Leaderboard

Key word in Dr. Meldrum's statement is "ALL" evidence. As far as I can see, at least lately is that ALL evidence has not been logically investigated. In other words, IMHO, ALL the evidence is in the PGF. It has everything one needs in order to draw a conclusion. But ALL the aspects of the creature in the film had not been prominently investigated if the current dialogue regarding Patty's existence as a real creature has not been settled. Only past experts had brought up shoulder span but for some odd reason the significance of that aspect of the creature has not been realized as being to one thing that cannot be ignored. It's the one thing that settles the issue. More needs to be done, but only in the area of determining the best way of showing the truth of the matter. No one can deny that there is a lot riding on this. Is it important enough to concentrate any efforts into it? Oh yes it is because it goes far beyond mechanisms such as arm extensions, sticks inside of suits with fake hands at the ends of them, padding of any kind, and other types of prosthetics that would of had to have been thought of before anyone ever picked up the film camera. Besides, none of those solutions would have resulted in anything looking natural like what is demonstrated in the PGF. This is worth an all out investigation into the matter because even my somewhat primitive investigation has already shown what should be obvious as far as not being able to fake Patty. It's even more obvious in the stabilized version of the film. Patty's motion compared with Patty's shoulder width truly says it all. And that's what a new, current, logic and focus should be aimed at. This thread will be a week old tomorrow. So far, no detractors. That says something.

Simple solution? Post a few game cameras. No more stolen crops. Voila.

To me, the truth is that the whole Ketchum affair was a classic case of garbage in, garbage out, bad science. It wasn't an intentionally dishonest scam, just a methodologically incompetent, fantasy-driven embarrassment. For a while now, I've been noticing that the overall Bigfoot community seems to suffer from fad-like phases of differing points of attention or emphasis. For instance, the Glickman report represents the height (or last throes?) of data-driven, analysis-based investigation of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Shortly after its publication, and coincident with the rise of the BFRO, there was a shift to "fieldwork." The result was a sort of "citizen science" trend that, while well-intended, often manifested as troops of clueless amateurs trampling through the woods on glorified camping trips, spooking every bit of wildlife within miles. After that, there was a tendency to "NativeAmericanize" everything about the phenomenon. The height of this phase was Davis' twin "Digger Indian" and "massacre" interpretations of the Patterson-Gimlin film. While it is certainly valuable to acknowledge and benefit from the fact that Native Americans have been encountering Bigfoot for far longer than European-Americans have, the "NativeAmericanization" fad largely ignored the nature of folklore and its mythical aspects in favor of taking every legend at face value. In recent years, the focus has once again shifted in such a way that many "experiencers" have been permitted to set themselves up as self-proclaimed unassailable authority figures on the realities of the Bigfoot phenomenon, with much in common with the "contactee" movement in Ufology decades earlier. I hope I am right in perceiving this fad as trailing off lately. In my opinion, little of scientific value has been accomplished in the Bigfoot field since the early 2000s when this meandering among the pursuit of less scientific emphases really took over the community. Which brings me back to Ketchum. Ketchum emerged more or less at the transition point from the tail end of the "NativeAmericanization" fad to the initiation of the current "experiencer"/habituation fad. Her history in the field strongly suggests that she had already reached her "conclusion," inspired by Native American "maiden snatching" tales, before she ever obtained her first DNA sample. Then, working in conjunction with some of the most pathetically disreputable habituation claimants and other people of questionable integrity, she collected a set of samples of such poor quality and such dubious provenance that they could prove absolutely nothing or absolutely anything, depending on the agenda of the one doing the analysis. With these in hand, she unsurprisingly drew her "conclusion," really just a reiteration of her premise, that Bigfoot was a hybrid between Homo sapiens and another hominid species, resulting from interbreeding that was strongly implied to have been forced. Garbage in, garbage out. It was junk, it should have been expected to be junk from the beginning, and it's time for the Bigfoot community to move on. More fruitful avenues await us.

During the past few decades of investigating reports and conducting research concerning the presence of Bigfoot in the Southern and Southeastern states, I routinely receive information and see evidence that clearly indicates that the primates relish fruits, berries and vegetables from any source. A recent contact with an older gentleman who lives in Southern Missouri who is aware that a group of Bigfoot have foraged on his and a neighbor’s property for years, told me about Bigfoot taking his entire grape crop. The man was not as upset about the overnight theft of his crop of fruit as he was about the Bigfoot’s antics with his two-piece, concrete bird bath. During the hot weather the man filled the birdbath with cold water each afternoon. Every few mornings he would discover the concrete bowl had been removed from its pedestal and brought and set down on the ground near the home’s back door. The first time that occurred he was not sure that someone was not “playing a prank” on him. The man stated the act was not funny to him because he had to carry the heavy bowl and re-install on the pedestal. He complained the he was, “Too danged old to be lifting and carrying the thing and set it back in place every few days.” He had known a group of Bigfoot came onto to his property every few night because he had heard them “hollering, whooping and beating on trees after dark”. He had no problem with them doing that, and had left apples out for them in the back yard in the area of the bird bath. When he continued to find the birdbath bowl on the ground by the back door for a “refill” he became frustrated by the animals’ antics. He didn’t discuss the situation with anyone until his whole crop of grapes – he said a few bushel – disappeared overnight and he found wide, 18” long bare foot prints in the vineyard. At that time he decided to talk to a neighbor who lived about one-quarter mile away. He approached the man by asking him if he had heard any strange animals sound at night. The man told him he had not only heard them many times at night but at times they were close enough to his home that he had determined there were at least five in the group. He told the man that the animals were those called MO-Mo in that state and Bigfoot in other place. During their discussion the neighbor also told him that he had a peach tree that had such an abundance of fruit this season he cut small forked trees from his property to prop up the heavy loads of fruit on the peach tree limbs to keep the limbs from breaking. The neighbor stated that when the fruit ripened he discover that all of the peaches were picked or shaken loose from the tree and carried off during one night. There was no evidence that a human or wild animal had climbed the tree. Both men realized that typical wild animals would eat their fill at the site, and evidence of that would have been obvious on the ground under the tree. There have been numerous reports of Bigfoot sightings from that county in Missouri that have been submitted to well known Bigfoot research groups. The writer has conducted field work in that area, and recorded reports from several respected area residents. This man’s report is typical of many others that I have investigated in various states– except for the birdbath aspect - that is a new wrinkle for me. The other slight differences in the other reports were that the cultivated fruits stolen were usually apples, pears, plums and, in one instance, figs. The most well known case of a Bigfoot foraging on cultivated fruit occurred in a large peach orchard in Chilton near Clanton, Alabama in the 1960s. The orchard’s owner called the county sheriff’s office and reported the routine theft of peaches on the back side of the orchard near the wood line.. An investigator from that office went to the scene. He saw and photographed very large, human-like tracks in the sandy soil. He followed the tracks into the woods and was convinced it was not a human that stole the peaches and left the tracks. The investigator did not mince words. He told the local newspaper reporters what he saw and gave them his opinions. The story was widely covered by TV stations and other newspapers. There have been several cases that I’ve investigated that involve the theft of garden produce by one or more Bigfoot. During the summer months reports of Bigfoot swiping tomatoes, corn in the roasting ear stage, water melons and cantaloupes from gardens in rural areas of the S & SE are fairly common. During the winter they often take turnips and winter onions. In a majority of such cases, the evidence that it was Bigfoot that raided the gardens was their footprints left in the tilled ground. The primary reason for this post is to alert younger Bigfoot “hunters” that their quarry routinely forages on wild fruits and berries, and very often leaves distinctive evidence of the act. Many years ago I first heard one of the animals vocalize about eleven PM on a very cold night in December. For five years I devoted my spare time to try to determine for sure what made that sound. Although I had seen unusual sign and smelled odd and rank odors that I now know were Bigfoot related, it was not until I saw their huge tracks in the thick grass around the perimeter of an “island” of fruit laden blackberry vines that disclosed their identity. In closely examining that blackberry thicket it was obvious the thicket of vines were undisturbed and that for a distance of over three feet inside the perimeter of the thicket nearly all of the ripe berries had been picked. The tracks in the grass closely adjoining the perimeter showed the Bigfoot had taken steps of about four feet, stopped, brought both feet together and reached over the six to seven feet high vines to gather the ripest berries. His tracks showed that the animal approached the exposed blackberry patch from a nearby creek bottom, and returned to the creek bottom when he had eaten the berries within his reach around the edge of the patch. As a point of fact, had it been a black bear that found the berry thicket first, the thicket of vines would have looked as if an ATV had been driven through the entire patch. I have found many good blackberry patches and kept track of the berries’ growth with the intention of harvesting them to make jelly when they were ripe. The black bears beat me to them most of the time. One large patch I was watching was growing in an old clear-cut area near the top of a mountain. The road up the mountain was rough, rutted and in places covered with silt washed off the mountainside. When I knew the berries would be ripe I made rough drive up the mountain. Just before I reached the berry thicket I passed over a layer of red clay. I knew I was wasting my time. I stopped to look at the tracks of a sow bear and her two cubs that were headed toward the patch. I drove to the berry patch as that was the nearest place to turn around. The pristine berry patch looked as if a tornado had flattened it. Many times I have seen medium to large size black cherry trees with the limbs broken off when the fruit was ripe. I always stop to see for sure if it had been a bear, as is usually the case, did the damage. If so, the limbs will have been pulled across the ground to form somewhat of a circle, with the center of the circle showing a large impression of the bear’s butt. A bear will sit on the ground and gorge itself on the fruit. There always seems to be enough berries left for the coyotes. The cherries are a laxative of sorts because the animal trails, roads or open woods near the site are speckled with runny coyote and bear scat. A bear will always leave the marks of its claws on any tree it climbs; but a Bigfoot seldom leaves toe or fingernail marks when they do that. When a Bigfoot climbs a large wild fruit tree they will seat themselves and bend the fruit bearing limbs close enough to strip the fruit from the limbs and branches with their mouth. The evidence on the ground will be a sprinkling of mashed cherries, fruit stems and lacerated leaves. When smaller cherry trees are found with fruit, and they want it, they will break the tree several feet from the ground. Usually the tree top is drug to a more concealed spot if it was growing in an open area. Many animals forage on the several varieties of wild grapes that grow in this part of the country. Muscadine grapes will mature and bear fruit when the small vines grow along the ground without support. The fruit from such vines is easy pickings for all animals, including humans. (The fruit makes excellent jelly and wine.) Large muscadine vines that grow up alongside or wrapped around the sides of large trees may reach a height of a hundred feet or more, with multiple branches from the ground upwards. Coyote, fox, raccoon, opossum, black bear, and feral hogs forage heavily on the fruit. Bigfoot does as well, although because of the relatively small population of these animals and the vast and widespread growth of the vines it is rare to find compelling evidence of those animals foraging on muscadine fruit. It is not unusual to find a muscadine vine when the fruit is ripening and see that the vine has been manipulated to cause a lot of both the ripe and green fruit to fall to the ground. Several times I have noticed this situation and spent time determining the cause, Most of the time I could plainly see teeth marks on the lower parts of the vines. Tracks and scat in the area confirmed that a coyote had actually jumped off the ground to grasp the vines with its teeth, and no doubt shook its body to cause fruit to fall. The mature fruit was obviously eaten, but the green, hard fruit was left on the ground. Their teeth marks showed they had grasped the vine, shook it and simply turned loose of it; in other words the teeth did not slip down the vine. In other such cases it was obvious that bear had pulled and shook the vines with both their teeth and paws. In one case a bear had clawed, chewed and pulled on a huge vine for some time without dislodging much fruit because the vine was tightly wrapped around a huge pine tree. Only once have I seen a wild grape vine from which appeared a Bigfoot had removed the fruit, and the fruit was summer grapes. The vine was growing up a small maple tree (about six or eight inches in diameter) near the top of steep ridge which was capped by a sheer sandstone cliff. Below the face of the cliff was a small natural clearing covered by rocks and boulders with some grass and small brush. The tree had been near the center of the small clearing, and was covered by the vines of a summer grape. When I found it in September a few years ago, it had been broken off about five feet from the ground. The top part, with the vine and its roots attached, had been taken about twenty yards and placed against the base of the cliff. At that location there was a flat, protruding ledge that was about five or six feet above the cliff base. It was obvious the tree and vine had been moved fairly recently as there were still some dried leaves attached to both the tree and vine. There were a few dried grapes still attached to the vine, and some on the ground rocks below the ledge. Below the ledge was also a localized mixture of grape stems, leaves small broken limbs from both the maple tree and the summer grape vine. Along the base and sides of that cliff, which extends nearly one half mile, there are numerous ledges that are similar to the one described. All of those ledges are covered by the duff from northern red oak and pine trees that grow in broken gaps along the top of the cliff. It was noted that most of the accumulated duff on the ledge near which the tree top was placed was nearly gone, and what was left had been disturbed. The ironic thing to me was in this very area, nearly fifty years ago, I walked the length of the top of that cliff for the first time, at times having to walk on tree limbs to get across the gaps. It was only a few hundred yards from this natural clearing that I climbed down to the base of the cliff and on my way to the base of the ridge. When I reached the base of the cliff I immediately smelled the most disgusting and obnoxious odor I had ever encountered in the woods at that time. I thought the smell might have originated from a coyote den, but when I began looking around for one, the odor became fainter and fainter until it was gone. Just memories and observation I wanted to share while I still can. Kindest regards to all.

I too was a little puzzled by Gigantor's observations about the OP. He may feel the highest and best use of this Forum is to confirm the existence of the animal. Me, I don't hold out any illusions about that...not gonna happen here. Instead, I do find the information traded to be very, very useful to help me come to an understanding of what, exactly, is going on. I (eagerly) read Branco's post with this in mind. So, he taught me something that could be useful. He taught me, "If you run across something in the woods that might look like this...look for this also, and here is a conclusion you might think about." THAT is always going to get my attention, and I'm always looking for that kind of content here, from people with the field time to back it up. More of that, I say.

As part of the agreements between myself and witnesses who have asked that I personally investigate their enigmatic animal encounters, the locations of the events are not publicly disclosed for all the reasons you have listed plus others. Those four BF research groups that have requested that I investigate reports they receive bind me by a confidentially agreement from releasing information about the name of the witnesses, their addresses and the locations of the encounters if they occurred on private property, primarily for the same reasons you so clearly described. In response to Gig's "easy to track them" question; yes, it would be easy if the witnesses actually wanted to do that quickly after the theft of the fruits/berries. Not so surprisingly, danged few of them that were aware of what had swiped the food stuff cared to follow fresh tracks and encounter a family group of big hairy primates and interrupt the their hard earned meal. In most cases the investigators don't reach the scene for weeks or more after the event, and the trail of tracks and dropped produce may be hard to find and follow. Most folks that have these experiences could care less about "providing evidence" of BF's existence to skeptics who like to pile and heap their meaningless opinions that BF is a myth all over the internet. Those "all knowing folks" with little or no experience with real. day-and night 'boots on the ground" fieldwork are simply like pesky gnats; not much you can do but listen and watch them buzz. Thanks for your spot on post NCBFr.

Gig - Wow, I am a little surprised by this post. What exactly are you implying here? As to not wanting to give away the location, I can certainly understand as I never shared the exact location of our local sightings because: 1. I am not comfortable with locals questioning my family about what we have encountered an the mockery that is bound to result. 2. I did not want a bunch of BF hunters tromping all over my land and neighborhood knocking on trees and whooping in the middle of the night, 3. I did not want any BF hunters looking for the glory of shooting the first one in my backyard. Basically the hassle vs reward trade off does not favor full disclosure. I cannot speak for Tal, but my interest and contributions on this site are nothing like the implications you make in your post. Honestly, sounds to me like you are simply pissed and a little bitter that you have struck out in your endeavor to finding BF. I could say more but will let it rest here.