Peter Byrne- Guilty Of Fraud

[WSA]

When you are talking about something as "stand alone" as the PGF, no, it is not really subject to rebuttal by collateral things like not returning the movie camera on time. Nor would it have any effect on whether I believed what witnesses told Byrne, if they would collaborate those statements independently. But, if Byrne were telling me his experiences in the field and requiring me to take his word for something he could not independently verify...well, sorry, yes it would be something I would consider.  Nothing to do with any other researcher's veracity or the dependability of any other evidence, of course.  

[Guest DWA]

^^^Oh.  I agree.

[JDL]

georgerm, I'm not trying to pile on Peter.  In fact, I have some empathy for him.  It saddens me that he had to resort to government assistance to begin with and that the issue was compounded.

[georgerm]

JDL, thanks for the comment.  

 

Peter has pushed the 'bigfoot ball forward' most of his life, and this is the time for some encouragement which is different from condonement. We don't need to get down on him since he has suffered much already, and this could kill an old man. We have all done things we regret, the goal is to not do them anymore which could taint all of our works as one member said. This is the time for 'bigfooters' to rally for one of our own. If you want to write him a letter, the let me know.

 

Below is Peter's letter:

 

 

 

Dear George,

 

Thanks your note and good wishes.  Much appreciated. Yes, I have had some legal problems in this last year and I see that they have now leaked out. And, yes, there has been a great deal of stress, to where 2013 was not a good year for me or, with severe illness on the part of my partner, for her either, this too in addition to a scamming and sever financial loss on the part of my family

 

Normally I do not rise to making making excuses. Don't complain, don't explain, has been a motto of mine for many years. Nor shall I now attempt to publicly rebut the Forum statements, other than with this latter to you, which same you can quote me on if you wish and which same I swear to you, on my honor, is absolutely true.

 

1. I have never had $85 in a bank account in my whole life. The most

have ever had is $25,000 and as of now, in my 89th as I am now (with the 23rd August the first day of my ninetieth!) and so with little chance of recouping it,  legal expenses have drained that to zero.

 

2. All of my overseas trips were to the country of Nepal and all (ALL) were to work in wildlife conservation projects for which I was not paid a cent in salary, or for airfares (except, I think, once, as a gift) or any personal expenses. All of the projects I worked on, personally, in the field, were sponsored by two highly reputable, registered US foundations which same were, at the end of a twenty year series of successful projects, thoroughly satisfied with same.

 

3.  As to my financial and leagl problems ....when I was 64 I applied for Social Security but, because I had not  contributed enough in taxes-not having been in this country long enough to do so-I was not eligible for same. However, the Social Security people  told me that until I was eligible, in other words when I had contributed enough in income tax (which I did achieve, recently) I could draw a substitute allowance called SSI. What they did not tell me and which is not to this day written up in any of the SS rulings, is that one may not draw this if one is out of the US at any time for more than 30 days. Which, for my wildlife conservation projects I was, many times to where in the end-and this is just an educated guess-some envious little person informed Social Security and they looked into it and came after me. There were several charges, all of which they told me would be dropped (they were)  if I would plead guilty to one and make appropriate financial restitution, which, on the advice of my lawyers, I did.

 

It has been an unfortunate affair, George and while it lasted very stressful for me and my family. However, one or two good things came out of it. One was the extraordinary support I received from friends all over the world, with many from people in the Bigfoot field. The other is that at the end of this year-after a period of "so called good behavior-I will be able to have the while thing expunged from record...and get on with my life and put it behind me.  And this, as of now, is all that I have to say about the matter.

 

For your interest but also in regard to the above...  at the end of my twenty five years work in wildlife conservation work in Nepal, via a continuous (every winter) ten year, ten season series of  wildlife conservation projects, all of them based on a program I designed called WATER FOR WILDLIFE and consisting of the renovation of lakes (two) ground-water, waterholes (two) dry river bed waterholes (six) natural spring renovation (1) fish habitat creation (1) and a crocodile preservation project, (1) I have now closed down my conservation work in that country. My health is good enough but my energy levels are not just up to living in tents, and all day hiking and native food any more, as well as, with  malaria (eight times) behind me,  and amoebic dysentery (twice)  and hookworm, and dengue fever (twice) and some broken bones, I feel that at my age I might be pushing my luck a bit now. So, as of last winter,  and with more than fifty years in the little Kingdom (and nine in India before that) I feel it is time, as they say, to fold the tents and call it a day...  which is what I am doing now.

 

Sorry if I have been a bit long winded here...but in the legal matter I feel that it  is is important that someone (just you George, no one else at this time) should know the truth, in addition-as above- the reality of where and how I spent those "millions" it is suggested I might have tucked away... yes, in a tent, in the tropical jungles of a far away country!

 

All the best George.. I am here now, embedded likeyou on the Oregon coast...so keep in mind a visit if you wish.

 

For the moment, your friend  >>> Peter B.

 

 

[WSA]

^^^^And that is why it is called a "rebuttable presumption." I consider it rebutted. 

 

(But Geogrgerm...err..he wrote this explanation was for "no one else" but you. You saw that, right? Just wanted to flag that, just in case. Thanks.) 

[xspider1]

I find the above to be quite compelling and I think that Peter has spoken favorably in regard to his trouble with the guv'ment.  The policies are often unclear, even to those whom we pay to understand them (I know).  Thank-you so much for posting that George.  Please let Peter know that his conservation work over the decades is admired by more people than he may realize and that we sincerely appreciate it!  8 )

Edited February 6, 2014 by xspider1

[Guest Darrell]

I think its funny how proponents in this phenomena can over look serious integrity issues when it suits them. Remember how Melba Ketchum's ratings with the BBB were brought up and everyone sided with her and dismissed them as frivilous? Im here to tell you integrity matters and if think Bryne's legal issues are just minor misunderstandings you are very wrong.

[Guest DWA]

I think it funnier how "skeptics" linger over integrity issues as if all the evidence can be explained away that way.

It is never a skeptical attitude to blame the animal's nonexistence on the people searching for it.

[WSA]

Really, the evidence is collected by people, and people are fallible. Some of them are dishonest.  Which is why you want a sampling of as many sources of evidence as possible. This tends to screen out individual aberrations. Running from source to source to decry, "Hoax!" or "Liar" is lots of fun ("Nothing more exhilirating than pointing out the shortcomings of others."- Jerome Garcia) but it ignores a statistical impossibility and distracts quite handily. I still like Woody Allen movies, in other words.

[georgerm]

^^^^And that is why it is called a "rebuttable presumption." I consider it rebutted. 

 

(But Geogrgerm...err..he wrote this explanation was for "no one else" but you. You saw that, right? Just wanted to flag that, just in case. Thanks.) 

 

WSA, the letter was also for forum members since I told him about this thread and sent him the URL.

I find the above to be quite compelling and I think that Peter has spoken favorably in regard to his trouble with the guv'ment.  The policies are often unclear, even to those whom we pay to understand them (I know).  Thank-you so much for posting that George.  Please let Peter know that his conservation work over the decades is admired by more people than he may realize and that we sincerely appreciate it!  8 )

 

Well put.

[georgerm]

I think it funnier how "skeptics" linger over integrity issues as if all the evidence can be explained away that way.

It is never a skeptical attitude to blame the animal's nonexistence on the people searching for it.

 

Oh, DWA you are right on with your keen viewpoint.

 

Skeptics are welcome here and true, blue skeptics with scientific minds do a great service for science. Those that run down scientist are poorly educated in the scientific fields. In my opinion, the skeptics that help push science and BF knowledge forward are the ones who question evidence and separate the wheat from the shaft.

[Drew]

When someone is asking others to accept their story, and not base their acceptance on evidence, just the story, then the person relaying the story should not have questions regarding truth or lying in their portfolio.

 

This is why Biscardi, Dyer, Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne are doubted, because they all have been caught in shenanigans.

 

Now Peter Byrne is caught in shenanigans.

 

Roger Patterson had some shenanigans in his background.

 

Peter Byrne's shenanigans unfortunately were posted on a website detailing public records of his plea. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^What I think needs to happen is that the evidence caught up in, or directly part of, the "shenanigans" needs to be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

 

In the worst possible case, I once read a truly skeptical person say that, at the least, all evidence submitted by someone formerly engaged in "shenanigans" should be prominently labeled CAUTION:  CONVICTED HOAXER.

 

In other words:  truth in advertising, not tossing babies with bathwater.

 

Paul Freeman is the best example I can come up with.  Although there is significant question about some of the evidence associated with him because he constructed tracks, one must consider that (1) there doesn't seem to be uniform agreement that he was hoaxing so much as evaluating the possibility for himself to see if someone could indeed have made what he found, and (2) his film - plus significant track evidence to which he directed Meldrum, who got to see it on the ground, cast it and evaluate it - counsels strongly circumspection with regard to (1).

[See-Te-Cah NC]

 

Peter Byrne's shenanigans unfortunately were posted on a website detailing public records of his plea. 

 

True, and we now have an explanation of the circumstances surrounding those "shenanigans." I suppose the explanation will fall on deaf ears, as the intent is to smear the man's credibility to bolster another person's stance on the Bigfoot phenomenon. The fact his plight was posted publicly is indeed unfortunate, although it appears that it was a huge boon for those wishing to point out his situation in one area of his life to make a case regarding something completely unrelated.

 

I suppose when that's all you have, you use it.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I don't know how things work wrt SS/SSI in he United States but I can tell you one thing about it in Canada:

When one applies for assistance (be it welfare, employment insurance, worker's compensation, etc...) the FIRST thing the agency makes clear is that travelling outside the province (let alone the country) will void your claim and you will be required to pay back a portion, if not all, of monies received.

In fact, unemployment insurance in particular here requires that a claimant complete a phone questionnaire every two weeks in order to receive benefits. One of the first questions asks if you have been out of the province for any reason during this [two week period]. If, for whatever reason, I am required to travel while receiving benefits, I must inform a worker ahead of time.

I find it very difficult to accept that Mr. Byrne was not aware that his travels were in violation of his benefits received. As a seasonal worker over fifteen years I have filed three different types of claims and have always been aware of the terms stipulated.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Squatchy McSquatch