Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

. Where are the bigfootprints? Did bigfoot levitate in and out? The reports from this stated that there were a number of animal hairs present within the impression. Most of which were elk. There was one hair that was thought to be from one of the researchers on sight.

+1

There are hardcore advocates here who still insist that BF trashed the cabin at Snelgrove during the Sasquatch Attack part one farce. The cabin owner emphatically stated soot was everywhere when our BF vandal destroyed the wood stove. And yet, they did not find a single BF print. After all, that shady businessman would have made thousands on every last 18 inch print he could find on the soot covered floor if BF really did it. Running shoe prints from the teens in the nearby native community of Slate Falls, not as lucrative and not a 100 miles away from Snelgrove as he tried to mislead everyone. Then again, this might help support the lighter than air Sasquatch theory.

This is another instance of the good Dr. Meldrum allowing his obsession of Bigfeet get the better of him. Just 2 more alleged BF incidents he had direct involvement where Meldrum's scientific upbringing should have forced him to question. Questions like how a lumbering BF planted his large rear end without leaving any prints whatsoever or why nobody found prints in the Snelgrove cabin.

As for his misleading comment of how elk lay down, this just reinforces his lack of objectivity and credibility with everything he does with Squatchology. Is it no wonder that mainstream science won't even poke this subject with a ten feet pole when cloudy judgement is part of the job description and characteristics such as critical thinking are frowned upon.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Marlboro

[Guest Kerchak]

Do only the opinions of your bigfoot friendly/believers count? Or can we poll from the real world of scientists that have given their opinions on bigfoot.

We don't want their opinions. We want their analysis. They mostly offer opinions, not analysis. The scientists who DO offer more than opinions and actually look into the question in more detail and present analysis generally tend to support the idea of bigfoot, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt.

It's amusing that bona fide and credible scientists who support the idea of bigfoot are not 'the real world'. Why is that? Do these scientists turn into 'make believe plastic fantastic figures' as soon as they start supporting the idea of bigfoot? Hmmmm?

[norseman]

There are elk prints all over this. Maybe deer prints also. Where are the bigfootprints? Did bigfoot levitate in and out? The reports from this stated that there were a number of animal hairs present within the impression. Most of which were elk. There was one hair that was thought to be from one of the researchers on sight. No bigfoot hairs after laying in the mud? No prints found anywhere in the area?

Interesting conclusions reached by the "researchers" on this one.

1) Where? Point them out to me. *tracks

2) We have covered the "no bigfoot tracks mystery" in this thread, please re read.

3) I understood that they got a typical "maybe" hair from this cast.

Can we all agree...

there is no BF we can point to...in real time?

Until this event occurs...all this is simply ... speculation.

In fact..I think it's FANTASY.

What amazes me are the lenghts people will go to argue the existance of a creature NO ONE can find.

I mean..it's been 50 yrs plus since it was called a BF and we have NOTHING

Sure..we have what a BF LEAVES IN IT's WAKE...film..footprints...sounds...poop...broken branches...huts...

but we NEVER cross the goal line do we? Ah yes...we just haven't looked hard enough...yep...that's it.

Your exactly right, we haven't been looking "good" enough. Can you point to one government or scientific backed expedition with the sole mission of collecting a type specimen? No of course not, instead we are relying on Bobo to get us the next grainy photo and really cool story.

And I have agreed about eight freakin times in this thread that Bigfoot DOES NOT............DOES NOT officially exist.

But I have had something happen to me that I cannot explain. There fore I'm seeking some answers through UNOFFICIAL channels of course. Yanno it's my own personal hell, in which I deal with sharp people who have sharp tongues and make fun of my experience and my search for answers.........it's a hoot. I didn't ask for this to happen to me, but it did. Why your here on the other hand with no personal experience to compel you may interest me more than the mystery of sasquatch.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Everything aside, I look at that picture of Dr. Muldrum and how much younger he looks and realize that cast was taken in 2000 and we are still beating it to death ~ lol ~ Anyway it has been a very civil talk and that's cool because I have been gone for a while and didn't know what to expect coming back.

Tim

[Guest McGman]

2) We have covered the "no bigfoot tracks mystery" in this thread, please re read.

Where roughly is this covered? I must have missed the reason for no BF tracks neraby.

3) I understood that they got a typical "maybe" hair from this cast.

Dont you think there should be BF hairs though? If a BF was laying there and they are as hairy as described in most sightings,

PGF etc, there is really no excuse why a BF hair shouldn't have been present.

[Guest DWA]

No, they curl their legs again while rocking their bodies up.

OK, you just need to stop with this. It's pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about elk that Skookum wasn't an elk because of where the prints would have to be. Come on. If you want to be taken seriously make serious arguments.Your statement could be rephrased - because it says - "they put their legs right smack under them and then they stand up."Yet another "bigfoot skeptic" opinion rather divorced from realities of the natural world.

It's amusing that bona fide and credible scientists who support the idea of bigfoot are not 'the real world'. Why is that? Do these scientists turn into 'make believe plastic fantastic figures' as soon as they start supporting the idea of bigfoot? Hmmmm?

This is the most hilarious thing about bigfoot skeptics.

Scientists who sit on their hands and say it's impossible when anyone who knows much about animals at all knows it isn't: Right.

Scientists who understand things about animals and who have devoted significant time to the evidence: Wrong.

How is a serious person supposed to take this "Dark Side" argument seriously?

Edited January 12, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I'm also curious about the lack of BF hair, or hair that could be attributed to a large primate. It seems that there was plenty of elk hair there, but nothing ( or not very much I understand) of other hair samples?

[Guest DWA]

(Referring to Japanese Monkey)...

Yes, this is the ONE KNOWN exception. Other than highly insulating FUR COAT, these animals also have a special social adaptation of closely *hugging* as well as seeking out hot springs. Here's the caveat as far as attempting to put BF in that category>>>

You can't establish BF has the type of FUR that this monkey has or this *hugging* feature either. In fact, pictures of the purported ICON (Patty) appears to show hair very similar to apes and monkeys. It's NOT DENSE FUR LIKE THIS>>>

Different coats here>>These creatures CAN NOT live in the snow>>

OK, come on. This is like the elk-levitate take on the Skookum Cast.

Do you think polar bears climb trees and eat honey?

Stop. Sasquatch live in the temperate zone and so are adapted to living there.

It's silly to keep bringing this up as evidence that sasquatch can't be real. That monkey you keep bringing up - and its relatives who also live in cold climates - back US, not YOU.

No serious scientist who is really thinking about the topic argues that because we don't know it it can't be real. This is, in fact, how one can identify scientists - I'm looking at YOU, Eugenie Scott - who can't be taken seriously on this topic. They do what you're doing.

And isn't it funny how we can take this blurry film that nobody can tell what the heck it is...and conclude from it the relative hair density of that animal compared to a gorilla. And BTW, comparing that animal's hair covering to that of known animals, it's ready for winter in that part of the world, no problem.

Edited January 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

OK, you just need to stop with this. It's pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about elk that Skookum wasn't an elk because of where the prints would have to be.

Too bad none of the people who first examined the cast did. By the way, elk tracks where found found around the site but no bigfoot track. How did bigfoot levitate?

How is a serious person supposed to take this "Dark Side" argument seriously?

Maybe because the proponents haven't been able follow up on their evidence with proof. Don't tell me that they "don't have the money". If sasquatch is encountered by thousands of people across the country, mostly in areas near where humans live then there's no reason why they can't track it down or get a high quailty photo with the money they have. Bigfoot is not living in the depths of the ocean nor in an isolated jungle. Yet proponents feel it convenient to compare them to animals that do.

If bigfoot is real then the fact that it hasn't been confirmed to this day is entirely the fault of bigfoot researchers.

[Guest DWA]

Too bad none of the people who first examined the cast did. By the way, elk tracks where found found around the site but no bigfoot track. How did bigfoot levitate?

They are cool fourth-dimensional space beings. That's how I do it.

Maybe because the proponents haven't been able follow up on their evidence with proof. Don't tell me that they "don't have the money". If sasquatch is encountered by thousands of people across the country, mostly in areas near where humans live then there's no reason why they can't track it down or get a high quailty photo with the money they have. Bigfoot is not living in the depths of the ocean nor in an isolated jungle. Yet proponents feel it convenient to compare them to animals that do.

If bigfoot is real then the fact that it hasn't been confirmed to this day is entirely the fault of bigfoot researchers.

Nope, it's on mainstream science. Simple test. When bigfoot's confirmed, who screwed up not noticing for all this time? There's your answer.Once again, one can't blame the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it."It's not proven" means "well, when are you going to get off your duffs and prove it, Jerrymander? I mean, I'm waiting."

"Don't tell me they don't have the money" is my favorite Bigfoot Skeptic Debating Tactic: don't confuse me with facts.

Edited January 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

For those that have not seen this,

taken at the location when the elk lay was cast. Note the elk tracks all around the impression. Even at the back of it and near the front where it stood up. Just because there is not a hoof print exactly in the center of the impression does not negate that an elk laid down, and stood right there. This is not complicated stuff. If scientists can be fooled into thinking an elk lay is a bigfoot butt impression, I'd start to question that scientists credibility. This is not the first blatant fail by Meldrum with bigfoot. (one of the scientists involved in the investigation)

We don't want their opinions. We want their analysis. They mostly offer opinions, not analysis. The scientists who DO offer more than opinions and actually look into the question in more detail and present analysis generally tend to support the idea of bigfoot, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt.

It's amusing that bona fide and credible scientists who support the idea of bigfoot are not 'the real world'. Why is that? Do these scientists turn into 'make believe plastic fantastic figures' as soon as they start supporting the idea of bigfoot? Hmmmm?

Can you point out three pieces of claimed bigfoot evidence that science should be analyzing and aren't? Is that real world enough? =)

1) Where? Point them out to me. *tracks

2) We have covered the "no bigfoot tracks mystery" in this thread, please re read.

3) I understood that they got a typical "maybe" hair from this cast.

Your exactly right, we haven't been looking "good" enough. Can you point to one government or scientific backed expedition with the sole mission of collecting a type specimen? No of course not, instead we are relying on Bobo to get us the next grainy photo and really cool story.

And I have agreed about eight freakin times in this thread that Bigfoot DOES NOT............DOES NOT officially exist.

But I have had something happen to me that I cannot explain. There fore I'm seeking some answers through UNOFFICIAL channels of course. Yanno it's my own personal hell, in which I deal with sharp people who have sharp tongues and make fun of my experience and my search for answers.........it's a hoot. I didn't ask for this to happen to me, but it did. Why your here on the other hand with no personal experience to compel you may interest me more than the mystery of sasquatch.

Can you not see the elk prints all over that cast? I'm sure someone here can red circle them for you. Can you link to the no bigfoot print explanation? Thank you.

Also, what effort/spending/man power do you feel should be dedicated to this search you say isn't happening that should be?

+1

There are hardcore advocates here who still insist that BF trashed the cabin at Snelgrove during the Sasquatch Attack part one farce. The cabin owner emphatically stated soot was everywhere when our BF vandal destroyed the wood stove. And yet, they did not find a single BF print. After all, that shady businessman would have made thousands on every last 18 inch print he could find on the soot covered floor if BF really did it. Running shoe prints from the teens in the nearby native community of Slate Falls, not as lucrative and not a 100 miles away from Snelgrove as he tried to mislead everyone. Then again, this might help support the lighter than air Sasquatch theory.

This is another instance of the good Dr. Meldrum allowing his obsession of Bigfeet get the better of him. Just 2 more alleged BF incidents he had direct involvement where Meldrum's scientific upbringing should have forced him to question. Questions like how a lumbering BF planted his large rear end without leaving any prints whatsoever or why nobody found prints in the Snelgrove cabin.

As for his misleading comment of how elk lay down, this just reinforces his lack of objectivity and credibility with everything he does with Squatchology. Is it no wonder that mainstream science won't even poke this subject with a ten feet pole when cloudy judgement is part of the job description and characteristics such as critical thinking are frowned upon.

This seems to be a huge problem, and one that a lot of proponents here seem to distort. They say science won't look at the evidence in one line, and in the next quote a scientist that shares their belief, and is clearly speculative at best. Either science won't look, or we don't like what science says. It is interesting to see the very strong opinions offered about the phenomenon. I wonder what makes some feel so strongly, other than winning an internet argument.

[Guest]

.

It's silly to keep bringing this up as evidence that sasquatch can't be real. That monkey you keep bringing up - and its relatives who also live in cold climates - back US, not YOU.

. And BTW, comparing that animal's hair covering to that of known animals, it's ready for winter in that part of the world, no problem.

Yes, apes do live in COLD climates..but not the BITTER FREEZING COLD OF WINTER...IN SNOW. Can you DEMONSTRATE how a so called "PATTY" is adapted to live in this type of habitat? They all can't live in caves..as someone just mentioned. Anyway... these are very large animals and finding *caves* would also be problematic. Apparently they don't hibernate either. Sure..go ahead and *make up* a scenario how a BF can live for months on end in subfreezing cold. I'm sure your imagination will come up with something.

[norseman]

Yes, apes do live in COLD climates..but not the BITTER FREEZING COLD OF WINTER...IN SNOW. Can you DEMONSTRATE how a so called "PATTY" is adapted to live in this type of habitat? They all can't live in caves..as someone just mentioned. Anyway... these are very large animals and finding *caves* would also be problematic. Apparently they don't hibernate either. Sure..go ahead and *make up* a scenario how a BF can live for months on end in subfreezing cold. I'm sure your imagination will come up with something.

Stop........just stop already.

Patty if I remember right was FILMED IN BLUFF CREEK CALIFORNIA.......... Northern California does not get Edmonton Alberta cold........not even close.

Who freakin knows what her cousin in the Yukon looks like or the "density" of it's fur. Who knows if she has a cousin in the Yukon. Maybe her cousin comes and visits her in the winter time? Again......who freakin knows.

I'm done with this thread, nobody is listening to reason, it's just pot shots back and forth. If your interested in what I had to say, go back and reread my posts, if not...........fine.

Later.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Stop........just stop already.

Patty if I remember right was FILMED IN BLUFF CREEK CALIFORNIA.......... Northern California does not get Edmonton Alberta cold........not even close.

Who freakin knows what her cousin in the Yukon looks like or the "density" of it's fur. Who knows if she has a cousin in the Yukon. Maybe her cousin comes and visits her in the winter time? Again......who freakin knows.

I'm done with this thread, nobody is listening to reason, it's just pot shots back and forth. If your interested in what I had to say, go back and reread my posts, if not...........fine.

Later.

C'mon fella, stick with it, you have much to contribute. I agree wholeheartedly that this thread has taken a recent nosedive but it does routinely spring back up again and grab you.

A few pages back there was an interesting discussion flowering about tracks (before getting sidetracked by whether an elk can levitate or not) - how about we get this going again?

It is the view of many, me included, that tracks are by far and away the best line of 'evidence' going - you can't argue with the fact that something left them and they allow proper scientific examination, unlike sightings. In the absence of bodily parts, they are the best there is.

Leaving aside the risible 'Wallace did it with planks' scenario, we have not had a cogent, plausible explanation as to what is responsible. Krantz was convinced, Meldrum is and as far as I know, no-one else has written a book or paper examining the 'evidence' apart from these two gents.

I'd like to see the footprint machine please.

[Guest]

@ Stan Norton

What do you think of these quotes?

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4)

Grover Krantz: "Bigfoot/Sasquatch evidence"(1992) p. 3 & 7

"The skeptics are under no obligation to disprove all or, for that matter any of the evidence. The burden of proof rests with those who think that the animals are real. The skeptics are not obligated even to look at the evidence....Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species...A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine."

Edited January 12, 2013 by LWD