Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[norseman]

Even if a hoax was highly unlikely because of the terrain and remoteness you had hiked through? 

 

What if there was a series of tracks in a track way with eight feet separating each track? How do you suppose they were hoaxed?

[Guest DWA]

And then a little bird told me this:

 

Physical Evidence Law & Legal Definition

Physical evidence usually involves objects found at the scene of a crime. Physical evidence may consist of all sorts of prints such as fingerprints, footprints, handprints, tidemarks, cut marks, tool marks, etc. Examination of some physical evidence is conducted by making impressions in plaster, taking images of marks, or lifting the fingerprints from objects encountered.

 

Footprints are forensic evidence, found at the scene.  Analysis of prints by experts in precisely that advances the proposition that the animal's real, and not coincidentally, people are describing an animal that seems a very good fit for the tracks.

[dmaker]

I'm sorry, what is your point DWA?

 

To your question Norse: if someone is there looking at the print, then it is not too remote for human presence, is it? As to how some can be 8 feet apart?  Well that has been demonstrated using a vehicle and some rope I believe already. But certainly not in the remote bush areas, I will give you that.  So even in that case, let's posit, where you have great looking tracks with a hard to replicate stride in a remote area, I would still say hoax. Just because I cannot explain how something got there does not mean it is the result of an imaginary animal. 

 

Now if Bigfoot is ever proven I will gladly eat crow and grant that some tracks that I would have written off as hoaxes may have, in fact, been real genuine Bigfoot tracks. But until that time, the most reasonable answer for me will always be the one that does not involve imaginary animals like Bigfoot. 

 

Please, feel free to prove me wrong though.      Not holding my breath...

And, DWA, the experts are not always right. A couple of the experts have declared tracks as real that were later proven to be fakes. So tracks are not among what I would call very convincing evidence. Too much history of hoaxing involved and some of the experts cannot always tell the difference. No, sorry. We're going to need more than tracks and cool stories if you want to put this one to bed. 

And for pity sake, why do I have to keep repeating that Bigfoot will not upset my reality if it is real?  That gets so old and tiresome. I think it would be great if I was wrong. I'm not, I have no doubt about that, but it has nothing to do with me clinging to some status quo in my head. It's just that there simply is no Bigfoot out there. I'm not protecting myself from the very idea. I get so sick and tired of hearing that baseless accusation. Please people, come up with something better than that. 

[norseman]

As far as I know, no terrestrial place on Earth is too remote for a human Dmaker..............but there are plenty of places too remote on earth Dmaker for a hoaxer to find an audience.

 

So your default position will always be that it's a hoax. Until of course some impressionable lackey like myself actually shoots one and drags it in for your viewing pleasure.............

 

No matter how compelling, you see the trace evidence of being some elaborate scheme of a hoaxer. I salute your stubborn cynicism my friend...........

[Guest Darrell]

And then a little bird told me this:

 

Physical Evidence Law & Legal Definition

Physical evidence usually involves objects found at the scene of a crime. Physical evidence may consist of all sorts of prints such as fingerprints, footprints, handprints, tidemarks, cut marks, tool marks, etc. Examination of some physical evidence is conducted by making impressions in plaster, taking images of marks, or lifting the fingerprints from objects encountered.

 

Footprints are forensic evidence, found at the scene.  Analysis of prints by experts in precisely that advances the proposition that the animal's real, and not coincidentally, people are describing an animal that seems a very good fit for the tracks.

Ok, thats only part of the forensic process. When collecting physical evidence you have to document how and where it was collected, and establish a chain of custody for that item of evidence. then you have to be able to link that evidence to a suspect.  I cant just show up in court and say this was the evidence that proves you commited the crtime and here is the evidence without that evidence being vetted and certified based on my documentation. That isnt really being done in this field.  The frustrating thing is after 57 yrs of people hunting this thing we are no more closer to finding it. Its just more tracks, sounds, tree breaks ect and no substance.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Darrell

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^^^

 

Yes it is. But I'll grant you that they are not the majority.

 

http://cliffbarackman.com/bigfoot-prints/the-london-trackway-2/london-trackway-index/

[Guest Darrell]

 

Now if Bigfoot is ever proven I will gladly eat crow and grant that some tracks that I would have written off as hoaxes may have, in fact, been real genuine Bigfoot tracks. But until that time, the most reasonable answer for me will always be the one that does not involve imaginary animals like Bigfoot. 

 

Please, feel free to prove me wrong though.      Not holding my breath...

 

Hey thats what I always say. Stop that!

 

And for pity sake, why do I have to keep repeating that Bigfoot will not upset my reality if it is real?  That gets so old and tiresome. I think it would be great if I was wrong. I'm not, I have no doubt about that, but it has nothing to do with me clinging to some status quo in my head. It's just that there simply is no Bigfoot out there. I'm not protecting myself from the very idea. I get so sick and tired of hearing that baseless accusation. Please people, come up with something better than that. 

I agree with this also. Im not at all opposed to bigfoot's existance. But I feel up to this point and after all these years if something could be found it would be found. Im more skeptical of the those true believers who have an almost religious zeal when it comes to the phenomina and cant seem to be objective rather than being actually skeptical of bigfoot.  Im actually hoping Norseman brings one in and does something no one else has.

[dmaker]

As far as I know, no terrestrial place on Earth is too remote for a human Dmaker..............but there are plenty of places too remote on earth Dmaker for a hoaxer to find an audience.

 

So your default position will always be that it's a hoax. Until of course some impressionable lackey like myself actually shoots one and drags it in for your viewing pleasure.............

 

No matter how compelling, you see the trace evidence of being some elaborate scheme of a hoaxer. I salute your stubborn cynicism my friend...........

I salute your stubborn optimism

[norseman]

When I issue tickets to view the body? Your dead last...........just sayin.

[Guest DWA]

Ok, thats only part of the forensic process. When collecting physical evidence you have to document how and where it was collected, and establish a chain of custody for that item of evidence. then you have to be able to link that evidence to a suspect.  I cant just show up in court and say this was the evidence that proves you commited the crtime and here is the evidence without that evidence being vetted and certified based on my documentation. That isnt really being done in this field.  The frustrating thing is after 57 yrs of people hunting this thing we are no more closer to finding it. Its just more tracks, sounds, tree breaks ect and no substance.

And I can't help that, because the people whose job it is to solve scientific mysteries for us - scientists - are leaving this to unschooled laymen.  With some fortunate (Meldrum; Bindernagel; Mionczynski; Hadj-Chikh; etc.) exceptions.

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Truth be known? dmaker actually should be first LOL.

[Guest DWA]

I'm sorry, what is your point DWA?

 

If you don't get it...I can't help you.

 

To your question Norse: if someone is there looking at the print, then it is not too remote for human presence, is it?

 

So why do all the bigfoot skeptics tell me that there isn't enough remote wilderness to support this animal, hmmmm?  When thousands of people are seeing it?

 

As to how some can be 8 feet apart?  Well that has been demonstrated using a vehicle and some rope I believe already. But certainly not in the remote bush areas, I will give you that.  So even in that case, let's posit, where you have great looking tracks with a hard to replicate stride in a remote area, I would still say hoax. Just because I cannot explain how something got there does not mean it is the result of an imaginary animal. 

 

Not when you have come to that conclusion all by your lonesome, with no evidence guiding you there.

 

Now if Bigfoot is ever proven I will gladly eat crow and grant that some tracks that I would have written off as hoaxes may have, in fact, been real genuine Bigfoot tracks. But until that time, the most reasonable answer for me will always be the one that does not involve imaginary animals like Bigfoot. 

 

You of course realize that's the cart up there in front of your horse.

 

And, DWA, the experts are not always right.

 

Show me one who always is, and poof!  We just proved God.  I'll take them over you, though, because they actually seem to be looking at and analyzing the evidence.

 

A couple of the experts have declared tracks as real that were later proven to be fakes. So tracks are not among what I would call very convincing evidence. Too much history of hoaxing involved and some of the experts cannot always tell the difference. No, sorry. We're going to need more than tracks and cool stories if you want to put this one to bed. 

 

I'm content to wait, because the evidence tells me how we will.

And for pity sake, why do I have to keep repeating that Bigfoot will not upset my reality if it is real?  That gets so old and tiresome.

 

OH.  OK. 

 

I think it would be great if I was wrong. I'm not, I have no doubt about that,

 

Yeah, I'm just soooooooooooooo inflexible, though, and won't accept anything but my own viewpoint.  Oh.  OK.

 

 

but it has nothing to do with me clinging to some status quo in my head.

 

If you aren't showing me your evidence...um, yes it is.

 

It's just that there simply is no Bigfoot out there.

 

Believe me, I'm dmaker!

 

 

I'm not protecting myself from the very idea. I get so sick and tired of hearing that baseless accusation. Please people, come up with something better than that. 

 

OH.  OK.  You're just denying the very idea.  That sound better?  (You did just say that, right up there, more than once.)

[norseman]

Hello Norseman,

Truth be known? dmaker actually should be first LOL.

 

Nope.........I'm gonna make him wait and send him grainy photos.

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Good 'nuff. It'll add to his collection.

[dmaker]

If you actually bag one Norse, I am sure I will see it on the news soon enough.