norseman Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 I don't like tracks that are melted, close to roads or signs of motorized traffic or on hard packed snow. Here is a video of Ray (who lived closed to me in Arden, Wa) making a trackway on hard spring snow: Start it at around 4:50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 And you feel the need to come back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back ...to say that. Wow. not sure what else, but your persistence is impressive. Might apply that to the evidence. My people over you, dude. Your people over mine, dude? Fine. Your people are as beautifully unproven as you are. Got monkey? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Regardless of what or how the tracks are made. Dont forget that the tracks are often distorted by freeze, thaw and getting snowed on again. This would be the reason the debris would be covered up. Just don't see how one moves thru snow not scattering debris unless its your intent or the subject is jumping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 22, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) You may not see it in this one but a host of BF prints observed in snow in Canada & Alaska have been described as postholed, and they are just that ...... minimal or no footdrag...... just foot plant, extraction reinsertion wash rinse and repeat (most of the time inline gait noted as well with no to minimal straddle). The way I have read some of these descriptions is that toes have been described too The prints attached above seem to have two lines moving in opposite directions with oversteps in them. like whoever made them was confused, LOL. Edited June 22, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Nope one direction turned around and took the pic of the trail left by the "monster" that crossed in front of me as I was walking down the trail. Confused yeah your hilarious....and apparently pretty poor at track interpetation I'm sure you know Bi but I made those tracks. Edited June 22, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 22, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Nice photography, better shadows! Yep, I knew. Still the postholing defies some ready explanations in the northern trackways. Re: poor track interp. I think I've done fine over the years on the forum with my tracking exposes, and in my personal pursuits of what makes them (but then you already knew that didn't you? . ) Edited June 22, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Not really its a complete fail from the get go....no snow debris on a "fresh" track it's not a biped. Snowed over it could be any # of animals. Well your latest analysis was a complete failure. As always.....lets not be this guy! It's ok to say I don't know Edited June 22, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 In powdery snow your not going to see any debris. The snow won't stuck together enough to make a snow ball. The west has snow conditions like this alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 No doubt we don't get a lot of fluffy powder on the east coast but one would think that would be dispersed even easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 No doubt we don't get a lot of fluffy powder on the east coast but one would think that would be dispersed even easier. Absolutely. But it's not going to show much sign of that disbursement. Think of wet sand vs. dry sand...........would you even be able to tell there was disbursement in the dry sand? What ever individual snow crystals that flew forward in the step are just going to be reabsorbed into the powdery snow. And I digress.........what we are talking about here has nothing to do with a bipedal vs. quadraped track way. Nor for that matter real vs. a hoax. If something is stepping forward no matter what it is, it's going disburse a certain amount of material forward as the foot moves up and forward.........Deer, Bear, Elk, Humans and Humans with pine boards attached to their feet...........nothing is going to change that fact. But various climatic factors can effect how the track appears once made. Also the Human or a bipedal Ape could change their gait to pick their foot straight up and out of the hole they created....within reason. If the snow is too high to lift the foot and set it again without dragging it for instance. But if the creature is taller? The less chance of disbursement because the taller the leg, the less forward motion you have with each step. In other words the shorter you are, the more you need to drag your feet through the snow because your fulcrum point in your pelvis is closer to the horizontal plane. ^----- vs. /\ ------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) One would expect the samething as every other creature on the earth that moves thur deep snow a path.... Edited June 22, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 but you've painted yourself into a corner............ You don't like the tracks because they do not exhibit characteristics that you feel are "natural"...........fine. WHAT MADE THEM????? BTW? My and my fathers tracks looked like your Bison there. What we were tracking was picking it's feet up cleanly out of the snow and setting them down again. I would guess who ever it was we were tracking was a mighty tall fellow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) It's just my opinion Norse I'm in no mood to play word games with you...feel free to pound your own pile of sand or snow! I don't know....see how easy that was...but that doesn't mean it was Bigfoot Edited June 22, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 It's just my opinion Norse I'm in no mood to play word games with you...feel free to pound your own pile of sand or snow! I don't know....see how easy that was...but that doesn't mean it was Bigfoot And it doesn't mean it wasn't either........... It's not about word games bud. And no you cannot throw up "I don't know" as a shield either......... Drew says that if Sasquatch snow tracks were real then we would find pieces of snow past the toes of each track. But a human wearing pine boards on his feet would exhibit the exact same characteristics....... So at this moment in time, the proponents of this hypothesis have some explaining to do..........WHY, does the proposed hoaxed track exhibit different characteristics? My hypothesis is that a very tall subject made those tracks and that excludes them to a point from having the same characteristics as a shorter human, and are not a hoax. I call it the "Post hole effect". And as already discussed, snow conditions play a role as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Yes I can...that's exactly how it works Norse! That's how science and true skeptical minds work. I don't know....my mind is not made up, it can be changed but to conclude that because you or anyone else doesn't know what made tracks or a sound in the woods or how PGF was done therefore it must be Bigfoot ..to me is the epitome of arrogance and closed mindedness. My opinion is based on my experience and my knowledge and what things are "most likely"... could I be wrong sure...but this whole routine of elimination of all knows therefore it must be Bigfoot is absurd logic and a complete failure of critical thinking. Edited June 22, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts