Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LAL]

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.

Then do that. I've pointed out plenty of sources. And don't assume I'm having a problem understanding the argument; it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

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

Nor can they now, or, at least, none have been produced.

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

Yep.

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.

Such as Ken Peterson, senior executive at Disney Studios whom John Green interviewed in 1969? $300,000. Universal, I think, (have to look that up again) came in with an even higher estimate - a million. Both reps didn't think they could do it, even with that kind of money. These were top people at the time from major studios. Their opinion doesn't count?

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.

You would rather believe costume makers over anthropologists and experts in biomechanics. Okay.

Did the Gorn suit muscles contract?

Planet of the Apes was state of the art in 1967. And Chambers didn't build, design or otherwise have anything to do with suits for Roger Patterson.

There's a whole muscle suit that can be rented to go with a Sasquatch suit. I posted a link earlier on another thread, as I recall. The whole thing might fool little kids.

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.

Not unlike the article on Chambers rumors?
I read the reports from the Russians years before I read anything from costume makers.

Dfoot has actually worn a Morris costume. He may know a bit more about this than some of the posters on the board.
Star Trek had a budget of $186,000 and Roger Patterson had to borrow $500 from his brother-in-law to make the trip.

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.

Circles I am used to? I'm not in any circles. Events I know of personally were thoroughly investigated by local law enforcement before any "bigfoot hunters" were on the scene.

You assume too much. And you might want to look up the meaning of "trademark".

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?

That's not really up to me, is it? I trust opinions of those who have done the research and field work. Many hoaxes have been exposed by these very same people. Diogenes, I think, accused me of viewing these people as saints. I don't even view saints as saints. They've done the work, they don't always agree and they have my respect for using their time and resources to actually investigate rather than dismissing it out of hand.

(Read Krantz, Lu)

Has not convinced me.

I was telling me to read Krantz since I haven't had time to read it all thoroughly. I guess you didn't find that funny.

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?

Nope. It's a report of a corpse, that's all, of some sort of unknown hominid. Did I even claim it was a Sasquatch? There are five reports of Sasquatches being shot and killed, but I haven't been able to find them all yet. To my knowlege there are no extant remains. I wouldn't be able to upload them if I had them.

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'm not a scientist, for Pete's sake. I'm just someone who's been interested in this for a very long time.

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.

You need to be talking to Meldrum, not me. His methodology has been praised. His cast collection is open for inspection at Idaho State. His book is due out early next year. It's supposed to be groundbreaking. You might want to read it.

You accused me of word twisting. Prove it.

You said I claimed there were no Sasquatches near roads, for one thing, and then quoted from the post on the number of tracks found by Blue Creek Mountain Road and asked if I denied saying that. This was after I'd mentioned the first sighting I knew of, which was of one crossing Hwy 14 in the Columbia Gorge, and one near Estacada, investigated by Byrne, and that I'd read Green had 74 reports of them crossing roads and after we had discussed slamming brakes in another incident.

You also said I dismiss all others as scoftics (words to that effect) after I'd made it quite clear what I mean by that term. Scepticism is healthy. Outright rejection without investigation is not.

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?

What mistakes? You claimed there'd be enough sedimentation to quickly cover carcasses and I claimed there wasn't in that area. There are no fossils that I know of in the whole county I was talking about (unless there are some in the Mississipian Formation on Table Mountain, and that's all the wrong era).

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.

I haven't misbehaved have I? I've suffered quite a bit of ridicule for disagreeing with what seems to be the popular, "cool" P.O.V., but I haven't responded in kind, for the most part. I think there are some that would dearly love to see me leave. Perhaps I'm disrupting their complacent denial.

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.

One PM got me a set of casts, another got me an apology and a commission for a painting, another started an interesting discussion on dermal ridges. I respect Knights for his research and writing ability. I had suggested he write a book and then he said some of my stuff is printable. He not only read the original thread here, he complimented me on BFF on doing a "terrific" job of defending my POV on the Minnesota Iceman (Matt will remember that one), even though he didn't agree with me. It's nice to get support like that. How is that an argument?

I'm not in academia and the one and only thing I've had published was a short story when I was 12.

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

Once again, referring to the geologist, he got me confused with another poster. I'd been on the board for about four days, my first time ever on a message board, and I cracked a joke that was kind of anti-religious, which got him bent out of shape (he's an elder in his church). I still don't know how he got me mixed up with the "Bible class", but I demanded an apology and got it.

Is yours typicall bigfooter behavior?

I have no idea what "typicall bigfooter behavior" is.

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

Language barrier? I said I'll take nuclear physicists, as in "I'll take vanilla". American slang, rather dated. The nuclear physicists I've met are pretty neat people, actually. My brother is one.

I've never aspired to a career in it. And you just twisted my words again.

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.

And who are these scientists and on what basis do they say the data is rubbish? How about naming them and posting their reports? I've found one online; it seems to be based on little more than an emotional rejection. Can you find more?

I posted one article that happened to be on a a site we both think is "wacko" and you're going to hold this against me for the rest of my life? The article was only presented on the site (in French); it was not written by the site owner. Did I make a similar mistake by posting from the National Geographic?

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.

That isn't my department.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.tvacres.com/images/mugato2.jpg

Link to the second Mugato suit pic. I don't think it is showing up in my earlier post. You may have to paste it in your browser.

 

[Correa Neto]

Then do that. I've pointed out plenty of sources. And don't assume I'm having a problem understanding the argument; it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

I´ve pointed the sources.
And why checking for contradictions don´t seem to make sense? It´s standard sound data analysis methodology. Check for data internal consistency. In the case in question, a number of inconsistencies were found. Enough inconsistencies, IMHO, as well as for many other posters here, to put the claim as suspect of being inexact.

Nor can they now, or, at least, none have been produced.

This claim is at least questionable in the light of what´s being shown here. Remember the gorillas (no, not the killer gorillas) from Congo? Animatronics were used just in close-ups. distnce shots were gorilla costumes. And anyone who thinks they have human proportions has a problem...

Such as Ken Peterson, senior executive at Disney Studios whom John Green interviewed in 1969? $300,000. Universal, I think, (have to look that up again) came in with an even higher estimate - a million. Both reps didn't think they could do it, even with that kind of money. These were top people at the time from major studios. Their opinion doesn't count?

The opinion of the people who say it could be done do not count for you, it seems. Now, what about doing some checks in the interviews? Do you have a link on them? Some things to check:
(1) What exactly was asked by Green?
- He asked how Patty could be created for PGF, regardless of the techniche (costumes or animatronics)?
- What "tasks" Patty was supposed to be able to perform? Just walking as shown in PGF? Or something else?
- What level of detail Green asked Patty to have?
(2) The excutive´s exact answers, on the same lines as above.
- He answered thinking of costumes or animatronics?
- He answered thinking in the level of detail required for a movie or for PGF´s small lenght and blurred pictures?
- What "tasks" he had in mind when considering the price?

You would rather believe costume makers over anthropologists and experts in biomechanics. Okay.

And you would rather belive in the persons who wore the suit rather than in those who made them.

And you would rather choose among the avaliable opinions from anthropologists and other experts just those which fit with the ideas that PGF is real.

Last time I checked, most biologists and anthropologists considered bigfeet´s existence as possible but higly improbable.

Did the Gorn suit muscles contract?

For those who see muscles in Patty, yes.

Planet of the Apes was state of the art in 1967. And Chambers didn't build, design or otherwise have anything to do with suits for Roger Patterson.

There's a whole muscle suit that can be rented to go with a Sasquatch suit. I posted a link earlier on another thread, as I recall. The whole thing might fool little kids.

Planet of the Apes concentrated on make-up, on masks, making little or no effort to create the ape´s bodies. Remember that the apes were usually dressed?

Not unlike the article on Chambers rumors?
I read the reports from the Russians years before I read anything from costume makers.

Dfoot has actually worn a Morris costume. He may know a bit more about this than some of the posters on the board.
Star Trek had a budget of $186,000 and Roger Patterson had to borrow $500 from his brother-in-law to make the trip.

Does he know more than the people who made such costumes?
So, Patterson borrowed 500 bucks. A Star Trek episode costed 186 bucks (mugato suit included), so, Patterson could have borrowed, rented or asked -and pay- someone to make an ape suit.

Circles I am used to? I'm not in any circles. Events I know of personally were thoroughly investigated by local law enforcement before any "bigfoot hunters" were on the scene.

You assume too much. And you might want to look up the meaning of "trademark".

Not in any circle? You never go to BFF?
Events you know personally? You made bigfoot field research, then?

Lady, before writing 'you might want to look up the meaning of "trademark"', you´d better think if its not an arrogant attitude.

That's not really up to me, is it? I trust opinions of those who have done the research and field work. Many hoaxes have been exposed by these very same people. Diogenes, I think, accused me of viewing these people as saints. I don't even view saints as saints. They've done the work, they don't always agree and they have my respect for using their time and resources to actually investigate rather than dismissing it out of hand.

First of all, you should really start having a critical look at the data. Yes, its up for you to judge it. Unreliable data must be thrown away.

Why don´t you trust the opinions of the many other people who make field work and don´t think bigfeet are real? Wy just Krantz et al. are correct? Remember the bear carcass discussion, for example? You just dismised what many people who actually work in the field tell. Why?

You think their work if fine? OK, you are entitled to have such opinion. But you shoud also trust in what other people say.

I was telling me to read Krantz since I haven't had time to read it all thoroughly. I guess you didn't find that funny.

And I was telling it has not convinced me.

Nope. It's a report of a corpse, that's all, of some sort of unknown hominid. Did I even claim it was a Sasquatch? There are five reports of Sasquatches being shot and killed, but I haven't been able to find them all yet. To my knowlege there are no extant remains. I wouldn't be able to upload them if I had them.

LAL, the point is that they are just reports. With all the possible problems a report may have. The sources can not be checked, etc. Remains are among the few things that would settle down the question. Since not a single one these requisites has been fullfilled, bigfoot remains as being possible but unlikely.

I'm not a scientist, for Pete's sake. I'm just someone who's been interested in this for a very long time.

But then you should accept the opinions of those who are used to handle data -not all of them can -or want to- be labelled as scientists, engineers and other professionals working in the industry may be an example.

What´s the opinion? There are problems even with what´s considered the most reliable pieces of evidence favorable to bigfeet so far presented. Enough to question the claim.

Your attitude when defeending Krantz et al. is not unlikely that of some n00bie PhD candidates whose professors are at antagonist corners. They start as visceral defenders. After some time they realise that both theories have pros and cons and eventually, they may even change their fields. Why? Because they start to see things rationally, the data are the most important things, the theories depend on them. And their mentors may not be right.

You need to be talking to Meldrum, not me. His methodology has been praised. His cast collection is open for inspection at Idaho State. His book is due out early next year. It's supposed to be groundbreaking. You might want to read it.

LAL, I´m pretty ure a lot of people have already mentioned that to him. He is entitled to have his opinion.

And I have already written on my opinion on his incoming "groundbreaking" book. If it is backed in the sort of data thats been around, it will not be ground breaking. An article at a peer-reviewed journal would do much more for bigfoot cause.

You said I claimed there were no Sasquatches near roads, for one thing, and then quoted from the post on the number of tracks found by Blue Creek Mountain Road and asked if I denied saying that. This was after I'd mentioned the first sighting I knew of, which was of one crossing Hwy 14 in the Columbia Gorge, and one near Estacada, investigated by Byrne, and that I'd read Green had 74 reports of them crossing roads and after we had discussed slamming brakes in another incident.

LAL, you deny you wrote these creatures are shy and dont roam near roads?
I pointed innacuracies and inconsistencies at your posts. That´s far from twisting words.

You also said I dismiss all others as scoftics (words to that effect) after I'd made it quite clear what I mean by that term. Scepticism is healthy. Outright rejection without investigation is not.

Don´t you think of us as "scofftics"?
IIRC, you said we dismiss your "evidence" without further insvestigation -or something similar. It may be you POV, specially in light of the outcome (contrary to your claims). But the people here has a habit of doing homework.

What mistakes? You claimed there'd be enough sedimentation to quickly cover carcasses and I claimed there wasn't in that area. There are no fossils that I know of in the whole county I was talking about (unless there are some in the Mississipian Formation on Table Mountain, and that's all the wrong era).

Oh, LAL, I will not go in to the whole discussion again. You are making an oversimplification, at best.

The points I made were related to the absence of remains, fossil or not, and not only in PNW. You made a lot of mistakes when it comes to sedimentation, fossilization processes, cave formation, volcanism, weathering, etc. All trying to find an excuse to the absence of bigfeet fossil remains along the supposed beast´s habitat, past and present. Not to mention that quite often when I was referring to recent remains you wrote something about burial rates...

I haven't misbehaved have I? I've suffered quite a bit of ridicule for disagreeing with what seems to be the popular, "cool" P.O.V., but I haven't responded in kind, for the most part. I think there are some that would dearly love to see me leave. Perhaps I'm disrupting their complacent denial.

Are you twisting my words? I have not wrote you are misbehaving. I wrote that the (very few) people who got banned were for this reason. You are nowhere near IIan of LG -and they were not banned.

And sorry to burst your bubble, but you are very far from disrupting complacent denials. Actually you are providing material against bigfoot´s cause, in case you have not realised it yet.

I have no idea what "typicall bigfooter behavior" is.

Accepting claims without checking, information cherry-picking, por data handling, etc. Sounds familiar?

...snip...I've never aspired to a career in it. And you just twisted my words again.

No.

And who are these scientists and on what basis do they say the data is rubbish? How about naming them and posting their reports? I've found one online; it seems to be based on little more than an emotional rejection. Can you find more?

I posted one article that happened to be on a a site we both think is "wacko" and you're going to hold this against me for the rest of my life? The article was only presented on the site (in French); it was not written by the site owner. Did I make a similar mistake by posting from the National Geographic?

LAL, there´s no "emotional rejection". Its simple unreliability of data.

So, a site that has lenghty discussions on bigfeet´s mating habits is not wacko?

That isn't my department.

So, who should be providing reliable evidence for bigfeet´s existence? If these persons are doing a good job, they should be getting some money don´t they?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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 .

One more time Lu, where are all the tracks that show the mid tarsal break ?


Are you going to say there are only a few ( I've only seen one ) examples in the thousands of tracks?

This is like Meldrum's " long toes ".. He says it's characteristic, yet most of the tracks don't show it..


The tracks that you scream " cannot be wallace fakes ", do not exhibit the mid tarsal break or long toes...

Your own evidence does not support your contentions..


About the casting thing, and pores.. You completely ignore ( or fail to comprehend ) the point..

It doesn't matter if the print was made in mud or whatever..

If the particles of mud are 100 times larger than pores, they could not possibly contain an impression of a pore..

Again your lack of comprehension of basic science is painfully obvious..

 

[tube]

If the particles of mud are 100 times larger than pores, they could not possibly contain an impression of a pore..

[/B]

I need to be careful here because i'm not completely solid on my geology facts. I'll accept the notion that the average human pore is 50 micrometers in diameter. Unless they are enlarged, they are almost impossible to see with the naked eye. One of my primary test substrates was fly ash, a product of coal burning. I believe it's average particle size is about 100 micrometers, so I do not expect it to be able to capture detail as fine as 50 micrometers. However, natural clays have particle sizes at around 3 micrometers. Thus I believe it is at least possible that a substrate as fine as natural clay could possibly capture features as fine as human sweat pores.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thus I believe it is at least possible that a substrate as fine as natural clay could possibly capture features as fine as human sweat pores.

Can you pour hydrocal in it and still keep the detail though?

What are the particle sizes in hydrocal/plaster of paris/ etc.?

In my father's back yard there is the typical piedmont red clay.

There is an area where the dog runs on a chain.

This clay has been milled into a very fine powder by the constant action of the chain passing back and forth over it.

This powder can easily reproduce my fingerprints in minute detail even when examined with a magnifying glass. The prints appear to be perfectly reproduced.

Moving out of the finely milled clay onto the natural undisturbed clay, I can still tell that the fingerprints are there, but the detail is considerably less. The prints are not nearly as clear.

Bigfoot's dermal ridges, being larger, should show up considerably more often, I would think.

Let's look at this another way.

Suppose bigfoot had human feet with human dermal ridges and pores. Identical to a human foot, I mean. Wouldn't you see dermal ridges in a lot more prints?

 

[Correa Neto]

FYI:
silt (> 4 µm < 64 µm)
clay (< 4 µm)

That´s as stated in Wentworth scale. This scale takes in to account just grain size. So, the grain istself may be composed by quartz, and not necessarily a clay-group mineral.

Yes, it may be confuse, since the term "clay" can is used as a refference to a grain size scale and to a class of minerals. Sure, most of the material within this grain size in sediments and soils are clay minerals.

Since natural soils are usually composed by materials within a certain granulometry range, their ability to record details of a footprint will depend on the ammount of clay-sized particles it has, as well as the type of clay mineral. Non-expansive clays, such as those from the kaolinite group will most likely be the best ones.

Clays used for ceramics and bricks will most likely be excellent for such purpose.

Now, regarding the preservation of a feature such as a sweat pore, I would estimate that the pore diameter should be enough to fit more than a single particle. The minimal particle ammount for formation of a reasonably good pore cast would be 3, for a circular pore and assuming perfectly spherical particles with optimal packing and compactation (the centre of each particle located at the vertexes of an equilateral triangle) managed to get inside the pores (and that they have not stayed inside it once the foot or hand moved). These conditions are very unlikely to be met, since clay minerals are shaped as leaves or flakes and natural soils have a granulometric range.

This should provide you a minimum theoretical preservation pore/grainsize treshold, that is, I must say again, very unlikely to be met in nature. Note that at such small sizes, Van der Waals attraction forces will beging to be a nuisance, specially in phylossilicates. Ever went to a beach where the sands are rich in muscovite or biotite grains? Sit on the sand and see how many pieces of mica will be glued to your butt, even if its dry. That´s Van der Waals in action! Now, imagine what can happen to tiny clay grains inside pores... If the grains manage to enter the pores, its not unlikely that they will stick to the pore, and not be left in the substrate as a positive relief feature. Sure, there are so many pores that chances are some "stalagmites" will be left. but I think this effect must be taken in to account.

As a conjecture, I would also think that the movment of a foot would probably add another problem to the preservation of pore casts, since feet do not hit paralell to the gound. Neither they are uplifted paralell to the ground. This might add a torsion movment that may not be good for preservation of tiny vertical structures.

So, you would need to know the grainsize distribution of the soil where the footprints with the sweat pore casts were left. A more empirical method would be just to make a test with the soil, just like those Tube makes, stepping on it and checking the results. This would also help with the other issues.

{i]Edited to add lines with speculations on Van der Waals forces and phylossilicates[/b]

 

[tube]

Suppose Bigfoot had human feet with human dermal ridges and pores. Identical to a human foot, I mean. Wouldn't you see dermal ridges in a lot more prints?

Good question about the particle size of plaster of Paris and/or Ultracal and Hydrocal. I admit, you have caught me flat-footed there! I don't know. USG (United States Gypsum) who manufactures Ultracal and Hydrocal as well as "Number one Pottery Plaster" (plain plaster of Paris) does have an extensive website that includes lots of technical information but I find it somewhat "user unfriendly". I have not come across that information yet, and it obviously has a bearing on the theoretical detail resolution that cement can hold.

Also good question about why we don't see dermal ridges in more prints. Last Easter, Seattle had just experienced several days of rain but had stopped that Sunday. I decided to cast my own footprint track after making footprints in mud. I found a park in West Seattle under construction that had bare dirt which had turned to mud. I assumed that mud would cake on the bottom of my feet and prevent my own dermal ridges from impressioning the mud. After walking around for about 10 or 15 minutes barefoot in the mud I found a good looking track and cast it with Hydrocal B11. I did not see my own dermal ridges in the track at that time, thought I did not kneel down and get close to the track. The cast came out well and indeed I saw my own dermal ridges in several places on the cast. Thus, I was surprised to learn that mud does not necessarily cake or clog human dermal ridges and prevent their impressioning the substrate. This was the first and only cast of my own foot I've made in real world mud and I saw my own dermal ridges the first time!

I'm afraid at this point I began to wax skeptically again, just as you have pointed out; why don't we see dermal ridges in Sasquatch footprint casts all the time, at least in those made in mud? Especially if, as the advocates suggest, the dermal ridges of Sasquatch are more coarse than that of humans.

What I suspect, but do not know, is that up until very recently the soil conditions in which purported Sasquatch casts were made has not really been considered. Now to be fair, a number of Paul Freeman's casts were made in "wind blown loess" which is really, really fine. Fine enough to capture dermal ridges. It may also be that not as many Sasquatch footprints have been found in mud as I suppose. There is also the issue of track degradation. I am not a tracking expert by any means, so cannot claim to know how long such fine detail would remain in a track, but clearly fine, delicate detail is the first thing to degrade. Perhaps not finding dermal ridges in more tracks is more a matter of time than anything else, assuming the tracks are made by Sasquatch in the first place.

Frankly, I probably reach the same conclusion as most on this board do, as well as many of the more enlightened Bigfooters; the majority of Sasquatch tracks are bogus. There are no dermal ridges found in most tracks because the tracks were not made by Sasquatch. Are they all bogus? I don't know.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chimpanzee fossils found.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil. The modest haul of just three teeth is the first hard evidence of the evolutionary path that led to today's chimpanzees.

As well as shedding light on chimps, the find throws up new questions about human evolution; it seems that chimpanzees may not have been physically separated from humans as was once thought.

 

[LAL]

Frankly, I probably reach the same conclusion as most on this board do, as well as many of the more enlightened Bigfooters; the majority of Sasquatch tracks are bogus. There are no dermal ridges found in most tracks because the tracks were not made by Sasquatch. Are they all bogus? I don't know.

Matt, Matt, Matt, there are other factors besides dermal ridges that distinguish the real tracks from fakes. Lack of dermals is usual where the substrate was too coarse. Meldrum noted that "Limited examples of faint dermatoglyphics were apparent, but deteriorated rapidly under the wet weather conditions" on the Walla Walla tracks he examined.

You keep referring to cement. Who was using cement to cast tracks (or am I misunderstanding you)? I thought the preferred material was plaster of Paris. Insensitive casting medium could be a factor, as well as age. Unless the tracks were hours old in the right substrate, such delicate detail would either not be present or would vanish quickly.

Dermals weren't even "discovered" until 1982 when Krantz found some; what about all the casts prior to that date?

"The prevailing soil type in this region is wind-blown loess, a very fine-grained substance with typical particle sizes of around 0.01 mm diameter. When this soil is damp and cool, and pressed into by a warm body, a detailed imprint commonly remains. Most, if not all, of these tracks were cast within a day of the time of impression, so they had not dried out, nor had they received any intrusive material. The well mixed casting plaster that was poured into these impressions was able to record any degree of detail that was held by the soil. Variations down to less than 0.1 mm are faithfully preserved. This is fine enough to show individual dermal ridges and their sweat pores.

While the above-described circumstances seem perfectly reasonable in hindsight, I was initially unconvinced that such detail could transfer from skin to dirt to plaster. A simple test demonstrated its feasibility. The top soil on my property in Pullman, Washington, is of similar loess. I experimentally depressed my own thumb into a piece of this topsoil, and made a plaster cast of the impression. It faithfully recorded the dermal ridges and some of the sweat pores of my skin. I have since found out, through discussions with police officials, that footprint patterns in dirt are actually used for criminal identification in India and New Zealand."

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

Chilcutt examined Meldrum's entire collection. Exactly how many did he find to be fakes? I'm really hoping you'll be back with a full report on what he has to say after Texas.

There have been many trackways, especially in snow, that never had casts made. Are we to dismiss all those, despite the photos, because we can't see any dermal ridges?

Exactly who among the "more enlightened Bigfooters" have decided "the majority of Sasquatch tracks are bogus" and on what grounds?

 

[LAL]

Chimpanzee fossils found.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html

No gorilla fossils and three Chimpanzee teeth.

Note they were found outside the usual habitat and it's not yet known if they were from a living or extinct species.

It's easier to find 500,000 year old fossils in a bed than more recent ones in the volcanic terrain of the PNW, it would seem, especially when no one's been looking.

 

[LAL]

One more time Lu, where are all the tracks that show the mid tarsal break ?

What do you think the half tracks do? I've posted links. Bill posted a drawing. Is it my fault you don't click?

Are you going to say there are only a few ( I've only seen one ) examples in the thousands of tracks?

Nope.

This is like Meldrum's " long toes ".. He says it's characteristic, yet most of the tracks don't show it..

Nope again. The apparent short toes are the result of them being clenched or because the plantar pad is unusually thick and squishes forward. How many photos of tracks and/or casts have you seen?

The tracks that you scream " cannot be wallace fakes ", do not exhibit the mid tarsal break or long toes...

Your own evidence does not support your contentions..

I don't scream.

I don't even know how to argue with people who think they see a match between carved feet with square toes and authentic tracks.

About the casting thing, and pores.. You completely ignore ( or fail to comprehend ) the point..

It doesn't matter if the print was made in mud or whatever.

If the particles of mud are 100 times larger than pores, they could not possibly contain an impression of a pore..

See my post from Krantz' article above that you evidently didn't read. I'm not ignoring it; I haven't been on the board for a few days. I can't be everywhere.

Again your lack of comprehension of basic science is painfully obvious..

Actually I haven't had much basic science. That's why I rely on the PhDs who've done field work in this for much of my information.

Where do you get that mud particles are 100 times larger than the pores? Is that what's known as one of them there "false premises"?

 

[LAL]

I´ve pointed the sources.
And why checking for contradictions don´t seem to make sense? It´s standard sound data analysis methodology. Check for data internal consistency. In the case in question, a number of inconsistencies were found. Enough inconsistencies, IMHO, as well as for many other posters here, to put the claim as suspect of being inexact.

A disagreement over a dollar amount proves Sasquatches don't exist. That kind of argument doesn't make sense.

This claim is at least questionable in the light of what´s being shown here. Remember the gorillas (no, not the killer gorillas) from Congo? Animatronics were used just in close-ups. distnce shots were gorilla costumes. And anyone who thinks they have human proportions has a problem...

The people in gorilla suits don't have human proportions? Yes, that is a problem....

The only animatronics I can think of from 1967 were at Disneyland and they were jerky, at best. Disney Studios denied any involvement with the Patterson film, in any event.

The opinion of the people who say it could be done do not count for you, it seems. Now, what about doing some checks in the interviews? Do you have a link on them? Some things to check:
(1) What exactly was asked by Green?
- He asked how Patty could be created for PGF, regardless of the techniche (costumes or animatronics)?
- What "tasks" Patty was supposed to be able to perform? Just walking as shown in PGF? Or something else?
- What level of detail Green asked Patty to have?
(2) The excutive´s exact answers, on the same lines as above.
- He answered thinking of costumes or animatronics?
- He answered thinking in the level of detail required for a movie or for PGF´s small lenght and blurred pictures?
- What "tasks" he had in mind when considering the price?

I don't have Green's book on hand, but as I recall, he showed the film to Ken Peterson who came up with his own conclusions. A spokesman for Universal said essentially the same thing. These were opinions of top people at the time. They knew what their studios could do at the time. I take their opinions over Chris Walas' making a big deal over a natural "line" and everyone who focused on the Gemorra butt and ignored the total mismatch on the rest of the suit.

And you would rather belive in the persons who wore the suit rather than in those who made them.

I said, Dfoot has experience with actual Morris suits. The claim Long puts forth is that Morris made the suit, although Morris has presented no proof of this and his story contradicts Heironimus' stories, which LOng seems to believe as well. Dfoot did some research on Morris that seems to have been better than Long's. I don't suppose you saw that post.

I'd rather believe people who are experts in biomechanics, anatomy, anthropology, primatology, that sort of thing.

And you would rather choose among the avaliable opinions from anthropologists and other experts just those which fit with the ideas that PGF is real.

I've read both sides. I don't find Dennett or Daegling convincing. Do you have anything else?

Last time I checked, most biologists and anthropologists considered bigfeet´s existence as possible but higly improbable.

You checked? Then where are the names and reports I've asked for?

For those who see muscles in Patty, yes.

You don't? Oh, you've only seen the blurry TV version?

Planet of the Apes concentrated on make-up, on masks, making little or no effort to create the ape´s bodies. Remember that the apes were usually dressed?

Yep. Chambers was the best, and he didn't do Patty.

It's hard to make foam rubber and water bags contract on cue. Nude apes wouldn't have fit the storyline anyway.

Does he know more than the people who made such costumes?
So, Patterson borrowed 500 bucks. A Star Trek episode costed 186 bucks (mugato suit included), so, Patterson could have borrowed, rented or asked -and pay- someone to make an ape suit.

There's no evidence that he did, or even that he made one.
Did you mean $186,000? I don't think $186 would have paid for five minutes of Shatner's time.

Not in any circle? You never go to BFF?
Events you know personally? You made bigfoot field research, then?

Joining a message board does not make me a member of any circle. I joined this one, didn't I? Does that make me a member of this circle? Membership is a requirement for posting, nothing more.

I've posted several times that I knew people who investigated sightings and other events I knew of in Skamania County, Washington. No, that's not field research. I did however hear a first hand account of following a double trackway for seven miles with a camera crew from the Columbian. That was really intriguing so many years after seeing this in a documentary. It was hard to get folks to talk about it. They had to really trust a person before they'd open up. This was no scheme to attract tourists. They didn't even want tourists.

Lady, before writing 'you might want to look up the meaning of "trademark"', you´d better think if its not an arrogant attitude.

I don't think I'm the arrogant one here. You misused the word. I'm aware English is not your first language and you do pretty well with it, but sometimes it's a little hard to understand. Calling me "lady" in that way is insulting in this country, BTW. You might want to think about that.

First of all, you should really start having a critical look at the data. Yes, its up for you to judge it. Unreliable data must be thrown away.

It's not up to me. I don't have the expertise for that, but there are those who do, and it seems they've done it.

Why don´t you trust the opinions of the many other people who make field work and don´t think bigfeet are real? Wy just Krantz et al. are correct? Remember the bear carcass discussion, for example? You just dismised what many people who actually work in the field tell. Why?

????? One ranger found four bear carcasses, but didn't say how they died. Bears and cougars that die of natural causes are almost never found. They conceal themselves before they die. I happen to know a retired ranger here, come to think of it. I'll have to ask him how many bear carcasses he's found in the realitively open woods of the Smokies.

Krantz questioned dozens of people who work in the woods. You ignored that.

You think their work if fine? OK, you are entitled to have such opinion. But you shoud also trust in what other people say.

Such as Dennett? Daegling? Long? How about Kal Korff?

And I was telling it has not convinced me.

He was greatly criticized for trying to bring in a specimen and encouraging others to do this. He wanted it settled and he knew science would accept nothing less than a body. If you read his book, you know the attitudes he ran into.

LAL, the point is that they are just reports. With all the possible problems a report may have. The sources can not be checked, etc. Remains are among the few things that would settle down the question. Since not a single one these requisites has been fullfilled, bigfoot remains as being possible but unlikely.

Some reports have been thoroughly checked out.

A lack of remains only means there aren't any identified and available for study yet. This does not mean a living population is unlikely.

But then you should accept the opinions of those who are used to handle data -not all of them can -or want to- be labelled as scientists, engineers and other professionals working in the industry may be an example.

What´s the opinion? There are problems even with what´s considered the most reliable pieces of evidence favorable to bigfeet so far presented. Enough to question the claim.

Well, yeah, if people insist on seeing men in monkey suits and hinging everything on dermal ridges. Fortunately, there are a few scientists unwilling to be swayed by such nonsense.

Did you know Daris SWindler examined the Skookum Cast four times before he came to his conclusion?

Your attitude when defeending Krantz et al. is not unlikely that of some n00bie PhD candidates whose professors are at antagonist corners. They start as visceral defenders. After some time they realise that both theories have pros and cons and eventually, they may even change their fields. Why? Because they start to see things rationally, the data are the most important things, the theories depend on them. And their mentors may not be right.

I was convinced a couple of decades before I read Krantz.
I question some of his assertions about the timber industry, and I'm not sure his conclusions about Sasquatches living in small groups are well supported, but his work is certainly interesting. He was one of the first scientists to look into this at all and I know of none who studied it in such detail. He spent considerable time and resources on it, and his career seemed to suffer because of it. He had my respect, but I don't think I'm suffering from hero worship.

LAL, I´m pretty ure a lot of people have already mentioned that to him. He is entitled to have his opinion.

And I have already written on my opinion on his incoming "groundbreaking" book. If it is backed in the sort of data thats been around, it will not be ground breaking. An article at a peer-reviewed journal would do much more for bigfoot cause.

How can you have an opinion on a book that hasn't been published yet?

I've already posted where he's published "with very good dialogue". He's preparing more articles for publication. Perhaps Nature will take notice someday. I think there's hope with Henry Gee (who said there's hope for "Yeti hunters"), but he's not the peer review process.

LAL, you deny you wrote these creatures are shy and dont roam near roads?

Yep.

I pointed innacuracies and inconsistencies at your posts. That´s far from twisting words.

I said they tend to inhabit areas that are roadless or nearly so. I repeatly referred to reports of them crossing roads. It's difficult to get up enough speed on some of those roads at night to even purposely collide with a nocturnal animal. I used to drive them. I know.

You blatantly misquoted me and then claimed inconsistancies. That is far from twisting words; it's misrepresentation.

Don´t you think of us as "scofftics"?

I made the meaning clear. Scofftics tend to ridicule rather than debate. Sceptics ask good questions.

IIRC, you said we dismiss your "evidence" without further insvestigation -or something similar. It may be you POV, specially in light of the outcome (contrary to your claims). But the people here has a habit of doing homework.

The first post I saw on this forum started with "Look what the hoaxers are up to......" My first post was that it was obvious they hadn't been doing their homework; my impression was they were all about 15 and had little knowlege ofthe subject. This doesn't necessarily mean I think nobody here does homework, but on some other boards even the sceptics are familiar enough with the subject to debate well and raise interesting points without resorting to mockery and attempted character assassination.

Oh, LAL, I will not go in to the whole discussion again. You are making an oversimplification, at best.

The points I made were related to the absence of remains, fossil or not, and not only in PNW. You made a lot of mistakes when it comes to sedimentation, fossilization processes, cave formation, volcanism, weathering, etc. All trying to find an excuse to the absence of bigfeet fossil remains along the supposed beast´s habitat, past and present. Not to mention that quite often when I was referring to recent remains you wrote something about burial rates...

I bow to your superior knowlege on the Amazon, but you seem to know little of the PNW or other likely habitat in this country. I quoted from authoritative sources and, to my knowlege, made no mistakes. You can't seem to admit you could be wrong, even about sedimentation in an area that's practically made of basalt.

Excuses? Just the facts, man.

Are you twisting my words? I have not wrote you are misbehaving. I wrote that the (very few) people who got banned were for this reason. You are nowhere near IIan of LG -and they were not banned.

My sense of humor seems to escape you.

What's IIan of LG?

And sorry to burst your bubble, but you are very far from disrupting complacent denials. Actually you are providing material against bigfoot´s cause, in case you have not realised it yet.

I can't even follow that, let alone realize it. I guess some are so deep in denial nothing could disturb it.

Accepting claims without checking, information cherry-picking, por data handling, etc. Sounds familiar?

Sounds like Dennett.

LAL, there´s no "emotional rejection". Its simple unreliability of data.

I was going to post an article that is exactly that - emotional rejection. I'm rather sure I saved it, but I'm not sure where. There would be ample evidence to indicate a new species of just about anything else. People seem to balk at the idea of an unidentified hominid in a country as advanced as the United States. I've heard people accept the idea of Yeti, safely in Tibet, but reject totally any idea there could be something like that here.

I don't think the data is nearly as bad as you think. Have you seen the enhanced version of the PGF? I've seen it (and others) on a high res screen. They're impressive.

How about casts? Examined any? Would you know what to look for?

So, a site that has lenghty discussions on bigfeet´s mating habits is not wacko?

Nope. Dr. Fahrenbach based his conclusions on some 2000 reports. One article, even if a bit of a stretch, doesn't discredit the whole site. And he may be right.

This is better, IMO:

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/sasq_traits.htm

It's possible the French site isn't as wacko as I think. My Italian is worse than my French. I'll have to check it with Systran one of these days.

So, who should be providing reliable evidence for bigfeet´s existence?

My vote's for Noll and Meldrum and their associates, but I think confirmation may come from Canada.

If these persons are doing a good job, they should be getting some money don´t they?

The way it is, they're the ones spending it.

 

[RayG]

And who are these scientists and on what basis do they say the data is rubbish? How about naming them and posting their reports? I've found one online; it seems to be based on little more than an emotional rejection. Can you find more?

Dr. William Montagna - Director of the Federal Primate Center at Beaverton, Oregon, authored an article in Primate News, in September, 1976. In that article he called the PG film a "few-second long bit of foolishness...Stated simply, Patterson and friends perpetrated a hoax."(1)

The American Museum of Natural History took one quick look and wrote it off as a fake.(2)

"[Dr.] John Napier, an expert in primate locomotion, decided that either the film was fake, or the footprints were fake, or both."(3)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/patfilm.htm
"The physical evidence of the Patterson, Gimlin Film in particular was assailed by Napier and various consulted colleagues who found it to point to "a hoax of some kind"."

"[Dr.] Bernard Heuvelmans [zoologist], the pre-eminent authority on unverified animals, is quite sure the film was faked."(4)

http://www.archaeology.org/0407/etc/conversations.html
"First of all, I consulted what's called an anthropometric source book, which contains a ridiculous number of measurements on populations of human beings. Even if this thing on the film was as large as Krantz and others were claiming, it was not outside the range of human variation. But as it turns out, you can't measure reliably off of that film--there are too many unknown variables." -- Dr. David Daegling - Associate Professor of Anthropology.

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/mywebpage/sas.html
"My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient
height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder
contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18fps. [No one knows at what speed the film was shot.] In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different
locomotor system to that of man." -- Dr. D. W. Grieve, anatomist, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine.

I'll see your one and raise you five. There are probably more examples, but what would be the point?

RayG

Sources:
(1) Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. John Green. Hancock House, 1978. pg. 130

(2) Ibid. pg. 119

(3) Big Footprints. Grover Krantz. Johnson Printing Company, 1992. pg. 92-93.

(4) Ibid. pg. 93.

 

[William Parcher]

To me, the most unusual creature is the Human Bigfoot Agnostic. They are destined to a perpetual hellworld of dermal ridges, sweat pores, IM indexes and the credentials of individuals hanging onto the cliff edge of rationality.

The poor skeptic only asks for a small thing. Please provide biological physical evidence for a massive bipedal ape. That's all. Just a small thing. A little bit of flesh or bone.

Skeptics would love to have this silly game come to an end. Please, just show that Bigfoot is not really a myth after all. I ask the believers to please bring this all to an end. Please? Pretty please?

 

[LAL]

Dr. William Montagna - Director of the Federal Primate Center at Beaverton, Oregon, authored an article in Primate News, in September, 1976. In that article he called the PG film a "few-second long bit of foolishness...Stated simply, Patterson and friends perpetrated a hoax."(1)

The American Museum of Natural History took one quick look and wrote it off as a fake.(2)

One quick look. Uh huh. I'm sure you don't think Green was endorsing those opinions.

"[Dr.] John Napier, an expert in primate locomotion, decided that either the film was fake, or the footprints were fake, or both."(3)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/patfilm.htm
"The physical evidence of the Patterson, Gimlin Film in particular was assailed by Napier and various consulted colleagues who found it to point to "a hoax of some kind"."

"[Dr.] Bernard Heuvelmans [zoologist], the pre-eminent authority on unverified animals, is quite sure the film was faked."(4)

http://www.archaeology.org/0407/etc/conversations.html
"First of all, I consulted what's called an anthropometric source book, which contains a ridiculous number of measurements on populations of human beings. Even if this thing on the film was as large as Krantz and others were claiming, it was not outside the range of human variation. But as it turns out, you can't measure reliably off of that film--there are too many unknown variables." -- Dr. David Daegling - Associate Professor of Anthropology.

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/mywebpage/sas.html

"My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18fps. [No one knows at what speed the film was shot.] In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man." -- Dr. D. W. Grieve, anatomist, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine.

I'll see your one and raise you five. There are probably more examples, but what would be the point?

RayG

Sources:
(1) Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. John Green. Hancock House, 1978. pg. 130

(2) Ibid. pg. 119

(3) Big Footprints. Grover Krantz. Johnson Printing Company, 1992. pg. 92-93.

(4) Ibid. pg. 93.

From the first article you posted:

"Many who have read the book, scientists and laymen alike, have found it be somewhat ambiguous in its conclusions. The physical evidence of the Patterson, Gimlin Film in particular was assailed by Napier and various consulted colleagues who found it to point to "a hoax of some kind". (Napier, pg 95) Upon close examination by the author, however, there are many simple, scientifically verifiable explanations for most of the observed "problems" with the analysis.

In the subsequent few pages the author will evaluate, in a systematic and scientific manner, the critiques by Napier and others of the visible anatomy of the subject in the 1967 film. At the same time I will demonstrate why the subject does stand up to functional analysis, whereas Napier argued that it did not. (Napier, pg 95) "

Napier also said,"I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists."

Krantz found several errors in Grieve's work, one being that he measured from the leading edge of the limb segments, not the axes as he stated. The weight of 230 lbs. seems to fit with Grieve's idea of human proportions.

I think it was the article by Montagna that I was referring to (it's been called "emotional rejection"). His rejection was largely because of the hair on the breasts; he may be the one Krantz referred to who had just published a paper on human hairy breasts. The hair as an adaptation for cold has already been addressed.

It's emotional, all right:

"Along with some colleagues, I had the dubious distinction of being among the first to view this few-second-long bit of foolishness. As I sat watching the hazy outlines of a big, black, hairy man-ape taking long, deliberate human strides, I blushed for those scientists who spent unconscionable amounts of time analyzing the dynamics, and angulation of the gait and the shape of the animal, only to conclude (cautiously, mind you) that they could not decide what it was. For real or woe, I am neither modest about my scientific adroitness nor cautious about my convictions. Stated simply, Patterson and friends perpetrated a hoax. As the gait, erect body, and swing of the arms attest, their Sasquatch was a large man in a poorly made monkey suit. Even a schoolchild would not be taken in. The crowning irony was Patterson's touch of glamor: making his monster into a female
with large pendulous breasts. If Patterson had done his homework, he would have known that regardless of how hirsute an animal is, its mammary glands are always covered with such short hairs as to appear naked."

Also from the link you posted:

"Dr. Montagna's comment holds true for many animals, in particular the great apes. However, the extant great apes are residents of the tropical equatorial world. A quick look at primates living in colder climes, in particular several species of macaques and langurs, would show that lactating females have very noticeably hirsute breasts with only the nipple devoid of hair. The North American Sasquatch is also a denizen of much more temperate areas, and could therefore be expected to follow the evolutionary example of the latter."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/patfilm.htm


I don't know why Heuvelmans thought the film was a fake. I've only read his opinion that it was with nothing to back it up. He was convinced the Minnesota Iceman was real, as I'm sure everyone will recall. If one, why not the other?

There's a whole thread on Patty vs. the NFL on BFF. Daegling relies on his own insistance the exact distance between subject and camera can't be known (it was, for at least the shot where she turns) and that this could throw off height by a foot and a half. Noll disputes this and puts it at ± 3".

"At its first showing, at the University of British Columbia, the film was well received by an audience of scientists, museum staff, and members of the press—no one suggested it was a fake."

I think you only get four because of Montagna.

Make it three because Grieve did not conclude the film was a fake. "The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18fps." We've been over that. The camera was set at 16 fps, but was probably running at 18 fps.

None said the data is "rubbish".

On second thought, I think you'd better keep your chips. I don't know what the point would be, but you seem to be helping me make mine. Thanks.

 

[LAL]

To me, the most unusual creature is the Human Bigfoot Agnostic. They are destined to a perpetual hellworld of dermal ridges, sweat pores, IM indexes and the credentials of individuals hanging onto the cliff edge of rationality.

The poor skeptic only asks for a small thing. Please provide biological physical evidence for a massive bipedal ape. That's all. Just a small thing. A little bit of flesh or bone.

Skeptics would love to have this silly game come to an end. Please, just show that Bigfoot is not really a myth after all. I ask the believers to please bring this all to an end. Please? Pretty please?

Do you really think no one's working on it?

If things aren't moving fast enough for you, get a rifle and go see for yourself how easy this is. But you might want to read this thread first:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12624&st=40&#entry259662entry259662

 

[tube]

Matt, Matt, Matt, there are other factors besides dermal ridges that distinguish the real tracks from fakes. Lack of dermals is usual where the substrate was too coarse.

Of course. But let me be clear about the order of my logic; I believe most casts are bogus and therefore do not exhibit dermal ridges, not that since they do not exhibit dermal ridges I conclude they are bogus. I believe most casts are bogus for entirely different reasons.

There is a major, glaring, problem in the world of Sasquatchery; so glaring and foolish that it almost makes me want to walk away from the whole enterprise; and this is the blind acceptance of the morpological dissimilarity of all these feet! I have personally examined a number of casts; "Wrinkle Foot" Onion Mountain, Dennis Heryford's cast, "Cripple Foot" Jerry Crew's cast, Patterson film site cast, John Bindernagle' cast, and various others. THEY ARE ALL PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT IN SHAPE!

There is a reason we can track animals; there is enough morphological similarity between individuals within a species that we can identify the species by the track. I'm currently reading Wilderness Tracks by Barbara Butler. I had no idea that a Grizzly bear track could be differentiated from a black bear track, but that is the case. Same genus, different species. The blunt reality is that purported Sasquatch tracks differ among themselves as much as a raccoon tracks differs from dog tracks! At this point various apologies are made by Bigfooters like "we must have multiple species" or "we must be seeing inbreeding". To me, the obvious, parsimonious explanation is that we are seeing human (hoaxer) creativity in action!

Bigfoot casts are kind of like the religions of the world; logically they can't all be true therefore most, it not all, must be false.

LAL, you seem much more inclined to accept that the Blue Creek Mountain tracks of 1967 were made by a Sasquatch than I am. If the tracks were indeed made by a Sasquatch, and not Ray Wallace, then surely Sasquatch has a "double ball" foot. Why don't other tracks which I assume you accept as real like the Patterson film site or "Cripple Foot' have a double ball?

As far as my use of the term "cement" goes, It is a generic term for an inorganic casting medium. This would include plaster of Paris, Ultracal, Hydrocal, and dental stone.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

LAL, you seem much more inclined to accept that the Blue Creek Mountain tracks of 1967 were made by a Sasquatch than I am. If the tracks were indeed made by a Sasquatch, and not Ray Wallace, then surely Sasquatch has a "double ball" foot. Why don't other tracks which I assume you accept as real like the Patterson film site or "Cripple Foot' have a double ball?

Or the mid-tarsal break ? Or long toes?

 

[William Parcher]

Do you really think no one's working on it?

If things aren't moving fast enough for you, get a rifle and go see for yourself how easy this is. But you might want to read this thread first:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12624&st=40&#entry259662entry259662

A WalMart truck fulla bullets, film or memory cards ain't gonna git no ghost. Big hairy boy gonna skeet skipple and wiggle worm right on til dem cows come home.

Lu got her a grandmammy kneestomper story to tell til she push up dem daisies.