$1m bounty offered for live Bigfoot

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

That's pretty much where I am. Bring him in, and THAT will end the debate, and begin the wild party.

Yeah, if you though Chewbacca was the most famous Bigfoot around then the real thing would REALLy blow all our socks off. Whilst I'm not rushing out to buy the balloons anytime soon I would dearly love to see a real Bigfoot 'coming out' party. I'm just not going to allow my reality to be coloured by my wishes, as unfortunately many people seem to do. If there's a Bigfoot then show me him, otherwise stop wasting time and bandwidth discussing nothing of importance.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Anyway folks, as I said before:

Meldrum has actually been a bigfoot enthusiast since he was a child. He was not a sceptic at all, actually. He sees what he wants to see, as a longtime bigfoot supporter. He is just another example of a biased source who has let his beliefs get in the way, imo.

I no longer trust anything he says about the subject.

You never trusted anything he said in the first place. How can you no longer trust it?

Do you see where your statements above could apply to you if you were a source?

Should scientists only pursue interests they didn't have as a child? He didn't get into it for many years, and then he was asked.

Have you written him yet? You're not chicken, are you? How about taking your arguments to BFF? No one seems to be paying much attention to you here.

Quote:

I find the quote below hilarious.

You would.
Meldrum cleaned it. It's pretty confusing at first. I can see where he would welcome the second opinion, especially when it was Swindler's.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Kenny 10 Bellys

Yeah, if you though Chewbacca was the most famous Bigfoot around then the real thing would REALLy blow all our socks off. Whilst I'm not rushing out to buy the balloons anytime soon I would dearly love to see a real Bigfoot 'coming out' party. I'm just not going to allow my reality to be coloured by my wishes, as unfortunately many people seem to do. If there's a Bigfoot then show me him, otherwise stop wasting time and bandwidth discussing nothing of importance.

If you don't like it, why are you back? Are you a moderator? Do you have authority to tell people what they can and cannot post on the board?

I do think I'll stop wasting my time reading your posts. Thanks for the advice.

[LTC8K6]

I actually have no problem with Lu personally outside of the subject of bigfoot. I have just come to my own conclusion that it is no longer worthwhile to engage her in conversation about bigfoot because she cannot discuss it objectively in my opinion.

I understand what a strong belief can do to a person and how they can behave because of it. I don't hold that against them except on the topic in question. Their behavior in support of their belief isn't necessarily reflective of them as a whole.

I will be quite happy to have evidence of bigfoot presented to the world. It would be fascinating to learn about such a primate. I just haven't seen any evidence yet. Or, anything even approaching evidence.

I am still open to the possibility, however small I think it is, and I do think it is between slim and none. Slim is walking out the door, too.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I will be quite happy to have evidence of bigfoot presented to the world. It would be fascinating to learn about such a primate. I just haven't seen any evidence yet. Or, anything even approaching evidence.

I disagree. There is evidence--there are footprints, sightings, photographs, etc.

The question is whether that evidence is reliable, verifiable, and substantial. That is the part where the "evidence" fails the test. Photographs and footprints can be (and have been) faked. Eyewitness reports are unreliable and subject to everything from misidentification to hallucination. Etc., etc.

Saying it's "not evidence" is simply incorrect--it's evidence all right, just not reliable, verifiable, or substantial evidence.

I would save the "there is no evidence" bit for things like God, theories that aliens built the pyramids, Atlantis, that sort of thing. Concepts for which there are no physical components, no eyewitnesses, nada.

[LTC8K6]

Meldrum admits to being a bigfoot believer when he was younger and to reading "Abominable Snowman: Legend Come to Life", a 525 page book about the yeti, bigfoot, and giants written by Ivan T. Sanderson.

Meldrum called it a "tome", but he can only mean that book, I think.

He also went to see Patterson at the Spokane coliseum and watched the PG film.

He read widely on the subject, including a National Wildlife article on bigfoot.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

I don't think I got it from you. The poster I did get it from didn't stay long. I rather resented his characterization. I'm in Tar Heel country and haven't met any hicks here either.......some good Bluegrass pickers, though.

You probably have met 'hicks'. According to the definition given by the Random House Webster's College Dictionary they are... "an unsophisticated, provincial person", or as an adjective... that which is "unsophisticated or provincial". This modern dictionary does not evaluate the accuracy or validity of a word. It only seeks to define it according to its use. It shows that 'hick' can be used to describe a person or an entire town, irrespective of its accuracy or functional utility.

Quote:

Yes. And then got suspicious and then exposed it. It does look good at first. It was done by professionals.

Suspicious? The 'snow walker' looks exactly like a bloke in a hairy costume climbing up a snowy incline. Why did Jeff Meldrum GET suspicious, instead of being instantly suspicious? Does Meldrum have a problem with perceptions of the real world?

Quote:

No. He (Krantz) seemed baffled and a bit hurt to me.

Was Krantz baffled and hurt because he suddenly realized that Bigfoot hoaxers could fool him?

Quote:

Two of his experts, de Palma and Titmus agreed it looked real and it had his two secret criteria. But another expert was behind it, namely René Dahinden, who didn't seem to like anybody very much.

What kind of an expert is Bob Titmus? Could he distinguish real Bigfoot evidence from false evidence? Did Titmus have a frozen Bigfoot foot that he was using as a control sample? Who is dePalma? Did he show that Bigfoot is a real creature? Did he have a chunk of Bigfoot flesh in his garage?

Quote:

Since he had authentic casts to work from, it would have been easy for them to start there instead of from scratch. This certainly doesn't affect the rest of the collection or the rest of Krantz' work. Nobody's perfect.

What do you mean by 'authentic casts'? Do you mean casts of authentic Bigfoot tracks or casts made from authentic plaster?

Quote:

I don't know what his plans are; that was just part of the show. You didn't see the DVD, did you? He's writing a book. When he's finished perhaps I'll be saying "Read Meldrum" instead of "Read Krantz". I'll have to read it first.

It's too bad that reading books about Bigfoot isn't the same thing as a real Bigfoot. Maybe you wish that the JREF Forum would subscribe to that kind of association. I've asked, "Where is Bigfoot?" It looks like Bigfoot doesn't live in American forests. It looks like Bigfoot lives in human minds, on the pages of books and in pixels on the Internet. One could gain more ground by studying the ecology of Bigfoot within human culture than within real forests. Did Daegling already do this? A 1200 pound ape requires lots of calories to sustain its ongoing existence, but a 1200 pound myth only requires the fortitude of a vocal cult.

Quote:

And of course you've interviewed no one, examined no evidence and have nothing to back that but your own opinion.

So what? Bigfoot is supposed to be living in American forests, not in Anerican interviews.

Quote:

Read Krantz.

Read almost anything on human hoaxing and human dupes. There is much more physical evidence of human trickery (and beliefs that the trickery is not a trick) than for Bigfoot.

Quote:

Dr. Meldrum is quite cautious in his statements, but I think he's certain.

Certain of what? Certain that his beliefs are acceptable to Bigfooters, or certain that Bigfoot exists? Is there no such thing as a crackpot scientist, or a scientist that has some crackpot beliefs? Some in this forum are now suggesting that Meldrum is confusing bear tracks for a wild bipedal primate. Exactly WHAT WAS IT that caused Meldrum to switch from personally believing that the 'snow walker' was a Bigfoot climbing a snowy hill to personally believing that it was a hoaxed video?

Quote:

Sasquatches are an unknown hominid, not a monkey, BTW.

Sasquatches are a myth until proven otherwise by physical biological evidence, or some other form of evidence that has not yet been presented. It doesn't matter if I call them monkeys or worms. The burden of proof lies fully upon the believers' shoulders to show that this thing is what it is.

Are you trying to hold some token authority by pointing out that the hypothetical Bigfoot is probably an ape (or specifically a homimid) rather than a monkey? You know that I call it a monkey for humorous effect. Did you notice that many Bigfooters also call it a monkey for the same effect? Do you think that we are all just ignorant of primate taxonomy and are making stupid errors when we are trying not to make any errors?

This even brings up another interesting fact. Until a Bigfoot specimen is examined, its realationship to other primates cannot be well-understood. Nobody can say that this isn't a living bipedal monkey that doesn't have a tail until we have reason to know that it IS an ape (or whatever).

[LTC8K6]

Fake tracks, hair, photos, etc., are evidence of hoaxers, not of bigfoot.

Misidentifications are evidence of the fallibility of human witnesses, not of bigfoot.

At any rate, I have to use my own judgement.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Fake tracks, hair, photos, etc., are evidence of hoaxers, not of bigfoot.

Misidentifications are evidence of the fallibility of human witnesses, not of bigfoot.

At any rate, I have to use my own judgement.

But if a set of tracks have not been identified conclusively as a hoax, they can be evidence of hoaxers or evidence of Bigfoot. You and I might think they're probably hoaxes, but their status as evidence remains.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Since he had authentic casts to work from

This is the sort of thing that is so exasperating.......

Things like this are just mindlessly repeated by bigfoot believers as if they are true.

You begin to wonder if dementia has set in and they actually believe this stuff.

It's really nothing but an attempt to get a baldfaced lie past us.

As if by repeating it, it will just be accepted.

For the record, there are absolutely no authentic bigfoot footprint casts anywhere. None.

Anyone making such a claim has a serious credibility problem.

[LTC8K6]

Tracks are not evidence of bigfoot unless you can prove they were made by bigfoot, imo.

They are evidence of something, but not of bigfoot.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Tracks are not evidence of bigfoot unless you can prove they were made by bigfoot, imo.

...Which is circular reasoning.

[Katachresis]

Would the only acceptable exidence be a body, dead or alive?

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Which is circular reasoning.

If we have a paw print on the ground and I say it's from a Bengal tiger, is it evidence of a Bengal tiger even if I am wrong and the print is actually from a cheetah?

The print is evidence, but of what?

I say it is not evidence of a bengal tiger's presence unless it is actually from a bengal tiger. If that's circular, so be it.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Meldrum admits to being a bigfoot believer when he was younger and to reading "Abominable Snowman: Legend Come to Life", a 525 page book about the yeti, bigfoot, and giants written by Ivan T. Sanderson.

Meldrum called it a "tome", but he can only mean that book, I think.

He also went to see Patterson at the Spokane coliseum and watched the PG film.

He read widely on the subject, including a National Wildlife article on bigfoot.

Yeah, that really disqualifies anyone from being objective doesn't it? I did all that stuff too, except for seeing Patterson.

Mea culpa.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Would the only acceptable exidence be a body, dead or alive?

Any evidence is really "acceptable," but expect people to take certain types of evidence (eyewitnesses, footprints) with a big ol' grain of salt. I would say physical remains or a live speciment would be the only absolutely conclusive evidence.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

This is the sort of thing that is so exasperating.......

Let me put that another way. He had casts taken from tracks that were examined in situ, that were evidently not faked in any way and which compared in their anatomical details to other casts of alleged Sasquatch tracks.

<rest of exasperated rant snipped>

You seem to be avoiding my question. Have you written to Meldrum yet? Are you, who have only seen a photo on the Internet and read his paper, going to inform him that he has made a collossal blunder and misidentified a bear track, which in fact, has been cast and, in the opinion of the careful Mr. Crowley, was not bear? Please do this. Or write up your paper and I'll post it on a board where he should be sure to see it. I'll even e-mail it myself.

IOW, put up or shut up.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Any evidence is really "acceptable," but expect people to take certain types of evidence (eyewitnesses, footprints) with a big ol' grain of salt. I would say physical remains or a live speciment would be the only absolutely conclusive evidence.

Time for the kill squad.

Seriously, I think one will be broght in eventually, but I think the kill will most likely be by a well-armed hunter who thought it was a bear.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I actually have no problem with Lu personally outside of the subject of bigfoot. I have just come to my own conclusion that it is no longer worthwhile to engage her in conversation about bigfoot because she cannot discuss it objectively in my opinion.

Same to you, fella. Put me on filter then; I can take it. But don't talk about me as though I'm not here.

Quote:

I understand what a strong belief can do to a person and how they can behave because of it. I don't hold that against them except on the topic in question. Their behavior in support of their belief isn't necessarily reflective of them as a whole.

It may not be as strong as you think. It's a subject that seems to come up in my life about every ten years or so. I think I've mentioned I don't put much credence in reports unless there's track or other evidence, too. I personally knew one local character who may have had a sighting, but added so many embellishments to his subsequent stories he wasn't worth listening to. If I were to be in a position of evaluating reports I would certainly want some strong guidelines and means of cross checking. I can sketch from descriptions, but I'm not volunteering my time. In the sixties we didn't trust anyone over thirty. Now I wouldn't trust anyone under thirty.

Quote:

I will be quite happy to have evidence of bigfoot presented to the world. It would be fascinating to learn about such a primate. I just haven't seen any evidence yet. Or, anything even approaching evidence.

And what verifiable evidence of elk, hoaxing, and misidentification has been presented here?

Quote:

I am still open to the possibility, however small I think it is, and I do think it is between slim and none. Slim is walking out the door, too.

I think you've said something like that before. Several times. Does this mean you're done again?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Would the only acceptable exidence be a body, dead or alive?

I can imagine a kind of evidence (other than a body) that doesn't exist yet. One could capture video footage that is almost (and possiblt truly) beyond skeptical criticism. I think this is even true given modern ability to hoax or fabricate visual evidence.

Try to imagine a video of a Bigfoot family group that includes adults and tiny offspring engaging in independent and yet cohesive natural behaviors. Imagine that this video is as clear as when someone films a birthday party (even if they are 200 feet away from the party). Bigfoot believers suggest that the creature might be as tall as nine feet and is bipedal. That is an extraordinary creature that ought to be capable of extraordinary physical behavior. Imagine that video footage could capture one of these creatures doing something extraordinary. The Bigfooters claim that they break trees apart with their bare hands and will toss boulders at you. This stuff could be captured on videotape and serve as decent evidence... even in the absence of a body.

The subject filmed by 'Patterson & Gimlin' could have done some extraordinary things that were captured on film. Instead, it really didn't. There is an ongoing argument that it uses a gait that is different and is also physically larger than any human. Now try to imagine what kind of a world we would be living in if only that figure had been filmed by Patterson leaping over a huge logpile like it was just a stick. Instead, the Bigfooters are squabbling over minute details, that are attempts to show that the subject of the P&G film (Patty) is just too big to be human or shows a morphology that appears natural (unhoaxed or unhoaxable).

You betcha there could be a kind of convincing evidence other than a body. How about a decent video of a Bigfoot charging directly at a camera-operator so that all physical features and size are obvious? With that kind of visual evidence, the whole rational world would put aside the lack of a body and think otherwise.

Don't bet that such kind of recorded visual evidence is forthcoming. I think that Bigfoot is a myth.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Any evidence is really "acceptable," but expect people to take certain types of evidence (eyewitnesses, footprints) with a big ol' grain of salt. I would say physical remains or a live speciment would be the only absolutely conclusive evidence.

Bigfoot is now unfalsifiable (if it ever wasn't). There is absolutely nothing that anyone could provide to show that a gigantic stinky bipedal ape ISN'T secretly living in american forests.

Even if you try and are successful at debunking all of the presented physical evidence, you are still left with countless eyewitness reports of sightings. These people will tell you that they were not mistaken about what they saw.

The Bigfoot myth is not going to go away. There is something about this idealistic big hairy boogieman that is deeply-ingrained within the human psyche at large. Skeptics are trying to say that humanity has factions that are weird and will believe in things that just aren't there. Maybe the truly weird thing is thinking that mankind could ever be devoid of ideas and claims of 'things that go bump' in the night.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

You probably have met 'hicks'. According to the definition given by the Random House Webster's College Dictionary they are... "an unsophisticated, provincial person", or as an adjective... that which is "unsophisticated or provincial". This modern dictionary does not evaluate the accuracy or validity of a word. It only seeks to define it according to its use. It shows that 'hick' can be used to describe a person or an entire town, irrespective of its accuracy or functional utility.

People from all walks of life have had these sightings. The OP claimed only hicks see them, or something to that effect.

Quote:

Suspicious? The 'snow walker' looks exactly like a bloke in a hairy costume climbing up a snowy incline. Why did Jeff Meldrum GET suspicious, instead of being instantly suspicious? Does Meldrum have a problem with perceptions of the real world?

All films and photos supposedly look like "blokes in suits" to skeptics. I won't comment on some of those perceptions. It was also supposedly shot in the Himalayas. That would make it a Yeti bloke in a suit, not a Sasquatch bloke in a suit. Yeti are different.


"Perhaps the most elaborate hoax footage ever produced, it was created by an independent production company developing a TV program called "Paranormal Borderline" for UPN (Paramount).

The footage was greatly debated after its release, but was eventually debunked by the BFRO's Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

There are some interesting aspects to this footage. It was too expensive to create a convincing, intricate costume, so the hoaxers compensated in two ways, both of which provided clues that eventually unravelled the hoax.

The shots are brief, blurry, and distant, thus precluding any detailed images of the figure and eliminating the need for an intricate costume. The lack of image quality is cleverly distracted by the context of the footage.
The hoaxers went to extraordinary lengths to make the footage appear to be part of a vacation video of a European couple mountaineering in the Himalayas. In reality it was staged somewhere near Mammoth Mountain, California.
These compensations led to some obvious questions. With the figure crossing an open snow field likely in view for at least a minute, even the most amateur videographer would have shot more tape, and likely would have zoomed in all the way for the better part of the tape. Why then were there only a few seconds of shakey wide-angle shots when the figure was at it closest point?

The context of the footage raised immediate questions about the identify of the European couple. UPN would only say that an American man provided the footage, that he wanted people to see it, but that he wouldn't speak to any investigators or answer any questions about the European couple. This was suspiciously similar to the "alien autopsy" video scenario, where the shadowy source of the footage refused to come forward to authenticate it in any way. In the case of the Snow Walker footage, the producers of Paranormal Borderline acted suspiciously by steering the investigation away from the source.

Dr. Meldrum, who at first tentatively suggested the footage might be authentic, became increasingly suspicious of the dodgey behavior of the show's producers as he tried to investigate the matter further. He pursued it with UPN for over a year. Eventually, after Paranormal Borderline was cancelled, the producers finally outright admitted the hoax, and explained how it was done.

In spite of all this, they did manage to eek out one more profitable use out of the footage when it was used in the Fox TV special 'World's Greatest Hoaxes'. "


This was written before Dr. Meldrum told MM he could kiss his ***, of course. I'm glad the site's still up, anyway. MM pays for it.

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

Quote:

Was Krantz baffled and hurt because he suddenly realized that Bigfoot hoaxers could fool him?

I don't know. It seemed to be partly because of Dahinden's attitude. I don't think he realized how much Dahinden disliked him (RD almost crows on Sasquatch Oddessy). It seemed more bafflement on how it could have passed scrutiny. I don't know if he ever knew who was ultimately responsible.

Quote:

What kind of an expert is Bob Titmus? Could he distinguish real Bigfoot evidence from false evidence? Did Titmus have a frozen Bigfoot foot that he was using as a control sample? Who is dePalma? Did he show that Bigfoot is a real creature? Did he have a chunk of Bigfoot flesh in his garage?

He was a taxidermist at the time of the PGF and an experienced tracker. He cast eight successive prints at the site. He discovered a number of prints. The area was a hot spot with three or four individuals in the area.

Ed Palma was a police fingerprint expert. (It's Ed Palma. Sorry. My bad.)

Quote:

What do you mean by 'authentic casts'? Do you mean casts of authentic Bigfoot tracks or casts made from authentic plaster?

As rephrased in a post to a Bill, whom I seem to have driven crazy.

Quote:

It's too bad that reading books about Bigfoot isn't the same thing as a real Bigfoot. Maybe you wish that the JREF Forum would subscribe to that kind of association. I've asked, "Where is Bigfoot?" It looks like Bigfoot doesn't live in American forests. It looks like Bigfoot lives in human minds, on the pages of books and in pixels on the Internet. One could gain more ground by studying the ecology of Bigfoot within human culture than within real forests. Did Daegling already do this? A 1200 pound ape requires lots of calories to sustain its ongoing existence, but a 1200 pound myth only requires the fortitude of a vocal cult.

Have you read Daegling? How about his dissection on BFF?

1200?

Quote:

So what? Bigfoot is supposed to be living in American forests, not in Anerican interviews.

They tend to be seen by Americans in forests.

Quote:

Read almost anything on human hoaxing and human dupes. There is much more physical evidence of human trickery (and beliefs that the trickery is not a trick) than for Bigfoot.

Hm. Don't think so. There are many events with physical evidence that just don't get the publicity.

Quote:

Certain of what? Certain that his beliefs are acceptable to Bigfooters, or certain that Bigfoot exists? Is there no such thing as a crackpot scientist, or a scientist that has some crackpot beliefs? Some in this forum are now suggesting that Meldrum is confusing bear tracks for a wild bipedal primate.

Did you read Matt Crowley's response? He's seen the cast of that print.

Meldrum , Bindernagle, et al, have moved beyond "Are they real" to "Now what?" "Are they real?" is a question for sceptics and amateurs, not the professionals who have examined evidence and found it compelling.

Quote:

Exactly WHAT WAS IT that caused Meldrum to switch from personally believing that the 'snow walker' was a Bigfoot climbing a snowy hill to personally believing that it was a hoaxed video?

See the article. That's as much as I know.

Quote:

Sasquatches are a myth until proven otherwise by physical biological evidence, or some other form of evidence that has not yet been presented.

How about possible unidentified hominid primate. Why should myth be the default position?

Quote:

It doesn't matter if I call them monkeys or worms. The burden of proof lies fully upon the believers' shoulders to show that this thing is what it is.

And all sceptics have to do is say, "Could be a hoax" and that settles it? No burden of proof on them. Geez. What an easy life!

Quote:

Are you trying to hold some token authority by pointing out that the hypothetical Bigfoot is probably an ape (or specifically a homimid) rather than a monkey? You know that I call it a monkey for humorous effect. Did you notice that many Bigfooters also call it a monkey for the same effect? Do you think that we are all just ignorant of primate taxonomy and are making stupid errors when we are trying not to make any errors?

I'm a stickler for accuracy. I spent two years seeing Creationists say we didn't evolve from monkeys. It's an automatic correction.

Quote:

This even brings up another interesting fact. Until a Bigfoot specimen is examined, its realationship to other primates cannot be well-understood. Nobody can say that this isn't a living bipedal monkey that doesn't have a tail until we have reason to know that it IS an ape (or whatever).

Or our closest relative (move over, Kanzi).

[LAL]

"Meldrum made his scientific reputation in 1997 by discovering, with Duke University physical anthropologist Richard Kay, a previously unknown and long-extinct species of South American primate based on 12-million-year-old teeth unearthed in central Colombia. As a specialist in evolutionary morphology—the study of how animals have come to be shaped the way they are—Meldrum is one of the country's top experts in primate foot mechanics.

In 1996, an editor at the science journal Cryptozoology asked him to review an obscure book called Bigfoot of the Blues, a nonfiction account of a Sasquatch tromping around the Blue Mountains near Walla Walla, Washington. Meldrum drove to Walla Walla and met the book's main character, an old 'squatch hunter named Paul Freeman, who led him to a fresh set of tracks. How convenient, thought Meldrum, relishing the chance to debunk the mystery.

But he couldn't. "When I got on my knees and looked closely," he recalls, "I could see dermal ridge details"—the dips and whorls of fingerprints—"that would be awfully hard to fake."

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

"If it turns out to be an ape," says Meldrum, "The most disconcerting thing will be the crow that will have to be eaten."

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


http://outside.away.com/outside/news...asquatch_7.adp

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

Meldrum made his scientific reputation in 1997 by discovering, with Duke University physical anthropologist Richard Kay, a previously unknown and long-extinct species of South American primate based on 12-million-year-old teeth unearthed in central Colombia. As a specialist in evolutionary morphology—the study of how animals have come to be shaped the way they are—Meldrum is one of the country's top experts in primate foot mechanics.

Based on verifiable evidence..

In 1996, an editor at the science journal Cryptozoology asked him to review an obscure book called Bigfoot of the Blues, a nonfiction account of a Sasquatch tromping around the Blue Mountains near Walla Walla, Washington. Meldrum drove to Walla Walla and met the book's main character, an old 'squatch hunter named Paul Freeman, who led him to a fresh set of tracks. How convenient, thought Meldrum, relishing the chance to debunk the mystery.

Non fiction? Sure; about the hunters tromping around in the mountains ..

But he couldn't. "When I got on my knees and looked closely," he recalls, "I could see dermal ridge details"—the dips and whorls of fingerprints—"that would be awfully hard to fake."

The keyword here is ' hard '

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

"If it turns out to be an ape," says Meldrum, "The most disconcerting thing will be the crow that will have to be eaten."

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


http://outside.away.com/outside/news...asquatch_7.adp

Was that photo at your URL supposed to be an example of a faked track? One of the prints looked a lot like a Wallacefoot ...

The crows were safe.. Of course it wasn't an [b]ape - or a Bigfoot either ..]

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Was that photo at your URL supposed to be an example of a faked track? One of the prints looked a lot like a Wallacefoot ...

Haven't we been through this before? The cast on the right is from Abbott Hill, Gray's Harbor, Washington (cleaned up). I'm not sure of the other. It looks more like one from Hyampon, Ca. than "Wallace". Have you considered the logistics in all this? How did Ray manage to get to all these places with his various sets of carved feet that match nothing and still get home for dinner? How did he fake footprints after he died? You guys give him way too much credit. He was small time.


Did you read this?

"Meldrum's academic career hasn't exactly been helped by his research, but neither has he faced the ridicule that dogged Grover Krantz. "There's a different climate now than when Grover put his neck on the chopping block," says Meldrum. During his tenure review a few years ago, some colleagues looked askance at his Sasquatch work. "There were people in my department who would have denied me tenure on that basis alone," he says. "But there were others who said the subject doesn't matter—it's the way in which I went about doing the science." Meldrum's scientific method passed muster, and he was awarded tenure."

Some crackpot.

<titchy with a capital "B">

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Bigfoot is now unfalsifiable (if it ever wasn't). There is absolutely nothing that anyone could provide to show that a gigantic stinky bipedal ape ISN'T secretly living in american forests.

When you're talking about whether X exists, 99% of the time it's going to be unfalsifiable anyway. This is true whether we're talking about Bigfoot, God, unicorns, or psychic powers. This is why Randi is always very careful to never say "psychic powers don't exist"--because that's unproveable. You can test every last "psychic" on the face of the Earth, but someone might be born with some slight power that goes undetected. It is also essentially unfalsifiable.

This is the heart of the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Now at some point you might whittle down the probability of X existing to near zero, such as (IMO) the case with psychic powers, but you can never say "X doesn't exist" with 100% certainty.

Quote:

The Bigfoot myth is not going to go away. There is something about this idealistic big hairy boogieman that is deeply-ingrained within the human psyche at large. Skeptics are trying to say that humanity has factions that are weird and will believe in things that just aren't there. Maybe the truly weird thing is thinking that mankind could ever be devoid of ideas and claims of 'things that go bump' in the night.

There is much truth in this.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LAL

Time for the kill squad.

Seriously, I think one will be broght in eventually, but I think the kill will most likely be by a well-armed hunter who thought it was a bear.

You may well be right. And as I said in another thread, if the Big Guy is ever shown to be more than a myth I'll be the first to throw a party. (Though a slightly subdued one if it's shown by way of a corpse.) I'm not afraid to say that I really want Bigfoot to be real--I've been fascinated with him since I was a little tyke, and as someone with a degree and interest in anthropology I think it would be absolutely fascinating.

But I have to say at this point, the evidence simply isn't there and I'm not holding my breath.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

People from all walks of life have had these sightings. The OP claimed only hicks see them, or something to that effect.

The dictionary definition of hick doesn't specify what 'walk of life' they need to be engaged in to qualify for the definition. It only suggests that a hick is one who is 'unsophisticated' and 'provincial'. It goes on to declare that a group or society of people can be designated as such. This is obviously a biased, subjective and stereotypical designation. But the dictionary still offers a description of what the term means as used within the English language. The dictionary even suggests that there is a valid desription of something like 'hicktown'. I guess that might be a place where people from the plumber to the mayor think that Bigfoot is lurking among the trees just outside of Main Street.

One might think that the term is purely derogatory. But that only goes as far as the definition of 'unsophisticated' is also derogatory.

If you then try to chase down the definition of 'unsophisticated' and 'provincial', you are still left with the idea of hicks...which was what the dictionary editors were trying to define in the first place. The definition doesn't build any fenceposts around what a person must believe in order to be a hick. It only suggests that hicks are unsophisticated and provincial folks. A hick might even believe that Bigfoot is a myth.

Quote:

All films and photos supposedly look like "blokes in suits" to skeptics.

I wonder why.

Quote:

Yeti are different (than Sasquatches).

How so? Do you mean that Yeti and Bigfoot (Sasquatch) are different species of animal, or that they are different cultural beliefs, or what? From my perspective the Yeti and Bigfoot are equivalent (yet geographically seperate) cultural beliefs, until evidence arrives to show that either is a real animal.

Quote:

The footage was greatly debated after its release, but was eventually debunked by the BFRO's Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

The BFRO's Meldrum? Is he an 'expert representative' of this organization? Does this organization have evidence that shows that Bigfoot/Yeti is a real animal or are they still seeking confirmation of that?

Quote:

There are some interesting aspects to this (snow walker) footage.

Most interesting to me is that Dr. Jeff Meldrum was fooled by this hoaxed video.

Quote:

The hoaxers went to extraordinary lengths to make the footage appear to be part of a vacation video of a European couple mountaineering in the Himalayas. In reality it was staged somewhere near Mammoth Mountain, California. These compensations led to some obvious questions.

But no questions coming from Dr. Meldrum before he learned that it was a staged hoax filmed in California?

Quote:

The context of the footage raised immediate questions about the identify of the European couple. UPN would only say that an American man provided the footage, that he wanted people to see it, but that he wouldn't speak to any investigators or answer any questions about the European couple. This was suspiciously similar to the "alien autopsy" video scenario, where the shadowy source of the footage refused to come forward to authenticate it in any way. In the case of the Snow Walker footage, the producers of Paranormal Borderline acted suspiciously by steering the investigation away from the source.

No Lu, it is suspiciuosly similar to the PG Film. But in that case, the background of the filmer is strategically ignored by Bigfooters in order to foist the authenticity of the subject itself. Let's toss out the background contextual information of the filming and only focus on the subject itself. Is the Snow Walker a Yeti? Has the SW video been duplicated yet? Has Disney said that they can duplicate it? What are the IM indexes of that massive biped clamboring up the snowy hillside?

What difference does it make if it was filmed in California or Asia? Maybe the filmers caught a Bigfoot and were trying to hoax that it was a Yeti. Only a detailed examination of the filmed animal can determine that it is neither Yeti nor Bigfoot, right? Has anyone duplicated this filmed creature? Only the successful recreation of the hoax would show that it could be a hoax, right? But that would only show that the snow walker COULD be a hoax, right? Maybe the snow walker is a massive biped with a compliant gait and mid-tarsally broken feet... but this cannot be determined because it is trudging through deep snow in the video. Did the Bigfooters condider that, or are they just being 'scoftics' when evaluating this video? Do I need to remind you that Patterson was a slimy dude and that his and Gimlin's accounts immediately after the PG Film are contradictory, convoluted and strongly suggest that they were both lying about the circumstances of the filming of Patty?

To support the authenticity of the PG film you have to start by tossing out all of the context that is surrounding it... then next create flimsy assumptions based on what you see in the film itself. Try doing that with the snow walker video. Who has recreated the snow walker to show that it was a hoax, in the same way that Bigfooters are demanding that the recreation of Patty is needed to be successful to show that it was possibly a hoax?

Do you think that this is a joke, but do not think that Patty is a joke? It looks like Meldrum thought that the snow walker was not a joke until he learned of the context of the filming. I guess a bloke in a suit can fool an expert scientist until he learns about the context of the filming, but not before that? Holy freaking crap! The expert doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground until someone points out where the hole is located. Holy freaking crap!

Holy freaking crap! Is Meldrum helpful towards understanding if Bigfoot is real... or is he a scientifically-credentialed Bigfoot sycophant that has believed in this beast since he was a child? Or what? Holy freaking crap! It's kinda funny that of all the primate anatomists in the world, Meldrum is the one that thinks and tells us that Bigfoot appears to be real. It's only a silly accident that he has been a believer in Bigfoot since he was a kid. Could Meldrum be the reincarnation of Krantz even though both were living at the same time?

Lordy! My dictionary has a definition of crackpot just like it does for hick. A 'crackpot' is "a person who is eccentric, fanatical or irrational". Would Meldrum have remained a believer in the snow walker video if he hadn't been tipped off?

Lu, when you are being suggested that Meldrum is a crackpot... are you a scoftic about that, or what?

Quote:

Dr. Meldrum, who at first tentatively suggested the footage might be authentic, became increasingly suspicious of the dodgey behavior of the show's producers as he tried to investigate the matter further.

Meldrum showed that he is a crackpot for initially thinking that the snow walker might be authentic. He bettered himself when he changed his position based upon the behavior of the producers (but not the film subject itself). Do we have any evidence that crackpotism does not make up the composition of the bones of Dr. Meldrum? Can he be trusted for anything related to Bigfoot? If so, what?

Quote:

He pursued it with UPN for over a year. Eventually, after Paranormal Borderline was cancelled, the producers finally outright admitted the hoax, and explained how it was done.

Who cares if anyone admitted that the snow walker was a hoax? Hoaxes aren't proven to be hoaxable until they are recreated, right? The producers could be lying about it being a hoax. I can imagine that if Gimlin admitted tomorrow that the PG Film was a hoax there would be piles of Bigfooters who would say that his admission was a lie. They would say that the PG footage is not recreatable and go on and on about the IM indexes and the muscle definitions. Did I get that right, Lu? Patty cannot be suggested to be hoaxable until someone recreates her image, right? Did I get that right, Lu?

Quote:

In spite of all this, they did manage to eek out one more profitable use out of the footage when it was used in the Fox TV special 'World's Greatest Hoaxes'. "

I guess it's a shame that nobody mentioned that the snow walker has not been forensically PROVEN to be a hoax.

Quote:

Meldrum , Bindernagle, et al, have moved beyond "Are they real" to "Now what?" "Are they real?" is a question for sceptics and amateurs, not the professionals who have examined evidence and found it compelling.

Lovely. We are WHERE now because of their personal beliefs?

Quote:

How about possible unidentified hominid primate. Why should myth be the default position?

I won't say that Bigfoot isn't possible. Remnant living populations of Mastodons are not impossible either. Are they? Myth is not a default position... it is an aquired position. How did anyone decide that Mastodons are extinct in the first place? Is it a faulty default?

Quote:

And all sceptics have to do is say, "Could be a hoax" and that settles it? No burden of proof on them. Geez. What an easy life!

Yeah, it's an easy life sitting back waiting for Bigfoot. You only have to put up with the occasional Bigfooter. Don't let a Mastodon trample you while you are sitting there lost in skeptical oblivion.

Some in this forum have called you a liar. I won't go that far. I can't decide if hick or crackpot best describes you Lu. Just keep one eye over your shoulder for angry stampeding Mastodons. Okay?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Cleon

When you're talking about whether X exists, 99% of the time it's going to be unfalsifiable anyway. This is true whether we're talking about Bigfoot, God, unicorns, or psychic powers. This is why Randi is always very careful to never say "psychic powers don't exist"--because that's unproveable. You can test every last "psychic" on the face of the Earth, but someone might be born with some slight power that goes undetected. It is also essentially unfalsifiable.

This is the heart of the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Now at some point you might whittle down the probability of X existing to near zero, such as (IMO) the case with psychic powers, but you can never say "X doesn't exist" with 100% certainty.

There is much truth in this.

Forget the paranormal stuff. If Bigfoot exists, it is no more paranormal than a chipmunk. I am saying that Bigfoot is unfalsifiable even if it is as natural an animal as chipmunk. Bigfootery presents a hypothesis of Bigfoot, but is does not (cannot?) show how this hypothesis could be falsified. Even if we could systematically debunk every bit of presented evidence for Bigfoot... we would still be left with stacks of folks who claim to have seen Bigfoot in the flesh. They are saying that they are not subjects of mistaken identity. Many claim that this thing threw big rocks at them and smelled like rotting flesh (or some other nasty smell).

Bigfooters are already saying that a real contemporary debunking of the PG Film would not exclude the possibility that Bigfoot is real. They are saying that even if Patterson did hoax us all... that Bigfoot is still a real living animal.

So, I am telling you that the significance of Bigfoot being unfalsifiable is just like the idea that chipmunks would be unfalsifiable. I'm not talking about unicorns or psychics, because the Bigfoot believers are not placing Bigfoot into that kind of conceptual category in the very first place (apologies to Beckjord).

[Bronze Dog]

Quote:

And all sceptics have to do is say, "Could be a hoax" and that settles it? No burden of proof on them. Geez. What an easy life!

Yup. It is easy. It's also appropriate: It's the position that's easiest to prove wrong: One specimen will do.

Besides, hoaxing is easy when people are so willing to believe.

Believers, on the other hand, if demonstrated how a thing can be hoaxed, can nitpick over any little thing that's slightly different, or they can selectively put on and remove their rose-colored glasses. I've seen them do the same thing for crop circles: One person pointed out the work paths in a known man-made crop circle, but chose to ignore similar work lines in a "mysterious" crop circle. If someone duplicated the Patty suit with fur diaper, what's to stop you from selectively ignoring it in the original film and complain about it in the duplicate? Believers can also say, "Okay, so THAT was a hoax. But THIS is real over here." Again, I've seen it done with crop circles.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Yup. It is easy. It's also appropriate: It's the position that's easiest to prove wrong: One specimen will do.

Besides, hoaxing is easy when people are so willing to believe.

Believers, on the other hand, if demonstrated how a thing can be hoaxed, can nitpick over any little thing that's slightly different, or they can selectively put on and remove their rose-colored glasses. I've seen them do the same thing for crop circles: One person pointed out the work paths in a known man-made crop circle, but chose to ignore similar work lines in a "mysterious" crop circle. If someone duplicated the Patty suit with fur diaper, what's to stop you from selectively ignoring it in the original film and complain about it in the duplicate? Believers can also say, "Okay, so THAT was a hoax. But THIS is real over here." Again, I've seen it done with crop circles.

BD, I agree with you. The production of a single Bigfoot specimen would work. That is not forthcoming, my friend. The situation for Bigfoot skeptics is terrible and may be even worse than any related cases (such as crop circles) can enlighten. This stuff can go on 'ad infinitum', even if there is not a single Bigfoot on our planet. With crop circles, the believers are suggesting that the cause comes from anywhere in the universe. The Bigfooters are claiming that the (causal) animal (which forms the hypothesis) is perpetually living right here in our own forests and yet remains undocumented. Is it just any old accident that published Field Guides to the Mammals of North America does not include Bigfoot?! Holy freaking crap! Are American mammologists stupid, uninformed, just lacking contact with Bigfootery... or what?

Why the frick don't these Field Guides of mammals have an entry for Bigfoot? Couldn't they even publish an entry that says that no specimen has been obtained, but that their tracks look like huge human footprints (around 14") and that they are known to be stinky and break apart trees and throw rocks at you? Am I living in a country that has such an animal, but is under a grand conspiracy to prevent mammologists (or their literary publishers) from creating books for the general public that describe this animal according to its witnesses? What the freaking crap is going on here?

I'll tell you what is going on. People like Lu, are trying to hijack human rationality and reason. They are trying to convince the populace that they are not as smart as they think they are. Lu, I find it supremely ironic that you argue against the existence of Creationism (as you have said you do in other forums), yet you also simultaneously argue for the existence of Bigfoot.

Is the experience of being a living person on this planet so mysterious in its presentation to us, that we can go on arguing against Creationism and also arguing for Bigfoot in the same breath? Is there no kind of compass that reveals what this world is really like? Is skepticism just as worthless as credulity for anyone who thinks that they might like to try to evaluate the real world? Is the concept of 'evaluation' and 'real' also a worthless cause to try to pursue here in our lifetimes, or in any lifetime?

Holy freaking crap, is what we face, if we support a government that invades others countries under the belief that they house WMDs... when we can't even know, decide or learn if we have a wild stinking giant ape-walker living in our own backyards.

Half of you are giggling as you read this, right? You know what... it's not funny.

Bigfoot is not an animal. Bigfoot is a symptom. Keep one eye over your shoulder.

[Skeptical Greg]

William Parcher,

Excellent point about Meldrum becoming suspicious about the source of the film but not the subject matter..

It may have been lost in the shuffle ...



Lu ?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Forget the paranormal stuff. If Bigfoot exists, it is no more paranormal than a chipmunk. I am saying that Bigfoot is unfalsifiable even if it is as natural an animal as chipmunk. Bigfootery presents a hypothesis of Bigfoot, but is does not (cannot?) show how this hypothesis could be falsified.

I only brought up the paranormal stuff as an example of why such a thing would be unfalsifiable. The concept still applies.

Take any other legendary creature, be it unicorns (which wouldn't necessarily be paranormal) or Mokele Mbembe. At some level the existence of these creatues is unfalsifiable.

Regarding BFers saying that disproving the Patterson film wouldn't necessarily disprove Bigfoot--hey, they're right, he might still be out there. But a piece of evidence that they've been trumpeting for years would be out of the running.

[Correa Neto]

The futility of mid-tarsal breaks, once again.

Here´s how the torque equation indicates that bigfoot´s alleged feet anatomy is inneficient for a bipedal supposed to walk long distances.
Complexity and lack of efficiency when it comes to converting the forces created by the leg muscles in to movment.

Understood now? There are no "false premisses here". Just basic Newtonian physics.
Oh, the pic also answer to another question of yours.

And here´s a comparsion between real feet with mid tarsal breaks and alleged bigfoot footprints.

Note that the position of the toes in the apes are completely different from those shown at the alleged bigfoot footprints. Look at your own feet to see similar toe positioning.
Ape pictures came from http://williamcalvin.com/portraits; bigfoot footprint images cropped from the bigfoot threads in this forum.

To sum things up, mid tarsal breaks are just another implausibility in bigfoot anatomy. And yet another reason why Krantz, Meldrum & Co. work on bigfoot fails to impress me - and many other people.

Oh, whenever I have some more couple of minutes of free time I will continue our debate regarding teeth shape and bipedalism.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

No Lu, it is suspiciuosly similar to the PG Film. But in that case, the background of the filmer is strategically ignored by Bigfooters in order to foist the authenticity of the subject itself. Let's toss out the background contextual information of the filming and only focus on the subject itself. Is the Snow Walker a Yeti? Has the SW video been duplicated yet? Has Disney said that they can duplicate it? What are the IM indexes of that massive biped clamboring up the snowy hillside?

Bang! Right between the eyes of bigfoot research with that whole post, WP.

[LTC8K6]

What was the budget for "snow walker" ?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I only brought up the paranormal stuff as an example of why such a thing would be unfalsifiable. The concept still applies.

Take any other legendary creature, be it unicorns (which wouldn't necessarily be paranormal) or Mokele Mbembe. At some level the existence of these creatues is unfalsifiable.

Regarding BFers saying that disproving the Patterson film wouldn't necessarily disprove Bigfoot--hey, they're right, he might still be out there. But a piece of evidence that they've been trumpeting for years would be out of the running.

I understand. I guess a point I would like to make beyond my original point (about unfalsifiability) is that the various claims of bizarre things have obviously different domains as to their origins.

Would you NOT agree that finding the origin of the hypothetical creators of crop circles (which are hypothesized as being extraterrestrials that could presumably be coming from anywhere in the universe) is a more difficult endeavor than finding the creators of huge footprints in a Washington forest? Maybe I am walking out onto thin ice. But it seems to me that (though both bizarre things seem unfalsifiable) having the direct ability to examine Washington forests as compared to the whole universe, ought to be able to make some kind of headway towards showing that Bigfoot is not a real animal. It can't. Not because the presented evidence or original hypotheis of Bigfoot doesn't allow it... but rather, because the Bigfooters will always move the fenceposts that would allow for falsification.

I will say again what I already have. Bigfoot is not a real physical animal that leaves any real physical evidence of its existence. Bigfoot is an idea or myth that has lodged itself within the minds of some humans... as if it were not simply an idea or myth. We ought to be able to thoroughly explore the forests of the Pacific Northwest and see what animals are living there. It looks to me like we already have done this, even if it mostly never included people that were specifically looking for Bigfoot. The original hypothesis of Bigfoot (if there ever was such a thing) never said that it is unfindable, only that it is difficult to find.

I am getting long-winded.

Is it now safe to say that the skeptical community (whatever that is) could declare that the concept of Bigfoot is as unfalsifiable as is the concept of 'Intelligent Design' within the context of science? If Bigfooters cannot present how Bigfoot could ever be falsified, are Bigfooters exactly like Creationists or IDers?

What should be thought about a person like Lu, who simultaneously argues AGAINST Creationism (ID) and argues FOR Bigfoot? Is she above, below or equivalent to the general definition of what a smart person (or a skeptic) might be?

Are skeptics all crackpots when they might think that Lu is NOT hot-on-the-trail of a huge stinking ape living in American forests?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What was the budget for "snow walker" ?

Who knows? Are you assuming that the snow walker is a hoax?

The important thing is that Disney has not attempted to recreate it. They might realize that it is not worth wasting billions of dollars trying to do so.

Last year, a 'new' long-snouted rodent species was found in the Philippines. It was trapped and described from a specimen-in-hand. Skeptics said "screw that noise" and presented this wackiness to Disney. Disney spent $658,000 trying to create a synthetic snooty rodent that would fool mammologists when they held it in their hands. The PhD eggheads never fell for it.

Disney doesn't even spend a dime to try to recreate the PG Film because they know it will be rejected. The Board of Directors claims that the primary reason for this prediction and decision to withhold funding is because Bigfoot is real and that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

This reality gives some insights into why the worldwide visible supporters of Bigfoot are Green, Krantz, LAL, Meldrum and the Disney Corporation.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Would you NOT agree that finding the origin of the hypothetical creators of crop circles (which are hypothesized as being extraterrestrials that could presumably be coming from anywhere in the universe) is a more difficult endeavor than finding the creators of huge footprints in a Washington forest? Maybe I am walking out onto thin ice. But it seems to me that (though both bizarre things seem unfalsifiable) having the direct ability to examine Washington forests as compared to the whole universe, ought to be able to make some kind of headway towards showing that Bigfoot is not a real animal. It can't. Not because the presented evidence or original hypotheis of Bigfoot doesn't allow it... but rather, because the Bigfooters will always move the fenceposts that would allow for falsification.

I hate questions that begin with "would you not agree." I never quite know how to answer.

I would say that like Bigfoot, crop circles can never be 100% falsified; that is, no matter how many hoaxers there are out there, no matter how many sites like circlemakers.org exist, there's always that last one that nobody owned up to--Iamme People can always point to it and say "see? aliens!"

Same deal with Bigfoot. The Patterson film could be shown to be a fake, the footprints could easily be faked, but there's always that last eyewitness or photograph that they can say "there's still a mystery!"

Of course, there's a difference between crop circles and Bigfoot; crop circles require more extraordinary assumptions (aliens, mystical forces, interstellar travel, etc). Bigfoot, on the other hand, would simply be an interesting zoological note and an anthropologist's wet dream.

Quote:

I will say again what I already have. Bigfoot is not a real physical animal that leaves any real physical evidence of its existence. Bigfoot is an idea or myth that has lodged itself within the minds of some humans... as if it were not simply an idea or myth.

I would say that the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm with you--I doubt Bigfoot's a real creature myself. But even if the Big Guy really is out there, there is still the myth and mystique of Bigfoot.

Quote:

We ought to be able to thoroughly explore the forests of the Pacific Northwest and see what animals are living there. It looks to me like we already have done this, even if it mostly never included people that were specifically looking for Bigfoot. The original hypothesis of Bigfoot (if there ever was such a thing) never said that it is unfindable, only that it is difficult to find.

Actually, I'm not sure of this. There is a lot of wilderness up there.

Quote:

Is it now safe to say that the skeptical community (whatever that is) could declare that the concept of Bigfoot is as unfalsifiable as is the concept of 'Intelligent Design' within the context of science? If Bigfooters cannot present how Bigfoot could ever be falsified, are Bigfooters exactly like Creationists or IDers?

Well, given the proposition of a species' existence, how would you falsify it?

For that matter, take extraterrestrial life (intelligent or no). I am of the opinion--as I believe is Randi--that somewhere out there there probably are other living beings. But how would you falsify that proposition, the existence of alien life? I don't think that you ever really could; space is just too damn big.

Similarly, I don't think you could falsify Bigfoot--by exploring every single inch of the Pacific Northwest, you can reduce the probability to almost zero, but you could never 100% rule it out.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by LAL

Discussed yes; proven? No. I don't think she looks cheesy at all. You haven't seen a good copy of the film yet, have you?

Define "good copy". Why all avaliable stills are blurry? Are the "good copies" avaliable just to the few selected bigfoot believers worthy of knowing the secret footshake?
And yes, she looks cheesy. And BTW, what about proving that Patty could not be a suit made in the 60s? Has anyone manage to do this? No.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Unconvincing as evidence of a link between bipedalism and teeth shape. However, the link between teeth and diet are quite well stabilished. So far, nothing backs the claim that there is a link between teeth shape and bipedalism. And note that, even if existed it would be no evidence that bigfeet are real creatures.

Originally Posted by LAL

Find me a bipedal primate with fangs. All the ones I've found so far seem to have reduced canines. I just noticed that. The tool idea, popular in the sixties and seventies and proposed by Darwin, doesn't hold up in light of the fact there was hominid dentition at least four million years before any signs of tool making.

Find me a carnivorous bipedal primate. Or a bipedal primate that uses large canines to impress females and keep rival males at a distance. Hominid dentition, described as being unspecialized, is adapted to an omnivorous diet. Their dentition is at a stark contrast with the more specialized dentitions seen in other animals such as gorillas, tigers or zebras. In Laetoli's case, for example, canine teeth still show differences related to gender (not as strong as the one seen in gorillas). Why? Possibly because some other physical feature or behavior pattern was substituing large canines as a sign of dominance. Why waste energy building a structure that you will not use? Better use it to build something else more usefull. See? No link with bipedalism.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

LAL, you are not making any sense here. Are you really trying to claim that diet is not a key factor in the evolution of teeth? Have you looked, as I asked tons of posts ago, to the similarities between Smilodon and Thylacosmilus? Those species are much more than "widely separated", and yet, both have nearly identical canine shapes!!!

Originally Posted by LAL

Cats and crocodiles are even more widely separated. Fangs seem to be the rule rather than the exception. Mutations for another kind of dentition could lead to exploitation of a different food resource, but the mutation would have to come first.

LAL, crocodiles, just like all reptiles (with the exception of the mamaliform ones) show very little or no teeth differentiation, thus they will not have "fangs" - canine teeth. There are differences in the teeth between crocodile species, that are a product of the adaptation for diferent diets. So, compare the sturdy conical teeth of a Nile crocodile, an animal that eat large mammals, with the thin, needle-like teeth from a gavial, that feeds on fish. Or compare the teeth of a Tyranosaurus with those from a Charcarodontosaurus. Now compare the teeth of a wombat with those from a [/i]Thylacoleo[/i]. See? Diet and teeth shape are linked.
Have you ever seen a zebra with fangs? Large canines and large carnassial teeth are typicall of carnivore mammals. Large canines may be found in herbivore mammals, but in this case, they are most likely related to sexual display / dominance. The molars, in these cases, will show the "teeth signature" of mammalian herbivores. Still, no link between dentition and bipedalism.

Originally Posted by LAL

..snip...
I probably understood Gould before you were born.

Oh, what a lovely display of arrogance! And you complain about the treatment you receive here on this board...

Originally Posted by LAL

Diet doesn't "cause" tooth shape.

"Mechanism regulating tooth shape formulation found

...snip...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-mrt092305.php

So, does this proves a link between bipedalism and dentition? No.
What is the article about? About the genes that are responsible for the shape of teeth. And I´ll ask again: What are the factors that will determinate if a certain feature (in this case teeth shape) will be passed for the next generations? Efficiency, in this case, for accomplishing a certain task. In the case in discussion, efficiency in processing a certain type of food.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

LAL, you are being evasive in the best possible case.

Originally Posted by LAL

Beats being "obtuse", I guess.

Are you calling me obtuse?

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

What are the CAUSES, the PRESSURES that determinate if a species have a tail or not? What are the CAUSES, the PRESSURES that determinated that zebras have a certain type teeth while lions have another completely different type? What are the CAUSES, the PRESSURES that determinated that Smilodon and Thylacosmilus had quite similar teeth, despite the first one being placentary and the second one a marsupial?

Originally Posted by LAL

How about placental and marsupial mammals a having a common ancestor?

If you were correct, then not just Smilodons and Thylacosmilus would have similar dentition, but also zebras, kangaroos, koalas, wildebeeste, lions, etc.. Compare the dentition of carnivore marsupials and carnivore placentaries. Compare the teeth of a caniid with those of a tasmanian tiger, for example. Now compare the dentition of herbivore placentaries with herbivore marsupials. Compare the teeth from a rhino with those from a Diprotodon. And remember the previous examples. See? Teeth shape is more a function of diet, and not of cladistics. It can be used to stabilish cladistic relationships, but its actually an adaptation to a certain diet. Function determining the shape, similar solutions for similar problems, convergence. The same case of hollow bones in birds and pterosaurs.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

What are the CAUSES, the PRESSURES that determinate what genes will be active or not in a species?

Originally Posted by LAL

It all starts on the molecular level, doesn't it? I'll go with HOX genes and ectodin, but my favorite is HSP 90.

It seems that once again you have not understood -or evaded- the actual question. I´ll repeat it again and try to make it more clear: What are the causes, the pressures that select the mutations that will be passed to next generations? Or, in this case, what has determinated that specimen A, with teeth shape X, left more offspring than specimen B, with a teeth shape B?
Oh, and BTW, where are the evidences of a link between bipedalism and dentition?

Originally Posted by LAL

Who's whining?
Your statement came first, actually. I restated it almost exactly. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "your" since most of the arguments don't seem to be original with you. Sorry about that.

Are your arguments original? Actually, are there any truly original pro and con arguments regarding this (and many other) subject?

Originally Posted by LAL

The "unwarranted attack" was five months ago and wasn't just directed at me. I was expecting better from this board, that's all. I'd heard good things about it.

I have little or nothing at all to complain regarding the forum members. Why do you think I deserved a different treatment? Maybe its because you have not been through the JREF Passage Rites with Interesting Ian and Lifegazer...
I suggest you to take Nex´s advise and critically review your positions when it comes to bigfoot as well as your debate strategy. He(she?) says you are an intelligent person. However, it seems your belief in bigfoot is clouding your reasoning.