Leigh Hart, of nzherald.com.nz
When someone uses credentials to establish a level of credibility, to only hurt and defame others does that make them credible?
This Leigh Hart, showed up to the Ohio Conference, under the guise of a legitimate Television Producer looking for interviews from those who are involved in this research. Truth be told, he used those credentials to get in the door, to make those involved look bad. Lets start out with this piece of trash paragraph.
"There is an old saying that goes: "If you can't get laid at a Big Foot conference/expo, you can't get laid anywhere!", and for the most part I would have to agree with this. However, I might add that although your chances are good, be prepared for it to be with a heavily tattooed woman who could conceivably weigh in at 130 to 180kg."
Proof that he is not only oblivious to the feelings of others, but that he is unaware he is no "runway model" himself. How a woman's weight or her penchant for tattoos plays any role in this field of research, (other than to put people down or crack jokes at someones expense) is beyond me. But, when you're a talentless hack yourself, odds are you have no other options for being original.
Frankly, when your opinion is so low of a select group of people, often times it is best to keep your mouth shut, less your stupidity come through as brilliantly as this guys did.
By the way, I am 5'7 weight 130 pounds and only have 2 tattoos :) So, apparently he is wrong about the women involved in this field of research.
"I attended, or rather gatecrashed, the annual Big Foot conference this year, rather controversially in Ohio. Officially I was there making a documentary series called Leigh Hart's Mysterious Planet for TV2, but rather than research the mythical upright walking hominid himself, I was far more interested in those attending the event."
"Gatecrashed" is a good word when you lie about your original intention for attendance, or intend to use deception at the minimum. Had he been truthful about why he was attending, he most likely would have no material for this piece of garbage. I'm sure he would define as "truth in journalism
He admits clearly he has done no research, he decided the people were more "interesting". Well, at least he finally brought up some honesty here. It's apparent from the many conversations I have had, he was completely clueless about the animal or even what a night time operation was actually about.
But more on that later.
"To cut a long story short, I have never seen so many freak shows in one place at one time."
Well, too include himself. He did attend.
But, let me get to the actual meat and potatoes of this..
"Diane, a "tell-it-how-it-is" female Big Foot researcher, reminded us that not every broken branch in the woods can be attributed to Big Foot and that other known animals such as bears also make footprints on the odd occasion.
She was remarkably logical and scientific, but blew all credibility when she admitted she still believed in Big Foot, although she had never actually seen it herself.
Her credibility was further called into question when, in the early hours, rather than being out on one of the scheduled night hunts, she chose to stay in the Wild Things bar and pashed not one, but two different camouflage-wearing Big Foot enthusiasts."
The first part of this is fine, but then he apparently gets confused that he actually said something nice and not totally partisan and calls Diane's credibility into question for what he says "believing bigfoot exists". He then goes on to say her credibility is further questioned because she chose to stay at the bar, rather than getting into the field on one of the night time operations....
Excuse me, but isn't this a conference? I'm not sure how things work in New Zealand, but here, people have the right to decide if they want to do something, or do their own thing. I find his logic confusing and frankly, uneducated. I would frankly applaud Diane for staying in the lodge and drinking, instead of being in the field drinking. I bet he knows what I'm talking about here... :)
Now, this really gets me.
"He was clearly emotionally scarred by his "encounter" and had trouble talking about the details without crying, getting feedback from the microphone or talking in a voice that suggested his testicles were being given a powerful foot massage.
This guy was so emotional you would think that rather than just seeing a Big Foot eating berries in the woods, he had been gang raped by five of them. He also blamed Big Foot for his overweight condition."
When you type the words "Clearly emotionally scarred" that means you actually believe this person has suffered an emotionally traumatic event. So, the proper and professional way to deal with it is to verbally assault him? What an unfeeling asshole you are.
First of all, this person is a member in good standing with the American Bigfoot Society. He has NEVER said his encounter is the source of his weight gain, so that is a clear LIE. That is an outright fabrication. This person has never made this claim to myself or anyone else. Instead he gave another very valid reason for his weight. But, even if he would tie his sighting to his weight gain, it would make sense as most people who suffer emotional trauma do have the specific problem stated by this unfeeling journalist.
I would suggest this guy get a PHD in psychiatry before he decides to poorly psychoanalyze anyone in this manner. His lack of professional conduct is clear and his knowledge of people who have suffered traumatic events is evidence he has no clue as to what he is talking about. He wrote this paragraph to simply pick on someone, who could not defend himself. Period.
This was the first time discussing his encounter in front of a large group of people for this researcher. I commend him for doing so, and would ask that he not let 1 in 450 ruin the months of hard work that lead to such an incredible amount of self determination and confidence that allowed him to get up in front of all those people, to do what he felt was right.
"The most fascinating thing about a Big Foot conference, however, is the internal politics or infighting that goes on between various factions. There is of course the BFRO, or Big Foot Research Organisation, the OBFRC, or Ohio Big Foot research Centre, the WBFRO, or Wisconsin Big Foot Research Organisation, the United Big Foot Research Society and, of course, the BFUFOSDI, or Big Foot, UFO and Submersible Dinosaur Institute, run by the controversial Dr Gerry Garciamansoin, to name just a few.
These organizations are battling it out for column inches, T-shirt sales, and website hits. To have the upper hand they obviously need to bad mouth each other, call into question others' expertise and techniques, and generally promote themselves as the one true organisation. The parallels with religion are obvious, as we have many idiots believing in something they can't actually see, yet they are prepared to fight to ensure that their particular blind faith is more dominant than someone else's."
Well, he was close, but he screwed this up too. There is much infighting and what he discusses. BUT.. There are only 2 organizational names I recognize, and neither care about the other... Near as I can tell and I know everyone's dirty laundry.
HEY, research is your friend!!! (it also helps you write better articles with actual information of value)
"I saw an opportunity, and volunteered to speak. I began by introducing myself as a director from New Zealand, then proceeded to educate the KFC-eating audience about the KFC-eating Waitakere Yeti. Borrowing from the American Indian "sasquatch" legend I told them that our native Maori had encountered the beast more than 400 years ago and affectionately called him Ngawa Whakata Cafe, which loosely translates into "large, hairy, coffee-coloured man". The fact that coffee had only been in the country for 150 years or so was a detail that didn't seem to bother them.
I told them that our beast was less shy than theirs and had been known to rape campers or trampers, the most documented case been that of Travis Collins who was raped by the beast, not once but three times over a four-year period.
They also believed that back in New Zealand I currently ran the largest faeces analysis machine in the world, giving me a standing ovation when I finally left the podium."
Do you know what separates this guy from a legit bigfoot researcher? The legit researchers (had they known) would have run him out of the state for this kind of a stunt. He might think it's funny, but bigfoot researchers take hoaxed accounts like this seriously.
Question for our not so funny friend.. He is degrading those who actually bought into his story, but how could they know how long coffee has been in New Zealand while sitting in an audience at a conference? It's not as if you gave them any time to actually check out your story.. So, you intentionally tried to hoax, and you think that gives you some level of credibility in the minds of those who read your crappy article?
I know of at least 10 people who would have busted you right in that auditorium for that lie, but giving them a heads up, so they could do some normal fact checking, wouldn't have been as funny when you returned home to publish your trash article. Researchers in this call out hoaxers every single day. So you apparently do not know, or even care to know, the kind of people you chose to belittle.
"Had I not handed out fake business cards I suspect there would be hundreds of plastic bags of humanoid shit landing on my doorstep as we speak.
I would still expect that to happen. Bigfooters are extremely resourceful, and do not appreciate being mistreated and put down so you can make a buck.
Congratulations to you. You told lies, you misrepresented yourself, and poked fun at overweight people and women. In return you made a buck off good people who are trying to do what they feel is right. What I find very interesting is that this journalist states he went to the Ohio Conference to do work for a documentary, but then decided the people were more interesting - yet, never disclosed this important fact to all those he interviewed, even after he decided to change the intent for his visit (if what he is saying is true about his intent). Clearly a man with no moral compass. If what he felt he was doing was so great, why didn't he just tell everyone that was his intent. He has the right to not agree with anyone. Hell, I know some there that would have really given him a run for his money on an intellectual level regarding this animal. Yet, he chose to focus on the sensation and if he couldn't do that, he decided to make it up.
That does not earn you credibility, it earns you the title of asshole.
For those who would like to contact the New Zealand Herald:
How to contact via email.
To contact the newspaper by Post:
The New Zealand Herald
PO Box 32
Newstips 0800 HERALD (0800 437-253)
Hamilton Office: (07) 838-2199
Wellington: (04) 472-3659
Whangarei: (09) 430-5688
(09) 373-6421 (editor)
News staff (09) 373-6421
Special editorial sections: Business Herald (09) 373 6423
Sports and Racing (09) 373-6428
Features (09) 373-6430