Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
11 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Just what I thought..You have no evidence to prove apes were ever in North America..So how did this ape get here? He come over on a banana boat? I mean he got here some how right? Since we know GP never crossed the Bering Land Bridge we can rule GP out...No apes made the trek from South America to North America so they can be ruled out.....

that's tantamount to saying, "since the american bison didn't cross the land bridge, it isn't here"

C'mon, man. Just because I believe the beast exists doesn't mean I can answer all questions about the beast, nor does my lack of an answer mean that *there isn't an answer*.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

that's tantamount to saying, "since the american bison didn't cross the land bridge, it isn't here"

C'mon, man. Just because I believe the beast exists doesn't mean I can answer all questions about the beast, nor does my lack of an answer mean that *there isn't an answer*.

Maybe. Maybe not. It is almost impossible to prove something does not exist. All most believers can do is try to prove it does....Back some years ago there was this huge debate about jesus being a myth and those that believed it were called Mythicists....That's what this Bigfoot existence debate reminds me of.....It's actually funny in a way......As much info as Bigfoot Believers can produce, Bigfoot Doubters can produce the same amount....It's a back and forth he said they said thing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Yikes. I couldn't guess. But 150 of them are kept in a  lab at University of Idaho State, Jeff Meldrum

nat-geo link

"Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, who specializes in finger- and footprints, has analyzed the more than 150 casts of Bigfoot prints that Meldrum, the Idaho State professor, keeps in a laboratory.

Chilcutt says one footprint found in 1987 in Walla Walla in Washington State has convinced him that Bigfoot is real.

"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said. "It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin." "

 

So when someone says "it is proven" that all BF prints are fake, they're wrong. If it was proven, this Chilcutt would believe them. He doesn't. Many others don't either.

From the link you provided

Quote

Hair samples that have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters have turned out to come from elk, bears or cows.

Many of the sightings and footprints, meanwhile, have proved to be hoaxes.

After Bigfoot tracker Ray Wallace died in a California nursing home last year, his children finally announced that their prank-loving dad had created the modern myth of Bigfoot when he used a pair of carved wooden feet to create a track of giant footprints in a northern California logging camp in 1958.

Note those saying it is real have not provided any evidence which proves it, those who say it does not exist have examined the evidence and proves it does not.

And we have this guy:

Quote

Matt Moneymaker had been searching for Bigfoot for years. In the woods of eastern Ohio, he claims he finally came eye to eye with the elusive primate.

All those years of searching and finally he came eye to eye with one and to prove it, obviously prepared for this moment after all those years of searching, he got this:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

I had no idea that the knowledge of dermal ridges and sweat pores on plaster castings of BF went back to 1982. I thought it was more recent.

Anyway, check this out. It's lengthy but compelling.

Woodape link

"Casts of three large human-like footprints were made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June, 1982, in southeastern Washington State. The fine-grained soil preserved many impressions of dermal ridges and sweat pores."

.......

Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)

Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.

Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.

In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

......

And other such endorsements.

Sweat pores and dermal ridges. Interesting!

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
15 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

From the link you provided

Note those saying it is real have not provided any evidence which proves it, those who say it does not exist have examined the evidence and proves it does not.

And we have this guy:

All those years of searching and finally he came eye to eye with one and to prove it, obviously prepared for this moment after all those years of searching, he got this:

.

 

Freetoroam, providing proof that *someone* faked a footprint, or people did not have what they thought - BF hair, does NOT destroy all BF evidences.

We all agree that there are fakers. Ok. But the testimony given by the fingerprint expert has not been debunked. Look at what is seemingly real. Don't look at what is fake and magically educe that what might be real now has to be fake.

makes no sense.

ps: I wouldn't trust Moneymaker on a BET

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
33 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I had no idea that the knowledge of dermal ridges and sweat pores on plaster castings of BF went back to 1982. I thought it was more recent.

Anyway, check this out. It's lengthy but compelling.

Woodape link

"Casts of three large human-like footprints were made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June, 1982, in southeastern Washington State. The fine-grained soil preserved many impressions of dermal ridges and sweat pores."

.......

Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)

Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.

Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.

In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

......

And other such endorsements.

Sweat pores and dermal ridges. Interesting!

 

If it left tracks that distinct why did they not track it? What, it just left 3 prints and vanished into thin air? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
22 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes there are/were many theories but 11 dimensions is now the one figure that works to their satisfaction of the majority. And you can call it science fiction, just go tell the physicists, not me.

Saying that we can never visit these other dimensions, now *that* is science fiction because it has never been proven and scientists think it is exactly opposite that.

Hey, and swede...? thanks for the insult! keep those "likes" coming!

1) In this you would appear to be referring to M/String theory which involves Brane cosmology. Unfortunately:

Brane worlds are far more speculative, because they can only exist if all those extra dimensions do, and there is no direct evidence of that.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

2) And you are certain of this statement?

The American theoretical physicist and string theorist extraordinaire Brian Greene, of Columbia University, argues that the plausibility of multiversal travel—conceding that parallel universes really do exist—hinges on which multiverse concept you subscribe to. If you are an advocate of a multiple big bang multiverse, then that would mean that leaving our universe to travel to another would be just as impossible as traveling back to the time before the big bang that resulted in our universe even happened.

And in string theory—one of the leading contenders in bridging the seemingly insuperable gulf sundering quantum mechanics and general relativity—the assumption is that we actually have far more dimensions in this universe than we previously thought and that we just fail to detect them because they are actually very small, curled up in the infinitely minute, trans-subatomic realms beyond the reach of our instruments (emphases added).

 https://futurism.com/physicists-weigh-in-could-we-ever-travel-to-a-parallel-universe/

However a multiverse might manifest itself, Albrecht does not think it would do so in a "sci-fi- friendly way." That is, physically traveling to and accessing adjacent pocket universes — should they exist — would require extraordinary breakthroughs in propulsion technology, among other astounding technological leaps.

Physics churns out parallel universes with ease, but accessing or having aspects of alternative realms invade our universe appears to be the stuff of fantasy. On balance, plausibility-wise, we give the sci-fi concept two out of four rocketboys (emphases added).

https://www.livescience.com/33924-parallel-universes-multiverse.html

Edit: Format.

 

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

key word - "likely".

You do realize you have no exact science to back you when you start saying what is likely and what isn't, right?

Did science say it was likely or unlikely we would ever find one of those giant squids that sailor folk lore told us about? If scientists did speak up on it, I bet they said it was very *likely* we'd never find one, it's very likely such a creature does not nor did not exist.

Same for Gigantopithecus. Before 1935, if one claimed that we'd find remains of a 10 foot tall big ape, science would likely laugh in their face.

 

There are plenty of scientific aspects that make it implausible for there to be an unknown giant ape in North America, including no definitive physical evidence, no ancestor in the fossil record, no available ecological niche, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

If it left tracks that distinct why did they not track it? What, it just left 3 prints and vanished into thin air? 

Alien, you know I can't answer that.

There may have been more tracks and maybe these people thought they had enough.. I just don't know.

Speaking of vanishing into thin air, that is a possibility that some American Indians believe and I consider it, yes. It has that appearance to some.

I read once how a man followed BF tracks in the snow then the trail suddenly stopped. His conclusion was that it proved BF backed up in its tracks to foil a tracker. That may not be the case at all.

Another was how people in a town had bloodhounds released after sniffing BF prints and the dogs after just a short distance of tracking laid down. That is their way of saying "no more scent".

It's something for me to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Swede said:

1) In this you would appear to be referring to M/String theory which involves Brane cosmology. Unfortunately:

Brane worlds are far more speculative, because they can only exist if all those extra dimensions do, and there is no direct evidence of that.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

2) And you are certain of this statement?

The American theoretical physicist and string theorist extraordinaire Brian Greene, of Columbia University, argues that the plausibility of multiversal travel—conceding that parallel universes really do exist—hinges on which multiverse concept you subscribe to. If you are an advocate of a multiple big bang multiverse, then that would mean that leaving our universe to travel to another would be just as impossible as traveling back to the time before the big bang that resulted in our universe even happened.

And in string theory—one of the leading contenders in bridging the seemingly insuperable gulf sundering quantum mechanics and general relativity—the assumption is that we actually have far more dimensions in this universe than we previously thought and that we just fail to detect them because they are actually very small, curled up in the infinitely minute, trans-subatomic realms beyond the reach of our instruments (emphases added).

 https://futurism.com/physicists-weigh-in-could-we-ever-travel-to-a-parallel-universe/

However a multiverse might manifest itself, Albrecht does not think it would do so in a "sci-fi- friendly way." That is, physically traveling to and accessing adjacent pocket universes — should they exist — would require extraordinary breakthroughs in propulsion technology, among other astounding technological leaps.

Physics churns out parallel universes with ease, but accessing or having aspects of alternative realms invade our universe appears to be the stuff of fantasy. On balance, plausibility-wise, we give the sci-fi concept two out of four rocketboys (emphases added).

https://www.livescience.com/33924-parallel-universes-multiverse.html

Edit: Format.

 

Well, Swede, you went to t lot of trouble when you need not.

Notice how it all wraps up...but accessing or having aspects of alternative realms invade our universe appears to be the stuff of fantasy.

did you notice the key word "appears" in that remark, Swede.

200 years ago, man flying appeared to be a thing of pure fantasy, too. Heresy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
11 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

There are plenty of scientific aspects that make it implausible for there to be an unknown giant ape in North America, including no definitive physical evidence, no ancestor in the fossil record, no available ecological niche, etc.

Couldn't agree more. I once thought the same thing. And it means "it can't be" , based on trying to judge the situation  on what we know of the animal kingdom, when we should temper that with the idea that BF is a creature that we know nothing about and may break all the rules,

Who knows? If it wasn't a mystery it wouldn't be a topic here at UM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Couldn't agree more. I once thought the same thing. And it means "it can't be" , based on trying to judge the situation  on what we know of the animal kingdom, when we should temper that with the idea that BF is a creature that we know nothing about and may break all the rules,

Who knows? If it wasn't a mystery it wouldn't be a topic here at UM

"Interdimensional creature" isn't the answer to this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Still waiting for proof apes were in North America....

 

Why does it show a picture of Mick Dodge for that thread?! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
9 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Why does it show a picture of Mick Dodge for that thread?! :lol:

:wacko: Got no idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

 

I'm not trying to respond to Carnoferox. The server is forcing me to take that when I just want to respond, in general. tried several times.

 

Anyway, dermal ridges. Crowley, the man who claims these are all "part of the process" of casting, for one, does not say anything about the pseudo sweat pores that are also seen on BF prints that have dermal ridges. Interesting.

But even more important, there are no dermal ridges on many print samples. But if it's "part of the process", then why not?

I think Crowley needs to be debunked. I think he's full of it.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'm not trying to respond to Carnoferox. The server is forcing me to take that when I just want to respond, in general. tried several times.

 

Anyway, dermal ridges. Crowley, the man who claims these are all "part of the process" of casting, for one, does not say anything about the pseudo sweat pores that are also seen on BF prints that have dermal ridges. Interesting.

But even more important, there are no dermal ridges on many print samples. But if it's "part of the process", then why not?

I think Crowley needs to be debunked. I think he's full of it.

Dermal ridges can be faked, period.

https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1729/v62 p129 Bodley.PDF?sequence=1

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
22 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

The hallmark of a troll is to LIE like a rug.And you're doing a great job.

I have just recently posted the article of the new ape that has been discovered. They used the word "new" in that article  (I would have said uncovered, it is old)

When I referenced people who say "Screw science", I was paraphrasing YOU and your troll ilk.

 

Prove I lied. It has been trivial to prove you are a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Hi freetoroam.

this angle that you come in on is quite curious. you seem think without proof that all casts of BF prints are fake. that's fine.

here is a *possible* analogy:

For many years whale hunters knew that big markings on whales indicated that whales had been in attacks by giant squid.

All the excusenics came up with "more likely" explanations for the markings.

Sure, now that the cat is officially out of the bag, we all agree that the huge markings on whales did in fact come from the suction cups of the giant squid.

We don't know if this analogy really fits because a BF has yet to be discovered. As far as the prints go, unless reputable scientists debunk them ALL, then we simply DON'T KNOW for sure. AS I have opined before, I don't think all prints are forgeries and I don't think all eyewitnesses are giving false information. For me, it's a numbers game and an endurance game. This theory of Big Hairy Man has been in America for 15,000 years or more. that's way too long for a practical joke to keep on going.

The contents of whale stomachs showed large beaks and tentacles. The idea that the skin markings was the sole hint at the existence of large squid is simply ignorant.

There was a lot of evidence for large squid unlike BF which seems to have no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
19 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Yikes. I couldn't guess. But 150 of them are kept in a  lab at University of Idaho State, Jeff Meldrum

nat-geo link

"Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, who specializes in finger- and footprints, has analyzed the more than 150 casts of Bigfoot prints that Meldrum, the Idaho State professor, keeps in a laboratory.

Chilcutt says one footprint found in 1987 in Walla Walla in Washington State has convinced him that Bigfoot is real.

"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said. "It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin." "

 

So when someone says "it is proven" that all BF prints are fake, they're wrong. If it was proven, this Chilcutt would believe them. He doesn't. Many others don't either.

These ridge flow patterns as they are called here turned out to be artifacts of the casting process and do not represent anything about the track itself.

That is a well established fact.

What is also clear is that many of the celebrated tracks turned out to  be fakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
18 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

that's tantamount to saying, "since the american bison didn't cross the land bridge, it isn't here"

C'mon, man. Just because I believe the beast exists doesn't mean I can answer all questions about the beast, nor does my lack of an answer mean that *there isn't an answer*.

Ludicrous. That makes no sense at all but seems to be the level of thinking when it comes to BF.

Such illogical constructs appear to be the norm for BF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
17 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I had no idea that the knowledge of dermal ridges and sweat pores on plaster castings of BF went back to 1982. I thought it was more recent.

Anyway, check this out. It's lengthy but compelling.

Woodape link

"Casts of three large human-like footprints were made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June, 1982, in southeastern Washington State. The fine-grained soil preserved many impressions of dermal ridges and sweat pores."

.......

Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)

Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.

Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.

In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

......

And other such endorsements.

Sweat pores and dermal ridges. Interesting!

 

So the casting artifacts can be observed  in casts over a large number of years. The problem seems to be a long term problem and not something that anyone person encountered.

Also from the link

Quote

A U.S. Border Patrol tracker who was called in by the Forest Service to help in the Walla Walla investigation declared the tracks to be fakes because of the presence of these dermal ridges (among other things). He pointed out that, of all North American mammals, only humans have fully developed friction skin on the soles of their feet. He did not allow for the possibility of the track maker being another higher primate — all of which have the same kind of friction skin with virtually identical dermal ridges.

According to the article, the tracks came from something large

Quote

Applying this knowledge to the tracks in question does not give an exact figure of weight, but it moves the reasonable estimate back to nearer Freeman's guess of 800 - 1,000 lbs, or about 400 kg. Of course, this all refers to the first individual from the sighting event of June 10. The second individual's tracks, found on June 17, were slightly larger and impressed to a similar degree. Thus, the tracks that are considered in detail here were quite possibly pressed into the ground with a weight of as much as 400 kg.

The write up is by Grover Krantz who was never able to publish anything in a peer reviewed journal about BF despite publishing other work. He thought that Gigantopithecus had traveled to North America. His basis for studying BF appears t be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
On 11/9/2018 at 10:14 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes, Sakari, And how convenient it is that you omitted "animals" even though they were specifically included in the list.

New Ape Discovered

The fossil remains of a prehistoric primate species weighing a mere 7.7 lbs have been unearthed in Kenya.

Dating back 12.5 million years, the new species, which has been named Simiolus minutus, is known only from the discovery of three tiny teeth in the hills of East Africa.

 

So please, people, do NOT tell me that you know that all primates have been discovered because you *and* the scientists don't know that. In fact, the scientists would beg to differ with you.

Please don't feed me this guff that the 6+ million species not yet discovered are all fish and plants. Read the above and get a grip.

You do also know, I hope, that a new "species" are the results of DNA testing of the known animal. That makes up a large chunk of this, along with the Plants and Fungi.

Please read below. I added the (not in the pacific....) part. Stop it already :)

 

Quote

Science has identified some 2 million species of plants, animals and microbes on Earth, but scientists estimated there are millions more left to discover, and new species are constantly discovered and described. The most commonly discovered new species are typically insects, a type of animal with a high degree of biodiversity. Newly discovered mammal species are rare, but they do occur, typically in remote places that haven't been well studied previously. (not the Pacific Northwest, or Florida, or Hell, every State in the USA) Some animals are found to be new species only when scientists peer at their genetic code, because they look outwardly similar to another species — these are called cryptic species. Some newfound species come from museum collections that haven't been previously combed through and, of course, from fossils. Read below for stories about newly discovered species, both alive on Earth today and those that once roamed the planet.

source:  https://www.livescience.com/topics/newfound-species

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
17 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

 

Very good article, Carnoferox. But naturally, I have *issues*.

The author says the dermal ridges can be faked under certain soil conditions, but the experiments clearly do not prove that the specific tracks examined from 1987 were fake. This is an important adendum to the big picture.

So #1 Dermal ridges being able to be faked does NOT mean a specific sample IS fake.

#2 Can skin pores be faked? The author neglects to test this. You didn't take it into account.

For one to fake all this, they would have to be quite skilled, knowledgeable an several area, and, obviously, determined because the ridges found were NOT human, unlike in the author's test. That adds even another layer of difficulty to it all. Also, said faker would have to know that dermal ridges can only be made under certain soil conditions such as the wind blown loess as was the case in the 1987 example.

Is it possible for some very determined faker to know all this and to execute it? Yes.

But proving it is possible does not prove it was done in any specific example.

ps: I still think Crowley's universal "part of the process" for all casts is pure dung. my opinion

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 hours ago, Sakari said:

You do also know, I hope, that a new "species" are the results of DNA testing of the known animal. That makes up a large chunk of this, along with the Plants and Fungi.

Please read below. I added the (not in the pacific....) part. Stop it already :)

 

source:  https://www.livescience.com/topics/newfound-species

my appologies Sakari. you're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Very good article, Carnoferox. But naturally, I have *issues*.

The author says the dermal ridges can be faked under certain soil conditions, but the experiments clearly do not prove that the specific tracks examined from 1987 were fake. This is an important adendum to the big picture.

So #1 Dermal ridges being able to be faked does NOT mean a specific sample IS fake.

#2 Can skin pores be faked? The author neglects to test this. You didn't take it into account.

For one to fake all this, they would have to be quite skilled, knowledgeable an several area, and, obviously, determined because the ridges found were NOT human, unlike in the author's test. That adds even another layer of difficulty to it all. Also, said faker would have to know that dermal ridges can only be made under certain soil conditions such as the wind blown loess as was the case in the 1987 example.

Is it possible for some very determined faker to know all this and to execute it? Yes.

But proving it is possible does not prove it was done in any specific example.

ps: I still think Crowley's universal "part of the process" for all casts is pure dung. my opinion

It goes both ways; since they can be faked, dermal ridges also can't be used as definitive evidence that a track is authentic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.