Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[desertyeti]

Exactly...so why the hell does anyone still think there's any substance to any of this stuff?!
Wait...I'm afraid I already know the answer to that.

 

[LAL]

Nor was it the impression of the majority of the BFF, as their own poll showed. In fact, the majority very quickly recognized the imprint as being a resting elk, but only the die-hard Noll fan-club carried on and on and on...hey....like here!

As your experiment just showed, majorities can be wrong.

And despite LAL's increasingly pathetic attempts to cast doubt on my credibility,

I don't have a problem with your credibility. I think you believe your findings as much as Caddy, et al,believe theirs. What I don't like is your attitude. See the above statement you made if you wonder why.

I've already explained ad nauseum that I didn't want to see the original under Noll's stipulation that I'd have to sign contracts to allow myself to be video-taped so he could sell the footage in a documentary. There's no way I want to help that man put money in his pockets by granting permission for use of my image or time.

"That man"? Rick's been working on a project for some time. As a prospective buyer I would welcome a presentation from the other side. Then let the data fall where it may.

He was screwed for his work on WCS 2003. MK Davis used his work without permission. He's through with doing things for free, and I can't say I blame him. His time is valuable too.

So, how many members of Rick's "fan club" do you think read the thread and participted in the poll? Two? Melissa and I failed to roll over and play dead, but we don't belong to any clubs that I know of. Was the entire membership represented? Was that a scientifically valid, statistically significant poll or was it just an informal, just-for-the heck of it sort of poll?

If I won one here, wouldn't you think the results were skewed?

 

[LAL]

Aren't you aware of the links between the Journal of Scientifi Exploration and PEAR?

One of Jeff's papers was published there and it's the only place I've been able to find the full paper. The abstract was in the AAPA's pdf. file for the 2002 meeting, pg. 111, as I recall. I have the file, but not the link. I found it on their website last time I posted the link.

But it's not the Swindler-Meldrum paper.

Where's their paper? Got a link to it?

Only a mention fron the Idaho State website that it was presented at the 87th Meeting of the AAAS, Pacific Division. I've already posted that link. According to Owen Caddy, the paper wasn't published because infomation can't be gained from an impression, or words to that effect. I've posted that too.

 

[Correa Neto]

True.

Mountain Goats show little resemblance to their Asian and European relatives.

"The lineage of the Mountain Goat is obscure because glaciation and erosion in steep mountains have destroyed any previously existing goat fossils".

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/mtngoat.pdf

I don't think seasonal browsing at timberline or treks through forests to licks make them forest dwellers any more than occasional walks across farms make Bigfeet farmers, do you?
So, how many fossils of other late Pleistocene arrivals might have been pulverized?

You are missing a point here.

Its an example of an animal whose geographical distribution is much more restricted than bigfoot's supposed habitat. Even within PNW, mountain goats distribution is smaller than bigfoot's (as inferred from sighting reports). Despite their relatively small geographicdistribution, prone to erosion and glaciers, they are present at the fossil register.

Here's a quote from the very article you linked (http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html):

Because of the biases of the fossil record, the most abundant and geographically widespread species of hard part-bearing organisms would tend to be best represented.

See? Geographically widespread species have beter odds of preservation. You are talking about a species that -if real and if sighting reports are as reliable as investigators claim to be- lives at a huge chunk of North America, thus increasing remains preservation chances.

As for the odds on fossil preservation, you must note that the estimates include animals without hard parts, whose species and specimens number far outnumber vertebrates, but are much harder to preserve due to the very absence of resistent parts. Also, it takes in to account a time span that is by no means relevant to the case (thus increasing the number of species - we're talking about a time span roughly coincident with H. Sapiens' existence) in point and also factors such as metamorphism that has little impact on the preservation or not of remains dating from the Pliocene to the Holocene. Note that the very article shows examples of forest-dwelling vertebrates.

Note also that a bigfoot's femur has more odds of resisting transport than the femurs of mountain goats or small horse ancestors...

One more time, you may keep on presenting reasons on why there should not be preserved remains, and I can keep presenting examples of preserving remains. This will not change the fact that the fossil register provides no backing to the claim "bigfeet are real".

On a sidenote, I always found ironic to see a variant of an argument used by creationists (incomplete fossil record) being used to back the lack of support for bigfeet...

It's not surprising there are no known Sasquatch fossils. It would be surprising if there were!

Again, you are missing a point.

And the point is: The fossil register does not provides backing for bigfeet/sasquatch as real creatures.

To say "they were not found yet" or some other variant, is a logicall fallacy, an argument from ignorance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

 

[LAL]

Those are some giant sweat pores but again, I'm no expert. I guess the latent fingerprint expert who apparantly never worked with casts before meeting with Meldrum wouldn't consider his guesses on cast features such as the above to be mistaken as something else?Air bubbles, etc. on your friends copy? How objective is that? I know it wasn't the first time to carefully read the link I gave, right?ETA: proper link.

The "original" OM tube's referring to is a copy. The original was lost in a move. Of course, if all this had been properly catalogued at the time and put in a museum somewhere, I suppose there would have been no loss and no misidentification.

Tube has noted Krantz' copies were full of air bubbles and has suggested the purported sweat pores are nothing but air bubbles. I assume the copier neglected to tap the mold, but it gave me a chance to see the difference. It looks like there are some chips where the bubbles are thickest. They don't look like the irregular pits with the rounded edges.

"The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat pores was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White, at the University of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the casts appeared to represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions of false ridges (with a fine comb) in similar soil, and cast them in plaster. I compared the results with the actual casts, and found that there are, in fact, occasional air bubbles from casting. These bubbles, however, are sharp-edged, and are not as small as the apparent sweat pores. They are rather few, and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases, they also bulge out the ridges around them, but only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the hole and the ridge edge than with the presumed pores (Fig. 13)."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

 

[Correa Neto]

Still little posting time avaliable...

Aniway, here it goes:

One of Jeff's papers was published there and it's the only place I've been able to find the full paper. The abstract was in the AAPA's pdf. file for the 2002 meeting, pg. 111, as I recall. I have the file, but not the link. I found it on their website last time I posted the link.

But it's not the Swindler-Meldrum paper.

Nope, its not, and I know it.

Why only a full paper at PEAR's journal?

Only a mention fron the Idaho State website that it was presented at the 87th Meeting of the AAAS, Pacific Division. I've already posted that link. According to Owen Caddy, the paper wasn't published because infomation can't be gained from an impression, or words to that effect. I've posted that too.

Haven't they attempted to improve the text? When a paper is not accepted, thre reasons are exposed to the authors, so improvments can be done and a new submission can be made, even if not to the same journal.

Why they have not gathered all the other types of data they had and published a paper?

By the way, it was actually a submission to a meeting or to a journal?

Was it an abstract, an extended abstract or a full paper?

Note that meetings usually do not have selection and review criteria as tight as journals.

I can't help but getting the impression they are aware (or at least suspicious) of how weak are the avaliable evidence using to back the claim "bigfeet are real". Perhaps more than some of the posters that also defend it.

 

[kitakaze]

Hundreds or even thousands of gigantic ape-men roaming the woods, crossing roads, harassing people and millions or tens of millions of people running around with digital cameras, video cameras, camera-phones...hmm lessee....carry the one, o.k. here's the math:

Mostly at night. Fahrenbach's math:...

The average encounter is said to be about 20 seconds. It would take me that long to get my cameras off "sleep" and pointed in the right direction. Even if I succeeded, my chances of getting a blobsquatch are extremely good.

I assume I would be together enough to even remember I had my cameras slung around my neck.

What do trailcams do to the math?

If we are to believe that a sasquatch was successfully baited once why should it really take over six years for someone to successfully repeat the attempt with the appropriate camera traps?

Do any proponents here really believe a sasquatches are able to hear the trailcams and thereby avoids them?

Has Noll at some time recanted his claim that he didn't suggest the SC is from a saquatch imprint?

 

[kitakaze]

The "original" OM tube's referring to is a copy. The original was lost in a move. Of course, if all this had been properly catalogued at the time and put in a museum somewhere, I suppose there would have been no loss and no misidentification.

Tube has noted Krantz' copies were full of air bubbles and has suggested the purported sweat pores are nothing but air bubbles. I assume the copier neglected to tap the mold, but it gave me a chance to see the difference. It looks like there are some chips where the bubbles are thickest. They don't look like the irregular pits with the rounded edges.

LAL, do you realize that you are now illustrating that the findings of the 'expert' that you previously cited disagree with findings of the 'expert' that you are currently citing?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.... I've already posted that link. According to Owen Caddy, the paper wasn't published because infomation can't be gained from an impression, or words to that effect. I've posted that too.

And since you keep reminding us, then I need to remind you ..

...infomation can't be gained from an impression alone, or words to that effect. .....

I don't know that for sure, but it seems to be a logical conclusion...

Owen Caddy wouldn't respond to questions regarding the matter...

He's welcome to clear it up at any time, and I will admit I am wrong..

 

[desertyeti]

Caddy obviously and certainly didn't make much of an effort to get the paper into a serious scientific journal (but Weekly World News might still be interested). There are literally dozens he could have submitted it to if it got rejected. The fact that it didn't even get to formal peer review says either: 1) it's such an obvious pile of crap, no one fell for it (most likely), or 2) well...I guess that's about it.

But there's nothing stopping him from trying to get it submitted again and again and again...oh wait...except for the fact that he's trying to B.S. everyone into believing that ape-men leave elk impressions complete with hoof prints.

 

[tube]

Desertyeti, would you care to comment on what Grover Krantz said about the track feature that you call the "ejecta apron"?

 

[desertyeti]

Sure...uh...what did he say?

 

[tube]

I'd upload the graphic, but I'm not in a position to do so right now. Basicly he said that a "stomp" would produce a ring of upset soil around the periphery of the track, what I believe you are calling an "ejecta apron". His claim was that a "real" track would not do this, and so the ejecta apron was indicitive of fake.

I'll have to double check for sure, but I don't think Krantz qualified what substrate he was talking about.

 

[desertyeti]

Oh, oh, oh...yeah. He basically ripped off the idea from a California geologist, Maurice Tripp. Tripp (copied by Krantz) suggested that a corona of dust and dry material would blast up and out if a flat, rigid prosthetic was slammed down hard in order to make a deep print.

The material I'm referring to though is dragged up and out only at the front of the print, by the bulldozer action of the "toes." This can be in wet or dry material.

 

[tube]

I stand corrected! From page 42 of his book:

He's saying an ejecta apron is a sign of a real footprint! Which is interesting to me, having made fake footprints in mud with large ejecta aprons...

 

[desertyeti]

It's confusing because his text doesn't match the simple cartoon.
The raised ridges he's showing in the drawing of the real foot represent material displaced up and around the foot as it is placed into the matrix. The drawing of the prosthetic shows a widely emarginated print, resulting from dry material flying up and away from the foot. This of course, doesn't happen in damp or wet substrate. And it would, naturally, create a raised rim around the excavation. Problem is, Krantz doesn't show this rim, implying that one isn't present.

Now, if a foot is naturally rounded along the bottom (as almost all non-hoofed feet are), it would naturally leave a print with sloping margins, similar to what Krantz shows as resulting from a fake foot. Only a fake foot will leave the cookie-cutter type print he's illustrating for a real foot however. And both will have some sort of raised rim around them. His diagram is not very helpful in the real world, though he made much of it in his book. I suspect ol' Grover had very limited experience with real animal tracking, and that's what led him to these very basic mistakes.

 

[Huntster]

Bingo!
that's why "repeat performances" are necessary.
You tell me you saw a bear last week and the week before in the same area, show me some track photos, and a cast, and I say: "Huh. Could be fake."
You take me out there, we both see the bear and I say: "Wow. Guess not."
Everyone else can now either accept it or reject it, in which case, they're welcome to go find the bear themselves.
So now...where's the ape-man?

I don't know.

I think we ought to go out and follow the next decent, fresh trackway that gets reported, just like you suggest in your bear analogy.

Maybe we can go find the ape-man ourselves.

ETA: The shores of Alaska are awesome! Lots of cool stuff to see.

Have you tried the North Gulf Coast?

The beachcombing is utterly fantastic. The flotsom from the entire North Pacific visits. You never know what you might find................

 

[RayG]

While I've never been to Alaska, I've gotten pretty close, spending five years on the Queen Charlotte Islands* off the coast of mainland British Columbia. (the northeastern tip is about equal distance from both Alaska and BC)

I loved it there, the wife hated it. She, big city girl that she is, found it too isolated. I'd go back in a heartbeat, she wouldn't be caught dead there. Funny how two people can have such opposing viewpoints of a place.

RayG

*Disregard that bit about a military intelligence gathering station, I was there for my... my health.... yeah... that's the ticket...

 

[tube]

I regret that in my haste, I did not do a good job of scanning the drawing included on page 42 of Grover's book. But the text underneath the drawing reads;

"Figure 16, Pressure mounding. Soil compaction underneath a footprint is a product of impressed weight and speed of impact. These drawings are my interpretation of an experiment with shoes in loose dirt. At walking speed (left), soil is compacted directly under the sole, while some is pushed aside and rises in the direction of least resistance. With more forceful stamping (right), soil compaction is somewhat greater, and the side-shifted dirt is moved more rapidly. This rapid movement carries the dirt farther, leaving no mounding and a less distinct foot outline."

Strangely, this differs from an article published some time back by the SRI Bigfoot group;

http://www.sasquatchonline.com/content/view/35/29/


"Impact Ridges: These are cracks that form on the outside of a track, and are caused when something hard and rigid, like wooden feet, are stamped into the ground."

The graphic included here is from the SRI article, not Krantz book, though they are both "Figure 16".

Personally, it's beginning to dawn on me that there are multiple variables that factor into the morphology of any track, real or fake.

 

[carcharodon]

Thanks to all who chose to take the footprint challenge.
The results are…all are real and from the same individual and same trackway.

Can you prove they are real? Or do we just take your word for it? Do you have footage of the track maker actually making the tracks??

I saw a fellow walking with his dog on the flats while I was wandering around watching the birds. I noticed that he was walking normally, then slipped a bit, before proceeding in a more careful walk, with a very deliberate, foot-lifting, small-stride walk. Immediately, I walked out to investigate the tracks he left. I didn’t know this guy, nor did I tell him to do anything weird as he walked, and I didn’t modify the prints in any way. They’re approximately 5-10 minutes old in these photos.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. Do you have this guy's name? Can he corroborate your story?

How do we know for sure when and where these pics were taken and how do we know they were made in the manner you claim they were?

Call me a scoftic on the subject.