Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

The issue of hairs in nests came up at some point.

According to Scott Heriott, on Todd Partain's Eyes in the Dark (http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=309381&ck= ), he and Daryl Owen investigated the area of their sighting/filming the next day and found an apparent sleeping area. There were hairs in it which were found to resemble gorilla hairs, but were not gorilla.

There's an aerial shot of the area in one of Scott's DVDs showing just how dense it is, even as viewed from a helicopter. I'll do a capture if I ever get around to it.

Hair samples retrieved from a nest!? Found to resemble gorilla hairs? Genetically/morphologically? Surely this could be reliable evidence! Not easily attributable to something other than an elusive North American primate. This could indeed be just what proponents have been waiting for. Where are these samples? Where were they tested? How were they tested? Surely if we pursue this line of evidence it will not result in an 'unfortunately'. I would love to know more.

 

[LAL]

Nelson's on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, the documentary. He's seen with Dr. Meldrum discussing the possible thigh hernia and later gives his opinion on the PGF subject. Meldrum refers to him in the book. Enjoy it.

No worries about Coleman reading this board. He has associates who alert him to things they think may need his attention, thus the discussion on what Krantz had to say about the Skookum Cast got a mention on Cryptomondo. Did you see the statement from Grover himself posted in the comments?

I just checked the truck driver article and it looks like the discussion was getting pretty lengthy and lively with Radford there. Perhaps posts get edited for brevity, not because of blatant censorship. I'll have to ask Loren.

Concerning rock piles, or cairns, the ones on my land were attributed to the Cascades tribe. Others may have to do with logging operations.

I'll check the DVD again to get more on the Klamath hair sample. The incident wasn't recent.

 

[kitakaze]

Nelson's on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, the documentary. He's seen with Dr. Meldrum discussing the possible thigh hernia and later gives his opinion on the PGF subject. Meldrum refers to him in the book. Enjoy it.

I thought that might be to whom you were referring. I wish I could say he had more helpful data to offer but that's not the case. Patterson skillfully drawing a female bigfoot in his book just the year prior to his film seems more indicative than any 'hernia' observations.

No worries about Coleman reading this board. He has associates who alert him to things they think may need his attention, thus the discussion on what Krantz had to say about the Skookum Cast got a mention on Cryptomondo. Did you see the statement from Grover himself posted in the comments?

I just checked the truck driver article and it looks like the discussion was getting pretty lengthy and lively with Radford there. Perhaps posts get edited for brevity, not because of blatant censorship. I'll have to ask Loren.

Good memory, Lu. I was going to do a search for that. Anyway, all you need to do is check the correspondence between Craig Woolheater and I here. I assure you, issues of brevity have nothing to do with it. (Though I know you know I can carry on sometimes.) Two words- blatant censorship. I'm still waiting from them to hear an explanation showing otherwise.

Concerning rock piles, or cairns, the ones on my land were attributed to the Cascades tribe. Others may have to do with logging operations.

Bigfoot must have to do a lot of head scratching.

I'll check the DVD again to get more on the Klamath hair sample.

Much obliged.

 

[William Parcher]

KKZ, you are being censored on Cryptomundo. A number of your posts have now been removed. Some quotes from them can still be found in the responses from other posters.

Earlier I suggested that their site was not to be expected to be a fully open dialogue forum. Then I was surprised to see all of your posts show up. Then you explained how they ended up being posted (because one of them was approved). Now my original speculation on their editorial control stands again. These are the "men behind the curtain", and Cryptomundo is something like Oz. That should be no surprise at all. The bottom line is that their site promotes Bigfoot and cryptids in general as being worthy of belief and study. It's a hobby for many and can become obsessive. There are ways to make money from peoples' interest in this, and Coleman has made a career out of it. You will not be allowed to bring rain to their parade.

Bigfootery is exposed again.

 

[LAL]

I thought that might be to whom you were referring. I wish I could say he had more helpful data to offer but that's not the case. Patterson skillfully drawing a female bigfoot in his book just the year prior to his film seems more indicative than any 'hernia' observations.

Skillfully? Have you seen it? He drew the Old Man and the girl and the boy, too, from Ostman's descriptions. William Roe's daughter drew from her father's. If there's a resemblance it could just be because that's what female sasquatches look like.

Roger was an investigator. He and his son, Clint, and later Bob Gimlin, went on several "pre-expeditions" over a period of about four years, mostly around Mt. St. Helens. Roger interviewed people, received letters about encounters and even cast a few tracks over about eight years prior to the filming. Bluff Creek was chosen because of the recent activity there. He and Gimlin went there to record prints for the documentary he was filming. They had discussed procedures in case they actually encountered one, and Roger had practiced getting the camera out of the saddle bag, but I doubt either man really expected to have an encounter.

If Roger hadn't drawn anything, he'd still be suspect.

Any comment on these?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24024

http://members.iinet.net.au/~mang00/bigfoot/mk_davis_pgf.gif

Good memory, Lu. I was going to do a search for that. Anyway, all you need to do is check the correspondence between Craig Woolheater and I here.

The board is so glitchy for me today I can barely post, let alone read it.
Considering Coleman and Hall are leading proponents of the Wallace-at-Blue- Creek-Mountain-must've-been-a-hoax idea, I wouldn't say the blog is that weighted toward proponents. (I rather vehemently disagreed actually, and my post was okayed.)

I assure you, issues of brevity have nothing to do with it. (Though I know you know I can carry on sometimes.) Two words- blatant censorship. I'm still waiting from them to hear an explanation showing otherwise.Bigfoot must have to do a lot of head scratching.Much obliged.

That is the proper place to bring it up - with them.

The Klamath incident was in 1992, so the hair find didn't exactly set the world on fire. The comparison was morphologically. There's plenty of DNA in samples, but it's too fragmented for sequencing. Tissue is needed.

 

[William Parcher]

Benjamin Radford & Daniel Loxton appear to be the accepted resident "professional" skeptics on Cryptomundo. Both are writers for well known skeptical magazines. Both are smart critical thinkers who know how to put forth a skeptical position and argument. At times I find them to be rather soft on cryptozoological beliefs; but I can understand that this may come from them being public figures and are therefore stakeholders in a much more grand theater than any one internet forum.

Radford & Loxton showed some personal skeptical shortcomings in the biologist/truck driver thread.

We can all swap theories and opinions, but if you’re looking for the facts, there’s plenty available. Decades of psychological studies have repeatedly and consistently shown that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.

Loren himself admits this when he (quite correctly) states that the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications. So that’s pretty well a proven fact.

Neither Coleman nor Radford can know the true number or percentage of claimed Bigfoot sightings that are misidentifications. It "feels right" to suggest that it is a "vast" majority. But there is simply no way to know which reports are truly cases of misidentification.

Claimed Bigfoot encounters (sightings) must be one of three possibilities:

1) A real Bigfoot.
2) A real misidentification.
3) A real fabrication (fiction posed as reality).

Radford rightfully references studies that show human fallibility as eyewitnesses. But the context of that issue and related studies are different than Bigfootery. That issue deals with peoples' general inability (fallibility) to accurately describe (and/or recall) things they have seen. AFAIK, it does not address the situation with outright fabrication. It is one thing to have your mind try to "fill in the blanks" as one tries to describe what they have seen; but it is quite another thing to give a full description of something that was never seen in the first place. That is a subtle but very important distinction. Intentional fabrications are not the same as misidentifications which come from basic and common human fallibility. I feel that this is where the roots of Bigfootery are not given thorough skeptical inquiry. It may be because it is difficult and even distasteful or offensive. That is only because Bigfooters insist on giving Bigfoot the pretense of being reality based. It's almost as if both believers and skeptics cannot fully understand Bigfoot as a mythical animal supported by myth perpetuation. Much much more can be said about this!

(In response to DWA giving links to two reports that included the witness stating that they were ridiculed...)

Cool, thanks. Those cases are unfortunate. No one deserves to be treated poorly as a reward for trying to do the right thing.

For some reason, Loxton suddenly accepts Bigfoot report testimony as fact. There is nothing factual to support their claims of being ridiculed by authorities other than that they say they were. We have no way of knowing if there truly were reports made to the authorities. We only have testimonies in reports that are posted on two different Bigfoot research websites.

One person does not actually claim to have seen a Bigfoot, but they did end up submitting their report to a Bigfoot research organization. The other does claim to have seen a Bigfoot (large hairy biped)... "I clearly observed the facial features through the scope (about 200 yards away). The face was flat, small mouthed and thinned liped. The nose was flat with large nostril flares. The eyes appeared to be intelligent, what I would call a knowing look, black, slightly wide apart and set below a low brow ridge. The face seemed to be lighter in color, possibly tan or light brown and hairless with a leathery appearance. The sighting was of approx. ten seconds or less."

Loxton apparently did not want to entertain the possibility that the entire encounter and the claim of ridicule is a fabrication.

 

[kitakaze]

Skillfully? Have you seen it? He drew the Old Man and the girl and the boy, too, from Ostman's descriptions. William Roe's daughter drew from her father's. If there's a resemblance it could just be because that's what female sasquatches look like.

Yes, I've seen it. Have you seen the cryptomundo blog on the issue? It's two pages back in the older posts. Have you ever considered that Ostman's account of the talking BF family may have given Patterson inspiration for designing a female bigfoot?

Roger was an investigator.

Self proclaimed BF investigators haven't been found making hoaxes?

If Roger hadn't drawn anything, he'd still be suspect.

And that is because...?

Any comment on these?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...=post&id=24024

http://members.iinet.net.au/~mang00/..._davis_pgf.gif

Yes. You have there one group of images showing what is know to be a man in a suit and another of what may be a man in a suit or an unidentified North American bipedal primate. We have reliable evidence of lots of people in suits but none for the U.N.A.B.P.

Again, is it really necessary to cling to the PGF?

The Klamath incident was in 1992, so the hair find didn't exactly set the world on fire. The comparison was morphologically. There's plenty of DNA in samples, but it's too fragmented for sequencing. Tissue is needed.

Right, another 'unfortunately'. That's too bad.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...

Any comment on these?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24024

http://members.iinet.net.au/~mang00/bigfoot/mk_davis_pgf.gif
...snip...

Oh, yeah!
Looks like two different gorilla suits filmed at different locations. Both ehxibiting very similar movments, indicating the alleged "inhuman compliant gait, rotating knees", etc. from PGF's subject is not real.

Yes, I know, I was not the one supposed to comment the GIFs... But those were also not the comments the GIFs were supposed to create, unless if a "Patty is a real bigfoot" defender is the comment's author.

Still waiting for reliable pieces of evidence. So far there's only evidence for chirping crickets...

 

[kitakaze]

Loxton apparently did not want to entertain the possibility that the entire encounter and the claim of ridicule is a fabrication.

I think Loxton has made some great points in the trucker/biologist thread but it really seems he knows what not to say. I directly stated that I neither believed Todd Neiss' tale or that MultipleEncounters has had any encounters. This flustered many. The men behind the curtain stepped in after I requested Multiple to expand on how government and big timber supress the truth about bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

The still missing clip is the one from KATU.com that shows Bob Heironimus walking in street clothes. He walks just like Patty.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm stepping out for a moment but I propose compiling a list of sorts of people that should be aware of bigfoot but make no such claim.

ETA: First suggestion for list entry:

Gifford Pinchot National Forest staff.

Second: Survivorman

 

[William Parcher]

Daniel Loxton falls short again in the Cryptomundo scoftic thread...

Sergio notes, Something worth mentioning, and I briefly touched upon it above, is that the field work in this field is 100% done by the so-called “proponents.”

This isn’t as true as you’d suppose. It’s natural that proponents would be more willing to invest time in these efforts, but in fact a great deal of cryptozoological field work and experimental work, (and general hands-on “paranormal” investigation) is done by skeptics. Notable examples on the crypto front include Ben Radford and Joe Nickell. Notable hands-on skeptical investigators of psychic phenomena include Susan Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, and James Randi.

The point that Loxton fails to mention is that "Bigfoot field work" done by Bigfoot proponents is not a necessary endeavor to confirm this creature. Nearly anyone who walks through, drives through, or works in Bigfoot country can make a confirmation. It doesn't matter if they already believe or are a skeptic. We only need a body or part of one. It's as if Bigfoot never dies or gets killed. Even a five-year old girl on a hike could make the confirmatory discovery - "Hey mom, come over here and look at this dead thing. Is it a gorilla?"

We have gun kills, roadkill and found carcasses for every other kind of NA megafauna except Bigfoot. That strains logic in a very big way. It really should be unnecessary to launch any highly sophisticated search in order to confirm this creature. The bickering about who is actively looking for Bigfoot is just another red herring. It presupposes that the many thousands of people who are present in BF country on a daily basis (for centuries on end) cannot confirm this creature unless they are already intent on doing so. AFAIK, Radford & Nickell don't even search for Bigfoot so I don't know why Loxton mentions them in this context. When Sergio talks about "field work", he means entering the forests and poking around.

When you approach believers with this kind of argumentative strategy and style, all your base are belong to them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you mind if I quote some of that over there ?.. I'm thinking about most of the last paragraph, without the names..

I won't mention your name.. I'll just say something like

" Someone I was discussing this with pointed out ....."



P.S. I haven't forgot about your images .. Been a bit busy ..

 

[William Parcher]

Go right ahead.

They're gonna know where the quote comes from, and as always, all my base are belong to them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Gifford Pinchot National Forest staff.

You are so ill-informed ...

Everyone knows Forest Rangers don't report Bigfoot because they
are afraid of ridicule.

Of course they they are so overpaid, they don't need the money such
a discovery would bring either ...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/faqs/

-- Christmas Tree Permits - sold/value 4,631 / $21,486
-- Beargrass Permits - sold/value 3,195 / $187,150
-- Boughs Permits - sold/value 21 / $637,870
-- Firewood Permits - sold/value 613 / $21,227
-- Mushroom Permits - sold/value 424/ $31,020
-- Salal Permits - sold/value 979 / $58,065
-- Berry Permits - sold/value 359 / $14,330

Lotta folks wandering around GPNF on business. No Sas permits, though.

 

[William Parcher]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that many (most?) Bigfooters who speak of the need for a direct and funded search for Bigfoot do not know that Jeff Meldrum already got the green light and the cash. It also seems that more has been said about this on JREF than anywhere else.

Dude got almost $80K to find the critter. How is that search going; and why don't we see Bigfooters talking and inquiring about it? One has to look through all of the Idaho State University newsletters to see when and how much he was given. I'm surprised this isn't a hot and ongoing topic with his supporters. Does Meldrum give updates on progress and expenditures? Inquiring minds ought to want to know about this stuff. I even wonder what becomes of the profits (if any) that come from the sale of his new book. Is it all funneled back into the search costs? Is it pocket money as payback for the many hours put into writing the book? How does he apportion and budget his personal BF search time (funded) with his professorship at ISU? Isn't this kind of stuff laid out in contracts and grant proposals approved by the private grantor and ISU which matched the private funding? Is that all private matters?

A good response to any Bigfooter saying that a professional funded search is needed to find Bigfoot would be... Dr. Jeff Meldrum has been given about $80,000 to find Bigfoot.

What is going on with Jeff Meldrum and the bucks he was given to confirm Bigfoot?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/faqs/

-- Christmas Tree Permits - sold/value 4,631 / $21,486
-- Beargrass Permits - sold/value 3,195 / $187,150
-- Boughs Permits - sold/value 21 / $637,870
-- Firewood Permits - sold/value 613 / $21,227
-- Mushroom Permits - sold/value 424/ $31,020
-- Salal Permits - sold/value 979 / $58,065
-- Berry Permits - sold/value 359 / $14,330

Lotta folks wandering around GPNF on business. No Sas permits, though.

oooH.. Gotta post that over at Cryptomundo also ...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

WP here are your images..

I am told they are frames 61 & 72 from the PGF ..

I have no way of confirming that ..

Here is frame 352 as best can match it up ..

They are captured on my laptop using PowerDVD software player.

Resolution of the frames are 720x540

 

[Hitch]

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/faqs/

-- Christmas Tree Permits - sold/value 4,631 / $21,486
-- Beargrass Permits - sold/value 3,195 / $187,150
-- Boughs Permits - sold/value 21 / $637,870
-- Firewood Permits - sold/value 613 / $21,227
-- Mushroom Permits - sold/value 424/ $31,020
-- Salal Permits - sold/value 979 / $58,065
-- Berry Permits - sold/value 359 / $14,330

Lotta folks wandering around GPNF on business. No Sas permits, though.

I don't know where the Gifford Pinchot National Forest is, but I do know one thing -- it's "not Bigfoot country." I've learned that much from 4 Bigfoot threads here... anyplace there are lots of people wandering around and not seeing Bigfoot is "not Bigfoot country." "Bigfoot country" might start a quarter mile away, but all those people are in the wrong place to see Bigfoot.

See, this place is educational.