Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Hm. Diogenes is Skeptical Greg over there. Maybe he'll invite Dfoot.

I really don't see any point in inviting someone over to preach to the choir..

I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the BFF people lurk over here.. They are always welcome to join in..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Roger was rather obsessed with the quest, as were others.

Apparently not obsessed enough to return to the one place where he captured the most compelling piece of evidence in Bigfootdom...

Interesting how Bigfeet seemed to have lost interest in that location as well..

 

[LAL]

Here´s the evidence for the inneficiency of an extra articulation: T=rXF. Check the pic two posts of mine above.

You said extra ligaments, not extra articulation.

Want it more clearly exposed? Open a door by applying a force (F) at the maximum possible distance from its hinge joint (r). Now do the same from half the distance. In wich case you had to make more force?

Now imagine a door with an extra hinge joint, say a folding screen. Apply force to its edge to open it. See how inneficient and cumbersome it is?

Now go back to the figure I posted and compare the two feet with the exmples above.

Works great for Wallace feet! Who said there's an extra hinge? It's more a matter of placement.

Read Meldrum. He' seems to have factored all this in. So did Krantz when he discussed the power arm and deduced the elongated heel.

Invalid comparsion. Bipedalism is more efficient than knuckle-walking. And since quite likely we evolved from knucle-walkers...

Nope, Richmond and Strait nothwithstanding. It doesn't look like we descended from A. afarensis in the first place, or A. africanus, which was examined as well. The others (Paranthropus) don't have the locking mechanism, which most think was an arboreal adaptation (Kreger). In fact, we probably didn't evolve from African [/I]Homo erectus[/I] either. Read Tattersal. (You should like him. He got his PhD in Geology and Geophysics, but has headed the department of Anthropology at the Museum of Natural History in New York since 1990. Yet another geologist working out of his field. )

The common ancestor was arboreal, according to everything I've ever read on it and it may have been found in Spain..

Bipedalism is more efficient than knuckle-walking, but less efficient than quadrupedalism.

Ever noticed that in scientific texts we quite often use "woulds", "coulds", "probablys", etc.?

And "In light of new evidence."

You should notice that we are talking about a major design flaw.

I'll work on it. You seem to be the first and only one to think this.......oh, where's Pat?

You mean arches? Not incompatible with what one might see in hominids with midtarsal breaks, evidently. Shouldn't the comparison be with something like Stw 573 rather than with knuckle-walking Great Apes who aren't habitual bipeds at all?...snip...

Check the comparsions between footprints from real feet with midtarsal breaks with bigfoot footprints. I think you missed something there. The incongruences are there.

Check other hominids. Stw 573 left foot bones.

What he wrote about human feet can be summarized by T=rXF. But he seems to have forgotten such detail when it comes to bigfoot.

Different creature, different gait, different adaptations. We're not the only hominid to have ever walked the earth. Why does a formula that applies to humans have to apply to anything else?

Irrelevant, since I´m talking about the toe POSITION. Read Correa Neto more carefully.

I'm think I'm reading you too carefully.

Not to mention that the alleged bigfeet footprints show fingers with the same relative size as humans.

They show toes as long as Meldrum's fingers. Is that what you meant? The hands have fingers; the feet toes. But you knew that.

You can't go by Internet photos of casts. Meldrum has examined actual prints on five occassions and owns over 100 casts.

Wrong reasoning. Most of the terrain they are supposed to live would not require any special feet adaptation. And it´s not just "crossing terrains". We´ve already discussed this. It would actually be an expansion of habitat to new environments. The animals would actually LIVE at these places.

Crossing terrains such as on the Bering Strait would have taken days.There is no reason flexibility would be lost just because they left the mountains from time to time.

We did discuss this. Why do you seem to think you won? Remember the site on the Bering Strait and the evidence it wasn't all tundra at the time? There werre clumps of trees and the forests on the two continents extended further north than they do now.

Not to mention you are claiming there are subspecies and sifferent species of bigfeet despite the fact there´s not enough reliable evidence to back the evidence of bigfoot.

Read Coleman. There may be a subspecies in the eastern US, and, yes, there is evidence. The North American Apes of the Southeast are a different deal. Coleman suggests the Myakka Apes are feral Orangutans, although there were no reports of escapees when the pictures Bill posted were taken.

You aren't answering the questions. Why would delusions vary by region? Why would a misidentified mobile tree stump be white in Illinois and dark brown in Oregon? Why do people have some deep need to imagine monsters in the forests, but not in the deserts?

So, its unlikely that such animal would have inefficient feet. An anatomical incongruency. Or the figures are wrong. Or the creature is not real.

Or you're seizing on what you perceive is an incongruety with little to nothing to back that up. Homo was never the only bipedal primate. The others seem to have gotten around quite well in spite of flexible feet.

A poster on BFF noted his flatfooted friend is the fastest in the class. Maybe athletes should give up arch supports instead of steroids.

How´s that ineficient? Well, I have already answered. The rest is just speculation made over unreliable data.

LAL, a creature with a small territory is easier to be found than a creature with a large one....

Who said they have a small territory other than you? The evidence suggests it's huge. Gorillas are relatively easy to find and leave a lot of sign, but it still took 60 years to bring one in.

Good idea. Would most likely help you to see how implausible the whole bigfoot story is.

Neither one of us is going to live that long.

Simple. "Read [insert author name here]" and the countless times you said we should belive in [insert author name here] because he is an expert in his field.

Krantz. Cite me one post where I said you "should belive in [insert author name here] because he is an expert in his field".

You should read him because he was an expert in his field, and has done the work. He also answered virtually every point you've made. If he's wrong, show precisely where he is.

LAL, I´ll ask again. Is is so unconceivable to you that one might not be impressed at all by Krantz´s book? Maybe you should consider that many other people were not...

I know about two people online who have even read him. I'm not counting you because I'm not sure you did.

How about Swindler's opinion? He a giant in the field of primatology. Evidently he doesn't impress you either.

If their work on bigfoot is so convincing and good, how come there´s not a single word on it say, at Nature? An article at a respected peer-reviewed magazine would be much better than any book. Or you fail to realize this?

Nope. Did several debates on this with a geologist CAPPING at me, "If it's not PEER REVIEWED it's not SCIENCE. If it's not SCIENCE, it's NONSENSE." And everything I came up with, such as from the AAPA, was not peer-reviewed enough. Hopefully Meldrum or someone else will be able to publish in Nature, but we still have a situation where Smithsonian scientists have stated they will not look at the Skookum Cast even if someone drives it accross country to show them. As Green asks, who are the scientists and who the believers? The climate needs to change a bit more and more evidence is needed. But Gee seems at least a bit receptive with his "hope for Yeti hunters" comment.

Yes you did, as soon as you complained about my "armchair investigation".

Did I single you out, or did the shoe fit?

No. Because the data they used to back their conclusions are unreliable an because I also found what I consider to be flaws on the reasoning.

Answer the question: Experts are never wrong?

I could point out errors even in the work of the sainted Dr. Krantz, as I've stated, but, heck, he was going on the received wisdom of the time.

I -as well as the other posters around here- examined the evidence presented on books, articles, etc.

Posters such as the Alderfoot twins?

And before you jump and say my opinion is not valid because I have never seen an actual bigfoot footprint (as if such a thing existed), let me tell you that your argument is not valid. When one submits a paper to a peer-reviewed magazine, the reviewers check the submitted data "as it is" on the paper. One does not need to or will see say, the measured specimens. One will critically examine the presented data and the methodology.

Right. Submit your paper. However, I still think it's customary to examine evidence before trying to debunk it. One might be able to write more intelligently about it.

Meldrum got his tenure on his methodology, BTW, even though many of his colleagues didn't like the subject.

(continued next post)

 

[LAL]

So, am I correct to interpretate that you think BFF posters are seeing too much in PGF? Now, could you please tell me who said all footprints are fakeries? We think not all of them are feked. We think there are misinterpretations also.

Don't extrapolate. Each piece of evidence needs to be examined objectively. Cliff Crook seeing a metal fastener that would have been smaller than a grain of film proves neither hoax nor authenticity, e'g.. Kids on BFF seeing teeth doesn't mean the teeth were or weren't visible for a split second. Got some good debate going, didn't it? Interesting stuff on reflexes.

Fakes and bear tracks and melted tracks in snow don't explain it all, as you might see if you were to examine actual casts and learn their history.

What is "my club"? Is it regarding my position that bigfoot is not real? And regarding the rest of your questions, they have already been answered by other posters. If you have not noticed yet, whenever I have some more extra time I can summarize it.

I'm a sceptic, but I'm not wearing your T-shirt. I think I've read the thousands of posts on these threads, thanks. My questions often don't get answered. Perhaps they're taken as rhetorical. I think I've scored some pretty good points along the line, but the subject always seems to change when I do. Red Herrings?

Why? Are you trying to convert us?

I've stated my goals, such as they are.

I am just telling that perhaps you -as well as those who belive in bigfoot-should reconsider the approach. I and other people here have already told you this. For example, a bit of skepticism regarding the data used to back bigfoot´s existence would not be bad at all.

Oh good grief. Never read arch-sceptic Dahinden, either did you? Or Meldrum's comment on exposing hoaxes being part of the effort? It was my sig line for awhile. What makes you think investigators are so naive they don't consider hoaxing, misidentification, "buck fever", intoxication............

Read somebody, will you?

 

[LAL]

Apparently not obsessed enough to return to the one place where he captured the most compelling piece of evidence in Bigfootdom...

What was wrong with going to Bossburg?

Interesting how Bigfeet seemed to have lost interest in that location as well..

They may have moved to the Siskyous. Prints of the same individuals were seen in the Bluff Creek area for years.

BTW, didn't you ask, long ago, about documentation on the double trackway I described? (Too bad I couldn't document that? Or something like that? Or was that you?)

I recently purchased Mysterious Monsters from RetroFlix. (It got a good review for reasons unbeknownst to me.) To my surprise, my old friend Ed McClarney is in it, describing the double trackway he told me about personally thirty years later. He shows the incline the tracks walked up "like two machines". The footage at the beginning of the segment may be of the tracks in snow shot by the Columbian camera crew, but it doesn't say so. This isn't the same film I saw in Portland (the copyright is two years too late, for one thing), but it works for me. This is another of those hard-to-explain away incidents that few seem to know about. I'm glad it's somewhere.

 

[LAL]

Apparently not obsessed enough to return to the one place where he captured the most compelling piece of evidence in Bigfootdom...

Surely you saw this. You were on the same page.


"Patterson's involvement (along with his backer, Tom Page) in bidding on the Bossburg Bigfoot (and Big Foot thereafter) is described on pages 152-62 of the Hunter/Dahinden book, 1993 ed.

As to why Patterson never returned to the site for another filming: First, he spent the next year or two on the road promoting his film, being interviewed, and trying to get scientists interested in it. He had no time for field work then--and he'd fallen out with Gimlin, who was his most congenial field partner. Thereafter he was too weak to do field work.

Second, he was discouraged by the negative reaction of scientists (and thereafter the media and the public) to the film. He may therefore have figured that if the first film hadn't done the job, why waste time trying to get another one that would have no impact either? (He expressed the view later that if he'd shot the thing he wouldn't have been doubted--but he personally may have felt unable to pull the trigger on a creature he regarded as a person.) And he may also have figured that it would have looked suspicious if lightning had struck twice in the same spot--and both times to him.

Third, I recall Green or someone saying (it's in my files, but I don't want to spend 15 minutes tracking it down) that after the filming most people in the BF fraternity felt that it would be only a matter of months or a couple of years before someone brought in a body and settled the matter. The film had greatly increased the numbers of BF searchers, and there was a feeling that since RP had been one of the very few to have been actively searching for one and had had such success with a limited investment of field-time, that similar successes could have been expected from one of his competitors too. (This is part of the reason why Marx's hoax was so easily accepted then.) People felt that once focused searching began, the payoff wouldn't take long. So RP may have fallen in with this line of thought and figured that he'd done his bit in getting the ball rolling, and that his personal direct involvement in the field wouldn't have added much to the overall effort.

Fourth, he must have felt less of a need to prove to himself (and others close to him, like Gimlin) that the creature existed. This would have cut his avidity for the hunt considerably.

Fifth, his plans immediately after the filming, as reported in the local paper the next day (see Murphy's Bigfoot Film Controversy, p. 196), were to return to the film site "for the chance to get another view and more film of the creature." He left only because he was flooded out.

Sixth, he went to Bluff Creek only because Hodgson had reported that it was "hot"--i.e., that there'd been recent track finds. He may have had enough experience, and had accumulated enough field-smarts from talking to other investigators, to realize then something that has gradually become apparent to everyone: that hot spots don't stay hot, and that heading out into the field without a good tip reduces ones odds. And there may not have been subsequent tips from the area.

Seventh, he knew that all the witnesses he'd interviewed had only had an accidental encounter, so he may have figured that he was unusually lucky, and that it wouldn't happen again.

Eighth, Bluff Creek was a 14-hour drive (by horse-truck) from Yakima, and was very rough country, which would have diminished its attractiveness.

I'll probably think of a few more reasons after I've posted this! " -Roger Knights

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13103&st=40

'Nuff said. The argument was refuted there, it's refuted here. I may not be able to bring Roger to this forum, but I can sure bring his posts.

I think you should all visit BFF so you won't keep bringing up the same tired arguments that have been addressed repeatly over there. Lurk and learn.

 

[LAL]

Then why does his story conflict with the other person who was there?

Over whether the horse fell on Roger? We've been over this and over this. Read my posts.

 

[LAL]

I somewhat wish that Dfoot would find this forum so that he can converse with like-minded individuals. He seems to have access to excellent circumstancial (yet factual) evidence that the PGF is a hoax. He deserves a better audience than the PGF-woo-sycophants which he is immersed in over at BFF. Dfoot has now characterized this bizarre realm as a cult.

WTF?

He said this:

"But as far as what I "believe" goes: I believe there is ample evidence that Sasquatch like creatures have existed. I also believe that by clinging to the PG film as evidence and bending over backwards to support a lie, we make the subject of Sasquatch something you cannot even speak about in public without fear of ridicule.

Let's stop being afraid of "absolutism" or of sounding arrogant for stating the truth. Let's do real research and accept what the facts are - whatever they may be. Let's not fall into the pattern of some cult-ish belief system." - Dfoot

And you mischaracterized his quote. The nicest thing I can say right now is that you quote-mined him.

I can't access my account, but I can still copy and paste. Did you think I can't follow a link and check? I have just brought some of Dfoot's words to this forum and if anyone thinks you were being honest, let them read the whole thread on BFF. Funny Diogenes, who got soundly slapped down (as Skeptical Greg) a few pages earlier, as follows, by a "PGF-woo-sycophant", didn't utter a peep.

"As far as this quote...

(Skeptical Greg @ Oct 19 2005, 08:33 PM)
ShadowPrime @ Oct 19 2005, 07:38 PM)
...........

I find it interesting that a film clip cooked up by a couple of amateurs in the 1960s has stood up to such intense scrutiny for so long.
.........
Shadow

I would suggest that relatively few people have scrutinized it ( with much intensity ) at all..

If I hear one more time that oh so tired argument that "well it's never really been studied" I think I'm gonna......a brick! How does one make up, literally out of thin air, such a fallacy? Greg, have you not been following along all these years with the 'home edition' of "Name That PGF"? And which 'intensity' are you preferring? The one that says it's fake? You yourself have less than 'compelling' arguments and I assume you posted them 'honestly' - we have assumed you did. As such, is that the best you got? Is it a case of any 'anomaly' is a good anomaly? And more 'intense scrutiny' will surely bring up even more of them? Are you saying it's been 38 years plus and the fact there's been not even one truly worth argument pointing towards UNAUTHENTICITY makes it 'unscrutinized' because the 'real zipper' hasn't been found yet?

Even skepticism has a finite limit.

"Harry" "

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13103&st=40

Scott was there; he just seems to have stopped using Long, chapter and verse. Don't know who he is, do you?

Dfoot would not be "singing to the choir" over here, that's for sure. I've invited a few BFFers to this board, but I can see why they don't bother with it. I wonder why I do, sometimes.

 

[LAL]

That presents yet another discrepancy. Patterson claims they followed the creature for 3.5 miles, yet Titmus finds evidence where it circled back and sat down to watch them only 125 yards away. (Krantz, page 91). How can that be?

They were trying to round up the horses. She was in forest above them. Evidently she moved on before they started to follow her.

Many discrepancies have been pointed out, similar to the one I just pointed out above.

Do we have a list? Do we know how many are misquotes? Who cares? There are doubtless more discrepancies than that in the the Kennedy assasination accounts, but the Zapruder film shows what it shows.

I'm still not sure why we should take Coleman's word over Patterson's. Patterson was there, Coleman wasn't. Patterson's information was relatively fresh, Coleman's isn't.

RayG

Didn't I explain that correctly? I hadn't gone back far enough in the posts to see the quote from Roger before I posted that. Coleman may have just rounded it off. He seems to be mistaken on the New Scientist article, alas. Nobody's perfect.

I've never said we should take Coleman's word over Patterson's. It was just my source at the moment.

 

[Hitch]

Do we have a list? Do we know how many are misquotes? Who cares? There are doubtless more discrepancies than that in the the Kennedy assasination accounts, but the Zapruder film shows what it shows.

Let's talk about what the Zapuder film DOESN'T show. It doesn't show who shot Kennedy.

Now... what doesn't the Patterson-Gimlin film show?

 

[LAL]

Just what is there to say about Loren Coleman? He is a "professional crytozoologist". He earns an income from peoples' love of zoological myths. Coleman is a postmodern PT Barnum without actually having real animals in a circus. He sells books and lectures instead.

"Obtaining an undergraduate degree from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Coleman majored in anthropology, minored in zoology, and did some summer work in archaeology. He received a graduate degree in psychiatric social work from Simmons College in Boston. Coleman was admitted to the Ph.D. programs, and took doctoral coursework in social anthropology at Brandies University, and in sociology at the University of New Hampshire's Family Research Laboratory.

Coleman has been an instructor, assistant/associate professor, research associate, and documentary filmmaker, in various academic university settings, since 1980. He gave one of the first credit courses on the subject of cryptozoology in 1990, and examined cryptozoology films in his popular documentary course he taught through 2003 at the University of Southern Maine. He has written extensively in human services, having authored, coauthored, or edited eight books, including the critically acclaimed Suicide Clusters (Faber and Faber, 1987), appearing on "The Larry King Show" discussing it. His work on the suicides of baseball players was covered in Sports Illustrated, the Sporting News, ESPN, EPSN Classics and by all the major media and wire services."


He asked for the URL on the Wallace fake discussion, but didn't join in. It would have been interesting to get his thinking as a psychiatric social worker on some of the distorted thinking I seem to be seeing here.

Loren Coleman holding a whatchamagigger footprint plaster casting...

It's from the Shipton "Yeti" print.

I realize you're not very informed on this stuff, but I'd appreciate it if you'd at least try to be a little more honest.

 

[LAL]

Try right clicking on the image and choose " Copy Image Location ", or looking at " Image properties "

http://www.bigfootmuseum.com/images/bigfoot/cast-pic02.jpg

That's what I do since Bill seldom posts his links. I got to the site but didn't find the photos. I was interested in finding more.

Did either of you understand any part of the discussions on how living feet differ from fakes, or of the problems associated with trying to enlarge human feet? The proportions? The dermals, where present?

Somehow, when the mockery starts I can't think of anything to do but call a time out. Used to work great with my kids.

 

[RayG]

They were trying to round up the horses. She was in forest above them. Evidently she moved on before they started to follow her.

You've just presented another discrepancy. The creature circled back above them, sat and watched them from 125 yards away, yet neither Patterson or Gimlin mention this when they talk about tracking her.

Do we have a list? Do we know how many are misquotes? Who cares?

Anyone trying to examine the evidence should care.

There are doubtless more discrepancies than that in the the Kennedy assasination accounts, but the Zapruder film shows what it shows.

There certainly are some marked differences between the Patterson and Zapruder films that reduce your comparison to a false analogy. There's no doubt the Zapruder film captures an actual historic event (you can't argue the President's assassination that fateful day was a hoax), and the Patterson film subject was neither shot at nor killed.

I've never said we should take Coleman's word over Patterson's. It was just my source at the moment.

Read Coleman.

Coleman? Regardless of how many books he's written, he's never actually examined a squatch, nor even claimed to have seen one as far as I know. Somehow though, he's able to speculate there are something like NINE different species traipsing about the woods of North America.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

So the bear tracks were apparently Meldrum's first real look at alleged bigfoot tracks. Pay close attention to the second paragraph....

Meldrum's skepticism vanished in 1996 when he investigated a freshly laid line of alleged Bigfoot tracks in Washington's Blue Mountains. After analyzing the tracks, he determined the animal that left them had proceeded out of a remote drainage along a soupy farm road, then turned and sprinted for the woods, as if it were fleeing something or someone, Meldrum said.

"In order for someone to have faked that, they would have had to walk out of that drainage carrying three or four different sets of feet, which they changed intermittently in mid-stride without any obvious breaks," he said. "It just becomes ludicrous to suggest that."

Three or four different sets of feet. Changed in mid-stride.

Can I get a witness????

He is even describing bear tracks for crying out loud!!!!



From BFRO media article #53

 

[LTC8K6]

Soon after the figure walked into the trees, “the men then tracked it for three miles, but lost it in the heavy undergrowth.”

(Coleman and Clark, 198)

 

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps Roger and Indian Bob were just really bad trackers.

Maybe they tracked right past Patty as she squatted and watched them?

Maybe they tracked a bear for 3 miles or so?

I know, they tracked right past Patty and she followed them for 3 miles.

 

[LAL]

You've just presented another discrepancy. The creature circled back above them, sat and watched them from 125 yards away, yet neither Patterson or Gimlin mention this when they talk about tracking her.

Source?
It was Titmus who found this nine days later. Evidently they missed it. He said this of the tracks:

"I spent hours that day examining the tracks, which, for the most part, were still in very good condition considering that they were 9 or 10 days old. Roger and Bob had covered a few of them with slabs of bark etc. and these were in excellent condition. The tracks appeared perfectly natural and normal. The same as the many others that we have tracked and become so familiar with over the years, but of a slightly different size. Most of the tracks showed a great deal of foot movement, some showed a little and a few indicated almost no movement whatever. I took plaster casts of ten consecutive imprints and the casts show a vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc. Nothing whatever here indicated that these tracks could have been faked in some manner. In fact all of the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. And no amount of thinking and imagining on my part could conceive of a method by which these tracks could have been made fictitiously."

Murphy says it ascended a hill, sat down and watched them, not that it circled back.

"The men found scuffmarks in the gravel and in the creek bed which indicated the creature ran when it was out of the men's sight. They continued up the creek for a considerable distance and observed a rock with a wet half print on the surface. From that point the path led up into the mountains."" Murphy, pg. 42

They reloaded the camera after Roger's situation was rectified before they went after her.

Titmus' map shows she took almost a 90° turn, crossed the creek and ascended the hill in a straight path, taking a turn to the right and sat. Unfortunately distances aren't given on it. Sounds ratherlike P&G followed the creek bed, instead of her. They then returned to the film site and examined the trackway on the sandbar. If they rode up the creek bed, they could have covered the 3.5 miles, or whatever distance it was, fairly quickly.

Anyone trying to examine the evidence should care.

Make a list. How many is "many"? Eyewitness testimony is supposed to be the most unreliable anyway, isn't it? So why does it matter if they disagreed on length of arms or her height? If it had been the scene of a robbery they probably would have disagreed on what color shirt the perpetrator was wearing. This is normal.

There certainly are some marked differences between the Patterson and Zapruder films that reduce your comparison to a false analogy. There's no doubt the Zapruder film captures an actual historic event (you can't argue the President's assassination that fateful day was a hoax), and the Patterson film subject was neither shot at nor killed.

(Lu's to do list: memorize list of logical fallacies.) I've read the two are the most studied films in history. Did I argue the films are alike?


Do you read the supermarket papers? The Zapruder film clearly shows the sun glinting off the gun the chauffeur pointed over his shoulder to give Kennedy the "front entry" wound, according to one, with a full color photo on the cover. Another had a photo purportedly of Jackie pushing the crippled President around Hyannisport in a wheelchair, and, while not claiming the shooting was a hoax, they tried to make a case that his death was hoaxed. Mark Lane wove his whole conspiracy theory out of less cloth than Daegling used. Lipton was sillier, but I admit he had me going on some of it for awhile. There were conventions, too, with one participant having Johnson as the assassin pulling his six guns from under a cape. I don't know if they sold T-shirts. Jean Hill went from seeing nothing when questioned originally to signing autographs for her detailed account of events on the Grassy Noll. Jiggle analysis was used on both films, incidently.

Patterson regretted on his death bed he didn't shoot her (urban legend has turned this into a deathbed confession with details from the Wallace story). Do you suppose there would have been a two shooter theory if he had?

My point was, that conficting eyewitness testimony doesn't affect the validity of what these films show. Fanciful interpretations don't either. The evidence speaks for itself. The trick is to hear exactly what it's saying.

Coleman? Regardless of how many books he's written, he's never actually examined a squatch, nor even claimed to have seen one as far as I know. Somehow though, he's able to speculate there are something like NINE different species traipsing about the woods of North America.

That was a joke, son. Got tired of typing "Read Krantz".

Nine? Name 'em. In the book I was reading he only talked about western Sasquatches, the eastern variety and "Napes". That's two, three at most. He did talk about the identification of the Minnesota Iceman photos by Vietnamese witnesses as most like their local "wildman", and presented the Wisconsin shooting story as well. I read Cryptozology A to Z and only remember the same for NA. How about a citation? Are you sure you're not throwing in some Asian types?

Coleman's spent forty years investigating and collecting reports. I don't believe Krantz, Meldrum, Dahinden, Bryne, Green or Bindernagle ever saw one either. I thought Coleman was a bit out there from some of the stuff written about him, but when I actually read him, including what he really said re reports of Sasquatch birth and the cow incident, I was impressed by his sanity.

 

[LAL]

So the bear tracks were apparently Meldrum's first real look at alleged bigfoot tracks. Pay close attention to the second paragraph....

He is even describing bear tracks for crying out loud!!!!

You're nuts, Bill. Nuts.

 

[Correa Neto]

You said extra ligaments, not extra articulation.

Read the original post carefully and think about it.

Works great for Wallace feet! Who said there's an extra hinge? It's more a matter of placement.

Think a bit more about it and you´ll see you are wrong.

Read Meldrum. He' seems to have factored all this in. So did Krantz when he discussed the power arm and deduced the elongated heel.

As you wrote, he "seems to have factored all this in". And this is all. He actually has not.

Nope, Richmond and Strait nothwithstanding. It doesn't look like we descended from A. afarensis in the first place, or A. africanus, which was examined as well. ...snip... Bipedalism is more efficient than knuckle-walking, but less efficient than quadrupedalism.

So what? A species will evolve towards one or another strategy depending on the opportunities avaliable. Babboons, adopted quadrupedal motion while our antecessors adopted bipedalism. And bigfoot´s feet remain implausible.

And "In light of new evidence."

That never shows up in case of bigfoot.

I'll work on it. You seem to be the first and only one to think this.......oh, where's Pat?

Are you claiming again I am using a sock puppet?
Please provide the evidence or remove your claim. Check JREF rules regarding sockpuppets.

Check other hominids. Stw 573 left foot bones.

And you conveniently ignore the parts where its said that its foot can be a good match for the footprint in question. Thanks for help proving my point.

Different creature, different gait, different adaptations. We're not the only hominid to have ever walked the earth. Why does a formula that applies to humans have to apply to anything else?

Because the physical "rules" are the same for everything in this universe.

They show toes as long as Meldrum's fingers. Is that what you meant? The hands have fingers; the feet toes. But you knew that.
You can't go by Internet photos of casts. Meldrum has examined actual prints on five occassions and owns over 100 casts.

The pics I´ve seen show finger dispositions identical to humans. Care to show pics that show a different disposition? And to elaborate further on the reasons for the morphological discrepancies? Without falling in to the "different subspecies or species" speculative trap.

So, only those who have or saw the actual casts and prints are qualify to have positions on the isssue... Right... Very solid argument... Are you proud of it?

Crossing terrains such as on the Bering Strait would have taken days.There is no reason flexibility would be lost just because they left the mountains from time to time.

We did discuss this. Why do you seem to think you won? Remember the site on the Bering Strait and the evidence it wasn't all tundra at the time? There werre clumps of trees and the forests on the two continents extended further north than they do now.

And you insist to stick to your mistaken reasoning. These animals, if they exist, must live in quite smooth terrain!!!! Mountainous terrains are just a fraction of their habitats.

Read Coleman. ...snip...

ROFLMAO!!! Coleman? You want us to take him as a serious investigator? The guy who thinks Enkindu was a bigfoot who had interspecies gay sex with Gilgamesh in Iraq? LAL, that was one of your most unhappy lines. But I needed a laugh, thanks!!!!!

You aren't answering the questions. Why would delusions vary by region? Why would a misidentified mobile tree stump be white in Illinois and dark brown in Oregon? Why do people have some deep need to imagine monsters in the forests, but not in the deserts?

What part of "short in time" you failed to understand? Don´t worry, I´ll discuss the issue briefly ASAP.

Or you're seizing on what you perceive is an incongruety with little to nothing to back that up. Homo was never the only bipedal primate. The others seem to have gotten around quite well in spite of flexible feet.

And these other bipedal primates with flexible feet... Were they able to walk 25 miles during a night? Or they spent a lot of times climbing trees?

Who said they have a small territory other than you? The evidence suggests it's huge. Gorillas are relatively easy to find and leave a lot of sign, but it still took 60 years to bring one in.

LAL, the reasoning is that if the feet render bipedal locomotion ineficient, then they would not be able to cross large distances, what would restrict their territory. BTW, what evidence is avaliable that they have large territories? There´s not even reliable evidence that the creature is real avaliable !!!!

Good idea. Would most likely help you to see how implausible the whole bigfoot story is.

Neither one of us is going to live that long.

Sure. Bigfoot´s existence seems to be a belief for you.

You should read him because he was an expert in his field, and has done the work. He also answered virtually every point you've made. If he's wrong, show precisely where he is.
I know about two people online who have even read him. I'm not counting you because I'm not sure you did.

Are you claiming I am not telling the truth? Are you calling me a liar? Please provide evidence or remove the claim.

And I consider that my questions were NOT propperly addressed by ANY bigfoot investigator.

How about Swindler's opinion? He a giant in the field of primatology. Evidently he doesn't impress you either.

LAL, experts -even "giants"- are never wrong?
And I am not impressed by Swindler´s opinion. One must not be convinced by a researcher´s particular work by the researcher´s credentials. One must be convinced by the work in question. See the diference?

...snip...Hopefully Meldrum or someone else will be able to publish in Nature, but we still have a situation where Smithsonian scientists have stated they will not look at the Skookum Cast even if someone drives it accross country to show them. ...snip...

Ever considered that perhaps this might be because the data -Skookum included- is so weak?

Did I single you out, or did the shoe fit?

You know exactly what you wrote.

Right. Submit your paper. However, I still think it's customary to examine evidence before trying to debunk it. One might be able to write more intelligently about it.

So, LAL, if I present a paper on a new mineral species to say, International Journal of Earth Sciences, the reviewers will have to look at the actual specimens I used to define the mineral? The presented data (difratograms, assays, photomicrographys, TEM scans, etc.) are not enough?

Don't extrapolate. Each piece of evidence needs to be examined objectively. Cliff Crook seeing a metal fastener that would have been smaller than a grain of film proves neither hoax nor authenticity, e'g.. Kids on BFF seeing teeth doesn't mean the teeth were or weren't visible for a split second. ..snip...QUOTE=LAL;1305933]
LAL, a PGF has enough resolution to show a teeth? Were is the objectivity? Oh, got it! If its pro-bigfoot, its an objective examination...

Fakes and bear tracks and melted tracks in snow don't explain it all, as you might see if you were to examine actual casts and learn their history.

Oh, yes. Real tracks... Are there any?

I'm a sceptic, but I'm not wearing your T-shirt. I think I've read the thousands of posts on these threads, thanks. My questions often don't get answered. Perhaps they're taken as rhetorical. I think I've scored some pretty good points along the line, but the subject always seems to change when I do. Red Herrings?

LAL, at least when it comes to bigfoot, you are not a skeptic. All your arguments and points are being debated. I saw no evasions. Point me the red herrings or I´ll call strawman.

I've stated my goals, such as they are.

Then, what about taking some adivise on data handling in consideration? Sor far, I would say you are having very little success at best.

Oh good grief. Never read arch-sceptic Dahinden, either did you? Or Meldrum's comment on exposing hoaxes being part of the effort? It was my sig line for awhile. What makes you think investigators are so naive they don't consider hoaxing, misidentification, "buck fever", intoxication............

What makes me think bigfoot investigators are naïve? Their conclusions!LMAO... No, not all of them are naïve... There are other categories, of course... Check BFRO and you´ll see what I mean.

Read somebody, will you?

Who? Coleman? No, thanks.

 

[LAL]

Read the original post carefully and think about it.]

I did; that's why I asked about it. Long flexible ligaments might be required, but not "extra". Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.

Think a bit more about it and you´ll see you are wrong.

See the diagrams. What's "extra"?

As you wrote, he "seems to have factored all this in". And this is all. He actually has not.

Read his unpublished book have you? He seems to have dealt somewhat with forces in the material he's gathered for presentation at lectures, even if he doesn't use the formula. Isn't that what we're talking about? Forces?

So what? A species will evolve towards one or another strategy depending on the opportunities avaliable. Babboons, adopted quadrupedal motion while our antecessors adopted bipedalism. And bigfoot´s feet remain implausible.

To you. To others they fit just fine with great weight...the width and the elongated heel, which can be seen on Patty, e.g.. Krantz deduced it from the Bossburg tracks.

Are you saying only our ancestors adopted bipedalism?

That never shows up in case of bigfoot.

Sure it does. You're either unaware of it or you dismiss it.

Are you claiming again I am using a sock puppet?
Please provide the evidence or remove your claim. Check JREF rules regarding sockpuppets.

Did I claim that in the first place? I thought it was a little strange someone with a Irish name seemed to be typing with a Brazilian accent, so I asked. Pat was on the other thread. Maybe he hasn't found this one.

And you conveniently ignore the parts where its said that its foot can be a good match for the footprint in question. Thanks for help proving my point.

Laetoli? The foot reconstruction was of A. afarensis, wasn't it? Lucy, not Little Foot. White said it fit like Cinderella's slipper. In any event, it seems some Homo habilis bones were used and the true trackmaker may have been A. anamensis, thought to be an ancestor of A. afarensis and possibly Homo.

Thanks for the thanks, but I didn't prove your point. Tracks tend to be a bit larger than actual feet, BTW, again depending on the substrate. Some may be a good match, others not.

I really wish you'd drop the attitude. I didn't "conveniently ignore" anything.

Because the physical "rules" are the same for everything in this universe.

I'm still trying to understand how the formula applies to living feet. I haven't taken a physics course and math is far from my stong point.

The pics I´ve seen show finger dispositions identical to humans. Care to show pics that show a different disposition? And to elaborate further on the reasons for the morphological discrepancies? Without falling in to the "different subspecies or species" speculative trap.

Fingers? Are we talking about handcasts now? You're lost me. Are you talking about toes? The non-opposed variety?

So, only those who have or saw the actual casts and prints are qualify to have positions on the isssue... Right... Very solid argument... Are you proud of it?

Sure. But I didn't say that.

I think if you're going to debunk evidence you should see the evidence you're debunking. Experiments have been done with enlarging latex with kerosene as well as with carved feet. Sarmiento evidently incorporated Chimpanzee dermals (hoaxers have a lot of those, I suppose). Methods tried so far don't produce a match. Maybe by examining Meldrum's collection, which is open to serious investigators, you would be able to show him how the "extra hinge" in the tracks made by wooden feet and bears defy the laws of physics. I'd like to be there.

I haven't found much on the formula. What I did find I posted on the other thread, but didn't get an answer.

And you insist to stick to your mistaken reasoning. These animals, if they exist, must live in quite smooth terrain!!!! Mountainous terrains are just a fraction of their habitats.

WTF? Have you looked into where these sightings and track events occur? There's a correlation with rainfall. Why on earth would they have to live in "quite smooth terrain"? I don't think I'm the one with mistaken reasoning. See some maps. It's almost possible to get from China to California without leaving the mountains. Even if they do inhabit "smooth terrain", it's still forested. Bipedalism evolved in forests.

ROFLMAO!!! Coleman? You want us to take him as a serious investigator? The guy who thinks Enkindu was a bigfoot who had interspecies gay sex with Gilgamesh in Iraq? LAL, that was one of your most unhappy lines. But I needed a laugh, thanks!!!!!

Source? He goes into some length on people saying he said what he didn't say, including the gay sex nonsense, but I didn't see anything on Enkidu. I found this on one of his sites and that's a wireless flash.

http://www.lorencoleman.com/bigfoot_iraq.html

I saw nothing about this in the book, but then I lost it before I read it all. Another one is on order. If you don't have a citation, drop it. This seems like just another scoftic attempt to portray the "true believers" as crackpots and woos.

Meldrum's a Mormon. Har-dee-har-har. Coleman has a sense of humor, so he's off his rocker. Snicker.

He runs a tight ship on one of his other boards. I'll check it to see if there's any discussion on this there. Green jumped his case on the 16" tracks. I doubt the regulars would let him get away with Enkidu and Bigfoot making it in Iraq.

What part of "short in time" you failed to understand? Don´t worry, I´ll discuss the issue briefly ASAP.

You seem to have plenty of time to elaborate on your own arguments. You're the only poster I can't answer without having to snip or divide into two posts.

Need some time to confer with the pysche department? Take all you need.

And these other bipedal primates with flexible feet... Were they able to walk 25 miles during a night? Or they spent a lot of times climbing trees?

I don't know how much you know about paleoanthropology you know, but old hypotheses seem to get overturned every couple of years, from the origins of bipedalism to what belongs in which genus or species and who our true ancestors were this time. The new discovery of fossil Chimpanzee teeth upset the idea they have to have forests. One, or one species, seems to have made it to the Savannah.

Didn't the Australopiths have all the other adaptations for habitual upright walking? Did they navigate in trees or only use them for sleeping and escape?

LAL, the reasoning is that if the feet render bipedal locomotion ineficient, then they would not be able to cross large distances, what would restrict their territory. BTW, what evidence is avaliable that they have large territories? There´s not even reliable evidence that the creature is real avaliable !!!!

Apparently their feet don't render bipedal locomotion inefficeint. I've mentioned tracks of the same individuals have been found. In one case casts were made twenty miles away of one of the animals that had left tracks in the Blue Mountains by people with no knowlege of the first discovery. Maybe you should stop dismissing everything as unreliable and actually check some of it out.

Sure. Bigfoot´s existence seems to be a belief for you.

It's an acceptance, based on evidence, that there's an unidentified species of hominid primate living in North America.

Are you claiming I am not telling the truth? Are you calling me a liar? Please provide evidence or remove the claim.

I'm claiming you don't seem to be very familiar with his work. Perhaps you read it so long ago you've forgotten it. RayG quotes and gives page numbers. I've never seen you do that.

And I consider that my questions were NOT propperly addressed by ANY bigfoot investigator.

Which questions? They've been all over the no fossil argument, no dead body argument....what did they miss?

LAL, experts -even "giants"- are never wrong?
And I am not impressed by Swindler´s opinion. One must not be convinced by a researcher´s particular work by the researcher´s credentials. One must be convinced by the work in question. See the diference?

A foremost primate anatomist examines the Skookum Cast four times, concludes the imprint is of an unidentified North American hominid primate (that must've killed him; he was a sceptic). He was evidently convinced by the work and had the credentials to be qualified to examine and interpret it. But you're not impressed.

Now, who has the paradigms and preconceived notions?

Ever considered that perhaps this might be because the data -Skookum included- is so weak?

Is this a proper scientific attitude - to refuse to even look at it to see if it's weak or not? Reminds me of my ex who wouldn't try a new food because it didn't "sound good"; how could he know what it tasted like by listening to its name?

You know exactly what you wrote.

Yep. And I didn't single you out. Shoe comfy?

So, LAL, if I present a paper on a new mineral species to say, International Journal of Earth Sciences, the reviewers will have to look at the actual specimens I used to define the mineral? The presented data (difratograms, assays, photomicrographys, TEM scans, etc.) are not enough?

Looks like we've got everything we need, then, if reviewers wouldn't even want to see a body.

Of course Henry Gee actually does examine fossils, as in the case of Sahelanthropus, before publication in Nature.

(continued next post)