Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavoMan said:


I hate the whole 'I bet ya couldnt fake that!' argument. Its a rather big assumption. Also its somewhat of an insult to holywood special effects guys eh? :p

Not in 1967. John Chambers (Planet of the Apes) said he wished he had the skill.
He's dead now, BTW.
 
Yeah, and now that Chambers is dead both sides can make up whatever crap about him they want to say. You got skeptics saying he claimed to have faked the Patterson footage and you got believers saying that he said it was real. Blah blah blah ... point is I don't know what Chambers believed.

turtle, let's get back on topic here, I'm tired of arguing about what you think I said about you personally, your emotions and how mean and ignorant you think I am. That's not the topic.

Regarding:

1. (hair). Please reference the hair evidence that you think proves the existence of bigfoot and we'll debate. I would contend that no hair evidence found so far relating to bigfoot specifically can conclusively prove its existence.

2. (photos). We pretty much agree here, I think. Some of it's interesting but most of it is bunk.

3. (footprints). Just because you think it can't be faked doesn't mean it can't. Just because you think it would be too hard to make an enlarged latex copy of a human foot using foam latex, plaster casts and alcohol soaking, then later using a small amount of knowledge about dermal ridges to make some interesting patterns that match neither a human nor an ape (easier to do than creating a unique imprint identifiable as human or ape from scratch), doesn't mean it hasn't been done. It has. If I can find the tape, I'll dig up the name of the program I saw that demonstrated this, and I'll see if I can find some other references on how to do this. (anyone who knows what show I am talking about feel free to chime in). The point is that footprints can be faked. Just because you don't think it's easy doesn't mean it isn't possible, because it's a matter of record that it has been done (your breakfast habits aside). Footprints, complete with dermal ridges, ARE HOAXABLE and don't constitute sufficient evidence for anyone who understands how they are hoaxed, for the same reasons that photographs are not good evidence - anyone who knows how to fake them knows that they can be faked.
 
LAL said:
Of course, you don't remember who this "Bigfoot expert" was?

Thirty years ago Dr. Meldrum hadn't examined tracks in situ on two occasions. He was impressed with the midtarsal bend.
Note the half tracks:

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

Jimmy Chilcutt found half a dozen of the casts in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges, which are neither human nor ape.

Then there's the opinion of the country's foremost primate anatomist that the Skookum imprint was made by an unidentified North American hominid primate, and this after 30 years of scepticism. (Dr. Daris Swindler was usually the obligatory sceptical scientist in the TV shows.)

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the "true unbelievers" to accept that there's any evidence at all.

Midtarsal bend, eh? Huh, almost seems like bigfoot's foot is made out of .... latex. Could be, eh?

What do you think is more likely, an unknown, very large upright primate that happens to have feet that bend like rubber or some hoaxer with a rubber foot mold?

Why do some people always seem to think the least likely explanation is the right one?
 
Red Siegfried said:
Yeah, and now that Chambers is dead both sides can make up whatever crap about him they want to say. You got skeptics saying he claimed to have faked the Patterson footage and you got believers saying that he said it was real. Blah blah blah ... point is I don't know what Chambers believed.

I don't know of any claims from him about faking the footage.

"The North American Science Institute claims it has spent over $100,000 to prove the film is of a genuine Bigfoot. However, according to veteran Hollywood director John Landis, “that famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers,” who helped create the ape suits in Planet of the Apes (1968). Howard Berger, of Hollywood’s KNB Effects Group, also has claimed that it was common knowledge within the film industry that Chambers was responsible for a hoax that turned Bigfoot into a worldwide cult. "

http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

Rumors aren't evidence.
Patterson couldn't have afforded him, in any event.
 
LAL said:
I don't know of any claims from him about faking the footage.

"The North American Science Institute claims it has spent over $100,000 to prove the film is of a genuine Bigfoot. However, according to veteran Hollywood director John Landis, “that famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers,” who helped create the ape suits in Planet of the Apes (1968). Howard Berger, of Hollywood’s KNB Effects Group, also has claimed that it was common knowledge within the film industry that Chambers was responsible for a hoax that turned Bigfoot into a worldwide cult. "

http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html

Rumors aren't evidence.
Patterson couldn't have afforded him, in any event.

Yeah, do a search on Google for "Chambers faked bigfoot" and you'll see a dozen references to him having faked the footage, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence he did so other than rumors and hearsay and a lot of stories about what Landis said about it.

As far as I know Chambers never said anything about the subject of faking bigfoot. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Landis? Well, he can say Chambers did it but now that Chambers is dead, we need some evidence other than his word. He might have been able to do it, sure, but we don't know.

Reading that you'd think I was a believer. It also really bugged me when I read all the "Bigfoot is dead" stories relating to the death of Ray Wallace. One confirmed hoaxer dies and everyone seems to think "mystery solved." Far from it.

I just think that as bad as the evidence for bigfoot is, claiming it's all a hoax because Wallace was a confirmed hoaxer is not how science is done. I happen to think it is all a hoax, but for other reasons, not just because one guy hoaxed something. Plus I'm open to changing my mind if better evidence comes along.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Midtarsal bend, eh? Huh, almost seems like bigfoot's foot is made out of .... latex. Could be, eh?

What do you think is more likely, an unknown, very large upright primate that happens to have feet that bend like rubber or some hoaxer with a rubber foot mold?

Why do some people always seem to think the least likely explanation is the right one?

I used to live in Skamania County, Washington. First year I was in the area a double trackway in snow was found above a cabin north of Carson. Those tracks went up inclines the film crews had to climb like "two machines". They were followed for seven miles before they were lost in forest. I knew people who were in on those investigations, including the Cox sighting in the same month.
There's no way a pair of hoaxers were running around with latex feet in the heaviest snowpack in 85 years.
There are many, many reports of tracks in remote areas where the discoverers themselves didn't know where they were going.
Remember stride length and depth of impression, too.
John Green weighted himself down with 250 pounds and still couldn't impress as deeply as the '67 Bluff Creek tracks he examined after the Patterson incident.
There have been a couple of incidents (Rant Mullens and Ray Wallace, e.g.) where someone made tracks with carved wooden feet (that don't match any "real" tracks, BTW), but where's the documentation on anyone using latex with dermal ridges?
 
Red Siegfried said:
I'll definitely let you all know if someone ever comes up with some evidence that makes me reconsider that stance. I think that would be limited to a live specimen, identifiable remains, or identifiable DNA.

A carcass would be pretty convincing, but I'm incredibly reluctant to call for one to be produced. Consider: If the thing actually exists, it is incredibly rare and, despite sensationalist accounts, extremely shy and inoffensive. The total lack of verifiable sightings, would seem to attest to both its rarity and its bashfulness (again, this assumes its actual existance). It may be so rare that taking one alive, thereby removing it from the gene pool, could endanger the rest of the species. That it has so successfully avoided human contact could mean a bashfulness so severe that the shock of capture would kill it.

If any of this is even partly true, what would be the moral justification for hunting it, no matter whether to capture or kill? For that matter, what would be the pragmatic justification?
 
Red Siegfried said:
Yeah, do a search on Google for "Chambers faked bigfoot" and you'll see a dozen references to him having faked the footage, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence he did so other than rumors and hearsay and a lot of stories about what Landis said about it.

As far as I know Chambers never said anything about the subject of faking bigfoot. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Landis? Well, he can say Chambers did it but now that Chambers is dead, we need some evidence other than his word. He might have been able to do it, sure, but we don't know.

Reading that you'd think I was a believer. It also really bugged me when I read all the "Bigfoot is dead" stories relating to the death of Ray Wallace. One confirmed hoaxer dies and everyone seems to think "mystery solved." Far from it.

I just think that as bad as the evidence for bigfoot is, claiming it's all a hoax because Wallace was a confirmed hoaxer is not how science is done. I happen to think it is all a hoax, but for other reasons, not just because one guy hoaxed something. Plus I'm open to changing my mind if better evidence comes along.

There's really some very good evidence. It's unfortunate it doesn't get the attention frauds like Bob Heironimus and Ray Wallace got.
Wallace's family did the claiming for him. Green was on to him for years.
How anyone could confuse this with the Patterson evidence is beyond me:


http://www.bigfootresearch.org/Bigfoot_ray wallace.htm
 
LAL said:
I used to live in Skamania County, Washington. First year I was in the area a double trackway in snow was found above a cabin north of Carson. Those tracks went up inclines the film crews had to climb like "two machines". They were followed for seven miles before they were lost in forest. I knew people who were in on those investigations, including the Cox sighting in the same month.
There's no way a pair of hoaxers were running around with latex feet in the heaviest snowpack in 85 years.


Sorry, anecdotes aren't good evidence. Sure wish you could have recorded that event in some way, that would have been very interesting to witness.

There are many, many reports of tracks in remote areas where the discoverers themselves didn't know where they were going.


Once again, anecdotes aren't evidence. We need some documentary evidence, preferably detailed casts before we can consider these as evidence of any kind.

Remember stride length and depth of impression, too.
John Green weighted himself down with 250 pounds and still couldn't impress as deeply as the '67 Bluff Creek tracks he examined after the Patterson incident.


How long after the incident was that? There are many ways to create an increased stride length. Small stilts, walking very fast, leaping slightly while running. I admit those are kind of weak assertions since I don't have any evidence they happened. As for track depth, could you reference that somewhere? I'd like to read more about that. I'm not questioning your veracity or anything like that, but I need to know more about the circumstances of the measurements before I trust their accuracy. Why should I take John Green's word for the depth of prints and length of strides without some kind of evidence other than his word? Sure, testimony is a form of evidence, but we really need more than that.

There have been a couple of incidents (Rant Mullens and Ray Wallace, e.g.) where someone made tracks with carved wooden feet (that don't match any "real" tracks, BTW), but where's the documentation on anyone using latex with dermal ridges?

I'll find the reference on how a latex footprint with dermal ridges can be manufactured. I don't have access to it right now because I'm not at home. As for where the proof is that someone actually did it, I don't have any, but the photos you linked to seem like the start of good evidence to me ...
 
LAL said:
Of course, Chimpanzees and Australopithecines have (or had) the same midtarsal bend. Homo doesn't.

Do you think the Laetoli trackway was made by latex feet?
Check this out:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n1a5.php

Sorry, not falling for that trick. Just because you can find one instance where a midtarsel bend is obviously not a fake because it is well documented fossil evidence does not mean that alleged bigfoot tracks with a similar characteristic are real. That is most illogical, Captain. And that goes both ways, too, for the kids out there who still need to take a logic class: just because I may be able to prove that one set of prints with a midtarsal bend is fake does not mean they all are, as evidenced by LAL.

It still stands that one possible explanation for bigfoot prints with midtarsal bends and dermal ridges is that they are latex molds. And don't try any sneaky implying that I'm saying that this is the end-all-be-all of explanations for bigfoot tracks. I'm not. It's just one possible explanation, but it's a much more probable explanation than positing a giant unknown primate.

I'd also like to clarify a point about latex foot mold. Sure, the latex feet can be worn and used to make footprints themselves but that couldn't explain all footprints given that latex has a certain coefficient of restitution and earth has a certain compressibility depending on the terrain. I was originally putting forth the hypothesis that the latex molds can be an intermediary step in the manufacture of plaster or even plastic feet, which are in turn used to make the footprint.

The idea is you take an impression of a foot, make a plaster impression, cover that in latex then soak the latex in alcohol so it will enlarge, then repeat the process with plaster again until you get the size you want.

These are just possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mysteries we will examine. :)
 
Beady said:
A carcass would be pretty convincing, but I'm incredibly reluctant to call for one to be produced. Consider: If the thing actually exists, it is incredibly rare and, despite sensationalist accounts, extremely shy and inoffensive. The total lack of verifiable sightings, would seem to attest to both its rarity and its bashfulness (again, this assumes its actual existance). It may be so rare that taking one alive, thereby removing it from the gene pool, could endanger the rest of the species. That it has so successfully avoided human contact could mean a bashfulness so severe that the shock of capture would kill it.

If any of this is even partly true, what would be the moral justification for hunting it, no matter whether to capture or kill? For that matter, what would be the pragmatic justification?

My opinion on this is that it would be worth it to kill one just to prove it exists. Once we can prove that it exists, we can convince people to take measures to protect it. Of course, a live specimen would be preferable.

If it were so rare that taking one from the gene pool would doom the entire species, I got news for you, it's doomed anyway. If we take one we at least have a chance to preseve the genetic code.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Sorry, anecdotes aren't good evidence. Sure wish you could have recorded that event in some way, that would have been very interesting to witness.


Those were the two incidents that really got my attention.
I found out about the Cox sighting from the front page of the Columbian (Vancouver, Wa.) in 1969. The incident is in the BFRO database. I met one of the deputies in on that one later. He said the sheriff had as cast on his desk for years. I didn't get to see it. He described the evidence from tracks that showed it stepped up an 8' bank. Neither bear nor the local practical joker could have accomplished that.
The double trackway was filmed by Columbian crews. I saw Ed McClarney, who was was the photographer for the Skamania County Pioneer at the time, on a documentary movie. I asked him about it when he was a county commissioner. He and Roy Craft, who owned the paper called in the Columbian. I don't know what happened to the film.
There was a report some years later by five DNR workers who saw a pair crossing a meadow.
And the Skookum Cast was taken in the Gifford Pinchot in, guess where, Skamania County.
Practically everyone I knew in Stevenson had seen one or knew someone who had. They did not want to talk about it.
And no, they didn't want to drum up a tourist trade. The community was anti-tourism. They finally got it via the Scenic Act, but it took an act of Congress.
Dr. Meldrum has over 100 footprint casts in his collection, open for examination by serious investigators.


Once again, anecdotes aren't evidence. We need some documentary evidence, preferably detailed casts before we can consider these as evidence of any kind.

This is pretty detailed, right down to the testicals.



http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/




How long after the incident was that?

A few days, as I recall. It had rained in the meantime, but the tracks were still there.

There are many ways to create an increased stride length. Small stilts, walking very fast, leaping slightly while running. I admit those are kind of weak assertions since I don't have any evidence they happened. As for track depth, could you reference that somewhere? I'd like to read more about that.

Green 1978.
See articles below; it's in the second one.


I'm not questioning your veracity or anything like that, but I need to know more about the circumstances of the measurements before I trust their accuracy. Why should I take John Green's word for the depth of prints and length of strides without some kind of evidence other than his word? Sure, testimony is a form of evidence, but we really need more than that.

Because he was there, as was experienced tracker Bob Titmus. And casts, photos and measurements were taken. Dahinden took on the role of sceptic and thoroughly checked out Patterson and Gimlin.

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

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_prints.html


I'll find the reference on how a latex footprint with dermal ridges can be manufactured. I don't have access to it right now because I'm not at home.


I think I've seen it. Involves soaking latex in alcohol to expand it?
I've seen a refutation too.

As for where the proof is that someone actually did it, I don't have any, but the photos you linked to seem like the start of good evidence to me ...

Here's some rather good evidence Bob Heironimus isn't the "guy in the suit".
He's on the right in a Morris suit built for the "reenactment":

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1106773688.jpg
 
Red Siegfried said:
Sorry, not falling for that trick. Just because you can find one instance where a midtarsel bend is obviously not a fake because it is well documented fossil evidence does not mean that alleged bigfoot tracks with a similar characteristic are real. That is most illogical, Captain. And that goes both ways, too, for the kids out there who still need to take a logic class: just because I may be able to prove that one set of prints with a midtarsal bend is fake does not mean they all are, as evidenced by LAL.



Trick? It's a possible morphologic relationship. Meldrum is an expert on primate locomotion, BTW.
Just got through with the logic guys on another board. One resorted to quote-mining, another to a false analogy, one to arguments from incredulity and one called me a pathetic loser and put me on filter.
I don't think logic is a very useful tool here, actually.
Jane Goodall and George Schaller think funding should be made available for further research and I agree.


It still stands that one possible explanation for bigfoot prints with midtarsal bends and dermal ridges is that they are latex molds. And don't try any sneaky implying that I'm saying that this is the end-all-be-all of explanations for bigfoot tracks. I'm not. It's just one possible explanation, but it's a much more probable explanation than positing a giant unknown primate.



If it were a new species of mouse would there be all this flap?
I don't think latex molds are reasonable as an explanation for trackways that go on for any distance with a stride that's beyond human reach. I've seen unpublished photos of a trackway in snow in Oregon with deputies for scale. Latex or no, not possible without a helicopter or other airlifting device that was not seen and left no trace.
I think a breeding population of an unidentified hominid primate living in the incredibly dense forests of the PNW and a few other places on the continent (one compelling print is from near Elkins Creek, Ga) is a much more plausible explanation than the idea it's all done by hoaxers, especially without evidence that this is so.
The bell curve plotted from sightings indicates a normal population rather than random hoaxes.

I'd also like to clarify a point about latex foot mold. Sure, the latex feet can be worn and used to make footprints themselves but that couldn't explain all footprints given that latex has a certain coefficient of restitution and earth has a certain compressibility depending on the terrain. I was originally putting forth the hypothesis that the latex molds can be an intermediary step in the manufacture of plaster or even plastic feet, which are in turn used to make the footprint.

The idea is you take an impression of a foot, make a plaster impression, cover that in latex then soak the latex in alcohol so it will enlarge, then repeat the process with plaster again until you get the size you want.

These are just possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones to the mysteries we will examine. :)


I certainly hope not. ;)
BWT, I have copies of the only surviving casts from the Bossburg incident. Plastic wasn't really big in 1969. The right foot shows a condition consistant with metatarsus adductus.
I caused quite a stir when I took it to Lowe's trying to find a plate hanger to fit.
 
Red Siegfried said:
Yturtle, let's get back on topic here, I'm tired of arguing about what you think I said about you personally, your emotions and how mean and ignorant you think I am. That's not the topic.


Correct , it's not the topic. I will remind you of the facts: you started it, I didn't call you mean, or, ignorant. I also know what you said, since it is in black and white on the forum. No worries!

Regarding:

1. (hair). Please reference the hair evidence that you think proves the existence of bigfoot and we'll debate. I would contend that no hair evidence found so far relating to bigfoot specifically can conclusively prove its existence.

I didn't say it "proves BF exists."

2. (photos). We pretty much agree here, I think. Some of it's interesting but most of it is bunk.

3. (footprints). Just because you think it can't be faked doesn't mean it can't.

I didn't say that either.
I can fake a pear. Make one out of wood, or ceramic, or whatever, doesn't mean there are no real pears.

Just because you think it would be too hard to make an enlarged latex copy of a human foot using foam latex, plaster casts and alcohol soaking, then later using a small amount of knowledge about dermal ridges to make some interesting patterns that match neither a human nor an ape (easier to do than creating a unique imprint identifiable as human or ape from scratch), doesn't mean it hasn't been done. It has.

I didn't say that either, and I know it can be done. I know it has been done. My flip remark was to convey the silliness of the idea that, since they have been faked, it's super easy and everyone' doing it, just because it's so much fun!

If I can find the tape, I'll dig up the name of the program I saw that demonstrated this, and I'll see if I can find some other references on how to do this.

No need, since I saw the program you are refering to.

(anyone who knows what show I am talking about feel free to chime in). The point is that footprints can be faked. Just because you don't think it's easy doesn't mean it isn't possible, because it's a matter of record that it has been done (your breakfast habits aside).

Again. I did not say it hadn't been done. I did not say it couldn't be done. I did not say it wasn't possible.

Listen. BF hoaxes abound. Everyone knows that. It's not news.

Footprints, complete with dermal ridges, ARE HOAXABLE and don't constitute sufficient evidence for anyone who understands how they are hoaxed, for the same reasons that photographs are not good evidence - anyone who knows how to fake them knows that they can be faked.

Yes, yes, they can be faked. No argument.

This proves what?

That BF does not exist? Of course not.
 
This refers to the tracks found by Jerry Crews, not Patterson and Gimlin, but it gives an idea of the conditions in which some of these trackways have been found.




"$100,000.00 for BIGFOOT TRACKS

One hundred thousand dollars is being offered by the Willow Creek China Flat Museum for anyone who can demonstrate how the “Bigfoot” tracks that were observed in the Bluff Creek valley in northern California in 1958 and later could have been made by a human or humans.

This offer is genuine. It is not a joke or a publicity stunt.

The money has been arranged for, and the first person or group who can meet the conditions of the offer will receive it. Everyone should understand, however, that the conditions are not easy.
The offer is a direct result of recent publicity which has created a perception that the Bluff Creek tracks were just a hoax carried out by practical joker walking around wearing a large pair of carved wooden feet, but it is not meant as a challenge to the people who originated that story, who may well be perfectly sincere .

The offer also is not a prize for technological achievement, such as being the first to build an effective footprint-stamping machine. It relates entirely to the question of whether the real tracks which brought the “Bigfoot” phenomenon to public attention could have been made by humans
under the real conditions of the times and the places in which they appeared.

The museum has casts of some of the tracks concerned, a few of them copies but mainly originals, available for inspection. It also has some related photographs, and published accounts of what was done and observed in connection with the tracks. There are also people still available for consultation who studied the tracks when they were made.

A formal document setting out the requirements to qualify for the award will take time to prepare, but a successful applicant will have to be able to make flat-footed, humanlike tracks with more than twice the area of human feet and longer-than-human strides which do the following:

1) Traverse a variety of terrains, including climbing, descending and crossing steep slopes covered with underbrush;

2) Show variations of shape and toe position and stride accommodating to the terrain;

3) Sink into firm ground to far greater depth than human footprints specifically as much as an inch deep in hard sand where human prints barely penetrate at all;

4) Leave hard objects in the ground, such as stones, sticking up above the rest of the track.

The applicant will also have to be able to make these tracks under the following conditions, although not all in combination: 1) In the dark, hundreds in a single night; 2) In places where it is impossible to bring any vehicle or other machine or any equipment except what humans or animals could carry; 3) Without doing anything to attract the notice of people a few
hundred yards away.

Interested parties may contact the museum president, Jo Ann Hereford, phone 530-629-3726;
e-mail: josie@cwo.com

Media contact concerning this offer is John Green, phone 604-796-3206;
e-mail: jgreens@shaw.ca"




Like James Randi's, the money has never been safer.
 
On some Bigfoot exposé and I forget which one they mentioned how close Patterson had to be to take those pictures, no more than a few dozen yards. If so it would seem unlikely the animal would allow a couple of mounted humans to blunder close, one falloff of his horse, recover and stand up, grab a camera. After all of this the thing walks obliquely across the scene? How incredibly lucky were these two bozos to find a Bigfoot on the very morning that they set out to film one?

Gimlin has always maintained Patterson didn't fall off his horse.
They were trying to find tracks to film for a documentary and tracks of several individuals had been seen in the area.

Patterson had been investigating for six years prior to getting the footage.

John Green says,

"In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15" tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14" long, in another location east of Bluff Creek.

I never saw the 16" track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15" tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were was accompanied by tracks roughly 13", and René Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks.

Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks René and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12" track usually discounted because it is within human range. For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences."

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

Would an animal that large with no apparent natural enemies be unduly disturbed by a couple of yahoos with horses and a camera?
Roger said the look she gave him seemed to indicate "That's close enough."
 
LAL said:





I think I've seen it. Involves soaking latex in alcohol to expand it?
I've seen a refutation too.



Oops! Make that "kerosene".
Krantz addressed this here:

"From ridge to ridge, these lines are spaced about 1/2 mm apart — more in some areas and less in others. This kind of spacing is typical for almost all higher primates, regardless of body size. Within a primate species, large individuals (usually males) have ridges somewhat farther apart than in small individuals. The number of ridges in the fetus is geared to the average adult body size of the species, so those individuals that grow to larger sizes have the given number of ridges more spread out, and vice-versa. Friction skin tends to have the optimum density of ridge spacing for best adhesion to smooth objects. The number of lines laid down in the fetus varies according to the adult size for each species. There is no adjustment for sexual size differences. Thus, it is not clear whether our 38 cm tracks were deposited by a male or female.

The near constancy of ridge spacing in primates rules out one method of faking. Latex molds of real skin, soaked in kerosene, will expand greatly; there may also be other methods of expanding molds. This procedure could produce gigantic skin patterns (in some respects), but the ridge spacing would also be expanded, and thus easily recognizable as abnormal."




http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html
 
Don’t know; was it that tall? Patterson never really measured the height of the creature. Someone dragged a yardstick to the site in the early 1970s and they determined the figure was over seven feet tall but I’m not sure they were able to determine exactly where Patterson was (he was moving) and where the creature was (which was also moving.)


Green had a 6'5" friend walk the same route on film. Krantz estimated the height at 6'5".
Exact height doesn't really matter. The IM index remains the same regardless of the height. It's not human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom