Leaderboard

Dr. Bindernagel is not science, he's a scientist whose opinion doesn't match the vast majority of others in his field, meaning there's an extremely good possibility he's mistaken. WSA's legal advice will never trump science when dealing with actual science. His "discernment" counts for naught when actually determining if reports are true as he will freely admit after having it pointed out and explained to him enough times - just check out the many threads where he has tried to post such nonsense. It doesn't matter how badly you want the tales from the ten acre Sassy corral in OK to be true, they will have to be proven with evidence, not stories about how they can't or won't collect evidence. The mystery may be all folks like WSA and you need, science and scientists want proof but need actual evidence to get there. We aren't dealing with "unexplained ideas", we are dealing with a lack of physical evidence which can't be replaced by anecdotal sighting reports no matter how many times you ineptly post the ridiculous idea that it can or should. Scientists, real honest to goodness scientists can find no proof of Sassy but it's not from lack of trying or even using cutting edge techniques. NAWAC can't find proof of Sassy (or even scat, video, photos or blood on a 10 acre property they supposedly cover well every year since 2000?) even though they claim numerous up close sightings and interactions including drawing blood during shootings. Even Sassyfoot has given up on trying to prove Sassy and she has a NAWAC style hab site in her backyard. Maybe folks like Sassyfoot and groups like NAWAC are involved in government sponsored psy ops, maybe not. Which is more likely and why according to our poor western educational teachings?

It's not laziness on Meldrums part to not perform a little due diligence on Mr.Standings background and history? Or perhaps he did so such, and saw no red flags? Which is it, do you think?

I have always thought the mind of a truly inquisitive researcher doesn't ever consider and weigh the possibility of being labeled "gullible." It is sort of like being proud to have been a fool for love. You have to put yourself out there to fall on your face if you want to accomplish anything worthwhile in this world. If you're more protective of your cherished reputation, and less interested in advancing scientific knowledge, you'll not have the respect of anyone who really matters anyway. Better to fail trying. If Meldrum steps into it on occasion, and has to step back, so what? All that matters to me is his theories are well founded in what he knows about primate anatomy and the natural world. Keep on falling on your face Dr. Meldrum, I say. Maybe just maybe he finds what we all want to see while doing that. I for one am inspired by that approach to life, and would that some of his critics had half the sand he exhibits. To them I say: What have you dared to fail at recently that is of an equal and as public a venture ?

They'll move things around, but they usually don't "take" things. After all, they don't have pockets and move around from area to area. They might pick up and carry a small item of interest, but it is hard for me to believe that they would carry something for days, or for any distance. The one thing they will take is something they consider to be food. They will often consume it on the spot, unless it is alive (small pet or small livestock). They don't tend to carry away large quantities of food, but they can eat all of the fruit off of a tree overnight, leaving the pits strewn about. They will take a bite out of a vine ripe tomato, then throw away the other half. Apparently tomatoes look good, but don't actually taste good to them. All according to my friends living on Table Rock Lake in Stone County, Missouri. What puzzles me was that the entrails were nearby and undisturbed. Was the liver also in the bucket? If so, is it possible that liver was tainted by mixing with the contents of the digestive tract? Apparently they take care to separate the liver without rupturing the intestines in a fresh kill. Some speculation: they don't usually have access to skinned animals, and seem to like the softer bits. It may be that it was as simple as a curious taste test of that softer area, exploring the taste and texture of the skinned animal. They've also been reported to collect deer legs, probably for their marrow, and that joint is where they would naturally separate the leg from the deer. Since the legs were tied, it may be that they couldn't conveniently wrench one free and may have considered chewing the leg at the joint to make it easier to separate. Perhaps it was interrupted.

It has always been my feeling that Standing actually has had a BF encounter. He just wanted to capitalize on that be famous and make some money. Encounters are not an easy thing to repeat and totally out of your control. So in order to promote himself, make a film, and be a notable, he may have fabricated things. Once he started down that road it was just a matter of time before people figured it out. Meldrum probably bought into it early before it became obvious with the Muppet. Standing went into damage control mode and in November of 2014 he made a desperate attempt to save his reputation at the Sasquatch Summit. Did not work and actually from my point of view hurt him and totally destroyed his credibility. I think he realized that himself and he has gone off the radar now. You have to realize that most TV programs are filmed months before they are aired. Meldrum or Les Stroud for that matter did not know what Standing had been doing when they were associated with him. A lot of that happened later.

From all your posts that I've read I'm not convinced at all you understand how science works. If I applied science in your manner, if I found a website that had 10k reports of dragons they would then exist. Anyone that contradicted it I could just repeat your mantra, science isn't looking or applying any effort.

Then why does consistency and the volume not product more hard verifiable evidence? I'd say its just as easy to claim that the likes of shows like Finding Bigfoot and the various websites such as BFRO put into peoples mind the "ideal" bigfoot thus false reports follow the patterns laid out by those sources.

Without getting into the existence argument and simply looking at this from the physiological possibility aspect: There was a period when megafauna were common. This was during the Ice Age when the air was richer in oxygen. This was due to both the cooler air temperatures and higher air pressures at coastal elevations which were hundreds of feet lower than today. Both effects resulted in denser, more oxygen rich air. More oxygen rich air, in combination with sufficient diet, enabled larger body sizes to be achieved physiologically. So it would be possible for the development of a megafauna hominid (or pongid). Homo Erectus was around six and a half feet tall and Homo Heidelbergensis was taller. Then on the pongid side you have Gigantopithecus Blacki. With regard to the size distribution of bigfoot reports, if I'm not mistaken, the average height correlates to the latitude, with smaller average heights reported and warmer latitudes. The question remains, though, why would a contemporary bigfoot retain its megafauna characteristics today? One might speculate that its larger size still supports significantly greater lung volume and, thus, better oxygenation. Even so, one would expect the relative oxygenation to be less under contemporary climate conditions. If so, then bigfoot might well be smaller than they once were. Are 16 foot tall specimens possible given these considerations? I think a physiologist could probably answer that question.