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

[Guest thermalman]

Commendable. Nice photos.

[Guest RayG]

Even with crystal clear photos of Bigfoot, hardcore skeptics will probably claim it could be a suit.

If only we could test your theory with some crystal clear photos.

What about footprint casts? If some print evidence is scientifically good enough to convict a person in court, why are BF prints not good enough proof for the scientific community?

What about footprint casts? Which ones have been matched to an actual bigfoot? That's what happens in a court of law you know, they match prints to the shoes that made them.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

Test all your lack of knowledge here skeptics. It's Meldrum's site, and it's scientific.

What about footprint casts? Which ones have been matched to an actual bigfoot? That's what happens in a court of law you know, they match prints to the shoes that made them.

RayG

What would you attribute the prints to?

Edited September 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest RayG]

Scientific? Prove it. Match the footprints to the footprint maker.

Science means more than one scientist arriving at an unproven conclusion.

RayG

Edited September 9, 2012 by RayG

[Guest thermalman]

What would you attribute the prints to Ray?

[Guest]

Well they are all hoaxes Thermal man, as a matter of fact, there is a small army of hikers that go deep into some of the most inaccessible area's, and they always take the added space and weight of some good stompers with them , so they can leave tracks on the slim chance someone may find them, and think they are Bigfoot prints. This has been repeated all over north america , and just think how many times, in order for a small percentage of them to be discovered, before rain and nature erases them of course.How many times would you have to lug your stompers into the remote wilderness and make fake tracks before someone actually found them? Then that someone actually told someone, and some how they ended up reported someplace like this, so they could be called a hoax?

Yes indeed, those hoaxers are thousands strong, persistent, resourceful, and should be buying more lottery tickets, because they have beat the odds so many times.

Is this a more plausible explanation Ray? I can see how this makes much more sense than an intelligent, bi-pedal/ape slipping through our detection, in such vast forested, rough terrain as we see in North America, especially in a culture of denial and ridicule. I mean, after all, just because many natives accept their existence, and they have been here how much longer than us?

Yes, its the secret army of well traveled, well versed bushmen hoaxers leaving all these tracks......no woo there huh?

[Guest RayG]

As I said, prove it. Match the footprint to the print maker. That would end any skepticism from me in a heartbeat.

RayG

[Guest]

I have no problem with your skepticism, I am just wondering what you think is making the tracks, the army of hoaxers? How about the wood knocks? Is it the same army, or is it the wood knock army? Maybe is jackalopes rutting? If you want to reject, or be skeptical of the Bigfoot theory, and dismiss the thousands of eye witness reports completely, then we need to back up to the hard evidence we have, starting with the thousands of foot prints, many found in very remote area's, so I am interested in hearing the explanation. Foot prints don't just make themselves. Often there is sliding, toe movement, etc, so we can discount bear double steps, or anything with a hoof, so where does that leave us? The foot prints are there. They exist. Something is making them. As a matter of fact they are making them consistently all over North America, so I think its pretty safe to assume the same type of thing is making them. I think the army of hoaxers is pretty far fetched, so I am still at a loss. Can you skeptics help me out here? I must be missing something.

Or do you get to be skeptic, but sit back and hide in a comfort zone, and say, " I don't know, but its not Bigfoot?" If that's the case, then I claim the same comfort zone, Its Bigfoot, you go out and prove it isn't.

Edited September 9, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest toejam]

Science has casts of prints corroborated by sightings. Casts that can be scrutinized by science are sitting there waiting for proper credentials to step up to the plate. Problem is they're all too worried about how they'll be perceived if they step into the realm of Bigfoot.

A hurdle to overcome in the process of classification of an unknown species. Simple solution yet fear stands in the way.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, we are both missing something -- bigfoot. If these footprints are being left by gigantic wood apes, then prove it. Match the footprint to the print maker.

What percentage of these thousands of reports include footprints anyway? And just what percentage of the thousands of reports are valid reports to begin with? Who determined whether they were legitimate or not? Why would an army of hoaxers be required? You do realize it's illogical to claim some of these footprints are found in areas too remote for humans -- yet they are found by humans? You do realize that even John Green commented on how highly unreliable a lot of the footprints from the late 60's/early 70's looked, right?

On pages 47-48 of The Sasquatch File Green states that "track reports... have become highly unreliable...", and also admits to not seeing any "good, fresh, unmistakable Sasquatch track anywhere..." in the five years immediately after the PGF of 1967. What's up with that? Did bigfoot suddenly develop funky feet?

RayG

Edited September 9, 2012 by RayG

[Guest]

You don't see many new footprints these days. I think they are tippy toeing around all the game cameras out these days.

[Guest thermalman]

As I said, prove it. Match the footprint to the print maker. That would end any skepticism from me in a heartbeat.

RayG

One more time Ray. What/who would you attribute the tracks to? Don't be shy now.

I have no problem with your skepticism, I am just wondering what you think is making the tracks, the army of hoaxers? How about the wood knocks? Is it the same army, or is it the wood knock army? Maybe is jackalopes rutting? If you want to reject, or be skeptical of the Bigfoot theory, and dismiss the thousands of eye witness reports completely, then we need to back up to the hard evidence we have, starting with the thousands of foot prints, many found in very remote area's, so I am interested in hearing the explanation. Foot prints don't just make themselves. Often there is sliding, toe movement, etc, so we can discount bear double steps, or anything with a hoof, so where does that leave us? The foot prints are there. They exist. Something is making them. As a matter of fact they are making them consistently all over North America, so I think its pretty safe to assume the same type of thing is making them. I think the army of hoaxers is pretty far fetched, so I am still at a loss. Can you skeptics help me out here? I must be missing something.

Or do you get to be skeptic, but sit back and hide in a comfort zone, and say, " I don't know, but its not Bigfoot?" If that's the case, then I claim the same comfort zone, Its Bigfoot, you go out and prove it isn't.

Sit back, non committal, chirp and provide no evidence of alternative is what they do best.

[Guest]

Kerry some of the best foot print evidence is recent, and continues to come in.

I agree with Thermal Ray, the foot prints are there, they are real, and have had some serious scientific attention, if you want to discount all the eyewitness's, and pretend they are insignificant, then you should at least have some sort of realistic theory. Just because Green found them becoming less reliable , mainly from some outlandish claims of so called hoaxers I am sure,and because there was a few year gap in print reports, is no reason to discount them overall. Reports are what they are, I am sure we only hear a fraction of all reports, prints, sounds, sightings, all of it.

Something is leaving these prints, consistently, through out North America.That is a fact.

Dr Meldrum is a leading expert on primate locomotion. He can confirm the reality of the prints.

That is a fact.

If not Bigfoot, what is making the prints?

Are we back to the army of hoaxers?

Edited September 10, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest RayG]

One more time Ray. What/who would you attribute the tracks to? Don't be shy now.

Well, I myself made a track in the woods one day that I'm sure some proponents would say was evidence of bigfoot. It was very large, human-shaped, and had 5 toes. Was I purposely trying to hoax a bigfoot track? Not at all. I came upon an indentation in the ground, that, when I added indents for toes, looked just like a huge human/squatch print.

However, it's not up to me to provide an alternate explanation for every possible track, or to claim that an army of hoaxers is out there creating tracks. You think they are sasquatch prints? Prove it.

Sit back, non committal, chirp and provide no evidence of alternative is what they do best.

No requirement for me to provide an alternative explanation. It's really quite simple. If you claim that bigfoot left those footprints/hairs, then prove it.

I'm under no obligation to believe your claims.

An no, Dr. Meldrum cannot confirm that a particular print was made by bigfoot unless he can match it up with the actual bigfoot. He can speculate all he likes, he can make assertions, he can come to conclusions, but without matching the evidence to the actual perpetrator, he just might be incorrect.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

LOL Ray to funny. It's obvious you don't believe the prints are real, so give the proponents a realistic alternative. You may be onto something or nothing at all. You must have an alternative theory, otherwise you wouldn't be chanting prove it, prove it, prove it.. so let us in on your secret. If you really feel that the prints have to be proven to you, I suggest you contact Dr. Meldrum or Dr. Bindernagel and ask them yourself for the proof you're seeking, instead of trying to draw a conclusion on a forum of general opinions. I guarantee you will get better answers from them.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thermalman