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

[Guest]

^^ 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.

Oh, well you could've saved yourself some aggravation if you had read post 839 in which I addressed that point.

So what in the Sam Hill does that point have to do with your assertion that we can analyze bigfoot footprints to determine the health, diet, and gender of the bigfoots that left them?

[Incorrigible1]

Well, there's these two extra bumps in the tracks of female sasquatch.........

[Guest Particle Noun]

**Mod Statement**

Folks, a gentle reminder to keep your conversations focused the arguments and positions being put forward, and not about those who are making the arguments or putting forward the positions. There have been some exchanges inching dangerously close to this line, so this is a reminder to keep those rules and guidelines at the forefront of your minds, please.

Thanks

[salubrious]

Oh, well you could've saved yourself some aggravation if you had read post 839 in which I addressed that point.

So what in the Sam Hill does that point have to do with your assertion that we can analyze bigfoot footprints to determine the health, diet, and gender of the bigfoots that left them?

A reread of my prior posts that you have responded to would answer that question.

But specifically, if evidence like a footprint is analyzed it can reveal that information. But I think we are talking in circles- you already commented that you would not know what to do with a track and seem to have no interest in one even upon finding it in the field.

Mike, if you are looking at the outside edge of the lateral ridge, that is where the skeletal musculature evidence will be seen with almost any mammel. On the inside edge (IOW, the left side of the right foot) the activity of the internal organs and also the sex of the creature can be seen. It does not matter if its a dog, deer or human. I've got the diagram right in front of me but have been frustrated by hardware issues, else I would have posted the diagram. I'll try to do that later this evening.

[Guest RayG]

On the inside edge (IOW, the left side of the right foot) the activity of the internal organs and also the sex of the creature can be seen. It does not matter if its a dog, deer or human.

You've piqued my interest.

Is it like some sort of reflexology?

RayG

[Guest poignant]

Mike, if you are looking at the outside edge of the lateral ridge, that is where the skeletal musculature evidence will be seen with almost any mammel. On the inside edge (IOW, the left side of the right foot) the activity of the internal organs and also the sex of the creature can be seen. It does not matter if its a dog, deer or human. I've got the diagram right in front of me but have been frustrated by hardware issues, else I would have posted the diagram. I'll try to do that later this evening.

Salubrious, this is bordering on palm reading...it's like extrapolating a trend with only one data point to work with. Please surprise me and prove me wrong.

[bipedalist]

When I saw that dermal ridges could be exposed in powdery, dusty dirt and illuminated even at night with a flash light I was sold on some elements of tracking.

Problem being differing substrates offer differing amounts of information. Now if you could grab a few of those Mescalero (and Jicarillo) Apache that Moneymaker was raving about out in New Mexico, we all might learn a thing or two about substrate and what they offer in terms of print detail.

[southernyahoo]

Here's an article on 20,000 YO fossil tracks in Australia. I like that they valued the local indigenous people's tracking skills and interpretations.

http://playthink.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/sdarticle-1.pdf

[Guest BFSleuth]

Very interesting article SY. Here's the section from the aboriginal interpretation of the fossil tracks (I find the bit about the one legged hunter fascinating):

"Traditional interpretation

It was deemed essential to produce as full an interpretation of the trackways as possible, and thus traditional Pintubi people from central Australia were invited to the site for this purpose. The Pintubi grew up without any European influence, and they provided a unique and traditional interpretation of the trackways as a people who live in the same traditional way as those making the prints may have.

Importantly for the understanding of the site, they grew up with a one-legged man who was highly regarded for his hunting skills and unfettered activities (Thomson, 1975). His tracks and abilities using one leg were well known to those visiting the site, and they confirmed that the individual who had left T4 was indeed someone with only one leg (right); the ability of this man to hop in a manner indicated by the prints was not a surprise to them. Other interpretations included confirmation of T18 and T19 as female tracks and T14 as those of a four- to five-year-old child. The adult male ‘‘hunters’’ were also confirmed as such, as were the sex assignments already established for other tracks.

A number of small marks across the site indicated to the Pintubi that spears had been rested on their blunt ends. The combined average diameter of these marks (n 1â„4 9) is 13.5 mm, with a range of 9e17 mm, indicating that a variety of spears were rested in this way as common practice. A groove measuring 70 cm in length was identified by the Pin- tubi as a spear ricocheting off the muddy surface. Two other random wavy grooves in a small partial semicircle were identified as a child’s fingers in the soft clay surface, suggesting that this part of the pavement was not under water. A number of circular and oval impressions were reported previously (Webb et al., 2006: Figure 4d). These were interpreted by the Pintubi as the blunt end of a thick pole, perhaps a digging stick, sharpened at one end and rested on the blunt end to prevent blunting of the sharp end. Large circular marks 20e 30 mm in diameter may reflect marks left by a supporting pole used by the one-legged man. The marks are consistent with the shape and diameter of the mulga (Acacia sp.) support pole used traditionally by the Pintubi one-legged man (Thomson, 1975). However, they are visible on older surfaces underlying the main pavement. In order to make a complete interpretation of these marks, a firmer understanding of the re- lationship of the various layers to one another and the time frames in which they were formed is required. The likelihood of digging sticks being used in the area is high because roots and tubers of water plants probably grew around this wetland feature."

[ohiobill]

Why not make it interesting and have salubrious interpret pictures of A SINGLE track or casts of A SINGLE track and demonstrate the ability to tell species, sex, weight, physical condition, and whether or not the print maker has eaten in the last 4 hours? Participants could make a track box out a 8' 2x4 and a bag of national brand potting soil for consistency of print imprint and optimal imprinting conditions. One admin could send each participant a unique number to place in their picture/cast w/o revealing the numbers to anyone else. Film yourself making the track and casting the track if pictures aren't acceptable. Send it in to a different admin along w/$10 to cover forwarding/shipping costs to salubrious. The forwarding admin can add some copies of presumed bigfoot prints of human size and forward to salubrious as in a double blind study and we'll see how the results turn out. Participants footage will be held by them and revealed in a thread once salubrious has completed the analysis and posted the findings. Participants will get track documentation/casting practice and practical information on how well tracks can be read by an expert. It might be pretty interesting for $15 dollars or less.

[southernyahoo]

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.

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.

If Neanderthal tracks are distinct in some way, then maybe we could define the differences with these pics.

Could the big toe be a clue?

[ohiobill]

If Neanderthal tracks are distinct in some way, then maybe we could define the differences with these pics.

Could the big toe be a clue?

As is the length of the second toe when differentiating them from a certain other relic.

[salubrious]

You've piqued my interest.

Is it like some sort of reflexology?

RayG

No. But you are on the right track (pardon the pun); I asked exactly the same thing in class. It has to do with how the body supports itself, which changes as conditions in the body change. For example, if you take you shoes off. just stand still and look down at your feet. You will notice that standing still is not a static act; you are constantly making minor adustments to stay in balance. Now lift one arm straight out to the side and feel what happens. Look at your feet. The effort to hold the arm out would be recorded in the track if you were on bare earth.

If you turn your head and nothing else, this too will be recorded in the track.

Similarly, if you are exerting effort to support an injured back, this will show up too. Its more subtle, and will be seen around the outside edge of the lateral ridge (this is the outline of the track in general terms). I have spotted such anomalies in human prints and verified them, and I am a rank amateur at this. A full bladder or colon causes the musculature to favor certain movements- I think you can see how this works.

This is why the tracking box is useful. If you have a dog, wait until it is time to feed it. Make it walk though the box. Feed it, make it walk through the box again. You will be able to see a difference. Sex is the same thing- females move differently enough from males (in some animals the width between the hips is quite different) and although it it subtle, that information shows up too. IOW all of this is simply about how the creature carries itself, and in mammals the similarities of biology place the info in similar locations in the track.

Salubrious, this is bordering on palm reading...it's like extrapolating a trend with only one data point to work with. Please surprise me and prove me wrong.

As you can see from above, there is more than one data point in any track. Quite literally, there are 100s of things to look at. Much of the info is in something called pressure releases (of which over 3500 have been identified and cataloged), which are marks left as the foot leaves the ground. There are also tiny pocks, domes, ridges and valleys that are all part of the micro releases in the track. They can help you identify specific individuals and more sublte health clues.

I have done some simple analysis on tracks from photos appearing elsewhere on this site. Some photos have appeared fake to me and others genuine. Photos are tricky to work with, most have too little resolution and are shot without an eye to assisting a tracker (photos taken with the sun overhead or on a cloudy day won't yield nearly as much information).

As far as the challenge goes, I have friends in town that are a lot better at this than me, so if there is any veracity to the challenge I would be happy to accept; I love tracking!! I'm sure we could sort many of them out if enough info is available from the evidence. But if you try the tracking box thing, you will see what I am talking about.

[Guest UPs]

So a Pintubi tribe member and a western scientist come across a trackway and after following it and studying the tracks intently, the Pintubi says " this is the trackway of an 8 ft man that weighs about 550lbs and has much hair. We call him Sasquatch." The western scientist does the same inspection but concludes " these are not real because there is no such thing as Sasquatch". They both keep following them for miles and eventually, a dead Sasquatch is laying in front of them. The western scientist says " Those were the tracks of a Sasquatch".

This is what came to mind after reading the above link by sy. It may not be too far off from reality unfortunately.

[ohiobill]

No. But you are on the right track (pardon the pun); I asked exactly the same thing in class. It has to do with how the body supports itself, which changes as conditions in the body change. For example, if you take you shoes off. just stand still and look down at your feet. You will notice that standing still is not a static act; you are constantly making minor adustments to stay in balance. Now lift one arm straight out to the side and feel what happens. Look at your feet. The effort to hold the arm out would be recorded in the track if you were on bare earth.

If you turn your head and nothing else, this too will be recorded in the track.

Similarly, if you are exerting effort to support an injured back, this will show up too. Its more subtle, and will be seen around the outside edge of the lateral ridge (this is the outline of the track in general terms). I have spotted such anomalies in human prints and verified them, and I am a rank amateur at this. A full bladder or colon causes the musculature to favor certain movements- I think you can see how this works.

This is why the tracking box is useful. If you have a dog, wait until it is time to feed it. Make it walk though the box. Feed it, make it walk through the box again. You will be able to see a difference. Sex is the same thing- females move differently enough from males (in some animals the width between the hips is quite different) and although it it subtle, that information shows up too. IOW all of this is simply about how the creature carries itself, and in mammals the similarities of biology place the info in similar locations in the track.

As you can see from above, there is more than one data point in any track. Quite literally, there are 100s of things to look at. Much of the info is in something called pressure releases (of which over 3500 have been identified and cataloged), which are marks left as the foot leaves the ground. There are also tiny pocks, domes, ridges and valleys that are all part of the micro releases in the track. They can help you identify specific individuals and more sublte health clues.

I have done some simple analysis on tracks from photos appearing elsewhere on this site. Some photos have appeared fake to me and others genuine. Photos are tricky to work with, most have too little resolution and are shot without an eye to assisting a tracker (photos taken with the sun overhead or on a cloudy day won't yield nearly as much information).

As far as the challenge goes, I have friends in town that are a lot better at this than me, so if there is any veracity to the challenge I would be happy to accept; I love tracking!! I'm sure we could sort many of them out if enough info is available from the evidence. But if you try the tracking box thing, you will see what I am talking about.

Even better, since we will have video footage of the track being made we can include whether or not the track maker is holding a specific arm out and whether or not they have their head left, right, or neutral while making the track. It will be cheaper/quicker to use pictures so if you're confident we could come up with a protocol for lighting the tracks in a consistent manner to speed things along. From what height and direction would you prefer the pictures to be lit?