No wonder many people think we are all loopy.

NEXT!

The important question is - and the veracity of the whole episode depends on this -teaspoons or dessert spoons?? Knowing this could make a vital difference to the time frame for the events.

The only answers I got were avoidance, deflection and diversion.

I have come to almost the same conclusion that Melissa Hovey has. However, my conclusion does differ from her conclusion on one aspect. It is not always money that is the motivating factor for such nonsense. Sometimes the motivating factor can be implied power, acknowledgements, or just getting your name out there as some kind of enlightened authority on Bigfoot. I think these are the motivating factors that have come into play for Mr. Johnsen, although I will admit that, initially, money and sales may have been the motivating factors. Both go hand in hand. For the more DVDs you sell, the more money you make. Also, the more DVDs you sell, the more your name gets out there and from the public’s perception, the “perceived enlightened authority” figure comes into play.

As for me and my thoughts: Initially I was open to any theory from anyone. I then put those theories to the test by listening to the data and how that data adhered to scientific principles and the scientific method. I then objectively evaluate the scenario. Based on how the theory stands up on data alone and through analysis of the data, one can prioritize the theory against other theories. This one holds a low priority. My humorous UFO BF Abduction Theory holds more weight than this ludicrous proposal. The only difference is that my theory was absolutely comic relief. The sad thing is, this theory and the proposers of this theory, actually believe what they are putting out there.

There is one difference between a joke and this absurd theory. If someone questioned me, I would laugh and say, “Yes, I was only joking around to show how ridiculous a theory could be.” In the case of Mr. Johnsen, he will attack the questioners to the point of making borderline libelous statements and make himself a victim. He will also avoid any objective and serious questions. He will deflect the conversations away from the questions or he will divert the discussion of his theory away to something else.

The problem for him is that unlike some, I keep my promises. I promised I would put him to task and I did. I also promised him that I would challenge this theory with facts as soon as he has answered my questions. And I will. The only problem is that I am still waiting for him to answer my questions after–what is it now?–four attempts. Ms. Hovey is in the same boat as I am in. We have both asked the same questions for some time now and have both experienced the same tactics and results.

We have all waited a long time for the proof of the missing stick in BF hand, the braids or ponytail, and other types of explanations. I have a feeling we will all be waiting a few more years as the proposers of this theory try to accomplish their motivating factors for proposing it in the first place. But maybe, just maybe, some type of civil litigation could take place within the next three years because certain individuals crossed the libelous line and now have opened themselves up to being put to task. But instead of being put to task in an open forum, they might now find themselves open to being put to task in a court of law for things they have said. I guess it is just a matter of how much time and effort a certain individual is willing to spend or how far other individuals are willing to continue their proposterous theories. What is that we all hear? Oh, that is just silence from the Johnsen camp when questioned about the details of the theory. Ruff, ruff or rough rough! That is either the sound of an attack dog here at Cryptomundo, according to Mr. Johnsen or that was the sound of the theory holding any tidbit of credibility as it is put to task. Yes, it is a rough theory. And yes, ruff-ruff is the sound coming from me if you want to call me or anyone that questions absurd allegations as “attack dogs”.

In accordance with my promise to you: Mr. Johnsen, when are you going to answer the questions that were posed to you?

Sheesh…

Good post, Loren…

But I am not surprised.
I have seen it before.
Too many times.

It appears to me now that anyone, can at anytime, without a shred of evidence, make up anything about Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin, and the film that was shot in 1967.

Not only can they make stuff up, they can expose it to the public via a national radio show. They can assassinate the character of Mr. Gimlin, and show no evidence to support their story.

But it also became quite clear on a certain Bigfoot e-mail list that no one has the right to ask for, let alone receive, any evidence this pair of carnival barkers claim they have. We are all just supposed to let this “theory” stand there like a proud statue.

No questions please…

Or was that pigtail? Or pony?

I GET SOOOOOO CONFUSED…

So it always is with stuff like this. No evidence; transparent ignorance in relevant fields of study; and nothing to back anything up when it is politely asked for.

Squatchers have no one to blame but themselves when they give nonsense like this an audience. DEMAND EVIDENCE, WILL YOU? Real scientists don’t say a THING until the proof is in, chopped fine, and transcribed to PowerPoint.

Learn a lesson here! Giving overheated rants like Davis’s the light of day is the problem, not the rants themselves.

Do you thank the janitor for keeping the school clean? Or do you go, wow, CLEAN SCHOOL! Wanna be the principal?

Take what MK has to offer; and decline when what’s on offer clearly goes beyond his capacity to deliver.

Is this so hard?