He has a thermal image and a very good photo of a footprint in the snow....allegedly from less than 40 miles away from Washington, DC, in Virginia...
http://www.stancourtney.com/

Now THAT'S interesting!

Very interesting. Espically when compared with the other IR photo of the man in the forest. The photo with the unkown figure is apparantly a few degrees warmer in the chest area

Only provided a photo of a single footprint ? In the snow ?

Only 11 inches long ? That certainly narrows the possibilities down to a Sasquatch .. :new_tiredsmiley:

Did anyone try to follow the tracks ?


The thermal imagery... It could be anything...


Why is this even being considered as evidence of a non-human North American primate ?

Did you even try to read what was posted on Stan's site before asking this?

If they do exist it could be a juvenile, unless you think they fly around the forest until they reach adulthood.

A very interesting story.

No but it if it is 11 inches long (and there was no scale in the photo to verify that) it puts it within the human range and makes the likelihood of someones chain being yanked more likely. Barefoot you say? Sure I wouldn't fake a BF print with my boot on. And just to be clear.....
I AM NOT ACCUSING ANY OF THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED, INCLUDING STAN, OF HOAXING ANYTHING.

I think that's a good question....how long was the trackway? The article mentions more than one print but doesn't mention a trackway or an attempt to follow one. To be honest the guys in the field, despite having the an expensive thermal imager and what looks like a desire to find something really didn't to a great job of presenting their evidence. All we have is their word for it, and while that's good enough for some people, all that does is make it a good story.

Researchers today have to do better than that. The bigger the internet gets, the more bigfooters there are and the number of skeptics grows with them. If you are only trying to convince bigfooters thats fine, but don't complain about the skeptics then.

I couldn't agree more - a single photo does nothing for me - if it is to be presented as evidence, then it must be measured, and reported as a trackway, with the stride and depth measured at the very, very least.

Otherwise it is worthless as 'evidence'.

BD is right - researchers have to do better than that, and if for some reason the researcher in question has done better, but are choosing not to present that evidence yet, then they should at the very least give further details, or not bother mentioning it at all.

I think you missed my point, I only glimpsed at the story so I'm not passing judgement either on if this is real or a hoax, but how can you determine if they are fake soley because they are of a smaller size, I understand it makes it more skeptical but it shouldn't make it irrelevant, because that logic just points towards ignorance.

I don't believe that, but it seems some people do ... :wink:

Ignorance? :glare:

OK if you want to get logical; :wink:

This is reported as being a bigfoot print.

Bigfoot has not been proven to exist.

It is a human looking footprint, reported to be within human scale.

Humans undoubtedly exist, I even live with one.

The most logical conclusion has to be that it is a human footprint.

Your turn.

It is irrelevant because as Paul said it is effectively worthless. If there is additional information to be presented then that irrelevance could potentially be removed, but as it stands it's just a pretty picture and a thermoblob.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever taken a thermal image of a bear standing on it's hind feet for comparison?

Sounds like we need a new smiley.

I am not sure if i read the image right or not. Is it saying that the temp of the figure is 34.6 degrees celcius? If it is, that would be around 94 f. Also, the footprint looks to be cut too well in the snow. It looks like the edges are too round. JMO

It is too bad there isn't more date. You can spend 30 grand on a thermal device and thats what u get.

Why do people only show a picture of one print if there was more than one print found? That is one of the most irritating parts of this whole thing to me. If you have a line of prints, or even a pair of prints, show pics of them all. If you don't have a line of prints, or more than one print, you have to ask yourself why. There has to be a reason why.

One of the things that John Green mentioned at the 2003 Willow Creek Conference was that they had learned over the years not to take a photo or cast of the 'best looking' print, but to take casts and photos of all of them.

40 years later we seem to have forgotten everything that our predecessors taught us.

I firmly believe that we are going backwards in terms of research, and that if we don't shape up in terms of evidence that is presented soon, then we will continue to go backwards.

Researchers need to learn how to collect evidence, how to present evidence, how to interview witnesses etc. and soon!

Don't forget, Stan or the researchers involved didn't bring their information to this forum. This thread was started by someone posting a link to Stan's site. There may be more to the story or theories they are working out that they are not willing to discuss yet. Don't be so quick to pass judgement or consider evidence useless yet. I know I'm wasting my breath asking this forum to not pass judgement or to be patient, but please try. This isn't Biscardi or some faceless person posting images with wild claims. Many of you probably know the people involved and they deserve a little patience.

As I said, IMHO, if they have more (as dblondon states), then they should say so, and explain why they don't want to release it.

Remember that Stan and dblondon published those two images on Stan's website.

The only 'evidence' presented on Stan's website has been a thermoblob and a single low-res photo from an alleged habituation, so yes, I have every right in discounting its worth as evidence. Your mileage and understanding of evidence may vary.

If they have more, then again, IMHO, they should wait until they are ready to publish everything, which I'm pretty sure was the citicism almost everyone here made of the Johor fiasco in Malaysia.

This is exactly what I'm talking about



Why only pictures of the tape measure alongside the BEST print - you need to measure all the prints!!!!


Credit though should be given to dblondon - he is explaining more about the circumstances in Stan's forum, so yes, perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, but I still discount it as evidence until full details are published and investigated.




So how far from anything else was this print? this is what makes it worthless at the moment - the impression given is that this is a single print in the middle of no-where - no prints leading up to it and no prints leading away.

Unless you subscribe to the shapeshifting rabbit theorys, it isn't a bigfoot footprint.

And for the record, 11" is about the size of my foot, but I wasn't there. :laugh:

looks like a fat guy standing behind a tree lol also i wear a 13ee shoe. maybe i could subcontract my feet out to folks to make prints with lol

You have a right to your own opinion, but again this info is being discussed on the North American Bigfoot Forums. Please read the Sticky on the purpose of that Field Researchers section.

You make it sound like nobody can discuss their research or share their information without full disclosure. What kind of message is that? This initial critisism only causes more secrets and vague reports.

This report was posted here with the intention of discussing it, that's what is done here, it doesn't matter who posted it.
If ambiguous and incomplete reports are good enough for you that's fine, but they aren't good enough for everyone and are open for debate and/or criticism here.

Questions and criticisms cause vague reports? I think you have that backwards.

There is a time for questions and criticism, I believe this forum jumps the gun. Calling respected researchers work useless only makes people hold back even more. Its this type of attitude that keeps people from posting real research info on this forum, and people like Rick Noll to go away.

The time for questions is after a report has been published - what is the problem?


Can I remind everyone to read Bipto's post about reporting your sighting on BFF. I appreciate that this report was not posted here originally, but, A contributor to Stan's website made a post here with the deliberate attention of drawing BFF member's attention to it in the hope of getting visitors to Stan's website.

To then blame these very same BFF members for questioning the incomplete report is below the belt.

Questions are one thing, but calling evidence worthless and making blanket statements about how poor researchers are is another. If you want to ask questions to the researcher, log on and ask, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to answer.

Which "respected researchers" would that be?
The ones who posted what appears to be a photo of a single human footprint, and implied it was that of a sasquatch?
The one who posted an ambiguous "thermoblob"(I love that !), with no follow up?
Those guys?
Ok...if that's your idea of "real research"...it's no wonder "we" as a collective are an absolute joke to the vast majority of legitimat science..and that it's as Paul said, going in reverse.
As to what was posted....
That's almost certainly a human footprint...there is no reason in the world to think otherwise...look at the thing.
IF any of the "known" squatch prints are real...they have certain aspects that are notebly different then human prints.
If we are now to the point where even an obvious human print, with nothing to show otherwise, is hailed as "real research"..then we are lost.
(edited to fix a Jimism)

I'm a little confused on this, how did this become an attempt to get visitors to Stan's website. Could the same not be said for anything posted about stuff on Cryptomundo then? Not trying to rock the boat Paul, but it is confusing when statements like this is made. Stan isn't to blame for any of this, but he gets dragged through the mud.

And it appears that the poster of these pics has been a member of the BFF since April 2006. So that makes it even more confusing.

Did the researcher publish an incomplete report? Yes

Does it show a sasquatch footprint? Unlikely, since it is a single print with no prints leading up to it or away from it.

Does the thermoblob show a sasquatch? It doesn't matter - there is no corroborating evidence

Did the researchers photograph all three prints with a tape measure alongside so that they could be compared later? No


I hate to say it, I really do - I want conclusive evidence as much as the next man, but this is *not* evidence worthy of discussion.

Don't believe me? I could show you bare footprints, X formations, tree twists photographed around England. People play pranks - especially when they allege habituation, and X formations and tree twists DO occur naturally.

So, what distinguishes these photographs from the bare footprint (with dermals) that I was sent from the North-East of England a few years back?

A single footprint with no visible reason why there aren't other footprints is just a depression in the ground - it isn't a track made by a 7 foot tall primate.

I wish it was, but I don't think it is, and unless the evidence is collected properly, it is as worthless as evidence as OJ Simpson's glove was.


Please don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to mean or rude about this - I'm trying to get researchers to apply the same rules of evidence that we would expect in a court of law - unless the same standards are applied, we won't get anywhere - this is something I have been banging on about here for nearly five years, so no-one should be surprised when I say that the evidence presented (so far) is not going to get us any further.

Nightwing you have no idea what you are talking about, there is tons of information where this report originated. And it seams the information release is still increasing, while you folks flame me for asking the forum to be patient, the researchers involved keep posting detailed information and timelines on what they've found and experienced. But, its my fault, I should know by now not to criticize the clique in this forum.

I take the point Jeremy, and with that in mind, I'm going to suspend this thread for a few days, and give dblondon a fair chance to publish his complete report.

I'll re-open this thread on Monday.

Apologies for the delay in re-opening this thread - by now all those involved should have had plenty of time to document their story properly, so I'm moving this over to Report Publication and Review since it is being put forward as 'evidence'.

Just thought I'd look at the footprint from a ratio perspective, since the photo doesn't indicate size.

On the basis of apparent width and length estimates, I'd say the print appears to be human in origin. I know some people will argue that nobody in their right mind walks around barefooted in the snow...

Stranger things have happened at sea, as they say. LINK (recent).

I have photos somewhere of human footprints in snow from a hoax at Bolam Lake in England.

Ditto. If I found a set of prints I believed belonged to a B/F, I certainly would take pictures of the trackway and present it, rather than just a single print.

To me, if you post on a forum, then you are willing to discuss your evidence. A photo of a footprint without a means to measure it in that same photo is basically useless. Any photo of a footprint that has has the measurement documentation (as in a ruler or tape measure) right there next to the photo establishes the size. If the size falls into the range of a human footprint, then it is questionable.

Even in the snow in the dead of winter, I run out onto my deck barefoot to quickly fill the birdfeeder! It only takes about a minute!! There! You know my deep-down dark dirty secret! :new_blushsmiley: I don't wear shoes inside my house. My feet get hot. Even in 20 degree weather, it's not that uncomfortable for just a minute or two. Really... I know from plenty of experience. I don't do that in the woods -- take off my shoes or boots & run around barefoot! But it could be done. Now a track of many footprints spaced very far apart might be a different story! I can't & wouldn't do that. Don't need extended exposure or frostbite!

I just measured my foot by stepping on a ruler. My foot is a little under 10 inches long, and the width is 4-1/4 inches wide across the ball of my foot. My toes aren't really long, in fact sorta stubby. I wear a ladies' size 9-1/2 shoe in a wide width. My feet are relatively long for a lady who is almost 60 years old. My daughters' feet are a little bigger than mine. Kids feet seem to be getting bigger these days... My son wears a men's size 14-1/2 shoe (he's 21 & fully grown).

As an excercise for tonight, why don't you take off your shoes & socks & step onto a ruler & measure your own feet? It might be an enlightening experience for some of you.

If need be, I will go outside and find a clean spot of snow in my yard, take off my shoe & give you a bare footprint, complete with a ruler or tape measure right next to it. I can post it. But if I do, then I expect you guys to think about it before you post the next time...and I do think its something to consider when evaluating footprints here as far as bigfoot goes.

I agree with JayleeD. The trackway counts, too! There's not only the size, but the extent, repeatability & the positioning of the tracks.

So holler if you want my track... I'll oblige! But do it before the snow melts--I'm not into mud baths!

Okay.... appears I'm not allowed to edit my own posts tonight, so:

Editted to add: This post is not aimed at Stan or his website. He's a big boy & can take care of himself. This is aimed at anyone who wants to jump on the bandwagon without thinking before they try to evaluate things & post. So go measure your own feet first.

.

Now I'm confused. How does discussion of someone's research (from another website) make it into this section? The researchers haven't even submitted their research here for review. I've been reading the thread on Stan's site and I haven't seen anything where the researchers are doing anything more then posting their research experiences. In fact DB says (and acknowledges) in his posts that what he posts is deemed by some as useless evidence, but NOT to the researcher doing the research. Everyone is looking for the monkey NOW and I'm almost certain DB would be the first to say they don't have the monkey NOW. The process of doing research is just that - not a formal report which is why I don't understand why investigation on BFF is going on. Is there a sightings database here that I don't know about? Are we collecting reports for that database?

Edited to add: What is being discussed here is a Field Researchers Journal, not a report. Sorry, but I find this confusing.

Funny you should mention that. Just yesterday, I saw on local news about a New Jersey man that does not wear shoes. He was injured in a car accident a few years ago. He claims that he can not find a pair of footwear that does not hurt his feet. They had film footage of him walking in the snow to get from his car to a store.

Littlefoot says:



Well, the researchers aren't exactly here to defend themselves. This "evaluation" is going to be real useful to the BF world seeing as how the researcher has already stated "others" would deem their research as useless. Real redundant if you ask me. Have at it!

Properly conducted research is never useless. A single photo of a track without scale and a thermoblob is useless.

The reason it is being discussed here is because this is a discussion forum, open to anyone including DB that might like to discuss the subject.

Paul, what evidence leads you to say that the post was made by a member of Stan's forum? We do not have a member by the name savage30l, and we do not know who the person is posting here under that name.

I note that many of the questions raised in this thread have already been addressed (and for some time now) at the forum in question, yet there is little indication here that anyone knows it. (I think that's kind of ironic, since that the purpose of this thread is to critique investigative work..) It seems what you are saying is that no one should go to the other forum to read what's there because of the purported "hope of getting visitors to Stan's website". In what way is this a concern of bigfoot researchers?

I think Stan does want people to use his forum, but I'm sure he doesn't care to engage in some kind of forum "struggle for resources." (And I do wonder what resources are in question here -- Stan's forum is not set up in a way that makes any kind of revenue and I don't think this one is either.)

We posted our research on Stan's forum for several reasons: 1st, because we know Stan personally and we like him; 2nd, because Stan's forum is geared toward researchers who get out in the field; 3rd, because the tone there is such that folks do not get distracted. What you read there is basically lightly edited field notes. If you want to discuss it here, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to, but we are not doing something unethical by posting our research there, as your words can be construed to imply in your post noted above. I hope that you'll correct that misunderstanding.

If savage is not a member of Stan's website, then I apologise, and I'll happily correct that.

I can't say for sure he isn't a member, but if he/she is, we don't know who it would be. We don't have a user by that name. We surely have not sent out folks to direct people to Stan's site. We also don't restrict links from there to here. So if there is any funny business going on, it isn't coming from the staff at Stancourtney.com.

If anyone is in any doubt about why this is being discussed as a 'report publication', I will refer you to dbdonlon's first post in the thread in Stan's forum




There is that magic word - 'evidence', that means that these posts are not the mere discussion of a field trip where 'interesting stuff was found' - DB refers to it as 'evidence', and yet fails to back that claim up with any real 'evidence'. hearsay is not evidence, and a couple of lone foot-shaped depressions in the snow that are within human range are not 'evidence' - not scale has been taken, no measurements from the other prints in the track (if there was a track) - nothing.

A thermo blob with a comment from an anonymous analyst saying that the person/creature was naked, doesn't go anywhere - if this were a court of law, db's 'evidence' wouldn't get as far as a pre-trial review, let alone see the inside of a courtroom.


If researchers use the word 'evidence' to describe their findings, they need to be able to back it up with real evidence.

Now dbdonlon & friends, please don't take this post or any others as a personal insult by me, it isn't meant that way, all I want to see is a real improvement in the way research is conducted and reported, otherwise, we won't be able to use the result from this research as 'evidence'.

I want to be able to produce 'evidence' to people - I don't care who finds it, just so long as it has been collected properly and is credible. That's all I want, and yet I am let down time and time again by researchers across the globe.

We would probably have solved this mystery decades ago if researchers were more methodical.

I think you are arbitrarily constraining the definition of the word "evidence"



We supply our findings and conclusions as "support" and to "exemplify". If you find the evidence unpersuasive, that's your right, but you can't say it isn't evidence.

I use the word 'evidence' in the same way it is used in science and the law.

I don't see anything wrong with that, unless you don't think your research is scientific (or lawful :new_lmaosmiley: ).

Paul, it reads to me as if you are defining evidence as proof. Evidence and proof are not synonymous: