Bigfoot follies

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Jodie

When the money stops flowing and bigfoot is no longer marketable, then yes, hoaxers will slack off.

The vast majority of Bigfoot hoaxes have no monetary value to the hoaxer. They don't ask for money and they don't get any for their hoax. I'm talking about the thousands of eyewitness accounts in the BFRO, Green Database, etc. etc. Those are essentially anonymous hoaxers who write short story horror/drama in the form of a Bigfoot enounter. These spooky and intriguing stories make up the foundational glue that hold all of Bigfootery together.

You can throw away the PGF and you will still have Bigfootery because of the already existing encounter database in addition to unpaid volunteers who will continue to submit bogus sighting claims numbering hundreds per year. This is all done for no money.

But you can't throw away the sighting record created by unpaid folks and then expect Bigfootery to persist. That means no more campfire stories about Bigfoot to fire up the imagination of kids and city folks. The Bigfoot campfire story is non-profit for the orator (hoaxer).

Yes, the most important of hoaxed Bigfoot evidences really hold little prospect of pocketing money for the hoaxer. They don't even ask for money. They seem to often do the hoax for sheer personal joy and the feeling of generosity. They contribute to American Culture in a recorded form. Like a monument or stone carving. You come back 30 years later and see your fake Bigfoot story still is popular with Bigfooters. You smile. That is worth a million bucks, so I guess you got paid after all.

Quote:

As I said, not all sightings of any cryptid are deliberate hoaxes. Some are legitimate misidentification and until people become more familiar with what critters live in their areas, you will continue to have these sightings until the meme dies of natural causes.

Knowledge of local creatures doesn't stop this stuff. That is because cryptids are often novel additions to the local fauna. Pretend that I know every single mammal in my State with great authority and experience. Now pretend that I tell you the story of how I witnessed a Bigfoot in my State and this creature exists without any doubt. Now... why didn't my knowledge of local wildlife stop my telling of the tale?

We have people like Bindernagel and Mionczynski who absolutely should know the local fauna yet they are Bigfoot stumpthumpers. Lady, this Bigfootery thing is not going to stop.

Check out this wonderfully written article about John Mionczynski...

Quote:

In 1972, while camping alone in the Wind River Mountains, the young naturalist John Mionczynski, is convinced that he encountered the creature known as Sasquatch, or "Bigfoot." Over the decades since, he's searched for further evidence of a large primate inhabiting the forests of western North America.

In the minds of many, this placed him in that scientific netherworld populated by believers in crop circles, alien invaders and Bermuda triangles. But to cast him off as a paranormal nut would be unfair to one of Wyoming's most interesting characters who in other spheres has made significant contributions to contemporary understanding of the Wyoming wilderness.

Mionczynski is self-taught, sometimes eccentric, above all insightful. Pat Hnilicka, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who once worked with him on big horn sheep projects, describes him as a "top-notch" scientist.

I think he serves on some Bigfoot advisory board and maybe he's going to be speaking at a Bigfoot conference. Anyway maybe he makes some money from his sighting story but the point here is that knowledge of actual already-existing wildlife won't prevent the claim of additional wildlife (the fantastic cryptid that was living there all the time). Even guys like this who are supposed to be wood smart and educated... they do this. How is Bigfootery supposed to go away when you have this going on?

There are young guys like this too who will live for another 60 years and will perpetually proclaim that Bigfoot exists until they die.

[trebor]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Check out the photo of the footprint they posted. The toes look fake.

Is this supposed to be a footprint?

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by trebor

Is this supposed to be a footprint?

Looks more like a credulous magnet to me.

[StankApe]

I could make a better fake print than that drawing it and sculpting it in the mud, that looks like they made a plywood foot in like 10 minute with a jigsaw

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The toes look fake.

But you can't just toss out evidence for something like that. Patty's thigh looks fake.

This can remain as Bigfoot evidence until the hoaxer confesses.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Just the toes?

Are you sure just the toes look fake?

It's squarefoot, bigfoot's less hip cousin.

[StankApe]

next up will be Sahara Foot, he burrows through the sand and is perfectly camouflaged

[River]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

But you can't just toss out evidence for something like that. Patty's thigh looks fake.

This can remain as Bigfoot evidence until the hoaxer confesses.

Wrong! (Bob Heironimus what?) It can remain evidence until the stompers are found, and its demonstrated they were used to make the ugly flat footprints. Even then, some might claim the stompers were made after the prints, modeled after them. (cough cough Meldrum cough)

[William Parcher]

Are there even stompers for this one? It looks like a shoe print with toes you could make with your fingers.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Are there even stompers for this one? It looks like a shoe print with toes you could make with your fingers.

I disagree a shoe print made inside a foot would have more depth at the toe and less of a uniform look than this does. this looks like someone set down a plywood cutout and mushed it down with their foot and then pried it up

[William Parcher]

It looks like any old shoe stomp then you press the toes and do a little smoothing.

[StankApe]

yeah, I guess if you planted it straight down and removed it (rather than say wearing it and walking a path in the stomper)


btw, where are the other tracks? that mud doesn't appear to be limited to that one spot.

[Jerrymander]

When I ask why so few papers supporting bigfoot are published in science journals the response I got is "the reviewers don't believe in bigfoot so they'll reject it."

[RedRatSnake]

They would believe in it if there was something to believe in, soon as good evidence comes in I am sure BF would get the attention it should deserve.

Maybe the folks on the bff should start pressing the habituators for some solid evidence, can't be hard if BF hangs around their house or yard 24/7

Tim

[RedRatSnake]

Here is a funny from everyone's favorite footer.

Mulder
Sasquatch
Members
5,107 posts
The Ketchum Study is what it is, and it's one more piece of evidence (frankly it's PROOF) that Skeptics refuse to engage.



Tim ~ lol

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

When I ask why so few papers supporting bigfoot are published in science journals the response I got is "the reviewers don't believe in bigfoot so they'll reject it."

The same dodge creationists use; non-believers are stifling and supressing believer's evidence. This is nonsense.

Evidence for the cryptid known as Bigfoot would have groundbreaking scientific significance across a number of disciplines. It would have historical significance and it would likely generate significant wealth for its discoverer.

Think of all the stupid cable channel programming concerning this cryptid for which there is no credible objective evidence, then imagine would that would be like for a creature for which concrete evidence was established.

Anyone who attempts to advance this argument is either fooling himself, or trying to fool others or perhaps both. It's ********.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

Here is a funny from everyone's favorite footer.

Mulder
Sasquatch
Members
5,107 posts
The Ketchum Study is what it is, and it's one more piece of evidence (frankly it's PROOF) that Skeptics refuse to engage.



Tim ~ lol

Skeptics have indeed engaged Ketchum's (DVM) paper, it's just that this person doesn't like what they have to say about it. Or what scientists are saying about it. I'll bet what really pisses him off is that the general public is in fact ignoring it.

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by Jodie

...not all sightings of any cryptid are deliberate hoaxes. Some are legitimate misidentification and until people become more familiar with what critters live in their areas, you will continue to have these sightings until the meme dies of natural causes...

I concur with pretty much everything Parcher posted above in #1201. On this particular quote, I have to add to WP's point about the naturalist/footer. I don't think familiarity with local wildlife will make much difference, overall. It may, with some, but, not nearly enough to starve Bigfoot. A lot of these people will see Bigfoot even if they know the local critters. As long as the "encounter" is fleeting or obscured enough, it will be Bigfoot. It would require a moose, in an open field, on a sunny day, standing next to a sign that read- "A moose", for them not to call it Bigfoot. Even then, they still might describe it as a squatchy encounter. Yep, definitely a squatch. A "misidentification" is just a good excuse to spin a yarn. A lie made up from scratch lacks a certain oomph.

[RedRatSnake]

They sure have and that's what makes this funny to me, this guy just shoots off and the footers listen, trouble is he is one of their biggest problems cause he wants everyone to see it his way, and we all know it's wrong, science has indeed looked at this DNA and rejected it, why ? cause it is back door science and does not belong in any journal with legitimate hard earned scientific discovery's, the sooner they kick this guy out the better off they will be. IMHO

Tim

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by StankApe

next up will be Sahara Foot, he burrows through the sand and is perfectly camouflaged

No, the mongolian death worm, or the saharan version, would eat him.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The vast majority of Bigfoot hoaxes have no monetary value to the hoaxer. They don't ask for money and they don't get any for their hoax. I'm talking about the thousands of eyewitness accounts in the BFRO, Green Database, etc. etc. Those are essentially anonymous hoaxers who write short story horror/drama in the form of a Bigfoot enounter. These spooky and intriguing stories make up the foundational glue that hold all of Bigfootery together.

You can throw away the PGF and you will still have Bigfootery because of the already existing encounter database in addition to unpaid volunteers who will continue to submit bogus sighting claims numbering hundreds per year. This is all done for no money.

But you can't throw away the sighting record created by unpaid folks and then expect Bigfootery to persist. That means no more campfire stories about Bigfoot to fire up the imagination of kids and city folks. The Bigfoot campfire story is non-profit for the orator (hoaxer).

Yes, the most important of hoaxed Bigfoot evidences really hold little prospect of pocketing money for the hoaxer. They don't even ask for money. They seem to often do the hoax for sheer personal joy and the feeling of generosity. They contribute to American Culture in a recorded form. Like a monument or stone carving. You come back 30 years later and see your fake Bigfoot story still is popular with Bigfooters. You smile. That is worth a million bucks, so I guess you got paid after all.




Knowledge of local creatures doesn't stop this stuff. That is because cryptids are often novel additions to the local fauna. Pretend that I know every single mammal in my State with great authority and experience. Now pretend that I tell you the story of how I witnessed a Bigfoot in my State and this creature exists without any doubt. Now... why didn't my knowledge of local wildlife stop my telling of the tale?

We have people like Bindernagel and Mionczynski who absolutely should know the local fauna yet they are Bigfoot stumpthumpers. Lady, this Bigfootery thing is not going to stop.

Check out this wonderfully written article about John Mionczynski...



I think he serves on some Bigfoot advisory board and maybe he's going to be speaking at a Bigfoot conference. Anyway maybe he makes some money from his sighting story but the point here is that knowledge of actual already-existing wildlife won't prevent the claim of additional wildlife (the fantastic cryptid that was living there all the time). Even guys like this who are supposed to be wood smart and educated... they do this. How is Bigfootery supposed to go away when you have this going on?

There are young guys like this too who will live for another 60 years and will perpetually proclaim that Bigfoot exists until they die.

I don't agree with you on that, I think they see existing critters but for some reason it doesn't register . Example- Someone's student that saw the shirtless man in the park with a large dog following behind. It became a centaur.

[RedRatSnake]

A funny from the bff DNA BS Master ~

southernyahoo

Posted Today, 04:30 PM

I don't think it's over for the science in this paper by any means. If Melba is right, her results will repeat no matter who hates her, no matter how poorly her research is intimated in her report, and no matter how badly people want it to fail. The samples are just as real as they would be in any other study. The submitters will find more samples, and if they were like me, didn't send all they had, knowing the repeatability has to happen several times.

According to her study, it does take about a dozen or more hairs with good tissue tags on the roots to get sufficient DNA and target nuDNA. The nuclear DNA though being quite novel particularly in the Amelogenin locus seems to cause consistent amel X drop out significantly more often than in human control samples even with very good samples.

This would be an obstacle for even someone like Sykes to sort out, as this is also where proprietary primers were used by both DNA Diagnostics and an outsource lab using their own primers. So selection of a lab for a prime sample might benefit from knowledge gleaned from this report and it wouldn't surprise me if Sykes does just that if he has any trouble getting a read on the amelogenin locus.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

A funny from the bff DNA BS Master ~

southernyahoo

Posted Today, 04:30 PM

I don't think it's over for the science in this paper by any means. If Melba is right, her results will repeat no matter who hates her, no matter how poorly her research is intimated in her report, and no matter how badly people want it to fail. The samples are just as real as they would be in any other study. The submitters will find more samples, and if they were like me, didn't send all they had, knowing the repeatability has to happen several times.

According to her study, it does take about a dozen or more hairs with good tissue tags on the roots to get sufficient DNA and target nuDNA. The nuclear DNA though being quite novel particularly in the Amelogenin locus seems to cause consistent amel X drop out significantly more often than in human control samples even with very good samples.

This would be an obstacle for even someone like Sykes to sort out, as this is also where proprietary primers were used by both DNA Diagnostics and an outsource lab using their own primers. So selection of a lab for a prime sample might benefit from knowledge gleaned from this report and it wouldn't surprise me if Sykes does just that if he has any trouble getting a read on the amelogenin locus.

Perhaps this fellow needs to read and watch this. http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/brea...tch-sequences/

[RedRatSnake]

He is a member here under another name if I remember right, he knows the skinny, this guy is a hardcore footer and will never change, nothing will change these guys even if we stripped the forest bare.

Tim

[StankApe]

there once was a fuzzy young bigfoot

who never would go get a haircut

he frolicked about, eating squirrel,deer and trout

and told his mom "soon ,you know, I'll make the big bucks!"

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

A funny from the bff DNA BS Master ~

southernyahoo

Posted Today, 04:30 PM

I don't think it's over for the science in this paper by any means. If Melba is right, her results will repeat no matter who hates her, no matter how poorly her research is intimated in her report, and no matter how badly people want it to fail. The samples are just as real as they would be in any other study. The submitters will find more samples, and if they were like me, didn't send all they had, knowing the repeatability has to happen several times.

According to her study, it does take about a dozen or more hairs with good tissue tags on the roots to get sufficient DNA and target nuDNA. The nuclear DNA though being quite novel particularly in the Amelogenin locus seems to cause consistent amel X drop out significantly more often than in human control samples even with very good samples.

This would be an obstacle for even someone like Sykes to sort out, as this is also where proprietary primers were used by both DNA Diagnostics and an outsource lab using their own primers. So selection of a lab for a prime sample might benefit from knowledge gleaned from this report and it wouldn't surprise me if Sykes does just that if he has any trouble getting a read on the amelogenin locus.

Obviously been reading from a source similar to this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7wn...0locus&f=false

I don't think basic forensics will cut it for species identification no matter how many books and manuals you want to try to spin it from.

[calwaterbear]

Originally Posted by RedRatSnake

, science has indeed looked at this DNA and rejected it, why ? cause it is back door science and does not belong in any journal with legitimate hard earned scientific discovery's, . IMHO

Tim

Tim,
I disagree with your assessment just a bit. Science has rejected her work because when we examine whatever evidence has been made available, it does not support any of her claims.

Additionally, the claims she makes are in direct opposistion to known, measured, proven facts and information. We do have a way of dealing with situations like that, and you have seen that statement several times here, I am sure, and that is:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

In this case not only is the extraordinary evidence missing, but rather ordinary evidence is also absent. and on top of that, demonstrably incorrect analysis and procedures were discribed in the paper.

Science has examined Melbas claims with an open and honest eye, and so far everything we have looked at screams - "Nope" "you have it all wrong"

thats far different than summarily dismissing her work!

[parnassus]

I am fascinated by the seeming Kabuki nature of the attack on "Chewthilda". I am not conversant with all the details of what Munns is saying, but I do notice that his statements are nearly simultaneous with the barrage loosed by his principal grant funding ticket, Jeff Meldrum, who is unloading on ThePaper with both barrels (not that there's anything wrong with any of that, and certainly "great minds run in the same channel"). Furthermore, I don't see any real response from the Erickson camp that would indicate they would contemplate any legal action against anyone posting the images (that contract that was posted is imho more of a ruse than a threat)...iow, seems like the Erickson camp doth protest too little, so to speak.

So from here, it seems that the effect of the play so far is:
Munns looks like a hero (maybe he is), Meldrum gets in his shots at the human theory (well deserved, I'd say), and Erickson, well, he paid TheMelba somewhere in the "mid-5-figures," it seems, to do some real science for him. Is he unhappy? Could be.

The only person who seems to be affected adversely by this "drama" is Ketchum (and the credibility of her paper).

I'd say Dr. Ketchum better start looking to her left, and looking to her right, cause it is starting to look like she is in the jack-pot. I could be wrong.

I'm sure Bill will set me straight on this. That would be good.

[StankApe]

these aren't the squatch you're looking for

[Jodie]

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.

[MikeG]

Just a little warning for those members here who are also members at the BFF and value their membership over there.

It is generally against the BFF's rules to copy and paste content to another forum (except under very strict conditions). They are going through a period of neurosis and paranoia at the moment, requiring the resignation of current Steering Committee members, for instance, who have broken this rule.

So, if you value your BFF membership, read the rules carefully, and be very cautious about copying and pasting content from there to any other forum.

Mike

[GT/CS]

.....at the moment???

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Check out this wonderfully written article about John Mionczynski...


I think he serves on some Bigfoot advisory board and maybe he's going to be
speaking at a Bigfoot conference. Anyway maybe he makes some money from his sighting story but the point here is that knowledge of actual already-existing wildlife won't prevent the claim of additional wildlife (the fantastic cryptid that was living there all the time). Even guys like this who are supposed to be wood smart and educated... they do this. How is Bigfootery supposed to go away when you have this going on?

There are young guys like this too who will live for another 60 years and will perpetually proclaim that Bigfoot exists until they die.

I love John Mionczynski! He was on an internet radio show talking about how a sasquatch fell on top of him while he was camping in Wyoming. He said he knew it wasn't a bear because of the way it was breathing.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Just a little warning for those members here who are also members at the BFF and value their membership over there.

It is generally against the BFF's rules to copy and paste content to another forum (except under very strict conditions). They are going through a period of neurosis and paranoia at the moment, requiring the resignation of current Steering Committee members, for instance, who have broken this rule.

So, if you value your BFF membership, read the rules carefully, and be very cautious about copying and pasting content from there to any other forum.

Mike

This makes me want to pop over there and copy paste every thread they have onto my blog! just to watch them have a fit about it

[MikeG]

I'm being serious.

LAL has been forced to resign, and BFSleuth has been asked to. He hasn't yet decided what to do. Be careful with your C&P'ing.

[Jodie]

Please do StankApe, and dedicate it to "BigGinger", the name one of the habituators gave to her female wookie friend.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

.....at the moment???

[StankApe]

they banned me 2 years ago MikeG, I fear nothing

[LAL]

I didn't C&P anything, just so you all know. I was thinking of resigning anyway due to lack of enthusiasm on my part and a failure to bring about constructive changes.

BTW, this thread is being read.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by LAL

.....BTW, this thread is being read.

Ironically, this is the only way that members of the BFF will find out that their elected representatives are being forced out of office by the CA and the Director.