Leaderboard

<the bottom line is the issue will never be resolved here, but out there.> True, no real way to know for certain. I guess it's possible a BF had lain there and then an Elk, but with there being Elk prints but no BF or bear prints, I go with Elk.

I don't recall there being any bigfoot tracks in the cast either. Wasn't the site full of elk hair? I know Henner found one possible sasquatch hair which even he claimed was weak sauce. http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/index.asp Physical Anthropologist and author, Dr. Grover Krantz Journalist and author, John Green Wildlife Biologist and author, Dr. John Bindernagel Their conclusions: The imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch. Meldrum was involved also. Chilcutt even found dermal ridge similar to one's he has previously identified with sasquatch. 200 pounds of hydro-cal poured is gonna leave a lot of dermal ridges. All of the big players are vested.

To tell the truth Martin, I pay very little attention to the cavalcade of clowns out there. They are useful only to emphasize those who are going about it in a wholly different way. I like them only for entertainment value, and even for that purpose my gag reflex doesn't let me keep my attention there for long. We have folks though (you?) who can't tell one from the other. This must make the ability to tell good evidence from bad very hard.

What I have heard Bob say several times that he did not feel like Patty was a treat to either of them because most of the time Patty was moving away from them. He has said, that if Patty had turned on Roger, he would have shot her but other than her size and potential for danger, he did not think her an immediate threat. Remember that their reason for being there was to get film of BF in the wild to make a movie they could make money showing. A lump of dead bleeding out BF would not be very entertaining or even showable in movie theatres. In that day and age blood and gore was rarely shown in movies.

Every once in a while someone goes off of the reservation and we get a glimpse into the inner circle of evidence. Moneymaker touted "Matilda" as possibly the best ever and even assigned his bigfeet to have canine facial features. Then we all got a look at "Matilda" which was actually a Chewbacca mask and thanks to Bill M. was quickly debunked. As long as "Matilda" was held in confidence by a small group they could all tout the woo about what they had been priviledged to see.... They use inner circle infomation as a carrot to build loyalty within their groups. People feel special when they are have "inside information". When things become public the con-men lose control of the narrative. That's why bigfoot almost always boils down to unverifiable or secret evidence. All of these groups have different standards in acceptable evidence and attract like minded people. We see claims of multiple species. This seems to primarily come from the various group-centric unverifiable evidence they accept.

I don't buy it either. So I watched and read everything that came out on this story, looking for inconsistencies or something that would support my feeling that it was all hogwash... and I have yet to find anything that allows me to completely dismiss the whole idea that he is telling it how he thinks it happened. The fact that Bart Cutino and several others, who I think would have outed him as a hoaxer, had they found good reason, since they spent their own money on the labwork done on the steak... the fact that they believe the guy makes it that much more confusing.

I live in Washington State, we have an abundance of deer here. Some people put out feeding stations for these vermin, and they flock to it because they know they will get their fill. I, on the other hand, prefer to not feed the vermin and they don't bother me or my property. Oh, an occasional ignorant one will stray through once in a while, but after he finds that he won't get what he needs to survive from me, he moves on to the next area that has the feeding station and he gets more than his fill from them. I find internet trolls to be of the same ilk. Don't be a feeding station for trolls and they will soon migrate to another area to get their fill. Bon Appetit !

Smeja's shooting story? In short, don't believe it.

LOL, you said the same bs there, that none of us know anything, we don't know how to look at evidence, etc, etc. Here's what you said about it. When I see backstory like that...you got my attention. First thing I thought: bogus website. I got tired of working that angle, very quickly. Backstory will do that. (Edited to add: so will finding so many legit links that you gotta be kidding me working that angle.) So will a track of the kind the video would lead one to expect, and a video of the kind the track would lead one to expect...plus over *300 meters* of such tracks...going right to the camera. Edited to add: plus a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes; plus these scientists looking for other evidence, and how 'bout, finding hair that no one can match with anything known. To anyone tossing the usual scoff brickbats all I can say is: the denial is strong in that one, Luke. That's what they refer to as being hoisted by your own petard. There you go, calling everyone else stupid again after you yourself did something stupid. Does it make you feel better about yourself to think you are so much smarter than everyone else? Does it ease the sting of that April Fool's Day video you fell for? Horse Hockey! I never said anything to Cotter or about him. Are the voices in your head saying I did? Don't listen to them. No, no. Haven't you been paying attention. DWA knows bigfoot exists and the rest of us are stupid. The world is his big windshield and we are the bugs.

I agree with the DNA approach as I'm not prokill, not just because I think they are a hominin but also that I don't believe anyone would be able to retain possession of the specimen. I often hear the argument that without a body, you wouldn't be able to tell what the DNA is from. This is born from a lack of understanding how DNA is studied / matched to knowns or it's similarity to knowns. So far the problem seems to be that it is too close to human. Below is a link to how it would be done at a minimal expense provided it's NOT human. http://ibarcode.org/hajibabaei/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/benchmarking-dna-barcodes-an-assessment-using-available-primate-sequences.pdf

You do that and you'll find bigfoots everywhere. Many of these stories merely decribe a human living wild. However, there is no doubt many can be construed as being a bigfoot, they usually are described as very tall and nocturnal, but I need more than that to say they are describing a bigfoot. Many of these stories specifically state they are just "indians" and also tell how they use fire and other human ways. I've also seen quite a few of these stories mention coyote (the trickster, but with a name like Yuchi I think you know what I mean and it doesn't need explanation) so that, to me at least, indicates it is nothing more than a Native American fairy tale. I also dismiss connections to bigfoot between skinwalkers or the Wendigo. And mind you, I'm not saying all are not describing what we would consider a bigfoot, many do, I just don't see as many that I would say "Yeah, they're talking about a BF" as others do.

Oh, we had fun with the Fouke word. I told everyone back in camp I found the Fouke monster, he's out in the woods Fouking. My brother was known as the Fouke monster for awhile.

We haven't diluted our resources in Area X. The reason we "expanded" was to include the states we currently have members in. We want to encourage sighting reports to come in from those states so they can be investigated. It in no way impacts the resources available to Area X. Martin stated: Why then go to all of the expense (additonal tax reporting alone would be considerable) of becoming a 501c3 non-profit? Only reason I can think of, if your not getting donations, is to make members camping trips tax deductible... It’s neither expensive nor time consuming to be a 501c3. Several groups are 501c3 - I sit on the Board of one. The reason why we did it was to separate ourselves from other groups like the BFRO that were profiting from bigfooting by charging people for expeditions, selling merchandise, and generally not accountable to their members. The BFRO doesn't have any rules - its a whim on who becomes a member and when they are kicked out. A 501c3 has to have a purpose (like for education), bylaws, a Board of Directors, membership is voted on, the BOD is voted on and serve terms, there are regular meetings, no one can make a profit, etc. There are a host of very good reasons to be a 501c3.

The NAWAC has never received a dime from Wally - where in the world did you even get that? There isn't even a rumor of Wally being involved with us. If Wally had given us $250,000 - we'd already be done with the deed. But as it sits, we scrape by with member dues and an occasional donation of very little. The Falcon project never got any money hence why it folded. Where in the world did you get a figure of $400,000 for Meldrum? Wally gave equipment to the BFRO - the cash went solely to Matt Moneymaker (and there is no way to know that total, so don't even bother). I know Wally bought the film rights to the "Squeeky" film, funded Melba's failed work, and supported Matt Moneymaker and the Olympic Project. Adrian Erickson spent money on the Pancake video/property (again associated with Matt Moneymaker). There is very little "money" going to serious researchers and groups. Most, if not all, goes to very few individuals. To me, this thread is pointless. There is simply no way to know the who's and/or the amounts - it will all be unfounded rumors. If people want to list amounts and who the donator was and to whom it went, it needs to be properly cited to source.