Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Correa Neto]

I may have posted this here before, but there is an actual overpopulation problem with elk in the Skookum meadows area:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...70121&query=Hungry+elk+first+fed,+then+hunted

This story was on the front page of the Seattle Times Sunday edition some months back; I clipped it and sent it to Anton, as I thought he would get a kick out of it...

...snip...

This solves it all, Tube.

See? Lots of elks=lots of food for bf, hence the sightings and the cast.

 

[LTC8K6]

See? Lots of elks=lots of food for bf, hence the sightings and the cast.

No competition or hunting, either.

Hence the booming foot population, eh?

 

[LAL]

Lu has no idea if Grover allowed his condition to taint his opinion. She is lying when she flatly says it wasn't accurate. She doesn't know, and just makes up something convenient for her position.

Lu also doesn't think there is anything wrong with what she made up, or that she made it up.

It's quite infuriating.

My source on that is Owen Caddy. I don't make things up.

Come out and fight, Bill. Tell me how a hoaxer or hoaxers could have made a double trackway in snow with a stride a nearly 6'4" man had to jump to equal. For seven miles.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
And now I'll endure the 'you're just an armchair analyst', and 'what have you done for bigfootdom lately' comments...

...snip...

Nobody asked me but...

Ray, you have continously tested and challenged the BS regularly fed to footers as "good", "compelling", "intriguing" [add favorite term her] evidence.

You always try to show that lowly debate tactics sooner or later backfire.

So, IMHO, you made a greater service to bigfootery than all the other standard pro-BF posters (not just here but also at BFF).

For some, it might seem initially counterintutive, but wandering in the field for months or years applying bad methodology, considering (and presenting) every twisted tree, weird noise or unidentified footprint as evidence is less productive than a criterious evaluation of avaliable data comfortably made in front of a computer screen.

Years of piling sighting reports and interviewing alleged witnesses can also result in nothing but a collection of tales if the propper criteria are not used. Again, a criterious armchair investigation is much more valuable than the ears of misdirected investigations.

The problem is that some people are not willing to accept anything other than the conclusion they have already reached, the one that fits with teir beliefs. Even if you were a field researcher or examined the Holy Relics casts, if you concluded the avaliable evidence are not point to BF being real critters, you would be the target of lots of unfounded critics and ad homs from some people. And the harder it becomes to counter the "con" arguments presented, the more emotional some "pro"-posters become, to the point of abandomning the discussion and relying only in ad homs.
Examples? Check the reaction to the work presented by Tube and DY.

More examples?
The reactions to the skpetical reviews of Meldrum's book.

Even more examples?
He, read the bigfoot threads here. Sometimes the impression I have is that some posters lurk awaiting for what they consider as an opportunity for an ad hom attack. Lacking reliable evidence and debating skills, their last (sole?) resort are lies, false accusations and name calling.

 

[Correa Neto]

No competition or hunting, either.

Hence the booming foot population, eh?

Yep.

Footer reasoning. You're getting the hang of it.

Congrats!

Erm... Congrats?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Tell me how a hoaxer or hoaxers could have made a double trackway in snow with a stride a nearly 6'4" man had to jump to equal. For seven miles.

First, you must show that such a trackway exists/existed ..

Then we can clear up details like ' nearly 6'4" ', ' seven miles ' & etc ..

Once we establish what exactly has been hoaxed, we can speculate on how it was done ..

Also, once we can see exactly what the evidence is, we might be able to come up with alternative explanations to " hoax " or " Bigfoot " ...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nobody asked me but...

Lacking reliable evidence and debating skills, their last (sole?) resort are lies, false accusations and name calling.

I just recently ran into ( for the umpteenth time ) the :


" You haven't done the field work, so you can't comment on the evidence .. "


.... gambit ..


What the arguer ignores, is that all of their field work has yielded exactly the same result, as all the field work I didn't do ...

 

[mangler]

Just in case the youtube link was too fast for some of us.

m

 

[Belz...]

I don't make things up.

Perhaps not. But who's to say if your sources do ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just in case the youtube link was too fast for some of us.

m

It's quite clear, those elk laying on their flank, just like the Skookum cast, would not be gathering their hooves under them to stand up ..

We have a whole new meaning to the " Skookum Roll ", and it has nothing to do with a Bigfoot.

( Hang in their Rick .. )

 

[RayG]

I have posted my 650 pound question over on the BFF, but in formulating that question, it got me thinking about four things:

a] what part of an elk is considered the wrist?
b] Since large Roosevelt elk are found in the same geographical area as the Skookum cast (west of the Cascades), and grow larger than 1,000 lbs, why wasn't a larger Roosevelt elk wrist/knee used for experimental purposes?
c] What was the condition and origin of the 650-pound bull elk part?
d] Was the bull elk used in the experiment a Roosevelt elk?

I also included this pic which points out my whole knee/wrist confusion:

RayG

 

[desertyeti]

Yellow points to the wrist. It's commonly called "knee" among people who don't do anatomy. Hence the confusion (mcuh of it on purpose by those trying to create doubt) among certain Bigfooters claiming that I changed my interpretation from wrist to knee then back again. In reality, I originally stated that the feature interpreted as the "heel" is actually the wrist of an elk. I later tried to explain that the wrist is sometimes referred to as a "knee" and this led to the erroneous suggestion that I was altering my interpretation, yadda yadda yadda. Classic attempt to twist wording and create a smokescreen rather than discuss data.

It's also worth pointing out that one wrist imprint is currently (erroneously) being promoted as a "slipped hoof print" by one of the 'footers. Hey...at least they're identifying the correct species in part of the track!

Also, the current babbling about the print being too large is simply more delusional thinking and a last-ditch attempt to ignore all other data. As anyone intuitively knows, the imprint of a moving object in a soft substrate is almost always larger than the object that made it. The imprint taken of a static, 650 lbs. elk's wrist is always going to be smaller than a moving 650 lbs. elk's wrist since it doesn't incorporate motion and enlarging of the initial impression through this movement and sediment displacement. Comparing the two means essentially nothing from an ichnological standpoint.

 

[RayG]

Yellow points to the wrist. It's commonly called "knee" among people who don't do anatomy.

Like me!! Why oh why, do things have to be so counter-intuitive? So, elk don't have elbows or knees, only ankles, wrists, and shoulders?

It's also worth pointing out that one wrist imprint is currently (erroneously) being promoted as a "slipped hoof print" by one of the 'footers. Hey...at least they're identifying the correct species in part of the track!

But, isn't it possible that it's both a wrist AND a slipped hoof print, as the animal slipped in its wrist-print as it stood up?

Also, the current babbling about the print being too large is simply more delusional thinking and a last-ditch attempt to ignore all other data.

That's why I don't understand why a larger elk wrist wasn't used for the experiment. Ruling out elk without exhausting possibilities is shoddy science.

RayG

 

[RayG]

This is obviously photoshopped as elk ALWAYS gather their feet under themselves as they stand.

If this critter were lying in mud, I'm guessing the left wrist print would be deeper than than the right.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This is obviously photoshopped as elk ALWAYS gather their feet under themselves as they stand.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7317&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1181838711[/qimg]

If this critter were lying in mud, I'm guessing the left wrist print would be deeper than than the right.

RayG

Also, is he( it? ) getting up or laying down?

If it is in the process of laying down, I can see it rolling on to the left flank and never leave a print of the right wrist.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now that it has been firmly shown that a hoof print would not necessarily be in the body print of an elk, would the believers please move on to other arguments?

Thank you.

 

[kitakaze]

Yellow points to the wrist. It's commonly called "knee" among people who don't do anatomy. Hence the confusion (mcuh of it on purpose by those trying to create doubt) among certain Bigfooters claiming that I changed my interpretation from wrist to knee then back again. In reality, I originally stated that the feature interpreted as the "heel" is actually the wrist of an elk. I later tried to explain that the wrist is sometimes referred to as a "knee" and this led to the erroneous suggestion that I was altering my interpretation, yadda yadda yadda. Classic attempt to twist wording and create a smokescreen rather than discuss data.

It's also worth pointing out that one wrist imprint is currently (erroneously) being promoted as a "slipped hoof print" by one of the 'footers. Hey...at least they're identifying the correct species in part of the track!

Also, the current babbling about the print being too large is simply more delusional thinking and a last-ditch attempt to ignore all other data. As anyone intuitively knows, the imprint of a moving object in a soft substrate is almost always larger than the object that made it. The imprint taken of a static, 650 lbs. elk's wrist is always going to be smaller than a moving 650 lbs. elk's wrist since it doesn't incorporate motion and enlarging of the initial impression through this movement and sediment displacement. Comparing the two means essentially nothing from an ichnological standpoint.

It's really great to see you posting again, DY. 114 pages later this thread you started is quite the monster. Don't be a stranger.

 

[kitakaze]

Now that it has been firmly shown that a hoof print would not necessarily be in the body print of an elk, would the believers please move on to other arguments?

Thank you.

Kinda makes it look like Meldrum wasn't really making much of an effort to be objective...

Eventually, careful comparisons to elk imprints were made at multiple game ranches and zoological parks. These comparisons, combined with consultation by professional game keepers, ruled out elk as a possible candidate for the imprint. The obvious heel imprints and forearm imprint could not be accounted for by the anatomy of an elk. Skeptics opined that the heel imprint was simply the mark of a kneeling elk, without ever examining the cast itself. A wrist of a 650-pound bull elk was obtained by Rick Noll, impressed in soft soil, and cast. Not only did it fail to measure up to the dimensions of the Skookum heel imprint, it was clearly distinct in shape and pattern of hair. The overall orientations of the hair patterns on the Skookum cast were likewise incongruent with those of an elk. This was made quite evident by comparisons to taxidermy museum mounts. And finally, and perhaps most telling, when an elk rises from a repose it must place its hooves directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint. Yet there are no elk tracks located in the center of the Skookum imprint, only deep and clear elk prints skirting the imprint.

So, what game ranches, zoological parks, and game keepers are you referring to? It's unfortunate that he wasn't more specific in his book about the measures taken to rule out elk.

 

[LAL]

A little latitude perhaps, but that's my opinion, based on your behavior, not something I've asserted as a claim. You have repeatedly used the excuse of not having time to find evidence of my crimes even though you're sure I committed them. Pretty pathetic excuse.

I have not accused you of any crimes. You quoted Krantz as saying he didn't know what it was. You said at one point it must have been on BFF, but I'm certain it was during the time I wasn't posting there at all. It was so long ago I don't think I'd ordered my copy of Krantz's book yet.

I've already done a few searches. I'll continue to search when I have time and inclination, but I'm not going to spend my life on it. As it is, my posting time is pretty limited, and I hate wasting it plowing through hundreds of old posts. If it's still here, I'll find it.

You want me to retract and recant, but I don't see you saying you might have forgotten the exchange. It seems obvious to me you're playing "shoot the messenger again", only this time I'm the target instead of Dr. Krantz.

I don't see why you're so obsessed with this. Krantz said on camera he concurred; no chance of reporter error there. Perhaps he became uncertain later (he still looked healthy on Animal X), but at the time of the filming he seemed sure.

 

[LAL]

Perhaps not. But who's to say if your sources do ?

Owen knew him personally and posted a statement from him.

I think we know what reporters do, sometimes.

I take Grover's own words over what someone says he said.