Debunk The Debunking

[wolftrax]

In the case of bf, the evidence DOES clearly support at a bare minimum that existence is more likely than non-existence.

Frankly, no, as many people have pointed out. His procedures were sloppy (which is scary, since he's a pharmacist...I wouldn't want him handling MY prescriptions that's for sure), and his choice of media too restrictive. The random vaguely dermatoglyphic-esque results are very different from the specifically identified anatomically correct details mentioned by Chillicut and Meldrum (such as in the "scarfoot" track).

Sample refutation of Crowley:

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/final-response-to-matt-crowley.html

Furthermore, in several cases, the dermatoglyphics were noted in the raw footprint BEFORE the casting was made...obviously THAT cannot be the result of "wicking" or other such nonsense. Neither can "wicking" be the explanation when the track is in already wet mud/soil, as the rebutter above points out.

So, no, I'm not impressed by Crowley, any more than I'm impressed by the claims of the Wallace family that Ray was a massive BF track hoaxer that fooled everybody.

Once again, LMS is your friend.

Show where the "Sasquatch dermals" are different from the artifacts.

Show the moisture content of the substrate of said tracks when they were cast, as well as these tracks that had dermals noted in them before they were cast.

Oh, you mean pg 257, where Meldrum says "This challenge has been taken on by an amateur investigator, Matt Crowley, whose preliminary results raise questions specifically about the interpretation of the Onion Mtn. cast features as dermatoglyphics."

For those who would like to see the real truth about casting artifacts and dermal ridges, with a comprehensive study and comparison complete with photos, these two sources are great:

http://orgoneresearc...-and-furrows-2/

http://www.theponder...01_archive.html

Mulder, I contacted you 2 days ago about this and you still have not responded with anything to support your claims. I take that to mean that you don't have anything to support your claims. I am sure you would consider your post above to be an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

However, the links I provided to both Matt Crowley's site as well as Bittermonk's site do support that casting artifacts do match that alleged to be "Sasquatch dermals". So the Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam falls a little flat.

Edited December 28, 2010 by wolftrax

[southernyahoo]

Why do people make this harder then it is? I just do not get it I guese.We have a living being that is living in our back yards al one can do is argue on how to prove these creatures real. Debunk the debunking and get wit it cuase if these so called sciencetist would just listen to the folks who have had encounters and get out there and prove it for themselves.That is all it takes is to get out in an area that these creatures are active and let them come to you.

I'm not out to kill one Julio, so the best I can do is collect physical biological evidence and send it to a scientist for analysis. I've done my part in this regard, so I'm just waiting on "science" to tell me that "yes" it does exist. Others may want a body, but DNA doesn't lie. I think they are too human to kill, and too wild to have over for dinner, but I will let one find me if it wants to.

[Guest]

Any real scientist would look at the available data and say "there's something to investigate here".

What about scientists like me who've looked at the data and concluded the opposite? (Careful now, I'm every bit as "credentialed" as your beloved Dr. Meldrum.) Why does it have to be some great failing on the part of scientists that they don't recognize "bigfoot" rather than the simple explanation that they're simply not impressed with those "available data?"

[Guest]

So what your saying then, is that the Scientific community has done no expeditions, no studies in the Americas that could cross over into Sasquatch studies? Let me put it another way......science is not studying Sasquatch, but are they studying bears? Wolves? Cougars? Elk? Moose? Deer? Wolverine? Lynx?

There is a reason they are not putting any effort into finding Sasquatch. Simply because they are not finding anything while in the field.

They aren't looking for sasquatch data, they're looking for wolf, cougar, et al data. That is the mandate of their expeditions. Can you imagine the response of the sponsoring entity if a scientist came back from an expedition to count and track moose with a bunch of sasquatch data? They'd be keel-hauled for funding fraud and likely never get another research grant again because they "couldn't be trusted to stick to their topic".

So, no they AREN'T looking, and even if by chance they found something, I suspect they'd go out of their way to ignore it to protect their funding stream.

Again, see above. Most do not give it the time of day because they have observed nothing that would indicate the existence of one.

Again, see above.

I've never seen it.......have you?

Yes.

But I don't expect my story or trace evidence to convince any skeptic. Proving it's existence is going to have to fall on guys like us Mulder. Guys that will act on a hunch, despite all logic pointing us in a other direction.

That's just it, all logic points DIRECTLY at bigfoot. If you have duck tracks, duck feathers, and people seeing/taking pictures of ducks then you have ducks there.

Only on the subject of bigfoot is it acceptable for "science" to say: you have bigfoot tracks, you have bigfoot hairs, people are seeing and photoing bigfoot. However you, do not have a bigfoot. All the evidence is fake and the people are lying/stupid/tricked.

But you never truly answered my question........do you feel science needs to lower it's standards in recognizing a species?

I think science needs to live up to it's standard of objectivity and investigation, rather than make unsupported blanket statements that it then demands non-scientists to DISprove.

[Guest]

Mulder, I contacted you 2 days ago about this and you still have not responded with anything to support your claims. I take that to mean that you don't have anything to support your claims. I am sure you would consider your post above to be an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

However, the links I provided to both Matt Crowley's site as well as Bittermonk's site do support that casting artifacts do match that alleged to be "Sasquatch dermals". So the Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam falls a little flat.

*Edit* I forgot that I was having trouble with the board when I first replied to you and it obviously didn't get through...my original reply:

Show where the "Sasquatch dermals" are different from the artifacts.

I don't need to, Meldrum already has.

Show the moisture content of the substrate of said tracks when they were cast, as well as these tracks that had dermals noted in them before they were cast.

Since I do not have such encyclopedic knowledge of such (and you obviously know I don't), this is a strawman/red herring diversion attempt. Meldrum has documented such already. Show where he is wrong.

Oh, you mean pg 257, where Meldrum says "This challenge has been taken on by an amateur investigator, Matt Crowley, whose preliminary results raise questions specifically about the interpretation of the Onion Mtn. cast features as dermatoglyphics."

Questions that have been answered. Now answer the questions about Crowly's sloppy protocol and illogical statements about saturated soil "wicking" from poured plaster. Meldrum also specifically refers to "Scarfoot" as an example of legitimate dermals vs artifacts (there's even a picture of the track in question).

For those who would like to see the real truth about casting artifacts and dermal ridges, with a comprehensive study and comparison complete with photos, these two sources are great:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ridges-and-furrows-2/

http://www.theponderingpossum.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

Both of those sites are stuck in the same trap...they repeatedly reference dry, fine, powedery substrates prone to "wicking". Which still proves nothing about tracks left in non-fine wet or saturated substrates nor tracks where ridging is clearly visible in the original track before the pour.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Mulder

[Guest]

What about scientists like me who've looked at the data and concluded the opposite? (Careful now, I'm every bit as "credentialed" as your beloved Dr. Meldrum.) Why does it have to be some great failing on the part of scientists that they don't recognize "bigfoot" rather than the simple explanation that they're simply not impressed with those "available data?"

Because of the quantity and quality of the data presented. Have you ever consulted directly with Meldrum, for example, and allowed him to walk you through the primary evidence directly, as others have done (who came away impressed and convinced at a minimum that further study WAS warranted)? Or are you basing your dismissal on "skeptic" reviews and general impressions from indirect sources?

[ShadowBorn]

What about scientists like me who've looked at the data and concluded the opposite? (Careful now, I'm every bit as "credentialed" as your beloved Dr. Meldrum.) Why does it have to be some great failing on the part of scientists that they don't recognize "bigfoot" rather than the simple explanation that they're simply not impressed with those "available data?"

Saskeptic

Does not science look at all the data it can collect,including eye wittnesses.You cannot close your mind to all aspects of science and that is listening and talking with eye wittnesses.

Stop looking at this creature like it is so mystical,it really is not that black and white.This is what gets me about close minded scientist that they refuse to look at all the available data that there is now.

Do you really think that i will post everything i know about these creatures in the open.What better way for a hoaxer to get info on these creatures and that would just ruin everything.Some stuff is better to stay close to your chest this way you can weed out the hoaxing.

Debunk the evidence that cannot be debunk and what you get is a new species living in our back yards.DNA what i heard is either contenamated or something else.But what if that dna keeps coming as part human and ape mix? Also what if we have been going through all these years thinking that the DNA has been contanamated but really has not?Then what !

Well Maybe we should not put our blinders on and start looking at the eveidence that has been proven to be authantic.Just different view

Saskeptic oh how i wish you had an encounter so that you can feel like what is to be an eyewittnes.What would your collueges think about you then?would they believe you ?or will they blow you off only because your word is not good enough?Whether you like it or not there is a living creature living in our forest.Eye wittnesses cannot all be lying. Right!

[wolftrax]

I don't need to, Meldrum already has.

Where? You cite LMS, yet the only thing Meldrum says is that Crowley's experiments raise questions about the Onion Mtn. Cast.

Since I do not have such encyclopedic knowledge of such (and you obviously know I don't), this is a strawman/red herring diversion attempt. Meldrum has documented such already. Show where he is wrong.

No, this is about you supporting your claims, show where Meldrum documented the conditions of the mud when a track was cast. Was the mud wet or dried at the time it was cast?

Questions that have been answered.

Then show where they have been answered.

Now answer the questions about Crowly's sloppy protocol and illogical statements about saturated soil "wicking" from poured plaster.

Crowley's sloppy protocol? What do you have to support that Crowley's protocol was sloppy, and any affect it had on the process of casting artifacts developing?

What illogical statements about saturated soil "wicking" from poured plaster?

Meldrum also specifically refers to "Scarfoot" as an example of legitimate dermals vs artifacts (there's even a picture of the track in question).

So this "Scar" is really all you have? Nothing else?

So what you are saying here is that the entirety of the differences between "Sasquatch dermals" and casting artifacts is based only on a random "Scar" pattern, not the ridges, not the ridge flow pattern, nothing really to do with dermal ridges.

What other explanations exist for this "Scar" to show up? A stick? Or how about ridges of substrate created by the suction of a big fake foot leaving the mud? Like this test cast, filled with such "Scars"?

Closeup:

Edited December 28, 2010 by wolftrax

[norseman]

They aren't looking for sasquatch data, they're looking for wolf, cougar, et al data. That is the mandate of their expeditions. Can you imagine the response of the sponsoring entity if a scientist came back from an expedition to count and track moose with a bunch of sasquatch data? They'd be keel-hauled for funding fraud and likely never get another research grant again because they "couldn't be trusted to stick to their topic".

So, no they AREN'T looking, and even if by chance they found something, I suspect they'd go out of their way to ignore it to protect their funding stream.

Most expeditions are funded by either the US Fish and game or a state fish and game division. So what your saying is that when our local state biologist is out flying around doing his yearly moose count by air. And he spots a sasquatch in a clearing below? He tells the pilot to keep flying his route because they are only interested in moose? Really?! I'm sorry but this begins to leave the realm of a unknown primate living in N. America and starts sounding like Roswell. Some sort of conspiracy theory of epic proportions.

Yes.

Then I sympathize with your position. But you must remember that your experience is not common. And for every one of you out there, their are thousands of people that spend a lot of time in the woods that have seen nothing. Obviously it sucks to be the minority, I can only offer you solace that hopefully some day you will be vindicated.

That's just it, all logic points DIRECTLY at bigfoot. If you have duck tracks, duck feathers, and people seeing/taking pictures of ducks then you have ducks there.

Yes but with one glaring difference. I can take a biologist by the hand and lead him out into the woods where he can OBSERVE ducks. And then I can do it again and again and again. We cannot do that with Sasquatch, which makes science question the validity of the whole thing.

Only on the subject of bigfoot is it acceptable for "science" to say: you have bigfoot tracks, you have bigfoot hairs, people are seeing and photoing bigfoot. However you, do not have a bigfoot. All the evidence is fake and the people are lying/stupid/tricked.

With Bindernagel, Meldrum and Krantz (past and present) and others.......is it fair to say that SOME scientific inquiry is afoot? I realize you want the whole enchilada, but you must also respect Saskeptic's position. He has never seen it and he has looked at the evidence and doesn't find it that compelling. If he had a similar sighting as you had, he may very well feel differently about it. But again, most people have never seen it and are not even on the same planet as you in their conviction that something is actually out there. And then throw in to the mix all of the hoaxers out there that muddy the waters? I really don't find it that hard to believe that most are skeptical.

I think science needs to live up to it's standard of objectivity and investigation, rather than make unsupported blanket statements that it then demands non-scientists to DISprove.

I think they have asked us to prove it, and the only evidence they are going to support is a type specimen. Which........if it leaves duck tracks, feathers, pictures, there for it MUST be a duck right over there? How hard can that be? Right?

Well, for one the BF community has to change it's mindset about producing a type specimen in the first place. Without addressing this mental hurdle, we are never going to get anywhere scientifically. Unless of course somebody else stumbles upon it and does the job for us. And for two we need to build the frame work that will support the logistics of such an endeavor. Right now I see lot's of smallish groups all reinventing the wheel, while jealously guarding their "secrets". This is not productive towards a type specimen goal. Forget the fan fare and prestige, and let's just get this proven to science as quickly as humanly possible.

[Guest]

Because of the quantity and quality of the data presented. Have you ever consulted directly with Meldrum, for example, and allowed him to walk you through the primary evidence directly, as others have done (who came away impressed and convinced at a minimum that further study WAS warranted)? Or are you basing your dismissal on "skeptic" reviews and general impressions from indirect sources?

So the only way for the rest of the world to really understand bigfoot is to have it personally explained to us by Dr. Jeff Meldrum one-on-one? Interesting, and comical. . .

[Guest vilnoori]

Forget the fan fare and prestige, and let's just get this proven to science as quickly as humanly possible.

Hear, hear! I agree totally. Why all the hoopla, if they are out there, lets get it in the open. At any rate, no matter who does the discovering, and who find the remains, or shoots it, or collects it, in the end it is always the university PhD scientists that first take up the baton and publish the findings that get the kudos in the end. You can only hope that they will mention you in the paper, and that the media will also think you worthy of note. Think of all the farmers and kids that find ancient treasure in the fields, or the skilled Africans who found the palaeoanthropological remains that made the Leakeys and others famous. Do you know their names?

[Guest]

Eye wittnesses cannot all be lying. Right!

Sure they can. That doesn't mean they are (and I don't think they are), but they definitely can, in fact, ALL be lying.

There also definitely can be a bigfoot living in my backyard, though the evidence suggests otherwise.

I would love to encounter a bigfoot and transition from skeptic to "knower" in one fell swoop! But I wouldn't expect any of my colleagues to take my word for it. It really is that simple. Anecdotal accounts do not a type specimen make.

[Guest]

Think of all the farmers and kids that find ancient treasure in the fields, or the skilled Africans who found the palaeoanthropological remains that made the Leakeys and others famous. Do you know their names?

If they played an important role in finding the data then their names should be listed in the Acknowledgments section of the relevant papers. If they played an important role in analysis or writing then they might even be listed as co-authors.

[norseman]

Hear, hear! I agree totally. Why all the hoopla, if they are out there, lets get it in the open. At any rate, no matter who does the discovering, and who find the remains, or shoots it, or collects it, in the end it is always the university PhD scientists that first take up the baton and publish the findings that get the kudos in the end. You can only hope that they will mention you in the paper, and that the media will also think you worthy of note. Think of all the farmers and kids that find ancient treasure in the fields, or the skilled Africans who found the palaeoanthropological remains that made the Leakeys and others famous. Do you know their names?

Exactly, that is not my motivation.

I value my solitude and if I had wanted to be Brad Pitt? I would have taken acting classes.

I really and honestly don't care if they ever knew my name. Besides, all of the press will be negative anyhow! LOL! Ok, ok we have done a story on.....Axe murderers(X) Cannibals(X) Dog Fighters(X) but what about that Sasquatch Hunter? Yah, yah, let's do a story on that nasty cretin!

What motivates me? Is I have amateurish interests in all things anthropological. It would be a serious travesty if we let this species slip through our hands with our current understanding of the world. I thoroughly convinced that Bubba the redneck hunter is not the threat to this species. Dams, urban sprawl, fisheries, logging, etc, these are all things that could be adversely affecting them without us every knowing it. How many current environmental impact studies include reports on Sasquatch? NONE. Until it gets classification as a species it's relegated to the realm of pixies and gnomes, it's just the way it is.

[norseman]

I would love to encounter a bigfoot and transition from skeptic to "knower" in one fell swoop! But I wouldn't expect any of my colleagues to take my word for it. It really is that simple. Anecdotal accounts do not a type specimen make.

But there are some people that would take that personal, as we see in this very thread.

My heart goes out to these people, it really does, but we cannot redefine scientific inquiry just to realign it with anecdotal evidence.

Think of the world we would live in if that was the case.