Is this Bigfoot?

how would you prove scat examples do you think?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ok seriously, you actually believe in the existence of a giant bipedal ape man?

Like you 100% believe without a doubt at all that they exist?
 
Ok seriously, you actually believe in the existence of a giant bipedal ape man?

Like you 100% believe without a doubt at all that they exist?

i believe that you have no ground whatsoever to dispute meldrums stance or his collection of over 300 casts some of which have dermal ridges. i believe you have never spent even an hour of time reading up on why he and others think there is a species like this in north america and i think you have no idea how any of your questions or objections are dealt with.

i believe you have a strong stance that is not based on any intellectual inquiry of any kind and you are using that stance to try and somehow hypocritically stand on the side of facts and evidence.
 
i believe that you have no ground whatsoever to dispute meldrums stance or his collection of over 300 casts some of which have dermal ridges. i believe you have never spent even an hour of time reading up on why he and others think there is a species like this in north america and i think you have no idea how any of your questions or objections are dealt with.

i believe you have a strong stance that is not based on any intellectual inquiry of any kind and you are using that stance to try and somehow hypocritically stand on the side of facts and evidence.
answer the question.

do you believe in Bigfoot.
 
i believe that you have no ground whatsoever to dispute meldrums stance or his collection of over 300 casts some of which have dermal ridges. i believe you have never spent even an hour of time reading up on why he and others think there is a species like this in north america and i think you have no idea how any of your questions or objections are dealt with.

i believe you have a strong stance that is not based on any intellectual inquiry of any kind and you are using that stance to try and somehow hypocritically stand on the side of facts and evidence.
Degree in biology and Chemistry from University my studies focused heavy on ecology. So Yeh I can criticality think an safely say that this is bullshit. Just because one university professor says its true does make it so. If I could be bothered I bet I can find a ton of other professors basically calling this all shit. But There is no way in hell I am wasting my time doing that.

So answer the question do you believe in this crap.
 
Standing's images are fakes. That dude is a fraud. It's a shame that Meldrum and Bindernagel (RIP) ever associated with him, but so it goes. It won't help their respectable efforts towards officially recognizing the creature.

People who scoff at the idea perplex me. It's foolish.

 
Degree in biology and Chemistry from University my studies focused heavy on ecology. So Yeh I can criticality think an safely say that this is bullshit. Just because one university professor says its true does make it so. If I could be bothered I bet I can find a ton of other professors basically calling this all shit. But There is no way in hell I am wasting my time doing that.

So answer the question do you believe in this crap.
Settle down.
 
Degree in biology and Chemistry from University my studies focused heavy on ecology. So Yeh I can criticality think an safely say that this is bullshit. Just because one university professor says its true does make it so. If I could be bothered I bet I can find a ton of other professors basically calling this all shit. But There is no way in hell I am wasting my time doing that.

So answer the question do you believe in this crap.


i am asking how you can decide that meldrum is full of shit when he is speaking within his area of expertise but without even reading his research? is that consistent with the methodologies of scientific inquiry? to dismiss without investigation?

how do you justify that?
 
Settle down.
i am asking how you can decide that meldrum is full of shit when he is speaking within his area of expertise but without even reading his research? is that consistent with the methodologies of scientific inquiry? to dismiss without investigation?

how do you justify that?
urgh I am done with this, stay in your retarded fantasy world.
 
You do realize their has been hundreds of thousands of sightings since the beginning of time. Ancient history shows writings and such of a Bigfoot like creature. Each culture happens to have some belief in a bigfoot, Asians, Indians etc. Their are stories of people killing Bigfoot’s in the past. President Roosevelt said he seen one.

The government possibly hides the truth for whatever reason.

Only interesting question to me, at this point.

Why hide them?
 
there was bigfoot and footage of him had never been captured clearly, but then corona came and killed him.

:(
 
urgh I am done with this, stay in your retarded fantasy world.


i understand. you led with your chin and violated all the principles that you would use to discredit the bigfoot topic. it is really common and i get it. here is where you made your mistake.

if you had said "i do not believe it" i think you are within integrity as a scientist although it would still be puzzling that you would be willing to make a statement on a topic you have done no research in and have even stated you are not willing to do research on. still, if you had stopped there i would probably let it slide.

but you went further than that, you also said that anyone, even an expert in the field where purported evidence has been gathered en mass, is a fool for believing it.

when you go that far the onus is on you to present a case for that positive claim and you got caught with your pants down leading with gut feelings in the name of science.

its easy to do but doesn't make you right.
 
Last edited:
i understand. you led with chin and violated all the principles that you would use to discredit the bigfoot topic. it is really common and i get it. here is where you made your mistake.

if you had said "i do not believe it" i think you are within integrity as a scientist although it would still be puzzling that you would be willing to make a statement on a topic you have done no research in and have even stated you are not willing to do research on. still, if you had stopped there i would probably let it slide.

but you went further than that, you also said that anyone, even an expert in the field where purported evidence has been gathered en mass, is a fool for believing it.

when you go that far the onus is on you to present a case for that positive claim and you got caught with your pants down leading with gut feelings in the name of science.

its easy to do but doesn't make you right.
An i stand by my claim without doubt if you believe in this bullshit you are a fool.

But what ever, there is zero chance I am getting into a "scientific" debate on the existence of a bipedal ape man that has zero credible evidence and the biggest supporter is a lame professor that all his peers think is a absolute idiot.

But you keep searching for the truth Moulder.
 
An i stand by my claim without doubt if you believe in this bullshit you are a fool.

But what ever, there is zero chance I am getting into a "scientific" debate on the existence of a bipedal ape man that has zero credible evidence and the biggest supporter is a lame professor that all his peers think is a absolute idiot.

But you keep searching for the truth Moulder.


but you cannot defend your positive claim on intellectual or scientific grounds so your opinion is just an uneducated one.
 
Bigfoot believers are the most frustrating people to talk to.

1. Bigfoot is huge, which is not conducive to hiding
2. In order for the bigfoot species to survive, there has to be a bunch of them, so they can mate with each other.
3. Something that big has to eat a lot

So if they were real we'd see a bunch of them running around leaving tracks, poop, and animal carcasses all over the place.

So if there are a bunch of huge things

Staunch disbelievers are downright unbearable.
 
@elreece

even though you refused to engage in good faith discussion i am going to answer you questions. this is me offering an olive branch. don't be rude when you reply.

i have thought a lot about this topic and listened to a fair amount of research, lectures etc. i am nowhere near as informed as most people are who take this topic seriously.

i really dont know what to think about this topic. i dont have a firm opinion one way or the other.

Meldrum keeps collecting prints that are very compelling in remote areas where hoaxers would not be. i cannot discount footprints that according to him are not reasonably hoax-able. ive listened to him and i believe it is the evidence that has formed his openness to the subject. he has a phd and i respect and value education and people working withing their areas of expertise.

now just to keep it short.

i think there have been a lot of hominids that competed with us over millions of years. i think it is possible that a very large hominid species, probably close to extinction could still exist in small numbers. they would be nocturnal to avoid human contact and smart enough to know culturally that they must not be discovered by humans. smart enough to bury the dead.

they would have physical attributes far superior to our own but with intelligence high enough to understand the dangers we present beyond instinctual avoidance. that would make for a formidable barrier to us getting a body.

i think it is possible something like this exists and is responsible for the thousands and thousands of sightings that are reported.

i am especially intrigued by professional hunters encounters with bigfoot as they are the people who are in remote locations off trail for extended periods of time and whose expertise in identifying wildlife is a life and death endeavor.

when people like this come forth in large numbers saying there is something out there like that i think there is probably something to it.

and on top of that i know two people personally who have had sightings and who i find respectable stable intelligent and honest.

add to that the experience i had in the woods that made me begin looking into all of this and i would have to say i am agnostic but leaning towards them existing.
 
Back
Top