norseman Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The only thing I could find about Bigfoot on that site was an ad for a seminar featuring Todd Standing's bunny (ie the Bigfoot-butt-in-the-mud guy). That's not encouraging particularly when I've been stressing the importance of independent analysis and about how easy it is to be tricked by others or by our own selves... I'd be interested in hearing more from Dr. Halfpenny on the subject, though - do you know if such info available somewhere without the $250 price-tag? Why dont you see Bigfoot plastered all over his website? That's because Dr. Halfpenney is the indepedent analysis you seek. Jeff Meldrum despite your personal attacks has sought out one of the most recognized professional animal trackers in the country (not usually the act of a con man). Halfpenney despite his skepticism has agreed to look at trackways Meldrum thinks are good and they have also collaberated to do a seminar on tracking, so that bigfooters can stop making rookie type mistakes when it comes to track analysis. i.e. they think a bear track is sasquatch etc. And my trackway i observed as a kid with my father was not "documented". Although i have seen similar looking photos and even a youtube video that remind me of that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the modern social construct of bigfoot", but if I understand correctly it started with the internet and as Doc noted, greed. Before the internet and messageboards, forums, etc. I'd say most didn't have access to the tons of information out there nor a place to discuss it. Most probably never gave much if any thought to research and documentation before that either. Prior to the 1950's Hairy Wildman stories contained a very wide range of descriptions. Not only were descriptions of Hairy Wildmen vastly different but their reported behaviors also varied greatly. Some were aggressive to the point they kidnapped people and bred with them. In the 50's bigfoot reporting became largely centralized. A handful of people working out of the PNW became the source for all things bigfoot. Norms for bigfoot, rightly or wrongly were established. Especially after Patty and the consistency of reports was much improved. Move forward to the 90's and the internet as you discussed above. We experienced another quantum leap.. No real evidence mind you but communication, profiteering and the freakshows jumped forward dramatically. If bigfoot is a social construct that would mean that all of these stories added together create what we now know and accept as evidence and behaviors of the creature. Harrison Hot Springs seems to be the hub of most of the information from the 50's on regarding bigfoot and even a topic at the Chamber of Commerce in attempts to drive tourism. I guess my proposal is that bigfootery prior to the 1950's was random and reports varied greatly. It was pop culture. Starting in the 50's it became more organized, improving in profitability and consistency. Without question much of that came from Harrison Hotsprings. Bigfoot is still undergoing social construction. Habitation is one of the newer constructs. So is para-squatch. I don't think bigfoot kidnaps people much anymore and I wonder why. We also have those who try to turn a profit from bigfoot and therefore propagate stories, usualy the more ridiculous the better, in order to generate revenue. I believe we are seeing that here with this sudden influx of Sasquatch Chronicles people and their steady promotion of Bob Garrett. Many people make claims just for kicks or personality defects. This is probably far more common than the profiteers. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the modern social construct of bigfoot", but if I understand correctly it started with the internet and as Doc noted, greed. Before the internet and messageboards, forums, etc. I'd say most didn't have access to the tons of information out there nor a place to discuss it. Most probably never gave much if any thought to research and documentation before that either. Prior to the 1950's Hairy Wildman stories contained a very wide range of descriptions. Not only were descriptions of Hairy Wildmen vastly different but their reported behaviors also varied greatly. Some were aggressive to the point they kidnapped people and bred with them. In the 50's bigfoot reporting became largely centralized. A handful of people working out of the PNW became the source for all things bigfoot. Norms for bigfoot, rightly or wrongly were established. Especially after Patty and the consistency of reports was much improved. Move forward to the 90's and the internet as you discussed above. We experienced another quantum leap.. No real evidence mind you but communication, profiteering and the freakshows jumped forward dramatically. If bigfoot is a social construct that would mean that all of these stories added together create what we now know and accept as evidence and behaviors of the creature. Harrison Hot Springs seems to be the hub of most of the information from the 50's on regarding bigfoot and even a topic at the Chamber of Commerce in attempts to drive tourism. I guess my proposal is that bigfootery prior to the 1950's was random and reports varied greatly. It was pop culture. Starting in the 50's it became more organized, improving in profitability and consistency. Without question much of that came from Harrison Hotsprings. Bigfoot is still undergoing social construction. Habitation is one of the newer constructs. So is para-squatch. I don't think bigfoot kidnaps people much anymore and I wonder why. We also have those who try to turn a profit from bigfoot and therefore propagate stories, usualy the more ridiculous the better, in order to generate revenue. I believe we are seeing that here with this sudden influx of Sasquatch Chronicles people and their steady promotion of Bob Garrett. Many people make claims just for kicks or personality defects. This is probably far more common than the profiteers. Edited July 29, 2015 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 What can you present in this world that is without change and immune to change? Scoftics coming to this forum to troll. That never changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We already have that with the PGF. Good footage (non-replicable with a human in a suit) and a good track way with two eyewitneses.....yet still the scoftics reject it. The goal posts are always moving for these such people. Who’s scoffing? I’m looking for solutions… Whatever your stance on the PGF we still don’t even know where and when the film was developed. That’s not good particularly when we’re talking about evidence being verifiable… Many people describe their encounter with Bigfoot as an “experienceâ€. In some circles, people who claim multiple Bigfoot encounters are even referred to as “experiencersâ€. I have no doubt that, whatever the mechanism(s), such subjective experiences can be profound events that may affect people greatly. Yet the verifiable objective evidence remains elusive if not completely non-existent. Why? I’m exploring the possibility that while the experience of Bigfoot may be real the creature is not. Bigfoot may have more in kin with the Goblin Universe than the natural world – we see it in ambiguity because we already believe it to be so. This is exactly what may be happening with the current “Milwaukee lion†situation – people are fearful yet are they seeing what is objectively there (ie a lion or mountain lion) or, in moments of anxiety and ambiguity, are they seeing what they subjectively fear? It seems that everyone (the public, experts, and authorities) is talking “lion†but examine the original evidence anew and ask yourself – is that really a lion?: Why are people seeing it as a lion? Why aren't people questioning what they see? Multiple witnesses, wildlife experts, and law-enforcement are all human and as such can get caught up in the moment - failing to adequately examine the available evidence and ultimately see things as they already believe them to be. People can be both sincere about what they experienced and incorrect. It happens. I understand that we don’t like to think of ourselves as being wrong but if the answer lies in that direction then it should be explored rather than discounted… Why dont you see Bigfoot plastered all over his website? Um… Is Bigfoot hiding somewhere? Do I have to squint or something to see it? That's because Dr. Halfpenney is the indepedent analysis you seek. Jeff Meldrum despite your personal attacks has sought out one of the most recognized professional animal trackers in the country (not usually the act of a con man). Halfpenney despite his skepticism has agreed to look at trackways Meldrum thinks are good and they have also collaberated to do a seminar on tracking, so that bigfooters can stop making rookie type mistakes when it comes to track analysis. i.e. they think a bear track is sasquatch etc.And my trackway i observed as a kid with my father was not "documented". Although i have seen similar looking photos and even a youtube video that remind me of that day. That’s great that Dr. Halfpenny is getting involved and, as I said, I am interested in what he has to say about the subject of Bigfoot tracks. So, again, I’ll ask again - Do you know if such info available somewhere without the $250 price-tag? Does anyone know Halfpenny's opinion on the subject? We shouldn't assume that working with Meldrum means agreeing with him... And what if the involvement of independent skilled trackers fails to lead to Bigfoot or produce verifiable objective evidence (like DNA)? Do you have your excuses already lined-up or will you begin to re-examine and re-think what the evidence is telling you? By describing Meldrum as “Todd Standing’s bunny†I seek to be playful rather than slanderous. Yet the description is also accurate, is it not? Standing has pulled the wool over Meldrum’s eyes, has he not? Or are you impressed by Standing’s evidence, too? You don’t object to people calling it like they see it, do you? I don’t resent Meldrum for his position – it simply reinforces what I am saying about how easy it is for anyone to get things wrong. We all get all manner of things wrong on a daily basis – it’s human. It’s also human by not being willing to examine or admit one’s own mistakes… I even acknowledge that I might even be wrong - Bigfoot may well be a real creature yet the verifiable objective evidence just doesn’t support that conclusion. Is it not ok to ask why? How long do we have to continue making excuses? they are.......http://www.tracknature.com/x/home.phpas for the rest of it? its all conjecture on your part. the trackway i saw with the terrain and snow depth could not be made by a man. With no evidence other than a distant memory it is also conjecture on your part, too, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Night Walker, if you truly want solutions, you're going to have to apply some filters to the available evidence. The biggest mistake I see being made here, over and over and over, is a remarkable lack of discernment from people I presume (perhaps wrongly) to be of reasonable intelligence. If your biggest concern about the PGF is that you don't know where the film was developed, instead of what is actually shown on the film, you are in some deep weeds and I doubt anyone has any help to give you that you would be able to accept. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Whatever your stance on the PGF we still don’t even know where and when the film was developed. It was developed over the weekend of the 21st October 1967, under the counter. Patterson already said this back in 1967. No evidence to the contrary has ever surfaced and no lab has ever contradicted his words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Um… Is Bigfoot hiding somewhere? Do I have to squint or something to see it? That’s great that Dr. Halfpenny is getting involved and, as I said, I am interested in what he has to say about the subject of Bigfoot tracks. So, again, I’ll ask again - Do you know if such info available somewhere without the $250 price-tag? Does anyone know Halfpenny's opinion on the subject? We shouldn't assume that working with Meldrum means agreeing with him... And what if the involvement of independent skilled trackers fails to lead to Bigfoot or produce verifiable objective evidence (like DNA)? Do you have your excuses already lined-up or will you begin to re-examine and re-think what the evidence is telling you? By describing Meldrum as “Todd Standing’s bunny†I seek to be playful rather than slanderous. Yet the description is also accurate, is it not? Standing has pulled the wool over Meldrum’s eyes, has he not? Or are you impressed by Standing’s evidence, too? You don’t object to people calling it like they see it, do you? I don’t resent Meldrum for his position – it simply reinforces what I am saying about how easy it is for anyone to get things wrong. We all get all manner of things wrong on a daily basis – it’s human. It’s also human by not being willing to examine or admit one’s own mistakes… I even acknowledge that I might even be wrong - Bigfoot may well be a real creature yet the verifiable objective evidence just doesn’t support that conclusion. Is it not ok to ask why? How long do we have to continue making excuses? With no evidence other than a distant memory it is also conjecture on your part, too, you know... I have never once asked anyone to believe in anything without PROOF. But you asserted that Meldrum doesnt seek outside expert skeptical counsel and instead just stays within easy Bigfoot circles.My whole point to you is that your not going to find anything on Mr Halfpenny's website about Bigfoot other than a tracking school he agreed to do with Jeff Meldrum. Because the man is a real expert animal tracker, and while he keeps an open mind he also challenges Meldrum to find him a "good track". I believe it was Mr Halfpenny himself that suggested the skookum cast was an elk, while other scientists said that it wasnt. The issue is not resolved, despite your opinion. I dont make excuses, I search for a body to provide proof of existence. And I wish anyone who goes out and looks for proof the best of luck. Edited July 31, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Night Walker, if you truly want solutions, you're going to have to apply some filters to the available evidence. The biggest mistake I see being made here, over and over and over, is a remarkable lack of discernment from people I presume (perhaps wrongly) to be of reasonable intelligence. If your biggest concern about the PGF is that you don't know where the film was developed, instead of what is actually shown on the film, you are in some deep weeds and I doubt anyone has any help to give you that you would be able to accept. Good luck. I am applying a filter - that of verifiable and (preferably) objective evidence. What kind of filters do you apply? The lack of confirmatory evidence in regards to the PGF is not my sole concern with the film but it is right up there. What matters to me is the objective verifiable facts, not what people see in the images (whether it is muscle movement or costume lines). If the information I seek no longer exists then there is not much I can do about it… Yet Neanderfoot seems to know the answer: It was developed over the weekend of the 21st October 1967, under the counter. Patterson already said this back in 1967. No evidence to the contrary has ever surfaced and no lab has ever contradicted his words. Under which counter? Source? I have never once asked anyone to believe in anything without PROOF. That's great but why then do you believe in something (Bigfoot) without proof? But you asserted that Meldrum doesnt seek outside expert skeptical counsel and instead just stays within easy Bigfoot circles. No – I asked, “why aren't good trackers invited to inspect fresh Bigfoot tracks?†I was corrected by your good self. I find it interesting that you saw more to my question than was actually there but that illustrates my main point – that people often see what they believe rather than what is actually there. This is a major factor to consider when dealing with Bigfoot, Milwaukee Lion, etc… yet few actually do take it into consideration or consider themselves immune to it. By your reasoning good trackers are virtually infallible so I am very interested in what people like Dr Halfpenny have to say about Bigfoot tracks. It is significant if even good trackers, too, cannot find any objective evidence of Bigfoot but I figure its significance will be like water off a duck’s back to many enthusiasts… My whole point to you is that your not going to find anything on Mr Halfpenny's website about Bigfoot other than a tracking school he agreed to do with Jeff Meldrum. Because the man is a real expert animal tracker, and while he keeps an open mind he also challenges Meldrum to find him a "good track". I applaud and encourage co-operation with independent outsiders. I take it, then, that Meldrum has yet to find a “good track†of Bigfoot? Do you know how long this Meldrum-Halfpenny association has been working together? I believe it was Mr Halfpenny himself that suggested the skookum cast was an elk, while other scientists said that it wasnt. The issue is not resolved, despite your opinion. I am aware that my opinion carries no weight. Elk hairs found in the impression and elk tracks found next to it but no Bigfoot hairs or prints anywhere - are you expecting any new developments in regards to the Skookum cast? If Halfpenny been working with Meldrum since 2000, does that mean there have been no “good tracks†of Bigfoot in the last 15 years? I dont make excuses, I search for a body to provide proof of existence. And I wish anyone who goes out and looks for proof the best of luck. I asked you a hypothetical: what if the involvement of independent skilled trackers fails to lead to Bigfoot or produce verifiable objective evidence (like DNA)? Will it change your stance or will it be like water off a duck's back? I, too, search for proof of the Australian Bigfoot (Yowie)… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Same thing applies to Bigfoot... not hardly....... .. at least not in every case. some witnesses have no preconceived BF notions and most of society appears to think its all a "boogie man" story anyways. i doubt whether enough of the public (outside of those watching the latest BF TV show hype ) ever think much about them either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 not hardly....... .. at least not in every case. some witnesses have no preconceived BF notions and most of society appears to think its all a "boogie man" story anyways. i doubt whether enough of the public (outside of those watching the latest BF TV show hype ) ever think much about them either way. I agree that there is no one solution fits all when it comes to Bigfoot – which is what can be expected when we are dealing with something purely subjective. Sure, not all witnesses are Bigfoot-enthusiasts but it would seem that most are. That points to a very strong (sub-)cultural component to the broader phenomena. I also agree that much of the public don’t think much about Bigfoot or ghosts or UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster but you’d have to live under a rock to not have heard anything about them at all. You don’t have to think much about something to have an image of it in your mind. Many, if not all, cultures have myths and legends of giants and wild men (ours included). So perhaps there is something ingrained about it - perhaps similar to “Old Hag†folklore. After all, for most of the evolutionary history of our own species we were prey to larger fiercer animals. Being hyper-attuned to potential threats (like big cats and larger apes) would have its advantages… That Bigfoot has precedents before 1957 seems pretty obvious. That no-one seemed interested enough to search for one before that time is curious. That people now search for and claim to find Bigfoot regularly despite the complete lack of objective verifiable supporting evidence needs some explaining… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 That's great but why then do you believe in something (Bigfoot) without proof? No – I asked, “why aren't good trackers invited to inspect fresh Bigfoot tracks?†I was corrected by your good self. I find it interesting that you saw more to my question than was actually there but that illustrates my main point – that people often see what they believe rather than what is actually there. This is a major factor to consider when dealing with Bigfoot, Milwaukee Lion, etc… yet few actually do take it into consideration or consider themselves immune to it. By your reasoning good trackers are virtually infallible so I am very interested in what people like Dr Halfpenny have to say about Bigfoot tracks. It is significant if even good trackers, too, cannot find any objective evidence of Bigfoot but I figure its significance will be like water off a duck’s back to many enthusiasts… I applaud and encourage co-operation with independent outsiders. I take it, then, that Meldrum has yet to find a “good track†of Bigfoot? Do you know how long this Meldrum-Halfpenny association has been working together? I am aware that my opinion carries no weight. Elk hairs found in the impression and elk tracks found next to it but no Bigfoot hairs or prints anywhere - are you expecting any new developments in regards to the Skookum cast? If Halfpenny been working with Meldrum since 2000, does that mean there have been no “good tracks†of Bigfoot in the last 15 years? I asked you a hypothetical: what if the involvement of independent skilled trackers fails to lead to Bigfoot or produce verifiable objective evidence (like DNA)? Will it change your stance or will it be like water off a duck's back? I, too, search for proof of the Australian Bigfoot (Yowie)… Thats cool. I think I explained earlier why I believe in the existence of Bigfoot. Or at least the possibility that it exists or existed during my life time. I believe meldrum and halfpenny have not been working together for long. But regardless Im not sure by just tracking the beast means your going to immediately come upon good evidence. Tracking here is a race against time, rain and snow can obliterate tracks and during the summer months tracking isnt good enough generally for someone to even alert Meldrum or halfpenny. If the lay man doesnt notice it then its a lost opportunity. We run cougar with hounds during the winter months for good reason. what i saw as a boy was very very similar to this https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=113&v=y-6xkYBbmf8 I have rolled it in my mind a million times, if you have a mundane explanation Im all ears or how its hoaxed. Something made those tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 I liked the part where the tracks just ended..... parasquatch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 what made them? and how do they just end? if hoaxer dude somehow pulls off his stomper stilts in deep snow? His tracks will be there leading away. like i said i dunno, in my case my father spooked before we found out what it was making the tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I also agree that much of the public don’t think much about Bigfoot or ghosts or UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster but you’d have to live under a rock to not have heard anything about them at all. You don’t have to think much about something to have an image of it in your mind. I would say that far more people think about ghosts and UFOs than bigfoot. Bigfoot isn't even one of the most prominent belief phenomena. Sure almost everyone has heard of bigfoot or the yeti but they don't spend much time thinking about them. If most people think of bigfoot at all then in general it is seen as a phenomena/myth only likely to be encountered while in the woods or mountains of certain places which the majority of people don't go to and will never go to, whereas ghosts can be in any house and UFOs can be in any skies where we all inhabit. Big difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Walker Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I would say that far more people think about ghosts and UFOs than bigfoot. Bigfoot isn't even one of the most prominent belief phenomena. Sure almost everyone has heard of bigfoot or the yeti but they don't spend much time thinking about them. If most people think of bigfoot at all then in general it is seen as a phenomena/myth only likely to be encountered while in the woods or mountains of certain places which the majority of people don't go to and will never go to, whereas ghosts can be in any house and UFOs can be in any skies where we all inhabit. Big difference there. What’s the difference? Bump in the night in the woods = Bigfoot Bump in the nights in a house = ghost Glimpse an unexpected shape in the mountains = Bigfoot Glimpse an unexpected shape in the sky = UFO Glimpse an unexpected shape in the water = lake monster The human mind fills in the blanks – the context determines how the anomalous experience is perceived/interpreted and that is largely determined by one’s culture. If more people think about ghosts and UFOs than Bigfoot and generally don’t venture to the woods/mountains then when anomalous events are experienced they are interpreted and reported as ghosts/UFOs more often than as Bigfoot. That is to be expected. It should be noted that some Bigfoot-enthusiasts also sometimes experience Bigfoot in their urban/suburban environments just as spirits are can be sometimes experienced in the woods by those so-inclined... If more people ventured out into the woods there would be more anomalous experiences interpreted and reported as Bigfoot yet the quality of the objective would remain the same as what we have now. Why? Because Bigfoot is a subjective culturally-defined experience (like ghosts and UFOs) rather than an objective biological reality... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts