"Squatchers"

One film from the early 60's, no matter how authentic the "experts" say it seems, will never be enough to prove that bigfoot exists. The whole 100yrd/lens size ratio thing is sketchy, to say the least. Funny how all this Bigfoot stuff is surfacing recently and most of the "experts" brought in to analyze the evidence already believe in sasquatch from the start..... ride the wave. Bring in true skeptics from various fields and convince them. The gentleman in Jill's last posted video is a "Bigfoot Researcher, Computer Animator and Hollywood Costume Designer"... Does this at all sound like someone who is going to say anything but "bigfoot is real"? That whole show had hype oozing from it. If I ever believed in the possibility of bigfoot before, this thread and the evidence given has convinced me otherwise.

BTW... is that the same narrator from Dual Survival?
 
Like I've stated, there's been 1000's of people seeing what the film shows. Someone gets it on film, then it can't be real? The footprints found at the location showed a living creature made them. You wanted to see that, Rick and I linked an expert's opinon on tracks. What did you find wrong with what he found?
 
I have watched the video twice now. The excellent narrator and Munz says it cant be faked. Yet when they superimpose the animated human on the animated bigfoot, it matches well. Also when they try to prove that the two bodies dont match up, they use different size models. The Bigfoot is a lot larger. They then move the man up and down trying to make the pieces fit. I think its laughable.
 
You can buy your own bigfoot plaster casts here. They can be used to amaze your friends and confuse the experts. :)
 
Seems they are replicas of tracks found.

Supposedly. They can be used also to make new tracks to be found. Or more replicas of tracks that have been found. Or as a model to make up a new latex track-maker to make new tracks to be found. I might just get one to make up a concrete stamp for pool decks. Wouldn't that be cool?
 
Supposedly. They can be used also to make new tracks to be found. Or more replicas of tracks that have been found. Or as a model to make up a new latex track-maker to make new tracks to be found. I might just get one to make up a concrete stamp for pool decks. Wouldn't that be cool?

Let's see you explain this away, too?
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

"Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."
 
I have watched the video twice now. The excellent narrator and Munz says it cant be faked. Yet when they superimpose the animated human on the animated bigfoot, it matches well. Also when they try to prove that the two bodies dont match up, they use different size models. The Bigfoot is a lot larger. They then move the man up and down trying to make the pieces fit. I think its laughable.

You don't even understand what he was doing.
 
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=1&id=314

Jeff has followed the Bigfoot lore ever since he was a young man, he clarifies that his curiosity about Bigfoot came about when he was 11 and watched Roger Patterson’s now famed film clip of an alleged Bigfoot sighting trekking in to the woods.

According to Jeff, the footprints molds of other individuals he has analyzed together with still unknown hairs, audio recordings of bizarre unknown calls and a number of witness testimonials all adequate to legitimate evidence that justifies further study (“the evidence that exists fully justifies the investigation and the pursuit of this question.”).

To Meldrum’s critics, which includes university peers along with scientists within his own field, that same collection doesn’t amount to legitimate evidence, and Meldrum’s study of it is actually pseudoscientific. Jeff’s laboratory contains in excess of 200 casts with regards to Bigfoot.

http://www.is-bigfoot-real.com/jeff-meldrum/

I don't need to explain Jeff away. I think that his studies need to be examined in context though.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/isu2.htm
 
The footprints found at the location showed a living creature made them. You wanted to see that, Rick and I linked an expert's opinon on tracks. What did you find wrong with what he found?
I thanked you for showing me that but also took note that he was seen as an outcast by most of his collegues. Not that it means he was wrong... just not backed by most of his peers.

My book is not an attempt to convince people of the existence of Sasquatch, rather it argues that “the evidence that exists fully justifies the investigation and the pursuit of this question.”
--Jeffery Meldrum

To Meldrum’s critics—including university colleagues and scientists in his own field—that same collection does not constitute valid evidence, and Meldrum’s examination of it is pseudoscientific: belief shrouded in the language of scientific rigor and analysis. “Even if you have a million pieces of evidence, if all the evidence is inconclusive, you can’t count it all up to make something conclusive,” says David J. Daegling, an anthropologist at the University of Florida who has critiqued Meldrum and the Bigfoot quest in the Skeptical Inquirer and is the author of Bigfoot Exposed (AltaMira, 2004).

There have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot or Sasquatch, the supposed ape-like creature said to live in North America. While a few scientists have examined the evidence, the subject is not considered an area of credible science, and supposed evidence like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film have "no supportive data of any scientific value.
--Robert B. Stewart and David J. Daegling

Bigfoot is more than just a silly slice of history. The beast's appearance on the national scene marked an important milestone: the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture. The debate over its legitimacy reached a zenith in the 1970s, with a slew of high-profile magazine stories and TV specials that gave prominent coverage to theories supporting the creature's existence, concocted by self-styled Bigfoot "experts" spouting factoids cherry-picked from bona fide scientific research. The controversy led anthropologists and other scientists to run for cover to avoid being tarred by association with such specious ideas. As a result, the "evidence" in Bigfoot's favor was presented essentially unchallenged, effectively legitimizing the pseudoscientific claims. Because the existence of the beast could not be disproved, many readers and viewers were left feeling that its existence was quite probable. By absenting themselves from the debate, the scientific community appeared out of touch and elitist. In the three intervening decades, the increasingly common use of pseudoscience—junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, or whatever you choose to call it—has transformed public debate.
--Anatomy of a beast: obsession and myth on the trail of Bigfoot (2009)

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature. In a 1996 USA Today article titled "Bigfoot Merely Amuses Most Scientists", Washington State zoologist John Crane says, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented." In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia (although some smaller primates, such as Japanese macaques, are found in Asia up to the latitude of Northern California, and can cope with air temperatures to -20° C (-4° F)). Thus, as with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[68] Furthermore, great apes are not found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains have ever been found. Indeed, scientific consensus is that the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.

A few scientists have been less skeptical about the claims of the existence of sasquatch. Jeffrey Meldrum characterizes the search for Sasquatch as "a valid scientific endeavor".[citation needed] and says that the fossil remains of an ancient giant ape called Gigantopithecus could turn out to be ancestors of today’s commonly known Bigfoot. John Napier asserts that the scientific community's attitude towards Bigfoot stems primarily from insufficient evidence. Other scientists who have shown varying degrees of interest in the legend are anthropologist David Daegling, field biologist George Shaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler, Esteban Sarmiento, and discredited racial anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. Jane Goodall, in a September 27, 2002, interview on National Public Radio's "Science Friday", expressed her ideas about the existence of Bigfoot. First stating "I'm sure they exist", she later went on to say, chuckling, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist", and finally: "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."However, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and paleontologists completely dismiss the possibility of the existence of sasquatch.
--Wiki
 
I understand exactly what they are doing. They are purposely being misleading. The two subjects fit very well and at the same time they are saying they dont fit.

He was showing the way a suit would have to fit and bend, with the human figure over the bigfoot and showing the human, bigfoot proportions don't match up, as far as upper and lower leg, arm length and more. It was two different things entirely.
 
And how did these tracks get made? Fakes also?
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

yep, those are fakes.
don't believe me. get somebody to walk around barefoot in the mud, or even with boots on and you'll see the difference if you look close.

no push ridges from the balls of the foot from stabilization as the heel lifts and the weight shifts to the other foot for the continuation of the step.

there's no individual toe push ridges to the outside or inside from the variation in the texture of the surface, IE. thin layer of soft mud over harder gravel causing the foot to slip and the toes to dig in to push the foot and the animal forward in the stride.

no heel deformation from a harder surface strike versus a soft surface strike.

flat footed steps on a muddy road and field, no animal or person walks this way.

no debris between steps from heel to calf strikes while walking.

nobody ever seems to find prints or tracks that show where this thing bends down and shows the bend and push ridges from going from flat(standing) to kneeling (weight on ball of foot). not even beside all the creeks and fields with tracks.

spend some time walking around barefoot and not on sand or in the grass. walk somewhere where you have to worry about heel strikes, and stone bruises and you'll start walking on the balls of your feet. your stride shortens, and you almost start sliding your foot down to keep your balance.
you get a lot of variation in tracks because of this.

so, yes, they are fake. not that my opinion makes a difference
 
Heresthedeal... I have to disagree. Jeffrey Meldrum would know fake tracks from authentic..... he literally wrote the book on bi-pedal locomotion. I just question some of the interpretations of the data he presented. Like Codger said.... "I think that his studies need to be examined in context though."
 
yep, those are fakes.
don't believe me. get somebody to walk around barefoot in the mud, or even with boots on and you'll see the difference if you look close.

no push ridges from the balls of the foot from stabilization as the heel lifts and the weight shifts to the other foot for the continuation of the step.

there's no individual toe push ridges to the outside or inside from the variation in the texture of the surface, IE. thin layer of soft mud over harder gravel causing the foot to slip and the toes to dig in to push the foot and the animal forward in the stride.

no heel deformation from a harder surface strike versus a soft surface strike.

flat footed steps on a muddy road and field, no animal or person walks this way.

no debris between steps from heel to calf strikes while walking.

nobody ever seems to find prints or tracks that show where this thing bends down and shows the bend and push ridges from going from flat(standing) to kneeling (weight on ball of foot). not even beside all the creeks and fields with tracks.

spend some time walking around barefoot and not on sand or in the grass. walk somewhere where you have to worry about heel strikes, and stone bruises and you'll start walking on the balls of your feet. your stride shortens, and you almost start sliding your foot down to keep your balance.
you get a lot of variation in tracks because of this.

so, yes, they are fake. not that my opinion makes a difference


So, even the half-tracks within the same set of footprints and the toe variation too, was all faked?
 

“While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere,” Meldrum said.

Even Jeff isn't willing to stick his neck out on this cast made by BFRO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum_cast
 
Last edited:
Heresthedeal... I have to disagree. Jeffrey Meldrum would know fake tracks from authentic..... he literally wrote the book on bi-pedal locomotion. I just question some of the interpretations of the data he presented. Like Codger said.... "I think that his studies need to be examined in context though."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
the tracks they show on this link are fake.
yep, you would think that wouldn't you. all those degrees sound pretty impressive.
must be a large great ape living and walking around in North America.

I'm not a PHD, but the tracks and plaster casts I've seen on the net and tv are just plaster casts.
the track ways they show from the muddy road and field
are fakes.

the "skookum body cast" was examined on the history channel, its an elk, not a bigfoot.
 
Back
Top