Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

It costs nothing to post on Bigfoot Forums, JREF, or various other places. He knows full well about the desiccation ridge phenomenon, yet we see no written public rebuttal, formal or informal.

Nor retraction. You haven't told us much about the phone conversations, either. What did he have to say about the ridges not appearing in actual Onion Mountain soil? Or have you managed to get that effect now? If so, why would you use silica?

Have any actual scientists examined your experimental methods? Are they replicable?

 

[tube]

This reminds me of something...

A lot of posts ago someone used the following reasoning:

"There are no footprints from werewolves"

Or something like that...

Guess what?

http://www.prairieghosts.com/werewolves.html

Sightings and footprints!

Shall we suggest a werewolf research project funded by the government?

Werewolves? Meh...

15 foot penguins are where it's at:

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/florida giant penguin hoax.htm

 

[Correa Neto]

There are a very few bear fossils, but bears utilize caves whereas Sasquatches apparently do not.

Here we go again... There's no need for the animal whose bones will be preserved at a cave to have ever utilized the cave when alive.
From post 139 at this very thread:

a) Animal dies for some reason at a forest. It rains, surficial run of water carries the carcass (usually parts of it) to a cave, calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
b) Animal dies for some reason at a forest. Scavengers carry the carcass (usually parts of it) to a cave. Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
c) Predator kills animal at a forest and carries the carcass (or parts of it) to a cave. Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.
d) Animal enters cave looking for shelter or water and dies there (it may be wounded, sick, weak, was lost inside the cave, broke a limb after falling, etc.). Calcium carbonates or sediments carried by water do the preservation trick.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2220603&postcount=139

Remember how the remains of Gigantopithecus may have been carried to tha cave? Similar circunstances are present in other fossil examples, African hominds included.

If Sasquatches were a late Pleistocene arrival, any bones left might not have had time to fossilize.

Then you could have non-mineralized bones... As Desert Yeti pointed out, fossilization happens at different paces and is composed by a number of processes. May take just some years or thousands of years. Some remains are thousands of years old and no substitution happened at all. For example, at Patagonia, a piece of mylodon skin and dung were found at a cave -good enough to obtain DNA profiling.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v26n1/a02v26n1.pdf
I haven't read the whole paper yet. The mylodon DNA profiling is actually at a citation (Höss et al. 1996).
Links to the paper:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/1/181

OT note: IIRC some ground sloth dung was found at an USA cave (gypsum cave?). Not enough time to google for confirmation, might be some other mineral name or some other completely different name...

Remember also the recent works with neanderthal DNA.

Why are there no Gorilla fossils? Only three Chimpanzee teeth? Why did it take the Leakey's thirty years to find the first hominid fossils in an area that was fossil-rich?

In another debate we found quite a few fossil beds and a non forest-dweller under Sea-Tac, but none were of the right age or environment.

As I said before, you can keep presenting reasons to explain why there are no bigfoot fossil remains and I can keep on explaining why there could be.

However, this will not change the fact that the fossil register does not back the claim of a North-American giant bipedal ape that coehxists(ed) with humans.

Oh, just found this:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/susy_files/cote_2004.pdf
Possible gorilla fossil (canine tooth) at Uganda (Nkondo, 5-6Ma).

Yes, they are very rare (the paper states this clearly). But they have been found.

No, I have not read the whole paper yet. Got too much work-related stuff to read first...

Daegling found a bear skull, but it was in eastern Washington where elk bones lie in piles. In wet western Washington you pretty much find zip.Two Red Panda teeth have been found in NA. Where are all the rest?

Red pandas are forest-dwelling critters, aren't they?

Scientists discovered for the first time fossils of red panda in North America in 1977 based on an upper right first molar aged 3-4 millions (early Blancan of Pliocene) in Taunton Local Fauna of the Ringold Formation (Washington state). The species was named Pristinailurus bristoli.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Red-Panda-Discovered-in-North-America-36383.shtml
Forest-dwelling and from Washington state...
OK, its not Pleistocene, but shows a forest-dwelling animal at PNW had its remains preserved. Just like mountain goats (rememebr the Academic Google link I posted?). And that the remains of forest-dwelling animals may be preserved. And later found.

Again,

As I said before, you can keep presenting reasons to explain why there are no bigfoot fossil remains and I can keep on explaining why there could be. However, this will not change the fact that the fossil register does not back the claim of a North-American giant bipedal ape that coehxists(ed) with humans.

A template for the myth if it was brought from Asia with the ancestors of the current Native American populations? Maybe.

But the actual animal? No backing.

 

[Huntster]

Many, many, MANY fossils of Pleistocene and Quaternary mammals from mice to mammoths to humans, are known from cave deposits and alluvium in the Rocky Mountain region, as well as the Pacific Northwest, but no giant ape-men.

Human fossils? In the Rockies?

Linky please?

It is a myth that fossils are very rare in these deposits.
On to the next urban legend...

We're not finished with this one.

Linky please?

 

[Huntster]

I've been lurking on this forum for the last week, and this paragraph raises a question that I've been thinking about. If the secondary evidence (footprints, eye witness testimony) is compelling enough for some to conclude that bigfoot does exist in the Pacific Northwest, then what do we do with all the sightings in less remote areas in the East? The BFRO website, for example, lists 34 sightings in New Jersey -- the most densely populated state. Are such eastern sightings of such poor quality that we can discount them, or does bigfoot live in the East too?....

Glickman accounted for them:

The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation
between population density and frequency: the Group
A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B
correlation of +0.1244.
A second relationship in the clustered data is the correlation
between population and frequency. When Group A
is separated from the dataset, its correlation to population
rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664.
Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation
to population density. This is consistent with the
model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1).
uniformly
distributed across the population. If the rate of
manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of
reports should correlate to population. To some degree,
this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified
influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot,
which may influence the density of manufacturing.The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent
different phenomenon. Group B may represent
manufactured reports because of the correlation to population,
whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon
because of its correlation to population
density. The author hypothesizes that if Green’s data is
the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the
expected result.

 

[drapier]

Thanks for the reference, Huntster. I'll try to read the entire essay this weekend. The passage you have quoted seems to be obscure. Is it saying that with an increase in population density we are to expect an increase in (possibly erroneous?) sighting reports? Thanks.

Drapier

:

 

[Huntster]

Thanks for the reference, Huntster. I'll try to read the entire essay this weekend. The passage you have quoted seems to be obscure. Is it saying that with an increase in population density we are to expect an increase in (possibly erroneous?) sighting reports? ....

With a decrease of potential habitat, an increase in mass media sasquatch exposure, and many people to influence, a measure of imagined or manufactured reports should be expected.

Consider this:

I had compared sasquatch reports on Prince of Wales Island in SE Alaska to Kodiak Island. Both islands are large (#2 and #3 largest under the U.S. flag), both islands have significant salmon runs, have a similar population, and that population is predominately native.

POW Island is densely forested, has a very high density of sasquatch reports, as well as native lore about them, has no brown bears at all, and has one of the highest black bear densities in North America.

Kodiak Island is not densely forested, has one of the highest brown bear densities on Earth, has no black bears at all, has no sasquatch reports, and no native sasquatch lore.

I still await a "skeptic" to explain why all those things are true.

 

[tube]

Jeff Meldrum mentions John Green's $100,000 reward on page 67 of his new book. In addition, he repeats Green's claims about some of the Bluff Creek tracks he studied.

Regarding strapping on fake feet and bounding down the road, Meldrum writes;

"Of course, even if it could be accomplished on a level road, this method could definitely not account for the tracks that marched up and down steep hillsides, presumably in the dark of night. John Greek investigated a long line of tracks that generally followed a roadbed while meandering up and down the steep brush-covered banks along the toad. The tracks Crew witnessed approached the construction site straight down a steep incline of about 75 degrees"

75 degrees! Fantastic!

I don't have the text in front of me to quote, but Daegling answered Green's reward offer by noting that these fantastic claims of superhuman trackmaking simply weren't documented, and remain anecdotal. Since Meldrum's book is following on the heels of Daegling's, it would seem to be a great opportunity to present the definitive photographic evidence that shows the allegedly superhuman activities of the Bluff Creek trackmaker. If such photographs existed, you would think Green and Meldrum would be licking their chops, just waiting to publish the photos that would really rub the "scoftics" noses in it.

Well, they aren't in Meldrum's book. In fact nearly every track photo in his book is of tracks on muddy, dusty, or sandy, relatively flat surfaces. There are NO photos of Bluff Creek tracks on 75 degree inclines.

Now it should be noted that just because the evidence is anecdotal, does not mean it is wrong. I am not saying Green is wrong. But I am saying that it appears that there are no photos of these superhuman Bluff Creek trackways, because if there were, I suspect we would see them by now.

 

[William Parcher]

The title of his book should have been Sasquatch: Legend Meets Meldrum.

 

[carcharodon]

If footprints and sightings are compelling enough for anybody, then they should also be seriously looking for Elvis, fairies, vampires, and werewolves.

What utter utter nonsense. Since when is there a long history of consistently persuasive cataloguing and examination of footprints and sightings up to the present day of werewolves, fairies and vampires?

Childish and bullspit statments like this do this debate no favours.

Grow up Desert Yeti. Since when are eminent scientists seriously looking into vampires,werewolves and fairies????????

 

[carcharodon]

As for you considering Tube's background 'interesting', IMO the word for that is 'gossip'.

What's wrong with gossip? Is it illegal here? Diogenes liked to gossip about Sweaty Yeti's suspension over on BBF. I don't hear any of you people complaining about that. Someone else here (might have been Desert Yeti or Tube) gossiped about Rick Noll taking his toys home with him.

I didn't see you reproaching them.

 

[carcharodon]

Since LAL and Charcharodon have been such vocal proponents of the reality of BF and its prints, might they consider being the first to evaluate my simple little experiment?

Both obviosuly consider themselves to be somewhat skilled at recognizing real and forged prints simply from photos (see their comments on Tube's work above),

What the hell are you babbling on about now? Since when did I ever proclaim any particular and specific print to be real by looking at a photo of said track? Can you put your money where your mouth is and please direct me to any post where I have said as much?? Can you do that for me?? Which tracks have I insisted were real based on the tracks and tracks alone and which specific tracks have I defended to the hilt as being the real deal based on my own personal examination of a photo?

This is not your way or wriggling away from the idea of considering how to grab that $100,000 and passing the buck is it?

(see their comments on Tube's work above)

My comments about tube are not ME vs tube, but Krantz, Meldrum, Chillcutt et al against tube. I simply wondered the open question why we should take his word over the likes of Krantz, Meldrum and Chillcut.

(see their comments on Tube's work above)

What specific comments did I make about 'Tube's work' then? Can you enlighten us all? I have made no remarks about tube's work except to find it interesting to hear that he is a lamp maker. That was all.

For crying out loud Desert Yeti, are you actually able to decipher which poster you are supposed to be replying to? You seem to have me confused with somebody else. Where did you get educated? The School Of Complete Bollocks?

 

[carcharodon]

Charchy's missed the point again.
By clinging to the misguided idea that "experts (like Meldrum, Chilcutt, etc.) can't be wrong,"

More bullspit from the increasingly libelous Desert Yeti. Since when have I ever professed Meldrum and Chillcutt can't be wrong? Links to my previous posts please. I have even stated in the past that I'm sure they can be wrong sometimes.

he's ignoring the fact that hundreds of other experts have said that Meldrum, Chilcutt, and their ilk are wrong.

Did I? I have barely even talked about Meldrum and Chillcutt here.

Want to root for the underdog? Fine. Tube's the only one doing experiments (science) to test ideas.

Has he written a peer reviewable paper on the conclusions of those tests? If there is a rule for one, and all that...............................!

And as always, keep in mind, Meldrum, Chilcutt, Green, Noll, and Krantz are not and were not specialists in ichnology, and had little or no experience with animal-sediment interactions. Some "experts." And none are in relevent fields...sorry Charchy...you're wrong again.

When was I wrong the first time?

Tube is quickly defining himself as an experimental ichnologist and in my opinion (for what it's worth),

Your opinion isn't worth much in this regard.

is far more informed and intuitive about how organisms interact with substrate than any of the BF-gurus I've spoken with or heard from.

Well you would say that wouldn't you? Because what he says is what YOU want to hear. Can I say hero worship? You are no better than the people you clearly despise.

 

[carcharodon]

"" The only grass seems to be dead. The green stuff is mostly club moss."

And mostly missing in the body of the print...

.....as well as most of the area in the photo.

How does that happen ?

How does what happen? That there isn't much club moss over all that area (including the print) anyway?

Does Bigfoot clear an area before it leaves a print?

LOL.

By the way, if you look, you can see a line of cleared area from bottom right to top left. Looks to me like the print is in the same line as this cleared area. It follows it. Not sure what that means, but it seems to be there.

 

[kitakaze]

What utter utter nonsense... ...Childish and bullspit statments like this do this debate no favours.

Grow up Desert Yeti.

What the hell are you babbling on about now?... ...For crying out loud Desert Yeti,... ...Where did you get educated? The School Of Complete Bollocks?

More bullspit from the increasingly libelous Desert Yeti... ...You are no better than the people you clearly despise.

I'm not defending DY or making any disagreements with you at the moment but may I suggest on this internet forum you dial it down a notch and relax, carcharodon? Enjoy the debate, get into it, state your opinions vigourously but there's no need to get too worked up, is there? Huntster may have to start charging a 'bullspit' user fee.

 

[carcharodon]

I'm not defending DY or making any disagreements with you at the moment but may I suggest on this internet forum you dial it down a notch and relax, carcharodon? Enjoy the debate, get into it, state your opinions vigourously but there's no need to get too worked up, is there? Huntster may have to start charging a 'bullspit' user fee.

Relax? LOL, I am relaxed. The above is nothing. No name calling is there?

May I suggest that as well as giving me some free advice you also advise Destert Yeti to read people's posts properly before accusing them of things they haven't written or done???

Let's have some consistency here Kitakaze. You pull me up on 'gossip' yet ignore Diogenese and DY/tube. Now this. It would help if you don't play favourites.

Cheers.

 

[kitakaze]

Let's have some consistency here Kitakaze. You pull me up on 'gossip' yet ignore Diogenese and DY/tube. Now this. It would help if you don't play favourites.

Cheers.

*sigh* Yes, carcharodon Diogenes should surely be admonished for this post:

Nice post CoolYeti .. Now everyone can see why you got banned over at BFF..

No substance, just ad hom and childish badgering...


They are a little more tolerant of such behaviour here.. Too bad..

...OK, uh Diogenes- No pointing out a member's been banned on another board after they begin badgering you incessantly on this board.

Now, maybe you might be so kind, carcharodon, as to point me to where either lampmaker Tube or babbling, libelous Desert Yeti was engaging in gossip concerning Noll and his toys so that I may similarly show disaproval. Surely out of those three people you listed it wasn't only Diogenes you were sure of, right?

 

[Correa Neto]

Werewolves? Meh...

15 foot penguins are where it's at:

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/florida giant penguin hoax.htm

Hehehehe... Glad you took this of the hat!

Two interesting points triggered by the link:

First, I've read some times that skeptics tend to overtsate hoaxer's creativity, skills and determination. Suppoose the guy never showed himself up. If a skeptic suggested those tracks could be made by someone who walked two miles using fakefeet made of cast iron arriving at the beach by boat at night, what would be the readtion of some "giant penguins are real" defenders?

Second, why Sanderson decided by a giant penguin, since the fakefeet were made based on recently-found dinosaur tracks? I can see two reasons, first the fact that ocean is not exacatly a good habitat for a dinosaur (sorry, godzilla) and second, everibody knew by then that dinosaurs were tail-draggers, and since there was no tail marks... Now, what if Sanderson decided that the prints were from a theropod dinosaur, since the recently-found dino tracks showed no signs of a trailing tail? The defenders of the "Clearwater theropod is real" claim would use the following reasoning: They were not hoaxed, by that time people thought dinosaurs were trail-draggers and the hoaxer would make the impression of a tail, but there is none, just the footprints, just like the real tracks and consistent with the current theropod reconstructions!

The conclusions are:
1) Never understimate the skills, creativity and will of a hoaxer. Amazing things can be produced, intentionally or not.
2) Never understimate the potential of someone being mistaken or hoaxed.

One last thing:

Regarding Desert Yeti's paper, its actually an opportunity for Meldrum. When one publishes a paper at a journal, whoever feels somehow affected by its conclusions (say, researcher A published a paper with conclusions different from those obtained by researcher B) has the right to publish a discussion. This discussion is published quite quickly (review process is much faster than the initial paper), followed by a reply by Author A. So, Meldrum (and anyone else who feels Desert Yeti's work is flawed) has a shortcut to publish a peer-reviewed article exposing all his arguments on why Skookum cast was made by a bigfoot and not by an elk.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

*sigh* Yes, carcharodon Diogenes should surely be admonished for this post:

Diogenes wrote:

Nice post CoolYeti .. Now everyone can see why you got banned over at BFF..

No substance, just ad hom and childish badgering...


They are a little more tolerant of such behaviour here.. Too bad..

...OK, uh Diogenes- No pointing out a member's been banned on another board after they begin badgering you incessantly on this board.

Diogenes shouldn't be admonished for mentioning my banishment....forever....and a day....until the END of time ....from the BFF. It's a simple fact. I don't mind it being mentioned.
What he should be admonished for is ignoring questions....and refusing to elaborate on and explain what he says in his posts....because that's NOT how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.
It's how they play games.

 

[Huntster]

.... Huntster may have to start charging a 'bullspit' user fee.

I hate bullspit.

And, unfortunately, there's a lot of it on this forum............