Merged: Finding Bigfoot

[Drewbot]

At my office we send out credit inquiries, not because a potential new customer has failed to pay us, but because we have been nailed by people who did not pay us in the past.

[musketsatdawn]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

At my office we send out credit inquiries, not because a potential new customer has failed to pay us, but because we have been nailed by people who did not pay us in the past.

That is your stated reason for the inquiry. One hopes your office is more tactful.

Was your intention to be derisive as well, or was that merely unintentional? Still no clarity from you on this rather important point.

[Drewbot]

I guess you don't understand that "I am not a bigfooter" carries no weight. Regardless of whether you are a bigfooter or not a bigfooter. So my question about the trailer fire was posed to you, as if your "i am not a bigfooter", was stricken from the record, inadmissible.

Since 'I am not a Bigfooter' is stricken, and you said you were going to Florida, I asked if that was you whose trailer burned in Florida.

[musketsatdawn]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I guess you don't understand that "I am not a bigfooter" carries no weight.

You're right, I do not understand why this would carry no weight. Even if one was skeptical about it, I do not understand why it would carry no weight.

And you have continued to avoid the direct question which I think is relevant to your line of questioning. Why not answer?

Was your intention to be derisive as well, or was that merely unintentional?

[Drewbot]

Yes.

[musketsatdawn]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Yes.

Drewbot,
You are being as evasive as the people whose arguments you seek to dismiss.

You seem to think that I have a hidden agenda here, as if I am trying to trick you somehow. I am not. I stumbled upon this site and it looked really interesting. It fed my curiosity about Bigfoot and what people think about the “phenomenon”. I came here seeking perspective, information, truth.

I don’t know how many posts I have read by now… well over 1000… several thousand? One begins to lose count. I have not read them all, that much is certain. During the course of reading this many posts in a short period of time (relative to the time to accumulate the postings) I am genuinely impressed with the level of logic being applied here to debunk the theories. There are many really great posts, you are a strong contributor yourself. The vast majority of the posts stick to the facts and quite illuminating. Personally, I really appreciate reading those.

At the same time, I perceive an undercurrent of superiority on behalf of the skeptic community that ebbs and flows. At its worst, there are posts like “if you don't like our brand of questioning, we'll just put our brains on "dumb" for as long as you like” In another post, the same person (if I recall correctly) encourages that same target after noticing an improvement in their critical thinking. This from what I consider to be one of the strongest posters here. It demonstrates the inconsistency with which the intellectual prowess gets applied.

In between are more subtle jabs including frequent references to “Bleevers” which I find pejorative and unnecessary for such a strong group of thinkers. It does not in my opinion help to further the stated mission of The James Randi Educational Foundation “to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.”

Rather than serving to help educate people, sadly I think such attitudes push them away.

Because the skeptics outnumber the believers and the undecided by a wide margin, it often comes across (to me) as bullying. Bullying takes many forms including intellectual bullying. I admit, I am perhaps overly sensitive to this (If there’s a prevailing interest as to why I am extra sensitive to this, I’m happy to explain). That sensitivity on its own does not mean I am off the mark.
Drewbot, I felt the remarks you directed to me came from that place – the pedestal of intellectual superiority; the derisive, mean-spirited person that another excellent poster describes rather well. I gave you the opportunity to state clearly that this was not your intent. You chose not to provide clarity. I had sincerely hoped otherwise.

Many of the folks on here have top notch intellectual reasoning. My point is that they should not have to resort to derision to make their point – whether the derision is overt, or more subtle is hardly the point. It is the intent that is important. As a method of instruction and inspiration ridicule is sub-optimal in my experience.

If the consensus here is, “Well bub, that’s how we do it around here and we’ll treat the Bleevers how we see fit, take it or leave it”, then I will certainly leave it.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by musketsatdawn

Drewbot,
You are being as evasive as the people whose arguments you seek to dismiss.

You seem to think that I have a hidden agenda here, as if I am trying to trick you somehow. I am not. I stumbled upon this site and it looked really interesting. It fed my curiosity about Bigfoot and what people think about the “phenomenon”. I came here seeking perspective, information, truth.

I don’t know how many posts I have read by now… well over 1000… several thousand? One begins to lose count. I have not read them all, that much is certain. During the course of reading this many posts in a short period of time (relative to the time to accumulate the postings) I am genuinely impressed with the level of logic being applied here to debunk the theories. There are many really great posts, you are a strong contributor yourself. The vast majority of the posts stick to the facts and quite illuminating. Personally, I really appreciate reading those.

At the same time, I perceive an undercurrent of superiority on behalf of the skeptic community that ebbs and flows. At its worst, there are posts like “if you don't like our brand of questioning, we'll just put our brains on "dumb" for as long as you like” In another post, the same person (if I recall correctly) encourages that same target after noticing an improvement in their critical thinking. This from what I consider to be one of the strongest posters here. It demonstrates the inconsistency with which the intellectual prowess gets applied.

In between are more subtle jabs including frequent references to “Bleevers” which I find pejorative and unnecessary for such a strong group of thinkers. It does not in my opinion help to further the stated mission of The James Randi Educational Foundation “to inspire this investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.”

Rather than serving to help educate people, sadly I think such attitudes push them away.

Because the skeptics outnumber the believers and the undecided by a wide margin, it often comes across (to me) as bullying. Bullying takes many forms including intellectual bullying. I admit, I am perhaps overly sensitive to this (If there’s a prevailing interest as to why I am extra sensitive to this, I’m happy to explain). That sensitivity on its own does not mean I am off the mark.
Drewbot, I felt the remarks you directed to me came from that place – the pedestal of intellectual superiority; the derisive, mean-spirited person that another excellent poster describes rather well. I gave you the opportunity to state clearly that this was not your intent. You chose not to provide clarity. I had sincerely hoped otherwise.

Many of the folks on here have top notch intellectual reasoning. My point is that they should not have to resort to derision to make their point – whether the derision is overt, or more subtle is hardly the point. It is the intent that is important. As a method of instruction and inspiration ridicule is sub-optimal in my experience.

If the consensus here is, “Well bub, that’s how we do it around here and we’ll treat the Bleevers how we see fit, take it or leave it”, then I will certainly leave it.

Bye, the Egret is over there----> ----> ---->

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I asked if that was you whose trailer burned in Florida.

Though there have been some very wordy responses, the question remains unanswered.

Originally Posted by musketsatdawn

And you have continued to avoid the direct question which I think is relevant to your line of questioning. Why not answer?

Oh the irony... Musket, did you have a vehicle ignite whilst on a trip to Florida or not?

RayG

[musketsatdawn]

Originally Posted by RayG

Oh the irony... Musket, did you have a vehicle ignite whilst on a trip to Florida or not?RayG

You're right Ray.

No. I flew down. No trailers were involved at any point.

[RayG]

See how easy that was?

RayG

[Drewbot]

Welcome aboard Musket

[AlaskaBushPilot]

That was an interesting read.

[The Shrike]

Musket,

I had a similar negative reaction to the JREF when I started lurking here a few years ago. Back then the BFF 1.0 was a far more reasonable place where we had some great discussions and I learned a lot. Stopping in here a few times, I found some hackneyed arguments and derision, but I didn't find any more sophisticated skepticism than we had at the BFF at that time. That changed, both when the BFF folded and was reconstituted as woo-central and when I invested more time here. The truth is that the bigfoot skeptics here really were up on the latest in bigfootery and had investigated everything we had been discussing at the BFF, and more.

You reach a point in this stuff where your initial reaction to some claim really is negative no matter how open-minded you try to be. You also develop a shorter fuse when you come to grips with how much outright lying and chicanery is going on. That was enlightening to me. For example, back in my days on the BFF 1.0, I was more forgiving to guys like Meldrum, who struck me as a well-meaning guy just a bit confused by the evidence and deluded by his own desire for bigfoot to be true. Thanks to evidence and arguments presented by folks here, I'm pretty well convinced that Meldrum - while he might believe in bigfoot somewhere very deep down - is actively selling bigfoot for personal gain. He's more subtle about it than some others, but I don't see it as qualitatively different.

[Jodie]

Shrike, it's hard for me to transition in calling you that :-), I clipped the comments you made that were most meaningful for me.

The truth is that the bigfoot skeptics here really were up on the latest in bigfootery and had investigated everything we had been discussing at the BFF, and more.


I do think these folks know what they are talking about and have dug a little deeper than what little I've read about the PGF or Meldrum in the past on the BFF. I am not tech savvy, but I'm catching on by doing my own searches after I have read a reply to a question I've asked regarding different points. So far, everyone here is right on target. I would recommend anyone interested do the same if you aren't even sure of what questions to ask in the first place. My short stay here has been very enlightening, to say the least.

You reach a point in this stuff where your initial reaction to some claim really is negative no matter how open-minded you try to be. You also develop a shorter fuse when you come to grips with how much outright lying and chicanery is going on.

I'm having the same reaction to the lying and chicanery and now question people I formally trusted in regards to motivation. If the end result was legitimately trying to establish the existence of this creature I think that would have been accomplished by now if it existed. What I see are varying motivations for continued involvement in what I consider "hunting" or "investigation" , not what I would call " serious research" as has been tossed around in the community lately.

Thanks to evidence and arguments presented by folks here, I'm pretty well convinced that Meldrum - while he might believe in bigfoot somewhere very deep down - is actively selling bigfoot for personal gain. He's more subtle about it than some others, but I don't see it as qualitatively different.

The discussion regarding Dr. Meldrum have been an eye opener and not one you will hear anywhere else. However, I'm not opposed to profit making from bigfoot if everyone is up front about the product and approaches that in an ethical manner. Just as Shrike pointed out to me about the casts, I doubt the market for debunked casts would be in big demand for proponents so draw your own conclusions. Maybe Dr. Meldrum thinks the debate over the cast's authenticity is inconclusive or that all bigfooters do their homework so he isn't responsible for the misperception, I don't know. At this point I think they are all fake so it's really irrelevant.

And I've said this to many already, but honestly, nothing surrounded by this much insanity can possibly be true.

[musketsatdawn]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

You reach a point in this stuff where your initial reaction to some claim really is negative no matter how open-minded you try to be. You also develop a shorter fuse when you come to grips with how much outright lying and chicanery is going on.

I'd never been to the BFF - just checked it today based on your post. Couldn't be bothered to read anything, so will take your word for it on the content. The idea of espionage from another site never even occurred to me. On the surface, I would view that as bordering on “batsh*t crazy”. I mean, it’s Bigfoot. Interesting, but it’s not curing cancer. Why would one "infiltrate" another website? I guess that’s one of the reasons why the initial questions seemed obtuse to me.

On the other hand, if there’s money involved, especially if there’s a lot of it, strange behavior can and often does ensue. The thought that someone is “getting rich” off of Bigfoot also never occurred to me. I can’t picture what a rich bigfooter would look like. The idea of guy in Ray-Bans, a shiny $1000 suit and $500 loafers traipsing through the PNW wilderness looking for BF is amusing however. Maybe I need to redefine what I consider rich.

Beyond the Animal Planet Bigfoot show, I didn’t think there was much of a commercial market. I watched 1 full episode, fell asleep part way into the second – essentially, for me this show was a non-event, filmed and put on TV – though that’s 90% of reality TV IMO.

Related question: What’s the stance on someone making money off of Bigfoot or UFOs in a fiction platform? I’m thinking of something like Harry & the Hendersons, or a fictional novel. Is that on the level or considered exploitation? Where would something like Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, Star Wars, Clash of the Titans, Troll Hunter….? I’m not talking about a documentary… just a movie or a novel. Predator vs Bigfoot. Bigfootbusters. Mission Impossible: Bigfoot Protocol... etc.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by musketsatdawn

The idea of espionage from another site never even occurred to me.

Um . . . what?

Re: money from bigfoot -

Jeff Meldrum is a professor at a major U.S. research university. He has tenure and I'm sure is paid a nice professional salary for Pocatello, Idaho. His motivations for getting involved in bigfootery were probably honest and honorable. He also might have just started out as an attention whore, who knows? Along the way, however, he's been enjoying some rather tidy supplements to his income: he's appeared in television documentaries, he's been a featured guest at bigfoot festivals (where he sets up plaster casts to sell for $50 a pop), he's written a book, etc. All of these things bring in money.

The troubling thing is that all of this Meldrum stuff is predicated on his proclamations of authenticity - using his credentials as a physical anthropologist - of various pieces of evidence. Those pieces of evidence come from known hoaxes by Ray Wallace, Paul Freeman, and of course, Roger Patterson. So the choice regarding Meldrum is to find him so completely incompetent that he's taken in by every fake footprint du jour, or that he knows darn well that he's writing about, speaking about, and selling reproductions of footprint casts he knows were hoaxed. I find him otherwise too intelligent and accomplished for the former, so that leaves the latter.

Anyway, that's where I would put the ethical line in the sale of bigfoot. If you are using your expertise (and he's idolized by fans) to proclaim the authenticity of things you know are fake, then you're on the wrong side of that line. (For elaboration, check out the Meldrum thread.)

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Um . . . what?

Re: money from bigfoot -

Jeff Meldrum is a professor at a major U.S. research university. He has tenure and I'm sure is paid a nice professional salary for Pocatello, Idaho. His motivations for getting involved in bigfootery were probably honest and honorable. He also might have just started out as an attention whore, who knows? Along the way, however, he's been enjoying some rather tidy supplements to his income: he's appeared in television documentaries, he's been a featured guest at bigfoot festivals (where he sets up plaster casts to sell for $50 a pop), he's written a book, etc. All of these things bring in money.

The troubling thing is that all of this Meldrum stuff is predicated on his proclamations of authenticity - using his credentials as a physical anthropologist - of various pieces of evidence. Those pieces of evidence come from known hoaxes by Ray Wallace, Paul Freeman, and of course, Roger Patterson. So the choice regarding Meldrum is to find him so completely incompetent that he's taken in by every fake footprint du jour, or that he knows darn well that he's writing about, speaking about, and selling reproductions of footprint casts he knows were hoaxed. I find him otherwise too intelligent and accomplished for the former, so that leaves the latter.

Anyway, that's where I would put the ethical line in the sale of bigfoot. If you are using your expertise (and he's idolized by fans) to proclaim the authenticity of things you know are fake, then you're on the wrong side of that line. (For elaboration, check out the Meldrum thread.)

Golly, Ward, weren't you a little hard on the Beaver?
(sorry, I love that line so much I have to write it at least every six months or so, and, well, it's almost the end of June, and....)
Seriously, this is a great post. I'd nominate it for the language award, but unfortunately, The Shrike gives up sparkling cleverness for clarity and meaningfulness.

ps: the above is a high compliment.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by Jodie

Shrike, it's hard for me to transition in calling you that :-),

You can use Saskeptic here Jodie. I wasn't sure of the etiquette regarding forum handles, so I adopted a new one when I started on the JREF.

Parnassus - high praise indeed from you: thank you, Sir.

[Jodie]

Well thank you, I'll just call you Shrike here so newcomers can follow the conversation.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

You can use Saskeptic here Jodie. I wasn't sure of the etiquette regarding forum handles, so I adopted a new one when I started on the JREF.

Parnassus - high praise indeed from you: thank you, Sir.

this would be closer to a nomination, if for no reason other than I love the irony of "sharing tripe," but the King Kong/straw man metaphor is a bit too mixed:

Quote:

This whole institutional dogma tripe you [Mulder] are so fond of sharing is the King Kong of straw men.

...just confuses my mental imager at bit.

LOL

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Yeah, a lot of new kids on the block have a rough reception. Musket came in swinging though so hey, expect a little counterpunching. He seems sensible but is going to get banged up a bit not knowing the subject.

Let's not be calling people insane musket. Welcome, but tone that down a bit. People have hobbies. It will go easier here for you. Not calling people nearly insane.

As for the money, Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley did a million-dollar road show in 1967-68, putting on that PGF clip in multiple auditoriums at the same time - over 30 shows going in Seattle on the same day. They outsold Simon and Garfunkle at the peak of their career - $67,000 in one night, one show, Salt Lake City.

It's like seven million equivalent today, just for the road show. The one night is nearly half a million today. One night. We've discussed a lot of the others, but of course there is money in this con game.

[Drewbot]

I heard a rumor, and it is only a rumor, that one of the Bigfoot shows on TV is going to utilize one of my Bigfoot hunting methods on their show. It is Drew's Bigfoot Hunting Method #45, and they weren't going to use it because they were concerned of total obliteration of the animal. Evidently some Vietnam Vet somewhere said they were certain some form of remains would survive the initial explosion.

[parnassus]

Animal Planet tells critics of Finding Bigfoot to buzz off. I mean, it's almost as popular as River Monsters.

[AttorneyTom]

Originally Posted by parnassus

Animal Planet tells critics of Finding Bigfoot to buzz off. I mean, it's almost as popular as River Monsters.

Let the silliness begin !... something like that. What a bunch of stuff.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Moneymaker lying:

Quote:

For those who don’t think these things exist, [famed primatologist] Jane Goodall thinks they exist** — and she may know a little more about it than you do.”

That isn't what Goodall said. She said she had not looked into it but liked the romance of the idea.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Moneymaker lying:
That isn't what Goodall said. She said she had not looked into it but liked the romance of the idea.

Exactly. Jane Goodall is an extremely political animal, so there's no way she's going to issue any public statements about bigfoot that could anger potential donors to her charity. Her statements are quintessentially "fencey".

[RayG]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Moneymaker lying:

That isn't what Goodall said. She said she had not looked into it but liked the romance of the idea.

And she went on to say:

"...Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

That part always seems to get omitted when bigfoot advocates, like Dr. Meldrum, talk about Jane Goodall's thoughts on bigfoot.

RayG

[parnassus]

Quote:

Part of what makes modernity so much safer and saner than the Middle Ages is the noble function of science to unshackle us from superstition and hocus-pocus of every stripe. And yet it appears a goodly number of us prefer those shackles to rationality and fact because they’re simply more titillating, because some lives grow lame if they lose the possibility of communion with forces outside the norm. Harold Bloom has written that “it is hard to go on living without some hope of encountering the extraordinary,” and so outfits such as Animal Planet and National Geographic Channel have given a platform to jejune dreamers who refuse to have a hard time living, who transform hope for the extraordinary into unintended burlesque and cash for their CEO shepherds. Ours is a culture that doesn’t mind swiping credit cards for malarkey.

William Giraldi at Salon, himself a monster novelist.

Giraldi seems to almost romanticize what is not considered to be fiction by the bigfoot believers. There is (evidently) a motive for believers, but I don't think it is what Giraldi thinks it is:

Quote:

possibility of communion with forces outside the norm.

. balderdash.

The last, I agree with.

[BaldSeagull]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

As a musician who was at one time quite the coke addict, I see many similarities to MM's behavior and my own.... Not saying he's doin the nose candy. But he looks like many of my fellow abusers did at the time...

Originally Posted by parnassus

Bigfoot vs cow, spoiler alert:
towards the end of the Kentucky episode of Finding Bigfoot, Renae and Matt are hanging out in the green dark (except it wasn't really dark because they were shining lights on themselves, and it wasn't really green either (the green being supplied by a filter on the cameras) waiting to be amazed and scared by some random forest noise.

But in the background we hear repetitive mooing. Now, not even these clowns can make that into a bigfoot noise... so they start discussing the paradox that since there are cows present and of course we all know that there are also bigfoots nearby (!), why don't bigfoots kill the cows? Well, of course, I knew already that bigfoots didn't kill cows, but I don't think my explanation for that (there are no bigfoots) would fly on Finding Bigfoot. But Matt had an alternative: in his best stage whisper, Matt rambles into an explanation like one you'd expect from a first grader (he knows his audience) or a drunk: the bigfoots think that if they don't kill the cows that belong to us, then we won't kill the deer that belong to them. Well, here's the beauty: just as you are starting to shake your head and roll your eyes, they switch from an extreme close-up of Matt M to one of Renae, and you can just make out a subtle head shake, without an eye roll.

Perfect!

[BaldSeagull]

I've just watched the Kentucky episode of Finding Bigfoot. Beautiful countryside, I'd love to visit there someday. Usual shenanigans, "Whats that?", "Did you hear something?", "There's movement over there" etc etc, you know the score.

A few questions though.

Does Ranae always wear sensible shoes?

Does she enjoy playing around in the bush?

Did that cup she was drinking moonshine from have fur on it?

Her surname is Holland. What do they call those sea walls over there?

Just askin' likes.

[AttorneyTom]

Originally Posted by BaldSeagull

I've just watched the Kentucky episode of Finding Bigfoot. Beautiful countryside, I'd love to visit there someday. Usual shenanigans, "Whats that?", "Did you hear something?", "There's movement over there" etc etc, you know the score.

A few questions though.

Does Ranae always wear sensible shoes?

Does she enjoy playing around in the bush?

Did that cup she was drinking moonshine from have fur on it?

Her surname is Holland. What do they call those sea walls over there?

Just askin' likes.

Hi BS, and welcome to the fray !

I may have the answers that you are seeking. Yes, Probably, Not sure, I am not sure what they refer to them in KY. Perhaps Dykes or some sort of an earthen dam ?

You guys have not had the pleasure of FB until just lately I presume ?

[BaldSeagull]

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom

Hi BS, and welcome to the fray !

I may have the answers that you are seeking. Yes, Probably, Not sure, I am not sure what they refer to them in KY. Perhaps Dykes or some sort of an earthen dam ?

You guys have not had the pleasure of FB until just lately I presume ?

Thanks Tom.

It's been on for about 6 weeks on Discovery in the UK. Fascinating and cringeworthy at the same time.

Getting paid for running around the woods late at night jumping at every snapped branch and squirrel's cough?

Beats working for a living!

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Jodie

I'm pretty well convinced that Meldrum - while he might believe in bigfoot somewhere very deep down - is actively selling bigfoot for personal gain.

While some may see me on the other side of aisle, this is something I agree with, one wonders that if after enough time, certain folks can't adequately prove the creature to exist then turn to justifying the belief by seeing how they can somehow turn a buck at it. That doesn't help the mystery's conclusion one way or another.

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom

Hi BS, and welcome to the fray !

I may have the answers that you are seeking. Yes, Probably, Not sure, I am not sure what they refer to them in KY. Perhaps Dykes or some sort of an earthen dam ?

You guys have not had the pleasure of FB until just lately I presume ?

No, they only really started showing that bollocks a few weeks ago. Now, my Sunday nights are reserved for guilty sessions with Matt, Bobo, Rennae and Cliff, the Shamtastic 4!

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It only really occurred to me last night how much of a dead ringer Matt Moneymaker is to David Brent.

[AttorneyTom]

Originally Posted by BaldSeagull

Thanks Tom.

It's been on for about 6 weeks on Discovery in the UK. Fascinating and cringeworthy at the same time.

Getting paid for running around the woods late at night jumping at every snapped branch and squirrel's cough?

Beats working for a living!

Well.. I dont want ruin it for you. So all I can say is yes that is pretty much it !? There are cows though... and if you listen closely some car traffic noises which is exciting.

[BaldSeagull]

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom

Well.. I dont want ruin it for you. So all I can say is yes that is pretty much it !? There are cows though... and if you listen closely some car traffic noises which is exciting.

I've just seen the New Mexico episode. Usual nonsense. They found a warm tree after getting excited about a thermal image. MM claims that Bigfoots can give birth to twins, but "rarely". They investigated another thermal image taken on an expedition. The guy was on the expedition to find a Bigfoot, saw an image, then...went to bed.

They howl into the night, then go quiet and listen for a response. Then it's "What's that? I just heard a moan/howl/growl". But all the time, there's a very low level soundtrack of....noises. So, we never do get to hear those moans/howls/growls. A few weeks ago, there was a bit where MM said he heard something "talking" in the woods, and I would have liked to have heard it as well. But all I could hear was the soundtrack.

[WGBH]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I heard a rumor, and it is only a rumor, that one of the Bigfoot shows on TV is going to utilize one of my Bigfoot hunting methods on their show.

Are you speaking of the one where you charge into the darkness with your really large knife?

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

While some may see me on the other side of aisle, this is something I agree with, one wonders that if after enough time, certain folks can't adequately prove the creature to exist then turn to justifying the belief by seeing how they can somehow turn a buck at it. That doesn't help the mystery's conclusion one way or another.

I don't have a problem with it as long as you don't misrepresent what it is that you are selling. Peddling casts of prints that have been deemed to be a hoax, even by footer standards, is unethical.

[WGBH]

Not only are some of the print casts hoaxed (the Ray Wallace ones), he also was not the person who CAST the prints. I am not even sure if he has EVER cast a print. Yet he makes copies of them and sells them.