Dr. Jeff Meldrum Class A Sasquatch encounter in Alberta, Canada!?
We received a phone call from blogger Robert Lindsay and he was super excited to share this story with us. It looks like him and Dr. Jeff Meldrum are now on good terms, again. This story (if true) has many implications, mainly because a Bigfoot was sighted by a reputable scientist. Dr. Meldrum is extremely shy when it comes to drawing any definitive conclusion, and we commend him for that. His sighting, if true, is a huge step for science, and it's one that should strengthen the argument for a North American ape.
Lindsay called us up on the phone last night and asked us to share Meldrum's sighting:
I told you previously that Meldrum had at least a Class B encounter up there, but now I am finally able to tell you more. The way I see is that Meldrum saw a Sasquatch up there, and that is the take everyone else has on the incident. If so, it would be the first time that Meldrum has actually seen Sasquatch in the wild.
Meldrum is more circumspect about the matter, as the skeptical scientist that he is. If asked, he simply says, “Well, let’s put it this way. I saw something.” The sighting occurred at the Alberta Habitation Site in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains east of Jasper National Park. This is one of the hottest sites in North America. A trapper runs traplines there, and this man says that there are seven different Sasquatches living in that area. Just about any trip to the area typically results in encounters of one sort or another, and people are often tracked, shadowed and followed as soon as they venture into the area. In other words, the Sasquatches act like they own the place.
This is on Crown Land and the entire area is open to oil exploration. There are oil exploration roads running through the area, but there is very little human habituation. There is also some logging going on there. Other than that, there is almost no human activity. It is very wild, steep, remote and heavily forested. There is a great deal of fish and game in the region including large populations of predators such as coyotes, wolves and Grizzly Bears. In fact, there are so many Grizzly Bears and wolves in the area that the government regards them as a nuisance and tries to reduce their population.
As I noted earlier, Meldrum and Bindernagel were taken there by Todd Standing as part of a documentary Todd was filming which incidentally has been sold to TV.
At one point, they were in there at night with someone who has a way of spotting animals even when no one else knows they are there, possibly through some sort of psychic phenomena. Although it sounds nuts, they do seem to have some talent.
At one point, the person said that a Sasquatch was out there. The person started to home in on them and then the person said, “There it is!” No one else could see or hear a thing in the total darkness. Meldrum lifted his night vision binoculars to his eyes and peered through them. A bipedal figure resembling a man then “glided,” in Meldrum’s words, across a clearing or road. The word glided that Jeff used to describe its method of locomotion is interesting because that is exactly how Sasquatches walk. It is sometimes described as a fluid motion, “like a cross-country skier.”
The whole incident was over pretty quickly.
Meldrum told me that while he believes he saw something out there, he’s not 100% sure it was a Sasquatch, and he would really like to see one in the daytime so he can get a better view of them.
However, I do believe that he saw a Sasquatch.
It was either a Sasquatch or a man. This is one of the most remote areas in North America and there are virtually no humans around in the daytime, forget about nighttime.
It’s not possible that there would be a human walking around this area in the middle of the night, and they would have to have been walking around a very thick and stone remote forest not only in the middle of the night but also without a flashlight, which is frankly impossible. I have spent a lot of time in deep wilderness and I have never once seen a human stranger walking around in the woods after dark even with a flashlight. The notion that a strange human would be walking around in the dead wilderness in the middle of the night with no flashlight is completely insane. It’s not even a remote possibility.
If Meldrum did indeed see a Sasquatch up there, and I believe he did, this is an important event in the annals of Bigfootery. Dr. Meldrum after all is one of the superstars of our field, and his first sighting is a momentous occasion.
Keep in mind that Meldrum has an NDA with Todd Standing regarding the entire trip up to that area so he is limited in what he can talk about regarding this trip.
Check out Lindsay's blog for the latest Bigfoot News January 8, 2014.
E PLURIBUS UNUM
ReplyDeleteGood one Harry!
DeleteCHICKen McNugget
Glad to see you back on top, Harry.
DeleteI'm trying out different names with 'chick' in them. I'm formerly 'another chick'
What do you think of Chicken McNugget or Chickadee?
How about chickalicious
DeleteGood one!
DeleteGoing to bed. It's late here.
Banned.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhere ya from I'm on the east coast it is almost time for work here
DeleteI HATE NDA's !
DeleteHarry, put your pants back on this instant!
DeleteThis thread: believe Lindsay!
DeleteFollowing thread: Lindsay is a grade A liar!
Oh what tangled webs we weave....
Banned.
DeleteObviously standings buddy walking by on cue.
DeleteBigfoot is real.
It was Bobo on one of his solo investigations!
Deleteit was D. b. Cooper!
That's the problem with night time investigtions, you can see a thing
When I saw 154 comments posted on here, I knew right away Damn! Joe's on here and Daniel Campbell too Damn it now within hours they'll be 300 comments here!
DeleteGOOD MORNING
ReplyDeleteG'morning, Harry!
Deleteball boy
hope you have a wonderful day.
Deleteball boy
TIME TO WAKE UP! GOOD MORNING! Rise and shine and give god the glory glory
ReplyDelete.....i'm awake.....
Deleteball boy
"Dr. Meldrum is extremely shy when it comes to drawing any definitive conclusion"
ReplyDeleteErm wat?
The guy has a bigfoot only journal, sells bigfoot "field guides" and speaks at bigfoot conferences and sells casts. His conclusion is very clear.
Whether he actually believes it is another story. Its likely that he does not actually believe in bigfoot like most of guys on the top rung of footery.
I think at this point any questions about Meldrum's motives and character have been answered. I guess it was his turn to fall out of that little clown car in the bigtop Bigfoot circus.
DeleteSo is Todd Standing stories and pictures still a fake? Do all you faketards in bigfoot land still discredit him as a fraud?
ReplyDeleteI am a believer, but Todd Standing has not produced evidence. His photos clearly show puppets. His famous video is inconclusive, most likely fake.
DeleteHe could be having encounters with real bigfoots however. He is probably not interested or not proficient at getting good imagery of them.
Well Dr Jeff Meldrum seems to be taking Todd Standing seriously. Who's laughing now?
DeleteYeah and.......
DeleteMeldrum had assloads of fake casts all that means is standing found a way to shovel his bullshit past his hoax sensor
Passed
DeleteThat photo of Todds above looks really good to me xx
DeleteI'm so sad and lonely, i just don't know what to do.......
Deleteball boy
Stay away from him Eva. He may look good but he's not half the Bigfoot Floor Bigfoot is, which makes him less than 1/4 of a Bigfoot.
Deletegotz some spent shell casings that sayz different
DeleteSomething for the Welsh dumbasses:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.discovery.com/animals/new-bigfoot-claim-old-bigfoot-hoaxer-140106.htm
"If and when the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts or other such mysterious entities is proven, information about it will appear in legitimate academic journals and reputable news outlets, not personal web sites, YouTube videos and independent documentary films.
If Bigfoot researchers wish to be taken seriously, they could start by cleaning their own house. The biggest threat to their credibility is not skeptics nor a ridiculing public but instead those who provide an endless stream of bogus claims and evidence."
(Quote from the last part of the article)
Peace.
And more importantly:
Delete"Real science moves forward through cautious claims, careful analysis and peer-reviewed evidence. How can it compete with outlandish, fictional claims of Bigfoot bodies for the public’s attention, support and interest?"
Fuckin pwned
DeleteIncredibly schooled
Delete"If and when the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts or other such mysterious entities is proven, information about it will appear in legitimate academic journals and reputable news outlets."
DeleteLet's ignore the sensationalist comparisons (something very common these people do as opposed to tackling any proposition to difficult for them to swallow) and focus on how information would be sought out if it wasn't down to the general enthusiast group to research and document?
How would any research accumilate if science won't investigate; it would be pretty difficult for academic journals and 'reputable' news outlets (if there is such a thing) to produce any information on the subject, wouldn't it?
The 'cleaning house' suggestion is therefore actually meant to portray the pleading that these sad individuals would prefer for this entire field; leaving the accumilation of steady evidence that rolls in as the years go by... Non existent; of at least not made public, and is therefore a typical attempt at censorship.
If there was nothing to this subject; why ask for it to be silenced?
It is not scientifically impartial to deny a source of evidence. Science asks questions, attempts all hurdles and get's to the very bottom of any issue, to attain the facts (careful analyisis, right?). Your version of science does exactly what it has always done; ignore answering questions it can't. If answers aren't attainable, there's nothing to answer... So how would anything get peer reviewed? Do scientific and anthropological studies suddenly fly out of the air with a paper hand written for you?
And this is what makes me smile... These people like to use these hot shot quotes when they are too stupid to realize that within these quotes are massive examples of their own logic not materialising in what they practice.
Now that was a schooling. I suggest you read the quotes properly and not set yourself for a bitch slap like that again.
Schooled with what bigfoot exactly?
DeleteAwesome, now Joe thinks that the quote gives him right.
DeleteHow stupid is he?
"Real science moves forward through cautious claims, careful analysis and peer-reviewed evidence." not with claims of skeletons buried in the basement of the Smithsonian.
DeleteWhat a fck dumbass
Not claims... Legitimate sources such as Smithsonian Bureuas, dermals, DNA, recorded language, hair, scat footage and on imumerable ocassions; multiple person eyewitnesses... 'careful analysis' of such, yes... Not settling for a conclusion based on a refusal to look at the facts, especially those that provide a challenge. Denying sources via ignoring counter points is not scientific.
DeleteWhat you do is merely provide rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate with an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition out of hand; agenda ridden and unscientific.
Like I said; don't set yourself up for a bitch slap.
Still no bigfoot anywhere ever ya jackass
DeleteRead my posts properly for support with that misinformed mess.
DeleteIf the science rejects the "proofs" doesn't mean the is biased (why should be? It's full of scientists wanting to become famous in the community and many are able to do everything in order to do it), it means that the "proofs" are unsubstantial.
DeleteDermals are not proofs because they can be easily misinterpreted
Recorded language? Neither, easily hoaxable and no informations about the source
Eyewitnesses? Not gonna comment on this
DNA? Stop it with that stupid argument, the only thing DNA related you have is a preliminary suggestion of a preliminary study from 7 years ago that was never completed nor published and that nobody has cared anymore and a British genetist that found a polar bear and you like it.
SCHOOLED PWNED AND RAPED
^ Epic win
DeleteIf science rejects Bigfoot is because it realized it had nothing and, unlike you, it didn't like it
Science laughs at the bullshit called bigfoot. It's an exercise in psychological freaks more than anything.
Deleteregarding the suggestion that dermal ridging can be easily misinterpreted, I disagree to an extent. An untrained eye could easily misinterpret but an expert in the field of anatomy will not misinterpret. Is it possible? Yes, but not probable.
DeleteSomeone who has obtained a doctorate and spends their entire life studying the human anatomy rarely makes a mistake. This is why expert testimony is recognized as true evidence and used in criminal court. Expert testimony is simply the opinion of someone whose field of expertise pertains to the evidence being presented to the jury. Again, nothing is impossible; A DNA test can be misread or improperly sequenced but again, this is extremely rare (See WVSP forensic chemist Fred Zane) I work with this guy for a few years.
As far as hoaxing sound recordings; Yes, this can and is often done. However, any audio recording can be analyzed with computer software which takes opinion out of the equation. Humans, birds, canines, etc. all have minimum and maximum frequency ranges in which they can physically reach within their vocal possibilities. This software can compare audio recordings to all known species capable of making a sound and determine exactly what made the sound or what could have made the sound. Some of the alleged sasquatch vocalizations have been found to be non-human, non-elk, etc. and the source is "unknown."
Regarding eyewitness testimony; I agree that most people can make mistakes when seeing something for a fleeting moment. Adrenaline is high, pre-conceived ideas or purpose for being in the woods, etc. may lead to misidentification. When you have the above evidence at an encounter, (tracks, sounds and eyewitness account) This would be enough to obtain the threshold for probable cause in a criminal trial proceeding such as a grand jury.
As hard as it is to believe, I had a personal encounter in 2009. So, throw all rational thinking out the window. When asked if I believe in bigfoot I answer with "No, I don't believe in bigfoot, I know that they exist. I saw one and I have its prints to prove it."
Archer1
^^ give us the prints then
DeleteDermals that have species traits fom opposite sides of the country from decades apart aren't missinterpreted, especially when they have been verified by one of the best ex-forensic specialist in the country (Jimmy Chilcutt) who doubles up as a primate prints expert. Your 'careful analysis' and reason to judge unsubstantiated was = missinterpreteded.
DeleteThe people who recorded the Sierra sounds were seeing Sasquatch. To back that up, they recorded sounds both above and below human frequency and that are too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers. That is why I can assume, with all the other sources of evidence there are, that the subjects making the sounds were indeed, at least not (normal) human.
"These recordings later became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in ?Manlike Monsters on Trial,? an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed."
That was from the BFRO, and this is common knowledge amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts. Your 'careful analyisis' and reason to judge 'unsubstantiated' was = hoax able and no information about the source.
Multiple person eye witnesses are a very credible means of evidence because people have been trained for a very long time to pick apart inconsistencies regarding such. It is harder for people to lie once in a group as well as it is easier to attain key consistencies to determine truth. This in the court of law of very important. Your 'careful analysis' and reason to judge as 'unsubstantiated' was = not comment on this.
DNA? Ohio State University have sequenced unknown primate DNA. In the same way that Sykes initial results are all that matters, (your logic remember), then the same can apply here. Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics and Jamie Austin; a graduate student forensic scientist. The probable reasons behind these results not being published is simple; for evidence like this to be peer reviewed & published, you need repeatable examples of it before it can be considered 'scientifically repeatable evidence'. The fact that there is only one standing example from this source of unknown primate DNA, doesn't stop it being an example of unknown primate DNA. Your 'careful analysis' and reason to judge 'unsubstantiated' was = 'preliminary' study from 7 years ago.
"If the science rejects the "proofs" doesn't mean the is biased, it means that the "proofs" are unsubstantial."
This is where you bitch slap yourself again; because every source of evidence I can source has been backed by scientists and forensic experts who are happy to have their names to it. All your points to dismiss these sources were very embarrassing and hardly any result of 'careful analysis' to judge as 'unsubstantiated' and if that is your example of scientific 'careful analysis' then I'd be putting down the video games and hitting my local library, as opposed to telling anyone else what that should mean.
; )
too much reading.
Deletethe point is no bigfoot body, bones or whatsoever.
end.
fin.
fine.
Archer1... Man you don't post nowhere near often enough!! Good to see you post bro!!
Delete8:43... Do you want documented archeological and anthropological studies that have bones? I can supply them in droves. I must remind you also, that chimpanzees have only four teeth as a record of a fossil trail in Africa, and they've been living on that continent for seven million years.
Fin.
"Do you want documented archeological and anthropological studies that have bones?"
DeleteYes I do. But peer reviewed, not early settlers' diaries from 19th century
Peer reviewed with "this is the thing that is generally referred as Bigfoot" in the conclusions paragraph
DeleteThese would be official Smithsonian Bureua's actually. Oh... And it's pretty difficult to peer review something that's been hidden from public view.
DeleteCome on, don't make Joe struggle and cry.
DeletePoor baby.
it's hidden from public view... but you know them? from 4500 miles away?
DeleteYou're mental
Also: if those things are mysterious... how can you conclude that it must be Bigfoot? Maybe they're just humans?
You're mental
Oh, if "it's pretty difficult" to have them, then don't come saying "Do you want documented archeological and anthropological studies that have bones?" because then you haven't them, no matter what's the reason
Tooner
It doesn't take a genius to link a 7-10 foot skeleton, to the widely reported Bigfoot sightings for the past few hundred years.
DeleteIt does however take a numpty to have it pointed out to them.
Never bored of been pwned, Joe?
DeleteJoe speaking the truth based on fictional links that you can make in your mind.
DeleteBut that's not how science works, sorry. Again.
Sorry is about practical and undisputable links.
If the documents of the Smithsonian are hidden, how do you know that they have a 10 foot skeleton and nobody else does? Maybe because they're just conspiracy theory with no actual evidence to support it as usual?
DeleteGot it
9:01...
DeleteAll this information is in your libraries up and down your country. Don't take my word for it, go and look for yourself.
Bigfoot are humans.
It also appears you need to learn how to read properly. The bones would be difficult to come by as they are hidden from public view. The paper trail of documented bones going straight to institutions like the Smithsonian; not so.
Sorry to upset you.
Leave him alone in his fantasy world of conspiracies and magic people
DeleteDo not interact with him
show me the papers, dumbass
Deleteshow the papers to the world
Why don't you do that? Be aware, real papers, not quotes from crypto sites
The Reminder Guy is right as usual, leave him alone.
DeleteTime to go out, guys!
yeah, the papers are out there all across america but only Joe from Wales knows their existence. makes sense
DeleteI take the call, it's senseless. Time to go out!
Delete9:03... The only fiction is in your ridiculously poor come back for hard facts.
DeleteYou got served.
There ya go, here is your fiction (be aware of reading page 2!)
Deletehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton.html
Schooled and served, by sir!
Ten skeletons "of both sexes and of gigantic size" were taken from a mound
Deleteat Warren, Minnesota, 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 23, 1883)
A skeleton 7 feet 6 inches long was found in a massive stone structure that
was likened to a temple chamber within a mound in Kanawha County, West
Virginia, in 1884. (American Antiquarian, v6, 1884 133f. Cyrus Thomas,
Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12th Annual Report,
Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91)
12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
(published in 1894)
(Pike County, Illinois)
No. 11 is now 35 by 40 feet at the base and 4 feet high. In the center, 3 feet below the surface, was a vault 8 feet long and 3 feet wide. In the bottom of this, among the decayed fragments of bark wrappings, lay a skeleton fully seven feet long, extended at full length on the back, head west. Lying in a circle above the hips were fifty-two perforated shell disks about an inch in diameter and one-eighth of an inch thick.
12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
(published in 1894)
(Kanawha County, West Virginia)
Spring Hill Inclosure, Kanawha County, West Virginia. In the bottom of Mound 11 (upper left) was found a skeleton "fully seven feet long."
Largest in the collective series of mounds, the Great Smith Mound yielded at least two large skeletons, but at different levels of its deconstruction by Thomas' agents. It was 35 feet in height and 175 feet in diameter, and was constructed in at least two stages, according to the report. The larger of the two skeletons represented a man conceivably approaching eight feet in height when living.
At a depth of 14 feet, a rather large human skeleton was found, which was in a partially upright position with the back against a hard clay wall...All the bones were badly decayed, except those of the left wrist, which had been preserved by two heavy copper bracelets...
Nineteen feet from the top the bottom of this debris was reached, where, in the remains of a bark coffin, a skeleton measuring 7½ feet in length and 19 inches across the shoulders, was discovered. It lay on the bottom of the vault stretched horizontally on the back, head east, arms by the sides... Each wrist was encircled by six heavy copper bracelets...Upon the breast was a copper gorget...length, 3½ inches; greatest width 3¾ inches...
I can't believe only days after getting lashed about that weak preliminary Buckeye result, that you're right back to posting it as some kind of genetic proof.
DeleteYou are a class A delusional lady boy. Unbelievable.
9:19... If you really needed any confirmation that that case was a computer hoax... Then god help you.
DeleteTake a look at what I've posted and see if you can find a reason to call that a hoax.
; )
Plop !
DeletePlop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Oh Danny; here's one for you, a real beautie!
DeleteScientific American issue of August 14, 1880, page 106:
"Ancient American Giants.
The Rev. Stephen Bowers notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science, the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. J. F. Everhart, of Zanesville. It measured sixty-four by thirty-five feet at the summit, gradually sloping in every direction, and was eight feet in height. There was found in it a sort of clay coffin including the skeleton of a woman measuring eight feet in length. Within this coffin was found also the skeleton of a child about three and a half feet in length, and an image that crumbled when exposed to the atmosphere. In another grave was found the skeleton of a man and woman, the former measuring nine and the latter eight feet in length. In a third grave occurred two other skeletons, male and female, measuring respectively nine feet four inches and eight feet. Seven other skeletons were found in the mound, the smallest of which measured eight feet, while others reached the enormous length of ten feet. They were buried singly, or each in separate graves. Resting against one of the coffins was an engraved stone tablet (now in Cincinnati), from the characters on which Dr. Everhart and Mr. Bowers are led to conclude that this giant race were sun worshipers."
You got schooled about unknown primate DNA and you're getting schooled about your own history now.
DeleteEnjoy.
Plop !
DeletePlop !
Reposted
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Let's have a look at an actual serious scientific body now:
Deletehttp://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/explaining-giant-bones
Feeling sorry for you, must be hard to realize you believed for so many years in cartoons
Plop !
DeletePlop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop!
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
PLOP !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
what's so special about humans of 7ft? Check the NBA, full of Bigfoot!
Delete^^ He's amazed because in Wales humans are all small 5ft stinky balls of hairs
Deletehttp://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/explaining-giant-bones
Deletepretty much all you need to learn. Tip. buy that book
9:27...
DeleteOh dear... Do you actually read the links you post? I think not... The remains I have sourced you were found in Native American burial grounds, with skulls & such noted. Unfortunate for you that you can't differentiate between instances of mamoth bones (your link) and giant human bones.
He he he.
DNA studies so exclusive, he can't even link the actual manuscript and data (ie: published results) contained within.
DeleteIf only preliminary results 7 years ago could somehow be finished!
Ohhhh the humanity!
Ohh the desperation for closure!
Ohhh the repostings!
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
Plop !
as always, you are not understand.
Deleteit's not about the single case, it's about the general explanation of why these things have been reported.
Ignorance and brain fallacies towards belief and myth are well proved, unlike Bigfoot, and you are a good example of that
not expecting you to understand something though
Buy and read the entire book Joe, it might be the first time you actually read something scientifically serious!
DeleteDanny Boy... You miss the point again, man you dumb! Ha! You can't publish a paper on one instance of unknown primate DNA, you need more of it... You don't however debunk the geneticists happy to have their names to such an ocassion by not publishing one either.
Delete9:40... You are so hard to understand, I'll do my best though... Archeological & anthropological groups don't make mistakes in confusing human skeletons with animal skeletons. The only ignorance is your inability to swallow the facts, laughably... You want to lecture someone else by pigeon holing a 'general explanation' with something that has clear instruction of what is being documented by experts. You are living in the realms of fantasy if you can overlook that simple point.
No offense.
9:45... About as serious as the Smithsonian and the Scientifc American?
DeleteHa ha ha ha ha!!!
And how about Archeological groups making publications and being peer reviewed? Where are those?
DeletePLOP!
PLOP!
PLOP!
YGNALI
DeleteI think you're missing the point, old boy... Peer reviewing something that is in the interests of being kept from the general public, isn't the best of ideas and kind of defeats the object.
DeleteNumpty.
There ya go! I have nothing so... Cover-up!!!
DeleteMerd de cheval complete!
9:40 suffering from brain fallacy.
DeleteAnother skeptard who promptly put the truck in the ditch.
Good going.
Oh... And I can reference source upon source of giant skeletons right up until the mid 20th century.
DeleteI think I've ruined quite a few dumb rednecks' days... Apologies, my only concern is pointing you in the direction of truth.
When the only counter argument becomes 'plop', then you know you've exhausted all angles of literary acrobats.
What a bunch of twits, ha ha ha!!
"When the only counter argument becomes 'plop', then you know you've exhausted all angles of literary acrobats."
DeleteBecause "schooled", "numpty", "hahah" are good ways of reasoning.
PLOP
PLOP
PLOP
PLOP
PLOP!
DeleteI keep my poop in a jar
DeleteSchooled.
Deletenaf said
Delete10:10... I have presented you with so much more than what your small mind can handle. Scientists with official documented studies; that is my reasoning and your counter argument is pure indication of what you have left.
DeleteWell done guys, you are representing your theory group beautifully. You people are just plain stupid and your threads here are for all to see what I mean.
Laters.
Funny how you claim to bring to the table something but actually you bring nothing.
DeleteOnly things I see are quotes from the net.
Publications from scientists with official documented studies are what we were asking because that's what was lacking from you, but you answered that you haven't them because it's all covered.
When you say "peace" means that you want to make peace with your brain, right?
The level of Joe going against his own words are amazing
DeleteWe are still waiting for the links to the "official documented peer reviewed studies" (if not peer reviewed, they are not official nor documented, ya know)
BIGGEST PLOP!
Delete10:34... Those aren't just quotes from the net, that's solid facts from scientists and universities that you at best can't counter because you are too stupid... The only nothing is between your ears. Evidence of this is your ever apparent lack to understand comments. I think you'll find that. Peer reviewing giant skeletal remains would be difficult I they are nowhere to be seen (on display). That is what is being covered up.
DeleteWho's gonna peer review a subject science has gone out of it's way to ridicule? If something isn't peer reviewed, but still has scientific opinion to it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean you snake out of explaining it. I know you are at the limits of your creativity...
I'd love it if someone went through all of Robert Lindsay's predictions and 'scoops' from 2013 and checked off which ones came true and which were completely wrong, just so we could get an actual indication of how full of shit he is.
ReplyDeleteBanned.
DeleteWow--the writer received a phone call from Robert Lindsay. This is why they have unlisted numbers, people.
DeleteLets recap.
ReplyDeleteSomeone pointed out a squatch that no one else could possibly see since it was total darkness with psychic powers while in a known hoaxer's research area. All this being reported by Robert Lindsay.
There is no way in hell Meldrum was hoaxed right?
Banned.
DeleteGliding? Puppetry has advanced.
ReplyDeleteAll the strings contribute to the illusion.
DeletePay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
DeleteIs it true that Daniel Campbell's leg is hindering his chances of a long and meaningful relationship with members of the opposite sex?
ReplyDeleteMy dog has three legs.
DeleteMy dog has no nose.
DeleteMy dog poops in a jar.
Deleteme dog poops next to a tree
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWTF are you ranting about?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSorry just got corrected buy my nabour , day 5 they couldn't keep there composure and blew it!
DeleteGood one,my neighbor. Haw!!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhat J.Kwellan
DeleteDamn it BA lakê
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete^ f..ck off b.j.s you cop sucker ^
DeleteParent message deleted due to possible impersonation.
DeleteWow! This is it, I'm telling you! 2014 will be the year bigfoot is found and classified and all that. Unless it's 2015, in which case change 2014 to 2015.
ReplyDeleteRepeat until the end of time.
Banned.
DeletePark Service already has ask Dave Paulides
DeleteThis is an important event in the taterholes of Bigfootery.
ReplyDeleteFozzie you so cute i wanna just skeet all over you!
DeleteI can only imagine what he used to do to his Winnie the Pooh
DeleteMMC
Fozzie,when you say no do you really mean yes? xx
DeleteMeldrum thinks he saw what he wanted to see. And the sasquathery bretheren hang on his every mistake.
ReplyDeleteUntil meldrum relates all of this via his own mouth, this is another wasted report of nothingness. Blankety blank said blah blah blah doesn't cut it anymore folks it 2014 for Pete's sake!
DeleteBanned.
DeleteMeldrum saw his reflection.
DeleteThat is how skeptards 'debunk' anything at all, they produce hearsay and stamp the thing debunked. It's very weak because they attempt to debunk something which has some evidence, with a method which has zero evidence. Hearsay is zero evidence. It is the skeptard's treasured tool. Joe Blow said it's hoaxed, so Oh goodie, stamp that one as debunked, and move on. The skeptard's brilliant way.
DeleteSeeing as how Meldrum won't even acknowledge this stuff, it is certainly hearsay. There is no evidence of this story being true, let along hard evidence of an encounter taking place.
DeleteStoopid footer.
'I saw something' said Meldrum.
Delete'Meldrum has up close Class A encounter' says RL.
See the problem here?
MMG
LEAVE MELDRUM ALONE!!
Delete--Chris Crocker
^Hey, wanna see a plaster cast of my taterhole?
ReplyDeleteSTOP USING THE PLAYDOUGH LIKE THAT. IT RUINS IT FOR THE OTHER CHILDREN.
DeleteJust as I thought, McCheese and Chewy breezed in here, took what they wanted, then vamoosed. Poop in a Jar Guy would never do that to us--that is why he is our president and dear leader.
ReplyDelete;-)
DeleteI guess Patty hasn't learned how to glide yet.
ReplyDeleteIfn U wantz to find tham critters getz U a huntin dog
ReplyDeletelike bigfoots eats - road kills, dogs, and people
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that Robert Lindsay is not a brain damaged moron? No! He did not see anything. He also did not report the facts correctly. Since Meldrum cannot say definitively that he saw a Sasquatch, then neither can Robert Lindsay. But that detail did not stop Robert's brain from short circuiting and misreporting events by jumping to conclusions. This is all just more evidence that serves to prove that Lindsay is deserving of the Brain Damaged Moron of 2014 Award.
ReplyDeleteBanned.
DeleteHAND!
I would like to see Fozzie bear eat McCheese burger man for lunch whilst the fecal matter in a jar guy sets by gleefully observing the entire thing go down. Then Hamburglar would walk in the Jap smack Fozzie upside his head making him look like a Todd Standing puppet reject. Shortly there after BoBo would see Fozzie and be convinced that he had just witnessed a retarded juvenile bigfoot. That would be awesome.
ReplyDeletegood old boyz from Appalachian Investigators of Mysterious Sightings needs to get on this and trap that critter
ReplyDeleteRick dyer is all over the news!!! He did it agian wow!! Why u guys let him do this ???
ReplyDeleteRick dyer killed a Bigfoot haha ! This is so funny
DeleteRick dyer killed a Bigfoot haha ! This is so funny
DeleteNSA glitch posted twice
DeleteThey say this place wouldnt have people around ....very remote....im from the area ...the foothills outside jasper park are loaded with people...backcountry skiers ..snow mobiles ..hikers ..fishing ...hunting...its a real outdoor sports area...not to mention all the mining and oil and gas work going on there...and for people at night not being in the woods...me and my friends come back from ski touring late at night sometimes after a week out in the back country and also from fishing trips...not saying nothing there bht there are some explainable situations .
ReplyDelete"They" sure do say a lot of things, don't "they"?
DeleteTodd Standing, is a RICK DYER CLONE. A Total fraud, liar, attention whore and fake. Nothing he says or does can be believed. So would it be unreasonable for Todd to have a friend walk around in the dark so he could get on Television. Yes!!!! look at the puppet, that you lead this article with, Todd claimed it was real. What about the LIE about how the RCMP had to do a search and rescue on him on one of his BiGFOOT EXPEDITIONS, which was a total lie. When you roll about in the mud with pigs, you are going to come out smelling like pig S***
ReplyDeleteI can't wait Rush,is this it finally?I can't wait,you're running quiet,this is it
ReplyDeleteBigfoots are truer than fiction guaranteed
ReplyDelete7.62 - action to getz resultz
ReplyDeleteOn Jan. 9 2014 at 5:07 am and again at 6:43am, someone made comments under Anonymous. It appears to me that this someone is trying to come across as if they were me.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, Then I officially state now that the two above posts at those times were not me. When I post, I post as Aaron Arcand.
Someone is seriously trying to make me look bad. Some people just need to make others look bad in an attempt to make themselves look better or perhaps just so that they can feel better about themselves.
Point being, The above posts were not made by me. I had a lengthy phone conversation last night and told him everything. You people don't even know 1/4 of the whole story.
There will be no further posts here by me so if someone claims to be me, it isn't.
The lengthy phone conversation last night was with Robert Lindsay.
ReplyDeleteI emailed the site owner and he did some forensics investigating and the IP address of the person who is trying to come across as me is right here.
ReplyDeletehttp://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/24.109.209.126
sounds of jealous vocalizations -again and again - sad so sad.
ReplyDeletework together fools . pass the puck every once in awhile , seems some people have some relevant research findings - yet it always turns into a jealous shit show ?
Meldrum , Bindernagel and Stroud are TOGETHER with Standing and big advances are abound. so whats the problem ?