Hello everyone. This is gonna be a long one - so grab something to eat, but I promise you will learn something by the end of this. Information YOU ALL need to know!!
I have been thinking the last couple days. I have said over and over and over again, I don't know if this photo is legit or a hoax. What I have said is this, "If this is a hoax - it is a very good hoax and every researcher in this community needs to see what is coming down the pike". I have said this from Day 1. I have said it so many times I am sick of hearing it come from my mouth.
Most of the response to this photo have been great. People are looking at this, and coming up with all kinds of ideas for what they see in the photo and, if this is a costume, what costume it could be? I have been very impressed with the objective opinions.
But I always knew this community was filled with bright people.
Then we have these people.
Damien Bravo. Guest blogger for Bigfoot Evidence Blog. The very night Dave Conover released information, in regards to an email conversation with John Healy of Healy FX, Mr. Bravo probably tripped over himself to get to his "word program" to type out a article and upload a photo - that was anything but objective or even correct.
Take a look for yourself.
What Mr. Bravo did was take a photo sent to Dave Conover by John Healy of Healy FX. Dave received this email late Monday night the 5th of March:
Mr. Bravo arbitrarily decided the center mass of the "clawed" costume, he then darkened the hair (using some program) on the right side (as you are looking at the photo) of the mirror image and then posted this image:
Here are the images side by side. Damien didn't create the comparison photo below, I did. I don't think this community is stupid and I feel certain when given all the information the researchers can determine an apple from an orange.
I have nothing to hide.
Look at these images side by side. Do you think Damien's photoshop work with the clawed costume looks like the photo I released? If you do, I would strongly suggest you get your eyes checked. Seriously people. So, Mr. Bravo is claiming to have solved the mystery of the photo. Wrong, so very wrong. LOL.
Mr. Bravo also said in his article that I was not answering questions. Funny, as I never received an email from Mr. Bravo asking anything. I also have not been hiding. I have given 3 interviews and have been on just about every Facebook page and the various websites answering any question I can. So, I'm not hiding, Mr. Bravo you told a big fat fib.
So, I called Mr. Bravo on his inaccuracies and the crap he is trying to pull over on this community. This kind of "work" has NEVER been acceptable within this community.
This photo has been uploaded by countless people and there has never been any photoshop detected by anyone. When I pointed this out to Mr. Bravo he ignored this information. In fact, judging by Damiens responses I think I can safely determine he had not read one bit of the information I posted with this photo. That's fine, but at least admit you didn't do your homework prior. You should be properly informing your readers.
What's funny is, if Dave Conover hadn't received that photo from John Healy (Monday night), Damien Bravo wouldn't have anything to conduct his little photoshop hack piece on (Tuesday in the wee hours). I will take the word over those in the FX industry. Oh and it's also interesting Mr. Bravo has this photo, but makes NO mention as to how he got it - or the information it was attached to. That's pretty shady. It proves Mr. Bravo knew John Healy the owner of Healy FX (who made the costume) had already said:
All were dressed with roughly the same fur, and none resembled your attached photo. In my opinion, if this was a copy of our "Clawed" sasquatch the fur may have been pulled off and replaced with a longer, multi toned synthetic that appears to be on a lace mesh. I have numerous photos from the shoot but none clearly showing the back alone of the costume..."
How do I know this? This photo of the clawed costume had not been publicly available until it was released late Monday night -with Mr. Healys opinion on my blog and various Facebook pages.
Yet - Damien took the photo which also included the opinion of Mr. Healy and wrote his little article as if he never read the information attached to this photo. Almost as if he didn't want his readers to know there was information about this photo he was using - and he hadn't simply came across it during some internet search.
That is VERY shady and misleading. If the hair had been pulled off (as it would have been to create this unknown photo as stated by Mr. Healy) what is the point in the photoshop exercise done by Damien? None. Just more confusion and misinformation.
So, Damien and I exchanged words when I seen this crap research of his, and I corrected his mistakes - none of which he even acknowledged - then the next day his friends filtered into the Bigfoot Evidence blog to begin hurling insults under Anonymous names. How childish. At least I had the guts to show up and post under my name. LOL.
I wonder what would happen if I knew I had made errors or flat out didn't tell my readers everything to sway their opinion, or didn't do everything I could to correct a mistake when discovered? Hummm..
Phil Poling. Who is this guy? Well, this is very interesting. Mr. Poling, who I don't know and have never spoken with online or off, began sending me message on Facebook Tuesday the 6th. Mr. Poling is a friend of Damien Bravos. Coincidence? I don't believe in such things.
BUT Mr. Poling is also friends with the bearded guy (in an organization I will give no mention to on this blog) who uploaded a video to YouTube - and EVERY BIT of factual information he discussed in the first 42 seconds (I actually looked at the counter) was WRONG. Let me add, information this bearded man could have found by a simple Google search of my name. So, at 42 seconds, I stopped watching but had a good laugh for 42 seconds.
In the interest of full disclosure, Polings first Facebook message must have come in over night some time (my messages don't keep track of the time) but when I woke up tuesday morning and stumbled out to the computer I opened an email from Wayne (my fiance) who was at work - telling me about this message.
Well you read it for yourself. This was his FIRST message. I blacked out his email address only.
Mr. Poling is delusional if he thinks ANY researcher, who wants to maintain any level of credibility, would simply do as he instructs. I didn't know this guy from Adam. Yet, here is he telling me he is going to "swoop in" and save the day.
I don't need a hero buddy.
I respond with this:
Now, one would think Mr. Poling would get the message and move on. I was polite and did not tell him what I really thought of his request. Yet, this was not good enough for Mr. Poling.
First of all, Mr. Poling assumes much and knows very little. It is people like Mr. Poling who exist - and keep me from giving out too much information about this witness. We all know these people (like Mr. Poling) exist which is exactly why no credible researcher or organization will disclose personal information about wtnesses. This investigation is not a mess, Mr. Poling is simply doing as others have done before - trying to get their hands on a witness for whatever purpose they have. I will not EVER give out the names of a witness or any of their information. Is Poling crazy?
Most of this second message is nonsense, as the clawed suit controversy was cleared up in the wee hours before Mr.Polings Facebook messages. Again, Coincidence or was Mr. Poling upset because his "Clawed" theory had been flushed down the toilet along with his friend Damien Bravo's and the bearded man's in the YouTube Video?
"Guilty Party"? What has anyone proven this witness is guilty of?
Note to all the researchers out there. Witnesses come to us and request anonymity. You better have more than, "I think," before you put a witness all over the internet and accuse them of hoaxing or fraud. Unless you enjoy being taken to court by that person.
So, I responded with this:
This guy is out of his mind if he thinks any researcher should ever give out this kind of information. I don't know this man, and frankly I never asked for his help.
So, Mr. Poling answers back with this.
I just have one question, who left the door open? So, according to Mr. Poling every researcher who says they do not give out the names and email address of their witnesses is lying. Those of you who associate with this man - you better pray a witness doesn't see your name attached to his.
The questions he asked in this message, have been answered. Which told me Mr. Poling hadn't done the first step of investigation --- Research. Why would I give someone sensitive information when they can't be bothered to do their own leg work? All the information Poling is requesting has been on my blog since day 1.
But as you can see, his questions have very little to do with the actual photo itself or the witness - he just wants to know if there is money attached to this. All of this has already been discussed and disclosed on my blog. I will not discuss this any more. Well, the logical thought here is that if Mr. Poling thinks there is money attached to this photo - of COURSE he wants to get to this witness. I have said countless times I have offered no money for this photo and this witness has not paid me money, nor has he asked. Oh, and Mr. Poling money does not have to change hands in order for this witness to ask me to protect him and his interests. You are not an attorney so don't pretend you are.
Mr. Poling, if you are such a fantastic "Investigator" you could start with the information that has already been disclosed. It's all right here on this blog. Stop being lazy and trying to make a name for yourself. This final comment by Mr. Poling was pretty funny - AND sent to me yesterday.
THIS INFORMATION IS ON THIS BLOG YOU MORON!!!! Sorry people, I just do not have time for idiots. Seriously. Mr. Poling claims all this professional "investigative" background and yet can't find the article that is titled "OPINIONS".. Give me a flippin break. This is the kind of thing that irritates me and many other researchers. Mr. Poling, your investigative skills suck.
According to Mr. Poling and his first YouTube video he does not question my "Honesty or Sincerity" but then goes on to do just that. Get it straight, either you do or you don't.
In the first video Mr. Poling created he said if a witness contacted him with a body, he would not accept the body from the person, and instead direct them to the nearest University..
Yeah, sure he would.
How many of you are buying this load? I shouldn't have anything to do with this witness, yet he is doing everything possible to get his hands on the emails and this witnesses name. So, is he being honest about how we should not work with anonymous witnesses? Mr. Poling - you contradict yourself.
I sure as hell wouldn't take advice from a researcher who gives advice while sitting in the shadows. Why should you be anonymous, Mr. Poling and not a witness? Why are you so special? That is ridiculous.
Researchers in this community. The second you start disclosing confidential information about someone - to include a witness - you start opening yourself up for all kinds of nasty issues, to include legal and your reputation being shot down. No one will take you seriously and you will be branded untrustworthy. These witnesses come to us. They don't owe us anything, to include the opportunity to trash them in public over things we can't prove. No one has proven this photo is real or a hoax, and just because we all might have our suspicions - that does NOT equal fact. How many organizations out there have tons of reports on their sites? Should those organizations be forced to include the names, email address and correspondence between the witness and the investigator? That's what Mr. Poling is saying.
Is that where we are headed? I sure the heck am not. Call me whatever you want, but rest assured the identities and personal information about my witnesses will NEVER be disclosed. I have said many times, If I come up with information that this IS a hoax, I will brand this photo a hoax and I will nail this witness to the wall. But, so far, I do not have that kind of information, and neither does anyone else. Make all the assumptions you want, but assumptions do NOT equal fact.
Is this really what this community wants to become? We are not happy with bashing each other - so now you want to go after the witnesses?
I gotta be honest, I think this is very sad - and every person who is involved in this research should really think about associating with this guy or anyone who associates with him. It's your credibility.
I have people working on this - donating their time - from Law Enforcement to FX professionals and professionals in photography. I do not need the bad investigative skills of a Mr. Poling.
And if you want to maintain some credibility - neither should you.
Mr. Poling, you can accuse me of whatever you want. But, at the end of the day all you will accomplish is sending this witness into hiding - and any further images not being disclosed. This witness already broke contact because of the fear of people like Mr. Poling - if you think he won't do it again you have not been paying attention.
If that happens, this community, can blame Mr. Poling.
I have enough people (well respected within this community) who will prove you are a liar Poling- and I am telling the truth. So, your threat of making me look complicit in a hoax is falling on deaf ears. Besides, if you would read my articles on this situation (which is the easiest thing you refuse to do) you will see I have said from day one, this could be a hoax. I have no information that it is. The important point is that IF this is a hoax - we have a lot to worry about. This is a damn good hoax - and every researcher should be on their guard. I at least brought this forward so every person in this community could be aware.
What have you done Mr. Poling? Other than make baseless accusations, spread vicious lies and give bad advice all while protecting your own identity?
You can't even be bothered to read a couple of short articles with ALL the information you are requesting - Other than the info you really want. Which really makes me question your motivation - for good reason.
I am just happy to point out another bad researcher. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment