Bigfoot or big phony?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 12th, 2007
Bigfoot or big phony? Seekers pay high prices
They marshal dozens of searchers, lug backpacks with elaborate gear and stomp through the most remote forests in search of the legendary, elusive beast.
The manhunt moves to the woods of the Upper Peninsula today following a rash of purported sightings of Bigfoot, the camera-shy ape-man that has been the subject of folklore for centuries.
The group behind the pursuit, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, claims that it has spotted evidence of Bigfoot in all of its roughly 30 searches across the country.
But some Bigfoot believers — the purists among them — claim they’ve spotted something else. They claim that the group’s founder, Matt Moneymaker, is, well, a moneymaker.
He charges $300 per person for a weekend hunt.
The attorney-turned-Bigfoot-tracker escorts ordinary people through the woods with thermal-imaging equipment, video cameras, scent blockers, binoculars and audio recorders to detect a supposed Bigfoot call — a mournful yowl like a siren that can last three minutes.
“It’s a pretty compelling experience,” said Ric Hjertberg, 57, of Seattle, a regular tracker for the group. “We have pictures, but none that I would call of the undeniable-proof grade.”
The group claims to uncover evidence on every trip — sightings, footprints, hair samples and spooky wails that could only come from any of the 2,000 to 6,000 Bigfoots it says are roaming North America.
But some Bigfoot researchers are skeptical.
John Freitas, of Napa, Calif., said that the group used to research reported sightings at no cost when he was a curator for BFRO. When Moneymaker began charging for searches, Freitas and others left.
“My feeling is that if I charge for it, it somehow would cheapen it and make it less of a scientific venture,” said the 52-year-old, founder of www.Bluenorth.com, which claims to investigate the unknown. It runs expeditions without charging for them. “I’m a little disappointed.”
A criminal investigator by day, Freitas said that he believes Sasquatch — another name for the creature — is out there, but it hasn’t been proven. All the so-called proof has been subjective, he said.
He questions Moneymaker’s ability to find proof of Bigfoot so often — not to mention his claim to have seen Bigfoot.
Another former BFRO member agrees.
“There’s a vast majority of researchers who think his expeditions are more of a profit-motivated venture as opposed to a scientific type of venture,” said Steve Kulls, 38, of Queensbury, N.Y., a Bigfoot tracker and licensed private investigator who now runs www.Squatchdetective.com.
Moneymaker couldn’t be reached for comment, nor could the roughly 50 people who signed up for this weekend’s hunt in eastern Marquette County.
But Hjertberg, a member of the group, said that the fees pay for Moneymaker’s travels and Web site, bfro.net, which stockpiles thousands of reported sightings and displays grainy pictures of blurry, lumbering beasts that resemble Bigfoot.
“Our job is to present undeniable proof,” Hjertberg said. “Together, the evidence tells a compelling story that Bigfoot exists.”STEVE NEAVLING and AMBER HUNT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
I sincerely wish the people on the ground, the group of individuals up in Michigan, well. I hope they have a great time. And honestly, the BFRO are turning in more Bigfoot positive publicity than other recent “expeditions,” by that late pretender to Bigfoot ecotourism.
As I’ve mentoined in my discussions on this topic, which have been forgotten by those that feel I am only critical of the BFRO, the general public pays royally to universities and conservation organizations to go on archaelogical digs and rainforest excursions.
Perhaps people who haven’t spoken publicly yet do have their misgivings about who and how the money is being channeled and used after a BFRO expedition. Most of that complaining has not been done overtly. The above article may be the first news item I’ve seen in which the complaining former Curators have let the media use their names. That’s a step in the right direction to air these concerns and hopefully make some revisions in reality and public image for Bigfoot research.
In general, the above article, while raising good concerns, is lessened a bit for me by finding that everyone identified, one way or another, thanks to the reporters, have their website addresses included in the piece. Such things, to the reading public, gives a mixed message about promotion. But then, maybe that’s the underlying message?
Good morning Squatchers….
I agree Loren…perspective squatch tourists might consider some good quality video equipment and research materials…300 dollars buys some decent digital gear on EBAY…JMHO
Many active research areas are located on public lands with year round access for little more than a modest camping fee.
live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
An ecotourist expedition to find the Bili ape would have had to charge a -lot- and the chances of finding -anything- would have been very small.
I don’t like it that the media treat it as if one such event would provide a definitive result.
I also don’t like it that they say that they always find something – I fear that could create a pressure to make a few hoax prints or something, just to make the paying customers feel like they got something for their money.
The Destination Truth show on TV, for example, always has Josh Gates get all excited and spooked – and then – like Yukon Cornelius “nothin!.” I’d be happier if he didn’t feel the need (or his director) for him to get all excited and spooked each time. It gets old.
But if they are selling that they always find something, they are going to feel very pressured to at least put down some fake tracks, or distribute some clumps of hereford hair.
Appreciate your perspective on this, Loren. As do you, I hope the participants do indeed enjoy themselves because they’ll be among like-minded, good hearted people who, regardless of the allegations about BFRO’s motives, will come away with a memory and a perspective that will translate into a higher state of awareness not only about BF but the general condition of our environment and an insight into the critical definition of the term “wild”.
The money aspect of this is always puzzling for me. Having worked in some eco-tourism and having just plain personal time hiking in remote wilderness areas, I’m under no illusion that accessing the wilderness in the degree of comfort that we take for granted is cheap. Our perceptions of value, the driving motive force for our consumer economy, is anything but objective and a multi-billion dollar advertising industry is based on just that. Sour grapes for someone else may not be so sour to one’s neighbor who likes sweet-tarts. Modern camping is only economical if it’s costs are amortized over a long period, but whether it’s 300 or 600 bucks for a weekend, in the overall picture it’s not that much for what will be for most folks a special, memorable and maybe even pivotal exploration into an issue that captivates us.
Funny thing about those web addresses. It’s almost automatic now for me to google names and locations whether the article does it for me or not…but it does reflect a certain de-centralization of information which brings great comfort to some and worrisome concerns to others. It’s nice to have both kinds of monkey minds working simultaneously, and for that I appreciate your perspectives.
Cheers.
I have been wanting to go on one of these for a long time. Let me list to you the reasons why:
1. I can’t get my wife or friends to plan anything like this as a group as they are not very serious about it, so going with a group that is in to it would be a blast and would be much more comprehensive.
2. I know that they go to the real hotspots, and I like that. I don’t want to waste time in some remote area that had a sighting in 1964 or something, they will know more specifically than I will.
3. The people that have gone to it seem to really enjoy it and benefit in some way.
4. $300 is different for anybody, but I find it reasonable, and would spend just as much more camping somewhere on my own.
5. Becoming more plugged in by meeting people face to face is fun. I think it’s particularly interesting in this scenario, versus a lame convention, because you actually get to see supplies, methods, practices, hear more experiences, etc.
6. In all honesty, I don’t know the BFRO all that well, but to be honest, if I were running the show, I could see charging people a small amount such as this, I mean, its not exactly like “hey I’ve got the whole thing planned and supplied and ready to go, who wants to tag along?”. No, it’s more of hosted situation, you have to change your role as the organizer, and put more into it, and for that purpose they should get compensation. I for one, know that I would not feel as pushy when I try to get all I can from it when it comes to questions and interaction, as I know I paid for it, versus all volunteer stuff. Make sense?
hey everyone wow this is a very heated pithy new article about sasquatch & bfro. im sure the bfro will find possible sasquatch evidence or see sasquatch creatures & wildlife on their resent expedition. im realy likeing the above opinions here. thanks bill green 🙂
Well, as I said on another thread, it is good that there is an apparent concerted effort to go out and uncover evidence. What I find suspicious is the methods and the charging of money and I’ll tell you why. Sure, money is needed in scientific ventures such as archeological and other excursions, but in these cases you have a team of trained scientists going out there with the means to scientifically verify what they find. This money is not typically appropriated to excursions full of just anyone who wants to pay tagging along, trouncing through the wilderness potentially corrupting evidence. I have done field studies of known animals and money was sorely needed, yet the solution was not to invite people along for the ride at 300 dollars a pop.
I guess I am confused as to the image that the BFRO wants to put out. Is it ecotourism? Fine, then say that. Saying that the goal is to uncover evidence of Bigfoot does not make these trips immediately comparable to ecotourism. So are they scientific expeditions? If that is the case, then I feel there should be ways to raise money that can be utilized on better equipment and parties of trained professionals going about the search to verify the creature’s existence in a scientifically viable manner. As it is, these excursions seem to be a curious mix of tourism and scientific expedition, and I’m not sure how effective this will be towards reaching their stated goals.
There should never be a price or fee charged to individuals who already are spending their valuable time/money/gas and energy trying to prove that such creatures exist! Its hard enough trying to convince our own inner circle of members that there might be large undiscovered marvels in this world, vs. people who are already pessimistic/skeptics. Add to that a surcharge! Might as well ask people that are critical of UFO sightings if they wouldn’t mind paying for a trip to Mars to see glowing orbs.
The more people out there looking, the better chance of getting some good evidence, right? Even if they are being charged…
Not to knock the BFRO, as I have never done anything more than internet research on these creatures, but after reading some of the latest field reports from their last expedition it seems that at least some of the “events” could be staged. I mean no offense to members of the BFRO, but in one report a member complains of a headache and leaves a group, and what appears to be a short time later, things begin to happen. Such as movement down a trail or sounds are heard. those same things abruptly end shortly before the member with the headache returns. Then all but one member of that group leaves an area, only to have the lone straggler race into camp saying he had rocks thrown at him. Reading that with a skeptic’s mind might lead one to believe that someone made sure they “got what they paid for.” Now it is entirely possible that these creatures, as a lot of other animals do, could have sensed that person’s approach and either fled or became still, waiting and observing their observers. That being said, I still feel that groups such as BFRO will one day find the definitive proof that this species does in fact exist. After reading several of the reports on BFRO and other sites, I think that I encountered evidence of these creatures in my youth in Pa, specifically the curious markers of branches or stones and a possible nesting site as well.
Ya think if a guy did a bit of research on recent sightings in an area. He could find out about these (HOTSPOTS) and he wouldn’t have to pay 3 hundred buck’s or more to spend a few day’s there… I think and this is just my opinion, that a lot of these people do the BFRO thing and pay the $ is because maybe they are just a little bit afraid to go off into the bush alone. I mean heck let’s face it, having an encounter with one these creatures would be pretty scary. Now think about being alone and encountering one. Most likely be pretty terrifying I would think. It would be awesome, but terrifying. So I can see why people would pay a few bucks. And I bet most of them don’t know that other groups do the same thing and won’t charge you for it. I think I’m gonna check out more about this Bluenorth group. Ex BFRO people doing what Moneymaker does with out charging people. That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
DARHOP-
I disagree with going with a BFRO group as a result of being scared to go into the bush alone. It has nothing to do with fear. What it does have to do with is organization, experience, learning best practices, and yes, going to the right spots. The BFRO is going to be in the know, versus some outdated website of the area. Actual witness could enter into it as well. From that expedition, perhaps I could be more productive when I am on my own thereafter. For me, it’s not some much I gotta see one of these or snap a picture of it to get my money’s worth, it’s more about the knowledge and experience. But lastly, certainly not about fear.
I believe from the responses, that the major problem that readers are having with these adventures is the “money making” aspect. And in all fairness, that is concern for those spending the money. Are the attendees getting their money’s worth? Is it really a “scientific expedition” or is it a “scam”. Or is it a way for MM to do what his last name implies, make money?
If MM just came out and said, “I am getting my field tours financed by attendees of the expedition and it is a for profit venture”. I think most people would appreciate the honesty. I believe most people don’t have a problem with others making an honest living. But the problem arises when it is marketed as a “scientific” type of trip. That is where most people seem to be having a problem with these types of outings. It is a matter of ethics. So ethical questions arise because of the contradictions and concerns over where the money is going. If we knew up front, MM’s adventures were for the sole purpose of turning a profit and financing something he truly is fascinated with, so be it. But to bring in scientific value without any fiduciary responsibility or accounting, well, that is where the problems seem to begin.
Solution: Why doesn’t MM just apply for nonprofit status and make the BFRO a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization? Heck, he could even draw a salary as the President or CEO. I don’t think anyone would mind because there has to be a Treasurer and meetings and a Board of Directors that report on revenues and expenditures. And the state would audit it to ensure accountability. Why not just make the BFRO a 501(c)(3) organization? They could still conduct business as usual and keep the people in the same positions they are now. The only difference would be public disclosure of funds and the BFRO having to come in under 501(c)(3) guidelines. I assume they have meetings anyway, so why not just make that part of their bylaws? Simple, really. And if MM is a lawyer as someone stated, he should already know this. And the expense of setting up a 501(c)(3) identity is not that difficult nor expensive. As a attorney, MM should be able to execute the corporate charter for pennies on the dollar.
I think this solution would actually benefit the BFRO. I would also benefit MM because it takes the ethical concerns about MM out of the picture when there is full fiduciary accountability in being a 501(c)(3) organization. Simple!
And those that would question the intentions of the BFRO would not have to question any longer because it would all be there in black and white. The Board of Directors are legally responsible for the operation of the organization and if there were any shenanigans by any member, the Board could be held legally accountable or they could remove that member under the bylaws.
So why not do this? Or a better question would be, why has this not been done? Because of that question, or no answer yet coming from those involved with the BFRO, there are ethical questions that arise. So why not just remove the ethical questions and money concerns by making the BFRO a 501(c)(3)? Wouldn’t everyone on both sides of the issue be happy then?
If MM wanted to draw a legal salary, MM could draw a legal salary and also pursue his interests. The BFRO could ensure through a board of directors and CPA, bylaws, treasurer, secretary taking minutes, and reporting to the state, that everything is substantiated. No problem! And of course the State in which the 501(c)(3) license is held can audit the organization at any time and they regularly do or at least they do with the 501(c)(3) organizations that I am affiliated with.
I don’t have a concern with the idea behind the outings. What my concern would be and what everyone else’s concern should be, is why not legitimize the BFRO by giving it 501(c)(3) status and eliminating any questions of ethics?
That is my question and also my suggestion. Just my two cents!
Im with Mystery Man on this one.
LateNight. It’s ok if you disagree. Doesn’t mean your right. Nor am I saying I’m right. It was just my opinion. Common sense tells me that there is gonna be some fear when in the bush at night looking for the Big Ones, especially if you are alone. That is why I said A lot of these people (Guess I should of threw in NOT ALL) will pay the $ to be with a group. You know, the safety in numbers deal. I agree with your comments about learning and the experience. But I still believe there is a bit of fear while getting the experience & knowledge, even in a group. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not down on the BFRO, and more power to them. I myself would rather not fork out 3-4 hundred bucks for a trip with a group when I can do the same thing with another group. Ex BFRO members, that quit the BFRO because of these charged expeditions. From what I have read, they do the same thing and don’t charge you. How can you beat that? Or am I so wrong about the Bluenorth? I don’t know what I am talking about. I assume that is the outdated website you were talking about. Correct me if I’m wrong. But I swear he said…
Yep, that’s what he said, no charge. And No matter what you tell me, I believe that if you are way out in the bush at night in a known BF hotspot, group or no group, there is gonna be a bit of fear. I don’t care who you are. Being in the area of something that has the potential to rip you limb from limb. Sorry, but I just can’t see their NOT being a bit of fear.
Some excellent points have been raised, here, and a few that I hadn’t considered, myself. One aspect of these tours that hasn’t been mentioned is that the BFRO does require wilderness experience of its participants. I just had a peek at their site, which has changed somewhat since the last time I was on, and they do mention this requirement. I seem to recall, however, that at one point this requirement was explained in substantial detail, and the site was very specific about what it considered to be “wilderness experience.” I recall them being rather stringent about this. That this now appears to have been relaxed will no doubt raise some eyebrows (and more than a few comments) I should think.
Speaking for myself, I’m neither anti-BFRO, and I do respect the work that Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO have done in compiling and classifying their database of (eye)witness accounts. I would submit that this has been a great service to researchers everywhere.
PhotoExpert raises a good point about the BFRO going not-for-profit… however, when you get a board of directors involved, presidents can be sacked/ousted/what-have-you in the face of a change of the the guard, petty power play, etc. This may be a substantial reason for the BFRO not having gone that route… Matt Moneymaker is, as one or two people have mentioned, a lawyer by training and profession (it used to be in his bio on the BFRO, and it still may be there). As far as I can see, the BFRO is an organization that he began on his own over 10 years ago… I can’t blame him for not wanting to risk losing something that he’s invested so much time, money, and energy in creating.
Regarding the expeditions themselves… is he scamming people? Despite a few points of concern, I’d have to say that I don’t think he is (though SSchaper’s point about his claim of always finding something does give me pause as well). That being said, I do think most participants are aware of what they’re getting into. I think most people who’d shell out that kind of money for such a thing are probably going to do their homework, first. They’re going to poke around, hear the pros and the cons, and make a decision. Perhaps I’m being generous and underestimating human stupidity/gullibility. I like to think that I’m not, however.
Some posters here have, in response to this post and to others in the past, raised concern about some of the methods employed on the expeditions, and these concerns have been, in my humble opinion, reasonable.
PhotoExpert’s point about being open about the nature of the fees is an excellent one, but it doesn’t seem to be hurting the amount of people who want to participate in one of these expeditions. I have to admit that I’ve considered doing it; but the travel costs from Japan make it rather prohibitive. Fear of setting out into the woods alone, is a factor; I can honestly say that I’d never do it; I would definitely need a group of people, however small — two others would be fine. At the same time, there are heaps of logistical problems that stem from having 30+ individuals gallavanting about the woods. Then again, how much do any of us know about how those numbers are managed logistically when they actually set out?
From what I can see, there are no posters here who’ve gone on a BFRO expedition that can give us firsthand insight.
Just my two cents.
Let’s say that your a Bigfoot. And after numerous sightings of groups of humans in and around the same “hot spots” areas, wouldn’t you tell your “Bigfoot wife” and the rest of your family clan that we better find us another “more remote” area to feed and hang out cuz there’s too many humans hanging around there for us to feel safe? Taking people to and around the same area, like guides do on whale watching tours makes sense, but even those tours have to cruise around and find the whales, their not in and around the usual “hot spots” all the times. If people are willing to pay for whatever it might be, there will always be other people out there ready to charge them for it.
I made the following post to the internal BFRO forums two years ago in response to essentially the same questions about non-profit status.
——————-
Monday, Aug 29, 2005
CK,
I do appreciate the following sentiment you expressed here:
*Quote deleted*
We were basically told as a group that 501c status was a non-starter with Matt. So, we literally tried to think of what we wanted from 501c status and tried to see if we could replicate desirable elements without being able to formally institute a non-profit. Hence, the cart before the horse analogy is completely appropriate.
Why is 501c status a non-starter? Multiple reasons have been offered. More red tape, less field research. People have the right to peer into our financial matters, and so on. However, it is clear to me that the deal breaker regarding a 501c is that it would have a board of directors that could discipline or even eject Matt from the very enterprise he developed. It is not in Matt’s best interest to pursue a 501c for that reason alone.
I’m sure you know this, CK, but I’ll make this comment for the benefit of others. Non-profit does not mean “no money.” The United Way and the Red Cross each have paid staff, and their leaders earn substantial incomes. Non-profit does not mean we want Matt to stop earning an income.
You’re right. Number 4 does not go far enough [a reference to a failed proposal by the curators to re-structure the BFRO]. Several thousands of
dollars are changing hands on a monthly basis, and I see the need for a formal structure. My own preference is for a non-profit instead of the corporate model. We will see neither.
I’ve been out alone in bigfoot sighting areas and areas where I’ve found footprints, at the time I wasn’t scared but later when I’ve thought about; what would I have done if one jumped out from behind a tree or charged me? Now, that’s when I’ve gotten a little spooked, well actually once I did get a little weirded out and left an area-it was just TOO quiet. Bears and Mountain lions are threats in the areas I’ve checked out too, It’s prolly best to be packin’ when in these type of places, but I don’t own any heat. I can see the safety in numbers theory and don’t really think 3 Bennys is that steep for a weekend if you compare it to hunting guide fees, I know it’s not quite the same but, I say let ’em alone; maybe they’ll catch one -if not maybe one of you brave loners will, I’ll be happy either way.
Have any of the former BFRO members voiced their complaints about expeditions, funding, etc. on a website or in a public forum? I’d really like to read up on this.
If anything, former BFRO members—including myself—have been accused of being overly vocal about their concerns. I’m surprised that anyone posting at Cryptomundo has to ask about it.
Complaints can come off as sour grapes, jealousy, etc., particularly if phrased in a vulgar manner. Regardless, focusing on the motivations or delivery of the points made by former members is a form of ad hominem argument; neither motivation nor delivery is relevant to the validity of the concerns.
A search of posts at any prominent Bigfoot forum will yield more than you would likely care to read, but will give you an idea.
AtomicMrEMonster responds:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Did you read this thread at all?
John Freitas, of Napa, Calif., said that the group used to research reported sightings at no cost when he was a curator for BFRO. When Moneymaker began charging for searches, Freitas and others left.
“My feeling is that if I charge for it, it somehow would cheapen it and make it less of a scientific venture,” said the 52-year-old, founder of http://www.Bluenorth.com, which claims to investigate the unknown. It runs expeditions without charging for them. “I’m a little disappointed.”
sasquatch responds:
July 12th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
So what you are actually saying is, you were scared. Must of been more than a little wierded out, if you left the area. I would have to say that you were a little fearful. Not wierded out. Which is only natural. And I know if it were me and I found foot prints, my heart would start pounding. My mind would start racing, thinking all kinds of crazy stuff. Guess it could be an adrenalin rush along with fear. Some fear will always be there. If you don’t have a little fear, you should’t be in the bush. Fear keeps you on your toes. And if a person isn’t a little fearful, well, just my opinion, but I think that person is just a little bit coo coo.
Things that make you say hmmmmm… What I do know is footage from the Patterson film is standing the test of time. The technologies in the 1960’s even in Hollywood (go watch some 60’s films and you will see what I mean) should have made the Patterson film impossible especially given the relative clarity of the images produced.
Today in 2007 where everyone has some sort of camera we produce grainy, pixilated, out of focus, shaky glimpses of something we cant even identify… others have tried to reproduce the Patterson film and have failed, even with today’s technology the Patterson film in an enigma…
Where there’s money there’s dishonesty… people are not has honest today as they once were. Most are out for a quick buck or some youtube fame, some are willing to say or do whatever it takes including hoaxing. If you doubt what I’m saying go watch a little youtube and see just how dumb the general population really is…
Question, why was Paul Freeman (rest in peace Paul) able to find Bigfoot so many times but all of his films are of poor quality?
I don’t know the answers but what I do know is most of the footage people try to pass off as genuine is laughable…
Oh man! Leave The Moneymaker alone! Isn’t his time worth anything? This guy is basically serving as a “Bigfoot tour guide”- so what? And whether or not his expeditions have scientific merit (based on whose standards again?), time is money and this is, after all, America.
Well, duh. Just because Steve Kulls and John Freitas feel “it’s wrong” to accept money for their scientific knowledge and services, doesn’t make it so. Sounds to me like a couple of guys are a little jealous.
And $300 for a camping weekend with a knowledgeable guide is peanuts. Seriously, whomever thinks that’s a lot of money needs to get job (I hear being a Bigfoot tour guide pays well…)
There is one thing that people who research bigfoot must remember about going into the “bush”. Most researchers are very independent and have their own little “click” of researchers they like going into the field with. I think the bfro expeditions work for some people and don’t work for others. If some people want to pay to be part of that experience more power to them. The pure researcher wouldn’t have the time or the patience for most of us amateurs. I think people are losing track that the goal is find proof that these creatures exist and that they need to be protected as soon as possible.
I’m all for Pay to Hunt for Bigfoot Expeditions, good or bad. America is a free Country. If someone wants a canned Bigfoot Expedition, that is their business. Who has the right to tell them how to spend their time and money? If one does not like such expeditions, fine, you are not being forced to partake. But to judge the actions and interests of others based on opinions, seems wrong.
Do you even listen to yourself type? “But to judge the actions and interests of others based on opinions, seems wrong”. That’s what we do… opinions are all we have…
Profiting under the guise of research is wrong…
Just because someone pays to go stumbling through the woods taking blurry pictures or movies does not make them qualified or a researcher…
A lot more field work needs to be done by qualified people not campers.
hey craig & everyone wow i see there is alot news media articles about the michigan bfro expedition today. i hope the bfro team are safe & ok looking for possible sasquatch evidence etc. this situation about the michigan expedition is getting realy heated pithy etc. thanks bill green. im sure the bfro will be cnn msnbc or news networks doing interviews about the michigan expedition. i realy like the above reply regarding this expedition as well. 🙂
Having been on one of these so called expeditions I have to say Mr. Moneymaker was of no use to us as either a guide or a knowledgeable tracker. He brought along very little in terms of field equipment or even food for that matter, as he mooched off me and others throughout the trip. That is, of course, after he awoke which was around noon or so. My friend and I had hiked probably 5-7 miles of off trail backcountry every morning before he and his little posse even awoke. Much of the evidence we gathered he pretty much stole from us, including pics of tracks, scat among others. He later fabricated our stories to look like others on the trip had discovered and experienced our encounters. I was totally blown away when I had read the expedition notes on his website. I should have expected as much. Truly unbelievable. Also, the guy is not in any shape to hike or trailblaze through any remote areas as he is well overweight and in no shape to do so. He is a control freak and schmoozer, and I guess that makes him a good little entrepreneur.
I was told by X-BFRO members they saw some kind of suit in the back seat of his car during an expedition then a short time later a sighting came in by someone on his expedition.
The BFRO will not share any of their findings or information with other researchers unless there’s $$$
Trust me you would have more fun hiking with friends than hanging out with the BFRO.
There is always someone looking to monopolize off anything they can.
OK, this has been funny. Not really what I’d call enlightening, but hey, funny.
The BFRO still seems to have an up and up website. Not to say that website can’t be hijacked by people with Other Motives. The website’s content seems to stand on the reputations of the researchers out there who have affiliated themselves with the BFRO, and not on the Current Regime. Or so it appears, at least.
Aaaaanyway: A single read of this thread should illustrate beyond reasonable doubt the likelihood that anything in the way of “evidence” resulting from a trip like this will ever be taken seriously by anyone whose opinion matters.
Can’t hurt to try though, huh? As the Chinese say, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Unfortunately I was one of those people whom wasted my money on a MM expedition. What is unfortunate is that most of the people on the expedition definitely were far from physically fit, and claim to be a bigfoot researchers… “from their living room couch” to top it off they wanted so badly to see or hear something that every foot print or sound they heard at night was bigfoot in their minds.
I have been interested in sasquatch since the 70’s growing up and watching and collecting every movie and documentary on Sasquatch. I must say I have a lot of doubt in MM’s expeditions being credible.
How is it that they go on an expedition every month and almost everyone has an experience. If that was the case then everyone that goes camping on the weekends would also have experiences. Peter Byrne has spent his entire life 40 years, dedicating his time deep in the woods hunting for bigfoot yet has never actually had an encounter and MM has one every month. Get real, its an insult to the the serious true researchers that actually can call themselves Cryptozoologist or a BF researcher and actually have spent their lives in investigating sasquatch.
All that aside as far as actually hiking through the woods to gather evidence MM biggest worry was who was buying his next meal and telling stories to entertain his followers.
I guess for someone whom has never actually went out in the woods and the depth of their research is on their couch typing in google for latest bigfoot news then carrying a hiking stick and telling scary bigfoot stories around a camp fire would be an expedition.
What I did get out of the expedition was I am much more skeptical about peoples encounters. I could not believe how gullible the people were and how willing they were to exaggerate what they thought they saw or heard. I guess they did not realize I was right there with them and I didn’t see a rock being thrown or hear a howling in the woods.
I’ve been to more remote areas with my girlfriends in high school.
As far as profit, I think MM is laughing his way right to the bank.
Very compelling comments. Sasgirl- I am sorry you had to find out the hard way that the BFRO is a total sham. What LAteNightVisitor doesn’t quite grasp in his post “4. $300 is different for anybody, but I find it reasonable, and would spend just as much more camping somewhere on my own.” is that BFRO doesn’t provide you with the camping equipment you need. So, in addition to paying $300 PER PERSON, you also have to provide your own transportation, food, camping gear, etc.
It is widely known that this money goes directly into MM’s bank account. It is also widely known that if you charge a fee to lead a group of people anywhere, you must have a guides license or something similar. I recall the Forest Service being very upset that MM was charging to lead these expeds on FS lands and he does not have the appropriate licensing to do so. Giovarist- if MM is a tour guide then he should get licensed as such.
I was a member of the BFRO’s website until I shared my opinion that I would never attend a expedition because of all the variables. JJohnston summed up my feelings exactly on this subject. When I asked a question about where the fees go my membership was revoked. Sorry, but if my organization had nothing to hide then I would not be booting people for asking questions.
There are many people who have been kicked off the site (no biggy just rejoin under a different name) for asking questions. That sort of hyper-defensiveness doesn’t sit well with me.
The frequency of sightings/evidence is a very good point that I had not thought of.