Leaderboard

https://borealmountainanoraks.com

They look like quality-made gear. I particularly like the Manic model. There has been the wool vs synthetic debate since a choice was available. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I've chosen the synthetic path although I do wear thin merino next to my skin (top and bottom) in winter.

Lol....your chosen username is MIB. Of course you dodge overhead planes and helicopters!

So if Meldrum is doing real science. It’s science. But if he is saying Bigfoot tracks are real? He is a quack? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251678467_Ichnotaxonomy_of_the_Laetoli_trackways_The_earliest_hominin_footprints We don’t have foot bones from Afarensis. And yet scientists make theories that explain bipedal locomotion that coincides with The tracks and our earliest ancestors. What are your credentials to discredit scientists findings? Yes. We need the foot. But the tracks lead to the foot if they are geniune. And a scientist saying some tracks are genuine? Certainly lends to the validity. Yes?

All good points but, you wouldn't have to be clever at all, nor go to the trouble of emulating a mid-tarsal break, lets just say the bar is pretty low for what's accepted as a "genuine" bigfoot track.....laughable so. Maybe go back and review the Elbe trackway thread, that was some hilarious stuff. You might be jumping the shark with how much trouble it would be to hoax a print, my assumption is most print's are presented by the people that made them, any others are just confirmation bias run amuck. As I've suggested and it's what I do, take any claim and do a little research outside the world of footery, not trying to send you on a snipe hunt, just trying to encourage a little independent thinking beyond the echo chamber one can get caught up in at times.

I think he is talking about the same thing Dr Meldrum talks about on shows. A footprint should reflect the action of a moving creature's foot. It shouldn't be a flat, stamped footprint. Ideally, there should be a mid-tarsal break with toes leaving an imprint reflecting they are reaching and digging into the substrate. That is exactly what I look for when out in the woods. A very clever hoaxer might be able to create a fake footprint that mimics that but it would be exceedingly difficult. It's also another reason why I prefer to follow a feeder creek rather than just look around a pond. If someone is going to go to exorbitant lengths to prepare a fake footprint, they want their artistry seen. The more you go upstream along the feeder creek, especially a good distance from the pond, the less chance a hoaxer would be involved. Ditto with muddy areas way off the beaten path.