Cree Hunter Spots Bigfoot Near Wimindji, Que
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 29th, 2013
A creature with very, very big feet spotted near Wemindji
credit-Melvin Georgekish
Melvin Georgekish saw something last Saturday evening that he’s never seen before. A creature by the side of the road on the edge of the bush that was very, very big.
He’s posted photos of the creature’s footprints on his Facebook page.
He spoke with our reporter Peter Tardif. Peter asked Melvin to describe where he was, when he saw the creature.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
A black bear’s eyeshine is commonly described as red or orangish-red.
corrick,
Melvin Georgekish states during the interview he’s actually hunted bear and to my eyes at least the print more closely resembles a human foot than a bear’s paw.
Alan,
What Melvin Georgeish “thinks” he saw is meaningless. And not even with any secondary witnesses.
And Grover Krantz claimed he had developed a secret way of determining real from fake bigfoot fakes. He was intentionally sent a fake by scientific collegues which he proclaimed as genuine. Shortly after, he “retired.”
A bear in the woods. Zero proof. 100% immagination.
The book – “Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend” by Joshua Blu Buhs…..yes that’s his last name LOL talks about the hoaxing of Krantz. Whether its true or not…..with a last name like Blu Buhs Mmmmmmm I don’t know ;p
Corrick, you’re trying too hard.
What a native bear hunter thinks about what he saw matters much more than what someone who wasn’t there thinks about what he saw.
And that track? That isn’t bear. That isn’t human. But it looks just like a type sasquatch track would in that substrate.
I know something about that substrate. And if I crossed it with a heavy pack and lug boots, you wouldn’t see my tracks.
(And hearing this again, I just heard that he didn’t see his, either.)
Oh, if anyone who says he saw a sasquatch saw one, this guy did.
(Oh. That Krantz story? Never happened. Not that it would make a jot of difference if it had.)
The World According to corrick:
All eyewitness accounts are “meaningless”. You might have been correct if you had stooped to qualify your dismissal. But you didn’t; therefore your dismissal is meaningless.
This gentlemans story has impressed me.
WHAT? The armchair squatcher is WRONG?
Very credible witness. He hunts regularly, knows the flora and fauna of the area. He even goes back to look for evidence the next day. One must take that kind of eyewitness testimony into account.
There is a category of experience that can’t be legitimately second-guessed by anyone who did not experience the event. To really analyze it takes much more time, study and a less certain outcome than simply voting up or down because you are a “proponent”, or not…as if being convinced of Sasquatch, or not, is just the same as voting straight-ticket, or rooting for a sports team. It is a source of some frustration for those who want to do that, I get that, but it is what it wants to be, and is.
Once you get past the obvious physical realities, touching on probabilities (as DWA mentions), the only truth you are likely to confirm will come only after reading and listening to as many of these reports as you can, and looking at them as a body of evidence… not each in its own silo, not to be compared or contrasted with any other. When that kind of analysis starts to be done more often, by more folks, we’ll be that much farther along towards understanding this body of evidence. As long as each Sasquatch sighting report is treated like a data set of “one”, we won’t.
As much as I can say? Consistent. Surprising? Far from it. If you want to know what this report tells you, you’re going to have to read a whole lot of them, and go deep into the evidence. If you haven’t, but still want to dismiss it out of hand, you’re just not being serious about the discipline and you’re only shooting your mouth off on the internet. If you HAVE done the heavy lifting, and want to discuss how this report compares and contrasts to many others, or not, I’m all ears.
Very thoughtful reply, ploughboy. The study of Bigfoot reports needs this approach, or “discipline”, if you will.
Ploughboy:
Bing. And Go.
Do you want to look at this the way a scientist should (for examples, see: Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel)? Or not?
If not: that’s just a rant you are doing, and not to be taken seriously.
Don’t bring the mainstream in front of me. When you are not doing your homework, Junior, it is obvious.
Jeff and John: Gold stars.
The rest of you: Ploughboy just put the assignment on the chalkboard. Gotta read that, kiddies.
Are you being treated for that schizoaffectivity? And who are Jeff and John? Imaginary playmates?
Your reply doesn’t seem to be the product of an ordered mind. JUNIOR.
DWA “(Oh. That Krantz story? Never happened. Not that it would make a jot of difference if it had.)”
Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America’s Enduring Legend,
David J. Daegling, page 175
corrick: Well, given the quality of his other arguments, Daegling would really need a story like that somewhere.
And the implication, even if it were true, is: Old man makes mistake.
So bigfoot isn’t real…?
Goodfoot: read it again, this time with meds. I can wait.
(Particularly for you to identify Jeff and John. Right there in the post, two seconds to find it, max.)
This field could use more ordered minds. But they’ll have to pay me to get full use of my talents in that regard.
DWA: You work cheap, huh?
Judging only by the company I keep sometimes, one might think.
Other than that: I do wish more people would get read up on this so as not to limit the intellectual spectrum of exchanges, if one gets one’s drift.
DWA,
David Daegling is one of the most respected anthropologists in America. He doesn’t “make up” stories. Everything he writes is fully sourced and documented. The Krantz anecdote is true.
Is bigfoot real? Most certainly it exists in people’s minds. In the physical world and in North America? No. But we can all wish really hard it does.
Corrick: no wishing needed. Just evidence. This hunter dealt with it.
Daegling didn’t. Your faith in him is touching, however.
Oh. Corrick?
That’s what I mean by “rant.” What gives me – anyone – reason to go with it?
Daegling’s handling of Patty invalidates his credentials. The hunter’s handling of this case? Credentials in action. Sublime.
That’s all, folks. According to DWA, it’s a waste of time and energy, and we can all go home and watch FINDING BIGFOOT reruns.
I’m of the opinion that the quest for Bigfoot is not a job for anthropologists. After there is proof, then, and only then, does the job of anthropologists come into play.
Maybe I’m all wet, but how much Bigfoot evidence has found its way to the community due to the work of anthropologists? Anthropology is an office job; they just don’t have the boots on the ground, in the field, and they never will.
Alas, poor Corrick: we know you all too well.
I have to hand it to ploughboy he’s summed it up nicely ! I am surprised DWA takes issue with him if I understand the situation properly. Sceptics tend to argue anecdotal evidence not 100% is worthless even when many reports are added together. Not so, the value can be related to quantity. A case for never mind the quality feel the width !
Then some reports are intrinsicaly wonderful. and its quality over quantity. Of course, as in so many aspects of life, it can be a matter of judgement and a managed open mind is the aproppriate tool !
Ok, folks, while I am deciding which of you gets today’s award for Worst Failure To Understand A Plain Post:
Ploughboy’s post is what I would have put up if he hadn’t beat me to it (and yeah he said it about as well as anyone could), and my first post after his was 140.5% agreement.
Why Crypto Fails To Get Legs: playing Telephone with posts might be part of it.
————————————–
Goodfoot: not so fast, I haven’t decided where today’s award goes yet. But the very reason (among, OK, others) that Crypto Fails To Get Legs is the failure of committed professional scientists to get committed to solving serious questions…or to staying the hell out of the discussion when they don’t know what they are talking about. Where have amateurs gotten us? Some of them a significant way; I won’t list for fear of missing names I shouldn’t. Proponents know it’s real. Not seeing the society follow in lockstep behind them, now are we?
Barring luck no one can foresee, unless the mainstreams of primatology and anthropology get seriously involved in solving this (and the existence of Finding Bigfoot is about the strongest indictment of their lack of involvement one could come up with), forget solving this.
———————————-
And corrick, I couldn’t resist another crack at this:
“David Daegling is one of the most respected anthropologists in America. He doesn’t “make up” stories. Everything he writes is fully sourced and documented. The Krantz anecdote is true.”
Why? Because one guy says so? One story? What documentation, other than that one page in a book that badly misrepresents the evidence? (And right, it doesn’t matter anyway. Couldn’t resist, though.)
Daegling is one of the guys that Max Planck says has to go away for the next generation of scientists to break new ground. Yeahyeah, fully sourced, most respected, yadayada. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman says that science is, essentially, belief in the ignorance of folks like that.
And everyone who’s a Nobel laureate knows that. That’s how they got to be Nobel laureates.
🙂
Yep. Cynicism is downright dangerous.
A serious question for the lists bigfoot experts here.
Does anyone know who currently holds the copyrights to the P-G film?
For reasons I don’t clearly understand, Rene Dahinden at some point shared some copyright ownership with Roger Patterson’s widow. But what about Robert Gimlin?
Does anyone have any factual information on the modern copyright ownership of the P-G film? Or where I might look? Thanks for any reply.
First off, I am NOT any kind of “expert” on the ownership of the P-G film. But I seem to remember that Patterson’s widow held the rights. I don’t know if she’s still living, but I’d imagine rights would pass on to his children.
Jeff Meldrum might be the single best person to ask about this. Craig? Any info?
corrick I think it’s Roger’s widow, as I was in Mike Rugg’s museum a couple of weeks ago and he had it on a continual loop, and he mentioned it was thanks to her that he could play it like that.