Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

Don't mince words. Not 'originally, maybe'. Originally, period. My jets are frosty, Lu. We're all (I'm pretty sure) adults here, so you can drop feigning offence. We've also seen plenty of your surmations on who's banned, who's suspended, and who's crossed the line or been reprimanded.

I was citing someone who didn't actually say who'd been suspended. I may have been wrong about who it was, but none of the exchanges in question were even PG 13.

I read the guidelines here and they're pretty specific. I don't know if they apply in the flame wars.

I'm hard to offend, but guidelines are guidelines. It was getting pretty gross.

ETA: Not to mention the fact that carcharodon asked not be PM'ed after the first one asking him to chill out.

I didn't know that.

 

[LAL]

I couldn't agree more Ray, I'm still waiting for the references I politely asked for, but I wont hold my breath we will ever see those references - because they don't exist.

That's a gate that swings both ways too, isn't I?

In future I'll have the link handy before I make the claim. It astounds me that after driving home point after point and quote after quote someone can totally forget doing it, but remember things that were never said.

Is that some kind of syndrome?

 

[LAL]

You're thinking seems to not be as critical as you believe. Let me know when you're ready to engage someone who is critical of your arguments.

Oh, she has. She took on tube and his entire bandwagon. There was some good input from Rick Noll in those debates and he's a casting expert.

It would be interesting to have a neutral party try to replicate the results with absolutely no clue as to what they were doing (no foot shaped prints allowed) to see just what combinations of substrate and temperature do produce dermal-like ridges. How difficult is it? Is there a way to reproduce the identifying characteristics as well, just by casting?

Mellissa has gone to a great deal of time, trouble and expense in checking this out. Her work and research shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[Correa Neto]

DISCOVER Vol. 20 No. 09 | September 1999 | ...snip...http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-99/features/beastsinthemist1682/

Have you checked the critics to his work?
Have you noticed that nothing but sighting reports backs the claim?

BTW, you avoided this:

What are the criteria you use to the "less fanciful" mythical being? How can you know is, within it original context, having a huge mouth at the belly was "fanciful" or not? You can't. When you say a given variant is "less fanciful" than another, you are making an interpretation based on your cultural background and personal bias. You are searching for plausible anatomical details, but this does not hides or excuses the fact that you aare making an interpretation outside the original context.

But lets play the crypto game. Lets pick the "less fancifull" variant, a vaguely humanoid hairy carnivore beast with an alligator-like skin. How do you turn it in to a plant-eating ground sloth?

Think on how much distortion may have happened to sasquatch myths...

Before you snipped it did you note the smilarites from Alaska to South Carolina, from 1793 to present with a couple of stops between?

What about the dissimilarities?
What about reliable evidence to back those reports?
What about the reliable pieces of evidence that would (OK, I can write "could" instead of "would") be avaliable if these creatures were real?

If there were half the evidence for any of the above that there is for sasquatches, they'd been worth looking into at least (some have been thoroughly investigated already).

The evidence LAL, as I -as well as many other posters- have already pointed out many times, is of the same quality. And in some cases, the same -or even larger- quantity.

So, why should I take eyewitnesses reports of UFOs, Jesus, saints, lake monsters or ghosts as less reliable as bigfoot sighting reports? Its not the first time I ask this.

Note: The first time I asked this, RayG was the only person who managed to provide an answer. Ironic, isn't it?

I think you missed my point. The reports I posted were pretty much at random, just showing witnesses over centuries are seeing and reporting the same thing. There are thousands more like them, many backed up by physical evidence. You can no doubt explain away each and every one of them to your satisfaction, but it's going to take you awhile.

Already discussed ad nauseam LAL...

-Anedoctal evidence is unreliable. Don't waste your time making a comparsion with legal system, since eyewitness reports nowdays pale when contrasted with more reliable and "hard" forensic evidence. Its not enough for a woman to say "Correa Neto is the father of my child". Its a mere anedocte -even if the child looks like me. The last word will be provided by reliable repeatable evidence not suspected of being a hoax- DNA tests.

-The physical evidence that backs the "bigfeet are real" claim is debatable at best. Again, it was already discussed over and over...

You will not manage to sell me this sort of stuff as reliable.

 

[Melissa]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Melissa. If you would like to elicit strictly 'yes' or 'no' answers than I would suggest asking strictly 'yes' or 'no' questions. You seem to think I'm accussing you of being a 'believer' and hencely disregarding you. I've already repeatedly made it clear I'm only interested in what your activities say if anything about Tube's findings. It would appear that you are sure you are engaging in open-minded, objective, and critical thinking and those that disagree with you are not. That's genuinely unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that you imply that my present skepticism regarding BF is the result of following the crowd. You might want to ask some members who have been here longer than two months about that.

You're thinking seems to not be as critical as you believe. Let me know when you're ready to engage someone who is critical of your arguments.

What if this isnt about tube? You know, other people can do research in regard to dermal ridges, and it have nothing to do with Tube.

I think your best to take the stance you have - that way you do not have to make a decision and you can sit on the fence for as long as necessary. The answer to those questions is as obvious as the keyboard in front of you.

I have engaged many who are critical of my argument, and they have been much more critical than you - and MUCH more receptive. They were however willing to answer the very questions I put to you - which is why they are no longer as critical as they once were, and are actually looking forward to more results.

Do a simple internet search - and find out for yourself the last time there was a Volcanic eruption in this part of Northern California - then decide for yourself.

The answers are not that difficult, question is, are you brave enough to look for them?

You might be surprised.

 

[RayG]

Since LAL has me filtered, it's rather pointless to try to debate with her, but I can't let her post unsupported speculation by Rick Noll (or anyone else for that matter) without opening my big piehole.

"I wonder if anybody here knew that Grover Krantz was originally called into the investigation of the Kenniwick man but was later dropped because of his affiliation and writings on Bigfoot. The government knew that the topic would be very contoversial and that they didn't want any complications especially with First Nations tribal members being able to call into question his prior work.

Is this confirmed fact or merely Rick Noll's opinion? Because the skeleton was discovered on federal land, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took custody of the bones, acting on authority of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act. I see no indication Dr. Krantz was 'dropped', but if he was, it may have been because he had argued that the Kennewick Man was of non-native origin, not because he had any ties to bigfoot.

http://crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_1.html
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/etc/specialreport.html

Daegling is qouted [sic] in his own book on Bigfoot as saying that the advocates have something of a coup (sic) with getting Daris's comments concerning the Skookum cast.

Not sure what Rick finds wrong with the word coup, but here's the exact quote from page 54 of Bigfoot Exposed:

"In something of a coup, a long time Bigfoot skeptic, Dr. Daris Swindler, a professor emeritus from the University of Washington, examined the cast and concluded that it provided strong evidence for the existence of Bigfoot."

The footnote for the quote states: Swinder endorsed the imprint in the video production Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (2003, Whitewolf Productions).

Daegling and others approached Grover towards the end of his illness and questioned him on the Skookum cast but Grover was in so much pain that he didn't want to talk about anything. They took that to mean that he did not endorse the cast or find, but I have it on tape and in his own writings that he believed otherwise.

The only mention in Bigfoot Exposed regarding Dr. Krantz and the Skookum Cast, is on page 97 where Daegling says:

"Even Grover Krantz declined to endorse the cast."

And the footnote for that statement states that it's from Barcott (2002), which is a reference to: Barcott, Bruce (2002). "Sasquatch is real!" Forest love slave tells all! Outside Magazine, August 2002.

I see no indication in the book that Daegling himself approached a dying Dr. Krantz to discuss the Skookum Cast. If anyone knows otherwise, maybe they could englighten us.

What a shame to try an promote their ideas and concerns onto a very sick man.

Rick is certain of this promotion of ideas and concerns? It would be a shame if he were trying to embelish facts in order to gain emotional support for a dying Dr. Krantz.

RayG

 

[RayG]

In future I'll have the link handy before I make the claim.

I couldn't ask for anything less.

It astounds me that after driving home point after point and quote after quote someone can totally forget doing it, but remember things that were never said.

The human mind is quite astounding. I'm very good at remembering where I left something, but I have trouble remember ing what hours I worked last week. Maybe my brain is full and little bits of info that have no room are falling off. If LAL is unable to support her claim by providing a link, no need to beat about the bush, just admit it. I've been wrong before too. (once)

RayG

 

[LAL]

Quick reply posting problems again.

 

[LAL]

Have you checked the critics to his work?

He's risking his reputation to even look into it. Of course he has critics. Anyone who "knows" Giant Sloths no longer exist can be a critic.

Have you noticed that nothing but sighting reports backs the claim?

Have you noticed there were fresh prints with the measurements given backing the claim? He did get funding and he did get an article in the same magazine that had a short piece dismissing "Bigfoot" because the Teslin hair turned out to be bison, among other things (mostly innacurate). There was no mention that the hair was from a long dead Wood Bison. Whatever was seen around Teslin, it wasn't that Bison.

BTW, you avoided this:

There are all kinds of things that can inspire fanciful beings, from imagination to peyote. I was reading Alley last night and some of the coastal traditions he lists are pretty fanciful and don't seem to be very sasquatch-related. I haven't found anything about them in Cherokee tradition, but there are two apparent sightings by Cherokee, one from a time in the 1800's where many Cherokee escaped removal by hiding in Snowbird. Her encounter wasn't far from there.

But lets play the crypto game.

I'd rather play bridge. Maybe I could be the fourth.

Lets pick the "less fancifull" variant, a vaguely humanoid hairy carnivore beast with an alligator-like skin. How do you turn it in to a plant-eating ground sloth?

I don't.

Think on how much distortion may have happened to sasquatch myths...

Think on how little distortion there is between a 1793 report from South Carolina and reports of extra tall in the '80s from near a dam in British Columbia. How would someon in 1793 possibly receive information about the "Stik Indians"? The west wasn't "settled" yet. South Carolna Indians (I don't know the tribe, but I'm certain they'd be extinct now),had a name for them and so do the Kwakiutl and the Tlinglit. Those tribes are about as far apart as it's possible to get and still be on the same continent.

Maybe South Americans are still into mythology, but making up fanciful animals (other than Rudolf the Red-nose Reindeer) doesn't seem to be a really big thing in the US anymore, even among the remnants of the first citizens.

I must have missed all the reports that have sasquatches alligator-skinned with eyes in the abdomen.

What about the dissimilarities?

Other than height, weight, density of hair or color and some elaborations that resemble hallucinations rather than sightings (and may be nothing but), there aren't many. Got sources for these dissimilarities?

What about reliable evidence to back those reports?

Mutiple witnesses, film and casts aren't good enough, are they? Maybe some lucky hiker will be able to snag some DNA using his fingernails.

What about the reliable pieces of evidence that would (OK, I can write "could" instead of "would") be avaliable if these creatures were real?

Such as hair and scat? Sasquatch lays? Recorded vocalizations?

Theres plenty. That you chose to explain it away does not make it unreliable. First hand examination has convinced more than one sceptic.

The evidence LAL, as I -as well as many other posters- have already pointed out many times, is of the same quality. And in some cases, the same -or even larger- quantity.

Yeah, I'm getting tired of reading it. And none of you has examined the Skookum Cast, e.g., firsthand, have you?

"Looks like a guy in an ape suit" doesn't do it for me.

This is Patty and an ape:

Good match on the muscles, don't you think?

So, why should I take eyewitnesses reports of UFOs, Jesus, saints, lake monsters or ghosts as less reliable as bigfoot sighting reports? Its not the first time I ask this.

And I see no point in answering it. There is not nearly the evidence for any of those, even the possible ones, that there is for sasquatches. Myths don't leave prints and transportation over light years is not required.

Haven't I mentioned electrical discharges and granite deposits already? Sleep paralysis, schizophrenia, migraine phenomena? I'm always up for reasonable, rational and natural explanations for everything.

Note: The first time I asked this, RayG was the only person who managed to provide an answer. Ironic, isn't it?

Provide the link.

Already discussed ad nauseam LAL...

-Anedoctal evidence is unreliable. Don't waste your time making a comparsion with legal system

Okay.

<SNIP>

 

[LTC8K6]

Krantz's refusal to endorse the Skookum cast in the aforementioned Barcott reference.

That attitude didn't endear him to missing-linkists, who believe Bigfoot may be as much human as ape. It struck others, including most members of the BFRO, as an unsporting method of specimen collection. But Krantz had an arm's-length relationship with the BFRO anyway; he contributed his expert opinions from time to time, but he was not a member. Even after inspecting the Skookum Cast three times, his opinion of it was tempered by a cranky ambivalence.

"I don't know what it is," he told me. "I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice."

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_6.adp

 

[LAL]

Krantz's refusal to endorse the Skookum cast in the aforementioned Barcott reference.

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_6.adp

I found that one last night; it's not what I'm remembering.

Elk specifically wasn't mentioned. The quote was just, "I don't know what it is", as I recall. At least that statement shows elk was being seriously considered. I'll have to get dates.

Certainly he could have been convinced, become unconvinced, said to hell with it and died.

I wanted the link to the thread with the debate with Ray. Do you remember the debate? The name of the thread?

 

[RayG]

Your right, but question, how many times has BH's story changed? What does that typically do to the credibility of a witness who only has heresay testimony to provide... <snip>

So, when the story changes as much as BH's story does, would you put him on the stand in defense of your case that the P/G film is a hoax? I sure wouldnt. BH's story and credibility would be torn apart by any attorney, and you dont have to believe the film is a hoax or the real thing in order to tear BH's story to shreds. BH's story has more holes than a suit would if we found it in a closet today surrounded by Moths.

Too many holes.

I daresay we could say the same about Patterson. At this point we can't be absolutely certain of anything, other than a bit of inconclusive film. Original film footage is missing, Patterson and Gimlin seem to have tracked one bigfoot, Titmus another (or they're very inept trackers), film may have been recorded on October 20th or on an earlier date, horse fell on Patterson, horse didn't fall on Patterson, questions regarding timeline of filming/tracking/casting/bringing in film for development, etc. etc.

That's why I'm skeptical of BH and P&G. I'm also skeptical of a lot of other stuff associated with bigfoot (footprints, hair, scat, vocalizations, etc.).

RayG

 

[Melissa]

I daresay we could say the same about Patterson. At this point we can't be absolutely certain of anything, other than a bit of inconclusive film. Original film footage is missing, Patterson and Gimlin seem to have tracked one bigfoot, Titmus another (or they're very inept trackers), film may have been recorded on October 20th or on an earlier date, horse fell on Patterson, horse didn't fall on Patterson, questions regarding timeline of filming/tracking/casting/bringing in film for development, etc. etc.

That's why I'm skeptical of BH and P&G. I'm also skeptical of a lot of other stuff associated with bigfoot (footprints, hair, scat, vocalizations, etc.).

RayG

Yes, thats true - but only to a point. Patterson and Gimlin can put themselves physically at Bluff Creek, they have footage of an unknown subject, and casts of the trackway, then you also have the fact that in how many years - Gimlin's story has not changed. I would put Bob Gimlin on the stand long before I would even think about BH. BH is the kind of person - you just never know what might come out next (evidenced by his multiple stories).

At least Patterson and Gimlin can prove they were there. Thats something BH absolutely can not do.

 

[desertyeti]

The answers are not that difficult, question is, are you brave enough to look for them?

You might be surprised.

Speaking of brave, want to take a crack at the 5 prints I posted Mel?

 

[RayG]

Elk specifically wasn't mentioned. The quote was just, "I don't know what it is", as I recall. At least that statement shows elk was being seriously considered. I'll have to get dates.

Glasses too. I guess LAL didn't notice elk was specifically mentioned a) in the linked article, b) in the snippet that LTC8K6 provided, and c) here's that quote yet again:

"I don't know what it is," he told me. "I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice."

(my highlighting)

I wanted the link to the thread with the debate with Ray. Do you remember the debate? The name of the thread?

I wish someone would, I'm dying to see what it was I supposedly said.

RayG

 

[Melissa]

Speaking of brave, want to take a crack at the 5 prints I posted Mel?

What makes you think Im not - looks like fun to me. How many days do I have to make my decisions, and next time - can you post photos of the tracks that are not so far away? That really makes it difficult to judge anything. Thanks

I love a good puzzle.

 

[desertyeti]

Hard to get closer than 2 feet (~60 cm for the metrically-inclined) and avoid paralax distortion when dealing with a footprint, but hey, have at it and take as much time as you like. I'm in no hurry. We geologists are quite comfortable with long time-frames.

 

[RayG]

At least Patterson and Gimlin can prove they were there.

I can prove I was in Houston, Texas in the early 70's, but it's far more difficult to prove what I did while there.

I'd like to be able to take P&G's word that things happened the way they've described, but some inconsistencies in their stories have my skepticals tingling.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

I wanted the link to the thread with the debate with Ray. Do you remember the debate? The name of the thread?

It's really hard to say. We've had a lot of bigfoot discussions here as you know. I am searching.

 

[LAL]

Yes, thats true - but only to a point. Patterson and Gimlin can put themselves physically at Bluff Creek, they have footage of an unknown subject, and casts of the trackway, then you also have the fact that in how many years - Gimlin's story has not changed. I would put Bob Gimlin on the stand long before I would even think about BH. BH is the kind of person - you just never know what might come out next (evidenced by his multiple stories).

At least Patterson and Gimlin can prove they were there. Thats something BH absolutely can not do.

Some posters seem to have an idea they went to California, shot the film right off the bat and were back in Yakima in time for breakfast. In fact, they were there for about three weeks looking for prints. Most of the ones they saw were too old to be of use. Al Hodgson had called Patricia Patterson (P&G were on Mt. St. Helens at the time) about new finds and they went down in response to that. Al had been a sceptic until he found some himself.

The area had a lot of activity over the years, before and after the filming. This is some of it:

"January, 1968. Mrs. Bud Ryerson and several Others see BF tracks on Martin's Ferry Hill near Weitchpec.

August 7, 1960. Bob Titmus finds 2 sets of BF tracks walking along a road 9 miles south of Weitchpec, near Hoopa towards Willow Creek.

Hoopa, California

1958. A woman and her daughter see a large and small Bigfoot on a hillside above Hoopa Valley just Northwest of Willow Creek.

August 3, 1963. A man and his boy see a BF leap over a 5 foot fence and run into the woods near Hoopa.

August 14, 1960. Bob Titmus sees the same 2 sets of BF tracks he saw a week before (see 64) on Mill Creek Ridge Road, 8 miles southeast of Hoopa.

Notice Creek

June 13, 1963. BF tracks 16 inches long are found crossing Notice Creek near Bluff Creek only 100 feet away from where 3 men were sleeping in a car.

October 20, 1967. Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson see and film motion pictures of a female BF just above Notice Creek between Onion Mountain, Bee Mountain and Fish Creek Butte. Her tracks measure 14½ inches long.

December. 1968. BF tracks 16 inches long are found for 3 miles on Bluff Creek Road going from East Fork to Notice Creek.

Bluff Creek, California

1958. Lawrence Omeg sees a Bigfoot outside his shack after work on a logging job. He quits his job and leaves the following day.

September, 1958. Bigfoot tracks are seen 4 different times on Bluff Creek Road.

October 1, 1958. Jerry Crew finds a quarter mile of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and makes casts.

October 12, 1958. Ray Kerr and Leslie Brezeale see a BF cross a 20" road in 2 strides and find tracks several miles south of where they are usually seen on Bluff Creek Road. Hired by Ray Wallace to track BF, they redouble their hunting effort but their dogs disappear a few days later and are never seen again.

1959. A husband and wife flying a private plane over Bluff Creek see and follow BF tracks until they pass over the BF making them.

Mid October, 1958. BF tracks are seen again in Bluff Creek.

October 23, 1958. BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road once again.

October 28, 1958. 2 miles of BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road.

October 30, 1958. BF tracks are seen going down a hill from Bluff Creek Road.

November 2, 1958. Bob Titmus and Ed Patrick find BF tracks on a Bluff Creek Sandbar.

December 18. 1958. Betty Allen finds 6 miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road.

August 16, 1959. Bob Titmus finds 300 yards of BF tracks along Bluff Creek Sandbar.

August 30, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar.

November 1, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar.

November 2, 1959. Betty Allen finds BF tracks coming down a canyon and along Bluff Creek Road.

January 30, 1960. Betty Allen finds BF tracks around a shovel loader on Humboldt Fir logging road at Bluff Creek.

1969. Peter Byrne, Brian Matthes and Steve Matthes find Bigfoot tracks along Bluff Creek.

June 19, 1960. Dr. Charles Johnson and his family find BF tracks on both sides of the Klamath River a half mile west of Bluff Creek.

August 19, 1962. Skip Clark finds and casts Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek sandbar.

September 26, 1962. Bob Titmus finds miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and in the creek bottom itself.

June 22, 1963. Skip Clark finds and casts a 15 inch BF track on Bluff Creek sandbar.

1963. Thomas Sourwine says a 300 pound boulder was used to repeatedly hit road building equipment near Bluff Creek.

June 30, 1963. BF tracks 10 to 15 inches long are found and cast in the Bluff Creek area.

1963. Pat Graves follows BF tracks for 5 miles from Laird Meadow to Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek. Sticks 1¼ in thick are found broken in the tracks.

1963. Dave Blake finds BF tracks where a barrel of diesel fuel was thrown off the road.

1963. BF tracks 15 inches long are found at Bluff Creek logging operations, with boxes of spikes thrown around and sticks of dynamite bitten into.

August, 1963. BF tracks are found on Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek bridge.

October 1963. Al Hodgson finds a set of BF tracks a few hundred yards above the Notice Creek bridge at Bluff Creek sandbar. The sandbar was washed away in the 1964 flood.

Summer 1964. Dave Blake often finds BF tracks at Laid Meadow at Blake and Tregoning Logging operation west of Bluff Creek. A culvert 4 feet in diameter and 20 feet long is thrown into the canyon and 450 pound barrels of diesel fuel are moved around.

August 21, 1964. Roger Patterson finds and casts 17 inch tracks with a 52 inch stride on Laird Meadow Road.

September, 1964. Samuel Brewer Jr. finds and casts a 15½ inch BF tracks with a 47 inch stride along Bluff Creek.

Fall, 1964 . Dave Blake sees BF tracks around his logging equipment every morning for a week. A trailer load of 18 inch culverts is overturned while men are working nearby.

1965. Jay Roland finds BF tracks along Bluff Creek.

July, 1965. Steve Sanders and 2 others sleeping the a tent awake to see a large finger or stick opening their tent flap. Their yells scare it off. Investigating the next day, they find BF tracks 17 inches long and 7 inches wide around their tent at Blue Lake near Bluff Creek.

1966. Richard Sides sees a BF squatting at Bluff Creek drinking water with cupped hands.

Fall, 1966. Jay Roland sees BF tracks on a road a Scorpion Creek in the Bluff Creek area.

August, 1967. Several BF tracks are found and cast by a road crew on Onion Mountain, west of Bluff Creek. The tracks measure 13 and 15 inches long.

August 1967. Bud Ryerson sees hundreds of 13 to 15 inch BF tracks on the road he is building on Blue Creek Mountain, west of Bluff Creek. Tractor parts are scattered all over the area.

October 25, 1967. Dan Mullens finds BF tracks and an unopened case of oil cans crushed on Notice Creek.

June 1968. Steve Marlin and Bruce Cornwall find BF tracks between Bluff Creek and Fish Lake.

January 1969. Pat Graves sees BF tracks from a plane between Blue Creek Divide and Nikowitz Road.

Late May, 1969. Dr. Bernard Northrup and a party of San Francisco Theological Seminary Students find over 1000 16" BF tracks in the Bluff Creek area. They also find loose bark stripped from the trees near the tracks.

August, 1969. The owner of the Bluff Creek Resort finds 16 inch BF tracks in the sandbar at the mouth of Bull Creek in the Bluff Creek area."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm