Well, here´s what a proponent would say:
1. Casts- An expert said they were dermal ridges. Are you saying you can not trust an expert's statement?
Ah, but they forget that the casts weren't treated with a casting agent in order to prevent the creation of misleading dessication ridges. Being involved in law enforcement, where doing so is standard procedure, Mr. Chilcutt apparently assumed that the people who had made the Bigfoot track castings took the same precaution. He was wrong.
The artifacts were not reproduced in soils from [add place name here].
Which completely ignores the problems with melissa's experiments (That's what you're referring to, right?) and the question: why do casting artifacts look exactly like the contested dermals?
There's also the classic "That only effects one trackway" argument, which fails to note issues like alternate ways to create the impression of dermal ridges, such as the
Bloomington track.
There are footprints with mid-tarsal break marks;
Such markings can be created (either intentionally or unintentionally) with fake feet. And as someone in this thread showed, human footprints can also show a "mid-tarsal break."
theres a miles-long trackway in the middle of nothing;
Which ignores the possibility that the person who "discovered" it could've made the trackway. There's also the issue of Cryptozoology proponents exaggerating the nature of trackways.
As I recall, a proponent called Huntser claimed that the Bossburg Bigfoot tracks were found to have enter and exited a river onto private land, which would imply that a hoax would have to swim across a river (during the winter) and onto private property without being caught. However,
reading about the case reveals that they only found what they thought were tracks on the private land, mainly because of markings that resembled the toe marks seen on the cripplefoot tracks. These "tracks" were found after a rainstorm...mud-based parodelia anyone?
In his book "Real-life X Files: Investigating the Paranormal,"
Joe Nickell makes a similar observation regarding the exaggerated nature of the so-called URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil's_Footprints"]"Devil's footprints."[/URL] That portion of the book seems to be a reprinting of
this article.
there are casts showing toe movement.
I forget, was this one of the things that tube showed was possible to fake using a fake foot? There's also the issue of flexible rubber feet...
No to mention the Skookum cast (Swindler said its from Gigantopithecus),
The argument I've heard is that despite all the evidence for it being an elk lay is wrong since a hair was found that's "consistent with suspected Sasquatch hair" inside the imprint. However, this ignores that
synthetic hair has been realistic enough to fool professionals into thinking that it's real hair.
Also, how could Swindler know what an imprint of a Gigantopithecus looks like if the fossil remains of them only consist of teeth and mandibles?
the anatomically-correct female buttcast and Freeman's handcasts.
How do we know that a proported Bigfoot cast is anatomically correct if we have no Bigfoot to compare it to? Also, why can't a hoaxer simple use human anatomy as a base and then enlarge it?
2. Vocalizations- No one proved the Sierra Sounds were fake and sound analysis "proved" they could not be made by humans
And why would they have to be made by humans when there are several animal cries (elk, fox, moose, etc.) and artificially-created ("scary sound effects" tapes/CDs and the old "rub a warm silver dollar on dry ice" trick) sounds that could be mistaken for being the sounds of Bigfoot?
I've heard people claim that similar sounds can be linked to sightings from different parts of the country/world. However, they failed to note what type of "sightings" made up those reports (I suspect they're of the "I heard something scary in the woods" variety).
And considering all the times proponents have claimed that humans couldn't do something associated with Bigfoot, only to get proven wrong, I fail to see why I should believe their claim this time around.
3. DNA- There are "unidentified samples" others samples could have been contaminated by human DNA.
Or are known animal or human DNA samples that've degraded to a point where they can only be called "inconclusive." There are
other issues with DNA samples as well.
Some have tried arguing that some "inconclusive" DNA results can't be a case of degraded DNA since they apparently were taken from the same "proported Sasquatch hair" that looked similar to human hair. However, Huntsman seems to have figured out that mystery.
4. Hair- There are samples, they just look too much like human hair. Human hair that ws never cut!
Most suspected Bigfoot hair is later identified as being
known animal hair, plant matter, and/or synthetic hair. I find it amusing that "never cut" and "lacks a medulla" descriptions given to the supposed Bigfoot hair match up to what's expected in syntehtic hair/fur. There are also
many problems with hair analysis.
This seems to show that known animal hair can be incorrectly be identified as being from an unknwon animal. However, the the source is an unpublished article...
I love how many proponents don't seem to realize that the reason for synthetic fiber being found in the wilderness is due to hoaxers in costumes. Granted, there are other reasons, such as wigs and artificial fur on coats, but still...
5. Other Videos- The MDF and Freeman footage have never been proved to be hoaxes.
The MDF is most likely a hoax. Even the "mysterious change in height"
has been logically explained.
Some argue that Freeman couldn't have afforded "Hollywood quality" suits for such a film, failing to consider that Freeman could've pooled some money together with his sons to buy/make Bigfoot costumes (or that his sons paid for both suits). He's been associated with fake tracks and he's admitted to making fake tracks, so why should any evidence be accepted from him? Some claim that Freeman was merely confessing to making fake tracks to see if they could look realistic, similar to arguments used by hoaxers like Billy Meier in the UFO field after they get busted.
Come to think of it, did Freeman take that footage before or after his paid appearance in an ice cream ad?
And then there's always the Redwoods video (aka the "Playboy video"), but they'll probably ignore
the problems with that(see the "Re: Redwoods video" section near the bottom of the article).
6. Photos- Many were never proved not to be from a 'bigfoot'
Heh. That's similar to the logic that Dr. Krantz used regarding
this picture.
7. Sighting Reports- Are you claiming all those people are liars? Are you saying that everyone who reported a bigfoot sighting can not be trusted?
Because misidentifications and hallucinations never happen. Riiiiight...
