Leaderboard

What is most instructive here is that the above "quote" is actually an excerpt from the article, and not a direct quote from Dr Meldrum. Whether this was understood by dmaker when he started this thread is something I can only speculate about. Context is key in cases like this, and as Meldrum's email to Wingman1 shows, there was no context because he never made the "quoted" statement to begin with.Soooo... Five pages debating a statement that was never made. Bigfootery is nothing if not consistent.

Here is something that may help clear all of this up for you folks. I emailed Dr. Meldrum earlier today regarding his comment that sparked the 1 in 10,000 debate. I asked him if he could elaborate a bit more about his comments about the 1 in 10,000 sightings reports are likely to be true. The following is what he wrote back to me ---- I said something to the effect that the animal most likely to be misidentified as a Sasquatch is probably a bear. In an unrelated comment on estimates of population size, concerning the rarity of Sasquatch, I indicated that there could well be 1000, perhaps even 10,000 bear for every one Sasquatch in a given state, e.g. Idaho. That was a bit of hyperbole -- Turns out Idaho has about 20,000 black bear (http://www.blackbearsociety.org/ bearPopulationbyState.html).I have suggested Idaho may have 50-75 sasquatch by my rough estimate. So that's what, 250-400 bear for each Sasquatch? The point is, Sasquatch are in all likelihood very rare and an encounter with more common wildlife is more likely and must be discounted objectively, before concluding an encounter with a Sasquatch. Hope that clears things up. Jeff Meldrum, PhD Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Dept. of Biological Sciences Idaho State University 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007 Pocatello, ID 83209-8007 It clears it up nicely for me.

maybe BF saw wills chainsaw and got scared...

Take a seat before you finish reading this, but I'd venture to say that due to Dr. Meldrum being a human being, he's fully capable of being wrong. No really. He could be wrong. He's just throwing a randomly, non-testable number out there to sound sincerely authorative. So..... that's life in a nutshell.

Truly, all things are possible. But not probable or even remotely likely when it comes to bib-wearing Sassy smoking on the caboose platform. Pick yer fights Nope, doesn't parse. Never will until you can explain and defend an argument over why a Sassy database is more reliable than one for alien abductions or fairies. Again, it's not personal - it's just how logical reason works. If you can't defend your position...?

One could argue, here in this thread specifically, that the reason nothing has been found despite all the cameras and people in the woods after all this time is because there is nothing to find. Hence why the public does not care. The general public realized a long time ago that there is no such thing as a bigfoot. It is completely a folkloric curiosity and, as such, will not generate a huge amount of steady interest. Others will say, of course, that the beast is just super elusive. One thing that is certain: there is no end in sight.