Bigfoot follies

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavoMan


I hate the whole 'I bet ya couldnt fake that!' argument. Its a rather big assumption. Also its somewhat of an insult to holywood special effects guys eh?

Not in 1967. John Chambers (Planet of the Apes) said he wished he had the skill.
He's dead now, BTW.

[Red Siegfried]

Yeah, and now that Chambers is dead both sides can make up whatever crap about him they want to say. You got skeptics saying he claimed to have faked the Patterson footage and you got believers saying that he said it was real. Blah blah blah ... point is I don't know what Chambers believed.

turtle, let's get back on topic here, I'm tired of arguing about what you think I said about you personally, your emotions and how mean and ignorant you think I am. That's not the topic.

Regarding:

1. (hair). Please reference the hair evidence that you think proves the existence of bigfoot and we'll debate. I would contend that no hair evidence found so far relating to bigfoot specifically can conclusively prove its existence.

2. (photos). We pretty much agree here, I think. Some of it's interesting but most of it is bunk.

3. (footprints). Just because you think it can't be faked doesn't mean it can't. Just because you think it would be too hard to make an enlarged latex copy of a human foot using foam latex, plaster casts and alcohol soaking, then later using a small amount of knowledge about dermal ridges to make some interesting patterns that match neither a human nor an ape (easier to do than creating a unique imprint identifiable as human or ape from scratch), doesn't mean it hasn't been done. It has. If I can find the tape, I'll dig up the name of the program I saw that demonstrated this, and I'll see if I can find some other references on how to do this. (anyone who knows what show I am talking about feel free to chime in). The point is that footprints can be faked. Just because you don't think it's easy doesn't mean it isn't possible, because it's a matter of record that it has been done (your breakfast habits aside). Footprints, complete with dermal ridges, ARE HOAXABLE and don't constitute sufficient evidence for anyone who understands how they are hoaxed, for the same reasons that photographs are not good evidence - anyone who knows how to fake them knows that they can be faked.

[Red Siegfried]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Of course, you don't remember who this "Bigfoot expert" was?

Thirty years ago Dr. Meldrum hadn't examined tracks in situ on two occasions. He was impressed with the midtarsal bend.
Note the half tracks:

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

Jimmy Chilcutt found half a dozen of the casts in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges, which are neither human nor ape.

Then there's the opinion of the country's foremost primate anatomist that the Skookum imprint was made by an unidentified North American hominid primate, and this after 30 years of scepticism. (Dr. Daris Swindler was usually the obligatory sceptical scientist in the TV shows.)

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the "true unbelievers" to accept that there's any evidence at all.

Midtarsal bend, eh? Huh, almost seems like bigfoot's foot is made out of .... latex. Could be, eh?

What do you think is more likely, an unknown, very large upright primate that happens to have feet that bend like rubber or some hoaxer with a rubber foot mold?

Why do some people always seem to think the least likely explanation is the right one?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Yeah, and now that Chambers is dead both sides can make up whatever crap about him they want to say. You got skeptics saying he claimed to have faked the Patterson footage and you got believers saying that he said it was real. Blah blah blah ... point is I don't know what Chambers believed.

I don't know of any claims from him about faking the footage.

"The North American Science Institute claims it has spent over $100,000 to prove the film is of a genuine Bigfoot. However, according to veteran Hollywood director John Landis, “that famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers,” who helped create the ape suits in Planet of the Apes (1968). Howard Berger, of Hollywood’s KNB Effects Group, also has claimed that it was common knowledge within the film industry that Chambers was responsible for a hoax that turned Bigfoot into a worldwide cult. "

http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

Rumors aren't evidence.
Patterson couldn't have afforded him, in any event.

[Red Siegfried]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I don't know of any claims from him about faking the footage.

"The North American Science Institute claims it has spent over $100,000 to prove the film is of a genuine Bigfoot. However, according to veteran Hollywood director John Landis, “that famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers,” who helped create the ape suits in Planet of the Apes (1968). Howard Berger, of Hollywood’s KNB Effects Group, also has claimed that it was common knowledge within the film industry that Chambers was responsible for a hoax that turned Bigfoot into a worldwide cult. "

http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

Rumors aren't evidence.
Patterson couldn't have afforded him, in any event.

Yeah, do a search on Google for "Chambers faked bigfoot" and you'll see a dozen references to him having faked the footage, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence he did so other than rumors and hearsay and a lot of stories about what Landis said about it.

As far as I know Chambers never said anything about the subject of faking bigfoot. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Landis? Well, he can say Chambers did it but now that Chambers is dead, we need some evidence other than his word. He might have been able to do it, sure, but we don't know.

Reading that you'd think I was a believer. It also really bugged me when I read all the "Bigfoot is dead" stories relating to the death of Ray Wallace. One confirmed hoaxer dies and everyone seems to think "mystery solved." Far from it.

I just think that as bad as the evidence for bigfoot is, claiming it's all a hoax because Wallace was a confirmed hoaxer is not how science is done. I happen to think it is all a hoax, but for other reasons, not just because one guy hoaxed something. Plus I'm open to changing my mind if better evidence comes along.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Midtarsal bend, eh? Huh, almost seems like bigfoot's foot is made out of .... latex. Could be, eh?

What do you think is more likely, an unknown, very large upright primate that happens to have feet that bend like rubber or some hoaxer with a rubber foot mold?

Why do some people always seem to think the least likely explanation is the right one?

I used to live in Skamania County, Washington. First year I was in the area a double trackway in snow was found above a cabin north of Carson. Those tracks went up inclines the film crews had to climb like "two machines". They were followed for seven miles before they were lost in forest. I knew people who were in on those investigations, including the Cox sighting in the same month.
There's no way a pair of hoaxers were running around with latex feet in the heaviest snowpack in 85 years.
There are many, many reports of tracks in remote areas where the discoverers themselves didn't know where they were going.
Remember stride length and depth of impression, too.
John Green weighted himself down with 250 pounds and still couldn't impress as deeply as the '67 Bluff Creek tracks he examined after the Patterson incident.
There have been a couple of incidents (Rant Mullens and Ray Wallace, e.g.) where someone made tracks with carved wooden feet (that don't match any "real" tracks, BTW), but where's the documentation on anyone using latex with dermal ridges?

[Beady]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
I'll definitely let you all know if someone ever comes up with some evidence that makes me reconsider that stance. I think that would be limited to a live specimen, identifiable remains, or identifiable DNA.

A carcass would be pretty convincing, but I'm incredibly reluctant to call for one to be produced. Consider: If the thing actually exists, it is incredibly rare and, despite sensationalist accounts, extremely shy and inoffensive. The total lack of verifiable sightings, would seem to attest to both its rarity and its bashfulness (again, this assumes its actual existance). It may be so rare that taking one alive, thereby removing it from the gene pool, could endanger the rest of the species. That it has so successfully avoided human contact could mean a bashfulness so severe that the shock of capture would kill it.

If any of this is even partly true, what would be the moral justification for hunting it, no matter whether to capture or kill? For that matter, what would be the pragmatic justification?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Yeah, do a search on Google for "Chambers faked bigfoot" and you'll see a dozen references to him having faked the footage, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence he did so other than rumors and hearsay and a lot of stories about what Landis said about it.

As far as I know Chambers never said anything about the subject of faking bigfoot. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Landis? Well, he can say Chambers did it but now that Chambers is dead, we need some evidence other than his word. He might have been able to do it, sure, but we don't know.

Reading that you'd think I was a believer. It also really bugged me when I read all the "Bigfoot is dead" stories relating to the death of Ray Wallace. One confirmed hoaxer dies and everyone seems to think "mystery solved." Far from it.

I just think that as bad as the evidence for bigfoot is, claiming it's all a hoax because Wallace was a confirmed hoaxer is not how science is done. I happen to think it is all a hoax, but for other reasons, not just because one guy hoaxed something. Plus I'm open to changing my mind if better evidence comes along.

There's really some very good evidence. It's unfortunate it doesn't get the attention frauds like Bob Heironimus and Ray Wallace got.
Wallace's family did the claiming for him. Green was on to him for years.
How anyone could confuse this with the Patterson evidence is beyond me:


http://www.bigfootresearch.org/Bigfo...%20wallace.htm

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Midtarsal bend, eh?

Of course, Chimpanzees and Australopithecines have (or had) the same midtarsal bend. Homo doesn't.

Do you think the Laetoli trackway was made by latex feet?
Check this out:

http://www.scientificexploration.org...ts/v18n1a5.php

[Red Siegfried]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I used to live in Skamania County, Washington. First year I was in the area a double trackway in snow was found above a cabin north of Carson. Those tracks went up inclines the film crews had to climb like "two machines". They were followed for seven miles before they were lost in forest. I knew people who were in on those investigations, including the Cox sighting in the same month.
There's no way a pair of hoaxers were running around with latex feet in the heaviest snowpack in 85 years.

Sorry, anecdotes aren't good evidence. Sure wish you could have recorded that event in some way, that would have been very interesting to witness.

Quote:

There are many, many reports of tracks in remote areas where the discoverers themselves didn't know where they were going.

Once again, anecdotes aren't evidence. We need some documentary evidence, preferably detailed casts before we can consider these as evidence of any kind.

Quote:

Remember stride length and depth of impression, too.
John Green weighted himself down with 250 pounds and still couldn't impress as deeply as the '67 Bluff Creek tracks he examined after the Patterson incident.

How long after the incident was that? There are many ways to create an increased stride length. Small stilts, walking very fast, leaping slightly while running. I admit those are kind of weak assertions since I don't have any evidence they happened. As for track depth, could you reference that somewhere? I'd like to read more about that. I'm not questioning your veracity or anything like that, but I need to know more about the circumstances of the measurements before I trust their accuracy. Why should I take John Green's word for the depth of prints and length of strides without some kind of evidence other than his word? Sure, testimony is a form of evidence, but we really need more than that.

Quote:

There have been a couple of incidents (Rant Mullens and Ray Wallace, e.g.) where someone made tracks with carved wooden feet (that don't match any "real" tracks, BTW), but where's the documentation on anyone using latex with dermal ridges?

I'll find the reference on how a latex footprint with dermal ridges can be manufactured. I don't have access to it right now because I'm not at home. As for where the proof is that someone actually did it, I don't have any, but the photos you linked to seem like the start of good evidence to me ...

[Red Siegfried]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Of course, Chimpanzees and Australopithecines have (or had) the same midtarsal bend. Homo doesn't.

Do you think the Laetoli trackway was made by latex feet?
Check this out:

http://www.scientificexploration.org...ts/v18n1a5.php

Sorry, not falling for that trick. Just because you can find one instance where a midtarsel bend is obviously not a fake because it is well documented fossil evidence does not mean that alleged bigfoot tracks with a similar characteristic are real. That is most illogical, Captain. And that goes both ways, too, for the kids out there who still need to take a logic class: just because I may be able to prove that one set of prints with a midtarsal bend is fake does not mean they all are, as evidenced by LAL.

It still stands that one possible explanation for bigfoot prints with midtarsal bends and dermal ridges is that they are latex molds. And don't try any sneaky implying that I'm saying that this is the end-all-be-all of explanations for bigfoot tracks. I'm not. It's just one possible explanation, but it's a much more probable explanation than positing a giant unknown primate.

I'd also like to clarify a point about latex foot mold. Sure, the latex feet can be worn and used to make footprints themselves but that couldn't explain all footprints given that latex has a certain coefficient of restitution and earth has a certain compressibility depending on the terrain. I was originally putting forth the hypothesis that the latex molds can be an intermediary step in the manufacture of plaster or even plastic feet, which are in turn used to make the footprint.

The idea is you take an impression of a foot, make a plaster impression, cover that in latex then soak the latex in alcohol so it will enlarge, then repeat the process with plaster again until you get the size you want.

These are just possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mysteries we will examine.

[Red Siegfried]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
A carcass would be pretty convincing, but I'm incredibly reluctant to call for one to be produced. Consider: If the thing actually exists, it is incredibly rare and, despite sensationalist accounts, extremely shy and inoffensive. The total lack of verifiable sightings, would seem to attest to both its rarity and its bashfulness (again, this assumes its actual existance). It may be so rare that taking one alive, thereby removing it from the gene pool, could endanger the rest of the species. That it has so successfully avoided human contact could mean a bashfulness so severe that the shock of capture would kill it.

If any of this is even partly true, what would be the moral justification for hunting it, no matter whether to capture or kill? For that matter, what would be the pragmatic justification?

My opinion on this is that it would be worth it to kill one just to prove it exists. Once we can prove that it exists, we can convince people to take measures to protect it. Of course, a live specimen would be preferable.

If it were so rare that taking one from the gene pool would doom the entire species, I got news for you, it's doomed anyway. If we take one we at least have a chance to preseve the genetic code.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Sorry, anecdotes aren't good evidence. Sure wish you could have recorded that event in some way, that would have been very interesting to witness.

Those were the two incidents that really got my attention.
I found out about the Cox sighting from the front page of the Columbian (Vancouver, Wa.) in 1969. The incident is in the BFRO database. I met one of the deputies in on that one later. He said the sheriff had as cast on his desk for years. I didn't get to see it. He described the evidence from tracks that showed it stepped up an 8' bank. Neither bear nor the local practical joker could have accomplished that.
The double trackway was filmed by Columbian crews. I saw Ed McClarney, who was was the photographer for the Skamania County Pioneer at the time, on a documentary movie. I asked him about it when he was a county commissioner. He and Roy Craft, who owned the paper called in the Columbian. I don't know what happened to the film.
There was a report some years later by five DNR workers who saw a pair crossing a meadow.
And the Skookum Cast was taken in the Gifford Pinchot in, guess where, Skamania County.
Practically everyone I knew in Stevenson had seen one or knew someone who had. They did not want to talk about it.
And no, they didn't want to drum up a tourist trade. The community was anti-tourism. They finally got it via the Scenic Act, but it took an act of Congress.
Dr. Meldrum has over 100 footprint casts in his collection, open for examination by serious investigators.

Quote:

Once again, anecdotes aren't evidence. We need some documentary evidence, preferably detailed casts before we can consider these as evidence of any kind.

This is pretty detailed, right down to the testicals.



http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/

Quote:

How long after the incident was that?

A few days, as I recall. It had rained in the meantime, but the tracks were still there.

Quote:

There are many ways to create an increased stride length. Small stilts, walking very fast, leaping slightly while running. I admit those are kind of weak assertions since I don't have any evidence they happened. As for track depth, could you reference that somewhere? I'd like to read more about that.

Green 1978.
See articles below; it's in the second one.

Quote:

I'm not questioning your veracity or anything like that, but I need to know more about the circumstances of the measurements before I trust their accuracy. Why should I take John Green's word for the depth of prints and length of strides without some kind of evidence other than his word? Sure, testimony is a form of evidence, but we really need more than that.

Because he was there, as was experienced tracker Bob Titmus. And casts, photos and measurements were taken. Dahinden took on the role of sceptic and thoroughly checked out Patterson and Gimlin.

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

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

Quote:

I'll find the reference on how a latex footprint with dermal ridges can be manufactured. I don't have access to it right now because I'm not at home.

I think I've seen it. Involves soaking latex in alcohol to expand it?
I've seen a refutation too.

Quote:

As for where the proof is that someone actually did it, I don't have any, but the photos you linked to seem like the start of good evidence to me ...

Here's some rather good evidence Bob Heironimus isn't the "guy in the suit".
He's on the right in a Morris suit built for the "reenactment":

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads...1106773688.jpg

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Sorry, not falling for that trick. Just because you can find one instance where a midtarsel bend is obviously not a fake because it is well documented fossil evidence does not mean that alleged bigfoot tracks with a similar characteristic are real. That is most illogical, Captain. And that goes both ways, too, for the kids out there who still need to take a logic class: just because I may be able to prove that one set of prints with a midtarsal bend is fake does not mean they all are, as evidenced by LAL.

Trick? It's a possible morphologic relationship. Meldrum is an expert on primate locomotion, BTW.
Just got through with the logic guys on another board. One resorted to quote-mining, another to a false analogy, one to arguments from incredulity and one called me a pathetic loser and put me on filter.
I don't think logic is a very useful tool here, actually.
Jane Goodall and George Schaller think funding should be made available for further research and I agree.

Quote:

It still stands that one possible explanation for bigfoot prints with midtarsal bends and dermal ridges is that they are latex molds. And don't try any sneaky implying that I'm saying that this is the end-all-be-all of explanations for bigfoot tracks. I'm not. It's just one possible explanation, but it's a much more probable explanation than positing a giant unknown primate.

If it were a new species of mouse would there be all this flap?
I don't think latex molds are reasonable as an explanation for trackways that go on for any distance with a stride that's beyond human reach. I've seen unpublished photos of a trackway in snow in Oregon with deputies for scale. Latex or no, not possible without a helicopter or other airlifting device that was not seen and left no trace.
I think a breeding population of an unidentified hominid primate living in the incredibly dense forests of the PNW and a few other places on the continent (one compelling print is from near Elkins Creek, Ga) is a much more plausible explanation than the idea it's all done by hoaxers, especially without evidence that this is so.
The bell curve plotted from sightings indicates a normal population rather than random hoaxes.

Quote:

I'd also like to clarify a point about latex foot mold. Sure, the latex feet can be worn and used to make footprints themselves but that couldn't explain all footprints given that latex has a certain coefficient of restitution and earth has a certain compressibility depending on the terrain. I was originally putting forth the hypothesis that the latex molds can be an intermediary step in the manufacture of plaster or even plastic feet, which are in turn used to make the footprint.

The idea is you take an impression of a foot, make a plaster impression, cover that in latex then soak the latex in alcohol so it will enlarge, then repeat the process with plaster again until you get the size you want.

These are just possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mysteries we will examine.

I certainly hope not.
BWT, I have copies of the only surviving casts from the Bossburg incident. Plastic wasn't really big in 1969. The right foot shows a condition consistant with metatarsus adductus.
I caused quite a stir when I took it to Lowe's trying to find a plate hanger to fit.

[turtle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Yturtle, let's get back on topic here, I'm tired of arguing about what you think I said about you personally, your emotions and how mean and ignorant you think I am. That's not the topic.

Correct , it's not the topic. I will remind you of the facts: you started it, I didn't call you mean, or, ignorant. I also know what you said, since it is in black and white on the forum. No worries!

Quote:

Regarding:

1. (hair). Please reference the hair evidence that you think proves the existence of bigfoot and we'll debate. I would contend that no hair evidence found so far relating to bigfoot specifically can conclusively prove its existence.

I didn't say it "proves BF exists."

Quote:

2. (photos). We pretty much agree here, I think. Some of it's interesting but most of it is bunk.

Quote:

3. (footprints). Just because you think it can't be faked doesn't mean it can't.

I didn't say that either.
I can fake a pear. Make one out of wood, or ceramic, or whatever, doesn't mean there are no real pears.

Quote:

Just because you think it would be too hard to make an enlarged latex copy of a human foot using foam latex, plaster casts and alcohol soaking, then later using a small amount of knowledge about dermal ridges to make some interesting patterns that match neither a human nor an ape (easier to do than creating a unique imprint identifiable as human or ape from scratch), doesn't mean it hasn't been done. It has.

I didn't say that either, and I know it can be done. I know it has been done. My flip remark was to convey the silliness of the idea that, since they have been faked, it's super easy and everyone' doing it, just because it's so much fun!

Quote:

If I can find the tape, I'll dig up the name of the program I saw that demonstrated this, and I'll see if I can find some other references on how to do this.

No need, since I saw the program you are refering to.

Quote:

(anyone who knows what show I am talking about feel free to chime in). The point is that footprints can be faked. Just because you don't think it's easy doesn't mean it isn't possible, because it's a matter of record that it has been done (your breakfast habits aside).

Again. I did not say it hadn't been done. I did not say it couldn't be done. I did not say it wasn't possible.

Listen. BF hoaxes abound. Everyone knows that. It's not news.

Quote:

Footprints, complete with dermal ridges, ARE HOAXABLE and don't constitute sufficient evidence for anyone who understands how they are hoaxed, for the same reasons that photographs are not good evidence - anyone who knows how to fake them knows that they can be faked.

Yes, yes, they can be faked. No argument.

This proves what?

That BF does not exist? Of course not.

[LAL]

There are at least a dozen hair samples that are a match for each other but not for any known mammal. With no undisputed Sasquatch hair for comparison, of course they're not conclusive, but here's one:

http://www.visualsunlimited.com/brow...1/vu85166.html

Microscopically, they do not match human hair.

[LAL]

This refers to the tracks found by Jerry Crews, not Patterson and Gimlin, but it gives an idea of the conditions in which some of these trackways have been found.




"$100,000.00 for BIGFOOT TRACKS

One hundred thousand dollars is being offered by the Willow Creek China Flat Museum for anyone who can demonstrate how the “Bigfoot” tracks that were observed in the Bluff Creek valley in northern California in 1958 and later could have been made by a human or humans.

This offer is genuine. It is not a joke or a publicity stunt.

The money has been arranged for, and the first person or group who can meet the conditions of the offer will receive it. Everyone should understand, however, that the conditions are not easy.
The offer is a direct result of recent publicity which has created a perception that the Bluff Creek tracks were just a hoax carried out by practical joker walking around wearing a large pair of carved wooden feet, but it is not meant as a challenge to the people who originated that story, who may well be perfectly sincere .

The offer also is not a prize for technological achievement, such as being the first to build an effective footprint-stamping machine. It relates entirely to the question of whether the real tracks which brought the “Bigfoot” phenomenon to public attention could have been made by humans
under the real conditions of the times and the places in which they appeared.

The museum has casts of some of the tracks concerned, a few of them copies but mainly originals, available for inspection. It also has some related photographs, and published accounts of what was done and observed in connection with the tracks. There are also people still available for consultation who studied the tracks when they were made.

A formal document setting out the requirements to qualify for the award will take time to prepare, but a successful applicant will have to be able to make flat-footed, humanlike tracks with more than twice the area of human feet and longer-than-human strides which do the following:

1) Traverse a variety of terrains, including climbing, descending and crossing steep slopes covered with underbrush;

2) Show variations of shape and toe position and stride accommodating to the terrain;

3) Sink into firm ground to far greater depth than human footprints specifically as much as an inch deep in hard sand where human prints barely penetrate at all;

4) Leave hard objects in the ground, such as stones, sticking up above the rest of the track.

The applicant will also have to be able to make these tracks under the following conditions, although not all in combination: 1) In the dark, hundreds in a single night; 2) In places where it is impossible to bring any vehicle or other machine or any equipment except what humans or animals could carry; 3) Without doing anything to attract the notice of people a few
hundred yards away.

Interested parties may contact the museum president, Jo Ann Hereford, phone 530-629-3726;
e-mail: josie@cwo.com

Media contact concerning this offer is John Green, phone 604-796-3206;
e-mail: jgreens@shaw.ca"




Like James Randi's, the money has never been safer.

[LAL]

Quote:

On some Bigfoot exposé and I forget which one they mentioned how close Patterson had to be to take those pictures, no more than a few dozen yards. If so it would seem unlikely the animal would allow a couple of mounted humans to blunder close, one falloff of his horse, recover and stand up, grab a camera. After all of this the thing walks obliquely across the scene? How incredibly lucky were these two bozos to find a Bigfoot on the very morning that they set out to film one?

Gimlin has always maintained Patterson didn't fall off his horse.
They were trying to find tracks to film for a documentary and tracks of several individuals had been seen in the area.

Patterson had been investigating for six years prior to getting the footage.

John Green says,

"In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15" tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14" long, in another location east of Bluff Creek.

I never saw the 16" track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15" tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were was accompanied by tracks roughly 13", and René Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks.

Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks René and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12" track usually discounted because it is within human range. For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences."

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

Would an animal that large with no apparent natural enemies be unduly disturbed by a couple of yahoos with horses and a camera?
Roger said the look she gave him seemed to indicate "That's close enough."

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL





I think I've seen it. Involves soaking latex in alcohol to expand it?
I've seen a refutation too.

Oops! Make that "kerosene".
Krantz addressed this here:

"From ridge to ridge, these lines are spaced about 1/2 mm apart — more in some areas and less in others. This kind of spacing is typical for almost all higher primates, regardless of body size. Within a primate species, large individuals (usually males) have ridges somewhat farther apart than in small individuals. The number of ridges in the fetus is geared to the average adult body size of the species, so those individuals that grow to larger sizes have the given number of ridges more spread out, and vice-versa. Friction skin tends to have the optimum density of ridge spacing for best adhesion to smooth objects. The number of lines laid down in the fetus varies according to the adult size for each species. There is no adjustment for sexual size differences. Thus, it is not clear whether our 38 cm tracks were deposited by a male or female.

The near constancy of ridge spacing in primates rules out one method of faking. Latex molds of real skin, soaked in kerosene, will expand greatly; there may also be other methods of expanding molds. This procedure could produce gigantic skin patterns (in some respects), but the ridge spacing would also be expanded, and thus easily recognizable as abnormal."




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

[LAL]

Quote:

Don’t know; was it that tall? Patterson never really measured the height of the creature. Someone dragged a yardstick to the site in the early 1970s and they determined the figure was over seven feet tall but I’m not sure they were able to determine exactly where Patterson was (he was moving) and where the creature was (which was also moving.)

Green had a 6'5" friend walk the same route on film. Krantz estimated the height at 6'5".
Exact height doesn't really matter. The IM index remains the same regardless of the height. It's not human.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavoMan
It's not very skeptical of me, but it seems that all these pictures on the web of 'bigfoot hunters' are full of rednecks or otherwise unemployed-looking people.

I'm sure Richard Noll, who is a globally recognized engineer, will appreciate knowing he looks like an unemployed redneck.



Are you aware a number of accredited scientists work with the BFRO?

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL


Green had a 6'5" friend walk the same route on film. Krantz estimated the height at 6'5".
Exact height doesn't really matter. The IM index remains the same regardless of the height. It's not human. [/b]

Naa; I don’t think that correct. You’re making an assumption that no human (in a costume designed to mimic the look of a non-human) could possible have the limb proportions in the Patterson film. That’s a huge--big mofolken assumption. Anything can be faked.

Now could Patterson have faked the film? I don’t know the answer to that question. He doesn’t seem capable of pulling something like that off (which works in his favor.)
I think however there are a number of strange things about the Patterson film that suggest it was some kind of a stunt. I don’t think the technology of the monster suits of the time precludes the possibility that it was a man in a costume. Patterson might not have even known about it at the time.

But I’ve seen nothing in that film which proves it was an actual unknown. It’s not a very good film and the more it’s enhanced the less “Bigfoot experts” seem to agree as to what the film actually shows.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Naa; I don’t think that correct. You’re making an assumption that no human (in a costume designed to mimic the look of a non-human) could possible have the limb proportions in the Patterson film. That’s a huge--big mofolken assumption. Anything can be faked.

>snip<

"One of the things that Morris is quoted as saying is that the way to make the arms in the suit look longer than human arms is to extend the gloves of the suit on sticks.

Many people have noted that the arms of the creature in the film look unusually long, almost as long as its legs. Some, including myself in 1968, have published estimates of their length. No one went on to deal with the question of how human arms could be extended to match the extra length and what such an extension would look like.

There is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate, but what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature’s legs and arms in relation to one another. From that ratio, which anatomists call the “intermembral index”, it is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit.

In my own case the answer turns out to be about 10 inches. But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm.

The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it—almost as much of a monstrosity as Edward Scissorhands.



The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. Many issues in the long debate about the movie remain unresolved—what the film speed was, whether a man could duplicate the creature’s unusual bent-kneed walk, whether its behavior was normal for an animal, whether the tracks left on the sandbar could have been faked, and so on—but all of them turn out to have been irrelevant to the main issue. It cannot be a man in a suit.

My measurements of the film, made 36 years ago, gave the creature arms that were 30 inches from the shoulder to the wrist and legs that were 35 inches from the hip to the ground. My own measurements are about 24 inches from shoulder to wrist and 40 inches from hip to ground.

Only the ratios of the measurements matter, the actual size of either the human or the creature makes no difference, and the ratios for creature and human are so much different that precise accuracy of the measurements is not significant either.

The much ridiculed Patterson-Gimlin film does not show a man in a suit.''

>snip<

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

By Jeff Meldrum Ph.D.

Associate professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho

It has been obvious to even the casual viewer that the film subject possesses arms that are disproportionately long for its stature.

John Green is a veteran researcher into the question of Sasquatch or Bigfoot. He was among the first to view the film captured by Patterson and Gimlin and has studied it intensely in the intervening years. His recognition of the significance of the unhumanly long arms of the film subject is a point that has not previously been articulated in such a straightforward manner. It is such a fundamental observation that it is considered a breakthrough in assessing the validity of this extraordinary film.

Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM), which is the ratio of combined arm and forearm skeletal length (humerus + radius) to combined thigh and leg skeletal length (femur + tibia) x 100. The human IM averages 72.

The intermembral index is a significant measure of a primate's locomotor adapatation. The forelimb-dominated movements of the chimp and gorilla are reflected in their high IM indices of 106 and 117 respectively.

Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes.

In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing.


Dr. Meldrum is an expert in primate anatomy and locomotion. He recently coedited, From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. "

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp


The film was not tampered with, so that rules out some other types of fakery. There were no computer graphics in 1967, and those aren't hard to spot today. A spokesman for Disney studios said they wouldn't even attempt t build a suit; they would have animated it. It was also stated they were the only ones with the facillities to pull off such a thing and they didn't do it.
Has anyone see Harry and the Hendersons? Disney animation in the '60's?


What disagreement is there among "Bigfoot experts" about what the film actually shows? Citations, please.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL



The film was not tampered with, so that rules out some other types of fakery. There were no computer graphics in 1967, and those aren't hard to spot today. A spokesman for Disney studios said they wouldn't even attempt t build a suit; they would have animated it. It was also stated they were the only ones with the facillities to pull off such a thing and they didn't do it.
Has anyone see Harry and the Hendersons? Disney animation in the '60's?


What disagreement is there among "Bigfoot experts" about what the film actually shows? Citations, please.

No problem;

M.K. Davis’s blown up images and animations. This is pretty much cannon.
http://www.rense.com/1phts/bigfoot1.htm

Bigfoot’s baby? The Sasquatch Research Project thinks so.
http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pattpage.html
http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/

Discussion on film resolution R.E. the Patterson film.
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/filmres.html

Good discussion (apparently) from a British journal. Suggests the images in the Patterson film do not conclusively reflect an unknown hominid.
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/grieve.html

Good discussion of figure height and site measurement.
“Assertions that the kinematics of the film subject cannot be duplicated by human agents are thus demonstrably false.”
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/screen.html

Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon J. Glickman.
This paper makes a few assumptions (figure height for one). Concluding that the film might not be a fake.
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi1.html

This is not meant (nor is it) a complete list. One that I couldn’t find was from a few years back. Some fellow claimed that he could see several other Bigfoot figures watching from the tree line. That’s just silly; you could have a guy in a white tee shirt standing up there and probably could not make it out.

Regarding the often mentioned quote from an unnamed Disney employee. “So?” I’d ‘s wager that Disney or a number of other shops could have made that film if they wanted to throw money at the problem. Also; “They would have animated it??” There might be a kernel of truth here, Disney as I recall wasn’t making many live action films in the early 1960s but their animation was not even close to producing something like the Patterson film. On the other hand; have you ever seen Darby O'Gill and the Little People? (1959) There is some unbelievable stuff there that rivals the best computer animated films of today—but it was all live action.

[LAL]

First, throw out everything by Beckjord. He's not an expert, he's a kook. Did you see the site on him I posted?

Dr. Fahrenbach is credible and has done some impressive research. He's an expert in microscopy. He used to be with the Oregon Primate Research Center in Beaverton, Oregon.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF...achArticle.htm

Actually, the film speed was determined later, as I recall, using "jiggle analysis", al la the Zapruder film.

"The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man.

D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D.
Reader in Biomechanics
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine
London"

At least three other experts in biomechanics have come to the same conclusion. As Nelson notes, biomechanics was in its infancy in '67 and it's highly unlikely a hoaxer could have had the knowlege to duplicate a gait adapted to great weight and mountainous terrain.
Patterson certainly didn't. He looked blank when Krantz questioned him on some fine points.
The shoulder joints are a foot farther apart than on a man of comparable size (6'5").

Glickman may have been off on the height, but it's not a huge error. Again, Green, with 250 lbs. added to his own weight didn't sink in as deeply as those tracks, so Glickman seems to be off on his estimate of 280 lb. Patterson expected scientists to arrive in Bluff Creek by the busloads. None came. If they had, this controversy might never have occured. "Proper" measurements would have been taken.
I just sent that link to a cyber friend, incidentally. I've read that Glickman spent three years on his analysis.

Noll did some trig and came up with +/- "3 if the camera position was off by a meter, as I recall.

Daegling doesn't impress me. (He a sceptic, not a "Bigfoot expert", BTW.) I plowed through his whole book. He repeated Dennett's "left, left" misquote of Dahinden to try to debunk some of Freeman's tracks and cited Cliff Crook (a known hoaxer himself) on the Skookum Cast. In Crook's opinion it's the imprint of an elk. Crook has never seen the cast. In fact, he's not allowed to see the cast.

I'll take Swindler over Crook any day of the week.



Daegling also made much of the fact that he found a half bear skull lying on the ground in eastern Washington. It's almost impossible to find any kind of bones in western Washington.
(Chimpanzee and Gorillas have no fossil record either. Ape habitat is not good for fossilization.)


There's a debate going on now on BFF on some of MK's images. I noticed everted lips for the first time. So did another member. Inquiries are being made about enhancements and layers.


Sorry I didn't do the proper quote-reply thing this time. It's 2:05 A.M. EST and I'm beat.


More when I revive. Isn't this fun?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
This is not meant (nor is it) a complete list. One that I couldn’t find was from a few years back. Some fellow claimed that he could see several other Bigfoot figures watching from the tree line. That’s just silly; you could have a guy in a white tee shirt standing up there and probably could not make it out.

That would be Beckjord again. I've been meaning to e-mail him to ask him what he's on.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
That would be Beckjord again. I've been meaning to e-mail him to ask him what he's on.

I thought perhaps, I could not remember the fellow’s name.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
First, throw out everything by Beckjord. He's not an expert, he's a kook. Did you see the site on him I posted?

Oh yes, thanks BTW. I have him on my write-up list at the Odd Empire. He has some strange stuff there.


((snip))

Quote:

There's a debate going on now on BFF on some of MK's images. I noticed everted lips for the first time. So did another member. Inquiries are being made about enhancements and layers.


Sorry I didn't do the proper quote-reply thing this time. It's 2:05 A.M. EST and I'm beat.


More when I revive. Isn't this fun?

It IS fun but, before we get into this too deeply;

The Odd Emperor’s position statement on Bigfoot;
I have an open mind on the subject. Bigfoot has fascinated me since I was very young. The idea that an unknown hominid is living parallel with human society in many places around the world is very compelling. Compelling perhaps but the evidence is a little less than compelling.

Regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film;
I don’t think the debate will ever be completely resolved. Certainly (I think) it’s possible for someone to have staged the events on the film. Could that be the case here? I don’t really know. Who can say from a piece of film? Perhaps if someone captures a specimen (or a corpse) we can say “ah ha! Patterson filmed one of these.” Until then it seems premature to try and make conclusions from something so tenuous as a chunk of movie film.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

1) Traverse a variety of terrains, including climbing, descending and crossing steep slopes covered with underbrush;

2) Show variations of shape and toe position and stride accommodating to the terrain;

3) Sink into firm ground to far greater depth than human footprints specifically as much as an inch deep in hard sand where human prints barely penetrate at all;

4) Leave hard objects in the ground, such as stones, sticking up above the rest of the track.

Nothing there that a hoaxer couldn't accomplish. To get your foot deeper, just wiggle it a little bit. You can add the stone later.

How long does it take to take 200 steps anyway? Why would this hoax be noisy? I see no reason anyone would hear me faking footprints in the darkness. The idea of doing it right under someone's nose is right up the alley of the hoaxer. It adds to the thrill and the satisfaction.

Hoaxers are counting on the fact that you can't figure out how they did it. They get off on the fact that you are perplexed. They deliberately figure out ways to perplex observers. Pole vaulting their way into the corn field, for example.

This is the attitude the crop circle believers take. They can't figure out how a formation could be made, therefore a human didn't make it. Bad assumption.

The body cast is hilarious. I have looked and looked, and I can't see anything except when it is highlighted for me. Why would his testicles make an impression? Are they lead?

The hair is hardly conclusive.

I can't figure out why Bigfoot would make a deeper footprint than a man, anyway. While he supposedly weighs more, he also supposedly has that weight spread over a considerably larger footprint. So why would his foot sink any deeper?

I actually think the deeper footprints hurt the case for Bigfoot.

The idea that people wouldn't run around willy nilly to haox something is countered by crop circles. Clearly people will do this, and go to a lot of trouble to do it. Ufo's as well. Plenty of faking going on. Loch ness.

In my mind, the Bigfoot supporters have a long way to go and they aren't making any progress at all towards being taken seriously.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Oh yes, thanks BTW. I have him on my write-up list at the Odd Empire. He has some strange stuff there.


((snip))




It IS fun but, before we get into this too deeply;

The Odd Emperor’s position statement on Bigfoot;
I have an open mind on the subject. Bigfoot has fascinated me since I was very young. The idea that an unknown hominid is living parallel with human society in many places around the world is very compelling. Compelling perhaps but the evidence is a little less than compelling.

Regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film;
I don’t think the debate will ever be completely resolved. Certainly (I think) it’s possible for someone to have staged the events on the film. Could that be the case here? I don’t really know. Who can say from a piece of film? Perhaps if someone captures a specimen (or a corpse) we can say “ah ha! Patterson filmed one of these.” Until then it seems premature to try and make conclusions from something so tenuous as a chunk of movie film.

I like your attitude. Some people get really angry and dogmatic about the subject. There's material for some interesting studies there, e.g., "Is disbelief in Bigfoot genetically determined?"
I'm a sceptic, BTW. In this case I'm sceptical of the sceptics' side.
The film has held up to a lot of scrutiny, and, of course, it's not the only evidence, nor even the only film.

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

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shad...cattle034.html

To me the "It's all a hoax" hypothesis is the extrordinary claim.
Wallace's family "confesses" and it makes national news. The Skookum Cast was covered by the Denver Post. No wonder the public gets a skewed view.

"JG: Oh, I missed one phase. There was a phase there when any scientist who showed an interest was news. We've now reached the extreme where some of the world's very top people in the relevant fields are very interested and are saying publicly that there should be proper investigation and this is not news. The only thing that's news is that the whole thing has proved to be a fake. The demonstration of that is very clear when this absolute nonsense story about Ray Wallace faking all the foot prints went all around the world in exactly the same time period the Denver Post ran a major article and sidebars on these key scientists who were saying it should be investigated, the Associated Press wouldn't even carry the story. It never went anywhere beyond Denver. To me as a newspaper man, this is absolutely shocking. I tried to contact some of those at Columbia University's long-established graduate school of journalism who keep a tab on the press and the response was, "Nobody here is interested in taking this up." In other words, for 40 years we've been butting our heads against a barrier manned by the scientists saying there can't be any such thing. Now they're stepping away from the ramparts and the media is stepping up to take their place. Absolutely fascinating. The media is seeing to it that this heresy does not get to the public."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interv...ohn_green.html


A friend of mine (who believes in a Global Flood, incidently) recently went ballistic because there are no clear shots, therefore it's all BS. Never mind the reasons; it's all "excuses". (In the Manitoba event Clarke had the autofocus on and it focused on branches rather than the figure.)
Most encounters are at night and last about 20 seconds.
I tried for years to get a shot of a bird I saw on my land in the Columbia Gorge. I sent a description to the Audubon Society and they assured me no such bird exists and I must have seen a Flicker. With a red head? Even with a camera within 30' I was never quick enough. Sometime after a whole flock showed up I gave up. The retiring director of the DNR rather casually informed me there's a subspecies of the Cascades Sapsucker that hangs out around there. So much for my "discovery".
My land was so rugged and the forest so dense an Army could have camped over the ridge and I never would have known. I saw cougar tracks, wolverine tracks (wolverine were thought to be extinct in the Southern Cascades until someone noticed a road kill en route to Hemlock) and bear tracks, but never the animals that made them, despite living in the forest with them. Tracks of anything were uncommon. They could only be seen on fresh skid roads or in snow. The ground cover springs back and you can't see 20' into the brush.
There's abundant food, even in winter. Humans could go "siwash" on cross-country ski trips.
There've been many sightings in the area and across the river on the Oregon side. Most received little to no publicity.

[Odin]

I would love for bigfoot to actually be real, but I personally don't think bigfoot exists because of lack of evidence.

If a live bigfoot was caught today (assuming this is the giant ape bigfoot, not the alien or supernaturally powered one), what would happen?

Would science actually change?

Would this impact creationists, since you would have a living, human like ape especially if it was more intelligent than chimps and orangutans.

I think the problem to be solved, would be where bigfoot fits in the evolutionary tree, and how it managed to suvive for so long undetected and isolated. (intelligence?)

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin

I think the problem to be solved, would be where bigfoot fits in the evolutionary tree, and how it managed to suvive for so long undetected and isolated. (intelligence?)

Bigfoot types speculate that he's a descendant of gigantopithecus, or possibly homo erectus. Of course, without an actual specimen or bone it's impossible to tell.



Here's my thing. Every bit of Bigfoot evidence could have been faked. That doesn't mean it was--but it makes that "evidence" slightly suspect.

Nothing would make me happier than some solid evidence the big guy's out there. I've been fascinated with Sasquatch since I was a kid; during my early college years I even swapped some emails with Matt Moneymaker asking about Bigfeet sightings in Pennsylvania.

The evidence, IMO, simply isn't there. He might still be out there; I'd like to think so.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Nothing there that a hoaxer couldn't accomplish. To get your foot deeper, just wiggle it a little bit. You can add the stone later.

And this will produce an oversized footprint that will fool experts in primate foot anatomy and a forensic fingerprint expert?

Quote:

How long does it take to take 200 steps anyway?

I don't know. Try it and see. 1089 tracks of "Cripplefoot" showed up overnight near Bossburg, Wa. in 1969.

Quote:

Why would this hoax be noisy? I see no reason anyone would hear me faking footprints in the darkness. The idea of doing it right under someone's nose is right up the alley of the hoaxer. It adds to the thrill and the satisfaction.?

Please present evidence that someone has actually done this, with or without a track-making machine. Or go for the $100,000, since it's so easy.

Quote:

Hoaxers are counting on the fact that you can't figure out how they did it. They get off on the fact that you are perplexed. They deliberately figure out ways to perplex observers. Pole vaulting their way into the corn field, for example.?

And investigators are too stupid to look for pole marks?

Quote:

This is the attitude the crop circle believers take. They can't figure out how a formation could be made, therefore a human didn't make it. Bad assumption.

Bad analogy.

Quote:

The body cast is hilarious. I have looked and looked, and I can't see anything except when it is highlighted for me. Why would his testicles make an impression? Are they lead?.?

No, they're just part of the imprint, like the buttocks and the heel print.
Try sitting in some soft mud naked (assuming you're male) and observe the result.
The expedition members didn't know what they had at first. The cast has been examined by experts such as Swindler (who was a sceptic of the first order) and Sarmiento. I'll take their expert opinion over yours, if you don't mind.
Just when and where did you examine the actual cast?

Quote:

The hair is hardly conclusive.

It would be if there were a sample of known Sasquatch hair for comparison.

Quote:

I can't figure out why Bigfoot would make a deeper footprint than a man, anyway. While he supposedly weighs more, he also supposedly has that weight spread over a considerably larger footprint. So why would his foot sink any deeper?

Have a 500 lb. friend with latex feet stand next to you to check this out.

Quote:

I actually think the deeper footprints hurt the case for Bigfoot.

Oh.
Well, maybe the extreme depth should have been left out of reports them. As I recall, Dahinden was sceptical of a trackway because the tracks weren't deep enough.

Quote:

The idea that people wouldn't run around willy nilly to haox something is countered by crop circles. Clearly people will do this, and go to a lot of trouble to do it. Ufo's as well. Plenty of faking going on. Loch ness.

And they're easily debunked. You left out fairies. They usually get thrown into the mix in discussions like this.

Quote:

In my mind, the Bigfoot supporters have a long way to go and they aren't making any progress at all towards being taken seriously.

You're ignoring the opinions of some top experts in the field of primatology, then? Goodall, Schaller, Swindler, Sarmiento...........


Please demonstate how any amount of wiggling could produce something like the below. The right foot is 17 1/2", the normal left 16 1/2".
Wouldn't these hypothetical hoaxers of yours like to get something out of all this? Money? Notoriety? A jail term?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Bigfoot types speculate that he's a descendant of gigantopithecus, or possibly homo erectus. Of course, without an actual specimen or bone it's impossible to tell.

Australopiths aren't out of the running. With the discovery of the Ardepiths (thirty new fossils were discovered recently) another possible ancestor enters the picture. Even Orrorinin tugenesis was a biped. There was a bipedal ape in Italy. There's no lack of bipedal hominids in the fossil record. The consensus is that bipedalism came first and knuckle-walking was a later adaptation in the Great Apes.
Homo erectus was a tool maker. It's unlikely a descendant would "devolve". The arch was locked in any event.
There may be living relatives in Russia where they're known as Kaptars and are obviously adapted to cold.
Schaller has a problem with a specialized bamboo eater migrating over the Bering Strait (which was 1000 miles wide at one time, and much warmer), but Giganto at least demonstrates that primates can get that big.

Quote:

Here's my thing. Every bit of Bigfoot evidence could have been faked. That doesn't mean it was--but it makes that "evidence" slightly suspect.

Of course, there's no evidence that the best evidence was faked. That makes such claims more than slightly suspect, IMO.

Quote:

Nothing would make me happier than some solid evidence the big guy's out there. I've been fascinated with Sasquatch since I was a kid; during my early college years I even swapped some emails with Matt Moneymaker asking about Bigfeet sightings in Pennsylvania.

Cool. You've checked out the website?

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=pa


There was a lame hoax involving footprints near a reservoir in Pa. last year. It took a BFRO investigator minutes to determine they were faked. The inference was there was quite a bit of beer involved. The hoaxers were evidently too drunk to count the number of toes correctly.
I've been sceptical of Eastern reports, but after moving to NC, I've discovered not everything east of the Missippi looks like New York. There's plenty of suitable habitat and the Cherokee seem to take them for granted. There was even a sighting 30 miles from where I live. Not as fun as one five miles away, as in Washington, but exciting nonetheless.

Quote:

The evidence, IMO, simply isn't there. He might still be out there; I'd like to think so.

He? There may be at least thirty in Washington State alone. Two films may show infants (or parts thereof).
There's plenty of evidence. The knowlege of it usually isn't there, and for that I blame the media. They hype idiots like Bob Heironimus and mostly ignore the serious work that's being done by Meldrum, et al.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Australopiths aren't out of the running.

Everything is out of the running until an actual specimen is found. Until that point, speculation is just that--speculation.

Quote:

Homo erectus was a tool maker. It's unlikely a descendant would "devolve". The arch was locked in any event.

Well, given that there's no proof Bigfoot isn't a tool-maker, or a language-user, or a telepath, or a Star Wars fan...As I said, it's all speculation.

Quote:

Of course, there's no evidence that the best evidence was faked. That makes such claims more than slightly suspect, IMO.

There's no solid evidence for or against fakery in some cases. That's my point. We have a situation where we know a sizeable chunk of "evidence" is faked. And some that might be faked. But none where we can conclusively say, "this is not a fake."

Quote:

There was a lame hoax involving footprints near a reservoir in Pa. last year. It took a BFRO investigator minutes to determine they were faked. The inference was there was quite a bit of beer involved.

Oh, hey, that's a shocker.

Quote:

He? There may be at least thirty in Washington State alone. Two films may show infants (or parts thereof).
There's plenty of evidence. The knowlege of it usually isn't there, and for that I blame the media. They hype idiots like Bob Heironimus and mostly ignore the serious work that's being done by Meldrum, et al.

"He" as a term of reference and mild affection. Of course if the creature exists, "he" is not a lone individual but a population.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
I would love for bigfoot to actually be real, but I personally don't think bigfoot exists because of lack of evidence.?

What lack of evidence is this?

Quote:

If a live bigfoot was caught today (assuming this is the giant ape bigfoot, not the alien or supernaturally powered one), what would happen?

No serious researcher thinks they're anything other than an unidentified primate.

Quote:

Would science actually change?

Of course not, but some of the sceptics would have quite a bit of facial egg-wiping to do.

Quote:

Would this impact creationists, since you would have a living, human like ape especially if it was more intelligent than chimps and orangutans.

One site I saw did quite a bit off hoo-hahing over the Wallace fiasco, claiming "evolutionists" would have had us believe Bigfoot is the "missing link", therefore Creation happened. Of course I don't think anyone's claimed they're a "missing link" to begin with, but that didn't seem to occur to the writer.
They would likely claim scientists genetically engineered the body, or misidentified a bear. At worst they might claim Godidit and claim there were Bigfeet on the Ark (baby ones, of course).
There's no reasoning with the terminally delusional.

Quote:

I think the problem to be solved, would be where bigfoot fits in the evolutionary tree, and how it managed to suvive for so long undetected and isolated. (intelligence?)

Well, the evolutionary tree is really a bush, so maybe somewhere in the vicinity of Sahelanthropus Tchadensisis, another suspected biped and earliest known hominoid ancestor.
There's plenty of suitable habitat in NA. They have been detected, just not in a way Science will accept.
Gorillas were thought to be a native myth until the whites "discovered" them.

Speaking of myth, have you met Hairy Man?

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

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL

Of course not, but some of the sceptics would have quite a bit of facial egg-wiping to do.

Well, this skeptic would throw a big honkin' party. Then I'd be on the first plane out west to see him firsthand. (I'd be like a little kid at the zoo--"Mommy! Mommy! I wanna see the Bigfoot!")

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon


We have a situation where we know a sizeable chunk of "evidence" is faked.

Be specific. What "sizable chunk" was faked?

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Be specific. What "sizable chunk" was faked?

Not to be rude, but I don't really have the time (or the energy) to go through every Bigfoot hoax over the past 50 years. You yourself are aware of it; Wallace was mentioned earlier in this thread, you mentioned a half-assed drunken attempt a couple posts ago. There's a lot of fakery out there. Why is it necessary to through it individually?

My point is not that because there's a lot of fakery, the rest of it has to be; my point is that there's a lot of fakery, there are some "maybes," but nothing where you can conclusively point and say "this isn't a fake." When the best you've got is a "maybe," it's hardly evidence.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, this skeptic would throw a big honkin' party. Then I'd be on the first plane out west to see him firsthand. (I'd be like a little kid at the zoo--"Mommy! Mommy! I wanna see the Bigfoot!")

Gosh, what a boon for Manitoba, should confirmation come from there.
But why west? There may be some recent activity in Georgia. (One of the compelling casts came from near Elkins Creek.) That would be a lot closer for me.

I must say I'm seeing a little better quality of argument here - much better than what I'm used to, such as: "STUPID, I repeat STUPID pseudoscience." "If it's not in PEER review it isn't SCIENCE. If it isn't science, it's NONSENSE!" " and the ever- popular, "Lu has joined a secular religion with Bigfoot as her God." and "She needs to see a shrink about her OBSESSION with Bigfoot."
Of course, debating against Creationism, which I've done more of, wasn't seen as an obsession, and I did have some rather quiet support and requests for more information via e-mail.

Keep 'em coming. I'm enjoying this.