gigantor Posted January 26 Admin Author Posted January 26 25 minutes ago, Huntster said: Ermine? Did you shoot that pic? Yes and No.
BC witness Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) That and rabbits are certainly sources of long stride imprints in snow, but they both tend to be in a very straight line, with no left/right offset. The snow trackway I found and took John Green to see back around '78/79 were long stride, large size, and noticeably offset, though not to the same extent as human tracks usually are. This video reminded me of a hunting trip back in the '60s when I was sitting on a snow covered log, wearing snow pattern fleece camo, and an ermine ran along the log, right across my lap, without acknowledging my presence. Nature is great! Edited January 27 by BC witness 1 2
Patterson-Gimlin Posted January 27 Posted January 27 Thanks for sharing. The best sasquatch snow tracks are when the snow is hard crusted. Requires massive weight to break through . 1
joebeelart Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) I respectfully disagree with Patterson-Gimlin that the best Sasquatch tracks are from hard crust snow requiring massive weight. For example once Cliff Olson and I found several hundred tracks at or near the quarry on the east end of Whale Head above Ripplebrook Ranger Station. That happened about Thanksgiving week when we were looking for a Christmas tree. The snow, in places was 18" deep and fresh that night. The weight of the Sasquatch compressed the snow so we could see toes, dermal ridges, the "mid-tarsal" break, etc. We took lots of film photos but the light was rotten. It was perfectly obvious that the Sasquatch had walked to the edge of the quarry road and looked at the glow from Estacada and beyond in the night. We went back up the next day only to find blown snow had covered the trackway. In another instance, Steve Kiley and I found good, fresh snow tracks in snow up Indian Henry and there was no crust involved. We managed to cast three imprints, but they didn't come out too good but Ray Crowe put them in his "museum." Given these and other examples, I think the best tracks are in fresh, thick Cascade Mountain snow, or in impressionable soil. What it takes is time and gas money to find them. I also found good snow tracks on Flat Top Mountain in the Oregon Coast range, among other finds. The quality of the snow and freshness are important. Good trackways have parallel tracks. I suggest studying common animal tracks made in snow. Joe here Edited January 27 by joebeelart 3
Backdoc Posted January 27 Posted January 27 2 hours ago, joebeelart said: Cliff Olson and I found several hundred tracks at or near the quarry on the east end of Whale Head above Ripplebrook Ranger Station. We went back up the next day only to find blown snow had covered the trackway. You can't control the weather but that is a bummer. If you guys took pics or video would you be willing to share them here? Sounds very interesting.
joebeelart Posted January 27 Posted January 27 Ha ! Backdoc, it just so happens I pulled my box of film from 15-200 years ago for another request. I'll look through it to see if I can find the snow pics! Joe here {catch my little joke.....} 2
Trogluddite Posted January 28 Posted January 28 ^^^ Man, I though you were old, but 200 year old film? I had no idea!
Patterson-Gimlin Posted January 29 Posted January 29 (edited) On 1/27/2025 at 12:13 PM, joebeelart said: I respectfully disagree with Patterson-Gimlin that the best Sasquatch tracks are from hard crust snow requiring massive weight. For example once Cliff Olson and I found several hundred tracks at or near the quarry on the east end of Whale Head above Ripplebrook Ranger Station. That happened about Thanksgiving week when we were looking for a Christmas tree. The snow, in places was 18" deep and fresh that night. The weight of the Sasquatch compressed the snow so we could see toes, dermal ridges, the "mid-tarsal" break, etc. We took lots of film photos but the light was rotten. It was perfectly obvious that the Sasquatch had walked to the edge of the quarry road and looked at the glow from Estacada and beyond in the night. We went back up the next day only to find blown snow had covered the trackway. In another instance, Steve Kiley and I found good, fresh snow tracks in snow up Indian Henry and there was no crust involved. We managed to cast three imprints, but they didn't come out too good but Ray Crowe put them in his "museum." Given these and other examples, I think the best tracks are in fresh, thick Cascade Mountain snow, or in impressionable soil. What it takes is time and gas money to find them. I also found good snow tracks on Flat Top Mountain in the Oregon Coast range, among other finds. The quality of the snow and freshness are important. Good trackways have parallel tracks. I suggest studying common animal tracks made in snow. Joe here Thank you sir for the awesome explanation and sharing your experiences. My statement was based on my thinking hard crusted snow would make it more difficult to fake. I have heard of some tracks described in the manner I described . The creature had broken through some real hard crusted snow requiring massive weight. The Men could not do it. I like your answer much better. Edited January 29 by Patterson-Gimlin
Backdoc Posted January 29 Posted January 29 (edited) How easy is it to fake prints? Snow/ mud/ soft soil all seem pretty good candidates to leave prints. For now, I will focus on the snow. This would require the person leaving the tracks being a tall enough person capable of a long stride. Otherwise, the tracks would not be convincing. Any large fake foot would have to be flexible enough (rubber?) as to create slight variances between footprints and toe spread. You would have to avoid an assembly line effect where every step looks exactly the same. If someone needed to lunge from step to step this would not only take a lot of energy to maintain but there would be a slip factor or some other sliding which would make the result look like an obvious strain or reach. I can see where an animal might hop along and leave prints with big distances between 'footprints'. These same prints later might get larger (bigfoot sized) after the snow melts. We are left to think the giant foot sized prints were not made by something small like a rabbit but an upright biped. It becomes a case of mistaken identity. If a city slicker like me came across those tracks and be more inclined to be impressed. A local outdoorsman might not think anything of it knowing why they were there and what made them. The skeptics never are able to explain those cases where the tracks in the snow: 1- a big foot shaped with toes 2- have variances between the tracks 3- step track to track in nearly a tightrope straight line 4- have a long distance from step to step. On another thread someone posted a video of 2 guys who discovered tracks in the snow that had all 4 of those features. Things like these fun kids toys or a modern prank wood stomper could never do this: Edited January 29 by Backdoc
norseman Posted January 29 Admin Posted January 29 I pranked my aunt and uncle in high school. Cut out feet in wood shop and secured boots to them. I walked down to their garden. Strapped them on and made a loop. Mangled some corn to sell it. My aunt called my mom freaked out and was calling the Sheriff when my mom busted out laughing. Soft dirt was pretty easy. Deep snow would be impossible to walk cleanly in. At some point? Your physical limitations come in to play. And my wooden stompers wouldn’t fool someone like Meldrum. Nor did I want to, the gag was only for my family. I didn’t want any problems with the law. As for natural explanations? Stotting mule deer, bounding foxes, etc. If tracked any distance? The hooves or paws will be present somewhere in that trackway. I really sit up and take notice with deep snow tracks or the tracks crossing fences or logs,etc. Or track ways that are super long. 2
bipedalist Posted January 30 BFF Patron Posted January 30 (edited) There is a good Youtube vid pranked by a Canadian guy in IR reflective gear and night vision goggles that was presented as an unknown but the guy knowingly faked the encounter then calling it a fake ghost story at the end. I'll post it up in another thread, very interesting comments and analysis makes it a learning opportunity for hoaxing tech 101. Edited January 30 by bipedalist
Recommended Posts