Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[tube]

Incidentally, on the matter of the Skookum cast he says that while he can not state with 100% certainty that it is the imprint of a sasquatch he can state with complete confidence that it is not an elk. He bases this on experiments carried out involving elk experts and elk parts. He says that wrist of a 650 lb elk was far too small to match what he indentifies as an achilles tendon but just right for a creature of the purportions shown. He also cites the fact that the hair flow patterns are incongruent.

Not an opinion that will engender respect within the professional ichnology community...

That Dr. Wroblewski's analysis is correct is obvious even for a layman, but it should be noted that Dr. Wroblewski is not the only ichnologist for whom the Skookum elk cast was obviously not a Bigfoot. Perhaps lost in the shuffle on BFF was this opinion by Mark Elbroch:

"So...drums please. I think you have the right of it.
I've sent you back your sketch. From my rather quick
look at the photo, I might add that the two red lines
might be linked to a second lay--one squashed by the
lay on top with the clear haunch and wrists. Very
typical of ungulates to lay in the same area on more
than one occasion or to shift when uncomfortable or
with the winds.

I'd support your deductions (if this is where you are
going!) that what we are looking at is unfortunately
not the scrotum of a sasquatch, but rather the typical
lay of an ungulate--a deer-like animal. I didn't
scrutinize the tracks as I should have, but everything
was right for a deer rather than goat or other.

The hair was definitely cervid rather than
bovid."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=328033

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, Jeff Meldrum, the very crux of "scientific" Bigfootery denies that the Skookum elk cast is that of an elk. It seems to me that in 2007 Bigfootery is looking less and less like an honest search for the solution to a mystery, and more and more like creationism.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

He bases this on experiments carried out involving elk experts and elk parts.

Of course he didn't point to where those experiments were documented .. Did he ?

 

[LAL]

"From my rather quick look at the photo" (of the copy, I presume), it's obvious the purported large heel strike, though it was too wide for the wrist of a 650 lb. elk, was made by an elk - or two.

This is what an ichnologist does:

Noun

ichnologist

1. One who studies trace fossils.

 

[LAL]

Well, it seems tube is no longer a lampmaker; he's taking welding classes.

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/interest.htm

I stand corrected as I did here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18787&view=findpost&p=385472

I fail to see how calling someone who makes lamps a "lampmaker" is a personal attack, or how an omission of something I didn't know or may have forgotten is a lie, but that's just me.

I still think a forensic fingerprint expert's three days in Dr. Meldrum's lab with casts taken home for further examination trumps a two-hour examination by two men and a girl.

 

[LAL]

Short answer, his words- "Unfortunately no."

I have to thank Teresa Hall for asking the question to Meldrum exactly as I wrote it in my letter to him on her show. The detailed answer was that he had hoped particularily in the case of the Blue Creek/Onion Mountain casts and also the Walla Walla casts that matching dermals could be demonstrated. Unfortunately, casts that showed artifacts (as he referred to them) did not do so in corresponding locations so as to infer a match. Meldrum stresses that the 3 conditions which need to be met to obtain casts displaying dermatoglyphics all occurring is extremely rare. These are a foot displaying clear dermatoglyphics (without significant wear or damage) stepping in a substrate that will preserve the features and do so long enough to be discovered by someone prepared to preserve them. He reminds us that there are only four or five cases of casts with possible dermatoglyphics.

I think he may have been referring to this event near Walla Walla:

"RESULTS

A laboratory inspection of the casts was conducted during the week following our return. Of the three recognizably different individuals, a cast of the foot of one clearly matches impressions that had formerly been left in the same vicinity by an individual that has been dubbed "DermaIs."

Its maximal length is 14.5 inches, and it has a heel width of 4.5 inches. The base of the digits are sloped, with digit I being the farthest removed from the heel. Another right foot cast closely resembles another, previously known individual, who has been ignominiously named "Stud."

This particular cast has an excellent series of dermal ridges across the midfoot, and some on its heel. Its dimensions almost match that of "DermaIs," except that the base of its digits form a nearly straight line.

The 17-inch-long casts have a heel width of 6 inches, and appear to represent an individual previously unknown to this area. A few of the other footprint casts also display dermal ridges, although to a lesser extent and of poorer quality. The handprint cast possesses four clear fingertips, including one on which dermal ridges are evident."


http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/somer87.htm


I had hopes for that too.

Meldrum states that after speaking with Matt Crowley on the issue of artifacts that he immediately returned to his manuscript to included caveats for them in his forthcoming book. He now states that Matt's experiments only account for the Blue Creek/Onion Mountain casts. He says they do not account for the other instances. He also states that people tend to be rather preoccupied with dermals but for him the many tracks displaying the subtle features of an appropriate anatomy are more important.

And I think that's a good point. They weren't even noticed until 1982.He's said all along the conditions were unique to the OM cast and do not explain the ridges on ones taken in mud, such as the SC or Elkins Creek.

Incidentally, on the matter of the Skookum cast he says that while he can not state with 100% certainty that it is the imprint of a sasquatch he can state with complete confidence that it is not an elk. He bases this on experiments carried out involving elk experts and elk parts. He says that wrist of a 650 lb elk was far too small to match what he indentifies as an achilles tendon but just right for a creature of the purportions shown. He also cites the fact that the hair flow patterns are incongruent.

That can be seen on the clear photo in Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. The elk hoofprints that should have been in the middle of the print vanished in the slurry, but the hair impressions did not? Oh.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The elk hoofprints that should have been in the middle of the print vanished in the slurry, but the hair impressions did not? Oh.

We keep hearing this..

But no one has showed that a clear set of hoof prints are usually found in the middle of an elk lay.


And by the way .. There are no Bigfoot prints in the Skookum cast either .. Oh.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"From my rather quick look at the photo" (of the copy, I presume), it's obvious the purported large heel strike, though it was too wide for the wrist of a 650 lb. elk, was made by an elk - or two.

Again. Where is the documentation of the research and parties involved, that ruled out elk ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I explained to Lu long ago that hoof prints should not be in the middle of the body print. I reinforced that with video evidence recently. The elk drops down on its feet and then rolls over, leaving no hoof prints in it's body print. The elk rolls over onto it's feet, then stands up, leaving no hoof prints in it's body print. Lu knows this. She's just "forgetting" again.

 

[RayG]

I fail to see how calling someone who makes lamps a "lampmaker" is a personal attack, or how an omission of something I didn't know or may have forgotten is a lie, but that's just me.

That's as close as you'll get to an apology from LAL, she seems to have a faulty memory when it suits her.

Noun

ichnologist

1. One who studies trace fossils.

.
Noun

trace fossil (plural trace fossils)

1. A type of fossil reflecting the reworking of sediments and hard substrates by organisms, rather than the physical remains of the organism itself. This includes structures such as burrows, trails, impressions, coprolites and borings.

I'm betting an Ichnologist trumps a Tooling Metrologist, a Journalist, a Psychiatrist, a Science Teacher, a Carpenter, an Electronics Engineer, a Landscape Architect, two Healthcare Workers, a Circus Organizer (sorry, should have said Expedition Organizer), and maybe even a Zoologist, a Wildlife Biologist, and a Primate Anatomist at identifying indentations left by an animal in the ground. No?

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, does one of those top a self taught non-human primate dermatoglyph expert?

 

[the evilist serene]

Well, it seems tube is no longer a lampmaker; he's taking welding classes.

I stand corrected as I did here:

I fail to see how calling someone who makes lamps a "lampmaker" is a personal attack, or how an omission of something I didn't know or may have forgotten is a lie, but that's just me.

I still think a forensic fingerprint expert's three days in Dr. Meldrum's lab with casts taken home for further examination trumps a two-hour examination by two men and a girl.

Wrong again. Welding classes and 7 certifications later, he's professionally welding.

Do you really wanna go here again girl?

 

[LAL]

I explained to Lu long ago that hoof prints should not be in the middle of the body print. I reinforced that with video evidence recently. The elk drops down on its feet and then rolls over, leaving no hoof prints in it's body print. The elk rolls over onto it's feet, then stands up, leaving no hoof prints in it's body print. Lu knows this. She's just "forgetting" again.

Am I off filter or did someone I filtered repost?

Nope. You found an interesting picture, but I've seen real elk. They gather their legs under them when they get up. Granted, one could roll out of a mudhole and get up on hard ground, but I don't see an indication of that in the photo.

 

[LAL]

Wrong again. Welding classes and 7 certifications later, he's professionally welding.

Do you really wanna go here again girl?

Perhaps he needs to update his website. Since he's no longer speaking to me, he didn't exactly tell me that. I took handwrought metals a couple of semesters ago, so I know how to forge weld, at least in theory. I'll be back to silver and goldsmithing in Fall, which is much more up my alley. I certainly have no problem with someone making a living from arts and crafts.

I don't understand what made him consider any of that a "personal attack", especially after some of the things he's said to me. A question was asked and I gave an answer, to the best of my knowledge. Was there something wrong with that?

 

[tube]

I received my print version of the May 2007 Bigfoot Times newsletter today in the mail. I had received an online version a couple of weeks ago. For those who don't know, this is a periodical by Daniel Perez, a long time chronicler of Bigfootery.

The big splash in this issue was a segment entitled "Skookum Hokum?", in which Perez allows Dr. Wroblewski to enumerate his arguments that the Skookum elk cast is really an elk. Apparently Perez tried to contact Noll via e-mail, for what we presume would be a rebuttal, but Noll did not respond. Perez seems particularly disturbed that Noll would characterize the cast copies exhibited in San Antonio (and elsewhere) as "art pieces".

My take on Noll's "art piece" comment is that since the match between the elk and the cast is so obvious and complete (especially the rear legs and hooves) that he has chosen to claim that the cast copies are not really representative of the original.

What seems to be surprisingly missing in all the discussion of Dr. Wroblewski's analysis is WHY WERE THE COPIES MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

By this point, it seems to be public knowledge that John Green paid for the copies to be made. If memory serves, Noll transported the original cast to Canada, where I presume the copies were made. Again, if memory serves, the copies were expensive. So why would John Green pay all this money to have these copies made? Did he want them hanging in the Museum of Modern Art? A private Bigfoot art gallery? Sell them on e-bay as a sort of three dimensional homage to Salvadore Dali?

Some time back, I had a conversation with Chris Murphy about various Bigfoot related subjects. This was a face to face conversation that lasted perhaps 10 to 15 minutes. Murphy told me that Green felt disappointed that the Patterson film had been shown to various scientists soon after its debut and had failed to arouse much genuine interest. According to Murphy, Green felt that the Skookum cast was such compelling evidence for Bigfoot that it should be "trucked around" to various universities and exhibited to the relevant authorities. Again if memory serves, copies were to be made to avoid potential damage to the original. The copies are also much less unwieldy than the original.

This version of events makes obvious sense, as why would Green pay a great deal of money for an "art piece" that would be scientifically worthless? One of John Green's long standing ambitions is to have mainstream scientists take Bigfootery seriously. If we take Noll's claim literally, are we to believe that Green directed the "artists" to include the rear legs and hooves of an elk???

No, Noll's "art piece" gambit is an obvious snow job, in my opinion a sort of last gasp appeal when no reasonable rebuttal can be made. According to the "official" interpretation of the cast posted on BFF, the rear legs and hooves are the forearm and fist impressions of a giant hairy ape-man. Yes, and I understand that the Grand Canyon was carved out in a big flood about 6000 years ago...

For an individual such as Daniel Perez, a sincere and honest Bigfoot proponent, it takes courage to go against the grain and publish a piece like this, and I think he is to be commended for his bravery and honesty.

 

[the evilist serene]

Updating one's website is a personal matter, so in fact he doesn't need to do so unless he wants to. It takes more effort and time to post original material on the web than copy/paste.

You have gravely erred in equating professional industrial welding as an "art" or a "craft"--it's a science-based technical skill. And you don't do it by knowing how to do it "at least in theory." I have a theoretical understanding of electricity and there's a Home Depot down the street from me--Wanna consider me for rewiring your house if you ever need the service?

What's wrong with all of this is that "the best of your knowledge" isn't good enough, as you've just demonstrated at minimum twice in your last short post.

 

[LAL]

Updating one's website is a personal matter, so in fact he doesn't need to do so unless he wants to. It takes more effort and time to post original material on the web than copy/paste.

You have gravely erred in equating professional industrial welding as an "art" or a "craft"--it's a science-based technical skill. And you don't do it by knowing how to do it "at least in theory." I have a theoretical understanding of electricity and there's a Home Depot down the street from me--Wanna consider me for rewiring your house if you ever need the service?

What's wrong with all of this is that "the best of your knowledge" isn't good enough, as you've just demonstrated at minimum twice in your last short post.

I was referring to the lampmaking as an art and a craft, not the welding. He said in his MySpace he made lamps and sold them at a Sunday market in Seattle, and, of course, there are pictures on the website.

I have no interest in industrial welding, but the blacksmithing was in the same building with the arc welders. Gives me some kind of a connection, don't you think? The point was that saying he's a lampmaker was certainly no insult coming from an artist and craftsperson.

If Matt doesn't give complete information and I'm using the information he gives, how is it my fault when the source is out of date?

If his website had said he's doing professional welding I'd have said so.

He was polite and informative when he first came to this board. Now all I can say is he has the most appropriate avatar I've ever seen.

 

[LAL]

Daniel Perez has bought into Larry Lund's nonsense about Fred Bradshaw's voice being on the MD tape as well.

I'll take fitting the wrist of a 650 elk to the actual imprint over "I didn't
scrutinize the tracks as I should have" and "From my rather quick
look at the photo" any day. I should hope this gentleman doesn't speak for "the professional ichnology community".

I wonder if Jeff has read the SI review. He was remarkably charitable if he has.

 

[carcharodon]

I fail to see how calling someone who makes lamps a "lampmaker" is a personal attack,

It wasn't a personal attack Lu and for anybody to suggest otherwise is absolutely pathetic and it's a downright dirty lie to try and discredit you. Still, there seems to be a lot of this going on here. I was also once accused by a poster here of mocking tube for his profession. That was complete bollocks too. All I ever said when I was told what he does was "Hmmmm interesting". That was it. That's all I ever said. Suddenly it turned into a mock and an attack. WTF??? I have never and will never mock another poster just because of his profession. I might mock another poster because I think he is a complete pratt (hello Snitch me old mucker) but never have I mocked another poster for his profession. Neither have you.

You have never personally attacked tube for his profession. You have only ever pointed out what he does or did. That is not in any way, shape or form a personal attack.

Dont you just love the spin and twist these people put on things here???? They should be working for Tony Blair.

Perhaps this forum should be renamed SABC (Spin And Bullsh!t Central)?

 

[carcharodon]

That's as close as you'll get to an apology from LAL, she seems to have a faulty memory when it suits her.

Oh put a bloody sock in it Gavel. Always piping up on things that don't concern you like one half of Statler and Waldorf.

Shut yer trap and keep out of it for once in your life.

 

[carcharodon]

I was referring to the lampmaking as an art and a craft, not the welding. He said in his MySpace he made lamps and sold them at a Sunday market in Seattle, and, of course, there are pictures on the website.

I have no interest in industrial welding, but the blacksmithing was in the same building with the arc welders. Gives me some kind of a connection, don't you think? The point was that saying he's a lampmaker was certainly no insult coming from an artist and craftsperson.

If Matt doesn't give complete information and I'm using the information he gives, how is it my fault when the source is out of date?

If his website had said he's doing professional welding I'd have said so.

He was polite and informative when he first came to this board. Now all I can say is he has the most appropriate avatar I've ever seen.

A telling point Lu is that when you posted here that he is a lampmaker nothing was said. No denial took place at the time. Nobody pulled you up and said that wasn't the case and that you were wrong or mistaken, even though plenty of people addressed other parts of your post. The 'lampmaker' comment was not refuted one bit. Tube did not deny he made lamps and neither did anybody else.

Can't see what the problem is myself.......except for the uneccesary whinging and protesting over one itsy bitsy remark, which wasn't even derogatory.

My you're a horrid one Lu. Big, bad and extremely offensive to all the wittle bunny wabbits here.