A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

Grover Krantz's issue with the faking of prints was that the fakes made it impossible to use casts to establish a database of print charateristics. For him, this lessened the value of casts/prints in general and he was one of the first to really take them seriously. His concern was well founded and I think has been proven to be correct.

[Guest DWA]

Scientists make mistakes; that was one of Krantz's.  Doesn't change the absolute validity of his overall stance on this topic, something bigfoot skeptics have a hard time wrapping hedz around.

 

(See, this is the "debunk one thing and done" mentality again.)

 

It is most certainly possible to discern fakes; it's been getting done for five decades.  To think otherwise is inexcusable, as is to think mistakes invalidate the whole endeavor.  That just isn't thinking becoming a scientist.

[beerhunter]

Scientists make mistakes; that was one of Krantz's.  Doesn't change the absolute validity of his overall stance on this topic, something bigfoot skeptics have a hard time wrapping hedz around.

 

(See, this is the "debunk one thing and done" mentality again.)

 

It is most certainly possible to discern fakes; it's been getting done for five decades.  To think otherwise is inexcusable, as is to think mistakes invalidate the whole endeavor.  That just isn't thinking becoming a scientist.

Yes the old adage if one is fake, then they all are fake. I hate absolutes.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Grover Krantz's issue with the faking of prints was that the fakes made it impossible to use casts to establish a database of print charateristics. For him, this lessened the value of casts/prints in general and he was one of the first to really take them seriously. His concern was well founded and I think has been proven to be correct.

Indeed the sheer range of casting shape and more importantly configuration is a very unreliable indicator of reality.  One of the things that put me off to Dr. Bindernagle's cast collection and postulations was the ridiculously varied casts.  Then he had the rational of saying that young bigfoot have feet that morph into a more hominid shape as they mature.  Such a huge shape morphing does not seem to be present in other primates and certainly not present in human beings.  More bigfoot special dispensation perhaps?

[Bodhi]

Yes the old adage if one is fake, then they all are fake. I hate absolutes.

I think my point may have been missed. It isn't that if one was faked they all are fakes. The insurmountable problem, according to Dr. Krantz, was that the fakes had poisoned the well. It is impossible to know which are fakes so it is impossible to use casts/prints to establish any science based on casts/prints. There is no way to know if a fake will accidentally be included and thus skew the results and lead the investigation astray. That is the problem, Krantz realized it and was saddened by it and it remains unresolved to this day.

[SWWASAS]

Incredible. Bodhi really walked into that one discounting one absolute and replacing it with another in a form that is not provable. You can prove one or several things in a class of things are forgeries but you cannot declare that all things in a class are forgeries when on a daily basis the class of found footprints grows.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Indeed the sheer range of casting shape and more importantly configuration is a very unreliable indicator of reality.  One of the things that put me off to Dr. Bindernagle's cast collection and postulations was the ridiculously varied casts.  Then he had the rational of saying that young bigfoot have feet that morph into a more hominid shape as they mature.  Such a huge shape morphing does not seem to be present in other primates and certainly not present in human beings.  More bigfoot special dispensation perhaps?

WRONG. A child is NOT born with an arch to the foot. For verification, consult a newborn or actually any child that hasn't learned to walk yet.

[Bodhi]

As I think about it, the same problem exists with most the purported evidence. Habitation range; reports would have us believe that this animal has a larger range than any known species. Size; I've heard 14 feet claims on some youtube shows - but how can we throw out such a claim even if it seems impossibly large. Behavior; is it interdimensional? Does it hunt in packs using one animal to draw hunters into ambushes as is seemingly claimed each week on SasChron? Is it the gentle forest being as claimed by Cliff Barackman was mentioning in the lastest episode of "Finding Bigfoot"? Does it like pancakes? Does it eschew humans or is it living in close proximity - sightings in backyards and along roads but also in the deep wilderness - does any other wild animal display this behavior? I've seen someone here post that sasquatch could be as intelligent or more intelligent than humans - does that seem even remotely possible?

 

This is a problem. For whatever reason, the claims are so disparate that nailing down anything is seemingly impossible. It's anyone's guess and that is a problem when attempting to investigate.

[Guest DWA]

Indeed the sheer range of casting shape and more importantly configuration is a very unreliable indicator of reality.  One of the things that put me off to Dr. Bindernagle's cast collection and postulations was the ridiculously varied casts.  Then he had the rational of saying that young bigfoot have feet that morph into a more hominid shape as they mature.  Such a huge shape morphing does not seem to be present in other primates and certainly not present in human beings.  More bigfoot special dispensation perhaps?

 

But see, why would we trust that assessment?  Bindernagel over Crow.  for one thing, Bindernagel gives a pretty basic explanation of the variances (hint:  primate foot anatomy), which count on it Crow hasn't read.  For another, you know, technical expertise, for another, showing his work, for another, Crow shows by that post that he doesn't know much about footprints, etc.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

As I think about it, the same problem exists with most the purported evidence. Habitation range; reports would have us believe that this animal has a larger range than any known species. Size; I've heard 14 feet claims on some youtube shows - but how can we throw out such a claim even if it seems impossibly large. Behavior; is it interdimensional? Does it hunt in packs using one animal to draw hunters into ambushes as is seemingly claimed each week on SasChron? Is it the gentle forest being as claimed by Cliff Barackman was mentioning in the lastest episode of "Finding Bigfoot"? Does it like pancakes? Does it eschew humans or is it living in close proximity - sightings in backyards and along roads but also in the deep wilderness - does any other wild animal display this behavior? I've seen someone here post that sasquatch could be as intelligent or more intelligent than humans - does that seem even remotely possible?

 

This is a problem. For whatever reason, the claims are so disparate that nailing down anything is seemingly impossible. It's anyone's guess and that is a problem when attempting to investigate.

Well, there you go, Bodhi. When moms(human or booger) perceive dangers to their child/ren, some might pick them up & walk away, some might lead the danger off away from their children & some might pound your lights out.

[SWWASAS]

Oh that we could vote which option is used by the BF when they encounter a skeptic.

[indiefoot]

I'm pretty sure Jimmy Chilcutt was mistaken. Those so-called "dermal ridges" were replicated in experiments. Besides that, it's just hard to imagine how a foot would leave dermal ridges in the first place. 

I found and photographed these, I did not cast them.

[Bodhi]

Incredible. Bodhi really walked into that one discounting one absolute and replacing it with another in a form that is not provable. You can prove one or several things in a class of things are forgeries but you cannot declare that all things in a class are forgeries when on a daily basis the class of found footprints grows.

Ok, so Krantz was wrong? So tell me, how can a database be established without the risk of including fakes and thus nullifying the validity of the information?

 

Again, it's not me it's Krantz and it's not all it's "some" but until those "some" are removed they poison the potential of casts/prints as evidence. How those "some" were found out and removed was what Krantz grappled with and was unable to resolve. Do you have an answer which eluded Krantz?

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Amazing pics, indiefoot!!

[Bodhi]

I found and photographed these, I did not cast them.

DSCF0253.jpg

 

Toes appear to be together in this one, Think Meldrum says that only happens to a foot which has been in shoes for most of the time. Splayed toes I believe is what they consider correct???