Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

Cheese and Crackers! Did you read anything I wrote?

Yep, but I'm about ready to stop doing that.

Aircraft that have disappeared without a trace, are NOT comparable to creatures we suspect exist, but have never found a specimen of!
( pardon my shouting )

The point is, that that country is rugged and densely forested enough to hide aircraft (and lost people). Those mountains are certainly capable of hiding roving nocturnal beasties who seem to have no desire to hold still and be collected..

 

[LAL]

A couple of quotes from sites posted by Correa Neto:

"The fossil record of bears in our county is small. A smaller version of Ursus was found in the San Diego formation that persisted in the Pliocene (<3 million years old)."

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

"Birds whose fossils we will never find lived on what are now tiny islets in far western Hawaii lived much longer ago. And many birds have become extinct since Captain Cook discovered Hawaii a little over 200 years ago. Their bones haven’t had time to become fossilized."

http://www.geoworld.org/na/usa/hi/prehistory/

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[LAL]

Me! Me!

What is supposed to be causing the bulges on the right side of the ' crippled ' drawing ?


They have drawn the outline to match the foot print, but the bone structure doesn't account for the bulges..

They're bunionettes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

They're bunionettes.

Caused by what ? Clown feet that are too tight ?



Seriously.. Explain to me how a Bigfoot would get bunions..

 

[LAL]

\

By whom? The people who had already ruled bigfoot in?

We've been through this before.

That's all anyone has regarding bigfoot, isn't it?

The pro side at least has some evidence to back up the claims.

Non-reponsive, your honor. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question.

You asked for credentials and qualifications. You got'em.

No hoof prints? I'll just assume you are joking. The hoof prints are well documented.

And clearly showed an elk walked across the mud, not that it knelt and made the imprint. Want to try for a rare fruit-eating coyote?

 

[LAL]

Squirming? I presume you mean the potential embarrassment of the Bigfoot believers when the found animal doesn't match the given descriptions? Humpf. That would be drowned out by the immediate reality of an unknown bipedal primate living in American forests.

If this were to occur, I think that the popular media would allow and promote a willy-nilly slap fest upon the skeptics. Smart skeptics would suddenly realize that a certain unknowable percentage of believers probably did have real eyewitness encounters.

But why do you propose what would happen if fiction were real? Has LAL's dogged persistence in this thread pushed your mean button?

The frustration of a skeptic who is battling a Bigfoot believer who has countless references to the 'reality' of Bigfoot can lead one to make reflexive gropings for a silver bullet. There must be something quick that can kill off all of these stupid hillbilly sheep woo woos, right? Not.

I don't think that informed skepticism looks good when wearing red hot cynicism.

But hey, LAL.... where is Bigfoot anyway?

I almost thank you for what almost seemed like a bit of support there.

Richard Noll estimates there are about thirty in Washington State. That's a good place to start.

 

[Z]

It's funny - she puts me on ignore, but quotes me in her sigline.

Weird.

Anyway, it seems the aircraft issue is disputed. There's almost no official mention of numbers; the one FAA website I found yesterday that mentioned down craft listed 23 over the period from 1947 to now, of which three were recovered; but today I can't seem to find Google for all my searching. (It's been one of those days today)

The only places where more than that are mentioned are - drum roll, please - Bigfoot Websites. I know, amazing, yes?

And still, she fails to mention bodies.

(Not trying to be sexist - I am assuming, since she mentioned an 'ex-husband' that she's a she. Could be a he, for all I know)

It's interesting to observe the believer in action: in the real world, a piece of evidence is considered questionable until nearly everyone involved agrees as to its meaning. In BigFoot World, evidence is 'indisputable' if it's being discussed by a Footie; no matter that dozens of reputable scientists and organizations are, in fact, disputing the evidence after all.

If we apply the usual mode of looking at evidence to BF evidence, we would have to set aside probably 80% - 90% of all Bigfoot evidence as questionable. Maybe more. Actually - yeah, we'd have to toss it all out, wouldn't we? Since, after all, if we really had 'indisputable evidence', then we would be seeing Sasquatch in our Biology texts as a species known to exist but shrouded in mystery.

Can LAL provide even one solid, indisputable piece of Bigfoot evidence? Is there even one bit that someone, somewhere, isn't showing serious and well-founded doubts about? For example - where are Green's five bodies?

She tapdances, she tantrums - but ultimately, she boors.

 

[SmooveK]

To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.

 

[Bronze Dog]

To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.

I'd probably do a slight rephrase: "Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is likely no bigfoot?"

 

[SmooveK]

I'd probably do a slight rephrase: "Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is likely no bigfoot?"

Yes, that's better.

 

[LTC8K6]

The pro side at least has some evidence to back up the claims.

You are certainly entitled to that belief.

You asked for credentials and qualifications. You got'em.

I disagree.

And clearly showed an elk walked across the mud, not that it knelt and made the imprint. Want to try for a rare fruit-eating coyote?

They clearly show an elk walked through and kneeled in the mud.
Coyotes are omnivorous as far as I know.

 

[LTC8K6]

The photo is from the trackway (1089 tracks counted) Marx and Dahinden found. The casts are from near the dump, days earlier. The drawing is a good representation of the casts I have, except that it seems to be a top view.

2 different "clubfoots"?

Amazing.

The print in the snow is completely different to me. It simply does not match the cast, illustration, or description no matter how I look at it.

 

[LTC8K6]

If we apply the usual mode of looking at evidence to BF evidence, we would have to set aside probably 80% - 90% of all Bigfoot evidence as questionable.

I think I read somewhere that Byrne put the figure at 95% discard.

 

[kieran]

The BBC reports that a large ape like creature was sighted lumbering around a town in Yukon, Canada ... and apparently it left a tuft of fur. Geneticists at the University of Alberta are going to check the DNA of the hair against the known indiginous population of large mammals to see if it can be identified.

The report did go on to say that the scientists expect to identify the fur sample as a known large mammal.

The test results are expected later this week.

Full details at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4717845.stm

 

[LAL]

You are certainly entitled to that belief.

It's acceptance, not belief.

I disagree.

As always.

They clearly show an elk walked through and kneeled in the mud.
Coyotes are omnivorous as far as I know.

You clearly are seeing what you want to see. You said earlier you couldn't see anything on the cast unless it was pointed out to you, but now you can see clearly.

Now, if I squint just right, because I can't see tracks in the photo at all but will assume they're there, I can make it into the back and hindquarters of an '8 coyote reaching for the fruit and leaving marks of long hair (fruit -eating coyotes are known to have long hair on their forelimbs)..........

 

[LAL]

I think I read somewhere that Byrne put the figure at 95% discard.

Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

 

[LAL]

2 different "clubfoots"? Amazing.

Same one. One of the toes on the right foot sometimes didn't print. It apparently was up in the photo. Did you watch the video?

The print in the snow is completely different to me. It simply does not match the cast, illustration, or description no matter how I look at it.

Compare to the cast:

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

If you can produce one piece of indisputable evidence, science won't have to explain anything. They would actually have something to work with..



How do you suppose a Bigfoot aquired bunions?

 

[LTC8K6]

Elk tracks in the cast, even if Lu can't see them:

There are several elk tracks embedded in the cast, for example, and no Bigfoot tracks.

Elk hair:

And then there was all the hair the research team picked up. A few strands are in a lab in Vancouver awaiting DNA analysis. Several others already tested have been identified -- as elk hair.

The most damning line of all, the print actually had to be explained before most people saw bigfoot's butt:

While most of the team couldn't make out what the print was at first, Mr. Noll soon won them over, repeatedly lying down in the mud to mimic what happened. Finally, they got it.

I am far from the only one who saw an elk when he looked closer:

Having heard this incredible story, having heard how Mr. Noll has spent most of his adult life searching for proof of Sasquatch, until now without success, of how he has dedicated himself to finding hard evidence, I am struck by how bizarre the moment is.

In the cast are the clear hoof tracks of an elk. There are imprints left that would match perfectly with an elk's legs. The hair collected in the mud has been matched to an elk. It would seem that Mr. Noll has, if anything, a cast of the impression left by the hindquarters of an elk. But Mr. Noll and his entire research team see only one thing -- undeniable scientific proof of a Sasquatch.

Dermal ridges are a piece of cake, apparently:

One researcher showed me a cast with dermal ridges and realistic toe prints. "I made that myself," he said. "Just to see if it could be done. Slid my foot back and forth and side to side. Just kept making the print longer and wider, then I worked on the toe prints.

"It was easy," he said, asking that I not use his name. "I would guess that more than 90% of the footprint casts are hoaxes."

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm

You said earlier you couldn't see anything on the cast unless it was pointed out to you.

Yep, that was true until I saw some good photos of the elk's knee/leg.

As I said before, I think the BFRO has known that the skookum imprint was made by an elk for a long time. There is just no money in elk casts. I think they have also known that it was easy to fake footprints, even those with dermal ridges, for a long time.

The more you look, the more details emerge that show how shoddy the "research" is.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Schaller said that if only 5% is real, science has something to explain.

Key word: if.