Guest Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Please note that Alex Hearn is a member here, so Rule 1a is in effect. Titus and My agreement about Titus comments about the “Mogollon Monster folks†comments where delete when there was no name calling. Just exposing their I guess I will say “Very different research conclusions†and evidence for what it/they really are. Dose not seem to be breaking rule 1a. Now if we where really calling them names like, well you know, I would understand the post being deleted. However If this is going to be the standard, then one would say if Mr. Tom Biscardi was a member of the BFF he then would be given kid gloves comments about his research conclusions and his evidence. Now Titus and myself know these folks and what/how and why they do what they do, and its these types of folk's whom give the rest of the BF community a bad name and bad rap. I probably broke some other rule by posting this. I guess I wouldn't be a very good dinner guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Well that was certainly mind blowing footage, I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Well that was certainly mind blowing footage, I must say. Can you be more specific since your comments is a mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Please note that Alex Hearn is a member here, so Rule 1a is in effect. Let me get this correct. Are we saying Alex Hearn is one of the persons in the video that discovered the so called BF nest? Which person........the one with the video camera? Yes, we don't need to name call but maybe we should invite this person to provide their side of the story. This is too important to delete. If this person is on the forum and might be perpetuating false reports, then others need to know this. What is the correct manner to discuss this possible fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 George...NO. That was Mitch Waite that found the nest, not Alex. From what I know, they've trouped together occasionally, but the evidence presented last Sunday was all Mitch's. Mitch may be on this forum, but I am unaware of his presence. I know Alex personally and professionally. I do not believe him to be dishonest in nature, and was crucial in obtaining information on a very well known hoaxer in California. During that time, Alex acted with integrity, reliability and honesty. Mitch has nothing to do with the toenail discovery as a quick sidenote. He has also worked on several other projects for me, again with integrity, reliability and honesty. If Alex says he believes in Mitch, then I know Alex truly believes in Mitch. Knowing Alex, that would allow me to at least give Mitch some benefit of doubt, however I cannot say with entire veracity. What I hear so far is a lot of talk with no fact. Now mind you folks that have been on the radio show and now TV show, have claims, I have found nothing deliberate. It takes just as much to prove something a hoax, as it does real. Nor is anyone's appearance on the show an endorsement of said evidence. It's there to present and the audience can judge for themselves. If someone has information of deliberate hoaxing, I'd like to hear about it, and I am not that hard to get a hold of, off this forum. And if they present something, they too could have equal airtime, but they would not be kept in anonymity because accusers do not get that privilege on the show. In order for this alleged evidence to be presented here, it should be done such without accusation, as one of them is a member here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I bet that's not Mountain Dew in your bowl of Wheaties, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Hi Well who ever it is that found the nest be he a member or not, i hope they return ASAP and get those BF eggs before they hatch and we lose them forever. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 George...NO. That was Mitch Waite that found the nest, not Alex. From what I know, they've trouped together occasionally, but the evidence presented last Sunday was all Mitch's. Mitch may be on this forum, but I am unaware of his presence. I know Alex personally and professionally. I do not believe him to be dishonest in nature, and was crucial in obtaining information on a very well known hoaxer in California. During that time, Alex acted with integrity, reliability and honesty. Mitch has nothing to do with the toenail discovery as a quick sidenote. He has also worked on several other projects for me, again with integrity, reliability and honesty. If Alex says he believes in Mitch, then I know Alex truly believes in Mitch. Knowing Alex, that would allow me to at least give Mitch some benefit of doubt, however I cannot say with entire veracity. What I hear so far is a lot of talk with no fact. Now mind you folks that have been on the radio show and now TV show, have claims, I have found nothing deliberate. It takes just as much to prove something a hoax, as it does real. Nor is anyone's appearance on the show an endorsement of said evidence. It's there to present and the audience can judge for themselves. If someone has information of deliberate hoaxing, I'd like to hear about it, and I am not that hard to get a hold of, off this forum. And if they present something, they too could have equal airtime, but they would not be kept in anonymity because accusers do not get that privilege on the show. In order for this alleged evidence to be presented here, it should be done such without accusation, as one of them is a member here. I'll put the accusation in writing and send it to you next week. You should re-post titus comments IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Sorry BFR, the Titus comments are a violation of Rule 1a, as stated above. A skillful writer can get his point across without leveling accusations or name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 A skillful writer can get his point across without leveling accusations or name calling Hi Sooooo your saying if someone is skillful enough they can get there point across in a way that's non offensive and hurtful and still be cool with there fellow forum members, Hum ! i got too look into this some more and possibly incorporate it into my daily routine Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Sorry BFR, the Titus comments are a violation of Rule 1a, as stated above. A skillful writer can get his point across without leveling accusations or name calling. Yeah, he might mention a bowl of Wheaties, or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) Thank for the reply Steve. Well the local guys seem to think the group that found the nest have a questionable reputation. If they could be more specific without breaking the rules it may be helpful for Alex and forum members. At this point we don't know who has the inside information. Those involved in fabricating evidence keep it covert so let's hope Alex hasn't been taken in. There are some research groups out there that seem to be quite professional, yet for publicity purposes, they may be involved with creating evidence. Again, the nest out in the open and then something moving inside, seems like a possible fabrication for publicity purposes. All we can go on is the nest and those who know the researchers credibility. What's with the Wheaties? Are they real Wheaties or knock off Wheaties?By the way Wheaties and wine...............no way. Edited September 11, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) Well, I, for one, will say I think they are honest and I have seen most of their stuff. I have every confidence in their material, and no reason to suspect it. I have no especial interest in the researchers in question here, but there is no reason for any question that I can see. Just in general, and not meaning anyone posting on this thread....unfounded criticisms are all too common in the realm of bf evidence and research. If anybody wants to doubt the genuine nature of any research, I hope they will give several actual reasons for casting aspersions and check whether there are any previous credible accusations. Hoaxers are bad, but those who impugn the reputation of others without cause, who mock, ridicule, and belittle others are worse. Those who fake evidence are despicable, but not as despicable as the quick-judging folks of the internet who ruin the hard-won reputations of hardworking researchers who are trying to gather authentic evidence and information. Costume drama videos are sophomoric, but not as sophomoric as audience members who put down real research in order to make themselves feel superior and impress the other folks. Words cannot express my complete contempt for such critics of bigfoot research. They just can't handle the truth! oh sorry, getting carried away...hope I have effectively made the point, though. Edited September 12, 2011 by Jodie edited to conform to forum R&G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Well, I, for one, will say I think they are honest and I have seen most of their stuff. I have every confidence in their material, and no reason to suspect it. Please provide more detail and your reasons. Do you know them in person? Those who fabricate findings keep us on our toes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts