Leaderboard

So, without knowing where or if anything was ever presented by Meldrum, you offer the lack of response to these phantom submissions as support of your point? LOL..ok. You should be more cautious waving the science banner while making demonstrably false statements like you have in this thread. Especially for one who claims to be a scientist. You sure don't come across as one. You seem to fail at grasping basic logic and critical thinking and I sure don't see any evidence of advanced scientific training in your comments.

*sigh* well we could chase each other in circles on that all day couldn't we? The work is of publishable quality if not for entrenched bias! Show me one paper that's published! Chicken! Egg! You assume that because a study is published, it's quality, and I promise that's far from the case too. Soooo much junk science in print, especially in biomedical. I remember what it was like to have my head buried in sand, prior to realizing sasquatch exists. I remember it so clearly, as the proponent case was presented to me, the gradually increasing cognitive dissonance as I began to realize just how often any alternate explanation I could come up with fell so far short of plausible, how often I had to shrug and dismiss. Oh well, as much as I do actually enjoy these back and forths in spite of your mud slinging, I don't like getting this far off-topic, and they do kind of reach these dead-ends. Let me bring it back to Midnight Owl's very first paragraph: Agree or disagree? If you agree, how do you propose to kill one? Just playing lotto? If you disagree, how do you account for such a profound lack of success in obtaining anything concrete?

It's not about proof, it's about what deductions you can logically make given a set of observations. Mendel could look at his garden and deduce that at least some traits were inheritable in a predictable way. He could test his hypothesis by doing certain cross pollinations and deduce a lot more, about dominant and recessive alleles and the patterns they yield etc. It didn't allow him to discover the DNA molecule, or its structure. Is that what was needed to prove his concepts? We have the proof in hand. There's no way the film could be fake, or the footprints that went along with it, or the myriad prints since then, or even the body of sightings as a whole. Plenty of Meldrum's work on morphology deductions from footprint casts would easily be of publishable quality if it were on any other subject. Scientists just don't want to look at it. I'm sorry, and I know he got pretty annoying about it prior to leaving, but DWA was absolutely right on all this. And it's not because of some "higher standard for evidence," it's because of the same entrenched cognitive biases the rest of the population live with. So we need the body to get their attention, right? Because: But the trend I see could not be more the opposite. Awareness and interest in the subject is very much waxing, not waning. There will continue to be nuggets of evidence and footage, of similar quality to what we always see, that push the snowball along, but no body. We'll reach a point where the majority accepts it, and you'll still be buying your lottery tickets with no known odds. Yep, but as I said... not when it comes to sasquatch. Except for performing that very first most basic experiment: 'If they exist, I should be able to follow accepted methodologies and find them eventually, and I'll know because I'll see and hear the same types of things all these people are claiming.' Success first try. Oh yeah and: Not really, no. Just meant to emphasize the novelty of sasquatch, that they defy conventional classification.

Some times to get the results one wants they have to move away from what has been tried. There is always another avenue that no one wants to go down until others have tried. That avenue is the one that may very well be laughed at but gets results. Some have done things that seem strange yet have come out of it with results. Unless one is willing to go down this avenue the result will never be found and knowledge will be lost. How much results has data brought to the table? has these results really brought a creature to the slab for study. Why do certain people keep having contact after contact? In my situation it did not occur until I did things in front of them so that they could see what I was doing in order to have this contact. And it was all done as an experiment. My first contact was cause I wanted the truth. So I want from there till now. Now I am not sure how Midnight Owl made his contact but I am sure that he must have tried some things in trial and error. And then from there he dialed it in to get the results he wanted. This is why being open to things that one might not try works. The data that one finds only helps one where they might be in a present time but does not predict a future time. It gives you little data of what they might be doing and where they might be hunting. If the data that we all do searches on was to help there would be a creature on a slab being tested. We would have more pictures of these creatures with trail cams. We would have a good view of one and not be having these chats. If there was good data then we would know where and how to track one and slap a body on a slab and have it tested. We would not have to wonder into the wilderness looking for them to get a photo or even get a clean shot at one. We would have an exact idea of where to go and retrieve one.Instead we have to sit back and wait for them to come to us. And when they hear us knocking and pretending to act like them they just turn around and walk away from us. Oh yea ! They know us very well and know how predictable we are. Strange when we should have the edge on them not them on us. Naw, Science needs to change the way it thinks and stop thinking that they do not exist cause they really do exist. There is going to come a time when we will no longer find them cause they are going to go so deep in wilderness that we will not be able to follow them. They have the advantage. It is time we understand this.

I think one of the best advantages the Bigfoot/Sasquatch subject has over a substantial number of researchers is the prevalent underestimation of the subject’s level of intelligence and their extraordinary physical abilities. To assume they can easily be herded, lured and baited like a dumb animal didn’t work for me when I began I my quest for reliable answers. They were always one or two steps ahead of me. To believe that a stranger can enter their forested areas of habitation without detection is a primary mistake that I made early in my field endeavors. They are born and raised in these places and know it well like the back of their hand. I eventually learned they know you are there long before you may ever hear a snap, crack, knock, vocal call or tossed rock. If they perceive you as a threat (i.e. carrying a firearm or large camera equipment, lights etc.) and are furtively sneaking and moving about, you are very likely not going to experience any activity at all. I discovered by field experience that their Achilles heel is the powerful nature of curiosity. They can be very, very nosey at times!! LOL! If you casually enter an area looking like just a hiker or day packer-something they may see often-and just hang out in one location, they will come to discreetly observe you and try to figure out what you’re up to. Freely talking and laughing only stokes their curiosity. Cooking food is even a greater attraction especially if they are down wind from you. That doesn’t mean they will come strolling along the roadway or trail to see you. They will use cover and concealment to perfection. Usually staying in the second or third level of cover using the openings and gaps to side peek or peer up from foliage. They may even belly crawl in short grass. From a distance, it may only look like an unremarkable knot on the side of a tree, a shaded area under the dark canopy of trees or a small knoll in the grass. Ninjas of the forest who won’t look out of place. The first photo I have attached as an example was taken while I was working in central Oklahoma at an oil well site out in the middle of nowhere. It was miles off the public highway at the end of a controlled company access roadway. I was in my company truck soaking up the A/C entering work notes that hot summer day. I wasn’t Squatching, but I knew this was a prime location with wood cover, nearby creeks and food sources. The only other person there was a bull dozer operator about 200 yards away working on a new well pad, the noise of it could be heard for over a mile. At some point I began to sense that distinctive feeling of being watched. I looked up over the dash and scanned the front perimeter carefully considering the second levels of cover. As I tuned to my far right, I noticed movement under a canopy of trees about 50-75 yards away but couldn’t make out anything in the dark shaded cover. I kept looking then turned my head back slightly to the left but kept my eyes cut to the far right. Bingo, I saw the sneaky Booger raise up then moved to the left behind a higher clump of brush. He stood there peering at me as I acted like I was interested in something directly in front of my vehicle. The glare on the front windshield possibly prevented him from seeing I was looking right back at him. Without looking down I felt for my camera always keeping my head pointed forward. I got it turned on and lifted it up using the flip out LED screen to locate the subject, zoomed in the telephoto and snap this picture. Right after this, they must have realized I had a camera and ducked away and ran. The way these subject blends in with the vegetation under the dark canopy and the distance (Telephoto make it look much closer than it is) most people would never notice them. The next picture clip is taken from a FLIR scope video I shot earlier this year in southern Kentucky. I was sitting in a folding chair along a closed access road chatting with several other people. We were just hanging out and letting the locals draw into us. It was a partial, late rising moon night, cool with a few light rain showers. The subject in the middle never let more than about a quarter of his face show even in the pitch-dark conditions. Occasionally his shoulder and head would drift out a bit then vanish back in for a brief time. The one that appears to be up in the tree on the right is on a sharp rise peering out from behind the side of the tree more openly. The last FLIR picture clip was taken last year in southern Missouri. I watched this subject and at least two more observing us and moving about on a sharp ledge above a creek throwing rocks at other members of our party. I remained in one location on an opposing rise (30 yards away) partially occluded by a pine tree. I have found they have problems tracking multiple targets of interest. They sometimes overlook or forget about someone remaining still with cover if other individuals move around the immediate area. A sleeper position if you will. It amazes me how even with dark conditions, these subjects can locate and move around so easily and hardly making a sound. Their bursts of speed are amazing too. I really enjoy sharing this stuff I have been blessed with obtaining with interested people. I am not trying to offer proof of their existence and don’t care about changing the skeptical public’s mind. They will believe what they choose to believe. No harm done! Be blessed and safe Midnight Owl

It is standard procedure in ALL DNA labs where the complexity of the sample source is at issue, otherwise the testing is useless. Dr. Todd Disotell will do everything by the book. It's a pretty safe 'assumption'. And since I don't know whether or not the testing has been done yet your past tense may not apply? Anyway, just for reference on the process they are looking to do: http://cryptosightings.com/tag/dr-todd-disotell

When you speak of empty lottery tickets. That is exactly what evidence has been presented. You though I really like your enthusiasm have no case for reaching the conclusions you have reached. However, you did say that with this subject you don't take the scientific approach. I get that. You want it to be real. Just like the rest of us. I think you know as I do. It is wishful thinking and highly unlikely the creature exists.

Let dmaker do the digging. Two blanket statements that do not pertain to a case by case investigation which would take months or years to accomplish. Do you have any support for that statement? Don't know about anyone else but it sure looks like a personal attack to me.

That is simply not true.

Having seen the pictures from the Olympic project of people picking through the nest, I suspect that a lot of human hair will be found. I cringed when I saw that picture. Every hair found that turns out to be human will just obfuscate or make it more difficult to find something not human and at the same time run the costs of testing way up. Even if something interesting is found, just the picture suggests contamination to anyone that sees it.

Show me where he has presented papers to any mainstream journal where they could receive the attention you mention.

Speaking of which, he's hot on the trail with the samples sent to him by Derek Randles' Olympic Project. The nest samples that were sent to him are supposed to go through the new environmental DNA process and I think Dr. Disotell was waiting for the right equipment to do that kind of analysis if it isn't already in his lab. Haven't looked for any recent updates though.

I suspect that Meldrums peers have stated that they have other explanations for his interpretation of footprint analysis pointing towards BF existence. Scientists usually hedge their bets and are not into absolutes like many on this forum. Disotell for example just says show me the evidence. As Norseman points out, footprints are not conclusive for many reasons.

If Patty was shot, the film would have been confiscated as evidence and we would have never seen it.

There is no guarantee that shooting Patty would have made any difference. I have a strong suspicion the government would have stepped in and taken the body and we would be in the same position we are today with one less BF in the world and probably lost the best video to boot.

As a fellow scientist I think a specimen is unnecessary. And I do absolutely think "harvesting a specimen" in this case is immoral, but that's not really the reason I choose to butt heads on the topic anymore; they don't need people like me looking out for them. It's because I treasure my experiences with them, even as limited as they are compared to many others', and I just want that for other people. I believe they want that for people too. You simply can't have those encounters through the scope of a rifle. Going out there and approaching them with earnest respect is the established methodology, it is the only experimental design that gives consistent, repeatable results. I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge their advantage and stubbornly insisting on only considering results obtained in the most technical and technological ways is in any way scientific. We've already learned far more about them from "go and see" than we ever could from a body on a table. The real reason we need the body is to grab peoples' attention, and scientists have no different stake in it from laymen in that regard.