Jump to content
norseman

Finding Bigfoot Top 6 best evidence list....

Recommended Posts

norseman

1) REPORTS

Our man DWA would be clicking his heels right now!

 

2) FOOT CASTS

Especially the Bossburg tracks from my home of Stevens County! Whoop!

 

3) PGF

Only 3rd!?? Whaaaaaaa? Yup......read it and weep Sweaty Yeti and Kitakaze. 

 

4) INDIAN FOLKLORE

I’d place this up near the top. It’s my opinion that the Hobbit proved local folklore. Minus the woo of course.

 

5) AUDIO RECORDINGS

I put very little faith in this stuff, I’ve listened to a lot of Coyote calls and other mundane animals claimed to be Bigfoot. The Sierra sounds are not Coyotes. I will withhold judgement there. Kinda sounds like uncle Bob with a gravelly voice in the bushes with his foot caught in a bear trap.

 

6) DERMAL RIDGES

Yes they can be faked! Just like tracks! But what about the ones that supposedly show a cut that has healed? And on a track over the span of many years and hundreds of miles apart? Chilcutt claimed it was the same creature.....

 

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/6-healed-dermal-scars-on-track-casts/

 

What is your opinion on the ranking of the list? I see they left out DNA and Hair and blood samples, test results. And of course snow tracks of large bipedal trackways walking cleanly through deep snow is near and dear to my heart. They also left out the 411 books.....

 

thoughts?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I of course agreed/agree with DWA on that one Norse. Our word today is “congruency”.  As he would say, “This animal has been repeatedly and consistently observed doing all the things animals do, and more often than any other unclassified animal we know of”. That is really not a debatable point. It just is.  

Edited by WSA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

There are a variety of things that one could use to make a good argument/case, but the level of difficulty can vary tremendously. The easiest one is a clear and up-close personal encounter. That list only includes evidence that one can show to others.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
15 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There are a variety of things that one could use to make a good argument/case, but the level of difficulty can vary tremendously. The easiest one is a clear and up-close personal encounter. That list only includes evidence that one can show to others.

 

 

 

Except #1.....which is reports or personal encounters of course! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Bossburg tracks?  Maybe there is an alternate dimension somewhere that is true but what tracks exist from Bossburg not associated with inept hoaxer Ivan Marx?

Edited by Arvedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Reports, audio recording, and footprints all indicate the same thing (an actual sasquatch), but they’re not the same as witnessing an actual sasquatch. The latter is a different experience, and is much easier to make a case from.

 

 

 

Folklore falls into the category of reports. Dermal ridges fall in the category of footprint casts. Sightings and reports need to be distinguished.

 

There are different types of reports and different aspects of footprint casts, but that doesn’t mean they should be listed separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I’m not following.....many of the people making reports ARE witnesses? So witnesses are covered under reports, item 1.

 

And I didn’t make the list you understand?

 

For me viable reports are most important and if there is a discernible trackway? All the better. I try to stay abreast with reports, but only go out hunting if I can bring a rifle. I stay away from the Park Service and Reservations and Canada......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

1) Visual 

- Field

- Videos

- Photos

 

2) Reports

- Textual

- Auditory

 

3) Footprints 

- Dermal ridges

- Mid-foot flexibility

- etc 

 

4) Sounds

- Personal field

- Recordings

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

1. PGF

2. PGF

3. PGF

4. PGF

5. PGF

6. PGF

 

It doesn't have audio or dermal ridges but the four things that it DOES have: a report backed up by a visual, foot casts, and folklore, are strong enough to not need the other pieces evidence at all. Finding Bigfoot obviously has it's head where it doesn't belong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Allow me to clarify my last sentence. Finding Bigfoot monies should be spent on science. Or more specifically scientists. If true scientific research is to be done it needs to be funded. Grants given to university departments for specific use on the PGF, bone finds, and offering DNA testing for the Oregon nest project. I just do NOT understand Moneymaker's approach at all. He seems to be doing all the things that do not find Bigfoot instead of zeroing in on the things that possibly CAN find Bigfoot. I just have a difficult time getting this.

 

I think Wally Hersom has it all over Matt when it comes to being effective and pro active by buying thermal cameras, funding Ketchum, funding the Olympic Project, and offering $100,000 for proving "Big Phil" fake and who knows what else. It takes money. Obviously Moneymaker has none? He and Hersom could do some pretty important investigation if they POOL their money and target science together.  

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
9 hours ago, Arvedis said:

Bossburg tracks?  Maybe there is an alternate dimension somewhere that is true but what tracks exist from Bossburg not associated with inept hoaxer Ivan Marx?

 

Example or foot pathology section.

 

http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
13 hours ago, WSA said:

That is really not a debatable point. It just is.

 

Agreed WSA, as long as we all keep in mind this is "evidence" and not proof.

 

One thing I'd add to the list, and I suppose they could be considered reports, is old newspaper stories about sightings and stories from someone like Daniel Boone who claimed to have shot and killed one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Rockape, yeah. We probably always need to make that distinction. Sure as shootin', somebody will come in and confuse the two. While I have long held the belief that the sighting reports ARE proof (maybe not definitive for many, but approaching it for me), I don't make that case here.

 

Judging from some of the f/u responses too, I think some may be confusing "subjective" vs. "objective" evidence. I believe Norseman's original post was to rank the objective stuff. If I had an encounter of a degree that left me with only two conclusions, them being, 1. "Sasquatch exists"; or..2. "I am crazy",  then I've probably reached a level of subjective proof, which is unlikely to persuade anyone but my closest friends and family....well, at least the ones who don't  know I AM crazy. But, if my story is collected along with thousands of others and congruency is seen beyond the comparison of that many random hoaxes or misidentifications? You are in the objective evidence category, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

A personal sighting isn’t any more subjective than seeing a video or film (e.g. PGF). The difference is that the latter is available for others to see as well whereas with a personal sighting, it was only available to you, and you only got one view.

 

When you tell others about your encounter, they only get the report, not a visual (e.g. PGF, personal sighting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×