here’s the post:

James “Bobo” Fay
Hey folks, just wanted to let you know when I want to get the latest on anything cryptozoological, I go to cryptomundo.com
Check it out!

ya…. i wanna know… and i do think there is something…. TOO many stories that sound alike… from credible ppl, too many reported sightings (even if 90% are bogus – still thats 10% who are seeing what?)

what it is i have no clue… wondered since i was a kid and saw that patterson film… always wondered WTF that thing was… was it real?… fake?

keep in mind, i’m in the business of design… i’ve seen visual effects artists do things you’d never think were humanly possible… so yes, i believe footprints can be hoaxed… (not saying they are all hoaxed, but they can be) same for video really and photos even easier (much less work in a still frame vs motion)…. with the 3d effects these guys do you’d never even know they did anything.

i’m just saying this because i feel the level of quality of evidence could be higher… we’re talking about bigfoot… not some new type of tiger.

Man, what a great sighting report. Sasquatch is like Chuck Norris, you don’t find him… he finds you… and when he does, you probably wished he hadn’t.

They must be teaching them more better stuff ’cause they got rid of all the unimportant stuff like art, music and PE…

“footprints while cool aren’t very interesting to look at and can easily be faked…”

No they can’t. It’s not easy to fool specialists in that very field, as Krantz, Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt all are. Krantz said that the sighting reports are immaterial: the footprints themselves constitute proof. The footprints brought Meldrum into the field. Chilcutt, internationally recognized for his expertise, came in to debunk Meldrum’s collection of fake prints. He wound up telling Meldrum: this is a real animal, Jeff, undescribed by science. What are you going to do about it? I’ll take them over people who just say prints can be faked.

(And anyone who thinks footprints aren’t interesting doesn’t get out much.)

“why the hell hasn’t anyone FOLLOWED the prints? (seems like a dumb thing to ask but i NEVER hear anything about this)… if you’re looking for the creature… and there’s prints… follow them to the thing…. duh.”

DWA’s First Rule of Prints: you will not find what made them, and you will almost never want to try.

Then of course there’s these guys:

Just a bear? These guys would have been all over who was gonna get to kill the bear with his knife.

Not to mention this: prints don’t make a straight line to the printer, which almost invariably winds up in places where prints don’t take.

There’s way too much evidence to spend much time on why don’t we…? We don’t; and still there’s the evidence, right there. We just need to find out what’s leaving all this evidence.

And here’s the weight I assign:

When thousands of accounts run true to form; when every shade of encounter one can imagine with a wild animal, at least someone has had with this one; when it stretches one’s concept of absurdity to say they’re all making it up; when (and it does) it stretches it far further to say that a random concatenation of lies, hoaxes and misidentifications is coming up with this consistent picture of an animal; when whatever this is is leaving footprints all over the place, that withstand scrutiny by expert specialists….

…then one needs to stop explaining it away with hand-waves, and determine what is causing it to happen.

dconstrukt: you seem to think that the evidence says there is something to this phenomenon. All I’m doing is agreeing with you. I think we both want to know; and I think it’s science’s job to tell us. The proponent scientists are holding up their end. Giving them their day in court is actually the mainstream’s job.

Alamo: they ain’t teachin’ ‘em half what I think they should be a-larnin’. But I survived too, and so did you, and let’s keep our fingers crossed.

You wrote, “How could you say this with zero evidence.”

My point, again, is: There is plenty of evidence. What weight you assign to it is your decision to make.

the video is harder to fake and more interesting to look at (not that one is more imp than the other but i’d rather watch a video than look at a footprint. lol)

the freeman one looks SICK… but does anyone know if its real or a hoax?

thing about the prints… why the hell hasn’t anyone FOLLOWED the prints? (seems like a dumb thing to ask but i NEVER hear anything about this)… if you’re looking for the creature… and there’s prints… follow them to the thing…. duh.

i like your idea too…. I’d just camera trap the HELL out of these high food populated areas bigfoots might go to… i.e. migration patterns of animals, plus food sources based on time of year…

like i keep saying i’d have a computer geek crunching data to find patterns most of these guys are totally missing.