Bauman Story

[Guest Llawgoch]

That just comes down to the same thing.  People are generally only going to hoax or misidentify things as Bigfoot in places where they believe Bigfoots are likely to be.

 

You can never draw an inference as to the reliability of sightings from the fact that those sightings adhere to the popularly accepted norms about a subject.  

[Guest]

You can never draw an inference as to the reliability of sightings from the fact that those sightings adhere to the popularly accepted norms about a subject.  

 

Oh I getchya, if it's "normal" it is an obvious "fit in with the crowd" hoax, if it does something "different", like smacks a rabbit with a tree bough then it's "too ridiculous" thus also a hoax.

 

 

Go to the window, tell me how many wheels on the first car you see, 4? WRONG! Because it's too well known that cars most commonly have 4 wheels, so you must have just made up a car sighting to fit with the social norm.

[Guest]

It was a giant oversight for him, he measures one track, gives us the measurements, describes the non bear characteristics of the track and then leaves us with a feeble conclusion that it was a bear.

As I said earlier the account is vague and lacks any real value one way or another. but i reject your mammoth hypothesis as ludicrous though, it's ridiculous really......

If you wish to mystify the Thompson track story in order to see an ape behind it, be my guest. What you cannot do in above-board and honest fashion is pretend that Thompson did not believe it was a bear track or pretend that they were not discussing the possibility that a wooly mammoth may have left the tracks. You cannot be above board and pretend that the mammoth enters in the Thompson account only as my "ludicrous" and "ridiculous" "hypothesis." I gave you primary and secondary sources and you have chosen to ignore them. I suggest you consult an authority on Thompson and ask him/her about mammoths and apes in the Thompson narratives.

You cannot have it both ways.....either there is consistency in reports or there is not. You take exception to wood knocking as a modern phenom but then turn around and compare two age gapped accounts because of their similarities? Which is it?

Sorry, some reports are consistent while others are not. I never argued otherwise. Is it not your proposition, though, that any vague hairy man, gorilla, giant man, ape-man, giant ape, cave man, giant Indian, mountain devil, five-toed, four-toed, flathead, conehead, little eared, big eared, hairy thingofajig story portrays the Great American Ape, if you squint just right?

[norseman]

Got it Jerry......the Thompson story is a man bear mammoth.

And john green invented ape men in North America.

I think that your delusional, and your welcome to it. Later.

[Guest]

Got it Jerry......the Thompson story is a man bear mammoth.

And john green invented ape men in North America.

I think that your delusional, and your welcome to it. Later.

I see you're back to misrepresenting my views.

To be frank, while some of your posts were interesting and had merit, most of your posts were utterly

clueless. So clueless that I thought maybe you were putting me on.

I have some more posts to lay out here. I would appreciate it if you offer any responses that you up your game considerably, if you can. Those uncomprehending/incomprehensible posts of yours are a waste of time.

[Guest DWA]

Oh I getchya, if it's "normal" it is an obvious "fit in with the crowd" hoax, if it does something "different", like smacks a rabbit with a tree bough then it's "too ridiculous" thus also a hoax.

 

 

Go to the window, tell me how many wheels on the first car you see, 4? WRONG! Because it's too well known that cars most commonly have 4 wheels, so you must have just made up a car sighting to fit with the social norm.

Really.  Twist it ever' which way you can to come up with your cockamamie theory there, 'skeptics.'

 

The accounts have created the 'popularly accepted norm' through their volume and consistency.

 

Occam wins again.

[norseman]

I see you're back to misrepresenting my views.

To be frank, while some of your posts were interesting and had merit, most of your posts were utterly

clueless. So clueless that I thought maybe you were putting me on.

I have some more posts to lay out here. I would appreciate it if you offer any responses that you up your game considerably, if you can. Those uncomprehending/incomprehensible posts of yours are a waste of time.

 

Not really, while you do a nice job of beating around the bush..........that is what your saying.

 

And all of your posts are circular and hypocritical and revisionist, with the hope that if you repeat it enough times it will become fact.

 

Fact: Indian tribes in north America believed in hairy giant wild men. I.e. Skookum, Sesquac, Gilyuk, Bukwas, etc.....

 

Not Fact: The old chief account describes a Mammoth as science would understand it. So you throw all Indian tales about wild men out the window? But old chief's horrible description of an animal that is large and sleeps upright? Get's a total pass in your eyes. We have no idea WHAT animal old chief is describing........

 

But yet this is the undefined animal that you would like us to believe that causes chaos in Thompson's group.

 

Fact: Elephant tracks and Bear tracks look nothing a like. You claim that Indians would not know what a Mammoth track looked like..........so why did they argue so heavily in favor of a "obvious" Bear track being something they didn't know how to track? Do you see how ridiculous your assertion is here?

 

Not fact: It was absolutely without a doubt a Bear track. Too many loose ends with the account and track measurements and description that lack a logical conclusion.

 

Jerry? If my posts are a waste of time? Don't read them.

[Guest]

Not really, while you do a nice job of beating around the bush..........that is what your saying.

 

And all of your posts are circular and hypocritical and revisionist, with the hope that if you repeat it enough times it will become fact.

 

Fact: Indian tribes in north America believed in hairy giant wild men. I.e. Skookum, Sesquac, Gilyuk, Bukwas, etc.....

 

Not Fact: The old chief account describes a Mammoth as science would understand it. So you throw all Indian tales about wild men out the window? But old chief's horrible description of an animal that is large and sleeps upright? Get's a total pass in your eyes. We have no idea WHAT animal old chief is describing........

 

But yet this is the undefined animal that you would like us to believe that causes chaos in Thompson's group.

 

Fact: Elephant tracks and Bear tracks look nothing a like. You claim that Indians would not know what a Mammoth track looked like..........so why did they argue so heavily in favor of a "obvious" Bear track being something they didn't know how to track? Do you see how ridiculous your assertion is here?

 

Not fact: It was absolutely without a doubt a Bear track. Too many loose ends with the account and track measurements and description that lack a logical conclusion.

 

Jerry? If my posts are a waste of time? Don't read them.

As I said Norseman ---- clueless.

[norseman]

I cannot help the fact that I approach it from a realistic and logical point of view Jerry.........if that's clueless to you then your lost.

 

Your back story that you have spun makes even less sense than Bigfootdom's interpretation of the event. Would you like to put it to a vote?

[Guest]

yup, hold up a mirror jw.

[Guest]

I have always wondered about the Thompson story.....and I am not here to add fuel to the fire, but I did come across something a long time ago that made me wonder......

 

http://www.masonwinfield.com/Journal/tabid/58/EntryId/131/MASTODON-RIDER.aspx

 

I actually met this writer and he seems very credible, and he does know his stuff....

 

It could have been a big guy, but it might have been a mastondon also....simple matter is, which one of us was there to verify?

[norseman]

I disagree that it could have been a mammoth...........and Jerry would agree on that point. How we come to those conclusions though is on opposite ends of the spectrum. Jerry would have you believe that the Indians in the area all believed in a Mammoth, Mammoth meaning science's understanding and not old chief's very vague account of a giant animal that slept standing up. And that Thompson was well aware of Mammoth fossils as well...... But concerning the track way, Thompson held that it was a Bear and the Indians thought it was a Mammoth..........according to Jerry of course.

 

As a tracker myself, I have some very large problems with this story and more specifically Thompson's own description of the track way.

 

1) They found the track in winter.........Bears hibernate in winter.

2) Interior Grizzly bears do not have a 14" hind foot. They do not have easy access to the amount of protein as Coastal bears do. In fact this split in size is so pronounced they are categorized as two distinct Bears by the Boone and Crockett club.

3) Thompson never describes a much shorter fore foot print in the track way, the fore foot on a Griz has much more pronounced claws for digging as well. Should have been an easy VERY easy indicator if the hind track did indeed belong to a Bear.

4) The track only exhibited four toes. This is surprising because Bear toes are relatively the same size when compared to a Human foot, with the distinct progression of the Big toe being biggest and progressively smaller out to the fifth digit. Which makes it harder to make out individual toes on a human like track than a Bear track. No doubt in my mind there were 5 toes in that track, because if there were not? We are dealing with the fore foot track of some immense creature belonging to the weasel family.

5) No claws, Bear tracks especially Grizzly bear tracks leave claw marks behind. We found a track way about 100 yards behind camp last year. Both hind and fore foot left claw marks. Thompson himself described them as "nails" in one part of the narrative........strange.

6) Large ball of the foot that sunk down further in than the toes, three inches further. Grizzly walk pigeon toed with the foot more or less landing square. The only thing that would make a heel strike in it's track way is something bipedal. And a Bear lacks any sort of ball on the hind foot at all, very wedge shaped hind foot.

 

 

This is not proponent revisionism.........this is exactly like recreating Noah's Ark per the information given to us from the OT. X amount of cubits long, wide and tall, so forth and so on.

 

The track described is not a Grizzly bear track, no matter how any one wants to try to pound the square peg into a round hole. So we can talk about Mammoths and Indian legends and Thompson's knowledge or lack there of......... 

 

The bottom line? Is that this is a Cinderella story with a glass slipper.

 

If you take a Grizzly bear track? Take away the claws, make it longer add a ball to the foot and give it a heel strike? What do you got?

[Guest Llawgoch]

Oh I getchya, if it's "normal" it is an obvious "fit in with the crowd" hoax, if it does something "different", like smacks a rabbit with a tree bough then it's "too ridiculous" thus also a hoax.

 

 

Go to the window, tell me how many wheels on the first car you see, 4? WRONG! Because it's too well known that cars most commonly have 4 wheels, so you must have just made up a car sighting to fit with the social norm.

 

 

I said you cannot draw an inference as to the reliability, not that you can draw a negative inference.

[Guest]

Well in the reverse case, people may misidentify bigfoot as other things,  in places where they do not expect bigfoot to be.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Well in the reverse case, people may misidentify bigfoot as other things,  in places where they do not expect bigfoot to be.

 

I'm glad we seem to agree that if Bigfoot exists, this certainly happens and whether Bigfoot exists or not, misidentification of things as Bigfoot in 'Bigfooty' areas certainly happens.