Bigfoot Forums > BF convention covered by Vanity Fair Magazine

RiverRun

Nov 26 2008, 09:57 AM

QUOTE(ganglian @ Nov 26 2008, 09:35 AM)

A recreation, I have no issue with personally

While I think you've brought up some good points with ownership and authenticity, isn't what Meldrum selling a "recreation" of what evidence has been presented to him? Who owns the fossils that are being recreated? Are they being theived by these recreations?

I'd guess that Meldrum has either copies of "original" casts himself, or he has been "given" the original copies. I'd also bet that you could email him and ask if it so concerns you that he is offering (what many people have asked him for.....) these casts for sale.

Personally, I see no difference. Authentic or not, its what is. I'm pretty sure hes not going around saying yes, these are POSITIVELY THE REAL THING. BUY THEM FOR A HUGE PROFIT. He may have the opinion that they are authentic, and present them as such. (being his educated OPINION that they are authentic) I would highly doubt that he would either label, or sell the casts as "authentic bigfoot casts" but instead offer them as: this is what evidence we have gathered.

As I said, if you seem to question these issues or feel like it may tarnish his credibility, why not drop him an email and hear it "straight from the source"

ganglian

Nov 26 2008, 10:48 AM

QUOTE(RiverRun @ Nov 26 2008, 10:57 AM)

While I think you've brought up some good points with ownership and authenticity, isn't what Meldrum selling a "recreation" of what evidence has been presented to him? Who owns the fossils that are being recreated? Are they being theived by these recreations?
I'd guess that Meldrum has either copies of "original" casts himself, or he has been "given" the original copies. I'd also bet that you could email him and ask if it so concerns you that he is offering (what many people have asked him for.....) these casts for sale.
Personally, I see no difference. Authentic or not, its what is. I'm pretty sure hes not going around saying yes, these are POSITIVELY THE REAL THING. BUY THEM FOR A HUGE PROFIT. He may have the opinion that they are authentic, and present them as such. (being his educated OPINION that they are authentic) I would highly doubt that he would either label, or sell the casts as "authentic bigfoot casts" but instead offer them as: this is what evidence we have gathered.
As I said, if you seem to question these issues or feel like it may tarnish his credibility, why not drop him an email and hear it "straight from the source"

Fair enough, but if I have any real issue here at all, it's that Mk Davis and Binderangle can be looked at critically, but when it comes to Meldrum and various others they get a seemingly different standard applied to them.

Apeman

Nov 26 2008, 11:32 AM

I think we need to keep some things separated here.

There is, in my opinion, a big difference between a.) the Jane Goodall Institute, a non-profit organization, raising funds however it can; b.) Bone clones, a commercial enterprise selling it's product; c.) a scientist selling anything at a real professional meeting; and d.) the topic here, a scientist/celebrity/author selling something at what really amounts to a public convention, which isn't a lot different from public presentations scientists sell things (usually just books) at all the time.

I guess I still don't see much problem with what Meldrum has done. I tend not to peruse the 'vendor' areas at professional meetings and don't recall ever seeing a presenting scientists selling books or anything like that in my circles (usually done by publishers). But I suppose they could simply buy a space like any other vendor, and I do know a colleague that had some sort of book signing for a fairly unique book at a recent meeting but am not sure how it was orchestrated. Perhaps a fundamental difference is that most people write books for the biggest possible audience- the public at large- which does not attend professional meetings. Therefore, I suspect most scientists who have books would be somewhat frowned upon by trying to hawk books directly to their peers, who might likewise express some form of jealousy and reluctance to buy books directly from the peers they are oftentimes competing with on many levels. Similarly, they wouldn't sell any sort of data, evidence, or related product (which a cast might be considered) because these sorts of things should really be shared with, not sold to, your professional peers.

Bigfoot "conferences" are lot different and I don't think any of us have much problem with someone like Meldrum or Bindernagel or Coleman or anyone else selling their books at such venues. So is the issue for many of you the material- casts- that he's selling? Or some implication of their authenticity?

I should point out a funny anecdote. The first time I met John Bindernagel was at a professional primatology meeting where, amongst snickers from many colleagues, I was the proud highest bigger of the cast he donated to the auction- which I happily paid about three times the value of to support the organization. Come to think of it, I actually recall him at least having a table for passing out flyers for his book if not fully selling them there

so maybe there is more book selling at these meetings- even by bigfooters

- than I'm aware of? (As an aside, you can imagine that John was not very well received by most at the meeting but I and few others sure enjoyed meeting and getting to know him.)

Anyway, I think my point is that it's a bit hard to judge Meldrum on this count, in my opinion. I think few other scientific authors sell anything besides their books (which they do all the time when the speak outside of conferences) because there are really few, if any, things comparable to (supposed) bigfoot casts they could sell. What other (proposed) animal essentially produces only trace evidence? Can any of you anthropologists think of anything similar in your fields?

-Apeman

gigantor

Nov 27 2008, 04:29 AM

There is no difference between Meldrum selling cast replicas (BTW, I want to buy one) and medical researchers selling rights to developed drugs which treat a disease. It's the same thing.

The only difference is public perception.

longtabber PE

Nov 27 2008, 07:34 AM

QUOTE(gigantor @ Nov 27 2008, 05:29 AM)

There is no difference between Meldrum selling cast replicas (BTW, I want to buy one) and medical researchers selling rights to developed drugs which treat a disease. It's the same thing.

The only difference is public perception.

you gotta be joking-right?

wickie

Nov 27 2008, 08:16 AM

IMO, If you are trying to get people to believe you're serious in your studies (especially in BF),setting up a stand to sell items, makes it look like you are out to profit from it. I don't think it's wrong, but does'nt help. "See, from this casting, you can clearly see a hangnail, acopy can be yours for just $19.99, and if you act now,I'll throw in a cast of cripplefoot, gauranteed to get the babes, ACT NOW"

RedRatSnake

Nov 27 2008, 11:11 AM

QUOTE(gigantor @ Nov 27 2008, 05:29 AM)

The only difference is public perception.

Hi

Just by keeping your head up and continue to do what it is you have been doing is fight enough to show that a Strong will in what one believes in can never be overcome,

Peace
Tim

jimf

Nov 27 2008, 09:24 PM

QUOTE(Texas Tracker @ Oct 31 2008, 08:52 PM)

I would estimate that probably 80 - 90% of what the writer wrote was inaccurate, twisted, taken out of context, exaggerated and/or amplified purely for purposes of lampooning the conference and those who attended, no matter who they were, audience and speakers alike. The guy's intent was obviously to make a mockery of the event, so he latched onto anything that might be controversial, dropped it in without context and amplified it.

Since this was the more along the lines of the original subject that started this whole thing

Call it a "hit job" if you want , but the video is supposedly there to let those of us know what was and wasn't taken out of context. Youtube is readily available to verify it and it's been a month.

Or is it just easier to blame the media for misquotes and context issues, when someone "known" says something really damn stupid?

Pat B.

Nov 28 2008, 11:36 AM

It's been about a month since this thread was started. So where's the transcript or DVD of Dr. Fahrenbach's speech ... ?

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 08:50 AM

Well, the author speaks ( page 2 of the article after asked by Wolftrax did he in fact record it)

>>>Yes, I recorded Dr. Farhenbach's lecture, and no, his quotes were not taken out of context. If he meant any of it as a joke, he has a drier wit than Steven Wright. You should see what I left out. At one point. Farhenbach claimed that a Sasquatch was observed spying on a woman in the shower and "cried loudly" when she closed the blinds. He also described how Bigfoot likes to "shake the daylights" out of mobile homes. In one incident that he invesitgated in Oregon, a Bigfoot shook a mobile home "so hard that all the sheathing around the bottom fell off. It was just this guy inside who got scared out of his wits and threw white bread out of the window, hoping to soothe the Sasquatch outside." When Bigfoot doesn't get what he wants, he throws temper tantrums “just the same as a baby, throwing itself on the ground and screaming and rolling around." He shared the details of a case in California where a Bigfoot disrupted a construction site by repeatedly turning over a diesel tractor, ostensibly because he was "trying to stop progress."

>>>Here are some of my favorite quotes: "Obviously when Bigfoot males are habituated, they start perceiving human women as sex objects." "In Alaska, they pick up half-ton dead trees, rip them out of the ground and plant them upside down, with the roots sticking up in the air." "I suspect generally speaking you can go on the assumption that the more annoyed they are, the more dangerous Sasquatch perceives the situation, the bigger the rocks are going to be." And my personal favorite: "In Alaska, a wet Sasquatch walked out of the ocean with a stick in one hand and several ducks in the other hand."

Oh My Gawd ( I told everyone I was informed that he was contacted regarding the comments and he probably had them taped)

This is just more taken "out of context"?

I dont think the DVD will be available publically for some time.

bipedalist

Nov 29 2008, 09:07 AM

Why no photographic evidence of the half ton trees uprooted and planted upside down with rootballs high in the air? What's so difficult about
getting those shots? People can't be that afraid of Sasquatch? Or can they be? I say we send damneddirtyape on assignment, oh wait a minute
that might keep us from getting that DVD

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 09:11 AM

Well, I suppose this may be why there hasnt been a bull rush to "correct" the authors comments and expose him for the liar he is by telling exactly what was said.

Jim nailed it.

ETA: and of course theres not a single shred of forensic evidence or official LE report surrounding the Tree turning upsidedowner or diesel overturning incidents.

If anyone ever wonders why......................................

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 09:25 AM

QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 15 2008, 03:58 PM)

Yeah... that, or admit that your own initial assessment was the wholly emotional and incorrect conclusion... and we all know that will never happen.

I now admit ( after reading the authors own commentary in response to a direct question) that my initial assessment was indeed incorrect.

Its now MUCH worse than I ever imagined possible.

QUOTE(Pat B. @ Nov 28 2008, 12:36 PM)

It's been about a month since this thread was started. So where's the transcript or DVD of Dr. Fahrenbach's speech ... ?

Spiztnagel has his copy apparently. That might be the only one that ever surfaces.

Pat B.

Nov 29 2008, 11:12 AM

Here's the reference to the inverted trees Fahrenbach is talking about:

From Raincoast Sasquatch, The Bigfoot/Sasquatch Records of Southeast Alaska, coastal British Columbia & Northwest Washington from Puget Sound to Yakutat, by J. Robert Alley

Page 248 to 252

QUOTE

Trees as Possible Sasquatch Signs

The relationship between sasquatches and trees is striking (no pun intended). That sasquatches snap trees or break them off as part of a threat display, displacement activity in anger or as a more pacific territorial marker has been mentioned by field researchers as possible explanatiions for this behavior. Trees twisted down and trees with large amounts of bark peeled off with no marks of claws or antlers are seen and mentioned regularly in association with sasquatch reports from Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and elsewhere.

A most unusual arrangement of inverted trees, jammed thirty yards apart, into a muskeg in perfectly vertical fashion, was found above Klawock Lake, Prince of Wales Island, in the early nineties. As reported to me in 1996 by Klawock forest workers, the trees were located thirty feet off a logging spur, several miles up from the Klawock-Hollis Highway, which transects the island. According to researcher Al Jackson, Prince of Wales native elders had stated that fifty years ago the trees had been jammed into the soft muskeg by huge two-legged creatures as markers. [N99A-map4]

The trees above Klawock Lake are all trunks set quite vertically, with root wads uppermost, in a seemingly deliberate fashion. They are what are called "blow-down" cedars, with much of their bark gone, and with accumulations of soil still remaining on top among the roots. The largest tree shows approximately thirteen feet of wood above ground; the next largest shows approximately nine feet. This more northerly tree still has soil throughout its roots nine feet above the muskeg. An estimated one-third of their total length may be embedded below in the muskeg. Visiting the trees in August, 1999, I detected no wobble to either of the large trees or any choker marks or grapple marks at all anywhere on the trunks.

According to researcher Jackson, they were first reported by his uncle, Mr. H. M., who told Jackson that he had "seen them up there before the logging roads went in there in the late 1980's."

"My uncle and his buddy Richmond Benson would go hunting and fishing with Old-Man Albert Brown of Klawock, who passed away back in the early sixties. Mr. Benson has also passed on. My uncle also told me that Old-Man Albert Brown had warned them that, 'whenever hunting above the lake on Klawock Mountain, you have to watch out for those big black gorillas that live up there. They mark their territory by driving blown-down trees into the ground, upside down, with the root wads up in the air.' Of course, people thought he was making up stories, until they built the logging roads up there forty years later and found the trees."

On examining the trees, it certainly seemed possible. However, this is no proof of how they came to be inverted and thrust into the soft muskeg in a vertical position. No one I know who has seen these three amazing "upside-down" trees in the muskeg has suggested that they were placed there with conventional hydraulic logging equipment. There are simply no grapple or cable marks on the trees. Nor are there the telltale scars of hydraulic tread marks anywhere, something the muskeg retains for decades. Although helicopters occasionally drop trees by accident, logs from helicopter "dropped turns" are invariably set into the ground at an angle, due to the nature of their angled suspension by a strap coupled off to one side of the trunk. The reader would do well to examine the photographs in order to form his or her own impressions.

In addition to the two large cedars, there is a smaller tree, with roots uppermost, jammed into the ground right up to its root wad about ten feet south of the largest tree. According to the Klawock man, T. R., who described the trees as he first saw them in the early nineties, "The smallest tree was thirty yards north of its present location, in between the two larger trees, and only jammed in six feet up from the ground."

"Later," Jackson commented, "when I moved back to Klawock around 1998, the little tree [only seven inches in diameter] was jammed in where it is now, south of the other two, and right into the ground with just the root wad showing." There is certainly a hole in the muskeg between the two big trees. I have heard rumors of two helicopter loggers who, over beers, claimed to have performed the arrangement of the trees, and they were tickled at how the town of Klawock thought otherwise. But no explanations of such were ever let out. Professional helicopter contractors I have interviewed, showing them photographs of the trees, professed skepticism that a helicopter pilot and crew would ever be able to drop the trees so vertically and calculated the helicopter time and cost as something their budgets would certainly not permit. It may well have been possible, but I have not seen anyone perform similar feats.

The trees themselves are still standing. There is an understandable disinclination on the part of any company owning logging rights for the area to lose access to timber on the basis of what some might choose to call an "endangered species." This may also explain a fourth, obviously humanly cut, log rammed into the side of the logging road a quarter mile downhill, showing both hydraulic and saw marks. It is much smaller than the two larger "root wad" trees and obviously cleanly cut at the top, with no root system projecting at the top. It appears to be an attempt by someone to imitate the larger trees further up in the muskeg. As to why, I have no idea. This last obviously human artifact might be meant to imply that all of the trees are the work of loggers, so no need to investigate further. Or perhaps, this outlying log represents just a bit of idle play by some hydraulic operator to see if he could duplicate the big trees. So far, no vandals, loggers or pranksters have altered the posture of the root-wad trees, and they still stand with no marks on their smooth sides. They are immense and - in the case of the largest - probably weigh a thousand pounds. If they are a hoax, then they are equally remarkable for the skilll involved, the absence of any marks or faint scars at all and the pristine, unmarked surface of the muskeg. Until some such helicopter logging team can step forward, the late Mr. Brown's original assertion, that they were placed there by huge hands is certainly as good as any simple conventional explanation. [N99A-map4]

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 11:17 AM

From the author to WT

>>>QUOTE ( Eric Spitznagel)
The "out of context" argument confounds me. By definition, everything in a magazine story is going to be out of context. Unless I included every last sentence uttered by every speaker at the conference, the quotes can be considered taken out of context. The question is, are the quotes taken out of context with the intent to distort? Did I leave out something that altered a quote's entire meaning? Did, for instance, Farhenbach follow his remarks about Bigfoot tickle fights and gangbangs with a wink and a "Just kidding, folks"? The answer is no.

QUOTE ( Eric Spitznagel)
I understand their reasons for not wanting to make the DVD of Farhenbach available. But I'd still love to see it get released to the general public. I'll certainly help promote it. It could easily become a cult hit, as legendary as Andy Kaufman Plays Carnegie Hall.

Coincidentally, I'm still stunned by implications (made by certain people, not you) that I was intending to trash the conference from the beginning. Quite the opposite. I briefly considered reporting on the Bigfoot Days Celebration in Willow Creek, but writing about dudes dressed in gorilla costumes seemed too kitschy (and obvious). My original plan was to explore the climate of serious Bigfoot research in a post-Georgia hoax world. The Texas Conference seemed like the perfect place to do that. But then I showed up and watched somebody who appeared to be doing a bad Mel Brooks impersonation talk about Bigfoot's fondness for tickling. It's like they were double-dog daring me not to mock them in print.
If there was any doubt about Farhenbach's intentions, he cleared it up in the beginning of his lecture. Despite what the schedule indicated, he said, he wouldn't be talking about "possible" Sasquatch behavior. "That could include riding a Harley Davidson or something like that. I am talking about real Sasquatch behavior." Wow. That's a bold statement. So there's not even the tiniest possibility that he could be wrong? What he's about to share is 100% "real" Bigfoot behavior, no doubt about it? Well, mainstream science will be delighted to hear that. Mystery solved.
I've received a lot of angry, hysterical emails from people involved with the conference. And I've been telling them the same thing: I'm a journalist, not their personal publicist. It's not my job to put a positive spin on what happened in Jefferson. I just reported what I saw, as objectively as I could. It's not like I went undercover, trying to catch them with their pants down. I told them in advance that I'd be attending, and my media affiliation. But even knowing there was a journalist in the crowd, they gave Farhenbach the spotlight and let him go off the rails. Well, they can blame the messenger all they want, but they are fools of their own design."

To all of those who attended and have made various comments regarding how the author twisted,misrepresented whatever here and other places- what say ye to his statements?

Either Spitznagel is bold faced lying and cannot back up his claims with recorded documentation or he is NOT and he CAN. Which one is it? ( it cant be both)

Is the DVD that shows the "truth" going to be released soon? ( and if it is- what is it going to show?)

If the author is accurate- are those who impugned him for his journalistic dishonesty going to formally apologize?

Its a little broader now because now the author HAS responded to multiple critiques of his article and defended them. He has drawn the proverbial line in the sand. Now its a matter of true or false and it goes well beyond Fahrenbacks individual comments because if the author is telling a factual and true account- ALL those who were there and attempted to impugn him and defend the Dr. are going to be painted with the same brush ( and rightfully so) and that will be another stake in the heart of the BF field 'credibility"

So, to all who attended ( and recorded the event)- is Spitznagel telling the truth or is he lying?

If he is lying, I agree he needs to be publically exposed and ostracised to the fullest extent of the internet.

If he is not, he needs a formal apology and ALL those involved need that public ostracising or either pull out the fork because BF credibility is done. ( its not just credibility now- character is on the table)

( and I'm not accusing anyone or taking sides as I wasnt there but thats calling it right down the middle- fair and square, in the middle of the ring)

Pat B.

Nov 29 2008, 11:38 AM

I wonder if Eric Spitznagel would be willing to send us the complete transcript of Dr. F's speech.

Teresa

Nov 29 2008, 11:46 AM

I guess that would depend on what sort of restrictions are placed on the media by the Texas Conference.

StacyInMI

Nov 29 2008, 11:47 AM

Maybe, but even if he did people would just say that we have no proof that those were Fahrenbach's actual words and that he could have made it all up.

I'm wondering if he has the actual recording that he'd be willing to post somewhere.

bipedalist

Nov 29 2008, 11:56 AM

Thanks Pat B. for that reference and confirmation of the location and pictures of the inverted trees, it certainly is an oddity and if done with two or more hands
without equipment, quite a feat of strength.

Well, I'd say this thread is turning out to be a classic, so thanks to LTPE for pursuing the truth on this one too.

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 12:09 PM

QUOTE(StacyInMI @ Nov 29 2008, 12:47 PM)

Maybe, but even if he did people would just say that we have no proof that those were Fahrenbach's actual words and that he could have made it all up.

I'm wondering if he has the actual recording that he'd be willing to post somewhere.

according to an email I just got ( from "over there") he has many of the recordings ( all of the DR's) and his photographer has the rest. He isnt interested in starting any kind of "flame war" or posting but is getting a little mad due to the amount of "hate mail" he has gotten and what really gets his goat are the ones who say they were there and accusing him of deliberately lying or twisting the truth when he is sitting there holding the literal spoken word.

According to the same email- he is considering giving them to someone else for posting ( he isnt going to do it directly- at least right now) if it continues.

I asked did he sign anything remotely close to a contract or anything restricting his usage of HIS recordings ( which i doubt any journalist would- it would defeat the idea of a free press) and if I get an answer, I'll post the answer.

Pat B.

Nov 29 2008, 12:19 PM

QUOTE(bipedalist @ Nov 29 2008, 12:56 PM)

Thanks Pat B. for that reference and confirmation of the location and pictures of the inverted trees, it certainly is an oddity and if done with two or more hands
without equipment, quite a feat of strength.

Well, I'd say this thread is turning out to be a classic, so thanks to LTPE for pursuing the truth on this one too.

I didn't post that article to back up Dr. F's claims that the trees could have been planted upside down by a bigfoot. I do not believe they were, at least not without irrefutable proof. And I think it's irresponsible for Dr. F to even mention this oddity in relation to bigfoot. The article states that there could be other causes ... but some people jump to the conclusion that it was done by bigfoot because of stories and folklore from the area .... yes, very scientific.

The fact is, who knows how those trees got there? It's a ROMANTIC assumption to say that bigfoot could possibly have done it. Come on.

And a PhD implies that it's possible ... well that's just incredible. Is he at all interested in a scientific approach?

ThisIsJack

Nov 29 2008, 12:35 PM

QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 29 2008, 08:25 AM)

I now admit ( after reading the authors own commentary in response to a direct question) that my initial assessment was indeed incorrect.
Its now MUCH worse than I ever imagined possible.

Yep, as to the ridiculousness of Fahrenbach's statements, that certainly does appear to be the case and we really don't have, and haven't been given, any reason to think otherwise. But it was your "nuclear" comparison to the GA liars that I disagreed with, and would still argue if I wanted to argue but I don't, unless you want to bet?

Just kidding.

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 01:11 PM

QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ Nov 29 2008, 01:35 PM)

Yep, as to the ridiculousness of Fahrenbach's statements, that certainly does appear to be the case and we really don't have, and haven't been given, any reason to think otherwise. But it was your "nuclear" comparison to the GA liars that I disagreed with, and would still argue if I wanted to argue but I don't, unless you want to bet?

Just kidding.

To quote Johnny

"My names Johnny and it might be a sin, but I'ma take your bet, you're gonna regret cauze I'm the best theres ever been" LOL

Seriously, since part II- it might just become Nuclear and worse that the Ga Boyz. Heres why.

If this author is correct ( and i believe he is in his account- BUT still waiting to see the actual words- as you stated before and i agreed, that will be the 'final" word)

Then it goes beyond the Dr. All the people who claim they were there and claimed the author lied, embellished. twisted,contorted, misrepresented et all have ALL been shown to be equally as wrong and willing to lie,obfuscate etc to "protect' one of their own from what now appears to be legitimate and well deserved ridicule.

This list would include members, attendees, BOD members and sponsors of the event and the TBRC. ( Many who have posted here and over at Crypto)

The TBRC is the last hope of any shred of credibility in the world of BF. ( as far as any organization goes)

If they dont issue some kind of statement ( reflecting the views of the org since Fahrenbach is on the BOD) and address the accuracy/credibility of the Dr's words and retract their own impugnments. ( or either show proof positive that the author is indeed lying about everything)

They have then painted themselves individually, collectively and as an organization composed of people who have no legitimate credibility, honor, character and for all intent and purpose are drawers from the Kool Aid well.

So, its about honesty and character now.

If Spitznagel is honest in his account- then that tells it all and they have no choice but to retract their individual statements, eat the crow buffet and really get self introspective about the quality of their efforts. If the author is lying, they have the mandate and duty to show the proof positive and tell the world what the TRUTH really is and let the BF "world' turn their guns on the author and expose him for the liar he is.

( thats the bane of an organization clawing for scientific and professional legitimacy- you cannot afford inaction[ admission of guilt] when something this stupid hits the mass media- you have to take and make a stand)

Now to character- if they fail at the above- then they ( as individuals who have spoken out against the author and as an organization that hosted the event and obviously supported the commentary) need to bow their heads in shame, remain silent forever and disband because they no longer can be trusted to be honest in their mission or integretious in their methods.

Jack, do you agree with my assessment? ( and you and I were not there and i agree we need to hold out for an electronic rendering of what was actually said) Do you feel I'm calling it down the middle in a fair manner?

Would the potential fallout of the above constitute as "nuclear' in your view then if they fail to do as they should?

( I dont know about you, but if "silence" and "tucking it away" is the only answer they give- then I feel it appropriate to say that i would never tolerate another negative word or comment from any of them about MM, Coy, the BFRO,Green or anyone else because it would be the pot calling the kettle black then)

nefarious1

Nov 29 2008, 03:27 PM

QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 29 2008, 01:11 PM)

If they dont issue some kind of statement ( reflecting the views of the org since Fahrenbach is on the BOD) and address the accuracy/credibility of the Dr's words and retract their own impugnments. ( or either show proof positive that the author is indeed lying about everything)

Just a simple clarification

Dr. Fahrenbach is not on the TBRC Board of Directors (BOD). He has no part in the day to day operations or policy making of the group. What he is on is the Board of Advisors, along with several other notable people in this field. We call upon those on the BoA to answer question in their perspective fields. Since Dr. Fahrenbach has a PhD in Zoology, he would be the person we call upon to answer any questions pertaining to that field of study.

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 03:35 PM

QUOTE(nefarious1 @ Nov 29 2008, 04:27 PM)

Just a simple clarification

Dr. Fahrenbach is not on the TBRC Board of Directors (BOD). He has no part in the day to day operations or policy making of the group. What he is on is the Board of Advisors, along with several other notable people in this field. We call upon those on the BoA to answer question in their perspective fields. Since Dr. Fahrenbach has a PhD in Zoology, he would be the person we call upon to answer any questions pertaining to that field of study.

Yeah, I was reading the website and saw that and was preparing a correction post ( and a few other comments) I stand corrected again. ( thats 4 for those who are counting)

But, respectfully, right now, I strongly suggest that his "advice" not be crowed very loudly ( someone might actually hear it) and i certainly wouldnt broadcast too much about "notable people' in this field since at the end of the day, the combination of the credible work and cumulative results of the 3 top "experts" in the field is less than nothing.

nefarious1

Nov 29 2008, 03:44 PM

QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 29 2008, 03:35 PM)

Yeah, I was reading the website and saw that and was preparing a correction post ( and a few other comments) I stand corrected again. ( thats 4 for those who are counting)

But, respectfully, right now, I strongly suggest that his "advice" not be crowed very loudly ( someone might actually hear it) and i certainly wouldnt broadcast too much about "notable people' in this field since at the end of the day, the combination of the credible work and cumulative results of the 3 top "experts" in the field is less than nothing.

Experts? Really? People are claiming to be experts on something that has has yet to be proven?! Who? Where?

I am curious who you feel are the top 3 "experts" in this field...I could guess, but I'm sure that answer will vary by person.

RedRatSnake

Nov 29 2008, 03:49 PM

Hi

LT : Just to let ya know i don't count mistakes or over sites by anyone, It is all part of the way things work under the high stressful conditions that we have here in the forum

I would like to point out that if this was a dynamite plant the turn out might have been different,

Any way about this line here ~ " ( i certainly wouldn't broadcast too much about "notable people' in this field since at the end of the day, the combination of the credible work and cumulative results of the 3 top "experts" in the field is less than nothing ) "~ I really feel your holding something back

Peace
Tim

longtabber PE

Nov 29 2008, 04:35 PM

QUOTE(nefarious1 @ Nov 29 2008, 04:44 PM)

Experts? Really? People are claiming to be experts on something that has has yet to be proven?! Who? Where?

I am curious who you feel are the top 3 "experts" in this field...I could guess, but I'm sure that answer will vary by person.

Very simple, I personally dont acknowledge ANY claim to "expertise" in the world of BF.

That being an absolute, there is a BF "community" that lauds and promotes its "experts" ( as stated here over thousands of threads).

Those "experts" would be Meldrum, Bindernagle and Fahrenbach ( excluding Krantz as he is now deceased) They are lauded and extolled as 'whatever' and their writings,papers, charts, appearances et al are promoted as such.
Now for you to sit here and now claim ( as you posted)

"People are claiming to be experts on something that has has yet to be proven?! Who? Where? " is akin to pretending this board ( and others) dont exist and have never quoted any of these as a source of scientific legitimacy.

Thats absurd. Now there are no "experts" but these people are on BOA's on a BF oriented organization? Why isnt "Joe the plumber' represented there too? ( after all, if there are no "experts" then you need to include "Joe" because he knows as much and has investigated as much and his word is as valid as all the rest) ( include the 3rd shift waitress at the Waffle house too because she knows as much too and may hold the key to the mystery)
Its time to stop dodging and ANSWER the HARD questions or either run and hide.

If Fahrenbach is an "advisor" to a BF organization and honored opinion- then that organization must accept him as an expert ( otherwise they are foolish and discriminatory because they dont have a "plumber' and 'waitress" on the board too)- SO, if they do then they must put stock in his work,deductions and conclusions. ( which are the subject of this thread)

Now, lets hear those "official" comments.

Dont talk around it, dont avoid it, dont pretend it didnt happen, dont make excuses, dont be silent. Either show where the author lied about his article, defend Fahrenbach's comments from a scientific perspective ( since he is a BOA member and a speaker at an official function) or get a HUGE plate of crow.

QUOTE(RedRatSnake @ Nov 29 2008, 04:49 PM)

Any way about this line here ~ " ( i certainly wouldn't broadcast too much about "notable people' in this field since at the end of the day, the combination of the credible work and cumulative results of the 3 top "experts" in the field is less than nothing ) "~ I really feel your holding something back

Peace
Tim

you remember that old song

"nothing from nothing leaves nothing and i gotta have something- if you wanna be with me"

pretty much sums it up

Paul1968UK

Nov 29 2008, 05:01 PM

I think some of you guys need to chill out.

Unless those who are whining about the lack of a DVD or transcript are prepared to put your hands in your pockets to pay a professional outfit to prepare the hours of video, I suggest you back off now before I get super-happy with the 'warn' button.

What is wrong with you people? How dare you make these sorts of demands of any volunteer organisation.

Longtabber, no organisation to the best of my knowledge have referred to any of their advisers as 'experts', so I suggest you stop insinuating that they do. I seem to recall that you acted recently as an advisor to an organisation with regard to some thermal imaging - does that make you an 'expert' in bigfoot? No. Does it make you an expert in thermal imaging? No, it just makes you the 'free person who knew something about the subject'.

ganglian

Nov 29 2008, 10:24 PM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 29 2008, 06:01 PM)

I think some of you guys need to chill out.

consistency wouldnt hurt either

Carolina_Dog

Nov 29 2008, 11:13 PM

QUOTE(nefarious1 @ Nov 29 2008, 03:27 PM)

Just a simple clarification

Dr. Fahrenbach is not on the TBRC Board of Directors (BOD). He has no part in the day to day operations or policy making of the group. What he is on is the Board of Advisors, along with several other notable people in this field. We call upon those on the BoA to answer question in their perspective fields. Since Dr. Fahrenbach has a PhD in Zoology, he would be the person we call upon to answer any questions pertaining to that field of study.

Is he still on the board?

If so, why?

Ty

Nov 30 2008, 12:39 AM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 29 2008, 06:01 PM)

What is wrong with you people? How dare you make these sorts of demands of any volunteer organisation.

Paul, with all due respect I don't think anyone is demanding anything from the TBRC save for LT's request for someone from the TBRC to clarify if the author of the Vanity Fair article lied about Fahrenbach's presentation or not.

Knowing R.Noll videotaped the conference, if the TBRC and it's conference's speakers felt slighted by Spitznagel's article, the extent of the requests seem to be at most clips of Fahrenbach's presentation posted some where, perhaps YouTube, for clarification.

If not who cares? The more realistic and viable source for that clarification at this point seems to be Spitznagel, who apparently from his e-mail to Wolftrax seems to be confident in the accuracy of his portrayal of Fahrenbach's words and their context. I'm sure he's got it on audio tape as well.

rockinkt

Nov 30 2008, 01:21 AM

Vanity Fair probably has a standard of ethical behaviour that its reporters are responsible to follow. Outright lies and ridiculous claims are probably not something that the magazine wants to lose its crediblity over.
Too bad the same cannot be said for the majority of BF volunteer organisations. IMHO, of course.

Pat B.

Nov 30 2008, 09:52 AM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 29 2008, 06:01 PM)

I think some of you guys need to chill out.

Unless those who are whining about the lack of a DVD or transcript are prepared to put your hands in your pockets to pay a professional outfit to prepare the hours of video, I suggest you back off now before I get super-happy with the 'warn' button.

What is wrong with you people? How dare you make these sorts of demands of any volunteer organisation.
Longtabber, no organisation to the best of my knowledge have referred to any of their advisers as 'experts', so I suggest you stop insinuating that they do. I seem to recall that you acted recently as an advisor to an organisation with regard to some thermal imaging - does that make you an 'expert' in bigfoot? No. Does it make you an expert in thermal imaging? No, it just makes you the 'free person who knew something about the subject'.

I'm nicely chilled out, thank you very much, Paul ... LOL

I believe my last request for a transcript was directed at Eric Spitznagel since no DVD of the speech is ever likely to come from one of TBRC's advisors ... and the last time I looked, the Vanity Fair journalist is not associated in any way with a volunteer bigfoot organization.

Hairy Man

Nov 30 2008, 06:21 PM

QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 29 2008, 11:11 AM)

The TBRC is the last hope of any shred of credibility in the world of BF. ( as far as any organization goes)

There are plenty of other organizations that have lots of credibility - such as the AIBR, which is a non-profit nation-wide bigfoot research group.

As for Henner, I would like to note that he wasn't even aware of the Vanity Fair article (I sent him a link) or that anyone in the bigfoot community was discussing what he had said. He will be on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" this Wednesday at 10:00 p.m. EST/7:00 p.m. PST to discuss the article and bigfoot behavior. T and I will specifically address the statements attributed to Henner in the article for him to refute, place in context, expand on, etc. (I'm sending T a bribe in the mail so I don't have to be the one to ask about orgies and gangbangs).

WmRoy

Nov 30 2008, 09:29 PM

QUOTE(Ty @ Nov 30 2008, 12:39 AM)

Paul, with all due respect I don't think anyone is demanding anything from the TBRC save for LT's request for someone from the TBRC to clarify if the author of the Vanity Fair article lied about Fahrenbach's presentation or not.

Knowing R.Noll videotaped the conference, if the TBRC and it's conference's speakers felt slighted by Spitznagel's article, the extent of the requests seem to be at most clips of Fahrenbach's presentation posted some where, perhaps YouTube, for clarification.

If not who cares? The more realistic and viable source for that clarification at this point seems to be Spitznagel, who apparently from his e-mail to Wolftrax seems to be confident in the accuracy of his portrayal of Fahrenbach's words and their context. I'm sure he's got it on audio tape as well.

x2

Well Said Ty!!

I would add that the absence of any rebuttal (in the form of a video, audio or even transcript) pretty much speaks volumes about the actual content of the presentation, since I would certainly hope that those involved would wish to rebuke this article if they had the ability.

Just my opinion of course.........

WmRoy

Nov 30 2008, 09:42 PM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 29 2008, 05:01 PM)

I think some of you guys need to chill out.

Unless those who are whining about the lack of a DVD or transcript are prepared to put your hands in your pockets to pay a professional outfit to prepare the hours of video, I suggest you back off now before I get super-happy with the 'warn' button.

What is wrong with you people? How dare you make these sorts of demands of any volunteer organisation.
Longtabber, no organisation to the best of my knowledge have referred to any of their advisers as 'experts', so I suggest you stop insinuating that they do. I seem to recall that you acted recently as an advisor to an organisation with regard to some thermal imaging - does that make you an 'expert' in bigfoot? No. Does it make you an expert in thermal imaging? No, it just makes you the 'free person who knew something about the subject'.

Actually, I believe LT is an expert in thermal imaging.............. and wasn't that why he was asked to review the tape? LT may have done a freebie, but it's my understanding that clients hire him regularly to do the same type of analysis........... so expert seems to fit nicely. (I'm sure LT will be along shortly to verify my statement.)

Whether or not anyone has officially held Dr. Fahrenbach out as an expert or not, he was brought in as a speaker. Generally, speakers are considered to represent some level of expertise in the field to which they are discussing. The mere act of booking them as a speaker confers some level of trust in their 'expertise'.

Since LT has had 2 sightings of his own, I'd say he's likely just as much an expert on BF as anyone can claim to be............. just my humble opinion of course but after all we are talking about something that is far from proven to exist.

Hairy Man

Nov 30 2008, 10:49 PM

QUOTE(WmRoy @ Nov 30 2008, 07:42 PM)

Since LT has had 2 sightings of his own, I'd say he's likely just as much an expert on BF as anyone can claim to be

Who exactly is claiming to be an bigfoot expert? Do those people make that claim or are others making it for them?

I'm on the Board of Advisors for the TBRC and proud to be there. I'm not a bigfoot expert - my expertise is on Native American and Governmental relationships. That's what I'm there for, to provide advice that they can take or leave...

How does claiming to have had two sightings make LT more credible? Have those sightings been investigated? Is there any evidence from either event that would support his claims?

WmRoy

Nov 30 2008, 11:04 PM

The comment on LT is not the thrust of my comment.

LT is no more, and perhaps no less of an authority on BF than anyone else out there. Since no one has any hard evidence that there even is a BF, I think two unverified sightings (heck show me any sighting that is verifiable) gives him as much street cred as anyone.........

The point is, and I'm sorry if folks can't (or won't admit it) see that inviting someone in to speak at a conference pretty much tells the public that you as a group feel the individual has something of merit to say.......... in other words that they are an expert (of at least some level) in the field on which they are speaking. The good Dr. was speaking (and if the article is correct in a very manner of fact fashion) about BF, therefore someone must consider what he has to say specifically about BF to be of some merit............. if not why didn't they invite Redratsnake, or Ty or myself even in to speak?

It's obvious to the general public that the group (whether they meant to or NOT) was holding him out to be an expert. Apparently an expert in BF hanky panky none the less.........

Hairy Man

Nov 30 2008, 11:20 PM

Well I think people are invited to speak at Bigfoot Conferences because:

1. We know their names (i.e., it's kind of hard to invite a WmRoy or Longtabber to talk if they don't want to have their true names known or their faces shown).

2. They have something interesting to say. Most people don't want to travel several hours to listen to someone talk about their possible sighting. They want to hear about a Chinese Yeren expedition, or an analysis of purported photographic evidence, or a new perspective on research, or 20 years of investigation at a particular location. If someone has something to offer, step up to the plate! We'll GLADLY have you or someone you recommend on the radio show and if it's good, I'll even back them up as a speaker at a conference....but they gotta show their stuff first (and no offense to LT, but he's an engineer. Ever heard an engineer talk??? There isn't enough Starbucks in the world to keep you awake during that talk....)

Carolina_Dog

Nov 30 2008, 11:36 PM

QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Nov 30 2008, 11:20 PM)

Well I think people are invited to speak at Bigfoot Conferences because:

1. We know their names (i.e., it's kind of hard to invite a WmRoy or Longtabber to talk if they don't want to have their true names known or their faces shown).

2. They have something interesting to say. Most people don't want to travel several hours to listen to someone talk about their possible sighting. They want to hear about a Chinese Yeren expedition, or an analysis of purported photographic evidence, or a new perspective on research, or 20 years of investigation at a particular location. If someone has something to offer, step up to the plate! We'll GLADLY have you or someone you recommend on the radio show and if it's good, I'll even back them up as a speaker at a conference....but they gotta show their stuff first (and no offense to LT, but he's an engineer. Ever heard an engineer talk??? There isn't enough Starbucks in the world to keep you awake during that talk....)

OK, now I get it.

Credible research means nothing. It's all about entertainment.

Wow. Just....WOW!!!!!

WmRoy

Nov 30 2008, 11:39 PM

QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Nov 30 2008, 11:20 PM)

Well I think people are invited to speak at Bigfoot Conferences because:

1. We know their names (i.e., it's kind of hard to invite a WmRoy or Longtabber to talk if they don't want to have their true names known or their faces shown).

2. They have something interesting to say. Most people don't want to travel several hours to listen to someone talk about their possible sighting. They want to hear about a Chinese Yeren expedition, or an analysis of purported photographic evidence, or a new perspective on research, or 20 years of investigation at a particular location. If someone has something to offer, step up to the plate! We'll GLADLY have you or someone you recommend on the radio show and if it's good, I'll even back them up as a speaker at a conference....but they gotta show their stuff first (and no offense to LT, but he's an engineer. Ever heard an engineer talk??? There isn't enough Starbucks in the world to keep you awake during that talk....)

BINGO......... you want someone you can promote as an authority, not jus joe schmo.......... and in all honesty, a broadcast is alittle different to me and most folks, everyone knows that programs are generally really digging to fill air time (no offense), where as at a conference there is only so much time and you need to have something to back you up. (a/k/a being veiwed as an expert) Because let's face it even if I gave you a name unless it's a name recognized by the BF community it isn't going to draw folks to your conference!! You want some one with drawing power! (a/k/a being viewed as an expert)

But I will agree, engineers like accountants tend not to be overly exciting to listen to............. nothing personal LT..........

Though I will listen to an engineer over an accountant any day.

Hairy Man

Nov 30 2008, 11:47 PM

QUOTE(Carolina_Dog @ Nov 30 2008, 09:36 PM)

OK, now I get it.

Credible research means nothing. It's all about entertainment.

Wow. Just....WOW!!!!!

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say credible research meant nothing? I said people want to listen to people who can give a good presentation, not people who are just repeating a reputed sighting filled with hmms and hahss. You can wow yourself all you want, but there is no wow there.

QUOTE(WmRoy @ Nov 30 2008, 09:39 PM)

BINGO......... you want someone you can promote as an authority, not jus joe schmo.......... and in all honesty, a broadcast is alittle different to me and most folks, everyone knows that programs are generally really digging to fill air time (no offense), where as at a conference there is only so much time and you need to have something to back you up. (a/k/a being veiwed as an expert) Because let's face it even if I gave you a name unless it's a name recognized by the BF community it isn't going to draw folks to your conference!! You want some one with drawing power! (a/k/a being viewed as an expert)

But I will agree, engineers like accountants tend not to be overly exciting to listen to............. nothing personal LT..........

Though I will listen to an engineer over an accountant any day.

Again, at no time did I say that we wanted an authority. We want something worth listening to. I don't care who you are, you have something worth listening to, we'll listen. If we only wanted big names, why was David Paulides invited? He's a virtual nobody, but he had something interesting to say.

I think some of you are looking for a fight when there is none. There are no authorities or experts...there is just some people who have more interesting things to say than others. Period.

Pywacket

Dec 1 2008, 05:27 AM

QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Nov 29 2008, 05:01 PM)

I think some of you guys need to chill out.

Unless those who are whining about the lack of a DVD or transcript are prepared to put your hands in your pockets to pay a professional outfit to prepare the hours of video, I suggest you back off now before I get super-happy with the 'warn' button.

What is wrong with you people? How dare you make these sorts of demands of any volunteer organisation.

Well Paul, I think it is just "par for the course" on the BFF. Different year, different volunteer organization, different posters...............same attitude.

However, as was mentioned before, this issue can be cleared up pretty quickly with a YouTube video from Mr. Noll. Doesn't take hardly anytime at all to post one and he already has a YouTube account.

If Dr. Fahrenbach didn't say the things that the reporter said he did, then we can all jump all over the reporter. However, if the Doctor did say it, like the reporter claims, then that's another side of the coin that others will have to deal with from their own perspective.

I do believe it would be in the best interests of the TBRC to help get this matter resolved, instead of letting the reporter do it. No matter which side of the story is proven.

I am not going to hold the TBRC responsible if one of their speakers went off the deep end. I would just think if the allegations are true, then they would probably rethink who they would want to invite as a speaker and use on their BOA. But that's their business.

I didn't attend the conference this year. However, I was there last year and it is my humble opinion that the most interesting presentations given that year were from Mr. Colyer and Mr. Higgins. A couple of "home boys".

I am sure that their presentations this year were just as equally informative (and entertaining).

I just don't think that someone's "bigfoot celebrity status", necessarily makes them a good and interesting speaker at a conference. They may be a good draw, though, if you are trying to raise some money to pay for the thing.

I liked Ms. Strain's presentation, however, she didn't talk as long as the others, and I didn't feel that she had the time to get into the "meat" of her particular "specialty". She is a good read, though!

Anyway, I digress.

My point is that it would just be better for the TBRC to clear this up instead of the reporter.

WmRoy

Dec 1 2008, 07:06 AM

QUOTE

W. Henner Fahrenbach is a retired zoologist. He worked for thirty years as Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton, Oregon. He has published numerous papers in a variety of journals in the fields of histology and neurobiology, in addition to several analyses of sasquatch biology.

Dr. Fahrenbach has investigated many sasquatch sighting reports and is the custodian of the world's largest collection of possible sasquatch hairs. He has appeared in several documentaries pertaining to the sasquatch phenomenon and has spoken widely on the subject, including a sasquatch Biology class held at Portland Community College. He is a member of the TBRC Board of Advisors. He currently resides in the eastern edge of the greater Phoenix metro area where he enjoys astronomy, gardening, mountain hiking and natural history.

I realize that this is Fahrenbach's own bio, but can you not see that the group by including him as a speaker and posting his glowing bio on their web site has painted him very much as an authority?

Come on now let's be honest..............

WmRoy

Dec 1 2008, 07:52 AM

QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Nov 30 2008, 11:47 PM)

Again, at no time did I say that we wanted an authority. We want something worth listening to. I don't care who you are, you have something worth listening to, we'll listen. If we only wanted big names, why was David Paulides invited? He's a virtual nobody, but he had something interesting to say.

I think some of you are looking for a fight when there is none. There are no authorities or experts...there is just some people who have more interesting things to say than others. Period.

Addressing your point about David Paulides, I can't help but think that he has a level of expertise about BF after reading the bio posted on the TBRC website.

QUOTE

David Paulides holds two degrees from the University of San Francisco, and has a professional background that includes twenty years in law enforcement and senior executive positions in the technology sector. A boyhood camping experience with his father in the late 1960s sparked his life long interest in the sasquatch.

In 2004, he was part of the founders group that formed North America Bigfoot Search (NABS) where his investigative and analytical skills and experience were invaluable in researching bigfoot sightings. He spent three years living among the Hoopa tribal members, listening to, researching and recording their bigfoot stories.

The Hoopa Project is his first book, based on his experiences in the Hoopa and Bluff Creek area of Northern California. Paulides is currently the Executive Director of NABS. He makes his permanent residence in Los Gatos, California.

It simply appears that you're trying very, very, hard to have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps there should have been a disclaimer added at the bottom of each bio............ may want to either better check out your speakers or post a disclaimer next time?

I agree firmly with Pywacket, there is no need for all of this, the group could easily release some form of verification as to the content of Fahrenbach's presentation. In this day and age of digital files it would not take any appreciable time and could certainly save alot of embarrassment for the group.

Cheers.

Hairy Man

Dec 1 2008, 11:23 AM

QUOTE(WmRoy @ Dec 1 2008, 05:06 AM)

I realize that this is Fahrenbach's own bio, but can you not see that the group by including him as a speaker and posting his glowing bio on their web site has painted him very much as an authority?

Come on now let's be honest..............

An authority on what? An animal that hasn't been proven to exist?

QUOTE(WmRoy @ Dec 1 2008, 05:52 AM)

Addressing your point about David Paulides, I can't help but think that he has a level of expertise about BF after reading the bio posted on the TBRC website.

What is his expertise on BF?

QUOTE

An expert is: An "expert" is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

You are trying to infer that because certain people are experts in their particular discipline (zoology, anthropology, law enforcement) and they apply their talents to the study of bigfoot - that they are somehow then experts on bigfoot. Since we don't have a bigfoot to study, it is impossible to be an expert on it.

Pat B.

Dec 1 2008, 11:57 AM

That's very true, there are no bigfoot experts .... but it seems to me that I do recall seeing a posting from one of the regular speakers at these conferences who actually says, "I am considered an expert on the subject of Bigfoot."

http://www.911media.org/projects/web_resou...mberNumber=8828

QUOTE

Richard Noll
Mr.

Primary Skill: DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY

Additional Skills:
I am a high tech aircraft tooling/quality engineer. I work with lasers and optics and can build just about anything for a set. I have edited with FCP. I have shot SD and HD for network TV. I have written for Network TV. I have videoed TV interviews. I have line produced for network.

Equipment Resources:
XL1s, GL1, Samsung MiniDV camcorder, XL HD1, G5 dual, G4 MacPro, FCP 5.1, FCPE HD, Three light kit, Wireless mic setups, Canon 5D, Photoshop CS2, Bravo II DVD/CD printer and burner, Steady cam, 1 ton truck and camper, two portable generators, High powered green laser, 20 remote camera traps, wilderness expedition equipment.

Experience:
I have worked out of a helicopter shooting. Worked for Discovery and now History Channel on a TV series called Monsters: Science Meets Legend which will begin airing in July 2007. I traveled to Malaysia for one of the shoots as the Line producer, editor and writer as well as talent. I produced a 4 disc DVD set and sold about 300 sets world wide through PayPal. I am considered an expert on the subject of Bigfoot. I of course have many props for the subject such as casts, sounds, know the scientists involved. Been in a dozen or more TV specials on the subject as talent and now behind the camera. I know wilderness locations in Washington State. I video interviewed Jane Goodall for my DVD set on the subject.

Rates:
TBD

Additional:
I have some ideas for new products and would like to assemble a crew to work with. The ultimate goal is to show at a festival.

This I find very very interesting .....

Hairy Man

Dec 1 2008, 12:02 PM

Oh...he should probably change that...

Robert

Dec 1 2008, 12:11 PM

Well, while it is true that no one can really be considered an expert on Bigfoot, the subject is something on which one could be considered an expert.