Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

P/G interview.

Patterson was under the horse.

P and G differ on Patty's arm length.
P says above the knees G says way below.

So? Patterson said Bob was a little excited there.

Gimlin may have been distracted for a moment controlling his own horse and not really seen exactly what was happening with Roger. Memory can play tricks over time. Gimlin's interview with Green was what, 30 years later? I'm not finding anything earlier on that.

Gimlin again says she stood still for a moment.

Before Patterson began filming. I've read she was squatting by the stream, then rose and started walking off. I have a vague memory of seeing this somewhere. I'm wondering if it could have been an animation or if I'm imagining it. In any event, she doesn't stop moving on the film on LMS.

There's a map (by Titmus) on page 42 of Meet the Sasquatch showing where she crossed the stream after the camera ran out of film and watched them from the hill. The logging road was parallel to the creek. Unfortunately, there's no scale.

I'm not finding anything on how far they followed her into the forest yet. Who has a source?

 

[LAL]

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

RayG

I think that's where I got it. I've just been reading Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (same book with updates).
Seems I've read that from one of the Russians, as well, but if Murphy's right about the camera, there was no 18 fps setting. Patterson said it had been switched from 24 to 16 but he wasn't sure when.

 

[LAL]

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

Dahinden died less than a year later. Just when were copies made? (I haven't had a chance to read everything on the BFF threads, so I apologize if the info is there. I'm still on page 35 on this thread.)

Maybe they made the policy after honoring two of the so-called Four Hoursemen (yeah, I know what Green had to say about that).

Radford's not banned, is he? He gets to see it when the rest of the public does.

 

[tube]

I'm not as comfortable as LAL is discussing multiple topics simultainously in the same thread. As we can all see there is a great deal of detail in all this, probably a bit much for one thread. But something caught my eye which I feel I need to comment on. This is the notion that there was something funny about Rick Noll having large amounts of Hydrocal in his possession at the start of the "Skookum" expedition. I wondered about this myself some years ago, when I first heard about it. This backhanded intimation of hoaxing or fraud has come up in Bigfooter circles too and ought to be addressed. Frankly the answer is simple.

The cement used for the "Skookum cast" was not ordinary plaster of Paris, but a superior casting cement called Hydrocal B-11. This is made by U.S. Gypsum. You can verify on U.S.G's website that Hydrocal B-11 is supplied in 50 and 100 bags. The last 100 pound bag I bought at retail here in Seattle cost me about 28 dollars.

Rick is a tooling metrologist who uses Hydrocal B-11 in his work. They buy it by the pallet. Rick told me that his cost is about 14 dollars per one hundred pound bag. Rick also told me that he was delivering 200 pounds of the stuff to another "team" member, Leroy Fish I believe. I gather that USG's better casting cements like Hydrocal and Ultracal (which I favor) are hard to get in various parts of the country. I suspect, but do not know, that this is why Noll was delivering it to another Bigfooter. My point in all this is that for Noll to have 200 pounds of Hydrocal in the back of his pick up truck is NO BIG DEAL.

I have unresolved questions about the "Skookum cast" myself, and I'm an acquaintance of Rick Noll. The mass of Hydrocal B-11 in his possession at the time is NOT one of them.

 

[RayG]

I think that's where I got it. I've just been reading Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (same book with updates).
Seems I've read that from one of the Russians, as well, but if Murphy's right about the camera, there was no 18 fps setting. Patterson said it had been switched from 24 to 16 but he wasn't sure when.

If there IS no 18 fps setting, that would call into question the scientific investigation by Krantz, who said (page 94): "Patterson normally had his camera set on 24 frames per second. Some time after the filming he noticed it was set on 18 frames."

You'd think a complete investigation would have included the equipment used to obtain the film, and Krantz would have noticed if there was no 18 fps setting.

Krantz includes a chart on page 95 that shows his estimated height ranges of the film subject according to frame speeds of the camera.

24 fps = 3'3" - 4'2" tall
18 fps = 5'9.3" - 7'4.6" tall
16 fps = 7'4" - 9'8" tall

At the bottom of the chart he states: "It would appear, without reasonable doubt, that it was filmed at 18 frames per second."

Using the footprints found at the scene, and measuring them against the height of the subject in the film, only the 18 fps settings match.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Dahinden died less than a year later.

Irrelevant. He was given a copy, he was no scientist, and he certainly wasn't unbiased.

Just when were copies made?

I've no idea, nor does it change anything I've written or commented on.

Radford's not banned, is he? He gets to see it when the rest of the public does.

I've shown FOUR links where both Noll and Radford state he was denied/refused access. Radford was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if he could see the cast while he was there. He was denied/refused access. The reasons for refusing access seem rather childish.

RayG

 

[RayG]

I have unresolved questions about the "Skookum cast" myself...

Hi Matt, care to elaborate?

RayG

 

[LAL]

Irrelevant. He was given a copy, he was no scientist, and he certainly wasn't unbiased.

Wasn't Green working with Noll on making copies?

I've no idea, nor does it change anything I've written or commented on.

What's your source on them being given copies? Is it in those threads somewhere? I hate to plead no time again, but I am short of time right now, and this is new to me.

I've shown FOUR links where both Noll and Radford state he was denied/refused access. Radford was planning to be in the Seattle area, and politely e-mailed the BFRO to ask if he could see the cast while he was there. He was denied/refused access. The reasons for refusing access seem rather childish.

RayG

For a private showing. He was denied by MM at first. RN gives him conditional permission (below). As I recall, without reading the rest of the threads right now (I can't even get caught up on the posts here), it was said could see it with the rest of the public. I did read this far:

" Mr. Radford,

Please check your first uninformed article containing comments on the Skookum Cast and Richard Noll in the note section Vol 26, No. 2 Skeptical Inquirer, Evaluating 50 years of Bigfoot Evidence. You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations. You have never seen the cast, met or talked with Richard Noll, or any of the other members of the expedition except Matt Moneymaker, but came to a very strange explanation for the events documented. Maybe the BFRO as a whole considers this a type of "bridge burning".

There were two PHDs on the expedition, one a clinical psychologist and chemist (as well as a non-believer), the other a wildlife biologist and co-discoverer (who wanted to look into the problem before he couldn't). What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you as well?

Both Daris Swindler and George Schaller have impeccable reputations. Both have examined the Skookum cast. Neither claimed to be believers in Bigfoot but neither have they turned their eyes away from the evidence. George has studied more than just Gorillas and is very familiar with ungulates and their sign. Daris is probably the world's leading primate anatomist.

Daris Swindler denounced the subject of Bigfoot even after he met face to face and interviewed Albert Otsman. He had his own copy of the P/G film, watching it over and over but still came up with "it's a hoax conclusion"... yet after four examinations of the Skookum cast, came to a completely different conclusion. Seems he found something, corroborating evidence he'd seen before and that he understood quite well.

To the best of my knowledge, Richard Noll is not trying to convince anybody of anything. He has and is continuing to collect what he feels is evidence for the animals existence. Then he presents it as such. Nothing more. He even stated in front of 200+ interested parties, believers and others that he was not 100%convinced that the impression was made by a Bigfoot since he didn't see it make it. He qualified that immediately through another question asked in that he didn't know what else it could be either.

I think that Richard respects what you are attempting to do in your articles, i.e. apply common sense, bootstrap, home grown, over the counter investigative skills and techniques to look into extraordinary claims... something even a loving mother should be able to do. Your articles can sometimes be quite humbling in their no-nonsense approach.

I am sure that the next time you decide to do an article on the subject and you contact Richard about it, that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has as well as speak with some of his hypnotized subjects, like Daris, to decide for yourself... as long as you write nothing more about what you know not."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well.

Maybe the BFRO could go first, and print a retraction of all the nonsense on their site...

Oh, and Knoll is free to refute anything he finds in The Skeptical Enquirer.. A great opportunity to put those nasty ol' skeptics in their place.

 

[RayG]

Wasn't Green working with Noll on making copies?

Which would seem to indicate Green isn't unbiased. Do you agree or disagree that Green and Dahinden are/were not scientists and are/were far from unbiased? What makes Green and Dahinden MORE qualified to view the Skookum cast?

What's your source on them being given copies? Is it in those threads somewhere? I hate to plead no time again, but I am short of time right now, and this is new to me.

The following scientists/non-scientists were given cast copies of the heel according to Richard Noll:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=60&#entry58348

John Green
Rene Dahinden
Esteban Sarmientoi
George Schaller
Daris Swindler
Richard Greenwall
Doug Hajicek
Zack Clothier
Derek Randles
LeRoy Fish
Alton Higgins
Jeff Meldrum
Jimmy Chillcut
Sue Lindley

Dahinden and Fish are both now deceased.

For a private showing. He was denied by MM at first. RN gives him conditional permission (below).

Ah yes, it's always easier for someone living on the east coast to arrange for the cast viewing at the convenience of the person on the opposite coast who has the cast stored in their garage. That was addressed already. If Noll is truly concerned about allowing access, he seems to go about it in a rather inflexible manner. I also find it strange that Noll keeps referring to himself in the third person. Keep in mind Richard Noll himself wrote the following:

You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition...What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you...To the best of my knowledge, Richard Noll is not trying to convince anybody of anything. He has and is continuing to collect what he feels is evidence for the animals existence. Then he presents it as such. Nothing more. He even stated in front of 200+ interested parties, believers and others that he was not 100%convinced that the impression was made by a Bigfoot since he didn't see it make it. He qualified that immediately through another question asked in that he didn't know what else it could be either...I think that Richard respects...that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has...

The whole things reads like he's talking about someone else, a third party. That seems, at the very least, rather misleading or deceptive. When Radford showed up at the BFF, he immediately identified himself. I don't recall Richard identifying himself during the course of the debate with Radford on the BFF. Other members are aware that damndirtyape and Richard Noll are one and the same, but I don't know if Radford knew that during his discussion.

That article seems to be the source of some of the nonsense I'm seeing on this board. If I were Richard, I'd demand a retraction as well.

If Richard can come forward with something besides an opinion, then maybe he can demand a retraction. Not allowing a difference of opinion isn't very scientific.

RayG

 

[LAL]

If there IS no 18 fps setting, that would call into question the scientific investigation by Krantz, who said (page 94): "Patterson normally had his camera set on 24 frames per second. Some time after the filming he noticed it was set on 18 frames."

You'd think a complete investigation would have included the equipment used to obtain the film, and Krantz would have noticed if there was no 18 fps setting.

Krantz includes a chart on page 95 that shows his estimated height ranges of the film subject according to frame speeds of the camera.

24 fps = 3'3" - 4'2" tall
18 fps = 5'9.3" - 7'4.6" tall
16 fps = 7'4" - 9'8" tall

At the bottom of the chart he states: "It would appear, without reasonable doubt, that it was filmed at 18 frames per second."

Using the footprints found at the scene, and measuring them against the height of the subject in the film, only the 18 fps settings match.

RayG

None of the heights match his final estimate. He calculated that from foot length, didn't he? I found a source recently while checking this out again where Roger reportedly said 24fps and 16fps. Grieves said either 16 or 18 would be out of human range.

Murphy seems to have done his homework. I'm wondering why this wasn't caught earlier.

I saw it as soon as I read the description of the camera in his book. I thought my memory was wrong, but now I'm wondering if my sources were.

"The second question arises from the movement of the image. Bourne finds it "very much of a human type gait." Donskoy agrees with Bourne "in principle," and then goes on to enumerate differences, which lead him to the conclusion that the walk of the image is "absolutely non-typical of man." Grieve detects a similarity between the gait of the image and that of man only if the film were taken at 24 fps or some higher speed. Film speed does not, however, bear upon the appearance of the arm swing and the shoulder contours. Krantz limits himself to the observation that the apparent pivot point of the ankle differs from that of the average man.

The question of film speed has been debated at some length. Patterson's camera was capable of 16, 18, and 24 fps. Napier (1972:94) suggests 24 fps because it is best suited for television transmission, and Patterson acknowledged his desire to have his film broadcast on TV. Napier also reports that Patterson could not recollect at what speed the film was taken. Green (1973b:70) reports Patterson finding his camera set at 18 fps on checking it after the excitement of the moment had quieted, although it was his custom to set it at 24 fps."

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

Could Murphy be wrong on the camera? What other Kodak could it have been?

 

[tube]

Hi Matt, care to elaborate?

RayG

First off, I'm satisfied that whatever made the "Skookum" impression was made by an animal or animals. Why? Because I have examined a first generation female copy of the thing at the Seattle Sasquatch conference and one can clearly see the texture of hair and fur. Much has been made about how elk stand up, in that they need to get their legs directly under them and would have left hoof prints in the very center of the impression. But this argument goes both ways: If the impression was made by a reclining Sasquatch, how did it go down and how did it get up? Try it yourself; while it is physically possible to get up and go down without using one's hands or knees, the most natural way is to plant hands and knees onto the ground. Where are the knee or hand impressions? My guess is that the advocates will posit that the Sasquatch simply rolled onto harder ground before getting up, and that is certainly a possiblity. I make mention of this simply because I have not seen this particular question raised.
My other question has to do with the substrate in which it was made; it was clearly fine enough and fluid enough to capture the texture of fur, but was it fine enough to capture dermal ridges? I have not seen a soil sample, but I believe soil samples were taken. It would be an easy thing to test to see if this soil was capable of holding human dermal ridges. If it could hold human dermal ridges it is not an unreasonable inference that it could hold coarser dermal ridges, as Sasquatch dermal ridges are claimed to be. Again, this may have already been discussed somewhere, but I am not familiar with it. Maybe I should be asking Rick instead of simply posting this on the JREF forum!

 

[RayG]

None of the heights match his final estimate.

You mean his height estimate? Sure, the 5'9" - 7'4" falls in the range that Krantz (and everyone else) estimates.

Krantz - walking height = 6', standing height = 6'6"
Patterson - 7'4"
Gimlin - 6'1" or 6'2"
Byrne, Green, and Grieve - all estimate between 6'5" and about 6'7"

He calculated that from foot length, didn't he?

That was one method, but he also mentions the film comparison done by John Green, and the estimates by the other film investigators.

I found a source recently while checking this out again where Roger reportedly said 24fps and 16fps. Grieves said either 16 or 18 would be out of human range.

Seems like all we have is lots of speculation. There's disagreement over whether it was filmed at 16, 18, or 24fps. I'm not even certain that particular camera has those three specific settings.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15431
"The Camera, according to most sources and stories, was a dual speed type. 24 frames per second, or a slower 16 fps."

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/article.php?id=56
"He passed around the camera [Cine-Kodak K-100] (lenses were missing) so people could look at the settings, 24 frames per sec. being the normal setting for TV reporting, but Roger told John Green it was set at 18, and he didn’t know when the change was made. Daniel
thinks that Roger made a mistake when he reported it was 18. The slower the film, the more it blurs, and Daniel thinks it was set at 16 frames per sec. "

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"Regarding the camera speed: Glickman reports that, according to the Kodak Archives, the speed tolerance of the film carrier subassembly in Patterson's camera was plus or minus 10%. If it was set at 16 fps, then the actual speed could have been anywhere between 14.4 fps and 17.6 fps."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry180306
"I heard on a Bigfoot documentary awhile back that they discovered the camera that Patterson filmed Patty with never even had a 24 frames per second speed. Only 16 and 18. The documentary was made before the late Dr. Grover Krantz past away and he pointed this out himself."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&#entry198472
"I did some researching and found in Krantzs book Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence that the settings on the Kodak k-100 had a setting og 16 and 24. Nothing in between. All the confusion on the speed Krantz said could of been that the 16 speed on the camera could of been smudged really bad and it looked like it said 18 instead of 16."

If there IS no 18fps, that would seem to be quite damaging to the height estimates given by Krantz in his chart on page 95.

The question of film speed has been debated at some length. Patterson's camera was capable of 16, 18, and 24 fps.

Are you certain of that? Others seem to think there were only two settings, 16 and 24.

Napier (1972:94) suggests 24 fps because it is best suited for television transmission, and Patterson acknowledged his desire to have his film broadcast on TV. Napier also reports that Patterson could not recollect at what speed the film was taken. Green (1973b:70) reports Patterson finding his camera set at 18 fps on checking it after the excitement of the moment had quieted, although it was his custom to set it at 24 fps."

Yup, like I said, lots of speculation.

Could Murphy be wrong on the camera? What other Kodak could it have been?

I guess that's a possibility, but it doesn't give us any answers.

RayG

 

[RayG]

If the impression was made by a reclining Sasquatch, how did it go down and how did it get up? Try it yourself; while it is physically possible to get up and go down without using one's hands or knees, the most natural way is to plant hands and knees onto the ground. Where are the knee or hand impressions? My guess is that the advocates will posit that the Sasquatch simply rolled onto harder ground before getting up, and that is certainly a possiblity. I make mention of this simply because I have not seen this particular question raised.

Actually, it's something I've raised both here on the JREF, and on the BFF.

March 2, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10057&st=0&#entry200476
" I'd like to see how the gorilla/human would leave an imprint of its achilles tendon without leaving an imprint of its foot. I'm always left wondering how the Skookum critter was able to sit in the mud, yet leave no footprint or handprint. Try it yerself. Sit down on the floor/ground and try to get to yer feet again WITHOUT using yer hands and/or feet for leverage."

again on May 30, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11294&st=80&#entry231178
"How did the sasquatch leave an imprint of its achilles tendon WITHOUT leaving an imprint of its foot?

How was it able to get to its feet WITHOUT using its hands and/or feet for leverage?"

once again on June 22, 2005
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876
"I've never had anyone give me an explanation for those two questions.

How did the sasquatch leave an imprint of its achilles tendon WITHOUT leaving an imprint of its foot?

How was it able to get to its feet WITHOUT using its hands and/or feet for leverage?"

My other question has to do with the substrate in which it was made; it was clearly fine enough and fluid enough to capture the texture of fur, but was it fine enough to capture dermal ridges?

Very good point, and one I don't recall being addressed.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Maybe the BFRO could go first, and print a retraction of all the nonsense on their site...

Oh, and Knoll is free to refute anything he finds in The Skeptical Enquirer.. A great opportunity to put those nasty ol' skeptics in their place.

It's "Noll". I wish he would. I believe Green's response to Korff and Kocis made it to Letters to the Editor, but would they publish an article by him?

 

[LAL]

Which would seem to indicate Green isn't unbiased. Do you agree or disagree that Green and Dahinden are/were not scientists and are/were far from unbiased? What makes Green and Dahinden MORE qualified to view the Skookum cast?

Experience.

The following scientists/non-scientists were given cast copies of the heel according to Richard Noll:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=60&#entry58348

John Green
Rene Dahinden
Esteban Sarmientoi
George Schaller
Daris Swindler
Richard Greenwall
Doug Hajicek
Zack Clothier
Derek Randles
LeRoy Fish
Alton Higgins
Jeff Meldrum
Jimmy Chillcut
Sue Lindley

Dahinden and Fish are both now deceased.

Okay, just the heel. I didn't think he was handing out copies of the whole thing, especially with an estimated cost of $2500 a pop.

Ah yes, it's always easier for someone living on the east coast to arrange for the cast viewing at the convenience of the person on the opposite coast who has the cast stored in their garage. That was addressed already. If Noll is truly concerned about allowing access, he seems to go about it in a rather inflexible manner. I also find it strange that Noll keeps referring to himself in the third person. Keep in mind Richard Noll himself wrote the following:
[/B][/QUOTE]

The condition was that Radford stop writing about things he knows nothing about. I think that's a great idea.

The whole things reads like he's talking about someone else, a third party. That seems, at the very least, rather misleading or deceptive. When Radford showed up at the BFF, he immediately identified himself. I don't recall Richard identifying himself during the course of the debate with Radford on the BFF. Other members are aware that damndirtyape and Richard Noll are one and the same, but I don't know if Radford knew that during his discussion.

When I first joined a year ago I was informed by another poster Noll wished to remain anonymous on the board. Perhaps he was still trying to do that, but at times he's signed his posts.

His anonimity is blown for sure now.

If Richard can come forward with something besides an opinion, then maybe he can demand a retraction. Not allowing a difference of opinion isn't very scientific.

RayG

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?. I can see why Richard might not want to give him the time of day.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?. I can see why Richard might not want to give him the time of day.

Do you have a source that shows Radford says anyone was ' hypnotized '?

I don't see it in the referenced article...


http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

 

[RayG]

Experience.

In what regard? Did either Green or Dahinden have a sighting? Have either of them successfully bagged a squatch? I don't think you've shown why one writer/journalist (Green) with an interest in bigfoot is more qualified than another writer/jounalist (Radford) with an interest in bigfoot.

The condition was that Radford stop writing about things he knows nothing about. I think that's a great idea.

What does anyone REALLY know about squatch?

Saying he "hypnotized" people in print is something beyond mere opinion, IMO, and certainly isn't scientific, but then Radford's no scientist, is he?.

Radford never said it, Noll did. Three times in all:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40&#entry58072

"You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations...What makes you think, given the chance to see the cast and talk with Mr. Noll in person, he wouldn't hypnotize you as well...that he would consider having you examine the cast and all the other evidence he has as well as speak with some of his hypnotized subjects..."

To which Radford replied:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=40&#entry58151

"As for “You implied that he as much hypnotized other members of the expedition into believing the impression found was that of a Bigfoot, much as some come to see faces and winged animals in cloud formations,” I simply gave one possibility for what might have happened, based not upon wild conjecture but upon the BFRO’s own report and my background in psychology. I did not suggest anyone was “hypnotized” at all; the imprint is an ambiguous shape in mud. That is a fact. People have a psychological tendency to read meaning into ambiguous shapes. That also is a fact. I did not say that was conclusively what happened, but, based upon the BFRO’s own report, I simply suggested it was a possibility."

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

The idea of sasquatch experts is hilarious.

The idea of a sasquatch dermal ridge expert is over the top.

What's next, a sasquatch surgeon?

 

[LAL]

Do you have a source that shows Radford says anyone was ' hypnotized '?

I don't see it in the referenced article...


http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

I don't see the word, but that seems to be the implication here (influenced, at least):

"The way in which the track was discovered raises questions as well. The expedition log gives an account of how "[Team member Richard] Noll notices an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the wallow and suddenly figures out what caused it. [Team members] Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face and come over to have another look at what he's examining. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple core nearby. The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal was laying on its side at the edge of the mud, reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit" (BFRO 2000). So what you have is a case where a group of people are looking for evidence of a Bigfoot. One observer believes he sees a pattern fitting what he's looking for in ambiguous stimuli (shapes in mud). Once the pattern is pointed out to others, they also agree that the pattern could match up to parts of a hominid form in a particular contortion. The rest of the group, who might never have decided on their own that the pattern fits a Bigfoot, then validate the initial observer's (possibly unwarranted) conclusion. This happens all the time, for example when a person recognizes a face or an image in clouds or stains or tortillas. As psychologists know, observers' expectations frequently color their interpretations."

BTW, the weird track shown was alligator. To show the photo as something anyone still thinks was associated with a sighting is dishonest, IMO, as is most of the rest of the article.