Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

[MIB]

Yes, and if you're competent, you can detect specific distortions.   I hope that is not as big an "if" as your response suggests it might be?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I agree and and many of the casts are based on distortion of what the print represented .It is not necessarily  not what foot actually made the print. I have been told that terrain plays a big part. Especially in ice,sand and uneven places.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Twist]

I'm definitely no track expert but I would assume in most media, such as mud, that the outline would grow ever so slightly as the mud dried, if given the opportunity. This would make the track itself seem slightly larger but I doubt it would distort it in any real noticeable amount, maybe measured in MM's, wag.   Snow would obviously be based on temperature and sunlight etc. but generally they would grow in size over time and less in detail/definition.    

[MIB]

There is an amount of distortion to tracks at times but you won't have enough distortion to account for the growth of the track yet retain fine detail.  

 

The tracks I referred to earlier were made in dry dust over a fairly firm base.   There's no mud.   There's no sliding, no smearing.  Obviously no melting of snow.    So how do you account for tracks that are 3 inches longer than the longest "toe shoes" available at the time yet retain massive fine detail which is visible in the photographs I took?   Its not quite to dermal ridge level of detail but the creases at the toe joints were clear and crisp.  

 

In this case, distortion of tracks?  <<LAUGHABLE.>>  Not merely laughable but so clear it makes the person suggesting distortion look like an absolute imbecile. 

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

Merry Christmas. Enough childish name-calling.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I don't think he meant it for me ,but even  he did it is alright. Doesn't bother me . He is just passionate about his beliefs and opinions. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

[dmaker]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

So how do you account for tracks that are 3 inches longer than the longest "toe shoes" available at the time yet retain massive fine detail which is visible in the photographs I took? 

MIB

Hoaxing also works as an explanation. There were bigfoot "reports" in the area, after all. 

[CMBigfoot]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Hoaxing also works as an explanation. There were bigfoot "reports" in the area, after all. 

 

Another possible explanation is if there are two people walking around bare-footed. And one of them steps up higher on the next      person's footprint. Intentionally or not. You could get a 15 inch bare-footed track like the one in this photo.

[hiflier]

WHOA! BIG PRINT. Definitely Bigfoot. Just kidding of course  I do think however that experienced folks who do find a track, even an isolated one, also observe the width and take into account the location and likelihood of whether or not it's feasible for a Human to be barefoot in a certain habitat. Doesn't absolutely rule out hoaxing but does leave the door open to things like possible trail cam placement or looking for any sign of a trail/pattern to follow. There's some pretty intelligent people in the field and the ones on this Forum have learned a lot and so are probably more critical that most on any evidence found- Human or not. 

[MIB]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Hoaxing also works as an explanation. There were bigfoot "reports" in the area, after all. 

 

No, it doesn't.   Hoaxers have to be able to reach the track they're creating and they have to do it without leaving sign that they did so.    This was entirely missing.   If it was hoaxed it had to have been done from at least 8 feet away.    In a wilderness area, nothing motorized.   No cranes, no helicopters.   The only horse tracks were at least 2 months older than the footprint.  

 

I doubt you're able to understand this, but you really need to educate yourself if you're going to add anything but comic relief to a discussion.

 

1 hour ago, CMBigfoot said:

Another possible explanation is if there are two people walking around bare-footed. And one of them steps up higher on the next      person's footprint. Intentionally or not. You could get a 15 inch bare-footed track like the one in this photo.

 

No, it would take at least 4 because the track was not just long, it was wide, and then somehow the overlap of 4 such tracks would have to only produce 5 toes.   More than that, in this case they'd have to be running almost exactly in stride and, despite running with marathon runners in the far past, I've never met a human with a long enough running stride.

 

Again, another attempt to dismiss that absolutely fails because it focuses on a single aspect without considering the whole picture.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

The 'whole picture' thing is becoming a popular point. The whole picture can fail only if a particular detail in any evidence presented is glaringly false and can be shown- like a bear track suspected of being BF.

 

More and more though, ideas or details plugged into the whole picture do serve to strengthen the evidence for existence. And we are all here to iron out those details to see if they hold up. Yes, proponents are here but they work hard on judging the evidence. Certainly harder than skeptics do, or give them credit for doing.    

[SWWASAS]

To the delight of the skeptics here,  prints to me are not proof of anything.   I evaluate them based on where they are found and if I think they are genuine,   accept them as evidence of possible activity.   That is particularly true in the case of footprint finds in the range of the human norm because as the skeptics point out,   they could possibly human or hoaxed.   Way I figure, if Meldrum cannot persuade science that footprint finds mean something is out there,   a non-PHD like myself can find dozens and it does not mean a whole lot.   Meldrum has hundreds of prints in his collection.      But the problem with several skeptics in this thread is that their logic process is all messed up.     Their hypothesis is that something does not exist,  then no matter the circumstances of a footprint find,  that seems to force them to invent non supported arguments about the origin of prints found.   If science had done the same thing with subatomic particles, we would still believe in 4 basic elements.   Earth, Fire, water and air.  Science had to explain evidence they were finding as they delved into the subatomic world.         You cannot simply write off everything as hoax, or mistaken identity,    because if you do that,   you are embracing a belief system rather than examining evidence and doing science.    The same thing proponents are being accused of doing with their belief in existence.     

[norseman]

Hoaxing a single track is child’s play. Hoaxing a trackway is much more difficult and the longer the better. Add to the fact that if it’s in the bush and not along a road where somebody could get pulled by a vehicle? That’s when you sit up and take notice. Maneuvering over tall logs down steep banks or in deep snow, things that would make hoaxing impossible for the average sized man? Even better yet.

Edited December 24, 2017 by norseman

[wiiawiwb]

A casted footprint would mean much more if there was a backstory to it. As several have pointed out, it is imperative to understand and critique the entire area around a footprint or trackway. If a footprint was made, there must be other bits of evidence left around it. Carefully and painstakingly examine that and you'll be able to dismiss a hoax.

[dmaker]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

No, it doesn't.   Hoaxers have to be able to reach the track they're creating and they have to do it without leaving sign that they did so.    This was entirely missing.

MIB

How so, exactly?

 

Are you saying that every hoaxed track has left obvious sign of the hoaxing? How did experts like Meldrum or Barackman ever get fooled by some fake tracks, then?

Edited December 24, 2017 by dmaker