Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

...until such time as we have confirmed the existence of Bigfeetsus....Hairy Biped of Unusual Size should always be trumped as an explanation of anything Bigfooty by either hoaxing, misidentification, hallucination and/or outright lying.

Now THAT'S who we want analysing the evidence for Bigfoot....someone with CEMENT for brains!

 

[SweatyYeti]

I eagerly await Mad man's next post...to see what other tidbit of wisdom he imparts to us all.

 

[LTC8K6]

Mad hom, it seems like several of the hoaxers were quite bold. Freeman would make the tracks, discover them, and call up people like Meldrum to sell the idea that they were sasquatch tracks. There was little fear that anyone would call them hoaxers or expose them as frauds. They knew that footers were quite gullible. Even if they were shown to be fakes, it did not diminish their credibility anyway. The next claim they make is considered as if they never hoaxed a thing.

Who, but a blind believer, would not recognize flat wooden feet:

 

[kitakaze]

Firstly, "continent wide dispersal" might be confusing to some. An example would be brown and black bear densities in Alaska:...(snip)...Thus what we are left with are pockets of high densities continent wide, not a "continent-wide" dispersal.

I can certainly see how if someone was implying a general even dispersal throughout NA they'd probably just get a smile and nod. The brown and black bear population density comparison can offer some important insights I think.

I'm sorry. It would be tough to explain it all in an internet post, and Nelson does a much better job of explaining what the Koyukon told him, but in short:

The Koyukon claim that in their region (sub-arctic), the "woodsman" hibernates like a bear. If these creatures live in such a region, this would have to be so.

I agree that claim introduces the "primates don't hibernate" line, and I really don't want to get into such a game with the likes of LTC over it, so I hesitate to state it..........

But there it is. The aboriginals of the area claim it, it does make some biological sense, and we are left to wonder.

OK, so the Koyukon have a tradition of a sasquatch type creature inhabiting their (sub-arctic) territory which hibernates like a bear to deal with the winter conditions.

In the case of Southeast Alaska, I don't think any "adaptive survival strategies" are needed. They are well built to exist there, the area is incredibly remote, it is incredibly lush, and food for all (including humans) abound.

In the case of the Yukon drainage, if these creatures exist there, they must hibernate during the winter, and that is exactly what the aboriginal peoples claim.

Right, it is quite easy for people to not comprehend the size and the range of habitats of Alaska. So, SE Alaska basically differs little from coastal BC as a potential saquatch habitat and in harsher climates if they are there they hibernate.

OK, since I'm limiting myself to one question I'll go with this for now-

In their respective habitats, how do you think a sasquatch's survival behaviour compares to a brown bear?

BTW, I guess I can see why you wouldn't have a question considering I'm not the one supporting the existence of sasquatches but by all means, let me know if one comes to mind?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

I mean wouldn't you want the thing to look aged a bit? If you were haoxing it that is??

Why? Is there something wrong with finding fresh "Bigfoot" tracks?

If someone came across them, and they looked like they were recently made, would they say....
"No way...these gotta be hoaxed....too fresh."

 

[kitakaze]

Mad Hom wrote:

Now THAT'S who we want analysing the evidence for Bigfoot....someone with CEMENT for brains!

I eagerly await Mad man's next post...to see what other tidbit of wisdom he imparts to us all.

Still trolling, hey? It's funny how desperate you get when the adults go back to serious discussion. We're waiting, too but you're still hiding. Also, don't forget the comments on reliable evidence you said were forthcoming if you ever sort yourself out.

 

[LAL]

I'm thinking the good hoaxers do not need nor desire immediate payoff...so they set about finding a nice suitably remote location where they can work without interruption....can go back many many times over a a period of months or maybe even years for that matter till satisfied with results as well as to remove sign of human activity...and than just sit back and wait for it to be discovered....and consequently drooled over by Bigfoot Nation.

Why is that not plausible??

The double trackway was already a couple of days old when it was found. It was behind a teacher's uninhabited summer cabin and crossed terrain that was a challenge (see Google shot below). Hoaxer, or hoaxers, would have had to somehow maintain a stride that a nearly 6'4" man had to jump to equal, for seven miles. In addition you need to throw in a kid in a suit who managed to appear 9' tall while crossing HWY 14 and scaling a 14' bank leaving only smeared toe prints 8' up (and do it again in front of a woman's car). And someone must have faked a 22' full print by the river so Sheriff Closner could have the cast on his desk for years. (He went to FBI school, as I recall. He wasn't quite the dummy the kids thought he was.)

Running around in a gorilla suit in a county as well armed as that one is madness to begin with, especially after law enforcement is already alerted, but if these hypothetical hoaxers could have pulled off those trackways I'm sure they could avoid getting shot by the trackers.

Dahinden/Hunter's book describes this trackway on pg. 133 (one of the subsequent events investigated by the Sheriff's Department and experienced outdoorsmen):

"Seven miles from any habitation they found 'Bigfoot' prints emerging from a canyon, crossing a snow-covered forest trail, proceeding through a logged-over area or clear-cut, and headed toward the lava beds.

There were no snowmobile tracks, no ski tracks, no snowshoe tracks-no people tracks of any kind. They returned convinced that something out of the ordinary had been there." (from the Skamania County Pioneer)

And:

"It was speculated that the particularly hard winter of 1968-69, the worst on record in the area, had driven the creatures down the mountains, well below their their usual zone of of habituation, in search of food and possibly shelter." (pg. 134)

Like I said. Everything was coming down in search of food. The lakes were frozen into April.

I'll spare you the terrified dogs and rabbit thefts and huge logs tossed aside.

You'd think in all these years someone would have been discovered or come out laughing and the story would have been all over the county, but it never was. There were just more sightings over the years.

What the heck is Bigfoot Nation? Do you have evidence there was ever such a thing, especially in 1969?

 

[LTC8K6]

Is there something wrong with finding fresh "Bigfoot" tracks?

What do you mean by fresh?

As far as I can see, finding fresh sign of bigfoot's presence is the cue to stop looking for bigfoot and leave the area.

 

[LAL]

Mad hom, it seems like several of the hoaxers were quite bold. Freeman would make the tracks, discover them, and call up people like Meldrum to sell the idea that they were sasquatch tracks.

Really. When Meldrum examined the forty crossing the field Freeman didn't know he was coming.

Dahinden said in an interview he thought Freeman made tracks by scoopng them out with his hands. How'd he do that without leaving knee prints clear across the field? His footprints were where he left them when he found the trackway, but Jeff and his friend found others Freeman hadn't seen.

Dahinden later changed his view in light of independent evidence from the same area Freeman was checking.

There was little fear that anyone would call them hoaxers or expose them as frauds. They knew that footers were quite gullible. Even if they were shown to be fakes, it did not diminish their credibility anyway. The next claim they make is considered as if they never hoaxed a thing.

Sheer poetry.

Who, but a blind believer, would not recognize flat wooden feet:

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas4.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, how did those flat wooden feet, in three different sizes, manage to leave prints with varying toe positions? There are 360 photographs of the event, as I recall, and they show this quite clearly.

The second photo is the one referred to in dbdonlon's comment.

Flat, wooden feet have a snowshoe effect and are worthless on inclines. The blind believers experimented and found this out.

I realize I won't get a reply, but who needs one?

 

[LAL]

I eagerly await Mad man's next post...to see what other tidbit of wisdom he imparts to us all.

Yeah. This is more fun than watching Dr. Phil.

 

[kitakaze]

Good answer.

Thank you. I can appreciate where the question was coming from.

Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, right? There's the lack of a medulla, which actually is one of the distinguishing characteristics. ...

That doesn't seem consistent with this (link):

Excerpted from –
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. (8th ed.) Pearson Education Inc., Richard Saferstein, (2004)

The medullary index is used to distinguish animal hair from human hair. It is expressed as a ratio of the shaft diameter to the diameter of the medulla. In animals the medulla will make up more than 1/2 of the total diameter of the hair. In humans the ratio is usually less than 1/3. The medulla can be classified as appearing either absent, fragmented, interrupted or continuous (Lane, 1992). Most human head hair with the exception of that of the Mongoloid race has no medulla or rarely a fragmented one. Only peoples of the Mongoloid race have a continuous medulla.

Next question: What are your thoughts on what sasquatch is in terms of primate taxonomy?

I thought I detected a hint of neutrality early on. That's a rare commodity on this board. I'd much rather discuss than engage in warfare.

I don't really have a question at this time. Huntster seems better at that than I am, so I'll let him ask two while I pass.

Call it a quirk. Whether or not there are creatures behind the phenomenom, the phenomenom itself is undeniable. I would say it would be more educational to ask why than to say no.

Let me know when/if you do have a question.

 

[RayG]

"Seven miles from any habitation they found 'Bigfoot' prints emerging from a canyon, crossing a snow-covered forest trail, proceeding through a logged-over area or clear-cut, and headed toward the lava beds."

Finding a trackway seven miles from town isn't quite the same as following a trackway for seven miles. This is the supposed seven-mile-long double trackway that LAL has spoken about isn't it? Could someone please ask LAL if she has further info about this particular anecdote. (another source/link/etc.)

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Finding a trackway seven miles from town isn't quite the same as following a trackway for seven miles. This is the supposed seven-mile-long double trackway that LAL has spoken about isn't it? Could someone please ask LAL if she has further info about this particular anecdote. (another source/link/etc.)

RayG

LAL, I'm quoting Ray's post as I'm curious about this too. (Not in the Q&A.)

 

[desertyeti]

Oh desertyeti, would it be ok for me to post these pictures over on the BFF? I think it would make an interesting contrast to the photos posted by wolftrax. For the record, unless my eyesight is poor, I don't think it shows the same sort of casting artifacts that tube and wolftrax produced with their experiments. In fact, all I see are regular pour marks (that I get myself) that I don't think is being mistaken for dermal ridges.

They are the same as wolftrax and tube got, only finer scale. As I said, they are about the same size as human dermals and are adjacent to the pour marks. If you look closely at the cropped image, they are there.
I had to drop the resolution to get it to upload.
Click the image and it enlarges and you can see it.
Or I can send you the full size image if you want. Drop me a pm.

Here's a tighter shot (click on it to enlarge) The scale is inches in this photo:

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

Now THAT'S who we want analysing the evidence for Bigfoot....someone with CEMENT for brains!

Sweat are you or are you not going to regail upon us your Big Boy list of 'Reliable Evidence"? Or are you going to continue to bray like an injured jackass??

Listen what I meant was...Bigfoot Fan does not have any proof that Bigfeetsus exists...therefore...Hoaxing,Lying,Misidentification and Hallucination are far far more likely than a heretofore undocumented Hairy North American Biped of Unusual Size...in fact of the 5 possibilities a Bigfeetsus should rank fifth until such time as you the Tru Bleevers prove that the furry bastard exists.

If one is proven to exist ...and someone than claims to see one dumpster diving outside of their lean to in outer Slobovia County Oregon a few weeks,months or years later Bigfeetsus would than be a plausible explanation of what they saw...why was that so difficult for you to process through that gnarled piper cleaner you call a brain stem?!?!?

Now get to school or you'll be tardy.

 

[LAL]

Thank you. I can appreciate where the question was coming from.That doesn't seem consistent with this (link):

From the same link:

"Of the other two reference materials (one textbook, one periodical) I checked out, one stated that in humans, only the HEAD hair may or may not lack a medulla. Other body hairs do contain a medullary core. The other only said that, "When the medulla is present in human hairs, its structure can be described as fragmentary or trace, discontinuous or broken, or continuous."

Forensic Science Communications July 2004 – Volume 6 – Number 3
Research and Technology
Microscopy of Hair Part II: A Practical Guide and Manual for Animal Hairs
Douglas W. Deedrick
Supervisory Special Agent
Scientific Analysis Section

and

Introduction to Forensic Science
Analysis of Hairs and Fibers
J. Siegel, Ph.D.
Professor and Assistant Director
School of Criminal Justice
MSU, MI "

Dr. Fahrenbach noted there are problems in comparing hairs from different parts of an animal's body, but he's been clear that human hair sometimes lacks a medulla, but the purported sasquatch hairs always do.

Next question: What are your thoughts on what sasquatch is in terms of primate taxonomy?

I think it's an unidentified bipedal hominid primate, as Dr. Swindler put it. I think it's a descendant of Gigantopithecus blacki or a similar, unknown species. Given three hundred thousand years for evolution (since the last reliable dating of Giganto), I can see where it could have evolved adaptations for cold in the north, if it didn't already have them, and, if Giganto locomoted like a tropical ape, a bipedal gait. G. blacki remains were found with remains of Homo erectus. It's intriguing to think predator pressure or competition from that species (and/or Giant Pandas) might have driven them to exploit new territory.

There was a brief article in Discover (November, I think) concerning phytoliths. They are evidently softer than the tooth enamel of sheep, so caution must be used in inferring diet from a wear pattern that may be from grit on the plants rather than wear from phytoliths.

Call it a quirk. Whether or not there are creatures behind the phenomenom, the phenomenom itself is undeniable. I would say it would be more educational to ask why than to say no.

Dr. Johnson noted that coming forward with his report (http://www.oregon1.org/bigfoot.htm) wasn't good for business. He's a psychologist. Indeed, why would someone risk career suicide with a yarn like that? The phenomenon has been going on for centuries and people from all walks of life have reported seeing the same sort of thing. "Why?" is a good question. The evidence leads some, like Jimmy Chilcutt, Daris Swindler, Jeff Meldrum, Russell Mittermeire, George Schaller and others to conclude there really is a North American ape. It leads others to believe we have incredibly clever hoaxers and and a primordial need to see monsters in the woods. I haven't seen any hard evidence on the latter side, myself.

This isn't a fad, like fairies and crystals among the New Agers. There's something very different going on.

Let me know when/if you do have a question.

What, if anything, of the evidence you know of, might fit your definition of "reliable evidence"?

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

Why? Is there something wrong with finding fresh "Bigfoot" tracks?

If someone came across them, and they looked like they were recently made, would they say....
"No way...these gotta be hoaxed....too fresh."

You simple simple little boy. Sweat?!?!? Did I say that fresh tracks would be deemed a hoax because they were "too fresh"?!?! Did I ever once say that at all throughout the entirety of my post!?!? Hmmmmmmmm...Sweat? Did I??

I mentioned that I was thinking out loud about how an "aged" trackway MIGHT seem more believable...geeez I know I used long multisyllabic words and that it was hard for you to follow along but...good grief.

I was guessing,surmising,engaging in speculation on what would constitute a good hoaxed trackway...nothing more...nothing less....now get to scribbbling that "Big Boy" list of Reliable Evidence already would ya??

 

[Mad Hom]

What the heck is Bigfoot Nation? Do you have evidence there was ever such a thing, especially in 1969?

LAL...you have never seen Sportscenter a day in your life have you??
The Oakland Raiders (a full contact American tackle football team) has a particularly enthusiastic and widespread fanbase...known affectionately as Raider Nation. Bigfoot Nation is a slight variation on that.

Oh...and I never said it was around in 1969....although it may have been in it's infancy at the time and has spread to what it is today...a particularly enthusiastic and widespread fanbase.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad hom, it seems like several of the hoaxers were quite bold. Freeman would make the tracks, discover them, and call up people like Meldrum to sell the idea that they were sasquatch tracks. There was little fear that anyone would call them hoaxers or expose them as frauds. They knew that footers were quite gullible. Even if they were shown to be fakes, it did not diminish their credibility anyway. The next claim they make is considered as if they never hoaxed a thing.

Who, but a blind believer, would not recognize flat wooden feet:

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/product_images//TraSas4.jpg[/qimg]

Freeman,Biscardi...Marx...if I read their names in relation to any Hairy Biped evidence at all my BS-O-Meter immediately redlines.....as it should for Bigfoot Fan...but alas...this is not the case.

 

[bizarro John Conner]

not real