Skeptics Messin' With Matt Moneymaker Over Bigfoot Sounds And Barking Dogs
 |
| Hayley Stevens (Not a card-carrying skeptic) |
Oh Matt, Matt, Matt. Skeptics only live for one thing, and that is to scoff at "bleebers". Why must you argue with them in public and risk getting stones thrown at you? Take a look at this Storify.com conversation below between Hayley Stevens and Matt Moneymaker. In it, there's an intense conversation about Bigfoot sounds and barking dogs (yeah, it's silly I know).
Check out how all the so-called skeptics all came out of the woodwork with baseball bats to defend their beloved Hayley. And yes-- Matt did bring out his "block hammer" and mass Twitter blocking did ensue afterwards. Go grab a popcorn everyone, knowing skeptics and their mob mentality (like a religion), they probably won't let this one go so easily.
Slow news day Shawn?
ReplyDeleteSo, am I the only one who thinks that Amazon Eve's little friend is like 48 times hotter then she is?
ReplyDeleteat least 50 times hotter! Still looking for the video of them together
DeleteAgree. The short girl is smoking hot. I'm pretty sure she is a adult actress that goes by the name Cherokee!
DeleteTHANK YOU x1,000,000,000,000
DeleteTime to get the wrist warmed up and the lotion flowin
^If you got a circle jerk going Rictor would love to be the pivot man.
DeleteOkay, I don't want to start a lengthy porn discussion on a Bigfoot site, but that's not Cherokee. Cherokee is 4'11” while the model in question is 5'4”.
DeleteThose pesky skeptics are always muddling things up with their rational thinking. MM was a complete fail on this one, even though he debated with classic footer tactics. Give non-answers to the question and attack the questioner.
ReplyDelete
DeleteMM answered all of her questions. The transcript above is woefully incomplete.
Hayley did not like the answers he gave so she claimed he "didn't answer" her questions. Her friends then jumped in saying the same thing, completely ignoring the answers MM gave. MM even posted a link to sound recordings when she asked, "How do you know what they sound like?"
Would a pesky wannabe skeptic be satisfied by any answer that is limited to 140 characters? I don't think so.
Try it sometime. Try to answer a question via Twitter (a question requiring lots of explanation) from some amateur skeptic. Answer the question in 140 characters. Do you think the skeptic is going to say "OK, I get it. I understand now." No. It won't happen.
No matter what you say they'll either claim your reply is: 1) insufficient 2) doesn't make sense, or 3) dodging the question, or 4) is based on premises that the will question in turn ... because that is all they really want to do. They want to pose as skeptics. They don't want to learn anything. They don't want to try to understand anything. They are just posers.
The only mistake MM made was to answer Hayley's question before checking her profile to see if she defines herself as an amateur skeptic .... In other words, someone who just likes to say "I doubt it" over and over (like a child, or a poser).
Cheap excuse. Guess what, he could post 10 consecutive responses using 1,140 characters... or 20 using 2,280... and so on.
DeleteYou're right, OP, he went off into classic footer tactics because he couldn't answer her simple question.
Some of these anonymous commentators post things that are so stupid, I'm often left wondering if their statements are a parody of the other stupid (or juvenile,drunk,etc.) people here. The post directly above is a good example. Is it truly stupid, or is it just a parody on stupid?
DeleteThat haley chick looks stoned
ReplyDeleteWhy would you even bother MM?
ReplyDeleteMM had his ass handed to him by a little limey girl...hahaHAAAAA!
ReplyDeleteI'd like her ass handed to me, as long as she's a butterface
Deleteon second thought, I'd probably do her anyway
DeleteHi,
DeleteI'm Hayley, the one you think you'd "do anyway". Just thought I'd let you know that no, you wouldn't.
Yea ,you're right. I'm not into Pygmies.
DeleteOh hell girl,you're going to get TROLLED here really bad.
DeleteBecareful.
Matt does seem to think that everything he says should be accepted as fact simply because of who he thinks he is.When you have a "Squatch" right in front of you to be studied then you can state the facts.It doesn't hurt to say this is what I/we think they do or sound like or it seems like they act this way.Matt doesn't know any more facts than the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you question the almighty, all knowing, his royal squtchness-Matt Moneymaker!
DeleteCompletely agree gnr. I admit , I watch the show as its the only BF show on. But what drives me nuts is how MM states things as fact rather than just stating, "We think or We feel".
DeletePart of me believes this girl isn't a die hard skeptic because she follows him on Twitter and watches the show. Seems to me she is just calling him on how he can state things as fact all the time without any basis other than assumption.
I'm really surprised the shows producers let MM go on these tyraids and in response to someone on the net like that. That is just bad PR. Especially when he should be discussing the issue with a respectful and level headed Demeanor instead of being condescending and evasive.
More and more I see of this guy, I don't like him. I don't know how the others on the show can work with him.
I just don't understand why "skeptics" spend so much time on this subject. Would't they just get sick of it after a while? I mean the die hard skeptics not the wannableevers
DeleteTo Anon @1025.
DeleteNo such thing as wannaleevers. You either do or don't. And I do believe. But unless MM can state he himself has obsersereved all these things first hand, stating things as fact when he himself has no basis other than assumption makes his statments false and damages his credibility.i
And apologies up front if I think being a believer doesn't include having some common sense.
And also...don't let the whole skeptic and believer issue cloud the actual subject at hand which is MM stating things as fact when we really don't know. It's 2 seperate issues.
DeleteLike GNr said...if MM used we think or feel...that girl probably would have never tweeted him.
Don't be so hard on Hayley,she can suck start a Harley by sucking on the exhaust.
ReplyDeleteTo any Harley rider that's a 10!!
I think Matt must have been having a bad night. All he had to say was that several suspected bigfoot calls have been recorded and compared over and over known animals and people. The suspected bigfoot calls did not match up or fell out of range of animals and people. Matt might have thought by the picture that this girl was just that a young girl. She does not look 25 to me. But being so condescending to youth is not a good way to bring people to your way of thinking. I wonder if these two have a history of "debate".
ReplyDeleteGood answer Big Jim
DeleteNot really any different than the answer MM gave. How do you know the sounds came from Bigfoot? Just because sounds have been recorded numerous times doesn't mean that they are from an unknown creature. Fail for you too Big Jim.
DeleteIf you have recorded a call and that call does not match up to a known animal and falls out of the range of humans, what do you have? An unknown call, likely by an unknown animal. Now, you have been looking for an unproven species in the woods. This species is bipedal and has been reported to throw rocks and make loud calls. You are sitting quietly in camp when all of a sudden a scream makes your hair stand on end. You know this scream is not a cat because you have spent years listening to known animal calls so you can distinguish them from unknown or people. You may have even witnessed a cougar scream while in the woods or at a zoo near feeding time. This scream does not sound like that at all. But thankfully you had a recorder taping and it recorded the call. You get home and have that call analyzed by animal call experts and zoos. They all say it is nothing they know of. So you have the call compared to human vocal range. It is outside human range. What do you have? An unknown animal making a call outside human range. Now, you are again in the woods. You come around a corner and see a large animal suddenly stand up. You freeze and the animal walks off, on two legs. You then start trying to follow it or look for tracks and try to see it again. All of sudden a rock crashes down near you. You look around and see no where a rock could have fallen from. You keep looking and a scream bursts out of the thickest brush a hundred yards away. You see imprints that look like human feet in the dirt, and the imprints lead towards the brush. But you now are afraid because you realize that you are close to something. So you leave. On the way out more rocks fall around you. Just before reaching your car you hear the scream again but pretty far off. You get away safe and when you get home you start trying to figure out what it was. You know the call was not from a known animal because of previous recordings. You saw something walk off on two legs. You had rocks falling from the sky. You follow foot prints and they lead towards a thick brushy area you can see nothing in, but that area screams at you just like the recordings. So what do you have? You have an unknown animal that walked on two legs and must have had hands because it threw rocks and it screams like nothing else known. You have something that only matches up to a legend, bigfoot. Since bigfoot is still a legend, you have a suspected bigfoot. So, if you don't believe in bigfoot, tell me what made that scream using the presented data of not matching anything known. You again have an unknown call made by an unknown animal. And what is bigfoot? It is either a legend or an unknown animal. If you go back and read my first post I say suspected bigfoot calls that do not match known animals or people. Why don't you tell me what made these calls? Calls that already were compared to known animals and do not match. Just because known animals make calls does not mean unknown ones don't.
DeleteCouldn't force myself to read all of that backwoods jerkwater bumpkin drivel, but read enough to see that it's obvious that you clearly don't understand the question asked by that nice girl. I think it's safe to say that your comprehension level isn't advanced enough to be posting your opinion in blogs.
DeleteIt's because you can't read a long response.You have ADD.
DeleteGo to a Family Practitioner and he will prescribe you some Aderall.
YOU SUX.
I don't have a comeback for that one Jim, you got me there buddy...touche`
DeleteWow, it appears I have reached the level of legends like Timmy, Melba, Sally, Matt M, Tim, and others who have people posting under their handle. The 9:51 post was not me of course. I try not to make personal attacks and never use ebonics to spell. Only typos or autocorrect. Since my first post was more about what Matt should have said and not directed at anyone, my second post was to elaborate on how a person who is well known in the bigfoot world might know what a bigfoot sounds like. I didn't use backwoods or bumpkin terminology or drivel. So I can only guess that the 9:16 poster must have vision problems and or speaks english as a third language. As for the girl, I made no comments on ot about her other than she does not look 25. Matter of fact, I kind of defended her by saying Matt might have been condescending towards her. I must say I am flattered. They say impersonation is the highest form of regard.
DeleteI'm the real Big Jim Jr,who the heck is impersonating me?
DeleteWhy would he answer. You skeptics will always use "on.the record" animals as your excuse. please use your brain. Not everything is rigjt.in.front of you in writing. Ugh
ReplyDeleteFrank, I think she wasn't a die hard skeptic, only questioning MM how he can state things as fact without any basis. And before you call me a skeptic, I'm not. I actually believe Bigfoot exists. But I'm in the same camp as this girl when it comes to MM on the show always stating things as fact. He would have much more credibility by Saying, "We think...based on the hundreds of thousands of reports and single experience...yaddah yaddah yaddah."
DeleteDo you think that TV show, or Twitter, gives enough space and time to qualify every statement?
DeleteI think MM is saying things about sasquatches that he knows to be true. He is saying them now, before they are proven by scientists. Many people are doubting him now, of course, but he knows those things will all be shown as true down the line, or at least more researchers will confirm his observations.
He has done the same thing many times over the years. He has proclaimed many behavioral things about bigfoots that many bigfoot researcher doubted at first, but then more and more of those same doubters eventually confirmed those things with their own observations.
That's why you should pay attention to what he says. He is usually right and usually very far ahead of the rest of the crowd.
Perspective is different. Sounds like you have been following the Squatch scene for a very long time. I am new and so are hundreds and thousands of others who now watch the show. So with the majority of us he has no credibility.
DeleteAgain I'm a believer. But I will have issues taking anyone seriously, not just MM, about anything they say without any hard documented evidence to back up.their statements.
Matt should stop doing meth and tweeting at the same time.
ReplyDeleteMatt why would you tell anyone to ask their parents anything?you are after all Matt"the fact"Moneymaker.
ReplyDeleteThe man with all the answers doesn't seem to have the balls for the biz.hiding from a "little girl".Chicken shit mother fucker.Yes I do have a strong dislike for moneymaker almighty.
thats his Royal Squatchness Moneymaker! Get it right or it will be "off with your head"! (meaning banned from his twatter of course)
DeleteBut that's MM personality, you either like it or u don't. Move on people.... Is anyone that surprised that he gets in a Twitter war about Squatches?
ReplyDeleteAnd loses...every time.
DeleteAnd he has far more Twitter followers than any other bigfoot researcher. Yeah, he obviously doesn't know what he's doing there on Twitter ...
DeleteThose followers are all his connections across America.He Twits in code to hook up with them.
DeleteHeroin,it's a helluva drug.
His Twitter followers are from all over the world. He runs the BFRO so he's had a huge following on the Internet for years.
DeleteIt has always been the case that the most unaccomplished nubes in this field are the ones who have the most negative things to say about the most accomplished ones. The loud nubes eventually learn about the accomplishments of their betters. Then they want to retract everything they've ever said about those people. By then it's too late.
Deletematt i now you deal with some public idiots you cant answer a argument from some one that has there mind made up theres no such thing as sassquatch just ignore them loosers an keep up the good work.i live in south louisiana an id like to drop that little haley off in my hunting club an let her make her way out of course have her recording she would need a diaperchange when an if she made it out keep rocking and stay calm matt baconeater shimflipper an cliff
ReplyDeleteGo back to bed, I hear your sister calling you.
Delete@ anon 7:18, nice try.
DeleteCliff used a south park character for his avatar
ReplyDeletecliff is cool
DeleteCliff's avatar was the South Park character of himself! That's a whole different thing. It does identify the person.
Deletetrue
DeleteCliff is the fourth grade teacher I never had.
Delete^Cause you only graduated from the third grade and then quit.
DeleteMoneymakers' an idiot. He uses personal attacks when he can't answer simple questions from a 25 year old skeptic.
ReplyDeleteAnd how is he different from any other Bigfooter? Ohhhh...I see what you did there.
DeleteWell, actually, you're an idiot. You make statements like that before you even read what happened.
DeleteMoneymaker DID answer her questions. She said his answers "didn't make sense" to her. That's when he said she should ask her parents to explain.
Also, she claimed to be 27 years old in some places, but 25 years old in other places. She might be 15 years old.
Um no, nooo, he clearly didn't answer he question. His responses didn't make sense to her because they were not legitimate answers. Get with the program there skippy, gotta keep up, we move at a fast pace here.
DeleteYou don't know WTF you're talking about. You're just reading the few posts Shawn pasted above. I follow MMs tweets and saw the whole thing as it happened. He did answer her questions but that wasn't good enough for her. And it's not good enough for you either.
DeleteYou probably believe Justin Smeja's bullshit story too. That's the program yer on.
@10:55 Are you one of the credulous BFRO cocksuckers? Smeja actually has DNA evidence that can be used to prove their existence, while the Finding Bigfoot guys are constantly running around North American forests filming themselves acting like clowns.
DeleteThought so.
DeleteSmeja has absolutely no credible DNA evidence at all. That is a total lie and total scam.
Delete
DeleteThe people who promote Smeja's story are either total idiots or total scammers. Anyone can prepare themselves to fool a polygraph test. That has been proven scientifically over and over.
Smeja's story is a lie and his evidence is phony. The "steak" was a piece of fur from a poached coyote. A few people jumped on Smeja's bandwagon early on because a wealthy guy got interested in the story. Those people liked to gloat about the story and say they had the big prize .. THEE EVIDENCE. They still brag and gloat about this big prize to people who don't know any better, and they still say the Sierra Kills "DNA evidence will be comin' out in the next couple of months!"
They've been saying that for last three years. It's pretty obvious by this point that they do NOT have the DNA evidence of anything special. They are all just milking it as long as they can, to see what they can get out of it, not unlike the diver team in the Baltic Sea who claim to have found a sunken UFO. It's essentially the same type of scam.
How can you poach a coyote when there is no hunting season for them.You can shoot them all year.Now you're going to tell me that he doesn't even have a hunting license.That hurt
DeleteGee, I was wrong about that. Guess I should apologize and set the record straight here and set things right.
DeleteIt was a legally bagged coyote that Smeja cut the "steak" from.
Thanks for the correction, Justin.
Sorry for accusing you of poaching. You are legally allowed to kill as many coyotes as you want up there. My bad.
Funny how skeptics agree with Meldrum's observation that it's Coyote yet disagree with many of his findings.
DeleteNot up there. everywhere. you sound like a Merchant
DeleteAll this skeptic bashing is pathetic. This story is pathetic. This site has become a joke. Matt moneymaker is clearly a grade a nobhead. She totally owned him. I said it once before but now i mean it - i am off and i leave dissapointed at the low level of debate and the lack of any redible evidence zupporting bf existence. Enjoy the woods people.
ReplyDeleteGae-rath aka virvil caine on the forum
X
I see. She "owned" him because she kept saying his answer didn't make sense to her. Wow. That's such a brutal knock down. How will he ever get over the humiliation of it.
DeleteYo Pugsley ... lemme set you straight. His answers did make sense. Being able to identify sounds doesn't have anything to do with scientific acknowledgement of the species.
Hayley said it wasn't possible to identify their sounds if they haven't been officially documented by science. I would have told her to run home to her parents too if she said that to me.
Peace out.
DeleteAll this skeptic bashing is pathetic. This story is pathetic. This site has become a joke. Matt moneymaker is clearly a grade a nobhead. She totally owned him. I said it once before but now i mean it - i am off and i leave dissapointed at the low level of debate and the lack of any redible evidence zupporting bf existence. Enjoy the woods people.
ReplyDeleteGae-rath aka virvil caine on the forum
X
Dang it Gareth don't leave man.
DeleteYeah man, we love you man, don't do it. Don't let those mean people get you down man. You are the backbone of this blag man, everybody knows that man.
DeleteParty on Garth.
DeleteParty on Wayne.
DeleteDamn gareth the tater aint left yet why should you.
ReplyDelete@ MM. We all hate you because of your pompous attitude! You provide bigfoot research with absolutely nothing other than a black eye and ridicule due to your ridiculous approach to human communication. You are one of the many reasons BFers are pointed and scoffed at. Shut your stinking mouth, listen and then think long and hard about your response before puking out a misogynistic prick of an answer. I’m a BF believer and I do like your website as a reference to the vast number of eye witness accounts. Other than that you’ve provided BF research with NOTHING! Stop traipsing through the woods while banging on trees (I know you claim you discovered it…thanks Al Gore) and screaming like a moron. You’ll get a lot farther!
ReplyDeletedamn right!!!!
DeleteHe has the right to be pompous. Most things bigfoot researchers have learned about sasquatches over the last 20 years have been because of him directly or indirectly.
DeleteSee how many big, positive developments in bigfoot research you can list from the past 15 years that had nothing to do with him.
Like....
DeleteErm name TWO, actually as you're attributing most to him, name SIX that are proven absolutely without a shadow of doubt to be Sasquatch?
DeleteSaying Sasquatch hasn't been proven to exist :)
open-mindednessis something people on the left always say they have, BUT never show. Just a fact of life Honey get used to it!
ReplyDeleteRegardless of MM's assertions being true or false,some of you need to look up logical fallacies. You fail at argumentation automatically by using them. Not calling anyone out specifically , but I know who the worst offenders are. If you want to make valid arguments they have to follow LOGIC. This is one of the biggest flaws in how many approach their assertions. If you want people to take you serious, take an entry level community college writing course and you can learn all about them. It's really not that complicated. While your at it, check out the straw man fallacy or ad hominem fallacy. I am sick of reading them on these blogs. If you don't know what logical fallacies are, or choose to use them anyways, then you are not contributing anything to the debate.
ReplyDeleteThis entire site is nothing but logical fallacies. If you expect to see an actual philosophical debate here, you will wait a long time. The majority of people in the world do not understand logic, so they use the, "if A equals C, then B equals D". In order to get people to understand their point of view they use the easiest way. Even the majority of scientific discovery used logical fallacies to prove things. As most philosophical debate is above the average person, especially on here, using it would just confuse people. So I use the same methods as whoever I am trying to convince of something. It is what they are most likely to understand.
DeleteInteresting, so because science has not documented something it can't exist?
ReplyDeletePersonal revelation counts for nothing? Nice that science is so open minded *sigh*
So the only people allowed to communicate are those fully understanding logical fallacies? That rules out most folks with an IQ below 100 I would guess!!!
Seems to me that the skeptical community believes that only the educated and intelligent science cultists have the right to be heard.
Yet again skepticism is showing its elitist head.
Most believers are DUMB, you will never engage nor educate them by using philosophy, Latin, logic and science. You need to dumb down guys and gals.
We can't prove BF doesn't exist and IF it does we need the input of people that believe they have encountered it. I can't prove that unicorns exist and if someone tells me that they have seen one and know what it sounds like - and then play me a recording - I can't disprove their personal experience, I may be skeptical as to whether it really is a unicorn but IF analysis shows that it has no match with known species, then surely it ticks a box somewhere as an unknown entity? One tick towards the unknown makes the case for a unicorn more probable but is not prove positive of its existence.
Do I believe that BF exists? No, I don't. Do I KNOW that BF exists? No I don't. I don't know that it doesn't exist either.
What amuses me is the higher profile that these kind of cases get because skeptics rush to defend fellow skeptics, making these type of experiences more tangible than they really should be. Any publicity is good publicity and it seems to me that more skeptics are interested in things like BF than their are 'believers'. If skeptics left these people alone sites like these would be getting 95% less traffic and the 'word' or 'message' wouldn't seem so prolific.
Skeptics are as much of the problem as are the delusional believers.
Man, what a pugsley faced bitch. You posted above who think shes hot need shot.
ReplyDeleteBig jim- I mostly agree with you. The people in the comment column are not contributing in an intelligent way. I was actually talking about the people that Shawn allows to post articles. Again not saying names, but they are suppose to be above this ridiculous banter, instead they stoop to their level. I guess what I am getting at is that if you are incapable of presenting information in a logical way then you are incapable of making a scientific discovery. As for the people who think that academics are snobs, that is hilarious because its true, but it's true for a reason. I don't go to a witch doctor to get my tonsils taken out, I go to a Ph. D. Academics are snobs because they worked hard to become EXPERTS. So yes an actual scientist may seem arrogant, but that is because they are trained in scientific analysis. For Bigfoot to be accepted by the public, it is going to have to be accepted in the academic community. That is just the way it is. Also Big Jim, I agree it is impossible to have intellectual debate on these forums, but I thought that maybe we could find a few souls that have something to contribute. I think the best approach would be to ignore comments that are obviously out of line, and only address those with relevant information. This would not eliminate skeptics or believers. It would only limit the conversation to people capable of reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% on some of the articles. I skip reading many for exactly the reasons you list. I do the same with all the trolls on this site. Sometimes I wonder if this forum is a doorway to Middle Earth with the number of trolls in it. But academics don't have to be snobs, just because they paid for a couple pieces of paper does not give them rights to be snobs. There are as many doctors who screw up and misdiagnose as car mechanics who fix the wrong part. I also know several academics and PhD's who are down to earth, every day Joe's and Jill's as I do uneducated snobs who think the birds sing for them. If academics want to change their image, it is up to them. If they are truly so much better than others, they should be setting the example for the rest of the world.
DeleteDisclaimer- I am NOT defending skeptics or believers. I am simply stating that the conversation must be reasonable. I am sick of "you're wrong because you're stupid". That does not make sense. Just make sense. That's all. It's not hard. Okay, maybe for some it is.
ReplyDeleteYeap.
DeleteMoneymaker is a fatty.
ReplyDeleteSee?
DeleteI hate the whole "you can't prove a negative" argument. shut your trap, gear up and go out into the woods. Get off your computer and your twitter and your blogs and experience the world. Then you can see what's truly out there. Scientists prove what can't happen all the damn time. It's called a failed hypothesis.
ReplyDelete