Sasquatch (prints) finally have a scientific name..., Anthropoidipes ameriborealis Options

[Apeman]

Jeff Meldrum just forwarded me his latest publication: "ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINOID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA."

citation: Lucas, Spielmann and Lockley, eds., 2007, Cenozoic Vertebrate Tracks and Traces. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 42.

I'll link the PDF if/as soon as he gives me permission, but think the abstract is OK to start with. I'm guessing it will eventually be available on the NMMNH&S Website

Abstract—Large bipedal hominoid footprints, commonly attributed to Bigfoot or sasquatch, continue to be
discovered and documented, occasionally in correlation with eyewitness sightings, and rarely in concert with
photographic record of the trackmaker (gen. et sp. indet.). One of the best-documented instances occurred in 1967,
when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed an over two meter tall upright striding hominoid figure, at the site of
Bluff Creek, in Del Norte County, California, and cast a right and left pair of exceptionally clear footprints in firm
moist sand. Additional footprints were filmed, photographed, and cast by multiple witnesses. Molds and casts of
a series of these are reposited at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, while ten
original casts are among the Titmus Collection at the Willow Creek – China Flats Museum, Humboldt County,
California. These casts have been 3D-scanned and archived as part of a footprint virtualization project and scan
images are accessible on-line through the Idaho Museum of Natural History. The initial pair, originally cast by
Patterson, and the remaining casts made by Titmus, are designated the holotype of a novel ichnogenus and
ichnospecies describing these plantigrade pentadactyl bipedal primate footprints – Anthropoidipes ameriborealis
(“North American ape foot”). The footprints imply a primitively flat, flexible foot lacking a stiff longitudinal arch,
combined with a derived, non-divergent medial digit.

Very, very, very clever approach- if you ask me.

Apeman

[Hominid,WA]

Indeed. I've been looking forward to the 3D scanned archives being made available. Anthropoidipes ameriborealis has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

[rockinkt]

Sort of getting your foot in the door - so to speak.

[larryk]

I've found this LINK on the vizualisation project, but couldn't find the foot in the Virtual Specimen Library.

Can anyone enlighten me on where this thing could be?

[Apeman]

This is the link he provides in the paper http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/

[gigantor]

I posted a dumb question which I answered myself after following the links provided.

It would be neat if the 3d images are made accessible online, but I couldn't find them.

This post has been edited by gigantor: Nov 2 2007, 09:16 PM

[larryk]

This is the link he provides in the paper http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/

I've spent some time browsing through the 3D specimens they have there in the virtual libray but couldn't find the rendition of the cast.

Seen tools, bones, but no cast.

[Thigmo]

I'm just wondering, after doing a little reading on ichnotaxonomy, if names assigned to prints or other traces have any bearing on names assigned if/when a biological holotype is discovered. In fact, I found an abstract of a paper that seems to recommend the opposite:

It is stressed that ichnotaxa must not be incorporated into biological taxa in systematics.

I'm just not sure if this means that ichnotaxa should be treated completely separately from biological taxa as a classification system, or if the names can't later be assigned to the animal that created them when discovered, or maybe both.

At any rate, maybe this will prevent any sort of near-disaster like Scrotum humanum.

This post has been edited by Thigmo: Nov 2 2007, 11:11 PM

[Hominid,WA]

I've spent some time browsing through the 3D specimens they have there in the virtual libray but couldn't find the rendition of the cast.

Seen tools, bones, but no cast.

Dr.Meldrum hasn't yet completed the project to the best of my knowledge. I would imagine that the information you seek will be available possibly by years end.

[Apeman]

I'm just wondering, after doing a little reading on ichnotaxonomy, if names assigned to prints or other traces have any bearing on names assigned if/when a biological holotype is discovered. In fact, I found an abstract of a paper that seems to recommend the opposite: I'm just not sure if this means that ichnotaxa should be treated completely separately from biological taxa as a classification system, or if the names can't later be assigned to the animal that created them when discovered, or maybe both.

I'm not totally clear on the answer to your second question either, but this is from the paper:

However, Lockley (1999) correctly
pointed out that in accordance with ichnological nomenclature the
name of the trackmaker is a biotaxon, distinct from the track, which is an
ichnotaxon, and therefore both cannot have the same name.

So, it seems this proposed name of the tracks could not be used for the animal if one were to turn up today, but I still think this paper is a big deal and am surprised there has been so little discussion here.

I was in the process of addressing Gigantor's question last night before he seemingly edited it, but I still want to discuss this...

What does this mean? Can you guys please translate for those of us who don't live/work within the walls of academia. So he named the prints, so what?

Thanks.

This wasn't a stupid question.

Personally, I think this is a big deal. I probably should have put his name in the title to get everyone's attention...but maybe people are waiting for the full paper, which I just don't feel is appropriate for me to post until he clears it.

Anyway, to me it initially seemed like he'd staked a claim in scientifically naming bigfoot, by first using existing mechanisms to name the tracks, but it seems clear after a few rereads that that breaks the rules. And I shouldn't have given him full credit for profound cleverness in my first post because, as he discusses in the intro, this tact has been tried for years (starting with Krantz) and other people have seemingly steered him this way. But this still strikes me as an incredibly clever move to, at the very least, up the ante and have a few more people take notice of this whole subject. It's not a far cry from him basically putting a proposed scientific name for bigfoot into the scientific literature- even if this is only a museum bulletin that I don't think is peer-reviewed or widely read.

But I really want know what others think about this. I realize it's a bit difficult without the full paper but you can gather the crux from the abstract- that's what they're for! We can get into the finer points of the paper when it goes up, but in the meantime what does everyone think of this approach?

Apeman

[Huntster]

(gigantor @ Nov 2 2007, 08:03 PM)
What does this mean? Can you guys please translate for those of us who don't live/work within the walls of academia. So he named the prints, so what?

Thanks.

This wasn't a stupid question.

Personally, I think this is a big deal. I probably should have put his name in the title to get everyone's attention...but maybe people are waiting for the full paper, which I just don't feel is appropriate for me to post until he clears it.

Anyway, to me it initially seemed like he'd staked a claim in scientifically naming bigfoot, by first using existing mechanisms to name the tracks, but it seems clear after a few rereads that that breaks the rules. And I shouldn't have given him full credit for profound cleverness in my first post because, as he discusses in the intro, this tact has been tried for years (starting with Krantz) and other people have seemingly steered him this way. But this still strikes me as an incredibly clever move to, at the very least, up the ante and have a few more people take notice of this whole subject. It's not a far cry from him basically putting a proposed scientific name for bigfoot into the scientific literature- even if this is only a museum bulletin that I don't think is peer-reviewed or widely read.....

Gigantor, thanks for asking that "stupid" question for me, and Apeman, thanks for the great answer.

I suppose I can see the act as a bit of officialdom that can both challenge and encourage officialdom. I wonder how long before we see more meaningful acceptance and inquiry?

[jimf]

So, it seems this proposed name of the tracks could not be used for the animal if one were to turn up today, but I still think this paper is a big deal and am surprised there has been so little discussion here.


Apeman

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

[Huntster]

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

I agree, but I suppose if "they" won't let the critter in the front door, it may be possible to kick the back door down with a "big_foot".

Is that the idea?

This post has been edited by Huntster: Nov 3 2007, 04:09 PM

[jimf]

Beats me. Not a scientist. But if most of the tracks found that are called "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" Tracks, can't convince ordinary Joe Schmoe , let alone DR. Joe Schmoe , how is giving it a fancy name going to change any of that when it's still dealing with the same thing ? Easily 75% of the ones I've seen posted here, in books , or other formats could be easliy faked or a misidentification. Others may just take more work to do so.
Throw in some of what's been accomplished by Tube and Wolftrax's work, as well as the credibility issues of some of the people who have found the tracks that were studied in the first place and well....

Changing the nomenclature of it makes little difference IMO.

This post has been edited by jimf: Nov 3 2007, 04:18 PM

[Yetifan]

jimf wrote:

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

Plus, adding the fact that the possibility of the PGF tracks being hoaxed hasn't been ruled out makes the "naming" even more presumptuous, imho.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 3 2007, 04:21 PM

[Huntster]

.....But if most of the tracks found that are called "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" Tracks, can't convince ordinary Joe Schmoe , let alone DR. Joe Schmoe , how is giving it a fancy name going to change any of that when it's still dealing with the same thing ? Easily 75% of the ones I've seen posted here, in books , or other formats could be easliy faked or a misidentification. Others may just take more work to do so. Throw in some of what's been accomplished by Tube and Wolftrax's work, as well as the credibility issues of some of the people who have found the tracks that were studied in the first place and well....
....

That leaves 25%, that need work, and if only 1% are valid, it's time to open the front door to the critter.

Maybe Dr. Meldrum is describing that footprint that is among the 1%.........

It seems to me that kicking in the back door gets the invader in the house, and if the residents want him out, they have to throw him out (if they can............).

Sorta' like seeking forgiveness before permission...........

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

Plus, adding the fact that the possibility of the PGF tracks being hoaxed hasn't been ruled out makes the "naming" even more presumptuous, imho.

Then we're back to corpse or no cigar, right?

[Yetifan]

Huntster wrote:

Maybe Dr. Meldrum is describing that footprint that is among the 1%.........

Indeed, maybe. But do go from a "maybe" to a certainty of classification is, again, in my opinion, presumptuous.


Hunster also wrote:

Then we're back to corpse or no cigar, right?

Maybe not. It's possible that some DNA obtained, independent of a corpse, could garner a primate sequence not yet classified and would, at least in my mind, constitute
proof...or, at least, very strong evidence. I think many scientists would also find such evidence very compelling. But, footprints, without even an actual Bigfoot foot to corroborate a direct connection to them is, I think,
wishful thinking. Hoaxing still hasn't been ruled out, in regards to the PGF prints and others, as a possibility. To paraphrase Chilcutt from the '05 Texas Conference..."any track can be faked".

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 3 2007, 05:01 PM

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

Well something is leaving tracks, this much we know for sure.

I don't see why it would be silly to name the phenomenon.

[Yetifan]

FredSneakers/David wrote:

Well something is leaving tracks, this much we know for sure.

I don't see why it would be silly to name the phenomenon.

But Meldrum is not naming a phenomenon. He's clearly stating that the PGF tracks were definately made
by an unclassified upright primate.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 3 2007, 04:53 PM

[oregonfooter]

Actually Meldrum is not stating it's bigfoot. He's stating it's "commonly attributed to Bigfoot or sasquatch." He also doesn't state it's not a hoax/fake. Therefore, I think he is defining the phenomenon, because we don't know what bipedal thing is creating them. Yeah, pretty clever

It's not a far cry from him basically putting a proposed scientific name for bigfoot into the scientific literature- even if this is only a museum bulletin that I don't think is peer-reviewed or widely read.

I was under the impression this was a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not knowledgable on how this all works, but I assumed any new classification must be peer-reviewed.

just my 2 cents

[gigantor]

This wasn't a stupid question.

We can get into the finer points of the paper when it goes up, but in the meantime what does everyone think of this approach?

Apeman

Thanks Apeman for your answer.

I live in the business world of free markets, which is extremely different from the research and academic world, thus my ignorance of the procedures/politics you guys have to follow. My take on this approach or any other unless it's illegal or immoral is that if it works, I'm for it.

I hope it works!

[Huntster]

Maybe Dr. Meldrum is describing that footprint that is among the 1%.........

Indeed, maybe. But do go from a "maybe" to a certainty of classification is, again, in my opinion, presumptuous....

I guess Dr. Meldrum has made a claim that is ready for review. We'll see where it leads, huh?

.....But, footprints, without even an actual Bigfoot foot to corroborate a direct connection to them is, I think,
wishful thinking. Hoaxing still hasn't been ruled out, in regards to the PGF prints and others, as a possibility. To paraphrase Chilcutt from the '05 Texas Conference..."any track can be faked".

If any track can be faked, and the current hair/scat/DNA evidence isn't enough evidence to justify funding, I really fail to see what any further evidence which will be "compelling" will do towards solving this dilemna. It is obvious that what is demanded is proof, and when that is delivered, there will no longer be a need for funding to prove anything.

[Kucta-qa]

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=411839

See, I knew what I was talking about. I even spelled it right. And you guys doubted me

Also, it doesn't seem absurd to classify tracks of an animal that isn't classified. They classified the tracks, saying that they are a phenomenon. Not necessarily that they are made by an animal. The next step is to say "So... if there's tracks.... shouldn't we say it's at least probably that somethin' made them?"

[Apeman]

Actually Meldrum is not stating it's bigfoot. He's stating it's "commonly attributed to Bigfoot or sasquatch." He also doesn't state it's not a hoax/fake. Therefore, I think he is defining the phenomenon, because we don't know what bipedal thing is creating them.

As Yetifan said, he's actually doing both. He's naming the phenomenon/tracks, and also arguing that it is indeed not a hoax and is from a real animal. It would be a bit absurd if one was able to name things that were possibly from a hoax, right?

I was under the impression this was a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not knowledgable on how this all works, but I assumed any new classification must be peer-reviewed.

I'm pretty sure it is not based on it being called a "bulletin;" having editors (like a book) that likely invited the authors to submit papers; and because I can't find it on any lists of peer-reviewed publications. This will obviously be more of an issue for some people than it will for others.

Kucta-qa, sorry I missed that thread.

Yetifan, I actually think this paper will help counter your long-standing objection about the possibility that the tracks aren't linked to the film subject. Sure, Meldrum (or anyone else) claiming it, doesn't make it true, but this at least elevates it from Murphy's book. I should go back and read any of the numberous threads, but I can't remember why you cling to this so much. Is it because the combination of the film and the tracks is so hard to dismiss together? Feel free to direct me to another thread for a refresher if you don't have the energy to go through it all again.

-Apeman

[Yetifan]

Apeman wrote:

Yetifan, I actually think this paper will help counter your long-standing objection about the possibility that the tracks aren't linked to the film subject. Sure, Meldrum (or anyone else) claiming it, doesn't make it true, but this at least elevates it from Murphy's book. I should go back and read any of the numberous threads, but I can't remember why you cling to this so much. Is it because the combination of the film and the tracks is so hard to dismiss together?

The reason I cling to it is simply you don't see the film subject make the tracks. Period. The angle at which the film is shot prohibits it. If it was a hoax, isn't it possible the tracks were made after the shooting? I think any peer reviewed journal participants would ask the same. I think intense experimentation (by those on both sides of the argument) attempting to recreate the tracks (by someone walking in a suit and just simply making them) will go much further in clarifying possibilities, if not fully eliminating them. But to just take Patterson and Gimlin's word that the film subject made the tracks isn't very scientific, to me at least. What would have been compelling is if, in fact, it was a Bigfoot and, immediately after filming the subject, Patterson would have panned down (without the camera stopping) to show the prints. But since that didn't happen, who really knows (apart from Gimlin...assuming he wasn't duped) how long of a time there was between "the walk" and the print footage? As far as science is concerned, taking someone's word for when it happened is not a solid base on which to build a theory favoring classification of an unknown biped...imho.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 4 2007, 01:02 PM

[oregonfooter]

As Yetifan said, he's actually doing both. He's naming the phenomenon/tracks, and also arguing that it is indeed not a hoax and is from a real animal. It would be a bit absurd if one was able to name things that were possibly from a hoax, right?

I guess I didn't get that out of the abstract.

Like Yetifan wrote:

What would have been compelling is if, in fact, it was a Bigfoot and, immediately after filming the subject, Patterson would have panned down (without the camera stopping) to show the prints.

That would've been the only way to connect the two, assuming the Patty is truly a bigfoot.

[Apeman]

I disagree and think logic and common sense are all you need to connect the two. Sure, it would have been great to have a rolling, continuous film, but why on earth would anyone in this situation bother to do that?

I guess I still don't see the big deal here, and even if I were reviewing this or a similar article, faking tracks to go along with the film would be about the last concern I'd have. For me it just follows logically that, hoaxed or not, the figure made the tracks. The third possibility of faking separate tracks from whatever marks the figure left on the ground just seems like such a reach, and one with very little purpose. I suppose it's possible, but it's just not logical. Murphy has shown (less than definitively) that there are tracks behind the figure visible in the film. The tracks found match the feet we can see in the film including shape, some degree of mobility or flexibiltiy, and approx size. A number of eyewitnesses to the tracks, including at least one highly regarded tracker, found no evidence of foul play that anyone is aware of. I guess most of them were biased but some of them were also envious or jealous of Patterson, from my recollection, and would have happily outed him...I think?

Anyway, to me it's almost like saying that we shouldn't believe the moon landing because we don't have a continuous rolling film of the astronauts getting from the earth to the moon (do we?). Ok, maybe that's a bad analogy but my point is that it's almost unreasonable to assume anything other than the figure made the tracks, without drawing in some huge conspiracy theory. That's not to say they're legit or not, but why would they have bothered to fake them separate from the figure? To make them deeper and farther apart? Those sorts of theories start to introduce nearly as many problems as they explain, so it just doesn't make sense to me. And I don't really see how it adds much weight to the hoax argument?

-Apeman

[SoundMan]

Like Apeman, my initial reaction was one of surprise, delight and intrigue. It seemed quite clever to me (not being familiar with the study of ichnotaxonomy) for Dr. Meldrum to use the process for essentially categorizing the trackway as you would a fossil specimen. It does seem rather the backdoor and perhaps some would argue the wrong door since a fossil specimen is not living, but it seems to me to be a door nonetheless.

As one who has personally discovered and witnessed multiple trackways over a several month period, in an area and under conditions where a hoax is virtually ruled out, I can attest to the veracity of the existence of dynamic footprints of a large bipedal animal (presumably an ape) that shares a similar suite of characteristics with other tracks described and associated with a similar animal. I am accepting Dr. Meldrum's work and collection at face value, having never inspected it personally, but given the unique and unambiguous nature as well as size of such evidence, it is obvious to me that the sheer volume of of that evidence with its shared characteristics deserves scientific validation, in spite of the lack of what many would deem more compelling evidence.

Because the search is an uphill battle given the bias in the scientific community against the existence of a North American ape species, it seems to me that the mystery can and will be solved "bit by bit", much as the way the Velveteen Rabbit became "real" (for those familiar with the children's story), rather than "all at once".

So my hat is off to the good Dr. for his courage and persistence. I will wager that there are a number, as opposed to a few, other forms of evidence that will lend well to scientific scrutiny, aside from the more obvious and frustrating ones - hair, scat. Jeff's work is just one aspect of a multi-faceted search for not only the mere classification of the animal but the knowledge and understanding of the natural history of the animal.

And BTW, I agree with your comment above with a slightly different "spin" Apeman (I had not seen it prior to posting this - reason for edit). I think there is no good reason not to connect the two.

This post has been edited by SoundMan: Nov 4 2007, 10:10 PM

[Wyomingite]

I need some clarification here, Apeman. I'm not familiar with how this has been applied in various applications before now.
I've always been under the impression ichnotaxonomy was for fossilized trace evidence. Has this been used before, for a species that is presumed to be living? Has it been used on trace evidence that was obviously from an extant species, but for which the exact species that created it could not be identified, which is effectively what Meldrum is doing? An extinct species for which no remains may ever be discovered is one thing, but I wonder how well it will be received to assign an ichnotaxon to a species that may still be extant and for which physical remains may still possibly be acquired.

It's a clever idea, no doubt. I just wonder if Meldrum is sticking his neck out a little too far with this, especially with the flack he is/has been already taking.

WYite

[longtabber PE]

It's a clever idea, no doubt. I just wonder if Meldrum is sticking his neck out a little too far with this, especially with the flack he is/has been already taking.

WYite

I personally think its more of a disasterous idea and is very likely to backfire.

Its no secret Meldrum has taken heat ( and a lot of it) as well as his "professional reputation" among his peers is similar to what the "ghostbusters" suffered for essentially the same reason.

( what he is doing is no more different than if I went to my peers claiming I finally solved cold fusion or created perpetual motion)

This "back-door" attempt , I feel will give his detractors a stronger case to claim he is unethical and at some point may even affect his tenure.

Having reviewed a lot of his work- his findings and theories regarding the tracks and their construction, abnormalities is excellent and very professional.

However- that work ( in and of itself) isnt enough to establish the actual existance of a species. ( it would certainly support a case but not win it)

The problem with his conclusions is- he is making a SUBJECTIVE observation ( rather than an objective one) He is basically drawing a speculative conclusion ( his foot designs) and trying to promote it as a fact. ( thats where the claims of him being a pseudo scientist come from)- he COULD be right but in the end, its just his OPINION.

This is different that making the exact same case with say dinosaurs because with them we actually do have remains that show bones. ( thus a basis in FACT rather than conjecture to base a theory on)

Being an engineer who does design work- I can easily see what he is doing, I see the logic he is using and understand where and how he comes to his conclusions. ( I do the same thing, just in a different discipline)

The problem is- theres a difference between a "virtual" machine and one sitting on the floor. ( thats were often CAD and solidworks designs look good in the conceptual phase- but fail in the build phase)

This is why "subjective" evidence ( regardless of how good it is) will never rise to the level of "proof"

[damndirtyape]

I think the point is that there is a phenomenon that has tracks associated with it and those tracks and casts of them should have a proper scientific identification. It aides their study. It produces a standard to gauge other purported tracks and casts of the same phenomena by. It helps in communications.

Science has looked at stuff before and identified what it could for study; vampires, werewolves, UFOs, ESP, etc. Science shouldn't turn its back on such stuff but explore it. My understanding is that this is a logical step in doing so. Maybe it doesn't fit exactly with what Martin Lockley did or does but he is supportive of the effort. Detail certainly isn't lacking in modern day Sasquatch tracks when compared to some dinosaur tracks he has named. Science evolves too you know.

This post has been edited by damndirtyape: Nov 5 2007, 08:17 AM

[SoundMan]

The problem with his conclusions is- he is making a SUBJECTIVE observation ( rather than an objective one) He is basically drawing a speculative conclusion ( his foot designs) and trying to promote it as a fact. ( thats where the claims of him being a pseudo scientist come from)- he COULD be right but in the end, its just his OPINION.

This is different that making the exact same case with say dinosaurs because with them we actually do have remains that show bones. ( thus a basis in FACT rather than conjecture to base a theory on)

Being an engineer who does design work- I can easily see what he is doing, I see the logic he is using and understand where and how he comes to his conclusions. ( I do the same thing, just in a different discipline)

The problem is- theres a difference between a "virtual" machine and one sitting on the floor. ( thats were often CAD and solidworks designs look good in the conceptual phase- but fail in the build phase)

This is why "subjective" evidence ( regardless of how good it is) will never rise to the level of "proof"

I understand your concern and as a biologist, I would say your analysis while starting off on a good foot (no pun intended) ends up with what I consider inconsistencies. To put it into context: while there is an art to the interpretation of animal tracks, it is certainly also a science. Physical animals leave physical tracks; tracks which can be subjected to forensic analysis. While there are some "subjective" aspects to this kind of analysis, it is based on objective physical data.

See my post above. The "bit by bit" analogy of which Dr. Meldrum's work fits into, isn't intended to "prove" or classify the animal, although it certainly makes it more "real" as the "bits" grow. It is rather to systematically and scientifically document, physical evidence presumed to be left by an, as of yet, unclassified, highly elusive, reclusive, and intelligent animal. This is what science is, formulating an hypothesis and subjecting it to objective testing.

As you know, these tracks and trackways (apart from obvious fakes) can and have been put to numerous tests and show distinct characteristics that are unlike any known animal and are consistent among tracks from various parts of the country. For those familiar with the interpretation of animal signs including tracks, this evidence speaks unambiguously to the existence of a physical animal.

To ignore this evidence, in my opinion would be morally wrong. To document it would be taking the high ground. While one can certainly question the method of documentation, calling it "subjective" is at best grossly misleading.

[Huntster]

....What would have been compelling is if, in fact, it was a Bigfoot and, immediately after filming the subject, Patterson would have panned down (without the camera stopping) to show the prints......

I doubt that strenously. We'd still hear the "where's the foot?", and "it's just Bob" mantras.

I disagree and think logic and common sense are all you need to connect the two. Sure, it would have been great to have a rolling, continuous film, but why on earth would anyone in this situation bother to do that?.....

Because they had no idea of the degree of denialism that this compelling evidence would confront.