Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
LAL, you just bring us those proper scientific studies of some good evidence and I am sure we will all be glad to look at them.

No more opinions of Bigfoot fans, please.




Ah. I just found out there's an ignore feature on this board while uploading the scan of one of my watercolors. (I can't figure out why it's so blurry.) I may try that out.

I take it you dismiss the opinion or Dr. Daris Swindler because he switched from being a sceptic to becoming a "Bigfoot fan" after objectively examining the Skookum Cast, in your opinion?
You might want to read something by Dr. Meldrum, or does he qualify as a fan too because he's applied his excellent methodology to a serious study instead of rejecting it out of hand as so many do?

Goodall and Schaller are out too because they think scientific investigation is warranted, huh? May I use Sarmiento, at least?


Healed scars? Are there any other kind?



I was referring to the kind of tucking under that occurs breaking the dermal ridge pattern. The BFF board is down right now, but someone may have done a capture. It's hard to describe without a photo. Chilcutt illustrated this nicely on LMS, but I can't upload the DVD.


Gee, I have no idea how a person would know what a "healed scar" looks like. Golly, I just can't figure that out. Must not be a hoax then..... :D



Have you any idea what you're talking about?

>snip<


The idea that no one made any money is ridiculous.



Are you into conspiracy theories too?
Please present some evidence that anyone profitted from this incident.


Besides that, believing you are going to make money is the point, not whether you actually made any.


I see. It doesn't matter that you don't actually make any money (or receive any publicity), it's the risk of getting shot at that appeals.
The Bossburg tracks have never been proven to be faked. Even Pickens didn't claim to have made the Cripplefoot tracks, although much has been made of his confession about making some near Colville (not Bossburg).
Much has also been made of Marx' later hoaxing too, as though his mere presence throws the whole episode into question, but those tracks remain some of the best evidence.
Again, there were incidents in SW Washington that same year. Same hoaxers or different animals?
Here we have two prime candidates for hoaxing, but no evidence either faked any of the tracks that were found. Frankly, given the quality of the hoaxing they did do, neither was smart enough.
Is there some mysterious bankroller behind all this? Is he (or his family, since this goes back generations) financing the thousands of incidents or did he fund some unknown hoaxer on just this one? Or did he merely offer a reward for tripping up Dahinden?
Did he work for the CIA, or was he, perhaps, the gunman behind the fence?

Do a reality check when you have the time.

It's quite reasonable to assume large hominid primates account for the tracks, sightings and figures in the films, that they leave tracks, scat and hair and may twist off branches for nest building or territorial marking. The reported throwing behaviour is like that of other Great Apes.
Are people resistant to this idea because it's a hominid species? There were many species of bipedal "apes" millions of years ago. Why assume all are extinct, leaving only wonderful us to rule the planet?
To try to account for all this as a series of hoaxes stretches credulity to the breaking point.
It's one thing to be sceptical; it's another to be willfully ignorant, or, as a cyber friend of mine puts it, butt-chunk stupid.
 
Be sure to let me know when a proper journal decides to publish one of the studies that has been done.

Hm. I forgot Mittermeier. He's mildly sceptical. May I use him?

Sunday, January 05, 2003

Bigfoot Believers: Legitimate scientific study of legend gains backing of top primate experts

By Theo Stein
Denver Post



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, January 05, 2003 - EDMONDS, Wash. - After enduring decades of ridicule, Bigfoot researchers are enjoying support from some of the world's most respected scientists in their efforts to prove the hulking creatures of legend are no myth.

The persistence of reported sightings of Bigfoot-type creatures in North America and elsewhere has convinced leading researchers on primates - including Jane Goodall, made famous by her studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania - to call for something never seriously considered before: a legitimate scientific study to determine whether the greatest apes that ever lived persist in the world's moist mountainous regions.

Skeptics, who include those in the scientific mainstream, scoff at such ideas. They say reported Bigfoot encounters, tracks and other evidence are either hoaxes or mistakes, and that people who believe such nonsense are soft-headed.

But dedicated amateurs and a smattering of professionals are trying to change that attitude. Using accepted scientific methods, they believe they can show at least some of the claimed evidence for Bigfoot - footprints, hair, voice recordings and a 400-pound block of plaster known as the Skookum Cast - are authentic traces of a rare giant primate.

Recently they have received support from a handful of the field's top experts.

Daris Swindler, for example, is not the typical Bigfoot believer.

When he retired in 1991 after more than 30 years at the University of Washington, Swindler was an acclaimed expert in the arcane study of fossilized primate teeth.

His book, "An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy," went through several printings and was among the standard references in the field.

So it comes as a surprise to some of his peers that Swindler believes that the Skookum Cast, discovered by amateur Bigfoot researchers in 2000, is a genuine record of a hairy giant that sat down by a mudhole to eat some fruit.

"Daris said that?" asked Russell Ciochon, a prominent paleoanthropologist and professor at the University of Iowa. "He's an important figure. But I still don't think Bigfoot exists in any form."

Mythical giant apes lurk in the traditions of nearly every Native American linguistic group and in legends handed down through the ages from Europe and Asia. Each year, Bigfoot or similar creatures are reported by hundreds of hunters, hikers, motorists and others from central Asia to the central Rockies. But no one has provided the minimum proof required by science: a type specimen or remains that researchers can pick up, measure and argue over.

Nevertheless, Goodall is intrigued.

"People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures behaving in similar ways and uttering some strikingly similar sounds," she said. "As far as I am concerned, the existence of hominids of this sort is a very real probability."

George Schaller, director of science at the Wildlife Conservation Society, has spent 40 years studying rare animals in remote places, including pioneering studies of Central Africa's mountain gorilla, which Western scientists first discovered in 1903.

THE SCIENTISTS:
JANE GOODALL

A world-famous primate researcher and author, she revealed, in studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania's Gombe National Park, surprising behaviors in humanity's closest living relative. Goodall has won numerous international awards for her contributions to conservation, anthropology and animal welfare. Currently affiliated with Cornell University, she serves as the National Geographic Society's explorer-in-residence.

GEORGE SCHALLER

International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas set the research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller's 1963 book, "The Year of the Gorilla," debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced "King Kong" as a shy, social vegetarian.

Schaller's studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandasalso advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals.

In 1973, he won the National Book Award for "The SerengetiLion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations," and in 1980 wasawarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributionsto the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-knownwildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

RUSSELL MITTERMEIER

A trained primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two last year. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar.

Since 1989, Mittermeier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

DARIS SWINDLER

Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, "An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy," has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

ESTEBAN SARMIENTO

A functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo's Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.


Schaller remains troubled by the fact no Bigfoot remains have been produced, nor have any samples of feces whose DNA can be chemically poked and prodded to unlock the identity of their maker. And he is mindful of hoaxing.

But he, too, considers Bigfoot an open question.

"There have been so many sightings over the years," he said. "Even if you throw out 95 percent of them, there ought to be some explanation for the rest. The same goes for some of these tracks."

"I think a hard-eyed look is absolutely essential," he concludes.

The most common evidence allegedly left by these animals are the footprints: big prints in remote locations, some deeply pressed in sand or gravel firm enough for a grown man to pass without leaving a trace. Some footprints, like those Ray Wallace's family claim he left near Bluff Creek, Calif., in the late 1950s, are hoaxed. Many more are too vague to be conclusive. But a few are so detailed and anatomically accurate that they baffle the experts.

"Either the forgers are spending an awful lot of time on this, or there is reason to give this evidence another look," said primate researcher Esteban Sarmiento of the American Museum of Natural History. "I think a serious scientific inquiry is definitely warranted."

Skeptics argue that large mammals, particularly great apes, simply aren't discovered anymore. Not true, says Russell Mittermeier, vice president of Conservation International, who has co-authored scientific papers describing five new primates.

Since the 1990s there have been several spectacular finds, he said, including the antelope-like spindlehorn from Vietnam and a South American peccary thought to have gone extinct thousands of years ago.

"I'm not one to pooh-pooh the potential that these large apes may exist," Mittermeier said. "I guess you could say I'm mildly skeptical but guardedly optimistic. Whoever does find it will have the discovery of the century."

Words of encouragement like these are music to Bigfoot researchers' ears.

"My whole motivation has not been to convince anybody of the existence of the animal, but to convince them that there's a body of evidence begging for further consideration," said Idaho State University professor Jeff Meldrum, whose expertise in primate locomotion led him to become one of the few academics openly researching Bigfoot tracks.

"This is immense," said author John Green, who has tracked Bigfoot reports for almost half a century from British Columbia and investigated some of the most famous sightings and track finds. "The possibility that there could be a real animal behind it just didn't occur to scientists 20 years ago."

The flap over recent claims of Bigfoot hoaxing has not deterred Swindler. But the lack of a body plus the acknowledgment of at least some hoaxing adds up to too many questions for Ciochon.

Like that of Swindler, Ciochon's work focuses on fossilized primate teeth, but of a very special species: Gigantopithecus blacki, the giant Asian ape of the Miocene epoch, which lasted from about 24 million to 5 million years ago.

Most Bigfoot supporters advance Gigantopithecus, or Giganto for short, as the likely ancestor of Bigfoot, if not the hairy beast itself. It's a tantalizing but entirely unproven link that drives Ciochon to distraction.

Ciochon thinks his study subject, which co-existed with the human ancestor Homo erectus for hundreds of thousands of years, may well be the archetypal inspiration for the "boogeyman" and other nocturnal monsters that populate the traditions of aboriginal cultures from Nepal to North America.

But he vigorously rejects any suggestion that Giganto, which he thinks was a specialized, bamboo-eating vegetarian, could persist today.

And he worries that the hotly contested grants that fund his work overseas may go elsewhere if the stigma of the shambling sasquatch of Native American lore attaches to his study subject.

"My biggest problem is there's no evidence, other than conjectural hair and these footprints, some of which we know are faked," Ciochon said.

"If someone finds a skeleton, I'll be there in a nanosecond," he said. "But that's what it's going to take to get me to change my mind."

"There are so many problems," agrees Swindler, who six years ago told a USA Today reporter to count him among the skeptics.

But as he examines the Skookum Cast on a rainy December afternoon in this Seattle suburb, Swindler points out landmarks in the lumpy landscape: a hairy forearm the size of a small ham, an enormous hairy thigh, an outsized buttock, and a striking impression he feels confident was made by the Achilles tendon and heel of a creature that is not supposed to exist.

"Whatever made this was very well adapted to walking on two feet," he said. "It's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud."

Swindler hopes that his assessment of the Skookum Cast, and a Discovery Channel documentary set to air Thursday, will generate support for further research.

The key, Schaller said, will be finding dedicated amateurs willing to spend months or years in the field with cameras. "So far, no one has done that," he said.

It was a group of dedicated amateurs that discovered the Skookum Cast. A team of volunteers from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization had spent two days in Washington state's Gifford Pinchot National Forest, putting out pheromone-basted plastic chips during the day and blasting sasquatch calls at night in an attempt to attract an animal.

On the second night, researchers heard a powerful reply to their broadcasts, said Richard Noll, an aerospace toolmaker who has spent 30 years researching the mystery. The next morning, Noll was stunned to realize that an unusual impression of a large animal on the edge of a mudhole near their camp could have been left by their elusive quarry.

"An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up," he said. "But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast."

Meldrum and Swindler concur there are only two logical explanations for the cast: Bigfoot and elk. And they have also ruled out elk.

John Mionczynski, a wildlife researcher who has spent 30 summers studying bighorn herds in Wyoming's Wind River Mountains, has his own reasons for believing in Bigfoot.

On a moonlit summer night in 1972, he backhanded an animal he thought was a bear as it sniffed at a bacon stain in his tent, then watched as the silhouette of a giant, shaggy arm with a broad hand at the end swept toward his tent, collapsing it on him.

"That hand was three times as wide as mine and had an opposed thumb that stuck out as plain as day," Mionczynski said.

He spent the rest of the night huddled by the fire with a revolver in his hand as the creature lobbed pine cones at him from the dark woods behind his tent.

"That pretty much eliminated bears," Mionczynski said.

Mionczynski is working on a contraption of tiny hooks and barbed wire that he intends to place near seasonal foods he thinks sasquatch depend on. He hopes the snare will let him get a DNA sample.

North of Seattle, Noll is collaborating with Owen Caddy, a former Ugandan park ranger who studied chimpanzees in the mid-1990s.

For the last 18 months, they've scoured certain sandbars on a north Cascades river, documenting more than 30 suspected sasquatch footprints they believe were made by a mother and two young. They hope to identify the animals' food sources and travel corridors, then set out a picket line of infrared camera traps.

"I feel the animal is out there, and I don't hedge on that," Caddy said. "I've found physical evidence myself, and I'm confident in my analysis of it.

"Something is making these tracks, and it's not people."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliographical Information:
Front Page of the Sunday Edition of the Denver Post.
By Theo Stein, Denver Post Environment Writer
 
LAL said:
And I don't consider looking into it a waste of time. I do the same with Cosmology, Genetics, Paleoanthropology..........I'm always up for a new learning experience. Keeps me from getting Alzheimer's.

Well, you're right there. Exercising the mind is never a waste of time.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Well, you're right there. Exercising the mind is never a waste of time.

Thank you for not giving me another broadside. I've been getting a little traumatized here, frankly. I'm sorry if I've seemed testy today.

Each piece of evidence should be examined objectively, IMO.

The trick is getting that to happen, and when it's happened, how to get the information to the public. I can't really fault people for knowing so little about all this given the lack of coverage by the media.
I think Meldrum's book will go far toward rectifying that situation, provided people read it. He's certainly come up with new insights and he's about as far from a wild-eyed fanatic as it's possible to get.

Amazingly, his interest in Sasquatch is now on his website. Could it be this area of interest is now gaining some acceptance, at least at Idaho State?

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_d.htm


(Why is my Chickadee blurry? It scanned beautifully and is clear and crisp on my computer. Is someone trying to imply my thinking is fuzzy by blurring my avatar?:( )
 
QUOTE]The Bossburg tracks have never been proven to be faked.[/QUOTE]

Ummmm.....when were they proven to be "real"?

Well, when the Bossburg tracks are proven to be from Bigfoot, get back to me.

A study composed of anecdotes?

Well, I could put down a bunch of anecdotes that aren't in support of Bigfoot, but what's the point?

Of course Jane Goodall would be interested in a possible Bigfoot. I'm interested in one too. So what? I've even conceded that it's possible for Bigfoot to exist. That doesn't mean I believe in Bigfoot, or any of the evidence put forward in support so far.

Folks making money from Bigfoot are all over the place, books, videos, tickets to symposiums, museums, etc., etc., and a specific example of profit from the cripple tracks was already given to you.

Bigfoot has been big business for a long time, no doubt about it.

I see things like this conference as ridiculous, and they are why I don't believe in Bigfoot as anything other than an overhyped opportunity to sell crap:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/prereg4.html

I just have to get a tape of this: :D

Understanding Sasquatch Behavior
Sue will talk about her sightings in Washington, California, and Oregon. She will discuss Bigfoot behavior, juvenile, adolescent and adult, and logical reasons they do what they do. Sasquatch intelligence and sense of humor, and her food and beer experiments. She will discuss how to use knowledge of their behavior to entice them into your camp or to your truck in order to see/ photograph them

Are the beer experiments where you get drunk and see bigfoot?

I just can't wait to register for the next conference. :p

Because of over-ordering the Conference t-shirts in the past, all t-shirts will be sold by pre-order only.

More like they ordered too many and got stuck with them last time......
 
turtle said:
[/i]
Sorry for any confusion; all I meant to say was that, because there have been some hoaxes, it does not mean all are hoaxes, or, that there are no Bigfoot.

:) [/B]

I may have caused confusion. I was just reaffirming I've never said nothing can be faked and you didn't say I did. You said I didn't and I didn't.:)
 
"Humans don't constitute any threat to Sasquatch," Krantz said. "Once in a while I'll run across somebody who believes early Homo sapiens might have killed off Sasquatches in some areas." The professor scoffed. "Sure. With a bow and arrow they're gonna bring down a Sasquatch. When we can't do it with a goddamn gun!" (This was, of course, a reference to the notorious "battle" between miners and Sasquatches around Mount St. Helens in 1924, among other incidents.)

Even more than his belief in the existence of Bigfoot, Krantz's conviction that it was acceptable to shoot a Sasquatch attracted vehement criticism. Discussing the issue, Krantz seemed motivated more by manly admiration for the ape's prowess than by specimen lust. "If you drop a Sasquatch with a gun," he warned, "the first thing you want to do is reload." Once you fire, your main problem won't be dragging a quarter-ton carcass out of the forest; it'll be reaching the truck alive. "Start throwing rocks at it," he said. "If you don't have rocks, get a long stick and poke it. You want to make sure it's dead." And even if the beast is dead, its mate may charge out of the trees and kill you.

In Bigfoot culture's raging ethical debate—Should we shoot a Sasquatch?—Krantz unapologetically defended his loaded-for-bear position. "I wouldn't want a live one captured," he told me. "That would be the cruelest thing I can imagine. Shoot one. Being dead never hurt anybody."

That attitude didn't endear him to missing-linkists, who believe Bigfoot may be as much human as ape. It struck others, including most members of the BFRO, as an unsporting method of specimen collection. But Krantz had an arm's-length relationship with the BFRO anyway; he contributed his expert opinions from time to time, but he was not a member. Even after inspecting the Skookum Cast three times, his opinion of it was tempered by a cranky ambivalence.

"I don't know what it is," he told me. "I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice."

I'll go with elk. This guy is not a guy I would trust to have been objective about bigfoot. He sounds rather obsessed to me.

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_1.adp
 
LTC8K6 said:
QUOTE]The Bossburg tracks have never been proven to be faked.

Ummmm.....when were they proven to be "real"?

Well, when the Bossburg tracks are proven to be from Bigfoot, get back to me.



Try to understand this:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

A study composed of anecdotes?

NASI/Glickmann, Fahrenbach, Krantz, Meldrum..... Studies of physical evidence are not studies of anecdotes.

Well, I could put down a bunch of anecdotes that aren't in support of Bigfoot, but what's the point?


Go ahead.



Of course Jane Goodall would be interested in a possible Bigfoot. I'm interested in one too. So what? I've even conceded that it's possible for Bigfoot to exist. That doesn't mean I believe in Bigfoot, or any of the evidence put forward in support so far.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/bindernagel.html

Folks making money from Bigfoot are all over the place, books, videos, tickets to symposiums, museums, etc., etc., and a specific example of profit from the cripple tracks was already given to you.

Bigfoot has been big business for a long time, no doubt about it.

It wasn't in 1969, no doubt about it.

I see things like this conference as ridiculous, and they are why I don't believe in Bigfoot as anything other than an overhyped opportunity to sell crap:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/prereg4.html

I just have to get a tape of this: :D

Save your money and get the Willow Creek Symposium DVD instead.

Are the beer experiments where you get drunk and see bigfoot?

I just can't wait to register for the next conference. :p

I'll link you to a thread on the recent one in Bellingham when BFF is back up.
More like they ordered too many and got stuck with them last time......

People sell T-shirts with pictures of Einstein looking like the stereo-typical mad scientist. Does this discredit Einstein's work?

No one's doubting the lunatic fringe gets drawn, but to try to use that to debunk the whole effort is a red herring, at best.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I'll go with elk. This guy is not a guy I would trust to have been objective about bigfoot. He sounds rather obsessed to me.

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_1.adp


"The cast has been investigated by leading bigfoot researchers, including John Green and Grover Krantz, who believe the cast to be authentic, and solid evidence of the existence of bigfoot."

http://www.answers.com/topic/skookum-cast

He was soon to die of pancreatic cancer. Who are you to judge what kind of "guy" he was?
Read the book.

I wouldn't go with elk, if I were you. Elk was ruled out.
 
turtle said:
This might be derailing the thread but there's certainly the "kill/no kill" argument. Personally, I have no interest in going out and killing a BF just to prove it exists. I'm against killing BF. Some BF researchers disagree, but for myself, I say leave it be.

No; you’re correct. Although I’m squarely part of the “bring me some evidence crowd”, I think it would be terrible if someone had to shoot one to prove they exist. However; A huge pile of plaster prints is just a pile of plaster prints, a box of blurry photos is just a box of blurry photos. Lots of really poor evidence cannot prove the existence of a new animal. That’s the sad truth.

A good photo or series of photos, irrefutable physical evidence that could not be faked or a specimen are the only things that separate Bigfoot from becoming a real creature and not remaining a myth.
 
The Odd Emperor said:
No; you’re correct. Although I’m squarely part of the “bring me some evidence crowd”, I think it would be terrible if someone had to shoot one to prove they exist. However; A huge pile of plaster prints is just a pile of plaster prints, a box of blurry photos is just a box of blurry photos. Lots of really poor evidence cannot prove the existence of a new animal. That’s the sad truth.

A good photo or series of photos, irrefutable physical evidence that could not be faked or a specimen are the only things that separate Bigfoot from becoming a real creature and not remaining a myth.

There is a very good photo, or rather film, and it amazes me some people can convince themselves it's a man in a suit. The film and tracks from that one event should have settled it close to four decades ago. The Ivory Bill footage is three seconds long, but since we know there were once Ivory Bills, that's sufficient.

There is actually some very good evidence in addition to about a thousand casts of footprints, and several scientists really thought the Skookum Cast should have been conclusive.

If more scientists would actually look into this in an unbiased sort of way, there would be no need for amateurs to organize conferences. I haven't been to one, but I went to the first ever Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Washington. Roy Crowe, Peter Bryne and a fair collection of casts could have made it quite educational, but the mock trial turned it into a fiasco, and little was accomplished besides the selling of Bigfoot burgers. It was organized by a friend, too. His scepticism ruined the day.

If they're a real animal, they can't remain a myth because they never were a myth to begin with and they can't become a real creature because they already are.

There are at least two organizations trying to raise money for the sophisticated photographic equipment required for those really clear photos everyone would like to see. If anyone is interested in helping with this effort, I suggest you buy a T-shirt. ;)

If you are a qualified researcher ready to examine the Skookum Cast, bring the family.

"Since no large creatures except primates have dermal ridges at all, there is no possibility that any animal other than a higher primate could have made the heel imprints. Each species of higher primate has a different pattern, and none has a heel this large. Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human.

The evidence that this imprint was made by a very large, unknown, higher primate is, in my opinion, compelling. I would not anticipate that every qualified person who examines would come to the same conclusion, but I feel sure that the vast majority would have to, whatever their preconceptions."


(John Green)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a qualified scientist or forensic specialist (either active or retired) in any relevant discipline, and you would like an opportunity to examine this cast in Washington State, please contact the BFRO at Cast@bfro.net

Friends or family members, or students of people who are considered qualified, may accompany them to view the cast in person.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp
 
LAL, when you* have proven that those footprints are from an unknown primate generally referred to as Bigfoot or sasquatch, it will be the end of all of my objections.

Since you can't really even show this, let alone prove it, the tracks don't really mean much to me. To be honest, I actually dismiss them entirely as worthless.

The same goes for the skookum cast.

If I still believed in Bigfoot, I would probably accept these casts. I don't though.

I still haven't made up my mind about the PG film. It sure looks good, and when I was a kid I was awestruck by it.

I do not accept any of the opinions of Krantz, Meldrum, Chilcutt, etc., (basically all of the people you keep quoting) To me, they are just believers who lost their objectivity. It's like quoting Billy Meier on UFO's, imo.

Useless.

I don't even read anything by them anymore if I can help it.

I think I am done here. I am not learning anything new about bigfoot.

* Or anyone.
 
LTC8K6 said:
LAL, when you* have proven that those footprints are from an unknown primate generally referred to as Bigfoot or sasquatch, it will be the end of all of my objections.

Since you can't really even show this, let alone prove it, the tracks don't really mean much to me. To be honest, I actually dismiss them entirely as worthless.

The same goes for the skookum cast.

If I still believed in Bigfoot, I would probably accept these casts. I don't though.

I still haven't made up my mind about the PG film. It sure looks good, and when I was a kid I was awestruck by it.

I do not accept any of the opinions of Krantz, Meldrum, Chilcutt, etc., (basically all of the people you keep quoting) To me, they are just believers who lost their objectivity. It's like quoting Billy Meier on UFO's, imo.

Useless.

I don't even read anything by them anymore if I can help it.

I think I am done here. I am not learning anything new about bigfoot.

* Or anyone.

It's a bit difficult to prove anything on a message board, isn't it? Being able to upload photos is nice, but I can't have you handle actual casts. I wouldn't be able to upload a body, either.

So left me get this straight:
When legitimate scientists investigate and reach conclusions you don't like, you think they've lost their objectivity. Rather than investigate anything they say you're not going to read anything more by them.

I've offered expert opinion on the authenticity of some of the evidence and you drag in Billy Meier. I hope you're not this close-minded in other areas of your life.

I haven't seen a worthwhile contribution from you yet, so if you're done here, I won't be missing much. Saves me the trouble of putting you on ignore, in fact.

Come back when you can successfully debunk the best evidence, or when you've finished high school, whichever comes soonest.
 
Is it possible for the rest of us to debate without sidebars on crop circles and UFO's?

Seems the Cree have continued to investigate in Manitoba. This could have been the chance of the century to get confirmation and instead we get another dropped ball.

Frustrating.
 
LAL said:
There is a very good photo, or rather film, and it amazes me some people can convince themselves it's a man in a suit. The film and tracks from that one event should have settled it close to four decades ago. The Ivory Bill footage is three seconds long, but since we know there were once Ivory Bills, that's sufficient.

There is actually some very good evidence in addition to about a thousand casts of footprints, and several scientists really thought the Skookum Cast should have been conclusive.

If more scientists would actually look into this in an unbiased sort of way, there would be no need for amateurs to organize conferences. I haven't been to one, but I went to the first ever Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Washington. Roy Crowe, Peter Bryne and a fair collection of casts could have made it quite educational, but the mock trial turned it into a fiasco, and little was accomplished besides the selling of Bigfoot burgers. It was organized by a friend, too. His scepticism ruined the day.

If they're a real animal, they can't remain a myth because they never were a myth to begin with and they can't become a real creature because they already are.

There are at least two organizations trying to raise money for the sophisticated photographic equipment required for those really clear photos everyone would like to see. If anyone is interested in helping with this effort, I suggest you buy a T-shirt. ;)

If you are a qualified researcher ready to examine the Skookum Cast, bring the family.

"Since no large creatures except primates have dermal ridges at all, there is no possibility that any animal other than a higher primate could have made the heel imprints. Each species of higher primate has a different pattern, and none has a heel this large. Further, Dr. Meldrum, who is a professor of anatomy, was able to determine the position of the joints for some of the limbs, establishing that the bones were 40 to 50 percent longer than those of a 6-foot human.

The evidence that this imprint was made by a very large, unknown, higher primate is, in my opinion, compelling. I would not anticipate that every qualified person who examines would come to the same conclusion, but I feel sure that the vast majority would have to, whatever their preconceptions."


(John Green)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a qualified scientist or forensic specialist (either active or retired) in any relevant discipline, and you would like an opportunity to examine this cast in Washington State, please contact the BFRO at Cast@bfro.net

Friends or family members, or students of people who are considered qualified, may accompany them to view the cast in person.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp

Well, this seems to get us into the arena of “why” some people won’t accept the evidence that Mr. Green feels is compelling. It’s quite simple really.

1) Bigfoot enthusiasts ask for people to accept *less* evidence than is needed to classify a new insect. This to accept the existence of mega-fauna on the North American Continent.
2) Most people (myself anyway) have no experience with plaster casts, DNA sampling etc so we really can’t judge evidence except by what we can research on our own. DNA evidence alone should settle the matter but there seems to be all this quibble in the background. Most DNA evidence seems to become “indeterminable” or “unknown,” that which is not clearly human, animal or artificial. Photos could be compelling but I’ve never seen a really good photo of these creatures and even if I did, I (knowing something about photographic evidence) would severely question the pedigree(s) of the photos(s). Who took them, what equipment, what were the processing-enhancement steps and so on.
3) The default position for any such determination should be “probably a myth" (but let us see the evidence.)

And a possible addendum; where is Mr. Green coming from (what’s his credentials.) The only thing I’ve found in my not so extensive research is that he was a “newspaper man.” That makes him qualified to analyze plaster casts how?

It’s not that people don’t want to believe, it’s that people really want to know and understand. I could look at a thousand plaster casts, by the end of that time I would know far more about plaster casts than I do now and *maybe* I would be convinced that some mega fauna (other than a fellow human) made the tracks. Since I can’t really do that I have to reserve judgment on any statement based on that kind of evidence, it’s just not compelling to me.
 
LAL said:
Is it possible for the rest of us to debate without sidebars on crop circles and UFO's?

Seems the Cree have continued to investigate in Manitoba. This could have been the chance of the century to get confirmation and instead we get another dropped ball.

Frustrating.

Those things are all related insomuch as enthusiasts would like people to accept *less than* acceptable levels of evidence. Unless and until the people who are evangelizing these kinds of things can produce the same evidence that, say someone with a new type of electronic circuit or a new chemical compound could produce, they are simply not being convincing.

There are people running around screaming that this kind of thinking is closed minded. It seems strange that saying “I don’t know what is in that photo” or “it’s improbable that an alien species traveled millions of miles to crush some farmer’s barley field as a form of communication” is closed minded. To me, saying that there is only one possible conclusion to any problem *is* closed minded.

I don’t know if Bigfoot is a myth or a real animal. I haven’t seen evidence that it’s either. Is that closed minded?
 
The Odd Emperor said:
Well, this seems to get us into the arena of “why” some people won’t accept the evidence that Mr. Green feels is compelling. It’s quite simple really.

1) Bigfoot enthusiasts ask for people to accept *less* evidence than is needed to classify a new insect. This to accept the existence of mega-fauna on the North American Continent.
2) Most people (myself anyway) have no experience with plaster casts, DNA sampling etc so we really can’t judge evidence except by what we can research on our own. DNA evidence alone should settle the matter but there seems to be all this quibble in the background. Most DNA evidence seems to become “indeterminable” or “unknown,” that which is not clearly human, animal or artificial. Photos could be compelling but I’ve never seen a really good photo of these creatures and even if I did, I (knowing something about photographic evidence) would severely question the pedigree(s) of the photos(s). Who took them, what equipment, what were the processing-enhancement steps and so on.
3) The default position for any such determination should be “probably a myth" (but let us see the evidence.)

And a possible addendum; where is Mr. Green coming from (what’s his credentials.) The only thing I’ve found in my not so extensive research is that he was a “newspaper man.” That makes him qualified to analyze plaster casts how?

It’s not that people don’t want to believe, it’s that people really want to know and understand. I could look at a thousand plaster casts, by the end of that time I would know far more about plaster casts than I do now and *maybe* I would be convinced that some mega fauna (other than a fellow human) made the tracks. Since I can’t really do that I have to reserve judgment on any statement based on that kind of evidence, it’s just not compelling to me.

Green bought a newspaper in British Columbia in 1957 and began collecting reports. He actually examined tracks in the Bluff Creek area prior to the Patterson/Gimlin filming. He and Bob Titmus were among the first to conduct any kind of investigation. He's been following this for close to sixty years. He's a very sharp man.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html


Goodall didn't have a PhD in primatology when she started her research, and Fossey never did get hers. ;)


The cast was also examined by Krantz, Meldrum, Sarmiento and Swindler, who reversed thirty years of scepticism after seeing it.
They all have or had PhD's in anatomy and anthropology and two are leading primatologists, Swindler being a giant in the field. Meldrum is an expert in primate locomotion.


See if you can make out the details here.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/images.asp

It's difficult to see much from photos, I know, but the heel is very clear on the LMS DVD as Swindler points out the tendon of Achilles.
The casting medium was Hydrocal B-11. It took 150 pounds to cast the impression.

There are imprints of hair, and some hairs were found embedded in the imprint that do not match elk, coyote, bear, human............
DNA or no, there has been much microscopic examination. The fact that they're not a match for any known animal might indicate they come from an unidentified animal.
They are real hairs.

Have you seen a good copy of the P/G film? Muscles and tendons are evident, the fingers articulate, there are even areas that appear to have sparse hair.

There have been several "man-in-the-suit" claims. None have held up.

"After watching the film many times, I told Patterson about some its technical consistencies that were evident to me. With most of these he already knew what was involved or quickly caught on. But when I talked about some of the more technical details of bio-mechanics, he soon showed the familiar blank look of a student who had lost the drift of the explanation, but was still trying hard to pay attention. Yet he must have known all of these details in order to create the hoax (assuming he knew of a hoax). For instance, he could see the anterior position of the front of the shin, but how that related to foot leverage was quite beyond his understanding. Also he had originally estimated that it weighed only half of what was settled on later, yet all the details were calculated to fit with the greater weight. I think that a hoax is most unlikely on these grounds alone." -Dr. Grover Krantz


Here's the BBC's attempt to duplicate it.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

Even with top make-up men and a lot of money, they didn't come close.

If the "hoax hypothesis" is falsified, what's left?

In Dakota wisdom, if you find you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
 
LAL said:
Have you seen a good copy of the P/G film? Muscles and tendons are evident, the fingers articulate, there are even areas that appear to have sparse hair.
I have never seen a "good" copy of this film. Since the late 60's all I've seen are blurry, grainy, jumpy, out-of-focus versions of this film. If the "good" version is so convincing, why do the Woos insist on hiding it?
 
LAL said:
Green bought a newspaper in British Columbia in 1957 and began collecting reports. He actually examined tracks in the Bluff Creek area prior to the Patterson/Gimlin filming. He and Bob Titmus were among the first to conduct any kind of investigation. He's been following this for close to sixty years. He's a very sharp man.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/jgreen.html


Goodall didn't have a PhD in primatology when she started her research, and Fossey never did get hers. ;)

Dian Fossey? (Sorry, anthropology is not really my ‘thang.) She did get a PhD (not sure in what, it might have been in Occupational Therapy.)

I really do hate this “I studied a phenomena for X many years and that automatically makes me an expert just -cuz.” Getting real credentials doesn’t teach anyone about a subject, it teaches people how to do real research as apposed to crackpot research. Fossey and Goodall did real field work, lots of it. They got degrees and wrote papers. I’m much more impressed with these people than someone who just had an interest, wrote a book and now thinks he or she is the end all of the subject. The hoops you have to jump through to get academic standing are there for a purpose and when people short circuit them they don’t do themselves any favors.

LAL said:

Here's the BBC's attempt to duplicate it.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

Even with top make-up men and a lot of money, they didn't come close.

If the "hoax hypothesis" is falsified, what's left?

In Dakota wisdom, if you find you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

(Big heavy sigh)

That’s not how it works. You can never completely falsify the hoax hypothesis. Even if Pattie the Bigfoot is interviewed on Larry King -- tells him that she was the one in the film, there will still be some possibility that it was a guy in a suit. It’s almost impossible to prove or disprove anything from a piece of video.

(I hate to bring this up again but,) People disbelieve the Apollo landings and they have thousands of feet of high quality movies-- and just about any media available at the time. Plus physical evidence, plus eye witness testimony from tens of thousands of people involved, plus hardware. You can’t tell me that I’m being too skeptical because I reserve judgment over a smidgen of blurry film.

I remember that BBC piece and I don’t believe they attempted to duplicate the P/G film, they simply used similar equipment and made a known “fake” to be used as a baseline. Besides, that was not a scientific attempt to do anything except get viewers to watch, I never understood why this is dangled out from time to time as evidence to prove the P/G film was real. It doesn’t really prove anything.

One thing they (I believe) pointed out is how close Patterson actually was to his subject, like about one hundred feet away, almost close enough to spit on it. That part alone makes me wonder about the veracity of that piece of evidence. Not to mention the strange lack of investigation of basic stuff like how tall was the figure etc.

No; the whole thing is skewed. You really want to prove Bigfoot is a real animal not prove skeptics don’t understand what you are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom