Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

They apparently have a little more backbone than those JREF know-it-alls who lurk over there, then gossip over here like little old ladies (no offense, Lu; you've got more spine than anybody on this forum).

None taken. You could have said "gossip like young men", though.

Spine? Maybe so. No osteoporosis that I know of................

 

[LAL]

"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." - Mark Hall

Well, here's the right. It's a lot better.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/wallace_comparison.htm

The toes weren't completely carved out on the left, but the left is seldom seen.

 

[LAL]

Lefts and rights from tube's website:

Hard to see how mud would squish between those toes.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

... 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 ....

Let's repair that sentence......it's broken....

" the fact that no one has made a Bigfoot costume that you...and MANY MANY MANY other people find convincing, is not evidence that their is a living non-human North American primate ...."

Actually, Greg...it is relevant to "evidence that Patty is a real Bigfoot"....because the FACT that the original suit has never surfaced...and the FACT that a close match to the suit has never been seen...and the FACT that Dfoot couldn't create anything close to it, despite his profession...all lend credence to the possibility that Patty's "suit" is NOT a suit.
Those facts create, or indicate, some degree of probability that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....
Those facts create, or indicate, some degree of probability that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

I agree..

Did you know that ' 0 ' is a real number ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hard to see how mud would squish between those toes.

Uhh, did I miss where someone suggested the Heryford prints were made by Wallacefoot ?

Where was the pressure ridge in the Heryford prints, Lu ?

How does an animal with flexible feet walk in mud and not leave a pressure ridge ?

Maybe Dr. ( midtarsal break ) Meldrum could explain that ... Why don't you ask him ?

 

[tube]

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've given what you have said some careful thought, and would like to suggest that indeed, the comparison between Krantz clodhoppers and the Heryford tracks may not be a good one, for the simple reason that the Heryford tracks appear to have been made in mud, while Krantz did his published tests in sand. Deep, thick mud is capable of creating a strong "seal" when trying to remove a foot that sand does not have.

The short stride may represent the inhibition caused by what I guess would be air pressure, created by mud. Especially if the track maker was a man not a 'Squatch.

I've personally tested this. Walking barefoot in deep mud is much easier than walking in the same mud wearing over sized prosthetics.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

I agree..
Did you know that ' 0 ' is a real number ?

Great counter-point Greg.

Now, to expound on why the LACK of any comparable suits strengthen the probability of Patty being a Bigfoot.

The suit pictured below is laughable when you first see it. It's OBVIOUS that it's a guy in a suit.
So....what is the CHANCE, or degree of probability, or odds, that it could be a real Bigfoot?

ZERO.

But when you look at Patty...it's NOT obvious that it's a guy-in-a-suit.

And in addition....nobody....but nobody....but NOBODY...including the Mighty Dfoot, can reproduce the suit, or even come up with a picture of a comparable one.

So therefore...what is the CHANCE, or degree of probability, or odds, that Patty is a guy in a SUIT?
Less than a 100% certainty.
So, using some simple logic....as the odds of one explanation (a suit) decrease...the odds of the ONLY OTHER explanation (Bigfoot) INCREASE...and what we have then is something called "evidence of Bigfoot".

 

[LAL]

The right foot's the better foot.

More from Bill Miller:

"What's even worse, the news people never bothered to do the most basic check to see if the story was true or not? That was to check the wooden foot casting allegedly used by Ray Wallace -- to see if it matched the tracks found in the ground. Had they done this, the news media would have seen that the Wallace family was pulling a fast one and that their story had no merit. Please look below at the right foot of the Ray Wallace fake track against the actual track found in the ground in 1958 in the Bluff Creek area. (see below)

Just to give the Wallace family a fighting chance, I first resized the track found in 1958 so that it would be the same width and length of the fake wooden foot carving that Ray Wallace was said to have used to make these tracks. Both images are of the right foot. The Wallace wooden carving is crude, the toes are square, the heel of the foot has a split in the heel, the arch of the toe line does not come close to lining up with the actual foot track casted in Bluff Creek. The tracks found in 1958 showed toe displacement and as you surely must understand - a wooden fake foot is like a rubber stamp, each track is a mirror impression of the last one and you will not see gaps between the toes widening as the animal walks along with the fake wooden foot as was observed by the actual tracks made by the animal."

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/mailshoot/58.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Now, to expound on why the LACK of any comparable suits strengthen the probability of Patty being a Bigfoot.

You obviously haven't taken probability 101 .. Lack of evidence for A is not evidence for B .. Ever heard about white crows ?

The suit pictured below is laughable when you first see it. It's OBVIOUS that it's a guy in a suit.

To you perhaps.

I think Patty looks laughable. And since there is no reason to believe she is a Bigfoot, it seems likely she is a person in a suit.

So....what is the CHANCE, or degree of probability, or odds, that it could be a real Bigfoot?

None, in my opinion.. But there is a possibility.

For all we know, your picture is exactly what a Bigfoot looks like.
We can confirm that or rule it out as soon as you catch one

But when you look at Patty...it's NOT obvious that it's a guy-in-a-suit.
[/quote That would be; when YOU look at Patty...

And in addition....nobody....but nobody....but NOBODY...including the Mighty Dfoot, can reproduce the suit, or even come up with a picture of a comparable one.

I disagree.

[qote]So therefore...what is the CHANCE, or degree of probability, or odds, that Patty is a guy in a SUIT?
Less than a 100% certainty. [/uote]
I would agree it is less than 100%, but not much .

So, using some simple logic....as the odds of one explanation (a suit) decrease...the odds of the ONLY OTHER explanation (Bigfoot) INCREASE...and what we have then is something called "evidence of Bigfoot".

I have no reason to believe you know what logic is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.... and as you surely must understand - a wooden fake foot is like a rubber stamp, each track is a mirror impression of the last one and you will not see gaps between the toes widening as the animal walks along with the fake wooden foot as was observed by the actual tracks made by the animal."

First we must ask ; " And what animal would that be ? "

Then, we can assume that whoever wrote this has never made, or actually observed tracks made in a yielding substrate with fake wooden feet ..

We are finding out that these claims have been made for years, with no one actually experimenting to find if they are true or not..

But we do know that flexible animal ( particularly bipedal animals ) feet create pressure ridges that are missing from most alleged Bigfoot tracks ..

Thanks Lu for a wonderful picture that shows exactly what a cast from that foot would be expected to look like.

The pictures in Meldrums book, of the Wallace feet next to un-related casts was pretty lame.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

For all we know, your picture is exactly what a Bigfoot looks like.

Anyone want to "second" that thought...and join Greg on the "happy-wagon" ride? We'll be stopping in to say Hi to Barney and Friends!! It'll be SO much fun!

I think Patty looks laughable.

While you're laughing at Patty's "obvious suit", Greg.....choke on this....

I challenged you to re-produce the pop-up bulge on her thigh with some padding inside a pant leg.

You haven't...and can't...do it. And that's a fact.

There's a wonderful old saying, Greg..."actions speak louder than words."

While it's easy to SAY, or type, "I think Patty looks laughable.".....
it's much harder to back that up with any ACTIONS.

Neither YOU, nor Dfoot...nor any other skeptic will ever reproduce ANY aspect of Patty's so-called "suit".
You can't even find a picture of a suit that's comparable to Patty.

Your posts are the real laugh, Greg.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I challenged you to re-produce the pop-up bulge on her thigh with some padding inside a pant leg.

And I challenged you to produce it on a real animal.. ( in motion )

Doesn't even have to be a Bigfoot...



We're both waiting...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
So....what is the CHANCE, or degree of probability, or odds, that it could be a real Bigfoot?

NONE , in my opinion.. But there is a possibility.

Ahhhh.....the best one yet!!! This is too good!

So what you're saying is.....there's NO CHANCE that it's a real Bigfoot...."but there is a possibility."

Okayyyyy, Greg!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

We're both waiting...

Here's the big difference, Greg.

You're saying that Patty is obviously, and laughably, a guy-in-a-suit.

I'm NOT saying that Patty is obviously and indisputedly a Bigfoot.

If YOUR assessment is true......then logically it follows that while you're chuckling away, you could EASILY reproduce different aspects of Patty's laughable suit.....right?

But the problem....for you....is that you CANNOT do it.
In a hundred years you won't be able to do it.

So....Patty's suit cannot be EASILY explained and laughed-off as an obvious suit.....because it cannot be EASILY reproduced.

In other words, Greg.....you're full of HOT AIR. BS...buddy.

 

[Huntster]

....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.....

I choose not to accept it.

1) A photo of a footprint isn't going to cut it; it doesn't cut it when Meldrum takes the photo, and it doesn't cut it when you do. Nothing beats "being there". There is a lot to see on site that one can't see in photos like those.

2) After Dfoot, I don't think I need to play such games anymore. Even when a trickster gets caught, it's somehow the "footer's" stupidity that is pointed out afterwards. What a bunch of crap.

3) This exercise will proof nothing, and will likely end up as yet more fuel for yea/nay.

No, thanks.

 

[carcharodon]

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

Because by the time I first came into this thread the topic matter had shifted sufficiently away from the thread title...and this is what I addressed. If you actually read my posts in this thread, you would see that. The talk then turned to the Willow Creek reward of £100,000, which I also then adressed.

Alzheimers already Diogenese??? I'm starting to worry for you old man.

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

Well I don't have anything that would satisfy YOU, seeing as nothing short of a body would. I've already twice given you a long list of EXAMPLES why I am quite conviced sasquatch exists.

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

Like you? Because you 'believe' there is no such thing as a sasquatch. Is that not a 'belief' also?

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

Really? And there was me thinking I've asked a few questions as well. Must have ignored those then hey? I think I have answered a few questions as well.

f 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 ...

I quite agree.Take the Loch Ness thread, which turned into a debate about alien cats in Britain. Here we have bona fide 100% proof of shot and captured examples....and still some scoftics won't have it. Never in my life have I come across such one eyed blind denialism. Accordingly, one of the replies was that the caught puma doesn't count.......because it was the wrong colour!! Unbelievebale. This is the level of 'reason' I am dealing with here on this forum? Many people here are a complete and utter joke.

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

Oh let's see. How about the evidence that you are a complete tool? By the way Diogensese, I don't see many 'contributions' from you here in this thread, or on this board in general. Almost all your posts are either attacking or ridiculing others, and making unfunny quips. Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

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 ..

Why? The footage is authentic in my opinion. Ergo, I'm sure the tracks are as well. Patterson never hoaxed any more tracks did he? Or did he continue to 'conveniently' find trackways? What other trackways did Patterson find in the years after the PGF?

I'll be waiting for you there...

What? Fisticuffs? Behind the bike sheds huh? Is ok if I bring along my pump?

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 ....

No the fact is that EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to create a sasquatch/ape man costume since the PGF (whether it be for movie, documentary or hoax purposes) and actually walk in it has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we see in the PGF is something altogether unique. We have ample examples of men in suits to analyse and compare them to the PG subject. Not one even approaches the natural fluid looking locomotion and overall appearance of the PG subject.

How 'bout that?

 

[carcharodon]

Yeah, good point.

Tube wrote the above comment in reply to kitakaze's post which was:

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.

Funny, that when I wrote more or less the same thing 8 hours earlier nobody thought it was a 'good point'.

"""" 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."""

Gotta love this place. People do tend to stick to their own little cliques don't they??

 

[carcharodon]

Diogenes wrote:


Ahhhh.....the best one yet!!! This is too good!

So what you're saying is.....there's NO CHANCE that it's a real Bigfoot...."but there is a possibility."

Okayyyyy, Greg!

Oh my god Sweaty Yeti. Isn't Diogenese a wag? The more he writes the more he doesn't make sense. I wouldn't get too involved with Diogenese over any Patty discussions though. This is the man after all who sees doughnuts on the arms.

 

[carcharodon]

They apparently have a little more backbone than those JREF know-it-alls who lurk over there, then gossip over here like little old ladies

As well as being fully prepared to admit when they are wrong and hold their hands up. I've yet to see Desert Yeti write "Oooops, you are right. I got it wrong. It wasn't you who I should have posted to and made the challenge seeing as you haven't claimed to be an expert in distinguishing hoax and authentic tracks by photo analysis, nor have you claimed that any one print is the real deal based on photo analysis alone, nor have you in fact ever suggested or insinuated that Meldrum can't be wrong....as I wrongly alluded to in my posts. I'm sorry that I have no idea who I am posting to half the time as I don't really read other people's posts properly before spouting my garbage."""

I knew as much though Huntster. Not much of a backbone these JREF know alls. I think they were the kind of snots in school who would hide from the big boys and blow raspberries at them when they weren't looking.