The Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center - The Wild Bunch³

kitakaze · 26th March 2009, 01:27 PM

OK, third time's a charm, right?

So the last thread was closed mainly for the following reasons...

- Repeated incivility by a specific member that rather than being reported immediately, was met by many responses (even if they were mostly civil). Half pages of OT responses every time an incivil member posted were simply too much of a hassle for effective moderation and resulted in a mess.

- Engaging in a concerted effort to ascertain the identity of another member outside the forum, no matter how civil the effort is, is always inappropriate. That was mostly me and is something I won't be spending any further time doing.

So I have spoken with the powers that be (in this case, Cuddles) to get a better understanding of the situation and to see how it can be remedied. Cuddles has been very helpful in explaining the problems in detail and explaining what flies and what doesn't. As I think we can pretty much all agree, it would be unfortunate of we were completely unable to discuss a well known (to us, anyway) element of Bigfootery.

Between Cuddles and myself, I think a good way has been found where we can discuss the MABRC without having it sabotaged by persons who might wish to do so. So with the third crack at this I think we can get it right. I'm going to outline some general guidelines to keep the discussion in the right direction.

This thread is...

- About the MABRC as a Bigfoot research group. The discussion is intended to be about their activities in the field and the evidence they relate to Bigfoot.

- It is not about the MABRC's forum or any issues they might have there. Such posts should be considered as off topic.

- Nor is the thread about any individual member of the MABRC or their personality. General JREF etiquette about focusing on the argument and claims rather than the person making them is the guideline. I know I veered off with that, so I'll be taking care not to repeat.

As a final and most important note, I think the only way to ensure this thread is not derailed or sabotaged is to have it moderated from the outset. As such I am reporting the OP and requesting moderation of this thread from the beginning.

Now then, on to the evidence...

Here is an image from a series of three purported by the MABRC to be a photo of Bigfoot in Oklahoma:

And here is the MABRC member responsible for the photo in a separate image that show him with a monkey hat thing on his head that I believe is clearly what the alleged Bigfoot photo shows:

Next is another in the series of three images purported by the MABRC to feature a family of three Bigfoots with mother, father, and young:

And here is an video of members of the MABRC attempting to portray what the they believe the image to depict:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX5DEJ3hBI

Also in that video one of the MABRC members explain various encounters with Bigfoots on his property, including one that is overweight and has a smoker's cough.

tsig · 26th March 2009, 02:09 PM

It seems to me they will have the problem of escalating expectations. If you see eyeshines and hear whoops one time you might want more later. How will they keep up?

kitakaze · 26th March 2009, 02:28 PM

Here is another Rob Gaudet video made out at Bullet Maker's property. Now it's not pleasant as it's the video of a dead cow. The cow has died while in child birth and something appears to have eaten the brain. Rob mentions that some black creature was seen to be approaching the cow and then fled when it spotted MABRC members. No description of the creature is given. One wonders why they didn't think to post a camera by the carcass and leave it to see if they could get the creature on camera when/if it returned to feed.

Warning: Yuck.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

desertgal · 26th March 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Now then, on to the evidence...

Here is an image from a series of three purported by the MABRC to be a photo of Bigfoot in Oklahoma:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=794

And here is the MABRC member responsible for the photo in a separate image that show him with a monkey hat thing on his head that I believe is clearly what the alleged Bigfoot photo shows:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=793

I don't think the first image includes the monkey hat. It looks, to me, like a shot of the back of his head and shoulders with the hood of his jacket pulled up.

Very unconvincing, either way.

kitakaze · 26th March 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by desertgal

I don't think the first image includes the monkey hat. It looks, to me, like a shot of the back of his head and shoulders with the hood of his jacket pulled up.

Very unconvincing, either way.

Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing.

I think just the fact that Bullet had that thing and the picture looks so much like it is reason enough to question why they might actually expect people to take that image seriously. I linked in the other thread to a comment by Bullet where he spoke about trying to get money for those images. I can't imagine he had much success.

GT/CS · 26th March 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing.

I think just the fact that Bullet had that thing and the picture looks so much like it is reason enough to question why they might actually expect people to take that image seriously. I linked in the other thread to a comment by Bullet where he spoke about trying to get money for those images. I can't imagine he had much success.

My guess is that the stuffed monkey doll has been used for many MABRC blobsquatch photos. No evidence for that statement other than the obvious fact that it sure looks like both photos posted by Kit look an awful lot like a stuffed animal placed in front of the camera.

desertgal · 26th March 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing.

My mistake...my browser didn't load the third image earlier, so I didn't realize that you were referring to the object in the upper right of the first photo as being the monkey hat - I thought you meant the large center mass.

I agree, the upper right object is the monkey hat.

IMO, this is one of the main reasons that Bigfoot research is largely dismissed as a joke. This picture is an obvious hoax, but, even if it weren't, with today's technology, people are expected to believe that blurry, indecipherable images such as this are the best BF researchers can come up with? It defies credulity.

Telaynay's G'son · 26th March 2009, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Here is another Rob Gaudet video made out at Bullet Maker's property. Now it's not pleasant as it's the video of a dead cow. The cow has died while in child birth and something appears to have eaten the brain. Rob mentions that some black creature was seen to be approaching the cow and then fled when it spotted MABRC members. No description of the creature is given. One wonders why they didn't think to post a camera by the carcass and leave it to see if they could get the creature on camera when/if it returned to feed.

Warning: Yuck.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The probable reason for not placing a camera was because they were trespassing upon BM's adjoining neighbor's land w/o permission and it is now a $300+ fine to do so in Oklahoma.

Telaynay's G'son · 26th March 2009, 06:18 PM

This photo (taken as a reference shot by Dr. Wallace) illustrates a couple of points.

First, the backside profile shot of DO bears some resemblance to BM's alleged photo.

Second, notice the laterally running oak tree root system he is standing beside. The conclusion many have reached is this is the lower area background (lateral striations) material in BM's photo. As such, there is no possible way the 3 BF photo could have been taken whilst the camera was affixed to the tree as the distance ~20+ feet was too great to allow the root system to have filled up the background as it appears.

Thus, the logical conclusion is the photo was snapped immediately adjacent to said root system and either done so totally by accident or as a designed hoax.

BM later tried to extricate himself from this appearance by posting up sequential photos from the film run but failed miserably when it was pointed out his (alleged) sequential photos...were not sequential.

The end result is a vivid illustration of the total lacking in proper protocols by BM in securing the purity of any such photographic "evidence". IMHO, it's either pure Bush League citizen science in BF'n or a lame attempt at hoaxing in which case it's simply Bush League BS'n.

Telaynay's G'son · 26th March 2009, 07:05 PM

These photo's represent a sequence taken by one of my gamecams installed on public (COE) land adjacent to BM's place.

What's interesting is he (BM) created a thread in the MABRC research section(s) entitled BF Crossing Creek wherein he alleges a BF image captured in the 07/04/2002 photo. He also omitted the other photo's from that MABRC thread instead posting only the July 4th picture.

When I posted the additional photographs and disputed his claims the MABRC administrator(s) reaction was to banish me from the website.

Does anyone see a BF in any of these photographs?

Biscuit · 26th March 2009, 08:39 PM

I realize it was probably just a mistake in the dead cow footage but when the guy filming says,

"I think this cow died giving birth, there are two legs sticking out its ass."

I laughed out loud. More like it died involved in some kinky cow activities.

The photo of the three bigfoot can't even be described as paredolia. the edges of the mother look fuzzy like a stuffed animal, the baby seems way out of proportion to the mother and father, and the father looks more like a grey alien to me. It should be re-titled "fozzy bear, a bigfoot fetus, and a grey enjoy a game of leap frog."

I am hoping we can keep this thread out of AAH. I am guilty of poking a little to much fun at the MABRC but sometimes it is just so easy. I, like Kit, am a little in awe of their bond as a group. Their view of the world and the way the approach squatchin' with absolute faith in the existence of bigfoot but also in their methods is really unique in my opinion.

learner · 26th March 2009, 11:10 PM

I cant see any bigfoots in the pics but there may be some evidence left at the scene.

Is that a bigfoot sock hanging out to dry from that bush?

I would have carried out a "Cinderella" check on all present for empirical confirmation.
As for the missing sock, well we all know that can happen.
Wild speculation maybe, but its a mad world in those woods.

xblade · 27th March 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son

The probable reason for not placing a camera was because they were trespassing upon BM's adjoining neighbor's land w/o permission and it is now a $300+ fine to do so in Oklahoma.

Hmmmm.....risk getting a $300 fine for the discovery of a lifetime that could possibly lead to $$$ millions. Yeah, that's a tough one alright.

Telaynay's G'son · 27th March 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

OK, third time's a charm, right?

And here is an video of members of the MABRC attempting to portray what the they believe the image to depict:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX5DEJ3hBI

Also in that video one of the MABRC members explain various encounters with Bigfoots on his property, including one that is overweight and has a smoker's cough.

I viewed this video for the first time today and was again amazed at BM's knack for BS'n on such a grand scale.

As a participant to that event, I assign ~28-30% accuracy to the segment with the balance being either steroidal embellishment and/or total fabrication.

He should be in politics.

kitakaze · 27th March 2009, 12:11 PM

Holy guacamole! I can't believe I did't realize this before now. Everybody check out the first and the third "Bigfoot" photos of BM's in the OP. Look at the features being described as "Daddy" and "baby" Bigfoot and the branches to the right of them. Also the right slope of the dark shape. They're the exact same photographs.

I was distracted by the big dark shape and the text in the third photo. They're the same and I think the monkey hat thing is responsible. Wow. That went right by me.

desertgal · 27th March 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Holy guacamole! I can't believe I did't realize this before now. Everybody check out the first and the third "Bigfoot" photos of BM's in the OP. Look at the features being described as "Daddy" and "baby" Bigfoot and the branches to the right of them. Also the right slope of the dark shape. They're the exact same photographs.

Yes. That's why I made my mistake yesterday. My browser only loaded the first two pictures-I couldn't see how the large central mass ("Mom") in the first picture was the monkey hat. Then, the third picture loaded, and it defined what area of the first picture you were referring to as the hat. I didn't even notice "Dad" in the first picture until the third picture defined it.

To clarify, I believe that "Mom" is the back of the guy's (BM?) shoulders and head, with his hood pulled up, and "Dad" is the monkey hat.

I have to wonder why, though, as BM was attempting a hoax, he would make the first and second pictures available to anyone, since they reveal the creative editing performed on the third picture almost immediately. Heck, in the first picture, you can see the collar of the coat clear as day, and the monkey hat clearly in the second. That really was kinda dumb on his part.

tornado · 30th March 2009, 12:31 AM

Morning Kitakaze, I`mmmm Baccccccccccccck

Ok, if your tired of the pictures, thats Ok, I just thought you would like to know the truth about the pictures.

The reason for the coat with the hood on it, was because it was a cold day that day. I mean it was very cold with a north wind, that would bite right through you.
What was they doing down there with the toy monkey? They were reinacting the picture for Dr. Wallace. They being bulletmaker and Driveroperator.
The first picture you said looked like it had been waded up and then smoothed out and a picture taken of it, you are right on. That`s exactly what it is, and what happened to the picture. Now the question is why was it wadded up to begin with? Well it started this way, when the orginal picture was taken, (that is retrieved from the game camera, which took a total of about one month to take up the film), and the film was developed, the one picture of the three bigfoots were on just one picture of the 24 picture roll of film. The people that was involved of the bigfoot hunts at that time were T.G..S, D.G., Woodwatcher, and bulletmaker. Now bulletmaker called the other three, and told them about the one picture. They came over to bulletmakers, house and was shown the photo, which at that time, all agreed as to what it was. One of the group, (D.G. AKA Dennis Griffin), ask for a copy of the picture, which he was given, but a poor copy from the copy machine, which was just on regular typing paper.

Now the orginal photo, was never shown, but was scanned and that is the one you see that got all the red lines, that someone else had drawn to show , what was where.

The one of bullemaker with the toy monkey was his back, was used in the reenacting of the picture for Dr. Wallace.

There was no part of bulletmakers just or back or monkey hat, used to fake the picture. You are looking at the real thing, and its your right to see what you see.

Drewbot · 30th March 2009, 07:18 AM

Tornado- Why don't you post the photo of the guy in the baseball hat, adjusting the camera, that you said is a hairy bigfoot? Or, would you care if I posted it?

Vortigern99 · 30th March 2009, 07:45 AM

But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was".

GT/CS · 30th March 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was".

It could depend on who those people are and whether or not they have an agenda.

tornado · 30th March 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Tornado- Why don't you post the photo of the guy in the baseball hat, adjusting the camera, that you said is a hairy bigfoot? Or, would you care if I posted it?

I`m not sure what one that is Drew, but by all means go ahead and post it.

tornado · 30th March 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was".

Hello Vortigern99
It wasnt like bulletmaker was standing there taking a picture of this creature. The camera, was a game camera, which means, it was strapped to a tree, and if any game comes by, deer, turkey, dogs, etc. bigfoot. it will take a picture of whatever comes in front of the camera. So the camera was strapped to a tree for a month before the film was developed.left buy itself on the tree. What happened is, the bigfoots came to close to the camera. You have to be 31 inches from the lens of the camera to take a good picture. Anything closer than the 31 inches, will be blurry, which is what happend. The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture.
You can see the baby bigfoot looking over the shoulder of (I assume) a female bigfoot. His face or her face, is clearer, cause of the 31 inch rule.

Telaynay's G'son · 30th March 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was".

As one of the four people that "all agreed" to the authencity of this photo, I can assure you the only thing we agreed upon was that it was not a photo of a BF(s) despite BM's exhortations (then...and, now) to the contrary.

The record also shows that when he went to the GBO website to pimp it as such is when our falling out occurred as both D.G. and myself refused to corroroborate his claims.

Drewbot · 31st March 2009, 04:33 AM

This is the one I was referring to.

desertgal · 31st March 2009, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by tornado

Morning Kitakaze, I`mmmm Baccccccccccccck

Ok, if your tired of the pictures, thats Ok, I just thought you would like to know the truth about the pictures.

The reason for the coat with the hood on it, was because it was a cold day that day. I mean it was very cold with a north wind, that would bite right through you.
What was they doing down there with the toy monkey? They were reinacting the picture for Dr. Wallace. They being bulletmaker and Driveroperator.
The first picture you said looked like it had been waded up and then smoothed out and a picture taken of it, you are right on. That`s exactly what it is, and what happened to the picture. Now the question is why was it wadded up to begin with? Well it started this way, when the orginal picture was taken, (that is retrieved from the game camera, which took a total of about one month to take up the film), and the film was developed, the one picture of the three bigfoots were on just one picture of the 24 picture roll of film. The people that was involved of the bigfoot hunts at that time were T.G..S, D.G., Woodwatcher, and bulletmaker. Now bulletmaker called the other three, and told them about the one picture. They came over to bulletmakers, house and was shown the photo, which at that time, all agreed as to what it was. One of the group, (D.G. AKA Dennis Griffin), ask for a copy of the picture, which he was given, but a poor copy from the copy machine, which was just on regular typing paper.

Now the orginal photo, was never shown, but was scanned and that is the one you see that got all the red lines, that someone else had drawn to show , what was where.

The one of bullemaker with the toy monkey was his back, was used in the reenacting of the picture for Dr. Wallace.

There was no part of bulletmakers just or back or monkey hat, used to fake the picture. You are looking at the real thing, and its your right to see what you see.

Still waiting for the truth...

LAL · 31st March 2009, 10:18 AM

What about the primate expert who claimed he saw gorilla-like figures in the "3 sasquatch" picture?

Newbies such as myself were presented with a "done deal" on the photo because of this unnamed guy's analysis. Seems I've read he was a friend of a relative (Bullet's stepson?)working on a degree. I can see why he wouldn't want to be named.

In-depth photo analysis wasn't exactly encouraged although we got as far as not getting a committee together.

Maybe Tornado can verify Dr. Meldrum saw the "bigfoot walking by" photo at Honobia last year and let us know what he really said.

kitakaze · 31st March 2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by tornado

The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture.

A simple yes or no question, tornado. Could Bullet Maker, wearing the monkey hat thing, have also account for the picture?

Vortigern99 · 31st March 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by tornado

Hello Vortigern99
It wasnt like bulletmaker was standing there taking a picture of this creature. The camera, was a game camera, which means, it was strapped to a tree, and if any game comes by, deer, turkey, dogs, etc. bigfoot. it will take a picture of whatever comes in front of the camera. So the camera was strapped to a tree for a month before the film was developed.left buy itself on the tree. What happened is, the bigfoots came to close to the camera. You have to be 31 inches from the lens of the camera to take a good picture. Anything closer than the 31 inches, will be blurry, which is what happend. The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture.
You can see the baby bigfoot looking over the shoulder of (I assume) a female bigfoot. His face or her face, is clearer, cause of the 31 inch rule.

Hello, and thank you for the reply and technical corrections. However, the fact remains that no clear forms, mammalian or otherwise, can be distinguished in the picture.

Further, in an above post, "Telenay's G'son" claims he was one of the four who viewed the pic and that despite your assertion to the contrary, neither he nor another individual, once "D.G.", agreed that the pic represented one or more bigfoot.

Of course, I have no way to verify that these individuals were in fact present at this viewing, but would you care to give us your opinion as to why Telenay G'son would so roundly reject your assessment of the outcome of that viewing?

Thanks in advance.

tornado · 31st March 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

What about the primate expert who claimed he saw gorilla-like figures in the "3 sasquatch" picture?

Newbies such as myself were presented with a "done deal" on the photo because of this unnamed guy's analysis. Seems I've read he was a friend of a relative (Bullet's stepson?)working on a degree. I can see why he wouldn't want to be named.

In-depth photo analysis wasn't exactly encouraged although we got as far as not getting a committee together.

Maybe Tornado can verify Dr. Meldrum saw the "bigfoot walking by" photo at Honobia last year and let us know what he really said.

No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo.

I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there.

As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s.

tornado · 31st March 2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

A simple yes or no question, tornado. Could Bullet Maker, wearing the monkey hat thing, have also account for the picture?

No.

tornado · 1st April 2009, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by tornado

No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo.

I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there.

As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s.

I would like to add, that yes LAL, you are correct, the guy is a friend of bulletmakers step son. His name is Rick somthing or another. I didn`t catch his last name, but he travels around the U.S.A, helping other zoo`s in planning and helping get there gorilla program`s started, and directs the building of the habitat. Forgive my mispelling LAL, My spell check went out on the comuptor for some reason. and I`m a terrible speller. LOL

Thanks for the question LAL, if you have anymore, let me know.

LAL · 1st April 2009, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by tornado

No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo.

Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson?

Quote:

I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there.

As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s.

Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?

GT/CS · 1st April 2009, 06:05 AM

OK, I'm confused again.

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?

tornado · 1st April 2009, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson?

Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?

LAL, the primatologist is a friend of bulletmakers step son.

Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?[/quote]

What do you mean? and who are you talking about? bulletmakers stepson? or Dr. Meldrum?

If your refering to Dr. Meldrum, He`s never seen the picture of the three bigfoots. I dont know what you are talking about on that one. Sorry.

tornado · 1st April 2009, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

OK, I'm confused again.

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?
Answer:, they dont know about these photo`s. They were never shown them.

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?[/quote]

Answer: Same answer as the above.

tornado · 1st April 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson?

Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?

I think I see the problem now LAL. you thought I said Dr. Meldrum saw the pictures, No it wasn`t Dr. Meldrum, It was the primatolgist (Rick), that said he saw the bigfoots right off the bat, when he fist saw the pictures, of bulletmaker. I hope that helps. and yes you can e-mail Rick anytime you want, course I havent a clue as to his last name. and he wouldn`t comment on it anyhow for fear of loosing his job.

Telaynay's G'son · 1st April 2009, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

OK, I'm confused again.

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?

Consider the following facts:

Myself, Dr. Wallace, D.G., WW, Todd E. & Bill G. (owner of the GBO & BF Study websites) have all examined this photo FTF and all came to the same (as previously stated) conclusion.

BM, er...Tornado sent a copy of it to the legendary M.K. Davis for examination however he (BM) asked Davis not to publicly comment on it. Hmmmmm.

Dr. Wallace conducted a series of reference photos (post event) to corroborate or dispute BM's assertions. From that effort and based upon our personal experience of examining the exact site there are serious doubts said photo could have been taken when BM asserts such happened. In fact, he (BM) has previously stated that he didn't even remove the camera (after I informed him it wasn't working, a few days earlier) instead, relying upon a relative (Kenny) to retrieve it.

IMHO, what we have here is a classic case of the tar baby dilemma in that BM is far too deep into the deal to retract anything. All he's left with is to continue to scream about it's authenticity in the desperate hope that if he does it loud enough and for long enough it will become accepted truth. Last I heard the term for such was The Big Lie but history hasn't been kind to that M.O. as the facts seem to have a way of percolating to the top in the end.

Like D.G. stated in the original GBO thread on this fiasco..."show's over folks, time to move on."

mikeyx · 1st April 2009, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

OK, I'm confused again.

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?

methinks you answered your own question

GT/CS · 2nd April 2009, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by tornado

If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread?
Answer:, they dont know about these photo`s. They were never shown them.

If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?

Answer: Same answer as the above.

[/quote]

Why have the photos that clearly show bigfeets never been shown to the media?

mikeyx · 2nd April 2009, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Answer: Same answer as the above.

Why have the photos that clearly show bigfeets never been shown to the media?[/quote]

To show them to the media you have to have them. Bullet-Tornado doesn't.

26th March 2009, 01:27 PM	#1
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Sapporo ichiban! Posts: 9,264	The Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center - The Wild Bunch³ OK, third time's a charm, right? So the last thread was closed mainly for the following reasons... - Repeated incivility by a specific member that rather than being reported immediately, was met by many responses (even if they were mostly civil). Half pages of OT responses every time an incivil member posted were simply too much of a hassle for effective moderation and resulted in a mess. - Engaging in a concerted effort to ascertain the identity of another member outside the forum, no matter how civil the effort is, is always inappropriate. That was mostly me and is something I won't be spending any further time doing. So I have spoken with the powers that be (in this case, Cuddles) to get a better understanding of the situation and to see how it can be remedied. Cuddles has been very helpful in explaining the problems in detail and explaining what flies and what doesn't. As I think we can pretty much all agree, it would be unfortunate of we were completely unable to discuss a well known (to us, anyway) element of Bigfootery. Between Cuddles and myself, I think a good way has been found where we can discuss the MABRC without having it sabotaged by persons who might wish to do so. So with the third crack at this I think we can get it right. I'm going to outline some general guidelines to keep the discussion in the right direction. This thread is... - About the MABRC as a Bigfoot research group. The discussion is intended to be about their activities in the field and the evidence they relate to Bigfoot. - It is not about the MABRC's forum or any issues they might have there. Such posts should be considered as off topic. - Nor is the thread about any individual member of the MABRC or their personality. General JREF etiquette about focusing on the argument and claims rather than the person making them is the guideline. I know I veered off with that, so I'll be taking care not to repeat. As a final and most important note, I think the only way to ensure this thread is not derailed or sabotaged is to have it moderated from the outset. As such I am reporting the OP and requesting moderation of this thread from the beginning. Now then, on to the evidence... Here is an image from a series of three purported by the MABRC to be a photo of Bigfoot in Oklahoma: And here is the MABRC member responsible for the photo in a separate image that show him with a monkey hat thing on his head that I believe is clearly what the alleged Bigfoot photo shows: Next is another in the series of three images purported by the MABRC to feature a family of three Bigfoots with mother, father, and young: And here is an video of members of the MABRC attempting to portray what the they believe the image to depict: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX5DEJ3hBI Also in that video one of the MABRC members explain various encounters with Bigfoots on his property, including one that is overweight and has a smoker's cough.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th March 2009, 02:29 PM	#4
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	Originally Posted by kitakaze Now then, on to the evidence... Here is an image from a series of three purported by the MABRC to be a photo of Bigfoot in Oklahoma: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=794 And here is the MABRC member responsible for the photo in a separate image that show him with a monkey hat thing on his head that I believe is clearly what the alleged Bigfoot photo shows: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=793 I don't think the first image includes the monkey hat. It looks, to me, like a shot of the back of his head and shoulders with the hood of his jacket pulled up. Very unconvincing, either way.
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	__________________ "It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

26th March 2009, 02:38 PM	#5
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Sapporo ichiban! Posts: 9,264	Originally Posted by desertgal I don't think the first image includes the monkey hat. It looks, to me, like a shot of the back of his head and shoulders with the hood of his jacket pulled up. Very unconvincing, either way. Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing. I think just the fact that Bullet had that thing and the picture looks so much like it is reason enough to question why they might actually expect people to take that image seriously. I linked in the other thread to a comment by Bullet where he spoke about trying to get money for those images. I can't imagine he had much success.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th March 2009, 02:51 PM	#6
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,942	Originally Posted by kitakaze Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing. I think just the fact that Bullet had that thing and the picture looks so much like it is reason enough to question why they might actually expect people to take that image seriously. I linked in the other thread to a comment by Bullet where he spoke about trying to get money for those images. I can't imagine he had much success. My guess is that the stuffed monkey doll has been used for many MABRC blobsquatch photos. No evidence for that statement other than the obvious fact that it sure looks like both photos posted by Kit look an awful lot like a stuffed animal placed in front of the camera.
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

26th March 2009, 04:29 PM	#7
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	Originally Posted by kitakaze Interesting. It is really hard to tell with glare and the fact that the image has been crumpled up, flattened out, and then scanned. The reason I think they're the same is because the shape is a match to my eye and I would guess that if they were going to mess around with putting a dark shap in front of a camera, and they had a choice between a hood pulled up or something the same shape but was brown and furry, they would choose the monkey hat thing. My mistake...my browser didn't load the third image earlier, so I didn't realize that you were referring to the object in the upper right of the first photo as being the monkey hat - I thought you meant the large center mass. I agree, the upper right object is the monkey hat. IMO, this is one of the main reasons that Bigfoot research is largely dismissed as a joke. This picture is an obvious hoax, but, even if it weren't, with today's technology, people are expected to believe that blurry, indecipherable images such as this are the best BF researchers can come up with? It defies credulity.
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	__________________ "It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie Last edited by desertgal; 26th March 2009 at 04:33 PM.

26th March 2009, 02:09 PM	#2
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	It seems to me they will have the problem of escalating expectations. If you see eyeshines and hear whoops one time you might want more later. How will they keep up?

26th March 2009, 06:18 PM	#9
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	This photo (taken as a reference shot by Dr. Wallace) illustrates a couple of points. First, the backside profile shot of DO bears some resemblance to BM's alleged photo. Second, notice the laterally running oak tree root system he is standing beside. The conclusion many have reached is this is the lower area background (lateral striations) material in BM's photo. As such, there is no possible way the 3 BF photo could have been taken whilst the camera was affixed to the tree as the distance ~20+ feet was too great to allow the root system to have filled up the background as it appears. Thus, the logical conclusion is the photo was snapped immediately adjacent to said root system and either done so totally by accident or as a designed hoax. BM later tried to extricate himself from this appearance by posting up sequential photos from the film run but failed miserably when it was pointed out his (alleged) sequential photos...were not sequential. The end result is a vivid illustration of the total lacking in proper protocols by BM in securing the purity of any such photographic "evidence". IMHO, it's either pure Bush League citizen science in BF'n or a lame attempt at hoaxing in which case it's simply Bush League BS'n.
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	Last edited by Telaynay's G'son; 26th March 2009 at 06:52 PM.

26th March 2009, 07:05 PM	#10
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	More MABRC "research" results These photo's represent a sequence taken by one of my gamecams installed on public (COE) land adjacent to BM's place. What's interesting is he (BM) created a thread in the MABRC research section(s) entitled BF Crossing Creek wherein he alleges a BF image captured in the 07/04/2002 photo. He also omitted the other photo's from that MABRC thread instead posting only the July 4th picture. When I posted the additional photographs and disputed his claims the MABRC administrator(s) reaction was to banish me from the website. Does anyone see a BF in any of these photographs?
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209

26th March 2009, 08:39 PM	#11
Biscuit Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,929	I realize it was probably just a mistake in the dead cow footage but when the guy filming says, "I think this cow died giving birth, there are two legs sticking out its ass." I laughed out loud. More like it died involved in some kinky cow activities. The photo of the three bigfoot can't even be described as paredolia. the edges of the mother look fuzzy like a stuffed animal, the baby seems way out of proportion to the mother and father, and the father looks more like a grey alien to me. It should be re-titled "fozzy bear, a bigfoot fetus, and a grey enjoy a game of leap frog." I am hoping we can keep this thread out of AAH. I am guilty of poking a little to much fun at the MABRC but sometimes it is just so easy. I, like Kit, am a little in awe of their bond as a group. Their view of the world and the way the approach squatchin' with absolute faith in the existence of bigfoot but also in their methods is really unique in my opinion.
Biscuit Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,929	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

26th March 2009, 11:10 PM	#12
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,697	I cant see any bigfoots in the pics but there may be some evidence left at the scene. Is that a bigfoot sock hanging out to dry from that bush? I would have carried out a "Cinderella" check on all present for empirical confirmation. As for the missing sock, well we all know that can happen. Wild speculation maybe, but its a mad world in those woods.
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,697	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again Last edited by learner; 26th March 2009 at 11:11 PM.

27th March 2009, 08:31 AM	#13
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 464	Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son The probable reason for not placing a camera was because they were trespassing upon BM's adjoining neighbor's land w/o permission and it is now a $300+ fine to do so in Oklahoma. Hmmmm.....risk getting a $300 fine for the discovery of a lifetime that could possibly lead to $$$ millions. Yeah, that's a tough one alright.
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 464

27th March 2009, 10:48 AM	#14
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	Originally Posted by kitakaze OK, third time's a charm, right? And here is an video of members of the MABRC attempting to portray what the they believe the image to depict: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX5DEJ3hBI Also in that video one of the MABRC members explain various encounters with Bigfoots on his property, including one that is overweight and has a smoker's cough. I viewed this video for the first time today and was again amazed at BM's knack for BS'n on such a grand scale. As a participant to that event, I assign ~28-30% accuracy to the segment with the balance being either steroidal embellishment and/or total fabrication. He should be in politics.
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209

27th March 2009, 12:11 PM	#15
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Sapporo ichiban! Posts: 9,264	Holy guacamole! I can't believe I did't realize this before now. Everybody check out the first and the third "Bigfoot" photos of BM's in the OP. Look at the features being described as "Daddy" and "baby" Bigfoot and the branches to the right of them. Also the right slope of the dark shape. *They're the exact same photographs.* I was distracted by the big dark shape and the text in the third photo. They're the same and I think the monkey hat thing is responsible. Wow. That went right by me.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

27th March 2009, 01:39 PM	#16
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	Originally Posted by kitakaze Holy guacamole! I can't believe I did't realize this before now. Everybody check out the first and the third "Bigfoot" photos of BM's in the OP. Look at the features being described as "Daddy" and "baby" Bigfoot and the branches to the right of them. Also the right slope of the dark shape. *They're the exact same photographs.* Yes. That's why I made my mistake yesterday. My browser only loaded the first two pictures-I couldn't see how the large central mass ("Mom") in the first picture was the monkey hat. Then, the third picture loaded, and it defined what area of the first picture you were referring to as the hat. I didn't even notice "Dad" in the first picture until the third picture defined it. To clarify, I believe that "Mom" is the back of the guy's (BM?) shoulders and head, with his hood pulled up, and "Dad" is the monkey hat. I have to wonder why, though, as BM was attempting a hoax, he would make the first and second pictures available to anyone, since they reveal the creative editing performed on the third picture almost immediately. Heck, in the first picture, you can see the collar of the coat clear as day, and the monkey hat clearly in the second. That really was kinda dumb on his part.
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	__________________ "It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

30th March 2009, 12:31 AM	#17
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Morning Kitakaze, I`mmmm Baccccccccccccck Ok, if your tired of the pictures, thats Ok, I just thought you would like to know the truth about the pictures. The reason for the coat with the hood on it, was because it was a cold day that day. I mean it was very cold with a north wind, that would bite right through you. What was they doing down there with the toy monkey? They were reinacting the picture for Dr. Wallace. They being bulletmaker and Driveroperator. The first picture you said looked like it had been waded up and then smoothed out and a picture taken of it, you are right on. That`s exactly what it is, and what happened to the picture. Now the question is why was it wadded up to begin with? Well it started this way, when the orginal picture was taken, (that is retrieved from the game camera, which took a total of about one month to take up the film), and the film was developed, the one picture of the three bigfoots were on just one picture of the 24 picture roll of film. The people that was involved of the bigfoot hunts at that time were T.G..S, D.G., Woodwatcher, and bulletmaker. Now bulletmaker called the other three, and told them about the one picture. They came over to bulletmakers, house and was shown the photo, which at that time, all agreed as to what it was. One of the group, (D.G. AKA Dennis Griffin), ask for a copy of the picture, which he was given, but a poor copy from the copy machine, which was just on regular typing paper. Now the orginal photo, was never shown, but was scanned and that is the one you see that got all the red lines, that someone else had drawn to show , what was where. The one of bullemaker with the toy monkey was his back, was used in the reenacting of the picture for Dr. Wallace. There was no part of bulletmakers just or back or monkey hat, used to fake the picture. You are looking at the real thing, and its your right to see what you see.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

30th March 2009, 07:18 AM	#18
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,615	Tornado- Why don't you post the photo of the guy in the baseball hat, adjusting the camera, that you said is a hairy bigfoot? Or, would you care if I posted it?
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,615	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

30th March 2009, 07:45 AM	#19
Vortigern99 Sorcerer Supreme Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 7,905	But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was".
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

30th March 2009, 09:27 AM	#20
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,942	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was". It could depend on who those people are and whether or not they have an agenda.
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

30th March 2009, 09:49 AM	#21
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by Drewbot Tornado- Why don't you post the photo of the guy in the baseball hat, adjusting the camera, that you said is a hairy bigfoot? Or, would you care if I posted it? I`m not sure what one that is Drew, but by all means go ahead and post it.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

30th March 2009, 09:59 AM	#22
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was". Hello Vortigern99 It wasnt like bulletmaker was standing there taking a picture of this creature. The camera, was a game camera, which means, it was strapped to a tree, and if any game comes by, deer, turkey, dogs, etc. bigfoot. it will take a picture of whatever comes in front of the camera. So the camera was strapped to a tree for a month before the film was developed.left buy itself on the tree. What happened is, the bigfoots came to close to the camera. You have to be 31 inches from the lens of the camera to take a good picture. Anything closer than the 31 inches, will be blurry, which is what happend. The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture. You can see the baby bigfoot looking over the shoulder of (I assume) a female bigfoot. His face or her face, is clearer, cause of the 31 inch rule.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

30th March 2009, 01:47 PM	#23
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 But tornado, why couldn't bulletmaker have stepped back from the subject to a distance of, say, six inches or more, so that there could be no question as to what we're looking at? As it stands it's utterly unidentifiable, an unfocused extreme close-up of a fuzzy whatsit that could be anything from a house slipper to a piece of taxidermy. You'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that four people "all agreed as to what it was". As one of the four people that "all agreed" to the authencity of this photo, I can assure you the only thing we agreed upon was that it was not a photo of a BF(s) despite BM's exhortations (then...and, now) to the contrary. The record also shows that when he went to the GBO website to pimp it as such is when our falling out occurred as both D.G. and myself refused to corroroborate his claims.
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209

31st March 2009, 04:33 AM	#24
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,615	This is the one I was referring to.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,615	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

31st March 2009, 04:57 AM	#25
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	Originally Posted by tornado Morning Kitakaze, I`mmmm Baccccccccccccck Ok, if your tired of the pictures, thats Ok, I just thought you would like to know the truth about the pictures. The reason for the coat with the hood on it, was because it was a cold day that day. I mean it was very cold with a north wind, that would bite right through you. What was they doing down there with the toy monkey? They were reinacting the picture for Dr. Wallace. They being bulletmaker and Driveroperator. The first picture you said looked like it had been waded up and then smoothed out and a picture taken of it, you are right on. That`s exactly what it is, and what happened to the picture. Now the question is why was it wadded up to begin with? Well it started this way, when the orginal picture was taken, (that is retrieved from the game camera, which took a total of about one month to take up the film), and the film was developed, the one picture of the three bigfoots were on just one picture of the 24 picture roll of film. The people that was involved of the bigfoot hunts at that time were T.G..S, D.G., Woodwatcher, and bulletmaker. Now bulletmaker called the other three, and told them about the one picture. They came over to bulletmakers, house and was shown the photo, which at that time, all agreed as to what it was. One of the group, (D.G. AKA Dennis Griffin), ask for a copy of the picture, which he was given, but a poor copy from the copy machine, which was just on regular typing paper. Now the orginal photo, was never shown, but was scanned and that is the one you see that got all the red lines, that someone else had drawn to show , what was where. The one of bullemaker with the toy monkey was his back, was used in the reenacting of the picture for Dr. Wallace. There was no part of bulletmakers just or back or monkey hat, used to fake the picture. You are looking at the real thing, and its your right to see what you see. Still waiting for the truth...
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,198	__________________ "It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

31st March 2009, 10:18 AM	#26
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,255	What about the primate expert who claimed he saw gorilla-like figures in the "3 sasquatch" picture? Newbies such as myself were presented with a "done deal" on the photo because of this unnamed guy's analysis. Seems I've read he was a friend of a relative (Bullet's stepson?)working on a degree. I can see why he wouldn't want to be named. In-depth photo analysis wasn't exactly encouraged although we got as far as not getting a committee together. Maybe Tornado can verify Dr. Meldrum saw the "bigfoot walking by" photo at Honobia last year and let us know what he really said.
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,255	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

31st March 2009, 11:01 AM	#27
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Sapporo ichiban! Posts: 9,264	Originally Posted by tornado The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture. A simple yes or no question, tornado. Could Bullet Maker, wearing the monkey hat thing, have also account for the picture?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

31st March 2009, 03:35 PM	#28
Vortigern99 Sorcerer Supreme Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 7,905	Originally Posted by tornado Hello Vortigern99 It wasnt like bulletmaker was standing there taking a picture of this creature. The camera, was a game camera, which means, it was strapped to a tree, and if any game comes by, deer, turkey, dogs, etc. bigfoot. it will take a picture of whatever comes in front of the camera. So the camera was strapped to a tree for a month before the film was developed.left buy itself on the tree. What happened is, the bigfoots came to close to the camera. You have to be 31 inches from the lens of the camera to take a good picture. Anything closer than the 31 inches, will be blurry, which is what happend. The creatures, were so close, that they brushed up against the camera, causeing the camera to tilt, and shoot the picture. If you look up to the right hand of the photo, you will see the top of tree branches, and the blue sky, which meant the camera was angleing upward at the moment the shutter snaped the picture. You can see the baby bigfoot looking over the shoulder of (I assume) a female bigfoot. His face or her face, is clearer, cause of the 31 inch rule. Hello, and thank you for the reply and technical corrections. However, the fact remains that no clear forms, mammalian or otherwise, can be distinguished in the picture. Further, in an above post, "Telenay's G'son" claims he was one of the four who viewed the pic and that despite your assertion to the contrary, neither he nor another individual, once "D.G.", agreed that the pic represented one or more bigfoot. Of course, I have no way to verify that these individuals were in fact present at this viewing, but would you care to give us your opinion as to why Telenay G'son would so roundly reject your assessment of the outcome of that viewing? Thanks in advance.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

31st March 2009, 07:26 PM	#29
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by LAL What about the primate expert who claimed he saw gorilla-like figures in the "3 sasquatch" picture? Newbies such as myself were presented with a "done deal" on the photo because of this unnamed guy's analysis. Seems I've read he was a friend of a relative (Bullet's stepson?)working on a degree. I can see why he wouldn't want to be named. In-depth photo analysis wasn't exactly encouraged although we got as far as not getting a committee together. Maybe Tornado can verify Dr. Meldrum saw the "bigfoot walking by" photo at Honobia last year and let us know what he really said. No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo. I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there. As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

31st March 2009, 07:27 PM	#30
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by kitakaze A simple yes or no question, tornado. Could Bullet Maker, wearing the monkey hat thing, have also account for the picture? No.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

1st April 2009, 04:53 AM	#31
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by tornado No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo. I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there. As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s. I would like to add, that yes LAL, you are correct, the guy is a friend of bulletmakers step son. His name is Rick somthing or another. I didn`t catch his last name, but he travels around the U.S.A, helping other zoo`s in planning and helping get there gorilla program`s started, and directs the building of the habitat. Forgive my mispelling LAL, My spell check went out on the comuptor for some reason. and I`m a terrible speller. LOL Thanks for the question LAL, if you have anymore, let me know.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

1st April 2009, 05:03 AM	#32
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,255	Originally Posted by tornado No, he wasn`t working on a degree, he already had one. He was the head primatologist of the zoo. Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson? Quote: I dont know what Dr. Meldrum said, because I wasn`t there. As far as this photo of the three bigfoot`s , he did say he saw what was there, course he was looking at the orginal picture. He was very excited about the photo`s. Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,255	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

1st April 2009, 06:05 AM	#33
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,942	OK, I'm confused again. If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread? If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

1st April 2009, 01:26 PM	#34
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by LAL Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson? Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it? LAL, the primatologist is a friend of bulletmakers step son. Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it?[/quote] What do you mean? and who are you talking about? bulletmakers stepson? or Dr. Meldrum? If your refering to Dr. Meldrum, He`s never seen the picture of the three bigfoots. I dont know what you are talking about on that one. Sorry.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

1st April 2009, 01:30 PM	#35
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by GT/CS OK, I'm confused again. If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread? If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage? If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread? Answer:, they dont know about these photo`s. They were never shown them. If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage?[/quote] Answer: Same answer as the above.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

1st April 2009, 03:03 PM	#36
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69	Originally Posted by LAL Okay, head primatologist at the zoo. Sometimes information is relayed incorrectly. Is he a friend of your .....uh.......Bullet's stepson? Were you not there for that too? Do you think he'll confirm that if I e-mail him about it? I think I see the problem now LAL. you thought I said Dr. Meldrum saw the pictures, No it wasn`t Dr. Meldrum, It was the primatolgist (Rick), that said he saw the bigfoots right off the bat, when he fist saw the pictures, of bulletmaker. I hope that helps. and yes you can e-mail Rick anytime you want, course I havent a clue as to his last name. and he wouldn`t comment on it anyhow for fear of loosing his job.
tornado Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 69

1st April 2009, 06:53 PM	#37
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209	Originally Posted by GT/CS OK, I'm confused again. If the national media jumped all over the Georgia Boyz hoax why did they ignore the fuzzy monkey pictures taken by persons referenced in this thread? If the photos are so clear and convincing, and expert(s) declared them to show 3 real bigfeets why no media coverage? Consider the following facts: Myself, Dr. Wallace, D.G., WW, Todd E. & Bill G. (owner of the GBO & BF Study websites) have all examined this photo FTF and all came to the same (as previously stated) conclusion. BM, er...Tornado sent a copy of it to the legendary M.K. Davis for examination however he (BM) asked Davis not to publicly comment on it. Hmmmmm. Dr. Wallace conducted a series of reference photos (post event) to corroborate or dispute BM's assertions. From that effort and based upon our personal experience of examining the exact site there are serious doubts said photo could have been taken when BM asserts such happened. In fact, he (BM) has previously stated that he didn't even remove the camera (after I informed him it wasn't working, a few days earlier) instead, relying upon a relative (Kenny) to retrieve it. IMHO, what we have here is a classic case of the tar baby dilemma in that BM is far too deep into the deal to retract anything. All he's left with is to continue to scream about it's authenticity in the desperate hope that if he does it loud enough and for long enough it will become accepted truth. Last I heard the term for such was The Big Lie but history hasn't been kind to that M.O. as the facts seem to have a way of percolating to the top in the end. Like D.G. stated in the original GBO thread on this fiasco..."show's over folks, time to move on."
Telaynay's G'son Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 209