Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/18/2019 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    I don't think they go anywhere. By now, the deer and elk (aka "bigfoot cheeseburgers" :)) are already in the lowest elevations. The bigfoots will be nearby. They survive winter in the foothills of the Rockies, in the Bitterroots, Alaska / Canada, east slope of the Cascades and just follow the deer and elk herds. There's simply nothing western Oregon has to offer that's comparably challenging. To be what they are, they're biologically adapted to ice age conditions, and they survived that. This, while miserable to us, is likely akin to a day at the beach for them. It is a good time to think about opposites, about adaptations to avoid competition. Like Darwin's finches. We're adapted to shed heat, to be able to run incredibly long distances on open plains in summer sun without overheating. We're in the top 5 species on earth for such adaptation. So what's our opposite? Something that walks on mountains, in the cold, in the dark, without freezing. So it's also a good time to consider the trap of anthropomorphising ... while there are similarities, they're not us, and if we don't keep that in mind, we make mistakes in our expectations. ... or so I think. Best-est guesses. MIB
  2. 3 points
    Your a skeptic on this forum that will attack Prohaska's testimony? But wont put yourself out there on the nuts and bolts of how the hoax was conducted? And now suddenly you wanna stay on topic!? Your a spineless knucklehead. After I get my neck carved on? I plan on getting back in the saddle. And if I see this creature? If it exists? I will shoot it. If not thats fine too. Either way its not "posturing" on a forum. Thats what you ARE Squatchy. A troll posturing on a internet forum. In many ways I feel sorry for you. Im simply exploring a question in my mind in some of the most beautiful scenery on Earth. You? You berate people on a internet forum to inflate your self worth to your buddies on another internet forum. LMAO! As I said pathetic......
  3. 3 points
    Still on the fence? The comments on salmon spawning refer to a category of fish known as 'anadromous'. Anadromous fish live in salt water and spawn in fresh water. You would have a hard time finding a very late run of salmon spawning right now. On the east coast, a popular anadromous fish is the striped bass. Catadromous fish live in fresh water and spawn in salt water. And you have your lake and river types; trout and bass are easy examples. The salmon and steelhead in the Great Lakes are transplants from the PNW. A variety of fish are available in between snacking on deer, bears, other mammals and reptiles.
  4. 3 points
    BTW, when I have to correct my posts for spelling errors (or when I do t catch them), this is probably why... If I'm typing weird, he's probably sitting with me!
  5. 3 points
    Respectfully, while I am new to researching BF, I have over 50 years experience in the woods. That said, I can assure you given the location of at least the one structure we found, and I do mean structure, because it was built, that it would be quite plausible for it to have been assembled at least in part by something intelligent, with hands, and more strength and gumption than I have ever had even in my youth. That something was not a cougar. Nor a deer. Nor a bear. Not a single man. And I would bet my bottom dollar not by a group of men. So, believe what you want. I am not going to convince you, that is obvious. And that is truly fine with me. I have nothing to prove to anyone. I am in this game for selfish reasons. I want to know the truth for myself. I am leaning towards Noel's savant theory.
  6. 3 points
    I suspect well over 50% meat in their diet, maybe upwards of 90%. Look at the abdominal muscles and shape compared to a gorilla. Gorillas' large gut is needed to process enough plant material to extract the necessary nutrients and calories. (This would also be why the trail of plant destruction Norseman hypothesizes is necessary is not found ... because they're not eating plants in similar proportions.) It does not seem to be present in sasquatch based on the reports, instead, they look pretty much like us but bigger. Most of that "bigger" seems to be muscle, not digestive equipment. So, going out on a limb perhaps, I think most of their dietary calories, etc come from meat, and plants are used only to provide specific "stuff" not available, or slightly deficient, in a meat diet. I guess we're going to have to wait to find out. MIB
  7. 3 points
    Remember that the Australopethicenes have modern esque feet. (No divergent big toe) And walked upright. But are not in the genus Homo. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus This video shows the evolution of tool making. Our big muscular thumb and strong grip is a result of this practice. Hand and eye coordination is unmatched in the animal kingdom too. And of course the ultimate prize? Giant slabs of bloody red meat that is high in protien and gave us bigger and bigger brains. Our hands were in a arms race with our brains. Creating better and better weapons that eventually lead to our mastery of the planet. Bigfoot either checked out early in this human story? Or was never apart of it. Again, great Apes show human emotions. And are obviously distant cousins. Because tool making is at the core of being Human. And they do not seem to possess anything but the most rudimentary of skills. Despite chimps being much stronger than humans? Their thumbs and the muscle attached is rather pathetic when compared to a Human. Holding and flaking stone tools or gripping a spear shaft is not what their hands are designed for. Their hands are besigned to swing from branches and knuckle walk. Their thumb is there for grasping but not to the level of sophistication ours is.
  8. 3 points
    This springs to mind. Squatchermetrics Published by Squatchermetrics Like This Page · 20 February 2018 · #Sasquatch - Let's talk Arizona. 85 Total Reports, with 11/15 Counties responsible for those Reports. What month is most common for Total AZ Reports ? August What AZ County has the most days of precipitation in August ? Coconino (5) What AZ County receives the most annual precipitation ? Coconino (The Northern portion of the Kaibab National Forest receives more than 20 Inches annually, on par with San Francisco) What AZ County makes up 80% of all Summer Reports (20/25) from the turn of the century ? Coconino What AZ County makes up 100% of Non Visual Reports from August in the last 12 years ? Coconino What AZ County makes up 100% of Actual Visual Reports from August in the last 12 Years ? Coconino Where do you think we should go on vacation this Summer ?
  9. 3 points
    So far as consistency, I come at this from a biology background. I would look for averages, standard deviations, and large enough sample size for the data to be repeatable. If the data is too divergent, I expect it comes from cries for attention, not actual observation. If it is too consistent, I suspect organized hoax. For me, the bigfoot data .. height, hair color distribution, track distribution, etc .. all point to a biological species, not hoax of either sort. Especially given the prolonged timeline. There are consistencies in behavior as well though those are harder to quantify. I really don't know why more biologists are not seeing this consistency and getting curious enough to take a second look. MIB
  10. 3 points
    Date & Time - Monday, February 18, 2019 Weather: 40 and sunny, very nice Location: Nearest landmark would be Cottage Grove Lake, OR What happened: Myself and researcher "D" went back up the road. The gift basket I left with garlic, chocolate and apples is completely gone. It was hidden off the road about 10 feet behind a stump and was not visible from the road. I left more of the same, plus a salt lick. I walked my dog down a road on the other side of the lake, but found nothing of interest except for some pretty rocks.
  11. 2 points
    POST 1 This summary of my interviews with Frank Ishihara has been delayed awaiting corroborative information from sources both inside and outside the United States. Despite the delay I have chosen to summarize the majority of the information, presented below. I will post any corroborative information relevant to these interviews in this same location should it become available in the future. I contacted Frank Ishihara in May, 2017. I expressed my interest in his knowledge about Kodachrome processing generally and specifically about the issues surrounding the Patterson Gimlin Film. I found him to be quite open to the idea of our discussion. Prior to our interviews I sent Frank several items: the William Munn’s book WHEN ROGER MET PATTY ( 2014), and photocopies of several email messages authored by Frank in 2006 relevant to film processing issues. My goal was to interview Frank about his knowledge of 16mm Kodachrome film processing in the Seattle area during 1967. By talking about the circumstances of film processing in Seattle I hoped to learn the likelihood of a ‘garage lab’ or subterfuge on the part of lab employees somehow being responsible for the processing of the PGF. The interview was framed with Frank’s understanding 1) any portions of our conversations he deemed confidential would be maintained as such, 2) argument has been published to support the PGF as having actually captured on film a real creature, that the answer to the processing questions was a worthy endeavor, and that 3) I would be offering incentives to another witness (Al DeAtley) to speak with me about the processing timeline. After he indicated he had reviewed the documents we conducted our first interview by phone. Our primary interview occurred on June 19, 2017. Over the summer we had several conversations and exchanged a number of emails. We ended up covering a number of topics. I began the initial interview after making certain Frank was clear on three points. 1) We discussed Bill Munn’s book and I made clear Bill’s opinion the film is genuine, that Bill bases his opinion to only what is seen in the film. 2) I explained my background and my intention of documenting my work by affidavit, and 3) that after we had covered a few topics I would focus the last of my questions on his 2006 email messages. I felt it important our interview be framed as a worthy endeavor without influencing Frank’s personal feelings as to whether the Patterson Gimlin film was real or hoax. POST 2 TOPICS COVERED IN THE INTERVIEW: Qualifications and work experience of Frank Ishihara, Frank talked about his education as a chemist at UCLA, his eight years as an Army reservist during the Korean conflict, his initial work at Dynacolor as a lab supervisor, head of chemical mixing, then head of quality control, eventually supervising several shifts of Dynachrome, Kodachrome K-11 and K-12 systems. Frank explained his innovations to the Kodachrome process. We discussed Frank’s recruitment by Technicolor to install Kodachrome processing laboratories at four locations: Seattle Washington (October 1965 thru March 1968), Long Beach California, Rialto California, and Phoenix Arizona. These installations employed Frank’s innovations to the K-12 process including one of the patents he held jointly with his Seattle boss, Leonard Tall. Frank said the goal of the Seattle installation was to introduce a local K-12 processing service to the Pacific Northwest. Dynacolor’s relationship with Kodak/Kodachrome processing We covered the progression of events leading to the availability of K-12 processing in Seattle. Frank explained the suit against Kodak (US versus Kodak, 1954, for anti-competitive practices) and the resulting consent decree that eventually forced Kodak to license the Kodachrome process to competitors. The decree also morphed into a variety of requirements of both Kodak and any licensee, ostensibly for the protection of both. (The requirements are discussed below) Frank explained how Dynacolor purchased such a license early on and not only processed the original Kodachrome film stock (K-11) but also formulated a generic 16mm film stock called Dynachrome, a process very similar to original Kodachrome. Eventually, Dynacolor was licensed to process Kodachrome II film stock (K-12) when the original Kodachrome was discontinued. Dynachrome generic film stock and processing were developed as a consumer/mail-order transaction, a feature Frank later employed with the Seattle K-12 lab installation (see below). The generic film stock was also marketed by Ferrania in Europe. Both Dynachrome and Ferrania were purchased by 3M in 1964. Kodak alone produced K-12 film stock. Discussion about the Northwest division of Technicolor and K12 processing in Seattle Frank talked in detail about his former boss, Leonard Tall. Leonard owned a collection of five camera supply stores during the ’60s and was consequently sensitive to the needs of the consumer photo industry in Seattle. Tall joined the Technicolor corporation in Los Angeles but over a period of time developed a disenchantment with the corporation. He eventually returned to Seattle with a Technicolor plan for establishing a Kodachrome II processing laboratory serving the Pacific Northwest (Tall later co-founded CX Corp., a provider of the majority of photofinishing equipment in the US). Frank said the Seattle installation was focused on branding the name Technicolor as the sole local provider of K-12 processing and doing so with a consumer-direct mail order component for processing. Considerable thought was put towards making the investment pay off as the installation costs were considerable. Technicolor purchased a license from Kodak and then recruited Frank from Dynacolor to install and supervise the K-12 lab in Seattle. Frank’s modified both a Pako linear processor and the K-12 process itself while staying within the requirements of the Kodak specs. In some cases, the modifications were patented. Custom boxes and envelopes were created for handling processed films (clearly labeled TECHNICOLOR and printed in Seattle). Frank redesigned the ‘twin-check’ system that he initially used at Dynachrome, adding the mail-order component to the operation. After the Seattle installation Frank went on to install K-12 processing in Long Beach, Rialto and Phoenix, incorporating several changes to the Pako processing machines unique to the Seattle plant, including at least one alteration that was subsequently patented. Frank reviewed his resume and verified he was in charge of the Technicolor K-12 lab in Seattle from October 1965 to March 1968. He said he didn’t remember taking off any sick days in the time he was in Seattle. (personal email, June 23, 2017) Frank said the operation was shut down Friday morning (6 am) and not started up until Sunday night (6 pm). Nothing could be processed between Friday morning and Sunday night without special arrangement, an event that was provided for and occurred once in Frank’s memory. Frank recounted working with the Seattle laboratory Alpha Cine saying he knew the supervisor there during his time in Seattle. He recalled Alpha Cine did ‘out-lab’ work for Technicolor NW. Frank said Technicolor did all Kodachrome processing for Alpha Cine. In response to my questions Frank wrote, “Never heard of Forde that I can remember since I never had contact with such. I had the only Kodachrome processing operation in the state of Washington. The nearest other Kodachrome processing lab was in San Francisco”. (personal email, June 23, 2017) Discussion of the specifics of the PGF We spent considerable time talking about Bill Munn’s study of the Patterson-Gimlin Film. Frank reviewed Bill’s web site and also read Bill’s book “When Roger Met Patty”. Frank indicated he was open to meeting with Bill for the purpose of determining the film stock and potential processing solutions. At the time of our discussions Frank considered the possibility the film had been produced with 16mm Dynachrome film, a consideration that opened alternative processing solutions. After examining still from the film Frank said he was doubtful it was Dynachrome. Frank believed the stills from the film showed more resolution than afforded by Dynachrome. He said Kodachrome 16mm film stock had in the edge print “Kodachrome” or Kodachrome II” every eight inches. (Bill Munns has since advised me he has found definitive proof the PGF was made with Kodachrome II film stock.) Frank always displayed an interest in examining the original film. On several occasions he said he could prove the film was not processed at Technicolor if he could somehow examine the original film. He explained his alteration of the Pako processor installed for the Seattle lab left latent, tell-tale markings on the emulsion side of the 16mm film stock. He said the markings are not visible in the image area of the film but only along the edges of the stock. I got the impression from Frank the markings were difficult to detect and that you had to know what you were looking for to see them. We talked at length about the problems involved with after-hours film development on weekends. Nothing could be processed from Friday morning till Sunday evening. Frank said the laboratory had a procedure for after-hours operation just for such an occasion as the PGF processing. Frank described one occasion when they did after-hours processing for the government; Leonard Tall called Frank on a Friday evening saying a film needed to be in Washington DC on the following Monday. They (Frank and Leonard) processed the film. Only Frank and Leonard went into the lab on that Saturday and they processed the film together. Frank indicated that Leonard Tall was the only other individual at the Technicolor lab capable of processing a Kodachrome film outside of normal hours. Together they did the government order and “reviewed that picture” before releasing it. Frank said operation of the lab was complicated enough and involved enough people that it made no sense for someone to keep any processing a clandestine operation. Their lab had procedures in place for after-hours processing and the staff would have been very happy to do a professional job for a fee. Working outside lab policies could risk a mistake that would invoke a violation of the license with Kodak. Frank said, “ Leonard Tall would not risk losing the process for a few hundred bucks by letting someone else other than my team run it. Then, there is no covering up a screw-up”. From Frank’s email message of June 23, 2017, discussing the complexity of secretly processing the PGF: “DeAtley's remarks do not hold water. I would give DeAtley a lot of credit for being able to find any lab on the west coast, make contact with a management person (on the weekend?) to authorize and bring in operators(s) to process it (the film), then pay them off. Now we are looking at thousands of dollars. And he would have to negotiate deals with more than one person, maybe weeks in advance.” Frank said keeping the after-hours processing a secret made no sense. In the early weeks of August 2017, I tried to contact Frank for clarifications on several topics. He did not answer my emails or return my calls. In October I was contacted by Frank’s daughter. She indicated Frank entered the hospital on August 8 and was never discharged. He passed away on October 8, 2017.
  12. 2 points
    I have considered a thread in BIGFOOT RESEARCH GROUPS FORUM AREA . I was way too busy in the past to put something together. Now that I am sort-of-kind-of retired ( R.E.D., Retired Extremely Diabolical ) I may put something together in the near future. Stay tuned.
  13. 2 points
    Once you dial in the herds range, they're easier to hunt. My brother hunts dove, quail, rabbit, and javalina around a huge Arizona farm. The farm, irrigated, offers both water and food for the birds and javalina, and it attracts coyotes, too (he nailed a couple coyotes during the hunt as well). The farm manager, who my brother gotbto know from years of dove, rabbit, and quail hunting, urged him to apply for the javalina tags for the area because the javalina damage crops and fields. This is his third consecutive year of bagging the javalina there. He has a good gig going.........
  14. 2 points
    If I can read HMB's post and the proponents read HMB's post and we come up to two different conclusions, there is no amount of explaining I can do to convince a proponent of my case. Its all literally right there in HMB's post. The only thing I can do is agree to disagree. Proponents can choose to do as they wish. It was pretty clear that Frank does not believe the PGF was processed in Seattle at their facility. I agree with that belief. I'll leave it with these quotes from the source, HMB's post. Frank said, “ Leonard Tall would not risk losing the process for a few hundred bucks by letting someone else other than my team run it. Then, there is no covering up a screw-up”. Frank believed Leonard Tall, the owner, would never jeopardize his considerable investment and Technicolor’s license by allowing the use of the lab outside the confines of the license protocol and agreement. Certainly, any employee caught violating the protocols would be terminated. Frank said the only person other than himself at Technicolor capable of processing Kodachrome film without assistance was his boss Leonard Tall. Frank said he knew Tall well and that Tall would never consider processing a film outside the requirements of the protocol.
  15. 2 points
    Kodak had two concerns, both to protect it's reputation for excellence, and it's reputation for wholesome social responsibility. Kodak wanted to be certain any processor did everything correctly, so the resulting film would be as photographically excellent as possible (with consideration for the fact the photographer might not be very talented and could take pictures of poor composition, out of focus, blurred, or badly exposed), so no one would ever blame the lab for ruining a photographer's effort. The second consideration was Kodak was a very strict and proper company in terms of social morality, during an era (the 1960's) when photographed nudity and sexual activity where coming out from the shadows into the mainstream social arena, and Kodak was determined to take the role of censor and seize any processed film or pictures depicting human nudity or sexual content. So you should expect that a lot of their contract provisions with a lab licensed to process Kodachrome would allow Kodak to watch for any lab processing of such "undesirable" photographed material. As a college film school student from 1966-1969, I recall many a conversation with fellow film students about what we could show, and what we could not, and where to get film processed if we chose to push the envelope and film content that was on the edge of acceptability in the puritanical social attitudes that were slowly crumbling in the era of "free love". Kodak's very strict puritanical rules about not processing any film containing nudity or sexual content was well known. So in consideration of what kind of rules or regulations Leonard Tall might be dealing with in his license with Kodak, those two considerations would likely have taken a substantial part of the license agreement.
  16. 2 points
    Yes, you asked me for my opinion and I gave you one. You may ask then; what I am basing my opinion on? I am basing it on the testimony of someone who actually worked there at that time and is/was our last remaining witness regarding the operation of the lab in question as well as its protocols and policies. Pat, you seem very fond of this quote, you have posted it several times now; "Frank said the only person other than himself at Technicolor capable of processing Kodachrome film without assistance was his boss Leonard Tall." Why haven't you posted the next sentence, you know the one that completes the thought and the statement. Here it is: "Frank said he knew Tall well and that Tall would never consider processing a film outside the requirements of the protocol." Here they are together as originally written: "Frank said the only person other than himself at Technicolor capable of processing Kodachrome film without assistance was his boss Leonard Tall. Frank said he knew Tall well and that Tall would never consider processing a film outside the requirements of the protocol." So, from a man who worked in close conjunction with Leonard and knew him well, Tall would "never consider" let alone actually process a film outside of the necessary protocol. That protocol being that any "special processing" would be performed by Ishihara and his staff or by both Tall and Ishihara. Which takes us back to the fact that Kodachrome processing was very complex and in order to process it safely and successfully, it normally required a full staff or at minimum a skeleton crew of at least 2 highly competent individuals. Sure, both men were "capable" of processing a film alone as they were both among the most knowledgeable people in their field at that time, but more importantly they were also both fully aware of the risks of doing so. You only have one shot at it. It was not just a matter of "some guy" coming in, putting it on a machine and an hour later, magically you have a beautifully developed film. Here's what Ishihara says about that: "Frank said operation of the lab was complicated enough and involved enough people that it made no sense for someone to keep any processing a clandestine operation. Their lab had procedures in place for after-hours processing and the staff would have been very happy to do a professional job for a fee. Working outside lab policies could risk a mistake that would invoke a violation of the license with Kodak. Frank said, “ Leonard Tall would not risk losing the process for a few hundred bucks by letting someone else other than my team run it. Then, there is no covering up a screw-up”. The film couldn't have been processed October 21, 1967 since the policies and protocols at a minimum, required Ishihara's presence. That, according to Frank never happened that day... Was the whole "special processing" urgency extravaganza even necessary in the first place? The film wasn't even viewed until late in the day on Sunday. The film could have easily been processed that same evening and been ready for viewing on Monday morning at a very minimal cost. I trust HMB's write-up and I trust Ishihara's words and instead of twisting them I will take them at face value until proven differently. My apologies for the lengthy response.
  17. 2 points
    Fukushima was ancient technology. We have reactors now that are fail safe. And how many deaths are attributed to radiation? ONE. The tsunami killed 2200! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties You seem to be cut from the block that believes technology and the human race is evil. Its completely wrong and backwards. Look at the numbers concerning life span per country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy People who live in countries without basic services like running water and electricity? Die very young by western standards. Many under 55 years of age.... The only hope any Earth species has of staving off extinction? Is to become a multi planet species. Im sure humans will take other species eventually along for the ride. An Ark if you will for the coming flood. Because we have near Earth objects whizzing past us all the time in this cosmic pinball machine. Our luck will not hold forever.
  18. 2 points
    Nothing would fit in the woodpile, it was just a whole lot of parallel sticks, no space under them. under the other structure was some space. It was up against a huge fallen log parallel to the road car below. Behind it, uphill, I'd say there was 3 feet of so, and up to maybe 8 feet. It was old looking. If it was summer instead of winter, that whole area would be leafy green bushes. Who knows? It just looked weird from the road and those logs didn't grow there.
  19. 2 points
    In what scenario does Tall have to do this secretly? He’s the owner and man in charge, he had no secret to keep, he’s not in fear of losing his job. So when doing a special government job of a bomb explosion Tall will involve Frank to help out but BF is to top secret??? Can anyone provide ANY ties of Al to Tall? The mental gymnastics some will do.....
  20. 2 points
    "basically''...? He hasn't...but you believe he has...an you believe him ! The rest Twist...well...I'll let you be inclined ta fancy what ya like. The claimed leader on the film isn't evidence, it's a claim, nothin' more. The film would have likely shown up in the yellow box it came in. The claimed leader on the film is just that, a claim. As deep as you are willing to dig. You have to remember Twist, it is the skeptic who offers nothin' to the equation besides doubt here. You say you don't think it was filmed on the 20th, give me a day or a place ? Where has Ishihara said that Twist ? He was completely familiar with why all the questions regarding the developin' of the film...where did he say it couldn't have been developed on that weekend ?
  21. 2 points
    To me, Frank has basically stated this film was not developed in the NW during that weekend. I believe him. I'm more inclined to believe it was produced a week or less before. For whatever reason, the timeline was fabricated. The film is or is not a hoax. If BF is real I'd tend to lean towards it resembling patty. The film (subject) is one thing, the timeline is another. The timeline, IMO, is wrong. The film is intriguing to say the least. When this one person showed up in the NW lab alone to process this, I'm assuming Tall? Did he also bring a yellow kodak leader and mailing box to avoid sending it out with the custom white box or packaging that was used? Is it not PGF lore that a yellow kodak leader and shipping box was present at the viewing? How deep is the rabbit hole?
  22. 2 points
    So you are saying you would have taken a shot at what you see in this video without fully knowing what it is? Let's drop the "tough" hunter talk for a minute and be completely honest. In the real world, yes or no? Same question in regard to Patty as seen in the film.
  23. 2 points
    I'm completely comfortable with the drop-off in the number of BF sightings reported over the decades. I think it is explained by the fact that there was a tremendous number of unreported encounters at the BFRO database was initiated. The decrease in reports is probably only the result of working through that backlog to bring them more current. The consistency, or congruency in the BF descriptions is made all the more compelling when you realize that the behaviors observed are typical not only of Sasquatch, but also for a myriad of other wild creatures It is a database full of descriptions of an animal doing things that known animals do as well. Manufacturing this degree of biological congruency would be absurdly difficult to hoax.
  24. 2 points
    http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf
  25. 2 points
    This isn't necessarily the best footprint but it's one that intrigues me because of three things shown in the track, plus a fourth interesting item shown in the picture. I've posted it before with a few more arrows, probably over a year or two ago; I think it's one of the BCM tracks that BH had posted on here in the past. 1. The yellow arrow and the blue line above the yellow arrow point to where the mid portion of the foot appears to slope very slightly downward, which makes the mid portion a little bit deeper than the rear portion. You can see this the picture. 2. You can see how the toes dug into the soil. It's the deepest portion of the track. 3. Right behind the toes, the dirt has been pushed up. I don't remember the length of the track. To me, the track had to have been made by a flexible foot. Now, as far as the track being made by a human foot; this is where the 4th item comes in. The white arrows point to a human boot print only about a foot away that barely made an impression, while the track above the tape measure dug much deeper into the soil. The only thing about the human boot print that made an impression was the tread of the boot sole. The impression is flat. I'm not sure if that is a bootprint at the bottom right corner.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×