A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

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.

 

This.  We'd have proof by now?  With THAT approach?  That anyone could think that indicates that not all screws were installed per instructions.

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[Bodhi]

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 15" 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 15" long feet" are primarily to blame. Own it man.

No, I'm not back to and I never was at "they are all fake". But just as every unidentified light in the sky isn't an alien spacecraft, every cast/trackway isn't "real". My point and Krantz's point is that because it's impossible to know which are "real" and which are fakes it is nearly impossible for casts to help in the search for sasquatch.

 

I've been clear on this, and received nothing but obfuscation in response.

 

Case in point, you inference that a human couldn't create a 15" long print. Seriously? Are you denying that fakes are made? Are you denying that a fake of that size could be made? Are you just in denial in general? You can not/will not tell me what use casts are in progressing the search? You can not/will not offer a reason why trackways haven't produced any physical trace evidence, or led to scat or to a bedding site - ever.

 

There is an interesting discussion to be had regarding casts/prints/trackways and I hoped that might occur. It hasn't, I'm assuming you don't have an answer or I suppose you would have offered it up. You've instead made the conscious decision to avoid and attempt to redirect the discussion, and made a lot of ad hominem attacks in the process. You have nothing to offer and I'm sorry that it's taken me this long to understand that fact.

[Guest DWA]

Obfuscation.  That is a big word to say for someone who thinks we are not getting a simple concept, when he is not getting a simpler one.  And we have long beyond gotten his.  And have told him, well, you see that.

 

(He's gotten every answer one could ask for.  His problem?  He doesn't want to come up with any himself.)

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

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.

 

In law the poisonous tree doctrine uses the tainted well analogy to explain any ill-gotten evidence no matter if the intent was unintentional or good, all of it (evidence) is thrown out. Fortunately that is not case in Bigfoot ology then again we’re talking about Bigfoot and not spirit of the law violations or legal guidelines since there are no uniform standard procedures to follow in gathering casted prints chiefly because science by and large will not get involved. Dr. Krantz can say whatever pleases him but common sense logic still rules the day and one fake cast does not make them all fakes. Science earns the right to pass edicts like that when they place some skin in the game.  

Edited June 24, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bodhi]

In law the poisonous tree doctrine uses the tainted well analogy to explain any ill-gotten evidence no matter if the intent was unintentional or good, all of it (evidence) is thrown out. Fortunately that is not case in Bigfoot ology then again we’re talking about Bigfoot and not spirit of the law violations or legal guidelines since there are no uniform standard procedures to follow in gathering casted prints chiefly because science by and large will not get involved. Dr. Krantz can say whatever pleases him but common sense logic still rules the day and one fake cast does not make them all fakes. Science earns the right to pass edicts like that when they place some skin in the game.  

Ok let's do a quick mind experiment. We have access to all collected casts and we want to put them to help other researchers and further the search for sasquatch. Ok, that's the experiment. Say we scan each one with a laser which collects information on key attributes of anatomy. We are then going to draw conclusions about the animal based on those results.

 

Can you not understand that fake prints/casts are going to introduce bad data into the results which could send researchers off in the wrong direction in their searches? GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

 

I'm so surprised that this has been a controversial opinion in this thread, is no one concerned about the integrity of any data pulled from a review of casts?

[Guest DWA]

Has ^^^this fellow not read the way his concern was *decisively answered?*

[WSA]

No. It is simply not in him.

Come clean Bodhi. Are all casts and footprint evidence all faked, or all not? You can't have it both ways at once. Put your marker down.

[Guest DWA]

He's like these people who see one ten feet away, for like a minute...and they can't say what it was.  Do you think it was a bigfoot?  Could it be characterized that way?  Would a reasonable person having your experience....?  They can't say.

 

This is what not paying attention gets one.

[southernyahoo]

Ok let's do a quick mind experiment. We have access to all collected casts and we want to put them to help other researchers and further the search for sasquatch. Ok, that's the experiment. Say we scan each one with a laser which collects information on key attributes of anatomy. We are then going to draw conclusions about the animal based on those results.

 

Can you not understand that fake prints/casts are going to introduce bad data into the results which could send researchers off in the wrong direction in their searches? GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

 

I'm so surprised that this has been a controversial opinion in this thread, is no one concerned about the integrity of any data pulled from a review of casts?

 

I can understand the idea of contamination of the data, but with an ever increasing data set and a keen eye for the tell tale hoaxes it can be self cleaning. The great out doors will never be a sterile laboratory with a the controls to keep the data clean, but the tracks will always speak to the people who find them and understand what should and shouldn't be in them.

 

The problem is that if you tell all the tricks in spotting the fakes in an effort to further the research, you also educate the more dedicated hoaxer.

 

it's impossible to know which are "real" and which are fakes it is nearly impossible for casts to help in the search for sasquatch.

 

 

Surely if you found real looking tracks under the right circumstances you would look around for the Sasquatch as much as you would the hoaxer.

Edited June 25, 2015 by southernyahoo

[Guest DWA]

This is getting silly.  One would think that we're going outside and laying the casts in a line and if any are fake, the line won't lead to bigfoot.  Or we're holding a séance, and fake casts will set off False Mind Vibes.  STOP it.

 

PEOPLE!  [sorry.  Most of you get it.]  One does not quash research because stuff might be wrong.  One PUTS STUFF OUT THERE, and let's time, study, and repeated characters guide the discussion.  The mainstream isn't going to get interested if the flow of evidence stops because, hell, there might be hoaxes in there, and don't you all think that already, so let's feed THAT little flame shall we...?  You keep piling them up and piling them up and  piling them up, and showing the consistencies, right across the spectrum, from all these casts taken in all these places, miles from anywhere, where no reasonable person could think any reasonable OR unreasonable person would ever fake tracks, and keep asking the question:  so, mainstream, you really telling me your pat explanation works for ALL THESE?

 

And in the meantime one does what scientists have always done:  put in the field time one can; keep casting keep piling keep showing the consistencies...and waiting for reinforcements.

 

You people who don't know your butts from gopher holes when it comes to how science works are better off seen and not heard, knowhatimean?

P.  freakin S.  And yes, you weed out the fakes, note what characters seem to recur in fakes, and your research just got better.

[norseman]

Ok let's do a quick mind experiment. We have access to all collected casts and we want to put them to help other researchers and further the search for sasquatch. Ok, that's the experiment. Say we scan each one with a laser which collects information on key attributes of anatomy. We are then going to draw conclusions about the animal based on those results.

 

Can you not understand that fake prints/casts are going to introduce bad data into the results which could send researchers off in the wrong direction in their searches? GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

 

I'm so surprised that this has been a controversial opinion in this thread, is no one concerned about the integrity of any data pulled from a review of casts?

Like what?! What possible "attributes" found by a laser would send researchers in a right or wrong direction?

Its much more likely that the overall sign of the trackway on the ground is going to do that. i.e. Did the trackway start and end at a road? Do the tracks look all the same like a cookie cutter? Are there other correspoding sign? Is the sign within the physical range of a human? So forth and so on.

Track casts are nice but they will never do anything for us in a lab or other wise unless you can follow them to the tracks the animal is standing in.......

[Bodhi]

I can understand the idea of contamination of the data, but with an ever increasing data set and a keen eye for the tell tale hoaxes it can be self cleaning. The great out doors will never be a sterile laboratory with a the controls to keep the data clean, but the tracks will always speak to the people who find them and understand what should and shouldn't be in them.

 

The problem is that if you tell all the tricks in spotting the fakes in an effort to further the research, you also educate the more dedicated hoaxer.

 

 

Surely if you found real looking tracks under the right circumstances you would look around for the Sasquatch as much as you would the hoaxer.

True enough, but which one is the fake? We have no holotype and the "experts" seem to disagree amongst each other. It is do-able but it isn't easy by any stretch. There needs to be some basic agreement among enough of the thought leaders to allow for some agreed upon basics of probable anatomy before we can even start to clear away the fakes do we not?

Like what?! What possible "attributes" found by a laser would send researchers in a right or wrong direction?

Its much more likely that the overall sign of the trackway on the ground is going to do that. i.e. Did the trackway start and end at a road? Do the tracks look all the same like a cookie cutter? Are there other correspoding sign? Is the sign within the physical range of a human? So forth and so on.

Track casts are nice but they will never do anything for us in a lab or other wise unless you can follow them to the tracks the animal is standing in.......

I believe Meldrum feels that he can provide information about the weight and walking ability of the animal by analysing the anatomy of casts. He's invested years of his life to examing them after all. I agree though that much more needs to be done when trackways are discovered though. My point regarding the thought experiment was more to provide an example of why removing fakes from such a database would be important.

[Guest DWA]

"it's impossible to know which are "real" and which are fakes it is nearly impossible for casts to help in the search for sasquatch."

 

This is somebody who hasn't the foggiest how the biological sciences work.  It would take about 35 minutes reading - on the outside - to blow this assertion to the moon.

[southernyahoo]

Thats why Meldrum for instance does his work with the casts mostly alone. There is disagreement, but he is the Physical Anthropologist with the specialty in evolution of bipedalism in humans and their ancestors. No one else with similar credentials has joined him in the study of the tracks. 

[Guest DWA]

 

Surely if you found real looking tracks under the right circumstances you would look around for the Sasquatch as much as you would the hoaxer.

 

Anybody who thinks one can't tell real from fake has never run into a trackway in circumstances that rule out our species.

 

(Yes, I have, in fact.)