Sometimes it is all about Malaysia, baby! Sometimes it’s not.
Immediately upon publication of the Sunday New Straits Times article, "Book Has Bigfoot Pictures", following in the wake of the Cryptomundo exclusive on the Johor Mawas photograph story, the BFRO published the Malaysian news item followed by one of their editorializing "commentaries."
The new BFRO comments have more the appearance of a copy of an email sent to Vincent Chow or some one in Malaysia than an editorial directed at the public. Nevertheless, it says a good deal about the current flavor that exists within the BFRO organization as personified by its director, Matt Moneymaker, during these troubled days in which important members are leaving. How is it helpful in speaking to the Malaysians to use sarcastically a phrase like "many splendored things"?
The BFRO has always taken an elitist Western approach in dealing with Malaysian sources, giving them advice and BFRO "insights" on how the Johor investigations should be conducted. The BFRO, mostly as a front to the opinion of one man, has extended this international "advice giving" recently to Nepal, as noted on April 22. Some of the BFRO’s advice, as we have seen, is neither cautious nor factually-based in historical reality.
This new BFRO commentary shows an ugly side to the BFRO that only those within and who have left the group have known about for years. While we may agree with the measured caution expressed, it is the continued nature of the BFRO’s tone and personal level of attacks that is disturbing.
This commentary unfortunately demonstrates why others are questioning the BFRO mission and how vinegar can be its true nature. Such seems to be especially the reality after Penn & Teller fooled them with the fake Sonoma videotape. The BFRO rushed to comment on the Penn & Teller hoax claim in a previous "editorial," declaring that the Penn & Teller statements were false. When it became obvious that, indeed, Penn & Teller had pulled off a hoax, that BFRO commentary was deleted from their site, although it exists as a historical item here and here.
Unfortunately, as has become apparent from how the BFRO issues their paternal and colonial statements to the public on many topics lately, they are hardly in a position any longer to be the authority they feel they are.
Sadly, this most recent "editorial" casts to the world, for all to see, the full nature of the petty and bitter side of organized Bigfootry via the BFRO’s own website.
Here is the item (as of this date):
This would be a bigger story if just one of the alleged photos were shown during the press conference.
We’re assuming your objectives with this book are worldwide interest, widespread acceptance, and the many splendored things that come along with all that. How could these objectives be hindered by releasing one good photo early on, if you’re already giving a press conference about the book? Why not just show one piece of the material?
It’s definitely not a "best practice" among real scientists (as opposed to non-scientist authors who call themselves cryptozoologists) to be melodramatic about photos without actually showing them.
Public expectations about the unseen photos (assuming they are authentic) are bound to rise quickly beyond the actually clarity of the images.
The photos will inevitably fall short of what people imagined. You need to set expectations appropriately from the beginning.
Best to avoid creating false expectations. If you can’t show the photos yet, then you should avoid making a big deal about them.
The copyright owner has nothing to lose by releasing one image, but has everything to gain, especially if there is more than one image.
One good image will sell the book better than 1,000 news conferences or 5 "pulp cryptozoology" bloggers.
————————————————————————
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
Just a reminder, especially with new members and unique readers coming here everyday, sometimes what sounds “like you’ve heard it before” too often, or a seemingly defensive position, or even counter-indicated excitement, actually may be my attempt to give brief historic overviews and develop the story appropriately for all, for newbies to the regulars. And having the links handy to previous stories is part of making this site reader-friendly.
This blog, ulitimately, is about news and information exchange, and I appreciate that people will have their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, and stances on all of this…in the process, much differently than I do.
Best wishes to all
Loren
There are four definitions for commentary/commentaries. They are:
1. A series of explanations or interpretations.
2. An expository treatise or series of annotations; an exegesis. Often used in the plural.
3. An apt explanation or illustration: a scandal that is a sad commentary on national politics.
4. A personal narrative; a memoir. Often used in the plural.
Thus, the meaning of commentary(ies) can go from the extremely editorial to the extremely personal. My use of the qualifying “editorializing” was done with much forethought, as the BFRO commentary took the form of an editorial in my mind, more than a personal memoir from Matt Moneymaker, if it was he who wrote it. It is unsigned, of course, unlike these blogs.
Second, Matt Bille is correct. The BFRO statement ignored many answers already given.
Third, I will not speak for Vincent Chow and other Malaysians. I certainly have seen information leak forth before, earlier than those involved wanted it to occur merely due to the significance of the possible findings. Several media announcements of fossil discoveries and new species finds, these days, are done before formal papers are published. The entire case of the Minnesota Iceman unfolded more rapidly than Sanderson wanted it to.
But with the internet, it is easier than 100 years ago to ask for, demand, and expect instant answers to questions.
See today’s “Pondering the Mawas Situation” for more about this.
Shawshank, please check back in, in the future, after you experience the same fellow that those who have left BFRO in the last few months (including Kathy Moskowitz Strain anthropologist, Alton Higgins, biologist, Chris Whittier, primate specialist, Jeff Meldrum, Jimmy Chilcutt, Rick Noll, etc.) or years ago, (e.g. Ron Schaffner, Bobbie Short, etc.) have. Most of these departures have revolved around matters of money and authority, the details of which anyone can discover by interviewing former “members.”
Yes, Shawshank places a bit of someone’s reality above within those comments about your humble “pulp cryptozoology” blogger. I suppose that I can proudly say that when the BFRO was “created” by one person years ago, via a groups list, I was (after only a few weeks) kicked out of the internal circle of “curators” for asking too many hard inquiries that were never answered, about mission, decision-making, leadership, and more. My media awareness and documentary visibility were not appreciated then. My mild organizational questions were found to be too challenging, even though I never requested or wanted any kind of leadership role in the BFRO. I merely probed as I do all the time about many issues. I was unsubscribed, without explanation.
That I assume is how Matt Moneymaker has conceptualized and discussed my “removal” from the “BFRO.” Who cares? Each to their own reality, projections, and dictatorships. Of course, he may have left out that after I was publicly given the boot, he backchanneled secret discussions with me often, and even later invited me to speak at the Willow Creek symposium during the year my Bigfoot book was being published. (I was later to discover this invitation was sent with no authority, and I was to learn I was not on the published speakers’ list.) I was also asked to contribute to the BFRO website (without credit and without my name being attached to the items), for example, on matters of Ray Wallace and the media.
It has been a long and winding road.