• 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.
LAL wrote:
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
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.
"Actor duplicates Patty walk" is a hollow victory for the skeptics.

The REAL question is.....why did Bob "Where am I?" Heironimus even walk with an unnatural bent-kneed gait in the first place??
Why didn't he just walk like he, and the rest of humanity, normally do? After all, Roger's super-suit should have been enough to make the film convincing.

Also...speaking of Bob...what did he do with his forehead when he put the suit on? It seems to be missing in the film. :p
 
William Parcher wrote:
I think Bigfooters are the same no matter where you find them. Basically, their belief in Bigfoot remains immune to any kind of skepticism.
I think skeptics, on this board, are the same...100% skeptical...no matter what type of Bigfoot evidence is being discussed.
Examples....(unlike in the post quoted above)....

1) Greg:
"So far, I am not aware of ANY evidence which indicates with ANY degree of likeliness, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

2) kitakaze:
"Your Joyce anecdote has NOTHING to do with evidence and everything to do with belief."

3) RayG:
"There's never ANY verifiable evidence, the determination and belief are quite evident, there have been organized searches, papers written, fleeting photos, blurry films....and yet it all adds up to...NOTHING."

Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.

"Believers" at least have open minds, and can discuss and weigh evidence in terms of "probabilities"....and not just in terms of "it's proof" or "it's nothing".
 
Last edited:
LAL wrote: "Actor duplicates Patty walk" is a hollow victory for the skeptics.

It doesn't matter if it's hollow or has a nougat center.

The REAL question is.....why did Bob "Where am I?" Heironimus even walk with an unnatural bent-kneed gait in the first place??

Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life. Friends, family and residents of Yakima have always known him for his funky way of walking. When you see it, you swear it looks like Patty as a human. I think Bob walks like Patty because he was Patty.

Why didn't he just walk like he, and the rest of humanity, normally do? After all, Roger's super-suit should have been enough to make the film convincing.

Roger's Bigfoot costume + Bob Heironimus walking like he always does = Patty.

Also...speaking of Bob...what did he do with his forehead when he put the suit on? It seems to be missing in the film. :p

His forehead along with the rest of his head, was inside the Patty headpiece.
 
I think skeptics, on this board, are the same no matter what type of Bigfoot evidence is being discussed.

Everything would change when skeptics are presented with a biological specimen.

Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.

Because the kind of evidence being presented cannot be directly linked to a real Bigfoot. Oh, we see it, hear it and analyze it - so don't pull that childish semantic game.

"Believers" at least have open minds, and can discuss and weigh evidence in terms of "probabilities"....and not just in terms of "it's proof" or "it's nothing".

Believers actually have very closed minds. I don't know how anyone can assign meaningful probabilities to any of this stuff. But we only need to work with possibilities. Skeptics usually say that Bigfoot is possible. Believers do seem to reject the possibility that BF does not exist, and so in a way they fit the description of scoftic.

If we could just get some confirmatory evidence (almost certainly would need to be biological) skeptics would shift their positions like a school of fish. Skepticism about Bigfootery claims could still remain, but not about the existence of the creature itself.
 
RayG wrote:
Speaking of which, how goes your pinhead investigation? Anything you can share with us so far?
It's been delayed due to personal circumstances...and a long drawn-out "debate" with kitakaze, about Joyce's sighting report...and her phone call to me.
Technically speaking, it wasn't an actual debate. I talked about "probabilities", while kitakaze hurled insult after insult at me... :covereyes ...and declared "we can't say anything about her report."

But I'll be working on it more, and posting it in the near future. :)
 
Last edited:
What a beautiful response, William....you demonstrated EXACTLY what I said about skeptics in my post! Thank you! :D
William Parcher wrote:
Everything would change when skeptics are presented with a biological specimen.(Also known as "proof.")
I agree....when YOU have PROOF...you'll then see "evidence"...and not until then.
Hence what I said earlier...."skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...analyse no evidence."
You showed the truth of my statement vivdly. :)
SweatyYeti wrote:
Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.
Oh, we see it, hear it and analyze it - so don't pull that childish semantic game.
The word "see" in my statement means "accept", as evidence. It's not a semantic game. I realize that you can physically SEE the footprint casts, read the sighting reports, etc.
The point was that skeptics think, and state, over and over again that any and all evidence for Bigfoot is meaningless and worthless...that is, NOT EVIDENCE of Bigfoot's existence.
YOU just stated it directly in your post, William....
I don't know how anyone can assign meaningful probabilities to any of this stuff.
Are you aware that you just said that?
Fact...you don't "see" any evidence for Bigfoot. Just like I stated...and you confirmed.
Because the kind of evidence being presented cannot be directly linked to a real Bigfoot.
Your phrase "directly linked to a real Bigfoot" is just another way of saying "PROOF".
Again....and AS ALWAYS...a skeptic frames any discussion of Bigfoot evidence in terms of "proof"...EVERY SINGLE TIME, without exception.

Believers actually have very closed minds.
Any quotes to support that?
But we only need to work with possibilities. Skeptics usually say that Bigfoot is possible.
Actually, William....EVERYBODY in the WORLD, with a working brain, would agree that it's POSSIBLE that Bigfoot exists.
It doesn't violate any known laws of physics...and neither does it violate the human "evolutionary tree" evidence.
Anyone who would state that it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a Bigfoot-type creature to exist, anywhere in the world, is just plain toopid.
Believers do seem to reject the possibility that BF does not exist, and so in a way they fit the description of scoftic.
We seem to....but DO WE really? Got a quote to show us?
If we could just get some confirmatory evidence (almost certainly would need to be biological) skeptics would shift their positions like a school of fish. Skepticism about Bigfootery claims could still remain, but not about the existence of the creature itself.
"Confirmatory evidence" ....also known as PROOF.
You skeptics are so predictable...it's a gas! :D

"If we ONLY had proooooof......just a little bit o' proof!!" :D
 
Last edited:
Thank you Melissa, just a few questions. Do think Tube's initial finding of dessication ridges was based on a bias towards the evidence? Has anyone else been able to reproduce these features? What are these features you mention concerning the OM cast?

Hello Kitakaze. First off let me say, I do my very best to respond when I am questioned, because I want people to understand what I am saying, I just hope if it takes me a couple of days you will understand :)

First question - You would have to ask Tube that. I do not have an opinion on his thought process. I like to stick to the facts that I know. I have enough on my plate as far as this research is concerned to have to wonder what the bias of someone may or may not be, and what role that plays in their opinion - and I am really not concerned with that.

Short answer - I haven't even given it thought.

Second Question - I see that Desertyeti says he has in fact obtained the same results as Tube, however I have not seen his work in this, so I really can not comment.

Third Question- The features I am talking about I will do my best to explain, please understand I am not an anatomist.

If you look at a copy of the Onion Mountain Cast, on the sides of the cast you will see what appears to be something along the lines of "skin folds". I first noticed this at the 2005 Conference in Jefferson Texas. Now, if this was because of an error in mixing the casting cement - one would expect to see the same folding in areas that are just as thick, this is not the case. It is specifically in this area of the foot (sides only). Part of my tests included some very unflattering photos of my foot - to show that our feet do have these "folds" when we apply pressure to our feet (the simple act of standing will cause this to happen). Now, is this responsible for what I noticed on the cast of the Onion Mountain Track - I don't know, but I am looking into it.

I did point this out to Tube, but last I knew he couldn't explain it either. Maybe he has since, I don't know.
 
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?

Short answer to a bunch of questions you have obviously given more thought to than I have...

No.
 
What's all this about Volcanic Ash???

Some of you on this board might be caught off guard by all the posts here regarding volcanic ash. How exactly did I come to work with this weird, exotic stuff?
Well, just so we have it on record and right out in public, I'll tell you. Several years ago I began a sort of study to find out if there was a mineral powder that could be added to epoxy to create a useful putty. It's foolish to pay epoxy prices for mineral powder diluants. Think of it as a sort of high-grade "Bondo." Eventually I found that fly ash, a byproduct of coal burning, was an outstanding material for this purpose. But until I came upon fly ash, I had bags and bags of mineral powders in my basement. I have a friend who works at System Three epoxy near Seattle; he even gave me some tech-grade mineral powder additives.
Once when I was at Wal-Mart, I came upon this:

IMG_4558.jpg


A product called Spill Magic. Believe it or not, I bought it not to absorb spills, but to mix with epoxy! Freakish, I know...

Frankly I can't remember how it worked out as far as adding to epoxy goes, as I settled on fly ash soon enough.

Some time passed, and I became interested in the dermals business, late in 2004. As I've detailed elsewhere, I built a wood box to contain these mineral powders and soils for testing. After I tested fly ash, I began to test the other mineral powders in my basement to see what would happen when cement casting compounds were poured over them. Indeed, I made a test cast using Spill Magic.

I obtained rather spectacular desiccation ridges in this cast. This would have been about March or April 2005. But by this time I had run out of Spill Magic, I went back to Wal-Mart for more, but they were out.

Eventually it occurred to me to simply figure out what the stuff actually was. Looking on the ingredients we see this:

IMG_4562.jpg


I see now that a search for "CAS#93763-70-3" comes up with perlite, but I must have googled the text instead, as googling "amorphous aluminum silicate" gives this website as the first hit, at least today:

http://www.reade.com/Products/Minerals-and-Ores/Pumice-Powder-(Amorphous-aluminum-silicate).html

Pumice! Yeah, I didn't have to buy Spill Magic--I could just get some pumice! I can't remember what I did next: I'm sure I searched the Internet for a source of pumice in Seattle. Eventually I found Seattle Pottery Supply. My memory is that they told me that they labeled their pumice as "volcanic ash."

In retrospect, it all makes sense, as Spill Magic works its magic because it is an effective DESICCANT.

Some time ago, on Bigfoot Forums, I began to interact with Melissa regarding casting artifacts. At the time, I rather naively thought she wanted to duplicate what tests I had been doing. Thus, I publicly suggested she obtain some volcanic ash at a pottery supply store for testing. She did not do so, and instead obtained Tricalcium Phosphate, a product I had never tested and one totally different chemically than pumice, which is mostly oxides of silicon and aluminium (IUPAC spelling all the way, baby). She further asserted, publicly, that Tricalcium Phosphate is "full of iron," an egregious error, and one that exposed her rather pathological ignorance of basic chemistry.

At this point I could see the battle was lost--that I would never be able to meaningfully direct her to reproduce these tests.

I stood by and watched as Melissa began a series of ever-more escalating claims about what she claimed I "had told her to do." I suspected at this time that Melissa was lying, as I had no recollection of "saying" many of these things I was alleged to have said.

Unfortunately, I had also deleted most of my "PM" mail through Bigfoot Forums, so I had no way to prove that I never said the things she claimed I said.

Over the last several months I witnessed Melissa make ever-more exaggerated claims, many of which implied that I was lying about where I got my volcanic ash. The implication was that I had obtained volcanic ash from Mount St. Helens, an illegal act, according to her.

I suspected that if I remained silent on the matter Melissa's hubris would eventually get the better of her, and she would eventually make a mistake. This is part of the reason why Dana and I obtained the bag of volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery Supply and saved the receipt. I waited for Melissa to "cross the line."

Indeed, she eventually did "cross the line" and publicly claimed on this board that I was lying about where I had obtained my volcanic ash. This is a demonstrably false claim, as my receipt posted here proves. Thus, Melissa's claim amounts to libel and defamation.

I see that Melissa's libelous actions are currently being discussed on BFF:

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

Being that Melissa placed her call(s) to Seatte Pottery Supply at a time when they had plenty of volcanic ash in stock, her claims are either gross distortions or flat-out lies.

If it were up to me, libel and defamation would get one banned from this forum, but this is not my decision to make. At this point, I view Melissa as essentially a libelous troll, and I may simply have to resort to the "block" function, as I rather enjoy posting my Bigfoot-related musings here and plan to continue to do so.

At this point I suspect that Melissa's credibility as a "Bigfoot researcher" may be finished, but I could be wrong. As in most fringe sciences, the "debunkers" and "scoftics" are the most reviled by the advocates, and over-the-top attacks by the advocates are the norm. The personalized, attack-dog mentality we see here directed at Dr. Wroblewski and myself is an old, old theme in fringe science. It's clear to me now why Melissa only provides the subtext of phone call conversations she claims to have made instead of provides transcripts with her conversant's full name.

The implication that I had done something underhanded was even too much for advocate Rick Noll, as he posted this comment on Bigfoot Forums in what he claims is his last post:

"A case in point is my working relationship with Matt Crowley. It has been my pleasure to work with such an individual who strived to do everything in his power the right way. Did he make mistakes? Sure, as does everyone… but did he do anything underhanded? In my opinion no! Many times I watched as he questioned and worked the issues and I thought… ah ha! Here we go. He is going to try this or that now... Sneak this one by… But he didn’t and really surprised me in always doing the right thing."

Melissa might have better luck over in the UFO field, as that is a venue where anonymous sources and hearsay are the order of the day. Perhaps she could turn her attentions toward Kal Korff and defend the honor of Billy Meier.

I fully expected to be treated like how I saw Greg Long treated when I came out with the "casting artifact" business. Strangely, this did not happen. Even Chilcutt didn't counter attack me, and in fact the last time I spoke to him on the phone I rather enjoyed the conversation. I ended up chatting with him for about 45 minutes. Chilcutt reminds me in many ways of my father, who taught law at the University of Montana for many years. Personally I get along with all these guys, and continue to have fruitfull exchanges with Chris Murphy, Daniel Perez, and Roger Knights. I like Jeff Meldrum, as he has treated me most fairly. It's clear I disagree with these people about various things, but they, like me, are capable of being civil and polite.

No, the only persons who have treated me like Greg Long was treated post right here on this board, LAL and Melissa.

Yes, truth be told, I've been waiting months for the day Melissa's libelous claims and gross distortions would be called out, and here it is. I think I'll go out and buy some diet Moutain Dew and watch the UFC tonight to celebrate...
 
No, the only persons who have treated me like Greg Long was treated post right here on this board, LAL and Melissa.

Oh, you poor thing!

Nowhere have I seen either one of us post anything close to this from you to me in Post #80 and beyond (it got worse)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14003&st=75&p=296368&#entry296368

or this to Melissa in Post #188:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16440&st=175&p=349625&#entry349625


Is using volcanic ash because it's "like" Onion Mountain soil anything like using Skittles as if they're the same as chocolate chips?

I referred to Rick's post earlier in the thread. I guess you missed that.

There are times when I have to wonder if you and your partner in the BFF pack go off your meds at the same time - or is it just coincidence you both seem to go ballistic when the moon's full?

As I see it, you and your l'il buddies don't like having your proclamations challenged, and when they are you bellow like wounded bulls and claim you're being abused, right after goring the opposition into submission.

And that's about as nasty as I ever get. Sorry for mixing the metaphors.
 
Bigfootery is a scam and Lu, SweatyYeti & Melissa are its self-appointed foot soldiers.

Ah, glad to see you're back to your old self. You were far too polite; I was beginning to worry about you.

Would you now like to make some absurd and totally unfounded claim that people make money at this?
 
Last edited:
Would you now like to make some absurd and totally unfounded claim that people make money at this?

Oh I wouldn't suggest that you guys have made any money. You are web volunteers.

I can make a founded claim that any amount of money made by Bigfooters Patterson, Krantz, Green, Coleman, Meldrum, etc. on Bigfoot propaganda was/is money in their pocket. I don't care how small the amount is; it was earned because of their belief/advocacy in Bigfoot.
 
Oh I wouldn't suggest that you guys have made any money. You are web volunteers.

I can make a founded claim that any amount of money made by Bigfooters Patterson, Krantz, Green, Coleman, Meldrum, etc. on Bigfoot propaganda was/is money in their pocket. I don't care how small the amount is; it was earned because of their belief/advocacy in Bigfoot.

Thom Powell has stated emphatically there's no money in book publication (he's written one; he should know). Green jokingly suggested Coleman must be very rich - he's written 86. Grover's research cost him at least $100,000 in expenses and lost wages.Roger's book was self-published at a cost of $500 put up by his brother-in-law.

If researchers chose to bring their results to the public rather than just keep the notes in the filing cabinet, we should, I think be grateful they have done this.

Have you read any of them yet, or do you just think you know all about this from your limited reading of the web?
 
Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life. Friends, family and residents of Yakima have always known him for his funky way of walking. When you see it, you swear it looks like Patty as a human. I think Bob walks like Patty because he was Patty.

Didn't Diogenes say this board no longer supports BH because the evidence is tainted, or words to that effect? Could it be you don't all think alike? Are you not all to be painted with the same brush?

BH claimed Roger filmed from the back of his horse. Just try to line things up with a camera angle like that!
 
William Parcher wrote:
Bigfootery is a scam and Lu, SweatyYeti & Melissa are its self-appointed foot soldiers.
You got me good there, William.

Note to self: Bigfootery is a scam-aroni. Must find scam artists responsible and have them brought to justice, or to the ice cream store...whichever is closest. :)

Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life.
Is there a video clip of that anywhere online? I'd love to see a clip of Bob "What was I wearing?" Heironimus walking like Patty.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Diogenes say this board no longer supports BH because the evidence is tainted, or words to that effect? Could it be you don't all think alike? Are you not all to be painted with the same brush?

BH claimed Roger filmed from the back of his horse. Just try to line things up with a camera angle like that!

I never did support BH .. He does walk like Patty, though ..

Considering that we haven't found a Bigfoot that walks like Patty,
we can safely say there is more evidence that BH was Patty, than there is
that Patty was a real Bigfoot...
 
Yes, I can understand why a person who has never studied desiccation ridges might claim these features are "folded skin". Because they are so obviously not dermal ridges you have to come up with another sort of fantasy to account for them. We see the same sort of desperate attempt to define the irregular surface textures seen in the Skookum elk cast.

Funny, I didn't know "folded skin" contained little islands and bifurcations...

No, what we see here are absolutely classic desiccation ridges, which usually, but not always, occur on the outer periphery of casts. Note how they present in an "annular" way. By this I mean that they flow in parallel with the plane of the cast, but perpendicularly to a line that extends from the point of first slurry impact to the ridge. They are "annular" in that they cluster roughly in "rings" around the point of first slurry impact.

What we have here is the LATERAL side of CA-19.

IMG_3426.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom