Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[tube]

Wow, you guys might be onto something! Personally, I don't know if the Jeff Glickman who gave us a 1,957 pound "Patty" is the same Jeff Glickman who appears to take the "Face on Mars" seriously. But I'm willing to guess who might know, and that would be Phil Plait, who happens to post on this board.

Perhaps a PM is in order...

 

[LAL]

Trends can be found anywhere. I wonder what you think about how comfortable people would feel about reporting Bigfeet sightings in Manhatten for instance?

The map shows sightings in New York State, but not Manhattan. Whyzat? Not enough rainfall?

If you check them out by dates, you'll find the reports tend to be few and far between. It's not like they all happened last week.

I lived in an area with the highest sight rate in the country but nobody locked up the kids because of them. Teengers still had their parties out in the woods and they were in the most danger driving home.

 

[LAL]

Was Glickman hired to do the PGF analysis because he was known to be a Bigfooter?

He was hired because he's a certified forensic examiner.

Did he attend and report on a presentation by Hoagland because he is a woo?

It appears the reporter attended as a sceptic.

This presentation was about the "Face on Mars" and other bizarre Mars claim stuff, right?

Read it.


Another part of the review:

"He finally cuts the q&a short as it’s now approaching 12:30am. I really tried taking good, clear notes for all of you just so you could get an idea of what went down in Albuquerque. You get kind of groggy after awhile during such a long event. Some other things of note: several people fell down the stairs due to the wide, wide, narrow encoding in their construction; a woman who flew in from California and sat in the row in front of me *knitted* during the entire seminar (all three hundred of us walked out with new pairs of socks); and Richard wore a bolo tie."

You'll probably find a Jeff Glckman in a prison, too, if you look hard enough.

 

[LTC8K6]

No wonder Glickman was so far off about Patty....

 

[LTC8K6]

This Jeff Glickman appears to agree with and support Hoagland:

Date-Posted: 25-Nov-1997 17:22:32 -0500; at Fogelson.Tortuga
From: GLICKMAN@csf.edu (GLICKMAN JEFF)
Subject: Re: Moon Xposed
To: lunascan@world.std.com Regarding the mail from AB
"Oblique Photo of the Crater Ptolemaeus, taken on the Apollo 12 Mission. The Photo ID is AS-12-150-7431. (s/b AS12-50-7431). The area where I found my evidence is located in the SE Quadrant of that Pic.."

This image at http://members.aol.com/aerial4u is, to me, very reminiscent of Richard Hoagland's "Clementine Mosaic Analysis." The tie in is geometry. I don't know how much of the apparent "grid work" and other geometry which appears in the above image may be due to image processing, but there sure appears to be structure revealed, and not only in two dimensions. That is, part of the image can be seen (by me, anyway) to be layered and partially translucent. I refer to the upper right quadrant of the image in particular. Anyone, feel free to set me straight on my interpretation.

I urge anyone out there to obtain a copy of Hoagland's work (CMA). It is chock full of extremely interesting imagery and color plates and makes a case that a great deal of structure and geometry are born out in the "leaked" Clementine moasic.

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/ptolanom.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m08-032.shtml

 

[kitakaze]

Hello Hairy Man. Today I was reviewing the last 7-8 pages of this thread and I found this following series of posts interesting but also puzzling in terms of some of your comments regarding kû'cta-qa. If you could review these...

It came up but the search doesn't work, so I went through it line-by-line and no, it doesn't say kû'cta-qa is a bigfoot. I also found both Swanton books on-line and while both books discuss otter-man and giants and provide very cool stories, he doesn't directly say, "kû'cta-qa, Otter-man, is a hairy giant." Soooo...I will check the other book at home and another book I am thinking of...otherwise if I have to eat some crow, I prefer it warm.

LAL, I just read the same article while researching information on the Tlinglit, POW, ABC, and Kodiak islands, and brown bears for my dialogue with Huntster and I'd have to agree that this description:

The Kooshdakhaa
No description of the Tlingit would be complete without mentioning the Kooshdakhaa (kû'cta-qa), the dreaded and feared Land Otter People.

These creatures are human from the waist up, and otter-like below. Land otters are excellent fishers. Those who are drowned often marry (and become) land otters, and land otters can assist in drownings. Land otters are sinister and potentially harmful. When properly controlled, however, the land otter can be of great help to humans, such as fishermen whe penetrate the sacred realm beyond social boundaries. Those drowned and married to land otters (and their land otter children) can return to their human relations and assist them, usually by helping them catch abundant supplies of seafood. The land otters can make human children grow tails; they can only eat raw food, for if they eat cooked fish they will die; and as supernatural beings, after being out on the water they must regain land and find shelter before the raven calls or they will die.

...seems quite a stretch for a sasquatch tradition but a pretty cool mermaid/men tradition. I also noticed that the article really was in need of the cleanup. The part about their slavery and comparative aggressiveness was interesting.

Where we talking about Kooshdakhaa somewhere and I miss it? I haven't suggested that name is bigfoot related. I thought we were talking about [FONT=&quot]Kushtaka[/FONT][FONT=&quot]?


[/FONT]

Hairy Man, you're kidding, right? I'm not responsible for how the author of that part of the wikipedia article on the Tlinglit chose their spelling but are you suggesting that they are refering to something other than this?:

Kushtaka are mythical creatures found in the stories of the Tlingit Indians of Southeastern Alaska. Loosely translated, Kushtaka means, "land otter man".

They are similar to the Nat'ina of the Dan'aina Indians of South Central Alaska, and the Urayuli of the Eskimos in Northern Alaska.

Physically, kushtaka are shape-shifters capable of assuming either human form or the form of an otter. In some accounts, a kushtaka is able to assume the form of any species of otter, in others, only one. Accounts of their behaviour seem to conflict with one another. In some stories, kushtaka are cruel creatures who take delight in tricking poor Tlingit sailors to their deaths. In others, they are friendly and helpful, frequently saving the lost from death by freezing. In many stories, the kushtaka save the lost individual by distracting them with curiously otter-like illusions of their family and friends as they transform their subject into a fellow kushtaka, thus allowing him to survive in the cold. Naturally, this is counted a mixed blessing. However Kushtaka legends are not always pleasant. In some legends it is said the Kushtaka will imitate the cries of a baby or the screams of a woman to lure victims to the river. Once there the Kushtaka either kills the person and tears them to shreds or will turn them into another Kushtaka.

Since the Kushtaka mainly preys on small children, it has been thought by some that it was used by Tlingit mothers to keep their children from wandering close to the ocean by themselves.

Kooshdakhaa and Kushtaka are two separate creatures (or people). They sound similar because both have the word "otter" in them. But in Tlingit, they are separate stories with separate stories. What were discussing yesterday was Kushtaka.

I apologize greatly LTC for not getting back to you sooner. I also walked out of my house without all the references I was going to give you because my head is pounding due to a major leak in the ceiling of my newly remodeled bathroom.

I looked through 10 different books and found quite a few references to Kushtaka as well as stories. Mr. Otter Man appears to be a little bit of everything. In several stories, he's in bipedal form, kidnapping kids with a basket on his back (and the descriptions are large and hairy [otter fur?]), whistles, has horrific screams, and smells bad. In other stories, he a regular human living in a house with a fire, and in others he's helping people out at sea.

Joseph Campbell in his "Ways of the Animals Powers" book series described Kushtaka as a problematic trickster, in that he has two different forms - a horrible monster-cannibal and one that is helpful and friendly (that can shape-shift from human to otter and back). Now, I don't know if the shape-shifting also applies to the cannibal, and its a three-way shift or what (and please note I don't believe for a minute that animals or people shape shift). Anyhow, it's apparent to me that the association to bigfoot is based on the stories where the Kushtaka is the monster-cannibal, but I could find no statements that Kushtaka = modern day bigfoot. Campbell did state that Kushtaka is similar to another being for a tribe listed in South America, but I didn't have a chance to follow up on what that being is.

My apologies for the bluntness but please prove it. The writer seemed to be Tlinglit by the composition of the entry and I am unconvinced that your claim is true and the spelling of 'Kooshdakhaa' is not alternate of Kushtaka. Being bilingual I'm quite accustomed to alternate spellings that appear phonetic.

...I see that you were eventually unable to find support for the claim that kû'cta-qa equated bigfoot and more or less conceded that but I find I'm very puzzled by your statements concerning my posting of the kû'cta-qa section of the wikipedia article on the Tlingit. After that post you seemed to be making the point that I was confused in my reference and that it was unrelated: kooshdakhaa vs kushtaka. Indeed after my comments on the spelling you made a point of expanding on their separation and I eventually asked for proof that kooshdakhaa was not being used as an alternate spelling of kushtaka. In any event, with proper reading one can see that in all those posts I've shown above the references are specifically to kû'cta-qa and there is no separation which makes your comments quite difficult to understand. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have to offer on the matter.

 

[Mad Hom]

No "bigfeetsus" for you.

For those of us who want them to be..they are there.

Why did you get left out?

Watching TV?

There Fudd..I fixed your quote for ya.

 

[Mad Hom]

Wow, you guys might be onto something! Personally, I don't know if the Jeff Glickman who gave us a 1,957 pound "Patty" is the same Jeff Glickman who appears to take the "Face on Mars" seriously. But I'm willing to guess who might know, and that would be Phil Plait, who happens to post on this board.

Perhaps a PM is in order...

If this in fact is the same Glick than I'm going to have a good long belly laugh at Fuddsters expense.

 

[William Parcher]

I now think Patty Glickman and Mars Glickman are two different people. The Hoagland lecture review offers the email for Mars Glickman. It's from 1998 and shows an email address at the College of Santa Fe. Patty Glickman seems to have no association with that school, but a professional photographer named Jeff Glickman did.

The Photography Group

 

[LAL]

FYI, this is what Glickman looks like:

 

[kitakaze]

Hi LAL. When it rains it pours, hey? Our latest round of the Q&A is here if you're still interested. The question pertains to bigfoot intelligence.

 

[kitakaze]

Don't anybody tell Huntster I haven't read Glickman yet, ok? My eyes are still pooped after going over the last few days of this mess. Wait a minute... aww maaan!

 

[LAL]

"Vitae: Jeff Glickman received his Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1982. While there he the was Assistant Director of the Information Engineering Laboratory and the Director of Software Development for the Computer Research Laboratory. While at the University he worked extensively with imaging and optical systems.

Mr. Glickman has developed proprietary advanced image processing techniques and has been called upon to apply them to solve criminal cases for law enforcement agencies including the NYPD, US Attorney's Office and the FBI, as well as litigations and scientific investigations. Mr. Glickman is a Board Certified Forensic Examiner.

Correspondence may be directed to Mr. Glickman at Photek, 209 Oak Street, Suite 202, Hood River, Oregon, 97031."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi3.html

 

[LAL]

Next question:

What kind of intelligence level would you speculate these creatures have?

About like chimpanzees.

Nothing that I've seen so far as none of it is not easily attributable to something other than sasquatch. For myself personally, I would like for some to be produced so that a proper inquiry could be warranted but this is based on my own romantic desire for such creatures to exist and not on any reasonable expectation that such evidence is there to be found.

Easily? Okay, what books besides Krantz have you read?

 

[LAL]

"All of the height estimates, save that calculated by Jeff Glickman (NASI) depend on an additional unknown to those I have mentioned – the creature’s foot size. There is absolutely no way we can prove beyond a doubt that its foot was 14.5 inches long. In other words, we cannot prove that the foot casts we have (hard evidence source of the figure) were from impressions made by the creature; nor can we prove that photographs of the footprints actually show its footprints. So any use of the 14.5-inch figure is automatically suspect. John Green got around this dilemma to a degree by photographing a tall person in the creature’s path and using this to confirm his calculation based on the foot size. The only problem here is that we do not know beyond a doubt that the camera distance John used (102 feet) is correct. Essentially we are back to square one. In other words, calculation made using the foot size and/or camera distance are not scientifically valid. Throw in the other unknowns I mention (ground level and film fuzz), and it is enough to make scientists “leave the room.”

Jeff Glickman saw this problem right up front. He knew that if he used anything with a serious unknown, then he peers would ride roughshod over him. What Glickman did was, in my opinon, ingenious. He registered a film frame with a photograph of the same scene that had a measurable object (a person) in it. Both the film frame and the photograph showed a dead tree. By lining up this tree (making both images the same size), the creature in the film frame could be compared with the measurable object (person) in the photograph, and a height calculated. His only problem was film fuzz. However, he took the images right down to pixels, so probably got very close. As a result, Glickman’s calculation of the creature’s height at 87.5 inches (7 feet, 3.5 inches) is the only calculation that can “stand on its own two feet” (pun if you wish). The image seen here is Glickman's comparison of the creature with a person 73.75 inches (6 feet 1.75 inches) tall.

Now, we have to address the walking height/standing height issue. If we go by what Dr. Krantz stated, then we need to add 8 - 8.5% to Glickman’s figure to get the creature’s standing height. If we use 8% to be on the safe side, then we arrive at 94.5 inches (7 feet 10.5 inches), which appears to be too great, and the skeptics immediately jump on it. Nevertheless, what we can say here is that the 8% is probably a little heavy and we are not totally sure it can be applied to sasquatch. Also we have to allow at least 1% for error."

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/article.php?story=2006031623165271&query=Jeff+Glickman+

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, one other thing that struck me in review of the last several pages of this thread was this post...(bolding is mine)

As a native myself, I would like you to show me an example where a bigfooter has said a traditional animal was a bigfoot and a member of that tribe denied it.

I have been involved with natives all my life. The stories I gather come from them. If the Yokuts state that this pictograph is Hairy Man, then I'm willing to take them at their word (and since that info was recorded in the late 1800s, I'm fairly sure white people didn't influence that opinion). If you, or Correa, what to take issue with that, you have to take it to them.

I'm not ignoring the traditions of beings all over the world that could equally be tailored to fit bigfoot...I don't study other cultures...I don't have any space left in my brain for other countries. I think you are expecting too much from me.

...I must admit being a little curious about your reference to yourself as a Native American. This is you, is it not? (Kathy Moskowitz- head of AIBR). I hope you aren't offended by this but I'm having trouble seeing a photo of a Native American. When calling yourself a native did you mean as a caucasian who has a Native American relative? Also, would it be fair to say that an interest in bigfoot since childhood was the reason you became an anthropologist?

 

[kitakaze]

About like chimpanzees.

What do you base the supposition on?

Easily? Okay, what books besides Krantz have you read?

OK, that's two questions but you skipped one before so it works out. (I am trying as best as I can to maintain the stucture.) Yes, easily. If there is some purported evidence that truly is difficult to attribute to something other than living sasquatches than it is reliable. Everything we have now can easily be attributed to misidentification or hoax. (And you can be quite confident that I haven't missed anything presented in this thread.)

As for what books on sasquatch I've read, pretty much all the standard ones that were published before the last four years including Bindernagel, Dahinden's book, everything of Green, and basically everything that the Greater Victoria Public Library had (which was quite a bit). I haven't read Raincoast Sasquatch and as you know I'll soon be reading Meldrum.

 

[William Parcher]

Jeff Glickman saw this problem (foot size) right up front. He knew that if he used anything with a serious unknown, then he peers would ride roughshod over him.

Why would Glickman see foot dimensions as problematic, but not?:

1) A huge fold or crease that reveals itself on the thigh.
2) A "diaper" or "pillow" butt.
3) A thigh that seems to "tuck under" the butt when walking.
4) Donut-shaped muscles on the arms.
5) Rigid breasts that seem to be improperly located on the chest.
6) Blockish or "paddle-like" feet.

I don't understand all of this "peers would ride roughshod" stuff. The Bigfoot "experts" seem almost immune to any real repercussions from their errors. Chilcutt said his reputation would be ruined if he was wrong about the dermals. But exactly how is his reputation supposed to be destroyed?

Many PGF believers and skeptics think that Glickman's estimates are way off. Why? What did Glickman do wrong that resulted in these errors? If Murphy is correct that Glickman elimated the "foot size problem" and therefore provided a proper analysis; then why do so many think he was wrong? He said Patty weighs almost a ton.

 

[William Parcher]

Kitakaze asked: What kind of intelligence level would you speculate these creatures have?

About like chimpanzees.

Lu, don't cut your own throat like that. If they had the intelligence of chimps would they still not allow folks like Jungle Jane to sit with them for years on end.