Guest Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 A human.can have an eight foot running stride. As for footprints nine inches deep in the snow, I can do that and I'm not bigfoot heavy.Running prints will also be deeper than walking prints due to the extra force applied. Anyone hoaxing footprints will have suitable footwear fashioned most likely from rubber for better traction in snow. Rubber is also flexible and can result in varying footprints that mimic real footprints. I think this could fit what is in the photo and description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) A human.can have an eight foot running stride. As for footprints nine inches deep in the snow, I can do that and I'm not bigfoot heavy.Running prints will also be deeper than walking prints due to the extra force applied. Anyone hoaxing footprints will have suitable footwear fashioned most likely from rubber for better traction in snow. Rubber is also flexible and can result in varying footprints that mimic real footprints. I think this could fit what is in the photo and description. Yah, but can you run in deep snow with mud stompers on and achieve a eight foot stride........in ALL terrain? The tracks I saw were in THREE TO FOUR FEET OF SNOW.......and came off of a steep bank onto a logging road. You have made a hypothesis.......I'd love to see you test it. I'm positive that you will fail, but it would be great if I'm proven wrong. Another problem I have with my experience is WHY? Why hoax tracks were it's almost a guarantee nobody will see them? Why not across a county road or snowmobile trail that the public uses. We were on my ranch, posted private property where no body goes even us in deep winter........the only reason we were up there was because Dad got a wild hair and decided to harvest a X mas tree that year way farther up the mountain. So even if you could do it? Why do it in a remote place? Edited January 10, 2013 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 In one of the bowl games there was a field goal attempt. The experienced referee standing directly under the goal post watched the kick and declared the kick good. 20,000 people in the stands and countless people on TV all saw what really happened, the ball passed in front of the goal post and the kick was not good. Even experienced and trained observers can make basic errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yah, but can you run in deep snow with mud stompers on and achieve a eight foot stride........in ALL terrain? The tracks I saw were in THREE TO FOUR FEET OF SNOW.......and came off of a steep bank onto a logging road. You have made a hypothesis.......I'd love to see you test it. I'm positive that you will fail, but it would be great if I'm proven wrong. Another problem I have with my experience is WHY? Why hoax tracks were it's almost a guarantee nobody will see them? Why not across a county road or snowmobile trail that the public uses. We were on my ranch, posted private property where no body goes even us in deep winter........the only reason we were up there was because Dad got a wild hair and decided to harvest a X mas tree that year way farther up the mountain. So even if you could do it? Why do it in a remote place? Remote locations are not necessarily as remote as people think. After all the witness went out there. Someone may have thought someone might go out there and decided to plant a trail. Perhaps your father set it up. perhaps a friend of your father did. Perhaps someone was just practicing in a remote and rugged area. I seriously doubt a real bigfoot is going to have an unvarying stride over diverse terrain. All animals change their gait as the surface changes. I would be suspicious if it was otherwise even as I wouldn't know how it could have been hoaxed. I make it a point to remember that I am not the smartest person around. Just because I can't figure something out doean't mean no one can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Pam, I've talked with both of them bout it, and I even talked with their producer when they were planning to film my group the Oly Project for their Washington show. Seems like they all agree, and they were planning on taking that approach for our episode, that is until Moneymaker found out I'd be involved. I'll just say he wasn't to happy about the Oly project being involved and it was killed quick. I think the problem is science doesn't translate to ratings. DR Oh, well that's sucky. I just love watching bigfoot shows. I grew up watching science stuff on tv and documentaries are a whole different thing now. There used to be more science involved or else it was just fiction. Now it's all about ratings. But, without those ratings I wouldn't have a bigfoot show to watch, now would i? Thanks for answering me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Of course, keep in mind that lay person observations are classed as "unreliable eyewitness anecdotes" and observations by "approved" persons (ie "scientists") are "field data" So true. And if you are a scientist whose area of study is unapproved of it falls under "unreliable eyewitness anecdotes". In short, only approved of persons have the capability of correct observation. Unapproved witnesses need to be told of what they saw or have their siting categorized as a personal interpretation unique to the way their contaminated brain processes and recollects data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 11, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) ^^^^ WORD! (nothing but gamesmanship on the doubters part usually and semantic declination on the true north end of things) Edited January 11, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 So true. And if you are a scientist whose area of study is unapproved of it falls under "unreliable eyewitness anecdotes". In short, only approved of persons have the capability of correct observation. Unapproved witnesses need to be told of what they saw or have their siting categorized as a personal interpretation unique to the way their contaminated brain processes and recollects data. Here we go again. Let me spell this out for you. When a scientist goes to study a phenomenon they usually come prepared with things like equipment, a vantage point, etc and as such their observations are more planned and organized . That usually doesn't happen with a layperson who are often taken off guard. And yes, in terms of observating natural phenomenon a more trained individual is likely to make an accurate observation then an untrained one. I guess in your populist mind, being a field biologist is so easy anybody can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Since sightings can't be verified, they are all useless at this point. The only way to put spme validity behind the sightings is to look for physical evidence in the areas that seem to receive more than just one report. It's still circumstantial with prints, but find a drop of blood or hair that doesn't test out as a known animal and you might be on to something. I have a question for Derek, since you get out frequently why is hair not found more often? You would think if there was suspected regular traffic that the creature would be dropping at least a hundred hairs per day. Do you find hair and just not talk about it? If so, do you discount it since you aren't sure what dropped the hair? Edited January 12, 2013 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts