Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Correa Neto]

There were reported sightings of a 12' penguin-like bird in the area. Tracks were found on a beach and the team put 2 + 2 together and got 5.

In other words, Sanderson used unreliable evidence (footprints and sighting reports) and uderstimated the hoaxer's skills, creativity and will. The result: an error.

Exactly my point. A good example of what happens when one use unreliable data and also of how unreliable footprints of uncertain origin and sighting reports are.

Never mind all the rest of Sanderson's work. This one blunder puts him on the s***list forever. Be sure to ignore the fact that he exposed the Jersey Devil (winged variety) real estate hoax.

LAL, I am really not interested, at this point, to discuss the rest of his work. The original post (no. 358 at this thread) intended to show that one must:

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.

Make no mistake: whoever backs his/hers claim on the reality of cryptids with sighting reports and footprints and underestimates the hoaxers and the potential that all of have to be mistaken or hoaxed can -IMHO will- make similar errors.

I agree. Meldrum's the one who cleaned the cast. According to the report by Fish, Randalls and Noll, there's unpublished data. It would be good to see it published.

But I would like to see the discussion published in a national magazine as well rather than just in an obscure little journal with a hefty price tag.
...snip...

Why Meldrum et al. never gathered all the evidence (unpublished data included) and submitted a paper to Nature or some primatology or mammalogy journal? They are not "obscure little journals"...

Why only a paper at PEAR's obscure little journal?

Now they may have a chance for publishing something at a peer-reviewed journal (thanks to a skeptic - Oh, the irony!), if Desert Yeti's paper is accepted.

Let's wait see what they have. Hopefully it will not be backed by a collection of sighting reports, a film that may be a fraud and casts of impressions that may have been mistaken identification and hoaxes. Otherwise, the shadow of Sanderson's giant penguin will be lingering over their work.

This will probably be my last post for the next 5 days or so, due to work schedule. Enjoy.

 

[LAL]

In other words, Sanderson used unreliable evidence (footprints and sighting reports) and uderstimated the hoaxer's skills, creativity and will. The result: an error.

I'm certain they learned from it.

Exactly my point. A good example of what happens when one use unreliable data and also of how unreliable footprints of uncertain origin and sighting reports are.

Some are. That's why efforts are made to investigate them.

LAL, I am really not interested, at this point, to discuss the rest of his work.

Nor am I. I doubt you would know anything about it. If you make a mistake in your line of work, are you discredited forever? Do people laugh at you on message boards? Will they still be laughing 30+ years after your death?

Make no mistake: whoever backs his/hers claim on the reality of cryptids with sighting reports and footprints and underestimates the hoaxers and the potential that all of have to be mistaken or hoaxed can -IMHO will- make similar errors.

You greatly overestimate the hoaxers.

Why Meldrum et al. never gathered all the evidence (unpublished data included) and submitted a paper to Nature or some primatology or mammalogy journal? They are not "obscure little journals"...

Why only a paper at PEAR's obscure little journal?

PEAR? Swindler and Meldrum submitted a paper to AAAS.

Now they may have a chance for publishing something at a peer-reviewed journal (thanks to a skeptic - Oh, the irony!), if Desert Yeti's paper is accepted.

I hope they do. It looked like Rick Noll tore his analysis to shreds on BFF. Did that have anything to do with DY not wanting to examine the original?

Let's wait see what they have. Hopefully it will not be backed by a collection of sighting reports, a film that may be a fraud and casts of impressions that may have been mistaken identification and hoaxes. Otherwise, the shadow of Sanderson's giant penguin will be lingering over their work.

As if any of that has anything to do with the Skookum Cast.

Saying something's a fraud, misidentification or hoax doesn't make it so. Prove it.

This will probably be my last post for the next 5 days or so, due to work schedule. Enjoy.

I just lost my answer to your post above on fossils while checking your link on Mountain Goats. I'm glad there's no hurry about reconstructing it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I hope they do. It looked like Rick Noll tore his analysis to shreds on BFF.

You keep repeating that as if it will become true somehow...


Has Rick submitted a paper we don't know about ?

 

[RayG]

Has Rick submitted a paper we don't know about ?

Haven't you heard? Rick took his videos, tools, papers, toys, etc. and went home.

Sheesh, and you probably think of yourself as well-informed...

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Haven't you heard? Rick took his videos, tools, papers, toys, etc. and went home.

RayG

Yeah, I think I was one of the needlers ..

needler = asks pertinent questions that one doesn't have an answer for ..

 

[Huntster]

.....Rare bear fossils, OK, but they do exist.

There are many thousands of bears running around the continent today. Well over 150,000 in Alaska alone.

And just a few fossils.

Imagine that.

Imagine if there were just a few bears......................

 

[RayG]

I'm not going to bother posting links because you were in some of those discussions as were others I've named.

You don't hesitate to point the finger at a handful of people and classify them as guilty, yet you're unwilling or unable to provide the proper sources to support your verdict? You aren't embellishing are you? (Nice to see you refer to them as discussions, others were not so generous).

Your needling has already been pointed out to you.

By who, you? When? On what occasion? Can you provide quotes of any of these needling statements of mine? I have asked a great number of questions of a great number of people in my lifetime. Some people get offended, most don't. A small number, like Rick, take their toys and go home when the questions are not to their liking.

You said it was unfair to trolls. Was that the retraction you mean?

Yes, and it WAS unfair to trolls.

I find the above comments extremely offensive -" your bandwagon buddies (the ones that seem to think Rick's poo don't stink, he walks on water, he's the great and almighty guru of bigfoot knowledge)" - and are precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Can you expand upon that? Personally, I don't know anyone in all of bigfootdom that walks on water, that holds the key to all knowledge of bigfoot, or whose poo doesn't stink. If you know of evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us.

If you mean the thread I started on his departure, it started out civilly enough, but I expected it to be closed much sooner than it was. I came out of the woodwork once again after people started calling it a wake and Paul made his "toys" remark. The thread was closed immediately thereafter. I was expecting a warning. I barely post on BFF anymore, but I still get PMs and e-mails from a couple of the mods. One apologized.

Your thread came off as an enormous appeal to pity for Rick's departure. He wasn't run off, banned, or had his membership revoked. He left of his own free will, under his own steam, and for his own reasons. An amazing lack of self-control was demonstrated in that thread by a number of people wanting to tar and feather those they felt responsible for Rick's departure. This is bigfoot we're talking about for cripes sake, not the death of a spouse, parent, or loved one.

I guess it depends on which side you're on as to which one seems to be doing the most ridiculing and name calling. Apeman called the Official Skookum Cast thread "abusive"(to DY), but it looked to me like the abuse was coming from the elk-lay supporters.

To effectively debate there shouldn't be any name-calling or insulting, regardless of which side is doing it. If some folks get a little too emotional, they may leave in a huff instead of answering questions. If some folks continually present grammatically ambiguous statement/questions, and are unwilling to present them in a way that is NOT grammatically ambiguous, then we should question whether they're truly trying to engage in effective debate, or if they're just trying to be disruptive.

In some cases a label applied to someone is an accurate description of that person's behavior. If someone steals money from someone else, calling them a 'thief' would not be an inaccurate label. People are labeled 'junkies' or 'addicts' for similar reasons.

I think this who-called-whom-what as been done about to death now. Can we move on?

Sure, fine by me. I'll treat your lack of sources as your apology for being mistaken, and carry on as if I were normal.

If not, there's plenty of room left on my filter list.

If you're going to treat any question of Rick Noll's (or Dr. Krantz/Meldrum's) research as an attack, and defend your arguments with emotion instead of reasoning, then you may as well add me to the list, because you're not really interested in debate.

RayG

 

[LAL]

If you're going to treat any question of Rick Noll's (or Dr. Krantz/Meldrum's) research as an attack, and defend your arguments with emotion instead of reasoning, then you may as well add me to the list, because you're not really interested in debate.
RayG

I should have done it long ago.

Having respect for those who actually get off their duffs and do the work is not hero-worship. Rick himself told you when he'd had enough.

I've corrected him; didn't you see that? I just e-mailed Jeff about an apparent mistake in the book.

I have enough to do without doing searches for you. Look up the posts of those I've mentioned and your own on BFF; I've already pointed you to the threads. It appears that some of you would just as soon play Shoot the Messenger with a real gun.

I am currently finding support for my arguments from mountain goats and I'm not in the least emotional about them.

I have learned that trying to reason with a sceptic is usually an exercise in futility; you've taught me that much.

You're filtered.

 

[LAL]

There are many thousands of bears running around the continent today. Well over 150,000 in Alaska alone.

And just a few fossils.

Imagine that.

Imagine if there were just a few bears......................

True.

Mountain Goats show little resemblance to their Asian and European relatives.

"The lineage of the Mountain Goat is obscure because glaciation and erosion in steep mountains have destroyed any previously existing goat fossils".

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/mtngoat.pdf

I don't think seasonal browsing at timberline or treks through forests to licks make them forest dwellers any more than occasional walks across farms make Bigfeet farmers, do you?

So, how many fossils of other late Pleistocene arrivals might have been pulverized?

"Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record. Most marine species are soft-bodied, or have thin organic cuticles, and are essentially unpreservable except under the most extraordinary conditions. Furthermore, the destructive processes active in most marine environments prevent the preservation of even shelled organisms under normal conditions. Preservational opportunities are even more limited in the terrestrial environment. Most fossil vertebrate species are represented by no more than a few fragmentary remains. Because of the preservational biases of the fossil record, paleontologists must reconstruct evolutionary relationships from isolated branches of an originally very bushy tree."

And:

"What then is the nature of the fossil record? It can be confidently stated that only a very small fraction of the species that once lived on Earth has been preserved in the rock record and subsequently discovered and described by science. Our knowledge of the history of life can be put into perspective by a comparison with our knowledge of living organisms. About 1.5 million living species have been described by biologists, while paleontologists have catalogued only about 250,000 fossil species representing over 540 million years of Earth history (Erwin, 1993)! Why such a poor record?"

And:

"The limitations of the vertebrate fossil record can be easily illustrated. The famous fossil Archaeopteryx, occurring in a rock unit renowned for its fossil preservation, is represented by only seven known specimens, of which only two are essentially complete. Considering how many individuals of this genus probably lived and died over the thousands or millions of years of its existence, these few known specimens give some feeling for how few individuals are actually preserved as fossils and subsequently discovered. Yet this example actually represents an unusual wealth of material. The great majority of fossil vertebrate species are represented by only very fragmentary remains, and many are described on the basis of single specimens or from single localities. Complete skeletons are exceptionally rare. For many fossil taxa, particularly small mammals, the only fossils are teeth and jaw fragments. If so many fossil vertebrate species are represented by single specimens, the number of completely unknown species must be enormous!

In addition to these preservational biases, the erosion, deformation, and metamorphism of originally fossiliferous sedimentary rocks have eliminated significant portions of the fossil record over geologic time. Furthermore, much of the fossil-bearing sedimentary record is hidden in the subsurface, or located in poorly accessible or little studied geographic areas. For these reasons, of those once living species actually preserved in the fossil record, only a small portion has been discovered and described by science."

http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html

It's not surprising there are no known Sasquatch fossils. It would be surprising if there were!

 

[carcharodon]

Yeah...some guy could have easily done that. First...you take the wolf's dna, and you sort of mash it up into a kindof a powder.....and....ummm....well....I'll get back to you on the rest of the process later.

There is no REAL discussion of "werewolf evidence", because there is either no, or precious little, evidence of werewolve's existence out there.

On the other hand...there is plenty of evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

Quite Sweaty Yeti. Just goes to show how deluded some people here are to even suggest there is a parallel. I've heard more than one person around here spout this nonsense.

P.S) Kitekaze....LOOK, LOOK. Even more 'gossip' here about Rick Noll. Your knickers should be getting even more twisted by now LOL.

 

[RayG]

If you're going to treat any question of Rick Noll's (or Dr. Krantz/Meldrum's) research as an attack, and defend your arguments with emotion instead of reasoning, then you may as well add me to the list, because you're not really interested in debate.

RayG

You're filtered.

It appears (to me anyway) instead of trying to engage in useful debate, LAL has taken her toys and gone home. Surprise, surprise.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
....because that's NOT how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.

Can you elaborate, I want to ensure I understand that you understand how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.

Examples perhaps.

Here is a more complete version of my statement.....

...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.

Think about it, Ray.....it's a pretty simple thing.

A discussion board exists for the purpose of intelligently, honestly...and thoroughly...discussing a subject.
That's the only way it can serve any USEFUL purpose.

To do that, questions NEED to be answered...and statements NEED to be explained and elaborated on.
People who refuse to do so are playing games. They are not interested in contributing to a discussion in a positive way...to achieving some understanding and agreement on an issue.

Look at Greg's posts....they're typically very short. He doesn't care to expound on anything.....because he's simply not interested in a thorough, intelligent discussion, concerning Bigfoot evidence.
He IS interested in "one-liners".....which serve NO useful purpose whatsoever.

And as for you, Ray.....

I had made a statement on the BFF that if Bigfoot is real, it's definitely a primate....it's a fact.
You objected to my statement...and when I asked you what other type of animal it could POSSIBLY be....you tried to avoid answering the question.
I asked you about 6 times before you posted pictures of bearpaw prints, as some kind of an answer to the question.

WHY did you refuse to answer the question after it was asked of you one or two times....or 3 times?

WHY did you post the definition of the word "claim" and say that "TECHNICALLY speaking, I don't have to answer that question...because I never made a "claim"."

Were you interested in contributing to an understanding of what type of animal Bigfoot might actually be...or were you simply refuting my statement for the sake of SKEPTICISM itself?
"Just playing games here, folks!"

Here are more examples of statements by skeptics which reek of "intellectual dishonesty".......
Volsquatch, on the BFF....
"Patty should NEVER be compared to any hollywood suits from 60's".
Diogenes....
"....it indicates varying "degrees of possibility."
(Which is similar to what a famous Stooge once said, when asked by Moe..."How can there be a Bear down there?"
Curly said....."It's bearly possible." )
And another one from Greg....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.........................

It's not surprising there are no known Sasquatch fossils. It would be surprising if there were!

I'll say !

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

It appears (to me anyway) instead of trying to engage in useful debate, LAL has taken her toys and gone home.

Actually, Ray...she's just tuning you out.

Lu isn't going anywhere.

In sharp contrast to Greg's short posts.....Lu's posts are typically lengthy...and include lots of information, with links.
That's because she's interested in contributing to an understanding on whatever's being discussed.


To see a fresh example of one of Greg's short and pointless posts....look right above this one.

To see a good example of one of Lu's informative posts with links....see post 389.

 

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:

Quite Sweaty Yeti. Just goes to show how deluded some people here are to even suggest there is a parallel. I've heard more than one person around here spout this nonsense.

You got it, carch.......skeptics do spout nonsense!

 

[tube]

Since this thread is ostensibly about differentiating "real" tracks from fake tracks, I thought I'd try to stay on topic.

Some time back Rick Noll graciously gave me a copy of one of the casts made by Deputy Sheriff Dennis Heryford from a trackway found in Grays Harbor County, Washington in 1982. Personally, the shape of the foot looks "good" to me, i.e. on an esthetic level certainly embodies many of the compound curves of a human foot, especially in the toes. I understand this particular cast has always been held up as one of the better examples of a track find.

I was kind of surprised to finally see photographs of the trackway from which it came. In Jeff Meldrum's new book he prints four photos of the tracks on page 222. The one I'm reproducing here seems to show a sort of baby-step gait, a strangely disproportionate ratio of stride length to foot length.

In fact I'm reminded of Grover Krantz own "clod hopper" tests with heavy, clunky wood prosthetics from page 45 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. It's obvious Grover is not bounding along with great stride lengths.

Heryford trackway; good looking foot, strange stride.

 

[tube]

It's going to be hard to see this from the photos I'm uploading, as I'm photographing black and white prints from a book. But for those who own a copy of Grover's book, I implore you to take a look for yourself on pages 44 and 45.

We have three tracks in the photo on page 45, two rights and a left. The rearmost right is a little broken up. The lead right track shows a scalloped anterior margin at grade, which matches the scalloped right fake foot shown on page 44. The middle track on page 45 is the left foot, and shows a "monolithic margin", at least for the four "little" toes. It matches the monolithic margin of his left prosthetic.

A lot of this stuff really is as simple as pie, once you know what to look for.

 

[RayG]

RayG wrote:

It appears (to me anyway) instead of trying to engage in useful debate, LAL has taken her toys and gone home.

Actually, Ray...she's just tuning you out.

Is there an echo in here? That's what I said to begin with. I guess it went right over your head.

Lu isn't going anywhere.

Re-read what I wrote and see if you can decipher it.

That's because she's interested in contributing to an understanding on whatever's being discussed.

If she was truly interested in contributing, she wouldn't have her hands-over-her-ears, doing the "la la la la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la la la.." mantra. Why is it so hard for her to leave her emotional baggage on the sidewalk while she strolls down Argument Avenue?

I suppose in the end it's always easier to turn a blind eye or deaf ear towards those who disagree. (or sometimes take your toys and go home)

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Re-read what I wrote and see if you can decipher it.

Re-read what I wrote...and see if you can respond to it...

WHY did you refuse to answer the question after it was asked of you one or two times....or 3 times?

WHY did you post the definition of the word "claim" and say that "TECHNICALLY speaking, I don't have to answer that question...because I never made a "claim"."

Were you interested in contributing to an understanding of what type of animal Bigfoot might actually be...or were you simply refuting my statement for the sake of SKEPTICISM itself?

I have absolutely NO idea why you dodged that question, Ray.

Perhaps you can explain.


It's amazing how many questions skeptics have trouble answering!

 

[carcharodon]

I was kind of surprised to finally see photographs of the trackway from which it came. In Jeff Meldrum's new book he prints four photos of the tracks on page 222. The one I'm reproducing here seems to show a sort of baby-step gait, a strangely disproportionate ratio of stride length to foot length.

In fact I'm reminded of Grover Krantz own "clod hopper" tests with heavy, clunky wood prosthetics from page 45 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. It's obvious Grover is not bounding along with great stride lengths.

Heryford trackway; good looking foot, strange stride.

I see Grover's tracks looking a lot more turned out in angle compared to the Heryford tracks. Grover's tracks look considerably more wildly divergeant, even cackhanded (or rather cackfooted). I can see the Heryford tracks looking different to that. I'm also quite certain that sasquatch doesn't always 'stride out' the whole time. The first two tracks look like it's almost pausing before continuing. By the way, where are the rest of the tracks? Is that ground further on hard substrate as opposed to the softer substrate where the tracks were found?