Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Author Takes A Look At The Obsessive Search For Bigfoot



In Monster Trek, Joe Gisondi brings to life the celebrities in bigfoot culture: people such as Matt Moneymaker, Jeff Meldrum, and Cliff Barackman, who explore remote wooded areas of the country for weeks at a time and spend thousands of dollars on infrared imagers, cameras, and high-end camping equipment. Pursuing the answer to why these seekers of bigfoot do what they do, Gisondi brings to the reader their most interesting—and in many cases, harrowing—expeditions.

60 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. I'm not the original turd guy but if you are missing him I can fill in. TURDS

      Delete
  2. I intend to get this book. Judging from from the interview from Monster Trek, he sounds pretty even-handed in his observations and is quick to point out this is not a book which argues for or against the existence of Bigfoot. He is mainly interested in why Bigfoot are so passionate about their belief (as am I). It is of interest to me also how he and a few other previous skeptical people such as Les Stroud, Renae Holland and Dr. Sykes have become more sympathetic to believers after talking and hanging out with them. I am currently in the skeptic camp but perhaps after interacting with some of these people I might soften my stance a bit . . . . or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction - He is mainly interested in why Bigfoot BELIEVERS are so passionate about their belief.

      I'm sure that Bigfoot (if it exists) is VERY passionate about it's existence and belief in it. :)

      Delete
    2. >>It is of interest to me also how he and a few other previous skeptical people such as Les Stroud, Renae Holland and Dr. Sykes have become more sympathetic to believers


      Because they talk to them and find out how much money they are willing to shell out for anything monkeyman related. Pretty sure the GREAT BRYAN SYKES is not giving his book away for free. You think Les Shroud is going hungry anytime soon? And one must wonder how much money Renae Holland brings in from her show?

      Money will answer all your bigfoot related questions. Just ask the family of that ol cowboy Roger "conman" Patterson.

      Delete
    3. 8:51 with the comment of the year

      Delete
    4. 9:34... Claiming his own comment was comment of the year.

      (Cringe)

      It can't be because every single honest and impartial expert who gets into this subjects finds reason to be enthusiastic now, can it? You contradict yourself ALL the time. You claim this is a subject for scientists to be embarrassed about, yet you claim to be able to know how much money these people are making that only comes from a popular topic that is growing in credibility?

      Delete
    5. Ummmm I wrote 8:51.

      But I did not write 9:34.

      I also made few comments in the Sykes thread and am happy to them out if need be.

      Delete
    6. Point them out if need be.

      My bad I am reading a few other sites and have The Walking Dead on in the background.

      Delete
    7. Argh, you wrote on the Sykes thread?! That would explain how you can cheerlead such subjective, ilogical cynicism.

      Oh and I forgot, 8:51... You pseudosceptics/pseudo-intellectuals demand that this topic be progressed with evidence and more reputable professionals offering their ideas, yet as soon as someone of this mould writes a book in any sort of enthusiasm, you rhetorically claim that they're "only out to get money". This is what is called ad hominem. Just to put you in the wider picture, rhetorics in this instance are a trait of denial, to try and look like there is an effort at legitimate debate on your part, when there is none.

      Oh... And lastly... Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    8. I'm sure all those people mentioned are just rolling in the dough making a lavish living on bigfoot. i really doubt they all have gold plated toilets off the subject. i honestly think they have changed their minds when confronted with evidence, talking to credible witnesses or having their own experiences which have made them super interested in finding the truth. if they make a little money on the side good for them. The kardashians are rolling in the dough and have zero talent , at least these people have something to contribute with their expertise

      Joe

      Delete
    9. Sorry joe I forgot to hit reply when I typed out my response. I am sure you will see it though. Again this is hardly my main focus today.

      Delete
    10. I myself think it's a mixed bag. Indeed there are some out there using belief in Bigfoot as a way of making money. There are those out there that legitimately believe they have seen something they feel is Bigfoot. I'm sure there are some who just like the idea of such a creature and just want to believe (as I once did). I also think there are those who just seem unbalanced and mentally unstable to which I think even some hard core believers would agree is true. Whatever the reason for their belief it's okay with me but I do remain curious what motivates such passion that some seem to have for the subject and I hoping this book will give some insight.

      Delete
    11. Yes, evidence which depending on your point of view is ignored, overlooked, not recognized or not conclusive. We have had so called "evidence" for a long time now and yet nothing has come of it. It still takes a certain level of faith to sustain one's belief for all these years. I can appreciate that belief if one thinks they seen something with their own eyes but I find it intriguing why others who have not are so passionate about it.

      Delete
    12. Curious... I think sometimes those quotation marks make up for a lack of substance against the proposed evidence, and focussing on the alleged faith base of researchers is an effort at bringing things down to a level to which is easier to justify your fruitlessness as a past researcher.

      Delete
    13. Well that's your opinion of course. The fact of the matter is that with all your injections of "evidence" it's still subjective and not officially recognized by the scientific community as a whole. There is no question in my mind that the element of faith does indeed enter into argument based on the fact that still today, after all these years of sightings, reports and "evidence" we still have no physical proof of its existence.

      Let me correct you right now that I was never a researcher only someone with an interest in the subject. I still maintain that interest only it's now on a different level.

      Delete
    14. That's cool Mr Curious, I put that comment there with the utmost of respect for you. The problem is, not enough enthusiasts are aware of the evidence, there's little chance of scoffing mainstream science being aware of it anytime soon.

      "A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."

      Delete
    15. and the world will keep telling you the latter

      Delete
    16. The "world" accounts for nothing you choose to type with those chunky fingers, mate.

      Delete
    17. >>The problem is, not enough enthusiasts are aware of the evidence,

      Ok there is no question now. You don't believe a word you type.

      Delete
    18. That statement would be bang on the money... I mean, self admittedly you know "all about this myth", yet it appears that's all you've got is logical (intellectual) fallacies as something to oppose the evidence I list.

      Ouch!

      Delete
    19. "chunky fingers"? Well anyone would think your getting a little frustrated and letting your emotions take over. Poor little Joergy.

      Delete
    20. ... I'm not the one struggling to hit the reply button properly, sausage fingers... Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
  3. >> You pseudosceptics/pseudo-intellectuals demand that this topic be progressed with evidence and more reputable professionals offering their ideas....

    I have never asked such a thing. I simply do not care.

    >>yet as soon as someone of this mould writes a book in any sort of enthusiasm, you rhetorically claim that they're "only out to get money".

    I think the same of the always entertaining Dr. Johnson and Meldrum or the local bumpkin. It has nothing to do with the man's professional standing.

    >>This is what is called ad hominem.

    Obviously not.

    >>to try and look like there is an effort at legitimate debate on your part, when there is none.

    LOL I have never portrayed myself as engaging in legitimate debate. I think you are a clown and treat you as such.

    >>Got monkey suit?

    Yeah that one never gets old. Not gonna engage that topic with you though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is your best response Mike? Um I mean "joe".

      We all Iktomi is the real joe. The anon who signs as joe is really good ole Mike Brookerson?.

      Sorry if I mis-spelled your name Mike I have not seen you post under it in sometime. Is it safe to assume that the 'foots on your property are still around? And you still have nothing but drunken boasts to back up you amazing claims?

      Delete
    2. Oh, but you do ask. You ask enthusiasts to show you reputable people when you claim that nobody takes this topic seriously. Yet you have someone who you no doubt championed in Stroud now telling you that there is something to this topic, you now have someone like Sykes attesting to the descriptions of Zana and her relict lineage, and good old Renee who for all your cynicism appears to be turning her stance around. And now you "don't care"? You cared enough to post your comment on a blog, and you cared enough to respond to me after I exposed you for a very typical rhetorical joke.

      "It has nothing to do with the man's professional standing"... Yet, I'm sure you'd be all over someone lesser qualified telling you the antithesis, right? By the very essence of even your second comment, you do not address any of their work, merely make claims on their integrity. Would you like me to google you the meaning of the words as hominem?

      It's a good thing you don't admit to attempting anything like legitimate debate... And nobody was giving you the credit of being capable of such in the first place.

      "Not going to engage that topic with you though." What? The PGF?? Don't bring it up in cynicism then.

      Delete
    3. Again forgot to hit reply.

      I know you have responses sent to you though. So you will see this.

      Delete
  4. >> Oh, but you do ask. You ask enthusiasts to show you reputable people when you claim that nobody takes this topic seriously.

    No I don't You have me confused with someone else.

    >>You cared enough to post your comment on a blog, and you cared enough to respond to me after I exposed you for a very typical rhetorical joke.

    Again not me. Just who do you think I am?

    >> you do not address any of their work, merely make claims on their integrity. Would you like me to google you the meaning of the words as hominem?


    What is there to address? I believe these men are in this for the money and fame. It is that simple. Their "work" is a joke and meaningless. Please look that word up. It describes you to a T.

    >>"Not going to engage that topic with you though." What? The PGF?? Don't bring it up in cynicism then.

    I have read your rants long enough to know where that line of debate goes. It is pointless so I chose not to engage you over it. You claim to believe that the film is real. I think it is a money making scam. At least I am honest about it. You on the other hand do not believe any of this. But you play the role as a bleever to gain an audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is there to address? Well, as adult exchanges go, you should probably think of a means to defend that stance when it gets put into context with the reality of the situation. Any critic must provide substance to their claims, or quite frankly the joke's on them.

      No... You claim not to engage me because you've tried before. I wouldn't talk of role playing when you play the "contented sceptic" so poorly.

      Delete
    2. >>Any critic must provide substance to their claims, or quite frankly the joke's on them.

      Just nonsense.

      >>What is there to address? Well, as adult exchanges go,

      Really? On the site that features turd guy,TK,yourself and the rest of the merry band of idiots. You really go with trying to be above the fray?

      >>No... You claim not to engage me because you've tried before. I wouldn't talk of role playing when you play the "contented sceptic" so poorly.

      Again not me. Again who do you think I am?

      Delete
    3. No, really... If you can't provide anything expect an uneducated, cynical opinion regarding the topic, then you just look like the uneducated cynic with an unqualified opinion. Calling everyone idiots who post on a blog doesn't really start demonstrating just how people like Meldrum are a joke. Just as well you don't claim to being able to debate too well.

      Delete
    4. “My book is not an attempt to convince people of the existence of Sasquatch,” the 49-year-old Meldrum says emphatically; rather it argues that “the evidence that exists fully justifies the investigation and the pursuit of this question.”

      His own words. Can he make it more clear. He is looking for justification to continue his "research" on the public dime.

      Delete
    5. Meldrum listed cryptozoology (the study of hidden creatures such as yeti and Nessie) as an interest on his vitae when he applied for doctoral work. But Bigfoot as an active pursuit did not emerge until he arrived at Idaho State in 1993.....



      Hmmm I wonder why?

      Delete
    6. ... It's in fact more like he needs the backing of mainstream science... Just like the Bili Ape had. Stop trying to be clever, most pioneering scientists get paid to write books and hold seminars on their hard work (cringe). You come across like making a living out of hard work is alien to you.

      Delete
    7. Even is that is true... There is no difference between the Yeti and "Bigfoot". In fact... Around about the time Meldrum was a young man, the pop culture of the day was more revolved around the legend of the Yeti, to which Sasquatch, Bigfoot, etc were regarded as the North American equivalent.

      Start with the basics, watch a damned documentary or something.

      Delete
    8. Lets see what your peers think of good old Jeffery shall we...

      Personally, I think Meldrum is sincere in his beliefs and his work, however Sakari touched on something that can't be overlooked, the money factor. People are making money off Bigfoot, it's almost like an underground, cult like following of people taking "exploration/educational training trips", attending lectures and "seminars". In fact to be a "field investigator for the BFRO you have to have attended something like different levels of their seminar, then paid to go on an additional number of group field studies.......I don't know what the number is, so that you are completely and totally indoctrinated into their methodology and thinking, and in the process been separated from piles of your money.
      And this doesn't even touch on the tons of tapes, DVD's, tee shirts, hats, semi-religious plaques and carvings, glass Bigfoot curios, and various other strange and somewhat disturbing things you can purchase with your hard earned money. Then if you'd like to get a speaker for a group to come out and talk to your respective group then there are those lecture fees and travel expenses things. For instance, you can have Cliff Barackman come and give you one of his super-duper, have you rolling in the aisles lectures on Bigfoot and when you leave you will be a true born again believer in all things Bigfoot. His exact fees are between the $5K and $10K, depending on audience size, and all travel, lodging and meals. There are specifics on the travel, lodging and meals, which will only be sent out to "serious inquiries only".

      http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=8aab7d0b0246ad302e5b2043fd92521a&showtopic=275126&st=0

      Delete
    9. >>Start with the basics, watch a damned documentary or something.

      I know the mythology as good as you do. Possibly more. Most of your knowledge comes from quick google searches to post others writing as your own. I make sure to acknowledge if I am copy/pasting something.

      Delete
    10. Oh the link to 1:04 and 1:07. My bad.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bigfoot-anatomy/

      Delete
    11. Ok... For starters;
      peer 2 (pîr)
      n.
      1. A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers.
      2.
      a. A nobleman.
      b. A man who holds a peerage by descent or appointment.
      3. A computer participating in a peer-to-peer network.
      4. Archaic A companion; a fellow: "To stray away into these forests drear, / Alone, without a peer" (John Keats).

      ... Can we put "KevinP" or this "Sakari", whoever he is in this bracket, or can we merely refer to them as cynical critics? Actually... And in keeping aligned with what the word "peers" would imply;

      "Dr. Meldrum joined the ISU faculty in 1993, after a stint with Northwestern University. His research revolves around questions of vertebrate evolutionary morphology, especially primate locomotor adaptations. His formal study of primates began with doctoral research on terrestrial adaptations in African primates, and has since taken him from the dusty skeletal cabinets of far-flung museums to the remote badlands of Colombia and Argentina in search of fossil New World primates. He has published extensively on the evolutionary history of the South American primates and has described several new extinct species. He has documented varied primate locomotor specializations in laboratory and semi-natural settings. More recently his attention has returned to the emergence of modern human bipedalism. His co-edited volume, From Biped to Strider: the Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport, proposes a more recent innovation of modern striding gait than previously assumed. As the acting director of the Center for Motion Analysis and Biomechanics (CMAB) he is collaborating with engineering faculty, paleontologists, and the Idaho Virtualization Lab, to model the pattern of evolution of the hominid foot skeleton. His interests also encompass the evaluation of the footprints purportedly left by an unrecognized North American ape, commonly known as Sasquatch. He has authored an expanded companion volume to the very successful Discovery Channel documentary, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. He edits the online refereed journal The Relict Hominoid Inquiry."

      None of this would have been remotely possible if he wasn't respected by his peers. He's also got people like George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society, writing forewords in his book. Some of the universities that some of those experts in his RHI are affiliated with are the Australian National University, Idaho State University, University of Tennessee, Oxford Brooks University, not to mention the IUCN - World Conservation Union, Human Evolution Foundation, Beijing Museum of Natural History and the Bronx Zoo-based Wildife Conservation Society.

      When you don't have the backing of mainstream science to fund research, you need to raise money by other means.

      Delete
    12. You "know the mythology as well as I do"... Yet the best you can come up with is circular logic, and a money making conspiracy?

      (Pffffft!!)

      Actually buddy, Daegling's work here;
      http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/bigfootreview.pdf
      ... Which the Scientific American uses as the beat means to denounce Meldrum is entirely based on shoddy, poorly researched data and can be taken apart as follows...

      There is no evidence that Paul Freeman was a hoaxer and the point used where Freeman is a self admitted hoaxer was in fact a segment from a TV interview where Freeman nodded to manufacturing tracks, when the footage cuts off you do not see him explain that he made false tracks to test those that he attained under genuine circumstances. His hair samples have currently been taken on by Sykes who is fascinated by the initial testing (watch this space).

      Dermals I have taken apart more times to count.

      Fossil record; we only have a few teeth for six million years worth of time chimps and gorillas have resided on the African continent, and we also have 150 years worth of giant skeletal remains documented in the US. I'll also add...

      The circumstances around the man made fibres that Freeman presented as legitimate are not known, and he may well have acquired them unbeknownst and trusting of the source. If Krantz, Titmus and Meldrum were hoaxed with tracks, then I wonder how many wildlife biologists and anthropologists analysing sources from other subjects would be so easily hoaxed by people trying to sabotage them? The truth is that this has been used to move forward in identifying such in future casts analysed. There are examples of sources of evidence being falsified in the judiciary and scientific arenas (even peer review), yet these pillars of modern society still stand.

      Lastly, Meldrum's Giganto across the Bering Bridge theory has no doubt evolved (self corrected like all good science), as Meldrum is now of the mindset that Sasquatch are relict hominids, and the source itself agrees that human migrations came via this route.

      Delete
    13. nice little meltdown youve had here joe

      Delete
    14. you also didnt cite the sources of your copy and pastes above Joe. Yes, some of your paragraphs are not your own thoughts and words. You cant just throw in someone elses words mixed in with your own, to make your own look better. You have major problems when it comes to this. You have been caught doing it countless times. Did you get into trouble in class for plagarizing? Did the problem start there?

      Delete
    15. 2:13... That's in fact the way your arss whooping reads.

      2:17... You don't need to reference your thoughts, you poorly educated tramp. This coming from someone who has quite clearly NEVER thought for himself. Do you ask Donald Maker for his permission when you're using his logic face falls? The parts of my comments that are direct quotes have been stated so. No... I excelled in my class actually, and am known for having a cruel streak when it comes to intellectual throwbacks like you.

      Delete
    16. joe sure is taking a stiff pounding today

      Delete
    17. 2:13,2:17 and 3:57 are not me joe.

      Again I will ask.....who do you think I am?

      Delete
    18. >>and am known for having a cruel streak when it comes to intellectual throwbacks like you.

      Well don't just bark all day then little man. Go on and show me what you can do with that "mean streak".

      Maybe you will type in ALL CAPS to show how serious you are. LOL you are just a clown who dances when told too.


      Who do you think I am?

      Delete
    19. "Little man"? You sound like your emotions are getting a little better of you, old boy? Um... I'm not sure if you've noticed... But I'm waiting on a response to every point of yours taken apart?

      (Sigh)

      I know I stoop low, I just can't help it.

      : )

      Delete
    20. Oh... And I don't for one little second give a monkey's arss who you are, ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    21. Man, Joe is really taking a pounding. I mean dag on, he is really taking a stiff one. The pounding of the week for sure. All his statements are getting disected and destroyed. Kind of humiliating.

      Delete
    22. Ha ha ha ha!! You seem like you're trying to persuade someone?? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    23. Trained you I have well
      Use the force Iktomi !
      win you will against the trolls

      Joda

      Delete