Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes, the discussion is quite lively about this at BFF. Unfortunately I was using my laptop last night and I do not have the link handy here at work.

I'm feeling stupid now..

I recently aquired a copy of LMS, and I now see that this still is from the first two frames of the Patterson footage.. I hadn't bothered to check the beginning frame by frame, because the first few seconds are very chaotic.

I will share later, about when Patty first appears in the clip.

As we have observed before, the missing footage is by far more relevant, than what we have been allowed to see..

I believe we can safely assume the missing footage does not support the existence of Bigfoot or Patty as other than a hoax.. It certainly makes us wonder what is being hidden..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lu,

Here is a blowup of the print with the ridges pointed out.

How do you suppose those ridges were made in just one print ( that we know of ) in what is presented as a flowing trackway?

You also haven't explained why this track bears little resemblance to what we can see of the soles of Patty's feet in the PGF ?

P.S.

Tube,

You said you have seen the cast of this print.. What is the explanation of the heel ridges?

 

[UrsulaV]

I disagree, William. There are people at this board who have changed their minds about a few things.

I have changed my mind about the P/G film. I was unsure about it. Now I am not.

I'll add in my two cents--while it's increasingly unwieldy to follow, this thread has certainly been useful to me for the same reason. The nagging question of the P/G film, from when I was a starry-eyed pre-teen clutching cryptozoology books to my scrawny chest, has been settled to my satisfaction, and I know a lot more about the quality of the evidence, or the lack thereof.

In fact, the whole thread's been handy--I was generally willing to give Bigfoot a certain degree of possible credibility, but having reviewed the evidence laid out so painstakingly in this thread, while I can't definitively state that There Is No Bigfoot, my thought has gone from "I dunno, I guess anything's possible," to "Jeez, this "evidence" is a lot more shoddy than my copy of "The Jersey Devil and Beyond!" made it out to be."

It's not much of a journey of self-discovery, I grant you, but I take what I can get.

 

[Correa Neto]

Re: Re: On the quality of bigfoot evidence...

I've already given my thoughts on UFO's. Ghosts don't leave footprints. And I don't have a taste for herring, red or otherwise.

I have not asked for your thoughts on UFOs. I asked if you could please provide reasons why one should think that the evidences for bigfeet are more reliable than the evidence for UFOs and ghosts. Where are the differences in the data quality? UFOlogists also claim to run checks in sighting reports and study pictures for frauds.

Edited to add: Ghost reseachers sometimes point to scratches in walls, hand marks in books, etc. as physical evidence for ghosts. These could be taken as being the equivalent in terms of evidence class to bigfoot footprints.End edit

I'm still waiting for you to back up your statements about most scientists you've "checked with" think the data is "rubblish".

Some years ago, while I was still making my PhD we had as a habit to discuss several issues during lunch, coffee breaks and happy hours. In case you don´t know, that´s a common habit at many universities, and quite a lot of good stuff has came out from these discussions.

There were geos, bios, paleos, professors, students, etc. cryptos sometimes showed up as the subject. Bigfeet (PGF included) also. The data avalible so far (sighting reports, blurred pictures, alleged footprints and the suspect of frauds and mistakes over much of the "best evidence"), that has not changed when it comes to its quality, was deemed as insuficient, suspicious and rubbish. Oh, and in-depth discussions happened.

"Possible but improbable" was the best veredict that one could reach.

There's nothing wrong with the best evidence and there's no point in discarding it. Confirmation will come when someone brings in a body or a hunk of one. Until then sceptics will dismiss new evidence just as they do old evidence.

The fact that you think there´s nothing wrong with the best evidence is a testimony to how biased your opinions are when it comes to this subject.

At least in one thing we agree: 10000 new sighting reports will not change my opinion. What you don´t seem to grasp is that its not a matter of quantity but of quality. If a trained biologist with a good ammount of field experience eventually reports a bigfoot observation, one that lasts more than a few seconds at night, for example, this would be much more reliable than all BFRO reports database. And still, not a definitive proof that the animal exists.

New pictures and footage, unless sharp and without being under suspicious of being hoaxes, will also not be taken as good evidence.

New alleged footprints, unless there are no chances of being hoaxes or misinterpretations will also be useless.

If a body, a captive specimen or sharp footage shows up, I, the other members of this forum and the scientific community will happily acknoweledge we were wrong on the topic. You, on the other hand, don´t seem to be really willing to critically analyse the data, relying on the opinions that fit with your POV, never really questioning it. That´s not objectivity. That´s belief.

 

[phenomenon]

The heal ridges and other fine and intricate markings on prints are quote easily acheived.

After seeing a recent doumentary it became clear that a foot the size of a double decker is possible with the right knowledge.

I'm not too sure of the material used, however, the idea was that an initial cast is taken. This then expands but not to the point that ridges etc are distorted. Another cast is taken within this one and that becomes the master cast. This process is repeated many times to gain a print that would make any clob hopping Yeti proud!

As for the Gimlin clip....not a lot to say is there?

 

[RayG]

Meldrum's illustrations only further confuse me as to how such a foot would make the casts we see.....

I find it confusing as well. The supposed tremendous weight of these creatures, combined with bone structure that has the arch pointing down instead of up, would logically create footprints where the middle of the footprint should be pressed as deeply into the ground as the rest of the footprint.

What his drawing presents is not a very comfortable foot -- the full standing weight is borne by the arch. I would think walking any distance with that bone structure would produce some very unhappy feet.

I'd like to know how Meldrum came to the conclusion that the foot was structured the way he shows it. Any other primates have a similar bone structure of the foot? Somehow he and Krantz are able to create bone structures based on nothing more than a footprint.

Humans can produce apparent midtarsel breaks (huge ones too) in their footprints even when wearing shoes!!

http://www.bay13.net/pics/desktop/morepictures/footprints.jpg
http://www.kuehlphoto.com/318.jpg

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

You can show a "mid tarsal break" with a chunk of 2 X 4 strapped to your foot. Just dig in with the back and push off with the front.

 

[RayG]

Well, any experiments I do would be to try to get that stepped appearance on the fly with the nice round heels that bigfoot and I have.

So what experiments have you done? It's easy to speculate.

I think it's crystal clear how you'd get it from pounding in the heel of a fake wooden foot. The wood will slip forward a bit with each impact, making the steps.

If you only think it's crystal clear, it's probably not. What experiments have you conducted to prove your hypothesis?

RayG

 

[RayG]

The flight path was known, the plane stayed put, there was an extensive search and it wasn't found for over twenty years.

I'd have to argue: planes sometimes stray from their flight path, the extensive search lasted less than seven days, and nobody was searching for it for over twenty years.

(Thirty new species of fish were "discovered" recently, but they've presumably been there all along.)

You mean like the 10th planet? Scientists 'discover' lots of new things each year, but that's not evidence of bigfoot.

What does "it was found" mean; what about all those years when it wasn't?

What about them? It neither negates the existence of the plane, nor proves the existence of bigfoot.

Some films have been bogus, others not. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Not quite or there wouldn't be such disagreement over the PGF.

There's quite a bit of physical evidence and the documented sightings, often backed up by tracks, are in the thousands.

By 'quite a bit of physical evidence', you mean tracks? The rest of it ain't worth diddly. Blobsquatches, blurry films, suspected vocalizations, and so forth just don't cut the mustard.

There may be some evidence from Noll's camera traps.

There may be some evidence? What type of evidence do you mean? Broken cameras? Blobsquatches?

Luring seems to work better than tracking.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

What traps do you know of that have failed?

One might ask, what traps do you know of that have been successful?

I've accepted their reality for over thirty years because of events near my land in the Columbia Gorge.

I'm not as easily convinced. I'll accept the reality of bigfoot the day a bodypart is brought in for examination. Even if I saw one with my own eyes, I wouldn't trust my perception.

There's much more evidence now than there was then and some top scientists and other experts have accepted it as well.

Such as? I've been following this mystery for roughly 30 years myself, and it's increasingly frustrating that with all the advances in technology, we're no closer to proving bigfoot exists than we were 30 years ago.

No DNA positively identified.
No hairs positively identified.
No sound recordings positively identified.
No creature positivley identified.

Swindler examined the Skookum cast four times and stated his conclusions unequivocably on camera.

Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he can't make mistakes. As Russell Ciochon, a prominent paleoanthropologist and professor at the University of Iowa said, "He's an important figure. But I still don't think Bigfoot exists in any form."(1)

Very few scientists have actually examined the Skookum cast, and there have certainly been doubts raised about its authenticity. There are still things about the cast that defy common sense. Testicle prints, and numerous heel prints, but no footprints, for example. In fact, there was no other evidence whatsoever that bigfoot was in the area, yet somehow he managed to breakdance his way to grabbing a few pieces of fruit, contorting his body in a manner that wouldn't allow for clear footprints or buttprints. I'm not convinced the Skookum cast is anything more than wishful-thinking.

RayG

(1) http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bfbelievers.html

 

[tube]

Tube,

You said you have seen the cast of this print.. What is the explanation of the heel ridges?

I am only recently made aware of the heel ridges because of you folks bringing it up. I did not even notice this upon examination of the cast. I still find the cast much more enigmatic than some here with quick and easy answers as to how it was fabricated.

I infer that this track was fabricated because I believe the Patterson film to be a hoax (primarilly based on the un-breast like breasts) but I have no insight on how this track came to be the way it is.

 

[RayG]

Re: On the quality of bigfoot evidence...

RayG,

I´ve asked LAL a lot of times why should we take evidence for bigfeet as OK but disregard the evidence for UFOs and ghosts when they are of the very same kind.

1) Sighting reports
2) Pictures
3) "Physical evidence"- footprints, landing marks, hair, aleged UFO pieces, scratches etc.

I too have pointed out the quantity of bigfoot reports and sightings is comparable to the quanity of UFO reports and sightings, especially when proponents try to use the sheer number of reports and sightings as evidence.

There are differences however:

To my knowledge there is no creature on the planet that exhibits the claimed characteristics of ghosts. Though some insects and birds may hover, I'm not aware of any that can pass through solid walls. If bigfoot exists, it's an animal, that eats, sleeps, defecates, and even bleeds like other animals.

Bigfoot is not planet-hopping in a souped up spacecraft travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light, nor have they kidnapped anyone to take them joyriding. Bigfoot need not defy the laws of physics to exist.

I'm not aware of any claims of implants bigfoot has inserted into a hapless victim.

Disclaimer: I do not think there are gray and reptiloid aliens (neither nordic-type) flying around us.

I take that one step further and say I don't think there are ANY aliens flying around us.

How and where to draw the line? Because bigfeet are, according to LAL´s POV more plausible? Can anyone please clarify?

I pointed out some differences above, but here are some more:

There is no reason to suspect bigfoot (IF it exists) is anything other than flesh and blood. Aliens, on the other hand, are make of gooky green stuff.

Bigfoot (IF it exists) lives in forested areas, and wander about on foot. Aliens apparently live on another planet, probably in another galaxy, and travel about using advanced technological methods.

Bigfoot (IF it exists) eats various food found in forests -- fruits, small animals, fish, and plants. Aliens eat those god awful rations the astronauts use, like tubes of chicken that look like toothpaste.

I suggest that bigfeet researchers should change their methodology and dump all such unreliable data.

I agree wholeheartedly. Many many bigfoot reports require a lot of imagination stretching or wishful-thinking. It's something that's always stuck in my craw.

Yes, it may sound harsh, but most of what´s been shown so far is not hard data. Then make a fresh start, but one from the point that bigfeet existence is a possibility (unlikely IMHO), and not by assuming they are real.

And again, I agree 100%.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Re: Re: On the quality of bigfoot evidence...

Until then sceptics will dismiss new evidence just as they do old evidence.

Probably, but it helps if you actually have some evidence.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

If you only think it's crystal clear, it's probably not. What experiments have you conducted to prove your hypothesis?

I have already made lots of footprints in mud, sand, and snow throughout my life both barefoot and shod. I am quite familiar with them.

As far as the wooden foot making Patty's track, I think my theoretical work is accurate enough. It is a plausible explanation for the track that fits what I see. That is enough for me for now.

Perhaps if we ever get any rain, and I get a little bored.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re the ' Pole ' pic..

The straight black line in between the "pole trees" and the object in the lower left corner.

I believe the black line is an artifact. It shows up in other frames..

IMO This picture is pretty benign.. The poles could be saplings.. One could suspect they are finished poles, but if you allow that they are out of focus, you can conclude that bark and surface irregularities are merely obscured for that reason.


Now, if I wanted to heat things up a bit, I might plant the seed that the area I have outlined is part of a Patty suit.. Can you say ' pareidolia ' ?

I hope to start a new thread soon with some analysis of the PGF footage in LMS.

 

[RayG]

Re: Re: Re: On the quality of bigfoot evidence...

If a body, a captive specimen or sharp footage shows up, I, the other members of this forum and the scientific community will happily acknowledge we were wrong on the topic. You, on the other hand, don´t seem to be really willing to critically analyse the data, relying on the opinions that fit with your POV, never really questioning it. That´s not objectivity. That´s belief.

That's just the way it is...

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

I did not even notice this upon examination of the cast.

I would have thought those rather large ridges would be obvious. If they aren't on the cast, then the cast is not of that track, or the track was "touched up" before the pour.

It will be very difficult to believe a cast will hold dermal ridges but won't hold the ridges on that heel.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7220&st=0

The pre-Patty thread at BFF if you haven't found it already, Diogenes.

 

[LW]

Now, if I wanted to heat things up a bit, I might plant the seed that the area I have outlined is part of a Patty suit..

Not so certain about it, but if you look directly upward from that point you'll notice that there is a ghost watching directyly to the camera. It looks a bit like a mind flayer to me, or perhaps the Great Cthulhu in disguise.

 

[Correa Neto]

Re: Re: On the quality of bigfoot evidence...

I too have pointed out the quantity of bigfoot reports and sightings is comparable to the quanity of UFO reports and sightings, especially when proponents try to use the sheer number of reports and sightings as evidence.

There are differences however:

To my knowledge there is no creature on the planet that exhibits the claimed characteristics of ghosts. Though some insects and birds may hover, I'm not aware of any that can pass through solid walls. If bigfoot exists, it's an animal, that eats, sleeps, defecates, and even bleeds like other animals.

Bigfoot is not planet-hopping in a souped up spacecraft travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light, nor have they kidnapped anyone to take them joyriding. Bigfoot need not defy the laws of physics to exist.
...snip...

Thanks for the answers. Seems to me a quite valid point.

However, I must point that actually these are, to a certain point, criteria based on a particular interpretation of the sightings. They are (or may be), thus related to individual POVs. Some people might argue that aliens are as plausible than bigfeet, for example. OK, some - actually a lot of- stretching and speculation will be needed. Sure, lets not use the extreme examples, (erickbeckjord-tlike ypes comes to mind), but one might argue that aliens might use genration ships and such, for example, thus not needing to break the (known -I hesitated to write the "known") laws of physics. Well, with ghosts, its "a bit" harder, but we´ve seen in this board some arguments (with a lot of stretching and speculations attached) also.

Is this the only way of drawing the line?

The "internal consistency" of the reports, sometimes used as criteria (similarity between bigfeet descriptions from eyewitnesses), does not also seem to be a very reasonable way of drawing the line, since there are some common lines among the descriptions of aliens and ghosts.

Not to mention the sighting reports linking bigfeet and UFOs...

Well, actually my point is that one should not rely too much on sighting reports as evidence for bigfeet. And we agree on that.

 

[tube]

I would have thought those rather large ridges would be obvious. If they aren't on the cast, then the cast is not of that track, or the track was "touched up" before the pour.

It will be very difficult to believe a cast will hold dermal ridges but won't hold the ridges on that heel.

Most of the casts of the Patterson film site floating around today are second or third (or unknown) generation casts. I do not know what generation the cast that I examined was. The one I'm talking about was donated by Craig Woolheater to the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries, and it is there currently. I'll take a close look the next time I'm there. Frankly, the photograph may offer better clues as to the "stepped" nature of the track than today's cast copies, simply because of the loss of detail in the multi-generational copying.

As I say, I was preoccupied with the roundness of the ball and heel area, and I was not paying any attention to any purportedly "stepped" texture. Sort of like staring at some dude's goofy hat then being asked what kind of shoes he was wearing!