Understanding Bipedal Trackways: Lines of Evidence and Common-Sense Reasoning

[MikeZimmer]

 

Initial Hypothesis

Large, unexplained bipedal trackways have been found in diverse environments and substrates across the world. These tracks exhibit physical characteristics that distinguish them from those of known animals, including humans, bears, and other quadrupedal species. The hypothesis to be evaluated is as follows:

The presence of persistent, anatomically structured, and biomechanically consistent bipedal trackways suggests that an unknown track-making agent is responsible for their formation.

This discussion will focus strictly on the physical evidence of trackways without assuming the identity of the track-maker. The goal is to assess what the tracks reveal through lines of evidence thinking and cumulative argumentation rather than to make premature conclusions.

---

Understanding Tracks, Trackways, and Casts

Before examining the evidence, it is necessary to differentiate between the terms tracks, trackways, and casts, as these are often confused or used interchangeably.

1. Tracks

• A single footprint or impression left by a foot (or foot-like structure) in a given medium (mud, snow, sand, etc.).
• Tracks can be analyzed based on their depth, length, width, shape, pressure distribution, and other anatomical details.
• Important aspects include:
  • Toe arrangements (e.g., five toes, claw marks, splaying).
  • Heel-to-toe proportion (e.g., arch presence or lack thereof).
  • Signs of foot flexibility (e.g., midfoot pressure ridges).

2. Trackways

• A series of consecutive tracks that reveal gait patterns, stride length, and movement characteristics.
• Bipedal trackways differ significantly from quadrupedal trackways, as they exhibit:
  • Even weight distribution over two feet instead of four.
  • Stride and step length consistency indicating controlled locomotion.
  • Lack of forelimb impressions, distinguishing them from bear or large quadruped movements.
• A trackway provides more information than an isolated track because it offers a record of motion, which can be analyzed for biomechanics and locomotor differences.

3. Casts

• Plaster or resin replicas of tracks used to preserve their fine details.
• Essential for study, as tracks in soft substrates deteriorate quickly.
• Can capture minute features such as:
  • Dermal ridges (skin details, similar to fingerprints).
  • Toe movement (indicating whether the foot was rigid or flexible).
  • Compression effects (revealing weight and gait characteristics).

---

Lines of Evidence: What Do the Tracks Tell Us?

To evaluate the bipedal track evidence, we must systematically examine multiple lines of evidence, following the principles of common-sense reasoning and cumulative argumentation.

1. Distribution and Environmental Factors

Tracks have been recorded across diverse environments and geographical locations, including:

• Temperate forests (North America, Europe).
• Rainforests (Southeast Asia, Pacific Northwest).
• Snow-covered landscapes (Himalayas, Siberia, Canada).
• Riverbanks, mossy ground, and muddy areas, where track preservation is more likely.

Key Observation:

• The widespread occurrence suggests a recurring, global phenomenon rather than isolated anomalies.

What This Implies:

• If all tracks were hoaxes, they would not consistently appear in remote, difficult-to-access locations where human presence is rare.
• If all were misidentifications, then why do they repeatedly exhibit distinct bipedal characteristics not seen in known wildlife?

2. Physical Characteristics of the Tracks

Tracks consistently show the following anatomical traits:

1. Bipedal Structure
   • Two-footed trackways with clear left/right foot differentiation.
   • No forelimb impressions (as seen in bears or large mammals).
2. Toe Arrangement
   • Five toes, similar to primates and humans, rather than clawed impressions seen in bears or canines.
   • Some show splayed toes, which occur naturally in barefoot walking on soft ground.
3. Size and Proportion
   • Many tracks are far larger than human feet, sometimes exceeding 15 to 20 inches in length.
   • The width and proportions do not match oversized human shoe prints.
4. Arch and Foot Structure
   • Some tracks lack an arch, suggesting a flat-footed step and a compliant gait (seen in non-human primates).
   • Others have midfoot flexibility—a bending motion not found in rigid-soled footwear.
5. Depth and Pressure Distribution
   • Tracks show deep impressions, consistent with heavier-than-human weights.
   • Some leave behind pressure ridges, indicating a flexible, weight-shifting footpad rather than a rigid sole.

Key Observation:

• These features are not consistent with bear tracks, human tracks, or known hoax attempts.

What This Implies:

• The tracks suggest a biological foot, not an artificial imprint.
• Weight estimations based on depth suggest something much heavier than a human.

3. Trackway Patterns and Locomotion

Analysis of trackways reveals:

• Step lengths exceeding human proportions, suggesting a larger leg structure.
• Parallel foot placement, rather than the slight outward angle of human walking.
• Stride and step consistency, ruling out erratic animal gaits.

Key Observation:

• The locomotion resembles a controlled, heavy biped rather than a hoaxer's erratic spacing.

What This Implies:

• Artificially planted tracks would not reproduce this biomechanical consistency over long distances.

---

Competing Hypotheses: Evaluating Alternatives

1. Hoax Hypothesis

• Some tracks have been confirmed hoaxes.
• However, many others exhibit fine anatomical details (toe movement, dermal ridges, pressure ridges) that are extremely difficult to fake.
• Large-scale hoaxing across decades and continents is implausible.

2. Misidentification Hypothesis

• Bear tracks overlapping can create a foot-like impression.
• However, bears leave distinct claw marks, and their forelimbs must also appear in a true trackway.
• Deformed human footprints can appear unusual, but they would not produce consistent trackways.

3. Unknown Biped Hypothesis

• An unidentified bipedal track-making agent exists.
• This is the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence.

---

Cumulative Argument and Conclusion

1. Bipedal trackways exist in multiple locations and substrates worldwide.
2. They exhibit anatomically and biomechanically consistent characteristics.
3. Their size, step length, and pressure depth indicate a large, heavy, non-human biped.
4. Alternative explanations (hoaxes, bears, misidentifications) fail to account for all the evidence.

Thus, the most reasonable conclusion is that these tracks point to an unidentified bipedal species.

This analysis is not based on speculation but on a structured reasoning approach using lines of evidence and cumulative argumentation. The presence of large, unexplained bipedal trackways remains an open question that warrants serious investigation.