Moneymaker on team taser

I had to come back inside to speak more about the Moneymaker interview that Ridock and the team recently completed.

I think Moneymaker lost whatever credibility remained with his comentary on Sasquatch's paranormal capabilities.. Sorry but that's where I jump off the bus..anyone else agree?

1. Communicating/Intimidating with luminescent eyes that can be turned on at will
2. Infrasound beams that project some forn of energy and acts as a weapon, that he likened to a point of light that could move in a line up a leg.

Well I think some other issues:
Team Tazer and Matt all sat blasting on Melba's DNA report but slight problem

1.) Matilda some of the DNA comes from Matilda
So Matt saying it is real and yet turns and Blasts Melba is strange since the DNA would prove that Matilda is a Bigfoot and real.
2.) Team Tazer either was kissing Matts ass saying how great he is, yet we look at the Evidence and Mike and them Blasting Matt many times.

Its what I have seen typical of people in the hunt for Bigfoot.
None of the groups play nicely together they all love to make fun of each other.

They should be working together or just focusing on their work

Then of course Team Tazer and Matt say Melba is all about Money.

Wait!!! Matt has a TV show .... Ummmm how much does he get paid?
Team Tazer has a Documentary coming out Hmmmm how much will we need to pay to see that?

MylesLI wrote:1. Communicating/Intimidating with luminescent eyes that can be turned on at will

That could be troublesome in the woods with fireflies..."What you say about my mama?!...Nothing man honest!"

MylesLI wrote:
1. Communicating/Intimidating with luminescent eyes that can be turned on at will
2. Infrasound beams that project some forn of energy and acts as a weapon, that he likened to a point of light that could move in a line up a leg.

Sea creatures have both these same capibilities. Why would you consider them to be "paranormal"?

Because it would be unique for any primate and because it's commonly referenced as paranormal behavior in the threads that consider Sasquatch to be of alien origin. I believe that the exisitence does not require capabilities beyond that of a large bi-pedal "animal". If I apply the "Paulides/Harvey" model they are much more human and require even less extranormal evolution to be an effective and invisible forest dweller.

MylesLI wrote:Because it would be unique for any primate

Visible bioluminescence would be unique for any known terrestrial vertebrate species, let alone just primates or even just mammals.

Matt mentioned in the Interview that Humans have a bit of this ability just at a very very low level and we don't know how to turn it on and off.
He even mentioned the child in Japan or china that had a slight glow from his eyes.
So if this child did have it, it could be a recessive mutation that we lost.
Or that in his mtdna/and NDA he is from a Bigfoot human matching if we go by Melba's concept. So it could be possible.

~Note:
I am just speculating on this. Matt said part of it in his interview with Team Tazer.
I am just wrapping the package into a possible situation if we go the possible DNA presented.

CMcMillan wrote:He even mentioned the child in Japan or china that had a slight glow from his eyes.

He's probably referring to Nong Yousui. It's claimed that he has excellent night vision and if you shine a torch in his eyes they reflect back "like a cat's eyes" but the original news report doesn't say anything about his eyes actually emitting light so this is an alleged case of tapetum lucidum, not bioluminescence. The report doesn't actually show his eyes reflecting light either - they talk about it a whole lot but there's no actual footage of it happening. If he actually did have tapetum lucidum it would show up really clearly when you shone a torch in his eyes even in a well lit room. Note that they claim that they took an eye specialist to check him out but the specialist never appears onscreen to give his opinion. The father also talks about getting the kid's eyes checked when he was younger and that doctor just told them not to worry and that his eyes would be fine when he grew up.
Also note that the closeup image of his eyes at the very end of the report has been photoshopped to look a lot brighter and his irises have been altered to look diamond-shaped instead of round. There's a closeup of his eyes earlier in the report and apart from being blue "like a Westerner's" they look totally ordinary.
This article about the case explains that he might possibly have a mild form of ocular albinism.

So the story about a kid with glowing eyes turns out to be about a kid with weird coloured eyes (which could have a completely mundane explanation) and a sensationalistic news report that makes claims about his eyes reflecting light but completely fails to show that and which apparently consulted an eye expert but then didn't interview him on screen.


This is why it's important to use precise language when describing an observed phenomenon. If someone describes something as 'glowing' that's especially vague and could variously mean 'emitting light', 'reflecting light', 'intensely coloured', 'glittering', 'shiny' or even 'healthy' or 'intensely emotional'. It's incredibly easy for someone to mean one thing and for other people to assume they meant something different and for the misinterpretation to get widely reported, as in this case where Moneymaker apparently thought the kid's eyes were bioluminescent when that was never the case.