Backdoc Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Interesting debate about Bigfoot. Ran across this. Many of you probably already have seen this. What I like about the video is Meldrum has a polite debate with this somewhat skeptic Erika Gutsick Gibbon. She brings up respectfully reasonable points and Meldrum does a great job answering each one. I learned additional things just listening to these two (and Esp Meldrum). It is a loooooong video but if you have the time, It is informative. I wish more discussions could be on this level. Finally, Meldrum does a good job essentially being kind and not dunking on her when it is obvious he could. 1 1
norseman Posted January 7 Admin Posted January 7 We lost a real ambassador to our field of study! 🙏🏻 2
Backdoc Posted Monday at 05:25 PM Author Posted Monday at 05:25 PM On 1/7/2026 at 4:03 PM, norseman said: We lost a real ambassador to our field of study! 🙏🏻 No doubt! He really took Bigfoot out of the folklore and hoax word into the modern world. "Science" -in the purist elitist meaning of the word- tells the Bigfoot world we need to have a more science-based approach. Then, when someone like Dr. Meldrum delivers exactly what they demanded they knock him down for not being scientific enough. The rest of the science world not blinded by arrogance applaud Meldrum, give him the credibility he deserves, and will give him his due. Im guessing most people in science liked him and respected him. I would even bet many who didn't secretly applauded the guy. One of these guys on TV (Dr. Began?) said words to this effect: Sometimes in history those who are ridiculed turn out to be right. I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Meldrum but I have to applaud his science approach, knowledge. To some extent he is very brave to take on this topic. If the public ever has proof of bigfoot (dead or alive) I predict Dr. Jeff Meldrum will retroactivity be looked at as a visionary. Maybe a building or institute will be named after him. 1
Dave Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago The term "skeptic" drives me nuts. It's used by uninformed people who think they're smarter than rubes who believe things science has yet to figure out. It implies we hear something, and then just immediately believe it. When I hear someone say they're a skeptic, I automatically assume they're an idiot.
Incorrigible1 Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago 28 minutes ago, Dave said: The term "skeptic" drives me nuts. It's used by uninformed people who think they're smarter than rubes who believe things science has yet to figure out. It implies we hear something, and then just immediately believe it. When I hear someone say they're a skeptic, I automatically assume they're an idiot. How would you describe, or what's your term for someone who doesn't believe bigfoot walks in the deep woods?
Dave Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago 9 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said: How would you describe, or what's your term for someone who doesn't believe bigfoot walks in the deep woods? It would depend why they don't believe it.
norseman Posted 16 hours ago Admin Posted 16 hours ago 5 hours ago, Dave said: The term "skeptic" drives me nuts. It's used by uninformed people who think they're smarter than rubes who believe things science has yet to figure out. It implies we hear something, and then just immediately believe it. When I hear someone say they're a skeptic, I automatically assume they're an idiot. I think what you’re describing as a skeptic, the BFF traditionally would call a “scofftic”. We used to have many. Basically they got their jollies by coming on here and calling us idiots everyday. Maybe not in so many words. But demanding absolute proof and scoffing at any evidence offered. I am skeptical of tree structures and a few other supposed attributes of the mythical creature. But as I have seen tracks? I am very open minded that something still exists out there. With the caveat that we are still on the hook to provide proof that it’s real. 1
Trogluddite Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 15 hours ago, Dave said: The term "skeptic" drives me nuts.... 10 hours ago, norseman said: I think what you’re describing as a skeptic, the BFF traditionally would call a “scofftic”. We used to have many..... I consider myself very much a skeptic in that I'm a skeptical believer. I'm probably much harsher on many aspects of Bigfoot, and even have heretical beliefs on some things regarded as canon law. I have lots of reasons to doubt the accounts provided by some people/websites/witnesses. But I have no reason to doubt the accounts provided by others. While those accounts alone can't demonstrate the existence of Bigfoot to a scientific standard, they should cause reasonable people to be open-minded on the subject. As Norse says, the skeptics that pop up here often are anything but open minded.
Incorrigible1 Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Skepticism in the world of bigfoot, in and of itself, is a healthy and necessary trait. Until someone plops a body or part thereof onto an examination table, it's all sus (suspect). Trogluddite's excellent above post said it well. I, too, consider myself a skeptical believer. But, hoo boy, there are LOTS of issues with what's taken for "bigfoot canonical lore." (Hey, I coined a new phrase!) Let's face it: Us bigfoot proponents can't blame disbelievers any too much. The biological necessities make it difficult to explain how enormous, bipedal primates can make a living without revealing their immediate whereabouts that should lead to their discovery. So rather than grouse about those darned skeptics, realize just how much we're asking the general public to accept on faith. Footprints? Great. Shouldn't a skilled tracker be able to follow them to their source? Tree structures? Like Norse, and I'm not speaking for him, but I ain't buying it. Extremely circumstantial. The amount of daily caloric intake necessary to sustain a five-hundred lb. primate should leave traceable effects on the environment, and along with their footprint impressions, reveal their location to a tracker. These are some of the nuts and bolts that fuel good, honest skepticism. I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for that. What we skeptical (and hopeful) proponents dwell on are the compelling first-hand accounts, recordings of calls and chatter of unknown sources, and a handful of films/videos, especially the renowned Patty (she's a rockstar!) So here's to skeptical, hopeful belief.
Recommended Posts