Leaderboard

To the delight of the skeptics here, prints to me are not proof of anything. I evaluate them based on where they are found and if I think they are genuine, accept them as evidence of possible activity. That is particularly true in the case of footprint finds in the range of the human norm because as the skeptics point out, they could possibly human or hoaxed. Way I figure, if Meldrum cannot persuade science that footprint finds mean something is out there, a non-PHD like myself can find dozens and it does not mean a whole lot. Meldrum has hundreds of prints in his collection. But the problem with several skeptics in this thread is that their logic process is all messed up. Their hypothesis is that something does not exist, then no matter the circumstances of a footprint find, that seems to force them to invent non supported arguments about the origin of prints found. If science had done the same thing with subatomic particles, we would still believe in 4 basic elements. Earth, Fire, water and air. Science had to explain evidence they were finding as they delved into the subatomic world. You cannot simply write off everything as hoax, or mistaken identity, because if you do that, you are embracing a belief system rather than examining evidence and doing science. The same thing proponents are being accused of doing with their belief in existence.

Hoaxing a single track is child’s play. Hoaxing a trackway is much more difficult and the longer the better. Add to the fact that if it’s in the bush and not along a road where somebody could get pulled by a vehicle? That’s when you sit up and take notice. Maneuvering over tall logs down steep banks or in deep snow, things that would make hoaxing impossible for the average sized man? Even better yet.

No, it doesn't. Hoaxers have to be able to reach the track they're creating and they have to do it without leaving sign that they did so. This was entirely missing. If it was hoaxed it had to have been done from at least 8 feet away. In a wilderness area, nothing motorized. No cranes, no helicopters. The only horse tracks were at least 2 months older than the footprint. I doubt you're able to understand this, but you really need to educate yourself if you're going to add anything but comic relief to a discussion. No, it would take at least 4 because the track was not just long, it was wide, and then somehow the overlap of 4 such tracks would have to only produce 5 toes. More than that, in this case they'd have to be running almost exactly in stride and, despite running with marathon runners in the far past, I've never met a human with a long enough running stride. Again, another attempt to dismiss that absolutely fails because it focuses on a single aspect without considering the whole picture. MIB