Skeptical Pareidolia And Trackway Evidence

[Guest Transformer]

IMHO, having a default position to one side or the other is how science doesn't work. In other words a position of "needs further investigation" would be a safe position for something unexplained or unknown. A theory or hypothesis is speculation. A position is a belief.

A few innocent people have gone to prison because of cops positions. I walked away from a trackway a few years ago because I dismissed it as fake because of the MTB. I didn't know anything about a MTB at the time. Now I wish we had documented it and followed it further.

I can't say that I agree with what you are saying. Go up to any scientist worth their salt and tell them that you have seen a Tyrannosaurus wandering around your neck of the woods. If you expect them to say "Hmmm...that's possible, I'll have to investigate this further" you're going to be very disappointed. Science works on established paradigms and scientists like all people are required to make judgement calls based on what is known and considered true at the time. When they get actual evidence (not anecdotal) they are then expected to assess it's quality and judge whether that evidence is enough to require further investigation or a change of mind. A mere statement that defies what is an established fact at the time the statement is made is not enough.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest mdhunter]

^ you don't have to agree with me.

[kitakaze]

If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done. Maybe go the whole nine yards and do it as a real time hoax, have "believing" bigfooters make the discovery and submit casts to Meldrum and show how easy it is to put one over on the bigfoot research community.

Until then I give as much weight to the "it could be a hoax" argument of these trackways as any other wild claim of bigfoot hiding in blurry pixels.

Just for once I would love to see someone try to create a hoax trackway, record the effort on video, and give some researchers a shot at examining the trackway to compare against the four trackways found this year. I know that some have said the Elbe trackway might be a hoax created by "bigfoot shoes" available from an artist online. Fine, go buy a pair of those shoes and go walk the mudflats by Elbe and see what results you get. That would be actual testing of a theory. Simply proposing a theory with no test is the same as seeing BF in a blurry video with no going back to HD video the area again to test whether or not it was simply a stump. Both are disingenuous.

Show us an honest attempt to create a trackway in the Elbe mud flats. Right now is a good time before the Pineapple Express starts dumping rain in the PNW. Then have some researchers come and cast the tracks and do an analysis, maybe try it as a hoax to see if they can tell the difference... put them to the test.

In any of these cases the substrate is repeatable, and for proponents of the hoax theory the door is wide open for testing your idea with full documentation. Elbe seems to be ideal for an immediate attempt, with the same conditions available right now. Fire away and give us evidence of your claim, I'll certainly be looking forward to seeing the results.

A point and a question...

1) There is nothing that stipulates the necessity of one being a skeptic in your suggested scenario of going and trying to recreate the tracks at Elbe. Indeed, if the proponents of the tracks want ot show they are from a Bigfoot and not a human, why would they themselves not try to do this.

Elbe is in my opinion potentially the most significant track event in the last 50 years in terms of clarity and number of tracks, so I would think researchers would do all they can to show that Bigfoot was actually involved. Without an actual Bigfoot being connected to the tracks, there is nothing new with these tracks to point persuasively towards Bigfoot, and no reason people who don't believe in Bigfoot should accept them as what the believers claim them to be.

Where are the dermals? Where is the toes movement? Where is the solid proof of a living foot and not a stomper?

2) Sleuth, your comment that you'd love to see skeptics go the whole nine yards and make a fake trackway that convinces researchers and goes all the way to being given the thumbs up by Meldrum; what motivation would skeptics have to do that, in your opinion? Do you not think they would be demonized as evil hoaxers after showing how easy it is to pull one over on Bigfoot research and academia?

Don't you know, Sleuth? Proponents are the only ones who have to "prove" anything. Skeptics hold the intellectual "high ground" via that proposition that holds that "BF is not 'proven'. Therefore the burden of proof falls on the claimant that they in fact do exist."

In other words: "BF doesn't exist. Prove me wrong."

Which as we all know is a classic logical fallacy. But Skeptics don't have to apply logic to their arguments. They are presumed correct because they are employing "critical thinking" and "the scientific method".

Same question for you, Mulder. If skeptics were to get out of the house, go lay down some tracks to show how Bigfoot researchers can easily be duped, would this be a legitimate experiment in your opinion or once the did this successfully and revealed it, would you not decry them saying skeptic = hoaxer?

[Guest]

It more logically suggests that you simply don't know the size range of the human foot

between 10 ¹⁵â„₆₄" and 10 ⁵â„₈" (26.3cm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot

and have simply responded with your aggressive misinformational style - classic Mulder!

Personal attack noted.

A 15" HUMAN foot IS common enough that you can buy ready-made shoes on the internet (size 23 if you want to check). HUMANS have been known to have feet up to 18 1/2" inches long (Robert Wadlow).

So now a human foot can be any length you want it to be, and averages and distributions be hanged?

If a hoax - there really is no limit.

So you never have to answer my challenge...how convenient for you.

What does Occam's razor suggest to you in this case? A large barefoot bipedal human/hoax or a large unknown barefoot biped? Does choosing one preclude the existence of the other?

I already answered that, as did DDA. But you won't accept our answers and prefer to insert your unwarranted, unsupported speculations into an entirely factual matter.

I can't say that I agree with what you are saying. Go up to any scientist worth their salt and tell them that you have seen a Tyrannosaurus wandering around your neck of the woods. If you expect them to say "Hmmm...that's possible, I'll have to investigate this further" you're going to be very disappointed. Science works on established paradigms and scientists like all people are required to make judgement calls based on what is known and considered true at the time. When they get actual evidence (not anecdotal) they are then expected to assess it's quality and judge whether that evidence is enough to require further investigation or a change of mind. A mere statement that defies what is an established fact at the time the statement is made is not enough.

Argument from the extreme. Also not comparing "apples with apples". A T-rex would be a unique and amazing discovery, which might warrant closer scrutiny than normal. There is nothing unique or amazing about finding a new specie of primate. We have lots of those around.

Furthermore, the case for BF is NOT just "anecdotal evidence" (amazing that when "scientists" see things it somehow magically transmorphs into "observational data", isn't it?). We have eyewitnesses PLUS forensically typed hairs PLUS tracks with distinct biometrics, dermals, and a natural distribution curve PLUS film/video/photo, etc.

[indiefoot]

What if thousands of people from a broad spectrum of backgrounds told the scientist they had seen a Tyrannosaurus?

[Guest Tontar]

A T-rex would be a unique and amazing discovery, which might warrant closer scrutiny than normal. There is nothing unique or amazing about finding a new specie of primate. We have lots of those around.

LOL! Nothing unique or amazing about finding a new species of primate - living in north America, which grow to between 7-10 feet tall, weighing in excess of 700-1,500 pounds, a primate that is larger than most bears on this continent. I beg to differ with you there, but I think there would be something very unique and amazing about finding such a new species of primate. You mentioned not comparing apples to apples. Well, comparing a newly determined species of 2' tall monkey which looks remarkably like any number of other species of monkeys in the same area, to a 7-10 foot tall giant, bipedal ape/human is not exactly apples to apples!

What if thousands of people from a broad spectrum of backgrounds told the scientist they had seen a Tyrannosaurus?

There'd be an investigation into their diets, which meds they'd been taking, how often they microwave their food in plastic containers...

A tyrannosaurus, which should be hundreds if not thousands of them, should be able to be located pretty easily. Kind of hard to hide one of those guys, wouldn't you think? Should be able to verify if they existed.

[Guest]

LOL! Nothing unique or amazing about finding a new species of primate - living in north America,

So what? Primates can live wherever the habitat is appropriate for them to live.

which grow to between 7-10 feet tall,

Again, so what? Humans can almost reach 7'. Bears on hind legs certainly can. There is precedent for 7'+ critters.

weighing in excess of 700-1,500 pounds,

Only for the really big ones. Here's what Fahrenbach has to say using accepted scientific estimation methods:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm (scroll down to Chest Dimensions, as content is not copiable)

see also

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/bfphysics.htm

but I think there would be something very unique and amazing about finding such a new species of primate.

It would be amazing from a social perspective, but definitely NOT "amazing" from a scientific perspective. There is nothing about the habitat of N America, nor the nature of primates that makes it in any way remarkable that there could be a living primate in the wilds, assuming appropriate adaptations, which BF appears to have.

You mentioned not comparing apples to apples. Well, comparing a newly determined species of 2' tall monkey which looks remarkably like any number of other species of monkeys in the same area, to a 7-10 foot tall giant, bipedal ape/human is not exactly apples to apples!

Size matters not. It is a matter of ecological appropriateness. And there is plenty of precedent for large primates living in the wild (gorillas, orangutans, etc).

There'd be an investigation into their diets, which meds they'd been taking, how often they microwave their food in plastic containers...

A tyrannosaurus, which should be hundreds if not thousands of them, should be able to be located pretty easily. Kind of hard to hide one of those guys, wouldn't you think? Should be able to verify if they existed.

And if those eyewitness accounts were backed up by observed FRESH tracks, photos, skin/scale samples, and so forth?

[Guest Tontar]

You mean photos like the ones taken at Temagami? Or of Patty? Or of Wallace's beast? Or Freeman's? Or of Marx's beast? Which photos do you really expect people to buy into as authentic?

Fresh tracks? File those with photos. Skin and scale samples? Do bigfoots have scales now? Do we have skin samples from the ones that don't have scales?

What's the "so forth"? Every bit of evidence so far might have been hoaxed. As much as I would like to believe in bigfoot, I just find the evidence that is solid and reliable to be seriously lacking. Surely one can be found and brought out of the forest, right?

And even though you think size is unimportant, it really is kind of important. The only way that you can work around the fact that no bigfoot has ever been recovered is by saying things like they know how to hide really well form people, they can sense cameras, they bury their dead, porcupines eliminate their bones, and things like that. While it is not impossible for a beast bigger than a bear could hide now and then, it's highly unlikely that they could hide from hundreds or thousands of years without every being captured, killed, remains recovered. Possible, but highly unlikely.

[Guest]

Almost anything can be hoaxed. The Elbe track way could have been hoaxed, as well as the London. Unless you witness the creature making the tracks, or banging the trees, making the vocalization then you're just assuming. Some evidence is rather compelling, but people are smart and very creative. There's holes in every story, and points to ponder. It is a lot of fun though.

DR

[Guest]

Well said DR...and by the way, HELLO!!

[salubrious]

Also, there is no evidence presented thus far that truly shows toe movement in the Elbe trackway.

This is incorrect. Such evidence has been presented, however if one has an inability to understand the evidence, no amount of presentation will help. The evidence in this case is the photos themselves. But one has to know what toe motion actually looks like.

The photos should go to someone who understands what to look for. For example, if you don't know how to determine the sex of the individual from the track, or don't at least know where to look in the track for the sex information, consider yourself unqualified to examine the track in any sort of meaningful way.

[Guest]

There is so much compelling evidence, and such a continuing stream of evidence. A long with Dr Ketchum's confidence that she is on to something, there is a good chance we will know whats real, and what is not when it all comes out in the wash. We seem to be seeing more and more scientific types taking an interest, that alone is telling.

[Guest]

You mean photos like the ones taken at Temagami? Or of Patty? Or of Wallace's beast? Or Freeman's? Or of Marx's beast? Which photos do you really expect people to buy into as authentic?

Argument by assertion.

Fresh tracks? File those with photos. Skin and scale samples? Do bigfoots have scales now? Do we have skin samples from the ones that don't have scales?

Pay attention, Tontar. The question was in relation to the hypothetical of a reported T-rex. The implication was that it was a comparable situation to that of BF, being solely based on anecdotes, which is not the case w/BF. In order to compare an alleged case for extant T-rex with the case for BF, there would have to be much trace evidence of said Rex on top of eyewitness testimony.

That was the point. You knew that, but went for the the old "double shuffle" dodge by taking the statement out of context Shame on you.

What's the "so forth"? Every bit of evidence so far might have been hoaxed.

So it therefore follows that all of it MUST be hoaxed? Does not follow.

Occam's Razor (which was the logical concept under discussion) leads us to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a population of as yet uncatalogued primates in various habitats in N America and worldwide than that there is this vast army of highly skilled, dedicated, and professional hoaxers spending many dollars and hours running around faking evidence.

As much as I would like to believe in bigfoot, I just find the evidence that is solid and reliable to be seriously lacking. Surely one can be found and brought out of the forest, right?

How long did it take to bring out the gorilla to Science's satisfaction? Do we yet have a wild-caught giant squid?

And even though you think size is unimportant, it really is kind of important. The only way that you can work around the fact that no bigfoot has ever been recovered is by saying things like they know how to hide really well form people, they can sense cameras, they bury their dead, porcupines eliminate their bones, and things like that. While it is not impossible for a beast bigger than a bear could hide now and then, it's highly unlikely that they could hide from hundreds or thousands of years without every being captured, killed, remains recovered. Possible, but highly unlikely.

More argument by assertion. Get a new speechwriter.

This is incorrect. Such evidence has been presented, however if one has an inability to understand the evidence, no amount of presentation will help.

It also helps if said one actually has an open mind, and is not a set-opinion denialist.

[Guest Tontar]

Argument by assertion.

Huh?

That was the point. You knew that, but went for the the old "double shuffle" dodge by taking the statement out of context Shame on you.

Oh, that was the point. Tyrannosaurus Rex sightings. My bad, I thought this was all about bigfoot sightings, and that the discussion was about how uneventful and unamazing the discovery of a bigfoot species would be in your mind. I thought it was the opposite, that it would be a massive discovery, worthy of incredible attention.

So it therefore follows that all of it MUST be hoaxed? Does not follow.

Hmmm, did I miss something? Or are you talking to someone else here? I don't recall saying "if it could be hoaxed it must be hoaxed".

Occam's Razor (which was the logical concept under discussion) leads us to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a population of as yet uncatalogued primates in various habitats in N America and worldwide than that there is this vast army of highly skilled, dedicated, and professional hoaxers spending many dollars and hours running around faking evidence.

Here we go with the Occam's Razor thing again. In your version you think it's the simpler and more logical conclusion that there is a huge breeding population of bipedal primates bigger than bears, bigger than gorillas, living in north America, that have been so incredibly elusive that not one has ever been recovered dead or alive? That's logical to you? That these true giants have gone undetected with very few exceptions, for hundreds upon hundreds of years, even with our incredible use, misuse and recreation throughout their habitat?

Far fewer hoaxers can perpetuate the idea of bigfoot than it would take real bigfoots to continue to survive. It would take an army of bigfoots to genuinely exist. It would not take an army of hoaxers to create the myth of an army of bigfoots. Assuming, for the moment, that Patterson hoaxed the PGF. We know Wallace was a hoaxer, and likely was responsible for the fever in Bluff Creek. If you take just those two people, you have the genesis of a huge movement which has created the idea of thousands of bigfoots across the country. Bigfoot fever spread form corner to corner, to some of the most barren states imaginable.

You ever been to Yakima? Pretty darn barren. Not much in the way of trees even. You can see a person or a horse from miles away. Not much place to hide either. Even so, Yakima was a prime spot back when Patterson was around, right? Prime spot for certain people to see and report them, but how is it that they avoided detection form everyone else? How come only the bigfoot fans saw them?

It only takes a few people to create the illusion of thousands of bigfoots. It doesn't work the other way around.

How long did it take to bring out the gorilla to Science's satisfaction? Do we yet have a wild-caught giant squid?

Not long, actually. I love it when people bring up the gorilla. I believe that the gorilla was discovered to science's satisfaction before the gas engine was created, wasn't it? Kind of an amazing feat considering travel to Africa was on sailing ships and steam paddlewheelers, eh? And exploration was conducted on horse back, camelback, and on foot. But hey, if you want to compare today's technology and travel with what was available 160+ years ago, fine by me. But I think it is a fairly poor argument to try to make.

More argument by assertion.

Nanu nanu...

It also helps if said one actually has an open mind, and is not a set-opinion denialist.

Cough (Temagami) cough...

[Guest]

I don't want to engage in a huge Temagami debate, but there is a lot more to that story than has been told,and to keep bringing it up as if its some sort of example, is probably a mistake. Its exactly that kind of response, to any evidence that comes forward that leads to any information sharing to come to a halt. We have seen it in many cases, its simply a tactic for winning arguments, and does nothing to further the research of the actual mystery.

It reminds me of a chess game I played once, where every time the guy would get one of my pieces he would jump around and say things like "in your face doode" " I am so awesome" " you so suck", and you know what the result was? I threw the game so it would end sooner, and never played with the guy again.

This is how I feel about engaging in any sort of conversation of several cases, not to mention,unqualified opinion and conclusion is what it is, not everyone is out to "prove" something, some people are merely trying to share,and getting attacked for it.