BFRO Gives Advice To Malaysia
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 7th, 2006
Sometimes it is all about Malaysia, baby! Sometimes it’s not.
Immediately upon publication of the Sunday New Straits Times article, "Book Has Bigfoot Pictures", following in the wake of the Cryptomundo exclusive on the Johor Mawas photograph story, the BFRO published the Malaysian news item followed by one of their editorializing "commentaries."
The new BFRO comments have more the appearance of a copy of an email sent to Vincent Chow or some one in Malaysia than an editorial directed at the public. Nevertheless, it says a good deal about the current flavor that exists within the BFRO organization as personified by its director, Matt Moneymaker, during these troubled days in which important members are leaving. How is it helpful in speaking to the Malaysians to use sarcastically a phrase like "many splendored things"?
The BFRO has always taken an elitist Western approach in dealing with Malaysian sources, giving them advice and BFRO "insights" on how the Johor investigations should be conducted. The BFRO, mostly as a front to the opinion of one man, has extended this international "advice giving" recently to Nepal, as noted on April 22. Some of the BFRO’s advice, as we have seen, is neither cautious nor factually-based in historical reality.
This new BFRO commentary shows an ugly side to the BFRO that only those within and who have left the group have known about for years. While we may agree with the measured caution expressed, it is the continued nature of the BFRO’s tone and personal level of attacks that is disturbing.
This commentary unfortunately demonstrates why others are questioning the BFRO mission and how vinegar can be its true nature. Such seems to be especially the reality after Penn & Teller fooled them with the fake Sonoma videotape. The BFRO rushed to comment on the Penn & Teller hoax claim in a previous "editorial," declaring that the Penn & Teller statements were false. When it became obvious that, indeed, Penn & Teller had pulled off a hoax, that BFRO commentary was deleted from their site, although it exists as a historical item here and here.
Unfortunately, as has become apparent from how the BFRO issues their paternal and colonial statements to the public on many topics lately, they are hardly in a position any longer to be the authority they feel they are.
Sadly, this most recent "editorial" casts to the world, for all to see, the full nature of the petty and bitter side of organized Bigfootry via the BFRO’s own website.
Here is the item (as of this date):
This would be a bigger story if just one of the alleged photos were shown during the press conference.
We’re assuming your objectives with this book are worldwide interest, widespread acceptance, and the many splendored things that come along with all that. How could these objectives be hindered by releasing one good photo early on, if you’re already giving a press conference about the book? Why not just show one piece of the material?
It’s definitely not a "best practice" among real scientists (as opposed to non-scientist authors who call themselves cryptozoologists) to be melodramatic about photos without actually showing them.
Public expectations about the unseen photos (assuming they are authentic) are bound to rise quickly beyond the actually clarity of the images.
The photos will inevitably fall short of what people imagined. You need to set expectations appropriately from the beginning.
Best to avoid creating false expectations. If you can’t show the photos yet, then you should avoid making a big deal about them.
The copyright owner has nothing to lose by releasing one image, but has everything to gain, especially if there is more than one image.
One good image will sell the book better than 1,000 news conferences or 5 "pulp cryptozoology" bloggers.
————————————————————————
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Fatuous tripe. If Chow was money-grubbing or fame-grubbing –a Moneymaker?—he would have already sold these pix to the National Inquirer for big bucks.
Wouldnt put it past me that they would start stuff………
Don’t get drawn in to a comment war with BFRO or any other group.
At a time when cryptozoological research is facing renewed critical attack, it would be unwise to engage in internecine squabbles.
I think what Shawshank posted in the previous thread about the photos is probably 100% correct. Releasing 1 photo “may” help sales of the book. But then again, it may harm sales. So they are probably just trying to play it safe by not allowing the release of any photos at this point.
I’m curious as to what scientific credentials Matt Moneymaker lays claim to.
Loren,
I do not see how the BFRO is declaring war on anyone. The commentary is simply saying if Mr. Chow has pictures of the real thing, why wait until the book release to show them.
It would seem that Mr. Chow is holding out on showing the pictures so Cryptozoologists world wide will purchase the book when it is released.
Ultamatly we all have the same intentions of finding and proving the exsistance of this species. I do not see the harm in asking Mr. Chow to show one of the photos to the world prior to the book release. And this is how I see the commentary being prsented.
Sincerely,
Mike Aragona
BFRO Investigator New Jersey
I would read “pulp cryptozoology” bloggers” as a personal dig to be honest. It seems most of the points in the editorial have been lifted from points already made here over the last few blogs!
I’m not sure that I’m in a position to comment on BFRO’s piece as posted here — perhaps I’m missing some political detail other than the P&T yolk still dripping from BFRO’s public persona.
However, I passed essentially the same advice to Mr. Chow through Peter Loh and added a suggestion that they release more data on the DNA or Hair analysis that has already been performed if a photograph release is not possible at this time.
I’m still highly skeptical about the events in Malaysia but remain hopeful that it will turn out to be more than a publicity stunt aimed at bolstering tourism in the wake of their tidal wave of late 2004.
I can understand why Chow wouldn’t want to let one of the photos be released to the public. But he would aid his credibility by letting a neutral cryptozoologist or two VIEW the pictures without taking possession of them. If necessary, the viewer(s) could even be asked to restrict their comments to generalities about the clarity, completeness, and convincingness of the images (i.e., if they’re “blobs” or not), deferring evaluating them in detail until their official release.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with this commentary. As you can probably see from my other posts regarding this matter, I fully agree with them. Releasing one photo now can only hurt them if they’re trying to pull a scam on us all. If they really DO have legitimate photos of a previously unidentified animal, then releasing one would generate enormous interest. Where’s the harm in that?
On the other hand, if the photos AREN’T real, or are indistinct, then obviously releasing one before the book would kill sales and make them the subject of ridicule. Given the fact that no photos have been released (nor does it look like any WILL be), it makes people suspicious.
That seems to be largely what the BFRO is saying. Don’t see a problem with that.
I would imagine that Loren was referring to the following 2 comments as the attack on Cryptomundo:
1) non-scientist authors who call themselves cryptozoologists
and
2) “pulp cryptozoology” bloggers
If you had taken clear, unmistakeable photos of a Bigfoot, what would you do with them?
Unfortunately, Craig, acknowledging those undirected comments as an attack only gives them credibility and demonstrates a paranoia about their content.
It’s immature and unprofessional for BFRO to make such statements, but one can assume that they feel they are best served by casting spore into the fan to direct attention away from their latest folly. However, as we all know, the splatter effect also tends to backfire on the one who throws the spore.
Better to let BFRO wallow in their own muck than to add weight to any of their rants.
I agree with Mr Woolheater. The comments(1 and 2 in his above posts)could easily be taken as quite personal attacks. They are not at all contructive, helpfull or relevent. I suppose therefore we should ignore them and not be drawn!
I might also add that a “Book” is not the appropriate scientific procedure that Malaysia should be following.
The proper procedure should be a scientific paper with a description (assuming that they actually have a specimen or material therefrom) and submit the report to a scientific journal for peer review.
Chow’s background appears to be in agriculture and not anthropology — according to Peter Loh. Therefore, I can’t see how his pronouncement of “H. erectus” can be taken seriously as there are other specie candidates from that area of the world that could just as easily apply.
Additional reasons that I am skeptical of these events.
Good point about the scientific paper, but it may not be so simple. I understand that when Adam Davies submitted a paper on orang pendek to Nature, backed by casts and professional analysis of the hair samples he found, it was turned down (difficulty with finding reviewers I think).
Good afternoon Bigfoot Bloggers….
I was saddened and shamed by the denigrating comments from BFRO yesterday…I see no apparent reason other than resentment, rivalry or animosity….very sad….perhaps we should pause and “think before we squeak”…JMHO
The Malaysian discovery…should raise global awareness of the plight confronting these magnifcent creatures, as their habitat dwindles into kindling and firewood….it’s about Mawa/Sasquatch/Bigfoot….not us…JMHO
I failed to mention Dr. Grover Krantz in an earlier post dedicated to those who have passed….I profoundly apologize….another senior moment…
I’ve read a half dozen or so Bigfoot fact and fiction books this past week….I wish to thank Loren Coleman, Thom Powell, Mary Green, Janice Carter Coy, Jay Kumar, and John Green for making this past week very interesting, informative and educational…
seeing is believing…all the best…
ole bub, Sheba and Rocky dawgs
Greatanarch, I agree that publication is sometimes a challenge. But, I doubt it would be so in this case — given the subject matter. (Assuming the material to be factual and not fabricated).
Nevertheless, publication is essential and there are other appropriate venues available besides Nature that would serve the purpose.
“We’re assuming your objectives with this book are worldwide interest, widespread acceptance, and the many splendored things that come along with all that. How could these objectives be hindered by releasing one good photo early on, if you’re already giving a press conference about the book? Why not just show one piece of the material?”
Just as the public and the rest of the research community are to assume Moneymaker’s interests are genuinely to prove the existence of Bigfoot creatures, and not for own personal gain such as charging people large amounts of money to camp out with them on land that is public to begin with while they do nothing more than blast alleged Bigfoot calls and sit around with flashlights and tape recorders listening for a response. How about publicly releasing some of their own factual findings, something other than a plaster casting of an elk wallow. Oh wait I forgot. All those “real scientists” don’t have any factual evidence.
“It’s definitely not a “best practice” among real scientists (as opposed to non-scientist authors who call themselves cryptozoologists) to be melodramatic about photos without actually showing them.”
Would that be “real scientists” such as Matt Moneymaker, or are they meaning all those “real scientists” that make up the foundation of “The only scientific organization yadda yadda pat me on the back”
“Best to avoid creating false expectations. If you can’t show the photos yet, then you should avoid making a big deal about them.”
Do they mean creating false expectations such as “The only scientific organization” filled to the brim with all of their “real scientists” who publicly claimed that with their vast amount of knowledge on Bigfoot that the Sonoma video was authentic?
Why do I feel they might have been singing a different tune if the mighty and all powerful BFRO had been the ones let in on the events in Malaysia as they happen? Possibly because anytime anyone or anything that is not directly linked to the BFRO organization has anything to do with Bigfoot research, the BFRO ALWAYS tries to discredit them and acts condescendingly towards them. Sorry for the rant, but Moneymaker’s only credential is a certification of BSA (Bull “Crap” Artist). I apologize in advance to those fringe BFRO members, who aren’t part of the elite governing head, who still havn’t had enough contact with the almighty leader, and enough time to realize that the BFRO as a whole is full of, well you get the point.
Matt Knapp
FIELD RESEARCHER
Oklahoma
Ole Bub, I find it amusing that you sign off with “seeing is believing.” My whole point in all of this is precisely that–we *HAVEN’T* seen anything yet. Why should we lend credence to any of this information until we do see something?
Loren: We all have our own thoughts on this matter but don’t lower your standards and get into a “P’s” match with MM/BFRO. Keep it in the relm of good investigation and science….
Thanks..
Where to start?
First to Loren, all “commentaries” are “editorializing,” are they not?
Second, BFRO is raising issues already raised, discussed, and pretty much settled here as if they were new concerns. Clearly, they ignored Loren’s explanation of events. Not much of value in the commentary, then.
A final note: I am still puzzled by the behavior of the Malaysian investigators. Why not withhold everything until you are ready to go completely public, with press conference, photos, qualified scientists who have privately viewed the photos in advance, etc.? Why talk about what you cannot show yet? It can only damage your credibility.
Matt Bille
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
Just a reminder, especially with new members and unique readers coming here everyday, sometimes what sounds “like you’ve heard it before” too often, or a seemingly defensive position, or even counter-indicated excitement, actually may be my attempt to give brief historic overviews and develop the story appropriately for all, for newbies to the regulars. And having the links handy to previous stories is part of making this site reader-friendly.
This blog, ulitimately, is about news and information exchange, and I appreciate that people will have their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, and stances on all of this…in the process, much differently than I do.
Best wishes to all
Loren
There are four definitions for commentary/commentaries. They are:
1. A series of explanations or interpretations.
2. An expository treatise or series of annotations; an exegesis. Often used in the plural.
3. An apt explanation or illustration: a scandal that is a sad commentary on national politics.
4. A personal narrative; a memoir. Often used in the plural.
Thus, the meaning of commentary(ies) can go from the extremely editorial to the extremely personal. My use of the qualifying “editorializing” was done with much forethought, as the BFRO commentary took the form of an editorial in my mind, more than a personal memoir from Matt Moneymaker, if it was he who wrote it. It is unsigned, of course, unlike these blogs.
Second, Matt Bille is correct. The BFRO statement ignored many answers already given.
Third, I will not speak for Vincent Chow and other Malaysians. I certainly have seen information leak forth before, earlier than those involved wanted it to occur merely due to the significance of the possible findings. Several media announcements of fossil discoveries and new species finds, these days, are done before formal papers are published. The entire case of the Minnesota Iceman unfolded more rapidly than Sanderson wanted it to.
But with the internet, it is easier than 100 years ago to ask for, demand, and expect instant answers to questions.
Good afternoon JJames…
Allow me to clarify….I always sign off “seeing is believing”….I have seen….twice…
I was not referring to the Malaysian photos….they will speak for themselves soon enough.
Three years ago today…I suffered a near fatal heart attack which forever changed my life…proximity to an emergency room and the miracles of modern cardiology, blessed me with second chance….call it an epiphany of sorts….life is too short to not take a stand….
I’m here to help them…not nourish the need to believe….those who know will understand…
seeing is believing…all the best…
Steve Summar, aka ole bub, Sheba and Rocky…the dawgs
Re: The book method of releasing the Malaysian information.
If the information is genuine, I don’t see a problem with it. As posters above have mentioned, “mainstream” science is committed to the position that the large cryptid primates that have been reportedly sighted for years do not exist. Unfortunately they are unscientifically committed to this position simply because they have taken it already. I think its actually pretty clever to go “over their heads” to the public if they have convincing evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, mainstream “scientific” skeptics will have to fight and supress the public in general instead of a handful of researchers and witnesses they have already branded “crackpots”, “hoaxers”, etc. When and if the public actually realizes they exist and the mainstream scientists can’t supress that knowledge, the Malaysian researchers can publish formal scientific articles at their leisure.
Re: BFRO
They have some valuable information compiled, I don’t think anything that’s been said in this particular situation needs to be fought over. I don’t think a blog fight with them would be interesting. More articles or discussions actually focusing on cryptozoology would be interesting.
I agree whole heartedly with the quote from the BFRO.
I’d be relatively happy, however, if someone were allowed to at least see these bloody photos, so they could form an educated opinion. I mean has anyone other than the photographer and Chow seen anything??
…Ridiculous.
Good afternoon….Loren and Matt Knapp…Oklahoma Field Researcher…
I’m favorably impressed by folks who are unafraid to sign their thoughts…whether I agree or not…
seeing is believing….
Steve Summar, aka ole bub and the dawgs
Two possible reasons that they are releasing info in this fashion could also be:
They are not as savy about this thing in Malaysia and even though they have western folks advising them as to what to do and how to handle it, they are still reticent to just lay it out there for all to see.
Secondly, perhaps they are also trying to optimise thier income from this venture. They may not hold this research in as high of a regard as we do on these blogs. However, they may be savy enough to realize the power of antici……..pation.
No mater how this plays out, when and if the book is released, with this much to do about it, someone will get the first copies and then report on it here and it will be set. Either it will hold up or it will tank for all to see and the sales will either skyrocket or sink like the proverbial lead balloon.
As far as a pissing match with the BFRO, my take is who the hell cares what MM et al have to say? I think it has come to light just how much he has going for him and how well respected, and how much of an authority he has become in this community. As far as the BFRO database is concerned, who can rely on that? Just how tainted has that become? Anecdotal info at best. Just my take, sorry if I ranted.
Organizations and people with the same interests should be trying to help each other out, not the opposite. Where is the love? 🙂
Mausinn, if they’re trying to maximize profits by withholding information, I think they might fail. It seems like quite a number of people here are very skeptical of the story. I, for one, won’t purchase such a book without a clearer idea of what’s inside.
hi loren coleman craig woolheater etc i have one comment i think its totaly not right all etc for the bfro to delcare a socalled war among other things hehe against cryptomundo becouse they get wonderful info about the sasquatch pheanomena in general… even becouse might get info or book photos of the malaysia sasquatch in next few months, i agree be very patient about this whole sneario etc. good evening bill my point is all sasquatch websites share info all the time its time we all to learn that some info has to be totaly checked out first before being published etc. 🙂
The whole Bfro thing here to me really matters nothing. The only thing I would like to see is at least 1 picture that can give us hope that it is a real unknown creature. That would entice us and many more to buying the book. Until then it has to be thought this could be nothing more than a fake/hoax.
See today’s “Pondering the Mawas Situation” for more about this.
Rather than “declares war,” I’d have said “snipes at.” That avoids escalating things.
According to an article in the “New Straits Times” of Malaysia:
“Chow said yesterday he had seen the Bigfoot photographs, which belonged to an individual.”
“He added the individual wished to remain anonymous for the time being.”
“‘The owner of the photographs has only agreed to allow them to be used in our book.'”
Given the international copyright laws, I believe that these statements clarify the reason that additional photography can not be released at this time.
As I said in a prior post, there is other material that is pertinent that could be released in lieu of a photograph.
Hopefully, Chow will realize the wisdom of doing so at this time before the “Chicken Little” and “Boy Who Cried ‘wolf!'” effects set in.
“The BFRO, mostly as a front to the opinion of one man” – and therein lies the fallibility of said “mob”. The BFRO is composed of fanatical fascist drones who lay worship to their arrogant queen bee Moneymaker, the David Koresh of Bigfoot research.
I agree/disagree Scmarlowe. The anecdotes that Chow puts forth is just carrot dangling IMO. I do agree that unless something is released then this will be looked at as a case of “The Sky is Falling.”
I have one thing only to add, and that is that, as my late grandmother always told me, “patience is a virtue.”
I know in the “gimme now” internet age we want everything 2 seconds ago.
If I recall correctly from previous posts on this subject Chow also was not prepared fully to discuss his book during the press conference (someone please check me on that) but was sort of blind-sided. Also, as noted, he does not own the photographs, but only has permission to use them.
I’m not convinced based on the words of Peter Loh alone. But I am intrigued enough to wait, patiently, to weigh the images myself.
Actually the BFRO commentary made sense. I really cannot see that they were attacking Cryptomundo. Perhaps too much is being read into that editorial? A single picture, especially on a subject as sensitive as this one, would be worth far more than a thousand words. We are all too aware of huge claims that do not withstand the light of verification. Lets await future matters before declaring war.
Shawshank, please check back in, in the future, after you experience the same fellow that those who have left BFRO in the last few months (including Kathy Moskowitz Strain anthropologist, Alton Higgins, biologist, Chris Whittier, primate specialist, Jeff Meldrum, Jimmy Chilcutt, Rick Noll, etc.) or years ago, (e.g. Ron Schaffner, Bobbie Short, etc.) have. Most of these departures have revolved around matters of money and authority, the details of which anyone can discover by interviewing former “members.”
Yes, Shawshank places a bit of someone’s reality above within those comments about your humble “pulp cryptozoology” blogger. I suppose that I can proudly say that when the BFRO was “created” by one person years ago, via a groups list, I was (after only a few weeks) kicked out of the internal circle of “curators” for asking too many hard inquiries that were never answered, about mission, decision-making, leadership, and more. My media awareness and documentary visibility were not appreciated then. My mild organizational questions were found to be too challenging, even though I never requested or wanted any kind of leadership role in the BFRO. I merely probed as I do all the time about many issues. I was unsubscribed, without explanation.
That I assume is how Matt Moneymaker has conceptualized and discussed my “removal” from the “BFRO.” Who cares? Each to their own reality, projections, and dictatorships. Of course, he may have left out that after I was publicly given the boot, he backchanneled secret discussions with me often, and even later invited me to speak at the Willow Creek symposium during the year my Bigfoot book was being published. (I was later to discover this invitation was sent with no authority, and I was to learn I was not on the published speakers’ list.) I was also asked to contribute to the BFRO website (without credit and without my name being attached to the items), for example, on matters of Ray Wallace and the media.
It has been a long and winding road.
Gulp that Kool-Aid “Shawshank”……
“Look for some remarkable fruits of these labors in the coming months”
Can you elaborate on that?
Oh spare me please. Biscardi just gained credibility.
Well Shawshank, I can see your position with the BFRO/MM machine has probably risen a few notches with your brave and heroic stance defending them. Kudos to you for standing up for your beliefs, right or wrong. Hold those thoughts and that stance like a candle against the hurricane. There will be a nice little something in your pay packet I’m sure. Oh, that’s right, the only one who gets any profits from all your and all the other “volunteers” work is Mr. Matt. Yep, I can see the purely scientific objectivity of the BFRO now. How silly of me to critisize St. Moneymaker. I will look forward to Shawshank’s Redemption.
Shawshank’s Redemption (pun intended) on behalf of Matt Moneymaker does nothing more than substantiate the “other sides” argument.
Examples: “Taking pot-shots at him and the organization misses this crucial point entirely. (And by the way, making fun of the man based on his name is sophomoric and off the mark;”
So name calling is ok when not directed at someone’s own name?
“Having attended many expeditions now under his steady leadership, I can say that the BFRO is a robust and innovative organization, by far the most comprehensive source of information on the topic.”
I would have to call this a “biased opinion.” Have you studied and interviewed every source of information on Bigfoot to come to this conclusion, or does the money you were charged to attend expeditions validate this conclusion?
“Any one of the monthly expeditions contains a greater number of excited, engaged, discriminating researchers (both veteran and beginner) than the total of all those who have a personal axe to grind with the organization, especially those who have been removed from the BFRO (including, with all due respect, Mr. Coleman), for various good reasons.”
Do you know any of these “good reasons”? How do you know what field researchers do what? How do you know who in the research community knows more than anyone else on the subject? Do you know any field researchers outside of the BFRO personally? Have you been on multiple research outings with anyone other than the BFRO?
“He spends more time doing actual field work, learning concrete lessons about sasquatch habitat and behavior, than any other researcher in the world.”
Any other researcher in the world? You’re joking right? I truely hope your initial post was meant to be taken with sarcasm, because otherwise you should nominate yourself as the BFRO poster child for brainwashing and naivety. The main problem I see as an outsider, with no direct relation to the BFRO or Matt Moneymaker, is that the powers that be at the BFRO have a problem with anyone who thinks or forms opinions for themselves. Anyone within the BFRO who has ever dared question any of their motives or ways of thinking has been immediately removed by Matt Moneymaker.
Several years ago when I first joined the “internet Bigfoot community” I contacted the BFRO about the possibility of being a part of their expeditions. The only questions asked of me were do I have any money to contribute or do I have any equipment I could let them use. Otherwise they had no need for me, even when they were having an expedition in my own home state. That pretty much told me what they were about right away.
In conclusion, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the point of this original blog to discuss the blatant attacks on Cryptomundo in the un-signed editorial of the BFRO? This isn’t about the photographs or the book. That can be found in a different blog entirely.
Everyone keeps saying that Chow must be withholding the images (forgetting for a moment he doesn’t hold copyright) because to release them would damage book sales.
What?
When the book comes out I’ll be able to leaf through it, see all 14 photos and still decide not to spend a cent if I want to.
To the contrary – if financial gain was the prime concern, then surely, releasing a single image would be the best thing for book sales!! It would give the market a few months to salivate in anticipation (and maybe lodge a pre-order or two)!
Let me ask this: based on what you currently know today of the situation, are you booking plane tickets to, and accommodation in, Malaysia? No.
Once this book is published, do you think there will be all manner of scientists and film crews interested in booking plane tickets to, and accommodation in, Malaysia? Yes.
I would like to think that a team who claims to have spent 11 years working with the species are actually attempting to ensure some manner of protection for it – preferrably legal – before revealing its presence to the world.
And if it’s all a hoax? Well it’s been an entertaining discussion! 🙂
Listen to me Shawshank, I am saying this for your own good, so PLEASE LISTEN.
DON’T DRINK THE KOOL-AID ! ! !
Enough already!
Spring has sprung ~ let’s all put on our boots and cammies, grab our lights and cameras and get out there!
This is weird. Yesterday, I went to look at the original BFRO commentary and there were some changes to it, most pointedly “5 pulp cryptozoology bloggers” was replaced with “5 Loren Colemans”, in case anyone missed their point I guess. No one mentioned the change here, so I just went back to look again and now their entire commentary has been removed!
At this point I am with fuzzy, above.
I think that it truly is best for all SERIOUS CZ organizations (i.e. Cryptomundo, BFRO, and the small, SC only, CICZ to name a few) to work together. I, as the head of CICZ (CryptoInformant Cryptozoology) DO NOT advise taking popshots at Matt Moneymaker’s last name, and, in response to their 2 comments about CM, and allies of CM, I give one big shout of “SONOMA: THE DAY BFRO GOT SUCKERED!”