LAL wrote:




Wow. I guess there's NO WAY Freeman could have made the fake tracks and then walked along side of them. :new_whistle: And "half tracks" can't be faked? Meldrum also thought the Snow Walker footage was real... hoax. Lu, you don't want to be characterized as a Meldrum groupie but your blindly accepting whatever he says in the above quote, with no conclusive evidence, doesn't really provide a counter argument to that notion. BTW...I don't seen any mention of the Redwoods video in his new book...you know, the one he argued for so long that he thought was probably real. Any thoughts on why that is?





What, specifically, are you referring to?

Meldrum exposed Snow Walker, too. Professional hoax. And a measurement on the tree showed the figure in the Redwoods video was 8' tall.

I'll take either the "many" you've said (twice, in effect) have noticed I "hero worship" or the "many" who think Freeman's casts are "cartoonish." Preferrably both.

While you're at it, please answer my other question about the upper cast photo. Which one is it?

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!



Raising my hand as one of the "many." :wink:

"Q: The article mentions a track that Chilcutt determined was fake. What is the origin of that track?

A: The "fake" element was overstated by the reporters. It was one of Freeman's casts from Elk Wallow (if memory serves me, but I will check the location name).

There was evidence of contamination by human fingerprints in the toe region. The question remains whether this was intentional or not.

There seems to be a natural inclination to touch tracks, brush away debris, or even embellish an indistinct spot. One of the toes clearly had a triple strike, in that the core pattern of a fingertip (human appearing ridge texture) was repeated down the length of the toe. This may have been done by Freeman or any of the numerous other individuals who examined the tracks prior to their casting.

What the reporter failed to mention was that along the margins of the foot there were examples of the distinct coarse textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot! So it is not unreasonable to conclude that a legitimate footprint was literally "touched up" in the toe region."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=303

Was this the cast you meant, scotto? In WCS 2003's presentation, Chilcutt came back to that cast and pointed out the longitudinal flow of ridges along the side of the foot. Evidently someone touched it in the toe area, but that was all.

Sasquatch dermal ridges are twice the width of human dermal ridges, according to Krantz.

LAL wrote:




Well, then why, if that's true, isn't there any mention in the book? How many 8 foot humans does he actually think exist in the world? Maybe it's because he thought real hard about it and realized an accurate measurement couldn't actually be done due to the unknown height of the video shooter inside the motorhome (plus other factors such how far, exactly, was the motorhome from the tree, how much air in the tires, etc.). If so, kudos to him.





Lu, since I don't have the permission of fellow board members here who feel you, in effect, "hero worship" in relation to Meldrum, I'm sure you can understand why I won't post their names. You probably have a pretty good idea, though. If any of them want to come forward publicly, so be it. The same applies to some of the really goofy looking casts that came from Freeman.





Specifically, which photo, there are many on this thread.

I admire the work Meldrum has done in this field and value the expertise and legitimacy he brings to it. I absolutely will defer by default to anything he says related to tracks and casts since he has, like, 2000% more understanding of all that than I do. Does that make me a hero worshiper, too?

Grew some hair? You started the hero-worship thread on BFD, didn't you.

I mentioned at one point I gave that up when I found out Captain Marvel Jr. wasn't real. I mentioned also any hero worship I may have is for Rick Noll, but then I caught him spreading an urban legend so I had to knock him off his pedestal.

I think I've asked what all you "researchers" put together have accomplished, but I don't think I've received an answer yet.

But how? I'm not saying it's impossible, but if we can so cavilerly dismiss tracks studied in the field by an expert in primate foot morphology, is there anything worth hanging our hat on in this field?

Yes, you sycophantic zealot. :dry:

:laugh:

Seriously, though. Calling someone a hero worshiper totally debases their position in a way that's not entirely fair, IMO. I'm pretty sure this is an area where reasonable folks can disagree without resorting to that kind of tactic, isn't it?

I think I named a few on the MIM thread. And frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Have any trained anatomists said they think Freeman's casts look cartoonish or is it just people on the board?

FYI :

"Appeal To Anonymous Authority:
an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.

The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic...s.html#they_say

Look familiar?




The top foot cast you posted in the "cartoonish" collection that I asked about at the time.

bipto wrote:




The problem is that with no actual Bigfoot "foot" to conclusively show what someone claims is probably true about any given track, the logical deductions (or inductions in some cases) made from the tracks are, ultimately, speculative. In other words, it's still an open question. I'm not claiming at all not to listen to what Meldrum has to say. Just that to, a large extent, to accept hook, line and sinker whatever he says as gospel is dangerous, scientifically speaking. Is Meldrum the only primate foot morphology expert in the world? If what he has found is so amazing, as Lu appears to think so, why then no peer review of his work that has been met with equal enthusiasm by lots of other primate foot morphologists from around the world? Why no large scale call amongst his peers for taxonomic classification? I suspect it's because the possibility of either hoaxing or casting artifacts can't be completely ruled out in any particular case.

Why yes, I believe I did! Though I don't remember mentioning any names, for some reason you assume that the thread was about you. Listen to Carly Simon much? Maybe you should. :laugh:



About as much as anyone else, I suppose. You know, put together some ideas and theories based on second-rate evidence, but yet still unable to produce a body. That's pretty much par for the course in bigfoot research. I'm reading Meldrum's book right now, but I have a sneaking suspicion he doesn't find a body in the end. I hope I didn't spoil it for anyone else! Yeah, us researchers really haven't done a lot but make some educated guesses. However, some of us do so in style! http://www.cafepress.com/georgiabigfoot

The check is in the mail, right BM???

Wow, are YOU going to be surprised! :new_lmaosmiley:

:doh:

Paul, I didn't say it was about me. You linked to it during a DDA trashing session on one of the MD threads. Evidently respect gets no respect.

This is the photo, YF.



And what about the one that seems to be the one I posted. I got it via e-mail from a friend. How would you get it if not from my post? It's not a Freeman cast; it's a photo of a copy of the OM copy.

See, I don't think we should be hanging our hats on anything. Document, collect, analyze, record findings, attempt replication, report findings for peer review, then move on. Make no assumptions or statements. Just present the data for what it is, and not what it might be. I don't think anyone should be hanging their hats on anything just yet. I don't think we've gotten that far yet. Let a few more Dr. Meldrums step forward to test and analyze the data first, I say. Then let the hats hang where they may!



Ok, I think you are trying to make a point, but I just don't see it. You should probably draw me a picture. I guess I don't speak "Lu."

LAL wrote:




Thanks Lu. I actually thought I had mentioned that was from tube's site (no joking, my bad).


tube's site is..... http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm


It's about two-thirds of the way down. It's part of tube's counter argument to Chilcutt's ridge-flow argument.

Apparently not, but :appl: anyway.

I'm begiinning to think this is a phishing site. Someone's made a clever clone and we're innocently posting on it while "they" gather our information.

You know who you are. What have you done with the REAL BFF !???!

Oh wait, I started out tangling with YF over two years ago and now I'm tangling with YF. I guess it is the real board. What's changed?

LAL wrote:




Only our love, which has deepened immeasurably. :laugh:

Well, maybe I'll order the DVDs...................


2/3 down where it says, over that photo:

"Lets take another look at my Big Foot shaped test cast of 10-4-2005."



So it's a test cast and not a Freeman cast? I asked for photos of "cartoonish" Freeman casts.

And what about the other?

I posted:



You posted:



Is there a difference?

That's not a Freeman cast either.

Pimp it. :eek3dance:

To add something of substance...



That is a damn fine statement.

Well, my first test cast in this soil is posted in this thread. I sifted nothing out - as Im sure the hoaxer or the alleged animal in question, did not stop to sift out the soil before leaving the impression. These tests should be done under as normal conditions as possible. Yes, my soil had pine needles, rocks, leaves - you name it.

You bring up a post by Tube on his site - Im not sure what the point is to be honest. Is Tube saying artifacts are only possible if the soil is sifted and all the debris removed? He had no leaves, twigs etc in his Volcanic ash......Kathy did advise me to sift the soil, but I wanted to see what would happen in the soil - with all the added things nature has to offer, as that would be pretty close to the way you would find it in nature.

In my opinion if the leaves, twigs and rocks sticking to the casting agent helps to prevent these artifacts - thats one more plus in favor of the Onion Mountain Cast -- or am I misunderstanding what your saying? Im not sure what Tube is getting at with that comment though.

I do appreciate your kind comments about the work Im doing - I just want people to evaluate it fairly and take an honest look at what I am finding out. This isnt about me, but I sure thank you for the kind comments

*edited for clarity*

LAL wrote:



I never said it was. I think the confusion arose because I forgot to mention it was from tube's site.

You showed a photo on post #24 of this thread showing a v-shaped pattern (shown below on the bottom) on a track cast and you said...




I then countered with a photo of one of tube's experimental casts (on top) where no skin dermals were used at all in the construction which also shows a similar delta or v-shaped pattern. In other words, v-shaped patterns can also be casting artifacts.

Put it on a shirt and sell that sum'bitch! Yeehaaaaaa!!!! :laugh:

And because you said this:

"Below is not one but two of Mr. Freeman's amazing "hand" finds! The footprints are all Freeman-related "finds". You really have no problems at all with the one in the upper left hand corner? Seriously, its outline looks closer to "Wilson" from Castaway than an organically made print. Do you seriously think any of those probably came from a Bigfoot?"

<emphasis mine>

I asked for photos of "cartoonish" Freeman casts. You did not say the one in the upper left hand corner was a tube test cast. Yes, I had a problem with it; that's why I asked which one it was.

There's nothing like the dermal ridges repeatedly meeting in V patterns on the test cast. Tube has a good closeup of the concentric half circles, though, which are what were questioned in the first place.

I really wish we could get Jimmy Chicutt here to answer questions.

Uh, bipto, have you asked him to do a bipcast yet?

Melissa wrote:





I think part of the problem is that so many possible variables are involved. Are there any good photos of where exactly Green made the cast? Would such a photo tell us that the soil you and Matt used would be compositionally equal enough? Excuse me while my head spins... :laugh:. One of Matt's main contentions about all of this, though, is, well let's let him explain it in his own words...


From his site http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm





I would email tube with any more specific questions. I now have to go stop my head from spinning.

Is a picture of this entire cast posted anywhere? I have only seen this cropped shot..

Anyone?

LAL, quoting me, wrote:




I meant the photo in the upper left hand corner of the four photo shot shown in the post (also shown below). My bad.

Didn't Hairy Man say she told them both to screen the soil?

Debris could easily have blown onto it at any time, even after the trackway was examined.

Last I saw of tube (today) he was over on JREF trying to make a case for a Blue Creek Mountain print being made by a Wallace carved foot because of the line in the heel that appears in one photo out of, what was it? 300 +?

Yes, LAL - I discussed that above... But I hate to interupt you and Yetifan ... You two are so cute when your debating. :laugh:

Okay. That's the one that gets touted as a bear track, out of context, and supposedly is evidence Meldrum can't tell his elbow from a hole in the ground.

There's something good on TV. To be continued.

Yes Lu, I believe so.
Paul Freeman, taken 6/82, Umatilla Natl. forest is the data on the back of my cast, which is the one in your previous pics. I'm not sure if the area is called "Elk Wallow" or not.

No, no, no! It's a sasquatch butt print!!!! Oh wait, we aren't talking about the Skookum cast. Nevermind. :new_lmaosmiley:

I just knew somebody was gonna go there with that! :laugh:

" ... embellish an indistinct spot "

:new_tiredsmiley:

We're not talking about Dfoot here, right ?


With all the tons of excellent Bigfoot evidence, are you saying Dr. Meldrum is reluctant to discard questionable evidence; and even showcase it in his skeptic humbling book.

But if the shoe fits... I think there is some hero worship evident…Sorry that’s just my opinion.
I can't be faulted for my opinion, I, and others here, have been criticized by Lu for not contributing anything but commentary... how is that fair, even if it was by my own admission? What has most anyone here contributed but commentary? The vast majority of people here do just that. There are very few people here who contribute any actual evidence that is verifiable. Would it be better if I talked about every tree twist or ignominious scuff I run across and make a case that Bigfoot was responsible?
At the very least I rely on my own thoughts based on what I have learned and not continually quote or paraphrase someone else even if I happen to agree with them.


Things have changed, there’s a whole thread going on about it. But despite the changes it still might not be the support group you expected.

An internet forum is, by definition, mostly about commentary. I don't think that's a fair criticism.

I guess I'd say to dismiss someone's posts as 'just commentary' is just as bad as dismissing them as being 'hero worship'. Both are meant to reduce the other person's position without addressing the specifics of their argument.

Do you think maybe, if you are going to question Tube's procedures, it would be a good idea to read
his documentation?

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm

One of the questions Tube asked Green about the Onion Mountain track..

Facts, confirmed by Tube:

• He has made approximately 40 casts by numerous methods to chase down numerous theories.

• He started with the most basic of control casts, in various substrates, with various casting compounds, at various water temperatures. These controls (7 or 8 total) were made by pressing virgin flat pieces of plastic using all preceding parameters and numerous combinations of them. He found casting artifacts in most (~6 or 7 total) final casts.

• He moved on to casting simple pours, in various substrates, with various casting compounds, at various water tempeartures. He found casting artifacts in numerous (~90%) final casts. He used all preceding parameters and numerous combinations of them.

• [Out-of-chronology interlude] In April 2005, he was theorizing about warm water being used for the original OM cast based on John Green's statement that it was 100 degrees Fahrenheit on the day the OM cast was made. He wondered if this could cause casting materials to set thicker, thus causing more pronounced casting artifacts than what he was finding in the casts referred to elsewhere herein. The casting compounds used for these simple pours were fly ash and Hydrocal. He measured tap water at 100 degrees. Rick was present during these casts. I asked Tube if it was simply coincidence that he used 100-degree water on this day, and he said yes, due to the timing of this particular theory and Rick's visit. He does not recall some of Rick's recall about this day, nor does he dispute Rick's recall. He did not intentionally use 100-degree water for any other casts referred to herein, nor did he measure water temperature for any other casts mentioned herein.

• He moved on to casting his own foot, in various substrates, with various casting compounds, at various water temperatures. He found dermal ridges and in numerous cases (~90%) gross casting artifacts in all final casts. The singular exception is when he used potters clay as a substrate--he found no casting artifacts in that cast.

• He moved on to casting one OM cast copy using a female mold provided by Rick. He found dermal ridges and/or casting artifacts consistent with other subsequent-generation OM casts.

• He compared this OM cast to all other casts he made previously and found the Chilcutt-proclaimed "dermal ridges" were familialy similar to all casting artifacts found in the casts referred to herein and indistinguishable from casting artifacts in two of the simple pour casts referred to above: two large foot-shaped pours made in plaster of Paris.

If I understand correctly (please correct me if I understand incorrectly, Melissa) [wow, I'm feelin' Lemony Snickety]:

• You have made only casts of your foot.

• All of your casts show dermal ridges.

• You have made no control casts.

If the latter three points are correct, then why is there anything of import about finding dermal ridges in casts of your own foot?

Im sorry - did you have a question?

If Tube is upset he should have commented when he was on this very thread last night..

I think you missed a lot of comments about how important Tubes work is - and mine wont stop..

No, I have made more than just casts of my foot. (read the other thread)

No, I did get artifacts (Tube said they were not the same as his)

Yes, I have made a control cast (Please see the first Dermal Ridge thread)




I must be onto something - or you wouldnt feel the need to be so "Lemmon Snickety".

Well, what is important is simply this so far: Yes, dermal ridges are possible in the soil at Onion Mountain. Its really that simple so far. Also, it would appear Tubes instructions on how to create "Artifacts" so far, are not working for me. I have followed his instructions - and still nothing. Im not sure why that is. It could be a number of factors - one being the soil itself, which is NOTHING like Volcanic Ash, other than the fact that its very light and powdery.

Fact of the matter is simply this, Tube challenged me.. I took up his challenge.. To date I have not been able to duplicate his work. Im not sure why this is such an issue for you or him - my work is about answers, not ego.

Your nice "Points" are very good. But, they still do not answer the questions that started my work. Pointing at an "Artifact" and calling it an "Artifact" does nothing to help the researcher who wants to avoid this in the field --- and he never told us what causes it, what he did say - is not working. So, what would you have me and other researchers do - simply stop casting in the field - because Tube said "Artifacts happen"?? The logical next step is to figure out why and how this happens. I was really hoping Tube would go in that direction, but he never did. Dont get upset with me because Im choosing to take up this work. And dont be upset with me, because I am not able to validate his work. Thats not my issue and not one I really feel like taking up right now.

Lets make one thing perfectly clear - I am not doing this to validate or invalidate Tubes work. I am doing this because I want information Tube never provided. If he has issues with that, thats really not my problem... If my work does inadvertantly validate or invalidate - well, let the chips fall where they may, validation by an independant source should make tube happy.. (You would think).

I wont be drawn into "drama" over this. If the goal is to get me to stop doing my work - that wont happen, I will simply stop responding. Im tired of trying to have a rational conversation and having it go into these petty bickering sessions... My ego is fine - and Tubes crown is still intact. You have no reason to worry.

The questions that started the work Im doing are questions that deserve answers - and if you or Tube has an issue with that - Im sorry, but my work will continue, Im not sure what to tell you. I never said my work was important - other have -- is that the problem??


*Oh - and SG, your the last person to tell anyone to read something before commenting*



I already knew that, and it has been discussed (more than once by myself and others), this soil is more or less "Pulverized Rock".

You act like Tube is the only person with Mr. Greens email address :new_tiredsmiley:

I made the phone calls about the soil - because it would stand to reason, if there was ANY Volcanic Ash in this area - it would also be on the roads... Unless Volcanic Ash doesnt like to settle on roads, and is unmovable by the weather elements... but I dont think thats the case.

SG - once again your putting words in someones mouth - I never said this was "good enough". I am simply trying to do things as it would have been done in the field that day - unless you contend a hoaxer would have sifted out all the pine needles etc. before making the track??? Or Bigfoot carrys along a sifter?

Well, it's obvious you haven't read the book.

Meldrum has close to 200 casts in his collection.

This cast was set aside early in Chilcutt's examination of the collection because it was contaminated. Chilcutt later used it in his presentation at Willow Creek, pointing out the human dermals and the dermal ridges running down the ide of the foot. There's no indication the print was faked, or even that Freeman touched it up prior to casting. Again, there were other rangers present.

Just wandering offpath a bit here, but it seems rather strange to be spending so much time on tracks that are from 1967, 1982, or however many years ago.

Where are all the recent tracks with clear dermal ridges, and why aren't some of these being thoroughly examined and discussed?

RayG

Yep. I'd been using the board for information and reference for some time during knock-down-drag outs on AOL boards. I decided to join and was was told it wasn't a support group for my POV (or words to that effect) when I was the newest of the new. And, yes, I'm aware of the thread. The person who told me that posted on it recently. I haven't been on the board from the beginning, so I don't know what the good old days were like, but it seems things were more civil a couple of years ago. Maybe you guys just didn't know me that well then. :biggrin:

It just seems to me that the people who have done the most work (Noll, Meldrum, Krantz, e.g.) get the most trashing. I haven't said those doing it haven't accomplished anything (some have been called a "new breed of researchers"), but if they have, I'd like to know what it is. It's been suggested all the old evidence should be thrown out. If so, what is there to replace it? I think that's a fair question.

I have nothing against commentary; heck, I do it all the time. But the burden of proof is on the claimant and I think charges of hoax and misidentification and gullibility should be backed up with solid evidence. Insinuation isn't good enough, IMO. Is something automatically "inconclusive" because someone says it could have been faked? Seems fakery was soundly ruled out in a number of classic cases. Wallace family claims have not held up, nor have Heironimus', yet they still get dragged in from time to time.

I think debate is healthy. Certainly newcomers can learn from it, and it would be boring indeed if we all agreed on everything. I know posters aren't bound by formal rules of debate, but there are times I wish we were. I've been in exactly one formal debate. We won (or I did, because no one else on the team was prepared) and there were no hard feelings, no name calling, no stone throwing. It was fun and informative and in the seventh grade. :wink:

We will be getting to the " ... dermal ridges running down the side .. " later.

Want to consider any damage control options, before we do ?

There is a Sasquatch butt print, brought in by Freeman no less. I've been waiting for a thread on it. :popcorn2:

I think we should take it to another thread. This one is about experiments concerning OM, or used to be anyway.

Topsoil is quite a bit different than fine dust with some organic matter in it. If tube had asked if there was organic matter in the fine dust, would the answer still have been "no"?

These are the ridges Krantz and Meldrum had assumed were casting artifacts from the pour that apparently flattened detail in the center.

Lu, what do you suppose ' fine ' means in ' fine dust ' ?


For that matter, what do you think ' No ' means ?


:icon_bang: :icon_bang: :icon_bang: