Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Hitch]

From the picture of the site that was posted, it seems to be the area was pretty open.

Where are the footprints?

Why is Foot doing the Worm in the sand?

Why didn't he just walk up and pick up the danged fruit?

Various other animals prints are found, yet these crack researchers conclude it's Foot?

Ahhh...I'm dying laughing over here.

Because Bigfoot is a wiley creature. He likes his privacy and knows people get all excited when they find his footprints. Being clever, he immediately saw through the ruse of baiting him with tasty fruit in the middle of a mud wallow and laid down and rolled over to it to avoid leaving footprints. Then he jumped on his faithful elk steed and rode away knowing that he'd once more eluded the dedicated Bigfoot trackers.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, no, no.

Bigfoot killed the elk as it was trying to eat the apples.

Then, he sat upon the elk and nibbled a bit of the fruit himself.

Finding it unappetizing, he spit it out without leaving any DNA on it.

He then picked up the elk and carried it off for dinner, leaving only his heelprints behind to baffle the BFRO/TBRC, etc....

 

[RayG]

It sat first, then leaned.

Are there are clear (and very deep) indentations that represent both butt cheeks? There should be if there are indentations that represent testicles. I would think that would be more compelling than a supposed heel print.

RayG

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I think if the bigfoot debate has reached the level of discussing the prints left by it's nuts then they're REALLY reaching.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That was the position when it reached for the fruit. It sat first, then leaned. The print indicates small testicles for such a large creature. I've already mentioned this could indicate a monogamous species.

But you were just trying to be funny, I suppose.........

O.K., I need the science behind this..


Small testicles = monogamous



And while you are at it, in light of the not particulary deep impression, of the butt of a creature weighing hundreds of pounds, there is no reason to believe there would be any testicle prints at all.


Don't you realize that suggesting crap like this, is why the very little you say that does make sense, gets swept aside ?

 

[UrsulaV]

Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males. (Forgive me if I'm rehashing ground other people know far better than I do.) Some types of squirrel, for example, have extremely large testicles in proportion to their size as part of the accellerating "sperm war" because, since the females will mate with a number of males, competition takes place at the small 'n wiggly level. There's any number of interested methods, from massive overproduction of sperm (common to some primates) which compete through sheer force of numbers, to weirdly shaped "bottle brush" penises that dredge out some of the competition, to chemical warfare like spermicidal chasers and vaginal plugs.

So one could say, in a very broad sort of sense, that if these WERE testicle prints (I think this whole cast is suspect and absurd) and they were small in proportion to the body size, it would indicate that our hypothetical Bigfoot does not have the enlarged testicles of a species engaging in some types of sperm competition.

However.

It's not at all a direct one-to-one ratio that small testes = monogamy, and for anyone to claim that this proved Bigfoot's monogamy would be jumping the gun quite a ways. Gorillas, for example, have small testes and are still not classically monogamous--males keep harems, and defend them physically, and other males do steal females relatively often. There are lots of ways to compete that don't require your 'nads. And there's even a whole wild arsenal of neat stuff you can do to kill off your competitor's sperm without requiring testicles the size of cantelope, as mentioned above, so we can't even say with any authority that Bigfoot couldn't be engaging in sperm competition of some sort. Without a body, and without a lengthy period spent observing Bigfoot interaction and mating, there are serious limits. You just can't wring too many facts out of a dent in the mud.

All we could say is that the size of the testicles--assuming we had conclusive proof of this size, and not one "No-really-guys-it's-a-butt-print"--would indicate that Bigfoot is probably not engaging in the sort of sheer numbers sperm competition found in some other primates like chimps.



(Much of this is from memory, I freely confess, and may be old, but if anybody wants documentation, just yell, and I'll dredge some up. Bear in mind that my degree in anthropology was cultural, and merely a BA, and I've been an artist instead of a researcher for years, so caveat emptor. Still, the day I pass up a chance to talk about those pervy ground squirrels...)

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it just me, or does the crippled foot switch from the left to the right side in the various stills and videos related to the Bossburg cripplefoot tracks?

Take a look and tell me if the clear right foot print in the snow matches the video still, the video, or the print under the cardboard.

I am beginning to think that the track in the clear cripplefoot photo does not appear at all in the video.

I have already posted that the skeletal drawing and the desriptions of cripplefoot do not match the clear photo of the print in the snow, imo.

Clear cripplefoot track:

Video still:

Video:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/bossburg.ram

Print under cardboard:

Skeletal drawing of cripplefoot:

Description of cripplefoot's right foot. Note the third toe remark and compare to the print in the snow and the skeleton drawing.

The right foot was deformed; the third toe was either badly twisted over or was missing, there being only a slight impression in the snow at its base; the little toe stuck out at a sharp angle; and the whole foot curved outwards and showed two distinct lumps on the outer edge.

Note that they threw away critical evidence, blaming it on science.

Some of the prints were lifted from the snow and kept in Marx's freezer for a while. They were eventually discarded when the hunters developed one of their periodic collective depressions, generally attributed to science's marked apathy towards their endeavors.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What I don't get, is that the drawing shows the bumps on the foot, but no underlying bone structure related to the bumps; while the analysis attributes the deformity to bone structure...

 

[bruto]

Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males. (Forgive me if I'm rehashing ground other people know far better than I do.) Some types of squirrel, for example, have extremely large testicles in proportion to their size as part of the accellerating "sperm war" because, since the females will mate with a number of males, competition takes place at the small 'n wiggly level. There's any number of interested methods, from massive overproduction of sperm (common to some primates) which compete through sheer force of numbers, to weirdly shaped "bottle brush" penises that dredge out some of the competition, to chemical warfare like spermicidal chasers and vaginal plugs.

So one could say, in a very broad sort of sense, that if these WERE testicle prints (I think this whole cast is suspect and absurd) and they were small in proportion to the body size, it would indicate that our hypothetical Bigfoot does not have the enlarged testicles of a species engaging in some types of sperm competition.

However.

It's not at all a direct one-to-one ratio that small testes = monogamy, and for anyone to claim that this proved Bigfoot's monogamy would be jumping the gun quite a ways. Gorillas, for example, have small testes and are still not classically monogamous--males keep harems, and defend them physically, and other males do steal females relatively often. There are lots of ways to compete that don't require your 'nads. And there's even a whole wild arsenal of neat stuff you can do to kill off your competitor's sperm without requiring testicles the size of cantelope, as mentioned above, so we can't even say with any authority that Bigfoot couldn't be engaging in sperm competition of some sort. Without a body, and without a lengthy period spent observing Bigfoot interaction and mating, there are serious limits. You just can't wring too many facts out of a dent in the mud.

All we could say is that the size of the testicles--assuming we had conclusive proof of this size, and not one "No-really-guys-it's-a-butt-print"--would indicate that Bigfoot is probably not engaging in the sort of sheer numbers sperm competition found in some other primates like chimps.



(Much of this is from memory, I freely confess, and may be old, but if anybody wants documentation, just yell, and I'll dredge some up. Bear in mind that my degree in anthropology was cultural, and merely a BA, and I've been an artist instead of a researcher for years, so caveat emptor. Still, the day I pass up a chance to talk about those pervy ground squirrels...)

An interesting point, but perhaps, as you mention, moot unless you trust the cast's authenticity. I would look at this another way. If we believe the sightings and the PG film, bigfoot is built pretty much like a human (a few proportional issues aside), with a human sort of butt and general stance, but with a lot of fur in places we humans are not traditionally furred. Now I realize from your handle that you cannot likely confirm this in person, but I will suggest that a person of human construction with relatively small testicles would be hard put to leave a print of those in mud even if there is no intervening fur, and even if the mud is very soft, especially from the imaginatively extrapolated posture shown in the drawing posted here. It would be an unlikely event unless the impression were intentional (might we have some ceremonial marking of territory? BF researchers take note: evidence of testicle print rituals!), and almost certainly uncomfortable or downright painful! While I am not experienced in making castings, I would suggest the possibility that mud soft enough to take a testicle print without testicular damage might also be too soft and prone to slumping to make a reliable cast.

So we're left with that, and also a question regarding the intelligence of the supposedly bright and wily squatch. The reports have him taking sticks and beating on trees to communicate, among other things, but when he wants an apple, rather than just picking up a stick and flicking it over, or doing something else suggesting intelligence, he squats down in the muck, despite his already hygienically-challenging hairy butt, pressing his poor beleaguered testicles down so hard they leave a print in clay...OK, if there is a bigfoot, and he is the critter that made that print, and those are testicle prints, I maintain that this implies that he is not very smart!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, in all fairness, while I still think these so-called testicle prints are a load of horse manure, small testicles are possibly a sign that our hypothetical species is not engaging in sperm competition against other males.

.......................

Makes sense, the absurdity of the testicle print actually being there notwithstanding... Thanks for taking the time..



There was a hint of science there, after all.. My bad..

 

[casebro]

Clear cripplefoot track:

Does anybody else see a left hand print (four fingers and a thumb) plus a heel print here?

Easier then carving a 'foot', stick your hand and a heel into plaster, later pour plastic (bondo?) into your mold.....results meant to be sorta gorilla/monkey, with opposed 'big toe'....would work well if you only left prints where they were supposed to fade slightly, like in melting snow.....

 

[UrsulaV]

Now I realize from your handle that you cannot likely confirm this in person, but I will suggest that a person of human construction with relatively small testicles would be hard put to leave a print of those in mud even if there is no intervening fur, and even if the mud is very soft, especially from the imaginatively extrapolated posture shown in the drawing posted here.

<grin> Yeah, I've been stayin' out of the likelihood of testicle prints, 'cos...well...yeah. Who'm I to talk? Seems absurd, but for all I know, men's restrooms are full of well defined testicle prints in mud, and nobody bothered to mention it to me.

But hey, if they ever find Bigfoot breast prints anywhere, I'll probably have an opinion!

 

[LTC8K6]

The back of the heel print is a clear sign of fakery. As is the fact that this looks like Ray Wallace's design.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

More bloody 'footprints'. Anyone out there got any real evidence? Anything?

 

[Thurkon]

More bloody 'footprints'. Anyone out there got any real evidence? Anything?

What are you talking about, chief??

We've got testicle prints.

We've got elk hair.

We've got Bob Hieronimous in a hairy-breasted monkey suit.

What the heck else do you want?

Ray Wallace clown sandal prints? We've got them too!

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

What are you talking about, chief??

We've got testicle prints.

We've got elk hair.

We've got Bob Hieronimous in a hairy-breasted monkey suit.

What the heck else do you want?

Ray Wallace clown sandal prints? We've got them too!

Well colour me impressed! If I'd known we had evidence of elk hair I'd have never been so defamatory about Sasquatch.

I scoff at the Patterson film, laugh in the face of the footprint that appears to be a hand and heel print combined, but the testicle evidence has me laughing my own huge hairy ass off. That and the very scientific drawing of a broken foot show just how much these people are reading into marks in the dirt/snow for their own ends. We see possible fakery and scuff marks, they see technical details of an imaginary homonid.

 

[LAL]

Are there are clear (and very deep) indentations that represent both butt cheeks? There should be if there are indentations that represent testicles. I would think that would be more compelling than a supposed heel print.

RayG

See the photo in Murphy's book. The animal repositioned itself, and it looks like there are two cheek prints. The upper print looks rather shallow to me, but there are two oval indents between them. They don't seem deep, so I doubt there was any pain involved. I'm not sure I'm looking at the right thing since there are no circles and arrows to guide me, but that's what I see.

"The sasquatch had apparently walked up to the edge of the puddle, then sat down and leaned its forearm against the mud in order to stretch and extend the other arm out over the water. As it lay on its side and edged toward the puddle, it couldn't avoid leaving a few clear impressions of its ankle, forearm, hip and thigh."

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/context_8.asp

The mud weighed about 100 lbs., to answer my own question.

 

[LAL]

The back of the heel print is a clear sign of fakery. As is the fact that this looks like Ray Wallace's design.

Huh?

I'm going to mention this on the other thread too, but has it bothered anyone that Wallace had already moved to Washington State when the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were found? The above is from Bluff Creek, and it is clearly not a print that could have been made by a fake. I notice you're ignoring the stride in all this.

Was he commuting over many miles and decades to make these prints with his phony square-toed wooden feet in areas separated by hundreds of miles.? Or was he sending feet to his accomplices throughout the continent?


Oh, I get it. This whole Wallace thing you've gotten stuck on is another one of your jokes. It went right over my head.

WHOOOOOOOOSH!

Reality check:

"September 1, 1998 -somewhere in central Washington- we visit the home of Ray Wallace; known to be a bit of a Bigfoot story-teller: he was working on nearby road crews when the first Big Tracks were found in Bluff Creek, CA. Ray once tried to sell Tom Slick and Peter Byrne a baby Bigfoot in a cage- his asking price in the early ‘60’s- $25,000! On the next day, when the hunters asked for proof before they handed over their cheque, Ray said the baby Bigfoot had gotten a cold and he had to let it go. He once recorded a country and western song about Bigfoot- complete with accompanying Bigfoot screams he said he recorded while it was stuck in a trap he’d set. Now in his ‘80’s Ray was still full of it and he was excited to talk to us. He even offered to sell us film he had taken of two Bigfoot critters "eating crawdaddies down at the crick"- for $100,000! Unfortunately, before we had a chance to set up our cameras- Mrs. Wallace intervened. She’s seen a few camera crews set up in her living room over the years and it seemed her taste for the media had somewhat soured. She ordered us out of the house, despite Ray’s protests."

http://www.sasquatchodyssey.com/diary.html

 

[LAL]

Clear cripplefoot track:

Does anybody else see a left hand print (four fingers and a thumb) plus a heel print here?

Easier then carving a 'foot', stick your hand and a heel into plaster, later pour plastic (bondo?) into your mold.....results meant to be sorta gorilla/monkey, with opposed 'big toe'....would work well if you only left prints where they were supposed to fade slightly, like in melting snow.....

In the Bigfoot in the Rockies DVD, which features Dr. Meldrum, a fake footprint is made and cast, then sent to him to see if he could spot the fakery. He not only did, he was able to tell how it was made, with knuckle imprints in the toe region.

These guys aren't stupid.

 

[LAL]

Is it just me, or does the crippled foot switch from the left to the right side in the various stills and videos related to the Bossburg cripplefoot tracks?
Print under cardboard:

>snip<

Note that they threw away critical evidence, blaming it on science.



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

Note that it's Dr. Krantz in the photo examinining the track that was preserved under the box. By that time it was the only survivor. Tracks in snow are really perishable.

If mainstream science wouldn't consider the casts as evidence, why would it pay attention to frozen tracks that may have deteriorated in the freezer?

Do you think the video shows all 1089 tracks that were counted? How can you be sure the track being examined isn't there?

And I don't see any switching. It's the right foot that was crippled and the right footprint that shows the deformity. Possibly some photos have been inadvertently reversed, but I haven't seen this.

There were other casts, which can be seen in a photo on pg. 117 of Meet the Sasquatch. There's also a photo of one in mud and a shot of the scene near the dump where the first tracks were found. The differences in the casts are obvious. They show a great degre of flexibility, which makes the fake foot idea even less likely.