Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its sooooo hard to fake a 1.5 m stride...

Its not the first time I post this:

Fake Bigfoot track recipe:
1. Get yourself a pair of shoes or fake bigfeet foot.
2. Find a suitable area for your hoax track making experiment.
3. With your hands, firmly press a fakefoot on the ground creating your first print.
4. Walk 1.5 m
5. Repeat (3). Remember to use the other fakefoot.
6. Repeat steps (3) to (5) for as long as you want.

Additional instructions:
- Spare a couple of minutes to plan ahead your track making. Remember that your own footprints will be near the fake ones. You can hide them by walking over two sheets of carboard and/or plant your own footprints as to indicate you were studying the bigfootprints. Note you can even make the bigfoot footprint overprint your own prints. Great story- "I went up the trail, I saw no tracks; when I came back [add time frame here] later, there they were!". Spice this according to your tastes and needs. You have plenty of options, they go from a sense of "being watched" to an actual glimpse of the critter, passing through rock/pine throws, etc. Some enthusiasts will say yours is a bonna-fide report, since there was physcal evidence associated with it.
-You can make the tracks "in line" (oh, just like the old ones walked, according to the lore) and fake some prints with mid-tarsal breaks. More spice for your bigfoot track.

No, I never lost a second of sleep when creating this "methodology". It took me more time to type it than to plan it. I wonder how someone can say such hoaxes are too elaborate or nearly impossible.

So, where's the reliable evidence for bigfeet as real creatures?
:s2:
 
Last edited:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review3/

Incredibly, a recent claim by Bigfoot advocate Rick Noll casts further doubt on the situation. Noll claims that John Green and Bob Titmus regularly scrubbed “surface imperfections” off of their casts with wire brushes. If so, thus calls into question the wisdom of Meldrum’s advocacy of yet another dermal ridge cast, one made by Bob Titmus in 1963.

As forensic or scientific evidence for Bigfoot’s dermal ridges, the Onion Mountain cast is tainted at the very root and so falls short of even minimum standards of what is considered scientific evidence. Because Meldrum selectively presents his experts and evidence, there is no hint in Sasquatch of the many problems associated with the dermal “evidence.” In view of Meldrum’s familiarity with - and acceptance of - Crowley’s experiments demonstrating serious problems with a cornerstone of dermal ridge evidence, his chapter on this topic is inexplicable.
- Matt Crowley
Click to expand...
 
Diogenes said:
Why would someone in a gorilla suit be in any more danger of getting shot than an actual Bigfoot ?

We hear endless excuses regarding why one hasn't been shot ...
Click to expand...

I'm firmly in the camp of "it'd be cool if they existed, but I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for bigfoot yet."

However, I think I can see the logic. Fakers are afraid of being shot, so they choose not to dress up. Real bigfeet are stuck looking like what they do, even if it puts them in danger. Thus it's more logical to assume something in danger that looks like a bigfoot is a bigfoot.

I don't agree with the logic, because no fakers have been shot, which indicates that the danger is small enough that it doesn't actually deter the fakers. But I think that's the logic being presented.

kitakaze said:
The Foot has been seen boarding UFO's so maybe he's driving, ja nai? Erm, nevermind.
Click to expand...

Chewbacca, of course.
 
The final paragraph of Daegling's review of Meldrum's book at Cryptomundo:

As the examples show, there is precious little science in the search for Bigfoot, and even less in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. The top scientist searching for Bigfoot is unable or unwilling to distinguish good research from bad, science from pseudoscience. If Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science is in fact the best, most credible, and most scientific book to date on Bigfoot, the evidence is weaker than we imagined. The book’s copious photos, diagrams, and charts will likely impress lay readers with little understanding of the issues or the scientific methods, but those looking for a thorough, scientific analysis will be disappointed.
Click to expand...
 
With regards to the book review, we all had to keep the length of our comments brief in order to fit in with a magazine format. I've waited to comment on other aspects of Meldrum's book until the SI review came out.
My impression is that Meldrum's book can be taken as the "reference standard" of advocate claims for the physical reality of Bigfoot. I suspect, but do not know, that his book will be in this position for the next 20 to 30 years.

First off, I'd like to publicly state, as I have before, that I have no personal grudge at all against Jeff Meldrum. He has been more than polite with me, and significantly accommodating by allowing me access to casts in his lab. He is a charming and intelligent person, and has never addressed me in any kind of pedantic or authoritarian way. Unlike so many in the Bigfoot field, I believe him to be a genuinely honest individual. Obviously, I disagree with him about the evidentiary value of a great deal of what is offered up as good evidence for Bigfoot.

As an aside, I note that LAL claimed on Bigfoot Forums that "I only looked at (Meldrum"s) casts in a drawer".

This is an out-and-out, pathological, malicious, LIE.

LAL is a liar.

I have had LAL on "block" ever since she personally attacked me over what I do, and have done, for a living. I do not regret refusing to interact with a person such as LAL, a compulsive fanatic and liar.

As far as general impressions of Meldrum's book, I'd have to say that I was surprised that I didn't see a great deal of novel information. Most of what he covered I was familiar with simply from reading Bigfoot Forums for a while.

Something that deserves to be discussed is this whole "sweat pore" notion. I've got a feeling that these guys got carried away with the "dermals" bit, and simply decided to "take it to the next level". Some time ago I spoke to Chilcutt about sweat pores. He told me that Silly Putty, of all things, was a medium capable of capturing detail as fine as human sweat pores. This sounded interesting, so I went to Walmart and bought some. As with many things Walmart, you can now get imported, generic equivalents of even good old Silly Putty. Using a 14X loupe, I examined an impression I made of my own thumb in Silly Putty. Indeed, I could see my own sweat pores on the ridge peaks of the dermal ridges! Score one for Chilcutt!

Now came the fun part. I cast the Silly Putty with Ultracal 30. Mind you, I made the impression under ideal conditions, hydrating my skin with hot water, and having it perfectly clean. After examining the resulting cast with the same loupe, no sweat pores were visible in the resulting cast. It's my belief that human sweat pores, at least those on the hand, are simply so small as to be beyond the resolution of casting cements like Hydrocal, Ultracal, and good old plaster of Paris.

This raises several interesting questions.

1. Just how big are the features claimed to be "sweat pores" in these casts? Neither Meldrum nor Chilcutt offer any quantitative metric as to how big these features are, simply the pronouncement that they are indeed "sweat pores".

2. Can natural soil even retain such fine features? In the Spring 1989 issue of Skeptical Inquirer Vol 13 No. 3 pages 273 to 276. Deborah J. Freeland and Walter F. Rowe co-authored "Alleged Pore Structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot) Footprints". Using very fine natural soil, they were unable to capture detail as fine as human sweat pores of the foot in dental stone test casts.

Their conclusion was this: "In light of the foregoing, we feel that the "pores" observed on the dermal ridges of the casts of Sasquatch footprints are probably artifacts of the casting process and are not replications of primate sweat pores."

Interestingly, I was unaware of Freeland and Rowe's study when I did my own test with Silly Putty.

3. What about dirty feet??? Walking barefoot outdoors for any length of time produces a deep-down dirty foot. Clearly this is because one is grinding the dirt into the skin with one's own body weight. To me it simply begs credulity to imagine that detail as fine as one's sweat pores could remain unobscured by dirt in such a circumstance.

4. It seems like an easy demonstration for Bigfoot advocates to perform if Meldrum and Chilcutt's claims that sweat pores can be captured in cement casts are really true. What better way to sock it to those darn scoftics than to demonstrate that known human or primate "sweat pores" can really be captured in cement casts, especially under REAL WORLD CONDITIONS like walking on dirty feet, real soil, and time lag between impression and casting?

5. For a long time now, I've tried to give the claims of Bigfoot advocates the benefit of the doubt about many, many issues. But my patience is running thin these days, so at this point, I'll just say I think the "sweat pore" claims by the Bigfoot advocates are pure, unadulterated, bull.

Please do not personalize the argument. Argue the post, not the poster.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LTC8K6 said:
Read the comments. These are some die hard believers...
Click to expand...
I don't know how much more of DWA's self-congratulatory, posturing, 'I'm the real skeptic/scientific thinker', 'check my rapier' idiocy I can take. The hilarious part is that he knows skeptics are censored there and it just makes him flail harder. I've found that I quite respect Benjamin Radford and Daniel Loxton's tolerance of him. Kathy Strain has also done a good job of illustrating DWA's silliness.
 
I second Diogenes' statement.

Tube, you are more patient than I am. I had much less interaction with certain footers than you and nowdays I just can't take them seriously. As long as they keep presenting the same crap evidence and resorting to fallacies, ad homs. etc. as integral parts of their evangelizing attempt debate tactics, "scoffing" is all they will get from me.
 
tube, did you notice you got a little Cedrip on you (#25 by 'silvereagle' in the responses to your review)? I was pleased to see that your commentary on Meldrum's book was the received with the least hostility of the four. It's really quite sad that all the Cryptomundoids seem to do is complain that the commentaries were not more general reviews of the book.

As I make my way through the book I'm rather disappointed that I haven't yet read a single thing that I wasn't already familiar with. There are important things brought up that I want to address in this thread (all of which I'm sure will have been discussed before) when I'm done and I can consider the book as a whole.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
..........

As I make my way through the book I'm rather disappointed that I haven't yet read a single thing that I wasn't already familiar with. There are important things brought up that I want to address in this thread (all of which I'm sure will have been discussed before) when I'm done and I can consider the book as a whole.
Click to expand...


I had trouble getting past the introduction, where we are to begin this scientific quest by hearing stories about a wildlife documentary producer, who didn't bother to document his Bigfoot track way discovery, that turned him into a believer.


Later on, we hear of a Dr. ( psychologist ) who tells us how his pants vibrated, and he was pushed against a truck by the acoustic pressure of a Bigfoots roar..


Like I said when I first saw the DVD:

Legend Meets Science and is soundly trounced...
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
tube, did you notice you got a little Cedrip on you (#25 by 'silvereagle' in the responses to your review)?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it took me a moment to figure out who that was. It's some guy named Neil, I believe, who frequents Ray Crowe's meetings in Portland. He had some huge blow-up photo taken at night that he insisted on showing me. I seem to remember it had little red "orbs" in it that he claimed were something he called "Littlefeet". No, I'm not kidding...

He seemed to be on a sort of evangelical crusade to convince me of his paranormal theories. At first I thought he was just a-funnin' with me, but I guess he was serious...

Ray Crowe always had an unusual tolerance for these sorts of folks.
 
tube said:
Yeah, it took me a moment to figure out who that was. It's some guy named Neil, I believe, who frequents Ray Crowe's meetings in Portland. He had some huge blow-up photo taken at night that he insisted on showing me. I seem to remember it had little red "orbs" in it that he claimed were something he called "Littlefeet". No, I'm not kidding...

He seemed to be on a sort of evangelical crusade to convince me of his paranormal theories. At first I thought he was just a-funnin' with me, but I guess he was serious...

Ray Crowe always had an unusual tolerance for these sorts of folks.
Click to expand...
I coulda sworn he'd posted here before. I think if you had money to burn and enjoyed bizarre entertainment you could meet Neil, feign interest and pretend to be excited about his theories and offer to fund a trip to the woods to let him show you orbfoot. Because hey, who doesn't like a trip to the forest with an insane person?
 
Diogenes said:
I had trouble getting past the introduction, where we are to begin this scientific quest by hearing stories about a wildlife documentary producer, who didn't bother to document his Bigfoot track way discovery, that turned him into a believer.


Later on, we hear of a Dr. ( psychologist ) who tells us how his pants vibrated, and he was pushed against a truck by the acoustic pressure of a Bigfoots roar..


Like I said when I first saw the DVD:

Legend Meets Science and is soundly trounced...
Click to expand...
Yeah, when I first watched LMS I was still a proponent, albeit one with some serious doubts. I got it in the mail and I was embarrassingly excited to watch it. Then I watched it and was very let down and realized I was't a kid watching 'The Legend of Boggy Creek' or buried in one of John Green's books in the school library.

Actually, I first looked at the cover and read the byline "If you believe in science... history is about to change forever." and was like 'oh yeah?' and then I put it in and said something effect of 'Stacy Keach? Blech'. By the end I was not impressed that I had to wait nearly an hour for them to tell me that the was no sasquatch DNA. After that I found that it had the curious effect of making me feel lulled and sleepy so I'd pull it out whenever I felt like a nap.
 
I hope everyone doesn't mind my continued Cryptomundo beef but Craig and Loren have prevented my participation there and some of the stuff they say about skeptics is just crap. Such as...

Lyndon responds:
May 25th, 2007 at 5:36 am
fuzzy,

You pointed out that Daegling, Radford, Crowley were ASKED to review the book. Now why were they asked? Because they had previously been hostile and outspoken against the idea of sasquatch, almost to the point of obsession perhaps, and they were ready and waiting in the wings in anticipation of being asked????

Questor’s reasoning is a valid one. Why? Why are they like this? Why should they care about something so obviously silly. Why does it hurt them so much?? Why do they get so offended?? If there is nothing to sasquatch then so what? Big deal.

If these negative ‘reviews’ are the best the Scoftic clan can come up with well I don’t think Meldrum will be losing much sleep over them.
Click to expand...
Yes, Mr. Personality is still having trouble comprehending non-believer participation in the bigfoot phenomenom. Still the same knee-jerk 'leave it to the dreamers' reaction. 'Hostile' and 'outspoken'? Is tube hostile and outspoken against the possibility of sasquatches existing? Is that how you define exposing the faulty claims of dermal ridges through controlled experimentation? Not to mention he was a proponent. Yes, why would a skeptical magazine invite four people knowledgable on various aspects of the bigfoot phenomenom and it's evidence claims to comment on a book which markets itself as the science of bigfoot. Pure willful ignorance. To which sharpshooter, heavy thinker DWA responds...
DWA responds:
May 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Lyndon: I agree.

Fuzzy: you may need to be nice to these guys at conventions. Remember it’s not you jumping all over them. Feel free to remind them over a beer.

But this SI stuff seems to be the strangest “science” I’ve ever seen being practiced. I like to go back to another old skeptical chestnut: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Science sets itself up as the religion of our time, the new millenium’s Arbiter of the Real. It swishes its imagined purple robes over everything, says that what it can’t explain doesn’t exist, and plops itself on its hands in front of big questions it should be investigating and says: you have to show me.

Extraordinary claims there.

I need to see - and this isn’t even that extraordinary - evidence that science put its pants on before it walked out the door today.

The Skeptical Inquirer practices science that a layman can dissect at his desk while happily occupying himself with other stuff. (Ask me how I know.) It attacks the phenomenon by attacking the searchers. It uses faulty science that its audience can’t see is faulty because, apparently, they either lack the sophistication or Desperately Want To (Non) Believe. Its only plain goal, that I can see: keeping science from ever looking at all. SI sounds like the Big Voice yelling at Dorothy and her buddies not to pull that curtain.

When the sasquatch is confirmed, I expect to hear a Big Voice yelling: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

YOU LOOOOKED!

I should add that any confluence or resemblance between SI and real science that might have been implied in the foregoing is purely coincidental. And I do mean coincidental; they do behave similarly, quite often. Real science just sticks to the rails better.

And I’ve noted another neat thing about all the true-skeptic and propoenent theories propounded here.

The scoftics never challenge them. At all. They just keep hanging on to that curtain.
It’s just WEIRD. They say they don’t care at all, doesn’t mean anything to them.
Count on this: when the sas is confirmed that will be the worst day of their lives. Just read all about it, right here.

What other motivation could there be for such strange behavior?

Education and inspiration is tough. Break time. I’m going for a beer. Anyone need one?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, very educational and inspirational. Pat yourself on the back some more, DWA. In typical fashion you go on a long-winded rant complaining of the flaws of the skeptical perspective and congratulating yourself while saying nothing of any actual susbstance. Later, of course, you will claim that you have punched the opposing argument full of holes.

Yes, isn't it just weird how you don't see points being challenged by skeptics? I wonder why? Oh wait, that's right. You are sheltered from inconvenient skeptical arguments by trusty Craig and Loren with their fingers on the delete button. But that's ok, you knew that. That's why you MC Hammer routine just gets more and more ridiculous.

DWA, we want the crow. We want the reliable evidence. Got some? Shouldn't be too hard for this pan-continental 8ft hair-covered wood ape of yours. If you spent a fraction of the time you spend talking about your rapier looking for evidence you might actually have some luck. If you want to keep blowing hot air and think you can shred the skeptics why not come out from behind Woolheater's pant leg and have an uncensored debate where the moderators aren't protecting you in their own interests. Oh, that's right. It's much more gratifying maintaining the illusion of superiority. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
 
We are loosing focus...

We no longer are discussing the evidence and reasonings.

Why?

Maybe because discussing pro-bigfoot evidence is beating a dead horse?
:deadhorse
And beating a dead horse is boring...
:s2:
 
Correa Neto said:
We are loosing focus...

We no longer are discussing the evidence and reasonings.

Why?

Maybe because discussing pro-bigfoot evidence is beating a dead horse?
Click to expand...

I blame the Internet. Back in the "golden age" of Bigfootery, (the 1970's), everything moved a glacial pace. People wrote each other letters, or made phone calls. A debate about some issue could take months if conducted by snail mail. There were few if any ways to disseminate this information in a prompt manner. There were virtually no published resources on Sasquatch skepticism.

Now of course, ALL the technical minutea of arguments pro and con are available in a few moments. Google "dermal ridges" and the number two and three hits are mine and Chilcutt's pages.

What I'm getting at here is that it's now possible to exhaust the breadth of this subject in a few weeks! It's like moving from a model T to a Taurus.

Bigfootery is kind of like watching Futurama; if you stick around long enough, you will see ALL the episodes. From then on, it's just the same stuff, again and again.

So, Do Dr. Zoidberg's fingers bend??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom