were unsure of Ed's claims; why did they feel compelled to defend him or his stories?

There must have been a reason for them to stick their necks out so far for such a long period of time? More than 4 years?

It reminds me of the story of the wife, who thinks her husband may be a bank robber but does not want to know the truth because she enjoys spending the money....

[bipedalist]

....However, in their conversations with you, their tone seemed to be one of neutrality. Along the lines of "lets wait and see." However, they were not always singing that tune, so to speak. There were times in which they defended Ed like he was their brother. They scorned questions about Ed and the Quantra group and vigorously attacked anybody that dared to question the validity of Ed's claims.

You see the dilemma? With you, they take a stance of being neutral with no expectations, one way or another. However, prior to Ed's admission, they were singing a different tune. Just take a look at some of the posts on their forum. In fact, Dr. Mathew Johnson was quickly attacked for announcing "Daisy in a box" was not true.

^

This