What I Notice About Bf Footprint Casts

[Guest Primate]

^^^^ sometimes..

[Guest DWA]

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

No. I'm just responding like somebody who has yet to see anyone challenged on what Meldrum thinks, challenge Meldrum.

While we're on religion.

It's always look! over there! soil mechanics! ignore the man behind the curtain!

Instead of what we need, which is:

These alleged bigfoot tracks are not bigfoot tracks. They are [x] ...AND HERE'S THE PROOF [caps italics and bolding added for comprehension]

Religious zealots tend not to pay attention. Show me you are.

And don't come back at me with bigfoot isn't proven yet. That's what Meldrum's working on. Your religion is working on, precisely, what?

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I remember there was a bigfoot show some years ago, that while addressing the issue of footprint casts, interviewed various academics for their opinions, including Dr. Meldrum if I remember correctly. One of these individuals, whose name is on the tip of my tongue, demonstrated how a succession of casts could be made from a human foot, with each subsequently larger than the previous. This apparently was his answer for the appearance of dermal ridges and other legitimate characteristics found within tracks supposedly belonging to sasquatch, although since I do not remember the episode all that well he could have simply been presenting a possible explanation, without actually believing this to be the prime method used by hoaxers.

Either way, it is quite obvious that this method requires much more effort than I would imagine the majority of hoaxers would put into the scam. There are devoted hoaxers, but I think that many who hoax do not do so more than one or two times. This is because there is no point in it. I can understand doing it for kicks or whatever, and if this is the case, the easiest method would be to make some wooden feet and go traipsing through an area that is known to be trafficked by humans. Considering that some of the track finds not only contain dermal ridges and other related characteristics, but were found off the beaten path, leaves me to believe there are only two likely possibilities...One, that the person who discovered the tracks perpetrated the hoax, or they were left by a bigfoot.

And if someone was attempting to play a prank on someone they knew, they would not put in this much detail unless the prankee was quite familiar with sasquatch tracks, and in this position the person playing the prank would likely stop the person from going public with the find by telling them that indeed they had been pranked. What fun is a prank if you keep it to yourself in this situation? Anyway, my point is that going through the trouble of creating dermal ridges in a hoaxing device, and then monotonously imprinting tracks in a believable pattern and with a decent stride length, which is another hassle, is beyond the length that the majority of hoaxers will go to for their scam, at least in my opinion.

So the discovery of dermal ridges, scarring, etc. in tracks from all over the country is indicative that at least most of them are legitimate. This is because despite the fact a handful of people may be willing to put in the effort to create these detailed prints, not enough people would have done this for all of the finds to be fake. There are many other problems for the hoaxer as well, besides all those that I mentioned, including creating a scenario and tracks that appear authentic enough to fool a seasoned researcher. For example, if one were to find a trackway whose individual prints contained dermal ridges or some other indicator of an authentic footprint, and they were well above human range, but they were only slightly depressed into relatively soft soil, a seasoned researcher would immediately pick up on the fact that such a large creature could not have left these tracks...Or some other inconsistency that the hoaxer would have to watch out for.

It is not impossible, but I will never be sold on the idea that there are that many sophisticated and knowledgeable hoaxers scattered throughout the country. And if there are, they should find a job or something, because obviously they have too much free time. And this is what I was talking about in another thread a few days ago...Some non-believers will accept absolutely ANY alternative, no matter how ridiculous or improbable, as long as it "possible." Many things are possible, but that is why we have statistics and probability. It is possible that so many sophisticated hoaxers are plying their dirty trade around the US, but it is highly unprobable. Believing the improbable just because it opposes belief in sasquatch having left the evidence is when a "skeptic" morphs into being a biased non-believer...At least that is how I see it.

[Drew]

Anyone interested in this subject should check out this podcast, interviewing Jimmy Chilcutt.

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

[Guest DWA]

JiggyPotamus: plussed. Right on the money.

Bigfoot skeptics continually use their incredulity to talk past the evidence. Incredulity has its place - but only in the context of evaluating evidence. To say, "sasquatch is impossible so these tracks are fake" is absolutely verboten, can't be done, not scientific, total babble.

But this can be done: "this is so very unlikely in the real world that it can be safely discounted."

See how that works? Meldrum is evaluating evidence and betting accordingly, just about the most fundamental task of the scientist.

Bigfoot skeptics are pronouncing search over...without leaving their armchairs.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA

[Squatchy McSquatch]

How many verified, quantifiable, tagged and bagged bigfoot have come as a result of 50 years of track casts?

Zero. Not a single one.

See how that works?

[Guest Primate]

Appearantly it works just fine for someone who thinks casting a trackway and tracking the maker of the tracks to be the same thing...

[Guest DWA]

How many verified, quantifiable, tagged and bagged bigfoot have come as a result of 50 years of track casts?

Zero. Not a single one.

See how that works?

Yeah it works comme ci: "no proof" is science's weakest sauce and this will never change.

Why do you bigfoot skeptics love digging your pit so much deeper with everything you say? You may not have been about long enough to know this; but the state of knowledge changes; today's sages are tomorrow's fools not like you should puff your chest out or nuthin; and look, it's happening again.

Act like you are paying attention. Fake it.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Um, no

I've been around long enough to know that you have a frightenly mistaken view of how science works and what proof is.

Science doesn't work for bigfootry and science doesn't work for you.

Science performs its work for the people who have solid evidence.

Casts are not considered solid evidence, because they can be faked by anyone who purchases a bucket of plaster of paris.

DWA, on the other hand stated just the other day in a thread: "The sightings and footprints are your proof." This is fundamentally incorrect.

Try harder. You'll get that pasta to stick to the wall one day.

[Arrowhead]

I can see how many would not consider a track as proof, but they are valuable just the same. When there is sufficient scientific evidence to "prove" the existence of BF that will open up a whole new world of research. The tracks that have been recovered over the years will become even more valuable in that we'll have samples from all over the globe in different sizes and shapes.

Now that the London trackway has aired on Finding Bigfoot, I think there is a lot more to come from that discovery. I believe Cliff mentioned at some point online that it had to be kept somewhat under wraps until it aired.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Arrowhead

[Guest DWA]

Um, no

I've been around long enough to know that you have a frightenly mistaken view of how science works and what proof is.

Science doesn't work for bigfootry and science doesn't work for you.

Science performs its work for the people who have solid evidence.

Casts are not considered solid evidence, because they can be faked by anyone who purchases a bucket of plaster of paris.

DWA, on the other hand stated just the other day in a thread: "The sightings and footprints are your proof." This is fundamentally incorrect.

Try harder. You'll get that pasta to stick to the

Man they just give me the ammo. Why do they insist on doing that? No, I was right. If this animal is real it is being detected. "Detected" and "proven" are two different things. If you read up you would know that at least one scientist has made the case that sasquatch has been discovered already, so hold up there. (Watch him come back with a stirring rebuttal, despite neither knowing the scientist nor reading the book.) I don't even know what you mean by solid evidence unless you mean proof, and who ever said we have that? No one can sensibly argue that half the found trackways would have been easy to fake, and many of them strain credulity to assume manufacture. In other words: if you don't think the trackways are powerful evidence you are simply uninformed. (Surprise there.)

I mean, come on, read a book. Something. Make me think it's a conversation. It is for sure not an argument.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, you couldn't be wronger on one thing. Science does its work when there is evidence. Unfortunately, scientists frequently don't. Might want to work on understanding that little distinction.

Edited March 19, 2013 by DWA

[Squatchy McSquatch]

On March 18, 2013,

In page 88 of the Operation Persistance Thread post # 1746 DWA posted:

Actually, probably not. But that is given a host of variables that do not apply in this case.

The person would likely be sought: by loved ones; creditors; the law; park rangers; etc. They'd have a description to go on of the subject. They'd likely have DNA samples.

Then you are talking about an ape that when you say you saw one, well, no you didn't.

It is impossible for an animal like sasquatch to go undetected on this continent, Impossible.

The sightings and footprints are your proof.

Your words, not mine. Not Meldrum's, not Bindernagel's. Both of whom I have read.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Guest DWA]

Well, if you have read Meldrum and Bindernagel, you sure don't show it. Try again. My words? Cool words, but then, I am cool. Thousands of people are your proof that nothing that big can go undetected for long. See? It hasn't. Folks are still detecting it. Everyday Joes. Some forest ninja. The only folks he seems to be evading are people that don't see anything they are uncomfortable with.

[roguefooter]

Science performs its work for the people who hold the purse strings have solid evidence.

Yep.

Edited March 21, 2013 by roguefooter