• 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.
Hopefully, everyone's getting a good feel for how tricky it is to establish authenticity from single tracks, from photos, and even single casts (essentially 3-d photos). Naturally when a notable "expert" on BF claims to be able to differentiate real from forged prints even from photos, their methodology must be called into question. This simple demonstration, using only 3 photos should be a breeze to BF "researchers" who readily pronounce judgement on photos and casts. It should likewise be reasonably easy to people who claim to understand and/or adhere to the Krantz and Meldrum school of teachings to pick the obviously real from the obviously forged prints in these photos. When I finally do get around to trying to get some BF "researchers" to try my experiment, I'll be using a combination of photos (single tracks and trackways) and casts, and the number will be 10-12. y'know, coz they're so smart and stuff and like, I'm just a goof and all.:cool:





At any rate, here they are again, in case anyone forgot what they look like:1, 2, and 3.
 
Last edited:
Four have pm-ed and learned the truth behind the prints, and LAL and Charcy have voiced their opinions in public. Very intresting responses indeed. A wide range of interpretations, with a few general trends already evident.

So far, one person's gotten quite close by making skilled observations of the 3, but not making a decisive judgement, so the answers cannot be called correct.

One person's changed their original assessment to match another individual's judgement.

Several have referred to Tube's work on monolithic margins, and as I suspected, there is some misunderstanding about what Tube is actually describing with these.

One individual has already made assumptions about the methodology used to achieve these results, and has used that in an attempt to invalidate any subsequent interpretation of the data.

This is fun!! As I said before, I'll post "The Truth" in a couple of weeks. But if anyone else wants to take a stab, please do! It will help work the bugs out for when an expanded version is used to evaluate trackers.

Also note: Ichnologists, animal trackers, and wildlife biologists all exercise caution when interpreting impressions, and when in doubt, the phrase: I don't know." is commonly heard. BF "experts" like Grover Krantz who claimed to be able to identify authentic tracks from photos (like he repeatedly does in his book) or single casts (the Indiana and Manitoba and Cripple Foot and Elk Wallow and...well, you get the picture) carry the burden of proving their extraordinary claims. Unless spirits are real and seances work, Grover can't help answer these questions, but hopefully, others can.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point. I'm not claiming the feature is diagnostic of fake, but given that's all that we the public have to go on, I would still suggest that it's kind of strange...
 
See, now we're talking about the all-important context of the prints.
The individual "Heryford" casts look quite nice (albeit very flat), but stepping back and looking at their position in the ground raises several questions about them. Not least of which is a particular feature that Tube's kindly pointed out to me that was cited as St. Grover Krantz himself as being indicative of a forgery.
And I'm not talking about the proximity of the tracks. It has to do with the surficial morphology of the surrounding substrate.
So, just for a laugh, see if you can spot this characteristic (thanks Tube...see, track analysis like all things, truly is best when many eyes are working on the same problem).
 
Last edited:
tube said:
Yeah, good point. I'm not claiming the feature is diagnostic of fake, but given that's all that we the public have to go on, I would still suggest that it's kind of strange...
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, the proximity of the tracks to eachother caused you to doubt their authenticity and subsequently comment on it which is by itself hardly sound reasoning against a real animal. Unrealistic is to suppose every step BF takes is inhumanly long.
 
I usually take a look at the wonderful website known as the Anomalist each day.

http://www.anomalist.com/


Linked there today is a review of Dr. Meldrum's new book by cryptozoologist Mark Hall. I expected a fawning and purely positive review, but Hall takes Meldrum to task for his advocacy of the Wallace tracks.

http://citebite.com/x6l5f1i1icvb


"Meldrum fails to recognize that the Ray Wallace fake imprints have become part of his database. For a professional claiming an expertise in the study of footprints, this lapse is a costly and tragic error. He had a chance to rid himself of this pollution, but he has failed to do so.

Meldrum did not have to uncover the fakery on his own. The history of how these fakes came into being has already been told. The hoaxing tools were publicly displayed in December of 2002 after Ray Wallace died. I was one who wanted to know how these fakes had found their way into so many places. They appeared in Sanderson's 1961 book and in many popular books and articles since that time.

When it was shown that these were hoaxed impressions, it became important to throw out the trash and leave us with valid data. So I reviewed the records for the 1950s and 1960s. I published an article that came out in April of 2003 that illustrated the three sets of fake feet that were associated with Ray Wallace. I followed up with two more articles as more of the history of hoaxing emerged.* Meldrum has failed to learn the history and throw out the garbage.

Perhaps he has been unduly influenced by those who were also fooled by Ray Wallace and cannot acknowledge their mistakes. But Meldrum is not an amateur investigator. According to the publicity for this book he has even been given a grant of $30,000 to further his studies of the phenomenon. He should be leading the effort to throw out the bad data. Instead we find him defending the fakes.

In LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE he illustrates only one of the most prominent of the wooden tools used, the right foot. It is the wooden tool for the left foot that produced the most often photographed images. It shows up in widely published cases of trackways seen in California. It has been cast in plaster, despite Meldrum's assertion that it has not. Those who cannot admit to this particular success by Ray Wallace have kept this tool out of the books they continue to publish, and Meldrum has taken the same sorry path by illustrating only one of the two wooden tools."
 
desertyeti said:
See, now we're talking about the all-important context of the prints.
The individual "Heryford" casts look quite nice (albeit very flat), but stepping back and looking at their position in the ground raises several questions about them. Not least of which is a particular feature that Tube's kindly pointed out to me that was cited as St. Grover Krantz himself as being indicative of a forgery.
And I'm not talking about the proximity of the tracks. It has to do with the surficial morphology of the surrounding substrate.
So, just for a laugh, see if you can spot this characteristic (thanks Tube...see, track analysis like all things, truly is best when many eyes are working on the same problem).
Click to expand...

Regards " Heryford " ..

Don't know if this is what you are referring to, but it looks like they were made in mud.. I Don't see any evidence of ' slippage ' in any of the prints ..

There is one in particular in the book that hasn't been posted..

The mud really squished up between the toes, but no slippage .. :confused:
 
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.
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."
Click to expand...

Really?

Well, then, consider me an "absolute idiot" and explain it to me.

Because it certainly can't be because "the BF-fan club" will be on the attack.

People who lend consideration to "any and all BF-related discussions and 'evidence'" are attacked by skeptics, not ""the BF-fan club".

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.
Click to expand...

Virtually no Fish and Wildlife officer or museum curator even know who Noll or Meldrum are.

And that's the problem, not "the BF-fan club."

No doubt tazers and/or pepper-spray would be deployed within moments.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised.

I wonder if Noll or Meldrum have been sprayed-tazed yet?

They've certainly been insulted...publically.


I guess it just goes to show...some people simply can't handle the truth.....
Click to expand...

This forum proves that some people can't even handle possibilities.
 
Regards " Heryford " ..

Don't know if this is what you are referring to, but it looks like they were made in mud.. I Don't see any evidence of ' slippage ' in any of the prints ..

There is one in particular in the book that hasn't been posted..

The mud really squished up between the toes, but no slippage


READ KRANTZ
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Regards " Heryford " ..

Don't know if this is what you are referring to, but it looks like they were made in mud.. I Don't see any evidence of ' slippage ' in any of the prints ..

There is one in particular in the book that hasn't been posted..

The mud really squished up between the toes, but no slippage .. :confused:
Click to expand...

Hint Hint
 

Attachments

  • thum_1050645a3c41b22c28[1].jpg
    thum_1050645a3c41b22c28[1].jpg
    11 KB · Views: 57
tube said:
Linked there today is a review of Dr. Meldrum's new book by cryptozoologist Mark Hall. I expected a fawning and purely positive review, but Hall takes Meldrum to task for his advocacy of the Wallace tracks.
Click to expand...

Evidently Hall doesn't recall the debate between Green and Coleman on Cryptomondo. I thought John cleaned both their clocks quite nicely.

One of the first things Jeff did in the book was debunk the Wallace family claims. I can see where that might have ticked Mark off.

Jeff's specialty is primate foot anatomy and Mark's is what, again?

Have you read the book or just the reviews?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom