A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Again, so missed the point. Krantz's issue was how to use casts to further the search for the animal. HIS contention was that fakes made using casts to do so impossible. ...

 

HIS contention is wrong, and can't be used to either (1) avoid addressing prints and casts or (2) ditch EVERYTHING he said based on the mistake.

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

I think my point may have been missed. It isn't that if one was faked they all are fakes. "

Groan. You said this did you not? My issues are not with Krantz but some one that says things like this.

[Guest DWA]

There are people on this forum who have experience with both tracks and with trackways, some in places where a hoax is extraordinarily unlikely.

 

One has to show that EVERY TRACKWAY WAS FAKED, or that so many were - taking into account the apparent unlikelihood - that it is highly probable the rest were too.  "People fake stuff" says nothing.  And now you have to deal with the sightings.  Um, good luck.

 

Almost certainly there are footprint casts which are fraudulent. There are also trackways and tracks in the most outrageous places; places where a hoax as an explanation strains belief. There is also at least one statistical analysis of track distribution in the published record. All of this is evidence, and clearly both the existence of trackways and indivdual tracks in obscure places is not something that can be easily explained. Although a single track might be misinterpreted, trackways, with some showing clear toe impressions, can not easily be attributed to a well recognized animal.

 

Right.  If this is not addressed, AGAIN, no point has been made worth talking about.

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

So half a century later the questions are the same questions.  Still very little progress in validating real casts from fake casts.  Had Ray Wallace family not have come forth would his tracks still be in the running?  Was there any scientist/tracker when Wallace's tracks were current ever mention the probability of being fake as determined from the tracks alone?

[WSA]

Well Bodhi, I'm not sure that any number or PM's could reconcile the schizophrenic nature of your logic there...your many, many points notwithstanding. You either have to admit no hoaxer could have possibly created all the footprints over millions of acres and hundreds of years, or you have to admit something with a big foot  is leaving them.  

 

Your attempts to create some kind of middle ground where the prints are "interesting", but keep the  reality of BF at bay is, again, completely ludicrous. When you draw the obvious conclusion that the only thing that leaves this many big-footed tracks is something with big feet, you are way beyond the idea of BF "possibly" existing.

 

So, which of these will it be for you ?   

[Guest DWA]

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?

 

Because science never fails to move forward because WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOA, WE COULD BE WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG...science moves forward when the evidence says move.  The evidence says an unlisted animal is making these tracks.  To disagree is to offer a totally uninformed opinion.  (OK, I'll be nice.  Critically under-informed.)

 

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?

 

YEP!   See above.

We might offer for the benefit of the uninformed that Krantz confidently asserted that trackway evidence from the PNW alone confirmed the animal even if no sighting reports had ever been made.

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[Bodhi]

Groan. You said this did you not? My issues are not with Krantz but some one that says things like this.

Double groan. to quote myself "It isn't that if one was faked they all are fakes. " Isn't. Isn't. Is NOT.

[SWWASAS]

You have to think they are all fakes, do you not?    The lack of a comma between they and faked does not change what you think.     Because if any are not fakes,  then BF exists.   

Edited June 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bodhi]

Well Bodhi, I'm not sure that any number or PM's could reconcile the schizophrenic nature of your logic there...your many, many points notwithstanding. You either have to admit no hoaxer could have possibly created all the footprints over millions of acres and hundreds of years, or you have to admit something with a big foot  is leaving them.  

 

Your attempts to create some kind of middle ground where the prints are "interesting", but keep the  reality of BF at bay is, again, completely ludicrous. When you draw the obvious conclusion that the only thing that leaves this many big-footed tracks is something with big feet, you are way beyond the idea of BF "possibly" existing.

 

So, which of these will it be for you ?   

I don't accept your either or proposition. The prints are interesting but they can't be used to further the search for the animal. I don't grant either millions of acres or hundreds of years. Something is leaving some discrete prints trackways.

 

None of those trackways have lead to a den, a hair, a piece of scat or any other physical evidence. Why this animal is so different from every other animal which does defecate and does shed hair/fur as it moves through the forest? Does that make logical sense to you?

 

Clearly, something leaves prints, but nothing more. What that something is though is unknown. If you wish to believe that most are sasquatch or whatever, go for it but that view is far from mainstream even in the bigfoot community.

 

A trackway, I believe, should be treated it like a crime scene. By that I mean, after photos and casts are made the soil should be gathered and sifted for any possible hairs which should be shed as the animal walked. It doesn't seem like an extravagance considering this might be the way to nail down the most famous undocumented animal ever.

 

Currently though, other than making nifty souvenirs or ungainly paperweights I'm unaware of the value the casts have been in furthering the search for the animal.

 

I feel as though we've plumbed the depths of this. I feel that the fact we're discussing whether any/all casts are real at length in a thread asking what progress has been made post PGF shows how little progress has, in fact, been made. Still covering the same, old, unproductive ground. Ground that Grover Krantz viewed as unproductive 30 years ago but now with "dermal ridges".

 

At least in the case of "dermal ridges" another researcher was able to falsify the idea and it has largely been seen as misidentification by most researchers. That is how things are supposed to work, a claim is made and the claim is tested. When more evidence is examined in the way the claim of "dermal ridges" was, real progress will be possible. I've always been an optimist!

You have to think they are all fakes, do you not?    The lack of a comma between they and faked does not change what you think.     Because if any are not fakes,  then BF exists.   

check please

[Guest DWA]

Well, it just boggles.  ^^^This is bigfoot-skeptic-go-round to the max.  

 

There is no known way that all these tracks could have been left, and NO there is NOT.

 

Just stop.

 

See, kidz, in science, the proof is usually in well before the majority of scientists, let alone the majority of the public, gets the word.  We're there with this.

[WSA]

That's o.k. Bodhi, everyone here knows you are fundamentally confused....you don't have to admit it. 

 

"Something" is leaving tracks?! Stop it, you are going to pull yourself apart. Something, like what, exactly?  Care to take a poke at that?  

 

When you are ready to be honest with yourself and others, come on back.  Until then, you're just affirming you are not ready to seriously address the basic premise, let alone have standing to give any opinions worth reading about the OP. If you want to address progress, you have to have the courage to come right out and define progress about WHAT.  If not,  you are talking nonsense. So far, you're talking nonsense.  

[Bodhi]

 

"Something" is leaving tracks?! Stop it, you are going to pull yourself apart. Something, like what, exactly?  Care to take a poke at that?  

Humans = something.

[Guest DWA]

Something like...and let's GO:

 

1) aliens Floating Above so we don't see tracks next to the track stomper;

1a) just aliens, period, Walking On Our Earth;

2) hoaxers etc.

3) people FAR BIGGER AND HEAVIER THAN ANY KNOWN, WHO WALK IN SUBPOLAR CLIMES BAREFOOT!!!!!!!!!!

4) bears in need either of a podiatrist or of a lot of bears to mate with to beat down the Aberrant Human Hybrid Gene;

5) Snowshoes three times the weight of the wearer(!)

6) A Rider Track Stomper (hey!  we have rider mowers; rider leaf blowers, just hey.  HEY!)

7) Normal Everyday People devoting more effort to faking and shooting a few tracks than you have devoted to, um, the past year, or, you know, five, and I mean HUNDREDS OF THEM;

 

...but nothing worthy of interest.  Yawners.  I'm down too.

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

Oh,  I see, humans with 17+ inch long feet?   So you would rather believe in unknown human giants than BF? 

Edited June 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[WSA]

So you are back to "they are all fake", or is it  just the work of "humans with deformed feet?" (Umm, make that LOTS of humans with deformed feet)

 

You sure you want to be here? Really? 

But actually Bodhi, now that I think about it, you may be contributing to the discussion of OP in a way I had not considered at first. Those who think as you do, and an example of which you've continued to supply us with, speaks volumes more than all of us could about why the progress has not been coming at a pace you might want to see otherwise. Those people, like yourself, who look at a 17" long track and have the reaction, 'Wow! That sure is interesting....but I can't imagine why that would be evidence of a creature with 17" long feet" are primarily to blame. Own it man.

Edited June 24, 2015 by WSA