Guest DWA Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 ^^^No, that's not true. They can be dismissed by looking at the pictures. We're not going into "cow" again, are we? Once again, when scientists show me they don't know what they're talking about on a topic, what they consider "known" packs a lot less weight. Animals have distinctive gaits and tracks, in snow just as anywhere else. Any comprehensive track book will show that. One doesn't get away with "shoot, this could be anything" when, if it's known, one can say what it was if one has enough tracks.
Guest thermalman Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) What's not true? Who are the scientists you speak of? Does your track book have pictures of BF prints in the snow for trackers to identify with? Edited March 3, 2014 by thermalman
norseman Posted March 3, 2014 Admin Posted March 3, 2014 I've encountered a trackway like the Minnesota one before. I find the Minnesota trackway compelling as I do with deep snow trackways.......your mileage may very. I would much rather follow a trackway like that out versus a crystal clear one in a inch of mud, much easier to hoax. Btw, there are no mule deer in Minnesota and I've never followed one that stotted for over a mile. In fact I've never followed a trackway like that I wasn't able to ID the animal except once. Quadrupeds return to that gait in a short amount of time.
Guest DWA Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 thermalman: in fact yes, Meldrum's field guide has an excellent dissertation on tracks; his book has a lot more depth. Now as to the track books that don't have bigfoot tracks in them: I consider those folks the last word on tracks of known animals. As far as the one we are talking about is concerned, those folks might as well be Joe Moe and Curly. I only accept their authority as far as they can demonstrate it to me. Handy safety tip when dealing with scientists.
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Show us some pictures of BF tracks in snow, from someone on your authorization short list. We're all waiting. Edited March 4, 2014 by thermalman
indiefoot Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Are we dismissing the claim that there were tracks there with clear impressions of five toes? That would severely limit the number of candidates.
southernyahoo Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 What Is The Best Bigfoot Evidence Of The Past 10-15 Years? It just depends on what you prefer to put your personal stock in. There is none like your own when provenance and circumstance matters.
Guest Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 If we are going to dismiss any possible bigfoot evidence that isn't proven by scientists, why are we even here talking? There is ZERO scientifically proven bigfoot evidence. I guess we should all take our balls and go home now. But, that's not really the point is it?
salubrious Posted March 4, 2014 Moderator Posted March 4, 2014 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. You are making a huge assumption here, that being that Patty only had one gait. The single file footprints are what occurs when 'foxwalking' (which is a gait shared by humans), wherein the little toe leads, followed by the big toe, finally the rest of the foot, the heel being last. At Bluff Creek, the tracks were side by side as the soil was less risky (so Patty was leading with her heels). When you don't know what is underfoot (and you are barefoot) then you will use the foxwalk. Try walking on a gravel road barefoot without looking at the ground. How are you going to walk without hurting yourself? Ever wonder why we have so many bones and nerves in our feet? This is why- if you foxwalk, you can walk without looking at your feet, and also not injure yourself. Its a natural gait and is why so many BF trackways seem to have one foot directly in front of the other, with little or no pronation. 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. The gait of the tracks are normal for foxwalking. 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. No, that is speculation. I have to assume that you do not live in an area that gets much snow. If you viewed the video, you also saw a human walking beside the tracks. That photo showed that the snow was so deep that a human could not have possibly made the tracks, which were also too far apart for any known creature. We also know that the area was inaccessible during any other season as it is in the middle of bog country- so snowmobiles were the only way to get there. IOW, its very obvious that a human did not make it. When this evidence got examined on this site several years ago, people went to some extraordinary efforts to try to explain away this trackway, even go so far as to say that two rabbits did this over the course of 3 miles The bottom line is that this is evidence. Whether it is accepted as such by some people is another matter entirely, and one that does not change the reality of this trackway.
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Knew you'd show up Sal. First off, Patty is the ONLY example that we have, with what is widely accepted as a BF walking gait. All else is speculation and assumption. Patty is no runway model and doesn't walk like one.Secondly, it is not speculation to assume "the consensus would be that any other known wildlife in existence and living in MN, or humans, positively made them". Because nothing has been proven to show otherwise. A simple process of elimination.Thirdly, it is evidence. But not what BF proponents are trying to make it out to be.Fourthly, there seems to be a contradiction of claim on your part,- "If you viewed the video, you also saw a human walking beside the tracks. That photo showed that the snow was so deep that a human could not have possibly made the tracks". Albeit, difficult, but not impossible. Fifthly, show us some authentic and verifiable BF snow prints we can compare your belief to. Was the subject that made the prints, female or male? Edited March 4, 2014 by thermalman
Guest UPs Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I also consider the Minnesota trackway the best evidence in the past 10 years, although the Florida thermal and the other swamp video taken in Alabama also intrigue me. It takes a great deal of energy for an animal to run in deep snow and when they do, it is either from being chased as prey or chasing another animal as a predator will do. I saw no evidence of another animal in the MN video and not only the length of the trackway (over a mile) is compelling, but also the way this animal stepped on fallen logs/trees when going through a thicker area of the forest. I think most folks who have experience tracking in snow would agree that this trackway is quite unusual and would be extremely difficult to hoax.
Guest DWA Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Way to use up my plusses, gentlemen! Science has never advanced by explaining stuff away via fluffy assumptions. The pile of consistent evidence so far for this animal makes its not being proven almost beside the point. Occam says that one did it. Because this is how Occam works.
Guest thermalman Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) The only fluffy assumptions are from people saying that the snow prints are of BF nature. And one doesn't have to be a scientist to figure that they're not! BTW, you haven't answered the previous questions: Does your track book have pictures of BF prints in the snow for trackers to identify with? Show us some pictures of BF tracks in snow, from someone on your authorization short list. We're all waiting. It would go a long way towards your credibility if you are able to back up your beliefs with solid or comparable evidence. Edited March 4, 2014 by thermalman
Redbone Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) If bigfoot is not proven but does exist, and he walks in the snow, will he still leave tracks? If you cannot fathom that bigfoot is real, then you obviously cannot attribute any tracks to one. It's not a giant leap for me to believe that bigfoot is real, and therefore bigfoot DOES leave tracks if it walks in snow or mud. With that frame of mind, I have no problem believing snow tracks found in Minnesota and more recently in Wisconsin, COULD be attributed to bigfoot. Just because something cannot be proven does not automatically make it incorrect. I know it's already been brought in this thread but we ARE discussing evidence, not proof. Edited March 4, 2014 by Redbone
Guest DWA Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Occam knows "evidence" and "proof" aren't the same thing, and is looking for the simplest explanation that fits what's known. The size and consistency of the sasquatch evidence pile - with which the MN tracks are consistent - makes it the favorite, far ahead of "gotta be something else, we don't know what, but we'll think of something, no matter how far we gotta stretch the facts." When it is PROVEN - or shown to be most likely by a similar example - to be something else, now that's different. Occam never proves anything. It establishes a path. If you want to find out what sasquatch is, trackways like this appear to be on that path.
Recommended Posts