Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

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.

Only if you are dealing in mathematical absolutes, which is the refuge of the dishonest debater.

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 remarkedly consistent anecdotal accounts spanning many miles and many decades if not centuries PLUS biological traces PLUS photographs PLUS auido (and so on) make a strong case that you should be looking for said type specimen, because it is more likely than not out there somewhere.

[Guest Spazmo]

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.

I partially agree, but feel, like Huntster does, that it is not OUR job to do Science's work for it.

And this is where one of the biggest problems is.

"Science" is not convinced, and for the most part, not looking for that type specimen.

Bigfooters (generally) don't want to kill one.

It's perfectly understandable when you say "it is not our job to do Science's work for it." But if this is truly a job that needs doing, and Science isn't doing it, then it is left up to the amateurs.

And history is full of examples of amateurs getting results that led to published discoveries.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm not going to be the one to do it", but you must at least acknowledge that it needs to be done, and that another amateur is going to have to do it unless Science becomes convinced first.

[wolftrax]

In LMS Meldrum addresses many if not all of those issues. Get it. Read it.

Got it, read it many times, quoted it to you exactly what was said about Crowley's experiments, which only said that his experiments raise questions about the Onion Mtn. Cast. So basically, there is nothing there to support your claims of Meldrum stating the differences between "Sasquatch dermals" and casting artifacts.

Melissa's documentation of his stated protocol, which results in large amounts of air being incorporated into his casting media, which her experiments demonstrate is the cause of the "artifacts"

I'd actually like to see her evidence of this, but so far I haven't. Considering that three people (Crowley, Bittermonk, and myself) have done Crowley's experiments and had the same result, that dessicants cause artifacts while other soils do not regardless of whether the plaster is mixed with a chopstick, wooden spoon, or by hand, then there is no reason to believe Melissa at all.

But let's just say that the mixing method actually did cause ridged artifacts, that would actually expand the possibility of ridged artifacts to any substrate, whether it was saturated with moisture or not. Something tells me that you would find this argument that you are using not at all helpful to your cause.

The ridges match in size and flow pattern between the "Squatch dermals" and casting artifacts, while the "Squatch dermals" do not match in size and flow pattern to any ape or human.

Your continued insistance that saturated mud soil can "wick" moisture from poured plaster is illogical on it's face. It is akin to dropping a soaked spunge onto a wet towel and expecting there to be moisture transfer from one to the other.

First Crowley allegedly said this, now I insist on it? Where have Matt or I said that saturated mud soil can wick moisture from plaster?

Without access to LMS at the moment, I cannot confirm that is the photo of the track in question. I do know that Meldrum brings up the issue of Scarfoot and his evaluation and Chillicut's statements (if I'm remembering the passage correctly) BOTH indicate that the scar is natural and anatomically apporopriate. Statements are also made about specific dermatoglyphic features (loops and whirls) that are specific to anatomical origins as opposed to theroetical casting anomalies.

You mean to say that you have been telling people to read LMS and you don't even have access to it? This is exactly why I have been telling you to support your claims, because apparently you are either confusing things or don't really know what has or has not been stated, and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, you are actually using an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

.

These are the casts that that have been alleged to have dermal ridges.

1) Onion Mtn. Casts- the basis of the ridge flow and ridge size of "Squatch dermals" because it exhibits the most and clearest examples of it. Others have small or faint areas that have been given legitimacy from Chilcutt because they match the flow pattern. The chain of custody of the casts is unknown, from comments by Rick Noll it would seem that Green gave or sold the casts and they came into the possession of Cliff Crook, who made copies of casts using the dirt box method. This then leaves the possibility of any substrate like a dessicant being used and introducing the artifacts. The ridges are twice the size of humans and the flow pattern follows the contour of the shape of the track, even the same ridges running across different toes. Pay attention to CA-20 that is basically a blob, with no toe distinction whatsoever, yet has the casting artifacts running around the foot, and CA-6 where the ridges flow right on to the overflow and not even the foot, these are obviously artifacts.

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ridge-flow-pattern/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/more-ca-19-photos/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ca-20/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ca-6/

2) Elkins Creek Cast-

cast containing human fingerprints, contaminated, but has longitudinal ridges partially along the side that coincide with the pattern exhibited by the Onion Mtn. Cast which convinced Chilcutt that it was legitimate. However, the ridges look like a geometric grid that resembles burlap, which is commonly used to add support to plaster casts. The cast itself did not have burlap, but someone making a fake foot out of plaster would use burlap and if not careful that burlap can be exposed on the surface of the cast.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/elkins.html

3) Elk Wallow casts-

Made in Loess soil, which Meldrum's student Lon Erickson found also creates casting artifacts. One has a double tap human fingerprint that Chilcutt initially discounted as a hoax, but when discovering the pattern on the Onion Mtn. Cast he came back to and found legitimate because of it had the same pattern as found in the Onion Mtn. Casts, the same pattern the casting artifact tests have produced.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/dermal.html

4) Wrinkle-Foot Casts-

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/dermal-ridges-and-scars/

This is the one you are aiming for with the mud and the scar. Cast by Paul Freeman in the Blue Mountains of Washington State. The reason I have told you repeatedly to show the soil moisture content at the time of casting of these tracks, is because so far as I have seen, it is not known. You assume that because it was mud, it was saturated with water. The truth is in the above test cast showing the same "Scar" that was actually caused by mud sticking to the fake foot, the mud was very elastic and almost dry, too much water and a ridge wont be sustained. This would also be true of retaining details such as dermal ridges. Track is made, mud dries in short amount of time, and a dessicant then can absorb water from plaster.

Is there reason to believe that the ridges on Wrinkle-Foot are casting artifacts? The ridges follow the same pattern as seen in casting artifact tests and not humans or apes. What about the substrate?

Yes, the Blue Mountains are covered in volcanic ash:

In the Touchet-Wolf Creek study area, the maximum elevation is about 1300 m along the ridgeline between the Wolf Fork and North Fork Touchet River drainages, while a minimum elevation is about 600 m in the South Fork Touchet River drainage.

The soils of the Blue Mountains unconformably overlie the CRBs and older rocks and consist of Pleistocene to Holocene-aged alluvium, colluvium, fanglomerates, terrace gravels, volcanic ash, and loess (Walker 1997). In the Touchet-Wolf Creek study area, soils of primarily loess and volcanic ash cover the bedrock. The ash is from the eruption of Mount Mazama approximately 6,800 B.P. and ranges up to 30 cm within the loess soil (South Fork Touchet Watershed Analysis 1997).

http://www.whitman.edu/environmental_studies/WWRB/nyborgthesis.htm

Edited December 29, 2010 by wolftrax

[Guest]

Got it, read it many times, quoted it to you exactly what was said about Crowley's experiments, which only said that his experiments raise questions about the Onion Mtn. Cast. So basically, there is nothing there to support your claims of Meldrum stating the differences between "Sasquatch dermals" and casting artifacts.

Meldrum mentions anatomically appropriate "hoops" (loops?) and "whirls" observed by himself and Chillicut. Plus the scar interface with the dermal pattern.

I'd actually like to see her evidence of this, but so far I haven't.

Then you need to read her blog entry documenting this. I have, and linked to it some ways back.

The ridges match in size and flow pattern between the "Squatch dermals" and casting artifacts, while the "Squatch dermals" do not match in size and flow pattern to any ape or human.

Sasquatch is not a known ape or human. Therefore it is not unreasonable that it's dermal patterns would be different.

First Crowley allegedly said this, now I insist on it? Where have I said that saturated mud soil can wick moisture from plaster?

Pick a post...You're the one who keeps bringing the subject up.

You mean to say that you have been telling people to read LMS and you don't even have access to it? This is exactly why I have been telling you to support your claims, because apparently you are either confusing things or don't really know what has or has not been stated, and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, you are actually using an Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

Go back and reread what I posted, genius. I said "at the moment". I have access to a library copy when I can get it. I've read it through several times, and am well aware of Meldrums basic arguements and support.

[wolftrax]

Meldrum mentions anatomically appropriate "hoops" (loops?) and "whirls" observed by himself and Chillicut. Plus the scar interface with the dermal pattern.

Observe loops and whirls:

http://orgoneresearc...e-flow-pattern/

http://orgoneresearc...e-ca-19-photos/

http://orgoneresearc...09/10/19/ca-20/

http://orgoneresearc...009/10/19/ca-6/

Then you need to read her blog entry documenting this. I have, and linked to it some ways back.

Read it, where are the images to support her claims?

Sasquatch is not a known ape or human. Therefore it is not unreasonable that it's dermal patterns would be different.

"Squatch dermals" do not match ape, do not match human, but do match casting artifact tests. You have your culprit.

These are supposed to be the toes of the cast. Are you telling me these are dermals and not casting artifacts?

Pick a post...You're the one who keeps bringing the subject up.

Uhhh no, you would be mistaken.

Go back and reread what I posted, genius. I said "at the moment". I have access to a library copy when I can get it. I've read it through several times, and am well aware of Meldrums basic arguements and support.

So basically you have nothing to support your claims.

Edited December 29, 2010 by wolftrax

[Guest]

So basically you have nothing to support your claims.

Just another day in Paradise, I'm afraid.

[Guest]

Of course not. But you cannot deny that there is good evidence when you haven't bothered to take the time to examine it for yourself with an open mind. Meldrum has consulted several times with scientists who were openly negative on BF, and the quantity and quality of the evidence he presented moved them to either a neutral or positive position. That speaks very highly of the evidence on hand, when examined honestly.

What haven't I bothered to consider? I've been following bigfootery since the mid '70s. I've spent the last several years participating almost daily on the BFF 1.0 and now 2.0. I've read practically everything bigfooty that ever made it into the peer reviewed literature - particularly Meldrum's work. I've honestly considered the evidence for bigfoot. I'm unimpressed. Sorry. Just because you believe such things doesn't make them so.

[Guest]

Meldrum mentions anatomically appropriate "hoops" (loops?) and "whirls" observed by himself and Chillicut. Plus the scar interface with the dermal pattern.

Then you need to read her blog entry documenting this. I have, and linked to it some ways back.

Sasquatch is not a known ape or human. Therefore it is not unreasonable that it's dermal patterns would be different.

Pick a post...You're the one who keeps bringing the subject up.

Go back and reread what I posted, genius. I said "at the moment". I have access to a library copy when I can get it. I've read it through several times, and am well aware of Meldrums basic arguements and support.

Well, this post was just *reported*. I hadn't actually gotten to this thread yet this morning but the *report* certainly drew my attention to it as soon as I saw it.

The *report* is undoubtedly valid.

It runs afoul of the following portions of the Rules & Guidelines...

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

5. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

Previously within this thread, a post directed at you was called-out for essentially the same violations.

Kind of a what's good for the goose is good for the gander type deal. We are all mandated to post in a manner that is in compliance with the stated Rules & Guidelines.

This post certainly falls short of that expectation. By using the term genius in addressing wolftrax, you not only questioned his mentality, but broke the above rules.

As a long time member, I expect you to know better than to make such a comment.

I'm not sure if you are aware or not, but wolftrax used to be a strong proponent and I know for a fact he has personally met with Dr. Meldrum.

Instead of insulting him, it might benefit you, and the forum to engage him in fruitful and respectful discussion.

He's been around a long time, is VERY knowledgeable, and is certainly deserving of such.

[Guest]

Only if you are dealing in mathematical absolutes, which is the refuge of the dishonest debater.

Again questioning my honesty Mulder?

But remarkedly consistent anecdotal accounts spanning many miles and many decades if not centuries

. . . is a fine hallmark of culturally embedded folklore (especially when you've trumped up the consistency of those accounts over space and time).

PLUS biological traces

Of what, exactly?

PLUS photographs

Of what, exactly?

PLUS auido (and so on)

Of what, exactly?

make a strong case that you should be looking for said type specimen, because it is more likely than not out there somewhere.

And if you were correct about the things you mentioned I might agree. But you aren't, so I don't.

[Guest Vincent]

There is, imho no real evidence for the existence of a upright ape in north america. The more i read these threads as well as "other" boards, i realize that this Meldrum fellow, who is undoubtedly intelligent, was and is unfortunately being fooled by hoaxers, I read recently his most prized possesion is a footprint cast... That was discovered by paul freeman, a known hoaxer.

However, I am still holding out for the existence of an asiatic bigfoot aka yeti... Millions of square miles of harsh snowy land and untamed forest where in reality anything can hide. plus in asia they are still finding relatively new and interesting species of apes, now all we need is one that can walk, not as far a stretch as most think.

[Guest]

Wow, what a lively discussion. For anyone interested, here is a link to all 13 articles I wrote on the work I did in casting. These articles have been available online, and linked to on the old BFF, so I can only think if someone did not read them, they simply chose not to, which is unfortunate. In these articles you can read what I have and have not said - and if I were to question the legality of anyones actions I would most certainly do so on my blog and in these articles. You will find nothing in reference to any legal jabs thrown at anyone. Frankly I am sick and tired of this lie being told, over and over again.

I won't be pulled into another "match" here or any where else about my casting work. All the work I did is out there, and anyone can read it. If anyone has any questions, feel free to send me a personal message.

Oh, and I should thank all those who tried out my "theory" for themselves, and had the same results. I have been pretty busy since moving to Ohio, and have not really had much time to devote to any further casting. Not sure why I would even want to, other than my initial question which started my work has yet to be answered, by anyone, to include myself. It appears not everything on a bigfoot "fake" track can be hoaxed, and if certain charateristics can be hoaxed - no one has figured everything out yet.

Good luck to whomever decides to take up this task. You will have many days filled with drama and attitude from those who would rather these questions go unsolved.

All my best.

[Guest]

People on this forum and others are not stupid. They can and will find the information and read it for themselves. I think it's sad you have not taken the time to do so, yet you criticize with no real information to go on. How "scientific" is that? Now after more than 3 years - I should just pony up all the info you can't seem to find the time to read - as you would tell anyone else to do.

Interesting how things change over time. Oh and my IP tracker works just fine, but thanks for the advice.

My intent in coming here was to make sure those who want the information about my casting work, can find it, read it and make up their own mind. In all honesty, that's how it should be.

I wish you all the best. But as I said, I am not interested in more drama, over something you can't and wont even take the time to investigate yourself.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Some claims here I have questions on:

You never accused Matt Crowley of illegally obtaining volcanic ash?

Who tried out your "theory", and got the same results? What "theory" would that be?

What question would that be?

I have a few questions.

1) You claimed that you had used volcanic ash and did not get casting artifacts, yet there is only one photo of a closeup showing your dermal ridges, yet none of the remaining areas of the cast. Why was that? Do you have other images showing the rest of the cast, preferably large so people can zoom in?

2) Why did you use your own foot, introducing dermals to confuse both yourself and the reader, instead of using a control fake foot with no dermals? A fake foot would eliminate any confusion between what are real dermals and what are artifacts.

3) In your test results that do show artifacts, what did you use to make the impression? It appears you didn't use your own foot for that.

4) Have you tried using a substrate with the same particulate size as the ash to insure that particulate size is the factor of casting artifacts occurring?

I have strong doubts about your claims. Bittermonk mixed his slurry by hand and still got casting artifacts:

http://www.theponderingpossum.com/2009/02/casting-experimentation-phase-1.html

I've also sifted two different substrates to the same particulate size, one volcanic ash and the other red sand, and the sand did not produce artifacts while the ash did. Matt Crowley has done this as well, comparing the dried mud from the Duwamish river to the clay found higher on the banks of the Duwamish, the dried mud not producing artifacts, while the clay did, clay results shown here:

http://orgoneresearch.com/page/17/

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to particulate size and mixing errors being the factor of artifacts occurring. Onion Mtn. having the construction leaving fine dust everywhere would explain it, and a track made in mud that was dried and a layer of dust on it could explain Wrinklefoot. What really matters is that the ridge size and pattern is a match, and the lack of documentation in regards to whether the mud was wet or dry or these kinds of details just wasn't on the minds of people doing the casting at the time. The only problem I do have with it is that tests done by Crowley, Bittermonk, and myself contradict that particulate size and mixing procedures play a role in the appearance of ridged artifacts.

Wolftrax, there are some parts of this post that seem alot like an old argument is being brought here from somewhere else. Especially the bolded part. If there is some bad blood over this issue , please take it somewhere else. It's not allowed here. Let's all work together to keep the new BFF a friendly place to post without any blasts from the past.

Thanks, Chris B.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

wolftrax, you have a PM

[Guest]

Who didn't see this coming? Great job of Moderation.