Thurkon said:
Unless said expert opinion does not agree with your preconceived notion that Bigfoot exists.
Who are you kidding?
Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake. Daegling's about the only one who's bothered to write a book on the phenomenon, and he took Cliff Crook's opinion on the Skookum Cast. Neither one has ever seen it, despite the standing invitation to scientists to examine it. He also seemed to give credence to Crook's "bell-shaped object", which only existed in the eye of the beholder.
From Noll's review of the book:
"Counter-arguments to his work are going to have to address some interesting items. The author is claiming that most of the evidence is easily attributable to hoaxing of some type; he even identifies the possible people involved. But I don't think he knows that advocates of the creature's existence have tried to get more quantitative information from these individuals. I personally have contacted the Wallace family so as to come to their home and document all the evidence of their father's fake track making so we could take out stuff he may have fabricated, only to be turned away because of a movie deal. Others have asked for data surrounding Bob Herionomus such as stride length, pictures of him inside a costume and arm/leg lengths... alas, another movie or TV deal going on there as well. It seems that the admitted hoaxers only want to associate themselves and cherished work with the skeptical side. I guess it would seem that they would believe them more then people who go looking for the giant hairy monster.
I will have to take exception though, I guess because I was involved with it from the start, with him using some one identified as being dubious, possibly fabricating pictures, tracks and casts, but then using this same person to substantiate claims of misidentification with the Skookum cast and actual hoaxing with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Sometimes the tone in the book is very harsh on the researchers versus the one's who he claims have been perpetrating this hoax. He does this with Wallace, Ray Picken and Rant Mullen... all people who have claimed (in one way or another) that they have faked tracks with carved wooden feet and fooled a lot of people since 1958. To be fair though, he didn't do this with Paul Freeman.
Bigfoot researchers need to have access to these admitted hoaxers and the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available. From reading the book, I can pretty much tell that the author has only been able to view the P/G film on video (which skips frames in the process of converting the film to video, odd/even) and the 12 non-contiguous publicized cibachrome prints made by Bruce Bonney from the film. He really should have made an effort to see evidence first hand instead of watching TV programs or talking with like minded people (Dennet, Perez, Radford for example)."
Jeffery Danelek (I don't know who he is):
"As far as the book itself is concerned, I found it extremely interesting and thought-provoking, even though most of the arguments he makes have been put forth many times before. As someone who has written on the Patterson Film myself (Fate magazine, March, 2003) I was most interested in his appraisal of that footage, which is the part of the book I found most convoluted. The idea that the subject in the film has been estimated to range in height from just over six feet to almost seven-and-a-half feet (an 18" variance) remains a mystery to me, especially considering the follow-up work that was done in the weeks and months following the Patterson sighting and the availability of measurable landmarks the creature could be compared to evident in the footage and still in existence today. I could accept a few inches of variance, but a foot-and-a-half? Surely science can be a little more precise than that. Additionally, Daegling correctly maintains that the Groucho Marx/Bigfoot walk could be mimicked by a human, but he fails to answer the question of why a guy in a suit would do such a thing. It's a clearly difficult and unnatural movement to attempt, so why would an alleged prankster feel compelled to try it? Most of the objections he makes, however, were sound, and he did a good job of challenging the late Grover Krantz in terms of his scientific methodology and assumptions. I would have loved to have seen a debate between these two. It surely would have been worth the price of admission!"
T.R. (I think this one is from a respected researcher who posts on BFF - I'll have to check the thread):
"The problem is that Daegling denounces all of the available evidence as fabricated, tainted, or worthless. Some of the scrutiny of evidence is done with fairness and thoroughness, such as when addressing the case of the Minnesota Iceman and pre-1958 historical accounts. However, very few contemporary advocates would elevate those tales to a "greatest hits" list in terms of evidence, if they are considered genuine at all. In all likelihood, the pre-1958 accounts are brought forth by Daegling to examine their mythological elements as they compare to current accounts. The story of the Iceman just serves to illustrate the duping of two advocate scientists. Therein is the value of the tales, at least to the author.
Evidence that is considered more seriously by current researchers is unfortunately assessed with assumption, misinformation, and derision. The portions regarding the Skookum cast, Ray Wallace, and eyewitness testimony are particularly misleading and omit some important details that are none too difficult to unearth. An informed advocate response to the chapters regarding evidence is essential. Special focus should be given to answering charges against the evidentiary value of the Patterson film and track casts.
Daegling's dismissal of Jimmy Chilcutt's dermal ridge findings as "irrelevant" is simply astounding. If a feature can be observed in a track cast that would support is authenticity, then it can be duplicated convincingly with a modest amount of human ingenuity and a prankster's inclination. No special knowledge is required. Any other position is considered to be hubris flowing from misplaced confidence in one's professional credentials and specialist training. The advocates are told they are underestimating the ability of hoaxers and overestimating the difficulty of hoaxing."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0759105391/102-9293852-6335331?v=glance
Yes, I've read the book and every article and interview with Daegling I could find.
I can't remember a time when I had any "pre-conceived notions". I'd never heard of it until I bought Green's earliest books (big booklets, really) en route to the Northwest. The following spring there were events in Skamania County, where we owned 160 forested acres, and I met some of the people involved. I think my reaction was mostly "Hm". I don't recall ever worrying one might eat the kids.
There were many years where I paid no attention at all, especially when out of the area again, and only after the Wallace story broke was my interest revived. I found a great deal of information on the Internet and, more recently still, I've been in communication with a few people who actually research this stuff. I'm in an area now that's near mountains where there've been a few sightings, but you won't find me out at night with an infra red camera.
