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

[Guest RayG]

I don't know whether the prints are real or not. How could I? Without a verified match, how can anyone? I am truly straddling the fence because ~I don't know~. To those that claim they are prints made by sasquatch, I say prove it. Rub my nose in it. Serve up that heaping plate of crow. I won't mind, really I won't.

And yes, I'm familiar with both Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Bindernagel. John sent me a copy of his book North America's Great Ape: the Sasquatch when it first came out. To my knowledge neither has provided that undeniable definitive evidence for that unknown species known as bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

So what are they saying and telling you? I, for one, would love to know. And I suspect many others on here would as well.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest toejam]

I wonder why the Patty "suit" maker was never a big name in Hollywood. Considering it was much more realistic than anything the best of the best could put out those days, I want to know who the mystery person was who created that masterpiece. You'd think they'd have been all over the golden rewards of such artwork.

Oh wait, maybe it's real.

[Guest]

Kerry some of the best foot print evidence is recent

That's good, I didn't know that. I remember when I was younger it seems like they were popping up all over. Now I never hear of any being found. Maybe it's because nobody makes a big deal out of it any more.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Kerry

[Guest]

That's the thing Ray, Dr Meldrum can tell you they are real. They are real footprints,made by a real animal, with real muscles, tendons, etc, because he is an expert. He can tell you a lot about the anatomy of the animal that made the print, from the print because he is an expert. He can tell you what animals did not make the print, because he is an expert.So you can rest assured, and be certain, they are real prints, made by real animals, consistently, through out North America. Now, from this, he can produce a hypothesis about what he feels, based on his expert opinion, what made the tracks. He may be wrong, his hypothesis may be off the mark. But you know what? That does not change the fact that they are real tracks, made by a real animal, and that animal is an unknown. Period. That is fact, like it or not.

Attacking his hypothesis or questioning his competency, does not change anything. It is what it is.

Edited September 10, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest toejam]

That's the thing Ray, Dr Meldrum can tell you they are real. They are real footprints,made by a real animal, with real muscles, tendons, etc, because he is an expert. He can tell you a lot about the anatomy of the animal that made the print, from the print because he is an expert. He can tell you what animals did not make the print, because he is an expert.So you can rest assured, and be certain, they are real prints, made by real animals, consistently, through out North America. Now, from this, he can produce a hypothesis about what he feels, based on his expert opinion, what made the tracks. He may be wrong, his hypothesis may be off the mark. But you know what? That does not change the fact that they are real tracks, made by a real animal, and that animal is an unknown. Period. That is fact, like it or not.

...add the fact that prints give other info like size, height, weight, etc. Some prints give info that goes beyond human range.

[Guest thermalman]

I wonder why the Patty "suit" maker was never a big name in Hollywood. Considering it was much more realistic than anything the best of the best could put out those days, I want to know who the mystery person was who created that masterpiece. You'd think they'd have been all over the golden rewards of such artwork.

Oh wait, maybe it's real.

It just might be tj. I just happened to rewatch the PGF on youtube today. My impressions of the subject are more solidified as being real. Plenty of muscle movement in the legs and other parts of the body that no costume could duplicate. The face had me thinking, why would the hoaxers put so much detail and effort into it, only to film it from such a far distance at the time? Only recent technology is able to give us such a detailed close up, if in fact was faked, would have now been revealed as such.

That's good, I didn't know that. I remember when I was younger it seems like they were popping up all over. Now I never hear of any being found. Maybe it's because nobody makes a big deal out of it any more.

There is the trail of prints in Oregon found recently and can be viewed here.

That's the thing Ray, Dr Meldrum can tell you they are real. They are real footprints,made by a real animal, with real muscles, tendons, etc, because he is an expert. He can tell you a lot about the anatomy of the animal that made the print, from the print because he is an expert. He can tell you what animals did not make the print, because he is an expert.So you can rest assured, and be certain, they are real prints, made by real animals, consistently, through out North America. Now, from this, he can produce a hypothesis about what he feels, based on his expert opinion, what made the tracks. He may be wrong, his hypothesis may be off the mark. But you know what? That does not change the fact that they are real tracks, made by a real animal, and that animal is an unknown. Period. That is fact, like it or not.

Attacking his hypothesis or questioning his competency, does not change anything. It is what it is.

+1 John, great analysis, very simply put.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thermalman

[roguefooter]

I don't know whether the prints are real or not. How could I? Without a verified match, how can anyone? I am truly straddling the fence because ~I don't know~. To those that claim they are prints made by sasquatch, I say prove it. Rub my nose in it. Serve up that heaping plate of crow. I won't mind, really I won't.

If you were on the fence Ray then you would have no reason to eat crow. Nice try though.

[Guest]

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

It's amazing how Bigfoot guru’s and proponents have custom tailored BF’s behavior and intelligence over the years. Customized so these characteristics can be utilized as an excuse to explain why they can never come out with concrete evidence. Shy, elusive, nocturnal and secretive come to mind. We can't find him because he only comes out at night. Sasquatch is extremely shy and avoids humans at all cost and that's why we can't find him. And overshadowing all these traits is his ability to be elusive. This makes perfect sense. He's elusive and that's why we can't find him. We can't find him therefore he's elusive....................

That was a good post! What he said!!

[ohiobill]

If tarps rustling in the night are proof positive that bigfoot is around then the woods are crawling with them! My tarp/raincover has rustled on every camping trip I've ever been on and here I just thought it was wind or dew causing my tarp/guylines to elongate and sag. Maybe I should bring a camera so they will stay clear of me?

I wonder how many of the "encounters" people have with bigfoot consist exclusively of "tree knocks", rustling tarps, and similar non-specific items? Are these folks seeing tracks? Casting or photographing them? Is someone "investigating" these encounters with a phone call? Do the witnesses sound "credible" because obviously, if they do, everyone on the internet should believe them without hesitation right?

Are claims like this w/no documentation "evidence" of bigfoot?

[roguefooter]

The OP makes some good points, but regarding the gamecam issue- if they're well hidden and bears can still detect them then it's probably not the size of the cam that matters. There's obviously another issue to it.

In reference to the Meldrum cabin issues and the footprints - has anyone even asked Meldrum about it? I mean it seems pretty obvious that footprints would be one of the first things to look for, and asking Meldrum about it seems a pretty logical next step. It is his 'job' so to speak, so it shouldn't be any problem. Has this been done at all?

Edited September 10, 2012 by roguefooter

[Guest]

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.

The squatchers are constantly trying to shift the burden of proof, or to be more accurate, the burden of "dis-prove" to the skeptics and the scientific community. We demand that you prove all the BF tracks are hoaxes, we insist that you demonstrate to us that wood knocks are not produced by Sasquatches or confirm for us that all the unidentified hairs did not come from BF. Like it or not, scientific discovery does not function in this manner and skeptics have no obligation to help in this quest. The responsibility falls on those who believe, and unfortunately, this includes all the financial burden as well.

As for much of the evidence that's constantly being regurgitated here, you can't call it evidence when no one else is given access except the most animate of BF proponents. Scientific discovery does not operate in this manner either.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Marlboro

[Guest MikeG]

I agree with almost all of that, Marlboro, except the following:

".......The responsibility falls on those who believe........."

This isn't strictly true. It is perfectly possible, indeed I would say more than likely, that if sasquatch is proven to exist it will be by a neutral, a scientist, rather than by any believer.

Mike

[Guest]

The footprints exist, one way or the other. They are out there and documented. Unless you don't believe that even the footprints exist, that it. So if they are out there but you are convinced they are not created by Bigfoot, what is wrong with asking a skeptic what they believe is creating all these footprints in the interest of intellectual discourse? Not that you have prove anything; just what do you think is making them? If you think they are all hoaxes, then I would counter with Meldrum's statistical analysis suggesting they are made by a real population, and so on.

What's wrong with just discussing in this way? Why does it always have to be a huge snark-fest?

[Guest thermalman]

If tarps rustling in the night are proof positive that bigfoot is around then the woods are crawling with them! My tarp/raincover has rustled on every camping trip I've ever been on and here I just thought it was wind or dew causing my tarp/guylines to elongate and sag. Maybe I should bring a camera so they will stay clear of me?

I wonder how many of the "encounters" people have with bigfoot consist exclusively of "tree knocks", rustling tarps, and similar non-specific items? Are these folks seeing tracks? Casting or photographing them? Is someone "investigating" these encounters with a phone call? Do the witnesses sound "credible" because obviously, if they do, everyone on the internet should believe them without hesitation right?

Are claims like this w/no documentation "evidence" of bigfoot?

Start a poll OB. You'll get your answers. Then we can go from there.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thermalman