On the Plausibility of Another Bipedal Primate Species Existing in North America

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It has much to do with their personalities getting along well, and Dr. Meldrum’s unusual gullibility. In other words, he became good friends with a scammer.

[bipedalist]

7 hours ago, Rockape said:

 

Don't know why he'd have any association with Standing.

 

They did the Northwest Bigfoot North project radio series remember.  This is when he was out in the field with Survivorman. Then went all Sasquatch Summit and Seattle movie release which was a dud.

 

I'd imagine things have quieted down some so they will try to recoup on that effort.

 

Both Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel were sucked in by Standing at the Sasquatch Summit.  At least Bindernagel backed out upon seeing there was no evidence produced by Standing other than shady videos.

 

Meldrum on the other hand was out in the field with Standing and was affected by something to place trust in Standing.

 

A research area was revealed to him by others that had been productive, Standing expropriated it in a fashion you might expect from a hoaxer!

 

Money and opportunity is a common denominator in many fields of endeavor.   The radio show was said to be hauling in big advertising potential and endorsements and that was driving some of this. 

 

Geesh here is one from 2017, this is still going on?  No, looks like it was reposted from an earlier time period. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by bipedalist

[Drew]

The rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are the arbiter of the proposed name.  It does not meet the criteria.

Quote

 

1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed

1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;

 

In other words, the ICZN does not recognize footprints (work) of any extant creature as a basis for zoological naming.

[MIB]

Standing is a known, demonstrated multiple-hoaxer.   Meldrum and Stroud are taking considerable risk to their credibility in the bigfoot field associating with him.   I suspect Standing probably did have an encounter of some sort, wasn't able to provide evidence, so he created some ... and got caught.   Its a lesson for anyone who is looking to "prove."

 

MIB

[Cotter]

The thing about Meldrum, is that he has had experiences he has not publicly shared.  A good friend of mine, in the early 90's had some phenomenal encounters with at least one (maybe more) BF's in the PNW.  After the encounters, he became hooked on figuring out what this BF 'stuff' was all about.  He met with BLM forest personnel with mixed results and eventually found his way to Idaho to have a conversation with Meldrum.

 

According to my buddy, Meldrum has seen at least one BF up close and experienced a behavior that I don't see discussed.  Apparently he was in the Blue Mountains with some other folks at the time on an expedition.

Cool story, I know.

 

So if Meldrum is 'in the know', and Standing offered up some intriguing insights that are not that well known, it could very well be that Standing does has a good spot, but fell victim to what MIB describes above.

[ioyza]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

Standing is a known, demonstrated multiple-hoaxer.  

 

Show me. All I've ever seen is near-universal knee-jerk reaction that amounts to "Just look! It's so obviously a hoax!" ... which is pretty far from "demonstrated" to my mind. If a conclusive demonstration of the methodology producing these alleged hoaxes is out there, please point me to it. 

 

To be clear, I don't have that much stake in defending Standing. My main interest in this is the reaction to it, which to my mind was swift, unmeasured, and unscientific, and quickly led to a pitchfork-mob vilification of a guy who to me seems very passionate and knowledgable (and experienced in the field with sasquatch, which is obviously what got Stroud and Meldrum on board), and who might have captured some of the best footage to date. 

[MIB]

19 minutes ago, ioyza said:

Show me.

 

I've never seen a real bigfoot made of glass eyes and synthetic materials.   Have you?   If you look at the muppet pictures and see anything but hoax epitomized, you need to lay off the cool aid.

 

MIB

[ioyza]

So in other words, by "demonstrated" you did in fact mean "just look at it." Which version of the muppet photos are we talking - the original, with the pine needles obscuring the face, or the version with the needles photoshopped out, which altered the spacing between the eyes and the skin tone substantially?

 

What about the other ones? Are we talking about the one where the sasquatch face morphs into Todd Standing's face, thereby "demonstrating" it's CGI?

 

Personally, I've never seen a real bigfoot period (well, distant glimpses don't count in this context). So how should I know what a real bigfoot looks like? I'll admit the muppet one looks a bit funky, but the descriptions in reports have led to theories of multiple types, dogmen, etc etc so how am I to make a conclusive judgment based on appearance alone? Honestly, on a close look, it's not that obviously synthetic to my eyes.

 

I think it's too bad that the mob rules in this field, and when people we consider "respectable" associate with people we've decided are "deplorable hoaxers," we say the respectable ones have lost credibility rather than putting a bit more faith in those we found dubious. 

 

What if his footage is real? What kind of message do we send others who might have valuable footage about what might happen to them if they come forward? IMO, this kind of emotional reactionary language and group think is FAR more damaging to the field as a whole than any one hoax. Even casually tossing around terms like "kool aid" - I promise you I approach this subject with a very even keel and a level head, and I don't appreciate condescension. 

 

I suggest that people need to make much better use of what I'll call the 'limbo bin' when categorizing potential evidence. These are items you can't be certain of on their own. You may have suspicions one way or the other and feel tempted to move them into the bogus bin, but if all you have is your gut reaction, why bother? 

[norseman]

http://media.texasbigfoot.com/SylvanicVideoExamination_Poling&Falconer_Aug2014.pdf

[Redbone]

1 hour ago, ioyza said:

Show me. All I've ever seen is near-universal knee-jerk reaction that amounts to "Just look! It's so obviously a hoax!" ... which is pretty far from "demonstrated" to my mind. If a conclusive demonstration of the methodology producing these alleged hoaxes is out there, please point me to it.

It's not exactly a knee-jerk reaction to those of us enlightened long ago that Todd Standing was a hoaxer.

But since you asked nicely: http://media.texasbigfoot.com/SylvanicVideoExamination_Poling&Falconer_Aug2014.pdf

 

EDIT: Dang it...Norseman beat me to it

Edited November 1, 2017 by Redbone

[norseman]

Sorry!

 

There was another critique that went into him and his sister and their video production company?

[ioyza]

Ok, well that's what I was asking for! Thanks guys, I'll look through it.

 

His sister being involved in a production company doesn't mean much more than "Roger Patterson was filming a bigfoot movie" - unless you can connect her name with receipts for orders for a robotic head and horse hair, or something like that.

[bipedalist]

6 hours ago, ioyza said:

So in other words, by "demonstrated" you did in fact mean "just look at it." Which version of the muppet photos are we talking - the original, with the pine needles obscuring the face, or the version with the needles photoshopped out, which altered the spacing between the eyes and the skin tone substantially?

 

What about the other ones? Are we talking about the one where the sasquatch face morphs into Todd Standing's face, thereby "demonstrating" it's CGI?

 

Personally, I've never seen a real bigfoot period (well, distant glimpses don't count in this context). So how should I know what a real bigfoot looks like? I'll admit the muppet one looks a bit funky, but the descriptions in reports have led to theories of multiple types, dogmen, etc etc so how am I to make a conclusive judgment based on appearance alone? Honestly, on a close look, it's not that obviously synthetic to my eyes.

 

I think it's too bad that the mob rules in this field, and when people we consider "respectable" associate with people we've decided are "deplorable hoaxers," we say the respectable ones have lost credibility rather than putting a bit more faith in those we found dubious. 

 

What if his footage is real? What kind of message do we send others who might have valuable footage about what might happen to them if they come forward? IMO, this kind of emotional reactionary language and group think is FAR more damaging to the field as a whole than any one hoax. Even casually tossing around terms like "kool aid" - I promise you I approach this subject with a very even keel and a level head, and I don't appreciate condescension. 

 

I suggest that people need to make much better use of what I'll call the 'limbo bin' when categorizing potential evidence. These are items you can't be certain of on their own. You may have suspicions one way or the other and feel tempted to move them into the bogus bin, but if all you have is your gut reaction, why bother? 

On 10/31/2017 at 6:28 PM, Rockape said:

 

 

http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/sylvanic--todd-standing.html

 

Try this one on for hoaxer sizing, this guy stole somebody elses research area, if he found something he got lucky but he is still a hoaxer and his sister helped him write the roadmap. 

 

Due diligence melodramatic caveat:   For Entertainment Purposes Only

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by bipedalist

[NatFoot]

8 hours ago, ioyza said:

Ok, well that's what I was asking for! Thanks guys, I'll look through it.

 

His sister being involved in a production company doesn't mean much more than "Roger Patterson was filming a bigfoot movie" - unless you can connect her name with receipts for orders for a robotic head and horse hair, or something like that.

 

I was never really bought into the mask looking, still eyed, videos but I wanted the CGI looking ones to be real.

 

After reviewing the PDFs linked here today, I have to say I can't hold too much hope they are real. Disclaimer to that is that I think the authors of the PDF tried too hard to disprove.

[Rockape]

3 hours ago, bipedalist said:

Try this one on for hoaxer sizing, this guy stole somebody elses research area

 

I remember hearing about that. Wasn't the person who he stole the area from a member here?