Fossilized Bigfoot track reported found

[Zachary Smith]

http://www.wsmv.com/news/17405066/detail.html

Any naysayers care to theorize who was leaving fake Bigfoot prints around long enough ago for them to be fosslized?

 

[T J]

Wooptyshit! Call me when they actually find this animal.

 

[Zachary Smith]

If you don't find this compelling, methinks you're missing the bigger picture . .

 

[scotthm]

^ If you do find this compelling, methinks you're missing a few marbles.

I hope you're joking.

Aren't you?

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

^ If you do find this compelling, methinks you're missing a few marbles.

I hope you're joking.

Aren't you?

---------------

Not in the least. What makes you think I'm "missing marbles"?

 

[Arrqh]

From the article:

"I don't know anything about archaeology or anything...

So, compelling? No.

 

[scotthm]

What makes you think I'm "missing marbles"?

Not in the least.

---------------

 

[Nedersong]

While there is some intriguing evidence out there in this issue, the only thing that will settle the matter is a body.

 

[Garrovick]

Looks like a rock in my patio walkway.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Well if you are going to believe in that you'll probably need to look at the various OOPARTS as well like this one.

It's a fossilized sandal mark that steped on a Trilobite that has been extinct for 250 million years ago.
There are also some fossilized footprints of a child in Texas running side by side with a dinosaur foot prints. The size of the print was a size 4(?) and through examination they were able to identify five digits, a heel, an arch and even groovings of toe prints.
So you can accept or deny but there are alot of strange artifiacts in this world before you would want to examine before making a conclusion.

 

[Therin of Andor]

some fossilized footprints of a child in Texas running side by side with a dinosaur foot prints. The size of the print was a size 4(?) and through examination they were able to identify five digits, a heel, an arch and even groovings of toe prints.

Pebbles and Dino live!

 

[Zachary Smith]

What makes you think I'm "missing marbles"?

Not in the least.

---------------

So there is something suspect, in your estimation, in considering the possibility of survival into modern times of a species considered extinct but which is established in the fossil record and resembles an "unknown" creature reported by sightings and backed by considerable physical evidence over the course of decades?

Gigantopithecus blacki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus_blacki

 

[scotthm]

So there is something suspect, in your estimation, in considering the possibility of...

No. It just strikes me as odd that you would be 100% serious in calling the 'evidence' in the OP "compelling".

It is no more compelling than the Bigfoot body discovered earlier this summer.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

So there is something suspect, in your estimation, in considering the possibility of...

No. It just strikes me as odd that you would be 100% serious in calling the 'evidence' in the OP "compelling".

It is no more compelling than the Bigfoot body discovered earlier this summer.

---------------

I disagree. The Bigfoot "body" story stunk from the word "go". Known hoaxers who show only photos and refuse to display their "evidence"? Sorry, I suspected "hoax" from the instant that story broke.

Now, admittedly, there isn't much to go on in this instance. However, IF this artifact cannot be demonstrated to be FAKE, then, yes, absolutely, it is COMPELLNG in nature--particularly if the provenance can be verified and a second example, as described in the article, shown.

I would suspect it would be VERY difficult to create an artifical "fossil imprint" that would pass muster of even a cursory examination. Sure, a fake "casting" would be easy as pie to do--hell, I could do that in a couple hours. But to make something that can fool a pro, I'd venture that would be just about impossible.

Note also, that the bigfoot "body" hoax didn't fool anyone either. Some dipshits made some outlandish claims and got called on them when they couldn't support them with evidence. Big deal. That's the way science is SUPPOSED to work. The fact that some assholes do some stpid shit from time to time has no bearing on whether Bigfoot REALLY exists or not. Either it does or doesn't, independent of the actions of these fools.

I considered and read a great deal on this subject over the years and come to the conclusion that the existence of an unknown hominid matching Bigfoot's description is actually the SIMPLEST explanation for resolving all the evidence. I think it LIKELY exists but is relatively rare and QUITE intelligent--enough so that, unlike other creatures, for the most part it consciously chooses to avoid being seen or interacting with humans. Rather than go into a litany of support here, I'll just say, yes, I believe Bigfoot LIKELY exists and if/when verifiable evidence is discovered, I won't be terribly surprised.

If this deal IS a hoax, it'll be shown as such as fast or FASTER than the "dead body" stunt. Whether they'll ever be any follow-up in the media any of us ever hear about either way though, anyone's guess.

 

[scotthm]

Now, admittedly, there isn't much to go on in this instance. However, IF this artifact cannot be demonstrated to be FAKE, then, yes, absolutely, it is COMPELLNG...

But since it hasn't yet come under the scrutiny of experts, it should not already be considered compelling evidence, but that's exactly how you describe it. You're getting the cart before the horse.

I considered and read a great deal on this subject over the years and come to the conclusion that the existence of an unknown hominid matching Bigfoot's description is actually the SIMPLEST explanation for resolving all the evidence.

What evidence? If you're talking about eyewitness accounts then I believe the simplest explanation is fraud or imagination. If you're talking about scientifically confirmed physical evidence, then please enlighten me.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

Now, admittedly, there isn't much to go on in this instance. However, IF this artifact cannot be demonstrated to be FAKE, then, yes, absolutely, it is COMPELLNG...

But since it hasn't yet come under the scrutiny of experts, it should not already be considered compelling evidence, but that's exactly how you describe it. You're getting the cart before the horse.

I considered and read a great deal on this subject over the years and come to the conclusion that the existence of an unknown hominid matching Bigfoot's description is actually the SIMPLEST explanation for resolving all the evidence.

What evidence? If you're talking about eyewitness accounts then I believe the simplest explanation is fraud or imagination. If you're talking about scientifically confirmed physical evidence, then please enlighten me.

---------------

I'm talking about casts of footprints so detailed that they show dermal ridges ("fingerprints") and sweatpores. Casts of footprints which show alterations and deformaties CONSISTENT with weight carriage of 600 to 800 Lbs, the like of which had to be determined by expert analysis to be accurate after more cursory examinations had shown them to be wrong. When additional weight was factored in, the changes were revealed to be accurate however. You'd have me believe some chuckle-head in a pair of wooden "bigfoot shoes" tramping arond the woods figured this out ahead of the scientists. There are also records of footprints showing up over many many seasons--footprints with specific characteristics demonstrating them to be from a particular individual, found in a specific range over many years. This was one with a particularly unusual clubfoot deformity of one foot--a deformity that has been specifically analyzed as being consistent with where the foot bones WOULD be out of proper alignment and consistent with the outsized anatomy.

Again, check out the book I referenced above: "Sasquatch: The Legend Meets Science"

The book, "Big Foot Prints" by Grover Krantz is also a good, solid analyss.

Seriously, there's a hell of a lot more going on with Bigfoot than cheap-ass Youtube videos of idiots in costumes and drunken yahoos reporting, "s . . shhhuummthinng" in the woods. Yes, they HAVE recovered hair fibers that appear to come from a primate, but cannot be demonstrated to be human or from any known ape. They HAVE a BODY cast of where a bigfoot laid in mud to reach for some fruit, a cast which shows detailed anatomy, included, if I recall correctly, the tarsal area and the achille's tendon insertion.

Yeah, there's a lot more than glimpses by weekend adventurerers. There's also a LOT of shit out there and stupid fucks like the idiots with the recovered "body" story who, with their foolishness, soil the repuatation of anyone who considers the possibility that all this evidence actually may demonstrate a REAL creature exists.

There is legitimate evidence, the simplest explanation for which is that a REAL creature exists. The level of artistry and reseach required to fake the quality evidence found, to my mind, almost negates the possibility of hoaxing and makes the reality of such an animal the most likely explanation. But to consider that, one actually has to bother to check OUT the evidence. There ARE good serious accounts of it and the two books I mentioned are excellent places to start.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Actually, it says that a large foot print was found. In the article later, speculation is made of bigfoot. This is not proof of bigfoot in of itself. In fact, it just could have been a really big fat guy.

Well if you are going to believe in that you'll probably need to look at the various OOPARTS as well like this one.

It's a fossilized sandal mark that steped on a Trilobite that has been extinct for 250 million years ago.
There are also some fossilized footprints of a child in Texas running side by side with a dinosaur foot prints. The size of the print was a size 4(?) and through examination they were able to identify five digits, a heel, an arch and even groovings of toe prints.
So you can accept or deny but there are alot of strange artifiacts in this world before you would want to examine before making a conclusion.

But ... but ... we have to believe the girl and the dino! It brings us one step closer to proving Dino Riders exists!!!

 

[MANT!]

I as always will not judge until the print has passed a scientific review...

many fakes have looked compelling (Peking Man is one example) until they were examined by scientists.

 

[scotthm]

Again, check out the book I referenced above: "Sasquatch: The Legend Meets Science"

The book, "Big Foot Prints" by Grover Krantz is also a good, solid analyss.

I'm not buying any books about Bigfoot for the same reason I'm not buying books about the Moon Landing Hoax or books about UFOs being alien spacecraft, all three subjects which I put on about an equal credibility footing.

I don't believe that there is a viable population (which would probably have to number in the thousands) of unknown primates living in North America. Am I saying it's impossible? No, but I believe it's highly unlikely, and until convincing evidence exists to show otherwise I will continue to doubt the existence of Bigfoot. And fossilized footprints (even if they are legitimate) don't really say much about the present existence of Bigfoot.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

Again, check out the book I referenced above: "Sasquatch: The Legend Meets Science"

The book, "Big Foot Prints" by Grover Krantz is also a good, solid analyss.

I'm not buying any books about Bigfoot for the same reason I'm not buying books about the Moon Landing Hoax or books about UFOs being alien spacecraft, all three subjects which I put on about an equal credibility footing.

I don't believe that there is a viable population (which would probably have to number in the thousands) of unknown primates living in North America. Am I saying it's impossible? No, but I believe it's highly unlikely, and until convincing evidence exists to show otherwise I will continue to doubt the existence of Bigfoot. And fossilized footprints (even if they are legitimate) don't really say much about the present existence of Bigfoot.

---------------

If your mind is so firmly made up, why are you bothering to even discuss the subject?

Seriously, what sense does it make to ask for evidence, then admit that you will not consider said evidence and, further, then announce you will not consider position other than where you started?

You're just being a pain in the as at that point.

Dude, you don't contribute in this fashion--you just act as an irritant and a harrassing detractor. You admit you're not informed on the subject. You refuse to BECOME informed on the subject and you act as if your ill-informed position is somehow relevant and justified. What IS your ambition here? Just to waste my time AND yours?