"There are some serious emotional issues in Bigfootery"

The title used for this article, are not my words. Those words were used by Steph over at the blog "Skookumquest", and she must have a very large burr stuck in her saddle.

Apparently Steph is all fired up, because Billy Willard had the audacity to discuss his displeasure with the media re: treatment of witnesses and people who identify themselves as researchers, by the organized media. He did not just discuss his personal opinion about this problem we have all faced in one way or the other, but he took it to his own radio program.

The nerve of this guy!!

Here is the background, Steph won't tell you, because she can't. Steph never contacted anyone involved with this particular expedition or the articles/interviews that followed.

Billy Willard and I put together an expedition that included researchers from 5 different organizations, with 30+ researchers, from 10 different states. Neither Billy, nor myself, knew how this would work (personalities being what they are). Nevertheless, we gathered these groups together for an 7 day expedition on more than 2 thousand acres of land. Mind you, this was private land, Billy Willard had been invited to investigate by the Landowners.

Billy did not have to allow this to happen on land he was investigating (we all know how people can be about private land they are investigating). But, he did. Then he went out of his way to make the 2 hour trip to the property on multiple occassions to take GPS coordinates for the planning stages of the expedition, along with the placement of items needed for individuals doing experiments.

In the end the expedition was a success,

There was no ego. No throwing around names like "expert". Everyone contributed, worked well together and had a fantastic time. To top off the 8 days, there are some items of interest that will be released when the final report is completed.

The radio show for which Steph speaks, was about the mistreatment of witnesses in the media, and even within this field of research. Steph, in the course of one blog article, proved Billy's point with absolute perfection. Instead of Steph recognizing the reality of witnesses and researchers being misquoted and publicly humiliated, she instead decides to defend the media and their inability to get facts right, and at times, she seems to applaud the media for these sensational tatics.

Once this expedition was completed,

Billy was bombarded by interview requests. Each one of these requests came with the same promise. "Don't worry, I will do an article that will be objective and not make fun of your witnesses or your goal." Of course, that never happens. Billy, being the trusting person he is, allowed the interviews, because no matter how you slice it, this expedition was a sucess.

If, for no other reason, but bringing this many researchers together, and getting the work done.

Do I blame Billy?

No. What happened to the day when you could count on a person's word? I always thought a person's word meant something, especially in the world of business. Some of these reporters did not just misquote Billy, they made things up. Take for example the report of "Video of Red Eyeshine". That was completely made up. There is no video of red eyeshine from this expedition. I know this, because I (I) did not have a camcorder when it happened. I'm sure Billy made mention of this situation during his interview, but I have no doubt the "video" portion of his "statement" was added in later.

I actually did something, Steph, you should have done. I called Billy, and asked him myself if the report of "video" was true. He explained what happened. I was actually disappointed. I hoped someone had seen this other than me and was able to obtain video. Billy told me what he said, and I believe him.

Why hold Billy responsible for an outright fabrication, he has no control over? He does not have "writing privileges" with any of these papers.

What I find interesting is how Steph gives credit to Tom Biscardi for being a "promoter".

Really?? I bet that would really give Steph something to write about. I don't care if Biscardi is a professional promoter, he bills himself as a bigfoot researcher first. Really Steph, are you giving Biscardi credit for making this research, the witnesses and those doing the field work a laughing stock?? Are you saying we should all be more like biscardi - if we want to discuss our work with the media? Yea, I bet you would love that.

Way to go Steph. I am sure that comment upped your credibility.

Do you know what really got under Billy's skin though, Steph? You really missed the most important part, which had nothing to do with Billy.

What upset him was even after his witness and granddaugter were told the very same thing Billy was assured of, these reporters insulted and publicly humiliated them. What you missed, Steph, was a researcher who cares about how witnesses are treated, and his right to defend those who have been mistreated and lied to. I have met the landowners and their granddaughter. When this family was attacked, I was angry and they are not even my witnesses.

Why was I angry?

Because these people had the guts to step forward and discuss seeing something that is not supposed to exist. That takes true courage and strength. Yet, they get no credit for this, only ridicule from the media who made promises to them. This is what your defending Steph? Really?

If we shouldn't talk to media, "because we know how they are." How would you suggest we get more witnesses to come forward? I know what you're going to say.

"Witnesses come to forums all the time."

Yeah, and for every investigator that has 1 witness they are working with, I will bet this blog, they have talked to 5 witnesses who have visited one or more of these forums and left because of ridicule (being dished out by researchers). I have talked to these people. I know they exist. Why in the world would you send them to these forums? Entertainment? Should they post to your blog, Steph? If they do, are you going to show them the same compassion, you have shown to others who only identify themselves as researchers?

Why should any witness think you will treat them any better? They would be foolish.

I'm not sure exactly what your angle is, in going after Billy Willard. Frankly, I find it shameful. Billy Willard is one of the most honest, hardworking and trustworthy researchers, working to help solve this mystery.

Maybe that's your problem? The media is going to others for comment, and not you. No, that's not a question.

I have known Billy and been friends with him for, going on, 6 years now. He has never called himself an expert, or even hinted at it. You shouldn't put words in the mouths of others, Steph. Eventually people involved in this research will start to question your truthfullness when writing up reports.

Embellishment is not a good quality in a researcher.

If, Steph, you want to be an angry and a bitter person (I understand the last year or two have been rough) that's fine, but don't pretend you know all there is to know about this situation. Because you do not, and your ignorance is painfully obvious.

I know that, because you never asked ANYONE INVOLVED.

Gossip is always the easy way to go, and you can get your article printed faster. Fact checking takes time and you risk the story being boring.

You may not think it important to get the full story before printing your trash rag of a blog, but maybe those who want facts, might appreciate you taking the extra effort to contact those you plan to smear, for a response.

I do that.

But, no. You can't be bothered by that, right? FYI, getting the whole story up front makes things much easier and you don't have to apologize later and look like an ass.

Maybe it's too much work for you, Steph? Or not as interesting? I'm betting it's a little of both.

You know, Steph, if you think about it, having the ability to discuss what is going on, without the ridicule and general nastyness, might make it easier for you to go public with the video you have and keep under raps. Why don't you make your video public and take the heat the way other researchers do (and witnesses) all the time?

Oh...I know,

You wouldn't be able to complain about how you are being mistreated and your video is not being evaluated fairly. You and I both know, you are happy with things the way they are. Being able to openly bash others, is something you and those like you, enjoy. It has nothing to do with "Skepticism" or honest evaluation of the information being offered.

I have the feeling,

If the day came that we all had the expectation of professional behavior, people like you, Steph, would have no interest in this research anymore, because no one would pay attention to your angry ramblings.

Funny, how you have smeared me, and when it comes down to it, I have more ethics than you. Any coward could do, what you did, to Billy. It takes guts and a real desire for the truth to send emails or make phone calls to get to the real issue, and the truth. I do it all the time, and receive responses all the time. Heck, I even have people thanking me for asking them their side of the story before I publish the article. Saying it's everyone elses responsibility is a cop out, and an attempt to put a better spin on your inability to try to get both sides.

You might get more respect. Maybe you just don't care about that.

You are probably asking yourself, "Is she writing this article only in defense of her friend?"

I am writing this article, because I am tired of people like this. They spread the kind of nastyness that is so common now, it's not difficult to find. Steph, and her methods are not original, and clearly she is looking for some kind of attention she can not find elsewhere. I'm tired of people like this, who defend the humiliation of others, who are coming forward to aid us in the work we do. These people (witnesses) should not be attacked or publicly humiliated, they should be applauded for having the guts to step forward. It is shameful that anyone who is involved in this research community would defend this type of public harrassment. Bigfoot Bloggers should be front and center in this fight. Yet we have bloggers like, Steph, willing to stand in line behind the organized media to take her swing. Not at just her fellow researchers, but the witnesses.

For every person involved,

Whether they be investigators or witnesses, there is a different opinion, idea or even expectation. The key to us all working together, is, wait for it....

To not be such a complete Jerk !!!

Just as anyone else in this world, has the right to be angry or upset when their words are mis-stated and/or made up, Billy has that right too. Just because he is not a professional promoter, that does not mean Billy has to simply "take it on the chin" because his words were misquoted and in some cases simply made up. We all have the same right to be upset when words are put in our mouths, by the media or anyone else, and we should be down right furious. They are making money off these stories, they lie to get. They could at least show the same respect for a verbal agreement with people in this research as they would anyone else. An agreement is an agreement. I have no respect for those who can't respect their agreements or, those who would argue it is okay to lie, to get what you want.

No, it's not acceptable, and you, Steph, are a fool for thinking it is, or should be. At the minimum your comments in this respect do nothing to help the message of the work being done, and more to add injury. If you don't care about the witnesses and how they are treated, why are you even involved?

I will always defend a witness. Maybe you wouldn't. I just pray you are honest with your witnesses about the potential that they may end up as the latest victim, on your blog - prior to them telling you anything.

So, I ask you. Who has the emotional issue? Seems to me Billy Willard is doing exactly what he should be doing. Protecting his witnesses and taking people to task when they do not keep their word. If the organized media can use their paid pulpit to talk down to those in this community, we have the right and the obligation to step up and be heard.

Way to be on the wrong side Steph. But, at least we know which side you're on.

P.S. I await your snotty and scarcasm filled response, it will help prove the point (yet again) Billy, I and many others are trying to make.

Did you get it?