Trouble In Grassman's Paradise

[Cotter]

My understanding is that the group he started is still kicking?

 

Has anyone approached them, as a group, to see what they say?

 

I agree it's fishy as all get-out.....but it certainly isn't a smoking gun.

[hiflier]

Hello ohiobill,

Thanks and I hear ya. I spent 8 years as a boy in Miamisburg. We had a giant Indian, a monster on the levee of the Little Miami and several other odd mysteries. So yeah, it was a bit close to home for me too. But since I've been on this since last March It came to a head after the email and I couldn't let it go. Like I said it statrted with a simple inquiry AT THE SOURCE because I didn't want to just follow rumors. Who knew.

Edited October 22, 2014 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

First of all, I apologize for my acting out on the "Proponent"'s thread. Got carried away some.

 

Don Keating is irrelevant.  I do not know who he is

Then read more reports. He's listed several time as a submitter.

 

 

Volume does not equal quality; it's why diamonds and gold are what they are.

Agreed. But you're contradicting your stamce on the sheer volume of reports. Sometimes, instead of diamonds, there's sticks and coal. I simply found some. Does the idea that I focused on this one report mean I haven't read many others? This one had a video interview. That is unusual in and of itself. But it also has footprint casts and hair samples to go along with it. AND it was nowhere else on the web. These are the things that should warrant further investigation. Are there others like this? Well, you should know Give me a list and I'll go back to work

P.S. How many reports are from a twenty plus year major conference organizer? Yeah. It piqued my interest.

Edited October 22, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

Sorry, I'm not believing that the world's Don Keatings can fake a report inventory that, when you step back, had to be written by a world-class scientist...if that is they don't represent an animal.  Never mind the footprints that experts have vouched for.

 

This approach won't work unless it debunks so many reports that I have to seriously wonder about the rest.  We aren't - nor will we get - anywhere near that number.

 

It's easier to look for the animal.

Edited October 22, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Sorry, I'm not believing that the world's Don Keatings can fake a report inventory that, when you step back, had to be written by a world-class scientist...if that is they don't represent an animal.  Never mind the footprints that experts have vouched for.

 

This approach won't work unless it debunks so many reports that I have to seriously wonder about the rest.  We aren't - nor will we get - anywhere near that number.

 

It's easier to look for the animal.

It is indeed easier to look for the animal and this doesn't debunk other reports at all or impact the "inventory"; it wasn't meant to. You know it, and I know it. Give me some credit for being smarter than that. I don't see where you would even think any of that as you're only talking about a really ludicrous extreme. Typical DWA tactic though . Edited October 22, 2014 by hiflier

[Incorrigible1]

Typical.

[hiflier]

Hello Incorrigible1,

 

Here's the thing. Had I gotten complacent, because by simply followed DWA's lead in just trusting the volume of reports as being enough to convince me of existence, I would have stopped there. But I'm more intelligent than that. I have a computer and I can do the work necessary to dig into things.

 

This thread I fear is only the tip of the iceberg. The same speakers tour the circuit. Say the same things, and have the same no proof. Sell the same kind of books and footprint replicas. I've seen the pictures of Mr. Keating with some high profile Bigfoot authors and investigators. And I've read the kudos bestowed upon him by nearly all of those speakers. 

 

Tell me conferences aren't just "Finding Bigfoot" held before a live audience; meant and designed to function into perpetuity like the UFO stuff. Tell me that the books and videos are not just selling failures disguised as successes. Not everyone here knew Don Keating but everyone "out there" sure did.

 

One of the things I did in the beginning was contact the PA Bigfoot Society. Mr. Altman's group. They basically sent me away by shuffling my inquiry to Eastern Ohio; dropping Mr. Keating like a hot potato. Not defending him mind you, more like washing their hands of him. He was already gone of course but should it matter? He was one of them wasn't he? Evidently not. But Mr. Altman was another speaker on the circuit like the Meldrums and the and the Powells and the.........

 

Well, ya can't fight city hall they say. I think I might be the only one who has a voice on this? Is voice even the word for it? 

Edited October 23, 2014 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

One of the things I did in the beginning was contact the PA Bigfoot Society. Mr. Altman's group. They basically sent me away by shuffling my inquiry to Eastern Ohio; dropping Mr. Keating like a hot potato. Not defending him mind you, more like washing their hands of him.

Well, that jives...

 

OK,

I was going to let this ride, but as an active bigfoot enthusiast/amateur investigator in western PA from the mid 1980's til about the mid 2000's, I always considered Mr. Keating less-than reliable, either through designs of his own, or over-enthusiasm, based on claims he made about evidence he had collected. This feeling was shared by a number of my friends and associates, but wasn't something anyone went around talking about. Because of his prominence in the field, and his organizing efforts for the area's bigfooting groups, I think many just let it slide. This is not to said to bash Mr. Keating (I feel everyone is entitled to have their evidence evaluated without bias, and also, that anyone evaluating evidence be free to draw their own conclusions), but to make it known that the scrutiny that hiflier is focusing upon this investigator is not without precedent, and should not be a surprise to bigfooters with any experience with his claims.

I was going to say more, but it's probably better that I don't. Only: everyone, especially newcomers riding the "Finding Bigfoot" wave, please recognize and avoid the myriad cults of personality that riddle bigfootery. Listen to everyone, but weigh both the arguments and the evidence, and draw the conclusions yourself. Don't ask for or allow someone else, regardless of their stature or position in the field, to do that for you.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bonehead74

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I don't have any knowledge of the man in particular, but I do believe that subjects of an unproven nature tend to be a magnet for certain types of people. Most will be honest folks, but think of the opportunity there is to make outrageous claims, and make money off of those claims, when there is nobody who can call you on your fabrications. These types of individuals tarnish the reputation of the entire community they involve themselves with. And what is worse, I'm sure that if he was a hoaxer he would have legitimate encounter reports and evidence mixed in with all the fake stuff, yet the only thing one could do is throw out everything that came from a known hoaxer, even though some of it is likely to be authentic.

 

But with all that said, this evidence alone, while intriguing, does not directly point to him being a hoaxer. It is quite possible, because as you've pointed out the circumstances are quite unusual, but there are other explanations. Take the details of the moon. It is theoretically possible that someone could get that piece of data confused, simply because they did not focus on that detail and thus misremembered it. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is possible. Then the other thing suggesting there is something fishy going on is the fact that he cannot find his notes on THAT case, despite the fact that it seems like an important case. Could his memory just be bad? Might he remember the case in a general sense, while he cannot recall the details? Did he really lose the notes?

 

Again, I don't know anything about the man, so I have not formed an opinion like someone who knew of him would have. Seeing what Bonehead mentioned, it seems there were people who were calling his authenticity into question decades ago, and that is an important detail. Even though this is not proof, the fact that his livelihood came from bigfoot should immediately place him under suspicion in my opinion. One of the biggest motivators for hoaxing or lying in general would be when someone's livelihood is at stake. I forgot to commend you on the excellent job you did with your investigation. You simply wanted more information on a particular case, and you discovered something that seemed unusual, and you asked yourself "why," and did what you could to answer that question. I just wanted to point out that even though you might have uncovered something, it is possible that there is another explanation, and we should not drag his name through the mud without a little more to go on. But that doesn't mean we cannot dismiss any evidence he may have presented. Not that it really matters at this point, since any evidence short of a body is irrelevant, but it would still be good to know whether you are on to something.

[ohiobill]

Well, that jives...

 

I was going to say more, but it's probably better that I don't. Only: everyone, especially newcomers riding the "Finding Bigfoot" wave, please recognize and avoid the myriad cults of personality that riddle bigfootery. Listen to everyone, but weigh both the arguments and the evidence, and draw the conclusions yourself. Don't ask for or allow someone else, regardless of their stature or position in the field, to do that for you.

Excellent post for a "bonehead", +1!

[ohiobill]

Well, ya can't fight city hall they say. I think I might be the only one who has a voice on this? Is voice even the word for it? 

Seems like you're doing just fine to me. +1

 

I'd like to see more of the same. If we can weed out the unscrupulous researchers half the battle is won in finding more reliable data. A thread detailing researchers with problems like this might save newcomers and those like DWA who don't know the players.

[Guest DWA]

One doesn't need to know the "players," just the evidence.  When one knows the evidence, one knows that making "players" responsible for it is a red flag that one isn't paying attention.

 

Just sayin'.

Typical.

Yes.  MIB had it sussed.  Reading Is Fundamental.  Some could try it, and stop this silly stuff.

Edited October 23, 2014 by DWA

[ohiobill]

It would be easier to believe you were paying close attention if you were aware of the organizations and investigators who are supposedly vetting the reports. They go hand-in-hand and those who can't or won't acknowledge that aren't honestly taking it seriously. 

 

I have read, especially any Ohio reports, including the websites and bios of investigators when available. I've watched the videos, looked at the photos and tried to understand some pretty far-out reasoning behind their theories. Honesty matters. YMMV.

[Guest DWA]

Who.Cares.About.Don.Keating.  Or whatever his name is, I'm not looking it up.

 

The fakes are like this and we put them out of the way.

 

They are irrelevant to the discussion.  

 

Show me that every report - even just a borderline significant percentage of them, I'll take 2% for starters although that's all that would be - comes from a faker, or anything even remotely close...oh, and the same guys have to be doing the footprints too.  Or we really have nothing to talk about.

 

one fake report...put in perspective, here.

 

Every time, in the history of science, a pattern of evidence like this has existed, it has turned out to be what it looks like.  Every.Single.Time.

 

THAT'S perspective, not pages and pages of talking about one irrelevant report.

Edited October 23, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Your downplaying this is a blatant sign of a vain attempt to defend a previously erroneous statement. The fact that you didn't know this guy- you of all people- you who claims to have read more than anyone else- shows a flaw, a weak link if you will in your approach to the BF subject.
 

Who.Cares.About.Don.Keating.  Or whatever his name is, I'm not looking it up.
Go ahead, belittle the guy. And you don't have to look him up now. 

 

The fakes are like this and we put them out of the way.
Yes. we try anyway. Except for you that is.
 
They are irrelevant to the discussion.

Again? NOT when the reports come from them. 
 
Show me that every report - even just a borderline significant percentage of them, I'll take 2% for starters although that's all that would be - comes from a faker.....Or we really have nothing to talk about.

Show YOU? Heh, heh. Tell you what, for a guy that wouldn't even read a report that he may have missed, and then, after it's put in front of STILL says he won't read it? Well, it makes me question if he's read ANY reports outside ones someone else posted. You get nothing. But if you change your mind? You can start by vetting the family in Canonsburg, PA. Then follow up by calling all the witnesses who listed a phone number, address or email address. Oh wait you have to read the reports first......nevermind.

Edited October 23, 2014 by hiflier