What I Notice About Bf Footprint Casts

[MNskeptic]

First, most casts seem to show a smooth print, free of major scarring or other deep wounds that have healed. If this animal makes its living chasing game in the woods and rough terrain at night, then they would surely step on something eventually that would create a wound that would scar and be apparent in a casting. At least that is what I think the soles of my feet would look like if I was living an active life in the outdoors for decades in bare feet.

Second, when comparing human, ape, and BF casts, the BF has a noticeable absence of any crease lines. That seems odd to me. I'm not talking dermal ridges, but the long creases that tend to form in areas of the skin that tend to fold with the mechanical action of the foot.

So, why are BF feet so seemingly baby smooth?

MNSkeptic

[Guest DWA]

Ask Jeff Meldrum.

[Guest]

I personally think the real prints are really strong evidence of Bigfoot.

Here are few examples of the dermal ridges on the prints:

[Guest LarryP]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf

[Guest DWA]

^^^Game, set, match.

[Guest fzwylde]

Is it really not possible for the prints to be fakes?

[Guest DWA]

Not the issue. Just that anyone who says they are has that paper to contend with. This is Meldrum's area of expertise. One thing many of us note about bigfoot skeptics is that they resolutely evade the scientists who disagree with them.

[Guest]

So much depends on the substrate which the tracks are left in.

I suggest that the OP do some Google searching, or even looking around in the forums here. Some very good tracks showing the signs he's looking for.

Not the issue. Just that anyone who says they are has that paper to contend with. This is Meldrum's area of expertise. One thing many of us note about bigfoot skeptics is that they resolutely evade the scientists who disagree with them.

Oh they do more than "evade" them. They mock them. They call them "believers". They utterly dismiss them as legitimate scientists.

Which is a common practice when the Science Orthodoxy deals with "heretics".

[Guest]

YoungBigfooter:

I just want to make sure you understand something. I am re-posting one of the photos you posted above. I want to make sure you understand, this photo is NOT a bigfoot track.

This was a photo taken of a finished cast - of my own foot - during casting experiments I did back in 2006 (round there).. Just want to make sure you know that is not a bigfoot track cast - but a cast of my own foot and dermal ridges.

Thanks.

Edited to add: I think there is another cast photo above - that was done during these experiments as well - but I am not certain.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

First, most casts seem to show a smooth print, free of major scarring or other deep wounds that have healed. If this animal makes its living chasing game in the woods and rough terrain at night, then they would surely step on something eventually that would create a wound that would scar and be apparent in a casting. At least that is what I think the soles of my feet would look like if I was living an active life in the outdoors for decades in bare feet.

Second, when comparing human, ape, and BF casts, the BF has a noticeable absence of any crease lines. That seems odd to me. I'm not talking dermal ridges, but the long creases that tend to form in areas of the skin that tend to fold with the mechanical action of the foot.

So, why are BF feet so seemingly baby smooth?

MNSkeptic

MNS,

What you're referring to are flexion creases. Flexion creases are the product of flexion. If you go out and find some fine clay soil that hasn't been fully compressed to ZAV (an example would be fine, dry dust on a logging road or heavily trafficed dirt road) and you stick your foot in it and and press down hard enough to leave an impression, but not hard enough to fully compress the soft tissue of your foot, you'll see some flexion creases. If you walk over that same substrate under normal locomotion, you won't see any flexion creases because of the following:

1- Under normal locomotion, your foot is fully flexing and you're fully compressing the soft tissue of your foot.

2- A 'footprint' is the resultant deformation of the totality of the interaction of the 'foot' that manifested the impression. That holds true whether the impression was made by a real or fake foot. It's the resultant of the sum of all the applicable force vectors transferred to the substrate: the forces applied from heebstrike to toe off, and the accompanying compression of soft tissue (if the impression is made by a real foot) along the entire length and perimeter of the impression. It isn't a surface copy of a foot, kerely a hole in dirt.

I think the footprint evidence in regards to bigfoot is extremely poor, comically so. There's lots of legit reasons to be extremely skeptical of the bevy of supposedly authentic bigfoot tracks. The lack of visible flexion creases IMO within the impreesions attributed to bigfoot is not one of them.

I agree on your second point: that the feet of bigfoot should be heavily fissured, calloused and show numerous attributes of being so, under the right conditions. I can't say I've ever seen a set of ' supposedly authentic' bigfoot tracks that display those atrributes.

[Guest]

Not the issue. Just that anyone who says they are has that paper to contend with. This is Meldrum's area of expertise. One thing many of us note about bigfoot skeptics is that they resolutely evade the scientists who disagree with them.

That paper isn't hard to contend with. It's written by an individual who might be a classically trained paleoanthropologist, but does a total disconnect that were not talking about the actual foot of an unknown primate. But what amounts to holes in dirt.

People like yourself literally expertise Meldrum in all subjects under the sun, when in reality he hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about in regards to those subjects. He certainly is entitled to his opinion in regards to bigfoot tracks, but that's all it is: his opinion. Meldrum is obviously an educated individual, but that does not mean that his opinion is an 'educated opinion' on all things under the sun.

I've read enough of what he's written and he has a rudimentary at best grasp of soil mechanics. And as far as tracking, go back and look at the Sierra Sasquatch episode of Monsterquest and his little displacement experiment that he thinks is going to fool Moreira. That experiment wouldn't have fooled one of Fernando's intermediate level students with a mere few hundred hours of actual dirt time. If it looks to you like Fernando is looking at Meldrum like he's clueless about holes in dirt while Meldrum is waxing poetic about how how impressed with Moreira's visual tracking prowess, it's because he is looking at Meldrum with that exact thought.

If you doubt that, please do your own due dilligence and ask Fernando yourself if he thinks Dr. Meldrum has any legit expertise regarding anything to do with holes in dirt.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Um, no, you're wrong, but you have the right to be. Sorry, the "if he deals in bigfoot he's a true believer" ship sailed long ago.

If you think there is no evidence short of proof, we just nailed your problem.

Oh, and I just can't help but note: yet another person who couches his opinion of a scientist in ad hominem rather than, you know, dealing with the paper.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Oh, and um, it's obvious what Fernando thinks, and that he'd doubt sasquatch if one carried him five miles in his sleeping bag.

Please, some intellectual rigor here. What is making those footprints? Soil mechanics. This is so typical bigfoot-skeptic it is Hold. My. Sides. Get confronted with feet and talk about soil mechanics, oh, OK.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Guest MoMoMafia]

Oh, and um, it's obvious what Fernando thinks, and that he'd doubt sasquatch if one carried him five miles in his sleeping bag.

Please, some intellectual rigor here. What is making those footprints? Soil mechanics. This is so typical bigfoot-skeptic it is Hold. My. Sides. Get confronted with feet and talk about soil mechanics, oh, OK.

A little over the top with your reactions aren't you? You're responding like a zealot who just had their religion questioned.

[Drew]

I think it has been clearly shown that Bigfoot dermal ridges are likely the result of casting artifacts.