Patterson film: Credit where credit is due - Page 15

Skeptical Greg · 14th December 2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

Read Meldrum.

Elk gather their legs under them to get up - except for this one.

How about this one ?

Can you indicate where we see that the legs were gathered under the
animal when it got up ?

( Full version here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...=post&id=19008 )

( Picture Source: Bigfoot Forums - view picture source for exact link )

The poster notes :

Quote:

Elk lays have parallel sets of hoof prints where the elk gets up. The hoofs point the same direction. They are roughly parallel.

Notice, the hoof prints that are characteristic of an elk lay, are outside the body of the impression.....
The same area where the supposed Sas did not leave any prints in the Skookum impression.

I think the explanation given, is that this part of the ground was hard or frozen.

If the Squatch didn't leave any prints in this area , why would an elk ?

RayG · 14th December 2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

I must say [again] though, that when comparing Daegling's and Meldrum's books, one thing I LOVE about Daegling's is his inclusion of comprehensive endnotes and sources.

And, just so you don't think I'm only suggesting Daegling has more endnotes... I added them up, for comparison purposes.

Here's what I found:

References listed by Meldrum (bibliography) = 100 sources
References listed by Daegling = 192 sources

Chapter endnotes:

Meldrum = None
Daegling = 596

Total sources:

Meldrum = 100
Daegling = 688

RayG

Skeptical Greg · 14th December 2006, 10:04 AM

I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it ..

I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal.

He claims he can see breasts on MDF without providing any evidence.

Tube came up with his artifact info before the Book was published.
Some pictures of his artifacts along side the ' dermal ' evidence would have been nice.

We see pictures of Wallace wooden feet, next to casts that are obviously not made from prints of the Wallace foot.

We may ask why he didn't show the Wallace foot next to that cast he uses for wallpaper on his web page, or any of the other prints that have square toes.

Someone tell me why there may be a problem with claiming any number of prints were not made by the wallace feet, without actually showing us prints that were made by them ?

LAL · 14th December 2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Point of fact Lu, that's not Ciochon+reconstruction...that's Bill Munns+reconstruction.
Since this whole thread is about mistaken identity, we might as well be correct when we can.
Just keepin' it real, yo.

My bad.

They look somewhat alike in profile and I merely named the photo "reconstruction" in my files.

LAL · 14th December 2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it ..

I can see where it would be a struggle. He refutes your favorite oft-repeated arguments.

Quote:

I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal.

He claims he can see breasts on MDF without providing any evidence.

Noll and Caddy could too.

Quote:

Tube came up with his artifact info before the Book was published.
Some pictures of his artifacts along side the ' dermal ' evidence would have been nice.

Read that section again, especially the part about the second cast from the trackway.

Quote:

We see pictures of Wallace wooden feet, next to casts that are obviously not made from prints of the Wallace foot.

We may ask why he didn't show the Wallace foot next to that cast he uses for wallpaper on his web page, or any of the other prints that have square toes.

The toes on the Wallace foot aren't even separated all the way. The cast is a Titmus cast. Copies were for sale in the area, and could easily have been the model for the fakes (which don't match each other, let alone the cast). Aren't you tired of beating that dead horse?

Who photographed the prints he made for tourists near his souvenier shop? I would imagine they looked like his phony casts. Seen those?

LAL · 14th December 2006, 12:08 PM

Check the eyewitness account of the trackways that ultimately led to the filming at Bluff Creek:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=313471

Skeptical Greg · 14th December 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

I can see where it would be a struggle. He refutes your favorite oft-repeated arguments.

Quote:

With anecdotes.

Noll and Caddy could too.

Quote:

And the evidence besides two other Footers claiming they see something ?

.......................................
Read that section again, especially the part about the second cast from the trackway.

Where are the casts made from a Wallace fake foot ?

Without them, you cannot say any other cast does not match.
It has been shown that prints can look a lot different than the foot that made them.

Slippage, toe flexion, erosion .. It goes on and on ...

I particulary like the Bluff creek track where the toes are perpindicular
to the ball of the foot...

RayG · 14th December 2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it ..

I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal.

I'm almost at the end of chapter 4, and so far there's lots of speculation, legend, superstition, and such, but the scientific stuff, so far at least, is proving as elusive as bigfoot.

Can you help me out LAL? Anything in the first 4 chapters that can be scientifically related to bigfoot? You know, stuff that would hold up to the typical scientific method of testing and analysis.

Quote:

Someone tell me why there may be a problem with claiming any number of prints were not made by the wallace feet, without actually showing us prints that were made by them ?

And elsewhere, I think I found the elk testing that LAL indicates is somewhere in the book (page 119?), but alas, no photos of the testing being conducted, no actual elk beds for comparison, nor any indication of who conducted these supposed tests (as in the specific scientist(s) involved). There is however, a single drawing showing the "typical posture of a bedding bull elk, with the resulting pattern of impressions." Am I looking in the right place LAL?

RayG

LAL · 14th December 2006, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Where are the casts made from a Wallace fake foot ?

The Wallace's had a truckload; they were more of the type shown on pg. 57.

Quote:

Without them, you cannot say any other cast does not match.
It has been shown that prints can look a lot different than the foot that made them.

Slippage, toe flexion, erosion .. It goes on and on ...

Wallace being out of the area at the time.....

Quote:

I particulary like the Bluff creek track where the toes are perpindicular
to the ball of the foot...

Yep. Just like this.......................only this is human.

LAL · 14th December 2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

I'm almost at the end of chapter 4, and so far there's lots of speculation, legend, superstition, and such, but the scientific stuff, so far at least, is proving as elusive as bigfoot.

Can you help me out LAL? Anything in the first 4 chapters that can be scientifically related to bigfoot? You know, stuff that would hold up to the typical scientific method of testing and analysis.

And elsewhere, I think I found the elk testing that LAL indicates is somewhere in the book (page 119?), but alas, no photos of the testing being conducted, no actual elk beds for comparison, nor any indication of who conducted these supposed tests (as in the specific scientist(s) involved). There is however, a single drawing showing the "typical posture of a bedding bull elk, with the resulting pattern of impressions." Am I looking in the right place LAL?

RayG

Did coming on this board make you cranky too or were you always that way?

It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise. It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words.

I'm sure you've read this:

http://www.scientificexploration.org....1_meldrum.pdf

LAL · 14th December 2006, 06:03 PM

Wallace casts:

http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php...treply&t=68733

Investigators were on to him decades ago. I find it amazing he could posthumously fool anyone today.

Skeptical Greg · 14th December 2006, 07:00 PM

Nope.. They obviously were not made with the square toed version that we see
in most Sasquatch books...

Got any more ?

RayG · 14th December 2006, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Did coming on this board make you cranky too or were you always that way?

Always cranky? No, I think 30+ years and no advancements in the quality of bigfoot evidence has made me that way.

Quote:

It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise.

Nothing wrong with a scientist actually supporting his assertions with some science though. I'm getting the impression his Legend Meets Science title is similar to the one the BFRO hangs on its front door -- "The scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery." Ummm, yeah, right, if they say so.

Quote:

It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words.

I was hoping his book would be intersting, supported by scientific testing, and such, but so far it's pretty dry speculative stuff.

Did you have that page number where scientific testing/experimentation was conducted to rule out an elk lay? I can't seem to find it.

RayG

Skeptical Greg · 14th December 2006, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise.

Quote:

Then why all the rationalization when I dismiss it as entertainment ?

It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words.

The one that was rejected ?

LAL · 15th December 2006, 03:30 AM

Yep. The reason was you can't write up an imprint, or something. Like Laetoli?

Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the AAPA, though.

I learned quite a few things, about the Red Panda teeth, a new fossil from Asia that may be an Orangutan ancestor, the bit of brow from Lake Chapala...............

I don't think LMS was "just entertainment" at all, but it was pretty lightweight compared to some of the presentations. Gotta hold the audience, y' know.

Ray, the BFRO once boasted Fahrenbach and Meldrum as curators. Meldrum's comment when he found out what Matt was saying about him was not in the language of science.

What other organization at the time had anyone with scientific credentials? If Matt hadn't run amok, it might still be the good organization it once was.

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Nope.. They obviously were not made with the square toed version that we see
in most Sasquatch books...

Got any more ?

You can search BFF as well as I can. There was a picture of one of the Wallace's with a box of casts. That shape was the typical Wallace shape. As DDA noted on the thread, if Wallace was good enough to do Bluff Creek area tracks, why did his work deteriorate later?

"Be carefull how you interpret this material. You need to know more than just what is in these pictures. Remember that Titmus had several casts with him while in the area and undoubtedly Ray Wallace saw these. Maybe took a picture or two of them.

If these wooden feet made impressions as good as what is in these pictures why did Ray Wallace's efforts get worse with age. In 1997, Ray claimed to have casted a complete left and right set of tracks in BC, of three different sizes."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...pic=8722&st=25

(Right link, this time. I thought I'd corrected that. I guess no one clicked?)

I don't know of any "square-toed" casts made by Wallace.

What about trackways discovered in Washington in '69? Are you going to try to match those to Wallace's silly feet too?

I've already posted this (pg. 57), but here it is again; the geodes were supposed to have been made by Bigfoot to dispatch game. These were the typical Wallace feet:

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:15 AM

What trackways did these make?

http://oregonmag.com/BigfootHoax.htm

Note the story has Elna Wallace as the guy in the suit. Move over, BH.

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:17 AM

BTW, Greg, WTF is a "Footer"? If they'd seen paintballers and ponchos (you yourself said you couldn't rule out infant), would Noll and Caddy have then been credible, responsible people?

RayG · 15th December 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

I know you think it's an elk lay, but read Meldrum's book for the details on what was done to rule that out.

Call me cranky, but do you have the actual reference or not? I have asked repeatedly, yet you provide no details.

Originally Posted by RayG

...on which page does he indicate elk were (scientifically?) ruled out? In this instance I wouldn't mind a sentence or two, or a small paragraph, quoted from the book, or at the very least a page reference...

...Please, go ahead and spoil it...

...Am I looking in the right place LAL?...

...Did you have that page number where scientific testing/experimentation was conducted to rule out an elk lay? I can't seem to find it....

RayG

desertyeti · 15th December 2006, 11:29 AM

Of course Meldrum and anyone else who desperately wants the Skookum Elk Cast to be a primate would never show an image like this:

It makes it too obvious as to what was actually cast. Same reason the original Patterson film remains hidden from public scrutiny...can't have the veil pulled away from the illusion.

Better to simply say: "My experts say it ain't so!" than to have to explain in detail why it ain't so.

Huntster · 15th December 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Always cranky? No, I think 30+ years and no advancements in the quality of bigfoot evidence has made me that way....

You're not being very patient, Ray.

Hanno brought gorilla hides back with him to Carthage 300 years before the birth of Christ:

Quote:

…. The account of Hanno’s voyage ends with this observation:

Quote:

In the recess of this bay [i.e., the Southern Horn] there was an island, like the former one, having a lake, in which there was another island, full of savage men. There were women, too, in even greater number. They had hairy bodies, and the interpreters called them Gorillae. When we pursued them we were unable to take any of the men; for they had all escaped, by climbing the steep places and defending themselves with stones; but we took three of the women, who bit and scratched their leaders, and would not follow us. So we killed them and flayed them, and brought their skins to Carthage. For we did not voyage further, provisions failing us.

It wasn't until 1847, nearly 2000 years later, that western science came to admit the existence of gorillas.

Considering the fact that today's science doesn't seem much interested in the subject, it might be another thousand years or so.

Stand by.............

RayG · 15th December 2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

BTW, Greg, WTF is a "Footer"?

The opposite of a "scoftic"?

What is accomplished by labelling someone who holds a different opinion? Does it resolve the argument or denigrate the opponent? Isn't it better to address the argument?

Whenever I see the inevitable name-calling/labelling tossed about, I can't help but think of the Elbert Hubbard quote: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names."

I prefer to stick to facts, which reminds me... you have that page reference yet LAL?

RayG

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Call me cranky, but do you have the actual reference or not? I have asked repeatedly, yet you provide no details.

You're serious? Try pg. 118-123. There's this thing in the back called an "Index" (hard for us Googlers to use, I know) and it has a listing for "Skookum". Need the page number?

I've mentioned repeatedly what was done (except for the peels) and it's a good deal more than Desertyeti did, IMHO.

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Of course Meldrum and anyone else who desperately wants the Skookum Elk Cast to be a primate would never show an image like this:

Why not? DDA already explained one of those joint imprints ain't from a joint. Meldrum has a diagram (pg.119) of a bull elk in essentially the same position.

Methinks you're doing what you accused the advocates of doing, namely, seeing what you want to see.

LAL · 15th December 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

The opposite of a "scoftic"?

I've explained how I use the term and I've never used it to specifically describe any individual on any forum.

It's not especially denigrating, IMO. I can apply it to myself when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and alien abductions.

RayG · 15th December 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

You're not being very patient, Ray.

I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime.

RayG

RayG · 15th December 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

You're serious?

Um.. yeah. You stated...

Originally Posted by LAL

...read Meldrum's book for the details on what was done to rule that [elk lay] out...

I can find no such details. Some generalizations, but no details that satisfy my thirst for science.

Quote:

Try pg. 118-123.

Sorry, but I just don't see where it was shown (scientifically speaking) that they ruled out elk lay on those pages. Can you be more specific? (a direct quote would be sufficient)

Quote:

There's this thing in the back called an "Index" (hard for us Googlers to use, I know) and it has a listing for "Skookum".

Yes, I'm quite familiar with an index, but this one has no listing for "elk lay".

Quote:

Need the page number?

A direct quote would be even better. I'm guessing you mean the bit regarding Rick Noll on page 119, though I don't see specifically what I'm looking for. Is that what you meant?

RayG

RayG · 15th December 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Meldrum has a diagram (pg.119) of a bull elk in essentially the same position.

The drawing on page 119 shows a bull elk with all its feet directly under it, like this.

That's not quite what we see in the image desertyeti posted.

Notice the difference in the leg positions?

RayG

Skeptical Greg · 15th December 2006, 10:17 PM

That bull elk picture cracks me up ...

It's just like the montage of casts that don't match the Wallace foot ..

carcharodon · 15th December 2006, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime.

RayG

Seems to me you aren't interested in decent evidence. You seem only to be interested in seeing 100% proof.

Unlike you, I see plenty of decent evidence. I just don't see any 100% proof.

Huntster · 15th December 2006, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster
You're not being very patient, Ray.

I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime.

That's likely the way it will happen with me.

Oh, well.........

LAL · 16th December 2006, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

The drawing on page 119 shows a bull elk with all its feet directly under it, like this.

Notice the difference in the leg positions?

RayG

Close enough. Note the hoofprints in the center.

LAL · 16th December 2006, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

That bull elk picture cracks me up ...

It's just like the montage of casts that don't match the Wallace foot ..

You mean the elk doesn't match the imprint? You're right!

RayG · 16th December 2006, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

That bull elk picture cracks me up ...

You can't mean Meldrum's from page 119, it's not a picture, it's only a drawing.

Originally Posted by carcharodon

Unlike you, I see plenty of decent evidence.

Such as? Footprints? Skookum cast? Hairs?

Originally Posted by LAL

Close enough. Note the hoofprints in the center.

As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Note that it's only a drawing and not an actual elk lay.

RayG

LAL · 16th December 2006, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

Sorry, but I just don't see where it was shown (scientifically speaking) that they ruled out elk lay on those pages. Can you be more specific? (a direct quote would be sufficient)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with an index, but this one has no listing for "elk lay".

A direct quote would be even better. I'm guessing you mean the bit regarding Rick Noll on page 119, though I don't see specifically what I'm looking for. Is that what you meant?

RayG

You're in the right pargraph.

"Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. These comparisons , combined with consultation by professional game keepers, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint."

<emphasis mine>

That's experimental, isn't it? Did you want a comparison with the actual heels, butt and, yes, testicles that made the print?

LAL · 16th December 2006, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Note that it's only a drawing and not an actual elk lay.

The point was, yes, they would include something like Desertyeti's photos.

The diagram shows where the hoofprints would be (where they weren't in the imprint).

DY had the rear hoofprints obscured by slurry, but the purported heel strikes showed the limb was lifted straight up - no slurring, no slurry.

Colobus posted elk lay photos here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=329037

I found the reason for rejection:

"In 2003 Darris Swindler and D. Jeffrey Meldrum submitted an abstract for a paper on the Skookum Cast to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The abstract was between 250 and 300 words (as required) and had no diagrams or photographs (also as required).

The proposal was quickly rejected. The basis for the rejection was that you cannot infer usable information from impressions (Have them explain that to the publishers of Ichnos).

So I stated my opinion in something less than a vacuum. I state that opinion about the difficultly in getting this topic published based on the past, and the knowledge that the peer review process is rife with politics."-colobus

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=329366

LAL · 16th December 2006, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.

Getting back to Daegling for a moment, he took the word of Cliff Crook (a known hoaxer, BTW); neither saw the cast, but that was good enough to declare the imprint an elk lay?

LAL · 16th December 2006, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

( Picture Source: Bigfoot Forums - view picture source for exact link )

That doesn't work with XP Pro. I had to do a search.

Skeptical Greg · 16th December 2006, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

..... The basis for the rejection was that you cannot infer usable information from impressions ..........

We can infer that the thrust of the rejection was

" ... you cannot infer usable information from impressions alone ..."

In other words, claiming you have a butt print has to be backed up with a butt, if you want to get published in a peer reviewed journal ...

Colobus ignored a request to elaborate on the specifics of the rejection ..

Skeptical Greg · 16th December 2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

Close enough. Note the hoofprints in the center.

Where are the coinciding hoof prints in this elk lay ?

14th December 2006, 08:04 AM	#561
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by LAL Read Meldrum. Elk gather their legs under them to get up - except for this one. How about this one ? Can you indicate where we see that the legs were gathered under the animal when it got up ? ( Full version here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...=post&id=19008 ) ( Picture Source: Bigfoot Forums - view picture source for exact link ) The poster notes : Quote: Elk lays have parallel sets of hoof prints where the elk gets up. The hoofs point the same direction. They are roughly parallel. Notice, the hoof prints that are characteristic of an elk lay, are outside the body of the impression..... The same area where the supposed Sas did not leave any prints in the Skookum impression. I think the explanation given, is that this part of the ground was hard or frozen. If the Squatch didn't leave any prints in this area , why would an elk ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 14th December 2006 at 08:34 AM.

14th December 2006, 08:07 AM	#562
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by RayG I must say [again] though, that when comparing Daegling's and Meldrum's books, one thing I LOVE about Daegling's is his inclusion of comprehensive endnotes and sources. And, just so you don't think I'm only suggesting Daegling has more endnotes... I added them up, for comparison purposes. Here's what I found: References listed by Meldrum (bibliography) = 100 sources References listed by Daegling = 192 sources Chapter endnotes: Meldrum = None Daegling = 596 Total sources: Meldrum = 100 Daegling = 688 RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

14th December 2006, 10:04 AM	#563
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it .. I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal. He claims he can see breasts on MDF without providing any evidence. Tube came up with his artifact info before the Book was published. Some pictures of his artifacts along side the ' dermal ' evidence would have been nice. We see pictures of Wallace wooden feet, next to casts that are obviously not made from prints of the Wallace foot. We may ask why he didn't show the Wallace foot next to that cast he uses for wallpaper on his web page, or any of the other prints that have square toes. Someone tell me why there may be a problem with claiming any number of prints were not made by the wallace feet, without actually showing us prints that were made by them ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th December 2006, 11:29 AM	#564
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by desertyeti Point of fact Lu, that's not Ciochon+reconstruction...that's Bill Munns+reconstruction. Since this whole thread is about mistaken identity, we might as well be correct when we can. Just keepin' it real, yo. My bad. They look somewhat alike in profile and I merely named the photo "reconstruction" in my files.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th December 2006, 11:41 AM	#565
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by Diogenes I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it .. I can see where it would be a struggle. He refutes your favorite oft-repeated arguments. Quote: I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal. He claims he can see breasts on MDF without providing any evidence. Noll and Caddy could too. Quote: Tube came up with his artifact info before the Book was published. Some pictures of his artifacts along side the ' dermal ' evidence would have been nice. Read that section again, especially the part about the second cast from the trackway. Quote: We see pictures of Wallace wooden feet, next to casts that are obviously not made from prints of the Wallace foot. We may ask why he didn't show the Wallace foot next to that cast he uses for wallpaper on his web page, or any of the other prints that have square toes. The toes on the Wallace foot aren't even separated all the way. The cast is a Titmus cast. Copies were for sale in the area, and could easily have been the model for the fakes (which don't match each other, let alone the cast). Aren't you tired of beating that dead horse? Who photographed the prints he made for tourists near his souvenier shop? I would imagine they looked like his phony casts. Seen those?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th December 2006, 12:08 PM	#566
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Check the eyewitness account of the trackways that ultimately led to the filming at Bluff Creek: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=313471
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th December 2006, 01:36 PM	#567
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by LAL I can see where it would be a struggle. He refutes your favorite oft-repeated arguments. Quote: With anecdotes. Noll and Caddy could too. Quote: And the evidence besides two other Footers claiming they see something ? ....................................... Read that section again, especially the part about the second cast from the trackway. Where are the casts made from a Wallace fake foot ? Without them, you cannot say any other cast does not match. It has been shown that prints can look a lot different than the foot that made them. Slippage, toe flexion, erosion .. It goes on and on ... I particulary like the Bluff creek track where the toes are perpindicular to the ball of the foot...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th December 2006, 04:08 PM	#568
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by Diogenes I'm struggling through Meldrum's book so I can say with honesty, I have read it .. I would like for someone to point out something in the book that is not anecdotal. I'm almost at the end of chapter 4, and so far there's lots of speculation, legend, superstition, and such, but the scientific stuff, so far at least, is proving as elusive as bigfoot. Can you help me out LAL? Anything in the first 4 chapters that can be scientifically related to bigfoot? You know, stuff that would hold up to the typical scientific method of testing and analysis. Quote: Someone tell me why there may be a problem with claiming any number of prints were not made by the wallace feet, without actually showing us prints that were made by them ? And elsewhere, I think I found the elk testing that LAL indicates is somewhere in the book (page 119?), but alas, no photos of the testing being conducted, no actual elk beds for comparison, nor any indication of who conducted these supposed tests (as in the specific scientist(s) involved). There is however, a single drawing showing the "typical posture of a bedding bull elk, with the resulting pattern of impressions." Am I looking in the right place LAL? RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

14th December 2006, 05:05 PM	#570
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG I'm almost at the end of chapter 4, and so far there's lots of speculation, legend, superstition, and such, but the scientific stuff, so far at least, is proving as elusive as bigfoot. Can you help me out LAL? Anything in the first 4 chapters that can be scientifically related to bigfoot? You know, stuff that would hold up to the typical scientific method of testing and analysis. And elsewhere, I think I found the elk testing that LAL indicates is somewhere in the book (page 119?), but alas, no photos of the testing being conducted, no actual elk beds for comparison, nor any indication of who conducted these supposed tests (as in the specific scientist(s) involved). There is however, a single drawing showing the "typical posture of a bedding bull elk, with the resulting pattern of impressions." Am I looking in the right place LAL? RayG Did coming on this board make you cranky too or were you always that way? It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise. It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words. I'm sure you've read this: http://www.scientificexploration.org....1_meldrum.pdf
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th December 2006, 06:03 PM	#571
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Wallace casts: http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php...treply&t=68733 Investigators were on to him decades ago. I find it amazing he could posthumously fool anyone today.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th December 2006, 07:00 PM	#572
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Nope.. They obviously were not made with the square toed version that we see in most Sasquatch books... Got any more ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th December 2006, 07:14 PM	#573
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LAL Did coming on this board make you cranky too or were you always that way? Always cranky? No, I think 30+ years and no advancements in the quality of bigfoot evidence has made me that way. Quote: It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise. Nothing wrong with a scientist actually supporting his assertions with some science though. I'm getting the impression his Legend Meets Science title is similar to the one the BFRO hangs on its front door -- "The scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery." Ummm, yeah, right, if they say so. Quote: It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words. I was hoping his book would be intersting, supported by scientific testing, and such, but so far it's pretty dry speculative stuff. Did you have that page number where scientific testing/experimentation was conducted to rule out an elk lay? I can't seem to find it. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

14th December 2006, 07:22 PM	#574
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by LAL It's a companion book to a TV show, not a scientific treatise. Quote: Then why all the rationalization when I dismiss it as entertainment ? It would be interesting to read the paper he and Swindler prepared. We'd probably both be looking up a lot of words. The one that was rejected ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

15th December 2006, 03:30 AM	#575
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Yep. The reason was you can't write up an imprint, or something. Like Laetoli? Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the AAPA, though. I learned quite a few things, about the Red Panda teeth, a new fossil from Asia that may be an Orangutan ancestor, the bit of brow from Lake Chapala............... I don't think LMS was "just entertainment" at all, but it was pretty lightweight compared to some of the presentations. Gotta hold the audience, y' know. Ray, the BFRO once boasted Fahrenbach and Meldrum as curators. Meldrum's comment when he found out what Matt was saying about him was not in the language of science. What other organization at the time had anyone with scientific credentials? If Matt hadn't run amok, it might still be the good organization it once was.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 04:15 AM	#577
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	What trackways did these make? http://oregonmag.com/BigfootHoax.htm Note the story has Elna Wallace as the guy in the suit. Move over, BH.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 04:17 AM	#578
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	BTW, Greg, WTF is a "Footer"? If they'd seen paintballers and ponchos (you yourself said you couldn't rule out infant), would Noll and Caddy have then been credible, responsible people?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 10:49 AM	#579
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LAL I know you think it's an elk lay, but read Meldrum's book for the details on what was done to rule that out. Call me cranky, but do you have the actual reference or not? I have asked repeatedly, yet you provide no details. Originally Posted by RayG ...on which page does he indicate elk were (scientifically?) ruled out? In this instance I wouldn't mind a sentence or two, or a small paragraph, quoted from the book, or at the very least a page reference... ...Please, go ahead and spoil it... ...Am I looking in the right place LAL?... ...Did you have that page number where scientific testing/experimentation was conducted to rule out an elk lay? I can't seem to find it.... RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

15th December 2006, 11:29 AM	#580
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	Of course Meldrum and anyone else who desperately wants the Skookum Elk Cast to be a primate would never show an image like this: It makes it too obvious as to what was actually cast. Same reason the original Patterson film remains hidden from public scrutiny...can't have the veil pulled away from the illusion. Better to simply say: "My experts say it ain't so!" than to have to explain in detail *why* it ain't so.

15th December 2006, 12:18 PM	#581
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by RayG Always cranky? No, I think 30+ years and no advancements in the quality of bigfoot evidence has made me that way.... You're not being very patient, Ray. Hanno brought gorilla hides back with him to Carthage 300 years before the birth of Christ: Quote: …. The account of Hanno’s voyage ends with this observation: Quote: In the recess of this bay [i.e., the Southern Horn] there was an island, like the former one, having a lake, in which there was another island, full of savage men. There were women, too, in even greater number. They had hairy bodies, and the interpreters called them Gorillae. When we pursued them we were unable to take any of the men; for they had all escaped, by climbing the steep places and defending themselves with stones; but we took three of the women, who bit and scratched their leaders, and would not follow us. So we killed them and flayed them, and brought their skins to Carthage. For we did not voyage further, provisions failing us. It wasn't until 1847, nearly 2000 years later, that western science came to admit the existence of gorillas. Considering the fact that today's science doesn't seem much interested in the subject, it might be another thousand years or so. Stand by.............

15th December 2006, 01:45 PM	#582
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LAL BTW, Greg, WTF is a "Footer"? The opposite of a "scoftic"? What is accomplished by labelling someone who holds a different opinion? Does it resolve the argument or denigrate the opponent? Isn't it better to address the argument? Whenever I see the inevitable name-calling/labelling tossed about, I can't help but think of the Elbert Hubbard quote: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." I prefer to stick to facts, which reminds me... you have that page reference yet LAL? RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

15th December 2006, 04:14 PM	#583
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG Call me cranky, but do you have the actual reference or not? I have asked repeatedly, yet you provide no details. You're serious? Try pg. 118-123. There's this thing in the back called an "Index" (hard for us Googlers to use, I know) and it has a listing for "Skookum". Need the page number? I've mentioned repeatedly what was done (except for the peels) and it's a good deal more than Desertyeti did, IMHO.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 04:21 PM	#584
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by desertyeti Of course Meldrum and anyone else who desperately wants the Skookum Elk Cast to be a primate would never show an image like this: Why not? DDA already explained one of those joint imprints ain't from a joint. Meldrum has a diagram (pg.119) of a bull elk in essentially the same position. Methinks you're doing what you accused the advocates of doing, namely, seeing what you want to see.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 04:26 PM	#585
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG The opposite of a "scoftic"? I've explained how I use the term and I've never used it to specifically describe any individual on any forum. It's not especially denigrating, IMO. I can apply it to myself when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and alien abductions.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th December 2006, 06:17 PM	#586
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by Huntster You're not being very patient, Ray. I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

15th December 2006, 06:45 PM	#587
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LAL You're serious? Um.. yeah. You stated... Originally Posted by LAL ...read Meldrum's book for the details on what was done to rule that [elk lay] out... I can find no such details. Some generalizations, but no details that satisfy my thirst for science. Quote: Try pg. 118-123. Sorry, but I just don't see where it was shown (scientifically speaking) that they ruled out elk lay on those pages. Can you be more specific? (a direct quote would be sufficient) Quote: There's this thing in the back called an "Index" (hard for us Googlers to use, I know) and it has a listing for "Skookum". Yes, I'm quite familiar with an index, but this one has no listing for "elk lay". Quote: Need the page number? A direct quote would be even better. I'm guessing you mean the bit regarding Rick Noll on page 119, though I don't see specifically what I'm looking for. Is that what you meant? RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

15th December 2006, 07:28 PM	#588
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LAL Meldrum has a diagram (pg.119) of a bull elk in essentially the same position. The drawing on page 119 shows a bull elk with all its feet directly under it, like this. That's not quite what we see in the image desertyeti posted. Notice the difference in the leg positions? RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

15th December 2006, 10:17 PM	#589
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	That bull elk picture cracks me up ... It's just like the montage of casts that don't match the Wallace foot ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

15th December 2006, 10:26 PM	#590
carcharodon Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 375	Originally Posted by RayG I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime. RayG Seems to me you aren't interested in decent evidence. You seem only to be interested in seeing 100% proof. Unlike you, I see plenty of decent evidence. I just don't see any 100% proof.
	Last edited by carcharodon; 15th December 2006 at 10:36 PM.

15th December 2006, 11:33 PM	#591
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by RayG Quote: Originally Posted by Huntster You're not being very patient, Ray. I suppose I'll die before squatches are identified, catalogued, and classified, so I guess I shouldn't really expect decent evidence to be presented in my lifetime. That's likely the way it will happen with me. Oh, well.........

16th December 2006, 04:38 AM	#593
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by Diogenes That bull elk picture cracks me up ... It's just like the montage of casts that don't match the Wallace foot .. You mean the elk doesn't match the imprint? You're right!
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

16th December 2006, 04:46 AM	#594
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by Diogenes That bull elk picture cracks me up ... You can't mean Meldrum's from page 119, it's not a picture, it's only a drawing. Originally Posted by carcharodon Unlike you, I see plenty of decent evidence. Such as? Footprints? Skookum cast? Hairs? Originally Posted by LAL Close enough. Note the hoofprints in the center. As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Note that it's only a drawing and not an actual elk lay. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

16th December 2006, 04:52 AM	#595
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG Sorry, but I just don't see where it was shown (scientifically speaking) that they ruled out elk lay on those pages. Can you be more specific? (a direct quote would be sufficient) Yes, I'm quite familiar with an index, but this one has no listing for "elk lay". A direct quote would be even better. I'm guessing you mean the bit regarding Rick Noll on page 119, though I don't see specifically what I'm looking for. Is that what you meant? RayG You're in the right pargraph. "Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. These comparisons , combined with consultation by professional game keepers, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint." <emphasis mine> That's experimental, isn't it? Did you want a comparison with the actual heels, butt and, yes, testicles that made the print?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

16th December 2006, 05:12 AM	#596
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Note that it's only a drawing and not an actual elk lay. The point was, yes, they would include something like Desertyeti's photos. The diagram shows where the hoofprints would be (where they weren't in the imprint). DY had the rear hoofprints obscured by slurry, but the purported heel strikes showed the limb was lifted straight up - no slurring, no slurry. Colobus posted elk lay photos here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=329037 I found the reason for rejection: "In 2003 Darris Swindler and D. Jeffrey Meldrum submitted an abstract for a paper on the Skookum Cast to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The abstract was between 250 and 300 words (as required) and had no diagrams or photographs (also as required). The proposal was quickly rejected. The basis for the rejection was that you cannot infer usable information from impressions (Have them explain that to the publishers of Ichnos). So I stated my opinion in something less than a vacuum. I state that opinion about the difficultly in getting this topic published based on the past, and the knowledge that the peer review process is rife with politics."-colobus http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=329366
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/ Last edited by LAL; 16th December 2006 at 05:27 AM.

16th December 2006, 05:23 AM	#597
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by RayG As they say, close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Getting back to Daegling for a moment, he took the word of Cliff Crook (a known hoaxer, BTW); neither saw the cast, but that was good enough to declare the imprint an elk lay?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

16th December 2006, 05:30 AM	#598
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by Diogenes ( Picture Source: Bigfoot Forums - view picture source for exact link ) That doesn't work with XP Pro. I had to do a search.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/