• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.

Attachments

  • Condom on Head053.jpg
    Condom on Head053.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 0
Wow, intereting turn for the ugly this thread took (and not just the photo Tube posted above).
Started out as a very simple, very straight-forward "How can we attempt to quantify peoples' claims of being a "tracker?"
Then, as is inevitable, the BF-fan club tried to sidetrack with all sorts of semantics, personal attacks, grade school-level denialism, and as usual...the appeal to authority.
Only an absolute idiot would wonder why actual biologists and wildlife specialists would steer very clear of any and all BF-related discussions and "evidence." I can just imagine some of the trolls on this thread interacting with a Game and Fish officer, or better yet, a museum curator and berating said official while accusing him/her of being an obtuse, ignorant, misguided soul who simply needs to drink of the knowledge of Noll or the magnificence of Meldrum. No doubt tazers and/or pepper-spray would be deployed within moments.
I guess it just goes to show...some people simply can't handle the truth, and prefer to hole up in their little fortresses, launching insults and pathetic personal attacks rather than deal with the actual data at hand. But, let's just sit back and read the inevitable posts that follow which will demonstrate what I just wrote about, oh so clearly...
 
tube said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since I also have contributed to the derail I'll try and stay more on topic.

I'm not proposing the trackway dispayed in the top photo of Tube's post is that of a sasquatch but to be fair since it is only displaying a few steps it would be fair for proponents to ask why the shortness of those steps makes it suspect. Surely a real sasquatch isn't going to move everywhere at full stride.
 
desertyeti said:
Wow, intereting turn for the ugly this thread took (and not just the photo Tube posted above)...
Click to expand...
Yes, apparantly being skeptical of BF based on the scant and paltry evidence automatically designates one as an unreasonable 'scoftic' and 'denialist' for many.

I scoff at and deny that assessment.
 
desertyeti said:
Wow, intereting turn for the ugly this thread took (and not just the photo Tube posted above).
Started out as a very simple, very straight-forward "How can we attempt to quantify peoples' claims of being a "tracker?"
Then, as is inevitable, the BF-fan club tried to sidetrack with all sorts of semantics, personal attacks, grade school-level denialism, and as usual...the appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

So you didn't make a complete arse of yourself and accuse me of THREE major points which I am 'not guilty' of M'Lord?????

1. I have never considered, nor even suggested, that I am an expert in distinguishing hoax from authentic tracks purely by photographic examination...as you alluded to.

2. I have never even commented on any of Tube's work....as you alluded to.

3. I have never alluded that Meldrum et all are never wrong....as you alluded to. In fact I have OPENLY stated that I am sure they can be. I'll go further. I have hardly even refered to Meldrum et al in my posts.

Really Destert Yeti, stop passing the buck. If you were able to actually READ and DISTINGUISH who you are posting to and what replies you are posting to then you wouldn't need to be chastised for acting like a complete and utter tosspot.


Only an absolute idiot would wonder why actual biologists and wildlife specialists would steer very clear of any and all BF-related discussions and "evidence." I can just imagine some of the trolls on this thread interacting with a Game and Fish officer, or better yet, a museum curator and berating said official while accusing him/her of being an obtuse, ignorant, misguided soul who simply needs to drink of the knowledge of Noll or the magnificence of Meldrum. No doubt tazers and/or pepper-spray would be deployed within moments.
Click to expand...
Trolls? Who would they be? How about dyslexic nerks? You win a biscuit for being the biggest dyslexic nerk on this entire board DY.
 
Last edited:
And...let's begin with a very quick and easy warm-up.
Below are 3 photos taken on a muddy tidal flat. All three were made under known conditions and all three were observed being made. I'm not going to reveal which, if any, are real footprints of a bare-footed human being, nor which, if any, were forged, or by what means on the forum. Any interested parties can pm me with their opinoins and I will respond in confidence. I will only reveal your score in public if you grant permission to do so.

The challenge, should you accept it, is to determine which of the three is (are) real and which is (are) not and to explain your reasoning, being as descriptive, concise, and quantitative as possible. They are numbered 1-3 in order of their posting (top to bottom), so...have at it!:D




 
Last edited:
DY, before you engage in any purse fights with the spaz could you edit the images top to bottom (unless you intended them to be side by side, in which case never mind)? Thanks.
 
kitakaze said:
DY, before you engage in any purse fights with the spaz could you edit the images top to bottom (unless you intended them to be side by side, in which case never mind)? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Good idea...sorry...dyslexia, y'know!?:cool:
So, Charchy, LAL...still waiting on the pm...
 
desertyeti said:
Good idea...sorry...dyslexia, y'know!?:cool:
So, Charchy, LAL...still waiting on the pm...
Click to expand...

Are you purposely being a numbskull? I already told you once. Photographic analysis in distinguishing real or hoax tracks is not my forte and I have never claimed it to be. There is not even one bigfoot track I claim to be certain is authentic based on examination of a photograph and photograph alone.

But I'll play along. I say they are all forgeries. All hoaxed. Might be a better experiment to make a series of tracks of each type and not just one of each.

So Desert Yeti, did you give further consideration as to how you can claim that $100,000 from the Willow Creek Museum, or at least embarrasing them somewhat into feeling a little foolish about the whole challenge? Did it tick over in your brain any more?
 
Last edited:
The only BFF hoaxed track expert here is tube. You should be asking him, not us.

My total experience with tracking was getting a book from the library about 20 years ago while trying to identify what may have been Wolverine tracks on a new skid road, and I have not been to Joel Hardin's school.

However, using the little I've learned on two message boards and from reading the "woo" researchers, Krantz and Meldrum, I'd say the top two are faked (by sculpting and pressing). The "hourglass" shape on the middle one is a nice touch (meant to be sarcastic?), however the the print has both sharp and rounded, "organic" edges, therefore it must be both real and hoaxed. ;)

The bottom one may be real; the ball looks more deeply impressed than the heel, which might be expected from pushing off. The toe area looks strange, but possibly the mud was soft enough to fill in some detail. There appears to be an arch. There don't seem to be any pressure cracks around any of them, although there are obvious cracks in the mud.

If any are real, I'd say the bottom one is, but a good investigator would want to see others in the same trackway before making a determination, I would think.

Of course, if sharp lines denote a fake, it's a fake too.

Do we get to know the answers?

Are you sending it to Dr. Meldrum and Rick Noll or is this just the prototype?
 
Last edited:
Why a PM? We both seem quite open. What about tube? Did he send a PM? Maybe he would be so good as to take the challenge on the board.
 
LAL said:
If any are real, I'd say the bottom one is, but a good investigator would want to see others in the same trackway before making a determination, I would think.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. Perhaps this experiemnt should be done again with say 3 or 4 tracks in a series. Or how about dozens? Maybe even hundreds??

Are you sending this to Dr. Meldrum and Rick Noll?
Click to expand...
:D
 
carcharodon said:
.....Are you purposely being a numbskull? I already told you once. Photographic analysis in distinguishing real or hoax tracks is not my forte and I have never claimed it to be. There is not even one bigfoot track I claim to be certain is authentic based on examination of a photograph and photograph alone. .....
Click to expand...

Then why are you participating in a thread, whose purpose is to challenge people to distinguish between real and fake foot prints ?


It is clear you have nothing with which to support your position, other than belief ..

And you are in the wrong place , when it comes to arguing from a position of belief ...

Interestingly enough, BFF seems to be less tolerant of such belief oriented blabber lately ... As a result, there doesn't seem to be much discussion over there..

Threads like " I Recorded a Bigfoot Clacking Rocks Together " , aren't going anywhere..
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17300

The few persistant threads involve people like Jack and Gigantofootecus, who are actually doing some scientific analysis of the evidence..


All of your posts are nothing more than bashing people who don't suffer from the same delusions you do ..



If you actually bothered to check any other discussions here at JREF, you would see that these are the only discussions where most of one sides participation is nothing but straw, and the rest is high fiving the other idiot on your team ...


Now... What was that piece of compelling evidence you wanted to discuss ?

Since you claim no expertise in footprints, which is at least 99% of Bigfoot evidence, I guess maybe you will want to bring it up over in the PG thread ..

I'll be waiting for you there...

Oh, and just in case you are confused;

... the fact that no one has made a Bigfoot costume that you find convincing, is not evidence that their is a living non-human North American primate ....
 
Only two votes so far via pm.
Both very informative and insightful.
I'll post the full explanation of the how, when, and where in about 2 weeks. Then I'll fully disclose the exact circumstances, procedures, and mechanics of how each print was formed. Until then, if you're genuinely interested, drop a pm and I'll tell you now after you vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom