Expedition Bigfoot :Travel Channel

[Huntster]

The major advantage Moneymaker had with The Animal Planet (as well as everybody else in this industry) is the BFRO as the #1 report taking organization. That gave him the lead with producers not only on his competition, but in deciding locations.

 

But a researcher, even one thinking of starting a YouTube channel, doesn't need control of that database. Our own SSR gives one a query access to the published BFRO database, and a whole lot more, for a mere $20 per year. You might not get the Big Bucks with a YouTube channel, but money can be made, and you'd have FULL control. You could work your own schedule, follow up on a recent report, talk to a witness on video, have a Bobo friend of your very own, etc.

[hiflier]

Wow, neat. Always wanted my own Bobo.

[gigantor]

11 hours ago, MIB said:

Go back to the BFF bylaws.

 

I haven't reviewed those, they sound outdated. Changing them is not a problem.

 

11 hours ago, MIB said:

This site is here to promote TALK, not facilitate research.

 

I disagree, the BFF does facilitate research. We could do better though and I'm open to it.

[7.62]

12 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

Never watched the show but if they are just shooting off into the woods, that's almost criminal if they aren't.

 

 

The biggest reason I mention it is while watching them move I've seen them sweep each other more than a couple of times.

If they were filming with live rounds I imagine they wouldn't do things like that .

 

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

 

The biggest reason I mention it is while watching them move I've seen them sweep each other more than a couple of times.

If they were filming with live rounds I imagine they wouldn't do things like that .

 

 

You would be surprised...

[Madison5716]

12 hours ago, Franco said:

We stopped at a dinner last year just out Eugene, OR we were heading into Wilamette National Forrest. Spoke to a tropper and flat out asked him. If he has seen or heard of Bigfoot sighting. He said,  every week we get 2 or 3 calls that they a trespassing. He hasnt seen them himself, but he said others in his department has.

 

That's where we are, and they're not wrong.

12 hours ago, bipedalist said:

Well Joe Beelart of this forum, wrote a book about some of that area, Oregon's Bigfoot Highway.  Reading that goes a long way to understanding the density and history of sightings up to the current day, with great maps and everything.  He goes out and has partnered with Cliff Barackman on some expeditions commercially.  He also will take out friends into the forest. 

 

I'd LOVE to meet him. I have his book and it's fascinating.

[Arvedis]

8 hours ago, MIB said:

 

...real researchers don't need our data.    Take a look at our membership.   Who do we have actively participating here from any of the top 10 or so bigfoot groups?   (Other than NathanFooter?)    I can't think of any.   If we offered value, as THEY measure value, they would be here.   So we don't.   We think we do, but we don't.   Instead we try to get them to pay to come here to entertain us, to provide what we want, pay a fee to do it, and give them back nothing they truly need.    If you do not see it this way, you are not paying attention.

 

MIB

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

The major advantage Moneymaker had with The Animal Planet (as well as everybody else in this industry) is the BFRO as the #1 report taking organization. That gave him the lead with producers not only on his competition, but in deciding locations.

 

But a researcher, even one thinking of starting a YouTube channel, doesn't need control of that database. Our own SSR gives one a query access to the published BFRO database, and a whole lot more, for a mere $20 per year. You might not get the Big Bucks with a YouTube channel, but money can be made, and you'd have FULL control. You could work your own schedule, follow up on a recent report, talk to a witness on video, have a Bobo friend of your very own, etc.

 

 

Yes, BFRO offered a "first to market" entity which TV producers could work with. Moneymaker is a pretty good talker and no doubt, the patterns in reports gave him a leg up for locations to shoot the segments.  But, that only takes you so far. There is really only 1 voice of credible research on that show which was Cliff. Moneymaker is good with analysis but he's not a field person.

 

"top" BF research groups?     If any reliable areas can be turned into location shoots then you have yourself a firm pitch to reality TV. It better be spot on or it stands no chance. That means producers show up and experience activity, not excuses.  Mix that in with personalities of the BF community who are not crackpots (it is possible) and have something to offer, not necessarily in the field, but just bring a unique perspective. No guns, just research and analysis. You have yourself a good pitch for reality TV.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Arvedis

[Madison5716]

5 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

However, the contracts that were required to even do a pilot to shop to networks were a bit concerning.  You have to really be interested in being on television more than being interested in using it as a possible vessel for research.  The language used in the contract is purposely set up to be rather vague in its conditions. You basically have to be willing to potentially go anywhere and possibly do anything that the production company or network requires.  Then, you have no clue how the footage that they film will be edited.  You could set out to make a serious show on the exploration of unknown phenomena only to have it he edited into being a show devoted to fools who look for imaginary monsters.  

 

You need a real desire for fame in order to be willing to take a risk on signing your name on that dotted line.  So I can definitely see were they have trouble finding people that they want to do it that are also willing to do it.  That's how you end up with the bottom of that barrel.

 

I worked in television and film production for a decade. Unless it's NatGeo, it's ALL about entertainment and bringing in viewer numbers and advertising dollars. It could never be about real research, because mostly, imho, really looking for evidence is boring, uncomfortable and as exciting as watching paint dry for 55 minutes of every hour and 4 minutes of really cool stuff and 1 minute of wondering if today is the day you're going to die. Not very watchable television, that! Studios don't give a darn about exploration or finding a new species. People at the top don't go outside, lol! They work 12-18 hours a day and eat, sleep and live by numbers. I know. I worked for them. My former boss is now President of a major Studio.  Any show they create MUST be monetarily successful, and the uncertainties of bigfooting would be unproductive, literally.. Anyone starring on a show is an actor first, and a researcher second ( or third, or fourth...). Any Bigfoot show you watch is, first and foremost, ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Madison5716

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

.........There is really only 1 voice of credible research on that show which was Cliff.........

I agree that Cliff is the more impressive of the two in all ways, but I can't condemn Moneymakers savvy. He got BFRO up front and center. In fact, he likely was the one who presented Cliff to Animal Planet for consideration for the show. If so, it was another excellent move.

[Madison5716]

Agreed, Hunster! Moneymaker is industry savvy. He's smart. And Cliff is very personable and the camera LOVES him. 

[Arvedis]

^ From what I know, Matt just wanted people he could trust and who wouldn't give him a power struggle.  BFRO was a smattering of talent. Cliff was the only logical choice because if his dedication and intelligence. Bobo was always in the field anyway and would just do what he was told. No idea how what's her name got the gig.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Arvedis

[7.62]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

You would be surprised...

lol

 

I know it can happen to even seasoned guys but I think once a company makes the decision to include firearms in a film or TV series  everything changes on the safety measures 

that have to be adhered to . These guys are going into dark situations with sound guys, light guys . They are filmed from different angles so it's more than just a couple of people 

on that film crew . It just doesn't seem plausible that the company would allow them to have live rounds in their weapons  while running around yelling , tripping over logs .

 

I could be completely wrong on this also 

[Incorrigible1]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

If I was a researcher, the only reason I might have to maintain situational awareness on the public would be to know if they were about to screw up the area I was active in.

Does a professional fishermen disdain the opportunity to read a fishing magazine marketed to the general public? Or is he "above" such media? After all, he's a professional..

 

I get the sense from some of you that a "researcher" wouldn't find any utility from reading a lowly forum that welcomes the public. Methinks you're selling the BFF short with such an attitude.

[bipedalist]

11 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

I haven't reviewed those, they sound outdated. Changing them is not a problem.

 

 

I disagree, the BFF does facilitate research. We could do better though and I'm open to it.

 

Bring it up to Steering Committee to do some preliminary work and involve the membership too.  There are defined limitations saying the BFF is NOT a research organization.  Just by doing the SSR we became a research organization on a consultative basis anyway. 

 

Incidentally, the BFRO is registered with the word entertainment in their company named incorporation or llc papers in California if that has not changed over time since my last and only expedition with them in 2007. 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by bipedalist

[MIB]

6 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

I get the sense from some of you that a "researcher" wouldn't find any utility from reading a lowly forum that welcomes the public. Methinks you're selling the BFF short with such an attitude.

 

If so, if it's me you mean, that's not my message.     My sense of NatFoot's post was that he wanted them to contribute, not just read.    Anyone can lurk and read.   My intent was to suggest that charging them to provide the content contributions we want might be counter-productive.   Instead, if we could entice them to provide that content, perhaps we could draw more people into paying for premium memberships.    In other words, the forum invest in the premium memberships for some number of contributing researchers in order to draw even more readers into the premium section.    Hopefully there would be more return than investment.

 

MIB