Branco Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 I strongly believe that Matt became frustrated because the show's Director and Co-directors would not allow the field team to go into some of the aggressive Bigfoot areas. Good reason for that belief, and probably a good thing for the crew. 2
MIB Posted June 30, 2017 Moderator Posted June 30, 2017 Cliff, I believe, said that one of the major issues they had at the beginning was the producers adding sounds to the sound track which were not there in the field for dramatic purpose, editing creatively to misrepresent things that had happened, etc. (It would probably be best for me to let Cliff speak for himself if more should be said ... I'll just open the can and see if he wants to pull the worms out. :)) Someday I'd like to sit down in private with Matt over a beer or two and shoot the sh*t, find out what's what, an off-camera, off-mic perspective. I'm not a Matt fan but there are two sides, at least, to every story. In fairness, I'd like to hear his since often I've heard the others. MIB 2
JDL Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 On 6/29/2017 at 9:45 PM, Branco said: I strongly believe that Matt became frustrated because the show's Director and Co-directors would not allow the field team to go into some of the aggressive Bigfoot areas. Good reason for that belief, and probably a good thing for the crew. I thought BFRO was screening out reports of bigfoot aggression from those submitted to its website. Wasn't that one of the past criticisms? I've only watched maybe three or four episodes of this because it turned me off right from the start.
starchunk Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 On 6/23/2011 at 11:52 PM, Doc Holliday said: dudes name is money maker....& im betting hes done just that.& if MM is a problem for BF'ery, then he's just one of many possible problems.......imo. I dont subscribe to the paranormal bit personally, but just as an observation, when it comes to paranormal vs. non paranormal..... both camps seem to have provided about the same amount of undeniable proof.......imo. I agree on several points. Firstly he has no obligation to explore the silly side of the phenomenon, Noone has offered up any compelling reason to do so. The problem he causes for the research of this thing is that he is in it for the money, instant bias. That bias being profit motive as opposed to pursuit of the truth of this thing.
hiflier Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, starchunk said: I agree on several points. Firstly he has no obligation to explore the silly side of the phenomenon, Noone has offered up any compelling reason to do so. The problem he causes for the research of this thing is that he is in it for the money, instant bias. That bias being profit motive as opposed to pursuit of the truth of this thing. Don't need him in order to pursue the truth of this thing. Moneymaker moved to Akron, Ohio in the 90's to finish a law degree- which he didn't finish. Went Bigfooting instead. Met, and was an acquaintance of, Don Keating of the Eastern Ohio Bigfoot Investigation Center back then. (The same Keating who lied about his own supposed September 1985 personal sighting, went on radio twice in 2008 and lied some more, and ran the Ohio Bigfoot Conference for 20 years until 2012). I wouldn't have Moneymaker within a thousand miles of my camp. Edited July 3, 2017 by hiflier 1
Branco Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 21 hours ago, JDL said: I thought BFRO was screening out reports of bigfoot aggression from those submitted to its website. Wasn't that one of the past criticisms? I've only watched maybe three or four episodes of this because it turned me off right from the start. I've not heard that before, but you may be right. In thinking back, I can't remember reading any of the raw data submissions that involved any really aggressive bigfoot encounters, although I've investigated several such reports submitted directly to me or to other members of my group. That opinion I expressed was based on conversations with three of the co-producers of the show who have called me during the last few years for suggestions about potential filming locations. With good humor and concern for the cast and crew, they culled the locations in which I felt they could get some really exciting footage, although they did film in some of the less exciting locations I suggested. (It was really good judgement calls on their part. I would have really felt bad about some of the team getting hurt going into one of those inhospitable areas.)
hiflier Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) In your conversations did any of the co-producers express any personal interest in the subject? Did they even think anything about the subject was at all true? I get the impression they may have if they consulted with you. How is it they even knew about you? I gather through the BFRO. What is curious about this thread is that the OP expressed a distrust that some still hold today, six years later. Probably because of the FB show's ten year history of lack of proof. The difficulty I see is even if the show decided to investigate the more aggressive areas and something happened it still might not make it to the public eye. It also sounds like NOT getting proof was the intent right out of the gate. It's my suspicion anyway. What can I say.....I'm a cynical son-of-a-gun Edited July 4, 2017 by hiflier
Branco Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 2 hours ago, hiflier said: In your conversations did any of the co-producers express any personal interest in the subject? Not really. Did they even think anything about the subject was at all true? Never said & I didn't ask. I get the impression they may have if they consulted with you. Not at all, they were just doing their job of trying to find good locations for shooting the show. How is it they even knew about you? I gather through the BFRO. Indirectly from the field investigation/research reports that I had written and published on three bigfoot web sites - not on the BFRO back then - and in columns in three in-state newspapers, then directly from a BFRO member who worked with the production company to pick the filming locations. What is curious about this thread is that the OP expressed a distrust that some still hold today, six years later. Probably because of the FB show's ten year history of lack of proof. Don't think the purpose of the show was to find proof, simply evidence of BF's existence. The difficulty I see is even if the show decided to investigate the more aggressive areas and something happened it still might not make it to the public eye. Well, .......? It also sounds like NOT getting proof was the intent right out of the gate. It's my suspicion anyway. I really doubt that if the crew happened to find a BF that had been killed by a lightening strike they would cover it up with leaves, sticks and rocks and just continue their chore of Finding Bigfoot. What can I say.....I'm a cynical son-of-a-gun Think you about covered everything. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 Yes thank you. I like the show. I understand exactly what it is .TV entertainment. Its not like anyone else can find the mythical beasts.
Branco Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 You are both very welcome! Just wanted keep the facts on the tracks. 3
Brian Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 I do not consider this a serious show when it comes to BF. I have only watched it for witness accounts. I won't miss it if it goes away. Did bring attention to BF though!
starchunk Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/4/2017 at 0:41 PM, Branco said: I've not heard that before, but you may be right. In thinking back, I can't remember reading any of the raw data submissions that involved any really aggressive bigfoot encounters, although I've investigated several such reports submitted directly to me or to other members of my group. That opinion I expressed was based on conversations with three of the co-producers of the show who have called me during the last few years for suggestions about potential filming locations. With good humor and concern for the cast and crew, they culled the locations in which I felt they could get some really exciting footage, although they did film in some of the less exciting locations I suggested. (It was really good judgement calls on their part. I would have really felt bad about some of the team getting hurt going into one of those inhospitable areas.) If they're manipulating the "facts" in any direction it seems they have an agenda. I say they are to be avoided.
Recommended Posts