Bigtex Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 There seems to be a bit of a Catch 22 concerning Bigfoot Research......it takes time & money. As many researches have gone main-stream on television, sometimes the Quest gets compromised in favor of fame & money. Bigfooting is certainly a left-field endeavor, and there is no real funding available for research. TV dollars is one of the few ways available to pay for serious research, and this creates an immediate problem - entertainment value vs. serious research.....where does one begin, and the other leave off? I respect Dr. Meldrum, but hasn't he even fallen victim to the TV bucks? I am sure that the University that he works for enjoys not only the money, but the obvious perks for increased enrollment. Money is king in the human world, with all its glory, and evil trappings. Matt created a monster with his BFRO, and the monster stays hungry, greenbacks that is......not Bigfoot.
Guest Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 [/font] Its even sadder that my friends who are caught up in the limelight couldn't differentiate the importance of doing so. People sold out truth in order to chase fame and attention. That has NOTHING to do with research, and that path generally reveals a bit more about people. Such pursuits will also never lead to a quality encounter with a sasquatch either. But that is their decision to live with. I have had my encounters because I was true to my heart about it. Maybe some people don't know what that really means? Does this also mean I'm not on MM's Christmas list? I couldnt have said it better Prag!!! oh, I favorited your blog, hope you post some more soon!!!
Guest LittleFeat Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Most BF groups (ie BFRO) have a dominant belief system that skews the reports that they keep or discard. How in the heck are we going to solve this mystery without having ALL of the reports as base, not just the ones that fit someone's belief of what a BF can and cannot do? We need input from both camps, flesh and blood vs paranormal/UFO, in order to find out what is really going on. I know that most people want "proof", especially when a report flies in the face of their beliefs, but we should just be happy that there are people on BFF interested in either or both points of view. Collaboration is the key, not alienation. 1
Guest wudewasa Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) PT, Excellent job of expressing yourself in a creative way. Keep doing what you feel is right. Many folks go for the bombastic dog and pony show, drink the kool aid, and learn reality's lessons in a hard way. Even with the economic support of Wally Hersom, a slough of volunteers, zagnut bars, bun bun the brave and the newest innovations of technological surveillance equipment, MM has yet to produce any scientific evidence that bigfoot exists. Fuzzy photos, an elk wallow, tracks and sounds don't fill the bill to most academics, much to his frustration. He has now been relegated to the equivalent of a marionette operated by the Discovery Network puppeteers. It is not a place that he endures well. Yes, he created a database of purported bigfoot reports, organized field research crews and markets his organization well. He can gather and motivate people with or without the use of a bullhorn. Yet his personality eventually shines through. Some can tolerate/embrace it, while others can't. Edited June 24, 2011 by wudewasa
Rod Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 So that issue aside at that forum, just look at how every thread in the Finding Bigfoot section has been closed by Navigator. lol Yes, Navigator IS Matt Moneymaker! Closing threads with only one or two responses is HIS way of controlling what people can and can't think or discuss. My thoughts exactly. I recently created a thread questioning why the Sanger Paranormal Society was quick to admit that a particular photo was an "authentic" sasquatch photo. I gave my analysis as to why I thought it was a bear, instead. Then admin, "PBYodeler", closed my thread (among many others) because he did not want speculation on what he called, "blurry" or "blurred" photos. I sent the following private messages to both he and Matt Moneymaker: I truly do not understand why you closed a thread I had created in its appropriate forum- Images/Video:http://s2.excoboard..../115581/2288830 It seems most sasquatch photos are blurry and open to interpretation. That should not be a reason to close a thread with civil dialogue. The BFRO might as well do away with the Images/Video forum if that is how threads with photos are going to be treated. I added this line to Matt Moneymaker's private message: Perhaps the mods need to loosen their grip, or they are going to turn off more fans. You might be able to view the thread. I cannot because my account has since been disabled, which I had expected after I sent the PMs.
Guest ShadowPrime Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 It's a big question, and to be honest, I don't have "the answer". I can see arguments going both ways. In some ways, I think he is helping, while in others...not so much. I will say that I am very disappointed with the current TV show featuring MM - I think they have gone past "edited to make it more entertaining" to the point of "edited to create intentional deception". To what extent it is fair to lay that at MM's feet, I can't say - I don't know enough of the ins and outs of the production. But if he is "OK" with being associated with a program that, for example, presents thermal imagery footage as if it MIGHT have captured a BF, when they KNOW it most definitely was NOT a BF...well..yeah, I think that hurts the cause. But bigger picture? I am ambivalent. Shadow
Guest Cervelo Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) IMO he is not hurting the research field at all! I applaud the producers for handling it the way they have. It reflects exactly the state and style of research that 99% of the self proclaimed "researchers" practice. They enter the woods with a preconceived notion of what's out there and then everything they hear and see is Bigfoot it's that simple. The majority of hunters, hikers, or campers, you talk to will laugh at the thought of Bigfoot. Why because they are out there and may have had some odd experiences but they haven't made up their minds one way or the other. But most Bigfoot researchers have made up their minds and guess what they find every time Bigfoot he's everywhere! Edited June 25, 2011 by Cervelo
Guest Fanofsquatch Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 By watching the show one would get the impression that the woods are filthy with sasquatches. By reading MM's expedition reports one would think that the woods are filthy with sasquatches. Moneymaker is a promoter and business man and it seems to me that the BFRO is his main source of income so the show is just that a show that will steer more business his way. Closing threads and pouncing on people with different views than him are just him managing his "show" to keep things the way he needs them to be. I think this is why he is the alpha on the show and the other investigators are more subdued. I know that there are a great number of researchers out there producing some pretty solid evidence but in reality a show on them would be pretty boring. I think the more exposure to fame MM gets the more Biscardi like he will become.
Rod Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 But if he is "OK" with being associated with a program that, for example, presents thermal imagery footage as if it MIGHT have captured a BF, when they KNOW it most definitely was NOT a BF...well..yeah, I think that hurts the cause. It would seem he is OK with being associated with such a show because it has been renewed for a second season, and he foresees it being renewed for many more. His comments about this are under a BFRO forum thread titled, "Ratings".
Guest Cervelo Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Sure its the same tried and true tv format just like all the ghost hunter crap...., lights out and here come the ghost WTF! Now let's turn a bunch of people loose in the woods in the dark wheeeee Bigfoots everywhere!!! We will see about the renewals that crap gets old after a while. Let me have the honor of spending a day with Bigtex, Tracker or Bill Munns as opposed to these rookies!
Guest ShadowPrime Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) A bit off topic... maybe.... On another Thread, we are having a lot of back and forth about the role of scientists in BF research. In the course of that discussion, there has been some talk about the role simple economics play in what gets researched, and what doesn't. I suppose some folks think the very mention of money sullies the purity of science, but I think it is silly to consider that practical concerns wouldn't play a part. To be clear, not saying that money is the be all and end all - most definitely not. But I am suggesting that scientists have to make a living too, and if there is a lot more grant money, a lot more respect to be garnered, in Field A, and little to none in Field B, well... it is hardly surprising to find more scientifc attention focused on Field A. Now, clearly, we could argue that BF is a high risk/high payoff field. That is... the odds of you being "the scientist" who proves the reality of BF are, I would argue, pretty long, even if BF IS out there! On the flip side, I am guessing the payoff would be pretty high too... maybe financially, maybe in reputation, etc (the discovery of a species of "giant" apelike mammmal in North America would, I suspect, get you some measure of fame in both academic and non-academic circles. For a while at least. I think!). You would hope that would be enough..that basic curiosity, AND the chance for hitting the home run to end all home runs by being the scientist who proves BF is real... would motivate science to dig in. But again, think you have to admit that it is a big roll of the dice to dedicate your time to largely gratis BF research. All this by way of saying... wonder if the smart folks here could come up with an economically viable, less sensationalistic way of actually funding BF research to some degree. I have no idea how much money one would have to raise... and how one would raise it without hucksterism and the like. Obviously, the "how much" would depend on what one would want to fund - how many people, full or part time, what kind of equipment, what kind of research one would propose. How would you do it - solicit donations, "sell" memberships (newsletter, a path, etc? *S*)? This is one reason I don't just turn up my nose at the BFRO and MM... the execution may not be 'spot on', but i can't argue with the general approach. If you want to track down BF, you are either going to have to have some very lucky volunteers, OR find a way to get some money into the game. Shadow Edited June 25, 2011 by ShadowPrime
Guest Boolywooger Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Missed this part, I believe they do slip up--- with digital sound recording efforts and devices increasingly picking up on their whereabouts, whether it be distant or near. In an earlier thread a poster asked, "Why do they sneak around cams while leaving audio evidence around digital recorders? or a paraphrase of such." That IS a good point, especially when there are occasions when lost technology such as guns, recorders and such have been returned to a scene rather demonstratively.....doesn't sound like a monkey to me. I don't think it's a slip up. I think they don't care if audio is recorded. I think somehow, don't ask me how, I don't know, they can tell the difference between a digital recorder and a camcorder and avoid one assiduously but will walk right up and poke at the other one. I have audio of them doing just that to a Zoom H2 this spring.
Guest Boolywooger Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Can we train a psychic animal to find bigfoot? Like that octopus that picks soccer matches. They tried, the Sasquatch ate him. http://zapatopi.net/bsa/octopus.html
Guest Cervelo Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Shadow, IMO it has to follow the same path as all other discoveries. 1) local people report or acknowledge creature or unknown body is discovered 2) Invesigation takes place real evidence or acceptable photo is presented 3) Bam the money comes ex gorilla, giant squid,ect Bigfoot has not gotten beyond step one and now we want to use DNA to skip over the other steps it won't work. IMO using DNA for sub category of a known animal is accepted but not for proving an unknown animal much less Bigfoot. Then the tv programs only serve for the most part to make us look like fools to the masses. But that's who the programs are for not us. I watched two episodes and thats it for me. I'd rather be to tired from being in the woods all day Sunday to stay up and watch that crap. If it brings the money to do somthing serious great but after seeing MM in action.... I know this type well and it's all about MM and we are just living in his world!
Guest Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 I would agree with Cervelo regarding the accepted path for scientific discoveries of this nature. The work being done regarding BF is still at step 1. As for MM hurting the BF field, I think he's just damaging his own reputation while doing little collateral damage to the field as it exists. He comes off as the Geraldo Rivera of the BF world. Big hat, no cattle.
Recommended Posts