Bigfoot - serious, not follies [Archive] - Page 7

LAL

17th August 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
No idea what youâ€™re talking about. I got the picture online. I liked his disco Sasquatch bell-bottom look. Heâ€™s also looking mean, like heâ€™s ready to throw down some serious stinky justice on some Bigfoot non-believers. His Squatch chick is backinâ€™ him up, too.

The avatar is used by a poster on BFF. The proportions are wrong on it, too.

Yeah, okay. See, if this was his takeâ€¦he doesnâ€™t realize how unscientific heâ€™s really being. To state an informed opinion is one thing, but for a serious scientist to definitively state that thereâ€™s no way a prosthesis could produce this effect after viewing a sixty second grainy film is absolutely ludicrous.

He was given an old hand crank machine to view the film frame by frame. He took measurements and did a detailed analysis. You might want to read his book before you criticize his work. He explained the problems in detail.

BTW, he's dead.

The shoulder joints are too far apart for the width to be achieved with something as simplistic as football pads.

Again, they look pretty close to me. Am I blind?

Apparently. Compare the legs.

Theyâ€™re not identical, but they wouldnâ€™t be if Bob H. is wearing a suit in one picture. Especially when said suits are designed to exaggerate proportions, as Chris Walas has told us.

Chris Walas didn't address the problem of the shoulder joints or the IM index, did he? His arguments got torn to shreds on BFF. Did you read that far?

Morris himself, as quoted in Longâ€™s book. Patterson phoned him several times regarding the modification of the suit.

He says.

You seem overly eager to denounce everything Long researched as lies. Why is that, when you evidently havenâ€™t read the bookâ€¦or if you did, you werenâ€™t paying attention? Why is Long a liar? You seem to be implying money is his motivation, but remember Patterson didnâ€™t exactly donate his film for the benefit of science.

I've mentioned several times I've read the book. I used it in the Making of Bigfoot thread on BFF concerning De Atley's interview. See the thread on it on BFF for specific rebuttal on some of Long's most glaring errors.

Science didn't exactly want the film, donated or not.

From Skeptical News:

"The major counterclaim is that Long fell victim to one or more hoaxes when interviewing witnesses. Particular ire is reserved for the two most damaging witnesses: the man who claims to have built Patterson's Bigfoot suit (costume designer Phillip Morris), and "the Man in the Suit," as he has been called (a high school friend of Patterson, Bob Heironimus). Unfortunately, these two witnesses disagree on key details regarding the suit--something Long spends far too little time examining. Furthermore, after 37 years, there is no known physical evidence to back up the claims of either man.

I met with author John Kirk, President of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, and asked for his impressions. According to Kirk, "the trouble is that Bob Heironimus isn't telling the truth in any way, shape, or form here." Like many cryptozoologists, he believes that Heironimus is himself perpetrating a hoax. Kirk claims that his organization discovered the identity of Heironimus (then an anonymous source claiming to have worn a suit in the film) back in 1999. He also alleges that their investigation into his background uncovered "a woman who was present when Heironimus and two other individuals concocted this scheme [to falsely claim Heironimus wore the suit] in her living room so we were aware five years ago that this was a hoax, and we do not know how it was allowed to grow to this level."

Leaving aside this woman's specific allegation, Kirk's primary gripe with the book is shared by many cryptozoologists: Heironimus claims that he wore a horsehide suit built by Patterson himself, which he describes in modest detail, while Morris claims that Patterson bought and used one of his commercial gorilla suits--which he describes in precise detail. Surely, say critics, one or both of these claims must therefore be false. Since neither is clearly supported or debunked by the available evidence, both must be suspect."

http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2004-04-25.htm

And by the way, Barnum never did say it:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

I didn't know that. It shows up enough in lists of quotes. Okay, As Hull said.......I do know Marie Antoinette didn't say "Let them eat cake."

You sure do like to propagate mythsâ€¦ [/B][/QUOTE]

That was rather uncalled for, don't you think?

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 09:22 AM

Keep in mind that this is what they saw when they decided to pour the Skookum cast.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/images/SkookumImpressionBig.jpg

Edit: changed to a link due to margin disintegration.

Hitch

17th August 2005, 09:29 AM

Well, there it is. Clear as mud.

LAL

17th August 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Dou you have evidence that any known primate has friction ridges running the length of the sole ?

They don't. That was one of Chilcutt's findings from his study of primate prints.

Of course we don't have dermals from Laetoli or any Gigantopithecus tracks, so who's to say this might not have been a characteristic of other early hominids and their relatives?

Krantz' arguments for Giganto being bipedal are pretty interesting. He argues from the dentition as well as the structure of the jaws.

LAL

17th August 2005, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Not to mention that it seems, at least to me, a little fishy that the best avaliable footage of a bigfoot was obtained decades ago by people who went to the field specifically to shoot a documentary on the issue.

Why no one else got lucky later?

Sheer chance?
Bigfeet are extinct?
Bigfeet became smarter?
Skeptical influence, just as alleged on the countless psi experiments?
It was a hoax?

Noll:

"........'ambulance chasing' has gotten nothing in return so far and I really wouldn't waste my time with it. It just might work if you are in to relying on luck though. There are many reasons for an animal to be in a particular place at a particular moment, not all of which indicates a repeatable experience. Time and date, track or sighting plotted on a map will indicate the proper habitat, route or periphery of a core niche. Chasing a seen animal into the woods will just scare them off never to return and imprint on them your behavior as unsavory. Establishing a long term benign, but interesting presence with lures not normally available to most of us is the method I prefer. Methods must vary in different regions. Weather, altitude, population density, human influence, food and water sources are all factors needing to be taken into account.

I do not consider the P/G filming to be such... the area had more than enough activity to warrant such a venture even for the dyed in the wool non-believer. I believe that Roger really did his home work and was ahead of his time, setting the tone for modern Sasquatch research to this day. I respect him for that and wish I had met him and understood him more. "

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 09:40 AM

Just to be clear, from what I have read Chilcutt is claiming the ridges run north and south on the feet, along the sides. Not over the whole sole of the foot.

This is why I am saying it is silly.

The stuff below looks like what you get from the suction effect.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/images/area_b.jpg

Skeptical Greg

17th August 2005, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Noll:
...............
Establishing a long term benign, but interesting presence with lures not normally available to most of us is the method I prefer.
....................
So Noll is saying that he prefers a method that hasn't yielded anything so far ?

' Ambulance chasing ' works all the time, with animals that actually exist ....

Oh, and the method Noll prefers, works with actual animals as well..

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
You don't understand. Foot was repositioning himself ( we know it's a ' him ' now.. ;) )

This was a stealth fruit snatching operation where Mr. Foot managed to get the fruit without leaving any foot prints..

Oh, and don't forget, this milestone discovery in Bigfootology, took place in 2000.. There is no indication of any serious follow up work at this location.. Sound familiar ?

Was Moneymaker or the BFRO mixed up in this?

Why would Mr. Foot roll in the muck to grab an apple?

Are there experts now in deciphering animal ass prints? How do we know what a Squatch ass impression looks like anyway?

Christ, why am I even asking?

"Elk tracks nearby...no Bigfoot...so we'll go with the Bigfoot theory."

That about right? Why do I feel these people need to be institutionalized?

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 10:33 AM

The BFRO just makes up whatever facts it needs to support bigfoot.

Gigantos looked strikingly simiar to sasquatches -- the large, upright, ape-like animals seen in recent times in forests of North America.

Ancient gigantos had a very distinct appearance. They were more than twice the height of early humans. Fossil remains show gigantos stood over nine feet tall. The tallest, strongest human atheletes today would appear small standing next to one.

http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/exped_whydo.asp

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
As far as I know, dermal ridges are for grip and traction. having them run up and down the length of the foot still strikes me as silly.

Well, itâ€™s pretty obvious now these dermal ridgelings developed out of necessity. They wouldnâ€™t be helpful for normal walking and grippingâ€¦but for awkward, spasmodic fruit-snatching seizures in the mud? Just the thing.

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Noll:

"I believe that Roger really did his home work and was ahead of his time, setting the tone for modern Sasquatch research to this day. "

You can say that again.

Correa Neto

17th August 2005, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Noll:

"........'ambulance chasing' has gotten nothing in return so far and I really wouldn't waste my time with it. It just might work if you are in to relying on luck though. There are many reasons for an animal to be in a particular place at a particular moment, not all of which indicates a repeatable experience. Time and date, track or sighting plotted on a map will indicate the proper habitat, route or periphery of a core niche. ...snip...

So what?

Nothing of what you posted answer the question on why those guys were the only ones who managed to produce a (highly questionable) footage of what they claim to be a bigfoot.

Shall we suppose they knew at the late 60s more about bigfeet habits than BFRO nowdays? Note that BFRO claims to have a lot of documental data on bigfeet behavior, including breeding and giving birth. Check what other peple have qoted directly from their site. If not, then why with all the data on bigfeet behavior BRFO personal never managed to get a sharp picture of footage of the creature?

Why all the other professional and amateur wildlife photographers that worked and wotk in North America never managed to obtain good pictures/footage? Sorry, but to say that they were not looking for bigfeet or that they only work while there is daylight avaliable are not valid answers. YouÂ´ll think these are valid answers only if you donÂ´t have a clue on how their field work is done.

Oh, time, track, core niche, etc. These are not that different from the approaches I suggested pages ago and you claimed were only usefull for the Serengueti, and not at PNW (even tough it is not supposed to live only in PNW)...

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 11:23 AM

An interesting exchange between Noll and Krantz regarding the cripple foot cast. It appears there is something a bit odd about the cripplefoot cast, and which one we have seen.

I think I am correct about the print in the snow not looking at all like the cast and the skeleton drawing of cripplefoot. That's because there are different ones indeed. Ones made in the snow, ones made in soft dirt, and apparently copies made by putting casts in soft dirt.

There are apparently cripplefoot casts made in 1969 and in 1970.

So which cripple foot is which? :D

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/noll_krantz.htm

Dr. Krantz: "The very last one... the crippled foot, he uncovered for me when I was there."

Rick: "And that was in snow?"

Dr. Krantz: "Yes. So me and my friends made a cast of that and we still got it."

Rick: "How did you make the cast in snow?"

Dr. Krantz: "Just poured... ahmm mixed the plaster and poured it in. Everybody seems to think you can't make plaster casts in snow but you sure can. Ahmm we made that one and it turned out fine. I made plaster casts of my first Irish Wolfhound's footprints in snow, and everyone said you can't do it and so I tried it; worked perfectly. When the plaster is starting to set, it warms up considerably but it is already set to a degree where it is not going to move."

Rick: "Well, I think that is one of the things they say is a problem (talking about the generated heat). But I think the main problem is water in the plaster freezing, and not curing the plaster itself. And so what happens, I have seen it, the print has a bunch of dry spots afterwards, it just gets riddled. But if you mix a 5% solution of Potassium sulfate with the plaster, it lowers the freezing temperature of the water in the plaster and allows it to set up. But that is in really cold environments."

Dr. Krantz: "Yeah... I suspect I didn't run into that problem with the dogs footprints or the ahh Sasquatch track because the temperature of the air around was probably above freezing, and the snow was just barely."

Rick: "That's an excellent cast for being in snow."

Dr. Krantz: "Oh... that one you saw here is not from that."

Rick: "Oh..."

Dr. Krantz: "That one was taken in late '69. The previous event, where the same individual came through, ahh and it was in soft dirt, not snow. Somebody up in Colville, butcher by trade, made the two casts. Rene Dahinden has the originals. But somebody put those in a very fine bed of dirt and made copies of them, and I was able to get a hold of those and borrow them and make the molds."

Rick: "Ahhmm did you see any difference in the bone structure between the print that you saw the year before or years before and the ones you got casts of? Like maybe further deterioration or something over the years?"

Dr. Krantz: "Oh no. Basically the same anatomy, late '69 versus early '70. But when I was up there in, near Bossburg, I talked to an old farmer, who said that he had seen tracks just like that 20 years before. And some years after, I can't remember if it was 6 years or 10 years, a very excited student came down to talk to me and he had been up in that area and he saw tracks that exactly matched that."

Rick: "So that leads to the question of how long do you think one of these creatures could live?"

Dr. Krantz: "Well, unless I have some reason to think contrary, say they live life as the great apes do, which would be about 40 years. So 30 years as an adult."

Rick: "So this one has ahh... kicked the bucket."

Dr. Krantz: "Well after that last student, by the way his name was Gary Larsen, I suspect he was the cartoonist. I know THE Gary Larson was a student of the Washington State University. Must have taken a class from me because he had a lot of anthropology in some of his jokes. (rick laughs) So a guy named Gary Larsen tells me about the print, (as if talking to himself) it had to be him."

Rick: "And that individual hasn't been, the footprints haven't been seen since?"

Dr. Krantz: "No. So that last event was probably near the end of it's life."

Skeptical Greg

17th August 2005, 11:55 AM

We are expected to believe that a casting medium, whose temperature is above freezing, is not going to distort an impression in the snow ?

Oh, I forgot, we are not dealing with real science here, where stuff like physics applies...

fsol

17th August 2005, 12:45 PM

From that Chris Walas thread that LAL mentioned. Saying that his arguments had been "torn to shreds."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=160#

(I don't seem to be able to link to actual posts but no matter, the page will do.)

There are some interestng newspaper clippings, Contemporary to the PGF, posted by Tirademan regarding suits and in particular the use of prosthetics to increase the arm length, whilst still being able to flex the hand.

Chris Walas himself posts some pictures of a couple of suits made by Charlie Gemora And significantly, blurs them a little to produce that authentic PGF fuzzyness. Compare them to the accompinaing PGF still and see which looks most like a man in a suit. Why I can even make out the musculator of the "Gorillas" upper arm as it rests on its forearms. The poor thing also seems to have injured its right thigh.

I think Walas made his case pretty well.

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by fsol
From that Chris Walas thread that LAL mentioned. Saying that his arguments had been "torn to shreds."

There are some interestng newspaper clippings, Contemporary to the PGF, posted by Tirademan regarding suits and in particular the use of prosthetics to increase the arm length, whilst still being able to flex the hand.

Chris Walas himself posts some pictures of a couple of suits made by Charlie Gemora And significantly, blurs them a little to produce that authentic PGF fuzzyness. Compare them to the accompinaing PGF still and see which looks most like a man in a suit. Why I can even make out the musculator of the "Gorillas" upper arm as it rests on its forearms. The poor thing also seems to have injured its right thigh.

I think Walas made his case pretty well.

Yeah, I was going to point out that LAL had exaggerrated at best, and lied at worst. Then I realized it was useless, as LAL lives in a different universe than I do...populated by large, hairy primates who flip around in the mud like fish to get an apple.

Chris held his own pretty well there, even whilst enduring personal and professional insults. One poster felt the need to rent a comedic film he did about cavemen and post screenshots, claiming that was some kind of indication of his standard work...despite his large and impressive resume on imdb.com that shows quite the contrary.

Fun crowd, that. There's a reason I don't post or troll there. The lunatics are running the asylum.

Torn to shreds? Not even close. Some of the Footers even declared he raised some valid questions...

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by fsol

There are some interestng newspaper clippings, Contemporary to the PGF, posted by Tirademan regarding suits and in particular the use of prosthetics to increase the arm length, whilst still being able to flex the hand.

And despite posting that, LAL and her kind will continue to post that this is impossible, because Krantz The Almighty declared it so.

Krantz is an expert on everything, even gorilla suits.

Impossible, he says.

They parrot the same hogwash incessantly. Over and over and over. Welcome to the Church of Bigfoot.

Thurkon

17th August 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
An interesting exchange between Noll and Krantz regarding the cripple foot cast.

That's a great exchange between two blowhards about the lifespan of a footprint.

Let's play a game. First, we make up an imaginary giant ape species. Next, we name imaginary individuals within the imaginary species. Sound fun?

I'll do two. How about Cripplefoot and Patty? You next...

Skeptical Greg

17th August 2005, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by fsol
From that Chris Walas thread that LAL mentioned. Saying that his arguments had been "torn to shreds."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=160#

(I don't seem to be able to link to actual posts but no matter, the page will do.)

There are some interestng newspaper clippings, Contemporary to the PGF, posted by Tirademan regarding suits and in particular the use of prosthetics to increase the arm length, whilst still being able to flex the hand.

Chris Walas himself posts some pictures of a couple of suits made by Charlie Gemora And significantly, blurs them a little to produce that authentic PGF fuzzyness. Compare them to the accompinaing PGF still and see which looks most like a man in a suit. Why I can even make out the musculator of the "Gorillas" upper arm as it rests on its forearms. The poor thing also seems to have injured its right thigh.

I think Walas made his case pretty well.
Looks like Patty has a ' Butt ' twin ..

http://gold.mylargescale.com/cjwalas/butt%20copy.jpghttp://gold.mylargescale.com/cjwalas/suit%20copy.jpg

Didn't have the ability to make a suit like Patty in 67 ? How 'bout 49 ?

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 02:52 PM

I am still not clear as to what exactly is on the LMS DVD.

Is it a copy of the first gen copy in it's original form?

Has it been cleaned up?

Is it from the work done by NASI, which is heavily altered?

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 03:25 PM

Well, I am not going to bother with the LMS DVD at all.
Judging by this pdf file about the DVD, I will only get flaming mad at the ridiculous liberties they have undoubtedly taken.

I suspect that you can't see much of anything at all in the original P/G film other than a vague dark hairy thing walking, and that most of what we have seen is considerably cleaned up.

Look at the blowup of frame 352. Nothing but reddish brown vaguely head shaped thing. How did Patty get red anyway.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

Skeptical Greg

17th August 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, I am not going to bother with the LMS DVD at all.
Judging by this pdf file about the DVD, I will only get flaming mad at the ridiculous liberties they have undoubtedly taken.

I suspect that you can't see much of anything at all in the original P/G film other than a vague dark hairy thing walking, and that most of what we have seen is considerably cleaned up.

Look at the blowup of frame 352. Nothing but reddish brown vaguely head shaped thing. How did Patty get red anyway.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf Yes, I am familiar with frame 352..:D

I know we have our problems with Beckjord, but this info on the 16mm camera and film is interesting..

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pattcam.htmlbeckjord

I'm working on another source for acopy of PGF.. I'll let you know how it works out..

What do you think about Patty's butt twin ?

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 08:04 PM

You would think that frame would end the argument about suit quality, but it won't.

Another shot from Africa Screams:

http://www.westgate-works.com/images/Charlie/Africa%20Screams1%208x10.jpg

http://www.westgate-works.com/images/Charlie/EDITED_mirror.jpg

LTC8K6

17th August 2005, 08:12 PM

1) SRP makes tests on Patterson Film, finds a way to
verify it was all shot at 16 frames per sec. - Simple - P&G filmed each other
on horseback at the start of the film roll. When projected at
24 fps, the horses are weirdly,unnaturally fast in walking. At 16 fps,
they are 100% natural.

Well yeah, we have been asking about the rest of the film for quite a while now.

It also seems that there are a few more settings on that camera than I first thought. Naturally, you wonder about it being set correctly for Patty......

Diogenes, your beckjord link didn't work, but I found my way to the page.

UrsulaV

18th August 2005, 07:30 AM

Well, any nagging questions I may have had about whether or not the thing in the Patterson film was a suit (I don't know much about costuming, so I wasn't gonna say "That has to be a suit!" based on my own experience,) are pretty much annhilated by that pair of shots above. Heck, the one we KNOW is a suit makes a rather more convincing looking Bigfoot.

And available in '49? Yup, that would make it bargain basement by the time the Patterson film was shot.

(Here, I'll beat LAL to the punch and dismiss my opinion as a skeptical non-expert in advance. On the other hand, I HAVE lived in the mountains of the PNW, which apparently gives me some kind of mystic insight. Perhaps the two cancel each other out. )

Nevertheless, as long and agonizing and drawn out as this thread has become, I'm glad it lasted this long, because it did serve to remove any doubt that the Patterson film was a total hoax from my mind, and that's one more nagging bit of cryptozoology from my youth off my back.

Skeptical Greg

18th August 2005, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Well, any nagging questions I may have had about whether or not the thing in the Patterson film was a suit (I don't know much about costuming, so I wasn't gonna say "That has to be a suit!" based on my own experience,) are pretty much annhilated by that pair of shots above. Heck, the one we KNOW is a suit makes a rather more convincing looking Bigfoot.

And available in '49? Yup, that would make it bargain basement by the time the Patterson film was shot.

(Here, I'll beat LAL to the punch and dismiss my opinion as a skeptical non-expert in advance. On the other hand, I HAVE lived in the mountains of the PNW, which apparently gives me some kind of mystic insight. Perhaps the two cancel each other out. )

Nevertheless, as long and agonizing and drawn out as this thread has become, I'm glad it lasted this long, because it did serve to remove any doubt that the Patterson film was a total hoax from my mind, and that's one more nagging bit of cryptozoology from my youth off my back. I figured that sooner or later that fur diaper was going to show up somewhere.. Voila' !

I'm not going to speculate on the rationalization to follow.. Darn, yes I am...

How about .. " The fur diaper was modeled after an actual Bigfoot .. "

Nahhh.. They'll have something better than that ...

Here they are side by side, just to get a little better perspective..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/patbutt.gif

Thurkon

18th August 2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, I am not going to bother with the LMS DVD at all.
Judging by this pdf file about the DVD, I will only get flaming mad at the ridiculous liberties they have undoubtedly taken.

They used the track castings to recreate Pattyâ€™s digital foot and bone structure. The castings. Didnâ€™t they consider that the castings might not have come from the Patty â€œcreatureâ€? No. Not a skeptical bone in this guyâ€™s body.

Legend meets â€œScienceâ€, my ass.

"Technology will never replace field studies but
it does greatly enhance such studies. Being out in the woods armed with a digital thermal camera is a great feeling, you know nothing can hide from you," he said.

Obviously, something can hide from you. Show me the Foot.

â€œIt was a bit of a shock to see how human the creature looked without the facial hair.â€

You donâ€™t sayâ€¦

LTC8K6

18th August 2005, 09:52 AM

Yep, the LMS DVD is a promotional aid for bigfoot, not a scientific look at bigfoot evidence.

LTC8K6

18th August 2005, 09:54 AM

Diogenes, it's obvious that the whole P/G suit was modeled after an actual sasquatch. :D

LAL

20th August 2005, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
They used the track castings to recreate Pattyâ€™s digital foot and bone structure. The castings. Didnâ€™t they consider that the castings might not have come from the Patty â€œcreatureâ€? No. Not a skeptical bone in this guyâ€™s body.

Legend meets â€œScienceâ€, my ass.

Obviously, something can hide from you. Show me the Foot.

You donâ€™t sayâ€¦

Be advised, oh unenlightened one, that Doug Hajicek was a sceptic until he and others members of his crew discovered a trackway in Northwest Territories, Canada, while on a standard filming mission. The forensic animator he hired for the documentary, Reuben Steindorf, was an "unbeliever" as well.

Since the computer animation was of the creature in the film, why not use the casts of her feet? What other casts should have been used? Bossburg, maybe?

LAL

20th August 2005, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Yep, the LMS DVD is a promotional aid for bigfoot, not a scientific look at bigfoot evidence.

And you know this without seeing it. Amazing.

LAL

20th August 2005, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, I am not going to bother with the LMS DVD at all.
Judging by this pdf file about the DVD, I will only get flaming mad at the ridiculous liberties they have undoubtedly taken.

It's very straightforward. Inconclusive evidence is presented as just that.....inconclusive.

I suspect that you can't see much of anything at all in the original P/G film other than a vague dark hairy thing walking, and that most of what we have seen is considerably cleaned up.
[B][QUOTE]
And you'd be wrong. There's muscle definition, tendons, fluid motion, articulating fingers........
[B][QUOTE]
Look at the blowup of frame 352. Nothing but reddish brown vaguely head shaped thing. How did Patty get red anyway.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

That's an M.K. Davis blow-up if I'm not mistaken. He removed some color layers. There's a lengthy discussion of this on BFF.

The blowup of the head is not shown on the DVD. It was used to model a digital face.

Thanks for posting the link. It's five pages of Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy, one of the books I keep referring to. I had the link at one time but hadn't been able to find it in the last couple of days. Funny you should inadvertantly do me a favor by posting it. I just paraphrased some of the first page shown (pg. 90). Read pg. 92.

LAL

20th August 2005, 02:49 AM

More about fossils:

QUOTE (Former_Northwester @ Jun 25 2005, 06:33 PM)

Found this interesting tidbit in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson:

It is estimated that 1 bone in a billion is fossilized. Of all the 270 million people currently living in the United States, each with 206 bones, about 50 of those bones will eventually become a fossil (only enough to make a quarter of a skeleton). Since the United States has 3.6 million sqare miles, the odds of anyone ever finding one of those 50 fossils is extremely small.

Also....

There are 250,000 species so far known in the fossil record. Depending on estimates of the total number of species that have ever lived, that means between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 120,000 species have been found in the fossil record. Furthermore, 95% of the 250,000 fossilized species were marine creatures.

And just to be clear, I'm talking fossils here, not bones. That would be another interesting estimation.

Found another interesting tidbit in Bryson's book that can explain why no Bigfoot fossils have been found, if it exists.

He noted after talking to Ian Tattersall (American Museum Natural History) that the complete collection of hominid fossils every discovered (this includes Gorilla, Chimps, Neanderthal, Australopithecines, Homo Erectus, Gigantopithecus, Humans, etc) consists of parts of only 5,000 individuals. This is out of billions that have ever lived. They could all fit in the back of a pickup truck.

So if BF exists, the odds of anyone having ever found a fossil of it are overwhelming low, it is much much more likely to have never been found.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=100&#entry255822entry255822

Kenny 10 Bellys

20th August 2005, 07:30 AM

Right, that's another ten or so pages of stuff so time for a reality check once again...

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot at all.

argue all you want about one highly dubious movie clip and some conflicting footprint evidence but if that's all you have then you have nothing even remotely concrete. We'd all love for him to be real, to be proven that monsters really do exists in the modern scientific world, but the odds are that it's not going to happen.

Yeah_Right

20th August 2005, 10:26 AM

So if BF exists, the odds of anyone having ever found a fossil of it are overwhelming low, it is much much more likely to have never been found.

It is difficult to find a fossil of something that doesn't exist.

LAL

20th August 2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
Right, that's another ten or so pages of stuff so time for a reality check once again...

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot at all.

There's hard evidence. Continual insistence that there is none doesn't make that statement true.

argue all you want about one highly dubious movie clip and some conflicting footprint evidence but if that's all you have then you have nothing even remotely concrete. We'd all love for him to be real, to be proven that monsters really do exists in the modern scientific world, but the odds are that it's not going to happen.
Monsters? They seem to be retiring rather gentle creatures. There are very few reports of aggressive behavior and that seems to have been retaliatory.

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

Give it time.

Skeptical Greg

20th August 2005, 02:03 PM

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake. We're waiting..

bruto

20th August 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by LAL
There's hard evidence. Continual insistence that there is none doesn't make that statement true.
[B]
Monsters? They seem to be retiring rather gentle creatures. There are very few reports of aggressive behavior and that seems to have been retaliatory.

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

Give it time.

Whoa there! I'm not going to go back through all your posts right now, LAL, but I could have sworn back there somewhere you characterized these guys as very dangerous. I know somewhere back there you reported that they tear dogs to pieces! So are they shy and retiring, or are they very dangerous?

Gorillas were once thought to be a myth, but we know where to find them now, don't we? They've been found, confirmed, shot, photographed, documented and tamed. The first platypus may have been dismissed as a fake, but subsequent platypusses/platypi have settled the issue. These examples are of little worth in the bigfoot question. The technology for finding things has marched on, time has passed, and still, no bigfoot.

Kenny 10 Bellys

21st August 2005, 04:40 AM

You have hard evidence? Lets see it then, and we'll get this guy classified and studied. Show me the live specimen, the corpse even, the skeletal remains, the 'never before encountered' DNA.

Oh, wait. Are you talking about footprints and blurry pictures again? Are you reading this and about to launch into another 1000 word essay about how someone somewhere claims to have seen something and professor so-and-so says there could be loads of em, and this guy who chases imaginary animals for a living says he smelled one once, and......etc, etc.

Hard evidence is not here-say, learned speculation, eyewitness reports or the occasional footprint that could have come from anything (cue enormous diatribe concerning how some of the footprints look real). The other cases you mentioned were in then unihabited continents and yet were still quite quickly verified. They did not go on for 100's of years without one shred of hard evidence in many of the most populace continents in the world. I say again, if all you have is word of mouth and some footprints then you have precisely nothing.

UrsulaV

21st August 2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by LAL

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

And elephant skulls were once thought to belong to cyclops, and dinosaur bones were believed to belong to griffins or dragons killed during the flood, and Mongolian entrepeneurs sold fake vegetable lambs to European tourists and Barnum's Feejee Mermaid was a monkey taxidermied to a salmon and don't get me started on the barnacle goose.

Unless you wish to argue that cyclops, griffins, the vegetable lamb and the mermaid are also all real and awaiting discovery, that particular argument is worthless. There are at least as many cases--if not far more--of people believing in fantastical beasts on evidence that turned out to be misinterpreted or completely nonexistant.

And hell, every one the examples listed above actually had bodies (or at least bones) that people could study! Which means that Bigfoot has significantly less credibility than the vegetable lamb (and doubtless had there been internet in those days, we would have the VLForum, in which people demand that anybody claiming the vegetable lamb is a hoax carve one themselves using the technology available in the 60's, and blurry photos of cotton plants would be waved about as incontrovertible evidence, and we'd be arguing about whether those teeny little marks are the result of lines from carving, or unfakeable vegetable ridges. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.)

Baaa!

Correa Neto

21st August 2005, 01:08 PM

Good points, Ursula.

However, I donÂ´t think LAL will accept them, since she has been making the same mistakes since the start of the bigfeet wars, I mean, threads.

But its not just her fault. Cryptozoologists tend to be very unskilled when it comes to data handling. For example, they claim that the absence of fossil remains of animals related to bigfeet is not an evidence against their existence due to the alleged poor chances of fossilization. However, they say Gigantopithecus is a relative and even claim bigfeet is a species of this genus. Some others will even use the fossil register to back the existence of the sea serpent and nessie. See the lack of logic?

We can expect the same level of arguments and evidence from defenders of nessie, the sea serpent, bigfoot, ghosts and UFOs. When the debate started, with a bigfoot defender not of the same caliber as Erickbeckjord, I (probably it was quite naive of my part) expected something other than the regular poor data handling, baseless speculations and questionable evidence.

WildCat

21st August 2005, 08:48 PM

Well, this is all going to be academic shortly, as it has been announced (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/08/19.html#b) that a sasquatch has been captured:
The second hour featured a brief update by Bigfoot hunter Tom Biscardi, who announced that he has "a Bigfoot in captivity right now." Biscardi said the Bigfoot has been at an undisclosed compound for about a week, where it is receiving medical treatment for several injuries. He described the creature as a huge, hairy primate-like animal, standing over eight feet tall. Biscardi promised to post video footage of it at findingbigfoot.com as soon as possible.
I'm sure that this is 100% legit, and there's no chance of the bigfoot escaping, or being let go, or abducted by space aliens before the media and science verifies it. No siree, no way. Biscardi is just going to sit on the biggest find ever, and bide his time. Nothing suspicious about that at all... :p

bruto

21st August 2005, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
Well, this is all going to be academic shortly, as it has been announced (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/08/19.html#b) that a sasquatch has been captured:

I'm sure that this is 100% legit, and there's no chance of the bigfoot escaping, or being let go, or abducted by space aliens before the media and science verifies it. No siree, no way. Biscardi is just going to sit on the biggest find ever, and bide his time. Nothing suspicious about that at all... :p

Yes, we keep forgetting to bring cameras, but we're arranging to take pictures of it tomorrow or the day after. It's a female sasquatch, affectionately nicknamed "cupcake." Come over here, and I'll show you. Right around this cor...well, she was there a minute ago. That's funny.....

No, actually, in true sasquatch-scientific form, the links lead you to a pay site. $14.95 a week (or a bargain $59.95 for the whole expotition), and you can follow the hunt LIVE!

LAL

21st August 2005, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I was really hoping the testicle print would give this thread some new life..

I'm trying to imagine how it was made, when this is supposed to be how the Skookum print was made..

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/images/pose6_mid.JPG

This must be one hung dude...

That was the position when it reached for the fruit. It sat first, then leaned. The print indicates small testicles for such a large creature. I've already mentioned this could indicate a monogamous species.

But you were just trying to be funny, I suppose.........

LAL

21st August 2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by bruto
Yes, we keep forgetting to bring cameras, but we're arranging to take pictures of it tomorrow or the day after. It's a female sasquatch, affectionately nicknamed "cupcake." Come over here, and I'll show you. Right around this cor...well, she was there a minute ago. That's funny.....

No, actually, in true sasquatch-scientific form, the links lead you to a pay site. $14.95 a week (or a bargain $59.95 for the whole expotition), and you can follow the hunt LIVE!

I hope you don't think any researchers take Tom Biscardi seriously. The cop-out was that he was scammed by a lady in Nevada.

Yeah, sure, after he claimed he had doctors examining it and they were fighting........nationally broadcast on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory.

Kenny 10 Bellys

22nd August 2005, 03:40 AM

It's a shame he never caught one actually, since it's the only way anyone rational is going to believe such a thing exists. Apart from Lal and a few others who believe in a few seconds of fake footage and footprints, of course. No offence meant Lal, all you actually have is faith and no real evidence.

LTC8K6

22nd August 2005, 05:16 AM

Biscardi is no worse than Moneymaker. Moneymaker is just not as obvious.

LTC8K6

22nd August 2005, 05:19 AM

It sat first, then leaned.

Then got up, all without a single track. With heelprints yet.

Why is anyone even taking this seriously?

It's got to be a joke.

Thurkon

22nd August 2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Then got up, all without a single track. With heelprints yet.

Why is anyone even taking this seriously?

It's got to be a joke.

From the picture of the site that was posted, it seems to be the area was pretty open.

Where are the footprints?

Why is Foot doing the Worm in the sand?

Why didn't he just walk up and pick up the danged fruit?

Various other animals prints are found, yet these crack researchers conclude it's Foot?

Ahhh...I'm dying laughing over here.

Thurkon

22nd August 2005, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Be advised, oh unenlightened one, that Doug Hajicek was a sceptic until he and others members of his crew discovered a trackway in Northwest Territories, Canada, while on a standard filming mission. The forensic animator he hired for the documentary, Reuben Steindorf, was an "unbeliever" as well.

Since the computer animation was of the creature in the film, why not use the casts of her feet? What other casts should have been used? Bossburg, maybe?

Yeah, everyone's initially a skeptic until they run across the irrefutable Bigfoot evidence...which is...what, exactly?

Reminds me of the proselytizers on religious forums who start out with that dubious argument from authority: "You know, I used to be an Atheist..."

Yeah, whatever.

LAL, they constructed a skeleton of the "creature" from a blurry video in which the proportions of the creature are anything but certain, because it might just be a guy in a gorilla suit constructed to exaggerate proportions.

They use the castings and the length between the tracks to recreate the feet and the "inhuman" gait of Patty, when the tracks themselves might have been faked after the fact.

In other words, they approach this re-creation as though it is definitely a creature, and everything Patterson and Co. said about the encounter was undeniably true.

That's not very scientific.

Hitch

22nd August 2005, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
From the picture of the site that was posted, it seems to be the area was pretty open.

Where are the footprints?

Why is Foot doing the Worm in the sand?

Why didn't he just walk up and pick up the danged fruit?

Various other animals prints are found, yet these crack researchers conclude it's Foot?

Ahhh...I'm dying laughing over here.
Because Bigfoot is a wiley creature. He likes his privacy and knows people get all excited when they find his footprints. Being clever, he immediately saw through the ruse of baiting him with tasty fruit in the middle of a mud wallow and laid down and rolled over to it to avoid leaving footprints. Then he jumped on his faithful elk steed and rode away knowing that he'd once more eluded the dedicated Bigfoot trackers.

LTC8K6

22nd August 2005, 08:35 AM

No, no, no.

Bigfoot killed the elk as it was trying to eat the apples.

Then, he sat upon the elk and nibbled a bit of the fruit himself.

Finding it unappetizing, he spit it out without leaving any DNA on it.

He then picked up the elk and carried it off for dinner, leaving only his heelprints behind to baffle the BFRO/TBRC, etc....

RayG

22nd August 2005, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by LAL
It sat first, then leaned.

Are there are clear (and very deep) indentations that represent both butt cheeks? There should be if there are indentations that represent testicles. I would think that would be more compelling than a supposed heel print.

RayG

Kenny 10 Bellys

22nd August 2005, 04:20 PM

I think if the bigfoot debate has reached the level of discussing the prints left by it's nuts then they're REALLY reaching.

Skeptical Greg

23rd August 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by LAL
That was the position when it reached for the fruit. It sat first, then leaned. The print indicates small testicles for such a large creature. I've already mentioned this could indicate a monogamous species.

But you were just trying to be funny, I suppose......... O.K., I need the science behind this..

Small testicles = monogamous

And while you are at it, in light of the not particulary deep impression, of the butt of a creature weighing hundreds of pounds, there is no reason to believe there would be any testicle prints at all.

Don't you realize that suggesting crap like this, is why the very little you say that does make sense, gets swept aside ?

UrsulaV

23rd August 2005, 07:40 AM

Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males. (Forgive me if I'm rehashing ground other people know far better than I do.) Some types of squirrel, for example, have extremely large testicles in proportion to their size as part of the accellerating "sperm war" because, since the females will mate with a number of males, competition takes place at the small 'n wiggly level. There's any number of interested methods, from massive overproduction of sperm (common to some primates) which compete through sheer force of numbers, to weirdly shaped "bottle brush" penises that dredge out some of the competition, to chemical warfare like spermicidal chasers and vaginal plugs.

So one could say, in a very broad sort of sense, that if these WERE testicle prints (I think this whole cast is suspect and absurd) and they were small in proportion to the body size, it would indicate that our hypothetical Bigfoot does not have the enlarged testicles of a species engaging in some types of sperm competition.

However.

It's not at all a direct one-to-one ratio that small testes = monogamy, and for anyone to claim that this proved Bigfoot's monogamy would be jumping the gun quite a ways. Gorillas, for example, have small testes and are still not classically monogamous--males keep harems, and defend them physically, and other males do steal females relatively often. There are lots of ways to compete that don't require your 'nads. And there's even a whole wild arsenal of neat stuff you can do to kill off your competitor's sperm without requiring testicles the size of cantelope, as mentioned above, so we can't even say with any authority that Bigfoot couldn't be engaging in sperm competition of some sort. Without a body, and without a lengthy period spent observing Bigfoot interaction and mating, there are serious limits. You just can't wring too many facts out of a dent in the mud.

All we could say is that the size of the testicles--assuming we had conclusive proof of this size, and not one "No-really-guys-it's-a-butt-print"--would indicate that Bigfoot is probably not engaging in the sort of sheer numbers sperm competition found in some other primates like chimps.

(Much of this is from memory, I freely confess, and may be old, but if anybody wants documentation, just yell, and I'll dredge some up. Bear in mind that my degree in anthropology was cultural, and merely a BA, and I've been an artist instead of a researcher for years, so caveat emptor. Still, the day I pass up a chance to talk about those pervy ground squirrels...)

LTC8K6

23rd August 2005, 08:16 AM

Is it just me, or does the crippled foot switch from the left to the right side in the various stills and videos related to the Bossburg cripplefoot tracks?

Take a look and tell me if the clear right foot print in the snow matches the video still, the video, or the print under the cardboard.

I am beginning to think that the track in the clear cripplefoot photo does not appear at all in the video.

I have already posted that the skeletal drawing and the desriptions of cripplefoot do not match the clear photo of the print in the snow, imo.

Clear cripplefoot track:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_images/cripfoot.jpg

Video still:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_images/boss.jpg

Video:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/bossburg.ram

Print under cardboard:
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/10_Bossburgkrantz.jpg

Skeletal drawing of cripplefoot:
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/10_boss_redo.gif

Description of cripplefoot's right foot. Note the third toe remark and compare to the print in the snow and the skeleton drawing.

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.

Note that they threw away critical evidence, blaming it on science.

Some of the prints were lifted from the snow and kept in Marx's freezer for a while. They were eventually discarded when the hunters developed one of their periodic collective depressions, generally attributed to science's marked apathy towards their endeavors.

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

Skeptical Greg

23rd August 2005, 08:36 AM

What I don't get, is that the drawing shows the bumps on the foot, but no underlying bone structure related to the bumps; while the analysis attributes the deformity to bone structure...

bruto

23rd August 2005, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males. (Forgive me if I'm rehashing ground other people know far better than I do.) Some types of squirrel, for example, have extremely large testicles in proportion to their size as part of the accellerating "sperm war" because, since the females will mate with a number of males, competition takes place at the small 'n wiggly level. There's any number of interested methods, from massive overproduction of sperm (common to some primates) which compete through sheer force of numbers, to weirdly shaped "bottle brush" penises that dredge out some of the competition, to chemical warfare like spermicidal chasers and vaginal plugs.

So one could say, in a very broad sort of sense, that if these WERE testicle prints (I think this whole cast is suspect and absurd) and they were small in proportion to the body size, it would indicate that our hypothetical Bigfoot does not have the enlarged testicles of a species engaging in some types of sperm competition.

However.

It's not at all a direct one-to-one ratio that small testes = monogamy, and for anyone to claim that this proved Bigfoot's monogamy would be jumping the gun quite a ways. Gorillas, for example, have small testes and are still not classically monogamous--males keep harems, and defend them physically, and other males do steal females relatively often. There are lots of ways to compete that don't require your 'nads. And there's even a whole wild arsenal of neat stuff you can do to kill off your competitor's sperm without requiring testicles the size of cantelope, as mentioned above, so we can't even say with any authority that Bigfoot couldn't be engaging in sperm competition of some sort. Without a body, and without a lengthy period spent observing Bigfoot interaction and mating, there are serious limits. You just can't wring too many facts out of a dent in the mud.

All we could say is that the size of the testicles--assuming we had conclusive proof of this size, and not one "No-really-guys-it's-a-butt-print"--would indicate that Bigfoot is probably not engaging in the sort of sheer numbers sperm competition found in some other primates like chimps.

(Much of this is from memory, I freely confess, and may be old, but if anybody wants documentation, just yell, and I'll dredge some up. Bear in mind that my degree in anthropology was cultural, and merely a BA, and I've been an artist instead of a researcher for years, so caveat emptor. Still, the day I pass up a chance to talk about those pervy ground squirrels...)

An interesting point, but perhaps, as you mention, moot unless you trust the cast's authenticity. I would look at this another way. If we believe the sightings and the PG film, bigfoot is built pretty much like a human (a few proportional issues aside), with a human sort of butt and general stance, but with a lot of fur in places we humans are not traditionally furred. Now I realize from your handle that you cannot likely confirm this in person, but I will suggest that a person of human construction with relatively small testicles would be hard put to leave a print of those in mud even if there is no intervening fur, and even if the mud is very soft, especially from the imaginatively extrapolated posture shown in the drawing posted here. It would be an unlikely event unless the impression were intentional (might we have some ceremonial marking of territory? BF researchers take note: evidence of testicle print rituals!), and almost certainly uncomfortable or downright painful! While I am not experienced in making castings, I would suggest the possibility that mud soft enough to take a testicle print without testicular damage might also be too soft and prone to slumping to make a reliable cast.

So we're left with that, and also a question regarding the intelligence of the supposedly bright and wily squatch. The reports have him taking sticks and beating on trees to communicate, among other things, but when he wants an apple, rather than just picking up a stick and flicking it over, or doing something else suggesting intelligence, he squats down in the muck, despite his already hygienically-challenging hairy butt, pressing his poor beleaguered testicles down so hard they leave a print in clay...OK, if there is a bigfoot, and he is the critter that made that print, and those are testicle prints, I maintain that this implies that he is not very smart!

Skeptical Greg

23rd August 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males.

.......................
Makes sense, the absurdity of the testicle print actually being there notwithstanding... Thanks for taking the time..

There was a hint of science there, after all.. My bad..

casebro

23rd August 2005, 08:56 AM

Clear cripplefoot track:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_images/cripfoot.jpg

Does anybody else see a left hand print (four fingers and a thumb) plus a heel print here?

Easier then carving a 'foot', stick your hand and a heel into plaster, later pour plastic (bondo?) into your mold.....results meant to be sorta gorilla/monkey, with opposed 'big toe'....would work well if you only left prints where they were supposed to fade slightly, like in melting snow.....

UrsulaV

23rd August 2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by bruto
Now I realize from your handle that you cannot likely confirm this in person, but I will suggest that a person of human construction with relatively small testicles would be hard put to leave a print of those in mud even if there is no intervening fur, and even if the mud is very soft, especially from the imaginatively extrapolated posture shown in the drawing posted here.

<grin> Yeah, I've been stayin' out of the likelihood of testicle prints, 'cos...well...yeah. Who'm I to talk? Seems absurd, but for all I know, men's restrooms are full of well defined testicle prints in mud, and nobody bothered to mention it to me.

But hey, if they ever find Bigfoot breast prints anywhere, I'll probably have an opinion!

LTC8K6

24th August 2005, 08:46 AM

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

The back of the heel print is a clear sign of fakery. As is the fact that this looks like Ray Wallace's design. :D

Kenny 10 Bellys

24th August 2005, 04:40 PM

More bloody 'footprints'. Anyone out there got any real evidence? Anything?

Thurkon

24th August 2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
More bloody 'footprints'. Anyone out there got any real evidence? Anything?

What are you talking about, chief??

We've got testicle prints.

We've got elk hair.

We've got Bob Hieronimous in a hairy-breasted monkey suit.

What the heck else do you want?

Ray Wallace clown sandal prints? We've got them too!

Kenny 10 Bellys

24th August 2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon
What are you talking about, chief??

We've got testicle prints.

We've got elk hair.

We've got Bob Hieronimous in a hairy-breasted monkey suit.

What the heck else do you want?

Ray Wallace clown sandal prints? We've got them too!
Well colour me impressed! If I'd known we had evidence of elk hair I'd have never been so defamatory about Sasquatch.

I scoff at the Patterson film, laugh in the face of the footprint that appears to be a hand and heel print combined, but the testicle evidence has me laughing my own huge hairy ass off. That and the very scientific drawing of a broken foot show just how much these people are reading into marks in the dirt/snow for their own ends. We see possible fakery and scuff marks, they see technical details of an imaginary homonid.

LAL

27th August 2005, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Are there are clear (and very deep) indentations that represent both butt cheeks? There should be if there are indentations that represent testicles. I would think that would be more compelling than a supposed heel print.

RayG

See the photo in Murphy's book. The animal repositioned itself, and it looks like there are two cheek prints. The upper print looks rather shallow to me, but there are two oval indents between them. They don't seem deep, so I doubt there was any pain involved. I'm not sure I'm looking at the right thing since there are no circles and arrows to guide me, but that's what I see.

"The sasquatch had apparently walked up to the edge of the puddle, then sat down and leaned its forearm against the mud in order to stretch and extend the other arm out over the water. As it lay on its side and edged toward the puddle, it couldn't avoid leaving a few clear impressions of its ankle, forearm, hip and thigh."

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/context_8.asp

The mud weighed about 100 lbs., to answer my own question.

LAL

27th August 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

The back of the heel print is a clear sign of fakery. As is the fact that this looks like Ray Wallace's design. :D

Huh?

I'm going to mention this on the other thread too, but has it bothered anyone that Wallace had already moved to Washington State when the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were found? The above is from Bluff Creek, and it is clearly not a print that could have been made by a fake. I notice you're ignoring the stride in all this.

Was he commuting over many miles and decades to make these prints with his phony square-toed wooden feet in areas separated by hundreds of miles.? Or was he sending feet to his accomplices throughout the continent?

Oh, I get it. This whole Wallace thing you've gotten stuck on is another one of your jokes. It went right over my head.

WHOOOOOOOOSH!

Reality check:

"September 1, 1998 -somewhere in central Washington- we visit the home of Ray Wallace; known to be a bit of a Bigfoot story-teller: he was working on nearby road crews when the first Big Tracks were found in Bluff Creek, CA. Ray once tried to sell Tom Slick and Peter Byrne a baby Bigfoot in a cage- his asking price in the early â€˜60â€™s- $25,000! On the next day, when the hunters asked for proof before they handed over their cheque, Ray said the baby Bigfoot had gotten a cold and he had to let it go. He once recorded a country and western song about Bigfoot- complete with accompanying Bigfoot screams he said he recorded while it was stuck in a trap heâ€™d set. Now in his â€˜80â€™s Ray was still full of it and he was excited to talk to us. He even offered to sell us film he had taken of two Bigfoot critters "eating crawdaddies down at the crick"- for $100,000! Unfortunately, before we had a chance to set up our cameras- Mrs. Wallace intervened. Sheâ€™s seen a few camera crews set up in her living room over the years and it seemed her taste for the media had somewhat soured. She ordered us out of the house, despite Rayâ€™s protests."

http://www.sasquatchodyssey.com/diary.html

LAL

27th August 2005, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by casebro
Clear cripplefoot track:
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_images/cripfoot.jpg

Does anybody else see a left hand print (four fingers and a thumb) plus a heel print here?

Easier then carving a 'foot', stick your hand and a heel into plaster, later pour plastic (bondo?) into your mold.....results meant to be sorta gorilla/monkey, with opposed 'big toe'....would work well if you only left prints where they were supposed to fade slightly, like in melting snow.....

In the Bigfoot in the Rockies DVD, which features Dr. Meldrum, a fake footprint is made and cast, then sent to him to see if he could spot the fakery. He not only did, he was able to tell how it was made, with knuckle imprints in the toe region.

These guys aren't stupid.

LAL

27th August 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Is it just me, or does the crippled foot switch from the left to the right side in the various stills and videos related to the Bossburg cripplefoot tracks?
Print under cardboard:
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/10_Bossburgkrantz.jpg
>snip<

Note that they threw away critical evidence, blaming it on science.

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

Note that it's Dr. Krantz in the photo examinining the track that was preserved under the box. By that time it was the only survivor. Tracks in snow are really perishable.

If mainstream science wouldn't consider the casts as evidence, why would it pay attention to frozen tracks that may have deteriorated in the freezer?

Do you think the video shows all 1089 tracks that were counted? How can you be sure the track being examined isn't there?

And I don't see any switching. It's the right foot that was crippled and the right footprint that shows the deformity. Possibly some photos have been inadvertently reversed, but I haven't seen this.

There were other casts, which can be seen in a photo on pg. 117 of Meet the Sasquatch. There's also a photo of one in mud and a shot of the scene near the dump where the first tracks were found. The differences in the casts are obvious. They show a great degre of flexibility, which makes the fake foot idea even less likely.

LAL

27th August 2005, 10:02 AM

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-2-1107477200.gif

Wallace casts.

Jimmy Chilcutt thought the 13" prints from Onion Mountain showed dermal ridges that matched the pattern of other alleged sasquatch tracks and showed signs that they were made with a flexible foot because the foot indentations showed pushing inside the track instead of a straight ledge. That's nothing to do with artifacts.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=180

RayG

27th August 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by LAL
[B]See the photo in Murphy's book. The animal repositioned itself, and it looks like there are two cheek prints. The upper print looks rather shallow to me, but there are two oval indents between them. They don't seem deep, so I doubt there was any pain involved. I'm not sure I'm looking at the right thing since there are no circles and arrows to guide me, but that's what I see.

I don't have Murphy's book, and I haven't seen the Skookum cast in person, but logically it would seem that if there are imprints that are being identified as testicle prints, there should also be clear imprints of butt cheeks. Deep imprints of butt cheeks, as the weight for the butt would be far greater than the weight for the testicles.

RayG

LTC8K6

27th August 2005, 11:54 PM

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

Well, I am not sure why Lu thinks Ray wasn't near Bluff creek when this print was made. The print is supposed to be from Patty, as far as I know.

At any rate, I think I have posted the exact way the print was made in the other thread.

It certainly could have been hoaxed, and I believe it was.

Midtarsal break and all.

I think it was done easily, in fact.

LTC8K6

28th August 2005, 12:01 AM

Note that it's Dr. Krantz in the photo examinining the track that was preserved under the box. By that time it was the only survivor. Tracks in snow are really perishable.

I believe Lu is incorrect here. The print under the cardboard was one of the earlier cripplefoot tracks.

The trail of ~1,000 or so were seperate, and discovered days later.

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

Since it is obviously Krantz in the photo, I am again mystified why Lu feels the need to point that out.

If one had never seen Krantz, it is still obvious that it is Krantz in the photo.

LTC8K6

28th August 2005, 03:20 AM

I think I am really done with this topic.

I have satisfied myself that the "pressure ridge print" made by Patty is fake. It was easily faked too, I believe, and I think it is obvious.

So, I have also moved to the opinion that the P/G film is bogus.

LAL

28th August 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I believe Lu is incorrect here. The print under the cardboard was one of the earlier cripplefoot tracks.

The trail of ~1,000 or so were seperate, and discovered days later.

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

Since it is obviously Krantz in the photo, I am again mystified why Lu feels the need to point that out.

If one had never seen Krantz, it is still obvious that it is Krantz in the photo.

The tracks by the dump were investigated weeks, not days, earlier and two cast by Ivan Marx. Those are the casts in the photos that have been posted here.

Krantz became interested after seeing news stories and decided to investigate. This was the first time he met Green, Marx and Dahinden. John uncovered the last of many footprints for him that had been saved for such a situation.

I've mentioned Krantz had examined tracks in situ. That's a photo of him doing exactly that. He even measured the 44" fence. Of course, if you'd read Krantz you wouldn't have made such mistakes and you wouldn't have made it quite so evident you don't know what you're talking about. All the tracks were all from the same individual.

I'm trying to help you out here, really, but you just ramble on........

RayG

28th August 2005, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by LAL
The tracks by the dump were investigated weeks, not days, earlier and two cast by Ivan Marx.

Ivan Marx? Not one of the more trustworthy names to use when discussing bigfoot.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/lasting.html
They are grandsons of Ivan Marx, one of the more well-known â€” and controversial â€” Bigfoot hunters of decades past.

Marx died five years ago, and many believe his stories were no more than tall tales. Very tall tales â€” Bigfoot, after all, is supposedly up to 9 feet tall.

Marx, a hunting guide whose family has lived in Burney for nearly 50 years, announced in 1970 that he had caught Bigfoot on film in Washington state. He boldly stated that he would capture one live within a year.

Six months later, the film was deemed a hoax. A fellow Bigfoot hunter argued the alleged animal was a man dressed in fur.

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/081305/081305_shns_bigfoot.html
[John] Green's skepticism is rooted in the fact that Biscardi has ties to Ivan Marx, a Burney hunting guide who claimed to catch Bigfoot on film in 1970. The film was later deemed a hoax.

http://www.citypages.com/movies/detail.asp?MID=5501
...The Legend of Bigfoot, a priceless piece of faux-anthropological malarkey by lifelong Bigfoot cheapjack Ivan Marx (who, legend has it, got his wife to don a gorilla suit for the film's "sightings")...

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm
...it helps to know the history of the Cripple footprint. Over a thousand tracks were discovered in November and December 1969, near Bossburg, Washington. One pair of footprints were cast. This set, including the right "crippled" foot, is the basis for Krantz's statement that it would be impossible to hoax. Many Bigfoot researchers are not so sure. At the heart of the story is Ivan Marx. Marx participated in the Tom Slick Bigfoot expedition in northern California (1958-1962).

After termination of the search Marx moved to Bossburg. He was living there when the tracks began to appear. Although he did not discover any tracks, he was closely associated with several discoveries. Dahinden maintains that the tracks are worthy of consideration. In Sasquatch (Hunter and Dahinden 1975: 156), he says he was suspicious of the circumstances. "Why," he writes, "did the tracks happen to be just there, where (I) would be sure to go every day, where (I) checked all the time. Suspicions increased when no additional legitimate evidence surfaced despite the obvious repeat presence of the creature. After the Bossburg incident, Marx produced a film of what he said was a large Sasquatch creature. The first film was followed by several more, and his credibility suffered.

The Marx films have failed to gain any significant acceptance within the Bigfoot community. Even Krantz rejects the Marx films. Writing to Dahinden in May 1975, Krantz (1975) says: "You are right about my falling for the Marx film, for a while anyway."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/cripplefoot.html
Ivan Marx, a longtime Bigfoot hunter, was living in Bossburg at the time the tracks began to appear and eventually shot a film of the crippled Sasquatch. It is universally regarded as a hoax even among the staunchest Bigfoot advocates, though no one has specifically settled on who should receive proper credit for the fraud. The allegation of Hunter and Dahinden (1973, 170) that Marx was seen purchasing a number of furs in Spokane before the film was made was also not encouraging to the core of potential believers.

Originally posted by LAL
Krantz became interested after seeing news stories and decided to investigate. This was the first time he met Green, Marx and Dahinden. John uncovered the last of many footprints for him that had been saved for such a situation.

Krantz indicates (page 43 of Big Footprints) that by the time he got to the site, ALL the footprints were gone except the one that was covered.

He states: "All except the one covered footprint were gone when I examined the site. But with photographs to study, and good verbal directions to follow, I was able to locate a well-built fence that had been crossed by the line of footprints with scarcely a break in stride."

I've mentioned Krantz had examined tracks in situ. That's a photo of him doing exactly that.

According to Krantz, it's only a single track, not tracks.

He even measured the 44" fence.

But there were no tracks leading up to or crossing the fence, and he instead relied upon photographs and verbal directions. Was the fence of uniform height in every location? Is it possible that Krantz measured the fence at the wrong location?

Of course, if you'd read Krantz you wouldn't have made such mistakes and you wouldn't have made it quite so evident you don't know what you're talking about. All the tracks were all from the same individual.

But Krantz has admitted to only examining a single track, and it was the ONLY track still there when he arrived.

RayG

LTC8K6

28th August 2005, 11:25 PM

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

I remain of this opinion, RayG.

I don't think Krantz ever saw a cripplefoot track at all.

The track in the photo under the cardboard looks nothing like cripplefoot to me.

The evidence that cripplefoot is a hoax is surprisingly strong. I am surprised that the track is held in such high regard by bigfoot researchers.

The fact that cripplefoot's good foot is obviously just an enlarged human foot seals the deal for me.

LTC8K6

28th August 2005, 11:31 PM

He even measured the 44" fence.

In the tradition of Lu's nitpicking, the fence was 43" up until now. :D

LTC8K6

28th August 2005, 11:32 PM

I forgot to mention the biggest problem of all.

The cripplefoot cast does not match the clear cripplefoot print in the snow.

So where was the cripplefoot cast taken from?

RayG

29th August 2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I remain of this opinion, RayG.

I don't think Krantz ever saw a cripplefoot track at all.

The track in the photo under the cardboard looks nothing like cripplefoot to me.

Too late to ask him now. In his book he mentions viewing a single track but I see no mention of a detailed examination of that track. Instead, he goes into great detail about examining copies of casts that were made for him.

The evidence that cripplefoot is a hoax is surprisingly strong. I am surprised that the track is held in such high regard by bigfoot researchers.

Not all bigfoot enthusiasts hold the tracks in high regard. In Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, John Green devotes an entire chapter to Ivan Marx, detailing what a character Ivan was. The chapter mentions the Bossburg tracks a number of times, and Ivan's involvement in the incident.

Some Green quotes from the chapter:

"In this field, as in others, some people will go to lengths other people can't imagine to set the scene for things that were never there at all.

Please note that I do not say that Ivan faked that film, or the one of the white sasquatch in the snowstorm, or any other he has since then or may in the future emerge with. It is my considered opinion that the creature the film shows is a person dressed in black fur, and I iknow of nothing but Ivan's statement indicating that it is not... As to the hand prints, the crippled prints and the even-larger footprints, I am also skeptical, but not to an equal degree with regard to each....

I tend now to write off the whole Bossburg episode to entertainment."

RayG

LTC8K6

29th August 2005, 09:18 AM

Krantz came up with that whole skeleton drawing and theory of how the foot was constructed without ever seeing any cripplefoot tracks.

Incredible that this passes for reliable scientific effort.

We aren't sure about anything at Bossburg except that one clear print photo, and that doesn't match the drawings, casts, or descriptions of cripplefoot's foot.

There are no cripplefoot tracks in the video as far as I can tell. Certainly none that resemble the photo.

We have known hoaxers in the area as well.

I don't know how anyone can expect me to take this seriously.

The believers only tell you very narrow and specific parts of the story, it seems. You can't read their books to get at the truth, either. It's clear that the books leave out anything inconvenient. You can't watch their DVD's, because they are just propaganda exercises.

You can't even look at the P/G film because you don't know if it is the original film, and you can't really get a look at the whole film. You don't know if you are looking at a cleaned up version. You can only see the bits they allow you to see, in the version they allow you to see.

You have to dig and dig and dig to finally get to the meat.

Only to find there really is no meat.

RayG

29th August 2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I forgot to mention the biggest problem of all.

The cripplefoot cast does not match the clear cripplefoot print in the snow.

So where was the cripplefoot cast taken from?

Yeah, they don't seem to match very well. The description:

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.

doesn't seem to match the photo of the footprint in snow.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_images/cripfoot.jpg

A side-by-side comparison is another mismatch.

RayG

RayG

29th August 2005, 09:38 AM

When looking at the photo, it's hard not to visualize these as the toes: (which would account for the badly twisted or missing third toe)

RayG

LTC8K6

29th August 2005, 09:39 AM

Evidently there were 2 crippled sasquatch in Bossburg, since we have 2 different tracks.

It was a wire fence anyway. Easy to bend down the top strand and step over. No one would think to do that, though......

Whatever had made them had stepped over a forty-three-inch-high, five-strand wire fence, judging by the single prints of the left and the right feet on either side of the fence.

LTC8K6

29th August 2005, 09:42 AM

When looking at the photo, it's hard not to visualize these as the toes:

Yep, that's what most folks would call the toes.

Even if the say #5 is the first bunionette, it is way closer to the toes than in the cast.

RayG

29th August 2005, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Evidently there were 2 crippled sasquatch in Bossburg, since we have 2 different tracks.

It was a wire fence anyway. Easy to bend down the top strand and step over. No one would think to do that, though......

Whatever had made them had stepped over a forty-three-inch-high, five-strand wire fence, judging by the single prints of the left and the right feet on either side of the fence.

Krantz indicates (page 43), "The top barbed wire was 44 inches (1.1m) above the ground and strung tightly. By pressing my thumbs firmly down I could push it maybe two inches lower, then lifted one leg over. I am a tall man -- 6 feet 3 inches, or 189 cm -- but it was quite impossible to place my foot down on the other side."

Somewhat puzzling is how he was able to "locate a well-built fence that had been crossed by the line of footprints with scarcely a break in stride."

Yet he admits all the footprints except one were gone. Were there, or were there not, footprints to follow?

RayG

LTC8K6

29th August 2005, 10:07 AM

How did Dahinden get over the fence? He had to have gone over it 30 or 40 times himself.

He walked the route of the tracks seven times, examining every print, puzzling over them.

The trail went back and forth over the fence several times.

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

LTC8K6

29th August 2005, 10:12 AM

Krantz also suffered persistent heckling from Dahinden, who despised his view that a corpse of Sasquatch was needed to satisfy the scientific community. He also felt Krantzâ€™s endorsement of the 1967 Patterson film was worthless: "He never went and examined the filming site," he told me. "In fact, he never researches the stories people tell him, he never compares notes with other trackers and never spends any time in the bush."

For his part, Green suspects the crippled prints are bogus. "Grover is a good friend of mine, but he was born gullible," he laughs. "The fact that Ivan Marx was present at Bossburg is enough to throw everything into doubt." Marx was a Californian hoaxter who regularly filmed "authentic" Sasquatchesâ€”with buckling fur and feet flapping like a circus clownâ€™sâ€”and sold the footage. Marx made his first movie in Bossburg while Dahinden was tracking the crippled prints, and had been seen in a Spokane store buying considerable quantities of fur. Says Green: "I was always fascinating that RenÃ© would tear into Grover about every last thingâ€”except the crippled prints."

http://www.vancourier.com/issues01/07101/news/07101N1.html

Thurkon

30th August 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Krantz also suffered persistent heckling from Dahinden, who despised his view that a corpse of Sasquatch was needed to satisfy the scientific community. He also felt Krantzâ€™s endorsement of the 1967 Patterson film was worthless: "He never went and examined the filming site," he told me. "In fact, he never researches the stories people tell him, he never compares notes with other trackers and never spends any time in the bush."

For his part, Green suspects the crippled prints are bogus. "Grover is a good friend of mine, but he was born gullible," he laughs. "The fact that Ivan Marx was present at Bossburg is enough to throw everything into doubt." Marx was a Californian hoaxter who regularly filmed "authentic" Sasquatchesâ€”with buckling fur and feet flapping like a circus clownâ€™sâ€”and sold the footage. Marx made his first movie in Bossburg while Dahinden was tracking the crippled prints, and had been seen in a Spokane store buying considerable quantities of fur. Says Green: "I was always fascinating that RenÃ© would tear into Grover about every last thingâ€”except the crippled prints."

I like how the "experts" constantly quoted by Footers can't even agree about the solid "evidence" even amongst themselves.

Krantz is gullible? He doesn't research the stories people tell him? Yeah, I'll read Krantz. Sounds like a reliable guy.

William Parcher

30th August 2005, 03:08 PM

So Lu, do you have any plans concerning your participation in this forum?

The 3 Bigfoot threads here now total over 2040 postings. That is mostly because of you. Yet, Bigfoot is now no more real than if there were not a single thread on the topic. Are you running a tribute to Krantz. That man wrote many hundreds of pages on Bigfoot. You are running many hundreds of postings. Do you possibly think that quantity of words and references to Bigfoot could serve as some sort of surrogate for the animal itself?

Will you eventually move on to another forum to proselytize Bigfoot, or stay here to slog out another 1000 posts? Do you feel that you are on a kind of righteous misson?

From one atheist to another, does this seem to you like it is coming from within your "soul"?

William Parcher

30th August 2005, 05:50 PM

I just noticed that on Bigfoot Forums (BFF), LAL has a total of 599 postings. Here on JREF, she has 851 posts. Lu, is this forum more compelling for discussion than being among the "true believers"? You have blitzed messages here, but have said comparatively little among the brethren. Is it because hardly anyone over there argues against Bigfoot?

RayG, you have 2066 postings over there on BFF. I guess Bigfoot deserves lots of talkin' on that forum.

Ray, it's obvious that Lu is convinced that Bigfoot exists. What are your feelings about the gigantic, smelly, North American bipedal ape?

William Parcher

30th August 2005, 07:27 PM

"The first thing you learn about Bigfoot is that they have big feet. I drew in the bones so that you would know where the bones are that I drew in. Those are the bones." Dr. Grover Krantz PhD

http://www.goodbyemag.com/jan02/krantz.jpg

"Look, I wasn't kidding when I said they have big feet. This is a Bigfoot big foot. We call this individual Raggedfoot. A Bigfoot colleague suggested that the injuries may have been caused by a scuffle with a member of a remnant population of saber-toothed cat. Because I am a scientist, I replied that only further research and measurement could decide on the factuality of that claim." Dr. Grover Krantz PhD

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/10_Krantz_FP.jpg

Here Dr. Grover Krantz PhD demonstrates the so-called 'Patty Walk' shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film. "Notice the bottom of my foot sticking up like this. Patty stuck her foot up when she stuck her foot up. Bigfoot does this and humans don't. Some may call this a 'Grouchopliant Python Walk'. You can also see that I can't make myself look like Bigfoot no matter how much I try. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If the walk doesn't work, any scoftic must be a jerk."

"Woo!" Chimpanzee (a primate known to science).

"Woo!" Dr. Jane Goodall PhD (a primate known to science).

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/biology/photo4.jpg

RayG

30th August 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Is it because hardly anyone over there argues against Bigfoot?

Not at all. There are a bunch of folks that take a skeptical approach. I believe I'm one of them. Do I come out and say squatch is impossible? No, but I don't believe the evidence is strong enough for anything more than further investigation. If you actually read some of my posts (ok, a lot of my posts) you'll certainly see a skeptical spin to them. It's no secret. In fact, if you look at the thread on critical thinking (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4948&st=0&hl=critical+thinking) over there, you'll see I contributed the majority of posts/material/sources.

RayG, you have 2066 postings over there on BFF. I guess Bigfoot deserves lots of talkin' on that forum.

I find it an interesting subject and have had that interest for almost 30 years.

I'm also one of the few BFF board members that seem to be unimpressed with the Skookum cast. I don't believe it to be hoaxed, but I don't see any evidence that it was created by a bigfoot either.

I have been highly critical of the BFRO, in numerous posts, regarding the so-called 'scientific' manner in which they research the subject. No researcher or group is sacred, and I think my posts reflect that.

I have argued against polygraphs, dowsing, talking apes, the reliability of eyewitnesses, IM indexes of the Patterson subject, Fahrenbach hair determinations, and a host of other subjects/topics.

I like to think I've posted in a reasonable manner both there and here.

Ray, it's obvious that Lu is convinced that Bigfoot exists. What are your feelings about the gigantic, smelly, North American bipedal ape?

I don't 'believe' in bigfoot per se, but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility that bigfoot exists. You also won't see me proclaiming it exists based on the evidence to date.

Oh, and I've said a few times that IF bigfoot exists, it's no more paranormal than my cat.

RayG

Kenny 10 Bellys

31st August 2005, 01:38 PM

I have this funny feeling that all cats are somewhat paranormal. At least they treat you like a lodger in your own home, and I find that slightly freaky.

Anyway, I have to say I agree completely with RayG. Come up with some solid evidence and we'll be convinced, keep ranting on and making stuff up and you impress no one. For all we know there may be some form of fauna that explains the bigfoot phenomenon, but since it's highly unlikely and all the real evidence is against it then we have to take what believers say with a pinch of salt. The fact that they can actually be classed as 'believers' on the strength of such flimsy evidence says a lot about them.

LTC8K6

1st September 2005, 06:36 AM

Chimpanzee fossils found.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil. The modest haul of just three teeth is the first hard evidence of the evolutionary path that led to today's chimpanzees.

As well as shedding light on chimps, the find throws up new questions about human evolution; it seems that chimpanzees may not have been physically separated from humans as was once thought.

Correa Neto

2nd September 2005, 05:02 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4201180.stm

Estimated number of specimens- less than 60, across the whole Asia. And yet, caught by remote cameras in good sharp pictures.

Meanwhile, in North America, something between 1400 and 2000 3-m high apes elude cameras, traps, etc.

Oh, I forgot, the ultrassound stuff, they destroy cameras, etc.

:bs:

Bronze Dog

2nd September 2005, 07:25 PM

LAL

4th September 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Thurkon
I like how the "experts" constantly quoted by Footers can't even agree about the solid "evidence" even amongst themselves.

Krantz is gullible? He doesn't research the stories people tell him? Yeah, I'll read Krantz. Sounds like a reliable guy.

Green was taken in by Marx's fake photos at first. He considers anything to do with Marx tainted, but the Bossburg tracks have held up as some of the best evidence despite Marx' antics.

It would be nice to know exactly which stories Krantz didn't research. In his book he concentrates on things like the casts, dermal ridges, sweat pores, and the Patterson film, with measurements and a method for calculating the weight.

Regarding stories, he says this on pg. 245:

"Media exposure also draws in many vague reports of no value, as well as contacts from the lunatic fringe that I can do without. I am becoming increasingly impatient with the nut cases. Years ago I listened patiently to a woman who told me about the twenty- foot tall man she saw with handsome, clean-shaven features. Later, when a young man told me that sasquatch visited him often and even sat on his bed, I told him he was imagining it. I said the same to the man who assured me that he saw a sasquatch driving a car. I was downright rude to the most recent caller who is experimenting contacting sasquatch spirits by 'channelling'. Another whole book could be written about the opinions and antics of the lunatic fringe."

Does that sound like he was gullible? Or should he have researched stories such as those?

Yes, you should read him just to get an idea of what he was really like rather than just taking the word of someone seeking to discredit his research.

LAL

4th September 2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4201180.stm

Estimated number of specimens- less than 60, across the whole Asia. And yet, caught by remote cameras in good sharp pictures.

Meanwhile, in North America, something between 1400 and 2000 3-m high apes elude cameras, traps, etc.

Oh, I forgot, the ultrassound stuff, they destroy cameras, etc.

:bs:

Ultrasound? You mean infrared? Bipto speculated about that in an interview with Green. I don't know that anyone's accepting that as fact. What about other nocturnal animals? Can any of them sense, or even see, infrared?

Something has tampered with cameras at times; I don't know about destroyed.

It's amazing what a team of conservationists and scientists can accomplish just since 2001 with a known species in open terrain, isn't it? Maybe they'd like to help out over here.

LAL

4th September 2005, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Chimpanzee fossils found.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Chimpanzee fossils found.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

Interesting. Thanks. Helps to have someone on a dig in fossil-bearing strata, doesn't it?

The statement can now be revised to "No gorilla fossils and only three chimpanzee teeth".

"Part of the problem, McBrearty explains, is that chimps tend to live in hot, wet jungle conditions that are not good for the preservation of remains. Humans, on the other hand, are thought to have lived for millennia on the savannah, where bones are less likely to rot."

And:

"McBrearty suspects that although there may have been more chimps living in the jungles of western Africa, there are probably more fossils in the dry eastern savannah. It's just that "no one was looking for them" she says."

Kenny 10 Bellys

4th September 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by LAL It's amazing what a team of conservationists and scientists can accomplish just since 2001 with a known species in open terrain, isn't it? Maybe they'd like to help out over here.
Dont you think they would, if they thought there was something there? If there was a very real possibility of an unknown and major species to be discovered then I'm quite sure you couldn't keep them away, but since all there is to go on is one rather fake looking film and a worldwide legend about bogeymen to keep kids from wandering off into the woods, well I wouldn't make any expensive travel plans either.

You are at some point going to have to face up to the fact that there in no hard evidence whatsoever for this creature you think inhabits forests and mountains worldwide in numbers that would make them hard to miss. Analyzing tracks and dodgy film to the n'th degree doesn't make it any more real, what it does it divert good people from worthwhile work like saving those damn cheetas.

TjW

4th September 2005, 09:05 AM

You are at some point going to have to face up to the fact that there in no hard evidence whatsoever for this creature you think inhabits forests and mountains worldwide in numbers that would make them hard to miss. Analyzing tracks and dodgy film to the n'th degree doesn't make it any more real, what it does it divert good people from worthwhile work like saving those damn cheetas.

They can't save them. Haven't they ever heard the old adage:
"Cheetahs never prosper".

bruto

4th September 2005, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Green was taken in by Marx's fake photos at first. He considers anything to do with Marx tainted, but the Bossburg tracks have held up as some of the best evidence despite Marx' antics.

It would be nice to know exactly which stories Krantz didn't research. In his book he concentrates on things like the casts, dermal ridges, sweat pores, and the Patterson film, with measurements and a method for calculating the weight.

Regarding stories, he says this on pg. 245:

"Media exposure also draws in many vague reports of no value, as well as contacts from the lunatic fringe that I can do without. I am becoming increasingly impatient with the nut cases. Years ago I listened patiently to a woman who told me about the twenty- foot tall man she saw with handsome, clean-shaven features. Later, when a young man told me that sasquatch visited him often and even sat on his bed, I told him he was imagining it. I said the same to the man who assured me that he saw a sasquatch driving a car. I was downright rude to the most recent caller who is experimenting contacting sasquatch spirits by 'channelling'. Another whole book could be written about the opinions and antics of the lunatic fringe."

Does that sound like he was gullible? Or should he have researched stories such as those?

Yes, you should read him just to get an idea of what he was really like rather than just taking the word of someone seeking to discredit his research.

The fact that Krantz was not so gullible as to accept outrageously silly stories does not, unfortunately, guarantee that he was able to detect well implemented hoaxes. Krantz deserves some credit for trying to filter out nonsense, but being harder to fool than some may not be enough if someone is trying hard enough to fool you.

From what I've read, the main reason Krantz and others have accepted the prints is not that they believed it entirely impossible to fabricate such prints, but that they believed the likelihood of such an elaborate hoax to be less than the likelihood of a sasquatch. This remains arguable, I think, whatever you might believe with regard to the actual existence of sasquatches, especially given the presence in the area at the time of such a notorious and persistent hoaxer as Marx.

It may have been hard for an honest man like Krantz to understand the motivation for a truly elaborate and dedicated hoax, but unfortunately, there seem to be a few people who will go to incredible lengths to perpetrate fraud, even when the rewards seem trivial, and his incredulity is not enough for me at least.

LAL

4th September 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
So Lu, do you have any plans concerning your participation in this forum?

The 3 Bigfoot threads here now total over 2040 postings. That is mostly because of you.

Note I started none of them. I may continue to post when I have the time and interest, but if I take a few days off to take care of other matters, don't assume you've succeeded in running me off the board.

Yet, Bigfoot is now no more real than if there were not a single thread on the topic.

Your opinion. There are many who would disagree with that statement.

Are you running a tribute to Krantz. That man wrote many hundreds of pages on Bigfoot. You are running many hundreds of postings. Do you possibly think that quantity of words and references to Bigfoot could serve as some sort of surrogate for the animal itself?

I think that interested parties might want to read up on some of the only real research that's been done on this. I expect Meldrum's book will be better, but it's not out yet. Murphy has the best pictures and is a good place to start, especially for those who might find Krantz too technical. I've shown my copy of LMS to a sceptical pair of friends and am now having to talk them out of an expedition to try to shoot one with a camcorder on the Tennessee border during a trip that is to last one to three nights. If I were such an evangelist, don't you think I'd be right out there with them roasting the hot dogs?

Will you eventually move on to another forum to proselytize Bigfoot, or stay here to slog out another 1000 posts? Do you feel that you are on a kind of righteous misson?

I don't know where you get the idea I'm proselytizing. I'm appalled at some of the misinformation I've encountered, largely due to media hoopla over Wallace and Heironimus. I thought I'd left all this behind in Skamania County, where I listened to people who'd had experiences with this, but my interest was revived partly because of debates on Creationism vs. Evolution boards when someone would make some disparaging remark about people who "believe in Bigfoot, UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster".

I got really burned out on CvE after two years of it on three boards, although we got into everything from abiogensis to the speed of light. I was pointed to this board by a member I know in real life after the topic came up at an atheist meet-up. She used to live in Washington State. Another member of the group has a sister who saw one while on a camping trip in Washington, so, yes, the topic has come up in real life from time to time. This is one of many things I'm interested in. I haven't figured out why people don't call me "obsessed" when I talk about art or history or organic brain syndromes instead.

I've recently joined a board run by a researcher and haven't even posted on it. I just read that one.

From one atheist to another, does this seem to you like it is coming from within your "soul"?

No, I've been led to my conclusions by the evidence. I don't have a "soul". I really hope your efforts to portray me as an idiot aren't convincing anyone.

LAL

4th September 2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by bruto
The fact that Krantz was not so gullible as to accept outrageously silly stories does not, unfortunately, guarantee that he was able to detect well implemented hoaxes. Krantz deserves some credit for trying to filter out nonsense, but being harder to fool than some may not be enough if someone is trying hard enough to fool you.

From what I've read, the main reason Krantz and others have accepted the prints is not that they believed it entirely impossible to fabricate such prints, but that they believed the likelihood of such an elaborate hoax to be less than the likelihood of a sasquatch. This remains arguable, I think, whatever you might believe with regard to the actual existence of sasquatches, especially given the presence in the area at the time of such a notorious and persistent hoaxer as Marx.

It may have been hard for an honest man like Krantz to understand the motivation for a truly elaborate and dedicated hoax, but unfortunately, there seem to be a few people who will go to incredible lengths to perpetrate fraud, even when the rewards seem trivial, and his incredulity is not enough for me at least.

He wasn't the only investigator on this. Have you bothered to read the book? It's not based on "stories". The typical hoaxer merely enlarges his own foot; Krantz was struck by adaptations for great weight in a primate inhabiting mountainous areas. He didn't think it likely that a hoaxer would have that kind of detailed knowlege. Read the book. It's interesting.

The Bossburg tracks were one of thousands of track events. There are casts nearly fifty years old. There are tracks from last spring. Isn't it a stretch of the imagination to think that hoaxers get to the high Sierras and remote mountains in B.C. to somehow lay down trackways just to fool people who don't know themselves where they are going? Do you really believe there are thousands of people running around in gorilla suits appearing to be 8' tall just to fool unwary campers and motorists? Who was doing the hoaxing before the coming of the white man?

Marx was called in after the first Bossburg tracks were found because of his known interest. He started faking films when interest was dying down in order to "kind of keep things going" (and possibly to continue to stay on the payroll). Cliff Crook has pulled similar stunts. Freeman may have done some fakery too, out of frustration, yet some of his evidence is compelling. Byrne, who exposed Marx, has been accused of being a fraud (by Green). And so it goes.

The evidence speaks for itself, and to try to throw it all out just because some over-zealous "researcher" went too far is some of that "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" Meldrum speaks of.

Some others who've taken an interest:

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans (zoologist, France)
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (research scientist, Oregon Regional Primate Center)
Dr. John Napier (primatologist, University of London)
Dr. Frank E. Poirier (paleoanthropologist/primatologist, Ohio State University)
Dr. John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist, former wildlife advisor for United Nations)
Dr. D. W. Grieve (anatomist, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London)
Dr. John Bodley (anthropologist, Washington State University)
Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy (biomechanics, Russia)
Dr. Robert Pyle (ecologist,Yale University alumnus)
Dr. J. Richard Greenwell (mammalogist, International Wildlife Museum, Tucson)
Dr. William Montagna (primatologist, Regional Primate Research Center)
Valentin B. Sapunov (biologist, Leningrad State Univeristy, Russia)
Vladimir Markotic (physical anthropologist, University of Calgary)
Jeff Glickman (computer scientist, North American Science Institute)
Dmitri Bayanov (hominologist, Darwin Museum, Russia)
Jim Hewkin (wildlife biologist, formerly with Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)
Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffman, aka Dr. Zh. I Kofman (scientist, Russia)
Dr. R. Lynn Kirlin (professor, University of Wyoming)
Dr. William Saxe Wihr (department of anthropology, Portland Community College)
Dr. LeRoy Fish (wildlife ecologist, retired)

Krantz was not alone.

LAL

4th September 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
"The first thing you learn about Bigfoot is that they have big feet. I drew in the bones so that you would know where the bones are that I drew in. Those are the bones." Dr. Grover Krantz PhD

"Look, I wasn't kidding when I said they have big feet. This is a Bigfoot big foot. We call this individual Raggedfoot. A Bigfoot colleague suggested that the injuries may have been caused by a scuffle with a member of a remnant population of saber-toothed cat. Because I am a scientist, I replied that only further research and measurement could decide on the factuality of that claim." Dr. Grover Krantz PhD

Here Dr. Grover Krantz PhD demonstrates the so-called 'Patty Walk' shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film. "Notice the bottom of my foot sticking up like this. Patty stuck her foot up when she stuck her foot up. Bigfoot does this and humans don't. Some may call this a 'Grouchopliant Python Walk'. You can also see that I can't make myself look like Bigfoot no matter how much I try. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. If the walk doesn't work, any scoftic must be a jerk."

"Woo!" Chimpanzee (a primate known to science).

"Woo!" Dr. Jane Goodall PhD (a primate known to science).

You might want to post your links. Some newbie might think the "quotes" are real, rather than just another of your lame attempts to discredit the effort with what seems to pass as humor on this board.

LAL

4th September 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I forgot to mention the biggest problem of all.

The cripplefoot cast does not match the clear cripplefoot print in the snow.

So where was the cripplefoot cast taken from?

Near the dump. There was a pair. The cast matches the photo except that one toe apparently didn't leave a print.

You are way off track here (pun intended).

At the spot Krantz measured the fence was 44". 43" could be at a slightly different spot or a reporting error. Fences do vary in height along their length, you know.

LAL

4th September 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Evidently there were 2 crippled sasquatch in Bossburg, since we have 2 different tracks.

You haven't come close to showing that.

It was a wire fence anyway. Easy to bend down the top strand and step over. No one would think to do that, though......

That's shown in Bigfoot in the Rockies, in fact, in connection with a sighting of one stepping over a barbed wire fence. It was possible to calculate height from that. What makes you think no one would think of it?

LAL

4th September 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by William Parcher
I just noticed that on Bigfoot Forums (BFF), LAL has a total of 599 postings. Here on JREF, she has 851 posts. Lu, is this forum more compelling for discussion than being among the "true believers"? You have blitzed messages here, but have said comparatively little among the brethren. Is it because hardly anyone over there argues against Bigfoot?

I've subscribed to 189 threads on BFF in a little over a year ( I lurked for a few months before joining). I haven't posted on some of them at all, but I've been in some heated debates on the Bossburg tracks (which see), Paul Freeman and the Minnesota Iceman. I notice some of my posts on just the first page of "all posts by this member" had 11,466 views. I'm glad to know that so many people are taking an interest and that membership on that board has increased by over 1600 just since I joined.

I take it you noted the number of my posts but didn't read them?

Kenny 10 Bellys

4th September 2005, 11:30 AM

But there is nothing even remotely resembling hard evidence for this creature! Nothing! Trying to drown out that crystal clear fact isn't going to make it go away.

LAL

4th September 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Ivan Marx? Not one of the more trustworthy names to use when discussing bigfoot.

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

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/081305/081305_shns_bigfoot.html

http://www.citypages.com/movies/detail.asp?MID=5501

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm

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

Krantz indicates (page 43 of Big Footprints) that by the time he got to the site, ALL the footprints were gone except the one that was covered.

He states: "All except the one covered footprint were gone when I examined the site. But with photographs to study, and good verbal directions to follow, I was able to locate a well-built fence that had been crossed by the line of footprints with scarcely a break in stride."

According to Krantz, it's only a single track, not tracks.

But there were no tracks leading up to or crossing the fence, and he instead relied upon photographs and verbal directions. Was the fence of uniform height in every location? Is it possible that Krantz measured the fence at the wrong location?

I'm not worried about a 1" variation in the height of the fence. It's pretty hard to find a barbed wire.....'scuse me....bobwire fence that's uniform anywhere.

But Krantz has admitted to only examining a single track, and it was the ONLY track still there when he arrived.

RayG

My first debate on BFF was on this topic, including Ivan Marx. Did you miss it? I got cheers and casts out of it. I'm really proud of that. Here's part of it:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6796&st=80&#entry141992entry141992

Krantz examined other tracks in situ, not just the one near Bossburg. I should have made that clear. Sorry.

Dahinden despised Krantz, but he never challenged him on the Bossburg tracks.

LAL

4th September 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by RayG
When looking at the photo, it's hard not to visualize these as the toes: (which would account for the badly twisted or missing third toe)

RayG

It's the third toe that's not printing. You can see the gap in the photo. The "fifth" toe you've labled is actually one of the bunionettes. The little toe is where it should be.

LAL

4th September 2005, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I have this funny feeling that all cats are somewhat paranormal. At least they treat you like a lodger in your own home, and I find that slightly freaky.

Anyway, I have to say I agree completely with RayG. Come up with some solid evidence and we'll be convinced, keep ranting on and making stuff up and you impress no one. For all we know there may be some form of fauna that explains the bigfoot phenomenon, but since it's highly unlikely and all the real evidence is against it then we have to take what believers say with a pinch of salt. The fact that they can actually be classed as 'believers' on the strength of such flimsy evidence says a lot about them.

And who classes them as "believers"? Daegling? That says more about him than it does the people he attempts to discredit.

There is solid evidence, just not a body yet. I love how posters denigrate the evidence and then admit they haven't seen any of it.

You can't be talking to me, though. I don't rant and I don't make stuff up.

LAL

4th September 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

Well, I am not sure why Lu thinks Ray wasn't near Bluff creek when this print was made. The print is supposed to be from Patty, as far as I know.

At any rate, I think I have posted the exact way the print was made in the other thread.

You did nothing of the kind. You claim it's a fake as though that's a fact, but you seem to be so hooked on your hoax hypothesis you can't begin to see the obvious, that the animal in the film left the trackway. It was a trackway, not a single track.

It certainly could have been hoaxed, and I believe it was.

Midtarsal break and all.

I think it was done easily, in fact.

Ray claimed he told Patterson where to look. In light of his other tall tales, why believe even that? He tried to cash in on the work of others, but other than lying and faking some pictures and casts to sell to tourists, he did nothing. There is no way to get a midtarsal bend with a rigid wooden foot, let alone articulating toes.

There is nothing to link him to the Patterson film or that trackway except idle speculation. Patterson and Gimlin were there. Wallace and Heironimus were not.

"Could have been hoaxed" does not mean it was. If it's so easy why haven't you claimed the $100,000? The Crew tracks should be easier yet.

LAL

4th September 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I don't have Murphy's book, and I haven't seen the Skookum cast in person, but logically it would seem that if there are imprints that are being identified as testicle prints, there should also be clear imprints of butt cheeks. Deep imprints of butt cheeks, as the weight for the butt would be far greater than the weight for the testicles.

RayG

I think that book is a "must" for anyone interested in this. I found a "like new" copy for under $20 at Amazon.com, and it was well worth the price for the color photography alone.

It looks like the animal sat sideways instead of straight down. It repositioned. Noll demonstrated for a reporter. Maybe he (or someone else) could post an animated clip on BFF of exactly what they think happened. I know some other posters have had trouble visualizing this as well.

According to Loren Coleman's board this morning, Dr. Meldrum has now officially quit the BFRO. There are some pretty strong accusations over the Kentucky affair. I don't suppose we'll be waiting with baited breath for the video, will we?

I just hope they don't take down the site. I would miss it.

Kenny 10 Bellys

4th September 2005, 06:45 PM

Denegrating what evidence Lal? All you have is opinion and myth, nothing concrete or even approaching it. If you had hard evidence then they'd have found the creature by now, but all you have is a wide variety of tracks (many suspect) and nothing else. Eyewitness testimony is no good to us if it leads to nothing, the films all look bogus and are open to wide interpretation depending on whether you believe in Bigfoot or beieve the actual evidence to date.

You are a firm believer despite the evidence, and we are firmly skeptical because of the same evidence. You have some learned, professional men on the case, but that doesn't make them right. There are many, many more learned, professionals who think them deluded. Your people see a messed up track and read into it bone structure, crippled giants, testicle prints, etc and all we see is a messed up print that could be anything. You believe, and it colours everything you see and hear concerning this myth, and we see the evidence and know it doesn't add up to anything like a 3 metre tall species yet.

bruto

4th September 2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by LAL
He wasn't the only investigator on this. Have you bothered to read the book? It's not based on "stories". The typical hoaxer merely enlarges his own foot; Krantz was struck by adaptations for great weight in a primate inhabiting mountainous areas. He didn't think it likely that a hoaxer would have that kind of detailed knowlege. Read the book. It's interesting.

The Bossburg tracks were one of thousands of track events. There are casts nearly fifty years old. There are tracks from last spring. Isn't it a stretch of the imagination to think that hoaxers get to the high Sierras and remote mountains in B.C. to somehow lay down trackways just to fool people who don't know themselves where they are going? Do you really believe there are thousands of people running around in gorilla suits appearing to be 8' tall just to fool unwary campers and motorists? Who was doing the hoaxing before the coming of the white man?

Marx was called in after the first Bossburg tracks were found because of his known interest. He started faking films when interest was dying down in order to "kind of keep things going" (and possibly to continue to stay on the payroll). Cliff Crook has pulled similar stunts. Freeman may have done some fakery too, out of frustration, yet some of his evidence is compelling. Byrne, who exposed Marx, has been accused of being a fraud (by Green). And so it goes.

The evidence speaks for itself, and to try to throw it all out just because some over-zealous "researcher" went too far is some of that "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" Meldrum speaks of.

Some others who've taken an interest:

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans (zoologist, France)
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (research scientist, Oregon Regional Primate Center)
Dr. John Napier (primatologist, University of London)
Dr. Frank E. Poirier (paleoanthropologist/primatologist, Ohio State University)
Dr. John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist, former wildlife advisor for United Nations)
Dr. D. W. Grieve (anatomist, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London)
Dr. John Bodley (anthropologist, Washington State University)
Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy (biomechanics, Russia)
Dr. Robert Pyle (ecologist,Yale University alumnus)
Dr. J. Richard Greenwell (mammalogist, International Wildlife Museum, Tucson)
Dr. William Montagna (primatologist, Regional Primate Research Center)
Valentin B. Sapunov (biologist, Leningrad State Univeristy, Russia)
Vladimir Markotic (physical anthropologist, University of Calgary)
Jeff Glickman (computer scientist, North American Science Institute)
Dmitri Bayanov (hominologist, Darwin Museum, Russia)
Jim Hewkin (wildlife biologist, formerly with Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)
Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffman, aka Dr. Zh. I Kofman (scientist, Russia)
Dr. R. Lynn Kirlin (professor, University of Wyoming)
Dr. William Saxe Wihr (department of anthropology, Portland Community College)
Dr. LeRoy Fish (wildlife ecologist, retired)

Krantz was not alone.

I'm quite willing to believe that a large number of bigfoot sightings and the like are not fraudulent, just mistaken. People have been seeing elves, fairies, bigfeet, ghosts, angels, gods and monsters forever. It doesn't mean that's what's out there. But the history of bigfoot is rife with fraud and fakery, acknowledged by even the most stubborn believers, but they continue to accept evidence from suspect sources.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not Krantz was alone. What you are saying here, essentially, is that even researchers who can reasonably be suspected of fraud, or in some cases who are known to have cooked the evidence, will still be relied on by bigfoot believers if their evidence looks good, and if you or experts like Krantz can't figure out how it could have been faked, and even that the apparent lack of interest or funding from mainstream scientists might justify the occasional fraud.

That's just preposterous. If I have misread your post above, too bad, but that's what I read in it. If it is not what you mean, you need to do a better job of explaining and justifying your experts.

LAL

5th September 2005, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by bruto
I'm quite willing to believe that a large number of bigfoot sightings and the like are not fraudulent, just mistaken. People have been seeing elves, fairies, bigfeet, ghosts, angels, gods and monsters forever. It doesn't mean that's what's out there. But the history of bigfoot is rife with fraud and fakery, acknowledged by even the most stubborn believers, but they continue to accept evidence from suspect sources.

Rife with fraud and fakery? Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not Krantz was alone. What you are saying here, essentially, is that even researchers who can reasonably be suspected of fraud, or in some cases who are known to have cooked the evidence, will still be relied on by bigfoot believers if their evidence looks good, and if you or experts like Krantz can't figure out how it could have been faked, and even that the apparent lack of interest or funding from mainstream scientists might justify the occasional fraud.

Nothing justifies fraud. Green and Steenburg were against including anything brought in by Marx or Freeman in Meet the Sasquatch, but Murphy pointed out that the only criterion of examination scientists and professional people have is, "What does the evidence itself indicate?" They can't be swayed by "circumstantial evidence". Much of Marx and Freeman's evidence has held up "reasonably or totally" to intense scientific scrutiny. Buying furs and faking photos does not = Marx faked the Bossburg tracks. Freeman carving feet to scare the neighbors when he lived in Camas, Wa., does not=Freeman faked tracks at Elk Wallow.

That's just preposterous. If I have misread your post above, too bad, but that's what I read in it. If it is not what you mean, you need to do a better job of explaining and justifying your experts.

I don't know that anyone considers Marx, Freeman or Crook "experts" or anything more than self-styled researchers. The original Bossburg tracks were found by a local man; Marx found the long trackway with Dahinden nearby. Some of Freeman's casts are compelling. I don't know of anything Crook has accomplished. There have been amateur hoaxes involving college students and high school students, and beer-drinking persons unknown and the professional Snow Walker hoax, but as Meldrum has said, "Exposing hoaxes is as much a part of this effort as establishing the credibility of other evidence."

Most sightings, track events and other incidents involve ordinary people, thousands of them, doing ordinary things. People who have lived with bears aren't likely to mistake one for an habitual biped. There have been cases of mistaken identity (I've mentioned the snag), but snags don't usually cross roads or peer in windows.

Most of the researchers, from Titmus to Noll seem quite reputable. No hint of fraud there. Why should their work and evidence be considered fraudulent because of antics of others not so scrupulous?

Here's another:

"John Bindernagle is a wildlife biologist with over thirty years of field experience. He has served as a wildlife advisor for United Nations projects in East Africa, Iran, the Carribean and Belize. His interest in sasquatch dates from 1963, and his field work in British Columbia began in 1975. He holds a B.S.A. from the University of Guelph, and an M.S. and Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin. He continues to work as a consultant in environmental impact assessment and is a Registered Professional Biologist (R.P.Bio.) in British Columbia, Canada."

Meet the Sasquatch,pg. 163.

He's presented papers and written a book from the standpoint of "Is this a normal animal?" He found a trackway while hiking in the Canadian wilderness. He wasn't even looking for one. That's what got him started.

Skeptical Greg

5th September 2005, 03:39 PM

Looks like another respected contributor at BFF, has dropped out of BFRO

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12642

That NDA at BFRO is a hoot..

" Super Duper Secret Scientific Research Organization "

Absolutely no information you aquire during your association with the BFRO will be revealed, until we have had the opportunity to cash in on it first..

The Volunteer agrees that any violation will cause irreparable injury, both financial and strategic, to the Organizer. In addition to any and all remedies that may be available, in law, in equity or otherwise, the Organizer shall be entitled to injunctive relief against breach of this Agreement by the Volunteer.

Kenny 10 Bellys

5th September 2005, 04:14 PM

I thought I made a pretty good case for there being no evidence, but it looks like Lal doesn't want to look at the bigger picture and would rather stay mired in minutiae, discussing the opinions of various experts and the contents of books.

I have another take on the situation, one of the casual observer who has perused many of the very erudite posts here as well as some of the documentaries and films mentioned, but in no way considers it worth delving any deeper into due to the fact that it's highly implausible and based on the thinnest of evidence. I said a page or two back that I would try and point out the big picture every page or so, so here I go again...

Evidence for Bigfoot

Myths - Pretty much every society since the dawn of man has had tales of bogeymen, people and creatures inhabiting forests, caves, dark places, etc where it's best not to go. They serve a purpose but dont prove the existence of anything other than superstition.

Footprints - Some big prints have been found, proving conclusively that there are prints in the woods. Opinion is divided on what causes them

Eyewitnesses - about as reliable as any other eyewitness sighting of weird events, many inexperienced in the woods and most primed by stories of Bigfoot! WoooOOoOoOo!

Photography/Film - 2 or 3 very fake looking films have surfaced, none of which are convincing to anyone other than believers.

This adds up to precisely squat. Some dodgy prints and stories of man-like creatures in woods inhabited by bears does not make for convincing evidence of anything other than some peoples wish for magic to be real.

RayG

5th September 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
Evidence for Bigfoot

Don't you mean

Arguments for the existence of bigfoot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_Bigfoot)

Then you have

Arguments against the existence of bigfoot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_Bigfoot)

I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

RayG

William Parcher

5th September 2005, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

"And the infirm may seek to gain control of Wikipedia,
and appear as if they themselves are The Father of All Lands."

Desperateuronomy 23:14

RayG

5th September 2005, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Rife with fraud and fakery? Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement?

Surely you jest.

Wallace, Marx, Crook, Freeman, fake photos, fake videos, fake tracks, fake hair... not to mention the BFRO expeditions. :D

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977 for example.

RayG

RayG

5th September 2005, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by LAL
It looks like the animal sat sideways instead of straight down. It repositioned. Noll demonstrated for a reporter.

I hope you don't mean literally. That would take balls. (pun intended)

How was Noll able to get his nuts to make an impression without his cheeks sinking deeply into the mud?

I know some other posters have had trouble visualizing this as well.

Yup. I can't for the life of me figure out how nut prints could be left without deep cheek prints. (unless that critter has bowling balls between his legs)

According to Loren Coleman's board this morning, Dr. Meldrum has now officially quit the BFRO.

He's just one of 34 BFRO investigators or curators to leave, quit, or be tossed out within the past 12 months or so.

I just hope they don't take down the site. I would miss it.

I rarely visit it as there's precious little, if any, scientific evidence or information.

RayG

LAL

6th September 2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Surely you jest.

Wallace, Marx, Crook, Freeman, fake photos, fake videos, fake tracks, fake hair... not to mention the BFRO expeditions. :D

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977 for example.

RayG

I got that link from a cyber friend on CvE over a year ago. Here's pt. 2:

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=67036

What about the many, many honest researchers? (Looks like something better than the BFRO is about to emerge from Moneymaker's wreakage.) What about Meldrum, Krantz, Sarmiento, Swindler, Schaller, Bindernagle, Green, Noll, Titmus, Steenburg, Coleman............. What about all the evidence that's held up to scientific scrutiny (even Marx and Freeman's, mostly)?

All paleoanthropology is a fraud because a Russian scientist faked Neandertal skulls.

Nebraska Man.

Piltdown Man.

Archeoraptor.

Ooops! Wrong board.

LAL

6th September 2005, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by RayG
I hope you don't mean literally. That would take balls. (pun intended)

How was Noll able to get his nuts to make an impression without his cheeks sinking deeply into the mud?

Uh, Ray, he was on the garage floor, presumably clothed.

Yup. I can't for the life of me figure out how nut prints could be left without deep cheek prints. (unless that critter has bowling balls between his legs)

No, they're comparitively small, and the prints are rather faint. The mud was soft and it looks like it squished up from the weight.

He's just one of 34 BFRO investigators or curators to leave, quit, or be tossed out within the past 12 months or so.

I rarely visit it as there's precious little, if any, scientific evidence or information.

RayG

I like it for the BBC comparison and some of the articles. I found the Skookum expedition complete field notes Googling on the Web. I've never been able to get to them through the site. It really needs a search engine.

Has Jud quit yet?

LAL

6th September 2005, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Don't you mean

Arguments for the existence of bigfoot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_Bigfoot)

Then you have

Arguments against the existence of bigfoot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_Bigfoot)

I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

RayG

"This article is full of inline notes like "(Sprague and Krantz, 43)" but has no references listed at the end for the reader to know what you're talking about. A bibliography is needed, and quickly. â€” Trilobite (Talk) 21:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_Bigfoot" "

Found by clicking where it says to on the banner.

LAL

6th September 2005, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I thought I made a pretty good case for there being no evidence, but it looks like Lal doesn't want to look at the bigger picture and would rather stay mired in minutiae, discussing the opinions of various experts and the contents of books.

IOW, you haven't seen any evidence, won't read up on it and don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Do you get the feeling you're beeing ignored?

RayG

6th September 2005, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by LAL
What about the many, many honest researchers?

Ever heard of Frank Serpico? Though a lot of New York cops were honest, many others were not. The same might be said of bigfoot researchers.

What about Meldrum, Krantz, Sarmiento, Swindler, Schaller, Bindernagle, Green, Noll, Titmus, Steenburg, Coleman.............

What about them? Does their presence somehow negate the fraud and fakery that's been discovered?

What about all the evidence that's held up to scientific scrutiny (even Marx and Freeman's, mostly)?

Care to point some out?

RayG

RayG

6th September 2005, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Uh, Ray, he was on the garage floor, presumably clothed.

Not a true demonstration then.

No, they're comparitively small, and the prints are rather faint. The mud was soft and it looks like it squished up from the weight.

Then where are the deep impressions caused by the butt cheeks? They should be far more evident than the testicle prints.

Has Jud quit yet?

Not to my knowledge. From what I gather, the only new members are those willing to pay to go on an expedition.

RayG

RayG

6th September 2005, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by LAL
"This article is full of inline notes like "(Sprague and Krantz, 43)" but has no references listed at the end for the reader to know what you're talking about. A bibliography is needed, and quickly. â€” Trilobite (Talk) 21:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_Bigfoot" "

Found by clicking where it says to on the banner.

Yeah, I know that, but it doesn't explain why the banner only appears on the arguments against page and not on the arguments for page, as neither has listed references.

Maybe the person who posted the feedback was too lazy to look around, the references can be found here:

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

RayG

Skeptical Greg

6th September 2005, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by RayG

.......
From what I gather, the only new members are those willing to pay to go on an expedition.

RayG And sign the NDA ?

Skeptical Greg

6th September 2005, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by LAL

All paleoanthropology is a fraud because a Russian scientist faked Neandertal skulls.

Nebraska Man.

Piltdown Man.

Archeoraptor.

Ooops! Wrong board.

Is there a core of believers still clinging to a belief in these hoaxes? Still trying to prove they exist ?

Nice try.. No cigar ...

Your continued support for BFRO shows where you're coming from ..

LTC8K6

6th September 2005, 06:16 AM

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

Lu, please explain the appearance of the back of the heel in this footprint. A footprint that was made on the fly by Patty on camera.

I have already offered the only possible explanation I could think of.

Do you have one?

How did we get the stepped or layered effect at the back of the heel?

How did the material in the middle not get flattened as the foot rolled over it?

bruto

6th September 2005, 09:01 AM

LAL writes, among other things, "Marx found the long trackway with Dahinden nearby. "

A guy with a widespread reputation for fraud found a trackway, and what do you know, it had really convincing tracks in it.

And you really wonder why bigfoot research has so little credibility?

The presence of fraud does not disqualify the pursuit of bigfoot, but it ought to disqualify evidence produced by the people known to have committed fraud. Evidence "discovered" by a known hoaxer cannot be assumed to "speak for itself," no matter how compelling it appears.

How widespread or rife fakery is in the bigfoot community is arguable, of course, but you cannot argue that it isn't there, and it's reasonable to guess that given the amount of fraud that has been discovered, a certain amount remains undiscovered. Some people seem to have been doing it for a long time, and it would be surprising if they had not honed their skills by now. As long as bigfoot researchers are willing to apply an "innocent until proved guilty" approach to evidence even from the most suspicious sources, their work will remain marginal and their attempts at science will remain a joke.

The accumulated evidence so far for bigfoot, even after all these years, is insufficient to get mainstream scientists very interested, but the problem is not in the quantity but the quality. Who could find the pony in that pile of ****? But if people like LAL are right that they are out there, the best thing any serious bigfoot researchers could do now would be to discard ALL the current evidence, convincing or not, clean house, and start looking again, accepting nothing but the best forensic techniques for recording evidence, and trusting no-one but themselves. My guess is that if they do this with honesty and healthy skepticism they will find nothing that satisfies the criteria, but if they DO, then they'll have bigfoot in the bag.

LTC8K6

6th September 2005, 09:37 AM

Thurkon

6th September 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4201180.stm

Estimated number of specimens- less than 60, across the whole Asia. And yet, caught by remote cameras in good sharp pictures.

Meanwhile, in North America, something between 1400 and 2000 3-m high apes elude cameras, traps, etc.

Oh, I forgot, the ultrassound stuff, they destroy cameras, etc.

:bs:

That's right, my friend.

They use sophisticated tree knocking morse code to signal other squatches to beware of camera traps. They're wily critters.

Cheetahs also don't have infrared vision. Only squatches and Kryptonians do.

If serious nature photographers want to capture an image of a Bigfoot, they should have thought of better methods. Baiting them with apples, perhaps? Worked before...too bad the BFRO never thought of attempting to get a picture of the squatch that was being baited. They never thought of that.

No, you're going to have to be pretty clever to get Foot on film. They hear us, smell us, and detect us way before we ever get sight of squatch one. Unless you're riding a horse, that is. That don't seem to be able to hear horses clattering down canyons.

Thurkon

6th September 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by LAL

Something has tampered with cameras at times; I don't know about destroyed.

Must be Foot. I mean...it's not as if anything else is living out in those woods, right?

Originally posted by LAL

It's amazing what a team of conservationists and scientists can accomplish just since 2001 with a known species in open terrain, isn't it? Maybe they'd like to help out over here.

Heh...I'm sure they have much better things to do with their time than let Matt Moneymaker lead them out on a Bigfoot goose...uh, I mean round-up.

bruto

6th September 2005, 07:19 PM

One of the arguments for Bigfoot is the numerous sightings. Here is a little cautionary tale about seeing what you expect to see:

Trained experienced hunter sees a bear and shoots it. (http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050906/NEWS/509060367/1003)

If this had been the PNW, maybe he'd have seen a sasquatch, though fortunately for the berrypickers out there, there's no hunting season on them.

LAL

6th September 2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by bruto
One of the arguments for Bigfoot is the numerous sightings. Here is a little cautionary tale about seeing what you expect to see:

Trained experienced hunter sees a bear and shoots it. (http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050906/NEWS/509060367/1003)

If this had been the PNW, maybe he'd have seen a sasquatch, though fortunately for the berrypickers out there, there's no hunting season on them.

There was a case in Washington where a hunter killed his own son, and then blamed it on him because he had moved without giving the pre-arranged signal. Another shot a dirt bike rider in a red jacket. It was illegal to shoot across a trail, let alone shoot someone on it.

So gorilla suit wearers commonly roam the woods scaring the witnesses huh? They do so at their peril.

Lost plane found in the Cascades....only missing since 1983:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12630&st=0

LAL

6th September 2005, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon
If serious nature photographers want to capture an image of a Bigfoot, they should have thought of better methods. Baiting them with apples, perhaps? Worked before...too bad the BFRO never thought of attempting to get a picture of the squatch that was being baited. They never thought of that.

Oh, c'mon. They had cameras on Ridgetop. They shut down due to excess moisture. Why don't you check the facts before you make erroneous assumptions like that?

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/ThermalExpedMain.htm

LAL

6th September 2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by bruto
LAL writes, among other things, "Marx found the long trackway with Dahinden nearby. "

A guy with a widespread reputation for fraud found a trackway, and what do you know, it had really convincing tracks in it.

And you really wonder why bigfoot research has so little credibility?

I really wonder why you know so little about this. Marx had done no hoaxing at the time and certainly didn't have a "widespread reputation for fraud". Dahinden was extremely wary of hoaxes and took a few days to consider before he went to Bossburg. He noted a jeep near the trackway and noted the license number and later questioned the occupants. (They'd seen the trackway and said they "got the hell out of there".) He openly disliked Dr. Krantz, or at least his PhD, but never challenged him on the Bossburg tracks. Marx faked films. There's nothing to indicate he faked any tracks.

Tracks like that were seen twenty years earlier and six years later. The condition was consistant with metatarsus adductus.

You've heard of a strawman argument, haven't you?

bruto

6th September 2005, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by LAL
There was a case in Washington where a hunter killed his own son, and then blamed it on him because he had moved without giving the pre-arranged signal. Another shot a dirt bike rider in a red jacket. It was illegal to shoot across a trail, let alone shoot someone on it.

So gorilla suit wearers commonly roam the woods scaring the witnesses huh? They do so at their peril.

Lost plane found in the Cascades....only missing since 1983:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12630&st=0

I didn't say the woods are full of gorilla suit wearers. The guy in the article wasn't wearing a bear suit. He didn't have to. The hunter saw a bear anyway. If he'd been hoping for a sasquatch I suspect he'd have seen that instead, but the victim would have been luckier in that case since they're not in season.

LAL

6th September 2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's clearly willful ignorance, imo.

No other excuse for it.

Yep. Quite a few of you are guilty of that.

Skeptical Greg

6th September 2005, 09:54 PM

Lost plane found in the Cascades....only missing since 1983: Right Lu.. They actually have pieces of the plane to prove it..

LAL

6th September 2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Is there a core of believers still clinging to a belief in these hoaxes? Still trying to prove they exist ?

Nice try.. No cigar ...

Your continued support for BFRO shows where you're coming from ..

Support for members of the BFRO and the work they've done does not=support for Matt Moneymaker.

Clinging to belief in what hoaxes? Piltdown Man? These are Creationist arguments. "Evolution didn't happen because....."

You don't see the similarity to sceptical arguments on this board?

I feel right at home.

LAL

6th September 2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Not a true demonstration then.

Look, I'll ask him to demonstrate on a clip for the BFF board, but I'm not going to ask him to take off his clothes.

Then where are the deep impressions caused by the butt cheeks? They should be far more evident than the testicle prints.

One is. Looks like most of the weight was on the left.

Not to my knowledge. From what I gather, the only new members are those willing to pay to go on an expedition.

RayG

Have you read Coleman's board? It's worth joining just to see the posts on the 4th.

LAL

6th September 2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Right Lu.. They actually have pieces of the plane to prove it..

The point, in case you missed it, was that it wasn't found in dense forest, despite an extensive search in 1983, and continued to be lost until now. A 400' waterfall gets missed by the officials and even local residents, but it's supposed to be easy to get clear shots of an elusive, nocturnal forest-dwelling hominid. You guys crack me up.

LAL

6th September 2005, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Yeah, I know that, but it doesn't explain why the banner only appears on the arguments against page and not on the arguments for page, as neither has listed references.

Maybe the person who posted the feedback was too lazy to look around, the references can be found here:

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

RayG

It think he wanted a list with titles and dates of publication. The against list would be relatively short. Other than Daegling and Long who's written books from the sceptical side?

LAL

6th September 2005, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by bruto
I didn't say the woods are full of gorilla suit wearers. The guy in the article wasn't wearing a bear suit. He didn't have to. The hunter saw a bear anyway. If he'd been hoping for a sasquatch I suspect he'd have seen that instead, but the victim would have been luckier in that case since they're not in season.
I didn't say you did. No one was wearing a deer suit in the stories I related, either (they were deer hunters). I used to move to town during hunting season before I had the gate. The elk hunters took to supergluing the lock. Nice folks. My old home county is now a Sasquatch refuge. I think that's awesome.

Plane story:

"Wreckage of 1983 crash found
By PHILIP FEROLITO
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

Skeletal remains of two people have been found near Satus Pass in the wreckage of a single-engine aircraft missing for 22 years.

Workers installing telecommunication equipment in the closed section of the Yakama reservation Tuesday discovered the downed 1959 Bellenca in the remote and heavily forested area about 15 miles north of Goldendale, tribal officials said.

The wreckage was found amid trees. One body was found crouched inside the plane, while parts of a leg believed to have belonged to another person were found outside the aircraft, said Yakama Tribal Council Chairman Louis Cloud.

Scavengers, such as coyotes, may have carried off the rest of the remains, he said.

The plane left a wreckage path of about 200 feet, said Tom Little, an air safety investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board in Seattle.

"It didn't hit the side of the mountain or anything," he said. "It looked like it hit some trees."

The plane, which was headed for Long Beach, Calif., went missing on Jan. 8, 1983, after leaving the Yakima airport, said Little, citing NTSB records.

The Yakima tower warned of icy conditions and turbulence after the plane departed at 11:49 a.m., and it probably went down about 12:30 p.m., he said.

Crews searched for the downed aircraft until Jan. 15, 1983, Little said.

Identities of the pilot or any possible passengers were not confirmed Thursday evening, he said. But newspaper accounts from Jan. 12 of that same year reported that a search was under way for Max Schaffer, 59, and Eugene Goodrow, 54.

The two men, whose addresses were not listed, had left Winthrop Inter-City Airport en route to Long Beach, Calif., after dropping off Goodrow's son, Tony, in Winthrop, Wash. News reports said they had stopped at the Yakima airport for fuel before resuming their flight.

Klickitat County Coroner Tim O'Neill is waiting for tribal permission to enter the closed section of the reservation to identify the remains, though that may not happen until next week, he said.

"We're set to go," he said. "We'll have people ready to go."

O'Neill said he was told the site is in an remote area that can't be seen from the sky.

The incident is being investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration, Cloud said."

That area's pretty open compared to the Western slope. The plot is visited only once every ten years. The plane was missed twice before by crews.

The woods aren't overrun with berry pickers, either.

Kenny 10 Bellys

7th September 2005, 04:30 AM

You'll notice they actually found the plane, only one plane in a huge area of forest but it did eventually show up a few years later. They weren't even looking for it, but there it was. Several thousand 3-metre tall apes spread across the area for what must have been thousands of years, that's another matter entirely.

They found the Ceolocanth, a fish no one had seen in about 300,000,000 years and no one had any idea existed, but they found it. They weren't looking for it, but there it was. Now we know they're in several areas of ocean living far beyond the reach of the sun in small numbers where humans have practically never ventured, yet they were found.

And here we have Lal, dedicated to the religion that is Bigfoot, despite nothing having been found to show they ever existed at all, and to this day is treated as a fairy story by the sane amongst us. "You cant prove it doesn't exist" is the mantra of this religion, and verbage of massive proportions is it's succour.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee Lal, when someone finds one you can go looking for more but right now all it is is an invention of the mind. All the searches fail, all the traps and cameras find nothing, all the films are bogus and many of the tracks are found by hoaxers and people who believe in the religion. Yet you continue to believe, and belief is all you have and probably all you ever will have.

RayG

7th September 2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by LAL
So gorilla suit wearers commonly roam the woods scaring the witnesses huh? They do so at their peril.

It appears no gorilla suits are required, people will believe they saw what they think they saw. In this case, the shooter thought he saw a bear. How could he make such an obvious mistake?

Lost plane found in the Cascades....only missing since 1983.

I'm not sure I see the connection. Were hunters shooting at planes?

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Why don't you check the facts before you make erroneous assumptions like that?

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/ThermalExpedMain.htm

Here's some other facts from that expedition:

Not a single clear track was found or cast
Not a single glimpse of a squatch
Not a single bit of proof squatch was in the area
After some creative interpretation, an indent in the ground was assumed to have been caused by a squatch

I have to add, with all the suspicions about Matt Moneymaker and the way he runs the BFRO, any 'evidence' obtained with him in the area seems suspect.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I really wonder why you know so little about this. Marx had done no hoaxing at the time and certainly didn't have a "widespread reputation for fraud". Dahinden was extremely wary of hoaxes and took a few days to consider before he went to Bossburg. He noted a jeep near the trackway and noted the license number and later questioned the occupants. (They'd seen the trackway and said they "got the hell out of there".) He openly disliked Dr. Krantz, or at least his PhD, but never challenged him on the Bossburg tracks. Marx faked films. There's nothing to indicate he faked any tracks.

Tracks like that were seen twenty years earlier and six years later. The condition was consistant with metatarsus adductus.

You've heard of a strawman argument, haven't you?

Krantz seems to be the only researcher who accepted the Bossburg prints at face value. In fact, after examining nothing more than a single footprint and a pair of casts, he was able to determine the bone structure of an undiscovered animal. He assumed the tracks couldn't be hoaxed because he didn't think he could be fooled.

Why were Green and Dahinden not fully convinced the tracks were valid?

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Have you read Coleman's board? It's worth joining just to see the posts on the 4th.

No. Is that a Yahoo mailing list or an actual webforum like here?

RayG

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 06:03 AM

A 400' waterfall gets missed by the officials and even local residents

That is a lie, Lu. The waterfall wasn't missing at all. It was on maps for crying out loud. You can keep repeating that lie all you want, but it won't alter reality.

I guess Hawaii was missing until someone "found" it. The Mississippi was missing too, I suppose......

They only searched for the plane for 7 days, Lu. No wonder they didn't find it. How long has the search for bigfoot been going on?

A missing plane doesn't leave tracks all over the place. A missing plane doesn't sit down right next to you. A missing plane doesn't throw rocks at you. A missing plane doesn't eat your bait. A missing plane doesn't pose for your camera and then sashay into the woods so you can follow it.

The BFRO is not a reliable source for factual info, imo. The tale of the Skookum cast should put anyone with an open mind in a suspicious mood. Developments of late with the BFRO should end any doubt and make the suspicion permanent.

The BFRO is dead as far as anyone ever taking it seriously again.

It is a good place to point out inconsistencies though.

Hopefully the members that left will retrieve any intellectual property from the BFRO that they have contributed.

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 06:16 AM

Let's just examine the 2 accounts of day seven published by the BFRO and see if we find any significant differences.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm

RayG

7th September 2005, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I think he wanted a list with titles and dates of publication.

I know that's what he wanted, but no sources are given for either page, so why only complain about the one? I can think of four reasons (there may be more):

He was too lazy to try and find them (they are there, just on another page)
He was ignorant of the internet, webpages, and links, yet informed enough to leave feedback (seems unlikely)
The sources were posted to the website after he made his complaint (which still doesn't explain why only one side of the argument was targeted)
He was quite aware the sources were listed elsewhere, but was biased in favor of bigfoot (make it look like the other side of the argument doesn't play fair)

The against list would be relatively short. Other than Daegling and Long who's written books from the sceptical side?

Which is all the more amazing that no one has complained about the lack of sources on the other page. What, you only have to provide sources if you disagree with something?

Besides, if you read with an objective mind, you'll find lots of things to be skeptical about, regardless if it's written by a 'skeptic' or not. (Like on the BFRO website.) :D

RayG

Skeptical Greg

7th September 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by LAL
The point, in case you missed it, was that it wasn't found in dense forest, despite an extensive search in 1983, and continued to be lost until now. A 400' waterfall gets missed by the officials and even local residents, but it's supposed to be easy to get clear shots of an elusive, nocturnal forest-dwelling hominid. You guys crack me up. And my point, which you obviously missed, is that while yes, things do go missing in the woods, we can actually show that some of them existed before they disappeared..

Besides, the impenatrable PNW is a pretty lame excuse for not producing a Bigfoot.. I refer to this post on BFF that you seemed to be impressed with..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=120&#entry259658

Finally, on the idea that we need these weeks-to-months long expeditions in the field to find sasquatch because they only occur in these rugged, remote wilderness areas, blah, blah . . . I say hogwash. Check out the BFRO's database on sightings by region - you'll find multiple reports from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island - Rhode $%^&^! Island - expeditions to the remotest parts of these states would not take weeks, yet sasquatch is apparently alive and well here. So either the squatch isn't nearly as dependent on unbroken wilderness as we like to think, or these reports are bogus. And if these reports are bogus, why should we put any stock in any of the others posted on a site like the BFRO?

Personally, I go with bogus, but if you don't, then you need to cut the crap about the PNW...

Skeptical Greg

7th September 2005, 06:46 AM

I really need to read your posts more carefully.. There is so much to learn.

Did you really keep a straight face while you posted this..

The plane, which was headed for Long Beach, Calif., went missing on Jan. 8, 1983, after leaving the Yakima airport, said Little, citing NTSB records.

The Yakima tower warned of icy conditions and turbulence after the plane departed at 11:49 a.m., and it probably went down about 12:30 p.m., he said.

Crews searched for the downed aircraft until Jan. 15, 1983, Little said.

They searched for Seven whole days!!! ?

How long have we been waiting for Bigfoot Lu ?

Edit: Oops.. I see LTC8K6 commented on this first.. It seems worth repeating...

RayG

7th September 2005, 07:00 AM

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 07:24 AM

Straw man is sort of what footers keep doing with the fake feet.

Comparing one fake foot that obviously doesn't match and isn't the one the skeptics are talking about anyway.

Correa Neto

7th September 2005, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Ultrasound? You mean infrared? Bipto speculated about that in an interview with Green. I don't know that anyone's accepting that as fact. What about other nocturnal animals? Can any of them sense, or even see, infrared?

Something has tampered with cameras at times; I don't know about destroyed.

Speculations, speculations, speculations. Just baseless speculations.

Some animals, as you probably know, even if non-nocturnal can "sense" infrared. Some snakes, for example. Nocturnal or semi-nocturnal mammals, however, as far as I can remember, do not rely on IR. Their eyes are adapted to gather more light than those of our species, for example. ThatÂ´s why we see those eerie light reflexes inside lionsÂ´and wolveÂ´s eyes, for example.

And the something that tampered with the cameras... It had to be a bigfoot?

Originally posted by LAL
It's amazing what a team of conservationists and scientists can accomplish just since 2001 with a known species in open terrain, isn't it? Maybe they'd like to help out over here.

Sure. Iran must be a place much easier to work than USA. Logistics at IranÂ´s remote areas are for sure excellent. :id:

You got the picture LAL? ThatÂ´s 60 specimens across the whole Asia. And they were photographed. Meanwhile in North America...

Why the "teams of conservationists and scientists" working in North AmericaÂ´s wildernesses, never have provided evidence for the estimated 2000 to 14000 bigfeet that are supposed to live in the woods? Because they are not looking for bigfeet? No. Wrong answer... Because there are too few people working in North AmericaÂ´s wildernesses? No. Wrong answer... Because they are incompetent? No. Wrong answer... Because maybe bigfeet are not real?

Skeptical Greg

7th September 2005, 09:48 AM

Funny Bigfoot report for the day..

This is a news article with various anecdotes..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=449

My favorite.. ( so far )

Humphreysâ€™ encounter was documented by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, which sent investigators to interview Humphreys and set up a surveillance at his home. Investigators learned the shooting culminated two years of alleged terror by â€œat least one Bigfoot,â€ which had been prowling his property at night. Two years!

Still no pics, no video no hair no DNA ... But they did find a dead deer.

The details of the investigative report are not available..

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1506

Even though the FBI supposedly collected blood samples.

Thurkon

7th September 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I really wonder why you know so little about this. Marx had done no hoaxing at the time...

That you know of.

But he has been shown since to be the type of person to pull a Bigfoot hoax.

But not that time, right?

Right.

Thurkon

7th September 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by LAL
Support for members of the BFRO and the work they've done does not=support for Matt Moneymaker.

Yeah...and support for Scientology does not = support for L. Ron Hubbard.

Right?

Right.

Thurkon

7th September 2005, 10:56 AM

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 12:06 PM

True believers are only asking that the world accept that the evidence shows Bigfoot is real. The skeptical or true disbelievers are only asking that the world produce physical evidence that Bigfoot is real.

It is a merry-go-round that is as constant as the rotation of the planet. Only a real confirmation can stop this eternal carnival ride.

Skeptical Greg

7th September 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
True believers are only asking that the world accept that the evidence shows Bigfoot is real. The skeptical or true disbelievers are only asking that the world produce physical evidence that Bigfoot is real.

It is a merry-go-round that is as constant as the rotation of the planet. Only a real confirmation can stop this eternal carnival ride. If there was going to be confirmation, we would have it by now..

I'm not trying to get anyone to give up their belief.. I'm just having fun showing them why their evidence is not evidence.

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
If there was going to be confirmation, we would have it by now..

I'm not trying to get anyone to give up their belief.. I'm just having fun showing them why their evidence is not evidence.

You wouldn't be able to get them to give up belief, no matter what you do.

Your "fun" is only shared by skeptics. You are not showing any believer that their evidence is not evidence. You will have to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because believers believe that the burden of proof is now on skeptics.

In spite of the advances of science and rationality... skepticism has hardly made a scratch or dent in humanity and the human condition.

RayG

7th September 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm just having fun showing them why their evidence is not evidence.

I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943

:D

RayG

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 01:25 PM

I disagree, William. There are people at this board who have changed their minds about a few things.

I have changed my mind about the P/G film. I was unsure about it. Now I am not. It was that Laverty photo of a Patty footprint that did it. I am sure I have seen it before, but I never really gave it much thought. The discussion here caused me to examine it for the first time.

I think most folks will agree with my explanation of how that Laverty print was made.

I took a few things for granted as true about bigfoot and the search for same. Turned out they were only true among the believers.....

There are also lots of people who are reading these boards and trying to decide.

I believe when/if they read these threads, they will see who is dealing fairly with the issue, and who isn't.

They will see whether or not they should "Read Krantz". :D

That's enough for me, even if they don't change their mind. I learned something, at least.

That goes for other topics as well.

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943

Sweet link, Ray. That BFF is sort of like an Internet insane asylum. Is it your hobby to hang around there? Hoping that the first chunk of Bigfoot flesh found will be posted about there before the major media or science news venues?

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

Skeptics should listen in to "The Talker".

I believe I translated what this Bigfoot is saying...

"This is not proof of the Bigfoot. Is it?"

Anyway, the text and correspondence in that link should not be taken lightly. It shows that intensive research into the "real life" PNW Chewbacca is not some silly waste of time.

Have a listen to a recording of a communicating Bigfoot. (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/6591/page25.html)

I do have to admit that I could be wrong. The Bigfoot might be saying...

"This is not evidence of the Bigfoot. Is it?"

Thurkon

7th September 2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943

:D

RayG

I try, I really try, to go over to the Bigfoot forums and see the other side of the picture every now and then. See if I'm missing something. Turns out I'm not.

That has got to be the biggest collection of knuckleheads and mindless cheerleaders on the planet.

There's this gem:

If you want geek speak, you could say that "If the number of sightings that are accurate is greater than 0%, then the creatures exist. So if there are 3,000 sightings, and 0.033% are correct, then it exists. "

If. If.

Have you ever read such a meaningless statement? Does the sentence above actually mean or prove anything?? It sure got lots of applause from the peanut gallery over there.

Why would quanitity of reports matter, when little other evidence exists? How many of the numerous reports of witchcraft in the Middle Ages are accurate? How about the much more numerous reports of aliens and abductions, which Lu discounts?

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 01:39 PM

William, you just trashed all my beliefs about people learning something in my previous post with that link.... :D

A guy mumbles into a recorder and they try to make a bigfoot touchdown with it......

I dunno. What can you say?

I am whitey, it's all my fault and I just don't understand.

I have always admired the ways of the Native Americans. I realize, they also had possessed some of the same violent characteristics that other races had, but their abilities to understand the world and all of it's beauty, has always been something purely mystifying to me. They gave life to all things. Rocks, sky, mountains. Things that other's took for granted. It is no small wonder, that these creatures would become part of this heritage and be able to live along side of the 'People'. Whites no of nothing except the acquisition of 'property' and the sin of an overpowering, all encompassing, greed. It is no wonder, these creatures distance themselves from human beings, as they must do.

I hope that one day, and I hope it will be soon, they will look upon me, and feel the shame I have for being what my heritage has bestowed upon me, and know that they have finally found a white man who knows the meaning of trust and honor.

Skeptical Greg

7th September 2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I don't find it amusing, but I did post this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11829&st=40&#entry243943

:D

RayG Very interesting thread..

" Who Cares?, Why Please the Scientific Establishment? "

There are some informed posters over there, but sadly there is too much " I want it to be true .. "

Thurkon

7th September 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

Skeptics should listen in to "The Talker".

That recording is precious.

So is the report by Richard J. Klich, Director of the Speech Science Laboratory:

By taking these frequency measurements and using them in various formulas, I estimated that the length of the subject's vocal tract was about 17 centimeters. This is the average length of males who are about 6 feet tall or a little shorter.

Heh heh. Another short Foot? You don't say? Where are all the tall Bigfeet?

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I want it to be true ...

Obviously, I don't think that Bigfoot is real. But additionally, I really hope that I am right. Some say that they hope that Bigfoot does exist because it would be such an interesting creature to have as a reality.

I hope that Bigfoot does not exist, because proof of the reality of Bigfoot would show that scientific rationality, reason and skepticism are not worth Jack-squat on this planet.

RayG

7th September 2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Sweet link, Ray. That BFF is sort of like an Internet insane asylum. Is it your hobby to hang around there?

Hey, everybody's gotta have a hobby. :D

Actually, I've had an interest in bigfoot for many many years, and that board is about the only one that looks at anything skeptically. You should see how some of the blobsquatches are torn apart over there. There are some die-hard 'believers' over there that accept anything as proof of bigfoot, but there are also some folks who are pretty adept at spotting BS in a report when they see it. It seems to be a good mixture of folks, a few staunch skeptics, a few staunch believers, and lots of folks somewhere in the middle. (Did I mention the romantics, who see bigfoot in every stump, every dark shadow, every noise in the woods...etc.)

Hoping that the first chunk of Bigfoot flesh found will be posted about there before the major media or science news venues?

Nope. I've even stated I don't care WHO brings in evidence, as long as it's solid evidence. A body would do quite nicely.

The recordings of Bigfoot in that thread are precious, because these are the vocalizations of an undiscovered giant ape.

I seldom listen to any recordings. No matter what vocalization they get on tape, if they didn't SEE the culprit making that vocalization, it's pretty much worthless. (Even then it might be worthless, depending on the witness.) ;)

Excuse me if I don't check out the recording link you gave, it's probably worthless anyway. :D

RayG

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by RayG
You should see how some of the blobsquatches are torn apart over there. There are some die-hard 'believers' over there that accept anything as proof of bigfoot, but there are also some folks who are pretty adept at spotting BS in a report when they see it. It seems to be a good mixture of folks, a few staunch skeptics, a few staunch believers, and lots of folks somewhere in the middle.

Ray, I must have now looked at about 200 threads on that forum. It seems that they are generally rough on vocal and determined skeptics. I noticed that some administrators will launch personal insults at those who argue that the PGF or Bigfoot are illusions. The vigorous skeptics seem to vanish suddenly after repeated volleys from the believer cult vitriol.

Ray, who are the staunch skeptics (who consistently post that Bigfoot is really only a myth) that are a regular part of the daily BFF "mixture of folks"?

RayG

7th September 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Thurkon
I try, I really try, to go over to the Bigfoot forums and see the other side of the picture every now and then. See if I'm missing something. Turns out I'm not.

That has got to be the biggest collection of knuckleheads and mindless cheerleaders on the planet.

I found the other boards were usually worse, so that's why I've stuck with the BFF. At least they don't boo and hiss if you bring up something skeptical.

Why would quanitity of reports matter, when little other evidence exists?

It doesn't, and I can't believe that everyone over at the BFF places greater importance on quantity than quality. (I know I don't.)

How about the much more numerous reports of aliens and abductions, which Lu discounts?

Exactly the point I was trying to make to LAL over there back in June.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

Quantity don't matter diddly...it's quality that counts.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
I hope that Bigfoot does not exist, because proof of the reality of Bigfoot would show that scientific rationality, reason and skepticism are not worth Jack-squat on this planet.

Not at all. Would you say that if they discovered a new planet? Why not? If they discovered a new species of insect, plant, or animal somewhere? Why not?

I'm sure there will be a great many more discoveries, continuing long after I'm no longer alive to see them. That doesn't mean scientific skepticism blows chunks, or sucks.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Ray, I must have now looked at about 200 threads on that forum. It seems that they are generally rough on vocal and determined skeptics. I noticed that some administrators will launch personal insults at those who argue that the PGF or Bigfoot are illusions. The vigorous skeptics seem to vanish suddenly after repeated volleys from the believer cult vitriol.

Ray, who are the staunch skeptics (who consistently post that Bigfoot is really only a myth) that are a regular part of the daily BFF "mixture of folks"?

Well, there are hardly any 'staunch skeptics', by YOUR definition, that believe bigfoot is only a myth. Terry might be one, but I was thinking more of skeptics like myself, who maintain that though bigfoot is a possibility, the present evidence does not provide adequate proof. There are a handful of those folks over there, tube, for example.

None of the posters in this thread:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12209
showed any animosity towards the article by skeptic Benjamin Radford. (but then the thread saw very few posts)

RayG

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Not at all. Would you say that if they discovered a new planet? Why not? If they discovered a new species of insect, plant, or animal somewhere? Why not?

I'm sure there will be a great many more discoveries, continuing long after I'm no longer alive to see them. That doesn't mean scientific skepticism blows chunks, or sucks.

Ray, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

Newly discovered species are not analogous to Bigfoot. Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has.

I am thrilled at each new animal that is found in the world. It is directly from the conventions of real science that we are even able to define what is a "new species".

What I meant was: There has been a preponderence of evidence presented for the existence of Bigfoot. Science, rationality, reason and skepticism holds a negatory view of this presented evidence. If somebody rolled into Yakima with a Bigfoot carcass on their hood, it would bring into question the validity of doubting anything that was not supported by physical evidence. It would also bring doubt to methods of evaluating any kind of evidence.

If Bigfoot shows up.... human rationality gets a big fat lip. Why? Because it seems that we know about myths. But suddenly we have no clue what a myth really is. Watch your ass, so that you don't get poked by an angry unicorn.

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by RayG
Well, there are hardly any 'staunch skeptics', by YOUR definition, that believe bigfoot is only a myth. Terry might be one, but I was thinking more of skeptics like myself, who maintain that though bigfoot is a possibility, the present evidence does not provide adequate proof. There are a handful of those folks over there, tube, for example.

None of the posters in this thread:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12209
showed any animosity towards the article by skeptic Benjamin Radford. (but then the thread saw very few posts)

Ray, the staunchest skeptics wouldn't waste their freaking time blibber-blabbing on that forum. What they seem to mostly have is skeptical agnostics. If anyone posts that the PGF is a hoax, their skin aquires a coating of tar and feathers.

Since you are one who dances-on-the-piano-strings of BFF... can you link to anyone there who firmly believes that Bob Heironimus really was the guy in the "Patty Costume", in addition to believing that Bigfoot is pure myth?

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 05:40 PM

Ray, you have got to be kidding if you think that true disbelievers live and regularly post on BFF. Who over there regularly argues about the authenticity of the PGF (arguing that it is fake) as oppsed to saying that it might be a hoax?

Have you noticed the general forum treatment and regularity of postings by Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head and Avindair?

William Parcher

7th September 2005, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Support for members of the BFRO and the work they've done does not=support for Matt Moneymaker.

Good grief. What a joke. People are treating this exodus of BRFO supporters as if it were worthy of any attention. WTF?

Matt Moneymaker has been running a pay-per-view carnival ride of a bogeyman that doesn't exist. If people pay some guy to take them on a giant stinky monkey expedition in the USA... who is zooming who? Nobody invented crudulous people, they only give them what they are looking for. Bigfoot is a myth. MM is running outdoor camping and hiking trips for those who want to look for the non-existent. Now a bunch of folks connected with this want to disengage in a public way. Ha ha. Imagine people complaining about a Halloween Spook House because the owner started getting weird because it turned out that they really didn't have any ghosts inside.

Step back and look at the BFRO and its expeditions. Do you think that Moneymaker really thinks that Bigfoot exists? Do you think that he is stupid enough to think that? His deal is completely set up for a mythical animal game for adults.

I'm not sure that skeptics truly understand the full scope of the genius and insanity that is The World of Bigfoot..

RayG

7th September 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Ray, you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

Likely. It seems you're saying it's impossible for bigfoot to exist, because it's a myth. So be it, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't take such a hard-core approach. I don't believe bigfoot exists, especially considering the questionable 'evidence' used to support its existence. I do however, leave the window of possibility open, as I do for many things. That doesn't mean I expect future proof to materialize, only that I'm open to the possibility.

Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has.

Keep those words in mind...

What I meant was: There has been a preponderence of evidence presented for the existence of Bigfoot.

I disagree. There are claims of evidence, but certainly nothing that science has even remotely agreed upon.

Science, rationality, reason and skepticism holds a negatory view of this presented evidence.

Exactly as it should, and for good reason. Someone claiming bigfoot plunked his ass down in mud (and dragging in a huge plaster cast) is quite different from someone proving bigfoot plunked his ass down in mud (and dragging in a huge dead body).

If somebody rolled into Yakima with a Bigfoot carcass on their hood, it would bring into question the validity of doubting anything that was not supported by physical evidence. It would also bring doubt to methods of evaluating any kind of evidence.

How so? It would seem to be the case of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. If someone were to bring in the actual flesh and blood foot, that differs greatly from someone bringing in a track cast. Should science accept the track cast as proof? No, and rightly so. Should science accept the actual foot? It would be hard not to. I don't see how science deserves a fat lip because it won't accept an extraordinary claim at face value. It doesn't, and it shouldn't.

If Bigfoot shows up.... human rationality gets a big fat lip. Why? Because it seems that we know about myths. But suddenly we have no clue what a myth really is. Watch your ass, so that you don't get poked by an angry unicorn.

And that brings us full circle back to your own words: "Any evidence for the existence of these species has not been argued about as Bigfoot has."

I wasn't aware that unicorns (or fairies, gremlins, gnomes, dragons, elves, trolls, or leprechauns) were being argued about as bigfoot has.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Ray, the staunchest skeptics wouldn't waste their freaking time blibber-blabbing on that forum. What they seem to mostly have is skeptical agnostics. If anyone posts that the PGF is a hoax, their skin aquires a coating of tar and feathers.

I would say if anyone claims the PGF is a hoax without supportive evidence, then they indeed get the sticky treatment.

Some of us have questioned, and continue to question, claims regarding IM indexes, weight, height, and other issues regarding the PGF. I don't recall ever being tarred and feathered because I question the so-called 'evidence' related to the PGF. I came close a couple times when attacking the so-called 'scientific' approach of the BFRO, though more recently some of my concerns about the BFRO have become reality.

Since you are one who dances-on-the-piano-strings of BFF...

Not sure I understand what you mean by that, can you clarify?

.. can you link to anyone there who firmly believes that Bob Heironimus really was the guy in the "Patty Costume", in addition to believing that Bigfoot is pure myth?

You mean those 'staunch skeptics' as YOU define them? I already pointed out one that still posts (Terry), there are many others who are skeptical but don't necessarily believe bigfoot to be a myth. If you have irrefutable proof that Heironimus was the guy being filmed that day, by all means present it. I won't just take his word for it.

I'm certainly in no position to determine who, among the remaining 2,033 members is a rabid skeptic and who is not.

There are many claims about bigfoot that I consider nothing more than myth -- teleportation, telepathy, from another dimension, shape-shifter, etc. -- but I don't understand why a skeptic must believe bigfoot itself to be pure myth.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher
Ray, you have got to be kidding if you think that true disbelievers live and regularly post on BFF. Who over there regularly argues about the authenticity of the PGF (arguing that it is fake) as oppsed to saying that it might be a hoax?

I'd like to know who has irrefutable evidence one way or the other.

Try looking at Terry's posts, he argues against bigfoot even existing. He may not have a terribly high post count, but he's gotten very little flak for stating his position. (That can't be said about the pompous people that spout off, whether they are skeptics or not.)

Saskeptic seems unconvinced that bigfoot exists.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12664&st=0&#entry260248
"I'll tell you this: If I really believed that sasquatch was out there, right now, living and breathing in my own state as the greatest wildlife mystery of our time, i would be knocking myself out trying to be the one to get to the bottom of it. I can think of no greater glory for me as a North American biologist than to be forever associated with the first defintive proof of these amazing creatures in the flesh. I think every last one of my professional colleagues would express the same thing. If we believed, we wouldn't be quiet about it."

Have you noticed the general forum treatment and regularity of postings by Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head and Avindair?

I notice you said general forum treatment, as not everyone jumps on the bandwagon. I appreciate ANY contribution that relies on facts, and I also appreciate intelligent questions. If I recall correctly, I even defended BEH's right to post thoughtful questions.

RayG

RayG

7th September 2005, 10:51 PM

A couple other folks over at the BFF seem unconvinced:

Yetifan.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12349&st=0&#entry254393
"What I'm saying is is that those who claim they know 100% that the film is authentic (with the possible exception of Gimlin) are being presumptive and not scientific in their conclusions since it hasn't been conclusively ruled out that it could be a guy in a suit. I'm of the opinion it's fake given all available data on it. However, I could be wrong."

Likewise SkunkHunter.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1146&st=20&#entry260254
"If the P&G film was proven to be a fake, it would not surprise me as I hardly believe BF exists anyway."

I'm sure there are others, but I have neither the time nor the desire to search for and repost each and every example. There's a search button over there, make use of it.

RayG

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 11:01 PM

RayG, what are your thoughts on the appearance of that print photographed by Laverty on Patty's path? If you have already mentioned them here, I missed it.

I think a fake wooden wallace type foot was put down first to make a whole footprint. Then I think the heel of the fake foot was either pressed or hammered in a few times, creating the deep stepped heel print, and the pushed up dirt in the middle.

Since the photo is of a track made by Patty during her cinematic appearance, and I believe the track is obviously fake, I am led to only one conclusion.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 11:12 PM

I see the footers use "water erosion" to explain the stepped appearance, which is ridiculous.

Here is a big old scan of Patty's tracks. They are just sceaming WALLACE to me. The third one really looks like a Wallace special to me. I think I can see that the dirt is pushed forward to form the "tarsal break" in the print I think was clearly faked. If it's pushed forward, it was done by a hoaxer, not by Patty on the fly.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/member_images/pg_tracks_001.jpg

tube

7th September 2005, 11:32 PM

Have you folks seen the cast that was made of this track? I have, and I am no longer willing to throw out a quick dismissal. The cast is much more ROUND than this photograph shows. The ball of the foot is part of a bowl shaped depression.

To throw a bone to the skeptical mindset, I might suggest that the unusual roundness could come from the man-in-the-suit's foot sort of sloshing around in an oversized boot affair. I suggest this simply because I have not seen this suggestion made before. This would seem like something that could be tested without too much effort.

I'm skeptical that this track was made by a flat Wallace style wooden foot because of the unusual roundness of the heel and ball of the foot. I've learned the hard way, I don't read too much into photographs alone!

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 11:47 PM

Wallace's feet look pretty well rounded to me, especially if you take away a few years of wear and tear.

I cannot recall seing any cast that matches that track. The stepped heel should be a dead give away.

LTC8K6

7th September 2005, 11:52 PM

Interesting pre patty still of the P/G film.

The straight black line in between the "pole trees" and the object in the lower left corner.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1095745076.jpg

RayG

7th September 2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
RayG, what are your thoughts on the appearance of that print photographed by Laverty on Patty's path? If you have already mentioned them here, I missed it.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

That track looks practically hinged. I'm certainly troubled that the print doesn't resemble any of the casts that are presented as belonging to bigfoot.

See if you can find a match:

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//BigSas1.jpg

#3 shows an arch but appears very human-like.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//BigSas3.jpg

No pronounced arch in that one.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot1.gif

No apparent hinge in this one (on the right).

And on and on it goes. Are we not seeing the abnormal arch because it's hard to discern depth on a flat 2 dimensional photo of a cast? If the track were presented on edge, would the indentation be readily apparent? It would be interesting to see photographs of the original Patterson prints before they were cast. Did all the Patterson prints have the same funky arch?

I think a fake wooden wallace type foot was put down first to make a whole footprint. Then I think the heel of the fake foot was either pressed or hammered in a few times, creating the deep stepped heel print, and the pushed up dirt in the middle.

I've not played with any fake feet...well, there was that time I had a GI Joe... so I can't speak from experience whether or not what you describe is probable, or even possible. Did you test your hypothesis to see if it would produce a similar effect? If not, you have nothing more than speculation.

RayG

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 12:13 AM

Well, any experiments I do would be to try to get that stepped appearance on the fly with the nice round heels that bigfoot and I have.

I think it's crystal clear how you'd get it from pounding in the heel of a fake wooden foot. The wood will slip forward a bit with each impact, making the steps.

Meldrum's illustrations only further confuse me as to how such a foot would make the casts we see.....

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 05:19 AM

Interesting pre patty still of the P/G film.

LTC8K6,

Interesting.. What is the source of this still ?

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 05:40 AM

It is from LMS, according to the person who posted it at BFF.

I forgot the most interesting thing, the proximity of the woods. :D

LAL

8th September 2005, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
You'll notice they actually found the plane, only one plane in a huge area of forest but it did eventually show up a few years later. They weren't even looking for it, but there it was. Several thousand 3-metre tall apes spread across the area for what must have been thousands of years, that's another matter entirely.

They found the Ceolocanth, a fish no one had seen in about 300,000,000 years and no one had any idea existed, but they found it. They weren't looking for it, but there it was. Now we know they're in several areas of ocean living far beyond the reach of the sun in small numbers where humans have practically never ventured, yet they were found.

And here we have Lal, dedicated to the religion that is Bigfoot, despite nothing having been found to show they ever existed at all, and to this day is treated as a fairy story by the sane amongst us. "You cant prove it doesn't exist" is the mantra of this religion, and verbage of massive proportions is it's succour.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee Lal, when someone finds one you can go looking for more but right now all it is is an invention of the mind. All the searches fail, all the traps and cameras find nothing, all the films are bogus and many of the tracks are found by hoaxers and people who believe in the religion. Yet you continue to believe, and belief is all you have and probably all you ever will have.

The flight path was known, the plane stayed put, there was an extensive search and it wasn't found for over twenty years. Native people were eating Coelanths for years not knowing they'd been "extinct" for millions of years. (Thirty new species of fish were "discovered" recently, but they've presumably been there all along.)

What does "it was found" mean; what about all those years when it wasn't?

Some films have been bogus, others not. It's pretty easy to tell the difference. There's quite a bit of physical evidence and the documented sightings, often backed up by tracks, are in the thousands. There've been a few hoaxed tracks, easily exposed, and your assertion many have been "found by hoaxers" and "people who believe the religion" is simply false.

There may be some evidence from Noll's camera traps. Luring seems to work better than tracking. What traps do you know of that have failed?

There's no "religion" about this. I've accepted their reality for over thirty years because of events near my land in the Columbia Gorge. There's much more evidence now than there was then and some top scientists and other experts have accepted it as well. Swindler examined the Skookum cast four times and stated his conclusions unequivocably on camera. He'd been a sceptic for thirty years. Dr. Fish was a sceptic, too (he was on the expedition.)

Reject it all you want, but don't make false statements as though the were factual. That doesn't help your case.

Correa Neto

8th September 2005, 06:09 AM

RayG,

IÂ´ve asked LAL a lot of times why should we take evidence for bigfeet as OK but disregard the evidence for UFOs and ghosts when they are of the very same kind.

1) Sighting reports
2) Pictures
3) "Physical evidence"- footprints, landing marks, hair, aleged UFO pieces, scratches etc.

If sightings and pcitures numbers are used as a refference, I would say UFOs would have more backing. Disclaimer: I do not think there are gray and reptiloid aliens (neither nordic-type) flying around us.

How and where to draw the line? Because bigfeet are, according to LALÂ´s POV more plausible? Can anyone please clarify?

I suggest that bigfeet researchers should change their methodology and dump all such unrelianble data. Yes, it may sound harsh, but most of whatÂ´s been shown so far is not hard data. Then make a fresh start, but one from the point that bigfeet existence is a possibility (unlikely IMHO), and not by assuming they are real.

LAL

8th September 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Interesting pre patty still of the P/G film.

The straight black line in between the "pole trees" and the object in the lower left corner.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1095745076.jpg

They're poles at the base camp. There's a lengthy discussion on this on BFF. It's a piece of prior footage on the roll.

LAL

8th September 2005, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

Lu, please explain the appearance of the back of the heel in this footprint. A footprint that was made on the fly by Patty on camera.

I have already offered the only possible explanation I could think of.

Do you have one?

How did we get the stepped or layered effect at the back of the heel?

How did the material in the middle not get flattened as the foot rolled over it?

The explanation is in the article we've both posted. The sand was pushed up during step-off. The foot had already rolled.

"In October 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured on film a female Bigfoot retreating across a loamy sandbar on Bluff Creek, in northern California. The film provides a view of the plantar surface of the subject's foot, as well as several unobstructed views of step cycles. In addition to a prominent elongated heel, a midtarsal break is apparent during midstance and considerable flexion of the midtarsus can be seen during the swing phase. The subject left a long series of deeply impressed footprints. Patterson cast single examples of a right and a left footprint. The next day the site was visited by Robert Laverty, a timber management assistant and his sales crew. He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist. A model of inferred skeletal anatomy is proposed here to account for the distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and "half-tracks" in which the heel impression is absent. In this model the Sasquatch foot lacks a fixed longitudinal arch, but instead exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint. Following the midtarsal break, a plastic substrate may be pushed up in a pressure ridge as propulsive force is exerted through the midfoot. An increased power arm in the foot lever system is achieved by heel elongation as opposed to arch fixation."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/019.jpg

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

I have no idea what you're talking about with the heel. It's shadowed.

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by LAL
The explanation is in the article we've both posted. The sand was pushed up during step-off. The foot had already rolled.
Why just one track like this in the trackway? Are you saying you cannot see the terraces in the back of the heel ?

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/019.jpg

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

I have no idea what you're talking about with the heel. It's shadowed. The drawing is a joke.. What is the 2-3 inch thick sole of the foot ( on Bigfoot ) supposed to be about?

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by LAL
They're poles at the base camp. There's a lengthy discussion on this on BFF. It's a piece of prior footage on the roll. Who has this film? Do you have a link to the discussion ?

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 06:47 AM

There may be some evidence from Noll's camera traps. Luring seems to work better than tracking. Where is the evidence from Noll's camera traps ?

Lets do this again...

1. Luring = No Bigfoot

2. Tracking = No Bigfoot

Explain how we get " Luring seems to work better. " out of this..

What traps do you know of that have failed? Duhhh, ........ all of them ? :rolleyes:

LAL

8th September 2005, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
RayG,

IÂ´ve asked LAL a lot of times why should we take evidence for bigfeet as OK but disregard the evidence for UFOs and ghosts when they are of the very same kind.

I've already given my thoughts on UFO's. Ghosts don't leave footprints. And I don't have a taste for herring, red or otherwise.

1) Sighting reports
2) Pictures
3) "Physical evidence"- footprints, landing marks, hair, aleged UFO pieces, scratches etc.

If sightings and pcitures numbers are used as a refference, I would say UFOs would have more backing. Disclaimer: I do not think there are gray and reptiloid aliens (neither nordic-type) flying around us.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your statements about most scientists you've "checked with" think the data is "rubblish".

How and where to draw the line? Because bigfeet are, according to LALÂ´s POV more plausible? Can anyone please clarify?

I suggest that bigfeet researchers should change their methodology and dump all such unrelianble data. Yes, it may sound harsh, but most of whatÂ´s been shown so far is not hard data. Then make a fresh start, but one from the point that bigfeet existence is a possibility (unlikely IMHO), and not by assuming they are real.

There's nothing wrong with the best evidence and there's no point in discarding it. Confirmation will come when someone brings in a body or a hunk of one. Until then sceptics will dismiss new evidence just as they do old evidence.

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 06:56 AM

They're poles at the base camp. There's a lengthy discussion on this on BFF. It's a piece of prior footage on the roll.

The discussion at BFF has them as trees, not poles. I still don't know which they are, though.

I thought "pole trees" was a big giant clue that I had read the thread at BFF. Maybe I should have made it flash?

No comment on the black line and the lower left corner?

This is quite a bit of prior footage I have become aware of in the last few days on my own, despite often asking about it. Why no one could reveal that this footage was available is beyond me....

This brings up the question of the length of the film again, doesn't it? I think someone was asking how long the P/G film on LMS was.....

Next thing you know, someone will be posting clear stills from the first roll.....

Diogenes, the discussion is quite lively about this at BFF. Unfortunately I was using my laptop last night and I do not have the link handy here at work.

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 07:49 AM

Diogenes, the discussion is quite lively about this at BFF. Unfortunately I was using my laptop last night and I do not have the link handy here at work. I'm feeling stupid now..

I recently aquired a copy of LMS, and I now see that this still is from the first two frames of the Patterson footage.. I hadn't bothered to check the beginning frame by frame, because the first few seconds are very chaotic.

I will share later, about when Patty first appears in the clip.

As we have observed before, the missing footage is by far more relevant, than what we have been allowed to see..

I believe we can safely assume the missing footage does not support the existence of Bigfoot or Patty as other than a hoax.. It certainly makes us wonder what is being hidden..

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 08:23 AM

Lu,

Here is a blowup of the print with the ridges pointed out.

How do you suppose those ridges were made in just one print ( that we know of ) in what is presented as a flowing trackway?

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/018.jpg

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/RIDGES.GIF

You also haven't explained why this track bears little resemblance to what we can see of the soles of Patty's feet in the PGF ?

P.S.

Tube,

You said you have seen the cast of this print.. What is the explanation of the heel ridges?

UrsulaV

8th September 2005, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I disagree, William. There are people at this board who have changed their minds about a few things.

I have changed my mind about the P/G film. I was unsure about it. Now I am not.

I'll add in my two cents--while it's increasingly unwieldy to follow, this thread has certainly been useful to me for the same reason. The nagging question of the P/G film, from when I was a starry-eyed pre-teen clutching cryptozoology books to my scrawny chest, has been settled to my satisfaction, and I know a lot more about the quality of the evidence, or the lack thereof.

In fact, the whole thread's been handy--I was generally willing to give Bigfoot a certain degree of possible credibility, but having reviewed the evidence laid out so painstakingly in this thread, while I can't definitively state that There Is No Bigfoot, my thought has gone from "I dunno, I guess anything's possible," to "Jeez, this "evidence" is a lot more shoddy than my copy of "The Jersey Devil and Beyond!" made it out to be."

It's not much of a journey of self-discovery, I grant you, but I take what I can get.

Correa Neto

8th September 2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by LAL
I've already given my thoughts on UFO's. Ghosts don't leave footprints. And I don't have a taste for herring, red or otherwise.

I have not asked for your thoughts on UFOs. I asked if you could please provide reasons why one should think that the evidences for bigfeet are more reliable than the evidence for UFOs and ghosts. Where are the differences in the data quality? UFOlogists also claim to run checks in sighting reports and study pictures for frauds.

Edited to add: Ghost reseachers sometimes point to scratches in walls, hand marks in books, etc. as physical evidence for ghosts. These could be taken as being the equivalent in terms of evidence class to bigfoot footprints.End edit

Originally posted by LAL
I'm still waiting for you to back up your statements about most scientists you've "checked with" think the data is "rubblish".

Some years ago, while I was still making my PhD we had as a habit to discuss several issues during lunch, coffee breaks and happy hours. In case you donÂ´t know, thatÂ´s a common habit at many universities, and quite a lot of good stuff has came out from these discussions.

There were geos, bios, paleos, professors, students, etc. cryptos sometimes showed up as the subject. Bigfeet (PGF included) also. The data avalible so far (sighting reports, blurred pictures, alleged footprints and the suspect of frauds and mistakes over much of the "best evidence"), that has not changed when it comes to its quality, was deemed as insuficient, suspicious and rubbish. Oh, and in-depth discussions happened.

"Possible but improbable" was the best veredict that one could reach.

Originally posted by LAL
There's nothing wrong with the best evidence and there's no point in discarding it. Confirmation will come when someone brings in a body or a hunk of one. Until then sceptics will dismiss new evidence just as they do old evidence.

The fact that you think thereÂ´s nothing wrong with the best evidence is a testimony to how biased your opinions are when it comes to this subject.

At least in one thing we agree: 10000 new sighting reports will not change my opinion. What you donÂ´t seem to grasp is that its not a matter of quantity but of quality. If a trained biologist with a good ammount of field experience eventually reports a bigfoot observation, one that lasts more than a few seconds at night, for example, this would be much more reliable than all BFRO reports database. And still, not a definitive proof that the animal exists.

New pictures and footage, unless sharp and without being under suspicious of being hoaxes, will also not be taken as good evidence.

New alleged footprints, unless there are no chances of being hoaxes or misinterpretations will also be useless.

If a body, a captive specimen or sharp footage shows up, I, the other members of this forum and the scientific community will happily acknoweledge we were wrong on the topic. You, on the other hand, donÂ´t seem to be really willing to critically analyse the data, relying on the opinions that fit with your POV, never really questioning it. ThatÂ´s not objectivity. ThatÂ´s belief.

phenomenon

8th September 2005, 09:11 AM

The heal ridges and other fine and intricate markings on prints are quote easily acheived.

After seeing a recent doumentary it became clear that a foot the size of a double decker is possible with the right knowledge.

I'm not too sure of the material used, however, the idea was that an initial cast is taken. This then expands but not to the point that ridges etc are distorted. Another cast is taken within this one and that becomes the master cast. This process is repeated many times to gain a print that would make any clob hopping Yeti proud!

As for the Gimlin clip....not a lot to say is there?

RayG

8th September 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Meldrum's illustrations only further confuse me as to how such a foot would make the casts we see.....

I find it confusing as well. The supposed tremendous weight of these creatures, combined with bone structure that has the arch pointing down instead of up, would logically create footprints where the middle of the footprint should be pressed as deeply into the ground as the rest of the footprint.

What his drawing presents is not a very comfortable foot -- the full standing weight is borne by the arch. I would think walking any distance with that bone structure would produce some very unhappy feet.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/019.jpg

I'd like to know how Meldrum came to the conclusion that the foot was structured the way he shows it. Any other primates have a similar bone structure of the foot? Somehow he and Krantz are able to create bone structures based on nothing more than a footprint.

Humans can produce apparent midtarsel breaks (huge ones too) in their footprints even when wearing shoes!!

http://www.bay13.net/pics/desktop/morepictures/footprints.jpg
http://www.kuehlphoto.com/318.jpg

RayG

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 11:09 AM

You can show a "mid tarsal break" with a chunk of 2 X 4 strapped to your foot. Just dig in with the back and push off with the front.

RayG

8th September 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, any experiments I do would be to try to get that stepped appearance on the fly with the nice round heels that bigfoot and I have.

So what experiments have you done? It's easy to speculate.

I think it's crystal clear how you'd get it from pounding in the heel of a fake wooden foot. The wood will slip forward a bit with each impact, making the steps.

If you only think it's crystal clear, it's probably not. What experiments have you conducted to prove your hypothesis?

RayG

RayG

8th September 2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by LAL
[B]The flight path was known, the plane stayed put, there was an extensive search and it wasn't found for over twenty years.

I'd have to argue: planes sometimes stray from their flight path, the extensive search lasted less than seven days, and nobody was searching for it for over twenty years.

(Thirty new species of fish were "discovered" recently, but they've presumably been there all along.)

You mean like the 10th planet? Scientists 'discover' lots of new things each year, but that's not evidence of bigfoot.

What does "it was found" mean; what about all those years when it wasn't?

What about them? It neither negates the existence of the plane, nor proves the existence of bigfoot.

Some films have been bogus, others not. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Not quite or there wouldn't be such disagreement over the PGF.

There's quite a bit of physical evidence and the documented sightings, often backed up by tracks, are in the thousands.

By 'quite a bit of physical evidence', you mean tracks? The rest of it ain't worth diddly. Blobsquatches, blurry films, suspected vocalizations, and so forth just don't cut the mustard.

There may be some evidence from Noll's camera traps.

There may be some evidence? What type of evidence do you mean? Broken cameras? Blobsquatches?

Luring seems to work better than tracking.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

What traps do you know of that have failed?

One might ask, what traps do you know of that have been successful?

I've accepted their reality for over thirty years because of events near my land in the Columbia Gorge.

I'm not as easily convinced. I'll accept the reality of bigfoot the day a bodypart is brought in for examination. Even if I saw one with my own eyes, I wouldn't trust my perception.

There's much more evidence now than there was then and some top scientists and other experts have accepted it as well.

Such as? I've been following this mystery for roughly 30 years myself, and it's increasingly frustrating that with all the advances in technology, we're no closer to proving bigfoot exists than we were 30 years ago.

No DNA positively identified.
No hairs positively identified.
No sound recordings positively identified.
No creature positivley identified.

Swindler examined the Skookum cast four times and stated his conclusions unequivocably on camera.

Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he can't make mistakes. As Russell Ciochon, a prominent paleoanthropologist and professor at the University of Iowa said, "He's an important figure. But I still don't think Bigfoot exists in any form."(1)

Very few scientists have actually examined the Skookum cast, and there have certainly been doubts raised about its authenticity. There are still things about the cast that defy common sense. Testicle prints, and numerous heel prints, but no footprints, for example. In fact, there was no other evidence whatsoever that bigfoot was in the area, yet somehow he managed to breakdance his way to grabbing a few pieces of fruit, contorting his body in a manner that wouldn't allow for clear footprints or buttprints. I'm not convinced the Skookum cast is anything more than wishful-thinking.

RayG

(1) http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bfbelievers.html

tube

8th September 2005, 12:53 PM

Tube,

You said you have seen the cast of this print.. What is the explanation of the heel ridges?

I am only recently made aware of the heel ridges because of you folks bringing it up. I did not even notice this upon examination of the cast. I still find the cast much more enigmatic than some here with quick and easy answers as to how it was fabricated.

I infer that this track was fabricated because I believe the Patterson film to be a hoax (primarilly based on the un-breast like breasts) but I have no insight on how this track came to be the way it is.

RayG

8th September 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
RayG,

IÂ´ve asked LAL a lot of times why should we take evidence for bigfeet as OK but disregard the evidence for UFOs and ghosts when they are of the very same kind.

1) Sighting reports
2) Pictures
3) "Physical evidence"- footprints, landing marks, hair, aleged UFO pieces, scratches etc.

I too have pointed out the quantity of bigfoot reports and sightings is comparable to the quanity of UFO reports and sightings, especially when proponents try to use the sheer number of reports and sightings as evidence.

There are differences however:

To my knowledge there is no creature on the planet that exhibits the claimed characteristics of ghosts. Though some insects and birds may hover, I'm not aware of any that can pass through solid walls. If bigfoot exists, it's an animal, that eats, sleeps, defecates, and even bleeds like other animals.

Bigfoot is not planet-hopping in a souped up spacecraft travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light, nor have they kidnapped anyone to take them joyriding. Bigfoot need not defy the laws of physics to exist.

I'm not aware of any claims of implants bigfoot has inserted into a hapless victim.

Disclaimer: I do not think there are gray and reptiloid aliens (neither nordic-type) flying around us.

I take that one step further and say I don't think there are ANY aliens flying around us.

How and where to draw the line? Because bigfeet are, according to LALÂ´s POV more plausible? Can anyone please clarify?

I pointed out some differences above, but here are some more: :D

There is no reason to suspect bigfoot (IF it exists) is anything other than flesh and blood. Aliens, on the other hand, are make of gooky green stuff.

Bigfoot (IF it exists) lives in forested areas, and wander about on foot. Aliens apparently live on another planet, probably in another galaxy, and travel about using advanced technological methods.

Bigfoot (IF it exists) eats various food found in forests -- fruits, small animals, fish, and plants. Aliens eat those god awful rations the astronauts use, like tubes of chicken that look like toothpaste.

I suggest that bigfeet researchers should change their methodology and dump all such unreliable data.

I agree wholeheartedly. Many many bigfoot reports require a lot of imagination stretching or wishful-thinking. It's something that's always stuck in my craw.

Yes, it may sound harsh, but most of whatÂ´s been shown so far is not hard data. Then make a fresh start, but one from the point that bigfeet existence is a possibility (unlikely IMHO), and not by assuming they are real.

And again, I agree 100%.

RayG

RayG

8th September 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by LAL
Until then sceptics will dismiss new evidence just as they do old evidence.

Probably, but it helps if you actually have some evidence.

RayG

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 01:46 PM

If you only think it's crystal clear, it's probably not. What experiments have you conducted to prove your hypothesis?

I have already made lots of footprints in mud, sand, and snow throughout my life both barefoot and shod. I am quite familiar with them.

As far as the wooden foot making Patty's track, I think my theoretical work is accurate enough. It is a plausible explanation for the track that fits what I see. That is enough for me for now.

Perhaps if we ever get any rain, and I get a little bored.....

Skeptical Greg

8th September 2005, 01:46 PM

Re the ' Pole ' pic..

The straight black line in between the "pole trees" and the object in the lower left corner. I believe the black line is an artifact. It shows up in other frames..

IMO This picture is pretty benign.. The poles could be saplings.. One could suspect they are finished poles, but if you allow that they are out of focus, you can conclude that bark and surface irregularities are merely obscured for that reason.

Now, if I wanted to heat things up a bit, I might plant the seed that the area I have outlined is part of a Patty suit.. Can you say ' pareidolia ' ? :D

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/pole.gif

I hope to start a new thread soon with some analysis of the PGF footage in LMS.

RayG

8th September 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Correa Neto
If a body, a captive specimen or sharp footage shows up, I, the other members of this forum and the scientific community will happily acknowledge we were wrong on the topic. You, on the other hand, donÂ´t seem to be really willing to critically analyse the data, relying on the opinions that fit with your POV, never really questioning it. ThatÂ´s not objectivity. ThatÂ´s belief.

That's just the way it is...

RayG

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 01:50 PM

I did not even notice this upon examination of the cast.

I would have thought those rather large ridges would be obvious. If they aren't on the cast, then the cast is not of that track, or the track was "touched up" before the pour.

It will be very difficult to believe a cast will hold dermal ridges but won't hold the ridges on that heel.

LTC8K6

8th September 2005, 02:04 PM

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7220&st=0

The pre-Patty thread at BFF if you haven't found it already, Diogenes.

8th September 2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Now, if I wanted to heat things up a bit, I might plant the seed that the area I have outlined is part of a Patty suit..

Not so certain about it, but if you look directly upward from that point you'll notice that there is a ghost watching directyly to the camera. It looks a bit like a mind flayer to me, or perhaps the Great Cthulhu in disguise.

Correa Neto

8th September 2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by RayG
I too have pointed out the quantity of bigfoot reports and sightings is comparable to the quanity of UFO reports and sightings, especially when proponents try to use the sheer number of reports and sightings as evidence.

There are differences however:

To my knowledge there is no creature on the planet that exhibits the claimed characteristics of ghosts. Though some insects and birds may hover, I'm not aware of any that can pass through solid walls. If bigfoot exists, it's an animal, that eats, sleeps, defecates, and even bleeds like other animals.

Bigfoot is not planet-hopping in a souped up spacecraft travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light, nor have they kidnapped anyone to take them joyriding. Bigfoot need not defy the laws of physics to exist.
...snip...

Thanks for the answers. Seems to me a quite valid point.

However, I must point that actually these are, to a certain point, criteria based on a particular interpretation of the sightings. They are (or may be), thus related to individual POVs. Some people might argue that aliens are as plausible than bigfeet, for example. OK, some - actually a lot of- stretching and speculation will be needed. Sure, lets not use the extreme examples, (erickbeckjord-tlike ypes comes to mind), but one might argue that aliens might use genration ships and such, for example, thus not needing to break the (known -I hesitated to write the "known") laws of physics. Well, with ghosts, its "a bit" harder, but weÂ´ve seen in this board some arguments (with a lot of stretching and speculations attached) also.

Is this the only way of drawing the line?

The "internal consistency" of the reports, sometimes used as criteria (similarity between bigfeet descriptions from eyewitnesses), does not also seem to be a very reasonable way of drawing the line, since there are some common lines among the descriptions of aliens and ghosts.

Not to mention the sighting reports linking bigfeet and UFOs...

Well, actually my point is that one should not rely too much on sighting reports as evidence for bigfeet. And we agree on that.

tube

8th September 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I would have thought those rather large ridges would be obvious. If they aren't on the cast, then the cast is not of that track, or the track was "touched up" before the pour.

It will be very difficult to believe a cast will hold dermal ridges but won't hold the ridges on that heel.

Most of the casts of the Patterson film site floating around today are second or third (or unknown) generation casts. I do not know what generation the cast that I examined was. The one I'm talking about was donated by Craig Woolheater to the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries, and it is there currently. I'll take a close look the next time I'm there. Frankly, the photograph may offer better clues as to the "stepped" nature of the track than today's cast copies, simply because of the loss of detail in the multi-generational copying.

As I say, I was preoccupied with the roundness of the ball and heel area, and I was not paying any attention to any purportedly "stepped" texture. Sort of like staring at some dude's goofy hat then being asked what kind of shoes he was wearing!

Kenny 10 Bellys

8th September 2005, 04:54 PM

Wonder no more, my younger sister (35 and a half years old) has come up with best hypothesis yet as to why no one can find these immense creatures, and it kind of combines the above mentioned aliens.

I described what was going on in this thread and about bigfoot in general, something my sister has never shown any interest in, and she came up with an idea. She believes that what we have here are Chewbacca-like beings from the future, or possibly aliens, using cloaking technology similar to that displayed by the Predator(tm).

She can just picture all these BFRO members wandering around while under the infra-red scrutiny of massive hairy aliens protected by light-bending technology, but incapable of hiding their tracks in the same way.

Explains a lot, doesn't it. This is why no one sees them, this is why motion cameras find nothing other than normal woodland creatures, except of course when Bigfoot interferes with them for some inscrutable alien reason. This explains why thousands of Wookies are able to walk around in modern day America and Nepal without leaving a single trace other than misshapen tracks in the mud.

Certainly makes as much sense to me as any other theory concerning humungous invisible people cohabiting with man.

fsol

8th September 2005, 06:38 PM

Read Beckjord.

LAL

9th September 2005, 08:03 AM

Well, my eyes have certainly been opened. I hereby revise my original impression that the average age (mentally, at least) on this board is fifteen. It would seem middle-aged people can engage in childish antics too.

I stand enlightened.

LAL

9th September 2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by RayG
Probably, but it helps if you actually have some evidence.

RayG

What evidence would actually be acceptable to you?

LTC8K6

9th September 2005, 08:32 AM

It would seem middle-aged people can engage in childish antics too.

You mean like claiming that people haven't graduated high school, and correcting the use of the term National Park and other errors, while making the same sorts of errors yourself?

Making things up?

Childish stuff like that?

Yeah, adults shouldn't do that.

LAL

9th September 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by fsol
Read Beckjord.

Looks like someone has.

He was banned from Loren Coleman's board a couple of days ago after what seemed to be more than a fair trial.

RayG

9th September 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by LAL
What evidence would actually be acceptable to you?

A bodypart. Almost any bodypart. A finger, ear, foot, hand, head, naughty parts, etc.

RayG

Blackwell

9th September 2005, 10:11 AM

I think LAL's humor gland is broken.

i can understand the frustration she may be feeling, but geez. Lighten up a little.

William Parcher

12th September 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by William Parcher:
I hope that Bigfoot does not exist, because proof of the reality of Bigfoot would show that scientific rationality, reason and skepticism are not worth Jack-squat on this planet.

Originally posted by RayG
Not at all. Would you say that if they discovered a new planet? Why not? If they discovered a new species of insect, plant, or animal somewhere? Why not?

I'm sure there will be a great many more discoveries, continuing long after I'm no longer alive to see them. That doesn't mean scientific skepticism blows chunks, or sucks.

I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant. Bigfoot is different than a new planet, animal, plant etc. The evidence presented for Bigfoot is almost entirely dismissed by science, rationality, reason and general skepticism. Most "new" discoveries do not have many decades worth of presented "evidence" that is consistently discounted, as it is with Bigfoot.

The most important kind of evidence (biological material) is completely missing. Almost 50 years of searching for Bigfoot in America has done nothing to show that the creature is not a myth. I would say that the nature of the presented evidence and the behavior of most true believers actually strongly suggests that it is a myth.

The problem with suddenly discovering a real Bigfoot is that it would show that science and skepticism cannot be good tools to argue against "paranormal" things or fantastic claims. The most unbelievable aspect of Bigfoot is not that it couldn't possibly exist, but rather that it has not been confirmed to exist and seems resistant to confirmation even when it would be reasonable to expect it.

Bigfooters are strongly critical of science and scientists because they say that they will not acknowledge or pay real attention to Bigfoot. But at the same time, they seem to willfully withhold evidence from the scientific world. Why aren't footprint castings, etc. donated or loaned to scientific institutions as evidence of an undiscovered bipedal ape? Why are these things held tightly within the Bigfoot believer community?

I have called the Bigfoot phenomenon: myth perpetuation. That is because it looks just like that to me.

I believe that 100% of the footprint evidence is a hoax (unless one can account for a human with giant bare feet walking in forests... in which case it would be mistaken identity). I believe that 100% of sightings and other "encounters" are hoaxes or mistaken identities. If anyone wants to perpetuate a myth and make it seem real, then people must play games on each other. Bigfoot is a game that people are playing with each others minds.