Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[Guest]

Jane Goodall went on jaunts of months at a time. Many scientists will do so if there is some evidence that something is out there. Dr. Goodall wasn't out there for her health or to find evidence for any one thing but was out there to see what could be seen and documented. Science is done for that reason. If no scientist has been convinced that there is anything to see or document out there about bigfoot is not the fault of the scientist but of the "researchers" who provide blurry photos and anecdotal evidence. The scientist can only judge what evidence is provided. Anecdotes are poor evidence. The fur samples have ALL yielded up known animals as evidence when DNA was studied. ALL other hair samples that were considered "unknown" have been destroyed or tossed and are no longer evidence no matter what. Footprints have been faked and this is KNOWN 100%. And yet you and others want to keep considering them proof positive evidence of bigfoot. There is a serious disconnect here. If ANY evidence can be the result of fakery, it needs to be disregarded as PROOF or EVIDENCE. Doesn't mean that the footprint isn't evidence of some sort but it is NOT evidence of bigfoot per se.

 

It is in n way "anti-science" to accept possibilities. Whenever a scientist proposes a hypothesis, he/she is proposing a possibility.

[BobbyO]

The size of the foot has no relation to the size of the individual. I have a size 12 foot and am only 5'8'' tall. I have dated men taller than myself with size 8 feet. And just so everyone knows, I am a man so we are talking same foot measure methods.

That's a monstrous sized foot for a little fella.

You do have big old feet across the pond, I'll give you that.

[Guest DWA]

If no scientist has been convinced that there is anything to see or document out there about bigfoot is not the fault of the scientist but of the "researchers" who provide blurry photos and anecdotal evidence. The scientist can only judge what evidence is provided. Anecdotes are poor evidence. The fur samples have ALL yielded up known animals as evidence when DNA was studied. ALL other hair samples that were considered "unknown" have been destroyed or tossed and are no longer evidence no matter what. Footprints have been faked and this is KNOWN 100%. And yet you and others want to keep considering them proof positive evidence of bigfoot. There is a serious disconnect here. If ANY evidence can be the result of fakery, it needs to be disregarded as PROOF or EVIDENCE. Doesn't mean that the footprint isn't evidence of some sort but it is NOT evidence of bigfoot per se.

 

It is in n way "anti-science" to accept possibilities. Whenever a scientist proposes a hypothesis, he/she is proposing a possibility.

Nope.  The only folks who have committed to reviewing the evidence and have the qualifications to review it pronounce it genuine.  The mainstream's lack of interest is, pretty much, anti-scientific.  

 

It is one thing to not be involved personally and reserve judgment when one has not reviewed the evidence.  It is quite another to call the evidence wanting when one has not reviewed it. The latter is what's happening.

 

The fakes that have been pointed out - in every case, btw, by the proponents - have nothing to do with the conversation.  They have been set aside, discarded, and are no longer worthy of attention.  To say that fakery is why the evidence is not worthy of consideration is a bald-faced admission that one is ignorant of the evidence.  Simple as that.

Edited July 23, 2014 by DWA

[Yuchi1]

IMO, if/when a specimen is produced it will be the result of a happenstance event such as, hit by vehicle, shot by (non-BF) hunter, body discovered by hikers, et. al..

 

During the ~12 years I have been aware of this phenomena and the "research groups" observed lead to the conclusion that most all of them are focused on either the material (money/fame) aspects or inebriated with esoteric nuances to the point they can no longer discern reality from fantasy. The epidemic of hand-wringing over a tree break is just one example thereof.

[Guest]

That's a monstrous sized foot for a little fella.

You do have big old feet across the pond, I'll give you that.

"little fella?" Well, most of my friends used to call me a hobbit if that means anything : /

[BobbyO]

Haha I'm understanding where you're coming from..

Just struggling to imagine the kayaks you have attached to your ankles..

[Guest]

 

Nope.  The only folks who have committed to reviewing the evidence and have the qualifications to review it pronounce it genuine.  The mainstream's lack of interest is, pretty much, anti-scientific.  

 

It is one thing to not be involved personally and reserve judgment when one has not reviewed the evidence.  It is quite another to call the evidence wanting when one has not reviewed it. The latter is what's happening.

 

The fakes that have been pointed out - in every case, btw, by the proponents - have nothing to do with the conversation.  They have been set aside, discarded, and are no longer worthy of attention.  To say that fakery is why the evidence is not worthy of consideration is a bald-faced admission that one is ignorant of the evidence.  Simple as that.

 

I have reviewed evidence (from the same vantage point as you: an armchair) and found it wanting and hence reserving my judgment. This is appropriate when evidence is insufficient. You perhaps think I have not reviewed the evidence enough but what do you know of my researches? nothing. Mainstream interest is inherently not scientific. The average person is not particularly interested in the "ins and outs" of science even as they find the findings of interest. The scientific method is not for everyone but it is the most reliable method for determining what's really going on.

 

DWA. I do not really understand why you attack the scientific method that I champion. We should all champion learning the truth about bigfoot even if it means that we find out bigfoot isn't real. Sad as that might be (and I for one would be quite sad about this as I've spent forty-some years of my life reading about and day-dreaming about bigfoot) I would rather know the truth. I WANT bigfoot to be real! But if bigfoot isn't real then I will have to make peace with that knowledge. Doesn't mean I will stop loving bigfoot (or Champ or Nessie or chupacabra etc) but that I will accept the truth because it is true. I don't believe in mermaids at all but I still read about them and wonder what they might have been like if they were real. Bigfoot will still live on whether it existed or not because of people like me

Haha I'm understanding where you're coming from..

Just struggling to imagine the kayaks you have attached to your ankles..

yeah that's what people call them : )

IMO, if/when a specimen is produced it will be the result of a happenstance event such as, hit by vehicle, shot by (non-BF) hunter, body discovered by hikers, et. al..

 

During the ~12 years I have been aware of this phenomena and the "research groups" observed lead to the conclusion that most all of them are focused on either the material (money/fame) aspects or inebriated with esoteric nuances to the point they can no longer discern reality from fantasy. The epidemic of hand-wringing over a tree break is just one example thereof.

I have been hoping for a long time that someone (maybe even me!!!!) will come across a body on the side of the road and will take a piece of it to the authorities. I wouldn't hesitate to chop off a bigfoot hand (I would apologize profusely while I did so but hey...) and take that to the cops. I'd happily sit in a jail cell while they checked out the situation. For the sake of science, you betcha!!!

[Guest LarryP]

Footprints have been faked and this is KNOWN 100%.

 

Proof?

[norseman]

The size of the foot has no relation to the size of the individual. I have a size 12 foot and am only 5'8'' tall. I have dated men taller than myself with size 8 feet. And just so everyone knows, I am a man so we are talking same foot measure methods.

There are exceptions to the rule for sure, but I disagree there is no relation. But more importantly we had a trackway of the film subject. They measured length of track, stride and depth. That is real data that can be mined, that gives us an idea of the size of the film subject.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3H9ZQqcDA/UczefpGtU9I/AAAAAAAC4B4/aeJr9uV9wKg/s420/patty+1.jpg

If we know in this case the size of the foot? That gives us scale in any photo that shows a upturned foot.

I believe but not positive that the film subjects track length was 17 inches. I'll have to do some more digging on the sizes.

But Iam simply putting it out there that Meldrum could be using other methods to come up with Patty's height than just Munns work.

Proof?

Absolutely they have. But a hoax like that has never perpetrated on film with a ape suit on that Iam aware of.

The PGF film site was well documented and people could see not only Patty's trackway. But also the horses, Gimlin and Pattersons as well.

How do you replicate a giant trackway as a man while looking fluid on film?

I've thought maybe there was a film site and then a separate stomper site.....but mcclarin was following Patty's trackway and the backgrounds line up on film..

Dunno, but it's not that easy.

[Guest]

LarryP,

 

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

 

http://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

 

"Hoaxers have further contaminated the problem of sorting fact from fiction. Dozens of people have admitted faking Bigfoot prints, photographs, and nearly every other type of Bigfoot evidence. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot tracks and used them to fake footprints for decades. Which are real? Which are fake? Often the Bigfoot experts themselves can't agree."

 

Footprint makers have been made from wood and from latex. The latex ones provide them most life-like prints and are easily made in one's own home. Wood has largely been the preferred material though probably due to easy availability. Denying that fakery has happened is not reasonable.

[David NC]

Antefoot. Speaking of Jane Goodall , she was sent to study the behavior of a known and documented species (I am not putting down her work, she is extraordinary in her discoveries and a lot of them before she had a college degree.). The people that discovered the upland gorillas did so after they followed up on "anecdotal" sightings of the animals and they used trackers to track down and find their preferred habitat and then track down the gorillas themselves. I wonder what would have happened had they been told that tracks and stories mean nothing and they had believed it, we may have not discovered the upland gorilla until someone cut a highway thru the jungle and one gets hit by a truck.

[Guest]

There are exceptions to the rule for sure, but I disagree there is no relation. But more importantly we had a trackway of the film subject. They measured length of track, stride and depth. That is real data that can be mined, that gives us an idea of the size of the film subject.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KD3H9ZQqcDA/UczefpGtU9I/AAAAAAAC4B4/aeJr9uV9wKg/s420/patty+1.jpg

If we know in this case the size of the foot? That gives us scale in any photo that shows a upturned foot.

I believe but not positive that the film subjects track length was 17 inches. I'll have to do some more digging on the sizes.

But Iam simply putting it out there that Meldrum could be using other methods to come up with Patty's height than just Munns work.

Absolutely they have. But a hoax like that has never perpetrated on film with a ape suit on that Iam aware of.

The PGF film site was well documented and people could see not only Patty's trackway. But also the horses, Gimlin and Pattersons as well.

How do you replicate a giant trackway as a man while looking fluid on film?

I've thought maybe there was a film site and then a separate stomper site.....but mcclarin was following Patty's trackway and the backgrounds line up on film..

Dunno, but it's not that easy.

We have no contiguous film from "Patty" to the film of the footprints. This means that the footprints can not truly be related to "Patty" except on the say so of someone with questionable motives. He was selling the film so the motives ARE questionable even if he was a completely and perfectly stand up dude. If that is not understandable to anyone then I have a bridge (very nice and newly carpeted) in Brooklyn to sell cheap. The film is also not available to study directly. This IS another warning sign of something shifty going on.

 

I still hope this film is real and true. I still reference every video I see by the details on this one. White soles, slow, ponderous gait, impression of size and gravitas, etc. If Patterson and Gimlin pulled one on us, then I am referencing EVERY video incorrectly and that would really **** me off.

Antefoot. Speaking of Jane Goodall , she was sent to study the behavior of a known and documented species (I am not putting down her work, she is extraordinary in her discoveries and a lot of them before she had a college degree.). The people that discovered the upland gorillas did so after they followed up on "anecdotal" sightings of the animals and they used trackers to track down and find their preferred habitat and then track down the gorillas themselves. I wonder what would have happened had they been told that tracks and stories mean nothing and they had believed it, we may have not discovered the upland gorilla until someone cut a highway thru the jungle and one gets hit by a truck.

Sorry to tell you this David but Dr Goodall explored chimpanzee behavior not gorilla. She went because chimpanzee evidence was thorough and reasonable. If sasquatch (not my favorite word for them, I prefer booger or bigfoot and my mother prefers bigfoot and I'm well behaved for one of her sons hehe) should develop similar evidence for existence (and by Goodall's time there were plenty of chimps in zoos) someone would readily go out to watch and study them(I hope, because I don't wan to go out in the woods myself to do but if I must I suppose...) but even just finding sufficient DNA evidence would be enough to inspire primatologists to g out there and see what they can find out. DNA is a powerful stimulant to research today. There are many who deny this but they are among the deniers out there who deny science will ever do anything about bigfoot.

[David NC]

I was referring to the chimpanzee when I spoke about Jane Goodall. She was sent to study their behavior after they were documented and classified. I would say the discovery of the chimp went along the same lines, stories of people seeing them, leading to tracking them, leading to their preferred habitat, leading to seeing and shooting them and that is called discovery. We are in the very beginning of the chase being that Sasquatch are far smarter than chimps or gorillas. The point I was trying to make is if the people that heard the original eyewitness reports of any of these animals had been told what people see and report is not real, tracks mean nothing and they had decided that these scientist knew more than them and did not continue to search then were would those discoveries be?

Edited July 23, 2014 by David NC

[Guest LarryP]

LarryP,

 

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

 

http://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

 

"Hoaxers have further contaminated the problem of sorting fact from fiction. Dozens of people have admitted faking Bigfoot prints, photographs, and nearly every other type of Bigfoot evidence. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot tracks and used them to fake footprints for decades. Which are real? Which are fake? Often the Bigfoot experts themselves can't agree."

 

Footprint makers have been made from wood and from latex. The latex ones provide them most life-like prints and are easily made in one's own home. Wood has largely been the preferred material though probably due to easy availability. Denying that fakery has happened is not reasonable.

 

And what proof do you have that all footprints are faked?

[Guest]

Antfoot... It's a fact that if you did what you suggested, your discovery would be slept under the rug and absolutely NOTHING would come of it. The Police Department you dropped that hand off at would deny any such thing was given to them and that hand would magically dissappear.