Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

I came across this interview with Meldrum

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2005/04/21/exn20050421-bigfoot.asx

( windows media clip )

From here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ ( The first clip under " Clips on the Manitoba Footage of April 2005: " )

Meldrum is talking about BF foot physiology .. A little past the middle of the clip, he is heard to say ..

" In a typical 14 - 15 " Sasquatch track, the toes will be virtually as long as his ( Meldrum's )fingers. "

Now that is really news to me, because virtually all the BF tracks I have seen look a lot like this. ( I have seen none with long toes.. )

Has anyone else seen the tracks with the long toes Meldrum is talking about?
After all, according to this respected Bigfootologist, such tracks are typical..

 

[Hitch]

"Typical" Bigfoot casts:

 

[Dubium]

I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

 

[Bronze Dog]

Ah. Good point to make in your first post, Dubium.

Welcome to the board.

 

[bruto]

I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

A good point. Of course the whole question of bigfoot intelligence seems a little speculative to say the least. If they do exist, one might consider that they're clever or wily, but so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent. They appear to have no social organization, no sign of art or artifice, no tools, no fire, no known language, no structures, no crops, no burial grounds or ceremonial gathering places. They appear just to wander and forage. I do wonder, too, how an animal that is purported to be so large and so fast and full of energy manages to find enough to eat simply by foraging.

Of course that doesn't prove that they are not intelligent, but nothing I've seen proves anything to the contrary either, other than the rather dubious observation that they seem to be able to evade scientists, skeptics and cameras that focus.

 

[LAL]

Your point?

I'm sure if there are Bigfoots, some of them must have injuries, and some of them must limp.


I see nothing in the PGF that suggests a limp..

There's a kind of wobble that shows up in the computer graphic. Can't remember if it was Dr. Nelson who mentioned the possibility of a slightly compromised gait.

Dang, gotta watch LMS again.

 

[LAL]

A good point. Of course the whole question of bigfoot intelligence seems a little speculative to say the least. If they do exist, one might consider that they're clever or wily, but so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent.

Namely? Most think they have intelligence on a par with other Great Apes.

There are a couple of films that may show infants. One's being carried and another seems to climb higher on the back of what could be the mother or a sibling. I think it may have wandered off and been retrieved from behind the hill, which could be why the creature broke cover and ran across the clearing in the first place. There's a report of a youngster hiding in a hollow tree and an apparently upset female nearby. She carried it off, as I recall.

 

[LAL]

LAL, I can’t even begin to fathom your reasoning.

Doesn’t the fact that the fur found by the Squatch sighters was of a long dead bison, whose hide had been exposed to unusual conditions and/or tanning, lead you to the most rational conclusion here: it was a hoax. How is it you refuse to believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? Why do you automatically believe a group of people who make this kind of extraordinary claim, when their only proof is the fur of a dead animal which from all appearances was yanked off the mounted bison head in their grandpappy’s den?

There've been other sightings in that area. The hair could have been snagged off a living animal and been stuck there for years. It's from a Wood Bison, isn't it? There's a reintroduced herd in the area. They're threatened, and you have no evidence anyone's granddaddy shot one. There may not have been any around in Granddaddy's time. They were thought to be extinct as a subspecies by 1940, but a wild pure herd was discovered in 1957.

http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/Publications/speciesatriskweb/woodbison.htm

How is it you believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? The thread I first found on this board started right out with a comment to the effect of "Look what the hoaxers are up to" (regarding Nelson Creek). How many people do you know who would go to the trouble of making an ape suit and then go wading at dawn in the frigid waters of the Nelson (the water was 3-4' deep and the creature about 9') just to fool a ferryman? Is Bigfoot hoaxery a common sport in the Yukon? Is this one well travelled hoaxer who managed to leave tracks in California and Colorado in April as well or is there a network of hoaxers who have nothing better to do than try to appear 9' tall?

People see something, comb the area for evidence, find hair and send it in for analysis. It turns out to be Bison hair. That isn't a hoax. Nor does it mean they can't tell a Bison from bipedal animal that appeared to be nearly 3 meters tall.

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=teslin-bushman13072005

Where was the rest of the herd? The hair didn't come from a living animal, so how would it follow they really saw a Bison? And where were the Bison tracks?

I don't know if this was a bona fide sighting or not. Granted, it needs more evidence, but there's none, so far, that it was a hoax.

 

[bruto]

I wrote earlier, "... so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent."

Namely? Most think they have intelligence on a par with other Great Apes.

There are a couple of films that may show infants. One's being carried and another seems to climb higher on the back of what could be the mother or a sibling. I think it may have wandered off and been retrieved from behind the hill, which could be why the creature broke cover and ran across the clearing in the first place. There's a report of a youngster hiding in a hollow tree and an apparently upset female nearby. She carried it off, as I recall.

What was that an answer to? Bigfoot fanciers think bigfeet are intelligent. But reporting that does not constitute evidence that they are.

I should hope that bigfeet have children, or the question of their existence will be moot as they become extinct! I don't think that is much evidence of intelligence either though, and your speculation on what they're doing in the presumably unclear films doesn't do much to answer Dubium's question of why, since so many bigfeet are spotted near roads, at least the occasional little bigfoot has not been hit.

Until someone comes up with better quality evidence than what we've seen so far, all answers to this question are speculative. You can speculate that they're good parents, perhaps, and for all I know you may be right. But it's speculation, and unless you can come up with more convincing evidence, you have little to complain about if others speculate otherwise.

 

[LAL]

I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

How many Gorilla and Chimpanzee children get squished?

People like Erik? I hate to be the one to tell you, but he's one of a kind.

 

[LAL]

I wrote earlier, "... so far there seems to be no evidence other than the desire of bigfootologists to label them as particularly intelligent."

You didn't answer the question. And what's a "bigfootologist"?

What was that an answer to? Bigfoot fanciers think bigfeet are intelligent. But reporting that does not constitute evidence that they are.

I should hope that bigfeet have children, or the question of their existence will be moot as they become extinct! I don't think that is much evidence of intelligence either though, and your speculation on what they're doing in the presumably unclear films doesn't do much to answer Dubium's question of why, since so many bigfeet are spotted near roads, at least the occasional little bigfoot has not been hit.

Until someone comes up with better quality evidence than what we've seen so far,

You might want to try looking at what there is. I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. Just a sample here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/sightings.htm

It really irks me they left out the double trackway (it was filmed) and misspelled Skamania, but there were a couple from that area and era I hadn't heard about.

all answers to this question are speculative. You can speculate that they're good parents, perhaps, and for all I know you may be right. But it's speculation, and unless you can come up with more convincing evidence, you have little to complain about if others speculate otherwise.

Who's complaining? I'm used to this.

I tacked an answer to Dubium onto your post; I really don't have time to answer all these posts sometimes, but I try. If nothing else, I'm outnumbered on this board.

The young seem to be well supervised; I gave some examples that seem to indicate that. Glenn Thomas saw a family of three feeding; the young one was a "toddler". They may have a long period of dependency. The only road in the vicinity was a logging spur.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/logger.html


Note they were eating meat. They seem to be omnivores. Bears don't seem to have a problem making a living in the same sort of habitat.

So many? 74+ road reports in Green's collection over 40 years. Of course, he wasn't able to collect them all, and many people don't report for fear of ridicule. The reports I've read seem to be of lone males crossing roads. Mothers with infants may not range as far. Peter Bryne investigated a sighting near Estacada where the animal turned and gestured as though to warn others to stay back. This was backed up by track evidence, BTW, and there were two witnesses.

 

[Z]

I've read most of this fascinating thread but not all, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologise.

Big foot children. If the adults are too intelligent to become road kill, surely the children would. Like human kids they'd be running around the woods and would thereby come into contact with people like Erik eventually. Or campers or hikers. And they'd tun across roads and be squished. Chimp and gorilla babies are curious and playful, so surely big feet babies would be too. And they'd get into trouble and voila - existence proved.

So...where do the children play?

Roz

Well, now, let's not get hasty. There are many species who are over-protective of their young. The BF might well be the sort that keeps the young far, far from habitation until they're old enough to be considered adults. In fact, the few alleged sightings might well have been rogues who have been rejected from their tribes.

That is, if they exist at all.

 

[LAL]

I came across this interview with Meldrum

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2005/04/21/exn20050421-bigfoot.asx

( windows media clip )

From here:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ ( The first clip under " Clips on the Manitoba Footage of April 2005: " )

Meldrum is talking about BF foot physiology .. A little past the middle of the clip, he is heard to say ..
Now that is really news to me, because virtually all the BF tracks I have seen look a lot like this. ( I have seen none with long toes.. )

Has anyone else seen the tracks with the long toes Meldrum is talking about?
After all, according to this respected Bigfootologist, such tracks are typical..

At least you didn't call him a "woo".

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

The copies I own of the Bossburg tracks have toes almost as long as my fingers. The great toes are as long. Most photos and casts, such as the ones Patterson got, are of the most perfect tracks in the trackway. They don't reveal much. Often the toes are curled, giving that "peas in a pod" look.

Note that's Bryne's cast from 1960.

 

[LAL]

Yes, it is. Look up "parsimony" and try to determine how it applies to scientific investigation.

I did that years ago. Occam's (or "Ockham's") Razor, too.

If you can't reasonably rule out a hoax, then the evidence does not support the existence of bigfoot. Regarding the bison fur, the only thing that can be said is that something was seen; tracks were made, and some hair from a long dead, possibly tanned bison was found.

Stop right there.

So, either a bigfoot walked by where there happened to be some tanned bison fur (of a color and texture that matches supposed Bigfoot fur rather closely) and just ahppened to be seen by 9 people (when most of the time they can't be found at all)...of someone had a bison-fur suit and walked through town.

Parsimony.

Hardly. Did you read the story?

There were unreported sightings by other Native people out hunting. And this:

http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=yuk-teslinbigfoot07062004

Aren't you going to consider mass hysteria? Racial memory of a leader ape? A deep-seated need to see bogeymen? Something in the water?

 

[LAL]

"Typical" Bigfoot casts:

Typical Dennett.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There's a kind of wobble that shows up in the computer graphic. Can't remember if it was Dr. Nelson who mentioned the possibility of a slightly compromised gait.

Dang, gotta watch LMS again.

The only thing that is wobbling is the camera..

When you look at the stabilized version the gait is as smooth as silk.. You need to let go of this straw ( injured thigh )..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How many Gorilla and Chimpanzee children get squished?

How may Gorilla's and Chimpanzees are wandering around the U.S. Interstate system ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..........Note they were eating meat. They seem to be omnivores. Bears don't seem to have a problem making a living in the same sort of habitat.

And we don't have a problem confirming that bears exist...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

At least you didn't call him a "woo".

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

The copies I own of the Bossburg tracks have toes almost as long as my fingers. The great toes are as long. Most photos and casts, such as the ones Patterson got, are of the most perfect tracks in the trackway. They don't reveal much. Often the toes are curled, giving that "peas in a pod" look.

Note that's Bryne's cast from 1960.

What difference does it make when the cast was made if it is real ?

Are you suggesting the long toes have evolved in the last 40 years?


Are you denying that the cast I referenced is typical of the prints that are published?

There are thousands of tracks , right?

Point me to sources that verify typical Bigfeetl toes are long ? Is it documented in SMS ?


Oh.. Almost forgot ..

The most perfect tracks... Don't reveal much ?


Come again ?

 

[LAL]

What difference does it make when the cast was made if it is real ?

It's from the the same individual as Bluff Creek tracks in 1967 (Krantz was 99% sure after Bryne contacted him about photos in the book). Haven't I mentioned this before?

"Noteworthy is the documentation of the tracks of this same individual on a number of earlier occasions. One of the first of these was photographed by Peter Byrne near Bluff Creek in 1960. Two others were cast by Al Hodgson, of Willow Creek, one on a logging road near Notice Creek in 1962(?) and another on Bluff Creek in 1963. Another instance was photographed extensively by John Green and Rene' Dahinden on the Blue Creek Mountain Road in 1967, just over one month before the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot."

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

And:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/byrnecast.htm

Are you suggesting the long toes have evolved in the last 40 years?

Of course not. Sometimes they're more flexed than at other times. Meldrum has examined tracks in situ on five occasions.

Are you denying that the cast I referenced is typical of the prints that are published?

Nope.

There are thousands of tracks , right?

Maybe millions. There are about a thousand casts.

Point me to sources that verify typical Bigfeetl toes are long ? Is it documented in SMS ?

You mean LMS? Meldrum talks about casts, but I'm not sure if he mentions that. I'll check when I have time.
He talks about it here:

"Relative Toe Length and Mobility
Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."

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

Oh.. Almost forgot ..

The most perfect tracks... Don't reveal much ?


Come again ?

As far as foot movement, toe movement, weight shifting, that sort of thing..... The "perfect" ones may look fake to an untrained eye. It's the ones that don't look good enough to be cast that really tell the tale to an expert in locomotion.