Cripple Foot morphology Options

[Desertyeti]

In looking over casts of the Cripple Foot, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the undeformed Bossburg print has a far smaller ball:length index than any other sasquatch track?

Two options here:
1) it's a result of the same disorder affecting the right foot.
2) it's a result of a hoaxer making the print a bit too narrow in front.

Either one is impossible to prove given the available data. *Sigh*

Also, the sole is longer and the toes shorter than many (though not all) sasquatch tracks. Disheartening to say the least. *double sigh*

cheers,
Anton

[chronic]

maybe the regular foot's 'oddity' is a reflection of a life of having to compensate for the crippled foot.

[damndirtyape]

Part of the trackway can be seen on Bobbie Shorts site in a small video clip. It was also featured in Ivan Marx's film. Ivan's film also shows were he found a hand print next to the tracks, stating that the animal must have fallen or slipped in some slushy snow.

John Green thinks these tracks are part of a hoax but Grover stated that the tracks had been found up to a hundred miles apart, in different areas over a forty year time span, by people who didn't know each other or that these were famous track patterns. Rene just would tell me that they speak for themselves and left it at that.

I think I saw a map once of the trackway; maybe in Peter Byrne's old newsletter, a newspaper article or one of the less popular books on the subject.

The Bossburg Cripple foot casts are unique, although I think I have seen a set of casts of a cripple foot coming from the Blues Mts. as well, but that which were smaller in size. The cast is concave, this could easily be from the molding technique. The original casts are with Eric Dahinden, possibly on loan to Jeff meldrum for a time.

Grove had in his possession quite a few excellent casts, made by expert law enforcement personnel yet he always used these saying it is what convinced him that the animal was real. Maybe we are missing something?

[mike2k1]

From my understanding, the tracks that Krantz studied and certified were made by Rene Dahinden a few weeks before the Bossburg trek. This is what was suppose to turn Krantz from skeptic to believer.
The cast showing variations from other Sasquatch track cast could be from adaptation in use of the foot. Also, could just be plain hereditary difference. I suppose Sasquatch could be more like us and have different toe length or flat feet, who knows for sure.
I do know that I agree with Krantz's qoute from "Big Footprints:a Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch," "But there is no way that everything could have been tied together so perfectly in a fake."

[RobUstes]

Humans who have the deformity known as "club foot" usually have a smaller foot too. Perhaps this is the affliction the Bossberg animal had.

[Desertyeti]

True, the casts were made before the epic snow trek, but I'm not so sure I agree with Krantz (or Mike2k1) 100% about the whole thing being impossible to fake. Anyone with access to a library book on medical malformities could have faked a pair of deformed feet. Add to this the quantitative fact that the undeformed foot falls so far outside the range of other sasquatch track, and it further suggests that someone could have used human feet rather than sasquatch feet as a model.

Remember, having an open mind means considering ALL possibilities, not just our favorites. This is the only way we'll ever tease out the "truth."

By the way, I know all about the shift of the ankle forward in the sasquatch foot relative to a human's so no need to bring all that up. Any anatomist would also tell you to be V-E-R-Y careful drawing conclusions about internal skeletal elements from external morphology. Especially based on a footprint.

Not saying they're fake, just not convinced they're real.

cheers,
Anton

[belleoftheball]

Anyone with access to a library book on medical malformities could have faked a pair of deformed feet.

But are they the hoaxers smart enough to think if that?




Belle

[mike2k1]

Anyone with access to a library book on medical malformities could have faked a pair of deformed feet.

But are they the hoaxers smart enough to think if that?




Belle

Yes it's possible, but your getting into the relm of who can conterfeit the perfect twenty- dollar bill. When the tracks were made, it was 1969. Did someone have the capabiltiy of producing a track series this long (1089 imprints). I mean, technical know-how. I could see a faking of healthy tracks. Thats been done who knows how many times, but a crippled foot. One to convince an acadimic such as Krantz. That is awsome know-how. I'm not sure it could be done today. Someone would catch it real quick.

[Desertyeti]

What technical know how? I wouldn't compare this trackway at all to making a twenty dollar bill! Not by a long shot.

It was in snow. Very easy to make fake prints in. All you needed was a pair of cut-out planks, and about a half hour (maybe more considering the physical exertion) to lay down 3/4 mile of tracks. The urine spot between a pair of side-by side tracks might indicate a guy who just had a warm cup of coffee out of a thermos before he started his trek. Dahinden did after all, see a truck with at least two guys in it just up the road from where they found the tracks.

The planks could be shaped with a router to any sole morphology you wanted. The undeformed foot print is really flat after all! As for fooling an academic like Krantz, he's also a human like all of us, and able to see in some cases what he wants to see. In his book he even says he wanted sasquatch to be real before seeing these tracks. Academics don't always agree on the interpretation of data. The fact that the cripple foot prints have some serious discrepencies compared to other sasquatch tracks should be a red flag to anyone looking at them. That's what makes it academic as opposed to dogma. Just my thoughts.

[ouachita]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, sometimes the "Highly Educated Academics" are the easiest to fool. Especially when you are dealing in an area that is outside their specific field, which tends to be quite narrow.

As far as dealing with tracks in the real world I would be far more trusting of the opinon of someone like Cut$Sign or Hunster than any PhD without any outdoor tracking experience.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to slam academics or higher education. I'm simply saying don't mistake intelligence, credentials, and expertise in one field with the same attributes in another field.

A good analogy is stage magic. "Sophisticated" adults are easier to fool than young children because they already have their preconceived ideas of how the world should work, young children see what is actually happening becuase they are not blinded by what they "know".

Specialist tend to not cope well once they get out of their field. A well trained and educated (read rounded) generalist would probably be your best bet in evaluating evidence.

[Desertyeti]

Absolutely right ouachita! Just don't tell too many Ph.D.'s this...many of them are pretty thin-skinned individuals.

[ouachita]

...Just don't tell too many Ph.D.'s this...many of them are pretty thin-skinned individuals.

Yeah, I've noticed that.

Don't get me wrong, I really respect the discipline and knowledge that goes with a PhD. - I wish I had the time and means to go for one. I just don't think that because they have the initials behind their name they acquire divine status. It's not all their fault either. Lay people tend to be in awe of anyone with the word "Doctor" attached to their name and assume that they must be smart about everything and defer to them. You get fed a steady diet of that kind of treatment and you start to believe the propaganda yourself. Truth is, a person can be the world's foremost authority on one or a few topics and be a blithering idiot in others. That said, if you are talking about a subject within their field of expertise then the smart money, playing the odds, will at least give a lot of weight to what they have to say. Other than that we need to keep in mind that outside of their field our opinion may very well be just as valid as theirs.

Fortunately for us lay people, BF is a wide open field where the more the merrier. A multidiscipline approach is the only way to tackle the questions that come up. That's what I particularly like about this forum, there are a wide variety of fields, veiwpoints, expertise, and education levels represented, all who can contribute. Everybody agreeing with everybody else here would not be a good thing IMHO.

Oh well, enough rambling, got to get back to work!

[Desertyeti]

I am always in awe of people with "Dr." in front of their name! Especially when they tell me all about how something I know to be true is actually just plain not. Authority is the greatest!

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

A PhD does not even assure that the person is extremely knowledgable or authoritative on their own field of study. Anthropology and the social sciences might produce more lame brain PhDs than any other areas.

Grover Krantz showed a combination of arrogance and gullibility (with regard to Bigfoot evidence) that should be looked at with extreme concern. He seems to have been one of the nuts that are cranked out of universities with Anthropology doctorates like candies from a factory. If you look closely at the arguments that go on within Anthropology you realize that they cannot all be correct and that some of these PhDs are simply out to lunch.

[Desertyeti]

A bit cranky are we?
Never the less...back to the morphology of "Cripple Foot's" undeformed foot...interesting, no?

Anton

[Judaculla]

Ahem...

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

Never the less...back to the morphology of "Cripple Foot's" undeformed foot...interesting, no?

Yeah, interesting. It looks faked. Nearly all of the Bigfoot prints I've seen look fakey to me. Some of them are comical, looking like giant perfect replicas of a perfect human foot.

Read this.

[The QuatchWatche...]

Ahem...

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

Sorry, the link in my previous post was wrong. It's this I wanted you to read, Desertyeti.

Good thread on Doctorates Judaculla.

[Desertyeti]

Yep, I've seen the article you linked to, and it raises an important point. Namely, even tracks with dermatoglyphics and possessing all the characteristics of sasquatch tracks can be faked. Taken out of context (the ground), they lose most of their value since the soil, ground cover, moisture content, etc. can't be observed.

To anyone who might read this: If you find tracks, photograph them extensively! Not just the best prints, but ALL the prints, plus some photos of the entire trackway (do a photomosaic panel if necessary or better yet, a clear video).

And despite the general consensus that seems to be emerging, not all Ph.D.'s are dim-witted, lazy, uninspired losers. We were kidding around before, but the kind of thinking that's started to emerge on this thread (and the referenced on) is pretty narrow-minded and simplistic, and doesn't do justice to those scientists that are engaged in active research and actually do make a contribution to their field. People interested in Bigfoot, after all should be fairly open-minded and not so ready to sterotype...right?

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

...even tracks with dermatoglyphics and possessing all the characteristics of sasquatch tracks can be faked.

But how would anyone know what real Bigfoot tracks look like in the first place?

And despite the general consensus that seems to be emerging, not all Ph.D.'s are dim-witted, lazy, uninspired losers. 

I didn't mean to imply that. I wanted to say that one cannot point a finger at a PhD and say that whatever comes out of that person's mouth is true. Bigfooters seem to have a fetish for any person of notariety who will lend an ear or words in support of the existence of the creature. Krantz is (was) no kind of meaningful Bigfoot scientist with meaningful conclusions outside of the world of Bigfooters. The article linked suggests that he may have actively avoided the possibility that he may have been fooled and that possibly no Bigfoot evidence is authentic. Critical thinkers will see through that behavior like plate glass. IOW, Krantz is unlikely to convince a Bigfoot skeptic that there is possibly more to the story. Rather the opposite, if the Bigfoot Kingpin PhD is that easily fooled and seems to want to cover things up then the idea of Bigfoot as myth is further reinforced.

In another thread here about a skeleton, Crabtree seems to be playing sneaky games too. If Bigfoot is real, why all the trickery and smoke and mirrors???

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

DY, if you look at the sole in this video clip (from another thread here) it looks to me like it isn't really the bottom of a foot. It looks like a big flat paddle-shaped thing. Like an elephant's foot. I do not believe this is a real Bigfoot. There seems to be no arch, curvature, or even a form to the foot. It's like a big ovoid flat platform.

[ouachita]

And despite the general consensus that seems to be emerging, not all Ph.D.'s are dim-witted, lazy, uninspired losers.

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of anything I said in previous posts, the point I was trying to make is that PhD does not automatically equal absolute final authority, especially outside their field, and as far as I know there are no accredited institutions of higher learning awarding PhD's in Bigfootery.

Wait, I forgot that Zog the Fuzzy one awarded me a Masters in Armchair Research!

A grain of salt is a healthy thing to take with any experts pronouncements (PhD or no PhD) in this field. Unless of course you are hypertensive and salt sensitive.



[edited for typos]

This post has been edited by ouachita: Jul 29 2004, 03:52 PM

[Desertyeti]

You're abslutely correct here B_E_H. Krantz did do more harm than good in some ways with regards to the way in which professionals look at the data. Several anthropologist I am aquainted with who knew Grover personally were of the opinion that he was too uncritical in his thinking. This is where a guy like Dahinden was so useful to the sasquatch problem. His extreme criticism was not liked by many, but all good scientists (and Dahinden was one, Ph.D. or not) are super-critical of evidence (not the people collecting it). We must all be quite skeptical of data until we have had a chance to examine it first hand. If this is not possible, then it regrettably, should not be considered to be especially useful. But remember...it's nothing personal!!

Thankfully, the few researchers (with Ph.D.s and without) that I am aquainted with who are (in my opinion) level-headed and working with interest on the sasquatch problem are not convinced either way that it is real or fake. We all simply sift through the available data and see what we can make of it. And we are the first to admit it must remain inconclusive until DNA or a body are brought to bear. Still, some of the prints are tantalizingly realistic! Not cripple foot though.

[Desertyeti]

The Patterson film clip you're showing here B_E_H has been enhanced so the foot shows clearly. In the original, the foot looks...well...like a foot. Actually, very non-elephant-like, but amazingly human-like. Most like a human with no arches (i.e., someone who walks barefoot quite a lot). Remember! Honor your data! In this case, your data have been altered on someone's computer! Always use the original when possible!

[bipto]

There seems to be no arch, curvature, or even a form to the foot. It's like a big ovoid flat platform.

Do a Google search for Jeff Meldrum.

[bipto]

Never mind. I'll save you a step or two.

[mike2k1]

What technical know how?  I wouldn't compare this trackway at all to making a twenty dollar bill!  Not by a long shot.

It was in snow.  Very easy to make fake prints in.  All you needed was a pair of cut-out planks, and about a half hour (maybe more considering the physical exertion) to lay down 3/4 mile of tracks.  The urine spot between a pair of side-by side tracks might indicate a guy who just had a warm cup of coffee out of a thermos before he started his trek.  Dahinden did after all, see a truck with at least two guys in it just up the road from where they found the tracks.

The planks could be shaped with a router to any sole morphology you wanted.  The undeformed foot print is really flat after all!  As for fooling an academic like Krantz, he's also a human like all of us, and able to see in some cases what he wants to see.  In his book he even says he wanted sasquatch to be real before seeing these tracks.  Academics don't always agree on the interpretation of data.  The fact that the cripple foot prints have some serious discrepencies compared to other sasquatch tracks should be a red flag to anyone looking at them.  That's what makes it academic as opposed to dogma.   Just my thoughts.

Good counter. I'm aware that the tracks could be faked by anyone, but here's the twenty-dollar bill: the whole idea of a crippled track. The purpose of a conterfiet twenty is to fool the person looking at and to accept the twenty. Usually some where along the way someone catches on and exposes the fake bill.
The cripple foot to me if fake is that twenty, only better. It's the equivalent to Patty's breast, an ingenious way to make the unbeliveable real. Tracks have, as we all know been faked. A person with a router and some board. In cripple's case a little more is involved. The person knows a good bit about anatomy, well enough to fake an injury or adnormality in developement; well enough to have people discussing it thirty-five years later. Like Patty, you could look at the video and say,"Well, look at that. A guy in a monkey suit." Throw in the breast then you got a whole new realism placed into it. You can make some tracks in the snow, but you really color the picture by making one of them deformed.
Now here's the question; If it's faked who did it and why? The list and the motives could be endless. I have a belief that if it was faked, somebody,somewhere would have ratted. Somebody would have talked and told someone and after thirty-five years this would have been an interesting footnote.Patty has stood the test of time so far and so have the tracks. DY you bring some awsome ideas to the table. I appreciate and respect your insight and knowledge. Please give more.

[Desertyeti]

Thanks m2k1, I'm just a really cynical guy at heart. As for the who, why, and how...I think Ivan Marx is a very likely candidate. He was on the payroll of Tom Slick in the 50's and 60's, then Byrne in 69-70. Any and all new and interesting finds he got pretty much guaranteed a conitnuous cash-flow. Hence the cripple foot, the "hand prints" and a variety of sketchy films, photos, and spoor. Seems everyone but Krantz thought Marx was a con-man. He was definitely smart enough to get a book out of the public library and look up foot disorders. He could have sent his friends out to plant the tracks and was actually gone from the truck for several moments before rushing back and saying they had to go home to get phot equipment. Why?! Why not start out immediately? Maybe his buddies were still hard at work on the tracks. He needed to buy them some time... Don't forget, most murderers make sure someone else finds the body and that they're with them when it happens...I'm NOT saying this is like murder, just that people who are up to something usually arrange for others to find it first. The first cripple print was found by a butcher, the long trail by Marx with Dahinden and another. He himself didn't lay the tracks, but likely his (probably payed) friends did.

He was also smart enough to keep his mouth shut all this time since he seemd to be someone who thoroughly enjoyed making fools out of others. Probably enjoyed keeping the on-going joke alive and well as a reminder to his own low self-esteem how naive some others (even Ph.D.s can be).

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

I have looked at the Meldrum essay, thank you. It does not and cannot provide the necessary information to answer the question - Are these Bigfoot tracks or something else? I offer my own opinion that many if not most of those prints shown look fake; some laughably. There is even a wide flat paddle-like print in the upper right.

Meldrum includes the Cripple Foot and if we can agree that it does appear fake we have to go directly to the question of how gullible is Meldrum? None of the comments in his essay show skepticism or hesitation. Instead he forges on with the formation of hypotheses on Bigfoot anatomy based on what he sees. IOW, he makes Bigfoot fit the tracks. The essay suffers from what is known as confirmation bias. Meldrum is compelled to explain an unknown creature based on tracks of unknown origin. He doesn't simply say "here is what the evidence looks like". He says, "here is the evidence and here is what the thing that made them looks like". He does not offer alternative hypotheses, such as what a prosthetic foot or track making device might look like to make these prints. He goes straight to Bigfoot. It's more Bigfootery for Bigfooters.

Concerning the photos of "Patty". The sole still looks like a fake foot to me. It's oddly flat and blocky. In the lower photo it looks like a flat rectangle.

[RB]

Like an elephant's foot.

I many ways... yes... appears to me anyway...

That would explain many things...

How is that difficult to accept as a possibility?

[Baboon_Extra_Hea...]

Well RB, I did mention that it appeared that "Patty" has roundish flat platform-like "elephant" feet. But others in this thread said she does not, and that it is an illusion of the frame capture and enhancement.

But if you accept that "Patty" has elephant feet then I believe the tracks cast from the P-G incident don't much match.

I think this is supposed to be a "Patty" track from Meldrum's essay...




But an "elephant" foot would look more like this track from Meldrum's essay...




Further, if you accept that Bigfoot has elephant feet then you have to conclude that the vast majority of "Bigfoot tracks" are faked - because these are almost exclusively a large elongated "humanoid" print, not an "elephant-like" print. That is of course unless you propose multiple species of Bigfoot with extremely diverse foot morphologies.

[Desertyeti]

Well, based on the unaltered film, I think we can all see that Patti's feet are not elephant-like, but in fact, human-like. And a flat foot can quite easily flex and leave a ridge, so all this hemming and hawing about elephant feet is pretty much a non-starter and is not getting us anywhere.