The Family Tree - Different Species Of Bigfoot? Or... Maybe Not? (Theory/opinion)

[Guest thermalman]

I guess only accounting for it by making stuff up is legitimate then? One can plainly see the footprints in the soft mud the men are leaving behind, as they step around the skookum imprints while making the video

Those are the facts, caught on video my friend.

Edited November 28, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

^^^Like this one does. (MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.)

[Guest thermalman]

Do you have your mustache for Moooooooovember?

[Night Walker]

Simple; and any of us who've been in the woods a lot could tell you the answer: the ground where it got up didn't take prints, that simple. That wasn't overlooked.

...

Nothing was overlooked. That doesn't happen too often when scientists with relevant expertise are focused on something. Happens a lot, though, when people who just want to win an argument don't read up.

 

Thermalman has a point. Furthermore, the soft mud around the wallow not only contained elk prints also tracks of much lighter animals like deer and coyote but none of Bigfoot.

 

If it was not overlooked can you direct me to where Swindler, Meldrum, Bindernagel, or any other scientist explain how a large primate could enter and exit the wallow without leaving prints?

 

Scientists with specific expertise are also humans who make mistakes just like everyone else particularly in the face of ambiguous evidence and when they have eyes fixed on the big prize. It's happened before and it'll happen again (like with the ivory-billed woodpecker). It's also human to not want to admit making mistakes but, like overlooking the whole how-primate-exited-wallow scenario, reluctance to own up to error detracts from the scientific credibility of not only the Skookum cast but of other pieces of ambiguous Bigfoot evidence they may endorse. If Bigfoot evidence is to be taken seriously then the amateur Bigfoot-researchers and Bigfoot-scientists need to lift their game. You may not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but you can't stop people from trying (and claiming success) - it's human nature...

 

You can understand that, right DWA?

 

[Guest DWA]

 

It's very obvious why there are no sasquatch tracks where the other animals' tracks are: the sasquatch didn't step there. Why is every natural law suspended by bigfoot skepticism?

Skookum is like Patterson-Gimlin. We know what it signifies. Time to move on. I am not sure why people think it's not true that most steps an animal takes, it leaves no tracks. This is borne out everywhere one goes.

Particularly unconvincing to me are "scientists make mistakes too" (as the vast majority of them are doing on this topic...but I have evidence that this is the case) and "just because it's almost impossible doesn't mean it is impossible." (Oh. The funny drawings are not helping your cause; remember, it's the *elk* that have to levitate.) These are signs of running out of ammo. You have.

If a scientist made a mistake, you can point it out. I have done it many times. If you can't...he didn't.

Please read up! I found it; you can too. (Hint: try Meldrum's book.) It gets tiresome arguing things long settled with someone for whom only a body will move him off Square One. No more responses. Time for you to catch up.

Edited November 30, 2014 by DWA
Edit Objectionable text

[Night Walker]

What “ammunition� This is a friendly discussion not a battle – are you always so combative? The fate of the world is not in the balance here, you know…

 

Meldrum addresses entering the wallow in his book: “The puddle of water was surrounded by a halo of moist loamy soil. Beyond that perimeter the soil was relatively hard, dry, and choppy from previous traffic—vehicular, pedestrian, and animal. The surface conditions there would not be expected to take the track of a padded foot lacking sharp-edged hooves and claws.†(Pg 113-114). It is not clear if the impressions from the padded foot of the coyote were visible or just its claws? Have they been documented elsewhere?

 

Meldrum goes on to only partially address the exiting of the wallow: “… when an elk rises from a repose it must place its hooves directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint. Yet there are no elk tracks located in the center of the Skookum imprint, only deep and clear elk imprints skirting the imprint.†(Pg 119). Meldrum’s explanation is not applicable to an elk as the video above demonstrates but it is applicable to a bipedal primate. This is what’s missing:

 

“… when a bipedal primate rises from a repose it must place its feet directly under its weight in order to stand, leaving tracks in the centerline of its imprint. Yet there are no Bigfoot tracks located in the any part, let alone the center, of the Skookum imprint, nor are there any Bigfoot tracks skirting the imprint nor anywhere in the immediate vicinity.â€

 

Meldrum’s explanation of how an elk rises from a wallow is erroneous as is his failure to apply that explanation to a bipedal primate (Bigfoot). Perhaps this is why the Skookum imprint features in a popular book rather than a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

 

So, if the Skookum imprint is an example of Bigfoot evidence which mainstream science should take seriously then it is also a fine example of exactly why it isn’t…

[Guest Stan Norton]

Thank you for your responses, DWA. Much appreciated...

 

Elk exiting wallow at 1:30 - 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elk+wallow

 

It's a good thing that Bigfoot can levitate, though...

Could you show what you mean please? I see the two front legs sink into the mud at the carpus, then the two rear legs sink hoof first into the approximate centre of the wallow. How does this strengthen the view that the skookum cast is clearly elk? It clearly shows that deer don't leave a wallow without leaving prints doesn't it?

[Guest]

So, how could a primate could leave no footprints when exiting the wallow?

 

And if there were primate footprints there, the dismissers would scream "fake!"...just like they always do with every alleged sasquatch footprint or film.......even when those footprints or film are non-replicable. What difference would it matter to you if there were primate footprints? You would still reject it, wouldn't you?

[Guest]

George Schaller, a pretty prominent name in zoology, considers the evidence compelling.

 

And of course one cannot discount that Meldrum, Bindernagel and Krantz clearly show their work, and their work is straight scientific deduction that needs to be addressed and its flaws, if any, shown. 

 

Science is adamant that this is an obligation, not an option, for the mainstream.  Pretty much all scientists, when they have their scientist hat on, so vouch.

 

You aren't following the logic of the DIBS (Dedicated Internet Bigfoot Scoffers). To this comparatively small grouping of people, scientists cease to be credible once they support to notion of bigfoot, so they no longer count. To the DIBS, these scientists automatically become non scientists the very next second after they are seen to support bigfoot, complete with a puffy cloud of bright pink smoke and a loud "poof!". They even lose a few inches in height. This is how things work in the parallel world of the DIBS.

 

The amusing thing though is that these scientists supporting the notion of bigfoot still have far more scientific credentials and far more relevance than any of these DIBS will ever have. Take some comfort in that, friend.

[Night Walker]

Could you show what you mean please? I see the two front legs sink into the mud at the carpus, then the two rear legs sink hoof first into the approximate centre of the wallow. How does this strengthen the view that the skookum cast is clearly elk? It clearly shows that deer don't leave a wallow without leaving prints doesn't it?

 

I’ll try. Your description is what it looked like to me, too. So I had a closer look by pausing the video during the exit at small intervals, copied them, lined them up, and pasted them for comparison:

 

 

Horizontal images (above): Follow the red line from the last image (7) where the right hoof is in contact with the ground to the first where the elk is at rest on its side. Notice, firstly, that the elk does not jump with both legs – only one (the right).

 

Secondly, the point of contact between hoof and ground is not within the centre of the wallow but appears to be outside the bodyline when at rest. The left leg seems to be used to lift and shift the body slightly forward while the right leg swings under and just beyond the body to compensate for weight being slightly off-balance as it then thrusts into the leap – forward and to the left.

 

Thirdly, the elk’s front legs don’t appear to shift much (if at all) and are used to lift the weight of the body in anticipation of the leap. To do this I surmise that the front legs (already in close to the body) shift inward slightly under the centreline of the body.

 

 

Elk resting on its side (above): This shows an elk at rest from a perspective which allows us to see the position of its legs in relation to its body. Try to picture the bodily mechanics of rising to leap as described above...

 

 

Vertical images (above): These seem to confirm the bodily mechanics that I outline above…

 

 

Locating where hoof strikes ground (above). Overlaying both the horizontal and vertical images at 1 will show the point where the right rear hoof will contact the ground in order to enact the leap – it appears to be at the edge or just beyond the outside of the body at rest.

 

 

Elk at rest compared to Skookum cast (above): Image modified from here and here. Note that this image the elk is resting on the opposite side as the elk in the video comparisons viewed previously. In the Skookum case, it is the left leg that does the leap. If the top edge of the cast is close to the side of the elk at rest then the position of the rear left hoof with the ground when leaping away could be where I have marked A, B, or may even be positioned outside the top edge of the cast.

[Guest DWA]

...and skeptics say the PGF is ambiguous!?????????????????????????????!?!?!?!?! This isn't a leap...it's wing construction...

And if there were primate footprints there, the dismissers would scream "fake!"...just like they always do with every alleged sasquatch footprint or film.......even when those footprints or film are non-replicable. What difference would it matter to you if there were primate footprints? You would still reject it, wouldn't you?

Exactly the point. I mean, LOOK AT THAT CAST. Did the elk take off horizontally across the meadow? How far do they go when they do that? How come there isn't a Skookum Elk Crater...?

Come on. Everything in that cast is easily explainable by Occam, if you go for the ape for which we have thousands of eyewitnesses, thousands of tracks, and the expert testimony of scientists.

(Including, but the skeptics never read this, scientists who have observed gorillas feeding in the precise way speculated here.)

NASA elk however have never been observed. I can't get over the constant reaching into the cosmos for 'mundane' explanations, when the ape is really the most mundane explanation. Except that folk refuse to see what's right in front of them, because we don't have a body, because nobody's looking the way science looks when it expects to find something.

A WELL KNOWN PRIMATOLOGIST, A BIGFOOT SKEPTIC BEFORE HE SAW THIS CAST, SEES AN ACHILLES TENDON! RIGHT! IN! THE! CAST! But no, we have to argue that an elk projectile shot across a meadow and left no signs of impact.

Oh. OK.

Edited November 29, 2014 by DWA

[norseman]

Night walker,

Have you considered the idea that if the Squatch crawled into the wallow to get the fruit? That it may have crawled out as well?

Is that not a perfectly logical explanation without introducing wings into the equation?

Also, there is a skookum cast thread somewhere I think this discussion would be better served there.

Edited November 29, 2014 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

Really.

Although I can't resist pointing out two very funny things. Look at two lines from the elk to the cast: the third and sixth from the left.

As to the third: HOW did the elk's RIGHT SIDE get into the cast if the elk was lying as depicted?

As to the sixth: I mean, what is that? "This, um, sorta brown ambiguous area under the elk made THIS sorta ambiguous...um...thing I have to point at because it appears to be in the same place...oh, and I gotta fix that right side in the cast thing...explanation coming right up...?"

Boggles. Yep. You can even put a man in the PGF suit if you close your eyes and click your heels hard enough and just have faith.

[Guest DWA]

You aren't following the logic of the DIBS (Dedicated Internet Bigfoot Scoffers). To this comparatively small grouping of people, scientists cease to be credible once they support to notion of bigfoot, so they no longer count. To the DIBS, these scientists automatically become non scientists the very next second after they are seen to support bigfoot, complete with a puffy cloud of bright pink smoke and a loud "poof!". They even lose a few inches in height. This is how things work in the parallel world of the DIBS.

 

The amusing thing though is that these scientists supporting the notion of bigfoot still have far more scientific credentials and far more relevance than any of these DIBS will ever have. Take some comfort in that, friend.

Pretty much. Evidence indicates that some of us can make the gross distinction between scientists putting in the time and not....but that most just can't.

[georgerm]

Night walker,

Have you considered the idea that if the Squatch crawled into the wallow to get the fruit? That it may have crawled out as well?

Is that not a perfectly logical explanation without introducing wings into the equation?

Also, there is a skookum cast thread somewhere I think this discussion would be better served there.

ditto...................