Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[tube]

Much has been made by Chilcutt of the "ridge flow pattern" of alleged Sasquatch dermals. You can see here on CA-19 a flow pattern. But how are such fine details as "dermals" preserved in a track when such coarse detail as TOES are not? It makes no sense at all as "dermal ridges".

 

[tube]

But the mysterious "ridge flow pattern" is actually the way desiccation ridges flow, as A FUNCTION OF THE SHAPE OF THE TRACK THEY WERE MADE IN. There is a reason the ridges flow across the "ball" of CA-19, because they tend to congregate along the sidewalls of the depression they were made in. You can see it in CA-19, if you study how the ridges hug the side of the "big toe", along the "ball" and against whatever the little lump is beneath the middle toe.

You can really see how desiccation ridges "flow" in this test cast of mine, made in pumice.

 

[kitakaze]

Desiccation ridges often, but not always, congregate around the periphery of casts. The four casts seen here are no exception.

I know that I will never convince Internet fanatics, and those who wish to augment their Bigfoot social status by attacking "debunkers" such as myself and Dr. Wroblewski. But I think that everyone else can see how obvious these textures are as desiccation ridges.

I think for anyone even after the most casual examination to continue to assert that these features are dermal ridges is to display such total lack of objectivity that whatever credibility may have been had is irrevocably gone. Not to mention the forhead slapping stupidity of not in one instance someone being able to address the question of more than one cast of a successive trackway displaying matching dermal features.

It's not supposed to be funny but it really is.

 

[kitakaze]

snip ...Read much? Try reading some books on the brain, perception, and memory. You shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with other possibilities once you exercise your brain instead of your mouth.RayG

Why, we need look no further than Sweaty's recounting of Joyce's report to see the mysteries of brain, perception, and memory. His silence is even more telling than his lame attempts at deflection.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
And someday you'll figure out how to answer simple questions!

And you continue to cut me to the quick. If only your powers of observation were as sharp as your wit.

Quote:
How are the other PROBABLE explanations for Joyce's report and her phone call to me coming along?

You want probabilities go see a mathematician. If you truly cannot think of any other possibilities then your mind isn't as open as you claim.

Quote:
You said you could think of some....can you post anything at all?

Yes, I can, and without a great deal of effort. Read much? Try reading some books on the brain, perception, and memory. You shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with other possibilities once you exercise your brain instead of your mouth.

Premiering Sunday, January 28th, on the Randi Network........

"Everybody Laughs At Raymond".....

The smart little boy who couldn't answer questions...try as he didn't!

Don't miss the new sure-to-be-a-hit Series premiere!!! It's a laugh and a jolly half!

 

[tube]

Never the less, Tube's correctly pointed out also that fake feet almost always leave deeper toe marks than the real deal. This is precicely because the toes in a real foot are mobile at the phalangeal-metatarsal joint. The greatest downward stress is usually placed on the distal metatarsal, not the toe tip. This is true of humans, apes, and even bears. It arms one with a key "red flag" to look for in examining sets of tracks and/or casts. Namely, if the toes are dug in deeper than the rest of the foot...very possible forgery!

So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm seeing in this particular track a lot of indentation in the toes, and not a lot of indentation at the ball or metatarsal phalangeal joint. Would you consider this a "red flag"?

Does anyone else find it kind of sad that it has taken almost 40 YEARS for this piece of evidence to be critically and publicly discussed?

I for one thank our new Internet Overlords...

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

You want probabilities go see a mathematician. If you truly cannot think of any other possibilities then your mind isn't as open as you claim.

But.....Ray....you promised me you'd help me out ...
Quoting you...

I can certainly think of a few explanations that might be possible. (without a whole lot of effort too)

If you are truly unable to come up with any other possible explanations, I can give you some hints.

I have an open mind...just not a good imagination.
In the past people have compared my brain-power to a stalk of asparagus. I want to know what else could possibly...and more importantly, probably, account for Joyce's report and her phone call...but I just can't come up with anything on my own.
All that I can come-up with is asparugus recipes...
One of my favorites is Asparagus Quiche in Ramekins.
Yum Yum!!! You ain't lived until you've had asparagus cooked in Ramekins....whatever the hell they are!

 

[RayG]

RayG wrote:

But.....Ray....you promised me you'd help me out...

Oh I will Obi-Wan, I will... I was just hoping you'd exercise your brain first. Apparently the hampster has died.

I want to know what else could possibly...and more importantly, probably, account for Joyce's report and her phone call...but I just can't come up with anything on my own.

That's no surprise. You're like a little kid who walks up to a soccer star and says "Throw a touchdown in today's game!"

To which the soccer star replies: "Kid, I don't play American football*, I play soccer**, only the goalie can touch the ball with his hands."

The kids smiles at him and says, "Ok, throw a touchdown in today's game for my brother!"

As with you, it just doesn't sink in.

RayG

* a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goals at opposite ends of a field having goal posts at each end, with points being scored chiefly by carrying the ball across the opponent's goal line and by place-kicking or drop-kicking the ball over the crossbar between the opponent's goal posts.

** a game played between two teams of 11 players, in which the ball may be advanced by kicking or by bouncing it off any part of the body but the arms and hands, except in the case of the goalkeepers, who may use their hands to catch, carry, throw, or stop the ball.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Oh I will Obi-Wan, I will....

That's what this discussion board is for, Ray.
If you're truly interested in the truth about Bigfoot....you would simply contribute to the discussion and analysis without playing evasive games.

Your evasiveness speaks VOLUMES about your true motivation for posting.

BTW.....I think you'll just LOVE the new series!

 

[William Parcher]

Does anyone else find it kind of sad that it has taken almost 40 YEARS for this piece of evidence to be critically and publicly discussed?

It's only sad from one particular perspective. I regard Bigfoot as a myth with motivated perpetuators. I expect this kind of thing and much more to come. The belief in Bigfoot is not going to go away. We should expect turnover, replacement and recruitment of believers. A new generation of enthusiasts is always developing. Your work on pseudodermals and the MTB is meaningless "debunking" against the myth. This myth will endure everything you can throw at it.

The boys in Oklahoma & Texas have frequent close encounters. They don't even need dermal ridges and mid-tarsal breaks to convince them that the wood monkey is real. Why should they care if you debunk a PNW footprint casting or two? They have lots of biggies and so they know it's real.

I might get a bit sad when I think that some skeptics are imagining that a scientific analysis of BF evidence could and would stop the myth. I wonder if they understand what myths (like BF) are like when met in the flesh.

 

[LAL]

Wrong again LAL!
Take a look at the photo of that track as it is discussed in the Pennsylvania section. It's there. I promise. The fat guy with the Chicago poster is associated with it as I recall.

As you recall? You don't have the book in front of you and can't give me the page number? I've looked in two editions. The picture you posted isn't there.

Below is the only page of pictures in the Pennsylvania section. Stan Gordon is holding a picture of a print from Pennsylvania. What Chicago poster?

Let me put this another way: Where did you get the picture you posted?

Completely untrue. Volcanic ash (bentonitic clay) sits at the surface until it either is carried away, or is burried. That's how we have 100s of millions of years old ash beds. I tell you this as a geologist. The roads in Bluff Creek were cosntructed by scraping away (grading) the topsoil and exposing the underlying ash-rich soil. Simple. End of story.

So, you're saying that after the road construction guys were though the underlying soil would be the same as the Mt. St. Helens ash I assume tube used?

It wouldn't seem so from this:

Hi Matt,
Short answer: Absolutely, road construction would strip away all the topsoil and organics, leaving the pulverized bedrock (in the case of the Bluff Creek area, a dry, silica-rich dust). The soil you have probably is just that, soil. You need to get at the underlying volcaniclastics and/or pulverized bedrock.

http://www.neiu.edu/~deptesci/wroblewski.htm

Nail polish?

IOW, keep digging until the soil that produces "dessication ridges" shows up?

In any event, neither Matt nor Melissa could get "Crowley lines" using the OM samples Kathy Strain sent them, and now it's the soil's fault. Is that correct? Silica should work, though.

So...back to how all those BF "experts" confidently identify tracks...
I say it's all b.s.

I might have something to say about confident proclamations after all this.

 

[LAL]

Much has been made by Chilcutt of the "ridge flow pattern" of alleged Sasquatch dermals. You can see here on CA-19 a flow pattern. But how are such fine details as "dermals" preserved in a track when such coarse detail as TOES are not? It makes no sense at all as "dermal ridges".

And here's CA-20 from your website. Thanks for sharing.

You said:

"As far as I know, neither Jimmy Chilcutt nor Jeff Meldrum has claimed that this cast's surface is the result of Bigfoot's dermal ridges."

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/ca20.htm

If this is the same cast Jeff identified as being from the same trackway, as you said earlier, you might want to read Jeff's book, or at least pg. 256, for what he has to say about it (you're mentioned on p. 257). This would be the one (if it's the correct cast) that has the similar ridges Chilcutt identified as dermal ridges, only fainter, apparently because of dust from passing vehicles. If that's the case, ridges would have been in the prints, not only in the cast. Of course, it's hard to tell much from photos of copies on the Internet - not enough resolution.

 

[desertyeti]

I might get a bit sad when I think that some skeptics are imagining that a scientific analysis of BF evidence could and would stop the myth. I wonder if they understand what myths (like BF) are like when met in the flesh.

Just speaking for myself, the sad part is that some BF "evidence" is being falsely presented by degree-holding specialists as having passed certain scientific criteria when it in fact has not. Again, speaking only for myself, I love the myth of the wildman in all its forms, and in no way am I attempting to disprove a myth. As you correctly point out that is impossible and in fact does not make any sense. What I am trying to do is bring attention to the fact that certain degree-holding, researchers' interpretations of the "evidence" are actually severly flawed, heavily biased, and in reality, do not support the allegation that a real-live, flesh-and-blood primate exists in North America.
The myth will live on for sure, but the bad science should be exposed for what it is.

 

[kitakaze]

snip ...
If you're truly interested in the truth about Bigfoot....you would simply contribute to the discussion and analysis without playing evasive games.

Your evasiveness speaks VOLUMES about your true motivation for posting.

I really wonder if you can possibly be as idiotic as you behave, Sweaty. You're like an impetuous scorned child who, knowing that they can do no worse, tries accusing the adults of exactly what he's guilty of and aping their scorn.

What's even more pathetic is that you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking that you're somehow contributing to the discussion at hand. The only thing that your childish flailings contribute is static noise and the odd bemused chuckle.

The lame irony of you questioning someone else's interest in the 'truth about bigfoot' when page after page of it is in front of you're face yet you remain quiet about it. The only analyzing you've done in this thread is to realize what a jack-ass you look like and to try and deflect it elsewhere.

The one truly confounding thing is for you to talk of evasion when for all to see you have awkwardly dodged your little conundrum being directly addressed. Maybe posts #852, #897, and #915 will refresh you're already proven lacking memory.

Let's see if we can't humour the fool, though, and give him some fodder for his semantic masturbation:

1) Joyce really saw bigfoot- improbable due to a lack of supporting evidence for such a creature.

2) Joyce lied- far more probable. If she willfully invented the story there are any number of reasons to do so, not all of them necessarily malicious.

3) Joyce's memory of the event is faulty and the true details of the event differ from her account. Definitely possible. That's all we can say with out a proper investigation of the claim having been conducted 24 years ago.

4) Joyce's memory of the event is psychologically manufactured for whatever reason and the event never took place. Unless we should starting including various psychotherapies for every claimant to check for such mental constructs it's no better or worse than 2 or 3.

One further question on top of the many others you've been pathetically ignoring about you're little woo-capade:

When you first spoke with Joyce, did you ask if it might be possible to speak with her daughter about the event?

I suspect you were more interested in garnering a little more affirmation for your odd beliefs than any attempt at an objective look at the matter. But hey, I don't go calling people who's real name and address were shown on a bigfoot website. Don't worry, I doubt your asparagus reasoning will inspire any 'skeptic harrasment' for Joyce and her '83 report.

 

[Huntster]

I stopped posting on Bigfoot Forums when one individual had the audacity to imply that I had somehow engaged in fraud or gross negligence to obtain desiccation ridges on my own test casts.

And that differs from the same allegations leveled at Meldrum, Krantz, etc from folks here............................how?

Because it's you who is attacked?

"Green grass and high tides" over here, huh?

 

[kitakaze]

It's only sad from one particular perspective. I regard Bigfoot as a myth with motivated perpetuators. I expect this kind of thing and much more to come. The belief in Bigfoot is not going to go away. We should expect turnover, replacement and recruitment of believers. A new generation of enthusiasts is always developing. Your work on pseudodermals and the MTB is meaningless "debunking" against the myth. This myth will endure everything you can throw at it.

At least this and succeeding batches don't get to soapbox about dermals and body casts.

 

[kitakaze]

And that differs from the same allegations leveled at Meldrum, Krantz, etc from folks here............................how?

IMO, I would say it differs in that Meldrum, Krantz, etc were not presenting their findings personally here and then directly accused. Realistically, I see know reason given the subsequent investigations of their claims why Noll, Meldrum, or maybe Chilcutt should avoid a dialogue with those who are informed and skeptical of their findings.

 

[kitakaze]

I might have something to say about confident proclamations after all this.

Would it be something to the effect of 'regardless of what's been shown to the contrary I believe what Meldrum and Chilcutt claim to be dermals are IMO dermals'?

Well, I don't know how many times I can say it but I guess more than one cast from a successive trackway displaying matching 'dermal' patterns would reaaally go a long way to support such an assertion. Those are where?

 

[drapier]

Maybe if I'm one of the proponents who puts their eggs in a PNW basket. If you're asking me personally, why would I make the effort to compile the list? I said make your own deductions, I didn't make a point of mine. If I did I would have said check to the east.

I'm intrigued. Are you suggesting that there is more to Joyce's story?

 

[kitakaze]

I'm intrigued. Are you suggesting that there is more to Joyce's story?

Is there some reason the NY can't have sightings? The town of Whitehall only has a population of about 2600. Check what's around the town:

Maybe if I'm one of the proponents who puts their eggs in a PNW basket. If you're asking me personally, why would I make the effort to compile the list? I said make your own deductions, I didn't make a point of mine. If I did I would have said check to the east.

Very perceptive, drapier. Let me preface my answer with a few things.

First, I've been looking into the matter to the best of my abilities if not to the point of distraction. Sweaty posits a phone conversation with Joyce Gifford as being persuasive ('isn't paltry') evidence for the existence of bigfoot. He asserts to the point of annoyance by what I'm calling 'asparagus reasoning' that she was either 'telling a pack of lies' or did in fact see bigfoot. He incessantly insists that he be engaged in is profoundly fallacious reasoning to produce a third option to his warped conclusions and comedically makes a spectacle of himself when encouraged to do better himself.

Beyond a phone call in which he listened to her account and explained to her why he believed in bigfoot we have no indication of Sweaty actually objectively looking into the matter. We do have an indication that Sweaty contacted a stranger to discuss a claim of a 24 year old event and a 2002 submitted report of that claimed event. By this we also have an indication of what level Sweaty engages the bigfoot phenomenom. Namely, as a simple believer seeking affirmation of his beliefs.

I proceeded to try and glean some information on the matter from the position that I consider the possibility of the existence of bigfoot in action rather than just words and that just because there is absolutely NO substantial evidence to support it's existence I could at least entertain the idea that Joyce did in fact see something with her daughter as she claims. Were I a better skeptic I might not have expended time on the matter at all.

Again, that Sweaty blindly accepts her account without any investigation, touts it here as supportive evidence for bigfoot, then dodges direct questions on the matter shows quite clearly the worthlessness of his opinions on the matter and an obvious reluctance for his anecdote to be scrutinized.

In LAL's quoted post above mentioning Whitehall and it's population she originally said 'check to the west' as opposed to the edit of 'check what's around the town'.

In my examination and compilation of contemporaneous NY State reports I noticed some localization of areas and in particular though there was only a single (Joyce's) report from Columbia County there were other reports from nearby counties in the east. This was the most casual observation and I must stress that I purposefully avoided looking at any adjacent state. In my original examination I also noted a somewhat frequent mention of hair/fur colourings as being light, light brown, reddish (in dusk sunlight), reddish orange, and dark with light tips.

In light of this the believer will expectedly jump like lightning and use this as supporting evidence that they did in fact see bigfoot. Some important things I should note is that I found height estimates from 5 to 10 feet, many spurious claims related to sights/sounds, and in light of Joyce's report I purposely disregarded contemporary reports in an effort to entertain what she claimed to see at the time she claimed to see it. Nothing I found in my admittedly limited examination would discount the more likely socialogical explanation given that there is NO supporting evidence of bigfoots hanging out in New York State or anywhere else.

And if I might be forgiven for the sentiment, woo-woo footies who whine about their claims not being looked fairly or at all should shut the #$%& up.