Bigfoot Evidence?

[outhouse]

Excuse me. "Alien craft".

I wish the same thing, im supprised it hasnt been solved yet [bigfoot]

UFO's on the other hand are believed by many

ufo's %32
bigfoot %20

i havnt checked im sure its unofficial

 

[painted wolf]

Reptillian- I love your trilobite!

Outhouse... I've never lived in a city, just a couple of years ago I lived in a mountain town, nestled in the White Mountain National Park...83 people and only one road (not paved or maintained in my section). I've had close encounters with the neighbors, from rut happy moose to mother bears and her cubs to the local coyote pack. I'm hardly unschooled in what life is like out in the wilds.

I also know about the powerful subconscious effect that cultural belief has ones perceptions... having encountered a Wendigo. And I know the difference between that and scientific reality.

I've examined the evidence presented by bigfoot proponents and frankly it's been nothing but disappointing. No rigor and plenty of blind faith.

If you want to believe in bigfoot based on faith, that is fine.... but you can't expect to tell other pseudoscientists their pet myth is bunk.

ps... DNA would not come up inconclusive by being "near human"... If doing a proper BLAST analysis you would be able to place it in a general phylogenetic context and show how close to human it is vs. how close to chimp, bear or anything else on record.
There should be no "inconclusive" if the study is done with proper scientific rigor.
"Inconclusive" is a red flag for woo.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Angels are believed by "many" as is the Christian god.... but "many believers" does not make something scientifically valid.

wa:do

 

[tomato1236]

Apparently there have been bigfoot sightings within a 15 minute drive of where I'm sitting. I had no idea.

 

[Reptillian]

Reptillian- I love your trilobite!

Thanks, I got it from some paleontology site trying to find the answer to a question. Being a biology enthusaist, perhaps you can answer it. Are trilobites related at all to horseshoe crabs? (other than both being arthropods)...or are their morphological similarities just an example of convergent evolution? Could we learn something about trilobite behavior and past earth environmental conditions by extrpolating from what we know about horseshoe crabs?

 

[painted wolf]

They are wily critters those bigfeet... there have been 10 sightings most in the most highly populated areas of the state. :biglaugh:

Heck, Loudon where a couple "heard a late night scream" has a NASCAR speedway!
The "Class A" sighting (top marks for believability) was from Gilford... one of the most densely populated places in the area and has Medowbrook, a very large and very popular concert pavilion. Usually hosting several hundred visitors several times a week.

The idea that the reclusive beast is hanging around watching NASCAR and listening to bands like the Goo Goo Dolls and Meatloaf. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks, I got it from some paleontology site trying to find the answer to a question. Being a biology enthusaist, perhaps you can answer it. Are trilobites related at all to horseshoe crabs? (other than both being arthropods)...or are their morphological similarities just an example of convergent evolution? Could we learn something about trilobite behavior and past earth environmental conditions by extrpolating from what we know about horseshoe crabs?

Absolutely, they are the closest cousins of the Horseshoe crabs... with spiders, scorpions and their kin being the closest living relations.

I think we can learn a fair bit.. some about feeding, rough ideas about internal morphology and some theoretical behavior ... but trilobites are a very diverse group and horseshoe crabs are, unfortunately, not.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

There`s a Bigfoot on my back deck right now taunting my cat!!

No..wait...Possum...Nevermind.
It`s a really really big possum though...seriously.

 

[outhouse]

The "Class A" sighting (top marks for believability) was from Gilford... one of the most densely populated places in the area and has Medowbrook, a very large and very popular concert pavilion. Usually hosting several hundred visitors several times a week.

understood about all of the sightings posted, there. they log everything.

They posted about a pair of BF supposed to be sleeping near a lake a mile from the house. I emailed them and told them the story was BS since i actually worked at the lake at one time and knew what the story was false.


you read some that are writtin like a author practicing for a book that are obvious fictional statements.

I believe not from second hand accounts but by what ive seen and heard and the people ive talked to. I like jeff meldrums work on it as well as jimmy chillcut

 

[painted wolf]

understood about all of the sightings posted, there. they log everything.

They posted about a pair of BF supposed to be sleeping near a lake a mile from the house. I emailed them and told them the story was BS since i actually worked at the lake at one time and knew what the story was false.


you read some that are writtin like a author practicing for a book that are obvious fictional statements.

I believe not from second hand accounts but by what ive seen and heard and the people ive talked to. I like jeff meldrums work on it as well as jimmy chillcut

If it is such an obvious fake... why give it an "Class A" rating?

As for Dr. Meldrum's work... I think it shows promise, but I have to admit that the bits I've read on-line are disappointing.
He manages to reconstruct a lot from plaster casts and doesn't seem to give any evidence that the casts are genuine. I would be more impressed with a morphological study on fake prints and how they form under various conditions. Otherwise, I'm afraid that "it looks genuine" isn't a good scientific answer.

I'm even less impressed with Chillcut, who has produced no technical work, or means of distinguishing "dermal ridges" from the usual sort of featuring seen on plaster casts. There is some experimental work done to show how to fake "dermal ridges".

CSI | Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot ‘Evidence’

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

He manages to reconstruct a lot from plaster casts and doesn't seem to give any evidence that the casts are genuine

meldrum is probably the best with tracks when it comes to picking out real and false ones . I have seen him reject many. When you see researchers on TV that are doing proper research its usually him.

they had a thing for a while it may still be in place, they put up a million bucks if you could pass a fake track off on them. as far as I know they havnt had to pay any money yet.

heres the thing about the real tracks, there finding midtarsal break where it should be in porportion as well as dermal ridges along with a 4-5' gate as well as the toes moving from track to track. they have also had the tracks sinking in the soil at a depth a man with fake tracks could not even come close to. This type of evidence happens all the time when multiple tracks are found.

what there doingnow is call blasting recordings of possible BF calls that penetrate 3-5 miles in the woods with camps 2 miles in. They run ridges doing this and when they get a call back and they do. they set up camp and get ready for the next night and put out bait piles. They have had some success and I hope for more.

I believe but at the same time I do keep a open mind, my sighting was over a long distance and nothing can be verified, unknown screams account for nothing and small rocks thrown in a camp with 2 heavily armed people at night in the middle of nowhere are not evidence of any kind. I personaly have not seen a true track yet after 35 years.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what there doingnow is call blasting recordings of possible BF calls that penetrate 3-5 miles in the woods with camps 2 miles in. They run ridges doing this and when they get a call back and they do. they set up camp and get ready for the next night and put out bait piles. They have had some success and I hope for more.

I believe but at the same time I do keep a open mind, my sighting was over a long distance and nothing can be verified, unknown screams account for nothing and small rocks thrown in a camp with 2 heavily armed people at night in the middle of nowhere are not evidence of any kind. I personaly have not seen a true track yet after 35 years.

Are you serious?

 

[outhouse]

Are you serious?

about what ?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

about what ?

The entire post.

 

[outhouse]

Since i live in BF area and within 6 hours of where the 67 patterson film was shot, I have taken a interest. I had breakfast next to Bob Gimlin one morning, he still believes %100 what he saw and patterson filmed was real.

again near a city people think your nuts, I dont blame them, its all new to them just more BS on TV.

However you get in the country and peoples beliefs change fast with elevation. The more remote you get [around here] belief levels go up dramaticaly.

not every track, or group of tracks, or sighting's are hoaxes, the people reporting these vary dramaticaly. Ive talked to sherriff's, paramedics, hunters, hikers, campers, they all describe the same thing. Its not mass histeria. I would love to find out what it is.

 

[Nepenthe]

meldrum is probably the best with tracks when it comes to picking out real and false ones . I have seen him reject many. When you see researchers on TV that are doing proper research its usually him.

I agree that Meldrum is probably the best when it comes to bigfoot enthusiasts authenticating tracks, but that's faint praise because Meldrum has made several embarrassing mistakes in his bigfoot career. Meldrum is a skilled scientist but far too credulous when it comes to the bigfoot issue. Grover Krantz is the only other researcher that I enjoy reading- they both have solid credentials yet they both had blinders that forced them to see any and all anomalous data as evidence of bigfoot.

Meldrum defends the controversial Skookum cast while other researchers are convinced it's the imprint of an elk: the flanks, thigh, knee, metatarsals, metacarpals and shin are evident. There are elk prints where the animal raised itself up from a prone position. Some of the most detailed criticism of the cast comes from Dr. Wroblewski who has a PhD in geology with a focus and specialty on ichnology.

Meldrum (and Krantz) also supported the validity of Paul Freeman's bigfoot casts, casts which many cryptozoologists are convinced were hoaxes. Here's Freeman's infamous bigfoot footage:
[youtube]luue2Mv_VNM[/youtube]
I'm not impressed. :no:

Meldrum also supports the Memorial Day bigfoot film and adds details nobody else can see, details that include "discernible [edit mine] unmistakable breasts that gyrated with each running step.” He's not only an expert on anatomy and locomotion he's an expert on seeing details nobody else can see 'cause he has bionic eyes! Even Dr. Krantz refused to mention the film in the re-release of his book Big Footprints (a very entertaining book btw). The footage has all the hallmarks of a hoax.
[youtube]GoWLkeLLhYQ[/youtube]
Meldrum is a smart guy but he is a true believer with a devout faith in all things sasquatch and it interferes with his ability to rationally analyze evidence and approach the bigfoot controversy with a scientific demeanor.

they had a thing for a while it may still be in place, they put up a million bucks if you could pass a fake track off on them. as far as I know they havnt had to pay any money yet.

I know that John Green had a scam offer of 100,000 for anyone who could trick him with a fake bigfoot cast but I'm not aware of anything from Dr. Meldrum.

heres the thing about the real tracks, there finding midtarsal break where it should be in porportion as well as dermal ridges along with a 4-5' gate as well as the toes moving from track to track. they have also had the tracks sinking in the soil at a depth a man with fake tracks could not even come close to. This type of evidence happens all the time when multiple tracks are found.

Dermal ridges are not convincing evidence particularly when they may actually be an artifact of the casting process and they may be faked by the actual fingerprints of the person making the cast. See Daegling's excellent book Bigfoot Exposed for more details on faking dermal ridges.

what there doingnow is call blasting recordings of possible BF calls that penetrate 3-5 miles in the woods with camps 2 miles in. They run ridges doing this and when they get a call back and they do. they set up camp and get ready for the next night and put out bait piles. They have had some success and I hope for more.

They should stop that. They're only gonna p**s him off:
[youtube]Wkn12B_Fi6k[/youtube]

I believe but at the same time I do keep a open mind, my sighting was over a long distance and nothing can be verified, unknown screams account for nothing and small rocks thrown in a camp with 2 heavily armed people at night in the middle of nowhere are not evidence of any kind. I personaly have not seen a true track yet after 35 years.

Unknown screams and heavily armed people? Remind me to never accept a weekend camping at Mount Shasta with you. :cover:

 

[painted wolf]

meldrum is probably the best with tracks when it comes to picking out real and false ones . I have seen him reject many. When you see researchers on TV that are doing proper research its usually him.

Yet he refuses to examine the chance that his preferred tracks are fakable... nor does he provide a legitimate metric for judging tracks... his tracks show unusually high variability in toe structure for example.

they had a thing for a while it may still be in place, they put up a million bucks if you could pass a fake track off on them. as far as I know they havnt had to pay any money yet.

Wow.... they really use that Kent Hovind creationist trick?

heres the thing about the real tracks, there finding midtarsal break where it should be in porportion as well as dermal ridges along with a 4-5' gate as well as the toes moving from track to track. they have also had the tracks sinking in the soil at a depth a man with fake tracks could not even come close to. This type of evidence happens all the time when multiple tracks are found.

Heres the thing... without experimental evidence showing that it's impossible to fake this, or that it's not honest misinterpretation, it's not science. It's all appeal to authority and a priori assumption.

It's the same arguments used by creationists and other pseudoscience woo peddlers.

There is already experimental evidence showing that "dermal ridges" on plaster casts are unreliable and can be artifacts of the casting process... yet this research is ignored in favor of appeal to authority.

what there doingnow is call blasting recordings of possible BF calls that penetrate 3-5 miles in the woods with camps 2 miles in. They run ridges doing this and when they get a call back and they do. they set up camp and get ready for the next night and put out bait piles. They have had some success and I hope for more.

camera traps and DNA.

I believe but at the same time I do keep a open mind, my sighting was over a long distance and nothing can be verified, unknown screams account for nothing and small rocks thrown in a camp with 2 heavily armed people at night in the middle of nowhere are not evidence of any kind. I personaly have not seen a true track yet after 35 years.

Believing and having an open mind are mutually exclusive.
I would like for it to be real, but i can't "believe" without scientifically verifiable evidence.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

ps... I found this book to be an interesting read on the subject. Amazon.com: Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot (9780520255715): Michael McLeod: Books

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

well im not a old tatted up hippy living in elpaso county Co area

growing weed in the foothills of oregon doesnt count as research lol

my belief, is just that. Mine. i dont force it anyone and keep to myself.

I understand. Do you extend the same courtesy to believers in what you consider myths?
???

You cant disprove a myth

you cant prove a myth doesnt exist

you cant disprove a myth lol

and everything they state is a myth
.... but the facts are few and far between if any, then and only then if not taken literally can they be assessest for interpetation.

your myth is your primary source, second hand material is fine in most cases but after ten years of story telling with a religion in its infancy and growing, you can be certain the religion evolved during that period to some extent ALL DEATAILS can be thrown out the window.
Now you take your christian bias scholarships and your doing what christians have always done the best. TURNING MYTH INTO REALITY
I cannot prove you wrong, you cannot prove me wrong

Seems to me you are doing exactly that which you condemn.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm sure this has already been properly responded to, but since it was directed at me, I wanted to also.

My first question to you, outhouse, is whether or not you're an atheist. From the posts of yours I've seen, that's the impression I get. If that's the case, you don't accept all of the eye witness accounts of Jesus or of the holy spirit. So, why would you accept eye witness accounts of bigfoot?

One can visit www.bfro.net and make his or her own decision

All I can say is unless YOU havent been to a known area of activity where the population is said to be the highest [pacific northwest] then you dont know or understand the sheer volume of sightings they deal with. credibal is about 400 a year.

I have done this myself and talked to many people. In areas such as stated above I have found almost 1 in 4 know something or a friend ect.


if you go into a city that turns into instant crazy talk and denied by the vast majority.

Yes, you've brought this whole "country versus city" thing up, but it doesn't explain anything. I don't have to go to the places to know that there is no evidence there. All you're saying is that there are a lot of people who say they've seen bigfoot. Again, there are a lot of people who have seen a lot of things that aren't real. Unless there's something to back them up, it's not good evidence.

there not finding tracks of dragons, nor dermal ridges in said foorprints nor hair. the people that report dragons are not credibal in any sense. I have talked to paramedics, forestry workers and other upstanding people that have a hard time believing what they saw with there own eyes. They were firm disbelievers before such a sighting.

They're not finding tracks of bigfoot, nor dermal ridges in said footprints nor hair either. Again, all you're presenting is witnesses. And again, you could say the same for Jesus and the holy spirit. It doesn't matter who the people are. Unless there is something else to back up their claims, all they are is claims by some people.

theres a difference in credibal sightings and hoaxers and nut jobs.

if you dont live in an area where they are not seen on a normal basis I dont expect you to believe

Do you realize how much like "There are a lot of credible people who have seen God. If you don't have faith, then you're not going to understand."?