Snow Footprnts Solved?

[norseman]

9 hours ago, FelixTheCat said:

Loping deer can make such inline and deep tracks as well

It’s called stotting.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stotting

[FelixTheCat]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

It’s called stotting.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stotting

Thank you, I learned something new.

[norseman]

36 minutes ago, FelixTheCat said:

Thank you, I learned something new.

You bet!👍

[JKH]

The biology is so interesting, thanks norse.

Just came across this in the sightings forum.

 

https://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=78256

 

[Madison5716]

Wr found one snow track, very old. In a straight line, and about 5 feet apart. Interesting discussion. 

[night912]

On 1/27/2025 at 11:13 AM, 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

Those weren't dermal ridges that you saw. It's hard enough for dermal ridges to be imprinted on dirt and mud, so not all of the casts that are claimed to have them are actual dermal ridges. Plaster casts produces a lot of artifacts during the curing process. Therefore, careful examination of the casts is required for confirmation. But, when it comes to snow footprints, the chance of it having dermal ridges are 0% because it violates the laws of physics. Snow isn't fine enough to be able to pick up the ridges. But what makes it impossible is that the thin layer of the surface of the snow melts immediately on contact with the bottom of the foot. 

On 1/27/2025 at 11:13 AM, 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

Those weren't dermal ridges that you saw. It's hard enough for dermal ridges to be imprinted on dirt and mud, so not all of the casts that are claimed to have them are actual dermal ridges. Plaster casts produces a lot of artifacts during the curing process. Therefore, careful examination of the casts is required for confirmation. But, when it comes to snow footprints, the chance of it having dermal ridges are 0% because it violates the laws of physics. Snow isn't fine enough to be able to pick up the ridges. But what makes it impossible is that the thin layer of the surface of the snow melts immediately on contact with the bottom of the foot. 

[joebeelart]

Those weren't dermal ridges that you saw. It's hard enough for dermal ridges to be imprinted on dirt and mud, so not all of the casts that are claimed to have them are actual dermal ridges. Plaster casts produces a lot of artifacts during the curing process. Therefore, careful examination of the casts is required for confirmation. But, when it comes to snow footprints, the chance of it having dermal ridges are 0% because it violates the laws of physics. Snow isn't fine enough to be able to pick up the ridges. But what makes it impossible is that the thin layer of the surface of the snow melts immediately on contact with the bottom of the foot. 

 

Sorry I missed your reply in January 2025.  Have been thinking of it for some time after discovery last month, and going through my "memory banks."  Maybe I was wrong in my assessment and memory, but the track line was definite and clear with unmistakable foot prints.  Maybe you are right, but you also make the assumption that a Bigfoot imprint is made by an animal with an internal body temperature similar to a human.  While it is not similar, a horse hoof print leaves a "dermal ridge imprint."  Second, you are making the assumption that all snow is similar.  This is certainly not the forum to argue laws of physics, although in the past, I have held my own in that regard.  Third, I have cast, and taken photographs of "dermal ridges" on at least 2 sets of dermal  ridges not associated with this question.  They have been verified by fingerprint experts, and physical evidence is upstairs, stored.  While you might be right, I will say it is very difficult to record dermal ridges in the wild.

 

Thank you for your kind reply.  I  hope you luck in finding good imprints and taking photographs of them this summer. Joe here  

[CryptidTalk]

2 hours ago, joebeelart said:

 

 

Maybe you are right, but you also make the assumption that a Bigfoot imprint is made by an animal with an internal body temperature similar to a human.  Second, you are making the assumption that all snow is similar. 

While I won’t say the temperature doesn’t matter, it does, but it doesn’t matter in this context. The mere pressure is enough to create a small film of water. 
 

 

[joebeelart]

If pressure melts a small amount of water, why do boots leave fine tracks in mud and snow?  Just asking.   Pictures of the always bare feet of Nepal people, and other people too poor for shoes show great callouses or pads.  Do they not leave dermal ridge patterns in some instances?  Actually, this point isn't worth many words.  Probably more than enough said after you reply, which I assume you will.   : )  

[Doug]

A bare foot has blood flow and body heat radiating from it. A boot sole has no blood flow or heat radiating from it and the sole shields the body heat from the snow. That would be the difference. So, the pressure combined with the heat could make a difference. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Doug

[joebeelart]

Well, my memory could be wrong and the photos of Nepalese / African / South American barefoot soles don't give body heat measurements.  No matter since I'm going back into the hills after recovering from my fall {11 days hospital, +28 in rehab +more home}.  Unfortunately Cliff is there in spirit { D/7/21 } and can't share his wisdom with me, nor can Kiley; both a great loss.   

 

I'll try to find a good track to cast or photo and  forward to the forum this year.   I've got at least three separate physical dermal ridge examples in my closet files.  Good luck up the hill !   Joe

 

{edit was a try to clean up my grammar, I refuse to use AI, so far.......}

 

Edited 4 hours ago by joebeelart

[CryptidTalk]

4 hours ago, joebeelart said:

If pressure melts a small amount of water, why do boots leave fine tracks in mud and snow?  Just asking.   Pictures of the always bare feet of Nepal people, and other people too poor for shoes show great callouses or pads.  Do they not leave dermal ridge patterns in some instances?  Actually, this point isn't worth many words.  Probably more than enough said after you reply, which I assume you will.   : )  

There is still a thin film of water but the tread in boots are far deeper than dermal ridges. The film of water is not in great enough depth to hide that depth. . You’re talking micrometers vs millimeters. Huge difference. 

Edited 3 hours ago by CryptidTalk