62 replies to this topic

[OverSword]

Actually while researching this topic I found an old Coast to Coast a.m. interview with Dr. Meldrum where he classifies the the skookum body cast as intriging but states that he can't definetly classify it as sasquatch.  If he states something else in his book I never read it.  But what I did read on one of the amazon reader reviews was that it exposes the hoaxes by the Wallace family, although I never heard it was by a family, I only remember  reading about one guy admitting he'd been hoaxing prints for years.

edited to add that a google search of all of those key words leads to this thread and another one on randi.org that won't open for me, possibly because I'm on my work computer. The other links found by that search don't mention the body cast.

Edited by OverSword, 05 October 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[keninsc]

Well, the subject is Jane Goodall, not Meldrum.

I think she's a bit like me, never seen one, don't know if they exist or not, however, every now and then I see something that makes me wonder. There is not one bit of hard evidence but when I take all the bits and pieces together and look at them then I can't say there isn't something that people are seeing. What that something is I can't say......because I haven't seen it. Jane Goodall, is a highly respected field researcher and someone I'd consider to be an expert on primates. If she's "fascinated" by Bigfoot then she has that right. It doesn't mean she's ready to mount up an expedition to go study it.

[justcalmebubba]

lol  okay  since i live here at the ass end of the ozarks  down here we got "skunkape"  might be couisns to big foot maybe not any way a few years ago for ****s and giggles i called the arkansas game and fish and asked  say if wile i was out in the woods hunting white tail deer or what ever and happened across a "big foot"  and if say i happen to shoot it   then what? the game and fish person told me..."if you shoot it out of season your poaching and can go to jail for that now since there is no real hunting season for  "bigfoot"  you'd probley be safe of that but being how big foot has fur it could be said to be under fur bears hunting season in whitch its not a year around hunt ..now add in the fact it might be a humanoid then if you deliberatly hunt and kill a big foot  you could possabily be fined even charges with attempted murder or manslaughter ..in this case however..there is too many verables depending on who you ask and under what conditions the situlation has arrived there on"   okay short and to the point...personaly if i'm out in the woods i dont  care what or if a big foot is hanging around let that hairy beasty try to steal my dinner  yes i'll shoot its ass my bullets are not racest  and being at  the top of the food chain yeah any thing under human can be eatable even if you have to add a lot more garlick or salt and pepper!  just my thoughts,not that it realy matters  but  i shoot big foot then  i swear i'll clean the cammra shutter lencs before i take the pic that way there will not be any blurred pics  lmao

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

evidences are just too strong to ignore.

for one, one scientist proved that all known bigfoot prints make a bell curve, showing that the datum, for the most part, are quite real. an outcome like that could not happen if the prints were made randomly by fakers.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

evidences lke these are strong, too strong to ignore.

to me, the witness identification also has to be taken serioulsy. there may be some fakers but all it takes is ONE to be telling the truth and bigfoot would then have to exist. and many many indigenous indian tribes in the US have an oral tradition of the "big hairy man" that go back many many years. that is one of the most convincing arguments, to me. ppl are so unwilling to take indigenous ppl's word for anything yet they appear to be quite reliable, in the long run. the local legend of the silverback in Africa is one such example. Westerners would not take their word for it, of course.

so, anyway, the fun continues.

[Night Walker]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 07 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

for one, one scientist proved that all known bigfoot prints make a bell curve, showing that the datum, for the most part, are quite real. an outcome like that could not happen if the prints were made randomly by fakers.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

evidences lke these are strong, too strong to ignore.

Sources? If the evidence is too good to ignore then may we examine it?

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 07 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

to me, the witness identification also has to be taken serioulsy. there may be some fakers but all it takes is ONE to be telling the truth and bigfoot would then have to exist.

Perhaps we should look at it in a different way: If one person IS telling the truth about Bigfoot then what are all the others doing? Why are so many mistaken and/or faking it?

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 07 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

and many many indigenous indian tribes in the US have an oral tradition of the "big hairy man" that go back many many years. that is one of the most convincing arguments, to me. ppl are so unwilling to take indigenous ppl's word for anything yet they appear to be quite reliable, in the long run. the local legend of the silverback in Africa is one such example. Westerners would not take their word for it, of course.

The trouble is that EVERY culture (including our own) has one or more wild-/hairy-man types in their stories and folklore. Is their any culture anywhere that doesn't? This is perhaps the most convincing argument in illustrating the universal humanness of the Bigfoot phenomenon rather than as some external-biological mystery.

[WatchingTheStars]

keninsc, on 05 October 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Well, the subject is Jane Goodall, not Meldrum.

I think she's a bit like me, never seen one, don't know if they exist or not, however, every now and then I see something that makes me wonder. There is not one bit of hard evidence but when I take all the bits and pieces together and look at them then I can't say there isn't something that people are seeing. What that something is I can't say......because I haven't seen it. Jane Goodall, is a highly respected field researcher and someone I'd consider to be an expert on primates. If she's "fascinated" by Bigfoot then she has that right. It doesn't mean she's ready to mount up an expedition to go study it.

This. I agree 100%. I'm the same way with paranormal stuff. I've never experienced anything paranormal and I don't know if it really exists, but it's very interesting and I love reading about it.

[Myles]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 07 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

evidences are just too strong to ignore.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

I say this is BS.   It has never been verified to have been made by an unknown creature.   If bigfeet make these loud noises, wouldn't it make it easier for us to find them?  Not as smart as we think they are.   The sounds ARE made by a primate.  Human.

[justcalmebubba]

....just a note here..
  if and when your ever out in the woods or any kinda forest or "outback" in the wilds..you can hear any strange sound from any critter  and even your mind will make you think you just heard a strange sound or voice it doesn't realy matter what it is   if any one has spent any time out  in the "back 40" you would know this to be true  as far as foot prints  yeah tracks can tell you a lot about what your after or whats after you  learning to read different signs  some times takes  a wile  even if your experenced  but you can get the basics from looking at any foot print at lest what direction your headed to say the lest    lol i wouldnt expect some one that is not fumular with being out doors in the "back 40" to realy under stand this   but then i dont track down the nearest starbucks in town  eather  so....lmao good fkn luck with that

[justcalmebubba]

oh and yes i do think there is "big foot" out there some place.. when i was growing up  i spent a lot of every weekend out in  the woods with my grand father who did his best to teach me  the old school ways of surviveing   and knowing different signs so it could be said i have close to 40 years wondering around  under the pine trees and walking through southern red clay muck and hop scotching  rocks on the side of the mountains   and i still dont know all thats  out there to know   and im not claiming to   but once down on the arkansas river just south of clark county  theres a  strech of woods  along the river thats hard to get to less you walk in    it was ealy one morning i'd woke up needing to pee before day light so i went out past a little from our camp site and there less then 25 feet away  about what seemed then to be way up there in higth was theses eyes looking back at me an in the early morning shadows i could clearly see  this beast standing there looking back at me  i do very well remenber the grunting sounds and the smell  very bad order like rotted sour mud  it stood there a few moments then backed off as i ran like hell back to wake the rest of camp up  all we even saw of it after that was where it had been ...so yeah i know theres a beast out there  its only a matter of time before  after long last its a proven fact  they do excist!!!

[Rafterman]

I, like Dr. Goodall, am fascinated by the idea of Bigfoot.

I don't believe for one minute that they exist, but I am fascinated by them.

[Neognosis]

Quote

evidences are just too strong to ignore.

for one, one scientist proved that all known bigfoot prints make a bell curve, showing that the datum, for the most part, are quite real. an outcome like that could not happen if the prints were made randomly by fakers.

voice recordings of some unknown beast letting out several horrifyingly loud screaches were studied and found that no known indigenous creature could have made such a screach. the closest animal they could find to try to match the sound was from a primate.

evidences lke these are strong, too strong to ignore.

None of these things are evidence.

Also, anytime you hear the claim that "no other creature could have made such a screech,"  you should take the whole thing with a whole tablespoon of grains of salt.

[keninsc]

Quote

None of these things are evidence.
Also, anytime you hear the claim that "no other creature could have made such a screech,"  you should take the whole thing with a whole tablespoon of grains of salt.

On this I have to agree with you, none of this is real evidence. However, to a believer, it's enough. To a skeptic it's nothing. Fact is until we have a body, skeleton or possibly capture one, we don't have any evidence. I hope for capture or the skeleton, but if given the chance to shoot one, I will then get it to a reputable primate research facility who can do the proper work to determine what it is and it's place on the primate tree. Short of that, then a grain of salk or an entire box is required.

Nothing personal EoT, we'll just have to disagree "the evidence".

.....and yes, I am completely fascinated with them as well.

Edited by keninsc, 08 October 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Rafterman]

keninsc, on 08 October 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

On this I have to agree with you, none of this is real evidence. However, to a believer, it's enough. To a skeptic it's nothing. Fact is until we have a body, skeleton or possibly capture one, we don't have any evidence. I hope for capture or the skeleton, but if given the chance to shoot one, I will then get it to a reputable primate research facility who can do the proper work to determine what it is and it's place on the primate tree. Short of that, then a grain of salk or an entire box is required.

Nothing personal EoT, we'll just have to disagree "the evidence".

.....and yes, I am completely fascinated with them as well.

And given that these things allegedly range the world over and seem especially concentrated in high population areas, the fact that bodies and skeletons haven't turned up over the past several hundred years is quite damning.

[Neognosis]

Quote

However, to a believer, it's enough. To a skeptic it's nothing.

But that's the issue... this will ALWAYS be about nothing more than belief. Belief is an acceptance of something as true without evidence.

And "evidence" isn't subjective. There are certain criteria for actual evidence. The term "evidence" gets thrown around a lot in bigfoot discussions, but there actually isn't any evidence as accepted by science.

[OverSword]

Although I do believe in sasquatch, neognosis is correct.  There is no real evidence which can be said to conclusively prove bigfoot exists.  Much like aliens in flying saucers, sure there is no doubt that many people have seen strange craft in the sky, but that does not prove aliens exist or are visiting us.  Since it would take a corpse or a captured speciman to prove the existence of bigfoot, I personally hope they remain mythical.