>>>I knew you had to agree with this. Being SF, you know the importance on intelligence gained through eyewitness reports. While everything that is related must be taken with a grain of salt, it still can be compiled into usable intel. As far as your arguments, I see that you are looking for undeniable proof. Circumstantial proof, at best, is circumstantial. A body will need to be produced to erase any doubts of the existence of BF.

you are spot on except for one detail- the "goal" ( in my mind) isnt undeniable evidence ( as only a specimen will satisfy that) but enough evidence to build a solid scientific case that there is a legitimate chance the creature exists ( probable cause rather than reasonable doubt)- that would be enough to get grant money and promote serious well funded/equipped study. Monies are out there ( grants are given for sex research for flies)- the thing is you have to build a solid business case with a grant proposal.

>>>I think what folks see as brash arrogance, is somewhat confused with self-assurance. A lot of folks bring it to light that your military career must be the reason for your unrelenting point of view. I would argue that if that were the case you wouldn’t have made it long. A good officer always listens to his noncoms. And their views do influence his judgment. Being able to listen and evaluate in a positive manner determines the success of any officers’ career.

I think you hit the nail on the head but I'm a Sr. NCO ( not an officer) so theres less PC and more "sergeant" in me.

Then you absolutely know the value of listening to your subordinates! Great officers have good NCOs and listen to them. I just assumed (you know where that gets you) you were an officer type, based on the college background. My apologies, Top or Sgt Major (of course could be Master Sgt of SFC, but again assuming, Senior NCO).

If a witness is willing to speak to me one on one either in person or by phone with a follow up in person interview, I will "bother" with a report more than 30-days old. If the witness has location information, there may be other reports from that area (more recent) which can give you a better picture... I think we forget about looking at the larger picture sometimes. If an investigator simply uses each report as a new "starting point" I think they are handicapping themselves. But, thats just my opinion.

You keep talking about science - but Science involves more than cameratraps, nightvision, thermal equipment - this type of technology, its about much more than that. I see so much focus on Technology such as this, but I hardly ever see discussions on "how to" perform testing in the field.



These are all things I understand (and have performed) but for me, I think information such as that is best left to experts to relay (there may even be new techniques I am unaware of). I would appreciate it if someone would step up and actually list out the proper procedures and protocols. Where these types of testing kits can be either purchased, and how they are used.

This is the "science" researchers say they do not understand. They do not have this information. I get very upset that these people who are doing this work out of their own pocket and own time are being told they are doing everything wrong, and those very same people are not willing to arm these people with the information they need to conduct their work in a more "scientific" manner. Just because you or anyone else (including) myself - yells "Science!!" that doesnt mean everyone understands.

Someone needs to explain these things - If the electronic technology is not being used correctly - tell us how so? How do we change that? What would make it more "scientific".... I can tell you the group I am only a member of has 2 very large CameraTrap operations going on 24/7 - and this has been happening for (I think) about a year now (could be longer). Yes, we are getting images - just not of the target species. So, I know they are pointed in the right direction. So, here we have technology at work - they are functioning, but we are not getting the desired results. So, now what?

There is no answer to the "now what?" question - because there is nothing else we can do but wait. Even you can not argue with that. That does not make anyone involved in this operation wrong, or right - it just means even the use of technology does not yield immediate results.

Technology is apparently not the only answer. Is there something to this equasion we are missing (if this animal is out there) Question is - what?? I dont think thats something science can or ever will be able to answer. I think there is something we are all missing. Is it because we are so focused on Technology - we are forgetting something very basic?? Are we making this too difficult??

If my comments to you come across as harsh or abrasive, I am sorry, but I am tired of hearing the criticism with no useful information to back up how to fix the perceived problems with the work being done. Many in this feel the same way. PEOPLE want to know - they are asking for the information. Especially those not involved with large groups.

Please stop telling these people what they are always doing wrong - and give some useful advice on how to fix it, I think your message would be taken much better.

OK, lets discuss this

>>>If a witness is willing to speak to me one on one either in person or by phone with a follow up in person interview, I will "bother" with a report more than 30-days old. If the witness has location information, there may be other reports from that area (more recent) which can give you a better picture... I think we forget about looking at the larger picture sometimes. If an investigator simply uses each report as a new "starting point" I think they are handicapping themselves. But, thats just my opinion.

I'm going to just offer advice and a few cautions. I THINK ( emphasis, my read and nothing more) you may be letting your "BF" desire get in the way of your professional training.

Your goal as an investigator isnt to hear a story but to focus and obtain evidence critical to your case. You discard everything else. I understand ( and agree in principle) with your statements regarding a better or bigger picture- but the downside to that is you get bogged down into irrelevancy. Thats a resource drain and it makes one focus on the macrocosm rather than the microcosm and little important details will often slip by. You wouldnt be the first investigator to walk into a tree while admiring the forrest.

You should devise and create a list of specific data points YOU need ( as opposed to what any potential witness may randomly offer) and focus on those points alone. Because, "data"- if not specific to the goal and well defined and entered into a database- often works more against you than for you.

So, the question i would ask is- what data do you deem critical and then what do you do with it? ( a mismanaged or improperly populated database is a nightmare)

>>>You keep talking about science - but Science involves more than cameratraps, nightvision, thermal equipment - this type of technology, its about much more than that. I see so much focus on Technology such as this, but I hardly ever see discussions on "how to" perform testing in the field.

Point taken- I use the phrase "a toolbox" doesnt make a technician. Your ( or whomevers) tools are just a part of the process- so, decide what tools you want to use and i'll assist you in devising an effective deployment strategy that "might" increase your odds. ( I got lots of experience spying on the enemy)

>>>These are all things I understand (and have performed) but for me, I think information such as that is best left to experts to relay (there may even be new techniques I am unaware of). I would appreciate it if someone would step up and actually list out the proper procedures and protocols. Where these types of testing kits can be either purchased, and how they are used.

I am currently working on that one for you- give me a few days

>>>This is the "science" researchers say they do not understand. They do not have this information. I get very upset that these people who are doing this work out of their own pocket and own time are being told they are doing everything wrong, and those very same people are not willing to arm these people with the information they need to conduct their work in a more "scientific" manner. Just because you or anyone else (including) myself - yells "Science!!" that doesnt mean everyone understands.

Until i came here- I didnt realize just how little understanding there really was. Just to see where I need to start with regarding this ( and this will probably eventually go offline)- have you ever done ( and i mean from the conceptual level all the way to completion and presentation) a full blown grant proposal, a complete project management outline or a complete bid package including a business case and ROI?

If the answer is no, then thats where I need to start with you because if you dont fully understand the logic of the process and what must happen and the way it has to be presented,argued and sold- you cant possibly know how to gather the information necessary to win it.

>>>Technology is apparently not the only answer. Is there something to this equasion we are missing (if this animal is out there) Question is - what?? I dont think thats something science can or ever will be able to answer. I think there is something we are all missing. Is it because we are so focused on Technology - we are forgetting something very basic?? Are we making this too difficult??

Technology is the methods and equipment to gather evidence/information and analyze it- anyone who thinks possesion of technology is an or 'the' answer is setting themselves up to fail. Technology is just a piece of the pie- not the cherry on top. I think you nailed it when you said you were forgetting the basics. ( at least thats my initial read on your comments) Once, you fully understand the prior paragraph- you wont need to discuss this one any further as it will then 'fit"

>>>Someone needs to explain these things - If the electronic technology is not being used correctly - tell us how so? How do we change that? What would make it more "scientific".... I can tell you the group I am only a member of has 2 very large CameraTrap operations going on 24/7 - and this has been happening for (I think) about a year now (could be longer). Yes, we are getting images - just not of the target species. So, I know they are pointed in the right direction. So, here we have technology at work - they are functioning, but we are not getting the desired results. So, now what?

see above

>>>If my comments to you come across as harsh or abrasive, I am sorry, but I am tired of hearing the criticism with no useful information to back up how to fix the perceived problems with the work being done. Many in this feel the same way. PEOPLE want to know - they are asking for the information. Especially those not involved with large groups.

No, they came across as sincere and frustrated ( unlike some other emotions i have seen in the past- many of them on my part as a response in kind) I can appreciate, respect and work with that.

I'll give you any assistance you feel you need or want, but we are going to start at the ground level and revamp the entire process.

Actually - my desire is not as high as you may think. I have never seen this animal - and while I do want this animal documented, I want it done properly.

I made the point I did, because I do think its important to go back through existing reports from that same area and see if what the current witness is reporting can be substanciated by other prior reports - thats pretty common. I do not simply "believe" a witness because their may be reports from the area - but I do add it to my personal bit of information. I am interested in any possible patterns of movement, that is where my largest interest is. I do ask questions not asked by most researchers I know of - in order to specifically get that information from a witness. I pay attention to Time of Year, Size of the Animal and Scent - also aggressiveness reported.

And for those who think its not possible to get specific time of year information - you are probably not asking the right questions.



Yeah, I knew that. And, anyone who has sat through an interview with me will tell you - my questions are very specific, and at times they can be exhaustive. I apply the same principles and methods I have used in my career of choice. I am very complete in my questioning - and I do not give witnesses brownie points for emotional breakdowns. I frankly steer them away from the "emotional stuff" and get them to focus on the information - which is why I am involved.



see above.

If your interested in writing up something specific that deals directly with advice to researchers - in a non- condescending manner, that helps to educate and inform - I think that would be great. I look forward to what you are able to supply.

P.S. I am involved with a group - because I hardly have time to get out into the field due to my current job. I let them worry about grants etc - thats their thing, not mine. I am heavily tied down with my Blog and website and Internet Radio program, yes I try to keep busy so I forget I have no life to speak of, But I am interested for not myself but other researchers. I would like to hear more.

I'm a visual guy. I can't speak for MOI but I think this may be the kind of example we are talking about:

Iguanadon circa 1850, contrasted against Iguanadon 2007. Interpretation was an inherent part of the process of ongoing evaluation to get it right. In this case the original interpretation was incorrect, but the interpretation paved the way for a more thoughtful examination of what would become the body of information we have, surrounding an animal that we have never seen.

>>>Actually - my desire is not as high as you may think. I have never seen this animal - and while I do want this animal documented, I want it done properly.

OK, maybe its me but you have a blog ( which is high maintenance), attend meetings and such, have a radio show you are active at least in some field work?- to me, that demonstrates head and shoulders above what i would consider a "normal" level of general interest- thats just my casual observation ( you might also be in it deeper than you are consciously aware of)

>>>I made the point I did, because I do think its important to go back through existing reports from that same area and see if what the current witness is reporting can be substanciated by other prior reports - thats pretty common. I do not simply "believe" a witness because their may be reports from the area - but I do add it to my personal bit of information. I am interested in any possible patterns of movement, that is where my largest interest is. I do ask questions not asked by most researchers I know of - in order to specifically get that information from a witness. I pay attention to Time of Year, Size of the Animal and Scent - also aggressiveness reported.

without knowing details of what you do specifically- I'm going to reserve comment on this until later but I "think" we are talking apples and oranges right now. So, for detail so i can comment- what exactly is your interrogatory format? Do you have a standard outline? Then, probably more important- what do you do with this information? How do you use it?

>>>If your interested in writing up something specific that deals directly with advice to researchers - in a non- condescending manner, that helps to educate and inform - I think that would be great. I look forward to what you are able to supply.

After i get a feel for what exactly you are doing V what needs to be done- how you wordsmith it and publish/use it is up to you. I am simply going to give you information and technique and the reasons for it, what you can expect and what you need to look out for.

That way, the only person i need to worry about pissing off is you and even if you get pissed, you still have usable information. xo

>>>P.S. I am involved with a group - because I hardly have time to get out into the field due to my current job. I let them worry about grants etc - thats their thing, not mine. I am heavily tied down with my Blog and website and Internet Radio program, yes I try to keep busy so I forget I have no life to speak of, But I am interested for not myself but other researchers. I would like to hear more.

I work 300 + days a year on the road ( most out of country) so i know all about no life- but that aside, you need to know and fully understand the process.

I do these things because there is a need for information - also, researchers need to know each other a whole lot better than they have in the past, and I hope I am helping with that process. My interest is not general - but I do put it in its proper perspective when dealing with witnesses.

Yes, I am an active field researcher. I have spent more time recently out of my own state researching - and doing interviews for my blog while in the field. I think its important to note the work done by all researchers. I also enjoy seeing the different environments where this animal is said to be seen.



Yes, I use a report form that was created by the AIBR, it is very detailed - when I am doing my own personal research. I add in my own questions - which are in addition to the current questions. My own personal research as I explained is tailored to get specific information about any possible movement - either short or long distances by this alleged animal. I am interested in finding out any information I can about its behavior in relation to the time of year.

All of the information I receive goes back into the profile I am trying to create.



Oh geesh, please dont do that - I had a really bad holiday. Besides - Im a nice person..... Albeit misunderstood (dont believe the hype).



I agree - but with one exception, Everyone needs to understand the process.

>> Yes, I use a report form that was created by the AIBR, it is very detailed - when I am doing my own personal research. I add in my own questions - which are in addition to the current questions. My own personal research as I explained is tailored to get specific information about any possible movement - either short or long distances by this alleged animal. I am interested in finding out any information I can about its behavior in relation to the time of year.

I still think we are apples and oranges here and I'm not certain the questions asked and the data gathered are what is needed. ( right now, thats not a statement just a concern)- without the architecture of what you are doing V what you are trying to accomplish- I cant go much further. So, is there a sample of what you do? a template? a guideline?

>>>Oh geesh, please dont do that - I had a really bad holiday. Besides - Im a nice person..... Albeit misunderstood (dont believe the hype).

I had a good one until yesterday when i had a massive bird kill- those things happen ( at least now there will need to be a new set of predators since the former developed an acute but terminal case of lead poisioning- must be the water)

>>>I agree - but with one exception, Everyone needs to understand the process.

In the end, yes

?You raising birds there Longtabber?

Its often stated that Bigfoot research has to start somewhere as if to say that the enigmia has never been given study. The fact is that it has been given study. If one was to tally up everyone that ever went in search of Bigfoot there would be hundreds of people who have invested significant amounts of time searching. Yet truth be told absoloutely nothing that can be put to rigerous scientific testing has been discovered. It is unreasonable to assume that every Bigfoot researcher was an abject idiot. Many I'm sure have researched with acceptable scientific method. But the bottom line still remains the same...no Sasquatch regardless of methods used. Or to put it another way the absoloute finest research methods done by the most astute of researchers will not uncover a herd of green elephants because such a herd does not exist. I believe the issue of not finding proof of Sasquatch goes way beyond methodology and beyond money.

Crow Logic I am in agreement with most of your post. I agree that the nonexistence of BF is one of the most solid explanations for its elusiveness; I do not think that it is the only explanation. If one assumes that when BF are present, they are consistently aware of you before you are aware of them, with a significant margin of safety (we do have the least acute senses in the forest, after all), and are signficantly more mobile in the environments where they are likely to be found, so that they are able to evade you before you even know that they have, and that they are signficantly more stealthy, so that all of this could happen under your nose without your knowledge if necessary -- that is a pretty formidable defense to break through in a week or even in a month or more. Add in the possibility that they are able to have insight into your intentions, at least to a degree, and you can easily have the situation we find ourselves in: some evidence that is hard to dismiss (PG being the exemplar), yet mostly a void of information about these creatures, despite a fair amount of 'smoke' surrounding their existence.

I'll throw out the cliche we've all seen in the movies. Whiteboys in the jungle wandering around for days, lost, and at the moment they are really in for it about 30 members of the local tribe appear from every point on the compass simultaneously. Yes, this is a cliche, but it has its basis in reality, because that is how tribal people live. They live by stealth, they live by their wits, and they live off the land. If they don't want to be found, you won't find them, unless you are on an equal footing. This probably stretches far back into the hominid line's behavior, and I see no reason why BF should be excluded from that possibility.

yes, my wife is the CEO but I am the duck and goose guy ( she does all the other birds)

Now we're getting somewhere! At this point in the game I don't think it would be a total lapse of reason to conclude that only the two scenarios mentioned above by CrowLogic and MOI are what's left of the 'at one time many possibilities' of why there hasn't been a 'discovery'. I think CL lays it out rightfully and straightforward with essentially the only exception being MOI's take on it. Of course the 'there is no Bigfoot' mantra is the majority of the general public's stance anyway and I think we've always had to agree that it was genuinely plausible regardless of any seeming 'contrary evidence' i.e. sightings, prints etc. The latter allows it to be 'the real deal' (which many secretly 'hope') while neatly and plausibly describing why it's not so far. I'd say take your pick of either one and go from there. And if choosing the latter, just realize the quarry is truly more elusive than we've ever conceived and use that as your present-day-set-in-concrete basis. IOW, disregard completely the previously universal sentiment that 'it's just a stupid animal and we're people and we're smarter than it damnit'.

Okay, I expect a carcass on my desk by next Tuesday.

Or...or...bigfoot is really from another dimension and can go invisible at will. That's the only way to explain our failures AND my missing chocolate cupcakes.

That only explains the failures. I'd blame the cupcake shenanigans on Melissa.

But - They were CHOCOLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told you, I couldn't stop myself. Its a weakness. I cant control it.

oh the chocolate goodness.. I may need help.

You forgot about the rocks that BF eats to turn himself (or herself as the case dictates) invisible......... we just need to get us some of those rocks..........


You can always send them to me.......... glad to eliminate the temptation.........

Thanks WmRoy - I appreciate the support.

If I told you how much chocolate I eat in a day - you would probably change your mind.

We all have our vices.............. you should see how much coffee I drink in a day.

Oh, have you ever had chocolate coffee? yummmmieeeee

Oops, I think we hijacked this thread.

Oh well.....................
And yes of course I've had chocolate coffee.......... but I actually perfer to keep the two seperate.......... at least until I consume them.......

I like to mix my addictions every so often...

This conversation is way more fun !!!

That's the problem with the 'it's too elusive to detect' argument. Like Carl Sagan's Dragon in the garage. What's the difference between an undetectable Bigfoot and a non-existent Bigfoot? Nothing. Both unknowable.

There are an infinite number of hypothetical creatures that are too elusive for humans to discover.

(Do pigeon carcasses count )

No disrespect to the late Dr. Sagan but do we not think that we are detecting something?

Dogu4, I really don't know. I've had some experiences to make me go hmmmm.... But the longer I live, the more I question what we think we detect. So much of this is based on our conviction that we can accurately draw conclusions from brief glimpses of sights and sounds. I'm not so sure about that.

I think that's what some of the recent discussion has been about; getting something that's quantitative. I'm optimisitic.

That is/was exactly my point. At present, we don't 'know' enough (possibly because of an 'unknowability') to call it anything but either 'undetectable' or 'non-existent'. And at present, if the PGF and a scarce few other things (specific things that make us question its 'undetectability') were not on the table like they are, I'd bet money more than a few of US could effortlessly convert to the 'there is no Bigfoot, what the hell was I thinking' faction.

We could keep going back more than a hundred years to the infancy of paleontology and it's mistakes, just as we could go back to the dark ages and say that the five humours are the basis for modern medicine. The five humours are NOT the basis of modern medicine, and did NOT pave the way for it.

Iguanodon was the second dinosaur discovered, but it has a more complicated history than what is being presented. Gideon Mantell first discovered some teeth, and realized they resembled iguanas teeth, hence the name. Then in 1834 he had found a lot more bones, and yes had interpreted Iguanodon as being a quadruped. However, the image you are showing on the left was based on Sir Richard Owen's inerpretation. Owen was a Creationist and opposed evolutionary theory, and put forward that they were mammal like and given those characteristics by God, and could not have been transmuted from reptiles to mammal like creatures. Owen had statues of them built this way in 1852, and Mantell realized right before his death that Iguanodon was not a heavy elephant like animal but because of his death could not contribute to the exhibit, and so these statues were what the public was left with.

However, it was in 1878 that the largest finds were made of Iguanodon skeletons, and in 1882 an exhibit was made showing the Iguanodon being able to stand on 2 legs.

What's being confused here is hypothesis and theory. With such limited information, a hypothesis of Iguanodon being heavy and quadrapedal is put forward. A hypothesis is not the basis of science, nor Paleontology. It's a question put forward and MEANT to be tested, and from that testing theories arise. The science, the TRUE science, is in the testing, measuring and recording data, comparison, observation, and repetition. That's the real work. The result of which is a developed theory.

By finding more specimens were paleontologists able to better reconstruct Iguanodon's posture. They were able to test their hypothesis, and change from there. But it is a long involved process of cataloging, measuring, and comparison.

These days, you will find an explanation for reconstructions. If they do not have enough information, then it will say "Artist's interpretation". That is not the basis or the official represenative of that species, it is just something to show. The fossils themselves are the representative for the species. If you have a reconstruction that has the information needed, by mirroring symetrically or copying the missing pieces from other individuals, then you have a reconstruction that is supported and that is explained.

Take Toumai as an example. If you read the articles you will see they have a picture of a sculpture of Toumai. You will see a caption that says "Artist's interpretation of what Toumai MAY have looked like." Yes, that is an interpretation, but it is not relied on, it is not supported, it is not the basis of the species or the study of that species, it is an image meant to help the public imagine what this creature MAY have looked like. Now if the author of the paper had said "This IS what Toumai looked like, and is the basis for this paper." Nobody would accept it. There's no way, at this point, to say that. Same with any of the oher sculptures and how much hair they have on them.

The basis is in the fossils themselves and the information they provide. Now, I've been focusing this on the fossils you see that have missing pieces that have been filled in, but for some reason I keep getting responses with pictures or statues of dinosaurs from the late 19th century. It's like saying the belief that existed at one time that the world is flat is the basis for modern space travel.

But since this keeps veering away from the actual replication of skeletal structures and into things like posture, and how these creatures moved, what is not being understood is that we have living animals today that have similar structures to these extinct animals, or some aspect may be similar. How those bones andthe ataching muscles are formed affects how they stand, walk, run, etc. Our understanding of animal anatomy and morphology has grown a lot in the last hundred years. By using andapplying this knowledge, paleontologists with the help from other fields are able to construct how they MAY have stood and walked. This is constantly challenged, however, it is not the BASIS for the field.

I for one do not believe the elusive BF is not an unknowable BF. Once the method is understood, a weakness can be found. This mystery is a lock, and a damnably hard one to pick, but somewhere out there is the key.


Harry, I'll do you one better. Without P-G alone, I could dismiss everything else with comparatively few problems.

How does this relate to Meldrum or the field of sasquatch research? I haven't given an opinion on that, just stepped in and made corrections, but can give some insight.

The theory of sasquatch having a midtarsal break does seem to have some support, we see it in living apes. The Laetoli tracks, fossilized and dated to roughly 3 1/2 mya have different theories, one saying that they show a defined arch and another saying they show a flat foot, and in the case of Meldrum and others a midtarsal break. Very few have actually seen the tracks in person, however, one of those, Tim White, says they do indeed show an arch, and that theories of a midtarsal break are based on casts from the trackway and that the indentation interpreted as a midarsal break is actually a chisel mark left by Mary Leakey.

We do have some Australopithecine and habilis foot bones, however, and it seems one of the joints in an Australopithecus foot responsible for an arch actually resembles ape more than human, indicating the lack of an arch. Meldrum also argues that repeated footprints show the same indentation in photos of the trackway, as well as in another fossilized hominid footprint elsewhere. So it seems it is possible a bipedal ape could have a midtarsal break, and some tracks seem to show that.

However, other possibiliies should be explored and shown, such as use of a flexible fake foot.

Other evidence is questionable to outright shown to be hoaxed and yet is put forward as evidence. Take the Onion Mt. tracks, and the basis for the dermal ridge evidence, and the claims of the Wallace family. That wooden foot is an exact match, down to the crack in the heel, and yet a defense for it is that Wallace made them after the fact. You don't even notice the line in the heel of the track unless you know what to look for, it's obvious Wallace was responsible for those tracks, and there is just no way those are dermals. Being the basis for dermals, all the other casts said to have that pattern are all based on that hoaxed track, and Tube has shown how the artifact process occurs.

And those Wallace tracks have been therefor the first 10 years of sasquatch research in Northern California, and the event in 67 was just prior to and in the same area as the PGF.

The Skookum cast. After DY had shown it to be the outline of an elk, there is just no way but to see anything but the hindquarters of an elk there. Not only that, but what is said to be dermals on the "Heel" runs from the "Achilles tendon" down the heel, where the other dermal patterns on other casts show lines running across the back of the heel, this is a different pattern, an inconsistency.

Freeman's evidence is totally unreliable. Notice his casts have the distinctive toes spread vs. others that have the toes together, his hand imprints and Marx's have the thumb connecting to the palm in different locations, none of them are correct and even Krantz acknowledged this, yet it is the basis for sasquatch having non-opposable thumbs, unsupported and contrasted by what we know about bipedal hominids. Hair samples keep coming up as Dynel, Dynel is used to make ape suits, 2 sasquatch videos (1 that's never shown), hmmmmm. I wouldn't call that an environmental contaminant, I'd call that an evidence contaminant.

And that's a problem. If initial base evidence has been hoaxed but is accepted, then you find other evidence that resembles that, and papers written on that, and "Profiles" built on that, it starts to gain some sort of support as real, when it's based on make believe.

I do think Meldrum's use of a 3d scanner for the casts is a very good and useful tool. The low res images you see on the website are said to be because of broadband limitations, and that is understandable. I think this gives a lot more accessability to the evidence, and a great opportunity for some experimentation and comparison.

Excellent post there Wolftrax, thank you.

(Melissa, I guess they've recaptured the thread.....)

Its ok WmRoy - very few have the kind of appreciation we have for chocolate... Its not their fault.

Absolutely! You just summed up the biggest challenge of 'bigfoot science'.

The evidence doesn't necessarily have to be hoaxed to have longlasting ramafications...just wrong in a way that is hard to fully appreciate because it seems to fit so nicely. I suspect it's something more along those lines.

I second that

1) I too, am weak for chocolate.

2) Sagan absolutely had a Pegasus in his garage. (I'm not kidding.)

3) I'm totally down with the "it's too elusive" argument but for one thing: the many alleged eyewitness accounts of these creatures behaving in ways that are not at all elusive (like sauntering in front of cars on the road) and in some cases downright inquisitive (like approaching campsites, farms, etc). This paradox - and with it the paradox of the alleged near worldwide distribution of bigfoot and related creatures - are enormous stumbling blocks for me in terms of acceptance of a flesh and blood bigfoot.

Longtabber has been approaching this phenomenon from the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" point of view. I agree that's the proper way to proceed: investigate the phenomenon as you would any rare species inventory - only more so, 'cause we're talking about bigfoot here. The fair Melissa has countered that there are a number of significant field efforts under way that are essentially using the approaches Longtabber suggests - only with fewer people, less money, etc. The sum total of these efforts has revealed a staggering amount of negative data.

Perhaps if someone was to collate the negative data and publish a manuscript on the lack of bigfoot evidence from these investigations, it would spur additional people to engage in debunking such a work. Right now there is nowhere in the literature that I know of where one can find a reference for "we've looked into this, and we found no evidence for bigfoot." If such a statement that there was no bigfoot actually appeared in the primary literature, there might be a lot more interest in "proving science wrong", as it were.

But, I'm ultimately of the opinion that no amount of money or people thrown at the problem will lead to significant physical evidence because these creatures do not, in fact, bleed.

I agree with Harry here, throw out PGF and my belief drops to zero. Without the PGF what are we left with? I competely dissmissed the Freeman footage when I saw it back in 1991 on national TV. Unless I'm wrong there isn't a single piece of hard evidence such as a hair sample, track casts, trackway photos etc that can be held up as being bulletproof evidence. There is always a shadow of circumstance or character of the evidence and presenter of said evidence.

For instance on this forum there was a thread by a guy who we knew as hiker11. Tha thread is still up I believe. The thread begins rather well with a good recounting of a sighting. There are some very interesting photos of an unusual trackline along a snowy roadway. However as the heat was turned up on hiker11 he had to resort to creating a phony ID and began posting to the thread agreements to his tale. He ended up being banned from this forum. And once again even the most reasonable submission of evidence seems to have a way of turning sour.

But I don't think the search for Sasquatch is a waste of time. It is a form of adult play and recreation. I enjoy the concept the way Snoopy enjoyed being the Red Barron.

The interesting thing about this discussion is that despite how reasonable whatever wolftrax and Saskeptic have said is, a good friend of mine that I have known for years described for me in detail last night (subsequent to my last post) about being charged by one of these creatures when he was 15 years old. According to him they are all too real, in fact he says it ruined his life. I saw the goose bumps on his arms. He gave the typical desciption of a male: 8'+ tall, broad V-shape, no neck, huge shoulders and musculature. He said he had to move out of his father's house and in with his mother about 50 miles away, and that he couldn't be left alone for almost a year afterwards. When he was left alone he claims that he would sit with his back to the wall with a loaded .357 in his hands. He says he still has nightmares, almost 20 years later. When I showed him a series of composite pictures from the Kiamichi Giants site, he was able to pick through them and contemporaneously describe elements that he said were incorrect, and which happened to mirror the thoughts of other eyewitnesses (unbeknownst to him). (The mouth is less human, the nose is more human, the eyes were 'glowing'.) When we finally settled on one he thought was accurate he had to turn his head away and seemed to be near tears. This is a man who was in the Army tank corps and fought in GWI. He is also a law enforcement officer who is known for a certain amount of bravado. He said, ever since that night, he never goes into the woods without a weapon capable of killing anything he might come across, and he never goes alone if he can help it. This too seems to mirror some of the sentiments of others of a similar persuasion.

Anyway, I realize of course that this report counts for nothing to anyone else, but having known this man for years, I have a hard time discounting his story. He appears to me to be quite serious about what he is saying. That is the problem with saying that BF is a figment. To do so you have to tell a lot of credible people who have no doubts about what they have seen that they are either lying or mistaken. And you also have to throw out P-G. And you also have to imagine that there is a group of hoaxers that are so determined to fool us that they operate nationwide even in very remote areas, for no apparently benefit to themselves. I admit, this is not a 'mountain' of evidence, but it is a difficult to dissolve pebble that simply won't pass through the screen.

As Spock says: "eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

So mote it be.

PS WmRoy, I played the SS for him he laughed, saying "that's a monkey, what I saw wasn't a monkey." Thought you might like to know that.

. . . and this is why I remain fascinated by the phenomenon, despite my skepticism about the creatures. Either there's a lot less we understand about the human brain than we realize, or there's a lot less we understand about wildlife biology than we realize. (Because I'm a wildlife biologist, I vote "brain".)

Well, I do throw out the PG film and I have had no first person sightings. I don't attribute tree knocks, wood structures, tree twists or rock throwing to BF. I discount most tracks and casts, (I believe they are generally misidentified or hoaxed). Vocalizations, I believe, are not even worth recording if you are trying to use them as evidence. I am an independent researcher that trusts no one. I don't expect to be trusted either(why should you)? Alas, I still find reason to try to find a dead body of this supposed creature. We shall all just keep on truckin', do our own things, bounce ideas off of each other. I am rather liking this dysfunctional family. Even the voices of reason, are occasionally clouded by there own personal pet theories, built upon shaky evidence. Sorry, now I am just rambling, it has been 18 hrs. since I slept. FEMA won't let me sleep sometimes. But, my dog is sleeping, then again, he has done all the work today.

I can relate in a very similar experience

One of the other interesting aspects that I failed to mention was that he had this encounter with a friend of his. So to keep it consistent with the "brain" explanation you are talking about a group hallucination.

Crow Logic wrote:





If Snoopy ever reads the above statement he might have a coronary. The Red Baron was/is
his nemesis. Perhaps, though, they have worked things out.

MOI wrote:





Or, from the perspective of an unbiased scientist, he was possibly lying. That's the trouble with stories...that option never goes away in the eyes of science.
A carcass can't fib.

Of course that is a possibility to a disinterested third party, Yetifan, but I think Saskeptic was referring to cases where the witness is sincere in his beliefs but the events were somehow imaginary.

There is also the possibility the "memory" is an accurate recall of an event but the details are overlays ( often coming from deep seated fears, trauma or other things)

This happens a good bit with trauma victims

longtabberPE wrote:






Yet another reason why stories are at or near the bottom of the evidentiary ladder.

It occurs to me that it may be appropriate to use Fuzzy Logic when evaluating evidence. Various bits of evidence (sighting, footprint, sound, etc.) would not be judged simply good or bad, but be assigned a probability of being reliable or good, based on the perceived quality of the evidence (which might take into account the witness, type of evidence, location, etc.). When all pieces of an encounter recieved a score, the whole encounter would recieve an overall score. This would be a way to quantify encounter quality to a standard system.

That would probably be a very bad idea.

Current techniques are "fuzzy" enough and when one is evaluating evidence leading to a positive or negative conclusion- the only applicable standard would be that of a probability based model.