Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And like it or not, trying to prove a negative is as illogical as your explanation. Ceasing to submit reports won't prove bigfoot doesn't exit, nor will finding remains. If no one reports seeing the animal or hearing its vocalizations, exactly what would we have to look for? What is illogical about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Are you saying that the one and only aspect of Bigfootery worth anyone's time or breath is bringing in a body, and until then everyone should just sit back? That is exactly what they're saying. Bigfoot is one of those topics that supposedly neutral and curious scientists are (in the majority) decidedly NOT neutral and care nothing about whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bullfrog Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I enjoyed Meldrum's book. However, I think there is a bit of a false dilemma in the argument favoring the validity of the tracks. It seems that track proponents start with the assumption that if a track is fake, it was made with a wooden foot. Why couldn't a hoaxer use a flexible foot like rubber? It would account for the toe flexibility and the mid-tarsal break. If I was going to hoax some tracks, that's what I would do. If the foot wasn't heavy enough, I could figure out some way to weight it down just enough to give me the impression I want and only minimally sacrificing flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 If no one reports seeing the animal or hearing its vocalizations, exactly what would we have to look for? What is illogical about that? Whether something is seen or heard has no bearing on whether or not it exists. If I lose my car keys, but don't report them lost, or look for them, does that prove they don't exist? If I don't ever see or hear a cougar in my back yard, does that prove they don't exist? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Whether something is seen or heard has no bearing on whether or not it exists. That's not what I said. I said, if reports stop coming in, what is there to look for? You have not replied. If I lose my car keys, but don't report them lost, or look for them, does that prove they don't exist?If I don't ever see or hear a cougar in my back yard, does that prove they don't exist? RayG Never said that either. I'm not even sure where that is coming from. We know cougars exist. We know your car keys exist. We are not trying to prove either of these items exist. State DNR agencies have a way of tracking and keeping numbers on animals that are known to exist. Bigfoot (on the other hand) has not been proven to exist. If reports stop coming in, I would argue, the likelyhood this animal is no longer walking the planet, would be a strong possibility (if it was out there at all). We can't count numbers of these animals (if out there) so at this point, all we have to go on is what witnesses say. So, if witnesses stop reporting exactly what are we looking for? People (such as myself) who have never seen on, can only work with what we are told by witnesses. Without witnesses, we have nothing. I will say this. I would find it very interesting if one day, reports began to localize more, then slowly stop. Six months to a year of no reports would be very interesting.. Probably sad, but I think that could be very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Bullfrog said: I enjoyed Meldrum's book. However, I think there is a bit of a false dilemma in the argument favoring the validity of the tracks. It seems that track proponents start with the assumption that if a track is fake, it was made with a wooden foot. Why couldn't a hoaxer use a flexible foot like rubber? I don't think that. I don't think we could possibly know all the ways a track "could" be faked. A hoaxer could use a flexible rubber foot.. I think you hear more about wooden feet being used because of Wallace. Which is why I think it's important to understand the process and how to spot a hoax. Hoaxing a track would require more than just a good stamping tool like a wooden foot or rubber foot though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Hoaxing a track would require more than just a good stamping tool like a wooden foot or rubber foot though. I think shows otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think shows otherwise. Awesome video. I don't spend much time on YouTube. Thank you for posting that, I had never seen that before. Are you willing to put your stamp of approval on a cast, with no features other than a nice solid looking track? If we don't care about the features contained in the cast, then why are we doing all this casting work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm not sure I understand what you're asking? You said it would take more than a wooden foot to produce a hoax. All I did was provide a video that seems to show a pretty successful hoax (for the time) using what seems to very clearly be stompers of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Maybe my original comment was not as clear as I thought. It would take more than a nicely formed cast of a track for most of us to say, the cast could be a legit track. There would need to be other elements. The shape is wonderful, but we should look deeper than that. A nicely shaped casted footprint is cool, but neither you, or I would be impressed with simply that, and no one should be. *edited to add* Maybe I should add: Hoaxing a track, these days(sucessfully) would require more than a rubber or wooden foot. Edited January 4, 2011 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 A nicely shaped casted footprint is cool, but neither you, or I would be impressed with simply that, and no one should be. You'll get no arguments from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 That's not what I said. I said, if reports stop coming in, what is there to look for? You have not replied -Melissa in response to Ray ------------------------------- With regard to reports drying up.. ea. year..or heading that way.. that would be something. I think that education on the subject may be reflecting on private work being done which certainly appears on the increase. A sidespin of that might be less reports being reported simply because people are keeping things much more private. That can be looked at many ways.. but certainly a positive for the privacy and activities of the spp itself. IF that is a factor it provides another consideration regarding the actuality of the spp. I wonder how much it cuts into the reports across the board. Providing they actually exist of course. Maybe a factor, maybe not. I cannot imagine reports stopping considering the new excitement that is provided with more open communication ea year, added to the potential habitat use nationally and in Canada. Tracks are a strong part of that regardless of how many are hoaxed or potentially real. Rather important aspect so the better we know the details regarding them ... the better and another reason I tried to activate this thread not long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 That's not what I said. I said, if reports stop coming in, what is there to look for? You have not replied. This is exactly what you said, and it's what I'm addressing. "And, bigfoot is a possibility, until we prove it's not out there." The number of reports people file or don't file is irrelevant. Please explain, how exactly do we, as you said, prove it's not out there? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Ray Pickens of Arden Washington knows/knew how to make footprints. Start at 4:38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The "you can't prove a negative" phrase that gets repeated often does not correlate at all to whether or not bf exists. We can't prove that bf doesn't exist right now. What if we are able to in the future? Will we have proven a negative? What if 300 or 3000 years from now our satellites can detect every living thing on the planet and bf is not there? Is that not plausible? Whatever scenario is put forward can be countered. Plus that phrase gives off a bad "Don't even try it" vibe, which should never be accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts