Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

Wallace casts.

Jimmy Chilcutt thought the 13" prints from Onion Mountain showed dermal ridges that matched the pattern of other alleged sasquatch tracks and showed signs that they were made with a flexible foot because the foot indentations showed pushing inside the track instead of a straight ledge. That's nothing to do with artifacts.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=180

 

[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.

I don't have Murphy's book, and I haven't seen the Skookum cast in person, but logically it would seem that if there are imprints that are being identified as testicle prints, there should also be clear imprints of butt cheeks. Deep imprints of butt cheeks, as the weight for the butt would be far greater than the weight for the testicles.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I am not sure why Lu thinks Ray wasn't near Bluff creek when this print was made. The print is supposed to be from Patty, as far as I know.

At any rate, I think I have posted the exact way the print was made in the other thread.

It certainly could have been hoaxed, and I believe it was.

Midtarsal break and all.

I think it was done easily, in fact.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

I believe Lu is incorrect here. The print under the cardboard was one of the earlier cripplefoot tracks.

The trail of ~1,000 or so were seperate, and discovered days later.

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

Since it is obviously Krantz in the photo, I am again mystified why Lu feels the need to point that out.

If one had never seen Krantz, it is still obvious that it is Krantz in the photo.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think I am really done with this topic.

I have satisfied myself that the "pressure ridge print" made by Patty is fake. It was easily faked too, I believe, and I think it is obvious.

So, I have also moved to the opinion that the P/G film is bogus.

 

[LAL]

I believe Lu is incorrect here. The print under the cardboard was one of the earlier cripplefoot tracks.

The trail of ~1,000 or so were seperate, and discovered days later.

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

Since it is obviously Krantz in the photo, I am again mystified why Lu feels the need to point that out.

If one had never seen Krantz, it is still obvious that it is Krantz in the photo.

The tracks by the dump were investigated weeks, not days, earlier and two cast by Ivan Marx. Those are the casts in the photos that have been posted here.

Krantz became interested after seeing news stories and decided to investigate. This was the first time he met Green, Marx and Dahinden. John uncovered the last of many footprints for him that had been saved for such a situation.

I've mentioned Krantz had examined tracks in situ. That's a photo of him doing exactly that. He even measured the 44" fence. Of course, if you'd read Krantz you wouldn't have made such mistakes and you wouldn't have made it quite so evident you don't know what you're talking about. All the tracks were all from the same individual.

I'm trying to help you out here, really, but you just ramble on........

 

[RayG]

The tracks by the dump were investigated weeks, not days, earlier and two cast by Ivan Marx.

Ivan Marx? Not one of the more trustworthy names to use when discussing bigfoot.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/lasting.html

They are grandsons of Ivan Marx, one of the more well-known — and controversial — Bigfoot hunters of decades past.

Marx died five years ago, and many believe his stories were no more than tall tales. Very tall tales — Bigfoot, after all, is supposedly up to 9 feet tall.

Marx, a hunting guide whose family has lived in Burney for nearly 50 years, announced in 1970 that he had caught Bigfoot on film in Washington state. He boldly stated that he would capture one live within a year.

Six months later, the film was deemed a hoax. A fellow Bigfoot hunter argued the alleged animal was a man dressed in fur.

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/081305/081305_shns_bigfoot.html

[John] Green's skepticism is rooted in the fact that Biscardi has ties to Ivan Marx, a Burney hunting guide who claimed to catch Bigfoot on film in 1970. The film was later deemed a hoax.

http://www.citypages.com/movies/detail.asp?MID=5501

...The Legend of Bigfoot, a priceless piece of faux-anthropological malarkey by lifelong Bigfoot cheapjack Ivan Marx (who, legend has it, got his wife to don a gorilla suit for the film's "sightings")...

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm

...it helps to know the history of the Cripple footprint. Over a thousand tracks were discovered in November and December 1969, near Bossburg, Washington. One pair of footprints were cast. This set, including the right "crippled" foot, is the basis for Krantz's statement that it would be impossible to hoax. Many Bigfoot researchers are not so sure. At the heart of the story is Ivan Marx. Marx participated in the Tom Slick Bigfoot expedition in northern California (1958-1962).

After termination of the search Marx moved to Bossburg. He was living there when the tracks began to appear. Although he did not discover any tracks, he was closely associated with several discoveries. Dahinden maintains that the tracks are worthy of consideration. In Sasquatch (Hunter and Dahinden 1975: 156), he says he was suspicious of the circumstances. "Why," he writes, "did the tracks happen to be just there, where (I) would be sure to go every day, where (I) checked all the time. Suspicions increased when no additional legitimate evidence surfaced despite the obvious repeat presence of the creature. After the Bossburg incident, Marx produced a film of what he said was a large Sasquatch creature. The first film was followed by several more, and his credibility suffered.

The Marx films have failed to gain any significant acceptance within the Bigfoot community. Even Krantz rejects the Marx films. Writing to Dahinden in May 1975, Krantz (1975) says: "You are right about my falling for the Marx film, for a while anyway."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/cripplefoot.html

Ivan Marx, a longtime Bigfoot hunter, was living in Bossburg at the time the tracks began to appear and eventually shot a film of the crippled Sasquatch. It is universally regarded as a hoax even among the staunchest Bigfoot advocates, though no one has specifically settled on who should receive proper credit for the fraud. The allegation of Hunter and Dahinden (1973, 170) that Marx was seen purchasing a number of furs in Spokane before the film was made was also not encouraging to the core of potential believers.

Originally posted by LAL
Krantz became interested after seeing news stories and decided to investigate. This was the first time he met Green, Marx and Dahinden. John uncovered the last of many footprints for him that had been saved for such a situation.

Krantz indicates (page 43 of Big Footprints) that by the time he got to the site, ALL the footprints were gone except the one that was covered.

He states: "All except the one covered footprint were gone when I examined the site. But with photographs to study, and good verbal directions to follow, I was able to locate a well-built fence that had been crossed by the line of footprints with scarcely a break in stride."

I've mentioned Krantz had examined tracks in situ. That's a photo of him doing exactly that.

According to Krantz, it's only a single track, not tracks.

He even measured the 44" fence.

But there were no tracks leading up to or crossing the fence, and he instead relied upon photographs and verbal directions. Was the fence of uniform height in every location? Is it possible that Krantz measured the fence at the wrong location?

Of course, if you'd read Krantz you wouldn't have made such mistakes and you wouldn't have made it quite so evident you don't know what you're talking about. All the tracks were all from the same individual.

But Krantz has admitted to only examining a single track, and it was the ONLY track still there when he arrived.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

I do not see any cripplefoot tracks in the video or in that Krantz photo that look like the close up cripplefoot still photo.

I remain of this opinion, RayG.

I don't think Krantz ever saw a cripplefoot track at all.

The track in the photo under the cardboard looks nothing like cripplefoot to me.

The evidence that cripplefoot is a hoax is surprisingly strong. I am surprised that the track is held in such high regard by bigfoot researchers.

The fact that cripplefoot's good foot is obviously just an enlarged human foot seals the deal for me.

 

[LTC8K6]

He even measured the 44" fence.

In the tradition of Lu's nitpicking, the fence was 43" up until now.

 

[LTC8K6]

I forgot to mention the biggest problem of all.

The cripplefoot cast does not match the clear cripplefoot print in the snow.

So where was the cripplefoot cast taken from?

 

[RayG]

I remain of this opinion, RayG.

I don't think Krantz ever saw a cripplefoot track at all.

The track in the photo under the cardboard looks nothing like cripplefoot to me.

Too late to ask him now. In his book he mentions viewing a single track but I see no mention of a detailed examination of that track. Instead, he goes into great detail about examining copies of casts that were made for him.

The evidence that cripplefoot is a hoax is surprisingly strong. I am surprised that the track is held in such high regard by bigfoot researchers.

Not all bigfoot enthusiasts hold the tracks in high regard. In Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, John Green devotes an entire chapter to Ivan Marx, detailing what a character Ivan was. The chapter mentions the Bossburg tracks a number of times, and Ivan's involvement in the incident.

Some Green quotes from the chapter:

"In this field, as in others, some people will go to lengths other people can't imagine to set the scene for things that were never there at all.

Please note that I do not say that Ivan faked that film, or the one of the white sasquatch in the snowstorm, or any other he has since then or may in the future emerge with. It is my considered opinion that the creature the film shows is a person dressed in black fur, and I iknow of nothing but Ivan's statement indicating that it is not... As to the hand prints, the crippled prints and the even-larger footprints, I am also skeptical, but not to an equal degree with regard to each....

I tend now to write off the whole Bossburg episode to entertainment."

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Krantz came up with that whole skeleton drawing and theory of how the foot was constructed without ever seeing any cripplefoot tracks.

Incredible that this passes for reliable scientific effort.

We aren't sure about anything at Bossburg except that one clear print photo, and that doesn't match the drawings, casts, or descriptions of cripplefoot's foot.

There are no cripplefoot tracks in the video as far as I can tell. Certainly none that resemble the photo.

We have known hoaxers in the area as well.

I don't know how anyone can expect me to take this seriously.

The believers only tell you very narrow and specific parts of the story, it seems. You can't read their books to get at the truth, either. It's clear that the books leave out anything inconvenient. You can't watch their DVD's, because they are just propaganda exercises.

You can't even look at the P/G film because you don't know if it is the original film, and you can't really get a look at the whole film. You don't know if you are looking at a cleaned up version. You can only see the bits they allow you to see, in the version they allow you to see.

You have to dig and dig and dig to finally get to the meat.

Only to find there really is no meat.

 

[RayG]

I forgot to mention the biggest problem of all.

The cripplefoot cast does not match the clear cripplefoot print in the snow.

So where was the cripplefoot cast taken from?

Yeah, they don't seem to match very well. The description:

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.

doesn't seem to match the photo of the footprint in snow.

A side-by-side comparison is another mismatch.

RayG

 

[RayG]

When looking at the photo, it's hard not to visualize these as the toes: (which would account for the badly twisted or missing third toe)

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Evidently there were 2 crippled sasquatch in Bossburg, since we have 2 different tracks.

It was a wire fence anyway. Easy to bend down the top strand and step over. No one would think to do that, though......

Whatever had made them had stepped over a forty-three-inch-high, five-strand wire fence, judging by the single prints of the left and the right feet on either side of the fence.

 

[LTC8K6]

When looking at the photo, it's hard not to visualize these as the toes:

Yep, that's what most folks would call the toes.

Even if the say #5 is the first bunionette, it is way closer to the toes than in the cast.

 

[RayG]

Evidently there were 2 crippled sasquatch in Bossburg, since we have 2 different tracks.

It was a wire fence anyway. Easy to bend down the top strand and step over. No one would think to do that, though......

Whatever had made them had stepped over a forty-three-inch-high, five-strand wire fence, judging by the single prints of the left and the right feet on either side of the fence.

Krantz indicates (page 43), "The top barbed wire was 44 inches (1.1m) above the ground and strung tightly. By pressing my thumbs firmly down I could push it maybe two inches lower, then lifted one leg over. I am a tall man -- 6 feet 3 inches, or 189 cm -- but it was quite impossible to place my foot down on the other side."

Somewhat puzzling is how he was able to "locate a well-built fence that had been crossed by the line of footprints with scarcely a break in stride."

Yet he admits all the footprints except one were gone. Were there, or were there not, footprints to follow?

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

How did Dahinden get over the fence? He had to have gone over it 30 or 40 times himself.

He walked the route of the tracks seven times, examining every print, puzzling over them.

The trail went back and forth over the fence several times.

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

 

[LTC8K6]

Krantz also suffered persistent heckling from Dahinden, who despised his view that a corpse of Sasquatch was needed to satisfy the scientific community. He also felt Krantz’s endorsement of the 1967 Patterson film was worthless: "He never went and examined the filming site," he told me. "In fact, he never researches the stories people tell him, he never compares notes with other trackers and never spends any time in the bush."

For his part, Green suspects the crippled prints are bogus. "Grover is a good friend of mine, but he was born gullible," he laughs. "The fact that Ivan Marx was present at Bossburg is enough to throw everything into doubt." Marx was a Californian hoaxter who regularly filmed "authentic" Sasquatches—with buckling fur and feet flapping like a circus clown’s—and sold the footage. Marx made his first movie in Bossburg while Dahinden was tracking the crippled prints, and had been seen in a Spokane store buying considerable quantities of fur. Says Green: "I was always fascinating that René would tear into Grover about every last thing—except the crippled prints."

http://www.vancourier.com/issues01/07101/news/07101N1.html

 

[Thurkon]

Krantz also suffered persistent heckling from Dahinden, who despised his view that a corpse of Sasquatch was needed to satisfy the scientific community. He also felt Krantz’s endorsement of the 1967 Patterson film was worthless: "He never went and examined the filming site," he told me. "In fact, he never researches the stories people tell him, he never compares notes with other trackers and never spends any time in the bush."

For his part, Green suspects the crippled prints are bogus. "Grover is a good friend of mine, but he was born gullible," he laughs. "The fact that Ivan Marx was present at Bossburg is enough to throw everything into doubt." Marx was a Californian hoaxter who regularly filmed "authentic" Sasquatches—with buckling fur and feet flapping like a circus clown’s—and sold the footage. Marx made his first movie in Bossburg while Dahinden was tracking the crippled prints, and had been seen in a Spokane store buying considerable quantities of fur. Says Green: "I was always fascinating that René would tear into Grover about every last thing—except the crippled prints."

I like how the "experts" constantly quoted by Footers can't even agree about the solid "evidence" even amongst themselves.

Krantz is gullible? He doesn't research the stories people tell him? Yeah, I'll read Krantz. Sounds like a reliable guy.