• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

GT/CS said:
What is Meldrum's official area of expertise? Is he rendering an opinion as bear vs bigfoot as an expert or as a layperson?
Click to expand...

By degree and position he is an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology.

His specialty is physical anthropology and his specialization is in foot mechanics and he focuses on primates.

None of that qualifies him to know about bears but I could see him offering a legitimate qualified expert opinion as does the Jacobs pictures show evidence of a primate.

As experts often experience, he might not be qualified to tell you what something "is" but he would meet the qualifications to tell you what it is "not" since option 2 is an alleged primate.
 
Once again, we are experiencing another in a long list of "professional" expert analysis from the self proclaimed leader in ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science.

This highly professional group of self proclaimed "experts" and "investigators" all put on the tinfoil and plugged into the group hive to stretch skeletons of animals over a picture to determine this was a BF and nothing else.

In the normal world, it would have made better sense to go to the scene and canvass the area for physical evidence ( hair, teeth marks, prints,scat, bent blades of grass or whatever) and put it all together to build a legitimate case for proof this was something other than a bear. ( since one of the pictures clearly shows bears in the same timeframe)

Lets see, the bear experts say its a bear, a leading BF expert says its a bear, bear hunters say its a bear, the evidence on the same gamecam strongly suggests its probably a bear so all of that combined with no physical evidence from the site means its a bigfoot.

I can see where the fearless leader has a vested interest in keeping the kool aid tanks pouring because theres a financial incentive- what I dont understand is the rest.
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
Once again, we are experiencing another in a long list of "professional" expert analysis from the self proclaimed leader in ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science.

This highly professional group of self proclaimed "experts" and "investigators" all put on the tinfoil and plugged into the group hive to stretch skeletons of animals over a picture to determine this was a BF and nothing else.

In the normal world, it would have made better sense to go to the scene and canvass the area for physical evidence ( hair, teeth marks, prints,scat, bent blades of grass or whatever) and put it all together to build a legitimate case for proof this was something other than a bear. ( since one of the pictures clearly shows bears in the same timeframe)

Lets see, the bear experts say its a bear, a leading BF expert says its a bear, bear hunters say its a bear, the evidence on the same gamecam strongly suggests its probably a bear so all of that combined with no physical evidence from the site means its a bigfoot.

I can see where the fearless leader has a vested interest in keeping the kool aid tanks pouring because theres a financial incentive- what I dont understand is the rest.
Click to expand...

B is for bear, as in, it's a freakin bear and any half wit can see it is.
 
Not dead yet

I come out at least once a year to look for my shadow. I'm not dead yet, but this winter is going to be a long one.

As many of you know, I am a former BFRO member. I've also been on one expedition (didn't pay as a member). Here is an old BFF post of mine about BFRO expeditions that I made after exiting the BFRO.

If folks are wondering whether they should go on a BFRO expedition or not, it's entirely up to them. Here are the positives that even I see in the expeditions.

Most people on them have a good time--certainly not all, but most do. The few folks who have a bad time on these trips are in the minority.

You get to meet people who are just as interested in the subject as you are, and you get to talk about it openly. Where do you get to do that back at home?

You will meet Matt and BFRO members who can share their experiences and investigative techniques. All of them are pretty friendly, including Matt. You will form friendships with members and participants, and might even do more research with the people you like after the expedition is over. Those friendships may be long-lasting (as they have been for many). Put a bunch of strangers together with a common goal and they bond. That's what people do.

If Matt can arrange it, he will get a BFRO report submitter (i.e. a witness) to join the expedition and take you to the spot of their encounter. You'll hear a great story, and the word "story" doesn't mean I think it's BS.

The expeditions are typically in a place that is pleasant on the eyes and has the comforts of civilization close at hand. That's not a knock on location selection. If you can pick a place with toilets and hot showers, and stores within an easy drive, that's great. You don't stay in base camp when looking for these animals, so why not sleep and eat in a place that doesn't require lugging gear on your back for miles?

You'll stay up late sitting around for a stakeout, walk until you can't walk anymore, and drive all over kingdom come. You will cover a lot of ground as a group. Because participants are at various stages of fitness, the group splits up and everyone does what they are able to do.

Matt has guaranteed that you will at least hear vocals (at least that was up on the website at one point). When people go on BFRO expeditions, they report activity that they sincerely believe is indicative of sasquatches. That happens on many expeditions. Whether you buy what they are telling you or not is up to you. Without hard evidence to examine, everything is subject to interpretation. I have seen no indications of hoaxing, and I don't suspect Matt would or could do that.

If all the above makes it worth it to you, then go and don't let anyone stop you. It's your money. You will have a good time.

Negatives? Well, I've already addressed those ad nauseum both here and in other threads.

Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

I'll add a summary of my experiences on the expedition.

FWIW, I saw a couple of possible prints (separate), but that doesn't mean anything. I can find indentations in the ground in my local county park that look "possible". Others were far more certain of one of my "prints" than I was.

I did not experience any rockthrowing, eyeshine, or vocalizations. I didn't experience anything that couldn't be explained away. If it could be something else, I choose to believe it is most likely something else. I did see a lot of folks who wanted to believe, one participant could not walk 50 feet without finding a spot that he thought was a track. There were some folks who were less easily swayed.

I wasn't there for the purported rock-throwing incident near SF. I heard normal sounds regularly in the river. Rivers make noise, either by fish, beaver, or all by themselves (water was moving pretty fast).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You can get a group of friends together and have fun in the woods looking for BF sign, without paying a huckster...

Heck, I might even do that. Camping in the woods is fun, anyway.

The JREF bigfoot expedition...
 
It is my recollection that MM is correct and that Meldrum initially wavered towards sasquatch regarding the Jacobs photos. That's what I meant about Meldrum having only himself to blame.
 
“I was interviewed by Linda Moulton Howe as I looked at the pictures for the first time. I indicated that there were aspects that pointed to a bear, while some features looked rather unusual, even ape-like, e.g. the appearance of the limb proportions. The apparent shape and orientation of the shoulder blades, the length of the feet, and the posture however, seemed to point to bear. Some of the images posted on the internet appear to confirm the bear identification.”
Jeff Meldrum
 
Last edited:
From Howe's interview:

When I asked Prof. Meldrum about the infrared images, beginning with what BFRO calls Photograph 1 of an unidentified primate, Prof. Meldrum said, It's intriguing. His first thoughts were that the limb proportions in the photograph could NOT be a bear because they are so long. But he qualified that the infrared images might be a black bear that followed the two cubs a half hour earlier.
We also talked about the fact that the evolution of Sasquatch/Bigfoot from birth to adulthood is not known. Dr. Meldrum said it's possible that the young primates could have proportions more similar to a chimpanzee, as might be the case in these infrared images. That issue was provoked by the size of the feet in the infrared photographs, which are smaller in proportion to the legs than the very large feet on full grown adult Sasquatch.
Prof. Meldrum said the characteristics he uses to distinguish a human track from a Sasquatch track are:

- The Sasquatch footprints don't show arches like human feet do.

- Sasquatch prints are much wider.

- Sasquatch toe prints are much longer.

- Sasquatch heel prints are much wider than humans, particularly in contrast to the remainder of the foot.

Prof. Meldrum acknowledged that maybe some of those features don't manifest themselves until the Sasquatch individual has grown up and obtained a much greater bulk and weight (as an adult).

Finally, Prof. Meldrum stressed as Matthew Moneymaker says - that Sasquatch's apparent strategy is to avoid human contact whenever possible, which is why we don't know much about the mysterious creatures, whether young or adult.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Things that just make you sit back and wonder

>>>Sorry, I am no way trying to tease or be a "jerk".......I have seen my share of Squacthes and I have seen bear and primates...I am not an expert but...I know the difference in the 3..................also we just don't take the photo and go "yeaup thats it" we investigate and there was an investigation...but when you have a room full of veteran investigators and one person that has seen them almost his whole life and its 100% the same answer then ....what else can you say.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Hudson
BFRO Field Investigations

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=151130&threadid=1765624&page=12#4289689
 
This post may belong most appropriately in a thread more based on Bigfoot tracks in particular or even a new thread. In fact, without a doubt this post could be very appropriately placed in the thread "Fabricating Bigfoot Evidence -Is It Incompetence Or Deception". However, as it coming from the BFRO and is more of their silliness, I feel it is best placed here. There is also the fact that I can be sure that BFRO president Matt Moneymaker will be sure not to miss it here.

This post is regarding the BFRO's front page claims regarding Bigfoot snow tracks for the winter of 2008/2009. First I will provide a link to their main page on the subject:

http://bfro.net/news/SnowTracks/index.asp

The question of what Bigfoot does during the winter in northern latitudes is one that often is raised in the discussion of the plausibility of Bigfoot existing as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts. Most recently the issue was discussed at length between Vortigern99 and myself in which Bigfoot entering a kind of torpor was suggested. The conclusion of that part of the discussion by Vort and myself was that Bigfoot denning and entering hibernation or torpor was not a realistic answer for Bigfoot dealing with northern winters and its daily caloric needs while escaping classification.

Bigfoot snowtracks have often been discussed among Bigfoot skeptics at the JREF. From various methods of creating them to the many ways of misidentifying the impressions of known animals we have looked at the issue in great detail. Never in a single instance have we seen any case which posed any significant challenge to explain by means not including a massive bipedal non-human primate roaming winter landscapes and eluding modern science.

In the above link to the BFRO they present ten cases of alleged sasquatch snow tracks, one of which they have identified as being fake. It is my contention that in all other cases they are either misidentified or faked. I think in most cases misidentification is the most likely answer. I will even go as far as to suggest that it is no problem for the BFRO to reach the same conclusion but they do not do so in the interest of generating more "Bigfoot" evidence and thereby bring a greater sense of legitimacy to their endeavours.

Let's start with some quotes from that page regarding Bigfoot migration and hibernation meant to clarify the BFRO's position on the subjects.

Migration:

BFRO said:
The Relevance to Migration

Many people ask and wonder whether these animals migrate with the seasons, moving from the northern latitudes to the southern latitudes to avoid the snowy winters. No evidence, annecdotal or otherwise, suggests this pattern of seasonal migration. Whereas photos of snow tracks in the northern latitudes deep into winter suggest that the populations in those latitudes remain there throughout the year.

There is annecdotal data to suggest a pattern of elevation migration with the seasons in mountainous regions, but elevation migration would usually not take them out of the same county, or cluster of counties.
Click to expand...

Hibernation:

BFRO said:
The Relevance to Hibernation

Many people ask and wonder whether they hibernate during the winter in northern latitudes, like bears. There has never been any evidence, annecdotal or otherwise, to suggest they hibernate through the winter. Whereas photos of snow tracks in the northern latitudes deep into winter, along with dozens of other similar track finds in the past, in the snow, that were not photographed, suggest they do not hibernate like bears.
Click to expand...

So here we have the BFRO forwarding the concept of a massive North American mammal that unlike wolverines remain in relatively limited ranges and unlike bears do not den and enter a state torpor in the winter of northern latitudes. I think it takes very little critical thinking to realize that such conditions inevitably lead to situations where Bigfoot eluding identification is unlikely in the extreme. Can a Bigfoot scrounge 12,000 kcal/day in Wisconsin during the winter and not be discovered? I say not, nope, nuh-uh.

In following posts I will address each of the cases the BFRO lists individually but for now will quote their commentary on some of the most notable and discussion of the criteria for discerning what qualifies as sasquatch snow tracks (bolding and italics mine):

BFRO said:
Canadians and Americans need to become familiar with authentic sasquatch snow tracks, especially while there is still snow on the ground in many parts of the continent. With this in mind, the decision was made to release a gallery of track photos from recent weeks before many more details and analyses could be accumulated. Some initial assumptions may be corrected in time regarding some of these track finds.

A few issues naturally arise when presenting a collection of snow tracks photos: 1) How can we be so sure they not all fakes? 2) How can we be sure they are not misidentified animal tracks or misidentified human tracks? 3) What is significance of snow tracks of sasquatches?

Though we cannot be sure that all of them are authentic sasquatch tracks, we are indeed very confident that some of them are authentic sasquatch tracks. Along with the tracks that we strongly suspect are authentic, we've also included some images that may not show authentic tracks, to show some of the differences. For example, there is a set of photos taken north of Seattle (look for the red icon on the map), showing tracks that were faked. The tracks found in Ontario, Canada (shown with the yellow icon) are still undetermined because of how much they were degraded, but they may be the impressions of a rabbit hopping through the snow. The tracks found in North Dakota may be existing compressions of snow that were modified to look like a large foot -- partially faked.

The photos did not all come from one source. Some of the tracks were found by our own investigators in the field. Others came from random people. The photos from Wisconsin were taken two days after a daylight road-crossing sighting at that spot. We are very confident in those tracks, and well as the tracks from SE OH and those from Puget Sound, Washington. Those three can be regarded as standards to which all others can be compared.
Click to expand...

For now I'm going to start with a preliminary examination of the Wisconsin impressions. I call them impressions rather than tracks to distinguish the difference between the sign made by an animal's foot and those of an animal's entire body bounding through snow. The Wisconsin photo is the first shown on the above BFRO link and has the following description under it (bolding mine):

BFRO said:
This photo from Wisconisn continues to astound people. The snow was 18 inches deep. The larger tracks on the right were not made by a coyote or rabbit leaping through the snow. The tracks were made by a large sasquatch stepping through the snow, and stepping over the fence in the process. The sasquatch tracks intersect with a line of deer tracks. The sasquatch was probably trying to catch up to the deer. These Wisconsin photos show what many witnesses have described in the past -- a tall sasquatch easily stepping over a barbed wire fence without even slowing down. The sasquatch that made these tracks is likely 8-9 feet tall. Click the image for more information and to find a larger version.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the the southeast Wisconsin page:

http://bfro.net/news/SnowTracks/WI-tab.asp

What we see here is two lines of impressions in the snow. One has been attributed to a deer while the other has been unequivocally attirbuted to Bigfoot. Here is a quote from the top of the Wisconsin tracks page (bolding mine):

BFRO said:
These photos from southeast Wisconsin were taken on February 4th and 5th. A motorist spotted an apparent sasquatch crossing a rural road at 9 AM on February 2, 2009. He described a huge "jet black" bipedal animal. The photos were taken two days later when he and others returned to the area.

Other tracks were found and photographed 5 miles away the next day. Some of the tracks are made by known animals. Photos seven (7) and eight (8) apparently show impressions of a coyote leaping through the snow, but those were at a different location than the impressions shown in one (1) and two (2). Those first three photos were not made by a coyote or rabbit bounding through the snow.

The fence in photos one, two and three is 3 feet high. The squares in the fence are 6'' square. The snow is approximately 20'' deep at the fence.

In addition to the bipedal tracks there were many deer, turkey and small game tracks in the area.
Click to expand...

The BFRO's logic regarding these tracks that they have confidently labeled Bigfoot is that the Bigfoot was following a deer in what we can assume was a predatory behaviour. How have they done this? Why would a coyote not find and approach such tracks or even a rabbit? And hello, Mary. Is a giant top heavy bipedal ape fast enough to chase down a deer in snow??? The BFRO has ruled out coyote and rabbit as a source for the impressions. Here it is very important to note that in typical BFRO fashion, they have made it clear that detailed analyses have yet to be carried out. They give the excuse that eliciting further possible sasquatch snow tracks from readers is the reason for such impetus. This effectively negates the critical examination process in favour of accumulating further similar data. This is a ridiculousy flawed practice that basically allows them to sidestep scientific rigour and create the impression of having solid data set of winter Bigfoot evidence. They essentially throw the information out as Bigfoot evidence and leave it to heavily moderated discussion on their own Bigfoot forum to deal with further examination. A discussion monitored and moderated by those who have a vested interest in protecting the organization's proclamations of Bigfoot.

That thread is here:

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=163242&threadid=2026290

One very important aspect of discerning a line of impressions left by an animals bound through snow is that they are in basically straight lines and defined by the forward movements of the quadrapedal animal's jumping locomotion. Conveniently for them and to the facepalm reaction of those people not so desperate with confirmation bias is this apparently telltale signature of Bigfoot in the snow detailed in the second photo on the main snow track page from Pudget Sound, Washington (bolding mine):

BFRO said:
Authentic sasquatch tracks found by Derek Randles in the Puget Sound region of western Washington State, showing the classic long stride "high-wire" pattern. Click the image for more information.
Click to expand...

BFRO, why do you publish such goddamn stupid @#$%? Do you ever get brain freeze from the raging cognitive dissonance or is it always a warm and fuzzy feeling?

In the upcoming posts I will make on the subject and more of the individual claims I will detail more of what I see as flailingly uncritical thinking. For now I will offer one further quote from the main snow track page that I think illustrates what I think of as BFRO facepalm behaviour (bolding mine... oh wait, the whole thing is fall-down stupid again):

BFRO said:
Finding authentic sasquatch tracks in the snow is a unique, breathtaking experience. If you are ever so lucky, the scene will make your hair stand on end, as if your whole body knows that you cannot get away from this animal if it pursues you. Full grown sasquatches are large, swift, powerful apes that can easily overtake you and subdue you if they are so inclined. The fact that they don't do this (have only been known to do this in few cases where people have shot at them), should provide some comfort to people who may come across these types of tracks in remote areas.

Sasquatches won't hurt you or your children, even though they could, provided that you do not shoot at them. If you shoot guns at them, all bets are off in terms of how they might respond.
Click to expand...

There it is, people. Finding the impressions of small to medium sized mammals jumping through snow that you think are made by the Boss of the Woods will set you in awe. It will lay you low. You will know that they can squish you like a bug. Don't worry about this. They only do this when you try to shoot one and get real proof. This has happened but not often, OK, so don't worry about spending $300 to come with us. We don't allow guns. We just don't want anybody getting shot. Though there has never been a single verified case of sasquatch inflicted injury, we know where the trouble is. Your kids are safe.
 
Last edited:
Heh!
First an elk lay is a BF rolling in mud.
Now bounding deer impressions are BF running throught the snow.
Those wiley apemen!
Always disguising themselves as deer and other ungulates.
Crafty buggers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom