Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

Hey, I came back in to the discussions after combat with her before and she even had me looking for posts to back up her false claim about RayG!

Talk about a trout on the line being played by a pro.....

I must be some kind of special idiot.

Thanks for the kind words, but I never saw it as combat. We had some good exchanges, I thought.

I appreciated your help in trying to find the post. It's possible that was the right article and the elk lay part wasn't quoted or I don't remember it, but I was looking for the specific post.

All my old PMs have vanished (I really wanted to keep those charming harrassments from EB himself). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the posts were eaten during upgrades. There are others I can't find from over a year ago.

Anyway, thanks again, and I'm sorry you're so upset. It doesn't take much to push your buttons, does it? Maybe you could post comments on Cryptomondo. Coleman's a big Wallace foot fan, too, and doesn't seem to notice he's been debunked.

This is from the site:

"Had the first newspaper to carry the story behaved responsibly, and asked the Wallaces to demonstrate that they could duplicate those tracks with the wooden feet that they displayed as proof, that story would never have been printed. Instead it was treated as revealed truth, and it was republished and broadcast all over the world, with some wonderful embellishments.

One newspaper quoted a Wallace nephew saying that Ray had sent younger members of the clan out to make all of the big tracks that have been reported all over the continent. Others took a mention of Ray making movies of his wife in a fur suit and twisted it to include the Patterson movie.

Even the newspaper in Eureka, which had printed the original stories that introduced “Bigfoot” to the world, got on the bandwagon with a yarn about how the publisher at the time had known all along it was a Ray Wallace hoax.

It was a totally irresponsible performance by the media, and frankly a lot of people involved in Bigfoot research weren’t any better. Their reaction might be summed up as: “Okay, Ray Wallace faked the Bluff Creek tracks but we have other tracks that are genuine.”

They didn’t bother to find out, any more than the media did, whether the Wallace claims were true, and seemed perfectly willing to discard as evidence tracks that are the most thoroughly investigated and best authenticated of any that have ever been found.

The current Wallaces actually don’t show any sign of knowing much about the Bluff Creek tracks and may even believe that what they are saying is true, although one of them told Rick Noll that his father never actually said he had faked the tracks, they just grew up knowing he had.

The wooden feet that they showed the media, as you can see in the full-size photos of them on display here, do not match the original “Bigfoot”. They do appear to be attempts to duplicate the casts made by Bob Titmus of the different set of tracks he found on a Bluff Creek sandbar, but one of them is so crudely carved that they would not likely fool anybody.

I expect those feet were just made to see whether tracks could be faked with them, something that probably, like myself, some of you have also tried. The answer, of course, is that you can make passable tracks in flat ground if it is soft enough, but in firm materials or up and down slopes, forget it." -John Green

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/john-green-on-ray-wallace/

 

[LAL]

F'r instance:

"The issue hasn’t been resolved among the “experts”. So far as I can see, it’s not going to be resolved either. While the one track from Blue Creek that Loren uses *does* look very much like Wallace’s fake, Rick Noll showed that it was not a direct match. So you can’t say that you know it was a fake, all you can say is that it looks like one and then hypothesize that Wallace at one time had a different version of his fake foot and used it at Blue Creek. Even with that you’ve got problems, because Loren’s only been able to show a similarity in one photograph (a similarity that doesn’t hold up to measurement, remember). He doesn’t make much of the fact that there were hundreds of prints found at the location made by different sized feet in several substrates. As Rick Noll pointed out on a now famous BFF thread, some of those foot impressions can’t be explained by our present understanding of Wallace’s hoaxing method. If Wallace used wooden feet, he’d have had to have had dozens of them, swapping them out between steps. He’d have had to have some way of getting his wooden feet up and down embankments while maintaining a natural look. There are quite a few reasons to suppose that the footprints at Blue Creek aren’t hoaxed, and it appears the only reason to think they are is that one of them looks fake. And it *does* look fake. The preponderence of the evidence suggests that it probably isn’t." - dbdonlon

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/removewallacex/

 

[RayG]

Hey, I came back in to the discussions after combat with her before and she even had me looking for posts to back up her false claim about RayG!

I appreciated your help in trying to find the post. It's possible that was the right article and the elk lay part wasn't quoted or I don't remember it, but I was looking for the specific post.

It's also entirely possible LAL is completely mistaken, though I don't think she'll ever admit it.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

....See the world is chock full of very REAL creatures that impress and amaze me to no end....why just the other day I was watching a show on Animal Planet with my kids....it showed some frog from the Northeast that actually froze over the winter than thawed itself out in spring...

Neato.

Enjoy that TV, big fella'.

that's pretty cool if you ask me....but is there a website devoted to it...nope,the Ivory Billed Woodpecker neither...

Sorry. Plenty of websites devoted wo Ivory Billed Woodpeckers.

My Google query using those words bring up 457,000 hits, and the first page alone are nothing but "Ivory Billed Woodpecker" websites.

...and this is a creature that they know exists.

You know the Ivory Billed Woodpecker exists?

How do you know that?

 

[Huntster]

....I must be some kind of special idiot.

I've known it all along.

 

[kitakaze]

Evidently. I can't even find it now. Should we start a thread? This one's pretty crowded and all over the place.

Here you go. Maybe we should try to keep it here for now.

 

[LAL]

Here you go. Maybe we should try to keep it here for now.

I did see that; I was looking for a second question. Could you be more specific?

 

[LAL]

I've known it all along.

You're in top form, Huntster. The vacation must have done you good.

 

[tube]

I had kind of forgotten about a passage from Dr. Meldrum's new book that intrigued me. Recently I was going through some of the photos I took of casts from the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain trackway, and I realized I might have a photo of the cast in question.

Though all the casts were given unique serial numbers by Grover Krantz, Meldrum strangely chooses to ignore them when discussing them in his book. ON page 255 we gather from context that he is referring to CA-19. Later, on page 256 he writes:

"I later identified an additional 13-inch cast in Krantz's collection from the same site. Upon examining it, Chilcutt confirmed that it likewise displayed similar coarse ridge detail, although fainter, probably due to inundation by settling dust prior to casting. This observation affirmed his conclusion that these represented natural dermatoglyphics rather than pouring artifacts, or else one might expect the clarity of the ridge detail to be comparble (sic) in so far as the pouring technique was similar."

I suspect, but do not know, that Meldrum is referring to CA-6:

Indeed, CA-6 does exhibit a patch of ridges, located on the lateral aspect of what appears to be a right foot, beside the "ball" of the foot.

But notice how far up the side of the foot these ridges are.

Is Chilcutt claiming these are "dermal ridges"?

I would like to propose that what we see here are desiccation ridges, and differ from CA-19 and CA-20 because of variation in substrate.

But the bottom line here is that we simply can't know, until Dr. Meldrum decides to formally identify which cast it is that Chilcutt is vetting on page 256...

 

[LTC8K6]

I've known it all along.

It's good to get second opinions.

 

[LTC8K6]

Has Chilcutt ever attempted to verify that he is looking at dermal ridges on the casts? Has he done any experiments to eliminate other possibilities?

 

[kitakaze]

I did see that; I was looking for a second question. Could you be more specific?

Sure, I can. You said 'do I think there's enough evidence (even leaving out the "best" evidence) to indicate a high probability that they do exist? Yes.' to which I responded 'OK, you accept sasquatches exist. Even leaving out the 'best' evidence, what evidence is there enough of to indicate a high probability of existence?'

Meaning discounting what you are refering to as the 'best' evidence you state that there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to indicate a high probability of existence. What is this evidence to which you refer? Do you feel it's the quantity or quality of this evidence that's the key factor in indicating a high probability of existence? In what way is this evidence attributable to sasquatch?

If that seems like too many questions I can try and phrase it another way:

What is the nature of this evidence to which you refer?

 

[kitakaze]

Hi, Huntster. Welcome back. How've you been? How're things slugging along in the R&P? It's been a while there too, right? I thought maybe there might have been too much water temperature and pumice/volcanic ash references for your taste lately and not enough general ideology. So was it Mad Hom posting that brought you back?

Actually, I'd love it if you joined me in a short and simple Q&A on sasquatch, too. I think there are important differences to you and Lu's perspective on the topic. As I said to her, no baiting, no tricks- just a better understanding of differing perspectives on sasquatch through simple controlled dialogue. One question, one answer, the more basic the better. Of course I'll be assuming the position of being doubtful of bigfoot.

I'll give you the same first question I asked LAL though I think I could guess the answer better-

Do you believe without doubt the existence of sasquatches?

 

[Correa Neto]

Tube, DY...

I've been wondering. We already know that dissecation ridges were mistaken by "dermals". Tube also demonstrate how easy it is to create features (mis)interpreted as result of mid tarsal breaks. DY also provided some nice shots showing the morphology variations that real feet create while their "owner" changes pace, for example. The alleged bigfoot tracks we were presented so far show little variation between individual prints, something that triggers the "hoax alert".

OK, there are allegetions regarding casts showing finger movment, for example. Do you happen to have pics from fake feet prints showing features similar to those used to back such claims?

 

[kitakaze]

Has Chilcutt ever attempted to verify that he is looking at dermal ridges on the casts? Has he done any experiments to eliminate other possibilities?

Apparently in Chilcutt's mind his opinion that he's looking at 'dermal ridges' in the casts are verification.

 

[kitakaze]

OK, there are allegetions regarding casts showing finger movment, for example. Do you happen to have pics from fake feet prints showing features similar to those used to back such claims?

Good point, Correa. There are those who might say that while there may not be ready examples of two casts from a succesive trackway displaying matching dermatoglyphics, we do have the next best thing in tracks which display toe movement. This is of course a suggestion without merit as it takes little thought to recognize that hoaxing prints does not necessitate rigid feet.

Now come the arguments that these casts displaying toe movements do so in a way only achievable by a living foot. This is something I'd like to see as I suspect that we have another case of people who should know better being fooled.

ETA: Just so were keeping track, in the last page alone we've seen dessication ridges produced by three people.

 

[kitakaze]

Whoa! Sweet Zombie Jesus, Tube your last post almost went right over my head. This is exactly what LAL was asserting here and on the BFF as an answer to my sig! Tube, you totally rock.



Again, anyone who seriously thinks they're looking at dermatogyphics is suffering a total lack of objectivity given the reliable evidence to the contrary.

LAL, is this the ball of the foot that you always say Matt avoids showing or was that CA-19?

 

[Correa Neto]

Sweet jeeebus on a toast!

I think I just realized something...

Look at Tube's pics, the cast's surface seems to be quite irregular, with several depressions and elevations. This could be an indication of the actual print's surface. Are those the register of grains (peebles, for example)? Note that the "dermals" are a finer feature then the depressions and lumps. It seems an indication of the resolution of feature recording. If this is true, then the "dermals" are a detail too fine for recording.

Also, the way the "dermals" pass through the depressions and saliences seems to indicate their are actually casting artifacts, rathern than actual features recorded by the casting media.

 

[kitakaze]

Correa, that's the same thing more or less that struck me when LAL posted this image of an OM cast.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Personally, I prefer to let someone bleev whatever they feel like bleeving.

I see absolutely NO reason (ZERO) to rant and rave at someone else for thinking whatever they want to think.

I can't understand why you keep railing against "bleevers", Mad Hom....and neither do I care to know.

When I ask a skeptic a question, it's only to get an answer. It doesn't matter to me WHAT the answer is....as long as it applies to the actual point of the question.

So...mister madman....go ahead and howl....have yourself a blast!
It's totally pointless and worthless.

So Bleever are you going to produce a Big Boy list of reliable evidence or what??

In the immortal words of Judge Smails...

"Welllllll....we're.....waiting!!!!!!"