bipedalist Posted August 30, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 30, 2011 ...and that much I did extract from Jason Erickson, that multiple species are involved. I assume you are not under NDA Alpinist? But the question of multiple species would seemingly make DNA studies very difficult. In order to establish some baseline you have to have a modicum of stability of the genome anyhow. ...the professionals and academics involved, will solely be judging imagery, objectively, just on its technical merits, not the behaviors of the camera man. Camera man, con man, it's all in descriptive choice; the behavior as judged against past behavior and the history of the phenomenon right? (Well except for maybe the PGF....had to get that in there....touche ) Anything that pushes Finding Bigfoot out of the same chase after footprints and have Bobo jump the shark mentality will be good for the show.....so yes any publicity is good publicity in that sense. Standing wouldn't be my choice (from past behavior) to be poster boy for the BF phenomenon (I would have picked somebody like John Andrews who can outhike a Sasquatch..... .... loved that Utah trip John). But, like alot of other's, I was fished in by Standing's appearances on C2C, etc. ......until people challenged his stories and did their own research on his film company employees relationships in many of his claims, etc., which have been adequately documented in many places on the web now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 News flash - active field researchers do not like divulge actual locations to anyone particularly other researchers News Flash- True legitimate active researchers do not hide info from other legitimate researchers. However hoaxers and hucksters do not like to divulge locations out of fear their games being exposed. It seems that the more the years go by the more the Sasquatch field is starting to resemble a asylum being taken over by the inmates. Thomas Steenburg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Speculation about video production and makeup artists is neither here nor there in my opinion. Nor does subjectively about the shooters behaviors qualify a sequence With all due respect, it most certainly does.... From the very beginning, all he had to do was state that the area where he found this population would remain a secret, because for obvious reasons he did not want people trudging through his "research" area.... But no, instead we get fantastical stories about magical mystical far away lands, and "holes THROUGH mountains", and a arduous journey that no "normal" man can undertake- taking DAYS of of snowmobiling and hiking to get too... Please do not forget- that Mr. Standing or "Toddster" as he called himself on several boards, came on and relaid story after story, and gave many details - including the "hole"- that changed several times from 2' x 2' to 4' x 4'. Even if one can find a "hole" through a mountain- an idea I find utterly absurd, it does not stop someone from walking around the mountain, or following the SAME river/stream (that he spoke of in his accounts) through to where his supposed research area is.. Rivers do not flow through magic mountain portals- they flow through Mountain valley's and its easy enough to follow said river up/down stream. PLEASE tell me that you dont believe what is OBVIOUSLY a fabrication.... And as being such- it DOES cast doubt on what came after. In regards to some of the "face" photos released on the Sylvanic site: Again, I do not mean it in any personal way, but if you can look at the still's from the supposed "face video" and tell me you see a real living creature there- I can recommend the guy who did my lasik eye surgery a couple years ago, and I'd recommend scheduling an appointment as soon as possible. Several people have done EXCELLENT work pointing out oddities/anomalies with these photo's... And if they werent fake or otherwise edited/messed with- then why were new ones submitted on the site, that had THE ANOMALIES edited out !! ??? There is NO acceptable answer to this question !!! Getting to the whole film production aspect of things... Again- it doesnt take rocket science to see that: #1 he/they (Todd + his sister) hid from just about everyone- the fact that he/they own a film production company, and HAD run an add for actors/actresses + crew shortly before all this wonderful "footage" began being talked about- by who? By Mr. Standing himself- self promoter extraordinaire ! In fact much of this was left unanswered/unaddressed until he realized that people were able to (and were) checking his background because of freedom of information act. #2 Not being honest and forthright about what your background is, and what your clear objectives are (too make $$$) is just as bad as if you claimed to be something that your not. He (they both actually) took steps to hide this information by using different names on adds that were run, and documents relating to the film company- but slipped up because of ties with his website and the company... OOPS- when you find out Sylvanic's website is tied directly to "OutSTANDING Productions" which has names of Todd Rockwell (Director) and Loise Greene as (General Manager). Why the fake names? Kind of obvious if you ask me... its to throw people off the trail.. #3 Just about EVERYTHING he has done- has been done in the name of making $$- or "donations" as he called them on his site.. That should be your first clue anytime your trying to figure out whether someone is messing with your head or not... if there's an offer for what they have, and it includes an outstretched hand asking for your money, you should be immediately wary. Look, I dont personally have anything against Mr Standing- but I have absolutely no problem stating that I dont buy ANY of his story.... And I too have a MAJOR problem with him being tied to the Erickson Project, and having anything to do with "Finding Bigfoot"- unless it is an expose to show what many of us DO believe. That its all a load of crap.... When and if I'm proved wrong- "I'll kiss his ass in Macy's window" to quote a very old NY saying.... I'm pretty confident it wont come to that however.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 News Flash- True legitimate active researchers do not hide info from other legitimate researchers. However hoaxers and hucksters do not like to divulge locations out of fear their games being exposed. It seems that the more the years go by the more the Sasquatch field is starting to resemble a asylum being taken over by the inmates. Thomas Steenburg Which side do you consider Matt Moneymaker on? Legit researcher or huckster? You backed yourself in this corner. I would like to hear you get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Which side do you consider Matt Moneymaker on? Legit researcher or huckster? You backed yourself in this corner. I would like to hear you get out of it. Hairy, I dont see the point of this question... MM was not mentioned in his post, and I believe his comments were directed towards Sylvanic/Mr Standing.... as far as the past several year history of material,pictures, and supposed "evidence" put forth by the same.... In fact he quoted Alpinist, who was speaking about Todd Standing- not Matt Moneymaker... So how is he backed into a corner..... as he didnt say anything about Matt Moneymaker...? We dont even know if Mr. Moneymaker has final say as to what/who is investigated by the Finding Bigfoot show. It may be in fact the producers, and or upper management of Discovery networks that makes these decisions. Your question as phrased does not relate to Sylvanic, and in my opinion calls for speculation on Mr Steenburg's part... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 As a moderator, I am confused about your post. Are you saying you don't see my logic, or that I can't ask that? I am confused and don't want to proceed if I am crossing some line in the sand as far as the forum rules go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 As a moderator, I am confused about your post. Are you saying you don't see my logic, or that I can't ask that? I am confused and don't want to proceed if I am crossing some line in the sand as far as the forum rules go. oh no.. if i had a "problem" with it as a mod, I would have deleted/edited it, and taken it to PM's... I would not take you to task about a rules violation in a public thread... In this case as "just another member", I dont understand where your coming from.... Not being confrontational- I just saw his post as being in reference to someone (else) specific, and didnt understand why your dragging MM into it... Was just pointing out that he (Mr Steenburg) was not questioning MM, or anything about him.. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I would not take you to task about a rules violation in a public thread... I wish that was the standard...especially for those of us who know how to us PMs and the report button just fine. You are an awesome Mod, Art. Thanks! Anyhoo, the reason I bring up MM is since, well, it is his show this is talking about and on his own forum, he says they have creative control this season which means he most likely had some input into whether they were going to go after Standing. Since I have heard rumors that MM is one of the guys who likes to withold locations of current or past research from other researchers/groups who want to act independitnly from him, that is why I want to hear whether he falls into Steenburg's category of "hoaxers and hucksters" since that is how he describes their behavior. I am not a MM basher. I think he is short-sighted and very short tempered, but it seems this is a dog-eat-dog field of research and he is just acting accordingly and happens to be the one the most in the spotlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I wish that was the standard...especially for those of us who know how to us PMs and the report button just fine. You are an awesome Mod, Art. Thanks! Anyhoo, the reason I bring up MM is since, well, it is his show this is talking about and on his own forum, he says they have creative control this season which means he most likely had some input into whether they were going to go after Standing. Since I have heard rumors that MM is one of the guys who likes to withold locations of current or past research from other researchers/groups who want to act independitnly from him, that is why I want to hear whether he falls into Steenburg's category of "hoaxers and hucksters" since that is how he describes their behavior. I am not a MM basher. I think he is short-sighted and very short tempered, but it seems this is a dog-eat-dog field of research and he is just acting accordingly and happens to be the one the most in the spotlight. Ok, i understand better where your coming from... To be honest, I dont frequent (or even go to) "other" Bigfoot boards/forums... I (honestly) think this one is the best one going. It draws the most membership, and because of the "great mods" like me ( HA HA HA) I dont feel the need to dabble elsewhere... That being said, I am unaware of what he (MM) may have said on other boards- well actually "his" if it was on the BFRO.... So that's why I guess I didnt understand why you were bringing him into the discussion... Knowing this now- i guess its up to Steenburg to give an opinion or not... I'll still stand by my thought that i dont think it paints him into a corner- because as individuals, he could apply his statement to one person, and not have it apply to another. Alot of it depends on the fact that many of us (including myself) believe that Sylvanic and most/all of its content+history = a grand hoax. No one including myself has said or insinuated that MM has done anything remotely close to that. Yea- with all the negative info/opinions out there on Sylvanic- I do find it hard to stomach that many "serious" researchers would seemingly "partner" up with him... That's just my opinion though, and MM and Erickson have to make that determination on their own. Like I said in my above post- I may have a huge slice of humble pie to eat at some point, but my instinct and feelings (normally pretty good) tell me otherwise... ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) It paints Steenburg into a corner as I believe he works with the BFRO often. If I am wrong about any of this, I apologize in advance; but I thought that is what I have read. If someone really wants to debunk this thing, take Standing up on his offer of going on the expedition and document everything that occurs. Find a local broadcaster willing to send you with their belssing that if you find anything it will be on the news so you meet his criteria. Edited August 30, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If someone really wants to debunk this thing, take Standing up on his offer of going on the expedition and document everything that occurs. Find a local broadcaster willing to send you with their belssing that if you find anything it will be on the news so you meet his criteria. HG, I cant confirm for a straight up fact, but in the several years now that have passed (6 actually), dont you think there have been numerous people who have asked/begged for the privilege of doing so? I remember reading (maybe 2 or 3 years ago), that someone/or several had asked, and I believe the "no" answer had something to do with Native American's (an elder?) deciding that they weren't worthy or some such nonsense... In other words, attempts were made to do so, and excuses were made as to why it couldnt happen. I'f I'm wrong about this, I apologize in advance- but im 99% sure that's what I read in more than one place. If i also remember correctly from the Sylvanic website itself- there was a dire warning given in relation to just this idea (that he'd bring someone back there). In it (im paraphrasing) was a warning that the trip to Sylvanic had a good chance of being a one way ticket, and that anyone who went with him should be prepared to die there.... Really??? That would make me more than willing to stay up and sit by the campfire- so I could keep an eye on my "escort" as well as any attacking Bigfeet. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) That's hysterical. I would love to read about that. If you come across anything let me know. I am gonna go search for it. "Sorry, the chief said no Bigfoot for you!" The Bigfoot nazi...classic. Edited August 30, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That's hysterical. I would love to read about that. If you come across anything let me know. I am gonna go search for it. "Sorry, the chief said no Bigfoot for you!" The Bigfoot nazi...classic. from http://sylvanic.com/skeptic.html Although I think it was worded slightly different in the past- here's the "current" warning/disclaimer.. Maybe you could volunteer HG !! ??? "Anyone taking you on an expedition like this that would guarantee your safety would be a liar. Therefore I will tell you outright: If you come on this expedition you are MOST CERTAINLY risking you life. Before I take any new team members on expedition, I will show them what happened to the last people that did not heed my warnings." + "This is the wisdom of a First Nations elder that has been instructing me on the ways of wilderness survival: If you are not strong you will die. If you get sick you will die. If you get injured you will die. If you do not have wisdom you will die. If you do not abide by the rules of our people without question, you will die. And if you are strong, wise, never get injured or sick, and abide by the rules of our people without question you still may die. In the North American wilderness, bears, mountain lions and wolves kill to survive everyday. Many of their victims are people that cross into their homes. Virtually no one ever goes into the woods as deep as we are going. And these predators, as dangerous as they are, are the least of our worries." + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I just want to make a little comment about researchers and researcher bashing. This is a budding field, and like every such new field of discovery (such as flight) amateurs rock. When the paradigm shift occurs in the "professional" field, aka the PhD's, universities and so forth (which we hope and pray will begin to happen after Melba publishes her findings) they will still be coming to the people who have put in the effort of hours and dollars to establish the groundwork. And those well known amateurs will comprise both the compilers of eyewitness accounts such as Thomas Steenberg and the BFRO, and the people who have spent years in a specific research area getting to know a single clan well, many of whom can be found here on the BFF, listening in with ears to the ground for news about their research area. There is a fair bit of flack evident between the two types that is evident in the thread too...the compilers who have a good broad over view of the information, but who can be a bit over strict when it comes to throwing out data, and the researcher or habituator of a single clan or area who scorns the compiler for not spending the time in the field and/or lacking direct experience. I think there should be a realization that both are necessary in the field, and that there is going to be quite a bit of sifting of the information for quite a few years until systematic scientific studies are able to be carried out. Even so, since this field is a subgroup of Anthropology if it becomes established it will take years and years of field studies by accredited researchers to get anything much beyond what us "amateurs" can come up with. We need to be careful about throwing away data at this point. Get a big mental filing system, and put away a lot of reports you may consider dubious but don't throw them away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 When and if I'm proved wrong- "I'll kiss his ass in Macy's window" to quote a very old NY saying.... That is hilarious. I don't remember ever hearing that. Thanks for the laughs. We dont even know if Mr. Moneymaker has final say as to what/who is investigated by the Finding Bigfoot show. It may be in fact the producers, and or upper management of Discovery networks that makes these decisions. MM said on his forum that the BFRO were the ones who decided that. He said they had many report options but only chose the reports that best fit the filming of it both logistically and in keeping integrity with the accounts for example not choosing a good winter report because it was currently summer in that report location and they did not want to record that report at some other location with snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts