A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Crow:  please.  PLEASE.  TRY TO KEEP UP.

[southernyahoo]

If Crow Logic can't see that human baby feet are considerably different to human adult feet then there is no point in me wasting my time further on this.

 

Are we talking about the difference between shod and unshod human feet folks? Take a look at this for a better perspective of what the human foot can be like. I think the unshod resembles many BF tracks, and I think it's rare for "city slicker" people to not have some evidence of toe jam. The natural splay of the toes in adult human tracks is unusual, and I would propose much more common in the BF tracks.

https://www.google.com/search?q=shod+and+unshod+feet&biw=1440&bih=805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1UGMVYySIoHGsAX284yAAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1

[WSA]

I'm taking this for a "4".

 

If so, thanks.

[roguefooter]

5.  Oh right, I have evidence that can back up what I'm saying

 

Let's not forget that one.

 

Well considering that you haven't contributed anything but insults for the past few months, that's pretty funny.

 

Who needs evidence for backing nothing?

[Bodhi]

Well considering that you haven't contributed anything but insults for the past few months, that's pretty funny.

 

Who needs evidence for backing nothing?

nicely stated

[Guest DWA]

Y'alls a hoot.  Easy to say that when you make no effort to even keep up with the discussion.  For real.

[roguefooter]

Insults and heckling don't count as discussion. There's not much else to keep up with.

[Bodhi]

The discussion was about discerning fake cast prints from authentic specimens and why you don’t throw everything out for something found faked or defective.  So in reading, I interpreted two quick exchanges between Southern Yahoo and Bodhi, keeping in mind holotype means single physical type specimen.

 

SY comment says:  A keen eye for signs of hoaxes is self-cleaning.  You know what should or shouldn’t be present.

 

Bodhi says: True but which one is fake?

 

Bodhi says: There is no specimen and experts seem to disagree.

 

The message was self- evident very clear and straight forward to me but I would give it one logical extension with some alliterative quality for rhetorical effect but I won’t.

A lot of this blame if there is any rests at the feet of science who are largely unwilling to invest some skin in the game and they leave every day lay people to do the heavy lifting, if Bigfoot researchers are one day successful people of science will trample one another out the door to get their name and face out there first as the one true expert.  In the meantime we will be mired in exhausting debate and confusion over the lack of uniform standards in the field which is very unfortunate.

 

Now For my part I will add some alliterative quality for rhetorical effect as an example why one bad apple doesn’t justify throwing out the entire bag. If I buy a bag of apples and find one spoiled apple among the 5 pound bag, I simply discard it and enjoy the rest. I may be Gumshoeye and a bit Bohemian in my ways but I don't believe I'm unique in thinking that way. This is not the poisonous tree doctrine nor is it empirical science, remember science wants us to the heavy lifting. The notion that somehow one faked print automatically speaks value for the hundred others is not sound thinking and will be opposed ever time.        

If Krantz couldn't discern the real from the fake and Meldrum can't always either, then I disagree that fakes can easily be found out and removed. The bad apple is a poor analog when talking about discerning fakes, we know what a good apple looks like how can we be sure we know the same for casts?

I'm not saying a database cannot be created, I'm saying doing so has stymied some of the top minds in this field. To blithely claim that it isn't a problem ignores history.

[Guest]

I believe Southern Yahoo did a pretty fair job answering your question as it pertains to discerning fakery from genuine but once again it seems you may have overlooked that because you turned right around and asked the question again. Unless and until science gets up off their hiney there will no empirical studies from which to standardize these things.  

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bonehead74]

The bad apple is a poor analog when talking about discerning fakes, we know what a good apple looks like how can we be sure we know the same for casts?

This is the question no one is answering.

Which is the unequivocal, definitive, definitely made by a sasquatch footprint cast to act as the standard by which we judge all the others?

[ThePhaige]

^^ oh this aught be good

[WSA]

That's only one of many secondary questions. You are just stalling now. Is it #4 for you, or do you have an opinion?

[Bonehead74]

Sure, I'm just full of opinions. Would you clearly state the question about which you would like me to opine?

[ThePhaige]

Personally Im a

 

3. Some are from the animal, and some are not

 

which I would think is a given for anyone who knows me...I know there are hoaxes, and I know the SSq exists ...but I also know that the SSq also perpetuate (or can cause) a scene to look hoaxed in order to cause the individual to look nutty...and it works

[Guest DWA]

This is the question no one is answering.

Which is the unequivocal, definitive, definitely made by a sasquatch footprint cast to act as the standard by which we judge all the others?

Answer has been given.  The question is irrelevant, and only serves as excuse to continue duff-sit.  I could direct you to the definitve answer, enunciated by me, but pronounced by science.  We're done with this.