Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

Here's this:

"Crowley sent samples of his casts to Jimmy Chilcutt, who noticed, unlike Green’s cast, which had rounded ridges, Crowley’s casts had ridges with flat tops.

Crowley noticed larger ridges then the photographs showed in the casts. Chilcutt said, “This is what happens when the cement sets up before casting.”
Further experimentation, lead Crowley to believe small ridges in the track would produce flat ridges in a cast, while larger ridges would result in rounder ridges.
A small, arched furrow in the center of the Green cast can be seen, but Crowley it shows up better in Jeff Meldrum’s “fingerprint” plot of that cast.
The implications of these findings are
– they usually happen in very dry soil, although Crowley admits some ridging has occurred in casts from wet soil.
he believes the Onion Mountain cast, and perhaps other casts, contain ridges which are the result of artifacts
Dr. Jeff Meldrum commented, “I believe Matt Crowley is too tentative in his conclusions. It is a slam-dunk that Matt is right. Excellent work!”
Matt closed by advising the audience to always take lots of pictures of tracks before casting.


http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/bellingham05.htm

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hello !

Does anyone have a map that shows the approx location of the PGF site ?


I'm trying to find the relation to Orleans, CA..

What was the nearest town ?

 

[William Parcher]

Lu, I am aware that people claim there were 1088 of these tracks. I did not ask for repetitions of the claims.

Shame on you! Don't you understand that when Bigfoot sychophants repeat the claims of other Bigfoot psychophants and so on... that the resultant worthless rat's nest is called 'scientific research' or 'peer review'.

Don't you understand the fuel of the myth engine?

See the photos of the Patty Rainfoot above your posting.

 

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, the skookum imprint was drying out and cracking when they cast it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Diogenes, I can find several references that Bluff Creek and Orleans are near each other, but no definite distance.

"Bluff Creek, near Orleans, California" for example.

 

[LAL]

The effect could also be used to make a fake bigfoot foot with Jimmy Chilcutt's "dermal ridges". That foot could then be used to make tracks in the mud.

Oh, good grief. The fake feet could then be sent to Georgia and handed down from father to son to get the proper spread of decades and miles.

You need to look at the photos in Krantz' book. No reading required.

He had his casts examined by several fingerprint experts. He names them and gives their credentials. Chilcutt's certainly not the only expert to see the ridges. He's the only expert on primate fingerprints.

The dermal ridges are clearly no longer the holy grail of bigfoot tracks, if any sceptics ever believed they were.

I really don't know what sceptics believe or how they can believe it. The dermal ridge evidence is still compelling. Some casts may have to be reexamined to see if they have any casting artifacts, that's all.

Several possible methods have now been demonstrated for creating them, let alone the suspicious circumstances surrounding some of the dermal ridge castings.

Suspicious? Oh, Freeman, again. One of the Forest Service trackers announced they were fake before he even looked at them.

Isn't it stange that the only fake feet that have come to light were carved from wood?

Lu, I am aware that people claim there were 1088 of these tracks. I did not ask for repetitions of the claims.

You evidently didn't when you posted the photo. And there were 1089 (Dahinden's count). Should I look up your post on the other thread? You were trying to claim an object was the cause of the deformity, as I recall.

 

[LTC8K6]

Looks like it's about 15 miles as the crow flies, Diogenes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, you are ridiculous.

The dermal ridges are dead to any but the most obstinate. The argument has been that they couldn't possibly be anything but real.

Now we know for sure they could indeed be other than real.

I merely suggested another possible way the effect could be used. Most of the ridges are likely casting artifacts and human ridges.

Something your dermal ridge expert never considered.

Besides, if bigfoot has these ridges, then they should be common in tracks cast in mud. They are not.

Ironically, I was researching hydrocal casting defects the other day.

Remember when I suddenly said I thought Chilcutt was wrong while posting on another topic? I was on the trail of possible casting defects at the time, but never finished up.

I have only ever seen one recognizable cripplefoot track, and it did indeed have an object near the "deformity".

I have seen no cast that matches the cripplefoot track, and Krantz's skeleton isn't even close.

This revisionist history on your part will do you no good.

From this thread, folks would likely gather that you have done less BF research than several of us sceptics. This is likely from constant preaching from BF choir to BF choir with little outside input considered.

 

[William Parcher]

There also doesn't seem to be any marks in the sand associated with the photos posted above to suggest that pieces of bark were placed to cover these tracks. I might expect a 'halo' surrounding each track representing the effect of torrential rain running off the bark and indenting the sand surrounding the tracks. Further, the area around the tracks ought to show extensive 'dimpling' from the raindrops while the bark-protected area would look different.

Hey, wanna hear what a Bigfoot sounds like? Here is an alledged recording of Bigfoot doing a bit of vocalizing. It's faint because the big hairy ape is a long way from the microphone. Ha ha ha!

The Sound Of A Primate That Has Not Yet Been Described By Science

 

[LAL]

LTC, those tracks survived the rain perfectly.

Here are Lyle Laverty's photos of the Patty tracks. These photos were taken the day after the filming. You are seeing the condition of the tracks after enduring a torrential rain... that is, until Gimlin rode his horse the 2 miles in darkness in a driving rain at 5:30am in order to cover them with pieces of bark he found.

The second from the top is the classic PGF footprint. It has the famous cannot-be imagined-by-a-hoaxer and unhoaxable 'mid-tarsal break'. It also has a fascinating 'crispness' (look at the crack) for having buckets of rain upon it before being covered with bark.

The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that? The photo you posted was scanned from Murphy's book. It's the page I've been referring to regarding the shots from the second roll. It seems you've visited BFF. If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

The PGF is a hoax. P&G's story of the PGF is a hoax. The PGF tracks are a hoax.

Blah, blah, blah. Maybe I won't bother to try to catch up on the rest of your posts if they're all like the ones I've already seen.

 

[LTC8K6]

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

It sounds like Lu is trying to do her research on the fly, and she can't keep up. She keeps asking about things that were recently posted as if she never heard of them.

Odd.

BTW, we are getting it from Bob Gimlin.

 

[LTC8K6]

He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF.

Oh, well I give up then.

 

[William Parcher]

That is rather puzzling. I don't recall reading about the tracking for 3.5 miles, but I do know both Green (page 121) and Krantz (page 91) write about Titmus finding evidence where the film subject sat down to observe the two men. How can that be possible if they dashed off in hot pursuit and tracked it for 3.5 miles?

Again, if Gimlin and Titmus are telling the truth then P&G tracked Patty for 3.5 miles after the filming and then she returned to the film site to watch the boys cast her tracks. Of course, the boys had to go 2 miles beyond the film site to get the plaster to start casting the tracks.

Add up the miles (roundtrip). Add up the time needed to track a Bigfoot for 3.5 miles on horseback in wilderness.

RayG, where was the sun through this prolonged ordeal?

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, you can post proof of the 1088 claim any time you like.

I've got the popcorn on.

Yes it's 1088. Your claim was that there were 1088 more tracks.

I have seen one track, so I'll spot you that one.

Your evidence seems to be that a dairy farmer counted them.

 

[William Parcher]

The trackway was in good enough condition nine days later for Bob Titmus to cast some tracks and track the creature to where she hunkered and watched them.

The tracks should not have been in good condition because it rained like a mofo and the creek rose:

Bob Gimlin said:

"By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!"

It rained, but "buckets"? "Torrential"? where are you getting that?

Maybe you hate Bob Gimlin. Because you don't seem to acknowledge anything he says after the PGF incident. He was supposed to be there you know? Do I have to use the word 'pathetic' again concerning your PGF research?

If this is the case, try reading some of Roger Knights posts on this. He's already destroyed just about any argument you can come up with on the PGF. He's thorough.

Who is Roger Knight? Where is Bigfoot? Did Roger Knight show that Patty is unquestionably a Bigfoot while I was sleeping in my bed last knight?

 

[LAL]

Lu, you are ridiculous.

No, Bill. You're ridiculous. You've set up the most implausible hoax scenarios, pitted yourself against experts in dermatoglyphics, primate anatomy, anthropology, and primate locomotion with no apparent credentials in anything and generally come off like the class clown.

You haven't bothered to view films, read books, examine casts or generally do anything but pick at a few shreds you think bolster your sagging case.

The dermal ridges are dead to any but the most obstinate. The argument has been that they couldn't possibly be anything but real.

Now we know for sure they could indeed be other than real.

And you obviously don't even seem to know where they are.

I merely suggested another possible way the effect could be used. Most of the ridges are likely casting artifacts and human ridges.

You know this how? Chilcutt's already identified casting artifacts and contamination by human prints. I've posted some of his comments on this.

Something your dermal ridge expert never considered.

Nonsense. We'll see what he has to say at the Texas conference when Matt speaks with him. Did you know Matt read much of this thread?

Besides, if bigfoot has these ridges, then they should be common in tracks cast in mud. They are not.

Wet mud tends to fill them in. There are indeed ridges on casts from dryer mud. The casting artifact spoken of evidently doesn't occur where there's no wicking, as Matt explained on the thread.

There are other characteristics of living feet. The dermal ridges are by no means the whole case to begin with.

Ironically, I was researching hydrocal casting defects the other day.

Remember when I suddenly said I thought Chilcutt was wrong while posting on another topic? I was on the trail of possible casting defects at the time, but never finished up.

There was a discussion on air bubbles. I used to use plaster in casting. Anyone who does is aware of the vagaries of the medium. Chilcutt's testimony puts people in jail. He is so well respected in his profession he can pursue this line of inquiry. And you think he's so stupid he wouldn't think of artifacts? Do you think he only looked at the Onion Mountain Cast?

I have only ever seen one recognizable cripplefoot track, and it did indeed have an object near the "deformity".

It's one closeup from the trackway that had 1089 prints. The trackway was filmed. I ask again, if the object caused the "deformity", in your opinion, did the same or similar object show up on the rest of the tracks? Actually, it would only need to be found on half, 544 more, since the left foot wasn't affected.

I have seen no cast that matches the cripplefoot track, and Krantz's skeleton isn't even close.

You know this how? You're a specialist in anatomy? If you read his book you'll find a detailed explanation of how he reached his conclusions.

You've seen photos of the casts from the dump. There are photos of others. The crippled foot showed a high degree of flexibility. The photo from the trackway does match if you take into account the flexibility of the foot and the raised toe not always printing. Krantz did experiments with fake feet in snow. There's a clear spattering.

The Bossburg trackway is by no means the only trackway with hundreds to thousands of prints. It just got some publicity.

This revisionist history on your part will do you no good.

From this thread, folks would likely gather that you have done less BF research than several of us sceptics. This is likely from constant preaching from BF choir to BF choir with little outside input considered.

How many times do I have to tell you I read every book I could find prior to moving out of Washington? I read Dennett's articles when they were first published. I've read a great deal of stuff online, including articles from sceptics. I've read the books by Daegling and Long (well, most of Long). I lived in Sasquatch Country and knew people personally who were involved in investigations of events in the area.

I now own a three DVDs on the subject with one on the way, and two of the best books with more about to be ordered. I've ordered half a dozen from the library and read them all.

I've been a member on BFF for over a year, and the sceptical side there is far tougher than it is here.

I don't claim to do any research; I just read a lot, and view the people on DVD who've done the research. And read everything I can find by them.

I was complimented via PM on my "encyclopedic knowlege of Bigfoot minutae" after a researcher read some of this thread. (I had to respectfully disagree with him. I'm a novice.) I doubt he would agree with your assessment.

I see no indication of anyone on this board doing any research or even much reading. The serious researchers go so far as to make fake feet to see what sort of tracks they would leave. They don't just assume it could be done.

Talk about a choir! I see people parroting a few sceptical articles, stereotyping the pro side and doing a lot of hoo hahing. Diogenes mentioned something about critical thinking. It seems the lot of you (except for Ray, and sometimes Correo) have gotten as far as the critical part, but stopped there.

I don't know which sceptics you're referring to here (RayG, perhaps), but other than posting a few articles anyone can find online (I already had, in most cases) and some photos lifted even from BFF, I don't see that anyone's done much work. In some cases it looks as though the articles weren't read and the photos weren't looked at. Ray's read Krantz, but he's only showing his 10% here.

I'm now going to take a break and try to erase the image I have of you kids in a locker room slapping each other with towels before it gets to the soap.

 

[bruto]

I said " If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness."

LAL remarks:

Evidently they shot some scenery on the way (I'm still checking this out). The roll ran out as she walked into the forest. Tracks were filmed at the beginning of the second roll. If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery? They wanted to film some tracks for the documentary. They had plenty of film for that.

The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the entire enterprise is marked by carelessness and incompetence unless, of course, it's fraudulent. These folks have supposedly just shot the most significant bigfoot footage in history, and they lost part of it. The exact mechanism whereby it has been lost or misplaced is irrelevant. They went out supposedly to shoot a documentary, are said to have wasted most of the film on extraneous stuff, shot an ambiguous and questionable minute of bigfoot that looks to anyone without a preconceived belief in bigfoot like a man in a fursuit that doesn't fit terribly well, and then for whatever reason and in whatever way, the original film, and any trace of the "non-bigfoot" portion disappeared, their stories about how they made the film disagree, and circumstances surrounding the film and the personnel cast a shadow on its authenticity. If they were not frauds, it must be conceded that they did not do a very good job of presenting, preserving and authenticating their evidence. They were, in fact, careless and less than competent. If they had not been, and if the film had been genuine, we would not be having this discussion now.

I'm not as disinclined as some to doubt at least the possibility of there being a bigfoot. I think it unlikely, but possible. I would be happy to see it proved. But what astonishes me about people like you is your readiness to accept the most miserable excuses for failure and spoiled evidence. The best thing any bigfoot researcher could do under the present circumstances would be to discard everything that passes for evidence, shun all the so-called experts, and start from scratch with some new ideas reasonably diligent exercise of common sense and observation, combined perhaps with a little bit of useful equipment, such as a camera that works. If there really is a bigfoot, I'm betting that it will not be found by the clowns who are searching now unless one of them, while watching an expert at work, dies laughing. Even then, the expert will probably go home for the weekend and look for the body the following monday.

edited for typo

 

[LAL]

The tracks should not have been in good condition because it rained like a mofo and the creek rose:

Bob Gimlin said:

"By then we decided it wasn’t going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep!"

Maybe you hate Bob Gimlin.

You say that to me after what you said about him?

Because you don't seem to acknowledge anything he says after the PGF incident.

Non sequitur.

I just read the interview with Green.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

He says "hard", but not "buckets" or "torrential" or even :mofo". Where did you get that? You wouldn't be exaggerating to try to make your point would you?

He was supposed to be there you know? Do I have to use the word 'pathetic' again concerning your PGF research?

Do I have to call you on your atrocious manners again? If you don't respect women, at least try to have a little respect for your elders. I don't mind debating with you, but I don't like your attitude.

There are marks of drops in some of the photos. If you know mountains at all, you know most of the rain falls at higher elevations when the clouds are forced up. The creek could have swollen from rain higher up. Trees protect the ground from hard rain. I lived in Southern California, not Northern, but I don't remember driving rain there. Seems to me it was slow and steady, as was much of the rain in Washington and Oregon. It was nothing like the storms we have in North Carolina. Those can be torrential.

I haven't read much of what Gimlin has said actually (until now), except about Heironmus, or rather, what he didn't say about Heironimus. I've read quite a bit about them though, including Long's characterizations.

My interest has been more in the film itself and the biomechanics. This gets pretty technical. One error Krantz found in Grieve's work was that he measured from the leading edge instead of the axes as he said. I know Napier made a similar error on the stride, and I'm hoping Krantz covers this since I'm not finding my source on that. I've read all this before, I know, but I've forgotten so much it's like reading it for the first time.

Who is Roger Knight? Where is Bigfoot? Did Roger Knight show that Patty is unquestionably a Bigfoot while I was sleeping in my bed last knight?

Read his posts. He's an excellent writer and a thorough researcher. I dare you to take him on on BFF. He would take your cherry-picking arguments to the canners.

 

[LAL]

Lu, you can post proof of the 1088 claim any time you like.

I've got the popcorn on.

Yes it's 1088. Your claim was that there were 1088 more tracks.

I have seen one track, so I'll spot you that one.

Your evidence seems to be that a dairy farmer counted them.

1088+1=1089. The question was, was there an object on each of the right footprints to make it look like a deformity?

Next question is, how did an object make the deformity appear consistant with a case of metatarsus adductus?

What dairy farmer? Dahinden worked for one in the 50's. That doesn't make him one. I posted the link to the video clip of part of the trackway. Did you miss it?

Popcorn sounds good. I think I'll have some too.

 

[LAL]

Nightwing’s post is so unscientifically desperate it hurts my brain.

He says the torso lengths differ. First, he starts Bob H’s top measurement lower on the neck. Very scientific, nightwing. Second…of course the torso length is different at the bottom…because in the second picture Bob H isn’t wearing a giant fur diaper.

Morris has already stated that he consulted with Patterson on how to lengthen the arms through a prosthesis. Is that what we’re seeing?

Nah, must be an elusive, undiscovered, giant, hairy-breasted primate.

Are you Erectus from BFF or did you just cop his avatar?

If you want scientific, read Krantz. He goes into detail on what sort of prosthetic devices would be required. They simply wouldn't produce the fluid movement seen in the film.

It should be clear to anyone the proportions are not even close.

What's your source on Morris' statement and what evidence has he presented that he ever spoke with Patterson?

I'm beginning to see how Long could sell books. He could start a lucrative bridge and gold brick sideline. As Barnum said........