Leaderboard

How do we infer somebody here on this forum has been the granted such all-knowing authority and intellect of the highest order to proclaim all Bigfoot /Sasquatch prints casts are fake or all reports of these things are in fact campfire tales and fairy-tales without showing meaningful studies and scientific peer reviewed reports to stand behind such a claim? Great question, but I've never stated that all casts are fakes. Check the thread. I've restated, repeatedly, Dr. Grover Krantz's lament that due to fakes attempting to establish any useful database of casts is incredibly difficult if not impossible. For my part unless casts are used to advance the search/discovery of the animal they are nothing more than curiosities. My personal belief is that it is unlikely that sasquatch is an actual animal and so I doubt casts but I have no way of knowing that for certain and I've never claimed they are all fakes. It's not the job of skeptics to prove the negative anyway, it is the job of those who are proponents to provide evidence which backs up their claims. Asking skeptics to prove a negative? That's not exactly how it works and I think you are aware of that, so I wonder about your motives in advancing such a proposal. More to point, the fact that others have reported things accurately or inaccurately does not magically make anything reported before, since or after more untruthful or more faked. I don’t live my personal life in a world of fakeness and I feel sorry for anyone that sees the world around them with jaundice eye that sees only suspicion and fakeness. Until you can provide a study showing that reports of other print casts -- are as consistently misinformed as those of which you claim, it will not prove a thing. First, you understand that it's not just me who is skeptical of sasquatch right? You understand that society and science, by VAST majorities, believe this to all be a myth. So be as patronizing as you wish, but process the fact that to believe in sasquatch is to believe in fringe thinking. Second, It isn't the job of science to disprove every claim of proponents. Those who believe that casts are real have the burden of proving their case and their colleagues have the responsibility to critically examine and test those claims. But no one has even been able to look at casts and come up with anything to help the field researchers in the quests. Beyond looking at a cast and saying, "this looks real" what has been done with cast "evidence"? I would suggest nothing because Dr. Krantz was right, casts cannot be used to further the search for sasquatch. And if they cannot further the search of what good are they? A print or trackway is ultimately pointless unless it leads to further discoveries (a hair, a piece of scat, a den, etc.), correct? And lastly and again, I've never claimed that all casts are fake. I've not seen all casts and it was never the point to begin with. As the name of the thread suggests my curiosity was what has been done with casts since the PGF that has advanced the search for animal one iota and how has the community addressed the concerns of the "father of sasquatch casts", Dr. Krantz. I personally feel that if a trackway, or portion of a trackway, were treated like a crime scene any trace evidence which exists in favor of the animal could be collected. There are ways to improve and discuss those possibilities but instead no one will even admit there is a problem. I am hopeful that I will find serious people here who were interested in the discovery of the animal but, in general, it's been a bust. I had really thought that since one of the biggies of the NAWAC had sort of started this forum this would be a grounded place but instead I think I understand why he has, mostly, divorced himself from the forums. So, I'm assuming you think I'm someone else. Is there anything I can do to disabuse you of that notion? If not, there's really no point in discussing the matter further.

Still doesn't answer my question. By what authority do you make your claims? You do know the meaning of authority do you not?

It wouldn't surprise me if that upper set were faked. I really don't like the wavy yet glossy surface on the sole, it's not natural. Depending on the provenance on the two left in the lower set, I could maybe see how Bindernagel might give the one on the right some consideration as being from a real animal particularly when you look at the Bossburg cripplefoot casts. This has in the past caused speculation of two different species of Sasquatch among proponents. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm I'm intellectually uncertain. The idea of them being spread out wouldn't help their diversity, because it depends on population density and whether there is pockets of them isolated.

comdo secure DNS reports the first link as unsafe/mailcious: reporting. Warning: Unsafe Website Blocked! 1drv.msThis website has been blocked temporarily because of the following reason(s): MaliciousThis site contains links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious persons.