Cliff Barackman interview

[norseman]

 

[CelticKevin]

Great interview and presentation. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing. Nice guy, but midtarsal breaks can be a human trait. 

 

[OkieFoot]

norseman, thanks for posting this. It was very interesting; and educational.

[Explorer]

Thanks for sharing, Norse.

 

It was interesting to see what Cliff Barackman considers good evidence and how he evaluates the evidence to arrive at his preferred hypothesis.

I was surprised that all the videos/photos he selected were blurry (except PGF). I was hoping that he had some better ones in his private collection.

I was not impressed with his selection.

 

On tracks, there is nothing new there. 

But I understand that it is a big part of the corroborating evidence used to justify a physically real creature (that eats, sleeps, craps, walks around, and hides most of the time).

Edited December 3, 2021 by Explorer

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing. Nice guy, but midtarsal breaks can be a human trait. 

 

1 in 13.

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/some-people-are-still-running-around-bendy-chimp-feet/

 

Now how many of those people have a 20 inch foot and walk around in the PacNW with no shoes on? (Shaquille O’Neal has a 16 inch foot, size 22)

 

I do think that the representation of a mid tarsal break in a foot cast shreds the notion of wooden stompers being responsible.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Fakes don't have to be wood. His evidence is very flimsy at best. I expected better from him. I don't know why I should. Without a specimen nothing is sufficient. Thanks for the link. I didn't think it was that common. Proves my point. 

 

Like I said I like him and he does respond to emails and questions. 

He told me the London track way is fake. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Patterson-Gimlin

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Fakes don't have to be wood. His evidence is very flimsy at best. I expected better from him. I don't know why I should. Without a specimen nothing is sufficient. Thanks for the link. I didn't think it was that common. Proves my point. 

 

Like I said I like him and he does respond to emails and questions. 

He told me the London track way is fake. 

In the 1960’s, what other medium would there have been? What medium did Ray Wallace use? Wood. So if we have track casts from the 1960’s that exhibit a mid tarsal break? Chances are they are made from a real foot. Yes?

 

Of course a type specimen would seal it. But we are talking about track casts. If Sasquatch is a real animal? It’s going to leave behind tracks.   Hoaxing could be more sophisticated now, I agree. But even then if following a trackway there are tell tale signs. Like stepping over a four strand barb wire fence. Or digging in toes to climb a bank. Even rubber stompers cannot flex it’s toes, like a real foot can.

[MIB]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Even rubber stompers cannot flex it’s toes, like a real foot can.

 

Can't flex toes under control putting variable amounts of pressure to the ground via the toes between successive steps.

[OkieFoot]

13 hours ago, norseman said:

In the 1960’s, what other medium would there have been? What medium did Ray Wallace use? Wood. So if we have track casts from the 1960’s that exhibit a mid tarsal break? Chances are they are made from a real foot. Yes?

 

Of course a type specimen would seal it. But we are talking about track casts. If Sasquatch is a real animal? It’s going to leave behind tracks.   Hoaxing could be more sophisticated now, I agree. But even then if following a trackway there are tell tale signs. Like stepping over a four strand barb wire fence. Or digging in toes to climb a bank. Even rubber stompers cannot flex it’s toes, like a real foot can.

 

Those are good points. Plus, trackways with stride lengths a human either could not duplicate while walking, or would have to leap or jump to match the tracks. And some in remote areas. (Broadwater Co. MT). 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Remote area finds are interesting. I hear this a lot. How really Remote are they, if reported by humans.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Remote area finds are interesting. I hear this a lot. How really Remote are they, if reported by humans.

Humans can get to any point on the surface of the Earth, the surface of the moon and walk on the ocean floor.

 

So by your definition nothing on Earth or the Moon is “remote”.

 

And yet? We find new species every year.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

.......How really Remote are they, if reported by humans.

 

In areas where few humans go. People can get there, but few do. Indeed, there are mountain peaks within view of my bedroom window where nobody has trod.

[MIB]

3 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Remote area finds are interesting. I hear this a lot. How really Remote are they, if reported by humans.

 

Some are pretty "darn" remote.   

 

The first tracks I found were not "far" from a trail but they were across a deep, swift river in a section very unlikely to cross without a boat.   Since they were fresh, definitely less than 4 hours old, and there were no boats other than me in the area, that's practically impossible.  Not absolutely impossible but vanishingly unlikely.    Other tracks I've found in places where I subsequently set up trail cameras, often quite a few, and in a period of over 4 years I got NO humans on camera in those places.   This means if someone was ever there, they never came back.    In other areas not so far from those spots I did indeed get pictures of people on camera, rare, maybe 1 (or if 2, they were together) every couple years, so that confirms that I'm setting up the cameras right to catch glimpses of any humans passing by.

 

All in all, I think the better question is with so little human traffic, how much more evidence is available to be seen that nobody ever does see?   

[OkieFoot]

When I mentioned Broadwater Co., Montana, I was referring to BFRO report #37974. It's been on here before. It's a pretty compelling report.

A brief synopsis: an elk hunter was in an area where he had hunted numerous times before and never saw another hunter. He came across a trackway that was 15 miles from the nearest drivable road, on the side of a mountain, Barefoot prints that appeared to be 6-7 inches longer than his 12" boots and twice as wide as their 4" width; it was thought snow melt may have accounted for a little of the length and width, estimated 5ft. step length, clean with no drag marks, curving uphill, he had to leap to match the estimated 5ft. step. He thought it very unlikely they were from another hunter, considering how remote and rugged the area was.

 

MIB, your very last point was a good one. If the elk hunter in this report had not been on the mountain at that time, the trackway he came across would very likely have never been discovered by anyone else and would have simply disappeared in time.