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

[salubrious]

I told you what I'd do with it: I'd probably photograph it, make a plaster cast, and measure it. Okay, then what? You still haven't defined "rigor" and, more important, you haven't illustrated the objective of that rigor. What's this "made up story" thing you're on about now?

Here's the objective I see as relevant to bigfootery, and right now it's the only one: Obtain some kind of physical specimen of one of these creatures and use that to publish a paper describing the species. This will prove its existence. Result? Everybody wins!

A footprint is not a specimen, a foot is a specimen. Show me a foot and I'm interested. Show me a footprint and Grover Krantz is yawning in his grave (or more technically, in his display case at the Smithsonian).

I don't care what you do to a footprint in terms of "rigor," if it doesn't reveal a physical specimen from which a new species can be described then it's not advancing the case for bigfoot.

I don't question that the actual body is real. But that is beside the point- I am not going to engage the logical fallacies (mostly strawmen) above.

The fact that you don't care what rigor a footprint can be subjected to, and what it tells about the individual that made it (what it was doing, what its health is, if it had eaten recently, the sex of the individual, all information that any real track contains) tells me that your skeptisicm is based on a made up story rather than anything real. Again, you show no impedus to get up and do anything about it, likely with excuses that you don't have to/don't feel like it/too much work, etc. Well, that's not remotely scientific. It is living your life as if the story you made up is somehow real. Mind you, I am not singling you out on this point, most of the human race behaves exactly the same way. What matters is if we are able to acknowledge that simple fact.

In this case that fact is opearating as a blind spot for you. What I mean by this is that there are things that we know, and we know that we know them, things that we don't know, and we know that we don't know them, and things that we don't know and don't know that we don't know it. The latter is the blind spot for anyone, and comprises much more than 99% of what is knowable.

You don't know BF exists, and are by your admission uninterested in looking at evidence (other than a complete body), even if you were to find it in the field yourself. The idea that a species can be that stealthy is rejected out of hand. That is not science, its opinion. Your credibility as a skeptic would be higher if this were admitted, rather than trying to make it sound as if you are being scientific.

[norseman]

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

It's amazing how Bigfoot guru’s and proponents have custom tailored BF’s behavior and intelligence over the years. Customized so these characteristics can be utilized as an excuse to explain why they can never come out with concrete evidence. Shy, elusive, nocturnal and secretive come to mind. We can't find him because he only comes out at night. Sasquatch is extremely shy and avoids humans at all cost and that's why we can't find him. And overshadowing all these traits is his ability to be elusive. This makes perfect sense. He's elusive and that's why we can't find him. We can't find him therefore he's elusive.

What’s even more remarkable is that Sasquatch advocates reserve the right to change it anytime they please to perpetuate this phenomenon particularly when new technology emerges. New technology that should have already proved Sasquatch’s existence years ago. Let’s use the trail-cam to illustrate this. Arguably, there are hundreds of thousands of these devices (if not millions) globally, some of which were specifically acquired for BF research. But the majority of were set up in wilderness areas by avid sportsmen that are surely in the realm of Bigfoot. Not originally setup to search for Sasquatch, but still available nonetheless for this task because of the financial gains of turning in a squatch picture. Despite all these reconnaissance tools, the closest anyone has come to catching a mug shot of our hairy friend is still the all too familiar blobsquatch. Of course, I’m making reference to the Jacob photos.

So to explain the ineffectiveness of these cameras, our experts will need to generate yet more excuses. In this case, they have no choice but to say Bigfoot is smarter than they originally thought. He can recognize that trail cams are manmade and are something that should be avoided. Reading the latest "Why There's No BF Photos Thread", this is already being used as an argument. And as these cameras evolve, so does Bigfoot. These cameras have shrunk in size and more easily concealed. So to counter this, our panel of experts will have no choice but to declare that BF has exceptional eyesight. They can identify the concealed camera at a distance of 100m, well beyond the trigger mechanism’s range. And in the rare event that a game-cam actually snaps an image, the device is immediately destroyed because Bigfoot knows of the dire consequences if the media gets a hold of an image. It's just a matter time until someone puts forth a belief that all electronic devices emit a high pitched noise that no other animal on Earth can’t detect but Bigfoot. Hence, the reason why no one has ever successfully taken a BF photo and why no one ever will.

Similarly, BF’s will be given credit for understanding how FLIR operates. He knows that standing several meters inside thick brush will mask his signature. That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? Of course, our panel of BF enthusiasts here will insist that's why all BF's choose to dwell under the thickest of canopies like the Pacific North West, because they know the limitations of FLIR technology. And if a BF has the misfortune of being caught without dense cover, we can simply declare all BF's immediately drop down on all four limbs when they hear aircraft overhead so they can mimic the appearance of a large overweight bear. To counter infrared night vision scopes/cameras, BF's have learned that closing his eyes prevents the infrared light from reflecting back to the scope. Creating similar excuses requires only your imagination because regardless of how outrageous and farfetched they sound, they never have to be proven. The only guideline that must be observed is the excuse should reduce, and if possible, completely remove the obligation of obtaining physical evidence.

Let us apply this strategy to the absence of BF remains. One can insist that all BF's are a highly environmentally conscious species and let nothing to go to waste. They not only eat their dead, they grind the bones for a recipe similar to Jell-O. They even go as far as burning fecal matter as an alternative fuel source. It's no wonder a body has never been found. To reinforce this concept, I've read not just here at BFF, but other forums that BF's only dwell in areas of highly acidic soil. If we combine these two explanations, BF researchers are no longer burdened with the need of finding body. Just like why a BF photo will never be obtained if squatchers choose to implement the high pitched electronics explanation mentioned earlier. Ideally, all BF excuses should follow this standard.

Now keep in mind that usage of this indispensable "excuse" tool is not just limited to amateur researchers. Scientists such as Dr. Meldrum have used it many times in the past. I'm sure folks here remember MonsterQuest’s Sasquatch Attack part one. Meldrum went to great lengths to show that it was perfectly feasible that BF trashed the cabin. Part of his argument was proving our 800 lbs primate had more than enough forage to sustain itself by showing how easy it was to hunt grouse. If he could approach a flock of grouse without them fleeing as he demonstrated during that episode, then so could BF. Now fast forwarding to Sasquatch attack part deux, when BF failed to make an appearance. Our good doctor insisted that because blueberries were not in season, it was only logical that BF would not be in the area. I guess he ignored the fact that BF originally trashed the cabin in late fall well after blueberry season. Not a very good excuse by Bigfoot BF standards.

On a side note, I'm surprised that Meldrum failed to conclude that BF's are capable of levitating. I mean how else could BF vandalize the cabin without leaving a single footprint after destroying the woodstove. Remember, the cabin owner stated soot was everywhere. Surely if he came across a BF print, he'd find a way to capitalize on it. I also wondered why Meldrum didn't deduce that BF's have the dexterity and intelligence of operating locks and door knobs. Footage of the insurance video that the cabin owner created clearly shows that someone had tore off the exterior door screen, broke the window and punched in the bug screen to unlock the door from the outside. When the hardcore believers read my post, they’ll scream BLOODY FOUL !!!! Who else but BF could have done this if the nearest town is over 100 miles away and no other means but aircraft to visit the cabin? Sadly, the cabin owner neglected to mention there's a native settlement a few miles away.

Is it no wonder that scientists who choose to participate in BF research are frowned upon by the scientific community?

When our BF fanatics have only straws to grasp, they'll insist we haven't looked in the right places yet to delay the inevitable. Eventually, there will be a point in the near future where civilian based platforms in orbit will have optical and thermal resolution to scan, track and identify even the most minuscule of creatures through body heat analysis. This will surely spawn from the increasing number of research satellites needed for monitoring our planets health. When this occurs, I can't wait to see what excuse hardcore squatchers use for the absence of our giant primate. As one esteemed skeptic pointed out in another forum, if the entire Pacific Northwest was reduced to cinders and several million people created a human wall walking shoulder to shoulder inspecting every square inch, BF will have earned a diploma from the University of Matter Teleportation when his bones are not found.

First of all let me say that ONLY A BODY WILL SETTLE the matter. No excuses........period end of story.

And I in some ways enjoyed part of your post, as I too hear all of the outlandish explanations and speculation of traits that I find absolutely preposterous

But on the other hand? We HAVE pictures.......we have movies........we have foot prints.......we have eye witness accounts. This is not a phenomenon that simply only exists in a children's fairy tale book like goblins and gnomes.

You bring up the Jacob photos.....and you call it a "blobsquatch"........it's anything but a blobsquatch. In fact there are very few animals that it could be, and looks VERY primate.

Here is another game camera footage filmed by a Eastons bowhunting magazine:

No skull duggery here, they are in business to sell the hobby of bowhunting, and have no dog in the fight what so ever.

Problem is? You can never ever rule out a guy in a fur suit. NEVER. A camera simply is not the medium that is going to make true believers out of us........unfortunately only a bullet can do that.

You bring up the arsenal of tools available to willdlife biologists........in a recent study in my county that cost the taxpayers lots'o'cash, with FLIR and helicopters, so forth and so on......it was found there were only five, yes FIVE breeding pair of cougars in my county. That's ten animals total.......

The houndsman community laughed in their faces. So don't believe everything you hear about what a great job technology and a bunch of knuckleheads with phd's are doing out there. It kind of reminds me about something I read about what CIA field agents feel about Langley numbers crunchers staring a computer screen.

If this animal exists it poops, breeds and breathes.......and while it might be rare and smarter than the average bear? It certainly hasn't figured out digital photography........if it has it might as well come down out of the mountains and buy a condo on the golf course.

But I get plenty of blobs on my trail cameras, that are known animals......so it's not just a bigfoot phenom. It's simply a cheap ass camera, in adverse weather conditions that we hang on a tree and forget about for a long time. They also never trigger right.........it's hard to tell how big of a buck you have coming in by counting the hairs on his ass. They not only frustrate bigfoot enthusiasts........but hunters the world over.

But again the bottom line? Less excuse and more bullets please........thank you.

I appreciate your comments Giganto, and I agree that the binary should be exists vs. don't know it exists. Practically applied, however, biologists do need to make decisions based on the lack of evidence sometimes. The best example to my mind concerns species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If a species is thought to be extinct - because people keep looking for it and can't find it anymore - then there is a lot of pressure to move such a species from "endangered" status to "extinct" status. It usually takes decades for committees to decide on a species' official designation, but ultimately we do rule that species are extinct based on the absence of data indicating that they are extant.

But if you were finding tracks of said beastie in question and getting some hazy game camera photos? Would the committee still pull the plug on its status?

Obviously I'm crossing apples with oranges because as a biologist your simply exploring the welfare of an existing species......but it's interesting to ponder none the less.

[ohiobill]

I think that using your definition of an "expert" here settles it for me. So, the Scientists are experts on BF? They have trained for researching BF? You say your choice between NASA scientists building your barn and the Amish , who you say your choice would be the Amish. Is that because the scientists education is far too complex to do the same thing? Or, maybe the Amish even though they have no formal training but YEARS of proven experience would do a better job for you? Hmmm....seems to be I an saying kind of the same thing.

What about this; Many of us BF people that have plenty of experience at collecting evidence take our evidence to a group of scientists to PROVE it as a real being. I think that could be a better approach.

I say to you that is and has been happening for the last few years and those results will be announced soon. Yea, this too is the subject of another thread here, but that is being riducled for "taking too long". BUT, if that is what it takes for the scientists to definitely prove, then so be it! I for one wonder why so many have decided since that document hasn't been finalized don't exisit? I think it maybe because MOST has no idea what it takes to do this, TRUE science must not be rushed, agree?

KB

Some scientists ARE experts on primates like your friend. Biologists would be a good example of scientists who ARE trained to study animals and do so to make their living. I'd have the amish build the barn because they do it every day, it's how they make their living. If they build a bad one it can jeopardize how they feed their families so they tend to do a good job. Has your professional education/training been so complex it's made you less able to build a barn or hunt for bigfoot? Do you think someone who adheres to the scientific method because of their complex education will be incapable of seeing bigfoot?

I agree you should take your evidence to a group of scientists - it's what I've been saying all along. Including them early will only speed up the process in getting the species recognized.

I think everyone is anxious to get the results if you're speaking of Dr. Ketchum's study. IF you are referring to her study I imagine they are worried it's taking too long because they know how long it takes to sequence good samples of DNA and that longer times are usually an indication that the samples aren't producing good results but you could always ask them as I don't know who you are referring to exactly. Timelines are what they are in science just like any other field, obstacles often delay completion.

Not yet, if we were to discover bigfoot was an extant relative of Neanderthal you wouldn't need another unearthed fossil.

I think there is potential to distinguish human sized squatch tracks from the human tracks. But we should let the experts decide right?

We can't find out if it is the experts opinion that the tracks are indistinguishable from human tracks, unless we bring such things forth. Do you think Neanderthal tracks are distinguishable from modern human tracks?They are two different species of genus homo. I'll see if I can post some interesting pics of that later.

Well you might have to think on that a while. Is bigfoot portrayed as a hairy brute in human form? Do some putative tracks have human and non-human characteristics? Do some vocalizations have human and non-human elements at the same time? Are the hairs reported to have human and non-human morphology? Does the circumstances of surrounding evidence collection suggest Non-modern human behavior? The DNA.........?

I am unaware of any neandertal remains in the fossil record of North America.

I say submit the casts but in the end it's your decision and you should follow your heart.

Neadertal tracks are distinct in my admittedly non-expert opinion but the dating and site context certainly help. I'll look for the pics.

I'll spend some time on your questions as you have suggested. Thanks for the clues.

"Why would you expect an extant species to have a fossil record? And even if there is one, it would be remarkable if they could narrow down the fossil to matching the exact species.

Rainforests can be pretty poor places for fossils to form, given how quickly remains get broken down."

^^Above is indeed a quote that has been paraphrased, wasn't sure how to acknowledge it properly, but I felt the question was good enough I didn't want to retype it.

Paleoindian (human) remains are in the fossil record of the late Pleistocene/early Holocene here in North America and DNA points to roots in central Asia.

[Guest]

But if you were finding tracks of said beastie in question and getting some hazy game camera photos? Would the committee still pull the plug on its status?

Hi norseman.

In answer to your question, I can offer the closest example I can think of to a real animal for which evidence of its continued existence consists of sign, audio files, questionable imagery, and eyewitness accounts: the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

The USFWS considers Ivorybills to be "endangered", not "extinct":

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B03Q

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/

The fact that you don't care what rigor a footprint can be subjected to, and what it tells about the individual that made it (what it was doing, what its health is, if it had eaten recently, the sex of the individual, all information that any real track contains)

So I'm the one being unscientific and committing logical fallacies, but you can examine an alleged bigfoot footprint and determine if it had a cold, ate some soup, and made the soup for itself? Good to know . . .

[kbhunter]

Norseman, FYI....I dug more into the Easton hunting video a few months ago and it is a proven hoax. It was intended to fool the host/speaker of the show. It was actually a man in a ghillie suit. He purposly was only in the last frame or tow to make it less obvious.

KB

[ohiobill]

I don't question that the actual body is real. But that is beside the point- I am not going to engage the logical fallacies (mostly strawmen) above.

The fact that you don't care what rigor a footprint can be subjected to, and what it tells about the individual that made it (what it was doing, what its health is, if it had eaten recently, the sex of the individual, all information that any real track contains) tells me that your skeptisicm is based on a made up story rather than anything real. Again, you show no impedus to get up and do anything about it, likely with excuses that you don't have to/don't feel like it/too much work, etc. Well, that's not remotely scientific. It is living your life as if the story you made up is somehow real. Mind you, I am not singling you out on this point, most of the human race behaves exactly the same way. What matters is if we are able to acknowledge that simple fact.

In this case that fact is opearating as a blind spot for you. What I mean by this is that there are things that we know, and we know that we know them, things that we don't know, and we know that we don't know them, and things that we don't know and don't know that we don't know it. The latter is the blind spot for anyone, and comprises much more than 99% of what is knowable.

You don't know BF exists, and are by your admission uninterested in looking at evidence (other than a complete body), even if you were to find it in the field yourself. The idea that a species can be that stealthy is rejected out of hand. That is not science, its opinion. Your credibility as a skeptic would be higher if this were admitted, rather than trying to make it sound as if you are being scientific.

No offense but it's a little hard to take you seriously when you claim to be able to discern so much information from A footprint. If you are referring to tracking something and being able to compare MULTIPLE footprints along an extended trackway with scat, urine spots, feeding spots,etc of a KNOWN animal then it is possible for a skilled tracker to make a good approximation or GUESS on the info you list. It doesn't follow that even the most skilled tracker can make the same GUESSES w/any authority on an unkown species they aren't familiar with.

Why would you or anyone else expect Saskeptic or anyone else to drop whatever they are doing and come to your location to investigate something when you haven't done it yourself? You state you didn't look outside during the time of the "rock clacking" although you were right there and could have. You state there are NO footprints in the area of the only two rocks anywhere in Wisconsin which could have possibly made the noise you heard anyway so it's a moot point.

Edited September 14, 2012 by ohiobill

[salubrious]

So I'm the one being unscientific and committing logical fallacies, but you can examine an alleged bigfoot footprint and determine if it had a cold, ate some soup, and made the soup for itself? Good to know . . .

Sarcasm aside, all tracks contain the information I mentioned earlier and more. This is easy enough to prove and good trackers all know it. Bad ones/inexperienced ones don't. Now as a biologist you might add that to your FWIW column. This fact is true of any animal, not just humans or BF. You can see this information in a deer track although it is harder to discern on account of hooves. But it is still there.

No offense but it's a little hard to take you seriously when you claim to be able to discern so much information from A footprint. If you are referring to tracking something and being able to compare MULTIPLE footprints along an extended trackway with scat, urine spots, feeding spots,etc of a KNOWN animal then it is possible for a skilled tracker to make a good approximation or GUESS on the info you list. It doesn't follow that even the most skilled tracker can make the same GUESSES w/any authority on an unkown species they aren't familiar with.

No offense but all you are telling me is that you don't know tracking as well as you think you do. You don't have to know the species to discern this information- it shows up in the same places in mammals. So if you have an unknown track you still know where to look for the info.

Why would you or anyone else expect Saskeptic or anyone else to drop whatever they are doing and come to your location to investigate something when you haven't done it yourself? You state you didn't look outside during the time of the "rock clacking" although you were right there and could have. You state there are NO footprints in the area of the only two rocks anywhere in Wisconsin which could have possibly made the noise you heard anyway so it's a moot point.

Go back and read my posts on this subject. You will find that I did not state what you are proposing above. In order to make a reasoned argument, you have to address it first.

The first time the rock clacking occurred, none of us had anything to go on. It was simply an event that had no good logical reason to happen. As Mr. Spock once said '...it might be easier to determine what it is not'.

When events and evidence continued to occur/show up, then I started to investigate. As far as the rocks, we did find those and the places on the rocks where they had been clacked together was clearly visible. Again, it would helpful to see the terrain, which is soil and brush, not rocks.

[Guest MikeG]

.......all tracks contain the information I mentioned earlier and more. .......

Sorry, this simply isn't so. ALL?

I'll accept that some perfect tracks in perfect conditions may contain the information you claim, but some tracks don't even reveal which animal made them, let alone the contents of their stomach. If you are trying to derive this sort of information from tracks in leaf litter, or on gravelly ground, then you are relying on your imagination for a large part of your conclusions.

I'll go further. The idea that you can tell from a track whether an animal has eaten is fanciful, unless you have a before-and-after set of comparable prints. There is simply too much variation between individuals and ground conditions to be able to infer such minute variation within one individual's track information from a single track or trackway.

I'll go even further. Overblown claims and mis-directed attacks are a great way of driving the undecided, the logical fence-sitters, into the arms of the sceptics.

Mike

[salubrious]

^^ Sorry Mike, the information is in fact all there. I have some diagrams about the information you can find in tracks. Sounds like it may help if you see them.

With regards to tracks in debris. These are called compressions. How much info can be extracted from them is variable, but they do contain a surprising amount of data if you know what to look for. There is often not much in the way of a lateral ridge, but nevertheless you can find information like where the next track is and some of the basic info from them, even ones that are older. Of course they will eventually lead you to more obvious impressions.

There are some rather surprising methods of extracting data from tracks. I doubt I could explain them without some teaching materials and one on one, and some of them need more than just a basic knowlege to even understand.

The best place to start is with a tracking box. The amount of information you can learn about tracks from a tracking box is profound. This is not a thread on tracking however, if you really are interested start another thread and I will be happy to contribute.

[Guest]

Sarcasm aside, all tracks contain the information I mentioned earlier and more. This is easy enough to prove and good trackers all know it. Bad ones/inexperienced ones don't. Now as a biologist you might add that to your FWIW column. This fact is true of any animal, not just humans or BF. You can see this information in a deer track although it is harder to discern on account of hooves. But it is still there.

Okay, I'll keep playing. I'll take "Expert trackers who've tracked alleged bigfoot footprints to real bigfoots" for $100, Alex.

Dude, seriously, your hubris is off the charts on this. Without any footprint ever having been conclusively tied to a real bigfoot that made it, you're suggesting that a "good tracker" can examine such a footprint and determine specifics about that individuals' gender, diet, and overall health? You're further suggesting that I must be a "bad tracker" if I can't do that? Let's follow your idea through to its logical conclusion for an academic like me.

Let's say I analyze a bunch of footprints and write up a manuscript describing something like the sex ratio of North American wood-apes based on my analysis. Can you guess the first question the reviewers would ask? Here's a hint: "How do you know the footprints in your study were made by real bigfoots?" My response:

<crickets>

"Well I found them in a remote area."

I would find a mirror to laugh in my own face if I was to pursue what you seem to be suggesting.

[salubrious]

^^ You need to work on getting rid of Stawmen in your rebuttals. See:http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The fact of the matter is I am not talking about tracking- that diversion is part of the Strawman technique you are using. Please note per the logical fallacy study that the use of such results in an argument that is either inherently false or unrealiable at best.

However, with regards to what a good tracker can do, perhaps you need to take some classes before going off- you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. That is what I did, in fact I took several. Admittedly, they were only a week long each, but it was total immersion- we were tracking at night and in torrential rains. I can not help your inability to understand what is possible with tracking- obviously it is not your forte, to say the least. But if you are able to preserve evidence, someone who does know might be able to do something with it.

As far as answering your final question, the first thing is your 'reviewers' would have to know is what is possible. This has to do with knowledge that you don't know, and you don't know that you don't know it. Once that hurdle was crossed the answer would be almost elementary. Again, this is about data points, as I have pointed out now ad nauseum. Follow the data points and a picture emerges. Sortly after that will be something more substantial. The guys down in Texas seem to be demonstrating that.

[Guest MikeG]

^^ Sorry Mike, the information is in fact all there.

No, I'll flatly contradict you. It isn't all there in every footprint.

Without wishing to sound like I'm an expert, I've been tracking in Africa for decades. I've tracked on foot for days with Sa'an bushmen in the Kgalagadi. I've tracked with world experts like Chris McBride. I've saved my own life by spotting a single footprint on a rock. I'm heading off shortly for another 4 weeks of wandering around in the bush, finding animals from their spoor.

So, whilst I am not claiming to be wonderful, I am not just making stuff up when I say that you are wrong. If every footprint was delivered into your precious sandbox, you might just have a point, but they're not. I'm going to ask Prince Vincent, the finest tracker I know, whether he can tell from a single footprint without a comparison (before-after, if you like) whether a hyaena or leopard has fed. If he can't, and tracking is his daily bread, then, sorry, I'll be taking his word, not yours. BTW, I'd love to know how you can tell whether an elephant or an ardvaark has eaten. That's almost funny!

[ohiobill]

But MikeG you didn't spend a couple of weeks with Tom Brown Jr. who can track an ant across a rock and tell you what it was thinking. Your real world experience, like Saskeptics, like McBride's & Vincent's will obviously fall short and really it's not salubrious who has to prove anything anyway. It's the skeptics who have to disprove that it isn't possible - the way science works is for fantastical claims to be automatically accepted until a skeptic can prove disprove them.

[Guest]

^^ You need to work on getting rid of Stawmen in your rebuttals. See:http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Thanks for doubling down on the hubris - quite classy. Now if you could be so kind as to point me to the actual bigfoots that have been collected from these expert trackers you seem to be obsessed with at the moment, I'd be much obliged.

BTW, here's some advice: If you think someone is repeatedly rebutting your arguments with strawmen, then it's a good idea to re-examine the arguments you've been making on the off chance that they might be unintelligible.

[salubrious]

^^ My initial point is simple. The skeptical position that BF does not exist is not based on science. It is a made-up story. You don't know, plain and simple.

The rest of this diversion, including your last post <sarcasm>classy</sarcasm>, is a trip down the rabbit hole, courtesy of the strawman.

Mike, I will get some of those diagrams posted. You may find it an eye-opener. It certainly was for me. Tom Brown Jr. makes a point that he will come down on people that are tracking others at the Tracker School in any advanced tracking class. The reason: too much personal information contained in the tracks.