Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LAL]

You wrote

"There were 590 tracks found by the roadway on Blue Creek Mountain and not all of the same individual. Some had been obliterated by traffic on the road, so there may have been over a thousand."

Do you deny that?

Of course not. I posted it. Where is it written creatures who left tracks by a mountain road would have had to have been hit by one of the cars that passed after they were gone?

And regarding the sightings, you know, people drive at night, get tired, there´s pareidolia, etc. Unreliable. If you take sighting reports of bigfeet as reliable evidence, then you should also take UFO sighting reports as reliable evidence.

There are many sightings backed up by track evidence. Illusions don't leave tracks.
Forget UFOs.

By now, you should have realised, after Tube´s take on alleged bigfeet footprint casts that the dermal ridge argument is at least questionable, since they can be mere artifacts. Note that he does not deny the possibility of existence of bigfoot. And yet, points that the dermal ridge argument should not be seen, as you claim, unquestionable evidence.

I panicked along with other posters on BFF when this came up. I asked for clarification and got it along with photos of exactly what he's talking about. Didn't we post the link?

Tube is referring to one cast. Ones in mud are not affected, evidently. The best were in mud. No doubt a reexamination is called for on Meldrum's collection to rule out other possible artifacts if this hasn't already been done. Chilcutt examined over 100 casts in Meldrum's collection, BTW. He's pointed out casting artifact ridges are flat whereas dermal ridges are rounded.

Actually I think most of us do not deny the possibility of bigfoot being a real animal. We just consider it to be, based on the quality of the avaliable evidence, highly unlikely.

I think the possibility that any of you have thoroughly and objectively examined the evidence is highly unlikely.

LAL, we´ve been through this before, and you have not managed to provide any reasonable explanation for the lack of solid evidence. Again, you are creating biased opinions that are just plain wrong.

You must have missed a lot of my posts. Dying animals tend to conceal themselves. The habitat doesn't promote fossilization. An elephant carcass is reduced to a big black spot in four days. One of your own sources noted bear fossils are extremely rare.

It's you who are wrong, not my sources, nor my own observations.

Large animals are hit by cars, regardless of how hard drivers and animals try to avoid themselves. And it happens at all types of roads.

I drove across the country and saw nothing larger than medium on any road I travelled.

The "no bear carcass" argument has been torn to shreds in the other thread. Remember that a ranger posted saying he and his (OK, I´m assuming the ranger is a "he") fellows have found lots of them?

One ranger. He said he found four, not "lots". Did he mention how the bears died? If they were shot and not removed, of course there's a chance they'd be found. Other rangers have found none. Krantz interviewed dozens of people whose professions keep them in the woods. Not one had found a bear carcass. Krantz estimates 100 bear for every Sasquatch.

I´ll write it clearly: scavenging will not get rid of all remains. I worked at the Amazon forest, where decomposition and scavenging are much more intense than in North America temperate forests (hot humid weather, soils with highly acidic upper layer, all sorts of scavenging critters, from bugs to mammals) and you do find smelly rotten carcasses, from armadillos to tapirs. Including those of predated animals. Depending on the area, scavenging birds will tell you where to look for the remains. Same is valid for Africa (savannahs and jungles), as the many persons I know that worked there have told me. Oh, gorillas included, before you write anything. If you want to ignore this, OK, its your problem. But someone else will point this out again to you. And you will pass as someone with little experience in forest areas, what you claim not to be.

I lived for years in a PNW forest. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know those forests. There are remains at times of animals killed by predators (including man). The predator doesn't finish eating the kill and something is left for awhile. But dead predators are seldom, if ever, found if they died a natural death. Deer mice eat the bones for calcium and microbes finish the job. How rugged is the terrain in the Amazon?

Rare animals also become roadkills. Another poster also pointed this out - with examples. Of course, immaginary creatures don´t become roadkills or leave carcasses.

Or tracks or body imprints or territorial markings or calls that have been recorded and analysed............

 

[Starrman]

Did you ever come up with a solution for how tracks could be produced in snow without stilts or any sign of human activity?

This sounds a lot like the old arguments as to why crop circles couldn't be faked. You really have no respect for human ingenuity.

Just because you and I lack the imagination to explain or replicate this, does not mean that someone else didn't come up with a novel solution. Why would someone do that? Ask the first circle makers why they did it - to see if they could fool people.

Guess what? They did - for a long time.

Do you believe crop circles are made by anyone but man, LAL? Your logic indicates that you should.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There you go assuming again. How can I forget that when people throw it at me instead of trying to produce evidence, not speculation, of specific hoaxes, misidentification and outright hallucination?

Has anyone produced sets of anatomically correct fake feet (with or without stilts) or a track-making machine that could have made the tracks?

There've been thousands found over decades and thousands of miles apart. We're not talking about one or two prints here.

You keep ignoring the impetus for proof Lu ...


There is no burden for anyone to show how the prints could have been faked.. The burden is to produce the animal who made the prints...



Please spare us more diatribes from Meldrum et al...

 

[Thurkon]

Did you ever come up with a solution for how tracks could be produced in snow without stilts or any sign of human activity? Someone (forgot who) who investigated tracks said if they weren't real they would have to have been made by a machine, but there were no splatter marks. That wasn't my argument.

Sandals? Rubber feet? These are two answers, even if you don't like them. To claim there is no way to fake these tracks is patently dishonest.

Read Krantz. Or Murphy.

Please stop repeating "Read Krantz". Please. Stop now. We're not engaged in a debate with Krantz.

If Krantz has a point that you'd like to quote, do so...but simply regurgitating that phrase does nothing to support your argument. Nothing.

If you want to debate...debate.

There are anatomical details in the prints that are correct for a very heavy creature in a mountainous environment. Much can be inferred from the tracks and has been. I've pointed you to sources and suggested you try to get them through the library. That's about all I can do. I'm not sending you my books.

Is this the dermal ridge argument? Did you just sleepwalk through the rest of the thread? They may be dermal ridges, they may be faked dermal ridges or they may be casting artifacts.

Doesn't amount to much evidence, really.

You also fail to address the problems with the "thousands" of tracks out there. Not all do contain these "anatomical details"...for instance, most tracks don't have dermal ridges. Those that do, run in the wrong direction. How can purported dermal ridges that run in the wrong direction be considered accurate “anatomical details” for a heavy creature in mountainous environment?

 

[Thurkon]

To my knowlege he faked nothing around the area where the Crew tracks were found. It was his crew, but he was usually off getting new contracts. That was his job. He may have faked a few for the tourists around his shop, but that's about all.

So, you honestly believe a person known for carving fake Bigfoot feet and selling Bigfoot tourist trinkets did not fake a number of Bigfoot tracks associated with a construction site of his that was being targeted by thieves?

Interested in buying a bridge?

Meldrum has examined tracks in situ on five occassions. Living feet have characteristics that simply can't be duplicated with fake feet, especially carved wooden ones. Krantz carved a set for experimentation. So did Meldrum. Meldrum is an expert in primate locomotion and Krantz was an anthropologist.

Meldrum also has some Ray Wallace prints on his website. They perfectly match a few of the sandals Ray Wallace carved.

This is the “expert” you are quoting.

You're starting to look ridiculous.

Source? He was losing money because constuction workers were quitting, according to my sources.

My source: The Seattle Times, The Columbia Tribune...you know, all the local papers in the area you used to live in? These are real investigative journalists, Lu...as opposed to your source: Matt Moneymaker.

Moneymaker writes an article that states information contrary to what the professional journalists write, and you immediately believe him? What are his sources? He certainly doesn't cite any...

Yes, they usually are. If you'll notice almost all the articles on the site come from somewhere else. Of course, to one who refuses to believe there could be such animals the site would have to appear not credible, even though it is.

How many Bigfoot matings and births have been witnessed, Lu? How many? Moneymaker has detailed information on his site regarding these, and you have failed to address this. Why?

Do you think posting this kind of information is responsible:

Mating has been observed primarily between May and June, mostly between established pairs, and there is a suggestion of the birthing time lying between February and May. The duration of pregnancy (probably near 9 months) is partly related to the average weight of the species. Birth has been (very rarely) reported to occur in the squatting position, with other individuals nearby.

How about it?

As to their article on Wallace...they make wild claims without any supporting information. Wallace's claims have been "scientifically" debunked? By whom? When? Moneymaker's site certainly doesn't give the details on this...he just makes the claim and moves on.

 

[Thurkon]

There are many sightings backed up by track evidence. Illusions don't leave tracks.
Forget UFOs.

Why? Oh, because it's convenient for you?

OfYou must have missed a lot of my posts. Dying animals tend to conceal themselves. The habitat doesn't promote fossilization. An elephant carcass is reduced to a big black spot in four days. One of your own sources noted bear fossils are extremely rare.

Rare is different from non-existant.

One ranger. He said he found four, not "lots". Did he mention how the bears died? If they were shot and not removed, of course there's a chance they'd be found. Other rangers have found none.

But some have been found, Lu. That's the friggin' point.

There are remains at times of animals killed by predators (including man). The predator doesn't finish eating the kill and something is left for awhile. But dead predators are seldom, if ever, found if they died a natural death. Deer mice eat the bones for calcium and microbes finish the job. How rugged is the terrain in the Amazon?

Animal remains don't disappear entirely, Lu, for a very long time. Mice don't gobble up large bones in their entirety. You are in the realm of Wackyland now.

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course not. I posted it. Where is it written creatures who left tracks by a mountain road would have had to have been hit by one of the cars that passed after they were gone?

Well, where its written that creatures that walk by and across roads (not just those located in mountains) at several ocasions (at least 74 recorded times) would never be hit by cars?

There are many sightings backed up by track evidence. Illusions don't leave tracks.
Forget UFOs.

Why should I forget UFOs? Evidence for UFO are avaliable at bigger ammounts than for bigfeet.
There are:
More sighting reports (evidence accepted by bigfeet investigators);
More and better pictures and footage (evidence accepted by bigfeet investigators);
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp
Alleged radar contacts from UFOs;
People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures and vehicles(evidence accepted by bigfeet investigators and qoted in sig from at least one believer);
Myths can be twisted, I mean, interpretated to serve as additional "evidence" for UFOs(evidence accepted by bigfeet investigators);
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Vimanas.htm
Alleged marks of landing struts and heat/radiation effects from the UFOs ;
http://www.geocities.com/youcreatedcosmos/zamora.html
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc665.htm
Even alleged footprints from alleged aliens!! (evidence accepted by bigfeet investigators)
http://www.geocities.com/lvegh/RussellPark
So, using the very reasoning bigfeet investigators use, the case for UFOs is better than the case for bigfoot. Maybe that´s why you want us to forget UFOs.

I panicked along with other posters on BFF when this came up. I asked for clarification and got it along with photos of exactly what he's talking about. Didn't we post the link?

Tube is referring to one cast. Ones in mud are not affected, evidently. The best were in mud. No doubt a reexamination is called for on Meldrum's collection to rule out other possible artifacts if this hasn't already been done. Chilcutt examined over 100 casts in Meldrum's collection, BTW. He's pointed out casting artifact ridges are flat whereas dermal ridges are rounded.

So, its possible that the ridges are nothing but cast artifacts. What casts (pun intended) a shadow on the validity of dermal ridges as "proof" of bigfeet. The same shadow that every single category of eveidence for bigfoot has.

I think the possibility that any of you have thoroughly and objectively examined the evidence is highly unlikely.

I think the possibility that you and possibly most of bigfeet investigators never thoroughly and objectively examined the cases against bigfeet existence is highly unlikely. You start from the postulate that the creature exists. Its a belief, not an impartial evaluation of information. Anyone else who does not share this belife is a close-minded-scoffitc.

You must have missed a lot of my posts. Dying animals tend to conceal themselves. The habitat doesn't promote fossilization. An elephant carcass is reduced to a big black spot in four days. One of your own sources noted bear fossils are extremely rare.

It's you who are wrong, not my sources, nor my own observations.

I read all the wrong concepts, misinformations, misinterpretations, and wild speculations you posted. I wrote on several ocasions that you just made false unbacked claims. You missed my remmarks on the 4-days elephant carcass disappearance. Your observations are just plain wrong. However, you are not willing to recognize your mistakes, because they cast shadows (pun intended again) in your claims. Your misconceptions in fosssilization processes, animal behavior, ecology, field work from various "outdoor professionals" are evident, and I have restrained myself from writing this since the beggining of our discussions. You´d better try not pretending to undertand what you do not.

I drove across the country and saw nothing larger than medium on any road I travelled.

Biased point of view based in restricted experience that fits your POV.

One ranger. He said he found four, not "lots". Did he mention how the bears died? If they were shot and not removed, of course there's a chance they'd be found. Other rangers have found none. Krantz interviewed dozens of people whose professions keep them in the woods. Not one had found a bear carcass. Krantz estimates 100 bear for every Sasquatch.

"Read Krantz"...
Stop behaving like a Jehova Witness telling us to read the Bible. Its just a wild guess on a population of an animal that most likely is not real.
I stick with his/her statement that the "no bear carcass" is a myth. Based not only in his/her experience, but also in my personal experience and by the experience from many persons I know who work at conservation areas and forests.

I lived for years in a PNW forest. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know those forests. There are remains at times of animals killed by predators (including man). The predator doesn't finish eating the kill and something is left for awhile. But dead predators are seldom, if ever, found if they died a natural death. Deer mice eat the bones for calcium and microbes finish the job. How rugged is the terrain in the Amazon?

The question on how rugged is the terrain in Amazon, implying that PNW is a more inaccessible place, just shows that you don´t have a clue on what you are talking about. The flat areas are concentrated at the flood plains. Parts of it are located in the Eastern Andes contraforts. You choose, rolling hills, steep mountains, all covered by what seems to be, from the top, a broccoli forest (composed by 40 to 60m-high broccoli). Much more inaccessible than PNW.
And again, your claims are not true. Predator´s carcasses are found. Bears are predators aren´t them? Or they are always eating carcasses and roots? Even with the alleged high scavenging activity at PNW, chances are the a carcass would have been found, since the beasts are supposed to live across a big bunch of North America.

Or tracks or body imprints or territorial markings or calls that have been recorded and analysed............

Alleged tracks, alleged territorial marks, alleged calls. All subject to mistaken interpretation and frauds. Untill solid evidence is provided, bigfoot existence is just a possibility. A remote one, actually.

Edited a couple of times for lousy spelling. There are still plenty of typos over there, but not as many as holes in bigfeet existence.

 

[Correa Neto]

Forget UFOs.

Why? Oh, because it's convenient for you?

Nope, because they prove the fact that bigfeet are alien. Why they dismiss a report of a bigfoot exiting an UFO and rate as class A the report of a female bigfoot hunting hogs?

 

[tube]

I'm intrigued by the notion that Ray Wallace displayed his fake feet to the public before his death. What I KNOW about this subject is based on what Rick Noll told me; that Ray Wallace had some sort of gift shop or museum in Toledo WA, I believe, and that he had many alleged Sasquatch CASTS on display. Rick never mentioned FAKE FEET on display. Having fake feet on display would be like an admission of hoaxing, to my mind.

I get the feeling that various important parts of the Ray Wallace story have not been well investigated. I'd like to see a photograph of Wallace's museum with the "stompers" hanging on the wall, or at least a first person confirmation that they were there. Frankly I'm skeptical of this claim; why on earth would Ray Wallace publicly display fake wooden feet?

 

[Thurkon]

I'm intrigued by the notion that Ray Wallace displayed his fake feet to the public before his death. What I KNOW about this subject is based on what Rick Noll told me; that Ray Wallace had some sort of gift shop or museum in Toledo WA, I believe, and that he had many alleged Sasquatch CASTS on display. Rick never mentioned FAKE FEET on display. Having fake feet on display would be like an admission of hoaxing, to my mind.

I get the feeling that various important parts of the Ray Wallace story have not been well investigated. I'd like to see a photograph of Wallace's museum with the "stompers" hanging on the wall, or at least a first person confirmation that they were there. Frankly I'm skeptical of this claim; why on earth would Ray Wallace publicly display fake wooden feet?

You know...you're probably right about that.

Why would his family have to reveal he faked the prints if he was selling stompers from his shop? I imagine this is another bit of misinformation from the Footers. Can anyone verify what Wallace was selling from his shop?

 

[LTC8K6]

Ray had a friend carve him 16-inch-long feet that he could strap on and make prints with.

So we know that these carved wooden feet, not flat, are around 16" long.

Here we have a Bluff Creek track that is approximately 16" long, not 13" as an incorrection caption said. It happens to be an exact match for the Ray Wallace feet, imo.

Why is it so hard to add 2 and 2 here and get 4?

Ray Wallace made this Bluff Creek track.

Instead we get Lu's claim that Ray Wallace copied the Bluff Creek print to make his feet. Well, I just take that as an admission that the two are a match.

As far as the depth of the track, you'd have to make your comparisons under the same soil conditions. The soil hardness can change. You can also loosen up the soil before you make your fake track so it will go deeper.

Given the minimum amount of shadow in the print, I'd say a person could easily have been heavy enough to make it. The shadow is about the same as where the ruler touches the ground. The print is not very deep at all.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

LTC8K6,

What is your source saying the print is from Bluff Creek.. My source says it is from Blue Creek Mountain .. ( in the same area )




From the Meldrum paper ... Source of print not identified, but very similar to your print ,LTC8K6.

Here is a drawinfg based on the analysation of three other prints from Blue Creek Mountain .. ( Not far from the PGF site )

Just a coincidence, or does it just prove that the hoaxers copied ' real ' bigfoot prints...


The first pic looks a lot like this one .. I Believe this is same picture as yours also.

from Blue Creek Mt., as documented here..

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

Green writes:

They were familiar to me — the same 15-inch print with a split in the ball of the foot that I had first seen nine years earlier, but I had never seen such sharp detail.

Do tell..


Obviously another close relative of Alderfoot...


Lu,

If Meldrum, Krantz & etc, can't spot the fake prints ( to which they have applied their expert anatomical analyzation ), why should we consider them credible at all ..


P.S.

LTC8K6,

Do you know if there are any pics of prints that Chillcut examined on the web?

 

[LTC8K6]

What is your source saying the print is from Bluff Creek

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

They appear to use Blue Creek, Bluff Creek, and Onion Mountain to refer to the same areas.

This is clearly the same photo of the same track, and it is indeed an Alderfoot track.

 

[LTC8K6]

This one looks like the other Ray Wallace fake foot that I have seen. It's the toes and that little dimple/crease on the inside of the ball that give it away, imo.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This one looks like the other Ray Wallace fake foot that I have seen. It's the toes and that little dimple/crease on the inside of the ball that give it away, imo.

I'll hold my breath for Meldrum's next paper, explaining how he was fooled, and how we can now tell the difference between real and fake prints.

 

[LTC8K6]

Green, left, measuring hourglass tracks at Blue Creek Mountain overlooking Bluff Creek, August 1967. In his early On the Track of the Sasquatch, 1968, Green writes: “They were familiar to me— the same 15-inch print with a split in the ball of the foot that I had first seen 9 years before. . .”

It's obvious to me that Green is talking about Ray Wallace's fake prints here. He had been looking at them all the time. 15" with a split in the ball. What more needs to be said?

He is even clearly measuring Alderfoot tracks in the photo.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/bluff_creek_bigfoot.html

Typical indeed. A typical Alderfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Blue Creek mountain overlooks Bluff Creek, apparently.

These Alderfoot prints are being found, measured, and photographed right in the same area and time period of the P/G film.

Are we supposed to ignore that?

 

[Hitch]

Way back in the early days of the "Bigfoot Follies" thread I posted about having seen a TV show about 30 years ago that investigated the Bigfoot rumors of the time. The P/G film was fairly new to TV and drawing lots of attention on "gee whiz" shows. The makers of the show I saw got a Bigfoot footprint hoaxer to show them how he faked tracks. Then they brought a Bigfoot "expert" to the site to examine the tracks. The "expert" proclaimed them authentic and un-fake able and then refused to talk to them any more after they showed him footage of the tracks being faked.

Unfortunately, this was at least 30 years ago and I don't remember the details of the title of the show or who the "expert" was, so in Lu's world, that means it never happened. I just remember watching it because (as a young teenager, I was intrigued by the mystery of Bigfoot. After seeing the show, I naively assumed that would be the end of the Bigfoot nonsense.

O, how young and foolish I was.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Weren't Wallace's antics supposed to have dated back to the late 50's, at least ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Green in denial..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/specialmsg.htm

Far more tracks have been seen and cast and photographed at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.

Surprise ! Surprise !

It is carvings of those tracks, not the 16-inch "Bigfoot" tracks that a nephew of Ray Wallace has displayed in photographs. They are fitted with straps so they can be walked on like snowshoes, but like snowshoes there is no way that human weight could impress them deeply into hard....

Sound familiar ?


We are supposed to believe someone could actually carve wood with the precise details and size found in those tracks ?

Oh wait, there are CNC machines...


I'm sure I will regret planting that seed....