Fabricating Bigfoot Evidence -Is It Incompetence Or Deception

[marlborough]

How is it that everything surrounding the existence of Bigfoot is always cloaked by a cloud of uncertainty, doubt and deception? Topping this list is an endless stream of UNKNOWN biological material that is never subjected to the full extent of scientific scrutiny but accepted wholeheartedly as evidence by the hardcore believers. Quite fitting that the term “UNKNOWN” is utilized so often in this vain and futile quest. Even more appropriate is that words such as concrete, conclusive and irrefutable are conveniently absent from the squatching vocabulary. So how should we treat all of this unsubstantiated Bigfoot evidence that the most outspoken squatch fanatics continuously regurgitate. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that this material is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that serve to maintain an ongoing illusion known as Bigfoot. Ultimately, it’s no better than all the distorted blobsquatch photos that have accumulated over the past half century.

Let’s consider where information of this dubious evidence is documented. I’m sure those of us not corrupted by what I like to describe as a squatch fetish, have all noticed that this data can only be found on pseudo/crypto websites that are not regulated to say the least. Aside from that, the only other medium for this information is on sites such as Wiki, where anyone is permitted to post anything they please. So is this merely a coincidence? Is it a conspiracy of main stream science to refuse acknowledgement of this evidence and exiling it to the realm of the paranormal? Not quite.

For researchers desperately trying to prove the existence of BF, isn't it odd that only a superficial analysis of this material was conducted. In fact, using the word "analysis" is perhaps too strong. To achieve the status of “Unknown Animal”, only a lackadaisical comparison is performed gauging it to a limited number of specimens on hand. In essence, a loose and highly subjective test was carried out to insure the results came back as inconclusive. An all too common practice among squatchers to perpetuate a fairytale. So it’s quite appropriate that these misleading results are found on such obscure websites and never collaborated to any extent.

So one must begin to question why a more thorough analysis was not carried out. Surely even the most uneducated of Squatchologists realize that hair and fecal samples are capable of yielding DNA. DNA that can validate the existence of an unknown primate. Is it possible that the reluctance of allowing DNA experts to examine this evidence stems from lessons learned from previous experiences. Unpleasant lessons where BF evidence has always been debunked each and every time it was submitted for DNA extraction. The Manitoba bison hair and the blood from Snelgrove are just the latest of such disappointing results. It’s no wonder that only comparative studies have been conducted because digging any further such as obtaining DNA serves only to have this evidence quickly dismissed. Quite a sad state of affairs when you think about it. As I alluded to so many times before, you cannot call something evidence when you refuse to allow mainstream science access. Just like that hair that was found in Squatch Attack part I that was concluded to exhibit unknown morphology.

Doesn’t this create a delicious irony? We have the childish-like antics of our Squatch Junkies that are constantly complaining about how mainstream science never gets involved in this asinine endeavor. At the same time, those who are in possession of this evidence are fearful of what the outcome would be and deny access to anyone within the scientific community, with the exception of only the most devoted of BF proponents such as Dr. MonsterQuest Nelson and Henner Fahrenbach. Sort of a Catch 22 scenario.
I suspect that this is how BF evidence will be presented in the future. Creating the illusion that science is involved by conducting a token comparison study to a minimal number of biological samples of known animals. When that is completed, the all too familiar declaration of a yet to be discovered species is made. And to ensure the samples are never proven false, access is restricted to only a select number of hardcore Squatchologists. After all, any further examination of this evidence could jeopardize the existence of this mythical creature. So it’s locked away somewhere from the prying eyes of the scientific community thus allowing them to maintain a healthy population of naïve squatch followers.

The only question that remains, is it incompetence or deception that compels those who make such premature and erroneous conclusions.

[kitakaze]

For researchers desperately trying to prove the existence of BF, isn't it odd that only a superficial analysis of this material was conducted. In fact, using the word "analysis" is perhaps too strong. To achieve the status of “Unknown Animal”, only a lackadaisical comparison is performed gauging it to a limited number of specimens on hand.

Not quite what you were referring to but that reminded me of this:

Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking.1) When confidently pronouncing that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking," what was your sample base? IOW, how many humans did you compare to?First....In response to kitakaze's question, quoted above..."How many humans did I compare Patty to?"

Enough humans, for my liking. :)

That would be a footer being incompetent and intellectually dishonest.

He almost certainly only looked at improperly compared images of Bob Heironimus and Jim MacLarin only before making that proclamation as fact.

Here we see with a properly scaled comparison of Bob Heironimus and Patty by Astrophotographer that the arm lengths and height is a match and Sweaty is on desperate footer wishful thinking crack:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=838

[LONGTABBER PE]

Its deliberate

Trying to get legitimate BF evidence to properly test is like trying to get a straight answer from VFF.

Its like a thread on the BFF regarding Bindernagle's sighting. We are about at the 3 year mark and nothing. All these BFRO "field studies" and NOTHING.

Some of them treat their BF "info" as if it was a defense secret and fail to understand that we created the atom bomb from scratch in less time than BF investigators have produces"absolutelt nothing".

Thus is the tenet and canon of ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT science.

Its like the "never ending story" multiplied by Grand Pa's lab marinated in Granny's "rume-a-tizm" medicine promoted by Gilligan trying to sell it to the Vulcan Science Academy.

[Vortigern99]

Depending on the individual, it seems to be a mixture of intentional deception, technical incompetence and unconscious self-deception in order to protect cherished beliefs.

[desertgal]

Depending on the individual, it seems to be a mixture of intentional deception, technical incompetence and unconscious self-deception in order to protect cherished beliefs.

Agreed. As well, imaginary Bigfoot is a lot more fun, and a lot easier. You don't even need to leave home. You just need Photoshop. :D

[Astrophotographer]

Here we see with a properly scaled comparison of Bob Heironimus and Patty by Astrophotographer that the arm lengths and height is a match and Sweaty is on desperate footer wishful thinking crack:

I would not call it "properly scaled". It is far more accurately scaled than Sweaty's which was significantly off. Maybe we should use the term "scaled reasonably close". I don't think you can not accurately scale any two images of two subjects in different poses taken with two different cameras.

[Astrophotographer]

People create hoaxes for numerous reasons and one can not say why it is done. However, the proponents of bigfoot reality need to be very critical of their work. Some items are blindly accepted by the mass of proponents who do not understand the work. They simply parrot the things they see and read. I want to replicate the work when I see somebody tell me the subject in the PGF is 7 feet tall. This seems to be sadly missing in those supporting the reality of bigfoot. A healthy dose of skeptical thinking is what is needed.

[Skeptical Greg]

Depending on the individual, it seems to be a mixture of intentional deception, technical incompetence and unconscious self-deception in order to protect cherished beliefs.


Nominated ..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4588596&postcount=120

[Vortigern99]

In my own case, when I began my research I suffered from a combination of technical incompetence, since I was focusing on one aspect of the P-G figure, namely the right arm and back, to the exclusion of other observable phenomena in the film, namely material folds in the legs; and self-deception, based in credulity, which resulted in the aforementioned tunnel vision. There was no intentional deception of others, but I was in error just the same.

EDIT: Greg, thanks for the nomination, whatever it may mean and however it may benefit me, if at all. :)

[kitakaze]

Where are my manners? Almost forgot... Welcome to the JREF, Marlborough.:)

[Drewbot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJWdh6MMto0&feature=PlayList&p=47A42658A085F31A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

at 3:55 look at the heel on that cast.

Now look at what is purported to be the heel of the Sasquatch at 5:52. 1. what beast would push its heel into the mud for purchase?, 2. What kind of heel sticks out like that?

Could it be an ELK Knee you might ask?
Err- Nope. See Colubus' post here http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3251&view=findpost&p=67084

In all aspects of the investigating of elk, it was found that:

1) The size was wrong.
2) The shape of the impression itself was wrong.
3) The "heel impressions" of the Skookum cast were much larger, more deeply impressed, and the wrong shape to be from and elk. (They were in fact the exactly "right" shape for a bipedal primate however).
4) The hair flow pattern found on the cast could not have been impressed by an elk unless the animal had repeatedly (4x) got up and selectively impressed certain portions of its anatomy overlapping each other, without ever leaving tracks when it stood.

Now take a look at the Desert Yeti thread, basically showing exactly what the Skookum cast is. http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15569

After reading both Colubus' and DY's threads, how can one honestly look at the cast, and still come away with anything other than 'Elk Lay'?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1970549de19759c370.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15978)

What bipedal primate would get up using just it's heels for purchase?

Bigfoot you say?

Really?!?
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/really-with-seth-and-amy-spitzer/229475/

[Correa Neto]

No, I say it a print from King Kong's right foot. I can make out the toes, big toes and even the mid-tarsal break.

:duck:

[rockinkt]

After reading both Colubus' and DY's threads, how can one honestly look at the cast, and still come away with anything other than 'Elk Lay'?

Only the deluded or the people who cannot admit that they were wrong will cling to that being anything remotely resembling evidence for the existence of squatch.


edited to add...If there is a nomination for poor sentence structure - I am surely leading the pack.

[Telaynay's G'son]

Depending on the individual, it seems to be a mixture of intentional deception, technical incompetence and unconscious self-deception in order to protect cherished beliefs.

You left out the economic motivation for keeping the kool-aid sipping true believers in tow, aka: mining the miners.

[Miss_Kitt]

I think there are Believers, who deceive themselves or out of their own ignorance; and also there are Frauds, who use this as a game and/or source of income.

I was surprised to discover that the hardware store in Cle Elum, WA -- just past the Safeway off the first freeway exit as you head east--has a plethora of Bigfoot books. There must have been 7 or more different titles! There must be a True Believer in town, or it's being used as a jumping off point for Bigfoot hunting expeditions.

[xblade]

Let me share what just happened with you folks. A neighbor came over and told us that there was a big ol' dead black bear just down the road from my house. I knew there were bears in this county, but that's getting a little close for comfort. So, I hop in the jeep, and take a ride to check it out. I find the carcass, and think to myself "that's a funny looking bear", and stop to check it out. Turns out this big ol' black bear was a freakin' black cow! That's right, my neighbor saw this motionless, dead cow on the side of the road, in broad daylight, under a cloudless, sun-filled sky.....and thought it was a bear. Upon learning her bear was actually a cow, my neighbor told me she was wondering why that bear had such a long tail, lol.

Incompetence? Who knows...but I don't doubt for a minute that many folks are misidentifying bigfoot for one reason or another.

[Vortigern99]

The term "regional expectations" comes to mind: a mindset in which reported local phenomena, either legendary or actual, influence (distort) the thoughts and perceptions of an area's populace.

This phenomenon, combined with the known human tendency to desire a profound experience of wonder and awe, probably explains 90% of all bigfoot sightings. The other 10%, perhaps, is willful manufacture (read: hoaxing).

[kitakaze]

Let me share what just happened with you folks. A neighbor came over and told us that there was a big ol' dead black bear just down the road from my house. I knew there were bears in this county, but that's getting a little close for comfort. So, I hop in the jeep, and take a ride to check it out. I find the carcass, and think to myself "that's a funny looking bear", and stop to check it out. Turns out this big ol' black bear was a freakin' black cow! That's right, my neighbor saw this motionless, dead cow on the side of the road, in broad daylight, under a cloudless, sun-filled sky.....and thought it was a bear. Upon learning her bear was actually a cow, my neighbor told me she was wondering why that bear had such a long tail, lol.

Incompetence? Who knows...but I don't doubt for a minute that many folks are misidentifying bigfoot for one reason or another.

That is an excellent story, xblade. Geez, that bear has a long tail.:boggled:

She didn't just see some amorphous black heap and assume bear she looked close enough to observe a tail that was completely unlike a bear's but still she decided bear.

Surely if someone can mistake something bovine for something ursine, then people mistaking porcupines for primates is not so shocking.

[LONGTABBER PE]

That is an excellent story, xblade. Geez, that bear has a long tail.:boggled:

She didn't just see some amorphous black heap and assume bear she looked close enough to observe a tail that was completely unlike a bear's but still she decided bear.

Surely if someone can mistake something bovine for something ursine, then people mistaking porcupines for primates is not so shocking.


I kinda disagree with that LOL

[kitakaze]

It took me literally a matter of minutes to confirm thefirstbillyjack's video was a porcupine. It should be shocking that Bigfoot enthusiasts are seriously considering this to be a baby Bigfoot but I've seen enough facepalm behaviour by now to know better. :D

[xblade]

That is an excellent story, xblade. Geez, that bear has a long tail.:boggled:

She didn't just see some amorphous black heap and assume bear she looked close enough to observe a tail that was completely unlike a bear's but still she decided bear.



There's still an air of mystery to my story though, namely why there was even a cow on the side of that road. There are no farms, pastures, etc in that area, so there is no reason for a cow to be there. I didn't check to see if it had been mutilated in any way, so maybe a ufo dropped it off after conducting their experiments. I guess according to sweaty, until proven conclusively one way or another, this IS a possibility. :D

[Czarcasm]

If evidence is fabricated, it is deception-this isn't a debate, it is a statement of fact, and the thread should be closed, imho.

[jhunter1163]

I think there are Believers, who deceive themselves or out of their own ignorance; and also there are Frauds, who use this as a game and/or source of income.

I was surprised to discover that the hardware store in Cle Elum, WA -- just past the Safeway off the first freeway exit as you head east--has a plethora of Bigfoot books. There must have been 7 or more different titles! There must be a True Believer in town, or it's being used as a jumping off point for Bigfoot hunting expeditions.

Probably the latter. That whole Easton/Salmon la Sac/Cle Elum region is prime Bigfoot country. Fairly remote, but enough Forest Service roads and whatnot around that it's not totally inaccessible. Ideal for your weekend Squatch hunter.

[Vortigern99]

If evidence is fabricated, it is deception-this isn't a debate, it is a statement of fact, and the thread should be closed, imho.

Well, the wording of the thread question is a little unclear, and also presents a false dichotomy, but apart from that, the intention of the thread is quite pointed: to discuss what is underlying the thousands of bigfoot sightings, and all the supposed evidence put forward by the various experts in this field.

Is it simply the Rotterdam phenomenon (in which a baby panda, dead within minutes of its escape from the Rotterdam, Holland zoo, was reported in over 1000 places around the city in two days' time)?

Is it the human tendency to seek out an experience of wonder and awe?

Is it scientific incompetence?

Is it willful deception and manufacture?

Is it self-delusion?

Is it all of these, a combination of some of them, or something else entirely?

It's hard to fit all that in the thread title. ;)

[clayflingythingy]

I live in central Ky but a number of friends live/lived in the eastern part of the state in the mountains. A couple of friends have told me matter of factly that mountain lions roam the hills of eastern Ky. Now, they have never seen one but know people who have. They accept this and when I point out that there is no evidence of a breeding population of mountain lions in eastern Ky they'll come off with something like "well, I know they're there".

Bigfoot advocates fall into much the same catagory. They know BF exists even if there is no evidence.

ETA: And one of them was aware of and made a big deal about the mt lion kitten that was struck and killed on a Ky parkway back in the '90s.

[Miss_Kitt]

clayfling -- that dead mountain lion kitten back in the '90s is more physical evidence of the existance of Kentucky cougars than all of Bigfootery has been able to produce for the existance of Bigfoot in its entire history!! After all, there was an identifiable, testable, tangible, seen-by-authorities body!

[Telaynay's G'son]

This (attachments) may be helpful in illustrating the catalyst root cause(s)...

http://66.116.163.81/

http://www.somethingstinksinskinneyville.blogspot.com/

[learner]

There's still an air of mystery to my story though, namely why there was even a cow on the side of that road. There are no farms, pastures, etc in that area, so there is no reason for a cow to be there. I didn't check to see if it had been mutilated in any way, so maybe a ufo dropped it off after conducting their experiments. I guess according to sweaty, until proven conclusively one way or another, this IS a possibility. :D

Did it show any signs of having been thrown?

[GT/CS]

Here's an example of eye shine. What a great gag!

From the BFF:

Interestingly enough someone had taken these two reflectors and wrapped them in black electrical tape. The outcome of the taping gave the reflectors the look of evil eyes. Then the two were mounted so they looked like two eyes facing away from the tree. They were mounted about four and a half feet off the ground with four drywall screws. The reflectors themselves were red and framed in a silver colored metal oval frame for mounting. They looked like those mounted on trailers.

[makaya325]

I think the continous fabrication of Bigfoot evidence is proof that humans will go through alot to believe that our prehistoric ancestors are still alive. Its simply a very unique meme, kind of connecting with real terrifying animals.

[xblade]

I live in central Ky but a number of friends live/lived in the eastern part of the state in the mountains. A couple of friends have told me matter of factly that mountain lions roam the hills of eastern Ky. Now, they have never seen one but know people who have. They accept this and when I point out that there is no evidence of a breeding population of mountain lions in eastern Ky they'll come off with something like "well, I know they're there".

Bigfoot advocates fall into much the same catagory. They know BF exists even if there is no evidence.


One big difference between the two: mountain lions have actually been proven to exist, so at least they're referring to real creatures.

[tornado]

why dont you ask the MABRC, LOL there the expert. LOL

[LONGTABBER PE]

why dont you ask the MABRC, LOL there the expert. LOL

"There" the expert? Where is "there"?

BTW, whats it like to be branded?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2610349e9c0b9d654e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16072)

[tornado]

"There" the expert? Where is "there"?

BTW, whats it like to be branded?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2610349e9c0b9d654e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16072)




Branded????? LOL----what branded????---oh you talking about the chicken crab of a sight called mabrc, ?---LOL---I`m so upset--ROFLMAO

[learner]

Branded????? LOL----what branded????---oh you talking about the chicken crab of a sight called mabrc, ?---LOL---I`m so upset--ROFLMAO

I realy am trying to follow all of this, but- mabrc looks like a chicken crab? :boggled:

[makaya325]

One big difference between the two: mountain lions have actually been proven to exist, so at least they're referring to real creatures.

Also, Mountain Lions are not that rare at all. Despite their stealthy activities, we can easily tag and track them.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I realy am trying to follow all of this, but- mabrc looks like a chicken crab? :boggled:

What exactly is a chicken crab?

[tornado]

What exactly is a chicken crab?




Its what you scrap off the bottom of your boots, when you come out of the chicken house. its crab when you type to fast---its crap---when ya dont, dont ya know.:D

[learner]

What exactly is a chicken crab?

A Crab with a yellow streak down its back, presumably. :)

[makaya325]

Longtabber, since you are an Alleged Sasquatch proponent, dont you think programs like monsterquest are doing more harm than good?

[kitakaze]

I realy am trying to follow all of this, but- mabrc looks like a chicken crab? :boggled:

I will just mention this once as it is off-topic but tornado is referencing that he has come out as Bullet Maker and has now departed the MABRC acrimoniously.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber, since you are an Alleged Sasquatch proponent, dont you think programs like monsterquest are doing more harm than good?

That depends on what category you are referring to.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber, since you are an Alleged Sasquatch proponent, dont you think programs like monsterquest are doing more harm than good?

Oh BTW,

How long do you think your new handle on the BFF will last this time?

[kitakaze]

Oh BTW,

How long do you think your new handle on the BFF will last this time?

A third??

Little mak, you know BFF is not the only Bigfoot forum. I recently started posting again at one called searchforbigfoot that I joined two years ago. I got a three day timeout for mocking a guy that posted a video of a porcupine as a baby Bigfoot and running away from it. You could always post there.

[LONGTABBER PE]

A third??

Little mak, you know BFF is not the only Bigfoot forum. I recently started posting again at one called searchforbigfoot that I joined two years ago. I got a three day timeout for mocking a guy that posted a video of a porcupine as a baby Bigfoot and running away from it. You could always post there.

Try GC ( giganto Canada) Its last week when it was made, the first thing he did was revive one of Blue Bears threads that had been silent for a few months and then addressed BB's statement.

Same pattern as with the "duke"

[GT/CS]

A third??

Little mak, you know BFF is not the only Bigfoot forum. I recently started posting again at one called searchforbigfoot that I joined two years ago. I got a three day timeout for mocking a guy that posted a video of a porcupine as a baby Bigfoot and running away from it. You could always post there.

And if they'll tolerate Creekfreak they'll put up with Mak.

[Telaynay's G'son]

It is a combination of the two possibilities mentioned in the OP as many involved in Bigfootery enter the situation with preconceptions such as that anything happening or found in the forest is the work of BF and simply try to back into a foregone assumption and seek validation thereof.

Combine that into a recipe containing the likes of BM/Tornado (the original purveyor of fantasy oil) and DO (poster child for ego and anger management gone postal) and it quickly becomes apparent this "field" is primarily an asylum operated by it's inmates.

[makaya325]

It is a combination of the two possibilities mentioned in the OP as many involved in Bigfootery enter the situation with preconceptions such as that anything happening or found in the forest is the work of BF and simply try to back into a foregone assumption and seek validation thereof.

Combine that into a recipe containing the likes of BM/Tornado (the original purveyor of fantasy oil) and DO (poster child for ego and anger management gone postal) and it quickly becomes apparent this "field" is primarily an asylum operated by it's inmates.

Thats not to say that the WHOLE field is comprised of wackos. There are good researchers like Kitakaze, longtabber pe, and bill.

[kitakaze]

Thats not to say that the WHOLE field is comprised of wackos. There are good researchers like Kitakaze, longtabber pe, and bill.

There are important distinctions to be made there. Both Bill and Longtabber for separate reasons believe in Bigfoot. I do not. Some Bigfoot enthusiasts might call Bill Munns a Bigfoot researcher, though I think he might argue the idea. Now, about the concept of research and Bigfoot. I have made a habit of being careful to use the term "Bigfoot searchers" rather than "Bigfoot researchers". There are two reasons for this. The lesser, which I'll mention first, is that I don't wan't to use the term "Bigfoot hunter" when it connotates a pro-kill position that so many Bigfoot enthusiasts are so enthusiastically against.

The more important reason is for the purposes of critical thinking. I don't use the term "Bigfoot researcher" as it implies a reality to the object referred to. It would be like saying "perpetual motion researcher". The person pursuing the concept may believe it be real but that does not make it so. Bigfoot enthusiasts, like perpetual motion enthusiasts, are searching for something that always eludes their grasp. You might wan't to tell me that I'm being unreasonable because perpetual motion defies physics while Bigfoot does not. Let me be clear, the simple concept of an upright bipedal hirsute non-human primate is not ridiculous at all. We know such creatures (ex. Paranthropus boisei) have existed. They don't defy any laws of biology or physics. Bigfoot, as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts, often defies basic realities of zoology, biology, and physics.

I write about Bigfoot and Bigfootery. I often research claims of Bigfoot evidence. But there is nobody in this world so far that has shown they are in fact researching Bigfoot.

[makaya325]

There are important distinctions to be made there. Both Bill and Longtabber for separate reasons believe in Bigfoot. I do not. Some Bigfoot enthusiasts might call Bill Munns a Bigfoot researcher, though I think he might argue the idea. Now, about the concept of research and Bigfoot. I have made a habit of being careful to use the term "Bigfoot searchers" rather than "Bigfoot researchers". There are two reasons for this. The lesser, which I'll mention first, is that I don't wan't to use the term "Bigfoot hunter" when it connotates a pro-kill position that so many Bigfoot enthusiasts are so enthusiastically against.

The more important reason is for the purposes of critical thinking. I don't use the term "Bigfoot researcher" as it implies a reality to the object referred to. It would be like saying "perpetual motion researcher". The person pursuing the concept may believe it be real but that does not make it so. Bigfoot enthusiasts, like perpetual motion enthusiasts, are searching for something that always eludes their grasp. You might wan't to tell me that I'm being unreasonable because perpetual motion defies physics while Bigfoot does not. Let me be clear, the simple concept of an upright bipedal hirsute non-human primate is not ridiculous at all. We know such creatures (ex. Paranthropus boisei) have existed. They don't defy any laws of biology or physics. Bigfoot, as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts, often defies basic realities of zoology, biology, and physics.

I write about Bigfoot and Bigfootery. I often research claims of Bigfoot evidence. But there is nobody in this world so far that has shown they are in fact researching Bigfoot.


That is interesting Kitz, although im not sure if Long is even a proponent, because he said his encounter was not sure. The idea of a king kong sized mammal living in the 1000's in the most developed continent in the world defies logic. Is it a fact that Bill has came out with his belief in Bigfoot?

[kitakaze]

That is interesting Kitz, although im not sure if Long is even a proponent, because he said his encounter was not sure. The idea of a king kong sized mammal living in the 1000's in the most developed continent in the world defies logic. Is it a fact that Bill has came out with his belief in Bigfoot?

Well, for Longtabber I suppose it's a matter personal distinction. This is a skeptics website where we focus on skeptical issues. Longtabber is free to focus on whatever issues he likes but here he chooses to focus on problematic issues regarding Bigfoot.

Bill Munns long ago stated his beliefs regarding Bigfoot and interest in other cryptids. His thread would probably be the best place to continue discussion on that.

[makaya325]

Well, for Longtabber I suppose it's a matter personal distinction. This is a skeptics website where we focus on skeptical issues. Longtabber is free to focus on whatever issues he likes but here he chooses to focus on problematic issues regarding Bigfoot.

Bill Munns long ago stated his beliefs regarding Bigfoot and interest in other cryptids. His thread would probably be the best place to continue discussion on that.

I never have read any of Longtabber's posts, either here or on the bff, praising any form of so called evidence. Maybe it is because Longtabber has a high standard of what is considered evidence. "The acid test"

[kitakaze]

I never have read any of Longtabber's posts, either here or on the bff, praising any form of so called evidence. Maybe it is because Longtabber has a high standard of what is considered evidence. "The acid test"

That is what I have observed. You must understand that the process is ongoing. Like your apparent change, his opinion regarding the PGF has changed to being highly skeptical of the PGF. He may in time stop considering himself a proponent of Bigfoot. I'm not really worried about it. I would guess that he hasn't praised anything submitted as Bigfoot evidence because there is nothing to praise.

[LONGTABBER PE]

That is what I have observed. You must understand that the process is ongoing. Like your apparent change, his opinion regarding the PGF has changed to being highly skeptical of the PGF. He may in time stop considering himself a proponent of Bigfoot. I'm not really worried about it. I would guess that he hasn't praised anything submitted as Bigfoot evidence because there is nothing to praise.

Just to be clear ( gotta split hairs because people like you keep me on my toes[ and thats a good thing])

Maybe my definitions of words are a tad different and as thus may be skewing things

>>>Like your apparent change, his opinion regarding the PGF has changed to being highly skeptical of the PGF.

When I was 51-49 pro- I would have called that "highly skeptical" because as I stated before my margin was so thin I wouldnt argue in favor of it. Since The first "discovery" in November- that has now gone to 0-100 in favor of absolute fraud so the term "skeptical" technically would no longer apply to my opinion regarding the PGF. "Convinced" would be the correct term in my opinion. Nothing short of a BF body that reasonably matches the PGF will alter that perception now. ( even then- it wouldnt convince me the PGF is legit)

>>>He may in time stop considering himself a proponent of Bigfoot.

you all know my reasons for that view but even then, "not sure" doesnt cross the finish line so I'm not about to say BF actually does exist factually. Thats my belief based on experience, NOT me stating that it factually does.

>>>I would guess that he hasn't praised anything submitted as Bigfoot evidence because there is nothing to praise

And I'm not about to water down my acid either and between us, if I ever endorse said evidence, you can bet it will be beyond any reproach before I publically support it. ( even if I had to validate it myself at my expense before I did)

[Telaynay's G'son]

Thats not to say that the WHOLE field is comprised of wackos. There are good researchers like Kitakaze, longtabber pe, and bill.
I did not say the WHOLE field...did I?

[makaya325]

I did not say the WHOLE field...did I?

No you did not, i apologize.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Thats not to say that the WHOLE field is comprised of wackos. There are good researchers like Kitakaze, longtabber pe, and bill.

In all fairness Mak,

I am not now, never have been and cannot forsee or fathom a time in the future where I would ever be a BF researcher. I have never engaged in any type of research in any capacity regarding BF.

I simply have an interest in the subject because of personal experience and being a monster/sci fi fan all my life.

[makaya325]

In all fairness Mak,

I am not now, never have been and cannot forsee or fathom a time in the future where I would ever be a BF researcher. I have never engaged in any type of research in any capacity regarding BF.

I simply have an interest in the subject because of personal experience and being a monster/sci fi fan all my life.

Ok Long, i understand your position now. One question: How come you havent shared your alleged encounter here, and let us hypothesize the identity of the likely mistaken organism you saw, in my opinion.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Ok Long, i understand your position now. One question: How come you havent shared your alleged encounter here, and let us hypothesize the identity of the likely mistaken organism you saw, in my opinion.

Because everyone here read it at the BFF long ago and I saw no need to type it all again. Its been discussed here and there. Discussing it more isnt going to change anything but if you think it will- discuss it some more.

Feel free to do so

[burmballgeetar]

Just a thought or two here. I do believe in the possibility of bigfoot and would love nothing more than to find conclusive, concrete and irrefutable proof but would never intentionally mislead anyone with confusing or blurry evidence.

A Bigfoot enthusiast's level of enthusiasm has a lot to do with what they percieve as proof or evidence. I know people who see signs of them everywhere. With these folks, you gotta just kinda ignore about half of what they say...if not all. I enjoy corresponding with folks who have been in this a while though because they seem to be jaded and have a better eye for the bovine excrement.

[Crowlogic]

Mak you have become Sasquatch. A lone wanderer in a cyber wilderness. Shunned by science and mistrusted by psudoscience. Yes you have become myth, known by many different names in many different places but Sasquatch must remain eternally out of reach. Even to himself a wood knock never to be answered in kind.....

[kitakaze]

Mak you have become Sasquatch. A lone wanderer in a cyber wilderness. Shunned by science and mistrusted by psudoscience. Yes you have become myth, known by many different names in many different places but Sasquatch must remain eternally out of reach. Even to himself a wood knock never to be answered in kind.....

Log, you're getting funnier. Please don't stop.

[makaya325]

Log, you're getting funnier. Please don't stop.

I dont see how you think your succeeding in an attempt to bother me with your silly posts. I already have told you that i would like to contribute in Sasquatch-related discussions with a Healthy skepticism, something you lack.

[Fnord]

[ ] - Deception

[ ] - Incompetence

[ ] - Deceptive Incompentence

[X] - Incompetent Deception

[LONGTABBER PE]

I dont see how you think your succeeding in an attempt to bother me with your silly posts. I already have told you that i would like to contribute in Sasquatch-related discussions with a Healthy skepticism, something you lack.

I think you are addressing the wrong person

[makaya325]

I think you are addressing the wrong person

Error on my part.

[GT/CS]

I dont see how you think your succeeding in an attempt to bother me with your silly posts. I already have told you that i would like to contribute in Sasquatch-related discussions with a Healthy skepticism, something you lack.

Hmmmm, maybe you should have thought of that before pulling your stunts. It ain't gonna happen overnight.

[xblade]

Because everyone here read it at the BFF long ago and I saw no need to type it all again.

Can you point me to that thread, Long? I haven't read any of the details of your encounter, only that you've had one.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Can you point me to that thread, Long? I haven't read any of the details of your encounter, only that you've had one.

OK go to sightings then "not sure" encounters thread

[xblade]

OK go to sightings then "not sure" encounters thread

Thanks. I'll have to dig around a little more to see if I can find it. Found the sightings section, but nothing on "not sure encounters".

Edit
Found the thread right after I posted, lol.

[RayG]

Let’s consider where information of this dubious evidence is documented. I’m sure those of us not corrupted by what I like to describe as a squatch fetish, have all noticed that this data can only be found on pseudo/crypto websites that are not regulated to say the least. Aside from that, the only other medium for this information is on sites such as Wiki, where anyone is permitted to post anything they please.

Nay nay. There are all sorts of 'facts' presented in bigfoot books spanning the decades, should you be inclined to seek them out.

Byrne, Green, Dahinden, Krantz, Meldrum, and Patterson all authored books on the subject, though they can't seem to agree on the details. (Yes, yes, I now Bindernagel also authored one, but I don't have access to it at the moment)

The only question that remains, is it incompetence or deception that compels those who make such premature and erroneous conclusions.Incompetence and deception are certainly considerations when one deals with bigfoot. For the time being, I'll address some of the misleading, imcomplete, or inaccurate information I've stumbled across in my travels through bigfootdom. (I'm presently carefully reading Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, filling index cards with notes, so many of these examples are from his book).

Note: The images used below are merely for your entertainment, although some may portray factual events, places, things, or people, not all of them do.

*In his 1978 book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, John Green writes:

"Ken Peterson, a senior executive, told that their people [Disney] has already studied the film [PGF], and that if they wanted something like it in one of their own movies they would not attempt to film it, they would draw it. None of their michanical creations for Disneyland was sophisticated enough to walk free, they were all attached to a base at some point. The only way to imitate the Patterson creature would be with a man in a suit." (page 129)

*In his own 1992 book, Big Footprints, Dr. Grover Krantz reduces Green's writing to something less informative.

"But Ken Peterson, a senior executive with Disney studios, told John Green in 1969 that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film." (page 93)

"They told him flat-out that they would not be able to duplicate it with all of their facilities." (page 121)

That is obviously NOT what Green wrote, nor what they told him. To his credit, Dr. Meldrum pretty much paraphrases Green's writing, though I have issues with some of the other content of LMS.

*Rene Dahinden makes the Patterson film site sound fairly isolated when he says Patterson and Gimlin "were in rugged country, twenty-five miles from the nearest blacktop." (Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature, page 114)

*Peter Byrne however, makes the area sound like a typical weekend getaway, or camping area, with a dirt road running alongside the bed of Bluff Creek. He writes that "a hoax party could too easily be surprised by a car coming up this creek bed road...", and, "any weekend one was liable to encounter small groups of people from Hoopa, or from Willow Creek, or even further, driving up there in their cars...". (The Search for Bigfoot, pages 148-149)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4846c54b3f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16140)

*Legend Meets Science page 20: Dr. Meldrum states that, "to their credit, the BFRO investigators have been routinely critical of reports and taken pains to winnow the kernal from the chaff, concerning both potential evidence and would-be debunkers."

Is he kidding? Any report that includes a sighting, no matter how short the glimpse, how bad the weather, or what time of day, seems to be given an 'A' classification. In some instances the only contact with the witness is by phone, and the BFRO has a history of pimping something questionable as though it had been proven. (Skookum cast, and Jacob's photo, for example). And don't forget their expeditions, which nearly always result in some sort of bigfoot activity.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f48103df007.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16139)

*LMS page 22: Though dermals have more recently been shown to be of questionable origin, anyone reading LMS that doesn't look further, will come away thinking dermals have been conclusively proven, when such is not the case.

And while it's true that Skamania County was the first county that had an "ordinance prohibiting the killing of a sasquatch" that carried a fairly stiff sentence, Dr. Meldrum does not mention that the ordinance was subsequently amended to a lesser punishment in 1984.

*LMS page 35: Dr. Meldrum titles his very first chapter, "The Science of Hidden Animals: Cryptozoology", as though it were an accepted science. It is not, nor has it ever been, and there is no degree in cryptozoology. A minor quibble yes, but valid nonetheless.

*On page 45 Dr. Meldrum seems to be suggesting that new zoological discoveries somehow give credence to cryptozoological pursuits when he writes, "several large mammal species, some new to science, others that had been thought extinct...".

But no bigfoot, Nessies, Champs, chupacabras, mothmen, or Jersey Devils...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f480acd63c4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16138)

*LMS page 49: Dr. Meldrum's claim that "the first inhabitants of North America were aware of these [Sasquatch] creatures long before Columbus arrived", is unsupported by any source, reference, or footnote. The illustration of a carving from 1914 on that same page is pretty certain not to predate Columbus. His claim is analogous to the Norse leaving legends, stories, and carvings of Thor, or the Greeks of Zeus.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f47f911bc4b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16136)

*LMS page 51: Dr. Meldrum writes about Ivan Sanderson concluding that an unrecognized animal was responsible for footprints found in California in 1958, yet makes no mention of Sanderson also concluding that a 15-foot penguin left tracks in Florida on the late 40's.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f480308f262.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16137)

*LMS page 62: Dr. Meldrum admits that some of the 15-inch tracks found at Bluff Creek resemble the Ray Wallace carved feet, but then shows a misleading comparision between a single Ray Wallace carved foot and multiple casts. There's no similar image comparing a single cast to ALL the Wallace fakes, if they could be found, which may show something more favorable.

Dr. Meldrum also questions whether Wallace made his carved feet after seeing a cast from Bluff Creek, which would explain the similarity, but he does not question whether the wooden fakes preceded the Bluff Creek tracks.

*LMS page 67: John Green's $100,000 reward for faking feet is mentioned, although the detailed criteria and conditions (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/100000-green/) that must be met in order to be considered successful are not.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4852dd8071.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16141)

*LMS page 69: Dr. Meldrum correctly points out "the straight-forward lack of congruence between their [Wallace] carved feet and the original Bluff Creek tracks..."

What he does not point out is the straight-forward lack of congruence between the double-ball 15" tracks and the original Bluff Creek tracks. It's three sets of tracks/prints/feet, not two.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f48724b1794.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16142)

*LMS page 87: Dr. Meldrum omits the romanticism stated by Jane Goodall in her interview. Transcripts (http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp) of the interview show her personal conviction towards sasquatch isn't nearly as convincing as Dr. Meldrum portrays.

*LMS page 90: The illustrative comparisons between two giant bipedal Gigantopithecus and a 6-foot human is pure speculation but not labeled as such.

*LMS page 135: Dr. Meldrum claims, "innovative modern techniques of image analysis have revealed new details..." (in the PGF). Which ones does he mean? Teeth, bullet impact points, individual fingers, facial expressions? We never find out because Dr. Meldrum never elaborates, and doesn't include detailed sources or footnotes in the book, leaving the reader to guess at what he's implying.

*LMS page 139: Dr. Meldrum's details of the filming of Patty differ slightly from others who have written of the incident. For example, Dr. Meldrum mentions Patty having two reactions to Patterson and Gimlin approaching -- "glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..."

Reading details from seven different sources (Byrne, Daegling, Dahinden, Green, Krantz, Meldrum, and Sanderson), I find Dr. Meldrum is the only one who mentions two glances from Patty.

Meldrum and Sanderson also make no mention of Patterson's horse falling, with Meldrum saying that Patterson "slid off the horse with his camera in hand."

The other five authors all state that Patterson's horse actually fell, with Byrne adding that the horse had "reared and fell over sideways, coming down on his right leg, crushing the metal stirrup on his foot and pinning him temporarily to the ground."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4884fccc7e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16143)

There also seems to be disagreement whether Gimlin remained mounted (Green & Krantz), whether he dismounted (Byrne & Meldrum), or was thrown off (Sanderson) his horse during the filming.

Gimlin's height/weight estimates also fluctuate depending on who writes about it. Byrne and Krantz both have Gimlin stating that Patty was 6'1" to 6' 2", 350 lbs, while Meldrum reports a taller skinnier version at 6'6", 250-300 lbs.

Meldrum is also the only author that says Patty was "standing" at the beginning of the encounter. Four other authors mention squatting or crouching, the other two make no mention at all.

*LMS page 142: Gimlin mentions seeing teeth, which I don't recall being mentioned before. Patterson mentions short, shiny black hair... big, droopy breasts... no neck... wide, muscular shoulders... Green mentions female creature... two legs... hair-covered... heavy buttocks.. Dahinden mentions pendulous breasts... short, shiny black hair... distinct buttock muscles... NO TEETH. When was this teeth-business first mentioned? Was it before or after M.K. Davis played with the film?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4896274cb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16144)

*LMS page 162: Dr. Meldrum asserts that Peter Byrne's study was conducted by a "model holding a graduated staff [B]exactly where the film was shot." (added emphasis mine)

Yet Byrne himself wrote in his 1975 book that his examination was made "five years later, when it was not possible to determine accurately, the precise position of the figure." (The Search for Bigfoot, page 140)

What happened to then?
We passed it.
When?
Just now.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f489f786d2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16145)

In addition, Dr. Meldrum mentions the 7'3.5" height estimate by Jeff Glickman, but does not mention Byrne's more conservative (and possibly more accurate) estimate of 6'5". In fact, Byrne, Gimlin, Green, Grieve, and Krantz all estimate the height at or below 6'6", yet Dr. Meldrum, in his Swarzenegger comparison on page 177, uses the 7'4" height estimate of Chris Murphy. Personally, I find both Glickman's and Murphy's methods of measuring the height of the film subject questionable to say the least. Glickman combines an unproven mathematical formula with the size of a track cast to produce his results, while Murphy uses a length of stick seen in the film, without knowing the distance between the stick and the film subject.

In any case, the much larger heights are being used by Dr. Meldrum for his comparison purposes, making it look more like a 'one that got away' story in which the culprit grows larger with each retelling.

*LMS pag 184: Dr. Meldrum indicates that stone-throwing has been associated with Sasquatch as early as 1846, crediting Dr. Bindernagel with this tidbit of info. We're left not knowing wheter this behavior was recorded as first, second, or third-hand information, whether it came from Bindernagel's personal notes, a newspaper item, or a campfire story. This lack of detailed information is very frustrating. Don't just tell me something, show me that you have verified the source of the claim you are presenting.

In this particular case, was a sasquatch actually witnessed throwing stones, or was the behavior merely attributed to a sasquatch?

Finally, (well, this is all I have so far) :D

*LMS page 218: The Fahrenbach statistical analysis that Dr. Meldrum presents seems to argue that hoaxed footprints should not be of random length, yet the photograph of the four carved Wallace feet shown on page 57 are all of different, and random lengths.

I think each and every one of these examples demonstrates misleading, incomplete, or inaccurate information. There is much more, especially when you start to look too closely, but that's my quick assessment of some of the inconsistencies I've noticed recently.

RayG

[makaya325]

Nay nay. There are all sorts of 'facts' presented in bigfoot books spanning the decades, should you be inclined to seek them out.

Byrne, Green, Dahinden, Krantz, Meldrum, and Patterson all authored books on the subject, though they can't seem to agree on the details. (Yes, yes, I now Bindernagel also authored one, but I don't have access to it at the moment)

Incompetence and deception are certainly considerations when one deals with bigfoot. For the time being, I'll address some of the misleading, imcomplete, or inaccurate information I've stumbled across in my travels through bigfootdom. (I'm presently carefully reading Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, filling index cards with notes, so many of these examples are from his book).

Note: The images used below are merely for your entertainment, although some may portray factual events, places, things, or people, not all of them do.

*In his 1978 book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, John Green writes:

"Ken Peterson, a senior executive, told that their people [Disney] has already studied the film [PGF], and that if they wanted something like it in one of their own movies they would not attempt to film it, they would draw it. None of their michanical creations for Disneyland was sophisticated enough to walk free, they were all attached to a base at some point. The only way to imitate the Patterson creature would be with a man in a suit." (page 129)

*In his own 1992 book, Big Footprints, Dr. Grover Krantz reduces Green's writing to something less informative.

"But Ken Peterson, a senior executive with Disney studios, told John Green in 1969 that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film." (page 93)

"They told him flat-out that they would not be able to duplicate it with all of their facilities." (page 121)

That is obviously NOT what Green wrote, nor what they told him. To his credit, Dr. Meldrum pretty much paraphrases Green's writing, though I have issues with some of the other content of LMS.

*Rene Dahinden makes the Patterson film site sound fairly isolated when he says Patterson and Gimlin "were in rugged country, twenty-five miles from the nearest blacktop." (Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature, page 114)

*Peter Byrne however, makes the area sound like a typical weekend getaway, or camping area, with a dirt road running alongside the bed of Bluff Creek. He writes that "a hoax party could too easily be surprised by a car coming up this creek bed road...", and, "any weekend one was liable to encounter small groups of people from Hoopa, or from Willow Creek, or even further, driving up there in their cars...". (The Search for Bigfoot, pages 148-149)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4846c54b3f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16140)

*Legend Meets Science page 20: Dr. Meldrum states that, "to their credit, the BFRO investigators have been routinely critical of reports and taken pains to winnow the kernal from the chaff, concerning both potential evidence and would-be debunkers."

Is he kidding? Any report that includes a sighting, no matter how short the glimpse, how bad the weather, or what time of day, seems to be given an 'A' classification. In some instances the only contact with the witness is by phone, and the BFRO has a history of pimping something questionable as though it had been proven. (Skookum cast, and Jacob's photo, for example). And don't forget their expeditions, which nearly always result in some sort of bigfoot activity.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f48103df007.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16139)

*LMS page 22: Though dermals have more recently been shown to be of questionable origin, anyone reading LMS that doesn't look further, will come away thinking dermals have been conclusively proven, when such is not the case.

And while it's true that Skamania County was the first county that had an "ordinance prohibiting the killing of a sasquatch" that carried a fairly stiff sentence, Dr. Meldrum does not mention that the ordinance was subsequently amended to a lesser punishment in 1984.

*LMS page 35: Dr. Meldrum titles his very first chapter, "The Science of Hidden Animals: Cryptozoology", as though it were an accepted science. It is not, nor has it ever been, and there is no degree in cryptozoology. A minor quibble yes, but valid nonetheless.

*On page 45 Dr. Meldrum seems to be suggesting that new zoological discoveries somehow give credence to cryptozoological pursuits when he writes, "several large mammal species, some new to science, others that had been thought extinct...".

But no bigfoot, Nessies, Champs, chupacabras, mothmen, or Jersey Devils...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f480acd63c4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16138)

*LMS page 49: Dr. Meldrum's claim that "the first inhabitants of North America were aware of these [Sasquatch] creatures long before Columbus arrived", is unsupported by any source, reference, or footnote. The illustration of a carving from 1914 on that same page is pretty certain not to predate Columbus. His claim is analogous to the Norse leaving legends, stories, and carvings of Thor, or the Greeks of Zeus.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f47f911bc4b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16136)

*LMS page 51: Dr. Meldrum writes about Ivan Sanderson concluding that an unrecognized animal was responsible for footprints found in California in 1958, yet makes no mention of Sanderson also concluding that a 15-foot penguin left tracks in Florida on the late 40's.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f480308f262.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16137)

*LMS page 62: Dr. Meldrum admits that some of the 15-inch tracks found at Bluff Creek resemble the Ray Wallace carved feet, but then shows a misleading comparision between a single Ray Wallace carved foot and multiple casts. There's no similar image comparing a single cast to ALL the Wallace fakes, if they could be found, which may show something more favorable.

Dr. Meldrum also questions whether Wallace made his carved feet after seeing a cast from Bluff Creek, which would explain the similarity, but he does not question whether the wooden fakes preceded the Bluff Creek tracks.

*LMS page 67: John Green's $100,000 reward for faking feet is mentioned, although the detailed criteria and conditions (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/100000-green/) that must be met in order to be considered successful are not.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4852dd8071.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16141)

*LMS page 69: Dr. Meldrum correctly points out "the straight-forward lack of congruence between their [Wallace] carved feet and the original Bluff Creek tracks..."

What he does not point out is the straight-forward lack of congruence between the double-ball 15" tracks and the original Bluff Creek tracks. It's three sets of tracks/prints/feet, not two.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f48724b1794.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16142)

*LMS page 87: Dr. Meldrum omits the romanticism stated by Jane Goodall in her interview. Transcripts (http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp) of the interview show her personal conviction towards sasquatch isn't nearly as convincing as Dr. Meldrum portrays.

*LMS page 90: The illustrative comparisons between two giant bipedal Gigantopithecus and a 6-foot human is pure speculation but not labeled as such.

*LMS page 135: Dr. Meldrum claims, "innovative modern techniques of image analysis have revealed new details..." (in the PGF). Which ones does he mean? Teeth, bullet impact points, individual fingers, facial expressions? We never find out because Dr. Meldrum never elaborates, and doesn't include detailed sources or footnotes in the book, leaving the reader to guess at what he's implying.

*LMS page 139: Dr. Meldrum's details of the filming of Patty differ slightly from others who have written of the incident. For example, Dr. Meldrum mentions Patty having two reactions to Patterson and Gimlin approaching -- "glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..."

Reading details from seven different sources (Byrne, Daegling, Dahinden, Green, Krantz, Meldrum, and Sanderson), I find Dr. Meldrum is the only one who mentions two glances from Patty.

Meldrum and Sanderson also make no mention of Patterson's horse falling, with Meldrum saying that Patterson "slid off the horse with his camera in hand."

The other five authors all state that Patterson's horse actually fell, with Byrne adding that the horse had "reared and fell over sideways, coming down on his right leg, crushing the metal stirrup on his foot and pinning him temporarily to the ground."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4884fccc7e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16143)

There also seems to be disagreement whether Gimlin remained mounted (Green & Krantz), whether he dismounted (Byrne & Meldrum), or was thrown off (Sanderson) his horse during the filming.

Gimlin's height/weight estimates also fluctuate depending on who writes about it. Byrne and Krantz both have Gimlin stating that Patty was 6'1" to 6' 2", 350 lbs, while Meldrum reports a taller skinnier version at 6'6", 250-300 lbs.

Meldrum is also the only author that says Patty was "standing" at the beginning of the encounter. Four other authors mention squatting or crouching, the other two make no mention at all.

*LMS page 142: Gimlin mentions seeing teeth, which I don't recall being mentioned before. Patterson mentions short, shiny black hair... big, droopy breasts... no neck... wide, muscular shoulders... Green mentions female creature... two legs... hair-covered... heavy buttocks.. Dahinden mentions pendulous breasts... short, shiny black hair... distinct buttock muscles... NO TEETH. When was this teeth-business first mentioned? Was it before or after M.K. Davis played with the film?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4896274cb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16144)

*LMS page 162: Dr. Meldrum asserts that Peter Byrne's study was conducted by a "model holding a graduated staff [B]exactly where the film was shot." (added emphasis mine)

Yet Byrne himself wrote in his 1975 book that his examination was made "five years later, when it was not possible to determine accurately, the precise position of the figure." (The Search for Bigfoot, page 140)

What happened to then?
We passed it.
When?
Just now.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f489f786d2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16145)

In addition, Dr. Meldrum mentions the 7'3.5" height estimate by Jeff Glickman, but does not mention Byrne's more conservative (and possibly more accurate) estimate of 6'5". In fact, Byrne, Gimlin, Green, Grieve, and Krantz all estimate the height at or below 6'6", yet Dr. Meldrum, in his Swarzenegger comparison on page 177, uses the 7'4" height estimate of Chris Murphy. Personally, I find both Glickman's and Murphy's methods of measuring the height of the film subject questionable to say the least. Glickman combines an unproven mathematical formula with the size of a track cast to produce his results, while Murphy uses a length of stick seen in the film, without knowing the distance between the stick and the film subject.

In any case, the much larger heights are being used by Dr. Meldrum for his comparison purposes, making it look more like a 'one that got away' story in which the culprit grows larger with each retelling.

*LMS pag 184: Dr. Meldrum indicates that stone-throwing has been associated with Sasquatch as early as 1846, crediting Dr. Bindernagel with this tidbit of info. We're left not knowing wheter this behavior was recorded as first, second, or third-hand information, whether it came from Bindernagel's personal notes, a newspaper item, or a campfire story. This lack of detailed information is very frustrating. Don't just tell me something, show me that you have verified the source of the claim you are presenting.

In this particular case, was a sasquatch actually witnessed throwing stones, or was the behavior merely attributed to a sasquatch?

Finally, (well, this is all I have so far) :D

*LMS page 218: The Fahrenbach statistical analysis that Dr. Meldrum presents seems to argue that hoaxed footprints should not be of random length, yet the photograph of the four carved Wallace feet shown on page 57 are all of different, and random lengths.

I think each and every one of these examples demonstrates misleading, incomplete, or inaccurate information. There is much more, especially when you start to look too closely, but that's my quick assessment of some of the inconsistencies I've noticed recently.

RayG


Ray, I dont think Wallace had more than a couple of pairs. Those feet he had were artifacts, and not foot stompers.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-con

These are the casts responsible for the Crew Tracks.

[RayG]

Ray, I dont think Wallace had more than a couple of pairs. Those feet he had were artifacts, and not foot stompers.

Couple of pairs? Let's see... there's these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a779e1986.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16146)

and these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a79cd0633.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16147)

That's already a couple pair.

But don't forget these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a7b86c0c6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16148)

And those are just ones we have pictures of.

Not sure what you mean by artifacts and foot stompers. A fake foot doesn't have to be worn to be used.

These are the casts responsible for the Crew Tracks.That link didn't work.

RayG

[makaya325]

Couple of pairs? Let's see... there's these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a779e1986.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16146)

and these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a79cd0633.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16147)

That's already a couple pair.

But don't forget these...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249f4a7b86c0c6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16148)

And those are just ones we have pictures of.

Not sure what you mean by artifacts and foot stompers. A fake foot doesn't have to be worn to be used.

That link didn't work.

RayG

Nice work Ray. The second one down was the one i was talking about. Those casts match Crew's cast. Did any of the bigfoot casts found feature that jutting out point near the ball of the foot?

[Penamunde]

Just a thought or two here. I do believe in the possibility of bigfoot and would love nothing more than to find conclusive, concrete and irrefutable proof but would never intentionally mislead anyone with confusing or blurry evidence.

A Bigfoot enthusiast's level of enthusiasm has a lot to do with what they percieve as proof or evidence. I know people who see signs of them everywhere. With these folks, you gotta just kinda ignore about half of what they say...if not all. I enjoy corresponding with folks who have been in this a while though because they seem to be jaded and have a better eye for the bovine excrement.

Burmballgeeter are you the same burmballgeeter from the Mid America Group?

I just seen you name, but I have to agree with your statement and with all the craziness that has engulfed the field in the last 12 months it just very discouraging.

Any ways have a good one

[WildBackdunesMan]

I was on a walk with my girl friend down a curvey road in the woods. We had recently watched MonsterQuest and I had been talking about my skepticism the past few weeks on bigfoot. So the idea of bigfoot was in her head. As we walked I was looking to the right trying to catch a glimpse of the lake, when my girlf friend claimed to have seen bigfoot walk across the street from left to right. I could tell by her voice that she was serious. I couldn't see anything because of the curve in the road and I looked up too late. So I ran ahead as fast as I could and as I came around the corner I saw a large man (human) wearing dark clothes unlocking a car (that I couldn't see previously) that was parked on the right side of the road. My girl friend no doubt caught a glimpse of this man and her mind filled in the rest with what has been in her mind...bigfoot.

In a semi-related story...my brother and I were driving through Gettysburg late at night and all of a sudden he got scarred and asked if I saw that...Once again I didn't see it. He claimed to have seen the ghost of a Union soldier walking down his driver's side of the road, while I was looking at shadows of monuments. I encouraged him to turn around and investigate. He described seeing the overcoat the union soldier was wearing and other details of the ghost...well it ended up being just some kid dressed in dark clothes and his imagination filled in the rest with its own details.

[Telaynay's G'son]

Along the lines of the subject matter of the OP, I listened to ~75% of the recent "interview" given by Ed Smith on a blogtalk format.

While he appeared somewhat articulate and certainly used all of the appropriate forensic buzz words when compared to his style of writing (or, lack thereof) on the MABRC forum, it renders the impression you are looking at two separate individuals. Is one real and the other, fabricated?

One thing he seemed to dwell upon extensively during the interview were the requisite protocols in maintaining the integrity of samples attained in the field, et. al.. Then, when you link his (at least per Randy Harrington) close association/collaboration with DO (Harrington) one must wonder that given DO's history (criminal & psychological) it gives pause as if there's a serious oxymoron in play. After all, would you want to give access to sensitive data/material to someone that has been busted (convicted) for stealing...2X...?

[Penamunde]

at 3:55 look at the heel on that cast.

Now look at what is purported to be the heel of the Sasquatch at 5:52. 1. what beast would push its heel into the mud for purchase?, 2. What kind of heel sticks out like that?

Could it be an ELK Knee you might ask?
Err- Nope. See Colubus' post here





After reading both Colubus' and DY's threads, how can one honestly look at the cast, and still come away with anything other than 'Elk Lay'?



What bipedal primate would get up using just it's heels for purchase?

Bigfoot you say?

Really?!?


I would have to agree with you, its like BF would have to have jumped in and levitated out.....at least how it seems to me.:)

[Penamunde]

And if they'll tolerate Creekfreak they'll put up with Mak.

I to have been to Searchforbigfoot dot org and was ok with the information but it sounds like a lot of these sites tolerate way too much from some of these people and its seems like these people like talking to them selfs it might as well be one person talking.:)

[GT/CS]

I would have to agree with you, its like BF would have to have jumped in and levitated out.....at least how it seems to me.:)

It makes sense if you think about it. Bigfoot makes footprints by stepping straight up and down so it probably rises from a prone position the same way.

[WGBH]

All Bigfoot researchers DO NOT think the Skookum cast is from a Bigfoot. Of course it is a Elk Lay.

[kitakaze]

All Bigfoot researchers DO NOT think the Skookum cast is from a Bigfoot. Of course it is a Elk Lay.

Who do you think is the most prominent of the Bigfoot searchers who do continue to insist (at least pubicly) that it is not an elk lay?

And when did you decide it was an elk lay?

[Penamunde]

I am by no means trying to bash anyone, but we have to ask our selfs is this a BFRO push to conclude that its a Bigfoot lay or is there any science behind the find, By this I mean what was found in the perimeter of the site say 300 feet/360 degrees from the find. Has any of that ever been released?:)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Nay nay. There are all sorts of 'facts' presented in bigfoot books spanning the decades, should you be inclined to seek them out.

I want to congratulate you on writing that informative post post. Well done!

On page 45 Dr. Meldrum seems to be suggesting that new zoological discoveries somehow give credence to cryptozoological pursuits when he writes, "several large mammal species, some new to science, others that had been thought extinct...".

I'd love to hear Dr. Meldrum name the rediscovery of large mammal species that were formerly thought to have been extinct.

*LMS page 62: Dr. Meldrum admits that some of the 15-inch tracks found at Bluff Creek resemble the Ray Wallace carved feet, but then shows a misleading comparision between a single Ray Wallace carved foot and multiple casts. There's no similar image comparing a single cast to ALL the Wallace fakes, if they could be found, which may show something more favorable.

Dr. Meldrum also questions whether Wallace made his carved feet after seeing a cast from Bluff Creek, which would explain the similarity, but he does not question whether the wooden fakes preceded the Bluff Creek tracks.

That reminds me, didn't John Green claim that the Bluff creek tracks were larger than Wallace's fake feet? If so, one must consider desertyeti's revelation that prints are actually larger than the feet that make them.

[RayG]

I am by no means trying to bash anyone, but we have to ask our selfs is this a BFRO push to conclude that its a Bigfoot lay or is there any science behind the find, By this I mean what was found in the perimeter of the site say 300 feet/360 degrees from the find. Has any of that ever been released?:)

There seems to be very little science behind anything the BFRO does. Their ramblings about the Jacob's photo illustrates that quite well.

However, according to LMS (page 120), Dr. Meldrum is supposed to be coordinating the scientific analysis on the Skookum cast, so he's probably the best one to direct your questions to regarding that.

I know I asked Rick Noll about the experimentation conducted with elk parts (not the larger Rooseveldt elk, mind you) and was left unsatisfied with the response.

Actually, I think the Skookum cast may have been the tipping point for me. Prior to that I absorbed everything and anything I could about bigfoot, accepting the vast majority of it at face value.

RayG

[LONGTABBER PE]

There seems to be very little science behind anything the BFRO does. Their ramblings about the Jacob's photo illustrates that quite well.

However, according to LMS (page 120), Dr. Meldrum is supposed to be coordinating the scientific analysis on the Skookum cast, so he's probably the best one to direct your questions to regarding that.
I know I asked Rick Noll about the experimentation conducted with elk parts (not the larger Rooseveldt elk, mind you) and was left unsatisfied with the response.

Actually, I think the Skookum cast may have been the tipping point for me. Prior to that I absorbed everything and anything I could about bigfoot, accepting the vast majority of it at face value.

RayG


Honestly, the next book in his series needs to be

Sasquatch

Meldrum meets Science

[RayG]

It's funny that Dr. George B. Schaller, in the introduction on page 12 writes that Meldrum "disentangles fact from anecdote, supposition, and wishful thinking..."

Oh how I wish that were true. Every scrap of evidence that Meldrum provides to support the existence of bigfoot --from tracks casts, hair analysis, dermal ridges, North American traditional beliefs, the Skookum Cast, Gigantopithecus locomotion and stature, migrating sasquatches, vocalizations, stone-throwing, photographs and films, to Fahrenbach's garbage in garbage out statistical analysis-- is nothing but anecdote, supposition, or wishful thinking.

Meldrums lack of scientific rigor is painfully obvious. Where is the utilization of the scientific method, (especially testing and replication), and the application of Occan's Razor? It's truly discouraging to see science ignored and abused by someone pursuing the bigfoot mystery, especially when they're supposedly familiar with scientific methods.

RayG

[WGBH]

Who do you think is the most prominent of the Bigfoot searchers who do continue to insist (at least pubicly) that it is not an elk lay?

And when did you decide it was an elk lay?

Don Keating and Diane Stocking to name a few.

I dunno, about 3 years ago I guess.

[makaya325]

Don Keating and Diane Stocking to name a few.

I dunno, about 3 years ago I guess.

Neither of them have ever Studied the Skookum Cast. Some animal tracks were found on it. Hair from Elk were found, but only ONE alleged hair strand from Sasquatch? That does not make sense.

[WGBH]

Neither of them have ever Studied the Skookum Cast. Some animal tracks were found on it. Hair from Elk were found, but only ONE alleged hair strand from Sasquatch? That does not make sense.

I am not following you here. What does not make sense? That Don Keating and Diane Stocking do not think that the skookum cast is from a Bigfoot? Diane was a curator of the BFRO at the time the cast was taken. Her disagreeing with Moneymaker and Noll that the imprint was from a elk was a catalyst in her resigning from the group. It seemed to her that they needed something for the TV show. Keating,like most of us wants to know how the animal made the imprint without leaving any tracks in OR out of the area. There were tracks from other animals all over.

[makaya325]

I am not following you here. What does not make sense? That Don Keating and Diane Stocking do not think that the skookum cast is from a Bigfoot? Diane was a curator of the BFRO at the time the cast was taken. Her disagreeing with Moneymaker and Noll that the imprint was from a elk was a catalyst in her resigning from the group. It seemed to her that they needed something for the TV show. Keating,like most of us wants to know how the animal made the imprint without leaving any tracks in OR out of the area. There were tracks from other animals all over.

My bad. I must have misread you. My apologies. What brings you to bigfoot discussion?

[WGBH]

My bad. I must have misread you. My apologies. What brings you to bigfoot discussion?

Oh, I am sorry. You misunderstood me. We are on the same page now.

What brings me here? I have been doing field research for about a year now.There are a a few smart people here with great ideas and opinions, if you can weed through the posturing and negativity.

[makaya325]

Oh, I am sorry. You misunderstood me. We are on the same page now.

What brings me here? I have been doing field research for about a year now.There are a a few smart people here with great ideas and opinions, if you can weed through the posturing and negativity.

What do you mean by "Field Research"? Does that mean you are surveying the Forest's for bigfoot?

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Speaking of Ray Wallace and fake tracks, it looks like someone is trying to promote the idea that Wallace was the victim of a hoax and not a track hoaxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Wallace). There's also a mention of the PGF in there.

I also found a possible source for the "multiple turns" claim. This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#cite_ref-13) says

At this point the steady middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous frame 352 (see accompanying photo above). Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times,"[12] the first time therefore being before the filming began.

The source given is page 69 of Barbara Wasson's 1979 book Sasquatch Apparitions: A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid.

[makaya325]

Speaking of Ray Wallace and fake tracks, it looks like someone is trying to promote the idea that Wallace was the victim of a hoax and not a track hoaxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Wallace). There's also a mention of the PGF in there.

I also found a possible source for the "multiple turns" claim. This Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#cite_ref-13) says



The source given is page 69 of Barbara Wasson's 1979 book Sasquatch Apparitions: A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid.

Is there any PDF page samples of Wassons's book that you can pull up Atomic?

[WGBH]

What do you mean by "Field Research"? Does that mean you are surveying the Forest's for bigfoot?

Yes, we set up surveillance in "hot spots". I have been out about 25 times now. I have only had "something" interesting happen once. Before you ask why I bother, I also witnessed to animal a long time ago.

[Vortigern99]

WGBH, when you say you "witnessed to animal", what do you mean? Is that "witnessed two animals" or you were "witness to an animal", or what? And by "animal," do you mean bigfoot?

If bigfoot, is it possible you mididentified a bear or a person?

[wolftrax]

Holy moly, excellent post Ray. I notice many times when people write about Ray Wallace that they show that same image comparing the Wallace wooden foot to various tracks, anything but the 15" track that it obviously resembles.

I wouldn't put too much trust in that Wiki entry of Wallace being hoaxed, Wallace's family readily admits he was a prankster and is responsible for those tracks, and his possession of the feet that do match is evidence of that.

But people still are in denial about it because that would mean that Wallace was responsible for the foundation of the Bigfoot myth. Crew was working for Wallace when he found that first track, and it was aftre that that a different track, the 15" onethat the wooden feet are a match for, was found over the next 10 years in that same area. Could youi imagine that? Following the same individual for 10 years?

And it was that same 15" track that was at Onion Mtn. and Blue CReek Mtn. in August 1967 that got Patterson coming down, coincidentally Wallace saying he told Patterson right where to go, and Onion Mtn is right over Bluff Creek.

It's that same recurring 15" track that has me questioning Farhenbach's Bell shaped curve distribution pattern. If he's including that that would be a high number, as it left many tracks and yet is the same individual. Only problem is that the data is not readily available unless you know how to personally get ahold of Farhenbach.

Of course you would have to add to the 15" track also the 13" and the little 9" one. Those would obviously be hoaxed too unless you're desperate. That throws off the curve. That same 13" track from Onion Mtn. is the same one said to have dermals and is the basis for the dermal pattern, but shown by Tube to be artifacts and the pattern as well to be from artifacts.

Which leads to Freeman's tracks, and how they all look the same but not like anybody else's. while Patterson's look just like the ones he found earlier as Laird Meadow but not like anybody else's, etc. Yet people still are in denial about the dermals/artifacts thing.

And same with the Skookum cast. After DesertYeti showed it to be an elk I kicked myself for not seeing it before, and after watching the denialism develop from that it all starts to unravel. I've seen everything form denial to outright lies come out of people about all of this stuff.

I wouldn't need a scientific paper written about it, what DesertYeti and Tube have written has ran circles around any and all the books written about sasquatch in terms of detail. What has always been frustrating to me abotu the squatch books is that you get a real general argument, oh yes this track has real natural morphology, etc. toes bend and you can observe musculature, etc. but it's never SHOWN. Well, DY and Tube have shown what they were talking about repeatedly.

[Spektator]

I suspect, but cannot prove, that people who fabricate bigfoot evidence fall into several categories:

1. Some are convinced that bigfoot is real and are frustrated because the clinching evidence is never forthcoming. They are so committed to the idea that they reason, “If I found a bigfoot footprint, it would look like this….” And they may craft a model foot to reflect what they are sure exists. Then they try making a footprint with their model, and it looks just like the footprint they posit. So they cast it. And by that point, they let other people know they have a “real” bigfoot cast (or hair sample, or photo), and . . . it’s off to the races.

2. Some have a financial stake. They might, oh, I don’t know, buy a bigfoot costume, stuff it with dead possums, freeze it in a block of ice, and try to get a dupe to pay money for it.

3. Some want to establish themselves as extraordinarily skilled researchers. It’s a reputation thing with them—not unlike Paul Kammerer’s experiments with the midwife toad and acquired characteristics that become genetically inheritable. It was all fraud, for no apparent monetary gain, but the deception did enhance Kammerer’s reputation.

4. Some might just be the kind of doofus I roomed with in college for one semester. He would do weird things just for kicks: leaving a hog’s head on the steps of a sorority. Using an ink pad on the end of a broomstick to stamp alien footprints on the ceiling of the dorm hallway. Printing up fake parking tickets and leaving them beneath the windshield wipers of cars. He did that so much that he flunked out at the end of the semester, never actually having studied. His goal was just to cause shock, confusion, and irritation. He derived a sadistic glee from such activities.

There are probably other motivations. Kammerer was more than likely a true believer (category 1), and he may have thought that since the process of evolution moved so slowly, it wouldn’t do any harm to assist evolution by a little judicious touch-up on the toads’ skins. When the fraud was revealed, he insisted that a lab assistant must have done the dirty work without his knowledge, but with his reputation in tatters, Kammerer committed suicide. Deception can be fatal in many ways.

[WGBH]

WGBH, when you say you "witnessed to animal", what do you mean? Is that "witnessed two animals" or you were "witness to an animal", or what? And by "animal," do you mean bigfoot?

Yes it was Bigfoot, Yes I believe it is a animal, and yes I witnessed one not two.

If bigfoot, is it possible you mididentified a bear or a person?

No, I watched it for several minutes.

[Vortigern99]

WGBH, could it have been a person wearing a suit, in other words perpetrating a willful and intentional hoax upon you?

[rockinkt]

<snip>


3. Some want to establish themselves as extraordinarily skilled researchers. It’s a reputation thing with them. <snip>







Calling Bill Munns...

Munns also obviously planned his move into the world of squatch very carefully with long windy posts establishing himself as "the man" when it came to suits on the BFF.
This is quite common practice with those who set out to deceive for personal gain.

So...let's see.
Unlike a real scientist - he did not independently study the available data - but looked to what results would get him the most eager following and allied himself with those other luminaries who certainly do NOT have any interest in factual representation of anything (ie. Rick Noll, Jeff Meldrum, John Green,etc.).
After all - joining the chorus of reputable suit makers and scientists and investigators who have panned the PGF would have left him a nobody in the public eye.

Now - with his carefully executed plan - he has a following of rabid believers who have placed him high in the world of squatch nobility so he can bask in their attention at the conferences. He also has a whole TV show about HIM.

As smart as Bill is - he knows that what he is doing is neither scientific nor unbiased.
He also knows that the results do NOT have to stand up to any scientific scrutiny.
He has seen Bindernagel, Fahrenbach, and Meldrum, reach exalted status with absolute junk for evidence and complete abandonment of the scientific process.

The plan was well executed and he has obtained all that he started out to gain.
Those of us with experience in investigating such types of fraud saw all the red flags shortly after he started.

These types of fraud are most often perpetrated on religious communities.
However, anyone who does not see the obvious similarities between the squatch community and religious communities is not paying attention.

[Drewbot]

Rock-
You have pretty much called it from Day 1.
The question is: Is Bill merely selling Basketball shots on an undersized rim at a Carnival, or is he selling eternal salvation?

[makaya325]

Rock-
You have pretty much called it from Day 1.
The question is: Is Bill merely selling Basketball shots on an undersized rim at a Carnival, or is he selling eternal salvation?

Bill has done a very detailed analysis with his work. His credentials are pretty impressive, and the details he points out arent just blurs. Those "Patty's donut wrists", keys, diaper butt, etc are as real as the "Muscles", flexing back, moving fingers, etc. I think we need to not grasp at straws concerning the detail of the film subject. There is no good detail, other than that the subject is hairy, And walks on two feet.

[GT/CS]

Bill has done a very detailed analysis with his work. His credentials are pretty impressive, and the details he points out arent just blurs. Those "Patty's donut wrists", keys, diaper butt, etc are as real as the "Muscles", flexing back, moving fingers, etc. I think we need to not grasp at straws concerning the detail of the film subject. There is no good detail, other than that the subject is hairy, And walks on two feet.

I'm not following you. Please cite some of the detailed analysis.

[makaya325]

I'm not following you. Please cite some of the detailed analysis.

I cant really cite it, but i can say that i have read it, and I believe that he doesnt have a hidden agenda. While he may be wrong, he did at least attempt to see what it was.

[WGBH]

WGBH, could it have been a person wearing a suit, in other words perpetrating a willful and intentional hoax upon you?

No, I do not know any 9 ft tall over 800 lb people.

[Vortigern99]

WGBH, how do you know for a certainty the figure you observed was 9 feet tall and weighed 800 pounds? I do not mean to badger you, but that kind of claim requires closer examination. Did you have some kind of measuring tool, some kind of scale? Is it possible you're mistaken about those numbers?

And are you familiar with the fact that eyewitness testimony and human memory are demonstrably unreliable? That unintentional invention, involuntary imagination, and outright error of perception occur in personal anecdotes time and time again?

Beyond all that, may I ask you to describe the location and event of your sighting?

[GT/CS]

I cant really cite it, but i can say that i have read it, and I believe that he doesnt have a hidden agenda. While he may be wrong, he did at least attempt to see what it was.

Do you remember where you read it?

[makaya325]

Do you remember where you read it?

It was on one of the pinned topics on the BFF.

[makaya325]

No, I do not know any 9 ft tall over 800 lb people.

oh Please! How could you tell that? Did you actually weigh the thing? People are not exactly accurate at judging weight and height. How many yards were you from it? Weather? How long did you observe it? Why no video?

[rockinkt]

Ty, I dont think people are as bad as society seems to believe. Judging size from 1000 ft isnt even bad, which i did judge someone from 1000ft, and i could determine if they were taller than me. How do you know that people are inaccurate, based on ambigious studies?
It was cloudly out, temp. 50 f, clothing: t-shirt and jeans. I knew the size of the individual moving was bigger than me. It turned out, i was right, im 5ft 10 and the individual was 6ft 2.

oh Please! How could you tell that? Did you actually weigh the thing? People are not exactly accurate at judging weight and height. How many yards were you from it? Weather? How long did you observe it? Why no video?

Makaya you are a troll and a liar.
Your stupidity cannot be the only reason.
Are you on drugs? Should you be?

[GT/CS]

It was on one of the pinned topics on the BFF.

You're worthless.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I wouldn't put too much trust in that Wiki entry of Wallace being hoaxed, Wallace's family readily admits he was a prankster and is responsible for those tracks, and his possession of the feet that do match is evidence of that.

Oh, I don't put any trust into it. The suggestion that plaster casts were used to make the fake prints is a dead giveaway that it's all bull, as are Wallace's numerous other hoaxes. I was just noting that someone was trying to explain away Wallace's involvement. BTW, welcome to the forum!

It's that same recurring 15" track that has me questioning Farhenbach's Bell shaped curve distribution pattern. If he's including that that would be a high number, as it left many tracks and yet is the same individual. Only problem is that the data is not readily available unless you know how to personally get ahold of Farhenbach.

I'd imagine that he also neglected to factor in how misidentified and/or overlaid animal (mostly bear) tracks can be mistaken for Bigfoot tracks, which would account for a variety of lengths. Hell, a simple reading of all confirmed hoaxes reveals a variety of track sizes.

Which leads to Freeman's tracks, and how they all look the same but not like anybody else's. while Patterson's look just like the ones he found earlier as Laird Meadow but not like anybody else's, etc.

Would this include the tracks allegedly made by Patty?

And same with the Skookum cast. After DesertYeti showed it to be an elk I kicked myself for not seeing it before, and after watching the denialism develop from that it all starts to unravel.

My favorite thing about the Skookum cast is that if you accept the reclining Bigfoot explanation, it means that Bigfoot has disproportionately short arms.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Is there any PDF page samples of Wassons's book that you can pull up Atomic?

Sadly, no. Google Books doesn't even offer a preview for it. The Wikipedia entry I got that information from does list the ISBN number, so you might be able to order a copy through your local library.

[xblade]

No, I watched it for several minutes.

Hmm, that's interesting, as most believers assure us that no one can get clear pics of bigfoot because sightings only last for a split second. I hope you're taking a camera with you on your current expeditions.

[wolftrax]

Oh, I don't put any trust into it. The suggestion that plaster casts were used to make the fake prints is a dead giveaway that it's all bull, as are Wallace's numerous other hoaxes. I was just noting that someone was trying to explain away Wallace's involvement. BTW, welcome to the forum!


Oh yeah, I should pay more attention. So much talking going on here sometimes I tend to skim...

Thanks! I've watched a few of your videos in the past, Tube pointed them out to me and I enjoyed them.




I'd imagine that he also neglected to factor in how misidentified and/or overlaid animal (mostly bear) tracks can be mistaken for Bigfoot tracks, which would account for a variety of lengths. Hell, a simple reading of all confirmed hoaxes reveals a variety of track sizes.


Yeah, well the 9" tracks Wallace left were so human like Green almost doesn't count them but then it's slickly referred to when needed in an argument that there was at least some tracks there that showed flexibility, muscle and toe movement, etc. You know that Wallace really favored hte 15" tracks and left those the most out of that 10 year period, maybe he just found those the most comfortable. Freeman seemed to favor 13", which Wallace evidently had a pair of those as well. That 15" would fit the peak of what is most comfortable yet able to go out of the human norm, the peak could just show the common favorite of hoaxers. It's less comfortable to wear a 17" or 20" foot than it is a 15". Then you get into those rare little feet and those are a lot less common, but what isn't so uncommon is kids walking around barefoot. Anyways he had like more than 700 tracks, they had to be from these super long trackways that are famous like at Onion Mtn. and so on, I couldn't for the life of me imagine how they could have more than 700 different tracks made by different individuals.



Would this include the tracks allegedly made by Patty?


Absolutely...


My favorite thing about the Skookum cast is that if you accept the reclining Bigfoot explanation, it means that Bigfoot has disproportionately short arms.

Yet an elk fits just fine!

[RayG]

My favorite thing about the Skookum cast is that if you accept the reclining Bigfoot explanation, it means that Bigfoot has disproportionately short arms.

The BFRO has an image online of a pile of apples on the ground near the imprint.

This pile of apples is at least 50" away from what they claim is the right butt-cheek, the single apple is closer at about 40" away.

The distance between the 'forearm' and the nearest/pile of apples is approximately 40" and 30" respectively.

If the squatch leaned over, using the elbow and forearm to support itself, in order to reach the apples, why isn't the elbow/forearm impression significantly deeper in the mud?

And, speaking of impressions in the mud... how is it they found scrotum/testicles imprints, but didn't find any hand or foot imprints?

RayG

[wolftrax]

Because it rolled in on it's "Double ball joint".

[mangler]

Is this what I have heard referenced to as the "Rick-Roll" ?


m

[makaya325]

Makaya you are a troll and a liar.
Your stupidity cannot be the only reason.
Are you on drugs? Should you be?

Did I tell you for now on, I am going to post here as a changed thinker.

[marlborough]

Makaya you are a troll and a liar.
Are you on drugs? Should you be?

Is he still claiming to be a close personal friend of the highly unstable Fahrenbach?

[makaya325]

Is he still claiming to be a close personal friend of the highly unstable Fahrenbach?

Come on with the body shots. Even though i dont agree with his work, at least he tries to do his homework.

[GT/CS]

Mak, do you know anything about a poster named Gigantopithecus canadensis from the BFF? He seems to be a devoted Henner defender.

[makaya325]

Mak, do you know anything about a poster named Gigantopithecus canadensis from the BFF? He seems to be a devoted Henner defender.

Lol, I am sorry, but I have no connection with him. I did have a connection with dukeofearl. I sadly used him as a shield for my posts, and he took the heat for it (he didnt care, he really cares less about bigfoot. He has a wife and a new born son to deal with!)

Could you look up his Ip address?

IMO, Henner is quite stubborn. When i address skeptical arguements to him, he ignores it, saying he KNOWS they exist. He should have no problem submitting his fibers, i mean hairs, to a DNA testing.

[makaya325]

If any of you are interested, I can PM you my skeptical questions to Henner and his Pseudoscientific and ignorant responses.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Thanks! I've watched a few of your videos in the past, Tube pointed them out to me and I enjoyed them.

Thanks, although those videos are "mine" only in the sense that I found and linked to them.

Yeah, well the 9" tracks Wallace left were so human like Green almost doesn't count them but then it's slickly referred to when needed in an argument that there was at least some tracks there that showed flexibility, muscle and toe movement, etc.

Good point, I had completely forgotten about to factor in people going barefoot. It amazes me just how large the barefoot/shoebusters movement really is.

Absolutely...

Very interesting! Although I'd imagine that gets bandied about as "proof" the tracks are from a real creature by many proponents rather than it being seen as another example of Patterson hoaxing.

[makaya325]

Thanks, although those videos are "mine" only in the sense that I found and linked to them.



Good point, I had completely forgotten about to factor in people going barefoot. It amazes me just how large the barefoot/shoebusters movement really is.



Very interesting! Although I'd imagine that gets bandied about as "proof" the tracks are from a real creature by many proponents rather than it being seen as another example of Patterson hoaxing.

Patterson was a little scam artist! I wonder if Patricia Patterson could attend the Munns presentation?

[Telaynay's G'son]

Another apparent example of deception (fathered by incompetence) was the Honobia BF Festival's Wall of Fame promoted on the MABRC site listing donors underwriting the event.

One was listed as MABRC member todtkaufman when (per several former MABRC members) in fact this is apparently nothing more than a Darren Lee created sockpuppet and yet he has the gall to talk about the alleged disingenuous behavior of others.

[Harpyja]

In truth, it's probably a mixture of both.

[William Parcher]

It took me literally a matter of minutes to confirm thefirstbillyjack's video was a porcupine. It should be shocking that Bigfoot enthusiasts are seriously considering this to be a baby Bigfoot but I've seen enough facepalm behaviour by now to know better. :D


There is a new "porcupine as Bigfoot" video being discussed on Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/1-blobsqu10/) and BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28434).


Whitefoot on BFF: Looks like a Gorilla to me. But, hey maybe it's a baby bigfoot?

Moregon on BFF: Black Bear sitting in the tree is my vote.

norman-uk on Crypto: Looking at the full screen youtube picture I see what looks like a quite large ape or chimpanzee like face and figure in some respects similar to Pattie. What it actually is I cannot say. Nor I doubt can anyone else except the photographer (or perpetrator? ).


First video presentation - "What Is It? Maine Tree Creature! Sasquatch, Big Foot, monkey, ape!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzELdzjXVQk)

Extra footage (Director's Cut) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKfJI6vDwI)

[GT/CS]

Sure looks porcupiney to me.

Where's Creekfreak when we need him? He could make it look bigfootish!

Hmmm, I guess all those bigfoot researchers/believers who think it's not a porcupine must spend all their time at a computer and never go out into the field.

[William Parcher]

I'm thinking of BFF's Tirademan and his "Amazing Historical Archives Found".


Flashback 1926: Hikers Observe Gorilla in Tree and Fearfully Leave the Forest

One of those ancient news clippings you can't toss out 'cause it sure coulda been a Bigfoot.

[WGBH]

Yep, it's a porky.

[Drewbot]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7229391243671130131&ei=2pxDS--QA4SSrALs66G7AQ&q=porcupine&hl=en#docid=-7216051911322101323

I present... Giant monkey climbing down a sapling.

[The Shrike]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7229391243671130131&ei=2pxDS--QA4SSrALs66G7AQ&q=porcupine&hl=en#docid=-7216051911322101323

I present... Giant monkey climbing down a sapling.

Holy crap - those things are monkeys?!

[desertgal]

Where's Creekfreak when we need him? He could make it look bigfootish!

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1856/porkyenlarged.jpg

[Drewbot]

Holy crap - those things are monkeys?!

This is BIGFOOTRY Bro-Ham... EVERYTHING is Monkeys.

[GT/CS]

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1856/porkyenlarged.jpg

Very nice!
How does it feel to be the person who replaced Creekfreak?!!!;)

[desertgal]

Very nice!
How does it feel to be the person who replaced Creekfreak?!!!;)

I'd answer that, but I have to go tend to my palmetto stump. It's lonely, and it needs beans. :D

[dogjones]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2798543/Bigfoot-Is-this-the-proof.html

Here we go.

[desertgal]

They forgot to add eyes. Ya gotta add eyes.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1856/porkyenlarged.jpg

Amateurs. :rolleyes:

Nice work on blurring the 'fur', though. Just a smidge more, and believers might think the picture was PhotoShopped. :D

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9250/capture1vo.jpg

[GeeMack]

Porcupine.

ETA: Here's a link to a photo (http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/wildlife/porcupine-face.jpg) of one in a tree. Here's a link to the blog article with other photos (http://wiseacre-gardens.com/wordpress/porcupine-up-a-tree/) of porcupines. Porcupines live in Maine. They're slow, quiet, and the spend a lot of time in trees.

[dogjones]

Porcupine.

ETA: Here's a link to a photo (http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/wildlife/porcupine-face.jpg) of one in a tree. Here's a link to the blog article with other photos (http://wiseacre-gardens.com/wordpress/porcupine-up-a-tree/) of porcupines. Porcupines live in Maine. They're slow, quiet, and the spend a lot of time in trees.

Cool! Didn't know porcupines were that big. I always picture them as west highland terrier-sized hedgehogs

[William Parcher]

We have been discussing this over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139434&page=4).

[William Parcher]

The Internet gives everyone a voice.

It's not a porcupine, it looks very much like a monkey (it's leaning with its left elbow against the tree and its right fore arm is resting on the branch the monkey is sitting on (you can also see its right hand, with the thumb pointing up). And I think it's a Japanese snow monkey (native to Japan, although an introduced free-ranging population has been living near Laredo, Texas since 1972). Maybe their range is spreading?


Very interesting, that so many people look at what is obviously not a porcupine and see a porcupine, but that's just the power of suggestion.


I have seen a lot of porucpines over the years, hunting in the Texas hill country... I know I am not 100% sold on the whole porcupine thing. I don't have an answer as to what it is, but again not ready to say it really looks like a porcupine.

[The Shrike]

The Internet gives everyone a voice.
Oy.

[Cainkane1]

How is it that everything surrounding the existence of Bigfoot is always cloaked by a cloud of uncertainty, doubt and deception? Topping this list is an endless stream of UNKNOWN biological material that is never subjected to the full extent of scientific scrutiny but accepted wholeheartedly as evidence by the hardcore believers. Quite fitting that the term “UNKNOWN” is utilized so often in this vain and futile quest. Even more appropriate is that words such as concrete, conclusive and irrefutable are conveniently absent from the squatching vocabulary. So how should we treat all of this unsubstantiated Bigfoot evidence that the most outspoken squatch fanatics continuously regurgitate. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that this material is nothing more than smoke and mirrors that serve to maintain an ongoing illusion known as Bigfoot. Ultimately, it’s no better than all the distorted blobsquatch photos that have accumulated over the past half century.

Let’s consider where information of this dubious evidence is documented. I’m sure those of us not corrupted by what I like to describe as a squatch fetish, have all noticed that this data can only be found on pseudo/crypto websites that are not regulated to say the least. Aside from that, the only other medium for this information is on sites such as Wiki, where anyone is permitted to post anything they please. So is this merely a coincidence? Is it a conspiracy of main stream science to refuse acknowledgement of this evidence and exiling it to the realm of the paranormal? Not quite.

For researchers desperately trying to prove the existence of BF, isn't it odd that only a superficial analysis of this material was conducted. In fact, using the word "analysis" is perhaps too strong. To achieve the status of “Unknown Animal”, only a lackadaisical comparison is performed gauging it to a limited number of specimens on hand. In essence, a loose and highly subjective test was carried out to insure the results came back as inconclusive. An all too common practice among squatchers to perpetuate a fairytale. So it’s quite appropriate that these misleading results are found on such obscure websites and never collaborated to any extent.

So one must begin to question why a more thorough analysis was not carried out. Surely even the most uneducated of Squatchologists realize that hair and fecal samples are capable of yielding DNA. DNA that can validate the existence of an unknown primate. Is it possible that the reluctance of allowing DNA experts to examine this evidence stems from lessons learned from previous experiences. Unpleasant lessons where BF evidence has always been debunked each and every time it was submitted for DNA extraction. The Manitoba bison hair and the blood from Snelgrove are just the latest of such disappointing results. It’s no wonder that only comparative studies have been conducted because digging any further such as obtaining DNA serves only to have this evidence quickly dismissed. Quite a sad state of affairs when you think about it. As I alluded to so many times before, you cannot call something evidence when you refuse to allow mainstream science access. Just like that hair that was found in Squatch Attack part I that was concluded to exhibit unknown morphology.

Doesn’t this create a delicious irony? We have the childish-like antics of our Squatch Junkies that are constantly complaining about how mainstream science never gets involved in this asinine endeavor. At the same time, those who are in possession of this evidence are fearful of what the outcome would be and deny access to anyone within the scientific community, with the exception of only the most devoted of BF proponents such as Dr. MonsterQuest Nelson and Henner Fahrenbach. Sort of a Catch 22 scenario.
I suspect that this is how BF evidence will be presented in the future. Creating the illusion that science is involved by conducting a token comparison study to a minimal number of biological samples of known animals. When that is completed, the all too familiar declaration of a yet to be discovered species is made. And to ensure the samples are never proven false, access is restricted to only a select number of hardcore Squatchologists. After all, any further examination of this evidence could jeopardize the existence of this mythical creature. So it’s locked away somewhere from the prying eyes of the scientific community thus allowing them to maintain a healthy population of naïve squatch followers.

The only question that remains, is it incompetence or deception that compels those who make such premature and erroneous conclusions.
I believe the paranormal crowd has their own agenda. I do recall a patch of "hair" being subjected to proper biological testing. It was hair that supposedly belonged to Floridas skunk ape. Ok the hair wasn't hair. It was vegetable in origin and not even hair. If BF was disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt then people would be less apt tp go to and read paranormal sites and buy their advertised products. Fate magazine would go out of business. Hence the half baked or non existent tests.

[The Shrike]

Nutjobs notwithstanding, I believe it took a mere 19 minute for the first person over on the BFF to recognize the "Maine creature" as a porcupine.

[Drewbot]

Nutjobs notwithstanding, I believe it took a mere 19 minute for the first person over on the BFF to recognize the "Maine creature" as a porcupine.


One thing is certain, porcupines do end up as road-kill more often than bigfoot.

They also sound Bigfooty.
http://www.junglewalk.com/sound/Porcupine-sounds.htm
Click on the third one down, titled Canadian porcupine. The other two don't work.

[GeeMack]

Nutjobs notwithstanding, I believe it took a mere 19 minute for the first person over on the BFF to recognize the "Maine creature" as a porcupine.


It took me the few seconds required to watch the video, and under a minute to find a suitable photo reference and a porcupine range map on Google Images.

[WGBH]

The Internet gives everyone a voice.

Edited for rule 12.

[Bitter Monk]

The Internet gives everyone a voice.

I thought cherry picking was frowned upon here? All you've done here is to take two voices from a forum and use them to paint the entire membership of that forum in a bad light.

Why not list the vast majority of postings from the same forum stating the subject is clearly a porcupine?

[Drewbot]

I thought cherry picking was frowned upon here? All you've done here is to take two voices from a forum and use them to paint the entire membership of that forum in a bad light.

Why not list the vast majority of postings from the same forum stating the subject is clearly a porcupine?

Obviously his point was that even people who think it is a monkey, have a voice. It is funny that they think it is a monkey. It would not be funny to show people who think it is a porcupine.

I would not want to hear about people saying what is obvious. The fact that it is a Bigfoot or Monkey even to a few people in Bigfootry is immensely entertaining, and part of the reason that many of us are enamoured with Bigfootry.

People don't go to www.peopleofwalmart.com to see those dressed in Jeans and a tshirt.
http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/764.jpg

PS: The opening thread asks about incompetence or deception, I think this clearly points to incompetence don't you?

The fact that reasonable voices are systematically eliminated from Bigfoot forums, and people who see or hear Bigfoot behind every tree, in every state they live in, are elevated to levels of untouchable status, adds little credence to your claim of cherry picking.

[William Parcher]

I thought cherry picking was frowned upon here?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Who is frowning upon me for picking monkey-in-a-tree quotes from the web?

All you've done here is to take two voices from a forum and use them to paint the entire membership of that forum in a bad light.

Look again. You will see that I have actually quoted 6 different voices on 3 different forums. Did you just cherry pick me?

What I have done is hunted down ridiculous proclamations of what this animal may be. I brought those here mostly for entertainment but also to enlighten fellow cryptozoology skeptics about just how "bad it can get" out there with the crypto folks.


Why not list the vast majority of postings from the same forum stating the subject is clearly a porcupine?

You mean all 3 forums. I have zero interest in that because it's boring. Think about it, BM. Here's a picture of a porcupine in a tree... OH OH OH and look here is Joe Bigfooter and wait til you hear what he says. He says it's a porcupine. Isn't that interesting?

You seem to be extra sensitive and defensive concerning Bigfoot Forums. That forum is a haven for Bigfoot believers and so it is something of an interest and target for Bigfoot skeptics.

[Bitter Monk]

Obviously his point was that even people who think it is a monkey, have a voice.[/b]

Well of course everyone has a voice. However, when you post only two posting from a forum where the vast majority of members are stating it is clearly a porcupine without stating such you're providing a very slanted view based on a slim majority. The fact that anyone would think it was anything other than a porcupine isn't humorous to me, it's sad.

[quote]PS: The opening thread asks about incompetence or deception, I think this clearly points to incompetence don't you?

In the case of the source I believe it is deception, but otherwise yes I would say it was incompetence to look at this and not be able to ascertain what the subject was or was not.

[William Parcher]

From Cryptozoology.com...

badger man: I have to admit. I thought it was a baboon.

LadyGreenEyes: First thought was a bear cub. Then maybe a porcupine. The face seems more simian, though, so maybe, just maybe, an escaped monkey?

[GT/CS]

[QUOTE=Drewbot;5489911]Obviously his point was that even people who think it is a monkey, have a voice.[/b]

Well of course everyone has a voice. However, when you post only two posting from a forum where the vast majority of members are stating it is clearly a porcupine without stating such you're providing a very slanted view based on a slim majority. The fact that anyone would think it was anything other than a porcupine isn't humorous to me, it's sad.



In the case of the source I believe it is deception, but otherwise yes I would say it was incompetence to look at this and not be able to ascertain what the subject was or was not.

Where did he say he was lumping all bigfoot believers into one category? It seems to me that he just picked a few of the most ridiculous quotes.

[Bitter Monk]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Who is frowning upon me for picking monkey-in-a-tree quotes from the web?

I never said anyone was frowning on you. I said that the act of cherry picking was frowned upon by this forum, and I said it very clearly.

Look again. You will see that I have actually quoted 6 different voices on 3 different forums. Did you just cherry pick me?

The post I quoted showed three posts, two from the BFF and one from a forum I'm not familiar with. That is the only post I was referencing.

What I have done is hunted down ridiculous proclamations of what this animal may be. I brought those here mostly for entertainment but also to enlighten fellow cryptozoology skeptics about just how "bad it can get" out there with the crypto folks.

And that is exactly my point. You go to a forum where the vast majority of members are stating it's a porcupine, and you come back with the only two posts that state otherwise to show how "bad it can get". Completely ignore the fact that those are fringe voices but make sure to reference them without the proper context so that everyone can laugh at the goobers.

You mean all 3 forums. I have zero interest in that because it's boring. Think about it, BM. Here's a picture of a porcupine in a tree... OH OH OH and look here is Joe Bigfooter and wait til you hear what he says. He says it's a porcupine. Isn't that interesting?

It is only dis-interesting because it doesn't support the "all bigfooters are nutters" stance. All I would have asked is the caveat of "everyone over there is saying it's a porcupine except for these two (insert quotes)." I don't like to see either side, believer or skeptic, paint the other side with a broad brush.

You seem to be extra sensitive and defensive concerning Bigfoot Forums. That forum is a haven for Bigfoot believers and so it is something of an interest and target for Bigfoot skeptics.

I'm not being defensive in my pointing out your selection of quotes. As Drew pointed out reasonable voices are often shouted down, and too many have left that forum for my taste. My own post rate has gone down significantly there, but that doesn't mean I want to stand by while you or anyone else take a few examples to paint the entire membership in a bad light.

Simply put you are an individual. I would never use one or two members posts from this forum to attempt to paint you in the same light as them. I'm only asking for the same level of respect.

[The Shrike]

I see Bitter Monk's point, I think.

There are some pretty amusing (I say "sad") examples of people on multiple boards proclaiming the porcupine photo to depict something else. As I mentioned, it took just 19 minutes for someone on the BFF to correctly identify the "creature" as a porcupine. (I assume that person recognized it immediately as such, but it took 19 minutes for that person to find the post and respond.)

So if one result of cutting and pasting a few of the wackier comments is to paint the entire forum with that broad brush of wackiness, then that interpretation is inaccurate. (It doesn't matter if this wasn't the intent. It's a result.) Multiple folks on the BFF - including some bigfoot believers - have now weighed in that the thing is a porcupine. It looks like a small number of loonies there who might think it's something else.

So, if it clearly isn't all the people on the BFF who think it's not a porcupine, then how many non-porcies do there have to be before the entire forum is considered a haven? Five percent? Ten? How does the proportion of loonies to rationalists compare among sites? Are there more of these people there than at other sites? (For example, isn't "Jacobs creature belief" much higher at the BFRO than the BFF?) Even the JREF has its share of cranks (trolls) who show up and spout nonsense. How many would be tolerable before someone else could say that the JREF tolerates them?

[Drewbot]

I'm not being defensive in my pointing out your selection of quotes. As Drew pointed out reasonable voices are often shouted down, and too many have left that forum for my taste. My own post rate has gone down significantly there, but that doesn't mean I want to stand by while you or anyone else take a few examples to paint the entire membership in a bad light.

Simply put you are an individual. I would never use one or two members posts from this forum to attempt to paint you in the same light as them. I'm only asking for the same level of respect.


I really don't see your point.
If someone says "The Senate is chock full of Kooks, as can be seen by these 25 quotes" That person surely isn't going to quote Senators that he agrees with.

[Bitter Monk]

I really don't see your point.
If someone says "The Senate is chock full of Kooks, as can be seen by these 25 quotes" That person surely isn't going to quote Senators that he agrees with.

Which is exactly my point.

[William Parcher]

I don't care. I'll post cornball quotes from forums whenever I want to. If somebody wants to "balance it" with other quotes or an explanation - then go ahead.

I didn't think I was promoting bickering but we shouldn't go on this way in this thread. We have one for that purpose in Forum Community.

[Drewbot]

Which is exactly my point.

No, your point is that Parcher should give equal-time to 'Normal' bigfooters. Parcher has no obligation to quote vanilla statements from the less-kooky footers. He was trying to make an entertaining list of quotes, showing the kooky footers who think the porcupine is a monkey. He has no obligation to to show non-entertaining quotes, just to give the less-kooky Footers equal time.

[William Parcher]

I can't force anyone to follow, but I'm taking this to the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153225&page=3).

[William Parcher]

The original videos have been removed, but you can find them on YouTube where others have posted them. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TO9KkfE36o) is a seriously wild ride as you sit with some dweeb as he analyzes the footage.

More quotes from teh internets...

that is not a porcupine. it is an ape.


lakotahope: I'll go with the brown/ black bear.

flash2368: Someone finally got clear video of either a bigfoot teenager...or an escapee from a zoo. Definitely not winter maine woods normal!!

Jigore: bear cub.

gagalmg: that's a bear -monkey.

cyandk: It looks like a bear with a messed up head.

Allenst: i think there are 2 animals there and the small one is black… that thing looks like it would be 4'5' feet erect and guessing 80lbs-125lbs.

Hawklynn: porcupines dont climb trees.

BFResearchSE: Porcupine? I don’t think so. Looks like a tucked right arm across the front (elbow showing with a would-be thumb up around it's belly) with the left arm and hand coming underneath. Ther'e a left foot showing against the base of the tree and probably the right leg folded and laying across the branch. Left arm I would imagine is braced against the inside of the tree. Personally I would have had a heart attack up there.

MLAiley66: Young Bigfoot. A lookout or Sentry.

redeye99999: Sorry mate definately a bear!!

[Bitter Monk]

Hawklynn: porcupines dont climb trees.


Our previous disagreement aside... that isn't incompetence or deception. That right there is a whole new kind of stupid. The kind of stupid that has an event horizon from whence all intelligent thought is sucked down to a singularity of dumb.

[kitakaze]

It took me literally a matter of minutes to confirm thefirstbillyjack's video was a porcupine. It should be shocking that Bigfoot enthusiasts are seriously considering this to be a baby Bigfoot but I've seen enough facepalm behaviour by now to know better. :DThere is a new "porcupine as Bigfoot" video being discussed on Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/1-blobsqu10/) and BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28434).

Stupidity so nice, it happens twice...

So this porcu-foot thing is like the new fad, right? Somebody do beavers. Let's have some beaver.

[kitakaze]

Even the JREF has its share of cranks (trolls) who show up and spout nonsense. How many would be tolerable before someone else could say that the JREF tolerates them?

JREF tolerance...

makaya325
Banned

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: It's ok, im a limo driver!
Posts: 4,655

Ban Notice: makaya325
Darat (5th December 2009)

[Bitter Monk]

Somebody do beavers. Let's have some beaver.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk102/theponderingpossum/t_butthead.gif

[kitakaze]

26 minutes...

Not bad. Not bad at all.

[Bitter Monk]

Sorry for the delay. I just got back home.

[Drewbot]

Getting this back on topic, re: Deception/incompetence.

Ever notice that Bigfoot goes out of his way to freaking drop bombs (rocks, pinecones, voles) on Bigfoot researchers? Does he ever throw rocks/pinecones etc... at normal people, or real researchers out checking on the Marmot population on Vancouver island?

In fact I'd go so far as to say that the cabin, that is getting bombed by the Bigfoots hucking boulders at it, is full of Bigfoot Researchers, sitting around the fireplace, telling bigfoot stories, getting their hopes fired up so they can go cast bear tracks the next day, and claim they are bigfoot.

[LuvGodzilla]

A good example in the world of Bigfoot Deception would be Bulletmaker. He claimed to have hoaxed (deceived) Mabrc long term with the help of others.

Here you have an excellent example of the hoaxers and the hoaxed. When you look at that situation you have Bulletmaker claiming to have done specific things that could be labeled as "Fabrication" and“Deception”.

Bulletmaker fabricated tall tales to deceive. He used their beliefs against them. He also created new beliefs for them.

The Mabrc members went to Bulletmakers filled with Romantic Visions of the activity they would be able to witness and have their own encounters based on his tall tales. They were ripe for all the elements of hoaxing.

Was that incompetence on the behalf of the Mabrc members? Not in my opinion, because none of the Mabrc were qualified in Wildlife Behavior or Professional Investigations to determine what was real and what wasn’t concerning their reason for being there.

Their belief system and gullibility were their downfall and they were deceived because someone like Bulletmaker was able to create a deception that fit with their beliefs based on his fantastical fabricated tall tales. :)

[GT/CS]

A good example in the world of Bigfoot Deception would be Bulletmaker. He claimed to have hoaxed (deceived) Mabrc long term with the help of others.

Here you have an excellent example of the hoaxers and the hoaxed. When you look at that situation you have Bulletmaker claiming to have done specific things that could be labeled as "Fabrication" and“Deception”.

Bulletmaker fabricated tall tales to deceive. He used their beliefs against them. He also created new beliefs for them.

The Mabrc members went to Bulletmakers filled with Romantic Visions of the activity they would be able to witness and have their own encounters based on his tall tales. They were ripe for all the elements of hoaxing.

Was that incompetence on the behalf of the Mabrc members? Not in my opinion, because none of the Mabrc were qualified in Wildlife Behavior or Professional Investigations to determine what was real and what wasn’t concerning their reason for being there.

Their belief system and gullibility were their downfall and they were deceived because someone like Bulletmaker was able to create a deception that fit with their beliefs based on his fantastical fabricated tall tales. :)

The MABRC wasn't exactly clueless on what Bulletmaker was doing.

[LuvGodzilla]

The MABRC wasn't exactly clueless on what Bulletmaker was doing.

Could you explain in a little more detail?

[GT/CS]

Could you explain in a little more detail?

Either an idiot like bulletmaker fooled the entire organization, which means they are ALL completely clueless, or some of them knew what he was doing, condoned it, and possibly encouraged it, which means only some were clueless and the rest were dishonest.

With many bigfoot organizations it's difficult to say which option is more likely so applying occams's razor is impractical, but my vote is on the latter.

[LuvGodzilla]

Either an idiot like bulletmaker fooled the entire organization, which means they are ALL completely clueless, or some of them knew what he was doing, condoned it, and possibly encouraged it, which means only some were clueless and the rest were dishonest.


I just noticed that I didn't clarify "that" in my statement:

The Mabrc members went to Bulletmakers

It should have read:

"The Mabrc members that went to Bulletmakers".

Not that it matters because those that didn't seemed to also buy into the tall tales. Heck, he sold CD's of those tall tales, the guy can't be a complete idiot, he walked away with some cash from the gullible :cool:

He was highly catered to and also venomously defended by the majority of members :boggled: as to his knowledge and authenticity/credibility.

Yet, if we go back to the OP and discuss Deception, Fabrication and Incompetence, I felt that Bulletmaker was the epitome of a Deceptive, fabricating hoaxer who in his "idiocy?" used the research incompetence levels to his advantage :D

I do not disagree with your description of dishonest and knowledge of his antics. He was definitely encouraged by his loyal followers, yet what is truth and what isn't? Seems that fiasco and the involved dropped off the radar. :boxedin:

[William Parcher]

You may know that BulletMaker is a member here named "tornado". He posted on the first page of this thread.

I have a suspicion that BM never did hoax other MABRC members in the field... because he didn't need to. He said he did, but he didn't. The MABRC simply invent BF out of nothing. "I see one at the tree line. Now he's going 4X4. Did you just hear that sound? Etc etc." But there is nothing out there, or it's just normal creatures and features of nature. BM already knows that they do this. He knows that he can claim to be hoaxing them and they are powerless to prove otherwise. What those boys declare to be Bigfoot is neither Bigfoot nor BulletMaker.

Yeah, I think that to be spiteful, he took advantage of their vulnerability and claimed to have hoaxed them when he really did not.

[GT/CS]

I just noticed that I didn't clarify "that" in my statement:



It should have read:

"The Mabrc members that went to Bulletmakers".

Not that it matters because those that didn't seemed to also buy into the tall tales. Heck, he sold CD's of those tall tales, the guy can't be a complete idiot, he walked away with some cash from the gullible :cool:

He was highly catered to and also venomously defended by the majority of members :boggled: as to his knowledge and authenticity/credibility.

Yet, if we go back to the OP and discuss Deception, Fabrication and Incompetence, I felt that Bulletmaker was the epitome of a Deceptive, fabricating hoaxer who in his "idiocy?" used the research incompetence levels to his advantage :D

I do not disagree with your description of dishonest and knowledge of his antics. He was definitely encouraged by his loyal followers, yet what is truth and what isn't? Seems that fiasco and the involved dropped off the radar. :boxedin:

Probably my error. Reading comprehension is not one of my strong points:o.

[WGBH]

BM is still around. He still calls into the occasional Blog talk radio show to tell his BS stories. He claims that things really did happen on his property but he hoaxed the MABRC in some revenge scheme. What? :confused: The guy is FOS. He cusses me out when I call him a hoaxer.

[LuvGodzilla]

I have a suspicion that BM never did hoax other MABRC members in the field... because he didn't need to. He said he did, but he didn't. The MABRC simply invent BF out of nothing. "I see one at the tree line. Now he's going 4X4. Did you just hear that sound? Etc etc." But there is nothing out there, or it's just normal creatures and features of nature. BM already knows that they do this. He knows that he can claim to be hoaxing them and they are powerless to prove otherwise. What those boys declare to be Bigfoot is neither Bigfoot nor BulletMaker.

Yeah, I think that to be spiteful, he took advantage of their vulnerability and claimed to have hoaxed them when he really did not.

Your right WP, I guess we will never know the truth unless there is evidence to back up Bulletmakers claims of physical hoaxing of the Mabrc members that attended expeditions to his property.

I find your statement that he didn't need to hoax them interesting. I think he did need to hoax them to keep them coming, it benefited him through their labor (wood cutting) and the cash from his CD's based on their expedition reports. His stories got bigger and more exaggerated, why not his attempts at a few rocks thrown or sticks on tents, how about using a friend or relative to creep around in the dark, make sounds to help his cause?

Perhaps it is about revenge, for what I don't know. Or perhaps it's about having fun at the expense of others who are gullible because he's a downright spiteful person. ;)

[The Shrike]

JREF tolerance...

So "makaya325" made over 4600 posts on the JREF over 11 months. Was he banned for posting just some idiotic statement like "check out this snow monkey photo from Maine" or because he broke some specific rule? If the former, then the point can be made that the JREF doesn't tolerate loony ideas, but it could also be said that the JREF allowed this guy to make thousands of nonsensical posts.

[William Parcher]

He broke the rules over and over and over again. Check it out. (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=makaya325) Unlike the BFF, JREF won't ban or even suspend anyone for what is considered "trolling". Mak could have gone on forever being totally annoying as long as he didn't break the membership agreement rules repeatedly.

[Bitter Monk]

I think this could go under incompetence fueled by deception.

BFRO Caribousquatch (http://www.bfro.net/news/great_north_figure.asp)

[William Parcher]

Collectors Series


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/bbb0eb79.jpg

[Bitter Monk]

It has gone from bearsquatch, to porcusquatch, to guineasquatch, back to porcusquatch, and now caribousquatch. At this point I think Kit deserves his beaversquatch.

[The Shrike]

Cool. Now bigfoots hunt caribou in the tundra!

Meantime, is there a thread here about this new California sasquatch clip? It's a YouTube special (flags a wavin') but what it actually shows isn't clear. I don't see any reason (yet) to consider it anything other than a gorilla moving uphill (i.e., the "hoax" is that the clip isn't what it's purported to be, rather than "it's a guy-in-a-suit").

[xblade]

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Nutjobs notwithstanding, I believe it took a mere 19 minute for the first person over on the BFF to recognize the "Maine creature" as a porcupine.



That's no porcupine, that's the elusive, little-known midgetfoot. It's just like bigfoot, only shorter.

Collectors Series


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/bbb0eb79.jpg


Wow, such conclusive photographic evidence. How can anyone continue to doubt it's existence?

[mike3]

Fabrication of evidence is deceptive by definition. Incompetence would lead to improper conclusions from nonfabbed evidence.

[Correa Neto]

BM's case is an excellent example which can be used to counter an argument raised by a pro-BF poster here (LAL? Huntster?) - there's no money to be made with bigfoot hoaxes and the hoaxers are caught, thus they must be rare.

If he sold any CDs (and judging by the defunct MABRC site he did indeed), BM made some money out of fools - even if just some cents. Easy money, and that's what these type of con people are after.

There's a whole continuum of con people... From those hunting cents from a couple of bigfooters to tele evangelists hunting millions from thousands of faithfull follwers. Passing through Sylvia Browne-like frauds.

OK, the top con people are in to politics...

[Vortigern99]

Generation of income is not required to explain the motivation of a hoaxer. The secret thrill of watching or reading about others responding to one's efforts is sufficient to explain "why hoaxers hoax".

Most people have hobbies that garner no return of material investment. People pursue these hobbies because of a personal interest in the subject, a feeling of emotional and/or intellectual satisfaction -- not because they stand to profit from the endeavor.

Consider the computer expert who develops a virus which takes out thousands of hard drives and/or networks, at no benefit to the inventor of the virus except for a feeling of superiority, one-ups-manship, or "HA HA I'm smarter than those idiots".

Hoaxing is a hobby for some people.

[Correa Neto]

Many are the motivations of hoaxers. To grab some cash, to have a laugh, to keep interest on the subject, etct. Or any combinations of the former.

And many are the ridiculous excuses offered by footers attempting to reduce the presence of hoaxes within bigfootery.
"Would get shot"
"Would confess the hoax"

[JcR]

creature in a tree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAau69uRDtc)
I'm sure it's just another rodent squatch.
I guess Bigfoot's can't enjoy grubs in peace.

[William Parcher]

Somebody attempted to kill it with anthrax at 0:45.

[The Shrike]

Somebody attempted to kill it with anthrax at 0:45.
I knew what was coming, but I still cracked up.

[mike3]

It's funny that Dr. George B. Schaller, in the introduction on page 12 writes that Meldrum "disentangles fact from anecdote, supposition, and wishful thinking..."

Oh how I wish that were true. Every scrap of evidence that Meldrum provides to support the existence of bigfoot --from tracks casts, hair analysis, dermal ridges, North American traditional beliefs, the Skookum Cast, Gigantopithecus locomotion and stature, migrating sasquatches, vocalizations, stone-throwing, photographs and films, to Fahrenbach's garbage in garbage out statistical analysis-- is nothing but anecdote, supposition, or wishful thinking.

Meldrums lack of scientific rigor is painfully obvious. Where is the utilization of the scientific method, (especially testing and replication), and the application of Occan's Razor? It's truly discouraging to see science ignored and abused by someone pursuing the bigfoot mystery, especially when they're supposedly familiar with scientific methods.

RayG

So how would you propose to do a scientifically rigorous investigation of the mystery?

[RayG]

So how would you propose to do a scientifically rigorous investigation of the mystery?

That would depend on what you want investigated, but some guidelines* should apply to nearly everything.

- eliminate mundane explanations before attributing something to squatch

- rely on scientific methods and equipment instead of stories and superstition

- measurements instead of guesstimates

- fit your conclusion to the data not the data to your conclusions

Mix together with a heaping helping of Occam's Razor and lots of testing and replication.

RayG

* this list of guidelines is by no means intended to be complete

[atpeace]

Surely even the most uneducated of Squatchologists realize that hair and fecal samples are capable of yielding DNA. DNA that can validate the existence of an unknown primate. Is it possible that the reluctance of allowing DNA experts to examine this evidence stems from lessons learned from previous experiences. Unpleasant lessons where BF evidence has always been debunked each and every time it was submitted for DNA extraction.

I admit I haven’t been to other BF sites in a long while but I have to ask: How much hair and fecal samples are actually being collected out there? I know we see them collected by the Squatch Pack on duh!cumentaries on TV, so we’ll all stay tuned to see the results. Geez, I hate when they do that. And I always loose the bet with my dog. And the book writers like to bandy them about, but other than that is there a lot of talk about hair and fecal evidence that has been collected by your every day searcher? I don't know, I am asking. And as I remember taking track casts was also rarely mentioned by your average Bfer because, as we all know, Bigfoot tracks are rain magnets.

And as far as the Skookum cast, I wouldn’t be too hard on the proponents. It began as a squatch lay, but man did he get a tongue lashing from the squatch clan when he got home.

“ Why are you all muddy, Fred, and where’d you get that apple? What? You idiot!”
So poor Fred had to go find himself an elk and…

ap

[atpeace]

Did it show any signs of having been thrown? Post #28

Hysterical!

Bigfoot humor. Again, priceless.

[JcR]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b4ea182d37a4.jpg
The Porcu Mag...
To add - OK! Punk'n up Porcupines; so they don't look like Bigfoots sounds like a good idea.
Punk'n Quill pigs...

[marlborough]

Since the creation of thread, seems BF proponents have insisted that unknown primate DNA has been collected and analyzed. I believe 2 of them involved a Dr. Ketchum and another by Dr. Bryan Sykes. So was anything ever actually published?

[parnassus]

Ketchum is a for-profit veterinarian who got her 15 minutes of fame and bucks on yet another "yeti" hair. She is taking specimens at 200 a throw. Her story stinks, imho. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=28075) No publication. Nothing from Sykes either and that has been 9 years.

[LuvGodzilla]

DNA DIAGNOSTICS INC (http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/staff.html)

Looking at Dr. Melba Ketchums website doesn't appear she's just a Veterinarian.

I wonder Parnassus if Bigfootery is giving her a bad rap (Monster Quest as well). It would be great to hear her talk in her own words about the Monster Quest Sample that wasn't edited for ratings and television.

Might be a good guest for "Monster Talk (http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/)".

[parnassus]

DNA DIAGNOSTICS INC (http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/staff.html)

Looking at Dr. Melba Ketchums website doesn't appear she's just a Veterinarian.

I wonder Parnassus if Bigfootery is giving her a bad rap (Monster Quest as well). It would be great to hear her talk in her own words about the Monster Quest Sample that wasn't edited for ratings and television.

Might be a good guest for "Monster Talk (http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/)".

If she isn't a veterinarian, what is she? Basically she's an entrepreneur. A businesswoman. Research? hmm. The only research I can find is how to ramp up production. Where's the publication that should result from her Yeti discovery???? Legitimate researchers publish their legitimate findings. Period.

At the moment, I'd imagine she's doing legal research, as she's being sued for patent infringement for the people who came up with the assays she uses in her "panels." As for this blithering on about the uncertainty of it all, I can tell you that anyone who blithers on about a decent specimen of DNA being "possibly human" is either incompetent or dishonest. Period. That determination is a TRIVIAL matter for a legit genetic lab. You don't have to believe me. Write to Todd Disotell or any competent geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor or Wisconsin or whatever your preference is. Why be ignorant? what is the internet for? get yer google on.....Stop listening to the fakers and snake oil salesmen and card carrying bigfoot believers named Nelson. Get your facts from actual scientists instead of the profiteers and dabblers in "panels" who want nothing more than to keep the 'Gravy Train" rollin'. (pun intended)

[Skeptical Greg]

We beat the Yeti hair to death at BFF..

The DNA had human markers but Ketchum insisted :

" The hair, visually was not human, it's coarser than horse hair .. "

...which is nonsense, because the video showed fine, wispy hair ..

[LTC8K6]

Well, I can't fake a bigfoot track because I can't carry 600 pounds on my back...

[marlborough]

I wonder Parnassus if Bigfootery is giving her a bad rap (Monster Quest as well). It would be great to hear her talk in her own words about the Monster Quest Sample that wasn't edited for ratings and television.


I thought the show was Destination Truth.

[parnassus]

Where is the Bigpoop? do they eat it, carry it to dumpsters? shape it into cowpies or elk turds? flush it down the Bigtoilet in their Bigcaves?

Scat is great for DNA determinations. Why don't we hear about Bigpoop testing for DNA? Stuff hangs around for weeks. Cmon, let's have the straight poop.....

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/reward.htm

Notice how they request that you be able to make "flat footed" tracks...

[LuvGodzilla]

If she isn't a veterinarian, what is she? Basically she's an entrepreneur. A businesswoman. Research? hmm. The only research I can find is how to ramp up production. Where's the publication that should result from her Yeti discovery???? Legitimate researchers publish their legitimate findings. Period.

At the moment, I'd imagine she's doing legal research, as she's being sued for patent infringement for the people who came up with the assays she uses in her "panels." As for this blithering on about the uncertainty of it all, I can tell you that anyone who blithers on about a decent specimen of DNA being "possibly human" is either incompetent or dishonest. Period. That determination is a TRIVIAL matter for a legit genetic lab. You don't have to believe me. Write to Todd Disotell or any competent geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor or Wisconsin or whatever your preference is. Why be ignorant? what is the internet for? get yer google on.....Stop listening to the fakers and snake oil salesmen and card carrying bigfoot believers named Nelson. Get your facts from actual scientists instead of the profiteers and dabblers in "panels" who want nothing more than to keep the 'Gravy Train" rollin'. (pun intended)


Your are right Marlborough, thanks for pointing that out. They are all the same to me. Hype with no substance.


Parnassus, :rolleyes: You assume more than I had written and what my stand is.

From her website that I linked to it appears that she is more than just a common animal Vet and that creative editing for television ratings and viewer enticement tends to give a less than factually accurate picture.

I would like to hear in her own words (her words not edited for dramatic television show endings) discussing the results pertaining to the Destination Truth show, much like Disotell had his words creatively edited by Monster Quest. Disotell did an excellent Monster Talk Interview discussing just that. I am more than willing to hear her out and not take a Bigfoot Discussion Forums perception of the DT show and the dramatic lead up to her so called "results".

The BFF had plenty of discussion with no factual proof presented of Ketchum's Destination Truth findings. Excuse me if I'm a bit reluctant to accept that her credentials on her own website make her out to be just a Veterinarian.

I have great respect for Veterinarians and use their services often for the health of my animals. I have to have my dogs labs and certain care performed by specialists in the Veterinary Field (one for oncology), not just your common Veterinarians so Ketchums Resume doesn't appear just your average every day see the animal Vet for your pets itchy skin....... I think I will reserve judgement until I can or really want to take the time to dig (get my google on) up the dirt on Ketchum....... :rolleyes: I'm much more inclined to put more effort into the people I plan to vote for in next months Election.

I don't take a single grain of Bigfootery yack serious enough to believe there is even an iota of valid evidence to support the myth. I am interested in the personalities that surround the subject, you included :)

[parnassus]

nice rhetorical twist: I did not disparage vets. I said she is a vet. Then I said she was a for profit vet. you, not me, were the one who first called her "Just" a veterinarian, trying to make it sound as if I wrote that; and then YOU, not me, referred to her as "just a common animal Vet," again, trying to make it sound as if I wrote that, then you switch into the "standing up for the heroic vet" crap.

The issues are her qualifications, her abilities, her motives, and what she produced.

This isn't a great site to try to fool folks with rhetoric.

[marlborough]

Seems that Ketchum will be handling the bulk of BF related evidence. Footers are batting 2 for 2 using her.

c/p from http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/DNA_Diagnostic


Tom Biscardi, has been working very hard to find a DNA house with the integratiy and courage to share the results they find in an open and honest format. He has found a professional with the courage to step out of the "comfort zone" and simply tell it like it is!

This Dr., may not believe that "Bigfoot" exists, but she believes there is a possiblity that it does, and the only way to find out is to openly and honestly share the results she finds from her testing, just as she finds it. That means no spin and no personal "filtering of the information". If she finds that the DNA is extremely similar to human DNA, she will say that it is similar, but not quite the same.

This is a refreshing change from the norm. If you have a bio sample that you are confident may be from a "bigfoot" type creature, and you want to have it tested fairly and openly, please contact us here at SFBI. Send us an email We will help you to pass it on to Dr. Melba Ketchum, the owner of DNA Diagonostic in Texas.

[LTC8K6]

If she finds that the DNA is extremely similar to human DNA, she will say that it is similar, but not quite the same.

Isn't that what most of the DNA testers have already said...?
Hair testers as well.

IOW, inconclusive...

[parnassus]

what are the two DNA examples?

[William Parcher]

Seems that Ketchum will be handling the bulk of BF related evidence. Footers are batting 2 for 2 using her.

c/p from http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/DNA_Diagnostic


On October 31st, Dr. Melba Ketchum and David Paulides will be on Bigfoot Busters Radio (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfootbusters/2010/11/01/bigfoot-busters-radio).

Dave Paulides and Dr. Melba Ketchum will grace our show Halloween night! This show you won't want to miss! Dr. Melba Ketchum has been working with Dave and other Bigfoot Research teams to gather Hairs and Bones from suspected Sasquatch in order to pull DNA and make history.

[GT/CS]

On another thread there was a question about Henner's work with statistics and every time I see something regarding bigfoot stats the following illuminating math problem pops into my head.


Here are the known factss:
You are a race car driver and you are trying to qualify for a race.
To qualify you need to average 60mph.
The track is 1/2 mile long.
You run your first lap at 30mph.

Question:
At what speed must you run your second lap to qualify for the race?

Answer:
90mph, and I can prove it beyond a doubt using math.
30mph + 90mph = 120mph / 2 laps = 60mph/lap.

But 90mph is also 100% clearly wrong, and I can prove it without a doubt using math.
(I'll let someone else do that)

It depends on how you look at it, and it shows how those with an agenda can use math and statistics to skew their results to achieve their goals.

[Skeptical Greg]

It depends on how you look at it
You can look at it wrong..

Your math doesn't include how long it took to run the first lap ..

Miles Per Hour

[GT/CS]

It can be calculated.

[Skeptical Greg]

And your calculations will tell you there is no solution to the problem as stated..


Since it takes 1 minute to go 1/2 mile at 30mph, and 1 minute to average 60mph for 1 mile ( 2 laps ), it is impossible to average 60mph for two laps, if you average 30mph for the first lap..

[GT/CS]

And your calculations will tell you there is no solution to the problem as stated..


Since it takes 1 minute to go 1/2 mile at 30mph, and 1 minute to average 60mph for 1 mile ( 2 laps ), it is impossible to average 60mph for two laps, if you average 30mph for the first lap..

That is correct if you use the total time method, but the other solution of 90mph is also correct if you use the speed per lap method. So which number is the correct number?

It all depends on how one calculates the average, and those who know how to manipulate statistics often use such tactics to make their numbers look good.

[Drewbot]

How many laps is the qualifying round?

[GT/CS]

How many laps is the qualifying round?

Two

[Drewbot]

If you stretch the 2 laps, into 1 straight line of 1 mile.

To qualify you need to finish the 1mile in 1minute

If you take 1 minute to finish the first half mile (at 30mph), then you can not qualify.

[GT/CS]

If you stretch the 2 laps, into 1 straight line of 1 mile.

To qualify you need to finish the 1mile in 1minute

If you take 1 minute to finish the first half mile (at 30mph), then you can not qualify.

See post 221.

[Drewbot]

"Per lap method" to qualify, you must average 30 seconds per lap.

If you take 60 seconds to finish the first lap.
Then you must take zero seconds to finish the second lap.

(60+0)/2 = 30 seconds/lap.

Fail

[LTC8K6]

In reality, it would take you some time to reach 90mph from the 30mph of the first lap. You would actually need to go much faster than 90mph during the second lap, and you'd have precious little room to do so.

Assuming you finished the first lap at 30mph, or did a relatively steady 30mph for the whole first lap.

Now, if you were already going 90mph at the end of the first lap, then that means you started off mighty slow to only average 30mph for the first lap.

[parnassus]

"Per lap method" to qualify, you must average 30 seconds per lap.

If you take 60 seconds to finish the first lap.
Then you must take zero seconds to finish the second lap.

(60+0)/2 = 30 seconds/lap.

Fail

so if no bigfoots are found for 500 years of recorded history in North America, how many woodknockings will be necessary to keep the legend alive for 12.3 more years? show your work.

[parnassus]

On October 31st, Dr. Melba Ketchum and David Paulides will be on Bigfoot Busters Radio (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfootbusters/2010/11/01/bigfoot-busters-radio).

Paulides spent much of his time talking about tribal peoples, which is not surprising, but he did shock me with his ideas about "bigfoot" abducting, raping and interbreeding with Native Americans. I'm not quite sure about where he's going with this disgusting invention, but I'm afraid it ties in with the Ketchum DNA "findings."

Ketchum appeared next and was just bubbling over with certitude and enthusiasm about the DNA findings which she is in the process of finalizing and writing up for publication. It seems as though she believes she has similar specimens from various locations. There was mention of a bone specimen, which Paulides then said they were not discussing at this time.

My impression is that Ketchum is naive about bigfoot, DNA, hair and Paulides, who, I think, has pulled the wool over her eyes. They are going to come out with some nonsense about "bigfoot" and tribal people. I would guess they will get their stuff published somewhere, and will appear on some pseudoscience/creature cable television show. I can only hope that that the tribes he smears will turn around and pull a Little Bighorn on him. (figuratively speaking, of course.)

[kitakaze]

Though I highly doubt I will find any takers, I invite anyone who thinks Ketchum will provide reliable evidence for Bigfoot to an avatar wager.

The following link is to an examination Paulides and Ketchum's specific claims at the BFF with Parnassus and myself participating...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/286-bigfoot-dna/page__st__60__p__10144#entry10144

[GT/CS]

"Per lap method" to qualify, you must average 30 seconds per lap.

If you take 60 seconds to finish the first lap.
Then you must take zero seconds to finish the second lap.

(60+0)/2 = 30 seconds/lap.

Fail

Drew,
Is the average of 30 and 90 not 60? How does that then become a childish internet term known as "fail"?

The point of this is for people to understand that there are different ways to calculate averages, and to tweak statistics. Since the definition of the average was not clearly spelled out we can have 2 equally correct answers.

[parnassus]

Here is a link to a new article (http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010/11/lars-thomas-analysis-of-orang-pendek.html)on the analysis of hair from a supposed "cryptid" in Asia...the 'orang pendek". This is essentially what we are going to get from Ketchum and Paulides, for "bigfoot," with a couple of new twists. Ketchum has already done this act with the supposed "yeti" hair obtained by some television performer named Josh Gates. Before that, Meldrum did a similar trick in the Snelgrove Lake fiasco.
Here are the usual components of these hair/DNA misidentifications/hoaxes:
1)specimen of unknown/unverified provenance collected from remote/exotic location, inhabited by isolated East Asian/Native American human population
2) specimen billed as "possible bigfoot/yeti/orang pendek hair." Why?
3) specimen taken to "forensic" DNA lab far from the site of collection.
4) microscopic appearance of East Asian/Native American hair not recognized by forensic lab
5) DNA result "looks human but not human" ie the single nucleotide polymorphisms of isolated East Asian/Native American tribes are not familiar to "forensic" labs.
6) story of evidence of partly human bigfoot trumpeted across the internet and dramatized on cable television.
Each iteration of this recipe brings a slightly new and different twist. In the Paulides/Ketchum saga, it will be multiple specimens and this reported piece of bone. I have a pretty good idea how this was accomplished.

[kitakaze]

How does that then become a childish internet term known as "fail"?

I'll leave you guys to the mathercise, but GT, you just invalidated half my picture albums saved here and one of my very most bestest sites on the Internet...

http://failblog.org/ (http://failblog.org/)

Words fail my feelings. True fail.

Marcel, express svp...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896149b0dd26ac40b.bmp

[William Parcher]

My impression is that Ketchum is naive about bigfoot, DNA, hair and Paulides, who, I think, has pulled the wool over her eyes.


She doesn't realize that if Bigfoot existed we would already have a body by now? Naive like that? After all, it has been several centuries now.

[parnassus]

She doesn't realize that if Bigfoot existed we would already have a body by now? Naive like that? After all, it has been several centuries now.

yes, that, and naive about the variation in human DNA, and naive about the variation in human hair, and naive about the cynical nature of people who try to take advantage of her.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

...snippity...

*In his 1978 book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, John Green writes:

"Ken Peterson, a senior executive, told that their people [Disney] has already studied the film [PGF], and that if they wanted something like it in one of their own movies they would not attempt to film it, they would draw it. None of their michanical creations for Disneyland was sophisticated enough to walk free, they were all attached to a base at some point. The only way to imitate the Patterson creature would be with a man in a suit." (page 129)

*In his own 1992 book, Big Footprints, Dr. Grover Krantz reduces Green's writing to something less informative.

"But Ken Peterson, a senior executive with Disney studios, told John Green in 1969 that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film." (page 93)

"They told him flat-out that they would not be able to duplicate it with all of their facilities." (page 121)

That is obviously NOT what Green wrote, nor what they told him. To his credit, Dr. Meldrum pretty much paraphrases Green's writing, though I have issues with some of the other content of LMS.

RayG

Best post in thread.

I had seen the quote mine elsewhere and figured there had to be something wrong, since the P-G film was so amateurish it needed both distance and camera jostling to obfuscate.

Seriously, can you imagine Walt Disney looking at the P-G film and saying "wow, that's way beyond me..."

Disney did seven full-length feature films that year.

Can he do a man in a gorilla suit?

Why is this a question?

[William Parcher]

yes, that, and naive about the variation in human DNA, and naive about the variation in human hair, and naive about the cynical nature of people who try to take advantage of her.

Well, she is totally convinced that the science behind her conclusion is correct. She says that if the journals won't publish her work then they are biased. She's not even wondering or hoping that she got it right - she's 100% on it. So this means she (they) discovered a new species of living hominoid. This is the most significant scientific discovery in most peoples' lifetimes. It is at least as important as anything Leakey found.

Regardless of if her paper is published she should issue a national media press release announcing a new living hominoid species. All new discoveries of large species get press releases. It's standard routine and this one is extra significant. If she doesn't put forth a national press release it may indicate that she is not naive and actually knows it's all bogus.

At this point it looks like she isn't naive because she is only talking to Bigfoot and fringe woo shows. If she really knew she had a new hominoid she would go straight to legitimate media venues with full confidence. Instead she talks to "Bigfoot Busters".

[Drewbot]

I would challenge her to have John Hawks look at her work.

[William Parcher]

First the Bigfoot believers said "no dead bears" to try to point out that nobody finds dead bears so it makes sense that nobody would find a dead Bigfoot. That doesn't work because people do find dead bears. I think every North American mammal has been found dead at some point. Not Bigfoot.

But now another Bigfooter Blowhard is trying to use (http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/4284-why-cant-we-discover-a-bf-body/) the "no dead wolverines" argument.

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

I believe the reason carcasses aren't found at every highway rest stop is because these creatures are extremely rare.

I will refer to Damned Dirty Ape's excellent posts referred here, in which he compares wolverines to sasquatches in Washington state, which is the region which boasts the most sasquatch reports (by far)...

...there is likely no more than 1,000 sasquatches in North America, and probably fewer than that.


Michigan's only known wolverine is dead (http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/03/thumb_wolverine_dead_michigan.html)

Michigan's only known wolverine has been found dead along a trail in Sanilac County.

The animal, a female, was found by hikers on Saturday, said Arnie Karr, a wildlife biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

"There's no visible indications of the cause of death," Karr said this morning.

One wolverine in the entire state and it is found dead.

[parnassus]

For you U of Michigan folks, there are no Spartans there either.
But seriously, obviously many wolverines bodies have been identified in the past, probably many killed by man. The wolverine is a real animal.

[parnassus]

Breaking news
BFRO petitions FBI to change their terminology from "unknown person" to "unknown primate."

[Drewbot]

Incompetence and Deception
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5695/comici.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/143/comici.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[LTC8K6]

Skeptic please!

Unknown bipedal primate...

[parnassus]

BFRO claims Bigfoot did moon landing: "astronauts couldn't get this far," claims scientists are withholding casts of moon footprints which show dermal ridges.

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I sat and watched the press conference for the supposedly "compelling evidence for Bigfoot." Needless to say I was about as impressed with what I saw as I was when I watched the 'Nightmare on Elm street' remake, needless to say that was about as impressive as the Munns report.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Incompetence and Deception


Cute. My sentiments exactly.

[bluechaffinch]

Forgive me again. I thought the main argument confirming the non-reality of Sasquatch/Bigfoot was that all the putative 'evidence' is hoaxed - films, prints, vocalisations etc. If that is the case, then it follows that hoaxers have been repeating the hoax over and over, in the same locations and to a high degree of consistency, for many years (decades?). (As an aside, are there any sensible explanations as to the extent of print hoaxing and the level of co-ordination required to reflect the number of prints reported over the last 50-odd years or more?) So clearly, if all evidence is hoaxed, there's the proof of hoaxes being repeated twice or more. Of course, we get back to the definition of 'successful' - but it cannot be denied that some members of the scientific community do give credence to some physical 'evidence' e.g. prints. Ergo, those hoaxes are repeatedly successful are they not? Just a thought...

[GT/CS]

Please provide names of bigfoot hoaxers who have repeatedly hoaxed and been successful.

[Skeptical Greg]

Forgive me again. I thought the main argument confirming the non-reality of Sasquatch/Bigfoot was that all the putative 'evidence' is hoaxed - films, prints, vocalisations etc. If that is the case, then it follows that hoaxers have been repeating the hoax over and over, in the same locations and to a high degree of consistency, for many years (decades?)...
Well no, that is not the main argument.. The main argument is that we have no type specimen..

But the point with reference to your original post -

Who has been coming forward with multiple claims and putative evidence of questionable phenomena ( possible hoaxes ), being taken seriously, and making money off of it?






.....Of course, we get back to the definition of 'successful' - but it cannot be denied that some members of the scientific community do give credence to some physical 'evidence' e.g. prints. Ergo, those hoaxes are repeatedly successful are they not? Just a thought...

Well I guess you could say ' some ' if there are at least two..

Names ?

I'll start for you:


Meldrum



If we are going to continue discussing this without specific references to BH, then we need to take this over to:

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132900)

[bluechaffinch]

Please provide names of bigfoot hoaxers who have repeatedly hoaxed and been successful.

That's my point really. Looking at various Sasquatch-related threads/post here it seems that all evidence is dismissed as fake. Presumably, to make such statements, there must be evidence that someone is doing the faking? I'd love to know exactly who is/has been doing the faking - I have no idea but I presume sceptics know exactly who is doing it and can prove so. Just as sceptics demand evidence of authenticity, it is only fair that 'believers' demand evidence of fakery. If it was categorically shown that all tracks etc are fake, then the argument is surely won?

The 'success' of supposed fakes is measured against the impact it has in taking people in - if someone is willing to believe it, the hoax has been successful, clearly. Agree?