ohiobill Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Should a serious field researcher be able to differentiate the prints of their study subject from poorly hoaxed prints? Is it possible that some of the problems in this field stem from researchers not being knowledgeable enough rather than deliberate hoaxing? I'm not defending either one but the damage is real either way.
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Until you have a real foot of a bigfoot to compare with, I think it is unrealistic to expect the average person to be able to distinguish between the two whether they are serious or not. Prints aren't often found even by serious investigators, and you are correct, the damage is done either way.
ohiobill Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 There are relatively few scientists looking into bigfoot seriously & even less writing papers about the subject. I have read what's available by Dr. Meldrum & Dr. Fahrenbach on the subject - shouldn't we expect "researchers" to have done the same? I'm not sure how difficult it is for anyone to compare foot length, width, stride length, or step length to published data available for free on the internet? How hard is it to differentiate between a purported MTB vs a typical human arch? Would you define a researcher as someone who can't differentiate the prints of their study from a poor hoax or even a different species? Would you expect a researcher to be able to differentiate elk prints from those of mule deer? Should a researcher be able to differentiate black bear from grizzly?
Recommended Posts