Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Rockape]

< From an academic standpoint, however, I wouldn't support an investment in public research dollars to launch some big bigfoot expedition because we have so many other priorities for existing species and ever-decreasing budgets. I probably wouldn't officially oppose such an effort, however, because it would be interesting to watch. If the NSF announced a new "let's get a bigfoot" program, I might even apply for a grant myself. >

But has there ever been a concerted effort by a university or science foundation to search for BF evidence? That's an honest question because I don't really know of one.

I'd like to see one, as most of what we have now are people who are self funded, and findings by them come into questions about motivation to hoax, the "follow the money" syndrome. If a respected educational institute or science foundation did put in say a year, any evidence they find would carry more weight than any one individual or researchers committed to bigfoot.

[Guest Stan Norton]

@ Stan Norton

Footprints of any kind can be faked. They are only impressions in the ground. You can even find shoes with bigfoot, or other animal prints in them on google.

Well, yes, clearly. My point is that there are numerous footprints which appear to many (i.e. those with the right expertise) not to be fakes at all. Therefore, if the fakes are really that sophisticated to be able to completely fool, say, Jeff Meldrum, then I'd very much like to know how they were created. It sure isn't a pair of carved planks and a fat bloke leaping down a forest ride in Washington. A sequence of tracks (many tens), each one different and exhibiting all the hallmarks of a real foot, is what the evidence is - so what is the explanation? 'They are fake' does not cut it at all - show me how they were made and I'll be happy.

[Guest]

.

Saskeptic, I really wanted to see if you would engage in the thought experiment I proposed. That was: Imagine for us what a credible BF encounter/sighting report would look like? Game?

I assume you mean without a BODY.

I'll take shot. In order for an encounter/sighting to be SUFFICIENT evidence to DEMONSTRATE the creature is in indeed a heretofore UNIDENTIFIED non human hominid (AKA BIG FOOT) you would need requisite PROVENANCE of the sighting AND DNA. That means a scenario akin to this:

Several individuals (must be credible witnesses) see a *BF* hit by a car crossing the road..it falls down and get's up and runs away. The DRIVER of the car is one of the witnesses as well. Those witnesses then go to the spot in the road and find blood and tissue left behind. They take a picture of this and then retrieve samples. Samples are tested at various labs and confirm what Ketchum has been trying to do. I think the Smeja account was very close to providing REAL evidence, since it* could* have satisfied this requirement..but provenance would have been a sticky issue without pics or a body. He still could have made a credible case if he got his provenance correct and was deemed a credible witness along with his driver. We know it's dead in the water now.

BTW...A body is it's own provenance..just bring it in. Has never been done.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ronn1

[WSA]

Saskeptic.. Well then, you see, we are in complete agreement. I'm all for clearing up misunderstandings between like-minded people, and here we've done that. Because really and truly, reasonable minds can differ on what the current state of the evidence is, but it matters not a wit if we are united in pushing the boundaries to arrive at what we would all like to see.

I see eye-to-eye with you on federal and state funding priorities for other, confirmed, species. I am somewhat intrigued though with the impact the mother of all umbrella species would be on the Hook and Bullet agency budgets. Could you imagine? Well, that is, if we actually had money to put on it, which seems increasingly unlikely.

As for the FB series. I'm doubting anyone here views it to be real science. I will confess to watching it with my 8 and 9 y.o.'s as they get quite the charge out of it. It also lets me open up a dialogue with them about what "real" field research is. (It has made our overnight backpacking trips somewhat more dramatic, let me tell you) The tragedy of it is probably the toll it takes on the cast as I think they've made a pact with forces they are now helpless to control. Good luck to them, but DWA raised a point he and I discuss a lot (and he has yet to view a single minute of the show). They may have just raised the bar for public awareness to a point where more and more folks feel comfortable stepping forward to bear witness. I'm not the only one to realize...this thing Al Gore invented is a marvelous data collection instrument. Back in the day, I believe we had just as many sightings/encounters, but they were shared only locally, if at all.

[Guest]

Well, yes, clearly. My point is that there are numerous footprints which appear to many (i.e. those with the right expertise) not to be fakes at all. Therefore, if the fakes are really that sophisticated to be able to completely fool, say, Jeff Meldrum, then I'd very much like to know how they were created. It sure isn't a pair of carved planks and a fat bloke leaping down a forest ride in Washington. A sequence of tracks (many tens), each one different and exhibiting all the hallmarks of a real foot, is what the evidence is - so what is the explanation? 'They are fake' does not cut it at all - show me how they were made and I'll be happy.

@ Stan Norton

Here is a link that may explain at least some of those in Meldrums collection. (speaking about the Wallace collection of stompers and prints coinciding) I think Meldrum also endorses some of Paul Freemans footprints up in Wa state.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ultimate-timeline/

[WSA]

Wildman, yes, without a body, but your script crossed over into a scenario I wasn't really considering with my question. Let me rephrase it: What would a credible sighting report be that did not include corresponding physical evidence? Could you write one, or does such a possibility not exist for you?

[Guest Stan Norton]

@ Stan Norton

Here is a link that may explain at least some of those in Meldrums collection. (speaking about the Wallace collection of stompers and prints coinciding) I think Meldrum also endorses some of Paul Freemans footprints up in Wa state.

http://www.cryptomun...imate-timeline/

Hmm. I do believe the Ray Wallace/Rant Mullens fake planks thing has been well-and-truly put to bed. There are and have been fakes and fakers. There are still many prints that are quite obviously not resulting from some old chump in the woods whittling away at a bit of pine.

As a rebuff to the Wallace fakes, try checking out Meldrum's presentation at the John Green testimonial symposium on you tube - demonstrates that Wallace copied some 'real' prints rather than the other way round. Read Krantz's discussions on footprints and the inherent difficulties in faking them well enough to fool very clever people such as he.

Whatever is leaving prints, it most definitely is not someone wearing wooden feet.

[Guest]

Hmm. I do believe the Ray Wallace/Rant Mullens fake planks thing has been well-and-truly put to bed. There are and have been fakes and fakers. There are still many prints that are quite obviously not resulting from some old chump in the woods whittling away at a bit of pine.

As a rebuff to the Wallace fakes, try checking out Meldrum's presentation at the John Green testimonial symposium on you tube - demonstrates that Wallace copied some 'real' prints rather than the other way round. Read Krantz's discussions on footprints and the inherent difficulties in faking them well enough to fool very clever people such as he.

Whatever is leaving prints, it most definitely is not someone wearing wooden feet.

@ Stan Norton

I've seen that presentation where Meldrum tries to rebut by claiming that the stompers were made after the prints. Frankly, that sounds ludicrous. (a bad excuse) I'm not trying to claim that all claimed bigfoot prints were made in the same fashion. I pointed out some of the prints Meldrum had in his collection and a linked likely explanation of their source.

Lets do an experiment. Which real animal in the USA would you like to see fake tracks of? (anything that is existing currently on the taxonomic chart, that has good examples of tracks) I bet someone here on the forums could produce decent fakes of that animal. Chose a real animal, and lets see if you can tell the difference between real and faked. I can post some photos of real and faked tracks, do you think you'd be able to tell which is which?

[Guest DWA]

< From an academic standpoint, however, I wouldn't support an investment in public research dollars to launch some big bigfoot expedition because we have so many other priorities for existing species and ever-decreasing budgets. I probably wouldn't officially oppose such an effort, however, because it would be interesting to watch. If the NSF announced a new "let's get a bigfoot" program, I might even apply for a grant myself. >

But has there ever been a concerted effort by a university or science foundation to search for BF evidence? That's an honest question because I don't really know of one.

I'd like to see one, as most of what we have now are people who are self funded, and findings by them come into questions about motivation to hoax, the "follow the money" syndrome. If a respected educational institute or science foundation did put in say a year, any evidence they find would carry more weight than any one individual or researchers committed to bigfoot.

It's probably getting ahead of ourselves to talk about this, because mainstream funding is not likely to go to things the funder doesn't think will pan out. The best we have right now is that ID State U continues to let Jeff Meldrum hold a job.

The only thing along these lines that we need to ask for right now is for the academic snickering in mainstream institutions to stop. Doesn't involve any money, and no more time than the time needed to address proper academic behavior and to insist that people employed in relevant jobs engage in it. Along with the end of snickering needs to come the end of tossing around numbers with nothing to back them up, e.g. "I give bigfoot a 2% chance of being real."

Mainstream publications like Nature, SciAm and Science could take this a long way by discussing this issue. Science doesn't snicker. It simply says: OK, but we await the proof.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Wildman, yes, without a body, but your script crossed over into a scenario I wasn't really considering with my question. Let me rephrase it: What would a credible sighting report be that did not include corresponding physical evidence? Could you write one, or does such a possibility not exist for you?

Without a physical component (AKA DNA with provenance), a sighting/encounter/photo/VIDEO will never be sufficient to meet the threshold for scientific evidence.

It's simply *shelved* as *possible* evidence... provisional waiting for further support from OTHER corrorborating evidence (physical).

We are talking about an UNIDENTIFIED species here. Unfortunately...human accounts/photos are not reliable or may be hoaxed and science will never be able to make that *LEAP OF FAITH* without a physical component.

[Guest Stan Norton]

@ Stan Norton

I've seen that presentation where Meldrum tries to rebut by claiming that the stompers were made after the prints. Frankly, that sounds ludicrous. (a bad excuse) I'm not trying to claim that all claimed bigfoot prints were made in the same fashion. I pointed out some of the prints Meldrum had in his collection and a linked likely explanation of their source.

Lets do an experiment. Which real animal in the USA would you like to see fake tracks of? (anything that is existing currently on the taxonomic chart, that has good examples of tracks) I bet someone here on the forums could produce decent fakes of that animal. Chose a real animal, and lets see if you can tell the difference between real and faked. I can post some photos of real and faked tracks, do you think you'd be able to tell which is which?

Firstly. I am not a North American resident and have never visited that continent and thus am entirely unfamiliar with the field signs of the native fauna. Secondly, attempting to decipher whether a track is real or fake from a photo on an internet chatroom is not really the way to go about this.

If I were to come across/be shown a real track, in the flesh, then yes, I would hope (being a professional ecologist) that I could at least spot an obvious fake and make some interpretation of the likely animal which made it. Again, my original point was that not all alleged tracks are obvious fakes and many tracks are 'good' enough for someone like Meldrum to take them very seriously indeed.

[Guest DWA]

Without a physical component (AKA DNA with provenance), a sighting/encounter/photo/VIDEO will never be sufficient to meet the threshold for scientific evidence.

It's simply *shelved* as *possible* evidence... provisional waiting for further support from OTHER corrorborating evidence (physical).

We are talking about an UNIDENTIFIED species here. Unfortunately...human accounts/photos are not reliable or may be hoaxed and science will never be able to make that *LEAP OF FAITH* without a physical component.

I've said this many times. You can't have proof from a sighting.

This doesn't mean, however, that there aren't many - and I do mean many - reports that nothing can be done with other than: throw it on the pile.

By which I mean: the huge, and growing, pile of evidence that cannot be explained away by the skeptical canards. The bigger the pile gets, the greater the urgency for science to address that pile.

[WSA]

LWD...interesting proposal, but I would hazard any tracker worth his Tom Brown certification could easily tell at a glance a fake track way (note I did not say "track", singular)of any animal you'd care to mention. I would put an expert on bipedal locomotion such as Meldrum up as somebody in that same class, but, that said, I think what Meldrum is most guilty of is being an indiscriminate collector of foot casts, the good with the bad. I'm betting he is much more discerning now. It is a pretty big leap to say that all BF foot casts are fake because some of them no doubt are.

Your hypo does raise an interesting thought for me: Can a human fake a human track that would pass scrutiny for an expert? I'd say such is much more in line with the idea of faking a BF one.

[Guest DWA]

Meldrum's ichnotaxonomy paper lays out his criteria for acceptance of tracks as potentially valid. Any trackway that conforms is automatically valid unless it can be specifically proven that it was faked. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

There's only so far objections can go before they simply don't wash. When expert analysis shows no signs of artifice, we're done. That's not saying bigfoot is proven. It's simply saying that the huge pile of evidence skeptics must address as not being fake just increased by (another) one.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

@ WSA & Stan Norton

Both seem to have a good understanding that even with training "good" fakes can fool the experts, and it has. Another interesting point you both brought up is the ability to examine them on site in person. Unfortunately, with most of these evidence claims all we have is photos, and sometimes casts. Most of the time photos are not alone enough, and especially if a trackway is not documented properly. There are a lot of things that can determine which impressions might be from a real foot, or a fake one. The problem is, with todays technology we can create fake feet of any kind with rubber molds and urethane, foams and other assorted materials. There is no limit as to what someone may choose as a medium to work with.

Heck, you could design something on the computer and have a machine cut it out of a block of (insert desired material here) whatever. That was the point I'm attempting to illustrate. Footprints alone are not much, just an impression in the dirt. An onsite inspection can certainly eliminate some fakes, but not all. I do think that more is being put into them than should be. It has been shown time and again that cryptids of all sorts are reported and footprints found, cast, and the source is never found. To say it's impossible to fake the tracks is garbage.