Guest DWA Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I'm saying that, unless it can be conclusively explained what it is, science forbids you to throw it out (although a lot of scientists won't). What you mean by "don't meet the criteria" couldn't be more unclear. Not if you've ever followed a track. Footprints aren't Cadillacs, and can't be judged the same way unless they clearly (like Cadillacs) LOOK manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 8, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 8, 2013 A nice chapter on snow tracking, baiting stations, measurement and preservation of prints...... also scat handling for those interested in preserving for molecular genetics...... etc. etc. psw_gtr157_chapter5.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Thanks for posting that, bipedalist! I'll look more carefully at and know more about any tracks I see in the snow from now on. 8 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) So you're saying that even if footprints don't meet the criteria noted and published by experts they should be presumptive evidence until specifically ruled out by Dr. Meldrum or someone "like" (although I am unclear as to what this means to you?) him? Well, they're evidence for something, even if they are only evidence for hoaxing they are still evidence that needs to be examined and understood and codified for use elsewhere. Hoaxed prints that can be determined to be definite hoaxes can help to determine the likelihood of hoaxing in other reports. I have to say though, there is no way to know if any print is from a legitimate bigfoot or yeti without having seen the bigfoot actually make the print in question. Therefore there is no absolute criteria as yet. Edited March 9, 2013 by antfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts