Bigfoot to Be Proven Real Soon

The Shrike said:
Ho-lee crap. I had never seen that.

"Curt Nelson, Microbiologist from the University of Minnesota" sounds pretty impressive, right? I mean, it sounds like he's some big deal professor from the University of Minnesota. A little digging, however, reveals that he's not a professor and his appointment is at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, i.e., one of the branch campuses of the university system. (That's not a bad thing and there are fantastic people working on branch campuses of major universities across the country. But it does tend to be easier to get and keep a faculty job at them than it is at the main campus. It's certainly not wrong to say that he's at the University of Minnesota, but it is a bit disingenuous to omit the detail that he's at a branch campus.)

So what's his job at UMNTwin Cities? He's a staff scientist in this guy's lab in the department of Entomology. So not a professor and not a leading scientist. He's more a technician who supports others' research. Again, that's not a bad thing, but it's disingenuous to describe him as they do.

The dude has a grand total of four publications listed in this research lab; the most recent in 2012 and the only lead-authored publication in 2008. I can't find any other information on him, e.g., if he has a doctorate.

In sum, he could be a fine gentleman, he's likely quite skilled in genetic analysis, and he could be a first-rate scientist. For the program, however, someone trumped up his credentials and the objective evidence I've been able to track down suggests that he's not particularly active. The fact that he's palling around with Meldrum on this junket doesn't give me a lot of confidence in him.


As for the content, they actually played connect-the-dots with the bloody screws on the board and - lo and behold - Meldrum drew what looked like 2/3 of a bigfoot's big foot! It's again comedy gold from Jeffy if I'm feeling generous and dangerous pseudoscience if I'm not.
Click to expand...

Minor quibble: the University of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities are the same thing. It's the main campus, not a branch. Part of it is in Minneapolis; part of it is in St. Paul. Similarly, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign is the main campus.
 
Lucian said:
Minor quibble: the University of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities are the same thing. It's the main campus, not a branch. Part of it is in Minneapolis; part of it is in St. Paul. Similarly, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign is the main campus.
Click to expand...

Yikes - that's not minor! That's a major gaffe on my part, and I offer my apologies to all. Thanks for catching it and for correcting me. I'll see about editing that post.
 
Thanks to Lucian for pointing out my error regarding the University of Minnesota and Curt Nelson's position there. Here's an amended version of my original post:



The Shrike said:
Ho-lee crap. I had never seen that.

"Curt Nelson, Microbiologist from the University of Minnesota" sounds pretty impressive, right? I mean, it sounds like he's some big deal professor from the University of Minnesota. A little digging, however, reveals that he's not a professor: He's a staff scientist in this guy's lab in the department of Entomology. So not a professor and not a leading scientist. He's more a technician who supports others' research. That's not a bad thing, but it's disingenuous to describe him as they do.

The dude has a grand total of four publications listed in this research lab; the most recent in 2012 and the only lead-authored publication in 2008. I can't find any other information on him, e.g., if he has a doctorate.

In sum, he could be a fine gentleman, he's likely quite skilled in genetic analysis, and he could be a first-rate scientist. For the program, however, someone trumped up his credentials and the objective evidence I've been able to track down suggests that he's not particularly active. The fact that he's palling around with Meldrum on this junket doesn't give me a lot of confidence in him.


As for the content, they actually played connect-the-dots with the bloody screws on the board and - lo and behold - Meldrum drew what looked like 2/3 of a bigfoot's big foot! It's again comedy gold from Jeffy if I'm feeling generous and dangerous pseudoscience if I'm not.
Click to expand...
 
The Shrike said:
Yikes - that's not minor! That's a major gaffe on my part, and I offer my apologies to all. Thanks for catching it and for correcting me. I'll see about editing that post.
Click to expand...
And that is why you could never be a Footer or a Truther. Never retract!
 
One of the only scientifically proven facts about Bigfoot is:

Bacon demand increases exponentially when a Bigfoot conference is in town.
 
Northern Lights said:
I don't own a costume, nor does anyone I know own a costume.
Click to expand...

So you were getting pranked by someone who knew you were out there, meaning, you're obviously in a region that is pretty much well-known and well-traversed by many people.

I mean, you don't expect anyone to believe that that obviously baggy suit with no definition is an actual Bigfoot, do you?

That's the thing, believers make a fuss over Patty's non-existing "musculature," yet when they offer their own attempts at hoaxes, they use relatively silly costumes. Have you seen the baggy legs in that one picture you have?

So, your group of avid researchers is clearly no more or less BLAARGY than the next group, really. You're either being hoaxed by Bob from down the street, or you're actually attempting your own hoaxes. Bigfootery at its most natural.

I hope you won't be offering any of those types of obvious hoaxed pictures as your bet-winner! If you thought anyone would buy them, then you need to go back to Roger Patterson Elementary. ;)
 
Northern Lights said:
I don't own a costume, nor does anyone I know own a costume.
Click to expand...

So, you actually want us to believe that this is a Bigfoot?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1149&pictureid=10704

I mean, could you guys not even put some of that "expedition" money to better use, instead of messing about in the woods behind your house, you could've had a whipround and at least bought a better costume.

Or will you be going the Patterson-route and using this costume as a base-suit which you can modify?

I mean, come on, NL, seriously, though. Up your game, mate :D
 
Last edited:
I don't think NL and his gang are claiming responsibility for that pic. If you go do a Google image search, it comes up in several hits.

Which means NL put it on his profile because he believes it to be a genuine bigfoot, most likely. Not sure which is worse. If I recall correctly, this is what NL was hinting at when he said his chances of winning the bet may have improved.

http://www.thethings.com/15-terrifying-trail-cam-photos-that-are-sure-to-give-you-goosebumps/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMOU_md_QAI&ab_channel=iMerkzzU

http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2013/04/possible-trail-cam-photo-of-bigfoot-in.html
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
I don't think NL and his gang are claiming responsibility for that pic. If you go do a Google image search, it comes up in several hits.

Which means NL put it on his profile because he believes it to be a genuine bigfoot, most likely. Not sure which is worse. If I recall correctly, this is what NL was hinting at when he said his chances of winning the bet may have improved.

http://www.thethings.com/15-terrifying-trail-cam-photos-that-are-sure-to-give-you-goosebumps/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMOU_md_QAI&ab_channel=iMerkzzU

http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2013/04/possible-trail-cam-photo-of-bigfoot-in.html
Click to expand...

Well that's even worse, lol. How can you be impressed with Patty and yet also be impressed with that obviously baggy costume?

This is why I miss the good ole days of Bigfootery. People don't even try hard anymore. Typical Walmart-bought costumes, even the "killer clowns" put more effort into their appearance when making prank videos. Bigfooters are literally being upstaged by a bunch of clowns.
 
Tbf, though, after browsing that 15 Terrifying Trail-Cam Pics thing, I have to say, the silly Bigfoot suit is probably only the 5th most embarrassing snap on there, and that's saying something.

Hands-down the worst part of all of it is the absolutely embarrassing write-ups that go along with each pic.

This is what it's all come to.

The supernatural, crytpozoology, and all things that go bump in the night, have all died a death. Long gone are the days of mystery and wonder. All hail the age of the half-arsed!
 
Last edited:
People like to fool/scare themselves; I guess that's the attraction here. What they actually believe is anyone's surmise, but if you claim that photo as legit, there isn't much to say, you're just being silly either way.
 
Here's a person who claims (I think) to be a bioengineering scientist:
http://bigfootforums.com/topic/55398-how-widely-do-you-share-findings/?page=3
No, and I think this really highlights an underpinning of the skeptical reaction that makes witnesses so uncomfortable, even when you're trying to be nice and generous as you are with this statement. It's not their belief that deserves respect, it's the reliability of their senses. You're telling them they're mistaken about things they saw and heard unambiguously, leaving them no rebuttal except "I know what I saw," to which you respond "No, you don't." You're denying their most basic connection to the external world, their vision and hearing. At the level of an individual story, it's disrespectful, at the level of tens of thousands of stories, it becomes kind of an untenable position.

And to be firmly on-topic for this thread, I think findings need to be shared a lot more widely, and you're absolutely right about one thing: your type of reaction is a big reason people don't share.
Click to expand...
The reason the application of the scientific method is so important is the opposite of the highlighted, the fallibility of our senses. We like to fool ourselves, and as Feyman noted, we are the easiest to fool. I wonder if this engineer wings it with his reliable senses when working on a project or if he goes with the ole calculus?

As far the tens of thousands of stories, do we then attach significance to the tens of thousands of dragon stories emanating from Asia and beyond over thousands of years?

ETA: This is the same person who fantasizes about bigfoot structures/symbols in a forest preserve on a northern border of Chicago. Actually they are (and this takes no time to research) homeless shelters and markings. Also, this preserve is being refurbed, as all are in the Cook County system, and every inch is being traversed in an effort to remove invasive species, resulting in even more "stick structures" that are to be controlled burns. Again, it takes about five minutes of research to discover, but why learn the truth when the fantasy is much more fun?
 
Last edited:
From last week, let me see if I can clarify some things.

First, I had no clue the pictures in my album were considered part of my profile. I don't care they are, but I was using it as a repository and was ignorant to the fact that they were viewable to everyone. P.S., stalker alert GS. Geez, really?

Second, I don't recall why I originally put the trail cam picture in the album and I don't recall ever sharing it with this group and I certainly don't recall ever making a claim it an "actual Bigfoot" as GS indicated. I may be mistaken since I won't be re-reading all my posts here.

And with that said, my position on ALL pictures/videos as it stands today is there is currently NONE that would meet the standard of evidence of the existence of Sasquatch. There are some that are compelling/interesting but none of them are evidence. If I have ever made the claim they were, then I was wrong to do so.

Third, we don't charge a fee for our trips, so there is no "expedition money" to use. And if anyone does attempt to pull a hoax on us, they would not be invited back. That did happen where a guy made a claim of a seeing one, but upon review of his claim, we determined he was fabricating the whole thing and is no longer part of our group.

fourth, none of this has anything to do with my earlier comment about the possibility of winning the bet. I haven't elaborated on that statement and it doesn't have anything to do with Dr. Meldrum and his endeavors. I will provide details if I have been given permission. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm hopeful.

I will keep you posted, maybe.
 
Northern Lights said:
Third, we don't charge a fee for our trips, so there is no "expedition money" to use. And if anyone does attempt to pull a hoax on us, they would not be invited back. That did happen where a guy made a claim of a seeing one, but upon review of his claim, we determined he was fabricating the whole thing and is no longer part of our group.
Click to expand...

Technically you don't charge for trips, you just charge a $40 annual membership fee in order to go on your expeditions. Difference without a distinction.
We are pleased to announce that the 2017 SRA Sasquatch Expeditions are now scheduled and open for registration. As a part of our mission to conduct field research and educate people about sasquatches, we will be hosting two expeditions in 2017 on May 18-21 and September 7-10, open and FREE to all SRA Members, Researchers, and Patrons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Northern Lights said:
Third, we don't charge a fee for our trips, so there is no "expedition money" to use. And if anyone does attempt to pull a hoax on us, they would not be invited back. That did happen where a guy made a claim of a seeing one, but upon review of his claim, we de
Click to expand...

Hello, Northern Lights. We've never interacted before as you joined the forum during a time I was rarely active on the forum as I posted mainly at the BFF.

I would like to ask, and if it's personal I understand, but are you Sasquatch Reasearch Association co-counder Andy P who wrote the following piece called Squatch Crazy?...

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/squatch-crazy/

Also, if you want to be up front about your organization where money is concerned, you could simply post this...

Money and the SRA

Money is always a touchy subject in the bigfoot community, mostly because so many people have used the subject as a quick way to try and make a buck. It seems no one trusts anyone anymore in this community. But, as life in a free market would have it, you cannot run an organization like this without some form of income.

The SRA is organized as an LLC, similar in nature to other more conventional groups with similar natural goals like the Audubon Society or Ducks Unlimited. The company will in fact make money, if all goes well, but such money will be turned around and reinvested in the search for sasquatch to fund the following:

The internet services and operating costs of the SRA
Equipment for the support of the SRA’s primary mission
Field research and expedition expenses (eventually, if we grow large enough we’d like to fund grants to young primatologists/anthropologists willing to study these beings in the field)
Administration costs including the possibility of hiring employees as the organization grows (the founders will not take salaries from the SRA until such a time as the organization grows sufficiently to require one or more of them to devote more than 10 hours a week to the organization. We all have full-time jobs/businesses of our own and are not looking for a new source of income at all.)
To these ends, the SRA will post the basics of our balance sheets on the members section of our website so that all members will know exactly what their dues and talents are going towards.
Click to expand...

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/our-mission/

I was once very much like you and an ardent proponent of Bigfoot. Unlike you I found that all the evidence available, literally all of it, when put under critical scrutiny always turns out to be vapour. I have long since gone from believer to fence-sitter to skeptic. What interests me most now is the culture of Bigfoot belief and claims of reliable evidence.

If you are indeed Andy of SRA, I found your story about your experiences with BFRO expeditions to be highly entertaining. I have studied those expeditions and been writing about the BFRO for many years now. I look forward to hearing from you.
 
kitakaze said:
Hello, Northern Lights. We've never interacted before as you joined the forum during a time I was rarely active on the forum as I posted mainly at the BFF.

I would like to ask, and if it's personal I understand, but are you Sasquatch Reasearch Association co-counder Andy P who wrote the following piece called Squatch Crazy?...

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/squatch-crazy/

Also, if you want to be up front about your organization where money is concerned, you could simply post this...



http://sasquatchresearchers.org/our-mission/

I was once very much like you and an ardent proponent of Bigfoot. Unlike you I found that all the evidence available, literally all of it, when put under critical scrutiny always turns out to be vapour. I have long since gone from believer to fence-sitter to skeptic. What interests me most now is the culture of Bigfoot belief and claims of reliable evidence.

If you are indeed Andy of SRA, I found your story about your experiences with BFRO expeditions to be highly entertaining. I have studied those expeditions and been writing about the BFRO for many years now. I look forward to hearing from you.
Click to expand...

Hi Kit. No, I'm not Andy, I'm Todd.

I'm not a prolific poster here but do hang around reading through the associated threads occasionally jumping in, but for the most part stay on the sidelines. I've attended many BFRO expeditions and was even on my way to becoming an investigator when the SRA was established and I decided to go with them instead.

I appreciate your position after scrutinizing the evidence, but the difference between you and I is what I've experienced, which keeps me on the dark side. You can listen to it here: http://sasquatchresearchers.org/report-for-the-sra-resercher-expedition-sept-2013/

I understand this isn't evidence but it's what I personally experienced and would appreciate hearing your feedback.

Enjoy.
NL
 
Northern Lights said:
From last week, let me see if I can clarify some things.

First, I had no clue the pictures in my album were considered part of my profile. I don't care they are, but I was using it as a repository and was ignorant to the fact that they were viewable to everyone. P.S., stalker alert GS. Geez, really?

Second, I don't recall why I originally put the trail cam picture in the album and I don't recall ever sharing it with this group and I certainly don't recall ever making a claim it an "actual Bigfoot" as GS indicated. I may be mistaken since I won't be re-reading all my posts here.

And with that said, my position on ALL pictures/videos as it stands today is there is currently NONE that would meet the standard of evidence of the existence of Sasquatch. There are some that are compelling/interesting but none of them are evidence. If I have ever made the claim they were, then I was wrong to do so.

Third, we don't charge a fee for our trips, so there is no "expedition money" to use. And if anyone does attempt to pull a hoax on us, they would not be invited back. That did happen where a guy made a claim of a seeing one, but upon review of his claim, we determined he was fabricating the whole thing and is no longer part of our group.

fourth, none of this has anything to do with my earlier comment about the possibility of winning the bet. I haven't elaborated on that statement and it doesn't have anything to do with Dr. Meldrum and his endeavors. I will provide details if I have been given permission. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm hopeful.

I will keep you posted, maybe.
Click to expand...

Stalker alert? lol. I already told you I like to click your profile from time to time, as I see on you on here so often in lurk-mode. Frankly, I wonder what your interest is in coming here, but it's your life. Your picture album, entitled "Squatch", is totally visible, obviously, and I'm obviously going to click it to see what's in there, seeing as how you have a running bet with me. All I can say is good luck winning that one.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Stalker alert? lol. I already told you I like to click your profile from time to time, as I see on you on here so often in lurk-mode. Frankly, I wonder what your interest is in coming here, but it's your life. Your picture album, entitled "Squatch", is totally visible, obviously, and I'm obviously going to click it to see what's in there, seeing as how you have a running bet with me. All I can say is good luck winning that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "stalker". What a weird accusation. I post my pictures is public and am surprised that anyone actually looked at them. What planet does that make sense on?
 
abaddon said:
Yeah, "stalker". What a weird accusation. I post my pictures is public and am surprised that anyone actually looked at them. What planet does that make sense on?
Click to expand...

I guess he thought they were being posted in a super-secret location, lol. If you have a photo-album, called "Squatch", no less, then guys like me are gonna pop in and have a nose. I'm a nosy guy.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I guess he thought they were being posted in a super-secret location, lol. If you have a photo-album, called "Squatch", no less, then guys like me are gonna pop in and have a nose. I'm a nosy guy.
Click to expand...
I double checked before I replied. Why on earth did NL think a public album was private? I just can't feature that.
 
abaddon said:
I double checked before I replied. Why on earth did NL think a public album was private? I just can't feature that.
Click to expand...

I recently made my own album, and at no point did I assume it would be private, lol. It's pretty clear that it's a public folder, IIRC.

More to the point, why have all of those Bigfoot-related pictures with no tagline or indication that you didn't take the pictures? It certainly looks like it's his album with his pictures, taken by him or people he knows, which is why I asked regarding the obviously hoaxed shots of a bloke in a suit on a couple of pics.

Anyway, NL, forgive me for snooping around in your public photo album and assuming that the pictures contained therein where yours, but you can see my confusion as they can appear to be pictures posted by you during one of your trips. No harm done, although I do wonder why you have those pictures up if they're not yours, especially the obvious bloke-in-suit ones and the random snaps of twisted branches and stuff.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Moose investigation. OK, If you tell me you have Moose on your land in NC. I'd want to question you about your sighting. Try to determine if it could be mistaken identity. If there is evidence available, I'd want to review it. If you show me a blurry photo or video of something that resembles a Moose my curiosity may be triggered.
Click to expand...

6Sby9N.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom