*note to self: build a footerbot to continue the impersonation before my brain gets toasted*
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.
He's a specialist, an expert in the field! Don't you think he would consider this if it were an issue?
Courts rely on his expertise! He is the world's expert in primate dermals.
And your expertise field would be?
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?
Because bigfoot dermals look like casting artifacts!
Non-footerbot note:
Melissa's work is not the problem. The problem is how some people who defend the "bigfeet are real" claim use her work to disregard tube's work.
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."
I think you should consider that Meldrum is an expert in primate locomotion.
And your expertise field would be?
Non-footerbot note:
Judging from the footprints, the persons with mid-tarsal breaks would be tube, myself, a friend of mine, some Romans that lived by the time of the famous Vesuvius eruption, and IIRC someone WP showed footprints pics.
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.
Are you accusing the people who found all those tracks all over North America of being hoaxers?
-Add KRANTZ/MELDRUM quote here
Non-footerbot note:
The people who found the tracks may as well have been some of the hoaxed ones... Don't forget snow pareidolia and (intentionally or not) distorted reports.
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...
I think you skeptics overestimate the hoaxers' will and skills. How many people are out there making bigfoot hoaxes? Why leave hoaxed tracks in the middle of nowhere where people most likely will not find them? There's a legion of hoaxers across continental USA? Why they are not caught?
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?
Swindler was a giant in his field. And your qualifications would be?
Non-footerbot note:
This is exactly why I seriously doubt the fidelity this piece of information.
-Add Meldrum/Noll quote here
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?
You skeptics overestimate the hoaxers' skill levels and creativity. Why fake a female bigfoot buttprint?
-Repeat "why fake stuff in the middle of nowhere etc." pseudoargument here.
Non-footerbot note:
These guys ever heard about nudists? Or ever considered people do have sex in the wildeness?
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.
Then prove they were fakes or misidentifications!
And what about the sound analysis work that proved the sounds could not be human?
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.
It was said to be unidentified mammal DNA; thus it is evidence of an unknown mammal.
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...
Nonsense!
Anyone wandering around with a
gorilla bigfoot suit would get shot.
An there is that collection of bigfeet hairs.
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).
Where are the suits?
Who would risk getting shot?
Seeing a "faint green undercoat" in MDF? With that poor quality?
The gait, the gait is not human.
I don't discuss UFOs.
Some of the best evidence we have came from Freeman. Just because he tried to spice things up when interest on the subject declined you can not dismiss all his material. Don't throw the bathwater with the baby.
Heh. That's similar to the logic that Dr. Krantz used regarding
this picture.
He surely had his reasons for using this reasoning. Denialism certainly was not one of them.
You?
Because misidentifications and hallucinations never happen. Riiiiight...
And you say all the thousands of sightings are hoaxes, hallucinations and misidentifications? Can you prove it? Its statistically impossible that all sightings are hoaxes, hallucinations and misidentifications. All it takes for bigfeet to be real is a
single sighting being the "real deal".
Non-footerbot questions:
When can I start making money out of this?
Come to think of it...
I'm starting to get the impression that some footers are actually bots!
Or maybe, who knows, p-zombies!
DISCLAIMER:
I have no footer sockpuppets, here, there or everywhere.
Defending a position you do not agree with, besides being a good exercise, helps showing its flaws and eventually its strong points. So far, from this new POV, the flaws seem to be even greater...
