A chick that belives in all sorts of woo nonsense.
Sounds like some men I know.
Well, when was North America colonized?
<snip>
There are old newspaper reports of captures, impossible to follow up on now.
Have you? Its the old "garbage in, garbage out principle". Not to mention that some of his conclusions are debatable at least.
I own one set of casts. I've at least bothered to read the conclusions of well-qualified people who have examined other evidence. It isn't "garbage out" if it isn't "garbage in".
Of course some conclusions are debatable. What isn't? But he's one of the very few with credentials to actually do some research (at a considerable cost of time and money) on this instead of dismissing it out of hand as so many other academics have done.
He makes sense for those who belive bigfoot is real. You should ask yourself why not many mainstream people are convinced if he´s so good.
Most mainstream people have never heard of him, let alone read anything by him. I just saw a poll that found the majority doesn't accept evolution. I guess we should all become religious.
The above statement is not true. Evidence and reasoning againt PGF and bigfeet have been posted here. If you disagree, please convince us that the avaliable evidences pro bigfeet are not inconclusive.
Isn't that what I've trying to do, more or less, for the last five months? It's not my fault some of you are so hooked on the hoax hypothesis you can't get away from it no matter what evidence is presented. I've seen no evidence against and very little reasoning. I stand by the statement. It seems reasonable to you because it supports your POV. To me, much of it is just ludicrous.
Time, resolution and illumination argue against the definition of such detail level.
Did I say I agree with it?
Is the rectangular hole bigger than the resolution?
There is no rectangular hole. Take it up with the poster. He'll be seeing zippers next.
Can you back the claim that "Gimlin made no money off the film"? Heck, if I were P, G or F, I would never tell the truth just for the sake of laughing at the believer´s attempts to prove its real.
He was cut out from the beginning. Do your own research. "P,G or F"? Who's "F"?
I don´t think I am the only one who think its a hoax or that there are very good reasons to belive it is a hoax.
Good reasons such as Patterson and Gimlin not agreeing on whether Roger's horse fell on him or not? I've seen no good reasons to believe it's a hoax. The film stands on its own.
Who would use a gorilla suit for bigfoot anyway? P, G & F.
A suit can be made to have a nose that is different than those from humans and to have longer forearms than humans have.
You might want to read up on this. I won't even tell you who to read. We've already discussed shoulder width and IM index. There are no easy ways to duplicate these proportions. It's not just a matter of lengthening forearms.
Inconclusive, of course. There was another sighting and tracks, but never mind the supporting evidence. The film is blurry.
Looks like a diaper, to me. If that were a real animal, Patty would be quite fat. But we have already discussed this haven´t we?
Along with everything else.
Does this look like a diaper?
That are not seen in any other mountain animal?
It's seen in other mountain-dwelling primates. An arch on an extremely heavy biped doesn't seem like a good adaptation for any kind of walking. Ancient bipedal primates may have still utilized trees, but they were fully bipedal. The gait differed from ours somewhat. Human young climb trees, come to think of it.
<snip>
Compare with Krantz, Swindler et al. They may also be wrong, you know. Even a PhD grade can not avoid you to be wrong.
It took thirty years for Swindler to become convinced. Don't try to lump him in with the "crackpots". Dr. Franklin Ruehl is a much better example of that than your biologist. He has a PhD in theoretical nuclear physics from UCLA and presented evidence of a levitation rod being used to build the pyramid of Cheops on his radio show. A Current Affair used him to investigate the Manitoba sighting, thus destroying almost any chance it had of being taken seriously or of confirmation.
Are you an expert?
Why you team with him when most other experts say bigfoot is a myth?
<snip>
I haven't read anything convincing from experts who say it's a myth. Read Daegling.
In case you have not noticed, we all here at JREF will immeadiately say "WOW! COOL! WE WERE WRONG!". The opposite of the reaction that footers have when faced with evidence against their existence.
Considering there is no evidence against their existence there might be a problem with reacting at all. Matt Crowley got much praise from Jeff Meldrum for his work on casting artifacts. Did anyone boo him out of the room? I think not. He's presented his work to Chilcutt at the recent Texas conference and more experiments will be done. This is not some sort of woo fan club. I resent the stereotypes. WTF is a "footer"?
I haven't seen any of you admit you were wrong about anything yet. Well, once, maybe.
If they follow the same methodology used by BRFO “experts”...
Eight curators resigned from the BFRO. Matt Moneymaker's meglomania shouldn't taint the whole effort. The new organization will be run democratically.
Elk and moose have mid tarsal breaks?
The species of rams that live in steep cliffs have mid tarsal breaks?
They aren't primates.
Really heavy mammals have mid tarsal breaks?
Bigfeet live only in mountainous terrain that would require special adaptations for climbing?
There are reports from the Ohio Valley, but the best evidence comes from mountainous regions with ample rainfall. Not all arboreal adaptations would necessarily be lost. They haven't been in our species. We don't have fur coats anymore, but we still have erector pili.
See, the claims that (i) extra feet flexibility is an adaptation for living in steep terrain and (ii) mid tarsal breaks are an adaptation to sustain the animal´s weight have no backing either from existing animals examples or from bigfoot´s alleged habitats.
I never claimed either. I said the "mountain gait" may be an adaptation for mountainous terrain.
Midtarsal flexibility is usual in primates. Bipedal locomotion is quite possible with it. It doesn't need to be lost for long distance walking.
Why do flightless birds have wings? Why do whales have hind leg bones?
I wrote that such feet flexibility is useless since they are bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances AND they are just too big and heavy to spent as much time in trees as gorillas. Thus, flexible feet would be removed in the evolutionary process.
Opposed toes might be and evidently were in several species, but I totally fail to see why midtarsal flexibility would be any kind of hinderence to long distance walking. The arch is a Homo trait. That doesn't mean all terrestial hominids would have to have it.
<snip>
Thus, again, extra feet flexibility has no reason to be there.
No reason to be eliminated. If arches are such an advantage, why do we have podiatrists?
What extra ligaments?
Then please explain why animals that live in rocky cliffs have not developed a similar feature.
Because they didn't evolve from an arboreal ancestor.
Also explain why bigfeet would retain such feature if they do not live solely at rocky cliffs, since their habitats encompass an enormous range of terrain types, most of which can not be called rough.
I don't know of anyone claiming an enormous range of terrain except you. Even the Northwest isn't composed sorely of rocky cliffs, and they're not good habitat for an omnivorous primate. I was thinking in terms of extra grip being useful for crossing talus or fallen logs.
<snip>
There´s a single genus of bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances that can be used for any comparsion with what bigfeet´s feet should look like – the homo genus.
The only living one, anyway. It's pretty well established that there were a dozen or more species of ancient bipedal primates. One of them at least walked as far as the Laetoli trackway indicates.
How can it be interpreted as a statement that our hands can no longer be improved? To say something was perfected is far from to say that it became perfect.
Adjective: perfected pur'fektud
(of plans, ideas, etc.) perfectly formed
Verb: perfect pur'fekt
Make perfect or complete
LAL, we ARE talking about bones. A footprint will own its shape to the bones that compose the structural framework of the foot that created it. Alleged bigfeet´s toe (toes are composed by bones, aren´t they?) position is inconsistent with a great degree of feet flexibility. Toe would have to be at least a bit more gorilla- or chimp-like, for example.
Footprints don't even show the exact shape of the foot. Do you know some casts show spread toe pads? Of course you do. You read Krantz.
What do you mean by “evidently”? Could you please provide a link backing this claim?
Read Murphy. See the photos. See the thread where this was discussed
ad nauseum.
And still, no sharp footage or picture of a bigfoot in North America.
