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

[Guest DWA]

And that's why somebody made those tracks?

Not likely. Not likely at all. And therefore no pretext to rule out possibilities based on the extraordinary unlikelihood of a person viewing your handiwork.

Were I to go to this trouble it would be in a place where I would bet my salary multiple people would see it, or it wouldn't be worth the effort.

And to rule out authenticity because somewhere there might be somebody expert enough and unhinged enough to do it?

I should note, of course, that the tracks were 3/4 of an inch or so deep in a substrate where we made no marks with lug soles and heavy packs. A human couldn't have done it....OK, one unlikelier than bigfoot could have.

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

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.

The only way footprints could be considered* scientific evidence* is if physical sampes of hair/blood/tissue were found within the print itself and they DNA tested positive for an unknown non human hominid.

[Guest Stan Norton]

The only way footprints could be considered* scientific evidence* is if physical sampes of hair/blood/tissue were found within the print itself and they DNA tested positive for an unknown non human hominid.

Yes and no. You are correct in that, in themselves, casts/prints cannot and will not ever be the clincher (this point has been covered endlessly). However, my point was and is that of all the purported evidence, these are by far the most compelling (in my opinion) and open to scientific study - there is the track, right in front of you - something left it. If it was just a vague scuff in the dirt then it would be no better than yet another terrible film, blobsquatch or sighting/sound. However, a track is physical: it is in itself 'evidence' of something and can be tested rigorously (just as tracks are used worldwide to gauge presence/movements/distribution/sex/age class of known animals). Of course no amount of purported sasquatch tracks will be enough to base a new species ID on but at the very least this avenue adds a degree of credibility to the case where other types only muddy the waters further.

[Guest toejam]

The only way footprints could be considered* scientific evidence* is if physical sampes of hair/blood/tissue were found within the print itself and they DNA tested positive for an unknown non human hominid.

That's just ridiculous. I'd like to hear Meldrum's stance on that. You can tell alot of info from a good print, including weight and size of whatever left it.

What if there's a trackway showing movement in the print, toe splay, etc? You don't need hair/blood/tissue in a print to consider it scientific evidence.

[Guest]

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.

Can you point out the specific examples of the "best footprints" that you feel represent evidence of sasquatch? (especially those you claim came from the 50's and 60's) Let's talk about the specifics, because generalizing a lump isn't good science.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Can you point out the specific examples of the "best footprints" that you feel represent evidence of sasquatch? (especially those you claim came from the 50's and 60's) Let's talk about the specifics, because generalizing a lump isn't good science.

Again, it is not I who is best placed to say whether any tracks are 'evidence' or not. I merely stated that those who are best placed (i.e. Meldrum, Krantz etc) repeatedly argue that there are numerous sets of prints which they, being experts, cannot explain away. Just read any of Krantz's books, Meldrums book or his recent footprint paper. Examples (some of many) which they cite are e.g. Bluff Creek casts taken by Bob Titmus after the PGF; Blue Creek Mountain road, September 1967 (John Green), Bluff Creek casts from Al Hodgson, October 1963 and, the ones that got Meldrum thinking, Walla Walla tracks (1994?). There you go. These are the best ones in the opinion of those, unlike myself, who have actually seen them and studied them. I find that compelling.

[Guest DWA]

As with all sasquatch evidence, it is the volume and depth of it that makes it compelling.

Meldrum's ichnotaxonomy paper - a good read for anyone who wants to know what good science is - shows why, essentially, he wrote it, which is:

A large volume of trackways show characters consistent with a track maker an example of which appears to be the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film. The tracks that all evidence shows were left by that subject show these characters - and none of the trackways belonging to the ichnotaxon show any characters consistent with human manufacture.

http://www.cryptomun...rth_america.pdf

AND ONCE AGAIN THIS IS NOT PROOF. (We may have to put that in red bold in every post here that talks about evidence. Yeesh.)

It is Meldrum's subtle statement that those who think there isn't any evidence - like, you know, the "father" of this thread here - might want to buy better thinking caps.

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA

[Oonjerah]

Jimmy Chilcutt?

He was -- is he still? -- considered an expert on what's a real track.

If so, I'd just believe him. He said a lot of 'em are real.

Taught others how to differentiate between genuine and fake tracks.

To really invalidate the footprint evidence, wouldn't I have to spend a lot of my

time following Meldrum around and finding-proving-documenting his errors?

Apparent Bigfoot tracks incidentally found in remote areas where people seldom

go? To deny that shows a really dedicated closed mind.

[Guest DWA]

Jimmy Chilcutt?

He was -- is he still? -- considered an expert on what's a real track.

If so, I'd just believe him. He said a lot of 'em are real.

Taught others how to differentiate between genuine and fake tracks.

To really invalidate the footprint evidence, wouldn't I have to spend a lot of my

time following Meldrum around and finding-proving-documenting his errors?

Apparent Bigfoot tracks incidentally found in remote areas where people seldom

go? To deny that shows a really dedicated closed mind.

Well I didn't say this and never have. But still. ;-)

Chilcutt basically said to Meldrum: This is an animal new to science. What are you going to do about that, Jeff? (And he'd gone in initially sure he would debunk them.)

As another sasquatch proponent, Leila Hadj-Chiikh, puts it: A fact is not something that we know for sure; it is only something that we believe we know for sure. For example, I am taking my interpretation of what the heavenly bodies I see at night represent almost entirely from scientists who have told me that. And so, dear reader, are you ...even if you are an astronomer. You are, as Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants. You began your star study "knowing" what they were - with no research on your part (like, say, visiting one) to tell you what stars are.

We take almost all of our cues on how to react to the natural world from what experts in the research of that world tell us. When those experts show clear signs of having focused the scientific method upon evidence, then we are reasonable in taking their conclusions at face value, until better information is clearly shown to exist.

Those specialists who have done this, not just for sasquatch tracks but also for sightings

http://www.texasbigf...-sasquatch-foot

http://www.texasbigf...imated-statures

http://www.texasbigf...ogical-patterns

...leave those of us who rely on scientists for our interpretations of the natural world (more succinctly stated as "all of us") with no better choice than to presume the sasquatch an unresolved biological question that it is high time science got around to solving.

Unless some of "all of us" have, well, one might have to say really dedicated closed minds on certain topics.

Edited January 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Apparent Bigfoot tracks incidentally found in remote areas where people seldom

go? To deny that shows a really dedicated closed mind.

Gullibility.would be on the other end of that spectrum.

[Guest DWA]

And believing Bob Hieronymous and denying Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz out of hand?

G-word.

[Guest McGman]

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.

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.

Yea, but 0 times anything is still 0. Until there is a body or specimen all those footprints,sightings etc = 0.

[Guest DWA]

...And ^^^^that would be the conflation of evidence with proof.

No proof means get crackin' scientists. Doesn't sittin' on yer hands get kinda old?

(It also puts the lie to "nobody wants bigfoot to be real more than me." Um, PROVE it.)

[Guest]

...And ^^^^that would be the conflation of evidence with proof.

No proof means get crackin' scientists. Doesn't sittin' on yer hands get kinda old?

(It also puts the lie to "nobody wants bigfoot to be real more than me." Um, PROVE it.)

If Rick Dyer's claim turns out to be the real deal ..we won't need to have this discussion ever again..LOL.

Edited January 5, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

I tend to look very askance at claims without bodies.

(Eyewitnesses aren't making claims; they're looking for validation that they aren't crazy. Rickster on the other hand...)