dmaker Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The reported sightings are the weakest form of evidence possible. They are unconfirmable stories. Without supporting substantiation you can't even use it to reliably say the person saw anything. The fact that bigfoot advocates fail to grasp how weak anecdotes as evidence really are says a lot for the state of bigfoot evidence as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 3, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 3, 2014 ^^ I think there is a problem with logic here- at least, if there is logic, I don't grasp it. I do agree that the unconfirmed sightings (like the ones I had) are indeed the weakest form of evidence out there. But I don't see how that translates to 'BF advocates failing to grasp how weak they are' (as a BF advocate, I just pointed out that even my own experience is really very weak evidence) and I don't arrive at the same conclusion as you either. I do agree that the world of BF is fraught with difficulty. But I am sure some of that has to do with people who, thinking that they are amazingly brilliant, hoax BF because its just so amazingly funny. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) ^^ Really Norse? From what I could tell, the MN trackway was just a whole lot of depressions, left single file, likely due to a smaller creature hopping through the deep snow. If we use Patty as our example, she does not walk the "runway model" style, which would have to be how the BF did, in order to leave such a trackway through the snow. Edited March 3, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 ^^ I think there is a problem with logic here- at least, if there is logic, I don't grasp it. I do agree that the unconfirmed sightings (like the ones I had) are indeed the weakest form of evidence out there. But I don't see how that translates to 'BF advocates failing to grasp how weak they are' (as a BF advocate, I just pointed out that even my own experience is really very weak evidence) and I don't arrive at the same conclusion as you either. I do agree that the world of BF is fraught with difficulty. But I am sure some of that has to do with people who, thinking that they are amazingly brilliant, hoax BF because its just so amazingly funny. Or something. Often here, and in this thread even, you see comments like the eye witness reports are the strongest evidence. And other comments like " oh they could not possibly be lying or mistaken". Well anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence partly because people can be lying or mistaken. To say these are the strongest evidence for bigfoot just highlights how poor the state of bigfoot evidence is and why the claim for bigfoot is rejected as unsupported by evidence. Bigfoot hoaxes don't help, to be sure, but something other than spooky stories needs to be on the plate to attract more scientific attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 3, 2014 Admin Share Posted March 3, 2014 ^^ Really Norse? From what I could tell, the MN trackway was just a whole lot of depressions, left single file, likely due to a smaller creature hopping through the deep snow. If we use Patty as our example, she does not walk the "runway model" style, which would have to be how the BF did, in order to leave such a trackway through the snow. That deep? The only animal that comes to mind is a Stotting mule deer. And there are no Mule deer in Minnesota that I am aware of. Nor does the animal one time break out of its stot. At that distance it's very unlikely. I also remember toes being shown in one of the tracks as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) The gait of the tracks still go against what were shown by Patty's walk. I would think a bobcat, coyote, cougar, wolf, or any other larger wildlife would hop throw the deep snow, thus leaving a single line of tracks as shown. I believe there is a MN trackway thread started somewhere on the BFF. I searched for it, but did not find it. Edited March 3, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 3, 2014 Admin Share Posted March 3, 2014 I would agree with cougar or wolf if we found some corresponding paw tracks associated with that trackway. But we don't....., It's documented for well over a mile. And this is not the first time that a "inline" trackway was associated with Bigfoot either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Found the video of the trackway. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXcQDOWXmmc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah....if you think that MN trackway is a case of a small mammal hopping or bounding, you need a better theory, IMO. It clearly alternates R>L, and back, with each stride. The depth of the tracks alone is inconsistent with that. But hey, whatever gets you through the night, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) BF leaving the tracks would be the theory. Any type of wildlife leaving them would be factual. Bear prints in snow. Very similar to what we see in the MN trackway, including line of tracks and toes. Edited March 3, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Lynx tracks in the snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I think any serious challenge to those tracks being a non-bipedal would have to address the stride length. Edited March 3, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 3, 2014 Admin Share Posted March 3, 2014 There is nothing similar, that is hard packed snow and ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) ^^ And prove that an actual BF left them. Until then, the consensus would be that any other known wildlife in existence and living in MN, or humans, positively made them. Those are the facts. Edited March 3, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 ^^^Not really. Science doesn't presume something with no evidence that that something is what happened. Until it is resolved what is making tracks like that, they are unresolved, period. Science never posits in the absence of evidence. Those examples of bear and lynx are clearly quadrupedal animals (never mind the diagnostic shape of the bear tracks). Imagine the trackmaker doing that with two feet. It would make a penguin look fast and graceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts