Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

But there is nothing even remotely resembling hard evidence for this creature! Nothing! Trying to drown out that crystal clear fact isn't going to make it go away.

 

[LAL]

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

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


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


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


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


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




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."



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



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?

I'm not worried about a 1" variation in the height of the fence. It's pretty hard to find a barbed wire.....'scuse me....bobwire fence that's uniform anywhere.

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

RayG

My first debate on BFF was on this topic, including Ivan Marx. Did you miss it? I got cheers and casts out of it. I'm really proud of that. Here's part of it:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6796&st=80&#entry141992entry141992

Krantz examined other tracks in situ, not just the one near Bossburg. I should have made that clear. Sorry.

Dahinden despised Krantz, but he never challenged him on the Bossburg tracks.

 

[LAL]

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

It's the third toe that's not printing. You can see the gap in the photo. The "fifth" toe you've labled is actually one of the bunionettes. The little toe is where it should be.

 

[LAL]

I have this funny feeling that all cats are somewhat paranormal. At least they treat you like a lodger in your own home, and I find that slightly freaky.

Anyway, I have to say I agree completely with RayG. Come up with some solid evidence and we'll be convinced, keep ranting on and making stuff up and you impress no one. For all we know there may be some form of fauna that explains the bigfoot phenomenon, but since it's highly unlikely and all the real evidence is against it then we have to take what believers say with a pinch of salt. The fact that they can actually be classed as 'believers' on the strength of such flimsy evidence says a lot about them.

And who classes them as "believers"? Daegling? That says more about him than it does the people he attempts to discredit.

There is solid evidence, just not a body yet. I love how posters denigrate the evidence and then admit they haven't seen any of it.

You can't be talking to me, though. I don't rant and I don't make stuff up.

 

[LAL]

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.

You did nothing of the kind. You claim it's a fake as though that's a fact, but you seem to be so hooked on your hoax hypothesis you can't begin to see the obvious, that the animal in the film left the trackway. It was a trackway, not a single track.

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

Midtarsal break and all.

I think it was done easily, in fact.

Ray claimed he told Patterson where to look. In light of his other tall tales, why believe even that? He tried to cash in on the work of others, but other than lying and faking some pictures and casts to sell to tourists, he did nothing. There is no way to get a midtarsal bend with a rigid wooden foot, let alone articulating toes.

There is nothing to link him to the Patterson film or that trackway except idle speculation. Patterson and Gimlin were there. Wallace and Heironimus were not.

"Could have been hoaxed" does not mean it was. If it's so easy why haven't you claimed the $100,000? The Crew tracks should be easier yet.

 

[LAL]

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

I think that book is a "must" for anyone interested in this. I found a "like new" copy for under $20 at Amazon.com, and it was well worth the price for the color photography alone.

It looks like the animal sat sideways instead of straight down. It repositioned. Noll demonstrated for a reporter. Maybe he (or someone else) could post an animated clip on BFF of exactly what they think happened. I know some other posters have had trouble visualizing this as well.

According to Loren Coleman's board this morning, Dr. Meldrum has now officially quit the BFRO. There are some pretty strong accusations over the Kentucky affair. I don't suppose we'll be waiting with baited breath for the video, will we?

I just hope they don't take down the site. I would miss it.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Denegrating what evidence Lal? All you have is opinion and myth, nothing concrete or even approaching it. If you had hard evidence then they'd have found the creature by now, but all you have is a wide variety of tracks (many suspect) and nothing else. Eyewitness testimony is no good to us if it leads to nothing, the films all look bogus and are open to wide interpretation depending on whether you believe in Bigfoot or beieve the actual evidence to date.

You are a firm believer despite the evidence, and we are firmly skeptical because of the same evidence. You have some learned, professional men on the case, but that doesn't make them right. There are many, many more learned, professionals who think them deluded. Your people see a messed up track and read into it bone structure, crippled giants, testicle prints, etc and all we see is a messed up print that could be anything. You believe, and it colours everything you see and hear concerning this myth, and we see the evidence and know it doesn't add up to anything like a 3 metre tall species yet.

 

[bruto]

He wasn't the only investigator on this. Have you bothered to read the book? It's not based on "stories". The typical hoaxer merely enlarges his own foot; Krantz was struck by adaptations for great weight in a primate inhabiting mountainous areas. He didn't think it likely that a hoaxer would have that kind of detailed knowlege. Read the book. It's interesting.

The Bossburg tracks were one of thousands of track events. There are casts nearly fifty years old. There are tracks from last spring. Isn't it a stretch of the imagination to think that hoaxers get to the high Sierras and remote mountains in B.C. to somehow lay down trackways just to fool people who don't know themselves where they are going? Do you really believe there are thousands of people running around in gorilla suits appearing to be 8' tall just to fool unwary campers and motorists? Who was doing the hoaxing before the coming of the white man?

Marx was called in after the first Bossburg tracks were found because of his known interest. He started faking films when interest was dying down in order to "kind of keep things going" (and possibly to continue to stay on the payroll). Cliff Crook has pulled similar stunts. Freeman may have done some fakery too, out of frustration, yet some of his evidence is compelling. Byrne, who exposed Marx, has been accused of being a fraud (by Green). And so it goes.

The evidence speaks for itself, and to try to throw it all out just because some over-zealous "researcher" went too far is some of that "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" Meldrum speaks of.

Some others who've taken an interest:

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans (zoologist, France)
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (research scientist, Oregon Regional Primate Center)
Dr. John Napier (primatologist, University of London)
Dr. Frank E. Poirier (paleoanthropologist/primatologist, Ohio State University)
Dr. John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist, former wildlife advisor for United Nations)
Dr. D. W. Grieve (anatomist, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London)
Dr. John Bodley (anthropologist, Washington State University)
Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy (biomechanics, Russia)
Dr. Robert Pyle (ecologist,Yale University alumnus)
Dr. J. Richard Greenwell (mammalogist, International Wildlife Museum, Tucson)
Dr. William Montagna (primatologist, Regional Primate Research Center)
Valentin B. Sapunov (biologist, Leningrad State Univeristy, Russia)
Vladimir Markotic (physical anthropologist, University of Calgary)
Jeff Glickman (computer scientist, North American Science Institute)
Dmitri Bayanov (hominologist, Darwin Museum, Russia)
Jim Hewkin (wildlife biologist, formerly with Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife)
Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffman, aka Dr. Zh. I Kofman (scientist, Russia)
Dr. R. Lynn Kirlin (professor, University of Wyoming)
Dr. William Saxe Wihr (department of anthropology, Portland Community College)
Dr. LeRoy Fish (wildlife ecologist, retired)

Krantz was not alone.

I'm quite willing to believe that a large number of bigfoot sightings and the like are not fraudulent, just mistaken. People have been seeing elves, fairies, bigfeet, ghosts, angels, gods and monsters forever. It doesn't mean that's what's out there. But the history of bigfoot is rife with fraud and fakery, acknowledged by even the most stubborn believers, but they continue to accept evidence from suspect sources.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not Krantz was alone. What you are saying here, essentially, is that even researchers who can reasonably be suspected of fraud, or in some cases who are known to have cooked the evidence, will still be relied on by bigfoot believers if their evidence looks good, and if you or experts like Krantz can't figure out how it could have been faked, and even that the apparent lack of interest or funding from mainstream scientists might justify the occasional fraud.

That's just preposterous. If I have misread your post above, too bad, but that's what I read in it. If it is not what you mean, you need to do a better job of explaining and justifying your experts.

 

[LAL]

I'm quite willing to believe that a large number of bigfoot sightings and the like are not fraudulent, just mistaken. People have been seeing elves, fairies, bigfeet, ghosts, angels, gods and monsters forever. It doesn't mean that's what's out there. But the history of bigfoot is rife with fraud and fakery, acknowledged by even the most stubborn believers, but they continue to accept evidence from suspect sources.

Rife with fraud and fakery? Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not Krantz was alone. What you are saying here, essentially, is that even researchers who can reasonably be suspected of fraud, or in some cases who are known to have cooked the evidence, will still be relied on by bigfoot believers if their evidence looks good, and if you or experts like Krantz can't figure out how it could have been faked, and even that the apparent lack of interest or funding from mainstream scientists might justify the occasional fraud.

Nothing justifies fraud. Green and Steenburg were against including anything brought in by Marx or Freeman in Meet the Sasquatch, but Murphy pointed out that the only criterion of examination scientists and professional people have is, "What does the evidence itself indicate?" They can't be swayed by "circumstantial evidence". Much of Marx and Freeman's evidence has held up "reasonably or totally" to intense scientific scrutiny. Buying furs and faking photos does not = Marx faked the Bossburg tracks. Freeman carving feet to scare the neighbors when he lived in Camas, Wa., does not=Freeman faked tracks at Elk Wallow.

That's just preposterous. If I have misread your post above, too bad, but that's what I read in it. If it is not what you mean, you need to do a better job of explaining and justifying your experts.

I don't know that anyone considers Marx, Freeman or Crook "experts" or anything more than self-styled researchers. The original Bossburg tracks were found by a local man; Marx found the long trackway with Dahinden nearby. Some of Freeman's casts are compelling. I don't know of anything Crook has accomplished. There have been amateur hoaxes involving college students and high school students, and beer-drinking persons unknown and the professional Snow Walker hoax, but as Meldrum has said, "Exposing hoaxes is as much a part of this effort as establishing the credibility of other evidence."

Most sightings, track events and other incidents involve ordinary people, thousands of them, doing ordinary things. People who have lived with bears aren't likely to mistake one for an habitual biped. There have been cases of mistaken identity (I've mentioned the snag), but snags don't usually cross roads or peer in windows.

Most of the researchers, from Titmus to Noll seem quite reputable. No hint of fraud there. Why should their work and evidence be considered fraudulent because of antics of others not so scrupulous?

Here's another:

"John Bindernagle is a wildlife biologist with over thirty years of field experience. He has served as a wildlife advisor for United Nations projects in East Africa, Iran, the Carribean and Belize. His interest in sasquatch dates from 1963, and his field work in British Columbia began in 1975. He holds a B.S.A. from the University of Guelph, and an M.S. and Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin. He continues to work as a consultant in environmental impact assessment and is a Registered Professional Biologist (R.P.Bio.) in British Columbia, Canada."

Meet the Sasquatch,pg. 163.

He's presented papers and written a book from the standpoint of "Is this a normal animal?" He found a trackway while hiking in the Canadian wilderness. He wasn't even looking for one. That's what got him started.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Looks like another respected contributor at BFF, has dropped out of BFRO

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12642


That NDA at BFRO is a hoot..


" Super Duper Secret Scientific Research Organization "


Absolutely no information you aquire during your association with the BFRO will be revealed, until we have had the opportunity to cash in on it first..

The Volunteer agrees that any violation will cause irreparable injury, both financial and strategic, to the Organizer. In addition to any and all remedies that may be available, in law, in equity or otherwise, the Organizer shall be entitled to injunctive relief against breach of this Agreement by the Volunteer.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I thought I made a pretty good case for there being no evidence, but it looks like Lal doesn't want to look at the bigger picture and would rather stay mired in minutiae, discussing the opinions of various experts and the contents of books.

I have another take on the situation, one of the casual observer who has perused many of the very erudite posts here as well as some of the documentaries and films mentioned, but in no way considers it worth delving any deeper into due to the fact that it's highly implausible and based on the thinnest of evidence. I said a page or two back that I would try and point out the big picture every page or so, so here I go again...

Evidence for Bigfoot

Myths - Pretty much every society since the dawn of man has had tales of bogeymen, people and creatures inhabiting forests, caves, dark places, etc where it's best not to go. They serve a purpose but dont prove the existence of anything other than superstition.

Footprints - Some big prints have been found, proving conclusively that there are prints in the woods. Opinion is divided on what causes them

Eyewitnesses - about as reliable as any other eyewitness sighting of weird events, many inexperienced in the woods and most primed by stories of Bigfoot! WoooOOoOoOo!

Photography/Film - 2 or 3 very fake looking films have surfaced, none of which are convincing to anyone other than believers.

This adds up to precisely squat. Some dodgy prints and stories of man-like creatures in woods inhabited by bears does not make for convincing evidence of anything other than some peoples wish for magic to be real.

 

[RayG]

Evidence for Bigfoot

Don't you mean

Arguments for the existence of bigfoot.

Then you have

Arguments against the existence of bigfoot.

I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

"And the infirm may seek to gain control of Wikipedia,
and appear as if they themselves are The Father of All Lands."

Desperateuronomy 23:14

 

[RayG]

Rife with fraud and fakery? Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement?

Surely you jest.

Wallace, Marx, Crook, Freeman, fake photos, fake videos, fake tracks, fake hair... not to mention the BFRO expeditions.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977 for example.

RayG

 

[RayG]

It looks like the animal sat sideways instead of straight down. It repositioned. Noll demonstrated for a reporter.

I hope you don't mean literally. That would take balls. (pun intended)

How was Noll able to get his nuts to make an impression without his cheeks sinking deeply into the mud?

I know some other posters have had trouble visualizing this as well.

Yup. I can't for the life of me figure out how nut prints could be left without deep cheek prints. (unless that critter has bowling balls between his legs)

According to Loren Coleman's board this morning, Dr. Meldrum has now officially quit the BFRO.

He's just one of 34 BFRO investigators or curators to leave, quit, or be tossed out within the past 12 months or so.

I just hope they don't take down the site. I would miss it.

I rarely visit it as there's precious little, if any, scientific evidence or information.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Surely you jest.

Wallace, Marx, Crook, Freeman, fake photos, fake videos, fake tracks, fake hair... not to mention the BFRO expeditions.

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66977 for example.

RayG

I got that link from a cyber friend on CvE over a year ago. Here's pt. 2:

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=67036

What about the many, many honest researchers? (Looks like something better than the BFRO is about to emerge from Moneymaker's wreakage.) What about Meldrum, Krantz, Sarmiento, Swindler, Schaller, Bindernagle, Green, Noll, Titmus, Steenburg, Coleman............. What about all the evidence that's held up to scientific scrutiny (even Marx and Freeman's, mostly)?

All paleoanthropology is a fraud because a Russian scientist faked Neandertal skulls.

Nebraska Man.

Piltdown Man.

Archeoraptor.

Ooops! Wrong board.

 

[LAL]

I hope you don't mean literally. That would take balls. (pun intended)

How was Noll able to get his nuts to make an impression without his cheeks sinking deeply into the mud?

Uh, Ray, he was on the garage floor, presumably clothed.

Yup. I can't for the life of me figure out how nut prints could be left without deep cheek prints. (unless that critter has bowling balls between his legs)

No, they're comparitively small, and the prints are rather faint. The mud was soft and it looks like it squished up from the weight.

He's just one of 34 BFRO investigators or curators to leave, quit, or be tossed out within the past 12 months or so.

I rarely visit it as there's precious little, if any, scientific evidence or information.

RayG

I like it for the BBC comparison and some of the articles. I found the Skookum expedition complete field notes Googling on the Web. I've never been able to get to them through the site. It really needs a search engine.

Has Jud quit yet?

 

[LAL]

Don't you mean

Arguments for the existence of bigfoot.

Then you have

Arguments against the existence of bigfoot.

I'm not sure why the arguments against page has a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It's an argument against bigfoot, or wasn't that clear? Both pages seem just as 'neutral'.

RayG

"This article is full of inline notes like "(Sprague and Krantz, 43)" but has no references listed at the end for the reader to know what you're talking about. A bibliography is needed, and quickly. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_Bigfoot" "

Found by clicking where it says to on the banner.

 

[LAL]

I thought I made a pretty good case for there being no evidence, but it looks like Lal doesn't want to look at the bigger picture and would rather stay mired in minutiae, discussing the opinions of various experts and the contents of books.

IOW, you haven't seen any evidence, won't read up on it and don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Do you get the feeling you're beeing ignored?

 

[RayG]

What about the many, many honest researchers?

Ever heard of Frank Serpico? Though a lot of New York cops were honest, many others were not. The same might be said of bigfoot researchers.

What about Meldrum, Krantz, Sarmiento, Swindler, Schaller, Bindernagle, Green, Noll, Titmus, Steenburg, Coleman.............

What about them? Does their presence somehow negate the fraud and fakery that's been discovered?

What about all the evidence that's held up to scientific scrutiny (even Marx and Freeman's, mostly)?

Care to point some out?

RayG