Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

That's fine. Having a friendly conversation with a stranger who claims to be a witness is one thing, presenting it here on this board as evidence for bigfoot that 'isn't paltry' is quite another.

Really. I mentioned hearing a first person account while waiting on an oil change and you didn't jump all over me.

 

[Correa Neto]

And apparently they're nothing but fat chimps. Not a new species after all.

Conclusions on their affiliation were reached after examination of reliable evidence.

No evidence of similar quality is avaliable for bigfoot, as far as I know.

The main difference is there were scientists working there at all. The Bili Ape project got Dr. Sarmiento.
...snip...

Already discussed ad nauseaum here.
There are scientists working in the field at North America's "bigfoot country". They are not researching bigfoot, but I think its quite reasonable to assume that if these animals were real, some reliable evidence would have surfaced. Do you really need to be specifically looking for a 3m tall ape to find it? Were all the witnesses (many of whom claim to have seen them at areas that by now way can be considered as inaccessible) looking for bigfeet?

Most of it's in Dr. Meldrum's lab at ISU. You can throw out everything brought in by Freeman and Marx and still have enough evidence to warrant that full scale scientific investigation we haven't had yet.

And the reliable evidence includes one of the below?
-Fossil remains of a bipedal primate (not H. sapiens) from North America within a time frame coincident with human colonization (maybe even a non-bipedal chimp-sized ape of the right age and place would do);
-DNA analisys from blood, hair or scat samples pointing towards an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies at North America;
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances (for example, someone else manages to take more pics or footage) it could even be "proof".

Any of the above could be enough to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation (whatever that actually means). He´s got some of the above?

Or just footprint casts, a short and shaky movie suspected of being a fraud, blurred pictures, sighting reports, myths interpreted outside their original context...

Ivan Marx faked film. There's no evidence he faked casts. ...snip...

You probably are quite aware of these articles:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hoaxes/marx_footage.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm
And despite of it you are willing to accept evidence produced by these individuals?
Please check this quote from post 1074:

I would add "not suspected to be a hoax" to the list of criteria to required to define a piece of evidence as "reliable". Note that pieces of evidence such as those produced by Marx and Freeman, as well as the PGF will go down the drain as soon as this criteria is applied. Some persons wrote something like "X was involved in some hoaxing, but he produced interesting evidence that was not proved to be hoaxed" or "he made it to spice things up, but he presented good evidence before". This is an example of unbeliavable naïve wishfull thinking. Or self-deception. Or dishonesty. I saw similar "excuses" being used by paranormal and UFO scammers and their followers. Its just unacceptable.

And in nearly forty years has not been proved to be one. Why do sceptics so completely ignore those proportions?

And in all these years, defenders of PGF completely failed to prove it is not a hoax. More and more fishy details are found...

Regarding the IM argument, I could ask why PGF defenders ignore the fact that human body proportions can be easily altered by costumes? Its an extremely obvious flaw. I can't help but question the objectivity (regarding the bigfoot subject) of anyone who uses such argument. Even if they are PhDs in primate anatomy.

Here´s a reductio ad absurdum:
What is Barney's IM?

Hey, those proportions surely eliminate the possibility of Barney being a man in a pink dinosaur suit!

What about the ones that a correct anatomically for a bipedal hominid having great weight?

Can be faked, interpreted with how can I say... Too much enthusiasm... Not to mention that the weight determinations I am aware of are far from satisfactory. I've already exposed why. Scroll down some pages or perform a search if you want to see the arguments again.

Thousands of reports from reliable witnesses, many backed up by physical evidence. The most common, according to John Green's database, are of the animals near roads or crossing them, seen from cars. ..snip...

And barely had time to have a second look at what their brains interpreted as being a bigfoot, and details may be later aded based on a template readily avaliable...

It would be interesting if they turned up, wouldn't it?

Maybe. I guess is that if they appear, it will be a de ja vú of Biscardi's bigfoot hand.

It makes me wonder why bigfoot investigators are not tracking them...

The leading primate anatomist, after four examinations of the original, stated on National TV he's satisfied the imprint was not made by a coyote, deer, or elk, but Cliff Crook, a known hoaxer who's never seen the cast, and this man,

[qimg]http://www.neiu.edu/~deptesci/anton.jpg[/qimg]

who's seen a copy, say it is and that's good enough for you?

DY studied a copy of the cast with enough detail. He has expertise in a related field (ichnology), exposed his methodology, data gathered and conclusions. The work seems quite reasonable for me.

Why should I consider his conclusions are not as exact as Meldrum's? Because DY does not use a mustache? Because he has not exposed his conclusions on National TV? Or you are again trying to use an appeal to authority? I tought we had already considered such thing as useless...

Point me to a study that shows North Americans copped Native myths and are now going around seeing mythological beings in forests and near rivers and occasionally on farms across the continent...snip...

People see thunderbirds, Jesus, little grey men, chupacabras, the Virgin Mary, ogopogos, ghosts, etc...

As I said before:
Plaese, don´t waste time trying to sell
-Casts from Ivan Marx
-A film that may (quite probably is IMHO) be a hoax
-Blobfeet
-Casts that may be hoaxes or misidentifications
-Sighting reports
-Disappearing body parts
-A hand found at a dumpyard
-The cast of an elk lay
-Interpretation of myths
as reliable.

I'm not buying.

 

[drapier]

And apparently they're nothing but fat chimps. Not a new species after all.

Why did you post the article about the animals? I'm not sure how it supports the existence of Bigfoot.

Ivan Marx faked film. There's no evidence he faked casts. Some have held up to intense scrutiny. How likely is it he could have faked a condition consistant with metatarsus adductus, or come up with a fingerprint on a Washington cast consistant with one found in Ft. Bragg, California (assuming tube is correct in it not having whorls)?

BTW, Cripplefoot's prints were seen again 5-6 years after Bossburg, twenty miles away.

Well, I guess even liars can sometimes tell the truth, but, surely it must give you some pause to accept bigfoot evidence from someone who you admit has faked bigfoot evidence.

 

[kitakaze]

I answered your questions.
Now you're the one having a problem answering questions.
How about answering the ones I asked you a couple of days ago....

I might continue humoring your little woo-woo games more willingly if your questions you refer to weren't so incredibly stupid.

How could Joyce's poor memory of certain details change the most basic fact of their sighting....that they thought they saw a Bigfoot?

First of all, Sweaty, that there was a sighting of anything at all or that there was a 'their sighting' in this 23+ year old claim are not established facts in any way. Second, that the human brain can fundamentally alter our perceptions of experiences past and present is a very well established fact. Why do you insist on being such a Chia Pet in not understanding why that crap doesn't fly here?

Were they actually watching a bear walk upright through a cow pasture, and only later she misremembered it and thought they were watching a Bigfoot?

You're the one that keeps finding bear as the only alternative, why don't you tell us what 'they' actually saw?

Can you provide any quotes from me, where I INSIST that someone else provide other PROBABLE explanations?

There are none where you use the word 'insist' but apparently I have a far better grasp of the English language than you do. You initially stated there were only two possibilities and ad nauseum asked us to provide otherwise. Why is this not insisting?

I have asked for other LIKELY explanations...but so far, nobody...including you...have provided any.

When will you begin to understand that given the extreme lack of verified information that we have concerning Joyce's claim that the best we can do is guess and that 'she really saw a bigfoot' is unfounded speculation? You truly are too far gone.

You did say Joyce might be a fruitcake..."psychologically manufactured"....but failed to provide any reason whatsoever for that being PROBABLE.

Kevo, why can't you resist manipulatively dicking around with what's said to you? Useless speculation is all we can do but then again that's what you thrive on. Who knows, maybe on that day something truly traumatic happened and for some reason she's replaced it with the story you've heard. Again, it's totally useless speculation. Your Joyce anecdote has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with belief. Any reliable evidence of BF in NY State? Maybe you can piss around with the word 'reliable' some more.

She said she would email me the name and email address of someone she had talked to about her sighting, who is a local researcher. She did that the next day.

Did you contact them?

 

[kitakaze]

Really. I mentioned hearing a first person account while waiting on an oil change and you didn't jump all over me.

Missed that. Did you present it here as supportive evidence of bigfoot?

 

[kitakaze]

The leading primate anatomist, after four examinations of the original, stated on National TV he's satisfied the imprint was not made by a coyote, deer, or elk, but Cliff Crook, a known hoaxer who's never seen the cast, and this man,

[qimg]http://www.neiu.edu/~deptesci/anton.jpg[/qimg]

who's seen a copy, say it is and that's good enough for you?

I don't mind jumping on this. What was the purpose of posting the photo? Would you like to share one of yourself? Would my tattoos and the odd piercing bar my chances of being an accomplished scientist? I'm only assuming my messy hair might be a plus.

 

[kitakaze]

Dr. Meldrum will be on the Discovery Channel tomorrow night.

"Episode 2: Bigfoot

It is one of the most enduring unresolved mysteries. Is the missing link between early humans and apes alive today in the dense temperate forests of the Pacific Northwest?...

...and New York State, Georgia, Arkansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Iowa, and much of the rest of the NA continent, England, Russia, China, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Viet Nam, Brazil, Tibet, Nepal, Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, India, blah blah blah... am I filtering?

 

[LAL]

Why did you post the article about the animals? I'm not sure how it supports the existence of Bigfoot.

They were thought to be a myth. The story was from 1960; it took another 40 years before they were actually investigated scientifically.

The PGF is going on 40.

Well, I guess even liars can sometimes tell the truth, but, surely it must give you some pause to accept bigfoot evidence from someone who you admit has faked bigfoot evidence.

Not at all, knowing the story. The original track find was by a local person.There were sightings in the area. Marx was called in becuse of his known interest. He cast the prints found by the dump.

Later, he was put on the payroll and evidently wanted to keep things going when interest began to die down. He was a known practical joker. Peter Byrne exposed the hoax. This is one of my favorite links:

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/news.php

The film is here:

http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/hoaxes/hoaxes.html

Prints like Cripplefoot's were found twenty years earlier, too.

Ray Pickens was making fake tracks around that time, in retaliation for a couple of investigators calling him and his friend "hicks", but he was in Colville, not Bossburg.

This is him with one of his fakes:

 

[LAL]

...and New York State, Georgia, Arkansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Iowa, and much of the rest of the NA continent, England, Russia, China, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Viet Nam, Brazil, Tibet, Nepal, Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, India, blah blah blah... am I filtering?

Are you thinking that's all the same species? Doesn't Japan have a "wildman" too?

Dr. Meldrum pretty much sticks with the PNW. Why would you drag in all that other stuff? I don't think he will.

I wish I could see the episode. I'm out of range for cable and don't have a clear line of sight for satellite.

 

[LAL]

Missed that. Did you present it here as supportive evidence of bigfoot?

You could say that. I told the story.

Like it or not, the thousands of credible eyewitness accounts are evidence. gorillas and giant pandas were thought to be native myths once too.

The evidence for sasquatches is much better than the evidence for any similar animals in Asia or Australia, BTW.

 

[desertyeti]

I get it now!
LAL's got a crush on me (even keeps old photos of me from 2001 ) and that's why she's so irrationally upset by my scientific analyses (and refusal to respond to her love notes). Sorry baby, I've already told you I'm happily married.

But just for you, LAL (and anyone else who's smitten by the ol' Yeti), here's a more recent one from this summer with me and my Welch Pony Smokey. Enjoy:

Now, back to the main portion of this thread (even though I'm sure that's not going to happen)...how exactly does a self-proclaimed, non-photogenic expert, become an expert in identifying tracks that can't be shown to come from a living foot?

Oh, what the heck?
Here's another one from this past summer of your pal, Dr. Yeti.
This time on a fieldtrip in South Africa looking at deepwater sandstones of the Tanqua Karroo. I was there as part of a company consortium and will hopefully be co-leading the trip next year some time. Being a professional geologist lets one travel to all kinds of cool places and gather lots of really excellent data:

 

[Melissa]

Hello Melissa,

Wow! I had no idea that you had previously posted here. I see you came here at a time when I was MIA travelling for a while. Welcome (and welcome back) to the JREF. I'm pleased that your here to personally comment on much of the things we've been discussing. I'm looking forward to becoming more familiar with your efforts regarding dermatoglyphics claims.

I'll be blunt, I'm of the opinion that of everything we've seen so far, of the small number of casts that are claimed to be displaying dermatoglyphics, that none of these features were the result of a sasquatch imprint. I say this not as a dismissal based on the lack of evidence supporting sasquatch in general but rather on the quality of the dermal claims themselves. I hope this won't lead you to disregard any questions or comments I may have as being biased. Of the small number of proponents that post here I have a particular kind of appreciation for Huntster and LAL's contributions if obviously not always in agreement with them. A couple of others, not so much as I'm sure you can see. It was from LAL that I first learned of your efforts to address Matt Crowley's findings.

Before we get too far into a detailed debate concerning soil types and 'this expert told me this and that expert told you that' subject I wonder if you might have any input on a point that I've been raising lately regarding dermal claims that has yet to be answered. You see, my signature (not the Donnie Darko one) is an abbreviated form of this point or question to be more specific. I'll give you the unabbreviated version:

Regarding claims of casts of alleged sasquatch prints displaying what are interpretted as being the dermatoglyphics of that creature can anyone anywhere demonstrate two casts of separate prints of a successive trackway displaying matching (not similar) dermal patterns?

This seems to be one of the simplest and most basic questions regarding these claims yet one that has thus far been unanswered. I look forward to any input you have to offer on this.

Kitakaze.

Thank you for the warm welcome I must admit for a room full of skeptics many have been very gracious and kind.

As to your question about my thoughts on the lack of multiple tracks that display dermals in a track way - Your guess is as good as mine.. Had the Onion Mountain Tracks been preserved better, this may be a totally different conversation.

To be completely honest - My work has never been about proving Tube wrong, he and others would like to make it into a contest between him and myself and I do get drawn into the pissing contest, but my work is about so much more than what Tube can or can not create. Fact is Tube - your not being honest and you know it. On the BFF - many people one afternoon called Seattle Supply Co - and they were all told (and the workers angered) they do NOT have Volcanic ash - let alone VIRGIN volcanic ash..They do get it in from time to time, but they do not keep it in stock, and when they were basically harassed by phone - the official response from that store was, they had not had Volcanic ash in a while and didn't know if or when they would get it again. What they display on their website is PUMICE - which we both know is a much different substance than Virgin Volcanic Ash. If you want the information Tube - go find it, its out there, thats pretty much the same advice you gave me.. Do it yourself. Which is excellent advice.

I can only report what I have discovered through my own testing. Tube's work with the Onion Mountain Soil validates my work - as he also has not recreated these "artifacts". I'm not sure why he is so angry with me. Oh well.

kitakaze: To be perfectly honest - I must say I am not sure any dermal captured in a track is that of a Sasquatch.. We would have to find one to ever have a definitive answer...

I find that usually when your being attacked, your doing something right. I must be doing a great job lmao. I'm not here to argue or fight with anyone, but I wont sit back and allow anyone to misquote or mis-state the facts surrounding my work, as anyone would do. I have in fact completed tests that were to the specifications tube stated - and I could not duplicate his work, there must be a reason and for him to take that as a reflection upon him or his own work - well I think its time to lower the ego. This isn't about anything for me but getting to the bottom of a mystery.

 

[kitakaze]

Thank you for the warm welcome I must admit for a room full of skeptics many have been very gracious and kind.

You're Welcome.

As to your question about my thoughts on the lack of multiple tracks that display dermals in a track way - Your guess is as good as mine.. Had the Onion Mountain Tracks been preserved better, this may be a totally different conversation.

Hopefully we'll be able to see what Dr. Meldrum has to say on the matter.

To be completely honest - My work has never been about proving Tube wrong, he and others would like to make it into a contest between him and myself and I do get drawn into the pissing contest, but my work is about so much more than what Tube can or can not create.

What would you define your work as being about and is there a presentation online that we might view on it?

kitakaze: To be perfectly honest - I must say I am not sure any dermal captured in a track is that of a Sasquatch.. We would have to find one to ever have a definitive answer...

Your candour is appreciated. With the exception of what has already been identified as those by human are you sure there are otherwise dermals to be seen?

 

[tube]

Well, there we have it folks, Melissa Hovey calls me a liar! Funny, Melissa, you have phone call anecdotes while I have proof:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2301430&postcount=1084

I suspect you have have been busted so badly on this volcanic ash thing that your only recourse is to lash out and falsely accuse me of being a liar. I think your credibility just took a serious, irrevocable, nosedive.

 

[Melissa]

What we have here is a bad case of HEARSAY. We are not told:

1. What the names of your "experts" are.
2. What questions are being asked.
3. What exactly their answers are.

By and large I've tuned out your musings on this subject, ever since you claimed that:

1. Tricalcium Phosphate is equivalent to pumice
2. Tricalcium Phosphate is "full of iron"
3. It's illegal to sell volcanic ash (pumice)

Answers:

1. Im not publishing a paper, and maybe my experts do not care to have their phone lines set on fire just as yours do not. The information is there - look for it.

2. Read Tube, I typed out the specific questions I have asked to experts, to date. If you haven't seen them, then you have not done anything but skim my writing on this issue.

3. Again, Read - their answers are there for you to see - pretty much word for word. I am saving the best for last however -- nooo your gonna have to wait.

1. I dont remember saying TriCalcium Phosphate was the equivalent of pumice, anyway you told me if I could not find Volcanic Ash (living in Texas) then I should get a substance that was as close to the weight and consistency of Volcanic Ash - YOU NEVER ONCE said a thing about mineral content - that only came about recently.. This is what I was given at the Pottery Store.

Is Clay the same thing as Volcanic Ash? Humm...

2. When I am wrong I say so, I misunderstood that specific statement about iron (I did call that person back for clarification). So, shoot me I am human.. If thats the worst mistake I make...

Is that really a battle you want to pick? Choose better tube.

3. The only place you will get Volcanic Ash - that is pure ash, is from a Volcano (unless your claiming your Ash did not come from a Volcano) Now as I stated (many times and I will not state it again) it is illegal to take Volcanic Ash out of Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand if you remove that substance from the park - it would also be illegal to ship, and the US Mail is federal. Would you like to play that legal game? I would strongly advise against that. Twist it all you want, but I could not find one store in Washington or Oregon that had Volcanic Ash in stock, and my only other option would be to take it from the Park. Your really making a big deal out of something a 16 year old can comprehend. Once again, your wrong - pick your battles better tube.. If you don't believe me call Gifford Pinchot National Forest yourself, they will be more than happy to tell you what I just did. You seem to think your the last word on everything - including the law, I was unaware you had a legal degree.. Speaking as a Paralegal - I know what side of the law I would prefer to be on.

You always have the option of doing some research yourself Tube.. Instead you chose to make these snotty comments - so your a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of person? If a little work was ok for you to suggest, why is it so tough for you to do the same? I think your angry simply because you can not prove me wrong, Im still waiting for you to get your "artifacts" in the Onion Mountain Soil...

Attacking me wont make me stop my work - no more than it would you, and Im not sure why you would want that - if you are in fact after the truth either way it comes out.

 

[Melissa]

Well, there we have it folks, Melissa Hovey calls me a liar! Funny, Melissa, you have phone call anecdotes while I have proof:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2301430&postcount=1084

I suspect you have have been busted so badly on this volcanic ash thing that your only recourse is to lash out and falsely accuse me of being a liar. I think your credibility just took a serious, irrevocable, nosedive.

Yes, we have proof you only read what you want to, and avoid the rest if it doesnt suit your needs.

My credibility is just fine - yours now may be another issue. Read again tube - you clearly missed quite a bit. I stand by my words, you can post as many receipts as you like. Simply put - Volcanic Ash was not available when I called them - prove different. According to the BFF people who called that place, they couldnt have gotten it either.

You pick the oddest things to use to try and invalidate my work. Your very petty and borderline on childish if you want the truth. Act more like an objective researcher - and less like this is a personal vendetta.. Or is this just about your ego? Heaven forbid you should have to actually defend why I am not getting the same results as you - in 2 (two) different substrates.. Its odd to say the least - and as far as I am concerned you have more explaining to do than I do.

Your gonna have a stroke if you keep getting so angry - try and calm down a little - LMAO.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

How could Joyce's poor memory of certain details change the most basic fact of their sighting....that they thought they saw a Bigfoot?

First of all, Sweaty, that there was a sighting of anything at all or that there was a 'their sighting' in this 23+ year old claim are not established facts in any way. Second, that the human brain can fundamentally alter our perceptions of experiences past and present is a very well established fact.

So the question stands...UNANSWERED...by kitakaze, RayG, Greg, Correa....and all other skeptics in the area.
Probably because none of them can explain...using specific points of the story...how a poor memory of the event could cause Joyce to think she saw a Bigfoot when in fact all she really saw was a jogger....or perhaps an underpaid and over-worked cable guy.
The sighting was in daylight, and they watched it walking away through an open cow pasture. It lasted plenty long enough for them to distinguish between a Bigfoot and a deer...or a bear...or an escaped convict.

Why do you insist on being such a Chia Pet in not understanding why that crap doesn't fly here?

CHA-CHA-CHA Chia!

Useless speculation is all we can do

It's all you skeptics can do, that's for sure!
The way super-skeptics analyse a piece of evidence is to reach into the bottomless "Big Bag of Possibilities", and pull out whatever they happen to find in it...to explain away the evidence.
Correa just pulled "daydreaming" out of the "Big Bag of Possibilities" as one possible explanation for Bigfoot sightings.
It doesn't need to make any sense...or have ANY degree of probability to it....it only needs to not violate the known laws of physics. If it meets that simple criteria....it's in!

Why I can hear an interview now.....
Bob: "I saw a Bigfoot walking across the road in front of me."

Researcher: "Did you pinch yourself in the ass?"

Bob: "Ummm....NO....should I have?"

Researcher: "Absolutely...FIRST thing to do when you start seeing Bigfoots...could be a daydream....I see it all the time. Next!"

 

[Melissa]

You can go HERE to read the first part to my work.

Your candour is appreciated. With the exception of what has already been identified as those by human are you sure there are otherwise dermals to be seen?

If this animal is out there - it is most likely in the Primate Family, and Primates have dermal ridges .. It wouldnt shock me to find out this undocumented animal does as well. Am I sure? I would be foolish to say yes, as I can not say anything definitive about an animal I am not even sure is out there - but I can say it is something that can be looked for, and if we can figure out how mistakes happen in casting, or how people could create these dermals while hoaxing, it can only help in the investigating process.

My work is about trying to determine first of all IF it is possible to cast dermal ridges and flexion creases in soil - I have found it is possible and infact does happen. I now want to know what are the contributing factors that create "artifacts" and how researchers can avoid this in the field (if it is possible) because whats the point of buying casting agents and taking the time to pour the cast, if you could be creating more questions by your own mistakes?

Tube and I have basically been doing these tests - well, in a bubble. We do our experiments under ideal conditions or conditions we can control, so I want to know what happens when the conditions are not so controlled or the casting agent is mixed wrong, or the water is too hot or too cold. Researchers need to understand the tools they are using in the field - or they may as well just save their money. Thats just my opinion.

 

[kitakaze]

You can go HERE to read the first part to my work.

Thank you.

If this animal is out there - it is most likely in the Primate Family, and Primates have dermal ridges .. It wouldnt shock me to find out this undocumented animal does as well. Am I sure? I would be foolish to say yes, as I can not say anything definitive about an animal I am not even sure is out there - but I can say it is something that can be looked for, and if we can figure out how mistakes happen in casting, or how people could create these dermals while hoaxing, it can only help in the investigating process.

Yes, agreed. What I meant was when you said 'I must say I am not sure any dermal captured in a track is that of a Sasquatch' are you sure any of those 'dermals' are the dermatoglyphics of anything?

My work is about trying to determine first of all IF it is possible to cast dermal ridges and flexion creases in soil - I have found it is possible and infact does happen. I now want to know what are the contributing factors that create "artifacts" and how researchers can avoid this in the field (if it is possible) because whats the point of buying casting agents and taking the time to pour the cast, if you could be creating more questions by your own mistakes?

Please forgive the overly simple question but do you think the features we've been looking at and discussing are not casting artifacts?

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, we really should get you a special table or something. The analogy where I said when you get caught with your pants down you just zip up and act like nothing happened may not be accurate as it seems like sometimes you just take off with your pants around your ankles.