Guest BFSleuth Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 ^ +1 Cotter Very nicely worded compilation of your personal history and thoughts about your interest in BF. I do think it would be helpful to start a thread discussing track validity and what to look for in trackways, and show some experiments in prepared ground with good images for all of us to educate ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Noted. My comment was simply to indicate that the crossover step per se is not a red flag to disqualify the trackway. It is a technique I used to teach to climbing students and clients, a common method of efficiently negotiating difficult terrain. It would not be out of character for a biped to do this. In no way was my comment meant to be an endorsement of the trackway, but simply to note that a comment raising the issue as a red flag was not taking into consideration that this is a common method of movement. Your description of the Z-drag system would require anchor points in trees or points higher than your own elevation. You are correct that this would only be workable for a short trackway. I keep thinking about the Minnesota trackway and how incredibly difficult it would be to hoax something like that, for such a long (3 mile) trackway, leaving no evidence of anything but the footprints in deep snow with long strides, "post holing" without disturbing the snow in between the tracks. Even using stilts wouldn't work IMHO, you just couldn't lift your legs high enough to clear the snow for each step, and any fall would result in "face plant snow angels" in the snow. Yes, my description of a suspended z-drag would require trees/anchor points and could incorporate terrain changes similar to a zip-line. The distance covered would obviously be dependant upon the length of the lines/cables used and could range from 300' to 600' (my personal estimate of what one knowledgeable hoaxer could reasonably do by themselves in a day). I agree with you that threads about track identification, track lighting, photography, casting, etc would be worthwhile. Did you have any intentions to start any? Possibly one on the track lighting you've been experimenting with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 John C - quick comment on this: "It is not that good of a hoax if someone with my level of track experience can spot the hoax from only looking at the pictures. Other people who are experienced in tracks came to the same conclusion by looking at the pictures. This is not chest thumping on my part, it is my trying to comprehend how men considered some of the top people in this field, could not see the hoax and a beginner could." I would merely caution that what you use as criteria for calling 'hoax' may not be 100% effective. I am barely learning the track ID fake vs real stuff myself, but all I am saying is that there may be real prints that exhibit the traits you clue in on for fake. Same thing goes the other way around. Of course, I've no idea what criteria you used to determine hoax, so I'm really just blowing some smoke here. I really wish I had the time and motivation to put together a little "real or fake" type thread to test out folks' internet investigation on tracks. Keep everything within the realm of human feet, and then have folks render their guesses. Of course,You are right, in the beginning it was only an opinion I had. But, as the days progressed, I read and asked for the opinions of several other investigators AND skeptics who pointed out the tell tale signs of the tracks being made from stompers. (only from the use of the photos, I admit) So if there are people with differing opinions regarding the track photos, please feel free to state your aguments. I would certainly listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) I know you are happy to do it, but how are you qualified to do it? How familiar with a field investigation process and reading tracks are you? I admit to be still learning. I need some special knowledge to be able to read an internet post and know what is being said and by who? No, sorry the answers do not match the timeline. In other words: "GOTCHA!" Exactly what I was talking about. And you cannot have doubts about a trackway AND lean towards it being genuine. It is one or the other. Utter BS. Such binary thinking is utterly unbecoming someone advocating for "critical thinking". It is entirely possible to be both suspicious and hopeful when presented with contradicting and/or incomplete data. If facts A, C and D lead to conclusion E, but fact B leads to another conclusion, it is entirely appropriate to be of the opinion that the majority of the facts point to E, but that there are questions to be answered. This is what happened at Elbe. Enough facts pointed to the conclusion that the tracks might be valid that a preliminary (and temporary) hypothesis that they were valid. However, there were facts that suggested otherwise, so further investigative work was required, and the hypothesis was changed when more facts became available. In other words: the researchers did the job Skeptics are always demanding they do: use critical thinking and conduct a thorough investigation. They should be praised for their diligence, not scorned. That is how everyone should do it, not only skeptics. Since they did do it that way, what the heck is your problem? It is not that good of a hoax if someone with my level of track experience can spot the hoax from only looking at the pictures. Other people who are experienced in tracks came to the same conclusion by looking at the pictures. This is not chest thumping on my part, it is my trying to comprehend how men considered some of the top people in this field, could not see the hoax and a beginner could. Since your side routinely labels EVERY track find a hoax (or a mis-ID), you reaching that conclusion is hardly surprising. And given that at least one of the Skeptics who was proclaiming it an "obvious hoax" WAS the hoaxer, you'll have to forgive me for giving the Greek Chorus of "Obvious Hoax" little credit for predictive correctness. (Part II in a later post) Edited October 17, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Part II (continuing response to JohnCartwright) Not well enough. In other words, you are saying their responses were untruthful? I hope you can proffer some evidence of that...you haven't so far. In fact no one has, invocations of the Sagan Fallacy notwithstanding. Different people will ask the same things unfortunately because they do not wade through the entire thread, Or they are not getting real answers. if someone gets tired of answering (typing) the same questions, it's simple to tell the person to go to (blank) post number and read. It's also easy to just go do that, and not keep repeating the question ad nauseum, esp on the part of certain posters who make a habit of this sort of nonsense. The answers were dodgy and not convincing. In otherwords, you are saying they were untruthful. The answers were dodgy and not convincing And here you do it again. The proof is there for everyone Then you won't mind posting it then...hey, if your side can keep asking for proof, we can too! ^ +1 Cotter Very nicely worded compilation of your personal history and thoughts about your interest in BF. I do think it would be helpful to start a thread discussing track validity and what to look for in trackways, and show some experiments in prepared ground with good images for all of us to educate ourselves. With all due respect, Sleuth...you have got to be kidding. The last thing we need is more information in the public realm for the Skeptics to use to play these BS games with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I agree with you that threads about track identification, track lighting, photography, casting, etc would be worthwhile. Did you have any intentions to start any? Possibly one on the track lighting you've been experimenting with? With all due respect, Sleuth...you have got to be kidding. The last thing we need is more information in the public realm for the Skeptics to use to play these BS games with. I do think that having a thread dedicated to tracks, trackways, and interpretation of evidence of real feet versus stompers is an excellent idea. Over on the JREF Tube had some excellent posts that graphically showed the types of stomper "signatures" that are giveaways for hoaxes. I do think that it is very difficult for a hoaxer to create a trackway that would avoid those signatures and be capable of showing "active" feet and toes. While a thread like this would certainly be a source for hoaxers and proponents alike, I think it would serve us all well to be more educated about trackways, how to interpret them, and how to document them. I don't think I'm the person to be the OP of such a thread, there are forum members that have far more experience with tracking that I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I don't agree with Skeptics never being wrong, that's the whole point of skepticism, to adjust your world view as new data arrives. On the other hand, those proponents that are not witnesses just baffle me. I can't understand the continued motivation to believe as the years fly by with nothing conclusive ever found Does one have to be a true believer, a skeptic or a witness to have a hypothesis based on evidence and test it? Is it only the skeptic that can change his mind pending analysis of specimens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Mulder, You are a good person and I admire your tenacity..But placing faith and belief in Bigfooters can sometimes get you burned. Keep your guard up.Why would I need proof that it was a hoax? Even you know that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 And given that at least one of the Skeptics who was proclaiming it an "obvious hoax" WAS the hoaxer, you'll have to forgive me for giving the Greek Chorus of "Obvious Hoax" little credit for predictive correctness. (Part II in a later post) You got proof of that Mulder, or are you just repeating rumors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What a second, I just saw this, ........... Mulder said: Since your side routinely labels EVERY track find a hoax (or a mis-ID), you reaching that conclusion is hardly surprising. My side? What the heck are you talking about? You think we are gangs in West Side Story or something? I am on no ones side. Unbelievable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I do think that having a thread dedicated to tracks, trackways, and interpretation of evidence of real feet versus stompers is an excellent idea. Over on the JREF Tube had some excellent posts that graphically showed the types of stomper "signatures" that are giveaways for hoaxes. I do think that it is very difficult for a hoaxer to create a trackway that would avoid those signatures and be capable of showing "active" feet and toes. While a thread like this would certainly be a source for hoaxers and proponents alike, I think it would serve us all well to be more educated about trackways, how to interpret them, and how to document them. I don't think I'm the person to be the OP of such a thread, there are forum members that have far more experience with tracking that I do. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. No need to make life any harder for researchers (or, conversely, easier for hoaxing Skeptics) than it already is, IMO. Mulder, You are a good person and I admire your tenacity..But placing faith and belief in Bigfooters can sometimes get you burned. Keep your guard up.Why would I need proof that it was a hoax? Even you know that now. That's a dodge, John. The question isn't whether it was a hoax, but whether or not the researchers fell for said hoax. Both Derek and DDA have said publicly that they had doubts from Day 1, but that they also saw enough in the trackway to warrant further study. You insist that they did not have doubts from Day 1, but the only thing you or any other of their accusers has been able to pony up to attempt to prove that is invoking the Sagan Fallacy. That's not proof of anything, and certainly not enough to overcome their public declarations as to what they were suspicious of and when. You got proof of that Mulder, or are you just repeating rumors? The ultimate proof has been posted, but in a form and manner which I cannot repeat here. At this point, we all know who it was and what that proof is, even if we can't name it in this particular forum. I refer any interested person w/Premium Membership to the appropriate thread in the Premium section. What a second, I just saw this, ........... Mulder said: Since your side routinely labels EVERY track find a hoax (or a mis-ID), you reaching that conclusion is hardly surprising. My side? What the heck are you talking about? You think we are gangs in West Side Story or something? I am on no ones side. Unbelievable... With all due respect, John. On this one you ARE on the Skeptic side, since you're "carrying water" for their baseless claims that Derek and DDA were taken in from Day 1 by Elbe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 That isn't proof Mulder, Just rumor and didn't Giganto debunk that in another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Mulder we just keep posting the same things. Unless they return, with a report or timeline this is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 ^Yes, it's pointless for you to keep insisting they were in fact fooled from Day 1 by Elbe when they both explicitly said otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Mulder, would you mind, you know, pointing out where they both "explicitly said otherwise" from day 1? I can't hold my breath much longer. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts