Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Note the position of the alleged heel strike and how much of the achilles tendon is showing. Below in the same pic is how a leg would have to be positioned on the ground to make a similiar impression. Below is the position (legs bent) the alleged Sasquatch would have to have been in to make a heel strike that close to it's gluteus maximus. Included in the pic is a foot in approximately the same position with an imaginary mud line in red. What I'm getting at is, there is no way that much of the achilles tendon could make an impression in that position without most of the foot included and there is also no way the Sasquatch could have made a heel strike with his leg flat to the ground for it to be in context with the rest of the impression either. They have knees though. Excellent post! Deserving of a curtain call!
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 True, a heel has an Achilles tendon terminating to it. The point is that we cannot determine conclusively that the cast does show an Achilles heel. What it may show, one solution suggests, is the knee(s) of a reclining elk. This suggestion does not imply the invention of "new-age elk anatomy". Here is a helpful photo composition. Please show me where the alleged ape Achilles heel is located in the cast. "Please show you where an Achilles tendon appears on the cast............." how about here: where the guys finger is pointing. Sorry I couldn't find a better photo I remember seeing, but I think this will do. Also let's not forget that the elk wasn't there when the BFRO guys arrived, so it should have left footprints of when it stood up from its reclining position and walked away.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Note the position of the alleged heel strike and how much of the achilles tendon is showing. Below in the same pic is how a leg would have to be positioned on the ground to make a similiar impression. Below is the position (legs bent) the alleged Sasquatch would have to have been in to make a heel strike that close to it's gluteus maximus. Included in the pic is a foot in approximately the same position with an imaginary mud line in red. What I'm getting at is, there is no way that much of the achilles tendon could make an impression in that position without most of the foot included and there is also no way the Sasquatch could have made a heel strike with his leg flat to the ground for it to be in context with the rest of the impression either. They have knees though. Why are both pictures of the human foot with toes pointed forwards? To make your point better you should also show the human heel and tendon position when being used to push the upper body away from them, with the toes pointed more backwards. That flattens out the heel and tendon. Thats what it looks like in the cast and impression so wouldn't you want to see if you could duplicate the look? Oh I forgot... you don't want it to look like the cast or impression. Also... the elk knee is a knob that actually looks like a ball is attached, the curvature does not blend into the bottom portion of the leg. But this is all after the curtain dropped I guess. Sorry, I don't know why those pictures didn't show up after each block of text.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Sorry, I don't know why those pictures didn't show up after each block of text. Why are both pictures of the human foot with toes pointed forwards? To make your point better you should also show the human heel and tendon position when being used to push the upper body away from them, with the toes pointed more backwards. That flattens out the heel and tendon. Thats what it looks like in the cast and impression so wouldn't you want to see if you could duplicate the look? Oh I forgot... you don't want it to look like the cast or impression. Also... the elk knee is a knob that actually looks like a ball is attached, the curvature does not blend into the bottom portion of the leg. But this is all after the curtain dropped I guess.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Was not meant to be disingenuous. It was simply meant to say if you use non biased (pro or con) "experts" you get more non biased answers. In that case it would be 9-1. Again, what of the numerous experts already consulted who found compelling evidence that the impression was NOT made by an elk. Does their conclusion automatically render them "biased"?
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 To make your point better you should also show the human heel and tendon position when being used to push the upper body away from them, with the toes pointed more backwards. It doesn't matter, you would still get the bottom of the foot in the impression with that much of the achilles tendon included, in a bent leg position (which it would have to be to fit your Sasquatch scenario). What you are calling an achilles tendon and heel is virtually horizontal to the ground, just what someone would expect from an ungulate's knee and shin pressed into the mud.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) The problem with all of the circumstantial evidence from BF research is the way it is handled. People get this evidence, and swear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely, undeniably from a BF. You can't do that, and be 100% credible to the general public, or the naysayers. It leaves you open to be attacked. You can't even do it with a track.(Unless you watched it being made, and even then, only YOU actually know it to be a fact) These people have got to understand the perception of everyone on the other side of the fence, which is probably 90+% of the general public. There is always a possibility that it was hoaxed, too. Not saying that it was, but... I can't even count how many videos/photos of windfall are out there with people giving theories about how Sasquatches had to make them because of the intricacy of the sticks falling together, and amazing patterns they make. C'mon, man..Really? I think they could possibly do some of these, but it will look somewhat engineered, at the very least. Same thing with some of these trail cam pictures out there. If you have to explain to someone what they're looking at, what kind of evidence do you really have? Then, to make matters worse, a big majority of researchers are so arrogant that it makes you want to discount everything that they say, no matter what it is. I think it's funny that the BFRO attacks Dave Paulides, and Melba Ketchum who claim they have DNA evidence, when the BFRO thinks it's scientific research to walk down a logging road in the middle of the night with 20 people that they just charged 300 bucks a pop to have the opportunity to do so.(And don't tell me that the BFRO had nothing to do with this cast, because they did!) It's all a matter of perception/agenda. Even if a BF did make this impression...So what! People talk about it like it's the holy grail of BF evidence, second only to the PG film. It's not! Sorry! A lot of people on here know for a fact that BF's are real, but it's going to take a heck of a lot more than an impression to prove anything to everyone else. Edited January 27, 2011 by Squatchdetective Moderator Edit
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) . . . its significance is only readily apparent to the highly specialized trained observer." (SASQUATCH: Legend Meets Science p. 113). Are you kidding me?! I almost snorted my Dentyne Ice when I read that! I guess this is why molecular biology is moot too, because only highly specialized trained observers can interpret gel electrophoresis. Edited January 27, 2011 by Saskeptic
Guest fenris Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Actually, I left off "Dr. Meldrum". Didn't want to influence the 9. So, maybe 9-0. this is painful for some to hear, but one more time: Meldrum doesnt know any more than anyone else
Guest fenris Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Again, what of the numerous experts already consulted who found compelling evidence that the impression was NOT made by an elk. Does their conclusion automatically render them "biased"? YOU seem biased, no offense. Not elk does not mean bigfoot.
Guest fenris Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 The problem with all of the circumstantial evidence from BF research is the way it is handled. People get this evidence, and swear beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely, undeniably from a BF. You can't do that, and be 100% credible to the general public, or the naysayers. It leaves you open to be attacked. You can't even do it with a track.(Unless you watched it being made, and even then, only YOU actually know it to be a fact) These people have got to understand the perception of everyone on the other side of the fence, which is probably 90+% of the general public. There is always a possibility that it was hoaxed, too. Not saying that it was, but... I can't even count how many videos/photos of windfall are out there with people giving theories about how Sasquatches had to make them because of the intricacy of the sticks falling together, and amazing patterns they make. C'mon, man..Really? I think they could possibly do some of these, but it will look somewhat engineered, at the very least. Same thing with some of these trail cam pictures out there. If you have to explain to someone what they're looking at, what kind of evidence do you really have? Then, to make matters worse, a big majority of researchers are so arrogant that it makes you want to discount everything that they say, no matter what it is. I think it's funny that the BFRO attacks Dave Paulides, and Melba Ketchum who claim they have DNA evidence, when the BFRO thinks it's scientific research to walk down a logging road in the middle of the night with 20 people that they just charged 300 bucks a pop to have the opportunity to do so.(And don't tell me that the BFRO had nothing to do with this cast, because they did!) It's all a matter of perception/agenda. Even if a BF did make this impression...So what! People talk about it like it's the holy grail of BF evidence, second only to the PG film. It's not! Sorry! A lot of people on here know for a fact that BF's are real, but it's going to take a heck of a lot more than an impression to prove anything to everyone else. yep.........
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (By the way, the "highly specialized trained observer" and otherwise "careful observers" who actually discovered the "modern art" and decided it was a significant sasquatch find: Leroy Fish, a wildlife ecologist. So a person with a scientific degree with all the care and attention to detail that implies. Derek Randles, a landscape architect. Also an avid outdoorsman. Not relevently degreed, but with hands on practical experience. Richard Noll, an aerospace metrologist.) Also an experienced outdoorsman. Named professionals who examined the cast who concur with the finding that it is not an elk (and their fields of expertise, when not already established) This does not include the unnamed game wardens/handlers/keepers also consulted: Dr Meldrum Dr Kranz Dr Bildernagel Dr Ron Brown, MD (also a professional African game guide) Chillicut (for dermal impressions) Dr. Fahrenbach (for hair found in the cast from the impression) Dr Daris Swindler- primate anatomist Uni of Washington, author of An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy Dr Esteban Sarimento - primatologist and research associate of the American Museum of Natural history Dr George Shaller - naturalist, conservationist, director of science for the Wildlife Conservation Society, who has studied ungulates and their behavior on several continents. So, as you can see, there is plentiful support from appropriately credentialed and experienced professionals for the conclusion the Skookum impression is NOT an elk lay.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 YOU seem biased, no offense. Not elk does not mean bigfoot. Then you need to review or re-review the relevant chapter of LMS. The findings of the consulted researchers went well beyond dismissing the elk hypothesis and explicitly INCLUDING an unknown higher primate/bigfoot.
Guest fenris Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 So a person with a scientific degree with all the care and attention to detail that implies. Also an avid outdoorsman. Not relevently degreed, but with hands on practical experience. Also an experienced outdoorsman. Named professionals who examined the cast who concur with the finding that it is not an elk (and their fields of expertise, when not already established) This does not include the unnamed game wardens/handlers/keepers also consulted: Dr Meldrum Dr Kranz Dr Bildernagel Dr Ron Brown, MD (also a professional African game guide) Chillicut (for dermal impressions) Dr. Fahrenbach (for hair found in the cast from the impression) Dr Daris Swindler- primate anatomist Uni of Washington, author of An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy Dr Esteban Sarimento - primatologist and research associate of the American Museum of Natural history Dr George Shaller - naturalist, conservationist, director of science for the Wildlife Conservation Society, who has studied ungulates and their behavior on several continents. So, as you can see, there is plentiful support from appropriately credentialed and experienced professionals for the conclusion the Skookum impression is NOT an elk lay. one more time: not elk lay dont mean squatchy none of those people are experts in squatchology because theres no such science. You have offered nothing in defens eof it being sasquatch, just wishful thinking.
Guest Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Mulder said: Again, what of the numerous experts already consulted who found compelling evidence that the impression was NOT made by an elk. Does their conclusion automatically render them "biased"? Not automatically. Were they asked "give me your opinion about this casting?" Or were the asked "give me your opinion about this Bigfoot casting I am writing about for my Bigfoot book and television program?"
Recommended Posts