This is what happens when comments are made to the press that have little or no basis in reality.
Thanks MM.

Vancouver Sun
Monday, May 09, 2005.

If the film's blurry enough, mythical creatures come alive

Now that scientists have confirmed that a piece of blurry videotape is in fact a sighting of a creature long deemed extinct, we may have to rethink the way we approach all such reports.

The celebrated sighting of the Ivory-billed woodpecker in an Arkansas swamp after a 60-year absence may now give credence to those blurry pictures of Bigfoot, Caddie, Ogopogo and all of those other legendary creatures that can only be captured in fleeting images.

A ferry operator in northern Manitoba became the latest to cash in on our fascination with these beasts. Bobby Clark from Norway House sold his 169-second videotape to a current affairs program on the Fox Television Network. The tape that aired last week was certified by Mathew Moneymaker (really, we're not making this up), who founded the California-based Bigfoot Field Research Organization.

The Manitoba sighting will now become part of the lore, since it meets all the requirements for the sighting of such a beast, which seem to be that the film has to be taken at a very long distance and it has to be blurry enough so that the seams on the costume don't show. Sorry, that last sentence just slipped in. Remember the ivory-billed woodpecker? It could happen.

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouvers...0c-0a05b86e879b

Somebody didn't have their coffee before sitting down at the terminal to type that little article! He sounds positively miffed at the Ivory Billed Woodpecker for no longer being extinct. Why? Because more wonders might be revealed to us if the scientific community opens its collective mind and follows up on certain types of eyewitness sightings a bit more seriously? That sounds like a good thing to me. The writer was entirely too cranky to have been allowed at his keyboard.

For what it's worth, the Patterson/Gimlin film is a heck of a lot less blurry and indistinct than the extinction-reversing footage of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

ZC

I find that hard to believe. I think.
I'm speechless. :willies:

To be fair - the editorial policy of the Sun is that the editorial postions are decided by the majority and then assignments are made to write the editorial - no matter what your personal beliefs. This person may have had a different personal view.
However, your theory has a lot of merit because we are Canada's Starbucks leaders in caffeine consumption.

What worries me most is that the Sun has taken a stand that is clearly derisive of Sasquatch evidence as a whole based on what they perceived as hasty or false claim made by MM of BFRO fame on the Clark film footage.

I posted this to again show how dangerous it is to make ambiguous or poorly thought out statements that the press may get hold of. It can hurt not only you and your organisation - but others in the same field. This is not new and should have been on MM's mind when he made any statement regarding the film.

Rockinkt: Statesmanlike thinking--and moderately put.

But, in a month or so, still-photo analysis + site analysis may well support MM's assessment, by indicating that great height was involved. Still, he should have been more cautious, even if he was sure he would be proved right in time, given his position. Even temporary embarrassment to a leading organization is a bad thing.

For the record, what Matt Moneymaker actually said was:

"If it was a sasquatch up there, and somebody took a piece of footage of it, this IS what it would look like".

and then...

"looks like its a little bit lighter on the shoulders, the color, but essentially the whole thing is dark, like a dark-furred animal"





Just goes to show that people should be careful before agreeing to go on half-assed shows like 'A Current Affair'.

Also, Moneymaker has said the following:

I would have to strongly disagree with the first statement. "Would" should be changed to "might". Put anybody with a better camera up there in BC's place at the time and we would have had a better video. Put anybody up there with more camera experience and it would have been better. Just trying to seek a little higher ground to video from would have made a big difference. Moving away from any foreground vegetation would have helped in focusing.

The video could just as well be that of a brown shirted, hip-wading fisherman. I would also say that if it was a fisherman, and somebody took a piece of footage of him or her, under the same circumstances, this IS what it would look like.

And as for the second statement goes, from what I saw of the video, variegated coloration of the subject could just as well have been sun highlights, shadows or worn clothing. In fact I think all the video I have seen from up there in the past few weeks has shown that a tannish brown color is popular.

In my book, there is only one foremost expert on what a Sasquatch looks or moves like, with proof to back him up, and that is Bob Gimlin. As far as I know, Matt's only up close encounter was in the middle of the night, in the dark. Bob's encounter is captured on film in broad daylight with two witnesses and tracks/casts.

The video shows a quite normal human gait in my opinion, in fact measurements at the area will most likely show that it was of ordinary human proportions.

Matt may speak for the BFRO or just himself on this but having the press insinuate that he has certified this encounter for all of the Bigfoot community as the real deal has shocked me. It calls into question many other things of similar nature.

As far as I know, only one investigator (and she may not have been even affiliated with an organization) has been to the site and taken background pictures near the camera spot. These pictures were available for the ACA show and should have been used before airing. Why weren't they? Do they show something that diminishes the video's validity? I am not trying to be conspiratal here, just wondering why the video had to air without proper investigation shown, or why did the BFRO want to do it before measurements were in. This has happened before. Yes, nobody was going to pay for someone to go up there to do this, but someone had already gone up there on their own dime.

To be fair to Matt, his comments so far do not appear to me to be a 100% 'endorsement' of the video, which is what the news article suggests, but his choice of words could have been better.

I know of at least one person who declined to be interviewed for this show because they had a pretty good idea of how the piece would be presented - I'm guessing that is why they settled on Dr. Franklin Rhule for the show.

Perhaps Moneymaker should have declined to appear on the show too?


Media coverage does not always help the cause.

You can send my new keyboard to 742 Evergreen Terrace. The old coffee soaked one will no longer be of use to me.

I found the media packaging of a Current Affair to be only what was to be expected from such a show.
However, associated articles have gone out of their way (as seen by many here) to make MM the Big Kahuna in North American sasquatch research and investigation.! And thus insinuates that he speaks for an entire Bigfoot ( Wacko! ) Community
When the original story fades..drag out the ( appearant..) fringe element to prolong the 15 minutes of fame..! It ain't over yet folks.
Next will be portrayed the believers who swear this footage is real and what we have been waiting for. And the more it is legitimately investigated..the more the press will play up the fools who believe in strutting monkeys!
Didn't we learn enough from Snow Walker to keep our lips zipped when the press is around? At least until there is something fairly conclusive...so that you do not come off as too much of a cracked pot!
Even though the end result would have been the same no matter who appeared on that tv show..( so it was not totally MM's fault )..if it were a crackpot..his words and demeanor would have been enough to garner derisive comments or insinuations from the press...if it were someone who came off as sounding sane and articulate..then ( according to the press ) they would be speaking for the entire Bigfoot Community! Then there is mileage to be gained from showing that this person only appears normal..but don't be fooled! How would they do that? Next step..bring in the real crackpots..and let the public decide! After all...he is their supposed leader, right?
It is a no win situation. So articles like that do not get me excited. It is the press being the press. And that is pandering to the idea that the world is full of nuts...here is just another bunch!

Out of curiosity what did the Bobby Clarke video prove to the skeptics?
In my opinion unfortunately nothing.

Why the Sun columnist is so ironic and sarcastic on his comments of the video and expectations from it?
Again in my opinion because the video was a terrible blobsquatch that did not gave any evidence/proof that a Bigfoot was what we see in that video. Actually the pieces of the video that I have seeing so far in the internet are so poor that it could easily be a regular person with regular clothes strolling along the shore, there is no way to tell what was capture in the footage.

Sure maybe I haven't see an enhanced version which might show some kind of detail that would let us to conclude that the video is more relevant than it looks now, which would be great. But to what I see so far, every skeptic would have no real reason to change its opinion on this topic. The video is a blobsquatch independently that it is a real Bigfoot in the video, too bad Bobby did not had a better camera....

The reference to Matt Moneymaker it is kind of obvious. That is, nobody outside the bigfoot community knows who is Mr. Moneymaker, and his name unfortunately is not only uncommon, but rather has a very direct "innuendo". In this case any person that knows nothing on the topic reads and adds this lastname to the topic of Bigfoot, plus a very shaddy video, and it is easy why skeptics can have a ball. Just an unfortunately mix of circunstances that this very inconclusive and controversial vide.. I mean blobsquatch has brought in the whole bigfoot issue.


Edit to add Moneymaker comment (by the way I don't really know who he is, so I am not defending him or his "qualifications" but rather commenting on the sarcasm of the editorial focus on his actual name).

It's none of my beezwax, but if my last name was 'Moneymaker' and I was associating myself with an as yet un-unproven phenomenon like the Sasquatch to the media, be it web, print, tv..

I'd seriously consider changing my name<grin>..

Then again.. Who cares what people think! It's a cool name!!

I think it must be a great name to have if you enter the business world - I mean - no-one would forget it would they?

I don't think it's ever mattered to me what 'others' think about me or other 'Bigfoot Enthusiasts' (such as the type that inhabit this board) about our seeming 'dubious interests'. It's ALWAYS been a 'fringe fascination' to the mainstream and to the press. I don't ever remember a time where 'believers' were truly taken seriously (PGF included). Until a BODY or live SPECIMEN is found/caught...we're all 'CRACK POTS'. Ehhh, so what! If the mystery is 'solved' in my lifetime, damn cool. If not, oh well, I'll die a 'nut'. That's not as bad as 'bastard'.

"Oh! Heck Boys! Is it too late to send his surprise headstone back? What? Well..can't they scratch the word out??

Just dont join or head a charitible or non-profit organization with that name