• 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.
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.

I was responding to tube's posting of Mark Hall's review. I guess you missed that, just like you seem to have missed all my requests for page numbers.

The wooden prosthesis is not a match for any cast so far. That may not mean the casts are real (did I say that it does - where?), it means they're not a match for Wallace fakes.

There's just as much reason to have serious concerns about the results of tube's experiments. But since you're apparently collaborating, I guess you're satisfied that replicating actual conditions as closely as possible isn't really necessary, especially when that seems to screw up the expected results.
 
The wooden prosthesis is not a match for any cast so far.
Wrong...!!!

meldwal.gif
 
Last edited:
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.

One step at a time.
Before he can pass judgement on any tracks he finds in the field, he must know what a real one looks like, correct? So how does he know? Well...in print, he's referred to the Patterson subject's purported tracks, the Freeman prints, the Elkins Creek print, the Bossburg prints, so these factor in to his interpretation somehow. BUT, each of these is preserved only as out-of-context casts and photos. SO...he's at least partly basing his modern diagnosis of a print's authenticity on previously preserved specimens of questionable authenticity and with no ability to directly examine their context (as Huntster's so correctly pointed out is necessary). Make sense?

Now, taking another step, looking at human prints, which are overall similar in design to purported BF prints, it would be very useful to anyone seeking to test the authenticity of a 5-toed, plantigrade track to be able to recognize the signs of a living, moving foot vs. a forgery. Perhaps you'll agree? If so, then wouldn't it be a very good start to learn as much as one can about how a human-like foot moves through sediment before going so far as to claiming that one can determine the authenticity of a print or trackway? Nothing too outrageous in these assertions I'm making I hope.

SO, one final step for now: Say Dr. Meldrum is out looking at some tracks in the field, and proclaims said trackway is authentic based on his opinions about other prints of similar design and size. Is it so horribly wrong to ask him to examine several sets of tracks (some real, some forged) in order to evaluate the man's ability to actually discern real from fake? And if he passes the test with flying colors, fantastic! If he doesn't...well...just how worthwhile is his opinion on such matters at that point? remember, no one here is claiming such tracks CAN'T be real, only that the ones found so far cannot be shown to be real, and many in fact, look downright phoney.

There's just as much reason to have serious concerns about the results of tube's experiments. But since you're apparently collaborating, I guess you're satisfied that replicating actual conditions as closely as possible isn't really necessary, especially when that seems to screw up the expected results.
sigh...no, I'm not collaborating with Tube, and if you or anyone else has experimental data that contradict his, I'm interested in seeing it. Screwing up expected results is what science is all about! So, show us all how he's screwing up!
What Tube's doing is demonstrating very specific conditions and very specific features. I'm sure you missed that in your haste to disagree with him.
 
Last edited:
LAL, may I suggest temporarily taking Greg off ignore? If I quote his above post it won't show the photos.

Just copy the link and include it as an image in your quote ...:cool:

Let's not put Lu to too much trouble..

Pretty soon she will have everyone but herself on ignore, and she will be resigned to talking to herself..

Wait ! That seems to be what she is doing already ...:boxedin:
 
Since Meldrum enlisted Chilcutt to examine his cast collection for hoaxes I should think he'd be open to testing his assessment abilities.
 
LAL, may I suggest temporarily taking Greg off ignore? If I quote his above post it won't show the photos.

No need. It came through just fine in my e-mail notification. I wasn't getting any for awhile, now I'm getting them all.

The photo was identified by Jeff Meldrum himself when Greg and Bill were hoo-hahing about Dr Meldrum having a Wallacefoot on a webpage. It's a Titmus cast. Copies were available for sale in the area and Green has mentioned the carver of the wooden feet apparently used one, or a photo of the print, as a model.

Try to imagine that foot making a print that would yield a cast like Titmus'.

I posted this entire article earlier, but here's an excerpt:

" A few weeks later I got a letter from Bob Titmus saying that he and another man had found and cast distinctly different tracks, roughly 15 inches long, on a sandbar in the creek below where the road crew was working I immediately returned to Bluff Creek and saw for myself that these new tracks were impressed about an inch deep in damp sand packed so hard that my own prints hardly marked it and that they were in a situation where the use of any sort of machinery to make them appeared to be impossible.

It is carvings of those tracks, not the 16-inch “Bigfoot” tracks, that a nephew of Ray Wallace has displayed in photographs. They are fitted with straps so they can be walked on like snowshoes, but like snowshoes there is no way that human weight could impress them deeply into hard material.

In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15” tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14” long, in another location east of Bluff Creek. I never saw the 16” track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15” tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were accompanied by tracks roughly 13”, and Rene Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks. Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks Rene and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14”. If it is the same as the 14” from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12” track usually discounted because it is within human range.

For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences. Those are the Bluff Creek tracks that I know about. Over the years there were, of course, far more that I didn’t see; many other people who investigated them; hundreds who went just to see for themselves after being told about them, and some who reported coming on them far from any road when they were timber cruising or road locating.

Ray Wallace is connected to all this in only two ways that have been established. The men who first reported the 16” tracks were his employees, and it was the Bluff Creek events that started him on his long career, mainly after he moved to Washington, of producing and trying to sell crudely-faked track casts and photographs and telling outrageous whoppers about his adventures with “Bigfoots.” Ray wasn’t around any of the times I went to Bluff Creek and I never met him, but I was told right from the beginning of his reputation as a practical joker and yarn spinner, the latter being was amply confirmed when he phoned me and wrote letters to me over the years. There were people in California, of course, who were sure the footprints had to be faked, and some of them fingered Ray Wallace as the person they “knew” had done it, but I have outlined the massive task that would have been involved, and no evidence was ever brought forward of any way that anyone could have done it."
 
So there you have it, everyone...

We are to believe Wallace carved the feet to match a track ...

I think I read an article somewhere about how gullible people proceed with the understanding that everyone else is just as gullible as they are...


I'll try to find the story ... It explains a lot..
 
sigh...no, I'm not collaborating with Tube, and if you or anyone else has experimental data that contradict his, I'm interested in seeing it. Screwing up expected results is what science is all about! So, show us all how he's screwing up!
What Tube's doing is demonstrating very specific conditions and very specific features. I'm sure you missed that in your haste to disagree with him.

I started following all this at least as long ago as May, 2005:

"First off, I need to give credit where credit is due. I cannot claim that I discovered the casting artifact process as I learned from Dr. Meldrum that he had seen ridges spontainously develop on test casts some years ago for which he had no solid explanation. He may have discovered this process. I believe Rick Noll was familiar with this process when I showed him my first test cast. I did not pursue "what he knew and when he knew it". In the professional casting world, of which Rick is a part, these kind of ridges would be seen as a mistake or an example of poor casting technique and actions would be taken to avoid them. As far as can tell I am the first person to pursue researching this phenomenon, at least as far as it concerns the understanding of surface features seen on Sasquatch footprint casts."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363&hl=cast+artifacts

Green noticed the looping lines" long ago and thought they might be casting artifacts (tube pointed me to the board where he said that, BTW).

There was no haste. That's your assumption. I disagree on very specific things.

Did you miss the debates with Melissa here and on BFF? Look at her results. She has all the details on her blog. I've posted excerpts and the links. Both were told to screen the OM soil, BTW.

Here's the Dennett article:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html

Maybe I read too much into Matt's calling you his associate on his website. Perhaps Mike Dennett's more of an associate. ;)
 
:D
Not an original idea no big surprise...(it is LAL we're dealing with here).
This one came from Grover Krantz himself...the Great Gullible one (even according to John Green as quoted in Ken Wylie's book and Rene Dahinden in numerous places). But...since St. Grover said it, LAL will re-say it again and again and again and...
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

I agree.

However, in the case of these prints, that isn't the case. Meldrum was on site, and there was a trackway (hell, there were more than one trackway......).

And it was a single photo of one of the prints (shown below) that later became a denialist football right here on this forum, and from which several "explained" that the maker of the print was a bear.

Utter nonsense.........

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 that's not likely to change anytime in the future, either.

On either side of the issue.

And as for point 2, I can only promise you that I'm not tricking anybody, and have no reason to.

I agree. In a couple of years of reading your posts on two forums now, I have no reason to believe you'd try a "trick" like Dfoot tried.

In fact, I've considered you a pretty cool kind of scientist.

Rare, in fact. Maybe endangered............

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.

Again, I agree.
 

Attachments

  • meldrum bear print.jpg
    meldrum bear print.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 48
:D
Not an original idea no big surprise...(it is LAL we're dealing with here).
This one came from Grover Krantz himself...the Great Gullible one (even according to John Green as quoted in Ken Wylie's book and Rene Dahinden in numerous places). But...since St. Grover said it, LAL will re-say it again and again and again and...

Dahinden didn't like PhDs at all, did he? I can't imagine why.

If you're through ridiculing me, how about letting the whole board know how I did? I'm unsubscribing to the thread (in order to avoid inadvertently seeing Greg's posts) and might miss the awful humiliation you have in store for me.

You used to be a good debater. I don't know what's happened over the last couple of years, but now you're no better than the William Parchers and the LTKWTFs, IMO.

Why not just lay down a string of forty or more faked BF tracks in one of the research areas, call Noll and Meldrum and film their reactions. Wouldn't that be more productive than using charchy and me as Guinea pigs? Think you'd be able to destroy their careers?

Be sure to avoid any three-toed tracks.
 
Last edited:
I'd add the caveat that some of the prints Meldrum shows in those photos really do look more like a bear's print than a hominid's foot. But your points are again, well taken.
Again, the point with this preliminary exercise is to get people thinking about what BF "researchers" like Krantz, Meldrum, Noll, and Green claim to be able to deduce from single casts and/or photos. They have no special powers or insights. They're looking at the same exact things we all are.
 
Last edited:
Since Meldrum enlisted Chilcutt to examine his cast collection for hoaxes I should think he'd be open to testing his assessment abilities.

Chilcutt volunteered and Jeff was quite open to the idea. The one Chilcutt set aside, BTW, was contaminated. It was falsely reported to be faked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom