Comments on: First Bigfoot Investigator Was Crook?

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:32:38 +0000

I always thought it looked two-dimensional, like a drawing, much in the style of Frazetta.

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:27:44 +0000

FAME! NOTORIETY! PAID TALK-SHOW CAREER. GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS!

Funny, I had just wandered over to his site, by accident, if there’s such a thing. Returned to check Cryptomundo, and there it is! I don’t know if someone is following me, or I’m following them, not sure….

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:49:38 +0000

I wasn’t aware that the upward looking creature picture had been positively identified as a toy.
Meldrum was easily schooled about using cooking oil to separate plaster from stone.
I’m a sculptor and not only cooking oil, but soap, 1/2 alcohal 1/2 baby powder, vaseline, hair grease-etc…will work as separator…
Hey Cliff, You go baby! I think your basement sounds cool too!

By: Mik

Mik — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:22:30 +0000

He got a segment on KOMO-TV, Channel 4 here in the Pac Northwest. His story didn’t sound too convincing, but it was a short segment, with most of it being background.

By: loopstheloop

loopstheloop — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:10:52 +0000

The U.S.A. is a strange country.

By: korollocke

korollocke — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:44:24 +0000

So he’s the one who took a pic of a toy/little model on a lawn using forced perspective to try to make it look like bigfoot?

By: seesdifferent

seesdifferent — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:58:49 +0000

Whatever footprints or other evidence Crook has “found” in the past now become highly questionable and not suitable for scientific purposes.

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:41:29 +0000

Crook’s claims regarding a hominin-like origin for some of the Paluxy River tracks is not credible. Even highly regarded Institute for Creation Research spokesman John D. Morris, Ph.D., discounted the tracks, noting their dinosaurian or, at best, uncertain origin and the history of misinterpretation. Although he softens his verdict with the typical “continued research is in order” statement often employed by researchers, he concluded that it was “improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution.”

http://is.gd/7dHe8