Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Correa Neto]

Ah, Coleman x Green... Just like Catholics x Protestants...

Bigfoot inquisition is about to begin!!!
And you heard it all here, at JREF first!

[merchantman voice]
Sanbenitoooos! Sanbenitooooos! Pretty, cheap and of good quality! Many colors! All sizes avaliable! Sanbenitoooos! Sanbenitooos!
[/merchantman voice]

I bet there will be a Torquemada specially reserved for JREF skeptics...

And the repetitive festival of distortions, misinformations and lame excuses continue.

For example, regarding the bigfootsighting from the Chief Park Naturalist,
at http://www.craterlakeinstitute.com/...rothers-chronology/smiths-chronology-1976.htm we can find a description.

June 8 or 9

George Morrison, Chief Park Naturalist, spots a “Big Foot” creature crossing the South Road at dusk, headed into Annie Creek Canyon. With four steps, the up-right creature crossed the road. Because of distance and tree shadows, a description is difficult. Morrison could not locate any footprints. George is an experienced ornithologist and experienced in nature observation. Morrison was shaken by his sighting.

I took the liberty of emboldening "details" that are not usually presented by some bigfoot proponents.

Foot prints are evidence of their passage? Maybe, since they can also be hoaxes or misidentifications...

10k bigfeet and not a single reliable piece of evidence... How many snow leopards there are? 4,500-7,500 (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4121917.stm), and some presently are being tracked (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6159767.stm)...

Bigfeet in Canada? Funny, there's a sighting distribution map that seems to show a well defined divide when it comes to density. A divide that is quite close to Canada/USA border... Not exactly what one would expect from a real species but matches quite well what one would expect from a USA cultural phenomena, however...

 

[kitakaze]

Interlude -

Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas.

 

[kitakaze]

This is one of my favorite John Green quotes:

"Scott

You have long since earned your place in the ranks of those who weren't
there and don't know what they are talking about. March shoulder to shoulder
with Daegling, Chorvinsky ,et al, as far as you like, reality remains the
same. The tracks in question were what they were and. ample evidence still
exists. There is very little excuse for anyone who wants to argue about them
let alone write a book, to do so without first investigating. As for a
scientist like Daegling, who has a rigid standard of proof for what he
chooses not to believe and no standard at all for what suits his fancy,
there is no excuse possible."

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs

Respectfully, to Mr.Green I wouldn't exactly say he served it to Herriot on a platter when...

- reality remains the same, there is no reliable evidence for sasquatches.
- ample evidence still exists, none of it reliable. Weak coffee etc, etc.
- no reliable evidence has ever been produced by investigating BF.
- bigfootery is all about excuses.

 

[LAL]

You do realize that planes can, and do, fly lower than the pictures you showed, right?

My dad had a plane. I remember him commenting on the downdrafts when we flew the Columbia. I remember listening to the scanner in Stevenson years later when a light plane went down in the river. I saw some hot rodder fly under the Bridge of the Gods, but normally pilots were smarter than that.

Still can't see though the canopy flying lower. In the sighting I'm thinking of, the animal crossed a road. They get seen from cars that way too.

There's a thread on missing planes in the PNW on BFF. That's not some legend Peter Byrne started.

You also realize that cloud cover is variable? Mind you, it's quite possible that your views on meteorology might be as....interesting....as your views on zoology so I won't take anything for granted.

I'm a former resident of Skamania County (it contains Mt. St. Helens and is 86% national forest). We got the rain that missed Portland. We were socked in a good part of the year, I can assure you.

10,000? Really? Who counted them, if I may be so bold? Must have missed that issue of national geographic, but then again I only read the magazine for the half clad natives.

There are several estimates based on reports. That one's kind of in the middle.

You must have missed this in NG, then:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

The gorillas, of course, may only number 600 but they sure are far easier to find than your Bigfeet!

They weren't when they were condidered a native myth. It took 60 years to bring in a Giant Panda after they were "discovered".

Then again, with their odd gorilla habits of leaving bones everywhere

They don't. There's one possible fossilized tooth. (See Correa's posts for a link.)

and being hunted by natives we had a pretty good idea where to look.

For some reason, NA natives haven't been too keen on hunting 8' apes. They've tended to avoid them and tell stories about them instead.

We could also find nesting areas, fur samples, bones, etc. Amazing how much easier 600 gorillas in Africa are to find rather than 10,000 8 foot tall creatures in Washington State.

Who said there are 10,000 in Washington State? I specifically included Canada. Rick Noll estimates 30 in Washington.

If only those Gorillas had the same magic abilities as the Bigfeet, perhaps that Jane Godall wench wouldn't have been bothering them.

Goodall studies Chimpanzees, not Gorillas. It took her months to even find the troup and they were noisy bunch confined to one valley.

Well, I'm sure that when European explorers reach the wilds of the pacific NW and start building cities, we may have a chance yet.

As a former Seattle area resident I can assure you the PNW has been discovererd, thanks. "Civilization" is confined to several corridors, but that's about it. Skamania County has 10,0000 people and two traffic lights, at last count.

One of the earliest mentions was from a missionary among the Spokane in 1841. There' a newspaper account of hairy giants in North Carolina in 1792. A "wildman" was reportedly captured by Indians and sent to England (King James' court). The European settlers weren't unaware of them.

You see, that's why I am convinced that you have discovered a species that doesn't need to breed. Like the Loch Ness monster, there must be fewer than 10 to be able not to leave any evidence whatsoever. Once again, I may be mistaken.

You are. The vocalizations may be an adaptation for long distance communication. Benson at Texas A&M (a sceptic, BTW) found indications of infrasound in recorded calls he analysed. Bryne thought they could cover 25 miles in a night, so getting together for breeding wouldn't be a problem.

Possible nests, scat, evidence of feeding have been found. Where are you getting this "no evidence"?

Those years of biology have left me woefully unprepared for the world of Bigfeet.

Evidently.

Here's the thing. The Nessie folks are off their rockers, but at least they have the courage of their convictions to actually haul sonar to the lake despite years of failures,

In fact, the Academy of Applied Science, the outfit that thought it was a good idea to get out of the ivory towers and actually check out Loch Ness, funded Byrne and company for five years.

and those pesky skeptical scientists. Bigfeet folks, not so much. They seem reluctant to do anything other than to pour over footprints and campfire tales.

Tell that to my researcher cyber friend who's spent many a miserable night in a sleeping bag. There are several "hot" areas in the country being checked as often as time and money allow.

 

[kitakaze]

If only those Gorillas had the same magic abilities as the Bigfeet, perhaps that Jane Godall wench wouldn't have been bothering them.

Whoa!

Putting aside for the moment that I share your skepticism and agree with many of your points I can't help but be taken aback by the seeming viciousness of what is a very inappropriate and uncalled for statement.

Goodall believes in hidden hairy hominids and admits herself a romantic so criticizing that and the fact that it stirs up so many believers is expected but really I can't imagine how using such language helps you articulate yourself.

Sorry, but that was very lame and only allows believers to justifiably point fingers and call skeptics nasty things.

 

[LAL]

Interlude -

Experts doubt Clovis people were first in Americas.

Kind of old news, but I'm glad to see it's being confirmed.

One of the fascinating things for me about paleoanthropology and archeology is how the received wisdom seems to get overturned so often with new finds.

Isn't it amazing what can be discovered when people actually look?

My parents had a dictionary that pictured human ancestors: Neandertal, Java Man and Piltdown Man. They gave it to me for school.

 

[LAL]

Sorry, but that was very lame and only allows believers to justifiably point fingers and call skeptics nasty things.

The part that got me was that he thinks the "wench" studies gorillas.

This is the gorilla "wench":

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/fossey_dian.html

I'd like to see "believers" and "skeptics" alike stop with the fingerpointing and calling each other nasty things. More can be learned that way, I think.

 

[LAL]

Thousands of footprints? One would at least think there'd be pictures of those as well as the casts. I know, I know, never any cameras around to record such wonderful things. Lal, actually you're the one claiming the thousands of prints, so you have the burden.

Green has the pictures. Some have been published in his books. Quite a few more were posted on BFF until Rick Noll removed them when he left the board.

René Dahinden noted he'd examined about three thousand prints, but no scientist had seen the ones he saw.

 

[LAL]

These are your grizzly map, a topographical map of Washington and a Mangani sighting map (not just confined to BFRO reports):

 

[kitakaze]

René Dahinden noted he'd examined about three thousand prints, but no scientist had seen the ones he saw.

Right, and if they were we would have surely seen some reliable evidence. I think these typical evaporative assertions do little to sway any critically minded people.

Elsewhere, to mention a fraction, I think there's some serious contradictions you're talking about.

If humans don't hunt sasquatch why are they successfully engaging in such extreme efforts to avoid us?

You talk of deep woods and remoteness but that's not how they're reported.

You give numbers of 10,000 animals and say science makes no effort to locate them and bewilderingly ignore the history of modern natural study of the continent you live in. There are 84 species of mammals in North America. Science did not miss one of the largest land mammals numbering in the many thousands because they weren't looking for new species but because the one you believe so firmly in is most surely no there.

IMO, it's rather insulting to the people who've devoted their lives to the natural study of NA and given us the wealth of knowledge we have.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wallace-2-23/

Update to Wallace line posting. New pic added of alderfoot casts.

 

[LTC8K6]

There are all sorts of scientists all over the woods, all over the world, studying all sorts of things.

I'm sure if they ever run across sasquatch, they'll report it.

These studies have been going on for a very long time, and still no sasquatch.

 

[kitakaze]

LAL, GET THAT GIANT #$%&IN' THING OFF THE PAGE!!

No, I'm just messin'. Give me a sec to have a good look.

 

[LAL]

Respectfully, to Mr.Green I wouldn't exactly say he served it to Herriot on a platter when...

I wouldn't say Scott cleaned his clock, either, as he claimed. The debate went on for pages.

Scott had an encounter of his own, but he seems to be the only one to be allowed to do so. He had a career as a stand-up comic, but he's called a "researcher"; I don't know why.

He's torn into me several times on BFF. When I asked what I'd done to him he went on about me not using enough "maybes" and said I'd gone on ad nauseum about the MIM. I still haven't figured out how that was doing anything to him or why he reads my posts if he thinks I go on ad nauseum.

I may order his DVDs; I hear they're really funny.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wallace fools 'em again....

Ray sure copied a lot of prints....

 

[kitakaze]

I wouldn't say Scott cleaned his clock, either, as he claimed. The debate went on for pages.

I'd say cleaning the clock in debate with someone who's been a proponent of sasquatch existence for far too long is as simple as saying 'so, how goes the hunt?' Of course the proponents don't see it that way.

 

[desertyeti]

Wow, this thread moves along quickly!
Correa, I'd like a chartreuse sanbenito please!
I should probably disclose that I once believed in a rabbit that breaks into homes and leaves behind chocolate.
It was a tough time in my life.
I was unemployed, not is shcool, hitting the bottle pretty hard, and wearing diapers.
Fortunately, I came around.

Ditto the Bigfoot thing.
I took Green up on his challenge to have serious scientific investigation of alleged evidence once I had actually gotten a scientific education (lots of time, work and money goes into such an endeavor). I've looked at originals or replicas all of the "best" stuff:
1) the original 1958 Bigfoot
2) Patterson's cast from '64 and those from the film
3) Hyampom
4) Bossburg cripple
5) Grey's Harbor
6) "Dermals"
7) "Wrinkle Foot" aka Table Springs, aka Walla Walla
8) Onion Mountain
9) Elkins Creek, GA
10) Several from Paul Freeman in the Blue Mountains
11) Keuterville, ID
12) Skookum Elk Cast
and have replicas of most. Having real-life training and skills in animal tracking and ichnology certainly helped me recognize the gaping problems with purported BF evidence...namely, none of it is actually compelling (I'm sure it's all fake or misidentified).

Of course, it's a double-edged sword, because now I realize that I'm actually one of those stubborn, snooty scientists that simply won't take Green and other BF-fans at their word. Ah well, it's been a fun diversion from the real world for awhile!

 

[kitakaze]

Lu, can we see a Mangani map for Iowa?

 

[RayG]

No problem, kitakaze...you won't answer the questions, even after I explain why I contradicted myself. Which I WILL do...someday.

Sweaty, you're constantly contradicting yourself. You seem unable to comprehend the difference between probabilities and possibilities, present questions that combine/confuse both, then complain people can't/won't answer them.

Seriously, I have to ask, are you taking meds for anything?

There are a few questions that you will NEVER answer....because you can't....for the same reason that RayG stopped answering my questions.....and for the same reason why scotto...on the BFF....stopped answering my questions.

You assume much. I've even told you the reason I haven't answered your incoherent question, but your observational skills being what they are, you must have missed it.

Because they couldn'tanswer them.

BINGO!! Not when they're phrased in such a loopy manner.

Skeptics simply CANNOT answer questions which relate to "weighing evidence".

Yegads, are you STILL whining about evidence? Look, no matter how many times you click your heels together, your wishes won't come true. There are no bigfoot experts, and there is no confirmed bigfoot evidence. Get over it already.

Watch and see......the discussion's FAR from over.

Yes, we're all holding our breath waiting for your pinhead experiment results. How's that going?

RayG

 

[LAL]

Right, and if they were we would have surely seen some reliable evidence. I think these typical evaporative assertions do little to sway any critically minded people.

Elsewhere, to mention a fraction, I think there's some serious contradictions you're talking about.

If humans don't hunt sasquatch why are they successfully engaging in such extreme efforts to avoid us?

I don't think they do. I think they just happen to inhabit areas that don't get a lot of human traffic.

You talk of deep woods and remoteness but that's not how they're reported.

Often they are. There are reports of them raiding food supplies on farms and that sort of thing, but they don't seem to be far from rough terrain, either mountains or swamps.

You give numbers of 10,000 animals and say science makes no effort to locate them and bewilderingly ignore the history of modern natural study of the continent you live in.

Actually there are a few scientists willing to look into it. There are problems of time and funding, but at least there's been a start.

This seems to sum up the Smithsonian's stance:

"BACK IN DECEMBER 2004, I emailed Dr. Thorington of the Smithsonian Institution with regard to the institution's decision to decline a look at the Skookum Cast. He replied to me as follows:

"The Smithsonian itself takes no official stand on objects like the "Skookum Cast," nor on the appropriateness of curators examining them. My stand is that I no long care to examine any "evidence of sasquatch" that can be readily falsified. Molds and casts can easily be fabricated, and thus for me they do not constitute acceptable evidence. I explained this to Grover [Krantz], who was probably the original source of your information."

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/article.php?story=20061212221349412&query=Smithsonian

As Grover said, the attitude seems to be "I'll see it when I believe it."

There are 84 species of mammals in North America. Science did not miss one of the largest land mammals numbering in the many thousands because they weren't looking for new species but because the one you believe so firmly in is most surely no there.

IMO, it's rather insulting to the people who've devoted their lives to the natural study of NA and given us the wealth of knowledge we have.

And a few of them have had sightings, too. If the scofticism weren't so rampant, maybe more would come forward.