Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[RayG]

None of the above convinced me. You're not convinced but others are.

So what exactly has convinced you? Anecdotes?

The beef was in the bun last time I looked.

You talking about this?

RayG

 

[RayG]

It worked, in any event.

Well, they've claimed it worked, but until they drag in a body to fit the supposed butt/testicles/heel print it's all speculation.

RayG

 

[RayG]

And it proves what?

[/QUOTE]

Ummm... That Patterson visited Wallace?

Had Wallace been accused of hoaxing yet? Had he done any?

Does it matter? Do you have a specific date when Wallace started hoaxing?

Did Patterson know about the letters he was sending to Green and the Klam-ity Kourier? Seems they were written after Patterson's book was published.

If Wallace was stringing people along after Patterson's book was published, why is it impossible for him to be stringing people along before Patterson's book was published?

Just when did he visit?

Based on Patterson's 1966 book, I'm guessing it was prior to Patterson's 1967 film.

Patterson's interest evidently began with a story in True Magazine on the Crew tracks. It would be natural to want to talk to the owner of the operation, wouldn't it?

What evidence do you have that Patterson wasn't having his leg pulled?

Green has said Wallace wouldn't have known exactly where those 1958 tracks were found. Convenient that the family waited until he was dead before they confessed for him, wasn't it?

How can Green be certain? It seems even more convenient that Patterson visited with Wallace before making his famous film.

Yep. Of course Swindler examined the cast four times before delivering his conclusion.

Whether he examined the cast four times or four hundred times, his conclusion might be incorrect.

"Rather than simply an enlarged human foot, Meldrum said, the Sasquatch foot displays a unique combination of recognizably different anatomic features to solve the problem of two-footed locomotion. The result is a proportionally wider, flatter appendage with long, flexible toes and a spring-loaded, ape-like hinge in place of our stiff arch.

Unless they DON'T have a spring-loaded, ape-like hinge in place of an arch. In that case, they're too young, too old, not heavy enough, too heavy, not the right sub-species, too few toes, wrong geographical area, etc. etc.

"This animal's little toe is about the same length as my little finger," he said, holding his hand up against the side of one of his casts. "This toe probably has the same grasping ability as my finger, too."

How can he come to such a conclusion without ever having seen the actual foot? Why do the vast majority of tracks not show these features? Do you think he might be only speculating?

A former director of the American Board of Forensic Anthropologists, Gill said the argument is simple: Either the most sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has gone undiscovered for centuries, or the big ape exists. (my emphasis)

By presenting only two possibilities, Gill is engaging in the fallacy of false dilemma. There's no question hoaxes have been uncovered.

Another is Hartwig, who vouches for Meldrum's "rigorous" methods even as he questions his conclusions.
"And he's bold enough not to allow any outside pressure to direct his science."

Is he bold enough to allow peer review, and not just by bigfoot supporters?

They believe a few thousand of these powerful and intelligent creatures live widely dispersed in mountainous forest from the Pacif ic Coast to the Colorado Rockies and beyond. They believe the big apes are opportunistic omnivores, eating roots and berries when available, preying on deer and elk whenever possible. And they think Bigfoot are curious apes, often sneaking into the camps of people who have intruded in their territory, even stealing camp food when they can.

What they believe or think doesn't make bigfoot real.

"Usually, they have no concept of the amount of evidence that's been collected."

Or the amount of speculation that's being spun.

RayG

 

[RayG]

You talking about this?

Image seems to have disappeared...

RayG

 

[LAL]

No you don't. It's a joke...

Since you've evidently seen it now, perhaps you could give us Benson's conclusions word for word and save me the trouble of having to watch it again.

 

[LTC8K6]

"I've gone from being a raving skeptic to being curiously receptive," says Robert Benson, director of the Center for Bioacoustics at Texas A&M. He appears in a new documentary, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, critiquing taped Bigfoot calls. While many of those recordings "could be human" (i.e. hoaxes), others left him puzzled.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-31-bigfoot-cover_x.htm

Well, he's puzzled about some recordings. So am I.

I can tell you what he says on LMS without seeing it.

Inconclusive.

The same thing they always say.....

 

[LAL]

So what exactly has convinced you? Anecdotes?

I think I've made that clear several times.

I first got interested in 1968 after finding John Green's first three books in a roadside shop en route to Portland from San Pedro. Then there was the front page story in the Vancouver Columbian on the Cox sighting. Later I was able to talk to some of the people involved in the investigations. I remember being impressed by the film (maybe more by seeing someone I knew in the documentary than by the clip from the Patterson film).

Seemed like nothing more happened after that and I had my doubts, but the Stevenson library had a large collection of books on this and I read Krantz. Turned out quite a bit had been happening; I just didn't know about it. The library invited Datus Perry to speak and I got to hear a few tales that seemed to reach the ceiling (the first one sounded reasonable enough).

I don't know just when I became convinced. I remember being pretty excited at the idea one could have actually been on our land in the spring of '69 (when the lakes by the Columbia were frozen into April).

Other animals I didn't see while I lived in the forest, though all were on my land or in the area, leaving tracks and/or seen by others: Wolverine, Cougar, Pine Marten, Beaver, Racoon, Wolves.

I saw a Pileated Woodpecker once and never again. I saw a species of bird the Audubon Society couldn't identify.

But I digress.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since you've evidently seen it now, perhaps you could give us Benson's conclusions word for word and save me the trouble of having to watch it again.

I'll see what I can do.. Probably won't have a chance before the forum goes down.

But there are only so many ways to say ' inconclusive ', and a rose is a rose etc...

You don't seem to get it, that people like Benson and Goodall are being polite when they say things like " It certainly bears further investigation. "

What they mean is " Come see me when you actually have something .. "

Not that I expect you to comprehend this..

 

[luchog]

Other animals I didn't see while I lived in the forest, though all were on my land or in the area, leaving tracks and/or seen by others: Wolverine, Cougar, Pine Marten, Beaver, Racoon, Wolves.

These animals have been heavily documented for many centuries. Many specimens have been captured or killed, and there is a mountain of evidence, including photographs and movie film of both free and captured animals.

If Sasquatches are so numerous, how come they haven't been similarly documented? A few inconsistent footprints, and some very poor quality film footage and photographs.

I've live in the PNW all my life; and have spent a lot of time in the mountains. I've seen all of the animals you listed, and many others, either in the wild or in the local zoo. Yet i've never seen even a strand of hair or a toenail clipping from a Sasquatch. There are scientists who have spent their entire lives in the mountains, cataloging, tagging, and studying some of the rarest and most elusive and endangered creatures in the region; yet not one of them has ever come up with any concrete evidence of a Sasquatch.

With all the modern technology available, why is it the only "evidence" for Bigfoot is of such dismal quality, and only ever comes from amateurs, known hoaxsters, and ignorant hicks?

 

[William Parcher]

There are scientists who have spent their entire lives in the mountains, cataloging, tagging, and studying some of the rarest and most elusive and endangered creatures in the region; yet not one of them has ever come up with any concrete evidence of a Sasquatch.

This is because Bigfoot is a myth, not an actual creature.

With all the modern technology available, why is it the only "evidence" for Bigfoot is of such dismal quality, and only ever comes from amateurs, known hoaxsters, and ignorant hicks?

Because Bigfoot is a myth. When people are confused or pretend that myths are real, this is exactly what you get. It is to be expected. Evidence that has functional quality cannot exist, because Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[LAL]

These animals have been heavily documented for many centuries. Many specimens have been captured or killed, and there is a mountain of evidence, including photographs and movie film of both free and captured animals.

If Sasquatches are so numerous, how come they haven't been similarly documented? A few inconsistent footprints, and some very poor quality film footage and photographs.

Looks like my reply got eaten (along with the one on "ignorant hicks") when the board went down.

My point was that even common animals aren't all that easy to spot. Racoons were plentiful where I lived, but they weren't habituated. Here in NC I had one get into the kitchen and eat the biscuits.

Numerous? A few thousand in a vast forested area?

There are a lot more than a few casts of "inconsistant" footprints, including a series of ten cast by Bob Titmus. Dr. Meldrum cast seven of forty in a trackway he examined. He has over a hundred in his collection at Idaho State. There were about thirty casts brought in from the Blue Mountains. There have been thousands of track events.

The PGF is of sufficient quality to show what appears to be a partial print, right behind the creature making the tracks.

 

[Z]

Nonetheless, it all boils down to contraversial and inconclusive evidence. And the whole field has been tainted by the poor reputation of the more famous Bigfooters, the constant cross-bickering, and the simple fact that hard evidence has yet to be found. Oh, and the fact that so very many Bigfooters seem to focus on making money rather than looking for bigfoot - it's a mode of behavior we see in other scam artists - like the guy who claims he found Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant and such - rather than in legitimate scientists. All in all, if there were something to find, chances are it's going to be a very long time before quality researchers will take it seriously.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The PGF is of sufficient quality to show what appears to be a partial print, right behind the creature making the tracks.

Appears? What a joke.. That blurr could be anything..

If there were ' clear ' prints, Patterson should have lots of them on the 2nd roll of film ..

Oh, by the way, Correa asked a question that got lost in the Forum rebuild..


Why does Patty have a butt like a gorilla when she doesn't walk like one ?

 

[LAL]

Appears? What a joke.. That blurr could be anything..

It's in the right place for a track, looks like a track and probably is a track, therefore it could be anything.

[/QUOTE]

If there were ' clear ' prints, Patterson should have lots of them on the 2nd roll of film .. [/QUOTE]

10' worth.

Oh, by the way, Correa asked a question that got lost in the Forum rebuild..


Why does Patty have a butt like a gorilla when she doesn't walk like one ?

She has a butt like an unidentified hominid primate. There's a resemblance to Gorillas standing. They even have a dark line on the back that resembles what some have claimed is a zipper line.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's in the right place for a track, looks like a track and probably is a track, therefore it could be anything.

Right it could be anything.. Why doesn't a previous frame show the foot in the exact position of the track ?

10' worth.

And I can view this, where ?



She has a butt like an unidentified hominid primate. There's a resemblance to Gorillas standing. They even have a dark line on the back that resembles what some have claimed is a zipper line.

Yes Lu, I know all about how the Bigfootologists have shown that Patty's back and butt look like a gorilla. I have also shown you a picture of a gorilla suit that looks just like Patty's butt, which you conveniently ignore.

Patty cannot have the musculature /shape of a gorilla and not walk like one.
Gorillas and all animals look the way they do because of how the move and get around. They don't just happen to look like something, but behave differently ..

It's like trying to say you have a bird that looks like an Ostrich except that it can fly.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
She has a butt like an unidentified hominid primate. There's a resemblance to Gorillas standing. They even have a dark line on the back that resembles what some have claimed is a zipper line.

Yep. She has the butt of an unidentified hominid primate wearing an unidentified gorilla suit.

Do gorillas walk as Patty is seen walking in PGF? Can they? Or those are not muscles but fat tissue, and Patty is Fatty?

Bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances have gorilla-like butts? Any species of the Homo genus have? Australopithecines had?

Are mid tarsal breaks likely to be present in large bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances? Or 3-m tall bigfeet spend long times dangling in trees?

Why Patty is so different from the "standard" bigfoot as described at BFRO site, for example? Because she´s actually a bloke in asuit and not a real bigfoot?

Not to mention that, assuming Patty is the "real deal", rather the most likely explanation of a bloke in a suit, without a body or live specimen to study its internal anatomy there´s no way anyone in the world can say she´s an "unidentified hominid primate" or a bipedal marsupial.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.geocities.com/keefofus/Partialprint.html?1116278611562

I don't see any print, but I do see Patty with both her feet on the ground near each other. What happened to that stride??? She appears to be taking that sobriety test again....

At any rate, I am sure that someone with the LMS dvd could tell us if that appears to be a footprint or not.

 

[The elementalist]

Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I just found your thread. While I am flattered you would include my findings as an entire thread on this forum I do not claim, nor do I feel the evidence supports, that my findings "debunk' the entire class of dermal ridge evidence. The situation is complex, for skeptic and advocate alike. If you have questions I'm willing to try and answer them. I posted a similar response on the other Bigfoot thread, perhaps we should discuss dermal ridge evidence on this thread to keep things in order. That is, if anyone is interested in this stuff besides me!

Are you related to Alister Crowley? hmmmmmmmmm?

 

[tube]

I'm not related to Alister that I know of. But I do shave my head...

 

[The elementalist]

I'm not related to Alister that I know of. But I do shave my head...

=)

I like Crowley alot..

HAHA