Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[tube]

Some time back when I made several large test casts and two pairs of fake feet I noticed something. I found that rather unintentionally my foot shapes were rather similar. In fact, some poster on Bigfoot Forums commented on that, by suggesting that the heel on my fake track was too big. Indeed, he was correct, my fake-heels were kind of big, at least compared to the stereotypical foot shape.

So eventually it started dawning on me that a certain "style" was popping up in other tracks and casts I would see. For some, talking about Ray Wallace is beating a dead horse, but I continue to be fascinated by his "bunkum", if you will.

So take a careful look at these three photos. The one with Ray in the middle has the legend "All casts fake, RD" which I believe is Rene' Dahinden's handwriting.

Well, to play the devil's advocate here, why? Why are they fake? What criterion did Dahinden employ to make this determination? My guess would be the same one I would employ, they are simply too "cartoonish". The small ones on the right especially, have really exaggerated bulges. Perhaps they look too symmetrical?

But now compare the biggest ones in the Dahinden photo with the famous "Jerry Crew" cast. Are they that much different? Hard to tell, the Crew cast might have a tad less medial "double ball". Yet the Crew cast is defended vitriolically by the advocates as being real!

Then compare the "double ball" print from Blue Creek Mountain. Why is this double ball less cartoonish than those in the Dahinden photo?

Personally, they all look like variations on a simple theme to me.

So in a valiant attempt to stay "on message"; this is obviously part of the "challenge" for Bigfoot advocates; what are the objective criteria that differentiate "real" tracks from hoax tracks? Frankly, I don't think there are any yet...

 

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze:
Not as far as I know. When you think about it, who pays much attention to footprints in snow?

Well, bigfoot must, right? Many proponents advocate the idea of sasquatches intentionally obscuring their tracks or going to lengths to avoid making them (if not altogether successfull). Is this not what the SC is all about?

Do most/many anecdotes/reports of BF snow tracks indicate that they were making the tracks in a begrudging or reluctant fashion or made attempts (even poor) to obsure them? One would think this would certainly be more apparent in less remote areas. Not the most original question but a valid one nonetheless.

 

[desertyeti]

Wow!
Finally some useful and informative input! Thanks Tube!!!
A great point you make about what arbitrary (demonstrably not quantitative) methods BF "researchers" use to determine the authenticity of a track cast. John Green, Krantz, and others seem to vary in whether tracks with 3, 4, 5, or 6 toes can be considered real. An impossibility since all hominid and hominoid primates have 5 toes and only 5 toes, no more, no less (unless they're chopped off, or the animal is such a mutant, it's odds of survival are nill).

Do they consider toe size relative to foot length? Nope, we have large toes, small toes, long toes, short toes, toes with penultimate digital pads, toes with no pads.

Perhaps shape of the anterior margin of the metatarsal pad? Again, no. There's straight ones, parabolic ones, sinuous ones, and everything in between..far and beyond the standard range of individual variation in animal species.

There's prints with arches, prints with none.
Prints with cleft balls, prints with single balls, and prints that seem to show no balls (no pun intended).

In short, if you're looking for consistency (as I and plenty of others have), you're just plain S.O.L.

 

[kitakaze]

I guess it's inevitable in these types of discussions but I want to emphatically point out the hazards of heralding/bemoaning someones wealth/lack of formal training or education when talking about bigfoot.

Very simply put, without anything substantial to offer as evidence to support BF's existence Ph.D's and amateurs aren't so far apart.

So far we've seen some stellar mistakes by the more educated and some great contributions by hobbyists.


Maybe tube has elsewhere earned some ire but I still think belittling his experimentations that he's sharing here as 'by a lampmaker' sucks.

Sorry, JMHO.

 

[desertyeti]

Word.
You're 100% right on kitakaze!
But, that's what I've grown to expect from certain trolls.
They contribute nothing themsleves, endlessly repeat whatever their heroes have spewed in the past, and virultently attack anyone who either knows more than them, or disagrees with their heroes' views and words.

edited for that dad-gummed spelling disfunkshun I havv

 

[kitakaze]

DY, where the heck did you get that pic? What's the story on it?

One of the first things I learned when I came here was that I had filtration issues in regards to bigfoot. Specifically, with tracks so many proponents rely on them as a key piece of evidence to support their belief yet seem to arbitrarily ignore or favour tracks based on there own personal notions of what they should look like when the range out there really is staggering.

 

[desertyeti]

It's from Pennsylvania in the 1970's
John Green's got a photo of it in his bible "Apes Among Us."
There's plenty more like it in the books from other sources, but most of the BF "researchers" who want to appear at least a wee bit legitimate try to ignore these oddballs even though the circumstances of their discovery and associated "sightings" seem just as legitimate as those of the 5-toed "normal" variety (ie., nothing a serious field biologist would put too much stock into). Krantz mentioned this and then proceeded to continue with his "analysis" of 5- and 4- and 6-toed tracks, while ignoring 3-toed tracks. Very blatant bias, and by no stretch of the imagination "scientific."

The BF "researchers" are indeed a heavily biased group and that's a major reason I have a difficult time accepting any of their opinions and/or interpretations. When confronted with a data set of 100 specimens, why throw away 50 and then proclaim that of the remaining 50, there's remarkable similarity!? At best, it's artificial data, at worst, well...it's academically dishonest and tantamount to hoaxing. And I certainly have zero regard for the opinions and views of people who simply recite the teachings of the BF-gurus without bothering to learn anything on their own. These people are simply fans and will very predictably defend the views of their heroes and continue to deny that anyone else has seriously paid attention to the data, unless of course they agree with the gurus.

Just my opinion though...as always...

 

[LAL]

Would it be better if I just call him a former pharmacist?

The specialist in primate foot anatomy actually said "Great work!" at the Bellingham conference (I hope I got the right conference that time) and shook his hand. But I doubt he knows how far things have gone since then.

I have nothing at all against amateurs. Melissa's an amateur. Her work is just as important as Matt's, IMO, but I don't see her getting carried around on anyone's shoulders. She did not get Matt's results. Looks like Matt didn't either, using OM soil.

 

[LAL]

Word.
You're 100% right on kitakaze!
But, that's what I've grown to expect from certain trolls.
They contribute nothing themsleves, endlessly repeat whatever their heros have spewed in the past, and virultently attack anyone who either knows more than them, or disagrees with their heros' views and words.

Well, you can't mean me, so I guess I won't get offended. You should read your own posts, however, particulary where I drove you out of teaching, as it were. You were much better a couple of years ago, although you scared the stuffing out of me at the time.

Now, where are you getting this 3-toed, 6-toed stuff? Honey Island was a hoax exposed by MK Davis. Dr. Krantz thought 4-toed prints just weren't showing the fifth toe because it was raised. Missing toes in an habitually barefooted biped doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I don't remember 6.

Below is Murphy's Gallery of Casts from Meet the Sasquatch. See 3 toes anywhere where the cast is complete? 6? The lower right is the one tube says has human dermals, the rock being a "nice touch". Got a statement from Chilcutt on that cast, tube?

 

[desertyeti]

I guess it's inevitable in these types of discussions but I want to emphatically point out the hazards of heralding/bemoaning someones wealth/lack of formal training or education when talking about bigfoot.

Very simply put, without anything substantial to offer as evidence to support BF's existence Ph.D's and amateurs aren't so far apart.

So far we've seen some stellar mistakes by the more educated and some great contributions by hobbyists.


Maybe tube has elsewhere earned some ire but I still think belittling his experimentations that he's sharing here as 'by a lampmaker' sucks.

Sorry, JMHO.

In the case of BF, I think it's actually the non-PhD's who are generating the most useful and promising data. Tube's work with pseudo-dermals is nothing short of extraordinary. Though he'll deny it out of modesty, his work has dealt a virtual death-blow to the myth of "dermatoglyphics" in BF prints. Dr. Grover Krantz was wrong. Dr. Jeff Meldrum was wrong. Officer James Chilcutt was wrong. That's amazing stuff really.

His newest research on the margins of tracks is similarly testable, quantifiable, and most importantly has immdeiate and direct application to anyone who's in the field and finds a print or trackway. Most PhD's look at "evidence" for BF, recognize one or two things they like or dislike about it and then set it aside and either share their knowledge and interpretations with no one, or else (like Krantz and possibly Meldrum), read too much into it, out of wishful thinking and go way too public way too soon.

Tube is a BF-hoaxer's worst nightmare (and also probably causes many pro-BF advocates to toss and turn a bit). He's not only scientific in his research: hypothesizing, testing, falsifying, and retesting, but he's also very articulate and shares freely of his on-going work. Except for lunatics who staunchly will continue to rant and rave about how BF "evidence" really is indicative of a living, breathing primate, the bulk of the population will see that Tube's utterly destroyed the foundation of modern BF "research" with a few very clever and very simple experiments.

Now, where are John Green's, Peter Byrne's, and Rick Noll's step-by-step explanations of why those BF tracks can not be forgeries? I won't hold my breath.

 

[LAL]

It's from Pennsylvania in the 1970's
John Green's got a photo of it in his bible "Apes Among Us."

<rest of opinionated claptrap snipped>

Got a page number? I have the new edition and I'm not finding it. It's not in any of my other books either.

By the jumping animal photo did you mean on pg. 121 of Meet the Sasquatch? I don't have Dahinden/Hunter on hand, but I'd like the page # for when I do.

I haven't seen proponents refer to St. David (Daegling) or refer to his book as holy writ. Strange how sceptics do stuff like that and then call proponents...............well, what you just called us and worse.

How do you think this furthers your case?

 

[kitakaze]

Anyone interested in a Tube vs Chilcutt battle royale. We don't have the popcorn munching emoticons here, do we?.

ETA: I wish we had a nice, concise 'why Chilcutt is wrong' thread for proponents to review.

 

[desertyeti]

I think that'd be GREAT t.v!
Maybe Mythbusters or some like show could set this up.
Easy enough to make a series of impressions, some with known dermatoglyphics, some with known casting artifacts, and then have the two of them sit down and go at it.
Tube doesn't even need to be there, since he's not the one making extraordinary claims about hairy giants. Just have Chilcutt sit and explain which (if any) are real, and which aren't. He's got an honest 50-50 chance at being correct!

 

[LAL]

In the case of BF, I think it's actually the non-PhD's who are generating the most useful and promising data. Tube's work with pseudo-dermals is nothing short of extraordinary. Though he'll deny it out of modesty, his work has dealt a virtual death-blow to the myth of "dermatoglyphics" in BF prints. Dr. Grover Krantz was wrong. Dr. Jeff Meldrum was wrong. Officer James Chilcutt was wrong. That's amazing stuff really.

Hold it right there.

Jeff experimented in his lab to see if those concentric lines could be from the pour. Another cast was found showing the same lines Chilcutt thought were dermals, but fainter, indicating they were present in the print and dusted by a passing vehicle.

The whole "wicking effect" thing is now in question. No Crowley ridges in OM soil, so now we use silica?

Melissa Hovey contacted manufacturers and soil experts, followed Matt's intructions on heating the water, but couldn't get the lines he seems to be able to produce almost at will. And yes, she sifted the soil as per Kathy Strain's instructions.

And then we go to bounding about on Alki Beach to show everything around Bluff Creek was hoaxed, presumably by poor, dead Ray Wallace. Geez.

Matt himself repeatedly warned people about taking his results beyond that particular cast. You just did that with your "myth of 'dermatoglyphics' " statement above. These weren't even noticed until 1982, were they? Characterististics of a living foot aren't limited to exceedingly rare patches of ridge detail.

John Green thought those "looping lines" were casting artifacts all along and wondered what caused them.

Chicutt noted artifacts on this cast:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/elkins.html

It was one of the ones in mud. Got "dessication ridges"?

You may sink to the level of Scott Herriott if you wish and call me a hero-worshipper, but I think when it comes to experimental method a few of the proponents are way ahead of their detractors.

It would be good to hear from Chilcutt himself. Matt and Melissa have both been in touch with him, but somehow we never seem to find out what he said.

 

[LAL]

Well, bigfoot must, right? Many proponents advocate the idea of sasquatches intentionally obscuring their tracks or going to lengths to avoid making them (if not altogether successfull). Is this not what the SC is all about?

No. That was an MM idea. The animal may have just squashed footprints when it sat. The mudhole was surrounded by hard ground.

Bryne thought they might hide their tracks. But he also pointed out how difficult it is to track anything in club moss, salal and Oregon grape. They spring back. (I know. I lived with it.)

Krantz saw signs of a territorial dispute that led him to believe prints might be deliberately left to announce an individual's presence.

Since then, wild chimpanzees have been observed deliberately leaving tracks for the troop to follow. Dogs seem aware of their tracks too.

Do most/many anecdotes/reports of BF snow tracks indicate that they were making the tracks in a begrudging or reluctant fashion or made attempts (even poor) to obsure them? One would think this would certainly be more apparent in less remote areas. Not the most original question but a valid one nonetheless.

No, they just seem to stride right along.

 

[LAL]

LAL, to be fair I'm sure it's reasonable to assume that an area with 'history' in no way dictates a BF to be present. Just how open was the area?

I'm taking the small liberty of bolding the parts of your quotes that I think the more incredulous might predictably pick upon.

It's open farm and ranchland in the east end of the Columbia Gorge. The Columbia cuts through the Cascade Crest and The Dalles is on the dry side east of the Cascades. There's another rng further east. Th area reminds me of photos of Pine Ridge reservation where there may be current activity. I suspect individuals in such an environment are just passing through. It would be a hard place to make a living.

If this trackway had shown up as an isolated incident I might have been less impressed. The elderly couple were quite sincere and only wanted to know what caused the trackway. To my knowlege, these pictures have never been published.

There've been a number of reports of them being on and around farms, from the Chapman report to these Jeff cast and photographed:

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

In one case, potatoes in the field were crushed.

 

[kitakaze]

No. That was an MM idea. The animal may have just squashed footprints when it sat. The mudhole was surrounded by hard ground.

Really? Huh. I knew the ground was hard but I thought the whole thing was supposed to be a hypothetical avoidance of track making. Dang that MM getting people mixed up. I've gotta go back and get a look at what was being claimed as possible track finds from the area.

Bryne thought they might hide their tracks. But he also pointed out how difficult it is to track anything in club moss, salal and Oregon grape. They spring back. (I know. I lived with it.)

He always was the eccentric one.

Krantz saw signs of a territorial dispute that led him to believe prints might be deliberately left to announce an individual's presence.

Since then, wild chimpanzees have been observed deliberately leaving tracks for the troop to follow. Dogs seem aware of their tracks too.

Do you suppose they would recognize human tracks as different? Do any proponents suggest scent marking (I don't mean the fear response pheromone thing)?

No, they just seem to stride right along.

Is this the general concensus (at least among the more knowedgable)?

 

[LAL]

Really? Huh. I knew the ground was hard but I thought the whole thing was supposed to be a hypothetical avoidance of track making. Dang that MM getting people mixed up. I've gotta go back and get a look at what was being claimed as possible track finds from the area.

Check the leaves and detrius. Skamania isn't called "place of many rocks" for nothing. It's difficult to leave tracks. The only ones I ever found were on a new skid road, the drive or in snow (wolverine, cougar, raccoon, coyote and a few deer).

The mudhole was right by a road.

He always was the eccentric one.Do you suppose they would recognize human tracks as different?

I don't know. They wouldn't look or smell right even if the human was unshod.

I liked Peter. He seemed really "normal". Of course there are things I disagree with now, but I didn't know about them when I met him.

Do any proponents suggest scent marking (I don't mean the fear response pheromone thing)?Is this the general concensus (at least among the more knowedgable)?

Not that I know of; tree-twisting may be more likely. I'm not finding anything on scent marking in higher primates. It seems to be a big thing with lemurs and some monkeys, though.

 

[LAL]

Did you see Crypto - Hominology 2? (The file's too big to upload.)

http://www.thothweb.com/sections-viewarticle-240.html

The report from Fish, Noll and Randalls is on page 92. There are some good pictures, including one that shows location and scale of the mudhole. The shot of the forest should give an idea of how easy it is to be "elusive" in that terrain.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Did you see Crypto - Hominology 2? (The file's too big to upload.)

http://www.thothweb.com/sections-viewarticle-240.html

The report from Fish, Noll and Randalls is on page 92. There are some good pictures, including one that shows location and scale of the mudhole. The shot of the forest should give an idea of how easy it is to be "elusive" in that terrain.

Any pictures of the impression site before it was baited ?