Full Version: fox news
fox news bigfoot story [from youtube.com]
MM interview w/ Fox [youtube, again]
Moneymaker's tone comes across as very aggressive doesn't it?
"Bigfoots" wtf?
"Bigfoots" wtf?
QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Jul 18 2007, 09:31 AM) 
Moneymaker's tone comes across as very aggressive doesn't it?
Maybe he's just tired from being on his feet all day in the field, making Chewbacca noises and beating on trees with sticks.
Wait! The MM BFRO workout! Wood wacking and Wookie wailing exercises build up a mighty thirst and appetite!
hey everyone wow interesting fox news news new bfro bigfoot segments indeed. there will probley more fox news bigfoot bfro segments or even cnn & msnbc bigfoot segments in near future only time will tell patients is a definet virtue with the media lol
thanks again bill green
thanks again bill green
MM In his interview made a few mistakes explaining that he has real good footage but then explains that the footage he has is not good enuogh to show.But the fox news team they are a joke, they just laugh at the fact that these creatures could be out there.No wonder that when one sees these creatures they do not want to report it .How can they, when folks believe it is just a joke to say that they seen something that they cannot explain.No wonder one gets agressive when they finally come out and explain their sighting.The media is not a means to explain something of this sort especialy fox news.
Mark A
PS:If i was MM I would not go back to fox news with any evidence they are a joke And now I understand why You Bill was upset about this .Thanks for posting
Mark A
PS:If i was MM I would not go back to fox news with any evidence they are a joke And now I understand why You Bill was upset about this .Thanks for posting
It's not just Fox news that ridicules the bigfoot community. Find ANY major news outlet that takes bigfoot seriously. Every time I've seen a report about bigfoot on tv (the news), it has been near the end of the broadcast and usually includes 
and 
from the people on camera. Until someone comes forward with some decent evidence, I'm afraid this will just continue.
and from the people on camera. Until someone comes forward with some decent evidence, I'm afraid this will just continue.
QUOTE(uffda320 @ Jul 18 2007, 11:24 AM)
Find ANY major news outlet that takes bigfoot seriously. Until someone comes forward with some decent evidence, I'm afraid this will just continue.
When MM and Biscardi (and other researchers in their genre) report their claims and can't back them up (coupled by exorbitant fees to tag along) with any real evidence (other than sounds, purported tracks, and feelings of fear) it becomes the "The Boy Who Cried Bigfoot" syndrome.
There are issues more newsworthy than the shenanigans of these people, and this is why their stories are treated like as such.
Jane Goodall, Meldrum, and other credible people may elicit a different reaction from the media, but who knows?
Essentially, the American media has turned from a content based industry to one based on ratings. FOX News is the poster child for this paradigm shift.
QUOTE(uffda320 @ Jul 18 2007, 05:24 PM)
It's not just Fox news that ridicules the bigfoot community. Find ANY major news outlet that takes bigfoot seriously. Every time I've seen a report about bigfoot on tv (the news), it has been near the end of the broadcast and usually includes and from the people on camera. Until someone comes forward with some decent evidence, I'm afraid this will just continue.
and from the people on camera. Until someone comes forward with some decent evidence, I'm afraid this will just continue.hey uffda yes i totaly agree with your above reply regarding this certain situation, this is a majer lesson for researchers here. but im sure in near future researchers etc here will know better which network to get interviewed about their sasquatch research, and if fox news interviews anyone here ever i think the person should place nuteral ground rules with fox news channel before the interview is even considered in upcomeing years. opinions please also email fox news channel with your opinions about those interviews. i hope we get to see the rest of griff interview with the mm & bfro on fox news channel. thanks bill green
keep me posted ok..
QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Jul 18 2007, 08:31 AM)
Moneymaker's tone comes across as very aggressive doesn't it?
"Bigfoots" wtf?
"Bigfoots" wtf?
I argued in favor of “Bigfeet” in discussion threads on the Cryptomundo blog-site on April 21 and April 24, 2006, but came away converted to “Bigfoots.” I wrote that:
QUOTE
“The natural tendency of English-speakers is to refer to a group of Blackfoot Indians as Blackfeet. I Googled and found, near the top of the list, an informational website that regularly used phrases like, “The Blackfeet used dogs to drag travois,” etc. If Blackfoot/Blackfeet, then Bigfoot/Bigfeet.
“I looked in my rhyming dictionary for nouns ending in -foot. Then I looked up their plurals in the Random House Dictionary and found that there are three words that use both forms as plurals, three that use "feet" exclusively and four that use "foots" exclusively. However, you've never heard of three of the four words that pluralize as "foots," but the three words that use "feet" are well-known (i.e., Blackfeet, forefeet, and clubfeet). Therefore, the average American will tend to think of "Bigfeet" as the natural plural, a desire we shouldn't discourage by telling him he's Wrong and Out-Of-It.”
“I looked in my rhyming dictionary for nouns ending in -foot. Then I looked up their plurals in the Random House Dictionary and found that there are three words that use both forms as plurals, three that use "feet" exclusively and four that use "foots" exclusively. However, you've never heard of three of the four words that pluralize as "foots," but the three words that use "feet" are well-known (i.e., Blackfeet, forefeet, and clubfeet). Therefore, the average American will tend to think of "Bigfeet" as the natural plural, a desire we shouldn't discourage by telling him he's Wrong and Out-Of-It.”
However, poster Jeremy Wells pointed out:
QUOTE
“It seems to trend for [words that refer to] plants and animals is to … pluralize creatures as ‘foots’. [E.g., such items I had listed included finfoots, coltsfoots, goosefoots, spadefoots, fanfoots, cocksfoots, lobefoots, and padfoots.] ‘Feet’ is more often used in informal or electoral usage (i.e. flatfeet/flatfoots, Blackfeet/Blackfoot) or when actually referencing the limbs (forefeet, clubfeet).”
I responded:
QUOTE
“You’ve convinced me that Bigfoots is preferable to Bigfeet. This is the first rational case I’ve seen for the term. (And I was the one who handed you the ammo you needed!)
“However, your phrase ‘if the animal is identified’ contains a hidden assumption, namely that it IS an animal. What if, as Bayanov and some others believe, they’re more man than animal? Then they may want to have the last word in what they’re called. One of the leading manlike characteristics is contrariness. (If you haven’t observed this yet, you haven’t been a Bigfooter for long.) Therefore, the mere fact that WE have called them ‘Bigfoots’ may make THEM prefer ‘Bigfeet.’ That may be the final turn of the screw!
“Therefore, smile though we may at those who use ‘Bigfeet,’ let’s remember that our target may yet laugh last. And let’s keep in mind that their error is forgivable, because only the names of obscure plants and animals pluralize as foots, while the words that pluralize as feet are well-known.”
“However, your phrase ‘if the animal is identified’ contains a hidden assumption, namely that it IS an animal. What if, as Bayanov and some others believe, they’re more man than animal? Then they may want to have the last word in what they’re called. One of the leading manlike characteristics is contrariness. (If you haven’t observed this yet, you haven’t been a Bigfooter for long.) Therefore, the mere fact that WE have called them ‘Bigfoots’ may make THEM prefer ‘Bigfeet.’ That may be the final turn of the screw!
“Therefore, smile though we may at those who use ‘Bigfeet,’ let’s remember that our target may yet laugh last. And let’s keep in mind that their error is forgivable, because only the names of obscure plants and animals pluralize as foots, while the words that pluralize as feet are well-known.”
QUOTE(wudewasa @ Jul 18 2007, 11:54 AM)
Essentially, the American media has turned from a content based industry to one based on ratings. FOX News is the poster child for this paradigm shift.
And woe to the modern age.....
QUOTE(uffda320 @ Jul 18 2007, 06:24 PM)
It's not just Fox news that ridicules the bigfoot community. Find ANY major news outlet that takes bigfoot seriously.
And why shouldn't they? When the bigfoot poster boy is a guy who, in the space of thirty seconds, makes a claim, then when challenged, backtracks and says he can't produce yet, I think the media has every right to ridicule us.
And if the video isn't good enough to broadcast as MM said, then why claim a financial loss to a court when someone else puts it on a website?
I don't think she was laughing at him for believing in Bigfoot. It may be that she was laughing at the correction bigfoots and not bigfoot. She probably had an image of an alleged sasquatch running through the woods on one foot.
Hmmm... here is my two cents on this...
I know nothing about BFRO or MM other than it appears to be a fairly decent website and fact-checking system (assuming the fact checkers are real and the interviews really take place -- can anyone corroborate? Is anyone on this board who has avctually done this witness interviewing stuff for BFRO?). Pretty clearly because of the website and sighting organization system he is positioned to get the first hard news, the first info that might lead to indisputable proof of BF. Should this ever come about, pretty clearly he has a plan in place whereby it will make him very rich. If even that numbskull Paris Hilton can get rich by merely being famous, it will be a slam dunk for a smart guy as MM appears to be. (by the way , I have always asssumed his stage name is a deliberate joke on this aspect of the search. Anyone know?) Meanwhile he is in a position to make at least a living from his camping excursions, if not more. There does not appear to be a lot of capital invested in this enterprise other than the website set-up and everyone involved appears to be a paying volunteer. Personally, by the way, I thought he did well in the interview. I thought it interesting that he answered the questions in a way that revealed (to me at least) he fully expects to get the proof of BF. He dodged the innocent sounding request to give the first good video to FOX, probably because he was paid for the interview and he was aware FOX would argue that his promise (had he given one) was an oral contract paid for by the interview fee, and he would probably get sued for breach of an oral contract. Why would he bother being so careful if he weren't certain he would get the goods eventually?
As for media and bureaucrat official view of the BF question. Somehow it is an immutable given that this BF theory will be forever ridiculed publicly, no matter who it is, where it is, when it is, etc. Just listen to Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview of the Phd head of the UC Davis animal forensics lab -- March 2006...it is on the NPR website archives. Despite an appalling lapse of logic , Terry let her get away with murder when asked about genetic testing requests on submitted BF hair samples. Both of them could not stop laughing during the interview, just like these FOX nincompoops. Its too easy to make a joke about BF. After all, the alternative, that BF might be true, is a downright ugly possibility for lots and lots of people. A true to life boogey man lurking in our wilderness? Not a pleasant idea. It would play hell with national park hiking, the camping industry, timber clear cutting in the PNW, etc. etc.
I know nothing about BFRO or MM other than it appears to be a fairly decent website and fact-checking system (assuming the fact checkers are real and the interviews really take place -- can anyone corroborate? Is anyone on this board who has avctually done this witness interviewing stuff for BFRO?). Pretty clearly because of the website and sighting organization system he is positioned to get the first hard news, the first info that might lead to indisputable proof of BF. Should this ever come about, pretty clearly he has a plan in place whereby it will make him very rich. If even that numbskull Paris Hilton can get rich by merely being famous, it will be a slam dunk for a smart guy as MM appears to be. (by the way , I have always asssumed his stage name is a deliberate joke on this aspect of the search. Anyone know?) Meanwhile he is in a position to make at least a living from his camping excursions, if not more. There does not appear to be a lot of capital invested in this enterprise other than the website set-up and everyone involved appears to be a paying volunteer. Personally, by the way, I thought he did well in the interview. I thought it interesting that he answered the questions in a way that revealed (to me at least) he fully expects to get the proof of BF. He dodged the innocent sounding request to give the first good video to FOX, probably because he was paid for the interview and he was aware FOX would argue that his promise (had he given one) was an oral contract paid for by the interview fee, and he would probably get sued for breach of an oral contract. Why would he bother being so careful if he weren't certain he would get the goods eventually?
As for media and bureaucrat official view of the BF question. Somehow it is an immutable given that this BF theory will be forever ridiculed publicly, no matter who it is, where it is, when it is, etc. Just listen to Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview of the Phd head of the UC Davis animal forensics lab -- March 2006...it is on the NPR website archives. Despite an appalling lapse of logic , Terry let her get away with murder when asked about genetic testing requests on submitted BF hair samples. Both of them could not stop laughing during the interview, just like these FOX nincompoops. Its too easy to make a joke about BF. After all, the alternative, that BF might be true, is a downright ugly possibility for lots and lots of people. A true to life boogey man lurking in our wilderness? Not a pleasant idea. It would play hell with national park hiking, the camping industry, timber clear cutting in the PNW, etc. etc.
QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Jul 18 2007, 04:02 PM)
And why shouldn't they? When the bigfoot poster boy is a guy who, in the space of thirty seconds, makes a claim, then when challenged, backtracks and says he can't produce yet, I think the media has every right to ridicule us.
And if the video isn't good enough to broadcast as MM said, then why claim a financial loss to a court when someone else puts it on a website?
And if the video isn't good enough to broadcast as MM said, then why claim a financial loss to a court when someone else puts it on a website?
Agreed. Throw in in field interviews with investigators who claim to have experienced infra-sound , multiple low quality videos that could be anything or a hoax ( Manitoba/Biscardi's latest?Sonoma etc.) And wouldn't you take it a little less than seriously when the next big thing supposedly comes out , and then suddenly isn't so good as first reported?
QUOTE(Lab Lover)
know nothing about BFRO or MM other than it appears to be a fairly decent website and fact-checking system (assuming the fact checkers are real and the interviews really take place -- can anyone corroborate? Is anyone on this board who has avctually done this witness interviewing stuff for BFRO?).
I can't say for sure about now, but previously , at the very least a phone call was in order, if an on site could not be done.
Kerry, thanks for posting the links. I saw the clip which was shown this morning (07/18/2007) on the Fox & Friends show; I just wish that I had it to upload to uTube. The segment was a complete joke, though I think Fox News did a fair job with what they had to work with.
I do not know MM, and even after reading some of the posts on this forum I have reserved judgment and given the guy the benefit of doubt. After this mornings segment and listening to him in the above clips I now have my own opinion.
The honest believers and HONEST researchers should file a class action suit against him to prevent him from further participation/interviews in the field of Bigfoot research. On the morning segment Griff Jenkins stated that they had no activity while he was in the field with the "expedition", but he made contact with the expedition after leaving and gosh-darn-it, wouldn't you know, they had "four to six" Bigfeet show up the next day! It's bullspit like that that steals credibility from all of us.
The l*ser does actually say that he has real good footage, then back tracks when asked to produce it. How transparent is that to a trained interviewer...or to the public that is watching it.
My apologies, this post wasn't meant as a rant against MM, but doggonit, tell the danged truth! If you believe in Bigfoot but don't have evidence then say so, don't lie about it because someone is going to ask to see it.
I do not blame the media one bit for poking fun at this topic. I don't like to see it, and it does bother me, but they would loose credibility if they presented idiots like this as intelligent, knowledgable people in the field. They have no choice but to have some fun with this type of story, and I can't fault them for that.
My opinion,
Dutch
I do not know MM, and even after reading some of the posts on this forum I have reserved judgment and given the guy the benefit of doubt. After this mornings segment and listening to him in the above clips I now have my own opinion.
The honest believers and HONEST researchers should file a class action suit against him to prevent him from further participation/interviews in the field of Bigfoot research. On the morning segment Griff Jenkins stated that they had no activity while he was in the field with the "expedition", but he made contact with the expedition after leaving and gosh-darn-it, wouldn't you know, they had "four to six" Bigfeet show up the next day! It's bullspit like that that steals credibility from all of us.
The l*ser does actually say that he has real good footage, then back tracks when asked to produce it. How transparent is that to a trained interviewer...or to the public that is watching it.
My apologies, this post wasn't meant as a rant against MM, but doggonit, tell the danged truth! If you believe in Bigfoot but don't have evidence then say so, don't lie about it because someone is going to ask to see it.
I do not blame the media one bit for poking fun at this topic. I don't like to see it, and it does bother me, but they would loose credibility if they presented idiots like this as intelligent, knowledgable people in the field. They have no choice but to have some fun with this type of story, and I can't fault them for that.
My opinion,
Dutch
QUOTE(Dutch @ Jul 18 2007, 06:16 PM)
My apologies, this post wasn't meant as a rant against MM, but doggonit, tell the danged truth! If you believe in Bigfoot but don't have evidence then say so, don't lie about it because someone is going to ask to see it.
Well stated!
That's why the majority of us don't like the guy. There are even more character flaws that MM possesses, but we're not allowed to post about them on this board!
So, I say "WHERE'S THE BEEF?!"
Let me explain to all of you that sponge whatever the media throws at you:
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
to MM and FOX. He could have presented himself better.Poor Gigantopithecus blacki.
At least they were blatant in their mockery.
QUOTE(bigswamp @ Jul 18 2007, 07:44 PM)
Let me explain to all of you that sponge whatever the media throws at you:
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
Don't misunderstand Bigswamp, I was not defending the press by any stretch. However, if I were a professional dealing with an idiot like the Fox folks had to, I probably wouldn't hesitate to make it known somehow (humor?) that I did not agree with the b.s. that was being slung.
I deal with the press professionally, and I am fully aware of how facts are twisted, spun, and mis-quoted by a large number of "journalists." On the other hand, I have found a small number that I can count on to keep the facts straight and keep specified portions of a discussion off the record. The press can provide great assistance and be a good part of the team if you can deal with a true "reporter."
I know that I got on a rant in my last post, but my main point was credibility. Particularly in a field as volatile as this, your credibility or lack thereof affects the entire field. MM hurt us all with his asinine actions and discussion. He proved himself to lack credibility and professionalism; unfortunately he made us all look a bit foolish in the process.
Just my opinion.
I'll go away now,
Dutch
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Jul 18 2007, 02:37 PM)
hey uffda yes i totaly agree with your above reply regarding this certain situation, this is a majer lesson for researchers here. but im sure in near future researchers etc here will know better which network to get interviewed about their sasquatch research, and if fox news interviews anyone here ever i think the person should place nuteral ground rules with fox news channel before the interview is even considered in upcomeing years. opinions please also email fox news channel with your opinions about those interviews. i hope we get to see the rest of griff interview with the mm & bfro on fox news channel. thanks bill green keep me posted ok..
keep me posted ok..Hi Bill. I did e-mail them when one of them said the P/G film had been proven to be a hoax & included, what I explained to them, was only one of many links to articles that point out it has never been proven to be a hoax.
QUOTE(Dutch @ Jul 19 2007, 12:16 AM)
Kerry, thanks for posting the links. I saw the clip which was shown this morning (07/18/2007) on the Fox & Friends show; I just wish that I had it to upload to uTube. The segment was a complete joke, though I think Fox News did a fair job with what they had to work with.
I do not know MM, and even after reading some of the posts on this forum I have reserved judgment and given the guy the benefit of doubt. After this mornings segment and listening to him in the above clips I now have my own opinion.
The honest believers and HONEST researchers should file a class action suit against him to prevent him from further participation/interviews in the field of Bigfoot research. On the morning segment Griff Jenkins stated that they had no activity while he was in the field with the "expedition", but he made contact with the expedition after leaving and gosh-darn-it, wouldn't you know, they had "four to six" Bigfeet show up the next day! It's bullspit like that that steals credibility from all of us.
The l*ser does actually say that he has real good footage, then back tracks when asked to produce it. How transparent is that to a trained interviewer...or to the public that is watching it.
My apologies, this post wasn't meant as a rant against MM, but doggonit, tell the danged truth! If you believe in Bigfoot but don't have evidence then say so, don't lie about it because someone is going to ask to see it.
I do not blame the media one bit for poking fun at this topic. I don't like to see it, and it does bother me, but they would loose credibility if they presented idiots like this as intelligent, knowledgable people in the field. They have no choice but to have some fun with this type of story, and I can't fault them for that.
My opinion,
Dutch
I do not know MM, and even after reading some of the posts on this forum I have reserved judgment and given the guy the benefit of doubt. After this mornings segment and listening to him in the above clips I now have my own opinion.
The honest believers and HONEST researchers should file a class action suit against him to prevent him from further participation/interviews in the field of Bigfoot research. On the morning segment Griff Jenkins stated that they had no activity while he was in the field with the "expedition", but he made contact with the expedition after leaving and gosh-darn-it, wouldn't you know, they had "four to six" Bigfeet show up the next day! It's bullspit like that that steals credibility from all of us.
The l*ser does actually say that he has real good footage, then back tracks when asked to produce it. How transparent is that to a trained interviewer...or to the public that is watching it.
My apologies, this post wasn't meant as a rant against MM, but doggonit, tell the danged truth! If you believe in Bigfoot but don't have evidence then say so, don't lie about it because someone is going to ask to see it.
I do not blame the media one bit for poking fun at this topic. I don't like to see it, and it does bother me, but they would loose credibility if they presented idiots like this as intelligent, knowledgable people in the field. They have no choice but to have some fun with this type of story, and I can't fault them for that.
My opinion,
Dutch
hey dutch i definetly agree with your above reply fox news will always polk fun at the sasquatch pheanomena fox news channel should be more professinal next time when talking to researchers etc my opinion. thanks bill
QUOTE(wvbig @ Jul 20 2007, 12:41 AM)
Hi Bill. I did e-mail them when one of them said the P/G film had been proven to be a hoax & included, what I explained to them, was only one of many links to articles that point out it has never been proven to be a hoax.
hey wvbig thats good you emailed fox news i guess but they will laugh at your message but maybe not. i hope not. thanks bill
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Jul 19 2007, 06:34 PM)
hey dutch i definetly agree with your above reply fox news will always polk fun at the sasquatch pheanomena fox news channel should be more professinal next time when talking to researchers etc my opinion. thanks bill
hey wvbig thats good you emailed fox news i guess but they will laugh at your message but maybe not. i hope not. thanks bill
hey wvbig thats good you emailed fox news i guess but they will laugh at your message but maybe not. i hope not. thanks bill
Now that's some STRAIGHT SHOOTIN talk IMO.
QUOTE(bigswamp @ Jul 18 2007, 08:44 PM)
Let me explain to all of you that sponge whatever the media throws at you:
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
Its grossly edited for those who cant think for themselves or concentrate longer than 30 seconds.
Well, thanks so much for setting us straight.
hey harry henderson good morning im glad you agree with my above reply about how fox news channel treats the sasquatch mystery they should be more professnial about it instead of makeing fun of it. but be serious just my opinion. thanks bill green hopefully in near future fox news will have better bigfoot & cryptozoology segment well lets hope
hopefully in near future fox news will have better bigfoot & cryptozoology segment well lets hope
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.