indiefoot Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Does it sometimes sound like "who's on first" to anyone else. p... I think I saw a Bigfoot s... If you had you would have some evidence p... I took this photo of this footprint I found s... How come you would think that every footprint you found would be from a Bigfoot p... I think I saw a Bigfoot 1
dmaker Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) ^^ No, it's actually more like this: p...I saw a bigfoot. s.. Do you have any supporting evidence? p.. No s...Well, cool story. thanks. but science can't just take your word for it, unfortunately science requires evidence. p..I know what I saw! You can't prove I didn't see bigfoot! Edited March 13, 2014 by dmaker 1
Guest guillaume Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 [...] p... I think I saw a Bigfoot s... If you had you would have some evidence p... I took this photo of this footprint I found[...] The probability of a population of undiscovered huge, hairy primates in NA approaches zero. Faked footprints dating back a hundred years or whatever, plus a few fanciful newspaper articles, are what formed the basis for the modern bigfoot myths that exist today. Photos of footprints mean absolutely nothing, sorry. They are easy to fake and impossible to prove. If anyone has any real proof to offer, that would be great. I don't expect that this will ever happen, though.
hiflier Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Hello guillaume, I remember being a grade school kid of 10 or 11 walking to school in winter. Part of my "commute" took me past the local library which had large trees linning the sidewalk. If it had snowed I would take the opportunity to create a trackway as a joke on the public. I would walk up to a tree and once there I would hug it and plant two footprints to the right of it going around the base. Then return my right foot and place two to the left. Standing one legged in the last print I'd bring my right leg around to the front and stretch it across to continue what I thought would then look like someone had walked THROUGH the tree. I was of course thinking that the effect might give someone pause to see a set of prints go to the tree, split up , and then return together and continue on the other side....kids! So yeah, faking prints wouldn't be hard. Edited March 13, 2014 by hiflier
Guest guillaume Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Hiflier, I think bigfoot pranks and jokes are by no means rare among kids and college students in particular. I think a few hunters and woodsmen enjoy them, too. Nobody ever finds any actual proof. I think there's a good reason for that, but everyone has to make up their own mind in their own time, I guess.
hiflier Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Hello guillaume, I agree. There are some instances though that I do sit up and take some notice of however. I get a bit more curious about the track that are deep in a packed substrate that would take quite a bit of assumed weight to create tracks of the same depth. It was one of the characteristics that the investigators at Bluff Creek mulled over after being unable to re-create them in normal strides even after jumping on the substrate themselves. It isn't proof of course but is an aspect to consider when assessing forgeries. Edited March 13, 2014 by hiflier
Guest guillaume Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) If you're talking about these prints, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree that they could've been made by the real feet of any creature. I invite you to check out your own bare footprints in soft ground to see what I mean. Stampers or stompers could produce flat, fake-looking prints like the Bluff Creek ones. Real footprints in soft ground show where the weight went. I think that only a type specimen could prove the existence of bigfoot. Meldrum and his casts are footnotes in pseudoscience, so to speak. The "evidence" we have for bigfoot never actually proves anything. This is a trend that should disturb more believers, IMO. Edited March 13, 2014 by guillaume
salubrious Posted March 13, 2014 Moderator Posted March 13, 2014 ^^ No, it's actually more like this: p...I saw a bigfoot. s.. Do you have any supporting evidence? p.. No s...Well, cool story. thanks. but science can't just take your word for it, unfortunately science requires evidence. p..I know what I saw! You can't prove I didn't see bigfoot! ^^ That is the correct scenario. No-one is going to be convinced by tracks. The probability of a population of undiscovered huge, hairy primates in NA approaches zero. I do see this as the normal position a level-headed person might take. All I have to say is this: If you ever have an encounter, this point of view will go out the window in a heartbeat. Until then, its the safe position to take. Admitting or announcing that you saw a BF is tantamount to admission that you are nutbag. That however does not change the reality. The problem here is agreeing what the reality actually is. I saw two of them one time about 24 years ago. They were close up, about 8 feet in good lighting and I have no doubt of what I saw (don't do drugs, don't drink, was not fatigued, etc). By electing to not take a photo, instead I just left, creating an enigma for myslef, one that I don't expect anyone to buy. That's not important to me, but that is how it works and you can take it or leave it, it won't hurt anyone's feelings nor will it change anything. Its just what is. Welcome to the BFF, BTW!
Recommended Posts