June 23, 2010

"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?


  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Mike said…


    I just may do that. You don't need to forget that Texas is a great vacation destination as well. Who wouldn't want to spend a week in the Big Thicket, right?


  • At 8:46 PM, Blogger Melissa said…

    I think you meant to respond to the Ohio Conference article - BUT, since you brought it up, Wayne and I are discussing a trip to Texas this fall.

    We hear the TBRC has a conference that is not to be missed!! We will stay about a week, and the big thicket is absolutely on my list of places to go. :)

    The Big Thicket is the place for a creepy overnight!!!

  • At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Lynda Wilkinson said…


  • At 2:47 AM, Blogger Edward (Ed) said…

    I think that you and the others of your outing should be commended for making such and attempt at working in tandem with one another.....

    One positive step.

    As for the media and Forums, our group now and in the future will rely on Press Releases, Official Statements and After Action Reports.

  • At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have to agree with steph's article. when you start to hold commercial outings and bill them as research they all should be suspect. Eye shine can be almost any animal. proves nothing! If your going to put yourself out there in the media everyone being a skeptic should be expected. In the end there are no real experts in crypto of any sort. Soneone who spends allot of time in the forest getting photos of timid wild animals is more creditable then 2nd or 3rd hand story tellers or repot takers!

  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Melissa said…

    Are you sure you read this entire article, and didn’t just skim for the really cool tid bits?

    First of all, I am not sure you understand the definition of “commercial outing”. No one involved with the Virginia expedition was paid for their time or reimbursed for any expenses associated with this “outing”.

    Sure, eyeshine can be from most any animal, thank you. You say that as if that thought had never occurred to me.

    Where in my article did I say “everyone should believe what is said, and no member of the media should look at this research without a skeptical eye?” Please point me in that direction. What I said was, the interviews were granted under the false pretense that the witnesses would be treated with respect, and the information given would be reported accurately. My point is - promises were made, and broken. That may be okay with you, but in my world it’s a good thing to keep your word, and good business. Maybe you don’t expect integrity, but most of us do.

    You said, “In the end, there are no real experts,” Thank you for stating the obvious. But, I said nothing about that. What I said was, Not one person involved with this expedition called themselves an expert, as Steph tried to make her readers believe. So, your comment was stating the obvious, that hadn’t even been said or asked.

    Your last sentence is actually kinda funny. Why? There are very few people in this field of research, who spend the overwhelming hours in the woods, as Billy Willard does. That is a fact.

  • At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well if he spends so much time in the woods, dosent he feel that pictures of the animals that live there are important? Not only as a food source but proof he was there and knows how to setup and use a camera. I say this because if you can get quality pic's of the extreamly elusive animals then you should be able to get quality pic's of bigfoot. Thats assuming you ever really see one. In other words it adds to a persons creditablilty.

  • At 11:45 PM, Blogger Melissa said…

    Of course he does. He has some of he best quality game cams on the market.

    Maybe you should read up about Billy Willard. I think many of your questions will be answered a whole lot faster.

    This is why I say - go to the person. Talk to them. Make up your own mind. Stephs article could not have been more wrong.

  • At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It never ceases to amaze me that anyone doing serious research thinks it takes 30 people to tramp around the woods with hope of finding anything. Or sitting by a campfire telling each other stories about their experiences. In my opinion any serious research is completed by a single person or at the most two people. Unless you have gun bearers and drivers like an old tiger hunt in India. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'll side with Steph!

  • At 7:36 PM, Blogger Melissa said…

    It never ceases to amaze me how some read into comments or simply don’t read at all. It makes me think that some are just trolls looking to stir the pot.

    First of all, I never said it takes 30 people to handle an outing. I also never said we had 30 people there the entire time. It was a total of 30 people over the course of 7 days (not 8, that is my bad and I will correct that typo). Please do not put words in my mouth, for starters it’s not polite.

    It sure is nice to have so many people, when you have more than 2 thousand acres of land to investigate. Sure you can do it with 1 or 2 people, but not every property owner is going to allow you to squat on their land for an undetermined amount of time. That’s a lot land my friend.

    You’re right. You have your way, and I have mine. While I will continue to participate in expeditions of more than 2 people, because I prefer to not waste my time, you can just keep on, keeping on, the way you are, but that does not give you, Steph or anyone else the right to criticize anyone based on “numbers of investigators”. Why? Because apparently your way (2 investigators total) hasn’t worked either. So, it would appear neither you or I have the “better way”.

    Question, What do you and this one other person talk about while you are in the field?

    Advanced Mathematics?

    Maybe you should stick with Steph, and I wish you all the best!!!!!

  • At 6:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    oh ya, better go read your own article. "Billy Willard and I put together an expedition that included researchers from 5 different organizations, with 30+ researchers, from 10 different states."
    I think the conversation is over. ive answered you on my blog.Ya it may be ba a rag blog as you like to call them. im not trolling for anything just ran across your critical whiney self-promoting page. Thanks for the conversation but ive seen and had enough for now.

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Melissa said…

    I think you need to take a course in remedial english, or study up on reading comprehension. Just because there were that many people there during the course of 7 days, does not mean they were there the entire time - Unless of course, you are in fact trolling for attention, or you really are not as smart as you make yourself out to be.

    It must be painful to be so hateful Steph. Most normal people without an agenda would have read this, and thought "hey, maybe I was harsh on Billy, maybe I should look into this further?" Nope, not you, little miss know it all. Shows who has the real attitude problem.

    Your blog is a self important waste of time for everyone in this field. I will waste no more time on someone as hateful and you Steph. You have proven my point with the same class you use on your blog. Thank you. Your blog isnt a rag blog, it's a trash blog.

    If you would discuss things you might actually know about, maybe I and others wouldn't be so critical of you. Instead you discuss people and issues you know nothing about.

    Hey, how about showing us all that video???

    Stick to what you know. You are failing miserably on the "knowing your bigfooters" part of his test. I liked all the typos, it showed how really, really mad you are. LMAO.

    I appreciate a good laugh whenever it comes around.

    FYI, you responded as I thought you would, and I do appreciate it. :)


Post a Comment