Meldrum is a knower now?

[Huntster]

38 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said:

.........I have seen the numerous anti-Standing posts, but have yet to see anything that proves him to be a fraud. If there is some sacred knowledge that the more informed have, I would be more than happy to review it. 

 

I have no knowledge of any "proof" that Standing is a fraud. My exposure to the allegations of his fraudulence goes back way more than 8 years. I discounted all things Standing at least 20 years ago. That is based on "conjecture": an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.........which is what the entire sasquatch phenomenon is. Conjecture. 

 

This is a world of conjecture. We are awash in it. Completely immersed. Nothing is proven. Opinion is pretty much all we have to go on, and opinions are not like..............well, you know. They're more like toes and fingers collectively. Everybody has lots and lots of them..............

 

[NorCalWitness]

40 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I have no knowledge of any "proof" that Standing is a fraud. My exposure to the allegations of his fraudulence goes back way more than 8 years. I discounted all things Standing at least 20 years ago. That is based on "conjecture": an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.........which is what the entire sasquatch phenomenon is. Conjecture. 

 

This is a world of conjecture. We are awash in it. Completely immersed. Nothing is proven. Opinion is pretty much all we have to go on, and opinions are not like..............well, you know. They're more like toes and fingers collectively. Everybody has lots and lots of them..............

 

Good post. 

[socialBigfoot]

Meldrum wrote about a personal encounter in his Legend Meets Science book. In 1997 he had a non-visual encounter in Northern California involving something coming into his camp at night and leaving large footprints. I didn't get the impression that this experience converted him into a knower but it probably nudged him in that direction. Standing may have tipped him over the edge. 

 

I'm ambivalent on Standing. I remember watching his Discovering Bigfoot documentary and thinking he seemed to push Meldrum into supporting Standing's claim of being the Jane Goodall of Bigfoot. Standing would keep encouraging Meldrum to do things to deepen his commitment, such as put an apple in a tree, do a Bigfoot call, confirm a foot impression is a Bigfoot print, or admit that he saw that shadow and it was a Bigfoot. It all seemed suspicious to me. 

 

A couple months ago I wrote about the anatomy of a hoax, and honestly I think Standing's behavior shows a similar pattern to Hansen's regarding the Minnesota Iceman, and unfortunately I think he may have been using Meldrum's desire to believe in Bigfoot as a pathway to convert Meldrum into a champion for Standing in the Bigfoot community. As @Huntster says, though, this is all conjecture. 

 

Here's my post for those interested. I'm not above a little self-promotion. https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-hoax

 

 

[Huntster]

^^^^^ Excellent post. I'd like to expand on it............

 

Bobby Short passed away some years ago. She was an excellent data catcher and reporter. She wrote that Lyle "Laverty was associated with a personal Bigfoot sighting near Hyampom, California and a Bigfoot 'nest' found near Scorpion Creek in the Lonesome Ridge region........"

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/laverty.htm

 

Like Meldrum's experiences, this is powerful for the individual involved. But, if true, this Leverty thing is huge in terms of him as a USFS timber cruiser supervisor and later Asst. Secretary of the Interior. Nowhere else do we read of this, although I believe Daniel Perez or another interviewer brings it up. Laverty kept it pretty quiet. Yet, when asked about Patterson and Gimlin, he expresses doubt about the film, and he clearly says that he cannot understand how a couple of Washington cowboys could show up and catch the footage of several lifetimes when so many spent so much time there and came up with so little.

 

More conjecture, there. Like I wrote, lots of that conjecture stuff throughout...........

[NorCalWitness]

21 hours ago, norseman said:

There is a heck of alot more to evidence that Standing is a Con man than Paulides???

 

Paulides is simply reporting on missing persons cases on public lands. And the government cover up.

 

Standing wants the Canadian government to recognize Bigfoot as a real species based on a couple of photos! Errmm… muppets!🤷🏻‍♂️

 

 

This best thing our community can do is ONLY accept physical evidence.

 

But if Paulides is a con man? Standing IS Bernie Madoff! 🤨

 

You must have conveniently forgotten to watch the video that one poster gave you about the fraudulent missing 411 con. I would like you to point to any evidence at all which shows Standing is a fraud. The thread you linked has no proof. 

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said:

You must have conveniently forgotten to watch the video that one poster gave you about the fraudulent missing 411 con. I would like you to point to any evidence at all which shows Standing is a fraud. The thread you linked has no proof. 

I watched it. There is way less “con” going on with the 411 books….

 

Than trying to convince the Canadian government THIS is a real animal.

[NorCalWitness]

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

I watched it. There is way less “con” going on with the 411 books….

 

Than trying to convince the Canadian government THIS is a real animal.

Have you seen one? 

[MIB]

7 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said:

Have you seen one? 

 

I have.   That ain't it.

 

Seems to me it would be useful to move away from Standing's already-demonstrated hoaxes.    Find something new to beat each other up over.    Hoaxers CAN potentially see / report something real, what he says is not automatically null and void, it is merely that he's dug a hole and whatever he produces has to be of greater verifiability than what a person with a clean reputation has to produce.

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said:

Have you seen one? 

I have.

 

 

[NorCalWitness]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I have.   That ain't it.

 

Seems to me it would be useful to move away from Standing's already-demonstrated hoaxes.    Find something new to beat each other up over.    Hoaxers CAN potentially see / report something real, what he says is not automatically null and void, it is merely that he's dug a hole and whatever he produces has to be of greater verifiability than what a person with a clean reputation has to produce.

can you post a photo or drawing that most closely resembles what you saw? I would love to see it. 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I have.

 

 

touche 

[MIB]

"Patty" comes as close as you're going to get.

 

What I've said before is that Patty was not identical to either of the two I've seen, rather, assuming her to be a middle-aged female, she is biologically correct to match the much larger male I saw in 1976 and to match the late juvenile/early adolescent I saw in 2013.     If you see something that's appearance is not similar-ish to Patty, not exact, but biologically appropriate, you're not looking at a real bigfoot.

 

And, as I've said before, I saw those before I saw the PGF, first long before, second roughly the same time.

 

Other examples would be the Blue Mountain footage though I didn't think the heads were quite so forward-jutting as that film shows, but a pregnant female .. which those were IMHO .. might carry her body differently.

 

MIB