• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did? I can't even spell it. The less fanciful variety may be based on the Giant Sloth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapinguari
Oh my...
Cryptozoologists and their myth twisting and cherry picking...
This:
mapinguari.gif

Became this:
milodon1.jpg

Image sources:
http://www.amazonia.com.br/folclore/image/mapinguari.gif
http://www.grupopaleo.com.ar/miramarprehistorica/milodon1.JPG

There's at least one sighting of the bipedal hominid variety from the west coast of South America. This is a different deal altogether.
Ah yeah... Sighting reports... Soooo reliable...
If sighting reports are reliable, then we live in a world full of hominids of all sizes and shapes, giant reptiles (terrestrial and aquatic), giant birds, mothmen, giant bats, UFOs and their many types of aliens, all sorts of ghosts, rods, floating glowing amoebas, shadow people, vampires, werewolves, gnomes, fayries, Jesus, saints, devils, honest politicians...
 
The video clearly shows that an elk will not necessarily leave hoofprints in it's body print if it lays down in the mud. In fact it shows that an elk is unlikely to do so at all, imo.

Say what? After it rolls it certainly would leave hoofprints, right next to the imprint of the side. They can't get up without gathering their legs under them. An elk would have to roll completely out of the mud, to the other side, and there would be signs of this, probably with much back scratching in the middle of the roll.

Are there any elk closer to you than Cataloochee? If not, check out some cows and horses.....goats, even. They do about the same thing.
 
Please forgive a novice what may, perhaps be a few basic questions, but what are your implications here?

Are you suggesting that Tube has somehow hoaxed the data that he has come up with?

Are you suggesting that he has photoshopped the pictures that appear on his web site so the casting artifacts he claims are not genuine?

Are you suggesting that he has created some sort of mold that produces what appears to be casting artifacts?

Are you suggesting that he is trying to pass off real bigfoot prints as ones he has created in his experiments?

If I may, not she's not. She has suggested none of the above. Melissa's pretty busy right now, but the latest is on BFF where tube's buddy is throwing volcanic ashballs:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16440&st=300

Read the post about water temperature.
 
Best Evidence: Bigfoot


Actor quickly and easily duplicates Patty's gait. Both with and without a costume on. Walked exactly like Patty.

This was on the Discovery Channel? Maybe I can get someone to tape it for me next time it airs. Tube claims he can duplicate the gait too. Krantz did the "Groucho walk". So? Easy when one has seen the the film. Exactly? I doubt it?

The gait is evidently like that of Australopithecines. Just how would someone come up with that in 1967 when nothing below the skull was known of them? The IM index is a match as well. Lucy wasn't discovered until 1974; latest findings on the Australopithecine gait were last year, I believe.

Meldrum agrees and is surprised at the experiment's results.

Falls back on inability to make costume in 1967 and the fact that not everything in PGF was reproduced.

What's wrong with that? That would be true.

SFX guy Dick Smith thinks it may be a costume in the PGF.

So? Other SFX guys have too. Janos Prohaska did not.
So much for the gait, though....

Not at all. Did the actor match the stride? Did he keep it up for a couple of hundred yards? Did he look anything like Patty in the costume? How about the muscles? Did they have this kind of definition?

rearview.jpg
 
Well they could be, I have never said I think Tube is completely wrong, some of these features described as dermal ridges could be a casting artifact, but all of my attempts to create these "artifacts" have failed.

Your question is exactly why I decided to do casting experiments using soil from Onion Mountain. It should also be mentioned there are features on this cast that have yet to be explained, and as far as I know Tube has not addressed this specific issue yet - if I missed it, then my apologies but I have not seen him describe how this feature could happen.

The only thing I am sure of at this point is this - casting dermal ridges in the soil from Onion Mountain is possible, as I have casted my own. I will continue to have this opinion until the day comes I am able to recreate the "Crowley Lines".
Melissa, may I ask why being able to cast dermal ridges in OM soil is the only thing you're sure of at this point? And also, does the fact that people other than Tube finding dessication ridges in casts really do nothing to affect your thinking on the matter? I can appreciate the importance of reproducing them yourself but if it was me I'd certainly take note of others being able to do so (intentionally or more importantly unintentionally.)
 
If I may, not she's not. She has suggested none of the above. Melissa's pretty busy right now, but the latest is on BFF where tube's buddy is throwing volcanic ashballs:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16440&st=300

Read the post about water temperature.
Of course you may, that's why it's an open forum.;) Melissa is apparently not too busy to discuss her ideas here so when she's got the time I'm sure she'll answer any questions. The simpler the better, IMO.
 
Not at all. Did the actor match the stride? Did he keep it up for a couple of hundred yards? Did he look anything like Patty in the costume? How about the muscles? Did they have this kind of definition?

rearview.jpg

It didn't have the donut shaped lumps in the arms, and the un-realistic verticle bifurcations in the deltoids area; if that is the definition you are talking about ?


I can't believe people think those humongous calf muscles are an indication of a real live Bigfoot. I can imagine Patty toeing logs and doing calf raises, getting ready for the " Miss Bigfoot Bodybuilding " competition ...
 
Oh my...
Cryptozoologists and their myth twisting and cherry picking....

I said, the less fanciful, and the Wikipedia entry was not about cryptozoologists. There's been a serious effort to investigate possible living Giant Sloths.

Who's cherry picking now?

I said somewhere I don't think we need to look for Griffins, but some mythical creatures may have a basis in reality.

North Americans really aren't into mythmaking much. Even our Indians have cable TV.

This:

attachment.php


Became this:

attachment.php


And this:

IMG_5061.jpg


Is like this:

Hooker%20Onion%20Mountain_2.jpg


That's scientific, I suppose?

Ah yeah... Sighting reports... Soooo reliable...

Yep.

"YEAR: 1952-53

SEASON: Summer

MONTH: July

DATE: unkown

STATE: Washington

COUNTY: Cowlitz County

NEAREST TOWN: Longview


This observation lasted perhaps 1-2 minutes when from directly behind meI heard a heeh heeh hee sound with a whistle sound at the end. The drinking animal immediately stood up. It was 6-61/2 feet tall, covered in dark brown to cinnamon colored hair about 3-4 inches long, dark skin on its face and hands, dark eyes set close together, flat nose, large mouth with thin lips with what I would describe an alarmed look on its face.As I turned to see what had made the noise behind me I found my self looking at two huge legs of a larger animal perhaps 8-9 feet in height. I remember I had to look way up to see his face as he was on higher ground and besides I was just a kid. Keep in mind that this all happened at once: the sound behind me;the drinking animal standing up; discovering another animal not 15-20 feet behind me."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=4353


"Charleston, S.C. May 17, 1793

A Gentleman on the South Fork of the Saluda river in a letter of the 23rd sends his correspondent in this city the following description on the Bald Mountains in the Western Territories. This animal is between twelve and fifteen feet high, and in shape resembling a human being, except the head, which is in equal proportion to its body and drawn in somewhat like a tarapin; its feet are like those of a negroe, and about two feet long, and hairy, which is of a dark dun colour; its eyes are exceedingly large, and open and shut up and down its face; the hair of its head is about six inches long, stands straight like a negroe's; its nose is what is called Roman."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=293

"YEAR: 2004

SEASON: Summer

MONTH: June

DATE: Friday, 18th

STATE: Alaska

COUNTY: Southeast Fairbanks County

I saw something from the waist up reaching to a higher part of a white bark tree. I did a double take and slammed on the brakes and came to a complete stop. Whatever it was had its back to us and still was reaching up with its right arm. The animal was a beautiful blond/auburn coloration and appeared well groomed as I could see the waist and well developed shoulders that blended into the head. I didn't see a real neck. I made a mental note using the tree as a height measuring device. I reached for the camera and my daughter but when we left our truck the animal was gone. We returned to our truck and continued driving until we pulled into the rest stop mentioned above. I took a tape measure from the tool box and measured a similar looking white bark tree using my mental notes....The animal I saw stood at better than 9 ft with an overhead reach greater than 12 ft."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9317
YEAR: 1984

"SEASON: Summer

MONTH: July

STATE: Washington

COUNTY: Cowlitz County

LOCATION DETAILS: On State Rt. 4, approx. 5 miles west of Longview WA.

NEAREST TOWN: Longview

NEAREST ROAD: State Route 4

OBSERVED: In July 1984 at about 11:00 p.m. my friend Will and I were traveling westbound on state route 4, when I noticed movement on the south side of the road. What I saw was a large black head and shoulders coming over the guardrail on the south side of the road. As I came to a stop, I turned on the highbeams and saw the creature step easily over the guardrail. It was about 8 feet tall with a kind of shiney black hair covering most of its body.

As the creature walked, I noticed it never quite straightened its legs, yet it had a graceful stride. Its arms hung fairly low, coming to just above the knees. It was very powerfully built with massive chest and arms. Even though it was covered with hair, I could see its muscles flexing in its legs and arms.

Most of the hair was an inch or two long with some maybe 4 inches on the back and shoulders. This thing was big. In my estimation it had to have weighed 800 pounds or more. As it neared the center of the road it actually turned and looked right at us. Doing so required it to turn its upper body as its head sat low between its shoulders. When it looked at us its brow furrowed in what I believe to be a look of anger. It looked really p.o'd. I could see its palms as it swung its arms and noticed it had either no or very little hair in the palm area. Also the "soles" of its feet appeared to be devoid of hair. there was almost a hairline at the sides of its feet.

Also noticed was what appeared to be male genitalia , though the genitalia would have to be considered quite small when taking into account the size of the creature. It turned its head back to the forward position and continued across the road and out of my headlights."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=940

Elkanah Walker, 1840:

"Bear with me if I trouble you with a little of their superstitions. They believe in a race of giants, which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west of us. This mountain is covered with perpetual snow. They (the creatures) inhabit the snow peaks. They hunt and do all their work at night. They are men stealers.
They come to the people's lodges at night when the people are asleep and take them and put them under their skins and to their place of abode without even waking. Their track is a foot and a half long. They steal salmon from Indian nets and eat then raw as the bears do. If the people are awake, they always know when they are coming very near by their strong smell that is most intolerable. It is not uncommon for them to come in the night and give three whistles and then the stones will begin to hit their houses." (Drury 1976, pp. 122-123)
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/walker.htm

And so on.............Not an eyeball in the abdomen among them.
 
The gait is evidently like that of Australopithecines. Just how would someone come up with that in 1967 when nothing below the skull was known of them?

Maybe Patty was a Groucho Marx fan. Someone needs to remind LAL that Groucho was doing his 'Groucho walk' long before 1967.

The IM index is a match as well.
A match to what? If LAL means the guesstimates of an IM index, then one guesstimate might be as good as another. I know of no measurements, taken from the actual Patterson subject, that would equate to an accurate IM index.

It's interesting that Dr. Meldrum includes a rather misleading chart in his new book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (page 177), which compares an 88" (7'4") tall Patty to a 74" (6'2") Arnold [SIZE=-1]Schwarzenegger[/SIZE]. Quite unscientifically, Dr. Meldrum shows the comparison --height, weight, arms chest, waist, thighs, calves-- between actual Schwarzenegger measurements and guesstimates of Patty measurements. Dr. Krantz had already whittled the height down to a more realistic 6'6" (standing)/6' (walking) height in his earlier publication Big Footprints (page 97). Maybe Dr. Meldrum didn't 'read Krantz'. :cool:

RayG
 
The argument has always been that an elk would have left hoof prints in the center of the cast, so the skookum cast couldn't be from an elk. That was never true, and now we can see for sure that it's untrue.
 
Noll showed a video of an elk kneeling down on the ground, folding its front legs beneath it before going to its knees, then repeating the process with its back legs, pointing out that if the impression had been made by an elk, then there would be footprints present under the body impression.


No, there wouldn't be footprints present under the body impression Rick....

You didn't show the part where the elk rolls over and leaves a body print away from it's hoof and knee prints.
 
Of course you may, that's why it's an open forum.;) Melissa is apparently not too busy to discuss her ideas here so when she's got the time I'm sure she'll answer any questions. The simpler the better, IMO.

In the meantime, many of the questions may have been answered here already or on a couple of threads on BFF or on her blog.

It's important for researchers to known how to identify prints properly so they don't waste Hydrocal on bearprints or even on those those of others in the party. Rick Noll makes track boxes so each member's prints are recorded.

And it's important to know the difference between this sort of thing

post-2519-1162867302_thumb.jpg


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16440&st=300

and "real" features on a cast.
 
No, there wouldn't be footprints present under the body impression Rick....

You didn't show the part where the elk rolls over and leaves a body print away from it's hoof and knee prints.

But it still has o get up.

This was all discussed on BFF, including some joking references to forklifts and cranes.
 
The show was a blow to bigfoot and Meldrum, imo.

The Bigfooters are already circling the wagons and declaring the show to be a biased debacle. A show like this may not change much in the big Bigfoot picture. Skeptics only get reinforcement for what they already have been thinking. Believers only get reinforcement that skeptics don't treat the evidence for what it is. Now what?
 
The show was a blow to bigfoot and Meldrum, imo.

Not having seen the show, I wouldn't know, but I suspect that is your opinion..

You're one of the guys who thought he has a Wallace cast on a webpage, aren't you? And that he can't tell a half track in a line of forty from a print of a bear's forepaw?
 
Last edited:
In the meantime, many of the questions may have been answered here already or on a couple of threads on BFF or on her blog.
Should the 'may' be sufficient reason to drop out of the discussion, scour and wade through who knows what, and not just go ahead and ask?
And it's important to know the difference between this sort of thing...

and "real" features on a cast.
Somebody answering my sig would do a lot about those quotation marks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom