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.
Already discussed ad nauseaum here.
So why do you bring it up again?
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.
There was a discussion on BFF about game cams being used in a wildcat survey picking up something they couldn't identify. Seems the info was promptly pulled from the Internet, but possibly there are shots of something that couldn't be identified. A couple of researchers have noted possible activity seems to stop when the game cams go up.
As I've noted, there didn't seem to be any scientific investigations of anything going on in one of the hottest areas in the country, although I did meet a couple of Spotted Owl callers near my gate once. They were students. Now that it's known wolves aren't extinct in the Southern Cascades after all, maybe something else might be found.
But occasional glimpses and more indistinct footprint finds even by wildlife experts (got those already) aren't going to do much to budge science.
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 weren't. I can think of several investigators who were.
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;
Got over a dozen samples of hair identified as "primate" or unknown that match no known mammal, but do match each other. Scat may yield DNA from what's been eaten, but not from the animal doing the eating. The scat analyzed from the Skookum site didn't anything usefull, even elk, BTW.
-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".
At least one team is working on that.
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?
Fahrenbach has the hair, I believe. Meldrum has close to 200 casts, including an "anatomically correct" cast of an impression of female buttocks.
Again, there's enough already to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation, whatever that means - has been for years. I'm not saying it's "hard" evidence, but, as Dahinden said, those casts are pretty hard.
It will probably take habituation to get the kind of evidence you want (unless someone gets a clear shot). And that will take funding for long stays in the field. How long did it take Goodall to get close to "her" chimps?
Or just footprint casts, a short and shaky movie suspected of being a fraud, blurred pictures, sighting reports, myths interpreted outside their original context...
The PGF was shaky because Roger was running, and, at one point, trying to wind the camera.
I posted that one on BFF a coupl of days ago, as matter of fact. It's one of my favorites.
Yep, and when Mike Dennett showed up on BFF he admitted he'd faked the identity of the person who faked the Indiana cast. There was no mention of name and gender being changed in the article.
He bases most of his claim of Freeman fakery on that Good Morning America interview where Freeman said he'd faked prints to fool the neighbors. Dahinden never made the "left, left" remark and I was able to post part of the review, later pulled, where Meldrum discussed that. Dennett had heard about it but hadn't seen it. He was a perfect gentleman on the board, BTW, unlike some of his supporters.
Brian Smith has said Freeman embellished real tracks, but that he (Smith) had found evidence in the same areas Freeman did. Freeman may have faked film, but the prints seen in the 1994 footge are a match for a cast taken by people completely unassociated with Paul Freeman. There are stills from Oklahoma that look just like the hulking figure in the film. Same "costume", or is that what mature male sasquatches look like?
Fahrenbach thought the infamous sample that turned out to be synthetic was a "natural contaminant". People bring things like that in just because they don't know what they are. (Yes, I know Fahrenbach misidentified a bovine hair sample. Bovine hair sometimes lacks a medulla too. Even Einstein was wrong on at least a couple of things.)
And despite of it you are willing to accept evidence produced by these individuals?
Where the evidence holds up, yes. Got some evidence Green, Abbott, Summerlin, Meldrum, Akin, Heryford, Closner, or the other rangers casting at the site of Freeman's sighting, e.g., faked anything?
Please check this quote from post 1074:
Please check this quote from Desertyeti from 2004:
"This has probably been asked before, but with all the newer folks (myself included) just tuning in, I thought it'd be interesting to find out:
Just what piece(s) of evidence most convinces you that such a thing as Sasquatch exists in the face of all opposition?
For me, it's a combination of the Patterson film and trackway plus the dermatoglyphics found on certain prints. These two data sets seem to continue to stand up to all scientific scrutiny, regardless of who looks at them. They especially come out well when picked at by skeptics, since anyone who knows what they're talking about usually comes away either dumbfounded or resigned to the prospect that a huge non-human hominid calls North America home.
Anyone else?"
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6669&st=0&p=133248&#entry133248
And in all these years, defenders of PGF completely failed to prove it is not a hoax. More and more fishy details are found...
Fishy? Like those lines that show up on real animals? Gimlin not seeing Patterson's horse fall on him? DeAtely not remembering how the film was sent?
If you want fishy, read Long. In all these years debunkers have completely failed to prove it's a hoax.
Regarding the IM argument, I could ask why PGF defenders ignore the fact that human body proportions can be easily altered by costumes?
Still waiting on Dfoot who thought it would be easy. In 40 years no one's done it. The BBC's best effort has already been posted. There's a whole thread on this on BFF, complete with .gifs I grabbed from
The Mysterious Monsters where they were actually trying to make sasquatch suits.
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.
Green noted it first, actually. Heironimus claimed he wore his own clothes under the suit. Fact is, huge amounts of padding would have been needed. The shoulder joints are a foot farther part than on a man of comparable size and the IM index is between 80-90 (88 from the digitalization), not the sort of thing that could be faked using simple extensions.
And then there's that gait. The movement is smooth and natural, like a real animal. The muscles move correctly.
If it's so easy to build a suit with all that padding, prosthetics and realistic fur, why haven't we seen one yet?
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.
I don't. Glickman used a formula.
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...
I've lived in the US all my life, in five different states. I can't say I've noticed Americans being into mythology (other than in their religious traditions). Maybe things are different in Brazil. Again, point me to studies that back up your argument.
Maybe. I guess is that if they appear, it will be a de ja vú of Biscardi's bigfoot hand.
Why do you keep bringing that up? I never have. Biscardi's credibility is zip.
It makes me wonder why bigfoot investigators are not tracking them...
Do you know what bigfoot investigators are doing?
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.
You've seen the photos? The copy is not museum quality and the photo is clearly much less detailed than the photo of the original, which reportedly does not do justice to the original.
DY said, "Here's Jeff's take on it as of May, 2006.
I of course, disagree with him as do the people I've consulted with who work quite a bit with elk, deer, and other ungulate traces. We're just not as verbose! (Sorry Jeff!)
THE SKOOKUM BIGFOOT BODY CASTING, 2000, IS STILL A RATHER
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC. DON'T YOU THINK THE IMPRESSION LENDS ITSELF TO MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS?
Certainly multiple interpretations have been offered by various individuals, some without the benefit of ever having examined the cast. The only alternate interpretation, excluding hoaxing, initially worthy of serious consideration was that the imprint was made by an elk. However, this hypothesis was readily falsified by comparing the impression to those
left by elk, to their anatomy, hair patterns, and behavior. At this point, no reasonable argument can be made for elk as the responsible candidate. I found it curious how readily many individuals adopted an opinion that the reconstructed posture was quite unreasonable for a large primate. Rick Noll recently filmed a gorilla at the Seattle Zoo feeding in precisely this posture, right down to the heel plants. It ate selectively and sloppily as was also indicated at the site."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59728&page=2
I've seen the gorilla movie. Jeff is right about that.
Is DY a specialist in paleoichnology or neoichnology?
Much of his argument rests on hair flow, with 60% missing from the copy, according to Caddy, and and a misidentified joint print.
Why should I consider his conclusions are not as exact as Meldrum's? Because DY does not use a mustache?
Because, to my knowlege, he hasn't seen the original or tried to tried to fit actual pieces of elk to it. He's content with his experts taking a few seconds to look at photos of the copy and say "Yeah, it's an ungulate". That's what you want to see too, isn't it?
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...
Maybe you did. Did you have a mentor? Did you respect his opinions? Were they to be thrown out just because he was an authority?
Swindler is a professor Emeritus, the author of the standard work on primate anatomy. He's a giant in a related field. He examined the original quite thoroughly. He just might know what he's talking about.
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.
And I'm not selling. If you don't like what I have to say, stop reading my posts.
) 
) and that's why she's so irrationally upset by my scientific analyses (and refusal to respond to her love notes).
