Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

[William Parcher]

My bolding above points to some very carefully worded statements posted on their website. The website with a CEO that claims to have a sasquatch sighting of his own as well. (as stated in a national geographic article) Seems from that wording, "real or not" would suggest they are not sure. Contradictive?

As you can see, they do word things in ways that allow for "but we could be wrong" - even if they don't explicitly say that. You also have to consider the people who are voluntarily paying to go on these expeditions. Are they truly being defrauded and do they themselves feel that way?

The BFRO and all of their paying customers may understand that Bigfoot is a myth and folktale. The problem is that if they state it outright in any way whatsoever it ruins the entire theme of the legend and experience. Shut down Disneyland because Mickey is a fake mouse. Stop "pro wrestling" because it's all faked.

How do you prevent the fraud of Mickey Mouse? Do you force a law that requires him to wear a shirt that says "I am not real. Do not sue me for fraud"? Or do you force every person who attends pro wrestling to sign something at the door which says "I fully understand that this is fake. I will not sue for fraud"?

I know that many things state "for entertainment purposes" or something like that to protect themselves in this age of wanton litigation.

Maybe I'm weirdly different than most Bigfoot skeptics. Because I think that surprisingly few Bigfoot believers really truly believe. I think most of the ones that proclaim it exists are doing nothing other than enjoying themselves. For some of them, part of that enjoyment involves getting on the Internet and telling skeptics like us that we are full of crap.

 

[Drewbot]

Maybe I'm weirdly different than most Bigfoot skeptics. Because I think that surprisingly few Bigfoot believers really truly believe. I think most of the ones that proclaim it exists are doing nothing other than enjoying themselves. For some of them, part of that enjoyment involves getting on the Internet and telling skeptics like us that we are full of crap.

PARCHER-
When I was a kid, my Mom told me

"IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, THEN YOU DON'T GET ANY PRESENTS".

So, I believed in Santa Claus, mostly around her and my little brother. And I got the presents...

Do you think there is some of that mentality in Bigfootry?

"If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you don't get the benefits"...

The attention, the invitations to the outings, meeting Bob Gimlin (SOTE), Being a forum moderator, etc...

 

[William Parcher]

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, THEN YOU DON'T GET ANY PRESENTS.

If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you don't get the benefits...

These quotes really could be expanded to show the real deal...

IF YOU DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, THEN YOU DON'T GET ANY PRESENTS.

If you don't tell us that you believe in Bigfoot, you don't get the benefits...

It's not possible to crawl inside anyone's brain to see if they truly believe what they say they do.

 

[cbartow]

Fair points, Vort. Personally, I think educated guesses could be made regarding most of the variables you mentioned, but the biggest fly in the ointment is the lack of targets. That, and the risk of tranquilizing some BFRO member out doing his Squatch impression.

Targets and lack of them is a primary concern, for sure... But I don't think you can gloss over the execution of such a 'tranquilizer shot' either...

I looked at some of the equipment and wildlife management guns used to shoot said tranquilizer darts and you have to be very close to the quarry to use them... 20-30 yards range if I recall correctly... There may be some much more expensive para-military sniper-like darts and guns that can be precision-fired from hundreds of yards, but not what I saw...

The guns and darts I saw looked designed to trank large game animals in reserves or zoos (20 or 30 yards max range for use within enclosures)... It might be possible to use the same equipment on say, a grizzly bear in the wild (for example) that would respond to set-up bait station perhaps, but I would not want to be in the tree stand next to the bait when you realize the dosage of horse tanquilizer you put in the dart is inadequate...

In either case, expecting to operate a standard wildlife management tranq gun as long range hunting or sniper rifle is not realistic... the gun range is far, far less and functional use of such a piece of equipment in the wild is probably specific and limited... just my pragmatic opinion - I am no expert I may be wrong...

I do believe large wild animals should only be attempted to be tranked by wildlife management personnel who have been trained to use the equipment safely (for humans and animals)... especially where proper tranquilizer mix and usage is concerned... I don't think it is something that an enthusiast with firearms hunting skills should be allowed to 'test' (even if they were able to illegally obtain prescription animal tranquilizer...)

 

[River]

snip

Even today a moderator on their forum posts this gem:

Quote:
AndrewP - (moderator on the forum over there) Posted: December 12th, 2009 11:37 PM

We do find scat, all the time. We've found piles of likely squatch scat on every expedition, public and private, I've been on.

Pretty bold statement, considering there have never been any confirmed sasquatch scat. Where is all this evidence laid claim to? Interesting...

/snip

If the BFRO claims to collect so much bigfoot crap, it could be said that the BFRO is full of crap.

Oh the memories this thread brings back. I remember at least 5 or so posters in recent times asking about Matt Moneymakers sasquatch sighting on their board, only to have the posts ignored, and deleted. He apparently refuses to discuss it publically. Go figure.

Another interesting tidbit is, on their forum there was a debate about a popular scientist in the bigfoot fields opinion on the jacobs photos. Moneymaker got pretty upset by the fact that Jeff Meldrum (a well known name in the bigfoot community) Said quote:

Very little speculation involved... the image is almost certainly a black bear, yet the photos continue to receive unwarranted attention.

Jeff Meldrum

This of course upset Mr Monkeymaker and he had to include with Meldrums opinion his own little rant about how Meldrum was wrong and insisted that the jacobs photos represent a juvenile sasquatch.

Was that like any sasquatch you've seen Mr Moneymaker? Interesting.

Not that I expect a reply, of course. Since he refuses to discuss his own sighting, or even say if its part of their public database, I guess he will probably avoid this thread also. But thats not shady at all for the president of an organization that publishes a large database on sasquatch sightings. Send us your sighting reports, but I'm not gonna discuss mine.... can we say LMAO? I find his emanors quite amusing though. He definitely seems to be quite the control freak. I bet its a joy to be involved with his organization. *gag*

kit, that post he made to you is hilarious! I'm pretty sure I've pissed him off a time or two also, but I havent had the honor of receiving a special email yet. awww. I did however spark that debate about Meldrums opinion which prompted one of the forum members over there to contact Meldrum directly, and have been a fairly vocal opponent to the jacobs photo representing anything other than a mangy bear. (which along with my anti-bfro position got me banned fairly quickly from the bfro forums!)


I find this statement on their website hilarious:

The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery

Wow, a "scientific research organization" that has no credible evidence after almost 15 years of research. Another nice little point, they did manage to sell quite a few camping trips to people. How scientific of them. You know... all the big scientific organizations involved in studying animals, they sell camping trips right? They also never have any conclusive evidence right?


Well, that is... if you're the BFRO. What a premier organization, that BFRO. I tell ya. If you decide to check out their website, be sure to take in all of that concise information about sasquatch. Just make sure you have the barf bag close.


BFRO = girl scouts of the bigfoot community. They'll be more than happy to take your money, but you wont get any cookies. Just the privilege of listening to whispering and "wait listen" repeat x10 + dramatic enthusiasm and maybe even some "suspected sasquatch vocals". But its worth 300 bucks right? Oh yeah, dont forget, all that includes is the privilege of being there. They dont provide any tents or lodging, food or facilities. You just get to be there. (many "expeditions" have been in public parks, and some on private land) Dont you feel special yet???

Wait!! Did you hear that??? Shhh

lol

 

[Tricky]

A few posts moved to Abandon All Hope forum for being off topic.

Remember folks that if you think a member is a sockpuppet, the proper proceedure is to report it along with any evidence you have. Making sockpuppet allegations in the forum is considered off topic and may result in infractions or other moderation.

Also remember that while we do not prohibit talking about other forums, you may not bring over the text of discussions from other forums. This is considered a violation of rule 7, i.e. "...only the person registering an account may use it." If you wish to hold a discussion with a member of another forum, ask them to join here.

Thank you

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

A few posts moved to Abandon All Hope forum for being off topic.

Remember folks that if you think a member is a sockpuppet, the proper proceedure is to report it along with any evidence you have. Making sockpuppet allegations in the forum is considered off topic and may result in infractions or other moderation.

Also remember that while we do not prohibit talking about other forums, you may not bring over the text of discussions from other forums. This is considered a violation of rule 7, i.e. "...only the person registering an account may use it." If you wish to hold a discussion with a member of another forum, ask them to join here.

Thank you

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Perhaps, any poster who is also a member/principal/proponent of another (competing) BF related "research" organisation should have the courtesy of identifying themselves as such.

 

[154]

There are no more of the glorified camping trips because the potential and inevitable litigious risk inherent in that generally ~$3-10K/mo. is no longer justified in light of the sponsor's $25K/mo. generosity to one individual.

eta- ...according to what I've heard.

 

[HarryHenderson]

River sums it all up quite 'nicely and concisely'. Excellent.

This sorta Omnipotent Ogre™ Matt Moneymaker seems to be really is a despicable character huh! I mean, he takes groups of people out on a so-called 'Bigfoot Hunts', guarantees their Bigfoot enlightenment, upon return erroneously claims everyone had some form of 'Bigfoot contact' and goes on about his way to the next such trip. YET, he not only not produces any type of 'corroborating evidence' of such contacts (which must number in the hundreds by now), but feebly attempts to 'intellectually' deny its necessity AND THEN verbally pounds on ANYONE who even alludes to the notion they might need a little bit more than just 'scary monster stories'. That's definitely not HONEST. And as such, it's certainly not moral, and it's just not right. IMO about the only thing he really deserve is relentless ridicule and derision (and hopefully public embarrassment) for being the pitiful liar and cheater that he is.

Now I'm not much familiar with who this Wally guy is, but I am interested in why he is. Apparently Moneymaker is now a very well 'kept' man by him; yet still can't contribute even one thing 'Bigfoot worthy' back to the rest of the world for it? Or am I way off and the $25k a month is just the organization's K-Y budget given to them by a suspiciously lonely-but-kindly old bachelor?

No, in the cosmic reality of it all, Moneymaker is, simply, a charlatan. An aggressive if not affable, and inevitably anti-social 'salesman'. He just can't help himself. He takes advantage of anyone and everyone willing to buy into his 'shtick'. I've no desire to read anymore 'stories' of how the 'so many' have done 'so much' for the ultimately ungrateful *******. And truly, I do feel bad for the 'countless many' that put forth so much righteous effort on his and the BFRO's behalf over the years, with probably 99% of them not having a clue (at the time) their 'work' was always intended to be solely for Matt Moneymaker's own enrichment. There's never been a Bigfoot Cause, it's always been the Moneymaker Cause. Bigfoot is but a device. In Moneymaker's world, F&B (Flesh & Blood) Bigfoot isn't so 'real', but P&L (Profit & Loss) Bigfoot surely is.

 

[kitakaze]

kit, that post he made to you is hilarious! I'm pretty sure I've pissed him off a time or two also, but I havent had the honor of receiving a special email yet. awww. I did however spark that debate about Meldrums opinion which prompted one of the forum members over there to contact Meldrum directly, and have been a fairly vocal opponent to the jacobs photo representing anything other than a mangy bear. (which along with my anti-bfro position got me banned fairly quickly from the bfro forums!)

Let's play How well do you know your Bigfoot enthusiasts?

Did this guy right here...

... create a member profile at the JREF forums under the handle "Matthew Moneymake" because...

a) He was in such a fiery rush to unload his Tourettesgasm that he could not even finish the last letter of his name nor be bothered to check it.

b) He figured that by incorrectly entering his name, but by writing it in a fashion where anyone would think it was him, that he protected himself in the event that he might be punished for his behaviour or reprimanded for making baseless legal threats.

Matthew Moneymake? Who the heck is Matthew Moneymake? I am Moneymaker. With an "r", yes? That is somebody just pretending to be me. I'm innocent!

I would say it was mostly A with B being a convenient afterthought.

 

[William Parcher]

c) Won't show up on a Google search when the correct spelling is used.

 

[kitakaze]

c) Won't show up on a Google search when the correct spelling is used.

Of course. I should have thought of that. Now I'm 50/50 A and C. Matt would definitely want us to know it's him but he certainly wouldn't want his spaz coming up on a google search of his name. His rage, though, was sufficient enough that I must allow for simply being in too much of a rush.

 

[LuvGodzilla]

Here is a guy who pulls in hundreds if not thousands of people to attend his Bigfoot Camp Outs for a fee and nothing is covered for the fee other than an experience. He has to be given credit for capitalism, regardless of character.

If his character is so distasteful, how is that he has so many return, pay another fee and want to become part of his organization?

Heck, he now has a sugar daddy and wow, if he's getting $25k a month, I'm sure the heck in the wrong business.

Personally, I'd never pay an individual to go into a National Forest or State Park to camp with up to 60+ people looking for an elusive animal.

If anyone would like to pay me $300 to take them into the forest and scare them, please PM me.

 

[William Parcher]

I'd say anyone who doubts Moneymaker's sincerity and critical abilities is simply a fool, or misled.

Steven Streufert Bigfoot's Blog (that weirdo blogger).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Right before your quote..

...he answered all my questions without taking offense, even the controversial ones. Asked about the notion some spread that the BFRO is some kind of a cult, and he is the leader, Matt said, "There is no cult or cult of personality. If there is a cult it is about Bigfoot [not the BFRO or me]."

Well, gee whiz, why would Matt lie ?

 

[kitakaze]

That was from almost a year ago. Looking over it, it brought me back to the BFF post by Jim Fey that first made me label him "Bobo the Chimp" and I reread these words of his...

also, i don't think you would want to be the guy there who has openly dissed the 78 year old, chiricahua apache elder, boxing(155-0) champ and rodeo legend at a ranch with all of his friends and family present.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24400&st=198

Bob Gimlin. Chiricahua Apache elder. 155-0 boxing champion. Rodeo legend.

Does he drink Dos Equis?

And how much of that is hooey? I'm calling 3 for 3.

 

[kitakaze]

The cult pf personality that surrounds Gimlin and the way his worshippers glorify him in Kim Jong Il fashion is just creepy. They list these crazy accomplishments of the man as though somebody might not check. 155-0 boxing champion record? That's flawless! Absolutely perfect. I checked various boxing record websites - no Gimlin in them. And how does a white guy who is 1/4 native who used to be a bartender and used car salesman end up as a Chiricahua elder? Whaaa?? And I can't find any mention anywhere of major rodeo riding acheivements to justify calling him a "rodeo legend."

Are Gimlin fans being cultish weirdos making stuff up to lavish their icon, or is this from Gimlin's mouth?

 

[Manzer]

I can't remember where I read it, but I am pretty sure that Gimlin was a boxer in the army and that was his record while in the military. I think it was feather lightweight, but I don't know why that sticks in my mind.

I do know, since my daughter in law is part native american, that a lot of tribes consider you Indian if you are 1/16th. So 1/4th is a quite a bit.

 

[kitakaze]

Manzer, you read that Patterson boxed in the Army, which he did while stationed in Germany. Also, it's not about whether Gimlin is considered native by natives. It's about him being a Chiricahua Apache elder - a position of significance and importance. How and when did Gimlin become an acknowledged elder?

 

[Manzer]

I have no clue about the Chiricahua Apache, you would have to ask them which seems pretty simple. They would know who their elders are or not. Email them?