Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

............. endless repetition of arguments that have no merit.

Do tell..

 

[LTC8K6]

There is no credible evidence for sasquatch, imo.

So, all of this speculation about where they live, what they eat, and how they behave, is ridiculous.

I personally do not know if there is an unknown large primate roaming around the woods of the US and Canada.

I have seen nothing that would shift me off of "I don't know".

I have figured out that the BFRO and that Texas group are a bunch of jokers who couldn't find the ocean from a dinghy. They are never going to make any headway towards proving sasquatch exists, imo.

It's not clubfoot. An earlier diagnosis was skewfoot, but Meldrum, at Krantz' request, searched the literature and found the condition was consistant with metatarsus adductus as I've mentioned before.

I have heard this before and posted about it. No one knows what the condition is in bigfoot, or even if the track is authentic. It is foolish to attempt to diagnose it. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the skeletal structure of a sasquatch foot, other than some silly speculation from a footprint by someone who should know better.

It is one thing to diagnose the well known human foot anatomy from a footprint, but quite another to attempt the same with a supposedly totally unknown foot.

 

[LAL]

Do tell..

I'm sorry. I should have included yours in that. Don't feel left out; I was in a rush this morning. I didn't even have time to fix the quotes on the long post.

 

[LAL]

There is no credible evidence for sasquatch, imo.

In your opinion. I haven't seen anything to indicate your opinion is worth any more than, say, Cliff Crook's, and he was out there collecting evidence at one time.

So, all of this speculation about where they live, what they eat, and how they behave, is ridiculous.

Feeding and other behavior has been observed.

I personally do not know if there is an unknown large primate roaming around the woods of the US and Canada.

I have seen nothing that would shift me off of "I don't know".

Funny, I thought you did know. It's all hoaxes and elk. Have you figured out how an elk could have gotten up without leaving clear signs of doing so?

I have figured out that the BFRO and that Texas group are a bunch of jokers who couldn't find the ocean from a dinghy. They are never going to make any headway towards proving sasquatch exists, imo.

The BFRO has about 3000 members. Are you trying to characterize them all or just the ones you know nothing about who've been involved in expeditions?

I have heard this before and posted about it. No one knows what the condition is in bigfoot, or even if the track is authentic. It is foolish to attempt to diagnose it. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the skeletal structure of a sasquatch foot, other than some silly speculation from a footprint by someone who should know better.

So you're setting your expertise against the PhDs again, one of whom is an expert in primate locomotion.

It is one thing to diagnose the well known human foot anatomy from a footprint, but quite another to attempt the same with a supposedly totally unknown foot.

"Bossburg, Washington. The 17-inch-long tracks were unusual in that the right foot was deformed — the forepart of the foot was twisted inwards and the third toe missing or displaced upward — causing the footprint-maker to be nicknamed "Cripple Foot".

British anthropologist Dr John Napier examined casts and photographs of Cripple Foot's tracks and identified the deformity as talipes-equino-vanus or club-foot‟. This is usually a congenital disorder but may be caused by a severe injury or damage to the nerves controlling the muscles of the foot. Left untreated, the congenital condition usually results in the impression of the heel being absent or poorly defined as only the forepart of the foot and toes touch the ground when standing normally. As the imprints of the heels were well defined, Napier concluded that the deformity was probably due to an injury received in early childhood. He considered the likelihood of a hoaxer having the knowledge and subtlety to fake such a footprint, so improbable that he was prepared to discount it. (Napier 1974)

Grover Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State University, reconstructed the skeletal structure of the foot from casts of the Bossburg prints. He discovered the ankle was positioned further forwards than in a human foot and used his knowledge of physical anthropology and the reported weight and height of Sasquatches to calculate exactly how far forward the ankle was set. Further examination of the casts confirmed that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations, causing him to observe:

In my judgement, no hoaxer could have figured out just how far forward to shift the ankle for a biped of the indicated size, then have left footprints with some subtle distortions that just might lead an anatomist to the reconstruction I have made ... I figured the whole thing out after studying the footprints; any hoaxer had to plan it all out from nothing. (Krantz 1992, p.63)

>snip<

‟ The result of later research by Dr. Jeff Meldrum makes it almost certain that Cripple Foot's deformity was in fact due to the congential condition metatarsus adductus or "skew foot." (Krantz 1999)"

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

You've read this before, right? That's where you found the photo with the object you thought caused the deformity before you knew the same deformity was found on over 1089 tracks. That was you wasn't it?

 

[bruto]

I suspect I'm one of those lumped in the humor and arguments with no merit category. Perhaps, but I still maintain that unless I see credible evidence to contradict it, the most likely reason that dogs will not track sasquatches is that dogs, because they do not have enough imagination, can track only a quarry that actually exists.

 

[Hitch]

Funny, I thought you did know. It's all hoaxes and elk. Have you figured out how an elk could have gotten up without leaving clear signs of doing so?

Why does he have to? You figured out how a bigfoot could do the same thing. I don't have time to read through an endless repetition of arguments that have no merit. But I do recall there WERE elk tracks associated with the Skookum cast, but NO Bigfoot footprints. Although, as I recall, you had a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation for that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

British anthropologist Dr John Napier examined casts and photographs of Cripple Foot's tracks and identified the deformity as talipes-equino-vanus or club-foot‟.

‟ The result of later research by Dr. Jeff Meldrum makes it almost certain that Cripple Foot's deformity was in fact due to the congential condition metatarsus adductus or "skew foot." (Krantz 1999)"

So, you are going to throw the opinions of PHD's at us as proof for the existance of this animal, even when they disagree?

What is your basis for going with Meldrum instead of Napier & Krantz ( Krantz having done all the highly touted reconstruction ) ?


You were beating us up with the credentials of Napier a while back, if I recall correctly ..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

regarding Bluff Creek in 1967

Subsequent investigations at that time revealed tracks of six different sizes, indicating that a number of creatures frequented the area. Footprint sizes ranged from 12¼ inches to 17 inches long.

In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time.

Looks like Bluff Creek would have been a great place for further invesigation.. Why not ?

Why, out of thousands ( world wide ) of foot prints, have only a handfull been anatomically analyzed with such confident ( if you want to call it that ) conclusions ?

 

[LAL]

I'm sorry, are you saying that Gorillas and Chimpanzees are not primates? If they're not primates, what do you think they are?

No, I didn't say that. Again, there are no fossils for Gorillas or Chimpanzees or for an unknown number of "seed" primates. This is not to say there are no fossils for primates or that Gorillas and Chimps aren't primates. We're primates.

How do you guys get so confused?

 

[LAL]

From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

regarding Bluff Creek in 1967

Looks like Bluff Creek would have been a great place for further invesigation.. Why not ?

That's what Patterson wanted to know. Of course, that was the area the Slick expedition was investigating prior to the PGF.

Why, out of thousands ( world wide ) of foot prints, have only a handfull been anatomically analyzed with such confident ( if you want to call it that ) conclusions ?

There've been thousands, if not millions, of footprints found in this country. There are over a thousand casts.

Chilcutt found several in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges and other details not as visible on some of the other casts. This is not to say the other casts weren't authentic.

 

[LAL]

So, you are going to throw the opinions of PHD's at us as proof for the existance of this animal, even when they disagree?

They agreed it's a real deformity, not the work of a hoaxer.

What is your basis for going with Meldrum instead of Napier & Krantz ( Krantz having done all the highly touted reconstruction ) ?

Are you referring to the drawings on the casts showing the separation of bones........or what? I haven't seen photos of foot reconstructions from Krantz. Do you have any?

You were beating us up with the credentials of Napier a while back, if I recall correctly ..

Actually, I disagree with Napier on a number of things. He was a primatologist, but not an expert on primate locomotion. (At least he had the decency to write a book instead of just going, "Bosh".)The depth of the heelprint was a problem. Note Krantz asked Meldrum to look into it as Krantz didn't have time.

Metatarsus adductus was a better fit:

"The front of the foot is bent inward (toward the midline) at the instep.
The back of the foot and the ankles are normal. With a clubfoot, which is a different deformity, the foot will be pointed down and the ankle turned in as well."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001601.htm


Meldrum had access to more up-to-date information.

People get second opinions don't they? If you'll note, the footnote was from Krantz (1999). He apparently concurred with Meldrum. Misdiagnoses aren't uncommon; I've had a couple myself. That didn't mean the doctors were incompetent. They just didn't get it quite right the first time.

 

[LAL]

Why does he have to? You figured out how a bigfoot could do the same thing. I don't have time to read through an endless repetition of arguments that have no merit. But I do recall there WERE elk tracks associated with the Skookum cast, but NO Bigfoot footprints. Although, as I recall, you had a PERFECTLY LOGICAL explanation for that.

Heel prints. Heels are part of feet, aren't they. A Sasquatch could have stepped into the mud then squashed the print when he sat down, but elk gather their legs under them and sort of lunge up. There would have been clear signs of this. Elk and coyote evidently walked on the mud. There was no sign of an elk getting down or up.

There are drawings showing the male Sasquatch doing what it did. I have yet to see a drawing showing how an elk could have left such an imprint.

"Multiple heel strikes (from two feet) were found; also found elk tracks, as well as coyote, on the top of the impressions. Dermal ridges were found on the "heel."

Noll showed a video of an elk kneeling down on the ground, folding its front legs beneath it before going to its knees, then repeating the process with its back legs, pointing out that if the impression had been made by an elk, then there would be footprints present under the body impression."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

I suppose you think Swindler's arguments have no merit? He only wrote the standard text on primate anatomy. I would think he can tell a heelprint from a hole in the ground, especially when it has dermal ridges. Elk knees don't, do they?

 

[LAL]

I suspect I'm one of those lumped in the humor and arguments with no merit category. Perhaps, but I still maintain that unless I see credible evidence to contradict it, the most likely reason that dogs will not track sasquatches is that dogs, because they do not have enough imagination, can track only a quarry that actually exists.

I don't mean to lump everybody in that statement. I was running late, had to drive 18 miles to work and had spent hours just on that one post. There ought to be a way to save them for later.
At least I could have corrected the quotes, bolding and spelling.

Who says dogs won't track Sasquatches? There are reports of some being torn to pieces.

 

[Ceinwyn]

No, I didn't say that. Again, there are no fossils for Gorillas or Chimpanzees or for an unknown number of "seed" primates. This is not to say there are no fossils for primates or that Gorillas and Chimps aren't primates. We're primates.

How do you guys get so confused?

Ok, I read a bit of this thread, then I went away to do other things (work, home life etc). I come back to see this.

There are no gorilla fossils. No chimpanzee fossils. But there are fossils for primates.
"
I can see why you are confused. Which is it? There are no fossil primates, or there are no gorilla or chimpanzee fossils? Because you would be wrong on both counts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

"The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. "

 

[Ceinwyn]

Who says dogs won't track Sasquatches? There are reports of some being torn to pieces.

So we have body parts then? Seeing as how dogs ripped them up, and the owners of the dogs went to the authorities...

Oh wait. They never did, did they? Hm.

 

[LAL]

I'd hardly call his response a 'dissection' per se. He's splitting hairs, so to speak. (nice pun eh?)

Yep.

If it's in the public forum, I don't see why it can't be used for discussion purposes.

There was a question about linking to another forum with the originator of the Bigfoot Follies thread. I guess it was okay. The post stood.

Maybe he should join in the discussion.

I wish he would. He said he was busy getting the last word on about 18 threads on BFF.

Roger says, "Fahrenbach is doing something quite different and much more reliable: differentiating and matching species..." It doesn't sound like Dr. Fahrenbach is having much success if he can't distinguish squatch from human hair. I already gave a link earlier in this thread about the FBI being able to tell human from animal hair. Either squatch hair is so close to being human that it IS human, or Dr. Fahrenbach isn't the expert you believe him to be.

As Meldrum has stated, there are subtle differences. The hair had never been cut. How many humans over the age of two have never had their hair cut?

I would expect the hair of a close relative to resemble human. He's an expert in microscopy and was with a primate research center. I would think he'd know something about primate hair.

As I said in my original reply to Roger, " Yes, but Henner is proclaiming these hairs as belonging to sasquatch, [by] comparing them to other sasquatch hairs he's examined. [and proclaimed as belonging to squatch]"

What type of background does Roger have in hair analysis? I notice he provided no links to back up his 'dissection'.

Somehow, I wouldn't expect Roger to do his research on the Internet. He's mentioned he has files. He may have had some correspondence with Dr. Fahrenbach on his methodology.

Do you have the same low opinion on some of Fahrenbach's other work? The bell curve, for instance?.

Too bad quantity doesn't equate to quality.

Wow, look at the films, the casts since the '80's.........the BFRO's database.......the books...... There's some pretty high quality stuff out there.

Not too many 'scofftics' are going to equate anecdotes with evidence.

Anectotal evidence shouldn't be thrown out completely, especially when people widely separated by time and distance report the same things.
Scofftics aren't going to accept any kind of evidence that upsets their worldview.

Keep in mind that's 30 years as an adult. I had heard of bigfoot about 10 years prior to that.

Okay. You can have seniority. I don't want it.

Why not? I think the foreplay has gone on long enough.

That's one of the reasons I don't consider them a scientific organization. I'm guessing they're only using the term because they think it adds credibility and/or authority to their 'research'. If it don't walk like a duck, sound like a duck, or act like a duck...you can still call it a duck, but it ain't no duck.

RayG

I think it's because they have some actual scientists working with them.

 

[LAL]

It's a lot harder to imagine that all these Bigfoots are not laying down many more tracks themselves, much less one individual leaving only two sets of tracks over 30 years..

The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported. There were more than two sets of tracks found just in '69. As I've noted many times, it's hard to find any kind of tracks in that sort of terrain. As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. (Apes mature more quickly than we do.)

 

[LAL]

Shooting and capturing?

What about following and reporting?

What about having people see it?

What about getting pictures?

What about finding some really fresh tracks?

If they had found it's tracks, seen it, or got pictures of it, even poor ones, it would have strongly supported their opinion of the cast.

They put out more bait in hopes of getting more tracks. There were no answering calls that night. Evidently it was long gone.

Personally, I would have given the cast priority over a hopeless pursuit. If it was there at dawn (most animals feed at dusk and dawn), it could have been safely curled up in a sleeping spot for a good three hours. Given the stride and speed it could have been miles away.

They had seen tracks before, remember? The one Noll found was pretty clear, but the other was inconclusive. Why would subsequent tracks be any better?

Chances are a pursuit would have been fruitless and the imprint ruined if they'd acted differently than they did.

 

[Ceinwyn]

The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported. There were more than two sets of tracks found just in '69. As I've noted many times, it's hard to find any kind of tracks in that sort of terrain. As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. (Apes mature more quickly than we do.)

Ah, there we are, the Bigfoot enthusiast in all his/her glory.

"The individual undoubtedly left tracks that weren't found or at least we're reported."

"As to the life span, there's nothing to say they can't live longer than forty years or that an individual couldn't mature in ten. "

So a lack of evidence is now...evidence. Apparently the fact that I never saw the tooth fairy means she existed and undoubtedly took my incisors.

Keep up the good work.

 

[LAL]

Ok, I read a bit of this thread, then I went away to do other things (work, home life etc). I come back to see this.

There are no gorilla fossils. No chimpanzee fossils. But there are fossils for primates.
"
I can see why you are confused. Which is it? There are no fossil primates, or there are no gorilla or chimpanzee fossils? Because you would be wrong on both counts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

"The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. "

"Toumai" is not a Chimpanzee fossil. Nor is it Homo. It may be an ancestor of both, but it is not a Chimpanzee, or a Gorilla, Senut, Wolpoff and Pickford notwithstanding.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/tech/main525004.shtml

http://www.whyevolution.com/toumai.html

I've known about "Toumai" since it was published in Nature, BTW. The article is archived or I'd post it for you. In it, Henry Gee noted that the number of fossils from that era is frustratingly small, that, in fact, they would fit in a shoebox.

Much as I love TO, this is a better link:

http://www.sahelanthropus.com/

And this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/index.html


There are plenty of primate fossils. There are no fossils of Chimpanzees or Gorillas.

I don't know how to make that any clearer. I really don't like it when people misinterpret what I'm saying and then tell me I'm wrong.