Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[The Shrike]

Indeed, Longtabber's post were quite good when he stuck to logic and standards of inquiry. . .

Re: prints.

The most obvious way to hoax bigfoot prints is to don some kind of Ray Wallace stompers and walk around in the mud. To make the prints deeper to convey a sense of "heavier than a human", all you have to do is jump. This has the added benefit of lengthening the apparent stride. I'm stunned sometimes by how often these sophomoric methods to make prints are dismissed by proponents. It would be a little easier to take Meldrum seriously if he actually conducted some rigorous tests of simple wooden stompers in different substrates under controlled conditions. He could even publish that stuff. The fact that he's uninterested in doing that speaks volumes to me.

Of course another way to hoax prints (and one I hadn't considered) is to scoop substrate out to make an impression (as opposed to pressing it down). Those ridiculous Freeman prints seem to have been made this way. Once we get a bit more creative about how a print can be made, it opens up interpretations that might otherwise have seemed untenable.

My choice for the dumbest interpretation of footprint evidence? The old canard about the print being found someplace "no one would go." My first thought when I read those is that the finder = the maker.

 

[AttorneyTom]

My choice for the dumbest interpretation of footprint evidence? The old canard about the print being found someplace "no one would go." My first thought when I read those is that the finder = the maker.

Then of course a long pause... and then " I only see them when I am by myself..."

 

[dafydd]

My choice for the dumbest interpretation of footprint evidence? The old canard about the print being found someplace "no one would go." My first thought when I read those is that the finder = the maker.

It never seems to occur to them that if it's a place where no one would go then the footprints would never be found.

 

[AttorneyTom]

That is why the video is crystal clear on the prints.. but not on the "creature". Love it !!!

 

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by xblade
(snip)

If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-...e-cam-coon.jpg

I smile every time! About the forth one down.

 

[Jodie]

That sounds like a somewhat dismissive attitude, for someone claiming to be seriously looking for answers ...


All the major players at the time; Green, Dahinden, Byrne, Titmus, not to mention Patterson himself made no concerted effort to locate the bigfoot, supposedly one of a family, that Patterson captured on film.
Instead, Patterson uses income from the film to finance a trip to China.

I think one could reasonably speculate that none of the people involved gave serious consideration to the idea that there was really a family of Bigfeets in the area.

That's not looking good for their veracity. One event like this, no matter how famous it has become, does not make or break the case for bigfoot for me. Since there was nothing definitive about the event, and many lingering questions, it doesn't seem worth the effort to pursue.

 

[AttorneyTom]

What questions are lingering ?

 

[dafydd]

That's not looking good for their veracity. One event like this, no matter how famous it has become, does not make or break the case for bigfoot for me. Since there was nothing definitive about the event, and many lingering questions, it doesn't seem worth the effort to pursue.

You mentioned these questions before. What are they?

 

[Jodie]

Somethings are more impressive than others, and again where is the hoaxer's sign? Fake prints won't be the only thing left in an attempt to create them. I would think a good tracker would be able to see evidence of this easily enough.

To my knowledge, has anyone tried to debunk these? I don't recall reading it if they have. So nothing can be concluded until someone tries that approach. Just because prints are historically hoaxed does not mean you should just dismiss every other set as the same, however, every effort should be made to rule out a hoax.

That is critical thinking IMO, those that take this topic seriously, skeptic and proponent alike, should take each incident individually and do the investigation right the first time instead of jumping to conclusions in either direction, that POV won't change with me.

And Vortigen, you aren't forced to read what I post, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't take this topic so seriously that I'm unable to step away from it and see the humor that is obviously not hard to find. To me , every research technique used by the so called researchers is silly when nothing has worked for decades. How would hanging a disco ball with a camera in it out in the woods be any different?

Tom, I've seen everything but Patty's Pores debated regarding the PGF, it seems that no one agrees on anything when it comes to that film, so in my mind, it can't be used to make a case for bigfoot.

 

[AttorneyTom]

The only thing I can say about Patty/Bob's pores is that they were more than likely working overtime on that warm day/suit ? Now.. there might be some DNA evidence..

 

[Jodie]

If Kit ever gets "the" suit maybe he'll follow through with that.

Dayff, lets see, the eye, is it glass? The rolls of faux fur versus real muscle, the gait debate, the sudbucting thigh line, the butt crack debate,and so on and so on to the point of absurdity.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

dismissive attitude, for someone claiming to be seriously looking for answers ...

Right. That does get under my skin a bit. There are plenty of airheads that chatter simply because they love idle banter and having to think more than an instant about anything is a strong negative. What I dislike is the dishonesty of saying you are serious.

Patterson uses income from the film to finance a trip to China.

Thailand, which coincidentally was a red light district well-known to ex servicemen like Roger Patterson but having no history whatsoever regarding Yeti or Bigfoot.

Shrike -

My choice for the dumbest interpretation of footprint evidence? The old canard about the print being found someplace "no one would go."

When I hear this then I know their motivations are dishonest. Weren't THEY just at this place "no one would go"? So we're being called retards, and I'm not real keen on being called a retard.

 

[Vortigern99]

Some things are more impressive than others, and again where is the hoaxer's sign? Fake prints won't be the only thing left in an attempt to create them. I would think a good tracker would be able to see evidence of this easily enough.

To my knowledge, has anyone tried to debunk these? I don't recall reading it if they have. So nothing can be concluded until someone tries that approach. Just because prints are historically hoaxed does not mean you should just dismiss every other set as the same, however, every effort should be made to rule out a hoax.

So nothing can be concluded until someone tries that approach [of discovering evidence of hoaxing].

False. Here's what can absolutely be concluded with 100% certainty, at every site at which bigfoot prints have been found: Someone hoaxed the prints. Further evidence of hoaxing than the prints themselves is not required.

And here's why: There is not a molecule of evidence for this animal's existence. No bones, scat, blood, hair, teeth, urine, cells, or unambiguous photography. Provide a single molecule of evidence, Jodie, and we can begin to examine track sites with a fine tooth comb, searching for that elusive sneaker print or discarded snackbar wrapper that you appear to believe will constitute evidence of a hoax.

Until that evidence is produced, all prints can be reasonably classified as either fraudulent or misidentifications.

That is critical thinking IMO, those that take this topic seriously, skeptic and proponent alike, should take each incident individually and do the investigation right the first time instead of jumping to conclusions in either direction, that POV won't change with me.

False. A critical thinker looks first at the fact that there is not a molecule of evidence supporting this animal's existence, then rationally discards each "incident" of prints (the technique of which known and reproduceable) as either fraudulent or misidentification. Your POV is stuck in wishful, magical thinking in order to support your father's childhood fantasy.

And Vortigen, you aren't forced to read what I post, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't take this topic so seriously that I'm unable to step away from it and see the humor that is obviously not hard to find. To me , every research technique used by the so called researchers is silly when nothing has worked for decades. How would hanging a disco ball with a camera in it out in the woods be any different?

Hang on there, J -- I said your disco ball imagery was not funny to me personally. That is a subjective, aesthetic opinion. I did not say or imply that I didn't "like"your posts in general, or that I felt like I was being "forced to read" them. I don't know where you're getting that.

This isn't a popularity contest; it doesn't matter to me who "likes" whom. This is an intellectual debate. Let's discuss evidence (or the lack thereof) and share opinions about whatever facts are available. I'm not interested in making you laugh or laughing at your jokes. That might happen, but it will be incidental if and when it does. There are other threads (in the Members Only forum) for entertaining one another.

I'll see you in the "All Things Uranus" thread in Humor.

 

[fleabeetle]

HOw do you work the multiquote here?

At the bottom right-hand corner of each post, there are four buttons: Link, Quote, ' ' (pair of inverted commas), Reply.

Left-click on the "inverted commas" button on each post in turn, that you'll want to quote from. Scroll down to bottom of page; left-click on Post Reply button at bottom left-hand corner of page. That gives content of each post, in your "reply" window.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

The most obvious way to hoax bigfoot prints is to don some kind of Ray Wallace stompers and walk around in the mud. To make the prints deeper to convey a sense of "heavier than a human", all you have to do is jump.

I'm not trying to dispute your point, but I've been thinking it would be easier to just make the prints in really wet mud, and/or add water oneself before making the prints.

 

[Correa Neto]

Somethings are more impressive than others, and again where is the hoaxer's sign? Fake prints won't be the only thing left in an attempt to create them. I would think a good tracker would be able to see evidence of this easily enough.

This assumes good trackers are available not just within bigfootery but also for each particular alleged bigfoot track case you wish to bring forward as non-hoaxed. Given the standards of bigfootery's usual practices and investigators' skills...

And there's another problem- possible evidence for forgery (say, knee marks besides each print) could be discounted or "explained" by the hoaxer as being the result of his/hers "investigation" of the tracks by the time it was found.

To my knowledge, has anyone tried to debunk these? I don't recall reading it if they have. So nothing can be concluded until someone tries that approach. Just because prints are historically hoaxed does not mean you should just dismiss every other set as the same, however, every effort should be made to rule out a hoax.

...snip...

Do not forget that "hoax" is not the only explanation. Mistakes also happen (example: overstepping bear tracks).

 

[Drewbot]

Jodie, why did you quit the BFF steering committee?

 

[Resume]

Jodie, why did you quit the BFF steering committee?

Wait, there's a steering committee?

 

[Jodie]

So nothing can be concluded until someone tries that approach [of discovering evidence of hoaxing].

It's a start, I haven't seen too much effort in that direction. If I were a serious bigfoot researcher I would try to have contacts that could help me do that, if not learn to do it myself, and document everything as I proceeded.

False. Here's what can absolutely be concluded with 100% certainty, at every site at which bigfoot prints have been found: Someone hoaxed the prints. Further evidence of hoaxing than the prints themselves is not required.

I think you are wrong about that, it would depend on the circumstances. To dismiss those extenuating circumstances of location, probability of finding tracks, probability that someone could make those tracks without disturbing anything else, the weather, the soil type, and any other number of variables seems ridiculous. The only 100% certain thing in any discovery of tracks is that they are present, not what made them or how they were made until you investigate further.

And here's why: There is not a molecule of evidence for this animal's existence. No bones, scat, blood, hair, teeth, urine, cells, or unambiguous photography. Provide a single molecule of evidence, Jodie, and we can begin to examine track sites with a fine tooth comb, searching for that elusive sneaker print or discarded snackbar wrapper that you appear to believe will constitute evidence of a hoax.

If you dismiss these things without thorough investigation regardless of stance, you miss an opportunity to establish credible evidence for either opinion. If anything was found it would put the authenticity of the track in question. If no forensic evidence or human sign was found, you still wouldn't know what made the track but you could rule out the probability of human hoaxing.

Until that evidence is produced, all prints can be reasonably classified as either fraudulent or misidentifications.

If you have already decided no evidence can be found then none will be produced. Prints can not be classified if consistent effort's by either skeptical investigators or hopeful bigfoot hunters have not been attempted.


False. A critical thinker looks first at the fact that there is not a molecule of evidence supporting this animal's existence, then rationally discards each "incident" of prints (the technique of which known and reproduceable) as either fraudulent or misidentification. Your POV is stuck in wishful, magical thinking in order to support your father's childhood fantasy.

There is no evidence, but if presented with potential evidence do you discard it or do you investigate further? If you walked up on a set of tracks like this in a rural area how would you proceed? Keep walking, or try to figure out what was used to make them or who made them even if you thought they were fraudulent? I really don't think a critical thinker would totally ignore them just because there is no current physical evidence.



Hang on there, J -- I said your disco ball imagery was not funny to me personally. That is a subjective, aesthetic opinion. I did not say or imply that I didn't "like"your posts in general, or that I felt like I was being "forced to read" them. I don't know where you're getting that.

I thought you were insulted.

This isn't a popularity contest; it doesn't matter to me who "likes" whom. This is an intellectual debate. Let's discuss evidence (or the lack thereof) and share opinions about whatever facts are available. I'm not interested in making you laugh or laughing at your jokes. That might happen, but it will be incidental if and when it does. There are other threads (in the Members Only forum) for entertaining one another.

It's a bigfoot discussion on a forum, how intelligent can the conversation really be? I see no reason humor and intelligent conversation or debate can not be intermingled. If I have the opportunity to attempt to do so I will, whether you laugh or not is your choice.

I'll see you in the "All Things Uranus" thread in Humor.

two characters

 

[Jodie]

Jodie,
I still think you want bigfoot to be real so you explain away the blurry photos and videos, and anything else that proves your belief to be false, which is fine, but if you are a fence-sitter and want to end up one one side or the other you'll need to ignore your dreams and feelings and look at the evidence in an objective manner.

I am being as objective as I can be in trying not to ignore either side at this point. You may have reached different conclusions but I'm not there yet. I can't accept pat answers when there is no basis for some of the pat answers for either stance.