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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.........

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?

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?

It's an attempt to deny the denial.

I'm down with that .......

Like I posted earlier - it's getting a foot in the door.

I wonder how long it will be, before that door gets slammed and someone ends up with a broken toe.

I sincerely hope not.
Dr. Meldrum has gone a long way out on a very precarious limb (IMHO) - and I hope that his willingness to put his reputatuion even further on the line works out for him.
Of course - I have a selfish reaon for cheering his endeavors on. By giving this phenomenon its first (hopefully) peer reviewed paper - he is single handedly dragging this creature slowly out of the realm of "mythical" into "possible" in some science circles. That can only be a big plus in all of our favour.
This is a major event that should be celebrated as much as the PGF - IMHO.

I agree Rockinkt - and I hope this avenue is not shut down for many reasons - mostly because this is a step forward this research has needed for a very long, long time. I think this is progress, where little progress is made. I completely applaud Dr. Meldrum, but I am waiting and watching for the naysayers to step up and fire their best shots to get this door closed as well.

BRAVO JEFF MELDRUM!

He has some inconsistencies/ommissions/leaps, etc. in there to be sure (e.g., false assumption that widespread hoaxing involves a coordinated effort; how one distinguishes "authentic" from faked prints; using the word "track" when he's referring to "prints"; making the bigfoot phenomenon analogous to other discoveries of large mammals in recent years; and the biggie - his flippant statement that the film subject can be shown to be leaving the prints that were cast and photographed), but I see this effort as a huge step in the right direction, i.e., into the mainstream.

The part some are questioning is, in fact, my favorite thing in the paper:

"It should be noted that naming the tracks neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker, nor does it resolve the controversy over the existence of sasquatch. Properly naming the tracks is intended to facilitate objective discussion and comparison of the tracks within an ichnological context."

In other words, he's mainstreaming analysis of purported prints. He's also (perhaps subtley) trying to establish that the qualities he's describing in these prints represent the "type specimen" for sasquatch prints. I assume this can be done to provide a standard to which other prints can be compared, as a means to quickly spot obvious fakes, for example.


This paper is also significant because it places me one step closer to buying that steak dinner for Huntster!

~Saskeptic

That's the point - he is using the Patterson tracks (appropriate term in ichnology as I understand it) as the holotype. My last post addressed the issue of fakes. Since these details - midfoot flexibility, etc, describe and are unique to these tracks, and they were generally unknown prior to the study of these - you can't logically have a widespread hoax because they speak of specific skeletal and musculature framework which again, speaks to an actual animal. A hoaxer would not know to do this because there is no "holotype". It is further impressive because the photographs corroborate these details. Again, details which were undocumented and generally unknown.

Daniel Perez brought this up in Willow Creek and showed the MK Davis's picture allegedly showing this.

I wasn't impressed though. Maybe it's just my mistrust of anything from MK Davis, but I can't imagine anybody calling it conclusive.

Soundman wrote:




Grover Krantz thought he had found two elements of "real" Bigfoot prints that he kept secret. One day, someone sent him a cast from Indiana that had these two aspects and, therefore,
Krantz felt the cast was authentic. It was later revealed to be a hoax. Without an actual Bigfoot foot to corroborate any print/cast found to this date, claims of unclassified upright primate origin are still going to be speculative, at best. Even Chilcutt has said that any print can be faked.

To be fair - Tube did some testing with fake feet and found that those "details" can be just an artifact caused by the very nature of using solid fake feet attached to human footwear.

I don't know what those two aspects are, but there are MANY facets of a genuine (Meldrum, 2007) (yes I can quote that now) track that come into play which can be analyzed against the holotype. If you are suggesting a widespread conspiracy, such that this conspiracy covers multiple states in remote areas with the same recurring pattern, I think you should provide some details. We are talking hundreds of separate casts taken from various parts of the country showing repetitive heretofore unknown patterns.

Of course any print can be faked. But faked to be what? A holotype that is unknown? Please enlighten me as to how this would work.

If the "peers" don't figuratively murder the good Dr. Meldrum, I'll treat you to a fine moose steak and home brewed beer right here in my dining room (transportation expenses not paid...............)

Not familiar with "Tube's" work. Where is that research documented? Is he an anatomist or other related expert or did he have it independently reviewed by an expert?

Soundman wrote:





What exactly do you mean by "genuine" and please be specific about what you mean by "MANY facets".





And what exactly are these "patterns"?

I am referring to the article. Specifically the Diagnosis and Description of the Ichnogenus on pages 225 and 226. Did you read the article? On a trackway there is also the positioning of tracks and the distance from each other that are distinct from humans. If you have a trackway and you consider all of the factors contributing to the evidence, these individual differences result in an exponential increase in the probability of the evidence pointing away from a human (the most similar looking track) and toward Anthropoidipes . There are other subtle clues depending upon the substrate that would indicate whether a track was an impression versus "dug out", whether it was flexible and dynamic versus static and fixed as well as the relative weight of the trackmaker. Additionally, at times, dermal or skin ridge patterns are apparent which also differ from human skin patterns.

These all contribute toward the overall analysis of the uniqueness of the trackway. Which is why I am pointing out that I believe the likelihood of all of this being faked versus describing an actual animal is monumentally slim given the general lack of knowledge heretofore.

Nope - but he did show photos of his tracks that looked exactly like med-tarsal breaks.

You mean mid-tarsal pressure ridges? Looked exactly like them to whom?

I tried to edit above but it must have timed out.


You mean mid-tarsal pressure ridges? Looked "exactly" like them to whom?


edited to add quotes above and below comment:


I also discovered something I previously missed which furthers my point about the close association of acceptance of the tracks and the film. On page 226 under the heading The Patterson-Gimlin Film he states "Furthermore the distinctions of the film subjects (sic) gait and visible foot kinematics indicate that the film subject is indeed the trackmaker." He then quotes his work from 2006 on the affirmative reactions to the film and some skeptical reactions as well.

I read the post earlier by Apeman and his disagreement with the Murphy alignment. From what I gather, he (Murphy) suggested a path that Patty apparently veers from according to Apeman's analysis. I am not prepared to discount that, without seeing further research, although I appreciate Apeman's candor. But even if that proves to be false, it does not establish that Murphy might have been in error as to where the tracks actually were located (Apeman quotes him as saying the wobbly line "might be footprints.") Further, you have separate independent analysis regarding the gait and foot kinetics that "indeed" tie the film to the trackmaker.

Awesome! I've actually never tried moose . . .


Just a clarification on peer review: It happens before the paper gets published. This paper has already been peer reviewed, and it has (obviously) passed. Some readers (I predict many) may still reject the paper for its inherent flaws, but unless they elect to publish a commentary excoriating the editor's decision to publish it (and can back up their objections), those folks will keep their opinions to themselves.

This is why, on balance, I'm excited about this paper. Bigfoot has just dipped his outsized little toe into the mainstream.

It is all based on his personal ideas regarding cast reliability.

We all know about the questions of dermal ridges being simply casting artifacts, we all know that the PGF is considered a hoax in many circles, and we also know of no bipedal species that has well-developed Achilles tendons combined with mid-foot flexibility.

He is saying, this will not settle the argument of whether BF exists, but PGF was real!

I think you are right many will reject it - but not because of its' "inherent flaws". My guess is because of either ignorance or prejudice or both.

I am wondering what inherent flaws you think there are. Because if I were you, I would not be the least bit excited about a flawed paper.

Conversely, I am excited because we have a peer-reviewed published paper attesting to the validity of bf tracks. That is worth a whole lot more than a number of lay person's (I am not referring to you personally because I don't know your credentials) speculative assessments that it hasn't met some rather rigorous professional standards.

It could still be challenged by the scientific community and there is a process for that, but as it stands, it represents an exceptional effort. And that is not some editorial comment, it is a statement of fact.

Soundman wrote:





How can the paper attest "to the validity of bf tracks" when Meldrum himself states in the paper (first page) "It should be noted that
naming the tracks neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker nor does it resolve the controversy over the existence of sasquatch"?

I think we all need to review the excellent work done by Tube regarding the dermal ridges. Then ask yourself 'is Meldrum convinced that the dermal ridges on these 40 year old casts really placed there by Anthropoidipes ameriborealis?'

http://orgoneresearch.com/ridges_and_furrows.htm

If I understand your question correctly, I need to rephrase that line to be more exacting of what I meant. The tracks have been named and they represent trace evidence of an extant, discreet organism, as of yet unclassifed, which fits the description of an animal some would call bigfoot or sasquatch.


Does that take care of your question or are you having some difficulty (like me) dealing with the issue of ichnology which puts this whole issue of tracks (bf) into a new paradigm?

It seems to require a lot of mental gymnastics because you can classify an organism's trace "fossil" remains irrespective of any other evidence. And normally you wouldn't have any other evidence besides the trace evidence, but here you actually have daytime video footage associated with the tracks/trackways.

In my mind it is the P/G footage that becomes the proverbial "monkey wrench". It MATCHES, but it technically CAN'T be used(for ID of the animal) but it IS being used (for ID of its tracks).

But it still doesn't seem to matter and that MAY be because it is CORROBORATIVE data, not NECESSARY data or data that detracts from the actual data.

Anyway, that's just the way I see it.

The main flaw in my view is that the "biotaxon" for the maker of the Bluff Creek prints has already been described, and it's Homo sapiens.

But I am indeed still excited by this publication because it takes the discussion out of the realm of internet message boards, special interest books, and cryptozoology conferences and lays it squarely in the lap of mainstream scientists. Folks who claim that science "ignores" sasquatch evidence are misguided in that view: science is unaware of sasquatch evidence because there's none of it in the scientific literature. Now, however, there is. Mainstream scientists are going to read this paper, think "WTF?", and dig deeper. The result is that whether or not Meldrum's analysis is accurate, this paper represents a significant leap in engaging science in sasquatchery.

All in my most very humble opinion, of course.


ps: what Drew said.

Saskeptic I thought discovery was distinct from science, this statement seems at odds with that. I mean, do scientists read only scientific journals?

I obviously have missed out on alot with respect to that opinion. And so I will reserve any further comment on that subject for now.

However with the P.S. comment I can say that after looking at the very detailed and good work documenting casting artifacts that Drew references, while the types of artifacts the orgonresearch.com discovered may appear to be similar, they may in fact not be. Homology does not necessarily imply relationship. A good example is the the artificially created bubbles of supposed cell walls that look virtually identical structurally to living cell walls, but could not be more physiologically and genetically different.

I would hesitate on the basis of the casual observance of APPARENT similarities to want to suggest they (the ridge origins) are one and the same. Not to say they might not be, but I think a challenge to an expert opinion demands an expert challenge. Has that been done to your knowledge? I did not see ANY analysis - simply the two photos side by side at the end. A microscopic review and professional analysis at a minimum is needed. Even with just a cursory view, there are dissimilarities quite apparent to the two patterns.

Of course not, but if it were not for my daily visits to the BFF, the only thing I would've learned about bigfoot in 2007 would have been seeing the "Jacob's creature" on CNN and enjoying Jack Link's jerky commercials. That's the experience of the typical "mainstream scientist."

OK, I think I see your point... and your reasons for enthusiasm.

It's great! Compared to venison, bison, elk, caribou, and black bear, I prefer moose over all (but not above Dall sheep or even domestic lamb).



Oh, oh..........It looks like I owe you a steak and beer.............



Considering how many folks within the scientific community who feel strongly against sasquatchery, do you think a negative published commentary is likely?



That's great! I hope this development grows even more fruit.

I think it's great that sasquatch has received a scientific name, that's been officially published. Anthropoides ameriborealis, kinda rolls off of the tongue.

To classify Chilcutts work on this particular case as "expert" is not really accurate. IMHO.
Mr. Chilcutt is a respected professional and I believe that he continuously does excellent work and meets or exceeds all the necessary standards that his training and professional expertise demand of him when doing law enforcement work.
However, he seems to have dipped far below many reasonable standards that his profession would consider minimal in order to classify this "dermal ridge" work as an objective analysis based on sound proceedure and established norms.
To put it bluntly - Tube has "slam-dunked" Chilcutt's work in this matter. Furthermore - Chilcutt has not been able to refute any of Tube's findings.
I have seen his statements that he stands by his original work - but that means squat when there are too many questions that need to be addressed regarding his original work.
A reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Chilcutt's ignorance or forgetfulness about casting artifacts came back to bite him - and now he is just laying low, hoping it will go away. (IMHO)
Anybody that still uses Chilcutt's findings as a basis for their assuptions about dermal ridges in alleged sasquatch prints is just ignoring the fact that Chilcutt's work is discredited.


edited for grammer

I find it interesting that a single error or oversight is enough to discredit someone who has devoted decades to acquiring expertise in a particular field. Ah, to be a skeptic and live in such a simple, easy to explain world...