Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[carcharodon]

The only BFF hoaxed track expert here is tube. You should be asking him, not us.

For all we know LAL, Desert Yeti might have clued Tube in prior as to which tracks were which. They do seem awfully pally. If Tube works all these tracks out perfectly there would be nothing to say DY didn't secretly inform him beforehand. There is nothing to say the two of them can't have been in on this together. After all, this is what the likes of Patterson and Gimlin are accused of by some folks here isn't it? The PGF is a hoax according to some, right? Pa and G were in it together right? They were both lying and trying to fool us right?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Good point about the suction effect with mud. Just to nit-pick walking barefoot is almost always easier than while wearing over-sized prosthetics (unless you're walking on hot coals, nails, broken glass, etc.).

 

[carcharodon]

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

Better be careful with that kind of language Sweati Yeti. Kitakaze might report you for obnoxious language as he/she/it did to me.

There are some right little snots around here giving to reporting people and going to tell teacher about all the nasty bullies at the back of the class.

"Mummy mummy, those naughty boys are being mean to me again, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

 

[LAL]

The caption on the comparison photo from Bobbie Short's website above reads:

"This study was done on foot shape alone. Each example was sized so each foot matched in length and width to see if the toe patterns and other characteristics of the foot could match that of the fake Ray Wallace foot ... they did not! In each case the news media accepted the fake Wallace feet as the source for the Sasquatch tracks found in Northern California during the late 50's, 60's, and 70's. To date I have not found a single track casted during that time frame that can match the pattern of the Fake Wallace foot. If Ray Wallace made fake tracks on the ground for people to find in Northern California, then he must have hid them well.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Researcher/Investigator"

Miller made comparisons to casts from other trackways trying to find a match and for shape and couldn't. The Wallace family "always knew" Ray made the tracks in 1958, but the foot they produced is an inch too short.

The comparison below, from Dr. Meldrum's book, pg. 63, shows the Wallace fake next to an actual cast from the construction site.

The denialist (I like that Huntster) line, of course, is there must have been some other feet, when Ray was out of town his brothers must have done it, and immovable toes can somehow make impressions of articulating toes.

Never mind all those other events where no one had to go looking for tracks; they just showed up. Ray himself was angry he was supected. His workmen were quitting and the event in 1958 was costing him money. He wasn't there at the time. If he actually did fake any trackways in the area, there seem to be no surviving casts from any of them.

It amazes me how sceptics are so willing to accept unsubstantiated stories from people interested in movie deals, but won't accept the findings of those who actually check out the claims.

 

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:

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.

You got that right, Carch!

How about this combo of Greg's.........

NONE (refering to the chance, or odds, of Patty being a Bigfoot), in my opinion.. But there is a possibility.

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

Well we KNOW you don't know what logic is, Greg!!

 

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:

Better be careful with that kind of language Sweati Yeti. Kitakaze might report you for obnoxious language as he/she/it did to me.

Thanks for the warning, carch...but I only mean "choke" in an intellectual sense.
Greg CAN'T back-up what he says about Patty's "suit" being an obvious suit....because, like I said in that post....

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.

 

[LAL]

The caption on the comparison photo from Bobbie Short's website above reads:

"This study was done on foot shape alone. Each example was sized so each foot matched in length and width to see if the toe patterns and other characteristics of the foot could match that of the fake Ray Wallace foot ... they did not! In each case the news media accepted the fake Wallace feet as the source for the Sasquatch tracks found in Northern California during the late 50's, 60's, and 70's. To date I have not found a single track casted during that time frame that can match the pattern of the Fake Wallace foot. If Ray Wallace made fake tracks on the ground for people to find in Northern California, then he must have hid them well.

Bill Miller
Bigfoot Researcher/Investigator"

Miller made comparisons to casts from other trackways trying to find a match just for shape and couldn't. The Wallace family "always knew" Ray made the tracks in 1958, but they were evidently unaware the foot they produced is an inch too short.

The denialist (I like that Huntster) line, of course, is there must have been some other feet, when Ray was out of town his brothers must have done it, and immovable toes can somehow make impressions of articulating toes.

Never mind all those other events where no one had to go looking for tracks; they just showed up. Ray himself was angry he was supected. His workmen were quitting and the event in 1958 was costing him money. He wasn't there at the time. If he actually did fake any trackways in the area, there seem to be no surviving casts from any of them.

The comparison below, from Dr. Meldrum's book, pg. 63, shows the Wallace fake next to an actual cast from the construction site. As I recall, the family wouldn't allow Dr. Meldrum to examine the fake feet, so it's hard to see how he could have done many comparison photos with the left. Being that the left is even worse, it's hard to see how that would have helped Coleman and Hall's case. Even the trackway Coleman mentioned in his most recent book wasn't a match after all.

It amazes me how sceptics are so willing to accept unsubstantiated stories from people interested in movie deals, but won't accept the findings of those who actually check out the claims.

 

[desertyeti]

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.

No problem.
As I've said since the beginning, it's totally up to you.
The whole point (which I think you were getting at above) is that neither Meldrum, nor I, nor anyone for that matter should be giving strong opinions of a single print, be it cast or photo, other than to say that it looks like a foot, or it looks like a hand, or it looks like an elk's flank. How these imprints were made (by real animal or taxidermized mount, or carved wooden prosthetic) is another matter, but we can only say what a print most resembles.

And your point one is exactly the one I was hoping that some folks would "get." You "get it" Huntster, because you've been in the field and looked at tracks, and probably even used them to find your prey. Sadly, many "footers" have not. John Green to my knowledge, was not a hunter or tracker when he first rendered opinions on the BF tracks in California. Grover Krantz made bold proclamations about casts with no idea of where they were from, how they were made, or even in what substrate they were cast. BAD science!!!!!

And as for point 2, I can only promise you that I'm not tricking anybody, and have no reason to. I've always been and always will be, only interested in the truth about how tracks and sign were formed and how reliable the BF "evidence" really is. That's all.

On another note, I'd suggest everyone go take a look at Tube's work on monolithic margins: http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_and Monolithic Margins.htm
There, he has some very nice photos showing terrific detail of these features, and these have great potential for helping discern real from fake prints.

 

[LAL]

Good point about the suction effect with mud.

And it looks like that may have happened in the heel area on a couple of those pics, which raises the possibility they were real prints altered to look fake. Of course the tracking expert from BFF wisely declines to play the game, leaving a couple of admitted rank amateurs with our necks out.

Funny how that works.

 

[LAL]

Better be careful with that kind of language Sweati Yeti. Kitakaze might report you for obnoxious language as he/she/it did to me.

He who called you a spaz reported you?

I guess we trolls had better watch it.

 

[desertyeti]

And, since the BF-fan club has gone off on yet more tangents (hey, it's what they do when there's nothing left to argue), here's those photos again. Even more helpful in illustrating the point I'm making since LAL has kindly taken the bait, and has graced us with many photos of casts and wooden clod-hoppers in an attempt to convince everyone that she and "Dr. Meldrum" can actually say something relevant about the authenticity of a trackway and unknown animal based on photos of casts and prints.
Thank you LAL! Your opinions are duly noted, along with your vote on which of these prints is real and which is not.

Here they are again folks: 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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


The comparison below, from Dr. Meldrum's book, pg. 63, shows the Wallace fake next to an actual cast from the construction site.

It amazes me how sceptics are so willing to accept unsubstantiated stories from people interested in movie deals, but won't accept the findings of those who actually check out the claims.

Yes Lu, we can see that the foot you are showing did not make that print ..

Who is claiming that it did ? Who are you addressing on this Forum, that thinks that picture shows a matching pair ?

Who says anyone here accepts the claim and even needs to check it out ?

Anyone ?

And I don't find it amazing at all, that you keep bringing up these laughable examples of Meldrum's, so-called debunking of the Wallace family claim ...




However it is easy to see that the foot below, and the cast next to it, have a lot in common...

Perhaps you can ask the Dr. to show how they don't match ?

 

[LAL]

And, since the BF-fan club has gone off on yet more tangents (hey, it's what they do when there's nothing left to argue), here's those photos again. Even more helpful in illustrating the point I'm making since LAL has kindly taken the bait, and has graced us with many photos of casts and wooden clod-hoppers in an attempt to convince everyone that she and "Dr. Meldrum" can actually say something relevant about the authenticity of a trackway and unknown animal based on photos of casts and prints.
Thank you LAL! Your opinions are duly noted, along with your vote on which of these prints is real and which is not.

I believe it was tube who started at least a couple of the tangents? I'm rather sure he's not in the club.

Got those page numbers for me yet, or do I have to read Daegling some more?

If you want to claim those Wallace fakes are a match for anything, that we're just not seeing the photos properly, or that Mark Hall is spot on and Jeff Meldrum is incapable of being right, that's entirely up to you. You're the "expert" after all, not me.

I was honest enough to post my uninformed opinion for all to see. Feel free to do the same with my score.

 

[desertyeti]

Yes Lu, we can see that the foot you are showing did not make that print ..

Who is claiming that it did ? Who are you addressing on this Forum, that thinks that picture shows a matching pair ?

Who says anyone here accepts the claim and even needs to check it out ?

Anyone ?

And I don't find it amazing at all, that you keep bringing up these laughable examples of Meldrum's, so-called debunking of the Wallace family claim ...


However it is easy to see that the foot below, and the cast next to it, have a lot in common...

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/meldwal.gif[/qimg]

Perhaps you can ask the Dr. to show how they don't match ?

Interesting points, and striking to the heart of my reason for initiating this thread. LAL insists on showing one particular prosthetic vs. one particular cast, implying that if the forged print didn't make the cast print, then the cast is real. Completely ignoring what may be learned from examining photos I've posted and photos Tube's posted that should raise serious concern (as Huntster's already epxressed) regarding the ability to claim authenticity from a photo, she merrily goes on and on about...well...nothing.
Strawman arguments and semantic games are a crypto-buff's best friends when it comes to looking actual data in the face. Witness the postings of the trolls above. None has bothered to PM to find out the truth because they're not interested in truth. They're interested in personal fights via the keyboard. If Diogenes or Tube or Kitakaze or I said the sun is shining today, they'd immediately claim this is not true and that we couldn't prove it. Of course, my personal favorite is the name-calling and lame appeals to authority: "Dr. Meldrum says the sun can't be out since it's rainy in Idaho!"
Great stuff!
Keep it coming!

 

[kitakaze]

And it looks like that may have happened in the heel area on a couple of those pics, which raises the possibility they were real prints altered to look fake. Of course the tracking expert from BFF wisely declines to play the game, leaving a couple of admitted rank amateurs with our necks out.

Funny how that works.

LAL, I'm getting the distinct impression that you are confused as to which photo Tube and I were discussing. Which photo do think we were discussing?

 

[desertyeti]

LAL, I'm getting the distinct impression that you are confused as to which photo Tube and I were discussing. Which photo do think we were discussing?

WOW!
LAL's had a moment of clarity!
She's seen why real-live scientists seldom pass judgement on BF "evidence" such as track casts and photos and only "rank amatuers" do so! The experiment's been a success after all!
Except she's now claiming to see alterations in the prints and that somehow the evaluation is a "game"...oh well...one step at a time...

 

[LAL]

WOW!
Except she's now claiming to see alterations in the prints and that somehow the evaluation is a "game"...oh well...one step at a time...

I'm exploring other possibilities. I haven't considered pumpkin rinds yet. I don't think the experiment is a game, but what you're doing with it is beginning to look like one.

I prefer RPGs.

 

[kitakaze]

He who called you a spaz reported you?

I guess we trolls had better watch it.

Yes LAL, it's true. I got sick of the asinine go choke, stick it up your bum, etc. type comments of said member, made repeated appeals to tone it down in thread and by pm, then after no avail reported them (the first and hopefully last time I've reported anyone). I also referred to that member as a spaz (as in someone prone to tempermental and emotional outbursts- I stand by that assessment).

Anyway, wanna talk about bigfoot? I doubt they exist.

 

[kitakaze]

I prefer RPGs.

Me, total addict. I blame everyone here for sidetracking me off FFXII (yes, I really am that cool).

 

[LAL]

LAL, I'm getting the distinct impression that you are confused as to which photo Tube and I were discussing. Which photo do think we were discussing?

Abbott Hill, AKA Gray's Harbor, Heryford (after Dennis, one of the sheriff's deputies who investigated, April 22, 1982). There were other track events in the general area around the same time, namely Workman's Bar, Elma Gate and Porter Creek.

I was actually trying to get back on topic and that seemed a good way to steer it.

When I first saw DY's photos I thought the texture in the heel area might be from suction, although it looks rather like little cracks or even scrap marks. Another angle would be useful. The naked eye can catch detail the camera can't.

Photos uploaded to the net lose clarity.

Remember, Dr. Meldrum has investigated tracks in situon a half dozen occasions and has cast some himself. He's not just relying on photos or casts or photos of casts or photos of copies of casts.

There's an outside chance he knows what he's talking about.