Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Mad Hom]

Neato.

Enjoy that TV, big fella'.

WOW...Fudd has resorted to trying to make ownership of a TV into an insult....pathetic as always Fudley...glad to see you haven't gotten an iota better at this than when last we chatted.

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.

I guess I should have been more specific Fudster...is there a website where all the Tru Bleevers wax romantic about Ivory Bill's?? Where they speculate wildy and latch onto whatever shred of "evidence" strikes their fancy?? Does that website exist Fudd??

You know the Ivory Billed Woodpecker exists?

How do you know that?

First off if I said they definitely "did" I was misspoken...I lean in that direction though for the following reasons... the Ivory Billed Wood Pecker actually did exist at one time....unlike Bigfeetsus (feel free to spare me the Giganto theory...there's no proof) Now people are "claiming" to have seen it again. Ivory Bill's don't look like guys in suits...last I checked...also they are not claimed to exist in every nook and cranny of the continental US....oh and there hasn't been a littany of hoaxed films that I know of...oh and it has been how long so far since the claim that they STILL exist? Certainly not 40 years without anything even remotely worth a crap to prove that they do...you know like your pet Bleef.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chilcutt's descriptions of what makes the "dermals" unusual and not from any known primate is also a good description of Tube's dessication ridges, imo.

 

[kitakaze]

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

Thanks for the admission but it's not helping us in getting any nearer to understanding why you do it. Of course, you might not consider ellipsis fit/all caps abuse incoherent posts using the words 'possibilities' and 'probabilities' as RANTING...and...RAVING.

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.

It'd be a step in the right direction if your questions had a point, or at least one that was readily decipherable amongst all the silliness. Being an adolescent makes it hard, I'm sure. And what about when someone asks you a question? Especially the kind that illustrate your inconsistencies.

 

[Mad Hom]

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?

If memory serves Kit...the Fudley One has gone on record as being 95% sure....says he's seen a trackway or something.

 

[kitakaze]

Chilcutt's descriptions of what makes the "dermals" unusual and not from any known primate is also a good description of Tube's dessication ridges, imo.

(paraphrasing) *cough* 'Yeah, I've never seen anything like this before where the ridges run down vertically along the edges of the foot.

 

[Correa Neto]

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

Oh, there goes the uniqueness of my insight...

Aniway, seems like an indication the interpretation of the features as dermals is... uhm... Fishy.

We should not be surprised at all, since eyewitnesses reports indicate bigfoot stinks.

 

[LTC8K6]

In the cases of the IBW and the Tasmanian Tiger, we have standards to compare evidence to. We can say that a track matches that of a Tasmanian Tiger. We can say that a bird looks like an IBW.

We can't say such things about figboot. No one can. We don't have any standards to go by. No one has any idea what a sasquatch track actually looks like.

The fact that Krantz and Meldrum waltz(ed) around with manufactured skeletons ginned up out of thin air is nothing but a colossal joke. Such garbage is useless and does nothing to help the case for bigfoot. They are almost certainly wrong and therefore likely lead the search for knowledge in the wrong direction.

A foot structure has been manufactured out of thin air and few people searching for bigfoot seem to care at all. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Krantzs' claim about the structure of a sasquatch foot, and even less for Meldrum's midtarsal break. No believer seems to care much, though. Someone with a degree said it, so they run with it, despite how ridiculous it is.

They trade accuracy for the support of someone, anyone, with a degree.

See Jimmy Chilcutt....

 

[Mad Hom]

In the cases of the IBW and the Tasmanian Tiger, we have standards to compare evidence to. We can say that a track matches that of a Tasmanian Tiger. We can say that a bird looks like an IBW.

We can't say such things about figboot. No one can. We don't have any standards to go by. No one has any idea what a sasquatch track actually looks like.

The fact that Krantz and Meldrum waltz(ed) around with manufactured skeletons ginned up out of thin air is nothing but a colossal joke. Such garbage is useless and does nothing to help the case for bigfoot. They are almost certainly wrong and therefore likely lead the search for knowledge in the wrong direction.

A foot structure has been manufactured out of thin air and few people searching for bigfoot seem to care at all. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Krantzs' claim about the structure of a sasquatch foot, and even less for Meldrum's midtarsal break. No believer seems to care much, though. Someone with a degree said it, so they run with it, despite how ridiculous it is.

They trade accuracy for the support of someone, anyone, with a degree.

See Jimmy Chilcutt....

Thanks LTC you made my point far better than I did.

 

[LAL]

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?

The 7-mile double trackway above Carson, Washington, another trackway in snow across a farm near The Dalles, Oregon, that was investigated and photographed by deputies but not, to my knowlege, publicized, Tollgate, the Cox sighting, which wasn't extraordinary but which was backed up by evidence that showed the animal did exactly what the witness said it did, everything Bob Titmus found and so on. I would also include hairs that match each other, but no known animal. At least one of these was embedded in the Skookum Cast. It did not come from Dr. Sarmiento's head.

Because of the focus on the "best evidence", and the efforts to debunk it, there is much that just seems to be unknown even to people who've looked into it somewhat.

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?

It's the quality. Because of the circumstances.

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?

Mostly trackways that could not have been hoaxed by any conceivable means, but also evidence such as hair, and in some cases, scat, that, taken with other sign (and sometimes sounds), would seem to be indicative of the presense of an unidentified hominid primate in the area. I would also have to include sightings by highly reputable people, especially (or maybe only) when there's physical evidence to back up the sighting.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mostly trackways that could not have been hoaxed by any conceivable means, but also evidence such as hair, and in some cases, scat, that, taken with other sign (and sometimes sounds), would seem to be indicative of the presense of an unidentified hominid primate in the area. I would also have to include sightings by highly reputable people, especially (or maybe only) when there's physical evidence to back up the sighting.

Conceivable by who Wu?!?! Good grief...just because YOU can't conceive how it's done does not in any way,shape or form mean that it could not have been done.

When will Bigfoot Fan stop underestimating the power of human creativity and ingenuity!?!?

 

[LAL]

(paraphrasing) *cough* 'Yeah, I've never seen anything like this before where the ridges run down vertically along the edges of the foot.

And then take a sharp turn and go across the foot. Plaster normally flows in angles, does it?

 

[Mad Hom]

Mostly trackways that could not have been hoaxed by any conceivable means, but also evidence such as hair, and in some cases, scat, that, taken with other sign (and sometimes sounds), would seem to be indicative of the presense of an unidentified hominid primate in the area. I would also have to include sightings by highly reputable people, especially (or maybe only) when there's physical evidence to back up the sighting.

Should have just covered this with my last post but..oh well..

Let's not put the cart before the horse there Wu.

The Hair??!? Inconclusive..... The Scat?!!?!? Inconclusive.

 

[kitakaze]

If memory serves Kit...the Fudley One has gone on record as being 95% sure....says he's seen a trackway or something.

Well, it goes without saying that you and Huntster don't exactly see eye to eye (I said it) but in the case of someone who believes the creatures exist based on encountering what they interpreted as sign I can certainly appreciate where they are coming from. This considering I (as I've mentioned elsewhere) found what appeared to be the trackway of an adult and juvenile and several hours later was pretty damn sure I had one right outside my tent on Vancouver Island several years ago. I'm also quite sure now I was wrong.

In my own case I must first admit a life-long interest in the subject and that I was a proponent (bleever) at the time and consequently for a long time that experience was one of the sole reasons I remained a proponent. However, eventually I came to recognize the fact that too many factors were unaccounted for, I never actually saw the creature and there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of the animal of my fascination .

In Huntster's case I think he's already stated that it was the PGF that was originally responsible for an interest but the alleged track find that sealed it. In my mind an interest in BF shouldn't discount any evidence you might find but whether or not it is easily attributable to something other than a living sasquatch. I'm certain that in both our cases they are and also that Huntster would disagree. I'm also certain that if I gave my account elsewhere that I'd find more than a few people believing that I did encounter bigfoot.

I'm more interested in a dialogue between skeptics/proponents leading to a better overall understanding of the subject so IMO Huntster is a prime participant for a Q&A.

 

[LAL]

Conceivable by who Wu?!?! Good grief...just because YOU can't conceive how it's done does not in any way,shape or form mean that it could not have been done.

When will Bigfoot Fan stop underestimating the power of human creativity and ingenuity!?!?

Sure, lots of people go around in helicopters faking tracks from the air without leaving any sign of wash from the blades. They especially like to do this in mountainous country where a down draft could put a quick and fatal end to their silliness.

Nowadays there's the chance they'd be shot at by some meth-crazed manufacturer thinking they're the Drug Dude gone airborne.

Get real.

 

[Mad Hom]

A wild thought just struck me,it's purely conjecture of course.....that's a a big fancy word that means "guessing" for Bigfoot Fan....but I'm thinking that the hoaxers are probably embedded with Bigfoot Fan and they don't even know it.

They are probably trusted members over at the Think Tank and they probably even claim to have seen a Bigfeetsus defending it's existence vehemently. I'm thinking that they probably start all kinds of threads gleening info from the Tru Bleevers than take this newly learned info out into the bush for their trackway faking shenanigans or whatever else.

I have no way of proving it...nor am I stating it as absolute fact...just thought I'd share my purely speculative theory.

 

[Mad Hom]

D'oh!?!? Double post....so I erased it.

 

[LAL]

Should have just covered this with my last post but..oh well..

Let's not put the cart before the horse there Wu.

The Hair??!? Inconclusive..... The Scat?!!?!? Inconclusive.

Taken with other sign, it's highly unlikely it could be anything else. There aren't many animals that can evacuate a bucketfull. The physical characteristics of the hair are pretty unique. How many medulla-less blondes with short hair that has never been cut have been observed in the forests of the PNW?

But everything's inconclusive until the requisite number of specimens have been brought in for the new species to be identified, and then the textbooks will have to be revised.

And life will go on.

 

[Mad Hom]

Well, it goes without saying that you and Huntster don't exactly see eye to eye (I said it) but in the case of someone who believes the creatures exist based on encountering what they interpreted as sign I can certainly appreciate where they are coming from. This considering I (as I've mentioned elsewhere) found what appeared to be the trackway of an adult and juvenile and several hours later was pretty damn sure I had one right outside my tent on Vancouver Island several years ago. I'm also quite sure now I was wrong.

In my own case I must first admit a life-long interest in the subject and that I was a proponent (bleever) at the time and consequently for a long time that experience was one of the sole reasons I remained a proponent. However, eventually I came to recognize the fact that too many factors were unaccounted for, I never actually saw the creature and there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of the animal of my fascination .

In Huntster's case I think he's already stated that it was the PGF that was originally responsible for an interest but the alleged track find that sealed it. In my mind an interest in BF shouldn't discount any evidence you might find but whether or not it is easily attributable to something other than a living sasquatch. I'm certain that in both our cases they are and also that Huntster would disagree. I'm also certain that if I gave my account elsewhere that I'd find more than a few people believing that I did encounter bigfoot.

I'm more interested in a dialogue between skeptics/proponents leading to a better overall understanding of the subject so IMO Huntster is a prime participant for a Q&A.

I was a Hook in Mouth Bleever once as well Kit. I never came anywhere near a Bigfeetsus but I was drawn into the lore of it all. I read pretty much everything on the subject thatw as available at the library in the 70's and 80's. I watched all the specials etc etc. Wu might find this ironic but...it was Krantz's book Big Footprints along with the Bigfeetsus episode of A & E's "Ancient Mysteries where the phenomenon jumped the shark for me. I ahdn't paid atttention to it in years and well I'd gone from a teenager to an adult...and well through adult eyes...Bigfeetsus just don't hold water...but I digress....

I don't profess to understand what your aiming at with the Q&A but in my opinion Fudd is probably not a good candidate. My guess is...he'll think you're up to something and won't answer you truthfully...well maybe at first he will...but as the questions get farther along he'll think you are trying to paint him into a corner...just a guess on my part of course. Fudd is many things....most of them negative...but he ain't stupid...which of course is not to say your Q&A is stupid either...like I said I'm just guessing is all.

 

[LTC8K6]

This is just more disingenuousness on her part, mad hom. We've had plenty of discussions on how to hoax tracks, including how to make it look like a sasquatch stepped over a high fence, etc.

More bafflegab.

Next she'll trot out the stilts, or the giant wheel with feet attached, etc. Ridiculous claptrap that no decent hoaxer would ever resort to.

A child can figure out how to leave sasquatch tracks without leaving any of their own. A child can figure out how to put a left footprint on one side of a fence and a right footprint on the other side. Only a dishonest person would act like that is some kind of miracle feat, imo.

These are exactly the things that a hoaxer would do just to make the tracks seem legit. It's called thinking. It doesn't even take much of that, either.

Wow! Look at the fresh tracks going right across the fence! It stepped over this high fence that I can't step over! Must be real tracks, then.....

Humans can't make those crop circles overnight either.....

 

[Mad Hom]

Sure, lots of people go around in helicopters faking tracks from the air without leaving any sign of wash from the blades. They especially like to do this in mountainous country where a down draft could put a quick and fatal end to their silliness.

Nowadays there's the chance they'd be shot at by some meth-crazed manufacturer thinking they're the Drug Dude gone airborne.

Get real.

Who says they're using helicopters??

Why would they need to use helicopters?? Because you think they would need to??

Why do you underestimate hoaxers so much Wu??