Leaderboard

To date, there are no official reports of anybody going missing and not being found or accounted for, in Sam Houston National Forrest, in the area or time period specified. There are some people that would claim there is a "cover up" and that any reports of missing campers were deliberately kept silent by local and/or federal authorities. However, even if you subscribe to this theory, I can guarantee you that they could not keep family members from speaking out. As a father, son, husband or friend, there is no legal authority that could keep me quiet if one of my loved ones did not come back from a camping trip. I suppose they could have me killed but that would lead to all sorts of other issues. To summarize; no reports of missing campers, hikers or anybody else, in the time period and area where this incident allegedly took place. Furthermore, there has been no public outcry of anybody claiming to have lost a loved one in this area, that I could find.

Link to the paper: http://1drv.ms/1BnR9hm I am away from WiFi access until Saturday. I do hope you enjoy the research! Original thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/

I was BH...thanks. Yes, I agree that is what the record reflects. If more would just concede that obvious point, we might not still find ourselves here still, 50 years further on.

It all factors in of coarse, but there are some details like the toe stems visible in other tracks from that find. The contours on the toe pads scream "real toes" and there is a natural graduation in size and proportion to the neighboring toes. There is some unusual detail on the outer side of the foot that I wouldn't think a hoaxer would just throw in to make them seem more real.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeee. So sorry for being irrelevant. No one had hipped me to that, dude. At least I'm capable of and willing to answer a simple question in a clear and concise fashion, unlike either of you. By all means, please continue your self-congratulatory postings in which all you seem capable of is declaring your intellectual superiority and demeaning anyone who may disagree with you. There's no discussion to be had with you. WSA: option 3 for me if that was what you were asking. ETA: Thanks, SY. What print is that a cast of, if you please?

If I were going on observable detail and nothing else I would choose this one as real. The one on the left

This is the question no one is answering. Which is the unequivocal, definitive, definitely made by a sasquatch footprint cast to act as the standard by which we judge all the others?

Well considering that you haven't contributed anything but insults for the past few months, that's pretty funny. Who needs evidence for backing nothing?

Let's review class. It is either: 1. All tracks are from an unclassified animal 2. All tracks are faked or misidentified 3. Some are from the animal, and some are not 4. I don't have the abilities to participate in this discussion on any intelligent level that will let anyone take me seriously Waiting....

I remember when I was first shown that little video Randy. My reaction to the instructions was "Hmmm....don't think I'm going to waste my time doing this silly exercise counting passes just because somebody wants me to. I'll watch it though to see what else is going on." That attitude will also allow you to see things others do not. Contrarianism has its benefits as well.

I can understand the idea of contamination of the data, but with an ever increasing data set and a keen eye for the tell tale hoaxes it can be self cleaning. The great out doors will never be a sterile laboratory with a the controls to keep the data clean, but the tracks will always speak to the people who find them and understand what should and shouldn't be in them. The problem is that if you tell all the tricks in spotting the fakes in an effort to further the research, you also educate the more dedicated hoaxer. Surely if you found real looking tracks under the right circumstances you would look around for the Sasquatch as much as you would the hoaxer.