ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 29th May 2005, 12:28 AM   #241
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
Criminals have been caught from the DNA they left on cigarette butts. It seems strange to me that an apple chewed by an animal wouldn't be loaded with it's DNA.

I know, bigfeets are smart enough to avoid leaving their DNA.

Exactly what formal training does Chilcutt have regarding the claims he is making?

I know he has been trained as a human fingerprint examiner, but he seems to be self trained regarding non-human primates.

There really doesn't seem to be anything new about bigfoot in all of the stuff I have read recently. Just the same old same old......most of it the same as what I heard about as a child.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 12:53 AM   #242
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
I have zero confidence in Chilcutt after reading this interview. He has nothing that matches the dermal ridges on the prints, and he is the only one that has the expertise to make the match? Sounds odd to me.

Let's take him at his word. No known primate matches the dermal ridges on the bigfoot casts. I see 2 equally viable possible conclusions:

A. The prints are those of an unknown primate.
B. The prints are fake.

Dermal ridges running the length of the foot just don't make any sense to me at all. I'm beginning to think the ridges are a hoax.

http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/a.../sasquatch.htm

Quote:
JO: Was there anything different about these particular friction ridges?

JC: Yeah, once I decided they could not have been faked I started looking at the texture and the ridge-flow pattern. I found in all the sasquatch foot casts I examined that the ridges flow up and down the side of the foot...in humans the ridges flow across, and in primates that we know of they flow at an angle.

JO: So this is something completely different from both apes and humans?

JC: Yes. I've never seen a print where the ridges go up and down the side. And once I determined what this animal's print looked like, it was easy to examine the others and be able to tell a fake from a real one.

snip

JO: How have peers in your field reacted to your findings?

JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 01:54 AM   #243
Ceinwyn
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 667
JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.

What a load of bullcrap.

Of course there are experts who know about dermal ridges etc. Primate and human. He's a big old fraud.

What's he selling?
__________________
"Skeptikinites can tune their power so carefully that it exactly counterbalances the force being exerted by the telekinite." --Tricky
Ceinwyn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 05:15 AM   #244
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
Criminals have been caught from the DNA they left on cigarette butts. It seems strange to me that an apple chewed by an animal wouldn't be loaded with it's DNA.
I only know the sample refused to give up anything useful. I don't know exactly why.
If there were cells from any other animal or even a human, shouldn't that have been evident?

Quote:
Exactly what formal training does Chilcutt have regarding the claims he is making?

" Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt retired from the Conroe Police Department after 18 years as a latent fingerprint examiner and crime scene investigator. He has over 26 years active duty as a police officer and holds a Master Police Officer Certification from the State of Texas.

After graduating from Jackson High School in Lubbock, Texas Chilcutt entered the U.S. Army as a Pvt. E-1 and left the service after 9 years, attaining the rank of Chief Warrant Officer W-2. He had tours of duty in Korea and Vietnam.

Investigator Chilcutt has over one thousand classroom hours of instruction in forensic subjects including basic identification at D.P.S. Austin, advanced latent fingerprint comparison F.B.I. University of Houston, advanced latent palm print comparison Mississippi State Crime Lab, advanced crime scene investigation, and many other forensic related subjects. He has testified as a fingerprint expert on County, District and Federal courts in several counties in Texas and North Carolina.

In the Crime lab he has developed unique procedures in developing latent fingerprints that have drawn hundreds of requests from Federal, State, and County agencies to process their evidence. These agencies include FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Service, DPS Narcotic Units throughout Texas, and various County Sheriff Departments.

Awards received for his outstanding service in forensics include, three City of Conroe outstanding officer awards, one meritorious service award, three county wide officer of the year awards, the 100 Club officer of the year award, and the coveted Directors Award from the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Investigator Chilcutt has often been a guest lecturer at Sam Houston State University, Idaho State University, North Harris County College, and for the Conroe High School Criminal Justice Program. He also teaches the State of Texas Intermediate Crime Scene Investigation Core Course at the FBI/Conroe P.D. training facility."


Quote:
I know he has been trained as a human fingerprint examiner, but he seems to be self trained regarding non-human primates.
Well, since he's the first to collect the data on primate prints, I guess you could call him self-trained on that.
He has the data for comparison.


Quote:
There really doesn't seem to be anything new about bigfoot in all of the stuff I have read recently. Just the same old same old......most of it the same as what I heard about as a child.
Then you're either very young or you haven't kept up. There's the Freeman 1994 footage, the Memorial Day footage, the film taken by Scott Herriot's friend's father, the Skookum Cast and numerous track events and credible reports in recent years.

The BFRO has been around since 1996. According to Green, they have about 8000 reports in their database. They've provided a way for people to report and they follow up where possible.

There's video from Manitoba and a filmed trackway from California just last month.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 05:19 AM   #245
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Ceinwyn
JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.

What a load of bullcrap.

Of course there are experts who know about dermal ridges etc. Primate and human. He's a big old fraud.

What's he selling?
Ed Palma was another fingerprint expert who examined casts.

What other primate fingerprint experts are there? Please name them.

And who are you to call Chilcutt a fraud?
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 06:06 AM   #246
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
I have zero confidence in Chilcutt after reading this interview. He has nothing that matches the dermal ridges on the prints, and he is the only one that has the expertise to make the match? Sounds odd to me.

He's the only one with the expertise because he's the only one so far to collect fingerprint data on other primates. He found no match there and the pattern isn't human. Meldrum's collection is open for investigation. Has anyone refuted Chilcutt's findings?


Quote:
Let's take him at his word. No known primate matches the dermal ridges on the bigfoot casts. I see 2 equally viable possible conclusions:

A. The prints are those of an unknown primate.
B. The prints are fake.

Dermal ridges running the length of the foot just don't make any sense to me at all. I'm beginning to think the ridges are a hoax.


Why would they have to make sense? Do ours?
How would hoaxers twenty years and hundreds of miles apart happen to come up with the same pattern? Or is there an international network of hoaxers handing information down through the generations? And somehow they never get caught?


http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/a.../sasquatch.htm [/b][/quote]

Not a bad article. I hadn't seen that one. Thanks.
Did you read this part?

"Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a physical anthropologist at Idaho State University. In 1996 he was shown a fresh line of sasquatch footprints in southeastern Washington. He found them compelling enough to prompt the undertaking of a more systematic review of footprint evidence. Over the past seven years, Dr. Meldrum has examined hundreds of casts and photographs of alleged bigfoot tracks. His position on the possibility of bigfoot's existence is firm:

Jon Olsen: Based on the studies you have conducted, what conclusions can you draw with certainty?

Jeff Meldrum: Science is by nature tentative - a point that many overlook. However, one conclusion I can personally and professionally make is that "something" is leaving large bipedal footprints. Convincingly faking a line of animated footprints is not such a simple undertaking as many would assume. Yes, there have been fakes - these are generally transparent. On the other hand there are tracks that have borne up under scrutiny by experts in primate anatomy and locomotion, such as me, and expert trackers who are familiar with the nuances of a "living" track.
I still maintain that the tracks indicate the presence of some animal that has not been fully accounted for.

JO: Do you ever examine tracks on location?

JM: Yes, when and where possible. Otherwise, I refer the incident to some of my collaborators in that region to investigate. I have examined fresh tracks personally on at least 5 occasions.

JO: What do you look for to distinguish faked footprints from genuine tracks?

JM: In addition to the anatomy of the footprint I look for those dynamic signatures that indicate a "living" track, i.e. pressure ridges, tension cracks, slide-ins, drag-outs, variation in toe flexion/extension, etc.

JO: How many casts have you examined? Of those, how many do you believe to be authentic?

JM: I have assemble a sample that numbers in excess of 150 casts, and half again as many photographs of casts and footprints. Frankly the majority are quite credible.

JO: Do you examine other kinds of evidence?

JM: Yes, as an anatomist and student of primate locomotion, I examine films and photos that allege to depict Sasquatch. In collaboration with other researchers I also examine dermatoglyphics, hair, scat, DNA.

JO: Do you think the Roger Patterson film is authentic photographic evidence of a sasquatch?

(The film I refer to is the famous shakey shot of a female Bigfoot walking across a dry riverbed and disappearing into a forest. Shot at Bluff Creek, CA in 1967, this piece of film, even today, remains a point of contention between believers and skeptics. The media coverage of Ray Wallace's Great Prank has vaguely implied that Wallace had a hand in the film's creation.)

JM: I am convinced of the authenticity of the Patterson film. If based on nothing other than the footprints associated with that film, it appears to be authentic. The dynamics of the footprints correlate with the kinematics of the foot evident on the film itself to the careful observer, which in turn correlate with the particulars of gait and anatomical distinctions exhibited by the film subject.

JO: Have you had the opportunity to look at casts of the prints made by the animal depicted in that film?

JM: Definitely. Patterson cast a pair. Others were photographed by a FS timber cruiser shortly thereafter. Later Bob Titmus cast a series of ten footprints. These are very informative and speak volumes to the authenticity of the film.

JO: Much is made of Roger Patterson's character issues. It is frequently mentioned that he knew hoaxer Ray Wallace, that Wallace told him where to go to see a sasquatch. It is also said that Patterson had Hollywood connections.
(As a filmmaker, I am aware of how frequently people assume that use of camera equipment along with time spent in Southern California automatically mean "Hollywood connections".)
In short, many skeptics have opined that the circumstances surrounding this famous piece of film are too convenient for it to be true.
In your opinion, does any of this weaken the possible veracity of the film?
Or are these details being blown out of proportion?

JM: Patterson's dealings with "Hollywood" have been scrutinized extensively and there is no "smoking gun." He was at Bluff Creek on the heels of a track find the previous month that was investigated extensively. His stated intent was to get film footage of fresh footprints for a documentary he hoped to produce to fund further field research. It has been said that Wallace told Roger where to go to get Bigfoot on film, but those who spoke to Wallace said it was obvious he was unfamiliar with the particulars of the area in question. The site was examined by the FS timber cruiser, Lyle Laverty, and companions shortly after the incident and Mr. Laverty has told me that he saw nothing in the tracks to indicate anything had occurred other than what Roger and Bob recounted. The Wallaces themselves have stated openly and publicly that Ray had nothing to do with the Patterson film and they have no knowledge of whom or what is on that film. Mrs. Wallace did admit to donning a costume so her husband could film her, but rather than show that admittedly hoaxed footage the media instead repeatedly aired a clip from the Patterson film, or implied that the Patterson film was Mrs. Wallace in a costume, without bothering to explain how the diminutive Mrs. Wallace filled the stature of the Patterson film subject. The Wallace claims only undermine the credibility of the Patterson film in the minds of those ignorant of the facts or grasping for a simplistic explanation for an anomalous event."




Have you seen Meldrum's analysis on the soft tissue abnormality on the right thigh of the Patterson creature?
There's a clip here under "Video":

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 07:03 AM   #247
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally posted by LAL
Have you seen Meldrum's analysis on the soft tissue abnormality on the right thigh of the Patterson creature?
There's a clip here under "Video":

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html
I'm torn between laughing out loud and screaming in fury at the ignorance of that clip.

You have an extremely blurry, jumpy, out of focus film clip with a couple frames that -- if you think about it at all logically -- might show a fold in the fur covering of a baggy monkey costume. So what do the "bigfoot experts' conclude. That it shows a "traumatic pathology" of the creature in question which makes it walk like a man stumbling under the weight of a heavy fur suit in the woods.

And don't get me started on the skeleton they drew on the film that floats around inside the outline of the "bigfoot" in exactly the way a skeleton doesn't -- but which is not inconsistent with a man in an oversized monkey suit.
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 07:31 AM   #248
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Hitch
I'm torn between laughing out loud and screaming in fury at the ignorance of that clip.

You have an extremely blurry, jumpy, out of focus film clip with a couple frames that -- if you think about it at all logically -- might show a fold in the fur covering of a baggy monkey costume. So what do the "bigfoot experts' conclude. That it shows a "traumatic pathology" of the creature in question which makes it walk like a man stumbling under the weight of a heavy fur suit in the woods.

And don't get me started on the skeleton they drew on the film that floats around inside the outline of the "bigfoot" in exactly the way a skeleton doesn't -- but which is not inconsistent with a man in an oversized monkey suit.
Of course, you haven't established there's anything to the "suit hypothesis".
What are the odds on a fold occuring at the exact location where such a rupture sometimes occurs even in human bipedal females?
Dr. Andrew Nelson concurs, but I doubt he styles himself a "Bigfoot expert".

Below is a still of Bob Heironimus, who claims to be the "guy in the suit" in an "oversized monkey suit" created by Morris (who claimed he sold a suit to Roger Patterson) for the "reenactment".
Where's the fold? Or even any muscle definition?

Poetry has been mentioned. Let me try a little:

"I'm sceptical of sceptics with arguments simplistic.
Let them be more realistic
and offer up some proof."
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 07:50 AM   #249
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally posted by LAL
Of course, you haven't established there's anything to the "suit hypothesis".

Poetry has been mentioned. Let me try a little:

"I'm sceptical of sceptics with arguments simplistic.
Let them be more realistic
and offer up some proof."
The "suit hypothesis" is the simplest explanation for the Patterson film. Any other explanation requires truly dazzling displays of mental gymnastics to come close to making any kind of sense. Bigfoot Woos have yet to show any proof.

Before a rational mind believes in something so extraordinary, it needs more than a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation.

And before you bring up "dermal ridges" again. Realize that no one except Bigfoot Woos talk about dermal ridges. Of course all the experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates claim they're proof that Bigfoot exists. The only experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates are Bigfoot Woos. Do a little experiment. Scrape up some loose dirt in your back yard. Walk barefoot across it. Look at your footprints. Do you see the "dermal ridges" of your toes? Of course not. It's silly. Just like all the silly nonsense about Bigfoot.
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 09:01 AM   #250
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Hitch
The "suit hypothesis" is the simplest explanation for the Patterson film. Any other explanation requires truly dazzling displays of mental gymnastics to come close to making any kind of sense. Bigfoot Woos have yet to show any proof.



Bigfoot Woos?
Trying to heap ridicule on investigators is not helping your case, which seems to be an argument from incredulity to begin with.

Humans don't come in those proportions. The suit would have to be part machine to produce an effect that good. Some rather expensive attempts at duplication have failed to come close. The film has been analysed to pieces for nearly forty years. Like the theory of evolution, it continues to hold up.

Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by some of his sceptical collegues:


"Another is Hartwig, who vouches for Meldrum's "rigorous" methods even as he questions his conclusions.

"Jeff has executed the model approach," said Hartwig, who is editing a book on human evolution to which Meldrum is contributing a chapter. "He's weeded out what he believes might be hoaxes or misidentifications. And for the ones he can't exclude, he's devised a theory for what those footprints represent. In a sense, it's beautiful and well-controlled, inductive science. You may think it's far out, but methodologically speaking, he has toed the line very strictly. And he's bold enough not to allow any outside pressure to direct his science."

Quote:

Before a rational mind believes in something so extraordinary, it needs more than a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation.




Well, of course there is much more than "a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation". There are thousands of documented reports, tracks, at least a handful of films, hair, scat, other sign......
That you refuse to take any of it seriously is not my problem.

You're not trying to imply you have a rational mind, are you?


Here's an opinion from an orthopedist (from the link in the first post in the thread):

"Dear Editor,
I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was
the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of
my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus;
allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the
film, you are a fool's fool. I have had the opportunity to examine
the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a
suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor
would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and
prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus
is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined
the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area
of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this
is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the
guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?
The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some
primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility
that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the
P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably
in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it
were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to
replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the
film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent
contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human
walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper
leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less
contrive.
Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is
the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected? Ah..
the mystique of it all.
Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"

Even Dennett questioned Korff's article on Long's book in SI.
There are no better candidates for the "guy in the suit" to my knowlege.


Quote:
And before you bring up "dermal ridges" again. Realize that no one except Bigfoot Woos talk about dermal ridges.



Who else has examined them? Dennett?

Chilcutt is no "Bigfoot Woo" and went in as a sceptic. So did the leading primate anatomist (on the Skookum Cast, which shows friction ridges on the heel imprint) in the country.
Both came away convinced.
I'm certain Dr. Daris Swindler, a giant in the field, would not appreciate you calling him a "Bigfoot Woo".


Quote:


Of course all the experts on dremal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates claim they're proof that Bigfoot exists. The only experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates are Bigfoot Woos. Do a little experiment. Scrape up some loose dirt in your back yard. Walk barefoot across it. Look at your footprints. Do you see the "dermal ridges" of your toes?
That would prove exactly what? The dermal ridges in question run along the outside of the sole of the foot, not the toes. Most casts actually don't show friction ridges. This could be due to habitual barefoot walking wearing them down or insensitivity of the casting medium or the substrate.
Did you bother to read what else is considered in determining whether a print is "living" or a fake?


Quote:
Of course not. It's silly. Just like all the silly nonsense about Bigfoot.

And your opinion that it's "silly nonsense" is evidence of what exactly?

"Admittedly, a few persistent perplexities remain, but much of the naïve criticism of the evidence is dispelled upon closer scrutiny. In my opinion, too many have been too quick to simply toss out the "baby with the bath water." As Orchard articulates it in his opening pages, the skeptics have attempted to refute the matter because they really know nothing about the subject and so can speak of it with the most authority.

D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Department of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
Pocatello, Idaho 83209 USA"

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/blues.htm
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 10:19 AM   #251
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Starrman
I didn't claim to have evidence. I'm trying to think up alternative explanations. Do you think it is impossible that a person made those tracks, or just highly unlikely. Are there any pictures of the area from a broader perspective?
Check this link:


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_prints.html

Sasquatch tracks on a mountain road (Bayanov 1997).
There's a clip of the Bossburg trackway as well.


"The huge number of tracks that have been found and the remoteness of the areas where they have been discovered argue against large-scale faking. Some of these tracks extended for distances of three-quarters of a mile up to several miles with thousands of individual footprints. A series of three thousand footprints, each 16 inches long, was found on a logging road in the Cascade Mountains. On another occasion a long line of prints were discovered on Powder Mountain, about 65 miles north of Vancouver, by a man flying low over the mountain in a helicopter. The tracks were 4,800 feet up the mountainside and ran for five miles before disappearing into ice caves at the foot of a glacier (Hunter 1993). With something like 100 million track events having occurred over the last forty years:

...the skeptics must postulate a well-organized team of one thousand people, working full-time, who are spread over all of North America with their greatest concentration in the Pacific Northwest. (Krantz 1992, p.34)

An independent study of a database of 706 track length measurements further supports the contention that there is no evidence of large scale fakery:

The normal distribution argues compellingly against any alternative hypothesis to the existence of the Sasquatch as a cryptic species, in that production of fictitious data over 40 years by hundreds of people independently of each other would have generated a distribution with many peaks. A further factor that supports the authenticity of the data is the fact that foot length, foot width, heel width, and gait are interrelated in a logical and cohesive fashion, a congruence not plausible by pure chance. (Fahrenbach 1998, pp.50-51)


(http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF...achArticle.htm

Insertion mine.)



Finally, there is the question of how the fakers manage to produce footprints that are so biologically convincing (Napier 1974, p.125). If they were all the same a hoax would automatically be suspected but Sasquatch footprints vary — some anatomical features are constant, but they are sufficiently different for individuals to be recognised by their footprints."
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 02:34 PM   #252
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally posted by LAL
That would prove exactly what? The dermal ridges in question run along the outside of the sole of the foot, not the toes. Most casts actually don't show friction ridges. This could be due to habitual barefoot walking wearing them down or insensitivity of the casting medium or the substrate.
Did you bother to read what else is considered in determining whether a print is "living" or a fake?
[/b]
What? After pages and pages of talking about dermal ridges you say the most convincing thing about them is they don't appear in most of the casts?

Can you go on to prove that up is down and down is up?

Just stop short of proving that black and white are the same thing. We'd hate for you to be killed at the next zebra crossing.
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 04:57 PM   #253
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Hitch
What? After pages and pages of talking about dermal ridges you say the most convincing thing about them is they don't appear in most of the casts?
No, I didn't say that at all.
You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you?


>attempted condescension snipped<


A poster on another board brought up the wear thing, citing bears as an example. He claimed there would likely not be dermal ridges; the feet should be smooth, like bears (or callused like humans?).
I read recently only primates have dermal ridges in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong), so bears wouldn't really be a case in point anyway.

Chilcutt found about half a dozen casts compelling because of the dermal ridges. They're not always obvious. An absense of ridges does not necessarily indicate fakery.

"Grover S. Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State University, was initially skeptical of Sasquatch reports. In order to determine whether or not the creature really existed, Krantz studied in detail some prints found in 1970 in north-east Washington State. In reconstructing the skeletal structure of the foot from the print, he noted that the ankle was positioned more forward than in a human foot. Taking into consideration the reported height and weight of an adult Sasquatch, Krantz, using his knowledge of physical anthropology, calculated just how far forward the ankle would have to be set. Returning to the prints, he found that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations. "That's when I decided the thing is real," said Krantz. "There is no way a faker could have known how far forward to set that ankle. It took me a couple of months to work it out with the casts in hand, so you have to figure how much smarter a faker would've had to be" (Huyghe 1984, p. 94).

Krantz (1983) and wildman expert John Green (1978, pp. 349-356) have written extensive reports on the North American footprint evidence. Typically the prints are 14 to 18 inches long and 5 to 9 inches wide, giving a surface roughly 3 to 4 times larger than that of an average human foot. Hence the popular name Bigfoot. To make a Sasquatch footprint as deep as an average human footprint would require a weight 3 to 4 times greater than that of an average-sized man. In all cases, however, whether the prints are in snow, mud, dirt, or wet sand, the Sasquatch prints are much deeper than those made by a man walking right next to them in the same material. Thus a weight of more than 3 or 4 times that of a man is required to make the Sasquatch prints. Green, wearing large fake feet and carrying 250 pounds on his back (for a total of 450 pounds), was unable to make a deep enough impression in firm wet sand. Moreover, Green's fake feet were only 14.5 inches long, small for a Sasquatch. Larger feet would have produced impressions of even smaller depth in the sand. Krantz (1983) estimated that to make typical Sasquatch prints a total weight of at least 700 pounds is required. Thus a 200-pound man would have to be carrying at least 500 pounds to make a good print."


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/living5.html


Krantz found dermal ridges on the Mill Creek tracks, as well as sweat pores and some other interesting features.

"Skin impressions found on the sidewalls of the casts indicated the creature had a flexible sole pad. Various fingerprint experts were consulted, including top state investigators, experts at the Smithsonian Institute and Scotland Yard, and the current and former heads of fingerprinting at the F.B.I. After examining the casts at length, the majority of these experts concluded that the prints were real and not the result of a hoax:

The opinions of almost all of the more than forty experts ranged from 'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the F.B.I. expert who said, approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it is real.' (Krantz 1992, p.71)"
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 10:54 PM   #254
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
It's the same old thing as far as I am concerned. Weak evidence fawned over and approved by believers. Circular evidence. The same thing that soured me on bigfoot in the first place. Tunnel vision about evidence.

As far as I know, friction ridges are for grip and traction. What good are they if they run front to back on the sides of your foot?

I am well aware of Chilcutt's resume. I see no reason in it to believe a word he says about any bigfoot casts and primate dermal ridges save one thing.

He doesn't know what the ridges in the casts are.

He admits that they look nothing like any other dermal ridges he has samples of, yet he still says they are dermal ridges.

Having reviewed several sites recently, I remain soured on my old bigfoot memories.

If these are the types of folks looking for Bigfoot, and this is how they search for and collect evidence, then Bigfoot need have no fear of ever being proven to exist.

Way too many clowns trying to be scientists.
The biggest idiots seem to have TV shows about bigfoot......
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 10:58 PM   #255
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
How does Krantz know the position of the ankle from a footprint?
This claim stinks, and calls Krantz's objectivity into question in my mind.


Quote:
Returning to the prints, he found that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations. "That's when I decided the thing is real," said Krantz. "There is no way a faker could have known how far forward to set that ankle. It took me a couple of months to work it out with the casts in hand, so you have to figure how much smarter a faker would've had to be"
I see no way to tell where the ankle is from looking at a footprint.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2005, 11:05 PM   #256
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
Who were these forty experts and where can I read their comments? I find it difficult to believe that Krantz showed the casts to more than forty "experts". He counted "very interesting" and "they sure look real" ????

I do not think this is credible at all. I hope folks aren't just taking Krantz's word.....

Quote:
"Skin impressions found on the sidewalls of the casts indicated the creature had a flexible sole pad. Various fingerprint experts were consulted, including top state investigators, experts at the Smithsonian Institute and Scotland Yard, and the current and former heads of fingerprinting at the F.B.I. After examining the casts at length, the majority of these experts concluded that the prints were real and not the result of a hoax:

The opinions of almost all of the more than forty experts ranged from 'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the F.B.I. expert who said, approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it is real.' (Krantz 1992, p.71)"
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 05:46 AM   #257
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's the same old thing as far as I am concerned. Weak evidence fawned over and approved by believers. Circular evidence. The same thing that soured me on bigfoot in the first place. Tunnel vision about evidence.



How do you figure physical evidence is weak? How is it circular? Why do you think it's tunnel vision?

Quote:
As far as I know, friction ridges are for grip and traction. What good are they if they run front to back on the sides of your foot?



They're "for" something? Sounds like adaptationism to me. Traits may spread through a population if they confer some benefit or tend to be neutral or at least do no harm. If dermal ridges assist in a better grip I would suspect this was an adaptation selected for in an arboreal ancestor. It may or may not confer an advantage on the ground. Humans evolved from the same ancestor as the Great Apes, but our ridges don't run the same way.
If the ridges run front to back perhaps there's an advantage in preventing side-slipping. Or maybe they're just there.



Quote:

I am well aware of Chilcutt's resume. I see no reason in it to believe a word he says about any bigfoot casts and primate dermal ridges save one thing.

He doesn't know what the ridges in the casts are.




Please provide a citation where he says that.


Quote:

He admits that they look nothing like any other dermal ridges he has samples of, yet he still says they are dermal ridges.




They do not run the same way as they do in other primates, including humans. That is not to say they do not look like dermal ridges. They do and he compares their width to human ridges.
Hair doesn't look like other known mammals either. That's not to say it's not hair.
With no actual foot for comparison, Chilcutt has gone as far as he can go in his statements. He is convinced, from the evidence, Sasquatches are real.
He's not alone in that opinion. What else would they be? There's no foot for comparision, so no one can say beyond all doubt what they are, but they certainly are what they seem to be beyond all
reasonable doubt.

No one's ever directly observed an atom, either, but it can be inferred they exist.


Quote:

Having reviewed several sites recently, I remain soured on my old bigfoot memories.



What did Bigfoot ever do to you?

Quote:

If these are the types of folks looking for Bigfoot, and this is how they search for and collect evidence, then Bigfoot need have no fear of ever being proven to exist.



I get a sense of serenity thinking of these animals roaming the North American forests not caring whether they've been proven to exist or not.

Just what "folks" are you referring to? And what sites are you reviewing? Specifically what's wrong with the way they've searched for and collected evidence?



Quote:

Way too many clowns trying to be scientists.
The biggest idiots seem to have TV shows about bigfoot......
So in your view nothing has been established because you don't want it to be and scientists taking it seriously are clowns?


Are you referring to Dr. Dr Franklin Ruehl? I know of no one who wouldn't have preferred someone else, but he does have a degree in theoretical Nuclear Physics. It's not from a diploma mill, as far as I know; it's from UCLA. So he might have the intelligence to tell a track from a hole in the ground.

A Current Affair isn't shown in Canada and it appears Bobby Clarke didn't know what kind of outfit he was getting mixed up with. Seems there were inquiries from CNN and others, but A Current Affair actually showed up.

Dr. Meldrum (who doesn't have a TV show but was on onehttp://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20050421-bigfoot.asx ) said this incident warranted serious investigation and it got Dr. Ruehl, Brett Hudson and a chainsaw artist.
However, if the evidence they found holds up it doesn't matter who collected it.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 06:03 AM   #258
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
How does Krantz know the position of the ankle from a footprint?
This claim stinks, and calls Krantz's objectivity into question in my mind.

I see no way to tell where the ankle is from looking at a footprint.
You're not a trained anatomist?
The drawing of the bones on the casts shows this (Krantz worked from casts, not a footprint). By deducing the position of the bones, particulary on the crippled foot, the placement of the ankle becomes obvious. Note the foot and ankle in frame 72 of the Patterson film.
Remember, Kratz was a sceptic when he began his study. The evidence led him to his conclusions.
His reaction was, "It can't be, but it is."
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 06:35 AM   #259
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
Who were these forty experts and where can I read their comments? I find it difficult to believe that Krantz showed the casts to more than forty "experts". He counted "very interesting" and "they sure look real" ????
The source is given. You're calling Krantz a liar?

If Krantz were pulling something, why would he show the casts to experts at all? Remember, he was well-respected in his field, right up until he took an interest in Sasquatch tracks.
I doubt there were reports. It was difficult enough to get experts to look at these things. Krantz even asked Dr. White (yes, the Dr. White who helped excavate the Laetoli trackway and who is now world famous) to take a look. White chose to remain neutral.

Ed Palma saw ridges on the Bossburg tracks. Note the source of this statement.

"My casts were copies of the originals. I showed these to Ed Palma [a fingerprint expert]. He pointed out three patches where he claimed to see traces of ridge detail. I studied those places intently and saw absolutely nothing. Sometime later Rene Dahinden showed me the originals of these casts. In all three places that Palma had indicated I could now see a few faint ridges. Needless to say, this man's professional qualifications are outstanding."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm


"Footprints


Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologist as important evidence.
Krantz writes that “the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me.” (Krantz, 36) This is a small mound of soil created “by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground” present in some alleged Sasquatch tracks (Ibid) Krantz argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Sasquatch feet can create this convincing feature.
Krantz notes that “The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual’s standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings.” (Krantz, 22) Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are “in excess of three feet” (Krantz, 21), arguing this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially.
Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints which “show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes”. (Coleman and Clark, 42) Similarly, Krantz notes that “Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet”, and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, making a hoax unlikely. (Krantz, 23)
Researcher Henry Franzoni writes that “A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not a due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations ... The gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a ‘life-like’ distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.“ [7] (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html#q1)
Similarly, in “Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes that “The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but confirm to ecogeographical rules.”(Halpin and Ames, 272)
A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show the creature's right foot was crippled. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it".[8] (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/cripplefoot.html) Krantz declares that “analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence ... that the animals were real.” (Krantz, 54)"

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bigfoot
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 10:06 AM   #260
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature.
Let me get this straight..


Hoaxers have no problem stirring all these Bigfoot aficionados up, but going so far as to fake a disfigurement is sick and so unlikely, it makes the footprint more likely to be real..


Not! Sorry, evidence doesn't work that way...


Hoaxer: " Note to self. Adding disfigurements will get these guys going even more.. Yeah !!!
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 10:21 AM   #261
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Let me get this straight..


Hoaxers have no problem stirring all these Bigfoot aficionados up, but going so far as to fake a disfigurement is sick and so unlikely, it makes the footprint more likely to be real..


Not! Sorry, evidence doesn't work that way...


Hoaxer: " Note to self. Adding disfigurements will get these guys going even more.. Yeah !!!
Please present one shred of evidence to prove the Bossburg tracks were faked.
Are you aware the author of the statement was Dr. John Napier of the Smithsonian? He was hardly an "afficionado". He was one of the few scientists in the '70's willing to investigate at all.
Those tracks were found in 1969. Why haven't your hypothetical hoaxers duplicated the feat in trackways that have been found since? Perhaps they should have come up with a crippled right foot.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 10:26 AM   #262
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
Chilcutt found about half a dozen casts compelling because of the dermal ridges. They're not always obvious. An absense of ridges does not necessarily indicate fakery.
O.K., Let me get this straight..


The presence of ridges make fakery unlikely.

The absence of ridges does not necessarily indicate fakery.





Does having your cake and eating it too, come to mind?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 10:27 AM   #263
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
O.K., Let me get this straight..


The presence of ridges make fakery unlikely.

The absence of ridges does not necessarily indicate fakery.





Does having your cake and eating it too, come to mind?



No.
I don't seem to be getting through to you. Dermal ridges aren't the only indicators, which you might know if you'd read Dr. Meldrum's criteria on this.
If you were to walk over different strata barefoot, some of your tracks might show dermal ridges, others not.
This does not mean your feet are fake.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 10:45 AM   #264
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
Are you aware the author of the statement was Dr. John Napier of the Smithsonian? He was hardly an "afficionado". He was one of the few scientists in the '70's willing to investigate at all.
What was Napier's opinion on the source of the prints?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 11:08 AM   #265
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
What was Napier's opinion on the source of the prints?
"Apart from satisfying the criteria established for modern human-type walking, the Bossburg prints have, to my way of thinking, an even greater claim to authenticity. The right foot of the Bossburg Sasquatch is a club-foot, a not uncommon abnormality .... The forepart of the foot is twisted inwards, the third toe has been squeezed out of normal alignment, and possibly there has been a dislocation of the bones on the outer border (but this last feature may be due to an imperfection in the casting technique). Club-foot usually occurs as a congenital abnormality, but it may also develop as the result of severe injury, or of damage to the nerves controlling the muscle of the foot. To me the deformity strongly suggests that injury during life was responsible. A true, untreated, congenital (club-foot) usually results in a fixed flexion deformity of the ankle in which case only the forepart of the foot and toes touch the ground in normal standing. In these circumstances the heel impression would be absent or poorly defined; but in fact the heel indentation of the Sasquatch is strongly defined. I conclude that the deformity was the result of a crushing injury to the foot during early childhood.............."
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 11:17 AM   #266
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
Please present one shred of evidence to prove the Bossburg tracks were faked.
Would the person who said he faked them count?

I don't have to prove anything. I am not a believer...

There is no scientific evidence that Bigfoot is real..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2005, 12:03 PM   #267
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes
Would the person who said he faked them count?
Who would that be? Give me a name.

Quote:

I don't have to prove anything. I am not a believer...

There is no scientific evidence that Bigfoot is real..
There is plenty of evidence to indicate they are, enough to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation. There's been enough just last month, in two countries, to warrant a serious look. If it were any other type of animal, the funding might be flowing.
The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims, and for those who accept the conclusion there are bipedal primates (other than us) living in the forests of North America, the rather absurd claim that it's "all a hoax" is the extrodinary claim.

So let's see some evidence, or at least some proper debunking of the evidence.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 05:16 AM   #268
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
Where can I read these 40+ opinions again? I don't think they all will be in Krantz's book, just the supporting ones, so where can I read all of them?

If bigfoot has these largish dermal ridges and pores, why are they on so few casts? I didn't see a clear reason for this other than some gibberish about authenticity.

What? A clubfoot should not show much of a heel print, but this one does....... So they invent a way around the incorrect clubfoot print. Amazing!

Instead of saying, the idiot hoaxer didn't know jack about a clubfoot except what it looked like??????, they invent a way for the tracks to still be real. Incredible? Why does anyone buy this garbage?

To me, this is strong evidence that the hoaxers only had a photo or an X-ray to go by when they faked the crippled print.

So Dahinden heard that Palma thought he saw ridges on the copies and altered the original casts to show ridges for sure? Is that what you meant?

Tunnel evidence and circular evidence are a bunch of believers agreeing with each other and preferring the believer's opinions over the non-believer's opinions. See crop circles.

Not everyone agrees with Krantz, so why shoud we believe his opinions over anyone else's? Why is Krantz weighted over others like Daegling?

Quote:
The argument for authenticity also hinges on the assumption that the footprints show a foot skeleton unique in proportion relative to human feet. If this observation is true, the hypothesis of an imitative hoax is undermined. This claim, however, rests on the assumption that Krantz's skeletal reconstruction of the Bossburg tracks is correct. Several arguments throw into question the accuracy of Krantz's reconstruction. First, the centerpiece of the reconstruction, in terms of establishing a foot that is functionally distinct from the human condition, depends on the correct placement of the tibiotalar joint of the ankle (Dennett 1994), an articulation that is well removed from the plantar surface (sole) of the foot (figure 2).

A second problem is whether the pedal skeleton can be accurately reconstructed from the surface features of the sole of the foot-specifically the location of anatomical joints so crucial to Krantz's argument. The Bossburg track is said to permit this because of the presence of two pathological "bunions" on its lateral (outer) border. These bunions are claimed to correspond to the calcaneocuboid and cubometatarsal joints of the foot, but this assertion lacks supporting clinical evidence or other empirical foundation. It is equally plausible to assign these to unusual prominences of other bones in the region (the cuboid and fifth metatarsal bones or the inconstant sesamoid bones os peroneum and os vesalianum) or any number of soft tissue pathologies. In any case, between the ball of the foot and the heel there are few landmarks to guide an anatomist to a perfect reconstruction (figure 3).

A third argument, however, may render the preceding objections immaterial. The assumption made to this point is that footprints are accurate reflections of plantar morphology. A recent study by Gatesy et al. (1999) found that track variation among terrestrial birds and dinosaurs is more a function of the substrate (i.e., soil and terrain) than of foot morphology. Thus, in the dynamic context of locomotion, it cannot be assumed that an imprint of a foot bears a perfect image of that foot's structure. Only one set of print casts survives from Bossburg (Dennett 1994), so the variation in the hundreds of tracks left at the scene is unknown.
It is getting harder to believe in bigfoot as I go along in this thread.....
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 06:45 AM   #269
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
Where can I read these 40+ opinions again? I don't think they all will be in Krantz's book, just the supporting ones, so where can I read all of them?



I don't know. Maybe the estate has Grover's files?


Quote:

If bigfoot has these largish dermal ridges and pores, why are they on so few casts? I didn't see a clear reason for this other than some gibberish about authenticity.



Haven't I explained this? Try walking on fresh skid roads, snow, thick club moss and see what you get.
Plaster isn't the most sensitive of casting mediums, but that what was used in many cases.


Quote:

What? A clubfoot should not show much of a heel print, but this one does....... So they invent a way around the incorrect clubfoot print. Amazing!




Only to a sceptic. Diagnoses differ. Ever get a second opinion from a doctor?

At Krantz' request, Dr. Meldrum researched the literature and found the deformity to be consistant with metatursus adductus. The crippling could have been caused by a lesion on the spine. That rather rules out Daegling's idea that some hoaxer could have enlarged photos of human skew foot to produce the effect, doesn't it?

Quote:

Instead of saying, the idiot hoaxer didn't know jack about a clubfoot except what it looked like??????, they invent a way for the tracks to still be real. Incredible? Why does anyone buy this garbage?



It seems you think it's garbage because you're not understanding the arguments.
Even if it could be shown the Bossburg tracks were faked, and it hasn't, that in no way would affect the rest of the evidence. There were other track events in Washington that same year involving other individuals.

Quote:

To me, this is strong evidence that the hoaxers only had a photo or an X-ray to go by when they faked the crippled print.



You have yet to establish there were any hoaxers involved in making the tracks. Can you produce the photo or X-ray and the names of these people?
How did they step over a 43" fence? How did they lay tracks in snow without leaving any trace of their activities?


Quote:


So Dahinden heard that Palma thought he saw ridges on the copies and altered the original casts to show ridges for sure? Is that what you meant?!




No.
Michael Dennett, who writes for Skeptical Inquirer, saw ridges on the original casts in Dahinden's possession after Palma had pointed out the areas where they could be seen. Dennett's statement is clear. How did you misunderstand it?
Exactly how does one fake ridges on a plaster cast?


Quote:

Tunnel evidence and circular evidence are a bunch of believers agreeing with each other and preferring the believer's opinions over the non-believer's opinions. See crop circles.



Scepticism is part of the effort. No researcher likes wild goose chases. Dahinden took three days to consider before deciding to go to Bossburg. Noll says Dahinden was so sceptical he'd have asked his own mother to take a lie detector test if she said she saw tracks going up to her door.
You don't think there's some well-organized cult here do you? The original "four horsemen", as some enterprising journalist dubbed them, mostly hated each other.
The scientists who've done the most work on this worked independently and have arrived at their conclusions independently.
Crop circles have nothing to do with this.

Quote:

Not everyone agrees with Krantz, so why shoud we believe his opinions over anyone else's?



Not everyone agrees with you either. You might want to consider his opinion because he did the research. His detractors didn't.

Quote:

Why is Krantz weighted over others like Daegling?



What research has Daegling done? He copycats Dennett right down to a misquote and cites the opinion of a known hoaxer who has never examined the Skookum Cast, but ignores the opinion of the leading primate anatomist in the country as well as that of a funtional primate anatomist with the Museum of Natural History in New York. Have you read the book? I have.

Here's a review (it's kind):

"By far, this is the best book available on the skeptical approach to Bigfoot. It is systematic and reasoned-if not always reasonable.

Just to take one very simple example, those who support or pursue research where the base hypothesis is that Bigfoot is primarily a zoological entity are termed "advocates." The term itself is benign. However, those who espouse that Bigfoot is primarily a cultural myth are termed "skeptics." What is implied is that advocates are not skeptically inclined. One need look no further than Rene Dahinden to realize there is little truth to that.

I actually think the persons traditionally seen as skeptics can be divided into two groups. "Agnostics" are noncommittal regarding the physical nature of the phenomenon, do not pursue zoological Bigfoot research themselves, and are ambivalent about the available evidence. I would coin the term "acryptics" for those who deny there is any undocumented North American ape, diminish the worth of available evidence, and portray advocates as gullible wishful thinkers.

Daegling positions himself as an agnostic, but he does at times exhibit strong acryptic leanings. I respect the agnostic stance, as the position is one of strict empiricism. He never denies that there is a living species, although he does not find the hypothesis to be a parsimonious one.

Daegling's focus on the semiotic value of Bigfoot as a cultural myth does not exclude a physical form for the creature, which he admits himself. A zoological and a sociopsychological existence can go hand in hand. His analysis of the pros and cons of natural history arguments for Bigfoot strongly challenges advocates, but it is balanced in terms of its conclusion. Daegling acknowledges that Bigfoot's existence cannot be refuted on the basis of ecological and biological principles alone.

The problem is that Daegling denounces all of the available evidence as fabricated, tainted, or worthless. Some of the scrutiny of evidence is done with fairness and thoroughness, such as when addressing the case of the Minnesota Iceman and pre-1958 historical accounts. However, very few contemporary advocates would elevate those tales to a "greatest hits" list in terms of evidence, if they are considered genuine at all. In all likelihood, the pre-1958 accounts are brought forth by Daegling to examine their mythological elements as they compare to current accounts. The story of the Iceman just serves to illustrate the duping of two advocate scientists. Therein is the value of the tales, at least to the author.

Evidence that is considered more seriously by current researchers is unfortunately assessed with assumption, misinformation, and derision. The portions regarding the Skookum cast, Ray Wallace, and eyewitness testimony are particularly misleading and omit some important details that are none too difficult to unearth. An informed advocate response to the chapters regarding evidence is essential. Special focus should be given to answering charges against the evidentiary value of the Patterson film and track casts.

Daegling's dismissal of Jimmy Chilcutt's dermal ridge findings as "irrelevant" is simply astounding. If a feature can be observed in a track cast that would support is authenticity, then it can be duplicated convincingly with a modest amount of human ingenuity and a prankster's inclination. No special knowledge is required. Any other position is considered to be hubris flowing from misplaced confidence in one's professional credentials and specialist training. The advocates are told they are underestimating the ability of hoaxers and overestimating the difficulty of hoaxing.

I do recommend that informed advocates read this book, as there is material that can be gleaned from Daegling's work in order to police our own affairs. The chapter on scholarship and pseudoscience is especially important if advocate researchers desire this enterprise to be more than nominally scientific. A good deal of contempt is directed towards credentialed and professional researchers of the phenomenon, more so than even the known hoaxers. The identical legitimate points could have been made in the chapter without the scornful attitude.

Let me be clear. The burden of proof for demonstrating that an uncatalogued animal is the source of this phenomenon lies squarely in the advocate camp. That burden has not yet been satisfied. Daegling could do better, but, more importantly, so could we."

And Green:

"Review
BIGFOOT EXPOSED: by Dr. David J. Daegling, Ph.D.,
An anthropologist examines America's enduring legend...

No need to pay much attention to this book. There are parts of it that are worth reading, but mostly peripheral to the main issue. The book cover appears to promise skilled dissection by a qualified scientist that disposes of all evidence that sasquatch are real animals, but in that regard the book contains nothing at all.

Leaving out "could be" material like old newspaper stories, Indian traditions, unidentified sounds, smells and hair, mysteriously thrown rocks, and so on, there are three lines of evidence that Dr. Daegling has to explain away: hundreds of casts and photos of footprints; thousands of eye-witness accounts, and one remarkable movie.

As to the footprints, Dr. Daegling has read about them, but there is no indication that he has studied them. Since he is sure that there can be no such animal and that the footprints can easily be faked, he has seen no need to, even when he planned to write about them in a book. What has been reported by the people who actually have investigated such footprints has to be mistaken, because if it were correct the likes of Ray Wallace and Rant Mullens could not have made them, and they have "revealed" that they did.

Eye witnesses? Dr.Daegling goes on at length about the fallibility of human memory.

A lot of truth in that, but if its memories were as completely useless as he suggests the human species could never have survived, let alone written books. He has read the stories of some witnesses, but since there is no such animal and memories are so fallible he has seen no need to talk to any, even when he planned to write a book dismissing all of them as dupes and liars
and hallucinators.

Paradoxically, one witness who happened to be a friend of his does seem to have made quite an impression on him, even though hers was a partial on-a-dark-road sighting. He stresses that this lone interview happened to him "not by design," and considering his reaction it seems likely that avoiding talking to people with clear and detailed sightings to describe was absolutely necessary for him to be able to write his book.

It is different regarding the Patterson movie. He has indeed spent time and sought assistance in studying that. Not to prove that it is a hoax, which isn't necessary since there is no such animal, just to try to disprove evidence that what it shows can't be a man in a suit.

Throughout the book there are enough factual errors and ill-founded assumptions to thoroughly mislead anyone who has no other source of information on this subject, but since such a person would not be likely to see this review it hardly seems worthwhile to deal with them here.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C. Canada, December 23, 2004"


I don't know if linking to a commercial site is allowed on this forum, but you can find more at Amazon.com, including a review by Richard Noll. There's a whole thread on the book on BFF (which is a forum used by some actual researchers) I can point you to if you want.

Quote:
It is getting harder to believe in bigfoot as I go along in this thread.....
Your mind was made up to begin with; don't let me confuse you with the facts.
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 07:32 AM   #270
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by LAL


No.
You're thinking of Rant Mullens. He produced some carved feet which didn't match the tracks.
Oops! I meant Ray Pickens. My bad.
How come none of you caught me on that?
I notice my questions aren't being answered. Why is that?
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 07:45 AM   #271
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Okay. I think people are missing the point.

LAL has won me over. Any evidence, no matter how flimsy or dubious, is good enough to prove Bigfoot exists. If you want to persist in your claims that it was faked, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to produce rock-solid proof of fakery. By that we mean signed notarized documents witnessed by at least three leading Bigfoot experts. Film or vdeo of the complete process, and/or a complete photographic record detailing every step of the fakery process showing exactly how they created the fakes. We need to be sure they didn't create false fakes by simply copying genuine Bigfoot evidence.

Unless you can produce all of that, we don't want to hear any more of this silly "hoax" nonsense.
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 08:20 AM   #272
LAL
Illuminator
 
LAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Hitch
Okay. I think people are missing the point.

LAL has won me over. Any evidence, no matter how flimsy or dubious, is good enough to prove Bigfoot exists. If you want to persist in your claims that it was faked, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to produce rock-solid proof of fakery. By that we mean signed notarized documents witnessed by at least three leading Bigfoot experts. Film or vdeo of the complete process, and/or a complete photographic record detailing every step of the fakery process showing exactly how they created the fakes. We need to be sure they didn't create false fakes by simply copying genuine Bigfoot evidence.

Unless you can produce all of that, we don't want to hear any more of this silly "hoax" nonsense.
Well, is that so unreasonable? Sceptics want nothing short of a body.
Fake feet that actually produce trackways like the ones in question with a demonstration of how the deep impressions were produced might suffice. So far, no one's been able to do that.
I asked you for a name on Bossburg and you didn't supply it.
I did. Of course, Pickens' carved feet (hinged, as I recall) didn't resemble the tracks, but why let a little detail like that deter the hoax hypothesizers? There's always Ivan Marx to fall back on.
Remember, there have been many thousands of tracks observed, so be sure to demonstrate how each trackway was made. It would be advisable to produce the original fake feet with articulating toes, dermal ridges, healed scars and midtarsal flexibility that show the anatomical adaptations for great weight and life in rugged terrain. In case you missed this, here are photos and drawings to help you out (in case you have to fake the fakes):

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html


After that you can yank confessions out of the remaining witnesses on the three or four best pieces of footage and get them to produce the suits.
Should be easy, don't you think?
And what makes you think the evidence is "flimsy" or "dubious"?
__________________
Lu

https://librarylu.wordpress.com/
LAL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 08:24 AM   #273
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
Just to take one very simple example, those who support or pursue research where the base hypothesis is that Bigfoot is primarily a zoological entity are termed "advocates." The term itself is benign. However, those who espouse that Bigfoot is primarily a cultural myth are termed "skeptics." What is implied is that advocates are not skeptically inclined. One need look no further than Rene Dahinden to realize there is little truth to that.
So, Rene Dahinden is/was skeptical.. He should have been, since he searched for 40 or so years without finding anything conclusive...

So " looking no further than Rene Dahinden ", proves exactly what?


Rene Dahinden wanted soooooooooooooo bad for there to be a bigfoot ( I wonder if he ever felt like he had really wasted a lot of time and energy ), I find it commendable that he remained skeptical and didn't get all woo about the tenuous evidence.
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 08:33 AM   #274
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
And Green:
Review
BIGFOOT EXPOSED: by Dr. David J. Daegling, Ph.D.,
An anthropologist examines America's enduring legend...
Certainly no bias there...


Considered by many to be "Mr. Sasquatch",
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 09:21 AM   #275
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 22,200
There's a reason I dropped out of this discussion.

I'm seeing two groups come at this from diametrically opposite, and IMHO incorrect, positions.

One group is coming at this from the perspective that there is NO such creature, and any such body casts, hair fragments, photo, film, footprints, etc. must be fraudulent. (Let's put aside misidentification--we all know it's there, but in the cases that have been discussed, it's not particularly pertinent.)

Another group--well, person--is coming at it from the opposite viewpoint. There is a Bigfoot, and any photo, movie, footprint, cast, hair, etc. that hasn't been absolutely, positively, conclusively established as fraudulent must be genuine.

It seems to me that both sides are going so far out of their way to rationalize their opinions that it's bordering on the ridiculous.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 10:29 AM   #276
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,540
Quote:
How did they step over a 43" fence? How did they lay tracks in snow without leaving any trace of their activities?
I find it unbelievabe that you cannot figure out how to do both of those.

I am beginning to think you are being deliberately obtuse.

LAL, how would you make it look like a bigfoot had walked up to and stepped over a 43" fence? How would you cover your tracks in the snow or mud or whatever?

Does bigfoot ever just stand around, or does he just walk all the time?

Cleon, I would say LAL thinks things can't be faked, and just about everybody else knows they certainly can.

It is more the idea (or the arrogance) that the evidence for bigfoot couldn't or wouldn't be faked that bothers me.

More so than the idea of bigfoot itself.

The idea that believers or "experts" wouldn't be fooled, for example....they are just asking for hoaxers to do just that, imo.

We know darned good and well that people will hoax and they will go to elaborate lengths to hoax. Especially if they can sell a book or a video or take people on tours regarding the hoax.

To sit there and say, How would you do this? or How did they fake that?, or They couldn't have done this., is pointless.

"They" would sit down with a few cold drinks and figure out how to do it, that's how.

Not being able to figure out how someone did something does not equal "They couldn't have done it.".
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 10:40 AM   #277
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,674
Quote:
Does bigfoot ever just stand around, or does he just walk all the time?
LOL


Some of the evidence that has been presented refers to ' thousands of tracks..

Funny, they all lead to nowhere, and the one time when they have a print of a Bigfoot laying down, he seems to have flown in..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 10:44 AM   #278
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
 
Bronze Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
I'm reminded of an MIT project to create a crop circle that included "expulsion cavities" in the wheat, as well as scattered magnetized balls of iron. They made the expulsion cavities by hooking up a microwave's magnetron up to a waveguide of some sort, and set up a sort of bomb that would scatter the magnetic balls. For the expulsion cavities, I never would have thought of their contraption. Apparently a number of proponents of the alien hypothesis thought hoaxers couldn't replicate them.

Lesson: Never underestimate the abilities of hoaxers. There will always be someone with the skill and possible lack of social life to figure out how to fake something.

Another relevant issue: Fake Moon Landing. The reason why skeptics don't knee-jerk to "hoax" on the moon landing issue is because such a hoax would be harder to pull off than actually landing on the moon.

Lesson: Until we get up to DNA samples, remains, and actual specimens, bigfoot's existence is less plausible than hoaxes and other mundane explanations.
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne

Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I

A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel
Bronze Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 11:59 AM   #279
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Moderator
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 22,200
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6

Does bigfoot ever just stand around, or does he just walk all the time?
He hangs out with Jay and Silent Bob down at the Quick Stop.

Quote:


Cleon, I would say LAL thinks things can't be faked, and just about everybody else knows they certainly can.
You, however, are coming across as exactly the opposite--that no evidence can possibly be genuine. Maybe that's not how you feel about it, but it's the way I'm reading you.

Now, for the record, I'm generally on your side. He's probably not out there.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2005, 02:23 PM   #280
turtle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally posted by LTC8K6
[snip]

Cleon, I would say LAL thinks things can't be faked, and just about everybody else knows they certainly can.


I don't recall LAL saying that. Of course things can be faked, and they have been.


Quote:
Not being able to figure out how someone did something does not equal "They couldn't have done it.".
Being able to prove that some things have been faked does not equal "all things are fake."
__________________
<a href="http://ufobits.blogspot.com/">U.F.O. Bits Blog</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Forteans_and_Skeptics/">Join us at Forteans and Skeptics!</a>
turtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.