Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Skeptical Greg]

But it still has to get up.

So does a bigfoot...

This was all discussed on BFF, including some joking references to forklifts and cranes.

While ignoring how the alleged Sas was supposed to have laid down and got up without leaving any prints that didn't look like an elk made them ...


Oh yes, it's all been discussed, you just seem to forget which side keeps ending up with the short straw...

 

[LAL]

The Bigfooters are already circling the wagons and declaring the show to be a biased debacle.

Oh, really? Maybe you should stop stereotyping and see what some actually had to say:


"I think this documentary was very informative in that it showed reasoned skeptics' views of evidence we happen to view in a different light. Except for Dr. Turtle's really strange account of persons misreading experiences (and it looks like he's had some I'd not care to learn about), the other skeptical scientists decisions were based on what they have learned for themselves. They may see the BF subject differently than I do, but I do not think that they were being disingenous at all. They appear to have for themselves just as good a ground to stand on in a lot of evidence.

So, I was very relieved that what could have shown BF research to be some circus sideshow was actually handled in a pretty fair, even handed manner with what evidence really does exist. I am not saying the skeptical sides in the show were ready to follow lines of logic outside of their own disciplines, meaning what evidence means to a jury is not what evidence means to a scientist. However, at least, I did not see Joe Nickel. And that's an improvement."- Dark Rabbit

I was especially pleased to see Dr. Bindernagel get some face time for a change. Nice to hear Dr. Meldrum had an encounter....seeing is believing...an encounter or sighting will change your life.

Any comparison of gait should have been in a similar environment...soft river sand and detritous....JMHO. Interesting how the skeptics hedged their bets...some day they will all be having a bowl of crow...on us...hope they have a taste for feathers.

A vast improvement over the Sci-fi channel debacles...JMHO" -Ole bub

"I wouldn't take this as a lopsided show.

1. Dr. Meldrum came off as a legitimate scientist, not a wacko.

2. It showed that mainstream science can take the bigfoot phenomena seriously. (the Stanford lab)

3. It showed the skeptics to be close-minded. A. with the diet thing, assuming the beasts are herbivores B. The anthropologist assuming the beast's feet must have either a mid-tarsal break or a large toe but not both. A missing link might possess both of those qualities, as a bridge speces.

My wife, who has no interest in Bigfoot, said "Wouldn't it be possible to have both?" I said 'why not'. Boas still have remnants of legs, so a multi function foot wouldnt be out of the question." -Drew

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=0

 

[LAL]

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?

She may not be back. She decided this board was a waste of time last time. It blew me away that she showed up again. She seriously doesn't have time even to keep up with BFF.

Somebody answering my sig would do a lot about those quotation marks.

Hopefully Dr. Meldrum will e-mail you some close-ups. I may actually order cast copies in a month or two when I'm out from under the heating bills. I can get one at about half Meldrum's price, but I don't think CA-19's available.

I can take pictures through a magnifier. If my digital camera's not good enough, I have a friend who has one that will do the job. I've already posted some of his pictures of his OM copy.

By "real" I mean features that are actually from an imprint, rather than a pour by handfuls, e.g.. There could be scars, lesions, even a knot hole if someone's actually still into wooden feet.

In the interests of accuracy, it's important to know what's what.

 

[kitakaze]

Brainfart:

Let me see if I'm not remiss concerning the Skookum Cast. It looks like an elk lay and there are elk tracks in the cast but it could possibly be a bigfoot though there are no alledged BF tracks in the vicinity?

 

[kitakaze]

Hopefuly Dr. Meldrum will e-mail you some close ups. I may actually order cast copies in a month or two when I'm out from under the heating bills. I can get one at about half Meldrum's price, but I don't think CA-19's available.

I can take pictures through a magnifier. If my digital camera's not good enough, I have a friend who has one that will do the job. I've already posted some of his pictures of his OM copy.

By "real" I mean features that are actually from an imprint, rather than a pour by handfuls, e.g.. There could be scars, lesions, even a knot hole if someone's actually still into wooden feet.

In the interests of accuracy, it's important to know what's what.

You'd really think that if casts with such features existed we'd have seen them to death by now and Matt would've never got out of the gate.

Apparently it's the simple questions that are hard while water temperatures, soil sources, hoof orientations, how much or little Freeman faked, how much of the continent/world they inhabit, awareness level of trailcams, soil acidity, hair that is indistinguishable from humans, Patterson's camera speed, etc etc etc can go on forever.

 

[LTC8K6]

But it still has to get up.

It gets up by rolling off it's body print and making hoof and knee prints to one side. It gets up without making hoof prints in it's body print.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lay down on your side with your arms and legs sticking straight out perpendicular to your torso. Now pull your legs and arms in and roll over onto your hands and knees. You have left a clean body print. Stand up and walk away. Your body print is still pristine.

You can do the same in reverse.

If you intend to claim that is what sasquatch did re skookum, I want credit.

 

[kitakaze]

She may not be back. She decided this board was a waste of time last time. It blew me away that she showed up again. She seriously doesn't have time even to keep up with BFF.

Why do I feel the onset of a pattern? Given we obviously set aside her and Tube's direct interactions why would it be so now? She didn't seem to think so. She seemed very willing to discuss her efforts beyond talking with Tube on another board. Do they only encompass producing dermal ridge casts in OM soil and as of yet not producing dessication ridges?

 

[William Parcher]

Oh, really? Maybe you should stop stereotyping and see what some actually had to say:

Maybe you should stop partially quoting the Bigfooters, and admit that the wagons are circling. Do you think that anyone who already believes in Bigfoot and/or the PGF changed their position after viewing this show?

"I think this documentary was very informative in that it showed reasoned skeptics' views of evidence we happen to view in a different light. Except for Dr. Turtle's really strange account of persons misreading experiences (and it looks like he's had some I'd not care to learn about), the other skeptical scientists decisions were based on what they have learned for themselves. They may see the BF subject differently than I do, but I do not think that they were being disingenous at all. They appear to have for themselves just as good a ground to stand on in a lot of evidence.

So, I was very relieved that what could have shown BF research to be some circus sideshow was actually handled in a pretty fair, even handed manner with what evidence really does exist. I am not saying the skeptical sides in the show were ready to follow lines of logic outside of their own disciplines, meaning what evidence means to a jury is not what evidence means to a scientist. However, at least, I did not see Joe Nickel. And that's an improvement."- Dark Rabbit

Lu, this person went on to say, "Anyway, Bill, we are still where we were before the show even aired; so the show is now just fodder for late night cable viewing from here on. Nothing breathtakingly new or stupendous to change anyone's mind." Wagons are circling.

I was especially pleased to see Dr. Bindernagel get some face time for a change. Nice to hear Dr. Meldrum had an encounter....seeing is believing...an encounter or sighting will change your life.

Any comparison of gait should have been in a similar environment...soft river sand and detritous....JMHO. Interesting how the skeptics hedged their bets...some day they will all be having a bowl of crow...on us...hope they have a taste for feathers.

A vast improvement over the Sci-fi channel debacles...JMHO" -Ole bub

"Interesting how the skeptics hedged their bets...some day they will all be having a bowl of crow...on us...hope they have a taste for feathers." Wagons are circling.

"I wouldn't take this as a lopsided show.

1. Dr. Meldrum came off as a legitimate scientist, not a wacko.

2. It showed that mainstream science can take the bigfoot phenomena seriously. (the Stanford lab)

3. It showed the skeptics to be close-minded. A. with the diet thing, assuming the beasts are herbivores B. The anthropologist assuming the beast's feet must have either a mid-tarsal break or a large toe but not both. A missing link might possess both of those qualities, as a bridge speces.

My wife, who has no interest in Bigfoot, said "Wouldn't it be possible to have both?" I said 'why not'. Boas still have remnants of legs, so a multi function foot wouldnt be out of the question." -Drew

"My wife, who has no interest in Bigfoot, said 'Wouldn't it be possible to have both?' I said 'why not'. Boas still have remnants of legs, so a multi function foot wouldnt be out of the question." Wagons are circling.

Lu, you left out some juicy wagon circling on BFF:

bigGun said: Ahhh...the sounds of crickets. Lopsided show, very lopsided. I'd say they were successful in beating down Dr Meldrum. But what would you expect? The media's really good at that kinda stuff, ya know? lol Oh, and "The results will surprise even the most skeptical viewer." ??? Scheesch! Maybe I fell asleep or something, did I miss it?

Hairy Man said: I am a bit of a loss to understand the anthropologist who said there wasn't enough food in the forest to support a bigfoot. Anyone who has studied ethnobotony, archaeology, Native Americans, etc. are well aware of the vast resources available, including but certainly not limited to, roots, tubers, berries, acorns, pinenuts, fish, rodents, birds, mammals, etc. There are more than enough calories in the environment to support a population of large apes, all available without the need for tools or fire. I hope some of her colleagues take her to task about her lack of knowledge.

Jim Zenor said: Sometimes the best arguments for bigfoot come from the sheer ignorance from the skeptics. Its kind of amuzing to listen to them say that there is no scat or hair. One expert says I would paint the feet differently or its nose isn't how I would make the costume...

Dark Rabbit: Regarding the last post by Jim, while watching the documentary, I obviously questioned the skeptical scientists view because they based their conclusions upon their own "learning." They, by reason of what they know, kept to a strict formula of known primate behavior. I kept saying, well, this case, a la the Big Guy, might be different. But, they've learned along a certain line of logic, for which they are held in esteem, and what they do know is so far what is known. They're just not prepared or convinced to take that leap like Dr. Meldrun has. And that's still okay.

Perhaps, they were not willing to look outside that box of education they have accepted as truth. But, I won't fault them for it. Not everyone is a Galileo. (Though that's what they might intend to be.)

Hairy Man: I'm watching the show again, cause I clearly like pain, but an interesting point that shouldn't be lost is the paleoanthropoloigst that stated that if bigfoot was a relative of apes, he should have a divergent great toe. Since footprints attributed to bigfoot doesn't show this divergent toe, maybe that should end the discussion that bigfoot ISN'T within the homo line.

P.S. Nina the anthropologist is even worse the second time round with her comments about a lack of nests found associated with bigfoots!!! Apparently she's not "up-to-speed".

Since found "nests" have never been shown to be created by Bigfoot - the scientist has never seen functional evidence of this kind. Hairy Man seems to not be up-to-speed on this fact.

DarkRabbit: Or, to put it this way, the skeptical scientists in the documentary aren't the movers and shakers of this world.

Squonksquatch: I'm always up for good healthy skepticism. But it seems to me the skeptics on the show were making conclusions of things they assumed BF should be, not what it could be... What I would have liked to see was a live debate between Meldrum and the other two experts. Sure, make it two against one -- all the more impressive if Meldrum wins it.

bf2004: I watched this special with great interest, and it makes me laugh that these supposed "informed skeptics" are nothing of the sort... And this Dr. John Turtle was a bad example of the "sneering skeptic" trying to explain away all the sighting encounters as the way that the brain works to shift our reality or some gobbledy-gook like that. I'd like to see that guy the first time he sees one of these critters, although he would just try to explain it away to himself. The only bright spots were Drs. Meldrum and Bindernagel, and the recreation attempt was interesting as well. I would have preferred a more informed skeptic like Benjamin Radford or Scott Herriott, instead we get Nina Jablonski and John Turtle, two woefully uninformed skeptics.

Just what kind of "informed skeptic" is Herriott? He has a filmed close encounter and seems to believe that BF is real. He is a skeptic of the PGF but not of Bigfoot itself, right?

PsychedelicShroom: I thought the documentary was misinformative at best, and I am sorry that Dr. Meldrum was part of that debacle.

MattFowler: I didn't think the actor in the costume was very convincing. I thought they were going to have him in the field and try to dupilicate the PG film. I think thery were way off on the size and mass and the gait. I want to see a costume with those bouncing breasts.

Patty's breasts didn't bounce because they weren't real breasts.

xjay: I feel like both of these (skeptical) scientists were answering their own doubtful questions... For these scientists to even consider the possibilities of this creature's existence, it appears they must assign ape like characteristics to the creature and then try to prove why the whole concept of such a creature makes no sense. Why won't they study what IS known so far, instead of inventing something to study.

rams: How can they claim "best evidence" when dermal ridges shown in foot print casts were not discussed?

Does rams mean the discussion about how those lines are not dermals? I bet he doesn't! Circle that wagon pilgrim, and pretend that you never heard of "Crowley lines".

Squonksquatch: I think the 'focus' of the show was supposed to be the P/G film and its evidence. Don't think dermal ridges were found in the Patty prints. But I was thinking the same thing. I felt Meldrum was hamstrung a bit. And we don't know what wound up on the cutting room floor.

Dude mentions that dermals are not part of the PGF, then goes on to speculate that Meldrum's best stuff may be on the floor. Skeptics are cutting cheaters and the wagons must be circled.

Sunflower: I agree with most of the posts here and agree that the exposure of the subject is worthwhile however; what if the skeptical side (scientists) were invited to a few hotspots via the Discovery Channel? Would they take a few walks in the woods at night? Would the skeptical scientists be as passionate to debunk, so to speak, this creature? This is more like a pipe dream, so will we ever see an effort made by the skeptical factions? This is not likely, for the majority of skeptical scientists are perfectly comfortable sitting in their offices and that's where they will be when a proven discovery is announced. There's nothing for them to prove, since they are repeating what they've been taught and that is: this creature can't possibly exist! That makes them experts? Not hardly in my book.

slinky chix: What struck me was that like no one mentioned how BAD the suit looked. They could have done thier gait reenactments and reflector measuring tests without using a costume. To me, having someone walk like a bigfoot doesnt really prove things one way or another. But the fact that the costume looked so bad and unlike the PG film to me said more than the tests.

Im not en expert but the PG film just doesn't look like a suit... bulky body and relatively slender limbs (with muscles). Suits have bulky limbs and more slender bodies. And the PG creature doesnt seem to have overly large fake feet compared to the tv show suit.

Quake: I think this particular documentary seemed to support/lean towards the theory of there not being a sasquatch, considering what and who they presented to dispute the animal's existence.

I guess that means that if you don't believe in Bigfoot, your cable TV show will look like this one.

slinky chix: Admittedly I missed the beginning, but the big test they did was to see if a person/actor could walk like the PG film subject. The somewhat shrimpy guy they picked seemed to do an OK job. So, based on that, some of the "experts" said well the PG film could be a guy in a suit because we got a guy(in a bad suit!) to walk the same way. At least PARTIALLY the same. Some aspects weren't the same.

... and since some aspects weren't the same, Patty might be a real Bigfoot until further notice (which is probably forever, considering how human credulity works).

xjay: Doc Tuttle's test was stupid, and the drawing of the rabbit's head was altered to look like a duck by erasing the neck area to make it thin, and then rotating the image. I wish Doc Tuttle could have been with me the night huge sounding ducks were quacking from the woods, lol. "If it quacks like a duck" did not apply that time, either.

Skeptics are stupid cheaters. Besides that, once they hear a Bigfoot they will no longer be skeptics even if they are stupid cheaters.

billkirbywofb: What I would have wanted from the recreation of the gait would have been a bulky suit that approximated that seen in the P/G Film. What you had was a man in a skinny suit that did not match the weight or volume of the subject in the film. Maybe the added weight needed to make it more difficult for the actor to do the same walk. Also, the actor was walking in spurts of about 30-35 feet and of approximatly 5-6 seconds. If you wanted to create the film you take the actor out and have him walk that way for the 50 seconds "Patty" was seen to move. Then see if the actor could maintain the "Patty walk" for that long without breaking gait.

Patty lives on!

DanChamberlain: I think you have to look at that differently. IF it was a man in a suit on Bluff Creek, it's doubtful he intentionally tried to walk a certain way, but rather walked exactly like he would walk if he were encumbered by a heavy suit. The fact that they are trying to "recreate" a certain walk is silly. If it was a sasquatch, no similar walking test will prove anything to anyone. If it was a man in a suit, he was walking his walk and any attempt to recreate it would be silly as well. I doubt Roger and Bob told their accomplice - if there was an accomplice - to walk a certain way, other than the look back if the whole thing was staged.

I guess that means that Patty lives on.

Squonksquatch: I never really bought the idea that Patty's walk couldn't be duplicated. But to ignore the differences of their suit and what's on the P/G film wasn't fair. At least they brought up the fact that the circumstances weren't the same. All in all too many skeptics with preconceived ideas of what is and isn't possible. And I wanted to Benny Hill-smack that old SFX/make up guy back of the head. Come back when you know a little bit more about the field your criticizing dude.

Damn skeptics.

Mangani: The commentaries posted here display much better reasoning than that of the skeptics on the show. To paraphrase Dark Rabbit, the skeptical positions can summed up as follows: "I am an expert at my field of study so this qualifies me to draw unequivocal conclusions regarding a subject that I have not bothered to study all." This reflects a too prevalent attitude among academics and other well educated folks that I have commented on here before. Upon learning all they can about a subject they discount the amount they do not know (and that indeed no one knows). And then they expand this overconfidence in the totality of their knowledge beyond the subject that they have studied! Hey, but these three did all look good on TV. I am sure the producer of the show was thrilled to have them. Gotta face it, shows like this are designed more to entertain than to inform.

Fellow Bigfooters, the skeptics are idiots and we are circling the wagons real good like.

Squonksquatch: Oh, and I cringed when they had Meldrum do that quick head turn and stare at the camera for dramatic effect crap. But at least they made everyone else do that. Geeze, I hate stuff like that.

Just blowing off some steam now that I have my wagon parked in the circle.

dogu4: Enjoyed viewing lastnight's "Best Evidence" very much despite it's being far from comprehnsive enough for enthusiasts like us who avidly follow the subject. Honest, factual, hard-edged unambiguous information on Sasquatch is famously rare if not absent, whether from observers in the field or from scientists in academia, so the motion studies at Stanford and the digital mapping of the footprint casts add to our ability to discern and test good relevant evidence from the merely circumstantial, coincidental, or contrived. I do question the validity of the results in an admittedly un-conventional test, where the subject is being "coached" to mimic what it is that the researchers are attempting to analyze, but it was enlightening none-the-less... They spent a lot of time on the evidence of the foot-prints...I wanted to watch a big guy with flat feet...really flat feet, and big chimp or gorilla...walk across a good substrate so we could compare casts of those mid-tarsal breaks. I have a bit of experience casting in plaster and other materials and so I'm sorta relieved to see that they didn't cover the issue of dermal ridges until such time as we see the issue of casting artifacts adequately addressed with Dr. Chilcutt and others. Nicely done...let's hope the investigation continues.

Almost sounds like a balanced evaluation of the show. But it does look like newbie dogu4 wants to fit in with the Bigfooters at BFF; so this person needs to be skeptical of skepticism. This person is skeptical, since waiting for "adequate addressing" of the dermal ridges shows that they are skeptical (or tentative) of the experimentation and findings of Matt Crowley.

 

[William Parcher]

Why do I feel the onset of a pattern?

This kind of "pattern" is the type specimen for Bigfooter behavior. They are easy to stereotype because they are a very desperate bunch who fall into stereotypical traits to defend their belief. Unlike Bigfoot, they are a real documented creature.

 

[LAL]

I'm sorry, but possible shots of something that could not be identified and were promptly removed from the internet is very far from being considered reliable evidence. Maybe conspiracy theorists, UFOlogists and paranormal researchers think otherwise...

I have no idea what it was or even if it was, but it's quite possible the general public doesn't get to know everything. Ever since Orson Wells' radio show some think the government thinks we'll panic. I guess that's why we got to see 9/11 live.<sarcasm>

And the claim bigfeet know when game cams are active is... Well... I am having a hard time trying to find polite words to describe it...

Autumn Williams' power supplies gave out shrieking noises when they gave out. That would scare anything. (The only animals checking out the liver were deer, and a crow got the suspended fruit basket. This isn't all that easy.) Just the activity involved in setting out the cams might be enough to scare off a wary animal. No paranormal powers or super intelligence required here. The cameras may just give off sounds when the electricity is flowing that humans can't hear.

I know very little about game cams, so excuse me if I'm way off base there.

There are some intriguing game cam shots, but there's too much foliage to be sure what's there.

LAL, I can't imagine how a professional who deals with wildlife, after seeing such a creature, would not use his/hers expertise and a lot of his/hers efforts to make some serious study attempts. More on this later.

We've given you one example. He works with Dr. Meldrum on the North American Ape Project.

Thus, as I've been pointing out, if these creatures are real, there's no need for a fully dedicated bigfoot project to find reliable evidence. The "no one is looking for them" line is a dead end.

No one from the Smithsonian. There are plenty of amateur researchers out there and some are bringing in new evidence.

See RayG's post no. 1150

He's filtered.

regarding the "hair evidence",

We've been all over that. Repost anything you want me to address (within reason).

"Hair

The sasquatch is covered with hair, not fur. Fur has guard hairs and an undercoat, while primate hair consists of one type of hair alone. The sasquatch, being a primate, does not molt its hair, but it is replaced one hair at a time, hence is not found in wooly batches.

Color of the hair ranges from black or dark (50%), through various shades of reddish-brown and gray to white. The body can have varicolored patches of hair. Older animals have increasingly grey hair, though color does not appear to change from childhood to adulthood. Hair is variously glossy clean and shiny, fluffy, or dirty, matted and unkempt ("angora goat dreadlocks"), probably a function of native curliness, age, or of recent immersion in water or lack thereof. Females have been reported to be cleaner than males.

Hair length ranges from 3" to around 2’ (15" longest measured in hand, longer observed in the wild). There is no taper or color banding other than graying with age. Long hair covers the head and, almost invariably, the ears; very short hair on the face; occasional reports of heavy hairiness in male faces ("mustache" and "beard") vs. no facial hair in females; long hair across the top of the shoulders (once described as "bouncing like a cape" ); long hair on the forearms ("like a spaniel"); different orientations of hair on back; breasts in females hair covered (contrary to a mistaken claim in the literature); long hair on buttocks, sometimes overhanging them; groin with enough hair to obscure genitalia; and long hair on the calves (like "bellbottom pants" in a sasquatch observed standing in snow). The hair stood visibly on end in situations where the sasquatch appeared frightened.

Under the microscope (Fig. 2), the average diameter of hair is 65 µm (40-90 µm), these values derived from 15 separately collected samples in four States. The cortex has a uniform reddish tinge plus fine pigment granule distribution, whereas the medulla is absent. Intense efforts at DNA analysis of the hair have been uniformly negative, possibly a function of the lacking medulla. Most human hair (Fig. 3) has a medulla, if only fragmentary, but fine blond hair occasionally looks similar to sasquatch hair. Hence, there is no absolute distinction that can be made. Hair from other forest species, like rodents, carnivores, and ungulates can be differentiated without question."

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585

as well as when it comes accepting "evidence" provided by Marx, Freeman, Biscardi and similar "investigators"

Do you think they're the only ones? I don't know of anyone accepting Biscardi, outside of his backers.

and Patty´s measures.

The IM index holds regardless of height.

BTW, so many hairs and no reliable DNA assay results avaliable?

No medulla. How do you get DNA? Tissue is needed. Fahrenbach says that.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm

There've been number of analyses. I haven't been able to find the reports online, but there are names given in some of the books and documentaries.

"Our laboratory has thus far examined a number of suspected Sasquatch hairs. However, we were not the first to search for suspected Sasquatch hair specimens. John Green reported that in 1968 Wayne Twitchell found six hairs on a bush near Riggins, Idaho, near a reported sighting of two Sasquatch l5. The hair specimens were sent for analysis to Ray Pinker, an instructor of police science at California State College in Los Angeles. His study revealed that the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and non-humans. In his final report, Pinker stated that he could not identify the hairs until he had had an opportunity to examine some authentic Sasquatch hair specimens.

Other people have collected and, in some cases, have sent suspected Sasquatch hair specimens to various laboratories for analysis. As reported by Green and John Napier 16 some of the hair samples have been identified as being from known animals, yet others cannot be attributed to any known animal species.

During the past few months, we have spoken with several other scientists who, like us, are involved in the analysis of hair specimens thought to be associated with the suspected Sasquatch. However, to date neither they nor we have yet found a single hair specimen which we can definitely attribute to being of Sasquatch origin. Some of our hair specimens are puzzling and are not yet identified because they show similarities to certain known mammals yet are not identical to known hair samples from those mammals.

We hope that as our research continues we will soon be able to determine whether or not these unknown hair specimens are from some as yet unknown animal group."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/bryant.html

Nope. "Habituation" is not really needed to obtain the sort of evidence I consider as reliable. All it takes is the creature to be real.

And for someone to be able to get those clear photos you want. Autumn Williams got some infrared pictures of leaves with five semi-habituated animals in the area in Northern California..

The Goodall comparsion is not valid. She needed time to be accepted by the group and come within touching distance from them.

It took her months even to find them. Those great National Geographic shots came later.

Snapshots (camera or rifle) require habituation?

Most wildlife photography is staged.

Collecting hair, food remains or scat samples require habituation?

Aready been done.

[/QUOTE]Roadkills need habituation? Fossils require habituation?

Not if someone finds some. We've been over all this before, too. Too bad my posts aren't indexed past 300. I'd just copy and paste them.

Is this supposed to somehow validate it?

Got some evidence they were not fooled or mistaken somehow? And took casts/pictures of what they thought were real bigfoot footprints?

You've seen some, haven't you?

What was that supposed to mean?

What it says.

I fail to see how the quote provides any support to any claim about the reality of bigfoot.

Geez. He's certainly changed his position, hasn't he?

Many fishy issues rearding the story and the film's subject have already been pointed out. Scroll back the threads if you want to remember them.

Why should I do that? Wasn't I in on most of those discussions? Nothing holds up, from supposed problems with the timeline to the assumption Bob Gimlin makes money off all this.

And have you defenders managed to prove its not a fraud? No..

No. Bob Gimlin didn't shoot her.

Hey LAL, what´s the IM of Barney?

I don't care.

Please check post 1159 by LTC8K6, as well as tube's personal experience with "compliant gait". The gait went down the drain.

No it didn't. See John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) for the Ministry of Silly Walks.

What makes you think I don't read the posts? I saw all tube's leg lifts on BFF, too.

I see no muscles moving correctly at PGF.

You're an anatomist? I posted a letter from an orthopedic some time ago. They're correct.

I thought you'd just seen the film on TV.

Farenbach also used formulae. This produces theoric results that to be confirmed, need to be compared against the real deal. Since as far as I know there are no specimens avaliable... Jumping from a log, walking with someone over the shoulders and comparing impression depth, are not reliable indicators of weight. Neither is saying "wow, the impressions were pretty deep, must have been made by a very heavy animal".

That might be a reasonable assumption when boot prints hardly leave a dent. If you're referring to Bluff Creek, the horse hooves sank in.

LAL, please, if you want to discuss mithology, first you must know what a myth truly is.

Ive posted the definition a few times, and I don't think the normal I-saw-a -sasquatch cross the road fits. Where's the teaching aspect?

And no, I don't want to discuss mythology.

It is quite clear for me, from your previous posts and for this particular line: "I can't say I've noticed Americans being into mythology (other than in their religious traditions)." that you are not familiar with the concept of myth. You may know lots of myths, but for some reason you are not aware of what a myth is, the many ways it may have been formed, the many meanings it may have, the many shapes it may take, etc. Read Campbell, you will find examples there.

I'm not interested. I grew up with family stories - no monsters, no ghosts, no Jersey Devils - Santa and the reindeer, maybe.

Oh, thunderbirds are examples of Native American myths incorporated in to current USA culture.

No. They appear as beaded designs on Minnetonka mocassins. That's about it.

Most Americans get their ideas of Native beliefs from Hollywood, and the Cherokee "chiefs" dress Plains style for the tourists with red war bonnetts and Minnetonka men's boots, style #1822.

Canada has Ogopogo. Or you think those are real critters?

Lake Champlain has Champ. People see something large, can't explain it, it may be an unknown species or a line of otters.

I can also point to the persons who, despite not being Native Americans adopted (at least partially) their religion.

Around here it's the Red Road. It works the other way around. Many Native Americans adopted Christianity.

[/QUOTE]
As is Marx's and Freeman's. Why keep bringing "evidence" produced by them?
Why should anyone take footprints or handprints casts produced by them as material that allows inference on bigfoot's anatomy?

Because they hold up under scrutiny. Neither of those guys were particularly bright, but they managed to "fake" things that are consistent with a large bipedal primate, right down tothe ridges. They get credit for lot more hoaxing than was actually done.

And all this focus on them ignores evidence brought in by people who were never under suspicion. Wes Smmerlin brought in a hand cast and Bob Titmus drained a pond to get one.

Hair flow... Yeah... Are you sure 60% of it are missing at the copy?

According to Owen Caddy. From the photos, I'd say that seems about right. Melissa's seen the copy. She says the hair was three inches long, way too long for elk. (DY said it smeared, as I recall.)

Are you sure its the definitive, the most important evidence?
The shape of the impressions matching elk's body parts is not important...
Elk footprints also are not...

They're there, just not in the right places. Coyote deer and bear prints were there as well. Giant coyote, anyone?

No bigfoot footprints being arouns is also a mere detail...

Already explained. The mudhole was right next to a road and the ground around it was gravelly and hard. There were prints found in the general area.

Oh, wait, we have testicle prints!

In just the right place fo them, too.

I'm convinced...<-that was sarcasm

I noticed.

Since I graduated and took my MsC and PhD grades, I had not one but a number of mentors. I heard them and their other "disciples", other experts (with similar or dissonant opinions) and their disciples as well. I analised the evidence they showed and their conclusions. Some times I agreeded, other times I disagreeded. We had lots of healthy headbutting. Some times I lost, some times I won.

I had and will still have a lot of headbutting in my life ("giants in my field" included). My formers and current jobs require it. Only at the very beggining of my academic and professional life I accepted an argument from authority. I found out pretty soon that those who use them quite often have nothing but hot smelly air to defend their point.

After looking at what bigfoot investigators present as evidence and their reasonings, I concluded that its quite likely they are wrong.

And I conclude the same about some of the sceptical arguments. A couple from the scientists would be hairy breasts and not enough food.

Great. Then why he has not used the full weight of his credentials and influence to back the much-dreamed bigfoot project? Why a single (refused) abstract?

I don't know, except that he had a major health crisis just before Willow Creek. He's retired, his health isn't good, he mentors students and he may have done all he can do at this time.

I can think of a couple of answers....

If they're not from him, don't bother.

You are trying to defend a claim. You are trying to convince me that what I consider as unreliable evidence is actually reliable. You are trying to "sell" them. I'm not convinced, I'm not buying.

You never were. I gave up trying to convince you of anything over a year ago.

There are others reading the thread. I hate to see the misrepresentations go unchallenged.

I present you the very advise you gave me: If you don't like my posts, don't read them, don't answer them. Put me on ignore and keep your business as usual.

I'd save a lot of time, wouldn't I? I spend hours, sometimes, answering your posts. I try to be reasonable and polite and I get Barney and Mapinguarí. I'm tempted to start correcting your use of English prepositions.

 

[LAL]

Brainfart:

Let me see if I'm not remiss concerning the Skookum Cast. It looks like an elk lay and there are elk tracks in the cast but it could possibly be a bigfoot though there are no alledged BF tracks in the vicinity?

There are coyote tracks too. An elk walked across the mudhole. So did a coyote. Skamania County has a long history of activity, as I've stated many times. Skookum Meadow's very name reflects that history.

I've posted pictures of printss in the area. One reason the location was chosen was print finds and a recent sighting by a retired wildlife bioogist.

Read what Dr. Meldrum has to say about what was done to rule out elk when you get your book.

 

[LAL]

Lay down on your side with your arms and legs sticking straight out perpendicular to your torso. Now pull your legs and arms in and roll over onto your hands and knees. You have left a clean body print. Stand up and walk away. Your body print is still pristine.

You can do the same in reverse.

If you intend to claim that is what sasquatch did re skookum, I want credit.

You don't get it. Owen Caddy PM'd me instructions for the Skookum Roll months ago. It's not even necessary to stick the arms and legs straight out.

And why would a 9' unidentified hominid primate roll out? Because its hands were full of fruit?

 

[William Parcher]

Hey Lu, the wagon-circling Bigfooters on Cryptomundo are just as stereotypical as the ones on BFF. Listen to these folks as they review the Discovery Channel show:

sasquatch: I watched “Best Evidense” AND I MEANT TO SPELL it eviDENSE! Wow what a bunch of nonsense from the naysayers. The psychologist was a total nut job... Many of my doubts about the so called intelligencia where confirmed tonight! “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.

Raptorial:Sas, you read my mind.

Fellow Bigfooter gives the "high five".

mrbf2006: Couldn’t have said it better myself, sasquatch.

The palm begins to sting after repeated high five slappings.

shovethenos: You’re not employing the scientific method when you ignore or don’t even bother to examine large amounts of the available evidence.

Skeptics are blind, and hence they don't use scientific methodology.

Unknown Primate: Sas, this ol’ unknown primate agrees with you too. I didn’t get to watch the program til 1 am. I psyched up by browsing Cryptomundo, sketching bigfoot, sticking my head outside once in awhile (I live in an urban area, but ya never know!), etc. Once it came on, I settled into my big chair with a hot cup of joe. Minutes later, I realized that “here we go again”. And to think Dick Smith was one of my heroes back in my FMOF days! Still, Dr. Jeff saved it for me.

It's almost like the Bigfoot believers are trying to reach out and kiss each other.

ladd: I originally was looking forward to “Best Evidence” and without using expletives found it to be a load of amateurish nonsense. Where do they get these people?

They find skeptics at the bottom of dumpsters.

wildmanmarty: Very good comments about the skeptics. Skepticism is a good thing, but not when the skeptic promotes misinformation to the general public and refuses to consider, or even look at all the evidence. During the last portion of the show, did anyone bother to point out the obvious disparity in arm length of the actor and Patty? Overall, I found the program lacking in balance and was somewhat disappointed.

Skepticism is only good when it admits that Patty is real.

bukko: I agree with all you. Last nights “Best Evidence” was lame. It was a total disappointment. People will never believe. It seems like no amount of evidence or type of evidence will ever be good enough. How the muscle movement on “Patty” could be faked is beyond me. I hear all these “experts” tell me it’s fake. They just sound silly.

More palm stinging after another high five.

cabochris: “Best Evidence: Bigfoot”, while interesting was poorly done! I could have done a better job presenting the facts!

Would those facts have suggested that Bigfoot is not supported by the evidence? I doubt it. You go, Bigfooter!

airforce47: It’s remotely possible the Patterson Film was hoaxed but very doubtful.

My wagon is in the circle. Does it look okay to you other guys?

 

[LAL]

It gets up by rolling off it's body print and making hoof and knee prints to one side. It gets up without making hoof prints in it's body print.

I daresay there'd be some body print (elk are heavy) over and around the hoofprints, except possibly from a very young calf. There should be a hoofprint near the end of that "rear leg" but there isn't. DY said the prints were obliterated by wet mud, but this is where the wet areas were:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=15671

Check out the positions while you're at it.

Still waiting for pictures and diagrams from DY showing how elk, or elks, made all that detail.

 

[LAL]

Hey Lu, the wagon-circling Bigfooters on Cryptomundo are just as stereotypical

Obviously they're much moreso.

as the ones on BFF. Listen to these folks as they review the Discovery Channel show:

It would appear the commenters on Cryptomondo are as immature as many of the posters here. I'm a member, but do you see many posts from me on Loren's board?

I would like to have seen the show. From what I've read about it, it would appear the critical scientists are back in 1967. Did anyone bring up the "male" saggital crest?

 

[William Parcher]

Obviously they're much moreso.

I disagree. I think Bigfooters are the same no matter where you find them. Basically, their belief in Bigfoot remains immune to any kind of skepticism.

It would appear the commenters on Cryptomondo are as immature as many of the posters here. I'm a member, but do you see many posts from me on Loren's board?

Immature? Those folks are real Bigfooters, and would probably give you a bloody nose if you suggested otherwise in front of their faces. I don't know how to get to Coleman's board; but I swear that I am not interested in looking at it. I'm a stereotypical skeptic, I guess. If you guys have a Bigfoot specimen (biological evidence) over on his site, I'll certainly look at it. But if it's just another forum with a bunch of wordy postings to support Bigfoot ... I think I'll pass on it.

I would like to have seen the show. From what I've read about it, it would appear the critical scientists are back in 1967. Did anyone bring up the "male" saggital crest?

I missed it too. Did anyone bring up the fact that Bigfoot has not been confirmed to be anything other than a myth?

 

[tube]

Ah, the TV show last night! Yeah it was pretty cool, and I was simply expecting an advocate-based program.

What surprised me the most was the gait analysis at the end. I have a sneaking suspicion that the guy-in-the-'Squatch-suit was not a "Bigfooter". Call it a hunch, an intuition, or just a sneaking suspicion, but there was something about the man, some certain thing that would make him seem out of place at a Bigfoot conference... But I can't quite put my finger on it.

So if he was not a Bigfooter, it tells you that he was able to master the "inimitable gait" of "Patty" pretty well, and in a suit, and on a totally non-compliant surface. I've been told I do a reasonable "Patty Walk", but I've never seen myself on video. I'm afraid I might look fat...

Anyway, I was blown away that Jeff Meldrum actually admitted that the actor did a fair recreation of the "walk"!

Frankly it follows the pattern that we have seen in the last few years; when the claims of strong physical evidence are genuinely examined, they fall apart and come down to rather simple, prosaic explanations.

Witness dermals, (or at least the very cornerstone cast) Skookum Elk Cast, Wallace tracks, Coyote Calls, and Patterson's dodgy character. When you look at the history of the claims of Patty's "inimitable gait", you see people like Barbara Wasson and Grover Krantz make really untenable, hyperbolic claims about the "inhumanness" of the gait.

I had a big go-round on BFF some time back about the "Lower Level Leg Lift" seen early in the film, at frame 72, I believe. It was claimed that the "Lower Level Leg Lift" while walking was a "one in a million human characteristic". Well, no:

 

[tube]

I've reproduced them (quite accidentally) on a variety of casts made in Hydrostone plaster (a mixture of gypsum and Portland cement). All that's required is a fine-grained water-absorbing (not necessarily dry) material like dry clay moist gypsum-rich mud, clay with selenite, etc. I can post some photos if anyone's burning with desire to see them.

Oh! Uh, sorry I'm so late! Yes, indeed, I'd like to see them, please.

By the way, where did you get your "moist gypsum-rich mud", anyway???? You see, I made a bunch of phone calls and learned that the only place in the world that it's found is in Renton WA. Specifically in one small plot of land in Greenwood Memorial Park. In fact this one guy told me that you would have had to ROB JIMI HENDRIX GRAVE to get this so-called "moist gypsum-rich mud".

So how about it Desertyeti, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START TELLING US THE TRUTH???

 

[RayG]

I think she may be refering to another Freeman gem.

Freeman? Then it must be true.

There is a picture in Meldrum's new book ..

Yes, if I had only read another 2 page further I'd have found it.

I'm afraid to ask why they haved deemed it ' female ' ..

Because, "there was no indication of a scrotum, but the possible hint of labia." (page 112)

That Freeman was sure some lucky guy. He finds hair, footprints, handprints, buttprints...

RayG