Bigfoot follies

[LTC8K6]

I believe the expedition report of the finding of the Skookum body print refutes it. They talked themselves into believeing it was a bigfoot body print. They all got together and allowed their impressions to influence each other. That is classic.

The idea that the creature made such an awkward grab to get the fruit because it didn't want to leave footprints is really hilarious. Here we have a muddy bank and no footprints where a giant man came in, relaxed, and ate some fruit. Yet lightweight coyotes left prints?

So to explain the lack of foot and handprints in the muddy area where this giant fellow relaxed and dined, we just say sasquatch is too smart to leave them.

Avoidance of leaving footprints is now a survival strategy for bigfoot? Holy cow!

I can't believe people sit still for this guff!

Quote:

Friday 22 Sep 2000
Conditions: Weather clear, windy, night clear, windy, freezing (24F), frost heave on dirt tracking areas.
On scene: Moneymaker, Bambenek, Fish, Lemley, Lee, Mort, Noll, Powell, Pugsley, Randles, Terry, Searle

Activities
Check and monitor fruit placement, kind of fruit eaten, determine tracks and visitation of cache locations.
Broadcast Sasquatch calls around midnight. Every person stays at base camp.
Use boom box to broadcast tapes of children playing and baby crying.
Place additional fruit and peanuts at baiting sites.

Observations & Results

Fish, Noll and Randles leave camp near 9:00am to check bait sites. Fruit gone from gravel pit bank, still present in wet area of gravel pit. Fruit gone from roadside. Mud site has fruit missing, 3 out of six apples gone. Melons pecked by birds, probably ravens. Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks. Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it. Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face. Each tracker comes closer to have another look, discussions follow for 2-3 minutes. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint.

The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal sat down at the edge of the mud, then leaned down on its left forearm and reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit with its right hand a distance of about three feet. The group discusses the possible reasons why the animal might have done this, instead of simply walking into the wet mud to grab the fruit, as the other animals may have done. The mud is only a few inches deep. One possible explanation is immediately apparent -- the animal did not want to leave tracks. The marks it did leave are much less distinct than footprints -- relatively shallow and easy to miss from even a short distance away. There was speculation about why it didn't want to leave obvious footprints in the mud. Another possible explanation involves the animal also being cautious by simply sitting down to observe the new situation before taking overt action.

The mud site is within earshot of our camp. If the animals had been generally circling our camp for the past few nights, they would have walked passed or near this mud site more than once. The general area sees a lot of hunters at certain times of year. It seems that even a less intelligent species inhabiting this area would try to avoid humans. It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by. If these animals have been avoiding confrontations with humans for thousands of years, might this behavior -- avoidance of leaving distinctive footprints -- be an ancient survival strategy?

Several experienced Sasquatch field researchers in the group noted that they had likely seen this behavior before -- track patterns suggesting the animals did not want to leave obvious tracks behind -- relatively consistent avoidance of soils that would have left the most clear track impressions. This is in contrast to most other large mammals, which usually don't make special efforts, or take special paths, to avoid leaving tracks behind. We also noted that in cases where lots of clear Sasquatch tracks have been found, the locations were usually in very remote areas that saw little to no human human traffic -- such as Bluff Creek in the late 1950's.

Light coyote tracks are observed on the surface of the rump and thigh of the body print, suggesting that coyotes arrived sometime after the Sasquatch left or were kept at bay during the primate visit. A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core.

Two other important things noted:
The evidence indicated the impression must have been left sometime between 3:00am and 9:00am.
The distant scream heard the night before came from the general direction of this mud area, which is why some fruit piles were placed in this direction from camp.
As photos and videos and measurements are taken of the body print by various BFRO people, discussion shifts to physically preserving the imprint. The imprint must first be protected against drying in the sun. The print is already starting to dry out. If the mud dries completely the impression will crack and crumble as the casting materials are applied. The fine details will turn to dust. A make-shift cover is constructed from large rocks holding up a sheet of plywood to protect the mud from drying in the morning sun.

A full tally of available plaster and other casting materials is calculated to see if one large cast can be made of the body imprint. Among the group there is about 150 pounds of Hydrocal B-11 and some 50 plus pounds of Plaster of Paris. Aluminum tent poles are offered to reinforce the large cast. Sleeping bag pads and air mattresses are offered to cushion the cast for transport off the mountain.

Noll directs the casting process. The various people document the entire process of making the cast with their camcorders.

A cast is produced that is roughly 3.5X4.5 feet, weighing a few hundred pounds. Several people are required to lift the cast out of the mud. Several pounds of mud are removed from the underside of the cast before it is lifted onto a pile of sleeping bag pads in the back of a truck.

The apple pieces are collected prior to casting, with the hope that saliva with buccal, cheek, and gum cells will be present on the apple pieces and can be used for DNA analysis.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Starrman
I didn't claim to have evidence. I'm trying to think up alternative explanations. Do you think it is impossible that a person made those tracks, or just highly unlikely. Are there any pictures of the area from a broader perspective?

Which tracks? There have been thousands of track events.
In some cases it seems highly unlikely, in others impossible.
I think one problem is that most people have no idea how much evidence there actually is. It's easy to dismiss from the snippets the media gives us, but the preponderance of the evidence certainly points to real animals behaving in a real animals sort of way, IMO.
I've seen nothing on the sceptical side to compare with it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Meldrum's collection is open for examination by serious investigators. Do you have an opinion by another forensic fingerprint expert refuting Chilcutt's findings? Flawss in his methodology? Anything? His opinion made the National Geographic. It's not some well-kept trade secret. Has anyone come forward with an examination that proves his conclusions are in error?

Hello ! Anybody home ?

WHAT findings are you referring to ? What should we try to refute?

[LTC8K6]

Whatever happened to the apples? There should have been DNA on them from whatever ate them. The bite marks would have been useful, too.

If there was a report on the apples, I haven't found it yet.

I think we should call it the Skookum Elk print at this point. Elk tracks, elk hair, big elk ballprints , people saying it was an elk, etc.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I believe the expedition report of the finding of the Skookum body print refutes it. They talked themselves into believeing it was a bigfoot body print. They all got together and allowed their impressions to influence each other. That is classic.

The idea that the creature made such an awkward grab to get the fruit because it didn't want to leave footprints is really hilarious. Here we have a muddy bank and no footprints where a giant man came in, relaxed, and ate some fruit. Yet lightweight coyotes left prints?

So to explain the lack of foot and handprints in the muddy area where this giant fellow relaxed and dined, we just say sasquatch is too smart to leave them.

Avoidance of leaving footprints is now a survival strategy for bigfoot? Holy cow!

I can't believe people sit still for this guff!

Peter Bryne thought they might be smart enough to avoid leaving tracks which could lead to their capture. I kind of smirked at that but Byrne spent a lot of time trying to track them. He headed a five year project in Hood River, Oregon.
FYI, Chimpanzees have been observed leaving tracks purposely for other members of the troop to follow. Higher apes may have some behaviors associated with their own tracks.
The ground immediately around the mudhole was too hard for tracks. It was fine gravel, in fact.
It's difficult to even find soil in Skamania County. The very name means "place of many rocks".

Noll has photographed Chimpanzees adopting the same posture and leaning to feed.

Dr. Fish was a zoologist, BTW.

Regardless of what they were seeing, there have been others who've reached the same conclusions after examining the cast. Imprints of other animals have been ruled out, particulary the possibility of several imprints combining to give the impression of one.
The detail of the heel and Achilles tendon was what really convinced Swindler. In the DVD he traces the attachment to the muscles of the calf. It's quite clear.

It wasn't a "muddy bank" or a "giant man" either.
It was a mudhole and an unidentified North American primate.

[LAL]

"For more than 40 years I have held the opinion that science can not be convinced of the existence of sasquatches by anything less than physical remains. I have now changed my opinion. I think the Skookum cast can do it, provided that enough influential zoologosts, mammalogists, anatomists, primatologists, etc. will take a serious look at it.

I have had the privilege of being able to spend considerable time examining the cast on two occasions, once before much of the dirt was removed from it and once since, both times in the company of Dr. Grover Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum among others.

On the first occasion dirt still hid most of the dermatoglyphics, the forearm imprint was still just a questionable dirt-covered hump, and estimates of the length of the body parts were largely guesswork. Even then all of the people present, five of whom held doctorates, agreed with the trio who found the imprint that the only thing that could have made it was a huge bipedal primate which had sat down in the mud and then turned on its side.

After that Jeff Meldrum spent several days carefully uncovering the details, revealing consistent hair patterns on all parts of the imprint, including the forearm, and large areas of clear dermal ridges where the heels had dug in.

Since no large creatures except primates have dermal ridges at all, there is no possibility that any animal other than a higher primate could have made the heel imprints. Each species of higher primate has a different pattern, and none has a heel this large. Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human.

The evidence that this imprint was made by a very large, unknown, higher primate is, in my opinion, compelling. I would not anticipate that every qualified person who examines would come to the same conclusion, but I feel sure that the vast majority would have to, whatever their preconceptions."

-John Green
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a qualified scientist or forensic specialist (either active or retired) in any relevant discipline, and you would like an opportunity to examine this cast in Washington State, please contact the BFRO at Cast@bfro.net

Friends or family members, or students of people who are considered qualified, may accompany them to view the cast in person.

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

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hello ! Anybody home ?

WHAT findings are you referring to ? What should we try to refute?

Have you been reading the thread? I've already posted articles by and about Chilcutt.
Try this:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=303

He gives a detailed demonstration on the DVD.
Perhaps you could save up your allowance and buy one.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Have you been reading the thread? I've already posted articles by and about Chilcutt.
Try this:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=303

He gives a detailed demonstration on the DVD.
Perhaps you could save up your allowance and buy one.

It seems he is saying the footprints are not human or or of anything else he can identify?


This proves what, exactly ?

I think they were made by a pink unicorn... Can you refute that ?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Whatever happened to the apples? There should have been DNA on them from whatever ate them. The bite marks would have been useful, too.

If there was a report on the apples, I haven't found it yet.

The peels were analyzed and yielded nothing useful for DNA sequencing.
No body cells were found in the scat either, unfortunately.

Quote:

I think we should call it the Skookum Elk print at this point. Elk tracks, elk hair, big elk ballprints , people saying it was an elk, etc.

Cliff Crook, who has never seen the cast and who was quoted by Daegling is the only one I know of who's called it an elk. He's famous for the "bell-shaped object" and photos of a hairy model. His credibility is zip.

What other people have called it an "elk print"? And why would you believe them?
Elk have hooves, not well defined heels. Even a knee print wouldn't lok like that.

Do you really think a zoologist wouldn't know the difference between an elk imprint and something worth casting and bringing in for examination? The cast weighs 250 lbs.
The hair extracted from it was decidedly not elk.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
It seems he is saying the footprints are not human or or of anything else he can identify?


This proves what, exactly ?

The dermal ridges are neither human nor ape.

Quote:

I think they were made by a pink unicorn... Can you refute that ?

Have you posted on AOL boards under another screenname?
Your non-arguments seem oddly familiar.
Pink unicorns have hooves, do they not? Are your going to drag in leprechauns?


"Meldrum turned him loose on the entire collection. "What I actually found surprised even me," Chilcutt said. The print ridges on the bottoms of five castings -- which were taken at different times and locations -- flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow from side to side, he said. "No way do human footprints do that -- never, ever.

"The skeptic in me had to believe that (all of the prints were from) the same species of animal," Chilcutt said. "I believe that this is an animal in the Pacific Northwest that we have never documented."

Meldrum, for whom the study of Bigfoot prints is a sideline, believes it's a legitimate, scientific inquiry.

"A misconception is often perpetrated that this should be relegated to the tabloids," he said. "The question is, what made the tracks? They are there; that is indisputable. It's either a hoax or the track of a living animal." "

[LAL]

"After the cast was cleaned, extensive impressions of hair on the buttock and thigh surfaces and a fringe of longer hair along the forearm were evident. Meldrum identified what appear to be skin ridge patterns on the heel, comparable to fingerprints, that are characteristic of primates.

The ridge characteristics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints Meldrum has studied in collaboration with officer Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner with the Conroe, Texas, Police Department. The anatomy of the heel, ankle, and Achilles tendon are also distinct and consistent with models of the Sasquatch foot derived by Meldrum after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints.'


http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/IS...s_rel_cast.asp

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Here we have a muddy bank and no footprints where a giant man came in, relaxed, and ate some fruit. Yet lightweight coyotes left prints?

If you'll read the part about coyote prints you posted you'll note they crossed the imprint. There was soft mud there. It was a mudhole. Mudholes usually have mud in them.

"Light coyote tracks are observed on the surface of the rump and thigh of the body print, suggesting that coyotes arrived sometime after the Sasquatch left or were kept at bay during the primate visit. A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core."

[The Odd Emperor]

Am I the only one here who thinks making any judgment is premature? I have never seen evidence of Bigfoot or any of his-her-it’s cousins an yet many people who are in a much better position to judge the evidence think there might be something too it. We also know that people have hoaxed evidence, I’m satisfied with a wait-and-see attitude until more evidence is in.

Do I think evidence like the Skookum cast is compelling? Not to me it isn’t however I’m not qualified to judge that thing nor have I ever seen it outside of photos. At the same time I don’t necessarily think discounting it out of hand is a good idea.

I’m also kind of appalled at people gang-banging a new poster -- LAL, although I don’t agree with everything she’s saying here I do respect the fact that she is saying it, sticking to her story and responding respectfully to what I think is an unnecessary nasty assault.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
The dermal ridges are neither human nor ape.

Wow.. That really narrows it down then..

Have you posted on AOL boards under another screenname?
Your non-arguments seem oddly familiar.

And if I had, this would make your arguments more valid?

Pink unicorns have hooves, do they not?

Can't say, since one has not been caught ( or a body been found ) yet...


Are your going to drag in leprechauns?

Looks like you beat me to it.




"Meldrum turned him loose on the entire collection. "What I actually found surprised even me," Chilcutt said. The print ridges on the bottoms of five castings -- which were taken at different times and locations -- flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow from side to side, he said. "No way do human footprints do that -- never, ever.

"The skeptic in me had to believe that (all of the prints were from) the same species of animal," Chilcutt said. "I believe that this is an animal in the Pacific Northwest that we have never documented."

Meldrum, for whom the study of Bigfoot prints is a sideline, believes it's a legitimate, scientific inquiry.

"A misconception is often perpetrated that this should be relegated to the tabloids," he said. "The question is, what made the tracks? They are there; that is indisputable. It's either a hoax or the track of a living animal." "

I have no problem with the last sentence at all.. Still doesn't come close to:

Quote:

.... scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America

Your point?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
.... although I don’t agree with everything she’s saying here I do respect the fact that she is saying it, sticking to her story and responding respectfully to what I think is an unnecessary nasty assault.

What do you agree with?

Asking for verifiable evidence is assault ?


I'm taking her to task for sourcing things like

".... scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America.."

or

" A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved."


Hilarious... If the apple was chewed by an animal, there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from getting a DNA sample.. Which they obviously didn't.. Why not?




And listing reputable Scientists, who she says have verified the ' evidence ', when they have done nothing of the sort..


It's pure woo behavior...

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
What do you agree with?

Asking for verifiable evidence is assault ?


I'm taking her to task for sourcing things like

".... scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America.."

or

" A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved."


Hilarious... If the apple was chewed by an animal, there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from getting a DNA sample.. Which they obviously didn't.. Why not?




And listing reputable Scientists, who she says have verified the ' evidence ', when they have done nothing of the sort..


It's pure woo behavior...

I’m sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough. I believe I stated that I did not find the Skookum impression very convincing. Interesting maybe but not convincing for some of the reasons you cite and several others. Since I was not present and I don’t have expertise in animal DNA analysis I really can’t comment on it. Is it possible to get DNA from a half-chewed apple, take same back to a lab--what? Several days later? What does it take to analyze an unknown animal. What about contamination? If two animals chewed the thing, would that skew the results? How much does this analysis cost?

These are all questions a layperson (like myself) might ask. Do you have the answers?

I can also say that don’t like LAL’s predilection for making absolute statements and frankly, I don’t exactly know where she is coming from but I’d hesitate to call this “pure woo.” I think some people are making an attempt to study this stuff. I’m glad they are doing so.

At the same time (as I’ve so stated,) I really don’t think any compelling evidence of these things exists just yet.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
What do you agree with?

Asking for verifiable evidence is assault ?


I'm taking her to task for sourcing things like

".... scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America.."?

Posting a link to an ad for a DVD that has actual experts in primatology examining the cast and offering their conclusions is sourcing?

Since you seem to know so little about it I thought you might want to be brought up to speed on some of the best evidence.
The detail of long hair on the forearm in the Skookum Cast is interesting in light of the Memorial Day footage. One of the campers had binoculars and clearly saw long forearm hair on that individual.

I'd take up a collection to help you buy it, but I'm not that charitable.

Quote:

or

" A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved."


Hilarious... If the apple was chewed by an animal, there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from getting a DNA sample.. Which they obviously didn't.. Why not?

No body cells present, perhaps. It's not like CSI out there in the real world. If there'd been body cells of any animal they should have shown up in the testing.


In the case of the hairs they were determined by an independent lab to belong to an "unknown primate". They didn't match human hair.
They were tapered at the ends, meaning they had never been cut.

Quote:

And listing reputable Scientists, who she says have verified the ' evidence ', when they have done nothing of the sort..

Sure they have. What makes you think they haven't?

Quote:

It's pure woo behavior...

I have no idea what a "woo", but I'm rather sure I don't fit the description. Ad hominem attacks are an automatic loss under the rules of debate anyway, aren't they?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor

I can also say that don’t like LAL’s predilection for making absolute statements and frankly, I don’t exactly know where she is coming from but I’d hesitate to call this “pure woo.” I think some people are making an attempt to study this stuff. I’m glad they are doing so.

Where did I make absolute statements? I'm usually pretty careful to throw in an occasional cautious "may".

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Am I the only one here who thinks making any judgment is premature? I have never seen evidence of Bigfoot or any of his-her-it’s cousins an yet many people who are in a much better position to judge the evidence think there might be something too it. We also know that people have hoaxed evidence, I’m satisfied with a wait-and-see attitude until more evidence is in.

Do I think evidence like the Skookum cast is compelling? Not to me it isn’t however I’m not qualified to judge that thing nor have I ever seen it outside of photos. At the same time I don’t necessarily think discounting it out of hand is a good idea.

I’m also kind of appalled at people gang-banging a new poster -- LAL, although I don’t agree with everything she’s saying here I do respect the fact that she is saying it, sticking to her story and responding respectfully to what I think is an unnecessary nasty assault.

Thank you.
I'm used to carrying the ball alone in these debates and while I get support sometimes from some very capable cyber friends and requests for more info via e-mail, many posters seem afraid to post a pro opinion for fear of nasty assaults.
One assualt by a former cyber-friend was so bad the posts were removed, and that was on a member-moderated board!

It's frustrating to me to go to a great deal of effort to dig up photos and the like on the Internet only to have a scientific sort give them a cursory glance, dismiss tracks as overlays or bear tracks (in the case of half tracks, ignoring the rest of the trackway http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/umatilla.htm ) and then go silent as though that settles it, as happened recently on an AOL board.

I'm learning something, at least.

I appreciate your open attitude.
As I've mentioned, I've been interested in the phenomenon since 1968. I'm not sure I know what you mean by where I'm coming from, but at the time it was California.

The recent events in Canada would have been a great opportunity for, say, the National Geographic (they funded Dian Fossey) to jump in with a well-funded effort and a bit of respectibility. Instead, A Current Affair buys rights and sends its own team and now even the buffs are dismissing it because of the "circus atmosphere". I'm hopeful something good will come of it yet, but how is more evidence to come in without qualified people following up?

And if all evidence so far (there's a ton) is to be dismissed as "not conclusive", when will we get that full scale scientific expedition Goodall thinks is warranted?

[LAL]

More from Chilcutt:

""The ridge detail (finger pattern) on the casts is neither man nor ape," says Chilcutt. "Is it possible to have faked it? Sure. But (the faker) would have had to have an intimate knowledge of primate footprints and that didn't exist at the time the castings were made."

Chilcutt initiated the study of primate fingerprints in the mid 1990's working on a hunch that the identifying ridge patterns (the articles, loops and whorls made by folds in the skin) would someday help forensic specialists catch criminals. He explains that it would be helpful if criminologists could identify the race of a person by his fingerprints. But research in that direction has been inconclusive, Chilcutt believes, because the races have interbred so much. Primates, however, have undiluted gene pools. To date, Chilcutt has more that 1,000 fingerprints of lemurs, monkeys, and apes in his computer data bank. When he heard about Bigfoot castings in Meldrum's laboratory, he was intrigued but skeptical. "What I do is catch bad guys in Conroe, Texas," Chilcutt says. "I didn't care one way or the other if Bigfoot existed."

But a casting made near Walla Walla, Washington in 1984 piqued his interest. Not only did the ridge pattern run vertically along the edges of the foot, then angle across underneath the toes — a pattern different from humans and apes, which have ridges running horizontally and at an angle across the foot pad, respectively — but the imprints showed splits in the feet where the ridges did not realign perfectly when the skin had healed.

Chilcutt got a second jolt when he found a northern California casting made in 1967. The pattern was similar to that on the Walla Walla casting, although made from a smaller animal. For them to be fake, Chilcutt believes the same person would have had to fabricate both footprints, 17 years and several hundred miles apart. That seemed unlikely to Chilcutt, especially after he tried to duplicate the casting and failed.

The fingerprints expert has become a believer. "I can assure you," he says, "there's an animal up in the Pacific Northwest that we have never seen." "

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

Note he tried to duplicate the casting. If a forensic fingerprint expert can't do it, what chance do hoaxers have?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm

Lots of interesting info here.

Did you see what I posted from Richard Noll?
I believed that article too, and even posted it during a debate on BFF concerning Krantz' gullibility. I'd seen a demonstration on television with the faker.

Noll got the truth from Dahinden himself.


"The one cast that was sent to Dr. Grover Krantz was a discrediting tactic put out as a challenge from Rene Dahinden and answered by an Ohio resident. Only certain areas on the cast had ridge detail that Grover felt looked good. Instead of attacking Grover... why hasn't anyone attacked the perpetrators? I always have found this interesting."

Incidents like this make investigators even more careful. Hefty fines and jail terms for hoaxers might deter people from wasting the time and money of serious investigators.
Bryne & co. stopped jumping into the vehicles at every call on the hotline due to prank phone calls from teenaged boys who seem to think they were being funny. They settled for feeding data into the computer in hopes of finding seasonal migration patterns or some other clue to where to set up camera traps.
One incident he described to me seemed very credible, with two witnesses and track evidence showing the exact motion the witnesses described, but so much was trampled by curious onlookers that tracking was impossible.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL


I appreciate your open attitude.
As I've mentioned, I've been interested in the phenomenon since 1968. I'm not sure I know what you mean by where I'm coming from, but at the time it was California.

Your welcome but; I’m not a believer in much except that the error correcting mechanism inherent in the scientific process will settle the matter. I also think that every day a specimen does not show up is another nail in the coffin of the “Bigfoot is an unknown animal” theory.

By “where are you coming from” I mean; “what are your credentials?” You defend the faith very skillfully but I don’t know how much first-hand experience you may have I too became interested in Bigfoot and other “Fortiana” around ’68. But, I’m not a researcher. More of a dabbler and proletarian satirist.

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL

And if all evidence so far (there's a ton) is to be dismissed as "not conclusive", when will we get that full scale scientific expedition Goodall thinks is warranted?

I would be far more impressed if Goodall wrote a paper. Some quotes on a Bigfoot video are not impressive. As far as evidence? Another parallel to the UFO thing is an abundance of poor evidence. A hundred pieces of scat or a thousand plaster prints do not necessarily make an animal. Nor do blurry photos and eye witness accounts. Neither does passionate belief.

The only proof will be lots of very high quality photos/vidios and/or a specimen. That I believe is how real animal classification works.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

No body cells present, perhaps. It's not like CSI out there in the real world. If there'd been body cells of any animal they should have shown up in the testing.

In the real world, animals can't chew food without leaving part of themselves behind..

Why do you insist the chewed apple is evidence of the existance of this creature, then suggest it was sterilized before it was discarded?

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LAL

And if all evidence so far (there's a ton) is to be dismissed as "not conclusive", when will we get that full scale scientific expedition Goodall thinks is warranted?

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

If Goodall thinks it's warranted, I would suspect she has the clout to make it happen.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL


I have no idea what a "woo", but I'm rather sure I don't fit the description. Ad hominem attacks are an automatic loss under the rules of debate anyway, aren't they?

Woo is a somewhat derogatory slang for “person with irrational belief.” It’s a pretty new term in the lexicon (this lexicon anyway.)

But I believe he said “it’s pure woo behavior.” Not “you woo!” In which case he might be attacking the idea, not the person.

As-hom is against rules of debate but people here don’t always follow those--which is OK in my mind. JREF is more like a late night bull session at a really strange convention than a formal debate.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
In the real world, animals can't chew food without leaving part of themselves behind..

Why do you insist the chewed apple is evidence of the existance of this creature, then suggest it was sterilized before it was discarded?

I didn't, to begin with. Why are you saying I said things I didn't say?
The DNA testing yielded nothing useful from the peels. "Why" is my speculation. They were hoping there'd be something in saliva traces.

Quote:

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Well, with people whose minds are made up, I don't. The usual tactic is to throw in leprechauns and then go scoffing off the board.
Arguing with hard core sceptics on this is like arguing with Creationists.

"Show me some evidence."
"Okay, here's some evidence."
"That's not evidence."
"Okay, here's some more evidence."
"That's not evidence."
"Okay, here's a mountain of evidence."
"Someone said that bit of evidence over there could have been faked."
"Okay, here's evidence that it wasn't."
"That's not evidence."

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Woo is a somewhat derogatory slang for “person with irrational belief.” It’s a pretty new term in the lexicon (this lexicon anyway.)

But I believe he said “it’s pure woo behavior.” Not “you woo!” In which case he might be attacking the idea, not the person.

Oh, well that's certainly not me, nor my behavior, nor the ideas. I look at this with the same lens I use on everything else.
I guess I can relax on my implications about the poster's maturity. I was getting close to an ad hominem attack myself, actually.

Quote:

As-hom is against rules of debate but people here don’t always follow those--which is OK in my mind. JREF is more like a late night bull session at a really strange convention than a formal debate.

Ah, good. The boards I'm used to aren't formal debate either, but some of the logic jockeys tend to forget that when they've lost.
"Ah, that was an ad hominem attack; you lose." "No it wasn't." "Clearly it was; the conversation is at an end." "You're filtered."

And the content gets lost in the mud-slinging.

Found this fairly balanced look last night (there are some errors, such as on Wallace):

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Bigfoot

Check the links on some of the experts who have taken an interest.
One thing that struck me in the Post story was Ciochon's concern that funding would be drawn away from his own work on
Gigantopithecus blacki.
Could fear of loss of funding be one reason some scientists shy away?

I read Dr. John Bindernagle's book (got it through the local library) and after that found it impossible to think of these creatures as anything but a normal, if elusive, animal. He relates the throwing behaviour to Great Apes. Bears and elk certainly do not do that.
Something on/from him:

"In the last 14 years more reports on the island have come to light due to the work of Vancouver Island wildlife biologist and Sasquatch investigator, John Bindernagle. He suspects the number of sightings to be much higher than reported, but says people often don’t come forward for fear of ridicule.

“Because of the sort of taboo nature of this animal, most sightings do not become reports, and most people don’t know where to report them anyway,” he explained. “This is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Bindernagle said that it won’t be long before indisputable evidence is found.

“What we’re going to need is a road kill or the actual carcass,” he said. “In the meantime, we have so much evidence—tracks and eyewitness accounts—the problem is to get other scientists to look at this evidence, but they won’t even address it.”

Most scientists, he said, refuse to engage the evidence found thus far, instead relying on mainstream media and tabloid reports that are done without scientific consultation.

“We have a real problem with a non-human primate existing anywhere in North America. It’s too bizarre for us; it’s too bizarre for scientists,” he said. “This is what keeps me going. [People who report sightings] are not idiots, but they’re being treated as idiots.”

http://www.martlet.ca/archives/040916/feature.html

He became interested when he came across a trackway while hiking in a wilderness area.
I saved a site on papers he's presented, but haven't found it yet.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Your welcome but; I’m not a believer in much except that the error correcting mechanism inherent in the scientific process will settle the matter. I also think that every day a specimen does not show up is another nail in the coffin of the “Bigfoot is an unknown animal” theory.

I seem to have heard that idea more than once over the last few decades.
If all activity had stopped after the Patterson film, I might buy into it, but the BFRO gets several reports a day. More people are carrying cameras routinely, and with the support of over 3000 members of the BFRO, there may be something conclusive in what's left of my lifetime. I hate to see the "mystery" end, but the chance to say, "I told to so" to a few rude people would be delicious.

Quote:

I would be far more impressed if Goodall wrote a paper. Some quotes on a Bigfoot video are not impressive.

What would she write it on? She's in Africa studying Chimpanzees. This is not her area of expertise. Meldrum has the best shot at being published in "real" peer review, I would think. He may have done the most field work on it.
Sarmiento may take a look when he's finished the Bili Ape project, I hear. You've heard of the apparent new "giant" Chimpanzee species (with Gorilla-like behavior) from well-explored Africa?
Another "native legend" comes to life.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL


I hate to see the "mystery" end, but the chance to say, "I told to so" to a few rude people would be delicious.

Hmm; Rudeness begets rudeness, begets rudeness ad-infinitum-halleluiah-amen.

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL

What would she write it on? She's in Africa studying Chimpanzees. This is not her area of expertise. Meldrum has the best shot at being published in "real" peer review, I would think. He may have done the most field work on it.
Sarmiento may take a look when he's finished the Bili Ape project, I hear. You've heard of the apparent new "giant" Chimpanzee species (with Gorilla-like behavior) from well-explored Africa?
Another "native legend" comes to life.

Thanks; that's a very good question. Why did Goodall even make such a statement and who cares? If as you say, it's not her area of expertise than she has no more right to make declarations on Bigfoot than you or I.

Since she seems to have done one of the few cultural anthropology studies on primates, I think she’s very qualified to render an opinion based on the evidence she’s seen. But like most researchers, she can’t just run off and do whatever she would like to do.

In any case, new species are discovered every day. Most of the time a set of really good photos or a specimen is provided in order to make a classification. Should we not impose the same standards to the Bigfoot phenomena and if not. Why not?

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL


Check the links on some of the experts who have taken an interest.
One thing that struck me in the Post story was Ciochon's concern that funding would be drawn away from his own work on
Gigantopithecus blacki.
Could fear of loss of funding be one reason some scientists shy away?

[/b]

I think it’s the primary reason. Look. What would you do? Play the game, get a nice fat research grant and a bunch of hungry grad students (slaves) working for you? Or live in a nice $40,000 manufactured home, drive a bike to your dishwashing job and wish you’d never written that #$$%# monster book back in the 'day' before you had tenyar.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
Hmm; Rudeness begets rudeness, begets rudeness ad-infinitum-halleluiah-amen.

I'm thinking of people I've never been rude to, actually. One in particular believes in the Biblical Flood but not in evolution. I've come close to banning him from my presence.

Quote:

Thanks; that's a very good question. Why did Goodall even make such a statement and who cares?

I care. It came about after the radio interview where she "came out". Having a few people with stature to opt for the "pro" side makes a difference in encouraging others to take a serious look, even if only to find out why the expert said such a thing.

Quote:

If as you say, it's not her area of expertise than she has no more right to make declarations on Bigfoot than you or I.

Offhand, I'd say she has more expertise on Chimpanzees than you or I, or just about anyone else. Her methods of observation would be useful if Sasquatches would only stay put long enough. I'm noticing several experts in primatology have said similar things, but I'm not coming up with any quotes from physicists. I wonder why that is?
One poster on another board (never mind his degrees are in Geology, which qualified him to rediagnose Cripplefoot's deformity as a crushing injury, after saying it's fake) dismissed all researchers as "experts working out of their fields", but since there's no field of Sasquatology, how does one work in it? Primatology is the proper field, IMO.

Quote:

Since she seems to have done one of the few cultural anthropology studies on primates, I think she’s very qualified to render an opinion based on the evidence she’s seen. But like most researchers, she can’t just run off and do whatever she would like to do.

Right. She and George Schaller would make a good team, don't you think? Maybe they could apply for funding when they retire.

Quote:

In any case, new species are discovered every day. Most of the time a set of really good photos or a specimen is provided in order to make a classification. Should we not impose the same standards to the Bigfoot phenomena and if not. Why not?

Well, until that full-scale scientific investigation gets going, it's all in the hands of "amateurs". I imagine Meldrum would love to head it, but he's tied up with his duties at Idaho State. I take it his grant request was denied, and I have no idea what he did last summer.
Most sightings are at night. Most last about 20 seconds. What film and video there is gets rejected out of hand as "too grainy", "too fuzzy", "could be a guy in a suit", etc. Most hunters hunt by day and don't get too far from the vehicle in case they actually manage to shoot something.
And so on.
There are, to my knowlege, no full-time researchers in the field with proper equipment and grants.
According to Christopher Murphy, the NASI/Glickman report was submitted to various scientific journals, which all refused to publish it.
So, maybe we could apply the same standards if we could get rid of the double standards.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
I think it’s the primary reason. Look. What would you do? Play the game, get a nice fat research grant and a bunch of hungry grad students (slaves) working for you? Or live in a nice $40,000 manufactured home, drive a bike to your dishwashing job and wish you’d never written that #$$%# monster book back in the 'day' before you had tenyar.

Oh, I'd be like Dr. Krantz. Here's a report from one of his grad students:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/sbs/somer87.htm

And an obituary on him:

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

Interesting they got the university wrong in the headline but correct in the story.

Here's more:

"Like many men who labor at the margins of respectability, Krantz had a paranoid streak. He was convinced that many of the giant footprints he documented were faked by people whose motivations he could never understand. Yet also like many on the fringes, his experience of rejection by the mainstream made him cling more tenaciously than ever to the possibility that his grail did exist. It appalled him that his colleagues did not regard the Sasquatch question as an open one. He denounced their careerism and timidity. He wrote, "Anything that suggests association with the lunatic fringe, and sasquatch is a classic, can certainly retard one's professional career."

He attributed his own delayed tenure to this. For every paper rejected or career advancement denied there was a ready explanation: the closed-minded bastards want to run me out of the profession. "[F]inding proof of the sasquatch would mean that almost all anthropologists and primatologists would have to admit that they were wrong about something," he grumbled. Yet he seemed to court rejection. At one point he wore prosthetic brow ridges for six months running to determine their function in Homo erectus. Noting the startled looks of passers-by, he concluded they may have been some kind of signaling device.

He had an answer for every skeptical question.

Q: Why hasn't anybody ever discovered a sasquatch skeleton?

A: There are also very few reports of bear bones being found, outside of those killed by humans. Megafauna seek out secluded locations to die and their remains quickly decompose. After all, if the plains were once covered in buffalo, where are those bones?

Q: Why are there so few well-attested sightings?

A: Sasquatch are nocturnal - which conveniently also minimizes their conflict with diurnal grizzlies. Also, they are shy.

Q: Why don't we hear more from hunters, who spend lots of time in the woods?

A: There are lots of Sasquatch hunters out there, but even if they saw one they wouldn't tell anybody because hunters are so secretive. Also, the timber interests don't want the word to get out because then they'd have to develop a conservation plan.


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

No wonder Dahinden was out to get him.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
And if all evidence so far (there's a ton) is to be dismissed as "not conclusive", when will we get that full scale scientific expedition Goodall thinks is warranted?

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL

This is not her area of expertise.

Are you really unaware of your inconsistency here?


Isn't ' Name Dropping ' right up there with ' Ad Hom ', when it comes to debating ?

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you really unaware of your inconsistency here?

And whose area of expertise is it? Even Meldrum investigates as a sideline, and he's become the standard-bearer since Krantz' death.
I value Goodall's opinion, but she hasn't done the hands-on research Meldrum, et al, have done. They should be the ones to publish, IMO, if any mainstream journal will accept the paper.

Quote:

Isn't ' Name Dropping ' right up there with ' Ad Hom ', when it comes to debating ?

No that I know of, but argumentum ad ignorantiam might be.
Sourcing her opinion is hardly "name-dropping".

[Red Siegfried]

Thought I'd sit back for a while and watch the debate.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Still no DNA.

Only films and impressions and hair of questionable authenticity.

I'm waiting, and I could be wrong but I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. Meanwhile, the topic keeps going back to he said, she said and debate tactics.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Wow, that could be a poem.

[The Odd Emperor]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Thought I'd sit back for a while and watch the debate.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Still no DNA.

Only films and impressions and hair or questionable authenticity.

I'm waiting, and I could be wrong but I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. Meanwhile, the topic keeps going back to he said, she said and debate tactics.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Wow, that could be a poem.

...it is!

[Hitch]

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
Q: Why hasn't anybody ever discovered a sasquatch skeleton?

A: There are also very few reports of bear bones being found, outside of those killed by humans. Megafauna seek out secluded locations to die and their remains quickly decompose. After all, if the plains were once covered in buffalo, where are those bones?

They may not be laying around in lage numbers any more, but buffalo skeletons do exist.

Quote:

Q: Why are there so few well-attested sightings?

A: Sasquatch are nocturnal - which conveniently also minimizes their conflict with diurnal grizzlies. Also, they are shy.

How do we know they're nocturnal? The only films or pictures I've seen of Sasquatches moving around were shot in daylight.

Quote:

Q: Why don't we hear more from hunters, who spend lots of time in the woods?

A: There are lots of Sasquatch hunters out there, but even if they saw one they wouldn't tell anybody because hunters are so secretive. Also, the timber interests don't want the word to get out because then they'd have to develop a conservation plan.

Now you're just in the realm of pure woo: "Hunters see them all the time but keep it secret?" Fox Mulder would laugh in your face for that one.

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hitch
They may not be laying around in lage numbers any more, but buffalo skeletons do exist.

In dry conditions. The wet, acid soils of the Cascade Range, e.g., do not preserve bones. The scavenger system is extremely efficient.

Quote:

How do we know they're nocturnal? The only films or pictures I've seen of Sasquatches moving around were shot in daylight.

There's a link to a night shot of a possible Skunk Ape on this thread.


"Appendix I


The nocturnality of the Sasquatch has been questioned on occasion. This subject can also be approached statistically, though directed at the observers rather than the observed. Let us take a hypothetical area randomly seeded with Sasquatches, evenly distributed during day and night. Their apparent temporal distribution will depend on them being seen by human observers. Let us assume a very conservative ratio of such alert observers during day�_light as compared to the hours of total darkness in the mountains to be 20:1. A daylight observer will have a circular observational area with a radius of, say, 500 feet (152 m);recognition of the subject will thus be unambig�_uous over roughly 800,0002 feet (72,0002 m).A night-time observer has, at best, the expanding cone of headlights in one direction with recognition of a grey object at 300 feet (91 m) (Bosch 1970), and an expanding width of illumination to 100 feet (30 m) a sector with an area of about 15,0002 feet (1,3502 m). Factoring in the number of observers produces a ratio of 800,000 x 20:15,000 x1, or better than 1,000:1. That is the ratio at which Sasquatch sightings should be distributed between day and night, a number that will get more extreme if flashlights or moonlight is the alternative illumination. An actual ratio cited by Green (1978) consists of 1,275 sightings, of which 735 occurred during the day and 540 during the night, or a 58 to 42 ratio (1.38 to 1). If only sightings on roads are considered, the ratio shifts to 1:1.4 in favor of night sightings. This discrepancy can be interpreted as activity by the Sasquatch that exposes it to being seen about 1,500 times more often at night than an even distribution would predict. This nocturnality would render the elaborate body language common to primates invisible most of the time, and might account for a compensatory development of more com�_plex vocalizations in the Sasquatch.


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

Quote:

Now you're just in the realm of pure woo: "Hunters see them all the time but keep it secret?" Fox Mulder would laugh in your face for that one.

Me? It's a quote from Dr. Krantz, and possibly a sarcastic one at that. Did you see my comment?

[LAL]

I find it interesting that both sides have used Grizzlies. Sceptics say people are seeing upright Grizzlies and Krantz mentions diurnal Grizzlies. To my knowlege there are no Grizzlies on the western slope of the Cascade range. Bears there are Black Bears.
And no one familiar with Black Bears could mistake an upright Black Bear for a bipedal hominid primate.

Someone asked about the "feeding lot". This is what the ACA team was referring to:

"Now, we found one field that we think is a feasting field, where you could have even a family of Bigfoots. It had dozens of bones and literally thousands of feathers such as this, what appears to be an eagle's wing with the bone attached. A femur of a deer. And the same up here. We also found the skull of a deer. So the idea is that this could be an area where Bigfoot or his family feast. And importantly, you see that the bone has the feathers on from the eagle. Normally bears and other predators don't pluck birds before they eat them. This would indicate we're dealing with some sort of primate. A more intelligent creature, i.e. a possible Bigfoot here.

BRETT HUDSON: Bone marrow.

DR. FRANKLIN R. RUEHL, PH.D.: Oh, that's right. And here we have a bone that was apparently from a deer. The marrow's sucked out. So possibly this creature enjoys feasting on bone marrow of other creatures. And the question of course arises, what does Bigfoot eat? Well, he was found here along the shore. At this time, the fish-- this is early spring-- all congregate near the shore. So he may be a fish eater. Also while we were in the field one night, we heard a thousand frogs croaking. In fact I did not believe they were frogs. They sounded, it sounded like an auto factory. It was so loud. Then suddenly, silence. An eerie silence, as though some predator, perhaps, had suddenly appeared in the area. Perhaps Bigfoot enjoys eating amphibians and the frogs realize that. They later resumed their noise. But it was an eerie moment for us."


http://wriversasquatchassoc.net/inde...pressconf.html

[LAL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Thought I'd sit back for a while and watch the debate.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Still no DNA.

Only films and impressions and hair of questionable authenticity.

I'm waiting, and I could be wrong but I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time. Meanwhile, the topic keeps going back to he said, she said and debate tactics.

Still no bigfoot, dead or alive.

Wow, that could be a poem.

Take a look at some the sceptics' arguments:

Could have been hoaxed.

Couldn't have been hoaxed, so it must be an elk.

Dennett says so.

Daegling says so.

Somebody says so.

Scientists don't know what they're doing.

Scientists do know what they're doing, but they didn't say that.

Fingerprint experts don't know what they're doing.

Ridiculous.

Woo behaviour.



I'm not even going to try to rhyme that.



Hairs from the Skookum imprint were tested for DNA. Contamination couldn't be ruled out.
But what if they weren't contaminated?

Hairs from the recent Manitoba incident aren't resembling known NA mammals either. Big surprise.


Gonna go get some tissue, now.
First must find Sasquatch.
Must shoot with grabber dart, reel it in then run like hell.
Ah! Might find dead one in bear den.
Oops!
Must go faster!

This ain't easy, kids.