Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

They're on the beaches. Yes, trackways have been found on PNW beaches.

Such as? There are casts and photos, right?

The Marmots are in rock.

LAL, IMO, it's really quite clear that you're not sure what to do with the VIM issue. I do very much appreciate your efforts to address it but I just don't get the feeling that you're being objective about it. I think Kathy was very forthright in saying (paraphrased) 'good point, I don't know'.

 

[LAL]

I think you deliberately misunderstand me and I'm getting really tired of it.

Make it ten times the number dividing Washington by Iowa (BFRO published figures).

There's no reason bigfoot shouldn't have been identified in the PNW or Iowa if they are really there.

Of course there is.

People familiar with bears would be far less likely to misidentify them than would people in areas where bears are rare.

Washington 25,000 Iowa 0

http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Populations.html

If people in Iowa are seeing bears, that's pretty remarkable.

 

[William Parcher]

I can see that happening with rodents. Large mammals tend to get shot.

Trail cameras have captured new species, and ones which were thought to be extinct or extirpated. Yes, the biggest mammals do seem to be killed (or found dead) before a scientific description is made. A tranquilizer dart could be used nowadays instead of a bullet.

Just where are you getting this information?

What specifically?

How would you go about collecting unidentified saliva in the wild?

By collecting things that had been in the mouth of, or licked by an animal.

Hair brought in by Bob Titmus was later found to be from the Gorilla-chimpanzee-human group but matched none of them. There's DNA, but it's too frgmented for sequencing.

We should have lots of real Bigfoot hairs by now. They are described as very hairy and even shaggy by some. Almost any twig, branch or bark might be expected to pull off some hairs when Bigfoot contacts it. The nesting/bed areas should have lots of hairs.

The lifestyle seems to be like that of Orangutans. Do they require a "base"?

No, Bigfoot lifestyle can't be anything like orangutans. We can readily locate, photograph and film wild orangs. Bigfoot isn't anything like that. Orangs have been so easy to locate in the wild that some of their decline was/is caused by the illegal pet trade. Bigfoot is not like any other ape.

He called for tracking dogs before the film was developed.

Smart move for the hoaxer Patterson. He had nothing to lose by asking (or getting) for dogs. Just making the request gives the appearance of sincerity of the encounter. No matter what the dogs do, or don't do, it could never be attributed to a hoax scenario. A dog will never yell out, "No Bigfoot walked here!"

He thought Don Abbott at least would be interested. The film was well-received by some of the primatologists at Yerkes. It was dismissed at the Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian for very weak reasons. Scientists at the AMNH said, after 15 minutes, "It is not Kosher because it is impossible."

Quotes from National Wildlife Magazine April-May 1968...

Is the photograph (PGF) real? The photographer says it is, and to say otherwise is to call him a liar. Naturally, he is sensitive about the careless use of that word. What's more, he's getting a little testy about it, because he's been questioned by both believers and disbelievers several hundred times, and he's tired of it.

A lot of people, including some of the press and some scientists, think he's at least obsessed, and maybe a fraud, too. Some have flatly stated that he's a liar. A few people believe in Bigfoot, and in what Patterson has been- is- trying to do. The press and the professionals usually think they're nuts, too, by association.

LAL: The attitude would still seem to be, "I'll believe it when I see it."

Well yeah. The problem with the PGF is that relatively few people think it is not a man in a Bigfoot costume. The flaws in the costume reveal themselves when you get a decent look at it. The early viewers did not have the luxury of VCRs or DVDs and could only see it projected from film.

 

[LAL]

Stating that lines running along the edges of certain casts are dermatoglyphics.

Got a source for that? He pointed out the difference in the chalk talk with tube and others after Jefferson.

Mr. Green's words:

Regarding Onion Mountain. White Lady went rigid on Blue Creek mountain at the tracks Ryerson found, but wasn't able to follow next morning. The OM tracks were older.

 

[LTC8K6]

How would you go about collecting unidentified saliva in the wild?

The fruit eaten by the Skookum sasquatch who left it's ass print only hours before, should have been covered in sasquatch DNA and teeth marks.

This fruit has disappeared because it was covered in Elk DNA and teeth marks.

 

[LAL]

Well yeah. The problem with the PGF is that relatively few people think it is not a man in a Bigfoot costume. The flaws in the costume reveal themselves when you get a decent look at it. The early viewers did not have the luxury of VCRs or DVDs and could only see it projected from film.

And few people have really studied it. These things aren't decided by majority opinion.

Krantz used a hand crank viewer on a first generation copy. That was probably a lot clearer than anything you can see on your monitor or TV screen.

What flaws? The "hip wader" lines? Soarwing did a magnificent job of illustrating the "suit flaws" with pictures of gorillas showing the same kinds of lines.

Proportions seem to get sidestepped by the suitniks.

Still waiting on Dfoot. Anyone seen him?

 

[LAL]

The fruit eaten by the Skookum sasquatch who left it's ass print only hours before, should have been covered in sasquatch DNA and teeth marks.

This fruit has disappeared because it was covered in Elk DNA and teeth marks.

Nonsense. It didn't yield any products for amplification. The samples were left too long in the alcohol, according to Rick Noll, who was there.

I don't know if Bill is deliberately lying or whether he's using incorrect sources, but I hope no one is taking his pronouncements too seriously.

The teeth marks were cast and were being analysed, last I read, but I don't know the results.

Without sample sasquatch teeth for comparison the same problem arises as for hair.

 

[kitakaze]

Nonsense. It didn't yield any products for amplification. The samples were left too long in the alcohol, according to Rick Noll, who was there.

I don't know if Bill is deliberately lying or whether he's using incorrect sources, but I hope no one is taking his pronouncements too seriously.

The teeth marks were cast and were being analysed, last I read, but I don't know the results.

Without sample sasquatch teeth for comparison the same problem arises as for hair.

Yet another 'unfortunately'. Should we take seriously pronouncements about teeth marks cast and analyzed? It's been a while to get those results, wouldn't you agree?

 

[William Parcher]

And few people have really studied it. These things aren't decided by majority opinion.

Few people even care about studying the PGF, because to many people it looks like a hoax. Ironically, the best reproductions of the PGF (including animated gifs and stills) are the things that reveal the costume best. But these things can also be seen just by watching as the film runs through.

Krantz used a hand crank viewer on a first generation copy. That was probably a lot clearer than anything you can see on your monitor or TV screen.

And Krantz wore his freaky bias on his sleeve. Yes, BF skeptics would very much love to get their hands on a first generation copy.

What flaws? The "hip wader" lines? Soarwing did a magnificent job of illustrating the "suit flaws" with pictures of gorillas showing the same kinds of lines.

There are multiple flaws that reveal it to be a costume. The sudden bulge on the thigh (hernia) is indicative. Soarwing's analysis appeals to PGF believers. What else is new?

Proportions seem to get sidestepped by the suitniks.

The proportions are what should be expected from a guy in a Bigfoot suit.

Still waiting on Dfoot. Anyone seen him?

No. He may have gotten wise to the insanity of PGF believers, and abandoned the whole enchilada. Those people are closed-minded scoftics.

 

[William Parcher]

Without sample sasquatch teeth for comparison the same problem arises as for hair.

Does that same problem arise without Bigfoot feet to compare to track castings? Does that same problem arise without a Bigfoot specimen to compare to the PGF?

How do Bigfoot believers deal with these problems?

 

[LTC8K6]

Without sample sasquatch teeth for comparison the same problem arises as for hair.

This quote function is cool.

Yes, it wouldn't be valuable at all to be able to say the teeth weren't those of an elk, deer, bear, or coyote. No value at all....

Same for hairs. Eliminating suspects is useless...

Lu would hate to be able to state with certainty that an elk did not eat the fruit...

No wonder they never get anywhere!

 

[Belz...]

Says who?

You guys. Obviously, no bigfoot has ever been recovered dead, and by your own admission large mammals tend to get shot rather than caught in traps...

But not bigfoot. No, bigfoot is immune to bullets.

Do you mean zilch or no body that's been presented to science yet?

That would be zilch, too.

You didn't answer my question; where are you getting your information?

Are you expecting me to answer your questions before you actually post them ? To what "information" are you refering ?

 

[Belz...]

Bigfootery's just a big load of maybe's.

 

[kitakaze]

I think you deliberately misunderstand me and I'm getting really tired of it.

Make it ten times the number dividing Washington by Iowa (BFRO published figures).

I find your complaint of fatigue odd, LAL, because I'm quite certain I have consistently made an effort to understand you, be respectful, and explicitly acknowledge any errors I've made. I've also noted that it seems to be a habit with you to muck up my quotes by combining separate point by point responses and responding to them in a way that seems certain that you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

I can only progress in discussion with you by allowing for your beliefs. You state flatly that bigfoots have been shot yet offer nothing to support the assertion. You state flatly that tracks show toe movement yet what you offer as support is of no help to someone remaining open to the idea. You state flatly that beach tracks exist but I'll wait for the photos and casts. You often state things flatly that are by no means fact.

I look forward to a sincere discussion on bigfoot with you but when it comes to such things as the VIM issue you don't seem to be interested in looking at it objectively. Rather, it seems you have no intention of conceding anything problematic with your arguments.

Of course there is.

People familiar with bears would be far less likely to misidentify them than would people in areas where bears are rare.

Washington 25,000 Iowa 0

http://www.bear.org/Black/Black_Bear_Populations.html

If people in Iowa are seeing bears, that's pretty remarkable.

It's as if you ignore the content of those reports and rely soley on their frequency to support your case. Are you ignoring the Iowa Department of Natural Resources report I linked on the status of black bears in that state with 16 confirmed sightings as of 2002?

 

[Correa Neto]

This quote function is cool.

Yes, it wouldn't be valuable at all to be able to say the teeth weren't those of an elk, deer, bear, or coyote. No value at all....

Same for hairs. Eliminating suspects is useless...

Lu would hate to be able to state with certainty that an elk did not eat the fruit...

No wonder they never get anywhere!

You know, one can take casts of bite marks...
Species can be identified by its teeth, some fossil species actually are known only by their teeth...

A fruit like say, an apple, bitten by a bigfoot could provide cast of teeth that are different from the teeth of humans, gorilla, chimp, etc. It could even be taken as reliable evidence if not provided by the usual hoaxers (Biscardi, Marx, Freeman, etc.).

Got some reliable evidence or still just the sound of crickets?

 

[LTC8K6]

More bears to see = more bigfoot seen.

 

[LAL]

I find your complaint of fatigue odd, LAL, because I'm quite certain I have consistently made an effort to understand you, be respectful, and explicitly acknowledge any errors I've made. I've also noted that it seems to be a habit with you to muck up my quotes by combining separate point by point responses and responding to them in a way that seems certain that you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

Whatever. I don't have time for the bickering.

Just what is your point about Marmots? That the researchers should be finding sasquatches? That sasquatches should be eating Marmots?

I find all "should be" arguments tiresome. "Tired of" is just a figure of speech and doesn't mean I'm literally fatigued any more than "sick of" means I'm throwing up on my keyboard.

I can only progress in discussion with you by allowing for your beliefs. You state flatly that bigfoots have been shot yet offer nothing to support the assertion.

I've said flatly there are reports of them being shot. John Green had about five such reports.

No, I don't have a body.

You state flatly that tracks show toe movement yet what you offer as support is of no help to someone remaining open to the idea.

I've scanned pictures, done captures and posted URLs 'til I'm blue in the face (not literally). If sceptics can't see the variation there's nothing I can do about it.

You state flatly that beach tracks exist but I'll wait for the photos and casts. You often state things flatly that are by no means fact.

Anyone can do the research. I've spent a lot of money on books. I'm not about to scan them all just to satisfy JREFers. I've managed to lose one I took to work so I could look something up on the Blue Creek Mountain trackways, namely the distances where they were on the road, and I'm pretty ticked off right now.

There is a photo of a beach trackway (Oregon, I think), and it may have been in that book. There are no casts that I know of.

Here's a report, anyway:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=00141

I look forward to a sincere discussion on bigfoot with you but when it comes to such things as the VIM issue you don't seem to be interested in looking at it objectively. Rather, it seems you have no intention of conceding anything problematic with your arguments.It's as if you ignore the content of those reports and rely soley on their frequency to support your case.

Just what is it you're trying to get me to say?

Are you ignoring the Iowa Department of Natural Resources report I linked on the status of black bears in that state with 16 confirmed sightings as of 2002?

No, I think I missed it. Now we need one on confirmed sightings of cougars in North Carolina.

Just how were they confirmed?

 

[LAL]

Are you expecting me to answer your questions before you actually post them ? To what "information" are you refering ?

I got you mixed up with Parcher. Sorry. My bad.

 

[LAL]

Few people even care about studying the PGF, because to many people it looks like a hoax.

They see what they want to see. One poster took the word of his seven- year-old. Unfortunately many scientists reacted the same way (as the seven-year-old).

Ironically, the best reproductions of the PGF (including animated gifs and stills) are the things that reveal the costume best. But these things can also be seen just by watching as the film runs through.

Hip waders? Diaper butts? It's all been refuted.

And Krantz wore his freaky bias on his sleeve.

He was led to opinions by the evidence. Have you bothered to read his book yet?

Yes, BF skeptics would very much love to get their hands on a first generation copy.

So they can tear it to shreds? Literally? Beckjord's is for sale. He only wants a million bucks for it.

There are multiple flaws that reveal it to be a costume. The sudden bulge on the thigh (hernia) is indicative.

Fold in the cloth, I supppose.

Soarwing's analysis appeals to PGF believers. What else is new?

Dfoot's appealed to scoftics. What else is new?

The proportions are what should be expected from a guy in a Bigfoot suit.

If you ignore shoulder width, IM index, slope of the forehead and the legs, among other things.

No. He may have gotten wise to the insanity of PGF believers, and abandoned the whole enchilada. Those people are closed-minded scoftics.

He was seen here last, preaching to the choir. Maybe he got tired of all the high fives.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

No, I don't have a body.

Whooaaaa....you must be some kind of Angel or something, Lu!