Jeff Meldrum holds talk on Bigfoot evidence

This is just Humdrum rattling his cans again. He does this on a regular basis, I am quite sure that once his fellow (and I use that term very loosely) academics have had a chance to rebut, he will be of telling every Loren Coleman, Blogger, Crypto site and Journo who will listen how hard his life is and how he must battle these closed minded academics to be heard. *Cue Worlds smallest violin* After all these years and 200 casts (which he does, so he does take to the field on a regular basis) one would expect that such an accomplished person with so much knowledge would have a bit more to share... [More]

Well, I've been an avid outdoorsman all my life and have seen just about all the animals in North America. What I saw, was not like any of them. People say, it could have been a bear. No, it wasn't a bear. I've seen plenty of bears on all fours and upright. When a bear is upright, his legs are really short compared to the rest of his body. What I saw was a mama and young one. Also there were the tracks in the fresh snow. I followed the tracks for two to three miles. There were two sets of prints, one was maybe 18 to 20 inches long and about six inches wide. The other set was eight or nine inch... [More]

Bah, humbug. I used to find Jeff Humdrum intriguing and enigmatic. Not so much any more. A little boring nowadays. I read the article ol pal. I have one question. Why, in the hell, did they give this article that particular title? It had nothing to do with evidence and everything to do skeptic bashing. Sad really. The title should be "bigfoot researcher reveals why he thinks skeptics are not on board". Hey psyche, I've been working on a new theory, would you mind to look it over when it's completed?

The overall point of his article is that people are not dismissing bigfoot due to lack of evidence or due to the animal being impossible for the environmentm but to cheifly due to their having been told to reject. Is dismissing something due to opinion better or worse then dismissing due to science? His point is people are using mainly opinion. What evidence is available is completely redundant to the arguement. Dr Meldrum is a Professor, and proforms his duties as such. Bigfoot is basically his hobby. Attacking a man for his hobby is ignorant in itself. i agree with your words,totally! " Dr M... [More]

i agree with your words,totally! " Dr Meldrun is a Professor,and proforms his duties as such.Bigfoot is basically his hobby.Attacking a man for his hobby is ignorant in itself." Yet Meldrum does the same to other hobbyists with an interest in Bigfoot who just so happen to be critical of his opinion. In his presentation below, Meldrum singles out William Parcher and Kitakaze telling them to “get a life!” (around 2:00): Most people who have Bigfoot as their hobby lose money (equipment, travel, etc). Meldrum, on the other hand, is one of the few in the world to make a pretty penny out of his ... [More]

You might want to change your story a little bit. To say to had it in your sights but you didn't take the shot for whatever reason is not believable. Maby you didn't have the gun loaded and didn't want to scare them away, or you were using a spotting scope or something. Anyone in their right mind would kill that thing and not think twice because whoever does is going to be a rich man. Vance665, I'm not here to argue with you, and what you think is not going to change what happened. Yes, I might have squeezed the trigger if my hunting partner would have been with me or close by. But now I'll ne... [More]

You might want to change your story a little bit. To say to had it in your sights but you didn't take the shot for whatever reason is not believable. Maby you didn't have the gun loaded and didn't want to scare them away, or you were using a spotting scope or something. Anyone in their right mind would kill that thing and not think twice because whoever does is going to be a rich man. Why would somebody in their right mind kill it? I wouldn't kill it. The only reason I might try to prove it exists is so that we can protect it. But then again, if there are these creatures out there undetected f... [More]

Vance665, I'm not here to argue with you, and what you think is not going to change what happened. Yes, I might have squeezed the trigger if my hunting partner would have been with me or close by. But now I'll never know. By the way, calling me a lier isn't going to change what happened one bit. Odie I'm not calling you a liar I just said I didn't believe your story. I don't think it's really a big deal, this is the internet afterall. If you didn't shoot because you didn't know where your hunting partner was that makes ALOT more sense and I would have been more likely to believe you if you sai... [More]

Why would somebody in their right mind kill it? I wouldn't kill it. The only reason I might try to prove it exists is so that we can protect it. But then again, if there are these creatures out there undetected for this long, I guess they don't really need protection. Btw, just wondering, how would you get rich off of it? I'm not going to lie I would kill it for the money but also just to prove it exists. I guess it all depends on what your definition of ruch is but there would me money in it for sure. You would be the guy that finally got bigfoot after all these years when the majority of peo... [More]

i agree with your words,totally! " Dr Meldrun is a Professor,and proforms his duties as such.Bigfoot is basically his hobby.Attacking a man for his hobby is ignorant in itself." If he does in fact get money, either privately and/or from a university for his bigfoot research then it isnt really a hobby anymore. It would be an occupation, one link to his university position. If that is true then wouldnt you agree that his job and education are fair items for examining and questioning?