Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

[Guest]

Watch his actions on the show and other shows. I mentioned this on the old forum - I got banned from the BFRO forums for challenging them on something. So naturally, I PM'd them to find out why. I wish I saved the response from MM. Priceless! Name calling and name calling with cuss words thrown in between more name calling. Funniest thing I've ever read.

As for the questionable editing of the new show - they blame Discovery for the added hype and misleading events/encounters. For instance, it may have been the show that was in NC, they had an animal on the FLIR or night vision and they thought it was a squatch. It was stationary. MM started walking to it and they went to commercials. After the break, they said it ran into the woods but they conveniently failed to show it run to the woods. The reason, it was a horse and they knew it was a horse but they never said what it was or why they didn't show it running.

MM said he told the crew it was a horse but they clipped out that audio to build up the scenario. No matter who is being dishonest, the show is hardly reality.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Squatchdetective
Violation of Rule 2B

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Matt M. can complain publicly about the way the show is edited, however, he knows it is ultimately viewership by non BF researchers and enthusiasts that is going to make or break the show. And if cutting away to a commercial, leaving the viewer thinking they spotted Biggie in an open field with a thermal, is what keeps em coming back, I'm sure MM is okay with that.

Even though he and his knew damned well it was a horse, just like he knew the figure he chased was a person, he knows it's in his interest to leave it up in the air on the show, because it enhances viewership. And more importantly, he wins on both sides, because he and his co hosts can get on his website and explain why the lies were allowed to air. He doesn't have to own any of the controversy; it's all put at the feet of the show's producers. He has no control over editing, and so can claim victim status on anything that doesn't fit his agenda.

It's perfect.

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty Yeti -

Think you have pegged the biggest "problem" with those who argue that Bigfoot has supernatural abilities... that it can turn invisible, shapeshift, teleport, leave footprints when it wants to/not leave footprints when it doesn't want to, block efforts to be photographed when it chooses to, etc. Ultimately, this removes BF from the field of scientific research, from pragmatic evaluation. There is nothing you can find or observe that can't be fitted into this model. If I argue that BF is a living, breathing, mammal, there are certain basic things that follow, certain basic physical rules that apply (just as they apply to any other animal on the planet!).

If I assert that BF is a supernatural being of almost limitless capablities...well...

Shadow

Sure...with 'near limitless abilities'...trying to 'bring one in' would be like chasing the wind. We might as well just wait for it to come to us, at that point.

Putting my thinking, on it, another way.....if I saw a Bigfoot walking along, and it suddenly went 'Poof'....my interest in the subject would suddenly go 'Poof' at precisely the same time... "That's it....I'm done.....time for a new Hobby!"

[Guest LittleFeat]

Still waiting for a link to a scientific study proving ants are psychic.

Far too many people seem to subscribe to the school of thought that if they read it somewhere on the internet, it must be true. Nothing wrong with being the trusting sort. It can tend to leave you w/ your foot in your mouth though.

Do tell. What sorts of input from "psychic invisible shapeshifting bigfoots from Mars" believers do you imagine could be helpful?

Really, I'd like a for instance.

For instance, the Native Americans who believe BF is not just a dumb animal. Also, any non-Native American believers that subscribe to their beliefs and their way of life.

When reports mention BF as being psychic, or disappearing into thin air, or mimicing sounds of owls/coyotes/etc, the reports shouldn't automatically be disregarded as fanciful tales from "psychic invisible shapeshifting bigfoots from Mars believers". Saying this is disrespectful to Native Americans who were living here in concert with Nature long before the Europeans arrived.

Why are you so opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science?

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

Matt M. can complain publicly about the way the show is edited, however, he knows it is ultimately viewership by non BF researchers and enthusiasts that is going to make or break the show. And if cutting away to a commercial, leaving the viewer thinking they spotted Biggie in an open field with a thermal, is what keeps em coming back, I'm sure MM is okay with that.

Even though he and his knew damned well it was a horse, just like he knew the figure he chased was a person, he knows it's in his interest to leave it up in the air on the show, because it enhances viewership. And more importantly, he wins on both sides, because he and his co hosts can get on his website and explain why the lies were allowed to air. He doesn't have to own any of the controversy; it's all put at the feet of the show's producers. He has no control over editing, and so can claim victim status on anything that doesn't fit his agenda.

It's perfect.

Actually that's a pretty harsh indictment largely unsubstantiated.

Do you know MM? Has he actually done anything to you?

I'm not friends with him, I met him once briefly and anything else I know about him is secondhand and\or speculative.

Accusing him of hurting the BF community because he doesn't advocate magical powers and to assassinate his character without a shred of credible argument is just wrong.

[Guest wudewasa]

To my knowledge, MM owns the BFRO forums, and that entitles him to regulate them as he desires. Some of us disagree as to what we feel to be draconian choices on his end, but that is his perogative.

There is a pattern that occurs within the BFRO periodically in which people disagree with MM and the result is a departure from the BFRO due to irreconcilable differences. This organizational turnover is indicative of strong individuals in this subculture. One holds the cards, the others must find another table with a better hand to play.

I don't believe that MM is hurting anyone but himself in the eyes of some who think critically. Financially, he will benefit greatly from his stint on Animal Planet. Personally, I need what he is hawking about as much as a Shamwow, pet rock, or any of Richard Simmons' work out videos.

Edited June 26, 2011 by wudewasa

[Guest RayG]

Why are you so opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science?

I, for one, am not opposed to hearing about it, I'd just like to see a viable explanation. If it requires me to abandon skepticism, or accept superstitious/wishful thinking as scientific, then no, I don't 'get it'.

RayG

Edited June 26, 2011 by RayG

[Guest]

I dont know what people expect in this field of investigation. It takes someone of extremely thick skin to even come forward after an encounter. And you have to be almost abrasive to get your point across as well. Matt M [whom I personally dont know] is a product of the the bigfoot field. I skim their forum from time to time and I too find it a bit heavily moderated for my tastes so I simply dont join. But the BFRO`s data base of encounters is pure gold IMHO. ANY exposure in the study of Sasquatch should be supported by all of us.

[Guest LittleFeat]

I, for one, am not opposed to hearing about it, I'd just like to see a viable explanation. If it requires me to abandon skepticism, or accept superstitious/wishful thinking as scientific, then no, I don't 'get it'.

RayG

Ray, I appreciate your stance. I too believe in not abandoning my skepticism because it's essential, but I simply cannot bring myself to abandon my open-mindedness in order to fit everything that is reported into a neat scientific framework. There's so much we don't know about humans and other animals' behaviors that we can't continue to stick to a rigid scientific dogma. Maybe, just maybe, we're barking up the wrong tree.

[Guest LittleFeat]

I dont know what people expect in this field of investigation. It takes someone of extremely thick skin to even come forward after an encounter. And you have to be almost abrasive to get your point across as well. Matt M [whom I personally dont know] is a product of the the bigfoot field. I skim their forum from time to time and I too find it a bit heavily moderated for my tastes so I simply dont join. But the BFRO`s data base of encounters is pure gold IMHO. ANY exposure in the study of Sasquatch should be supported by all of us.

I agree that MM has become battled-hardened due to his long involvement with the BF arena, but he is not gifted in public relations, so he should probably let Cliff or someone else better suited handle the PR issues, while he concentrates on running the BFRO.

I too read their report database and appreciate the work that they have put into it. I only wish that I could perform SQL queries on the database. I also wish it was GIS-based, because so much of the attribute data in the BFRO DB is location-oriented. The only real problem that I have with the BFRO and their database is that it doesn't include all reports, at least not for "public" viewing. They routinely disregard any report that hints of paranormal activity or any reports that don't subscribe to their beliefs.

The reason I stopped posting on the BFRO forum is that I was banned for posting a link to a ghost website. I thought that possibly some of the reports in the ghost database fit the same patterns as BF reports and that maybe some of them were actually BF reports. I made it clear in my post that I didn't think BF was a ghost, but it didn't matter, because I was quickly reprimanded by a moderator who said that "we don't talk about paranormal topics on BFRO forums".

I realize that they walk a fine line, because if they accept "paranormal" reports, then they may be viewed as a less credible group. But isn't it then hypocritical of the BFRO and others to complain about scientists that won't look into the BF phenomena, because it doesn't fit into their scientific models? Scientists don't want to lose their credibility either.

[Guest rockinkt]

For instance, the Native Americans who believe BF is not just a dumb animal. Also, any non-Native American believers that subscribe to their beliefs and their way of life.

When reports mention BF as being psychic, or disappearing into thin air, or mimicing sounds of owls/coyotes/etc, the reports shouldn't automatically be disregarded as fanciful tales from "psychic invisible shapeshifting bigfoots from Mars believers". Saying this is disrespectful to Native Americans who were living here in concert with Nature long before the Europeans arrived.

Why are you so opposed to hearing about anything that can't be explained by conventional science?

Is there any reason that you ignore the significant living and cultural differences between tribes and lump "Native Indians" into one big group?

Perhaps you can give me the exact names and descriptions of Bigfoot or Sasquatch-like creatures in 5 (five) Native American cultures. Let's start with the Sioux, then Haida, then Cree, then Dene, then Peigan.

According to your broad generalizations - they should all be descriptions of the same creature with the same attributes.

If you have time - perhaps you can clearly and concisely educate us all in what you mean by the Native Americans "beliefs and way of life".

[Guest watch1]

I think everyone needs to ask themselves every now and then why they do this research and what they expect to get out of it. Some loose track of what they started out to do. I have been around long enough to see folks forget where they came from and loose sight of where they are headed.

Money has a way of getting in the way of your original goal, unless that was your original goal from the start.

I just enjoy it, it's not about the money.

I have never met Matt but have been asked several times about what I thought of him. The only thing that I find fault with his his way of doing research is, his tactics are not what I and many more agree with. As for the BFRO and it's members, I am not a member of the BFRO and I don't have no dog in that fight and think that is something that should be worked out among the members of that group, without outside interference or pressure. I have already seen what folks can do to a group with lies and deception. Some think money is the root of all evil, I think power and control should be added to the list. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Mike (watch1)

[Guest rockinkt]

Actually that's a pretty harsh indictment largely unsubstantiated.

Do you know MM? Has he actually done anything to you?

I'm not friends with him, I met him once briefly and anything else I know about him is secondhand and\or speculative.

Accusing him of hurting the BF community because he doesn't advocate magical powers and to assassinate his character without a shred of credible argument is just wrong.

Actually - anyone who has read the threads on the old BFF where MM has "contributed" could not come away with anything less than disdain for MM. And I'm being very polite.

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

Yes, I recall, but this isnt an excuse for a witch trial. I hope we remember this when the tables get turned on us.

.

[Guest LittleFeat]

Is there any reason that you ignore the significant living and cultural differences between tribes and lump "Native Indians" into one big group?

What gives you the impression that I ignore the cultural differences among Native American tribes and within a given tribe?

Perhaps you can give me the exact names and descriptions of Bigfoot or Sasquatch-like creatures in 5 (five) Native American cultures. Let's start with the Sioux, then Haida, then Cree, then Dene, then Peigan.

I could look them up on the web or in other sources, but what point would that serve? Do you just like trivia? Oh well, here's a list of names just for you.

According to your broad generalizations - they should all be descriptions of the same creature with the same attributes.

My "broad generalizations" are simply to say that most Native American tribes have a name for something that sounds an awful lot like a BF. Again I don't think I said that they do have different views/descriptions of the creature so, again, what is your point?

If you have time - perhaps you can clearly and concisely educate us all in what you mean by the Native Americans "beliefs and way of life".

I've already said this, but I feel that most Native Americans live in concert with Nature and are probably viewed by BF as less threatening. It's certainly no secret within the BF community that there are many reports in close proximity to Reservations. Native American's generally respect all of Nature unconditionally, instead of believing themselves to be superior to other forms of life as most non-Native Americans do.

Please expound on some of your views regarding BF, because I'd like to hear what your interpretation is.