Comments on: Sasquatch Tracks in British Columbia? http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/ for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:21:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Buzzardeater http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13996 Buzzardeater Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:30:31 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13996 Ken Kristian is a professional guide. He hunts bear. If he says the tracks are of interest, they are. This website simply reflects the membership's reticence. They don't give out extra information because it leads to complication. There wasn't any local press coverage, either, that I saw. I think this group is a bunch of field investigators that don't need a crowd around. Ken Kristian is a professional guide. He hunts bear. If he says the tracks are of interest, they are. This website simply reflects the membership’s reticence. They don’t give out extra information because it leads to complication. There wasn’t any local press coverage, either, that I saw. I think this group is a bunch of field investigators that don’t need a crowd around.

]]> By: Greg(Not that Greg) http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13995 Greg(Not that Greg) Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:51:02 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13995 Did anyone notice that the nearby shoe prints do not look any smaller than the alleged Sas prints.. Factor in melting and BIGfoot it ain't ... Did anyone notice that the nearby shoe prints do not look any smaller than the alleged Sas prints.. Factor in melting and BIGfoot it ain’t …

]]> By: squatchwatcher http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13994 squatchwatcher Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:43:41 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13994 Jogger. Jogger.

]]> By: Judy Green http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13993 Judy Green Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:20:00 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13993 I would be very interested in John Green's take on this one since it is right in his backyard. And what about you, John Kirk, have you or Thomas Steenburg or any of your other cohorts investigated it? I would be very interested in John Green’s take on this one since it is right in his backyard. And what about you, John Kirk, have you or Thomas Steenburg or any of your other cohorts investigated it?

]]> By: Darkstream http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13992 Darkstream Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:34:47 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13992 I'm with deejay on this one. Tracks in snow by the side of the road? Badly sunmelted tracks, I might add? There's nothing to do with these except speculate about them. Even if they <strong>were</strong> from a veritable Shangri-La of Sasquatch tracks, how could you prove it? Hunters don't use tracks to prove their prey exists; they use the tracks to hunt their prey. Footprints like these serve only as faith promoting rumors. Sorry to be a downer, but I just don't see what the hullabaloo is all about. I’m with deejay on this one. Tracks in snow by the side of the road? Badly sunmelted tracks, I might add? There’s nothing to do with these except speculate about them.

Even if they were from a veritable Shangri-La of Sasquatch tracks, how could you prove it?

Hunters don’t use tracks to prove their prey exists; they use the tracks to hunt their prey. Footprints like these serve only as faith promoting rumors. Sorry to be a downer, but I just don’t see what the hullabaloo is all about.

]]> By: deejay http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13991 deejay Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:30:51 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13991 Articles like these makes me wonder why I check out this site. This one is really reaching. Articles like these makes me wonder why I check out this site. This one is really reaching.

]]> By: DWA http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13990 DWA Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:24:55 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13990 Rillo777: I think I've been saying something similar to what you say for some time now. Tracks in snow need to show stuff these don't. Foot features (at least toes, ferpetesake). HUGE stride, not possible for a human to duplicate without making demonstrably different tracks. Crossing of terrain that humans either couldn't, or couldn't with the ease that the tracks seem to show. (Why weren't these followed to where they stopped? No evidence from the writeup that they were.) Compelling associated evidence (sighting by "good" eyewitness; brush/tree damage; etc.) This sort of thing. Gotta say that I'd have a tough time, I think, making tracks, in slick snow, with that stride interval and in line like that. I can tell that much from looking at the photos. That's a much straighter line than human tracks tend to make. Particularly when footing is an issue. But that's all I can see. And I'm a layman. Not exactly enough to go: SASQUATCH!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? So webshopping them with the big question, SASQUATCH?!?!?!??!?!when there's no other compelling evidence, apparently, but what's in the shots, well, it does look to me like the kind of thing that makes the skeptics chuckle. And doesn't advance the field. Makes one wanna read "BIG BIRD!" Just to see what might be in there. And to while away the time before someone comes up with real evidence for the sasquatch. And THIS is why I keep coming back with the supposedly same-old take on tracks. Because the skeptics pounce on stuff like this to discredit the field. I think Loren touched tangentially on this issue in two previous threads: the one discussing ichnology (Norcal tracks) and the now-vanished one ;-) on crypto publishing standards. Crypto needs standards, period. (Crib from zoology. They seem pretty good.) That there don't seem to be any true standards for track analysis - although Meldrum seems to be working on that - and that stuff like this keeps getting tossed up half-baked, is just fodder for the skeptics. And the public still seems to go with them on the sasquatch. Is all I'm saying. BTW: dws is NOT me, typoed. HIS backyard. Me? I could only wish. :-) Rillo777: I think I’ve been saying something similar to what you say for some time now.

Tracks in snow need to show stuff these don’t. Foot features (at least toes, ferpetesake). HUGE stride, not possible for a human to duplicate without making demonstrably different tracks. Crossing of terrain that humans either couldn’t, or couldn’t with the ease that the tracks seem to show. (Why weren’t these followed to where they stopped? No evidence from the writeup that they were.) Compelling associated evidence (sighting by “good” eyewitness; brush/tree damage; etc.) This sort of thing.

Gotta say that I’d have a tough time, I think, making tracks, in slick snow, with that stride interval and in line like that. I can tell that much from looking at the photos. That’s a much straighter line than human tracks tend to make. Particularly when footing is an issue. But that’s all I can see. And I’m a layman. Not exactly enough to go: SASQUATCH!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

So webshopping them with the big question, SASQUATCH?!?!?!??!?!when there’s no other compelling evidence, apparently, but what’s in the shots, well, it does look to me like the kind of thing that makes the skeptics chuckle. And doesn’t advance the field.

Makes one wanna read “BIG BIRD!” Just to see what might be in there. And to while away the time before someone comes up with real evidence for the sasquatch.

And THIS is why I keep coming back with the supposedly same-old take on tracks. Because the skeptics pounce on stuff like this to discredit the field.

I think Loren touched tangentially on this issue in two previous threads: the one discussing ichnology (Norcal tracks) and the now-vanished one ;-) on crypto publishing standards.

Crypto needs standards, period. (Crib from zoology. They seem pretty good.) That there don’t seem to be any true standards for track analysis - although Meldrum seems to be working on that - and that stuff like this keeps getting tossed up half-baked, is just fodder for the skeptics. And the public still seems to go with them on the sasquatch.

Is all I’m saying.

BTW: dws is NOT me, typoed. HIS backyard. Me? I could only wish. :-)

]]> By: Rillo777 http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13989 Rillo777 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:28:40 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13989 I like "blobtrack" mystery_man! I like “blobtrack” mystery_man!

]]> By: Rillo777 http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13988 Rillo777 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:26:35 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13988 I thought I might add, as just a personal feeling, that spending time on tracks like these is a little embarrasing to serious research. It almost smacks of a desperate attempt to clutch at anything to show that bigfoot exists. And please don't anyone take this personally, it's just my opinion. I thought I might add, as just a personal feeling, that spending time on tracks like these is a little embarrasing to serious research. It almost smacks of a desperate attempt to clutch at anything to show that bigfoot exists. And please don’t anyone take this personally, it’s just my opinion.

]]> By: mystery_man http://www.cryptomundo.com/evidence/bc-tracks/#comment-13987 mystery_man Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:19:19 +0000 http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptid-universe/possible-sasquatch-tracks-in-british-columbia/#comment-13987 How about "blobtrack", Rillo777? :) How about “blobtrack”, Rillo777? :)

]]>