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

[Guest DWA]

And here is a review - by a worthy reviewer - of the book by Bindernagel often taken in vain on this thread. A worthwhile read for open minds, especially those who wonder why there's no resolution, what with mainstream science all over this 24/7 and all:

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/The%20Discovery%20of%20Sasquatch.pdf

[Guest]

There is simply no way a reasonable human could postulate how a human could have made that trackway.

Sure a guy could just make wide tracks with that wide track stomper while being towed by a helichopper.

And flap your arms hard enough and you can go to the moon.

But bigfoot skeptics don't have to prove ANYTHING. They're like three-year-olds; they can say anything they want! The adults won't care.

The video is interesting, but of coarse not conclusive. That would be the skeptic's primary point.

For the record, I would not necessarily say this is a hoax. On the other hand, we mustn't underestimate the determination and ingenuity of hoaxers.

[Guest]

Its a point well taken ...BUT we dont have track cast hair samples and videos of werewolfs...we do of BF

I'm trying to take issues one at a time. There is much talk about the validity of sightings, per se. The standard arguments include: a sighting is a sighting, eyewitnesses are relied upon in law courts, people see what they see, etc.

So far, on this thread, to debunk werewolf sightings, folks are relying on extra issues outside of sightings (don't believe in shapeshifters, no hair samples, no track finds, no videos, etc.) Still, people are claiming to see werewolves (not of the Lon Chaney Jr. type, more of the Howling type.) Again, I ask, what can we make of such reports?

If we apply this type of reasoning (no extra evidence) to Bigfoot sightings, we would find that an overwhelming number of such eyewitness reports, like werewolf sightings, are not supported by hair samples, tracks, videos, etc. So, most Bigfoot sightings are on the same level as werewolf reports.

[Guest DWA]

Well, we don't have to underestimate them.

My problem with presuming "this could be a hoax, after all we can never underestimate hoaxers" is that the field can't advance if no piece of evidence gets followed up because of that.

I have never encountered a confirmed hoax in this field that was nearly as sophisticated as many of the trackways I have seen and read described (or the Patterson-Gimlin film, for that matter) would have had to be if they were hoaxed. In fact, much of it would have required top-drawer expertise to fool the top-drawer expertise that has examined it and found no signs of a hoax.

[Guest]

norseman,

http://www.bigfooten...keller-WA09.htm

Do you think the 23 inches long foot might be an exaggeration due to snow distortion? And the step length is really very large too.

I ask this question because I do not know the answer. Even if this was a sasquatch (bipedal) track, wouldn't we find some sign of either foot drag (disturbed snow between tracks), as it moves its feet from one step to another, or droppings of snow from its large snow covered foot as it moves over the snow? Did you note any kind of snow disturbance or build up between tracks at your find?

Well, we don't have to underestimate them.

My problem with presuming "this could be a hoax, after all we can never underestimate hoaxers" is that the field can't advance if no piece of evidence gets followed up because of that.

I have never encountered a confirmed hoax in this field that was nearly as sophisticated as many of the trackways I have seen and read described (or the Patterson-Gimlin film, for that matter) would have had to be if they were hoaxed. In fact, much of it would have required top-drawer expertise to fool the top-drawer expertise that has examined it and found no signs of a hoax.

I'm reminded of the case where it appeared that Bigfoot had taken incredibly large steps going up the side of a hill, impossible for a human to duplicate. Or so everyone thought. Then it was learned that a hoaxer had put fake feet on backwards, and had bounded downhill, causing the incredibly long step distances.

Also, I would be cautious about tracks on dirt roads or road shoulders. Hanging on the back of a pick up truck and being pulled along helps to create elongated steps with stompers. (And before anyone employs Meldurm's defusing of this method found in his book, a National Geographic special on Bigfoot showed this method of hoaxing, and no, contrary to Meldrum, the hoaxer didn't fall to the ground.)

Edited February 24, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest]

I never believed that video from day one. To me in the knees and leg area it looked like a human on all fours...........or some sort of giant dog/rabbit hybrid.And of course there has been hoaxing in the BF community. But in the case of the PGF? No one has ever debunked it. I think Werewolf vs. Bigfoot analogy is just a bad analogy. I think a much better analogy is Bigfoot vs. Tasmanian Tiger. Something that is known to have existed but no longer exists. Now to be fair the Tiger blinked out very recently and sightings are from the same area it blinked out in. So Bigfoot is much more of a stretch concerning a extinct ape in Asia that fits the description.I'm not much of a Werewolf guru, but from what I understand through folklore, a Werewolf is a human that shape shifts back and forth. We are not talking about a biological creature.........we are talking about Voodoo, Witchcraft, whatever..........

I'm not sure people are claiming to see shapeshifters (although, I think some Indian cultures do think Bigfoot is a shapeshifter.)The question is about sightings, per se. And people are claiming to see upright wolves, i.e. werewolves (not literally hombre lobos, if that makes sense.)

As for the Dogman video, its backstory was in line with a raft of "lost video" mysteries, dating back to Blair Witch. Although I didn't think it was real, I liked the way the subject moved. Especially how it "dogtrotted," carrying its rear-end to the side. I've seen gorillas do this at the zoo. I thought it was a hoax, but was nonetheless surprised the whole thing was accomplished with nothing more than a ghillie suit.

Edited February 24, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest DWA]

So far, on this thread, to debunk werewolf sightings, folks are relying on extra issues outside of sightings (don't believe in shapeshifters, no hair samples, no track finds, no videos, etc.) Still, people are claiming to see werewolves (not of the Lon Chaney Jr. type, more of the Howling type.) Again, I ask, what can we make of such reports?

If we apply this type of reasoning (no extra evidence) to Bigfoot sightings, we would find that an overwhelming number of such eyewitness reports, like werewolf sightings, are not supported by hair samples, tracks, videos, etc. So, most Bigfoot sightings are on the same level as werewolf reports.

Well, I don't necessarily think that every sighting needs to be connected to some other piece of evidence or "extra issue."

All that I require is that a sighting appear on its face to be of a piece with other sightings recorded, and that no significant reasons seem to exist that this person or the others were mistaken.

Most sightings I read about are of that nature. Their consistency - plus the consistency of olfactory, aural and other evidence recorded - tells me there's something to this.

A scientist (or OK, a team of them) could confirm sasquatch. Jeff Meldrum is about to issue a field guide that basically provides a guidebook-quality data array for sasquatch.

What do we have in that vein for werewolves?

[norseman]

I'm trying to take issues one at a time. There is much talk about the validity of sightings, per se. The standard arguments include: a sighting is a sighting, eyewitnesses are relied upon in law courts, people see what they see, etc.

So far, on this thread, to debunk werewolf sightings, folks are relying on extra issues outside of sightings (don't believe in shapeshifters, no hair samples, no track finds, no videos, etc.) Still, people are claiming to see werewolves (not of the Lon Chaney Jr. type, more of the Howling type.) Again, I ask, what can we make of such reports?

If we apply this type of reasoning (no extra evidence) to Bigfoot sightings, we would find that an overwhelming number of such eyewitness reports, like werewolf sightings, are not supported by hair samples, tracks, videos, etc. So, most Bigfoot sightings are on the same level as werewolf reports.

But I think your key word there is "most".........but not all.

[Guest DWA]

norseman,

http://www.bigfooten...keller-WA09.htm

Do you think the 23 inches long foot might be an exaggeration due to snow distortion? And the step length is really very large too.

I ask this question because I do not know the answer. Even if this was a sasquatch (bipedal) track, wouldn't we find some sign of either foot drag (disturbed snow between tracks), as it moves its feet from one step to another, or droppings of snow from its large snow covered foot as it moves over the snow? Did you note any kind of snow disturbance or build up between tracks at your find?

Pending norseman's response, all I can say is that the relative absence of drag between tracks with a very long stride seems almost impossible for a human agency (unless the tracks are being punched in one at a time by a guy hanging down in a bucket suspended from a helicopter. On a very LONG line).

They seem intuitively, however, to be more likely for something with a very long stride length plus a stride differing subtly but distinctly from the human norm.

I'm reminded of the case where it appeared that Bigfoot had taken incredibly large steps going up the side of a hill, impossible for a human to duplicate. Or so everyone thought. Then it was learned that a hoaxer had put fake feet on backwards, and had bounded downhill, causing the incredibly long step distances.

Also, I would be cautious about tracks on dirt roads or road shoulders. Hanging on the back of a pick up truck and being pulled along helps to create elongated steps with stompers. (And before anyone employs Meldurm's defusing of this method found in his book, a National Geographic special on Bigfoot showed this method of hoaxing, and no, contrary to Meldrum, the hoaxer didn't fall to the ground.)

Trackways like these have been found in places where a vehicle would have been impossible (at least any we know about), and in places where a person would have had difficulty (1) getting there; (2) believing that any human would ever find the track (some random guy no one could have predicted being there did); or (3) sustaining the required activity on his own without assistance, if the almost-inconceivable vehicle assist in fact was as impossible as it looked.

If it seems to fit the profile, you have to prove a hoax to me. Otherwise, toss it on the pile of stuff that needs an explanation we don't have yet.

[norseman]

I'm not sure people are claiming to see shapeshifters (although, I think some Indian cultures do think Bigfoot is a shapeshifter.)The question is about sightings, per se. And people are claiming to see upright wolves, i.e. werewolves (not literally hombre lobos, if that makes sense.)

As for the Dogman video, its backstory was in line with a raft of "lost video" mysteries, dating back to Blair Witch. Although I didn't think it was real, I liked the way the subject moved. Especially how it "dogtrotted," carrying its rear-end to the side. I've seen gorillas do this at the zoo. I thought it was a hoax, but was nonetheless surprised the whole thing was accomplished with nothing more than a ghillie suit.

My lore knowledge of werewolves is shoddy......but it's my understanding that a werewolf is a human that has been bitten, cursed whatever by another werewolf. The myth story line follows very closely with what a vampire is, in my opinion. Once bitten by the host mythical creature the victim then becomes one themselves. Your throwing out some terms that I'm not familiar with.......not this type of werewolf but that one.

But anyhow I don't think it's a very good parallel with the mystery of Sasquatch. I'm aware that some tribes associate paranormal attributes to Sasquatch, but there are others that do not.

[norseman]

norseman,

http://www.bigfooten...keller-WA09.htm

Do you think the 23 inches long foot might be an exaggeration due to snow distortion? And the step length is really very large too.

I ask this question because I do not know the answer. Even if this was a sasquatch (bipedal) track, wouldn't we find some sign of either foot drag (disturbed snow between tracks), as it moves its feet from one step to another, or droppings of snow from its large snow covered foot as it moves over the snow? Did you note any kind of snow disturbance or build up between tracks at your find?

The Keller tracks are in snow, so I would definitely say there is some distortion there, it depends on many factors like temperature, moisture in the snow, etc.

I'm trying to get some answers about the trackway right now as we speak and I'll make sure I keep you posted. I was able to track down the man that investigated the trackway.

Concerning the trackway I saw, no, there wasn't drag marks between the tracks, it was stepping pretty clean. And I've observed this in the Minnesota video and the picture above for the Keller trackway. A bear has comparability short legs to body length, so even if one was disturbed from it's hibernation and chose to walk around bipedal, I would expect to see shuffle type steps in the snow more like a human than what I observed.

I'm reminded of the case where it appeared that Bigfoot had taken incredibly large steps going up the side of a hill, impossible for a human to duplicate. Or so everyone thought. Then it was learned that a hoaxer had put fake feet on backwards, and had bounded downhill, causing the incredibly long step distances.

Also, I would be cautious about tracks on dirt roads or road shoulders. Hanging on the back of a pick up truck and being pulled along helps to create elongated steps with stompers. (And before anyone employs Meldurm's defusing of this method found in his book, a National Geographic special on Bigfoot showed this method of hoaxing, and no, contrary to Meldrum, the hoaxer didn't fall to the ground.)

I'm immediately suspect of tracks around roads, or any sign of a wheeled vehicle in the track way........it's just prudent. As far as bounding down a hill? I think that is a fine hypothesis for seasons of the year that don't have a lot of snow cover. But on flat ground in several feet of snow I think that becomes problematic.

The only thing I could think of concerning a hoax that is probable is somebody mounting stompers on stilts. But I think that's a tough sell once the track way enters rough, uneven, terrain. Which the Keller trackway did eventually and they gave up pursuit, my tracks came off of a steep bank onto a old logging road, and the Minnesota video shows the tracks going into rough terrain with deadfalls, etc.

It would be cool to somehow test this........preferable someone young, limber with an iron butt!

[Guest]

Well, I don't necessarily think that every sighting needs to be connected to some other piece of evidence or "extra issue."

All that I require is that a sighting appear on its face to be of a piece with other sightings recorded, and that no significant reasons seem to exist that this person or the others were mistaken.

Most sightings I read about are of that nature. Their consistency - plus the consistency of olfactory, aural and other evidence recorded - tells me there's something to this.

A scientist (or OK, a team of them) could confirm sasquatch. Jeff Meldrum is about to issue a field guide that basically provides a guidebook-quality data array for sasquatch.

What do we have in that vein for werewolves?

There is a nascent interest in werewolves, thanks in part to the Bray Rd. beast story and the journalist who is publicising it and other werewolf stories (the John Green of lycanthropy, if you will.)

You need to compare werewolf phenomena to the early days of Bigfoot advocacy, back in the 1950s, to draw a better comparison.

And most American werewolf sightings are as consistent as Bigfoot sightings.

So, no one is yet willing to state overtly that werewolf sightings consist of lying, craziness, or mistaken perception.

Why?

[Guest]

My lore knowledge of werewolves is shoddy......but it's my understanding that a werewolf is a human that has been bitten, cursed whatever by another werewolf. The myth story line follows very closely with what a vampire is, in my opinion. Once bitten by the host mythical creature the victim then becomes one themselves. Your throwing out some terms that I'm not familiar with.......not this type of werewolf but that one.

But anyhow I don't think it's a very good parallel with the mystery of Sasquatch. I'm aware that some tribes associate paranormal attributes to Sasquatch, but there are others that do not.

People are claiming to see what appear to be large, hairy, bipedal, and wolf-faced or dog-faced creatures. Using the term "werewolf" is useful, but not literal (as applied to European or Hollywood lore).

And again, I'm restricting the issue to sightings. When restricted to sightings, there is a parallel with Bigfoot.

It seems that Bigfoot proponents are not showing any respect towards werewolf eyewitnesses, dismissing them with a wave of the hand.

Scoftics! Scoftics I say!

As to the snow tracks--

I would think that stompers on stilts would be more of a problem, with obvious drag. I would think even a high stepping sasquatch would leave some kind of drag marks.

But I think your key word there is "most".........but not all.

What percentage of Bigfoot sightings do you think are "real." It seems that I read a Meldrum quote that stated that a majority of Bigfoot sightings are not valid. (Can't offer attribution, though.)

Edited February 24, 2013 by jerrywayne

[norseman]

i understand your line of attack. all i can say is that i personally have never seen a werewolf nor tracks and i dont know of one person who ever has. add to that the paranornal explanation for werewolves origins? yes iam skeptical.

in your eyes does that make me hypocritical?

so if its not a hoax and not a squatch? what is it?

iam an elitist jerk type concerning the range and concentration of sasquatch. so yes i think there are many sightings that are either fabrications or misidentifications. but some are very compelling...

[Guest DWA]

So, no one is yet willing to state overtly that werewolf sightings consist of lying, craziness, or mistaken perception.

Why?

Maybe because scoffing should be declared illegal, with mandatory fines and jail sentences.

Scoffing is cynicism. And it's not a very intelligent form of same.

Just like aliens making crop circles, mummies walking at night, and babies bending spoons with their minds...I await the proof. That is the only attitude, and I mean the only acceptable one, to have toward what one doesn't know.

And if the werewolf hypothesis is testable, then scientists need to either be on it like white on rice, or shut up about it. If they don't leave sign, then I am not sure what can be done with it.

Sasquatch, on the other hand, leave every kind of sign anyone has found for any North American species we know about.

Edited February 24, 2013 by DWA