Meldrum's new paper / North American Ape Foot

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-newname/

New paper and new name for sasquatch foot prints.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-conte...of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf

 

[William Parcher]

He took the long way to say that we should stop calling them Bigfoot prints. Let's see if Bigfooters will now substitute the term Anthropoidipes ameriborealis for Bigfoot print.

 

[LTC8K6]

The paper does not validate the existence of Sasquatch,

He really ought to read what he writes.

 

[Correa Neto]

I really would like to know DY's opinion before making any detailed comment. However, a major red flag is raised by the use of PGF. After 40 years no one managed to prove Patty is a bigfoot...

 

[Pyrts]

That's actually not a new paper.

There's some real problems with his data -- for one, he had to cherry pick the data. The footprints certainly aren't consistant and the skeletomuscular system he shows for the creature makes it far too fat (not flat) footed to walk.

 

[Apology]

LOL he cites the Titmus collection at Willow Creek in Humboldt County, California. I can guarantee you that those particular tracks were made by stoned hippies with nothing better to do. The casts are a local joke, and no one really takes them seriously except for outsiders.

Of course, if you want to visit and give them some money, maybe buy a meal or a hotel room in the area while you're visiting to see the prints, they'll take your money, and never hint once that the prints are known fakes.

 

[madurobob]

He took the long way to say that we should stop calling them Bigfoot prints. Let's see if Bigfooters will now substitute the term Anthropoidipes ameriborealis for Bigfoot print.

Yes, but clearly he is a believer. And one who appears (to this layman) to have applied some real science to what scant evidence there is available. I, for one, like the new name... and promise never to use it.

The problem I have with the paper is that he clearly assumes that some critter is making the footprints and he completely dismisses the possibility of hoax, fraud, etc... I was intrigued by his claim that all (or at least most) of the footprints reported around the USA over the past 40 years have been anatomically identical. This, he claims, makes hoaxing highly unlikely due to the vast conspiracy required.

I'm, um, skeptical. Is it true that all the available footprints are so similar? How many sets of footprints are there? He suggests he's eliminated all of the "obvious hoaxes", but does that just mean he's eliminated all the prints that don't match his theory?

 

[Creekfreak]

I am going to call them spiderbears for now on I kind of like it ! Hey if I earn credit for proveing they are real I can name them anything I want ! So there !

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The problem I have with the paper is that he clearly assumes that some critter is making the footprints and he completely dismisses the possibility of hoax, fraud, etc... I was intrigued by his claim that all (or at least most) of the footprints reported around the USA over the past 40 years have been anatomically identical. This, he claims, makes hoaxing highly unlikely due to the vast conspiracy required.

I'm, um, skeptical. Is it true that all the available footprints are so similar? How many sets of footprints are there? He suggests he's eliminated all of the "obvious hoaxes", but does that just mean he's eliminated all the prints that don't match his theory?

Meldrum only eliminated hoaxes that were obvious to him and his data includes footprints linked to two known hoaxers, Paul Freeman and Ivan Marx. Despite history being filled with cases of hoaxers fooling supposed Bigfoot experts (a few of which can be found here), people like Meldrum have the gall to say things like no hoaxer short of a genius could fool them. As you'll see on this site, A guy who set out simply to have some fun making "dinosaur tracks" managed to convince a cryptozoologist that he was dealing with the impossible-to-fake tracks of a giant penguin!

No conspiracy is needed to produce similar-looking prints. After all, giant copies of human feet tend to share similar anatomical features. It is known that Ray Wallace and Rant Mullins sent out fake feet to other people (In fact, Mullins apparently supplied some to Wallace). Plaster track casts were sold and mailed (and at a stand owned by Ray Wallace, if memory serves me correctly) to people all over the country, so using them to make new footprints would be child's play. Wanna make some footprints like the ones assocuated with the Patterson-Gimlin film? Here ya go! Tracks could be copied from books (as was the case in this hoax) or from pictures shown online. I wonder if Dr. Meldrum ever looked at this track comparison picture or this before?

And let's not forget that hoaxes aren't the only explanation for Bigfoot tracks.
Overlaid animal tracks or animals tracks in snow enlarged via melting can produce large, humanoid feet. Even Bigfoot proponent Ivan Sanderson admitted that the hindprints of the Western Porcupine looked very humanlike. Now imagine those getting enlarged via melting snow...

Dr. Meldrum's attitude towards work that puts his pet theory in doubt is well demonstrated here. I highly recommend poking around on that site to see how fake "dermal ridges" can appear on tracks.

As for his much-touted midtarsal breaks, those can be made by normal human feet. Faking them isn't very hard, either. This also details how to fake them and shows one of the many, many problems with using the Patterson-Gimlin film as a source of data on "real Sasquatches." More footprint funnies can be found here (and in the rest of that thread).

All in all, his paper is a joke and I hope that one or more people will write up rebuttal papers sometime soon.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is it true that all the available footprints are so similar? How many sets of footprints are there? He suggests he's eliminated all of the "obvious hoaxes", but does that just mean he's eliminated all the prints that don't match his theory?

The tracks are quite varied, even in Meldrum's own work.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

This just looks exactly like a set of bear tracks to me...selectively cast.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/002.jpg

 

[madurobob]

Wow - thanks guys. There is a lot of research energy put into BF footprints! I guess that makes sense given that footprints are the primary available evidence.

How much work has been done around estimating the weight of the critter based on the footprint? Is there an objective means of estimating based on the type of substrate, weather conditions, and the depth and width of the footprint? I would think it would be difficult for a 200 pound man to create a footprint representative of a 600 pound bigfoot without leaving a fair amount of telltale sign himself. But perhaps I've watched a bit too much CSI.

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem with depth is that the feet are substantially larger and should therefore distribute the extra weight just fine. There is no reason for a 500 pound biped with 18" X 5" feet to sink into any soil that a human would not sink into.

Patty of PGF fame is not very tall, and not all that heavy, yet she supposedly had wide 14.5" long feet. So why is she sinking into the soil so much?

 

[bobbieshort]

Yes, but clearly he is a believer. And one who appears (to this layman) to have applied some real science to what scant evidence there is available. I, for one, like the new name... and promise never to use it.

The problem I have with the paper is that he clearly assumes that some critter is making the footprints and he completely dismisses the possibility of hoax, fraud, etc... I was intrigued by his claim that all (or at least most) of the footprints reported around the USA over the past 40 years have been anatomically identical. This, he claims, makes hoaxing highly unlikely due to the vast conspiracy required.

I'm, um, skeptical. Is it true that all the available footprints are so similar? How many sets of footprints are there? He suggests he's eliminated all of the "obvious hoaxes", but does that just mean he's eliminated all the prints that don't match his theory?

------------------
I think there clearly are many instances where we may rule out human hoaxing in tracks cast that are presumptive for sasquatches, if only for the presence of dermal ridging which in these tracks, runs opposite our footprint dermal tracings yet are still whorled and lined consistently in other footprints cast in deeply remote wilderness areas of Alaska, British Columbia down to California.

Each track has its own unique tracings.(stretches of skin and skin stretching can be seen and in some cases deep wounds and scaring, several have missing digits.)

Some of the tracks cast are present with a straight line or straight row of footprints in dirt which humans cannot leave......our tracks are off-set, left right, left right.

It appears that the locomotion of the sasquatch, where ever his tracks are observed walks with characteristics unique to them alone inasmuch as no other life form puts down a straight line of footprints in the ground and no other life form does that with a stride of four to five feet.

There are literally hundreds of tracks cast in various collections.

 

[madurobob]

The problem with depth is that the feet are substantially larger and should therefore distribute the extra weight just fine. There is no reason for a 500 pound biped with 18" X 5" feet to sink into any soil that a human would not sink into.

Exactly. But wouldn't a human with the exact same feet sink in far less than a BF presumably weighing far more? Or is the claim that BF weighs about as much as a human? My real question is if the science is precise enough to reasonably determine the weight of the critter making the tracks based solely on the tracks and the stuff the tracks were made in. I've not seen any discussion of this, so I thought I'd ask (though, admittedly, I haven't been looking)

Patty of PGF fame is not very tall, and not all that heavy, yet she supposedly had wide 14.5" long feet. So why is she sinking into the soil so much?

I think the believers would say its because she was so heavy compared to a human and relative foot sizes. This goes right to the heart of my question.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the dermal ridge argument has been thoroughly killed.

There are no sasquatch dermal ridges in any bigfoot tracks at all, imo.

http://orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm

Some of the tracks cast are present with a straight line or straight row of footprints in dirt which humans cannot leave......our tracks are off-set, left right, left right.

The straight line tracks are a neon sign that says "FAKE", imo. Patty cannot make straight line tracks unless she runs, which is the same way I can make straight line tracks. Patty's tracks are offset, just like mine are when I walk.

 

[bobbieshort]

I think the dermal ridge argument has been thoroughly killed.

There are no sasquatch dermal ridges in any bigfoot tracks at all, imo.

The straight line tracks are a neon sign that says "FAKE", imo. Patty cannot make straight line tracks unless she runs, which is the same way I can make straight line tracks. Patty's tracks are offset, just like mine are when I walk.

---------

Have it your way. But allow me to encourage you to have a conversation if not a meeting with forensic print expert Jim Chilcutt in Conroe, Texas. There is much you can learn about tracks presumptive for sasquatch....

 

[madurobob]

------------------
I think there clearly are many instances where we may rule out human hoaxing in tracks cast that are presumptive for sasquatches, if only for the presence of dermal ridging which in these tracks, runs opposite our footprint dermal tracings yet are still whorled and lined consistently in other footprints cast in deeply remote wilderness areas of Alaska, British Columbia down to California.

Each track has its own unique tracings.(stretches of skin and skin stretching can be seen and in some cases deep wounds and scaring, several have missing digits.)

The several links provided by AMM, above, call this into question (to put it mildly).

Some of the tracks cast are present with a straight line or straight row of footprints in dirt which humans cannot leave......our tracks are off-set, left right, left right.

You are mistaken. Even I can leave footprints like that and I'm a tired old man. I may not be inclined to, but I can if I try.

It appears that the locomotion of the sasquatch, where ever his tracks are observed walks with characteristics unique to them alone inasmuch as no other life form puts down a straight line of footprints in the ground and no other life form does that with a stride of four to five feet.

Really? I see fox, deer, and coyote tracks all the time that are in a straight line. I can tell what are rear and what are forward feet, but when they are trotting through the woods they more often that not leave a single straight line of tracks. I suspect that such straight line tracking is not at all uncommon among quadrapeds. I would expect bipeds to normally walk with offset steps, but I know that we are capable to tracking in a straight line as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the believers would say its because she was so heavy compared to a human and relative foot sizes. This goes right to the heart of my question.

She isn't so heavy for her foot size, though.

 

[bobbieshort]

The several links provided by AMM, above, call this into question (to put it mildly).


You are mistaken. Even I can leave footprints like that and I'm a tired old man. I may not be inclined to, but I can if I try.


Really? I see fox, deer, and coyote tracks all the time that are in a straight line. I can tell what are rear and what are forward feet, but when they are trotting through the woods they more often that not leave a single straight line of tracks. I suspect that such straight line tracking is not at all uncommon among quadrapeds. I would expect bipeds to normally walk with offset steps, but I know that we are capable to tracking in a straight line as well.

-----------

And do these straight line of tracks you leave have a stride of 4-5 feet consistently? Do you walk leaving a straight line of tracks as a normal course of locomotion up sheer inclines and down canyon sides? I don't know you can do that.

And your argument that fox, deer and coyotes leaving straight lines is weak, those are four-legged tracks. The discussion here is biped tracks presumptive for sasquatch.

I don't know why I post here, don't much...mainly because I find it more productive to being factual to get out and do hands on work with people of various expertise. You people collectively seem more interested in that which supports your skeptical tunnel vision.

Much work has been done since the link you posted, (I'm not allowed to post links on this forum, so I'm frustrated trying to prove a point without references.)

It is my wish that before you argue what limited information you have, you ought to at least get current with updated facts.

 

[LTC8K6]

Have it your way. But allow me to encourage you to have a conversation if not a meeting with forensic print expert Jim Chilcutt in Conroe, Texas. There is much you can learn about tracks presumptive for sasquatch....

Jimmy Chilcutt knows no more about sasquatch footprints than I do. No one even knows if sasquatch has dermal ridges.

I suggest a careful study of Tube's excellent work at the link I provided and consideration of why these supposed dermal ridges are not repeatable track to track.