Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[desertyeti]

After several years of examining casts of purported Bigfoot footprints, buttprints, handprints, and knuckleprints, it dawned on me that the whole reason any of these are considered legitimate is that somone gave them a "thumbs-up" as being real prints. John Green (a journalist), Grover Krantz (a physical anthropologist), Jeff Meldrum (another physical anthropologist), and Jimmy Chillcut (a fingerprint specialist) are the most-quoted, and most revered figures in Bigfoot lore, yet none of them is actually a specialist in animal tracks and sign.

Hmmmmmmm says I. There are any number of animal tracking certification programs in existence, and the Shikari Tracking League is among the best. To be certified, a tracker is evaluated by a panel of expert trackers on basic field tracking abilities, identification, etc. These specialists can judge weight, age, and even gender of the animal being tracked in some cases. But what does it take to be a Bigfoot "expert?"

My long-winded monologue is gearing up for this proposal: What say someone (I'm happy to be involved if anyone's interested in actually doing this) devise a simple set of exercises using casts, photos, and/or footprint sites of real human tracks, and fake ones (made using say, a manikin's feet, or other prosthetics)? The object will be to see if any of the self-proclaimed BF "experts" can, as they claim, differentiate between prints made by real feet, and prints made by forgeries. If, as they claim, these master trackers can actually pick out real from false prints, hoorah! If not...well...

Any of the BF-supporters here want to try it and see if this is worthwhile? If not, perhaps we can design the test and start to formally request that the "experts" show us how easy it is to tell real from fake prints. Any thoughts on this?

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

My first thought, is that these people are self proclaimed Bigfoot identification experts, not human identification, and therefore might not do as well in tests of human vs. mannequin.

 

[desertyeti]

D'oh!
Very good point.
No doubt that would be the exact reason they'd give if they happened to be unable to tell the difference.
Back to the drawing board...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My first thought, is that these people are self proclaimed Bigfoot identification experts, not human identification, and therefore might not do as well in tests of human vs. mannequin.

Therein lies the problem..

Whose to tell a Bigfoot expert they're wrong ?

One of the luxuries you enjoy when you make stuff up ...

 

[Cuddles]

My first thought, is that these people are self proclaimed Bigfoot identification experts, not human identification, and therefore might not do as well in tests of human vs. mannequin.

On the other hand, if they can't recognise human footprints, how can they say that the tracks they are looking at aren't human ones? Surely the whole point of tracking qualifications is that you can recognise lots of different ones, and therefore would be able to say that the alleged bigfoot prints really aren't anything else. If you claim to only be able to recognise is bigfoot prints and not anything else then there is no reason to assume you would know if they are not really bears, or whatever. And there is of course the related problem that there are not any confirmed bigfoot prints or live bigfoots to compare prints with, which means that any prints can only be identified by what they are [n]not[/i]. If the person trying to identify them can't recognise any of the things they are not, then they are talking utter cow poo if they claim they know what they are.

I would also suggest that human vs. mannequin wouldn't be the best test. From the little I have read it seems that the fakes, either confirmed or alleged, are often designed specifically to fake prints, although there have been many cruder ones as well. A test of someone's identification skill would have to include not only human mannequins, but also prints from feet designed to fake human feet as accurately as possible.

 

[desertyeti]

Perhaps tracks from a live bear and a taxidermy mount?
And real human feet vs. say...prints made by casts of real human feet.
Reflecting on it, the point would be to see if these "trackers" can actually recognize the work of an animate foot, as they claim to do.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Perhaps tracks from a live bear and a taxidermy mount?
And real human feet vs. say...prints made by casts of real human feet.
Reflecting on it, the point would be to see if these "trackers" can actually recognize the work of an animate foot, as they claim to do.

You really have me thinking about this..

If these experts are claiming we can be reasonably certain Bigfoot exists, based
largely on these prints, then they should be willing to take part in a test of their abilities.

I would contribute to a fund, that would award a prize to a Bigfoot expert who could distinguish ( greater than chance guessing would allow ) between
real human footprints and and those made by a fake human foot.

I have a couple of candidates in mind..

It would be sort of like the Randi Challenge..

The ' tracker ' would have to agree to the protocal , beforehand ...

 

[desertyeti]

Sounds reasonable. I'm thinking about 10-20 examples (maybe 5 each of isolated casts and photos of trackways, photos of individual prints, and photos of casts). Using simple grading scales: <60% correct = fail, 75% is average, and >90% is excellent, we could offer some sort of prize or award (a brand new digital trail cam or something).

The exam can be administered any time, with adequate consideration of protocol. Also, a time limit, say one week. I wonder if we could get anyone to take the exam?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think the people who wanted to fly you to the PNW to look at the Skookum cast, would be willing to use the same money to fly a Bigfoot expert to your area, to take the " Footprint Challenge " ?

 

[desertyeti]

Ha!
I won't hold my breath! But, it's worth a shot...

 

[SimonD]

Surely any tracker worth their salt would be able to track any animal. I know the Bushman of the Kalahari can tell wheter an animal is wounded, by itself, etc, by looking at tracks and knowing how animals behave

I'd love to see what a Bushman with their thousands of years of passing their skill's on from on generation to another, would make of the "foot prints" of bigfoot

 

[sackett]

simon dalton brings up a good point.

But why send for a Bushman? Anybody who's spent much time in the out-of-doors will be able to read sign (as we say in Wyoming) as plain and unique as that.

Bigfoot is supposed to be a pretty large feller, isn't he? At least his feet? How and the hell could anybody cut Bigfoot's trail and not follow it? Who would be so sorry a tracker that he couldn't stay on that beastie's trail -- surely not a hard trail to follow -- until he caught up with it? Who would ever give up?

Man, I am sooooo tired of being patronised like some kinda greenhorn by these Bigfeeters.

 

[desertyeti]

Wyoming, eh Sackett?
Me too, until about 5 years ago.
Anyone who's spent any time hunting, fishing, or just hiking around out there would probably be able to spot a real vs. a fake trackway in my opinion and they'd surely be able to track the huge bastard and bring in some good evidence (photos, scat, or a dead one). And I agree with you about the patronizing attitude the BFers have towards anyone who asks them about their experience and qualifications. Funny how they claim that they're picked on by everyone else when they're the secretive, hostile ones!

 

[sackett]

Speaking of Wyoming, why don't we hear more Bigfoot reports from The Equality State? Hell's afire, a big ugly stinking ape with size 18 feet would attract attention even in Casper.

Well...maybe not on payday night at the Lay Back and Howl Saloon, but you know what I mean.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why do they need to be able to read sign? They never follow bigfoot until at least a week has passed, even if they were right next to him.

 

[sackett]

Why do they need to be able to read sign? They never follow bigfoot until at least a week has passed, even if they were right next to him.

Well, maybe they had a pie in the oven. Jeeze, be a little reasonable here, can'tcha?

 

[Huntster]

....I would contribute to a fund, that would award a prize to a Bigfoot expert who could distinguish ( greater than chance guessing would allow ) between
real human footprints and and those made by a fake human foot.

How about contributing to a fund to hunt down a sasquatch rather than an opportunity to challenge people who are learning while they go?

 

[Huntster]

Surely any tracker worth their salt would be able to track any animal.

That statement illustrates your lack of understanding of the issue.

I know the Bushman of the Kalahari can tell wheter an animal is wounded, by itself, etc, by looking at tracks and knowing how animals behave

There are no sasquatches in African savannahs.

 

[Huntster]

...How and the hell could anybody cut Bigfoot's trail and not follow it?

I found what I believe were sasquatch prints once, and I did follow it...........for a ways; maybe 250 yards or so.

I turned around because I was afraid.

I've also found and followed bear prints here in Alaska. Big bear prints. I was even armed.

I've even tracked a wounded bear once. Never found him.

Who would be so sorry a tracker that he couldn't stay on that beastie's trail -- surely not a hard trail to follow -- until he caught up with it? Who would ever give up?

Me.

I'll bet you would, too.

 

[Huntster]

Speaking of Wyoming, why don't we hear more Bigfoot reports from The Equality State? .....

Maybe because it's not prime habitat and there aren't very many (if any) in that area?

Why don't you hear of caribou in Wyoming? There are mountains there called the Caribou Range.