Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Why is the heel of the foot in the Laverty photo/cast terraced or stepped instead of smooth?
Click to expand...
The obvious answer is that the heel was pressed into the substrate more than once.

I have heard all kinds of other excuses from Footers about what it might be. I think one had to do with the rain hitting it before it was covered with bark ..
 
From my earlier post:

""Vancouver Island is roughly divided between a rugged, wet west coast and a drier, more rolling east coast by the Vancouver Island Ranges, which run down most of the length of the island. The highest point in these ranges and on the island is the Golden Hinde, at 2195 m or 7200'. Located near the centre of Vancouver Island in the 250,000 ha or 620,000 acre Strathcona Provincial Park, it is part of a group of peaks that include the only glaciers on the island, the largest of which is the Comox Glacier. The west coast shoreline is rugged, and in many places mountainous, characterised by its many fjords, bays, and inlets."

That's habitat.

Most sightings are from the west coast, yes? Here's a recent one on logging road:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15274
 
I would think the heel would quickly fill with water, smoothing out the print.

I think it proves that a relatively flat piece of wood made the print. The wood slipped forward as it was being pressed down, creating the stepped appearance.
 
How did wooden feet make varying toe positions, Bill?
 
Last edited:
Tony.d. wrote:
I'd like to add something that goes back to page 34 or abouts.
The Adirondaks in New York aren't the only place in New York a "big hairy creature" was reported historically. In Putnam County during the Revolutionary War, there was an "officially" documented sighting.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board, Tony!

Thanks for posting that story. It's VERY interesting.

If it is true, as far as it being an "officially documented sighting".....I think we can absolutely RULE OUT a misidentification of a bear.

I wonder what else it could have been??? :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm finding Marmot population estimates from fewer than 25 to just over 205.

"Marmots are found in colonies in alpine and sub-alpine areas with steep slopes, meadows and rocky debris. Each colony usually consists of one adult male, one or more adult females, and a number of young marmots. They construct burrows where they hibernate during the winter, hide from predators and bear their young."

http://www.wptc.org/wildlife/marmot.cfm

They do not range solitarily over hundreds of miles. IOW, they're not hard to find.
 
LAL said:
From my earlier post:

""Vancouver Island is roughly divided between a rugged, wet west coast and a drier, more rolling east coast by the Vancouver Island Ranges, which run down most of the length of the island. The highest point in these ranges and on the island is the Golden Hinde, at 2195 m or 7200'. Located near the centre of Vancouver Island in the 250,000 ha or 620,000 acre Strathcona Provincial Park, it is part of a group of peaks that include the only glaciers on the island, the largest of which is the Comox Glacier. The west coast shoreline is rugged, and in many places mountainous, characterised by its many fjords, bays, and inlets."

That's habitat.

Most sightings are from the west coast, yes? Here's a recent one on logging road:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15274
Click to expand...
Yes, that's habitat. Researchers are there. First, that sighting report is from the Lake Cowichan area. Lake Cowichan is on the southeast part of the island. My grandparents have had a home on Lake Cowichan since before I was born and I spent much of my childhood there in the forest. Didn't see any bigfoots, though.

Second, I don't think that's a logging road in the report. Regardless, if you read the slideshow I linked you'd know that logging roads are a major contributing factor to Vancouver Island marmot predation.

Do you remember a recent east coast report from Duncan of a bigfoot in a strawberry field?
 
Orthoptera said:
First, welcome to the forum, Tony.

You wouldn't happen to have a (preferably primary) source for that, would you? Because it sounds like a spurious newspaper story, with the fake old-timey language, and not a military source.
Click to expand...

I was hunting around on the internet to see if I could come up with anything about General Putnam and the hairy creature. I came up with nothing, but I did find this reference to an unrelated incident in Henry Peterson's 1907 novel Dulcibel: A Tale of Old Salem:

"Has Sarah Good any familiar?"

"Yes, a yeller bird. It sucks her between her fingers. And Sarah Osburn has a thing with a head like a woman, and it has two wings."

("Abigail Williams, who lives with her uncle, the Rev. Master Parris, here testified that she did see the same creature, and it turned into the shape of Goody Osburn.")

"Tituba further said that she had also seen a hairy animal with Goody Osburn, that had only two legs, and walked like a man. And that she saw Sarah Good, last Saturday, set a wolf upon Elizabeth Hubbard."
Click to expand...
Page 52

I've never heard of Peterson before, and I don't know if he bases this incident on anything that actually comes from the interrogations at Salem in the late seventeenth century, but I was struck by how the hairy man is just one of several notable creatures in this scene.

I think mythology used to have a much richer cast of human-animal hybrids (think of the Metamorphoses of Ovid or the cloven-footed devil of the Middle Ages) than it does today. Much of the contemporary power of the Bigfoot myth comes, I'm sure, from the fact that it straddles the line between the plausible and the implausible in ways that Goody Osburn's woman-headed "yeller bird" no longer does.
 
LAL said:
I'm finding Marmot population estimates from fewer than 25 to just over 205.

"Marmots are found in colonies in alpine and sub-alpine areas with steep slopes, meadows and rocky debris. Each colony usually consists of one adult male, one or more adult females, and a number of young marmots. They construct burrows where they hibernate during the winter, hide from predators and bear their young."

http://www.wptc.org/wildlife/marmot.cfm

They do not range solitarily over hundreds of miles. IOW, they're not hard to find.
Click to expand...
The wild population listing in your link of less than 25 individuals is an obvious error. I suspect someone forgot a zero between the two and five. Let me show you, from the link:
Current range: Over the past few decades, the species has disappeared from about two thirds of its original range. It is now found in just 25 sites on 13 mountains.

Estimated population: The Vancouver Island marmot is one of the most endangered species in Canada, and the world's most endangered mammal. Although the population in the mid-80s was estimated to be over 300, currently there are less than 25 individuals in the wild.
Click to expand...
If there are less than 25 individuals in the wild but they are found on 25 sites on 13 mountains then that's less than 1 individual per colony and therefore not a colony. You can see that's quite impossible. The links I gave have the correct information.

Population trends.
 
kitakaze said:
The wild population listing in your link of less than 25 individuals is an obvious error. I suspect someone forgot a zero between the two and five. Let me show you, from the link:If there are less than 25 individuals in the wild but they are found on 25 sites on 13 mountains then that's less than 1 individual per colony and therefore not a colony. You can see that's quite impossible. The links I gave have the correct information.

Population trends.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Kitakaze, your link shows about 25 individuals (as of 2001)
00size.gif


and notes "the 1998 population probably comprised fewer than 100 individuals, divided more-or-less equally among natural meadows and clearcuts."
 
Orthoptera said:
For what it's worth, Kitakaze, your link shows about 25 individuals (as of 2001)
[qimg]http://www.marmots.org/images/00size.gif[/qimg]

and notes "the 1998 population probably comprised fewer than 100 individuals, divided more-or-less equally among natural meadows and clearcuts."
Click to expand...
Thanks, Orthoptera. Good eye. LAL, I apologize, I'm wrong in thinking the current wild population is in the triple digits. I'm also seeing a wild population of less than 40 individuals as of 2005 which I think can be attributed to captive breeding efforts. The massive decline has to do with major colony die-offs. BTW, in your link have a look at the 2003 field report and tell me that isn't some far more pristine sasquatch habitat than many of the scenery pictures you've provided in the past.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Did any of your links say specifically Marmot researchers have found no evidence of sasquatches?
Click to expand...

No. The links also don't specifically say that the Marmot researchers have found no evidence of living Mastodons. You might be onto something there, LAL. Hmmm...
 
I see via quote that Lu has asked me some sort of question.

I'm tempted to ask, "What toes?" and pretend I don't know what she's talking about. I won't stoop that low, though...

It's amazing that Lu wants to talk about varying toe positions....

Absolutely amazing.

If we show that toe positions don't vary a millimeter, like with those tracks on the road that John Green is so pointedly measuring, it doesn't matter.

Somehow the sameness is overlooked.

My guess is that Lu can't show us any varying toe positions in sequential tracks.
 
In the following link I'm seeing a wild population for Vancouver Island marmots as 'roughly 50'.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/news-vimarmots.html

I think it's just ridiculous to suggest that with all the efforts to conserve the VIM, researchers are somehow missing any sign of sasquatches. I'm wondering now the worth of embarrassing myself by mailing Andrew Bryant to get his thoughts on sasquatch.
 
Since we're challenging another bigfootery myth here, I'll just go ahead and quote LTC and myself.
LTC8K6 said:
I see via quote that Lu has asked me some sort of question.

I'm tempted to ask, "What toes?" and pretend I don't know what she's talking about. I won't stoop that low, though...

It's amazing that Lu wants to talk about varying toe positions....

Absolutely amazing.

If we show that toe positions don't vary a millimeter, like with those tracks on the road that John Green is so pointedly measuring, it doesn't matter.

Somehow the sameness is overlooked.

My guess is that Lu can't show us any varying toe positions in sequential tracks.
Click to expand...
kitakaze said:
With respect to Desert Yeti, in keeping with what I feel has been a general direction of this very productive thread in terms of addressing major fallbacks and amorphous standard assumptions of bigfoot proponents I would now like to suggest another line of scrutiny. Thanks to tube's hard efforts we've seen clearly how such experts as Jimmy Chilcutt could be so wrong in his assessment of 'dermatoglyphics'. It should go without saying that Chilcutt has no ground to claim expertise when it comes to examining plaster casts or alledged bigfoot prints in general.

When confronted with the reliable evidence produced by tube's efforts it is the standard fallback for proponents to speak of the morphology and characteristics of 'the living foot' (ie flex, toe spread, etc) and Chilcutt's observations thereof. I have elsewhere pointed out that toe spread is no difficult task to achieve but I would now like to invite proponents to show us these very clear examples of successive tracks displaying clear toe movement that is congruent with a living foot and not easily attributable to a hoaxing method. It is my suspicion that this 'living foot' talk is yet another one of these amorphous myths in the manner of the 'where's the dead bears?' type.
Click to expand...
 
The obvious answer is that the heel was pressed into the substrate more than once.
Click to expand...

Yes. You've made your fake print, but it obviously won't fly for a striding Patty because it's just a flat print.

The heel should be deeper.

So you press just the heel in to make it deeper. You have to be careful, though. You can't press it flat or you'll make a another impression of the ball and maybe wreck the toes.

So, you press just the heel in at a steep angle a few times, so you are only making the heel imprint deeper.

Because of the angle, as you press, you make the little steps as the heel slips, and you push that ridge of dirt up in the middle of the track. You've also caused the heel to be too close to the ball of the foot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom