Bigfoot

[mountainlord]

Infinity Blade

Yes, I've seen that skeptic "debunk" that specific Bigfoot cast. The problem with skeptics is that they always love to CHERRY-PICK certain stuff and deliberately leave out all the other hard evidence they can't debunk. Meldrum is still a firm believer of Bigfoot and still says there's plenty of more hard evidence for its existence.

Ok, watch this video and explaination from Dr Jeff Meldrum talking about this Bigfoot track wave that was documented/photographed:



Note - if that was "faked" then you would have definitely seen the tracks of the humans helping to fake them. Common sense! But you don't. And the detail of the tracks was also astounding. Meldrum is a world authority in this field and just notice how convinced he is of the validity of this Bigfoot track wave.

Thats something to think about.

Also, top leading experts in what field? Bigfoot research? There's not really a whole lot of weight to being a "top leading expert" in something that's not even a recognized, legitimate field of science and research, my dude.

LOL, no, I was talking about top leading FORENSIC experts like Chilcutt and top leading experts in the field of primate/human anatomy/footprints, like Jeff Meldrum. 

Not Bigfoot research. - Thats cryptozoology.

theropod

Maybe he made the costume himself. Maybe a friend helped him out. Maybe he wasn’t so broke after all. Maybe he borrowed or stole a costume. Maybe someone else decided to run around in an ape costume, and he merely witnessed and filmed it. I don’t understand why I need to explain that to you…

Nothing but wild SPECULATIONS. I've seen tons of documentaries addressing the Patterson film, and its a fact (Even some skeptics have acknowledged this) that Patterson was a broke man.

So now, according to you, in 1967, a broke man like Patterson was able to create such a realistic ape suit with BREASTS (Which even the top Hollywood costume designers in the world said they couldn't replicate) and then find someone who's at least 7ft tall with freakish, ape-like limb proportions?

Logically, this makes sense to you? If it does, then I'm finished here. I can't help someone get common sense. You either see logic or you don't.

You still haven’t responded to my question what you think constitutes "debunking" of this footage, but from this passage, I take it you accept replication as "debunking"? In that case, I’m sure someone since then has run around in an ape costume and looked moderately convincing doing it…

This is what constitutes "debunking" the Patterson footage. Show me a single example or case, where someone standing at least 7ft tall with freakish, ape-like body proportions, faked a Bigfoot sighting with a suit showing breasts and even realistic muscle movement?? I defy you to show me one example?...

The video you posted was pointless. You could easily see those were people in ape costumes, very clearly. They had NORMAL HUMAN body/limb proportions, the costumes looked stiff and not one person was this massively built, 7ft ape person. You understand now?

I stand by what I confidently said - NO ONE, and I repeat, no one has ever been able to meet the standards of the Patterson footage, period.

If "top hollywood costume designers of that time" claimed that it was technically impossible to fake that footage at that time, then heck yes. I already demonstrated costume designers back then were perfectly capable of producing sufficiently realistic ape costumes.

No you never. You didn't even come close. Re-read my explaination above again and understand.

I’m still waiting for you to post that paper…

It will take me some time, but I'll try and find it. I'll also post Dr Melba Ketchums findings too. (Hair samples)

Great. So if there is good, accepted evidence for Bigfoot that the scientific community accepts, then why did you write this:

"And like I said before, most scientists don't want to risk ridicule. For some reason, they treat Bigfoot like its believing in Santa Clause or something. Its ridiculous."

I clearly said "MOST" scientists...not "ALL" scientists! - There's a difference. "Most" is not "All". I'm sure you know that. Next time please read my posts more carefully.

Well, seems you need to revisit your own words as well. An example of a fact is that you did write that:

 mountainlord said:

There's people that have lived in the woods their whole life and have never come across a single Black bear skeleton, and there's thousands of bears all over the place. The Rainforest soil also quickly dissolves the bones of an animal, which makes it almost impossible to find.

Now, add that factor to the most rare and elusive mammal in North America, and it makes it impossible to find, period.

Yeah, it makes it impossible to find the BONES of Bigfoot. Not DNA evidence of its existence or footage. Again, there's a difference. Read my posts properly.

There's even a well known theory out there, that they might even bury their dead, like us humans do. So thats also a big possibility.

[mountainlord]

SASQUATCH NESTS DNA STUDY

"New methods of surveying all DNA to be found in a soil sample (eDNA) may assist in the search for sasquatch. Soil samples taken from ground nest sites, attributed to sasquatch on the basis of construction and hair samples, are ideal candidates for eDNA analysis. Samples have been collected from nests at a site in the Olympic Penninsula, WA and await analysis. Cost is approximately $1000 per sample."...

"Recently, members of the Olympic Project, a group of citizen scientist investigators in Washington state, became aware of multiple ground nests of distinctive construction, yielding hairs of an unknown hominoid. Expert opinion is that these unusual nests were not made by bears. This seemed to be an ideal situation for an eDNA survey."...




"My name is Dr Jeff Meldrum, I am a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University and have considered the question of sasquatch from various angles for over two decades. I was invited by Derek Randles, of the Olympic Project, to visit the site and examine the nests, their location, concentration, and construction. I was stunned. The nests were typically underlain with a foundation of medium diameter sticks overlain with huckleberry boughs that had been apparently manually pulled off the ends of the surrounding bushes that formed and effective 7-foot screen. The boughs were jammed in stem first and plaited into the marginal ring. Soil samples were collected under sterile conditions and await eDNA analysis."

This man; Derek Randles dedicated his entire life to search for Sasquatch after having his own up close sighting and encounter:






Listen to one of his two Bigfoot sightings:

[mountainlord]

I tried posting that link to the above "Sasquatch DNA study" I just posted, but the link is not showing. For some weird reason.

[creature386]

Is there a reason you had to quote the post right above you?

[mountainlord]

Nov 10, 2019 20:16:07 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Is there a reason you had to quote the post right above you?

LOL, nah...I don't know why that happened. I tried posting the link to that study I posted and for some weird reason it just ended up quoting my entire post again.

[spartan]

Nov 10, 2019 19:59:41 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

Yeah, it makes it impossible to find the BONES of Bigfoot. Not DNA evidence of its existence or footage. Again, there's a difference. Read my posts properly.

There's even a well known theory out there, that they might even bury their dead, like us humans do. So thats also a big possibility.

But we have found plenty of human remains/fossils in North America. 

[Infinity Blade]

Yes, I've seen that skeptic "debunk" that specific Bigfoot cast. The problem with skeptics is that they always love to CHERRY-PICK certain stuff and deliberately leave out all the other hard evidence they can't debunk.

I can say three things in response to this:

1.) The source I provided was mostly meant to address the specific footprints you mentioned (the Chilcutt footprints), and now the skeptics are suddenly "cherry picking"? No, they're just addressing those specific ones.

2.) In any case it actually does say this about alleged Bigfoot tracks in general.

The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive “evidence” for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track.

3.) "debunk". Are you implying these specific prints are still somehow compelling evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

Meldrum is still a firm believer of Bigfoot and still says there's plenty of more hard evidence for its existence.

That wasn't the point. The point was that even he doesn't consider these specific prints to be compelling evidence.

Now, onto the video:

Note - if that was "faked" then you would have definitely seen the tracks of the humans helping to fake them. Common sense! But you don't.

Or, you know, the place where the "tracks" were "made" wasn't actually all that conducive to making genuine footprints and to make "Bigfoot tracks" a guy could have just fabricated them by hand?

Or, you know, they literally covered their own tracks?

And the detail of the tracks was also astounding.

You mean the sliding heel and dragging toes? It wouldn't exactly be hard to fabricate those by hand either...

Meldrum is a world authority in this field and just notice how convinced he is of the validity of this Bigfoot track wave.

Okay...

LOL, no, I was talking about top leading FORENSIC experts like Chilcutt and top leading experts in the field of primate/human anatomy/footprints, like Jeff Meldrum.

Not Bigfoot research. - Thats cryptozoology.

Ah. Well, as the article I've posted said on the previous page, the guy who conducted the experiment was an artist, someone who would know about plaster casts and how they work, can end up like, etc. And, as also stated previously, he found that "dermal ridges" on alleged Bigfoot footprints can appear on fabricated casts too.

[mountainlord]

Infinity Blade

I can say three things in response to this:

1.) The source I provided was mostly meant to address the specific footprints you mentioned (the Chilcutt footprints), and now the skeptics are suddenly "cherry picking"? No, they're just addressing those specific ones.

2.) In any case it actually does say this about alleged Bigfoot tracks in general.

Yes, it is cherry-picking at its best. Why? Because Chilcutt has examined MANY different Bigfoot footprints, not just that one. These skeptics clearly leave out all of the other evidences there is and never address all of it. Meldrum also addressed this point. I posted it in one of my previous posts on this thread.

And remember, Meldrum is the undisputed authority/leading expert in primate/human anatomy and footprint authenticity, not these stupid, cherry-picking skeptics. I'd way rather listen to the actual experts, then some ignorant skeptics that cherry-pick to suit their agenda.

"debunk". Are you implying these specific prints are still somehow compelling evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

No, the prints that have been thoroughly examined by expert authorities like Meldrum and top forensic experts like Chilcutt are compelling evidence. You know, the ones that no one can or has debunked.

That wasn't the point. The point was that even he doesn't consider these specific prints to be compelling evidence.

Key word - "SPECIFIC"....Not all the other footprints he's examined and concluded to be 100% real. Only those "specific" casts. There's a big difference. Don't twist Meldrums words now.

Or, you know, the place where the "tracks" were "made" wasn't actually all that conducive to making genuine footprints and to make "Bigfoot tracks" a guy could have just fabricated them by hand?

Or, you know, they literally covered their own tracks?

Oh boy, watch the video again and listen carefully to the actual REAL EXPERT explain the detail of those tracks! From heel slides, toe drag marks etc etc....

Please, explain how they could have possibly covered their own tracks so perfectly? For arguments sake, lets assume that was true, even if they tried covering their own tracks, while they were walking doing that, they would continue to make NEW TRACKS by their own feet in the process. Common sense.

The detail of the tracks, along with what Meldrum explains, logically points to that they were made by a real Bigfoot. Its obvious.

You mean the sliding heel and dragging toes? It wouldn't exactly be hard to fabricate those by hand either...

Show me one example? And then explain to me how to fabricate it to such an extent, where you can fool a top leading authority on footprint anatomy?

This will be interesting.

Ah. Well, as the article I've posted said on the previous page, the guy who conducted the experiment was an artist, someone who would know about plaster casts and how they work, can end up like, etc. And, as also stated previously, he found that "dermal ridges" on alleged Bigfoot footprints can appear on fabricated casts too.

OK, but is every single person thats "faking" Bigfoot footprints an artist?? So your telling me, that all the authentic Bigfoot footprints that have been concluded to be 100% real by undisputed experts in this field, which were also found in remote regions, mountain tops, rocky hills etc etc....were all hoaxed by some random artists who even climbed several thousand feet up in the mountains for a joke, just hoping that one day, someone might come and find these footprints?...

This all makes logical sense to you?

[theropod]

And remember, Meldrum is the undisputed authority/leading expert in primate/human anatomy and footprint authenticity, not these stupid, cherry-picking skeptics. I'd way rather listen to the actual experts, then some ignorant skeptics that cherry-pick to suit their agenda.

Ok, since we are putting so much emphasis on this argument from authority, could we see the body of work the guy has published in this field, making him the undisputed authority?

[creature386]

Mountainlord, your behavior is quite frankly Gish galloping.

The way science works is that you formulate a hypothesis and then search for testable predictions which either verify or falsify your hypothesis. Albert Einstein for example made a specific prediction about how how gravity would curve the light during an upcoming solar eclipse if the general theory of relativity was true (they ended up confirming him).

Gish galloping on the other hand consists of formulating 50 half-truths and declaring victory as long as the opponent doesn't have the time and energy to debunk all of them. You claim that the evidence for Bigfoot is good because it hasn't been debunked. Yet despite repeated demands, you have never clarified what could debunk a poor quality film clip from a man who is long dead or the assignment of footprints and samples which have never been described in a published paper. Especially if anything that would falsify the Bigfoot hypothesis (like the lack of any non-human great ape fossil record in North America) is explained away in an ad hoc manner. Compare that to J. B. S. Haldane who, when asked what could debunk the theory of evolution was quick to reply with (paraphrased) "Find me rabbits in the Precambrian and I'll give up".
You know, it's much easier to come up with new pseudo-evidence and never publish it than it is to convince departments into giving scientists enough tax money to write papers on them.

By the way, I know that I'm late, but I've found this on the Patterson film:
www.strangecarolinas.com/2015/07/philip-morris-interview-with-man-who.html
Philipp Morris (one of the costume designers of Planet of the Apes) claims to have given the broke Patterson a costume. He could be lying, but since he's as dead as Patterson, it's going to be hard to debunk him, especially when I have my own standards of what I consider debunking.

[spartan]

If there were genuine Bigfoot footprints (or even "nests" as you claim) it makes absolutely zero sense that people like Meldrum have not done everything they could to extract DNA from them. This wouldn't be hard at all.

[Infinity Blade]

Yes, it is cherry-picking at its best. Why? Because Chilcutt has examined MANY different Bigfoot footprints, not just that one. These skeptics clearly leave out all of the other evidences there is and never address all of it. Meldrum also addressed this point. I posted it in one of my previous posts on this thread.

Guess what? Although the article does discuss what implications the findings could have for other alleged Bigfoot tracks (assuming the arguments for their authenticity also amount to "hurr durr dErMaL rIdGes"), it never claims to be debunking literally every single Bigfoot track ever in one fell swoop. They are not cherry picking evidence, they are simply saying one specific piece of evidence is not particularly damning (although, again, this could also have implications for other, similar pieces of supposed proof).

And remember, Meldrum is the undisputed authority/leading expert in primate/human anatomy and footprint authenticity, not these stupid, cherry-picking skeptics. I'd way rather listen to the actual experts, then some ignorant skeptics that cherry-pick to suit their agenda.

Do you believe him simply because he's an authority (particularly a professor) of anatomy and anthropology?

Okay, by that logic I guess I should have listened to Mark McMenamin over some Internet skeptics all those years ago about the Triassic Kraken. After all, he's an actual paleontologist. Only downside is I'd have taken a level in dumbass...but other than that though.

No, the prints that have been thoroughly examined by expert authorities like Meldrum and top forensic experts like Chilcutt are compelling evidence. You know, the ones that no one can or has debunked.

Are you talking about the specific (more on that below!) one the article addresses? Whatever the case, creature386 already said it best: "...you have never clarified what could debunk...the assignment of footprints and samples which have never been described in a published paper."

Key word - "SPECIFIC"....Not all the other footprints he's examined and concluded to be 100% real. Only those "specific" casts. There's a big difference. Don't twist Meldrums words now.

My god dude. You literally just told me what I wrote! Congratulations, you can read (to some extent, at least).

I never said Jeff Meldrum proclaimed all alleged Bigfoot tracks to be bunk pieces of evidence. Hence why I said "specific tracks". Hell, I even showed you a passage from the article I posted where Meldrum says "However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site." (followed afterwards by the article's counter to this). And yet here you are claiming that I'm twisting people's words. Ironic.

Oh boy, watch the video again and listen carefully to the actual REAL EXPERT explain the detail of those tracks! From heel slides, toe drag marks etc etc....

It basically just amounts to "the footprints are imprinted in a way that a living animal could/would make, it would have required several different sets of tracks interchanged in just the right places" yadayadaya.

Toe drags, heel slides, what about these could you not replicate if you're deliberately aiming for it and have the tools for it? Hell, what would prevent the aforementioned tools to just be your fingers and hands literally fiddling around until you got something that's passable as a footprint (as far as well, footprints go anyway).

Please, explain how they could have possibly covered their own tracks so perfectly? For arguments sake, lets assume that was true, even if they tried covering their own tracks, while they were walking doing that, they would continue to make NEW TRACKS by their own feet in the process.

Yeeeeessssss...and then they'd cover those until...guess what...they reach a place where they're not making tracks any more.

Mind blown.

Common sense.

I don't think this means what you think...

The detail of the tracks, along with what Meldrum explains, logically points to that they were made by a real Bigfoot. Its obvious.

So...I guess you're not gonna get to what I said here(?):

Or, you know, the place where the "tracks" were "made" wasn't actually all that conducive to making genuine footprints and to make "Bigfoot tracks" a guy could have just fabricated them by hand?

Show me one example? And then explain to me how to fabricate it to such an extent, where you can fool a top leading authority on footprint anatomy?

This will be interesting.

I feel like I've alluded to this earlier in this post of mine but I just got to address this: "...fool a top leading authority on footprint anatomy". Okay dude, we're talking about the detail of footprints here. A footprint by its very nature can only be made to be so detailed (to say nothing of taphonomy). And we're talking about details like toe drags and heel slides, which aren't even as fine of a detail as the aforementioned dermal ridges. Is a toe drag or heel slide really that fine of a detail to you?

OK, but is every single person thats "faking" Bigfoot footprints an artist?? So your telling me, that all the authentic Bigfoot footprints that have been concluded to be 100% real by undisputed experts in this field, which were also found in remote regions, mountain tops, rocky hills etc etc....were all hoaxed by some random artists who even climbed several thousand feet up in the mountains for a joke, just hoping that one day, someone might come and find these footprints?...

This all makes logical sense to you?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This is what I'm saying.

1.) The article I posted about one of Jimmy Chilcutt's alleged Bigfoot tracks talks about an experiment conducted by a guy named Matt Crowley to see whether or not dermal ridges could be mimicked when fabricating a Bigfoot footprint cast.

2.) I mentioned Matt Crowley's credentials/what he does for a living and how this relates to his experiment. He is an artist.

3.) He found that casting artifacts can, in fact, mimic dermal ridges.

I never said anything about how everyone who might fake a Bigfoot footprint is some artist.

[mountainlord]

creature386

Gish galloping on the other hand consists of formulating 50 half-truths and declaring victory as long as the opponent doesn't have the time and energy to debunk all of them. You claim that the evidence for Bigfoot is good because it hasn't been debunked. Yet despite repeated demands, you have never clarified what could debunk a poor quality film clip from a man who is long dead or the assignment of footprints and samples which have never been described in a published paper.

I never "Gish-galloped" about anything. I very clearly stated why I believe in Bigfoot. And do you even read my posts properly?? I made it very clear, and explained why the Patterson footage can't be debunked. This is getting very frustrating now. Read my posts properly.

In fact, I outright defied and challenged theropod to show me just one single example, where someone "faked" a Bigfoot footage, with an at least 7ft tall person, with freakish ape-like limb proportions and gait, with a costume showing realistic muscle movement and breasts, and he FAILED completely to do so, period.

Now, can you show me? If you can't, then don't even talk about it anymore.

I have made this clear several times now, so I don't know what your on about. No one, and I repeat, no one has been able to match the standards of the Patterson film, fact. Go look it up. I defy you to show me?

Philipp Morris (one of the costume designers of Planet of the Apes) claims to have given the broke Patterson a costume. He could be lying, but since he's as dead as Patterson, it's going to be hard to debunk him, especially when I have my own standards of what I consider debunking.

Are you kiddin me? Of course this is a blatant lie from this outright liar. I mean seriously, just look at his costume:



Not one person (LIAR) thats claimed to have made the Patterson Bigfoot costume, has been able to provide even a shred of real evidence that proved that they helped hoax that video, not one single person. Several people have come out and claimed they helped hoax it, and all turned out to be liars and frauds. 

This is a joke! His costume is pathetic. 

spartan

If there were genuine Bigfoot footprints (or even "nests" as you claim) it makes absolutely zero sense that people like Meldrum have not done everything they could to extract DNA from them. This wouldn't be hard at all.

Did you even read the article?? Thats exactly what their doing. Its a "SASQUATCH DNA STUDY".

Infinity Blade

Do you believe him simply because he's an authority (particularly a professor) of anatomy and anthropology?

Okay, by that logic I guess I should have listened to Mark McMenamin over some Internet skeptics all those years ago about the Triassic Kraken. After all, he's an actual paleontologist. Only downside is I'd have taken a level in dumbass...but other than that though.

You never provided a single shred of proof from any expert or authority on footprints/primate anatomy etc...that has debunked Bigfoot tracks. You post selective nonsense from skeptics who leave out all the other pieces of evidence. 

For once in your life, post evidence from an authority in this field that completely debunks the Bigfoot tracks as evidence?

Are you talking about the specific (more on that below!) one the article addresses? Whatever the case, creature386 already said it best: "...you have never clarified what could debunk...the assignment of footprints and samples which have never been described in a published paper."

Footprints and samples have been described in published papers, articles and books. 

And yes, I was talking about that specific track that the article addresses. 

I never said Jeff Meldrum proclaimed all alleged Bigfoot tracks to be bunk pieces of evidence. Hence why I said "specific tracks". Hell, I even showed you a passage from the article I posted where Meldrum says "However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site." (followed afterwards by the article's counter to this). And yet here you are claiming that I'm twisting people's words. Ironic.

My mistake. You did say "specific". But I was just pointing out that only those specific casts though. Meldrum still regards all the other HUNDREDS of casts he's examined to be 100% legit and compelling evidence.

Toe drags, heel slides, what about these could you not replicate if you're deliberately aiming for it and have the tools for it? Hell, what would prevent the aforementioned tools to just be your fingers and hands literally fiddling around until you got something that's passable as a footprint (as far as well, footprints go anyway).

LMAO! I can't believe you just said that. If you did that with your finger and hands, you'll easily be able to tell if that was the case. Especially on wet mud. Use your common sense.

If Meldrum was literally that easy to fool, then what kind of an "expert" is he? Let alone a top respected authority in this field.

Yeeeeessssss...and then they'd cover those until...guess what...they reach a place where they're not making tracks any more.

Mind blown.

Yeah, I'm mind blown that you think these things are so simple! And I'm also mind blown that you think any random person out there can easily fool such a highly respected expert and professor on primate/human anatomy and footprints.

Now answer this, all of those HUNDREDS of Bigfoot footprints that Meldrum has thoroughly examined and concluded to be 100% real and legit, was Meldrum wrong and fooled literally every single time in hundreds of cases?

Common sense.

I don't think this means what you think...

Yes it does. 

So...I guess you're not gonna get to what I said here(?):

Or, you know, the place where the "tracks" were "made" wasn't actually all that conducive to making genuine footprints and to make "Bigfoot tracks" a guy could have just fabricated them by hand?

Oh yeah, I forgot, your the expert, not Meldrum.

Fabricated by hand?....Get real. You think everything is that simple. Come to reality.

I feel like I've alluded to this earlier in this post of mine but I just got to address this: "...fool a top leading authority on footprint anatomy". Okay dude, we're talking about the detail of footprints here. A footprint by its very nature can only be made to be so detailed (to say nothing of taphonomy). And we're talking about details like toe drags and heel slides, which aren't even as fine of a detail as the aforementioned dermal ridges. Is a toe drag or heel slide really that fine of a detail to you?

No, stop waffling. Explain to me how someone can fool a top expert like Meldrum, by creating such realistic footprints. From toe drags, heel slides etc...without leaving a slight trace of themselves there??...

And don't give me that "Fabricated by hand" nonsense, because thats just laughable. Also if someone did "fabricate it by hand" then you'll see marks of their KNEE'S, LEGS and FEET on the floor. You see, it just doesn't add up or make any sense.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This is what I'm saying.

1.) The article I posted about one of Jimmy Chilcutt's alleged Bigfoot tracks talks about an experiment conducted by a guy named Matt Crowley to see whether or not dermal ridges could be mimicked when fabricating a Bigfoot footprint cast.

2.) I mentioned Matt Crowley's credentials/what he does for a living and how this relates to his experiment. He is an artist.

3.) He found that casting artifacts can, in fact, mimic dermal ridges.

I never said anything about how everyone who might fake a Bigfoot footprint is some artist.

Again, stop waffling and beating around the bush....ANSWER MY QUESTION?....

So your telling me, that all the authentic Bigfoot footprints that have been concluded to be 100% real by undisputed experts in this field, which were also found in remote regions, mountain tops, rocky hills etc etc....were all hoaxed by some random artists (Or people) who even climbed several thousand feet up in the mountains for a joke, just hoping that one day, someone might come and find these footprints?...

This all makes logical sense to you?

Also, here's an interesting article I found that logically explains why we can't find Bigfoot remains/bones:

exemplore.com/cryptids/If-Bigfoot-is-Real-Where-are-the-Bones

Read through that article properly, and maybe you guys will find some answers your looking for.

[creature386]

Nov 17, 2019 20:28:46 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

creature386

Gish galloping on the other hand consists of formulating 50 half-truths and declaring victory as long as the opponent doesn't have the time and energy to debunk all of them. You claim that the evidence for Bigfoot is good because it hasn't been debunked. Yet despite repeated demands, you have never clarified what could debunk a poor quality film clip from a man who is long dead or the assignment of footprints and samples which have never been described in a published paper.

I never "Gish-galloped" about anything. I very clearly stated why I believe in Bigfoot. And do you even read my posts properly?? I made it very clear, and explained why the Patterson footage can't be debunked. This is getting very frustrating now. Read my posts properly.

In fact, I outright defied and challenged theropod to show me just one single example, where someone "faked" a Bigfoot footage, with an at least 7ft tall person, with freakish ape-like limb proportions and gait, with a costume showing realistic muscle movement and breasts, and he FAILED completely to do so, period.

Now, can you show me? If you can't, then don't even talk about it anymore.

I have made this clear several times now, so I don't know what your on about. No one, and I repeat, no one has been able to match the standards of the Patterson film, fact. Go look it up. I defy you to show me?

Then your standards are unreasonable. You are trying parameters like the size of seven feet as a fact, even though the footage has no scalebar. Even the authors of the footage cannot agree how big the creature was:

Patterson initially estimated its height at 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m) to 7 feet (2.1 m),[44] and later raised his estimate to about 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about 1 foot (0.30 m) too tall. Gimlin's estimate was 6 feet (1.8 m).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film
1.8 to 2.3 meters. That's quite an error margin and enough to take everything these guys say with a grain of salt. As such, the size is not replicable because we don't know enough about it.
The "realistic " gait and limb movements are also unclear due to the shaky footage with unclear frame rate.

One of the important controversies of the film is the frame rate it was filmed at: if the speed was 16 frames per second, some researchers and cryptozoologists claim that the gait and stride of the "creature" wouldn't be consistent with a human in an ape suit, but at 24 fps it would look exactly like a human in an ape suit. The super-shaky footage makes it impossible to confirm the frame rate.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bigfoot
As you can see in the Wiki-article, scientists like Esteban Sarmiento even disagree whether the creature had non-human limb proportions.

Your task is basically "If someone can make a costume with these limb proportions, this gait and that height, the Patterson footage is falsified". The reason it doesn't work as that we can verify none of these parameters about the Patty creature as the researches are arguing about them (as the Wiki article shows) because the footage is too poor.

Nov 17, 2019 20:28:46 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

Are you kiddin me? Of course this is a blatant lie from this outright liar. I mean seriously, just look at his costume:



Not one person (LIAR) thats claimed to have made the Patterson Bigfoot costume, has been able to provide even a shred of real evidence that proved that they helped hoax that video, not one single person. Several people have come out and claimed they helped hoax it, and all turned out to be liars and frauds. 

This is a joke! His costume is pathetic.

Note that this article gave the picture no caption. It could have just shown one of his Planet of Apes costumes. Even if he did not use that exact costume, he had the money and resources to make one for Patterson who was supposed to be too broke to make one himself.
Yeah, he could have lied, sure. I was using this to respond to your logic that we should believe all that can't be debunked even if it's hard to debunk by nature.

[theropod]

No, stop waffling. Explain to me how someone can fool a top expert like Meldrum, by creating such realistic footprints. From toe drags, heel slides etc...without leaving a slight trace of themselves there??...

Wear piece of rubber or silicone or another suitable material moulded in the right shape on your feet and then well…simply make toe drags or heel slides! How can that be so hard to conceive?

Now answer this, all of those HUNDREDS of Bigfoot footprints that Meldrum has thoroughly examined and concluded to be 100% real and legit, was Meldrum wrong and fooled literally every single time in hundreds of cases?

Are you building your entire case on one single person saying they think these prints are real, despite it being clear that this could never be told with such high confidence from a footprint no matter the level of expertise?

I’m well-acquainted with some of the leading experts on dinosaur footprints, but I can assure you if someone had been running around with a rubber form and stamping dinosaur footprints into the mud back in the mesozoic, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference if the mould was well-made. And this is even more problematic with something like bigfoot, where there is no anatomical standard for what exactly a bigfoot footprint must look like, because we don’t have any bigfoot feet, or any bigfoot footprints that we can take for granted are actually legit.

Footprints and samples have been described in published papers, articles and books.

Where are those published papers? Could you please post them already?