Track Found In Alabama Snow

[Guest]

That post was not only germane, it was a little bit Tito.

[Branco]

Some of you might find this germane to the discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to do those "tracks in the snow" tests and reporting the results. Your report reflects what I have observed over many years. Without casting any doubt as to what you observed, I must ask that you clarify a statement that was part of the report. Under the 1st picture from day four you said: "I was able to produce a stride of 54" (while only being 5' 9".)"

I really believe you meant that you were able to take a "step" of 54" (which in itself is noteworthy) if you were trying to imitate the walk of a Bigfoot. If your forced stride was actually only 54", it would mean your two extended step needed to measure your stride would only be about 27" apart, heel-to-heel. The normal steps of a person of your height is about 32 to 33 inches, so it would appear that your stride at a normal walking pace would be about 64 to 66 inches without any unusual leg extension.

Without turning this post into an argument about your actual test results, could you clarify the apparent conflict between "stride" versus "step" mentioned in the report?

[Guest BitterMonk]

I used the word stride correctly.

ETA- I'm not inferring that the stride length is extraordinary. Instead I'm simply demonstrating that snow does not automatically mean the stride length will be abbreviated.

[Guest]

Saskeptic is right about the shoe trend. I see them everywhere here. The point is if the shoe is much longer than 12 1/4 inch then you might be able to rule out the shoe. I know that snow prints swell as they age. The snow print didn't appear to be old to me but I could be wrong.

[Guest]

Couple things to add.... Living here in NY, and having lots of experience with SNOW..(dirty four letter word in my opinion these days- its 9 degrees out right now as i type this).

#1 someone mentioned that it looked like this track was not subject to melt and refreeze.... It's hard to tell for sure by looking at a photo, but the flat part of the track looks to be ice in this photo. If it hadnt melted and refrozen the flat part would appear white, intead of being clear..... Now im not 100% sure on this- like i said its tough to tell for sure from the photo. BUT.. also, I would suggest that because of the really sharp outline, it does not appear that it started out as a smaller track and grew bigger with the melt... ive seen some that have, and it looks different....

#2.. im leaning more towards this track not being made by a pair of these shoes.... What appears in the heel section to be a possible tread design, looks to me like pieces of broken ice...... which make it sort of look like a tread design- but looking at the tread design on the shoes shown (not sure of other brands) its a different looking tread.... Also, assuming a lack of melt enlargement, and that the human shoe next to the track isnt a child size 4 shoe, the track looks like it would have to be like a size 18 or 20 shoe.... pretty big.

#3 it would be my opinion that every pair of shoes made like the ones shown should have a large [NOT BIGFOOT] stamp in the middle of the instep... to avoid confusion somewhere down the road...

ART

Edited January 15, 2011 by Art1972

[Guest]

Wow the time to edit the post is really short huh?

I was going to add to the end of #1 about why i dont think it melted and got bigger...

My main rational or indicator for saying this = I can still see the snow ridges between the toes.. subjected to melt and enlargement, most of the detail would be gone- it would be hard to see indvidual toes at all, and the track would like more like a boot print....

I too would like to see the series of tracks- for measuring stride distance, and to see if the other tracks (even if not full ones) had similar or different/more detail....

[Guest]

yeah.. I was kinda hoping we would get some feedback on that..

[Branco]

I used the word stride correctly.

ETA- I'm not inferring that the stride length is extraordinary. Instead I'm simply demonstrating that snow does not automatically mean the stride length will be abbreviated.

OK. You said, " It's also important to note that during the testing I was able to produce a stride of 54" (while only being 5'9")." I still don't understand why you included this note. I was simply surprised that your step tracks were only 27" apart in that depth of snow, and could not figure out the "importance" of that. End.

[Guest BitterMonk]

IMHO all observed data is important.

[Guest BitterMonk]

This is why it is an important observation.

...they have a VERY long stride of anywhere from 5 to 6 feet long (@ least)...

Not to single this member out, but to them a stride of 5 feet is squatch worthy. What might seem elementary to some could be new and useful information to another.

[Guest ajciani]

Assuming that member meant 'stride' and not 'step'.

In that Day 4 image, do you know if that was the left foot or the right? My impression is that it was the right, and that shade preserved the heel and arch, while the toes were melted out.

The footprint in the OP appears to be rather fresh, considering that the toes were still plainly visible. It also appears that the ice may have already been under the snow, and some of it adhered to the bottom of the footwear as the foot was raised.

I will also give my own experience with walking on snow:

If I was just standing on leaves at 32 F in bare feet, I could do that all day long. Walking on snow just sucks the heat out of my feet. In Chicago, prints stay much longer, but do undergo a similar degradation. If you are looking at a very melted print, you are better off studying the ground as you would a normal print. Melted snow will lie, but compressed ground never will. And stepping on ice with bare feet is a good way to take a tumble. Try squeezing an ice cube between your fingers. It is hard to hold onto. Now here's the weird part. If you squeeze that ice cube while wearing leather gloves, you can hold onto it. Two different textures of skin, two different results. If BF is walking around out there on the ice and snow covered ice, then the pads of its feet need to be more like those of dogs and bears than people. Probably rough, and insulated with a lot of fatty tissue.

Edited January 15, 2011 by ajciani

[bipedalist]

...If BF is walking around out there on the ice and snow covered ice, then the pads of its feet need to be more like those of dogs and bears than people. Probably rough, and insulated with a lot of fatty tissue...

Makes a lot of sense.

[Branco]

IMHO all observed data is important.

Like I said in my first response, I was just curious about the abbreviated stride you mentioned which you felt was important to your test. The test itself was solely intended to show the degradation and deformation of the tracks over time. In the last paragraph you stated your findings might be useful in the field when inspecting degraded human-like tracks. The truth is, of all the very detailed observations you recorded in the report, I simply could not understand why you particularly pointed out as important the only observation that had abolutely nothing to do with your primary purpose of showing the degradation and deformation of snow tracks over time. Your latest post is perplexing. The descriptions of the tests clearly indicate that several important observations that you must have made which directly affected the test results are totally ignored. Had those observations been included, the results would certainly been of more importance in evaluating the age and source of humanlike tracks in the snow. It would have been helpful if the test report had included the depth of the snow at the time the tracks were made, the day and night temperatures during the tests, the time of day each photo was made and measurements of the snow depth adjacent to the tracks when the photos were made.

IMHO, all obsevations pertinent to any test or analysis are important.

[Guest BitterMonk]

Like I said in my first response, I was just curious about the abbreviated stride you mentioned which you felt was important to your test. The test itself was solely intended to show the degradation and deformation of the tracks over time.

While my initial intention was to follow the degradation of prints over time (with the hope of seeing degradation leading to a squatchy print) that in now way prevented me from noting anything else observed along the way.

In the last paragraph you stated your findings might be useful in the field when inspecting degraded human-like tracks. The truth is, of all the very detailed observations you recorded in the report, I simply could not understand why you particularly pointed out as important the only observation that had abolutely nothing to do with your primary purpose of showing the degradation and deformation of snow tracks over time. Your latest post is perplexing. The descriptions of the tests clearly indicate that several important observations that you must have made which directly affected the test results are totally ignored.Had those observations been included, the results would certainly been of more importance in evaluating the age and source of humanlike tracks in the snow. It would have been helpful if the test report had included the depth of the snow at the time the tracks were made, the day and night temperatures during the tests, the time of day each photo was made and measurements of the snow depth adjacent to the tracks when the photos were made.

Again, while it wasn't the primary purpose of the test I felt it was worth noting. I apologize for using such an important word as important, as this seems to be your singular argument. The fact is you aren't aware of everything I did during the testing. You're only aware of what I published in the blog. The truth is each day I recorded the stride measurement. I also recorded the start date and time, snow depth, high and low for each day, and approximate time of each photograph. The truth is snow is a tricky substance. Length of time on the ground and temperature can be great variables. You didn't include additional precipitation or amount of direct sunlight in your list, but those are also factors, as are wind and I would imagine changes in humidity. Because there are so many variables and because the test was unfortunately short I decided to focus on the bulk of the experiment. I do however still have that information and would gladly share it with anyone else interested in conducting and publishing their own experiments.

IMHO, all obsevations pertinent to any test or analysis are important.

Agreed. All observations are important, as is encouraging an environment of learning and advancing knowledge through experimentation.

[Branco]

Makes a lot of sense.

It does in fact make sense. While I was working in the Amazon Basin about 500 miles up the river, we had several Indians working with us. One was a close friend that I hunted with every weekend and holiday. He was about 45 years old, and had never worn a pair of shoes in his life, and didn't want to start. He hunted in a nothing but a pair of short pants. He carried a single barrel 20ga shot gun and a razor sharp machete. One day while we were stalking some deer and a tapir near some wild fruit trees, he accidently stepped on a particular type of palm frond which had fallen(can't remember what its called) and which is covered in long, sharp thorns on the underside of the stem. He jumped back and raised one foot. The sole looked like a porcupine. He took his machete, laid the blade nearly flat on the front of his foot, and "shaved" his foot. The sharp blade removed nearly all the thorns on the first pass. Two or three of the thorns could not be pulled out with the machete, so I squatted and pulled them out by hand. The bottom of his foot was like cured leather. After I removed the last thorn, not a drop of blood was seen. He grinned and gave me a hand sign to continue on toward the animals. The sole of his foot WAS NOT like mine.