Trekker takes photograph of 'Yeti footprints'

[quiXilver]

Yoda: Why so certain he is, that yeti those prints be?

[PrisonerX]

To the satisfaction of most reasonable people, yes. "Proof" is probably not the best choice of word though, it means different things to different people. For example, you can't prove that you exist with mathematical certainty.

To put it another way. Wallace existed. His stompers existed. He used his stompers. There are all sorts of tracks that bear remarkable similarity to said stompers (such as some of the more famous bigfoot tracks).

0 bigfoots are known to exist. As such, no one knows anything about their foot morphology, if they do exist. We do know however, of many hoaxes and have very many good reasons to accept that Wallace was responsible for certain ones.

That's an extremely poor article. Without arguing over such nonsense (unless you really wish to), these articles seem quite worthwhile. The first couple actually offer some hope from a sceptic's pov that there is some objectivity being practiced within this field, as they are written by a cryptozoologist who seems to believe in bigfoot. The last one (by a historian) seems reasonable also, not sure what point the is making re "Paluxy River" (a creationist?), but apart from that, seems quite good. It explains much of the nonsense claims bigfooters make re Wallace fakes.

http://www.cryptozoo....com/hourglass/

http://www.cryptozoonews.com/faux-bf/

http://www.bermuda-t..._of_folklo.html

Not denying that, only that they are a feature associated with Wallace tracks.

Fair enough. I'll check those articles out. Thanks for linking them.

The thing is, if Bigfoot is out there, we do know something about its foot morphology. Flatness and a convergent great toe would be the two most obvious features, but there are others. Many more than the Wallace tracks have been reported and scientifically scrutinized; tracks in which wooden fakes could not have been used due to the exhibited flexibility and variation (e.g. toe spreading) in said tracks.

"...because the sasquatch foot is so flexible, even more so than the comparatively rigid human foot, its felxibility sometimes expresses itself in consecutive sasquatch tracks in which the toe position varies from one track to the next. Tracks which illustrate this were documented by journalist John Green in a series of two consecutive sasquatch tracks photographed in northern California's Trinity National Forest in the 1970s."

- John Bindernagel

If they exist, we know about toe shape, foot shape, its relative flexibility, etc.

It simply isn't true that no one knows anything about their foot morphology. For example, there's evidence of "half-tracks" which indicate a mid-foot flex more similar to that of a gorilla than the anterior flex of a human foot. The alignment of their tracks also tells us something about how they most likely walk - one foot (relatively) in front of the other.

Edited February 3, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Myles]

If they exist, we know about toe shape, foot shape, its relative flexibility, etc.

Or we just know about various hoaxed prints.

[PrisonerX]

Or we just know about various hoaxed prints.

Thanks captain obvious. Reread what you're responding to, then you might realize how useless of a post you just made. I started the sentence with "If they exist..." Lol.

Do you have anything useful to add or are you just trying to troll?

[MysticStrummer]

It's commonly known that one legged yeti travel by rolling, not hopping.

Perhaps they recently discovered the pogo stick.

[Myles]

Thanks captain obvious. Reread what you're responding to, then you might realize how useless of a post you just made. I started the sentence with "If they exist..." Lol.

Do you have anything useful to add or are you just trying to troll?

So your statement below is adding something?

I guess I'd say it is adding something. More drivle.

Your picking and choosing which tracks you think are real. If 1% of tracks are "half-tracks", what makes you think that is "evidence". Does that mean the other 99% are not evidence?

Or do you think several different species of 8 foot bipedal hairy creatures running all over the planet and not leaving any tangible evidence anywhere?

"It simply isn't true that no one knows anything about their foot morphology. For example, there's evidence of "half-tracks" which indicate a mid-foot flex more similar to that of a gorilla than the anterior flex of a human foot. The alignment of their tracks also tells us something about how they most likely walk - one foot (relatively) in front of the other".

[PrisonerX]

Your picking and choosing which tracks you think are real.

Lol it's statements like this that prove it's a waste of time responding to you, and that you have nothing of worth to offer here in this discussion. So, unless you can manage to come up with something of worth to add, which I highly doubt, accept this as the last time I bother entertaining your mindless pestering ITT

Of course someone is going to pick and choose which tracks they think are real. The entire point of examining tracks is to distinguish whether or not they are real. What is someone going to do, select tracks they think are fake in an attempt to argue that the creature is real?? You have to be trolling to make such an asinine statement like the one you made above.

Edited February 3, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Myles]

Lol it's statements like this that prove it's a waste of time responding to you, and that you have nothing of worth to offer here in this discussion. So, unless you can manage to come up with something of worth to add, which I highly doubt, accept this as the last time I bother entertaining your mindless pestering ITT

Of course someone is going to pick and choose which tracks they think are real. The entire point of examining tracks is to distinguish whether or not they are real. What is someone going to do, select tracks they think are fake in an attempt to argue that the creature is real?? You have to be trolling to make such an asinine statement like the one you made above.

So when you stated that we know about their footprint morphology and used the "half-track" as the example, you are saying that the "half-tracks" are the real ones. Right?

Of course if we combine so called evidence such as the Patty film, if you think it is real. That would rule out your "half-tracks".

We only know about their footprint morphology if we know which one is real. Otherwise we just know about hoaxed prints with the possibility of 1% of them being real. So I guess with hundreds of different print patterns, we know one out of a hundred it what belongs to bigfoot. So they can literally come up with dozens of styles of walk.

You need to take a deep breath and not be so provoking. No need for name calling. Your on a fun forum.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Myles

[PrisonerX]

So when you stated that we know about their footprint morphology and used the "half-track" as the example, you are saying that the "half-tracks" are the real ones. Right?

Of course if we combine so called evidence such as the Patty film, if you think it is real. That would rule out your "half-tracks".

We only know about their footprint morphology if we know which one is real. Otherwise we just know about hoaxed prints with the possibility of 1% of them being real. So I guess with hundreds of different print patterns, we know one out of a hundred it what belongs to bigfoot. So they can literally come up with dozens of styles of walk.

Half tracks are partially registered tracks that often show up in sasquatch trails. A half track can occur for a number of reasons, such as leaning forward while climbing or running. The shifted weight creates this. You are not going to observe it in every step and in every trail.

It happens in human tracks as well, except the foot flexes at a different location than that which is common to the sasquatch trail. Documented sasquatch trails exhibit a mid-foot flex more similar to that of a Gorilla.

So, with that said, if Sasquatch exists we know that about its foot morphology. We know that it has a mid-flex similar to that of the gorilla, based on the evidence provided by documented tracks.

Hopefully now you understand.

You need to take a deep breath and not be so provoking. No need for name calling. Your on a fun forum.

You need to refrain from reading people's posts with the sole intent of trying to nitpick it. Make an effort to actually comprehend before you go rabid skeptic.

Edited February 3, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Myles]

So, with that said, if Sasquatch exists we know that about its foot morphology. We know that it has a mid-flex similar to that of the gorilla, based on the evidence provided by documented tracks.

Hopefully now you understand.

You are still wrong. If sasquatch exists we still do not know that the mid-flex you speak of is from sasquatch or hoaxers.

Also the Patty film has nothing that indicates this gorilla-like motion.

I can nitpick all I want. You are the one using silly arguments to back your belief in a giant hairy man-beast able to avoid leaving any tangible evidence. If you cannot handle forums, perhaps you should not frequent them.

[PrisonerX]

You are still wrong. If sasquatch exists we still do not know that the mid-flex you speak of is from sasquatch or hoaxers.

Also the Patty film has nothing that indicates this gorilla-like motion.

I can nitpick all I want. You are the one using silly arguments to back your belief in a giant hairy man-beast able to avoid leaving any tangible evidence. If you cannot handle forums, perhaps you should not frequent them.

Lol tracks aren't tangible evidence now? Fail. See, this is why you can't be taken seriously.

If you cannot handle reading and attempting to comprehend what you've read during and thereafter, perhaps it is you that should avoid forums. You should certainly avoid ever quoting me again, as it will only serve to further expose your ignorance and lack of an ability to process information.

Edited February 3, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Horta]

The thing is, if Bigfoot is out there, we do know something about its foot morphology.

The magic word..."if". Though it's fair enough for researchers to infer morphology from tracks they believe are from bigfoot. It could be helpful to their research in many ways. The problems arise when researchers put it all forward as real, rather than inferred morphology from what they believe to be bigfoot tracks (as the most basic intellectual integrity would require).

There are other problems of course. Napier (who was every bit as qualified- probably more so than proponents like Meldrum) noted some of them in the early '70's. This is before the bigfoot craze spread across the entirety of the US. Already by this time he noted that there was either more than one species, or quite a bit of hoaxing going on. He even gave his reasoned opinion on which type were more likely to be genuine. That not much has been done to weed out this problem since seems bad enough, even worse we have scientists still supporting these very same style of tracks he thought were fake, were considered unconvincing by scientists in situ (Onion Mt/ Blue Ck Mt), to the average person with common sense (let alone "expertness") appear to be obviously faked...and for which we have the stomper used to create the fake.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's probably a bigfoot.

Flatness and a convergent great toe would be the two most obvious features, but there are others. Many more than the Wallace tracks have been reported and scientifically scrutinized; tracks in which wooden fakes could not have been used due to the exhibited flexibility and variation (e.g. toe spreading) in said tracks.

That fakes can be made in all sorts of different ways (showing toe movement etc) doesn't obviate the fact that people like Meldrum still support Wallace/hourglass style tracks. Which seems very gullible.

Could you link a study that outlines any sort of consistency in bigfoot tracks in general and why certain features denote real bigfoot tracks? Surely this would highlight a massive amount of hoaxing in the process.

There is a problem with the ease with which researchers and proponent scientists can be fooled (this has been documented). For this reason I have little faith in them and would find the opinion of experienced trackers preferable to begin with, to gauge whether they showed the genuine dynamics of a real living foot. There seems to be some mixed opinion from what I have seen.

If they exist, we know about toe shape, foot shape, its relative flexibility, etc.

The other possibility of course...is that "we" know nothing of bigfoot feet because we have been taken in by hoaxes and fakes...even if bigfoot is real.

It simply isn't true that no one knows anything about their foot morphology. For example, there's evidence of "half-tracks" which indicate a mid-foot flex more similar to that of a gorilla than the anterior flex of a human foot. The alignment of their tracks also tells us something about how they most likely walk - one foot (relatively) in front of the other.

Don't forget that "if they exist" part. It creates an important distinction. "If" they exist and leave tracks, they can also be tracked. A bit odd this never happens, but when it does we will have the foot that made them and once it is studied we will know it's morphology.

Until then we will be relying on believers who think they can distinguish real from hoax/fact from fiction when experience shows this is unlikely (with 100% frequency in all resolved instances to date).

In the end these tracks are good reason to accept that something made impact with the ground. The rest is speculation. It is difficult to overlook the this speculation has so far yielded 0 bigfoots and 0 things that could reliably indicate an undiscovered species of bigfoot existing.

[PrisonerX]

The magic word..."if". Though it's fair enough for researchers to infer morphology from tracks they believe are from bigfoot. It could be helpful to their research in many ways. The problems arise when researchers put it all forward as real, rather than inferred morphology from what they believe to be bigfoot tracks (as the most basic intellectual integrity would require).

Intellectual integrity would also require that discovered tracks not be deemed hoaxes until proven as such beyond a reasonable doubt. You see, problems also arise when skeptics put it all forward as nonsense due to their opinion of a single case of wooden stompers.

There are other problems of course. Napier (who was every bit as qualified- probably more so than proponents like Meldrum) noted some of them in the early '70's. This is before the bigfoot craze spread across the entirety of the US. Already by this time he noted that there was either more than one species, or quite a bit of hoaxing going on. He even gave his reasoned opinion on which type were more likely to be genuine. That not much has been done to weed out this problem since seems bad enough, even worse we have scientists still supporting these very same style of tracks he thought were fake, were considered unconvincing by scientists in situ (Onion Mt/ Blue Ck Mt), to the average person with common sense (let alone "expertness") appear to be obviously faked...and for which we have the stomper used to create the fake.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's probably a bigfoot.

Tracks for which you have stompers can in no way discredit the tracks made which exhibit features impossible to recreate with said stompers.

If it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck...it's probably not a duck. You need to continue investigating.

That fakes can be made in all sorts of different ways (showing toe movement etc) doesn't obviate the fact that people like Meldrum still support Wallace/hourglass style tracks. Which seems very gullible.

Finding a case where wooden stompers were used and assuming all tracks are hoaxed is a display of gullibility as well.

Provide me with a case in which the proven hoaxer used stompers that were able to display a mid-foot flex, long stride, were flat, and yet had the ability for toe spread deviation from one track to another.

Could you link a study that outlines any sort of consistency in bigfoot tracks in general and why certain features denote real bigfoot tracks? Surely this would highlight a massive amount of hoaxing in the process.

There is a problem with the ease with which researchers and proponent scientists can be fooled (this has been documented). For this reason I have little faith in them and would find the opinion of experienced trackers preferable to begin with, to gauge whether they showed the genuine dynamics of a real living foot. There seems to be some mixed opinion from what I have seen.

The Discovery of the Sasquatch by John Bindernagel. He's compiled a good amount of information about common features of believed sasquatch trails. Check it out if you want to read studies; it will suffice, as he's a biologist and approaches the subject from a scientific standpoint.

The above book has an entire chapter dedicated to the scientific study of sasquatch tracks. I could not find a pdf online. The quotes I shared ITT are from that book. He provides accounts from prospectors, hunters, and other experienced woodsmen.

For example, the below quote is describing an encounter by a moose hunter in Arkansas in which the footprints measured 13 inches each.

"The Arkansas account, in which a series of 12- to 14-foot (4.4 to 7.7m) leaps were reported, is one of the earliest published examples of long stride (or step) length yielding measurements beyond sustained human capability."

The other possibility of course...is that "we" know nothing of bigfoot feet because we have been taken in by hoaxes and fakes...even if bigfoot is real.

Talk about unlikely. You're reaching with this statement.

Don't forget that "if they exist" part. It creates an important distinction. "If" they exist and leave tracks, they can also be tracked. A bit odd this never happens, but when it does we will have the foot that made them and once it is studied we will know it's morphology.

Why would I forget the "if they exist" part? I've written it in every post thus far.

And no, it's not odd. You make the mistake of thinking tracking is easy as well as assuming that individuals who mistakenly happen across these creatures indeed want to track them; some people are confused and simply want to create distance between themselves and the creatures, tracking them being the last thing on their minds.

Nevertheless, the Arkansas account I quoted above was a scenario in which the hunter examined the tracks after sighting the creature. He did track it to an extent. Many trails are found in this manner, as those who can maintain their calm want to know if what they saw was a corporeal being and not an illusion. The tracks confirm for them, that what they saw, was indeed a physical being.

Until then we will be relying on believers who think they can distinguish real from hoax/fact from fiction when experience shows this is unlikely (with 100% frequency in all resolved instances to date).

Yet you have no problem accepting that the believed hoaxes are indeed hoaxes, amirite? You're relying on believers too, chief. Funny how your side never acknowledges that.

In the end these tracks are good reason to accept that something made impact with the ground. The rest is speculation. It is difficult to overlook the this speculation has so far yielded 0 bigfoots and 0 things that could reliably indicate an undiscovered species of bigfoot existing.

The rest is not entirely speculation, as the tracks themselves can be a source of solid information. As has already been explained ITT, commonalities in tracks, that are impossible to have been made with wooden stompers, exhibit similar features that indicate particular things about the feet that made them. You can't reliably claim they were hoaxed by referring to a case in which stompers were used that couldn't have made said trails. If it's speculation to attribute the considerable number of studied tracks with distinct features to an undiscovered species, it is also speculation to claim they're all likely hoaxed.

In the end, tracks and trails are evidence. Add that to the myriad of sightings and reports, the historical accounts and folklore, and you've got something worth studying that can't simply be explained away by calling out "hoax" or "misidentification".

Edited February 4, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Patient Zero]

who must have hopped.

The fabled Yeti-rabbit hybrid.

Supposedly, carrying a Yeti-rabbits foot is bad luck.

Probably 'cause he's only got one... i dunno, you know how wives tales go.

[NCC1701]

The footprints look so big and on a straight line because a trekker was walking on a very steep slope. With every step he slides a bit sideways.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Well, what ruins it all is not knowing how BIG the prints are. Could've been anything

[Myles]

1 - Provide me with a case in which the proven hoaxer used stompers that were able to display a mid-foot flex, long stride, were flat, and yet had the ability for toe spread deviation from one track to another.

2 - The Discovery of the Sasquatch by John Bindernagel. He's compiled a good amount of information about common features of believed sasquatch trails. Check it out if you want to read studies; it will suffice, as he's a biologist and approaches the subject from a scientific standpoint.

3 - Yet you have no problem accepting that the believed hoaxes are indeed hoaxes, amirite? You're relying on believers too, chief. Funny how your side never acknowledges that.

4 - In the end, tracks and trails are evidence. Add that to the myriad of sightings and reports, the historical accounts and folklore, and you've got something worth studying that can't simply be explained away by calling out "hoax" or "misidentification".

1 - Provide me a case of any proven bigfoot. Ever.

2 - I'll admit that his studies are pretty good. However, most in the scientific community will argue he's been studying hoaxes.

3 - I understand your defensiveness a little now after seeing the "your side" comment. This really isn't about sides. It's about sifting through and seeing what is valid evidence. While I don't believe most sightings, I think an eye witness sighting is worth documenting. Not as much with someone hearing an odd sound and therefor it ends up as evidence for bigfoot existing.

4 - I somewhat agree. Hundreds of hoaxes have been found though. Real flesh and blood. No bigfoot. Also if you are going to bundle all the evidence for bigfoot into one pile, you also must do the same with the evidence against. An 8 foot tall hairy pi-pedal beast that lives in almost every country on the planet yet has never left physical evidence behind (not counting tracks as physical evidence in this point).

[Horta]

Intellectual integrity would also require that discovered tracks not be deemed hoaxes until proven as such beyond a reasonable doubt. You see, problems also arise when skeptics put it all forward as nonsense due to their opinion of a single case of wooden stompers.

We would require an entire library for known bigfoot hoaxes. As opposed to verified bigfoot tracks (which has hovered at 0 for the entirety of recorded history). Of course not all claims are proven hoaxes because this can't feasibly be done. They are accepted as such because that is the only way any have been resolved, the probability is so overwhelmingly high and the alternative is close to non existent.

You have only to show that 1 is legitimate. Should be easy enough?

The Wallace stompers are just a favorite of countless hoaxes because he was so prolific and they fooled so many for so long.

Tracks for which you have stompers can in no way discredit the tracks made which exhibit features impossible to recreate with said stompers.

Of course. The lack of bigfoot in the entire natural history of North America does that.

"Impossible to recreate with stompers" according to who? People who claim ordinary everyday Elk lays as "bigfoot wallows"? Or obvious fakes (to those without eye problems or who aren't running a scam) for which we have the stomper, as really real?

Bigfoot research continually shows us there is no bigfoot.

You need to continue investigating.

A bit difficult to do with with someone else's fantasy. It is 'footers who need to begin theirs. No one really looks for bigfoot, no sustained expeditions for example. For obvious reasons. A lot easier to have a camp out, "find" tracks and keep pretending. It's a fantasy.

So far neoprene/rubber, brake fluid, man made fibres, bear, horse (yes people have even passed horse crap off as bigfoot-ironic ain't it?), alligator, goat, racoon and countless other things have been put forward as bigfoot. The only thing that has never been put forward is ...yes, you guessed it.

The tracks though, they're a different thing, they're real!..lol.

Finding a case where wooden stompers were used and assuming all tracks are hoaxed is a display of gullibility as well.

Of course not all tracks are hoaxed. Some are misinterpreted.

Provide me with a case in which the proven hoaxer used stompers that were able to display a mid-foot flex, long stride, were flat, and yet had the ability for toe spread deviation from one track to another.

All of these things can and have been hoaxed quite easily. 'Footers have quite a history of being easy to fool. It isn't up to others to prove every half @arsed track claim is wrong and why. You have this backwards.

Find a bigfoot who does this. Claiming they are bigfoot tracks doesn't do it. All that proves is that people can make claims.

We already knew that.

Rhetoric and skewed arguments about logic won't make bigfoot real.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Horta

[Horta]

In the end, tracks and trails are evidence.

In the same way that the shroud is evidence that jesus existed and was the magical son of god, or that implants are evidence of a race of aliens visiting earth.

Add that to the myriad of sightings and reports, the historical accounts and folklore, and you've got something worth studying that can't simply be explained away by calling out "hoax" or "misidentification".

No one is saying it can "simply" be explained away. Nothing simple about why a small group need an alternate version of reality that includes a magic monkey man.

Hoax, misidentification and delusion are the commonly accepted explanation for bigfoot. Nothing has ever contradicted this explanation.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Horta

[PrisonerX]

We would require an entire library for known bigfoot hoaxes. As opposed to verified bigfoot tracks (which has hovered at 0 for the entirety of recorded history). Of course not all claims are proven hoaxes because this can't feasibly be done. They are accepted as such because that is the only way any have been resolved, the probability is so overwhelmingly high and the alternative is close to non existent.

You have only to show that 1 is legitimate. Should be easy enough?

The Wallace stompers are just a favorite of countless hoaxes because he was so prolific and they fooled so many for so long.

Evidently it's not easy. Why would you think that that should be easy?

There's a reason we map remote regions by air. Trekking in is not easy for us, so we avoid doing it. What's easy to do is die out there.

Of course. The lack of bigfoot in the entire natural history of North America does that.

Except sasquatch has been spoken of and reported about for centuries. There's certainly no lack of reports and tales from times past. Even the natives here had names for them. It's not a modern phenomena. Bigfoot has played quite a prevalent role in N American history.

"Impossible to recreate with stompers" according to who? People who claim ordinary everyday Elk lays as "bigfoot wallows"? Or obvious fakes (to those without eye problems or who aren't running a scam) for which we have the stomper, as really real?

Bigfoot research continually shows us there is no bigfoot.

The wooden stompers of the case you cited can't account for the kinds of features of tracks I've described ITT. They do not have the ability for variation nor the flexibility.

Bigfoot research shows us that something is leaving Bigfoot tracks. It also provides us with thousands of eyewitness testimonials to their existence.

Here's one I found interesting:

A bit difficult to do with with someone else's fantasy. It is 'footers who need to begin theirs. No one really looks for bigfoot, no sustained expeditions for example. For obvious reasons. A lot easier to have a camp out, "find" tracks and keep pretending. It's a fantasy.

So far neoprene/rubber, brake fluid, man made fibres, bear, horse (yes people have even passed horse crap off as bigfoot-ironic ain't it?), alligator, goat, racoon and countless other things have been put forward as bigfoot. The only thing that has never been put forward is ...yes, you guessed it.

The tracks though, they're a different thing, they're real!..lol.

Well, if nobody is looking for Bigfoot, then it should be of no surprise to you why no one has found one. Perhaps that lack of involvement could be a contributing factor to why the creature still eludes confirmed discovery? Something to consider.

Having said that, there are some people looking (such as the biologist I've cited ITT). However, more involvement from scientists is certainly needed; it's largely investigated by amateurs. That the phenomena is heavily hoaxed is an unfortunate deterrent.

Of course not all tracks are hoaxed. Some are misinterpreted.

All of these things can and have been hoaxed quite easily. 'Footers have quite a history of being easy to fool. It isn't up to others to prove every half @arsed track claim is wrong and why. You have this backwards.

Find a bigfoot who does this. Claiming they are bigfoot tracks doesn't do it. All that proves is that people can make claims.

We already knew that.

Rhetoric and skewed arguments about logic won't make bigfoot real.

Except that they can't all be hoaxed quite easily. If you think that's the case because of some wooden stompers, than you are rather easy to fool.

Edited February 7, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Horta]

Evidently it's not easy. Why would you think that that should be easy?

There's a reason we map remote regions by air. Trekking in is not easy for us, so we avoid doing it. What's easy to do is die out there.

The reason no one is looking is because they know there is nothing to find.

Except sasquatch has been spoken of and reported about for centuries. There's certainly no lack of reports and tales from times past. Even the natives here had names for them. It's not a modern phenomena. Bigfoot has played quite a prevalent role in N American history.

Not according to most relevant cultural anthropologists (who aren't also 'footers). Even if you were to misrepresent them enough to infer bigfoot, there is no consistency among them to indicate a real creature. The African natives had gorilla skulls to go with their stories.

The wooden stompers of the case you cited can't account for the kinds of features of tracks I've described ITT. They do not have the ability for variation nor the flexibility.

Never said they did, only that they were a favourite. They exemplify the lack of expertise of various self proclaimed "experts". Limiting yourself to wooden stompers? Patterson had better methods in the '60's as he outlined to Krantz. People have used walnut shells and fooled 'footers.

Bigfoot research shows us that something is leaving Bigfoot tracks.

Indeed.

It also provides us with thousands of eyewitness testimonials to their existence.

...a "claimed"..."purported"..."assumed" existence at this stage. Like aliens.

Well, if nobody is looking for Bigfoot, then it should be of no surprise to you why no one has found one. Perhaps that lack of involvement could be a contributing factor to why the creature still eludes confirmed discovery? Something to consider.

It highlights that the leading 'footers themselves don't expect to find anything. Though you can go to all of the talks (for a fee), buy all of the books, shirts, caps, mugs and fake tracks you like. You can also go on an organized camp out in an area where you "might" experience a bigfoot. For a fee of course and after signing an NDA. The only thing you won't find within bigfootery, is someone genuinely searching for bigfoot.

People travelled around the world via sail and steamer, then into the uncharted and extremely hostile jungles of central Africa in the 1800's to get gorilla specimens, because they really believed gorillas were there to be found. They won't do it in one of the most technologically advanced and already explored countries on earth in 2016, where bigfoot regularly plays with researchers in and around hobby farms in wild unexplored regions like Kentucky (lol), because it is too difficult. Unlikely.

Having said that, there are some people looking (such as the biologist I've cited ITT). However, more involvement from scientists is certainly needed; it's largely investigated by amateurs. That the phenomena is heavily hoaxed is an unfortunate deterrent.

Some of the amateurs (not many overall though) far surpass the "scientists" in this field. At least some of them don't appear to be scamming, deluded or seeking the limelight. Some look like they are genuinely trying to understand some experience they have had, that they believe to be bigfoot.

Nothing leaves tracks and then nothing else. Only folkloric creatures for whom people misinterpret and fake tracks, do that. Tracks of real creatures can be tracked to what made them. Real bigfoots will have an evolutionary history. He either evolved in the US from other species, or migrated. Leaving traces along the way. He is part of a breeding population (possibly several or more different species according to the tracks) across the entire US. He has a life cycle, needs shelter, a way to survive the winter (food and temperature wise), is part of the food chain that should be noticeable, is shot by hunters, gets run over, sleeps, drinks, eats, leaves refuse, defecates, urinates, procreates, suffers illness and accidents, gets old and feeble and then dies. Leaving lots of unambiguous traces of his existence along the way.

We wouldn't expect to find all of the above. But when none of them are found, something becomes obvious. Not one single solitary molecule has ever supported the existence of bigfoot. So putting forward tracks that "would be hard to fake" is no more convincing, than putting forward crop circles being "hard to fake" for aliens. Thier only use would be, for those who believe, to help in their search to find something unambiguously indicative of bigfoot. A biologist should know better.

Except that they can't all be hoaxed quite easily. If you think that's the case because of some wooden stompers, than you are rather easy to fool.

It might be worth considering why science en masse has little interest in such things. Why even some scientists with an active interest in the subject don't find them very convincing (such as Sarmiento).

Every resolved claim of bigfoot tracks, anywhere, ever, has been resolved via "hoax, mistake, or delusion". Every resolved claim of bigfoot evidence anywhere, ever, has been resolved via "hoax, mistake, delusion". The only bigfoot science and experiments offered, anywhere, ever (Sykes study) showed people were putting forward all manner of mundane creatures as bigfoot. This after going to an awful lot of trouble to find the "best". Thus explainable via "hoax, mistake, delusion". The only other study ever offered (bigfoot genome), though withdrawn, was ridiculous and explainable with "hoax, mistake' delusion". Every claimed pic/vid when resolved, has been resolved "hoax, mistake, or delusion". Every claimed interaction with bigfoot, when resolved, has been resolved as either "hoax, mistake, or delusion".

So the commonly accepted explanation for bigfoot (hoax, mistake, delusion) has little to do with being fooled. More to do with why it is accepted that apples fall from trees.

[PrisonerX]

The reason no one is looking is because they know there is nothing to find.

Why even bother making such an inaccurate statement? I've already cited a biologist who is looking and believes. When you say such things like the above, it's very telling of how desperate you are to have things painted in your favor in the discussion.

Not according to most relevant cultural anthropologists (who aren't also 'footers). Even if you were to misrepresent them enough to infer bigfoot, there is no consistency among them to indicate a real creature. The African natives had gorilla skulls to go with their stories.

Sasquatch lineage may already be represented by giganto in the fossil record.

Never said they did, only that they were a favourite. They exemplify the lack of expertise of various self proclaimed "experts". Limiting yourself to wooden stompers? Patterson had better methods in the '60's as he outlined to Krantz. People have used walnut shells and fooled 'footers.

You have thus far failed to provide stompers able to recreate the kind of features I've discussed ITT. Your wooden stomper case and walnut story do not suffice. Sorry.

...a "claimed"..."purported"..."assumed" existence at this stage. Like aliens.

Lol and? What kind of point is this? Humans don't know everything. Some topics are debated for a while before resolved. Dark matter, the oort cloud - claimed, purported, assumed existence at this stage. Welcome to science, that's how it works. Sometimes investigations take a while.

It highlights that the leading 'footers themselves don't expect to find anything. Though you can go to all of the talks (for a fee), buy all of the books, shirts, caps, mugs and fake tracks you like. You can also go on an organized camp out in an area where you "might" experience a bigfoot. For a fee of course and after signing an NDA. The only thing you won't find within bigfootery, is someone genuinely searching for bigfoot.

Lol things cost money. That something needs to be funded is understandable.

Again, you say no one is genuinely looking then act as though it's astonishing nothing has been found. That you cannot see this contradiction in your thinking is amusing.

People travelled around the world via sail and steamer, then into the uncharted and extremely hostile jungles of central Africa in the 1800's to get gorilla specimens, because they really believed gorillas were there to be found. They won't do it in one of the most technologically advanced and already explored countries on earth in 2016, where bigfoot regularly plays with researchers in and around hobby farms in wild unexplored regions like Kentucky (lol), because it is too difficult. Unlikely.

Wilderness is declared wilderness because it's unfrequented by man. We do not go into the remote regions often. Most humans don't stray far from the colony. That you talk of our being technologically advanced as though it renders the possibility of sasquatch impossible indicates you do not fully understand the factors involved. Check out Missing 411 just to see how many people still disappear out there in this modern tech world. You think we should have surely discovered the creature by now, "because technology and we've traveled other places". lol. The deep oceans are largely unexplored still, but we've got technology and submarines already bro, so there's nothing to be found there that we can't already know about, amirite?

So we located the mountain gorilla. It was a myth to the western world before that. The same kind of evidence indicated their existence that now indicates sasquatch's - tracks and tales. But I suppose you would have been one of the people back then that said anyone who believed in gorillas was a fool.

Some of the amateurs (not many overall though) far surpass the "scientists" in this field. At least some of them don't appear to be scamming, deluded or seeking the limelight. Some look like they are genuinely trying to understand some experience they have had, that they believe to be bigfoot.

Lol some amateurs know more, but you're still going to wait for mainstream scientists to tell you that you can believe sasquatch exists before you'll ever dare to consider it. I'm guessing you do not see the irony in what you've said. lol.

Nothing leaves tracks and then nothing else. Only folkloric creatures for whom people misinterpret and fake tracks, do that. Tracks of real creatures can be tracked to what made them. Real bigfoots will have an evolutionary history. He either evolved in the US from other species, or migrated. Leaving traces along the way. He is part of a breeding population (possibly several or more different species according to the tracks) across the entire US. He has a life cycle, needs shelter, a way to survive the winter (food and temperature wise), is part of the food chain that should be noticeable, is shot by hunters, gets run over, sleeps, drinks, eats, leaves refuse, defecates, urinates, procreates, suffers illness and accidents, gets old and feeble and then dies. Leaving lots of unambiguous traces of his existence along the way.

We wouldn't expect to find all of the above. But when none of them are found, something becomes obvious. Not one single solitary molecule has ever supported the existence of bigfoot. So putting forward tracks that "would be hard to fake" is no more convincing, than putting forward crop circles being "hard to fake" for aliens. Thier only use would be, for those who believe, to help in their search to find something unambiguously indicative of bigfoot. A biologist should know better.

Hunters have difficulty tracking stupid animals. You far underestimate the skill it takes to track. You talk as though it's a simple thing to do. It's not, even for the experienced.

The tracks coupled with the persistent eyewitness accounts are sufficient to take the phenomena seriously. It's worthy of investigation based on those two things alone.

Bindernagel is a biologist that does know better. That is why he's taken it upon himself to look into the track evidence and stories, as well as write a book about them.

It might be worth considering why science en masse has little interest in such things. Why even some scientists with an active interest in the subject don't find them very convincing (such as Sarmiento).

Scientists need funding to do their work. That the saquatch phenomena is largely misunderstood as being nothing more than hoaxery and misidentifcation, is a large reason why the funding for such research is not forthcoming. Most scientists only do the research that they're permitted to do by those that have the money and call the shots. To pretend that they simply do not look into it because it's obviously nonsense is obviously nonsense. There's more to it.

Every resolved claim of bigfoot tracks, anywhere, ever, has been resolved via "hoax, mistake, or delusion". Every resolved claim of bigfoot evidence anywhere, ever, has been resolved via "hoax, mistake, delusion". The only bigfoot science and experiments offered, anywhere, ever (Sykes study) showed people were putting forward all manner of mundane creatures as bigfoot. This after going to an awful lot of trouble to find the "best". Thus explainable via "hoax, mistake, delusion". The only other study ever offered (bigfoot genome), though withdrawn, was ridiculous and explainable with "hoax, mistake' delusion". Every claimed pic/vid when resolved, has been resolved "hoax, mistake, or delusion". Every claimed interaction with bigfoot, when resolved, has been resolved as either "hoax, mistake, or delusion".

So the commonly accepted explanation for bigfoot (hoax, mistake, delusion) has little to do with being fooled. More to do with why it is accepted that apples fall from trees.

It's a good thing to weed out the hoaxes. Plenty of evidence in the form of testimony and tracks still exist that cannot be readily explained or proven as hoaxed.

Edited February 9, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Myles]

Lol and? What kind of point is this? Humans don't know everything. Some topics are debated for a while before resolved. Dark matter, the oort cloud - claimed, purported, assumed existence at this stage. Welcome to science, that's how it works. Sometimes investigations take a while.

You think we should have surely discovered the creature by now, "because technology and we've traveled other places". lol. The deep oceans are largely unexplored still, but we've got technology and submarines already bro, so there's nothing to be found there that we can't already know about, amirite?

That the saquatch phenomena is largely misunderstood as being nothing more than hoaxery and misidentifcation, is a large reason why the funding for such research is not forthcoming.

Bigfoot and dark matter? Yep they are the same.

Our own backyards where tracks have been found is certainly the same as the deepest depths of the ocean.

Serious on the last one. Why do you feel it is misunderstood? Since hoaxes and misidentifications have been proved to be the cause for many sightings, wouldn't that mean that the hoaxes and misidentifications are understood more so than a giant ape?

I tend to think the sasquatch phenomena is understood fairly well. The large majority of scientists agree with me.

Hoaxes have been uncovered for every piece of evidence found. Throw out the tracks because it is obvious you think hoaxers only use clumps of wood tied to their feet.

To be fair, there have been hundreds of organized exhibitions into the wilderness to find bigfoot. If they would have come back with anything physical, funding would not be a problem. It is not like there is no one looking. Trail cameras are all over. Everyone has a camera on their person. Scientists are combing the wilderness for all kinds of reasons. Yet still nothing. But this same elusive 8 foot tall creature pops up in peoples back yards all the time in almost every state.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Myles

[Horta]

If you believe your biologist is part of genuine scientific expeditions to look for bigfoot, good for you. Open to interpretation I suppose, you could claim any casual stroll in the woods "looking for bigfoot" if imagination permits. This doesn't seem to have happened since the early "Tom Slick" financed expeditions that found nothing. Scientists that are really looking document their research and if they find something worthwhile, submit it to journals. Except for bigfoot "scientists" that is. There isn't a scientific journal for random and unlikely bigfoot claims.

Bigfoot is found far more frequently around urban/ rural/ semi rural areas and places where people frequent, than in the "wilderness" where apparently no one ever goes. Including industrial estates and commercial areas. You do realize that only 4-6% of original US forests are still intact enough to be considered wilderness, as in "pristine"? That only means they haven't been logged/ mined or otherwise exploited the same extent as other parts. They have been explored. No bigfoot yet.

This below is bigfoot science. For a modest fee you can have an "expert" tell you about bigfoot. He must be an expert despite having never found one to study after all, he says so. That's what science is all about. Then again, there is all of that literature in scientific publications to fall back on...oh, wait on, it appears there isn't any. There is nothing wrong with such self promotion of course and I can understand why fans would be happy to pay for it. Like the entirety of this subject, there is also no real science involved of course.

http://www.ifonly.co...k-at-your-event

Although finding a real bigfoot would certainly make you rich and famous, in the end no one really bothers because it's a lot less trouble talking about something that doesn't exist and the tracks it supposedly leaves, than genuinely looking for it.

The poor old yeti is a bit left behind, as the sensationalism and commercial opportunities aren't as available in that part of the world as yet(i).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Horta

[PrisonerX]

If you believe your biologist is part of genuine scientific expeditions to look for bigfoot, good for you. Open to interpretation I suppose, you could claim any casual stroll in the woods "looking for bigfoot" if imagination permits. This doesn't seem to have happened since the early "Tom Slick" financed expeditions that found nothing. Scientists that are really looking document their research and if they find something worthwhile, submit it to journals. Except for bigfoot "scientists" that is. There isn't a scientific journal for random and unlikely bigfoot claims.

Bindernagel's research is published in a book and is therefore available for scrutiny. That you will not do the reading is on you. Until you do, however, you're in no position to declare it as unscientific. You cannot just say that there are no scientists looking because you want to, it doesn't work that way. I've already proven you wrong by citing one.

Bigfoot is found far more frequently around urban/ rural/ semi rural areas and places where people frequent, than in the "wilderness" where apparently no one ever goes. Including industrial estates and commercial areas. You do realize that only 4-6% of original US forests are still intact enough to be considered wilderness, as in "pristine"? That only means they haven't been logged/ mined or otherwise exploited the same extent as other parts. They have been explored. No bigfoot yet.

Lol of course it's seen by people more frequently around places were there are people more frequently. That makes perfect sense. Like I have already explained, most people do not go into the remote regions. That you think that is some sort of evidence against it's existence is just plain silly.

US designated wilderness when taken together is slightly larger than the state of California. There's an enormous amount of space for sasquatch to roam that is unfrequented by man; and that's just "designated wilderness", it doesn't include areas that are very much country where the status is yet to be acted upon by Congress. The land doesn't have to be "pristine", it just has to be largely untrammeled by man, which is exactly what designated wilderness in the US is defined as. The definition literally uses the wording "...land retaining it's primeval character..." in its description. You can look it up. So yea, there's plenty of room for them in the US wilderness.

"Congress has now designated more than 106 million acres of federal public lands as wilderness: 44 million of these acres are in 47 parks and total 53 percent of National Park System lands. Additional national park areas are managed as “recommended” or "proposed" wilderness until Congress acts on their status. "

http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm

Also, when talking sasquatch you have to talk all of N America. There's still vast regions of Canadian country that are yet to have any record of anyone exploring it by foot ever. We started to rely heavily on aerial surveying in the 1920s. Then we moved on to satellites.

"As recently as 1916, the Geological Survey of Canada estimated that Canada still contained over 900,000 square miles (almost one and a half million square kilometres) of unexplored territory that appeared as blank spots on the map. Despite nearly 75 years of field work that involved sending explorers to canoe down rivers and map as much territory as possible, an aggregate area nearly the size of India remained virtually unexplored.

Technology got the better of us. By the 1920s the Geological Survey began to rely on aerial surveys conducted with airplanes. With the newly invented planes (and later helicopters), surveyors were able to fly over remote stretches of northern Canada taking aerial photographs that could then be used to finish the process of mapping the country. Today, we have progressed to satellites.

But viewing the ground from high above in airplanes, helicopters or satellites is not exploration. As far as actual boots-on-the-ground exploration goes Canada still contains plenty of territory that has no record of any person (living or dead) exploring it."

http://www.canadiang...ting.asp?ID=590

As you can see, there's an enormous amount of area for these creatures to possibly exist within. An enormous amount. The unexplored area alone is estimated to be roughly the size of INDIA. If you think there's not enough room for them to exist out there, you have no real understanding of how much land actually goes unfrequented by us, or even unexplored entirely.

This below is bigfoot science. For a modest fee you can have an "expert" tell you about bigfoot. He must be an expert despite having never found one to study after all, he says so. That's what science is all about. Then again, there is all of that literature in scientific publications to fall back on...oh, wait on, it appears there isn't any. There is nothing wrong with such self promotion of course and I can understand why fans would be happy to pay for it. Like the entirety of this subject, there is also no real science involved of course.

http://www.ifonly.co...k-at-your-event

Lol your entire argument is more or less based on "because I said so". Nobody is looking for sasquatch for real, because you said so. LMAO. Meanwhile I cited a biologist and proved that nonsense claim wrong, yet you continue spouting it and looking desperate.

Edited February 11, 2016 by PrisonerX