The Search For Bigfoot

The Heretical Bigfoot Blog.

2012-02-02T12:05:00.004-05:00

If you are a "bigfooter" with no sense of humor - then you won't like this blog. Personally, this blog, cracks me up. The Heretical Bigfoot blog is a sharp yet comical look at some of the things that go on within our field of research, and there is enough material to keep this blogger busy for a while.

I have said before, you have to laugh at some of this stuff, or you will go nuts.

A Weekend in the Woods

2012-01-31T13:51:00.009-05:00

Wayne and I just returned from what I call a "scouting trip". Basically that means we checked out an area with a sighting report.

Here are a few photos :)

Now, in the next photo - can you see the deer in this photo?

I have done nothing to this photo - they really are there. Can you see them? I promise they are not invisible.

Here ya go - with a little patience and zoom.

Once these deer stopped moving, we lost them completely. There are actually 3 deer. Animals that live in the wild like deer depend on this, "natural camoflauge" for survival.

Nature is an awesome thing.

New Books to check out !!

2012-01-31T09:04:00.005-05:00

Here are some new things to check out.

Dave Coleman has released: The Bigfoot Filmography: Fictional and Documentary Appearances in Film and Television

Description: The Bigfoot Filmography and Documentary Appearances in Film and Television is heavily illustrated with 100s of rare photos, poster and lobby card reproductions from the Cine du Sasquatch genre. Loren Coleman (no relation), the renowned cryptozoologist and author of over 30 books in the field, offers an introductory overview to the field of cryptozoology and hominid cinema.

You can buy it on Amazon

AND there is a website you can visit to learn more The Bigfoot Filmography

ALSO,

Lloyd Pye has released a new book called, "Big".

Description: The story unfolds in the mountains of Washington State, where bigfoot sightings occur regularly.

It begins with a hunter encountering and then wounding a bigfoot with a shotgun blast to its upper back. Shot, bleeding, but not quite dead, the bigfoot passes out beside a stream deep in the woods. It is discovered by Marcy Dillon, a high school senior who intends to go to medical school. She has gone to the stream to gather herbs for an important school project.

As Marcy approaches the bigfoot, it revives and is rightfully terrified of her, but it is too weak to harm her. Given the reprieve, she manages to convince it that she wants to help it, not harm it any further....

You can order the book or get more information on the official website, "Big"

FYI:

*a permanent link has been added to this blog, in the right sidebar, for both of these books.

Say what??? Melba Ketchum and the never ending DNA Study.

2012-01-25T11:07:00.007-05:00

The Bigfoot Community went "wild" last night with the outing of (what was called) information about the DNA work being conducted by Dr. Melba Ketchum.

Well, here it is,

This is a movie or proposed media project proposal. This is not the results of Melba's DNA study.

Melba immediately released this statement:

"To address the recent hype and misstatements concerning my paper, please be advised that the information pulled off the US Copyright website for a 2010 preregistration for a proposed media project is not an accurate summary of our scientific testing and data and does not reflect the current conclusions of our scientific paper. The contemplated media project was never produced and no update was ever made to the short description on the preregistration statement. Instead of working on proposed media projects, we have been focusing our time and energy on our ongoing scientific testing and data which will be accurately summarized in the final version of our scientific paper. The final paper presenting our data, analysis and updated conclusions will be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal but we do not have a publication date at this time.

- Dr. Melba Ketchum"

So now the "bigfoot is people" camps are fist pumping, doing hip bumps and dancin the jig basically claiming victory in the fight to put Bigfoot in the "human" camp.

Why are they celebrating? I have no clue. They should actually be worried that Melba is leaving their camp.

Clearly, this is not Melba's opinion.

Excerpt from Melba’s Paper:

"the information pulled off the US Copyright website for a 2010 preregistration for a proposed media project is not an accurate summary of our scientific testing and data and does not reflect the current conclusions of our scientific paper."

Note the words in Melba’s statement: “Is not.”

What do you take from that bolded section of Melbas quote? I know what it says to me.

Melba Ketchum has become the “poster girl” for the “Bigfoot is human” crowd. Her statement says to me that may be a bit presumptuous on the part of those who think Bigfoot is human.

This study has created more questions than it has answered. While we were told we would have the information before the end of 2011 – we are once again in a “holding pattern”….

You know, this could be why peer reviewed papers are not discussed UNTIL they are actually peer reviewed and published.

At this point, as always, I just want to know what all this hype is about. I really hope this community is not going to go through another “just trust me, I will tell you everything soon,” situation. If the Ketchum study proved nothing I can live with that. If the Ketchum report has come up with some new information, I can live with that too. I, like many others are just tired of the “come back in a few months.” Then the, “well, I’m not quite ready to release information yet and here is the super reason.”

I have given Melba Ketchum the benefit of the doubt and published very little on my blog about her “DNA Study.” But, as many of you can imagine, I am growing tired of the excuses and the releasing of “just enough” information to keep everyone hanging on her every word. I am not even going to get into my own questions about how Melba was able to ensure the validity of the samples she took from people across the country. That does concern me, because I have seen the countless eye rolls when you discuss proper methods of evidence collection. So, my fears about the quality of the samples are justified.

To sum this all up, so I can end this article:

The report is not out. What was posted was a proposal for a “media production”. The information in that proposal is not an accurate representation of what her study has concluded.

In other words: false alarm. Nothing to see here folks! Move along!

Bigfoot Endorses Newt Gingrich?

2012-01-22T10:14:00.003-05:00

Awwww Rick Santorum you're slow on the draw!!

Bigfoot makes his decision and endorses ......

UPDATE!! Fox News' Chris Wallace reports on, Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney will FINALLY release his tax returns on Tuesday January 24th. Mitt admits he handled the "tax return" issue poorly.

Justice for Riley !!

2012-01-21T16:06:00.004-05:00

Hello All :)

First, thank you to all who have signed the petition demanding justice for Riley Rawlins. I know Monica, Chris and their families thank you deeply.

But, were not done yet. Right now the Petition has 202 signtures - we need more. Every signature goes straight to the email box of the Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins. This is your chance to MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Whether you live in Dallas Texas or not - your address does not matter. Please sign the petition. Add your name to this very worthy cause. Your signature tells the District Attorney giving this woman the opportunity to recieve a lighter set of charges is NOT the Justice Riley deserves. NO Grand Jury, NO plea deals - straight to Trial for this woman. At least on this point I agree with the Dallas Police Department.

Today this heartless woman, who took Riley Rawlins from this world,

posted on her facebook page:

"What a Beautiful day today! Feels great outside :)"

It's not a beautiful day for Monica, Chris or their families. Sign the petition and tell the Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins it is time to DO HIS JOB!!!!!

JUSTICE FOR RILEY

Special Edition of SasquatchWatch Radio ~ Justice for Riley Rawlins!!

2012-01-21T09:42:00.005-05:00

Listen to internet radio with SasquatchWatch Radio on Blog Talk Radio

For more information on the death of Riley Rawlins and how you can help please visit the sites below:

Justice For Riley on Facebook
Sign the Petition
Lake Highlands Teen Killed Crossing the Street
Lake Highlands mom mourns death of son, waits for arrest of suspect
Lake Highlands student struck and killed over the weekend

Let them know how you feel about this:

Craig Watkins Dallas County District Attorney:
Email Address: info@craigwatkins.org
Phone Number: (214) 653-3528

Chief of Police
David O. Brown
Dallas Police Department
1400 S. Lamar
Dallas, TX 75215
Phone: (214) 671-3901

Deputy Chief Craig R. Miller
Phone: 214-671-3584
Email: craig.miller@dpd.ci.dallas.tx.us

Dallas City Hall
List of officials to call – with special emphasis placed on the City Manager, Mayor and City Council members.

List of phone numbers for each Official on the City Counsel

List of email addresses for each Official on the City Counsel

Justice for Riley ~ UPDATE!!!

2012-01-20T13:39:00.012-05:00

Please don't miss the important names, phone numbers and email addresses at the end of this article!! To this community,

With the Okay of Monica I am updating this community on what is happening in the fight for “Justice for Riley.”

First of all, if you haven’t become a member of the “JusticeforRiley” Facebook Page please click on this link and become a member. Numbers count!!

If Monica or Chris were writing this, I am sure, they would be thanking each and every person who has been sending emails and making phone calls demanding answers. We may all be “crazy bigfooters” in the eyes of the general public but at least we know right from wrong!

I spoke with a member of the media (who has been supportive and running stories) this morning and she tells me the sheer volume of email she has received, in reference to Riley, has been overwhelming. She called the public outcry – enormous!! Which is a good thing.

GOOD WORK!!

Now, she also told me, the Dallas Police Department (she feels) is leaning toward taking this to the Grand Jury. Is this a necessary step? No. The Dallas PD can charge this woman directly and bypass the Grand Jury completely. She strongly recommended we begin lobbying for charges to be filed and for this to NOT be taken to the Grand Jury.

Problem: A Grand Jury can reduce the charges or simply allow the woman to be released with no charges at all. When a jurisdiction has a Grand Jury option this course is usually taken because the Police do not think they have a strong enough case. The Grand Jury tells them if they do or not.

What’s the answer?

START EMAILING AND CALLING every person on the City Council for the City of Dallas. Call and email the Mayor’s office and the City Manager.

For the life of me I still can’t understand why the Dallas Police Department is having such a hard time deciding what happened.

FACTS:

She admitted to driving “at least” 70 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. Was she not going fast enough? If my math is correct, 70 minus 35 is 35, and 35 is the speed limit in this area. So, this woman was exceeding the speed limit by the exact legal speed limit in this area. Ironic. I know this is right, because I couldn’t believe the numbers myself until I used a calculator. If that isn’t the definition of reckless I don’t know what is.

She swerved from behind a vehicle that was stopping for a traffic light and passed on the right. While this may not be a traffic violation in Dallas County, Texas, any rational person would argue this is a highly traveled intersection, both pedestrian and motor vehicle. Add in the speed and this is a reckless person behind the wheel of a vehicle.

She blew through a light at 70 miles an hour, does the color of the light, really matter? What do you think her intent was?

She had no driver’s license at the time of the incident. This woman knowingly broke the law the second she climbed behind the wheel of her car, and then took the life of an innocent pedestrian. I would argue had she obeyed the law in the first place, Riley, would not have met his tragic end that night. We are not discussing someone who had a license at one time or was driving on a suspended license we are talking about a woman (an adult) who willfully disregarded the law where it pertains to the possession of a driver’s license in order to operate a motor vehicle legally. Her only excuse was that she could not afford a license. What about the cost to Monica Rawlins and Riley Rawlins.

She had no insurance at the time of the incident. Mandatory in Dallas County – and I believe the entire State of Texas.

She traveled a total of 551 feet BEFORE STOPPING her vehicle. 409 of those feet, with 17 year old Riley on her vehicle or being dragged. So, that means, this driver traveled an additional 142 feet BEFORE stopping her vehicle. Her total distance traveled from the time she hit Riley, until the time she stopped was MORE than the length of a football field.

She was never taken into custody for a BAC or drug testing. How do you know she wasn’t under the influence of an illegal substance or her driving wasn’t impaired? You don’t. I bet Riley Rawlins was tested for any illegal substance or alcohol that may have been in his system at the time of this accident.

Also a FACT:

17 year old Riley Rawlins is dead as a result of this womans reckless disregard (reckless disregard n. grossly negligent without concern for danger to others.) for anyone other than herself. Riley will not graduate high school. Riley will not be a Marine, go to college, get married, have children or ever see his family again. Riley’s mother will NEVER hold her son in her arms again. FACTS.

I will also tell everyone that the Chief of Police and the D.A. have no idea what Monica Rawlins wants – because they have made almost NO effort to talk to Monica who is and was Riley’s Mother. I have never seen a Police Department in any jurisdiction keep the family members (especially the parents of a child) completely and totally in the dark like this. Monica has received more information from the Media (who have been accurate in their reporting) than she has received from the Public Officials that are paid by the Tax Payers of Dallas County. In fact when the Dallas District Attorney was questioned about this case on his Facebook Page his only response was to delete any comment in regard to this horrific situation.

I think the pressure is getting to them. Pressure that would simply GO AWAY if these paid public servants would simply – Keep Monica and Chris informed about the death of their child, Riley Rawlins, and include them on the decisions. It is their job to make Monica and Chris understand why they are doing what they are doing. I have never seen parents ignored in this way – ever.

While we may be “crazy bigfooters” our community is large and expands like a net over this entire country – and we know the difference between right and wrong.

For more information on the death of Riley Rawlins and how you can help please visit the sites below:

Justice For Riley on Facebook
Sign the Petition
Lake Highlands Teen Killed Crossing the Street
Lake Highlands mom mourns death of son, waits for arrest of suspect
Lake Highlands student struck and killed over the weekend

Let them know how you feel about this:

Craig Watkins Dallas County District Attorney:
Email Address: info@craigwatkins.org
Phone Number: (214) 653-3528

Chief of Police
David O. Brown
Dallas Police Department
1400 S. Lamar
Dallas, TX 75215
Phone: (214) 671-3901

Deputy Chief Craig R. Miller
Phone: 214-671-3584
Email: craig.miller@dpd.ci.dallas.tx.us

Dallas City Hall
List of officials to call – with special emphasis placed on the City Manager, Mayor and City Council members.

List of phone numbers for each Official on the City Counsel
List of email addresses for each Official on the City Counsel

On a personal note to the Dallas District Attorney and the Chief of Police:

Had you simply kept the mother (Monica Rawlins) of Riley Rawlins in the "loop" and kept her apprised of the direction of this investigation - you would not be under the incredible amount of pressure you are under right now. YOU are paid by the taxpayers of Dallas County to "Protect and Serve", even Monica Rawlins and her Family. When family members do not understand or know what is happening (remember not everyone understands the law) they become frustrated and frankly, pissed off.

The only way people can fight back and demand their rights and words are heard, is by speaking out publicly, and DEMANDING answers. The friends of Monica Rawlins and Chris Buntenbah stand firmly behind them, and will continue to until their is

JUSTICE FOR RILEY!!!!! We will accept NO LESS!!

Sad news ...

2012-01-17T17:53:00.002-05:00

Sasquatch researcher and chronicler John Green’s wife, June Doreen Green (the former June Howard) passed away at 01:10 a.m., Tuesday morning, January 17, 2012, at the Chilliwack General Hospital.

You can read the full story at Cryptomundo

I had not been lucky enough to meet Mr. Green or his wife, June, but my sympathies are with him at this very sad time.

Romney calls Gingrich super PAC flick 'biggest hoax since Bigfoot'

2012-01-17T13:36:00.004-05:00

The Republican Primaries are heating up, and what is the logical next step?

Mitt Romney said to Newt Gingrich Last night, "If we're talking about super PAC ads that are inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, you have a super PAC ad that attacks me. It's probably the biggest hoax since Bigfoot. The people who've looked at it said it was entirely false...somehow for you ...to suggest I have different standards here is not quite right." end quote.

You can read the entire story here

Mitt Romney just lost my vote. Maybe Rick Santorum is the only true "Conservative Republican" on the ballot. As I sit here and think about this comment by, Mitt Romney, it is obvious to me he is blissfully unaware of the thousands of people across this country who have been witnesses to Bigfoot, people who vote, people Romney just insulted and called liars.

That's basically what he did.

It also strikes me that Mitt Romney must be blissfully unaware of the scientists who are still looking into this mystery. Mitt Romney let his mouth get ahead of the facts when it comes to the people who have looked into this and continue to this day.

Ignorance of the truth is no excuse.

Personal note here: It really angers me when someone in our Government mocks or picks on people who have been witness to something that has changed their life. These people who witness this animal are not asking for anything but answers. Has Mitt Romney spoken to any of these witnesses? I am betting he has not. So, again, he is blissfully unaware of what a witness to a Bigfoot goes through.

People have lost their jobs, families and reputation by coming forward - and the ignorance displayed by Candidate Romney makes this no easier for them.

I would like to thank Mr. Romney for proving, once again, politics is a "popularity contest" and has very little to do with the people he wants to represent. Maybe if Mr. Romney could come down from his high horse for 5 minutes and talk to just a few of the people who have had this mystery turn their lives upside down he might have a different take on this. Romney wouldn’t even have to leave the comfort of his cushy office chair, there are witnesses in the Military, Police, and within our very own Government although, they are probably less likely to talk about their own sighting, now after his snarky uninformed comments.

But, I am sure Mitt Romney has T-time scheduled at the local golf course. And I am sure Romney will not do or say anything that interferes with his popularity contest. It takes guts to put your own personal opinion aside, and listen. Guts I can see Romney does not have. Which is a shame, I thought better of him.

But, people who see bigfoot are expendable, right?

Missouri Momo on the Travel Channel

2012-01-17T11:21:00.003-05:00

Hey everyone set your DVR's now!!

Friday January 21, 2012, 6:00 PM ET - the Travel Channel will be airing a new show on the Missouri Momo, featuring Randy “Driveroperator” Harrington and D.W. “Darkwing” Lee.

"Legend of the Ozarks," On the Travel Channel, don't miss it :)

Opinion... What is it.

2012-01-16T11:50:00.011-05:00

This definition comes to us from the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

This definition is pretty straight forward, I think, and requires little conversation.

I find this portion is especially interesting.

Why is that? It’s how we understand various ideas and the opinions of each individual person. How do we as humans form opinions? We do so based on our own personal life experiences. When we are young, we are taught various lessons, by our Parents and School Teachers (and others) that help shape our view of the world and, what is possible, or not. We either pick up on the "views" or lessons, or we do not. But, that doesn’t mean we stop questioning our own beliefs, judgments or views, and later form different opinions.

Questioning is a good thing.

And opinions are just as varied as humans. Why? One reason is we are all blessed with “free will”. Free will is the ability to think and judge, for ourselves. In other words, you are allowed to make up our own mind. We can make the same decision as others or we can choose to take our own path. Life is great that way.

I can just hear everyone now, “Melissa why are you giving a talk on opinions?”

The words “opinion” and “proof” have become the new dirty words. I am sure the urban dictionary will catch up with us bigfooters soon.

Here is an exercise on opinion;

What do you think the following picture is? Is it a Bigfoot? Is it a boot or a tennis shoe?
This screen capture was taken from a YouTube video which was uploaded by a Mr. Tom Burnett. Tom thinks this is a print left by a Bigfoot. Based on my own experiences, education, and what I have seen in the past, I think this is either a boot print or a tennis shoe. The tread pattern is very distinct, which tells me the boot or tennis shoe is relatively new.

Am I wrong? I would like to say for the purposes of this article that I could be. But, experience tells me I am not.

But what does this have to do with the price of a gamecam at Cabellas?

AlexMidnightWalker has decided that every opinion that does not agree with his is open to ridicule. Okay, that’s cool; I question various ideas and opinions here. But, Alex has taken it a step further in defense of his friend Tom by starting up a new Facebook page with Nazi innuendo and some of the most hateful things I have ever read.

Also, for the record. I had no intention of drawing any attention to Mr. Burnett or his videos, until AlexMidnightWalker decided to make this an issue and publicly out his "friend".

Today, Alex acknowledges myself and the comments I made about Tom Burnett’s YouTube videos. A word of caution: on the right hand side of this "work" posted by Alex are Tom Burnetts words - they are profanity laced. Read at your own discretion.

Mr. Burnett had been on a Facebook page discussing his videos and how (I and others) needed to (I’m paraphrasing here) “get into the woods because we wouldn’t find Bigfoot on the internet.”

Well first off;

I wouldn’t ever say something like that unless I know the people I’m talking to are not already doing as I suggest.

Secondly; AlexMidnightWalker A/K/A Alejandro MedianocheCaminada; you have your timeline off. My comments were after your friend Tom Burnett posted his profanity laced comment. Mr. Burnett never even attempted to explain why he thought his opinion was correct. There was zero discussion. Mr. Burnett is right and the rest of us are (in his words) B*stards.

Read the time stamp it tells the story.

I was right too. It is this kind of “research” that makes the general public laugh at the ENTIRE Bigfoot community. I will not take that back.

But, I digress. So, in the interest of fairness, I clicked on the videos for Mr. Burnett, and found something I had never experienced. I had heard about this, talked to a few people who believed these things, but never had I ever experienced it in full color and video. To put it simply – I was in shock.

Now, Mr. Burnett has every right to discuss his opinions on Bigfoot. BUT, and here is the kicker, opinion does not equal fact.

Mr. Burnett has every right to put on the internet what he thinks is evidence of Bigfoot. But, when you do that, you should be willing and you should expect people to disagree with you – and some very strongly. This is where “free will” comes in. Mr. Burnett has every right to publish or upload whatever he likes. That does not mean every person in this field of research MUST agree with him or keep our opinions to ourselves. On top of it, Mr. Burnett is asking for money, and damn near guarantees twice your money in return on your investment.

Opinions are not just blessedly bestowed upon those in the “paranormal community” but we in the “flesh and blood community” are entitled to our own differing opinions as well.

If Bigfoot can shape shift, use wormholes for transportation or disappear, I say “Okay, but point to another animal on this planet that can do the same thing?” There is no other animal. I bet a deer roaming the woods during hunting season would love to have this ability. When I hear the use of the word, “wormhole,” honestly it just irritates me. Why? Because it shows a lack of understanding as to what a wormhole actually is. Nothing can survive the power of a wormhole. Entire universes are destroyed by the power of a wormhole. So, you want me to believe a Bigfoot utilizes wormholes for travel? Shape shifting?

This is not “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.”

Why would Bigfoot have this ability when no other animal in the world, to include humans with all of our technology, can do this? Why would I assign this particular “ability” to a Bigfoot? That’s not mocking it’s a dang good question. These are not belittling questions. I’m not mocking anyone. I am saying straight out, matter of fact. I can be no clearer.

These are theories and ideas proposed by some in the “paranormal community.”

These are not my theories, and as such I do not understand. It is up to those with these “opinions” to explain them. If you don’t want to be laughed at, then start offering something which explains these ideas and why you hold them.

It’s disingenuous to be angry with someone because you refuse to explain your opinion.

Starting a new Facebook page in order to twist the current situation does nothing to help people understand why you think these things, Alex. You can ridicule me, and others, all you like that won’t change the fact that I do not understand these ideas, and telling me, “Because I said so,” does not cut it nor will it ever.

Can Bigfoot read my mind? I don’t think so, because if he could I would have probably been hit in the head by a rock already.

When did some become so sensitive the mere questioning of, “evidence,” is such a horrible thing? It’s my hope and prayer that everyone continues to ask questions. If, or when, you get answers use them to form your own opinion. If we do not agree, that’s fine. At this stage in the game, all we have are questions. Not even the likes of AlexMidnightWalker have all the answers.

If he did this blog would not be called, “The Search for Bigfoot,” it would be titled;

“Bigfoot Found.”

Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation

2012-01-11T14:13:00.007-05:00

In an attempt to get my mind moving forward, I have decided to take on three (3) issues – all at once. I love a hot topic and I really enjoy the conversations that can be sparked.

In an earlier article I posted on this blog: Question I discussed my own particular thoughts on the Kill v. No-Kill argument. I just read it today, again, and realized my attitude about this issue hasn’t changed. Which, I find, interesting.

Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation.

Sounds like the opening to a legal case, doesn’t it?

The No-Kill camp: believes in employing technology and boots on the ground (along with witness interviews) to try and prove “Bigfoot” is a living breathing animal.

The Kill camp: employs all the same techniques as the No-Kill camp – with one very obvious difference:

They have not thrown out the idea of killing one of these animals. Let’s face it, killing a Bigfoot and shipping the body via UPS to the offices of a scientist would absolutely end this mystery.

Habituators: This group of people is rather difficult to define. Every one of them I have spoken to are staunch “no kill” advocates. They wouldn’t even send in the body of a Bigfoot if it died of natural causes.

The Habituators are exactly what the word defines them as. They claim to have a Bigfoot (or many) living on or traveling through their property. They claim to have regular encounters with these animals.

They claim to have made their property, “Bigfoot Friendly,” by leaving food items and other things that will make these animals want to come back.

Which group has it right?

*big shrug* I have no idea. None of the three groups above have provided absolute proof of the existence of Bigfoot. Okay, calm down. I know the “non-Bigfoot researchers” who read this blog are yelling at their flat screens, “Well, if the Habituators have this animal on their property all the time, why don’t they show the world this animal is really out there?”

That is a dang good question. Because according to them, they are not uncertain (at all) of this animal’s existence, they know it’s there and they can show you. But, here is the catch – you can’t have anything on you to either film or document this animal in anyway. Why? Because they state the Bigfoot won’t come back. Some will even tell you, “You must be pure of mind or you won’t see their bigfoot(s)."

You can draw your own conclusions on the, “pure of mind,” comment – I aint touchin that one with a ten foot pole.

This Kill v. No-Kill debate has raged for years, and years – long before I became involved, and it still rages today. I bet people will still be debating this in another 40 years. Which stance is best?

I guess that depends on you, and what you can live with.

Now, before I get angry emails, I am not picking on or poking fun at the habituation crowd. Why couldn’t it be possible? Any other animal can and could be habituated. All you need is the right information about what they eat and prefer – and you can set up your own habituation scenario right in your own backyard. But, be careful, that animal you are habituating may be a bear.

I keep seeing reference to Dian Fossey and the Habituators.

Dian Fossey did her work after the Mountain Gorillas were known to exist. Dian did not build a hut in the African jungle and leave out food in the hopes of having them “drop by” for a snack. She went to them. She had trackers that could find the gorillas. Dian put herself in the world of the Mountain Gorilla; she did not bring them to her world. I would even venture a guess and say if Dian Fossey were here today, and she knew about these Habituators she would not be happy. I would bet $50 bucks her advice to these "Habituators" would be to "Grow a set, get off your ass and use your knowledge to help educate and get this animal protected!!"

Why? Dian Fossey worked hand in hand with science. If it hadn’t been for scientific funding, her work probably would not have happened. I also think she would have been upset with the withholding of information that could bring about the protection of any animal, especially a large primate like Bigfoot.

Dian Fossey showed the world, the mountain gorilla, was not a savage beast. She took films and photos. Dian did not refuse to share her discoveries with the world, because she knew the best hope for the mountain gorilla’s survival was to change the belief that these were beasts into an animal that was important to the ecology of Africa and one that deserved to be protected. Dian showed us the beauty of the mountain gorilla. She fought knowing that fight, could and did, end her life.

Dian Fossey knew how important it was to share her information with the world.

Dian had emotion, but she used that emotion to educate and inform (okay, she also used that emotion to scare the crap out of some poachers too. giggle)

I have heard it said, “Habituators,” don’t want to show the world what they have out of fear of harm and an emotional connection to Bigfoot. How can anyone hunt your habituated Bigfoot without the location? No one is asking for directions.

I reject the notion that emotion is more important than knowledge and education when it comes to the survival of Bigfoot. Dian must have been just as worried that if she succeeded in habituating Mountain Gorillas it would make it easier to hunt and kill a gorilla. Yet, she went forward. I think it was because she had to know education was the key to the survival of the gorilla.

Since the “Habituators” won’t end this, I guess it will fall to the Kill v. No-Kill crowd.

What other choice is there?

I’m not sure Bigfoot needs our protection. It has, if you believe the reports, being surviving without protection laws for a long time.

Hey, people are still seeing it.

What I worry about is the Chicago Executive who builds a log cabin in Northern Wisconsin. Someone who never thought this animal could possibly exist and is one day surprised - out of his mind! What is he going to do? Protect himself and his family –that’s what.

This person probably won’t tell anyone, because he won’t really be sure what he shot. Bigfoot doesn’t exist right? There is nothing on “the books” to keep this from happening.

Kill v. No-Kill v. Habituation.

Which one is the better solution?

You decide. Then, let me know what you come up with. I have no answers. I have made my decision based on what I can live with.

"Sweet Absolutes"

2012-01-09T10:25:00.007-05:00

*Photo of Riley Rawlins

Life is filled with what we think are “sweet absolutes”. We all think one day we will move out of our parents’ home, get a job, get married, have kids and then those kids can take care of us.

We think to ourselves, if we do the right thing, nothing bad will happen.

Then in one instant, just a brief flash that only takes milliseconds, those “sweet absolutes” can be ripped away and our lives are forever changed.

I have stared at Facebook, off an on, since Saturday evening, looking at the words;

“What’s on your mind?”

No one wants to hear what is on my mind right now.

I’m angry, to put it mildly. I am angry. I’m sorry, I can’t deny that, and I can’t pretend. I am angry that a 17 year old boy, minding his own business was taken away from his mother and family because someone couldn’t be bothered to wait for a red light!

Saturday afternoon I spoke with Monica and we discussed Riley’s plans for after high school. Riley planned to join the Marine Corp.

Little did either one of us know – the real danger was in his own backyard.

I want to tell this woman what kind of young man she took from this world. I want to scream it in her face until I can’t scream anymore!!

Riley never hurt anyone or anything! Riley was such a kind and loving young man – the kind of kid we all wish for in this world. When, Monica, or anyone around Riley hurt, he hurt. Riley could even recognize when I was trying to hide my own particular issues. Let me tell you, it is a surreal moment when a 14-15 year old gives you advice – and it makes you say, “Why didn’t I think of that!!! You’re right!!” How many 17 year olds do you know that still call their mothers, “Mamma”. I used to pick on Riley about that.

God, how I wish I could pick up the phone and hear him say that to Monica now.

When I moved from Monica’s in Dallas, to my new life in Ohio, never did I even consider Riley not being here. As I sit here now, my brain tells me all of this is true, but my heart wants desperately to hear it's not.

As a rule, this blog is cathartic. I type and put my thought into print, and release them to the “universe”. The thoughts and opinions are out of my head. This time, there is no release. As I sit here now I have no more answers than I had when I started writing this.

This should not happen. No parent should ever have to say good bye to their child, especially over something this senseless.

So, I sit here. Wishing with all my heart and soul there was something I could do to ease the pain of my best friend, Monica, knowing I can’t.

For all of you out there with “sweet absolutes,” go home tonight and give them a hug. If they told you this morning, they hate you because they couldn’t have Lucky Charms and instead you forced them to eat oatmeal – forgive them. Tell them you love them, no matter how much they will hate you tomorrow, or the day after that. Hold your “sweet absolutes” close to you and hug them;

take a few seconds to memorize and feel how unconditional that love is.

There are no warnings.

Riley Rawlins touched my life in a way, very few people ever have. Rileys infectious smile, laughter and genuine love for everyone around him - touched every person he met be they young or old. The loss of someone this special is tremendous.

I will forever carry Riley in my heart and I will think about him every single day for the rest of my life.

*A donation page has been set up on Cryptomundo. Please click this link.

New Bigfoot Conference Announced!!

2012-01-06T18:07:00.013-05:00

http://www.wewanchu.com/bigfoot.htm

1st Annual Chautauqua Lake Bigfoot - Sasquatch Convention:

When: May 6th, 2012: - 12:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.

Where: The Chautauqua Suites, Mayville NY.
Admission Fee: Adults $12.00 Children under 15 $6.00

Speakers include:

Larry Battson
Billy Willard
Melissa Hovey
Steve Kulls

There will be more information in the coming weeks. I will post updates as they happen or you can click on the link above to stay informed on the official website. See you there!!

Cliff Barackman meets the Curvey Couch of Fox News!!

2012-01-05T17:35:00.003-05:00

Cliff Barackman of "Finding Bigfoot" shakes up the curvey couch on Fox and Friends, AND, interviewed by none other than Steve Doocy. Cliff went on the show to discuss "Finding Bigfoot" and the bigfoot mystery in General.

I could have lived without the "feral human" comment, but all in all, I would say - Great Job Cliff!!

Denying the necessity of Science.....

2012-01-05T12:52:00.004-05:00

I’m going to jump right into this article.

Regan Lee writes on her “Frame 352 blog”

“It's a living being minding its own business and we do not have the right to intrude upon its habitat and attempt to kill or capture, simply to satisfy our egos. It gets to that, and only that. (expletive removed by Melissa, I get yelled at by readers) science. We don't need to prove a damn thing. Witnesses who've seen Sasquatch know. The rest of us who haven't, well, too bad for us. Maybe we'll be blessed as well some day.” end quote

I think this paragraph gets right to the heart of an issue I have been thinking about for a while now.

What do witnesses want?

I have to say, I disagree with Regan Lee. When witnesses contact a person they know is a “Bigfoot Researcher” they may believe with all their heart and soul they have seen a Bigfoot, but they, as much as any researcher, want proof.

Why do I think that?

Because witnesses contact people within the “Bigfoot Research Community.” They send emails to Bigfoot Organizations. They call the 1-800 numbers, asking us to come and take a look at their property, or an area where they had a sighting. They write in their emails, “I know I’m not crazy”. Witnesses think, if anyone can prove they seen a Bigfoot – it is someone within this community. Witnesses know we collect any possible evidence of what they are reporting. Witnesses allow us to stay on their properties and hold “night ops”. If they didn’t want proof as much as your average researcher, they wouldn’t contact us, or allow us on their property.

Can we at least agree witnesses are not calling the AARP?

Until this animal is recognized, these witnesses know they have seen something that is not supposed to exist. They feel as if there might be something wrong with them. They look to the “bigfoot community” for validation. Some witnesses want and some need “proof” that what they seen was real. I have heard them say it!!

Why is the word “proof” becoming such a dirty word?

Before readers would send me nasty grams over the use of profanity, now I hear from readers who don’t like the word, “proof”.

What’s up with that?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but humans, be they bigfoot researchers or members of the general public ARE encroaching (or intruding) on the habitat of this animal (if it’s out there). We are building homes, roads, communities; you name it in wilderness areas. What kind of effect is that having on populations that may exist?

I am willing to bet one day, one of these homeowners will be responsible for doing what most of us never want to see done – killing one of these animals out of fear, and never saying a word out of fear of legal repercussions, IF, it hasn’t happened yet.

How much good will that do this animal?

You will have one dead, and more in danger of being killed out of ignorance and fear. Ignorance breeds fear, and those two emotions make for a very dangerous combination. Just look at the damage those two words brought to the population of Great White Sharks, after the movie Jaws, and we knew they existed!! We darn near wiped them out. So, don’t tell me it can’t happen to this alleged animal.

Now, because of science, we have a much better understanding of the Great White Shark and its numbers are thriving. Science did that, through education and examination of this animal- we now have a far better understanding of the Great White Shark, and it is not nearly as feared as it once was. Science did not wipe out the shark, they worked to save it.

Science is not nearly as destructive as some like to think.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/05/12 at 17:14 UTC (EST+5) is: 312,804,594

They can’t all fit inside Los Angeles, Chicago, New York or Seattle. We can try to educate, but how do you educate about an animal that is not supposed to exist? There is no college course or even high school class that includes a serious study of this topic.

“Because I said so;”

Is not a valid argument, for the existence of Bigfoot, or its protection. I would be more concerned, with the average citizen, than any Bigfoot researcher when it comes to a Bigfoot being shot or killed.

Until science recognizes this animal those of us who call ourselves, “Bigfoot Researchers,” will only be taken seriously by those who have been witness to this animal. But, until a scientist in some lab has undeniable “proof” of this animals existence;

Witnesses will still worry about being called “crazy” if they talk about seeing this animal.

I would like that to end.

Larry Battsons Wild World: Tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern

2012-01-05T10:21:00.004-05:00

Show Link: Larry Battsons Wild World

AlexMidnightWalker.. On the Sierra Shooting.

2012-01-04T08:46:00.006-05:00

Sierra Scam!

Why do I continue to post this guy’s YouTube videos? Well, if you can get me to laugh at 8:00 a.m., I want to share that laughter with the world.

In this video, Alex, talks about the part of Justin’s story where the alleged Bigfoot has its arms in the air in the international sign of “don’t shoot.” Alex says, he has never witnessed this, so this part of the story can’t be true.

Why? Well, Alex, states he has seen adults and juveniles and they never do this.

I have never seen this either, but then again I haven’t been witness to a Bigfoot. I will say this, however, I have seen many videos of chimps and mountain gorillas with their arms waiving in the air as people or outsiders approach – and it’s a display basically saying, “get the hell outta here, or your in big trouble mister!!”

Moving on;

“Scat on the road, bigfoot doesn’t do that,” says, Alex.

Question, does Bigfoot care where it poops? Why wouldn’t a Bigfoot poop in the road? That sounds like the opening to a joke, doesn’t it? If a Bigfoot, wouldn’t poop in a road, why not? Every other animal poops wherever it wants.

Okay, enough poop!!

Alex thinks this is all for money, which is interesting. I haven’t heard one account of Justin or the investigator most associated with this, Derek Randalls, asking for money. Should his story turn out to be true, then I say go for it. Something deep inside me thinks if the roles were reversed and it were Alex sitting on the possibility of proof positive of bigfoot he would be shopping his story for cash, to the highest bidder.

Alex, also announces, he was one of the people who called the forest service and complained about this situation. But, now Alex says he isn’t willing to put his name on the line for something that could just be a coyote.

Hey, if you believe in something strong enough, you should have the guts to put yourself on the line, and follow through. I wish I had been privy to that phone call.

U.S. Forest Service: "Hello, U.S. Forest Service, how can I help you?"

Alex: Hello, I would like to report a bigfoot shooting in the Sierra Mountains of California."

U.S. Forest Service: "Sir, do you know where in the Sierra Mountains? It is a rather large mountain chain?"

Alex: "No not exactly."

U.S. Forest Service: Do you know the name of the person who allegedly shot the bigfoot?"

Alex" No, not exactly, but I know the name of the bigfoot researcher he is working with. Oh, and it was two bigfoot that were shot."

U.S. Forest Service: "Two Bigfoot were shot?"

Alex: "Yes, an adult and a juvenile. Oh, and get this, the Adult bigfoot was giving the international symbol for don't shoot, and he still shot him!! I want him arrested and a criminal investigation opened!!"

U.S. Forest Service: "Are you a witness to this shooting?"

Alex: "Well, no."

U.S. Forest Service: "Then how do you know all this?"

Alex: "I read about it on the internet."

I am willing to bet that was pretty darn close.

This is my favorite part of this whole video. I am transcribing word for word (well as best as I can. If you watch the video you will hear stammering that is not included in the transcription. Hey, I have a lot to do today).

Quote from Video: “I know people who have come face to face with em, or I have heard of it spoken of them, they came face to face with them, with a gun, and ahhh, the sasquatch will typically look you in the eye make a connection, you know I am human, don’t shoot, you know basically. Just you know, startle you, this is a human then he goes. That’s their; Modus Operandi. He’s not gonna just sit there and wait for you to shoot him.” End quote.

Bigfoot now has a "Modus Operandi."

So, finally Alex goes back to his roots. Whew, I was afraid he was departing from his comments just a week ago about Bigfoot and mind speak. Although he didn’t come right out and say it – the inference is there. Alex also thinks Bigfoot can simply disappear – so – why didn’t this Bigfoot in question and the juvenile allegedly shot by Justin just disappear with a “poof”? How in the world did they get shot? Do they only learn the disappearing act at a specific age? If so, that still doesn’t explain how the adult was shot. I would assume the adult female was at an age to have already learned the “disappearing act.” I bet David Copperfield would be totally jealous!!!

HOLD UP - I haven't heard a thing about David Copperfield in a long time.. Does he know something us flesh and blood researchers don't??? I'm sorry, that's funny to me.

I too have spoken to witnesses who say they have come face to face with these animals with a weapon. BUT, they have never said anything other than, “It looked too human. I couldn’t pull the trigger.” No one has ever said to me the animal talked to them and made them not shoot through some sort of, “connection.”

When you ask the researchers who think Bigfoot can disappear, “why didn’t the bigfoot disappear before being shot?” They get very angry. Those that refuse to answer that question will instruct you to read their past writings on the issue. Which tell you nothing either.. It's a never ending circle of no answers. I can understand why. But, this is their theory, not mine, and the question is a good one, I have never had a reply though.

The only people with the answers about this “Sierra Shooting” situation are Justin, Derek and Dr. Ketchum.

The rest of us can only speculate.

But, we may as well have fun while we do!! :)

The Sierra Shooting.....

2012-01-03T13:31:00.005-05:00

*Photo of Justin Smeja*

Was a Bigfoot shot and killed in the Sierra Mountains of California?

A gentleman by the name of, Justin Smeja, says “Yes,” and he is the man who did it.

Now, before I start this story let me say this. I have stayed away from the telling of this. Why? I wasn’t there and I haven’t spoken with Mr. Smeja.

Is this story true? Well, I am going to spread the story some more.

Justin Smeja says on October 8th of 2010 he was out bear and deer hunting with a friend. When they rounded a corner in a truck and seen what, Justin describes as a “monster”.

Okay, everyone stop. Take a deep breath.

Let’s be honest, most people would think the very same thing if confronted with an animal that is not supposed to exist. Bigfoot is the stuff of nightmares for most.

Why? Because unlike Bigfoot researchers, the general population thinks “it’s a good story, but really, it can’t really be out there.” Sure they watch the T.V. shows and the take the Yahoo polls, but when new reports come in, the witnesses are still just as freaked out as ever.

Thinking something could be out there, is far different, than seeing it and knowing it’s out there.

So, Justin, and his friend (who is unnamed) round this corner in the truck and spot this Bigfoot. Justin states he grabbed his rifle (I am assuming he exited the vehicle) and put the Bigfoot in his scope. At the same time his friend is looking at the Bigfoot through his binoculars, yelling at Justin, “It’s a person in a suit, don’t shoot!” While (according to Justin) the alleged Bigfoot has its arms in the air in a manner which suggests the animal is trying to say “don’t shoot!” Justin does anyway, and says he hit the animal in the lung.

First issue, If you don’t know with absolute certainty what you are about to shoot is not an animal, but could be a person in a suit (say for example for a production company or just some idiot who thinks it’s funny) you probably shouldn’t be pulling the trigger.

So Justin pulls the trigger and hits this animal in the lung. Assuming of course it’s a Bigfoot, and not some poor schmuck in a costume with a bad sense of humor.

Justin then reports two juveniles are seen, as both Jason and his friend look for what they now think is a female Bigfoot.

In the interest of time let’s just cut to the chase, because in his own telling of the situation on Abe’s show, things were a bit confusing at this point.

Understandably there was much rushing through his head and both of these men had to be scared out of their shorts if they really thought they either killed a human in a suit or lung shot an animal. Either one of the options can carry some serious life changing issues. One might also, reasonably assume, if the animal didn’t drop where it stood, it may come back looking for you. I might think that.

Justin then reports he shot one of the juveniles. Apparently Justin was being approached by one of the juveniles, and against the advice of his friend, Justin, neck shot the juvenile.

What happened after this point is of no real consequence. If you believe the story told by, Justin, it is game over.

As I sit here and listen to the story I can’t deny he sounds like a man who has great remorse for whatever he may have done, OR, he is a great storyteller. As he discusses his friend, holding the dead juvenile in his arms and saying, “what did you do?” It’s almost painful to listen to.

Whether you believe, Justin, or not – this is one powerful story. Way better than anything told by Biscardi or the Georgia Boys.

I have the feeling that one day this story will rank right up there with “Ape Canyon.” It will be told for years to come.

But, Justin Smeja has unknowingly re-kindled a fight that has been going on within this field of research for a very long time; the Kill vs. No-Kill debate.

First of all, let’s be very clear on one point. Justin was not a Bigfoot researcher at the time of this shooting. Our own Kill vs. No-Kill label doesn’t apply. By his own admission, he was simply out in the wilderness hunting for known animals when this happened, if his story is to be believed.

The one part of the story I have the most problem with is when Justin states they left the juvenile in the bushes to come back for it later. Why? Well, it wouldn’t have taken any time to put that dead body, of the juvenile that they had, into the bed of the truck. Instead, Justin states, they simply left it in the elements and thinking they would come back for it. Justin talks about fear of someone hearing the shots. Why would he have been worried about that if they were still within the legal hunting hours?

That part of the story, for me, is very confusing.

If this story is true, those that are upset should ask themselves one question. Is getting upset with this man going to turn back the hands of time and magically restore life to one or both of these animals?

No, we can get as mad as we want, but the animals in question will not magically regain life.

Justin did, however, take this horrible situation and make the best of it he could. While, he could not find either of the bodies, he did recover samples, which he states were turned over for DNA analysis. Justin could have just said, “Forget it, I don’t care!” And not even went back to look for either body. But, he did (or so he states). He could have walked away from this whole thing. If, he had done that, that would have been a real loss and an absolute crying shame especially if his story is true.

Look folks, I am a realist. I do not think science will ever take us seriously until we have something in the way of DNA that proves this animal exists. We can fight each other all we want on this Kill v. No-Kill issue, but at the end of the day science makes the rules for the proof of existence.

Whether we, like it or not or even if we agree with it, our “feelings” do not matter to the world of science who is asking for solid proof. Those are the rules in which we must play this game if we want this animal recognized and protected.

What I find ironic is this. Everyone; Kill and No-Kill, are anxiously awaiting the results of Dr. Ketchums results.

Some of which come from samples recovered from this, “Sierra shooting incident”. If you are angry with, Justin, over this shooting, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say you are anxiously awaiting the results of Dr. Ketchums work? How do you think Dr. Ketchum came across the necessary samples to do DNA analysis? All of her work can’t rely on hair samples. She must have blood or tissue samples of some kind, I would think.

Anytime you take away someone’s right to do something, you open the door to having that same right taken away from you.

While today you may not see a reason for why you might want to shoot or kill this animal, there may come a day when you are forced into making that decision. Do you want that decision to have already been made? Life is full of choices, sometimes, they are unforeseeable. Don’t fool yourself.

I have said a thousand times (probably more);

I am No-Kill, but I would not take away someone else’s right to do what they think is right. The decision to be Pro-Kill or No-Kill is a personal decision each one of us must make, on our own. I was not with Justin on that faithful day. I do not know if his story is true. But, my aunt (whom I love very much) has always told me:

“Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.” I think that is really good advice, so long as you don't also have to remove your brain.

AlexMidnightWalker - Clarification....??

2011-12-31T08:45:00.005-05:00

AlexMidnightWalker has posted another YouTube Video, apologizing to Abe.

I think it was an apology. I'm still perplexed as to why Alex went after Abe anyway. As far as blogtalk shows go, Abe has always shown himself to be fair and impartial to both sides of this research. He has treated both the F&B and the Paranormal community fair.

There was quite a bit of double speak and circle talking about being a christian. Alex acknowledges Sharon Lee and her Uncle Fester comparison. Then once again goes back into his comparison between the Flesh and Blood researchers and the KKK.

Personally, I think there are enough problems within this community, without someone like this, making these kinds of comments. I think Alex owes a big apology to everyone in this field of research who is a Flesh and Blood researcher, or was simply offended by the hate filled comments in his first video.

I wonder what his "christian beliefs" tell him about hatred and loving thy neighbor. I think there is some coveting in there too.

Well, enjoy.

A Community "Divided"....

2011-12-30T05:32:00.007-05:00

Before I start this blog, let me say a few things first.

1. I have (for the most part) been staying away from the "bigfoot community". Whether it’s the flesh and blood conversations or the paranormal discussions. Why? I have said it before and I will say it again, after a period of time, you just get frustrated with the same arguments that never end in a solution or even an idea of how to move forward and you just need a break. People badmouth attorneys all day long, but at the end of the day (or months/years ) whether you like the outcome the attorney reached for you - you have an undeniable outcome. Bigfoot research is not nearly as cut and dry. I could only pray for that much clarity.

2. I have been involved in this for a little over six (6) years. While that is not nearly as long as some, I rather hoped that some of the issues which divide this community could or would have been resolved in some fashion. No dice. There seems to be even more division than there was just 2 years ago.

3. In my opinion the most important parts of this “mystery” gets lost in the divide, that being two (2) things:

a. Witnesses and;
b. Bigfoot.

Autumn Williams wrote a blog yesterday titled, “Intellect v. Emotion” you can read the full article by clicking the link above. I would hope, Autumn, wouldn’t mind my saying, I have had the chance over the last year to get to know her better and her me. I like Autumn. She and I are a lot alike in many ways. She is a tough no-nonsense woman – and if the opinion we dish out hurts – well sometimes it does. I respect people who just “say it”. Life is way too short for “beating around the bush” games.

To be perfectly clear: This article is not directed at Autumn. Her blog article did, however, get me to thinking. But, if anyone decides to try and turn this into an Autumn v. Melissa “thing” – you will get no help from me, and frankly, I am growing very tired of people who do just that.

I do not necessarily disagree with Autumns blog – other than a couple points.

First and foremost, I consider the witnesses and the animal to be my top priorities. If it was not for, witnesses, those of us who call ourselves researchers (regardless of our flesh and blood or paranormal designation) would have nothing to look for. That is just fact. This brings me to the animal a/k/a Bigfoot. A question each one of us must ask ourselves is simple, “What is my end goal? Do I want this animal recognized or not?” We all make that decision.

I among many, “Flesh and Blood researchers,” (for the purposes of this article Flesh and blood will be hereby known as F&B researchers) try every day to understand the claims of the paranormal community, yet we get nowhere, because the questions we ask are met with hostility and anger. If I have not been witness to a “paranormal bigfoot incident” what can I do for a witness other than direct them to a paranormal Bigfoot researcher? Which I have done, only to be met with, “If you weren’t so closed minded, you would have handled the report yourself.” What good does that attitude do for the witness or anyone?

I can’t even pretend I am anything other than a, “F&B researcher,” calling myself anything else would be disingenuous. I can only apply what I know, from life experience, to my work trying to solve this mystery. I would also argue, when you pretend to be someone you’re not, it always comes back to bite you on the backside. So, I refer these reports to someone who can truly understand them and investigate.

I would also have to say to, Autumn, the idea of a body solving this mystery – is a very difficult situation for me. I think many (in the Paranormal Community) assume that because some of us identify ourselves as, “F&B researchers,” we automatically want to bring a body to the scientists. AlexMidnightWalker accused F&B researchers of wanting to kill everything in the forest.. That couldn’t be further from the truth and I know other F&B researchers who feel the way I do. I have always been No-Kill – I have been fierce in my No-Kill position for a very long time. But what good does it do me, or anyone else, to deny this is what science wants? This is the only thing that will get this animal the recognition necessary for protection. I don’t make the rules. If I did make the rules this animal would always be safe from harm or the blade of a scientist. But, when it comes right down to it I think we all know (whether we want to admit it or not) a body is the only way this mystery will be solved (in the eyes of science).

We can beg the authorities for protection until we are blue in the face, but it won’t happen unless they have solid undeniable evidence. That does not make me or anyone else who is a F&B researcher synonymous with the KKK, AlexMidnightWalker, it simply means we are realists as to what is required. That is one of the most hateful things I have heard said in this field of research.

Am I arguing that we should all become Pro-Kill? Heavens no!

I absolutely couldn’t and wouldn’t kill this animal, unless my life or the life of someone else necessitated it. That is called, “self-preservation” or “survival”. I wouldn’t take that right away from anyone.

Empathy;

Most “F&B researchers” have just as much empathy for witnesses as anyone outside the F&B community. I think some forget that many “F&B researchers,” are witnesses too. When a child tells me they are too scared to sleep in their own bed that hits home pretty hard. I can’t think of one F&B researcher who does not have empathy for the witnesses, regardless of age, sex, color, or religious status. You don't have to be a witness to see the confusion and fear in the eyes of a witness and I would say it's pretty heartless to deny what these people go through.

But here is a question to ponder. How do we bridge this divide in the best interests of the witnesses? I have tried to understand some of these issues with the paranormal community – but my questions are met with hostility and insults.

While we are on the subject of insults and hostility, let me also remind, AlexMidnightWalker, you admitted through your own posts you were intentionally trying to anger the people on that specific Facebook page. You admitted to knowing (those you were provoking) were F&B researchers and you admitted to making comments that were specifically intended to provoke these people, because as you said, you were bored and the FB page was pretty slow the last few days. I have been a member of many Bigfoot Groups, websites and Facebook pages for a long time and never once have I intentionally tried to irritate someone simply for my own amusement.

That’s pretty twisted when you think about it.

Considering how I have been treated, by some within the paranormal community, I have to wonder if all “paranormal reports” are vetted thoroughly, or are these people simply believed? Does any paranormal researcher ever ask the tough questions to determine if their report is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with “paranormal activity”? No, I am not talking about sending them to a therapist. I am talking about known conditions that can happen when people are under extreme stress. Oh, and I do practice what I preach. I always ask witnesses about any health conditions or medications they are taking. I ask about alcohol consumption and if they were partaking in any (shall we say) substances for “recreational” purposes.

The only “standards” in this field of research are the ones we place upon ourselves. I do not expect that one day both “camps” (for lack of a better word) will ever get along and be “chummy.”

But, I would propose that if the paranormal community wants to be better understood by the F&B community, maybe questions could be answered? As a, “F&B researcher,” I am asked questions all the time that I can’t answer (from within my own community and outside of it) but (and here’s the kicker) I would never tell someone, “you’re too stupid to understand,” or “It’s true because I said so.” Paranormal researchers have been questioned for a long time, and will always be questioned, just as F&B researchers are questioned – if you don’t want to be questioned maybe you shouldn’t post (on a clearly F&B website or Facebook page) announcing that you think (for example) “Bigfoot can disappear” unless you are willing to answer questions.

If you are not prepared to tell me how Bigfoot spoke in your head, then it’s probably not a good idea to bring it up. That’s not being rude, that is being honest about what I need to know intellectually to understand where you are coming from. If Bigfoot has never engaged me in “mind speak” how can I possibly understand what you’re talking about? If I am unprepared to explain or field questions about something I experienced in the field, I don’t bring it up. Again, that’s not being rude, it’s being honest. It also does not make me “closed minded”. If I were, I wouldn’t ask the questions.

Would you rather I lie to you?

Also, if you don’t want to be questioned about what you are putting up as “evidence”, you should not be demanding others provide “evidence” of what they are saying. Turnabout is fair play, and one group of researchers, is not better than the other when it comes to the necessity of backing up your “alleged evidence”.

I get some of my best ideas from people who disagree with me. When they call me names or attack my intelligence – I simply shut them out. This, in all honesty, is what happened this past week with AlexMidnightWalker. I don’t agree with some of my closest friends. But, I do not attack them on a personal level, nor do I insult their intelligence. I simply listen and move on.

If you don’t like the way an organization functions or their methods, don’t donate to the group. But, when you are not a member of the organization, honestly, you really have no say how it’s run. I don’t vow to “destroy” any organization. Instead I try to understand where they are coming from and why they chose the path they are currently on. If I disagree with them, I will voice my opposition, sometimes very strongly but I do not vow to “destroy” anyone or anything. I recognize my limitations.

The decisions each one of us make, can be very difficult at times, and none of us have all the answers. I am assuming no one has that Bigfoot mounted above the fireplace yet.

“Let ye without sin cast the first stone.” That’s not my quote, but I think we all know who said it. Oh, Alex, that reminds me. If you’re going to throw out “God” in your arguments in a Bigfoot conversation, you would get your point across much easier if you didn’t throw out unfounded accusations and accuse people of hateful things. Especially when you don’t have the first bit of information about the person you’re making the accusations about. In other words, God, and hate speech, in the same sentence, just doesn’t jive.

The path each one of us takes is our own. I wouldn’t want someone telling me how to do my field work, and neither would anyone else. Do you know how I know that? If we did want this type of input, we would be fighting for standards and procedures in this field of research.

After six (6) years in this field of research, I have no answers, only more questions. But one thing has remained true, in my mind; witnesses should be our first and foremost priority. This is why I try so very hard to understand things that I frankly do not understand. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

But, I can’t pretend to be someone I’m not. I want this animal recognized so it can be protected legally.

What do you want?

AlexMidnightWalker - does it again.

2011-12-29T14:56:00.007-05:00

I hestiate to post this, but well Alex did put it out there. Before you view this video produced and performed by AlexMidnightWalker PLEASE UNDERSTAND:

The opinions and contents expressed in this video are not the opinions of ANYONE associated with the Searchforbigfoot blog. They are the sole opinions of AlexMidnightWalker. In other words, please direct all mail to Alex, I have provided a link below that goes directly to his YouTube account.

It is my sincere hope AlexMidnightWalker does not represent the whole of the "Paranormal Community", I know many good people involved in this group of researchers, and I would be shocked to find out they agree with him. Let me also state very clearly, I did not, nor have I ever (and I don't recall anyone else) refer to god as a knuckledragging ape.

Oh, and I don't think my name rhymes with Buddy - do you?

Your title "The Great Divide" was pretty accurate Alex, and you help continue that. By posting such hateful comments, instead of giving explanations for why you hold certain opinions (as you demand others do) "The Great Divide" gets even larger.

Here is a link to his Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL-QuMAoY4w&feature=youtu.be

Again:

The opinions and contents expressed in this video are not the opinions of ANYONE associated with the Searchforbigfoot blog. They are the sole opinions of AlexMidnightWalker. In other words, please direct all mail to Alex, I have provided a link above that goes directly to his YouTube account.

Sasquatch Field Evidence ~ On Blogtalk Radio

2011-12-29T09:40:00.006-05:00

I decided to set my "flesh and blood" bias aside, and listen to this blogtalk show by AlexMidnightWalker, Thom Cantrall and Arla.

I am not going to lodge an opinion, I want to know what the readers of this blog think about what these folks had to say. It's a long show, but you need to listen right to the end. I am interested in honest opinion. Consider these questions below:

1. Were your questions answered about this "mindspeak"?
2. Do you spend enough time in the woods?
3. How many languages do you think bigfoot speaks?
4. Do you think they are right - do we as "flesh and blood" researchers put too much emphesis on "proof".

All comments are moderated, so if you do not want your comment posted, please state that in your comment. I will not post any comment if asked not to.

I know what I think, now tell me what you think.

Sasquatch Evidence

Russian Bigfoot?

2011-12-29T06:37:00.004-05:00

As you all know, the Russians, are claiming to have a female bigfoot in custody. They say it's female and eats meat and vegetables.

People ask me all the time, "Melissa, why don't you blog on current breaking news in the field of bigfoot research?" Look at the video above, and I think you will understand why. This story however is too funny to pass up.

Lets play a game. Caption this picture!!

Clearly this is a hoax, but ohh, the entertainment value has been high.

One has to wonder if this isn't in response to Dr. Meldrum and his inability to "go along" with the shenanigans during the much publicized Russian Yeti Expedition.

The Doubtful NewsBlog

Here is a snipit from this article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Meldrum expressed that he felt the conference was “orchestrated” with “publicity stunts” to promote tourism for the region. He was dismayed and perhaps a bit angry that the Russian group “exploited his credibility” for their means.

In addition, Meldrum was put off by a Michigan woman, Robin Lynn Pfeifer, who claims that a family of Bigfoot was living on her 10 acre farm. He described how she, as a guest invited by Burtsev who believes her story, intruded into the scientific discussion. Meldrum admitted to confronting her over her lack of evidence for her outrageous story (which included her noting the creatures’ favorite food was blueberry bagels). Morehead was blunt, telling her that her kids were obviously playing a trick on her. Yet, disturbingly, Burtsev takes her account as typical in the U.S. and believes this kind of habituation was commonplace all over Russia as well!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know I am wondering... It could also be a group of Russian's having some fun at the expense of that expedition. Who knows what the motivation is behind this.

I just wish people would spring for better suits. :)

Thom Powell responds to: To be or not to be ~ so many questions

2011-12-28T20:45:00.004-05:00

Mr. Thom Powell responds to my article posted today, “To be or not to be ~ so many questions” on his blog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Powell writes:

“In a blog entry entitled, "To be or not to be..." writer Melissa Hovey. asks, "Are the opinions of the “paranormal crowd” so weak, they can’t withstand some questions or the scrutiny of the “flesh and blood community"?" Asking for scientific evidence of paranormal attributes seems to be a bit of a contradiction in terms but, O.K., here is it: the Freeman footage. I'd call it evidence, but not proof. Like it or not, I think the Freeman footage is some of the best evidence of paranormal activity you can find. In the end, that's why the video is so damn important. But you have to look at it and look carefully, then be willing to ask some questions that don't have easy answers.

As Freeman himself said in the interviews I posted here, it has never been shown to be a fake, but I doubt it will seal the deal in the minds of Ms, Hovey nor to mention the Ben Radford-style skeptics. But it's still there and, based on my own investigations and interviews with Freeman himself, I'm saying it's the real deal. Now, if I could just figure out who owns the dang thing?” end quote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With all due respect to Mr. Powell when did the “Freeman Footage” become a paranormal video? I have never heard anyone (until now) refer to any “paranormal” elements that may be contained within this film. I have been party to numerous conversations about this film, with people within the “Flesh and Blood community” as well as the “Paranormal Community”, yet this is the first mention I have ever heard of this. Also, whether or not Mr. Freemans footage is a hoax, has nothing to do with the information you bring to the table.

How is asking for evidence of paranormal attributes a contradiction in terms? Either these attributes are there or they are not. If these “paranormal attributes” are contained within any kind of footage – then these “attributes” should be easily noted by anyone. Why are these attributes easily seen by you, and not me? Please don't tell me it's because my mind is closed to the possibilities.

Mr. Powell brings up the freeman footage as “some of the best evidence of paranormal activity you can find,” okay – show me the evidence. I have looked at the Freeman footage and to be quite honest with you, I absolutely do not see what you are talking about. Is it because the footage is shaky?

I lose patience with the paranormal community because they say things like this, yet offer nothing in the way of proof or even specific evidence to even allow me (or others) to form our own opinion. Mr. Powell intimates, I must look closely, or I won’t see it. Others might say (probably would say) if I look closely and do not see it, it’s probably not there.

While I appreciate being compared to Ben Radford in my skepticism, I am sure, Mr. Radford would completely deny any comparison.

What I propose is this. Stop with the “if you look closely” – and just show me. Look at me like Missouri. Show me. My parents taught me long ago, never take anyone at their word. Experience has taught me that was very good advice.

I have no beef with Mr. Powell, in fact I have always been willing to discuss all sides of this mystery – but you must give me something more than, “you have to look closely”. If you’re willing to show me, Mr. Powell, I am willing to look. I am applying no different standards of evidence to the “paranormal community” than I assign to the “Flesh and Blood.”

Question is, will you?

To Be Or Not To Be ~ So Many Questions....

2011-12-28T11:33:00.007-05:00

Over the past year (maybe a little longer) Bigfoot researchers all over the country have been waiting with baited breath and hanging on every released statement of a DNA Scientist by the name of Melba Ketchum.

For those of you who do not know what is going on, it’s a story of Bigfoot DNA samples sent to Dr. Ketchum, from across the country by Bigfoot researchers. Dr. Ketchum has kindly offered her time and expertise in DNA analysis to this community.

Unfortunately;

This project has been tainted by “leaks” and accusations of shady people being involved. Dr. Ketchum herself has been accused of withholding information, even though she has clearly stated she cannot and will not release any information about the project until the paper she is writing is accepted by a peer reviewed journal. Like it or not folks, if she does speak before her paper is accepted, she is done. That’s the process.

I think the most interesting item to come of this is;

Due to alleged leaks coming from within Dr. Ketchums group comes the word, “Human”. Although the “leak” said the results are not completely human, and not completely chimp, the samples are somewhere in between the two – a specific group of researchers within this community is holding onto “human” with both fists and running with it.

That’s fine;

But, will Bigfoot be classified as “human”? I’m not a betting person, but I sure wouldn’t put money on that one. Personally, (if you believe the leaked results of Dr. Ketchums work) I think the results will stay somewhere between chimps and humans – not human. Actually, I think it would be, non-human primate. Why do I think that? Well, it should be fairly obvious to most reading this blog. There is a big difference between humans and non-human primates. The last time I checked, chimpanzees were the closest non-human primates to humans yet they are not called human. Humans have bridged over the gap. We do not live in the woods anymore. We discovered fire, live in homes, drive cars, and we have jobs (just to name a few obvious differences). Bigfoot may live in a family group of some kind, but humans have laws which govern our communities and society.

Can you imagine what would happen to our judicial system;

If we were to assign the same laws to Bigfoot, as are assigned to humans? It will not ever happen. This is why there are laws on the books for endangered or threatened species. There are regulations imposed for hunting all over the country. If you place Bigfoot into the human category – it would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as you and I – can you even imagine the implications of that?

There are laws on the books that would protect this animal, if proven to exist;

There is the rub; We must prove it exists first.

But, now comes the difficult part for some within this community. How do you prove to science Bigfoot is real if you have no definitive proof it does in fact exist? Science and even the law function on proof. Yes, you must have proof this animal is out there, and that it is in danger of either extinction or harm that would affect its population before the law would or could step in to impose laws of protection.

There is a specific group of researchers within this community who want this animal protected;

Fantastic I say. I would like to see this animal protected. But, how are you going to do that – if you can’t prove Bigfoot is real? Pretty please is not an acceptable argument for protection. Without laws on the books to protect this specific animal – it will never have the protection necessary. It will be fair game for anyone in the woods carrying a gun. That is just a fact. We are not in the habit (as humans) of protecting anything that is not proven to exist. I am all for protection of this animal, but I also understand certain things must happen in order for this recognition.

You can’t have protection without a dirty word: proof;

It’s just a simple fact, as sad as it might be. As much as some hate the word "proof" all the wishful thinking won’t make it go away. Am I for killing a Bigfoot? No. But, if current rumor holds true, it has already happened and those samples are sitting with Dr. Ketchum. If you think that’s true - It’s over and done with. There is no reason to cry over it now. Although I am not a “pro-kill” researcher, I recognize what it will take for this animal to get the protection it needs. I won’t pull the trigger, but I won’t discriminate against the person who does.

You can be “friends” with Bigfoot all you like, but that friendship will not give this animal the protection it deserves. Saying you are “friends” with this animal wont cut it in the scientific circles.

I think there are some against the “proof” of this animal’s existence;

First of all, there is a lot of circle talking within this crowd. First they say Bigfoot needs our protection. Then in the same breath say, “No, it doesn’t because it has survived for a long time without our help.” If Bigfoot doesn’t need protection – what are they worried about?? Good question, eh?

Ultimately a body will “prove” once and for all whether or not this animal can talk to them;

Or, can disappear, or has these paranormal abilities, that some assign to it. If this animal is examined and found to have no abilities different from any other animal in the world (as I am assuming is true) then what will that do to the “paranormal bigfoot” crowd? This same group of people becomes highly offended if you say, “bigfoot is a non-human primate”. Why? They hear the words, “big ape” at the same time forgetting they are arguing that Bigfoot is human. Hey, guess what, we “humans” are apes too. So, if Bigfoot is “human” – it’s an APE!! Get over it.

There is a lot of back and forth between the “paranormal crowd” and the “flesh and blood crowd.” Although I would say the paranormal crowd has more to work on than the flesh and blood folks. Hey, if you’re going to say “Bigfoot travels via wormholes” or talks to you while you are fast asleep in your comfy bed at night – that’s a tough argument that is going to require some serious proof. Oh, and if Bigfoot can disappear, why in the world would it need protection? I hate to point out the obvious, but if Bigfoot can disappear at will, how could it be sighted by a hunter long enough to be shot? If it can read our minds, why doesn't it disappear before being seen by humans? If bigfoot can read our minds, it should know we are coming.

These are good questions, which have always been ignored by the group of people making the claims.

So, I have been in this now for 6 years, and the same arguments are being had.

While I am sure my “flesh and blood” opinions will be attacked by the “paranormal crowd” It won’t be the first time. But I would ask why the “flesh and blood crowd” should be silent? Why are the opinions of the “paranormal crowd” so important that it should silence the opinions of others? Is it because they call themselves, “friends of Bigfoot”? Are the opinions of the “paranormal crowd” so weak, they can’t withstand some questions or the scrutiny of the “flesh and blood community"? I would argue if you can’t defend your opinion within your own peer group – you have no chance outside of it.

My hope is that Dr. Ketchum has the information to at least (in some way) prove this mystery once and for all.

Pretty Please :) Did it work?

Greg Newkirk weighs in on the Sanger Paranormal "Bigfoot" Press Conference

2011-06-26T14:01:00.007-04:00

Greg Newkirk weighed in on the "Press Conference", that wasn't. His take is very honest, and he also explains some things that I can say were not heard over the live feed - guess you had to be there to hear it.

I wondered why one journalist stood up and gathered his microphone then promptly left.

Read the entire article. I found new pieces of information that were both interesting, and amusing. "Smear Campaign: The Incredibly Disappointing Bigfoot Press Conference"

The Press Conference

2011-06-24T01:37:00.005-04:00

People always ask me the same question, "Melissa, why do you care so much about an animal you have never seen?" What many forget is: first came the witness.

I have spent the largest part of my professional career, being an advocate. It's all I ever wanted to do. Being able to help someone, or just be there for them, is more important to me than anything I can ever do. Life hands us some traumatic situations and that does not even include the absolute fear and confusion that can take over a persons life when they have been witness to this animal known as "Bigfoot." I decided to parlay my professional knowledge into this research. Idea being maybe I could put my education and experience to work - with a different kind of witness.

My tactics can be rough. My methods few understand - but I have been blessed to gain the trust of wonderful people who unfortunately are called crazy, all because they seen something, that is not supposed to be there. These people trust no one. Why should they? This world can be a cold and cruel place when you are dealing with something no one understands. I have been invited into the homes and lives of people who have been witness to something extraordinary. I still have no answers for them but I can try and help them by working very hard to answer the questions that still plague their minds.

No. They don't see this animal then forget about it in a week. It stays with them. This is something you can not deny. These witnesses come to this community - for our help, our assistance, our understanding, but most importantly;

They ask for our professionalism.

I have heard from witnesses and researchers alike since this ill conceived "Press Conference". My heart is heavy, and I am at a loss as to how to explain this "Press Conference." I can't defend it, nor can I even imagine why Jeffrey Gonzalez and his group called a press conference to discuss smears on a window, old footage, footprint casts and such. There was no evidence that was possibly as great as the Patterson Gimlin film - because as they stated - they need 5 thousand dollars to get the DNA tested.

I know people who would do it for free.

Jeffrey and his group made a lot of promises, promises they absolutely did not keep. The people of this community were once again taken for a Biscardi like ride with the words, "What could be the best evidence since the Patterson Gimlin Film!!" This community was told there would be more evidence released at this, "Press Conference" that would blow our minds.

How should we feel about that? Should we be angry that great hype was created for something that in the end turned out to be nothing? Once again hopes were built, and people were once again let down. Let down by what, you ask? Here is the awesome "evidence" that led Jeffrey Gonzalez and David Raygoza to think a bigfoot drooled on Jeffrey's truck.

Boot Print being called a Bigfoot Track:

Smudge #1:

Smudge #2:

The enhanced photo Jeffrey put on facebook page is much more convincing. In all honesty if you open the photo titled "Smudge #2" it looks like a bear put its front paws on the windows of this truck, then slid to the left.

Do you feel like your taking a Rorschach test yet? I can't think of one person who would have called for a press conference - based on "evidence" like this.

Is this what we do now? Do we go on a weekend expedition, then call a press conference to show our latest casts and such? If that's the case, I am really behind the 8 ball here. I have asked this before;

"Should we expect more from those within our own community?"

Or, are we okay with smears that could be anything from bear to human, being called "Bigfoot Evidence"? As far as I'm concerned the smear on Jeffrey Gonzalez's window could have been a person checking the vehicle for a stranded motorist. Remember they abandoned their vehicles due to a horrible storm.

It's little wonder what we do, is not taken seriously, outside this field of research.

Has anyone ever stopped for 2 seconds to think about what these "Biscardiesque" shows do to the witnesses? The ones I know feel humiliated. They worry that now they will again be the butt of jokes from the people they know. Because that's what happens. Who's fault is that? Is it the fault of the witness who has been brave enough to come forward? Is it the fault of the researchers who condone this type of activity? Witnesses want this mystery solved, but when so called, "Bigfoot Researchers" go out pimping for money, it belittles what we do. Especially when there is nothing substantial to back their need for money. Lets not forget, this "DNA" was collected a day or two after the Memorial Day Weekend, yesterday was June 24th. So, they had this awesome "evidence" sitting around just waiting for what? To my knowlege they did not approach one person involved in this research to discuss getting their DNA tested. They waited for Press Conference.

This mess sure isn't the fault of the witnesses.

Come on, there were 6 grown men at that table, asking for roughly 5 thousand dollars. They can't pony up the money themselves for a discovery they think they might have? I sure as heck wouldn't go public asking for money, when I had no clue what that outcome might be.

Jeffrey Gonzalez knew well ahead of time what this press conference was really all about. He chose not to disclose this. How do I know that? Jeffrey said so during this interview with a Canadian News Organization this article clearly states and I quote "members of the Sanger Paranormal Society will call upon the public to donate money and resources to their Bigfoot research effort at a Thursday afternoon news conference in Fresno, Calif." So, the hype about this awesome evidence, was really hype for money.

Did Jeffrey announce this during his many interviews prior to this press conference, or was it just this one news outlet in Canada that was able to get this little tidbit of information. Jeffrey built up the hype saying there was so much more that would be revealed - which turned out to be nothing more than what he has already discussed.

Jeffrey, you made promises you did not keep. I rather hoped I would be eating my words, as you personally promised, then laughed. My first thought is always - the witnesses. Without witnesses we have no mystery to solve.

Do you still think this is funny?

The American Bigfoot Society Heads to Oklahoma!!

2011-06-16T13:21:00.005-04:00

The American Bigfoot Society is coming to a remote area of South Eastern Oklahoma for 8 days, lead by ABS Advisor Monica Rawlins, in the spring of 2012.

South Eastern Oklahoma has a rich history of sightings and encounters with an undocumented primate known as bigfoot. One such report is the "Turkey Hunter Report" where it was reported a Bigfoot grabbed the tip of a hunters arrow.

South Eastern Oklahoma is also the home of the "Honobia Bigfoot Festival."

Finding Bigfoot: "Swamp Ape"

2011-06-06T12:43:00.003-04:00

Well, right out of the gate, let me say at least this week we weren't treated to another full hour of "expert Matt Moneymaker and his list of firsts".

Overall, I would say this episode was better. The Bridges come across as credible while discussing the alleged activity on their property, but I do have issues with the attempt (by the homeowners) to collect this hand print on their door. But, when faced with an area with credible witnesses, good habitat and (according to the footage shown) a successful night op, I watched as they all climbed into vehicles and drove off to the other end of the state... Such is television folks.

I just hope Bobo is okay after taking that fall. That looked painful, and I do hope he wasn't hurt to badly.

I won't even discuss the "horse" or "deer" footage. I already know, boring doesn't make for good television. Of course that won't make the final editing - but it will make the unaware public more curious about the next episode.

Methane? Bigfoot climbs into Alligator dens? Really?

Okay, Who's bright idea was that? Folks methane is a colorless, odorless gas. Methane can't be the answer for why Bigfoot smells so bad. No, I am not an "expert", I am simply stating the obvious.

Matt Moneymaker responded on Cryptomundo stating the "methane fact" was Animal Planets doing, and had nothing to do with the team. I am going to believe that, because I can't imagine those words coming from Cliff or Bobo.

I had an interesting conversation the other night, and have been thinking about it since. Why do we (the Bigfoot community) get so worked up when these shows air and mistakes are made? Why? We all know it happens.. I have come up with a couple conclusions:

1. Bigfoot Researchers are always, "on".
2. Bigfoot Researchers know, everything done and said on television programs reflect the work being performed by everyone of us.

When I say, Bigfoot Researchers are always "on", what I mean is, we spend so much time online (and off) evaluating video, audio and reports, that anytime we see or hear something we are critical, first. I think that says a lot about the thinking skills of the average "Bigfooter". We are on guard so often we can't even watch a Bigfoot movie on SyFy without recognizing embellishments or misinformation.

What's obvious to the bigfooter, most likely is not obvious to the person who is not a "Bigfooter".

That does not soften the blow however. Why? Well, that leads me to point number two (from above). Bigfooters take the work they do, in the field, seriously. As discussed in the last blog article, "Bigfooters" spend large amounts of our personal cash, spend time away from our families and jobs. Also, a very important fact, which is largely forgotten, many "Bigfooters" are witnesses themselves. Witness or not, the "Bigfooter" knows how important it is to gather any and all information as carefully as possible. The large majority of us seek out professionals in specific fields to help us analyze evidence we ourselves can not.

So, when your average "Bigfooter" hears things like, methane, as being the reason for why Bigfoot smells so bad, we collectively yell, "What??" Call it a silly reaction to a television show if you want - I personally won't apologize for that reaction.

Question to the readers: How many of you cringed after that Fact, and are now just waiting for the first joke from friends, family or co-workers?

Then we have this, on cryptomundo, from Matt Moneymaker;

I gotta say this here: I read some VO lines (transitional explanations) which used the words “overwhelming evidence” at some point … I was reading those out loud the first time I saw the copy, to hear how all the lines sounded to my own ears, before even reading it through quietly the first time. After hearing myself say the “overwhelming evidence” line I stopped and said we can’t use that line because it’s simply not “overwhelming evidence”. I told them to re-record the line with me saying “a collection of evidence”. They recorded it my way and I told them to use that version instead, and not the version of me saying “overwhelming evidence”. But what did they do???

Transitional explanations? Is the show scripted, as in, they are told what to say? Or, was this a suggestion? I would have thought Matt would have learned his lesson after "Mysterious Encounters".

In the end,

I understand why self described "Bigfoot researchers" are upset and angry. I understand all sides of this issue. I do think we have the right to expect more. Why? These shows like "Finding Bigfoot" are an attempt to show the world what it is we do. Argue about that all you want, but that is how these shows are described and that is what the team of "Finding Bigfoot" are doing. This group of researchers were not out looking for bears on thermal.

Television is about making money, and "Bigfooters" are not the targeted "masses". Bigfooters don't have to like that and we should do whatever we can to try and correct the misinformation that is told in the interest of "making money". But we can't stop it. We can only do what we can to make good choices about whether or not as individuals we get involved in the next Bigfoot television show. You know there will be more.....

Make good choices. It could be you next.

Spokane Video, a hoax?

2011-06-03T12:13:00.003-04:00

Is overlayed video the answer to the mystery of the Spokane Cell Phone Bigfoot?

Read more about this here: Weatherspace.com

"Finding Bigfoot" On Animal Planet

2011-06-02T11:02:00.004-04:00

"Cliff will never confront punks who talk crap and distort things. I will though, and I’ll get straight to the point, and you will submit to me." Matt Moneymaker, on Cryptomundo June 2nd 2011.

After 3 full days of fallout over the new series "Finding Bigfoot" on Animal Planet the above quote from Matt Moneymaker is what I read on Cryptomundo while drinking my first cup of coffee this morning.

I would like to thank Matt Moneymaker for sending yet another, of the countless, shots of adrenaline that have been streaming through my veins over the last few days.

Matt, "submission" may be part of the problem here.

I watched the program myself with great anticipation. It's always great to see new shows hit the airways. I hope (and pray) along with the rest of this community that maybe this time someone will "get it right." We all spend countless hours in the field away from our families and our jobs. We spend (in some cases) extraordinary amounts of our own money and fill our homes with technical equipment and load our computers down with software so we can use this equipment. Let's not even discuss the amount of money we shell out for gas, food and various other essentials so we can get to areas with alleged activity or talk to witnesses and take a report.

Many of us do not expect perfection from these television shows. We would just like to see it get a little closer than the last failed attempt.

I too know Cliff Barackman. He is one of the most dedicated field researchers I know. Cliff has always made himself available whenever he could. In fact I have spoken with Cliff many times in reference to casting. Cliff always has good advice.

Bobo. If you have been in this field for any length of time, and you don't know Bobo, I feel for you. Bobo simply - gets out there!! Bobo has a great sense of humor but, like Cliff, he wont send you packing if asked a question regarding field research.

I like both these men. Which makes the bashing of the new show "Finding Bigfoot" so very painful for me. I understand where people are coming from though.

The criticism is not without warrant.

But, we also must understand, these shows are not filmed for the "Bigfoot Research Community." That seems to be the one very important piece of information we collectively forget when mistakes happen or things are said that we do not agree with. I do not, however, think the community should be silent when glaring mistakes or outright fabrications happen.

Renae (I hope I spelled that right). Well, here is an interesting twist. Renae has come out of left field, and turned up on this program. Good for you. So far she appears skeptical which is good, as there should be one solid skeptic on this show who understands what being skeptical is. I don't know Renae. I have never spoken with her, but when she rolled her eyes on the first night I felt a certain amount of kinship. Renae, I have been there before. Keep it real!!

Matt Moneymaker. What can I say that we haven't heard before? When Matt is right I have defended him and his organization. A good friend said to me yesterday:

"when something is the truth it's just true. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth."

Because I was unwilling to add my own list of complaints to the mounting pile already out there.

Yesterday Matt Moneymaker went into a series of long winded diatribes on Cryptomundo defending himself viciously at times. Today has been no better.

Note: I said, defending himself.

Apparently Matt is not aware that his team is under just as much scrutiny as he is. What a shame, as Cliff, Bobo and Renae worked just as hard on this six-episode show as he did. But I should also make note of the fact that many of the "issues" being pointed out by the "Bigfoot Community" are "issues" Matt Moneymaker created himself.

How is that you ask?

For example, Matt states he was asked by the filming crew, I am paraphrasing, "how do you know Bigfoot uses wood knocks to communicate?" Matt responds with:

Just so you know, one of my claims to fame in the Bigfoot world is that I was the one who discovered that Bigfoots do wood knocks, and that figured out that if you make sounds that they’ll respond. No other Bigfoot researcher had ever figured that out or knew that before, because they didn’t really go into the field that often."

Why would you answer that question in that way, if you didn't intended for those words to be taken exactly the way you stated? You looked right in the camera and said it. No one held a gun to your head. You listed it in your Biography on Animal Planet's website, along with other notable firsts you claim:

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/finding-bigfoot/bigfoot-team/matt-moneymaker.html

It's not as if you were casually talking to the film crew, while they were filming without your knowledge. Of course they would use this to their advantage. This show is not his first rodeo and I would think of all people he would know that. Then, Matt can't even admit he was wrong about his own "toot my horn" moment, when confronted with the truth.

I will say this, Matt absolutely brings an element every television producer loves - DRAMA. He says exactly what they want to hear so they can then make his words as sensational as possible. Matt Moneymaker sells lets face it. Matt is willing to say whatever it takes to get himself on the television screens of every family in this country. That sells. In the end as long as the show is making money for the producers and the network - what we as researchers want really is of no consequence to them.

So in the end Matt Moneymaker is willing to provide, exactly what is so desperately desired. He says what they want him to say and he gets the name of his organization into millions of homes. Who is the sucker? Matt Moneymaker or Animal Planet?

I will be honest and say, I was less disappointed with the show as I have been with Matt and his attack responses on Cryptomundo. I do have some issues with the show itself, but I will save those for a later blog.

New Information:

I will say this and let the chips fall where they may. I clicked the link on Steve Kulls site, and read an article written by Sharon Hall, a local reporter who spoke with the sheriff about the "dash cam video" in question. I then looked up this reporters contact information and gave her a call.

The first two minutes of this conversation were the most shocking. I introduced myself, and said, "I bet you have gotten a hundred phone calls about this article you wrote?" She replied with, "Actually you are only the second person to contact me regarding this." I said, "You're kidding?" She said, "No." I asked if she could tell me who the first person was who called her regarding this article? To that she replied, "a woman with Animal Planet." I asked when they called her, and she said, "two-three months before the guys arrived in the area." She also went on to say she requested an opportunity to speak with these researchers about what she knew and the woman with Animal Planet denied the request.

Interesting when you consider there was a "town hall" type meeting with locals to discuss sightings. Animal Planet could have told the reporter to show up for this "town hall" meeting, but did not.

If Matt didn't know about this, he should speak with the folks at Animal Planet. As an investigator, we should always check out every possible source of information even if it is a reporter. If Animal Planet did not tell Matt and the guys about this I can not hold Matt, Cliff, Bobo or Renae responsible but, shame on Animal Planet, for denying them the opportunity to assess the credibility of Ms. Hall themselves.

Ms. Hall told me, without pause or reservation, this video is a hoax. She also told me with no reservation or hesitation the Sheriff did not disclose the names of these two college students because he feared they could be harassed. The area where this "hoax" took place is an area where the tourism dollar is taken very seriously.

I can only guess the Sheriff was worried these two boys might be a target for harassment if tourism dropped off, because of the fear of a large ape roaming the country side, or bad publicity. Let's not forget this isn't the first time a community in Georgia has been hit hard because of a Bigfoot hoax gone amok. Which could account for why the Sheriff did not meet with the Matt, Cliff, Bobo and Renae.

Sometimes, the answer is not "Bigfoot." Like it or not we must accept that when faced with it.

Matt's dismissal of one witness, because this person did not describe a "correct" skin color was appauling. I have read and taken numerous reports from people who discuss a darker skin color. Some discuss a lighter skin color. Some people tell me the animal they seen had big eyes, some report smaller eyes. Why would you ignore variations? If Matt is looking for one specific (for lack of a better word) "type" then fine, say that. To dismiss a witness when their report does not fit a perfect "bigfoot mold" (you have created) is insulting. Matt came across as if he was saying this "skin color" is a known fact.

Truth is, it's not.

I can understand Matt's anger over the response he has recieved from this community, but the viewing public isn't the problem. People who know better, are not the problem. His attitude is almost as if he didn't think anyone in the larger "Bigfoot Community," would be watching the show. I could care less about what Matt Moneymaker says but, what bothers me, is how his arrogant displays reflect on people I know who don't deserve to be bashed and spend more time in the field than he does.

One final thought, if anyone had all the answers the show "Finding Bigfoot" would have been named, "Bigfoot Found".

2011 Ohio Conference

2011-05-18T12:38:00.002-04:00

Well, another Ohio Conference goes down in the history books. What a conference it was.

I won't give a full run down of events, as I am sure all the speakers have been discussed elsewhere, besides I go to conferences to meet other researchers, and discuss what we are doing in the field. We all spend so little time together in one place, it's nice to catch up with old friends, make new ones and just talk Bigfoot. I do have a few photos for you all, but once again I didn't take many.

I was having too much fun :)

Okay, before anyone freaks over the photos of Bruce removing a splinter from Steve Jr's hand - he did have a spliter, I tried and failed. So, Bruce was called away from the conference - as he has performed this kind of task before.

Kids - Bruce is an expert, don't try this at home. Steve walked away with all his fingers and both hands, thank god no one sneezed. I also have this on video (along with other clips from the conference), and I might post it if I can figure out how.. :)

Both myself and Wayne had a fantastic time, and can't wait for next year!!

Squatch on my friends!!!

East Coast Cooperative Expedition

2011-05-04T09:38:00.005-04:00

The 2011 East Coast Cooperative Expedition is in the bag!! For the ABS it was a total of 9 days beginning in Pennsylvania, and ending in the State of Virginia. There will be a full expedition report to come, and what an expedition it was!!

Life just does not get any better than when your away from civilization, surrounded by friends who make you laugh and share a common goal. While our days were filled with laughter and good times, our nights were spent in the woods, doing what we love to do -- looking for bigfoot. I would like to take the time to personally thank the members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, NESRA, and the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society for another expedition that will not be forgotten.

On a more personal note, not one member of this expedition could help but feel sorrow for all those who lost their lives throughout the country, to include Virginia, during the outbreak of tornados. As we all sat at the camp in Virginia, we watched as the storms approached us, and for some reason split, sparing us, but causing devisation and loss of life to our north and south. Our hearts go out to all those who lost loved ones, and property. While our various cell phones kept us up to date on some of the information, It was not until we returned to civilization that we realized how extensive the damage and loss of life was.

Thank you to all who expressed your concern for the safety of all involved in this expedition. We were lucky and only experienced about a half hour of rain.

Soon the full expedition report will be available for public consumption. It was a fun, yet active week and we look forward to spending more time together in the future!!

New ABS Website

2011-03-04T17:22:00.004-05:00

Check it out!! The American Bigfoot Society

Expanding on the Bob H Story and Occam's Razor.

2011-01-23T10:43:00.005-05:00

*Photo of Bob H at the time of the Patterson film. Bob is pictured standing next to his Corvette.

You know, when I first started to think about this, I forgot one very important rule of investigation -- you must brush off what you think you know, and evaluate what you find. Sometimes the truth can get bogged down in details that mean nothing and stories that are designed to mislead.

Expanding on my earlier article on this issue..........

One thing is for certain. The only way Bob H's story works - is you MUST believe Roger Patterson is a con-man and all around horrible person who pulls the wings off butterflies and kicks puppies. If you take away this "Patterson is a con-man" -- then what? Which is why (I think) Kal Korff fires the first shot right out of the gate in Long's book. Bob H, Kal Korff and Greg Long want people to believe Bob H, but in order to do that (because their evidence is shakey at best) they must bring Roger Patterson's credibility into question, then destroy it. One of the most common tactics is to destroy the credibility and reputation of the person in question - in this case "Roger Patterson" so one story can appear more credible than another.

We hear about PR smear campaigns all the time - this is just another example (in my opinion). Yes, Roger did not always repay loans, but that does not make him guilty of being a horrible person. We have heard about the camera from the Shepards Camera store, and how Roger was convicted of Grand Larceny. Yet, when these issues are confronted - then we find out Roger simply forgot to return the camera. Roger then returned the camera in good working order and the charges are dropped. Roger was convicted of nothing. Why do we not hear the whole story, but instead hear the worst of the situation? Answer, because that is the intent of a smear campaign to make one person look better than the other. Smear campaigns can be used to pit one reputation against another - and that is exactly what we have in this case.

Roger is not accused, nor does he admit, to sitting in the local bar, telling lies and making up big stories, that would be the Heironimus Boys. A person who does not repay loans, is a far cry from a con-artist or convicted felon. I have heard many stories about Bob H and his brothers - which include that local bar, but these are not my stories to tell. Lets just say, Bob H and his brothers were no angels, and I would rather run into Roger Patterson than Bob H and his brothers any day.

I have not read one interview, where Greg Long or Bob H do not take pot shots at Roger Patterson.

On another note. If you look at the Radford Contract you will see the words "for expenses in connection with the filming of "Bigfoot- Americas Abominable Snowman". One thing that keeps getting missed is simply this --

Vilma Radford signed a contract in connection with the filming of the Documentary - not what was ultimately produced, which is what we have today the "PGF". These are two separate films. Much has been made out of the fact that Vilma did not recover "all of her money". I think I know exactly why. When Vilma filed her suit in court, the film she was attempting to collect on, had not been finished (the documentary). There was no "5%" of anything, because there was no documentary, "Bigfoot-Americas Abominable Snowman". I have not seen any actual court filings, but If I had to guess, I would bet money on Vilma trying to collect money off the second film, the "PGF" - which is why the judgment came down the way it did. Vilma and her attorneys would have to prove she was entitled to money from this second film, which is clearly not the case. If Vilma was not trying to collect on the PGF, what else could she possibly think she was entitled to that was earning her 5%??

The Documentary and the PGF are were two separate projects. One was planned and everyone knew about(the documentary) the PGF happened after Roger and Bob returned to Yakima, Roger received a phone call from John Green then Roger and Bob packed up and went to Bluff Creek, based on what Roger was told by John Green. I have never seen it said anywhere that John Green had anything to do with the filming of a Documentary, or that he was feeding information to Roger Patterson for the filming of this Documentary. These were two separate events. Roger did not call up Jerry Merritt and the guys and say, "Okay we gotta pack up and head to Bluff Creek guys, we may have something down there to add to the Documentary."

It is possible to have two different things happen during the same time period.

Also, much has been made out of Patterson not showing up in court the day of the Radford case. Well, if your guilty of what your being accused of in these types of proceedings - what is the point in hiring an attorney and showing up, when you are willing to accept a default judgment. Which is exactly what happened. Vilma received an award by the court for a little more than $850.00. Accepting a default judgment does not make you a horrible person, it means you understand what is going to happen and see no need to fight it out. I have actually heard Attorneys say to clients, "If you know you owe this money, and they can prove it, why waste your time and money by paying me. Accept the default judgment and just get it over with." Oh, and by the way. This non-payment would have been "Breach of Contract" not "Embezzlement" as evidenced by the actual document produced by Vilma Radford (in Greg Long's book). So, the Embezzlement charges are false as well. Embezzlement can hold criminal charges - but not Breach of Contract. Too bad some have been misinformed about this as well.

No, I am not saying what Roger did in the case of Vilma Radford was acceptable behavior. But, lets recognize the situation for what it really was. Roger did not con Vilma out of anything. In fact, he signed a contract. Con-men do not do that. Con-men do not sign their names, so the victim has something to show the cops or the courts. That just flys in the face of what a con-man is.

Oh, and something else. Has anyone else noticed the time between signing the Radford contract and its due date? The contract was typed up May 26, 1967, the due date was June 10, 1967. That is less than 1 month for payment in full of $850.00. That is roughly 16 days. IF Roger Patterson was known to not repay loans, and was a con-man, what made Vilma Radford think Roger Patterson could repay a loan of 850.00 in 16 days? I don't think Roger had the absolutely horrible reputation that keeps being discussed. I think people in Yakima recognized the issues Patterson faced, and simply looked the other way. But of course, Greg Long can't say that - or Bob H, because then Rogers reputation remains intact and people who evaluate Bob H's story must take an even closer look at Bob H, and I know Greg Long and Bob H did not want that to happen.

So, in the end, if you strip away all the allegations of felony convictions, fraud, Embezzlement and con-man, what are you left with? Which is why I do think it highly likely Bob H did in fact loan money to Roger Patterson for this documentary.

Also,

Why would Roger Patterson promise to pay Bob H $1,000.00, when Bob Gimlin had been promised nothing... Bob Gimlin spent more time in the woods during this ordeal than Bob H. Doesn't make sense does it? Would Bob Gimlin approach Bob H about loaning money to Roger to continue the project? Sure, I think he might. Why? Even Bob Gimlin admits, Roger offered to reimburse Bob G his expenses during these expeditions, but Bob G recognized Roger could not afford to do so - so he never pushed it. But, a loan Roger may have needed is different than Bob Gimlin helping to put money in someone elses pocket (Bob H), when Bob G himself had not been paid a cent.

We are also taking it for granted that Bob Gimlin knew what the topic of this "meeting" between the two men was about... Bob Gimlin may have simply been asked by Roger, "Hey, Bob, would you mind asking Bob H to come over to my house for dinner next week - I have something I would like to discuss with him." That is a very strong possibility, when you take into account human pride when asking for money or anything, for any reason.

I also think the easiest explanation for Howard H not wanting to give an interview to Greg Long, is simply because --Howard was friends with Roger. Howard lived with Roger and Patricia(in Rogers home)for sometime. Maybe Howard wanted nothing to do with yet one more of his brothers games (games which Bob H and others admitted to... sitting in the Idle Hour Tavern).

I say, we strip away what we have been told - and maybe we will find the truth under that. I think I just may have.

The "Story told by Bob Heironimus "

2011-01-22T09:45:00.004-05:00

For the most part, I dismiss Bob Heronimus. Why? Because his story is filled with mistakes and omission which are later explained away as - too much time has passed, or "I was mistaken" after conversations he has had with Greg Long. Heck, even Greg Long has done his level best to explain away some of these larger mistakes in Bob H's story.

What do I think happened? Well, for a long time this $1,000.00 payment Bob H alleges he was stiffed out of has bothered me. Here is why.

At this point, all we are going on is the word of Bob H and now Howard H. We don't know what Roger told Gimlin to ask Bob H. If we listen to Greg Long, there was a meeting at Roger Pattersons house with Roger and Bob H, where this alleged $1,000.00 was spoke of in some form. The only possible witnesses to this conversation would have been Bob Gimlin and Patricia Patterson. I highly doubt Roger Patterson jumped on the phone and invited anyone else to be present during this conversation. Who was it that told Greg Long this meeting took place at Rogers house? It wasnt Bob Gimlin, because Gimlin has refused to talk to Greg Long. I think I can reasonably assume it was Bob H. If it was Bob H who told this to Greg Long, then why did Bob H not discuss who else was present during this meeting. Greg Long only discusses Bob H and Roger Patterson. Did Bob H forget there were about a half dozen others standing around witnessing this "promise to pay $1,000.00".

Comments after a meeting by Bob H, to his friends do nothing to prove an actual agreement for anything. These people, unless they were at Roger Pattersons home, can not testify to what was actually discussed between Bob H and Roger Patterson - anything they heard from Bob H after the meeting, is heresay.

Now, we have Howard H coming out of nowhere to establish another link to this $1,000.00, although past attempts for Howard to help clear his brothers name had been met with silence. No one before this revelation by Kitakaze ever mentions Howard Heronimus having any involvement at all. Bob Gimlin also knew Bob H, he lived right down the street from him. According to Greg Long eventually it was Bob Gimlin who went to Bob H and asked him to meet with Roger at his home. Why didn't Roger just go to Bob Gimlin and ask he help with this meeting in the first place? Roger was friends with Bob Gimlin too - good friends in fact. Oh, and there is no mention of Howard H being offered money to keep his mouth shut.

There are rumors and inuendo that others were witness to this "promise" to pay $1,000.00. Although none of those who state they witnessed this "promise" say they were offered anything to keep their silence.

We are lead to believe, Bob H was a man who had very limited funds, because his only job was being a fruit picker. Well, we also know Bob H owned a corvette, and used that car in Drag Racing (during this time period). I also know Bob H has some how managed to acquire more than 2 pieces of property. I also know he lived on a working ranch, owned by his family. Bob H also bought and sold horses and cattle (during this time period). Which makes perfect sense, as he did live on a working ranch, and he did loan a horse to Bob Gimlin..I am assuming Bob H did not keep this horse in the garage. Huh, not bad for a fruit picker.

Who are these new "witnesses" (according to Kitakaze) to the "promise to pay $1,000.00?" Witnesses after the fact, do not count. Anyone can say anything later, especially to people who were not present during the conversation. Names given so far, have omitted this information in any interviews given in the past. Now, they remember. More than 40 years later. This is the only time I have ever heard the arguement for memories that improve over time.. Why would each one of these people now remember such a conversation, and each one of them offer this information seperately? You would think this important information that would have been offered in the past. This is very convenient to say the least.

I think there is a strong possibility this was a loan for the filming of a documentary. Bob H had the funds, and we know a meeting of some kind took place between Roger and Bob H.

Kitakaze has asked a good question.

Also, does anyvbody want to take a swing at how Roger and Bob had enough money for three weeks in the woods and for chartering a plane to deliver the film? In one of Gimlin's versions, he took time off of work, but in another he was between jobs at the time so he could have time to be in NorCal for three entire weeks. Al DeAtley said no way he was funding any expeditions by Roger before the film. Where did Roger and Bob get the bread to do this?

We already know Roger went to Vilma Radford for a loan. We know this because Vilma had a contract drawn up. It wouldnt shock me, if any agreement between Roger and Bob H was sealed with a handshake. This meeting was also held in private between Roger and Bob H. So, who knows why Roger asked for the money. We also know that Roger asked someone else to help get a meeting with Vilma Radford - so he could try and secure the loan. We know in this situation Roger is now said to have asked Howard H to help get a meeting with Bob H, with Bob Gimlin ultimately securing the meeting. Huh, pretty similar situation...

I have no problem at all thinking Roger may have asked Bob H to be an investor in this documentary. None at all. Roger had already discussed this with other people - Vilma Radford for one, this documentary was not a secret. It also appears someone else is not aware of the events of this situation. According to Kitakaze's post above, Al DeAtley said there was no way he would be funding any expeditions prior to the film. So, where did this money come from? The only person we know was approached for a loan - was Vilma Radford, but we also have Bob H jumping up and down about $1,000.00.

Question I have is this. Would Bob H be more likely to tell the world he was stiffed out of an agreement by Roger, or attempt to get his money by not just saying he was owed money but to try and get an even larger return on his investment by saying - "I was the guy in the suit". It's clear to me Bob H was not the man in the suit. Why? His story keeps changing and the important details he has gotten wrong. When these errors are pointed out, he changes his story and attributes the mistake to years...

Then, we have this. An interview Bob H gave to a Seattle Washington Television Show:

Reporter: Do you think your entitled to be paid something?

Bob H: (shrugs his shoulders)It’s my turn, lets put it that way. Since I was never even recognized, at all, by anybody. Maybe, you know, maybe I’ll get my thousand dollars back. Who knows.

Bolding mine.

The word "back" says to me Bob H was expecting to have money re-paid, not recieve payment for services he performed. I have never heard anyone (waiting for a paycheck) say (for example) "I worked 40 hours for you, I want my money back." "I roofed your house, I want my money back." No, when you perform services the request is, "I worked 40 hours for you, I want to be paid." Using the word "back" implies you gave something of value, more than your time, and you expect to see a return of what you gave. You can not recieve back the time you put in at work, which is why you are paid for that time. You pay "back" a loan, you are "paid" or another popular phrase is "I want my money" for work performed. I find it interesting that Bob H supporters would have a problem with the use of my summation in this regard when we have this:

The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot. No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it

So, it is apparently okay to analyze the use of each word when it comes to supporting the unsubstanciated claims of Bob H, yet no one else.

Interesting way to make a case.

According to Greg Long and Kitakaze, it was already known around Yakima that Roger wasnt the best at repaying his loans. Would Bob H have been willing to come forward and add his name to the list of those who have already said they loaned Roger money, and never seen a dime? Or, did Bob H, who was known (and admitted) to sit at the local tavern with his brothers, telling lies and making up stories, have decided it would look better for him to not admit he loaned Patterson money, but to say he was in the suit. Saying he was in the suit would be far more profitable if he could prove it, by this time (2004) he knew he would never recover money owed to him because of a loan made to Patterson.

Only there has been a big snag in that - Bob H cant seem to tell the same story, and gets important details wrong. So, now he is in the position of defending himself, and still not making a dime.

Also, something worthy of consideration. If you were willing to pay someone money for a job - would you feel you needed to go through others to make the offer, or would you simply make the offer? If someone is looking for financial backing - then they might want to feel out the idea with others who know the person. If I was willing to pay someone $1,000.00 even today, I would just ask them. Why include others? Now, if I wanted to ask for a loan, I might ask those who know the person, "what do you think they might say?" Before I had the door slammed in my face.

This speculation on my part could very well account for the extra money Roger Patterson had to hire that plane to shuttle the film, and pay for the time spent by Roger and Bob at Bluff Creek.

Seems pretty darn reasonable to me.

Grizzly Bear Cast

2011-01-02T18:33:00.005-05:00

Grizzly Bear Casting
(click on each photo to view)

Some time ago I had the good fortune to take a trip through the Glacier National Park. I, we actually, started in Montana and traveled North into Canada. At St. Mary Lake where there was a campground where we pitched our tent there was also a gift shop that my friend and I decided to take a look through. It was in that gift shop that I found this casting for sale. What really stood out to me was the detail in the casting. Since the gift shop was willing to ship the casting to my home, I was riding a motorcycle and was worried about wear and tear on the casting, I bought it and told them where to send it.

After getting back home and having the chance to look up the fellow who made the casting I found out some more interesting things about this particular casting. The casting was made in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area on the bank of the North Fork of the Sun River in Montana. This fellow lived in Montana and was an avid hiker. He told me that since he did quite a bit of hiking he always hoped to get a clear, detailed cast of a Grizzly track and started carrying a casting compound during his hikes. As a side note, he also told me that his mother was an art teacher and that she had concocted the powder that he was carrying from several casting materials and he did not know what casting medium she used or what other additives she might have put into the mix, but she told him that her mix was made specifically to capture details. As we can see her mix worked very well.

The pads or skin of a bear's paw are like the pads of a dog's paw. the skin is more 'granular' if you will, in the way it appears rather than having dermal ridges and large flexion lines, though some flexion lines can be seen in this track.

As we talked he told me that when he found the tracks this particular one was the clearest and most detailed. He also told me that he had some concern about the bear still being nearby as they were obviously fresh tracks. Keeping his eyes and ears open he proceeded to mix and pour his secret formula casting agent into the track in the mud. He was fortunate to not have any problems with the bear that made the tracks and he was happy that he finally found a track that was very crisp and clean, in details that is. He knew that he would have to clean off the mud from his casting when he got back home and hoped that some of the details that he could see in the mud would show up in his cast. He was not disappointed.

You can see scars in the pad of the foot as well as in the toes. The fourth toe, counting left to right, in particular has a scar right in the center of the toe pad which is in the close up. The claw on the center toe shows a distinct wear pattern or chipping of the claw. All of the claws clearly show the concave underside. The overall length of the track is eleven inches including the center claw which is over two and a half inches long from the edge of the toe pad to the tip of the claw. The bear's fur can be seen around the edges of the track and especially behind the large pad.

There is even a flex crease that can be seen below the fourth toe, again left to right, and dimples in the large pad as well as the first toe. Keep in mind that this is a reproduction of the original and it is done with a resin. The original, I was told, showed even more detail than this reproduction. I did not go into detail with the fellow who made the casting as to what his methods for producing reproductions for selling were.

The texture of the mud can be seen all around the track, which has led me to wonder if casting an inch or two around the edges of a track would help in capturing not only any possible hair details but also as a way of being able to measure the overall depth of the track from ground level. The toes of this track are the deepest point in the track, and they measure a full inch deeper than the average surface area of the mud.

While many of the Bigfoot track castings do show a great deal of detail we can only hope that one day a track showing this kind of detail over the whole foot will be found by someone who has some good casting material with them when they find it. I wish this guy had the formula of the material he used, I'd like to have some to compare to common Hydrocal.

Merry Christmas Everyone!!

2010-12-24T08:00:00.001-05:00

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.

And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled down for a long winter's nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

"Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes -- how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself.
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk.
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

My Christmas Wish...

2010-12-21T22:09:00.002-05:00

My Christmas wish for you, my friend
Is not a simple one
For I wish you hope and joy and peace
Days filled with warmth and sun

I wish you love and friendship too
Throughout the coming year
Lots of laughter and happiness
To fill your world with cheer

May you count your blessings, one by one
And when totaled by the lot
May you find all you've been given
To be more than what you sought

May your journeys be short, your burdens light
May your spirit never grow old
May all your clouds have silver linings
And your rainbows pots of gold

I wish this all and so much more
May all your dreams come true
May you have a Merry Christmas friend
And a happy New Year, too ..

~by Ruth Kephart~

New Baby!!

2010-12-20T07:47:00.004-05:00

I am happy to report, Sean Forker, and his wife, Laura, are celebrating the birth of their beautiful baby boy named Rylan. Rylan entered this world and finally greeted his parents last night.

There is one thing in this life I am certain of, life moves forward, and often times with great joy.

"If one feels the need of something grand, something infinite, something that makes one feel aware of God, one need not go far to find it. I think that I see something deeper, more infinite, more eternal than the ocean in the expression of the eyes of a little baby when it wakes in the morning and coos or laughs because it sees the sun shining on its cradle." ~Vincent Van Gogh

Steve "Indy" Pickett

2010-12-15T07:53:00.003-05:00

I must have started this article 20 times, at least.

In life there are moments when you feel as if the wind has been knocked right out of you...

Let me tell you a story.

When I first became involved with this research, back in 2005, I spent a lot of time on the old BFF, where I met Henry May. One day, after a rousing back and forth over the PGF on the BFF, Henry asked me if I wanted to join him and his friends in this yahoo chat. I said, "Sure".

This is how I met the people who have become the majority of my long time friends. Henry May, Sean Forker, Billy Willard, Steve Pickett, Eric Altman and Steve Kulls.. These chats were a nightly event that I had come to look forward to. We would discuss various issues in the research and within the community. Often times (more so than not) Henry would fire up an old "Coast to Coast" show - to settle a dispute and there we would sit till all hours of the night, listening to Coast to Coast, and when the show buffered, Henry - as he beat the tower of his computer with a brush and yelled at it. Which of course was followed by laughter from those of us listening..

This group of friends was a life line for me. What many do not know is I had just moved to Texas from Wisconsin. I had no family in Texas, and while I was in the TBRC, I was new - and just getting to know the people within the organization. These guys welcomed me and treated me like "one of the guys". This circle of friends helped ease the homesick feeling I had, every single day.

Indy was a little more difficult for me to get to know. Have you ever met someone like that? Their difficult to first know, but once you get to know them, you crack that exterior and you discover someone who would give you the shirt off their back? That's Indy. The best people in the world to know, are worth the time it takes to get to know them. I include Indy in that group.

There was no doubt, Indy, was a family man, who filled his heart with love for his wife Robin, and their 6 children. I remember hours of Indy discussing his engagement to Robin. Steve had found a life partner in Robin and his soul mate. I remember how excited he was when he started his Radio Program, and his bigfooting group.

People say you can not form a real friendship or a connection over the Internet.. Those people never met Indy. I finally met Indy and Robin, during the Ohio Conference this past May, and all I can say is, it was one of the best days I have had in the last 5 years.

To Robin and children, you have my deepest, heart felt condolences. Words can not express how deeply saddened I and others are by your loss.

The world needs more people like Steve Pickett.... I ask the entire community to keep Robin and the children in your thoughts, prayers and hearts.

Is this what we have become?

2010-12-13T12:59:00.005-05:00

How often do you disagree with fellow researchers in the field of “Bigfoot Research”? If you disagreed with another researcher – even strongly, would you refer to that person as a “feminine product” that starts with a D and ends in “Bag”?

That’s exactly what Sharon Lee did last night on SquatchDetective. By Sharon’s own admission, she decided to have a few glasses of wine, prior to her appearance and boy, did she put on an appearance. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not listen to this show – I did however receive a full accounting, and what an accounting it was.

First she started out with Tim Fasano.

While I disagree with everything this man says, I would never get on a radio program, or even this blog, and use the words Sharon Lee used to describe this man. Isn’t saying, “I disagree” enough? Have we, the researchers involved in the field of research, decided saying, “I disagree” is not strong enough, that now we need to resort to profanity laced daggers to throw at people?

Have we as a community become that hateful?

Also, at one point in this Sharon discussed how she only likes researchers who display a positive attitude. Huh…. Way to be positive Sharon!! You get big thumbs up. Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Then she had words to say about me. Why? I have no idea. I haven't spoken to Sharon Lee in more than a year. I seen her at the Ohio Conference, but spent no time talking to her. So, I am clueless why she attacked me, more specifically my physical appearance during the filming of MonsterQuest. Well, I am glad, Sharon Lee, knows what’s important to this field of research, that being:

All you women need to make sure you fix your hair, and make sure your makeup is perfect while you are in the field.

When I get into the woods, I am not there to look pretty for Sharon Lee or anyone other than my fiancé, and he is very happy with my physical appearance.

Finally, the point I felt was the defining moment during this interview. Sharon Lee proudly announces: (drum roll) she can have any man who is involved in the field of bigfoot research – she just needs to decide which one to sleep with.

*Blog edited to add in reference to the comments by Sharon above* This is a tamed down version of what Sharon Lee actually said, as I can not publish her actual words - suffice it to say she didnt use the word "sleep with ".. I think we are all on the same page now.

I wish I had the appropriate emoticon for this comment. You know the one with the big bulging eyes..

If this has become acceptable to those who call themselves “bigfoot researchers” – then it’s a sad day, and I am not sure I even want to be involved. I don’t post to this blog much, because, honestly, I am deeply saddened with the way things have become in the past year. People want to talk about bigfoot less and less. Instead they would rather badmouth others and hurl insults.

No, I don’t agree with everything I hear or see in reference to this research, but when did it become okay to be mean, just to be mean? Can’t we find other ways to show disagreement? Is this the direction we are headed, with Sharon lee manning the reigns? God, I hope not.

This afternoon Sharon Lee is sorry. Stating she drank too much wine, and said things she didn’t mean to say. Really? That’s not what she said on Steve Kulls Facebook page this morning:

or just prior to her interview with Steve Kulls. Sharon Lee knew exactly what she was doing. Sharon announced before the show on her Facebook Page, she planned to do it, and it was witnessed by people who called me to tell me. I am sure Sharon Lee was sorry, once the fall out from her rant started becoming clear. For many, it's simply too late.

You decide. What is acceptable to you? Is this the way you want the work you do in the field, viewed by the general public? That I guess is up to you.

I am exhausted.

I am tired of the name calling, the profanity filled hatred being thrown in the direction of people – simply because they have an opinion, I or others, do not agree with. It’s not professional, and it’s not appropriate, especially when you call yourself a “bigfoot researcher” and you want to be viewed as a “figure” within this community. Don’t we all have enough to deal with from outside this community? Isn’t it bad enough we face this kind of hatred from those who do not understand why we do what we do, but to have it within our own community --- what a dark time for us all.

Sharon Lee does not speak for me,

Or, anyone I am associated with and have spoken to today. My phone has been ringing off the hook, and the reaction to how Sharon Lee really feels, has been severe. Many of us today are saddened and sick to our stomachs over the hatred that spilled from her mouth last night. I feel like I owe Tim Fasano an apology, and I never said anything. Someone should apologize to him for the horrible name he was called. I know I was horrified and embarrassed.

Everyone should be.

I do not blame Steve Kulls. I just hope in the future he will screen his guests a whole lot better. Sharon Lee should have known better than to get drunk and do an interview. This is on her, and not Steve Kulls. Sharon, you can respond in any way you see fit, just remember, I didn’t hand you that bottle last night, or force it down your throat. You did this to yourself. You owe EVERYONE an apology for your adolescent behavior. Being drunk does not excuse the hurt you caused last night. I may have strong opinions and yes I voice them – but at least I am not out there calling people filthy names, belittling women based on their physical appearance, or discussing the other things you feel are important, which have nothing to do with actual bigfoot field investigation.

You embarrassed yourself.

The Bigfoot Tavern

2010-11-12T12:37:00.003-05:00

In a little town called Eatonville near Mt. Rainier, Washington is the Bigfoot tavern.

It is a small place with a friendly bunch inside. The bartender is quite attentive and ready to serve up your choice of brew. The most popular choice is called redeye for obvious reasons.

The entertainment is quite simple but very, well, entertaining.

The band is named The Howling Wood Knockers and they describe their music as headbang music.

Dancing is welcomed but the dance floor is rather small. Dancing on the bar is not allowed.

Have you ever been to a dance instruction class where the dance steps are shown on the floor in the form of outlined shoes? Well, you guessed it. The dance floor has various sasquatch dances with large footprints that are numbered.

The Bluff Creek two step – this dance is fashioned after the famous PGF film. The steps are simply numbered 1 for the right foot and 2 for the left foot and oddly enough start at the ordering station at the bar since in the original account the dancer was seen possibly getting a drink. The steps proceed directly toward the dance floor then straight across it and on to the back of the establishment to retreat to the woman’s room. This makes perfect sense as this is the route taken by many a dancer who is surprised by the advances of a wandering cowboy in order to avoid capture.

The Chopaka – another simple dance step with a 1 and a 2 rhythm but much faster than the bluff creek step. In this dance instead of the dancer cutting across the dance floor headed away from the front entrance he or she cuts across the dance floor from side to side making their exit out the side door.

A major part of this dance is for the dancers to have long hair or a wig tied up on top of their head and just before exiting they let their hair down.

Dances With Dogs – is a dance that is done anywhere on the dance floor in a rather stationary position. There are about 50 steps that are repeated until the end of the song that are all close together and occur within a small circle. The dancer flails their arms and legs around as if they are swatting at flies in mid air occasionally holding both hands together as if they are holding something by the throat and then throwing it across the room.

Like any dance floor lights are also a part of the ambiance. The Bigfoot Tavern has gone all out and installed the front grill of a jeep on one wall that borders the dance floor. The headlights in the grill are fully functional but are only used for one dance. At the end of every set the Howling Wood knockers sing their signature song – “Dancing in the Headlights” and the jeep headlights begin to flash. The Bigfoot line dance begins and everyone lines up to take their turn crossing the road that has been brought out to the dance floor and rolled out like a hallway carpet in front of the headlights.

One by one the dancers cross the road doing their own version of the headlight dance. This dance has no set steps, each dancer crosses the road at their own pace taking as many or as few step as they so desire. Some turn to look in the direction of the lights, some ignore them. Some stand in the middle of the road and face directly towards the lights. Everyone adds their own particular flair to the headlight dance and all enjoy their 15 seconds (or so) in the headlights.

If you are ever in Eatonville stop on in at the Bigfoot Tavern, it is indeed a quaint place but you will find that I have embellished my description a little bit.

Trouble in Florida?

2010-11-01T12:05:00.003-04:00

I have thought about this comment, sent into my blog since Saturday (when it actually arrived).

I have grown weary of "Anonymous" posters, so I take very little of what they say seriously. But, this one piqued my curosity. Here is the comment:

"My name is Mike I'm the man Autumn wrote about in her book Enoch. And I can say its not a true story. Everything in the book that I said was made up by me. I never spent hundreds of hours on the phone with her. We talked but it was nowhere near two hundred or more. I have the phone bills to prove it. I was never tossed in the creek for poking him with a stick. Last Thanksgiving I was not on the river getting my butt kicked by a skunk ape. I was in Port Orange Florida building a boat. The book should have been published as fiction. Because that's what it is fiction at least my part is. I got nothing from this book not one penny. I did get called names and ripped apart online. The e-mails were made up to go with the story line. I'm not happy about this book it should have never been published as non fiction."

Question I have is this. If this is "Mike", and he is so unhappy, then why did he call Autumn during the Oregon Symposium, during her speech to answer questions from the audience? Why is he just now coming forward with this information? Did he just now read the book? Just how much of the book Enoch are you claiming is fiction, Mike?

These just a couple of questions I have, and would give "Mike" all the time necessary to explain why now. You did come to me (If this is "Mike") and as such I think a full explanation is in order. I also think Autumn is entitled to have her say as well, so if Autumn would like to respond, I would be happy to listen to her side as well.

I would have emailed you personally, Mike, but you did not leave me an email address.

If you are reading this Mike, you can email me at searchforbigfoot@gmail.com

What's Your Goal?

2010-10-25T10:30:00.002-04:00

Are you a self-described “Bigfoot researcher?” Do you spend an overly abundant amount of time in the woods looking for an upright bipedal ape? Do you spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars on field equipment and technology to aid in your search? Do you freeze your butt off in the winter, and sweat half your body weight in the summer?

If you answered a resounding, “Yes,” to any of those questions, then I have a question for you.

What will you do if you find it?

Lord knows I have written a number of articles on this issue. Why? Well, it’s a question worth exploring. It’s a question I ask myself, all the time.

To document or to hide.. Which do you choose?

1. I have always come down on the side of documentation, as being the end goal. Why? Because I feel it’s important that every animal on this planet be recognized, and allow that recognition to lead to protection. Over the years, however, I have seen and heard first hand, what documentation and discovery has done for some animals we know about. So, is my goal the best one? I doubt that a little more every day.

2. Then we have the side of, “document for my own personal knowledge.” I think that’s great, but what is the goal here? Find the animal so you know it’s out there? Well, if you’re a Bigfoot researcher, didn’t you already think it was possible? Heck, I know researchers who would stand up in a court of law and proudly proclaim they have in fact seen a Bigfoot, so they already state they know the animal is out there. Personal knowledge should be established.

Is it possible to document the animals existence, and not jeopardize it? I think that is a possibility. But, there are many who would do whatever is possible to stand in the way of this. “You need a body!!” People yell loudly. I guess, from a scientific perspective, yeah that may be true, but why is it necessary? Wildlife Biologists dart, tag and collect samples of wild animals all the time. Yes, I know the problem with this idea is in the illusive nature of this animal, but are we so limited now in our thinking (as humans) we can not find a better way? Is killing really our only option?

What do you think?

UPDATE - The Grey Area

2010-10-08T12:06:00.004-04:00

UPDATED information for "The Grey Area", October 20th 2010.

The Grey Area will be scheduled for 2 hours on October 20, 2010. Our first hour will be dedicated to Pete Bethune (as discussed in the article below). Our second hour will be discussing the issues surrounding Whaling and the IWC with ACS Executive Director Cheryl M. McCormick.

Cheryl is the Executive Director for the American Cetacean Society, where she is responsible for developing and managing education, research, and conservation programs aimed at protecting whales, dolphins, porpoises, and the habitats upon which they depend. In this capacity, she is involved in international policies governing commercial whaling, regional maritime policy development to reduce whales/vessel interactions within shipping lanes, and working with national and international NGO’s to address cetacean welfare, and the interaction between anthropogenic influences and environmental dynamics on cetacean conservation and population viability.

This will be 2 hours packed with the most recent information, about the issue of Whaling, and those involved with the International Whaling Commission. Boy, now there is an organization every person on this earth should know about, and be watching very closely. Why? Well, tune in and find out.

This is an issue we should all understand!!!

The Grey Area

Whale Wars ~ Pete Bethune, Captain of the Ady Gil

2010-10-06T07:42:00.014-04:00

Join Monica and Melissa, October 20th, as we talk to Pete Bethune, Captain of the Ady Gil.

Thousands watched during last years season of Animal Planets hit television show "Whale Wars" as Captain Pete Bethune's boat,"The Ady Gil" was rammed by a Japanese fishing vessel, The Shonan Maru II, sinking the Ady Gil to the bottom of the frigid waters of the Antartic.

After you check to be certain no one is hurt, and you watch helplessly as your multi-million dollar boat sinks to the bottom of the ocean, what do you do next?

Make plans to board the ship, that sunk yours!!!

That is exactly what Pete Bethune did. He was promptly arrested by the Shonen Maru II Security, and taken to Japan, where he sat in a maximum security Japanese prison for 5 months.

I must be honest and tell you all, I watched this specific episode, and was stunned to see the Japanese protesters more upset that their supply of whale meat is being affected (FYI Whaling in the antartic waters for anything other than scientific purposes is Illegal) than they were about Mr. Bethune boarding a Japanese Fishing vessel - which is what he was charged for. So, I had to ask myself, is this really about scientific research, or a loop hole to kill whales (for human consumption) as is claimed by the Sea Shepard crew?

Listen to Mr. Bethune tell his story, and decide for yourself.

Tune into "The Grey Area", there are always two sides to every story - and this is an important issue.

Roger Knights - Pure Genius!!!

2010-09-24T19:45:00.002-04:00

It has been a very long time since I have read anything posted, anywhere, written by Roger Knights. Mr. Knights has spent more time looking into the Patterson Gimlin Film, than anyone I have ever seen post on a message board.

Today a member of my message board (SearchforBigfoot.org) by the name of "justwondering" posted this detailed list of problems with Bob Heronimus's story. I had almost forgot about this very involved detailing of the many mistakes made by Bob H.

I am posting "A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005 by Roger Knights." You will not be dissapointed.

Thank you Roger for creating this list!! Pure Genius.

******************************************************************

A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005

By Roger Knights

HOWEVER ....: Here are 26 Reasons Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn't Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film).

A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt (pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It had no torso part or top like Patterson's (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten.

And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.

B. BH implied he possessed a suit for only two days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.

But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead--I think as a distraction--fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)

In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside.

Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him that that's what he wore when he and P&G went down and did "our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask--or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And BH stated in May 2005 on TV that "I didn't tell them what it was." when he displayed his suit on his return. I.e., he purposely did NOT indicate its role.

And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said that BH told him he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile, although he had the suit and he showed him, because "there was still supposed to be payola" that he hadn't received. The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit immediately after returning from Bluff Creek.

There might have been a way Long could have "explained" BH's possession of a second (yeah, right) suit. But BH's implicit attempt to conceal its existence from readers can't be explained away. It's very damaging to his credibility. The most likely explanation for such evasiveness is to conceal that he was a long-time car-trunk ape-suit show-off (i.e., he had perhaps been claiming to pals to have hoaxed pre-Patterson local-area Bigfoot sightings (p. 232)), and that his mom's car-trunk ape-suit sighting fell in that category.

C. BH's descriptions (pp. 366-67) of Bluff Creek's locale are incorrect, especially the distance he traveled up the last road, as J. Green noted. (BH said four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.)

D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera in hand at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson sitting on horseback and shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images.) But analysis of the film (pp. 375-76) proves that Patterson did run forward, because the creature is larger (i.e., closer) in later frames.

E. BH stated in an interview, and indicated in the book (p. 349), that he walked across Bluff Creek, implying it was dry at the time. But John Green asked knowledgeable gov't. officials if Bluff Creek ever runs dry, and they said No. And even if it had, climbing its two-foot embankment would have been awkward in a suit. It wouldn't have been part of a hoax--especially if its filming was too jerky to make sense to viewers.

F. BH gave three details of Patterson's behavior during their Bluff Creek expedition that would have been reasonable if the shooting had occurred the day before the announcement of the filming to the press. These were (p. 350): lending BH the suit to take to Yakima, giving BH the film to mail to DeAtley, and saying he was going back to make tracks that night or the next day.

However, 23 & 70 pages later (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21), BH and Long claimed that the filming took place in September, perhaps in early Sept. But in September none of Patterson's three behaviors would make any sense. There would have been no need for concealment of the suit, nor for speedy delivery of the film, nor for premature track-creation (which could have degraded or been discovered in the interim), if no announcement to the press was imminent.

Despite his awareness of this fact, Long absurdly stated (p. 350) that they [P&G] didn't want to be caught with the costume, which is why they handed it over to BH for transport. He was apparently relying on readers not rereading the book and noticing the contradiction.

G. Another irrationality would have been for Patterson to remove the suit from its sack (p. 350) before giving it to BH to take back to Yakima. Why expose it to tumbling and dirtying, and possible visibility to bystanders when Patterson reclaimed it, or if BH's mom happened to open the trunk? (But BH needed this absurd detail, and one below (H), to enable "discovery" by his mom.)

H. Another irrationality is for Patterson to have told BH to leave the suit in his mom's car for him to retrieve when he returned BH's horse, for convenience's sake (p. 355). But it would have been more convenient and safer for Patterson not to have had to retrieve it at all, but for BH to have dropped it off at Gimlin's, whose house was right off the Interstate's exit (on Rudkin Rd.), which BH would have driven past on the way to his mom's and the Idle Hour bar. P&G had to stop there first anyway, to feed, water, and stable their horses.

Other possible drop-off locations were BH's own place then (on Hackett Rd., just a block off S. Wiley Rd. that led to the Idle Hour), or at Gimlin's parents' then (just a bit off Ahtanum Rd., on the way to and from the Idle Hour). Or in a storage locker at a bus or train terminal. If Patterson was so worried about some outsider seeing the suit that he let it out of his hands, surely he would have preferred such methods for their greater security.

Further, on p. 363, it was pointed out that one of BH's mom's routines was to place apple boxes in the trunk to hold the apples she frequently bought at a local fruit stand. (I suspect that she normally did this on a Saturday.) So how come BH, knowing that, failed to anticipate and protect against the possibility that she'd discover the suit, ruining everything? (I suspect he DID anticipate precisely that.)

I. It would have been irrational for Patterson to tell BH to mail the film, since BH was heading up to Yakima anyway and could drop it off at DeAtley's himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to DeAtley was that he intended to remain in Bluff Creek hoping to catch another sight of the creature-a plan that was abandoned after heavy rains forced him to leave. That makes no sense in BH's scenario: since Patterson knew the creature was a phony, and since the filming was in Sept., he wouldn't have hung around longer than the day it took to make the tracks-certainly no one would credit him with sincerity for doing so. So there'd have been no reason for him to hand the film over to BH. BH apparently didn't think things through and realize this, and instead just figured that since Patterson shipped the film to Yakima, it would make sense for him to claim so too.)

J. What did BH do with the postal receipt? (Patterson would have required such a valuable package to be insured and shipped by registered mail.) A receipt would have included the date, the sending location, and the addressee-powerful stuff. He can't say he discarded it, since Patterson would have told him to keep it until he heard from Patterson the package had been received in good condition. And he wouldn't have discarded it after that point, since he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17, 2005) story, he displayed the suit to acquaintances at a tavern upon his return for precisely this purpose. And he can't say he gave it to Patterson either, for one of three reasons:

* He implies he never encountered him again (p. 361). Or, if he actually did encounter Patterson:
* It would be implausible for him to have meekly coughed it up, since Patterson's request would have been the perfect opportunity to tell Patterson that he'd hand it over after he got paid. Or, if he lacked the nerve to say that (unlikely):
* He could easily claimed to have discarded it, or at least to have left it at home. (Whereupon he could have made a photo or photocopy before transferring it.)

K. P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting. It's made unlikelier still by the bright-red foliage-colors in the PG film, which typically don't occur there until October in that intensity, and hence couldn't have been filmed in September, as Long claims (p. 421). Another objection to a September date, as pointed out by John Green, was BH's statement (p. 349), that it was October and they had hunters out there. Another objection is that Dahinden's analysis of the light and shadow patterns in the film indicated a late-October date.

L. BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have done if he had had a valid claim. He had lost three days off from work, 20 hours on the road, travel expenses, a scratch on his mom's car, etc. And he'd been disrespected. So he wouldn't have taken non-payment lying down. And he wasn't a business entity like the phone company who would have turned the matter over to a collection agency. In a realistic scenario, BH (backed if necessary by his three brothers) would have become his own collection agency. BH said on p. 351 that he tried to run into Roger and Bob a couple of times. But a letter to Patterson putting him on notice that'd he'd go to the press would have done the trick.

And BH never appealed to one of Patterson's four siblings, or his spouse, for assistance in reaching Patterson or in making him see reason and avoid the embarrassment to his family that would ensue from a hoax-exposure. This was an obvious point of leverage-and a postcard would have worked. Their addresses were in the phone book, and BH was well acquainted with Patterson's wife, Patty, whom he'd been friendly with since childhood (p. 344).

M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt. (As Igor Bourtsev has pointed out, it would have been absurd for Patterson to have put his whole gravy train and reputation at risk by not paying a relative pittance for BH's silence.)

N. BH unaccountably failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private. Possibly he feared if he did so his friends would then urge him to see a lawyer, and he would lose credibility if he declined. A lawyer would have requested supporting evidence that should then have existed, like his name in the logbook of the motel he stayed at in Eureka (p. 350), or the location of the October 19 film site, or records indicating his absence from work. (All three days were weekdays, according to p. 347.)

O. BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit. That violated his pledge of confidentiality and amounted to voiding his contract. Rational creditors adopt the opposite policy: they are polite but firm, and studiously avoid giving the debtor an excuse to take umbrage. And, given his past soft-spokenness about RP, BH's current indignation over others' making money (pp. 336, 340 & 370) is suspiciously peculiar.

And why did BH continue to pussyfoot even after Roger's death in 1972? Long stated, in a radio interview on the Rense show, that Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise to keep his mouth shut he would get paid. In a talk at the Mill Creek Library on Jan. 27, 2005, Long asserted, "Patricia Patterson continues to sell the rights to the movie ..., she's made hundreds of thousands over the years ...." But BH never contacted Pat Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have once he realized the film was still garnering TV royalties. It might be that he hesitated to confront Roger Patterson, an irrational hothead, but there should have been no inhibition about approaching an old acquaintance like Patty. Surely SHE'd have seen the wisdom of paying a little hush money to protect her revenue stream. Since BH said she observed him rehearsing in her husband's Bigfoot costume (p. 344), he knew she was aware that the film was a hoax and couldn't fob him off with a claim of being unwitting.

Long also stated in the Rense interview, that although BH never stated this, he was sure BH was concerned about legal ramifications. But there would have been no ramifications in merely contacting Patty, or in hiring a lawyer to do so, because that wouldn't have involved a public revelation. Telling his story to a lawyer wouldn't have voided his confidentiality agreement, because Patterson's non-payment had already voided it. (And there was no need to accuse DeAtley of being in on the hoax-his involvement could easily have been skirted.) Anyway, he had nothing to lose; a spontaneous payout was obviously a forlorn hope after 1975, say. And the possible legal ramifications of going public then would have been less than doing so today, because he'd have been able to back up his claim with records that have now been destroyed, like his work-attendance records and his signature in the logbook of the Eureka motel.

P. In Long's book (pp. 370-71) BH had denied telling his buddies at the Idle Hour about the suit. However, on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 8 pm EDT, he appeared on the PAX cable network show Lie Detector (the quote below is not from the book) and changed his story. He stated the following on TV:

Bob: "The next day I drove home, and uh, I went to the local watering hole where all us guys hung out. And ... uh, I lifted the trunk up and said, uh, take a look at this. I didn't tell them what it was ... I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like. Well, TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, OUT CAME THE MOVIE, you know, on the television, the film. They said, ah ha! That's what you were doing, you know. They brought my horse back the next day, I think it was, and uh, they just took the suit out of the car, and that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit."

Interviewer: "Why did you show the suit to those guys?"

Bob: "Because I wanted them to know, you know, when they found out what it was that I wasn't lying ... that I really did do this."

It's suspicious when a claimant changes his story from one that makes him look innocent to one that admits of some guiltiness only when new evidence is brought forward. That's what's happened here. BH has now admitted he violated his confidentiality agreement, and has done so only because critics have harped on the many witnesses who'd observed BH displaying his suit. (Most notably, Michael Dennett's review in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Skeptical Inquirer.) The suspicion is that a claimant who was willing to fib to cover up a little guiltiness might still be doing so.

It's also suspicious that he seems to be preparing the ground to claim that he later purchased a second Bigfoot suit, with his on-TV words, "that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit." This is another revision he has made only when faced by new evidence (a witness to whom he showed an ape-suit in 1968); and it's another revision that reveals his initial version as a self-aggrandizing fib. (I.e., he claimed to Hammermeister (p. 397) that the suit he showed him was the real one used in the film.) Again, the suspicion arises that the claimant may be fibbing as much as he can get away with.

And it's suspicious that he said (on TV, not in the book) that the buddies to whom he'd shown the suit saw the film of Queen Kong on TV news: "TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OUT CAME THE MOVIE." This contradicts the September-filming / October-announcement version he gave in the book (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21) and implies the hoax-filming occurred in October.

Q. It's suspicious that BH was evasive with Long (pp. 370-71) when originally pressed about visiting the Idle Hour upon his return and discussing or displaying the suit. BH avoided specifically denying or confirming going to the Idle Hour, or showing the suit off, although that would have been the natural way to answer to Long's probes. Instead, he was deliberately non-responsive (e.g., changing the subject to whether he drank beer there or was a drunkard), thereby leaving wiggle room to later recollect that he HAD done so. It was a carefully crafted (lawyerly?) response.

R. PF, BH's roommate from 1967 through 1970 (p. 370), told me in June 2004 that he'd heard nothing about any Bigfoot suit or film hoax. His being ignorant fitted in with BH's initial version, under which he disremembered displaying a suit and minimized his talking about it. But roommate PF's ignorance is implausible under BH's new I-confided-in-my-buddies-to-obtain-witnesses version. It's more likely that PF knew what really went on, but was answering me in accordance with the code of the Woosters: Don't Let Down a Pal.

S. It's suspicious that, given that BH said on TV he wanted proof "that I'd really done this":

* He apparently didn't give his buddies more than a guarded peek at a nondescript pile of fur in the back of his trunk. That could have been a Halloween-grade ape-suit (and probably was). If he'd really had the goods, he'd have showed off any the Patterson suit's half-dozen unique features. E.g., breasts, for a start, or a glass eye. And this despite saying that he was trying to get them to notice salient details: "I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like." (Statement on the TV show in 5/05.)
* He didn't take a photo of the suit. He could have bought or borrowed a camera easily, and it would have provided evidence ten times stronger than saying that three of his drinking buddies saw a pile of fur in the back of his trunk. Such a photo could have been sent to Patterson, or to his relatives or associates. The camera doesn't lie, whereas three drinking buddies might stretch a point for a pal. The power of a photo was well known to anyone who'd read a newspaper, or a paperback, or seen a movie.
* He didn't call the motel he'd stayed at and asked them to save the logbook-page he'd signed, and/or send him a photocopy.

T. BH took his lie detector test (pp. 210 & 356) under his own control, which meant he could have suppressed an unfavorable result. The consensus among experts is that such a non-threatening test-environment reduces the subject's anxiety, making it easier for him to pass. And his control may have meant that he knew the questions in advance, which also helps reduce stress.

U. Long stated, in a videotaped speech on March 27, 2004, that there was a strike in progress at BH's employer (the Boise Cascade plywood plant) when BH participated in the filming. Telling Long this might have seemed like a good idea to BH at the time, because it would have partially explained why he participated in Patterson's project without demanding a down payment, and why he failed to aggressively pursue collection of his debt: he was at loose ends and had nothing to lose by spending three weekdays in California. However, I have learned from a WCIW union official who was there at the time, HP, that there was no strike (except perhaps for a few one-day wildcat walkouts) at that facility in 1967-the most recent strike was in the summer of 1966. BH's false claim could not have been due merely to faulty recollection of a long-past event, because if he had lost money from absenting himself from work (he was paid by the hour), his indignation at that fact would have imprinted itself in his memory.

V. Long published only two details (pp. 363-65) of BH's relatives' suit-descriptions (a dark face and a stench), these being attributes that support BH's description of Patterson's suit. Long would surely have questioned them on all other features of the suit, and printed other supporting details they mentioned. (E.g., a helmet, a glass eye, shoulder pads, a zipper, rubber waders in the legs, latex chest-piece, breasts, etc.) The fact that he didn't is therefore significant. I.e., it suggests those details contradicted BH's tale. (This brings to mind the dog that failed to bark--& thereby spoke volumes.) I suspect the details they recalled match those of the suit GR saw. (These two relatives had hours of unfettered access to the suit while Heironimus slept, and one donned its head.) Incidentally, BH's mom described the suit as "black" (p. 363), at variance with Morris's emphatically non-black "brown" suit (p. 449).

W. In the Jan. 2005 National Geographic special on Bigfoot, BH didn't match Queen Kong's perambulatory style. BH's re-creation failed in two key features: his knee bent only to an angle of 70°, not to QK's 90°, and the sole of his foot was never vertical before its toes left the ground (Bill Miller has mentioned this first), again unlike QK's. (Cf. C. Murphy's book Meet the Sasquatch, p. 52, frames 72 & 310.) It's not easy to incorporate these effects while also walking with QK's compliant gait. If you try, all you'll achieve is a Silly Walk, not a QK re-creation. Your speed and smoothness will be noticeably reduced. But QK walks with the fluidity of a cat.

X. BH's body proportions don't match Queen Kong. E.g., his torso depth, thighs, and shoulder breadth are much slimmer, and yet BH claimed in an interview that no torso padding was used. More important, his torso and arms are proportionately significantly shorter than QK's, and his legs are longer. His intermembral index (ratio of arm length to leg length) is about .70 (human-like); QK's is about .85. And, as John Green has pointed out, no arm extenders were worn, because QK's sharp elbow-bend reveals that her forearm is not disproportionately long.

Y. Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?

Z. BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris's gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, "Harry" has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films. (And the photo on p. 460 of the Morris suit looks like a fright-wig: a comical Abbot-and-Costello affair.)

Conclusion: To swallow Heironimus's story, one must WANT to believe it. Desperately. The rest of us are well justified in being unpersuaded, or even derisive. BH-believers should also reflect on the evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:

* Quotes by Patterson or Gimlin even hinting at a Bluff Creek hoax.
* An indication by DeAtley of a specific reason for suspecting a hoax. (His mere belief that Bigfoot can't exist, so it had to be a hoax is insufficient. Indeed, DeAtley's inability to back up that disbelief, despite his close acquaintance with P&G and the film's production, actually argues for the film's authenticity. Long argued that if DeAtley provided specific reasons he would be "risking his reputation" with such a confession (p. 188). But that's silly; he's "confessed" already. As far as the community is concerned, that's what's important-the details are trivial
* A photo (or non-BH testimony) of Patterson (or Gimlin or DeAtley) with a Patty-like suit.
* A zipper pull (or equivalent) in the film-not just seeing Martian canals in the form of ambiguous dark areas at the waist (pp. 378 & 383) and spine (pp. 451-52).
* Indications that the Bluff Creek footprints were mold-made.

Long has objected that his critics haven't disproven the witnesses' testimony about Patterson's character. He's established that Patterson was:

* An occasional moocher and outrageous deadbeat (a person who dishonors his debts), sometimes in a nasty way, as with Vilma Radford.
* A possible sometime-hoaxer of footprints and (maybe) sightings--if one believes Harvey Anderson implicitly, which I don't. (But, even on the evidence selected for inclusion by Long, he was also a sometimes-sincere seeker of prints (p. 120) and sightings. And, after 1967, he spent money searching for hominids in Thailand, and bid on the purported Bossburg Bigfoot body.)
* A would-be hoaxer of an ape-suit film in 1961 (again, according to Anderson). (But, after viewing that effort in private, he never went public with any ape-photo hoaxes, most likely from having come to realize how phony such a re-creation looks. That is a bitter experience that pooh-poohing debunkers lack--but will acquire when BH's costumed, in-motion recreation is broadcast.) (PS from 2007: Guess what, it has been withheld from even DVD distribution, presumably because it's embarrassingly bad, according to a neutral witness of the attempt from National Geographic.)

But again, there is evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:

* Testimony indicating that Roger was insincere in his belief in Bigfoot.
* Evidence that Patterson ever promoted a phony ape-suit photo or film as authentic.
* Evidence that Patterson promoted knowingly fraudulent products or projects for money--i.e., scams. Only people who do that are, strictly speaking, con-men. (Trying to sell Bigfoot to Yakima residents, whose attitudes on the big boy ranged from the dubious to the derisive, was an unpromising game-one a true con-man would have avoided. As Charles Mackay wrote back in the 1850s (out of copyright!), "The man who would cheat the people, must needs found his operations upon some prejudice or belief that already exists.")
* Evidence that Patterson's dishonesty was of the mortal-sin, proactive, meat-eating variety, rather than of the venial-sin, opportunistic, grass-eating type (e.g., one-time insurance fraud). Long inaccurately implied he was type-1 (a career criminal), calling him a con-man, etc.

In addition there is evidence (and there would be more in a book less partisan than Long's) that points to Patterson's sincerity and good traits. For sincerity, see pages 46, 49, 88-89, 91-94, 96, 116-18, 129, 131-32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269-70, 272 & 397. For other good traits, see pages 72, 113, 116, 122, 128-29, 205-06, 228 & 270.

Finally, it's absurd to believe, as Long does, that it is enough to discredit Patterson to disprove the film. He indicated that Patterson and the film are so closely joined that to destroy Patterson's credibility and the film dies, and, that when it comes to the truthfulness of a fantastic story "all other things being equal," the credibility of the story-teller is crucial (p. 430).

But other things are not equal: there was another witness, of excellent character (Gimlin), who has resisted strong provocations by Patterson to expose him; and there is more than a story, there is evidence: the film and the tracks. So readers should not follow Long's specious reasoning. Proving that Patterson was--sometimes--a dodgy dude is not nearly enough, unless one really WANTS to believe Heironimus.

When internet posts become dangerous.

2010-09-18T09:13:00.005-04:00

Yesterday, after being confronted on the JREF, Kitakaze admits he is has not gone to the police, and now says, "What I am trying to prevent is being stalked."

So, which is it?

He then says this:

What do you mean, "Which is it?" There is only one. I am trying to prevent being stalked. It is happening at its worst by people calling my work looking for my personal contact information. I have recorded the worst stuff on the Internet and made sure that such calls are dealt with properly in the future. I have no specific threat, and everyone I have spoken with personally on the matter has said that the time to involve the police is when an actual threat is made.

So we have gone from specific "I am being stalked," that made Kitakaze fear for his child's safety, to no personal threats made, or evidence Kitakaze IS being "stalked." Kitakaze can't even prove his alleged stalker isn't a crazed fan of his (he is a musician/DJ, you know). So, what proof did he have, when he named me for this "stalking" on the JREF? Apparently none. He just threw it out there, disregarding my right to have these kind of accusations against me - be proven.

What I find funny about all this is,Kitakaze, has used the real names of people (first and last), within this community of bigfooters - on the JREF and other websites, even though their real names have never been used on the JREF before. Kitakaze has outed at least 4 people, on the JREF - and he told them he could because, "They are public figures." He has also been discussing me and my personal life (none of which he has ever asked me about, or is even true) on the JREF for over a year now, and he complains about his "privacy" being violated?

Huh, well guess who else is a public figure, Joshua!! That's right, YOU are. You always have been, as you have had your name out on the internet (for all to read) as you sold your talent on Myspace and Facebook.

You did this to yourself. I would be happy to never type your name, as you do nothing to further this 'bigfoot conversation" one way or the other.

This whole situation is sad. Sad in the respect that there are people who ARE stalked every day in this crazy world we call "the Internet" and in real life. Kitakaze, is taking a very serious situation and turning it into something that he can toss around at will, when he loses a debate.

Kitakaze and his word, have now become something worthy of serious questioning. I know I will never take anything he says at face value, and neither should you. Why should we, when he tells blatant lies and does so to the detriment of others. He also does this with complete and total disregard for the personal safety of others.

How do I know some crazy person wont read his lies, and come after me, thinking they are trying to save kitakaze and his son? That is the fear I expressed to the authorities.

Kitakaze is playing a dangerous game, and people can be hurt by these types of lies. He had better pray nothing happens to me anytime soon.

Now for a bit of honesty. If you really thought this was about stalking - you need to read his posts again. Kitakaze was busted in a lie, accusing Roger Patterson of being convicted of Grand Larceny and Embezzlement - neither charge by Kitakaze was true, and that was proven by me. Instead of Kitakaze doing the right thing, and acknowledging he has made a mistake - he immediately went on the defensive and started throwing around accusations of "Internet stalking."

Kitakaze makes mistakes all the time, and never has the steel to admit it. Instead he goes on these little tirades and screams that he is being mistreated. If you listen to him, and feel sorry for him - I do not feel sorry for you.

Look, if someone is being "stalked" or "harassed" whether it be the Internet or in real life, it is a serious situation and not something to be thrown around at will. Which is exactly why I took the steps I took. This is not a game to me, as such I did what was right and appropriate. You should always take the necessary steps to protect yourself. Don't follow kitakaze's example.

Kitakaze has now decided to turn his focus off me, and start accusing others, by demanding privileged information from my Administrative Staff at the SFB.

Easy, John. I want to protect everything close to me. You are admin of that forum. That BlackScope person is clearly stalking. As a forum admin, I ask you to give me her/his IP address so I can give it to the police here. This has gone way overboard. Will you cooperate?

So, now Kitakaze is asking people to break the law for him? Ain't gonna happen.

IP addresses are private and protected pieces of information, and can only be given out, when/IF I am served a warrant, or if law enforcement delivers a warrant to my hosting company. None of which has happened.

You are burying yourself in a deep hole of trouble Joshua - you are not entitled to any information that is not public. FYI Kitakaze, why would you need an IP address to file a report? No one over the last week asked me for your IP address (and I do have it, duh), and I was still allowed to file a report. Your full name was sufficient, as one of the law enforcement officials was able to find you by simply googling "djKitakaze" as I told him to. So, when you tell members of my staff, you need an IP to file a report - that is another lie.

Oh, and Apology - Kitakaze's biggest defender, you apparently do not know your law. Study up, before you continue to give advice you are not (obviously) qualified to give.

Pay particular attention to the part where it says "Harass or intimidate." I usually stay out of things I am not qualified to discuss, and Apology, you were nowhere around during my conversations with the authorities so, you do not know what type of reports I HAVE filed. I would mind my own business if I were you.

Who's privacy is Kitakaze trying to invade? Why is it okay for Kitakaze to attempt to collect private information that is not public in any way?

Why is Kitakaze entitled to information, he feels no one should have about him? I do (however) thank you (kitakaze, and the JREF Administrative team)for making all this public. I have downloaded Joshua's most recent thread, with his comments asking my admin to break the law, and invade the privacy of a member of my board.

I also have other various tid bits to pass on as well.

Your lie is over Joshua. You have been busted. Shame on you for taking such a serious issue and trying to get sympathy. Sympathy you do not deserve, because you are a liar and a drama queen. I am just grateful you feel the need to type so much. It makes my life easier, and that of law enforcement.

It does make sense that, Kitakaze, would remain at the JREF making his false accusations, as he can get away with it there, and no one else is allowing him to spread his lies. For that I am grateful. Which (in all honesty) makes the bigfoot sites, more credible than the JREF - who says they offer "critical thinking".. LOL.

Wow, what a whopper of a lie that is. They sure do use the words, "critical thinking," but when you take a deeper look, there is really very little actual thinking involved. Especially in this situation - it's blind faith that their little buddy, Kitakaze, is telling them the truth, even though he now admits, he was not being honest. Joke is on them. Question is, will they finally do the right thing, and question Kitakaze and his lie, or will the JREF'ers that defend Kitakaze, finally tell him they are tired of his lies and games.

Crying wolf and making false accusations aganst people for attention, does not make you a credible person, Joshua, think on that a little.

When the word, "farce" was thrown at Kitakaze to describe his allegations, that was a good word. Bravo!!!

Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

2010-09-17T16:15:00.009-04:00

**********************

As of today, I took the final steps of filling a complete report with my local authorities, and now that makes two (2) agencies, Local and Federal that are aware of this situation. Two is always better than one.

I have submitted documents (as was requested) of all the information as well, to include print outs from the JREF, of complete threads and personal conversations sent to me (after requesting Kitakaze have no further contact). Everything I could think of was downloaded and printed out, and turned over.

Making a public accusation of stalking or internet harassment is a serious charge, and if Kitakaze is unwilling to handle this situation, I will take care of it myself. Which is exactly what I did.

I want to thank all those who have been very supportive and understanding during this ordeal over the last week. You have no idea how much it means, to know, there are people out there who care about you as a person, and feel it necessary to step forward and offer support. It's times like this, you KNOW who your friends are, and my group of friends became much larger this week. I appreciate each and every one of you.

I have been the subject of many such type of "internet personalities" over the years. It ENDS now. I will no longer tolerate actions like this from anyone within this community or outside of it. I understand my rights, and I will not sit back and quietly allow someone to make false accusations against me via an anonymous internet name, any longer.

I have been dealing with Kitakaze for well over two years now, and this is the truth he is not discussing. Of course he won't tell you the lengths he has gone to try and find out my location and personal contact information. It has also come to my attention (and made the police officer I spoke with today very interested) he is trying to gain the IP information of members (of the SFB Message board) from the Admin of my board.

That is a violation of privacy. That information is protected under the law. I can’t even give out that information without being served a warrant by Law Enforcement officials.

What makes Kitakaze think he is entitled to information police can't even have without going through the proper channels? He does not need that information in order to file a report (as he claims). Again, another lie he is telling.

To date, Kitakaze has not filed a police report, he has done nothing, that proves to me, nothing of what he says is legit.

Instead he is posting on message boards and trying to get information on me and others on my website. Even though he says he is worried about the safety of his child. If I were being stalked, and frightened as Kitakaze claims to be, child or not, I would be at the police station... IMMEDIATELY.

Wait, I did that.

I am now done with this, and will let the legal machine do its thing.

Again, thank you to all my friends, and the readers of this Blog who offered their support and friendship. Both myself and Wayne appreciate each and every one of you.

When your lies catch up with you,

2010-09-15T12:00:00.005-04:00

Someone is gonna notice.

I just had to post this photo again with this story, as now it has more meaning than ever.

Kitakaze sent a pm yesterday to two moderators of a bigfoot website complaining about me. He took this complaint and posted it to the JREF. I will not post it here, as that is redundant, but there are links in this article with some very INTERESTING proof that Kitakaze is a liar, and he knew he was lieing when he wrote a Personal Message yesterday expecting I would be punished for posting an article about him on this blog.

In this personal message complaint, Kitakaze accuses me of stalking him, and asking bigfooters to stalk him for information. Below you will see a link to my website where I have this personal message posted outlining his grievances against me, and his threat to have police sent to my home - if his information is not removed. (Information being a myspace link posted by a reader of my blog, not me personally).

You can simply follow this LINK and read how Kitakaze was really "outed" in the Bigfoot Community.

If you don't feel like clicking the links, I am supplying them below:

This links shows the top of the archived forum conversation, which is most likely how information on who kitakaze was, got out.

This next image is the post that started the ball rolling.

Now, we have the outing of kitakaze's facebook page.

And finally, we have Kitakaze, who comes along and is so grateful for the attention, he discusses the fact that he has a myspace page.

No where in this thread will you read Kitakaze being upset that his information is now public. Read it for yourself. Does he appear upset, or grateful for the kudos and attention?

It wasnt me.. I didn't even know this information existed until today (Thank you Dr. Onion).

By the way, Kitakaze, if you want to continue spreading rumors, inuendo and outright lies about me, you better make sure they are true - this one, really makes you look like the person you SAY you are not, but many of us know you are.

You did this to yourself, and as such - you only have yourself to blame. Funny how you didnt complain when you were the subject of hugs and kisses, from the very people, on the JREF you say detest. You were taken in by the "publicity" you so desperately crave (and ridicule other for), and you allowed yourself to be "outed publicly." No wonder people have known so much about you - long before I did. Duh. I hadn't even thought about looking on the BFF. I didn't even think you were dumb enough to post your personal info on a bigfoot message board... How dumb.

Get your information right, and you wont be the subject of this blog..

Why should any bigfooter listen to a thing you say, when you make up such slanderous allegations about people? I wouldn't trust you past my front door.

Roger Patterson, an Embezzler??

2010-09-14T08:40:00.005-04:00

That's what Kitakaze said. Then, kinda walked back his comments on a message board, but not really as strongly as he should have. He has been asked to provide the actual documentation to prove his allegations of Embezzlement and Grand Larceny, but has instead chosen to post on the message board where he was asked to do so.. Not post the information which proves his claim, just cutsie little comments, and defending his position.

Here is the truth folks.

Taken from Greg Long's book, page 304. The following image is a photo taken of the bottom of page 304

The following image shows the entire page 304 of Greg Long's book.

This is a letter written by Vilma Radford. Vilma tells Greg Long, she sent this letter to Roger Patterson. These kinds of letters are what is called, "Demand for Payment" letters. They are very common when trying to execute the terms of a contract, or in an attempt to collect a debt (debt collectors). "Demand for payment letters can be written by anyone who is owed money.

Please note in the close up image, at the bottom of the page, Greg Long inserts his own wording:

"Copy of note dated, December 29, 1967, to Roger Patterson from Vilma Radford threatening legal action for breach of contract."

Breach of Contract and Embezzlement are in different leagues all together. A suit for Breach of Contract is not handled in the criminal courts, this is a civil matter. Embezzlement is a criminal matter, and most often you are charged with a felony and sent to prison. There are no "fines" involved with a "Breach of Contract" suit, and Roger Patterson would not even have to show up for such a matter, if he agreed with Vilma that he owed her the money.

If you have a suit brought against you for "Breach of Contract," and you "fail to appear" the judge simply enters what is called a "default judgment" - basically, your failure to appear (in court) and defend yourself against the action means you are saying, "I owe the money." Had Roger Patterson shown up that day, to defend himself against this action, Vilma Radford's attorney fees would have been much higher than what she did end up paying out. The only thing I am curious about at this point is why the judge didn't order a seperate judgment (from the $999.00) for attorney fees.. That is curious to me, as the contract between Vilma and Patterson, calls for Patterson to pay attorney fees.

But, this is not a criminal matter, and it is not correct at all to call this particular case "Embezzlement," as I said two very different ball games entirely.

I also found the arrest warrant for Roger Patterson on charges of "Grand Larceny" on page 168 of Greg Long's book. As far as I am concerned however, this is a non-issue, as it has been said the charges were dropped. There was not even a trial. The only way we will know why the charges were dropped is to get the Court Transcripts, the reason may be in there.

In this country we are, "Innocent until Proven guilty." Whether you like Roger Patterson or not, he is still entitled to his day, the District Attorney in this case, made the decision to drop, therefore Roger Patterson never even seen trial. We can speculate all we want as to, "Why?" But, unless we have the court transcripts, that is all it is. Even if we can get the transcripts and find out why the case was dropped, it STILL does not make Roger Patterson guilty of a Felony. You can think he is a bad person, but your "feelings" do not make it so. We are not the judge and jury of Roger Patterson.

We should be careful when discussing issues such as this, to be certain our comments and accusations are correct. Kitakaze blew it big time on this one, and for his sake I hope Roger Patterson's widow doesn't catch wind of this ... or for that matter, her Attorney.

Just thought I would share this with you. Have a great day everyone.

*Disclaimer: The comments above are not legal advice, and should not be taken as such. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney.*

Kitakaze and his PGF Documentary

2010-09-13T10:40:00.005-04:00

This area of the Searchforbigfoot is open to the public for reading, as always.

Here is the other side of the story, you won't hear from Kitakaze on any forum discussing Bigfoot. Find out what he really thinks of YOU as a bigfoot researcher:

and how that attitude has changed (in public) because he needs your help to film a documentary for the Discovery Channel in Canada.

Kitakaze throws around wild unproven allegations, inuendo, and accuses Roger Patterson of things to include Grand Larceny and Embezzlement. Is any of this true?

Nope.

Yet, he is out there spewing this for the entire world to read. Any attempt to set the record straight - is met with name calling by Kitakaze, in an attempt to shut people up.

Has he discussed the "many stories" given by Bob Heronimus, which change whenever he is confronted with his mistakes? Nope, and I bet Kitkaze won't either.

Read both sides of this issue, and join in the discussion. Find out what his agenda really is, not what he tells you.

Being a public figure is one thing, making gross accusations with nothing to support those allegations is simply WRONG.

So far the information provided simply glosses over the parts Kitakaze does not like, and he focuses on what his "perception" of the truth really is. Most of what he discusses, comes straight from Greg Long's book. Is he working with Greg Long? Even most skeptics agree Greg Long made some huge errors, yet Kitakaze uses this book as a reference, a guide if you will.

There are two sides to every story. I have no dog in the PGF race. But, I can not sit back and idly allow someone to spread lies and gossip, as the truth. It could be your reputation on the line next.

Do you find that acceptable? I sure don't.

The Grey Area Returns Sept 8th with Guest Jim Covel of the Monterey Bay Aquarium!

2010-08-12T08:22:00.004-04:00

We're Back!!! The Grey Area returns Sept 8th at 8 Central/9 Eastern/6 Pacific. For our return we will be interviewing Jim Covel of the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey Bay California.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium has the distinction of being the "worlds only" facility capable of not only keeping a healthy Great White Shark in captivity, but nursing injured Great Whites back to health and releasing them back into the ocean.

Tune in and hear all about their Great White research program which includes the tagging and tracking of these mysterious animal.

When you have knowledge, fear is replaced with understanding and respect.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thegreyarea

As always our phone lines will be open:(646) 929-0652. We ask that you keep your questions to the topic of The Great White Shark, as NO questions about the "usual topic" will be answered.

Tying Up Loose Ends

2010-07-29T11:15:00.003-04:00

Hello everyone.

Yesterday I received the news, Teresa Hall has left the Bigfoot Forums. I was told to go check out a specific thread on the JREF, where she posted the news. So, I did.

Do I think Teresa is really gone?

Nope. Does anyone really leave?

Am I happy to see her leave the community completely?

Nope. Odd isn't it? Maybe it's because I have a cold.. No, I don't think that's it.

I don't know how I feel about Teresa's departure. Maybe, I will figure out how I feel about it, by the time I finish writing this article. This blog often times is a "theraputic" outlet. I type my thoughts, which, at times, start out fuzzy, then become clear. So much about this "community" confuses me. Who should we trust? Who should we talk to? Who is hateful? Who is really extending a hand of friendship? How do you tell the difference?

Teresa posted on the JREF, she wanted me (along with 2 others) to "leave her alone."

How do you make such a statement,

When you are front and center in the trashing of others? Why should anyone cut you any slack, and "leave YOU alone"?

I must admit, when I read her plea to be "left alone," I had a very primal reaction.

Since 2008, Teresa and her merry band of "friends" (far more than 2) have done whatever they could to make my life, hell. I have had some of the nastiest things posted about me, on the Internet, by these people ~ posted as if this information was true.

Teresa went right along with the lies told about me. She said nothing. I wrote specific blogs stating

"If you don't like me, or this blog, or my website, stay away. Leave me alone, and I will leave you alone!"

Did that stop Teresa and her friends? No, they said I was "playing the victim" and looking for "sympathy".

Did they "leave me alone"? Heck no. They didn't even stop to catch their breath.

When YOU know the truth, and YOU do not speak it, YOU are just as guilty for allowing a lie to run rampant. YOU could have spoke the truth, YOU chose not to. When YOU know the truth, and YOU speak the lie yourself ~ YOU are just as guilty.

Teresa and her friends just couldn't back off me. I have had to deal with far more mis~information, written about me, by this group of people, since 2008, than Teresa has ever had to deal with. Some of it she could have stopped, and chose not to. In fact, nothing on this blog posted about Teresa is untrue.

Teresa states she has been dealing with criticism for 3 months. Wow, that is horrible!! Wow, and I thought the more than 2 years of lies being told about me, by you, and your friends, was bad.

Whew,

I feel better now. Yeah, that's sarcasm.

Teresa wants me to "leave her alone?"

I have mixed feelings about Teresa's departure from this community. Why? I will be honest and say, I have no idea why she turned on me in such a vicious way.

For those of you who do not know, I was (I thought) friends with Teresa Hall. All that changed in 2008. It was almost as if she was looking to start a fight with me, on everything from the Administration of the Searchforbigfoot, to the Internet show we hosted together, "Let's Talk Bigfoot". I won't go into the details of those disagreements (unless Teresa wants to dispute my comments) but needless to say ~ it was stupid. Why was it stupid? I have co-hosted 2 shows since then, and while I have disagreed with my co-hosts, during discussions in reference to new guests and show ideas, we all remain friends to this day.

There was no disagreement, Teresa and I, could not have worked out. Teresa chose to turn it into an issue that would end our friendship.

When you call someone "friend" you should be able to disagree, and not let that disagreement interfere with that friendship.

I was warned, "If Teresa leaves the Searchforbigfoot, one by one, all her friends will fall in line, and you will be the target." Those people were right. My god, it was like watching domino's fall. I defended Teresa, against these comments, about her. I actually told these people, "No, she wouldn't do that. We are good friends and we have much in common. Why would she do that?"

I have thought about this since Teresa left the Searchforbigfoot in 2008. Why?

When anyone loses a friend, they want to know, why? Well, unless they are a robot, they would like to know the answer to that question. Even as I sit here today writing this article, I don't think she was honest about her reasons for being so angry with me. If she was honest ~ Wow!

The Teresa I knew, was funny. She had a sense of humor. Teresa, and I, would laugh on the phone for hours. Her and I shared so much in common. I felt like she would be a friend I would have for life. Well, we all know how that panned out.

Some people have said,

This blog should be about Bigfoot, and not the drama surrounding the people. I don't necessarily disagree with those people. But, in my emotional journey with Teresa, I discovered something.

It's easier getting into the woods to find a 9+ foot, upright, bipedal primate, than it is to get to know some of the people involved in this, make friends and keep them.

Why?

It's the lack of trust. I never would have thought, Teresa, would have turned on me the way she did.

That my friends ~ is a warning, a warning everyone should be aware of. When I became friends with Teresa, I was under the impression, if I conducted my research in a way that was anchored in sanity, I would have no problems with the people in this research.

I was wrong,

Instead, once my friendship with Teresa fell apart, I had everything about my life questioned, from my health to my personal relationships, on Internet message boards ran by her friends. Teresa knew and still knows the truth of these situations, yet she has chosen to remain silent. On some of those issues she chose to speak, and when she did, she towed the line of the lie.

Why shouldn't I be upset about that? Anyone with an ounce of feeling would. I used to trust, but now I am very leery. Do you blame me? I don't blame others for feeling the way I do. Once bitten and all.

I don't hate Teresa, or anyone. I am however disappointed. I am disappointed in myself for not listening to people who told me, exactly, how this friendship would end. Yeah, I chose to believe Teresa and had faith in our friendship. Does that make me stupid? No, just someone who once believed, you should treat people the way you want to be treated. At least that is what I was taught by my Dad.

What makes me angry is this,

You should be able to rely on honesty from those who know it. Especially when it's the same people who lecture about truth, and honesty, and call themselves your "friend".

Teresa fell flat on her face, when it came to the "truth." Could she have stopped the lies? Probably not. But, she also never spoke out against it either ~ instead she even opened up the show (Let's Talk Bigfoot) to allow one of these lies to spread, even further.

Now, Teresa wants to be "left alone".

If you play with the emotions of others, Teresa, you don't have the expectation of being "left alone."

You go on and do whatever it is you need to do, Teresa. But, if you return (as I think you will) and allow these lies to continue, I won't "leave you alone". I will extend to you the same "courtesy" you extended to me. You allowed not just myself to be hurt by your need to be "popular", but you allowed my friends, and my family to be hurt (who found some of the hurtful things you said, and allowed on "Let's Talk Bigfoot.")

You say you are "not a force to be reckoned with," as the justification to be "left alone". Funny, I never thought I was either, and it never stopped you. Did I ever tell you I should be treated any special way? Hell no. I did, however, expect that as my one time friend, you would not allow lies, you knew were lies, to be told.

I would never allow lies to be spread about you, Teresa,

Regardless of how badly you have treated me. Still, to this day, I would defend you against a lie. I'm sorry you do not feel it necessary to return the same in kind.

This blog, is my outlet to express what I see right, or wrong, within this field of research and the larger community. I chose to allow my situation to be an example of what will happen to anyone who enters this "Bigfoot Internet community," and they don't keep their guard up.

Heck, I have had people in this community HATE me, because of the lies told. Once they actually took the time to talk to me, and get my side of the story, they are now friends. Yes, I should be upset about that. Wouldn't you be upset if people hated you, and you didn't know why? Then you find out their opinion is based on lies told by former friends?

Am I happy Teresa says she is leaving this community? No. Why, you ask? Because no one should have to feel the hurt, I and others, have had to endure. Some would call it karmic justice. I don't. I see it as something that could have been avoided, and a complete shame. Would it make Teresa "popular" to have told the truth?

Heck no.

But, should we care about our "popularity" when it comes to speaking the truth? Should "popularity" be the determining factor, in whether we decide the truth is important?

Everyone needs to answer that question for themselves.

As for "leaving you alone, Teresa"

I will.

But, you should not expect better treatment, from people, you have treated with complete and total disrespect. I am not celebrating your departure, as you celebrated the horrific things said about me. I will still continue to not allow comments about you that are not true, and I will always ask for proof of things you are accused of.

I wish you all the best, and good luck in the future.

Someday I might even forgive you. However, I will never forget what you did, and did not do.

Which is a shame, because I know at heart, you are a good person, who got caught up in friendships you wanted more. But, I refuse to allow you to blame me, for the drama you find yourself caught up in now. You made the decision, it was a choice you made. You could have picked another path - and did not.

You made that decision, not me. Even now, as I end this article, I am still not sure how I feel about your departure, Teresa. But, I wish you the best.

Which is far more, than you wished me.

Change can be a long process

2010-07-27T09:33:00.004-04:00

I woke up this morning, and stumbled my way to the kitchen to get myself a cup of coffee. I sat on the couch for a little while, talking to Wayne before he went off to work. Once the man of the house was off to work, I decided to check my email.

It was at this time I realized, I had Blog comments waiting to be approved. One particular comment caught my attention.

“Ahh I see Melissa,

Well ya know, BFF was still abusive to people even when Bipto was there. People were still persecuted because they had experiences that didn't fall within the accepted norm. BFF has always crucified people due to their own limited understanding of the world.

I remember when you came on the bigfoot scene too. You were what many would consider part of the in-crowd, and thus you probably didn't even notice it. But there were people being beaten up at BFF all along, you just had your own thing going and could care less. So while you are praising Bipto for changes he 'can' make, you might consider this when holding back contributor comments because they NOW appear too volatile for your shifting position. Just because your personal background may not include the really negative experiences there a few years ago, it doesn't mean that hundreds of others didn't. BFF was just as bad then.

Part of the REAL problem is the paradigm of what the leadership wants/expects bigfoot to be. Partly because they are mostly armchair researchers who have limited experience. Anybody who has theories or experiences that don't fall within this narrow parameter, will always be on the attack from the MOB. That's a big part of the problem that needs to be fixed Mel, or the foundation for abuse will continue. And do you really think change will happen if you don't clean house of some of the screwed up leadership who encourage the bad behavior? So when you start playing nice and withholding posts because you know Bipto personally, well you end up thwarting the real change that's needed, that you advocate.

Little will change Mel unless they deal with the very issues that CAUSE most of the conflict. In management when you target change you can either address the symptoms (which is usually ineffective), or you address the cause and thus the core of the issue. Unfortunately it sounds like you are now influenced by your personal friendship with Bipto, but it was only ONE YEAR AGO that he left, and things were ALWAYS the same at BFF many years before that.

Read your own interview of him to remind yourself how BFF always was:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=926

Just one example of the public perception:
" JohnCartwright, on Aug 22 2008, 06:19 AM, said:
1. Why do they allow personal attacks on witnesses at the BFF?"

Unfortunately in this situation, it will probably be as they say, 'the more things change, the more things stay the same'.

So Mel, just because you know the person in charge, think before you endorse the same old institutional status quo.

I hate the comments section of this Blog. Why? Because very astute comments are missed by the passing readers. My only option is to highlight them, by posting them on the front page.

This comment was posted Anonymously, and the person is correct, I understand exactly why. And, to clear up any confusion, I have not denied any comment to this Blog, on this issue, because even the hateful comments are a good example of what is wrong.

Honest answer, Anonymous, I just didn’t see your comments until this morning. I have refused comments that are filled with profanity (obviously your comments were not). Why? Because I used the word a*s once, spelled exactly that way, and received some angry emails.

My life these days is more about “Life” than bigfoot (whenever possible) Sunday, Wayne and I drove to the banks of Lake Erie for his grandsons 3rd birthday party (that time was actually cut in half, because of an interview I had agreed to months ago). Then yesterday, we went to a friends for a cook out, and did not return home until after ten… I know many think I live, sleep, eat and breath bigfoot. This has never been true. I enjoy the conversations, and I enjoy some of the people, but I enjoy life more, and always have.

Your comment however did get me to thinking. You’re right. But, let me explain something. I am not “defending” Brian Brown. I have been very outspoken on this issue, and as such, now that Brian has stepped up to the plate I feel it only fair to allow him a chance to “clean things up.” I want to see change. What I don’t want to see is Brian become so overwhelmed with the criticism he simply says “Screw you all, I am going to kill the site!” Or, even worse yet, “Screw you all, I am going to leave the site exactly the way it is, so you will really have something to complain about.” This would be unproductive.

But, I would rather the BFF disappear into the vastness of the internet abyss, rather than have it remain the same.

You know, you also brought up something I have discussed in the past. You’re right. I was accepted on the BFF. I was considered part of the “In” crowd. You should ask people (who know me) what I have thought about that, and even said in reference to that issue. I know why I was liked. I have a no nonsense way of discussing issues and expressing my opinion. I don’t beat around the bush, and often tell it like it is. The difference? I can express an alternate point of view, and not be insulting or harassing. There was one situation with a woman, but even today, I would tell her she is full of something very stinky. Not because I disagreed with her opinion, but because her opinion is and was offensive to women, and border lined on pornography.

Did I recognize the issues, on the BFF, I complain about now? You bet, I did. I even took the time to complain, all the way back then. I did as I was asked. I took it to personal message with Administrators. Nothing was done. Often, I never even received a response.

I became unpopular when I started to publicly defend people who were being treated unfairly during open discussions about their past and current work. The same questions asked and answered, over and over, in the very same thread. Every answer, exactly the same. That actually made me giggle.

Ask yourself this question folks:

If you are trying to garner the truth of a statement, do you think the answer will change if you ask the very same question on a message board, giving the person being questioned the opportunity to go back and check their prior answers?

I find this funny, because these are the same people who discuss how you should interview witnesses. If these are the interviewing techniques used for witnesses, we have real problems.

Anyway. I became unpopular, because I chose, long before leaving the BFF, to speak my mind about how people are mistreated in this field. I spoke privately at first, but then quickly realized, as much as the Administrators say they want complaints brought to them via Personal Message, they really don’t, but boy, do they react and react quickly if you voice your anger publicly.

When I first joined the BFF, I was so thrilled to be able to discuss the topic of bigfoot, I will be honest and say, I really didn’t pay attention to what was going on. I guess, if I had signed up on the BFF to be yet one more “troll in residence“ I might have paid more attention to who was doing, and saying what. I had been warned by many to stay off the BFF, for the very reasons, we discuss today.

In fact. My very first post on any message board, was to defend none other than Jim Flowers himself. I logged onto either the BFF or the BFD and seen Jim being attacked by someone. I posted a comment stating words to the effect "we should have respect for people who have done things and been involved in issues much longer than we have." Well, I don’t remember anyone calling me a “hero worshiper” after making that post, in fact I was told “You will fit in here, just fine.” Do I regret that now, knowing what I now know?

Absolutely.

Why? Because if I had said (or said that today) about Dr. Meldrum, John Green or anyone else who has the perception of popularity, I would have been (and would) be publicly trashed by those who are sympathetic to Jim Flowers and his “friends”. Remember it was Jim Flowers, Blackdog and that group that started the “Hero Worship” ordeal. They didn’t seem to mind it though, when it was one of their own.

Was I wrong for saying it? No. Because it's true. My comment was however directed to the defense of the wrong person.

I really (I should bold that) became unpopular when I decided to look into the issues surrounding casting.

Yikes!

Had I known how hateful, some people involved in this research, could be, I would have never started all that work.

What’s odd about that is, I shouldn’t feel that way. No one should feel that way when they work hard to try and seek answers for themselves. People should always be encouraged to seek answers or educate themselves. To not do so, is to live up to the definition of “hero worship”. Why?

If you do not educate yourself, you are depending on the word of someone else. Does that sound familiar?

I was accused of trying to make Matt Crowley’s work meaningless, when in fact, my work had nothing to do with the verification of his work. I have said this a thousand times (or more) and still, I am accused of conspiring to make Matt Crowley look bad, as if my whole reason for being was about Matt Crowley and his destruction.

Matt Crowley’s work was to determine whether artifacts could be created on purpose. We know that is possible. I knew that was possible and said as much when I first heard about his work. That was a no-brainer for me. I specifically worked to find out what caused the artifacts, and how we can avoid them while casting in the field. That is the logical next step, if we as self described "researchers," do not want these “artifacts,” to happen in our field castings. If we do not guard against this, why even cast? Artifacts do not need to happen, as long as we observe proper casting procedures. Why wouldn’t we want to know what those procedures are?

The work of Matt Crowley and myself are two very different sets of work.

Yet, I was accused of all kinds of things. In fact Matt Crowley has a website practically devoted to me, and his assumptions about my life, and no one says a word.

How very scientific of him.

Yet, I type one word in reference to my casting, and I have the Crowley lap hound (Wolftrax) nipping at my heels and calling me filthy names (which has been allowed by some BFF Administrators) and telling people I have said things, I have never said. Why, you ask? It is my personal opinion, those who are sympathetic to Crowley, do not want you to think for yourself. They would prefer you hang on their every word and only get information from them. These same people (other than Crowley’s lap dog) told me privately during my work -- they loved my work and they were grateful I had done so much to try and figure out the solution to a very big problem. Some of those people are BFF Admin at this very moment, but they wouldn’t admit to this blasphemous thought or personal comment to me, in public.

Still to this day, I can't figure out what was so damaging about my work - in comparison to Matt Crowley's work. Was and is he angry because I did not try to verify his results? I have no clue.

I understand the hatred, more than anyone can imagine.

Did I do all this for the kudos? The fame? How about the fortune?

No. I did the casting work, because I don’t want to waste my time casting in the field and not be able to rely on the outcome. That’s all. There is no nefarious reason behind it. I did not do the work to unseat Crowley from his perch. I did it (by and large) for my own education. Heck, one of my very first postings about casting basically said “I don’t think you can use a casting agent to preserve dermal ridges, because the casting agent is so thick, it would destroy any of the fine dermal ridge evidence.”

See, I can be wrong too. Although I am sure you have been told I never admit that.

I left the BFF, not because I had become “unpopular” (not that you, anonymous, accused me of that). I left the BFF, when I realized not only were people being mistreated, but there was a concerted effort to keep people uneducated about the various issues going on behind the scenes in this field of research. Why should I, or anyone else, discuss what they are doing (on the BFF) when you get accused of horrific things, that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, or even true.

That standard of not educating the new researchers is now being extended to items such as books, where opinions of issues are allowed, with no knowledge of the actual content. This is encouraged by Redwolf, who used to yell “Educate yourself," or “Do your own Research.” I still hold that standard, as I feel it is important for people to have an opinion, but if at all possible, it should be an educated one, not one based in ignorance.

At this point, I am not endorsing anything about the BFF. I am saying, however, I think Brian should be allowed to clean up the problem. If he does not, I am fairly certain he knows what my response (and that of others) will be. I have made no secret of my distaste and my displeasure of the way the BFF has been handled over the years. Recently, it has gotten worse with Brian’s departure, that is crystal clear.

One person is told they are wrong to defend a friend, while another is told it's okay to throw around profanity and/or insults, because "it’s their opinion, and we can't stop that." Did I mention the "protected opinion" comes from a friend to many BFF Administrators?

I have no problem with skepticism or the voicing of skepticism. I have a problem, with skepticism that is used as a weapon to stop conversation. I have a problem with skeptics who have made “skepticism” a dirty word. Skepticism in the minds of some has become just another way to be a jerk, and get away with it.

I’m just voicing my opinion, I think the person is an idiot. Are you saying a skeptic is not entitled to an opinion?

These days, throw in the word “skeptic” and you can get away with some of the most hateful and profanity filled comments, not allowed on a message board. Anywhere else, you would be considered an internet Troll. Why? It’s almost as if people think being a skeptic is a protected minority in this country.

I am confused as to why, some (who are so vicious in their “skepticism”)would even post on a message board about Bigfoot.. To be quite honest. Seems like a big waste of time to me.

The longer, I am involved in this research (online), the more I realize, we know nothing. We know nothing because we can’t get past the name calling to have open and honest dialogue. Why this hostility is allowed on a site that calls itself the “Best place for Sasquatch talk on the net,” is beyond me.

I’m sure it could be, if people were allowed to discuss the actual research. It is my hope, Brian, will bring it back to that. I'm not saying we should all agree with each other, but there's a way to disagree, and be civil about it. If your Mom asked you a question, you thought was silly, would you call her stupid?

Of course not. You would simply say "I don't agree with that," and move on.

Why do we allow such hateful attitudes to take over, once someone turns on a computer? Do we think it makes us look more educated? Do you think (to the general public) it makes us more credible?

I should also say, I know Brian Brown. Am I friends with Brian? I wouldn’t call us friends. I think more often than not, if you were to mention my name to Brian, he would most likely respond with “What did Melissa do, Now?” Which always makes me laugh out loud.

I don’t email, call or correspond with Brian on any kind of “regular basis.” We know each other yes, and I think he tolerates me, but I would not think Brian would consider me one of his friends.

What I don’t think is lost on most in this community is, many of those who are BFF Administrators, now, are very disgruntled, and this goes back to their BFRO days. Why they feel the need to be so hateful to people who had nothing to do with their leaving the BFRO, and other organizations since, is beyond me.

Do you know what I find interesting about all this? When you think about how all this “drama” got started, it started long before me (although there are many who would like to make this my fault):

Those who left the BFRO, and are vocal about that departure, praised the BFRO and spoke on the BFF about how wonderful it was to be apart of such an organization. These same people (once they were unceremoniously discharged) couldn’t say enough bad things, and still do to this day. The same situation happened, when these very same people left the AIBR. The AIBR was the most wonderful place for bigfoot conversation that ever existed. Once these same people left the AIBR, they couldn’t publicly trash the group enough.

Did you know these same people did not like the BFF at one point?

Yep, that’s right. They formed their own message board “The Bigfoot Discussions Forms.” There, they could freely discuss their displeasure with the world of internet bigfoot research, the people involved, and bashed the BFF openly.

Now, these same people are BFF Administrators.

When I say “these people” I am talking about Teresa, Redwolf (Kathy Harper), Bittermonk (Sam Rich), Blackdog, Jim Flowers, Stacey Flowers, Wildman, Ty and GuyinIndiana, along with others. Some were involved in the BFRO, some were not. Some were AIBR, some where not. But, all met up on the Bigfoot Discussions Forum, and discussed their displeasure with the perceived stifling of their opinions within the BFRO, AIBR and the BFF. The website is still there (BFD) and can be read by anyone. Unless they cleaned it up (perception being what it is)

Yet others should just keep their mouths shut, because their opinion just isn’t important. They are just silly bigfoot researchers, trying to post on a bigfoot message board.

What is clear, is these people need to be in control. They are the “masters of their internet universe,” they don’t want that to change and will viciously attack anyone who casts doubt on their agenda.

I, among many, are living proof of that.

Do I consider myself a victim? Nope. Not at all. I would rather they attack me, than someone who might actually be hurt by their hateful comments, and have made myself a target, so many others could escape their wrath.

They just never knew that, until now.

In closing this lengthy article, let me say, Anonymous. You bring up good points, and I did not want you to think I was ignoring your observations or comments, and No. I will not withhold my displeasure if Brian does not clean up this mess.

I have the feeling he will though. The BFF has been too important, to him, not to. When you own a website and build it from nothing, it becomes a part of your life. You want to see do well, and have people take advantage of. Why else would you start a website?

Brian is no different I suspect. He just needs some time.

BFF Drama Update

2010-07-24T14:17:00.003-04:00

Word on the street (or the Bigfoot Forums) is that Brian Brown has returned as Chief Administrator of the site. You can read this announcement for yourself HERE

I see this as a step in the RIGHT direction, and as such, I will back off criticism of the BFF and give Brian a chance to clean things up. I respect Brian and what he has worked hard to create, and as such I think it's only fair he have the opportunity to get this creation of his back on the right track.

Lets all support him in the work ahead of him. I will.

Dear Anonymous.

2010-07-17T12:17:00.005-04:00

In a response to my latest article,"What the Heck" a comment came in, and was posted. I decided to put this response by me to a specific portion of that comment, on the front of this blog.

The person has chosen to remain Anonymous through multiple postings, but I think what this person says is interesting and requires a response. I would hate for this specific statement to be lost in the comments section of this blog.

Anonymous said:

"I have seen Melissa in action on other forums/boards so I know what she's like, or maybe I should say I'm basing my opinion on how she presents herself." End Quote.

I'm sorry, do you know me? I don't think so. Have you ever spoken to me about my thoughts, and how I approach issues? Do you know what is important to me, and not? I doubt it.

How I present myself? Is there a way one should present themself on the internet? Is there a rule book? I see you have been arguing the BFF Staff should present itself anyway it wants - yet, I and others should present ourselves in a way which pleases you, and those sympathetic to the BFF cause?

Explain to me how that works in your mind.

My actions on other forums? Let’s see, I was banned from one forum, after I and a friend busted a hoaxer. Seems the hoaxer is friends with the Owner and some staff members (at least this is the "official" reason, and the banning notification came countless months after it happened). I know this person is a hoaxer, because I spoke with the person he worked with on this project (by phone), and was told “The photo is legit, but they have been doctored”. Yeah, I should just be quiet about that kind of thing, right?

I was removed from another board once a relationship broke off. He was a member of that particular group, I was not. I in no way violated any of their posting guidelines. Big deal, moving on.

I have only been talked to or warned about postings I have made on the BFF once – and that was for defending a person whose mother was being called a “drug addict”. I sat there for at least a half hour and watched BFF Admin come in and out of that thread, before I said anything. One can only assume it was because of who the comment was directed at. Are you going to tell me the BFF Admin needed to discuss how to handle that situation? No one is that stupid (at least I hope not). I already discussed another situation on the BFF so, I won't bore you with those details.

How did I handle that warning sent by Teresa Hall? I sent an email to Paul and Brian telling them I would not be returning if this was acceptable behavior on the BFF. I returned once to correct misinformation about myself and a specific organization. Other than that, I do not waste my time.

Tell me Anonymous, how would you feel if you or someone you loved was called a drug addict or something equally as bad. So, how do I know what happens on the BFF?

I am told, DAILY. I am thanked daily for my strength in speaking up about this issue, and from more than just banned members. I hear from current BFF members who are sick and tired of the favoritism and the inability to discuss topics without being verbally assaulted by the Staff or other “friends” of Staff. Are they trying to talk about “crazy things”? No. They simply do not share the opinions held by the staff.

You don't know me, or anything about me, so your comments about how I present myself, are really about as valid as any opinion I could express about you, Anonymous. I could also say there is something to be said about a person who posts such hateful comments about someone, and does so, “Anonymously”.

I bet your attitude would change if you were placed in the bulls eye of certain BFF Administrators - you wouldn't be so critical of me, and would most likely fully understand what I am talking about.

I have some homework for you "Anonymous". Go onto the BFF and find one of the many threads which have discussion of my "Pink Forum" (which isn’t pink, so I can only assume they are color blind). These comments and conversations have been going on, long before I ever posted a negative word on this blog about the BFF. Tell them it is wrong to discuss these things, they should leave me and my members to do what we wish and just simply ignore me and my site - and let’s see what happens to you. Did you miss what happened to the BFF member who defended Dr Onion on the BFF? I bet you won’t get nearly as far on the BFF as you have gotten on this blog. Post there, the same things you posted here.

Just let me know when you do it, so I can grab some popcorn. It's going to be fun to watch as you have your backside handed to you, just before you get banned for arguing with a Staff Member, and telling them how to run their site.

Odds are you are friends with those in control of the BFF, so it wouldn’t matter anyway. I figure that, since you think you know so much about me, and in that one statement parroted comments made by specific BFF Administrators. You know, I could be wrong. The BFF has been rescinding warnings levels since all this started, so you might be just fine.

You also said:

I've just been around the internet on this subject for about 8 years

Funny, that’s about how long the BFF has been in existence. So, you are most likely more than just passively concerned about this topic, as you would like me and the readers to believe.

Since you have been around so long, why don't you tell the readers of this blog how the comment below would be received by certain members of the BFF Admin team, if said to anyone but a friend of certain BFF Admin.

It's a good thing it was Jim Flowers (friend of certain BFF Admin) or HRPuffnStuff would have been the victim of a blood bath, or called a "Hero Worshipper" (Phrase coined by JimF and his friends for such comments). You sure as hell couldn't say that to Dr. Meldrum on the BFF and walk away with your pride intact. Stop pretending like this does not happen on the BFF. If you have been around it for 8 years, you know better, and shame on you for pretending like these things don't happen.

I am all for the expression of opinion and ideas, but they should be your own, and not come after someone has put you up to it.

I wish you all the best “Anonymous”. But you shouldn’t lecture one person on their “behavior” and not be equal in your judgment of others.

What the Heck?

2010-07-15T09:12:00.010-04:00

Sigh

Who would have thought a woman (who posts on many boards) as "Dr. Onion" could be such a complete trouble maker, that the staff of the BFF would feel it necessary to dog pile on her?

That's exactly what happened yesterday.

Why? Well, it all got started because of a thread (on the BFF) about a good friend of hers (and mine) Joedy Cook. You see Joedy has this hand cast, he received from a person who casted it in the State of Ohio. Is it a gorilla? Is it a bigfoot?

Who knows.

But, Joedy had the nerve to make this cast available for "Monsterquest". I swear that show has been the best, and the worst thing that ever happened to this field of research. "Monsterquest" was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't, within the inner circles of this community of researchers. If you agreed to be involved with the program, you had a target placed on your back..

Anyway.

In this BFF thread, Joedy Cook is compared to Tom Biscardi. I am willing to bet not one person on the BFF administration team has spent any time with Joedy Cook. For that matter, many people who call themselves bigfoot researchers. The majority in this, only know Joedy from "Monsterquest". That does not seem to matter. The accusation was put out there, so anyone can decide for themselves.

Is there anything posted, in that thread in the the form of proof, that Joedy Cook is a hoaxer, on the BFF (after 2 years)?

Nope.

So, Dr. Onion finds this thread for the first time, on the BFF, Wednesday. Which had been revived on Monday. Dr. Onion decided to make her opinion known.

In response, a BFF Moderator by the name of "Masterbarber" says this:

Does it matter? This is her opinion (pay attention to number 2):

Dr. Onion perceived an implication, that's all that should matter. It would appear others were allowed to discuss what they felt was an attempt by Joedy Cook to hoax. Why is that allowed, yet a post in his defense is not? I really don't get that. But, Masterbarber does not stop there. If a member says they are upset by comments on the BFF or any message board, it is not your job to decide whether their opinion is valid. It's their opinion.

This is posted by Masterbarber:

As a member of the staff of the BFF, shouldn't you be above these kinds of childish tactics? Not only did Masterbarber belittle Dr. Onion and her right to have a differing opinion from the thread, but he copies part of a post by Dr. Onion, strikes through a portion of that post, and adds in his own wording. Where is the exact BFF guideline wording that states, "Members may not express disapproval of an opinion". Please point that out. Whether Joedy was accused of hoaxing or not, the insinuation is there, as Dr. Onion felt the need to express her displeasure of the comments.

You know, it's not like Dr. Onion said,

"Accepting some dumbass who claims to be an expert in a field he doesn't even understand and evidently you don't either."

No, that was blackdog. Apparently that was perfectly fine. In fact I believe a member of the BFF Staff said, Blackdog is entitled to his opinion. Blackdog was not openly reprimanded or forced to explain his "opinion". Favoritism? Absolutely.

And the staff of the BFF wonder why there is a boycott of their site.

This is one of the most ridiculous actions I have ever seen, taken by an administrator. In fact one BFF member had the guts to stand up for Dr. Onion, until that person was silenced. That is actually funny because this other member defending Dr. Onion was very calm and collected. This member raises very good points, but the response was simply "shut up or else".

If you ask me, the disruption came when 4 staff members dog piled on Dr. Onion. One even went so far as to make a comment (or was it a warning) about her "past posting history".

HUH??

Do you mean when she expressed her opinion back in 2008? Yeah, Dr. Onion is out of control. Anyone who posts a dissenting opinion every 2 years is a serious problem and needs to be reigned in, immediately!!.

This is my favorite part:

Why did no BFF staff member step in and scold this person, who is clearly stirring the pot, and completely off topic? I guess Dr. Onion is much more dangerous, and must be silenced! Or, maybe, JohnWS is simply expressing the thoughts of the BFF staff, so they don't have to say it themselves? JohnWS is in this "clique". Paranoid are we?

As if Dr. Onion is so dumb she needs to be fed an opinion by me or members of my forum? Actually, Dr. Onion posted her thoughts on that BFF thread, THEN, told me about this. I have never asked or even insinuated she should go to the BFF and intentionally start trouble. I have in fact asked staff members of the Searchforbigfoot.org to stay away from the drama, that is the BFF.

Why?

Because of the threat for them to be banned, if they did show up and participate. Since that threat, anyone who is known to be a participating member or staff member of the Searchforbigfoot.org, has been piled on like this - on the BFF. So, they at least follow through with threats.

So, my response to this is, grow up!

While Dr. Onion knows how I feel about the BFF, she will tell you I have told everyone I know, to make up their own minds, and do what they are comfortable with - on everything not just bigfoot.

By the way, I am most appreciative to the BFF for reducing my "warning level", Which I received for defending a persons mother who was being called a drug addict on the BFF. (Does anyone find it a coincidence the person who was attacked was the mother of Autumn Williams?) But, if you think for a second, I intend to back off, or shut up, you have all, seriously, lost your minds. I am done with the BFF, as are many good and decent people involved in this research. The BFF was once a place where we could talk and discuss ideas and opinions, now it is simply a place to go and be harassed and insulted (with the blessing of the staff). Do what you wish, I really don't care, ban me, I have no intention of ever returning. The Administrative team of the BFF allowed a good person to be attacked, by no less than 4 members of that staff - if that is not uncalled for, I don't know what is. To those who are decision makers on the BFF, if what I say about your site bothers you, then stop being such raging jerks. It really is that simple. Otherwise, you can look forward to many posts like this in the future.

I don't want to ever be apart of something like that.

I am sure, if I am banned, it will be for posting these comments from the BFF.. Lord knows they can't allow any of their idiotic decisions to make it out into the public domain, where they might have to answer for them. Does anyone really think complaints of heavy handed tactics, by the BFF staff, will be addressed if you send a member of the BFF staff a personal message? Please.. That will turn into the biggest waste of your time, and most likely land you in the bulls eye of their target of discontent.

By the way H.R. Puff and whatever your name is,

An opinion is an opinion held by the person voicing that opinion (see definition above). There is no "rule" that anyone must explain their opinion, so you understand it, I don't care if you are an administrator, and have requested a clarification. Apparently, it's not your opinion, especially if you don't understand it. If this is a new rule on the BFF, then you need to get back in those threads, and ask Redwolf why she feels the need to trash something she is ignorant of. How about the opinions expressed by Blackdog? No one understands his opinions/rantings, yet he spews them all over the BFF, to the detriment of the BFF. When have you or Masterbarber demanded he explain his opinion to your satisfactions?

What posting guideline did Dr. Onion not follow, that required you to step up and tell her she needed to explain her opinion, when asked by staff member? That is very self-important of you all to think you have that kind of power over the thoughts and opinions of the BFF membership.

And don't tell me you are trying to head off drama in the threads. That is a tired argument, and clearly not true (again, see above comments re:Redwolf, Blackdog).

Yeah, not reading a book, yet trashing the content and its author, is forming an opinion out of ignorance, and you should be curious about that.

I wonder why you're not.

Practice what you preach within your own ranks, then come lecture the rest of us. By the way. I notice the conversation that Dr. Onion and the other member was told to stop, is now continuing this morning...

For those interested in this embarrassment of an exchange, you can read it HERE

On a related note.

I would like to express my condolences to Joedy Cook and his family. Joedy's daughter, lost her battle with Cystic Fibrosis, on Tuesday morning (07-13-2010). It is the worse pain a person can feel. This little girl had more strength and courage than most adults I know.

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family Joedy.

BFF Lurker thoughts.. Interesting.

2010-07-08T17:36:00.003-04:00

This comment was sent to me via personal message on my forum. I am re-posting with permission. I know who this person is, and am keeping that person's identity anonymous. I know what happens when you speak out publicly against the BFF.

Sent 07/06/2010 @04:27 PM

Hey Mel,

I wanted to say Hi and tell you I am reading this book right now. I was reading what you were saying about the BFF and everything seemed okay when they were talking about the fact or fiction aspect of the book...but when it started getting personal I was so disappointed. At one point ( I think it was Redwolf..I don't know her real name) basically made snide comments about how the only reason anyone gives Autumn any attention is because of what she looks like.

It actually showed me a lot more about how Redwolf, JayleeD and Teresa are as women than anything else. I simply cannot stand women who judge other women by their looks. Have we learned nothing about the evolution of women's spirit? It's a funny though because I have read Dian Fossey's book and Jane Goodall's books and no one talks about what they looked like. There was a lot in Dian and Jane's books that they thought no one would believe. But you know that Leakey put them out there because he believed women are better researchers in such cases, and it has nothing to do with looks.

It just made me so sad when I read how they were being over on the BFF....I want to tell them what I think...maybe I will and see if they ban me...hahahaha. I just could not believe how petty and ignorant they are being. I remember them being the same way about you....and it just put me off...I usually hang around women who do not judge each other on how they look. I hate superficial bulls*t...but that's how they are I guess.

I don't really even know anybody over there anymore and it seems like everyone I liked came over here! Anyway I am liking Autumns book so far and you know why? Even if it is fiction....it is exactly the kind of stuff that Fossey did when she was studying the Gorillas...it's about becoming part of their world, not making them adapt to ours...but to do that you would really have to live where they are over an extended period of time.

Anyway...I also feel that even if I saw a bigfoot creature...I would not tell anyone about it....because I just don't see any good coming from it...I don't think these creatures need us in any way shape or form...they've been fine without us for years....the only thing I'd worry about is habitat loss...we just need to keep land wild for them. They'll be fine if we do that. Anyway...it is good to see people having civil discussions here...

take care

Stop the Presses!!!

2010-07-07T13:25:00.003-04:00

Former Bigfoot Forums Moderator "RedRatSnake" sends an Email to Steve Streufert at Bigfoot's Blog ..

And, does RedRatSnake have something to say!! Good for you RRS!!

You can read his email (posted with permission) on "Bigfoot's Blog" by clicking THIS link. Scroll down the page, his email is posted right above "Angry bigfoot speaks"

I think for the first time, those who are speaking out against the BFF, are being heard - and this is not going to just go away for those in charge of the BFF.

I remember telling at least one member of the BFF Admin team a year or two ago, After Autumns mom was called a drug addict on the BFF and it was allowed. Eventually - they would upset someone who they could not control, and they WOULD regret it.

Has this finally happened, in the form of Bigfoot's Blog (Steve Streufert)??

RedRatsnake, you are starting to regain the confidence I lost in you.

Oh,, Steph Responds!!! Collecting Bets Tomorrow :)

2010-07-05T18:43:00.004-04:00

I posted the comment Steph sent to my blog, as I would never deny someone the right to defend themselves. But, then I said to myself,

"self, why not put her reply, right on the front page?"

Steph appears to be very happy with her reply. I should make sure everyone can read it. It really is the only fair thing to do, and well I do have my selfless moments from time to time.

Right?

Too bad Steph didn't allow the comments to her blog, I know were sent to her directly (because I read them) like she promised she would.

Huh....Maybe she just forgot about those silly emails disagreeing with her assessment of Billy Willard?

Here is Stephs response to my blog, where I devoted an entire article to her misinformation about an expedition she didn't even think about looking into or asking simple questions before she posted her hate filled article about Billy Willard. Way to be front and center with ALL the info Steph.

Apparently Steph can dish it out, but she can't take it.

Steph writes:

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.

End of Quote

YEAH!!! wheww, I almost reverted into a lively round of "I know you are, but what am I!!" Hahaha..

First of all, what is a "ba a rag blog"? I know I never said that. Why? I don't even know what that means..

I did read the article, I wrote it sweetie. Did you score low in reading comprehension? Well, school isn't what it once was, or so I have been told.

Nowhere did I post in that article, all 30+ people were on the property for the entire 7 days. You took a run down of the participants, and tried to turn it into something sinister. I can understand your need to play "Gotcha" but, that just comes across as desperate.

Okay (big sigh from me) point to where it says (another dramatic sigh)"All 30 people were on the property the entire 7 days", and you will win a big beautiful gold star. Hell, I will give you two, but no more than that, greedy.

This is why you should never post angry.

Which reminds me, I should find some really cute smiley faces for this blog.

You're right, this conversation is over. I have far more important things to do, like pulling out my fingernails, or even better, getting my wisdom teeth yanked (without Novocaine/ No-va-caine). Yeah, I can think of so many other things I would rather do, than try to reason with someone who can't admit when they are wrong.

Steph, you were busted causing trouble, and you got your pride handed back to you (along with a specific body part). If you want to complain about being critical and self-promoting, and whiney, please take the time to read your own blog, take a nice long read. I have seen you post more hate, than anything to help further this research.

Me thinks someone is jealous...

I used to think you were smart, now I just lump you in with your friends - Teresa, Jim, Blackdog, Redwolf and the rest (oh, you didn't tell people?). You are no better. In fact, your animosity is so high for people in this, it really makes me wonder why your involved. I remember when you first came on the scene. You started out posting comments to this blog. Not many, but you did. You were so nice and cheerful. What happened to you?

Usually when people are wrong, they just admit it. Now, before you get your panties in a wad, I usually don't have to admit to being wrong. Why? (You ask in a questioning voice) Well, my little toad stool, I ask questions and get the facts, (pay attention here Steph, this could be a critical moment in your blogging career) before I publish an article to this blog. If you would do that very simple thing, you wouldn't be on the defensive tonight, and posting in such a foul mood.

Maybe someone just woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

All kidding aside,

You have no desire to know Billy Willard or anyone outside your own little group of hate mongers in this field of research. I know exactly why you went after Billy. The reason is not hard to figure out, once everyone knows the company you keep. Your only interest is spawning more anger and hate, and you will do it for others if necessary. That's fine, but I really think you should be honest with yourself and everyone else. I bet by the time you finished reading the articles about your friends (on the way down the page to your article) you were all dis·com·bob·u·lat·ed (figured I would sound it out for you with your comprehension problems and all).

I suppose showing everyone your bigfoot video is out of the question?? Aww too bad. I would have enjoyed watching you defend it against your pals. I heard you peddled it pretty hard in certain circles. Makes me wonder why you won't release it for everyone to see - since you believe it is so important to be critical of everyone else. I wonder what you would do, if that pointing finger came back at you.

Oh, dang NEVERMIND. Thank you for showing me. :)

By the way, IF you responded to me on your blog, I really don't care. Your comment here, show me how little I should care about anything you say. Oh, and yes, you are a troll. The things you have said about me in the past, were not original, not even your work and well, made me feel bad that you needed hits on your trash rag of a blog so bad, you would resort to such tatics. I rarely feel bad for someone, but you hit my soft spot there Steph.

Dangit, you did it again. I need to grab a tissue.

Again,thank you for not proving me wrong. Man, you had me worried! I had 50 bucks riding on whether you would post in a positive manner, or be as hate filled as always. Guess which side of the bet I took.

I will spend the money wisely. TOOTSIE ROOLS FOR EVERYONE!! Except Steph. Steph is a big meanie..:)

FYI, you didn't just happen on my blog. You have been here off and on since I wrote the article about you. I have a site meter - geesh. At least TRY to tell a convincing lie...

Best of luck to you Steph :)

Why is this so important?

2010-07-04T12:40:00.009-04:00

I have been reading the various comments about this current situation with the BFF.

One person posted to "Bigfoot’s Blog", they didn't understand why this was such an important issue and the BFF should be allowed to function as they choose.

I sat here for a day or two thinking about this. Sure, the BFF can function however they like. They make their own rules, and people can choose to sign up or post.

I suddenly realized why this issue bothers me so much.

No, it has nothing to do with my own treatment by these people. Look at the front page of the BFF, you will see the wording "The Web's most popular one-stop shop for sasquatch talk". The name "Bigfoot Forums", its extensive list of members (most of which sign up and never post, but you wont read that on the BFF banner) makes it appear to be the most important message board to discuss bigfoot on the internet.

"Everyone talks about Bigfoot here on the BFF" is inferred. That is so not true.

Take a second, and ask yourself these question.

1. "How many researchers have YOU talked to, that told YOU they knew about the bigfoot forums, and would never post?"

I stopped counting that number a long time ago.

2. "How many witnesses have YOU spoken to, who have told YOU they went to the bigfoot forums hoping to find someone who might understand what they were dealing with. They read the site and decided to stay away from bigfoot researchers because of the hostility, or because they posted about their own experience on the BFF only to be called a liar, a hoaxer and ran off the board?"

3. "How many witnesses have asked YOU, "Do you post on the BFF?" Would you say "Yes"? Or would you pause to consider the answer, and it's affect on your witness?

You should pause. Why? Because that means they have been reading the BFF, and they are wondering if you will be treating them with the same disrespect they have seen given to others. I tell them, "I once did, but I do not anymore." That comment is usually followed with (by the witness) "Good, cause I'd throw you off my property if you were involved with "those" people."

My dad always said, "If you have to hide what you're doing, then you probably shouldn't be doing it."

I know I am not the only person who has heard those specific comments from a witness, as it is talked about privately among most researchers. I can't be the only one, because I hear it all the time.

Take a minute and really think about those questions, and your answers. Whether we agree with what happens on the BFF, we are all lumped into this same group, because the BFF touts itself as the place all researchers want to be (whether they say it or not, that is the impression). I haven't been on the BFF since last year (posting). Still to this day, if I talk to a witness, inevitably the name BFF comes up, and they tell me how they went there, and just went away. "What's the point?" They say, "They will only call me names?" or "They say they want you to talk about your experience, but when you do, they attack."

In fact, I heard these comments from the last witness I spoke to face to face. Let me tell you now, whether the question is justified or not, if a witness feels the question was posed in a rude manner, they WILL assume this WILL happen to them. They only see what has happened before, they don't care that their story may be different. Instead, of the BFF Admin recognizing this fact, they allow witnesses to be called "liars", with the excuse "I just wanted to see what your response would be." It's no wonder witnesses leave the BFF, and never return, or never seek out other Message boards.

This is not acceptable. These witnesses are not criminals. This is not an interrogation. Nor, should it be.

I have talked to so many people who identify themselves as researchers who have logged onto the BFF, only to find themselves, their questions, or ideas, publicly thrashed (and I do mean "thrashed") they absolutely refuse to discuss the topic online - anywhere. These researchers come to me in private, because as they say, "you have been so outspoken about this problem, I wish I had found your Blog a long time ago, I never would have went to the BFF, if I had."

Why should they want to?

We all complain that witnesses don't want to come forward, but, at the same time we have this public entity (the BFF) that sure as heck wouldn't want to make me talk. If we hold the "Dr. Meldrums", right down to the "joe bigfooters", responsible to objective criticism, why do we allow the BFF to go unchecked? What gives the BFF the right to publicly suggest that all researchers want to be a member of that forum, when that couldn't be further from the truth?

Life experience story time,

I used to be a member of an AOL chatroom - where the name of the chatroom had nothing to do with the content. It was basically a bashing chatroom. The name of the chatroom would bring people in who felt they just had to respond to the topic of the room. Once in the chatroom - they could not help but respond because the name of the room was so cruel, but once they did, they were quickly pounced upon by people in the chatroom, who would hurl insults "Of course that's not true, you idiot". Needless to say, I was told AOL shut the room down.

Most, very quickly understood what this room was all about, and stay.. Others, not so much. I stopped going there when one day I realized "These people are just mean. This isn't in fun, they are just hateful people." No, they didn't turn on me.. One afternoon a woman logged in, and applied to the affirmative "Men are jerks" (the name of the AOL Chatroom) then must have stopped reading the comments, because she started posting about how her husband just told her the day before, he was divorcing her and had found a new woman. She went on and kept typing about how she had been unable to sleep, she had been crying all night, and did not know what would happen to her and her kids, as she had been a stay at home mom..

Well, I felt horrible for this lady. One of the members (a female) typed words I never thought I would ever see.. "You probably deserved it." Instantly I felt sick to my stomach. This woman must have finally looked at the chatroom and the comments of hatred being thrown in her direction, because she quickly left. I left also, and never went back.

I see no difference between the tatics of this (now closed) AOL Chatroom, and the BFF. Why should I, when posts like this are tolerated:

"Accepting some dumbass who claims to be an expert in a field he doesn't even understand and evidently you don't either."

This is just the long way around calling someone a dumb a*s.

Through strong armed tactics, the BFF attempts to control the content on other Message Boards and Blogs, by threatening to ban from the BFF, if you criticize the content of their board, or copy content. Although they actively post articles from other bigfoot websites, news organizations etc.

Privacy is violated. I have even seen a BFF members real name posted on the board, and this person's name was allowed to remain posted even after the member requested their real name not be used on the BFF or any forum. This is why people create "usernames". Yes, they may be out there publicly discussing the research, but when they go on a message board, they should be allowed some anonymity, like everyone else.

Personal Messages are read on the BFF, regardless of the insistence by the BFF leaders, they are not. Many, many, will vouch for that, heck even past administrators will tell you that is "business as usual" on the BFF. Personal information, you supply your profile with, is changed at the whim of certain Administrators. If you complain, they just don't care, or they tell you it's not true, and many blindly believe this.

Hoaxing only seems to matter on the BFF- if you are not a friend of certain staff members.

Last year the Michigan Recording Project,

was sheltered from questions about misleading information, after multiple members of the MRP were found to be embellishing the information about their research site. Members on the BFF were threatened with being banned if they questioned the MRP about their location, and suspensions were threatened for anyone who asked questions about these misleading statements by the MRP, or discussed the information about what the location was really like.

Now, Autumns book comes out,

and it appears to be okay to openly discuss the possible "location" of "Mike" and his alleged encounters with a bigfoot, Mike calls "Enoch", and whether or not she is embellishing a story or creating a hoax for profit.

Why were the MRP protected? Because they are friends with many on the BFF Admin team. Autumn is not. Double standard? You decide.

I suppose they can do whatever they want, but those of us who know the BFF affects our ability to get witnesses to open up, or researchers to openly discuss their ideas, should be very public about not being associated with the BFF. We can't force the BFF to change, but we should not sit back and allow ourselves to be lumped in with this group of people, who do not speak for the majority of researchers out there.

The BFF does not speak for me,

but as long as this community remains silent on their dislike of the actions of the BFF, we will ALL forever be lumped in with this group, that has given this community a black eye in the mind of the public, witnesses and fellow researchers who recognize the toxic attitude of the BFF.

So much of my time is taken up, because of how researchers and witnesses have been treated on the BFF. People who once thought I was 'full of it", finally have these things happening to them. They come to me and apologize. I don't mind being there for someone in need of someone to talk to, but this should not be happening because of a "Bigfoot Message Board".. We should all be talking to try and figure out this mystery. Instead, because of the BFF tactics, I (and others) spend a large majority of our time talking to these researchers and convincing witnesses, we have nothing to do with the BFF. The BFF is a site, this community, should be able to be proud of. It's been around the longest, and has some great topics.

Too bad you can't discuss those topics, or be happy it's around. Being banned from the BFF, should not be a badge of honor, but that's exactly what it has become.

These things are what bother me.

These things should bother me. They should bother you. While the BFF is and should be allowed to function however they want, this community should feel a responsibility and an obligation, to not endorse or frequent a bigfoot related site that does not do anything good for this research community.

The time for "private conversation" about this to end.

Last year, due to attempts to control the content of my forum and blog, I removed all links to the BFF. If you own a website, forum or blog, do the same in silent protest. The BFF gets hits, because of these links, and these links make them popular in google searches.

DROP THE LINK.