Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

..... and where there is dermal ridge detail, it isn't a match for humans or any known ape.

Ahhh.. But there is a match for castus artifactus !

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Common sense. The peers appear to be ideological fundamentalists.

Conclusions based on "common sense" may be deeply flawed.

The "conclusion" that there is enough evidence for an official inquiry is hardly "deeply flawed."

In fact, the fact that the appropriate wildlife management agencies hasn't looked into the phenomenon is "deeply flawed", IMO.

Any basic physics book will provide a number of examples of this.

This is biology.

And saying "peers appear to be ideological fundamentalists", is an ad hom

Oh, dear me!

a sweeping generalization

Yup.

and by no means provide any backing to your statement on flawed peers.

The fact that the "peers" are primarily like the wildlife managers (not in the picture, and pooh-poohing the phenomenon) is enough backing for me.

Originally Posted by Huntster
If they don't like it, they can "ad hom" me back.

For what purpose?

Maybe they'll feel better about themselves.

Would it help in any discussion?

I don't know.

Its not a bar brawl.

Are they in the bars?

They're not in the woods.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like wildlife managers today, with plenty of time for spotted owls and snail darters, but no time or effort whatsoever to check out the claims of the public?

Huntster, even back in the 1800 there was specialization. I fail to see why someone involved with research on electromagnetism (the example I gave) should have been well informed on gorillas... But still, they could be.

So the reason science isn't investigating sasquatchery is because there aren't any sasquatch specialists?

You have evidence the existence of gorillas was questioned by "mainstream science" after Savage's work?

Not really, but I do have a description of how a live gorilla had been in England before science knew about it, and before Du Chaillu brought back "the first" complete specimens:

At first, the impact of
their discovery was largely limited to the scientific world, and it
was another decade before whole gorilla specimens began appearing in
any numbers in Europe. Shot by such adventurers as the French-American
writer Paul Du Chaillu, they were preserved for the long sea-voyage
with whatever happened to be on hand at African seaports, typically by
sealing them into a cask of spirits. After a long sea journey, the
pickled apes gave off an unbelievable stench, but they were such rare
finds that nobody much cared.....

....So what about bringing a live gorilla back from Africa? After Charles
Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the public
clamoured to see these mysterious primates. But gorillas proved
fragile in human hands, and appeared particularly vulnerable to
pulmonary ailments. The few that reached Europe almost invariably died
shortly after their arrival. America, with its even longer sea voyage,
failed to get hold of a live gorilla until 1897, and that one died
four days after landfall. The misery of captured gorillas was so
apparent, and their mortality rate so appalling, that in 1908 the
London Zoo finally refused to buy them; a decision that would stand
until 1932.

Victorian showmen had fewer scruples. They knew that a gorilla meant
money, whether it was genuine or not, and so they happily showed off
any ape they could get their hands on as a "gorilla". But in one of
the great odd twists of ape history, it seems one live gorilla had
already toured England without anyone realising it.

In 1855, a strange sort of chimpanzee was kept by George W. Wombwell's
famous travelling menagerie. "Jenny" survived a few months before
dying of pneumonia in Scarborough in March 1856. The dead creature was
promptly sold to Charles Waterton, an eccentric
naturalist-cum-taxidermist. Waterton was fond of creating fanciful
"nondescripts" from assemblages of animal parts, and so Jenny's skin
was altered and stuffed to form a hideous horned simian sculpture
titled - for Waterton was an ardent Catholic - Martin Luther After His
Fall.

But what the menagerie had been touring with was not a chimpanzee at
all. Later examination revealed that Jenny was a juvenile gorilla. The
remains of the first gorilla to live outside Africa now survive only
as a bizarre taxidermic joke in the Waterton Collection at the
Wakefield Museum in Yorkshire. It would be decades before any other
gorilla survived in Britain for as long as Jenny had. And so it was
that squalling babies, runny-nosed urchins and exasperated mothers
unwittingly witnessed the world's rarest captive animal, and for a few
pence on English village greens were granted a sight denied to the
most respected men of science.

Sitting on their asses while the goods were being displayed for cold, hard cash.

Who knows? Maybe the likes of Matt Moneymaker might get over while you "scientists" are sleeping at the wheel, amigo.

Originally Posted by Huntster
We don't know if "bigfeet are real", and we're not likely to know anytime soon, because the appropriate people don't give much of a damn, and aren't looking into the matter.

Why they don't give a damn?

Because they think they know something that isn't knowable yet.

Because the evidence is flimsy, shaky, unreliable and entangled with hoaxes. Because many of the very defenders of the position "bigfeet are real" ehxibit a tendency to display poor data handling skils. And resorting to ad homs will never be of any help. On the contrary.

Ranting will be of no help either. But a carefull data handling, the dumping of unreliabe data and stopping or decreasing useless ad homs and rants may help.

I doubt it.

Call me a "skeptic."

 

[Correa Neto]

The "conclusion" that there is enough evidence for an official inquiry is hardly "deeply flawed."

Try convincing them.
Advice: Better get some r

 

[desertyeti]

Ahhh.. But there is a match for castus artifactus !

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/dermals2.gif[/qimg]

Speaking of which, the cases of purported dermals are:

1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).
2) the Onion Mtn. cast from 1967 (dessication ridges formed by plaster on a dry substrate).
3) the Walla Walla or Table Springs or Wrinkle Foot from Freeman (dessication and/or fluid flow over wet surface).
4) Hyampom from 1963-4 (indeterminate, isolated on portions of toes).
5) Bossburg "Cripple Foot" (seen by no one but Grover Krantz and Ed Palma).
6) Bossburg handprint (faint, transverse striations, but no whorls, loops, or evidence of being dermatoglyphics).
7) Elkins Creek (acknowledged human fingerprints introduced into cast, also possible dessication artifacts).
8) Skookum Elk Cast (hairs from an elk's metacarpal block).
9) Indiana Cast (recognized fake)

Wow...yep...them "dermals" sure are significant!

 

[Correa Neto]

The "conclusion" that there is enough evidence for an official inquiry is hardly "deeply flawed."

Then try convincing them. Advice: Better find some reliable evidence first. And avoid using too many ad homs when exposing your case.

In fact, the fact that the appropriate wildlife management agencies hasn't looked into the phenomenon is "deeply flawed", IMO.

Why would the look at it?
Taking in to account the quality of the avaliable evidence...

BTW, how do you know they have never considered looking in to it? Maybe they did. And after looking at the evidence, and how some defenders of the claim handle data, considered it as unworthy of spending their time.

This is biology.

Oh, sure. Imagine a botanic. Botanic is also biology, ain't it? Would a botanic back in 1847 mind too much about a new ape species?

He/she would only be interested when the species became envolved in the evolution x steady state debate. The happened after the description of the species...

The fact that the "peers" are primarily like the wildlife managers (not in the picture, and pooh-poohing the phenomenon) is enough backing for me.

Another ad hom.

Maybe they'll feel better about themselves.

Chances are they would just avoid further discussions with people who use ad homs instead or evidence.

I don't know.

It would not help your cause. Most people would just avoid further useless discussions regarding a subject backed by unreliable evidence, surrounded by hoaxes and sensationalism and defende by some people who show very poor data handling skills and rely on ad hom attacks instead of sound reasonings and evidence.

Are they in the bars?

They're not in the woods.

That was another ad hom.

Where do you think zoologists, for example, find materila to study at they "ivory toers"?

So the reason science isn't investigating sasquatchery is because there aren't any sasquatch specialists?

Nope.
Its because the "bigfeet are real" claim is backed by flimsy evidence, surrounded by hoaxes and sensationalism and some of its defenders display very poor data handling. Not to mention those who constantly rely on ad homs and useless rants against "mainstream science". I'll say again: The biggest adversaries of the "bigfeet are real" claims are some of its very defenders. Those who rely on the tactics above mentioned are those who make the biggest damage.

Not really, but I do have a description of how a live gorilla had been in England before science knew about it, and before Du Chaillu brought back "the first" complete specimens:

So, there was no questioning of the existence of the species and the analogy with bigfeet is flawed.

Sitting on their asses while the goods were being displayed for cold, hard cash.

Ad hom.

Who knows? Maybe the likes of Matt Moneymaker might get over while you "scientists" are sleeping at the wheel, amigo.

One more ad hom.
Please note that DuChaillu sold specimens to museums. If "mainstream science" had any serious doubts regarding the existence of the species or major critics to DuChaillu, the museums would not have acquired his specimens. Again, the situations are not analogous.

Because they think they know something that isn't knowable yet.

Hunstster, since there are frequent reports of new species being found, the above statement is wrong.

I doubt it.

Call me a "skeptic."

OK, but then as a skeptic, you would have weighted the evidence impartially, tested the hypothesis or claim impartially, observed and studied the results, and only then formulate an opinion.

"I doubt it" is not enough under this POV.

 

[tube]

Speaking of which, the cases of purported dermals are:

1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).
2) the Onion Mtn. cast from 1967 (dessication ridges formed by plaster on a dry substrate).
3) the Walla Walla or Table Springs or Wrinkle Foot from Freeman (dessication and/or fluid flow over wet surface).
4) Hyampom from 1963-4 (indeterminate, isolated on portions of toes).
5) Bossburg "Cripple Foot" (seen by no one but Grover Krantz and Ed Palma).
6) Bossburg handprint (faint, transverse striations, but no whorls, loops, or evidence of being dermatoglyphics).
7) Elkins Creek (acknowledged human fingerprints introduced into cast, also possible dessication artifacts).
8) Skookum Elk Cast (hairs from an elk's metacarpal block).
9) Indiana Cast (recognized fake)

Wow...yep...them "dermals" sure are significant!

It should also be noted that another cast from the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain series (labeled by Grover Krantz "CA-20") exhibits what Dr. Wroblewski calls "desiccation ridges":

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/ca20.htm

Being that Desertyeti is a PhD geologist and I am not, I shall henceforth defer to his choice of nomenclature and call these spontaneous textures "desiccation ridges". Of course, using the word "henceforth" makes me look like a dweeb...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
The "conclusion" that there is enough evidence for an official inquiry is hardly "deeply flawed."

Then try convincing them. Advice: Better find some reliable evidence first. And avoid using too many ad homs when exposing your case.

Would it be easier than getting non-scientists and pseudo-scientists here to merely admit the possibility of their existence?

Originally Posted by Huntster
In fact, the fact that the appropriate wildlife management agencies hasn't looked into the phenomenon is "deeply flawed", IMO.

Why would the look at it?

To fulfill their responsibility of managing wildlife.

Taking in to account the quality of the avaliable evidence...

They didn't seem to have much of a problem making a national issue of the snail darter on faulty information.

BTW, how do you know they have never considered looking in to it?

I don't know.

However, I've found just a single reference or tidbit of information that indicates that any wildlife management agency in the United States (I do't include Canada) has spent a single dime looking into the sasquatch phenomenon.

That single reference includes names, but there is no official record with that agency that the event occurred.

Maybe they did. And after looking at the evidence, and how some defenders of the claim handle data, considered it as unworthy of spending their time.

The single reference I know of indicates that the two officials involved were impressed enough to submit samples to the state lab for testing.

The results were "inconclusive."

Originally Posted by Huntster
This is biology.

Oh, sure. Imagine a botanic. Botanic is also biology, ain't it? Would a botanic back in 1847 mind too much about a new ape species?

I don't know if a botanist would mind a new ape species or not. I haven't asked any.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The fact that the "peers" are primarily like the wildlife managers (not in the picture, and pooh-poohing the phenomenon) is enough backing for me.

Another ad hom.

So?

Is the term "footer" an ad hom?

Is the term "woo" an ad hom?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe they'll feel better about themselves.

Chances are they would just avoid further discussions with people who use ad homs instead or evidence.

Does Meldrum use "ad homs"?

If not, why do they avoid discussion with him about the subject?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't know.

It would not help your cause. Most people would just avoid further useless discussions regarding a subject backed by unreliable evidence, surrounded by hoaxes and sensationalism and defende by some people who show very poor data handling skills and rely on ad hom attacks instead of sound reasonings and evidence.

Blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Are they in the bars?

They're not in the woods.

That was another ad hom.

I'm such an evil man, huh?

Where do you think zoologists, for example, find materila to study at they "ivory toers"?

In the case of bears, they are usually donated to them as cubs when rescued by people who frequent the outdoors.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So the reason science isn't investigating sasquatchery is because there aren't any sasquatch specialists?

Nope.
Its because the "bigfeet are real" claim is backed by flimsy evidence, surrounded by hoaxes and sensationalism and some of its defenders display very poor data handling.

So the smart thing to do in that case is to ignore the phenomenon?

Yeah. You scientist folks are real impressive.

Not to mention those who constantly rely on ad homs and useless rants against "mainstream science".

Oh, of course.

The reason science won't investigate sasquatchery is because of that mean, old Huntster.

How pathetic................

I'll say again: The biggest adversaries of the "bigfeet are real" claims are some of its very defenders. Those who rely on the tactics above mentioned are those who make the biggest damage.

Those are some crocodile tears there, Mr. Science.

My heart goes out to you.................

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not really, but I do have a description of how a live gorilla had been in England before science knew about it, and before Du Chaillu brought back "the first" complete specimens:

So, there was no questioning of the existence of the species and the analogy with bigfeet is flawed.

Yes, there were plenty of questions regarding the existence of gorillas, the analogy is unfortunately valid, and there was a live gorilla being displayed in a side show in England while the ivy-covered Halls of Science were waiting for Du Chaillu (or anyone else) to deliver the proof to them, and while they pontificated about how apes became men.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sitting on their asses while the goods were being displayed for cold, hard cash.

Ad hom.

A very true ad hom.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Who knows? Maybe the likes of Matt Moneymaker might get over while you "scientists" are sleeping at the wheel, amigo.

One more ad hom.

Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, etc.

Sounds like snoring to me, mi amigo.

Please note that DuChaillu sold specimens to museums. If "mainstream science" had any serious doubts regarding the existence of the species or major critics to DuChaillu, the museums would not have acquired his specimens. Again, the situations are not analogous.

So you're saying that even after an adventurer like Du Chaillu brings the proof to science, there is a very real possibility that science will reject it?

Thanks for the admission. I already knew of that likelihood:

Scientific history is all but littered with famous approaches that were once widely held
and later rejected (even though considered “good science” in their heyday): geological
catastrophism, Lamarkian evolution, the four “humors” of medicine, Newtonian physics,
Ptolomaic cosmology, etc. A transparent re-examination of these hypotheses, and a
commitment to updating the information on which they were based, led to their replacement
with hypotheses which more accurately explained available data. No doubt some widely
held hypotheses of our own time will be replaced in light of new data.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Because they think they know something that isn't knowable yet.

Hunstster, since there are frequent reports of new species being found, the above statement is wrong.

This discussion isn't about the facts that make it through the gauntlet of doubt and denial. It's about the situations that don't.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I doubt it.

Call me a "skeptic."

OK, but then as a skeptic, you would have weighted the evidence impartially, tested the hypothesis or claim impartially, observed and studied the results, and only then formulate an opinion.

That's right.

And that opinion is:

1) Sasquatches may exist
2) If so, wildlife management agencies are responsible for their well-being
3) Wildlife management agencies aren't even trying to verify if they do indeed exist
4) Few others within the science "industry" seem to care much about the situation, and many are outright hostile to the possibility

 

[Correa Neto]

Would it be easier than getting non-scientists and pseudo-scientists here to merely admit the possibility of their existence?

How many of the "non-scientists and pseudo-scientists here" don't think its possible that bigfeet are real creatures?

Last time I checked, most people involved in the debate would say something like "taking in to account the avaliable evidence (or lack of) its possible but unlikely".

Still, its up to the defenders of the claim to back it with reliable evidence and sound reasonings. Got some?

To fulfill their responsibility of managing wildlife.

Including species whose existence is backed by unreliable evidence and hoaxes?

They didn't seem to have much of a problem making a national issue of the snail darter on faulty information.

It seems the data backing the existence of snail darters are much more reliable than the evidence backing the exsitence of bigfeet as real animals...

I don't know.

However, I've found just a single reference or tidbit of information that indicates that any wildlife management agency in the United States (I do't include Canada) has spent a single dime looking into the sasquatch phenomenon.

That single reference includes names, but there is no official record with that agency that the event occurred.

The single reference I know of indicates that the two officials involved were impressed enough to submit samples to the state lab for testing.

The results were "inconclusive."

Inconclusive results, what a surprise...
Aniway, after getting an "inconclusive" output from a field with so many unreliable and forged evidence, who would continue?

I don't know if a botanist would mind a new ape species or not. I haven't asked any.

Thus your previous point on science's alleged poor knoweledge of gorilas was not vaild...

So?

Is the term "footer" an ad hom?

Is the term "woo" an ad hom?

In many cases yes. And I have used them more than once and I think chances are it has not helped my points.

Does Meldrum use "ad homs"?

If not, why do they avoid discussion with him about the subject?

First, you can't actually prove they never discussed the subhect with him. The odds are they did discussed. At academic institutions there are debated popping out at lunch and coffee breaks, internal seminars, etc. There are also presentations at meetings. IIRC he has submitted abstratcs to meetings. This indicates that probably the subject was discussed. Unless he is a hermit at his uni, the subject was discussed with his colleagues.

What you should ask yourself is why other researchers that heard and discussed the subject have not become impressed with the evidence.

Blah, blah, blah.

A blah blah blah that the defenders of the claim should consider seriously.

I'm such an evil man, huh?

I don't know. Are you?
I just say debate should rely on evidence and sound reasonings and not on ad homs.

In the case of bears, they are usually donated to them as cubs when rescued by people who frequent the outdoors.

See, the above is an example of unsound reasoning, for it completely ignores the facts about wildlife research.

So the smart thing to do in that case is to ignore the phenomenon?

Yeah. You scientist folks are real impressive.

What do you want?
To lower data quality parameters to the level you consider apropriate?

Oh, of course.

The reason science won't investigate sasquatchery is because of that mean, old Huntster.

How pathetic................

The reasons science won't investigate bigfeet as real animals are:
1.The claim is backed on unreliable data;
2.The frequent shadow of hoaxes;
3.The sensationalism involved;
4.The poor data handling displayed by some of the defenders of the claim;
5.The frequent use of ad homs by some of the defenders of the claim.

I would not say YOU are the reason. I say people who behave as described at 3 and 4 are part of the reason. You may be part of the reason, not the reason.

Those are some crocodile tears there, Mr. Science.

My heart goes out to you.................

Yes, there were plenty of questions regarding the existence of gorillas, the analogy is unfortunately valid, and there was a live gorilla being displayed in a side show in England while the ivy-covered Halls of Science were waiting for Du Chaillu (or anyone else) to deliver the proof to them, and while they pontificated about how apes became men.

Again, please show us where the existence of gorillas was chalenged after Savage's work.

A very true ad hom.



Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, etc.

Sounds like snoring to me, mi amigo.

A constant stream of ad homs is boring.

No substance, nothing. Very boring, indeed.

So you're saying that even after an adventurer like Du Chaillu brings the proof to science, there is a very real possibility that science will reject it?

Thanks for the admission. I already knew of that likelihood:

Hmmm...
Care to show me exactly where I wrote this?

This discussion isn't about the facts that make it through the gauntlet of doubt and denial. It's about the situations that don't.

This particular subject is at this particular situation because the propenents of the claim can not back it propperly.

What's your suggestion?
Lowering standards to evaluate the reliability of data?

That's right.

And that opinion is:

1) Sasquatches may exist
2) If so, wildlife management agencies are responsible for their well-being
3) Wildlife management agencies aren't even trying to verify if they do indeed exist
4) Few others within the science "industry" seem to care much about the situation, and many are outright hostile to the possibility

The whole argument already crumbles at (1), for reasons already discussed.

 

[desertyeti]

Just to clarify to everyone,
the list of casting artifacts I generated above is based almost entirely on tube's excellent research and findings. He's being way too generous in deferring to my terminology and I want to point out that I have done absolutely none of the original research that led to his recognition of these features. Inspired by his research however, I've begun making my own pseudo-dermals and it's a blast!

I have been encouraging him to publish his experimental methods and results in an appropriate journal so that others (like me and Meldrum and Chillcut, etc.) can reference him and lead others to his genuinely original work that has helped clarify the origin of the purported "dermals" in a variety of casts.

I now return you to the Patterson shenannigans already in progress...

 

[LAL]

Speaking of which, the cases of purported dermals are:

1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).

The ridges running down the side of the foot were consistant with other casts showing the flow. There were other rangers on the scene, other casts taken, and discoveries in the area by people unconnected with Freeman.

Chilcutt pointed all this out at the Willow Creek Symposium, 2003.

2) the Onion Mtn. cast from 1967 (dessication ridges formed by plaster on a dry substrate).

And a second cast from the same trackway showing the same details only fainter, evidently because dust from passing vehicles settled on the print prior to casting.

The dry substrate may not have been the cause of artifacts. See Melissa's experiments.

3) the Walla Walla or Table Springs or Wrinkle Foot from Freeman (dessication and/or fluid flow over wet surface).

They show healed scars. The ridges tuck into them.

4) Hyampom from 1963-4 (indeterminate, isolated on portions of toes).

The custom was to sand the casts to make them look better. Surface detail would have been removed.

5) Bossburg "Cripple Foot" (seen by no one but Grover Krantz and Ed Palma).

Michael Dennett said in an article he could see them on Dahinden's originals right where Ed Palma had pointed them out. Didn't I cite that when we debated on BFF a couple of years ago?

6) Bossburg handprint (faint, transverse striations, but no whorls, loops, or evidence of being dermatoglyphics).

The one where Krantz ran out of white latex and had to use red? He said, if confirmed they'd be the first example noticed.

7) Elkins Creek (acknowledged human fingerprints introduced into cast, also possible dessication artifacts).

The artifacts were noted by Chicutt in his report. Freeman wasn't in on that one.

8) Skookum Elk Cast (hairs from an elk's metacarpal block).

You mean the hair flow that stops abruptly with ridges below it that is consistant with other casts showing dermal ridge detail on the heel?

9) Indiana Cast (recognized fake)

Dahinden was behind that. He made and sold copies of casts. I suspect one of his was the basis for the fake. Dennett "disquised" the identity of the hoaxer - it was a disgruntled female student of Krantz'. See Dennett's posts on BFF.

Trust no one.

Wow...yep...them "dermals" sure are significant!

Yeah, they are. What training do you and/or tube have in fingerprinting?

 

[LAL]

I have been encouraging him to publish his experimental methods and results in an appropriate journal so that others (like me and Meldrum and Chillcut, etc.) can reference him and lead others to his genuinely original work that has helped clarify the origin of the purported "dermals" in a variety of casts.

You mean where he used volcanic ash instead of Onion Mountain soil? He's said himself his experiments only applied to that one copy.

I think Melissa should publish too. She's not getting the same results tube did; no "Crowley lines". She's had training in fingerprinting, BTW.

Aren't experiments supposed to be replicable?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Would it be easier than getting non-scientists and pseudo-scientists here to merely admit the possibility of their existence?

How many of the "non-scientists and pseudo-scientists here" don't think its possible that bigfeet are real creatures?

I don't know, and I'm not too interested in performing the search to figure it out.

Last time I checked, most people involved in the debate would say something like "taking in to account the avaliable evidence (or lack of) its possible but unlikely".

When was the "last time you checked"?

Got some names and numbers?

Still, its up to the defenders of the claim to back it with reliable evidence and sound reasonings. Got some?

Yup. You just don't accept it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
To fulfill their responsibility of managing wildlife.

Including species whose existence is backed by unreliable evidence and hoaxes?

Including species which there is lots of testimony and other evidence that indicates their existence, but which science hasn't accepted.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They didn't seem to have much of a problem making a national issue of the snail darter on faulty information.

It seems the data backing the existence of snail darters are much more reliable than the evidence backing the exsitence of bigfeet as real animals...

But the evidence of their scarcity was not reliable, and millions were spent and a dam project killed with the lousy "science":

The snail darter was declared an endangered species in 1975, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. By the 1980s it was clear that the fish was not in fact endangered and it was removed from the list of endangered species maintained by the US Government.

Because of the 1970s controversy around this fish, "snail darter" became a term that is shorthand as a reference to environmental extremism.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't know.

However, I've found just a single reference or tidbit of information that indicates that any wildlife management agency in the United States (I do't include Canada) has spent a single dime looking into the sasquatch phenomenon.

That single reference includes names, but there is no official record with that agency that the event occurred.

The single reference I know of indicates that the two officials involved were impressed enough to submit samples to the state lab for testing.

The results were "inconclusive."

Inconclusive results, what a surprise...

Not at all. It's the standard statement of "scientists" when they don't know what it is.

In other words, it means "I don't know", but it isn't interpreted that way by many.

Aniway, after getting an "inconclusive" output from a field with so many unreliable and forged evidence, who would continue?

They tested hair and fecal samples found next to a "nest" which one of the biologists stated resembled gorilla nests he had seen in Africa. There were claw marks on the tree next to the nest.

Seems pretty obvious to me, but when the sample didn't match any known native species, the result was "inconclusive" (or, in layman's terms, "we don't know what the hell this is").

Then you interpret that to mean "I can give Huntster a ration of crap about the word "inconclusive", and he won't be able to do much about it."

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't know if a botanist would mind a new ape species or not. I haven't asked any.

Thus your previous point on science's alleged poor knoweledge of gorilas was not vaild...

Yes it was.

I stated that I don't know if botanists give a damn about apes.

You sure have interesting comprehension and interpretation skills. Would you call them "scientific"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
So?

Is the term "footer" an ad hom?

Is the term "woo" an ad hom?

In many cases yes. And I have used them more than once and I think chances are it has not helped my points.

You have no points. All you have is doubt.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Does Meldrum use "ad homs"?

If not, why do they avoid discussion with him about the subject?

First, you can't actually prove they never discussed the subhect with him.

They have certainly not done so on a "peer review" basis.

Originally Posted by Huntster
In the case of bears, they are usually donated to them as cubs when rescued by people who frequent the outdoors.

See, the above is an example of unsound reasoning, for it completely ignores the facts about wildlife research.

You asked how zoologists get their specimens. I answered, and quite correctly.

Reasoning has nothing to do with it. I know damned well how zoologists get Alaskan brown bears and polar bears.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So the smart thing to do in that case is to ignore the phenomenon?

Yeah. You scientist folks are real impressive.

What do you want?

How about the same investment as what is being given the ivory-billed woodpecker?

To lower data quality parameters to the level you consider apropriate?

There is more evidence of sasquatch than there is for remaining ivory-billed woodpeckers, yet the USFS granted $5 million dollars for the search for the birds?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, of course.

The reason science won't investigate sasquatchery is because of that mean, old Huntster.

How pathetic................

The reasons science won't investigate bigfeet as real animals are:
1.The claim is backed on unreliable data;
2.The frequent shadow of hoaxes;
3.The sensationalism involved;
4.The poor data handling displayed by some of the defenders of the claim;
5.The frequent use of ad homs by some of the defenders of the claim.

That answer is even more pathetic.

I would not say YOU are the reason. I say people who behave as described at 3 and 4 are part of the reason. You may be part of the reason, not the reason.

So my insistence that science gets off it's ass and look into the matter is part of the reason they don't?

Your answers get more pathetic with each stroke of your computer keys.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes, there were plenty of questions regarding the existence of gorillas, the analogy is unfortunately valid, and there was a live gorilla being displayed in a side show in England while the ivy-covered Halls of Science were waiting for Du Chaillu (or anyone else) to deliver the proof to them, and while they pontificated about how apes became men.

Again, please show us where the existence of gorillas was chalenged after Savage's work.

The National Geographic Magazine, July 1903, Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285:

...In the book he told of gorilla, of which he had brought back the first specimens and which he had been the first white man to see and hunt......

The book was greeted with shouts of laughter and derision from one end of the American continent to the other. Mr and Mrs and Miss Gorilla was the common jest, and the name Du Chaillu became a byword for a fanciful storyteller. Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him....

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's right.

And that opinion is:

1) Sasquatches may exist
2) If so, wildlife management agencies are responsible for their well-being
3) Wildlife management agencies aren't even trying to verify if they do indeed exist
4) Few others within the science "industry" seem to care much about the situation, and many are outright hostile to the possibility

The whole argument already crumbles at (1), for reasons already discussed.

If you bless the investment of $5 million in the continued two year search for an ivory-billed woodpecker, or the multi-million dollar SETI program, and reject a similar (or even much smaller) investment in the very first government search to discover the truth about sasquatches, you are either a hypocrite or a denialist.

 

[LTC8K6]

I actually have no objection to funding for a proper scientific effort/expedition to look for signs of bigfoot/sasquatch.

I just can't see anything happening but a BFRO or Autumn Williams or Jeff Meldrum type joke of a show, though. Such a circus sideshow will never result in anything worthwhile, imo.

If I believed a proper effort would be made, I would have no objection at all to spending a bit of public money on it.

I just can't see it happening without the circus clowns wedging their way in, or discrediting the effort.

 

[Huntster]

I actually have no objection to funding for a proper scientific effort/expedition to look for signs of bigfoot/sasquatch.

I believe you've posted in the past that you oppose public funding for a sasquatch investigation.

I'm working on the search now............

I just can't see anything happening but a BFRO or Autumn Williams or Jeff Meldrum type joke of a show, though.

The public funding should go to or through an appropriate wildlife management agency, with perhaps consultation contracts to appropriate entities like Meldrum and a few qualified others.

The ivory-billed funding went all around (oh, I was wrong; it was $10.2 million; $5 million to the Dept. of the Interior, and $5.2 million to the Dept. of Ag).

If I believed a proper effort would be made, I would have no objection at all to spending a bit of public money on it.

The whole point is to see that a proper effort is made, and by the proper authorities.

I just can't see it happening without the circus clowns wedging their way in, or discrediting the effort.

For Christ's sake!

If there was every anyone who has done absolutely nothing but discrediting effort, it has been you.

 

[LAL]

Why do I think LTC8K6 has the most appropriate avatar I've ever seen?

"Inconclusive \In`con*clu"sive\, a.
Not conclusive; leading to no conclusion; not closing or
settling a point in debate, or a doubtful question; as,
evidence is inconclusive when it does not exhibit the truth
of a disputed case in such a manner as to satisfy the mind,
and put an end to debate or doubt."

http://dict.die.net/inconclusive/

Geez. By that definition evidence for the Big Bang is "inconclusive".

At any rate, "inconclusive" does not mean "nonexistant".

 

[LAL]

I just can't see anything happening but a BFRO or Autumn Williams or Jeff Meldrum type joke of a show, though. Such a circus sideshow will never result in anything worthwhile, imo.

Have you actually seen any of their work? Read anything by either? Seen interviews or presentations? DVDs? Read the BFRO database?

Please list any and all and your reasons for implying Williams and Meldrum are clowns.

Your game of Shoot the Messenger is obvious, but it also points up the fact that you haven't a clue.

 

[desertyeti]

Huntster's point about the $10+ million that's gone into Ivory-bill research might be glossing over the fact that it took one year of pro-bono investigation of photographic evidence, and formal scientific inquiry by ornithologists at various institutions before a dime was committed.

In relation to the Patterson footage, primatologists and anthropologists from various institutions were shown the footage (and most today have seen it), yet less than half a dozen (that I know of) out of possible thousands of them have found it compelling. As is the case for the Ivory-bill, it is up to them to formally write-up their analysis of the footage and the methodology they used to determine its authenticity. This has never been done. The Russian "hominologists" and Grieve and Green and Krantz's essays have never been formally submitted for peer review and as such, are simply opinion pieces...editorials...scientifcally meaningless. The Ivory-bill footage recieved plenty of outright criticism and doubt, yet...SOOPRISE...it got published because scientists love controversy! If Patterson's footage was scientifically compared to human and nonhuman primate locomotion and found to be unique, and defensibly found to represent a non-human primate, and submitted to Science or Nature (the journals), it would stand a more than fair chance of being published. THEN the research money might be more forthcoming. As it stands though, the fact that even Krantz and Meldrum won't (or can't) find enough in the footage to convince anyone other than themsleves and non-specialists who like BF that it's authentic speaks volumes. After 40 years, if anyone really thought it was something other than a guy in an ape suit, there'd be real papers written about it...not just chapters in BF books and websites.

Then again...that's just my take on it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You mean where he used volcanic ash instead of Onion Mountain soil? He's said himself his experiments only applied to that one copy.

I think Melissa should publish too. She's not getting the same results tube did; no "Crowley lines". She's had training in fingerprinting, BTW.

Wow ! That should come in handy when you actually have a Bigfoot
to get prints from ...


Talk about repeatable.. All so called Bigfoot dermals, except where they can be shown to be human contamination, look just like the artifacts Matt duplicated.

Of course it could just be a coincidence ..

 

[desertyeti]

Talk about repeatable.. All so called Bigfoot dermals, except where they can be shown to be human contamination, look just like the artifacts Matt duplicated.

Of course it could just be a coincidence ..

Yep!
I've made them in dry sand, on moist sand, on dry silt, and even dry mud. All it takes is some sort of dessicant in the matrix. This can be elevated salinity, or mineralogical composition as is the case when certain clay minerals like illite or kaolinite or smectite are present, or simply degree of dry-ness of the matrix. Very repeatable and very open-and-shut. The Onion Mtn. and other casts listed above show dessication, not dermals...case closed.
On to the Patterson Film!

 

[Huntster]

Huntster's point about the $10+ million that's gone into Ivory-bill research might be glossing over the fact that it took one year of pro-bono investigation of photographic evidence, and formal scientific inquiry by ornithologists at various institutions before a dime was committed.

The evidence (from Cornell's site).

And regarding the video?:

At 15:42 Central Daylight Time on 25
April 2004, M. D. Luneau secured a brief
but crucial video of a very large woodpecker
perched on the trunk of a water tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica), then fleeing from the approaching
canoe (fig. S2 and movie S1). The woodpecker
remains in the video frame for a total of 4 s
as it flies rapidly away. Even at its closest
point, the woodpecker occupies only a small
fraction of the video. Its images are blurred
and pixilated owing to rapid motion, slow
shutter speed, video interlacing artifacts, and
the bird_s distance beyond the video camera_s
focal plane.

The rest of the evidence is essentially based on seven sightings.

Seven.

The basis for funding SETI is even more sparce, even though it has been funded over the years exponentially more. In fact, I can't find a shred of evidence (other than sightings of UFOs, unless Project Blue Book did influence Congress to fund, despite what is said officially) to support continued funding of SETI.

There is more than ample evidence to support the funding of wildlife agencies for the first time ever to determine whether or not sasquatches exist, especially since if they do, they are clearly quite rare, and the possiblity of endangered status should be obvious.

In relation to the Patterson footage, primatologists and anthropologists from various institutions were shown the footage (and most today have seen it), yet less than half a dozen (that I know of) out of possible thousands of them have found it compelling. As is the case for the Ivory-bill, it is up to them to formally write-up their analysis of the footage and the methodology they used to determine its authenticity. This has never been done. The Russian "hominologists" and Grieve and Green and Krantz's essays have never been formally submitted for peer review and as such, are simply opinion pieces...editorials...scientifcally meaningless.

Have they never been submitted, or never been accepted?

The Ivory-bill footage recieved plenty of outright criticism and doubt, yet...SOOPRISE...it got published because scientists love controversy! If Patterson's footage was scientifically compared to human and nonhuman primate locomotion and found to be unique, and defensibly found to represent a non-human primate, and submitted to Science or Nature (the journals), it would stand a more than fair chance of being published. THEN the research money might be more forthcoming. As it stands though, the fact that even Krantz and Meldrum won't (or can't) find enough in the footage to convince anyone other than themsleves and non-specialists who like BF that it's authentic speaks volumes. After 40 years, if anyone really thought it was something other than a guy in an ape suit, there'd be real papers written about it...not just chapters in BF books and websites.

The fact that science has rejected the PG film is the precise reason why it is prominently featured in BF books and websites.

"The stone that the builders have rejected has become the cornerstone."