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

[salubrious]

30-44 degree angles seem to work best. However that seems to work best with sunlight rather than incandescents. I can't say if from the side or straight on is better- tracks are where you find them.

[Guest]

Man you're serious about proving Sal wrong.

[Guest MikeG]

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.

Thank you. At last. You make my point for me..........

If you have a perfect comparative set of before and after prints, a skilled tracker may be able to discern the difference.

But, given one single solitary print or trackway, the differences between individuals makes it impossible to derive the sort of information you describe.....unless you subscribe to the idea that every single adult mongoose or pangolin or rhino is exactly the same size and shape.

As I said previously, my main problem with your claims is that you claim it for all footprints in all circumstances, and I'll tell you that you are flat out wrong on that until the cows come home. In perfect conditions you may have a point, but perfect conditions seldom arise in the bush.

Mike

[Guest]

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.

For starters, I'm in complete agreement with the overriding notion of what you are implying (but haven't come right out and stated): visual tracking is an excellent skillset for footers to have. Particularly those who go out and look for bigfoot or whom chase recent sightings. If more investigators would invest some time to garner some rudimentary track awareness skills, we would in most cases of this alleged "credible eyewitness testimony" have some supporting impression evidence in the form of clear signature impressions to support those claims. I'm certainly not claiming that would sway the opinions of most skeptics, but if we had any cases where the investigator was able to establish continuity and actual track bigfoot whatever distance required until bigfoot stepped in a track trap, it would certainly do more than anything found in the last few decades to sway my stance back towards belief.

That said, I'm extremely skeptical of what you're claiming to be able to glean from the observation, of a single solitary signature print. I am however openminded, and if you could demonstrate the level of ability you're claiming I think it would dispel some of the doubt you're experiencing.

Based on what you are claiming, If someone were to post photos of something fairly mundane, like say several bear tracks (clear, signature impressions only) you'd naturally be able to tell what sex the bears were along with all the other mundane stuff that us less skilled trackers could (some of the time) be able to determine ( fl, fr, rl, rr, direct register, walking vs full gallup, etc). Is that correct?

Also in post 163 of this thread:

there's a alleged impression of a bigfoot track that's claimed to be in the 17-18" range. It's a fairly high resolution image (1.89 megs) with great detail.

What do you think manifested this image? How long do you think the impression actually is? Do you think there is enough reference information in the image to determine a probable and max size range for the impression? If you agree with Mr Randles and the General that this is actually sign of the legendary bigfoot, what traits and characteristics lead you to that conclusion?I'm certainly no Ab Taylor level tracking expert, but I'd certainly be more than interested in hearing your opinions if you'd be willing to respond with your thoughts in that thread.

JohnC: Appreciate your thoughtful response and am not ignoring it. Just on my mobile and it keeps jumping from the end of the text feild back into the body of the message. I'll respond when I get back to a real keyboard.

[salubrious]

The print in the photo is tricky- it is shot from directly above with the sun high in the sky. I am dubious of it as it lacks much in the way of motion indicators. It could represent some stealth but there peculiarities if that is the case. It would be helpful to see the track immediately behind that is partially visible. This track is older- there is wind-blown debris and a couple of plants growing in it. So a lot of the micro releases are eroded. If you look around the toes if there was stealth involved there would be larger ridges on the inside of the impression (each digit is analyzed as a separate lateral ridge). This track has the look of having come down from the sky and gone straight up without forward motion; there is no wave in the center of the track. So at best this track represents a very slow walk, one that is without alarm. I am leaning towards hoax due to the lack of pressure releases.

Mike, the area of a track that you look to for stomach information is the same on all canines (on the right front foot for example, the stomach musculature is seen between the last right digit and the pad area, the actual organ itself shows on the other side between the leftmost digit and the 2nd digit). Without knowing the individual you can see that information in the track. I suggested the tracking box method as a training tool to allow a person to see what I was talking about. If you want to get good at tracking, a tracking box can be really useful. Once you see how the dog's track changes, you can look for similar information in other individuals no worries. But first you have to know what it looks like/what you are looking for.

For something like BF, I would apply general info about how humans walk, lacking any other data points. The tracks I have found have so far been too old (weeks) to see things like MTB or other variants I have read about, so I am keeping my eyes peeled for something newer. I am very interested to see how the MTB manifests, if it indeed exists.

Tom Brown Jr. wrote a book called A Field Guide to Tracking or something like that; it has a lot of this information in it. But no amount of book learning will do any good without 'dirt time' as well.

[Guest teria]

How long did it take before the giant squid was discovered? Or the panda? To date, there is no conclusive evidence to prove the definitive existence of Bigfoot, at least not publicized. I believe, along with thousands of others I'm sure, that will soon change. Just MHO, and stating the obvious!

[Guest]

Scientific credentials are meaningless for discovering BF. Expertise in documenting evidence and tracking your quarry rules the day. You take the body to a scientist to catalogue the beast. That's what they are for. They usually aren't any better suited for discovering BF than say a tracker schooled in forensics. At any rate, you don't need to be a scientist to discover BF.

The problem when BF enthusiasts declare themselves to be experts in the field with absolutely no credentials to serve in such a role, when they encounter something strange or are evaluating something out of the ordinary, they are far too quick to conclude that it was a Sasquatch. More often than not, they'll suppress tell tale signs that indicate it clearly wasn't a BF and embellish certain details to guarantee it's an event that's unexplainable. Essentially, there is no critical assessment whatsoever and the obsession of wanting to experience a Sasquatch encounter takes over.

[Guest thermalman]

The problem when BF enthusiasts declare themselves to be experts in the field with absolutely no credentials to serve in such a role, when they encounter something strange or are evaluating something out of the ordinary, they are far too quick to conclude that it was a Sasquatch. More often than not, they'll suppress tell tale signs that indicate it clearly wasn't a BF and embellish certain details to guarantee it's an event that's unexplainable. Essentially, there is no critical assessment whatsoever and the obsession of wanting to experience a Sasquatch encounter takes over.

Agreed.

[norseman]

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

Do you have some sort of link that shows either Eichler or Easton making a statement that it was indeed a hoax?

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/...ion?spcode=B03Q

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

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf//08IBWPAccomplishmentReport.pdf

And it looks like they are doing the exact opposite of pulling the plug.......

[Guest]

And it looks like they are doing the exact opposite of pulling the plug.......

Yeah, although it's more like "did" rather than "doing", because it looked like FY 2008 money in that document. I doubt the USFWS is doing anything with Ivorybills now that Cornell even closed up shop.

BTW, this issue you raise is apparently what started the long-term "woodpecker feud" between Jerry Jackson and John Fitzpatrick. Jerry was on the USFWS' Recovery Team (I'm not sure if Fitz was too) back in the 1980s. The Team was ready to "pull the plug" on funding for Ivorybills then, with the last confirmed evidence for the birds having been taken in 1944. (Rumors of extant Ivorybills in the 1960s were never confirmed.) Jerry was pushing the USFWS to give up on Ivorybills because he was convinced they were extinct; Fitz was calling for more survey work before doing that. In 1987, one or more Ivorybills were observed by biologists in Cuba, and the species had been holding on there in the late 1950s. Fitz was convinced that if Ivorybills could have persisted in Cuba then there might still be some in the U.S. He saw Jerry has putting up roadblocks to the vital work of recovery that could have been happening.

As far as I know, the USFWS never declared the species extinct, but they kept their hand on the plug ready to pull it. Rumors of Ivorybills in the Pearl River of Mississippi in the 1990s sparked renewed interest in Ivorybill field work, and the Service considers the bird or birds encountered in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005 to have been the real deal.

Jerry Jackson - though a lovely gentle man (and a gentleman!) who would give his right arm to know that Ivorybills were extant, maintains his skepticism and is convinced that the Ivorybills are extinct. He raises questions about every scrap of evidence offered from the White River in Arkansas, and from every place else the bird has been reported .

[Guest BFSleuth]

It is interesting from your account of Jerry Jackson that while he would be delighted to know that Ivorybills are extant, he's working quite actively to have them declared extinct, throwing up roadblocks to further research, and engaging in what sounds like extraordinary efforts to declare evidence to be mistaken in some way.

[Guest]

Well that's some interesting reading between the lines and filling in the blanks regarding my man Jerry! I wrote that Fitz thought Jerry was throwing roadblocks in the way. Note that, if anyone, it was Fitzpatrick who's been accused of having a serious conflict of interest when it comes to federal funding for Ivorybills, of which millions were allocated. (Check out the movie "Ghost Bird" - this is Jackson's review of the movie - which is Michael Moore-esque in its vilification of Fitzpatrick.)

Jackson's motivation is for the perennially underfunded USFWS to get it right when it comes to Ivorybills as well as its remaining obligations. If Ivorybills are extinct, then there are many many species on the brink that are a better use of millions of dollars and an army of people working on recovery. In Jackson's opinion, there is no better evidence today for Ivorybills than we had in 1944. Thus, it's entirely appropriate for him to share his opinion that the USFWS give up on Ivorybills.

[Guest BFSleuth]

That's a fascinating back story, Sas. I checked out the Ghost Bird home page and the youtube trailer (below).

I can certainly understand the concerns of how to allocate limited dollars for research, so in that vein it would make sense why Jerry is taking the tack he is taking. Seems like not only the BF world has its share of drama!

[Guest]

The bigfoot/Ivorybill parallels are legion, Sleuth. . .

[Guest]

http://www.fws.gov/ivorybill/pdf/IBWRecoveryPlan2010.pdf

Wow, a paper was referenced here that I took part in. Pg 58 and first title on pg. 59. I did the the habitat classification for the Singer tract in Louisiana.

Our center is still working on the Ivory Billed woodpecker project, mostly in the form of research into the history of the forests where the IBWO was reported in the 30's by Tanner. Saskeptic, Tanner's wife is still alive and we have a lady at our center who calls her every now and then to clarify things and met her in person and did an extensive interview with her. The lady said she was very sharp and could recall a lot of her husbands work. We had a conference for the IBWO and I gave a presentation in front of all those Cornell guys, I was a nervous wreck.

There was this one guy there who had some very grainy IBWO blob video. He didn't want to share it in the main conference room, he had his laptop set up in our office, he must of known he would of gotten eaten alive trying to present that grainy footage. I saw it and was not convinced. So definitely parallels with bigfoot.