Merged Bigfoot follies

[Skeptical Greg]

Appealing to authority, includes the referencing of credentialed persons, in an effort to support your position, when the named person has not done any work that supports your position.

Again, I am not going to count the times you have done this..

It's really sad, that it is the best you have to offer.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll find the post. I saw it yesterday. The BFRO said "bits".

I already quoted the BFRO. Here it is again, straight from the BFRO and my earlier post:

Light coyote tracks are observed on the surface of the rump and thigh of the body print, suggesting that coyotes arrived sometime after the Sasquatch left or were kept at bay during the primate visit. A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core.

It's not my fault if the BFRO can't keep their versions straight.

I already have that link. I posted it on another board over a year ago. I thought you had something new.

The Karl Amman link has a winter 2004 update, that is only a few months ago.

It's "LeRoy". They got it right.

It's most commonly just Fish at the BFRO pages I have visited. I guess "Dr. Fish" was too funny.

All I've seen is your opinion, a number of false assumptions and no evidence of any kind. I doubt the leaders of the team would care much about your distain; they're used to swatting flies.

I should give someone else's opinions? I assume there is no bigfoot, as I should. No evidence is necessary on my part. Merely pointing out the possibility of a hoax is sufficient with the sort of evidence presented in favor of bigfoot.

I note the resort to the personal attack again...... sigh......

 

[LAL]

Appealing to authority, includes the referencing of credentialed persons, in an effort to support your position, when the named person has not done any work that supports your position.

Again, I am not going to count the times you have done this..

It's really sad, that it is the best you have to offer.

Daris Swindler didn't do any work? Esteban Sarmiento didn't do any work? They are leading primatologists and you just disregard them. Even if that were all I have to offer, it's far more than I've seen from you

 

[LAL]

I already quoted the BFRO. Here it is again, straight from the BFRO and my earlier post:

Light coyote tracks are observed on the surface of the rump and thigh of the body print, suggesting that coyotes arrived sometime after the Sasquatch left or were kept at bay during the primate visit. A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool, indicating there may have been more than one Sasquatch present or a single individual could have moved. It is noted that an elk, deer, coyote, etc., would probably have eaten the entire apple and not spewed out the seeds or core.

It's not my fault if the BFRO can't keep their versions straight.

I don't bother with the synopsis, only the field notes, but it does say "apple", not "fruit". There were several types used in the various bait traps. I don't see any discrepancy there.
Tooth marks are not likely to be found on "bits".

The Karl Amman link has a winter 2004 update, that is only a few months ago.

I didn't read that far. I just skimmed the site enough to know it was the same one. I've posted it several times, beginning when an IDer, of all people, instant messaged me about the "Mystery Apes" about a year and a half ago.
I was expecting a big new article, such as the one in Time. I may be able to find the issue at the library.

It's most commonly just Fish at the BFRO pages I have visited. I guess "Dr. Fish" was too funny.

He should have changed his name.

I should give someone else's opinions? I assume there is no bigfoot, as I should. No evidence is necessary on my part. Merely pointing out the possibility of a hoax is sufficient with the sort of evidence presented in favor of bigfoot.

Oh, nonsense.

"Humalin was developed using the theory of evolution. It works for diabetics better than insulin from pigs."
"Could have been a hoax. ID/Creationism should be taught as alternative theories."
"Okay. Take it off the market."

Possibility of a hoax is one of the first things researchers look for, and sometimes they disagree. Heard of the Redwoods Video?

Saying something could have been hoaxed is no proof that it was.

"Bigfooters" are held to the highest standards of evidence while sceptics get to scoff and call names and produce no evidence at all. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Why not start from a neutral position and see what the evidence really suggests?

I note the resort to the personal attack again...... sigh......

Must be rubbing off. It seems to be the preferred style of debate around here.

Maybe if I do it enough, I'll fit in. Whaddya think?

Actually, I was rather irritated with your "distain" for the team. Noll has thirty years experience in this. Dr. Fish was a trained zoologist. Three experts in primatology and an anthropologist pronounced the cast authentic after it was cleaned and examined. And, for at least the third time, elk was ruled out.

You seem to be saying they found an elk print and then planted "artificially chewed" fruit (Cullinart?) in an attempt to fool a few lame-brained PhD's with years of experience and undisputed expertise. Are you aware of how absurd that sounds?

Evidently you've never seen the cast or even a close-up picture of the heel print, but you think you're qualified to state it's the imprint of an elk.

Try again.

 

[LAL]

They can't say that a bigfoot didn't chew the fruit because that blows their reasoning for the skookum cast.

This post by you follows the one by Diogenes about "chewed fruit".

 

[LAL]

Again, we have one of your reputable Scientists, talking about how important this is; just not important enough to spend their own time on it.

Ah, but Meldrum has, and before Meldrum, Dr. Krantz spent years on it while carrying on his duties at Washington State and after his retirement. I posted a link to Dr. Meldrum's page at Idaho State. Did you bother to click on it? It clearly states his interest.

While you're counting how many times I've "name-dropped" - 'scuse me, not counting how many times I've "name-dropped"- why don't you try reading my posts and some of the articles I've posted? There's quite a bit of information there, in between the names.

 

[LAL]

Was this what the reference to Freeman was about?

http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Bigfoot.shtml.

Did anyone read the ending?

"Yet the idea that such creatures, whether relic hominids or great apes, share the North American continent with us is indeed a fantastic one. One does not have to be a rigid, unbending dogmatist to resist it in the absence of a body or living specimen. This sort of skepticism, eminently defensible, is one thing, dogmatic denial quite another. In the meantime it seems safe to say that if the forests of the Northwest do harbor these extraordinary animals, they cannot remain hidden from us forever."

Meldrum has pointed out that the very characteristics that led Joel Hardin to think the 1982 tracks were faked are the characteristics that indicate their authenticity. I'll try to dig up more on that.

The fake feet Freeman referred to on Good Morning America were to pull a prank on the neighbors in Camus, Wa. That had nothing to do with his sighting or any later events. Dahinden thought he found dermal ridges under grass, indicating fakery. He had no use for Freeman, but he never said there was a left, then a left.

Poor Paul. After devoting the rest of his life (after his sighting) to proving he wasn't a kook, he's now called a fraud, even in death, even by kids on Bigfoot boards.

"Lately Krantz has been receiving criticism from the other side. Several Bigfoot investigation groups insist that one of his main suppliers of Bigfoot footprint casts-Paul Freeman, a lone-wolf investigator in Walla Walla, Washington-is a hoaxer. Before meeting Krantz, I drove into Walla Walla, at the foot of the Blue Mountains, to see Freeman's evidence first hand. When I arrived at Freeman's house, he was having a yard sale. In 1989, Freeman was fired from the forest service for talking too much about Bigfoot, and he has supported himself since with frequent yard sales, part-time managing of a mobile home park, and the occasional Bigfoot presentation at local malls. He and his family have had to move several times, because of ridicule. He has also suffered physically, and, a few years ago, broke the arch in his foot while hunting in the woods. Last April, he managed to videotape one of his sightings, though the tape was blurry, because in the excitement he forgot to push the zoom button. When I last spoke with him, he was waiting to hear from Scotland Yard about some hair and feces samples he had sent them and to have the video tape computer enhanced. In its current state, the video mostly shows-except for a tiny blur at the dark edge of a clearing-the floor of Freeman's truck as he wrestles with the door; on the sound track Freeman, out of breath, whispers, "Goddamn, there it is! I've been waiting for this son of a bitch! This is it for sure!"

In his garage, Freeman showed me the dozens of footprint casts and odoriferous hair samples that he keeps on hand. (He keeps the remainder of his collection in various rented storage spaces throughout the Walla Walla area.) He also showed me two life-size Sasquatch replicas he had a sculptor at nearby Whitman College build to his specifications. "The lady who made them, she put the wrong eyes in it, but I'm having new ones made," Freeman said. The female had noticeably large breasts, just like the female in the Patterson film, and she was roughly Freeman's size. "You could fall in love with her," he said.

During the garage sale, we discussed the competition among Bigfoot experts. "I'll tell you, it's impossible to prove by yourself anyway, but the people looking are cutting each other's throats," he said. "I always wonder, Why can't we work together? I mean, we're a special little group of people, all of us trying to prove this animal exists. Myself, I just keep plugging along, figuring I might get some real good video someday, but I don't have to prove anything to anybody. My son's seen it, so now we just live with it, though I guess I'd love to see the thing protected. It's one of the greatest mysteries in the world and I'm just glad to be a part of it." "

http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v1n3-sullivan.php

And:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/wallawalla.htm

And:

http://s95210438.onlinehome.us/bigfoot/articles/forslund.htm

And:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/freemanobit.htm

 

[LAL]

This was the post I was thinking of, Bill, where you used the term "chewed fruit". That was before we got sidetracked on who has the latest info on Bili Apes.

As far as I can tell from the story of the skookum cast, there was plenty of time for people to artificially chew the fruit that was left as bait. Naturally, no one would be stupid enough to leave human DNA on the fruit, knowing it would be tested
As far as I can tell from the story of the skookum cast, there was plenty of time for people to artificially chew the fruit that was left as bait. Naturally, no one would be stupid enough to leave human DNA on the fruit, knowing it would be tested.

What happened to that fruit, anyway? What about teeth marks? What kind of teeth marks were on it? Note that there was a second pile of chewed fruit at the same mud pool. What happened to it? BFRO said it may indicate the presence of a second bigfoot, who presumably did not sit in the mud. (Who also managed to leave no tracks )

The BFRO didn't say that. You did.

They also said the animal may have moved. Again, tracks of any kind don't tend to show because of the ground cover. Ever seen the moss? It's thick and spongy and springy and there's usually rock beneath it. The hard thing would be to leave tracks, not to have them not show.

 

[casebro]

Re: hair+mtdna, etc

Having just completed reading this whole thread, and not seeing any citations re; hair dna newer than 1999, I though I'd look for newer tests. I just googled for 'hair mtdna' and came up with about a bazillion sites. Now I have to wonder why some bonafide cryptozoologist hasn't had some samples tested recently. Same goes for scat samples. I think there are 7 different human mtdna's, tests would eliminate them. leaving a new species ? Soo, does absence of testing equal absence of confidence? If you know your hair samples are from your uncle's John Deer hat......

Would genetic test results qualify for Randi's challenge?

 

[LTC8K6]

Are you really objecting to my paraphrase with the word fruit instead of the word apple? Aren't apples fruit?

The BFRO:

A second pile of chewed up apple

LTC8K6:

a second pile of chewed fruit

Yes, the elk may have moved over to one of the BFRO's other piles of fruit and chewed up some of it.

I don't see where any of these bigfoot believers ever seriously considered how to hoax what they saw, except for the P/G film.

"No one could do that.", or "No one would do that.", seems to be the sum total of their examinations of the possibility of hoaxing much of the evidence.

I have suggested several ways to hoax several things about bigfoot. I pretty nearly begged you to try to think of how you might do some of the things. You acted as if you had no clue and no one else would either. You seemed bewildered by the whole concept of hoaxing.

Why not start from a neutral position and see what the evidence really suggests?

Anybody who started in neutral should still be stuck there as far as bigfoot is concerned.

Ever seen the moss?

Golly no! Why, I've never even seen a tree, let alone moss...... What is it?

An 800 pound bigfoot should certainly disturb moss as it pushed off with each step. The thin layer of moss should easily be disturbed and/or damaged. Moss should show tracks of bigfoot pretty well. Unless he tip toed, of course.

 

[Gorillagator]

I saw that program as well. Yes, they recreated a crop circle, not quite the same as "hoaxing." And while they did it with a microwave's magnetron, it was scary, and dangerous, and a hassle to lug all the equipment around. To think that crop circle hoaxers are running around the globe with this kind of equipment, just for a lark and to fool people, is as ridiculous as thinking aliens are the cause of it all.

* No doubt*

While BF hoaxes abound, to suggest that because of that, there is not BF, is ridiculous.

* Again I agree . Hoaxes do not put the entire subject to rest because it is unlikely that hoaxers have been having fun all over the planet for hundreds of years.No matter anyone's expertise nobody knows evrything. Just the smallest chance that such a creature might exist, given much evidence that it might, should cause serious minded scientists to pursue the subject with some decorum and either substantiate the reports or put them to rest. Funding such a scientific expedition wouldn't cost much and just might be the discovery of the century. It's worth a shot in my opinion, but amateurs and those with narrow minds have put a bit of a clamp on the subjecy due to fear of ridicule. Fortunately such excellent field scientists as Shaller and Goodall have suggested that science put some efort into researching this subject.. I find their attitudes refreshing and pertinent.*

 

[LAL]

Are you really objecting to my paraphrase with the word fruit instead of the word apple? Aren't apples fruit?


Yes, the elk may have moved over to one of the BFRO's other piles of fruit and chewed up some of it.

The difference is that it was not a pile of fruit that had been chewed, is was a pile of bits from an apple. The elk would have taken the apple and eaten it whole. Elk are diurnal, BTW. If an elk was responsible, why weren't there elk tracks leading to the fruit bait in the middle of the wallow?

I don't see where any of these bigfoot believers ever seriously considered how to hoax what they saw, except for the P/G film.

I've mentioned Meldrum exposed the Snow Walker hoax, and that one was professional. Did you check out the strange story of the Redwoods film? Dahinden was always wary of hoaxes as has been noted. He did a great deal of investigation (it cost him his marriage) and earned a living collecting shot so that he could have plenty of time for investigation.

I don't see where you know enough about this to know what investigators do.

"No one could do that.", or "No one would do that.", seems to be the sum total of their examinations of the possibility of hoaxing much of the evidence.

Wooden feet show grain. The toe positions don't vary. Anyone running around in a gorilla suit risks getting shot, but nevertheless there've been a few cases of that. In one the hoaxers (four college students) came forward, in another (two teenagers) the law caught them.

In the case of the four, they made a track, took a mold from it and made more with the mold.

Tracks that are considered authentic have marks of articulating toes, and sometimes great detail, such as sweat pores and ridges worn down in the places that take the most weight.

I have suggested several ways to hoax several things about bigfoot. I pretty nearly begged you to try to think of how you might do some of the things. You acted as if you had no clue and no one else would either. You seemed bewildered by the whole concept of hoaxing.

I'm bewildered by your willingness to accept a wholly made-up hoax scenario, no matter how improbable.

I've asked you a number of questions you've never answered, such as how many on the BFRO roster were involved in this "misidentification" and "artificial chewing". You had Dr. Fish gone for an hour when he was gone for minutes. He was with Randle , was he not? Was Randle in on this too?


How is it that experts in primatology could fail to notice these elk knee prints that you so clearly see? Aren't you the one who said you couldn't see anything on the cast unless it was pointed out to you?

You're starting from a position of bias and twisteing the facts to fit this preconception. I'm considering your hoax hypothesis. I'd like you to consider reality.

Anybody who started in neutral should still be stuck there as far as bigfoot is concerned.

??????????????

Golly no! Why, I've never even seen a tree, let alone moss...... What is it?

An 800 pound bigfoot should certainly disturb moss as it pushed off with each step. The thin layer of moss should easily be disturbed and/or damaged. Moss should show tracks of bigfoot pretty well. Unless he tip toed, of course.

Club moss doesn't grow in a "thin layer". It tends to spring back.
You've answered my question. You've never seen club moss.
Again, the gait is compliant. They don't push off the way humans do.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Has anyone ever tried to track Bigfoot with Bloodhounds ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Club moss doesn't grow in a "thin layer". It tends to spring back.
You've answered my question. You've never seen club moss.
Again, the gait is compliant. They don't push off the way humans do.

Whether they push like humans or not is irrelevant. Forward motion involves pushing.

Whether the moss springs back or not, it is hard to believe it would not be damaged by being stepped on by an 800 lb creature.

 

[Hitch]

The difference is that it was not a pile of fruit that had been chewed, is was a pile of bits from an apple. The elk would have taken the apple and eaten it whole. Elk are diurnal, BTW. If an elk was responsible, why weren't there elk tracks leading to the fruit bait in the middle of the wallow?

Ooh ooh! I know the answer to this one!

For the same reason there were no Bigfoot tracks.

What do I win?

 

[Steve]

Whether they push like humans or not is irrelevant. Forward motion involves pushing.

Whether the moss springs back or not, it is hard to believe it would not be damaged by being stepped on by an 800 lb creature.

I agree. My front lawn is more moss than grass (due to lax gardening on my part). I regularly push our 6 month old baby across this "lawn" in his stroller. The tracks we make are always easily discernable the next day and usually for much longer than 1 day. Our total weight is considerably less than 800lb.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

* Again I agree . Hoaxes do not put the entire subject to rest because it is unlikely that hoaxers have been having fun all over the planet for hundreds of years.No matter anyone's expertise nobody knows evrything. Just the smallest chance that such a creature might exist, given much evidence that it might, should cause serious minded scientists to pursue the subject with some decorum and either substantiate the reports or put them to rest. Funding such a scientific expedition wouldn't cost much and just might be the discovery of the century. It's worth a shot in my opinion, but amateurs and those with narrow minds have put a bit of a clamp on the subjecy due to fear of ridicule. Fortunately such excellent field scientists as Shaller and Goodall have suggested that science put some efort into researching this subject.. I find their attitudes refreshing and pertinent.*

Hey great! Let me know how much you plan to donate and we can get such a thing started.

As it has been abundantly demonstrated, expeditions have never brought back anything conclusive—only weak evidence that gets touted as proof.

Amateurs are not making the subject ridicules, the “experts” are doing so by systematically attempting to classify a new mammal without providing the evidence it would take to classify a new bug. I agree that people should keep an open mind but *making* one’s mind up before all the data is in cannot be a good example.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As has been mentioned before.. When has ' fear of ridicule ' ever stopped a serious scientist, from pursuing what they believed to be a worthwhile line of inquiry ?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

As has been mentioned before.. When has ' fear of ridicule ' ever stopped a serious scientist, from pursuing what they believed to be a worthwhile line of inquiry ?

…Never. Things which have stopped serious scientific enquiry are lack of funding and religious intolerance (like in the Middle Ages.)

Where ridicule really stings is when people know and understand that their stance is pseudoscientific. Where it has its greatest effect is where people systematically attempt to deceive. Ridicule can plant a spotlight on people, call attention to their deceptions and the more they attempt to shut a scoffer up the more questionable their own position becomes.

 

[LAL]

Has anyone ever tried to track Bigfoot with Bloodhounds ?

I don't know if they were Bloodhounds, but dogs have been used.