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

[Oonjerah]

Pet peeve re demands on scientists:

"They have to - they must - they should - now they've got to - it's their job to - it's time for them to..."

What unadulterated arrogance! What childish entitlement!

Pretend for a moment that I am a very well-educated, middle-aged anthropologist with a very

good job, maybe in the private sector, and my boss often lets me pick my own projects. I have

read about Bigfoot with an open mind, and like Dr. Goodall, if figure he's most likely the real

deal. But not my deal.

If I were this anthropologist reading this forum, I'd tell you all to kiss my lovely -- kneecap.

Because it is so obvious that any scientist has far more to lose than win in the Bigfoot game.

You Are Only Allowed to Do Bigfoot as Entertainment in This Great Country!!

(Are we backward much?)

"My university supports my sasquatch research. They don't fire me." ~Grover Krantz

I may admire the mavericks who went there. But I am not martyr enough to do it myself.

[Guest DWA]

@ 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.

Most of that link is "garbage." Meldrum would debunk those with his eyes closed.

There's a point where you fish or cut bait. When an expert has reviewed the track, and found nothing likely to point to human artifice, it's time to put it on the pile and move on. Or else you are once again stuck with "no evidence is any good, so we must stand on this spot until a bigfoot lands on us and crushes us."

At some point, one must acknowledge what one is postulating when one says, no, we can't accept that because it could have been faked.

If no expert can find any sign that a human faked hundreds of trackways across the continent, which is more likely:

1. That an consortium of topnotch experts is quietly pouring millions in expertise into running around the continent fooling Jeff Meldrum?

or

2. That an animal that thousands of sober people claim to have seen, they are in fact seeing?

I know which one a rational person would pick.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

@DWA

Our opinions will have to differ. I think most rational people might choose the proven source for those footprints (humans, and misidentified) over there being a real live massive ape/human wandering around through out our time without ever being collected.

[Guest DWA]

@DWA

Our opinions will have to differ. I think most rational people might choose the proven source for those footprints (humans, and misidentified) over there being a real live massive ape/human wandering around through out our time without ever being collected.

Not when there is no "proven" source for so many of them, and when thinking about it reveals many reasons why that putative source hasn't been collected.

Other than that, yup, it's agree-to-disagree time.

Edited January 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

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.

Yes, but the SUM of a pile of INSUFFICIENT PROOF (Evidence) still REMAINS INSUFFCIENT. There is no magic # that transforms this insufficient *pile* into a mountain of proof! The WHOLE IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF IT'S PARTS..if all those *parts* are insufficient evidence then the WHOLE itself remains so. This is simple LOGIC and there's a reason for this...it's called science.

[Guest toejam]

Yes, but the SUM of a pile of INSUFFICIENT PROOF (Evidence) still REMAINS INSUFFCIENT. There is no magic # that transforms this insufficient *pile* into a mountain of proof! The WHOLE IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF IT'S PARTS..if all those *parts* are insufficient evidence then the WHOLE itself remains so. This is simple LOGIC and there's a reason for this...it's called science.

If it was to convict someone, the circumstantial evidence would be overwhelming and be plenty enough to lock somebody up.

[Guest]

The bigger the pile gets, the greater the urgency for science to address that pile.

Or flush it

[Doc Holliday]

Gonna need a bigger plunger wickie......

[Guest]

Gonna need a bigger plunger wickie......

Got that covered

[Guest Stan Norton]

@ 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.

Several things here. Firstly, making plaster casts of prints in the only way of securing that impression in perpetuity - this is standard protocol for wildlife studies and is far better than any photo, no matter how clear. Therefore, a cast is the next best thing to have in lieu of seeing and studying the print in the field: in fact, a quickly- and well-made cast is likely to preserve many diagnostic features which would otherwise be lost as the print is affected by weathering.

Secondly, many of the 'best' prints (casts) were made during the 1950s and 60s - therefore this state-of-the-art faking technology had to have been available then and is still in use today (actually, should have been honed to perfection by now surely?). Begs the question: where is this equipment ? Why, in nearly 60 years, has no-one come forward with anything remotely plausible? Remember, this technology has to be able to create whole series of prints, each individual print different and showing all the hallmarks of a real, flexible foot made by something heavy. Without leaving any trace of the hoaxer's presence.

The apparent anatomical consistency of the most-convincing tracks is also something which I do believe has not been fully rebutted. How is it that the same features appear time and time again over many decades and over such a wide geographical area? Are we talking a secret footprint-faking society, the secrets handed down father to son?

Th key point about footprints is that, to many, me especially, they are the only and most compelling physical 'evidence' there is - better than all the photos, sightings, sounds put together. Again, something is leaving big footprints all across a continent (plus other parts of the world) and as yet not one person has provided any evidence to conclusively demonstrate how this is being, and has been, done so well as to completely fool professors of primate foot anatomy.

[Guest DWA]

Yes, but the SUM of a pile of INSUFFICIENT PROOF (Evidence) still REMAINS INSUFFCIENT. There is no magic # that transforms this insufficient *pile* into a mountain of proof! The WHOLE IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF IT'S PARTS..if all those *parts* are insufficient evidence then the WHOLE itself remains so. This is simple LOGIC and there's a reason for this...it's called science.

Well, if you (and this does seem a "skeptical" specialty and IT'S NOT SKEPTICAL) find it easy to ignore the imperative that a huge pile of consistent evidence by sober witnesses puts on science to investigate that pile and get to the bottom of what's causing it, well, how nice for you.

If it was to convict someone, the circumstantial evidence would be overwhelming and be plenty enough to lock somebody up.

And yes, its funny as heck to continue to hear "it's enough to send a person to the gas chamber BUT NOT ENOUGH FOR SCIENCE....!!!"

Um, nope. If it is enough to reach a conclusion in jurisprudence, it is way more than enough to place the onus on science to reach a conclusion. That's how logic works.

As to the footprints: I'm not buying my favorite bigfoot trope, The Legend Of The Ominipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH).

Hoaxers are generally incompetent when it comes to this kind of thing. Look at Youtube; they don't even read encounter reports, or if they do, they can't duplicate what witnesses are seeing. It's easier to fake a Rembrandt than to fool Jeff Meldrum, something you don't hear often because most people fail to understand an important distinction between the two.

Paintings are techne, as Jacques Barzun might put it. They're made by people. There's an A, B, C to it. You need to be really talented to fake a Rembrandt...but not nearly as talented as Rembrandt. You are simply copying what he created from nothing, knowing techniques he invented.

An animal's print is not of human agency. We can ape it, but the word shows you how close we come to the real thing.

[Guest Cervelo]

If it was to convict someone, the circumstantial evidence would be overwhelming and be plenty enough to lock somebody up.

Gotta find em first!

[WSA]

@LWD Valid points, but I think the most compelling aspect of most probable BF tracks is the context, of where they were found...but then we are back to the anectdotal nature of most BF evidence. If a sighting report won't crank your Allis Chalmers, then you probably won't care if the tracks were found miles into the backcountry, on an unmarked trail in the middle of winter somewhere...exactly the conditions you'd expect a hoaxer to hang out on the 1 in tensquillion chance somebody would find the tracks. I don't know what these hoaxers eat and drink, but man they are some motivated cats, let me tell ya!

[Guest DWA]

The ones I came across in northern CA were on what used to be a road, but miles from any current road or trail.

Someone else might have seen them...but I wouldn't want to bet a significant amount of money on it. To bet money that a person would be where we were is...well, bubblegum is a better way to spend it.

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

Yet you were there.

RayG