Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LAL]

That was another one of LAL´s hollow claims -that Star Trek TOS had a decent budget, so they coud make nice creatures for the time, and yet could not afford a Patty suit...

TOS had a nice decent US$ 186.00 / episode budget.

How do I know it?

Read Shatner.

I was quoting Dfoot, who's in the business. I credited him and the board. For what it's worth I knew Harve Bennett, but he hadn't started on Star Trek last time I saw him. We wouldn't have been discussing budget anyway; it was a family party.

I've refrained from correcting every instance of your twisting what I say. At first I thought it was a language barrier, but now I think it's just plain dishonest. I hope the lurkers who've been following the threads have seen this too. If I filter you for it, it will be the second time I've done this to a geologist for similar behavior. If I didn't know better, I'd think it's the field.

According to Noll, there's a substantial award available to anyone who can successfully recreate what is seen on the Patterson film. Looks like that money's pretty safe too.

 

[LAL]

Assumes facts not in evidence. There are no compelling casts.

I like how you try to slip these "facts" in though.

She's crafty.....

Casts that Jimmy Chilcutt, latent fingerprint expert with the Conroe Texas Police Department found compelling. Matt identified them and I found the substrate, according to Murphy, on one Matt didn't know about. Maybe you were so busy scoffing at Chilcutt you missed the post. Has it occured to you Chilcutt didn't get where he is by being stupid?

I doubt any serious researcher would give a flying flip what your opinion is, but go right on discrediting the sceptical side. You're doing a far better job of it that I ever could.

 

[LAL]

The pronounced angle across the ends of the toes does not look like the typical Squatch foot, including other Bluff Creek and Blue Creek Mt. It certainly does not appear to match the sole of the foot in the PGF..


I believe the explanation for the variety of prints at Bluff Creek, is that there was a family of Squatches ( still missing, presumed dead and vaporized ) in the area..


Have I missed the actual Patty trackway, that Patterson supposedly filmed and made casts from ?

Edit O.K., I see the print we are looking at now, is supposed to be Patty's... They have got to be kidding...


How do they go from the flat feet we see in the film to this ?... Sheesh .............

They bend. That's what midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint does. The substate, if plastic, is pushed back with the midtarsal break. I know you don't want to believe Meldrum, who was a recognized expert on primate locomotion prior to his investigations on Sasquatch (which is not to say he isn't still), but you might at least try reading him so you'll understand what he's saying on this. There's even a frame where the flexion can be seen. See BFF for a discussion on this with pictures.

I suppose this is only difficult to understand if you're trying to fit it into a hoax scenario with Wallace's carved feet somehow involved .

 

[Correa Neto]

I was quoting Dfoot, who's in the business. I credited him and the board. For what it's worth I knew Harve Bennett, but he hadn't started on Star Trek last time I saw him. We wouldn't have been discussing budget anyway; it was a family party.

So, you just took Dfoot´s word for granted because it fitted to your POV. And it resulted in another blunder.

I've refrained from correcting every instance of your twisting what I say. At first I thought it was a language barrier, but now I think it's just plain dishonest.

Word twisting and data cherry-picking are trademarks of BFRO. Do you back their claims on bigfoot mating habits, for example? if not, what´s the criteria?

You used a "wacko site", as you pointed out yourself as a source, crediting part of its content as OK but dropped the rest. Based on what?

Why should we forget UFOs and subscribe on bigfeet, when the avaliable evidence for both is of the very same level?

You just refused to answer questions like those. This seem quite dishonest don´t you think?

I hope the lurkers who've been following the threads have seen this too. If I filter you for it, it will be the second time I've done this to a geologist for similar behavior. If I didn't know better, I'd think it's the field.

The lurkers are watching every step you take LAL. Every mistake, every hollow claim that you just can not back. And every attempt you made of diversion. Every word twisting you made.

But about one thing you may be correct. Many geologists don´t take BS easilly. We know how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable evidence, leaving personal prefferences and beliefs behind. Something I´m afraid you have problems with.

The sort of evidence presented by bigfoot deffenders would never make it on any audit. No one would buy shares of any company using that sort of data to back its claims. No manager would grant money for survey based on such sort of data. No wonder very few professionals take bigfoot for serious.

According to Noll, there's a substantial award available to anyone who can successfully recreate what is seen on the Patterson film. Looks like that money's pretty safe too.

Are you sure you are not making another hollow claim?

 

[LAL]

Just for the record, a hoaxer does not need to have a 7' stride to make a set of fake footprints with a 7' stride.

Please stop parroting stride lengths as if they remove the possibility of a hoax.

I will continue to give information on tracks, including stride length, where known, thank you. I can see where you don't want me posting anything that could call into question your imaginative hoax hypothesis, but that's life on a message board.

I suppose you have some reasonable explanation for tracks found at 4800' on Powder Mountain, e.g., far from any roads? I'm still waiting. No stilts, right? The snow was fresh powder and showed no signs of any human activity.

Just how could a hoaxer even of great height produce these enormous strides, some up to 10' while the animal was running, without experiencing fatigue, which would show as the steps quickly faltered? Or is this another of my questions that will go unanswered? Why no spatter marks? No answer expected here either.

More tracks in snow:

"He was impressed by the depth the tracks sank into the snow and by how hard packed the bottom was. Like packed ice, and very flat, no arch showing at all. At first glance he thought about boards on a man's feet but the stride was far too long and they sank too deep. A second glance showed toe action, snow kicked up as the thing stepped ahead, and some heel drags behind individual prints.

In the men's camp area the tracks were fairly close together, 30 to 40 inches, and Oscar got the feeling the Bigfoot had been looking around, moving slowly, for the stride widened beyond the camp as it strode off normally. They followed and came to a place where Bigfoot had stepped over a down log without disturbing the ridge of fresh snow on top. Oscar and Jess looked carefully for some signs of tracks going around the ends of the log, still thinking hoax, but there were no marks at all in the fresh snow except the one line of prints right over the log. He and Jesse had to crawl up over the log where Bigfoot simply stepped over. Oscar is 5' 9½" and Jesse 6ft 1" tall. They figured Bigfoot must have legs five feet long to make that step. His description of crossing the log was "like getting on a horse" and there were several more along the track farther on.

At that time they followed the tracks for about half a mile, zigzagging through the woods, curving bock up behind their own camp. They cut across to the tent, got their rifles and continued following. Bigfoot, also looking for elk sign, most of that afternoon, for a total of about three miles, with all the curves and zigzagging, meandering around etc. to where the tracks finally went down out of the snow into Coleman Canyon. He said that at times Bigfoot idled in one place, back and forth, then would stride out for a way, then idle around some more. The tracks did not circle but switch backed around contours. Full stride was measured at between four and five feet, length between tracks varied, some were four, some five and others in between.

The pictures were taken first, in the camp area. Oscar started down to see the tracks without his camera, but went back and got it, fortunately. He took the three shots around 11 a.m. before they tracked Bigfoot into the woods...Oscar tried to match stride where prints were close together, and it took his maximum stride to "almost" reach. When Bigfoot really stepped out it took two of their strides to match one of his...

The one thing about those tracks which astonished Oscar most, and impressed him deeply, was the flat bottom of those huge feet, and how hard the snow was packed."

Photo of the tracks on Coleman Ridge

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/snow.html

See the link for another account with photo.

 

[William Parcher]

I hope the lurkers who've been following the threads have seen this too.

The lurkers and posters can see everything just fine. But they cannot see Bigfoot.

Lu, where is Bigfoot?

 

[William Parcher]

They bend. That's what midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint does.

...and what creature has a mid-tarsal bend? What creature has a mid-tarsal joint?

Why, of course... the answer is Bigfoot .

But.... where in the hell is Bigfoot?

 

[LAL]

The lurkers and posters can see everything just fine. But they cannot see Bigfoot.

Lu, where is Bigfoot?

Which one?

 

[LAL]

...and what creature has a mid-tarsal bend? What creature has a mid-tarsal joint?

Why, of course... the answer is Bigfoot .

But.... where in the hell is Bigfoot?

I think you've asked that enough already.

Midfoot flexibility is characteristic of Great Apes and Australopiths (confirmed by the 3.5 million year old Laetoli tracks). Homo has a rigid arch.

Did you mean the transverse tarsal joint? That's where the high degree of flexibility is.

Some of the Blue Creek Mountain tracks showed this as well.

The overlay drawing Bill posted shows a halftrack on a full track.
The half tracks are produced by a foot flexed at the transverse tarsal joint .

 

[William Parcher]

I don't really care "which one".

Where is any Bigfoot?

Do you enjoy playing stupid games with people on the Internet? You act like one of those creationist wackos that is certain that the Bible and a zillion pages of "documents" supports a supernatural creative god.

There are mountains of evidence that show that Creationism is true, if smart people would only believe what other smart people are saying.

 

[LAL]

So, you just took Dfoot´s word for granted because it fitted to your POV. And it resulted in another blunder.

It doesn't matter what the exact budget was on Star Trek. (That's kind of relative anyway, isn't it? It was probably better than, say, Outer Limits had.) I was never a "Trekkie" and am not into Star Trek trivia, so how was I supposed to know what the actual figures are?

Dfoot's point, as I recall, was that even with modern methods those kinds of effects haven't been achieved. Roger Patterson's budget certainly wasn't anywhere near Star Trek's.

We had two people in the business debating on BFF on the costume issue and all you saw was something about how much money Star Trek had to spend? If it means that much to you, take it up with him.

I was impressed with how tactfully he handled Chris. He's a gentleman and very well informed.

More:

"Chris: Hope you're not talking about the Gemora suit pictured in the upper left of the composite below.

I think that Heironimus read at some point how Charlie Gemora and others used to pull the top part of a suit over their heads and that's how he came up with his original story. Of course, he changed it to the zipper in the back when Morris showed up. He should have dropped the football helmet idea though. That was idiotic.

Looking back at all the gorilla suits worn by Gemora, Crash Corrigan and others one can see the way they tried hard to make the legs appear shorter. None have the moving buttocks as seen on Patty. Real gorillas do, however.

Your own suit is great. But it also did not have a moving upper pec muscle. Real gorillas do. Patty also does.

We agree it would take a really skilled person to create a suit like that. It was not a Morris Halloween get-up. I've worn his gorilla suit myself. I've also seen the best suits in Hollywood and even they would need a lot of work to show all of what is seen in the film.

One thing I have to say (and I don't mean to imply anything here) is that no matter what department one works in we can always be sure of one thing: massive egos

When Stan Winston first saw the film he said if one of his guys had made that suit he would have fired him. Yet he didn't come to Hollywood until 1969 and then he was an actor - not a suit maker. Rick Baker loved it when Winston's CONGO ape suits were mocked by critics and joined in. He felt he would have done it much better. And Vulich was being totally sincere to me when he said he thought he'd proved that the PG film was just a guy in a rented gorilla suit walking.

What I"m saying is that I've yet to meet a creature suit fx guy who didn't say about the Patterson film, "Oh... I would have done a much better job."

I'm still waiting to see it done.

Here's a few of the suits from '67 plus the earlier versions. Since neither Baker nor Winston nor yourself or any of the brilliant creature suit people existed back then it must be one of the suits from those handful of guys you are talking about.

Which suit would you pick as the one? I don't think I'd go with Charlie's "Phantom of the Rue Morgue" version as a base. I might end up looking as bad as Morris is looking right about now.

- Dfoot "

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=80

Word twisting and data cherry-picking are trademarks of BFRO.

You seem to pretty good at that yourself. I don't agree those are a "BFRO trademark". There are some very intelligent dedicated people in the organization, and I don't think you have a right to try to denegrate them. That seems to be an accepted tactic around here, though, for lack of valid arguments. I like the site and I've mentioned what I use from it, but I haven't read it all yet. That could take years.

Do you back their claims on bigfoot mating habits, for example? if not, what´s the criteria?

I said it was interesting, and that's Fahrenbach, not necessarily the whole BFRO. I recently posted about that on BFF as an example for someone who was looking for bad research on this (I e-mailed him Beckjord's site - it doesn't get worse than that, IMO). I don't know how good the data is; gestation may be about like ours, but then it may not. Krantz speculated about them living in small groups like gorillas, but there seem to be a few reports of them travelling in pairs, possibly with a juvenile. He was probably going by what looked like a territorial war with two males challenging an older male in the Blue Mountains in Washington, based on track and other evidence. I haven't finished the book yet, so I'm not sure what else he had to support that. (Read Krantz, Lu.)

Dahinden's comment has to be the best: "Bigfoot Sex!? I got no time for that... I need to work more on my own! "

You used a "wacko site", as you pointed out yourself as a source, crediting part of its content as OK but dropped the rest. Based on what?

I've used it for two articles, one by Heuvelmans on another board as I've already explained, since the work isn't in English. The other, not in English either, was a report of a corpse. I asked you how your French is, remember? I'm not even sure what all was in the article. My French is terrible.

They lost me with the Aquatic Ape stuff. I thought it was interesting that the author of that article used Heuvelmans' "Homo pongoides". I didn't know anyone had accepted his naming of a new species. That's the Minnesota Iceman. Oh, those French!

Since when does a site have to be 100% accurate to have some value? I used a NASA site in another debate and found out the article I cited was in error. It happens.

Why should we forget UFOs and subscribe on bigfeet, when the avaliable evidence for both is of the very same level?

I don't agree that it is. And I refuse to discuss UFO's.

You just refused to answer questions like those. This seem quite dishonest don´t you think?

No. I find such discussions boring. I stopped responding to your posts for awhile as I told you I was going to do. I didn't check the UFO links and probably won't, at least until I have more time. I've tried to keep the discussion on topic. I see no point in getting sidetracked on the usual UFO/Loch Ness Monster stuff. I accept neither, and I resent attempts, such as Michael Shermer's, to lump everyone who's interested in the Sasquatch phenomenon in with the believers in UFOs and the Loch Ness monster. I would appreciate it if you would just leave them out.

The lurkers are watching every step you take LAL. Every mistake, every hollow claim that you just can not back. And every attempt you made of diversion. Every word twisting you made.

No lurker has sent me any e-mails saying how brilliant your arguments are. You've been twisting my words, not the other way around. I back up everything I can. Didn't I already correct a mistake or two? Now, tell me where I twisted words or made a hollow claim or attempted diversion, for that matter.

"Every mistake, every hollow claim that you just can not back".......what? I'll get booted off the board? The lurkers will think you won? The sky will fall? I won't get any more PMs from BFFers? Roger Knights will no longer think some of my stuff is printable? Oh, I'm so scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaared.

But about one thing you may be correct. Many geologists don´t take BS easilly. We know how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable evidence, leaving personal prefferences and beliefs behind. Something I´m afraid you have problems with.

The other one blatantly distorted events reported in the Skookum field notes, stated God operates on a level science can't detect after capping at me "If it's not science it's NONSENSE", and pulled Sarmiento's "It's a Chimpanzee" off a Cryptozoology site and tried to say it was about a Bigfoot-type creature. Sarmiento was referring to the Bili Apes, and the geologist apparently didn't like it when I pulled the original article from National Geographic's site. He ended the conversation until I could use a site that's "remotely credible". I'd had enough of his pompous assdom over a year earlier when he got me confused with another poster and read me the riot act thinking I'm a Creationist. It just took awhile to apply the filter. If this is typical geologist behavior, I'll take nuclear physicists.

Your "there should be" arguments sound like sheer belief to me.

I know the point has been made before, but perhaps you missed it. The scientists who are taking this seriously are saying there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation. Of course it will take a specimen to convince mainsteam science. No one's arguing that.

The sort of evidence presented by bigfoot deffenders would never make it on any audit. No one would buy shares of any company using that sort of data to back its claims. No manager would grant money for survey based on such sort of data. No wonder very few professionals take bigfoot for serious.

Oh. That must be why no grants are forthcoming. If there were, I imagine many more professionals would take it seriously.

 

[LAL]

I don't really care "which one".

Where is any Bigfoot?

Do you enjoy playing stupid games with people on the Internet? You act like one of those creationist wackos that is certain that the Bible and a zillion pages of "documents" supports a supernatural creative god.

There are mountains of evidence that show that Creationism is true, if smart people would only believe what other smart people are saying.

I'm attempting to correct some of the massive misinformation that's out there, some of which is being freely spewed forth on this board. Hm. Some was from you on the Patterson film, wasn't it, after saying RayG and I needed to do research? Or was that some other rude and arrogant poster? Sometimes I think you're all the same person under different SNs, you sound so much alike with your scoffing and name-calling.

Do you think comparing me to a Creationist makes you look like anything other than juvenile? Perhaps you missed my mention of debating Creationists for two years on AOL boards. I really don't miss it; I see some of the same inanity here. I learned a lot more about evolution through it. It helps me understand some of Meldrum's points about the evolution of bipedalism......you know, transverse tarsal joints and that sort of thing.

As I've mentioned, I was once mistaken for a Creationist by a geologist who had just denounced me as a Fundamentalist Atheist. I'm used to that sort of stuff. You might have been able to hurt my feelings two years ago when I didn't know how trolls operate, but I'm quite used to it now.

Flame away. My asbestos is thicker than your false analogies.

 

[fsol]

Walas pointed out that the suit Dfoot was claiming as the Phantom suit was not actually the Phantom suit.

CJW wrote on BFF

DFoot;
Charlie built at least four different suits that I am aware of. The only one I recognized from your post was his very first (and crudest) from the Universal 1932 version of "Murders in the Rue Morgue", which was actually built in the twenties and used in numerous silent films. The suit I'm referring to is from the 1954 remake "Phantom of the Rue Morgue". This is the only film that particular suit was used in as far as I know. Charlie continually tried to better his efforts and the thirty or more years between these suits shows a tremendous advance (IMHO). Unfortunately, there are very few photographs of the suit from Phantom, although it was one of Charlie's best. Just for clarification, the three suits on the left side of your photo show suits from the twenties to forties, not sixties. And twenty years makes a big difference in available materials and audience (and gorilla maker's) sophistication.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Laetoli prints look nothing like the fake Patty "pressure ridge" print.

 

[Thurkon]

According to Noll, there's a substantial award available to anyone who can successfully recreate what is seen on the Patterson film. Looks like that money's pretty safe too.

This is the $100,000 award from that museum?

If so, then you should amend your statement. The award isn't for recreating the Patterson-Gimlin film. The award is for doing a great many things, in daylight and night time conditions, that are not connected with what we see in the film at any time.

Not that the official terms for winning the award have been established. According to the museum, that might take some time. Yeah, right.

 

[Thurkon]

I will continue to give information on tracks, including stride length, where known, thank you. I can see where you don't want me posting anything that could call into question your imaginative hoax hypothesis, but that's life on a message board.

I suppose you have some reasonable explanation for tracks found at 4800' on Powder Mountain, e.g., far from any roads? I'm still waiting. No stilts, right? The snow was fresh powder and showed no signs of any human activity.

Just how could a hoaxer even of great height produce these enormous strides, some up to 10' while the animal was running, without experiencing fatigue, which would show as the steps quickly faltered? Or is this another of my questions that will go unanswered? Why no spatter marks? No answer expected here either.

You are incredibly naive, Lu.

You actually think this is decent evidence?

No splatter marks? No signs of human activity? According to whom? The hunters who found the tracks? Or the mysterious nameless man who found them and told the hunters?

Why do you discount the possibility that the hunters themselves made the tracks?

Do you see how simple an explanation that is? When such extraordinary claims are presented, we must consider all possibilities. The fantastic one is usually the least likely...

 

[LTC8K6]

On Powder Mountain, north of Vancouver, B.C., we see a line of snow tracks alleged to be from a Sasquatch. (#4) Judging from this photograph alone, without taking into consideration any of the total event, we should evaluate what we see. Considering that the expected track from a hairy hominoid would be in great part like our human track, looking at these brings up immediate questions. Granted this photograph is not an excellent one. However, I see a break in each track, that is, not an oblong shape which we would expect, but a broken, askew shape. It reminds me of an jumping animal track, where the hind legs marked just off to the side of the front tracks, all feet marking close enough to each other to be grouped as 'one' track, particularly in melted snow. As we evaluate each photograph, continually keep in mind they are not always good representations of the ground. Lighting and position can play a role in their appearance. Photos from all angles are needed. This kind of evaluation is important to train your eye from a critical frame of reference.

Tracking the Sasquatch by Barbara Wasson

 

[Thurkon]

We had two people in the business debating on BFF on the costume issue and all you saw was something about how much money Star Trek had to spend? If it means that much to you, take it up with him.

I was impressed with how tactfully he handled Chris. He's a gentleman and very well informed.

Again Lu takes the "expert" advice of the stuntman who has worn a few gorilla suits over the expertise of the suit maker.

You're priceless, Lu.

"Very well informed"? Did you actually read the thread, Lu? Chris explained that Dfoot's "examples" were actually pictures of suits from the 1920's to 1940's. What does this prove? That Dfoot is less than "well informed", it would seem.

Chris than posted a side-by-side comparison of Patty with a suit of the appropriate era...and when blurred they looked very similar.

Did you read that far? Or just skip the stuff you didn't agree with?

You know, just the fact that this guy states that Patty's buttocks move realistically is enough to discount his "expert" advice.

Dfoot's point, as I recall, was that even with modern methods those kinds of effects haven't been achieved.

Posting such a statement borders on the absurd. Have you watched any films since 1967? Special effects these days could create an army of Pattys battling each other whilst mounted on Loch Ness monsters.

 

[Correa Neto]

It doesn't matter what the exact budget was on Star Trek. (That's kind of relative anyway, isn't it? It was probably better than, say, Outer Limits had.) I was never a "Trekkie" and am not into Star Trek trivia, so how was I supposed to know what the actual figures are?

Dfoot's point, as I recall, was that even with modern methods those kinds of effects haven't been achieved. Roger Patterson's budget certainly wasn't anywhere near Star Trek's...snip...

You are having a problem understanding what we are pointing here. Its not just a matter of trivia or nitpicking. It´s a matter of checking the reliability of the claims. This involves checking out the whole argument for contradictions.

In this particular case, the claim was something like "no gorilla suits from that time could produce what is seen at PGF".

Now, as part of the argumentation, it was stated that a certain series (Star Trek) had worse-looking costumes, even with a decent budget.

Well, as you can see, the argument based on the budget was plain wrong. Note that the U$186,00 dollars would have to be used for scenarios, FX, etc. So, just a part of it goes for the costume. So, a Patty suit may not have been as expensive as some people claim.

And also, even if you refuse to check the suit´s pictures, you may clearly see that the gorn suit do had what looked as muscles. There are other issues, but I will not bother going on about them, since other posters had already cited.

So, the bottomline is that there are flaws in the claim. And that you and many other people just accepted the clam, without bothering to check the accuracy of it.

I don't agree those are a "BFRO trademark". There are some very intelligent dedicated people in the organization, and I don't think you have a right to try to denegrate them. That seems to be an accepted tactic around here, though, for lack of valid arguments. I like the site and I've mentioned what I use from it, but I haven't read it all yet. That could take years.

LAL, the trademark here is not to accept unbacked claims. And this seems to disturb you, since in the circles you are used to, sighting reports are accepted with little or no questioning.

Do you deny that there are very bogus things there? don´you feel a bit uneasy with this? What are the criteria used to separate what reliable and what´s not?

I said it was interesting, and that's Fahrenbach, not necessarily the whole BFRO. I recently posted about that on BFF as an example for someone who was looking for bad research on this (I e-mailed him Beckjord's site - it doesn't get worse than that, IMO). I don't know how good the data is; gestation may be about like ours, but then it may not. Krantz speculated about them living in small groups like gorillas, but there seem to be a few reports of them travelling in pairs, possibly with a juvenile. ...snip...

Ah, more speculations. That´s all.

(Read Krantz, Lu.)

Has not convinced me.

I've used it for two articles, one by Heuvelmans on another board as I've already explained, since the work isn't in English. The other, not in English either, was a report of a corpse. I asked you how your French is, remember? I'm not even sure what all was in the article. My French is terrible.

...snip...
Since when does a site have to be 100% accurate to have some value? I used a NASA site in another debate and found out the article I cited was in error. It happens.

I -and other people- asked for remains. You provided a report as evidence. The source was a site that even you admited was wacko. Remember the claim that fauns were neanderthals?

One mistake here and there can happen at the best families. However, that was too much. This shadow of very poor data handling is something you need to remove if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't agree that it is. And I refuse to discuss UFO's.

...snip...
I didn't check the UFO links and probably won't, at least until I have more time. I've tried to keep the discussion on topic. I see no point in getting sidetracked on the usual UFO/Loch Ness Monster stuff. I accept neither, and I resent attempts, such as Michael Shermer's, to lump everyone who's interested in the Sasquatch phenomenon in with the believers in UFOs and the Loch Ness monster. I would appreciate it if you would just leave them out.

See, once again you don´t understand that the point is regarding methodology and type of evidence. Why should someone accept sighting reports and blurry pictures of fuzzy things as reliable evidence for bigfeet but not for UFOs?

Providing reasons and methodology for drawing the line would help your case a lot. If you refuse to see this, its your problem, not mine.

No lurker has sent me any e-mails saying how brilliant your arguments are. You've been twisting my words, not the other way around. I back up everything I can. Didn't I already correct a mistake or two? Now, tell me where I twisted words or made a hollow claim or attempted diversion, for that matter.

"Every mistake, every hollow claim that you just can not back".......what? I'll get booted off the board? The lurkers will think you won? The sky will fall? I won't get any more PMs from BFFers? Roger Knights will no longer think some of my stuff is printable? Oh, I'm so scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaared.

You accused me of word twisting. Prove it.

I will just remember you the lenghty (quite often OT) discussions on caves, volcanoes, clays, fossils, where you made a lot of mistakes and baseless claims. Have you bothered to admit your mistakes?

I really don´t think you will be booted from here. Other people tried very hard and did not managed to be successfull. People are not booted from here by their POVs, but for misbehaving.

Regarding Roger Knights telling you printable material, and receiving PMs from BFFers, congratulations if that´s what you want to hear. But, should I be impressed? Lady, I may have stopped publishing papers in 2002 when I changed my career towards the industry, but I do have a number of published papers on peer-reviewed magazines and books. And they are much more demanding then publications inside the bigfoot circlet. So this sort of argument does not work with me.

...snip...had enough of his pompous assdom over a year earlier when he got me confused with another poster and read me the riot act thinking I'm a Creationist. It just took awhile to apply the filter. If this is typical geologist behavior, I'll take nuclear physicists.

What have you done to be confused with a creationist? Are you sure you have not contributed?

Is yours typicall bigfooter behavior?

Whith the sort of data handling you have, your nuclear physiscist career will be very short.

Your "there should be" arguments sound like sheer belief to me.

I know the point has been made before, but perhaps you missed it. The scientists who are taking this seriously are saying there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation. Of course it will take a specimen to convince mainsteam science. No one's arguing that.

And there are plenty of scientists who say the data is rubbish. If you want to be taken seriously, start being more selective when it comes to the data. Present reasons why should one take sighting reports of bigfeet as evidence. Move away from wacko sites and sources. Accept the shortcomings of your data sets. Stop makking baseless speculations.

Oh. That must be why no grants are forthcoming. If there were, I imagine many more professionals would take it seriously.

See, its not that hard to understand how it works. Provide reliable evidence and money for research will come. But since the evidence provided so far is unreliable, not many prodessionals take it seriously.

 

[fsol]

He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist. A model of inferred skeletal anatomy is proposed here to account for the distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and "half-tracks" in which the heel impression is absent. In this model the Sasquatch foot lacks a fixed longitudinal arch, but instead exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint. Following the midtarsal break, a plastic substrate may be pushed up in a pressure ridge as propulsive force is exerted through the midfoot. An increased power arm in the foot lever system is achieved by heel elongation as opposed to arch fixation."

So how many footprints showed this pressure ridge. My reading of the above seems to suggest just one. So in order to make this tally with the Bigfoot hypothesis a flexible transverse tarsal joint is inferred. This has the magic effect of allowing hoaxing to be ruled out, who could possibly have known about, let alone faked a mid-tarsal break? Although, the term mid-tarsal break does seem to imply that Patty had a broken foot...And it also allows the experts to increase their standing amongst the group using "blinding by science." Why isn't this pressure ridge seen in all of the bigfoot prints? Or maybe it is?