Comments on: Instant Celebrity Occupation: Bigfoot’s Podiatrist

By: red_pill_junkie

red_pill_junkie — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:33:14 +0000

He looks like a kind man.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:24:45 +0000

doctoratlantis, that was my impression, too: superimposed bear print. You can see the more recent print very clearly, then you have the extension towards the ‘heel’. I hope that isn’t the causes of the ‘mid-tarsal break’ we hear so much about. But surely the better researchers know the difference!

By: Penamunde

Penamunde — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:54:38 +0000

Yes it is very much to his credit centered skepticism and neutral objectively is the optimum position for research and field evidence to be studied and tested.

The more professionals in mainstream science we get to look at our evidence the better off we will be and the less slanted and bias the commentary on the evidence if it is presented to these professionals first rather than to the professionals in the BF community.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the reality that we have in this field and I know that there are BF researchers who do realize this out there.

Have a good one.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:37:59 +0000

It’s to Nirenberg’s credit he kept an open mind and looked at the evidence objectively, rather than preconceived notions.
The more sunlight is thrown into the mix, the more the object will be clearly seen, I say. Good post, Loren.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:42:28 +0000

Another thing:

I wouldn’t make any claims too fast for that photograph at the bottom. I’d say bear hind print (not double) if I had to bet on it.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:17:01 +0000

m_m:

Claiming no more dog in this hunt than some-guy-in-an-armchair status :-D:

It says something to me that numerous folks like this, having nothing to gain from doing so, publicly admit to being either converted, or moved off of cynicism, by close examination of the evidence.

Way too many people take the way too easy response - easy because it’s never examined - that oh, he’s doing it for the publicity, when a moment’s thought dashes that as ridiculous. How the HECK could this help him?

And before anyone answers: please think about it for a minute, so that the answer you provide will reflect that you did that. It would be a refreshing change.

By: Penamunde

Penamunde — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:01:16 +0000

I agree the more disciplines that we have looking at evidence and there willingness to speak out on it, is going to be one of our best weapons in solving this mystery.

One has to wonder how many other professionals are waiting in the wings with evidence, test results and commentary on the matter.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:17:06 +0000

The fact that so many fields and disciplines converge in cryptozoology is one of the things that fascinates me about this area. And it’s not only how scientific fields that comes together, but also how they mesh in with input from amateurs and the layperson. Any field where biologists, geologists, chemists, zoologists, anthropologists, psychologists, campers, hunters, podiatrists, and some guy in an armchair reading books can all come together to talk, exchange information, and drive forward the effort to get to the truth, is very exciting in my opinion.

All of these facets, and the input from scientist and layperson alike, are important to bring to bear on this subject.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:17:53 +0000

Disclaimer: The photograph at the bottom is of a “footprint image” tied to the publicity and articles about this doctor. It may be a totally created piece of art or someone’s quickly discovered bear print that they have tied to this “Bigfoot” story.

By: doctoratlantis

doctoratlantis — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:55:05 +0000

What’s that picture at the bottom of this article? Isn’t that a bear print (double-imprint)? I think I see claw prints at the top and the angular off-set at the bottom left looks like a heel from the double-imprint.