Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[desertyeti]

Simple question- was Chilcutt accustomed to working with casts of the type being used by BF investigators before going to see Meldrum? He said this of the SC:



So there wasn't much ridge detail but the flow pattern matched. That would be the unique to only sasquatches vertically up and down the edges of the foot flow pattern. Yet this is exactly the identifying feature of the casting artifacts.

BTW, do any primates show dermal ridge separation of up to or beyond 2mm?

The devil's in the details!
What he doesn't say in these snippets is that the "flow pattern" on the elk's wrist of the Skookum Cast is parallel to the long axis of the bone. Same as he claims for the "longitudinal" ridges of the footprints which are now known to be casting artifacts. As anyone who's even briefly looked at a hoofed mammal knows, the hair-flow pattern of the animal's legs is...soo-prise...parallel to the long axis of the bone!!! Of course, Chilcutt was using Noll's interpretation of that feature as a hominid heel, so he was fitting his observations to an interpretation. Bad move, but it's past history now.
Not his fault, he simply assumed that the people he was working with knew their stuff (see my post above about forming one's own opinion).

 

[kitakaze]

The ridges Chilcutt took to be dermals were evidenly identical to the one's Chilcutt took to be dermals. They were fainter, because a passing vehicle had deposited a layer of dust on the print. Now, how do the "casting artifacts" get there prior to casting?

lAL, sorry to bother but could you post photos of those two casts from a single trackway displaying identical ridges? I'm assuming there must be pictures because that would easily dismantle the casting artifact evidence unless you suppose they're fake prints which were reproduced from prints made from casts with casting artifacts.

Thanks for posting a link to Melissa's work. I'll get to that as soon as I'm done the proper review of Matt's I'm doing now.

 

[LAL]

Then soon after I get reported by this same person for obnoxious language and attitude.

Did anything happen? Looks like you didn't get suspended or anything.

Polite doesn't work around here. Looks like rude doesn't either.

What does?

 

[kitakaze]

Not sure I see the value in having us unqualified folks look at them (and no, I'm not speaking for those who might classify themselves as qualified).

RayG

no wait...



JK, Ray.

 

[kitakaze]

Did anything happen? Looks like you didn't get suspended or anything.

Polite doesn't work around here. Looks like rude doesn't either.

What does?

Oh, polite works fine (right, Lu?), just not with rude people. As for the reporting, why draw the matter on? It worked. Isn't discussing dermals/casting artifacts more interesting?

If you find polite/rude is not working for you may I suggest cash? That'll work with me. Give me enough and I'll being quibbling semantics all day long.

 

[desertyeti]

Polite doesn't work around here. Looks like rude doesn't either.

What does?

Dare I suggest actually having some scientific backing for any claims of the extraordinary and not simply falling back on the opinions of others?

 

[LAL]

lAL, sorry to bother but could you post photos of those two casts from a single trackway displaying identical ridges?

No. Unfortunately, Jeff didn't include a photo of the second cast. I know, fatal error. He should have published a photo.

In Chilcutt's presentation at the Willow Creek Symposium, he pointed out the human dermals on a Walla Walla cast, set it aside, then came back to it to show the same kind of flow down the side. That print was cast in mud.

So what are the odds "dessication ridges" would show up in the same kind of pattern seen on a California cast and in a Washington cast in entirely different conditions?

And before anybody yells, "Freeman!", there were other rangers at the scene.

I'm assuming there must be pictures because that would easily dismantle the casting artifact evidence unless you suppose they're fake prints which were reproduced from prints made from casts with casting artifacts.

Tube doesn't get mentioned until the end of the chapter; there's no attempt to debunk him.

This is my scan of the peel (it's identified as BCM in the book and the cast was sent to Jeff labled that way, but John Green thought the cast was more likely from OM). It's much more detailed in the book:

 

[LAL]

Oh, polite works fine (right, Lu?), just not with rude people. As for the reporting, why draw the matter on? It worked. Isn't discussing dermals/casting artifacts more interesting?

Yep. I've noticed even William Parcher has toned down quite a bit lately. For that I commend him.

If you find polite/rude is not working for you may I suggest cash? That'll work with me. Give me enough and I'll being quibbling semantics all day long.

I'd rather use eye-gouging, thanks, but that was funny.

 

[carcharodon]

Did anything happen? Looks like you didn't get suspended or anything.

Naah, nothing happened. I didn't even get a warning.

What happened was that I mistakenly posted a whole newspaper article here (in the Loch Ness thread). I didn't know you are not allowed to do that. Then instead of getting a polite pm trying to help me out by telling me I am not allowed to reproduce an entire newspaper article some busybody who wasn't even posting in the thread makes a post to me and proudly boasts that they have reported me for breaking the rules (lovely people around here hey?) and basically was a tattle tail even though I genuinely didn't know what I did was wrong. I then suggested that if that person wasn't a mod or an administrator then it was none of his business and he could shove the report up his arse. I then bid that person a good night. Kitakaze took umbridge at my post even though it was nothing to do with him (like I said he has been following me around looking to pick pick pick) and then reported me for telling the other poster to shove his report up his arse. So I got TWO reports from snitches here.LOL.

Anyways I got a pm from the admin saying that it wasn't cool to tell people to shove things up their arse but also the admin said it wasn't cool for the other poster to report me and not pm me instead so the admin was kind of sympathetic to my post (neener neener Kitakaze!). No probs really.

 

[carcharodon]

Polite doesn't work around here. Looks like rude doesn't either.

What does?

Snitching works maybe. Or maybe not. LOL. Crying foul (though ignoring the fouls when your 'thread buddies' do it) works for some I guess. Again, maybe not.

 

[LAL]

Simple question- was Chilcutt accustomed to working with casts of the type being used by BF investigators before going to see Meldrum?

Not that I know of. He was sceptical

He said this of the SC:

Source, please?

So there wasn't much ridge detail but the flow pattern matched. That would be the unique to only sasquatches vertically up and down the edges of the foot flow pattern. Yet this is exactly the identifying feature of the casting artifacts.

Was any of the sole showing on the SC?

I don't think the identifying features of casting artifacts have been identified yet. Are they responsible for the apparent healed scars on Wrinklefoot too?

BTW, do any primates show dermal ridge separation of up to or beyond 2mm?

I have no idea. That would be question for Jimmy. He's the only one with a database that I know of.

 

[LAL]

This is where the purported ridges were (from a Rick Noll presentation):

 

[kitakaze]

No. Unfortunately, Jeff didn't include a photo of the second cast. I know, fatal error. He should have published a photo.

That is unfortunate and odd given how important that would be. Surely, having the casts if not photos, Meldrum would easily be able to display this evidence that would cast (pun) the case for casting artifacts in a different light?

Tube doesn't get mentioned until the end of the chapter; there's no attempt to debunk him.

That's unfortunate and odd, also.

Not that I know of. He was sceptical.

Well, that can't be good. Surely, that lack of experience is significant?

Source, please?

Jon Olson's 'Bigfoot Ain't Dead, Yet' article featuring an e-mail interview with Meldrum and a telephone (rare) interview with Chilcutt in response to the Wallace affair.

 

[kitakaze]

This is where the purported ridges were (from a Rick Noll presentation):

I'm not sure if those are the type of dermatoglyphics that Chilcutt's making his case about. BTW, wouldn't a picture of some ape heels be more relevant (just a thought, since they aren't showing any)?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That is unfortunate and odd given how important that would be. Surely, having the casts if not photos, Meldrum would easily be able to display this evidence that would cast (pun) the case for casting artifacts in a different light?That's unfortunate and odd, also.


Well, that can't be good. Surely, that lack of experience is significant?
Jon Olson's 'Bigfoot Ain't Dead, Yet' article featuring an e-mail interview with Meldrum and a telephone (rare) interview with Chilcutt in response to the Wallace affair.

From the article:

On the other hand there are tracks that have borne up under scrutiny by experts in primate anatomy and locomotion, such as me, and expert trackers who are familiar with the nuances of a "living" track.

I wonder who these ' expert trackers ' are .. Meldrum should name them if he contends they add weight to his claims..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This is where the purported ridges were (from a Rick Noll presentation):

Pretty stupid, using pictures of the bottoms of feet, next to a cast of an alledged heel impression ...

We can show that the so called dermals on those heel impressions look a lot like the other casting artifacts we have seen..

 

[carcharodon]

I wonder who these ' expert trackers ' are .. Meldrum should name them if he contends they add weight to his claims..

If you 'wonder' then perhaps you should try and contact him and ask.....that might provide your answer. The names might be meaningless to you and I, in which case would their names really matter? If one was called Buck Frobisher, for example, and you had never heard of him, nor could you find out anything about him then would his name mean anything to you?

Perhaps they do not wish to be named? Maybe they don't like the idea of the peanut gallery smirking at them? I wouldn't blame them.

 

[desertyeti]

It wouldn't bee very helpful to "the cause" if they concentrated on showing that the Skookum elk's wrist is the same morphologically as a regular old, non-ape-man-type elk, now would it? Nah, better make the striations into "dermals" and claim that 9 out of 10 tracking experts agree.

 

[LAL]

That is unfortunate and odd given how important that would be. Surely, having the casts if not photos, Meldrum would easily be able to display this evidence that would cast (pun) the case for casting artifacts in a different light?That's unfortunate and odd, also.

Jeff was supportive of Matt's work. He did say more testing is needed. The chapter isn't about that.

Whoa! There is a photo on pg. 257 with ridge detail of a 13" cast from OM. Might well be the second one. I'll double check and scan it when I'm feeling better. I'm seriously down with a cold today.

Well, that can't be good. Surely, that lack of experience is significant?

Huh? If he'd been a proponent used to handling alleged Sasquatch casts he'd have immediately been accused of being biased. As it is, he went in cold with experience with people and other primates, came out convinced and is now suspected of being biased because he didn't find them all to be faked.

Jon Olson's 'Bigfoot Ain't Dead, Yet' article featuring an e-mail interview with Meldrum and a telephone (rare) interview with Chilcutt in response to the Wallace affair.

Thanks. I've posted so many links even I don't remember them all.

 

[LAL]

Dare I suggest actually having some scientific backing for any claims of the extraordinary and not simply falling back on the opinions of others?

Since I haven't seen the originals either and have no scientific credentials, I'm forced to rely on opinions of those who do and who have studied originals for considerably longer than three seconds.

No page numbers yet? If you don't have them, just say so.