Tbrc Operation Endurance Report

[Guest Strick]

So you are confirming the position I ascribed to you: a conspiracy (however informal) of hoaxers is more likely than a real creature to explain the sophisticated biometric data observed in tracks all over the country...

Nobody is claiming an army of hoaxers, but very few are claiming a plethora of footprints either. I thought most responsible Bigfooters made clear that the genuine tracks are few and far between?

There are few giant tracks of any description, real or fake, just laying around out there in the mud. We have documented proof of individuals faking tracks (don't make me link to some goofy Youtube video, you can do that for yourselves) but so far there is NO evidence of a real Bigfoot leaving tracks and No, I don't accept the PGF as admissible evidence.

[Guest]

however informal

I like how you kinda box me in there ~ but i'll go with it

Well since i don't think there is an animal such as BF, then yes the logical conclusion is hoaxes. " however informal "

"O" While i got ya here, can you explain ( sophisticated biometric data ) ? i take it you mean the little lines ( dermal ridges ) that are formed during the casting process.

Dermals have been observed in raw (pre casting) tracks. I am also referring to details of foot articulation, proportions, etc which have been consistently observed in diverse locations over a long period of time. Dr Meldrum talks about all of it in LMS.

there is NO evidence of a real Bigfoot leaving tracks and No, I don't accept the PGF as admissible evidence.

Incorrect. The traits OF the tracks are the evidence that they are being left by a real BF. Traits as observed by Dr Meldrum, et al and whose traits when statistically analyzed (such as in Dr Fahrenbach's paper) demonstrate a distribution curve of a naturally occuring population of real animals and NOT that of a collection of hoaxes.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Dermals have been observed in raw (pre casting) tracks. I am also referring to details of foot articulation, proportions, etc which have been consistently observed in diverse locations over a long period of time. Dr Meldrum talks about all of it in LMS.

YA Ya ya Dr Meldrum ~ i know he is the leading man on the foot prints and the master behind the midtarsal break thing.

He is still a human and subject to the same brain fart as the rest of us all, if he thinks all those prints belong to a BF then i say good for him, and with that he should stand firmly behind his research and belief.

Now me not having the education that he has and just being a street bum i see it differently, cause i know what people can be capable of and i say all those tracks were man made, and i will stand firmly behind my belief as i should.

Now let's all go out for a few brews and forget this BF thing while we get blasted ~

[Guest]

Actually I have a question for Mulder....a midtarsial break only benefits if something ISN'T primarily bipedal and still spending time climbing trees.....If I remember the discussion right, with physical anthro friend. She had a real problem with the metatarsial break. Not with Bigfoot itself tho....go figure. It's something I wondered about as well, unless the foot fuses as they get older. Which to me would make more sense in what the researchers are finding in the field.

Oh...please dumb the answer down for me. I'm not a rocket scientist and don't play one on TV.

[Bonehead74]

Your quote of my post:

The local sheriff was informed of the Echo incident. The details are available online here and on the TBRC's own website. The only witness is DC himself. he made the whole story up and only fired into the brush, there was no 'bigfoot' shot at.

Your response to my quote:

The only part I can believe.

Now try my original, unaltered paragraph:

The local sheriff was informed of the Echo incident. The details are available online here and on the TBRC's own website. Law enforcement and wildlife officers have unfettered access to the same info as you do. What charges have been filed against DC? None, because no crime was committed. My ultimate point here has been that it's poor form to accuse someone of being a criminal without some heavy-duty proof to back your accusations, and none has been provided. Using the laws you cite, we would need to know, really know, that bigfoot exists to accuse DC of a crime. We do not know that bigfoot exists = no violation of wildlife laws. We could go even further if we want to get into potential legal wrangling. (DISCLAIMER: WHAT FOLLOWS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO THAT IN NO WAY REFLECTS DARYL COLYER'S TRUE ACTIONS AT ANY TIME, OR ANY VERSION OF REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!!!) The only witness is DC himself. If he was charged using the above mentioned 'catch-all' clause, he could simply state that he made the whole story up and only fired into the brush, there was no 'bigfoot' shot at. Which mutually exclusive story (originating from the same source) should be believed by a magistrate or jury in that case? How would you prosecute a case where the only source of the story both implicates and exonerates itself? One version would have no more credibility than the other and you left at an impasse.

You have misrepresented me by quoting a carefully worded statement of mine and then using the board's quote function to modify my original post, then repost it as a direct quote of me. This is blatantly disingenuous. Anyone, member or guest, reading your post and not my original quote will conclude that I (not you) am accusing Daryl Colyer of lying. I do understand that you were parsing my words to make your own point, but that is no excuse to (seemingly) quote me in a quote box and then change what I actually said to it's antithesis without any type of disclaimer. Producing and publishing an untruth for the purpose of labeling someone a liar is both beyond the pale and the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty.

Get well soon.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

Actually I have a question for Mulder....a midtarsial break only benefits if something ISN'T primarily bipedal and still spending time climbing trees.....If I remember the discussion right, with physical anthro friend. She had a real problem with the metatarsial break. Not with Bigfoot itself tho....go figure. It's something I wondered about as well, unless the foot fuses as they get older. Which to me would make more sense in what the researchers are finding in the field.

Oh...please dumb the answer down for me. I'm not a rocket scientist and don't play one on TV.

I'm certainly no primate anthropologist (that would be people like Dr Meldrum), but my layman's opinion would be that additional mid-tarsal flexibility would be an advantage in heavily broken, rugged, and/or otherwise "challenging" terrain. It would also facilitate bi-modalism in movement (the ability to go '4x4' at need). This would mark BF as a "habitual" rather than an "obligate" biped, which would agree with the reported range of movement behaviors.

Also, your point about tree climbing and is well taken. There are reports of smaller/younger BF in trees. It may well be then that they are arboreal to some degree when young (it would be safer for a juvenile up a tree than on the ground while the adults are out looking for food).

Such circumstances would make a mid-tarsal break entirely logical for a species that seems to have as many or more characteristics in common with apes than it does man. Since BF seems to be well-adapted to it's environment, there would be little evolutionary pressure on it to further refine it's characteristics.

[Guest Jodie]

I have never ever gotten into the debate about tracks because it makes my eyes roll up into my head from boredom. I bought a footprint cast from Dr. Meldrum last month, I have no idea which one it is, I just liked the way it looked and picked it. It sat on my bookcase a couple of weeks before I took it down to really look at it in the sun comparing it to the bottom of my foot. Low and behold, right where you would have a thickened area on the outer side of the arch of your foot were some dermal ridges. Then I looked at it from the side, and there it was, a dip right slap dab in the middle of the foot that I don't have. Whoever faked that footprint needs to be rated up there with Michael Angelo. He or she is wasting their talent faking prints in remote areas of the U.S.

[Guest]

Dr Meldrum talks about all of it in LMS.

And he's wrong. Do you need Kitakaze to post that compilation of photos that Dr. Meldrum has blessed as authentic but clearly show evidence of hoaxing? Mulder, do you know how I'm a PhD and you think that I'm wrong all the time. There's a lesson for you: PhDs can be wrong. If Meldrum could demonstrate that ANY footprint he's ever analyzed came from a bigfoot, he would not be publishing that analysis in "LMS." He'd publish it in Science or Nature. He may think he's got real bigfoot print casts in his collection, but he knows he can't demonstrate that to any degree such that it would withstand peer review.

Don't even get me started on Fahrenbach's footprint morphometrics distribution that demonstrates a "statistical distribution" all right: human hoaxer feet. There may also be some bear prints in there AND some real bigfoot footprints in those data, but there's no way to tell. Again, if Fahrenbach thought there was really anything to the data, he'd publish it in the real literature.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Operation Endurance thread.

[Guest]

Oh no you don't Sas...no "drive bys" for you...

And he's wrong.

In your opinion.

Do you need Kitakaze to post that compilation of photos that Dr. Meldrum has blessed as authentic but [he claims] clearly show evidence of hoaxing?

FIFY

Mulder, do you know how I'm a PhD and you think that I'm wrong all the time. There's a lesson for you: PhDs can be wrong.

I'm well aware of that...after all I read your posts.

If Meldrum could demonstrate that ANY footprint he's ever analyzed came from a bigfoot, he would not be publishing that analysis in "LMS." He'd publish it in Science or Nature.

Assuming they'd take it. Dr Ketchum has some interesting DNA results and SHE isn't being published in Nature...Science we don't know about yet.

He may think he's got real bigfoot print casts in his collection, but he knows he can't demonstrate that to any degree such that it would withstand peer review.

Psychic much?

Don't even get me started on Fahrenbach's footprint morphometrics distribution that demonstrates a "statistical distribution" all right: human hoaxer feet.

Do I have to drag THIS arguement out again? The sheer number of factors that would be required to produce a natualistic dataset are well outside the capabilities of any group of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs whittlin' stompers and you know it.

I'm still waiting from the LAST time I asked for you or anyone else to pony up the evidence of the hoaxer conspiracy that would have to exist for your assertion to be plausible.

There may also be some bear prints in there AND some real bigfoot footprints in those data, but there's no way to tell. Again, if Fahrenbach thought there was really anything to the data, he'd publish it in the real literature.

*yawn* Oh, I'm sorry, didn't mean to nod off, but I've heard this song and dance so many times I almost have it memorized verbatim.

Unless and until you can make an evidentiary showing to support your speculations, I'm going to continue to accept scientific results scientifically arrived at.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I'm still waiting from the LAST time I asked for you or anyone else to pony up the evidence of the hoaxer conspiracy that would have to exist for your assertion to be plausible.

O O Let me get in on this, i already posted it but it seems to have gotten thrown to the side so here it is again.

Conspiracy, i don't really think that but you could have a few old army buddies or something in different states having a little fun hoaxing prints, the tools to do so could easily be mailed back and forth.

[Guest]

Tracks

The problem for true believers: the footprints are wildly inconsistent as far as shape is concerned. This inconsistency is better explained as folk artifact rather than as originating from a single species of animal. This inconsistency is generally not recognized by the community of true believers, or explained away by them speciously.

The problem for skeptics: create trackways that closely mimic the purported Bigfoot trackways. This should be doable if the trackways are hoaxes. Of coarse, true believers won't accept such demonstrations, if successful, and will be in full denial mode. But it will serve the interest of truth.

Mantrackers or animal trackers should be employed to pursue any good tracks that are found. One mantracker has been involved in various Bigfoot tracks. Joel Hardin has determined the ones he has investigated are hoaxes. In a private e-mail discussion with an animal tracker, I was told that Dr. Meldrum has presented very interesting casts that piqued the tracker's interest. However, the tracker also said that he offered to pay his own expenses to travel to a fresh, good trackway if notified by Dr. Meldrum, but to date Dr. Meldrum has not taken him up on his offer. The animal tracker said that he would not lose a Bigfoot trail, if given the opportunity.

Joel Hardin has written about his investigation of the Paul Freeman tracks in a chapter in his book: TRACKER: Case Files & Adventures of a Professional Mantracker.

[Guest]

Oh no you don't Sas...no "drive bys" for you...

So it's OK for you to insert off-topic drive-by posts but not OK for anyone to call you on that? Got it.

In your opinion.

Correct, and what you read in LMS is Jeff Meldrum's opinion. It is irresponsible of you to present it as anything else.

I'm well aware of that...after all I read your posts.

Good. Now try reading LMS with the same bias with which you read my posts.

Assuming they'd take it.

Speaking of yawning at old songs and dances, this favorite of yours has been around since at least the 1960s. Wanna come over and spin my new Chubby Checker record?

Do I have to drag THIS arguement out again?

No you don't. You could try doing something responsible in a post like this: "While some scientists who have examined the data conclude that the distribution could easily result from many un-related hoaxers converging on a common meme for bigfoot prints, Dr. Fahrenbach maintains that the distribution could only result from a population of real bigfoots. I am inclined to agree with Dr. Fahrenbach's opinion because . . . "

See how easy it is to express your opinion in such a way as to present both sides of the issue? If you would post things like this, there'd be no "arguments". The primary reason I respond to your posts is that you throw out statements in such a way that the uninitiated could easily misinterpret them as having been demonstrated to be factual, when in fact they have not. But if you worded your statements like I did above, the newbie who desired to learn more might be encouraged to do some personal exploration of the topic to make an informed opinion.

The sheer number of factors that would be required to produce a natualistic dataset are well outside the capabilities of any group of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs whittlin' stompers and you know it.

I'm still waiting from the LAST time I asked for you or anyone else to pony up the evidence of the hoaxer conspiracy that would have to exist for your assertion to be plausible.

For the umteenth time . . . imagine you gathered 100 people in a room and told them to go "hoax some bigfoot prints". They aren't allowed to work together or communicate with each other in any way, and they can make their prints using whatever methods and materials they like. Describe to me the statistical distribution of the length and width of the prints those 100 independent people would make. That's right, it'd look just like Fahrenbach's.

Your "hoaxer conspiracy" fantasy is the straw-est of strawmen - I've NEVER indicated that a coordinated effort of any kind would be necessary to produce the distribution in Fahrenbach's analysis. You can keep writing so, but you will still be wrong, and by wrong I mean mischaracterizing my position with blatant disregard for honesty. Since at least the 1950's yeti craze, everybody with a television has had some idea of what the footprints of something like a bigfoot should look like - there is no conspiracy necessary for hundreds of independent hoaxers to converge on the general size and shape of a "bigfoot" print.

[bipedalist]

Tracks

The problem for true believers: the footprints are wildly inconsistent as far as shape is concerned. This inconsistency is better explained as folk artifact rather than as originating from a single species of animal. This inconsistency is generally not recognized by the community of true believers, or explained away by them speciously.

The problem for skeptics: create trackways that closely mimic the purported Bigfoot trackways. This should be doable if the trackways are hoaxes. Of coarse, true believers won't accept such demonstrations, if successful, and will be in full denial mode. But it will serve the interest of truth.

Mantrackers or animal trackers should be employed to pursue any good tracks that are found. One mantracker has been involved in various Bigfoot tracks. Joel Hardin has determined the ones he has investigated are hoaxes. In a private e-mail discussion with an animal tracker, I was told that Dr. Meldrum has presented very interesting casts that piqued the tracker's interest. However, the tracker also said that he offered to pay his own expenses to travel to a fresh, good trackway if notified by Dr. Meldrum, but to date Dr. Meldrum has not taken him up on his offer. The animal tracker said that he would not lose a Bigfoot trail, if given the opportunity.

Joel Hardin has written about his investigation of the Paul Freeman tracks in a chapter in his book: TRACKER: Case Files & Adventures of a Professional Mantracker.

I'm sure a portion of Standing's standing 2million dollar offer could be diverted to such an "expert" where appropriate.

[southernyahoo]

Mantrackers or animal trackers should be employed to pursue any good tracks that are found. One mantracker has been involved in various Bigfoot tracks. Joel Hardin has determined the ones he has investigated are hoaxes. In a private e-mail discussion with an animal tracker, I was told that Dr. Meldrum has presented very interesting casts that piqued the tracker's interest. However, the tracker also said that he offered to pay his own expenses to travel to a fresh, good trackway if notified by Dr. Meldrum, but to date Dr. Meldrum has not taken him up on his offer. The animal tracker said that he would not lose a Bigfoot trail, if given the opportunity.

Joel Hardin has written about his investigation of the Paul Freeman tracks in a chapter in his book: TRACKER: Case Files & Adventures of a Professional Mantracker.

So you are speaking for Joel right now that Joel will up and run for a good trackway If.....

1. Jeff Meldrum finds it.

2. Someone else finds it, contacts Meldrum,...Meldrum believes the person reporting after some investigation and calls Joel.

Here's the problem, Joel won't be ready when the call comes. It will take some time to establish that they aren't hoaxed before calling Joel. It will take Joel a day or two to get to the trackway. By the time all this transpires the tracks are basicly gone if they were ever obvious to start with and didn't go into a creek, cross / follow a road, or go onto private property. If the tracks weren't obvious then the tracker couldn't begin to contend he was on the trail of a squatch, unless ofcoarse every flipped stone, ruffled leaves and broken twig can be attributed to bigfoot.

Here's his link. I'd say if he ever takes a call, he'll soon drop his offer.

http://www.jhardin-inc.com/web/

[Guest]

So you are speaking for Joel right now that Joel will up and run for a good trackway If.....

1. Jeff Meldrum finds it.

2. Someone else finds it, contacts Meldrum,...Meldrum believes the person reporting after some investigation and calls Joel.

Here's the problem, Joel won't be ready when the call comes. It will take some time to establish that they aren't hoaxed before calling Joel. It will take Joel a day or two to get to the trackway. By the time all this transpires the tracks are basicly gone if they were ever obvious to start with and didn't go into a creek, cross / follow a road, or go onto private property. If the tracks weren't obvious then the tracker couldn't begin to contend he was on the trail of a squatch, unless ofcoarse every flipped stone, ruffled leaves and broken twig can be attributed to bigfoot.

Here's his link. I'd say if he ever takes a call, he'll soon drop his offer.

http://www.jhardin-inc.com/web/

SY,

Sorry if my post is confusing. I was referring not to Hardin but to an animal tracker who has reviewed track-cast evidence with Dr. Meldrum (and Krantz) and is open to the possibility of Bigfoot. I exchanged e-mails with him but did not inquire if I could quote him directly on BFF.

Hardin actually has been on call with a Bigfoot org. and has gone on location, it is my understanding.

My motto: forget Science-----get a good tracker and a gunman/cameraman and water and hard tack.

That is, if there is something real to track.