Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
It was evidently the same individual. It's the only case of a crippled foot known.

And you don't see how this conflicts with a projected life span of 40 years, or a crippled individual surviving and remaining undetected for 30 years ?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
No, I'm reading Roger Knights' dissection of your argument.

I'd hardly call his response a 'dissection' per se. He's splitting hairs, so to speak. (nice pun eh?)

Is it legal to post that, or is that some kind of violation of board etiquette and standards?

If it's in the public forum, I don't see why it can't be used for discussion purposes.

He's lurked on this board, you know.

Maybe he should join in the discussion.

Originally posted on the BFF by RogerKni May 14 2004, 01:56 PM
But don't be misled by the identity of the name ("microscopic hair analysis") into thinking that crime-labs and Fahrenbach are doing the same thing. Fahrenbach is doing something quite different and much more reliable: differentiating and matching species, not individuals within a species, on the basis of gross (mostly) anatomical differences and similarities.

Roger says, "Fahrenbach is doing something quite different and much more reliable: differentiating and matching species..." It doesn't sound like Dr. Fahrenbach is having much success if he can't distinguish squatch from human hair. I already gave a link earlier in this thread about the FBI being able to tell human from animal hair. Either squatch hair is so close to being human that it IS human, or Dr. Fahrenbach isn't the expert you believe him to be.

EDIT: So the assertion microscopic hair analysis is unreliable should be qualified by the term, intra-species.

As I said in my original reply to Roger, " Yes, but Henner is proclaiming these hairs as belonging to sasquatch, comparing them to other sasquatch hairs he's examined. [and proclaimed as belonging to squatch]"

What type of background does Roger have in hair analysis? I notice he provided no links to back up his 'dissection'.

[b]Ah, but at least there's more of it than there was in '82.

Too bad quantity doesn't equate to quality.

The scofftics seem to have even fewer new arguments. ;)

Not too many 'scofftics' are going to equate anecdotes with evidence.

Well, at least I have seniority on you. :)

Keep in mind that's 30 years as an adult. I had heard of bigfoot about 10 years prior to that. :D

Do we really want the mystery to end?

Why not? I think the foreplay has gone on long enough.

I wonder if, aside from the chances of tracking the animal that made the Skookum imprint being less than those of a snowball in hell, the team didn't really want to bring one in.

That's one of the reasons I don't consider them a scientific organization. I'm guessing they're only using the term because they think it adds credibility and/or authority to their 'research'. If it don't walk like a duck, sound like a duck, or act like a duck...you can still call it a duck, but it ain't no duck.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Here's this:

"To the Curators:

The following situation has transpired. Some years ago, when Janice Coy (Carter) and Mary Green contacted me cautiously about the activities at the Coy farm, I suggested several modes of action to provide substantiation for the claims being made, one of them being collecting hair directly off a sasquatch, if close approaches in the context of feeding were possible. This has now occurred, in that Jan, when approached by the primary habituated sasquatch, named Fox, for a food item, reached out briefly, lightly grabbed hair on his forearm and pulled some out.

I have examined a good sampling of these hairs and they totally agree with my previous "gold standard", illustrated in the BFRO website under the FAQ "What is a bigfoot/sasquatch", albeit substantially more pigmented. The hairs are overall quite fine, measuring between 35 and 65 µm in diameter and at most an inch long. They have largely the same diameter over their entire length, as one would expect from primate hair, and the tips have either a split or worn, rounded end. Most of the hairs have no medulla at all, a few have a fragmentary minimal one. The hair has the seemingly universal reddish tint (phaeomelanin) found in all prior sasquatch hair collections, in addition to having rather coarsely streaked and very dense melanin (eumelanin) granules throughout. The sasquatch in question was described as having had a blue-black hair color when he was younger, a color which shifted with age to reddish black when viewed in the sun.

The morphology of this hair is clearly primate in character, all standard mammals of N. America are ruled out, and the remaining confounding variable - human hair - is not similar to this hair at all, in that the density of pigmentation far exceeds that of the blackest human hair.

These observations provide a legitimizing underpinning to the factual details reported by Jan Coy (Carter)(as co-author) in the book by Mary Green, deviant interpretations thereof notwithstanding.

Further collections will be attempted.

W. H. Fahrenbach, Ph.D."

That was picked apart ages ago.

Here's more on the hair from the Coy/Green camp:

From the BFF
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5210&st=0&#entry103272

Originally posted by Tsiatko May 21 2004, 11:51 PM
Over a year ago after hearing so much about the Book that 50 years with Bigfoot I thought I would see if Marry Green would send me some of the hair she and Jan Coy say thye had from the Carter farm. They claimed to have a lot of hair and I had heard that Dr. Fahrenbach said it matched his samples of Sasquatch hair. First I asked Henner if it was true. He said yes. So I e-mailed Mary Green and asked if I could get a sample. She was very nice and agreed to send me the samples. The reason I wanted the sample was for my own research and to better understand what to look for in Sasquatch hair. After getting the samples I gave them to Henner and asked him to take a look at them. I didn't tell him where they came from. just that they were given to me. Here is what he said about them.

Dear John,

I looked at the hair today and it does not immediately fill me with confidence as to its being of sasquatch origin. It has a diameter of about 50 µm (ok for BF) and is exceedingly heavily pigmented to the point of being totally opaque (not ok for BF). As for a medulla, it is not a standard cellular one, as in most mammals, but rather subdued in its organization to the degree that one can visualize it at all (sort of ok for BF). What makes me suspicious is that the hair has very coarse pigment and some large pigment clumps that I associate with bovine hair and sometimes with bear, though bear has a different medulla. I have no purported sasquatch hair that looks like this, so I rather err on the side of caution and call it probable bovine, unless you have very compelling reason to rule that out. The batches in both baggies were identical, if that's any help.

My best, Henner.

Read the whole thread, I'm not the only one not convinced by Dr. Fahrenbach's findings.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Lu, do you have any links supporting the claim that similar "clubfoot" prints were found 30 years apart?

[casebro]

You mean a woman supposedly had a bigfoot eating out of her hand and NOBODY GOT ANY PICTURES? Pictures that close could show teeth, feet, eyes, face, mammaries...surely enough to go a long ways towards categorizing the critter.....but no, no foot prints, no fingerprints, no photos, no videos,,,but a sample of cows hair...anybody else smell a hoax?

[Z]

I see he's avoiding the topics of Green's 'five kills'.

Which is interesting, considering there is a general discussion across bigfoot territory about whether or not B.F. CAN be killed.

I urge those of you reading this to demand evidence of the five kills from LAL. At this point in time, it would be the only convincing evidence, short of a 'Squatch walking out of the Northern Woods right now and agreeing to a C.N.N. interview.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Uhhhhh, source please ?

Peter Bryne citing an FFA report in 1994. He says 73 from California to Alaska since WWII.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, do you have any links supporting the claim that similar "clubfoot" prints were found 30 years apart?

I believe that was from one of the researchers on BFF. I'll check next time I'm over there.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hardly impossible, just a choice someone made.

And simply incredible, considering the implications of aquiring some real evidence..

They weren't out to shoot one and weren't equipped for a capture. The imprint was real evidence. Green thought the cast would be sufficient to finally convince science. You'd think after all this time he'd know better. Never underestimate the power of denial.

Pursuit with the creature having less than an hour headstart was impossible in another part of Skamania County with similar terrain. These creatures are reported to move swiftly as a deer and they slip through the trees as easily. No one runs down deer in that country either.

[LTC8K6]

They weren't out to shoot one and weren't equiped for a capture.

Shooting and capturing?

What about following and reporting?

What about having people see it?

What about getting pictures?

What about finding some really fresh tracks?

If they had found it's tracks, seen it, or got pictures of it, even poor ones, it would have strongly supported their opinion of the cast.

I know Byrne makes the 73 planes claim on a show on A & E, but i have never seen any support for it.

[Z]

I'll actually support LAL on this one.

A creature who is familiar with the woods can move far more swiftly than humans can - unless the human is one of these old-school wilderness folk. And even then, given the size of the creature, they probably can move pretty rapidly when they want to.

Still - LAL claimed that Green reported five kills. So where are the bodies?

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
You mean a woman supposedly had a bigfoot eating out of her hand and NOBODY GOT ANY PICTURES? Pictures that close could show teeth, feet, eyes, face, mammaries...surely enough to go a long ways towards categorizing the critter.....but no, no foot prints, no fingerprints, no photos, no videos,,,but a sample of cows hair...anybody else smell a hoax?

Suspected schizophrenia. Didn't you hear me groan when I saw the links related to Mary Green?

There are, however other reports from Tennessee.

There's a hair analysis from Burnet (sp?) at Berkeley. 1992, I think. I'll see what else I can find on that.

[LTC8K6]

My links were not to the Mary Green incident, but a different one in late 2003.

Not sure why Lu said "Yup, mary Green".

[LTC8K6]

A creature who is familiar with the woods can move far more swiftly than humans can - unless the human is one of these old-school wilderness folk.

I disagree. I see no reason for bigfoot to be able to go through the woods any faster than me, overall. Being much larger, he'd have more trouble than I would. He'd have to duck and maneuver a lot more. Should he attempt to run, he'll be in even worse trouble than I will.

These things would equal out his possible longer stride and faster speed.

A dog would run rings around a bigfoot, and me, in the woods.

Not to mention that bigfoot is apparently very concerned with where he steps, lest he leave tracks. :D

[Consternatio]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Likewise, prehistoric primates also exist in fossil records, so you're wrong there too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nope. I said Gorillas and Chimpanzees, not primates. If you've been following the thread you should know I've brought up several fossil primates.

I'm sorry, are you saying that Gorillas and Chimpanzees are not primates? If they're not primates, what do you think they are?

[Z]

Size wouldn't matter, if the creature was more familiar with the woods than you (or the dog) are.

If the woods are fairly thick with dense underbrush, familiarity would be a huge boost to speed. Knowing where the brush is thin enough to pass through; being familiar with protruding roots and low-hanging branches; knowing every boulder and sink, knowing where to find a place to hide, or a low tree to climb into.

I remember when I was a child, I knew a piece of woods in the mountains of Arizona fairly well. I could vanish in those woods in no time when my dad would come after me. And I knew how to get between two points faster through the woods than most people knew on main roads in cars.

On the other hand, if we're talking about loose forests with almost no underbrush, essentially a field of trees, then I'd say that the creature's familiarity might not matter. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Seems most footage and photos show thick forests, rather than thin, with lots of bushes and shrubs.

IMHO, if people are really seeing this thing, they're not following it because we're talking about an 8-foot hominid/ape that can probably rip your head off without trying. They're scared - scared they're gonna get into those woods, and B.F.'s buddies will be waiting to do harm and pain on the puny humans.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL

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?

You know, you should not really believein anything, specially if you are trying to use scientidic methodology. Here´s a trap where most -if not all- "investigators" fall. One must conclude, after evaluating the evidence. Note that you admitted that most sightings happen at night and last less than 20s. Very nice conditions for the proposed explanation.
You should, however, consider the following possibilities:
(a)Pareidolia and similar phenomena ("daydreaming", etc.)- Witnesses confused either ordinary animals - or no animal at all jut shadows and lightining playing games with the mind;
(b)Witnesses were fooled by hoaxer(s)
(c)The sighting itself is a lie, a hoax.

Originally posted by LAL

Since fossils are so common and easy to find, according to you, there should be Gigantopithecus femurs and pelvic bones all over Asia.

So, can you tell me why there are no remains -fossil or not- of a creature that is supposed to live across a large part of Asia and North America? Uh... Eh... Because its not real?

However, my point was that before using Gigantopithecus as an evidence for bigfoot, first you have to:
(a)Prove big foot exists;
(b)Prove that the species are related.

So, how´s the work going?

Originally posted by LAL

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.

So be it, 4000, the average. He based on what to achieve this figure?
Anyway, lets suppose bigfeet are real, and dwell in forests. So, Europeans colonize North America, forests have their area decreased, thus bigfeet´s habitat area also decresed, right? Not to mention the introduction of chemicals such as pesticides in the environment. And you say its possible the number of specimens actually may have increased? Weird...

Other than that, the usual may and could excuses for the lack of evidences.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Sure, few areas on Earth will be left outside as places where remains (fossil or not) should have been found.[/B]

Originally posted by LAL
I'm not sure I follow that.

Just if you don´t want to. If large primate live (or lived in historical times) in Europe and tropical Asia, then its even more unlikely that such animals would still be unknown.

Originally posted by LAL

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.

I will write again, since it seems you ignored it when I wrote before, the mapinguari legend is about a creature whose mouth is so big that is located at it´s belly, has just one eye, whose skin is like that of an alligator and whose back has a turtle-like shell. Got the picture? Its the way the people an the Amazon forest desribe it, taken personally and directly from them. If you don´t want to take my word, try checking:
http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore/lenda_mapinguari.asp
Its in Portuguese, but has an "artistic concept"...

Now, if Heuvelmans, Sanderson and Coleman think its a primate, and David Oren thinks of it as a "medium-sized Giant Sloth", I say they either reinterpretated and distorted the original myth in a way to suit their needs or have very poor anatomy and biology knoweledge. In both cases, its lousy data handling, at best.
So, what about considering the possibility that sasquatch is a myth from Native North-Americans

Originally posted by LAL

And plenty of these people have seen them. Don't forget residents. They see them too, sometimes.

Any biologist saw them? Anyone working there managed to get nice pictures?

Originally posted by LAL

Did I miss the post where you showed me fossilized forest-dwelling animals of the Pacific Northwest?

Yes, and refused to understand what I wrote about using Pacific Northwest as standard. Does the remains -fossil or not- have to come from PNW? I guess not. Your opinions are heavilly biased towads´s PNW´s "special conditions". What cause the whole argument to be flawed.

Originally posted by LAL

In your opinion. I don't think it's shared by many who have actually seen them.

Same words said by those who belive in UFOs...

Originally posted by LAL

Then there should be many fossils of the common forest-dwellers of the PNW, shouldn't there? Where are they?
...snip...
Where are the fossil Chickarees? Flickers? Cougars? Bear?

You are kidding? You wrote this before thinking, haven´t you? Are you now claiming that there are no fossils of bears? And if you are just referring to PNW, well, again, its pretty useless. You know, bigfeet are not supposed to live just there, remains should heve been found somewhere else, for a species with such a large territory...

Originally posted by LAL

Why not? That's where the largest number of sightings are. It's also the area I'm most familiar with.

Originally posted by Correa Neto

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...

Originally posted by LAL

That's a joke, right?

No one's saying they evolved there or anywhere in North America.

No, its not a joke. See, if they evolved outside North America, then chances are remains of related species could have been found...

Not to mention that, taking in to account the evidence that is avaliable today, if the creature exist, it may have evolved after a squirrel...

It really does not atter if its the area you are most familiar with. Its not the only place where these creatures are supposed to live!! Therefore, it will only result in biased conclusions. As I have wrote before.

Originally posted by LAL

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?

If the area has glaciers, and if there are lakes (and indeed there are plenty of them at the Cascades), water coming from glacier melting does brings silt. And, since the area is volcanic, and since the volcanoes are of explosive nature, there are plenty of tuff deposits. Tuffs are composed by clay and silt- sized grains. One of the major products of its erosion is... Guess what? SILT. Even at volcanic areas, sedimentation happens. Sediments are created by weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks. Transported say, by rivers, and deposited at lakes, riverbeds, floodplains, etc.

Oh, on last thing, what do you think that gave that gray color and molasse-consistency to the flood waters that runned through the river valleys after mount Sait Helen´s eruption? Yep, sediment, created by the rosion of volcanic rocks, tuff included, by the waters generated by melted glaciers. Gainsize? Variable, but clay and silt where dominant. And the lahar (that´s the phenomena name) generatedwhat type of deposit? A sedimentary one.

So, see that this claim of yours is also unfunded?

Originally posted by LAL

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.
...snip...
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?

So, you accept that your claim that there were no humans remains in the area is flawed?

And no, footprints and film of a Sasquatch from last April . Sighting reports, footage of blurry fuzzy things and tracks (both subject to hoaxes and misinterpretations) don´t work for me. Actually you should be asking yourselve why so few specialists consider this sort of evidence unreliable. Have you ever considered that they may be right?

Originally posted by LAL

There are no Jaguars or Grizzlies in the PNW (except for eastern Washington), nor the Ohio Valley, but there could be some overlap with Grizzlies in the Southern Rockies. Jaguars?

...snip...
So you choose to ignore the evidence that points to the largest population being in the Northwest (that's a huge area, from Northern California into Canada) and prefer to hypothesize they live with Grizzlies and Jaguars so you can claim there should be fossils?

Your points are not well taken.

And you choose to ignore that its not the only area where these creatures are supposed to live. Actually its a small part of it. Thus the habitat´s areas overlaped in historic and prehistoric times. And that there are plenty of sites where remain -fossil and recent- must have been found.

Originally posted by LAL

There was a drought this year:
...snip...
They may use caves......I don't know, but there's no need for them to die there.......or be preserved there. And who would know?

They seem to prefer wet forests. I've never said they're confined to the PNW. Evidently there's some evidence for them elsewhere. I've been extremely sceptical of eastern reports. Now I'm not so sure.

So you admit your claim that there are no dry seasons is flawed. And that the way the remains of these and other animals could be preserved within caves is reasonable. Even if they never use caves as shelter.

Originally posted by LAL
Are you trying to tell me water would carry a body uphill into a lava tube?

That another claim you can´t defend. Do you really thing the only way inside a lava tupe is by its end? Have you never noticed that a certain places there are parts of their ceilings that have collapsed, creating entrances, and that water may enter through it, flowing downhill? So, you´ll now write that Ape Cave has no such openings? Then I´ll write that Hawaii´s lava tubes have such openings. And material do get washed inside these caves by water. And that similar but smaller caves in Galapagos and other oceanic islands do have fossil content. What will you write next? That PNW´s lava tubes don´t have such feature? And I´ll then write that your opinion is based just in what you know about PNW, thus is biased and therefore of little use.

Not to mention that, as I wrote before, why should anyone bother with the lava tubes, if there are plenty of other places (caves, sedimentary deposits, roads, etc.) within bigfeet´s habitat where remains -fossil and recent- could have been found, if it existed?

Originally posted by LAL

There are limestone caves in the Pacific Northwest. I know of none in the Cascades, however.

Who cares? I´ll write again, since you seem to be having problems understanding the argument. These animals are not restricted to the Pacific Northwest of USA. Its not the only place these animals are supposed to exist. Its remains -past and recent- shoud have been found somewhere else.

Originally posted by LAL

There are reports from other parts of the country but Washington and California have the most by far. Oregon and Ohio are next with about half the documented reports (BFRO figures).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LAL
[B]
What does size have to do with it? An elusive animal is an elusive animal.

It must be hard to be a 3m-high elusive ape...

Try to imagine a small deer hiding. Now try to imagine a bigfoot hiding. See now what size has to do with being elusive?

Originally posted by LAL
The deer's skull, was found, not the deer.

Oh my... So, if i ever find a bigfoot´s skull I will not have find bigfoot...

Originally posted by LAL
The video of the Ivory Bill is three seconds long. The PGF is 24' of film.

You don't see a double standard or anything there, do you?

Of course I see. From the people that use it as an argument favorable to the existence of a large ape in North America. A short resume of the rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker:

Gallagher read a post from a canooer who reported to have seen a strange woodpecker. Less than two weeks later, they went to the place and guess what? They found it. And there´s no shadow of hoaxes over the footage, neither they were the only ones who saw them. And any researcher who wants to study or see them, just has to go to the site.
Here are the differences between the rediscover of this species and the non-discovery of bigfeet.

Oh, and one question:
There were speciments of the ivory-billed woodpecker in museums, killed before it was considered extinct, weren´t they? After all, to describe a species, one must have anumber of specimens (type specimen, holotype, paratype, etc.).

Its very different situation.

Originally posted by LAL
Creationists would say the Devil put them there to deceive us.

>snipped for brevity and because I'm beginning to get irritated - there really are gaps in the fossil record, you know<

Getting irritated will not change the facts that:

(a)Your argument was completely pointless, you are lowering yourself to the creationist´s level by using the "fossil gap" argument;
(b)no solid evidence supports bigfoot´s existence.

Getting irritated is futile.

Maybe the devil is hiding bigfoot...

Originally posted by LAL

So, the National Park Service is unreliable. Noted.

Yes, the information they provided -if it was really provided by them- is unreliable. Unless PNS can prove that the Appalachian orogeny is very older than 350ma (after all, some concurrents are 2.7 Gy -G stands for billion- and are not the oldest ones). Are you willing to keep this absurd claim?

Originally posted by LAL

DNA testing has been inconclusive. I think it's a safe assumption Dynel won't yield DNA. Inconclusive or not, it is real hair.

And why should anyone think its from a bigfoot? Inconclusive evidence is very far from being solid evidence.

Originally posted by LAL
You know, it just struck me that a lot of the above applies to George Bush.

Sure, GWB always appear in footage as a blurry fuzzy object...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'll actually support LAL on this one.

A creature who is familiar with the woods can move far more swiftly than humans can - unless the human is one of these old-school wilderness folk. And even then, given the size of the creature, they probably can move pretty rapidly when they want to.
How fast they move shouldn't keep them from being tracked by dogs.. But none of these ' researchers ' seem to be interested in putting together a bonafide tracking endeavor.

[Z]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How fast they move shouldn't keep them from being tracked by dogs.. But none of these ' researchers ' seem to be interested in putting together a bonafide tracking endeavor.

Good point. And considering how badly these things smell, tracking should be no problem at all.

Another glitch in the Bigfoot scam.

And still no bodies. :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Peter Bryne citing an FFA report in 1994. He says 73 from California to Alaska since WWII. Uhh, the FFA report would be nice..


So, all you have as a source, is another Bigfoot hunter?



If as many eyewitnesses had seen these planes go down, as have sighted Bigfoot, I doubt they would have ' disappeared without a trace '; which is the correlation you are trying to make..

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
My links were not to the Mary Green incident, but a different one in late 2003.

Not sure why Lu said "Yup, mary Green".

The second link is to Mary Green's website.

If you've seen Ancient Mysteries, do you remember the report from Berkeley that found the hairs were similar to higher primate hairs but matched none?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Uhh, the FFA report would be nice..


So, all you have as a source, is another Bigfoot hunter?



If as many eyewitnesses had seen these planes go down, as have sighted Bigfoot, I doubt they would have ' disappeared without a trace '; which is the correlation you are trying to make..

I haven't been able to find it online. I believe Green mentioned something about that in a book I read before I'd heard of Bryne. The figure was lower then.

Peter is very thorough. Don't dismiss him as a "another Bigfoot hunter".

I seem to be unable to paint a picture of how rugged and heavily forested that country is. All I can do is suggest you Google up some pictures so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about.

"But Byrne points out that 73 aircraft have been lost in the Pacific Northwest forests since World War II. Finding a Bigfoot in these woods is like finding a needle in a haystack, he says, only the needle is moving and doesn't want to be found."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/absolutely.html

What makes you think there was anyone around to see those planes go down?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL

...... report from Berkeley that found the hairs were similar to higher primate hairs but matched none? What was the conclusion of the report? Any follow up ?

How does this report support your position ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How fast they move shouldn't keep them from being tracked by dogs.. But none of these ' researchers ' seem to be interested in putting together a bonafide tracking endeavor.

The idea of using dogs goes at least as far back as Tom Slick's Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition of 1960-62.

Tracking efforts haven't been successful.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL

What makes you think there was anyone around to see those planes go down? Do you really not get it?


I said : ( re-worded )

" If as many people had seen those planes go down, as you claim have seen Bigfoot , I doubt that they would have vanished without a trace. "


You are claiming that we cannot verify the existance of Bigfoot because of the ruggedness of the PNW . This, in spite of all the sitings and physical evidence you claim exists..

The disappearance of aircraft ' without a trace ( NO evidence ) ' , does not support your position ...


With regard to Byrne, " not being just another Bigfoot hunter .. "

Oh yeah, I forgot ; he supposedly had millions in funding.. The kind of resources you claim are lacking, and standing in the way of serious research when it comes to Bigfoot.

His results speak for themself..

I would suggest he is " just another Bigfoot hunter " after all.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
The idea of using dogs goes at least as far back as Tom Slick's Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition of 1960-62.

Tracking efforts haven't been successful. No kidding ?

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
The idea of using dogs goes at least as far back as Tom Slick's Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition of 1960-62.

Tracking efforts haven't been successful.

Maybe dogs lack imagination.

[Correa Neto]

You know, the "plane disappearance" is just another unbased claim. A quick googling (airplane disappearance pacific northwest) provided mostly links to UFO sites. Apparently its another "Bermuda Triangle", with abdutctions, etc.

Again, an example of poor data handling, since there are no reliable backing for such claim. The same old stuff- a claim pops up out of nowhere and people take it for granted, it becomes a fact. The sources are not verified. And the ckaim is repeated again and again.

A quick check at the database at
http://www.airdisaster.com/
http://www.emergency-management.net/airpl_acc_index.htm
Has not provided any backing to such claim.

If bigfeet supporters wnat to be taken seriously, their data handling must improve a lot. But are they willing to take the risk of being left without evidence if propper treatment is applied?

[Z]

I do remember reading somewhere (not Bigfoot related) about a number of aircraft being unrecovered in the PNW - but the numbers were lower, 20-30 IIRC. Unfortunately, I can't recall where I saw this info, and Google only wants to turn up UFO and Bigfoot claim sites.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
You know, you should not really believein anything, specially if you are trying to use scientidic methodology. Here´s a trap where most -if not all- "investigators" fall. One must conclude, after evaluating the evidence. Note that you admitted that most sightings happen at night and last less than 20s. Very nice conditions for the proposed explanation.
You should, however, consider the following possibilities:
(a)Pareidolia and similar phenomena ("daydreaming", etc.)- Witnesses confused either ordinary animals - or no animal at all jut shadows and lightining playing games with the mind;
(b)Witnesses were fooled by hoaxer(s)
(c)The sighting itself is a lie, a hoax.

It happens. No one is saying it doesn't.

Pareidolia doesn't leave tracks.

So, can you tell me why there are no remains -fossil or not- of a creature that is supposed to live across a large part of Asia and North America? Uh... Eh... Because its not real?

Because of the habitat. Ape fossils of any kind are extremely rare. Hominid fossils are too. How many times do I have to point this out?

Bryne pointed out a dead elephant disappears in four days, leaving only a big black spot.

However, my point was that before using Gigantopithecus as an evidence for bigfoot, first you have to:
(a)Prove big foot exists;
(b)Prove that the species are related.

Need more bones of Giganto, for starters. I don't know about the teeth. Again, the species is only known from three jawbones and about a thousand teeth.

So, how´s the work going?

It's not my work.
[/B][/QUOTE]
So be it, 4000, the average. He based on what to achieve this figure? [/B][/QUOTE]

He said it was guesswork and he said 2000. There's an estimate based on reports.


Anyway, lets suppose bigfeet are real, and dwell in forests. So, Europeans colonize North America, forests have their area decreased, thus bigfeet´s habitat area also decresed, right? Not to mention the introduction of chemicals such as pesticides in the environment. And you say its possible the number of specimens actually may have increased? Weird...

Why? Eastern sightings seem to be more recent and on the increase. There are more reports from Skamania County than from the whole state of Tennessee. Who uses pesticides in the forests anymore? We haven't managed to destroy all the habitat in this country yet. I drove across the country in 1997 and I was amazed at how much wild &/or sparsely populated areas there are left.

It's not known if they managed to spread all over the country tens of thousands of years ago.

Other than that, the usual may and could excuses for the lack of evidences.

There's plenty of evidence. That you refuse to see that is not my problem.

Just if you don´t want to. If large primate live (or lived in historical times) in Europe and tropical Asia, then its even more unlikely that such animals would still be unknown.

They're known by the local people and Russian scientists evidently take this much more seriously than American scientists do.

I will write again, since it seems you ignored it when I wrote before, the mapinguari

I used the spelling from the book. It's on several websites as well. I've found two so far that say it's a hominid or sloth sort of thing, not a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts.


legend is about a creature whose mouth is so big that is located at it´s belly, has just one eye, whose skin is like that of an alligator and whose back has a turtle-like shell. Got the picture? Its the way the people an the Amazon forest desribe it, taken personally and directly from them. If you don´t want to take my word, try checking:
http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore/lenda_mapinguari.asp
Its in Portuguese, but has an "artistic concept"...
[QUOTE]
There are conflicting ideas on this apparently. There's the Didi as well. Now, can we drop it?

[B][QUOTE]
Now, if Heuvelmans, Sanderson and Coleman think its a primate, and David Oren thinks of it as a "medium-sized Giant Sloth", I say they either reinterpretated and distorted the original myth in a way to suit their needs or have very poor anatomy and biology knoweledge. In both cases, its lousy data handling, at best.
So, what about considering the possibility that sasquatch is a myth from Native North-Americans.


Perhaps they interviewed people who had had sightings rather than listening to mere mythology.

http://www.occultopedia.com/m/mapinguary.htm

Myths don't leave footprints. Native people have had encounters too.

Any biologist saw them? Anyone working there managed to get nice pictures?

I don't want to have to keep going over this. Just reread my posts.

Yes, and refused to understand what I wrote about using Pacific Northwest as standard. Does the remains -fossil or not- have to come from PNW? I guess not. Your opinions are heavilly biased towads´s PNW´s "special conditions". What cause the whole argument to be flawed.

The best evidence is from the PNW. There is nothing to indicate they can live out side a forested environment, yet you would have them adapted to another habitat so you can claim there "should" be fossils. There's your flawed argument.

Same words said by those who belive in UFOs...

Please leave UFO's out of this.

You are kidding? You wrote this before thinking, haven´t you? Are you now claiming that there are no fossils of bears?
Of course not. Now, how many Black Bear fossils have been found outside of an Alaskan cave?

And if you are just referring to PNW, well, again, its pretty useless. You know, bigfeet are not supposed to live just there, remains should heve been found somewhere else, for a species with such a large territory...

They only seem to live in deeply forested areas of the US and Canada. Fossils of anything living in forests are extremely rare.
Here's a black bear tibia:

http://www.usd.edu/~theaton/alaska/pubs/akc1996.html

No, its not a joke. See, if they evolved outside North America, then chances are remains of related species could have been found...[B][QUOTE]


They may have been. Leading candidates are Giganto and a robust Australopith.
[B][QUOTE]
Not to mention that, taking in to account the evidence that is avaliable today, if the creature exist, it may have evolved after a squirrel...


It's an unknown higher primate. Hominid. There is no resemblence to squirrels and no evidence they evolved in NA. I'll give you a moment to get your scientific foot out of your mouth. I really didn't think you were serious.

It really does not atter if its the area you are most familiar with. Its not the only place where these creatures are supposed to live!! Therefore, it will only result in biased conclusions. As I have wrote before.

I know from firsthand experience what those forests are like, what the lakeshores are like, what the rivers are like, what the wildlife is like...........

If the area has glaciers, and if there are lakes (and indeed there are plenty of them at the Cascades), water coming from glacier melting does brings silt. And, since the area is volcanic, and since the volcanoes are of explosive nature, there are plenty of tuff deposits. Tuffs are composed by clay and silt- sized grains. One of the major products of its erosion is... Guess what? SILT. Even at volcanic areas, sedimentation happens. Sediments are created by weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks. Transported say, by rivers, and deposited at lakes, riverbeds, floodplains, etc.


The flows in the area are mostly basalt and andesite.

Oh, on last thing, what do you think that gave that gray color and molasse-consistency to the flood waters that runned through the river valleys after mount Sait Helen´s eruption? Yep, sediment, created by the rosion of volcanic rocks,

Erosion of basalt? Basalt gets etched by acid detrius. Takes centuries. It's incredibly hard. So's andesite. St. Helens blew ash. It washed down in mud flows (yes, I saw the Toutle).
[B][QUOTE]
tuff included, by the waters generated by melted glaciers. Gainsize? Variable, but clay and silt where dominant. And the lahar (that´s the phenomena name) generatedwhat type of deposit? A sedimentary one.
[B][QUOTE]
The Columbia is clear compared to say, the French Broad which is brown and nearly in flood. Didn't see any dead animals along its banks Sunday.

Northwest streams are crystal clear and their beds are rocky. Some of the lakes are like that too. There are sandbars in the Columbia, but there just aren't huge amounts of silt coming down from the glaciers. It probably gets filtered out by vegetation before it gets very far..........
Didn't I already mention St. Helens laid down a couple of hundred feet of ash?

So you're telling me dead Sasquatches should be quietly covered in silt rather than being scavanged right next to all the bodies of deer and bear who frequent those lakes but whose bodies (let alone fossils) aren't found either.

Seems Ray Crowe checked some areas on St. Helens and found a baked piece of some animal. The blast blew things to bits. I guess there's not much chance of finding much of anything under all that ash, other than trees.
[B][QUOTE]
So, see that this claim of yours is also unfunded?

Unfunded? Oh, definitely. I'm not receiving a dime.

So, you accept that your claim that there were no humans remains in the area is flawed?

You twist my words and then expect me to accept your misinterpretation. Ancient human remains are extremely rare in NA.

There were no human remains associated with the worked bone.


And no, footprints and film of a Sasquatch from last April .

There's both. Members of the Cree Nation reportedly excavated whole tracks rather than merely casting them. The film shows a creature wading in water that was 4' deep. It's estimated height was 9-10'. Tracks were found before and after the event and there's been a sighting since. There were three sightings in the general area in a year.

Sighting reports, footage of blurry fuzzy things and tracks (both subject to hoaxes and misinterpretations) don´t work for me. Actually you should be asking yourselve why so few specialists consider this sort of evidence unreliable. Have you ever considered that they may be right?

They dismiss it out of hand, as you do, because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions and are willing to accept the most outlandish explanations (such as hoaxed tracks in remote areas) rather than really look into it. The few experts who have looked into it have come away convinced (Dr. Daris Swindler, e.g., despite 30 years of scepticism preceeding his examination of the Skookum Cast.)

And you choose to ignore that its not the only area where these creatures are supposed to live. Actually its a [b]small part of it. Thus the habitat´s areas overlaped in historic and prehistoric times. And that there are plenty of sites where remain -fossil and recent- must have been found.

You have no evidence of this.

So you admit your claim that there are no dry seasons is flawed. And that the way the remains of these and other animals could be preserved within caves is reasonable. Even if they never use caves as shelter.

It was a drought, not a dry season, and a very rare event for that area. The usual was getting caught in the storm track and having rain for weeks at a time. The last year I was there, poles fell over because the ground was so wet and the east end of town slid.

I know of no animals being preserved in lava tubes. do you?


That another claim you can´t defend. Do you really thing the only way inside a lava tupe is by its end? Have you never noticed that a certain places there are parts of their ceilings that have collapsed, creating entrances, and that water may enter through it, flowing downhill? So, you´ll now write that Ape Cave has no such openings? Then I´ll write that Hawaii´s lava tubes have such openings.

And do rare Hawaiian animals get quickly covered in silt and preserved in lava tubes?

And material do get washed inside these caves by water. And that similar but smaller caves in Galapagos and other oceanic islands do have fossil content. What will you write next? That PNW´s lava tubes don´t have such feature? And I´ll then write that your opinion is based just in what you know about PNW, thus is biased and therefore of little use.[?B][?QUOTE]

How condescending can you get? You do know Hawaiian volcanes are quite different from volcanoes in the Northwest, don't you?

[B][QUOTE]
Not to mention that, as I wrote before, why should anyone bother with the lava tubes, if there are plenty of other places (caves, sedimentary deposits, roads, etc.) within bigfeet´s habitat where remains -fossil and recent- could have been found, if it existed?

Because it's known there are Sasquatches on and about St. Helens and St. Helens has lava tubes? What animals have been preserved in them? Bear, maybe?

Who cares? I´ll write again, since you seem to be having problems understanding the argument. These animals are not restricted to the Pacific Northwest of USA. Its not the only place these animals are supposed to exist. Its remains -past and recent- shoud have been found somewhere else.

Such as Tennessee?

It must be hard to be a 3m-high elusive ape...

Try to imagine a small deer hiding. Now try to imagine a bigfoot hiding. See now what size has to do with being elusive?
Nope. Sasquatches are bipedal. They can easily step behind a tree. They're dark, usually. They blend right into the shadows.

>snip<

(a)Your argument was completely pointless, you are lowering yourself to the creationist´s level by using the "fossil gap" argument;

Creationists use that to say Goddit, 6,000 years ago. No similarity. We don't have fossils of everything that ever walked the earth. But we "should"?

(b)no solid evidence supports bigfoot´s existence.

Getting irritated is futile.


Perhaps frustrated is a better word. I don't have time to waste on some of the attempted humor and endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.

>snip<

[Skeptical Greg]

............. endless repetition of arguments that have no merit. Do tell.. :rolleyes:

[LTC8K6]

There is no credible evidence for sasquatch, imo.

So, all of this speculation about where they live, what they eat, and how they behave, is ridiculous.

I personally do not know if there is an unknown large primate roaming around the woods of the US and Canada.

I have seen nothing that would shift me off of "I don't know".

I have figured out that the BFRO and that Texas group are a bunch of jokers who couldn't find the ocean from a dinghy. They are never going to make any headway towards proving sasquatch exists, imo.

It's not clubfoot. An earlier diagnosis was skewfoot, but Meldrum, at Krantz' request, searched the literature and found the condition was consistant with metatarsus adductus as I've mentioned before.

I have heard this before and posted about it. No one knows what the condition is in bigfoot, or even if the track is authentic. It is foolish to attempt to diagnose it. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the skeletal structure of a sasquatch foot, other than some silly speculation from a footprint by someone who should know better.

It is one thing to diagnose the well known human foot anatomy from a footprint, but quite another to attempt the same with a supposedly totally unknown foot.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do tell.. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry. I should have included yours in that. Don't feel left out; I was in a rush this morning. I didn't even have time to fix the quotes on the long post.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
There is no credible evidence for sasquatch, imo.


In your opinion. I haven't seen anything to indicate your opinion is worth any more than, say, Cliff Crook's, and he was out there collecting evidence at one time.


So, all of this speculation about where they live, what they eat, and how they behave, is ridiculous.


Feeding and other behavior has been observed.

I personally do not know if there is an unknown large primate roaming around the woods of the US and Canada.

I have seen nothing that would shift me off of "I don't know".

Funny, I thought you did know. It's all hoaxes and elk. Have you figured out how an elk could have gotten up without leaving clear signs of doing so?


I have figured out that the BFRO and that Texas group are a bunch of jokers who couldn't find the ocean from a dinghy. They are never going to make any headway towards proving sasquatch exists, imo.

The BFRO has about 3000 members. Are you trying to characterize them all or just the ones you know nothing about who've been involved in expeditions?


I have heard this before and posted about it. No one knows what the condition is in bigfoot, or even if the track is authentic. It is foolish to attempt to diagnose it. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the skeletal structure of a sasquatch foot, other than some silly speculation from a footprint by someone who should know better.

So you're setting your expertise against the PhDs again, one of whom is an expert in primate locomotion.

It is one thing to diagnose the well known human foot anatomy from a footprint, but quite another to attempt the same with a supposedly totally unknown foot.

"Bossburg, Washington. The 17-inch-long tracks were unusual in that the right foot was deformed — the forepart of the foot was twisted inwards and the third toe missing or displaced upward — causing the footprint-maker to be nicknamed "Cripple Foot".

British anthropologist Dr John Napier examined casts and photographs of Cripple Foot's tracks and identified the deformity as talipes-equino-vanus or club-foot‟. This is usually a congenital disorder but may be caused by a severe injury or damage to the nerves controlling the muscles of the foot. Left untreated, the congenital condition usually results in the impression of the heel being absent or poorly defined as only the forepart of the foot and toes touch the ground when standing normally. As the imprints of the heels were well defined, Napier concluded that the deformity was probably due to an injury received in early childhood. He considered the likelihood of a hoaxer having the knowledge and subtlety to fake such a footprint, so improbable that he was prepared to discount it. (Napier 1974)

Grover Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State University, reconstructed the skeletal structure of the foot from casts of the Bossburg prints. He discovered the ankle was positioned further forwards than in a human foot and used his knowledge of physical anthropology and the reported weight and height of Sasquatches to calculate exactly how far forward the ankle was set. Further examination of the casts confirmed that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations, causing him to observe:

In my judgement, no hoaxer could have figured out just how far forward to shift the ankle for a biped of the indicated size, then have left footprints with some subtle distortions that just might lead an anatomist to the reconstruction I have made ... I figured the whole thing out after studying the footprints; any hoaxer had to plan it all out from nothing. (Krantz 1992, p.63)

>snip<

‟ The result of later research by Dr. Jeff Meldrum makes it almost certain that Cripple Foot's deformity was in fact due to the congential condition metatarsus adductus or "skew foot." (Krantz 1999)"

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_prints.html

You've read this before, right? That's where you found the photo with the object you thought caused the deformity before you knew the same deformity was found on over 1089 tracks. That was you wasn't it?

[bruto]

I suspect I'm one of those lumped in the humor and arguments with no merit category. Perhaps, but I still maintain that unless I see credible evidence to contradict it, the most likely reason that dogs will not track sasquatches is that dogs, because they do not have enough imagination, can track only a quarry that actually exists.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
Funny, I thought you did know. It's all hoaxes and elk. Have you figured out how an elk could have gotten up without leaving clear signs of doing so?


Why does he have to? You figured out how a bigfoot could do the same thing. I don't have time to read through an endless repetition of arguments that have no merit. But I do recall there WERE elk tracks associated with the Skookum cast, but NO Bigfoot footprints. Although, as I recall, you had a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation for that.

[Skeptical Greg]

British anthropologist Dr John Napier examined casts and photographs of Cripple Foot's tracks and identified the deformity as talipes-equino-vanus or club-foot‟.

‟ The result of later research by Dr. Jeff Meldrum makes it almost certain that Cripple Foot's deformity was in fact due to the congential condition metatarsus adductus or "skew foot." (Krantz 1999)"

So, you are going to throw the opinions of PHD's at us as proof for the existance of this animal, even when they disagree?

What is your basis for going with Meldrum instead of Napier & Krantz ( Krantz having done all the highly touted reconstruction ) ?


You were beating us up with the credentials of Napier a while back, if I recall correctly ..

[Skeptical Greg]

From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

regarding Bluff Creek in 1967


Subsequent investigations at that time revealed tracks of six different sizes, indicating that a number of creatures frequented the area. Footprint sizes ranged from 12¼ inches to 17 inches long.

In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time.

Looks like Bluff Creek would have been a great place for further invesigation.. Why not ?

Why, out of thousands ( world wide ) of foot prints, have only a handfull been anatomically analyzed with such confident ( if you want to call it that ) conclusions ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Consternatio
I'm sorry, are you saying that Gorillas and Chimpanzees are not primates? If they're not primates, what do you think they are?

No, I didn't say that. Again, there are no fossils for Gorillas or Chimpanzees or for an unknown number of "seed" primates. This is not to say there are no fossils for primates or that Gorillas and Chimps aren't primates. We're primates.

How do you guys get so confused?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

regarding Bluff Creek in 1967

Looks like Bluff Creek would have been a great place for further invesigation.. Why not ?

That's what Patterson wanted to know. Of course, that was the area the Slick expedition was investigating prior to the PGF.

Why, out of thousands ( world wide ) of foot prints, have only a handfull been anatomically analyzed with such confident ( if you want to call it that ) conclusions ?

There've been thousands, if not millions, of footprints found in this country. There are over a thousand casts.

Chilcutt found several in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges and other details not as visible on some of the other casts. This is not to say the other casts weren't authentic.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
So, you are going to throw the opinions of PHD's at us as proof for the existance of this animal, even when they disagree?


They agreed it's a real deformity, not the work of a hoaxer.


What is your basis for going with Meldrum instead of Napier & Krantz ( Krantz having done all the highly touted reconstruction ) ?

Are you referring to the drawings on the casts showing the separation of bones........or what? I haven't seen photos of foot reconstructions from Krantz. Do you have any?


You were beating us up with the credentials of Napier a while back, if I recall correctly ..

Actually, I disagree with Napier on a number of things. He was a primatologist, but not an expert on primate locomotion. (At least he had the decency to write a book instead of just going, "Bosh".)The depth of the heelprint was a problem. Note Krantz asked Meldrum to look into it as Krantz didn't have time.

Metatarsus adductus was a better fit:

"The front of the foot is bent inward (toward the midline) at the instep.
The back of the foot and the ankles are normal. With a clubfoot, which is a different deformity, the foot will be pointed down and the ankle turned in as well."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001601.htm


Meldrum had access to more up-to-date information.

People get second opinions don't they? If you'll note, the footnote was from Krantz (1999). He apparently concurred with Meldrum. Misdiagnoses aren't uncommon; I've had a couple myself. That didn't mean the doctors were incompetent. They just didn't get it quite right the first time.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Hitch
Why does he have to? You figured out how a bigfoot could do the same thing. I don't have time to read through an endless repetition of arguments that have no merit. But I do recall there WERE elk tracks associated with the Skookum cast, but NO Bigfoot footprints. Although, as I recall, you had a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation for that.

Heel prints. Heels are part of feet, aren't they. A Sasquatch could have stepped into the mud then squashed the print when he sat down, but elk gather their legs under them and sort of lunge up. There would have been clear signs of this. Elk and coyote evidently walked on the mud. There was no sign of an elk getting down or up.

There are drawings showing the male Sasquatch doing what it did. I have yet to see a drawing showing how an elk could have left such an imprint.

"Multiple heel strikes (from two feet) were found; also found elk tracks, as well as coyote, on the top of the impressions. Dermal ridges were found on the "heel."

Noll showed a video of an elk kneeling down on the ground, folding its front legs beneath it before going to its knees, then repeating the process with its back legs, pointing out that if the impression had been made by an elk, then there would be footprints present under the body impression."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

I suppose you think Swindler's arguments have no merit? He only wrote the standard text on primate anatomy. I would think he can tell a heelprint from a hole in the ground, especially when it has dermal ridges. Elk knees don't, do they?

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
I suspect I'm one of those lumped in the humor and arguments with no merit category. Perhaps, but I still maintain that unless I see credible evidence to contradict it, the most likely reason that dogs will not track sasquatches is that dogs, because they do not have enough imagination, can track only a quarry that actually exists.

I don't mean to lump everybody in that statement. I was running late, had to drive 18 miles to work and had spent hours just on that one post. There ought to be a way to save them for later.
At least I could have corrected the quotes, bolding and spelling.

Who says dogs won't track Sasquatches? There are reports of some being torn to pieces.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by LAL
No, I didn't say that. Again, there are no fossils for Gorillas or Chimpanzees or for an unknown number of "seed" primates. This is not to say there are no fossils for primates or that Gorillas and Chimps aren't primates. We're primates.

How do you guys get so confused? Ok, I read a bit of this thread, then I went away to do other things (work, home life etc). I come back to see this.

There are no gorilla fossils. No chimpanzee fossils. But there are fossils for primates.
"
I can see why you are confused. Which is it? There are no fossil primates, or there are no gorilla or chimpanzee fossils? Because you would be wrong on both counts.



Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

"The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. "

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by LAL
Who says dogs won't track Sasquatches? There are reports of some being torn to pieces. So we have body parts then? Seeing as how dogs ripped them up, and the owners of the dogs went to the authorities...

Oh wait. They never did, did they? Hm.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
I'd hardly call his response a 'dissection' per se. He's splitting hairs, so to speak. (nice pun eh?)


Yep.


If it's in the public forum, I don't see why it can't be used for discussion purposes.


There was a question about linking to another forum with the originator of the Bigfoot Follies thread. I guess it was okay. The post stood.


Maybe he should join in the discussion.


I wish he would. He said he was busy getting the last word on about 18 threads on BFF.


Roger says, "Fahrenbach is doing something quite different and much more reliable: differentiating and matching species..." It doesn't sound like Dr. Fahrenbach is having much success if he can't distinguish squatch from human hair. I already gave a link earlier in this thread about the FBI being able to tell human from animal hair. Either squatch hair is so close to being human that it IS human, or Dr. Fahrenbach isn't the expert you believe him to be.


As Meldrum has stated, there are subtle differences. The hair had never been cut. How many humans over the age of two have never had their hair cut?

I would expect the hair of a close relative to resemble human. He's an expert in microscopy and was with a primate research center. I would think he'd know something about primate hair.


As I said in my original reply to Roger, " Yes, but Henner is proclaiming these hairs as belonging to sasquatch, [by] comparing them to other sasquatch hairs he's examined. [and proclaimed as belonging to squatch]"

What type of background does Roger have in hair analysis? I notice he provided no links to back up his 'dissection'.


Somehow, I wouldn't expect Roger to do his research on the Internet. He's mentioned he has files. He may have had some correspondence with Dr. Fahrenbach on his methodology.

Do you have the same low opinion on some of Fahrenbach's other work? The bell curve, for instance?.


Too bad quantity doesn't equate to quality.


Wow, look at the films, the casts since the '80's.........the BFRO's database.......the books...... There's some pretty high quality stuff out there.


Not too many 'scofftics' are going to equate anecdotes with evidence.


Anectotal evidence shouldn't be thrown out completely, especially when people widely separated by time and distance report the same things.
Scofftics aren't going to accept any kind of evidence that upsets their worldview.


Keep in mind that's 30 years as an adult. I had heard of bigfoot about 10 years prior to that. :D


Okay. You can have seniority. I don't want it. :D


Why not? I think the foreplay has gone on long enough.


:o


That's one of the reasons I don't consider them a scientific organization. I'm guessing they're only using the term because they think it adds credibility and/or authority to their 'research'. If it don't walk like a duck, sound like a duck, or act like a duck...you can still call it a duck, but it ain't no duck.

RayG

I think it's because they have some actual scientists working with them.

[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..

The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported. There were more than two sets of tracks found just in '69. As I've noted many times, it's hard to find any kind of tracks in that sort of terrain. As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. (Apes mature more quickly than we do.)

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Shooting and capturing?

What about following and reporting?

What about having people see it?

What about getting pictures?

What about finding some really fresh tracks?

If they had found it's tracks, seen it, or got pictures of it, even poor ones, it would have strongly supported their opinion of the cast.


They put out more bait in hopes of getting more tracks. There were no answering calls that night. Evidently it was long gone.

Personally, I would have given the cast priority over a hopeless pursuit. If it was there at dawn (most animals feed at dusk and dawn), it could have been safely curled up in a sleeping spot for a good three hours. Given the stride and speed it could have been miles away.

They had seen tracks before, remember? The one Noll found was pretty clear, but the other was inconclusive. Why would subsequent tracks be any better?

Chances are a pursuit would have been fruitless and the imprint ruined if they'd acted differently than they did.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by LAL
The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported. There were more than two sets of tracks found just in '69. As I've noted many times, it's hard to find any kind of tracks in that sort of terrain. As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. (Apes mature more quickly than we do.) Ah, there we are, the Bigfoot enthusiast in all his/her glory.

"The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported."

"As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. "

So a lack of evidence is now...evidence. Apparently the fact that I never saw the tooth fairy means she existed and undoubtedly took my incisors.

Keep up the good work.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
Ok, I read a bit of this thread, then I went away to do other things (work, home life etc). I come back to see this.

There are no gorilla fossils. No chimpanzee fossils. But there are fossils for primates.
"
I can see why you are confused. Which is it? There are no fossil primates, or there are no gorilla or chimpanzee fossils? Because you would be wrong on both counts.

[/url]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

"The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. "

"Toumai" is not a Chimpanzee fossil. Nor is it Homo. It may be an ancestor of both, but it is not a Chimpanzee, or a Gorilla, Senut, Wolpoff and Pickford notwithstanding.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html)

[url]http://www.whyevolution.com/toumai.html

I've known about "Toumai" since it was published in Nature, BTW. The article is archived or I'd post it for you. In it, Henry Gee noted that the number of fossils from that era is frustratingly small, that, in fact, they would fit in a shoebox.

Much as I love TO, this is a better link:

http://www.sahelanthropus.com/

And this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/index.html


There are plenty of primate fossils. There are no fossils of Chimpanzees or Gorillas.

I don't know how to make that any clearer. I really don't like it when people misinterpret what I'm saying and then tell me I'm wrong.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by LAL
"/ancestor/index.html[/url]There are plenty of primate fossils. There are no fossils of Chimpanzees or Gorillas.

I don't know how to make that any clearer. I really don't like it when people misinterpret what I'm saying and then tell me I'm wrong. So there are no fossils of a recent hominid. Ok.

There is also no evidence of a large hairy primate living in the mountains of the west. None.

If there were, we would've found it. Seriously. We have satellites in the sky, thermo digital stuff, infrared, you name it. Still no bigfoot.

Oh, you say, we have footprints. Easily, very easily forged footprints. Some hairs. Highly degraded hairs.

You have to do better than that.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
You know, the "plane disappearance" is just another unbased claim. A quick googling (airplane disappearance pacific northwest) provided mostly links to UFO sites. Apparently its another "Bermuda Triangle", with abdutctions, etc.

Again, an example of poor data handling, since there are no reliable backing for such claim. The same old stuff- a claim pops up out of nowhere and people take it for granted, it becomes a fact. The sources are not verified. And the ckaim is repeated again and again.

A quick check at the database at
http://www.airdisaster.com/
http://www.emergency-management.net/airpl_acc_index.htm
Has not provided any backing to such claim.

If bigfeet supporters wnat to be taken seriously, their data handling must improve a lot. But are they willing to take the risk of being left without evidence if propper treatment is applied?

He said it was from an FAA report. I guess I should have asked him for a copy before I left Washington. How unforsightful of me. Of course, I didn't know he said that at the time. My source was Green and it was 28 or so at the time, I believe.

I noticed on the one site there seem to be no private planes mentioned. I'm still trying to decipher the other one.

D.B. Cooper was never found, either.

You're making some pretty broad assumptions here. Just because you can't verify it on the Internet on a quick Google doesn't mean no such report exists.

My youngest son's wife works for the FAA. I'll see if she can help if I can ever catch her home.

BTW, has anyone ever told you lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack?

I'm reminded of a Sierra Clubber friend who confronted Hatfield on the timber gap issue. Hatfield started demanding the source and said he was tired of "you people coming in here without sources". The friend said, "It's in Government report" (gave the number) "and you signed it, sir."

[Z]

I see LAL is still avoiding the Bigfoot bodies issue.

Were there five Bigfoot kills claimed by Green, and where are the bodies?

Otherwise, there's no point arguing with LAL. He's got his gullible little mind all made up, and no amount of reason is going to change it now.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
So there are no fossils of a recent hominid. Ok.

Well, there's us. We're pretty recent.

There is also no evidence of a large hairy primate living in the mountains of the west. None.

Sure there is.

If there were, we would've found it. Seriously. We have satellites in the sky, thermo digital stuff, infrared, you name it. Still no bigfoot.

What makes you think the government is looking for Sasquatches via satellite? There's a very good thread on this on BFF. Check it out.

Oh, you say, we have footprints. Easily, very easily forged footprints. Some hairs. Highly degraded hairs.

Highly degraded? Where did you get that? You need to do some research on the tracks. Here's this again:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

You have to do better than that.

I have. Sorry you missed it.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
So we have body parts then? Seeing as how dogs ripped them up, and the owners of the dogs went to the authorities...

Oh wait. They never did, did they? Hm.

How do you know that?

[LTC8K6]

Noll showed a video of an elk kneeling down on the ground, folding its front legs beneath it before going to its knees, then repeating the process with its back legs, pointing out that if the impression had been made by an elk, then there would be footprints present under the body impression."

As has already been explained to you verbally and with pictures, the skookum elk kneeled with it's front legs only, to reach down for the fruit.

The purpose of showing a film of an elk kneeling with all four feet is propaganda by Noll to misdirect people.

[LTC8K6]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
There is no credible evidence for sasquatch, imo.


In your opinion. I haven't seen anything to indicate your opinion is worth any more than, say, Cliff Crook's, and he was out there collecting evidence at one time.


Imo already means "in my opinion", it's not necessary to repeat me.

Feeding and other behavior has been observed.

Got any proof of that?

Funny, I thought you did know. It's all hoaxes and elk. Have you figured out how an elk could have gotten up without leaving clear signs of doing so?

Yes, and I already explained it to you.

Besides, Elk sometimes decide to hide their tracks, and sometimes they leave tracks all over hell's creation. What are you gonna do? :D

I have yet to see a drawing showing how an elk could have left such an imprint.

The pictures weren't good enough?


The BFRO has about 3000 members. Are you trying to characterize them all or just the ones you know nothing about who've been involved in expeditions?

You may take your pick here.

So you're setting your expertise against the PhDs again, one of whom is an expert in primate locomotion.

Too bad he knows nada about sasquatch locomotion, let alone whether the beastie exists.

What qualifications of Meldrum, Krantz, & Napier allow them to so confidently diagnose sasquatch foot structure & deformities from a footprint?

[LTC8K6]

For those who haven't already come across this story, DNA results from "sasquatch" hair coming soon in Canada.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/07/26/1147886-sun.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
He said it was from an FAA report. I guess I should have asked him for a copy before I left Washington. How unforsightful of me. Of course, I didn't know he said that at the time. My source was Green and it was 28 or so at the time, I believe.

I thought you said 73? But it wouldn't matter if it were a thousand.

You continue to ignore that the failure to find aircraft that vanished ' without a trace ' does not correlate to creatures who have supposedly left scads of evidence.

Your approach continues to be un-scientific, as does the search for Bigfoot in general ..

I noticed on the one site there seem to be no private planes mentioned. I'm still trying to decipher the other one.

Again.. This would prove what, exactly ?

D.B. Cooper was never found, either.

Yep ! No tracks, no sightings, no blurry photos or film of someone in a D.B. Cooper suit ..

But we can prove he existed before he disappeared .. ( same for the aircraft by the way.. )

This has what to do with a yet to be found creature who has supposedly left tons of evidence ?

You're making some pretty broad assumptions here. Just because you can't verify it on the Internet on a quick Google doesn't mean no such report exists.

Again.. What would it prove with relation to bigfoot. We can prove the aircraft existed before they disappeared.

My youngest son's wife works for the FAA. I'll see if she can help if I can ever catch her home.

See above.. You would be wasting your time ..


BTW, has anyone ever told you lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack?


BTW, has anyone ever told you it really is ?

I'm reminded of a Sierra Clubber friend who confronted Hatfield on the timber gap issue. Hatfield started demanding the source and said he was tired of "you people coming in here without sources". The friend said, "It's in Government report" (gave the number) "and you signed it, sir." Sounds like typical government behavior.. You have lots of cute stories, just no Bigfoot.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
I don't mean to lump everybody in that statement. I was running late, had to drive 18 miles to work and had spent hours just on that one post. There ought to be a way to save them for later.
At least I could have corrected the quotes, bolding and spelling.

Who says dogs won't track Sasquatches? There are reports of some being torn to pieces.

Looking back over this thread, I would have said, "you says," but maybe I misread it. So far in this thread you've said that use of dogs has been unsuccessful since 1962 or so, that they freeze, refuse to track, that dogs at a campsite repel bigfeet, but now it seems that they can catch up to one and be torn to pieces by it. I would have thought that even if the hunt was not very successful from the dogs' point of view, the humans using the dogs should have gotten a pretty good look at the offending squatches, maybe gotten some samples, pictures, tracks, fur, blood, DNA, something. That is assuming that they really knew or saw what tore the dogs apart and weren't just guessing after the fact. Did they bring back the dogs' bodies for examination?

Sorry, but like so much else here, it sounds as if people are either making it up, guessing, or doing a really slack job of documenting what they find.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
For those who haven't already come across this story, DNA results from "sasquatch" hair coming soon in Canada.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/07/26/1147886-sun.html

How much you wanna bet it's inconclusive?

ETA: I just read the article, it says they think it's likely a bison.

[LTC8K6]

DP

[LTC8K6]

I just thought this little story needed repeating. Fresh tracks, freshly twisted off trees, fresh hairs, sasquatch 100 feet away. Clearly a great sighting and tracking of a live sasquatch. Beautiful, right? Just what we need. We know that the trees were likely twisted by sasquatch, and the hair is likely from sasquatch because the witnesses were right on his trail.

However, the hair is tested and shown to clearly come from 2 different beings of the same species. Not only that, but the hairs are "indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion".

Indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion? Interesting, eh? Apparently humans can duplicate bigfoot tracks and behaviors such as twisting off tree tops.

Imagine what a good look these guys must have got using binocs on something only 100 feet away. Bigfoot's head must have filled the view! Even with lowly 4 power binocs, the creature would appear to be right in front of you!

Try it yourself. Get a cheap pair of binocs. 7X are most common. See what a good look you get at something 100 feet away from you. The actual distance reported was 87 feet.

It's just gosh darn awful that these boys didn't think to bring some sort of camera. Just imagine the photos they would have had of a bigfoot 87 feet away from them.

Status of the DNA Analysis
of Hair Samples at Ohio State
Univ.
On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples
were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B.
Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of
Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three
sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off
trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time
later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with
binoculars. 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.

[LTC8K6]

ETA: I just read the article, it says they think it's likely a bison.

But....but.....but....all those witnesses, and all of that testimony..... How can the hair be from a bison? Who can't tell a bison from Chewbacca? :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Gotta love it..


The real Bigfoot hunters lash out at the Johnny Come Latelys..


Bigfoot Central (http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bigfootcentral/)

Veteran Sasquatch Investigators Cliff Crook, Cary Crook and the entire Bigfoot Central Foundation extend Big thanks to operators of the struggling "groop" bfro (aka) "big fringe research operation" and other Bigfoot bandwagon wannabes for their nasty (Bad Ink Postings)on the internet against Cliff Crook and the purchased Wild Creek Bigfoot Photos. Be it mere plain luck, sheer coincidence, or the most likely case of just normal Bad Ink Backfire, ever since these lie postings against Cliff and his (1995) purchased Wild Creek Bigfoot Photos, the global multi-media photo use sales have soared.


BFRO (http://www.bfro.net/)


Yes, we do have follies..!

[Bronze Dog]

BTW, has anyone ever told you lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack?
Duh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof) But that simple statement doesn't mean we should believe in something without evidence. My disbelief is tenative, like all skeptical disbelief. If you bring in real evidence, I'll certainly reconsider. Where are the bodies?

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL

Read the other thread, please. I even mentioned she hasn't done the research.

It's rather difficult to find an expert in "Bigfootology" when there's no such field. Primatology is close enough for me.

I mentioned Goodall among others and posted a link to her introduction to the Willow Creek Symposium. I've never presented her as an authority on Sasquatches, only as someone with standing who has looked into it to some extent for thirty years who believes they exist. Posters kind of latched on to her, presumably because they'd never heard of any of the others.

Out of respect for Dr. Goodall, it might be best to fully quote her opinions from her National Public Radio interview.

September 27, 2002
National Public Radio - Talk of the Nation: Science Friday - hosted by Ira Flatow...

During the call-in period a person asked about Bigfoot.

Dr. Jane Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Then a few moments later...

Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

Those two highlighted thoughts make interesting bookends, eh?

The transcript of the relevant portions of the interview has other interesting comments by Dr. Goodall. Her 'belief' in Bigfoot may be the product of her credulity, savvy Bigfoot propagandists and her personal desires. It's worth a reading. From the BFRO website: http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL

You know, you should not really believein anything, specially if you are trying to use scientidic methodology. Here´s a trap where most -if not all- "investigators" fall. One must conclude, after evaluating the evidence. Note that you admitted that most sightings happen at night and last less than 20s. Very nice conditions for the proposed explanation.
You should, however, consider the following possibilities:
(a)Pareidolia and similar phenomena ("daydreaming", etc.)- Witnesses confused either ordinary animals - or no animal at all jut shadows and lightining playing games with the mind;
(b)Witnesses were fooled by hoaxer(s)
(c)The sighting itself is a lie, a hoax.

Originally posted by LAL
It happens. No one is saying it doesn't
Pareidolia doesn't leave tracks.

So, at all sightings tracks are found? What is the percentage? And tracks, as it happens quite often, can be misinterpretated. What´s the percentage of possible misinterpretations? How many of these tracks were examinaed by people who really can understand them, and not an average joe/jane?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, can you tell me why there are no remains -fossil or not- of a creature that is supposed to live across a large part of Asia and North America? Uh... Eh... Because its not real?

Originally posted by LAL
Because of the habitat. Ape fossils of any kind are extremely rare. Hominid fossils are too. How many times do I have to point this out?

How many times do I have to point out that they exist, across the huge are they inhabited and that forest animals do get fossilized. And that bigfoot and related species, that have a geographic span of comparable size, never left a remain, fossil or not.

Originally posted by LAL
Bryne pointed out a dead elephant disappears in four days, leaving only a big black spot.

And the source of his statement was?
I have seen some documentaries on Africa that showed elephants carcasses that were much older than four days. I also happen to have two friends from South Africa who own game farms. And they pointed out that even gazelles´carcasses can last for a lot longer.

Originally posted by LAL
Need more bones of Giganto, for starters. I don't know about the teeth. Again, the species is only known from three jawbones and about a thousand teeth.

So, you must agree that its worthless to say it may be a relative to bigfoot. Gigantopithecus is completely useless as evidence for the existence of big foot. Actually it can be used as a smoking gun of its inexistence. Not to mention that first one must prove that bigfoot exists.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So be it, 4000, the average. He based on what to achieve this figure?

Originally posted by LAL
He said it was guesswork and he said 2000. There's an estimate based on reports.
Ah. Guesswork. Very solid.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Anyway, lets suppose bigfeet are real, and dwell in forests. So, Europeans colonize North America, forests have their area decreased, thus bigfeet´s habitat area also decresed, right? Not to mention the introduction of chemicals such as pesticides in the environment. And you say its possible the number of specimens actually may have increased? Weird...

Originally posted by LAL
Why? Eastern sightings seem to be more recent and on the increase. There are more reports from Skamania County than from the whole state of Tennessee. Who uses pesticides in the forests anymore? We haven't managed to destroy all the habitat in this country yet. I drove across the country in 1997 and I was amazed at how much wild &/or sparsely populated areas there are left.

It's not known if they managed to spread all over the country tens of thousands of years ago.

So, a forest animal has its habitat decreased but not its numbers? Regardless of how the environment recovered after conservation laws were created (and respected), the new-grown forests (note that this may encompass forests that may be over 40-years old), are very different in terms of biodiversity. And many are not yet able to sustain the same type and number od animals they did before. Not to mention that you must take in to account the lifespan (that if you accept cripplefoot exists must be above 40 years) and reproductive cycle of any species when considering how fast its number will (re)grow. Usually species composed of specimens that live long take more time to increase its number. And regarding pesticides, by your statement, I must assume you are not aware on their effect in the environment. It does not matter if no one uses prohibited pesticides anymore. Their effect is cumulative, and not only may last for decades but also tends to concentrate its effects at the top of the food chain, where large animals are located.
And you are contradicting yourself. They MUST -of course, if they exist(ed)- have spread "almost all over" USA and Canada tens of thousands years ago and before European colonization. As most (if not all) large forest animal species, their numbers must have been quite larger when European colonist arrived at North America. And no one managed to shot one since the starting of colonization?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Other than that, the usual may and could excuses for the lack of evidences.

Originally posted by LAL
There's plenty of evidence. That you refuse to see that is not my problem.

There´s weak evidence. That bigfoot researchers so far manage to provide just substandard quality evidence is their problem. But neither I or anyone else is forced to accept such poor data. That you refuse to see that is not my problem -unless you are debating it with me and the other posters here. And, in this case, being rude will not be of any help.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
If large primate live (or lived in historical times) in Europe and tropical Asia, then its even more unlikely that such animals would still be unknown.


Originally posted by LAL
They're known by the local people and Russian scientists evidently take this much more seriously than American scientists do.

These Russian scientists, have they managed to publish at least one paper at a peer-reviewed science magazine of some importance? Or are they of the same type that said Nina Kulagina was the real deal?

Originally posted by LAL
I used the spelling from the book. It's on several websites as well. I've found two so far that say it's a hominid or sloth sort of thing, not a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts.

So, the websites are wrong when it comes to the spelling and the way they tell the myth. The legend do speaks of a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts. Are you going to deny that? The description I provided was taken by me directly from people who live in the Amazon forest and matches perfectly with that on the Amazonian myths site whose link I posted. Is it that hard to accept that the legend was distorted (consiently or not) by those who claim the mapinguari may be a crypto?
Those websites are far from being reliable sources of information.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
legend is about a creature whose mouth is so big that is located at it´s belly, has just one eye, whose skin is like that of an alligator and whose back has a turtle-like shell. Got the picture? Its the way the people an the Amazon forest desribe it, taken personally and directly from them. If you don´t want to take my word, try checking:
http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore..._mapinguari.asp <http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore/lenda_mapinguari.asp>
Its in Portuguese, but has an "artistic concept"...


Originally posted by LAL
There are conflicting ideas on this apparently. There's the Didi as well. Now, can we drop it?

Sure. But then we´ll drop also on bigfoot, since there are conflicting ideas about it as well. My point is the unreliability of legends interpretation as source of information. Do you accept that?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Now, if Heuvelmans, Sanderson and Coleman think its a primate, and David Oren thinks of it as a "medium-sized Giant Sloth", I say they either reinterpretated and distorted the original myth in a way to suit their needs or have very poor anatomy and biology knoweledge. In both cases, its lousy data handling, at best.
So, what about considering the possibility that sasquatch is a myth from Native North-Americans.

Originally posted by LAL
Perhaps they interviewed people who had had sightings rather than listening to mere mythology.
<http://www.occultopedia.com/m/mapinguary.htm>

Myths don't leave footprints. Native people have had encounters too.

Didin´t you asked to drop the issue? The myth was distorted by these people to fit their own needs. They picked up the parts that suited (vague humanoid shape, claws, etc.) and interpretated according to their own cultural backgrounds. I have seen this happen a handfull of times not only with the mapinguari, but also with other legends. And regarding the footprints, what evidence do you have that they were not misinterpretated? What´s the surce? Occultopedia?
And are you sure they went to the Amzon forest and interviewed people who claimed to have seen the animal? Or, as adopted as standard practice by many "researchers", they just used scond- or third-hand accounts?

Can you be sure that the sasquatch as a giant unknown to the science hominid is not just an interpretation based in the cultural background of bigfeet researchers? And that the original myth meant something else, that fitted well within Native North American´s cultural background?

And regarding encounters... Well, people also claim to have had encounters with aliens. And there are footprints of aliens, landing gear marks, burnt vegetation, etc. Where to draw the line? Why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Any biologist saw them? Anyone working there managed to get nice pictures?

Originally posted by LAL
I don't want to have to keep going over this. Just reread my posts.

As I tought. No biologist saw a bigfoot. No evidence, just lame excuses.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Yes, and refused to understand what I wrote about using Pacific Northwest as standard. Does the remains -fossil or not- have to come from PNW? I guess not. Your opinions are heavilly biased towads´s PNW´s "special conditions". What cause the whole argument to be flawed.

Originally posted by LAL
The best evidence is from the PNW. There is nothing to indicate they can live out side a forested environment, yet you would have them adapted to another habitat so you can claim there "should" be fossils. There's your flawed argument.

Q. Are all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) similar to those of PNW?
A. No.
Here´s one of the flaws in your argument. I say there should be fossil remains of bigfeet and related species as well as recent remains.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Same words said by those who belive in UFOs...
Originally posted by LAL

Please leave UFO's out of this.
Just after you answer me why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
You are kidding? You wrote this before thinking, haven´t you? Are you now claiming that there are no fossils of bears?

Originally posted by LAL
Of course not. Now, how many Black Bear fossils have been found outside of an Alaskan cave?

I think you should only write this sort of thing after being certain about it. There are a lot of fossils of several species of bear.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Wooding_1997.pdf
http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

Originally posted by Correa Neto
And if you are just referring to PNW, well, again, its pretty useless. You know, bigfeet are not supposed to live just there, remains should heve been found somewhere else, for a species with such a large territory...

Originally posted by LAL
It's an unknown higher primate. Hominid. There is no resemblence to squirrels and no evidence they evolved in NA. I'll give you a moment to get your scientific foot out of your mouth. I really didn't think you were serious.

I´ll say again, being rude will not help. The only thing that might help you are solid evidences. What so far has not been provided by any big feet researcher.
And have you ever heard of convergent evolution? See, a hipothesys stating that bigfeet evolved from squirrels or opossums via convergent evolution is at the very same level than any other about bigfeet´s evolution, since it is based on absolutely nothing of solid. First prove the animal exists. Then prove its a hominid.
And if they evolved somewhere else, where are the fossil of their ancestors?
Feel free to take all the time you need to take your feet of your mouth.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
It really does not atter if its the area you are most familiar with. Its not the only place where these creatures are supposed to live!! Therefore, it will only result in biased conclusions. As I have wrote before.

Originally posted by LAL
I know from firsthand experience what those forests are like, what the lakeshores are like, what the rivers are like, what the wildlife is like...........

Sorry, but since not all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) are identical to those of PNW, all you´ll managed to obtain were biased opinions.

Originally posted by LAL
The flows in the area are mostly basalt and andesite.
Erosion of basalt? Basalt gets etched by acid detrius. Takes centuries. It's incredibly hard. So's andesite. St. Helens blew ash. It washed down in mud flows (yes, I saw the Toutle).

You´d better check your sources. Again. Dacite is the main type of lava, and it is also the type that nowdays is building the dome. Mt Saint Helen, as well as all the volcanos at the Cascades are what composite volcanoes. They were built by intercalations of tuffs (AKA ashes) and lava.
Check again your sorces when it comes to weathering of basalt. Basalt is composed by pyroxenes and calcic plagioclases (depending on the basalt it may have olivines). These minerals are very poor in water. In contact with water (atmospheric, raind, rivers, etc) they hidratate and become clay. Ph level has little to do with it. Climate is the most important factor. The more rainy and hot the climate, the faster will be the weathering.

Originally posted by LAL
The Columbia is clear compared to say, the French Broad which is brown and nearly in flood. Didn't see any dead animals along its banks Sunday.
Northwest streams are crystal clear and their beds are rocky. Some of the lakes are like that too. There are sandbars in the Columbia, but there just aren't huge amounts of silt coming down from the glaciers. It probably gets filtered out by vegetation before it gets very far..........
Didn't I already mention St. Helens laid down a couple of hundred feet of ash?

Ash=tuff. You can´t say there´s no silt in those rivers before making a detailed analysys of the sediment that is being carried. And if there are glaciers that feed rivers, and the glaciers and the rivers pass through ash layers, then there´s silt. Even if they pass through solid rock. Ice from glaciers is an incredible erosive agent. It crushes and mills rocks. The flood water are crystal clear too?

Originally posted by LAL
So you're telling me dead Sasquatches should be quietly covered in silt rather than being scavanged right next to all the bodies of deer and bear who frequent those lakes but whose bodies (let alone fossils) aren't found either.

A claim that you can not defend. Some peoplehere, including a ranger, have pointed aout that animal remains are found in the forests. And don´t write "In PNW..." because it´s been already answered.

Originally posted by LAL
Seems Ray Crowe checked some areas on St. Helens and found a baked piece of some animal. The blast blew things to bits. I guess there's not much chance of finding much of anything under all that ash, other than trees.
[B][QUOTE]

And all bigfeet live(ed) there? No. So, where are all the remains of the animal that lived at all these other places, since they arrived to North America?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LAL
[B]You twist my words and then expect me to accept your misinterpretation. ...snip...

Talking about twisting words...
As the song says, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"

Originally posted by LAL
There's both. Members of the Cree Nation reportedly excavated whole tracks rather than merely casting them. The film shows a creature wading in water that was 4' deep. It's estimated height was 9-10'. Tracks were found before and after the event and there's been a sighting since. There were three sightings in the general area in a year.

So what? Unreliable evidence.

Originally posted by LAL
because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions They dismiss it out of hand, as you do, because it doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions and are willing to accept the most outlandish explanations (such as hoaxed tracks in remote areas) rather than really look into it. The few experts who have looked into it have come away convinced (Dr. Daris Swindler, e.g., despite 30 years of scepticism preceeding his examination of the Skookum Cast.)

What if I said you dismiss perfectly logical explanations because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions that there´s a 3m-high ape living in North America´s forests?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So you admit your claim that there are no dry seasons is flawed. And that the way the remains of these and other animals could be preserved within caves is reasonable. Even if they never use caves as shelter.

Originally posted by LAL
It was a drought, not a dry season, and a very rare event for that area. The usual was getting caught in the storm track and having rain for weeks at a time. The last year I was there, poles fell over because the ground was so wet and the east end of town slid.

Talking about twisting words... You know, for someone who claims to know wildlife, you are pretty unaware of some aspects of animal behavior... Rare event. OK. How many times this rare event happened in your lifetime? Let´s suppose it happens just once every 50 years (no, I´m not stating this is your age), Since we are talking about a period of 10Ky, that would be a total of 200 droughts. At least, since there may be other droughts "periodic" or not, smaller or larger...

So, at droughts animals are not attracted to water sources such as caves? And these are not potential remains preservation sites? And aren´t there caves along several places withing bigfeet´s supposed habitat range?

Oh, I see "at PNW..."

Look, the points of ths discussion on dry seasons, as well as those on geology, are to show you that:
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat
You are making claims that you can´t really defend.

Originally posted by LAL
I know of no animals being preserved in lava tubes. do you?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
That another claim you can´t defend. Do you really thing the only way inside a lava tupe is by its end? Have you never noticed that a certain places there are parts of their ceilings that have collapsed, creating entrances, and that water may enter through it, flowing downhill? So, you´ll now write that Ape Cave has no such openings? Then I´ll write that Hawaii´s lava tubes have such openings.

Originally posted by LAL
And do rare Hawaiian animals get quickly covered in silt and preserved in lava tubes?

So, more claims that can not be defended.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA08/galop896.html
http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/
And please, try not mixing the preservation processes.
And what about considering that what you know about PNW and what you gathered at the internet about caves may not be of great use as a standard for comparsion with other places?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
And material do get washed inside these caves by water. And that similar but smaller caves in Galapagos and other oceanic islands do have fossil content. What will you write next? That PNW´s lava tubes don´t have such feature? And I´ll then write that your opinion is based just in what you know about PNW, thus is biased and therefore of little use.

Originally posted by LAL
How condescending can you get? You do know Hawaiian volcanes are quite different from volcanoes in the Northwest, don't you?

You are demonstrating to have very little knoweledge on what you are talking about. Hawaiian volcanoes are the type known as shield volcanoes. They are mainly composed by thick basaltic lava layers that create very gently-sloping (but very high - Hawaii´s elevation from the sea floor -where the volcanoes rise from- to its top is higher than that of the Everest, when measured from the sea level) mountains. What is quite different from the Cascades´ composite cones built by interlayered tuffs and lava flows. Now, these basaltic lavas are very fluid, due to their composition and eruption temperature. Thus, they flow for long distances and cool slowly, what makes lava tube formation easier, hence the number of this type of cave that exists in Hawaii and other oceanic islands created by similar volcanoes. So, your point was?

And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.

Originally posted by Correa Neto

Not to mention that, as I wrote before, why should anyone bother with the lava tubes, if there are plenty of other places (caves, sedimentary deposits, roads, etc.) within bigfeet´s habitat where remains -fossil and recent- could have been found, if it existed?.

Originally posted by LAL
Because it's known there are Sasquatches on and about St. Helens and St. Helens has lava tubes? What animals have been preserved in them? Bear, maybe?.

Twisting words again, eh? Are lava tubes at the Cascades the only places where remains -fossil and recent- of bigfeet could be found?
And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;
(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Who cares? I´ll write again, since you seem to be having problems understanding the argument. These animals are not restricted to the Pacific Northwest of USA. Its not the only place these animals are supposed to exist. Its remains -past and recent- shoud have been found somewhere else.

Originally posted by LAL
Such as Tennessee?.

Such as all northern states from USA, a great part of Canada and a chunk of Russia. And if there are reports of sightings at Tenesse, yes, that´s would be another place to find remains, past or present.

Originally posted by LAL
Nope. Sasquatches are bipedal. They can easily step behind a tree. They're dark, usually. They blend right into the shadows.

Deers are not as tall as bigfeet, are they? Compare a 3-m tall bigfoot with a deer that can easily hide in the underbrush. Deer also blend in the shadows.
Oh, and deer have left remains, fossil and recent.

Originally posted by LAL
Creationists use that to say Goddit, 6,000 years ago. No similarity. We don't have fossils of everything that ever walked the earth. But we "should"?

And you are using the same argument to explain why there are no bigfeet fossils. So, creationists can´t use it as an evidence against evolution but you can use it as an excuse for the absence of bigfeet fossils?

Originally posted by LAL
Perhaps frustrated is a better word. I don't have time to waste on some of the attempted humor and endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.

That´s exactly what you are providing. An endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.

edited to fix typos and cut-and-paste mistakes

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
As has already been explained to you verbally and with pictures, the skookum elk kneeled with it's front legs only, to reach down for the fruit.

And then managed to get up leaving four knee prints, three in a row, but no hoof prints. And it's the only elk in the world with dermal ridges running down its knees and a shin so sharp it looks just like a hominid tendon.

Is your brain sprained from all these mental contortions?


The purpose of showing a film of an elk kneeling with all four feet is propaganda by Noll to misdirect people.

Bull.

Elk was ruled out.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Imo already means "in my opinion", it's not necessary to repeat me.

Your opinion is all you have. I was just remining you of that.


What qualifications of Meldrum, Krantz, & Napier allow them to so confidently diagnose sasquatch foot structure & deformities from a footprint?

Meldrum is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Idaho State. His speciality is primate locomotion. Grover Krantz was a Professor of Physical Anthropology at Washington State University and Napier was in the Primate Biology Division of the Smithsonian.

[LTC8K6]

I am having trouble reconciling the descriptions and illustrations of "cripple foot's" tracks. Not to mention the whole strange story of events around Bossburg and the tracks.

Anyway, the photo of the cripple foot track doesn't appear to match the desriptions and the skeletal illustrations.

Below are descriptions from various bigfoot supporters, the skeleton drawing of cripple foot, and the photo of cripple foot's track.

Does anyonw agree with me that the photo does not match the desriptions and the skeleton illustration?

I am not surprised that the illustration matches the descriptions, though. :D

The right foot was deformed; the third toe was either badly twisted over or was missing, there being only a slight impression in the snow at its base; the little toe stuck out at a sharp angle; and the whole foot curved outwards and showed two distinct lumps on the outer edge.

The forepart of the foot is twisted inwards, the third toe has been squeezed out of normal alignment

It has only four toes-the middle one is either missing or somehow raised above the other four, which have spread to fill the gap. More significant is the distortion of the entire foot, which is bent radically inward from the heel.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/10_boss_redo.gif

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/10_Bossburgsnow.jpg

[LTC8K6]

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

Read the whole strange story of the Bossburg bigfoot events, if you have nothing better to do. :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Does anyonw agree with me that the photo does not match the desriptions and the skeleton illustration?

Me! Me! :D

What is supposed to be causing the bulges on the right side of the ' crippled ' drawing ?


They have drawn the outline to match the foot print, but the bone structure doesn't account for the bulges..

[William Parcher]

It may be true that there have been no big budget searches or well-funded expeditions for Bigfoot. The believers seem to be begging for this as well as some sort of legitimate recognition.

It is worth mentioning that Bigfoot is not found during big budget high-tech searches for lost humans in areas that are supposed to support populations of Bigfoot. When hikers, children or anyone goes missing in these regions (PNW included) there are very sophisticated searches for them. These include many people on the ground as well as aerial searches using human vision and technology such as infrared imagery.

When search parties and helicopters look for little Tommy Smith... why don't they find Bigfoot? An organized search in the PNW for a 4 foot tall bipedal primate (Tommy) should also uncover any 8 foot tall bipedal primates (Bigfoot), yes?

[LTC8K6]

Elk was ruled out. \

By whom? The people who had already ruled bigfoot in? :D



Your opinion is all you have.

That's all anyone has regarding bigfoot, isn't it?


Meldrum is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Idaho State. His speciality is primate locomotion. Grover Krantz was a Professor of Physical Anthropology at Washington State University and Napier was in the Primate Biology Division of the Smithsonian.

Non-reponsive, your honor. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. :D

And then managed to get up leaving four knee prints, three in a row, but no hoof prints. And it's the only elk in the world with dermal ridges running down its knees and a shin so sharp it looks just like a hominid tendon.

No hoof prints? I'll just assume you are joking. The hoof prints are well documented.

[Bronze Dog]

Suddenly, I'm reminded of UFO sightings. They seem to have quite a lot in common with Bigfoot footprints: There's a long list of alternative explanations, and even if you debunk the entire known list, it doesn't really do all that much for the believer's case. Don't think I have much reason to believe unexplained possible footprints as proof of Bigfoot anymore than unexplained lights in the sky as proof of alien spacecraft.

[LTC8K6]

Well, I don't think the outline matches the foot print in the snow at all. :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by William Parcher
It may be true that there have been no big budget searches or well-funded expeditions for Bigfoot. The believers seem to be begging for this as well as some sort of legitimate recognition.

It is worth mentioning that Bigfoot is not found during big budget high-tech searches for lost humans in areas that are supposed to support populations of Bigfoot. When hikers, children or anyone goes missing in these regions (PNW included) there are very sophisticated searches for them. These include many people on the ground as well as aerial searches using human vision and technology such as infrared imagery.

When search parties and helicopters look for little Tommy Smith... why don't they find Bigfoot? An organized search in the PNW for a 4 foot tall bipedal primate (Tommy) should also uncover any 8 foot tall bipedal primates (Bigfoot), yes? Welcome to the disection .. errrr ummm, discussion..:D


Re; " It may be true that there have been no big budget searches or well-funded expeditions for Bigfoot. "


Au contrare.. Byrne has supposedly had access to millions in funding.

You have made some excellent points though..

Expect the usual tangental responses and obfuscation.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Welcome to the disection .. errrr ummm, discussion..:D

You have made some excellent points though..

Expect the usual tangental responses and obfuscation.

Thank you for the welcome. I presume you mean that I should expect a predictable response from LAL. I've now read this whole thread and I suppose that is forthcoming.

I don't know if there is a proper term for those who believe Bigfoot exists. Do they call themselves something? LAL seems to be an indefatigable defender of this giant wild ape. It seems that this forum has not even come close to dissuading this poster of their belief. That means something.

It's not about whether Bigfoot does or does not exist. That question is ironically tangential to the issue and frustration of skeptics. The issue is of the psychology and resources of the Bigfoot believer. Because of this, arguing about tendon impressions in mud will get everyone nowhere.

Bigfoot is the great American myth. It has been for a very long time. There are piles of printed supportive material on Bigfoot. The Internet has allowed for an explosion of anecdote, pseudoresearch and whatnot in support of Bigfoot existence. A person like LAL will never run out of things to point their finger at... even if they themselves have no tangible evidence or connection to Bigfoot.

This thread superficially looks like a long argument of Bigfoot evidence vs. skepticism of such evidence. It really isn't. This is a kind of intellectual war between myth perpetuation and an appeal to naturalistic rationality. It cannot be won by either side. I suppose a Bigfoot body would halt the debate. But (again) ironically, the lack of a body will only maintain the debate no matter how long this goes on.

This is not about an undiscovered giant hairy ape, this is about the minds of gracile hairless apes. Long shall live myths, romanticism and things that go bump in the night.

[Skeptical Greg]

This is not about an undiscovered giant hairy ape, this is about the minds of gracile hairless apes. Long shall live myths, romanticism and things that go bump in the night. Well said..

P.S.

I suppose a Bigfoot body would halt the debate. But not the squirming, when the actual creature doesn't match the evidence that proved it's existance.

[Blondin]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

Just thought you might be interested in following this story:

Lab to test 'sasquatch' hair (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050726/od_nm/canada_sasquatch_dc;_ylt=AtDgKVYpF0WNs1OGhKxajYkSH 9EA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Blondin
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

Just thought you might be interested in following this story:

Lab to test 'sasquatch' hair (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050726/od_nm/canada_sasquatch_dc;_ylt=AtDgKVYpF0WNs1OGhKxajYkSH 9EA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

It was.. If your link wasn't broke, I would forgive you..:D

Originally posted by LTC8K6
For those who haven't already come across this story, DNA results from "sasquatch" hair coming soon in Canada.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/07/26/1147886-sun.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, at all sightings tracks are found? What is the percentage? And tracks, as it happens quite often, can be misinterpretated. What´s the percentage of possible misinterpretations? How many of these tracks were examinaed by people who really can understand them, and not an average joe/jane?

Krantz examined 750 casts and examined tracks in situ. Meldrum has examined tracks [I]in situ[/B] on five occasions. Chilcutt examined Meldrum's collection (over 100), Ed de Palma, another fingerprint expert, examined casts in Krantz' possession. And then there are the many law enforcement officers who investigate right after a sighting........

How many times do I have to point out that they exist,


Once is enough on what you just said. :D


across the huge are they inhabited and that forest animals do get fossilized. And that bigfoot and related species, that have a geographic span of comparable size, never left a remain, fossil or not.

They may have left remains and even fossils that have never been found. You know fossils can be exposed and then weathered away before anyone discovers them.

The forests of the NW cover an area larger than Britain. I don't know of any fossil beds in that area, Pleistocene or otherwise.


And the source of his statement was?

Personal experience, I suppose. He searched for and found Asia's largest elephant. He wrote a book on it.

"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


So, you must agree that its worthless to say it may be a relative to bigfoot. Gigantopithecus is completely useless as evidence for the existence of big foot. Actually it can be used as a smoking gun of its inexistence. Not to mention that first one must prove that bigfoot exists.

To convince science, one must bring in a body (which is no easy task) and then make comparisons to scanty fossil remains. I favor an Australopith, myself.

I don't think it's worthless to speculate about it. Giganto's mode of locomotion hasn't been established. A toe bone would help. Why hasn't anyone found a toebone?

Ah. Guesswork. Very solid.


There's been no census.

So, a forest animal has its habitat decreased but not its numbers?

Most of the deforestation has been in the East. Reports started coming in (to the white world) when settlers moved West. I think it's possible they started spreading into the East and Southeast relatively recently. There's not only a lot of wildland left, there's formerly logged over land that now has mature timber on it. In a sense, the habitat has increased since the unbridled logging of a century ago.

Regardless of how the environment recovered after conservation laws were created (and respected), the new-grown forests (note that this may encompass forests that may be over 40-years old), are very different in terms of biodiversity. And many are not yet able to sustain the same type and number od animals they did before. Not to mention that you must take in to account the lifespan (that if you accept cripplefoot exists must be above 40 years) and reproductive cycle of any species when considering how fast its number will (re)grow. Usually species composed of specimens that live long take more time to increase its number. And regarding pesticides, by your statement, I must assume you are not aware on their effect in the environment.

I was active in the Sierra Club soon after DDT misuse was at its height. The Forest Service was spraying the National Forests and using chemical fertilizers while spraying herbicides to kill the Alder. I wish you'd stop assuming I'm unaware.

The Bald Eagle has recovered enough to be taken off the endangered list. It was never seriously threatened in areas that didn't have a lot of agriculture, but Brown Pelicans had a 100% reproductive failure (due to thin shelled eggs) one year. Species that were most affected were the fish-eating birds at the top of the food chain.


It does not matter if no one uses prohibited pesticides anymore. Their effect is cumulative, and not only may last for decades but also tends to concentrate its effects at the top of the food chain, where large animals are located.

At one time human milk had higher than acceptable levels of DDT. The government kept raising the acceptable levels.

So how did humans, also at the top of the food chain, survive? We were eating products that were directly sprayed. When I was a kid in suburban Chicago, we and the mosquitos were directly sprayed.


And you are contradicting yourself. They MUST -of course, if they exist(ed)- have spread "almost all over" USA and Canada tens of thousands years ago and before European colonization. As most (if not all) large forest animal species, their numbers must have been quite larger when European colonist arrived at North America. And no one managed to shot one since the starting of colonization?

I've said before Green has five reports of shootings.

No contradiction. There are a couple of scenarios, both of which I've presented.

There´s weak evidence. That bigfoot researchers so far manage to provide just substandard quality evidence is their problem. But neither I or anyone else is forced to accept such poor data. That you refuse to see that is not my problem -unless you are debating it with me and the other posters here. And, in this case, being rude will not be of any help.

I'm sorry if I appeared rude, but I don't think anything I've said compares to some of the statements that have been directed at me by some of the posters.

I don't think my superiors would accept posting on message boards as a legitimate excuse for being late, so from now on I'll only answer you when I have more time and am not feeling frustrated and testy about some of the mockery and put-downs.

These Russian scientists, have they managed to publish at least one paper at a peer-reviewed science magazine of some importance? Or are they of the same type that said Nina Kulagina was the real deal?

I hope not. Google Bayanov, for one. Seems a Russian scientist has seen one. I 'll try to get her name.

So, the websites are wrong when it comes to the spelling and the way they tell the myth. The legend do speaks of a fanciful assemblage of unrelated animal parts. Are you going to deny that? The description I provided was taken by me directly from people who live in the Amazon forest and matches perfectly with that on the Amazonian myths site whose link I posted. Is it that hard to accept that the legend was distorted (consiently or not) by those who claim the mapinguari may be a crypto?
Those websites are far from being reliable sources of information.

There's disagreement, okay? Even on the spelling, which may have been Anglicized. I'd really like to rein in the subject a bit. Crypotozology deals with unidentified animals, and really only deals with mythological animals when the myths may be based on real creatures. Some of the cryptids have been identified and classified.

Sure. But then we´ll drop also on bigfoot, since there are conflicting ideas about it as well. My point is the unreliability of legends interpretation as source of information. Do you accept that?

Some of the legends from the Coast tribes, BC and California seem to be a fit. Others are too much of a stretch. But I find it interesting the fits are from where the largest population seems to reside.


Didin´t you asked to drop the issue? The myth was distorted by these people to fit their own needs. They picked up the parts that suited (vague humanoid shape, claws, etc.) and interpretated according to their own cultural backgrounds. I have seen this happen a handfull of times not only with the mapinguari, but also with other legends. And regarding the footprints, what evidence do you have that they were not misinterpretated? What´s the surce? Occultopedia?

I've posted a number of links on footprints, both here and on the Bigfoot Follies thread. Please read them.

This is the first time I've ever used Occultpedia (or even seen the site) and that was only in support of the spelling and hominid interpretation.

And are you sure they went to the Amzon forest and interviewed people who claimed to have seen the animal? Or, as adopted as standard practice by many "researchers", they just used scond- or third-hand accounts?

Nope. This is new to me.

Can you be sure that the sasquatch as a giant unknown to the science hominid is not just an interpretation based in the cultural background of bigfeet researchers? And that the original myth meant something else, that fitted well within Native North American´s cultural background?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/lummi1.htm

Myths don't kill dogs.

And regarding encounters... Well, people also claim to have had encounters with aliens. And there are footprints of aliens, landing gear marks, burnt vegetation, etc. Where to draw the line? Why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality?

It's not. My favorite "burnt mark" was in a road. The perpetrator forgot to remove the matches.


As I tought. No biologist saw a bigfoot. No evidence, just lame excuses.

No comment.


Q. Are all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) similar to those of PNW?
A. No.
Here´s one of the flaws in your argument. I say there should be fossil remains of bigfeet and related species as well as recent remains.

I say there are few fossils anywhere (with the exception of marine). I find your whole "should" argument flawed. When I was a kid only three human "ancestors" (none were, actually) were known and one of them was Piltdown Man! In Dubois' time they didn't know which continent to look on. When Darwin came up with his theory no hominid fossils had been found at all. But they "should" have been, right?

Just after you answer me why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality.

I'm not going to be able to get you to see this, but no, it's not.

I think you should only write this sort of thing after being certain about it. There are a lot of fossils of several species of bear.
http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Wooding_1997.pdf
http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

I'll check the sites later.
I asked specifically for fossils of Black Bear (Krantz estimated 100 Black Bear for every Sasquatch) in the Pacific Northwest, where even bodies of Black Bear that died of natural causes are seldom, if ever found. I've never said there are no bear fossils.

>remark accidently snipped<

No need. I wasn't rude in the first place. I also find it frustrating to lose a lengthy post while bringing up a website. That happened three times yesterday. Can we divide these into thirds, or something?


The only thing that might help you are solid evidences. What so far has not been provided by any big feet researcher.

Right, no bodies or testable tissue, yet, but plenty to point to a living animal. Science will give the grants to go get the body after a body's been brought in.


And have you ever heard of convergent evolution? See, a hipothesys stating that bigfeet evolved from squirrels or opossums via convergent evolution is at the very same level than any other about bigfeet´s evolution, since it is based on absolutely nothing of solid. First prove the animal exists. Then prove its a hominid.
And if they evolved somewhere else, where are the fossil of their ancestors?
Feel free to take all the time you need to take your feet of your mouth.

My feet are not in my mouth. Similar adaptations occur in similar niches, but hominids do not evolve from squirrels. Sasquatches have hominid characteristics right down to the fingernails.


Sorry, but since not all forests in North America and Asia where these animals are supposed to live (or to have lived) are identical to those of PNW, all you´ll managed to obtain were biased opinions.

No one said they are. Eastern climax forests are hardwood.


You´d better check your sources. Again. Dacite is the main type of lava, and it is also the type that nowdays is building the dome. Mt Saint Helen, as well as all the volcanos at the Cascades are what composite volcanoes. They were built by intercalations of tuffs (AKA ashes) and lava.
Check again your sorces when it comes to weathering of basalt. Basalt is composed by pyroxenes and calcic plagioclases (depending on the basalt it may have olivines). These minerals are very poor in water. In contact with water (atmospheric, raind, rivers, etc) they hidratate and become clay. Ph level has little to do with it. Climate is the most important factor. The more rainy and hot the climate, the faster will be the weathering.

It's the acid that etches the basalt and releases micronutrients, which is why the soils are so good, where you can find any. I rather thought the black sand was an end product of basalt erosion. Clay was pretty uncommon, as I recall. The rocks were identified by a geologist friend of my first architect.

I never said no siltation; I said little. Normally there wouldn't be enough to bury an animal before scavengers got it. Deer mice eat the bones to obtain calcium. Quick burial is really necessary, but then you have soil that is loaded with microbes that eat organic matter. So, little chance of preservation and even less of being found.

Ash=tuff. You can´t say there´s no silt in those rivers before making a detailed analysys of the sediment that is being carried.

I didn't say there's no silt in those rivers. I said there's not much. Most of it in the Columbia comes from farmland and ranches upriver in Eastern Washington.

And if there are glaciers that feed rivers, and the glaciers and the rivers pass through ash layers, then there´s silt. Even if they pass through solid rock. Ice from glaciers is an incredible erosive agent. It crushes and mills rocks. The flood water are crystal clear too?

Streams in Washington are crystal clear. A volcanic eruption that happens maybe once in 10,000 years isn't exactly a usual occurance. I'm not saying there's no siltation, but what I've seen would hardly be enough to cover a gnat. It tends to get filtered out by the vegetation en route to lower elevations. Sasquatches don't live above timber line.
The land I owned is between St. Helens and the Columbia (with Greenleaf Peak in between. It received a light dusting from the second eruption, but there was no inundation from the main eruption in that area.


A claim that you can not defend. Some peoplehere, including a ranger, have pointed aout that animal remains are found in the forests. And don´t write "In PNW..." because it´s been already answered.

Krantz interviewed dozens of people who frequent and study forests and got an answer of "0" on bear bodies (where cause of death was natural). I've found remains myself (I don't want to go through the horse story again; it's too painful), such as the skeleton of a deer hit by a car, but they were few and far between. There are few roads and fewer hunters in some of these areas. It's sheer luck to come across a body of any kind.


Talking about twisting words...
As the song says, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"


Do you sing that to yourself in the mornings when you look in the mirror?


So what? Unreliable evidence.
[QUOTE]
[B]
To you, it all is, whether it's reliable or not.
[QUOTE]
[B]
What if I said you dismiss perfectly logical explanations because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions that there´s a 3m-high ape living in North America´s forests?

Let's see some evidence for some of these "perfectly logical" explanations.

I didn't start out with any "preconceived notions". I'd never heard of the things before I encountered Green's early books and then read an account of the Cox sighting on the front page of the Columbian. Wouldn't you be at least interested in a sighting with physical evidence a few miles from where you were planning to live and only about 40 miles from the current residence?


Talking about twisting words... You know, for someone who claims to know wildlife, you are pretty unaware of some aspects of animal behavior...


Such as? I don't claim to be an expert, but I know there are no Jaguars in the areas I'm talking about.


Rare event. OK. How many times this rare event happened in your lifetime? Let´s suppose it happens just once every 50 years (no, I´m not stating this is your age), we are talking about a period of 10Ky, that would be a total of 200 droughts. At least, since there may be other droughts "periodic" or not, smaller or larger...

Guaranteed, the PNW, didn't dry up. They just didn't experience the usual monsoons. I don't know how long it lasted. (Good excuse to call my brother in Seattle.......)


So, at droughts animals are not attracted to water sources such as caves?

I've never said they might not use caves at all, but, I don't think there would be any need to seek water in caves when there's so much of it around. Some animals just lick snow.


And these are not potential remains preservation sites? And aren´t there caves along several places withing bigfeet´s supposed habitat range?

Did you think Ape Caves were named for Chimpanzees?


Oh, I see "at PNW..."


Which has the largest population. And lousy preservation. There's a shot of a lava tube in Sasquatch Oddessy. Looks like there's some light coming in and even dripping water (I regret I never got to see them in real life). There's not a hint of a stallagtite. I'd guess there's no mud on the floor.


Look, the points of ths discussion on dry seasons, as well as those on geology, are to show you that:
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;


I see. Living there didn't count, but it's okay for you to draw conclusions based on a textbook view that doesn't seem to have much to do with the area.


(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.

Point me to Pleistocene fossils in these areas.


You are making claims that you can´t really defend.

Okay, I'm frustrated. Time for a break.


So, more claims that can not be defended.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA08/galop896.html
http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/
And please, try not mixing the preservation processes.
And what about considering that what you know about PNW and what you gathered at the internet about caves may not be of great use as a standard for comparsion with other places?


I'll bring those sites up later. I'm not going to risk losing two feet of post.


You are demonstrating to have very little knoweledge on what you are talking about.

There's that condescension again. You don't consider that statement rude, do you? I could say the same (I have to someone else - it was true, of course) to you and it would be rude, right?


Hawaiian volcanoes are the type known as shield volcanoes. They are mainly composed by thick basaltic lava layers that create very gently-sloping (but very high - Hawaii´s elevation from the sea floor -where the volcanoes rise from- to its top is higher than that of the Everest, when measured from the sea level) mountains.


I know.


What is quite different from the Cascades´ composite cones built by interlayered tuffs and lava flows. Now, these basaltic lavas are very fluid, due to their composition and eruption temperature. Thus, they flow for long distances and cool slowly, what makes lava tube formation easier, hence the number of this type of cave that exists in Hawaii and other oceanic islands created by similar volcanoes. So, your point was?

Northwest volcanoes tend to explode. Crater Lake was once Mt. Mazama. The terrain is different, the vegetation is different, the rock is different and lava tubes aren't a great place to find preserved animals. The place to look, IMO, would be under St. Helens ash (if there's anything left but bits) and Roy Crowe is the only one I know of who's even attempted this.

There could be animals trapped in landslides, but I just don't know of any excavation for fossils going on in prime Bigfoot country.


And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;

I don't know how good the evidence is for other areas, except for Georgia, which yielded one compelling cast.


(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.


We've been over this before.


Twisting words again, eh? Are lava tubes at the Cascades the only places where remains -fossil and recent- of bigfeet could be found?

I don't think there are fossils in Cascades lava tubes. Correct me if I'm wrong.


And as in the other cases, the purpose of this was to demontrate that :
(a) Your knoweledge of PNW is actually providing only biased opinions, that quite often are not usefull for comparsion with other areas;

I'm really not concerned about other areas until I check them out more thoroughly.

(b) There are several mechanisms that would allow the preservation of remains (fossil and present) of bigfeet carcasses at several places along its habitat.

Such as where the Mammoths roamed?


Such as all northern states from USA, a great part of Canada and a chunk of Russia.

Where the Kaptars live.


And if there are reports of sightings at Tenesse, yes, that´s would be another place to find remains, past or present.


There are fewer reports from there than there are for Skamania County, which was first in Washington until Skagit beat it by one.
Got fossils in Tennessee? Right age? Right era?


Deers are not as tall as bigfeet, are they? Compare a 3-m tall bigfoot with a deer that can easily hide in the underbrush. Deer also blend in the shadows.
Oh, and deer have left remains, fossil and recent.


And they're common as rabbits. Saw one roadkilled Sunday. That's the first deer I've seen in WNC, living or dead, since I moved here eight years ago. They're diurnal. And what would prevent a Sasquatch from hiding in underbrush? I have a wild Rhododendron in the back yard that would easily conceal three or four 8' hominids.


And you are using the same argument to explain why there are no bigfeet fossils. So, creationists can´t use it as an evidence against evolution but you can use it as an excuse for the absence of bigfeet fossils?

Not an excuse. It's a fact there are gaps in the fossil record. That doesn't mean there is a god or isn't a Sasquatch, only that there are gaps in the fossil record.


That´s exactly what you are providing. An endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.

Repetitious, perhaps, because the same points keep coming up, but without merit? I don't think so. And they aren't all my arguments to begin with. There are a few people doing actual research on this. Meldrum's book should be ground-breaking.

If you think they have no merit it's only because you are so committed to your POV, you can't accept you could be wrong, IMO.
:p

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Well said..

P.S.

But not the squirming, when the actual creature doesn't match the evidence that proved it's existance.

Squirming? I presume you mean the potential embarrassment of the Bigfoot believers when the found animal doesn't match the given descriptions? Humpf. That would be drowned out by the immediate reality of an unknown bipedal primate living in American forests.

If this were to occur, I think that the popular media would allow and promote a willy-nilly slap fest upon the skeptics. Smart skeptics would suddenly realize that a certain unknowable percentage of believers probably did have real eyewitness encounters.

But why do you propose what would happen if fiction were real? Has LAL's dogged persistence in this thread pushed your mean button?

The frustration of a skeptic who is battling a Bigfoot believer who has countless references to the 'reality' of Bigfoot can lead one to make reflexive gropings for a silver bullet. There must be something quick that can kill off all of these stupid hillbilly sheep woo woos, right? Not.

I don't think that informed skepticism looks good when wearing red hot cynicism.

But hey, LAL.... where is Bigfoot anyway?

[Z]

He brought up Green's five alleged shootings again.

SOMEONE ASK HIM WHERE THE BODIES ARE!

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sounds like typical government behavior.. You have lots of cute stories, just no Bigfoot.

I've never claimed to have one.

I read Green about thirty years before I met Bryne. The last I saw on the planes (yesterday) was seventy five. I don't remember the exact figure Green gave or when I read that, so I said "dozens". Bryne said 73.

You'd think all those loggers and berry pickers and hunters "scanning" the forests would bring back some pieces, wouldn't you?

"Living in England as I do, it is easy to underestimate the size of the Pacific North West forests. We were pretty much at the southern end of the forests, which can be followed all the way up through Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska. Forests bigger than the landmass of Great Britain, with only a few medium sized cities in the way.

I wasn’t surprised then to hear that the Federal Aviation Administration say they have lost seventy-five planes in these forests – these aren’t planes that have simply crashed – they were planes that had crashed and never been found!"

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
But....but.....but....all those witnesses, and all of that testimony..... How can the hair be from a bison? Who can't tell a bison from Chewbacca? :D

Even if it does turn out to be Bison hair, that doesn't prove nine people couldn't tell a Bison from a Sasquatch.

Thanks for the link, anyway. I'm glad further testing is going to be done. These things need to be checked out.

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
It may be true that there have been no big budget searches or well-funded expeditions for Bigfoot. The believers seem to be begging for this as well as some sort of legitimate recognition.

It is worth mentioning that Bigfoot is not found during big budget high-tech searches for lost humans in areas that are supposed to support populations of Bigfoot. When hikers, children or anyone goes missing in these regions (PNW included) there are very sophisticated searches for them. These include many people on the ground as well as aerial searches using human vision and technology such as infrared imagery.

When search parties and helicopters look for little Tommy Smith... why don't they find Bigfoot? An organized search in the PNW for a 4 foot tall bipedal primate (Tommy) should also uncover any 8 foot tall bipedal primates (Bigfoot), yes?

I've mentioned a couple of these already, where the results were fatal for the searchees. One was even in Skamania County, in the Gifford Pinchot where the 2/3 body imprint was found. A mushroom hunter was lost somewhere on talus after becoming separated from his companions. Evidently mushroom hunter sign isn't easy to follow either, even in the open.

I used to follow a game trail to get to my ex-husband's lake, and I don't recall seeing any kind of tracks on it, not deer, not even my own. The ground cover is springy. About all one sees from an aircraft are treetops and clearcuts (I haven't been in a helicopter, though I was once buzzed by one). At night, when they're active, one would see what?

Krantz had plans to search by a one-man aircraft. He thought early spring would be a good time to try to find winterkill, as I recall. He didn't live to carry out these plans, and I believe he mentioned his wife wouldn't let him fly the thing.

There've been sightings by DNR workers, and a track was found after St. Helens blew, but a lot of this stuff doesn't get reported, or even seen.

"John Green - saw a picture of Jerry Crew holding a cast. Green went down to Willow Creek, with his wife. He saw prints and was very impressed. Bob Titmus mailed Green, who came back to Willow Creek and saw more tracks (covered with leaves). Saw more in '59 and in '63 saw tracks near Hyampom, CA. In 1967, Bud Ryerson called Green, saying, "What you're looking for is here!" over 600 tracks in a row. Green flew down, with a tracking dog and handler. The dog smelled the first track, "and it was an electric shock, the dog's hair, on his back stood straight up!" The dog refused to follow the tracks or scent. The tracks were in deep dry dust. Then it rained over night leaving a thin layer of dried-mud on the top. A Forest Service worker drove up to them and said, "I've never seen any bigfoot tracks in these woods."

"What about these?", Green asked."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I am having trouble reconciling the descriptions and illustrations of "cripple foot's" tracks. Not to mention the whole strange story of events around Bossburg and the tracks.

Anyway, the photo of the cripple foot track doesn't appear to match the desriptions and the skeletal illustrations.

Below are descriptions from various bigfoot supporters, the skeleton drawing of cripple foot, and the photo of cripple foot's track.

Does anyonw agree with me that the photo does not match the desriptions and the skeleton illustration?

I am not surprised that the illustration matches the descriptions, though. :D


The photo is from the trackway (1089 tracks counted) Marx and Dahinden found. The casts are from near the dump, days earlier. The drawing is a good representation of the casts I have, except that it seems to be a top view.

Lots of this stuff is strange. That one reason I'm so interested in it. The "researchers" are a mixed bag and they mostly despised each other.



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/10_boss_redo.gif

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/10_Bossburgsnow.jpg [/B][/QUOTE]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
I've never claimed to have one.

I read Green about thirty years before I met Bryne. The last I saw on the planes (yesterday) was seventy five. I don't remember the exact figure Green gave or when I read that, so I said "dozens". Bryne said 73.

You'd think all those loggers and berry pickers and hunters "scanning" the forests would bring back some pieces, wouldn't you?

Who says they never did?

"Living in England as I do, it is easy to underestimate the size of the Pacific North West forests. We were pretty much at the southern end of the forests, which can be followed all the way up through Oregon, Washington, British Columbia and Alaska. Forests bigger than the landmass of Great Britain, with only a few medium sized cities in the way.

No bigfeet Here.. Move along

I wasn’t surprised then to hear that the Federal Aviation Administration say they have lost seventy-five planes in these forests – these aren’t planes that have simply crashed – they were planes that had crashed and never been found!"

Again, where did the FAA say this ? ( not that it would support your position, as I have pointed out several times )

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html Cheese and Crackers! Did you read anything I wrote?


Aircraft that have disappeared without a trace, are NOT comparable to creatures we suspect exist, but have never found a specimen of!
( pardon my shouting )


We know ( can prove ) aircraft exist. We know they sometimes disappear without a trace.


It doesn't matter how impenetrable and rugged the PNW is, or who or what has disappeared there.

Until something exists, it doesn't matter where they hide; in the PNW or the wild Rhododendron in your back yard.


I was trying to point out how people like Green and Byrne like to toss out ' gee whiz ' sounding non sequiturs in an attempt give credence to their claims.

Lets move on..

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Cheese and Crackers! Did you read anything I wrote?

Yep, but I'm about ready to stop doing that.

Aircraft that have disappeared without a trace, are NOT comparable to creatures we suspect exist, but have never found a specimen of!
( pardon my shouting )


The point is, that that country is rugged and densely forested enough to hide aircraft (and lost people). Those mountains are certainly capable of hiding roving nocturnal beasties who seem to have no desire to hold still and be collected..

[LAL]

A couple of quotes from sites posted by Correa Neto:

"The fossil record of bears in our county is small. A smaller version of Ursus was found in the San Diego formation that persisted in the Pliocene (<3 million years old)."

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

"Birds whose fossils we will never find lived on what are now tiny islets in far western Hawaii lived much longer ago. And many birds have become extinct since Captain Cook discovered Hawaii a little over 200 years ago. Their bones haven’t had time to become fossilized."

http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Me! Me! :D

What is supposed to be causing the bulges on the right side of the ' crippled ' drawing ?


They have drawn the outline to match the foot print, but the bone structure doesn't account for the bulges..

They're bunionettes.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
They're bunionettes. Caused by what ? Clown feet that are too tight ?



Seriously.. Explain to me how a Bigfoot would get bunions..

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
\

By whom? The people who had already ruled bigfoot in? :D


We've been through this before.


That's all anyone has regarding bigfoot, isn't it?


The pro side at least has some evidence to back up the claims.


Non-reponsive, your honor. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. :D

You asked for credentials and qualifications. You got'em.


No hoof prints? I'll just assume you are joking. The hoof prints are well documented.

And clearly showed an elk walked across the mud, not that it knelt and made the imprint. Want to try for a rare fruit-eating coyote?

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Squirming? I presume you mean the potential embarrassment of the Bigfoot believers when the found animal doesn't match the given descriptions? Humpf. That would be drowned out by the immediate reality of an unknown bipedal primate living in American forests.

If this were to occur, I think that the popular media would allow and promote a willy-nilly slap fest upon the skeptics. Smart skeptics would suddenly realize that a certain unknowable percentage of believers probably did have real eyewitness encounters.

But why do you propose what would happen if fiction were real? Has LAL's dogged persistence in this thread pushed your mean button?

The frustration of a skeptic who is battling a Bigfoot believer who has countless references to the 'reality' of Bigfoot can lead one to make reflexive gropings for a silver bullet. There must be something quick that can kill off all of these stupid hillbilly sheep woo woos, right? Not.

I don't think that informed skepticism looks good when wearing red hot cynicism.

But hey, LAL.... where is Bigfoot anyway?

I almost thank you for what almost seemed like a bit of support there.

Richard Noll estimates there are about thirty in Washington State. That's a good place to start.

[Z]

It's funny - she puts me on ignore, but quotes me in her sigline.

Weird.

Anyway, it seems the aircraft issue is disputed. There's almost no official mention of numbers; the one FAA website I found yesterday that mentioned down craft listed 23 over the period from 1947 to now, of which three were recovered; but today I can't seem to find Google for all my searching. (It's been one of those days today)

The only places where more than that are mentioned are - drum roll, please - Bigfoot Websites. I know, amazing, yes?

And still, she fails to mention bodies.

(Not trying to be sexist - I am assuming, since she mentioned an 'ex-husband' that she's a she. Could be a he, for all I know)

It's interesting to observe the believer in action: in the real world, a piece of evidence is considered questionable until nearly everyone involved agrees as to its meaning. In BigFoot World, evidence is 'indisputable' if it's being discussed by a Footie; no matter that dozens of reputable scientists and organizations are, in fact, disputing the evidence after all.

If we apply the usual mode of looking at evidence to BF evidence, we would have to set aside probably 80% - 90% of all Bigfoot evidence as questionable. Maybe more. Actually - yeah, we'd have to toss it all out, wouldn't we? Since, after all, if we really had 'indisputable evidence', then we would be seeing Sasquatch in our Biology texts as a species known to exist but shrouded in mystery.

Can LAL provide even one solid, indisputable piece of Bigfoot evidence? Is there even one bit that someone, somewhere, isn't showing serious and well-founded doubts about? For example - where are Green's five bodies?

She tapdances, she tantrums - but ultimately, she boors.

[SmooveK]

To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by SmooveK
To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.
I'd probably do a slight rephrase: "Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is likely no bigfoot?"

[SmooveK]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I'd probably do a slight rephrase: "Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is likely no bigfoot?"

Yes, that's better.

[LTC8K6]

The pro side at least has some evidence to back up the claims.

You are certainly entitled to that belief. :D

You asked for credentials and qualifications. You got'em.

I disagree.

And clearly showed an elk walked across the mud, not that it knelt and made the imprint. Want to try for a rare fruit-eating coyote?

They clearly show an elk walked through and kneeled in the mud.
Coyotes are omnivorous as far as I know.

[LTC8K6]

The photo is from the trackway (1089 tracks counted) Marx and Dahinden found. The casts are from near the dump, days earlier. The drawing is a good representation of the casts I have, except that it seems to be a top view.

2 different "clubfoots"?

Amazing.

The print in the snow is completely different to me. It simply does not match the cast, illustration, or description no matter how I look at it.

[LTC8K6]

If we apply the usual mode of looking at evidence to BF evidence, we would have to set aside probably 80% - 90% of all Bigfoot evidence as questionable.

I think I read somewhere that Byrne put the figure at 95% discard.

[kieran]

The BBC reports that a large ape like creature was sighted lumbering around a town in Yukon, Canada ... and apparently it left a tuft of fur. Geneticists at the University of Alberta are going to check the DNA of the hair against the known indiginous population of large mammals to see if it can be identified.

The report did go on to say that the scientists expect to identify the fur sample as a known large mammal.

The test results are expected later this week.

Full details at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4717845.stm

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
You are certainly entitled to that belief. :D


It's acceptance, not belief.


I disagree.


As always.


They clearly show an elk walked through and kneeled in the mud.
Coyotes are omnivorous as far as I know.

You clearly are seeing what you want to see. You said earlier you couldn't see anything on the cast unless it was pointed out to you, but now you can see clearly.

Now, if I squint just right, because I can't see tracks in the photo at all but will assume they're there, I can make it into the back and hindquarters of an '8 coyote reaching for the fruit and leaving marks of long hair (fruit -eating coyotes are known to have long hair on their forelimbs)..........

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I think I read somewhere that Byrne put the figure at 95% discard.

Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
2 different "clubfoots"? Amazing.


Same one. One of the toes on the right foot sometimes didn't print. It apparently was up in the photo. Did you watch the video?


The print in the snow is completely different to me. It simply does not match the cast, illustration, or description no matter how I look at it.

Compare to the cast:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain. If you can produce one piece of indisputable evidence, science won't have to explain anything. They would actually have something to work with..



How do you suppose a Bigfoot aquired bunions?

[LTC8K6]

Elk tracks in the cast, even if Lu can't see them:
There are several elk tracks embedded in the cast, for example, and no Bigfoot tracks.

Elk hair:
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.

The most damning line of all, the print actually had to be explained before most people saw bigfoot's butt:
While most of the team couldn't make out what the print was at first, Mr. Noll soon won them over, repeatedly lying down in the mud to mimic what happened. Finally, they got it.

I am far from the only one who saw an elk when he looked closer:
Having heard this incredible story, having heard how Mr. Noll has spent most of his adult life searching for proof of Sasquatch, until now without success, of how he has dedicated himself to finding hard evidence, I am struck by how bizarre the moment is.

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.


Dermal ridges are a piece of cake, apparently:
One researcher showed me a cast with dermal ridges and realistic toe prints. "I made that myself," he said. "Just to see if it could be done. Slid my foot back and forth and side to side. Just kept making the print longer and wider, then I worked on the toe prints.

"It was easy," he said, asking that I not use his name. "I would guess that more than 90% of the footprint casts are hoaxes."


http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm

You said earlier you couldn't see anything on the cast unless it was pointed out to you.

Yep, that was true until I saw some good photos of the elk's knee/leg.

As I said before, I think the BFRO has known that the skookum imprint was made by an elk for a long time. There is just no money in elk casts. I think they have also known that it was easy to fake footprints, even those with dermal ridges, for a long time.

The more you look, the more details emerge that show how shoddy the "research" is.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by LAL
Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.
Key word: if.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Same one. One of the toes on the right foot sometimes didn't print. It apparently was up in the photo. Did you watch the video?

[B]

Compare to the cast: Like LTC8K6 said, are we dealing with two different crippled Bigfoots ?


Your cast doesn't match the print ( in the snow ) that LTC8K6 posted .

It looks like the drawing could be based on your cast though..

[Thurkon]

I have been fascinated with Bigfoot since I was a kid in the seventies. Wow…now that was a time for Bigfoot lovers! Remember when the Six Million Dollar Man took on bionic Bigfoot? Best…episode…ever.
Anyway, as much as I would love to believe in a Bigfoot creature, and as much as I like to keep my mind open to the possibility…I just don’t think the evidence is there.
Furthermore, the whole investigation has been clouded by hoaxes and “investigators� with doubtful scientific expertise and questionable integrity. Ray Wallace, Patterson, Freeman, et al were either hoaxers or the luckiest guys ever. It seems the guys with questionable integrity are always the ones to find anything, and all the honest investigators seem to find bupkus.

And even the “evidence� that is found is hardly substantial. Footprints? Ah, okay. Hair samples that later turn out to be boar, cow, elk or inconclusive-then-later-determined-to-be-synthetic? Grainy and/or out-of-focus video? Come on. The latest Manitoba video is just so ridiculous it isn’t even funny. One can’t claim the technology isn’t there nowadays to get a decent video of a Bigfoot. The guy in Manitoba doesn’t even attempt to zoom in. How can anyone take this seriously?

The best evidence thus far is the Patterson video. That was almost 40 years ago. In 40 frickin’ years no one has anything better?? And even that looks like a guy in a monkey suit shot all the way wide with no attempt to zoom in. All the hair in the suit looks one tone and one uniform length, reinforcing that it is fake. Hair on the rear and breasts doesn’t fit any other known primate. Multiple experts have said Patty is of human proportions with a human center of balance and gait. Patterson just happened to be out there looking for Bigfeet, to make it even more unbelievable.

Please guys, rational minds need more than this…

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Thurkon

The best evidence thus far is the Patterson video. That was almost 40 years ago. In 40 frickin’ years no one has anything better?? And even that looks like a guy in a monkey suit shot all the way wide with no attempt to zoom in.

Not that I disagree with your post--it's not all that different from one I posted not too long ago--but in all fairness, it's not like pushbutton zoom was available in 1967.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Cleon
Not that I disagree with your post--it's not all that different from one I posted not too long ago--but in all fairness, it's not like pushbutton zoom was available in 1967.

Hadn't thought of that...but certainly manual zoom was available?Never worked a 16mm, so I'm guessing...

[bruto]

Originally posted by Cleon
Not that I disagree with your post--it's not all that different from one I posted not too long ago--but in all fairness, it's not like pushbutton zoom was available in 1967.

I haven't seen the movie in question, but am assuming that if it was done by an ordinary person it would be on Super 8. I think you'll find very few decent movie cameras from 1967 that don't have some kind of zoom lens. Not pushbutton, and of course super 8 is pretty poor stuff by modern standards, but we know from other home movies of the era that it is possible to capture a reasonable bit of detail even so. I would especially expect that if a person were out, specifically looking for bigfeet with his camera, he would have taken care that he had something approaching a useful camera, and knew how to use it. But even discounting that, the inability of anyone to do better since seems pretty telling.

I still maintain that of the many various explanations for the paucity of good bigfoot evidence, two stand out as the most likely. Either there is no bigfoot or the people who are out hunting for it are habitual blunderers.

[LTC8K6]

Live pay per view bigfoot expedition coming in August. Ridiculous pictures, though.

http://www.greatamericanbigfoot.com/

Film of live bigfoots held in cave coming this fall.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw242718.htm

after viewing the film which is scheduled to wrap up in the fall of 2005, there will be no way that anyone will be able to doubt the existence of Sasquatch.

I'm sure these events will do much to advance the cause of bigfoot believers.

Not.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

the more I read that the more bizarre it seems.

What do you mean here? If evidence turns out to be "real," doesn't that mean that it turns out to be scientifically valid or useful?

If, for example, you mean that on further investigation, 5 % of the evidence is scientifically useful, then science is not to blame and has nothing to explain, though some specific scientists might have to explain why they ignored or misread it. Science will come through for bigfoot and he will be vindicated by it.

If you mean that if new techniques are found to evaluate evidence, now unknown, then 5% will be found to be useful, still no explanation needed. If evidence is unusable with current techniques, then it's unusable. It doesn't matter how real the thing is. If new techniques arise that make it useful, then whoopee. Science will have come through for bigfoot after all.

If you mean that after someone comes up with incontrovertible evidence, such as a body, then it is found that only 5 % of the old and inconclusive evidence is other than bogus, there 's nothing for science to explain. Bad evidence is bad even if it turns out it refers to something real.

As an example, if I went up to a bigfoot and grabbed out a tuft of its hair, and lab analysis showed that the hair was not useful as evidence of its species, this would be the case no matter what. Even if I went out the next day, found the same bigfoot (with a telltale bald spot), took its picture, and shot it with a tranquilizer gun and brought it home in a cage, the hair would still be worthless as evidence. In fact, if I did that, it would be additional proof of the worthlessness of hair as evidence, since other evidence would prove its origin, thus confirming that even genuine bigofoot hair cannot be used to identify it!

Likewise, if I were to stand in front of a bigfoot with my camera, and take a fuzzy, poorly focused picture, I would be reasonably called an incompetent photographer. This would be so even if a person next to me with a sharp video camera documented the event, proving that I stood there, that the beast I shot was a bigfoot, and then for good measure shot the bigfoot with a tranquilizer gun and brought it home in a cage along with the footage. My photograph would not become any better and it still would not be useful. In fact, if that happened, it would simply serve as further evidence that I was incompetent.

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:Originally posted by LAL
Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

Originally posted by bruto
the more I read that the more bizarre it seems.



I know what you mean, but ' bizarre ' seems kind..

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by bruto
the more I read that the more bizarre it seems.

What do you mean here? If evidence turns out to be "real," doesn't that mean that it turns out to be scientifically valid or useful?

If, for example, you mean that on further investigation, 5 % of the evidence is scientifically useful, then science is not to blame and has nothing to explain, though some specific scientists might have to explain why they ignored or misread it. Science will come through for bigfoot and he will be vindicated by it.

If you mean that if new techniques are found to evaluate evidence, now unknown, then 5% will be found to be useful, still no explanation needed. If evidence is unusable with current techniques, then it's unusable. It doesn't matter how real the thing is. If new techniques arise that make it useful, then whoopee. Science will have come through for bigfoot after all.

If you mean that after someone comes up with incontrovertible evidence, such as a body, then it is found that only 5 % of the old and inconclusive evidence is other than bogus, there 's nothing for science to explain. Bad evidence is bad even if it turns out it refers to something real.

As an example, if I went up to a bigfoot and grabbed out a tuft of its hair, and lab analysis showed that the hair was not useful as evidence of its species, this would be the case no matter what. Even if I went out the next day, found the same bigfoot (with a telltale bald spot), took its picture, and shot it with a tranquilizer gun and brought it home in a cage, the hair would still be worthless as evidence. In fact, if I did that, it would be additional proof of the worthlessness of hair as evidence, since other evidence would prove its origin, thus confirming that even genuine bigofoot hair cannot be used to identify it!

Likewise, if I were to stand in front of a bigfoot with my camera, and take a fuzzy, poorly focused picture, I would be reasonably called an incompetent photographer. This would be so even if a person next to me with a sharp video camera documented the event, proving that I stood there, that the beast I shot was a bigfoot, and then for good measure shot the bigfoot with a tranquilizer gun and brought it home in a cage along with the footage. My photograph would not become any better and it still would not be useful. In fact, if that happened, it would simply serve as further evidence that I was incompetent.
:clap:

[Thurkon]

I'm actually amazed that, with our current technology and the advances made in make-up and special effects, someone has not attempted to one-up Patterson by this point.

On a somewhat related note, I find it funny when the various Bigfooters and their respective groups have interFoot feuds. I saw a special not too long ago in which a West Coast Bigfoot research group was badmouthing an East Coast Bigfoot Group and their apparent ignorance in the newest, most groundbreaking Squatch-huntin' technology.

I was laughing so hard it hurt.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I'm actually amazed that, with our current technology and the advances made in make-up and special effects, someone has not attempted to one-up Patterson by this point.

On a somewhat related note, I find it funny when the various Bigfooters and their respective groups have interFoot feuds. I saw a special not too long ago in which a West Coast Bigfoot research group was badmouthing an East Coast Bigfoot Group and their apparent ignorance in the newest, most groundbreaking Squatch-huntin' technology.

I was laughing so hard it hurt. If you really want to see some arguing about the the color of Unicorns and the length of their horns, peruse these forums..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=idx

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Bigfoot_Discussion/index.php?act=idx

It seems the 2nd one is a spinoff by some / a disgruntled member/s of the first..


I will say that there is some very good food for thought there, and intelligent contribution from both sides..

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
If you really want to see some arguing about the the color of Unicorns and the length of their horns, peruse these forums..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=idx

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Bigfoot_Discussion/index.php?act=idx

It seems the 2nd one is a spinoff by some / a disgruntled member/s of the first..


I will say that there is some very good food for thought there, and intelligent contribution from both sides..

Yes, those forums are quite...entertaining. Noticed this educational snippet:

Sasquatches have survived through the most environmentally destructive period in American history. The decimation of U.S. forests in general, reached its peak in the 1950's and 1960's. In many places the forests have grown back and created super rich habitat areas, especially in the midwest and eastern states. These habitat areas give rise to near plague levels of deer. They may also harbor more bands of nocturnal sasquatches, collectively, than in the Pacific Northwest.

I notice the writer failed to mention how the decimation of U.S. forests has also failed to have an impact on population levels of gnomes, as evidenced by the extreme lack of gnome corpse findings. Such remarkably adaptive scamps!

[Yeah_Right]

Gnome corpses? Of course there aren't any, fairys and elves clean them up before they're found. The fantasy world takes care of itself you know.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I would expect the hair of a close relative to resemble human.

But this so closely resembles human hair it can't be distinguished FROM human hair.

He's an expert in microscopy and was with a primate research center. I would think he'd know something about primate hair.

Aren't you speculating?

Somehow, I wouldn't expect Roger to do his research on the Internet. He's mentioned he has files. He may have had some correspondence with Dr. Fahrenbach on his methodology.

Which proves what? That Fahrenbach's analysis is top notch?

Do you have the same low opinion on some of Fahrenbach's other work? The bell curve, for instance?.

I do when he proclaims hairs as belonging to 'sasquatch', by comparing them to other 'sasquatch' hairs he's examined. I have the same 'low opinion' of any scientist making unscientific claims.

Wow, look at the films, the casts since the '80's.........the BFRO's database.......the books...... There's some pretty high quality stuff out there.

Films? I've not heard of any that have proven anything. Casts haven't proven anything. That BFRO database seems to be a large collection of anecdotal accounts. The BFRO seems to be self-destructing (the truthfulness of their database was recently called into question on the BFF, and there seems to be a recent abandonment of the ship, so to speak, with BFRO curators resigning in disgust.). Books are a nice place to record your opinions. High quality? Surely you jest.

Anectotal evidence shouldn't be thrown out completely, especially when people widely separated by time and distance report the same things.

Anecdotes shouldn't be used as the foundation for evidence either.

Scofftics aren't going to accept any kind of evidence that upsets their worldview.

Balderdash. If the evidence is convincing, the skeptics will accept it. They once scoffed at continental drift didn't they? That man would fly?

I think it's because they have some actual scientists working with them.

And I have pointed out why having an actual scientist working with the organization doesn't make it a scientific organization. It's not who they have working with them, it's how they conduct themselves and their investigations. From what I've seen, that's been far from scientific.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL Krantz examined 750 casts and examined tracks in situ. Meldrum has examined tracks in situ on five occasions. Chilcutt examined Meldrum's collection (over 100), Ed de Palma, another fingerprint expert, examined casts in Krantz' possession. And then there are the many law enforcement officers who investigate right after a sighting........
I will not enter in to this topic that is already being covered by other posters. My point is (not that it has not been raised already by someone elde) - If this evidence is so conclusive, why no one else cares?
Maybe because its not that conclusive?
Originally posted by LAL They may have left remains and even fossils that have never been found. You know fossils can be exposed and then weathered away before anyone discovers them.

The forests of the NW cover an area larger than Britain. I don't know of any fossil beds in that area, Pleistocene or otherwise.
Yet, many survive and are found and studied...
Still, focusing in PNW, eh? No problem, I am persistent. The PNW could be completely composed by Archean gneisses. It would not make any difference. Why? Because the animal is not supposed to live just there and to have evolved there. So, fossil sites -note the difference in terminology, not just “fossil beds�, as you write- of the right age, anywhere along its habitat area (North America plus Northeastern Asia) are potential sources. And where are also the recent remains, that should be found at any place where the animals live nowdays? The “special conditions� of PNW are also present at the other places?
Once again, basing your reasoning in what you suppose that you know about PNW is creating biased opinions that are not valid.
BTW, why restrict the age to Pleistocene, may I ask, since we are talking also of ANY species that may be related to it?

Originally posted by Correa Neto And the source of his statement was?

Originally posted by LAL Personal experience, I suppose. He searched for and found Asia's largest elephant. He wrote a book on it....snip...
So, you suppose...
Anyway, my friends who own game farms in South Africa also said, by their personal experiences, that even gazelle´s carcasses can last for much longer there... And by personal (and unpleasant) experiences I can also say that carcasses of bigger and smaller animals can last much longer in other types of environments.
Perhaps he said elephant carcasses can disappear in four days, and that´s a completely different picture. I must also point that its probably not very easy to make elephant femurs disappear (unless you use magic).
Originally posted by LAL To convince science, one must bring in a body (which is no easy task) and then make comparisons to scanty fossil remains. I favor an Australopith, myself.

I don't think it's worthless to speculate about it. Giganto's mode of locomotion hasn't been established. A toe bone would help. Why hasn't anyone found a toebone?
If the locomotion mode of Gigantopithecus and the existence of bigfeet were not proved, than to debate if bigfeet are related to it, australopitecines or squirrels is a waste of time, since no conclusion can be obtained.
The question is not “Why hasn't anyone found a toebone from Gigantopithecus?� It should be “Why hasn't anyone found any bones -fossil or present- from bigfeet?�
Originally posted by LAL Ah. Guesswork. Very solid.
Originally posted by LAL
There's been no census.
Sure. How can one make a census of immaginary creatures?
Originally posted by LAL Most of the deforestation has been in the East. Reports started coming in (to the white world) when settlers moved West. I think it's possible they started spreading into the East and Southeast relatively recently. There's not only a lot of wildland left, there's formerly logged over land that now has mature timber on it. In a sense, the habitat has increased since the unbridled logging of a century ago.
Note that this would be in direct contradiction with the existence of any old native legend on bigfeet from the west.
And also, if their population was originall from the East, where are the remains -fossil and recent? Why the animal has not been found and described before?
Not to mention that using the western area as a standard for the eastern ones will induce biased opinions with great chance of being wrong.
Originally posted by LAL I was active in the Sierra Club soon after DDT misuse was at its height. The Forest Service was spraying the National Forests and using chemical fertilizers while spraying herbicides to kill the Alder. I wish you'd stop assuming I'm unaware.
Only after you stop considering that I and the other people who are discussing with you here are no aware of what we are talking about.

Originally posted by LAL The Bald Eagle has recovered enough to be taken off the endangered list. It was never seriously threatened in areas that didn't have a lot of agriculture, but Brown Pelicans had a 100% reproductive failure (due to thin shelled eggs) one year. Species that were most affected were the fish-eating birds at the top of the food chain. .
Now, isn´t there something written somewhere about bigfeet eating salmon?
What do you consider as being “far from agriculture�? If the river pass through a number of farms that use too much pesticides, everything downriver will be affected. Even in the sea. Haven´t you read about the dead zone off Florida?
Originally posted by LAL At one time human milk had higher than acceptable levels of DDT. The government kept raising the acceptable levels.

So how did humans, also at the top of the food chain, survive? We were eating products that were directly sprayed. When I was a kid in suburban Chicago, we and the mosquitos were directly sprayed.
So, with this you are now claiming that brds are affected, but DDT has no efect in humans and that we should not worry? No, I don´t want to enter in another OT discussion. I am just telling you to be carefull with what you write. And I am not twisting your words. Its just a conslusion after your words.
Originally posted by Correa Neto And you are contradicting yourself. They MUST -of course, if they exist(ed)- have spread "almost all over" USA and Canada tens of thousands years ago and before European colonization. As most (if not all) large forest animal species, their numbers must have been quite larger when European colonist arrived at North America. And no one managed to shot one since the starting of colonization?
Originally posted by LAL I've said before Green has five reports of shootings.

No contradiction. There are a couple of scenarios, both of which I've presented.
Ok, then where are the bodies?
See? Unreliable reports.
As for the no contradiction, see above my reply on your supposition regarding bigfeet population moving westward.
Originally posted by LAL I'm sorry if I appeared rude, but I don't think anything I've said compares to some of the statements that have been directed at me by some of the posters.
And what do I have to do with it? Am I one of those who has been rude with you? I just roughned the tone a bit after receiving a number of rude responses by you.

Originally posted by LAL I don't think my superiors would accept posting on message boards as a legitimate excuse for being late, so from now on I'll only answer you when I have more time and am not feeling frustrated and testy about some of the mockery and put-downs.
We all have real lives.
Originally posted by Correa NetoThese Russian scientists, have they managed to publish at least one paper at a peer-reviewed science magazine of some importance? Or are they of the same type that said Nina Kulagina was the real deal?
Originally posted by LAL I hope not. Google Bayanov, for one. Seems a Russian scientist has seen one. I 'll try to get her name.
Letters at bigfoot forums...
What about some papers?
I´m sorry but it sounds pretty vague.
Originally posted by LAL There's disagreement, okay? Even on the spelling, which may have been Anglicized. I'd really like to rein in the subject a bit. Crypotozology deals with unidentified animals, and really only deals with mythological animals when the myths may be based on real creatures. Some of the cryptids have been identified and classified.
So, you really think the creature descripted in the original mapinguari myth is plausible?
Originally posted by LAL Some of the legends from the Coast tribes, BC and California seem to be a fit. Others are too much of a stretch. But I find it interesting the fits are from where the largest population seems to reside.
So, isn´t that in contradiction with the supposition of bigfeet population moving recently towards west pushed by human advance?
Originally posted by LAL I've posted a number of links on footprints, both here and on the Bigfoot Follies thread. Please read them.

This is the first time I've ever used Occultpedia (or even seen the site) and that was only in support of the spelling and hominid interpretation.
And I think its not that hard to see it was not reliable. And that the hominid interpretation is not in agreement with the creature as described by the legend. Thus showing that this sort of data is unreliable.
Want another example? I can provide you some information on the mokelembembe, showing a similar distortion, if you want.
Originally posted by Correa Neto And are you sure they went to the Amzon forest and interviewed people who claimed to have seen the animal? Or, as adopted as standard practice by many "researchers", they just used scond- or third-hand accounts?
Originally posted by LAL Nope. This is new to me.
So, here´s what may be one of the greatest sorces ofdisagreement between you and most of us here from JREF (as well as all the “mainstream scientists� who thing bigfeet is not plausible).
It´s about the way conclusions are drawn and how data is handled. You saw (at least I hope so) that the original information did not matched with the interpretation. I could go on on this issue, but other people have already touched on it.
Originally posted by Correa Neto Can you be sure that the sasquatch as a giant unknown to the science hominid is not just an interpretation based in the cultural background of bigfeet researchers? And that the original myth meant something else, that fitted well within Native North American´s cultural background?
Originally posted by LAL <http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/lummi1.htm>

Myths don't kill dogs.
Ah. Sighting reports.
And this was taken from the text:
“The Sasquatch has been blamed�
Has anyone actually seen the act?
Originally posted by LAL And regarding encounters... Well, people also claim to have had encounters with aliens. And there are footprints of aliens, landing gear marks, burnt vegetation, etc. Where to draw the line? Why UFOs are not "viable", but bigfeet are, if the evidence avaliable for both is of the same quality?
Originally posted by LAL It's not. My favorite "burnt mark" was in a road. The perpetrator forgot to remove the matches.
So, that one was a hoax. And what about all the other ones? You know that UFOlogists use a very similar reasoning? You know, when I was (very) younger, I also was a “researcher� of UFOs. And any UFOLOgists would say that there´s much more solid evidence for UFOs than for bigfoot. Where and how to draw the line?
Originally posted by LAL I say there are few fossils anywhere (with the exception of marine). I find your whole "should" argument flawed. When I was a kid only three human "ancestors" (none were, actually) were known and one of them was Piltdown Man! In Dubois' time they didn't know which continent to look on. When Darwin came up with his theory no hominid fossils had been found at all. But they "should" have been, right?
There are so many holes in the above reasoning that I will just point a few, on the “Darwin came up� line.
-the areas where most hominid fossils were found have not yet been researched;
-paleontology was a young science, kept under the church´s umbrella
-Darwin´s masterpiece was published in 1859; the first Neanderthal fossil was found in 1848 (check Wikipedia);
-Dubois decided to seach for the “missing link� and found “Java man�...
Originally posted by LAL ...snip...
I asked specifically for fossils of Black Bear (Krantz estimated 100 Black Bear for every Sasquatch) in the Pacific Northwest, where even bodies of Black Bear that died of natural causes are seldom, if ever found. I've never said there are no bear fossils.
And why the area must be restricted to PNW, if black bears are not supposed to be endemic of that particular area? Neither to have evolved thate?
The same is valid for bigfoot. They are not endemic to PNW neither were supposed to have evolved there. Therefore, remains -fossil or not- could be found all along its supposed habitats, present and past (North America and Northeastern Asia). To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments, just like this one.
So, Krants guesses a 100/1 black bear/bigfoot ratio.
So if there are 359,200 black bears across the whole North America (http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/c286.htm), that would be 3592 big feet. Big feet population figures are quite variable, eh? 14000, 6000, 4000, 3000, 2000... Krantz figures are valid just for PNW?

Originally posted by LAL Right, no bodies or testable tissue, yet, but plenty to point to a living animal. Science will give the grants to go get the body after a body's been brought in.
More misunderstanding and rants about science...
I´ll write again. If a biologist -or undergraduate biology student- or a wildlife photographer (pro or amateur) is making a study on say, black bears, and manages to get a non-fuzzy non-blurry pic of a bigfoot, and there´s no evidence of fraud, money will come. Even if the picture is taken say, by Krantz. But since all that bigfoot supporters manage to provide sor far are poor evidences...
Originally posted by LAL My feet are not in my mouth. Similar adaptations occur in similar niches, but hominids do not evolve from squirrels. Sasquatches have hominid characteristics right down to the fingernails.
Assuming the creature exists, all that you have is a description of its external appearance. Now, have you ever compared a reconstruction of a Smilodon[/b] with a reconstruction of a [i] Thylacosmilus ? The first is a placentary mammal, the second a marsupial. They were very similar, saber-teeth included. So, since nothing is known about bigfoot other than speculation, why canpt I suppose that they evolved from squirrels or from marsupials to occupy the same niches giant hominids would occupy?
Here´s my cryptozoology “theory�: Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.
Enjoy your time debunking it.
But please note that the only goal is to check the quality of evidence being used to create suppositions on bigfeet´s alleged affinity with hominids as well as how sure one can be of theses speculations.
Originally posted by LAL
Nope. “Etching� is not even the correct term. Plagioclases, pyroxenes and olivines (if present) react with water and become clay minerals. Since the original minerals are rich in Fe, Mg and Ca, the resulting soils are good for plant growth. That´s called chemical weathering. Black sand may be a product of physical weathering (mechanical fragmentation of the rocks by temperature differences, wind, water, etc.) of basalts, dacites, andesites, etc.
Not even at the forests the soils have clay?
Originally posted by LAL [B]
I never said no siltation; I said little. Normally there wouldn't be enough to bury an animal before scavengers got it. Deer mice eat the bones to obtain calcium. Quick burial is really necessary, but then you have soil that is loaded with microbes that eat organic matter. So, little chance of preservation and even less of being found.
Besides remembering that PNW is not the only place where bigfeet remains -fossil or recent- should have been found, I must remind you also that, in a lake, for example, there´s no need for rapid burial. And that at a river bed, burial can be fast. Since we -at least I think- agree that even forest animals die at lakes and rivers, and that bigfeet is not restricted to PNW...

Originally posted by LAL Streams in Washington are crystal clear. A volcanic eruption that happens maybe once in 10,000 years isn't exactly a usual occurance. I'm not saying there's no siltation, but what I've seen would hardly be enough to cover a gnat. It tends to get filtered out by the vegetation en route to lower elevations. Sasquatches don't live above timber line.
The land I owned is between St. Helens and the Columbia (with Greenleaf Peak in between. It received a light dusting from the second eruption, but there was no inundation from the main eruption in that area.
When you look at a fast-flowing river bed, what do you see? Rocks and perhaps some coarse sand, Ok? Why? Because silt and clay-sized particles are being transported, and will be deposited where the current slows down. That will be at lakes or where the river gets wide and/or with a slow current.
And take my word. An eruption (not necessarily one so big as that last one) can deposits millions of tons of ash. And since the vocanoes of the Cascades are a bit older than 10ky...
Have I mentioned that it realyy does not matter, since bigfeet are not supposed to be endemic to PNW, neither were supposed to have evolved there? And that therefore, remains -fossil or not- could be found all along its supposed habitats, present and past (North America and Northeastern Asia). To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments, as well as off topic discussions just like this one?
Originally posted by LAL Krantz interviewed dozens of people who frequent and study forests and got an answer of "0" on bear bodies (where cause of death was natural). I've found remains myself (I don't want to go through the horse story again; it's too painful), such as the skeleton of a deer hit by a car, but they were few and far between. There are few roads and fewer hunters in some of these areas. It's sheer luck to come across a body of any kind.
Hmm... He did not interviewed the ranger that posted here at this thread saying that the “no bear carcasses� line is not real... Neither you who has found remains of animals... I wonder if his sampling could not have been a little skewed...
Originally posted by Correa Neto Talking about twisting words...
As the song says, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"
Originally posted by LAL Do you sing that to yourself in the mornings when you look in the mirror?
No. Just at night in pubs, if I took some extra booze shots and if there are reasons for that.
Originally posted by LAL I didn't start out with any "preconceived notions". I'd never heard of the things before I encountered Green's early books and then read an account of the Cox sighting on the front page of the Columbian. Wouldn't you be at least interested in a sighting with physical evidence a few miles from where you were planning to live and only about 40 miles from the current residence?
Ok, then why you wrote I have preconceived ideas? I had my time of “bigfeet beliver�. I read books, etc. But, the more I learned about nature, the less plausible bigfeet became to me. And, if the propper evidence pops out, I will happily change my mind.
And what about you? What would it take for you to change your mind? Before answering, please think if your opinion has not shifted from the rational to the belief field.
Originally posted by LAL Talking about twisting words... You know, for someone who claims to know wildlife, you are pretty unaware of some aspects of animal behavior...
Originally posted by LAL Such as? I don't claim to be an expert, but I know there are no Jaguars in the areas I'm talking about.
You stated that fossils of jaguars and bears were found together. If not, your sentences were not clear enough.
You said grizzlies don´t live in forests.
You were not aware on how animal remains can end in caves, even if they never spent any times in them when alive...
I could go on, but for the sake of politeness and to keep focus on the topic, I´ll end here.
Originally posted by LAL I've never said they might not use caves at all, but, I don't think there would be any need to seek water in caves when there's so much of it around. Some animals just lick snow.
And why do you think they lick snow?
And do all bigfeet live in areas where there´s snow for the to lick? Areas that are not subject to dry periods? To base your opinions just in PNW creates biased and flawed arguments.
Originally posted by LAL Which has the largest population. And lousy preservation. There's a shot of a lava tube in Sasquatch Oddessy. Looks like there's some light coming in and even dripping water (I regret I never got to see them in real life). There's not a hint of a stallagtite. I'd guess there's no mud on the floor.
Oh my... Here we go again.
So, you are basing you opinions on cave environments and fossil preservation in pictures. Its not surprising they have no stalagmites. Limestone caves develop speleothems because the process of their formation involves dissolution and precipitation of carbonate. Here´s where you´ll write “I know that�. Now, you wrote �I'd guess there's no mud on the floor�. I say, maybe they have maybe they don´t. And even i

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
A couple of quotes from sites posted by Correa Neto:

"The fossil record of bears in our county is small. A smaller version of Ursus was found in the San Diego formation that persisted in the Pliocene (<3 million years old)."

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

"Birds whose fossils we will never find lived on what are now tiny islets in far western Hawaii lived much longer ago. And many birds have become extinct since Captain Cook discovered Hawaii a little over 200 years ago. Their bones haven’t had time to become fossilized."

http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Taking paragraphs out of their original context and forcing them to fit with another one is far from being correct methodology. If you want to be set aprt from UFOlogists and bigfoot researchers like Erick Beckjord, you must not use their methods.

Aniway, how is it supposed to help bigfoot´s cause?

You are not evening out the odds of preservation of frail bird´s bones with those of a 3-m tall ape, are you?

This and other articles do not say that the unfossilized remains were not preserved. They just say they were not fossilized. Its different from stating that no remains were left.

Note that there are remains -fossil and recent- of bears and birds, there are sharp pictures and footage of bears and birds. Despite their frail bone structure, there are fossils of birds.

Where are bigfeet remains, fossil and recent?
Where are the sharp pictures and footage of bigfeet?

Better luck next time.

[FFed]

The DNA results of the Teslin bigfoot sighting are in.

Bison

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by FFed
The DNA results of the Teslin bigfoot sighting are in.

Bison

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html [Homer voice ] ....... Woo Hoo ! .......... [/]

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
I've mentioned a couple of these already, where the results were fatal for the searchees. One was even in Skamania County, in the Gifford Pinchot where the 2/3 body imprint was found. A mushroom hunter was lost somewhere on talus after becoming separated from his companions. Evidently mushroom hunter sign isn't easy to follow either, even in the open.

I used to follow a game trail to get to my ex-husband's lake, and I don't recall seeing any kind of tracks on it, not deer, not even my own. The ground cover is springy. About all one sees from an aircraft are treetops and clearcuts (I haven't been in a helicopter, though I was once buzzed by one). At night, when they're active, one would see what?

Krantz had plans to search by a one-man aircraft. He thought early spring would be a good time to try to find winterkill, as I recall. He didn't live to carry out these plans, and I believe he mentioned his wife wouldn't let him fly the thing.

There've been sightings by DNR workers, and a track was found after St. Helens blew, but a lot of this stuff doesn't get reported, or even seen.

"John Green - saw a picture of Jerry Crew holding a cast. Green went down to Willow Creek, with his wife. He saw prints and was very impressed. Bob Titmus mailed Green, who came back to Willow Creek and saw more tracks (covered with leaves). Saw more in '59 and in '63 saw tracks near Hyampom, CA. In 1967, Bud Ryerson called Green, saying, "What you're looking for is here!" over 600 tracks in a row. Green flew down, with a tracking dog and handler. The dog smelled the first track, "and it was an electric shock, the dog's hair, on his back stood straight up!" The dog refused to follow the tracks or scent. The tracks were in deep dry dust. Then it rained over night leaving a thin layer of dried-mud on the top. A Forest Service worker drove up to them and said, "I've never seen any bigfoot tracks in these woods."

"What about these?", Green asked."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

These are guesses, obfuscations, wishful thinking and lies. Bigfoot is a myth. This is the stuff that people do to perpetuate a myth as if it were reality.

Where is Bigfoot?

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
I almost thank you for what almost seemed like a bit of support there.

Richard Noll estimates there are about thirty in Washington State. That's a good place to start.

I did compliment you in at least one of my posts. Not for showing that Bigfoot is real (it isn't), but for your persistent and tireless posting of anecdotes of those who have something supportive to say about Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a myth. One way to keep a myth 'alive' is to treat it as if it is not a myth. This is not done by presenting Bigfoot as a real animal (with a body, which cannot be done), but with heaping great gobs of anecdotal accounts... as if they might serve as a proxy for the real animal.

Who is Richard Noll? Is he taking aerial censuses of Bigfoot in Washington? He pulled a decent number out of his hat to perpetuate the myth of Bigfoot. One doesn't want to claim too many... then folks will wonder why they aren't being regularly smashed by vehicles on roads. One doesn't want to claim too few... then you can't easily justify all of the sightings that are reported. I think he could have gone for a hundred.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by William Parcher
One doesn't want to claim too few... then you can't easily justify all of the sightings that are reported. I think he could have gone for a hundred. Would you believe .......... 37 ?





It is in the same category as the missing aircraft in the PNW ..





My God! Do you know how many pine cones disappear in the PNW every day ?


Why is it that you never see a sharp, clearly identifiable picture of a pine cone ? Oh, wait. Never mind..:D

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
Yep, but I'm about ready to stop doing that.
[B]

The point is, that that country is rugged and densely forested enough to hide aircraft (and lost people). Those mountains are certainly capable of hiding roving nocturnal beasties who seem to have no desire to hold still and be collected..

Roving nocturnal beasties? You are joking. A 'real' Bigfoot is no kind of functional nocturnal animal. That is insane. If you want to perpetuate a myth that could appeal to rationality, then you better change the beast itself. As generally described, Bigfoot does not have the morphology to support nocturnalism. It should have large eyes at a minimum, so that it can see the nighttime world. Nobody has described it this way.

All of the nocturnal primates have large eyes. This is obviously to gather the scarce photons at night which will allow them to create a functional visual image of the world. Putting aside finding food and seeing potential enemies... if you are an 8 foot tall biped, you better be able to clearly see where you are walking or you are gonna trip on logs every 50 feet and bust your face when you fall.

You Bigfoot believers really need to tighten-up your narrative. That is, unless you only want to appeal to the naive.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by William Parcher

Who is Richard Noll? Is he taking aerial censuses of Bigfoot in Washington? He pulled a decent number out of his hat to perpetuate the myth of Bigfoot. One doesn't want to claim too many... then folks will wonder why they aren't being regularly smashed by vehicles on roads. One doesn't want to claim too few... then you can't easily justify all of the sightings that are reported. I think he could have gone for a hundred.

Thirty alone in Washington State, yet Noll can't seem to produce Bigfoot one. I like how he made up a number, and now Footers quote it like it has any meaning whatsoever.

Although, if Bigfeet are teleporting shapeshifter aliens, there could be a great many more than 30. I'd say upwards of 10 to 20 thousand...depending on what dimension they're currently in, of course.

[LTC8K6]

roving nocturnal beasties who seem to have no desire to hold still and be collected

Except when P/G want to film one.......

[LTC8K6]

Someone mistook a long-inanimate bison for a visiting sasquatch?

Seriously though, here we have a lab that was able to positively ID some badly degraded DNA from a hair sample. So what's the problem with the other scientists and their hair testing?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Thirty alone in Washington State, yet Noll can't seem to produce Bigfoot one. I like how he made up a number, and now Footers quote it like it has any meaning whatsoever.

Although, if Bigfeet are teleporting shapeshifter aliens, there could be a great many more than 30. I'd say upwards of 10 to 20 thousand...depending on what dimension they're currently in, of course.
What? Don't you know? There are an infinite number of bigfeet in a quantum wave function state. Quantum. Their wave functions only collapse into one bigfoot when someone rents a camera for the purpose of observing them or their footprints. Uncertainty principle. After the people leave, they go back to being wave functions. Quantum, I say! But when someone wants to capture one, they remain as wave functions.

[LTC8K6]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040621/bison.html

Here again we have folks who do amazing stuff with DNA from hair, and yet bigfoot researchers never get anywhere.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
The point is, that that country is rugged and densely forested enough to hide aircraft (and lost people). Those mountains are certainly capable of hiding roving nocturnal beasties who seem to have no desire to hold still and be collected..

You know, I do quite a bit of hiking, some of it in the PNW…most in the Appalachia. Bears are very elusive, you know…avoid humans and all that…can smell us a mile away, etc. I’ve seen three in all the years I’ve been hiking. Three. That’s approximately three more than all the hairy primates I’ve seen in the same area. The point is, as elusive as bears are...people do see them, photograph them, and capture them.

And people hike the PNW all the time. It’s not the Himalyas. Most of it is not inaccessible. As far as Bigfoot is concerned, you’re mistaking the term “elusive� for “non-existent�.


Originally posted by William Parcher

All of the nocturnal primates have large eyes....You Bigfoot believers really need to tighten-up your narrative. That is, unless you only want to appeal to the naive.

Good way to put it.

I think the nocturnal thing started as a way to explain why all the researchers weren’t seeing more of these buggers. It does seem, however, that the bulk of Bigfoot enthusiasts and researchers have a serious lack of scientific grounding. I imagine you’ve just sent them scrambling back to the rationalizing table.

But maybe they should refocus their entire mission. If they can’t find Bigfoot, maybe they could at least settle for Wildboy:

http://www.70slivekidvid.com/bfwb.htm

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Someone mistook a long-inanimate bison for a visiting sasquatch?

Seriously though, here we have a lab that was able to positively ID some badly degraded DNA from a hair sample. So what's the problem with the other scientists and their hair testing?

Inconclusive! INCONCLUSIVE, I tell you! That’s science-speak for Squatch-fur! Count on it.

And besides, it’s commonly known by those in the know that Squatches regularly wear loincloths made from bison fur. Ha ha! Especially when they’re out in the forest smashing down trees…their favorite pastime.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
What? Don't you know? There are an infinite number of bigfeet in a quantum wave function state. Quantum. Their wave functions only collapse into one bigfoot when someone rents a camera for the purpose of observing them or their footprints. Uncertainty principle. After the people leave, they go back to being wave functions. Quantum, I say! But when someone wants to capture one, they remain as wave functions. Ahhh, yes.. BUP ( Bigfoot Uncertainty Principle )


I believe we can give El_Spectre credit for coining the term..Originally posted by El_Spectre
This sounds like some weird, inverted Bigfoot Uncertainty Principle... where the actual results change the observations :)

[Bronze Dog]

Of course. El_Spectre, MD, PhD, LSD, PDQ, DJFLSDFJD. His qualifications speak for themselves, so his godlike figure is completely immune to the logical fallacies us mere mortals contend with. ;)

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Inconclusive! INCONCLUSIVE, I tell you! That’s science-speak for Squatch-fur! Count on it.

And besides, it’s commonly known by those in the know that Squatches regularly wear loincloths made from bison fur. Ha ha! Especially when they’re out in the forest smashing down trees…their favorite pastime.

Of course!! It all makes sense!!!

Don't you see?! This explains the anomolies in the PG video!!! Bigfoot doesn't have hairy breasts...she just wears bsion-fur brassieres!!!!

:D

[Thurkon]

Maybe it’s time to steer this back to our generous thread founder, and all-around fascinating character: Jon-Erik Beckjord. Did you realize he was a Loch Ness Monster expert:

http://www.beckjord.com/nessie/index.html

Love this:

" Our theory, for the record, is that Nessie is a biological animal that has ultra, very ultra, very,very ultra strange abilities and these abilities and traits, assist it in eluding capture. These abilities are controversial and mind-boggling. "
- Jon-Erik Beckjord, BA, MBA, Director NRP.


I knew that Nessie was strange, and had perhaps ultra abilities, but never would I have imagined her to have ultra, very ultra, very, very ultra strange abilities.

Honestly...is this guy for real? You can't pay for comedy this good.

[LTC8K6]

I wonder how hot it gets in a bison hide bigfoot suit? :D

[William Parcher]

When you begin to think about it, the myth perpetuation strategy of Jon-Erik Beckjord seems to be the most functional. If you claim that these entities are supernatural from the get go, then your position immediately becomes immune to all forms of natural rationality.

LAL's strategy also thumbs its nose at rationality... but if you demand that she align her position with rationality, she can always just demand that you prove her wrong. Or, that you must prove what dozens of others have said as being wrong. You won't. You can't. She always wins... even if Bigfoot doesn't exist at all (it doesn't).

Until one understands the human nature of myth perpetuation strategies, one cannot recognize the 'genius' produced by JE Beckjord and LAL.

[Yeah_Right]

I think the nocturnal thing started as a way to explain why all the researchers weren’t seeing more of these buggers. It does seem, however, that the bulk of Bigfoot enthusiasts and researchers have a serious lack of scientific grounding. I imagine you’ve just sent them scrambling back to the rationalizing table.


And what news will you get back from the rationalizing table? Oh, well, the Bigfoots eyes have obviously adapted to the darkness, despite their small size. Or something like that.

[Cleon]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html

It's official...Bison, not bigfoot.


A tuft of hair found near a purported sasquatch sighting in the Yukon actually came from a bison, says the Alberta scientist who tested the sample.

A wildlife geneticist at the University of Alberta, David Coltman, said on Thursday that the hair produced a "100 per cent" match with known DNA sequences for bison.

[William Parcher]

This is an excellent DNA result and doesn't even slightly endanger the Bigfoot myth. There were at least nine eyewitnesses and huge footprints were found.

A Bigfoot was chasing a bison through the Yukon. Nobody saw the bison, but they did see the 8 foot tall hairy ape that was in pursuit. The footprints were Bigfoot, but that is all gone bye-bye now. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Bigfoot foot prints to dust. Only the bison left hair and it was found and genetically tested. If only the tests would also reveal the extreme adrenal secretion of a bison running for its life from a towering monster ape.

You see, the truth of Bigfoot is hidden in our own technological shortcomings.

If we all would sit in lotus positions and hum, we would then understand the reality of Bigfoot. Otherwise we are just stupid bastard monkeys who do not even deserve to know the earthly righteousness of that tall hairy wild monkey. We are even too stupid to recognize that LAL is a sage and savior.

Eternal solace shall be withheld. Eternity will only come as burning hellfire to the Bigfoot skeptic. We will pay dearly for being wrong about that big stinky monkey.

[Red Siegfried]

And the chorus sang:

Still no DNA, still no body, still no bigfoot.

How long until someone claims that the DNA was really from a bigfoot but morphed into buffalo DNA due to contamination? You know, kind of like how someone else's DNA can magically become OJ Simpson's when the cops touch it.

[William Parcher]

Forget that, Red. How long until I admit withholding other possibilities?

I suggested Bigfoot chasing a bison. I am guilty of not suggesting a bison chasing Bigfoot.

The Running of the Bulls at Pamplona is a real thing. Skeptics only show their closed minds by not allowing for a Running of the Bison Bulls in Yukon. I'm sorry for not mentioning this possibility. I show how screwed skeptics may be in their quest for plural objectivity.

If a bison chased a Bigfoot through Yukon, honest witnesses may see the Bigfoot but not the bison. The physical evidence gathered may have only been from the bison. My apologies to any scorn that may have been wrongly placed on the good people of Yukon. Peace be to them. Peace be to Bigfoot. Peace be to bison.

[bruto]

LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

An unidentifiable hair, a missed picture, an ambiguous footprint, or any other unverifiable result is worth exactly zero. For the purposes of scientific proof it should count as equal to no event at all. No matter how high you pile zeroes, they add up to zero. LAL somehow has come to the notion that bad evidence should be graded on a curve related to its frequency.

But I would contend the contrary, that the longer one goes with only unverifiable results, and the more such observations take place, the LESS worthy of any attention they should become. It's to be expected that a certain percentage of sightings of anything, even a real thing, will be imprecise and unverifiable. If one is seeking a new and undiscovered thing, it's reasonable to follow up any lead, even the most tenuous, in hope of finding something that can be verified, but the point is to find better evidence, not more of the same, and the longer one goes without realizing that hope, the less reasonable it becomes. To suggest that zero verifiability after decades of searching and tracking constitutes some kind of success is indeed folly.

I really do hope there turns out to be a bigfoot out there. I think it would be an interesting thing. But I don't think it's going to turn out to be true, and I think that even if it does turn out to be true, it will not be verified by the people now searching unless they come to some understanding of the way they have failed so far.

[Hitch]

Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

[Winterfrost]

Originally posted by Cleon
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html
It's official...Bison, not bigfoot.
At http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wsasq0728/BNStory/National/ they made note of something even more important, I think (my emphasis):
"We compared it to human samples and bison samples that we had here on hand," said Dr. Coltman.
He said the DNA sample was not fresh.
Which points to either:
a) a buffalo previously wandering through that area, and someone made an honest mistake in collecting it.
b) someone having a really good laugh.

While I do not know this for sure, I would be surprised if bison frequently roamed so close to the town. And if they did, I would imagine that the townspeople would probably have been more familiar with bison hair, and less likely to mistakenly collect it. This, in conjunction with the apparent footprint found on-scene has me leaning strongly toward option "b."

[Red Siegfried]

Originally posted by bruto
LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

Bingo.

Thank you for articulating what I was for some reason unable to express in my online and offline discussions about anything that requires evidence.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Hitch
Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

Sorry you are plain wrong, they did not eveolved from bisons. OK, those were the bad news. The good ones are that you are right, they are not primates!

Cutted-and-pasted from an earlier post of mine to LAL:

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Here´s my cryptozoology “theory�: Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.

Its an undebunkable theory!!!!

So, don´t you guys think my career on cryptozoology has a bright future?

[Metullus]

How about a bigfoot riding on a bison? Reduce the number of footprints in populated areas and save wear and tear on the old bunions.

[Winterfrost]

Sorry, a bit more from http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html that I felt was worth sharing:

Coltman said the hair not only came from a bison but was from a long-dead animal.

He said the DNA was highly degraded and of very low quality, indicating that it had either been exposed for a long time to moisture and sunlight, or came from a hide that had been tanned.

"This is not to say this could not have been stepped on by a sasquatch," joked a wildlife technician in the Yukon, Phillip Merchant.

[Hitch]

Bigfoot a marsupial? Oh come now -- I thought the only North American marsupials were opossum. There's no way to mistake an opossum for a Bigfoot. I'm sticking to my -- much more realistic -- bison theory.


Edit: Come to think of it, Pogo was an opossum, so... Nah. It's ridiculous.

[Correa Neto]

Ah, sir, but you seem to have overlooked some key evidences!
Opossums -marsupial mammals- have a "chemical weapon", a liquid with a horrible smell.

At many sighting reports, the witnesses stated that the animal had a terrible smell!!!

In my theory, its this smell that make dogs freeze and be scared of bigfeet. It was perfected by millenia of evolution, as a defese against terrible megafauna predators such as the saber-toothed-cats. Bigfeet size -and smell- are adaptations against these and other predators.

My cryptozologist carrer seems to be promissing!!!! Maybe I´ll even write a book and get some $$$!!!

[RayG]

Hmmmmmm...maybe I'm not being 'skeptical' enough, but isn't refuting a claim with facts far more effective than ridicule?

Two quotes immediately come to mind when I see a thread degrade in this manner:

"I have made a ceasless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." -- Baruch Spinoza

"If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost; you can still call him names." -- Elbert Hubbard

Getting back to the evidence, or the lack thereof, what are the chances of getting Dr. Henner Fahrenbach to pass along purported squatch hairs in his possession to Dr. David Coltman for identification purposes?
http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-not-280720005&ref=rss

RayG

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by RayG
Hmmmmmm...maybe I'm not being 'skeptical' enough, but isn't refuting a claim with facts far more effective than ridicule?

When one has abandoned all reason, the height of folly lies with those who attempt to reason with them--Huntsman, 5 seconds ago.

:D

[Hitch]

In over 1500 posts this thread and it's comanion have accomplished exactly nothing. No one here will ever change anyone's mind on this matter.

Until there's some evidence the skeptics will find scientifically valid.

Or the skeptics produce signed affadavits and documentary evidence from a hoaxer for every single shred of possible evidence past, present, and future for the Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Nothing will ever be settled in this forum. That anyone is still going back and forth on this is no sillier than the theories that Bigfoot is a bipedal bison, a super-evolved opossum, or a shapeshifting, teleporting alien.

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:Originally posted by bruto
LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Bingo.

Thank you for articulating what I was for some reason unable to express in my online and offline discussions about anything that requires evidence.

Have you heard this one ?

" The plural of anecdote is not " data " ... "

[Bronze Dog]

The thread's beyond critical mass. Kind of hard to maintain composure when you've got someone making the same fallacious arguments over and over.

[Red Siegfried]

Originally posted by Hitch
In over 1500 posts this thread and it's comanion have accomplished exactly nothing. No one here will ever change anyone's mind on this matter.

Until there's some evidence the skeptics will find scientifically valid.

Or the skeptics produce signed affadavits and documentary evidence from a hoaxer for every single shred of possible evidence past, present, and future for the Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Nothing will ever be settled in this forum. That anyone is still going back and forth on this is no sillier than the theories that Bigfoot is a bipedal bison, a super-evolved opossum, or a shapeshifting, teleporting alien.

Well, you're right there. But it is fun. And sometimes you learn something.

In the end, what it comes down to is that you can't convince someone of something using facts and evidence when their idea is based faith or belief.

If you want to convince a true believer, or change their mind, appeal to their emotions, not their logical mind.

If you want to convince a skeptic, appeal to logic, facts and evidence, not their emotions.

It is with this in mind that I propose we change the bigfoot believer's minds by convincing them that bigfoot is a hoax perpetuated by .... the Loch Ness Monster. Oh, and that Nessie was actually ... Jack The Ripper.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Caused by what ? Clown feet that are too tight ?



Seriously.. Explain to me how a Bigfoot would get bunions..

From shifting the weight due to the deformity.

I got one on the outside of each foot from three years on jobs where I had to be on my feet all the time. Bunions too. Overnight.


"The prominent bunnionettes on the lateral margin of the foot mark the positions of the calcaneocuboid and cuboideometatarsal joints, which are positioned more distal than in a human foot. This accords with the inferred position of the transverse tarsal joint and confirms the elongation of the heel segment. Furthermore, deformities and malalignments of the digits permit inferences about the positions of interphalangeal joints and relative toe lengths, as depicted in the reconstructed skeletal anatomy depicted below."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by SmooveK
To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.

If the incidents and evidence I find compelling could be debunked, and in over three decades several have not been (the others are newer than that), I would have no difficulty dismissing thousands of sightings as Unidentified Walking Objects and go back to complacently ignoring the whole phenomenon.

I might even say "Bosh".

[LAL]

Originally posted by Hitch
Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

I sure hope not.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Well, you're right there. But it is fun. And sometimes you learn something.

In the end, what it comes down to is that you can't convince someone of something using facts and evidence when their idea is based faith or belief.

If you want to convince a true believer, or change their mind, appeal to their emotions, not their logical mind.


So far all I've seen from sceptics are arguments from incredulity, cherry picking, distortions, implausible scenarios and demands for bodies, fossils and roadkill even from areas that don't have roads, fossils or even much in the way of remains of common animals. I haven't seen facts evidence from the sceptical side. Does this mean in this case the "true believers" are the sceptics?

How would I appeal to their emotions?

[LAL]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
The thread's beyond critical mass. Kind of hard to maintain composure when you've got someone making the same fallacious arguments over and over.

You mean Bill? Don't be so hard on him. He doesn't know any better.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
quote:Originally posted by bruto
LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.



Have you heard this one ?

" The plural of anecdote is not " data " ... "

You got that from me saying that when people widely separated by time and distance report the same kind of details the eyewitness reports shouldn't be ignored? Amazing.

And why are people seeing large hominids? Why not Great American Dragons, or a California Cyclops?

The original Jersey Devil (Correa posted a picture), incidently, was a real estate hoax. Ivan T. Sanderson found the fake feet that were used, according to Coleman & Clark. (Still waiting for verification of that 15' penquin story. Anyone?)

All strange Jersey sightings tend to be called "Jersey Devil", but there have been sightings of a hominid-type creature. The Pine Barrens are pretty wild and don't resemble Jersey City in the slightest.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL From shifting the weight due to the deformity.

I got one on the outside of each foot from three years on jobs where I had to be on my feet all the time. Bunions too. Overnight.


"The prominent bunnionettes on the lateral margin of the foot mark the positions of the calcaneocuboid and cuboideometatarsal joints, which are positioned more distal than in a human foot. This accords with the inferred position of the transverse tarsal joint and confirms the elongation of the heel segment. Furthermore, deformities and malalignments of the digits permit inferences about the positions of interphalangeal joints and relative toe lengths, as depicted in the reconstructed skeletal anatomy depicted below."
I think you should contact the medical community right away with your new information about how bunions are formed.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I think you should contact the medical community right away with your new information about how bunions are formed.

Why is that new information? The manager had two medical degrees. She also had arthritis in her feet. She didn't see anything unusual about what happened to my feet on that job.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by LAL
You got that from me saying that when people widely separated by time and distance report the same kind of details the eyewitness reports shouldn't be ignored? Amazing.

Have none of those people hever heard about Bigfoot before they reported their sighting? The answer is, yes they have. This goes for all kinds of sightings. People see what they expect to see. Flying saucers were not saucer shaped til somebody described them so, then they were suddenly saucer shaped in nearly all sightings. Aliens were little green men till somebody described a "grey", then everybody started seeing greys.

]And why are people seeing large hominids? Why not Great American Dragons, or a California Cyclops?

Could be because the large hairy hominid fits age-old descriptions of the Yeti (again seing what you expect to see), sightings of bears, and ...humans .

All that said, I do not consider it absolutely impossible that an unknown large hominid might exist, just very very unlikely.

Hans

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Why is that new information? The manager had two medical degrees. She also had arthritis in her feet. She didn't see anything unusual about what happened to my feet on that job.


You might have had something wrong with your feet, but you are not describing the process of bunion formation, nor is the Bigfoot print evaluation consistent with bunions/bunionettes..

You do the googling..

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
So far all I've seen from sceptics are arguments from incredulity, cherry picking, distortions, implausible scenarios and demands for bodies, fossils and roadkill even from areas that don't have roads, fossils or even much in the way of remains of common animals. I haven't seen facts evidence from the sceptical side. Does this mean in this case the "true believers" are the sceptics?

How would I appeal to their emotions?

How can you ask for evidence from the skeptical side, other than the argument that your evidence is insufficient or unverifiable. What would you accept as "evidence" of non-existence if you won't accept the idea that bad evidence has no value? Nobody can ever "prove" that there is no sasquatch any more than you can prove that there are no ghosts, angels, fairies, lake monsters or space aliens. One can only dispute the evidence that is brought forth. Incredible evidence requires incredulity. Get used to it. If what you seek is some new and hitherto uninvented "anti-evidence" or proof of nonexistence, you ask the impossible. Of course, that's the point in a way, isn't it? An impossible criterion makes your position essentially unarguable.

Or maybe we should use the LAL-approved "cumulative bad evidence theory" ourselves. I am 57 years old. Every day of my life, I have looked at the world around me and detected a complete absence of sasquatch. That's over 20,800 positive sightings of the absence of sasquatch*. That is a HUGE body of evidence. My big pile of zeroes is bigger than yours. Prove to me that there really was a sasquatch where I didn't see one, and I'll accept your methodology.

* for many of those days I've carried a good camera, and taken sharp pictures of the absence of sasquatch too. Extra points!

[William Parcher]

The skeptical position on the existence of Bigfoot possesses a powerful bit of factual evidence. It is a fact that no scientific institution or other entity has a Bigfoot body or body part for analysis and description. This has apparently always been true.

All arguments for its existence carry the full burden of proof. A skeptic can simply cite the complete lack of tangible conclusive evidence. Nothing means anything until believers (or whomever) produces real physical evidence. Exceptional quality video footage might suffice as good evidence by some people.

If Bigfoot were non-existent and yet people were attracted to the myth and created arguments for its reality... it would probably look just like it does now. The difference between a fantasy Bigfoot and a real one is the physical animal itself.

[LTC8K6]

Lu, why do so many people describe ET aliens as being skinny, gray, and having big black slanty eyes?

Is it because that's what they actually saw, or because everyone knows that that's what an ET alien looks like, and they're sure they saw an ET alien?

The fact is that eyewitness accounts are often the worst evidence.

Lu, I think the bottom of Patty's foot looks absolutely ridiculous. I haven't seen the P/G film in a while, but it was brought up in a seperate thread, and I just looked at that frame at the BFRO site.

Would you comment on this in the P/G film thread?

[bruto]

A bigfoot search scenario:

Searcher1: "Hey, I just saw a bigfoot! I followed it and I got this tuft of hair."

Searcher 2: "Great! Let's send it off for analysis."

[waits for results....]

Searcher 1: "It came back, and it turns out it was bison hair."

Searcher 2: "Wow, that's great! Much better than the Dynel you got last time! We're closing in. Keep up the good work."

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
You got that from me saying that when people widely separated by time and distance report the same kind of details the eyewitness reports shouldn't be ignored? Amazing.

And why are people seeing large hominids? Why not Great American Dragons, or a California Cyclops?


Throughout history, popular and common beliefs have influenced sightings of dubious veracity. In the Middle Ages, people saw angels all the time. When the space age approached, people began to report contact with aliens, except in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the aliens were all men in spacesuits and little green men. This corresponded heavily with the way they were portayed at the time in books and film. Now, everyone sees the small aliens with the large oval eyes. Again, this started in large part after the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, in which they were finally portrayed in this way...not physically intimidating. Once again popular culture changed our collective perception and ideas. Sagan's Demon Haunted World covers this phenomenon well.

Art, the media, popular beliefs, movies, books, and folklore all influence these things. Is it not strange to you that, since the Patterson film, Bigfoot sightings for a while erupted across the country, and before Patterson and Ray Wallace there were very, very few? Does this not seem to hint that these things...aliens, Bigfeet, angels, Mothmen...by and large, appear to us in whatever capacity in large part because we want them to?


Originally posted by LAL

All strange Jersey sightings tend to be called "Jersey Devil", but there have been sightings of a hominid-type creature. The Pine Barrens are pretty wild and don't resemble Jersey City in the slightest.

Now, if you're trying to convince me that shaggy, inhuman creatures inhabit New Jersey...well, I just might believe that.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by William Parcher
The skeptical position on the existence of Bigfoot possesses a powerful bit of factual evidence. It is a fact that no scientific institution or other entity has a Bigfoot body or body part for analysis and description. This has apparently always been true.

All arguments for its existence carry the full burden of proof. A skeptic can simply cite the complete lack of tangible conclusive evidence. Nothing means anything until believers (or whomever) produces real physical evidence. Exceptional quality video footage might suffice as good evidence by some people.


Add to that the fact that serious biologists will readily admit that…even with the ubiquity of camera equipment, specialized nature photographers, field specialists, and the like…there are probably species on this planet that have not been discovered yet. That is in large part because they reside in areas difficult for the biologist, et al to access…lower regions of the ocean, deep Amazonian craters, and such. Take note that the Pacific Northwest is not in that category.

[marksman]

The latest Bigfoot sighting turned out to be bison

Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8704462/)

[Skeptical Greg]

Was looking at this report of a recent sighting over at Bigfoot Forums..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12192

The reporter has chosen to call his post " Absolute Proof "

Here's an excerpt..
It had no worrys, not concerned or scared of the traffic, just walked right across the street. It stepped right over the 3 ft gaurdrail without breaking stride, didn't bend knees, stoop or lean, just right over like it was a hurdle. The traffic sat their shocked for a minute before finally crawling ahead. I pulled over to where it stepped across to see if I could see it. It was a sheer dropoff 4000 feet straight down. O.K, I will assume ' 4000 ' is a typo..

But, does it seem strange to anyone else that no one else bothered to stop and investigate ?

One of the responders is doing a major No-No when it comes to investigating.. He's feeding him info in light of some of the report that doesn't sound right..

Most 'semis" do not have a back window and most have a sleeper compartment behind the drivers area. And are much taller than what you were discribing. Could you be talking about an empty flatbed truck instead of a "semi".

The sheer drop off with the possibility that the creature went into a cave sounds too convenient ( but not impossible ).. Should allow for investigation though..



All in all, I think the story sounds a bit contrived..

It is the most magnificent creature we have ever saw, like I said just ripped.


But cynicism is my job after all ...

[bruto]

When I criticize anecdotal evidence, LAL writes:

You got that from me saying that when people widely separated by time and distance report the same kind of details the eyewitness reports shouldn't be ignored? Amazing.

Among the sightings cited somewhere back in this thread, there was at least one detailed report of one that took place on a roadside, I think. I take this to mean that she believes that bigfeet are conspicuously present in many different places, and occasionally near roads.

But when others criticize the quality of evidence by suggesting that there ought to be something more concrete, such as a body, LAL brings up the density of the Pacific Northwest woods, the lack of roads, etc.

I take this to mean that she believes that bigfeet are not conspicuously present in many different places, and not near roads.

I find it difficult to reconcile those two positions.

[Correa Neto]

Big feet are seen near and at roads...
And never become roadkill.
Humans become roadkills.

Bigfeet are seen at places where people hunt...
And are never shot or fall in traps.
Humans get caught in traps and sometimes are shot by mistake.

These giant humanoid marsupials are smarter than humans, that´s why solid evidence is never found!

edited to add
Bigfeet are seen at places where people are always with cameras at hands, such as National Parks, camping sites, etc...
And not a single sharp picture or footage was ever obtained.
Humans are filmed, without even realizing that they are being filmed and when they obviously dont want to..
end edit

Now, here´s some of the backdoors to this particular sighting´s problems.

-It was not a real bigfoot, since we know they only live in inaccessible areas, far from humans and they avoid caves, as a way to avoid competition with bears. See, we can separate the real sightings from the mistakes and fakes!

-It was areal bigfoot. The bison hair was left by a weird coincidence.

I´m getting more and more convinced I have a bright future in criptozoology:wow2:

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
When I criticize anecdotal evidence, LAL writes:

You got that from me saying that when people widely separated by time and distance report the same kind of details the eyewitness reports shouldn't be ignored? Amazing.

Among the sightings cited somewhere back in this thread, there was at least one detailed report of one that took place on a roadside, I think. I take this to mean that she believes that bigfeet are conspicuously present in many different places, and occasionally near roads.

There are many reports of them crossing roads. I recently saw a figure of 74 reports of that. In the incident I referred to, Cox was just emerging from a fog bank. He was presumably going slowly on Hwy 14. The animal crossed the road, then scaled a 14' bank in one leap. There was a smeared print 8' up the bank.

There've been other sightings on or near that road. The animals may be crossing the road to get to the river for the Salmon, then going back up to higher elevations.



But when others criticize the quality of evidence by suggesting that there ought to be something more concrete, such as a body, LAL brings up the density of the Pacific Northwest woods, the lack of roads, etc.


There are many roadless areas and areas where there's little traffic. How does it follow there has to be roadkill? Evidently Sasquatches are smart enough to avoid being hit and drivers are smart enough to avoid hitting them. It's hard to get up much speed on a winding mountain road.


I take this to mean that she believes that bigfeet are not conspicuously present in many different places, and not near roads.

I find it difficult to reconcile those two positions.

It don't see a problem, except for your conclusion. Chances for a night sighting are 1500 times greater than for a day sighting. I've mentioned there are only two traffic lights in Skamania County, but the National Forest it contains is larger than the state of Delaware. If there are only 30 Sasquatches in Washington State, as Richard Noll has estimated, what are the chances even of deliberately hitting one?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL



Chances for a night sighting are 1500 times greater than for a day sighting. How so?

There is no physiological evidence ( which is made up anyway ) to indicate the creature is nocturnal ..

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How so?

There is no physiological evidence ( which is made up anyway ) to indicate the creature is nocturnal ..

If they were diurnal and wandering around in broad daylight, they would have been clearly observed by now.

Which is completely different than concluding the lack of non-blurry photographs meaning that they are shapeshifting aliens.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Hitch
If they were diurnal and wandering around in broad daylight, they would have been clearly observed by now.

Which is completely different than concluding the lack of non-blurry photographs meaning that they are shapeshifting aliens.

There seem to be blurry photographs and movies of them during daytime, so if these photographs are not fraudulent, then they are not entirely nocturnal. The conclusion that they would be seen more often if diurnal is not physiological evidence anyway. It's a surmise based on the fundamental premise that they exist at all. If non-fraudulent sightings are actually errors and misperceptions, misidentifications, etc., then it would stand to reason that many more such mistaken sightings would occur at night when visibility is poor.

The conclusion that they are nocturnal rests ultimately on faith in the sightings rather than any pysiological evidence.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How so?

There is no physiological evidence ( which is made up anyway ) to indicate the creature is nocturnal ..

I've posted this before. It's based on reports.

"Nocturnality

The nocturnality of the sasquatch has been questioned on occasion. This trait can be considered from a statistical standpoint. Take a hypothetical area randomly seeded with sasquatches, evenly distributed during day and night. Their apparent temporal distribution will depend on them being seen by human observers. Assume a very conservative ratio of such alert observers during daylight as compared to the hours of total darkness in the mountains to be 20:1. A daylight observer will have a circular observational area with a radius of, say, 500’, over which recognition of the subject will be unambiguous, roughly 800,000 square feet. A nighttime observer has at best the expanding cone of headlights in one direction with recognition of a grey object at 300’ and an expanding width of illumination to 100’, a sector with an area of about 15,000 square feet. Factoring in the number of observers produces a ratio of 800,000 X 20 : 15,000 X 1, or better than 1,000 : 1. This 99.9% : 0.1% ratio describes how sightings should be distributed between day and night, a number that will get more extreme if flashlights or moonlight is the alternative illumination.

An actual ratio cited by Green consists of 735 daytime sightings (58%) and 540 during the night (42%), or a ratio of 1.38 to 1. If only sightings on roads are considered, the ratio shifts to 58% in favor of night sightings. This discrepancy can be interpreted as activity by the sasquatch that exposes it to being seen about 1,500 times more often at night than an even distribution would predict. "

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Big feet are seen near and at roads...
And never become roadkill.
Humans become roadkills.


I seem to have failed completely in painting a picture of what the PNW is like. Near towns you find roadkill ....... people's pets, possums (they're slow an people aim at them), occassionally a deer that leaps directly in front of an auto. There's little traffic at night when these animals seem to be most active.


Bigfeet are seen at places where people hunt...
And are never shot or fall in traps.
Humans get caught in traps and sometimes are shot by mistake.


Hunters are out in the daytime for a few weeks a year, except for Coon hunters and poachers. Other than for Beaver, I don't recall much trapping. Those traps aren't big enough to do much damage to a large animal.


These giant humanoid marsupials are smarter than humans, that´s why solid evidence is never found!

I thought you said they evolved from squirrels. Now it's Oppossums?



edited to add
Bigfeet are seen at places where people are always with cameras at hands, such as National Parks, camping sites, etc...


I don't know where you're getting your information, but that's incorrect.

>snip<


I´m getting more and more convinced I have a bright future in criptozoology:wow2:

I don't think you make it as far as one of MM's expeditions.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, why do so many people describe ET aliens as being skinny, gray, and having big black slanty eyes?

Is it because that's what they actually saw, or because everyone knows that that's what an ET alien looks like, and they're sure they saw an ET alien?

The fact is that eyewitness accounts are often the worst evidence.

Lu, I think the bottom of Patty's foot looks absolutely ridiculous. I haven't seen the P/G film in a while, but it was brought up in a seperate thread, and I just looked at that frame at the BFRO site.

Would you comment on this in the P/G film thread?

Why not join the board and comment yourself?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You might have had something wrong with your feet, but you are not describing the process of bunion formation, nor is the Bigfoot print evaluation consistent with bunions/bunionettes..

You do the googling..

I have. A bunionette is not quite the same thing as a bunion, but flat feet are a pre-disposer. We're talking about the bulges on the outside of the right foot, right? They're a result of the deformity.

[LAL]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Have none of those people hever heard about Bigfoot before they reported their sighting? The answer is, yes they have. This goes for all kinds of sightings. People see what they expect to see. Flying saucers were not saucer shaped til somebody described them so, then they were suddenly saucer shaped in nearly all sightings. Aliens were little green men till somebody described a "grey", then everybody started seeing greys.
[QUOTE]
[B]
There was no rash of sightings after the events in Skamania County in 1969, or even after Bossburg, as I recall. People's accounts were matching long before there was publicity on any of it. Even today I meet people who've never heard of this.
[QUOTE]
[B]
Could be because the large hairy hominid fits age-old descriptions of the Yeti (again seing what you expect to see), sightings of bears, and ...humans .


There are several types of Yeti. Why would people in North America only think they see one type? The resemblance is much closer to the Russian Kaptar, right down to the eating of hibernating rodents with the thumb not opposed. How many North Americans have ever heard of the Kaptar?

Bears don't walk on their hind legs for any length of time.


All that said, I do not consider it absolutely impossible that an unknown large hominid might exist, just very very unlikely.


Check out the tracks. Check out the PGF on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (best copy available).

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Would you believe .......... 37 ?

It is in the same category as the missing aircraft in the PNW ..

My God! Do you know how many pine cones disappear in the PNW every day ?

Why is it that you never see a sharp, clearly identifiable picture of a pine cone ? Oh, wait. Never mind..:D

Considering that Pines mostly occur east of the Cascades (except for ones planted), I wouldn't expect to find many in the forests of the PNW. Didn't I mention the climax forest is mostly Douglas Fir? Also Spruce, Hemlock..........

You're just not familiar with the area, are you?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Like LTC8K6 said, are we dealing with two different crippled Bigfoots ?


No.



Your cast doesn't match the print ( in the snow ) that LTC8K6 posted .


Variation in tracks is the mark of a living foot. In this case, the raised toe printed sometimes, sometimes it didn't. There were 1088 more tracks counted in that trackway (see the video). If they'd all been identical for both feet, that would point to a hoax. Living feet leave prints of articulating toes. They form themselves around objects. Some trackways even show half tracks where the foot was bent.


It looks like the drawing could be based on your cast though..

Krantz mostly used the casts in his studies.

[casebro]

Originally posted by LAL
I've posted this before. It's based on reports.

"Nocturnality

An actual ratio cited by Green consists of 735 daytime sightings (58%) and 540 during the night (42%), or a ratio of 1.38 to 1. If only sightings on roads are considered, the ratio shifts to 58% in favor of night sightings. This discrepancy can be interpreted as activity by the sasquatch that exposes it to being seen about 1,500 times more often at night than an even distribution would predict. "

Let me give you an alernative interpretation of this same basic set of facts: When suspicious phenomenon are seen in a well lit scenario, it becomes obvious that it is NOT bigfoot. Per Green's math, the daylight clarity reduces supposed BF sightings by 1500 to 1.

[William Parcher]

"Voice of Reason: The Reality of Bigfoot"

Live Science.com
July 28, 2005

The (bison) DNA result will not, of course, deter the Bigfoot believers and eyewitnesses. But it does provide an excellent example of what happens when hard evidence of a mystery is subjected to the rigors of science. This high-profile Bigfoot hair analysis by a reputable scientist also addresses a criticism often heard by monster enthusiasts: That mainstream scientists ignore Bigfoot evidence for fear of damaging their reputations in pursuit of what some would call a myth. Yet if Bigfoot or other mystery creatures do exist, they are certainly worthy of serious scientific scrutiny. At the same time, since all previous samples were found to be hoaxes, inconclusive, or from known animals, scientists' lack of enthusiasm for spending time and resources on yet more such evidence is understandable.

Article by Benjamin Radford (http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050728_bigfoot.html)

[casebro]

Gorillas also live in rain forests. When 600 pound gorillas have exolved to only a 6 foot stature, what evolutionary pressure made 800 pound BF need to be 8 feet tall? And 4 feet wide? Or is his size as imaginary as the rest of him? (Girraffes don't live in rain forests. Neither do Long Horn cattle)

Except for adolescent males, other large primates live in large sociable groups. Why are so few BF sightings of groups? Are most sightings of lone immature male adolescents 8 feet tall? If so, how tall do you think a really full grown male gets?

Wouldn't this lack of social groups make procreation difficult? With the thin dispersion of these animals, I would think it nearly impossible for a fertile couple to ever come face to face. This rare breeding opportunities would increase the likelyhood of multiple births. I've never heard of a twins sighting. Or are BF costumes too expensive to make in multiples, or are midgets too costly to hire?

Why are so many BF tracks of big feet? Every species needs more children than adults in order to maintain a constant population, shouldn't there be more little feet than big feet?


And therefore, there should be lots of engorged mammaries seen.

But, If I consider Occams Cleavage: rather than all these anomalies being likely, the psychology of human hoaxers would solve all of these questions. Like who would believe human size foot prints are actually proof of "Little Big Feet", not just human feet?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by LAL
I've posted this before. It's based on reports.

"Nocturnality

The nocturnality of the sasquatch has been questioned on occasion. This trait can be considered from a statistical standpoint. Take a hypothetical area randomly seeded with sasquatches, evenly distributed during day and night. Their apparent temporal distribution will depend on them being seen by human observers. Assume a very conservative ratio of such alert observers during daylight as compared to the hours of total darkness in the mountains to be 20:1. A daylight observer will have a circular observational area with a radius of, say, 500’, over which recognition of the subject will be unambiguous, roughly 800,000 square feet. A nighttime observer has at best the expanding cone of headlights in one direction with recognition of a grey object at 300’ and an expanding width of illumination to 100’, a sector with an area of about 15,000 square feet. Factoring in the number of observers produces a ratio of 800,000 X 20 : 15,000 X 1, or better than 1,000 : 1. This 99.9% : 0.1% ratio describes how sightings should be distributed between day and night, a number that will get more extreme if flashlights or moonlight is the alternative illumination.

An actual ratio cited by Green consists of 735 daytime sightings (58%) and 540 during the night (42%), or a ratio of 1.38 to 1. If only sightings on roads are considered, the ratio shifts to 58% in favor of night sightings. This discrepancy can be interpreted as activity by the sasquatch that exposes it to being seen about 1,500 times more often at night than an even distribution would predict. "

And if you'll look to your right, you see this fine example of what we call "Begging the Question", a logical fallacy commonly refered to as "Circular Argument". Next in our tour of logical fallacies and mental mistakes, we'll see Ad Hominem, the Strawman, and various types of special pleading.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL


I don't think you make it as far as one of MM's expeditions. You mean the high priced camping trips, where they almost always see ( at least MM or one of his regulars do ) a Bigfoot, but still haven't managed to bring home any bacon..

Of course a real sighting would have MM looking for a real job, but it doesn't look like there is any danger of that happening anytime soon..

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL

I seem to have failed completely in painting a picture of what the PNW is like. Near towns you find roadkill ....... people's pets, possums (they're slow an people aim at them), occassionally a deer that leaps directly in front of an auto. There's little traffic at night when these animals seem to be most active.

Who cares about PNW´s outstanding different conditions from the rest of USA, tougher than what can be found at rain forests in Amazonia, Vietnam and Sumatra? Specially if bigfeets are not supposed to live just in PNW, and that there are reports from areas where there are much more roads, and with much more traffic.

Your opinions, based just ion PNW are again, biased and of little use. They would be valid only IF the animal´s habitat was restricted to PNW.

Originally posted by LAL

Hunters are out in the daytime for a few weeks a year, except for Coon hunters and poachers. Other than for Beaver, I don't recall much trapping. Those traps aren't big enough to do much damage to a large animal.

Seems we know different types of hunters. And I see you are again using PNW as a standard. Once again its not usefull. See, you can´t also restrict your timeline to your lifetime. For how long people have been hunting bears, cougar and wolves in North America using traps? Not only at PNW, but also all along its supposed habitat. Why not a single bigfoot trapped and caught? Or a kaptar?

No, reports are not valid.

Originally posted by LAL

I thought you said they evolved from squirrels. Now it's Oppossums?

Given the ammount and the quality of the evidence used to make suppositions on big foot, the following (my pet theory on bigfoot) is as valid as any other.

Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.

Opossums -marsupial mammals- have a "chemical weapon", a liquid with a horrible smell. At many sighting reports, the witnesses stated that the animal had a terrible smell. Its this smell that make dogs freeze and be scared of bigfeet. It was perfected by millenia of evolution, as a defese against terrible megafauna predators such as the saber-toothed-cats (and their evolutionary convergent equivalent marsupials from South America). Bigfeet size -and smell- are adaptations against these and other fierce predators.

Enjoy your time debunking it. You will see the very same type of argument you are using being used against you. And you´ll see how weak they are.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Bigfeet are seen at places where people are always with cameras at hands, such as National Parks, camping sites, etc...

Originally posted by LAL
I don't know where you're getting your information, but that's incorrect.

What´s incorrect?
There are no bigfeet sightings at National Parks and camping sites?
That people are not always with cameras at these places? OK, always is an overstatement, quite often would be better suited.

In both cases, I am correct.

Originally posted by LAL
I don't think you make it as far as one of MM's expeditions.

A lot of the information I wrote in this thread came from personal experience. I am not an armchair caver, inferring things from pictures, for example. I have tracked and still track animals, even if just for fun. I work mostly in the field, so I spend a lot of time in the wilderness. I´ve worked in conditions much harsher than you can imagine, and "expedition reports" such as that of Bossburg are crystal-clear evidence of how unprepared these persons were.
edited for typos and missing HTML codes

[Skeptical Greg]

Hunters are out in the daytime for a few weeks a year, except for Coon hunters and poachers. And an excellent reason why a Coon hunter or poacher would probably have brought us tangible evidence of BF by now...

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
"Voice of Reason: The Reality of Bigfoot"

Live Science.com
July 28, 2005



Article by Benjamin Radford (http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050728_bigfoot.html)

Whatever they saw, it wasn't this animal:

"Not only was the hair from a bison, it was from a long-dead animal, said Coltman. The DNA was highly degraded and of very low quality, said the researcher. It was either exposed for a long period of time to moisture and sunlight, or came from a hide that had been tanned."

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-not-280720005

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You mean the high priced camping trips, where they almost always see ( at least MM or one of his regulars do) a Bigfoot, but still haven't managed to bring home any bacon.

You know this how?


Of course a real sighting would have MM looking for a real job, but it doesn't look like there is any danger of that happening anytime soon..

He's very selective and has a personality that might be described as overbearing. I doubt anyone on this board would be accepted (myself included).

He has a real job. He's an attorney.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And an excellent reason why a Coon hunter or poacher would probably have brought us tangible evidence of BF by now...

The ones I knew weren't even very good at bringing in coons and bear. They had dogs, vehicles, horses, booze, and didn't venture too far from town.

One of the poachers did have enough tangible evidence of bear to earn himself a jail term.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Who cares about PNW´s outstanding different conditions from the rest of USA, tougher than what can be found at rain forests in Amazonia, Vietnam and Sumatra? Specially if bigfeets are not supposed to live just in PNW, and that there are reports from areas where there are much more roads, and with much more traffic.


Such as Elkins Creek, Georgia?

I've said before I don't know how good the evidence is for those areas. The best evidence is from the PNW, and that's the area I'm most familiar with, so I choose to mostly confine my discussion to the PNW.

If you want to go on about the Yeren, Ucu, Orang Pendek, Nugoi Rung, Teh-lma, Didi, Marked Hominids or any other reported bipedal primates from other parts of the world or even the US, feel free to enlighten us.


Your opinions, based just ion PNW are again, biased and of little use. They would be valid only IF the animal´s habitat was restricted to PNW.


See above. The Southern Rockies seem to be a hot spot, and they're about as rugged and roadless as the PNW.

I already know what you think of my opinions.



Seems we know different types of hunters. And I see you are again using PNW as a standard. Once again its not usefull. See, you can´t also restrict your timeline to your lifetime. For how long people have been hunting bears, cougar and wolves in North America using traps? Not only at PNW, but also all along its supposed habitat. Why not a single bigfoot trapped and caught? Or a kaptar?


How's your French? Was this a Kaptar or another variety of Russian "Wildman"?

"en 1925, le général soviétique Topilsky put examiner le cadavre d'un homme sauvage tué par un Ouzbèque dans une caverne du Pamir, au cours de combats contre les Russes blancs :
"A première vue, j'eus l'impression d'avoir sous les yeux le cadavre d'un singe : il était en effet entièrement couvert d'une sorte de pelage. Mais je savais qu'il n'y avait pas de singes dans le Pamir, et son corps ressemblait d'ailleurs tout ß fait par la forme ß celui d'un homme. Nous avons essayé de tirer sur les poils, mais nous avons pu nous assurer qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un quelconque déguisement. Nous avons plusieurs fois retourné le cadavre sur le ventre et sur le dos, et nous l'avons mesuré. Son examen minutieux et prolongé par notre aide-médecin établit qu'il ne pouvait s'agir en aucune façon d'un homme ordinaire.
"C'était un mâle de 1,65 m ß 1,70 m de haut. A en juger par ses poils, qui grisonnaient ß certains endroits, il était assez âgé et peut-être même vieux. On pourrait définir la couleur générale de sa laine comme brun grisâtre. Sur la partie dorsale du corps les poils étaient cependant plus bruns, alors qu'ils étaient plus gris sur le ventre. A la hauteur de la poitrine ils étaient plus longs mais plus clairsemés, tandis que sur l'abdomen ils étaient au contraire plus courts mais plus drus. Dans l'ensemble, le pelage était grossier et sans duvet sous-jacent.
"Il y avait moins de poils sur le bas des fesses, d'où l'aide-médecin déduisit que cette créature se tenait habituellement assise comme un homme. C'est sur les cuisses qu'il y avait le plus de poils. Sur les genoux, en revanche, il n'y en avait pratiquement pas : on y remarquait plutôt des callosités. Sur la jambe, la pilosité était moindre que sur la cuisse, et elle allait encore en se raréfiant vers le bas. Complètement privés de poils, le pied et sa plante étaient garnis d'une peau dure et brunâtre. Les épaules et les bras étaient étaient couverts de poils dont l'épaisseur diminuait vers la main. Sur le dos de celle-ci, il y avait encore quelques poils, mais ceux-ci étaient tout ß fait absents de la paume : la peau de celle-ci était rude et calleuse. Des poils couvraient tout le tour du cou, mais sur le visage même, il n'y en avait guère. La couleur du visage était foncée. Il n'y avait ni barbe ni vraie moustache : seuls quelques poils follets au bord de la lèvre supérieure donnaient comme une ombre de moustache.
"Sur la partie antérieure de la tête, au-dessus du front, il n'y avait pas de poils, comme dans une calvitie s'étendant vers l'arrière, mais sur la partie postérieure de la tête, des cheveux épais s'entremêlaient jusqu'ß former une sorte de feutre. Le cadavre gisait les yeux grands ouverts et les dents découvertes. Les yeux étaient de couleur sombre. Les dents étaient très grandes et régulières, mais ne différaient pas par leur forme de celles de l'homme. Le front était fuyant. Les pommettes très saillantes conféraient ß tout le visage une certaine ressemblance avec le type mongol. Le nez était écrasé, avec la racine profondément enfoncée. Les oreilles étaient glabres et, semble-t-il, plus pointues vers le haut que chez l'homme, et avec un lobe plus long. La mâchoire inférieure était très massive.
"L'être en question avait la poitrine large et puissante, et une musculature très développée. Nous n'avons pas remarqué sur le corps de notables différences de structure par rapport ß celui de l'homme. Les organes génitaux étaient d'apparence humaine. Pour ce qui est de la longueur des extrémités, nous n'avons rien remarqué de vraiment particulier, ß ceci près que la main était tout de même un peu plus large que chez l'homme et que le pied était ß la fois plus large et plus court." (d'après Heuvelmans et Porchnev 1974)."

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/vedettes/hom_sauv.htm

The Minnesota Iceman may have been shot in, guess where? Minnesota. It seemed to match descriptions from Viet Nam as well, however.

No, reports are not valid.

Your sweeping assumption certainly isn't either. It's always preferrable to have some physical evidence along with the sighting to help rule out misidentification.

Given the ammount and the quality of the evidence used to make suppositions on big foot, the following (my pet theory on bigfoot) is as valid as any other.

Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.

Opossums -marsupial mammals- have a "chemical weapon", a liquid with a horrible smell. At many sighting reports, the witnesses stated that the animal had a terrible smell. Its this smell that make dogs freeze and be scared of bigfeet. It was perfected by millenia of evolution, as a defese against terrible megafauna predators such as the saber-toothed-cats (and their evolutionary convergent equivalent marsupials from South America). Bigfeet size -and smell- are adaptations against these and other fierce predators.

Enjoy your time debunking it. You will see the very same type of argument you are using being used against you. And you´ll see how weak they are.

I can already see how weak the arguments being used against me are; I don't need to debunk yours above.

You know Gorillas give off a "fear" smell?


What´s incorrect?
There are no bigfeet sightings at National Parks and camping sites?
That people are not always with cameras at these places? OK, always is an overstatement, quite often would be better suited.

In both cases, I am correct.

Nope. There are very few. Most sightings seem to be of them crossing roads. Even if a person has a camera, how many would be able to point and shoot before the creature is gone? A friend's sister saw one at dawn while getting water on a camping trip in Washington State. She didn't have time to go back to the camp for a camera, let alone try to get a good shot in poor light at a distance.

I don't think Dr. Johnson was thinking, "Lights, camera, action!" in his encounter:

"In July, a psychologist from Southern Oregon, Dr. Matthew Johnson, was hiking with his family along the coastal bluffs of Cave Junction National Monument. Suddenly he heard a low chirping noise and caught a whiff of a rank smell. He claims the peculiar sound startled him so much, he almost **** in his pants. Instead, he scurried to a nearby bush and from there, with his trousers around his ankles, Dr. Johnson claims that he caught an unobstructed view of a seven-foot tall Bigfoot which, at the time, was watching his family. "

http://portlandmercury.com/2000-09-14/feature-2.html

A lot of the information I wrote in this thread came from personal experience. I am not an armchair caver, inferring things from pictures, for example. I have tracked and still track animals, even if just for fun. I work mostly in the field, so I spend a lot of time in the wilderness. I´ve worked in conditions much harsher than you can imagine, and "expedition reports" such as that of Bossburg are crystal-clear evidence of how unprepared these persons were.
edited for typos and missing HTML codes

No one's denying that. The slick expedition was even worse and the participants ended up hating each other. They did discover four sets of tracks, however.

The Norway House incidents this year pointed up the need for a well-equipped team at the ready. That didn't happen.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
You know this how?
The same way you know about Bigfoot...:)

[casebro]

Re: Inverse square of "The incredible Giant Man": A man twice as tall would weigh 8 times as much, and have leg bones only 4 times as big in cross section. These legs would be very fragile with double the weight to support/ per cross sectional area. Sooo, Bigfoot needs proportionaly thicker legs than a man's. If a specimen weighs 800 pounds, his legs need to be 4 times as big in cross section, or twice as big in depth and frontal views. All the fuzzy pics show a critter of human proprtions. Sooo, maybe there is more than one species, you say? Then how come there are NO PICS of the 800 pounders that are proportrioned accordingly? Or at least videos of limping BFs?

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
Re: Inverse square of "The incredible Giant Man": A man twice as tall would weigh 8 times as much, and have leg bones only 4 times as big in cross section. These legs would be very fragile with double the weight to support/ per cross sectional area. Sooo, Bigfoot needs proportionaly thicker legs than a man's. If a specimen weighs 800 pounds, his legs need to be 4 times as big in cross section, or twice as big in depth and frontal views. All the fuzzy pics show a critter of human proprtions.


No, they don't. The IM Index is like Australopiths and the shoulder joints on the animal in the PGF were a foot farther apart than the shoulder joints of a man of comparable height.


Sooo, maybe there is more than one species, you say? Then how come there are NO PICS of the 800 pounders that are proportrioned accordingly? Or at least videos of limping BFs?

You haven't seen the PGF, right?

The right thigh apparently has a rupture and her gait may be compromised.

The creature in the PGF wasn't that heavy. The 8-footers seem to be slim. And male.

"Weight and Calories

Weight estimates are notoriously difficult to arrive at by visual observation due to the cubic ratio (exponent of 2.9 in humans; McMahon and Bonner 1983) of weight to linear dimension. Human ratios, especially when applied to footprints (Robbins 1986), are clearly inappropriate. Some extrapolations have used the width of the dimensions of the heel or cubic volume of body parts (Krantz 1992), or the width of the ball of the foot. Estimated or calÂ_culated weights for the Patterson film Sasquatch (in Krantz 1992) range from 280 lb. (127 kg) (Grieve), through 350 lb. (159 kg) (Gimlin), 500 lb. (227 kg) (Patterson and Krantz), 650 lb. (295 kg) (Willoughby 1978), 800 lb. (363.6 kg) (Titmus and Green) to 2,028 lb. (920 kg) (Glickman 1997). GlickÂ_man (1997) has used digital image analysis for producing correlative meaÂ_surements between various frames of the movie, a process not readily verÂ_ified.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

[casebro]

Originally posted by LAL


You haven't seen the PGF, right?

The right thigh apparently has a rupture and her gait may be compromised.

The creature in the PGF wasn't that heavy. The 8-footers seem to be slim. And male.


http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm [/B]

I've seen snippets of Patty. If a quadriceps gets ripped that badly, you couldn't walk at all. It would have to be totally detached from the kneecap to cause a wrinkle like that. Your knee wouldn/t lock, you couldn'r even stand on it.Yet Patty seems to walk just like I would expect of a man in a suit.


And you haven't given me your input on the apparent rectangular eye hole in the suit- or was the face of the actor 'whited out' to protect the guilty?
Soooo, you are saying there are 2 species, one of 8 foot height whose pics get taken, and another kind? Second kind is human sized, so it wouldn,t need size 24 feet, so no big foot?

That's a heck of a variation in weight estimates. Just how expert are those experts? And how much did they depend on Patterson's story for basic proportional info? IF he made the suit, made the footprints, made the 'measurements' all this comes back down to one man's hoax.

[casebro]

With all the blurry photos, believers would have us thinking that BF is known to share space with humans. Is there ANY pic, no matter how blurry, with any man made object in the background? Or are all the photo shoots staged to preclude anything useful for accurate proportions?

[Skeptical Greg]

The right thigh apparently has a rupture and her gait may be compromised Compromised? Youv'e got to be kidding?

One thing about the film that is clear, is that no one is limping..


Nice try though, to account for the loose padding....

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
I've seen snippets of Patty. If a quadriceps gets ripped that badly, you couldn't walk at all. It would have to be totally detached from the kneecap to cause a wrinkle like that. Your knee wouldn/t lock, you couldn'r even stand on it.Yet Patty seems to walk just like I would expect of a man in a suit.


It's a hernia, not a rip. Human females get them too.
Snippets aren't good enough. Try to see it on the LMS DVD. The figure is so dark on some of the TV shows you can really see the details.

She uses a compliant gait.


And you haven't given me your input on the apparent rectangular eye hole in the suit- or was the face of the actor 'whited out' to protect the guilty?


I must have missed the post. I haven't seen anything that absurd from you.
Are you talking about the highlight that was supposed to be a glint off Bob Heironimus' glass eye?


Soooo, you are saying there are 2 species, one of 8 foot height whose pics get taken, and another kind? Second kind is human sized, so it wouldn,t need size 24 feet, so no big foot?


Sexual dimorphism. There may be subspecies or more than one species (check out Marked Hominids). The animal in the Patterson film was probably about 6'5".


That's a heck of a variation in weight estimates. Just how expert are those experts? And how much did they depend on Patterson's story for basic proportional info? IF he made the suit, made the footprints, made the 'measurements' all this comes back down to one man's hoax.


Patterson knew zip about biomechanics. Bryne told me he knew them both personally and didn't think they were smart enough to
pull off a hoax like that. Krantz was pretty much of the same opinion.

Green did a renactment. Patterson's estimates were mostly disregarded. Glickman evidently underestimated the weight to fit his "man-in-a-suit" notions. Green weighted himself down with 250 lbs. for a total of 450 lbs. and couldn't sink as deeply as those tracks.

This is the guy (Bob Heironimus) who claimed to be the man in a suit Patterson made in a suit Morris, who said he made the suit, made. Patty's on the left (in case you can't tell the difference).

[LAL]

Originally posted by marksman
The latest Bigfoot sighting turned out to be bison

Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8704462/)

Not quite. The hair was from an animal long dead. There are still the nine witnesses and tracks. If you choose to believe they saw a dead Bison, I can't help you.

"Not only was the hair from a bison, it was from a long-dead animal, said Coltman. The DNA was highly degraded and of very low quality, said the researcher. It was either exposed for a long period of time to moisture and sunlight, or came from a hide that had been tanned."

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-not-280720005

[Z]

Gee - the man in the suit seems to have the exact same proportions as the Sasquatch. How amazing.

[LAL]

Originally posted by casebro
With all the blurry photos, believers would have us thinking that BF is known to share space with humans. Is there ANY pic, no matter how blurry, with any man made object in the background? Or are all the photo shoots staged to preclude anything useful for accurate proportions?

Photo shoots?

I suggest you do a little research on how films have been obtained.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Compromised? Youv'e got to be kidding?

One thing about the film that is clear, is that no one is limping..

I should have said "slightly". I never seem to know in advance which nit you guys are going to pick.

Nice try though, to account for the loose padding....

Bob Heironimus himself said no padding was used. :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
Such as Elkins Creek, Georgia?

I've said before I don't know how good the evidence is for those areas. The best evidence is from the PNW, and that's the area I'm most familiar with, so I choose to mostly confine my discussion to the PNW.

If you want to go on about the Yeren, Ucu, Orang Pendek, Nugoi Rung, Teh-lma, Didi, Marked Hominids or any other reported bipedal primates from other parts of the world or even the US, feel free to enlighten us.
But LAL, it is not working! For the Nth time, the conditions you are using are not valid for the whole habitat of the creature. Therefore the arguments you raise to explain the inexistence of remains (fossil or recent) or sharp footage are not valid.
Listing names of legendary creatures is of little help. Don´t forget the myth interpretation problem.


Originally posted by LAL


See, here´s another problem, that comes from the way you are basing your reasoning. You are stating that all PNW has the same homogeneous conditions and that all the SR have the same roadless conditions. This is obviously not true. Both areas have places that are more or less population and infrastructure.

Originally posted by LAL
[B]How's your French? Was this a Kaptar or another variety of Russian "Wildman"?
...snip...
<http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/vedettes/hom_sauv.htm>

The Minnesota Iceman may have been shot in, guess where? Minnesota. It seemed to match descriptions from Viet Nam as well, however.
The usual questions:
(a) Where is the body of the wildman shot in 1925?
(b) Why the Minesota Icema is just a freak show curiosity? Do you trust in something that has such a deep dark shadow of fraud hanging over it?
(c) Myth reinterpretations -actually twisting... The site now claims that satyrs were neanderthals (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/fabuleux/satyres.htm)... So, neanderthals had horns, goat feet and legs? Shades of mapinguari and mokelembembe here.
(d) Invoking an immaginary creature to back another one is really not a good methodology. Zero solid evidence for all these supposed hominids.
As you can see, my French is OK.
Originally posted by LAL
Your sweeping assumption certainly isn't either. It's always preferrable to have some physical evidence along with the sighting to help rule out misidentification.
So, all I have to do is to claim to have seen a bigfoot and try not telling I was high or making a joke?
How can you trust in decades-old reports, many -if not most- may as well be just urban, I mean rural, legends? Many have just been repeated by every book or article on bigfeet, no check on the orgin other than a supposed article on a newspaper...
Originally posted by LAL
I can already see how weak the arguments being used against me are; I don't need to debunk yours above.

You know Gorillas give off a "fear" smell?
Try debunking my "theory". It´ll be an interesting exercise. It will really help you see how weak your arguments are. To defend my "theory" you will I use the same type of "arguments" you use to defend bigfoot as a real creature and as a hominid. And they are really weak.

As for the gorilla´s fear smell, thit nothing compared to an opossum or even a skunk. Hmmmm.... Maybe bigfeet evolved from mustelids! No. My "theory" is correct.
Originally posted by LAL
Nope. There are very few. Most sightings seem to be of them crossing roads. Even if a person has a camera, how many would be able to point and shoot before the creature is gone? A friend's sister saw one at dawn while getting water on a camping trip in Washington State. She didn't have time to go back to the camp for a camera, let alone try to get a good shot in poor light at a distance.

I don't think Dr. Johnson was thinking, "Lights, camera, action!" in his encounter:

...snip...

<http://portlandmercury.com/2000-09-14/feature-2.html>
And I suppose you know that nowdays digital cameras made things much easier... Even some years ago, conventional cameras such as the EOS series were great when it come to help people not loosing a snapshot.
As for the link...
""Well," quips one attendee, referring to the potential demise of such events like the weekly Western Bigfoot Society lunches, "at least we won't have to waste our Tuesday afternoons anymore."
His wife adds, "We'll just move on to Loch Ness."
No more comments needed.
Originally posted by LAL
No one's denying that. The slick expedition was even worse and the participants ended up hating each other. They did discover four sets of tracks, however.

The Norway House incidents this year pointed up the need for a well-equipped team at the ready. That didn't happen.
So, can you really trust in the results?
You know, since there are lots of experient professionals doing field research on existing species, there´s little need for such requests. The people currently studying (or making photographic stdies) of say, black bears or woves, have the skills needed for providing solide evidence. And they would not miss a 3-m high ape.

Now, if you excuse me, I have a plane to catch.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Not quite. The hair was from an animal long dead. There are still the nine witnesses and tracks. If you choose to believe they saw a dead Bison, I can't help you.

"Not only was the hair from a bison, it was from a long-dead animal, said Coltman. The DNA was highly degraded and of very low quality, said the researcher. It was either exposed for a long period of time to moisture and sunlight, or came from a hide that had been tanned."

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-not-280720005

LAL, I can’t even begin to fathom your reasoning.

Doesn’t the fact that the fur found by the Squatch sighters was of a long dead bison, whose hide had been exposed to unusual conditions and/or tanning, lead you to the most rational conclusion here: it was a hoax. How is it you refuse to believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? Why do you automatically believe a group of people who make this kind of extraordinary claim, when their only proof is the fur of a dead animal which from all appearances was yanked off the mounted bison head in their grandpappy’s den?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You mean the high priced camping trips, where they almost always see ( at least MM or one of his regulars do ) a Bigfoot, but still haven't managed to bring home any bacon..

Of course a real sighting would have MM looking for a real job, but it doesn't look like there is any danger of that happening anytime soon..

LAL:

What is your impression of the BFRO? Sidetracking one moment from the issue of the existence or non-existence of Bigfeet, I would like your impression of Moneymaker and crew.

Without knowing them personally, what research I have done on them makes them seem a bit sketchy. Charging from $800-$1200 a head to go on “Bigfoot roundups�, someone in the group seems to always have a sighting. Doesn’t this strike you as suspicious? What about the rumor of Moneymaker being caught with a monkey suit in his car?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Gee - the man in the suit seems to have the exact same proportions as the Sasquatch. How amazing.

Yeah, that picture of the Hieronimous-Patty suit comparison just leads me to one conclusion: Bob H. was in the suit.

Footers will point to the slight differences between the pictures, but slight differences can be attributed to the difference in the angle of the photo from the subject, and fur depth differences and so forth between the different costumes. I mean, there's no way the suits can be perfectly identical...

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL, I can’t even begin to fathom your reasoning.

Doesn’t the fact that the fur found by the Squatch sighters was of a long dead bison, whose hide had been exposed to unusual conditions and/or tanning, lead you to the most rational conclusion here: it was a hoax. How is it you refuse to believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? Why do you automatically believe a group of people who make this kind of extraordinary claim, when their only proof is the fur of a dead animal which from all appearances was yanked off the mounted bison head in their grandpappy’s den?
I'm suddenly reminded of that old Simpsons episode where Bart is framed for killing Mr. Skinner. Then Mr. Skinner bursts into the courtroom. And the prosecution demands that his testimony be stricken from the record.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
But LAL, it is not working! For the Nth time, the conditions you are using are not valid for the whole habitat of the creature. Therefore the arguments you raise to explain the inexistence of remains (fossil or recent) or sharp footage are not valid.
Listing names of legendary creatures is of little help. Don´t forget the myth interpretation problem.

And what, in your opinion, is the whole habitat of the creature?
The cryptids I mentioned are all hominids. I have no idea if they're related or what evidence there is for them. Did you read my post where I pointed out the "Jersey Devil", as depicted in your post was a real-estate hoax? No comment?


See, here´s another problem, that comes from the way you are basing your reasoning. You are stating that all PNW has the same homogeneous conditions and that all the SR have the same roadless conditions. This is obviously not true. Both areas have places that are more or less population and infrastructure.


"For centuries scientists long scoffed at the concept that a large primate could in fact exist in North America co-existing in the remote wilderness along side an estimated 325 million people in North America for nearly 250 years. The population of both the United States and Canada combined totals 19,602,028 square kilometers. New statistical studies have shown there could be well in excess of 2,000 of these creatures residing in the forests of North America.

At the lowest number, there is perhaps a single Sasquatch per every 162 thousand people or one Bigfoot per 9,801 square kilometers (one hectometer); equivalent to the size of the Florida Everglades. Taken into account that most of our population lives in urban or rural farming communities, few hike or hunt, and even fewer venture out into the forests at night. It doesn't take rocket science to understand how a creature could evade detection. Furthermore it is believed that Bigfoot is a nocturnal animal, often traveling in family groups up to four in dense forests and can reach top running speeds in excess of 40 mph. Take into account this species might perhaps possess the highest rank of intelligence, second only to Homo sapiens, lends additional ammunition as to why it may have been difficult to document such an animal in the past. While traveling in groups Bigfoot can be difficult to find as there maybe only one group per 39,204 square kilometers; the equivalent to finding a needle in many haystacks."

http://www.royalforum.com/article.php?id=46



The usual questions:
(a) Where is the body of the wildman shot in 1925?


I have no idea.


(b) Why the Minesota Icema is just a freak show curiosity? Do you trust in something that has such a deep dark shadow of fraud hanging over it?

The original was replaced by a model. Sanderson and Heuvelmans weren't the only ones who thought the original was real. This is the most likely of Hansen's stories:

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

I saw the photos in Argosy (1969 was a big year for this stuff). There are things difficult to reconcile with a carny construction, such as the blood that bubbled up from the eye socket and the gas bubbles in the ice from decomposition.

I just finished a lengthy debate on this on BFF. I'll point you to the thread if you want, but I don't want to have to go through it all again.


(c) Myth reinterpretations -actually twisting... The site now claims that satyrs were neanderthals (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/fabuleux/satyres.htm)... So, neanderthals had horns, goat feet and legs? Shades of mapinguari and mokelembembe here.?


The site is wacko, but there's some good information on it, at least where I can read it.


(d) Invoking an immaginary creature to back another one is really not a good methodology. Zero solid evidence for all these supposed hominids.
As you can see, my French is OK.


Good. Mine's pretty bad. At least there may have been a couple of corpses of non-human hominids and a Yeti finger that seems to have disappeared after it was smuggled out of Tibet in Gloria Stewart's lingerie case.


So, all I have to do is to claim to have seen a bigfoot and try not telling I was high or making a joke?

Is that any worse than the scofftics saying it could have been a hoax, therefore it was?


How can you trust in decades-old reports, many -if not most- may as well be just urban, I mean rural, legends? Many have just been repeated by every book or article on bigfeet, no check on the orgin other than a supposed article on a newspaper...


Which is why I tend to stick to the ones I know about almost first hand. They weren't decades old when I first heard about them. Casts age really well. And there are always new reports, some with physical evidence, such as tracks.


Try debunking my "theory". It´ll be an interesting exercise. It will really help you see how weak your arguments are. To defend my "theory" you will I use the same type of "arguments" you use to defend bigfoot as a real creature and as a hominid. And they are really weak.

Okay, I'll give it a whirl.

There should be fossils of transitional forms. There should be roadkill of transitional forms. There should be "nice" pictures of transitional forms.

Yep, those are really weak. Oops! Those areyour arguments.


As for the gorilla´s fear smell, thit nothing compared to an opossum or even a skunk. Hmmmm.... Maybe bigfeet evolved from mustelids! No. My "theory" is correct.


How about a little morphology?


And I suppose you know that nowdays digital cameras made things much easier... Even some years ago, conventional cameras such as the EOS series were great when it come to help people not loosing a snapshot.

Bobby Clarke's camcorder is a good example of how even "easier" can screw things up.


As for the link...
""Well," quips one attendee, referring to the potential demise of such events like the weekly Western Bigfoot Society lunches, "at least we won't have to waste our Tuesday afternoons anymore."
His wife adds, "We'll just move on to Loch Ness."
No more comments needed.

Roy Crowe actually seems quite sane. He spends a lot of time on this. (I met him at a Harry Schumacher Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Wa. Harry was a friend, of sorts, but he was woefully uninformed. I just saw him on Sasquatch Oddessy. He didn't even get the events that led up to the ordinance correct.) Reporters seem to have a tendency to throw in something snide, perhaps so they won't be confused with the "true believers". How do you know the attendee's wife wasn't joking?

So, can you really trust in the results?
You know, since there are lots of experient professionals doing field research on existing species, there´s little need for such requests. The people currently studying (or making photographic stdies) of say, black bears or woves, have the skills needed for providing solide evidence. And they would not miss a 3-m high ape.
They'd have to find one first.

I'm putting my money on Richard Noll. He seems to know what he's doing.

Now, if you excuse me, I have a plane to catch.

Bon voyage.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Bobby Clarke's camcorder is a good example of how even "easier" can screw things up.

Bobby Clarke’s video is bogus. To believe that this thing is a Bigfoot video is beyond ridiculous.

First of all, it is a blurry video of a tiny humanoid blob in the distance. Bigfoot? Oh, ok…but it could just as easily be Jack the Ripper’s ghost, a shapeshifting alien, or the Yukon Yak-boy.

…or maybe it’s just a guy walking on the beach?

Second, the thing is completely out of focus. Autofocus is on? Yeah, ok…so why does Bobby make absolutely no effort to zoom into the target?? The shot of his lifetime, and he is content to keep his camera completely wide without any effort to zoom?

Yeah, I’m that gullible…

[Hellbound]

Is that any worse than the scofftics saying it could have been a hoax, therefore it was?

Yes, it is. Look up "parsimony" and try to determine how it applies to scientific investigation.

If you can't reasonably rule out a hoax, then the evidence does not support the existence of bigfoot. Regarding the bison fur, the only thing that can be said is that something was seen; tracks were made, and some hair from a long dead, possibly tanned bison was found.

So, either a bigfoot walked by where there happened to be some tanned bison fur (of a color and texture that matches supposed Bigfoot fur rather closely) and just ahppened to be seen by 9 people (when most of the time they can't be found at all)...of someone had a bison-fur suit and walked through town.

Parsimony.

[LAL]

Another reported injury:

""He was a good yard or more through the shoulders and I've had people tell how a Bigfoot is about eight foot tall … well, this dude was taller than eight feet and closer to nine feet tall.

"When you're that close it's no problem to figure out how big it was. And, he never made any effort to run from me. He never acted like he was scared … I sure know he wasn't scared of ME … not a bit!"

"Then he turned and walked along this way (Jack simulated a limping gait) like something was wrong with one leg, like he had an old injury or someone had shot him. Then he stopped and turned and looked at me for another full minute before he left … didn't run … he just walked over to the edge of the brush that dropped off steeply into the Dry Creek north fork."


http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/orchard.htm

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Another reported injury:

""He was a good yard or more through the shoulders and I've had people tell how a Bigfoot is about eight foot tall … well, this dude was taller than eight feet and closer to nine feet tall.

"When you're that close it's no problem to figure out how big it was. And, he never made any effort to run from me. He never acted like he was scared … I sure know he wasn't scared of ME … not a bit!"

"Then he turned and walked along this way (Jack simulated a limping gait) like something was wrong with one leg, like he had an old injury or someone had shot him. Then he stopped and turned and looked at me for another full minute before he left … didn't run … he just walked over to the edge of the brush that dropped off steeply into the Dry Creek north fork."


http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/orchard.htm Your point?

I'm sure if there are Bigfoots, some of them must have injuries, and some of them must limp.


I see nothing in the PGF that suggests a limp..

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
Sexual dimorphism. There may be subspecies or more than one species (check out Marked Hominids). The animal in the Patterson film was probably about 6'5".

Okay, I'm confused again. (I stay that way a lot when reading about Bigfoot sightings.) Patty was about 6' 5" (a couple inches taller than me) and had a pretty bad looking rupture on her right thigh. If I'm not mistaken, there was a trackway found associated with the P-G film that showed an extraordinarily long stride -- well beyond anything normal for a human.

Does it make sense that a creature only two inches taller than me -- with a pretty bad looking leg injury -- would have a stride well beyond the human norm?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Hitch
Does it make sense that a creature only two inches taller than me -- with a pretty bad looking leg injury -- would have a stride well beyond the human norm?

If you listen carefully, you can hear the distinctive sound of ad hoc contradictory reasoning collasping upon itself....


..sssssssssssSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*POP*!

:D

[Skeptical Greg]

I came across this interview with Meldrum

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2005/04/21/exn20050421-bigfoot.asx

( windows media clip )

From here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ ( The first clip under " Clips on the Manitoba Footage of April 2005: " )

Meldrum is talking about BF foot physiology .. A little past the middle of the clip, he is heard to say ..
" In a typical 14 - 15 " Sasquatch track, the toes will be virtually as long as his ( Meldrum's )fingers. " Now that is really news to me, because virtually all the BF tracks I have seen look a lot like this. ( I have seen none with long toes.. )

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/1960_ByrneCast.jpg

Has anyone else seen the tracks with the long toes Meldrum is talking about?
After all, according to this respected Bigfootologist, such tracks are typical..

[Hitch]

"Typical" Bigfoot casts:

http://www.tracone.com/unexplained_articles/images/bf_footprint1.jpg

[Dubium]

I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

[Bronze Dog]

Ah. Good point to make in your first post, Dubium.

Welcome to the board.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Dubium
I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

A good point. Of course the whole question of bigfoot intelligence seems a little speculative to say the least. If they do exist, one might consider that they're clever or wily, but so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent. They appear to have no social organization, no sign of art or artifice, no tools, no fire, no known language, no structures, no crops, no burial grounds or ceremonial gathering places. They appear just to wander and forage. I do wonder, too, how an animal that is purported to be so large and so fast and full of energy manages to find enough to eat simply by foraging.

Of course that doesn't prove that they are not intelligent, but nothing I've seen proves anything to the contrary either, other than the rather dubious observation that they seem to be able to evade scientists, skeptics and cameras that focus.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Your point?

I'm sure if there are Bigfoots, some of them must have injuries, and some of them must limp.


I see nothing in the PGF that suggests a limp..

There's a kind of wobble that shows up in the computer graphic. Can't remember if it was Dr. Nelson who mentioned the possibility of a slightly compromised gait.

Dang, gotta watch LMS again.

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
A good point. Of course the whole question of bigfoot intelligence seems a little speculative to say the least. If they do exist, one might consider that they're clever or wily, but so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent.

Namely? Most think they have intelligence on a par with other Great Apes.

There are a couple of films that may show infants. One's being carried and another seems to climb higher on the back of what could be the mother or a sibling. I think it may have wandered off and been retrieved from behind the hill, which could be why the creature broke cover and ran across the clearing in the first place. There's a report of a youngster hiding in a hollow tree and an apparently upset female nearby. She carried it off, as I recall.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL, I can’t even begin to fathom your reasoning.

Doesn’t the fact that the fur found by the Squatch sighters was of a long dead bison, whose hide had been exposed to unusual conditions and/or tanning, lead you to the most rational conclusion here: it was a hoax. How is it you refuse to believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? Why do you automatically believe a group of people who make this kind of extraordinary claim, when their only proof is the fur of a dead animal which from all appearances was yanked off the mounted bison head in their grandpappy’s den?

There've been other sightings in that area. The hair could have been snagged off a living animal and been stuck there for years. It's from a Wood Bison, isn't it? There's a reintroduced herd in the area. They're threatened, and you have no evidence anyone's granddaddy shot one. There may not have been any around in Granddaddy's time. They were thought to be extinct as a subspecies by 1940, but a wild pure herd was discovered in 1957.

http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/Publications/speciesatriskweb/woodbison.htm

How is it you believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? The thread I first found on this board started right out with a comment to the effect of "Look what the hoaxers are up to" (regarding Nelson Creek). How many people do you know who would go to the trouble of making an ape suit and then go wading at dawn in the frigid waters of the Nelson (the water was 3-4' deep and the creature about 9') just to fool a ferryman? Is Bigfoot hoaxery a common sport in the Yukon? Is this one well travelled hoaxer who managed to leave tracks in California and Colorado in April as well or is there a network of hoaxers who have nothing better to do than try to appear 9' tall?

People see something, comb the area for evidence, find hair and send it in for analysis. It turns out to be Bison hair. That isn't a hoax. Nor does it mean they can't tell a Bison from bipedal animal that appeared to be nearly 3 meters tall.

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=teslin-bushman13072005

Where was the rest of the herd? The hair didn't come from a living animal, so how would it follow they really saw a Bison? And where were the Bison tracks?

I don't know if this was a bona fide sighting or not. Granted, it needs more evidence, but there's none, so far, that it was a hoax.

[bruto]

I wrote earlier, "... so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent."

Originally posted by LAL
Namely? Most think they have intelligence on a par with other Great Apes.

There are a couple of films that may show infants. One's being carried and another seems to climb higher on the back of what could be the mother or a sibling. I think it may have wandered off and been retrieved from behind the hill, which could be why the creature broke cover and ran across the clearing in the first place. There's a report of a youngster hiding in a hollow tree and an apparently upset female nearby. She carried it off, as I recall.

What was that an answer to? Bigfoot fanciers think bigfeet are intelligent. But reporting that does not constitute evidence that they are.

I should hope that bigfeet have children, or the question of their existence will be moot as they become extinct! I don't think that is much evidence of intelligence either though, and your speculation on what they're doing in the presumably unclear films doesn't do much to answer Dubium's question of why, since so many bigfeet are spotted near roads, at least the occasional little bigfoot has not been hit.

Until someone comes up with better quality evidence than what we've seen so far, all answers to this question are speculative. You can speculate that they're good parents, perhaps, and for all I know you may be right. But it's speculation, and unless you can come up with more convincing evidence, you have little to complain about if others speculate otherwise.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Dubium
I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

How many Gorilla and Chimpanzee children get squished?

People like Erik? I hate to be the one to tell you, but he's one of a kind.

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
I wrote earlier, "... so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent."

You didn't answer the question. And what's a "bigfootologist"?


What was that an answer to? Bigfoot fanciers think bigfeet are intelligent. But reporting that does not constitute evidence that they are.

I should hope that bigfeet have children, or the question of their existence will be moot as they become extinct! I don't think that is much evidence of intelligence either though, and your speculation on what they're doing in the presumably unclear films doesn't do much to answer Dubium's question of why, since so many bigfeet are spotted near roads, at least the occasional little bigfoot has not been hit.

Until someone comes up with better quality evidence than what we've seen so far,

You might want to try looking at what there is. I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. Just a sample here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/sightings.htm

It really irks me they left out the double trackway (it was filmed) and misspelled Skamania, but there were a couple from that area and era I hadn't heard about.


all answers to this question are speculative. You can speculate that they're good parents, perhaps, and for all I know you may be right. But it's speculation, and unless you can come up with more convincing evidence, you have little to complain about if others speculate otherwise.

Who's complaining? I'm used to this.

I tacked an answer to Dubium onto your post; I really don't have time to answer all these posts sometimes, but I try. If nothing else, I'm outnumbered on this board.

The young seem to be well supervised; I gave some examples that seem to indicate that. Glenn Thomas saw a family of three feeding; the young one was a "toddler". They may have a long period of dependency. The only road in the vicinity was a logging spur.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/logger.html


Note they were eating meat. They seem to be omnivores. Bears don't seem to have a problem making a living in the same sort of habitat.

So many? 74+ road reports in Green's collection over 40 years. Of course, he wasn't able to collect them all, and many people don't report for fear of ridicule. The reports I've read seem to be of lone males crossing roads. Mothers with infants may not range as far. Peter Bryne investigated a sighting near Estacada where the animal turned and gestured as though to warn others to stay back. This was backed up by track evidence, BTW, and there were two witnesses.

[Z]

Originally posted by Dubium
I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

Well, now, let's not get hasty. There are many species who are over-protective of their young. The BF might well be the sort that keeps the young far, far from habitation until they're old enough to be considered adults. In fact, the few alleged sightings might well have been rogues who have been rejected from their tribes.

That is, if they exist at all.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I came across this interview with Meldrum

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2005/04/21/exn20050421-bigfoot.asx

( windows media clip )

From here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ ( The first clip under " Clips on the Manitoba Footage of April 2005: " )

Meldrum is talking about BF foot physiology .. A little past the middle of the clip, he is heard to say ..
Now that is really news to me, because virtually all the BF tracks I have seen look a lot like this. ( I have seen none with long toes.. )

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/1960_ByrneCast.jpg

Has anyone else seen the tracks with the long toes Meldrum is talking about?
After all, according to this respected Bigfootologist, such tracks are typical..

At least you didn't call him a "woo".

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_d.htm

The copies I own of the Bossburg tracks have toes almost as long as my fingers. The great toes are as long. Most photos and casts, such as the ones Patterson got, are of the most perfect tracks in the trackway. They don't reveal much. Often the toes are curled, giving that "peas in a pod" look.

Note that's Bryne's cast from 1960.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Yes, it is. Look up "parsimony" and try to determine how it applies to scientific investigation.

I did that years ago. Occam's (or "Ockham's") Razor, too.

If you can't reasonably rule out a hoax, then the evidence does not support the existence of bigfoot. Regarding the bison fur, the only thing that can be said is that something was seen; tracks were made, and some hair from a long dead, possibly tanned bison was found.


Stop right there.


So, either a bigfoot walked by where there happened to be some tanned bison fur (of a color and texture that matches supposed Bigfoot fur rather closely) and just ahppened to be seen by 9 people (when most of the time they can't be found at all)...of someone had a bison-fur suit and walked through town.

Parsimony.

Hardly. Did you read the story?

There were unreported sightings by other Native people out hunting. And this:

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=yuk-teslinbigfoot07062004

Aren't you going to consider mass hysteria? Racial memory of a leader ape? A deep-seated need to see bogeymen? Something in the water?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Hitch
"Typical" Bigfoot casts:

http://www.tracone.com/unexplained_articles/images/bf_footprint1.jpg

Typical Dennett.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
There's a kind of wobble that shows up in the computer graphic. Can't remember if it was Dr. Nelson who mentioned the possibility of a slightly compromised gait.

Dang, gotta watch LMS again. The only thing that is wobbling is the camera..

When you look at the stabilized version the gait is as smooth as silk.. You need to let go of this straw ( injured thigh )..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
How many Gorilla and Chimpanzee children get squished?

How may Gorilla's and Chimpanzees are wandering around the U.S. Interstate system ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL

..........Note they were eating meat. They seem to be omnivores. Bears don't seem to have a problem making a living in the same sort of habitat.

And we don't have a problem confirming that bears exist...:)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
At least you didn't call him a "woo".

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_d.htm

The copies I own of the Bossburg tracks have toes almost as long as my fingers. The great toes are as long. Most photos and casts, such as the ones Patterson got, are of the most perfect tracks in the trackway. They don't reveal much. Often the toes are curled, giving that "peas in a pod" look.

Note that's Bryne's cast from 1960. What difference does it make when the cast was made if it is real ?

Are you suggesting the long toes have evolved in the last 40 years?


Are you denying that the cast I referenced is typical of the prints that are published?

There are thousands of tracks , right?

Point me to sources that verify typical Bigfeetl toes are long ? Is it documented in SMS ?


Oh.. Almost forgot ..

The most perfect tracks... Don't reveal much ?


Come again ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What difference does it make when the cast was made if it is real ?

It's from the the same individual as Bluff Creek tracks in 1967 (Krantz was 99% sure after Bryne contacted him about photos in the book). Haven't I mentioned this before?

"Noteworthy is the documentation of the tracks of this same individual on a number of earlier occasions. One of the first of these was photographed by Peter Byrne near Bluff Creek in 1960. Two others were cast by Al Hodgson, of Willow Creek, one on a logging road near Notice Creek in 1962(?) and another on Bluff Creek in 1963. Another instance was photographed extensively by John Green and Rene' Dahinden on the Blue Creek Mountain Road in 1967, just over one month before the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

And:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/byrnecast.htm


Are you suggesting the long toes have evolved in the last 40 years?

Of course not. Sometimes they're more flexed than at other times. Meldrum has examined tracks in situ on five occasions.


Are you denying that the cast I referenced is typical of the prints that are published?


Nope.

There are thousands of tracks , right?

Maybe millions. There are about a thousand casts.

Point me to sources that verify typical Bigfeetl toes are long ? Is it documented in SMS ?


You mean LMS? Meldrum talks about casts, but I'm not sure if he mentions that. I'll check when I have time.
He talks about it here:

"Relative Toe Length and Mobility
Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html


Oh.. Almost forgot ..

The most perfect tracks... Don't reveal much ?


Come again ?

As far as foot movement, toe movement, weight shifting, that sort of thing..... The "perfect" ones may look fake to an untrained eye. It's the ones that don't look good enough to be cast that really tell the tale to an expert in locomotion.