Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

This is deceptive, or outright false. Morris and Bob H presented a pretty convincing costume, despite what Footers want to tell themselves. Bob H did demonstrate how it was done, regardless of whether you want to believe him or not. To claim no one has attempted is patently false.

Did it occur to you that was written before their inept attempt?

And why didn't these people come forward 38 years ago to prevent this dishonesty from being perpetrated on an innocent world?

They've shown nothing except and ability to bilk money out of people who have some sort of an emotional need to believe them.
Did you see the link with the clip of Heironimus "doing the walk"?

BFRO’s site is peppered with this kind of garbage. It profits them to distort the truth.

Bob Heironimus ain't the truth.

This Bigfoot stuff ain’t rocket science, honey. You can become educated on the best “evidence” for Bigfoot in about 16 minutes.

You apparently didn't even do that. And don't call me "honey".

Do a search on anything Bigfoot related and you get the exact same articles cut and pasted into 20 different websites…all with the same erroneous information like the “inhuman” gait of Patty, inhuman proportions, and the “fact” that no expert has as of yet pronounced Patty a hoax (they have).

Then how did I get circa 300 different articles saved in My Favorites?

Pronouncing it a hoax and proving it a hoax are two different things.


"From Loren Coleman
[email protected]
5-3-4

This is my review of the Greg Long book, as published in the current issue of the US edition of FATE Magazine.

FATE May 2004 Book Reviews Page 82-83

The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story
By Greg Long
New York: Prometheus Books (New York),
2004, 475 pages; $25

Greg Long's book is not so much about Bigfoot as it is a well-orchestrated character assassination of Roger Patterson, the man holding the camera at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967, who allegedly filmed Bigfoot. (Patterson died in 1972.) At 475 pages, it is badly in need of more editing and less about when Greg Long eats chocolate doughnuts (p. 354). Two-thirds of this book is mostly flowery prose that you will have to endure to locate the kernel of the story. That core turns out to be a "he said/he said" tale viewed through Greg Long's biased sunglasses.

The psychological warfare this book engages in is in evidence from one end of the text to the other. For example, Long wastes no opportunity to frame Roger Patterson using the phrase "little man," 14 times in the first nine pages of chapter one. (Some of the characterizations are extremely harsh, e.g. "the puny little man on his little white horse," p. 22.)

Long has also filled the book full of "innocent" mistakes and interpretations; including these examples:

- Getting the chronology wrong about when Sasquatch researcher John Green got into the field, saying he began with the 1958 Bluff Creek finds (p. 34).

- Projecting psychological feelings on people (e.g. Long writes on p. 452 of a London conference's preview of the "man-in-the-suit" confession, "much to Coleman's embarrassment," which, of course, is ridiculous).

- Misidentifying Ivan T. Sanderson, the well-known Scottish zoologist who lived in America, as a "botanist" (p. 163)

- Talking of court records that show that plywood was found in Bob Gimlin's garage and Gimlin was charged with receiving stolen property. Long reports that the charges were later dismissed (pp. 169-170). What Long forgets to tell his readers, which the Gimlin family shared with me, is that Bob Gimlin was working for the city at the time and the person that told him to store the plywood was his boss, the Chief of Police. Greg Long has chosen what he wants to place in his book in the making of his case.

By the time you get to the "confession" of Bob Heironimus (pp. 336ff), the alleged "guy-in-the-suit," you don't know what or whom to believe. Heironimus started shopping around his story in 1998, according to media reports not mentioned in this book, to try to get some financial rewards from the tabloid The Sun. Then Heironimus hooked up with Greg Long.

Heironimus's story is as full of holes as the elusive Bigfoot suit surely must be, if it ever existed and could be found again in 2004. Several questions remain open thanks to Long's narrative. Most are technical ones, but a few that obviously leap out include:

- When and where did Heironimus met Patterson and Gimlin?

- Was it a three- or six-piece suit? The book gives both stories.

- Was the alleged Bigfoot suit created from a hide of a red horse skinned by Patterson or an artificial gorilla suit from a guy in North Carolina? The book details both origins.

- Did the Carolina suit maker get paid by Patterson or not? He has said one thing in the book and another to a reporter recently.

- Was Heironimus first approached by Gimlin as noted in the book, or by Patterson, as mentioned on a publicity appearance on MSNBC?

- How did the hair-covered breasts (seen in the October 20, 1967 footage) get on the front of the supposed three- or six-piece "gorilla" suit - despite Long's "thought" that maybe they were "attached black balloons filled with sand"?

Of course, there's more to the filming of Bigfoot than meets the eye. An open-mind about all aspects of this melodrama is helpful, but after you wade through this torturous book, you will walk away unsatisfied. I look forward to future examinations of the film. In the meantime, the Patterson-Gimlin footage remains worthy of our time as possible evidence of a filmed furry cryptid primate. And evidence of Bigfoot exists beyond the legacy of Roger Patterson and Greg Long. - Loren Coleman"

http://www.rense.com/general52/lon.htm

 

[LAL]

Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

Lu, is this really the circle you want to be associated with ?

What makes you think I'm associated with them? Two of my favorite posters are. A few more were.

Did you bother to read how Fahrenbach arrived at these conclusions?

" The description given here is derived from a compilation of thousands of eye witness reports from the entire continent, some of astounding length, detail, and corroborative evidence; the Patterson movie, taken in 1967, and a recent computer-based image analysis of it; and statistical analysis of a large database accumulated over the last fifty years, primarily by John Green."

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=584

I know ( hope ) you realize there is nothing to be debunked here; it is only to be held up to ridicule..

I think your lamp went out a while ago.

Have you looked into a study of critical thinking?

I'd ask you for a recommendation if I thought you would know of one.

I have heard that it's not nice to laugh at other people's beliefs, but it is also said " I'll stop laughing at what you believe, when you stop believing in funny stuff.. "

As Krantz said of the attitude of most scientists, "I'll see it when I believe it".

 

[LAL]

Neither is John Green, but he not only got to examine the cast, his conclusions were written up on the BFRO website.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/green_statement.asp

It would have been unthinkable to cut Green out. If there were honorary degrees in this he'd have about seven.

Noll participated in the discussion concerning Radford, though I don't remember his specific reason for the refusal to allow Radford access.

RayG

I'll look it up now that the barrage has slowed down. I only have two more pages to skim. Someone said I was doing research on the fly? Heck, I wasn't even home.

The cast was in Noll's mother-in-law's garage at one point. Maybe they were trying to limit the traffic. Radford could have seen copies at Bellingham, evidently. Did he try?

 

[LAL]

Why do you describe the event the way you do? You are leaving out so much. You need to do lots of reading and research on PGF before you can defend it. Your biased suckage might be at its crown moment here.

You're on the verge of getting reported. I've only recently purchased a book that has all the information on measurements, photos of the model, that sort of thing. I haven't had time to read it all yet. If you'll notice, I post more than anyone here and on a variety of related topics. The question (from Bill, which I still haven't been able to fully answer) was whether or not Patterson used another roll during the filming of Patty and the answer is "no".

Gimlin says that the last time he sees 'Patty' (after the filming), she is going up the logging road. He says he saw her 300 yards away on this road, then she goes around a bend and he loses sight. According to Gimlin, at that point they begin tracking her on horseback. They track her 3.5 miles up the mountain before they lose her trail. Then they backtrack the 3.5 miles to the film site then go another 2 miles back to their truck to get the plaster. Then they go the 2 miles back to the site to begin casting some tracks.

Gimlin started after her on horseback. Roger called him back because he wasn't mounted and didn't want to be alone (others were in the area, remember). Source that they followed her on horseback.

At what point has the sun set and they are in darkness on horseback? Then they still have to get back to the truck and drive into town to deliver the film (which would then be viewed about 35 hours later after a round-trip flight and developing in Seattle). Then they return to the camp (which is about 2 miles from the film site) that night. In the night a torrential rain starts. Gimlin decides to ride his horse through this rain in darkness to cover up the tracks which are 2 miles away. He covers some of them with pieces of bark then rides back to camp.

Hard rain. Not torrential. The cardboard boxes weren't suitable.

Lo and behold, 9 days later Bob Titmus shows up and views the footprint scene (after rains). He even claims to find a spot where 'Patty' sat down in ferns overlooking the film site. He suggests that she was watching the men cast her prints. So P&G tracked her 3.5 miles away from the film site, then she returns to the site to sit down and watch them.

??????????? She couldn't have watched while Gimlin was returning on horseback? Seems you don't have your information straight on this one. The sceptics have enough wrong information as it is; you don't have to give them more.

"Gimlin wanted to immediately continue pursuit on horseback and proceeded to do so. Patterson, however, did not have his horse or his rifle and did not want to be left alone. He therefore yelled at Gimlin to return, which he did. After Patterson's situation was rectified, the men then followed the path taken by the creature. They found scuff mark in the gravel and in the creek bed which may have indicated the creature ran when it was out of the mens' sight. They continued up the creek for a considerable distance and observed a rock with a wet half foot print on the surface. From that point the path led up into the mountains. The men then returned to the film site and examined the path the creature had taken along the sandbar. They observed and filmed (on the second film roll) the creature's footprints in the soil and later made plaster casts of the left and right foot. 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. The footprints measured 14.5-inches long by 6-inches wide. Gimlin jumped off a stump to see how far his footprints would sink into the soil in comparison with the creature's prints. The results were that the creature's foot prints were deeper. Patterson also took movie footage of this experiment together with footage of horse prints alongside the creature's prints, and the mens' cast-making activities."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

But she can't watch them until they have returned from the truck with the plaster. Isn't it night by now?

????? Again, where are you getting this stuff? Nowhere have I read she returned.

I probably don't need to mention that Titmus was a Bigfoot believer before this incident. Skeptics ought to be catching on to that stuff by now.

Titmus had sightings himself during WW II from a ship in Alaskan waters. He was an expert tracker and taxidermist. He was an old friend of Jerry Crew and showed him how to cast when tracks started showing up in the Bluff Creek valley in 1958. Titmus did a huge ammount of work on this, got some of the best casts ever taken and never sought publicity or wrote a book.

This bit doesn't include other huge problems and insanities that were supposed to have gone on surrounding this film event. There is a whole box of nails to drive into the coffin of the PGF. You are depriving a skeptical audience of them. Shame on you!

School may be out for the children, but I'm a homeowner with a job and other responsibilities. You seem to be doing a good job of presenting discrepancies which do nothing whatsoever to debunk the film, even though you seem to be rather inaccurate. Keep it up. I shouldn't have to do everyone's homework.

And BTW, what's your source?

 

[RayG]

It would have been unthinkable to cut Green out. If there were honorary degrees in this he'd have about seven.

But there are no degrees in cryptozoology. I've seen people argue that Benjamin Radford (of the Skeptical Inquirer) should NOT be allowed to examine the cast because he's not a scientist, yet they seem to have no problem with John Green examining the cast even though he's not a scientist either.

The cast was in Noll's mother-in-law's garage at one point. Maybe they were trying to limit the traffic. Radford could have seen copies at Bellingham, evidently. Did he try?

Noll himself said:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0&#entry54191
"I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford....Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized..."

I guess that answers the question of what reason Noll had for not allowing Radford access.

Radford posted this on the BFF:

I was indeed refused access to the Skookum cast by the BFRO (Matt Moneymaker himself). I was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if I could see the cast while I was there. I had written briefly about it before, and followed some of the published accounts of it. I was even quoted in Loren Coleman’s book as saying that it was potentially the biggest Bigfoot evidence find in the last few decades. Skeptics are often accused of not looking at the evidence, so I asked to see their evidence. He implied that I was not “qualified” to see the cast, but I did not ask to do any analysis or even touch the cast; I was perfectly happy to hear the BFRO experts’ analysis. I am not an anatomist (neither is Moneymaker, I might add), but, like most people, I can listen to evidence and make a judgement for myself. After a few e-mail exchanges, Moneymaker finally refused and that was that. It was apparently my status as a skeptic that disqualified me from viewing the cast. Moneymaker’s depiction of me as a blind and rabid debunker is unfair; I am open-minded (though skeptical) about Bigfoot and have never said that it does not exist.

and this :

I made a genuine and sincere request to see their evidence. I don't know if I will find it convincing or not, but being denied access to it told me a lot about how the BFRO (or at least Moneymaker) operates.

and this too:

I do not think Noll is a hoaxer or anything like it. My only statement was that Moneymaker (and hence the BFRO) refused me access to the cast; that’s all. I never said there was a conspiracy to keep it from me, or disparaged any Bigfoot proponents. My assumption, until proven wrong, is that Bigfoot researchers and witnesses are generally honest, intelligent people who—like all of us, including me—can misinterpret things and be misled by themselves and others.

In fact, you will find that I probably have more respect for Bigfoot proponents than the general public. Many in the public think Bigfoot research is silly or a waste of time. I do not. I take it seriously, and have NEVER criticized anyone who searches for cryptids in earnest. I may question their evidence, but I do not engage in, nor am I interested in, name-calling and ad hominem attacks. I take the topic seriously, and that is more than most people—and many skeptics—do.

RayG

 

[LAL]

And yet they don't prove anything.

Well, I don't want to get into definitions here (had enough of that with an M.I.T. grad over O.J.'s socks - I showed where he was wrong, anyway). "Prove" has a pretty specific meaning.

I think these thousands of tracks and trackways (and how many haven't been found?) point to something large and hominid making them and I don't mean big hoaxers.

I assumed you were talking about the Bossburg print. If not, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Is it actually new, or merely a new name for an old print?

They're from the Blue Mountains, 1984, Table Springs, Walla Walla River. They show extensive ridge detail over the plantar surface of the cast and there's a greater degree of supination in the right than in the left (Meldrum, 1999). See pg. 138-9, Meet the Sasquatch.

I can raise that 90% to 100% if we're talking about possibilities. If we're talking about absolute proof -- there isn't any. I've also said that IF bigfoot exists it's no more paranormal than my cat.

RayG

Absolute proof? Isn't that something found on whiskey bottles? In science, it's a high degree of probability. After all, they might be highly evolved squirrels.

How does paranormal keep getting into this? Paranormal big smelly apes? Really.

Did you know that if the robust Australopiths had followed the same size increase pattern Homo did they'd be 6' and 300 lbs.?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Chilcutt's testimony puts people in jail.

Not about dermal ridges on feet ( or plaster casts ), it don't ..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

Thanks..

I was just trying to check out the precipitation in the area around 10/20/67 .. There is a National Weather Service station in Orleans.

There was over an inch on the 22nd, but other than that, virtually ' 0 ' ten days before the 22nd or ten days after..

Certainly doesn't jive with a ' downpour ' on the morning of the 21st..


This may not mean anything at all, since thunder showers can be scattered and localized, but none of the reporting stations in Northern CA, reported any precipitation of note witin a few days of the 20th, except for the 22nd..

Just seems to be another question in an already questionable timeline..

 

[LAL]

Noll himself said:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0&#entry54191
"I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford....Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized..."

I guess that answers the question of what reason Noll had for not allowing Radford access.

"The only hand picking done was with getting the very best people who could help understand it, not just anybody. George Schaller because of his Gorilla work and ungulate studies, Daris Swindler because of his anatomy knowledge and skepticism, Esteban Sarimento for his current work in Africa on the Bili Ape and knowledge of just what museums might have in their basements. These are main stream scientists and naturalists, not magazine editors. We went with a magazine editor once and a major newspaper reporter another time, both at their request, and they didn't know diddly squat and their stories reflected it. Let them keep crying about it or making up stories concerning it, just remember that what ever they say, it is just their opinion and the only opinion they can offer is one coming from ignorance.

I have turned down only two people in coming to see the cast... Cliff Crook and Benjamin Radford. Cliff because he has an agenda to get his name into the news anyway he can and Mr. Radford because he seems too easily hypnotized (from his first story written about the cast and me). Editors and writers should learn to not burn bridges. The Skookum cast is not a side show attraction. It is being preserved for people who have knowledge of such things to see it in a prime condition both physically and without prejudice.

I brought it to the Willow Creek Symposium at the request of John Green because he thought it the perfect opportunity for Jane Goodall to see it. The only thing I would have done differently would have been to have displayed it at the school maybe instead of the museum, but I think everything is working out just fine the way it was. Radford has to write something, and probably something negative, that is about all he can write on the subject because he has been turned down in viewing it or taking pictures for his magazine articles. He wants to exploit the cast, in his own little way."

Context is everything.

Thanks for the links.

Any news on Sarmiento getting involved again?

 

[LAL]

Not about dermal ridges on feet ( or plaster casts ), it don't ..

He's a forensic fingerprint expert and, because his testimony puts people in jail, he has to be very careful. He applied that same thoroughness and care to his examinations of the casts.

I'm sorry you couldn't seem to grasp that.

 

[LAL]

Speaking of 'being fully prepared for Bigfoot'.... ask LAL how many pounds of plaster did Rick Noll drag up to remote Skookum Meadows before casting the sneaky reclining apple-eating Bigfoot. Ask the weight of the Skookum Cast.

Yes folks, were bringing ridiculous amounts of plaster because we just know that Bigfoot is gonna munch on these delicious apples in the middle of the night. We are going to need gobs of plaster to cast this scene which will happen. You betcha!

We've already been over all this. I'm not about to go through it again. If you don't know, read the field notes. They've been posted often on this thread. They were trying to get clear tracks and had ample Hydocal for that, but barely enough for the cast.

I've read at least two figures for the weight and I don't know how much the mud weighed before it was cleaned. Do you?

 

[LAL]

Thanks..

I was just trying to check out the precipitation in the area around 10/20/67 .. There is a National Weather Service station in Orleans.

There was over an inch on the 22nd, but other than that, virtually ' 0 ' ten days before the 22nd or ten days after..

Certainly doesn't jive with a ' downpour ' on the morning of the 21st..


This may not mean anything at all, since thunder showers can be scattered and localized, but none of the reporting stations in Northern CA, reported any precipitation of note witin a few days of the 20th, except for the 22nd..

Just seems to be another question in an already questionable timeline..

My favorite whether report was from Portland, Oregon, predicting a "chance of scattered snow showers in the Gorge today", when we had four inches on the ground and falling.

Even in the realtively tame mountains I live in now there's a huge difference in weather even between where I live and the nearest city. I've been blinded by rain en route to it and back while there was sunshine everywhere else in the area.

"Humboldt County, located in Northwest California, is the southern gateway to the Pacific Northwest. The County is bordered on the north by Del Norte County; on the east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties; on the south by Mendocino County and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. According to the county, Humboldt encompasses 2.3 million acres, 80 percent of which is forestlands, protected redwoods and recreation areas.


Humboldt County is home to ten State Parks and also home to the Redwood National and State Parks, which have been designated as a United Nations Biosphere Region and World Heritage Site. The World Wildlife Fund has identified the County as part of one of the most diverse eco-regions left on the planet and named it to its Global 200 list.

According to Humboldt County, land use is 74% forests, 10% agriculture, 6% public use, 4% residential, 3% water resources, 2% industrial and 1% commercial. The northern part of the County includes the City of Trinidad, Orick; Redwood National Park; Prairie Creek and Humboldt Lagoons State Parks; and several State Beaches. The eastern part of the County includes Willow Creek, Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, Orleans, and a great deal of Six Rivers National Forest land. Our expedition was to trek the forest service and uncharted logging roads between Orick and the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation.

According to Humboldt State University, "…the northward migration of The Mendocino triple junction (where the Pacific, North American, and Gorda plates meet) has produced strong compression and rapid rates of uplift (up to 3 meters per 1,000 years) in Humboldt County. Seismic activity, still-growing Pleistocene folds, active faults, and flights of raised marine and fluvial terraces are products of this tectonism."

Humboldt County is an area of moderate temperatures and considerable precipitation. In most years, rainfall is experienced each month of the year. Seasonal totals average more than 40 inches in the driest area, and exceed 100 inches in the zones of heavy precipitation. Because of the moisture and moderate temperature the average relative humidity is high. Largely as a result of the proximity of the cool Pacific Ocean, the adjoining coastal area has one of the coolest, most stable temperature regimes to be found anywhere. With increasing distance from the ocean, the marine influence is less pronounced, and inland areas experience wider variations of temperature and lower humidities.

Temperatures along the coast vary only 10 degrees from summer to winter, although a greater range is found over inland areas. Temperatures of 32 degrees or lower are experienced nearly every winter throughout the area, and colder temperatures are common in the interior. Maximum readings for the year often do not exceed 80 on the coast, while 100 degree plus readings occur frequently in the mountain valleys.

Humboldt County offers a diverse and unique mix of natural resources ranging from the coastal coniferous forests to the sand beaches and dunes of the Pacific coastal plain, including 120 miles of coastline that border the Pacific Ocean. Good habitats support an abundance of wildlife in the County, including deer, elk, bear, mountain lion, salmon, bald eagles and the northern spotted owl, and perhaps Sasquatch."

http://www.bluenorth.com/Memorial-Day-2003-Expedition.htm

 

[tube]

Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I'm flattered that some of you consider that some of the tests I've done to be worthwhile enough to discuss. I'm interested in simply having everyone get the facts straight, so if anyone has questions, I'm willing to try and answer them.

I am not willing to go as far as other skeptics have and claim that my casting artifact tests "debunk" all dermal ridge evidence in purported Sasquatch casts. Why not? Well, the evidence suggests that casting artifacts (of the type I'm talking about) do not occur in muddy substrates. Of the 6 casts of Jeff Meldrum's that Chilcutt examined only one, the Onion Mountain cast, was made in fine DRY powdered soil. Two of the others were made in mud namely "Wrinkle Foot" and the Elkins cast in Georgia. The other three I believe were two of Paul Freeman's and one from Hyampom CA cast by Bob Titmus. Of the latter three I do not know the soil conditions in which these casts were made. I have only examined good copies of the Onion Mountain cast and "Wrinkle foot". I make no claims to knowledge about the nature of casts besides Onion Mountain other than to say the evidence suggests that casting artifacts do not occur in mud or even wet soils.

 

[LAL]

I recall that BH said he had some football shoulder pads on, so I am not sure why the "no padding" line is constantly repeated.

It doesn't matter a whit anyway, even if BH said there was no padding.

If the padding was built into the suit, then BH would indeed say he wore no padding. He would be telling the truth. He could indeed have worn a suit without putting any padding on.

Given the thigh bulge, the padding could indeed be part of the suit and the thigh padding may have come loose.

Lu, I will say it again, you seem never to have given any thought to what a hoaxer would do. None at all.

I've read the book and numerous reviews completely debunking it. Why should I waste any more time on it? There is no evidence of a hoax. None at all.

That's hard to believe. That is why I brought up "intentionally obtuse".

It seems odd that you wouldn't have thought of padding being part of the suit. It's such an obvious thing to consider.[/B][/QUOTE]
I read the book. Did you? Which suit are you referring to? 'Scuse me.....alleged suit. Suits. The one the "Planet of the Apes guy" made? The one "Roger made"? The cloth suit Morris said he made?

I don't like idle conjecture with nothing to back it up.

You can think of a horribly wrecked tendon though, and accept that. Even on a creature with such a cool smooth walk.

The tendon wasn't ruptured. Underlying muscles bulge though a separation in the quadriceps. I'll have to view that again to get the exact terminology. An old injury wouldn't necessarily hurt. Evidently she was part of a group. She may have been cared for early on if it was disabling for awhile.

Strange.

What's strange? I'm under no obligation to try to push, shove, distort and mangle the information to try to make it fit into an improbable hoax scenario. I know too much about it to be able to do that.

 

[LAL]

Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I'm flattered that some of you consider that some of the tests I've done to be worthwhile enough to discuss. I'm interested in simply having everyone get the facts straight, so if anyone has questions, I'm willing to try and answer them.

I am not willing to go as far as other skeptics have and claim that my casting artifact tests "debunk" all dermal ridge evidence in purported Sasquatch casts. Why not? Well, the evidence suggests that casting artifacts (of the type I'm talking about) do not occur in muddy substrates. Of the 6 casts of Jeff Meldrum's that Chilcutt examined only one, the Onion Mountain cast, was made in fine DRY powdered soil. Two of the others were made in mud namely "Wrinkle Foot" and the Elkins cast in Georgia. The other three I believe were two of Paul Freeman's and one from Hyampom CA cast by Bob Titmus. Of the latter three I do not know the soil conditions in which these casts were made. I have only examined good copies of the Onion Mountain cast and "Wrinkle foot". I make no claims to knowledge about the nature of casts besides Onion Mountain other than to say the evidence suggests that casting artifacts do not occur in mud or even wet soils.

Wow. Hi. I hope you don't mind me talking about you. I'm really impressed with your work. This is how it's done. Test it. Check it. Check it again.

I'd lost track of the detailed thread and was glad to be able to read the rest of it. Invited to do papers? How cool is that?

I believe Chilcutt examined more than six (he discarded the first for contamination) but found six compelling. Thanks for letting us know which ones......almost. Would one of the Freeman tracks be from his first sighting? How could I find out which ones they were?
(Too late to win that debate, but I can still PM the poster.)

The Hyampom prints were found in wet mud, according to Murphy (pg. 138).

(Heh, heh. At least they know I wasn't lying when I said you'd read most of the thread. I didn't know you were still lurking. If it took hours to read it can you imagine how long it took to write it? Here I am at 2:20 AM EST again. Egad!)

 

[LAL]

I dismiss all Bigfoot believers outright. It's too late to really claim Bigfoot to be a reality. This myth game has been going on for centuries and intensively for about 40 years.

Your bias is showing.

Rational folks may believe in Bigfoot, but the belief in Bigfoot is irrational itself.

And why is that? Be specific, and try not to hoot.

They didn't at a recent conference. Check out Kewaunee Lapseritis at the Bellingham Sasquatch Research Conference in May. Conference Reviews

Check out the criticism of that while you're at it.

It would seem that 'anything goes' in Bigfoot research since there is no type specimen to create any kind of naturalistic standard for the creature.

Read Krantz.

If you claim that Bigfoot is a visiting extraterrestrial... who the hell is going to prove that it isn't?

If I claim you're Kal Korff in drag who the hell is going to prove that you aren't?

Demand a refund? Would that be like paying to go through a Halloween spook house in order to be scared, then asking for your money back because the guy in there with the bloody chainsaw really isn't a murderer?

Is that really relevant to anything?

 

[LAL]

I didn't think anyone knew the exact film speed?

I know some have attempted to guess...but no one really knows, do they?

It had to be 16 or 24. I apologize for not getting back to correct the error. I was trying to catch up on posts and someone caught it before I could get back to it. 24 was ruled out for reasons I've explained.

 

[LAL]

Lu, maybe my memory is faulty, but I believe you and Noll claimed that there would have to be hoof prints in the body print if the skookum print was made by an elk.

You were claiming at one point it was the imprint of a chest. In that case the hoof prints would have to be in the imprint because they gather their legs under them to get up. This would have to be somewhere in the area even if an elk rolled. The elk prints were of a walking elk.

 

[RayG]

The Skookum cast is not a side show attraction. It is being preserved for people who have knowledge of such things to see it in a prime condition both physically and without prejudice.

So journalist/author John Green can see it but journalist/author Benjamin Radford cannot? When he says "without prejudice", does he mean 'objectively' or 'unbiased'?

Copies of the cast were given to both Green and Rene Dahinden, neither of which could be called unbiased.

I'm in favor of having as many people look at it as possible, not just those who support the bigfoot hypothesis.

RayG

 

[RayG]

It had to be 16 or 24.

Krantz believed it to be 18fps. (page 94 of Big Footprints.)

RayG