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

[Yetifan]

Apeman wrote:

I disagree and think logic and common sense are all you need to connect the two (my note...the prints with the film subject). 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?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Patterson for not doing that (if, in fact, it was an actual Bigfoot). It's just that it would have conclusively linked the prints photograghed with the film subject. Since the possibility of a hoax does exist in this case I don't think taking the word of the people involved is very good science. Wouldn't you agree that eyewitness testimony is one of, if not the weakest type of evidence? Again, more intense experimentation, imho, is required to see that if the prints were faked, how was that done? That along with attempting to replicate the film. In my readings, neither have really been seriously attempted.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 5 2007, 10:07 AM

[Apeman]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Patterson for not doing that (if, in fact, it was an actual Bigfoot). It's just that it would have conclusively linked the prints photograghed with the film subject. Since the possibility of a hoax does exist in this case I don't think taking the word of the people involved is very good science. Wouldn't you agree that eyewitness testimony is one of, if not the weakest type of evidence? Again, more intense experimentation, imho, is required to see that if the prints were faked, how was that done? That along with attempting to replicate the film. In my readings, neither have really been seriously attempted.

I know you're not blaming Patterson, and I'm not suggesting we need to take anyone's word or that that would be good science. Obviously it's not. All I'm saying is that two more or less independent hoaxes (the film separate from the tracks) seems very unlikely compared to the two obvious possibilities: 1) the figure is real and made the tracks, or 2) it's a costumed person and made the tracks. It just seems awfully concocted to suggest the extra effort to make a fake trackway under the cicumstances. Maybe if no one else had investigated the scene afterward and we were only talking about a couple tracks, but that's not the case. This seems like a skeptical trick, stretching the imagination because it's basically an excuse along the lines "we can explain the film as hoax, and we can explain the tracks as a hoax, but we can't explain how the costumed actor made the tracks, so we are therefore going to suggest two independent efforts." Of course that's possible but it just stretches logic, common sense and credulity in my book. It's an Occam's razor type of thing for me and I really think most scientists would approach it that way. Basically if one can't replicate both things together (the film and the tracks) that would lend a lot of credibility to it being real before one would have to invoke the complexity of two more or less independent hoaxes.

I'm not saying that such a scenario isn't possible, and that it shouldn't be investigated. I'm just saying that it so unlikely and counterintuitive that it shouldn't be assumed to be part of the "scientific" assessment of Meldrum's paper. I think a good scientific mind would think, "if this is hoax we should be able to conclusively discredit the film and the tracks without having to consider them two independent efforts." It's hard for me to imagine a reviewer getting to point of arguing "but the tracks could have been made independently" as he was trying to decide if this is worthy of publication.

Does that make more sense?

-Apeman

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.

WYite

I can't answer, this is all new to me too.

-A

[Yetifan]

Apeman wrote:

All I'm saying is that two more or less independent hoaxes (the film separate from the tracks) seems very unlikely compared to the two obvious possibilities: 1) the figure is real and made the tracks, or 2) it's a costumed person and made the tracks. It just seems awfully concocted to suggest the extra effort to make a fake trackway under the cicumstances.

Not if you were trying to perpetuate a great hoax. If indeed it was a hoax, and given Patterson's penchant for detail in other aspects of his life (e.g. the making of minature stagecoaches), if he wanted the total scenario to seem authentic it makes perfect sense to construct tracks independent of the "walker" since, in all probability, a guy in a suit wouldn't have left such deep impressions (This, of course, based on what others said how hard the ground was). The question for me, anyways, is how they were made, again, if it was a hoax. And this aspect of the case has been, in my estimation, so under investigated and experimented with that to make any claims of probability of authenticity is premature, at best.


Apeman also wrote:

Basically if one can't replicate both things together (the film and the tracks) that would lend a lot of credibility to it being real before one would have to invoke the complexity of two more or less independent hoaxes.

Well, calling it two "independent hoaxes", I think, is a little off the mark. Two elements to a hoax I think is more accurate if, again, it was fabricated.



Apeman also wrote:

I'm not saying that such a scenario isn't possible, and that it shouldn't be investigated. I'm just saying that it so unlikely and counterintuitive that it shouldn't be assumed to be part of the "scientific" assessment of Meldrum's paper. I think a good scientific mind would think, "if this is hoax we should be able to conclusively discredit the film and the tracks without having to consider them two independent efforts." It's hard for me to imagine a reviewer getting to point of arguing "but the tracks could have been made independently" as he was trying to decide if this is worthy of publication.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, I just disagree with it . I think it's an element that would be considered since it's, imho, more than just an abstract possibility. But, also, there's the whole aspect dealing with the fact that the figure in the film has never really been quantitatively ruled out as a guy in a suit.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 5 2007, 12:16 PM

[Apeman]

Longtabber-
Your input is appreciated here because I think you come at this from a different perspective than most of us. But a couple comments on what you said above. I hate dissecting posts like I've done here, but I think this case could be quite constructive and maybe even instructive.

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

It's hard for me to see how this could possibly cause any further harm to Meldrum or the "BF community" so I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this.

( 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)

That's a terrible analogy and I think these two things are VERY different.

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.

You don't honestly think that based on this paper do you? I'm not sure where ethics comes into play in this case. He clearly believes this work is valid and he seems to be using perfectly valid methods, and ISU has backed him all along?

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)

I think this is exact question this paper poses. Sure, it isn't going to rock the scientific world as the covetted "proof" of bigfoot, but if we were talking about any other animal, this paper wouldn't even rasie an eyebrow. Everyone would say "Good job" and refer to this paper (which would have been published in a proper journal) in future related publications. I think that's part of the beauty of this paper, it is really asking "isn't this enough to establish that something real made these tracks?" If nothing else, it elevates the conversation in my book.

The problem with his conclusions is- he is making a SUBJECTIVE observation ( rather than an objective one)

I'm not sure exactly which observation your referring to, but isn't every paper like this that identifies some ichnotaxon?

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.

I disagree. I think his proposed foot designs are him offering an explanation/interpretation or hypothesis based on the "data" of the tracks and his expertise. This is the sort of thing is debated in science all the time, in fact I think it is still happening with the Laetoli prints and no one is suggesting that's pseudoscience.

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)

That might be true, but I venture to guess there are plenty of similar examples to this case where there is trace evidence but no bones, fossils or anything else. I'm hoping Desertyeti can comment on that and am waiting to hear from him.

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

No one is questioning that, but I think you're misreading his real objective if you think that's what he's trying to do with this paper.

-Apeman

[longtabber PE]

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.

OK cool- dont misread what I was saying ( or what I was trying to say) and our disciplines are a bit different. So, I'm thinking like an engineer here.

>>>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.

That wasnt where I was going- I consider his "back engineering" of the same level and kind as mine when i have to "back engineer' a system or machine- thats high level skill, no doubt about it.

The "subjective" I was referring to was the operational presumption he is operating under and the fact that his work simply must be in the subjective category.

Look at these 2 statements

This is a model of the foot that made this print based on the data etc..........

This is a CONCEPTUAL model based on known standard data of the foot that was LIKELY to have made this print.

Without a known benchmark sample or data- sentence one simply cannot be justified in any community review. if i were on the Board reviewing it, I would have to disregard it because even tho the applicable science was applied- its still subjective because there are other options. At best a probability model and data set could be made.

In the rest of the science ( such as with animals/humans known to exist)- you have actual data thats solid to base a hypothesis on- with bigfoot, its a hypothesis based on a concept derived from a test sample that may or may not even be real in the first place.

>>>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 [i]method of documentation, calling it "subjective" is at best grossly misleading.[/i]

I fully agree it would be morally wrong to just discount the work in the name of science but I have to stop way short of agreeing that it unambiguously speaks to the existence of said animal.

I'll use my field as a comparative example- we "know" ( from the math, models etc) that weapons such as directed energy weapons are not just theoretically possible but would work when the technology exists to create them. ( both the telephone and transistor fall into this category- the telephone was even named before it was invented) Thats a far cry from saying I just invented it when you dont have one to show.

Same thing here- Theres no science i'm aware of that says a bigfoot "cannot" exist- that doesnt mean it does but it does mean it CAN. So, that alone justifies his continued research ( in my mind) but theres a long line between "can" and 'does".

I'm all for presenting a legitimate theory as just that ( which i would place his work under) but that still falls under the subjective category.

Science only has 3 basic categories- theoretical ( ideas that work on a whiteboard),subjective ( we have 'stuff" and are reviewing it) and validated ( passed the applicable acid test)

This is way beyond theory and since theres no known "foot" to compare it to- i cant see any other category to put it in.

I agree its a legitimate piece of the pie, but its not the piece with the alamode on it.

[longtabber PE]

Longtabber-
Your input is appreciated here because I think you come at this from a different perspective than most of us. But a couple comments on what you said above. I hate dissecting posts like I've done here, but I think this case could be quite constructive and maybe even instructive.

It's hard for me to see how this could possibly cause any further harm to Meldrum or the "BF community" so I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this.

That's a terrible analogy and I think these two things are VERY different.

You don't honestly think that based on this paper do you? I'm not sure where ethics comes into play in this case. He clearly believes this work is valid and he seems to be using perfectly valid methods, and ISU has backed him all along?

I think this is exact question this paper poses. Sure, it isn't going to rock the scientific world as the covetted "proof" of bigfoot, but if we were talking about any other animal, this paper wouldn't even rasie an eyebrow. Everyone would say "Good job" and refer to this paper (which would have been published in a proper journal) in future related publications. I think that's part of the beauty of this paper, it is really asking "isn't this enough to establish that something real made these tracks?" If nothing else, it elevates the conversation in my book.

I'm not sure exactly which observation your referring to, but isn't every paper like this that identifies some ichnotaxon?

I disagree. I think his proposed foot designs are him offering an explanation/interpretation or hypothesis based on the "data" of the tracks and his expertise. This is the sort of thing is debated in science all the time, in fact I think it is still happening with the Laetoli prints and no one is suggesting that's pseudoscience.

That might be true, but I venture to guess there are plenty of similar examples to this case where there is trace evidence but no bones, fossils or anything else. I'm hoping Desertyeti can comment on that and am waiting to hear from him.

No one is questioning that, but I think you're misreading his real objective if you think that's what he's trying to do with this paper.

-Apeman

>>I hate dissecting posts like I've done here, but I think this case could be quite constructive and maybe even instructive.

Thank you- I dissect posts like you are doing all the time. To me, it makes for more effective commentary on specific points. ( even tho its a little wordier)

>>>It's hard for me to see how this could possibly cause any further harm to Meldrum or the "BF community" so I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this.

I do and I'm speaking from personal experience with some engineers i know who operate on "fringe" physics ( mostly in the UFO community where I am a known debunker) and from the cases I have been involved in in various courts.

Be it good, bad, right,wrong, deserved or undeserved, Meldrum is what we refer to as a "radioactive" witness ( he has a lot of less than good baggage)- in those cases, its best for the individual and the cause itself to lay low and bring in other "experts" ( preferably from sub fields who can shore up parts of the work) to build credibility and to support his conclusions. ( maybe offer additional insight of their own)

>>>lumping these together>>>That's a terrible analogy and I think these two things are VERY different.

You don't honestly think that based on this paper do you? I'm not sure where ethics comes into play in this case. He clearly believes this work is valid and he seems to be using perfectly valid methods, and ISU has backed him all along?

I see your point but I feel he MAY ( emphasis on MAY) be going beyond what his research can legitimately stand on. Without seeing the paper, I would have to refrain from commenting further. But i will say this ( as a 3rd party observer who has no connection to it at all) It did appear that way to me at first glance- thats fine if its just me because i dont know the man ( and i wont ever make a personal comment without knowing the person) but it could appear that way to others too.

Also, I have zero familiarity with his field, the accepted standard and practices so the simple answer is that i also may be simply wrong. ( wont be the first time)

>>> I think this is exact question this paper poses. Sure, it isn't going to rock the scientific world as the covetted "proof" of bigfoot, but if we were talking about any other animal, this paper wouldn't even rasie an eyebrow. Everyone would say "Good job" and refer to this paper (which would have been published in a proper journal) in future related publications. I think that's part of the beauty of this paper, it is really asking "isn't this enough to establish that something real made these tracks?" If nothing else, it elevates the conversation in my book.

I'm not sure exactly which observation your referring to, but isn't every paper like this that identifies some ichnotaxon?

I hit those in my previous post before i read yours. So to save bandwidth, look at that one. ( bearing in mind, as you are a professional in your field- I'm coloring my comments thru mine as well- which is a lot less forgiving when it comes to hard science and math)

>>>I disagree. I think his proposed foot designs are him offering an explanation/interpretation or hypothesis based on the "data" of the tracks and his expertise. This is the sort of thing is debated in science all the time, in fact I think it is still happening with the Laetoli prints and no one is suggesting that's pseudoscience.

My words might have been a bit misleading on this one- I'm all for his research, resultant debate etc ( you are correct- its done everywhere, everywhere) but its still theoretical as to any result. My reference to "pseudo science" is in direct relation to repeating comments of others railed at him that I have read. I'm not the one making that accusation- others have and i wouldnt comment personally unless I physically reviewed his work ( which I havent)


>>>That might be true, but I venture to guess there are plenty of similar examples to this case where there is trace evidence but no bones, fossils or anything else. I'm hoping Desertyeti can comment on that and am waiting to hear from him.

The only issue i have there is with the "trace evidence"- its quantity, quality etc. Face it, what other 'trace" evidence out there regarding bigfoot ( thats known anyway) is of less value that what Meldrum has done ( giving the man a compliment- theres more actual "science" in his study and work than all the rest combined)

>>>No one is questioning that, but I think you're misreading his real objective if you think that's what he's trying to do with this paper.

After rereading my post- it did kinda sound like that as it was an impression I got but I didnt mean it to be that was my "take" on it.

[Saskeptic]

Mixed reaction here. Thanks Apeman for passing it along.

Kudos to Meldrum for trying to get something into print that may on some level actually have undergone peer review (some "bulletins" are legitimately refereed). This may be the start that sasquatchery needs, given Meldrum's high profile and the fact that he's presenting one piece of evidence to stand on its own merit, rather than trying to pull all the alleged evidence together in one paper, which I think is counterproductive.

The problem is that he elected to present an analysis of prints connected to what many believe to be a well-crafted hoax, rather than the foundation for discovery of a new species. I'm with Yetifan on this one. Meldrum apparently bases the authenticity of these Bluff Creek prints on the authenticity of the PGF, and to me, that sends up red flags, balloons, fireworks, hot chili peppers, etc. Sorry Apeman, but this would be my FIRST question as a referee on this paper: How do you know the prints weren't faked? In my mind, it absolutely follows that if the film was faked so were the prints.

So I like Meldrum's pluck, and I respect him for trying to take this to something like the next level (although still not quite there). But why specifically focus on those tracks, rather than some others that are not so intricately interwoven with what a lot of (most?) folks think was an elaborate hoax?

[SoundMan]

OK cool- dont misread what I was saying ( or what I was trying to say) and our disciplines are a bit different. So, I'm thinking like an engineer here.

>>>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.

That wasnt where I was going- I consider his "back engineering" of the same level and kind as mine when i have to "back engineer' a system or machine- thats high level skill, no doubt about it.

The "subjective" I was referring to was the operational presumption he is operating under and the fact that his work simply must be in the subjective category.

Look at these 2 statements

This is a model of the foot that made this print based on the data etc..........

This is a CONCEPTUAL model based on known standard data of the foot that was LIKELY to have made this print.

Without a known benchmark sample or data- sentence one simply cannot be justified in any community review. if i were on the Board reviewing it, I would have to disregard it because even tho the applicable science was applied- its still subjective because there are other options. At best a probability model and data set could be made.

In the rest of the science ( such as with animals/humans known to exist)- you have actual data thats solid to base a hypothesis on- with bigfoot, its a hypothesis based on a concept derived from a test sample that may or may not even be real in the first place.

>>>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 [i]method of documentation, calling it "subjective" is at best grossly misleading.[/i]

I fully agree it would be morally wrong to just discount the work in the name of science but I have to stop way short of agreeing that it unambiguously speaks to the existence of said animal.

I'll use my field as a comparative example- we "know" ( from the math, models etc) that weapons such as directed energy weapons are not just theoretically possible but would work when the technology exists to create them. ( both the telephone and transistor fall into this category- the telephone was even named before it was invented) Thats a far cry from saying I just invented it when you dont have one to show.

Same thing here- Theres no science i'm aware of that says a bigfoot "cannot" exist- that doesnt mean it does but it does mean it CAN. So, that alone justifies his continued research ( in my mind) but theres a long line between "can" and 'does".

I'm all for presenting a legitimate theory as just that ( which i would place his work under) but that still falls under the subjective category.

Science only has 3 basic categories- theoretical ( ideas that work on a whiteboard),subjective ( we have 'stuff" and are reviewing it) and validated ( passed the applicable acid test)

This is way beyond theory and since theres no known "foot" to compare it to- i cant see any other category to put it in.

I agree its a legitimate piece of the pie, but its not the piece with the alamode on it.

I appreciate your candor and putting in the time to explain. The word subjective is subjective. You make a good argument and part of the difficulty lies within the "art" portion of the science. There is much that can be said but let it suffice to say if the track and trackway evidence stood in total isolation from any other corroborative evidence, it would be easier to make that argument (that it is subjective) stick. Although in some sense of the word I will concede your point.

There are numerous nuances with reading of the sign of these types of tracks that provide forensic evidence to diminish the probability of a human hoaxer and increase the probability of an actual animal. These include the dynamic nature of many of these tracks (e.g. showing flexibility), skin or dermal details, etc., etc. It is in these areas that the subjective becomes more objective, as skin is something we know, toes are something we know, etc. So, it is not on the level of entirely "virtual" on the one hand, nor is it on the level of entirely "real" on the other.

Bottom line is that the evidence is worth continued scientific study and the more exposure the greater likelihood of further research and discovery.

[Apeman]

Meldrum apparently bases the authenticity of these Bluff Creek prints on the authenticity of the PGF, and to me, that sends up red flags, balloons, fireworks, hot chili peppers, etc. Sorry Apeman, but this would be my FIRST question as a referee on this paper: How do you know the prints weren't faked? In my mind, it absolutely follows that if the film was faked so were the prints.

I guess we're all misunderstanding each other at least a little, and this is getting more to difficult to discuss without the full paper. If I don't hear back from Jeff today I'll go ahead an post it.

My reading is not that he is basing the authenticity of the tracks on the film. The film is more like corroborating evidence (for the argument he's making) and I think he struggles with that a little in this paper, though I don't know how else one could have treated it. This might be part of the reason that I'm not overly bothered by the attachment (or lack thereof) of the tracks to the film; because it really isn't critical to this paper.

I fully agree that the first question is "were these faked," I just don't think it's logical (based on all we know in this case) to assume they were faked by anything beyond the figure in the film. Touched up maybe, but I just can't see how it would be any easier or better to fake the a whole trackway independent of the figure, and in my mind such an effort would introduce more problems than it would solve. But I can respect anyone thinking otherwise. I also don't think it really matters that much for this case. Meldrum basically has to approach this as them being real without devoting too much attention to defending them, I think he handles this about as well as he could. Either they're both fake (by whatever means), or they'e both real. I haven't heard anyone propose any other combination!

And sure, the whole Patterson episode is controversial, but there is little question in my mind that this trackway is the only option for trying to write this paper. (I think I would have gone to bed and cried if he'd done this with the Onion Mtn trackway!) I also have a whole new respect for this part of the evidence after reading the paper and seeing how relatively well documented it is. I had no idea that some casts and molds are housed in the Smithsonian.

Anyway, I'll hold off on saying more until we all have the full paper to chew on.

-A

[longtabber PE]

I appreciate your candor and putting in the time to explain. The word subjective is subjective. You make a good argument and part of the difficulty lies within the "art" portion of the science. There is much that can be said but let it suffice to say if the track and trackway evidence stood in total isolation from any other corroborative evidence, it would be easier to make that argument (that it is subjective) stick. Although in some sense of the word I will concede your point.

There are numerous nuances with reading of the sign of these types of tracks that provide forensic evidence to diminish the probability of a human hoaxer and increase the probability of an actual animal. These include the dynamic nature of many of these tracks (e.g. showing flexibility), skin or dermal details, etc., etc. It is in these areas that the subjective becomes more objective, as skin is something we know, toes are something we know, etc. So, it is not on the level of entirely "virtual" on the one hand, nor is it on the level of entirely "real" on the other.

Bottom line is that the evidence is worth continued scientific study and the more exposure the greater likelihood of further research and discovery.

Let me offer you my view here

>>>There are numerous nuances with reading of the sign of these types of tracks that provide forensic evidence to diminish the probability of a human hoaxer and increase the probability of an actual animal. These include the dynamic nature of many of these tracks (e.g. showing flexibility), skin or dermal details, etc., etc. It is in these areas that the subjective becomes more objective, as skin is something we know, toes are something we know, etc. So, it is not on the level of entirely "virtual" on the one hand, nor is it on the level of entirely "real" on the other.

Something i have learned from numerous court appearances.

When you are making a "case'- you have a line of 5 gallon buckets of "proof" ( each bucket representing a different 'thing")

If there are 10 buckets and you have 50 lbs of "footprint' proof- thats 1 out of 10 and you lose ( even tho you won that round- you lost the other 9 thus the fight)

There are casts 'aplenty" and honestly, I dont see 1 or 1000 more making any more significant difference.

If it were me- I would apply a different approach

I would start digging up a few of these ( carefully to preserve them as much as possible)- sift a few, subject others to microscopy and even chemical analysis to see if the print contained any hair, blood, usable skin cells or basically "anything" to further build my case.

I would also follow them ( as best as possible) doing the "Sherlock" with my magnifying glass,gloves, tweezers and bags scanning the area,branches, foliage etc for additional signs ( one has to think that at some point, Mr. Bigfoot has to cut himself on a branch,briar etc, shed some hair, make a head call or even take a bite out of some greenery)

I would try that route in hopes i could fill up some more of my buckets before I went before the adverse attorney and was facing cross examination.

[SoundMan]

There are casts 'aplenty" and honestly, I dont see 1 or 1000 more making any more significant difference.

If it were me- I would apply a different approach

I would start digging up a few of these ( carefully to preserve them as much as possible)- sift a few, subject others to microscopy and even chemical analysis to see if the print contained any hair, blood, usable skin cells or basically "anything" to further build my case.

I would also follow them ( as best as possible) doing the "Sherlock" with my magnifying glass,gloves, tweezers and bags scanning the area,branches, foliage etc for additional signs ( one has to think that at some point, Mr. Bigfoot has to cut himself on a branch,briar etc, shed some hair, make a head call or even take a bite out of some greenery)

I would try that route in hopes i could fill up some more of my buckets before I went before the adverse attorney and was facing cross examination.

You make it sound so easy. It only takes opportunity, time, connections and money. And not an insignificant amount of any. The buckets have been filled to some degree and are continuing to expand. But what is being suggested by me at least is that the publishing of the evidence of the tracks is a first start to more formal and prolonged, well funded scientific studies.

And yes, 1000 versus 1 (if they are variable yet have the same suite of characteristics) makes a significant difference in the arena of human hoax versus animal.

[longtabber PE]

You make it sound so easy. It only takes opportunity, time, connections and money. And not an insignificant amount of any. The buckets have been filled to some degree and are continuing to expand. But what is being suggested by me at least is that the publishing of the evidence of the tracks is a first start to more formal and prolonged, well funded scientific studies.

And yes, 1000 versus 1 (if they are variable yet have the same suite of characteristics) makes a significant difference in the arena of human hoax versus animal.

It is that simple ( conceptually and in the field at least) a biological sampling kit from most supply houses is about $20 ( watch a few episodes of CSI to get an idea of how to use it)

The rest is where the costs are incurred. As i said in another post- its not that scientists wont touch this- its the question of who is going to PAY for it thats the real hindrance. ( let no one kid you- scientists are like us engineers- we are in it to make money[ making our name means we get to charge more- its still back to the dollar])

I dont see the question as "hoax" V "animal" ( there have always been hoaxers in every discipline- they aint nothing new)

I see it more as "subjective" V "Impiracle" since the ultimate goal is to establish this creature factually exists.


See, no amount of "hoaxing" affects the question of does bigfoot or doesnt bigfoot- the MOST hoaxing can do is affect the collected evidence. Every scientist understands this and is equipped to deal with it. ( no different than lawyers dealing with lies in a court)

Where i see the flaw here is that a scientist should also understand the bar is VERY high ( proving a species exists) and a scientist should know and be prepared to fill those buckets.

If it were me, i wouldnt even waste my energy addressing or defending whether my evidence was the product of a hoax because if my methods were sound, all but the most elaborate attempts would be discovered and discarded.

I would be looking to FILL those buckets.

I would be writing papers to distribute to the various BF groups and blogs such as these on such subjects as evidence gathering, "fake finding", investigative methods etc and let THEM ( the people) KNOW what I need, the way I need it, how to find and collect it.

Given the level of education and seriousness of most of the posters i have read here- they seem to stand ready to devote their time,energy and even a few dollars to such- what they are lacking is "command guidance' in WHAT is needed and HOW to get it.


Think about it- I've seen some Alabama posters here, some who hunt on their own and have found 'stuff"( that level of dedication impresses me)- my question is- what did they MISS that might have been the 'smoking gun' that was sitting right there in front of them but they didnt think or realize what it might have been?

I would approach the moderators to start a thread on evidence, collecting etc- list kits, how to articles- who to send what to and start a central collection database here and funnel them to Meldrum ( or whomever) and turn the people loose in the fields armed with better knowledge and awareness of HOW to gather meaningful evidence.

Thats what i would do.

[SoundMan]

Thats what i would do.

Go to it!

[longtabber PE]

Go to it!

I would be glad to but in my area ( ME/EE and SF Operator)- I would only be able to help with field techniques and technology and hard sciences. The most elaborate "specimine gathering" I'm qualified to talk on is industrial lubrication analysis and i dont think thats of much value in this arena.

Somebody in the biological sciences needs to give the information I was referring to.

[Apeman]

Here it is with OK from Jeff. And it is indeed peer-reviewed so I was wrong on my guess.

 Meldrum2007_ICHNOTAXONOMY_OF_GIANT_HOMINOID_TRACKS_IN_NORTH_AMERICA.pdf ( 3.14mb ) Number of downloads: 1032


-A

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Oh sweet, thanks ApeMan. Do you know if this is in anyway related to the online journal he keeps bringing up?

[Apeman]

Do you know if this is in anyway related to the online journal he keeps bringing up?

I don't think it's at all related, and as far as I know the journal is still in the works.

This post has been edited by Apeman: Nov 5 2007, 04:38 PM

[Bitter Monk]

I would also follow them ( as best as possible) doing the "Sherlock" with my magnifying glass,gloves, tweezers and bags scanning the area,branches, foliage etc for additional signs ( one has to think that at some point, Mr. Bigfoot has to cut himself on a branch,briar etc, shed some hair, make a head call or even take a bite out of some greenery)

That was how Titmus did it. Taking the time to stick your nose to the ground and examine every leaf, twig, and bush can be exhaustive but is IMO well worth the effort.

[Saskeptic]

Thanks Apeman! I need to write an exam this morning, but I'll get to this ASAP.

[SoundMan]

Without a known benchmark sample or data- sentence one simply cannot be justified in any community review. if i were on the Board reviewing it, I would have to disregard it because even tho the applicable science was applied- its still subjective because there are other options. At best a probability model and data set could be made.

In the rest of the science ( such as with animals/humans known to exist)- you have actual data thats solid to base a hypothesis on- with bigfoot, its a hypothesis based on a concept derived from a test sample that may or may not even be real in the first place.

Just a follow up on this matter as I now know a little more about ichnotaxonomy and the paper Jeff submitted and was published.

The paper was indeed peer reviewed by a group of professionals and was accepted, and published in the subject bulletin. The standard practice of classifying trace fossils was used in this case. Therefore, it passed a rigorous test for acceptance and was published. The same objective standards were used here as they would for any trace fossils which include tracks, trackways, gnawings, casings, coprolites, nests, etc. which is what ichnotaxa represent. To be clear, they do not represent the actual organism but the organism's trace remains. Trace remains of which may be the only known information about the organism.

So while you may have disregarded it, the professionals in that field did not. And they used objective standards for doing so. It does not mean that it cannot be challenged but it does mean that it fits within the rigors of the accepted science for taxanomical purposes.

[longtabber PE]

Just a follow up on this matter as I now know a little more about ichnotaxonomy and the paper Jeff submitted and was published.

The paper was indeed peer reviewed by a group of professionals and was accepted, and published in the subject bulletin. The standard practice of classifying trace fossils was used in this case. Therefore, it passed a rigorous test for acceptance and was published. The same objective standards were used here as they would for any trace fossils which include tracks, trackways, gnawings, casings, coprolites, nests, etc. which is what ichnotaxa represent. To be clear, they do not represent the actual organism but the organism's trace remains. Trace remains of which may be the only known information about the organism.

So while you may have disregarded it, the professionals in that field did not. And they used objective standards for doing so. It does not mean that it cannot be challenged but it does mean that it fits within the rigors of the accepted science for taxanomical purposes.

Well, also my comments were BEFORE the paper was released here to read- but a few points

I havent seen anything indicating the paper has been peer reviewed yet ( the review in the acknowledgements section of a paper isnt a "peer review"- its more of fact checking and proof reading) When its actually "reviewed"- the reviewer will post his/her commentary within whatever organization hosts it. If there have been actual reviews, I simply havent seen them.

So, I think your last statement is a bit premature

I get the impression that he is making a "pitch" to have the tracks/prints named by the ICZN so the real test will be what they say.

I will also be interested in seeing any commentaries/challenges etc to it

[SoundMan]

So, I think your last statement is a bit premature

I get the impression that he is making a "pitch" to have the tracks/prints named by the ICZN so the real test will be what they say.

I will also be interested in seeing any commentaries/challenges etc to it

I spoke to him personally and he confirmed that it was peer reviewed. Like I said, it could be challenged. We will wait and see.

As far as the ICZN, he states that since it is not fossilized, "attaching a name is not expressly sanctioned". But neither is it barred. And thus, he provides the precedence for the naming of an extant (living) taxon. Additionally, he addresses the issue of redundancy, for the present at least, as the alleged sasquatch has received no formal name. Therefore he is not re-naming the tracks of an organism that has already been named.

What the taxonomic classification will be when, not if, in my opinion, it is named is pure speculation.

[longtabber PE]

I spoke to him personally and he confirmed that it was peer reviewed. Like I said, it could be challenged. We will wait and see.

As far as the ICZN, he states that since it is not fossilized, "attaching a name is not expressly sanctioned". But neither is it barred. And thus, he provides the precedence for the naming of an extant (living) taxon. Additionally, he addresses the issue of redundancy, for the present at least, as the alleged sasquatch has received no formal name. Therefore he is not re-naming the tracks of an organism that has already been named.

What the taxonomic classification will be when, not if, in my opinion, it is named is pure speculation.

OK cool ( thats a piece of data I didnt have)

so now, we need to look at what the peers say

[SoundMan]

OK cool ( thats a piece of data I didnt have)

so now, we need to look at what the peers say

The peer review process is not a public process. The work has been published and the next step is to see the reactions within the scientific community at large as it "makes the rounds". We may also see public reaction to the article as well.

[Apeman]

So I hope others are starting to see the cleverness in this and why I think it's a biggish deal? We now have the covetted, peer-reviewed naming of sasquatch tracks. I think the bar is raised by this and there is now only one obvious step up... though I'd still like to see a DNA paper and a better analysis of the PGF get through peer-review.

Apeman

[Saskeptic]

So I hope others are starting to see the cleverness in this and why I think it's a biggish deal? We now have the covetted, peer-reviewed naming of sasquatch tracks. I think the bar is raised by this and there is now only one obvious step up... though I'd still like to see a DNA paper and a better analysis of the PGF get through peer-review.
Apeman

Totally agree - this was sorely needed. He's laying some groundwork for a majpr publication in a high profile journal, assuming we ever get any better evidence.

[Mon0705]

The same objective standards were used here as they would for any trace fossils which include tracks, trackways, gnawings, casings, coprolites, nests, etc. which is what ichnotaxa represent. To be clear, they do not represent the actual organism but the organism's trace remains. Trace remains of which may be the only known information about the organism.

Just to clear up an earlier question in the thread, from what I've gathered, ichnotaxa represent markings of animals. The 'fossils' referred to above do not necessarily represent extinct species. Therefore, ichnotaxa could be representative of any animals whether they exist, are extinct, or might exist. Correct?

BTW-Apeman and Saskeptic - I totally agree as well that this is a monumental scientific/academic step. It opens the door (foot or no foot) to further examining footprints within the scientific community.

[Melissa]

So I hope others are starting to see the cleverness in this and why I think it's a biggish deal? We now have the covetted, peer-reviewed naming of sasquatch tracks. I think the bar is raised by this and there is now only one obvious step up... though I'd still like to see a DNA paper and a better analysis of the PGF get through peer-review.

Apeman

I think this is exciting. I was waiting for the peer review issue to be answered - thank you SoundMan. I think this is a great step in the right direction

[Apeman]

In reference to the earlier discussion with Yetifan, I want to note that (both Meldrum?) and I previously gave Murphy too much credit. The illustration Murphy used (p. 67), and the one which I presume is what is referenced in Jeff's paper, as possible evidence of the Patterson figure leaving tracks seen in the film is, I'm quite certain, wrong. I've been meaning to look at this because I went back to check the illustration when I read that Jeff referenced Murphy and remembered that I never bought it (contrary to what I may have implied to my comedic friend ) But I just now found my LMS DVD at the bottom of a CD pile and checked the figure's path. As I suspected all along, the Patterson figure passes well in front of the wobbly line that Murphy, to his credit, said "might be footprints." This doesn't change much in my mind, but backs part of what I love to refer to as The Yetifan Conundrum. I'm too lazy to capture and post a pic but if you watch the full film you can see around the early frame 300's where the figure passes well in front of the marks Murphy indicated.

While I'm on the subject-
1) do I recall correctly that some time in the past year or so MK Davis claimed to have deciphered a footprint in the early frames of the film?
2) does anyone know (or know if it's known) even approximately from where in the trackway any of the casts or photos were taken?

-Apeman

[Dad]

I know I'm on the short bus here and all......but what is this accomplishing in a nut shell?.....besides putting his name on the 'itchy' name?

We don't even know for sure that 'Itchy' is real...........

This kinda reminds me of naming the 'Jacobs Creature' to be honest.......

JMO.........

[SoundMan]

Just to clear up an earlier question in the thread, from what I've gathered, ichnotaxa represent markings of animals. The 'fossils' referred to above do not necessarily represent extinct species. Therefore, ichnotaxa could be representative of any animals whether they exist, are extinct, or might exist. Correct?

I saw where there is a distinction between paleoichnology and neoichnology, but the paper does not make a specific reference to this distinction. However, as I pointed out previously, the paper does make reference to a prior precedence of naming an extant (living) species. And he is following that precedent.

I certainly don't claim to be an authority on the subject, but I think the main thing you have to adjust your mind to with respect to inchnotaxa is that unlike the nomenclature for plants and animals, you don't necessarily know, and may never know, what organism made the trace fossils or in this case, the tracks/trackway. It seems to be a way to document not the organism but the behaviour or the anatomy of the organism. For what purpose? For the ability to try to decipher if possible, the connection between the organism and its traces. If extinct, then you can't examine the organism. It's traces are all you have - so you name it.

Which brings up a VERY interesting point - it appears to be highly unusual for an ichnotaxon in general to have an organism associated with it. If you knew what organism made the traces, why bother naming the traces? Unless because of time, there may be some possible adaptation (differentiation between modern and archaic traits with respect to the reference to Homo sapiens - just guessing?).

In any case, I believe that Jeff has greater compelling data than would be typical in the naming of a trace fossil. HE HAS THE TRACKMAKER FILMED MAKING THE TRACKS! This is far greater evidence than what would be demanded for the naming of fossil trace!

Further, if you accept the trackway, with the trackmaker mentioned and even photos included, doesn't that association have some type of synergistic effect? I mean, doesn't that provide compelling information to do what he specifically says it doesn't do? He states that it (naming the tracks) "neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker, nor does it resolve the controversy over the existence of sasquatch." And then he states his intention - "to facilitate the objective discussion and comparison of the tracks within an ichnological context."

That sounds nice - but what does that mean? The more I think about this, the more compelling is the connection between the tracks and the trackmaker. How can you accept the trackway but reject the trackmaker? Or conversely, how can you reject the trackway and then not be compelled to reject the trackmaker?

I can see no other way than that they stand or fall together. What say any of you?

[Yetifan]

Soundman wrote:

In any case, I believe that Jeff has greater compelling data than would be typical in the naming of a trace fossil. HE HAS THE TRACKMAKER FILMED MAKING THE TRACKS!

That's simply untrue. Neither of the feet in the PGF are ever shown making any imprint that's discernable, therefore leaving open the possibility the prints were faked after the filming. That the film subject made the prints is inferred, not verified by the footage. I would also recommend reading Apeman's post that is two spots before your last one.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Nov 6 2007, 06:12 PM

[SoundMan]

Soundman wrote:
That's simply untrue. Neither of the feet in the PGF are ever shown making any imprint that's discernable, therefore leaving open the possibility the prints were faked after the filming. That the film subject made the prints is inferred, not verified by the footage. I would also recommend reading Apeman's post that is two spots before your last one.

I mean this in a relative, not absolute, sense (many? most? fossil traces don't have a presumed organism depicted, photographed, filmed, drawn, you name it in close proximity both spatially and temporally) WHEREAS, not only are frames from the P/G Film mentioned, but are shown as Figure 5 - for the very purpose of illustrating specific aspects of the foot. He is describing aspects of the foot shown in the photographs that are unique to the inferred trackmaker (flat surface, midfoot flexibility, etc.). Photographic evidence that is proximal spatially and temporally to the tracks and trackway.

That foot (actually feet) while not stated emphatically is certainly inferred to be the source of the HOLOTYPE - the Patterson casts (CA-9 and CA-10). For he says on page 226 that "the association of these tracks with an unrecognized giant bipedal hominoid is further indicated by the apparent documentation of the trackmaker on a brief 16mm film clip (Fig. 5)". Why include it all if no relation is inferred?

I believe the association is unambiguous. Even though there remain questions as to the validity of the film, they are only questions relative to the validity of the animal. And the questions relative to the validity of the animal seem necessarily connected to questions relative to the validity of the tracks/trackway. Unless of course, these named tracks/trackway are not really of an animal at all.

As to the issue of a lack of photographic evidence clearly associating the tracks to the trackmaker - given what we know about the details seen in both the foot and tracks, details which prior were at least generally unstudied and unknown... seems to me to be of the greatest degree of unlikelihood to have been manufactured. As the tracks speak to a real animal, why so hard to let that animal be the one that is depicted proximal (spatially and temporally) to the object in the film?