Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

Plaster casts which we made from these tracks provide the only tangible evidence I have for the existence of the sasquatch. But wildlife biologists regularly depend on tracks and other wildlife sign as evidence for the presence of bears, deer, wolves, and other mammals. We recognize that tracks constitute more reliable and persistent evidence of a mammal species than a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself. Although I now have no doubt regarding the existence of the sasquatch, this was not always the case. However now that I am satisfied that the sasquatch is a real animal, subject to study and examination like any other large mammal. What a total bunch of crap.

I'm not going to waste my time picking this apart but I will suggest that anyone who is in doubt, look up the definitions of ' existence ' and ' presence ' ..

This person is no scientist..

[LAL]

Gigantopithecus fossils were never found in the Americas. Neither have any fossil ape in USA and Canada dating from the Pleistocene.


Two or three jaws have been found in China. Finds of Gigantipithecus giganteus (India) are even rarer.

Nor are there any fossil beds in the PNW, to my knowlege, preserving any Pleistocene mammals west of the Cascades or in the Cascades, a single find under Sea-Tac Airport nothwithstanding.


And the pattern of habitat expansion -and retreat- of the habitats of these creatures is well registered by the fossil record.

Noting above serves as an explanation for the absence of bigfoot or bigfoot-related species fossils.


Without the La Brea Tar Pits, what would we know of life in the Pleistocene in what is now California?


Oh, but weren´t they a dwarf subspecies, evolved to adapt to the restricted space of an island? How come the reports are from large animals? Again, thesame problem. Reports, nothing else. No solid evidence. Could just as well be "hunter tales". You can not deny the possibility. "You should have seen the one that escaped"...

Interesting article, wasn't it?

Homo floriensis, another dwarf species, persisted at least until 18,000 years ago.



Not all megafauna animals lived in cold areas. No one actually knows why they reached that size. Competition for food favoring larger sizes is just one possibility. What would by fored bigfeet to decrese their size...
Not to mention that Wrangel Island mammoths left remains. And where are the bigfeet remains?


Eaten by bears and bacteria. There may be several species of unknown bipedal primates worldwide. Some aren't all that large.
And there may be bones and fossils not yet found.

Who suspected the Ardipiths before their (fragmentary) fossils were found or that they would turn out to be bipeds?


And you belive that? There are stories of people seeing dinosaurs in the Amazon forest, as well. Do you belive that? Giant armadillos probably were so slow that one could easilly approach and target their unprotected necks with spears. Saber-toothed cats could crack their skulls with their teeth, so a bullet would do the same. Not to mention that there are some armadillos in South America that can be over 1m long, so, confusion with an ordinary animal plus some added colorful tones can generate the report... "You should have sees the one that escaped"...

One can not also trust in reports based on local myths. An example- In northern Brazil (Amapa State), an area covered by Amzon jungle not subject to extensive flooding at the wet season, there is the legend of the mapinguari. It was "interpreted" by a number of people as a giant sloth or the equivalent of bigfoot. Yeah, right... But the original mapinguari has just one eye, among many other features that do not fit with either "interpretations". Ask the local if they ever saw one. The usual answer is "no, but my [add relative or friend-of-a-friend here] has". On occasion, you will find someone who claims to have seen one. And he/she will turn out to be one of those persons that love to tell stories, quite often not true ones.

If these myths and stories were true, in Amazonia there would be, among many others, vampire monkeys and a poisonous beetle that can saw the upper part of a palm tree. Why these are not credited by cryptozoologists, as well as headless mules that breath fire by their nostrils and giant fire snakes? There are reports of sightings and myths about them...

Perhaps because there's no physical evidence for them and they're "illogical".


Just out of curiosity, do you think Charcarodon megalodon is still around? That Ogopogo and Nessie may be real? That all tales of strange man or ape-like creatures report actual creatures? That mokelembembe exists and is some species sauropod still living in Congo? Mothman? Bid bird? Phantom cats? Jersey Devil? Sea serpents? Where, how and why the line is drawn?

No, with the possible exeception of the "Jersey Devil", which may be an eastern variety of Sasquatch.


You seem not no have a good understanding of fossil research.

Excuse me? Didn't I post an article on it?

Forest animals are fossilized also. Their fossils are found in deposits from lakes, rivers and caves that existed within the forest area. And if, the register of a given time is scarce at one area, it may be abundant at another. And animals with a broad geographical distribution are most likely to leave fossilized remains. Specially if you are taliking about a creature that lived in Asia, North America and perhaps Africa. Note that Australopitecine fossils do not come just from Olduvai Gorge, and [i]Homo erectus[i] and related forms have its fossils scatered over Africa, Europe and Asia. What about bigfoot and its relatives? Not a single bone. Maybe you have a shoebox from area A, but you must remember that area A is not the single place with deposits of that age.

The point was that ape fossils of any kind are exceedingly rare. There's a two million year span with just a handful of ape/hominid fossils. That's why "Toumai" is so important. And central Africa was not thought to be a good place to be looking for hominid origins, especially with so many finds in East Africa.

And the last common ancestor, or close relative to it, was found in Spain, not Africa!

The textbooks will need major overhauling.

Point me to finds of fossil deer, bear, wolverine or even beaver west of the Cascades.

BTW, Cox had driven out of the fogbank when he saw the creature cross the road at 3:30 A.M.. It wasn't obscured by the fog.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I suppose it's possible for a biped to evolve from a knuckle-walker that evolved from a biped... but I don't know where this has happened.

Wasn't that your claim from the beginning...that bipedalism preceeded knuckle-walking in a specific species?

Originally posted by LAL
But, bipedalism came first, according to the consensus with knuckle-walking a later adaptation in the Great Apes.

I pointed out a number of times that was what appeared to be what you were suggesting, and Diogenes specifically asked: "Can you point to a paper that suggests bipedalism predated walking on all fours by any animal?".

One link you used to support your claim http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-08/danl-rfh060602.php starts out:

Hominid refers to the family of primates that includes all species on the “human � side of the evolutionary tree after the split from chimpanzees..

You then gave us http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology.paleo/archive/september-1996/0363.html which stated:

According to all the evidence, the Gorilla/Bonobo/Chimpanzee and their ancestors only evolved knuckle walking after their collective split from the hominids.

These two statements are quite contradictory. The former asserting that humans came after the split, the latter asserting they came before. It can't be both. Clouding the issue, the second quote is attributed to one 'John Waters', who may or may not have any expertise in the area in question.

Tossing this in is even more confusing:

Originally posted by LAL
Maybe the problem is with the word "species". The knuckle-walkers would have evolved from a prior bipedal species, IOW, they'd be a new species, not the same species developing a new trait.

You're back to claiming bipedalism preceeded knuckle-walking. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, I haven't seen any evidence to support that.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps because there's no physical evidences for them and they're "illogical".

Both of which also apply to bigfoot.

You would have to prove a track is from a bigfoot for it to be physical evidence of bigfoot. As you would with hairs, scat, bones, etc.

There is too much illogic in the descriptions of bigfoot to go into here, and much of it was covered in this and the other thread(s).

[bruto]

How can you possibly argue with someone who answers the assertion that no gigantopithecus have been found in the USA with the observation that they've found a couple in China?

About time to quit and go do something less futile, like nailing Jello to the wall and loading mercury with a pitchfork.

[Skeptical Greg]

Without the La Brea Tar Pits, what would we know of life in the Pleistocene in what is now California? Oh, for a start, just the stuff we found from Lake Manix, Rogers Lake Beds and Tecopa Lake Beds .

[Skeptical Greg]

Point me to finds of fossil deer, bear, wolverine or even beaver west of the Cascades. Your point? You are not suggesting that Sasquatch is only found west of the Cascades, are you?

How many animals do Paleontologists believe exist for which they have found NO fossils, remains or living specimens ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
How can you possibly argue with someone who answers the assertion that no gigantopithecus have been found in the USA with the observation that they've found a couple in China?

About time to quit and go do something less futile, like nailing Jello to the wall and loading mercury with a pitchfork.

That would certainly be more productive.

The point, in case you missed it, is that even where Giganto are known to have existed in China the fossils are exceedingly rare. The finds of the subspecies in India are even rarer.

Giganto was identified from a single tooth found in an apothecary shop. It could have been missed entirely (and was, until 1935).

And Gigantopithecus may not have been the species that migrated over the Bering Strait in the first place.

If fossils are so darn common, why don't I unearth one every time I plant something in my red clay?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Your point? You are not suggesting that Sasquatch is only found west of the Cascades, are you?

No they're found in the Cascades, mostly on the west slope, and formerly seem to have ranged near the coast. The largest population seems to be in the PNW, and except for some Missippian formation on top of table mountain that probably has some fossils, I know of no beds in that area. It's all volcanic.

The beds mentioned are east of the Cascades.


How many animals do Paleontologists believe exist for which they have found NO fossils, remains or living specimens ?

Wow. There are several million years that are barely represented just in our line.

A poster on another board who seems to be a paleontologist says there are a thousand living species with no fossil record in answer to a similar question regarding no fossil record for Chimpanzees and Gorillas.

I'll see if I can find something on that in my copious free time.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Oh, for a start, just the stuff we found from Lake Manix, Rogers Lake Beds and Tecopa Lake Beds .

Pliocene and Holocene, Plio-pleistocene Tecopa?

Doesn't seem like any of it is from deep forests in Pleistocene times, does it? Or did I miss something?

[misawafan]

Originally posted by RayG
Who is John Waters? Your link leads to what appears to be newsgroup postings, and anyone can post to a newsgroup, regardless of their expertise in a particular subject.


http://www.dreamlandnews.com/news/images/john0.jpg

[LAL]

Originally posted by misawafan


Wrong JW, though both are in the UK.

The John Waters who posted on the newsgroup (and it's a very good one with strict guidelines) is the author of "Helpless as a Baby", which is a book on general and human evolution.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by bruto
You haven't been paying attention....

Well, that's ADD for you.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by LAL

"....I am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist...."

ZUH?!?

Did I read that correctly? Let me try again...

Originally posted by LAL

"....I am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist...."


Must...keep...head...from....exploding....

Originally posted by LAL

".....NORTH AMERICA'S GREAT APE: the SASQUATCH
A wildlife biologist looks at the continent's most misunderstood large mammal."



Apparently, this guy has a different definition of the word "looks" than I do.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL


Wow. There are several million years that are barely represented just in our line.



I'll see if I can find something on that in my copious free time. I see that I need to be more precise.. ( I realized right after I posted this, but I decided to let it ride and see what you would come up with. )

My question was in the context of the search for Sasquatch.

Do you have any examples of living animals that Paleontologists ( besides Sasquatch officiandos ) believe exist today, for which they have found NO fossils, remains or living specimens ?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
Two or three jaws have been found in China. Finds of Gigantipithecus giganteus (India) are even rarer.

But they exist, indeed, providing evidence that allows to inferr their geographical distribution. That did not encompass North America.

Originally posted by LAL
Nor are there any fossil beds in the PNW, to my knowlege, preserving any Pleistocene mammals west of the Cascades or in the Cascades, a single find under Sea-Tac Airport nothwithstanding.
Without the La Brea Tar Pits, what would we know of life in the Pleistocene in what is now California?

I will repeat what I have already wrote, and also what other posters are pointing. Fossil evidence should have surfaced somewhere else, since PNW is not the only place where these animals are supposed to exist. There are other fossil sites in North America of the same age, located at other places. Absence of fossils is more likely to be expected in cases of species with very restricted areal distributions. And even then one can fid them!! Now, you are talking about a species whose habitat expanded from Asia to North America. That´s a huge area, with several fossil sites, representing several different paleoecosystems. Or they have evolved at the PNW and never left the place? If so, reports from other areas are unreliable.

Originally posted by LAL
Interesting article, wasn't it?

Homo floriensis, another dwarf species, persisted at least until 18,000 years ago.

And left remains at caves despite having a very restricted habitat. Where are the bigfoot remains? All along their alleged past and present habitats (a bit bigger than a couple of islands), not a single piece of bone.

Oh, and do you really think the reports on the giant armadillo and the mammoths could not have been misidentifications and/or be the product of some "colorful tones"?

Originally posted by LAL
Eaten by bears and bacteria. There may be several species of unknown bipedal primates worldwide. Some aren't all that large.
And there may be bones and fossils not yet found.

Who suspected the Ardipiths before their (fragmentary) fossils were found or that they would turn out to be bipeds?

Including the fossil ones? Are bigfoot remains more prone to vanish than those of other animals? Note that, even with your alleged extraordinarily efficient scavenging activity across the whole PNW, they are not supposed to live just there...
Again, you are talking about one (or more) species whose geographic distribution must have been huge. The animals itself are huge. The whole point on bipedalism, under the present focus is not important. A skull, or parts of it, teeth, whatever remains that points to such a big primate within its alleged habitat would be enough. If its found in North America or Northeastern Asia.

Originally posted by LAL
Perhaps because there's no physical evidence for them and they're "illogical".

Wich of them? Why are the more illogical than a bigfoot? Couldn´t a primate have evolved to, at least on ocasion, feed on blood? What about the vampire bats? And what about the reports of sightings of th headless mule that breathe fire from its nostrils? How woud you know the difference betwee the foot prints of ordinary mules, horses, donkeis and the fabulous beast?

Originally posted by LAL
No, with the possible exeception of the "Jersey Devil", which may be an eastern variety of Sasquatch.

Why? On what basis? What these cryptos lack that bigfoot has? Note that many of them would not leave tracks, since they can fly or swim...
If I recall corrctly, one of the witnesses of the Jersy Devil draw what looked quite like a gray-type alien walking on all fours...

Originally posted by LAL
Excuse me? Didn't I post an article on it?

Posting an article on fossilization is one thing. Understanding how to work with the fossil record is a completely different thing.
The point was that ape fossils of any kind are exceedingly rare.

Originally posted by LAL
There's a two million year span with just a handful of ape/hominid fossils. That's why "Toumai" is so important. And central Africa was not thought to be a good place to be looking for hominid origins, especially with so many finds in East Africa.
And the last common ancestor, or close relative to it, was found in Spain, not Africa!

The textbooks will need major overhauling.

Point me to finds of fossil deer, bear, wolverine or even beaver west of the Cascades.

See my initial comments on the spatial distribution of fossil sites. Even small bits can be used to delineate the temporal and spatial ranges of a species.

And before and after the time gap? Why not a single fossil of a bigfoot or a bigfoot-related species?

Originally posted by LAL
BTW, Cox had driven out of the fogbank when he saw the creature cross the road at 3:30 A.M.. It wasn't obscured by the fog.

How far was he from the fogbank? Was the one he crossed the only one nearby? What were the relative positions of Cox, bigfoot and the fogbank? What light sources were avaliable, and where they came from in repect to the fog, car and alleged bigfoot? You know, driving at 3:30 AM trough fog can induce some changes in visual perception. Specially if the person is a bit sleepy, even if they don´t acknoweledge the fact.

Originally posted by LAL
And Gigantopithecus may not have been the species that migrated over the Bering Strait in the first place.
Bigfeet are supposed to live in forests, don´t they? If so, how they expanded their habitats from Asia to North America? Vast extents of grass plains and tundra had to be crossed to reach what are nowdays USA´s northwestern areas from Asia. Habitat expansion, not migration was the proccess, since the species made the cross actually by gradually expanding their habitats´ range across the bridge. So, any species that came from Asia to North America must have been able to live in grassy plains and tundra. So, bigfeet, folowing this line of reason, could not have reached North America by this path unless it is a species that live in such habitats. And even if it (or some antecessor species) were, this would just result in more chances of fossils being found, given the larger habitat area.

Originally posted by LAL
[B]If fossils are so darn common, why don't I unearth one every time I plant something in my red clay?]

Is this particular red clay a sedimentary rock or the product of its weathering?

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
That would certainly be more productive.

The point, in case you missed it, is that even where Giganto are known to have existed in China the fossils are exceedingly rare. The finds of the subspecies in India are even rarer.

Giganto was identified from a single tooth found in an apothecary shop. It could have been missed entirely (and was, until 1935).

And Gigantopithecus may not have been the species that migrated over the Bering Strait in the first place.

If fossils are so darn common, why don't I unearth one every time I plant something in my red clay?

I still maintain that there is no real connection between the fact that very FEW gigantopithecus have been found in one place and that NONE have been found in another. It does not disprove the surmise that there might have been gigantopithecus in places they haven't yet been found, but it constitutes absolutely zero evidence in favor of the hypothesis. It is simply irrelevant as an argument for either side.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Pliocene and Holocene, Plio-pleistocene Tecopa?

Doesn't seem like any of it is from deep forests in Pleistocene times, does it? Or did I miss something?

You must have missed your own post...

You said:
Without the La Brea Tar Pits, what would we know of life in the Pleistocene in what is now California? Where did you say anything about deep forests ( in California ) in Pleistocene times ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Both of which also apply to bigfoot.

You would have to prove a track is from a bigfoot for it to be physical evidence of bigfoot. As you would with hairs, scat, bones, etc.

There is too much illogic in the descriptions of bigfoot to go into here, and much of it was covered in this and the other thread(s).

You mean like the Skookum Cast which was pronounced to be the imprint of an unknown hominid primate by the top primate anatomist (Dr. Daris Swindler, Professor Emeritus, U of W), in the country, but which you decided must be an elk?
How did the elk get up without leaving hoof prints in the middle of the body print, pray tell? They fold their legs under them.

Or did you mean the thousands of tracks found in remote areas which have been photographed, cast and examined by professors of anatomy, fingerprint experts and other people who know what they're doing and found to be compelling, but which you think must have been hoaxed?

A female was seen by two witnesses, filmed, tracks cast and photographed and the film pronounced authentic by primatologists at Yerkes in 1967. Tracks of at least three individuals were found in the area prior to the filming.

Why wasn't that enough?

If Cox, for example, had been a qualified scientist seeing one cross a road and then, with the aid of trained deputy sherriffs, finding a partial track 8' up a bank, would that have qualified that particular track to have come from a "Bigfoot"?

With 400 credible reports a year of people seeing Sasquatches but none of people seeing people planting evidence of Sasquatches, why is it reasonable to assume it must all be myth, hoax &/or mistaken identity?

What's illogical about a large, mostly nocturnal unknown hominid primate species inhabiting sparsely populated areas of North America?

Is it because we think we know it all that we think that's implausible?

Einstein thought the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire Universe. We now know it's one of about 150 billion.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet: Act 1. Scene V)

[LAL]

Originally posted by Gorillagator


Bold type won't quote, dammit.

The Redwoods Park had no buffer and logging right up to the border caused erosion in the Park itself.

My opinion of the timber industry could get me suspended, so I'll just ask Bill, again, why mention of the Sierra Club caused him to ROFLMAO.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I see that I need to be more precise.. ( I realized right after I posted this, but I decided to let it ride and see what you would come up with. )

My question was in the context of the search for Sasquatch.

Do you have any examples of living animals that Paleontologists ( besides Sasquatch officiandos ) believe exist today, for which they have found NO fossils, remains or living specimens ?

Not off the top of my head. Does it have to be paleontologists? Or living?

There are two new primate species that have been identified from photos only. No remains there that I know of.

The common ancestor was all theory until recently.

[Skeptical Greg]

Einstein thought the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire Universe. Huh..:confused:

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Huh..:confused:

Yeah, prior to Edwin Hubble's work.

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
I still maintain that there is no real connection between the fact that very FEW gigantopithecus have been found in one place and that NONE have been found in another. It does not disprove the surmise that there might have been gigantopithecus in places they haven't yet been found, but it constitutes absolutely zero evidence in favor of the hypothesis. It is simply irrelevant as an argument for either side.

Isn't it interesting that it's used by both sides?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by LAL
Einstein thought the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire Universe. We now know it's one of about 150 billion.
Where did you get that incorrect idea from?

The Quantum and The Cosmos (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/quantum2.htm):
In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies of stars are moving away from our galaxy, and away from each other, as if the entire universe were expanding. The original Einstein equations might give an exact description of our universe after all. Quickly convinced by Hubble's evidence, Einstein felt that his notion of a "cosmological term" was a mistake.
Einstein was fully aware of other galaxies.

Maybe you are incorrect about other things too.

[Ashles]

Galaxies were recognised as distinct objects in the late 19th century:

Some information about galaxies (http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/history.html)

So Einstein knew all about galaxies well before his interaction with Hubble.

It sounds like you are getting confused as to what Hubble's discovery actually was. He demonstrated how distant galaxies were moving away from the earth.
More information (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html)

But it is totally incorrect to say Einstein thought the Milky Way was the entire universe.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You must have missed your own post...

You said:
Where did you say anything about deep forests ( in California ) in Pleistocene times ?

I didn't, but is it likely we're going to find fossils of animals from the deep forests of the Pleistocene near fossils of animals that inhabited grasslands?

My point, if I had one, is that there are relatively few fossil beds at all and the ones there are don't give a complete picture.

I'm not finding anything on SeaTac and mammoths except in regard to desserts and hotels. Got a source? That's interesting and I hadn't heard that.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Ashles
Where did you get that incorrect idea from?

The Quantum and The Cosmos (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/quantum2.htm):

Einstein was fully aware of other galaxies.

Not at first. I ran across this information while looking up Georges
Lemaître.

I'd cited NASA's website, was jumped on by a physicist regarding chronology, as I recall, and found out the website was in error.

Maybe you are incorrect about other things too.

Incomplete, perhaps, not incorrect. I should have added a qualifier before the barracudas got me.

"Lu makes typos" and "Lu is capable of making a mistake, therefore Sasquatches don't exist", are not valid arguments against the existance of unidentified hominid primates in North America, anyway, IMO.

Where does your source above say anything about Einstein being aware there were other galaxies?

Einstein visited Mount Wilson in 1931 to thank Hubble for correcting his error in thinking the Universe was static. Ironically, Lemaître based his ideas on Einstein's work and came up with the idea of the Big Bang, independently of Friedman.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by LAL
Where does your source above say anything about Einstein being aware there were other galaxies?
Well they were discovered at least 20 years before he wrote his General Theory of Relativity, so you'd think he'd have heard about them.

And you're the one who claimed he was unaware of galaxies or the size of the universe in order to make a point about incorrect assumptions.

[FFed]

Originally posted by LAL

Bindernagle wrote a book from the perspective of a wildlife biologist. It's a good read (I got it from the library).


Ah yes, Dr. John Bindernagel.

Here is a video of him on Discovery Channel Canada talking about bigfoot.

http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=10/23/2003

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by FFed
Ah yes, Dr. John Bindernagel.

Here is a video of him on Discovery Channel Canada talking about bigfoot.

http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=10/23/2003 I enjoyed the clip..

I found the clip from the Patterson film interesting. I thought the walking looked very human-like..

Am I just seeing what I want to see ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well they were discovered at least 20 years before he wrote his General Theory of Relativity, so you'd think he'd have heard about them.

And you're the one who claimed he was unaware of galaxies or the size of the universe in order to make a point about incorrect assumptions.

Oh, good grief.

I said he thought the Milky Way was the Universe (still looking for where I read that). I said nothing about other galaxies.

Was it known what galaxies are or that they were outside the Milky Way? Or that they were like the Milky Way? Or that they weren't just weird spirally things within the Milky Way?

He accepted Hubble's findings that they are moving away from each other and apologized for his "biggest blunder".

"Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).
Two problems;
a) What surrounds this finite spherical universe? (Einstein used his spherical ellipsoidal geometry of General Relativity to propose curved space - if you travel in any one direction you will curve around and eventually return to your starting point - subtle, clever, weird, wrong).
b) What stops finite spherical universe gravitationally collapsing (thus Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity Constant).

2. Two discoveries, one theoretical, one empirical sent Cosmology down the path of the Big Bang Theory for the creation of our universe.
a) Friedman used Einstein's equations to show that an expanding universe was possible by the equations, and solved the problem of the collapsing universe and thus removed the need for Einstein's Cosmological constant. Einstein was reluctant - believing in a static (non-expanding universe).
b) Then Hubble famously showed the relationship between distance and redshift. If Doppler shift caused this redshift then it meant stars / galaxies were moving apart.
Einstein, swayed by this argument, changed his mind - thus his comment 'My biggest blunder' referring to the Cosmological Constant."

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-albert-einstein-universe-astrophysics.htm

If it will make you feel better, I will happily retract, at least until I can find the source (which could even be incorrect.)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by LAL
If it will make you feel better, I will happily retract, at least until I can find the source (which could even be incorrect.)
Okey dokey.

It wasn't really the comment itself that I had issue with.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is actually surprisingly vague about the structure of the universe with regard to galaxies.

From General Theroy of Relativity: Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole (http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html)
If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
But this isn't meant to be a specific description of the existence of galaxies, or no galaxies, but more a way of emphasising the difference between his theory and a Newtonian model:
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space.

My main issues your post were:

A) That Einstein constantly gets misquoted in order to back up the most bizarre and varied of claims. I'm almost thinking of setting up a thread to post the highlights.

B) When illustrating a point about incorrect assumptions I feel it is particularly important to get the example exactly correct. Otherwise it rather undermines the point

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I enjoyed the clip..

Thanks. I hadn't seen that interview.

I found the clip from the Patterson film interesting. I thought the walking looked very human-like..

"If the film was taken at 24 frames per second, then Dr. Grieve found that the stride was similar to that of a human, although the bending at the knee in one position and the angle of the thigh at another were not similar to a typical stride in humans. At 16 or 18 feet per second, the gait would resemble a humans even less.

Igor Bourtsev, in Moscow, did find an ingenious way of determining the film speed. By analysing the number of strides per second from the jitter in the camera, he ruled out the 24 frames per second film speed since Roger's pace would have been higher than a sprinter. Although that seems like a reasonable approach the matter is by no means closed.

After viewing the Patterson film one is usually left somewhat confused. One would rather not believe in "monsters" or beings from children's fairy tales, but one is presented with a rather large amount of fairly circumstantial evidence. Dr. Grieve makes an interesting observation:

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. "

http://home.nycap.rr.com/wwilliams/BigfootFAQ.html#Is the 1967 "Patterson Film" shot in Bluff Creek, CA a hoax?

And:

"THE FIRST RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DMITRI BAYANOV AND IGOR BOURTSEV OF THE DARWIN MUSEUM, MOSCOW

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FILM - Roger Patterson's filmstrip shows a hairy man-like creature, walking erect, having well-developed breasts and buttocks. The last three points, if we accept for a time the authenticity of the creature, indicate its belonging in the Hominid, not the Pongid (anthropoid), line of evolution of higher primates.


Proof?


Morphology of the head shows a very outstanding brow ridge, a low bridge of the nose, very pronounced prognatism, a cone-shaped back of the head.

Judging by the well-developed breasts the creature is female. However, the muscles of the back, arms and legs are so much in relief that they call for comparison with those of a heavy weightlifter.

The creature "has no neck," or at least the neck is not to be detected at first sight. Looking back the creature turns its upper torso along with the head to a much greater extent than would normally a human being. This might indicate a somewhat different attachment of the skull to the spine than in man, and a strong development of the neck muscles which conceal a short, sort of simian, neck.

LOCOMOTION AS SEEN IN THE FILM - It seems smooth and resilient like that of a big quadrupedal animal. One gets the impression that the creature steps on slightly bent legs. If that is the case the impact on the heels should be less manifest than in man's walk, and the hominoid tracks, usually rather even in depth, seem to corroborate this conclusion. While walking the creature swings its arms intensely using them as walking beams as it were.

COMPARISON TO SUPPOSED GAIT OF NEANDERTHALER - Prof. Boris Porshnev, who put forward the Neanderthal hypothesis ot the relict hominoid origin, in his monograph (1963), page 288, refers to the opinions of Russian anthropologists V.P. Yakimov, G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky and V.V. Bounak concerning the walk of Neanderthalers as construed by analysts of fossil material. We find it very significant that the two characteristics mentioned above-i.e. less impact on the heels and arms swinging-are listed by anthropologists as supposed traits of Neanderthal locomotion, while slightly bent legs are ascribed to Neanderthalers even in a standing position.

THE HOMINOID FOOT - The main features standing out in both the American and Soviet (Russian) material: 1. Tracks show flat feet (without an arch). 2. The width of the foot in proportion to the length is much greater than in man's foot. 3. The hominoid foot is generally much bigger than man's.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Besides, as has been often noted by late Pyotr Smolin, chairman of the Hominoid Problem Seminar at the Darwin Museum in Moscow, the hominoid foot is distinguished by a great mobility of its toes which can bend very much or fully extend or spread very widely.

One more peculiarity: the so-called double ball at the back of the big toe as evidenced in many North American tracks (Green, 1968; Krantz, 1972). We find Grover Krantz's explanation of this feature very interesting, and we especially value at this stage the conclusion drawn by him concerning the size of the creature's calcaneus (heel bone). In some frames the creature's foot seems to have an unnaturally protruding heel. To a casual observer this may look like a sticking out edge of an artificial sole, but to those who know better this is an omen of the creature's reality.

As for the double ball itself we would like to make here the following remark. The double ball is made up not only of two bulges of tissue but also of a furrow between them, which is like a kind of fold on the sole. Hence the question can also be put this way. Why is a fold formed at this spot on the hominoid sole?

The answer, probably, can be like this: because the hominoid foot is not so rigid as man's foot, it still retains a certain measure of mobility inherited from the hand-like foot of the ape, and therefore has a furrow somewhat analogous to lines on man's palm.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Grover Krantz finds the correlation between the great weight of the creatures in question (as evidence, among other things, by the depth of footprints) and the anatomy of the foot, as it is revealed in the very same footprints, so natural and binding that he makes the following conclusion: "Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest."

It's the first time such an unambiguous statement is made by a professional anthropologist regarding the problem of relict hominoids, a statement made even more welcome by the fact that it came about as a result of study of material evidence which is the plastercasts and photographs of footprints.

COMPARISON TO THE NEANDERTHAL FOOT - As far as we know, none of the American researchers has compared the hominoid foot, as revealed in footprints, to the Neanderthal foot, reconstructed on the basis of fossil material.

In the Soviet Union this job has been done by Prof. B.F. Porshnev who noted a similarity in such features as lack of an arch, the width to length ratio, great mobility of toes (Porshnev, 1963).


Statue


It seems that a new and very important development in this direction of research is a comparison made by us between the calcaneus (heel bone) of the Neanderthal foot and that of North American Hominoids as shown in the materials of American hominologists. Grover Krantz, on his part, concludes that the Bigfoot has "enlarged heels", "the heel section must be correspondingly longer." He also writes that the creature's "ankle joint must be set relatively farther forward along the length of the foot", its length is expected to be "set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man."

Thus, this is also true of the Neanderthal foot, dramatically illustrating the above point.

To make things even more fascinating, the very same features show on the foot of the creature in Roger Patterson's filmstrip. To our knowledge, this fact has not been mentioned before by analysts of the film.

It follows that analysing a possible anatomy of the hominoid foot we find agreement in three, apparently, independent sources: 1. Roger Patterson's film; 2. Photographs and plaster casts of footprints obtained by Rene Dahinden and others, and analyzed by Grover Krantz; 3. Morphology of the Neanderthal foot.

As for the giant size of North American Hominoids, we think this cannot be a sufficient argument against Porshnev's standpoint since big variations in size are also true of the species Homo sapiens.

In our analysis we did not refer to Gigantopithecus because virtually nothing is known about that form of primates except their giant size. As for what is known of the foot of Australopithecus and "Homo habilis", it does not seem to fit the pattern of the hominoid foot we are dealing with.

NOT MAN-MADE - So our conclusion at this stage is the following: though it is not yet clear in what relation North American hominoids stand to the making of man, it is pretty clear now they themselves are not man-made.

Moscow , October, 1972. Dmitri Bayanov , Igor Bourtsev

References:
Porshnev, Boris,1963. Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa ? relictovykh gominoidakh (Present state of the problem of relict hominoids), Moscow, V.I.N.I.T.I.
Porshnev, Boris,1969. Troglodytidy i gominidy v sistematike i evolutsii vysshikh primatov (The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and evolution of higher primates) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, volume 188, issue 1.
Krantz, Grover, 1972. Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Urisson, Mikhail, 1966. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the related hominid forms, in the Collection of articles Iskopaemye Gominidy i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (Fossil Hominids and Man's Origin), Moscow, Nauka publishing house.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE SECOND RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DR. DMITRI D. DONSKOY, CHIEF OF THE CHAIR OF BIOMECHANICS AT
THE USSR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE IN MOSCOW, USSR


Dr. Dmitri Donskoy

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of a two-footed creature in the 1967 "Bigfoot" footage and detailed examination of the successive stills from the footage one is given the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion shown therein, with all of the particular movements combined in an integral whole, suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all of the strides the movements of the arms, or upper limbs, and of the legs, or lower limbs, are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by a movement of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is essential for man as well as being quite natural for many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds, such as in walking or trotting movements.

The strides are energetic and strong, with the leg swinging far forward. When a man extends his leg in this manner he walks at a rapid pace and overcomes by momentum the breaking effect of the angled hurdle provided by the outstretched leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed so the more massive the biped the less speed is needed to overcome the breaking effect of an outthrust striding leg.

The arms have swinging motion, which suggests that the muscles are exerted at the commencement of each cycle, after which they relax, allowing the movements to continue by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong. After each heel strike the leg of the creature bends, absorbing the full weight of the body and smoothing over the harmony is the result of synergy, i.e., the combined operation of a whole group of muscles.

Since the creature is manlike in appearance as well as bipedal, its gait resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all of its movements indicate a much greater weight than is normally found in modern man. Its muscles appear to be much stronger and the walk swifter than that of the normal walk of a man.

There are certain characteristics of the creature's walk, which are difficult to explain in words. They might be called "expressiveness of movement." In modern man this is sometimes seen in a sporting or labour activity where economy and accuracy of movement is vital and essential to the activity. In study this particular characteristic can be seen by an experienced observer. In "expressiveness of movement" the motor systems upon which the particular quality is dependent are perfectly adapted to the tasks which they are called upon to perform. In other words, in the case of this creature, the movements have a neat perfection which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing in the study is the consistency of all of the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only complement each other but also interact in many ways.

All of these factors together allow us to evaluate the gait of the creature of the footage as a natural movement without any sign of the artfulness that one would see in an imitation. At the same time, with all of the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

Dmitri Donskoy, 1973."

[LAL]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
ZUH?!?

Did I read that correctly? Let me try again...



Must...keep...head...from....exploding....



Apparently, this guy has a different definition of the word "looks" than I do.

Weren't you aware that scientists who take this seriously are way past debating whether they exist or not?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by LAL
Weren't you aware that scientists who take this seriously are way past debating whether they exist or not?

I wasn't aware that any scientists took this seriously. No real scientists, anyway.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
Weren't you aware that scientists who take this seriously are way past debating whether they exist or not?

I know D&D players who can tell you all about the social, dietary, and mating habits of Kobolds.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
But they exist, indeed, providing evidence that allows to inferr their geographical distribution. That did not encompass North America.

That we know of.........the two species of Gigantopithecus have left us four lower mandibles altogether. Where are the rest of the remains of this wide ranging and successful species (and subspecies) that endured for half a million years?


I will repeat what I have already wrote, and also what other posters are pointing. Fossil evidence should have surfaced somewhere else, since PNW is not the only place where these animals are supposed to exist. There are other fossil sites in North America of the same age, located at other places. Absence of fossils is more likely to be expected in cases of species with very restricted areal distributions. And even then one can fid them!! Now, you are talking about a species whose habitat expanded from Asia to North America. That´s a huge area, with several fossil sites, representing several different paleoecosystems. Or they have evolved at the PNW and never left the place? If so, reports from other areas are unreliable.

It's not known if they're the same species or not.

What's all this "should". The US isn't the Karoo.


And left remains at caves despite having a very restricted habitat. Where are the bigfoot remains? All along their alleged past and present habitats (a bit bigger than a couple of islands), not a single piece of bone.

That has been found and identified so far.

Who's been looking?

How long did the Leaky's labor before they found a single hominid fossil at Olduvai? Did no hominid fossils exist or were they just not discovered?


Oh, and do you really think the reports on the giant armadillo and the mammoths could not have been misidentifications and/or be the product of some "colorful tones"?

I have no idea. That wasn't why I posted it.

I saw an article in Archaeology, I think, about a search for living Giant Sloths in South America. Can't think of the scientist's name, but he got his funding.


Including the fossil ones? Are bigfoot remains more prone to vanish than those of other animals?

Haven't I already mentioned bones of anything are rare in the wet part of the PNW? Ten or twenty times?


Note that, even with your alleged extraordinarily efficient scavenging activity across the whole PNW, they are not supposed to live just there...

Yep. No fossils of much of anything in these parts either, but there have been sightings in WNC and Tennessee near the border with NC.


Again, you are talking about one (or more) species whose geographic distribution must have been huge. The animals itself are huge. The whole point on bipedalism, under the present focus is not important. A skull, or parts of it, teeth, whatever remains that points to such a big primate within its alleged habitat would be enough. If its found in North America or Northeastern Asia.

I don't know of any fossil beds in the PNW where forest-dwelling Pleistocene (or even more modern) animals are preserved. It's just not fossil country.


Wich of them? Why are the more illogical than a bigfoot? Couldn´t a primate have evolved to, at least on ocasion, feed on blood? What about the vampire bats? And what about the reports of sightings of th headless mule that breathe fire from its nostrils? How woud you know the difference betwee the foot prints of ordinary mules, horses, donkeis and the fabulous beast?

Why? On what basis? What these cryptos lack that bigfoot has? Note that many of them would not leave tracks, since they can fly or swim...
If I recall corrctly, one of the witnesses of the Jersy Devil draw what looked quite like a gray-type alien walking on all fours...

????????? Maybe I'm thinking of the Legend of Boggy Creek. Sorry. I really have little interest in other "cryptos".


Posting an article on fossilization is one thing. Understanding how to work with the fossil record is a completely different thing.
The point was that ape fossils of any kind are exceedingly rare.


Yep.

"Life

By life I mean that the life strategy of the organism, which will have a profound impact into its fossilization potential (FP - the likelihood of being found as a fossil). For an organism even to begin considering a career as a fossil it must be buried, any life strategy which enhances the likelihood of burial will increase its FP. Consequently, organisms which live on land have a much lower FP than organisms which live in shallow, near-shore marine environments. For example, the FP of your average marine Lesser Spotted Leaping Clam has a higher FP than your average Lesser Spotted Leaping Mountain Goat, due to the periodic, rapid sedimentation events experienced in near-shore environments. Also, organisms which do not possess hard parts or whose hard parts are fragile will have a low FP since they are unlikely to survive the burial process intact.

The position of the organism in the food chain is important since those lower down tend (for excellent ecological reasons) to be more abundant than those towards the top, so that organisms which occur in large populations, due to their sheer numbers, have a higher FP than those that occur in smaller populations. Having a lifestyle which incorporates living within the sediment provides added bonus points to the organisms FP since it is already buried. So:

High chance of burial + low in the food chain = high FP (with bonuses for already buried).
Low chance of burial + high in the food chain = low FP (it can be argued that the Lesser Spotted Leaping Mountain Goat has a good chance of being buried by the occasional landslide, living as it does in the mountains, but see Survival below.)

Death
How an organism dies also affects its FP. Shuffling off this mortal coil out in the open is not good since there tends to be a large number of organisms around to take advantage of such events to reduce your remains and FP quite rapidly. Even if you are already buried, something higher in the food chain digging you out and crushing you into a thousand small bits has something of a disastrous effect on your FP. Similarly your FP can be badly affected if you are rolled around by storms. Rapid smothering is still the best way of increasing your FP. This cuts down the possibility of further contributing to the food chain and in certain instances provides an environment suitable for preservation. So we have:

smothering by storm or flood sedimentation = high FP
being eaten or rolled around = low FP
Preservation
This covers the survival of the organism's remains after death and its transition into a fossil. Burial is the premier method of ensuring passage into the preservation stage. Rapid burial is a common process which occurs on a regular basis. Floods, storms, landslides, and volcanic ash eruptions lay down sediments over a period of hours to days. In some cases several meters of sediment can be dumped in near-shore environments by severe storms. Sedimentation does not have to occur on a slow, steady, incremental basis. Rapid sedimentation is part and parcel of current geological theories and is an important causal constituent of the rock record. However, not all environments are preserved equally in the rock record, leading to a heavy bias towards shallow, near-shore marine environments. Also, all periods of geological history are not preserved equally. Far more is preserved of recent Earth history than of more ancient times.

Burial protects the organism from higher food chain organisms with bad intentions and from the general environment - against mechanical (abrasion and break-up) and chemical processes (decay and disintegration). In the vast majority of cases decay is inevitable. Therefore organisms which possess some robust hard parts (shell, bone) have a much higher FP than soft-bodied organisms which have no hard parts, or possess fragile hard parts. Only under exceptional circumstances are soft-bodied organisms, or non-mineralized tissues, preserved. This usually occurs when the environment surrounding the organism either is low or is lacking in oxygen. Such environments are not needed to produce all fossils. The vast, vast, vast majority of organisms were fossilized in environments with normal oxygen levels, although these organisms are only represented by their hard parts with no soft parts remaining. Fossils containing preserved soft parts are therefore exceedingly rare compared with fossils composed of hard parts.

There are a number of possible preservation pathways once burial is complete. Some result in chemical alteration of the remains. Most result in the continued destruction of soft tissues. So:

Rapid burial = High FP
Hard parts = High FP
Slow burial = Low FP
No hard parts = Low FP

Survival
Once an organism has been successfully buried and preserved the fossil must survive. If the sediments containing the fossil erode away the fossil will be lost. If the sediments are buried too deeply the resultant increase in temperature can destroy the fossil.

Loss by erosion is especially likely if the organism was buried above sea level. Sediments above sea level are far more likely to be eroded than sediments buried in basins which are sinking. Sinking basins can accommodate more sediments (e.g. in the near-shore marine environment) allowing more sediment to be deposited, protecting the sediments beneath. Our Lesser Spotted Leaping Mountain Goat (or any other non-marine animal) may well have become a fossil but its fossil is much more likely to be eroded and destroyed than that of a fossilized clam which is buried below sea level. So:

High FP burial below sea level
burial in sinking basin
shallow burial
Low FP burial above sea level
deep burial

Discovery
This encompasses the chance of the fossil being discovered. A fossil cannot be discovered unless the sedimentary rock containing it is exposed at the Earth's surface. At any one time only a tiny fraction of the fossil bearing sedimentary rocks are exposed and available for being searched. Of all the time that current fossil-bearing rocks have been exposed at the Earth's surface only for the last few hundred years have they been searched. Of all the fossil-bearing rocks that have ever been exposed at the Earth's surface only the ones exposed now have been searched. Rocks in past times have been eroded away leaving little, if any, trace of their fossil content. Thus the fossil-bearing rocks we have searched are only a tiny fraction of the total fossil-bearing rocks.

The fossil record we have reflects these influences on fossilization. The vast majority of fossils are of organisms with hard parts which lived in environments conducive to rapid burial, i.e., in basins that were below sea level and were sinking. In other words the vast (up to 90%) majority of all fossils are of near-shore marine organisms with hard parts. Organisms which lived on land represent a tiny fraction of the fossils record............"

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html


See my initial comments on the spatial distribution of fossil sites. Even small bits can be used to delineate the temporal and spatial ranges of a species.

And before and after the time gap? Why not a single fossil of a bigfoot or a bigfoot-related species?

Or all the hominid and ape species that must have lived during those several million years?

Haven't we been over this before?

The Bering Strait was evidently open until 10,500, 11,000 years ago. Where are all the fossil people, horses and rock rabbits that must have come down the coast..............?

"The research went back in time far beyond the final submergence of the land bridge. Elias says that fossil samples fell into three age classes--more than 40,000 years old, 20,000-14,000 years old, and 14,000-11,000 years old. Generally, the oldest period represented an environment of birch-heath-grass tundra with a few shrubs, while the middle period was tundra with fewer heaths. The latest period again was dominated by birch-heath-grass tundra--moderately moist--and there were small ponds choked with aquatic plants. By 12,000 years B.P. summer temperatures were as warm as they are now and by 11,000 B.P. summers were warmer than Alaska's north slope now experiences.

Elias and paleobotanist Susan K. Short (INSTARR) and Hilary H. Birks (University of Bergen Norway) found no evidence for steppe-tundra vegetation at any period. R. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska's Institute of Arctic Biology has hypothesized that Beringia was a vast steppe covered with grasses and sagebrush. Dr. Guthrie, an authority on large Pleistocene mammals, argues that Alaska's plentiful fossil record means that Beringia must have offered highly productive grazing to have allowed bison, mammoths, and other grazers to reach such giant size. Elias and his colleagues, however, have not found evidence of extensive expanses of that steppe habitat, nor had earlier work by palynologists. Is Guthrie wrong?

"I think that we could easily both be right," said Elias. "The land bridge may have been a narrow waist of mesic tundra surrounded by steppe-tundra landscapes on either side." He notes that the land bridge probably could not have sustained many big grass eaters. "I don't think that there was much for megafaunal mammals to graze on out there on the land bridge, but they may have migrated across the narrowest part of the Bering Strait region in just a few days."

"Based on our evidence, grazing animals and their human hunters probably spent little time on the land bridge. Shrub tundra offers too few food resources for the animals." "

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/bering.html

How far was he from the fogbank? Was the one he crossed the only one nearby? What were the relative positions of Cox, bigfoot and the fogbank? What light sources were avaliable, and where they came from in repect to the fog, car and alleged bigfoot? You know, driving at 3:30 AM trough fog can induce some changes in visual perception. Specially if the person is a bit sleepy, even if they don´t acknoweledge the fact.

He had driven through the fogbank. I don't know if there were other patches. I hit one en route to Washougal on the same highway that was so dense I couldn't see the end of the hood ( I had to open the door and shine a flashlight on the road to see the center line), but once I was through it it was totally clear.
The animal was on the south side of the road ahead of him. It crossed the highway and leapt up a bank. The only light was from his headlights. He was heading toward Hamilton Island to go fishing. He hadn't been driving all night. He stopped at Jerry's all-night café (no longer there) in North Bonneville, where the Sheriff's Office was phoned. Smeared toe marks were found 8' up the bank and a full print by the river. There was crushed fern and a small tree at the top, according to Deputy Rod Bevins. Rod said it was about a half mile east of Beacon Rock.

The snow pack was the heaviest in 85 years; many animals were coming down from higher elevations in search of food.

There's a full recounting of the incident in Hunter/Dahinden's Sasquatch/Bigfoot and a report on the BFRO website. I saw the story on the front page of the Vancouver Columbian in March, 1969, and talked with some of the people involved about a year or two later. My land was only a few miles from Beacon Rock.

Bigfeet are supposed to live in forests, don´t they? If so, how they expanded their habitats from Asia to North America? Vast extents of grass plains and tundra had to be crossed to reach what are nowdays USA´s northwestern areas from Asia. Habitat expansion, not migration was the proccess, since the species made the cross actually by gradually expanding their habitats´ range across the bridge. So, any species that came from Asia to North America must have been able to live in grassy plains and tundra. So, bigfeet, folowing this line of reason, could not have reached North America by this path unless it is a species that live in such habitats. And even if it (or some antecessor species) were, this would just result in more chances of fossils being found, given the larger habitat area.

There have been sightings in drier areas, such as in eastern Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico........ While forest seems to be the preferred habitat, they may be able to range outside it. See excerpt on the Bering Strait above.

Black Bear prefer forest too. How did they get here? (Note, both are omnivores.)

If a close relative of Homo habilis lived in Russia, why couldn't a species of robust Australopithecine (or something on that order) have made it that far as well? The Russian's have their "crypto" hominids and one report from Russia regarding the hand position (the thumb was practically unopposed) while one fed on "rock rabbits" (aka Pikas, also found in the Northwest) is virtually identical to what Glen Thomas saw on Mt. Hood.

If there's a living Asian relative, who needs fossils?

Is this particular red clay a sedimentary rock or the product of its weathering?

It's clay and it's all over. It's not rock and it doesn't look much like the rock in the area.

I'm in the Appalachians. They're the oldest chain in the world.

Clay soils in the Piedmont yield skeletons of reptiles dating back more than 200 million years, but I'm not in the Piedmont. There are coastal fossil beds, but I know of none in the mountains in this area.

[LAL]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
I wasn't aware that any scientists took this seriously. No real scientists, anyway.

Right. You're not aware.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
I'm not entirely familiar with evolutionary evidence, or bipedal history, but there were competing hypotheses on the development of bipedalism:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html

Is it now a general scientific consensus that bipedalism developed in forested areas?

Yes, I believe so, since the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus. Hunt's ideas seem to be favored now. Bipedalism conferred a number of advantages.


After the split? How did they get about prior to the split?

Bipedally, arboreally.


You seemed to be claiming that bipedalism preceeded knuckle-walking in the Great Apes. You even indicated you had sources to support that claim.

RayG

That's the consensus according to Chris Stringer in the article I haven't found yet. I'm thinking it may have been around the time "Kadabba" was elevated to full species status. Still looking.

This is from Discover:

"WHY DO WE WALK UPRIGHT?

For millions of years, the earliest hominids were a lot like other apes. They were short, had tiny brains compared with modern humans, and could not speak or fashion a spear. But there was a profound difference that set them apart: They could stand up and walk. Bipedalism was the first great transformation of our ancestors, coming long before the evolution of all the other things that make us uniquely human.
The answer to the question of how our ancestors evolved into bipeds seemed pretty clear for decades. "The long-standing idea was that we became bipedal because we moved out of the forest and onto the savanna, either because we had to look over tall grass or get to isolated stands of trees," says Craig Stanford, a primatologist at the University of Southern California's Jane Goodall Research Center.
But in recent years new evidence has thrown that scenario into doubt. "The time-honored idea that a weakling hominid left the safety of the forest for the dangerous savanna and had to live by its wits and stood upright is a nice story, but it's probably fiction," says Stanford. As researchers have looked closer at the older hominid sites, many have concluded that the areas were not savannas at all but a variety of lightly to densely wooded landscapes. Hominids may not have lived in savannas until 2 million to 2.5 million years ago—2.5 million to 3 million years after the earliest known hominids walked on two legs.
Now scientists are trying to figure out what evolutionary pressure led hominids to become bipedal in the forest. To answer that question, they have to figure out what upright walking evolved from. Fossils offer some clues, but opinion is divided over what the clues mean. Some paleoanthropologists studying Lucy's skeleton say she walked much as we do, for example, while others say she moved awkwardly on the ground and spent a lot of time in trees. Paleoanthropologists can say even less about the oldest hominids, because they've found hardly anything below the skull.
The best clues to our upright origins may come from living apes, although no one knows for sure how much chimpanzees have evolved from the last common ancestor they shared with us. Some primatologists are conducting lab studies of how modern apes knuckle-walk and clamber through trees to see which movements are most like human walking. Other researchers, like Craig Stanford, watch apes in the wild. "Chimpanzees may stand upright on a big limb of a fig tree and pluck figs just overhead," Stanford says. "And when they're on the ground, they'll stand up to pull down branches." He backs a hypothesis originally devised by Kevin Hunt of Indiana University: The earliest hominids may have become specialists in getting food by standing up for short spells, both in the trees or on the ground. It may not seem as heroic as striding out into the savanna, but then again, many great chapters in the book of evolution have been built from such modest changes."

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-03/cover/

[LTC8K6]

No they're found in the Cascades, mostly on the west slope, and formerly seem to have ranged near the coast.

Sasquatch has been found? Strange that it didn't make the papers.

Obviously, "they" have not been found anywhere.

They're not found in the cascades, or anywhere else.

You mean like the Skookum Cast which was pronounced to be the imprint of an unknown hominid primate by the top primate anatomist (Dr. Daris Swindler, Professor Emeritus, U of W), in the country, but which you decided must be an elk?

Other experts pronounced it to be something else.

The skookum cast fits, though. If you could prove it was from bigfoot, even I would accept it as physical evidence of bigfoot.

You can't though, so it is merely an interesting item.

Perhaps if those bigfoot researchers hadn't run off right after bigfoot sat down next to them to eat....... :D

Lu, I find the Sierra club to be less than objective. :)

Washington's state fossil is the Columbian Mammoth, found on the Olympic peninsula, but it was a giant ground sloth that was found at Sea-Tac.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by LAL
Right. You're not aware.

It's called "blissful ignorance". Sometimes it's preferable to beating your head against a wall.

Goodbye.

[LTC8K6]

Primate heel or elk knee?

To me it looks like an elk knee and leg imprint, and I can't see how anyone thinks it's a primate's heel imprint.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1070819401.jpg

[LTC8K6]

It's interesting that Swindler believes the P/G film is a hoax.

It's also interesting that when bigfoot believers reference Swindler, his opinion of the skookum cast is often given, and his opinion of the P/G film is rarely given.

The footage that I find curious is not the P/G film, but the Redwoods footage. I don't think it was a bear and the type of encounter seems more likely. I remember readind that someone admitted it was a hoax, though.

Of course I read that about the P/G film too. :D

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Wrong JW, though both are in the UK.

The John Waters who posted on the newsgroup (and it's a very good one with strict guidelines) is the author of "Helpless as a Baby", which is a book on general and human evolution.

I saw that from the original link you provided. Do you have any further details on his background? In what scientific journals has he been published? What articles has he authored or co-authored on general or human evolution? As Alan Cromer stated:

"Scientific journals must remain the preserve of articles capable of affecting the consensus of the scientific public. Books are the place for opinions, speculations, and fanciful accounts of ricocheting planets."

RayG

Cromer quote from his book: Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. 1993. New York: Oxford University Press. page 149-150.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
How did the elk get up without leaving hoof prints in the middle of the body print, pray tell? They fold their legs under them.

I've wondered the same thing about the so-called sasquatch heel print. How did the sasquatch leave an imprint of its achilles tendon WITHOUT leaving an imprint of its foot?

How was it able to get to its feet WITHOUT using its hands and/or feet for leverage?

It's interesting that 'old' elk prints WERE found in the mud where the supposed squatch left his butt print.

from: http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp
Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote.

Since no clear footprints were ever found, and no sighting occurred, there seems to be no supportive evidence that the cast is that of a squatch butt.

Besides, if, as Dr. Medrum says, the cast "constitutes significant and compelling new evidence", it's puzzling why nothing seems to have been submitted to Nature or any other scientific journals.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
That we know of.........the two species of Gigantopithecus have left us four lower mandibles altogether. Where are the rest of the remains of this wide ranging and successful species (and subspecies) that endured for half a million years?
Where are the remains of these highly sucessful species of bigfeet, whose habitats span Asia and North America? Gigantopithecus left traces. We know it existed.

Originally posted by LAL
It's not known if they're the same species or not.

What's all this "should". The US isn't the Karoo.
So what? there are no areas in the whole North America that do not had conditions for fossil preservation at the time bigfeet or their relatives lived?

Originally posted by LAL
That has been found and identified so far.

Who's been looking?

How long did the Leaky's labor before they found a single hominid fossil at Olduvai? Did no hominid fossils exist or were they just not discovered?

One does not need to be looking for bigfoot fossils to find them. Cartelle, for example, was not looking for ape fossils when he found the Caipora. If I recall correctly, part of his team was looking for bats... A huge ammount of findings is due to chance. Paleontologists looking for cave bear fossils, for example, could find a bigfoot jaw. And don´t underestimate the skills of these people when it comes to identify bones. I doubt one of them would not recognize a primate jaw or femur.

Originally posted by LAL
I have no idea. That wasn't why I posted it.

I saw an article in Archaeology, I think, about a search for living Giant Sloths in South America. Can't think of the scientist's name, but he got his funding.

But it showed how frail is the evidence used to back the claim of giant sloths and mammoths are still living, or lived untill the last century or so.
The guy is/was looking after the mapinguari. He managed to convince NGC to make a documentary on his research. As always, nothing was found. Just a few reports ("My grandmother saw one"), the guy standing in the woods making what was supposed to be the mapinguari call. Rather frustrating I would say. He got some attention after the new mammal findings in Vietnam.

Originally posted by LAL
Haven't I already mentioned bones of anything are rare in the wet part of the PNW? Ten or twenty times?
Yep. No fossils of much of anything in these parts either, but there have been sightings in WNC and Tennessee near the border with NC.
I don't know of any fossil beds in the PNW where forest-dwelling Pleistocene (or even more modern) animals are preserved. It's just not fossil country.

Haven´t I mentioned that bigfoot fossils as well as recent remains should have been found OUTSIDE PNW some ten or twenty times?

Originally posted by LAL
????????? Maybe I'm thinking of the Legend of Boggy Creek. Sorry. I really have little interest in other "cryptos".

But they share the same viability problems that bigfeet have. What makes you consider one more likely than the other?

Originally posted by LAL
Yep.

"Life

By life I mean that the life strategy of the organism, which will have a profound impact into its fossilization potential (FP - the likelihood of being found as a fossil). For an organism even to begin considering a career as a fossil it must be buried, any life strategy which enhances the likelihood of burial will increase its FP. Consequently, organisms which live on land have a much lower FP than organisms which live in shallow, near-shore marine environments. For example, the FP of your average marine Lesser Spotted Leaping Clam has a higher FP than your average Lesser Spotted Leaping Mountain Goat, due to the periodic, rapid sedimentation events experienced in near-shore environments. Also, organisms which do not possess hard parts or whose hard parts are fragile will have a low FP since they are unlikely to survive the burial process intact.
...snipped to avoid a large quote that could hamper text´s reading...

The fossil record we have reflects these influences on fossilization. The vast majority of fossils are of organisms with hard parts which lived in environments conducive to rapid burial, i.e., in basins that were below sea level and were sinking. In other words the vast (up to 90%) majority of all fossils are of near-shore marine organisms with hard parts. Organisms which lived on land represent a tiny fraction of the fossils record............"

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html

Again you show misunderstanding of the fossil record. Ever considered that in the statistics, plankton is considered? As well as endemic species? Ever considered that Pleistocene sediments are usually the shallower ones? Those most likely to be exposed, say in roadcuts and river banks, for example? To probe it´s true fossilization chances, you should take in to account only terrestrial animals.

Now, lets play with bigfoot´s fossilization chances.

Question 1- Has the species a broad spatial distribution, spanning different ecosystems?
Answer 1- According to you, yes, since it live (ed) in Asia and North America, in several types of forests and open-field environments.
Conclusion 1- Then, chances are it´ll have, according to this criteria, elevated chances of perservation.

Question 2- Does the animal has hard parts?
Answer 2- Well, its a vertebrate, and a big one...
Conclusion 2- So, according to this criteria, the species has elevated chances of perservation.

Question 3- The species live in areas that have geologic conditions favorable to preservation of bones?
Answer 3- Yes, since it has a vast and diversified habitat. Let me expand this a bit further to cover some aspects the articles you pointed have not touched. Slow burial rates can be very effective for fossil preservation. The corpse of an animal in a lake has great chances of preservation, for example. Despite the small burial rate, the deposited sediment is compose by fine-grained material, that allows exceptional preservation. Now, imagine an animal that lives in a forest - or why not, a grassy plain, since you stated they can live there. River systems cross the forest - or the grassy plain. There are a lot of chances that eventually a number of them would die -note that we are talking in terms of geological time, in this case all the time the species live in that environment- in sites were preservation would be possible. Drowned by floods, when trying to cross a water body, or specimens weakened by disease who came near drinking sites and died there, their bodies later being carried by currents. At river beds, oxbow lakes and even in the river´s flood plains preservation would be possible. Oh, don´t even try to argue that rivers in PNW would not have these conditions, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger abd diversified than this. In such a vast area, there are other sites that favor preservation, such as caves. Looking for water or seeking for shelter, animals get trapped in caves, places with exceptional preservation conditions.Again, don´t argue that there are no caves in PNW capable of preserving bones, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger and diversified than this. Heck, I would expect even a frozen bigfoot carcass as a possible find!
Conclusion 3- High chances of fossil preservation, again.

Question 4- The species has a great number of individuals?
Anwer 4- At a first glace, unknown. But, let´s think a bit more on the issue. We are talking about past bigfoot population, not just before the arrival of European colonization, but also quite possibly before the arrival of humans. If, as you stated, todays' bigfeet population is estimated at 14000, at a time where humans are decreasing its habitat at an allarming rate, one can suppose that without humans to create them problems, their numbers must have been quite larger!And don´t forget the time frame. There´s at least 11Ky for the event to happen. Even if the chance is small, the dice were rolled several times for a long time...
Conclusion 4- There are chances that they had a high fossilization chances in the past. However it is uncertain.

So, it passes in 3 or 4 conditions. And in th fourth one, you get a question mark at best.

Originally posted by LAL
Or all the hominid and ape species that must have lived during those several million years?

Haven't we been over this before?
But their fossils were found, weren´t they? And after the "big gap" where are the fossils?

Originally posted by LAL
The Bering Strait was evidently open until 10,500, 11,000 years ago. Where are all the fossil people, horses and rock rabbits that must have come down the coast..............?

"The research went back in time far beyond the final submergence of the land bridge. Elias says that fossil samples fell into three age classes--more than 40,000 years old, 20,000-14,000 years old, and 14,000-11,000 years old. Generally, the oldest period represented an environment of birch-heath-grass tundra with a few shrubs, while the middle period was tundra with fewer heaths. The latest period again was dominated by birch-heath-grass tundra--moderately moist--and there were small ponds choked with aquatic plants. By 12,000 years B.P. summer temperatures were as warm as they are now and by 11,000 B.P. summers were warmer than Alaska's north slope now experiences.

Elias and paleobotanist Susan K. Short (INSTARR) and Hilary H. Birks (University of Bergen Norway) found no evidence for steppe-tundra vegetation at any period. R. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska's Institute of Arctic Biology has hypothesized that Beringia was a vast steppe covered with grasses and sagebrush. Dr. Guthrie, an authority on large Pleistocene mammals, argues that Alaska's plentiful fossil record means that Beringia must have offered highly productive grazing to have allowed bison, mammoths, and other grazers to reach such giant size. Elias and his colleagues, however, have not found evidence of extensive expanses of that steppe habitat, nor had earlier work by palynologists. Is Guthrie wrong?

"I think that we could easily both be right," said Elias. "The land bridge may have been a narrow waist of mesic tundra surrounded by steppe-tundra landscapes on either side." He notes that the land bridge probably could not have sustained many big grass eaters. "I don't think that there was much for megafaunal mammals to graze on out there on the land bridge, but they may have migrated across the narrowest part of the Bering Strait region in just a few days."

"Based on our evidence, grazing animals and their human hunters probably spent little time on the land bridge. Shrub tundra offers too few food resources for the animals." "

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/bering.html

So, steppes, no forests, as I´ve told you... Bigfeet are grazing animals? Populations of bigfeet can live in open fields for a long time?
Note that there´s refference to "Alaska's plentiful fossil record". Bigfeet must have expanded its habitat to Alaska. And why there are no bigfeet fosils there?
And regarding the statement "land bridge probably could not have sustained many big grass eaters", who said it needed to? Not to mention that the term "many" is a bit vague. Think on how animals expand their habitats. Lets take mammoths as a case. They lived across Asia and Europe, didn´t they? Now, as the bridge was being formed, oviously some groups started to gradually use the new land, expanding their territory. As population expanded, new genartions, the new groups formed moved towards new grazing fields, eventually stabilishing new populations in North America, without the need of a large permanent population in the land bridge. And Alaska and Canada would offer ample space for this species expand their numbers, thus leaving fossils...

Originally posted by LAL
He had driven through the fogbank. I don't know if there were other patches. I hit one en route to Washougal on the same highway that was so dense I couldn't see the end of the hood ( I had to open the door and shine a flashlight on the road to see the center line), but once I was through it it was totally clear.
The animal was on the south side of the road ahead of him. It crossed the highway and leapt up a bank. The only light was from his headlights. He was heading toward Hamilton Island to go fishing. He hadn't been driving all night. He stopped at Jerry's all-night café (no longer there) in North Bonneville, where the Sheriff's Office was phoned. Smeared toe marks were found 8' up the bank and a full print by the river. There was crushed fern and a small tree at the top, according to Deputy Rod Bevins. Rod said it was about a half mile east of Beacon Rock.

The snow pack was the heaviest in 85 years; many animals were coming down from higher elevations in search of food.

There's a full recounting of the incident in Hunter/Dahinden's Sasquatch/Bigfoot and a report on the BFRO website. I saw the story on the front page of the Vancouver Columbian in March, 1969, and talked with some of the people involved about a year or two later. My land was only a few miles from Beacon Rock.

So, he only saw a glimpse of the animal crossing the road, illuminated by his car´s headlights, there was fog neraby, and it was very late at night. All conditions needed to create a lot of illusions. Add to this the possibility of misinterpretation of tracks, and now you have zero reliable evidence.

Originally posted by LAL
There have been sightings in drier areas, such as in eastern Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico........ While forest seems to be the preferred habitat, they may be able to range outside it. See excerpt on the Bering Strait above.
They must have been able not to range outside it, but to actually live in steppes and tundra for a long time, at least enough time to expand their habitats from Asia to North America.
Note that you are now talking about an animal able to live in several different environments (several types of temperate forests, grassy plains, tundra, etc.), with a broad spatial distribution range. Couple this with the fact that no body or related fossil has ever been found and you turn bigfoot even more unlikely.

Originally posted by LAL
Black Bear prefer forest too. How did they get here? (Note, both are omnivores.)
And are you sure all mammals that live or lived in North America came through the Bhering land bridge at the last Ice Age? And there are fossils of several species of bear, with sevar age spans, in the Americas and in Asia. Where are the fossils of bigfeet-related species?

Originally posted by LAL
If a close relative of Homo habilis lived in Russia, why couldn't a species of robust Australopithecine (or something on that order) have made it that far as well? The Russian's have their "crypto" hominids and one report from Russia regarding the hand position (the thumb was practically unopposed) while one fed on "rock rabbits" (aka Pikas, also found in the Northwest) is virtually identical to what Glen Thomas saw on Mt. Hood.
If there's a living Asian relative, who needs fossils?

If, and that´s a major if. Is there anything else other than reports? There are reports of ghosts also, almost everywhere.

Originally posted by LAL
It's clay and it's all over. It's not rock and it doesn't look much like the rock in the area.

What does not mean it has not been formed by weathering. It may have been formed by weathering of any type of rock that exists in your surroundings. If you live in an area composed by igneous or metamorphic rocks, then these will be the rocks that will generate the soil, after weathering. Thus, no fossils. And bigfeet are/were restricted to this area?

Originally posted by LAL
I'm in the Appalachians. They're the oldest chain in the world.

Who told you this has not a clue about geology. There are several other mountain chains all around the world that are older, in terms both of morphology age and rock formation age. And the age of the rock has little to do with weathering intensity. It has to do with the time it´s been exposed to the weathering agents (a function of uplift rate, that is controlled by a number of factors), rock composition and the climate (that will controll temperature, precipitation, etc. and ultimately decide the weathering agents). But thats OT digression.

Originally posted by LAL
Clay soils in the Piedmont yield skeletons of reptiles dating back more than 200 million years, but I'm not in the Piedmont. There are coastal fossil beds, but I know of none in the mountains in this area.

That´s because the rocks (from wich the soils were created by the proccess of weathering) are 200My old. BTW, that´s completely irrelevant to the present discussion, since as I am (as well as other posters) once again repeating that, in other areas, fossils and remains of the creature could -and would- have been found, if it were a real creature

[Skeptical Greg]

Sample of a class ' A ' sighting from the BFRO site..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=11886


Class A reports involve clear sightings, in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. There are few footprint cases that are very well documented. Those are considered Class A reports as well, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low.

It looks like this one is class A because they couldn't determine the cause of some large prints.. How scientific can you get?

UPDATE

Hair samples collected from the area were of a bear, according to Dr. Fahrenbach (7/9/05).

Dear Mel,

Both samples were bear hair, only the short piece was much more pigmented than the longer one.

Keep the hair coming!

My best, Henner.


Sample one was of a bear.

Sample two I was hoping to be our subject.
( Awww, I was ' hoping ' it would be too .. )

Strand was of a different color and texture and it was stretched, causing it to curl.

Thinking is. . . the spring left in the tree as the bear stepped over, snapped it up higher as it passed.

Thanks to Dr. Fahrenbach's assistance.

Even though the hairs turned out to be of a bear. Tracks found and followed in the area were of a much larger and different subject.

Here are my comments on some tidbits in the report..We studied this for some time trying to figure out what had happened there as the stump had hair all over it and it was also all over the ground. We brought some home with us because it was the strangest fur we had ever felt. This fur was white and very coarse.It was not elk or deer or any fur we knew of. We looked on the ground and notice a set of elk horns that had been dropped. Surprise! It turned out to be elk fur/hair ..

My husband, who was a logger and is very familiar with the wilderness had never seen anything like it before and was also astonished. What's wrong with this picture?

[LTC8K6]

Ah ha!

Bigfoot can transmogrify into an elk and back!

That accounts for everything!

:D

[casebro]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Ah ha!

Bigfoot can transmogrify into an elk and back!

That accounts for everything!

:D


Yes, but one gaping hole in your theory - BF sitings go back centuries. How did he transmorgrify, or even time travel, before the advent of the empty cardboard box?

[Gorillagator]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LAL
[B].

" Plaster casts which we made from these tracks provide the only tangible evidence I have for the existence of the sasquatch. But wildlife biologists regularly depend on tracks and other wildlife sign as evidence for the presence of bears, deer, wolves, and other mammals. We recognize that tracks constitute more reliable and persistent evidence of a mammal species than a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself.



As a matter of fact, Grover Krantz, the professor of anthropology at Washungton State U., has used footprint casts , as the requisite type specimen, to propose the official scientific naming of Bigfoot in the journal called Northeast Anthropological Research Notes. In that he believes bigfoot to be related to Gigantopithecus blacki {concurring with John Green and Yerkes Primate Center Director Geoffrey Bourne} Krantz has suggested the name G. canadensis . If G. blacki turns out to have been a knuckle walker{which may have happened by now for all I know since my info on this is dated from 1995}, then Krantz has reserved the name Giganthropus for the bipedal bigfoot.

[Gorillagator]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Where are the remains of these highly sucessful species of bigfeet, whose habitats span Asia and North America? Gigantopithecus left traces. We know it existed.


So what? there are no areas in the whole North America that do not had conditions for fossil preservation at the time bigfeet or their relatives lived?



One does not need to be looking for bigfoot fossils to find them. Cartelle, for example, was not looking for ape fossils when he found the Caipora. If I recall correctly, part of his team was looking for bats... A huge ammount of findings is due to chance. Paleontologists looking for cave bear fossils, for example, could find a bigfoot jaw. And don´t underestimate the skills of these people when it comes to identify bones. I doubt one of them would not recognize a primate jaw or femur.



But it showed how frail is the evidence used to back the claim of giant sloths and mammoths are still living, or lived untill the last century or so.
The guy is/was looking after the mapinguari. He managed to convince NGC to make a documentary on his research. As always, nothing was found. Just a few reports ("My grandmother saw one"), the guy standing in the woods making what was supposed to be the mapinguari call. Rather frustrating I would say. He got some attention after the new mammal findings in Vietnam.



Haven´t I mentioned that bigfoot fossils as well as recent remains should have been found OUTSIDE PNW some ten or twenty times?



But they share the same viability problems that bigfeet have. What makes you consider one more likely than the other?



Again you show misunderstanding of the fossil record. Ever considered that in the statistics, plankton is considered? As well as endemic species? Ever considered that Pleistocene sediments are usually the shallower ones? Those most likely to be exposed, say in roadcuts and river banks, for example? To probe it´s true fossilization chances, you should take in to account only terrestrial animals.

Now, lets play with bigfoot´s fossilization chances.

Question 1- Has the species a broad spatial distribution, spanning different ecosystems?
Answer 1- According to you, yes, since it live (ed) in Asia and North America, in several types of forests and open-field environments.
Conclusion 1- Then, chances are it´ll have, according to this criteria, elevated chances of perservation.

Question 2- Does the animal has hard parts?
Answer 2- Well, its a vertebrate, and a big one...
Conclusion 2- So, according to this criteria, the species has elevated chances of perservation.

Question 3- The species live in areas that have geologic conditions favorable to preservation of bones?
Answer 3- Yes, since it has a vast and diversified habitat. Let me expand this a bit further to cover some aspects the articles you pointed have not touched. Slow burial rates can be very effective for fossil preservation. The corpse of an animal in a lake has great chances of preservation, for example. Despite the small burial rate, the deposited sediment is compose by fine-grained material, that allows exceptional preservation. Now, imagine an animal that lives in a forest - or why not, a grassy plain, since you stated they can live there. River systems cross the forest - or the grassy plain. There are a lot of chances that eventually a number of them would die -note that we are talking in terms of geological time, in this case all the time the species live in that environment- in sites were preservation would be possible. Drowned by floods, when trying to cross a water body, or specimens weakened by disease who came near drinking sites and died there, their bodies later being carried by currents. At river beds, oxbow lakes and even in the river´s flood plains preservation would be possible. Oh, don´t even try to argue that rivers in PNW would not have these conditions, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger abd diversified than this. In such a vast area, there are other sites that favor preservation, such as caves. Looking for water or seeking for shelter, animals get trapped in caves, places with exceptional preservation conditions.Again, don´t argue that there are no caves in PNW capable of preserving bones, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger and diversified than this. Heck, I would expect even a frozen bigfoot carcass as a possible find!
Conclusion 3- High chances of fossil preservation, again.

Question 4- The species has a great number of individuals?
Anwer 4- At a first glace, unknown. But, let´s think a bit more on the issue. We are talking about past bigfoot population, not just before the arrival of European colonization, but also quite possibly before the arrival of humans. If, as you stated, todays' bigfeet population is estimated at 14000, at a time where humans are decreasing its habitat at an allarming rate, one can suppose that without humans to create them problems, their numbers must have been quite larger!And don´t forget the time frame. There´s at least 11Ky for the event to happen. Even if the chance is small, the dice were rolled several times for a long time...
Conclusion 4- There are chances that they had a high fossilization chances in the past. However it is uncertain.

So, it passes in 3 or 4 conditions. And in th fourth one, you get a question mark at best.


But their fossils were found, weren´t they? And after the "big gap" where are the fossils?



So, steppes, no forests, as I´ve told you... Bigfeet are grazing animals? Populations of bigfeet can live in open fields for a long time?
Note that there´s refference to "Alaska's plentiful fossil record". Bigfeet must have expanded its habitat to Alaska. And why there are no bigfeet fosils there?
And regarding the statement "land bridge probably could not have sustained many big grass eaters", who said it needed to? Not to mention that the term "many" is a bit vague. Think on how animals expand their habitats. Lets take mammoths as a case. They lived across Asia and Europe, didn´t they? Now, as the bridge was being formed, oviously some groups started to gradually use the new land, expanding their territory. As population expanded, new genartions, the new groups formed moved towards new grazing fields, eventually stabilishing new populations in North America, without the need of a large permanent population in the land bridge. And Alaska and Canada would offer ample space for this species expand their numbers, thus leaving fossils...



So, he only saw a glimpse of the animal crossing the road, illuminated by his car´s headlights, there was fog neraby, and it was very late at night. All conditions needed to create a lot of illusions. Add to this the possibility of misinterpretation of tracks, and now you have zero reliable evidence.


They must have been able not to range outside it, but to actually live in steppes and tundra for a long time, at least enough time to expand their habitats from Asia to North America.
Note that you are now talking about an animal able to live in several different environments (several types of temperate forests, grassy plains, tundra, etc.), with a broad spatial distribution range. Couple this with the fact that no body or related fossil has ever been found and you turn bigfoot even more unlikely.


And are you sure all mammals that live or lived in North America came through the Bhering land bridge at the last Ice Age? And there are fossils of several species of bear, with sevar age spans, in the Americas and in Asia. Where are the fossils of bigfeet-related species?



If, and that´s a major if. Is there anything else other than reports? There are reports of ghosts also, almost everywhere.



What does not mean it has not been formed by weathering. It may have been formed by weathering of any type of rock that exists in your surroundings. If you live in an area composed by igneous or metamorphic rocks, then these will be the rocks that will generate the soil, after weathering. Thus, no fossils. And bigfeet are/were restricted to this area?



Who told you this has not a clue about geology. There are several other mountain chains all around the world that are older, in terms both of morphology age and rock formation age. And the age of the rock has little to do with weathering intensity. It has to do with the time it´s been exposed to the weathering agents (a function of uplift rate, that is controlled by a number of factors), rock composition and the climate (that will controll temperature, precipitation, etc. and ultimately decide the weathering agents). But thats OT digression.



That´s because the rocks (from wich the soils were created by the proccess of weathering) are 200My old. BTW, that´s completely irrelevant to the present discussion, since as I am (as well as other posters) once again repeating that, in other areas, fossils and remains of the creature could -and would- have been found, if it were a real creature






Not necessarily. The fish known as Coelacanth left no fossils {which anybody discovered} for 70 million years and was thus thought to be extinct until a fisherman dredged one up a few decades ago. Since then it has been learned that their distibution is spread far and wide, yet for 70 million years of living and reproducing no proof of its continued existence was ever found that was later than 70 million years old.

[Skeptical Greg]

Gorillagator,

Think you could figure out how to un-bold your comments within the quotes, so we can distinguish your comments from the others? Not necessarily. The fish known as Coelacanth left no fossils {which anybody discovered} for 70 million years and was thus thought to be extinct until a fisherman dredged one up a few decades ago. Since then it has been learned that their distibution is spread far and wide, yet for 70 million years of living and reproducing no proof of its continued existence was ever found that was later than 70 million years old. You're so right, and we actually have a specimen..


Are we going to have to wait 70 million years for a specimen of bigfoot ?

P.S.

Uhh, how did we know Coelacanth was extinct ? ( before we discovered it )

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Sasquatch has been found? Strange that it didn't make the papers.


Did you know the Wall Street Journal once did a balanced story on them?


Obviously, "they" have not been found anywhere.

They're not found in the cascades, or anywhere else.



They just live there.


Other experts pronounced it to be something else.

What experts and what did they find it to be? Citations, please.


The skookum cast fits, though. If you could prove it was from bigfoot, even I would accept it as physical evidence of bigfoot.

You can't though, so it is merely an interesting item.

It's compelling. Please show me how the methodology used by Drs. Sarmiento, Swindler, Meldrum and others was faulty and why their conclusions are in error.


Perhaps if those bigfoot researchers hadn't run off right after bigfoot sat down next to them to eat....... :D

What on earth are you talking about?

Lu, I find the Sierra club to be less than objective. :)

I'm a life member and I don't care what you think.


Washington's state fossil is the Columbian Mammoth, found on the Olympic peninsula, but it was a giant ground sloth that was found at Sea-Tac.

I know about the state fossil, I'm just not finding any under SeaTac. When did this happen?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Gorillagator
Not necessarily. The fish known as Coelacanth left no fossils {which anybody discovered} for 70 million years and was thus thought to be extinct....


Ummm... if there were no fossils, and it was thought to be extinct, how did anyone know it had ever existed...?

Unless you mean it left no fossils younger than 70 million years, but did leave older fossils.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Where are the remains of these highly sucessful species of bigfeet, whose habitats span Asia and North America? Gigantopithecus left traces. We know it existed.


So what? there are no areas in the whole North America that do not had conditions for fossil preservation at the time bigfeet or their relatives lived?

Gould estimated 99% of all species that have lived on earth are extinct, with most leaving no fossils.

Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Okapi, among many other living animals, have no fossil record. They "should", shouldn't they?

There may be fossils of large "unknown primates" somewhere in NA. They haven't been found...........yet.


One does not need to be looking for bigfoot fossils to find them. Cartelle, for example, was not looking for ape fossils when he found the Caipora. If I recall correctly, part of his team was looking for bats... A huge ammount of findings is due to chance. Paleontologists looking for cave bear fossils, for example, could find a bigfoot jaw. And don´t underestimate the skills of these people when it comes to identify bones. I doubt one of them would not recognize a primate jaw or femur.

As I recall, the Leakys dug in fossil-rich Olduvai for thirty years before a hominid turned up.


But it showed how frail is the evidence used to back the claim of giant sloths and mammoths are still living, or lived untill the last century or so.
The guy is/was looking after the mapinguari. He managed to convince NGC to make a documentary on his research. As always, nothing was found. Just a few reports ("My grandmother saw one"), the guy standing in the woods making what was supposed to be the mapinguari call. Rather frustrating I would say. He got some attention after the new mammal findings in Vietnam.

Not sure it's the same. Fresh tracks were found, according to the article. I may still have the magazine around somewhere.


Haven´t I mentioned that bigfoot fossils as well as recent remains should have been found OUTSIDE PNW some ten or twenty times?

No, but I think you said there "should" be roadkill at least that many times.

I'm having trouble finding Pleistocene fossil beds listed anywhere in the US besides the ones mentioned, and they seem to be the wrong habitat.


But they share the same viability problems that bigfeet have. What makes you consider one more likely than the other?


To my knowlege they don't have thousands of sightings and trackways backing them up.

Again you show misunderstanding of the fossil record.

I show misunderstanding by posting an excerpt from an article explaining it?

Ever considered that in the statistics, plankton is considered? As well as endemic species? Ever considered that Pleistocene sediments are usually the shallower ones? Those most likely to be exposed, say in roadcuts and river banks, for example? To probe it´s true fossilization chances, you should take in to account only terrestrial animals.

Now, lets play with bigfoot´s fossilization chances.

Question 1- Has the species a broad spatial distribution, spanning different ecosystems?
Answer 1- According to you, yes, since it live (ed) in Asia and North America, in several types of forests and open-field environments.


Will you stop that? I never said they can live in open field environments. They can cross them apparently, as evidenced by two track events that have been photographed (farmers fields, at that), but that doesn't mean they do anything but cross them.


Conclusion 1- Then, chances are it´ll have, according to this criteria, elevated chances of perservation.

Question 2- Does the animal has hard parts?
Answer 2- Well, its a vertebrate, and a big one...
Conclusion 2- So, according to this criteria, the species has elevated chances of perservation.

Question 3- The species live in areas that have geologic conditions favorable to preservation of bones?
Answer 3- Yes, since it has a vast and diversified habitat. Let me expand this a bit further to cover some aspects the articles you pointed have not touched. Slow burial rates can be very effective for fossil preservation. The corpse of an animal in a lake has great chances of preservation, for example. Despite the small burial rate, the deposited sediment is compose by fine-grained material, that allows exceptional preservation. Now, imagine an animal that lives in a forest - or why not, a grassy plain, since you stated they can live there.

I said there have been sightings in drier areas. I never said they can live in grassy plains. There are nearby forests in these areas.

River systems cross the forest - or the grassy plain. There are a lot of chances that eventually a number of them would die -note that we are talking in terms of geological time, in this case all the time the species live in that environment- in sites were preservation would be possible. Drowned by floods, when trying to cross a water body,

A whole hersd of dinosaurs perished that way, but how many finds like that have there been?

or specimens weakened by disease who came near drinking sites and died there,

Turkana Boy, e.g.

their bodies later being carried by currents. At river beds, oxbow lakes and even in the river´s flood plains preservation would be possible. Oh, don´t even try to argue that rivers in PNW would not have these conditions, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger abd diversified than this. In such a vast area, there are other sites that favor preservation, such as caves. Looking for water or seeking for shelter, animals get trapped in caves, places with exceptional preservation conditions.Again, don´t argue that there are no caves in PNW capable of preserving bones, since we are talking of an area that is much bigger and diversified than this. Heck, I would expect even a frozen bigfoot carcass as a possible find!
Conclusion 3- High chances of fossil preservation, again.

Question 4- The species has a great number of individuals?
Anwer 4- At a first glace, unknown. But, let´s think a bit more on the issue. We are talking about past bigfoot population, not just before the arrival of European colonization, but also quite possibly before the arrival of humans. If, as you stated, todays' bigfeet population is estimated at 14000, at a time where humans are decreasing its habitat at an allarming rate, one can suppose that without humans to create them problems, their numbers must have been quite larger!And don´t forget the time frame. There´s at least 11Ky for the event to happen. Even if the chance is small, the dice were rolled several times for a long time...
Conclusion 4- There are chances that they had a high fossilization chances in the past. However it is uncertain.

So, it passes in 3 or 4 conditions. And in th fourth one, you get a question mark at best.

Krantz estimated 15,000; other estimates are much lower.

You've described conditions that are like parts of Africa, so why are there no fossils of Gorillas and Chimpanzees?

See anything about fossils here?

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/ApeCave/description_ape_cave.html


But their fossils were found, weren´t they? And after the "big gap" where are the fossils?

Paleoanthropologists are asking the same question even as they ask that their grants be renewed. Where are all those hominid fossils?



So, steppes, no forests, as I´ve told you... Bigfeet are grazing animals? Populations of bigfeet can live in open fields for a long time?
Note that there´s refference to "Alaska's plentiful fossil record". Bigfeet must have expanded its habitat to Alaska. And why there are no bigfeet fosils there?

Did you read what kind of fossils are plentiful in Alaska?


And regarding the statement "land bridge probably could not have sustained many big grass eaters", who said it needed to? Not to mention that the term "many" is a bit vague. Think on how animals expand their habitats. Lets take mammoths as a case. They lived across Asia and Europe, didn´t they? Now, as the bridge was being formed, oviously some groups started to gradually use the new land, expanding their territory. As population expanded, new genartions, the new groups formed moved towards new grazing fields, eventually stabilishing new populations in North America, without the need of a large permanent population in the land bridge. And Alaska and Canada would offer ample space for this species expand their numbers, thus leaving fossils...

Did you note where the article said they probably only spent a few days on it?


So, he only saw a glimpse of the animal crossing the road, illuminated by his car´s headlights, there was fog neraby, and it was very late at night. All conditions needed to create a lot of illusions. Add to this the possibility of misinterpretation of tracks, and now you have zero reliable evidence.

There was fog behind him. He saw what he thought was a tree leaning , then it crossed and leapt a bank leaving physical sign. He got a good look and was extremely shaken. What does late at night have to do with it? He got up early to go fishing. One of the prints was cast and Sheriff Bill Closner kept the cast on his desk for years. He said he guessed he'd have to stop laughing.

There are many sightings from this area and across the Columbia on the Oregon side.


They must have been able not to range outside it, but to actually live in steppes and tundra for a long time, at least enough time to expand their habitats from Asia to North America.

As did many other mammals.


Note that you are now talking about an animal able to live in several different environments (several types of temperate forests, grassy plains, tundra, etc.), with a broad spatial distribution range. Couple this with the fact that no body or related fossil has ever been found and you turn bigfoot even more unlikely.

"The Bering land bridge, also known as Beringia, was a land bridge roughly 1600 km (1000 miles) north to south at its greatest extent, which joined present-day Alaska and eastern Siberia at various times during the ice ages.

The Bering Strait, the Chukchi Sea to the north and the Bering Sea to the south, are all shallow seas. During cycles of global cooling, such as the most recent ice age, enough sea water becomes concentrated in the ice caps of the Arctic and Antarctic that the consequent drop in eustatic sea levels exposes shallow sea floors. Other land bridges around the world have been created and re-flooded in the same way: 14,000 years before present (YBP) mainland Australia was linked to New Guinea and to Tasmania, the British Isles were an extension of the continent of Europe across an English Channel that was dry, and the dry basin of the South China Sea linked Sumatra, Java and Borneo to the Asian mainland.

The Bering Land Bridge is significant for several reasons, not least because it enabled human migration to the Americas from Asia about 12,000 years ago (trough now a new hypothize exists that first humans came to America by sea about 30,000 years ago). Recent studies have concluded that of the people migrating across this land bridge during that time period, only 70 left their genetic print in modern descendents, a minute effective founder population— easily misread as though implying that only 70 people crossed to North America. Sea-going coastal settlers may also have crossed much earlier, but scientific opinion remains divided on this point and the coastal sites that would offer definitive information now lie submerged in up to a hundred metres of water offshore. Land animals were able to migrate through Beringia as well, bringing mammals that evolved in Asia to North America, mammals such as lions and cheetahs, which evolved into now-extinct endemic North American species, and exporting camelids that evolved in North America (and later became extinct there) to Asia.

The rise and fall of global sea levels has exposed the land bridge in several periods of the Pleistocene. The bridging land mass called "Beringia" is believed to have existed both in the glaciation that occurred before 35,000 BC and during the more recent period 22,000-7,000 YBP. By c. 6000 YBP the coastlines had assumed approximately their present configurations.

Beringia constantly transformed its ecology as the climate changed, determining which plants and animals were able to survive. The land mass could be a barrier as well as a bridge: during colder periods, glaciers advanced and precipitation levels dropped. During warmer intervals clouds, rain and snow altered soils and drainage patterns. Fossil remains show that spruce, birch and poplars once grew beyond their northernmost modern range today, indicating there were periods when the climate was warmer and wetter. Mastodon, that depended on shrubs for food, were uncommon in the open dry tundra landscape characteristic of Beringia during the colder periods. In the tundra, Mammoths also flourished."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge

Note the spruces. They're part of PNW climax forests today.

Where are the fossil pre-Indians? Among the oldest bones found in NA are those of Kennewick Man, yes? 9300 years old, but the land bridge was gone 10,500 years ago. Does this mean the Natives were created right here on Turtle Island, as some claim, and no people crossed the Bering Strait?


And are you sure all mammals that live or lived in North America came through the Bhering land bridge at the last Ice Age?


Nope. See above. There were many waves of migration, apparently.

The primate tooth found at John Day was 20-22 mya, wasn't it? It's still rather unknown just how monkeys got to the New World.

And there are fossils of several species of bear, with sevar age spans, in the Americas and in Asia. Where are the fossils of bigfeet-related species?

Where are all those transitional fossils the Creationists keep yammering for?

If, and that´s a major if. Is there anything else other than reports? There are reports of ghosts also, almost everywhere.


I don't know that much about the physical evidence for Almas and Kaptars, but feel free to Google them.

What does not mean it has not been formed by weathering. It may have been formed by weathering of any type of rock that exists in your surroundings. If you live in an area composed by igneous or metamorphic rocks, then these will be the rocks that will generate the soil, after weathering. Thus, no fossils. And bigfeet are/were restricted to this area?

I was talking about western North Carolina.

Who told you this has not a clue about geology.

Yeah, it's some more of that US Government National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway hype. The Appallachians are at least the oldest in NA and among the oldest in the world. The tourist info has them the oldest chain.

There are several other mountain chains all around the world that are older, in terms both of morphology age and rock formation age. And the age of the rock has little to do with weathering intensity. It has to do with the time it´s been exposed to the weathering agents (a function of uplift rate, that is controlled by a number of factors), rock composition and the climate (that will controll temperature, precipitation, etc. and ultimately decide the weathering agents). But thats OT digression.



That´s because the rocks (from wich the soils were created by the proccess of weathering) are 200My old. BTW, that´s completely irrelevant to the present discussion, since as I am (as well as other posters) once again repeating that, in other areas, fossils and remains of the creature could -and would- have been found, if it were a real creature

And I'm saying fossil beds are pretty rare in this country, let alone ones of the proper age representing habitat in which there might be a chance of finding a fossilized Sasquatch.

If Gorillas and Chimpanzees were real creatures their fossils would have been found by now. :rolleyes:

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Primate heel or elk knee?

To me it looks like an elk knee and leg imprint, and I can't see how anyone thinks it's a primate's heel imprint.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1070819401.jpg

With the tendon in the front of the leg? Have you actually seen an elk knee?

Glad to see you've been visiting BFF. Stick around; you might learn something.

Dr. Swindler's e-mail isn't hard to find. Maybe you should let him know he's full of beans (if he's still alive).

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Citations, please.

Yes, please. (wink wink, nudge nudge)

It's compelling [Skookum cast]. Please show me how the methodology used by Drs. Sarmiento, Swindler, Meldrum and others was faulty and why their conclusions are in error.

If it's so compelling, why have so few scientists commented on it, and where are the published findings in scientific journals? Without supportive evidence, their conclusions are no more useful than speculation or wishful-thinking.

What is there specifically about the Skookum cast that makes you certain it was created by a sasquatch?

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's interesting that Swindler believes the P/G film is a hoax.


Is your information later than 1997? I've posted Green's keynote address where he mentioned Swindler was the obligatory sceptical scientist in documentaries for thirty years. For him to reverse his position was major.


It's also interesting that when bigfoot believers reference Swindler, his opinion of the skookum cast is often given, and his opinion of the P/G film is rarely given.


It's interesting that the true unbelievers never fail to find that information but never seem to notice the date of the quote or that it's prior to his examination of the Skookum Cast.


The footage that I find curious is not the P/G film, but the Redwoods footage. I don't think it was a bear and the type of encounter seems more likely. I remember readind that someone admitted it was a hoax, though.

I've read it was the model who admitted that. I haven't been able to verify that though.

"The Redwoods Footage -- occasionally referred to as the "Playboy Footage" because one of the eight witnesses was a model for the magazine

This footage continues to be of undetermined authenticity. It is very short, quite blurry, and shows a tall hairy subject (whether an actual sasquatch or a tall person in costume) walking in the headlights of an RV.

The footage was recorded from inside the RV, which contained a TV production crew and the aforementioned model. There was apparently some off-the-clock goofing around taking place in the back of the RV when the driver yelled for them to come forward to see what was on the road in front of them.

Many members of the crew, including the model from Holland, honestly believe what they saw was a real bigfoot. Although it occurred in a historically active area for sightings, the TV crew had only been in the county for a few days while interviewing people at local tourist stops for a TV show about Northern California. Later investigation showed that this crew, on the evening before the incident, had dinner with a local roadside tourist shop operator who is well known locally for his "PR" stunts and entreprenuerial drive. This fellow had talked with them extensively about their production schedule over dinner, and apparently suggested they visit the area where the incident occured the next day.

If this had occured in an area where reported sightings are rare, the footage might be easier to dismiss as a probable hoax. However, given that this area has had a long history of reported encounters (predating any tourism market in need of promotion), it places this footage squarely in the "undecided" folder for now."

http://www.bfro.net/REF/bfmedia.asp


Of course I read that about the P/G film too. :D

Several people have "admitted" to that one.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Yes, please. (wink wink, nudge nudge)

I apologize for not being able to Google up an article I've used a couple of times in debates. It may have been moved or archived, but I haven't given up yet.

Am I out of line for asking for the name of even one expert who has examined the cast who disagrees? How about half a citation?


If it's so compelling, why have so few scientists commented on it, and where are the published findings in scientific journals? Without supportive evidence, their conclusions are no more useful than speculation or wishful-thinking.

Have you asked the BFRO about that?

What is there specifically about the Skookum cast that makes you certain it was created by a sasquatch?

RayG

I tend to trust the opinions of five people (two prominent) with PhDs in fields related to primate anatomy and a couple of researchers with over thirty years experience more than I do the opinions of scofftics on message boards, I guess, and because I'm somewhat familiar with the area where it happened and know there have been numerous sightings and track events in the county over the years and because that's what it looks like.

What's your alternative explanation (for the third time ;) )?

[Gorillagator]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Gorillagator,

Think you could figure out how to un-bold your comments within the quotes, so we can distinguish your comments from the others?








You're so right, and we actually have a specimen..


Are we going to have to wait 70 million years for a specimen of bigfoot ?

P.S.

Uhh, how did we know Coelacanth was extinct ? ( before we discovered it ) [B]



*As for your first question about differentiating my words from others; I hope to figure out this forum soon. It is rather strange compared to others I write on and i'm no comouter whiz. I certainly do not expect that it will take as long{70 million years} to discover bigfoot, if it exists Recently I read claims that only 50 of the giants still live.If this is the case they could{and have been} hard to find
As for your last question the answer, as it is with all purported extinctions is simply speculation ; one assumes. If no living chimps or gorillas existed one would conclude that they'd been extinct for lack of any historical fossil records.How does one prove a negative, in the sense of when the last individual of a species dies out. It was simple with the passenger pigeon and dodo, but far more difficult with invertebrates and other species.The ivory-billed woodpecker was thought to be extinct except in Cuba, but now, after fifty years of no sightings, some have been seen and heard in the U.S.A.. *

[Gorillagator]

Originally posted by LAL
Not off the top of my head. Does it have to be paleontologists? Or living?




There are two new primate species that have been identified from photos only. No remains there that I know of.

The common ancestor was all theory until recently.




[B]THERE IS ONE CRITTER WHICH I HAVE LEARNED IS BEING SEARCHED FOR WHILE THOUGHT TO BE EXTINCR FOR 8500 YEARS; THE AMAZONIAN JUNGLE SLOTH SOME BIOLOGISTS CONSIDER IT PROBABLE THAT THIS CREATURE , OFTEN CALLED MAPINGUARY STILL LIVES. nATIVES DESCRIBE IT AS HAVING THE BODY OF A BEAR, THE FACE OF A MONKEY AND A "DISABLING STENCH" WITH A "TERRIFYING" ROAR.tHIS SLOTH IS 6 FEET TO 6 AND 1/2 FEET TALL

[LAL]

Originally posted by Gorillagator
[B]THERE IS ONE CRITTER WHICH I HAVE LEARNED IS BEING SEARCHED FOR WHILE THOUGHT TO BE EXTINCR FOR 8500 YEARS; THE AMAZONIAN JUNGLE SLOTH SOME BIOLOGISTS CONSIDER IT PROBABLE THAT THIS CREATURE , OFTEN CALLED MAPINGUARY STILL LIVES. nATIVES DESCRIBE IT AS HAVING THE BODY OF A BEAR, THE FACE OF A MONKEY AND A "DISABLING STENCH" WITH A "TERRIFYING" ROAR.tHIS SLOTH IS 6 FEET TO 6 AND 1/2 FEET TALL

"Or Mapinguari. Also known as Isnashi. Brazil's Bigfoot, described as a tall black-furred hominid usually seen in the jungles along the 'Rio Araguaia', a large river in Brazil's state of Mato Grosso do Sul.

Ape-like creatures have been reported in many areas of Brazil for over two hundred years, but it seems that this central area of this immense and diversified country is the 'hotspot' for them.

In March and April of 1937 one of these creatures supposedly went on a three week rampage at Barra das Gar硳, a small farming town 300 miles southeast of the city of Cuiabá¬_capital of the central state of Mato Grosso do Sul. A large number of heads of cattle were slaughtered by somebody or something with super-human strength, enough to torn out their huge tongues. Reports included unconfirmed sightings, humanoid-like tracks as long as 18 inches, and horrible roaring from the woods. All together, over one hundred heads of yellow cattle of old Spanish origin were killed, all the way to Ponta Branca, located 150 miles south of Barra das Gar硳. This Mapinguary rampage made the major newspapers in Rio de Janeiro and Sã¯_Paulo. "

http://www.crystalinks.com/bigfoot.html

Hm. The "other version" seems to be a Giant Sloth. Could they have more than one thing going on?

I've read about a large hairy hominid being shot in SA.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Gorillagator
[B]



*As for your first question about differentiating my words from others; I hope to figure out this forum soon.

Gorillagator, this forum seems to use tags similar to HTML tags, except instead of the "greater than" and "less than" brackets, it uses square brackets. If you're interspersing your comments within a bold quoted section, begin your comment with "/B" enclosed with square brackets, to end the bold, and end your comment with "B" in brackets to restart it. The tags are not case sensitive.

It is rather strange compared to others etc. etc. snip. *

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
Gould estimated 99% of all species that have lived on earth are extinct, with most leaving no fossils.

Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Okapi, among many other living animals, have no fossil record. They "should", shouldn't they?

There may be fossils of large "unknown primates" somewhere in NA. They haven't been found...........yet.

Yes, these species include planktonic animals, endemic species, very short-lived species, etc.
Gorillas, etc. There are fossils of speies that are related to them. It also happens that these animasl are constantly photographed filmed (and not like fuzzy blotches), bodies are found, etc. But maybe that´s just because they are real animals.

Yes there could be undiscovered primate species, actually there are. But this is not an evidence for bigfoot. At the present point, fossil record points to its inexistence, since no species similar to it has ever been found along its alleged geographic span. And regarding Gigantopithecus, as far as I know, one can´t even say if its morphology fits with that of bigfoot. So, it really does not hepl bigfoot´s case.

Originally posted by LAL
As I recall, the Leakys dug in fossil-rich Olduvai for thirty years before a hominid turned up.

*sigh*
Olduvai is the only place in the world where fossils of bigfoot-related species could be found? Old Crow Basin is the type of place where bigfeet-related species fossiles could be found, for example..

Originally posted by LAL
Not sure it's the same. Fresh tracks were found, according to the article. I may still have the magazine around somewhere.

See my reply to Gorillagator - and you on the next post. Mapinguari´s description does not fit with a giant sloth or a primate. And if you accept the description as reliable or feasible, then the headless-mule-breathing-fire-by-the-nostrills is possibility...

Originally posted by LAL
No, but I think you said there "should" be roadkill at least that many times.

I'm having trouble finding Pleistocene fossil beds listed anywhere in the US besides the ones mentioned, and they seem to be the wrong habitat. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/paleontology/paleo_7_2/parkpaleo_7_2_print.pdf

Strange... Your link points at California, where you wrote that "if it weren´t for La Brea tar pits, nothing would be known"... Try also cave fossil register. And don´t forget to extend you search beyond USA to completely encompass bigfoot´s geographical span.

Originally posted by LAL
To my knowlege they don't have thousands of sightings and trackways backing them up.

There are thousands of sightings of Nessie, as well as footage and even weird wake waves. If I recall correctly, even footprints were reported, since it may take a walk on the dry side on occasion, perhaps to drink some scotch at the local pubs.

Originally posted by LAL
I show misunderstanding by posting an excerpt from an article explaining it?

You show misunderstanding of the article´s content.
Will you stop that? I never said they can live in open field environments. They can cross them apparently, as evidenced by two track events that have been photographed (farmers fields, at that), but that doesn't mean they do anything but cross them.[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, but they -or some related species- must have (or been) able to spend a considerable ammount of time in open terrain! See, they migrated from Asia, and even if it took "just a couple of days" for an animal to cross the land bridge, it was not like that.

A group of animal that live in forests would not not decide "lets keep walking untill we find another forest habitat beyond the land bridge". It would make small incursions between forest patches, nothing that would make the group vulnerable to predators or run out of food for a long time. And since open fields dominated not only the land bridge but the nearby areas in Asia and North America...

Originally posted by LAL
I said there have been sightings in drier areas. I never said they can live in grassy plains. There are nearby forests in these areas.

Define "nearby". A 1-day walk? There were forest patches close enough all along the migration path from Asia to North America? And these patches, had they enough size to sustain big feet populations?

Originally posted by LAL
A whole hersd of dinosaurs perished that way, but how many finds like that have there been?

Turkana Boy, e.g.

Krantz estimated 15,000; other estimates are much lower.

You've described conditions that are like parts of Africa, so why are there no fossils of Gorillas and Chimpanzees?

You are ascribing to a particular fossil deposit, that is not the only one of a group of animals (dinos or ammals) caught by flash flood. How many dinosaur fossils were found at laccustrine, eolic, riverine and lagoonal deposits? How many mammal, bird, reptile, etc have been found in these environments? And how many bigfeet fossils?

Sorry, but the described conditions are not found just at "parts of Africa". All river systems suffer periodic floods. Animals from forests all around the world die while crossing rivers, or nearby drinking spots (disease, old age, predation). You know, there are some orang-utang related fosils that were found in a lake bed... Where are bigfeet remains, past and present?

Originally posted by LAL
See anything about fossils here?

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes...n_ape_cave.html

You know the differences betwee a limestone cave and a lava tube?

And again, why do you insist that bigfoot remains should be restricted to the Cascades? Its supposed distribution range is/was much larger, encompassing several limestone caves.

Porcupine Cave in Colorado provided at least fossil 127 species, Old Crow cave, in Northwestern Canada also provide mammal fossils. These - and many others- are within bigfoot´s supposed territorial range, past or present.

Originally posted by LAL
Paleoanthropologists are asking the same question even as they ask that their grants be renewed. Where are all those hominid fossils?

You are referring to a specific time span at an specific area. That do not fit with the ones we are discussing.

Originally posted by LAL
Did you read what kind of fossils are plentiful in Alaska?

Yes. And why there´s no bigfoot-related species there? They should have lived there.

Originally posted by LAL
There was fog behind him. He saw what he thought was a tree leaning , then it crossed and leapt a bank leaving physical sign. He got a good look and was extremely shaken. What does late at night have to do with it? He got up early to go fishing. One of the prints was cast and Sheriff Bill Closner kept the cast on his desk for years. He said he guessed he'd have to stop laughing.

There are many sightings from this area and across the Columbia on the Oregon side.

You know that waking up early does not avoid people to feel sleepy? Have you ever read about a phoenomenon where people have small dreams when they are awake but with some sleep (can´t remember the name now). Have you ever read about pareidolia?

Oh... The footprints. Other people are already discussing this issue. Yes, now I´m convinced.

Sure it could not have been a bear, moose or just an illusion, coupled with track misidentification. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Is this the best bigfoot research can provide?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
They must have been able not to range outside it, but to actually live in steppes and tundra for a long time, at least enough time to expand their habitats from Asia to North America.

Originally posted by LAL
As did many other mammals.

Already discussed that. Where are the fossil evidences? Do you think they just walked non-stop from Asia to USA, thus not leaving a trace behind?

Originally posted by LAL
"The Bering land bridge, ...snip...

Where are the fossil pre-Indians? Among the oldest bones found in NA are those of Kennewick Man, yes? 9300 years old, but the land bridge was gone 10,500 years ago. Does this mean the Natives were created right here on Turtle Island, as some claim, and no people crossed the Bering Strait?

Well, there are several remains of humans in Africa and Asia recording the habitat expansion, whose ages fit well. Note that population estimates for this time generally are of the magnitue order of 100K individuals. And, have you read the news on the recent find in Mexico? Ever read about Luzia?
And where are bigfeet´s remains?

...snip... There were many waves of migration, apparently.

Originally posted by LAL
The primate tooth found at John Day was 20-22 mya, wasn't it? It's still rather unknown just how monkeys got to the New World.

Well, that primate was a bit different from a bigfoot, wasn´t it?
Monkeys got to new world, maybe in plant rafts when the continents were closer (try imagining a 3 m tall bigfoot doing this). However, there are fossil record of monkeys at several places, all around their present and past habitats. Now, bigfoot...

Originally posted by LAL
Where are all those transitional fossils the Creationists keep yammering for?

Try some googling on transitional forms of whales and you´ll find a lot of them. You can also check feather evolution, evolution of birds from dionaurs and ant last but not least, have you ever heard of primates called hominids? They are supposed to be intermediate species between Homo sapiens and some other primates...

Originally posted by LAL
I don't know that much about the physical evidence for Almas and Kaptars, but feel free to Google them.

*yawn*
Pictures of footprints, reports and interpretated myths...

Originally posted by LAL
I was talking about western North Carolina.

Start talking about the whole North America and a large part of Asia. Regardless of the peculair conditions you ascribe for PNW, the actual distribution range is much larger. So, the claims that the alleged peculiar conditions at some PNW places do not favor preservation of recent or old corpses is not valid.

Originally posted by LAL
Yeah, it's some more of that US Government National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway hype. The Appallachians are at least the oldest in NA and among the oldest in the world. The tourist info has them the oldest chain.

Oh, yes, tourist info. What a great source. Canada and USA have older rocks and geomorphological features. Do some googling and you´ll see there are plenty of older rocks. And geomorphological features as well, all around the world. Roraima plateau, for example, leaves the Appalachians biting the dust. OT sidenote - it is the site of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle´s The Lost World, that among dinosaurs, features the curupuri, homids similar to large australopithecines, created by blending local myths such as the curupira, caipora and the mapinguari with evolution theories.

Originally posted by LAL
And I'm saying fossil beds are pretty rare in this country, let alone ones of the proper age representing habitat in which there might be a chance of finding a fossilized Sasquatch.

*yawn*
They are not. There are sites where the immaginary creature would have been found.

Originally posted by LAL
If Gorillas and Chimpanzees were real creatures their fossils would have been found by now.

Pierolapithecus as a possible ancestor of all today´s big apes. Its a species that is related to gorillas, chimpazees and oraguntangs.
Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis is a relative to the orang-utangs - and were found in lake deposits.

So, there are fossils of species related to chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs. Where are the bigfeet-related fossils?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Gorillagator
Not necessarily. The fish known as Coelacanth left no fossils {which anybody discovered} for 70 million years and was thus thought to be extinct until a fisherman dredged one up a few decades ago. Since then it has been learned that their distibution is spread far and wide, yet for 70 million years of living and reproducing no proof of its continued existence was ever found that was later than 70 million years old.

But coelacanths were known by local fisherman for a long time as an ugly worthless fish. A woman once passed by a fish market, noticed a specimen and it was "discovered". Nowdays, there are even high-quality underwater footage avaliable, besides a nice number of specimens. I may be mistaken, but I recall reading that a Japanese sea aquarium even tried to keep a specimen alive, but was not successfull.

Now, compare this with bigfoot....

Originally posted by Gorillagator
THERE IS ONE CRITTER WHICH I HAVE LEARNED IS BEING SEARCHED FOR WHILE THOUGHT TO BE EXTINCR FOR 8500 YEARS; THE AMAZONIAN JUNGLE SLOTH SOME BIOLOGISTS CONSIDER IT PROBABLE THAT THIS CREATURE , OFTEN CALLED MAPINGUARY STILL LIVES. nATIVES DESCRIBE IT AS HAVING THE BODY OF A BEAR, THE FACE OF A MONKEY AND A "DISABLING STENCH" WITH A "TERRIFYING" ROAR.tHIS SLOTH IS 6 FEET TO 6 AND 1/2 FEET TALL

Originally posted by LAL
"Or Mapinguari. Also known as Isnashi. Brazil's Bigfoot, described as a tall black-furred hominid usually seen in the jungles along the 'Rio Araguaia', a large river in Brazil's state of Mato Grosso do Sul.

Ape-like creatures have been reported in many areas of Brazil for over two hundred years, but it seems that this central area of this immense and diversified country is the 'hotspot' for them.

In March and April of 1937 one of these creatures supposedly went on a three week rampage at Barra das Garças, a small farming town 300 miles southeast of the city of Cuiabá, capital of the central state of Mato Grosso do Sul. A large number of heads of cattle were slaughtered by somebody or something with super-human strength, enough to torn out their huge tongues. Reports included unconfirmed sightings, humanoid-like tracks as long as 18 inches, and horrible roaring from the woods. All together, over one hundred heads of yellow cattle of old Spanish origin were killed, all the way to Ponta Branca, located 150 miles south of Barra das Garças. This Mapinguary rampage made the major newspapers in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. "

http://www.crystalinks.com/bigfoot.html

Hm. The "other version" seems to be a Giant Sloth. Could they have more than one thing going on?

Ah, the mapinguari that I´ve mentioned before. Have I mentioned that it has a single eye, its mouth is so large that ends at its belly, its skin is either hairy or like that of an alligator and it has a tortoise-like shell at its back? That´s how it is described by local people. That´s the original description that you´ll find with Native Brazillians and river side population. Not second-hand accounts and/or interpretations. Wow! The description really fits with a giant sloth, eh? Or with a giant primate...

See? That´s what you get by attributing to myths and legends -actually distorted myths and legends- the status of evidence. Now, can´t the original tales of yetis, almas and sasquatch have been very different from the current version? Don´t you think there´s no chance that the original tales were interpretated and adapted by people with different cultural backgrounds to fit their views of the world? I saw this happen with a couple of Brazilian myths.

Oh, wait, there are Mediaeval tales of wild men in Asia with mouths at their bellies, as well as pictures of demons with such feature. So there must be a species like this. Just that it is so ellusive that no remains were ever found, recent or fossil... I´ll name it Buccastomachii hallucinogenicus...

Originally posted by LAL
I've read about a large hairy hominid being shot in SA.

Quoting my previous sig... "Show me the body".

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I apologize for not being able to Google up an article I've used a couple of times in debates. It may have been moved or archived, but I haven't given up yet.

Don't forget about John Waters, who seems to have authored a book but little else. ;)

Am I out of line for asking for the name of even one expert who has examined the cast who disagrees? How about half a citation?

How many 'experts' have actually examined the cast? How many with skeptical opinions have been allowed access to it? Why is the scientific community showing such little interest in the cast? Could it be that a cast proves nothing?

Have you asked the BFRO about that?

I have pointed out my misgivings about the Skookum cast a few times on the BFF. Some of those instances have included dialogue with Richard Noll, the man who originally discovered and identified the Skookum cast. I have tried speaking to Dr. Meldrum about the Skookum cast, but that dialogue seemed to die a quick death after I asked about scientific journals, and compelling evidence, and such.

I tend to trust the opinions of five people (two prominent) with PhDs in fields related to primate anatomy and a couple of researchers with over thirty years experience more than I do the opinions of scofftics on message boards, I guess, and because I'm somewhat familiar with the area where it happened and know there have been numerous sightings and track events in the county over the years and because that's what it looks like.

Keep in mind these experts have only given opinions on the matter, to my knowledge there is no way to make a definitive identification with nothing more than the cast.

The Skookum cast isn't even as good as a well defined footprint cast. In either case, there's still no body, no hardcore, conclusive evidence.

What's your alternative explanation (for the third time ;) )?

For all I know the 'heel print' may have been caused by someone kneeling in the mud to place the fruit. With no other evidence of sasquatch being in the area, why should I believe the 'heel print' belongs to a squatch?

Keep in mind that during the whole expedition no clear footprints were ever found, no sighting ever took place, and no squatch was witnessed sitting in the mud. If you choose to believe they have a cast of a squatchbutt so be it, I'm not so easily convinced.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Did you know the Wall Street Journal once did a balanced story on them?

So what? That doesn't mean anything and you know it. Why even bother to post it?

They just live there.

Great opinion. Now bring out the evidence to support it.

It's compelling. Please show me how the methodology used by Drs. Sarmiento, Swindler, Meldrum and others was faulty and why their conclusions are in error.

I am under no obligation to disprove the skookum cast or any of the other bigfoot evidence. None whatsoever. The obligation rests entirely on those making the claims to support them. They have no proof whatsoever about the skookum cast or about any other bigfoot evidence. They are speculating.

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you confused? The BFRO/etc. left the area just hours after the ultimate prize sat down in the mud and ate their bait. Just hours after the greatest find in the world sat down right next to them. I am sure I have brought up this tendency, and this specific incident more than once.

I'm a life member and I don't care what you think.

What a lovely attitude.

I know about the state fossil, I'm just not finding any under SeaTac. When did this happen?

Why ask me? I haven't said anything about any mammoths under SeaTac.

[LTC8K6]

With the tendon in the front of the leg? Have you actually seen an elk knee?

I see a knee and leg impression of an elk. No tendon.

[LTC8K6]

Source: Audubon Society Associate & Bigfoot Central Investigators.

The 250 pound + plaster cast of the alleged Bigfoot's alleged butt and heel mark, labelled and billed by (bfro) and Rick Noll as "The Skookum Cast", and claimed by Rick Noll to eventually become a find "just as big or bigger than the Patterson film", may be solved. Case investigators of this hulking plaster moulage have found signs pointing to a more credible and rational theory about just what was collected within this big plaster cast. The Skookum Cast label now gives way to a new label that could fit this cast much more scientifically. Here is the other side of the story.

Investigators strongly suspect that the cast collected is nothing more than the impressions from a kneeling elk. The hulking plaster moulage which is partially dotted with hoof impressions from an elk appears to point to a kneeling elk as the prime suspect. An elk will often kneel to retrieve food from a pool of water, or in this case, apples in a rain puddle. This was where they had baited for a Bigfoot and poured the cast after the fruit had disappeared. The most probably imagined "Bigfoot Butt Print" may have been the chest or belly area of an elk and the solitary purported heel mark impression inside the giant cast, may in fact, be nothing more than the bend (knee) mark of the elk's leg as it knelt in it's natural way to retrieve the apples from the ground. That would rationally explain why another "heel mark" or an actual Bigfoot footprint was not found inside the cast and that no Bigfoot tracks were found anywhere around or inside the cast. Another case of Wild Imagination gone bonkers. An example of mistaken identity strikes again.

[LTC8K6]

Imagine an elk doing this in mud. You'd get an impression of the ball of the knee, and a little bit of the leg. Just like what is in the Skookum cast, imo.

http://www.thejump.net/hunting/3-hunt-photo-5/deer-kneeling-eat.jpg

[LTC8K6]

http://www.greeneclan.org/jim_&_jean.htm

There is an elk kneeling in this manner on that page.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I tend to trust the opinions of five people (two prominent) with PhDs in fields related to primate anatomy and a couple of researchers with over thirty years experience more than I do the opinions of scofftics on message boards...

Just to clarify, I don't trust opinions no matter who presents them. My boat floats or sinks based on the evidence.

In the case of the Skookum cast, that evidence is just not there.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Yes, these species include planktonic animals, endemic species, very short-lived species, etc.
Gorillas, etc. There are fossils of speies that are related to them. It also happens that these animasl are constantly photographed filmed (and not like fuzzy blotches), bodies are found, etc. But maybe that´s just because they are real animals.


What makes you think all the films are "fuzzy blotches" ? Which ones have you seen? Do you think they're all of "guys in suits" and that there really is an army of hoaxers out there faking all this stuff?
If Giganto is a relative, there are fossils of a close relative.


Yes there could be undiscovered primate species, actually there are. But this is not an evidence for bigfoot. At the present point, fossil record points to its inexistence, since no species similar to it has ever been found along its alleged geographic span. And regarding Gigantopithecus, as far as I know, one can´t even say if its morphology fits with that of bigfoot. So, it really does not hepl bigfoot´s case.

It doesn't hurt it. There's not much to say they're closely related to Orangutans, either.


*sigh*
Olduvai is the only place in the world where fossils of bigfoot-related species could be found? Old Crow Basin is the type of place where bigfeet-related species fossiles could be found, for example..


Why are you dragging "Bigfoot" into Olduvai? The point was that even knowing they were in a likely spot for hominid fossils, it still took a long time for any to be found.

It's possible Sasquatches evolved from an Australopith, but even those were few and far between in the area.

Homo georgicus didn't leave a trail of fossil ancestors along the route they must have taken to get to Russia. They made it though.

"Fossil History
From Morison and Smith (1987)

More than 20,000 fossils have been collected from Old Crow by members of the Northern Yukon Research Programme, and the Paleobiology Division of the National Museum of Canada. Among the specimens are significant ones that have rarely or never been reported before from North America: the hyena (Adcrocuta), large camel (Camelini), giant moose (Alces latifrons), giant pica (Ochotona whartoni), and the muskoxen (Soergeliaand Praeovibos). Other taxa such as short-faced skunk (Brachyprotoma), the giant beaver (Castoroides ohioensis), and the ground sloth (Megalonyxcf. jeffersoni) are considered highly unusual for such a northerly location."

http://www.taiga.net/wetlands/oldcrow/oc_gen.html

Does it sound like these fossils are from a heavily forested area?

Got any beds in North America that are loaded with fossils of Pleistocene animals that preferred deep forest?


See my reply to Gorillagator - and you on the next post. Mapinguari´s description does not fit with a giant sloth or a primate. And if you accept the description as reliable or feasible, then the headless-mule-breathing-fire-by-the-nostrills is possibility...

Strange... Your link points at California, where you wrote that "if it weren´t for La Brea tar pits, nothing would be known"...


No, I asked what we would know of life in the Pleistocene in California without them. They give an awesome picture, but it's still far from complete. And you can't go a few miles away and find remains of all the species that didn't get trapped there.


Try also cave fossil register. And don´t forget to extend you search beyond USA to completely encompass bigfoot´s geographical span.

There's evidence from Canada, but, again the environment is wet with acid soils. I'm not finding anything about fossils of forest animals of any kind from these areas. Help me out, here.


There are thousands of sightings of Nessie, as well as footage and even weird wake waves. If I recall correctly, even footprints were reported, since it may take a walk on the dry side on occasion, perhaps to drink some scotch at the local pubs.

Can we please leave Loch Ness and UFO's out of this? I'm really tired of them being lumped together.

Will you stop that? I never said they can live in open field environments. They can cross them apparently, as evidenced by two track events that have been photographed (farmers fields, at that), but that doesn't mean they do anything but cross them.

Oh, but they -or some related species- must have (or been) able to spend a considerable ammount of time in open terrain! See, they migrated from Asia, and even if it took "just a couple of days" for an animal to cross the land bridge, it was not like that.

A group of animal that live in forests would not not decide "lets keep walking untill we find another forest habitat beyond the land bridge". It would make small incursions between forest patches, nothing that would make the group vulnerable to predators or run out of food for a long time. And since open fields dominated not only the land bridge but the nearby areas in Asia and North America...[/B][/QUOTE]

I know how that works.

It was a thousand miles wide.

"The distance across the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska's Seward Peninsula is approximately 55 miles, and for several periods during the Pleistocene Ice Ages the trip could be made entirely on land instead of water."

If Bryne is correct that they can cover twenty-five miles in a night, they'd only need to a couple of nights to cross.

Forests, or at least stands of Spruce, Poplar, etc., grew much farther north than they do now and the climate was much milder.

The Powder Mountain tracks go from stand to stand of Balsam. The animal was after berries.


Define "nearby". A 1-day walk? There were forest patches close enough all along the migration path from Asia to North America? And these patches, had they enough size to sustain big feet populations?

Evidently, especially if there were Pikas.

You are ascribing to a particular fossil deposit, that is not the only one of a group of animals (dinos or ammals) caught by flash flood. How many dinosaur fossils were found at laccustrine, eolic, riverine and lagoonal deposits? How many mammal, bird, reptile, etc have been found in these environments? And how many bigfeet fossils?

Fossils of new species are found just about daily, aren't they, especially in China. Of course, I wouldn't expect many mammalian fossils in strata that yeild dinosaurs, would you?

Sorry, but the described conditions are not found just at "parts of Africa".
I didn't say they were. If these conditions, found in many places in the world, past and present, are so good at preserving fossils, why are there still so few? A. afarensis may be the best represented ancient hominid with fragmentary remains of over 300 individuals, but there's only one 40% complete skelton. The species was unknown prior to 1974.

Remember "Lucy"?

"In effect, Lucy is one of the "missing links" anthropologists have been searching for since the turn of the 20th Century. She is essentially part ape, part human; the surprising thing about Lucy, however, is which part is which. Before Lucy's discovery, scientists reasoned that the main trait separating humans from the apes was intelligence, anatomically represented by the cranial capacity of the skull. The prevalent hypothesis held that intelligence was a precursor to, if not the impetus for, bipedalism, and anthropologists expected to one day find the remains of a sort of big-brained chimp. Upright, tiny-brained Lucy flew in the face of that line of reasoning. Below her neck, her locking knee-joint and short, narrow pelvis show she could walk upright, and her hands were human-like with slightly more curved fingers. Above her neck, her skull fragments, although not entirely conclusive, point to a cranial capacity of about 450cc (on par with that of a modern chimp) and her jaw and skull were ape-like as well. Lucy's discovery forced anthropologists to reexamine the evolutionary pressures that drove bipedalism."

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/features/meetlucy2.htm

All river systems suffer periodic floods. Animals from forests all around the world die while crossing rivers, or nearby drinking spots (disease, old age, predation). You know, there are some orang-utang related fosils that were found in a lake bed... Where are bigfeet remains, past and present?

Good question. Not found yet? Might there not be some evidence submerged along with evidence for humans crossing the Bering Strait?

You know the differences betwee a limestone cave and a lava tube?

Yep. The PNW isn't known for it's limestone caves. :bricks:
I'm not stupid.

And again, why do you insist that bigfoot remains should be restricted to the Cascades? Its supposed distribution range is/was much larger, encompassing several limestone caves.

I don't.

I'm saying fossil remains of forest dwelling animals are rare at best. I lived in the PNW and know it better than these other areas. Some of the best evidence comes from there.
Caves in Skamania County are lava tubes. No limestone caves in that area.

Which limestone caves would be most likely to have Sasquatch fossils? Oregon Caves (no fossils found there until 1995-Jaguar and Grizzly aren't forest-dwellers, are they?)? Mammoth? Luray? Shenendoah? Carlsbad? What makes you think Sasquatches spend much time hanging out in caves?

Porcupine Cave in Colorado provided at least fossil 127 species,


Maybe Dr. Mead will turn some up. There have been Irvingtonian Pikas found in Porcupine Cave.

There were alleged Sasquatch tracks found this spring fairly near Pike's Peak (according to a bow-hunters' website) and Pikas may be something Sasquatches eat.


Old Crow cave, in Northwestern Canada also provide mammal fossils. These - and many others- are within bigfoot´s supposed territorial range, past or present.


Wrong habitat, again. I don't think you'll find much overlap with horses and caribou. Wapiti, maybe.


You are referring to a specific time span at an specific area. That do not fit with the ones we are discussing.

Yes. And why there´s no bigfoot-related species there? They should have lived there.

We don't really know what they're related to, do we, or when they may have migrated?

You know that waking up early does not avoid people to feel sleepy? Have you ever read about a phoenomenon where people have small dreams when they are awake but with some sleep (can´t remember the name now). Have you ever read about pareidolia?

Oh... The footprints. Other people are already discussing this issue. Yes, now I´m convinced.

'Bout time.

Sure it could not have been a bear, moose or just an illusion, coupled with track misidentification. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Is this the best bigfoot research can provide?

Since there are no Moose in Skamania County (haven't I mentioned that a couple of times?), I think we can safely rule them out.

When a hard-headed deputy like Rod Bevins says that was no bear, you can bet that was no bear.

Illusions don't leave tracks.

There's a photo of Sheriff Closner with his cast in Hunter/Dahinden's book. It is not an overlay, bear or imprint from a carved foot. It measured 22" in length, 7 1/2 inches across the ball and 4 1/2" at the heel.

Cox saw what he saw. I've mentioned that a sceptical friend who doubted his own uncle's sighting had a sighting of his own not far from there years later with his young daughter in the car.

There are thousands of such sightings, many of them backed up by physical evidence.

Already discussed that. Where are the fossil evidences? Do you think they just walked non-stop from Asia to USA, thus not leaving a trace behind?
There's hardly a trace of humans doing the same, but we know they did. No non-stop required, just a small population of a cold-adapted species spreading east from Russia over the land bridge sometime between ice ages.

Well, there are several remains of humans in Africa and Asia recording the habitat expansion, whose ages fit well. Note that population estimates for this time generally are of the magnitue order of 100K individuals. And, have you read the news on the recent find in Mexico? Ever read about Luzia?

No. Fill me in.

And where are bigfeet´s remains?

Out in the forest somewhere being scavenged as we speak.


...snip... There were many waves of migration, apparently.


Well, that primate was a bit different from a bigfoot, wasn´t it?

Without question. And only one molar found? There must have been more.

Are there any other primate finds from North America? Monkeys got to South America somehow. Where are all the monkey fossils between New York and Puerto Rico?


Monkeys got to new world, maybe in plant rafts when the continents were closer (try imagining a 3 m tall bigfoot doing this).

Or the migrated through what is now the arctic from Europe or Asia circa 20 mya.

I've seen the rafting idea for the Yowie, not for Bigfoot.

However, there are fossil record of monkeys at several places, all around their present and past habitats. Now, bigfoot...

.....like Gorillas and Chimpanzees seems to have no fossil record that we know of at this time.

Try some googling on transitional forms of whales and you´ll find a lot of them. You can also check feather evolution, evolution of birds from dionaurs and ant last but not least, have you ever heard of primates called hominids? They are supposed to be intermediate species between Homo sapiens and some other primates...

The record of whales and horses are the most complete, but not every single species is known. Feathers may have evolved from scutes. Didn't I mention I have about 300 saved sites on human evolution alone? I actually managed to learn something during two years of debates on evolution, though I'm not totally clear on the new terminology and may have used the term "hominoid" (as opposed to "hominid") incorrectly at times.

One of my cyber friends dubbed me the "Mistress of the Web" because of all the great information I came up with Googling. I've had to eliminate whole folders (twice on whales) because I kept bumping into my limit of 2500 saved sites.

I also check out books by the pound.

I may not know everything, but I try.

*yawn*
Pictures of footprints, reports and interpretated myths...

Over 100 casts available for inspection at Idaho State.
Myths don't leave footprints. Don't forget recorded calls analysed at Texas A&M and a few other clues there's enough (some would say more than enough) evidence to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation.

Start talking about the whole North America and a large part of Asia. Regardless of the peculair conditions you ascribe for PNW, the actual distribution range is much larger. So, the claims that the alleged peculiar conditions at some PNW places do not favor preservation of recent or old corpses is not valid.

There are reports from forested areas (hardwood, too) elsewhere in this country and I don't know of fossils for the other denezins of those areas either.

Oh, yes, tourist info. What a great source.

In fact, I found that out Googling on biodiversity preserves (there's one in the Great Smokies) before I ever left Washington State.

"Perhaps of more interest to visitors today is the other half of the mountain-building story, their gradual destruction. The slow, steady forces of wind, water, and chemical decomposition have reduced the Blue Ridge from Sierra-like proportions to the low profile of the world's oldest mountain range."

http://www.nps.gov/blri/geology.htm

That's on the official National Park Service, Department of the Interior, site.

http://www.nps.gov/

Tourist info.


Canada and USA have older rocks and geomorphological features. Do some googling and you´ll see there are plenty of older rocks. And geomorphological features as well, all around the world. Roraima plateau, for example, leaves the Appalachians biting the dust. OT sidenote - it is the site of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle´s The Lost World, that among dinosaurs, features the curupuri, homids similar to large australopithecines, created by blending local myths such as the curupira, caipora and the mapinguari with evolution theories.

Just how are we measuring "oldest"? Oldest rocks? Longest time above sea level?

*yawn*
They are not. There are sites where the immaginary creature would have been found.

Imaginary creatures don't leave tracks and sign. Hm. Maybe I should put that in my sig line so I don't have to keep typing it out.
Sorry you're so bored. You might find this more interesting if you'd do a little research. There are some good books on the subject.

Pierolapithecus as a possible ancestor of all today´s big apes. Its a species that is related to gorillas, chimpazees and oraguntangs.

And hominids. It may be the last common ancestor or something very near to it.
Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis is a relative to the orang-utangs - and were found in lake deposits.

So, there are fossils of species related to chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs. Where are the bigfeet-related fossils?

They're related to humans, other hominids and Great Apes too, so there are your relatives. Thanks for pointing that out.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I see a knee and leg impression of an elk. No tendon.

The long skinny thing is a tendon.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Don't forget about John Waters, who seems to have authored a book but little else. ;)


I assume the book is referenced. I'm going to see if I can get it through the library.



How many 'experts' have actually examined the cast? How many with skeptical opinions have been allowed access to it? Why is the scientific community showing such little interest in the cast? Could it be that a cast proves nothing?


Maybe they're taking up the BFRO's invitation anonymously so they won't get ridiculed out of tenure. ;)


I have pointed out my misgivings about the Skookum cast a few times on the BFF. Some of those instances have included dialogue with Richard Noll, the man who originally discovered and identified the Skookum cast. I have tried speaking to Dr. Meldrum about the Skookum cast, but that dialogue seemed to die a quick death after I asked about scientific journals, and compelling evidence, and such.

I'll do a search on your posts when I have time.


Keep in mind these experts have only given opinions on the matter, to my knowledge there is no way to make a definitive identification with nothing more than the cast.


Pretty strong opinions. Do see LMS, even if you have to buy it.



The Skookum cast isn't even as good as a well defined footprint cast. In either case, there's still no body, no hardcore, conclusive evidence.

No one's denying that.


For all I know the 'heel print' may have been caused by someone kneeling in the mud to place the fruit. With no other evidence of sasquatch being in the area, why should I believe the 'heel print' belongs to a squatch?

Is that what it looks like to you? There were several heel strikes, and a forearm print with long hair.


Keep in mind that during the whole expedition no clear footprints were ever found, no sighting ever took place, and no squatch was witnessed sitting in the mud.


No clear footprints of much of anything are found in Skamania County. Noll found footprints earlier, didn't he, which was why they decided to focus on the area?

Noll: I saw one sitting in the mud.
Sceptic: You were drunk and it was an elk.

If you choose to believe they have a cast of a squatchbutt so be it, I'm not so easily convinced.

RayG

I just wish this had happened before I moved. I'd have been roaming Skookum Meadows like an awe-struck groupie.

[Gorillagator]

Originally posted by bruto
[B/] Thank you much for the info. I owe you one{at least}

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
The long skinny thing is a tendon.

Without the actual leg for comparison purposes, how can anyone be certain?

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
So what? That doesn't mean anything and you know it. Why even bother to post it?

Just trying to educate you. Life planned a seven page spread on the PGF, but died before it was published.


Great opinion. Now bring out the evidence to support it.


Been doing that.


I am under no obligation to disprove the skookum cast or any of the other bigfoot evidence. None whatsoever. The obligation rests entirely on those making the claims to support them. They have no proof whatsoever about the skookum cast or about any other bigfoot evidence. They are speculating.


When you claim other experts disagree, I expect you to back that up.





Are you confused?


Yep. I thought you were talking about the Texas expedition.


The BFRO/etc. left the area just hours after the ultimate prize sat down in the mud and ate their bait. Just hours after the greatest find in the world sat down right next to them. I am sure I have brought up this tendency, and this specific incident more than once.


They have a no-kill policy, don't they? What more could be gained? The BFRO expedition was only testing infra-red and hoping to get clear tracks in mud. I don't think convincing sceptics is one of their goals.
Alton Higgins (of the BFRO) warned me I'd never convince a sceptic. I'm sure learning a lot in the attempt, though.


What a lovely attitude.


Same to you, fella. Objective or not, the Sierra Club has done a lot to keep us from totally destroying our rather nice country in the name of progress. I think they deserve better than a ROFLMAO.

Why ask me? I haven't said anything about any mammoths under SeaTac.
I was Googling for mammoths in Washington and came up with ice cream. I thought it was funny.
The sloth skeleton was excavated at the north end of SeaTac airport in 1961, FYI.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Source: Audubon Society Associate & Bigfoot Central Investigators.

The 250 pound + plaster cast of the alleged Bigfoot's alleged butt and heel mark, labelled and billed by (bfro) and Rick Noll as "The Skookum Cast", and claimed by Rick Noll to eventually become a find "just as big or bigger than the Patterson film", may be solved. Case investigators of this hulking plaster moulage have found signs pointing to a more credible and rational theory about just what was collected within this big plaster cast. The Skookum Cast label now gives way to a new label that could fit this cast much more scientifically. Here is the other side of the story.

Investigators strongly suspect that the cast collected is nothing more than the impressions from a kneeling elk. The hulking plaster moulage which is partially dotted with hoof impressions from an elk appears to point to a kneeling elk as the prime suspect. An elk will often kneel to retrieve food from a pool of water, or in this case, apples in a rain puddle. This was where they had baited for a Bigfoot and poured the cast after the fruit had disappeared. The most probably imagined "Bigfoot Butt Print" may have been the chest or belly area of an elk and the solitary purported heel mark impression inside the giant cast, may in fact, be nothing more than the bend (knee) mark of the elk's leg as it knelt in it's natural way to retrieve the apples from the ground. That would rationally explain why another "heel mark" or an actual Bigfoot footprint was not found inside the cast and that no Bigfoot tracks were found anywhere around or inside the cast. Another case of Wild Imagination gone bonkers. An example of mistaken identity strikes again.

What? No names? Dr. Daegling cited Cliff Crook, at least. Crook has never seen the cast and is thoroughly discredited over the "bell-shaped object" and the phony photos.

Look who "Bigfoot Central" turns out to be (big surprise):

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bigfootcentral/

Elk print was specifically ruled out as was the possibility of several animal prints combining to give an impression of one print.
Elk eat apples whole, BTW.
All this was thought of before the thing was even cast.
Hairs from the imprint were not elk.
Solitary heel print? Did the unnamed author of this snippet bother to look at the photos?
Did you?

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Without the actual leg for comparison purposes, how can anyone be certain?

RayG

Swindler was.

"Dr. Swindler has in the past appeared in TV documentaries on this subject as the mandatory skeptical scientist. He changed his opinion as a result of the discovery in a patch of drying mud, beside a road in a mountain forest in Washington, of the hairy imprints of a buttock, thigh, and forearm plus several heel prints, of an animal far larger than a human. A huge plaster cast was successfully made that shows all these elements with such detail that individual hairs can be counted. One heel print, a cast of which is on display, shows several inches of the Achilles tendon, and Dr. Swindler has gone on public record that it is the heel of a huge, unknown higher primate."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Imagine an elk doing this in mud. You'd get an impression of the ball of the knee, and a little bit of the leg. Just like what is in the Skookum cast, imo.

http://www.thejump.net/hunting/3-hunt-photo-5/deer-kneeling-eat.jpg

There was a herd of Roosevelt Elk ranging on land behind mine in Washington and I've seen the introduced herd at Cataloochie not far from where I live now. They get up and down rather like a horse does. Fresh hoof prints would have been obvious.

[LAL]

More on Crook:


"New Fake Bigfoot Photo by hoaxer Cliff Crook

An interesting looking 'bigfoot' photo allegedly obtained by a park ranger in the Wild Creek area near Mt. Rainier, Washingtion, and currently displayed on the Shadowlands Bigfoot page, is actually the latest creation of notorious, attention-hungry bigfoot hoaxer Cliff Crook of Bothell, Washington.

As more people have realized that this photo is a fake, Mr. Crook has tried to distance himself from it by suggesting that he may have been fooled by the unidentified person who allegedly sold him the photo. This is also not true. The photo itself and story of how Crook obtained it are both hoaxes by Mr. Crook himself.

Mr. Crook has been serving up and attempting to market fake bigfoot photos and other fabricated bigfoot evidence for several years now and is well known for doing so among veterans in the bigfoot research community. He claims to have been researching bigfoot for "longer than anyone". This is far from the truth, and typical of the mistruths continually pumped out by this individual.

Although it is not certain how this latest fake photo was produced, many conclude that is was produced the same way as many of his previous fake photos -- a sculpture model placed in an outdoor setting. Several of Crook's other fake bigfoot photos can be seen in the A&E video documentary "Bigfoot"."

http://www.bfro.net/REF/hoax.asp

And:

" Where's the Bell?
Searching for Murphy's "Bell-Shaped Object"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 10, 1999 the Associated Press carried a news story regarding the 1967 Patterson footage. A Pacific Northwest man named Cliff Crook called a press conference to announce the discovery of new "evidence," which he claims indicates the footage was a hoax. The evidence is a small fuzzy detail visible in some of the published reproductions of still frames of the 1967 footage. Buffs of the controversial footage immediately scoffed at this new "evidence," because the proffered detail had never before been identified by any of the formal scientific investigations directed at the footage over the past 30 years. Crook claims the new evidence shows an "artificial object" in the fur of the bigfoot figure. He asserts this object is part of a costume. At the press conference Cliff Crook exhibited a pretzel-like, clay model of this "artificial object" built by associate Chris Murphy, based on Murphy's interpretations of the fuzzy detail.

Murphy had previously issued a statement describing how he found this detail in an enlargement of a color plate from the book Manlike Monsters on Trial (Majorie Halpin). This color plate depicts the widely recognized "frame 352" of the Patterson footage. Murphy and Crook claim this "object" is visible in the waistline of the bigfoot figure when the color plate is magnified or closely examined. In his written statements Murphy claimed this object is, for some unexplained reason, not visible in all reproductions of the footage, but is visible in the Halpin book. Murphy also stated that anyone can see this "bell-shaped object" simply by enlarging the color plate of frame 352 in the Halpin book.

On January 11, 1999 the color plate of frame 352 was carefully examined by imaging specialists at a color technology laboratory in Ventura, California. State-of-the-art scanners were used to magnify the image down to the color-point level. Below you will find some of the unaltered, high-resolution scans of the book image which were obtained in the lab examination. The final image in the series shows the detail in question at approximately 1600% magnification. At this level of resolution the individual points of color are clearly visible. Murphy's "bell-shaped object" is not readily discernable at any level of resolution. To the naked eye the "object" appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. At increasingly higher magnification this detail still appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. Several other parts of the bigfoot figure show similar blotches of light reflecting off the fur. The detail in question has no clear edges, and has no visible "artifical" shape. The lab tests demonstrated that a clear magnification of the color plate does not reveal anything like the pretzel-like object displayed at Crook's press conference. The image analysts stated that Murphy seems to be relying on some "highly imaginative, Rorschach-like interpretations of fuzzy details in enlargements of the color plates."

Browse through the series of high-resolution scans below to view the area of detail that Murphy and Crook claim shows a "bell-shaped object."

Is it a "bell," or is it a diffuse blotch of reflected sunlight? You be the judge."

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/bell.asp

Now, got any "experts"?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
They have a no-kill policy, don't they? What more could be gained?

What more could be gained?? :jaw:

Are you serious? They were that close to solving an ancient mystery, to providing unparalleled evidence of the creature known as bigfoot, to setting the scientific establishment on its collective ear!!! Far better to say, "Move along, nothing to see here...we only want to test equipment...no sense bringing back real proof."

The BFRO expedition was only testing infra-red and hoping to get clear tracks in mud.

You'd think, as the "only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" they would have leaped at the opportunity to bring back absolute proof.

I don't think convincing sceptics is one of their goals.

How about convincing mainstream science?

Alton Higgins (of the BFRO) warned me I'd never convince a sceptic.

Not without evidence.

I'm sure learning a lot in the attempt, though.

No sarcasm intended, but I hope you're learning it requires real evidence to convince both skeptics and mainstream science. Opinions, speculations, wishful-thinking, and experts/enthusiasts passing judgements on films (which can be altered/faked), footprints (which can also be faked), or hairs (which remain indistinguishable from human) isn't going to pass peer review on the scientific level.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Elk print was specifically ruled out as was the possibility of several animal prints combining to give an impression of one print.

How was this accomplished? Did they actually bring in live elk to see if the imprint would fit?

Elk eat apples whole, BTW.

Always? Even if startled?

Hairs from the imprint were not elk.

You're certain? Who tested the hairs?

Solitary heel print?

Were these multiple heel prints all the same size? If not, why not? Why would there be multiple heel prints, but no footprints?

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Swindler was.

"Dr. Swindler has in the past appeared in TV documentaries on this subject as the mandatory skeptical scientist. He changed his opinion as a result of the discovery in a patch of drying mud, beside a road in a mountain forest in Washington, of the hairy imprints of a buttock, thigh, and forearm plus several heel prints, of an animal far larger than a human. A huge plaster cast was successfully made that shows all these elements with such detail that individual hairs can be counted. One heel print, a cast of which is on display, shows several inches of the Achilles tendon, and Dr. Swindler has gone on public record that it is the heel of a huge, unknown higher primate."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html

I'll repeat...Without the actual leg for comparison purposes, how can anyone be certain? Do you have Dr. Swindler's email address? I wouldn't mind asking him how he can be so certain by merely looking at a cast or an imprint in the ground. I find it quite incredible that someone can make an absolute pronouncement on something that isn't even there.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Fresh hoof prints would have been obvious.

You'd think fresh footprints would have been obvious too.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
What more could be gained?? :jaw:

Are you serious? They were that close to solving an ancient mystery, to providing unparalleled evidence of the creature known as bigfoot, to setting the scientific establishment on its collective ear!!! Far better to say, "Move along, nothing to see here...we only want to test equipment...no sense bringing back real proof."


I have no idea what they said. "Gotta get back or the boss will fire me and I won't be able to afford any more cams?" Didn't you ask Noll?

They got more than they came for, by a long shot.

(I'm searching BFF. Got the name of the thread? Much as I love reading Richard's posts, I do have to get to bed sometime tonight.)


You'd think, as the "only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" they would have leaped at the opportunity to bring back absolute proof.

And how easy is that? Didn't Krantz go out armed every chance he got. Didn't Patterson and Gimlin think it would be easy to track the animal later and that scientists would swoop down on Bluff Creek? Didn't Dahinden spend most of his life trying to be the one to bring in the proof?


No sarcasm intended, but I hope you're learning it requires real evidence to convince both skeptics and mainstream science. Opinions, speculations, wishful-thinking, and experts/enthusiasts passing judgements on films (which can be altered/faked), footprints (which can also be faked), or hairs (which remain indistinguishable from human) isn't going to pass peer review on the scientific level.

RayG

I've known that for approximately 38 years. Actually, I have convinced a few sceptics, but only in real life. :p

I've at least inspired a few cyber friends to check it out on their own. I'm always amazed at the drubbing we get, even from people who seem to be reasonable and objective in other areas.

Why wasn't there a capture after the Cox sighting, or the PGF, or the Clarke filming, or the Bossburg incident or...........

Maybe tracking is a waste of time. That seems to have been shown many times. They were trying the luring method. Was anyone carrying if they had managed to lure it in again?

Re peer review, you may have just answered the earlier question. But there have been attempts to publish on some of the evidence; it's not like no one has tried.

From the notes it sounds like they were worn out and wanted to get the cast back safely:

"After the final coats were applied, the group finally had time to sit back and fully contemplate the significance of this discovery. Many high fives and pats on the back were passed around, amidst posing for several photos. For the first time since the discovery of the impression, some six hours previously, members took a chance to grab a bite to eat and get something to drink. Theories were passed around as to what circumstances had led to this event, and speculation as to what should be done with the cast was presented. Finally, Noll announced that the cast was ready to be removed from the impression.

Several members gathered around the cast and began scoring the edges of the cast adjacent to the frame so that the wood could be removed. After the frame was gone, members then began to dig out the dirt around the edges of the cast, scooping out underneath as far as possible, careful not to scrape the cast surface. When this was completed, Noll instructed a few people to carefully twist the cast back and forth, to help break the suction between the cast and the ground. When he was satisfied that this had been accomplished, he directed four members to carefully lift up on one side of the cast, until it was standing up on end. At this point, the 200 pounds of casting material and 20 gallons of water, plus the 2-3 inch thick layer of wet dirt stuck to the face of the cast, combined to bring the weight of the cast to close to 500 pounds. The group held the cast in an upright position while most of the dirt was brushed off of the cast, leaving only a thin layer of dirt on the cast face. This dropped the weight back down to well below 400 pounds.

The group then prepared Randles' truck for transporting the cast. Randles donated an air mattress to serve as cushioning underneath the cast, while other members contributed whatever spare padding was available. It took 6 men on the ground plus one in the bed of the truck to successfully and safely maneuver the cast into the truck bed. Padding was then placed around the cast to prevent it from sliding during transport. The area where the impression had been was then swept clean of all debris from the casting procedure. Powell departed immediately after the cast was secured, as he had obligations back in Portland. Terry left as well.

After returning to camp, Randles, Fish and Noll decided to head out for Hood River again to obtain a car battery for Noll. The rest of the group remained at camp, discussing the day's discovery. Randles, Fish and Noll returned at around 11 PM. Some more fruit and peanuts were placed at the mud wallow, in an attempt to obtain more track evidence. A combination of fatigue and high winds won out over the remaining researchers, and so everyone retired to their tents at a relatively early hour. No vocalizations or other disturbances were noted that night."

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
More on Crook:...(big snip)

Now, got any "experts"?

I certainly agree that any 'evidence' Crook presents should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion, but the article quoted echoes my own opinion, and nowhere in the article does he present anything with certainty.

I would have liked a link to the Audubon Society Associate, unless that's supposed to be Crook himself. But then I like links to anything or anyone used as evidence. Like John Waters or Chris Stringer for example. ;)

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
I'll repeat...Without the actual leg for comparison purposes, how can anyone be certain? Do you have Dr. Swindler's email address? I wouldn't mind asking him how he can be so certain by merely looking at a cast or an imprint in the ground. I find it quite incredible that someone can make an absolute pronouncement on something that isn't even there.

RayG

I have his washington.edu address, but I doubt it works since he's retired. I didn't get an answer on it, anyway, nor was my e-mail returned. He may be in poor health. He was unable to attend Willow Creek two years ago.

Should I PM it just in case?

What isn't even there? You mean like the casts of bodies after Pompeii? Just think of it as negative space.

Again, I urge you to see LMS. He's very clear about his reasons.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
How was this accomplished? Did they actually bring in live elk to see if the imprint would fit?

I doubt it.

"An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up," he (Richard Noll) said. "But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast."

Meldrum and Swindler concur there are only two logical explanations for the cast: Bigfoot and elk. And they have also ruled out elk."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bfbelievers.html

Always? Even if startled?

How else?

You're certain? Who tested the hairs??

I believe it was the lab in BC. I can get the name off the DVD. The news story just said "independent lab.

"The remaining apple pieces were collected and sent to a lab to test for saliva and other hints of DNA. They also gathered hair samples to test.

While the DNA tests have not been completed, the hair samples have been determined by an independent lab to belong to an "unknown primate," Noll said.

"It didn't match humans," he said. "And they were tapered at the ends, meaning they had never been cut."

Both the hairs and the castings have been shown to experts who are convinced that they didn't come from an elk, deer or bear."

http://www.heraldnet.com/bigfoot/story13353257.cfm

Were these multiple heel prints all the same size? If not, why not? Why would there be multiple heel prints, but no footprints?


They're heel strikes. They look to be about the same size.

I can roll up without putting my feet flat. Try it. There was hard ground where it approached.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL

I have no idea what they said. "Gotta get back or the boss will fire me and I won't be able to afford any more cams?" Didn't you ask Noll?[/B]

Yeah, I asked a bunch of questions, some of which were:
How much effort was spent trying to find supportive evidence in the area surrounding the Skookum cast?(I wasn't on the expedition, and the notes on the website don't really make it clear.)
Were any RELIABLE footprints found in that area, or in any area on the expedition?(Again, you had implied footprints were found when you said, "They were, before the expedition, during and after.")
If your vehicle was only 5 feet from the Skookum cast, why wouldn't you have at least attempted to follow any signs in the immediate area? (No indication on the website that anyone in the expedition did so, or even attempted to do so.)
How many independant/non-biased scientists have examined the cast, who were they, and what were their thoughts? (It's been 3 years.)

To which he replied: How many times must it be said that the impression site was at the side of a road?
I answered the second part above.

I tried to clarify: I didn't ask whether it was at the side of the road, I realized that a long time ago. What I asked was why were signs not followed. From what I've gathered, no further signs were found in the immediate area.

For further discussion on the Skookum cast, do a search for skookum using my user name RayG, 30 days or older, and have the results presented as posts.

They got more than they came for, by a long shot.

They seemed to have missed an opportunity of a lifetime.

And how easy is that? Didn't Krantz go out armed every chance he got.

I don't recall Krantz ever being so close to a squatch that he got its butt print.

Didn't Patterson and Gimlin think it would be easy to track the animal later and that scientists would swoop down on Bluff Creek?

So the BFRO decided to repeat history? For a self-designated "scientific research organization" they didn't seem very willing to pursue the object of the expedition.

Didn't Dahinden spend most of his life trying to be the one to bring in the proof?

I'll bet Dahinden would have tried to follow/pursue if he had been that close. You can bet he'd be using some colorful language had he been there and everyone packed it in after stumbling upon "the most significant find in the past two decades."

Why wasn't there a capture after the Cox sighting, or the PGF, or the Clarke filming, or the Bossburg incident or...........

Were any of them claiming to be "the only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"? Doubtful.

Maybe tracking is a waste of time. That seems to have been shown many times.

Well the pack it in method isn't going to produce any evidence, that's been shown too.

They were trying the luring method. Was anyone carrying if they had managed to lure it in again?

Ah yes, they weren't really trying to prove the existence of an undiscovered species. Were they only pretending to be scientific in their research/pursuit? I find it hard to believe a scientific expedition engaged in the pursuit of proof for bigfoot wouldn't have a camera in camp. I thought part of the purpose was to lure AND FILM a sasquatch. What's the point in merely luring one into camp?

But there have been attempts to publish on some of the evidence; it's not like no one has tried.

Where and when? Be specific. (link 'em if you got 'em)

From the notes it sounds like they were worn out and wanted to get the cast back safely:

Having spent time in the bush on military exercises, I can assure you that the adrenaline kicks in when the excitement climbs. I'm pretty sure hunters of big game would say the same.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
I certainly agree that any 'evidence' Crook presents should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion, but the article quoted echoes my own opinion, and nowhere in the article does he present anything with certainty.

I would have liked a link to the Audubon Society Associate, unless that's supposed to be Crook himself.


That's Crook.
I went to an Audubon Society meeting that featured a talk by Peter Bryne on his Bigfoot research. I guess that makes me an Audubon Society Associate too, or at least it would if I had paid my dues.

But then I like links to anything or anyone used as evidence. Like John Waters or Chris Stringer for example. ;)

Chris Stringer is a Merit Researcher on hominids in the Department of Palaeontology at the Natural History Museum, London, and he's written a recent book (where he no doubt states the consensus is that bipedalism came first and k-w was a later adaptation in the Great Apes ;) ):

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18625042.300

Waters doesn't seem to be well-known in this country, but he posted some interesting stuff. Did you read more of his posts on the newsgroup?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I have his washington.edu address, but I doubt it works since he's retired. I didn't get an answer on it, anyway, nor was my e-mail returned. He may be in poor health. He was unable to attend Willow Creek two years ago.

Should I PM it just in case?

Well, since you didn't get a response, it's probably not worth it. Are you aware of any writings of Dr. Swindler on the Skookum cast? I'd certainly like to read what his thoughts, impressions (pun intended), and conclusions were.

What isn't even there? You mean like the casts of bodies after Pompeii? Just think of it as negative space.

There's really no comparison between the Skookum cast and those from Pompeii. For one thing, the human casts completely encased many of their human captives, and the bodies rotted from within. There is little doubt that the casts left behind were created by humans. The same can hardly be said for the Skookum cast. I'm talking about positively identifying an undiscovered species based on something that is no longer there -- a supposed heel and achilles tendon.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Yeah, I asked a bunch of questions, some of which were:
How much effort was spent trying to find supportive evidence in the area surrounding the Skookum cast?(I wasn't on the expedition, and the notes on the website don't really make it clear.)
Were any RELIABLE footprints found in that area, or in any area on the expedition?(Again, you had implied footprints were found when you said, "They were, before the expedition, during and after.")
If your vehicle was only 5 feet from the Skookum cast, why wouldn't you have at least attempted to follow any signs in the immediate area? (No indication on the website that anyone in the expedition did so, or even attempted to do so.)
How many independant/non-biased scientists have examined the cast, who were they, and what were their thoughts? (It's been 3 years.)

To which he replied: How many times must it be said that the impression site was at the side of a road?
I answered the second part above.

I tried to clarify: I didn't ask whether it was at the side of the road, I realized that a long time ago. What I asked was why were signs not followed. From what I've gathered, no further signs were found in the immediate area.

For further discussion on the Skookum cast, do a search for skookum using my user name RayG, 30 days or older, and have the results presented as posts.



They seemed to have missed an opportunity of a lifetime.

I don't recall Krantz ever being so close to a squatch that he got its butt print.

No, but he was in an area with plenty of activity and sign of three individuals.

So the BFRO decided to repeat history? For a self-designated "scientific research organization" they didn't seem very willing to pursue the object of the expedition.


They seem to think they can do it again, at least for photos. Did having a retired zoologist along qualify them as a "scientific research organization"?


I'll bet Dahinden would have tried to follow/pursue if he had been that close. You can bet he'd be using some colorful language had he been there and everyone packed it in after stumbling upon "the most significant find in the past two decades."

Such as "We're going to get that hairy sonuvabitch"?


Were any of them claiming to be "the only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"? Doubtful.

At the time? I don't know. They've changed that, haven't they?


Well the pack it in method isn't going to produce any evidence, that's been shown too.

They probably thought they had evidence that would finally convince the scientific community.


Ah yes, they weren't really trying to prove the existence of an undiscovered species. Were they only pretending to be scientific in their research/pursuit? I find it hard to believe a scientific expedition engaged in the pursuit of proof for bigfoot wouldn't have a camera in camp. I thought part of the purpose was to lure AND FILM a sasquatch. What's the point in merely luring one into camp?

They had cameras on Ridgetop. I don't know about camp.
Did you debate MM before he left the board in a huff?


Where and when? Be specific. (link 'em if you got 'em)


"I have had two abstracts accepted there (the American Assn of Physical Anthropologists), with very good dialogue. Also the Northwest Anthropological Conference, the Idaho Academy of Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Pacific Division). I am working on manuscripts for publication as well. Just had a paper come out in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. - Jeff"

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n1a5.php

Also Bindernagle.

http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page8.html


Having spent time in the bush on military exercises, I can assure you that the adrenaline kicks in when the excitement climbs. I'm pretty sure hunters of big game would say the same.

RayG

Good thing the adrenaline didn't kill Dr. Fish. He died of a heart attack less than two years later.

[LAL]

Skookum Meadows revisited.......

"YEAR: 2002

SEASON: Fall

MONTH: October

DATE: 20

STATE: Washington

COUNTY: Skamania County

LOCATION DETAILS: Skookum Meadows area, Big Creek

NEAREST TOWN: Carson

NEAREST ROAD: FR 32

OBSERVED: My original plans were for a trip to northern California to visit the famous Bluff Creek film site and drop off some casts and pictures to the Willow Creek Museum, arriving on this day, the 35th anniversary of it’s making, October 20th. I had talked with Joe Beelart about this trip, because he had just returned from the area with a party of 10, including Peter Byrne, Todd Neiss, film crew and our own Al Berry and Ron Morehead. Joe talked me out of going there by myself because of the terrain and for safety reasons, so I altered my plans. I decided to divide this trip up into three parts… doing some things and going some places I had been meaning to for a long time. Skookum Meadows revisit, Estacada and the Wynooche river drainage.

I usually make trips like this in search of areas to investigate for longer periods of time at later dates. I do these scouting trips mostly alone and try to cram as much as possible into them.

Oct 19 – Met with Jeff Lemley and his brother around 10:00PM in the Skookum Meadows area to do some late night call blasting. By the time I got there they had already tried a couple of sets. It was quite foggy, but the sound still carried well, with echoes lasting a few seconds after the source stopped. This is the best time to blast out these sounds, late evening, early morning in the fog since the air is quite dense at this time. Interestingly enough, the primates that do use long type calls for communications between members also choose this time of the day to do so.

Jeff and Alan Terry have built themselves quite an impressive sound blasting system. It is modular and has very good output. The sound was clear, I heard no distortion or feedback during the blasts he made. It ran off his car battery. I was quite tired and didn’t last too long sitting outside with Jeff and company in the cold, I crawled back into my truck around 11:30PM and quickly fell asleep. My day job work shift gets me out of bed at 2:30AM and I usually work 10 hour days. I was starting this out all wrong.

Jeff woke me around midnight and said that they were going back home and that they had heard nothing while I was sleeping. I thanked them for meeting with me and bringing the equipment. I watched them leave. I quickly went back to sleep.

Oct 20 – I woke at my usual time – 2:30AM (great!) and started to drive the back roads, visiting the Skookum Meadows Expedition base camp, hill top and ridge top sites as well as the cast site. I wanted to take some measurements, get another average GPS reading after the military eliminated the scramble signal at the cast site and just have a look at the general area during hunting season.

One deer and a lone coyote, evidenced by their tracks had visited the cast site. I collected a soil sample, documented the cast site with pictures, GPS and did some tape measurements.

I found some interesting things traveling around the area this trip:

A skid mark, looking very much like a human buttock on a road side bank, complete with what might have been hand prints and three impressions that hinted at being bare footprints – 16.5� long x 6� wide at the ball and with toes.

At the exact spot where, during the expedition, I had been filmed looking at some heat tracks on the road with the thermal imager and where I cut open a melon fruit, I found a bee hive, broken in two. It was a natural hive. I couldn't think of why a bear would carry a hive around like this only to suck on it out in the open on a dirt road. There were more large human shaped tracks leading down the road side embankment nearby.

Along the roads, on the side banks, I found 20’ – 25’ fir trees growing half way up. Large human shaped tracks led up to a spot behind these trees and then back down to the road. Some stomping around behind the trees was evident. This lead me to envision something treking up these small slopes, evading night time drivers, returning to the roadway only after passing.

Someone had been leaving fruit...

I photographed these findings and casted a track."

http://www.inthegorge.com/BFreports1.htm

"Peter Byrne as recently as 1993 was challenged to find a subspecies of an elephant in Napal called the King Elephant by natives. They had an elephant with unusually pronounced lobes on its forehead that pointed back to the mammoth and mastodon days. He not only found it, but a mate to it."

http://www.royalforum.com/article.php?id=46

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Well, since you didn't get a response, it's probably not worth it. Are you aware of any writings of Dr. Swindler on the Skookum cast? I'd certainly like to read what his thoughts, impressions (pun intended), and conclusions were.

No. Can you beg, borrow or steal LMS?
He retired in 1991 (I didn't know it had been that long). I'm surprised the address was still up when I found it as well as his page at UW.


There's really no comparison between the Skookum cast and those from Pompeii.

I didn't understand the comment at first, and I didn't want to just say "Huh?"

For one thing, the human casts completely encased many of their human captives, and the bodies rotted from within. There is little doubt that the casts left behind were created by humans. The same can hardly be said for the Skookum cast. I'm talking about positively identifying an undiscovered species based on something that is no longer there -- a supposed heel and achilles tendon.

RayG

Do the testicle prints help? (Tries to imagine testicles on an elk's chest................)

I'm not finding the thread in 79 pages of your posts yet, but I'm enjoying your NW Coast Indian lore and thoughts on the PGF.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL

No, but he was in an area with plenty of activity and sign of three individuals.


He was?

They seem to think they can do it again, at least for photos.

Their subsequent expeditions haven't produced anything other than speculation, most of it from outside the organization.

Did having a retired zoologist along qualify them as a "scientific research organization"?

No, that's the equivalent of calling yourself "The only sports organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" because Michael Jorden tagged along.

Such as "We're going to get that hairy sonuvabitch"?

Yeah, something like that. Dahinden was quite the character.

At the time? I don't know. They've changed that, haven't they?

Original BFRO statement:
"The only scientific organization probing the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

Modified to:
"Professional and amateur scientific researchers exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

Then changed back to:
"The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

They probably thought they had evidence that would finally convince the scientific community.

Then they weren't thinking very scientifically.

Did you debate MM before he left the board in a huff?

No, never got the chance. He doesn't seem to think much of the BFF or its occupants. :D

Thanks for the links to Meldrum and Bindernagle info, though neither specifically address the Skookum cast. I'm surprised the Skookum cast has been relegated to the back burner considering Dr. Meldrum himself said:

“While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere.�

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
He was?


With Lonnie Somers.


Their subsequent expeditions haven't produced anything other than speculation, most of it from outside the organization.

On MM's integrity?
Didn't the Arizona expedition find some tracks?


No, that's the equivalent of calling yourself "The only sports organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" because Michael Jorden tagged along.

He did? :D


Yeah, something like that. Dahinden was quite the character.


Have you read his account of Slick's PNW Expedition? It's hilarious.


Original BFRO statement:
"The only scientific organization probing the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

Modified to:
"Professional and amateur scientific researchers exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

Then changed back to:
"The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"


That sounds better.


Then they weren't thinking very scientifically.

Naïve of them, wasn't it?


No, never got the chance. He doesn't seem to think much of the BFF or its occupants. :D

I can't imagine why. Some still volunteer, though.


Thanks for the links to Meldrum and Bindernagle info, though neither specifically address the Skookum cast. I'm surprised the Skookum cast has been relegated to the back burner considering Dr. Meldrum himself said:

“While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere.�

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp

RayG

He's been preparing some articles for publication, but I don't know what they're on.

I'll wait for the book. ;)

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.greeneclan.org/jim_&_jean.htm

There is an elk kneeling in this manner on that page.

And that posture fits the imprint how?

Where are the hoofprints?

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/meldrum_clean_guide.asp

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
With Lonnie Somers.

When was this? Link/source?

Didn't the Arizona expedition find some tracks?

If you're talking about the October 2002 one, no squatch tracks were found.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/nelson/Chuska.asp
"Up into the little valley a ways, just ahead of us we spotted some very interesting looking tracks in the loose soil of one of the tire tracks. Reid stopped the truck and we jumped out. Bear!...With one bear track find we fell well short of the effort required to find a sasquatch track."

He did? :D

No, it was only an analogy. There are many such analogies:

"The only teaching organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" because someone's high school teacher tags along/is a member.

"The only law enforcement organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" because a retired detective tags along/is a member.

"The only religious organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery" because a Catholic tags along/is a member.

etc. etc.

That sounds better.

I don't think so. (see the above analogies for my reasoning)

Naïve of them, wasn't it?

Highly unscientific if you ask me.

I can't imagine why.

Neither can I. He's quick to take his ball and go home if people don't agree with him.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Do the testicle prints help? (Tries to imagine testicles on an elk's chest................)

They got his dingle-berries too? How'd they get a match for that?

I'm not finding the thread in 79 pages of your posts yet, but I'm enjoying your NW Coast Indian lore and thoughts on the PGF.

Hope you're also finding that I'm not an unreasonable skeptic. :D

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Chris Stringer is a Merit Researcher on hominids in the Department of Palaeontology at the Natural History Museum, London, and he's written a recent book (where he no doubt states the consensus is that bipedalism came first and k-w was a later adaptation in the Great Apes ;) ):

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18625042.300

Waters doesn't seem to be well-known in this country, but he posted some interesting stuff. Did you read more of his posts on the newsgroup?

I have no trouble finding info on Stringer, just can't find the article where he speculates that bipedalism predates knucle-walking.

As for Waters, I can't find ANY info on him other than he authored the book Helpless as a Baby, though I can find no record of it on amazon.com.

RayG

[LAL]

Well, this seems to be a good enough explanation on the tracks:

"The "easiest" explanation for a Sasquatch to have made the Skookum imprint and not leave any footprints was for it to have approached the muddy area from the dry side, straight out of the woods, walk a little ways into the mud (which may have been more solid in the very cold weather that morning), sit on it's own foot tracks (if there were any), do whatever it did, roll away from the mud and get up to walk back the way it came, across that dry, hard rocky soil. Not thinking a damn thing about weather or not it was making tracks, a body impression or that it just got mud on itself. I don't know why it would of rolled to the dry side of things, that's just the way it looks."

He was there and we weren't.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
I have no trouble finding info on Stringer, just can't find the article where he speculates that bipedalism predates knucle-walking.

I can't either. I'm thinking the article may have been regarding "Kadabba"or Orrorin or even "Toumai", but I'm not sure. It's been too long since I used it. He only stated what I said he stated about the consensus. He didn't speculate and he didn't write it. He was quoted.

The fossil record seems to be bearing this out, in any event. David Kreger e-mailed me that not all agreed with Richmond and Strait's conclusions. I know I found the article quoting Stringer after that and it surprised me. So, if I can remember when instead of what, I may still be able to find it. The articles are saved in the order I found them in general catagories. It's not like I have the sense to save them alphabetically or retitle them, or anything.

Still looking.


As for Waters, I can't find ANY info on him other than he authored the book Helpless as a Baby, though I can find no record of it on amazon.com.

RayG

And the link doesn't work.
The aquisitions librarian at the local library is British. So far she's filled every request of mine as long as it's from England.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Well, this seems to be a good enough explanation on the tracks:

That's the problem, there weren't any.

"The "easiest" explanation for a Sasquatch to have made the Skookum imprint and not leave any footprints was for it to have approached the muddy area from the dry side, straight out of the woods, walk a little ways into the mud (which may have been more solid in the very cold weather that morning), sit on it's own foot tracks (if there were any), do whatever it did, roll away from the mud and get up to walk back the way it came, across that dry, hard rocky soil. Not thinking a damn thing about weather or not it was making tracks, a body impression or that it just got mud on itself. I don't know why it would of rolled to the dry side of things, that's just the way it looks."

The scenario suggests the squatch must have given a great deal of thought to not leaving tracks. To my knowledge the speculated behavior has never been witnessed before, nor since. All other times it seems to have little regard for leaving footprints, why the sudden change?

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
What makes you think all the films are "fuzzy blotches" ? Which ones have you seen? Do you think they're all of "guys in suits" and that there really is an army of hoaxers out there faking all this stuff?

The films, the photograms, all that´s been shown at TV and WWW. There´s no need for an "army of" hoaxers. A few of them, acting indenpendently could do a lot of things.

Originally posted by LAL
If Giganto is a relative, there are fossils of a close relative.
It doesn't hurt it. There's not much to say they're closely related to Orangutans, either.

IF its a relative to bigfoot. And that´s all that it is. And if its a relative to orang-utang, then it does hurt.

Originally posted by LAL
Why are you dragging "Bigfoot" into Olduvai? The point was that even knowing they were in a likely spot for hominid fossils, it still took a long time for any to be found.

It's possible Sasquatches evolved from an Australopith, but even those were few and far between in the area.

You dragged it to Africa, since you are using the temporal distribution of hominids there as an excuse for the absence of bigfoot fossils. I am pointing out that the area where its fossils could be found is much bigger, due to the species' geographic distributions.

Note that, on purpose, I am not considering its "tropical equivalents" in Southern Asia, the hairy wildmen (woodwoose) from mediaeval Great Britain (and its European equivalents) and the (sadly distorted) mapinguari legend from Brazil.

Originally posted by LAL
...snip...
There's evidence from Canada, but, again the environment is wet with acid soils. I'm not finding anything about fossils of forest animals of any kind from these areas. Help me out, here.

See discussions below.
Originally posted by LAL
Can we please leave Loch Ness and UFO's out of this? I'm really tired of them being lumped together.

That´s really hard, since the type of evidence currently avaliable for Nessie and bigfoot are quite similar. That´s why I asked you where and how you draw the line between a plausibe crypto (bigfoot) and an unlikely one (Nessie)? What are the criteria for unlumping them together?

Originally posted by LAL
I know how that works.

It was a thousand miles wide.
...snip...
"The distance across the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska's Seward Peninsula is approximately 55 miles, and for several periods during the Pleistocene Ice Ages the trip could be made entirely on land instead of water."

OK, then you understand the animals must have not only crossed but lived in open-field environments. Thus it is not far-fetched to suppose their fossils could be found with fossils from animals that lived all their lives in open-field environments. Not to mention the transitional environments.

Originally posted by LAL
If Bryne is correct that they can cover twenty-five miles in a night, they'd only need to a couple of nights to cross.

Forests, or at least stands of Spruce, Poplar, etc., grew much farther north than they do now and the climate was much milder.

The Powder Mountain tracks go from stand to stand of Balsam. The animal was after berries.

Again if Bryne is correct[/i]. Note that a basic requisite for it is that tha animal must exist. What is far from being proved.

What, once again, would favor preservation of remains.

If the tracks were correctly interpreted...

Originally posted by LAL
[B]Fossils of new species are found just about daily, aren't they, especially in China. Of course, I wouldn't expect many mammalian fossils in strata that yeild dinosaurs, would you?

Many, of course not, but some, yes. China´s Sinodelphys szalayi is 125M old.

But you seem to have missed my point. What I am arguing is that the same type of phenomena that allowed the preservation of those -and many other- animals would as well alow the preservation of bigfoot remains. What you see happening today is what happened 1, 1ky, 1My or 1Gy ago. So, all those events, such as flash or slower-paced floods, are potentially events that may start the fossilization proccess.
Turkana boy,as you cited, was one among many specimens of countless species that died near a lake or a marsh, possibly due to disease, and was preserved.
Common scene: river level increases seadly due to rainy season. Animals trapped at higer sites try to cross the flooded area to reach a safer -or with more food- place, drown and become fossils. Like this, there are many other possible scenarios, and they happen in forests, open fields and intermediate environments.

Originally posted by LAL
I didn't say they were. If these conditions, found in many places in the world, past and present, are so good at preserving fossils, why are there still so few? A. afarensis may be the best represented ancient hominid with fragmentary remains of over 300 individuals, but there's only one 40% complete skelton. The species was unknown prior to 1974.

...snip...

First, define "few". Even with just a 40% complete skeleton, I would not say 300 individuals is a small number. Not to mention that the remains are scattered over Africa. This provides you a good example of why I, and a lot of other people, would expect such a species to have left traces. Somewhere in North America and Asia specimens should have surfaced, even with a small population density, for the reasons we have already discussed..

Originally posted by LAL
Good question. Not found yet? Might there not be some evidence submerged along with evidence for humans crossing the Bering Strait?

Why just there? And all the other places? And have you forgot what I told you about the evidence found in sediment dragged from the (nowdays submerged) areas in Alaska and the land bridge?

Originally posted by LAL
Yep. The PNW isn't known for it's limestone caves. I'm not stupid.

Who said you are stupid?

Originally posted by LAL
I don't.

I'm saying fossil remains of forest dwelling animals are rare at best. I lived in the PNW and know it better than these other areas. Some of the best evidence comes from there.

What, again, does not mean the fossil evidence must come just from there. So, can we say we agree at least with this?

Originally posted by LAL
Caves in Skamania County are lava tubes. No limestone caves in that area.

Which limestone caves would be most likely to have Sasquatch fossils? Oregon Caves (no fossils found there until 1995-Jaguar and Grizzly aren't forest-dwellers, are they?)? Mammoth? Luray? Shenendoah? Carlsbad?

Jaguars live in forests, don´t they? I´ve seen some of them - beautifull creatures- in forests. To hear their screams, calls, growls, whatever, at night is quite an experience.

Grizzly bears also do live in forests and mixed open-field forest pacthes environments.
http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/habitat.html
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/topics/grizzly.htm
http://greennature.com/article137.html

Do we agree on the above statements?
Now, with this settled, let´s move to your next question:

Originally posted by LAL
What makes you think Sasquatches spend much time hanging out in caves?

Nothing. I´ll then ask you:

Why do you think the fossil record of caves is so nice? All the animals whose fossils were found in caves spent much time hanging out there?

What happens is that caves are natural water and humidity sources. Animals are attracted to them during dry periods. Weakened, victims of a fall, or just lost in the darkness, they commonly die there. Some just fall inside sinkholes hidden by vegetation. Also, some cave entrances act as "natural sinks". During strong rains, water running over the surface carries a lot of loose material to the cave, sediments, dead leaves, twigs, loose bones and carcasses.

If I recall correctly, that´s one of the possible reasons for hominid fossils in caves in Africa. The events chain would have been something like this: leopard kills hominid, carries body to the top of a tree, remains fall to the ground, are washed away by rain to a cave, humans find, hundreds of Ky later, the skull -with leopard´s teeth marks included.

So animal species don´t even need to have as part of its habits to take temporary shelter at a cave to become fossilized inside one.

Why I have insisted on the limestone cave? Not only because they are much more common than lava tubes or quartzite caves, but because the constant precipitation of carbonate inside them helps a lot the fossilization.

So, see now why it is not far-fetched to suppose bigfoot remains could be found inside a cave? Even if they don´t spend much time there?

Do we agree on that?

*Wishes that LAL will not say the conditions are appliable only to Africa*

Originally posted by LAL
Wrong habitat, again. I don't think you'll find much overlap with horses and caribou. Wapiti, maybe.

See above notes...

WOriginally posted by LAL
e don't really know what they're related to, do we, or when they may have migrated?

No, specially because there´s no solid evidence they exist. But, assuming they exist... It really does not matter if they are related to some hominid, if they are great apes that evolved to bipedalism or squirrels that evolved to look as giant hominids. Neither if they migrated at the first or last intervall when the land bridge was exposed.

What matters is the absence of fossil specimens that can be related to it within its present and past geographic span.

Do we agree its an issue?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Oh... The footprints. Other people are already discussing this issue. Yes, now I´m convinced.

Originally posted by LAL
'Bout time.

Got you!

Originally posted by LAL
...snip...
When a hard-headed deputy like Rod Bevins says that was no bear, you can bet that was no bear.

I´m hard-headed (no, I´m no deputy) and I can be mistaken. Every single human being can be mistaken.

Do we agree on that?

Originally posted by LAL
Illusions don't leave tracks.

...snip....

But tracks can be misinterpretated, can´t they?
Do we agree on that?

Originally posted by LAL
There's hardly a trace of humans doing the same, but we know they did. No non-stop required, just a small population of a cold-adapted species spreading east from Russia over the land bridge sometime between ice ages.

There are evidence for human migration. Campsites, remains, at several places along the path, from Asia to North America, extending towards South America!

Ah, so we agree that the species must have spreaded rather than migrated. Progressively expanding its habitat to include Russia, Asias´s eastern coast, Alaska, Canada and USA. What leaves us with a lot of places to find fossil evidence...

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Well, there are several remains of humans in Africa and Asia recording the habitat expansion, whose ages fit well. Note that population estimates for this time generally are of the magnitue order of 100K individuals. And, have you read the news on the recent find in Mexico? Ever read about Luzia?

Originally posted by LAL
No. Fill me in.

Quick summary:

The skull of a woman (nicknamed Luzia) was found at Lagoa Santa cave, Soutehrn Brazil. It dates between 8.8Ky to 10.7Ky. Facial reconstructions indicate she may have been linked with modern Australians and Africans. Dating matches with Monte Verde site at Chile, as well as the Baja skull, for example.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/stross/ant322m_files/1stpersons.htm
http://www.ngnews.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u13144.shtml (in portuguese)

And 30ky-old human footprints were found at tuff layers deposited nearby a lake (funny coincidence, eh?) in Mexico.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm

So, we do have evidence on the human habitat expansion. Not only of the younger one, that brought the people that nowdays compose amerindians, but also of a previous wave.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
And where are bigfeet´s remains?

Originally posted by LAL
Out in the forest somewhere being scavenged as we speak.

All of them? Every single individual since the species appeared? At all the places where it lives(ed)?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Well, that primate was a bit different from a bigfoot, wasn´t it?


Originally posted by LAL
Without question. And only one molar found? There must have been more.

But it was found! Any bigfeet molar avaliable?

Originally posted by LAL
Are there any other primate finds from North America? Monkeys got to South America somehow. Where are all the monkey fossils between New York and Puerto Rico?

Who said they had to pass through North America?

Originally posted by LAL
Or the migrated through what is now the arctic from Europe or Asia circa 20 mya.

I've seen the rafting idea for the Yowie, not for Bigfoot.

Maybe bigfeet evolved from yowies...

Originally posted by LAL
.....like Gorillas and Chimpanzees seems to have no fossil record that we know of at this time.

But we have fossil remains of species that are related to them.

Originally posted by LAL
The record of whales and horses are the most complete, but not every single species is known. Feathers may have evolved from scutes. Didn't I mention I have about 300 saved sites on human evolution alone? I actually managed to learn something during two years of debates on evolution, though I'm not totally clear on the new terminology and may have used the term "hominoid" (as opposed to "hominid") incorrectly at times.

Then you know that the creationist´s arguments on "where are the intermediate forms" is bogus. And that any versions of it can not be used to support the idea that bigfeet (and bigfeet-related species) fossil remains are not known just due to the nature of fossil record. Even if in a sarcastic way.

Sure, there´s a chance that someday the fossil of a big anthropoid will be found in North America, but I will not hold my breath.

Originally posted by LAL
In fact, I found that out Googling on biodiversity preserves (there's one in the Great Smokies) before I ever left Washington State.

"Perhaps of more interest to visitors today is the other half of the mountain-building story, their gradual destruction. The slow, steady forces of wind, water, and chemical decomposition have reduced the Blue Ridge from Sierra-like proportions to the low profile of the world's oldest mountain range."

http://www.nps.gov/blri/geology.htm

That's on the official National Park Service, Department of the Interior, site.

http://www.nps.gov/

Tourist info.

]Just how are we measuring "oldest"? Oldest rocks? Longest time above sea level?

In both cases, Appalaches will not be among the oldest of the world.

To sum things up, you could say the age of a mountain chain is determined by the age its formation started. The rocks that compose the chain, can be older of of the same age of the chain. New rocks are formed during orogenesis (mountain formation process by collisional tectonics, when two or more plates collide- the case of Appalaches) by igneous activity and metamorphism.

Time above sea level is not a good index by two reasons:

(a) Some orogenic mountain chains have parts of it below the sea level;

(b) Orogenetic areas suffer a lot of uplift (during and after the orogenesis), so weathering and erosion act, denudating the mountains and gradually exposing the mountain belt´s lowemost level. So, rocks that once were very below sea level (tens of thousands of meters) may now be thousands of meter above it.

So, you have to reffer to the starting age of mountain formation.

And in this case, the Appalaches are quite young. Note that we are talking of a 4.5Gy-old story of geologic events. Here´s the ages of some major orogenetic events: 550Ma, 1.1 Gy, 1.7 Gy, 2.1Gy, 2.7Gy. Ages do have a span, that change according to the place in the world the events happened.

But that´s OT digression. Shall we move on?

Originally posted by LAL
Imaginary creatures don't leave tracks and sign. Hm. Maybe I should put that in my sig line so I don't have to keep typing it out.
Sorry you're so bored. You might find this more interesting if you'd do a little research. There are some good books on the subject.

Maybe it would also be a good idea to add that tracks can be misidentified.

Would you please avoid accusing me of not knowing what I´m talking about? I once did though bigfoot was a possibility. Then I started to realize, as I learned more about nature, how unlikely it is. I have done my homework and will not even bother bragging about it. I have not read anything that would bring me back to my initial position.

Originally posted by LAL
And hominids. It may be the last common ancestor or something very near to it.
They're related to humans, other hominids and Great Apes too, so there are your relatives. Thanks for pointing that out.

And left remains. And bigfeet? Where are the remains that could point to the possibility of a large primate in North America?

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
That's the problem, there weren't any.



The scenario suggests the squatch must have given a great deal of thought to not leaving tracks. To my knowledge the speculated behavior has never been witnessed before, nor since. All other times it seems to have little regard for leaving footprints, why the sudden change?

RayG

Did you see the photo showing the road?
Noll has photos of Gorillas doing the same sort of lean.

Bryne thought they might conceal tracks and he told me that at least three years before the cast was taken.

Chimpanzees have been observed purposely leaving tracks for the troop to follow. Maybe there is some behavior associated with tracks in the Great Apes (such as not leaving tracks when they don't want to be followed).

I don't see that any thought was required if it came up the road and then stepped on the fine gravel. Could have just happened that way.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Did you see the photo showing the road?

Not sure I see a connection.

Noll has photos of Gorillas doing the same sort of lean.

Gorilla ain't no squatch.

Bryne thought they might conceal tracks and he told me that at least three years before the cast was taken.

Sounds like Bryne might have been speculating.

Chimpanzees have been observed purposely leaving tracks for the troop to follow. Maybe there is some behavior associated with tracks in the Great Apes (such as not leaving tracks when they don't want to be followed).

And maybe there isn't. Chimps ain't no squatch.

I don't see that any thought was required if it came up the road and then stepped on the fine gravel. Could have just happened that way.

I'm talking about the purposeful care at not leaving any footprints in any area of the mud, the 'several heel strikes' as it positioned itself closer to the fruit without leaving any clear evidence. If the squatch engaged in crawling behavior it was obviously concerned about leaving footprints behind, or the depth of the mud, or both. It was presented with a problem (fruit in the middle of the mudhole) and had to formulate a plan to obtain the fruit while minimizing its presence.

Is it possible? Sure, but I'm not convinced that elk have been eliminated as the source of the 'heel' print. In fact, there wasn't a single additional scrap of evidence that supports the squatch hypothesis.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
The films, the photograms, all that´s been shown at TV and WWW. There´s no need for an "army of" hoaxers. A few of them, acting indenpendently could do a lot of things.


Such as fake footprints in 1958, and three times in two countries in April, 2005? With a whole lotta hoaxing in between? In remote areas where all this handiwork wasn't likely to be found?


IF its a relative to bigfoot. And that´s all that it is. And if its a relative to orang-utang, then it does hurt.

Depends on whether it was bipedal or not, doesn't it?


You dragged it to Africa, since you are using the temporal distribution of hominids there as an excuse for the absence of bigfoot fossils. I am pointing out that the area where its fossils could be found is much bigger, due to the species' geographic distributions.

Homo erectus lived from 1.8 million years to 300,000 ago and was very widespread, yet remains of only about 40 individuals from two or three locations (according to the Smithsonian's rather out-of-date website) have been found. The population must have numbered in the millions, yet only one boy managed to die in such a way that his nearly complete skeleton could be found at Lake Turkana.


Note that, on purpose, I am not considering its "tropical equivalents" in Southern Asia, the hairy wildmen (woodwoose) from mediaeval Great Britain (and its European equivalents) and the (sadly distorted) mapinguari legend from Brazil.


Good idea.


See discussions below.


Thanks.


That´s really hard, since the type of evidence currently avaliable for Nessie and bigfoot are quite similar. That´s why I asked you where and how you draw the line between a plausibe crypto (bigfoot) and an unlikely one (Nessie)? What are the criteria for unlumping them together?

Loch Ness was scanned, wasn't it? No Nessie. Last I heard it was thought a school of Dolphins could account for sightings in the loch. I don't know how the photo of the flipper is explained............


OK, then you understand the animals must have not only crossed but lived in open-field environments.

No, I don't. If they followed the coast, in search of fish, perhaps, and the forests were more northerly and the Strait not all grassland and tundra and the climate milder they need not have been in the open much at all.


Thus it is not far-fetched to suppose their fossils could be found with fossils from animals that lived all their lives in open-field environments. Not to mention the transitional environments.


Except that there's no evidence they live anywhere but in forests.


Again if Bryne is correct. Note that a basic requisite for it is that tha animal must exist. What is far from being proved.

It's far from being proved that it doesn't. :D
You can probably figure out from the stride how many miles a day they could cover.


What, once again, would favor preservation of remains.


Rapid burial, for one thing.


If the tracks were correctly interpreted...


It's hard to confuse a giant hominid track with anything else. I have copies of the Bossburg casts (they're not as large as Closner's cast, but they're still impressive). The deformity is consistent with metatarsus adductus. It's difficult to imagine a hoaxer, in 1969, being able to lay down 1089 tracks overnight with such a deformity. Tracks like that were seen 30 years earlier, incidently.

Is this one or two of the same few hoaxers? Why did they only do this in '69? Why not repeat the stunt rather than waste a perfectly good pair of fake feet that were good enough to fool a professor of anatomy. Why not just use the feet from Bluff Creek........one set, anyway?


Many, of course not, but some, yes. China´s Sinodelphys szalayi is 125M old.

But you seem to have missed my point. What I am arguing is that the same type of phenomena that allowed the preservation of those -and many other- animals would as well alow the preservation of bigfoot remains. What you see happening today is what happened 1, 1ky, 1My or 1Gy ago. So, all those events, such as flash or slower-paced floods, are potentially events that may start the fossilization proccess.
Turkana boy,as you cited, was one among many specimens of countless species that died near a lake or a marsh, possibly due to disease, and was preserved.
Common scene: river level increases seadly due to rainy season. Animals trapped at higer sites try to cross the flooded area to reach a safer -or with more food- place, drown and become fossils. Like this, there are many other possible scenarios, and they happen in forests, open fields and intermediate environments.


You're not saying everything that drowns in a flood becomes a fossil are you? That would only be a first step. Siltation is pretty light in areas like the PNW.


First, define "few". Even with just a 40% complete skeleton, I would not say 300 individuals is a small number. Not to mention that the remains are scattered over Africa.

???????????? Afarensis remains have been found along East Africa's Northern Rift Valley at Hadar and Koobi Flora with the trackway at Laetoli.
The fossils are mostly fragments.
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm


This provides you a good example of why I, and a lot of other people, would expect such a species to have left traces. Somewhere in North America and Asia specimens should have surfaced, even with a small population density, for the reasons we have already discussed.

A lack of fossils does not mean the species does not exist. It only means no fossils have been found so far. It could be there are none, but Sasquatches are certainly not the only living animals lacking a fossil record.


Why just there? And all the other places? And have you forgot what I told you about the evidence found in sediment dragged from the (nowdays submerged) areas in Alaska and the land bridge?

There may be evidence of humans 40,000 years ago. Where are all the human remains from that period?


What, again, does not mean the fossil evidence must come just from there. So, can we say we agree at least with this?

Jaguars live in forests, don´t they? I´ve seen some of them - beautifull creatures- in forests. To hear their screams, calls, growls, whatever, at night is quite an experience.

Grizzly bears also do live in forests and mixed open-field forest pacthes environments.
http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/habitat.html
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/topics/grizzly.htm
http://greennature.com/article137.html

Do we agree on the above statements?

Jaguars live in both forest and savannahs. Their diet is unlike that of Sasquatches and they're not related, are they?
No Grizzlies in the forests of the PNW. They may be in the North Cascades, I've been told, but that's pretty far inland and much drier.
It appears Sasquatches don't overlap with Grizzlies and Jaguars. Your point?


Why do you think the fossil record of caves is so nice? All the animals whose fossils were found in caves spent much time hanging out there?

What happens is that caves are natural water and humidity sources. Animals are attracted to them during dry periods.

Western Washington doesn't have dry periods.


Weakened, victims of a fall, or just lost in the darkness, they commonly die there. Some just fall inside sinkholes hidden by vegetation. Also, some cave entrances act as "natural sinks". During strong rains, water running over the surface carries a lot of loose material to the cave, sediments, dead leaves, twigs, loose bones and carcasses.

If I recall correctly, that´s one of the possible reasons for hominid fossils in caves in Africa. The events chain would have been something like this: leopard kills hominid, carries body to the top of a tree, remains fall to the ground, are washed away by rain to a cave, humans find, hundreds of Ky later, the skull -with leopard´s teeth marks included.

So animal species don´t even need to have as part of its habits to take temporary shelter at a cave to become fossilized inside one.

Why I have insisted on the limestone cave? Not only because they are much more common than lava tubes or quartzite caves, but because the constant precipitation of carbonate inside them helps a lot the fossilization.

To my knowlege, the limestone caves in the PNW are nowhere near the mountains. The area's volcanic. No limestone caves.
The PNW seems to have the largest Sasquatch population, based on reports.


So, see now why it is not far-fetched to suppose bigfoot remains could be found inside a cave? Even if they don´t spend much time there?

Do we agree on that?

Not until you can show me a limestone cave on Mt. St. Helens.

Apes Caves on Mt. St. Helens are lava tubes....not too good for preservation. Bears would tend to exploit caves in the area and bears scavenge. If the nocturnal behavior has to do with avoiding bears, they may avoid places where bears hang out (or hibernate) such as caves.


*Wishes that LAL will not say the conditions are appliable only to Africa*

The thought would never occur to me. However, I'm having difficulty imagining an African leopard in the PNW dropping a Sasquatch into a sinkhole, which seem to occur in the Southeast, not in the NW.


No, specially because there´s no solid evidence they exist.


Those casts are pretty solid.


But, assuming they exist... It really does not matter if they are related to some hominid, if they are great apes that evolved to bipedalism or squirrels that evolved to look as giant hominids. Neither if they migrated at the first or last intervall when the land bridge was exposed.

What matters is the absence of fossil specimens that can be related to it within its present and past geographic span.

Do we agree its an issue?

If we agreed we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't see that it's a problem given the habitat and the lack of leopards and limestone caves. Cougars feed on the ground, I believe.
What about the new mammals found in Viet Nam? Is there a fossil record for them?


Got you!


:D)


I´m hard-headed (no, I´m no deputy) and I can be mistaken. Every single human being can be mistaken.

Do we agree on that?


Sure. But that doesn't mean thousands of track events are all cases of mistaken identity. Or that all the sightings are, or that the films are of bipedal bears.


But tracks can be misinterpretated, can´t they?
Do we agree on that?

That's one of the first things looked for, i.e. could they be overlaid bear tracks? No claw marks, for one thing.


There are evidence for human migration. Campsites, remains, at several places along the path, from Asia to North America, extending towards South America!

Such as where the mammoths were plentiful?


Ah, so we agree that the species must have spreaded rather than migrated. Progressively expanding its habitat to include Russia, Asias´s eastern coast, Alaska, Canada and USA. What leaves us with a lot of places to find fossil evidence...

Except for the in the forests.


Quick summary:

The skull of a woman (nicknamed Luzia) was found at Lagoa Santa cave, Soutehrn Brazil. It dates between 8.8Ky to 10.7Ky. Facial reconstructions indicate she may have been linked with modern Australians and Africans. Dating matches with Monte Verde site at Chile, as well as the Baja skull, for example.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/stross/ant322m_files/1stpersons.htm
http://www.ngnews.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u13144.shtml (in portuguese)

And 30ky-old human footprints were found at tuff layers deposited nearby a lake (funny coincidence, eh?) in Mexico.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm

So, we do have evidence on the human habitat expansion. Not only of the younger one, that brought the people that nowdays compose amerindians, but also of a previous wave.

That's interesting.

But no human remains on the Bering Strait?

There's a human print in a lava flow somewhere in Washington. I hate to think what happened to the foot.
I don't know of any Sasquatch reports from Mexico.


All of them? Every single individual since the species appeared? At all the places where it lives(ed)?
[QUOTE]
[B]
Why not? It seems to have happened with Gorillas and Chimps and a couple of million years worth of "seed" apes.
[QUOTE]
[B]
But it was found! Any bigfeet molar avaliable?

If it were, the scofftics would say it was planted and belonged to a elk.


Who said they had to pass through North America?

Maybe bigfeet evolved from yowies...

There's a problem of how Yowies, if they exist, got to Australia.
If Sasquatches are closely related to the Russian Kaptar, it seems more likely they took the northern route, especially since they don't seem to have a talent for raft-building. ;)


But we have fossil remains of species that are related to them.


And we may have fossil evidence of a species related to Sasquatches as well.


Then you know that the creationist´s arguments on "where are the intermediate forms" is bogus. And that any versions of it can not be used to support the idea that bigfeet (and bigfeet-related species) fossil remains are not known just due to the nature of fossil record. Even if in a sarcastic way.


Punc Ec.
Didn't I mention I spent a couple of years debating Creationists........and posting lists of transitional fossils?


Sure, there´s a chance that someday the fossil of a big anthropoid will be found in North America, but I will not hold my breath.


There's a better chance of a live one being brought in.


In both cases, Appalaches will not be among the oldest of the world.

That's "Appalachians". They're the oldest on the continent and among the oldest in the world. If they're not the oldest, the NPS is wrong. I've found several sites that say they're among the oldest in the world.


To sum things up, you could say the age of a mountain chain is determined by the age its formation started. The rocks that compose the chain, can be older of of the same age of the chain. New rocks are formed during orogenesis (mountain formation process by collisional tectonics, when two or more plates collide- the case of Appalaches) by igneous activity and metamorphism.

Time above sea level is not a good index by two reasons:

(a) Some orogenic mountain chains have parts of it below the sea level;

(b) Orogenetic areas suffer a lot of uplift (during and after the orogenesis), so weathering and erosion act, denudating the mountains and gradually exposing the mountain belt´s lowemost level. So, rocks that once were very below sea level (tens of thousands of meters) may now be thousands of meter above it.

So, you have to reffer to the starting age of mountain formation.

And in this case, the Appalaches are quite young. Note that we are talking of a 4.5Gy-old story of geologic events. Here´s the ages of some major orogenetic events: 550Ma, 1.1 Gy, 1.7 Gy, 2.1Gy, 2.7Gy. Ages do have a span, that change according to the place in the world the events happened.

But that´s OT digression. Shall we move on?


Sure.


Maybe it would also be a good idea to add that tracks can be misidentified.

I've already covered that.


Would you please avoid accusing me of not knowing what I´m talking about? I once did though bigfoot was a possibility. Then I started to realize, as I learned more about nature, how unlikely it is. I have done my homework and will not even bother bragging about it. I have not read anything that would bring me back to my initial position.

Then you have read Krantz? What, specifically, did you find wrong with his methodology and/or conclusions? I would not consider listing your sources "bragging about it".

Funny, as I learned more about nature I realized how likely they are, especially after moving into a forest near the Gifford Pinchot.


And left remains. And bigfeet? Where are the remains that could point to the possibility of a large primate in North America?
None found yet, but that doesn't negate the evidence that they're alive and well and living in North America.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Not sure I see a connection.
Gorilla ain't no squatch.

True, but sitting and leaning to reach food doesn't seem to be unusual behavior for apes.


Sounds like Bryne might have been speculating.

He spent years trying to track them and thought they might possibly be smart enough to hide "the one thing that could lead us to them".


And maybe there isn't. Chimps ain't no squatch.

No, but if a Chimp is aware of its tracks, might not other apes be too?


I'm talking about the purposeful care at not leaving any footprints in any area of the mud, the 'several heel strikes' as it positioned itself closer to the fruit without leaving any clear evidence. If the squatch engaged in crawling behavior it was obviously concerned about leaving footprints behind, or the depth of the mud, or both. It was presented with a problem (fruit in the middle of the mudhole) and had to formulate a plan to obtain the fruit while minimizing its presence.

It might just have been wary about aproaching the fruit (other bait had been taken, but it's not known what took it) and was completely unmindful of tracks. Maybe they don't enjoy sinking in mud. And, as Noll suggested, it may have obliterated tracks just by sitting on them.


Is it possible? Sure, but I'm not convinced that elk have been eliminated as the source of the 'heel' print. In fact, there wasn't a single additional scrap of evidence that supports the squatch hypothesis.

Except for tracks found earlier in the area, heat prints that couldn't have been from a hooved animal, a history of sightings in the county, hair of an "unknown primate" in the imprint, a forearm mark with long hair print clearly visible (remember the MD footage?).

Are the heel strikes supposed to be from elk knees too?

How would an elk get up without leaving clear hoofprints in the middle of the imprint?

And don't you think the expedition members were smart enough to figure all this out before hauling about 350 lbs. of cast back to civilization?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL

True, but sitting and leaning to reach food doesn't seem to be unusual behavior for apes. [/B]

Not surprising at all if you have very short legs and are used to sitting on your haunches.

http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/resources/images/Gorilla%20medium.jpg

He spent years trying to track them and thought they might possibly be smart enough to hide "the one thing that could lead us to them".

If thousands of tracks have been found they don't appear to be very successful at hiding them.

No, but if a Chimp is aware of its tracks, might not other apes be too?

Careful, next thing ya know chimps will be 'thinking' and gorillas will be 'talking' (Koko, Washoe, etc. etc.)

It might just have been wary about aproaching the fruit (other bait had been taken, but it's not known what took it) and was completely unmindful of tracks. Maybe they don't enjoy sinking in mud. And, as Noll suggested, it may have obliterated tracks just by sitting on them.

Or it might not be a squatch to begin with.

Except for tracks found earlier in the area,

Not during the expedition. I've never seen any evidence that a clear footprint was ever found.

heat prints that couldn't have been from a hooved animal,

Don't forget an original statement from the BFRO: "Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote..."

Bears don't have hooves, nor do cougars, wolves, coyotes..etc. etc.

a history of sightings in the county,

No sighting of a squatch during this expedition, absolutely no other evidence collected during this expedition that points to squatch as the culprit.

hair of an "unknown primate" in the imprint,

Got a source for that? From what I read they have a single hair that they couldn't distinguish from human. I don't see where the BFRO is claiming to have found an "unknown primate" hair, but I might be looking in the wrong place.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp
"Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.�"

All the other hair that Dr. Fahrenbach has identified as 'Sasquatch' are undistinguishable from human hair, and I've already pointed out problems with hair analysis in earlier posts. (I'm still interested in finding out whether Dr. Fahrenbach is accepted as a hair analysis expert outside the field of bigfootdom.)

Elk hair has also been confirmed according to this:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm
"And then there was all the hair the research team picked up. A few strands are in a lab in Vancouver awaiting DNA analysis. Several others already tested have been identified -- as elk hair."

Further statements on that same website seem to ring quite true:

"In the cast are the clear hoof tracks of an elk. There are imprints left that would match perfectly with an elk's legs. The hair collected in the mud has been matched to an elk. It would seem that Mr. Noll has, if anything, a cast of the impression left by the hindquarters of an elk. But Mr. Noll and his entire research team see only one thing -- undeniable scientific proof of a Sasquatch.

a forearm mark with long hair print clearly visible.

Hair or fur?

Are the heel strikes supposed to be from elk knees too?

Why not?

How would an elk get up without leaving clear hoofprints in the middle of the imprint?

Why would the elk leave a hoofprint in the middle of the kneeprint? If I kneel down and then stand up, I see no requirement for me to leave my footprint in the middle of the kneeprint. If however, I leave my HEEL print, I find it difficult to stand without leaving either a foot or handprint.

And don't you think the expedition members were smart enough to figure all this out before hauling about 350 lbs. of cast back to civilization?

Enthusiasm can sometimes cloud our better judgement. Noll had to convince other expedition members that it even WAS a buttprint of a squatch, that's how ambiguous it was. If there had been a clear handprint or footprint in the mud to go along with the buttprint, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

RayG

[LAL]

If thousands of tracks have been found they don't appear to be very successful at hiding them.

That was only when Peter was trying to track them. ;)


Careful, next thing ya know chimps will be 'thinking' and gorillas will be 'talking' (Koko, Washoe, etc. etc.)


They sign pretty well. Have you read Fouts' book - Next of Kin?

Or it might not be a squatch to begin with.

An elk sat on its hoofprints?

Not during the expedition. I've never seen any evidence that a clear footprint was ever found.

One looks clear enough for me in the photo in the field notes. And Noll found some in the area prior to the expedition, didn't he? That's why they went to Skookum Meadow.

Don't forget an original statement from the BFRO: "Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote..."

Bears don't have hooves, nor do cougars, wolves, coyotes..etc. etc.

The heat marks could have been bear or even porcupine. There was no way to determine just what they were, but they weren't from a hooved animal. Wolves are thought to be extinct in the Southern Cascades (though I had a friend who claimed he saw them).

No sighting of a squatch during this expedition, absolutely no other evidence collected during this expedition that points to squatch as the culprit.


Calls, according to the story you posted.


Got a source for that? From what I read they have a single hair that they couldn't distinguish from human. I don't see where the BFRO is claiming to have found an "unknown primate" hair, but I might be looking in the wrong place.


"While the DNA tests have not been completed, the hair samples have been determined by an independent lab to belong to an "unknown primate," Noll said.

"It didn't match humans," he said. "And they were tapered at the ends, meaning they had never been cut."

Both the hairs and the castings have been shown to experts who are convinced that they didn't come from an elk, deer or bear."

http://www.heraldnet.com/bigfoot/story13353257.cfm


All the other hair that Dr. Fahrenbach has identified as 'Sasquatch' are undistinguishable from human hair, and I've already pointed out problems with hair analysis in earlier posts. (I'm still interested in finding out whether Dr. Fahrenbach is accepted as a hair analysis expert outside the field of bigfootdom.)

He probably was before he took an interest in bigfootdom.

Elk hair has also been confirmed according to this:

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm
"And then there was all the hair the research team picked up. A few strands are in a lab in Vancouver awaiting DNA analysis. Several others already tested have been identified -- as elk hair."

Further statements on that same website seem to ring quite true:

Such as this?

""There's where the cheeks are," he says. "And that's a heel mark and the Achilles tendon. We figure this is where its arm rested, as it turned on its side." Mr. Noll points out the fine ridges left by matted hair in the thigh -- and then points delicately to a double print between the cheeks, where the, uh, impressions were left that show this Sasquatch was male."


And:

"It's an elk!" hoots Cliff Crook, founder of Bigfoot Central, who has been tracking Sasquatches since 1956.

Mr. Crook, however, who lives not far away in Bothell, Washington, has not bothered to see the cast for himself. "He's just jealous," says Mr. Noll, "because he's never found anything like this himself." "[/B][/QUOTE]

Fancy meeting Crook here.
Didn't you say other statements ring true? :)

Who besides Crook thinks it's a elk? Anyone who's actually seen it other than Marc Hume, who seems to be a reporter, not an expert in anatomy or primatology? I notice he didn't mention the elk hoofprints were old.

The heel prints look nothing like elk knees to me.

Sarmiento notes the other animals that had been there on LMS.

"From that experience, and several much longer expeditions where he spent up to three months in the bush, Mr. Noll concluded that a new approach was needed. Instead of trying to track down the fleet-footed Sasquatch, he reasoned, they'd have to bring the animals to them.

So when they went to work under the shadow of the volcano they were armed with a new weapon: the call blaster.

As they sat around their camp surrounded by the seemingly endless wilderness, the Sasquatch team broadcast a recording of a Sasquatch that was made last year in California. Owl and wolf researchers do the same thing to get population estimates, sending out recorded calls, then counting howls and hoots they get in reply.

Mr. Noll's team took a huge sound system to reach out as far as they could across the gullies and ridges of Mt. St. Helens.

"When we call blast a scream," he explained, "we pump it out at 150 watts on this great, big battleship horn, and we wait for a response. Then the next day we look in those areas for tracks where we hear Sasquatch screaming back."

And they did hear them answering. "It sounded sort of like a high- pitch scream by a woman, trailing off to a gurgle," he said."

And:

"The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal was lying on its side at the edge of the mud, reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit. The group discusses the possible reasons why the animal might have done this, instead of just walking into the wet mud to grab the fruit, as the other animals did ... One possible explanation is immediately apparent -- the animal did not want to leave tracks.""

They did concur.

Hair or fur?

Hair. From the other story you posted.

"After the cast was cleaned, extensive impressions of hair on the buttock and thigh surfaces and a fringe of longer hair along the forearm were evident. Meldrum identified what appear to be skin ridge patterns on the heel, comparable to fingerprints, that are characteristic of primates."



Why would the elk leave a hoofprint in the middle of the kneeprint? If I kneel down and then stand up, I see no requirement for me to leave my footprint in the middle of the kneeprint. If however, I leave my HEEL print, I find it difficult to stand without leaving either a foot or handprint.

Not in the middle of the knee print. Ever see one get up? It's quite a production.

Try rolling. I can do it, and I've never seen Noll rolling around on the garage floor.

Enthusiasm can sometimes cloud our better judgement.

So can scepticism.

Noll had to convince other expedition members that it even WAS a buttprint of a squatch, that's how ambiguous it was. If there had been a clear handprint or footprint in the mud to go along with the buttprint, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.


If you've seen the photo of the imprint, it's easy to see why it took awhile to figure it out.
So Drs. Sarmiento and Swindler can't tell an elk imprint from a primate imprint? They're specialists, f'r Pete's sake. And Swindler was a sceptic with thirty years experience at saying "Bosh."

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG

Hope you're also finding that I'm not an unreasonable skeptic. :D


I found where you said you're 90% sure they exist. I haven't seen statements like that from you here. ;)

When in Rome..............?

Somers' field notes:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/sbs/somer87.htm

[LAL]

There's also one of a young ape standing on branches to check out something on the ground.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I found where you said you're 90% sure they exist. I haven't seen statements like that from you here. ;)

When in Rome..............?

I've always said I think it's possible that they exist. You'll also probably notice I'm considered a 'nit-picker' over there, that I don't play favorites, I ain't out to stroke egos, and regardless of what I report I read, it all comes down to the evidence.

I have freely stated my concerns about the Skookum cast both here and there. Do I read skeptical books and articles? Sure. Do I read bigfoot books and articles? Sure. Does that make me an outcast? Don't know, don't care.

Somers' field notes:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/sbs/somer87.htm

Krantz and others were relying on 'evidence' brought or reported to them by Paul Freeman.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm

The examination by a wildlife biologist and a border patrol tracker concluded the tracks [submitted by Freeman] were a hoax, but...word was suppressed and those who believed the tracks genuine were never told of the evidence against their authenticity.

...Freeman underestimated long-time Bigfoot researcher René Dahinden. When both were in the Blue Mountains, Freeman told Dahinden he'd found yet another set of Sasquatch tracks. Suspicious of "evidence" so readily at hand, Dahinden made plaster casts and photographs of the footprints, and upon examination discovered they consisted of an uninterrupted sequence of left, right, left and left, a most unlikely gait for a bipedal creature.

...Freeman began to come across Bigfoot hair samples...Evidence against Freeman's "Sasquatch hair" came from a most unexpected quarter: one of Krantz's own graduate students, Lonnie Sumer. Sumer presented a paper on the last day of the conference examining alleged Bigfoot hair samples (he admitted to me privately they were from Freeman) and concluded the samples were synthetic fibers.

... Not since the days of Ivan Marx (a notorious Bigfoot hoaxer) had someone so consistently been associated with bogus evidence as Paul Freeman...Eventually Freeman would go on to find additional Bigfoot footprints, encounter the creature on a second, third, and fourth occasion, photographing and filming it twice. According to the late Bob Titrnus, once he told Freeman that to mark a territory an individual Sasquatch would sometimes break off the tops of young fir trees, Freeman then began discovering damaged vegetation, in one case locating a tree with damage well above the reach and strength of any human. Freeman claimed to find a series of Indian cave paintings depicting Bigfoot scratch marks, feces, and a ~section of an elk hide with huge teeth marks embedded in it." He even managed to tape record the screech of the monster. But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries.

...I'm sure that at least some among the older Bigfoot buffs still have a copy of the Good Morning America program. Should they decide to play the tape again they will see and hear ABC'S Steve Fox ask, "You tried to make fake footprints?" with Freeman answering, "Yes, I did." Fox then asks, "To create prints?" and Freeman again says, "Yes, I did." Fox is bent on being absolutely clear and so he asks, "You admit those were fake foot prints," and Freeman is seen nodding in agreement.

I find anything associated with Freeman less than compelling.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
There's also one of a young ape standing on branches to check out something on the ground.

Pictures of apes sitting on the ground, or on their haunches, don't surprise me one bit. Suggesting that a longer legged possible relative engages in exactly the same behavior is a stretch.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG

Krantz and others were relying on 'evidence' brought or reported to them by Paul Freeman.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm
I find anything associated with Freeman less than compelling.


See my brilliant ;) defense of Freeman on BFF (I don't want to go through all that again right now) and note your article is by the ever-popular Michael Dennett who misquoted Dahinden, called Erik Beckjord a "researcher", mispelled Somer and failed to mention Freeman played a joke on the neighbors in Camas with carved feet prior to his sighting in 1984 (that was the faking of prints). Fahrenbach stated the synthetic hair was probably a natural contaminant and not an attempt at a hoax.

Meldrum said this in his review of Daegling's book:

"Attention is next turned to Paul Freeman and events occurring in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State. Daegling indicates this locale is “well removed from the mountainous coastal habitat that is usually associated with Sasquatch activity.� What is apparently lost on Daegling is the fact that the northern end of the Blue Mountain range is extremely wet with up to 90 cm of precipitation annually and rich habitat resources amply sufficient to support a large omnivore, not to mention one of the nation’s largest elk herds.
Accounts of Bigfoot had emerged from the region long before Freeman arrived on the scene and continue after his departure. Daegling’s entire assessment of the incidents involving Paul Freeman appears to be largely filtered through the smoked lens of Michael Dennett. The numerous problems alluded to by Daegling lie not with the tracks but with the decidedly skewed interpretations of the tracks. With all due respect to the reputed
tracking prowess of Joel Hardin, his mind was made up prior to the event; he interpreted the tracks as if they were man tracks. In most points of his objection the apparent contradictions are precisely what should have been expected based on the distinctive style of walking surmised for the sasquatch, based on other tracks and eyewitness accounts. Krantz deals with Hardin’s points head-on in his book and I discussed them at length
indirectly with Hardin. Dennett is again cited as a source for Dahinden’s claim that tracks were left a nonsequential series, with two left feet in succession – an apparently damning situation, if true. Dahinden corrected this bit of misrepresentation when I questioned him on it. His sarcastic comment, indiscriminately reported by Dennett, that one couldn’t tell a right foot from a left, and there appeared to be “two left feet� was
baseless. Further distortions by Dennett include the often repeated claim that Freeman admitted to faking footprints. In reality Freeman stated that he had experimented in his backyard to determine what would be required, if it was even possible, to fake a convincing Bigfoot track. In that case, I guess I am guilty of hoaxing Bigfoot tracks, as well as any other serious-minded researcher who has done his homework. As for the rumor
that Freeman worked at an orthopedic shoe company -- as best I can determine there is no substance to it; let Dennett reveal his “anonymous sources.�"

Dahinden really had it in for Freeman, and having read Hunter's book, I now know the source for Scott's arguments on BFF. They take up about a paragraph on pg. 192. :D

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Pictures of apes sitting on the ground, or on their haunches, don't surprise me one bit. Suggesting that a longer legged possible relative engages in exactly the same behavior is a stretch.

RayG

Yep. That was a pun wasn't it?

[LTC8K6]

The long skinny thing is a tendon.

Nope, it's a leg.

From the BFRO:

Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.�


Elk hair and elk tracks in the cast and in the wallow.

This is clearly from an elk, and the BFRO has known it all along.

A single indeterminate hair is conveniently called a sasquatch hair. Pure irresponsible speculation to fluff up their cause.

I rest my case. :D

[LTC8K6]

Remember, at ~3 am there was no impression. Then at ~9 am the impression is there.

They were just 6 hours at most behind the bigfoot, and probably a lot less than that.

Just 6 hours and the cast and wallow are full of all sorts of hair and tracks.

Just six hours......

The ground was frozen too at some point.

Just six hours, and they left.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
That was only when Peter was trying to track them. ;)

Ah, I see... no wonder he never ever saw one even after all those years.

They sign pretty well. Have you read Fouts' book - Next of Kin?

No, but I have read a lot of info concerning 'talking' apes. I've seen no evidence they're actually engaging in language as we know it.

An elk sat on its hoofprints?

Your claim, not mine. (Ok, Rick Noll's claim)

One looks clear enough for me in the photo in the field notes.

Looks can be deceiving. According to the field notes, no clear footprints were ever found during the expedition.

And Noll found some in the area prior to the expedition, didn't he? That's why they went to Skookum Meadow.

From recent postings on the BFRO website, it would appear the BFRO are not only aware of the specific areas bigfoot resides, they only lack the proper equipment to capture them on film. (If you're not aware of these claims/appeals, I can direct you to the applicable topic on the BFF)

The heat marks could have been bear or even porcupine. There was no way to determine just what they were, but they weren't from a hooved animal.

Exactly my point.

Calls, according to the story you posted.

What use are calls when no animal is observed making the calls? As I said, absolutely no other evidence collected (or recorded) during this expedition that points to squatch as the culprit.

"While the DNA tests have not been completed, the hair samples have been determined by an independent lab to belong to an "unknown primate," Noll said.

Have these lab results been posted? If so, where?

Both the hairs and the castings have been shown to experts who are convinced that they didn't come from an elk, deer or bear."

Very few 'experts' have even examined the cast. After the initial hype, the Skookum cast seems to have faded away, no better than a cast of a footprint at this point.

It's all well and good to quote internet websites and newspaper reports, but where are the entries in the scientific journals regarding the Skookum cast?

Remember what Dr. Meldrum stated: “While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere.�

Only a handful of scientists have actually examined the Skookum cast however.

He probably was [a hair analysis expert] before he took an interest in bigfootdom.

I've not seen any evidence he was.

Such as this?

""There's where the cheeks are," he says. "And that's a heel mark and the Achilles tendon. We figure this is where its arm rested, as it turned on its side." Mr. Noll points out the fine ridges left by matted hair in the thigh -- and then points delicately to a double print between the cheeks, where the, uh, impressions were left that show this Sasquatch was male."


And:

"It's an elk!" hoots Cliff Crook, founder of Bigfoot Central, who has been tracking Sasquatches since 1956.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Noll can claim tiny impressions belong to tiny testicles, and Crook can claim elk kneeprints. Without a body comparison, neither claim can be proven.

Mr. Crook, however, who lives not far away in Bothell, Washington, has not bothered to see the cast for himself. "He's just jealous," says Mr. Noll, "because he's never found anything like this himself."

There are only two people Mr. Noll has not allowed to examine the cast, Mr. Crook(who he seems to be feuding with) and Benjamin Radford(who writes for the Skeptical Inquirer. That comes from Mr. Noll himself.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0&#entry54191
"I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford."

Didn't you say other statements ring true? :)

Yes, and they agree with my own opinion.

Who besides Crook thinks it's a elk? Anyone who's actually seen it other than Marc Hume, who seems to be a reporter, not an expert in anatomy or primatology? I notice he didn't mention the elk hoofprints were old.

How many 'experts' do you think have actually examined the cast? Very few, from what I've been told.

The heel prints look nothing like elk knees to me.

I can't say I've examined elk knees up close, but what criteria was used to eliminate elk as a possible suspect?

They did concur.

Sure, once they had been convinced it was a squatch buttprint.

Not in the middle of the knee print.

Does it matter? According to the BFRO, "Old tracks in mud include elk..."

So can scepticism.

Sure, but being skeptical usually means making a decison based on evidence not speculation.

So Drs. Sarmiento and Swindler can't tell an elk imprint from a primate imprint? They're specialists, f'r Pete's sake. And Swindler was a sceptic with thirty years experience at saying "Bosh."

Which doesn't negate the fact they both might be mistaken. I wasn't there, so I can't comment on how they came to their conclusion, though it make for interesting reading.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Sarmiento & Swindler already knew it was a sasquatch butt imprint, didn't they?

By that, I mean they had been told what it was beforehand, and went in to the examination with knowledge of what they were supposed to see.

Did they examine the cast blind, in other words?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
See my brilliant ;) defense of Freeman on BFF (I don't want to go through all that again right now) and note your article is by the ever-popular Michael Dennett who misquoted Dahinden, called Erik Beckjord a "researcher", mispelled Somer and failed to mention Freeman played a joke on the neighbors in Camas with carved feet prior to his sighting in 1984 (that was the faking of prints). Fahrenbach stated the synthetic hair was probably a natural contaminant and not an attempt at a hoax.

As was pointed out in the article I quoted:

"But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries."

Eliminating the misquote of Dahinden, doesn't eliminate the rest of the reported problems. Speaking of Dahinden, how's this quote:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm
"Look, any village idiot can see [the Mill Creek] tracks are fake, one-hundred-percent fake!"

I never mentioned anything to do with Beckjord, and I certainly don't consider him a 'researcher' either. I don't know of many bigfoot enthusiasts that DO consider him a 'researcher'. He does claim to be a bigfoot 'researcher', however.

As far as I'm concerned, Fahrenbach's past problems with hair identification render any further hair claims worthless.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by RayG
I find anything associated with Freeman less than compelling.

I'm feeling pretty much the same way about anything from Dr. Fahrenbach too.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

The wallow was muddy that night. They specifically left fruit in the middle of it in order to get tracks. We know that Fish left a shoe heel print in that mud which is also in the cast. The time period that they were behind the sasquatch is probably more like 4 hours rather than 6. Note the size of the muddy hole and the fact that they put the fruit in the middle.

Note what Randles said in an Oct. 2000 Earthfiles interview:

PUTTING FRUIT OUT TO SEE ...
To see if something would walk in and leave tracks so we could get an idea of how many animals were there, if any animals were there. We already knew there was something out there because of the return vocalizations. So at about 3:30 AM September 22, I said we should put some fruit right in the middle of the wallow since it was right from where we heard the return vocalization. My friend, Leroy Fish, and I put some apples in the middle of the wallow - a muddy hole that's probably 15 feet across, a low spot so when it rains it gets full and the animals seemed to congregate there. Then we returned back to camp. We were freezing to death and went to bed.
We got up about 7:30 still on September 22 and went to check the wallow accompanied by Richard Knowle who also left fruit out. We noticed that some of the apples were gone and some of the nectarines. And then all three of us noticed at the same moment an impression where an animal had laid down. It looked like a giant human thigh. Actually, left buttock, thigh, knee area, lower leg and four heel imprints."


Meldrum in the same interview:

There were elk and deer that had walked across this puddle and mud subsequent to the impressions, so it wasn't a smooth pristine surface to begin with, before and subsequent. There are clearly footprints over the top of the impression, the body impression. In fact, there is a little trail of coyote footprints that walked right up across the back side of the impression and left their prints.

Fresh elk and deer prints on top of the sasquatch print. Not old. Subsequent to the sasquatch impressions. After the sasquatch impressions. Like an elk kneeling down to eat apples and then getting back up and leaving his hoofprints on top of his body print.

Meldrum again:

SO IT'S HAIR THAT DOESN'T QUITE MATCH PRIMATES SUCH AS GORILLA OR PRIMATES SUCH AS HUMANS?
Right. It has the greatest similarity to human hair. And at first glance, one can easily mistake it for a human hair. But there are subtle differences in the diameter of the shaft structure, the architecture and the cuticle structure that distinguish it.

They couldn't really distinguish it from human hair at all.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=18

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Nope, it's a leg.

From the BFRO:



Elk hair and elk tracks in the cast and in the wallow.

This is clearly from an elk, and the BFRO has known it all along.

A single indeterminate hair is conveniently called a sasquatch hair. Pure irresponsible speculation to fluff up their cause.

I rest my case. :D

Don't you think you should draw some pictures first to show how an elk could fit into this?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Sarmiento & Swindler already knew it was a sasquatch butt imprint, didn't they?

By that, I mean they had been told what it was beforehand, and went in to the examination with knowledge of what they were supposed to see.

Did they examine the cast blind, in other words?

They were asked to examine it and did. I doubt either would jeopardize their reputations by making a stupid mistake like not being able to tell an elk print from an "unknown primate" print on camera.

[LTC8K6]

No, I don't think it's from an elk alone. The "heel and tendon" is an elk's knee and leg.

It is improper to draw pictures like that anyway. It taints the audience. It makes them see what you have drawn, rather than coming to their own conclusions independently.

[LTC8K6]

That Earthfiles interview shortly after the imprint was discovered is proof that the elk prints were not old, as has been previously claimed. They were fresh. They were made contemporaneously with the "sasquatch" imprint.

Now we know for sure that an elk was there at the time the imprint was made.

We know that the wallow was muddy that night, so there should have been bigfoot tracks.

We know that Fish left a shoe heel print in that mud as well.

Even if we accept the idea that sasquatch made the imprint, then we have the unbelievable actions of the team.

They reported return calls from a sasquatch from the area of the imprint just a day before. They have a fresh sasquatch imprint that is only hours old.

They up and leave. Inexcusable. Unexplainable. Incredible.

If they aren't really interested in bigfoot, why should I be interested. Why should science?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The wallow was muddy that night. They specifically left fruit in the middle of it in order to get tracks. We know that Fish left a shoe heel print in that mud which is also in the cast. The time period that they were behind the sasquatch is probably more like 4 hours rather than 6. Note the size of the muddy hole and the fact that they put the fruit in the middle.

Fish put fruit in. Why wouldn't he leave a heel print. Earlier you were trying to make that seem suspicious as though he was out there perpetrating a hoax with an "artificial chewing machine". But it was an elk. Oh.


Fresh elk and deer prints on top of the sasquatch print. Not old. Subsequent to the sasquatch impressions. After the sasquatch impressions. Like an elk kneeling down to eat apples and then getting back up and leaving his hoofprints on top of his body print.

No, like they walked across it.

They couldn't really distinguish it from human hair at all.

"But there are subtle differences in the diameter of the shaft structure, the architecture and the cuticle structure that distinguish it."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=18

[LTC8K6]

They were asked to examine it and did.

Were they told beforehand what they were looking at?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
That Earthfiles interview shortly after the imprint was discovered is proof that the elk prints were not old, as has been previously claimed. They were fresh. They were made contemporaneously with the "sasquatch" imprint.

One of the reporters got the day wrong. I'll have to read those again, but young or old, the elk prints were walking, not from an elk getting up.

Now we know for sure that an elk was there at the time the imprint was made.


Before or after, not at the time.
And the coyote was after.

We know that the wallow was muddy that night, so there should have been bigfoot tracks.

We know that Fish left a shoe heel print in that mud as well.
Already been addressed. Any tracks may have been obliterated when it sat down. The ground on the approach was hard, fine gravel. By a road.

Even if we accept the idea that sasquatch made the imprint, then we have the unbelievable actions of the team.

They reported return calls from a sasquatch from the area of the imprint just a day before. They have a fresh sasquatch imprint that is only hours old.

They up and leave. Inexcusable. Unexplainable. Incredible.


They weren't equipped for a capture, were they? The experience of Noll himself, as well as others, has shown attempts to track them are futile. He devised a method of luring one in and it worked.

If they aren't really interested in bigfoot, why should I be interested. Why should science?

As Dahinden once said, "My God, what do you have to show them before they'll take it seriously?"

One guy, who's never seen the cast, who's an expert at nothing, not even hoaxing, says it's an elk and you take his opinion over that of the man who wrote the standard text on primate anatomy.

Whatever.

[LTC8K6]

Earlier you were trying to make that seem suspicious as though he was out there perpetrating a hoax with an "artificial chewing machine".

Liar. You made up the artificial chewing machine. It was entirely a construct of your mind.

No, like they walked across it.

So the elk prints were not old, as is always claimed. Here is the claim from the BFRO expedition report:

Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote.

Old tracks, not fresh as we now know to be the truth.


"But there are subtle differences in the diameter of the shaft structure, the architecture and the cuticle structure that distinguish it."

That is already quoted in my post. Why repeat it? It shows that they could not really distinguish it from human hair, imo.



Note that out of this (picture below) they are claiming to have come to the conclusion that a sasquatch was here. It's utterly ridiculous, imo.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/images/SkookumImpressionBig.jpg

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Were they told beforehand what they were looking at?

I don't know, but with Swindler's record of scepticism, it shouldn't have made any difference if they were.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Liar. You made up the artificial chewing machine. It was entirely a construct of your mind.

Excuse me? Should I look up the posts?


So the elk prints were not old, as is always claimed. Here is the claim from the BFRO expedition report:

Old tracks, not fresh as we now know to be the truth.

Do I detect a contradiction there?


That is already quoted in my post. Why repeat it? It shows that they could not really distinguish it from human hair, imo.

Because you seem to have missed it any only read what you wanted to read.


Note that out of this (picture below) they are claiming to have come to the conclusion that a sasquatch was here. It's utterly ridiculous, imo.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/images/SkookumImpressionBig.jpg

Would that be your expert opinion?

I was just about to post that, but from the notes. Thanks for saving me the trouble. So you can se an elk getting up from the impression, or does it just look like a jumble to you?

[LTC8K6]

Do I detect a contradiction there.

Yep. The BFRO's report says the elk, and other tracks were old, and Meldrum says they are fresh.

The BFRO has decided to call the elk tracks old to try to eliminate an elk as having made the marks and eaten the fruit.

Meldrum's recollection from the time reveals the truth. An elk could be what made the imprint and ate the fruit.

I am more concerned that I can't reconcile the depth shown in the cast with the depth visible in the photo. There appears to be a lot more depth in the cast than there is in the mud.

[LTC8K6]

Btw, I am just as highly qualified an expert on bigfoot as anyone you would care to name.

Since there aren't any bigfoot experts, we are all equally qualified to pontificate on the beast.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
As was pointed out in the article I quoted:

"But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries."

Well, that's not true either. Meldrum found him credible, at least mostly, and bought his cast collection for a reported $2000 (Freeman spent about $50,000 on the quest). One of those was one of the ones Chilcutt found compelling.

"Dr. Meldrum: I have secured the bulk of Freeman's collection from the Blue Mtns of Washington and Oregon. I also have the bulk of Dr. Grover Krantz's collection. In addition, many individuals have been very generous in sharing their discoveries with me and permitting me to duplicate their casts or photographs, for which I am considerably indebted. They have contributed greatly to the picture of the sasquatch foot that has emerged. Each additional specimen has the potential to add another piece to the puzzle."

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

"One of those big gaps is the lack of information about the many years of work done by the late Paul Freeman in providing a lot of what we know about the creature in question. But, Freeman is not only left out of the book, his work is utterly cast aside as being fabrications, according to Murphy. The author observes (in what he terms “a specific irreconcilable situation) the following:

“Many researchers do not give any credibility to findings by both Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. In other words, the researchers consider such findings hoaxed or fabricated. Without doubt, Ivan Marx was a notorious practical joker and Freeman’s ‘luck’ in finding sasquatch footprints and handprints goes far beyond reason.�

In a section of his book devoted to John Green, Murphy says he has found Green “exceedingly critical and accepts absolutely nothing at face value. John is very careful where doubt is involved with people and sasquatch related evidence. He is highly uncomfortable with all findings by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. It is only through my insistence that some material provided by these individuals is included in this work.�

Murphy does not list these “researchers� but does have sketches of several in his otherwise fine book. There are many notables who are missing, however, and to my mind that of Paul Freeman is the most glaring. I’d like to offer some defense of the man and his many contributions to the sasquatch/bigfoot matter, a defense mostly offered by researchers. And, most of them Murphy could just as well have interviewed for his book, since he was attempting to make of it a tome which would “tell the full story of what we know about the creature…�

I’d like to refer back a few lines to where Murphy commented on the “luck� of Paul Freeman in finding so many footprints.

In one of the more definitive bigfoot books, “The Big Footprints,� the late Grover Krantz, longtime anthropology professor at Washington State University, has this revealing paragraph in a discussion of tracks found and cast by Freeman in 1984 in the mountains near Walla Walla. The tracks were unusual in that they had dermal ridges (same as fingerprints in one’s hands) a feature he felt unlikely to be there if tracks were made by a hoaxer. Here’s what Krantz had to say:

“Anyone who might have faked these tracks faced the usual problems of getting to the sites unobserved, with the equipment that not only made the footprints but also impressed them so deeply (in most cases), made each of the prints unique and showing flexible foot movements, and left no evidence of his own presence. That faker also was an expert at dermatoglyphics who was able to include the appropriate amount of absolutely accurate friction-skin detail on a reasonable number of footprints. In spite of all this, some skeptics still think that Paul Freeman was able to accomplish this feat. I think not, and raise just one more point. We might ask a simple question, if he has somehow been faking these tracks, why has never again matched the quality of the specimens that appeared in 1982?�

Several qualified researchers of the sasquatch came forward in my book, “The Walla Walla Bigfoot,� to offer further defense that Paul Freeman was not the major hoaxer some were saying, according to Murphy’s book. One of those was Henner Fahrenbach, primate reasearch biologist of Beaverton. He closes his remarks in the book with this:

“Some of the castings collected by Paul contain anatomical details that only an anatomist can appreciate after study, but not one that a layman would conjure up and convincingly introduce into fabrications. Paul may slide a bit in his recounting of specific events but that happens to everybody and that constitutes no grounds for according him the universal disdain he has been receiving. Frequency of sightings indicates that you are hanging out in the right area, which he did for years.�

Fahrenbach also came to further defense of Paul Freeman in an address at this year’s Bigfoot Symposium, held in Willow Creek, California.

Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, a professor of anthropology at Idaho State University, who now wears the mantle of Grover Krantz in the bigfoot research in the eyes of many, had some cogent words about the matter in my book. I cite the following:

“The body of evidence (emerging from investigations of reputable researchers) includes repeat appearances of identifiable individuals over successive years.

“Examples of footprints that appear to preserve fine dermatographic details have been regarded very seriously by a number of professional fingerprint examiners.�

In this accounting of Paul Freeman and his bigfoot contributions, it should be mentioned two incidents which his detractors are pretty likely to bring up. Long before he came to Walla Walla to work for the Forest Service, Paul was living in Camas, Washington. Here, he whittled out two big feet and stomped around the neighborhood to confound the neighbors. It was a prank he acknowledged in the years following his 1982 sighting of a bigfoot in the Blue Mountains. There is also the story that he was involved in a man in a monkey suit, an incident I could easily put down as another prank or the work of a man “fed up “ with detractors."

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

[QUOTE]
Eliminating the misquote of Dahinden, doesn't eliminate the rest of the reported problems. Speaking of Dahinden, how's this quote:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm
[b]"Look, any village idiot can see [the Mill Creek] tracks are fake, one-hundred-percent fake!"


Pretty mild for Dahinden, I'd say. I wonder what he said that didn't make it to print. If you read the account, however, his reasons for thinking the tracks were faked seem pretty flimsy.


I never mentioned anything to do with Beckjord, and I certainly don't consider him a 'researcher' either. I don't know of many bigfoot enthusiasts that DO consider him a 'researcher'. He does claim to be a bigfoot 'researcher', however.

Doesn't the fact that Dennett regards him as one send up a red flag? I'd double check anything Dennett says, if I were you.
According to Noll, Wes Summerlin nearly gave him a knuckle sandwich when Dennett showed up at the airport in a suit.

As far as I'm concerned, Fahrenbach's past problems with hair identification render any further hair claims worthless.

What problems? The hairs are close to human. That's not to say they are human.

Don't read this, then:

"Contrary to popular belief, I have not encountered any deliberate effort to produce a hoax with hair samples, even in the much decried case of the fiber sample gathered by Paul Freeman. The same man-made fibers have been found elsewhere in the mountains by others and may be an environmental contaminant. People like Paul Freeman submit these samples for analysis precisely because they are not sure what they are at the time of collection.

Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

[LTC8K6]

Yes, I can see an elk getting up in the mud in that picture.

Of course, pareidolia works on everyone.

[LTC8K6]

Contrary to popular belief, I have not encountered any deliberate effort to produce a hoax with hair samples

Exactly what the hoaxee would say if he had been fooled by a hoax. Since he has been fooled, he is naturally unaware that he has been hoaxed.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Remember, at ~3 am there was no impression. Then at ~9 am the impression is there.

They were just 6 hours at most behind the bigfoot, and probably a lot less than that.

Just 6 hours and the cast and wallow are full of all sorts of hair and tracks.

Just six hours......

The ground was frozen too at some point.

Just six hours, and they left.

The next day, after putting out more bait.

The imprint was drying and cracking. Casting it had priority. The animal could have been miles away by the time they got up. They weren't out to hunt it. They were out for more evidence and they got it.

[SmooveK]

To LAL:

You'd think that with even one person, let alone many people, devoting an entire life to finding and proving these things, SOME universally agreeable proof would emerge over the course of decades. This isn't a microbe, it's a creature larger than a human. Why only weak video clips and "unidentifiable" prints and hairs?

A suggestion: just get as many people as you can, armed with GPS devices and tranquilizer guns, to surround the woods where one MUST live based on previous evidence, and with pure numbers go from the outside of the forest towards the middle point where everyone must converges. Spot him, tranq him, tag and document him, and get the credibility you seek.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Exactly what the hoaxee would say if he had been fooled by a hoax. Since he has been fooled, he is naturally unaware that he has been hoaxed.

Oh, good grief.

Fahrenbach knew the hair in question was synthetic. He wasn't fooled by it at all. He did not believe it was an attempted hoax, just a case of Freeman not knowing what it was.

What hoaxer, having faked evidence good enough to fool experts, would then mess it up with a synthetic hair? That's stupid.

[LAL]

Originally posted by SmooveK
To LAL:

You'd think that with even one person, let alone many people, devoting an entire life to finding and proving these things, SOME universally agreeable proof would emerge over the course of decades. This isn't a microbe, it's a creature larger than a human. Why only weak video clips and "unidentifiable" prints and hairs?

A suggestion: just get as many people as you can, armed with GPS devices and tranquilizer guns, to surround the woods where one MUST live based on previous evidence, and with pure numbers go from the outside of the forest towards the middle point where everyone must converges. Spot him, tranq him, tag and document him, and get the credibility you seek.

Please forward your suggestion to the BFRO. I'm not a member.

You haven't been in the mountains of the PNW, have you?

[LTC8K6]

Fahrenbach knew the hair in question was synthetic.

Who cares? You missed my point entirely.

What hoaxer, having faked evidence good enough to fool experts, would then mess it up with a synthetic hair? That's stupid.

Actually, putting an obvious clue into a hoax is pretty common. It is to give the believers a fair chance to realize that they are looking at a hoax. It also prevents them from continuing to claim the hoax is real after the the truth is revealed.

To those who are fooled, the synthetic hair would be proof that they have lost their objectivity, since the synthetic hair should have been obvious.

Except for Dynel, of course. :D

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

So the elk prints were not old, as is always claimed. Here is the claim from the BFRO expedition report:


And here's the section from the field notes. The age is not mentioned.

"On their way out, Randles, Noll, and Fish decided to stop and check the roadside mud pool that Randles and Dr. Fish had placed fruit at the night before. Some of the fruit, but not all, had been taken. Three of the original six apples were missing. Some of the melons showed evidence of having been pecked at by birds. They noted elk, deer, coyote and bear tracks in the mud pool. The three noticed a large impression at the eastern edge of the mud pool. It took several minutes of studying the impression before they finally deduced that it was possibly made by a sasquatch sitting down at the edge of the pool, and leaning over to grasp the fruit in the center. The three immediately returned to camp to inform the others."

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

[RayG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
They up and leave. Inexcusable. Unexplainable. Incredible.

Sure is puzzling.

If they aren't really interested in bigfoot, why should I be interested. Why should science?

It DOES seem like odd behavior for a group calling itself -- "The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery"

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
As Dahinden once said, "My God, what do you have to show them before they'll take it seriously?"

Evidence. Evidence that can stand on its own.

I wonder, given the opportunity to pursue/track/search for a live bigfoot, or, stand around pouring casting material, which do you think Dahinden would have chosen? And Dahinden weren't no scientist.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Who cares? You missed my point entirely.


Was there one?


Actually, putting an obvious clue into a hoax is pretty common. It is to give the believers a fair chance to realize that they are looking at a hoax. It also prevents them from continuing to claim the hoax is real after the the truth is revealed.

To those who are fooled, the synthetic hair would be proof that they have lost their objectivity, since the synthetic hair should have been obvious.

Except for Dynel, of course. :D

The hair was one of many that were brought in, and Fahrenbach was not part of investigating the site where the hair was found. He noted others had brought in synthetic hairs as well, just because they didn't know what they were.
There's no evidence Freeman was a hoaxer (a prankster, maybe), and the synthetic hair was just something he brought in for identification.

If you're referring to the PGF, Dynel is the worst.

[RayG]

Like I quoted:

"But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries."

I guess Dr. Meldrum is one of those supporters.

Originally posted by LAL
Doesn't the fact that Dennett regards him as one send up a red flag?

Not at all. Beckjord gets published, Beckjord gets interviewed. How many times have YOU been on Letterman discussing bigfoot? There's no bigfoot certification exam, no degree to be earned, no outward proof that one 'expert' has more validity than another.

I'd double check anything Dennett says, if I were you.

I could say the same for Noll or Fahrenbach.

According to Noll, Wes Summerlin nearly gave him a knuckle sandwich when Dennett showed up at the airport in a suit.

Some people think with their fists, others with their brains.

What problems?

His inability to differentiate between human and sasquatch hair, yet he claims to have positively identified hair as belonging to sasquatch. I've still not seen any evidence that he's an expert in hair analysis to begin with, and the previous links I have provided about microscopic hair analysis being 'junk science' anyway.

The hairs are close to human. That's not to say they are human.

Not to say they aren't either. They can't be distinguished from human hair.

Don't read this, then:

"Contrary to popular belief, I have not encountered any deliberate effort to produce a hoax with hair samples, even in the much decried case of the fiber sample gathered by Paul Freeman. The same man-made fibers have been found elsewhere in the mountains by others and may be an environmental contaminant. People like Paul Freeman submit these samples for analysis precisely because they are not sure what they are at the time of collection.

Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach

I'll repeat: As far as I'm concerned, Fahrenbach's past problems with hair identification render any further hair claims worthless.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm
Lonnie Somer, a Washington State University graduate student, made a presentation on Bigfoot hair samples to the annual meeting of the International Society of Cryptozoology. The gathering was hosted by the Department of Anthropology at WSU in June 1989. Somer obtained several hair samples said to be from a Sasquatch, all from the Blue Mountains, of which the Mill Creek watershed is a part. He reported that he made microscopic observations of the cross-sections and shapes of the hairs. He conducted tests of the pattern of the burn and of the smell. In these instances the Sasquatch "hair" differed from human and animal samples. He discovered that no hair follicles or scales were present on his Bigfoot samples, although human and animal hairs showed both follicles and scales. Somer compared the alleged Bigfoot hair with synthetic wig fibers. He found the synthetic fibers varied from the human and animal samples in the same way as the alleged Bigfoot hair. His conclusion was that the Sasquatch hair samples were meant, Somer replied that he believed someone was "perpetrating a [Bigfoot] hoax!"(3)

Krantz mentions Somer's presentation in his book and agrees that it indicates hoax activity in the Blue Mountains.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html
Originally quoted from the Grover Krantz book Bigfootprints:

"A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a product known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair."

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
They were out for more evidence and they got it.

Your standard for evidence and mine seem to differ greatly.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Evidence. Evidence that can stand on its own.

I wonder, given the opportunity to pursue/track/search for a live bigfoot, or, stand around pouring casting material, which do you think Dahinden would have chosen? And Dahinden weren't no scientist.

RayG

He'd have gone after the hairy sonuvabitch while the others preserved the imprint. And he wouldn't have found it, either.

He had a chance to collect some urine and didn't do it. He weren't no scientist, as you said. (Shouldn't that be "warn't"?)

He wanted to be "the one" and seemed to have an obvious resentment against anyone who was bringing in more evidence than he was. Noll says he was behind the plot to fool Krantz with the Indiana cast. Seems he didn't like no scientists, either.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Oh, good grief.

Fahrenbach knew the hair in question was synthetic.

He did? I've not read anywhere that he even examined the hair in the early stages.

He wasn't fooled by it at all.

Certainly not after it was confirmed synthetic.

He did not believe it was an attempted hoax, just a case of Freeman not knowing what it was.

Even though Freeman had submitted identical hairs on more than one occasion?

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/proponent.html
"Freeman then produced at least two more sets of "hair" which he gave to Professor Krantz."

What hoaxer, having faked evidence good enough to fool experts, would then mess it up with a synthetic hair? That's stupid.

Nothing stupid about it, the 'hair' DID fool experts, initially.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

The hair was one of many that were brought in, and Fahrenbach was not part of investigating the site where the hair was found. He noted others had brought in synthetic hairs as well, just because they didn't know what they were.

Who cares? I referred only to your thought that it would be stupid to "mess up" a hoax with a synthetic hair, not to any specific case or scientist.

So the BFRO either didn't note the age of the other animal tracks at all, or they incorrectly claimed they were old?

Is that supposed to make the BFRO look good?

Is it now my fault that the stories differ, or what?

This is a scientific organization?

[LTC8K6]

Yep, they've had trouble id'ing dynel, as has already been mentioned.

[FFed]

Originally posted by LAL
The next day, after putting out more bait.

The imprint was drying and cracking. Casting it had priority. The animal could have been miles away by the time they got up. They weren't out to hunt it. They were out for more evidence and they got it.

I have used tracking dogs to find a bear that was in the area three days before. Maybe it's time serious bigfoot hunters invested in some good tracking dogs.

[LTC8K6]

Nope. Dogs will track everything but bigfoot, apparently. :D

Lion, tigers, and bears, oh my, but not bigfoot. :D

They will even work in heavy combat, sniffing out explosives and enemy soldiers, but they refuse to follow bigfoot. :D

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

They will even work in heavy combat, sniffing out explosives and enemy soldiers, but they refuse to follow bigfoot. :D

...and they can find an illegal species of shellfish even when it's wrapped in other fish and sealed in plastic.

Bigfoot must be VERY odor-free! Could he be a robot?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by LAL

You haven't been in the mountains of the PNW, have you?

If Bigfoot can get around, then people shouldn't have any problem.

[LTC8K6]

Well, the "scientific" consensus is that dogs are afraid to follow a sasquatch. :D

Not afraid to chase down and tree a bear, though.

Not afraid to chase a car, either. :D

[bruto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, the "scientific" consensus is that dogs are afraid to follow a sasquatch. :D

Not afraid to chase down and tree a bear, though.

Not afraid to chase a car, either. :D

Science: I tried to get my dog to follow a sasquatch and it never did. This must mean that it is afraid to follow a sasquatch. An alternate hypothesis, such as that there are no sasquatch to follow, is not conceivable.

[LAL]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
If Bigfoot can get around, then people shouldn't have any problem.

I don't think all the members of the BFRO would be sufficient to ring even a small part of Skamania County. In most areas they wouldn't be able to see each other, let alone the quarry.

[LAL]

Originally posted by FFed
I have used tracking dogs to find a bear that was in the area three days before. Maybe it's time serious bigfoot hunters invested in some good tracking dogs.

Been done I believe. There are dogs that will react to the smell. There's a thread on BFF on what is needed for a good team, and such dogs are listed.

[Z]

Originally posted by aggle-rithm
...and they can find an illegal species of shellfish even when it's wrapped in other fish and sealed in plastic.

Bigfoot must be VERY odor-free! Could he be a robot?

Ah, but remember - Sasquatch is not an animal, but a being of energy, apparently. And we all know energy has no scent.

:rolleyes:

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Who cares? I referred only to your thought that it would be stupid to "mess up" a hoax with a synthetic hair, not to any specific case or scientist.

So the BFRO either didn't note the age of the other animal tracks at all, or they incorrectly claimed they were old?

Is that supposed to make the BFRO look good?

Is it now my fault that the stories differ, or what?

This is a scientific organization?

Or it's a reporting error?

Failure to dot an "i" doesn't mean the oranization is incompetant or that the imprint is of an elk. Have you figured out how three "knee prints" in a row show an elk getting up (or down?)

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ah, but remember - Sasquatch is not an animal, but a being of energy, apparently. And we all know energy has no scent.

:rolleyes:

That's nonsense. They're an animal. They leave tracks, scat, hair, urine, and may make nests.

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL
That's nonsense. They're an animal. They leave tracks, scat, hair, urine, and may make nests.

*aside to self - someone hasn't been reading the thread, or checking out EB's site, and apparently lacks a sense of sarcasm*

OK, I agree that an animal source is more likely true. So let's see the tracks, scat, hair, urine, and possible nests analyses by prominent and respectable laboratories, showing that they are clearly and without doubt not the product of other animals.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Like I quoted:

"But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries."

I guess Dr. Meldrum is one of those supporters.

As is Vance Orchard as recently as 2004, so, once again, Dennett is wrong.


Not at all. Beckjord gets published, Beckjord gets interviewed. How many times have YOU been on Letterman discussing bigfoot? There's no bigfoot certification exam, no degree to be earned, no outward proof that one 'expert' has more validity than another.

I barely watch Letterman and I would have no desire to be on the show with all those underdressed women and Billy Crystal. I never even saw it before Politically Incorrect was cancelled.

How did Letterman fail to notice as we did, when Beckjord invaded this forum, that the man is stark raving mad. How did Dennett? Have you seen his website?

I could say the same for Noll or Fahrenbach.

Some people think with their fists, others with their brains.

His inability to differentiate between human and sasquatch hair, yet he claims to have positively identified hair as belonging to sasquatch. I've still not seen any evidence that he's an expert in hair analysis to begin with, and the previous links I have provided about microscopic hair analysis being 'junk science' anyway.
There are differences, visible under the microscope, which he has noted. The DNA testing was inconclusive and the samples may have been contaminated during collection by humans.

Not to say they aren't either. They can't be distinguished from human hair.

Not true.

I'll repeat: As far as I'm concerned, Fahrenbach's past problems with hair identification render any further hair claims worthless.

As you wish. I see it's easy for you to dismiss any expert opinions that don't agree with yours.



http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm


http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html
Originally quoted from the Grover Krantz book Bigfootprints:


Did you see the photo in the article from Cliff Crook? That's one of the ones he was discredited for. Appling the same standard to him that you do to Freeman, you should dismiss everything he found or has said, shouldn't you?

Bigfootprints was published several years before Fahrenbach gave his opinion wasn't it? There was a tuft on a branch displayed at a symposium, which turned out to be synthetic. Someone called it "scientific sabotage" and Freeman's reputation went down in flames.

But there's no evidence Freeman or anyone else planted those hairs. Contamination happens.

Freeman spent a good part of his like trying to prove he wasn't a "kook". Now that he's dead he's still labled a fraud. Poor guy.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/wallawalla.htm

Note the article cites Rant Mullens in their claim "Bigfoot print hoaxing is a time-honored cottage industry".

Geez.

SI needs to apply some of their scepticism to their own articles on this topic.

[Z]

Well, let's put it this way:

if a researcher is fooled by someone deliberately setting out to fool them, or through 'contamination', they deserve to be discredited on the grounds that their research was not thorough enough - unless they go back, openly admit their error, and are able to demonstrate that they have some competency after all. After all, how can we trust the opinions of someone who couldn't tell a fake photo from a genuine photo, when others could? Clearly, someone who is fooled by false evidence is less trustworthy than someone who catches said fakery.

If, on the other hand, the researcher faked a bit himself - then he can't be trusted, no matter what.

And if we don't know who was responsible for the fakery, we certainly can't invest trust in the researcher, his associates, colleagues, etc.

[FFed]

Originally posted by LAL
Been done I believe. There are dogs that will react to the smell. There's a thread on BFF on what is needed for a good team, and such dogs are listed.

Not done enough then. Instead of using all the fancy night vision, trail cameras and such, they should stick to the tried and true hunting methods. Cougar hunters are very successful using dogs, and if I was serious about catching bigfoot dogs would be the first item on my list.

[LTC8K6]

Have you figured out how three "knee prints" in a row show an elk getting up (or down?)

Why would anyone need to figure that out?

You already know how that could happen with an elk, so why did you ask?

This obtuseness seems to me to be intentional on your part, Lu.

Why?

You can't seem to think of any way anything could happen except BIGFOOT.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
That's nonsense. They're an animal. They leave tracks, scat, hair, urine, and may make nests. But.... can't be tracked by dogs, who have no problem tracking other creatures that leave tracks, scat, hair and urine..


Nonsense, alright.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
As is Vance Orchard as recently as 2004, so, once again, Dennett is wrong.


Coming up with two names certainly qualifies as -- "a select few academic supporters".

How did Letterman fail to notice as we did, when Beckjord invaded this forum, that the man is stark raving mad. How did Dennett? Have you seen his website?


I've not only seen it, I once created a parody of it, along with a secondary website to refute his paranormal claims. Do you remember any of the websites I created? If not, that suggests you're fairly new to the internet bigfoot community.

There are differences, visible under the microscope, which he has noted. The DNA testing was inconclusive and the samples may have been contaminated during collection by humans.

You can ignore what Dr. Fahrenbach himself wrote if you wish, but his own admission is quite telling:

"I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair...

I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise." -- Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach, November 3, 1999

Not true.

Really? Fahrenbach himself calls the hairs indistinguishable (impossible to differentiate or tell apart) from human hair. (In other words, he can't tell the difference).

As you wish. I see it's easy for you to dismiss any expert opinions that don't agree with yours.

You've yet to provide ANY evidence that Fahrenbach is an 'expert' at microscopic hair analysis.

Did you see the photo in the article from Cliff Crook? That's one of the ones he was discredited for. Appling the same standard to him that you do to Freeman, you should dismiss everything he found or has said, shouldn't you?

Nope. Opinions are not evidence. I already indicated I wouldn't accept any evidence from Cliff Crook without a great deal of suspicion.

Bigfootprints was published several years before Fahrenbach gave his opinion wasn't it?

Which seems to agree with what I said, that Fahrenbach never actually examined the 'hair' in the early stages. (Actually, I've seen no evidence he EVER examined the Freeman 'hair'.)

But there's no evidence Freeman or anyone else planted those hairs.

But as I pointed out, Freeman twice brought Krantz MORE 'hair', which, if I read correctly, also turned out to be synthetic.

Contamination happens.

So does fraud.

Freeman spent a good part of his like trying to prove he wasn't a "kook". Now that he's dead he's still labled a fraud. Poor guy.

Appeal to pity.

SI needs to apply some of their scepticism to their own articles on this topic.

It would be helpful if someone were to provide some actual evidence. (A body perhaps?)

RayG

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

"I don't think that nine people that seen it could tell the same story. They wouldn't be able to tell the same story if it wasn't true."

Sasquatch knocks on houses in one of Canada's Territories (http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=teslin-bushman13072005)

The creature left behind some evidence, the men said: a footprint about twice the size of a human's, and a small patch of hair found in the area that has been sent to a conservation officer in Whitehorse.

btw this websiteHunting Outfitters (http://www.huntingoutfitters.ca/Hunting_Outfitters_Yukon.htm) does not advertise trophy hunting of sasquatch. Could it be because the Canadian government offers no liscenses to hunt sasquath? Everything else is on the "menu".

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Coming up with two names certainly qualifies as -- "a select few academic supporters".


Dennett's still wrong.


I've not only seen it, I once created a parody of it, along with a secondary website to refute his paranormal claims. Do you remember any of the websites I created? If not, that suggests you're fairly new to the internet bigfoot community.

If joining BFF makes me a member of the "Bigfoot Community", yes, I'm fairly new (though my interest goes back to '68), and I haven't had time to find every post on the forum. Got links?


You can ignore what Dr. Fahrenbach himself wrote if you wish, but his own admission is quite telling:

"I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair...

I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise." -- Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach, November 3, 1999



Really? Fahrenbach himself calls the hairs indistinguishable (impossible to differentiate or tell apart) from human hair. (In other words, he can't tell the difference).


We've posted that, what? Half a dozen times? He noted differences in a caption on a micrograph, but the caption's been removed. I'll try to find something else on it.

http://www.visualsunlimited.com/browse/vu851/vu85166.html



You've yet to provide ANY evidence that Fahrenbach is an 'expert' at microscopic hair analysis.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3058888&dopt=Abstract

http://www.aecom.yu.edu/wormem/DrDavidHallv1/referenc.htm


Nope. Opinions are not evidence. I already indicated I wouldn't accept any evidence from Cliff Crook without a great deal of suspicion.

Shouldn't SI do the same?


Which seems to agree with what I said, that Fahrenbach never actually examined the 'hair' in the early stages. (Actually, I've seen no evidence he EVER examined the Freeman 'hair'.)


"He talked to Paul Freeman, who has spent much of the last several years looking for Bigfoot, and Bill Laughery, an ex-game warden. The three of them decided to drive up and have a look the next morning. They hiked in off the main road and started climbing into the highlands. Then, Sumerlin said, he got "a whiff of something." "Smelled like somebody skinning muskrats. And then I thought, 'Hell, there ain't nobody skinning muskrats up here.' " Freeman had gone on ahead, but Sumerlin called Laughery back. "I stood there just a second or two, and all of a sudden I smelled it: a real pungent, heavy odor like an animal that's in rut. Like you can smell a bull elk or a buck deer," Laughery said. The two men were interviewed separately but gave identical accounts.

Sumerlin and Laughery said they moved together into a clearing, where they found a number of small trees twisted and broken, so fresh they were still dripping sap. There were large clumps of long hair, some black, some dark brown, caught on the trees where they were broken. Laughery started to walk on when Sumerlin said he saw something moving in the trees. "It's like you can't see it, but you can see the daylight breaking behind it," he said. "Bill was there — he packs those sneaky little spy glasses around — and he said, 'Wes, I see something, but I can't put a head on it.' ... I got down by him and he was talking about it while I was walking toward it, and then he said, 'Hell, it's gone.' I was looking at the back of the critter, I was just seeing part of it. But he was looking on the other side, and he was getting a good look at it. But basically we saw the same thing. It was a big, hairy critter, about 7 foot tall, I'd say, covered with hair." "It was 7 to 8 foot tall, buckskin brown, I could see it well enough to see fringe about 1 inch high, a little, on the top of the head," Laughery said. "We were 87 feet away and we stood and watched that for four or five minutes, and it didn't move at all. I looked it up and down. I couldn't see its face. ... I got a quarter-view. And then the minute I turned to Wes to say something, it took off."

Laughery and Sumerlin said they thought that there were actually two creatures, one that moved off down the canyon, another that headed down a small trail. They both saw the big one jump the trail, 15 feet in one leap, and they got a better look at it. They followed it down 60 to 70 yards through ferns and low bushes.

At about that time, they said, Freeman came running up and kept moving toward the car. "Paul said, 'Let's get the hell out of here'," Sumerlin said. But the three of them sat down, quietly. "We sat down three or four minutes and started hearing that brush snapping ," Sumerlin said. "We heard a snip, and then we heard another snip, and every time we heard a snip, we'd point. We didn't say nothing. And pretty soon we got up and went over there and we could hear it breathing. Just a real heavy breathing." From far down in the canyon, they said, there was a whistle. And then a grunt, and a crash of bushes, and whatever it was was gone.

Their story has been discounted by some Bigfoot investigators because it involves Freeman, who is believed to have faked some Bigfoot evidence in the past. But Sumerlin and Laughery said they know all the stories about Freeman and he could not have faked what they saw. Sumerlin has a good reputation in the Blue Mountains, even among skeptics. Hair samples the trio collected finally will tell the tale, Sumerlin and others believe.

Paul Fuerst, associate professor of molecular genetics at Ohio State University, said technical problems have delayed completion of the tests until at least the end of this month. Fuerst said the tests, if they can be completed, "will either show that it was something we know, a bear or a squirrel, or they will show whether it is in fact an unknown species."

Originally published Monday, January 22, 1996 in the Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: 1A By Kim Murphy writer for the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post Service"

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



But as I pointed out, Freeman twice brought Krantz MORE 'hair', which, if I read correctly, also turned out to be synthetic.


I read Big Footprints years ago, but I don't remember this part. I tried to order the new edition from Amazon.com, but they were sold out. Back to the library.



So does fraud.


But not necessarily by Freeman.


Appeal to pity.


My opinion. I think he's getting a bum rap.

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



It would be helpful if someone were to provide some actual evidence. (A body perhaps?)


Perhaps the guy with the gun on the NG show will get lucky.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Why would anyone need to figure that out?

You already know how that could happen with an elk, so why did you ask?


No, I don't. Watch an elk, then draw me a picture.


This obtuseness seems to me to be intentional on your part, Lu.

Why?

Inasmuch as I'm not obtuse, I don't think I can answer that.


You can't seem to think of any way anything could happen except BIGFOOT.

You've said youself you can't see anything on the imprint unless it's pointed out to you.
You take the opinion of a, hm, colorful character over that of five PhDs with specialties in anatomy who actually examined it. The PhD in zoology who saw the imprint you accused (in so many words) of artificially chewing the fruit.

But I'm obtuse? And a liar?

I'll buy my own coffee, thanks.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Dennett's still wrong.

How so? Because you disagree with his findings?

If joining BFF makes me a member of the "Bigfoot Community", yes, I'm fairly new (though my interest goes back to '68), and I haven't had time to find every post on the forum. Got links?

No, my bigfoot websites were online long before the BFF ever existed. So long ago in fact, that though links still exist, the websites do not. Have you heard of the IVBC? It was a bigfoot email list created by Henry Franzoni back in the mid 90's that I belonged to.

We've posted that, what? Half a dozen times?

Seems to be worth repeating.

He noted differences in a caption on a micrograph, but the caption's been removed. I'll try to find something else on it.

I keep pointing it out but you keep sidestepping the issue: Dr. Fahrenbach could not distinguish a human hair from that of a purported sasquatch.

One more time...
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm
The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.

He [Dr. Fahrenbach] says the same thing a second time on the same website:

"I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair..."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3058888&dopt=Abstract

http://www.aecom.yu.edu/wormem/DrDavidHallv1/referenc.htm



Those two links did nothing to show Dr. Fahrenbach is an expert in microscopic hair analysis.

Originally posted by RayG
Opinions are not evidence. I already indicated I wouldn't accept any evidence from Cliff Crook without a great deal of suspicion.

Originally posted by LAL
Shouldn't SI do the same?

I have twice pointed out that Crook provided an opinion NOT evidence to SI. Big difference.

Paul Fuerst, associate professor of molecular genetics at Ohio State University, said technical problems have delayed completion of the tests until at least the end of this month. Fuerst said the tests, if they can be completed, "will either show that it was something we know, a bear or a squirrel, or they will show whether it is in fact an unknown species."

Originally published Monday, January 22, 1996...

What's the purpose of submitting that? I've already given more recent quotes from both Dr. Fahrenbach and Fuerst concerning those hairs. They couldn't distinguish them from human.
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

I read Big Footprints years ago, but I don't remember this part.

And you won't find it in there, because to my knowledge it's not in the book. The original quote I gave for that:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/proponent.html

Krantz did seem somewhat suspicious of hairs from the Blue Mountains when he said:

"Clearly someone was planting samples of Dynel fiber in many places in the Blue Mountains." (Big Footprints page 127)

But not necessarily by Freeman.

Not necessary, but certainly possible. It's also possible someone was trying to dupe Freeman, but not necessarily. It seems rather strange that he kept bringing in fake hair samples.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

No, I don't. Watch an elk, then draw me a picture.

I already gave you 2 pictures, dear. That was you who responded to them, wasn't it?

You really couldn't think up:

There was more than one elk eating the fruit..

The elk kneeled more than once to get some of the fruit.

The elk stepped in it's own track.

The elk or another animal obliterated one of the elk tracks.

In light of the fact that there were two piles of chewed apple in the muddy wallow, I find it frightening that you couldn't come up with the 2 elk idea at least.

Even I, with only 2 bigfeets, can make odd numbers of tracks around a spot. All by myself I can make 3 foot prints. Amazing!

You've said youself you can't see anything on the imprint unless it's pointed out to you.

Fortunately, someone pointed out a few things to me. I think it was the BFRO. :p

An elk knee/leg imprint, for example. :D

Fresh elk, deer, and coyote prints, for example. :D

No sasquatch imprints though. :D

The PhD in zoology who saw the imprint you accused (in so many words) of artificially chewing the fruit

I accused him of making fake chewed fruit and putting it in the muddy wallow. I also accused Fish and Randles of faking the imprint and biasing subsequent observers. :D

Who went out there by themselves at 3:00AM? Who discovered the butt print?

I didn't say anything about a chewing machine though, other than that I wouldn't need one. :D

It's amazing that your mind can come up with an "artificial chewing machine" to make fruit look like it had been chewed, but it can't figure out how to fake tracks, or how an elk might make three tracks in some mud.

I'll buy my own coffee, thanks.

You're welcome. It would have been tea for me, though.

[Winterfrost]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Sasquatch knocks on houses in one of Canada's Territories (http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=teslin-bushman13072005)

The creature left behind some evidence, the men said: a footprint about twice the size of a human's, and a small patch of hair found in the area that has been sent to a conservation officer in Whitehorse.

Anyone heard any follow-up on this? This took place about a week ago, so I figured we would have heard more by now (supposing there is anything to hear :p).

[FFed]

Originally posted by Winterfrost
Anyone heard any follow-up on this? This took place about a week ago, so I figured we would have heard more by now (supposing there is anything to hear :p).

I saw a few news casts on it the other day. One was an interview with a couple of the guys who saw the critter. They said something like, "We were in the shed there, drinking a few beers...."

I was doing something else while another news cast was on but I believe the Conservation Officer who was examining the hair said something to the effect that he was pretty sure it was bison hair.

[LTC8K6]

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-hair20072005&ref=rss

They have a little more info in this update.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=322fe4f2-75e8-4686-9e81-bcb01e8f5935

More there.

[casebro]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=322fe4f2-75e8-4686-9e81-bcb01e8f5935

More there.

from there:
"It was something big, about eight feet tall. It's black, hairy, muscular. It was huge," he said. "He was, like, teasing us, making noises in the bush, coming back and forth."

Sounds exactly the way I would do a hoax. First, make sure the victims have no guns, then put on a suit made from local hides, and 'tease' them 'til I know they must have seen me.

Possibly a copy-cat hoax? after hearing about the other sighting in the neighborhood?

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
How so? Because you disagree with his findings?


No, because he's wrong.



No, my bigfoot websites were online long before the BFF ever existed. So long ago in fact, that though links still exist, the websites do not. Have you heard of the IVBC? It was a bigfoot email list created by Henry Franzoni back in the mid 90's that I belonged to.


No. I was living in the forest in Skamania County in the mid-nineties with only cell-phone service and couldn't get online.


Seems to be worth repeating.


Yes. Maybe you'll notice the part about them never having been cut.


I keep pointing it out but you keep sidestepping the issue: Dr. Fahrenbach could not distinguish a human hair from that of a purported sasquatch.

One more time...
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm
The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.

He [Dr. Fahrenbach] says the same thing a second time on the same website:

"I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair..."

He notes the lack of a medulla, too. He doesn't reach the conclusion they are human hair.

Those two links did nothing to show Dr. Fahrenbach is an expert in microscopic hair analysis.

I said he was an expert in microscopy. He's no lightweight if he was published in PubMed.


I have twice pointed out that Crook provided an opinion NOT evidence to SI. Big difference.


And they take it at face value while ignoring the opinions of people who have examined the cast?


What's the purpose of submitting that? I've already given more recent quotes from both Dr. Fahrenbach and Fuerst concerning those hairs. They couldn't distinguish them from human.
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm


I thought you said you didn't think he'd examined hairs from Freeman. Weren't those the ones examined at OSU?


And you won't find it in there, because to my knowledge it's not in the book. The original quote I gave for that:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/proponent.html


Ah yes, Dennett's "smoked lens".


Krantz did seem somewhat suspicious of hairs from the Blue Mountains when he said:

"Clearly someone was planting samples of Dynel fiber in many places in the Blue Mountains." (Big Footprints page 127)


Couldn't have come from parkas, could it?


Not necessary, but certainly possible. It's also possible someone was trying to dupe Freeman, but not necessarily. It seems rather strange that he kept bringing in fake hair samples.

RayG
I was under the impression the tuft on the branch that turned out to be synthetic was all there was from Freeman.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/proponent.html
"Freeman then produced at least two more sets of "hair" which he gave to Professor Krantz."



Nothing stupid about it, the 'hair' DID fool experts, initially.

RayG


It would be stupid to submit synthetic hair and risk exposure.

Do you have any sources other than Dennett? He didn't uncover the real perpetrator on the Bloomington track, didn't retract on Dahinden's statement, though he did sort of retract on the shoe statement:

"In that article I quoted Dahinden as comparing the Hitler diaries scare to the Mill Creek tracks. In quoting him I wrote: "It turns out that the ink was not invented until 1954." In fact, it was a discrepancy in the paper, not the ink that proved the diaries fake. This was my error, not Dahinden's. I also reported I had been told that Freeman had once worked for an orthopedic-shoe company. At the 1989 International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) meeting Freeman told me he had never worked in the shoe industry. Later when I asked him to release a government employment file, which could have substantiated his denial, he declined. In fairness I should add that despite considerable effort, I was never able to verify this employment with any custom shoe firm."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm

There is some confirmation of a non-opposed thumb from sightings.

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
from there:
"It was something big, about eight feet tall. It's black, hairy, muscular. It was huge," he said. "He was, like, teasing us, making noises in the bush, coming back and forth."

Sounds exactly the way I would do a hoax. First, make sure the victims have no guns, then put on a suit made from local hides, and 'tease' them 'til I know they must have seen me.

Possibly a copy-cat hoax? after hearing about the other sighting in the neighborhood?

Yeah, sure.

Let's see some evidence someone put on a suit and appeared to be 8' tall.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
Yeah, sure.

Let's see some evidence someone put on a suit and appeared to be 8' tall.

http://www.gpetitto.net/images/chewy_resting.jpg

Yeah, I know. That's not what you meant, but I couldn't resist an opening like that. :D

[LTC8K6]

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

It was probably actually 5'9".

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by LAL
Yeah, sure.

Let's see some evidence someone put on a suit and appeared to be 8' tall.
Shifting burden of proof: We aren't here to prove they are hoaxes. Hoaxing just happens to be one explanation that covers a number of sightings pretty well.

If you want to prove that Bigfoot exists, get some evidence so good, hoaxing looks less likely than the existence of Bigfoot. DNA and specimens come to mind.

And yes, as LTC8K6 said, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

One example I remember was quoted by Brian Brushwood, if anyone knows him: Had thousands of people at an airshow when an accident happens, leading to a plane crash. Everything's on camera. Just in case the cameras missed something, police decided to get statements from everyone. Out of the thousands of statements, only 8 matched the events as caught on camera, and only one of those eight provided any useful information.

Anyone know more about that example?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
No, because he's wrong.

In your opinion.

Yes. Maybe you'll notice the part about them never having been cut.

Oh I noticed it, but I also noticed that they couldn't tell the difference between the hair they were examining and human hair.

He notes the lack of a medulla, too. He doesn't reach the conclusion they are human hair.

Nope, he just points out that he can't distinguish them from human hair.

I said he was an expert in microscopy. He's no lightweight if he was published in PubMed.

That doesn't make him an expert at hair analysis though.

And they take it at face value while ignoring the opinions of people who have examined the cast?

You mean like journalist John Green? Why have so few scientists actually examined the cast, and where are the articles published in scientific journals (about the Skookum cast I mean).

I thought you said you didn't think he'd examined hairs from Freeman. Weren't those the ones examined at OSU?

Yes, I stand corrected. I don't believe Krantz specifically mentions Fahrenbach examining them, I'll have to re-read that portion of the book.

Ah yes, Dennett's "smoked lens".

In your opinion.

Couldn't have come from parkas, could it?

Maybe, though I've never heard any explanation other than imitation hair.

I was under the impression the tuft on the branch that turned out to be synthetic was all there was from Freeman.

Have you confirmed that? Though Krantz doesn't mention specifically who brought in all the hair samples from the Blue Mountains, he twice indicates they were from "several places".

RayG

[casebro]

You know, when I bump my head bad enough to leave a clump of hair worth inspecting, the hair is usually atached to some skin. If I pluck a single hair it often has the follicle attached. I would think that out of all those 'bigfoot' hair samples, just one would have some cellular material big enough to do a MTDNA analysis. The cops did OJ Simpson's from a blood droplet. OJ's was a 1 in 50,000,000 match. (stupid jurors). So, one bigfoot follicle could prove his matrilinear genetics- human , ape, orangutan, chimp?

And to defend my copy-cat hoax hypothisis: Without even putting on my furry suit, I'm between 6 feet and 8 feet tall, depending on which convienience store I'm coming out of at the time....and I just remembered that I have a hair-on horse hide in a packing barrel somewhere....borrow a sewing machine...."No, those aren't seams, those are tendons? ...or scars?.....make it reversible to use as a Reptoid tooo.....Next trip to the Mini-Mart, I'l have to buy Micky's Big Mouth Malt Liqour to get in the spirit? I see the Headlines now " Big Foot spotted leaving Del Mar Convienence Store- Security Camera film at 11:00"....awe , nuts... that won't work, the clerk will check my ID to make sure I'm 21...

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
It would be stupid to submit synthetic hair and risk exposure.

Humans sometimes do stupid things.

Do you have any sources other than Dennett?

In Bigfootprints Krantz indicates hair was submitted from "several places"(page 126) and again from "many places" (page 127) in the Blue Mountains. That certainly indicates more than a single clump of hair, though as I said, Krantz doesn't specifically indicate it was Freeman that brought them in.

RayG

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL
Yeah, sure.

Let's see some evidence someone put on a suit and appeared to be 8' tall.

Happens often enough in the movies.

It's really not that hard to fool someone into believing the size difference. Especially with as distant as most sightings have been, and the non-optimal conditions under which they occured.

You've got to do better than this.

[Skeptical Greg]

One would think, that as this creature ( 8' tall, 800 + lbs ) goes tearing through the PNW, virtualy impenetrable by dog and man , it would leave hair ( with follicles ) all over the place .. ???

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
You mean like journalist John Green? Why have so few scientists actually examined the cast, and where are the articles published in scientific journals (about the Skookum cast I mean).



I mean like Drs. Krantz, Swindler, Sarmiento and Meldrum.

I don't know why it's not published. Alton Higgins has mentioned bias, but not necessarily regarding the cast, just on articles by Meldrum and Bindernagle.

And I don't know how many scientists have examined it. There's a standing invitation to them.

>snip<


Have you confirmed that? Though Krantz doesn't mention specifically who brought in all the hair samples from the Blue Mountains, he twice indicates they were from "several places".

RayG

Not really. It was in Meldrum's review of Daegling's book (he didn't mention others) which has been pulled from the website at Meldrum's request, hopefully because he's going to include it in his book.

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Happens often enough in the movies.

It's really not that hard to fool someone into believing the size difference. Especially with as distant as most sightings have been, and the non-optimal conditions under which they occured.

You've got to do better than this.

Try reading some of the books or seeing the video you've all been pointed to or perusing some of the over 8000 reported sightings before you decide what conditions they were under or the range.

It's been possible to measure on trees, e.g., and 8' is pretty consistant for a full grown male.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
One would think, that as this creature ( 8' tall, 800 + lbs ) goes tearing through the PNW, virtualy impenetrable by dog and man , it would leave hair ( with follicles ) all over the place .. ???

There's a population, not an individual, and who says they "tear"? There may be hair that's just not been seen. Some has.

I don't remember Chickaree and deer hair all over my place in Washington. The rain tends to wash anything caught on trees into the detrius anyway. Chances of finding it would be slim, which may account for the scarcity.

[LAL]

In Bigfootprints Krantz indicates hair was submitted from "several places"(page 126) and again from "many places" (page 127) in the Blue Mountains. That certainly indicates more than a single clump of hair, though as I said, Krantz doesn't specifically indicate it was Freeman that brought them in.


And Fahrenbach mentioned others, but didn't say who.

[LAL]

Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to Be of Sasquatch Origin

Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr. and Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch

The authors have examined five specimens of preserved feces and three specimens of animal hair suspected to be of Sasquatch or Bigfoot origin. They find that two of the fecal and two of the hair specimens are definitely attributable to known animals, but the remaining samples are not. Recognizing the limited sample studied, they call for further such analyses to ascertain the origin of the unidentified specimens.

>snip<

"Our laboratory has thus far examined a number of suspected Sasquatch hairs. However, we were not the first to search for suspected Sasquatch hair specimens. John Green reported that in 1968 Wayne Twitchell found six hairs on a bush near Riggins, Idaho, near a reported sighting of two Sasquatch l5. The hair specimens were sent for analysis to Ray Pinker, an instructor of police science at California State College in Los Angeles. His study revealed that the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and non-humans. In his final report, Pinker stated that he could not identify the hairs until he had had an opportunity to examine some authentic Sasquatch hair specimens.

Other people have collected and, in some cases, have sent suspected Sasquatch hair specimens to various laboratories for analysis. As reported by Green and John Napier 16 some of the hair samples have been identified as being from known animals, yet others cannot be attributed to any known animal species.

>snip<

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/bryant.html

Fahrenbach's not the only one who's looked into this.

[Z]

What makes this even funnier is the admitted hoaxters who started the Bigfoot craze.

Granted, Yeti and Sasquatch stories outdate the Bigfoot hoax of the 1950s, but research seems aimed at the creature that we know was definitely a hoax.

BTW - how, 'measuring on a tree' - can you be certain of height? There are folks who could look right at someone standing next to one of those height markers at 7-11 and not know how tall the person was.

As far as 8000 reported sightings... Well, you know what they say: '50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.'

:D

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/bryant.html

Fahrenbach's not the only one who's looked into this.

Interesting link. No date given for when the article was written, but the material used as references seems a wee bit dated.

You left out some important conclusions from their summary:

"...we have not yet found a hair specimen which could be used as conclusive evidence to prove the existence of this creature... We have now had an opportunity to examine the hairs ourselves and have thus far been unable to match them to the hairs of any known animal. However, we are planning to send these hairs to other scientists and also plan to expand our own hair reference collection before we arrive at any definite conclusion concerning these hairs. Another hair sample ...is typical of the tail hair of domestic cows. ...the lack of a well-defined medulla region adds further strength to our conclusion that this hair came from the tail of a domestic cow (Bos raurus). The remaining samples have a granular medulla like that found in the hair of the black bear and not like the small discontinuous hair medulla characteristically found in anthropoids. On the basis of size, colour, and medulla structure and based upon comparisons with our collections of reference hairs, we conclude that these samples are from the black bear (Ursus americanus).

...from our studies there remains no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Sasquatch and, as such, its existence remains an open question."

No positive hair identification from what I'm reading.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
What makes this even funnier is the admitted hoaxters who started the Bigfoot craze.

Just who would that be? Ray Wallace's family, by chance?


Granted, Yeti and Sasquatch stories outdate the Bigfoot hoax of the 1950s, but research seems aimed at the creature that we know was definitely a hoax.

Elaborate, do. Just which creature do we know was definitely a hoax?


BTW - how, 'measuring on a tree' - can you be certain of height?


By noting where the head was compared to the height of a branch. In the case of the PGF a reenactment was done.


There are folks who could look right at someone standing next to one of those height markers at 7-11 and not know how tall the person was.

There are reports that seem to be overestimated, but a great many estimates are right at 8' for a grown male.


As far as 8000 reported sightings... Well, you know what they say: '50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.'

:D

Have you read any of the reports or are you just assuming all the sightings have been in poor conditions at a distance?

Are 50 million Elvis fans seeing Elvis in supermarkets in Minnesota?

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Interesting link. No date given for when the article was written, but the material used as references seems a wee bit dated.

You left out some important conclusions from their summary:

"...we have not yet found a hair specimen which could be used as conclusive evidence to prove the existence of this creature... We have now had an opportunity to examine the hairs ourselves and have thus far been unable to match them to the hairs of any known animal. However, we are planning to send these hairs to other scientists and also plan to expand our own hair reference collection before we arrive at any definite conclusion concerning these hairs. Another hair sample ...is typical of the tail hair of domestic cows. ...the lack of a well-defined medulla region adds further strength to our conclusion that this hair came from the tail of a domestic cow (Bos raurus). The remaining samples have a granular medulla like that found in the hair of the black bear and not like the small discontinuous hair medulla characteristically found in anthropoids. On the basis of size, colour, and medulla structure and based upon comparisons with our collections of reference hairs, we conclude that these samples are from the black bear (Ursus americanus).

...from our studies there remains no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Sasquatch and, as such, its existence remains an open question."

No positive hair identification from what I'm reading.

RayG

No, but no match on the remaining samples, either. And you left this out from the conclusion:

"As scientists, we remain open-minded about the possibility of the existence of Sasquatch. A decade of research has shown us that there are many aspects about the Sasquatch phenomenon which cannot easily be attributed to any known animal species or be easily explained as fakery."

I read the whole article; I didn't post the whole article.

The implication seems to have been that only Fahrenbach looked at hairs and he doesn't know what he's doing and hair analysis is worthless anyway, therefore the baby can safely be tossed out with the bathwater.

This is the first time I've found anything online on alleged Sasquatch hair analysis other than at OSU.

I'm going to pat me on the back even if you won't.

I'm reading a book by Coleman and somebody that mentions the parasites found in scat that weren't known in this country. That's the first time since Green I've seen a mention of that.

[LTC8K6]

parasites found in scat that weren't known in this country

Where did the sasquatch get them then? :D

Will we ever see any detail on these tests?

[LTC8K6]

Alleged sasquatch hair and feces were also tested at the University of Tennessee by John Placyk.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
No, but no match on the remaining samples, either.

They already admitted, which I included, they "plan to expand our own hair reference collection before we arrive at any definite conclusion concerning these hairs."

I have no idea how many hair samples for comparison purposes they had on hand, do you? I don't understand your continued infatuation with hair samples when NONE have been proven to come from a squatch, NONE can be distinguished from human hair, and studies have already shown how inaccurate hair analysis is.

Fahrenbach himself admitted that he was "concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise." HE came to that concluson back in 1999. Why have you not come to the same conclusion?

And you left this out from the conclusion:

"As scientists, we remain open-minded about the possibility of the existence of Sasquatch. A decade of research has shown us that there are many aspects about the Sasquatch phenomenon which cannot easily be attributed to any known animal species or be easily explained as fakery."

And it doesn't add one iota of evidence concerning hair analysis.

The implication seems to have been that only Fahrenbach looked at hairs and he doesn't know what he's doing and hair analysis is worthless anyway, therefore the baby can safely be tossed out with the bathwater.

I never stated that ONLY Fahrenbach looked at the hairs. I HAVE asked a number of times whether or not he's considered an expert in HAIR ANALYSIS by those not involved in bigfoot research. I've also pointed out results of studies that show how fallible hair analysis tests are. And, I've pointed out where even Dr. Fahrenbach, as long ago as 1999, indicated hair analysis held no promise.

This is the first time I've found anything online on alleged Sasquatch hair analysis other than at OSU.

But we don't know when that was written, and the sources used were very dated.

I'm going to pat me on the back even if you won't.

If it were recent and showed promise or advancement, I'd pat you on the back too.

I'm reading a book by Coleman and somebody that mentions the parasites found in scat that weren't known in this country.

That still isn't evidence of bigfoot.

RayG

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL
Just who would that be? Ray Wallace's family, by chance?

Yep. Pretty damning, you know.

Elaborate, do. Just which creature do we know was definitely a hoax?

The California Bigfoot, specifically - the North American breed.


By noting where the head was compared to the height of a branch. In the case of the PGF a reenactment was done.

A very implausible method. And also very hard to get right. I've had experience with this method of height estimation, and unless it's something you practice a LOT - it's very easy to get it wrong. Trees and tree branches tend to look a lot alike on a regular basis - especially when a witness is in awe of seeing some furry critter stalking on the woodline.

There are reports that seem to be overestimated, but a great many estimates are right at 8' for a grown male.

Mass public awareness of the phenomenon and its characteristic attributes couldn't possibly account for this, could it?

Have you read any of the reports or are you just assuming all the sightings have been in poor conditions at a distance?

Of the 200 (rough estimate) I have read, the most plausible and least likely fake ones were all in poor conditions and at a distance. There definitely appears to be a correllation between credibility and closeness of encounter, at least in the sample I have read. Like maybe Bigfoot only likes getting close to known frauds, liars, and fame-hunters.

Are 50 million Elvis fans seeing Elvis in supermarkets in Minnesota?

No, but it's a good point to make - a few dozen see Elvis in supermarkets and gas stations, and suddenly thousands more are proclaiming that he's still alive - and a lot are seeing Elvis everywhere.

The point being, 8000 purported encounters goes no farther to demonstrating the existence of this creature than it would to demonstrate the survival of Elvis. All it takes is one fraud and 7,999 gullible morons - and there is no end to the supply of gullible morons in America - and there you go.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Where did the sasquatch get them then? :D

Will we ever see any detail on these tests?

According to Green in one of his earliest works, the parasites were known from pigs and people in China.

Lessee, could they have crossed the Bering Strait in Sasquatch guts?

I've been able to find nothing more on this except for the brief mention by Coleman.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
There's a population, not an individual, and who says they "tear"? There may be hair that's just not been seen. Some has.

I don't remember Chickaree and deer hair all over my place in Washington. The rain tends to wash anything caught on trees into the detrius anyway. Chances of finding it would be slim, which may account for the scarcity.

Are you sure about that? We're talking, after all, about something that is avidly sought, and well worth the effort of finding. I'm willing to bet that if you were trying to prove the existence of deer, you'd be able to find evidence if you followed the tracks into the puckerbrush. Of course, deer may be clumsier than the wily sasquatch, but anyone who has lived in the woods for long or had a country garden for long knows that deer do bump into things, and they do leave hair and occasionally even skin on trees, brambles and fences, and if proving the existence of deer suddenly became an important goal in your life, I think you'd find some.

If avidly interested experts whose careers would be made by one good piece of evidence cannot find even one hair or one flake of skin that isn't considered ambiguous or insufficient, there are, of course, many possible causes, but the only two that do not require a generous measure of credulity are the inadequacy of the search or the nonexistence of the quarry.

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yep. Pretty damning, you know.

Not at all. Wallace had a lively souvenier business going and did some fakery related to that. His family conveniently didn't confess for him until it was too late to ask him just where the tracks he supposedly faked were found. He wouldn't have known. His carved feet did not match casts from that or any other trackway. The Six O'clock News didn't tell you that, did it?

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/wallace.html


The California Bigfoot, specifically - the North American breed.


Nonsense. The film has not been debunked, nor have the casts and photos of prints. Bob Heironimus has been, however.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm


A very implausible method. And also very hard to get right. I've had experience with this method of height estimation, and unless it's something you practice a LOT - it's very easy to get it wrong. Trees and tree branches tend to look a lot alike on a regular basis - especially when a witness is in awe of seeing some furry critter stalking on the woodline.

How exact does it have to be? I had to estimate height on an armed robber once and with no skill at this at all I got it to within an inch.


Mass public awareness of the phenomenon and its characteristic attributes couldn't possibly account for this, could it?


Not in a time when there was little to no publicity about it and not where there's physical evidence to back up the sighting.


Of the 200 (rough estimate) I have read, the most plausible and least likely fake ones were all in poor conditions and at a distance. There definitely appears to be a correllation between credibility and closeness of encounter, at least in the sample I have read. Like maybe Bigfoot only likes getting close to known frauds, liars, and fame-hunters.

And just how did you determine what is credible and what isn't? I don't think the people I knew who investigated events in Skamania County in 1969 and my friends who had friends and relatives who'd seen them would appreciate your comment.


No, but it's a good point to make - a few dozen see Elvis in supermarkets and gas stations, and suddenly thousands more are proclaiming that he's still alive - and a lot are seeing Elvis everywhere.

The point being, 8000 purported encounters goes no farther to demonstrating the existence of this creature than it would to demonstrate the survival of Elvis. All it takes is one fraud and 7,999 gullible morons - and there is no end to the supply of gullible morons in America - and there you go.

Who are you to judge people you don't even know? And just where did you read these 200 reports?

In case you didn't know it, some of those "Elvis sightings" were of impersonators.

People who have had Sasquatch sightings hardly fall into a category of "guillible morons", or any category at all. They come from all walks of life and they're not members of some national Bigfoot fan club.

They see what they see.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
They already admitted, which I included, they "plan to expand our own hair reference collection before we arrive at any definite conclusion concerning these hairs."

I have no idea how many hair samples for comparison purposes they had on hand, do you? I don't understand your continued infatuation with hair samples when NONE have been proven to come from a squatch, NONE can be distinguished from human hair, and studies have already shown how inaccurate hair analysis is.

Fahrenbach himself admitted that he was "concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise." HE came to that concluson back in 1999. Why have you not come to the same conclusion?

Because it's still been shown what it's not. Why are samples still being submitted if the hair holds no promise, and why does he state he has over a dozen he's willing to identify as Sasquatch? I'm hardly "infatuated". The hair is just a small part of the evidence. It's interesting even if not compelling.

And it doesn't add one iota of evidence concerning hair analysis.

I never stated that ONLY Fahrenbach looked at the hairs. I HAVE asked a number of times whether or not he's considered an expert in HAIR ANALYSIS by those not involved in bigfoot research. I've also pointed out results of studies that show how fallible hair analysis tests are. And, I've pointed out where even Dr. Fahrenbach, as long ago as 1999, indicated hair analysis held no promise.

I read all that. But our continual harping on Fahrenbach may be giving the impression no one but him has examined hairs.
Dr. Fahrenbach was at Oregon Primate Research Center and sent the hairs to Dr. Fuerst at OSU, so whether he's considered an expert on hair analysis or not, he didn't rely on his own expertise.

Tissue is needed. But sixteen samples identified as "unknown" or "unknown primate" (according to Roger Knights, and I don't know his sources, but I'm sure he's got 'em) is pretty suggestive. Presumably human hair was ruled out as well. We're primates.


But we don't know when that was written, and the sources used were very dated.

Prior to 1980, anyway.


If it were recent and showed promise or advancement, I'd pat you on the back too.

I've told you where to find more recent findings (still inconclusive, of course). I'm not a very good DVD salesperson, am I?

I find it frustrating to find news stories stating samples have been sent to an independent lab or the RCMP and that's all I can find.


That still isn't evidence of bigfoot.

Not even evidence they migrated over the Bering Strait from China? Gosh, I'm crushed. That one paragraph from Green back in '68 was what really got my attention in the first place as I was moving to the Northwest.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Correa Neto

The films, the photograms, all that´s been shown at TV and internet. There´s no need for an "army of" hoaxers. A few of them, acting indenpendently could do a lot of things.

Originally posted by LAL
Such as fake footprints in 1958, and three times in two countries in April, 2005? With a whole lotta hoaxing in between? In remote areas where all this handiwork wasn't likely to be found?


Ever considered the possibilty of all these “evidences� being a product of hoaxes AND misinterpretations?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
IF its a relative to bigfoot. And that´s all that it is. And if its a relative to orang-utang, then it does hurt.

Originally posted by LAL
Depends on whether it was bipedal or not, doesn't it?

Nope. You have to (1) prove that big foot exists; (2) prove that Gigantopithecus was biped and (3) prove that the two animals were related. A bit of work remains to be done, don´t you think?

Originally posted by LAL
Homo erectus lived from 1.8 million years to 300,000 ago and was very widespread, yet remains of only about 40 individuals from two or three locations (according to the Smithsonian's rather out-of-date website) have been found. The population must have numbered in the millions, yet only one boy managed to die in such a way that his nearly complete skeleton could be found at Lake Turkana.

Note that they left their remains, so we managed to have a good idea on their constitution and geographic span. Note also that their geographic span is comparable to that of bigfoot and relatives. And even if the millions of individuals figures is correct (could not find refferences), what was bigfoot population before humans begun to mess with the environment? Quite possibly above the current 14000 individuals estimates within USA. So, nothing you wrote serves as an explanation for absence of bigfoot remains (fossil or not).

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Note that, on purpose, I am not considering its "tropical equivalents" in Southern Asia, the hairy wildmen (woodwoose) from mediaeval Great Britain (and its European equivalents) and the (sadly distorted) mapinguari legend from Brazil.

Originally posted by LAL
Good idea.

Sure, few areas on Earth will be left outside as places where remains (fossil or not) should have been found.

Now, after what I wrote about the mapinguari, do you still consider the legend as a reliable indication of the presence of a giant sloth or a giant primate in the Amazon forest? And, don´t you think similar distortions could have happened to the other legends (amas, yeti, sasquatch, etc.) cited as "evidence" for the existence of these animals?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
That´s really hard, since the type of evidence currently avaliable for Nessie and bigfoot are quite similar. That´s why I asked you where and how you draw the line between a plausibe crypto (bigfoot) and an unlikely one (Nessie)? What are the criteria for unlumping them together?

Originally posted by LAL
Loch Ness was scanned, wasn't it? No Nessie. Last I heard it was thought a school of Dolphins could account for sightings in the loch. I don't know how the photo of the flipper is explained............

Sturgeons and otters are the most likely candidates to be misinterpreted nessie sightings (same is valid for ogopogo). Check a picture of a sturgeon´s lateral fin and you´ll see a pretty good candidate fot the “flipper photo�.

Now, plenty of people are currently working and worked at the areas where bigfeet are supposed to live. In a way, you can say it was (and is being) scanned.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
OK, then you understand the animals must have not only crossed but lived in open-field environments.

Originally posted by LAL
No, I don't. If they followed the coast, in search of fish, perhaps, and the forests were more northerly and the Strait not all grassland and tundra and the climate milder they need not have been in the open much at all.

Ifs, maybes and mays. Do you know that many places that were used for the habitat expansion are still above sea level? And that actually they are well above it? When icecaps retreat, isostasy happens. Since the weight of the glaciers is no longer present, the ground slowly is uplifted. This is called isostasy. Not to mention that the migration routes did not followed the shoreline all along. They followed gaps in the glaciers, many of these gaps were well within the continent.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Thus it is not far-fetched to suppose their fossils could be found with fossils from animals that lived all their lives in open-field environments. Not to mention the transitional environments.

Originally posted by LAL
Except that there's no evidence they live anywhere but in forests.

Actually there´s no evidence that they live anywhere. And forest animals are fossilized also. I´ve already explained that.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Again if Bryne is correct. Note that a basic requisite for it is that the animal must exist. What is far from being proved.

Originally posted by LAL
It's far from being proved that it doesn't.

I say the odds are, given what we know, that its does not exists. It may exist, but it is quite unlikely.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
What, once again, would favor preservation of remains.

Originally posted by LAL
Rapid burial, for one thing.

That was not a question. That was a statement. Rapid burial is one way of enhancing fossilization chances. A quiet, oxigen-deprived lake with slow silt or mud deposition are very nice environments for fossilization. I´ll write again: Taking in to account the whole area these creatures are supposed to live nowdays (or have lived in the past)there´s a large number of possible fossilization sites, and by different processes.

Originally posted by LAL
It's hard to confuse a giant hominid track with anything else. I have copies of the Bossburg casts (they're not as large as Closner's cast, but they're still impressive). The deformity is consistent with metatarsus adductus. It's difficult to imagine a hoaxer, in 1969, being able to lay down 1089 tracks overnight with such a deformity. Tracks like that were seen 30 years earlier, incidently.

Is this one or two of the same few hoaxers? Why did they only do this in '69? Why not repeat the stunt rather than waste a perfectly good pair of fake feet that were good enough to fool a professor of anatomy. Why not just use the feet from Bluff Creek........one set, anyway?

It´s already being discussed by other posters here. And yes, it seems the hoaxers can fool a lot of people, actually it seems that a lot of people get confused even without the hoaxer´s help.... Why the hoaxers made his stunt just in 1969? You should ask to the hoaxers, not to me.

Originally posted by LAL
You're not saying everything that drowns in a flood becomes a fossil are you? That would only be a first step. Siltation is pretty light in areas like the PNW.

Of course not. Anyone can see that. What I am saying is that animals die in floods, including those that live in forests, what increases the chances of having their remains preserved.

And once again you use PNW as a comparsion. You should understand that such argument is completely useless, unless the creature not only is endemic to this area but also evolved there, maybe from a squirrel...

Its another OT digression, but I´ll take that by "siltation" you are reffering to deposition of silt, the granulometric fraction between fine sand and clay. If this is so, can ou really say there´s little silt deposition across the whole area composed by the PNW? I say that if there are any lakes nearby glaciers, or are fed by creeks or rivers that are born in glaciers, your claim is flawed.

Originally posted by LAL
There may be evidence of humans 40,000 years ago. Where are all the human remains from that period?

In Africa, Europe and Asia. There´s no reliable evidence of humans in the Americas 40Ky ago. Where are the evidences for bigfoot for ANY time period ANYWHERE?

Originally posted by LAL
Jaguars live in both forest and savannahs. Their diet is unlike that of Sasquatches and they're not related, are they?
No Grizzlies in the forests of the PNW. They may be in the North Cascades, I've been told, but that's pretty far inland and much drier.
It appears Sasquatches don't overlap with Grizzlies and Jaguars. Your point?

If jaguars and bigfoot are related? Well, since bigfoot is immaginary, it can be even related to terrapins...
You wrote on the previous post about fossils of jaguars and grizzlies. And stated that these animals did not lived in forests, thus they would not be found associated with bigfoot. As you can see, they do live in forests. And the supposed geographic span of bigfoot do overlaps with that of the grizzly bear.

And again, since PNW is not the only place where bigfeet are suposed to live or to have lived, using it as a standard is useless.
These are my points.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Why do you think the fossil record of caves is so nice? All the animals whose fossils were found in caves spent much time hanging out there?

What happens is that caves are natural water and humidity sources. Animals are attracted to them during dry periods.

Originally posted by LAL
Western Washington doesn't have dry periods.

Another claim that you can´t really defend. You are saying that its such a blessed area that never has dry periods? Years or months when there´s exceptionally small precipitation? It never happened? The climate never changed there?

And I´ll write again: Even if PNW is such an unlikely place that never has dry periods (add this to PNW´s list of oddities), as an argument, it was useless, since the creature is not supposed to be endemic to this area, today or in the past...

Originally posted by LAL
Those casts are pretty solid.

Yep. Plaster do solidifies after drying.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Weakened, victims of a fall, or just lost in the darkness, they commonly die there. Some just fall inside sinkholes hidden by vegetation. Also, some cave entrances act as "natural sinks". During strong rains, water running over the surface carries a lot of loose material to the cave, sediments, dead leaves, twigs, loose bones and carcasses.

If I recall correctly, that´s one of the possible reasons for hominid fossils in caves in Africa. The events chain would have been something like this: leopard kills hominid, carries body to the top of a tree, remains fall to the ground, are washed away by rain to a cave, humans find, hundreds of Ky later, the skull -with leopard´s teeth marks included.

So animal species don´t even need to have as part of its habits to take temporary shelter at a cave to become fossilized inside one.

Why I have insisted on the limestone cave? Not only because they are much more common than lava tubes or quartzite caves, but because the constant precipitation of carbonate inside them helps a lot the fossilization.

Originally posted by LAL
To my knowlege, the limestone caves in the PNW are nowhere near the mountains. The area's volcanic. No limestone caves.
The PNW seems to have the largest Sasquatch population, based on reports.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, see now why it is not far-fetched to suppose bigfoot remains could be found inside a cave? Even if they don´t spend much time there?

Do we agree on that?

Originally posted by LAL
Not until you can show me a limestone cave on Mt. St. Helens.

Apes Caves on Mt. St. Helens are lava tubes....not too good for preservation. Bears would tend to exploit caves in the area and bears scavenge. If the nocturnal behavior has to do with avoiding bears, they may avoid places where bears hang out (or hibernate) such as caves.

...snip...
However, I'm having difficulty imagining an African leopard in the PNW dropping a Sasquatch into a sinkhole, which seem to occur in the Southeast, not in the NW.

...snip... I don't see that it's a problem given the habitat and the lack of leopards and limestone caves. Cougars feed on the ground, I believe.

Are you kidding? I can´t belive you really have not understood my point. No predator needs to kill a bigfoot for its remains (those from the bigfoot, not the predator)be preserved in a cave. It just has to die near the cave. Water flowing over the ground may carry the bones to the cave. It does not even need to have ever entered the cave when alive!

Oh, please, don´t use "there´s no limestone caves in PNW" as an argument...
PNW is not the only place these animals were supposed to live or to have lived.

Originally posted by LAL
What about the new mammals found in Viet Nam? Is there a fossil record for them?

You can not compare the discovery of a mammal in Vietnam with bigfoot´s non-discovery. Take a look on the differences between the sizes of the animals (a small deer X a 2 to 3 m high ape) and the logistics (Vietnam X USA). So, people can discover a small deer in a remote jungle in Vietnam but not a 3m-high ape in USA...
Neither the discovery of a new parrot species in the Amazon jungle with bigfoot´s non-discovery, for the same reasons. So, people can discover a small parrot within the Amazon jungle in Brazil but not a 3m-high ape in USA...
Neither the (re)discovery of a woodpecker species in USA with bigfoot´s non-discovery serves as an argument. Heck, birds are even smaller and usually don´t leave tracks, since they spend most of their time flying. So, people can rediscover a woodpecker but not a 3m-high ape...

Originally posted by LAL
Sure. But that doesn't mean thousands of track events are all cases of mistaken identity. Or that all the sightings are, or that the films are of bipedal bears.

Of course all the tracks are not mistaken identities. What about the hoaxes?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
There are evidence for human migration. Campsites, remains, at several places along the path, from Asia to North America, extending towards South America!

Originally posted by LAL
Such as where the mammoths were plentiful?

Mammoths in South America? South America´s early human pouplation was adapted to small game. Your point was?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Ah, so we agree that the species must have spreaded rather than migrated. Progressively expanding its habitat to include Russia, Asias´s eastern coast, Alaska, Canada and USA. What leaves us with a lot of places to find fossil evidence...

Originally posted by LAL
Except for the in the forests.

Already discussed. Forest animals do get preserved. It just depends on where in the forest the animal dies.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
...snip...
So, we do have evidence on the human habitat expansion. Not only of the younger one, that brought the people that nowdays compose amerindians, but also of a previous wave.

Originally posted by LAL
That's interesting.

But no human remains on the Bering Strait?

Check Paleoarctic tradition. And would you allow me to remind you that bigfeet´s supposed habitats were not restricted to the Bering land bridge and PNW?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
All of them? Every single individual since the species appeared? At all the places where it lives(ed)?
Originally posted by LAL
Why not? It seems to have happened with Gorillas and Chimps and a couple of million years worth of "seed" apes.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
But it was found! Any bigfeet molar avaliable?
Originally posted by LAL
If it were, the scofftics would say it was planted and belonged to a elk.

I doubt. Every single biologist or paleontologist would love to have such a finding in his/hers hands.

Originally posted by LAL
There's a problem of how Yowies, if they exist, got to Australia.
If Sasquatches are closely related to the Russian Kaptar, it seems more likely they took the northern route, especially since they don't seem to have a talent for raft-building.

Any evidence of this? Maybe they came flying, mounting on mothmen´s or big birds´ backs...

Originally posted by LAL
And we may have fossil evidence of a species related to Sasquatches as well.

May. See the begining pf this post.

Originally posted by LAL
Punc Ec.
Didn't I mention I spent a couple of years debating Creationists........and posting lists of transitional fossils?


Then you know your argument was really worthless.

Originally posted by LAL
There's a better chance of a live one being brought in.

Stil, I will not be holding my breath...

Originally posted by LAL
That's "Appalachians". They're the oldest on the continent and among the oldest in the world. If they're not the oldest, the NPS is wrong. I've found several sites that say they're among the oldest in the world.

You know, there´s realiable and unreliable information. If you read - and understood- what I wrote you´ll see it´s just plain wrong. Compare the age of the Appalachian Orogeny 350 to 300 Ma (million years) 600 My and 2.1 Gy orogenesis. And these are not even the oldest ones, they just happen to be among the better known.

Originally posted by LAL
Then you have read Krantz? What, specifically, did you find wrong with his methodology and/or conclusions? I would not consider listing your sources "bragging about it".

My critic is to the dataused. This critic applies to every single text I´ve read defending the existence of bigfoot. The data used for all speculation is unreliable.

The data is composed by:
(i) Reports of sightings. There´s very little controll on this, specially the oldest cases. Memories change with times, sometimes "filling up" the voids, in some cases people can´t even differentiate between dreams and reality after a long time. Not to mention pure lies and hoaxes.
(ii) Interpretation of myths. I´ve already been through this. Its not reliable.
(iii) Pictures and footage. They have poor quality, and one can not dismiss them as misinterpreatations, pareidolia and hoaxes.
(iv) Alleged tracks. This is being discussed by the other posters. Unreliable, since a combination of misinterpretation and hoaxes can do the trick.
(v) Hair samples. Again already being discussed by other posters. No reliable evidence provided at best. And with the shadow of hoaxes floating around.

So, with this foundation, the whole building is very frail.

edited to fix some really messed up cut-and-paste

[FFed]

Originally posted by LAL

How exact does it have to be? I had to estimate height on an armed robber once and with no skill at this at all I got it to within an inch.


The difference there is that you see people everyday. When it comes to unfamiliar things, people can be very wrong.
After interviewing a hell of a lot of people about bear encounters, I can easily say people have no idea about what they see in the bush. Not only will a group of people witnessing a bear tell me different sizes, some can't even agree on the number of bears they saw.
The one thing I learnt is to never trust what people say they saw. Especially when it comes to animal behaviour.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by FFed
The difference there is that you see people everyday. When it comes to unfamiliar things, people can be very wrong.
After interviewing a hell of a lot of people about bear encounters, I can easily say people have no idea about what they see in the bush. Not only will a group of people witnessing a bear tell me different sizes, some can't even agree on the number of bears they saw.
The one thing I learnt is to never trust what people say they saw. Especially when it comes to animal behaviour.
That's a good example: We're reasonably certain that bears exist. But even so, eyewitnesses of bears are still unreliable. Knowing that, how can we trust any eyewitnesses for something we aren't certain exists? If bearology or whatever was centered on eyewitness accounts, rather than real evidence, you'd probably have people like erikwhathisname out in the woods searching for 40 foot tall black bears who eat hummers for breakfast.

[Hitch]

I'm going to post this again because it's probably been forgotten or ignored. Now I can't cite a reference for this, or name the principals involved, so I understand if people have a hard time accepting it. That's why I don't offer this as evidence to convince anyone else of anything, but merely as an explanation why I have a great deal of difficultly accepting other people's evidence.

Approximately 30 years ago (and that's why I'm fuzzy on many details) I saw a TV show about Bigfoot. Much of the show focussed on on of the Bigfoot "experts" of the time. They let him go on at length about his findings and theories. I don't remember the name, but he was highly respected by Bigfoot enthusiast at the time (and possible to this date). Then they profiled a hoaxer. They showed his fake feet and how he left bogus tracks. Then they brought the "expert" to the site of the tracks the hoaxer had faked and he examined them and pronounced them not only authentic, but "unfakeable." This is why I have a great deal of difficultly accepting weak or "interpreted" evidence by Bigfoot "experts."

And I'm still waiting for someone to post me a link to a non-grainy out of focus picture of a Bigfoot. I read about "experts" analyzing them in great detail, but no one seems to have ever posted a decent scan of any of these good photographs on the internet. To me that seems remarkable. Or are they reading stuff into the blurry, grainy, out of focus pictures that I've seen that no skeptical mind could ever see?

I'm waiting to be impessed. Don't tell me how many other people believe weak evidence. Show me something I can believe without relying on other people's interpretation (guesswork).

Hair and DNA analysis won't cut it until there's a known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. Yes, I know that doesn't really work for proving Bigfoot's existence. All it would do is establish the range of habitation if known to exist. Until then inconclusive results of test of samples are simply that... inconclusive.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Hitch
I'm going to post this again because it's probably been forgotten or ignored. Now I can't cite a reference for this, or name the principals involved, so I understand if people have a hard time accepting it. That's why I don't offer this as evidence to convince anyone else of anything, but merely as an explanation why I have a great deal of difficultly accepting other people's evidence.

Have you forgotten my response to that? It would help greatly if you could remember the name of this "expert". I'm willing to bet it wasn't Dr. Meldrum.


And I'm still waiting for someone to post me a link to a non-grainy out of focus picture of a Bigfoot. I read about "experts" analyzing them in great detail, but no one seems to have ever posted a decent scan of any of these good photographs on the internet. To me that seems remarkable. Or are they reading stuff into the blurry, grainy, out of focus pictures that I've seen that no skeptical mind could ever see?

Sceptical minds see a guy in a suit and ignore all the evidence against that. The clearest PGF is on LMS, as I've noted. It's in the extras section as well as in the show. The film is copyrighted, so you're not going to be able to get it on a free download, but you can find plenty of stills on BFF and a couple on the BFRO website.

If you want every hair, you won't find that, but if you try hard enough, you may be able to find links to Cliff Crook's bogus photos that very nearly show every hair on what seems to be a model. Happy Googling!


I'm waiting to be impessed. Don't tell me how many other people believe weak evidence. Show me something I can believe without relying on other people's interpretation (guesswork).

Hair and DNA analysis won't cut it until there's a known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. Yes, I know that doesn't really work for proving Bigfoot's existence. All it would do is establish the range of habitation if known to exist. Until then inconclusive results of test of samples are simply that... inconclusive.

Ignore the hair and there's still plenty of evidence there's at least one living, bipedal hominid species ranging the forests of NA.

When scofftics come up with something better than the hoax hypothesis, elk knees and cries of "weak" evidence, maybe I'll listen, but I'm not seeing anything persuasive from that side, so far, at all.

[Z]

So how many have you seen, LAL?

Ignoring the hair, the footprint casts - which have been very inconsistant -, the exceptionally poor photographic and videographic evidence, the questionable scat samples, the unreliable eyewitness reports, and you still have to face the lack of fossil records and remains, the lack of blood or skin samples, the lack of habitation evidence, the lack of sightings by qualified biologists, the improbable nature of a creature being able to hide in the woods for hundreds of years unobserved, the lack of appearance of adolescent or female members of the species, and the several times when hoaxers have been fully able to fool so-called 'experts'.

All-in-all, things look pretty bad for the pathetic morons who still push 'Bigfoot' on folks.

As far as your friends' friends and relatives being insulted - Well, too bad. But I've seen it plenty of times before. I'm a Pagan priest; I see lots of people every single day deluding themselves into believing all manner of tripe and nonsense. I've even seen people who, after being shown solid evidence of what they actually saw, swear that they know what they saw, be it faeries, bogies, ghosts, or any other supernatural stuff.

But your acquaintances shouldn't feel too insulted - most people are gullible morons. It's just that people like you, who continue to feed the morons this nonsense, are responsible for the problem, really.

Now - how about some solid evidence, and not more of this pathetic stuff?

[Skeptical Greg]

Not even evidence they migrated over the Bering Strait from China? Gosh, I'm crushed. That one paragraph from Green back in '68 was what really got my attention in the first place as I was moving to the Northwest. Uhhh, how long ago did that migration take place? And Bigfoot is the only creature in which this parasite has persisted?



P.S.

We have to have a creature before we can speculate about where it migrated from?

You keep talking about wanting science to look at this seriously while ignoring how science is conducted..


hint: Specimen first.. History, habits, diet, behavior & etc. all follow...

[hodgy]

Correa Netto: Superb - you took the (albeit dodgy) pro-bigfoot argument to tiny pieces. I've been watching this thread awhile and yours was the most conclusive refutation (there's others 99% as good but apologies - Correa's was superlative).

I suppose we should be grateful to believers for keeping us supplied with interesting threads :o)

[Skeptical Greg]

It's difficult to imagine a hoaxer, in 1969, being able to lay down 1089 tracks overnight with such a deformity. Tracks like that were seen 30 years earlier, incidently. It's a lot harder to imagine that all these Bigfoots are not laying down many more tracks themselves, much less one individual leaving only two sets of tracks over 30 years..

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Because it's still been shown what it's not.

How do you know which hairs it's being compared to? Have the people testing the hairs compared the 'purported' squatch hair to hair samples from ALL North American mammals in that area? The admission that they "plan to expand our own hair reference collection..." suggests they might not have.

Why are samples still being submitted if the hair holds no promise...

Because of the hope and possibility of obtaining a sample of DNA from the hair core.

...and why does he state he has over a dozen he's willing to identify as Sasquatch?

I know he's said this: "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair..."

That's a direct quote.

I'm hardly "infatuated". The hair is just a small part of the evidence. It's interesting even if not compelling.

It was only interesting up to a point. I've seen no recent information on hair analysis that is either interesting OR compelling.

I read all that. But our continual harping on Fahrenbach may be giving the impression no one but him has examined hairs.

If the hair analysis is inconclusive does it matter?

Dr. Fahrenbach was at Oregon Primate Research Center and sent the hairs to Dr. Fuerst at OSU, so whether he's considered an expert on hair analysis or not, he didn't rely on his own expertise.

Back in 1998 both Fahrenbach and Fuerst agreed the hair analysis did not provide definitive proof.

But sixteen samples identified as "unknown" or "unknown primate" (according to Roger Knights, and I don't know his sources, but I'm sure he's got 'em) is pretty suggestive. Presumably human hair was ruled out as well.

Suggestive sources should be quoted. ;) Some say Fahrenbach's results are suggestive. From what I've read, that's not the case. If presuming human hair was ruled out equates to 'indistinguishable FROM human hair', have they really been ruled out? (I'm not certain what sources/analysis you're referring to, so I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

Prior to 1980, anyway.

More recent hair analysis results have proven nothing.

I've told you where to find more recent findings (still inconclusive, of course). I'm not a very good DVD salesperson, am I?

You aren't allowed to quote small portions of the hair analysis results?

Not even evidence they migrated over the Bering Strait from China? Gosh, I'm crushed.

As well you should be. :D You've offered no proof that bigfoot migrated over the Bering Strait.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So how many have you seen, LAL?

Meaning compelling scofftic arguments? So far, none. Some good questions, but not an iota of evidence that all this can be explained by hoaxes, misidentification and some sort of primordial need to see big, hairy "boogeymen". Why don't desert-dwellers have this need?


Ignoring the hair, the footprint casts - which have been very inconsistant -,


Be specific. If you're referring to the three-toed tracks in Dennett's article they could be due to a congenital deformity, or there may be another unknown species.


Some tracks found at Bluff Creek seven years prior to the PGF turned out to be from the same individual.


the exceptionally poor photographic and videographic evidence,

Seeing them on TV doesn't really give a good idea of the quality. Being that most encounters last about 20 seconds and are usually at night, it seems amazing to me there are films and videos at all.

the questionable scat samples,


Questionable? The sheer volume of some rule out just about anything but horses, and the difference there can be detected easily, as evidenced by Dahinden's famous comment on the finding of some of that.


the unreliable eyewitness reports,


What makes you think they're all unreliable? Sasquatches have been seen by everyone from school kids to professional people, one a psychologist. A PhD photographed tracks in California this last April.

and you still have to face the lack of fossil records and remains,

Okapi's don't have a fossil record either, nor do Chimpanzees and Gorillas. It was 67 years between the "discovery" of the Giant Panda and a live capture, despite expeditions trying to obtain them for zoos.

the lack of blood or skin samples,

Just how would you go about getting those without risking getting your head removed?


the lack of habitation evidence,


You need to do your homework. A "feeding lot" was found after the Nelson Creek sighting/video this year. There seem to be some territorial marking and occasional nests. They seem to range singly or in small family groups. They don't leave much sign, nor are there many people out looking for it.


the lack of sightings by qualified biologists,


Of course one did discover a trackway. There haven't been many biologists out looking for them, have there?

the improbable nature of a creature being able to hide in the woods for hundreds of years unobserved,

Make that plural. They're nocturnal and inhabit rough terrain in the PNW that's not only uninhabited, it's seldom visited by humans, especially at night. Dozens of planes have vanished without a trace in those forests since WWII.

They may also inhabit deep forests in other parts of the country (and Canada).

They are observed, just not by scientists yet.

the lack of appearance of adolescent or female members of the species,

What? The figure in the MD footage appears to be an adolescent female and may have a baby with her. The second figure in the 1994 Freeman footage may be a female hoisting an infant. The PGF is clearly of a female. There are many reports of females and the Ostman incident involved a family group with a female and two adolescents. "Jacko" may have been an adolescent male.

and the several times when hoaxers have been fully able to fool so-called 'experts'.

Name 'em and give the details.

All-in-all, things look pretty bad for the pathetic morons who still push 'Bigfoot' on folks.

Ad hominem attacks on people who take this seriously do nothing to further your case.

As far as your friends' friends and relatives being insulted - Well, too bad. But I've seen it plenty of times before. I'm a Pagan priest; I see lots of people every single day deluding themselves into believing all manner of tripe and nonsense.


And you make money encouraging this? Or do you do it for free. Either way, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. :p


I've even seen people who, after being shown solid evidence of what they actually saw, swear that they know what they saw, be it faeries, bogies, ghosts, or any other supernatural stuff.
Resperdol can be useful.

But your acquaintances shouldn't feel too insulted - most people are gullible morons.


Two of those aquaintances followed a double trackway for seven miles with the film crew from the Vancouver (Wa.) Columbian. Another was a deputy in on a sighting investigation, and the Sherriff kept a cast on his desk for years. The pharmacist had a sighting after I moved (his uncle did too, years earlier). A friend of the head librarian saw one by the railroad tracks near the Columbia. The manager of the auto parts store had cousins who saw one as children (he was sceptical himself) - they mentioned whistling, and I doubt they'd read any reports of that.

These were leading citizens, not "gullible morons".

It's just that people like you, who continue to feed the morons this nonsense, are responsible for the problem, really.
You, a Pagan priest, who feeds nonsense to morons, are telling me this?

The scofftical POV has done much to prevent serious scientific investigation. Dr. Krantz' carreer was hurt by the attitude of his colleagues. He felt it was relevant to his field and that he would have been remiss to not pursue it. Primatologists at Yerkes pronounced the PGF authentic, but as soon as someone at the Smithsonian said there was "something wrong with it" (he didn't say what), it was dismissed as a hoax (except by Napier). Where was the objective investigation that should have followed?


Now - how about some solid evidence, and not more of this pathetic stuff?

How about getting informed on it? Your appalling ignorance on the subject is showing.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
It's a lot harder to imagine that all these Bigfoots are not laying down many more tracks themselves, much less one individual leaving only two sets of tracks over 30 years..

There were tracks near the garbage dump before Dahinden was called in. More tracks were found across the river after Dahinden counted the tracks. They were in snow or they might not have been seen at all. This individual may have been near the end of its life and was driven from more remote areas by a need for food.

It's hard to find tracks of anything in forest. Try looking sometime.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Alleged sasquatch hair and feces were also tested at the University of Tennessee by John Placyk.

Got more on this? I'm not finding anything.

It wouldn't have to do with Mary Green, would it?

[LAL]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Shifting burden of proof: We aren't here to prove they are hoaxes. Hoaxing just happens to be one explanation that covers a number of sightings pretty well.



And you're willing to accept someone is hoaxing in the Yukon without any evidence this is the case.

The burden of proof is on those making the "extrodinary" claims, and to some, the "hoax hypothesis" is extraordinary and the reality of these creatures the parsimonious explanation. So, why not some proof from the sceptical side? The little there's been (Wallace, e.g.) falls apart pretty quickly.

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
You know, when I bump my head bad enough to leave a clump of hair worth inspecting, the hair is usually atached to some skin. If I pluck a single hair it often has the follicle attached. I would think that out of all those 'bigfoot' hair samples, just one would have some cellular material big enough to do a MTDNA analysis. The cops did OJ Simpson's from a blood droplet. OJ's was a 1 in 50,000,000 match. (stupid jurors). So, one bigfoot follicle could prove his matrilinear genetics- human , ape, orangutan, chimp?

And to defend my copy-cat hoax hypothisis: Without even putting on my furry suit, I'm between 6 feet and 8 feet tall, depending on which convienience store I'm coming out of at the time....and I just remembered that I have a hair-on horse hide in a packing barrel somewhere....borrow a sewing machine...."No, those aren't seams, those are tendons? ...or scars?.....make it reversible to use as a Reptoid tooo.....Next trip to the Mini-Mart, I'l have to buy Micky's Big Mouth Malt Liqour to get in the spirit? I see the Headlines now " Big Foot spotted leaving Del Mar Convienence Store- Security Camera film at 11:00"....awe , nuts... that won't work, the clerk will check my ID to make sure I'm 21...

Do people in the Yukon do this as a matter of course?

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL

Seeing them on TV doesn't really give a good idea of the quality. Being that most encounters last about 20 seconds and are usually at night, it seems amazing to me there are films and videos at all.

How about seeing them firsthand? Every single one I've seen has been of rotten quality.


Questionable? The sheer volume of some rule out just about anything but horses, and the difference there can be detected easily, as evidenced by Dahinden's famous comment on the finding of some of that.

Sheer volume of animal droppings in a forest? The forest is full of creatures - why would the sheer volume count out anything but horses?

You do realize how stupid a statemnet that actually is...

What makes you think they're all unreliable? Sasquatches have been seen by everyone from school kids to professional people, one a psychologist. A PhD photographed tracks in California this last April.

I knew a psychologist once who kept garlic under his bed because he was convinced his neighbor was a vampire. I've known Ph.D.s in many fields who believed in ghosts, homeopathy, and alien abductions. Being a professional doesn't make you credible; having a degree doesn't prevent you from being gullible.

Okapi's don't have a fossil record either, nor do Chimpanzees and Gorillas. It was 67 years between the "discovery" of the Giant Panda and a live capture, despite expeditions trying to obtain them for zoos.

Actually, Giraffe-like ancestors do appear in the fossile records, so you're wrong there. Likewise, prehistoric primates also exist in fossil records, so you're wrong there too.

And the Chinese knew about the Giant Panda long before white man every did - it only shows your racist POV that you think the 'discovery' and subsequent capture was something new.

Where are the natives familiar with BigFoot? Other than a few scant legends. Chinese historians and artists had Giant Pandas down pat for centuries.

Just how would you go about getting those without risking getting your head removed?

Well, I wasn't talking about trying to get a fresh sample... :D

But given the terrible nature of human beings, I expect people would have hunted these creatures in numerous ways... Traps, shotguns, rifles, etc. etc. might all get skin and blood samples or - heck - Sasquatch bodies. Even a dead BigFoot would at least be proof. Not that I approve of such methods, but there are some who do - which makes the lack of evidence even more curious.

You need to do your homework. A "feeding lot" was found after the Nelson Creek sighting/video this year. There seem to be some territorial marking and occasional nests. They seem to range singly or in small family groups. They don't leave much sign, nor are there many people out looking for it.

Hmmm... the only Nelson Creek sighting I can find is listed as unconfirmed/unreviewed. Perhaps too new to be discussed... And no information whatsoever about feeding lots.

I'll have to see it when it turns up publicly.

Of course one did discover a trackway. There haven't been many biologists out looking for them, have there?


After all - why look for something that doesn't exist?

Make that plural. They're nocturnal and inhabit rough terrain in the PNW that's not only uninhabited, it's seldom visited by humans, especially at night. Dozens of planes have vanished without a trace in those forests since WWII.

Granted - but since, as you rightly say, it should be plural, that only makes matters worse, not better.

They may also inhabit deep forests in other parts of the country (and Canada).

They are observed, just not by scientists yet.


Nor by reliable witnesses, apparently, or scientists would be looking harder.

What? The figure in the MD footage appears to be an adolescent female and may have a baby with her. The second figure in the 1994 Freeman footage may be a female hoisting an infant. The PGF is clearly of a female. There are many reports of females and the Ostman incident involved a family group with a female and two adolescents. "Jacko" may have been an adolescent male.

'appears to be', 'may be'... Not very sure, are you?

But to be fair, I was unaware that any of these creatures looked female. The 1994 footage definitely didn't look at all female. And the PGF does not look like a female - though I've never seen the original, and find it highly suspicious that such a key piece of evidence is only available for purchase, not openly available for research. This is not the way of science, but of marketting, and is just more suggestion that BigFoot is a big money-making scheme.

Name 'em and give the details.

"In one case, Krantz claimed as one of the gold standards of Bigfoot tracks a print that "passed all my criteria, published and private, that distinguishes sasquatch tracks from human tracks and from fakes" (Krantz 1992). He further agreed that it had all the signs of a living foot, and that no human foot could have made the imprint. Michael R. Dennett, investigating for the Skeptical Inquirer, tracked down the anonymous construction worker who supplied the Bigfoot print. The man admitted faking the tracks himself to see if Krantz could really detect a fake (Dennett 1994). "

"Krantz certainly isn't alone in his mistaken identifications. One of the biggest names in cryptozoology, Ivan Sanderson, was badly fooled by tracks he confidently proclaimed would be impossible to fake. In 1948 (and for a decade afterward), giant three-toed footprints were found along the beach in Clearwater, Florida. Sanderson, described as a man who "was extremely knowledgeable on many subjects, and had done more fieldwork than most zoologists do today" (Greenwell 1988), spent two weeks at the site of the tracks investigating, analyzing the tracks, and consulting other experts. He concluded that the tracks were made by a fifteen-foot-tall penguin. "

www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

But of course, you won't accept that, since it comes from evil CSICOP...

Oh well.

Ad hominem attacks on people who take this seriously do nothing to further your case.

It ain't ad-hom if it's true. :)

And you make money encouraging this? Or do you do it for free. Either way, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. :p

Nope, I don't encourage anything. I'm a Pagan priest, but I act in a somewhat different capacity than most. And I make no money for my work - I just help people find their way, wherever that way may lead.

But at least I don't tell people things are true in spite of all evidence against it... :p


Resperdol can be useful.


You should try it sometime.

Two of those aquaintances followed a double trackway for seven miles with the film crew from the Vancouver (Wa.) Columbian. Another was a deputy in on a sighting investigation, and the Sherriff kept a cast on his desk for years. The pharmacist had a sighting after I moved (his uncle did too, years earlier). A friend of the head librarian saw one by the railroad tracks near the Columbia. The manager of the auto parts store had cousins who saw one as children (he was sceptical himself) - they mentioned whistling, and I doubt they'd read any reports of that.

These were leading citizens, not "gullible morons".

Are you trying to say that 'leading citizens' can't be gullible? That they can't be morons?

The Royal Family of England would certainly count as 'leading citizens' in London, right? But they believe in homeopathy.

Argument by authority doesn't work here either, LAL. Sherriffs, deputies, pharmacists, etc. are just as gullible and just as stupid as everyone else. Ignorance and foolishness exist in every single profession on earth. The President of the United States thinks that his branch of Christianity are the only ones going to heaven, and that everyone else deserves to suffer.

So I stand by what I say: at least 70% of everyone who thinks they've seen Bigfoot evidence are gullible morons; the rest are ignorant of what they've actually seen, or have perhaps actually seen Bigfoot evidence. But the probabilities and the observations so far support the idea that Bigfoot is a nice moneymaking scheme like UFOlogy and Nessie.

You, a Pagan priest, who feeds nonsense to morons, are telling me this?

I feed nothing. I preach nothing. Since you don't know me, and don't know what I do, only what I am, your strawman attacks are meaningless.

Ask around. I'm not your usual 'Witch Boy'. I'm fully accredited as Clergy in accordance with state laws, and fully accredited by an incorporated Church, recognized by Federal and State government; so I am a 'Pagan Priest'. This doesn't mean I go around telling people to leave whiskey out to keep the faeries happy, carry bloodstones to absorb evil energies, or consult tarot cards to glimpse their futures. In fact, I generally tell people the opposite - that they have to understand the world around them first before they go off seeking the magical and mysterious. And I definitely don't feed them shoddy evidence, anecdotes, and scams and expect them to believe. Like you do.

The scofftical POV has done much to prevent serious scientific investigation. Dr. Krantz' carreer was hurt by the attitude of his colleagues. He felt it was relevant to his field and that he would have been remiss to not pursue it. Primatologists at Yerkes pronounced the PGF authentic, but as soon as someone at the Smithsonian said there was "something wrong with it" (he didn't say what), it was dismissed as a hoax (except by Napier). Where was the objective investigation that should have followed?

"Scofftical"? You feel a need for ad-hominem now yourself, obviously.

There's no doubt the PGF debate will rage on; but that is largely because it is such a shoddy film clip. Is that a bell-shaped fastener, or matted feces? Is the creature male, or female? Is its chest too large to be human, or within normal tolerance? Did Chambers make a costume for a hoax, or not?

The problem, LAL, is that it is impossible - especially today - to have 'objective investigations' precisely because we have all formed our opinions already about Bigfoot. Either you believe in them - in which case, your investigations will confirm Bigfoot - or you don't, in which case your investigations will deny Bigfoot.

How about getting informed on it? Your appalling ignorance on the subject is showing.

As is your appalling gullibility and ignorance, or perhaps you're just invested in your scam?

What would you do (serious question, here) if a team of the most respected Bigfoot researchers were to come forward tomorrow and declare the whole thing to be a hoax? Would you drop Bigfoot research and do something useful, or would you decide that they had been poisoned by the 'Scofftics' and continue your quest for the Hairy Grail?

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL
There were tracks near the garbage dump before Dahinden was called in. More tracks were found across the river after Dahinden counted the tracks. They were in snow or they might not have been seen at all. This individual may have been near the end of its life and was driven from more remote areas by a need for food.

It's hard to find tracks of anything in forest. Try looking sometime.

It's not that hard. In fact, if you know what to look for, forests aren't hard to track in at all. Tracks in snow are easier to follow.

[Z]

Originally posted by LAL



And you're willing to accept someone is hoaxing in the Yukon without any evidence this is the case.

The burden of proof is on those making the "extrodinary" claims, and to some, the "hoax hypothesis" is extraordinary and the reality of these creatures the parsimonious explanation. So, why not some proof from the sceptical side? The little there's been (Wallace, e.g.) falls apart pretty quickly. [/B]

Nope, sorry.

The extraordinary claim is that there is a species of eight foot tall Primate hiding in the Northern Forests, and in spite of thousands of sightings, no one can actually get good evidence of one of them.

The hoax hypothesis alone is insufficient to explain what has been observed; but combined with an acceptible level of erroneous interpretation of findings, pretty much covers the 'parsimonious explanation'.

[Skeptical Greg]

Dozens of planes have vanished without a trace in those forests since WWII. Uhhhhh, source please ?

[RayG]

An interesting opinion on Dr. Fahrenbach and hair analysis over on the BFF:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5210&st=0&#entry103272

Originally posted by colobus May 22 2004, 04:59 PM]

"If I read these conflicting examination accounts correctly, then this brings up some very troubling issues regarding Henner's ability to non-subjectively examine hair samples. There have been warning flags in the past regarding Henner and hair analysis, but this seems more serious.

In the past hair samples loaned to Henner have been retained by him against the wishes of the collectors (not myself). He has also refused to publish on the subject, has given over the years somewhat different "gold standards," and refused any peer review of his collection or conclusions.

I'm not trying to bash Henner here, but one needs to remember that he is a retired parasitologist, not a hair expert. He has, via his interest in sasquatch, gained an extensive lay-knowledge of hair analysis. But it is not formal education in the subject.

His letter to Green states that the subject hair's do not match those of any known North American animal, and they appear to those of a primate (or a pig - if you favor the analysis in John's letter). Assuming this is true (i.e. is a primate & not N. American mammal) that does NOT equal undescribed primate.

It's not terribly hard to get the hair of any one of a hundred types of primates to send in to be analized. All will come back as primate, and NOT of North American origin. I have myself hair from a dozen african primates unlikely to be represented in most hair analizers collection of representative samples. There are only a couple labs in the world that have samples of hair from all known mammals. I can tell you that Henner's home is not one of them.

Henner has fully embraced multiple habituation stories in the past, and now appears to be changing hair analysis results to favor one. One has to wonder how objective and rigorous are his methods. How about some peer review. Most serious reserchers try hard to get peer review, yet Henner actively avoids it."

Apparently I'm not the only one that finds Dr. Fahrenbach's findings less than convincing.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by hodgy
Correa Netto: Superb - you took the (albeit dodgy) pro-bigfoot argument to tiny pieces. I've been watching this thread awhile and yours was the most conclusive refutation (there's others 99% as good but apologies - Correa's was superlative).

I suppose we should be grateful to believers for keeping us supplied with interesting threads :o)

Correa has done a good job of showing there are no fossils, but we already knew that.

As far as there "should" be fossils I'm waiting for evidence there are fossils of even the common forest-dwellers of the PNW. Deer? Chickarees? A subspecies of the Cascades Sapsucker even?

[aggle-rithm]

As Professor Farnsworth said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"BALDERDASH!! Show me some Bigfoot droppings or SHUT THE HELL UP!!"

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Ever considered the possibilty of all these “evidences� being a product of hoaxes AND misinterpretations?


There are misinterpretations (snags are common), but when you have multiple witnesses, physical evidence and the thing moves, it's a pretty good guess it's not a snag.

So now I'm supposed to believe witnesses are misidentifying hoaxers?



Nope. You have to (1) prove that big foot exists; (2) prove that Gigantopithecus was biped and (3) prove that the two animals were related. A bit of work remains to be done, don´t you think?


Since fossils are so common and easy to find, according to you, there should be Gigantopithecus femurs and pelvic bones all over Asia.


Note that they left their remains, so we managed to have a good idea on their constitution and geographic span. Note also that their geographic span is comparable to that of bigfoot and relatives. And even if the millions of individuals figures is correct (could not find refferences), what was bigfoot population before humans begun to mess with the environment? Quite possibly above the current 14000 individuals estimates within USA. So, nothing you wrote serves as an explanation for absence of bigfoot remains (fossil or not).


Krantz, on the A&E show (which I just received) says 2000 and makes it clear he's guessing (I recall 15,000 from the book, but I could be wrong). Let's go back to 2000-6000.

There's no evidence their population has shrunk. It could have grown. A small population could have spread over the Bering Strait, and started speading out of the PNW in more recent times. The PNW has the largest population and more Indian legends that seem to be unmistakably about them than Eastern tribes do.


Sure, few areas on Earth will be left outside as places where remains (fossil or not) should have been found.


I'm not sure I follow that.


Now, after what I wrote about the mapinguari, do you still consider the legend as a reliable indication of the presence of a giant sloth or a giant primate in the Amazon forest? And, don´t you think similar distortions could have happened to the other legends (amas, yeti, sasquatch, etc.) cited as "evidence" for the existence of these animals?


Heuvelmans, Sanderson and Coleman have written of the mapinguary as a form of primate. David Oren thinks the natives are seeing a medium-sized Giant Sloth. (See Cryptozology A to Z by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, pg. 151.) I don't know what evidence there is for them.

There seems to be more evidence for Sasquatches just from the State of Washington than there is for any of the other cryptic hominids worldwide, maybe all put together.............Just my impression.


Sturgeons and otters are the most likely candidates to be misinterpreted nessie sightings (same is valid for ogopogo). Check a picture of a sturgeon´s lateral fin and you´ll see a pretty good candidate fot the “flipper photo�.


Sounds reasonable. Thanks.


Now, plenty of people are currently working and worked at the areas where bigfeet are supposed to live. In a way, you can say it was (and is being) scanned.


And plenty of these people have seen them. Don't forget residents. They see them too, sometimes.


Ifs, maybes and mays. Do you know that many places that were used for the habitat expansion are still above sea level? And that actually they are well above it? When icecaps retreat, isostasy happens. Since the weight of the glaciers is no longer present, the ground slowly is uplifted. This is called isostasy. Not to mention that the migration routes did not followed the shoreline all along. They followed gaps in the glaciers, many of these gaps were well within the continent.

Actually there´s no evidence that they live anywhere. And forest animals are fossilized also. I´ve already explained that.


Did I miss the post where you showed me fossilized forest-dwelling animals of the Pacific Northwest?


I say the odds are, given what we know, that its does not exists. It may exist, but it is quite unlikely.


In your opinion. I don't think it's shared by many who have actually seen them.


That was not a question. That was a statement. Rapid burial is one way of enhancing fossilization chances. A quiet, oxigen-deprived lake with slow silt or mud deposition are very nice environments for fossilization. I´ll write again: Taking in to account the whole area these creatures are supposed to live nowdays (or have lived in the past)there´s a large number of possible fossilization sites, and by different processes.


Then there should be many fossils of the common forest-dwellers of the PNW, shouldn't there? Where are they?


It´s already being discussed by other posters here. And yes, it seems the hoaxers can fool a lot of people, actually it seems that a lot of people get confused even without the hoaxer´s help.... Why the hoaxers made his stunt just in 1969? You should ask to the hoaxers, not to me.


I would if there were any, other than Ray Pickens, who didn't even claim he'd made tracks near Bossburg, let alone Carson. As usual, the carved feet didn't match anything. The hoaxes have been few and far between and quickly exposed. They're the work of amateurs with no knowlege of anatomy, biomechanics, primate locomotion..............


Of course not. Anyone can see that. What I am saying is that animals die in floods, including those that live in forests, what increases the chances of having their remains preserved.


Where are the fossil Chickarees? Flickers? Cougars? Bear?


And once again you use PNW as a comparsion.


Why not? That's where the largest number of sightings are. It's also the area I'm most familiar with.


You should understand that such argument is completely useless, unless the creature not only is endemic to this area but also evolved there, maybe from a squirrel...


That's a joke, right?

No one's saying they evolved there or anywhere in North America.


Its another OT digression, but I´ll take that by "siltation" you are reffering to deposition of silt, the granulometric fraction between fine sand and clay. If this is so, can ou really say there´s little silt deposition across the whole area composed by the PNW? I say that if there are any lakes nearby glaciers, or are fed by creeks or rivers that are born in glaciers, your claim is flawed.


Yep. There are nine permanent glaciers on Mt. Hood and eleven on Rainier, as I recall. You don't see dredges on the Columbia. I was near the French Broad today, which is brown and near flood. The Columbia is clear by comparison (it reportedly was before Eastern Washington was irrigated). There is little siltation in the Cascades. Shores tend to be rocky.

What part of "volcanic" didn't you understand?


In Africa, Europe and Asia.


I was referring to the Bering Strait and Alaska, not human remains anywhere else. If fossilization is such a sure thing there should be fossils representing all the human waves of migration, which may have begun 40,000 years ago.


There´s no reliable evidence of humans in the Americas 40Ky ago. Where are the evidences for bigfoot for ANY time period ANYWHERE?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4650307.stm

Also, there's evidence of worked bone in Alaska that dates to 40,000 years ago.

Footprints and film of a Sasquatch from last April don't work for you do they?



If jaguars and bigfoot are related? Well, since bigfoot is immaginary, it can be even related to terrapins...


I find that statement sort of silly.


You wrote on the previous post about fossils of jaguars and grizzlies. And stated that these animals did not lived in forests, thus they would not be found associated with bigfoot. As you can see, they do live in forests. And the supposed geographic span of bigfoot do overlaps with that of the grizzly bear.


There are no Jaguars or Grizzlies in the PNW (except for eastern Washington), nor the Ohio Valley, but there c