Bob Gimlin claimed that he had shot at the fleeing sasquatch with his rifle intending to cause her to turn towards the camera or slow down. He said that in all the excitement that he probably aimed too closely grazing the right leg of "Patty" as there was a thin blood trail leading up into the hillside a short ways thereafter. The apparent "rupture" would seem to coincide with such a grazing bullet wound. Of course Gimlin made many such "confessions" over the years, so who really knows?
Meldrum is wrong, thigh muscles DO NOT RUPTURE in this manner during a casual walking motion. It's time to consider some other option for the anomaly seen in the frame sequences containing the close up of the thigh. Whatever it is, it may profoundly effect the way the creature walks.
everytime they find and cast a print, it shows the animal would have to be standing very still, never taking a step,when in the real world when ya take a step the toes will throw dirt backwards towards the hill and dig in the dirt deeper than the rest of foot in a walking motion but they never show that the animal ever moves he just takes flat steps everytime,i don`t think so and funny how when someone films bigfoot it`s always grainy,but when they refilm the spot they saw it it`s always clear
@paepaegriz Yeah, and when they walk they leave soda cans and peanut packs in their tracks just like humans do....
You completely ignore irrefutable evidence and post nonsensical gibberish with the certainty of a closed mind. Obviously you have no background in research. Why bother when you "know" the answers before starting?
@paepaegriz I see what you are saying,but when it comes to the prints it's not as simple.Bigfoot has a Mid-Tarsal Break.Meaning,they don't walk like us.Where the toes bend on humans they don't bend the same on Bigfoot.As for the videos,I agree a little.I say the '67 P-G Footage is the best.Thanks and Have A Nice Day.
I guarantee Indians weren't going around hoaxing when they had sightings back in their day. To damn busy hunting their next meal. Doubt they had much time to wander the wilderness wanting to fool someone.
Have any other scientist corroborated or disproven the findings of the fingerprint expert. It seems more then likely that forensic science can determine whether a footprint is of a living creature or just a carving or produced by a mold.
@SunRunnerNY He says "I want to determine gender and race through fingerprinting, because primates don't interbreed like humans do" meaning humans do interbreed through our races and race cannot be determined through fingerprinting. Apparently in primates it can.
@SunRunnerNY Looks like his comment caught a few of us off guard. Don't know of any other breed within the human race. The primates I understand, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. But humans!? If he's actually thinking in terms of people of different colors(hair/eyes/skin) and bone structures, all due to gene mutations, which has nothing to do with breeds, then this guy is a complete moron-idiot.
@pstchaseki He is a university professor. There is no way he is a "complete moron-idiot". You are basing your slander on a single comment, without the benefit of his explanation. Don't be an idiot yourself.
I obviously can't speak for him, but let me throw this into the mix. . . could he be talking not about inter-species or inter-race when he says "inter-breed", but instead be talking about genetic family interbreeding? ie: "in-breeding"? Humans abhor it. Many animals do it all the time.
@rmcdaniel423 From 1:08 he states, "I'm trying to determine gender and RACE through finger prints, because primates don't interbreed like humans do".
So how the hell do you come up with "in-breeding!? Not to mention, "Many animals do it all the time", which is contrary to his statement that primates DON'T interbreed.
Learn how to use some logic, and maybe it'll help if you went back to school to learn some basic science, IDIOT.
@pstchaseki wrote ""Many animals do it all the time", which is contrary to his statement that primates DON'T interbreed.
So, "many animals" means "all animals" to you? Don't worry, folks with above average IQs know what he meant. BTW, what part of West Virginia are you from?
@SunRunnerNY I think he means that we (HUMANS) inter breed meaning Whites and Blacks,Japanese and Russan breed with each other.Primates don't.You wont see a Gorilla with a Orangutan.Do you understand?Well,that's what I think Mr.Meldrum means.Thanks and Have A Nice Day.
@ALMCryptid89 Well that's what I'd like to know. Does he believe that different races and ethnicities constitute different breeds of humans? I've thought about this but have dismissed it. But then again, I'm not a scientist wtf do I know? lol...
@SunRunnerNY I think he means that primates only breed with the same species as their own e.g. chimps don't breed with silverbacks, only other chimps. Humans breed amongst different races which i guess is analogous to primates breeding between different specie types.
Those who would dismiss Chillcutt as a nut or hoaxer should know that he testifies as an expert witness in Capital cases....Ie: His testimony can send a man to death row....
Very astute observation. If someone made a mold of his own foot, then, dermal ridges would be present. If this impression was subsequently used to make a fake print (stamper), then, this would one possible way to hoax a sophisticated footprint. However, I don't know how someone would create a print with vertical ridges to fool Mr. Chilcutt, the fingerprint expert.
@seymourbrest ...where DO you get this info??? " Early tracks were flat with no dimension or detail".. were they?? Want me to lead you to some very old prints that will prove you don't know what you're talking about?? ..dermal ridges have been observed on 40 year old casts...do you bother to read anything on this subject? If I were commenting on a subject, I wiould at least aquire a rudimentary understanding of what I was talking abot...
The skeptics tell me that large fake foot stampers are always used...they fail to explain how these static feet create an impact ridge from the toe lift off phase, that only a flexible foot can make when walking...or how toe movement is observed from print to print...
i think this expert on prints guy is a nutjob or a lier..why?..nobody in their right mind, unless they are trying to sell something, who is in the business of looking at dermal ridges and testifing in court "my testamony sends people to jail" would make such an outlandish claim (ie i beileve these are real bigfoot prints) publicly wiether they believe it our not, no judge or jury would ever take him seriously again, ruined carreer, and only a crazy person or a liar wouldnt know or addmit that
if u wanna believe anything a person says, just becuas they claim to be an expert or say they believe it go ahead, fact is no true scietific study would take this as anything but conjecture,to call this proof is as silly as calling cryptozoology a science,its a pheudoscience & doesnt adhear to any real scietific method..nor does calling these guys opinions fact or proof..im willing to bet they are simply trying to sell a book or get on tv gain fame whatever or simply are to put it simply TRIPIN
Actually I do have a magnifying glass.I use it when I take hand prints of my clients. I am a professional palmist and have been reading palms and writing books on palmistry for many years. While I am not interested in discussing the veracity of palmistry since I have no interest in what you believe in, i can assure you that the entire palm including the fingers are covered with a fine network of dermal ridges, loops and swirls. Get a magnifier yourself and check it out.
"I have no interest in what you believe"..really? Take a stab at how interested I am in what YOU believe?? Palm reading? Really? People still pay for that charlatanism do they?? The hands have skin patterns that do not flow into loops and whorls..they are lines that flow the entire length of the hand...they do not break into loops on the palm...when you look at them, where do you see loops and whorls on the palms??
if you watch this show, you will see the special effects man who shows how to enlarge the latex footcasts by soaking them in alcohol also say that there is also a way to put dermal ridges in them although he declines to describe the technique on camera. anything can be hoaxed
Yes...soaking a latex casting in kerosene and re-casting in plaster WILL produce a large static cast...this can then be pressed into the substrate..what this will NOT do is leave an impact ridge that a flexible foot will leave...dermal ridges can be made with the hoaxers own finger...this will NOT leave a continuos pattern that can be traced from one side of the toe to the next...
all you have to do is use your palm, the sides of your hand in a rolling motion to cover more surface area at a time..you are not restriced to using using one little finger tip. the entire palm is covered with dermal ridges..
Do you have a magnifying glass?? The palms of our hands to NOT have dermal ridges in the same loop and whorl patterns that are visible in toes and fingers...we are talking about a loop pattern that will cover the entire surface of a toe three inches across..how does one get their palm into the toe print exactly?
Did you listen to Chilcutt? Do you really think that a finger print expert like him could be so easily fooled by a hoaxers hand? Remember. he entered this as a skeptic, with the idea that he would debunk the tracks..and came away with a different point of view...he is not alone...
So the worlds leading expert on finger prints of humans and primates faked? not with his whole lifes work on the line he won't, think about it, what does he have to gain and what does he have to lose!
he risks everything to show they are real, if he faked them and was found out, hes ruined, his testimony puts murderers in jail, you can't ask for anymore more professional, as for the rest no he never admitted they were faked at all, thats a rumor.
Don't ya get it?? HE'S involved with the conspiracy!! You know the one!! The people that leave intricate fake tracks all ove rthe PNW...the same guys who wear the fur ape suits and jump out of the woods to frighten people...they have been doing this for centuries...for no pay of course...
Forensic podiatrist Michael Nirenburg has examined many tracks that show dermals. toe pads and impact ridges...he was very confused at what might have made these tracks, maintaining his certainty that they were NOT made with fake feet...the more experts that really look closely at the footprint evidence , the more they are baffled by them....
From what I understand before Roger Patterson died years ago he confessed his footage was a hoax and his large friend was in the suit. The experts state in another video it looks like a seam can be seen on the suit. Others said for the length of the arms there is no way someone could fit into that suit. Another video an individual said dermal ridges can be faked but interesting how the casts are 20 years apart. how bout that. I read a book that they found prints 10k elev. where no hoax would
big foot is very smart but remember he is a monkey. youll never find him on the ground. but i bet nobody has looked in the trees. monkeys chill in trees. all you got to to is look up. youll find him. he sees people walking through the woods and he waits in trees till they leave.
"you'll never find him (them?) on the ground.' ALL sightings are ground sightings. They are APEs, not MONKEYs by the way. Why would you believe that a primate as large as this would be able to have an arboreal existance? Do other large primates live in trees? Ever seen a gorilla in a tree? How could a 7-8 foot tall 400-800lb ape be able to live in the trees?
gary20wen1234, the bulk & mass of a Sasquatch negates the feasibility that they're tree climbers.
"youll never find him on the ground"
On the contrary. ALL Sasquatch sightings have been "on the ground", with the exception of the alleged baby Sasquatch video in NY (which, to date, is inconclusive).
Also, Sasquatch are closer to a higher order of ape than they are to monkeys. The best information we have links them to Gigantopithicu blaki, which is closer to man than to monkeys.
If bigfoot is real, how can it hide so well?!?! A big animal that can hide that well must be very intelligent. I wonder if a human can avoid camera traps and remain undetected in general if placed in the wild, to compare their actions to bigfoot. This might actually be a good experiment to carry out now that I think about it...
and how do you explain ballistics gel in this when the casts go back to 1958? How do you just dismiss 500 yrs of written history on 3 different continents?
Ballistics Gel has been around for a very long time my friend. And 500 yrs? Mistaken identity. If there was a bigfoot, a community of bigfoots anywhere in the populated media ridden world, it wouldn't be able to hide. Not something that big...pure logic.
Your logic fails. Ask any wildlife photographer, they can be out in the woods for pictures of cougars for 3 weeks and might get one snap shot. I don't know how much time you've spent in the woods, but seeing wildlife is not a common occurence. You need to cite a site on how long ballistic gel has been around. I'm also sure beyond a reasonable doubt that 500yrs on 3 continents with the same descriptions is not mistaken identity. Lets have some more of your logic though.
I couldn't find when it was invented, sorry, but i do know that the basic ingrediants are around. And again, we go back to the publicity. Farmers wanting to get noticed take a myth from some random area and say 'oh, look what i saw! Come buy some corn.' Dragons are found in every culture almost too, does that make them real? Not likely. And at least there have been real, honest to God sightings of a Cougar. Big foot is just a bunch of fuzzy camera pictures and random foot prints.
Again, your logic fails from prejudice. 500 years of history go back before N. America was the USA, Indians have carvings of monkeys in totem poles and yet the Hopey tribe would not know what a monkey or ape is. Eastern Europe and Russia is full of written history on the Almasti, and Aborigines for well over 500 yrs have detailed the Yowie. You're dealing with a primate that borders on human inteligence. Btw, the patterson film has never been proved a hoax.
We don't know if Monkeys existed in North America 500 yrs ago. Heck, for all we know they could be poorly carved carvings of humans. Also, a theory that i find quite intriguing, not sure what it's called, but it states that all humans minds think the same things. Almost every myth of fire has the humans stealing it from Gods. Dragons, again, so it's perfectly plausible that Chewbacca here is just another one of those.BTW, the patterson film was never proved authentic either. It can be explained.
You really need to search tube here with the name Dr Meldrum and get your thinking on this cleared up. The Hopey indians have a very detailed account that goes with the carvings of ape faces and it's not a bad carving of humans. When you take the time to study known primates such as gorilla and chimp and find the correlations this primate has with just those 2, you might get a better understanding. Also, I'd like to hear your explanation on the Patterson film, this should be good.
The Patterson film is a guy on stilts in a modified monkey suit. And we go back to the theory. Every culture has a dragon myth, every culture has almost he exact same fire myth, boogy man, and sasquatch. There is no hard evidence to prove that said hairy beasty exists, and there's none to prove he dosen't. Multiple cultures all saying 'look, big hairy thing!' isn't proof, neither is fuzzy videos or easily faked foot prints. It's all explainable. Show me hard evidence of Big Foots existance.
I gave you something to search on tube that shows hard evidence. I told you the Patterson film has never been proved hoax, and you just sat here and called it a hoax. You're so close minded you haven't even clicked the link in the vid description and read what's on that site much less searched Dr Meldrum here on tube. And just how would 500 yrs of people on 3 different continents all concoct the same myth? I bet you don't think anything is possible do you.
I'm busy right now with not so intellectual sutff, but tomorrow, i'll look up this doc of yours. And i have pointed out several different myths that appear over all of the continents, so yes, it is possible. Do you belive in dragons too? Cause their in America, China and Europe, so i guess their still around too, huh? I'm not saying that they never existed, i'm just saying they don't now. Anyway, i doubt Mr. Meldrum has anything new to say that i havn't heard. Throw me another one.
Intellectual stuff.........that's just laughable. You mean to tell me you can troll videos on youtube but you can't click the link right here in this video description? You can't look up vids from the head of anthropology at Idaho State, whom the scientific community is starting to stand more and more behind his evidence? You're that much of a troll? Btw, you spelled they're wrong you typed their mister intellectual, good job.
So what, i can't spell, i know that. And at least my argument hasn't fallen back on insults.And right now, i'm doing stuff that is fun to me, i am, or was, having a rather good debate and watching a movie. Now, if your argument is over, i could do other things.
Oh I've made my argument very clear. My point is you're very close minded and parroting what you've heard instead of doing your own research. If I offended your delicate sensibilities I am sorry, but would you expect pleasantries on a subject like this? Please though, attend to other matters, you lack the open minded statement of " anything is possible" in your daily approach to life. Thanks for playing.
Oh, I'm very open minded. And I have done a bit of research. And i don't expect insults over a subject like a mythical humanoid. You think your smarter then me, I'm not saying you aren't, but you think you are. I am willing to believe that Big Foot exists, hell, that'd be cool, and tommorow, i'll comment here again about what i think of the Doc and his 'evidence'. And i don't call restating the same things over and over again clear, just repetitive. Now, i'm going to go watch firefly.
I thought you were off to other matters already. Is it OCD causing you to hit reply again and get the last word in. Lets clarify something. Not once did I ever say I'm smarter than you. If you read that into what I typed, you suffer a perception issue that no one created in your head but you. And this is why you can't look at the evidence at hand and draw the proper conclusion. Did you know Silverbacks were thought myth until 1865? I'm betting you didn't. Anyway, off to your other things.
Hugh...why are you debating with a guy who spells like a fourth grader? Do you think a man who thinks the Patterson subject is a "guy on stilts" will have anything bright to bring to the table? Or is he semi-retarded?
So it's farmers wanting to "get noticed"?? Yeah, those who want to talk about his Bigfoot sighting will keep buying his corn! That's how farmers make their money!! Not to be insulting to you sir, but that might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Random footprints? Hundreds and hunderds of "random footprints"? How do you explain away sightings from police? There are many on file you know...oh wait...I bet you didn't know that..or anything about the history of this animal do you?
I've done my homework. You can all be supersitoius about a nonexistant animal if you want. A drunk collage student dresses up everynow and then as an ape and you all think it's sasquacth. Show me a body, and then, maybe, i'll belive you. So far, no definte proof eitd. Now, to study for finals.her way, but I don't think it exists. You don't make an agrument, you just sate what's already been stated. Have fun with what little life you have, cause i have one to get back to.
Is Jeff Meldrum from Idaho U "supersitoius"? What is a "collage" student? (Is he made up of a bunch of other students?)It will take a body for you to "belive"? I make a damn fine "agrument"! So it's kids in suits? They walk out in front of armed men to...oh wait..yes they are all drunk!! That's why they have no regard for their own safety! Now it makes sence! I would continue this debate if you had the slightest intelligent thought to share, but no such luck...now back to my "little life"...
200+ years of supposed sightings yet no physical evidence.
They supposedly love to walk out in the open. Walk across roads in front of vehicles, wander into campsites, etc etc. Yet not one has been hit by a car? Shot by a hunter? Caught in a bear trap? Come on man?
No, you come on man. The footprint evidence is right in front of you, and you're dealing with a primate that's closer to a human level of intelligence than any other mammal on the earth. Lets see you prove to me they don't exist with scientific evidence. I'm sure that you can't. Your decision they don't exist is through close minded pre-conceptions, simple as that.
Why did you feel the need to tell me that you have a science degree ?
I've been a bigfoot skeptic for 30 years, so spare me the nonsense about political disourse, premature conclusions and not looking at evidence, nice try at the old semantics game.
Show me one shred of "hard" evidence to support the existence the existence of this animal.
A grainy, out of focus, inconclusive at best film from 1968 or a footprint which can very convincly be faked simply doesn't cut it.
All animals are experts at staying hidden when they don't want to be seen, it is part of their survival tactics. The Pacific Northwest is literally millions of acres mostly untouched by man. Yes it is very easy for a large creature such as Bigfoot to hide, very easy.
Obviously bigfoot isn't that good at not being seen, there is a bunch of footage, eyewitness accounts and footprints around and from various countries throughout the world, but just like nessie which has been proven to be just a myth, people will still believe in such things, inspite of the lack of any credible evidence ever produced.
This footage is from a 1996 sighting in northeast washington state that an eyewitness caught on camera of an alledged bigfoot running across this opening in the hillside and then disappearing in the woods.
eyewitnesses said it was VERY TAll and ran faster than a human could.
It was thoroughly investigated by a scientific team and it appears to be the work of a hoaxer, someone in a suit.
The fact of the dermal ridges ,,, And the impossibility of the Patterson film being a hoax , should be enough. If it is fake , why , with today's technology , can it not be reproduced??
I believe bigfoot exists but I think people are mistaking him for an unknown primate when in actuality he is just a hairy amphetamine using inbred Texan that people keep seeing in remote areas. He cooks his meth out in the woods with no clothes on and people get all freaked out when they see him. If you examine the scene a little closer you will usually find a broken down Ford pickup with his sister wife in it along with his mutant inbred offspring. For the love of God people, leave him alone!
The footprint evidence sounds reasonably undisputable.The Cgi less so , you can find whatever you want in computer programs like that.And as for the "skin bulge" just looks like the guy in the suit forgot to take his cigarettes out his pocket !
Shit Real Man... ThE PrinT's in My Yard Were The Type Of A Chimp or guerilla But Fuck'N Large and imprinted By Fuck'N SumThan Heavy as FucK....ShiT Real
hughesth - I was not aware any fossils of giganto showed the area of the foramen magnum at all. It seems to me that it is speculation that it may have been bipedal. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I don't think anyone knows yet.
Few thoughts. I never heard of one killing anyone. Why lock it up, like the rest of the apes in zoos? Plus, for those of you who don't know, these stories go back thousands of years with the North American Indians, who go back anywhere from 12 to almost 20 thousands years in this country.
Why would people risk being ridiculed for something that doesn't exist. It's out there but it will be difficult to find. Good sense of smell, eyesight, and hearing along with the smarts of not wanting to be seen makes something very difficult to find.
Otherwise these hoaxers have a lot of time on their hands as well.
"It's out there but it will be difficult to find. Good sense of smell, eyesight, and hearing along with the smarts of not wanting to be seen makes something very difficult to find."
Its amazing how people know so much about something that they can't even prove exists, let alone prove they have all these characteristics that people like to give them credit for.
The existence of a thing does not depend on a person's ability to prove it exists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can't find dozens of airplanes that have gone down in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and they are large stationary shiny objects. We know they are there, but that can't be proven until we find them. Of course you can't prove you found one to a person who refuses to examine the evidence.
Krantz literally had colleagues that would refuse to examine a cast when placed right in friont of them!! I believe in the Pacific North West since the dawn of aviation,there has been something in the neighbiourhood of 80 lost aircraft!
I'm not surprised. Often people who have made up their minds about something just don't want to be confused by the facts. Pride is more important than the Truth for those people. I appreciate it when I'm proven wrong. It saves me from basing decisions on false information in the future. I can't think of enything more important than the Truth and can't get used to people not feeling the same, but many don't. I don't understand that.
in the minds of those you are trying to convince it does...right?..if i told you that there are fairies and little green men from mars....you wouldnt just say " oh ok just because you said so then you must be right" you would expect me to proove it, or you would discount my assertions all together because of their shear unbelievability...we know the planes are there because of all the known variables...no one is saying that they vanished into thin air...if they were you would expect proof.
as far as the evidence in this video..one point i would make is...because these clowns cant reproduce a footprint doesnt mean there isnt someone, smarter and more creative than they are...there are many people out there who spend their free time inventing ways to decive people into believing all kinds of crap, and our senses and minds can be fooled, take for instance the differnt perceptions two people will have after an accedent. or how a good magician can fool your eyes.
You are right. It is possible to fake evidence, but it is still evidence until shown to be faked. It is not proof. It is evidence that supports the theory. There is a great deal of evidence, and it is unlikely it is all faked. Faked evidence is not evidence that there is no bigfoot. I can fake a photo of someone, but that doesn't suggest they don't exist. Prior to 1902, the mountain gorilla was considered to be a myth by most scientists. They were wrong. Science is often wrong.
I prefer the definition of evidence that is found in dictionaries. What I mean by science being often wrong is scientific opinion expressed by the "experts" which is generally accepted by the public as truth but is often wrong. Of course that isn't taught or bragged about. When you say evidence doesn't exist, you are only expressing that you are unaware of what there is. Science is political and biased, grant money determines what gets studied, and a great deal of ignored evidencedoes exist.
I was asking for YOUR definition of "evidence", since you seem to be implying that there is evidence supporting bigfoots existence.
Don't take what I say out of context, I said there is no "hard' evidence whatsoever to support the existence of bigfoot period.
Spare me your ranting about how all science is political and biased, not all scientist's are on the take, you seem to have your own bias against science.
I have a degree in science and value it highly. Science isn't the problem. It the political discourse posing as scientific debate that you engage in. Think what you wish. I'll draw my conclusions after examing the evidence instead of the other way around. Your premature conclusion is preventing you from even seeing the evidence. Just because you won't look at it or can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even if you were right, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The same is true today, and you seem to have forgotten the order in which the scientific method follows. Conclusions come last. You are going in reverse. If you are comfortable with your belief that there is nothing to support the existence of Bigfoot, then good for you. Denying the existence of evidence when it is plain to see doesn't support your view. If people talk about something you didn't see, do you insist it doesn't exist regardless of the subject or just this? Have you seen everything?
well nuclier shlerin distorsion might interact with apes habitat and will or might cause it to bread with humans and adapt to our omninvorus lifestyle when it clearly is a heravour so we can never know if bigfoot is real or not but i say it it
I would have to disagree on it being an herbivore completely. For years there have been deer carcasses found with the only thing gone being the liver. In the winter that would be the most nutritious part. Chimp's regularly hunt and eat smaller monkeys, so I would say omnivore like us.
I agree! They would probably be opportunistic scavengers as well, consuming almost anything. They have been observed digging for clams in BC., and have been known to steal fish from nets. The deer remains with missing livers have also been observed in Ohio, which is a strange area to think of Bigfoot, but many sightings and vocalizations, as well as dermal ridged prints have come from this State...
I honestly think we're dealing with a descendant of gigantipithicus blacki who stood an estimate 10-15 ft tall. As the world changed it would need to become smaller and go from herbivore to omnivore and that would fit, but still speculation.
It's my belief that we are dealing with an animal that has not been found in the fossil record-yet...Almost all believe Giganto to have been a quadriped...to me, there would not have been enough time for it to have evolved a bipedal gait...
There's controversy on that. Some say quad ped, others say biped. The reason I tend to agree with bi is the spine entered the skull from the bottom like humans where as gorillas spine is at the back of the skull due to quad ped. This defines placement of the windpipe and orientation of the body when moving.
hmm apes dont interbreed like humans do....what is he saying?? think about it people. aparently im an "inbreed" freak...im half hispanic and half white i guess to him im just an inbreed
Yeah...I'm sure Melrum is making a fortune off his time spent...Not to mention the enormous fame he is receiving! Ya right! Exactly how does one fake these tracks, with dermal ridges and scars?
Wow! people will say anything to avoid looking at evidence not in support of premature conclusions. You know, conclusions are supposed to come last - after all available evidence is examined or later. It sounds like you are saying, "I've come to my conclusion and don't want to be confused by the evidence."
Until very recently the ivory-billed woodpecker was generally believed to be extinct. Now there is good evidence it's still out there and it probably survived by being very secretive. Nevertheless, many credible people have continued to see the ivory-billed woodpecker over the years. No one has seen Bachman's warbler since 1988. No one has seen the Carolina parakeet for longer than that. Bigfoot is probably a relict population of a form of gigantopithecus which is a scarcely known hominid.
Anyone who says "there is no evidence of bigfoot" or "if they were out there we would know about them" has not thought this out very well. There IS evidence, lots of it. Good evidence! That may be debatable but I think the evidence is quite compelling. The phenomenon of bigfoot has been around for a long, long time and one person cannot claim to have started the whole thing.
when you make a cast out of something that is imprinted in the ground, the result is a "pushed out" cast. that's basically just the way it works. Think about it. Its like filling a ridged bottle with water and freezing it. the details are going to reflect those of the inside.
It's a cast mold, that's why. A cast of a footprint indentation would look reversed. Think of it as a photo-negative, but instead of celuloid film it's a mold made out of plaster.
Hey Ironeasterndragon....you deny that there is anything to any of this, and yet you seem to know all of the key players here, from hoaxers to scientists, to the armchair guys...Why waste all your time reading up on something you don't believe? Or do you? Me thinks you doth protest too much my friend!
If he didn't know enough, he'd then be accused of talking about something he hadn't researched sufficiently. See my comments under PostToastie's "Patterson Film A Hoax?" I was having a good debate based on facts, and I knew all the players, so Toastie banned me. :(
Bob Gimlin claimed that he had shot at the fleeing sasquatch with his rifle intending to cause her to turn towards the camera or slow down. He said that in all the excitement that he probably aimed too closely grazing the right leg of "Patty" as there was a thin blood trail leading up into the hillside a short ways thereafter. The apparent "rupture" would seem to coincide with such a grazing bullet wound. Of course Gimlin made many such "confessions" over the years, so who really knows?
jjm0580 2 months ago
Best new bigfoot video watch!!!!! here.
arkangeltreasures 2 months ago
Meldrum is wrong, thigh muscles DO NOT RUPTURE in this manner during a casual walking motion. It's time to consider some other option for the anomaly seen in the frame sequences containing the close up of the thigh. Whatever it is, it may profoundly effect the way the creature walks.
sierra4 2 months ago
everytime they find and cast a print, it shows the animal would have to be standing very still, never taking a step,when in the real world when ya take a step the toes will throw dirt backwards towards the hill and dig in the dirt deeper than the rest of foot in a walking motion but they never show that the animal ever moves he just takes flat steps everytime,i don`t think so and funny how when someone films bigfoot it`s always grainy,but when they refilm the spot they saw it it`s always clear
paepaegriz 6 months ago
@paepaegriz Are you sure about this statement regarding the tracks? From where did you get that information? Watch: watch?v=kHrn4nru6iY
Or google "EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY".
saultrain 5 months ago
@paepaegriz Yeah, and when they walk they leave soda cans and peanut packs in their tracks just like humans do....
You completely ignore irrefutable evidence and post nonsensical gibberish with the certainty of a closed mind. Obviously you have no background in research. Why bother when you "know" the answers before starting?
HOUNDDAWG 3 months ago
@paepaegriz I see what you are saying,but when it comes to the prints it's not as simple.Bigfoot has a Mid-Tarsal Break.Meaning,they don't walk like us.Where the toes bend on humans they don't bend the same on Bigfoot.As for the videos,I agree a little.I say the '67 P-G Footage is the best.Thanks and Have A Nice Day.
The Cryptid
ALMCryptid89 1 month ago
I guarantee Indians weren't going around hoaxing when they had sightings back in their day. To damn busy hunting their next meal. Doubt they had much time to wander the wilderness wanting to fool someone.
CrazyfoolTN 9 months ago
If that's a female bigfoot in the Patterson film then surely the male bigfoot needs porn or something to help the mating process...
TheXiantruth 10 months ago
Cryptozoology novel see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
4:40 to 4:46= BIGFOOT MOONWALK.
legodude925 1 year ago
Have any other scientist corroborated or disproven the findings of the fingerprint expert. It seems more then likely that forensic science can determine whether a footprint is of a living creature or just a carving or produced by a mold.
natechomnicorp 1 year ago
There's an interesting comment that he makes at 1:13 where he says, "Primates do not inter-breed like humans do." I wonder what he means by that?
SunRunnerNY 1 year ago 8
@SunRunnerNY He says "I want to determine gender and race through fingerprinting, because primates don't interbreed like humans do" meaning humans do interbreed through our races and race cannot be determined through fingerprinting. Apparently in primates it can.
marcjtdc 1 year ago
@marcjtdc interesting....thanks.
SunRunnerNY 1 year ago
@SunRunnerNY - I was thinking the same thing. I can't believe he said that.
takezaspirit 11 months ago
@SunRunnerNY Looks like his comment caught a few of us off guard. Don't know of any other breed within the human race. The primates I understand, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. But humans!? If he's actually thinking in terms of people of different colors(hair/eyes/skin) and bone structures, all due to gene mutations, which has nothing to do with breeds, then this guy is a complete moron-idiot.
pstchaseki 10 months ago
@pstchaseki He is a university professor. There is no way he is a "complete moron-idiot". You are basing your slander on a single comment, without the benefit of his explanation. Don't be an idiot yourself.
I obviously can't speak for him, but let me throw this into the mix. . . could he be talking not about inter-species or inter-race when he says "inter-breed", but instead be talking about genetic family interbreeding? ie: "in-breeding"? Humans abhor it. Many animals do it all the time.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 From 1:08 he states, "I'm trying to determine gender and RACE through finger prints, because primates don't interbreed like humans do".
So how the hell do you come up with "in-breeding!? Not to mention, "Many animals do it all the time", which is contrary to his statement that primates DON'T interbreed.
Learn how to use some logic, and maybe it'll help if you went back to school to learn some basic science, IDIOT.
pstchaseki 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pstchaseki wrote ""Many animals do it all the time", which is contrary to his statement that primates DON'T interbreed.
So, "many animals" means "all animals" to you? Don't worry, folks with above average IQs know what he meant. BTW, what part of West Virginia are you from?
HOUNDDAWG 3 months ago
@SunRunnerNY I think he means that we (HUMANS) inter breed meaning Whites and Blacks,Japanese and Russan breed with each other.Primates don't.You wont see a Gorilla with a Orangutan.Do you understand?Well,that's what I think Mr.Meldrum means.Thanks and Have A Nice Day.
The Cryptid
ALMCryptid89 10 months ago
@ALMCryptid89 Well that's what I'd like to know. Does he believe that different races and ethnicities constitute different breeds of humans? I've thought about this but have dismissed it. But then again, I'm not a scientist wtf do I know? lol...
SunRunnerNY 10 months ago
@SunRunnerNY I was wondering the same thing! WTF?
76sagi 10 months ago
@SunRunnerNY he doesnt like niggas and white chicks fucking
AnarchyRules25 7 months ago
@AnarchyRules25 I guess not...
SunRunnerNY 7 months ago
@SunRunnerNY I think he means that primates only breed with the same species as their own e.g. chimps don't breed with silverbacks, only other chimps. Humans breed amongst different races which i guess is analogous to primates breeding between different specie types.
michaeljcoles 2 months ago
i like chillcuts voice its just, nice... everything he says must be authentic!
zebra0456 1 year ago
Those who would dismiss Chillcutt as a nut or hoaxer should know that he testifies as an expert witness in Capital cases....Ie: His testimony can send a man to death row....
Workinbus 1 year ago
@seymourbrest
Very astute observation. If someone made a mold of his own foot, then, dermal ridges would be present. If this impression was subsequently used to make a fake print (stamper), then, this would one possible way to hoax a sophisticated footprint. However, I don't know how someone would create a print with vertical ridges to fool Mr. Chilcutt, the fingerprint expert.
Doleafol 1 year ago
@seymourbrest ...where DO you get this info??? " Early tracks were flat with no dimension or detail".. were they?? Want me to lead you to some very old prints that will prove you don't know what you're talking about?? ..dermal ridges have been observed on 40 year old casts...do you bother to read anything on this subject? If I were commenting on a subject, I wiould at least aquire a rudimentary understanding of what I was talking abot...
joeyvader 1 year ago
The skeptics tell me that large fake foot stampers are always used...they fail to explain how these static feet create an impact ridge from the toe lift off phase, that only a flexible foot can make when walking...or how toe movement is observed from print to print...
joeyvader 1 year ago
why dont they just try to catch this primeape they keep talking about.
pharkyou 2 years ago
i just love youtube comments :D
luftim 2 years ago
i think this expert on prints guy is a nutjob or a lier..why?..nobody in their right mind, unless they are trying to sell something, who is in the business of looking at dermal ridges and testifing in court "my testamony sends people to jail" would make such an outlandish claim (ie i beileve these are real bigfoot prints) publicly wiether they believe it our not, no judge or jury would ever take him seriously again, ruined carreer, and only a crazy person or a liar wouldnt know or addmit that
bigNMhillbilly 2 years ago
if u wanna believe anything a person says, just becuas they claim to be an expert or say they believe it go ahead, fact is no true scietific study would take this as anything but conjecture,to call this proof is as silly as calling cryptozoology a science,its a pheudoscience & doesnt adhear to any real scietific method..nor does calling these guys opinions fact or proof..im willing to bet they are simply trying to sell a book or get on tv gain fame whatever or simply are to put it simply TRIPIN
bigNMhillbilly 2 years ago
Actually I do have a magnifying glass.I use it when I take hand prints of my clients. I am a professional palmist and have been reading palms and writing books on palmistry for many years. While I am not interested in discussing the veracity of palmistry since I have no interest in what you believe in, i can assure you that the entire palm including the fingers are covered with a fine network of dermal ridges, loops and swirls. Get a magnifier yourself and check it out.
9ofpentacles 2 years ago
"I have no interest in what you believe"..really? Take a stab at how interested I am in what YOU believe?? Palm reading? Really? People still pay for that charlatanism do they?? The hands have skin patterns that do not flow into loops and whorls..they are lines that flow the entire length of the hand...they do not break into loops on the palm...when you look at them, where do you see loops and whorls on the palms??
joeyvader 2 years ago
if you watch this show, you will see the special effects man who shows how to enlarge the latex footcasts by soaking them in alcohol also say that there is also a way to put dermal ridges in them although he declines to describe the technique on camera. anything can be hoaxed
9ofpentacles 2 years ago
Yes...soaking a latex casting in kerosene and re-casting in plaster WILL produce a large static cast...this can then be pressed into the substrate..what this will NOT do is leave an impact ridge that a flexible foot will leave...dermal ridges can be made with the hoaxers own finger...this will NOT leave a continuos pattern that can be traced from one side of the toe to the next...
joeyvader 2 years ago
all you have to do is use your palm, the sides of your hand in a rolling motion to cover more surface area at a time..you are not restriced to using using one little finger tip. the entire palm is covered with dermal ridges..
9ofpentacles 2 years ago
Do you have a magnifying glass?? The palms of our hands to NOT have dermal ridges in the same loop and whorl patterns that are visible in toes and fingers...we are talking about a loop pattern that will cover the entire surface of a toe three inches across..how does one get their palm into the toe print exactly?
joeyvader 2 years ago
Did you listen to Chilcutt? Do you really think that a finger print expert like him could be so easily fooled by a hoaxers hand? Remember. he entered this as a skeptic, with the idea that he would debunk the tracks..and came away with a different point of view...he is not alone...
joeyvader 2 years ago
So the worlds leading expert on finger prints of humans and primates faked? not with his whole lifes work on the line he won't, think about it, what does he have to gain and what does he have to lose!
he risks everything to show they are real, if he faked them and was found out, hes ruined, his testimony puts murderers in jail, you can't ask for anymore more professional, as for the rest no he never admitted they were faked at all, thats a rumor.
wish i could write more in this box lol
jonman701 2 years ago 7
Don't ya get it?? HE'S involved with the conspiracy!! You know the one!! The people that leave intricate fake tracks all ove rthe PNW...the same guys who wear the fur ape suits and jump out of the woods to frighten people...they have been doing this for centuries...for no pay of course...
joeyvader 1 year ago
i veleive deeply in bigfoot they are a race of beings for sure............
i do beleive,,,,,,,,,,,,
jade
jadeamazon 2 years ago
Forensic podiatrist Michael Nirenburg has examined many tracks that show dermals. toe pads and impact ridges...he was very confused at what might have made these tracks, maintaining his certainty that they were NOT made with fake feet...the more experts that really look closely at the footprint evidence , the more they are baffled by them....
joeyvader 2 years ago
From what I understand before Roger Patterson died years ago he confessed his footage was a hoax and his large friend was in the suit. The experts state in another video it looks like a seam can be seen on the suit. Others said for the length of the arms there is no way someone could fit into that suit. Another video an individual said dermal ridges can be faked but interesting how the casts are 20 years apart. how bout that. I read a book that they found prints 10k elev. where no hoax would
bg0821 2 years ago
no . he did not admit to a hoax.there is no proof of anything either way. could be hoax.. could be real.
tonyagrestic 2 years ago
god people are naive today.. I accept bigfoot when I see one. until then it's a hoax
MooseHunter911 3 years ago
Are you still defending this nonsense Joey? Ha Ha....did you find any of my hoax footprints yet? You've got a strong belief I will give you that. ;-)
Ironeasterndragon 3 years ago
"Bigfoot Footprints Cannot Be Hoaxed". LOL.
cochranexyz 3 years ago
Bigfoot's no monkey in the trees, it's a bipedal primate.
komodoman 3 years ago 2
big foot is very smart but remember he is a monkey. youll never find him on the ground. but i bet nobody has looked in the trees. monkeys chill in trees. all you got to to is look up. youll find him. he sees people walking through the woods and he waits in trees till they leave.
gary20wen1234 3 years ago
it would be funny if they threw their poop from trees at people too!
7judas77 3 years ago
"you'll never find him (them?) on the ground.' ALL sightings are ground sightings. They are APEs, not MONKEYs by the way. Why would you believe that a primate as large as this would be able to have an arboreal existance? Do other large primates live in trees? Ever seen a gorilla in a tree? How could a 7-8 foot tall 400-800lb ape be able to live in the trees?
joeyvader 3 years ago
i didnt say he lived in trees he would most likely hide in them.
gary20wen1234 3 years ago
They are too heavy to take to the trees at all...
joeyvader 3 years ago
gary20wen1234, the bulk & mass of a Sasquatch negates the feasibility that they're tree climbers.
"youll never find him on the ground"
On the contrary. ALL Sasquatch sightings have been "on the ground", with the exception of the alleged baby Sasquatch video in NY (which, to date, is inconclusive).
Also, Sasquatch are closer to a higher order of ape than they are to monkeys. The best information we have links them to Gigantopithicu blaki, which is closer to man than to monkeys.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
How do they hide after they fall off a cliff?
gregrutz 3 years ago
Why would they fall off a cliff???
joeyvader 3 years ago
If bigfoot is real, how can it hide so well?!?! A big animal that can hide that well must be very intelligent. I wonder if a human can avoid camera traps and remain undetected in general if placed in the wild, to compare their actions to bigfoot. This might actually be a good experiment to carry out now that I think about it...
retinchet 3 years ago 2
they are trained by either the ninja or Chuck Norris...
7judas77 3 years ago
if they are real, do you think they use stuff to wipe or are they like other wildlife that just doesn't wipe after a big duece...
7judas77 3 years ago 2
They grab a nice furry beaver, and wipe away..
joeyvader 3 years ago 2
nice!
7judas77 3 years ago
@joeyvader LOL
nicraptor11 1 month ago
Fucking hell, face it people. It was a man in a costume. I should know. It was me.
Clarkey061 3 years ago
hughesth... Every legend is based on fact. Every myth is grounded in reality.
cfx5000 3 years ago
Two words, one item that could explain it all. Ballistics Gel
Xercom 3 years ago
and how do you explain ballistics gel in this when the casts go back to 1958? How do you just dismiss 500 yrs of written history on 3 different continents?
hughesth 3 years ago
Ballistics Gel has been around for a very long time my friend. And 500 yrs? Mistaken identity. If there was a bigfoot, a community of bigfoots anywhere in the populated media ridden world, it wouldn't be able to hide. Not something that big...pure logic.
Xercom 3 years ago
Your logic fails. Ask any wildlife photographer, they can be out in the woods for pictures of cougars for 3 weeks and might get one snap shot. I don't know how much time you've spent in the woods, but seeing wildlife is not a common occurence. You need to cite a site on how long ballistic gel has been around. I'm also sure beyond a reasonable doubt that 500yrs on 3 continents with the same descriptions is not mistaken identity. Lets have some more of your logic though.
hughesth 3 years ago
I couldn't find when it was invented, sorry, but i do know that the basic ingrediants are around. And again, we go back to the publicity. Farmers wanting to get noticed take a myth from some random area and say 'oh, look what i saw! Come buy some corn.' Dragons are found in every culture almost too, does that make them real? Not likely. And at least there have been real, honest to God sightings of a Cougar. Big foot is just a bunch of fuzzy camera pictures and random foot prints.
Xercom 3 years ago
Again, your logic fails from prejudice. 500 years of history go back before N. America was the USA, Indians have carvings of monkeys in totem poles and yet the Hopey tribe would not know what a monkey or ape is. Eastern Europe and Russia is full of written history on the Almasti, and Aborigines for well over 500 yrs have detailed the Yowie. You're dealing with a primate that borders on human inteligence. Btw, the patterson film has never been proved a hoax.
hughesth 3 years ago
We don't know if Monkeys existed in North America 500 yrs ago. Heck, for all we know they could be poorly carved carvings of humans. Also, a theory that i find quite intriguing, not sure what it's called, but it states that all humans minds think the same things. Almost every myth of fire has the humans stealing it from Gods. Dragons, again, so it's perfectly plausible that Chewbacca here is just another one of those.BTW, the patterson film was never proved authentic either. It can be explained.
Xercom 3 years ago
You really need to search tube here with the name Dr Meldrum and get your thinking on this cleared up. The Hopey indians have a very detailed account that goes with the carvings of ape faces and it's not a bad carving of humans. When you take the time to study known primates such as gorilla and chimp and find the correlations this primate has with just those 2, you might get a better understanding. Also, I'd like to hear your explanation on the Patterson film, this should be good.
hughesth 3 years ago
The Patterson film is a guy on stilts in a modified monkey suit. And we go back to the theory. Every culture has a dragon myth, every culture has almost he exact same fire myth, boogy man, and sasquatch. There is no hard evidence to prove that said hairy beasty exists, and there's none to prove he dosen't. Multiple cultures all saying 'look, big hairy thing!' isn't proof, neither is fuzzy videos or easily faked foot prints. It's all explainable. Show me hard evidence of Big Foots existance.
Xercom 3 years ago
I gave you something to search on tube that shows hard evidence. I told you the Patterson film has never been proved hoax, and you just sat here and called it a hoax. You're so close minded you haven't even clicked the link in the vid description and read what's on that site much less searched Dr Meldrum here on tube. And just how would 500 yrs of people on 3 different continents all concoct the same myth? I bet you don't think anything is possible do you.
hughesth 3 years ago
I'm busy right now with not so intellectual sutff, but tomorrow, i'll look up this doc of yours. And i have pointed out several different myths that appear over all of the continents, so yes, it is possible. Do you belive in dragons too? Cause their in America, China and Europe, so i guess their still around too, huh? I'm not saying that they never existed, i'm just saying they don't now. Anyway, i doubt Mr. Meldrum has anything new to say that i havn't heard. Throw me another one.
Xercom 3 years ago
Intellectual stuff.........that's just laughable. You mean to tell me you can troll videos on youtube but you can't click the link right here in this video description? You can't look up vids from the head of anthropology at Idaho State, whom the scientific community is starting to stand more and more behind his evidence? You're that much of a troll? Btw, you spelled they're wrong you typed their mister intellectual, good job.
hughesth 3 years ago
So what, i can't spell, i know that. And at least my argument hasn't fallen back on insults.And right now, i'm doing stuff that is fun to me, i am, or was, having a rather good debate and watching a movie. Now, if your argument is over, i could do other things.
Xercom 3 years ago
Oh I've made my argument very clear. My point is you're very close minded and parroting what you've heard instead of doing your own research. If I offended your delicate sensibilities I am sorry, but would you expect pleasantries on a subject like this? Please though, attend to other matters, you lack the open minded statement of " anything is possible" in your daily approach to life. Thanks for playing.
hughesth 3 years ago
Oh, I'm very open minded. And I have done a bit of research. And i don't expect insults over a subject like a mythical humanoid. You think your smarter then me, I'm not saying you aren't, but you think you are. I am willing to believe that Big Foot exists, hell, that'd be cool, and tommorow, i'll comment here again about what i think of the Doc and his 'evidence'. And i don't call restating the same things over and over again clear, just repetitive. Now, i'm going to go watch firefly.
Xercom 3 years ago
I thought you were off to other matters already. Is it OCD causing you to hit reply again and get the last word in. Lets clarify something. Not once did I ever say I'm smarter than you. If you read that into what I typed, you suffer a perception issue that no one created in your head but you. And this is why you can't look at the evidence at hand and draw the proper conclusion. Did you know Silverbacks were thought myth until 1865? I'm betting you didn't. Anyway, off to your other things.
hughesth 3 years ago
A guy on stilts!!! You are kidding right? Stilts!!! That's a riot!!!! Stilts everyone!!!!
joeyvader 3 years ago 3
Hugh...why are you debating with a guy who spells like a fourth grader? Do you think a man who thinks the Patterson subject is a "guy on stilts" will have anything bright to bring to the table? Or is he semi-retarded?
joeyvader 3 years ago 3
Actually I do this as a point of recording their stupidity since these posts aren't moderated. lol
My research is done though, I've received a turtle shell as a gift and been accepted as a friend of the family of Hairy People I interact with. :-)
hughesth 3 years ago
So it's farmers wanting to "get noticed"?? Yeah, those who want to talk about his Bigfoot sighting will keep buying his corn! That's how farmers make their money!! Not to be insulting to you sir, but that might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Random footprints? Hundreds and hunderds of "random footprints"? How do you explain away sightings from police? There are many on file you know...oh wait...I bet you didn't know that..or anything about the history of this animal do you?
joeyvader 3 years ago 2
I've done my homework. You can all be supersitoius about a nonexistant animal if you want. A drunk collage student dresses up everynow and then as an ape and you all think it's sasquacth. Show me a body, and then, maybe, i'll belive you. So far, no definte proof eitd. Now, to study for finals.her way, but I don't think it exists. You don't make an agrument, you just sate what's already been stated. Have fun with what little life you have, cause i have one to get back to.
Xercom 3 years ago
Is Jeff Meldrum from Idaho U "supersitoius"? What is a "collage" student? (Is he made up of a bunch of other students?)It will take a body for you to "belive"? I make a damn fine "agrument"! So it's kids in suits? They walk out in front of armed men to...oh wait..yes they are all drunk!! That's why they have no regard for their own safety! Now it makes sence! I would continue this debate if you had the slightest intelligent thought to share, but no such luck...now back to my "little life"...
joeyvader 3 years ago 2
@joeyvader lol collage student
nicraptor11 1 month ago
I'm gonna kill Bigfoot. Or All of them if there are many.
I'm gonna get rid of them so no one knows about it.
zephyrtube 3 years ago
I'm a bout 99.9% sure this creature does not exist. I am facinated however by the culture and the mystery surrounding the subject.
cfx5000 3 years ago
I don't understand, what convinces you that this primate does not exist?
hughesth 3 years ago
200+ years of supposed sightings yet no physical evidence.
They supposedly love to walk out in the open. Walk across roads in front of vehicles, wander into campsites, etc etc. Yet not one has been hit by a car? Shot by a hunter? Caught in a bear trap? Come on man?
cfx5000 3 years ago
No, you come on man. The footprint evidence is right in front of you, and you're dealing with a primate that's closer to a human level of intelligence than any other mammal on the earth. Lets see you prove to me they don't exist with scientific evidence. I'm sure that you can't. Your decision they don't exist is through close minded pre-conceptions, simple as that.
hughesth 3 years ago
man, what if this was all a hoax? it be the craziest hoax ever. lots of money i bet was thrown into finding evidence. what if it isnt real?
idk but i want to know if its real. im curious
AndyRoddick969 3 years ago
Why did you feel the need to tell me that you have a science degree ?
I've been a bigfoot skeptic for 30 years, so spare me the nonsense about political disourse, premature conclusions and not looking at evidence, nice try at the old semantics game.
Show me one shred of "hard" evidence to support the existence the existence of this animal.
A grainy, out of focus, inconclusive at best film from 1968 or a footprint which can very convincly be faked simply doesn't cut it.
AAA4509 3 years ago
The Pattersoon footage is undeniable proof of sasquatch existence!
Exciter1000 4 years ago
No, the Patterson footage is absolutely not objective, irrefutable, scientifc proof of it's existence.
AAA4509 3 years ago
The Pattersoon footage is undeniable proof of sasquatch existence!
Exciter1000 4 years ago
Funny there are people out there that still believe in god but not in sasquatch even when there is more evidence in bigfoots favour
HAIDARAVEN 4 years ago
i think there was a homeless person with that one hair disease living in the forest and they caught it on film
some of the stuff is near impossible to fake such as the patterson film "it even shows the tits of bigfoot if you look closely"
but mostly everything else is fake
kanenite619 4 years ago
hay saultrain do you think bigfoot is out thar
jlil0012 4 years ago
Sounds fascinating, but where could this creature be hiding??
cspce 4 years ago
All animals are experts at staying hidden when they don't want to be seen, it is part of their survival tactics. The Pacific Northwest is literally millions of acres mostly untouched by man. Yes it is very easy for a large creature such as Bigfoot to hide, very easy.
40milesband 4 years ago
Obviously bigfoot isn't that good at not being seen, there is a bunch of footage, eyewitness accounts and footprints around and from various countries throughout the world, but just like nessie which has been proven to be just a myth, people will still believe in such things, inspite of the lack of any credible evidence ever produced.
AAA4509 4 years ago
does anyone know what footage is at 8:58 i dont believe ive ever seen that..
balcerhouse 4 years ago
This footage is from a 1996 sighting in northeast washington state that an eyewitness caught on camera of an alledged bigfoot running across this opening in the hillside and then disappearing in the woods.
eyewitnesses said it was VERY TAll and ran faster than a human could.
It was thoroughly investigated by a scientific team and it appears to be the work of a hoaxer, someone in a suit.
AAA4509 4 years ago
The fact of the dermal ridges ,,, And the impossibility of the Patterson film being a hoax , should be enough. If it is fake , why , with today's technology , can it not be reproduced??
festus3030 4 years ago
Footprints with dermal ridges can be faked and quite convincingly.
Footprints are not credible proof of bigfoots exsitence.
AAA4509 4 years ago
I believe bigfoot exists but I think people are mistaking him for an unknown primate when in actuality he is just a hairy amphetamine using inbred Texan that people keep seeing in remote areas. He cooks his meth out in the woods with no clothes on and people get all freaked out when they see him. If you examine the scene a little closer you will usually find a broken down Ford pickup with his sister wife in it along with his mutant inbred offspring. For the love of God people, leave him alone!
warrior350es 4 years ago
lol
AAA4509 4 years ago
The footprint evidence sounds reasonably undisputable.The Cgi less so , you can find whatever you want in computer programs like that.And as for the "skin bulge" just looks like the guy in the suit forgot to take his cigarettes out his pocket !
garystorey 4 years ago
Shit Real Man... ThE PrinT's in My Yard Were The Type Of A Chimp or guerilla But Fuck'N Large and imprinted By Fuck'N SumThan Heavy as FucK....ShiT Real
q1000bx 4 years ago
q1000bx - What do you mean? Define "Fuck" and "Fuck'N" please, and did you say you found real "ShiT"?
davidchenard 4 years ago
STrANgE uSe of cAps...
joeyvader 4 years ago
hughesth - I was not aware any fossils of giganto showed the area of the foramen magnum at all. It seems to me that it is speculation that it may have been bipedal. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I don't think anyone knows yet.
sonofawindowdresser 4 years ago
Few thoughts. I never heard of one killing anyone. Why lock it up, like the rest of the apes in zoos? Plus, for those of you who don't know, these stories go back thousands of years with the North American Indians, who go back anywhere from 12 to almost 20 thousands years in this country.
hughlooks 4 years ago
Why would people risk being ridiculed for something that doesn't exist. It's out there but it will be difficult to find. Good sense of smell, eyesight, and hearing along with the smarts of not wanting to be seen makes something very difficult to find.
Otherwise these hoaxers have a lot of time on their hands as well.
450rmack 4 years ago
"It's out there but it will be difficult to find. Good sense of smell, eyesight, and hearing along with the smarts of not wanting to be seen makes something very difficult to find."
Its amazing how people know so much about something that they can't even prove exists, let alone prove they have all these characteristics that people like to give them credit for.
ckc1227 4 years ago
The existence of a thing does not depend on a person's ability to prove it exists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can't find dozens of airplanes that have gone down in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and they are large stationary shiny objects. We know they are there, but that can't be proven until we find them. Of course you can't prove you found one to a person who refuses to examine the evidence.
davidchenard 4 years ago
Krantz literally had colleagues that would refuse to examine a cast when placed right in friont of them!! I believe in the Pacific North West since the dawn of aviation,there has been something in the neighbiourhood of 80 lost aircraft!
joeyvader 4 years ago
I'm not surprised. Often people who have made up their minds about something just don't want to be confused by the facts. Pride is more important than the Truth for those people. I appreciate it when I'm proven wrong. It saves me from basing decisions on false information in the future. I can't think of enything more important than the Truth and can't get used to people not feeling the same, but many don't. I don't understand that.
davidchenard 4 years ago
in the minds of those you are trying to convince it does...right?..if i told you that there are fairies and little green men from mars....you wouldnt just say " oh ok just because you said so then you must be right" you would expect me to proove it, or you would discount my assertions all together because of their shear unbelievability...we know the planes are there because of all the known variables...no one is saying that they vanished into thin air...if they were you would expect proof.
danjdob 4 years ago
as far as the evidence in this video..one point i would make is...because these clowns cant reproduce a footprint doesnt mean there isnt someone, smarter and more creative than they are...there are many people out there who spend their free time inventing ways to decive people into believing all kinds of crap, and our senses and minds can be fooled, take for instance the differnt perceptions two people will have after an accedent. or how a good magician can fool your eyes.
danjdob 4 years ago
You are right. It is possible to fake evidence, but it is still evidence until shown to be faked. It is not proof. It is evidence that supports the theory. There is a great deal of evidence, and it is unlikely it is all faked. Faked evidence is not evidence that there is no bigfoot. I can fake a photo of someone, but that doesn't suggest they don't exist. Prior to 1902, the mountain gorilla was considered to be a myth by most scientists. They were wrong. Science is often wrong.
davidchenard 4 years ago
good pont
jlil0012 4 years ago
What is your definition of "evidence" ?
The fact is there is not one shred of "hard" evidence to suggest that any such thing exists.
When some actual " hard " evidence is brought forth, then science will give some credibilty to this thing.
What exactly do you mean by saying scuience is often wrong ?
AAA4509 4 years ago
I prefer the definition of evidence that is found in dictionaries. What I mean by science being often wrong is scientific opinion expressed by the "experts" which is generally accepted by the public as truth but is often wrong. Of course that isn't taught or bragged about. When you say evidence doesn't exist, you are only expressing that you are unaware of what there is. Science is political and biased, grant money determines what gets studied, and a great deal of ignored evidencedoes exist.
davidchenard 4 years ago
I was asking for YOUR definition of "evidence", since you seem to be implying that there is evidence supporting bigfoots existence.
Don't take what I say out of context, I said there is no "hard' evidence whatsoever to support the existence of bigfoot period.
Spare me your ranting about how all science is political and biased, not all scientist's are on the take, you seem to have your own bias against science.
AAA4509 4 years ago
I have a degree in science and value it highly. Science isn't the problem. It the political discourse posing as scientific debate that you engage in. Think what you wish. I'll draw my conclusions after examing the evidence instead of the other way around. Your premature conclusion is preventing you from even seeing the evidence. Just because you won't look at it or can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even if you were right, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
davidchenard 4 years ago 2
Are you asking for examples of scientific opinion being wrong in history?
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -Sir John Eric Ericksen, 1873.
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -Lord Kelvin, 1895.
Baby eels are not a seperate species than adult eels, and malaria is not caused by bad air.
davidchenard 4 years ago
Science will throw out long held data when something new is found out, that is the beauty of science.
Science doesn't claim to be perfect, but with ongoing study and the scientifc method, alot has , is and will continue to be known.
Those men that you quote from over a century ago were speaking from what limited knowledge they had at the time.
AAA4509 4 years ago
The same is true today, and you seem to have forgotten the order in which the scientific method follows. Conclusions come last. You are going in reverse. If you are comfortable with your belief that there is nothing to support the existence of Bigfoot, then good for you. Denying the existence of evidence when it is plain to see doesn't support your view. If people talk about something you didn't see, do you insist it doesn't exist regardless of the subject or just this? Have you seen everything?
davidchenard 4 years ago
this was on IMAX Theater In Richmand
TheLizzard0 4 years ago
well nuclier shlerin distorsion might interact with apes habitat and will or might cause it to bread with humans and adapt to our omninvorus lifestyle when it clearly is a heravour so we can never know if bigfoot is real or not but i say it it
Tonyrocks5 4 years ago
I would have to disagree on it being an herbivore completely. For years there have been deer carcasses found with the only thing gone being the liver. In the winter that would be the most nutritious part. Chimp's regularly hunt and eat smaller monkeys, so I would say omnivore like us.
hughesth 4 years ago
I agree! They would probably be opportunistic scavengers as well, consuming almost anything. They have been observed digging for clams in BC., and have been known to steal fish from nets. The deer remains with missing livers have also been observed in Ohio, which is a strange area to think of Bigfoot, but many sightings and vocalizations, as well as dermal ridged prints have come from this State...
joeyvader 4 years ago
I honestly think we're dealing with a descendant of gigantipithicus blacki who stood an estimate 10-15 ft tall. As the world changed it would need to become smaller and go from herbivore to omnivore and that would fit, but still speculation.
hughesth 4 years ago
It's my belief that we are dealing with an animal that has not been found in the fossil record-yet...Almost all believe Giganto to have been a quadriped...to me, there would not have been enough time for it to have evolved a bipedal gait...
joeyvader 4 years ago
There's controversy on that. Some say quad ped, others say biped. The reason I tend to agree with bi is the spine entered the skull from the bottom like humans where as gorillas spine is at the back of the skull due to quad ped. This defines placement of the windpipe and orientation of the body when moving.
hughesth 4 years ago 2
idk wut to believe anything can happend in this world, but as i see this footage of bigfoot he reminds me alot of a Gigantopithecus blacki
rasklbc 4 years ago
hmm apes dont interbreed like humans do....what is he saying?? think about it people. aparently im an "inbreed" freak...im half hispanic and half white i guess to him im just an inbreed
katrinatecxidor 4 years ago
katrinatecxidorm, did you graduate from high school?
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can understand that nothing Dr. Meldrum said can even remotely be construed that way.
He was referring to the interbreeding of species of apes, you moron!
He wasn't saying that your parents are also your Aunt & Uncle!
(They might be, but that's beside the point!)
MickPsyphon 4 years ago 3
He was referring to the fact that chimps will not breed with gorillas and so on just to clarify.
hughesth 4 years ago
you can tell if a Bigfoot Print is real by how deep it sinks into the ground
PurpleRoserade 4 years ago 4
Wow, if someone hoaxes these, they have a lot of time on their hands.
smileyaili17 4 years ago 2
Just like all psuedoscience, where there is money to be made and fame to be had, people will make time to create fakes.
cmh7007 4 years ago
Yeah...I'm sure Melrum is making a fortune off his time spent...Not to mention the enormous fame he is receiving! Ya right! Exactly how does one fake these tracks, with dermal ridges and scars?
joeyvader 4 years ago
Wow! people will say anything to avoid looking at evidence not in support of premature conclusions. You know, conclusions are supposed to come last - after all available evidence is examined or later. It sounds like you are saying, "I've come to my conclusion and don't want to be confused by the evidence."
davidchenard 4 years ago
yoo thx 4 the post i have a project 2 do on sasquatch this'll help greatly thx!
raymondude23 4 years ago
Until very recently the ivory-billed woodpecker was generally believed to be extinct. Now there is good evidence it's still out there and it probably survived by being very secretive. Nevertheless, many credible people have continued to see the ivory-billed woodpecker over the years. No one has seen Bachman's warbler since 1988. No one has seen the Carolina parakeet for longer than that. Bigfoot is probably a relict population of a form of gigantopithecus which is a scarcely known hominid.
cjtraub 4 years ago 4
Anyone who says "there is no evidence of bigfoot" or "if they were out there we would know about them" has not thought this out very well. There IS evidence, lots of it. Good evidence! That may be debatable but I think the evidence is quite compelling. The phenomenon of bigfoot has been around for a long, long time and one person cannot claim to have started the whole thing.
cjtraub 4 years ago 3
if the footprints are real why are they pushed up in the ground instead of down.....
kalabayuhas 4 years ago
What do you mean?
Odonataman 4 years ago
because they're the casts of the footprints.
angelpixiedust 4 years ago
That's a really good point I hadn't thought of. I'd like to hear Meldrum answer THAT one. All those casts he has are pushed up instead of down!
saultrain 4 years ago
when you make a cast out of something that is imprinted in the ground, the result is a "pushed out" cast. that's basically just the way it works. Think about it. Its like filling a ridged bottle with water and freezing it. the details are going to reflect those of the inside.
hijodeputa8 4 years ago
casts
zonezonezone123456 4 years ago
r u a dumbass or something its a cast not a mould
Castillo3Castro 4 years ago
It's a cast mold, that's why. A cast of a footprint indentation would look reversed. Think of it as a photo-negative, but instead of celuloid film it's a mold made out of plaster.
Guernicaman 4 years ago
wow...
nelsono415 4 years ago
Hey Ironeasterndragon....you deny that there is anything to any of this, and yet you seem to know all of the key players here, from hoaxers to scientists, to the armchair guys...Why waste all your time reading up on something you don't believe? Or do you? Me thinks you doth protest too much my friend!
joeyvader 4 years ago
If he didn't know enough, he'd then be accused of talking about something he hadn't researched sufficiently. See my comments under PostToastie's "Patterson Film A Hoax?" I was having a good debate based on facts, and I knew all the players, so Toastie banned me. :(
spiderjaq 4 years ago
Paster? Plaster...can't even spell! Metion? Mention...whatev..
joeyvader 4 years ago