After some deliberation, we decided to re-open discussion of the MRP. Rather than continue with what had turned into a horror story of a thread, I thought it best if a new thread was started.

The original thread can be found here http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=27047


The moderators of this forum have been accused of being in cahoots with the people involved in the MRP - I want to make it perfectly clear that the the original thread was NOT closed at the request of anyone involved in the MRP, but because the thread was getting out of hand, people were being harassed, and private messages were being reposted on other forums - lets hope this thread fairs better.


Please keep this thread civil, or I will have no alternative but to close it permantly.


I have two warnings before we get started: 1) Anyone found reposting posts from this thread or PMs on other forums again will be suspended or banned. 2) Anyone posting personal information to this thread (including names of individuals) or other forums will be banned immediately. If you have to identify people and they don't have a BFF username, use initials instead please.


I'm sure I'm asking for trouble restarting this conversation - please prove me wrong and have a sensible, adult conversation.

Thanks Paul.
I hope we can keep things civil as well, and I'm optimistic.

In my opinion, crusty as it is, initials should be off limits in the same manner that proper names are - if the concept of confidentiality is actually trying to be upheld. I mention this because there seemed to be a lot of folks in the previous thread that were trying really hard to give out private information in the name of "science" and I think they would be delighted to have a go-ahead to at least use initials. Like I say, is just my opinion, and the call is ultimately with the BFF.

I don't think we need to waste time debating who's chairs are going to be higher any longer. I think reopening the discussion was the right decision, and I think the conditions set forth at the beginning are fair enough for all sides to abide by.

For people who aren't in the know on the subject one way or another this discussion has come to resemble a game of Texas Hold 'Em where everyone just keeps holding 'em. At some point the discussion has to move forward or else all parties involved suffer.

As a courtesy, I'll bring it up to the mods and admins. Therefore, until further notice, please refrain from using initials until we get a consensus... thanks.

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

What about using the terms "Landowner or LO" and any relative of the landowner use Landowner's wife, son daughter grandchildren, what have you on down the line? Would that be acceptable? This has not been discussed with the mods, it's just a possibility thrown out by me.

In light of the allegation that someone associated with the property might have had the wherewithall to fabricate unusual sounds, maybe we should put them under the microscope in that regard, examine them for any artifacts that indicate electronic production. I can think of half a dozen things that might appear in them if they were electronically created, but don't really want to create a "manual for faking" by spelling them all out. Then if that's disposed of we can move on. I'll take something of a glance at some tomorrow, but am not particularly skilled at it, so unless theres anything glaringly obvious it'd be good to get more of an expert to chime in.

There are many things that probably need clarification should the MRP members choose to participate. First off there were allegations that the individuals (landowner, and or relatives) sought out the group to come to the location in the begining. There have also been allegations made that the landowners nephew is or was in possession of a gorilla suit. There were also allegations made that the group was aware of this "suit". (if so, at which point during the investigation were these things discovered?) Also, if they were discovered, this would be very relevent to this type of investigation. I'm curious why it was not mentioned previously by the group?

I for one would like to ask if there was any type of footprints found and documented if they could be shared? I see no exposing of individuals regarding their NDA in doing so. I think it would be wise for the group or individuals within the group to address these things rather than let the rumors be wildly spread. If there was some sort of possible hoaxing going on regarding the audio, or sightings it may be best exposed by the group itself rather than others investigating it.


In regards to the missing trail cams... Under what circumstances were they missing? (while the group was there? or while the group was gone etc) Any pieces of them found?

Just because many of us are friends with those involved, does not mean they shouldnt be held to the same scrutiny/standards that they themselves have held others to in the past. I believe I've even seen a quote regarding JimF to do so should they ever present possible evidence. I hope the group, or individuals within the group decide to participate in this discussion and address these important issues that have come to light.

Is there any other physical evidence? (question for the researchers involved).
And did the landowner (or his nephew) ask the researchers to investigate the site?

These are two big questions that need answers.

From Page 1.


Period.



No.

Nephew??

Spaz, With permission from the landowner, I asked the researchers for help with the site. I had known the landowners for about 10 years before either of us knew of the others interest in the topic of BF. And, as far as dealing with any of the innuendo passed around by a few who claim to be "knowledgeable", their speculation is much more dramatic than the truth, which is simply that the names and location of the principles would be totally outed if their low brow "hints" were openly dealt with. The sad thing is, they know that - 100%. The other sad thing is that all of the attempts at outing have been done by people who really don't have an effing clue about the level of scrutiny that the people and location have gone through over the course of time, even including years before the MRP group got involved. For anyone who has ever been to the site, the full circumstances have been openly and honestly explained with nothing hidden, and for them to then take their several hours or few days on-site - out of the literal years that the site has been worked - and concoct a story about their personal "expert" findings is truly laughable, especially when done at the public level of the Forums. I hope the original intent of this thread can be adhered to, and the intent is simple: here are some interesting recordings that we felt should be shared with the BF Field. Period.

I am overjoyed to see this topic being discussed on the net's premiere bigfoot forum.


Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to discuss the evidence presented without also discussing the conditions under which it was collected and the undisclosed facts brought to light regarding the land owner.

Stacy, can you explain what has been done in the study of these sounds to rule out possible played back recordings? I've reviewed most of the vocalizations and have'nt found a vocalization that has the same signature as any other, Therefore I don't think the "looped call play back" theory will hold water.

Could it be addressed whether someone owned a preditor caller?

Any thoughts?

SY.

Thanks NightOwl. This helps clear up some questions in my mind.

Bipto, I agree that it's hard to discuss the recordings without being able to discuss the circumstances surrounding them. It's hard, like walking on eggshells. I've seen the verbiage used to restrict the conversation to the recordings only, but because I have no direct knowledge of the rest of the scenario, these kinds of questions are going to pop up (about other physical evidence). I can "sort of" read between the lines a little bit and speculate that if there was any appreciable physical evidence it would be discussed in support of the recordings. But I can't be sure. There are too many questions I want to ask, but I honestly don't have a clear picture about what is or is not allowed in this thread. It's gotten a little murky when it would seem that all of the warnings and specifics would have made it much clearer. This thread doesn't have the feel of "freedom" that the other threads on the forum have.

Is their really any point to bringing back this thread under such strong-arm tactics? How about the moderators just PM us with the questions we should ask so you can completely set the tone of this farce.



--Peace,
Rob

Hi

The only thing Administrators and Moderators ask is not to use names of people involved and not to put posts or personals messages from here on other forums, Both are in the BFF rules and guidelines when everyone signed up, If you accepted it then i don't see why it is a problem now . . .

Peace
Tim

As Tim said, I don't think they are strong-arm tactics in the slightest. So far we have had at least one member re-posting pms from a moderator on another forum, and as often happens, people take the conversation to places like JREF re-posting stuff from BFF, then blaming the moderators HERE when people come to blows on another forum.

The 'strong arm tactics' are simply to ensure that the discussion on BFF is conducted civily. If you can't handle civility then BFF isn't right for you, but that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't right for BFF.

I can't answer for Stacy, but I can tell you SY that using simple logic, those espousing the view we were hoaxed are overlooking the event descriptions themselves, in which you often get very specific details. For instance, IF the sounds were 'recorded' and being played back in the river crossing at the end of Aug. 2008, there would have to have been a massive electronic array of equipment out there, since, as the narrative shows in the roughly 8 minutes that recording encompassed, there were as many as 4 different sound source locations: 2 across the river... one to the north, and shortly there-after, one more low pair of 'snorts' to the south of camp.

The "looped" thing had nothing to do with calls or call blasting. That was an intentionally misleading statment meant to bring a level of distrust of the recordings which was dealt with privately between the person who made that statement, us, and the BFF ADMINS. They are MORE than aware of who behind the scenes is spreading 'what' information and how inappropriate it is.

As for preditor calls, no. If they do own one/any, it's not being brought into camp and used. We generally feel that it would be counter productive to what we are doing at this location.

This is not a thread to discuss what the BFF moderators and admins know or don't know, it is a thread to discuss the MRP and the events surrounding it. None of the moderators were present when the recordings were made, and none of the moderators had any involvement in releasing them to the public. As far as I know, none of the moderators have been to the recording site. Heck, I haven't even listened to all the recordings yet!


Moderators and Admin are often privvy to information that regular members do not have - if you want us to talk about that openly in this thread, then fine, tell me to do so - if you don't, then I suggest you refrain from involving the moderating team in this discussion.


Personally I would prefer it if everyone who is witholding 'secret info' would just lay their cards on the table in a civilised manner and stop playing cloak and dagger politics.

Undisclosed facts? What do you want Bipto? Names, addresses, occupations, hobbies, spouse's names, kid's names, genealogical histories, educational levels achieved? You know very well that every thing you and your buddies are whining about has absolutely nothing to do with the "facts" of the recordings, but has everything to do with casting doubt upon the integrity of the personalities involved. You know that you asked to be included in an on-site visit and were turned down, and so your ego is hurt to the extent that you now apparently feel you must "out" everydamnthing about the situation. Get over it. You were refused visitation rights for all the right reasons, as all your posts about this subject now prove. IF you had been allowed on-site, you would have known what all the "facts" are - as every one who has been on-site have learned - and you would have known that those facts would only serve to identify the witness/landowner info, and, that those facts have nothing to do with the recordings themselves. I talked with the landowner and some of the family again today - in person - and they are sorry they ever allowed any thing to be shared (even though they still feel they did it for the right reasons), especially in light of the determination you and your friends seem to have about "getting to the bottom" of this and exposing their identity. If you can't understand the concept of confidentiality when dealing with witness/landowner information, then you understand nothing about integrity. And, if you choose to ignore the integrity of the researchers - or, "enthusiasts" if you prefer - then so be it and go ahead and toot your own personal "scientific" horn, I'm sure you have many admirers for doing so. Again, our intent was simple... here are some interesting recordings. Period. Examine the recordings all you wish, "prove" the recordings were manipulated if you can... but please stop this tiresome assault upon the integrity of all the individuals involved in this long term research study, and really, try to curb your egotistical impetus regarding revealing witness/landowner information.



There are no "cloak and dagger" politics Paul... it is only about confidentiality, and promises of confidentiality, and integrity regarding confidentiality. Why this point is being sooooo missed is beyond me.

The credibility and integrity of the landowner has been put into question - that can be discussed and if necessary, rebuked without revealing his identity or breaching any agreement over confidentiality surely? For the recordings to retain any credibility at this stage, surely those involved need to find a way to address the 'secret information' that has been filling up my inbox that does not disclose personal information?


Frankly, I wish people would stop emailing me about these recordings and keep me out of it so that I can return to the blissfully ignorant state I once occupied.

I'm going to ask the same question again, and hopefully I can get an answer other than the one I've been getting:

Is there any other physical evidence (of any kind) to support the possibility that Sasquatch are, or have been, present at or near this location?

PLEASE, a simple yes or no would be wonderful.

Spazmo - Just taking a wild guess here, but, I would say that is one of the things the MI group no longer wants to disclose. And another guess of mone would be, since they do not want to disclose anything else, then more than likely it is something like "physical evidence" that they do not want to disclose.

Again, all guesses.

Thanks to Paul and the admins for opening this one back up.

Paul, I've told you before, don't call me Shirley.

Look Paul... and everyone else... there is NO question about the credibility and integrity of the landowner other than what has been insinuated by those purporting superior knowledge of some sort. All it takes is 37 seconds of typing to question someone's integrity. Anyone who has been on site has the same information. Anyone who has that information knows damn well that that information is a name/address identifier - plain and simple. Anyone who has received that information knows damn well it was offered totally openly with no reservations at the time they received it on site. Anyone who has been on site knows that they were there with at least an implication of keeping name/address information confidential - it actually goes without saying, but it was said and for some, it was written. Anyone who has been on site, or is knowledgeable about the site through other means, and is now "hinting" at "credibility and integrity" issues obviously has severe credibility and integrity issues of their own since they are trying very hard to provide that name/address information publicly. I admit that this is, indeed, a Catch 22 and I am sorry for that, but it is what it is. And I do totally understand the cryptic nature of this response. But after all is said and done, I - for one - prefer to try to keep my witnesses/landowners out of the effing Public Eye instead of giving the so called "bigfoot community" every bit of information that they so righteously think they are entitled to. The BF field is "entitled" to nothing imho, and I personally regret - as does the family involved - the "spirit of sharing" that lead us to release the recordings that we did. As a result the family has been harassed by phone and internet (adults and children) and has had threats of "visitation" by some of the fringe elements of this field and I am appalled by it all, especially including the actions and statements of some of the so-called mainstream personalities on this forum.

And, for Spaz... to answer your question.... we have no "evidence" of anything... just some recordings we thought might be of interest to the "field".

Is it just me or has this turned into the next PG film debate?




Anyway, I know absolutely nothing and don't feel it's my place to ask questions given the confidentiality aspect. What point does it serve anyway? The folks who have suspicions will more than likely still not be assuaged. Is anything solved from recordings? Why such a big deal trying to "out a hoax" when audio recordings don't prove anything anyway (even though they sound very interesting), as I've heard here on the BFF countless times.

Just seems like a huge pissing match to me. If I were MRP, I wouldn't respond anymore...

Tiger... thank you for understanding, much appreciated.

I think the freedom is there to ask the questions. Getting them answered is another story... It seems as if this will be the status quo response to anything they do not want to answer and use the disclaimer to bolster that. I understand not wanting to reveal anyones name, or the exact location... However, there are many issues that have come to light since this was initially made public that I feel need addressing. To not address them only puts the group and those intimately involved in a bad light (so to speak)

Will there be any type of report or release upon the conclusion of the "investigation" that presents the physical evidence documented? (ie tracks or other documented evidence) Also, at the conclusion of this "investigation" will there be any reports released concerning the issues I've previously brought up? (ie gorilla suit, missing trail cameras, and its circumstances, addressing the possible hoax issues) Or is this it? You only want to speak specifically about the recordings made with no further discussion?

If thats the case, its cherry picking at its finest. I personally see this group getting tarnished credibility as time passes and none of these important issues are addressed. That is purely your choice though. Just dont say that we didnt give any of you a fair chance to speak about it, or a chance to reveal anything pertinent to this "investigation". I'm afraid that its all going to blow up and soon enough the names will be public (as many already know who is involved, including names and addresses/phones and their circumstances) as will information that makes the group look less than credible. JMHO

Think about this for a second... (the group) If you were not involved with this "investigation" and you had nothing personally invested... what would you think from sitting on the sidelines? Would you be willing to accept "only the recordings" without being able to question the events and circumstances, or people involved (concerning relevent information to this "investigation") Or would you be happy to just accept the disclaimer? I think many here are seeing the disclaimer as a cop out, and used to avoid relevent questions to the audio, and sightings that have allegedly taken place.

I've already said this once, but I think it needs repeating. I think it would be wise for the group, or individuals within the group to address these important issues. (before someone else beats you to the punch) Better to expose this yourselves, then have others do it outside of your group. All I'm going to say about it for now.

There was mention of tracks found.

oh gawd, why am I responding to this?


Yes RR, you caught us, and you are right - much better if we expose ourselves. Please watch this space for our Documentary Video release... working title: "How to Hoax Real Good". $49.95. PreOrders - $9.95 payable to Nightowl. Hurry and Order Now!







Oh... tracks are now considered "evidence"? Thank you, I'll make a note.

"Or is this it? You only want to speak specifically about the recordings made with no further discussion?"

Well, since this has been their stance, for the most part, from Day 1, I guess we know the answer.

Discussion of the actual recordings has been put aside in favor of the overwhelmingly more popular question: Are the recordings hoaxed, real or somewhere in between, and who really knows the truth, if anybody? I think at this point BFFers are just waiting around to see if the answer is ever revealed.

IMO the recordings themselves are just what they are, an odd collection of sounds surrounded by uncertainty and/or legitimacy...and until some further expert study is released, if ever, that's all they'll ever be.

Pretty funny Now how about addressing the claims of gorilla suits and that the group was aware of this suit etc. Why state there was "no evidence" when clearly the website mentioned "fairly clear tracks and trackways"

There are clearly some issues that are better addressed by the group, rather than being brought to light by others outside of the group. I'm not even mentioning some of the important and relevent issues because of the net cast out over this whole thread/project.






Is that some type of joke? I think its extremely relevent to the audio/sightings, dont you?

I guess since Drew is making that claim, you'll have to ask him for proof of it... not just a 'claim'. *hint* (there never was a gorilla suit)

I have a ghillie suit I keep in my camper, and have had for several years. Does THAT make me suspect?

Is that a threat RR? Hell, why don't you just put your money where your pie hole is? Or are you just a one handed internet typist with more bluff than brawn? Go ahead, give us something to work with here, if, that is, you wish to out a private citizen with their name and address.

I'm not threatening anyone. Nor would I "out" anyones personal information. But great job at avoiding the issues/points.



Maybe Drew can speak for what he personally witnessed taking place in the form of a conversation at the site. As I understand it jimf asked the guy with the suit to burn it. Maybe Drew can clarify these points, and mention how this "gorilla suit" came into the picture here. Oh wait, hes suspended. (for issues related to this debacle)

No, he isn't.

Sweet, I hope he will address this part of the issue then. (since he was the source of the info regarding that apparently)

I said at the top of the thread that this discussion is to be conducted civily - I'm not a person who enjoys repeating myself, so I'll ask you to address BFF members with a little more respect in future please.

It came into the picture, because, as you know from being over at JREF, he was chomping at the bit to tell what he "THOUGHT he knew". And so here again, YOU continue to mention something that didn't exist, perpetuating the idea that it did, with absolutely no proof.

oops, my mistake, I thought he wasn't, but I double checked and he was, but now he isn't.

You must not have read anything we sent you, otherwise you'd know the answers to those questions and more importantly, the WHY of them.

Ummm.... I doubt Drew witnessed anything since he was on site for well less than a day and is basing his knowledge on what he was told, not what he actually knows. In fact I did not. I came onto the site a year after the rest of the group , having been living in Florida at the time. I doubt he could at all. The same as he assumes possible sleep paralysis for GII'Ss very clear sighting at night, even though Mike was very much awake at the time and behind the wheel of a car. Don't you hate those pesky little things like actual facts getting in the way of a good assumption? I know I do.

Yes indeed, Drew's 8 hours (+/-) on site clearly qualify him to offer conjecture and speculation (tainted as it is with his ego-slap for not being invited back) that should be joined into the ohso scientific banter that you offer here. After all, we have to get to the BOTTOM of this, what with the nefarious intentions that are evidenced here.

That is a TOTAL lie. Once again, here's someone's assumptions/suppositions/lies/wtf-ever suddenly being accepted as fact. That's wonderful, keep up the good work, Ben.

If the LO is shy though, it's because he has a real life to get on with, if he's got a real life to get on with, I guess he wouldn't be bothered with creating hundreds of hours of phenomena just to keep these guys entertained.

I'm not assuming anything. I said they were "allegations" and asked the group for clarification and to address the issues. I hope Drew will also step in and give his two cents regarding this and maybe we can lay some of the important issues to rest. I think that is what this is all about isnt it? What harm is done or foul by myself wanting to "clear the air" and get to the truth? I'm definitely not assuming anything though. Don't put words into my mouth, thanks. If it turns out to be a wild rumor, I think its great you're stepping up to clear that up now.

Lucky I dont mind my name being used like some people.

sincerely,

Ben River

Civility?

Why would anyone feel they should get an explanation? Are any of you guys/gals related? Did someone's life in the MRP group get saved and now they're beholding to return the favor by answering a "simple" question? Seems like a lot of gall getting passed around here.

I don't know who the heck most of you are in person, but who the h-e-double-hockeysticks do you think you are to deserve an explanation?

(FWIW - I know I don't deserve one and wouldn't ask in the first place.)