Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[roguefooter]

^You really can't see differences in those tracks?

 

All the tracks Meldrum found have a rounded toe arc like a bear's. All the tracks found in areas connected to Wallace have the double ball. All of Freeman's tracks have wonky noodle like toes or fingers. Compare the shape of the metatarsal areas on all of those tracks and they're all vastly different from each other- from perfectly straight like a ruler to arced like a human.

 

Then there are the toes- from macaroni shaped, to flat, to ping pong balls, etc. There is no real consistency like you would see in any other animal or hominid. Sure there are anomalies within species, but unless you want to count every single Squatch as being an anomaly then it doesn't make much sense.

Edited September 17, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

Where is this coming from?  Freeman?  Wallace?  How 'bout just throw those boys out...and explain the rest?

 

Come ON PEOPLE!  What are folks doing coming here without parsing the syllabus or buying the books?  Sasquatch tracks ARE CONSISTENT.  Please read up.  The midterm is 50% of the grade.  Get on the stick!

[roguefooter]

^Where's it coming from? They're staples in the field- the casts that are sold at every convention representing Bigfoot. Casts that Meldrum uses in his lectures.

 

Are you now going to start tossing out whatever you don't like and just keeping the bits that make you feel good?

[Guest DWA]

No.  I do what scientists do:  keep the ones that say...humans didn't do this...but a sasquatch did.  They're CONSISTENT.

 

See how that works?

[roguefooter]

Meldrum is still a scientist, is he not? Why does he stand behind both the Freeman and Wallace-made tracks as being the real deal?

 

Yes I see how it works- selective science.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

The main problem with casting tracks . You can only cast what is there. Not always consistent with what left them . I mean to say ,tracks from the same animal can appear different due to the environment or in the manner they were laid down and or cast.

I do see your point . That is a great point about Meldrum and two known hoaxers.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Guest DWA]

Meldrum is still a scientist, is he not? Why does he stand behind both the Freeman and Wallace-made tracks as being the real deal?

 

Yes I see how it works- selective science.

You know what?  I DON'T CARE WHAT MELDRUM THINKS ABOUT FREEMAN AND WALLACE.

 

About pretty much everything else:  HE'S RIGHT.

 

Know what's at work there?  Science, and critical thought.

 

People make mistakes.  Even scientists.  Know the really coollycool thing about that?  If you can think like a scientist...and some can...you can excise their mistakes, and still understand that they're right about the evidence.  Only people victimized by an inability to bring critical thinking to bear throw babies out with bathwater.

 

See, this is the power of evidence and scientific critical thinking.  When one can do the latter, one thoroughly understands the former, and isn't tossed willy-nilly by every little breeze that blows and every little mistake a scientist makes.  Krantz made several.  Meldrum has too.  Know what?

 

They're right; the mainstream is wrong; and if you bet that sasquatch isn't real...you lose.

[norseman]

^You really can't see differences in those tracks?

 

All the tracks Meldrum found have a rounded toe arc like a bear's. All the tracks found in areas connected to Wallace have the double ball. All of Freeman's tracks have wonky noodle like toes or fingers. Compare the shape of the metatarsal areas on all of those tracks and they're all vastly different from each other- from perfectly straight like a ruler to arced like a human.

 

Then there are the toes- from macaroni shaped, to flat, to ping pong balls, etc. There is no real consistency like you would see in any other animal or hominid. Sure there are anomalies within species, but unless you want to count every single Squatch as being an anomaly then it doesn't make much sense.

 

As an experiment I took photos of my son's trackway while running and walking along a wet sandy/muddy beach.

 

From track to track there was some that were consistent but in others there was no consistency at all. At times the toes looked like ping pong balls and other times they looked like noodles. Sometimes his toes where splayed and I could even see a twisting torsion on the ball of the foot as he pushed off.

 

I think you should try a similar experiment with yourself.

 

I personally would become much more suspicious with a track way if the tracks exhibited no such variables and instead looked like a cookie cutter.

 

But all of these Sasquatch tracks exhibit five toes and are wide at the heel. Toe row alignment is variable with humans and as such I don't think there should be much concern there.

 

http://bongbaby86.tripod.com/id28.html

Edited September 17, 2015 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

One of the things the uninitiated simply do not understand about this whole thing is that NO ANIMAL IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET leaves a trackway in which every visible track looks alike.  It is a tracking truism that every animal sooner or later makes ANOTHER animal's track.

 

Consistencies in sasquatch tracks are as discernible and evident as those for anything else.

[JDL]

It makes sense that there would be some variance in the tracks, surrounding a core that is consistent.  This is a species that weighs 800 pounds and goes barefoot all its life.  There will be injury and deformation.  A subgroup that has lived in swamps for hundreds of years will likely have feet and tracks that are shaped by that environment.  Another group may be inbred to a large degree and have genetic deformities.  And I won't rule out the hoaxing of some samples.

 

That said, I'm not qualified to question Dr. Meldrum, Krantz, or any other true expert in the field of biomechanics.

[norseman]

Here are some of those tracks.

 

The two bottom tracks are that of a bear but the one looks like a Sasquatch track. But it was just the Bear slipping in the mud.

Edited September 17, 2015 by norseman

[AaronD]

Very good posts, JDL!

[JDL]

Thanks, Aaron.

[Guest DWA]

It has been pointed out by Meldrum and Bindernagel that the sasquatch foot is much closer to an ape's than it is to ours.  That flexibility alone is going to lead to much variance in tracks that still exhibit marked consistencies.

[roguefooter]

It makes sense that there would be some variance in the tracks, surrounding a core that is consistent.  This is a species that weighs 800 pounds and goes barefoot all its life.  There will be injury and deformation.  A subgroup that has lived in swamps for hundreds of years will likely have feet and tracks that are shaped by that environment.  Another group may be inbred to a large degree and have genetic deformities.  And I won't rule out the hoaxing of some samples.

 

That said, I'm not qualified to question Dr. Meldrum, Krantz, or any other true expert in the field of biomechanics.

 

Why don't we see these variations in human feet? We have lots of people weighing several hundred pounds, walking barefoot, living in bayous for hundreds of years. Cajuns don't have webbed toes or 3 digits.

 

There are also bears that have been living in extremely different environments from forests to rocky mountains to swamps, and their feet aren't completely changing shape. Why only Sasquatch?

 

Even the Fouke Monster has his own special foot that's completely different from his neighbor the Honey Island Swamp Monster or any other Bigfoots in the surrounding areas.

Edited September 17, 2015 by roguefooter