wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Actually it was Mulder that was making it about sides, and I commented on that. Do I admit attacking Mulder for it? I definitely commented on it, if you view that as an attack I won't try to change your mind, but I will not engage in the tired old "Skeptics" vs. "Believers" game because in truth I wouldn't know or care which side to be on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Actually it was Mulder that was making it about sides, and I commented on that. Do I admit attacking Mulder for it? I definitely commented on it, if you view that as an attack I won't try to change your mind, but I will not engage in the tired old "Skeptics" vs. "Believers" game because in truth I wouldn't know or care which side to be on. Well, then, I retract my statement on your honor, and apologize to Mulder for my own misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That's ok, honor or dishonor really doesn't have anything to do with it, as much as some people would like to make it that way. "Attack the argument, not the arguer"- ok, so take out the personal element and look at the evidence. Forget about sides, accusations of accusations of lying, etc. and what do we have here? We have photos comparing the wooden feet to the tracks. They look the same. We have a statement by Green that he saw dynamic foot movement. I'm sure if we looked deep enough in Meldrum's book, we'd even see that Meldrum is convinced the tracks are real based on the numerous photos of the event and casts showing the dynamic foot movement. On the old forum, numerous photos were posted that were said to show dynamic foot movement, I disagreed but regardless those photos aren't up now. So take this conversation to the next level. Find these images that show the dynamic foot movement. Post them. Or this thread could just go the usual route with people squabbling among themselves over which side they are on, who believes who or what and who accuses the other, and just general pettiness and boredom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That depends on the substrate and how it is distributed. Do you know both those variables? Or better yet, even one? We aren't talking about something ridiculously easy to compress like snow, or impossible like rock...everything else I know of follows holds true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We aren't talking about something ridiculously easy to compress like snow, or impossible like rock...everything else I know of follows holds true. Mud, dry mud, loose dry clay, hard packed clay, dust, and loose soil are all going to show variations in compression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 We aren't talking about something ridiculously easy to compress like snow, or impossible like rock...everything else I know of follows holds true. Really? You know that how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Mud, dry mud, loose dry clay, hard packed clay, dust, and loose soil are all going to show variations in compression. Variations between substrates, but still consistent with the idea of concentration of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You don't know the variables. How soft was the soil when the stomper was impacted? How soft was the soil when a foot imprinted near it? How deep is the soft soil beside the hard packed road? Simple fact is you can't take a generality (wider foot=shallower for same weight) when you don't know the soil conditions at each time. This of course doesn't even take in to account the various techniques that could be used for impacting the fake foot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Really? You know that how? Basic science. Yes, tracks will tend to vary their depth based on the condition of the substrate, whatever it may be (dirt compresses more than firm clay, clay more than rock, etc), but the point is, that within a single substrate, the higher the surface area that supports a weight, the less depth the impression will have. Therefore if you have a surface area much larger than a human foot that leaves tracks of the same or deeper depth in the substrate than the human foot, it must be that the creature leaving the object track MUST way more than the human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You don't know the variables. How soft was the soil when the stomper was impacted? How soft was the soil when a foot imprinted near it? How deep is the soft soil beside the hard packed road? Simple fact is you can't take a generality (wider foot=shallower for same weight) when you don't know the soil conditions at each time. The tracks shown were made in the same type of substrate under the same conditions. This of course doesn't even take in to account the various techniques that could be used for impacting the fake foot. Now we have more than one method being employed to make tracks at the same time and track to track in one trackway? This is typical psuedo-argumentation: just keep coming up with ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis, each more elaborate than the last as the previous ones get rebutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Now we have more than one method being employed to make tracks at the same time and track to track in one trackway? How can you claim to know the method used for producing the fake tracks? You assume the tracks were produced by weight. What if they were produced via a striking method or hard impact. I was able to make deep impressions with a rigid fake foot by simply smashing the foot into a soft substrate during some of my casting experiments. The fact is you can't rule such a technique out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted February 20, 2011 Admin Share Posted February 20, 2011 Reading this thread leads me to believe that I could lay a freshly killed Bigfoot on a table and some would still not believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I would definitely then believe in tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Reading this thread leads me to believe that I could lay a freshly killed Bigfoot on a table and some would still not believe it. Genetically engineered, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Reading this thread leads me to believe that I could lay a freshly killed Bigfoot on a table and some would still not believe it. Were the table's legs struck into the carpet or pressed? It seems to be of vital concern. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts