Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) 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 Reports are irrelevant to you. They tell you nothing. Ray, common sense dictates if you once had reports of something, and those reports slow down, then stop - and do not restart, there is probably nothing to look for. Using your example of animals we know about. I know Grizzlys exist, I also know they do not exist in the State of Ohio. I do not need to go into the woods, here, looking for a Grizzly to know they are not in this state. You still have not answered my question. If reports dry up, what do you suggest we go into the woods looking for? I know what you're getting at, I have read that kind of statement a thousand times, but my comment has more to do with common sense. Edited January 5, 2011 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Ray Pickens of Arden Washington knows/knew how to make footprints. Did Ray Pickens ever have any of his tracks casted and paraded around by researchers as being tracks of Bigfoot? Google maps doesn't show anything around there at all. Must not have been that convincing of a track maker. Edited January 5, 2011 by damndirtyape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Reports are irrelevant to you. They tell you nothing. Ray, common sense dictates if you once had reports of something, and those reports slow down, then stop - and do not restart, there is probably nothing to look for. Using your example of animals we know about. I know Grizzlys exist, I also know they do not exist in the State of Ohio. I do not need to go into the woods, here, looking for a Grizzly to know they are not in this state. You still have not answered my question. If reports dry up, what do you suggest we go into the woods looking for? I know what you're getting at, I have read that kind of statement a thousand times, but my comment has more to do with common sense. To me reports are relevant, potentially harboring historical context of an area, with tracks on the ground useful in the same manner a deer, elk or bear hunter would use them. The ultimate success for me as a researcher would be to actually see and photograph the animal in the wild, and I don't see how reports and track searching detract from that. They most assuredly enhance the likely hood, IMO. Personally though, I don't like sitting through an interview, trying to document a sighting told by an eyewitness. I would rather be in the woods and just use the highlights of the encounter gathered by others. Report details may become very important in the future if the animal ever comes to light. I am sure that scientists would pour over the literature in search of helpful tidbits in them to further their study program. Tracks may also become even more important after discovering methodology for repeatable observation of the animal in the wild. They may become a way of identifying individuals, population estimates, behavioral patterns, etc. If you have no historical information for an area indicating something like Bigfoot visits it, then wouldn't it be smarter to change and look in an area, or near it, that does? Of course the actual sighting or track find area is just a starting point and the surrounding terrain, weather patterns, human influence build up, food resources should also be taken into account. Its like playing Battleship with each persons board and grid pattern the size of a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Ray Pickens of Arden Washington knows/knew how to make footprints. Yeah, the same Ray Pickens who describes making various sized fakes AFTER having heard of different sized animals. He also said he got the idea AFTER hearing reports of large tracks found the year before. And I'd love to see those pictures he took! Claimed hoaxing is highly overrated and a red herring. tirademan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I do not remember ever hearing about Ray Pickens. Flash in the pan is my first take. Did he work many states ? Or was he localized ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think shows otherwise. Interesting how the track follows the softer substrate on the edge. Why wouldn't the bigfoot simply walk down the hard-packed center of the roadway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Why wouldn't the bigfoot simply walk down the hard-packed center of the roadway? Because he knew he wouldn't leave any dermals in the hard-pack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spazmo Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 ...or because hard road hurts the feet more than soft stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think if you're running barefoot through the countryside hard-pack vs soft dirt is going to be a moot point. It's them briers and pointy stones you need to be concerned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think if you're running barefoot through the countryside hard-pack vs soft dirt is going to be a moot point. It's them briers and pointy stones you need to be concerned with. John Green wrote that the Blue Creek Mountain prints went along the road for 600 yards. 1/3 of a mile. And of course there was also vandalization of the road making equipment. That would challenge the Bossburg trackway, I guess. Exhibitionist bigfoots, I guess. Or Patterson wanted to take the world's record away from Marx. One or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 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. Why don't you show us how to create such a flexible foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If I lose my car keys, but don't report them lost, or look for them, does that prove they don't exist? It does to me. If I don't ever see or hear a cougar in my back yard, does that prove they don't exist? If I don't ever see or hear a bigfoot in my backyard, does that prove that they don't exist? Well, as far as I'm concerned, that is damned strong evidence that they don't exist in my backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 "And, bigfoot is a possibility, until we prove it's not out there." That is correct, is it not, especially since there are numerous reports that they are, indeed, out there? The number of reports people file or don't file is irrelevant. That is incorrect. Reports are evidence supporting the possibility. Please explain, how exactly do we, as you said, prove it's not out there? You can't. That is why the existence of bigfoot remains a possibility. Sorry, Ray. That's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think if you're running barefoot through the countryside hard-pack vs soft dirt is going to be a moot point. It's them briers and pointy stones you need to be concerned with. With our soft, normally shod feet, yeah. Ever watch a bear sprint across a rocky area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Still not seeing how this moves the research forward. We can stop and cast a print or keep walking in the same direction. Are you in my head? Seriously..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts