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

[Rockape]

I wonder if Manti Te'o's real girlfriend is Daisy. That would explain some things.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The real thing that had me saying no way was, they never gave the specifications of the box at all, in the movies you always know what kind of box it is, in this case we got very little info, Bigfoot is a big animal, it's going to take some strong material, was it wood, steel, aluminum, composite, welded, bolted, titanium with a radar reflective outer shell, or perhaps it was just. All screwed together from the beginning.

Tim

[Guest]

That is a very reasonable and sound approach Simplyskyla..

When these things are over, I look for the how and why - we already know in this situation the "who" is Ed. We know how he did it. But, we don't know why.. Not sure if we can even speculate on that here - but these are the things I think about at the end of a hoax.

I think that is a very reasonable and sound approach.

Thank you

[Guest Grifter9931]

Interesting read

Interesting read ..... Makes no sense to do any of this

[Guest gershake]

Thanks for clearing up some confusion, Melissa.

[Guest]

Hello Cisco. I appreciate your kind remarks - and I hope you know I intend no hard feelings with mine. All I can do is simply discuss this situation as I see it and hope you will understand and not think I am attacking you. I also think there is much that can be learned when things like this happen. The difficult part is to keep our eyes on the ball - and not get distracted by the other "moving parts"... Otherwise, it can (and most likely) will happen again.

These are just my thoughts on this situation - based on information I have. Should that information ever change - you can bet I will say so. It's a sure bet. I also do not feel bad saying both Darren and Randy know this about me. So, this would not be a shock to them to hear I have said - if I find information that they were in any way culpable in this - I will make it as publicly known as possible. But, to date I have zero evidence that either DW or DO are in any way involved with the hoaxing.

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 did not use the word "innocent" - that is your word. No one associated with the MABRC, Darren or DO have said - they are innocent - but they do not deserve to take the fall for the actions of someone else. Darren and Randy made the mistake so many others in life make, "my friend, boyfriend, husband, wife, mother, father, family member - etc, couldn't possibly be involved in something like this. I know them, they are my friend, boyfriend, husband, wife, mother, father, family member - etc."

This could happen to any one of us. Also, we need to recognize we only have so much control over others. That is a tough one to master.

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.

They had zero proof there was any hoaxing going on. I am not going to discuss the "zeal" you talk about - because I have seen some of the interactions, and one mans "zeal" is another mans pest. So.. That is a matter of perception.

Let's look at this from another perspective. Hypothetically.. If someone, was a member of a website forum I owned, and was making grand claims - and I wanted to investigate that person and get the necessary proof of a hoax or not - I would not answer questions about what I thought - or anything I planned to do to ferret out the individual on the open forum. That would be a bit counter productive. I might do what I needed to do to keep that person around.. Why you ask (screaming at your monitor)?? Because - if this person gets spooked - I can't stop them from going to another forum where others may buy into the claims more easily - and not be able to shut that person down completely. The goal is to get the information that stops the hoaxer from his end goal -- the hoax.

In fact - I did that very thing here. One forum member here asked me to do a recorded interview with Ed. I read the comment - but did not respond to that particular portion. Why? Because I did not want to give Ed a heads up that I might want that to happen. Why? Because it gives him time to prepare (Ed was monitoring the BFF) that is the worst thing that could happen. But, I did privately message the forum member with an explanation and I told the member that I did send Ed a message requesting the conversation (the one he ignored) after it was over. This same forum member asked me to ask Ed about a lie detector.. Let me say this - all good ideas. But, none I would discuss openly - so the person could see what I was thinking and what I might do next - in public. That is very counter productive. It gives them the opportunity to plan either how they will refuse and not be suspicious or how to answer..

I will say though - I would never pay for a lie detector test out of my own pocket - I think they are worthless. But, that's my own opinion.

You should never show your hand in public.

There may be very good reasons for why people do things that do not seem rational.

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.

I do think Randy said here a number of times, "Let's wait and see" - I also believe Darren said this also. You are comparing internet conversations to telephone conversations. I often find much meaning is lost when you put your words on the internet. Let's also face the fact that not everyone reads everything. Often times people think I am attacking them with my questions or responses - when I am not. Granted I will never be given a "politically correct" award - but when I give my thoughts on the internet I am not trying to be intentionally rude or insulting. My delivery is what many misinterpret. I have been told it is the way I express my thoughts on the internet. So, personally, I think the internet is the worst place to try and have a conversation.

If you had a friend - for years - and they were being accused of hoaxing you would also, most likely, defend them with a great deal of "zeal". That is human nature. We protect the people we call family and friends. It's what we do. Did I expect, Randy, would even call me? Heck no. In fact when Randy did call (within minutes of sending the message) the first words out of his mouth were, "You didn't expect me to call did you?" He was right. Just like you - I was looking for anything that would tell me Randy or DW were trying to be deceptive. If Randy were attempting to be deceptive at all or had something to hide - he would have sent me a message back first with the classic, "I'm kinda busy today, what's up?" Response. But he did not. Why do I say that? Because that is classic for someone to do - when they want to first gauge what the conversation will be about - and they want time to prepare. I had a very frank and honest conversation with Randy. At any point he could have told me to "shove off" or used more colorful words - but he did not.

Now, compare that to Ed. I sent Ed one message asking him to call me. Ed never even acknowledged reading the message. That told me volumes.

I was brought into all this by Ed - not Randy or Darren. That distinction is important. Randy owed me nothing - he could have said that and he would have been right. But, he never did.

Both Darren and Randy told me about their first meeting with Ed at a restaurant. Randy told me about a portfolio Ed had with him. Randy admitted to me he went through Ed's portfolio (when Ed got up to go pay for his meal) confirming what Darren said (that it was Randy who went through it) and in it Randy found what appeared to be documents with the name Ed Smith on them. Now, unless Ed uses the name Ed Smith for business purposes (Which I highly doubt) that is a bit of work to go through just to create the impression you are someone you're not. This is the level Ed went to. Like I said - anyone could have been taken in by this kind of thing.

Let's be honest here for a second too. There is also a certain amount of "If you push me, I will push you back" - that happens on the internet. I sat here and watched it. I think Randy showed a great amount of intestinal fortitude to come here and discuss what had gone on in the past, and the current situation - all while reading that his "friend" was a hoaxer - and his group was being accused - along with himself and DW. There were also things being said like, "Ed is an MABRC member" - Randy and others attempted numerous times to answer this - but how many actually read what was said? Example: Ed Smith was NEVER a member of the MABRC Group. Ed was a member of the MABRC Forum. Big difference. I am a member of the MABRC forum - that does not make me a member of the group - nor am I. I can understand the frustration. There comes a point when everyone starts to push back. That is not an excuse - it is, again, human behavior.

What I find more telling than anything - is the fact that DW and Randy made the decision early on to remove Ed from the MABRC message board - and their lives - if this did not pan out. Why is this telling for me? Because they followed through and enough was enough for them. No questions asked. Remember I discussed this with Darren on the first day of my involvement. No one that was in contact with DW had to tell him to do anything - and I was frankly impressed by the speed at which he did it - without anyone having to ask him to do it - or to keep his word.

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.

Yes I do. I do see it from your perspective. But - both Randy and DW did have an expectation. What was it? "It better be legit or Ed Smith was done." I'm not sure what else they could do. I won't discuss Dr. Johnson, because I would like to remain a member of this forum. You are forgetting - prior to Ed's hoax being busted - they had nothing to prove Ed was lying. When I use the word prove - or proof or evidence - I am talking about tangible evidence. Something undeniable. Gut reactions aren't proof or evidence and unless someone has something that can be considered actual proof - all we have are gut reactions. I listen to my gut (as do most) but I need evidence - hard proof - that someone is hoaxing before I will call them a hoaxer. Not everyone feels that way. Which is fine, but then you can probably expect those who have no proof and want it one way or the other (if they think there could be any legitimacy to the claim) to push back hard.

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

Now you are placing your own expectations on others. Not everyone would react to a situation as you would - or I would. I will also say - you don't know how you would react to any situation - until you're in it.

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?

Cisco, there are stories from people who say they have been run off the BFF. It's always best to get both sides of a story. I won't discuss that either. I will say this - if you're going shopping for china, it's probably best to leave your prize bull at home. I am thinking of one person specifically - but as my grandma always said, "you catch more flies with honey." I can't and won't discuss every claim of this - because it happens with every forum and there are always two sides. Some removals may have been justified - some may not have been. I do not know I am not an administrator of any website forum anymore. (Thank god).

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?

Yes, they had no proof or evidence that Ed was in fact hoaxing. I think proof is mandatory if you're going to jump on the internet and label someone anything.

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....

In the field of Bigfoot Research - all we have as investigators or Website Forum owners is the word of others unless we can establish undeniable proof - one way or the other. If the person is willing to give up info to prove their point - then that is different. The wife may have her suspicions (in your scenerio) but that does not make her guilty of committing the robbery. You have to put her in the Bank and having knowledge of the robbery. We don't have that in this case. We can put Ed in this - but we have no proof or evidence that DW or DO helped Ed commit this hoax or even had knowledge a hoax was about to occur. All they had was the word of Ed Smith.

Ed gave all of us the proof of his hoax. Ed could have implicated DW or DO in his statement here on the BFF and everywhere else - yet he did not do that. Basically he called everyone stupid - to include DW and DO. So, that tells me Ed targeted DW and Randy.

Both DW and Randy learned a hard lesson - but how we guard against the Ed's of the future - well, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not sure we can.

One other thing worthy of consideration.. While everyone is so worked up over DW and DO - many seem to have forgotten who is really responsible for all this.

Do you know what becomes easier to do when everyone else is looking in the other direction? Think about it.

Again these are my opinions, and if I broke any forum rules, I apologize now. That was not my intent.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Painthorse]

JMO, I believe the best lesson learned here is to never be a "mouthpiece for anyone" until there is some physical evidence brought forth. Not just hearsay or written documentation.

This scenario was not in effect the same as taking a simple sightings report, audio recording or picture, it was a long term project, a 4 1/2 year project with the end result of "Daisy in the box".

Something like this, whether it is by an individual or a group needs to be kept behind closed doors until "some type" of verifiable evidence is put forth before "being made public knowledge".

Yes, it is after the fact but JMO being that this project was handed over to a research group to be a mouthpiece for Mr Ed, why wasn't the option of a vote given to the rest of the group taken to give the choice to keep it hush hush until it could be "verified" before making the claims public? DW and DO aren't just imdividual researchers, they represent the "group".

We all have the power of choice on how to handle the situations that come to us, it's the choices we make that take us to where we end up.

[Sunflower]

Or why couldn't another member of their group take a tag number from the vehicle?

[Guest]

Yes, it is after the fact but JMO being that this project was handed over to a research group to be a mouthpiece for Mr Ed, why wasn't the option of a vote given to the rest of the group taken to give the choice to keep it hush hush until it could be "verified" before making the claims public? DW and DO aren't just imdividual researchers, they represent the "group".

Well in this particular situation, Ed took that right out of their hands, by posting the "text message from Quantra" on the message board - before he talked to DW and DO. I do not hold BFF moderators and admin responsible for comments and posts I find ridiculous even when the mods or admin ask me to back off and play nice (that is just an example). I hold the person responsible who made the post.

I don't know that this wasn't taken to the MABRC group for a vote on how to handle it. It could have been - but you would need to ask DW or DO about that. All I know is how it was handled and that is what I talked to DW and DO about - I did not ask about MABRC group policy, as that really has nothing to do with the Ed Smith situation (from the perspective of what I was doing). But, if there was a vote of some kind - I wouldn't know.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest GoLd]

Hi Melissa,

You have forth coming and honest, as far as I can tell, up to this point. I have a question, and I hope you will continue to being honest in your answers.

My question is, did you volunteer to to do the face saving PR for the MABRC on the BFF or were you asked, or are you just doing this on your own?

GoLd

Edited January 18, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove content; GG1&2, 1A

[Guest]

My question is, did you volunteer to to do the face saving PR for the MABRC on the BFF or were you asked, or are you just doing this on your own?

Excuse me?? Face saving?? These are my thoughts based on my own conversations. I have not been asked to do anything for anyone -- nor would I - ever.

I am no one's mouth piece. I do not speak on behalf of anyone else.

Your speculation is wrong. Maybe my knowledge comes from going to the source to ask questions? Did that thought cross your mind? My suggestion to you is to get to know people - before you decide you know what their thoughts and motivations are. You don't know me.

Oh, and I accept your apology in advance.

Also, apparently you did not get my point when I discussed Steve Kulls with you. Steve is not the only person in this community who has a background in Investigations and how to spot a person who is being deceptive.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest GoLd]

Hi Melissa,

You are correct, I do not know you, and if I offended you then I do apologize, although I didn't accuse you of anything negative.

In having dialogs with you, and reading what you have posted to others who are critical of how the MABRC handled this situation, it appears to me that you are defending them. I am curious as to why?

GoLd

[Painthorse]

True, BUT anything can be posted anywhere. It doesn't mean there can't be a response written in effect that it "still needs to be verified until further notice".

Maybe-----> I cannot confirm nor deny, may have been appropriate for that.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Painthorse

[Guest]

Gold,

Again, you are wrong. I have clearly stated - I have no EVIDENCE to prove DW or DO had anything to do with the hoax itself. Do you have information to the contrary? If so, lets see it.

That is not defending anyone. I am saying - before you build the wooden stake for the witch - you should want the proof that the witch is a witch and not just someone being falsely accused. Frankly - everyone who knows me knows - if I come across information that these guys were involved - you will know it. I do not take kindly to hoaxers and have zero qualms about exposing them.

Would it make you feel better if I lied and said they did things - they didn't do - so it makes me look less like I am defending them --- which of course is all about the opinions of others... LOL.. All I can tell you is what I know, what I heard, and what I was told. I am not getting drug into a finger pointing and accusations conversation. If you have proof they knew more - than they admitted to - I would LOVE to hear about it. But, you better have proof.

Yes, you are accusing me of doing something wrong. Your implication is that I am helping them "save face" which also implies I would ignore bad deeds by them. All in an attempt to make them look good... That is unfair and insulting.

Painthorse said:

True, BUT anything can be posted anywhere. It doesn't mean there can't be a response written effect that it "still needs to be verified until further notice".

Maybe-----> I cannot confirm nor deny, may have been appropriate for tha

Oh they already tried this before. It went horribly wrong. LOL. But that's probably what I would have done too. But, we are back to - hindsight is always 20/20...

Edited January 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Painthorse]

:

Oh they already tried this before. It went horribly wrong. LOL. But that's probably what I would have done too. But, we are back to - hindsight is always 20/20...

Yes, hard lesson learned.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Painthorse