Welcome To Bigfoot Territory
From the Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization - A round table discussion on the drive into bigfoot timber.
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Just so's you know- bigfoot ain't real
ReplyDeleteNo they're not - anyone with a lick of common sense could figure it out by now except for a few diehards here. One of the dumbest statement made here (among many) is "there is irrefutable evidence for Bigfoot's existence". Now think how stupid that statement is. The definition of irrefutable is something that is impossible to prove wrong, or that cannot be denied. Now if this "evidence" is so watertight why is it not accepted and recognized? After all if it cannot be disputed then it must be fact. Why isn't that "expert" (Meldrum) pounding on the door of every scientific institution demanding they look at his "irrefutable" footprint casts? Hell, he must have a hundred of them. Maybe he's too busy attending all those Bigfoot conventions preaching to the choir and making a buck. Maybe he's getting his evidence "peer reviewed" by all the academic scholars gathered there. Maybe with all this "irrefutable" evidence someone should take it to legal court.....oh wait. Wasn't it Todd Standing who guaranteed he would prove Sasquatch exists in court with....wait for it...IRREFUTABLE evidence. Gee, what happened to that? Don't let anyone tell you they have irrefutable evidence for Bigfoot's existence because it's simply not true. If it was we would see it recognized officially as a real, living creature.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete“The definition of irrefutable is something that is impossible to prove wrong, or that cannot be denied. Now if this "evidence" is so watertight why is it not accepted and recognized?“
DeleteUm... (cough, cough)... the evidence is as about as recognised as the peer review process? It is scrutinised by peers and then published to the scientific community in a journal. At that stage, it is open to further scrutiny, and as of yet nobody has been able to debunk that work because it is consistent with widely accepted hominin trackway studies. One would require to scrutinise the accepted homo erectus trackway studies... The evidence is that good.
The calibre of world renowned scientists that are defending Meldrum’s work are the same people he has published work in other areas of anthropology... the likes of Martin Lockley, University of Colorado Denver... And Jeong Yul Kim, Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongwon, Chungbuk, Korea. Other scientists Meldrum has the backing of (a couple of whom have passed away now) are the likes of John Bindernagel, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China. Those are just some of the names who are/have been associated with Meldrum’s online journal, and I could have gone on far more about other reputable scientists who have contended that this subject is worthy of scientific investment. And PS... every time a scientist shows interest in Meldrum’s work, they’re branded kooks by rhetorical perverts like you. Not that they have anything to worry about there... but now you want more?
And no PS... Todd Standing didn’t even get down to presenting evidence in court, his case was thrown out because he argued that the government restricting recognition is an infringement on his rights. It was always going to be thrown out. But like so many things regarding this subject, you’d need to have your facts right before sounding off. You’re a fraud who’s obsessed about this subject more than anyone, yet still manages to botch details... that’s because you’re a typical lazy psuedosceptic riddled with logical fallacies that has ten times more loneliness issues than the capacity to acknowledge how fascinating the data is.
Don’t like it... debunk the evidence, old boy.
More nonsense.
DeleteProve it.
DeleteNonsense:
DeleteSpoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
"he was talking absolute nonsense"
synonyms: rubbish, balderdash, gibberish, claptrap, blarney, guff, blather, blether
You're welcome.
Nope! That’s the definition of a word you have used when being unable to provide substance to your drivel. This is your chance to show me you know what you’re talking about.
DeleteDid you bother to read the Meldrum “peer reviewed” articles? One of them is actually a transcript of an acceptance speech for an award given to him by a bunch of other fringe lunatics. In that “peer reviewed” article, the egomaniac devoted half of his speech to b*tching and moaning about how mainstream science wont take his crappy ideas seriously and that only he is brilliant enough to appreciate the paradigm shifting nature of his own awful work.
DeleteIn the other one, he declares that some fake bigfoot prints have midtarsal breaks without ever testing himself whether fake bigfoot stompers could produce the same result! At best, he’s proven that fake bigfoot stompers are made with big toes and elongated heels and with the flexibility to create a break in the middle of the tracks.
He’s actually proven that bigfoot is fake!
By the way, there’s another fascinating “peer reviewed” article in the current edition of the journal all about ouija boards! Go read it and report back to me!
Ha ha ha!
And there you go Anon 9:04. When you dig deep enough into Bigfoot and it's believers you always find it's not so irrefutable as they claim. Didn't Meldrum once proclaim tracks were genuine and then later found to be fake? Methinks he's not the scholar they make him out to be.
DeleteMeldrum is an ACTOR.
Deletehttps://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/18/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf
Deletehttps://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/30/jse_30_3_Meldrum.pdf
Above are the two journal publications. They’re not acceptance speeches. They are full of solid data that was good enough to publish. Again, is there anything you can get accurate? Or is accuracy not the actual intention? I mean... you’re getting attention this way aren’t you?
Ok... let’s try and break down your other drivel piece by piece. For starters, it is circular logic (logical fallacy) to state that some Bigfoot prints are fake because they are Bigfoot prints. You have never once provided a single reason to convince anyone that they’re fake. Nor has any academic or scientist with far more intelligence to do so managed to do that. Secondly, and this is probably the most fascinating insight into your level of intelligence... the fact that someone didn’t provide data of something, means that the data must exist? That’s what religious people do, PS, to explain their faith in god. That isn’t science. There is no method of getting different planter pressure in a trackway of foot falls, that also bare archaic morphological detail that is accurate to evolutionary history via stompers. when a genuine foot makes contact with the earth, it makes what is called a sequential print. The foot has dozens of bones, tendons and ligaments that flow in a segmented fashion and a fluid motion creates compression lines in the inner perimeter of the track, and can only be made by a living fleshy foot. Now... fake tracks are identified by what are called impact ridges that appear on the outer perimeter of the track. What creates this is the simultaneous pushing out from the pressing down of a solid, non-flexible structure like wood or fake plaster cast. Now to the untrained eye, you might make something that appears a lot like a Bigfoot track, but there’s is too much sciences behind the testing of such to discount fakes. Scans of the ten original casts made by Bob Titmus nine days after the filming at the Patterson-Gimlin film site in 1967;
https://capeia-usercontent.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/10/1508434029_39_3605f.jpg
And the footprints from the Laetoli site in Tanzania, dated to the Plio-Pleistocene and famous for its hominin footprints, excavated by 1978;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Laetoli_footprints.png/220px-Laetoli_footprints.png
For example, several footprints and even a trackway Meldrum studied in Walla Walla in 1996, clearly exhibited evidence of midfoot flexibility, producing distinct pressure ridges. You simply cannot hoax a trackway with mid-tarsal foot flexing and planter pressure, and there’s too much data like that. Do you think biologists, trackers and anthropologists are just hippies with no field expertise? You are utterly clueless, these people not only have academic backgrounds but they have respectable studies published.
You’ll notice that scientists are from other fields of study are not being hoaxed, so there’s no comparative to draw from. Another logical fallacy to add to the long list.
DeleteYou’ll also notice I don’t need to sockpuppet to look like someone agrees with my stance. That’s because I have confidence in my arguments and don’t need to resort to anything other than substance to make my comments look like they’re stomping you.
Cheers.
More nonsense.
Delete“Researchers at the University of British Columbia’s Visual Cognition Lab think the board may be a good way to examine how the mind processes information on various levels.”
Delete“Two years ago, Dr. Ron Rensink, professor of psychology and computer science, psychology postdoctoral researcher Hélène Gauchou, and Dr. Sidney Fels, professor of electrical and computer engineering, began looking at exactly what happens when people sit down to use a Ouija board.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-strange-and-mysterious-history-of-the-ouija-board-5860627/
That was published in the Smithsonian Mag. You’ll find plenty of other people with credible scientific backgrounds looking into the Ouija Board phenomena. The JSE is no different.
Anything else?
So why didn’t Meldrum test fake stompers himself? I’ll tell you why, because if he did, his entire fraudulent lying edifice would come crashing down around him and he would no longer be idolized by illiterate buffoons like you and he’d also no longer get to go on paid junkets to give nonsensical lectures to morons!
DeleteYou know who did create a mid-tarsal break with fake stompers?
http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/
“Even with crude and quickly fabricated prosthetics, I was able to create tracks that exhibited mid-foot pressure ridges.
It’s entirely possible that the mid-foot pressure ridges seen in one or more of the Patterson-Gimlin film site tracks have an explanation that does not involve Bigfoot’s mid-tarsal break.”
Why doesn’t Meldrum conduct this test?
Because fake stompers were already done and tested ages ago. Again, you’d have to have actually learned about topic you’re harping on about to know that. Paul Freeman manufactured stompers decades ago to test the how they could create toe bending and different planter pressures. He did this to see if what he was finding was a hoax. And he couldn’t get the same results. The Orgone source doesn’t account for planter pressure and different footfalls in a trackway. That’s without even touching upon things like the dermal ridges that are totally outside of the examples casting artefact anomalies found in some tracks under laboratory conditions; they haven’t been debunked. What’s more... is that we actually have footage of the hominin that is leaving the tracks. And the we can actually see the hominin’s feet with toe flexing and stuff everything else you’d expect from a real foot;
Deletehttp://bizarrezoology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/compelling-evidence-toe-extension-of.html
https://youtu.be/W4AnJWb2fs0
https://youtu.be/RLNMjC26Ya4
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/18/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/30/jse_30_3_Meldrum.pdf
So here’s the impossible list of factors that go into this “hoax”;
• faking of midtarsal break before the general public knew about them.
• another “hoaxed” guessing this morphological trait in future “fakes”, even before replicas were in production, and in another continent.
• faking planter pressure, impact ridges AND midtarsal break in a track way showing toe bending, foot flexing and different foot falls.
• managing to get casts that are morphologically accurate to lengthly studies and widely accepted homo erectus trackways.
• Elk Wallow dermal ridges found in a cast with the archaic morphology.
• footage of the creature, that shows impossible biological detail that SFX can not replicate to this day.
Wow... some invention there. Wouldn’t someone simply use all that impossible manufacturing technology to make the most realistic prosthetic feet for veterans and become a billionaire, instead of wasting such a talent on leaving tracks in places someone might never even stumble across?
(Sigh)
Anything else?
Paul Freeman proved it? That’s why Meldrum didn’t perform the test? Ha ha ha ha! Did Paul Freeman have a “peer reviewed” article on the subject? You can’t make this stuff up!
DeleteMeldrum apparently performed tests on humans and chimps. Why not fake stompers? And the picture of the fake PGF fake footprint has even less detail than Crowley’s fake print.
I ask again. Why didn’t Meldrum test the most obvious alternative explanation? Maybe you can use a ouija board to divine the answer!
Ha ha ha ha!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUm, no. Paul Freeman was a government employee who gathered evidence prior to the subject gaining scientific recognition via anthropologists such as Meldrum. You’re right... you can’t make this stuff up.
DeleteI would assume that given all the data listed above, a list you haven’t even made a dent in yet... an honest and reputable scientist like Meldrum would prefer to spend time exploring such incredible scientific repercussions. You would need a time machine to hoax the evidence. Now let’s take a look at the Crowley/PGF comparisons;
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/IMG_4987%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/laverty1%5B1%5D.jpg
Nope! Not seeing it sorry. You can ask again if you like. The answer will be the same... I would suggest you wriggle off and try and break down that list piece by piece and come back with some substance. You never know, you could have your name up in lights like those YouTube personalities you know more than most about.
(Creased)
OH!! And I believe Grover Krantz tested fake feet at length in Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence-The Anthropologist Speaks Out. Even the information I’ve provided up top has come from testing comparative fakes to those of genuine trackways. Way before Crowley.
DeleteYou dishonestly linked to the wrong Crowley photo. And did you know that most of the fake PGF fake prints don’t show a mid-tarsal break? That’s completely consistent with Crowley’s tests. But the fact that you stupidly lied to try to make your point only proves that I’m right, doesn’t it?
DeleteI ask again. Why didn’t Meldrum test the most obvious alternative explanation? I rally think that you might need that ouija board!
Ha ha ha ha!
*really — sorry, I was laughing too hard!
DeleteNope! Anyone can go here for themselves;
Deletehttp://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/
And open the same images in another tab and get the exact link details, to know that’s from the source you cited. The PGF track also had five toes just like Crowley’s casts (creased), that wouldn’t be evidence to dismiss the list of data being used to argue the authenticity of those casts. If you look at the 3rd Laetoli print here below, you’ll see there appears to be no apparent midtarsal break in a trackway... that’s what happens when you have a biological foot coming into contact with the ground in a trackway;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Laetoli_footprints.png/220px-Laetoli_footprints.png
RELICT HOMINOID ICHNOLOGY
The track record of relict hominoids received mention in a recent and seminal review paper summarizing the hominin fossil footprint record. Major Events in Hominin Evolution, is chapter 15 of The Trace-Fossil Record of Major Evolutionary Events, edited by Mangano and Buatois. The paper was coauthored by Martin Lockley (University of Colorado), Jeff Meldrum (Idaho State University) and Jeong Yul Kim (Korea National University). It presents a comprehensive survey of fossil hominin track sites around the world spanning the last 3.6 million years, and discusses the distinctions of two polar morphologies, diagnosed as ichnotaxa, Praehominipes and Hominipes. The closing paragraphs raise the matter of trace evidence attributed to relict hominoids, including the ichnotaxon Anthropoidipes ameriborealis MELDRUM 2007. “While most anthropologists ignore or refute the existence of relict hominoids without detailed analysis of the evidence at hand, there is nevertheless an extensive literature on the subject...by bona fide scientists who have taken the evidence seriously.”
Meldrum based his conclusions on:
Delete“The combination of broad flat flexible feet, elongated heels, prehensile toes . . .”
All of that can be replicated with fake bigfoot stompers. By not performing the test with fake stompers himself, he’s basically admitted that fake stompers can repeat the phenomenon. Or else he’s relying on hoaxer Paul Freeman? Or maybe he used a ouija board to create the test magically?
And you wonder why the lying fraud is relegated to a fringe journal among Loch Ness Monster hunters and insane water dowsers!
Ha ha ha ha!
Yet a combination of broad flat flexible feet, elongated heels, prehensile toes are not even accounted for in Crowley’s research you farted out, so what are you basing this on exactly? Do you even know?
DeleteNope! There is not only the “small” matter 3.6 million years of evolutionary bipedalism for Meldrum to draw upon, PS (sigh)... but there are the tracking details and sciences like wildilfe biology to draw from when considering the actual trackways, along with planter pressure, impact ridges, dermals, apart from just midtarsal breaks that are consistent with published data on homo erectus trackways... all of which are not remotely considered collectively in Crowley’s work that you’re lauding. And like I said... We even have the footage of the subject leaving some of the tracks. I could even argue that since Crowley’s research was done in 2009, Meldrum didn’t need to do the same research, it would seem like a water tight case since Crowley only skims the surface and omits so much details & facts it’s almost impossible to quantify.
“Now here is the remarkable aspect to all this. Although the Titmus cast was gotten in 1967, to my knowledge only a single screened black and white photo of it, depicted among a number of other casts in Titmus’ growing collection, was ever published, and that initially in 1973 (Green 1973:32). The first replica and analysis of that cast was published by me in 1999, after Titmus’ death. A photo of the footprint itself, depicted in Figure 4, taken by Lyle Laverty, was published in 1978 (Green 1978:122), but no previous investigator had identified or drawn attention to the midfoot pressure ridge, let alone interpreted or discussed its significance for sasquatch foot function. Mr. Yuan had discovered and cast his footprint pair in 1995, with no knowledge of the North American sasquatch phenomenon, let alone details of alleged footprints. The Mill Creek cast was documented in 1991. To these could be added the tracks I cast near Walla Walla in February 1996 (Meldrum 2004a). How could these independent examples, separated by nearly three decades and half-a-world apart coincidently share these sound and significant subtleties of anatomy and functional morphology? Simply a convergent happenstance of unrelated hoaxed footprints? I think not.”
- Jeff Meldrum
I think he reasoned that since time machines aren’t being made just yet, he can proceed to explore the positives of the data.
(Creased)
...and the cow jumped over the moon.
DeleteDon’t worry. You could always proceed to pretend to be about three different people insulting me. That usually works for you as a theory exercise after a good pounding.
Delete*therapy
DeleteYou forgot to mention Crowley’s “bigfoot print” from Alki Beach! Meldrum has proven that flexible clown feet stompers leave a mid-tarsal break and nothing else. He’s effectively proven that bigfoot is fake.
DeleteWait there’s more!
Unlike you, I actually read the articles. Meldrum claims that the reason that bigfoot has has a mid-tarsal break, elongated heels, etc. . . is because it’s an “adaptation of the foot of a large-bodied bipedal hominoid for negotiating steep, broken, mountainous, forested terrain.”
But wait, “bigfoot” is not found only in steep mountainous terrain! It’s “found” in the swamps of Florida, the flat areas of the Midwest, and even in Chick Chick’s trailer park tenement in downtown Austin, Texas! So much for the “adaptation”! Back to the old drawing board — or perhaps the ouija board?
Ha ha ha!
Meldrum has proven Sasquatch tracks can be referenced in the same club as known hominin trackways. And have. The National Centre of Biotechnology Information is one of the most reputable sources for biomedical and genomic information in the world. “Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics”;
Deletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842428/#!po=1.08696
... You’ll see Meldrum’s Sasquatch research referenced. It’s actually as profound an achievement as this subject can get to this point without a type specimen. Meldrum is gaining nothing but more and more credibility all the time with his academic prowess. It’s a little bit cringey to see that you think you’re on to something when a scientist who manages to distance himself from fake tracks with anything up to ten evolutionary & biological traits... is somehow evidence he’s debunked his own work. But I know at this point you’re pretty angry.
Homo erectus had archaic feet with midtarsal breaks, at the same time they lost hair to regulate body temperature for long-distance hunting over open terrain. I can assure you I’m cringing here.
PS, I’ve read Meldrum’s work to the point that I’m ten steps ahead of you. There are arguments you’re not even aware of that I have read and researched counter arguments with reliable data.
Ho ho ho.
You didn’t even bother trying to explain how creatures “found” in non-mountainous, flat areas of the country somehow adapted their feet to being suited to “steep, broken, mountainous, forested terrain”!
DeleteMeldrum himself opined that:
“At some point in human evolutionary history, the hominoid legacy of midfoot flexibility was relinquished in favor of a striding gait on much stiffer arched feet. Selection increased the mechanical advantage of plantarflexors of the ankle, combined with extended legs for increased stride length, thereby improving economy of long-distance walking and running.” These are traits useful for those living in non-mountainous areas.
Why didn’t all of the bigfoot living in non-mountainous areas (e.g. Chick Chick’s back porch) develop this “advantage”? Was there a ouija board involved? Do you even understand the problem here?
I don’t blame you though, how can you explain it? It’s just like Meldrum refusing to test stompers because he knows it will prove what he already knows — bigfoot is fake!
Ouija boards are real though!
Ha ha ha
I don’t need to you feckin idiot. I provided you with an example of a hominin in homo erectus that travelled vast contrasting terrain on the planet, who had left mountainous terrains for potentially millions of years... STILL having a midtarsal break. Feet like that also come in handy for scaling trees & such. Are there no trees in non-mountainous terrain? You’ve been given plenty of examples of how to compare fake tracks to genuine ones up top. That information is readily available in many publications on the subject. You’ve even been provided comparative scans, that yield impossible data that fake stompers would never achieve. Grover Krantz 30 years ago;
Delete“Previous studies have already dealt with most of the problems faced by a potential hoaxer of tracks like these in terms of physical circumstances. They need only be listed here for this case as reminders. The hoaxer had to penetrate a watershed area that is closed to the public by the U.S. Forest Service. This had to be done without leaving any noticed evidence of vehicles or human footprints into or out of the area. The unlikelihood of the tracks being discovered at least suggests that dozens or hundreds of sets of tracks must have been made in order to insure the discovery of some of them. The long stride, commonly 1.2 m, is difficult to manage even without big fake feet. Stepping once on the heel while coming down a 2m embankment should have toppled any hoaxer on his face at the bottom. The depth of imprint means that, even if the hoaxer weighed 150 kg; he was carrying an additional weight of maybe 200 kg — and still managing long strides. He also managed to walk for at least three-quarters of a mile with all this equipment — that is how far the search and rescue team from Oregon was able to backtrack the first individual.
Accounting for the gross morphology of the tracks presents an equally baffling set of obstacles. The hypothetical hoaxer somehow knew how to make the soles flat, the toes short and wide with only a modest emphasis on digit I, the forefoot almost squared off, and the heel abnormally wide. These would not have been too difficult to execute if some of my published descriptions of tracks were consulted. But he also knew enough to introduce two other variations that I noted back in 1970; these have never been written down nor told to anyone.
Some innovations added here include the apparent double strike of one toe that must have been difficult to manage. One cannot help wondering why the extra pad of flesh was included next to digit V of the "full left" track, which looks almost like an incipient sixth digit. The deep indentation in midsole of the "full right" track shows a surprising degree of flexibility of the foot and thick cushioning. How the hoaxer managed to walk on top of these flexible pads is another problem.”
Meldrum hasn’t refused to do anything, it’s been done. Meldrum has even been hoaxed with fake prints which were used productively in safeguarding against the same error. These people have been comparing fakes to authentic tracks, literally for decades. You’ve watched Finding Bigfoot and think you’re a feckin genius. But hey... you’ve managed to get more interaction than you’ve managed in months this way, I guess.
DeleteThanks for trying.
See ya tomorrow!
Oh and PS?
DeleteJohn Green and the Willow Creek Museum offered $100,000 reward to anyone who could convincingly demonstrate how hundreds of giant strides, most of them up and down steep mountainous inclines, could have been accomplished with stompers. The reward remains unclaimed... go take this wealth of knowledge to you have make some money, and chime back in when your broke ass can finally afford teeth, ha ha ha ha!!!!
Laters!
Ha ha ha!!! So you’re attacking Meldrum yourself!
DeleteA mid-tarsal break is not just an “adaptation of the foot of a large-bodied bipedal hominoid for negotiating steep, broken, mountainous, forested terrain,” it’s an adaptation for all terrains — in fact, anyplace with trees!
You’ve disproven Meldrum’s entire thesis yourself — and without even using an ouija board! Congratulations!
Have a pint on me!
Ha ha ha ha!
Yes... Just look at chimps who have one of the biggest geographic ranges of the great apes, and the different terrain they cover. Typical chimpanzee habitat is tropical rainforest, but chimpanzees are also found in forest-savanna mosaic as well as montane rainforest.
DeleteYou feckin tool.
(Head in hands)
Nighty, night, Einstein.
You must be addressing that to Meldrum himself, because that’s a direct quote from him and forms the primary basis for his argument! Or did you not read the articles that you link to constantly?
DeleteAnyway, like I said, I agree with you that he’s full of crap. Now you know why he hangs out with water dowsers and ouija board believers!
Ha ha ha ha!
I’d have concern if such a statement debunked his footprint evidence. It doesn’t. Like someone who thinks for himself, I’m allowed to form an opinion... You lose. Meldrum also maintains that with Sasquatch believed to weigh up to 800lbs or more, the mid-tarsal break help alleviate some of the stress on the joints when walking. This along with a bent knee gait might allow Sasquatch to walk comfortably. Again, you’d have to know the subject well enough to know this, instead of being bitter at people who made it instead of being following hucksters like Biscardi and Fasano around Florida, eh PS?
DeleteThis coming from someone who has asserted for the last year that the journal that published his work was an “acceptance speech”. Like I said boyo... I’ve covered arguments you haven’t even thought of yet.
Thanks for trying. At LEAST you tried.
(Raspberry blown)
“Meldrum was invited to submit a manuscript version of his presentation to the Journal of Scientific Exploration, where it was subsequently published.”
Deletehttps://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/news-amp-views/DINSDALE-
There’s even a photo of him giving the speech!
Oopsies!
Ha ha ha ha!
Anyway, there’s no reason for me to continue with you, because your argument is with Meldrum (whom even you now recognize has disproven bigfoot) and not me!
What’s your feckin point you tw*t? Nobody’s ever disputed he’d not been presented an award. I was the first to reference that with a link here, maybe two years ago now. You were asserting that there was no journal publication but just a “transcript of an acceptance speech”... you feckin idiot. You did this last year because for ages you didn’t notice the link to the paper at the bottom of the link I provided. My god, grow the feck up. It’s like exchanging with a child you moron.
DeleteBasically PS... you need to work loads harder if you’re gonna debunk his research. Because all the things you claim are lacking are in fact growing and Meldrum is gaining nothing but more recognition all the time.
You lose.
Triggered...spectrum for sure
DeleteYou’ve been refreshing web pages for the past few hours punk. I got you triggered the day I destroyed your PGF hoax cult.
DeleteIs that why in less than one day you went from declaring Meldrum’s acceptance speech “irrefutable” to calling Meldrum a “feckin tool” while responding to one of HIS arguments?
DeleteYou’ve turned into a great debunker! I know it hurts!
Ha ha ha ha!
(Slow claps)
DeleteAtta boy PS. You sure do know how to maintain a coherent, logical and accurate account of events. Anyone would think you’re seething and blabbing on about anything to try and bring someone down to your level?
Troll psychos do what troll psychos gotta do, I guess. It’s just so sad how lonely you folk are.
: (
Nighty night Einstein.
Yeah, in any event, it’s felt a bit like trying to explain differential calculus to someone who can’t even add two plus two — which believe me is a pretty tedious endeavor and not something I will return to do again anytime soon!
DeleteI can somewhat forgive your ignorance because you lack a formal education. But what's Meldrum’s excuse for being such a “feckin tool” — as you called him?
Hee hee you got him steaming mad. Remember he's challenged and special and needs to win
DeleteYou’re right 2:32, he does seem to be pretty mad. But the funny thing is that I was just getting started in blowing apart Meldrum’s acceptance speech — I had at least ten more points to make!
DeleteBut then Iktomi actually joined in and helped in thoroughly debunking one of Meldrum’s sillier arguments. Instead of being angry, he should be proud of his rare demonstration of critical thinking!
Kudos to him!
Three comments in a row and a sockpuppet? Jesus PS, don’t let it ruin your life. Just think of all the things you’ve learned in this thread, eh?
DeleteYou could always take all that knowledge on stompers that you have and win that $100,000. Maybe you can use my “debunking” and finally make it. You can call it my gift to you, ha ha ha ha!!!
Or you could take all your proof go on TV and prove bigfoot once and for all and make millions. Why haven't you done this?
DeleteHAAAA!!!!
DeleteBecause that’s not how science works, Finding Bigfoot’s #1 fan! Science works by being reviewed by peers and published to the scientific community.
(Slow claps)
Hey, I have one more question for you and I promise I will leave here forever so you can have your fun.
DeleteWhen you began to attack Meldum’s argument yourself, it became crystal clear that:
1. You’ve never read any of Meldrum’s work and don’t understand the substance of his arguments; and
2. You can’t even distinguish between a pro-bigfoot argument and an anti-bigfoot argument — you just attacked me without realizing that I was quoting your own hero Meldrum.
With that in mind, the question is — what do you get out of this? Why not use all the time you’ve wasted posting here and actually study the topics (and I don’t mean bigfoot websites) in which you seem to have some interest? I don’t get it.
Anyway, I doubt this will have any lasting effect, so go ahead and knock yourself out!
(Creased!!!)
DeleteI’ve got about 50+ links to comment sections where I’ve referenced Meldrum’s work at length. Comment sections that have contributed to you seeing me as your life’s interest. The points I’ve raised in this thread, 90% of which you haven’t even responded to because they’ve schooled you, are all from Meldrum’s work which I have read. What you are stooping to is psychological projection, probably because it embarrassed you that for years you’ve been claiming Meldrum’s work is an award speech. It’s also very typical of the likes of you, Mr Pedo, that you should turn your attention to me as opposed to Meldrum’s research. For instance, let’s just say your narrative was correct and I hadn’t read his work... how does that debunk Meldrum? It matters little if the footprint evidence that’s peer reviewed still stands as solid. You’re obsessed busy idiot mate, ha ha ha!! You’ll never leave this place, I’m living in your head from dusk till dawn.
Here’s a question back at you... what evidence do you have that I haven’t read his work or understand the substance of his arguments? And what exact argument of Meldrum’s have I “attacked”? It’s all above allegedly so it wouldn’t take long for you to cut & paste. Please be coherent. If you don’t do this then I accept that you’re still the babbling mess everyone here knows you for being.
And what? PWAAAAHHH!!! I don’t know what little cyber-fantasy world you live in pal... but you might want to actually look back on this thread of comments. It appears I’ve put the time in to know what I’m talking about. The reason I’ve scared off all your little heroes around here is because I know what I’m talking about. Again, after being called a fraud for the past couple of weeks you’re naturally going to be susceptible to a little psychological projection. It ultimately does little because a) people can read, and b) it simply shows what’s upsets you the most.
I’ll await your response PS.
Eh oop!
DeleteNothing yet! I’ll drop back in tomorrow to see if you’ve put together a coherent response.
Nighty night, Einstein!
HAAAAA!!!
DeleteSo to substantiate that I don’t know what I’m talking about regarding what I reference... you proved you don’t know what the feck you’re talking about.
Is there an exchange possible where you don’t look like a moron?
Bigfoot exists...in sad little minds who have failed at the game of life and now must rely on fantasies to make it through one more depressing day without tying a noose to the rafters.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands, enthusiast can point to solid science to show reason to be convinced of its existence. If you are so angry about what strangers think on the internet... you’d be able to finally have some control in your life by changing their minds via substance. Because as it stands, this subject has turned into a religion for you a long time ago.
Deletehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201908/the-loneliness-the-internet-troll?amp
Freeman was a schizophrenic bum but he did luck out and film some actual bigfoots, a whole family of them. His casts are legit
ReplyDeleteWhen bigfoot is proven to inhabit the minds and imaginations of borderline personality types Iktomi will hang himself.
ReplyDeleteHurry up and get it done then Pedo. Think of the size of the Subway order you’ll have to celebrate.
DeleteI'm guessing Iktomi is definitely on the spectrum
ReplyDeleteIm guessing he stole some childs Ritalin.
ReplyDelete