Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bfro British Columbia Expedition!
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media
Pages: 1, 2, 3
HarryHenderson
I couldn't help but LAUGH OUT LOUD after reading THIS Class B 'report' on the 'Recent Additions' page of the BFRO website. It was submitted by a 'participant' on the recent (August) BFRO British Columbia 'expedition'.

Without going into all the details that you can read for yourself, I'll just simply state that the idea such 'Bigfoot happenings' occurred yet not a single bit of worthy evidence (except anecdotal) came about as a result is completely and utterly RIDICULOUS. They were on a friggin' BIGFOOT EXPEDITION and when the specific quarry they went there HOPING to find finally shows up, they're too busy 'sleeping' and/or doing 'whatever' to be 'bothered' by investigating and 'documenting' such annoyances any further than that? It's almost as if they had no INTENTION of doing anything more than trying to 'scare the s**t out of the trip's participants' so said participants had a few monster stories to tell the grandkids. Didn't anyone bring a LIGHTING DEVICE brighter than a match? A camera with a FLASH maybe? Is the idea of having a 'night watchman' IN CASE THE BEAST SHOWS UP obscure to them? The entire affair reads like a "How Not To" book.

I fully admit that I have been a 'passive' BFRO supporter here on this board (although I know not one member of the BFRO nor have I ever directly talked to one) as I always felt their 'mission and intentions' were seemingly noble and worthy, even if their methods and management weren't necessarily. Now I'm truly not sure about any of it. If what this report says is true (of what happened and DIDN'T happen), this whole BFRO expedition 'thang' has officially and literally gone from the absurd to the sublime. I would be EMBARRASSED to post such a contradictory and counterproductive account. And I mean no offense to the actual submitter, it's not really him I am faulting. I guess my first clue was the fact it was a considered a 'Class B' report (no direct sighting?) from AN OFFICIAL BFRO OUTING where THE BEAST WAS IN FACT (apparently) PRESENT.

Admittedly, my expectations for any expedition anywhere by anyone (for obtaining any kind of VALID evidence) are negligible at best, for obvious and logical reasons, but when such an expedition apparently comes to within INCHES of the prey they went there seeking and the VERY BEST they can say and do is lament the notion of "Why didn't anyone bring a flashlight or a camera instead of M&Ms?", then something is certainly rotten in Denmark and it's not cheese. Is it simply a case of the blind leading the blind? Are the the Keystone Cops in fact alive and well? Just total incompetence by the leaders and planners of such? Maybe something a bit more sinister? A lot more sinister? I just don't get it. new_stun.gif

My own 'regular expectations' from 'my fellow man' are in general, minimal, but I always expect that one who professes to have an ability to do something ACTUALLY DO IT and do it PROPERLY and CORRECTLY. That is not an outrageous or unrealistic expectation. This almost seems like a case where that sort of dogma was purposely and conciously overlooked. 'Innocent mistakes' and 'noble intentions' do not and cannot trump incompetence or lack of preparation, even if they are very often used to explain them. A job done completely, but incorrectly, is not a finished job. Most people do not accept notions like "well, it's almost level" or "I sort of fixed your car, kinda" as valid conclusions to whatever they may have had done. Especially if the sales pitches were something like "We always get it level®" or "We fix it right the first time, everytime®".

I guess I'm simply appalled at the grossly amateurish, ill prepared and 'less than genuine' actions of a supposed 'leader in the field' (BFRO). Actions that seem to more and more permeate the present day 'ways and means' of the once and powerful BFRO. They have certainly lost A LOT of credibility with this 'at one time' genuine supporter. I think Matt Moneymaker needs to come clean a bit so as to re-establish and reiterate what his true and real intentions are. And if they are in fact DIFFERENT than what we all have come to believe they are, he needs to step up to the plate and be HONEST. I see nothing but a future of further anguish, disenchantment and disappointment (and even litigation) if he continues to perpetuate this seemingly 'less than candid' approach.

And that is my opinion. wink.gif

"Harry"
billgreen2005bigfoot
hi harry henderson interesting post i kinda agree with you. but only time will tell. im sure the bfro will do other field research trips in british columbia forests soon. thanks bill
jimf
Question for you Harry? When does the mayan calendar end? We've agreed now twice in the last week. Somethings going to blow up!! new_weirdsmiley.gif
jimf
This
certainly can be taken in a new light these days huh? new_whistle.gif
larryk
Larry here. Newbie. Never involved whatsoever with BFRO. Been watching them from afar for a long time.

thumbup.gif
Harry great post. You crystalized my recent thoughts (fears?) perfectly 'bout BFRO.

QUOTE(HarryHenderson @ Oct 27 2005, 02:10 PM)
I think Matt Moneymaker needs to come clean a bit so as to re-establish and reiterate what his true and real intentions are. And if they are in fact DIFFERENT than what we all have come to believe they are, he needs to step up to the plate and be HONEST.


Why would he "need" to be honest? My short experience of life has shown me that integrity is more often than none optional. new_hmmsmiley02.gif
StacyInMI
And more lightbulbs illuminate. wink.gif


Check out the one from the Florida expedition... sound-only reports aren't even supposed to be published, and they're calling that a class B. Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
jimf
Just because these things havwe a way of disappearing.( And like Huntster, I'm an asshole too laugh.gif Gotcha bud!)
QUOTE
Report # 12855  (Class cool.gif
Submitted by witness on Thursday, October 20, 2005.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various incidents on British Columbia Expedition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Show Printer-friendly Version)
YEAR: 2005

SEASON: Summer

MONTH: August

DATE: 25 - 28

PROVINCE: British Columbia

COUNTRY: Canada

NEAREST TOWN: [Sunshine Coast region - North of Vancouver]

NEAREST ROAD: Pacific Coast Highway

OBSERVED: I would like to thank the BFRO for the excellent outing on the Sunshine Coast [British Columbia, Canada]. I am sure that the attendees will all agree that it was a hair raising time. I was amazed at the knowledge and the experiance that the seasoned investigators had brought to the table.

Although there was no direct visual sightings, it gradually became obvious to everyone that some sasquatches were in that area.

The first night that I was out with John and Phillip from Vancouver, I was not prepared to spend that first night in my truck, especially with the amount of vocalizations we had been hearing from the mountain side above us, so I headed back to base camp. On the way back I thought I had spotted something upright stepping off of the highway in the same dark stretch were other locals had reported road crossing sightings. It was late and I had been up for a long time, so I'm not sure about that one.

On the second night, John, Phillip and I were joined by Mike and Warren at our outpost. Once again it was a clear starlit night. We heard more vocalizations as well as some knocks, but not as many as the previous night.

Mike kept us entertained with his technological support items. Warren and I ended up crashing out in my truck only to wake up cramped and sore.

The third night was utterly fantastic. After two nights of simply setting ourselves up as observers and listeners the tactic was changed to one of gentle interaction. It was like we had let them know that "we are here and mean no harm" to "we are here, and we mean no harm, so why not come down closer to us". And they did. The way we were strung out on that road was just one big invitation. There were lots of movement heard and a fair bit
of vocalizations as well. It got really exciting about 10pm when one participant stated that something had walked down and was crouched behind her tent. After about 5 or 10 minutes, when asked she said it was still there but she didn't know what to do next. I suggested that she unzip her tent, which she did. The visitor was heard walking away. This was heard by the girl, her boyfriend and the guy in the next tent. It walked between the two tents and
departed briefly then departed.

Shortly thereafter, the couple went outside their tent briefly. After about 10 minutes they went back inside their tents. Shortly after going back inside she reported via walkie talkie that the visitor had returned from the direction, but was not as close as before. It eventually departed. One of the guides walked over to their tents and sat there for a few minutes to see what would happen. After a few minutes of quiet he spread out M&M's (candy) on top of a cooler. The idea was that if a bear was snooping so close to the tents, if it came back it would find and eat the pile of M&M's on the cooler. But if it came back again and didn't disturb the M&M's at all, then it probably wasn't a bear.

After a long interval of not hearing any sounds the three people in those two tents decided to turn in. They slept and did not wake to hear anything return. The M&M's were untouched when they woke in the morning.

I and one of the local guides positioned our vehicles on the logging road above where the girl's tent was situated. We had our vehicles backed up to each other and cooked dinner there.

When I went to sleep I had to put all of my equipment away and I closed up the back of the truck. I was going to sleep on the passenger side, as there would be more room without the steering wheel in the way. The doors were locked and the passenger window was down about an inch.

At 4:30 am something banged my truck. Either the side, tailgate or the roof. I woke up immediately but (I hate to say it) I could not or would not open my eyes. I sat there for what seemed like forever not moving, listening for what might be outside and then I heard distinctive heavy bipedal steps walk away from my truck heading down the road.

It was gone, or so I thought. I had keyed the mic on my walkie-talkie to see if anyone was awake. It must have heard the noise through the gap on my window because I heard it pace back past my truck to a position just behind me. I think that it had been standing between the two trucks and slightly to
the centre of the road watching the security light flash on my dashboard -- only a guess.

It was then that I broke radio silence and asked if anyone was up as I had
something outside my truck. I was very scared. The girl who had
the visitor earlier heard me and talked to me for a bit and then
dropped off.

While I was talking to her the thing outside my truck walked
away down the road. I believe that John, who had been listening to the two
of us on the radio, stated that he had heard whatever it was walk from
my position towards his and then angle up into the woods. This whole experiance lasted 15 to 20 minutes and it took me another 15 before I would get out of my truck.

Again, I would like to state that I had a fantastic time and I believe I am now better prepared to check the occurances in my local area.

Thank you for letting me be part of this!

Blaine McMillan
Vancouver Island

OTHER WITNESSES: There were nearly twenty people on the expedition. Hard to say how many people were present when various things happened.

OTHER STORIES: We spoke with several good local witnesses. They had obviously seen a sasquatch, possibly different ones, in the same general area.

TIME AND CONDITIONS: Mostly at night

ENVIRONMENT: Thick Pacific Northwest forest. Mountains and fjords.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Matthew Moneymaker:

This commentary applies to other BFRO expeditions as well.

Some wonder, with all the activity being noted during this British Columbia expedition, why there wasn't a frantic effort to get the animals on camera.

There was more than one camera effort during this expedition. Not every attendee was involved, so not every attendee will describe it in their reports.

The approach of these animals must be observed for a few nights in a row to see (hear) how they will approach, where they will approach, and how close, before a multi-position camera effort can even be planned.

Regular photo cameras will not work -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash.

Sasquatches will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Sasquatches (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.

Laying in wait in a tent with a spotlight and camcorder ... will not work either. Sasquatches generally won't come close to tents unless the forest is thick enough to allow them to disappear in a second or two -- faster than an auto-focus mechanism can adjust, especially on a dark moving object.

A person has but one chance if he/she comes bursting out of a tent like that, and will likely miss that chance.

People who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.

Sasquatches usually won't come close (within a few feet) of a human unless the human is contained in a tent, a vehicle, etc. The noise of a person exiting a tent or a vehicle provides a safe headstart for their escape.

The big question for the people present is whether the local sasquatches are bold enough to come down to a road, and/or approach vehicles, tents, etc., after everything has settled down and everyone has turned in for the night.

If the sasquatches will do this then a camera effort can be as passive as it needs to be, in order to fool these very intelligent animals, but it won't happen in earnest until the second-pass expedition.

The most passive camera traps are ones requiring no installation, testing or camoflauging at the site, such as when cameras are already set up inside vehicles.

Rigging up surveillance cameras inside vehicles is a much bigger project than one might assume, and needs to begin long before the expedition.

If it succeeds at a given spot then it can succeed repeatedly there. If it does not succeed, it can be relocated to other spots as quickly as the vehicle can be moved.

When it comes to fairly remote locations with logging roads, vehicles with surveillance systems installed will be the most flexible, most responsive, most reliable, most discrete, and most passive way to gather footage and recordings.

Rather than a conspicuous, noisey installation and testing effort, it will only require flipping a switch inside the vehicle, then just pretending to be a camper who isn't too concerned about whatever is out there in the dark.

No one wants to waste their time, so they'll choose to be passive observers for a weekend, before they'll be motivated to devote many other weekends to it. That applies to scientists, photographers, journalists, lawyers, policeman, hunters, etc. ... It's human nature.

--------------------------------

All other surveillance options require installing cameras (trail cameras, camcorders, etc.) around a camp perimeter, or inside a treeline, or along a path approaching a camp.

Among other things, it leaves a lot of human scent around.

The sites for installation cannot even be selected until some interchange has recently occured there, and has been witnessed by plenty of people. But at that stage the installation of cameras is even more conspicuous and noticeable. It would look and smell to anything watching as if traps were being laid.

Trail cams seem quick and easy to set up. They are not - not when directed at these animals. They have to be set low to the ground, and aimed and tested and camoflauged. More than one needs to be set up if the effort is going to rely on these types of cameras. The setup of trail cameras is equally conspicous and leaves just as much human scent around around. Installing cameras all around a camp will spread so much stressy human scent that nothing will come around for a few days.

-----------------------------------------

Everyone who assists with an expedition wants to see a sasquatch. Not everyone wants to walk around with a camera the whole time, especially when the mission is to scout for sites to set up cameras.

Approaching sasquatches in the field is not like hunting bear. It is much more like skirmishing with a lost tribe of nocturnal humans.

When presenting yourself in among dense tree cover, these "animals" will observe you through the trees and will patiently watch you for long periods, and will notice little things you do, and what your are paying attention to.

It is very difficult for the uninitiated to appreciate how intelligent sasquatches are. People find it difficult to accept or understand that camera/audio efforts directed at sasquatches are very different efforts than camera/audio efforts directed at other species.

-----------------------------------------

With all that said, there were attempts to photograph/video the prowlers on the final night of this expedition. Various people placed trail cameras on their car bumpers. One thermal camera was pointed out from the tent looking along a portion of the road where one of the animals walked. It rained heavily that night though.

No one was disappointed in the results .. quite the opposite.
We knew we found a very hot location for that time of year.

Everyone on the first-pass BC '05 expedition will be returning next year with more equipement. They will have ample time before then to gather surveillance equipment, install it in their vehicles, camoflauge it and test it.

We predicted accurately that we wouldn't get video footage in British Columbia this year. We're predicting that we will get footage in British Columbia next year.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About BFRO Investigator Matthew Moneymaker:

Matthew Moneymaker is originally from the Los Feliz District of Los Angeles, California.

- Bachelor of Arts in English Literature from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), 1992.

- Juris Doctorate from the University of Akron School of Law, 1996.

- Founder of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organizaton,1995.

- Writer and co-producer of the Discovery Channel documentary "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," 2001.

- Co-producer of the TV Series "Mysterious Encounters" for the Outdoor Life Network (OLN Channel), 2002.

- Producer of the "2003 International Bigfoot Symposium" (Willow Creek Symposium) DVD set, 2004.

- Current Director of the BFRO
Wildman
It reads as if MM is attempting to set the stage for one hell of a hoax next year.

Edited to add this:

QUOTE(Matt Moneymaker)
Approaching sasquatches in the field is not like hunting bear. It is much more like skirmishing with a lost tribe of nocturnal humans.


What the f@#$ is that????
blink.gif
Maheekat
They've gone over to the "Dark side"

They're all fired up over there lately.... ph34r.gif
nightwing
While I won't comment on the idea of a picket line of ninja squatches watching your every move, and taking detailed notes on what you do, and where you do it...I will note that MM's comments pertaining to remote cameras, show a fundamental lack of knowlege as to how they work(particularly of how PIR detection systems work), and of some not terribly difficult methods by which his human scent worries can be mitigated, or even eliminated entirely.
Heck..I was using them just tonight, and had a doe deer with 2 fawns 20 feet, down wind, and had no clue I was there...and I'd bet the farm her nose is a lot more sensitive than that of a sasquatch(for purely biological reasons).
Wildman
QUOTE(nightwing @ Oct 27 2005, 09:35 PM)
While I won't comment on the idea of a picket line of ninja squatches watching your every move, and taking detailed notes on what you do, and where you do it...I will note that MM's comments pertaining to remote cameras, show a fundamental lack of knowlege as to how they work(particularly of how PIR detection systems work), and of some not terribly difficult methods by which his human scent worries can be mitigated, or even eliminated entirely.
Heck..I was using them just tonight, and had a doe deer with 2 fawns 20 feet, down wind, and had no clue I was there...and I'd bet the farm her nose is a lot more sensitive than that of a sasquatch(for purely biological reasons).

Waitaminute...

You can't be insinuating he's—*gulp!*—full of s**t?! ph34r.gif

I'm shocked! blink.gif wink.gif
walkingcarpet
QUOTE
People who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.


And when the hell did that happen exactly?

Sounds to me like he's hard-selling future field trips. This is getting disturbing. These half-assed 'expeditions' seem to have hoax written all over them. Just round up a few rubes, make some noises in the dark--how come nothing happens during the day?--and fleece the naive participants for a few grand each.

I think we need to infiltrate one of these things to find out just what the hell is going on. Maybe take up a collection to send a 'stealth camper' along on one of these trips. When you hear the mysterious footsteps outside your tent at night, just go charging at the source with a banshee wail. If it's a real sasquatch, well at least you'll know for the few remaining seconds of your life. If it's something else...you've got yourself one hell of a class action lawsuit.
Hairy Man
Actually, if you go over the new report additions, it's interesting that the "new" investigators all have what expeditions they have attended in their bios. I don't think that is intended to make them sound "qualified," but rather intended to note to readers that you too can become a BFRO investigator by attending one of the expeditions....
Huntster
QUOTE(jimf @ Oct 27 2005, 10:08 PM)
...And like Huntster, I'm an asshole too laugh.gif Gotcha bud...

Good for you!

Like the Army always tells me: "Be the best you can be".

Looks like we're both pretty good assholes!

QUOTE
...Approaching sasquatches in the field is not like hunting bear. It is much more like skirmishing with a lost tribe of nocturnal humans...


I've never hunted tribes of nocturnal humans, but I've hunted bears.

I'm sure sasquatches are tough to hunt. I've never even had an encounter.

But then, I've never hunted them, either.

There was a lot of strategy and tactics written about in that report. Not once did I see anything like sitting in a tree motionless for a few nights.

I wonder why?

That's how you experience encounters with the nocturnal bears I've seen.

QUOTE
...When presenting yourself in among dense tree cover, these "animals" will observe you through the trees and will patiently watch you for long periods, and will notice little things you do, and what your are paying attention to...


If it's as dense as the tree cover as the rain forests I've hunted bear in on Prince of Wales Island or Prince William Sound, they don't see you for the same reason you don't see them. It's to damned thick in foliage. I don't believe that sasquatches can see through wood.

I believe that they probably smell and hear you before you know they're there.

But if they hang around to "see" what you're up to, you'll hear or "sense" that they're there before long.

I know when a bear is hanging around (either species).

QUOTE
...It is very difficult for the uninitiated to appreciate how intelligent sasquatches are. People find it difficult to accept or understand that camera/audio efforts directed at sasquatches are very different efforts than camera/audio efforts directed at other species...


This may be true. I don't know. And I don't know squat about cameras.

But I know how to hunt, and I don't bother with the camera until after the hunt is consumated.

So why don't they shoot one?

It sure would be cheaper and easier. And it would still leave them in a position of being the first and most experienced with the species, complete with a ten year seasoned database of reports, with the big boom of co-habitation and study remaining to profit from.

But, what do I know?

I'm just an asshole like Jim. laugh.gif
HarryHenderson
QUOTE(jimf @ Oct 27 2005, 06:41 PM)
Question for you  Harry? When does the mayan calendar end? We've agreed now twice in the last week. Somethings going to blow up!!  new_weirdsmiley.gif

icon_really_happy_guy.gif icon_really_happy_guy.gif icon_really_happy_guy.gif About all I can say is that's GOOD...right? wink.gif

As to your posting of the report I referred to, all that ancillary EXCUSE information written at the end of the report WAS NOT PRESENT when I read it (and referred to it) and I in fact 'copied' it from their website at the time for two reasons, one being the same exact reason you mentioned...that things have a way of disappearing from there at the slightest sign of 'unrest' or incredulousness. The other to prove I wasn't making any of it up. smile.gif It is interesting to note that the 'supplemental information' wasn't initially included as I assume when a report is posted on that site it is considered 'essentially ready' and fit for such. Guess not on this one, especially since it was 'called to the carpet'. new_whistle.gif

It WAS posted as follows....
QUOTE
Geographical Index > Canada > British Columbia > Report # 12855

Report # 12855 (Class cool.gif
Submitted by witness on Thursday, October 20, 2005.

Various incidents on British Columbia Expedition

(Show Printer-friendly Version)
YEAR: 2005
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 25 - 28
PROVINCE: British Columbia
COUNTRY: Canada
NEAREST TOWN: [Sunshine Coast region - North of Vancouver]
NEAREST ROAD: Pacific Coast Highway
OBSERVED: I would like to thank the BFRO for the excellent outing on the Sunshine Coast [British Columbia, Canada]. I am sure that the attendees will all agree that it was a hair raising time. I was amazed at the knowledge and the experiance that the seasoned investigators had brought to the table.

Although there was no direct visual sightings, it gradually became obvious to everyone that some sasquatches were in that area.

The first night that I was out with John and Phillip from Vancouver, I was not prepared to spend that first night in my truck, especially with the amount of vocalizations we had been hearing from the mountain side above us, so I headed back to base camp. On the way back I thought I had spotted something upright stepping off of the highway in the same dark stretch were other locals had reported road crossing sightings. It was late and I had been up for a long time, so I'm not sure about that one.

On the second night, John, Phillip and I were joined by Mike and Warren at our outpost. Once again it was a clear starlit night. We heard more vocalizations as well as some knocks, but not as many as the previous night.

Mike kept us entertained with his technological support items. Warren and I ended up crashing out in my truck only to wake up cramped and sore.

The third night was utterly fantastic. After two nights of simply setting ourselves up as observers and listeners the tactic was changed to one of gentle interaction. It was like we had let them know that "we are here and mean no harm" to "we are here, and we mean no harm, so why not come down closer to us". And they did. The way we were strung out on that road was just one big invitation. There were lots of movement heard and a fair bit
of vocalizations as well. It got really exciting about 10pm when one participant stated that something had walked down and was crouched behind her tent. After about 5 or 10 minutes, when asked she said it was still there but she didn't know what to do next. I suggested that she unzip her tent, which she did. The visitor was heard walking away. This was heard by the girl, her boyfriend and the guy in the next tent. It walked between the two tents and
departed briefly then departed.

Shortly thereafter, the couple went outside their tent briefly. After about 10 minutes they went back inside their tents. Shortly after going back inside she reported via walkie talkie that the visitor had returned from the direction, but was not as close as before. It eventually departed. One of the guides walked over to their tents and sat there for a few minutes to see what would happen. After a few minutes of quiet he spread out M&M's (candy) on top of a cooler. The idea was that if a bear was snooping so close to the tents, if it came back it would find and eat the pile of M&M's on the cooler. But if it came back again and didn't disturb the M&M's at all, then it probably wasn't a bear.

After a long interval of not hearing any sounds the three people in those two tents decided to turn in. They slept and did not wake to hear anything return. The M&M's were untouched when they woke in the morning.

I and one of the local guides positioned our vehicles on the logging road above where the girl's tent was situated. We had our vehicles backed up to each other and cooked dinner there.

When I went to sleep I had to put all of my equipment away and I closed up the back of the truck. I was going to sleep on the passenger side, as there would be more room without the steering wheel in the way. The doors were locked and the passenger window was down about an inch.

At 4:30 am something banged my truck. Either the side, tailgate or the roof. I woke up immediately but (I hate to say it) I could not or would not open my eyes. I sat there for what seemed like forever not moving, listening for what might be outside and then I heard distinctive heavy bipedal steps walk away from my truck heading down the road.

It was gone, or so I thought. I had keyed the mic on my walkie-talkie to see if anyone was awake. It must have heard the noise through the gap on my window because I heard it pace back past my truck to a position just behind me. I think that it had been standing between the two trucks and slightly to
the centre of the road watching the security light flash on my dashboard -- only a guess.

It was then that I broke radio silence and asked if anyone was up as I had
something outside my truck. I was very scared. The girl who had
the visitor earlier heard me and talked to me for a bit and then
dropped off.

While I was talking to her the thing outside my truck walked
away down the road. I believe that John, who had been listening to the two
of us on the radio, stated that he had heard whatever it was walk from
my position towards his and then angle up into the woods. This whole experiance lasted 15 to 20 minutes and it took me another 15 before I would get out of my truck.

Again, I would like to state that I had a fantastic time and I believe I am now better prepared to check the occurances in my local area.

Thank you for letting me be part of this!

Blaine McMillan
Vancouver Island
OTHER WITNESSES: There were nearly twenty people on the expedition. Hard to say how many people were present when various things happened.
OTHER STORIES: We spoke with several good local witnesses. They had obviously seen a sasquatch, possibly different ones, in the same general area.
TIME AND CONDITIONS: Mostly at night
ENVIRONMENT: Thick Pacific Northwest forest. Mountains and fjords.

Explanation of the report classification system
Submit a report
Submit a comment or article 

Copyright © 2005 BFRO.net


By the way, nice signature line too. thumbup.gif laugh.gif
jimf
I liked it!! cool.gif (The sig not the expidition report).
I dunno, it's kinda funny in a way some of the things that are stated as seemingly facts from the original version you had to the one that was up when I saw it.
QUOTE
The approach of these animals must be observed for a few nights in a row to see (hear) how they will approach, where they will approach, and how close, before a multi-position camera effort can even be planned.
Gimme a break. In any effort for documentation one of the first things you do if you have the game cams is to set up a perimiter around the area in question. As NW noted you can mask your scent on the cams. There is also, that given there are 20 humans, vehicles and all other manner of equipment about,that the scent on the camera is probably the least smelly thing in the area.
QUOTE
Regular photo cameras will not work -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash.
So far every legitimate (as in not hoaxed and not imagination) photo or video of an alleged has come about by accident using exactly this method. There are also nioght shot lenses available and ,you can also point and click rapidly with a small disposable camera and a handheld flashlight, This is one of the qorst excuses I've seen for having the amount of activity claimed and nothing to show for it. For this report alone you have an alleged sasquatch walking between your vehicles and no one can get a camera up that fast? As its going on for 15-20 minutes.?
QUOTE
Sasquatches will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Sasquatches (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.
Nw and several other people have posted pics from game cams to the contrary of this, re: other animal in both the illumination and the scent factor. What's stated here is not fact ,it's conjecture passed off as fact,and utterly rediculous.
QUOTE
People who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.
That may be the single best pre-requisite for a hoax that I've seen. Sounds and possibilities of bi-pedal movement are not a personal confirmation of anything sasquatch related. I for one still dispute the fact that most people can even tell the difference between bipedal and quadrapedal 'sounds' of movement. Several of us even tested that in the dark on the Michigan UP camping trip this past summer. At approximatly 20 yards in the dark it's inconclusive at best.
QUOTE
Sasquatches usually won't come close (within a few feet) of a human unless the human is contained in a tent, a vehicle, etc. The noise of a person exiting a tent or a vehicle provides a safe headstart for their escape.
Simply put,there are over 1000 reports now ,several hundred on the BFRO website alone, that state otherwise. If that were indeed the case as to sasquatch sightings and encounters,then there would be none on record. This ,like the earlier statement above though, is a nice prerequisite for a hoax. Sort of a "stay in your tent/vehicle and just listen, its a sasquatch!! trust me. " kind of attitude.
QUOTE
The big question for the people present is whether the local sasquatches are bold enough to come down to a road, and/or approach vehicles, tents, etc., after everything has settled down and everyone has turned in for the night.

If the sasquatches will do this then a camera effort can be as passive as it needs to be, in order to fool these very intelligent animals, but it won't happen in earnest until the second-pass expedition.
According to the report above this is exactly what happened. Maybe I'm wrong on what the purpose of an expidition is about,but by comparrison, if you're looking for El Dorado, you don't leave the gold once you find it so you can come back and get it later. Maybe it's just me,but when I think of the people here on this forum alone out looking for bigfoot when thier time allows,they walk around with a camera, sound recorder camcorder or even a gun for the sole purpose of getting that photo or final proof,and then see something like this report and these statments,I wonder how we could have all been so wrong for so many years. We shoulda just went out with nothing to record anything that happened and that is apparently the guarantee that something will happen. :doh:
QUOTE
All other surveillance options require installing cameras (trail cameras, camcorders, etc.) around a camp perimeter, or inside a treeline, or along a path approaching a camp.

Among other things, it leaves a lot of human scent around.

The sites for installation cannot even be selected until some interchange has recently occured there, and has been witnessed by plenty of people. But at that stage the installation of cameras is even more conspicuous and noticeable. It would look and smell to anything watching as if traps were being laid.

Trail cams seem quick and easy to set up. They are not - not when directed at these animals. They have to be set low to the ground, and aimed and tested and camoflauged. More than one needs to be set up if the effort is going to rely on these types of cameras. The setup of trail cameras is equally conspicous and leaves just as much human scent around around. Installing cameras all around a camp will spread so much stressy human scent that nothing will come around for a few days.
The plans for this ' expidition' were set months ago,and that wasn't enough time to test equipment and prepare? That may be the single most incompetent thing I've ever heard said regarding the search for sasuatch. If you ever wanted proof that MM and those going on these expiditions were in is soley for the $$$$ , then there you go.
QUOTE
No one was disappointed in the results .. quite the opposite.
We knew we found a very hot location for that time of year.
So much for being able to spot bigfoot habitat. I thought the original premise is that the location was picked because it was already a hotspot?
QUOTE
We predicted accurately that we wouldn't get video footage in British Columbia this year.
Startling!! :rolleyes:
QUOTE
We're predicting that we will get footage in British Columbia next year.
I'm predicting they will too, I just doubt that it will actually be a sasquatch.
StacyInMI
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Oct 28 2005, 12:59 AM)
....you too can become a BFRO investigator by attending one of the expeditions....


.... by paying for and attending.... wink.gif
ouachita
Just for snicks and grins it is funny what happens when you change a few terms in the "excuses" section of the report.

Notice: This a satirized version of a portion of the report.
(Changes and additions in bold.)

QUOTE
Some wonder, with all the activity being noted during this British Columbia expedition, why there wasn't a frantic effort to get the animals on camera.

There was more than one camera effort during this expedition. Not every attendee was involved, so not every attendee will describe it in their reports. Some attendees just aren't that gullible.

The approach of these hoaxers  must be observed for a few nights in a row to see (hear) how they will approach, where they will approach, and how close, before a multi-position camera effort can even be planned.

Regular photo cameras will work all too well -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash, but they are quick, easy to use, and can be used before the hoaxer can get away.

Hoaxers will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Hoaxers (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.

Laying in wait in a tent with a spotlight and camcorder ... could work. Hoaxers generally won't come close to tents unless the forest is thick enough to allow them to disappear in a second or two -- faster than an auto-focus mechanism can adjust, especially on a dark moving object.

A person has but one chance if he/she comes bursting out of a tent like that, and will likely miss that chance with any luck for the hoaxer.

Suckers who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.

Hoaxers usually won't come close (within a few feet) of a human unless the human is contained in a tent, a vehicle, etc. The noise of a person exiting a tent or a vehicle provides a safe headstart for their escape.

The big question for the people present is whether the local hoaxers are bold enough to come down to a road, and/or approach vehicles, tents, etc., after everything has settled down and everyone has turned in for the night.

If the hoaxers will do this then a camera effort can be as passive as it needs to be, in order to fool these very intelligent animals, but it won't happen in earnest until the second-pass expedition because the hoaxers won't be back for the second round.
Wildman
QUOTE(ouachita @ Oct 28 2005, 10:54 AM)
Just for snicks and grins it is funny what happens when you change a few terms in the "excuses" section of the report.

Notice: This a satirized version of a portion of the report.
(Changes and additions in bold.)

QUOTE
Some wonder, with all the activity being noted during this British Columbia expedition, why there wasn't a frantic effort to get the animals on camera.

There was more than one camera effort during this expedition. Not every attendee was involved, so not every attendee will describe it in their reports. Some attendees just aren't that gullible.

The approach of these hoaxers  must be observed for a few nights in a row to see (hear) how they will approach, where they will approach, and how close, before a multi-position camera effort can even be planned.

Regular photo cameras will work all too well -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash, but they are quick, easy to use, and can be used before the hoaxer can get away.

Hoaxers will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Hoaxers (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.

Laying in wait in a tent with a spotlight and camcorder ... could work. Hoaxers generally won't come close to tents unless the forest is thick enough to allow them to disappear in a second or two -- faster than an auto-focus mechanism can adjust, especially on a dark moving object.

A person has but one chance if he/she comes bursting out of a tent like that, and will likely miss that chance with any luck for the hoaxer.

Suckers who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.

Hoaxers usually won't come close (within a few feet) of a human unless the human is contained in a tent, a vehicle, etc. The noise of a person exiting a tent or a vehicle provides a safe headstart for their escape.

The big question for the people present is whether the local hoaxers are bold enough to come down to a road, and/or approach vehicles, tents, etc., after everything has settled down and everyone has turned in for the night.

If the hoaxers will do this then a camera effort can be as passive as it needs to be, in order to fool these very intelligent animals, but it won't happen in earnest until the second-pass expedition because the hoaxers won't be back for the second round.

That is absolutely perfect, because it is exactly as I read it. Pure genius! new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
Hairy Man
QUOTE(jimf @ Oct 27 2005, 08:08 PM)
We predicted accurately that we wouldn't get video footage in British Columbia this year. We're predicting that we will get footage in British Columbia next year.

How come it always feels like Matt is a snake oil salesman?
Maheekat
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Oct 28 2005, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE(jimf @ Oct 27 2005, 08:08 PM)
We predicted accurately that we wouldn't get video footage in British Columbia this year. We're predicting that we will get footage in British Columbia next year.

How come it always feels like Matt is a snake oil salesman?

it's all about presentation....keep's em' comin' back for more biggrin.gif

Come on down! $995.95 will gitcha one of them there Sasquatchee's
And no money back! So act now!
Teresa
QUOTE(ouachita @ Oct 28 2005, 12:54 PM)
Just for snicks and grins it is funny what happens when you change a few terms in the "excuses" section of the report.

Notice: This a satirized version of a portion of the report.
(Changes and additions in bold.)

QUOTE
Some wonder, with all the activity being noted during this British Columbia expedition, why there wasn't a frantic effort to get the animals on camera.

There was more than one camera effort during this expedition. Not every attendee was involved, so not every attendee will describe it in their reports. Some attendees just aren't that gullible.

The approach of these hoaxers  must be observed for a few nights in a row to see (hear) how they will approach, where they will approach, and how close, before a multi-position camera effort can even be planned.

Regular photo cameras will work all too well -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash, but they are quick, easy to use, and can be used before the hoaxer can get away.

Hoaxers will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Hoaxers (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.

Laying in wait in a tent with a spotlight and camcorder ... could work. Hoaxers generally won't come close to tents unless the forest is thick enough to allow them to disappear in a second or two -- faster than an auto-focus mechanism can adjust, especially on a dark moving object.

A person has but one chance if he/she comes bursting out of a tent like that, and will likely miss that chance with any luck for the hoaxer.

Suckers who are not quite as impatient, are content, intially, with a first-hand, personal confirmation (and group confirmation) of their existence and their presence in a given area.

Hoaxers usually won't come close (within a few feet) of a human unless the human is contained in a tent, a vehicle, etc. The noise of a person exiting a tent or a vehicle provides a safe headstart for their escape.

The big question for the people present is whether the local hoaxers are bold enough to come down to a road, and/or approach vehicles, tents, etc., after everything has settled down and everyone has turned in for the night.

If the hoaxers will do this then a camera effort can be as passive as it needs to be, in order to fool these very intelligent animals, but it won't happen in earnest until the second-pass expedition because the hoaxers won't be back for the second round.

icon_really_happy_guy.gif :mm: :rotflmao:
Teresa
Remember now...these are people who are receiving specialized "training" as experts in the field on expeditions to observe sasquatches. So this report is the product of all that intense specialized training they received in order to get close to sasquatches to observe them.

1st participant: Speaking into walkie talkie "hello...is anybody there? I was sitting here sleeping on watch and something just hit my truck. It's been here for 20 minutes and I think it's standing right here in the road. No, I am not going to open my eyes and look, I'm afraid.

2nd participant: "I was sitting here in my tent and something walked by twice. Hell no I didn't look out the window or get out of the tent!" "some other guy put some M&M's out because we know that bears eat M&Ms but sasquatches won't. No we didn't watch, we went to sleep."

Priceless..... absolutely priceless. :doh:
zoom1200
My 2 cents and not to stir up a hornets nest.
Why all the hate? Its his site/trips he can do what he wants.
If people want to pay the money to go on these expeditions let them.
If you don't like MM or his site, don't go there.

simple.....

So why bash him and his trips.
JayleeD
QUOTE(zoom1200 @ Oct 30 2005, 11:03 PM)
My 2 cents and not to stir up a hornets nest.
Why all the hate?  Its his site/trips he can do what he wants.
If people want to pay the money to go on these expeditions let them.
If you don't like MM or his site, don't go there.

simple.....

So why bash him and his trips.

I guess you really had to be a (hard working, money spending, defending) member of the BFRO, or have watched the turn it's taken to fully understand and appreciate the total amount of bullshit that's being shoveled out by MM and his group now.

JMO of course.
uffda320
Have you all checked out the BFRO lately? Check out their expedition FAQ page. http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/roundup/exped_faq.asp#gift
In particular, what you get if you give a gift package

QUOTE
Q: Can I get something like a gift card?  A: Many people register other people as a gift (birthday, graduaton, holidays, anniversary, thank you, etc.). They often ask for items to include in a package that can be opened at a party or a holiday.

The gift package costs $460 and includes expedition slots for 1-2 people, BFRO t-shirts (2), a BFRO expedition patch (2), BFRO logo patches (4), and a gift card showing the name of the person (+1) as being registered for the given expedition.


Tell me this isn't being done solely for commercial reasons? icon_really_happy_guy.gif
JayleeD
Well, by crackies I know what I'm giving for graduation, wedding and anniversary gifts next year. Puleeeeeze! icon_rolleyes.gif

Good catch uffda, I hadn't seen that one.
Fishbone35
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Oct 31 2005, 01:30 AM)
Well, by crackies I know what I'm giving for graduation, wedding and anniversary gifts next year.

icon_really_happy_guy.gif icon_really_happy_guy.gif icon_really_happy_guy.gif
Huntster
QUOTE(zoom1200 @ Oct 30 2005, 11:03 PM)
....Why all the hate? Its his site/trips he can do what he wants. If people want to pay the money to go on these expeditions let them. If you don't like MM or his site, don't go there....

No hatred here. There is some disappointment, though.

I could be wrong, but it appeared that BFRO had a great chance to forward serious research and possibly even discovery regarding this species.

It didn't turn out that way. Internally, the organization fell apart. The internet reporting system has been allowed to wither, and instead of preparing for a good, hot event, they appear to be creating their own.

Oh, well. Like P.T. Barnum said (modified by the Huntster): "There's an ass for every seat."

The customers paying for these expeditions can enjoy them to their heart's content as far as I'm concerned.

I'll wait for something promising to come up before investing like that.
Hairy Man
QUOTE(uffda320 @ Oct 30 2005, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE
Q: Can I get something like a gift card?  A: Many people register other people as a gift (birthday, graduaton, holidays, anniversary, thank you, etc.). They often ask for items to include in a package that can be opened at a party or a holiday.

The gift package costs $460 and includes expedition slots for 1-2 people, BFRO t-shirts (2), a BFRO expedition patch (2), BFRO logo patches (4), and a gift card showing the name of the person (+1) as being registered for the given expedition.

Crimney....
nighthunter
hello all biggrin.gif i was on the 1st wa. trip. and i was not impressed. myself and another member did alot of the planning for one of the nights searches. and to my surprise one participant got a scream recorded. it was a great plan, based on terrain and previous reports, it worked. and i paid to attend :doh: oh well. fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on u. and i will be attending the oregon trip planned for next year. cant wait, u think other participants are going to hear or see something?????? i do, the BFRO sure knows where to go to find them sasquatches thumbup.gif
Ken Y.
QUOTE(jimf @ Oct 27 2005, 11:08 PM)
Regular photo cameras will not work -- they are handheld, and they don't see very far in the dark, even with the brightest flash.

Sasquatches will normally avoid illumination, even most infrared illumination. Sasquatches (and other animals) will also notice flashes at night from trail cameras being aimed, tested, or falsely triggered from insects or falling leaves.

Above is a quote from MM

As for the statement of how a normal flash does not have enough light to record a image of a dark colored subject in the dark. This is true to a extent. But....He seriously needs to read a electronic flash photography book.

I posted several times on the Yahoo group of the BFRO telling him to use a frensel tele flash extender. This was before the Ohio river valley footage. He did not listen and got crap results then to. it cost less than 50 bucks and is available commerically on the internet. the "better beamer".

**

The distance which the flash is effective is directly related to the speed of the film(the higher the speed film, the further the light will travel)

If you know the distance the flash is going to properly expose the film and if you can measure the distance to the subject when you took the photograph push the film during the development at the lab: this will extend the distance you can record a subject properly.

Test your camera and the flash. Shoot two rolls of film in the DARK. Starting at 5 feet away and having your friend take a step backwards one step at a time. Do the same for the second roll. Develop the first roll normally and push the second roll one stop.

You will be able to see the difference in the prints if you tell the lab to do straight prints without photo lab machine compensation.

**

As for the camera trap getting false trigger hits from insects and leaves.. most of these trigger systems work with a environmental thermal sensor.

Would you not set up the trap in the daytime and if it is a infra red filtered flash past the spectrum of their visual perceptive range, they would not be able to see it in the first place.


If you are thinking of going on a BFRO trip .. dont.

Spend the money on your wife or girlfriend.

You will get more return on your money. You will most likely get clearance from your old lady for a week to go on a trip with a few good friends to look for bigfoot.

Ken
Teresa
Ken, I like the way you think (except for that "old lady" part). I'd have given the clearance anyhow, but your way I get a nice shiny new bauble to ooh and ah over with the women at work. new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

Ah.. absence makes the heart grow fonder and diamonds are a girl's best friend. I could go for that. BUT if my husband came to me and said he wanted to spend money to go out on a BFRO expedition I'd smack him back to reality. :marge:
Volsquatch
QUOTE(Ken Yielding @ Nov 2 2005, 04:03 PM)
You will most likely get clearance from your old lady

Clearance? :yeahright:


This is one of the main reasons I don't have an "old lady" that I have to answer to.


Good points though, Ken! biggrin.gif
Timberghost
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Oct 30 2005, 11:15 PM)
I guess you really had to be a (hard working, money spending, defending) member of the BFRO, or have watched the turn it's taken to fully understand and appreciate the total amount of bullshit that's being shoveled out by MM and his group now.

Not really Jay.. new_whistle.gif
Judaculla
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Oct 31 2005, 12:15 AM)
QUOTE(zoom1200 @ Oct 30 2005, 11:03 PM)
My 2 cents and not to stir up a hornets nest.
Why all the hate?  Its his site/trips he can do what he wants.
If people want to pay the money to go on these expeditions let them.
If you don't like MM or his site, don't go there.

simple.....

So why bash him and his trips.

I guess you really had to be a (hard working, money spending, defending) member of the BFRO, or have watched the turn it's taken to fully understand and appreciate the total amount of bullshit that's being shoveled out by MM and his group now.

JMO of course.

I never had a problem with Matt wanting to generate revenue in some fashion. He spends a lot of time on this endeavor. If if he can make money at it, more power to him.

I did take issue with how the expeditions were represented on the website, both in how they were advertised and in how results were presented. I also had some concerns with the planning and execution of the expeditions.

Several of us tried to internally address those concerns (and other critical organizational matters) and right the ship. We did our damndest (most will never know how hard we tried), but we were not well received.
Redwolf
QUOTE(Judaculla @ Nov 2 2005, 06:15 AM)
I never had a problem with Matt wanting to generate revenue in some fashion.  He spends a lot of time on this endeavor.  If if he can make money at it, more power to him.

I did take issue with how the expeditions were represented on the website, both in how they were advertised and in how results were presented.  I also had some concerns with the planning and execution of the expeditions.

Several of us tried to internally address those concerns (and other critical organizational matters) and right the ship.  We did our damndest (most will never know how hard we tried), but we were not well received.

QUOTE
We did our damndest (most will never know how hard we tried), but we were not well received.


I think that is the understatement of the year.

Redwolf
JayleeD
QUOTE(Timberghost @ Nov 2 2005, 07:48 AM)
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Oct 30 2005, 11:15 PM)

I guess you really had to be a (hard working, money spending, defending) member of the BFRO, or have watched the turn it's taken to fully understand and appreciate the total amount of bullshit that's being shoveled out by MM and his group now.

Not really Jay.. new_whistle.gif

I hear ya Timber. wink.gif




QUOTE(Jud)
Several of us tried to internally address those concerns (and other critical organizational matters) and right the ship. We did our damndest (most will never know how hard we tried), but we were not well received.


And that's the point of my post Jud. Some of us do know how hard some of you tried to right the wrongs and, yes I'll say it, save the BFRO. I for one appreciate the many efforts, and I'm sorry your efforts were not appreciated nor accepted by the one who could have, and should have listened.
zoom1200
Even I acknowledge that the Bfro has gone downhill. I have been a lurker at both this site and the bfro for a long time.
but I still don't understand all the flames on this site about them.

since everyone here seems to think they can run a better expedition. why don't the vets here run one???
yes I know easier said then done but maybe its time to quit slamming others efforts and run one out of this site...
HarryHenderson
QUOTE(Judaculla @ Nov 2 2005, 07:15 AM)
.....I never had a problem with Matt wanting to generate revenue in some fashion.  He spends a lot of time on this endeavor.  If if he can make money at it, more power to him.
I would wholly agree with that too and that's certainly not what has 'soured' me personally on the seeming 'turn of events' that this BC Expedition has made apparent (and yes I know many of you 'former members' knew the BFRO was misguided long before now). Although, only to the extent that he's being HONEST to the 'customers' about the entire endeavor. If he's hoaxing anything or faking anything, the 'making some money' part should/would be a subject worthy of further debate.

QUOTE(Judaculla @ Nov 2 2005, 07:15 AM)
I did take issue with how the expeditions were represented on the website, both in how they were advertised and in how results were presented.  I also had some concerns with the planning and execution of the expeditions.

Several of us tried to internally address those concerns (and other critical organizational matters) and right the ship.  We did our damndest (most will never know how hard we tried), but we were not well received.
What didn't and STILL doesn't make sense to me, even after his 'explanation/excuse', is what were they in fact doing if NOT 'seeking' and/or 'wanting to find' Bigfoot and/or Bigfoot evidence? Were they only after the IDEA that Bigfoot was 'there' for a future paying customer expedition that would then supposedly be doing all the proper things the proper way? Just doesn't make much sense to me.

I was under the impression that MM has had an almost lifelong obsession with the 'beast'. His patience, perseverance and dedication to the cause through the BFRO et al has been evident and sure makes it seem so. And if that IS so, why wouldn't he PERSONALLY (if no one else) take advantage of the seeming grand opportunities that presented themselves? Unless he knows A LOT MORE than he's letting on, the notion that you can just go out and 'see Bigfoot when you want to' isn't something I'm familiar with. Thus, when you go on a SUPPOSED 'Bigfoot Expedition', you SHOULD be prepared to actually BE ON a supposed 'Bigfoot Expedition'. When did this "Awww well, we'll get him next year" type of thinking become acceptable from the (virtually) self proclaimed GRAND POOBAH of Bigfootery? Especially when said 'ELUSIVE beast' you will be 'supposedly' seeking NEXT year was already and literally IN YOUR TENT sniffin' your M&Ms this year? wink.gif

Something is up...but I'll be damned if I know what it is...yet! huh.gif

"Harry"
Timberghost
QUOTE(zoom1200 @ Nov 3 2005, 12:17 AM)
since everyone here seems to think they can run a better expedition.  why don't the vets here run one???
yes I know easier said then done  but maybe its time to quit slamming others efforts and run one out of this site...

Hell nobody in bigfootdom has been flamed more than I have, and for sure not on this board. Personally it tickles the piss outta me that others are now seeing for themselves what I've been screaming all along. Matt MONEYmaker doesn't want proof, he wants MONEY. In this case I don't think it's flaming, it's calling a spade a frickin spade. I would think it would be safe to say that Moneymaker has done more damage to the credibility of others in this field than any given ten. But, when it's HIS turn on the chopping block, where the hell is he? Hiding behind the women on the porch? From what I'm reading I don't see where others are so much complaining about the expeditions, it's the means and measures behind them.

It's not flaming, it's the reckoning.....

Where are you now Mr. "worlds foremost expert on bigfoot and bullshit"?
Step up and splain yursef
Teresa
I think Matt is smart enough to know he isn't going to be a "welcome" speaker by many to this board. He's openly called it a "cesspool of wallowing idiots" across the board and has negated the significance, and continues, as far as I know, to deny any significance in the opinions of this board and says this board doesn't matter. He does send in his personnel to defend him and the organization at times, and he does watch and read this board regularly, and I'm sure knows what's being said about him and the BFRO at any given time. He may even use it to his advantage when he wants some free PR or as in the "wish list" to validate what he's said about language capabilities for future use. If he can get the people who are his staunchest critics to confirm with our words here that he has claimed the animals have a complex language and then that theory bears fruit in the future he feels the scientific community will have to accept that he said it first.

To otherwise ignore the name (BFF) that comes up second under the BFRO on a search engine is to flirt with disaster in my opinion. I think the BFF represents public opinion on matters of bigfoot and the organizations doing the research (or not). While in the BFRO I knew Matt held very little esteem for the BFF he said it openly and I disagreed openly. Unfortunately, the BFRO is a one man show at the top and if your opinion differs from the Honcho you might as well be spitting into the wind. The BFRO continues to lose good people, but at the end of the BFRO's rope, he will be able to say he did it his way.

Matt won't come here. He knows he'll be roasted alive with his own words. That, and the fact he puts very little importance in the BFF. One need only read back to his prior posts to see how he feels about the BFF.
StacyInMI
QUOTE(Timberghost @ Nov 3 2005, 06:09 AM)
In this case I don't think it's flaming, it's calling a spade a frickin spade.


Right on!
Teresa
I'm just glad I don't have to do this new_whistle.gif or this popcorn2.gif anymore when the subject of the BFRO comes up!

I like "the reckoning" term. It's honest and Matt will have his day of reckoning.
Timberghost
QUOTE(ARsquatch @ Nov 3 2005, 06:23 AM)
Matt won't come here. He knows he'll be roasted alive with his own words.

Oh, I know he won't post. But, you can bet your rosey red lips he reads every word...
Saskwatcher
Will they be serving pancakes ?
JayleeD
QUOTE(Saskwatcher @ Nov 4 2005, 09:57 AM)
Will they be serving pancakes ?

And pot roast, so I hear. sleep.gif
Saskwatcher
Pot, roast and pancakes........
I bet they'll see something that night !
socaldave
QUOTE(Saskwatcher @ Nov 4 2005, 11:07 AM)
Pot, roast and pancakes........
I bet they'll see something that night !

Well if that comma is in the right place, who knows what will be seen? icon_really_happy_guy.gif
jimf
icon_really_happy_guy.gif icon_really_happy_guy.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.