Footprints

[Guest ShadowPrime]

In addition to discussing the particulars of this or that sighting, this or that photo, etc, we spend a lot of time going back and forth about belief and "believers", and skepticism and "skeptics", both sides trying to figure out why the OTHER side thinks and feels as they do. I wanted to offer, briefly, some input on that.

Specifically, what, among other things, makes me lean towards believing BF is real?

For me, I would steer an openminded skeptic to Dr Meldrum's book as a starting place, and specifically suggest they read, in detail, the chapter on BF footprints.

It seems to me that unless we conclude that - pardon the harsh words - Dr Meldrum is flat out lying, that he is a dishonest self-promoter willing to lie in order to make a few bucks, it is awfully hard to read his discussion of the footprint evidence and to dismiss all that is there as some guys running around in carved wooden feet or floppy plastic ones.

He discusses finding dynamic, changing prints that show clear signs of interaction with the ground, of toe-gripping and push off. Of slippage and shifting toes, as one would expect in the prints of a real living animal. Of pressure ridges. He talks about finding cases where the toes are represented in a manner that shows the three-dimensionality of those toes (toes driving into mud so you can 'see' the side of the toe). He discusses elements of the prints that are consistent across decades of time and many miles of space, and of finding sophisticated "anatomical features" reflected in tracks that then show up when he goes back and examines prints made many years before. He discusses some of the "half tracks" that have been found and the possibility of a midtarsal "break", a special accomodation to the size and weight of BF. He discusses how BF prints are NOT simply "large human prints" - scaled up versions of human footprints - but instead reflect proportions and features consistent with the kind of foot a massive bipedal ape would require. He discusses apparent dermal ridges in tracks - and how they appear, again, in tracks from many years ago, where they went largely unnoticed. He talks about finding prints - again separated by time and geography - that are highly suggestive of having come from particular BF individuals. He goes over the intriguing Bossburg tracks.

AND he talks about personally finding tracks with many of these complex features in remote locations where one would have to think it was very unlikely a hoaxer would plant them.

Despite the length of this post, it is not my intent to recreate all the points put forward by Dr Meldrum, here... I am suggesting that if a skeptic really wants to see why someone might be inclined to belief, they carefully read through that chapter on footprints (although the entire book is worth the read) and consider how one explains all of this via hoaxing... an army of VERY sophisticated BF hoaxers, using some sort of hoaxing technique which is presently undemonstrated, remaining anonymous and hidden over decades (while their wooden-foot stamper brethren come to light again and again), across a WIDE range of miles, creating dynamic tracks with sophisticated features (many of which went un-noted at the time of initial discovery), prints that are sophisticated enough to fool someone with a lot of experience in examining primate prints, being planted in many cases in very VERY remote locations?

NOT saying all this to provoke - honestly. As I noted at the start, we spend a lot of time here talking about why we lean one way or the other. Just suggesting that if an openminded skeptic wants a good place to start, Dr Meldrum's discussion of BF footprints is a very good place.

Shadow

[Guest mizzousquatchn]

In addition to discussing the particulars of this or that sighting, this or that photo, etc, we spend a lot of time going back and forth about belief and "believers", and skepticism and "skeptics", both sides trying to figure out why the OTHER side thinks and feels as they do. I wanted to offer, briefly, some input on that.

Specifically, what, among other things, makes me lean towards believing BF is real?

For me, I would steer an openminded skeptic to Dr Meldrum's book as a starting place, and specifically suggest they read, in detail, the chapter on BF footprints.

It seems to me that unless we conclude that - pardon the harsh words - Dr Meldrum is flat out lying, that he is a dishonest self-promoter willing to lie in order to make a few bucks, it is awfully hard to read his discussion of the footprint evidence and to dismiss all that is there as some guys running around in carved wooden feet or floppy plastic ones.

He discusses finding dynamic, changing prints that show clear signs of interaction with the ground, of toe-gripping and push off. Of slippage and shifting toes, as one would expect in the prints of a real living animal. Of pressure ridges. He talks about finding cases where the toes are represented in a manner that shows the three-dimensionality of those toes (toes driving into mud so you can 'see' the side of the toe). He discusses elements of the prints that are consistent across decades of time and many miles of space, and of finding sophisticated "anatomical features" reflected in tracks that then show up when he goes back and examines prints made many years before. He discusses some of the "half tracks" that have been found and the possibility of a midtarsal "break", a special accomodation to the size and weight of BF. He discusses how BF prints are NOT simply "large human prints" - scaled up versions of human footprints - but instead reflect proportions and features consistent with the kind of foot a massive bipedal ape would require. He discusses apparent dermal ridges in tracks - and how they appear, again, in tracks from many years ago, where they went largely unnoticed. He talks about finding prints - again separated by time and geography - that are highly suggestive of having come from particular BF individuals. He goes over the intriguing Bossburg tracks.

AND he talks about personally finding tracks with many of these complex features in remote locations where one would have to think it was very unlikely a hoaxer would plant them.

Despite the length of this post, it is not my intent to recreate all the points put forward by Dr Meldrum, here... I am suggesting that if a skeptic really wants to see why someone might be inclined to belief, they carefully read through that chapter on footprints (although the entire book is worth the read) and consider how one explains all of this via hoaxing... an army of VERY sophisticated BF hoaxers, using some sort of hoaxing technique which is presently undemonstrated, remaining anonymous and hidden over decades (while their wooden-foot stamper brethren come to light again and again), across a WIDE range of miles, creating dynamic tracks with sophisticated features (many of which went un-noted at the time of initial discovery), prints that are sophisticated enough to fool someone with a lot of experience in examining primate prints, being planted in many cases in very VERY remote locations?

NOT saying all this to provoke - honestly. As I noted at the start, we spend a lot of time here talking about why we lean one way or the other. Just suggesting that if an openminded skeptic wants a good place to start, Dr Meldrum's discussion of BF footprints is a very good place.

Shadow

Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!

[kbhunter]

In addition to discussing the particulars of this or that sighting, this or that photo, etc, we spend a lot of time going back and forth about belief and "believers", and skepticism and "skeptics", both sides trying to figure out why the OTHER side thinks and feels as they do. I wanted to offer, briefly, some input on that.

Specifically, what, among other things, makes me lean towards believing BF is real?

For me, I would steer an openminded skeptic to Dr Meldrum's book as a starting place, and specifically suggest they read, in detail, the chapter on BF footprints.

It seems to me that unless we conclude that - pardon the harsh words - Dr Meldrum is flat out lying, that he is a dishonest self-promoter willing to lie in order to make a few bucks, it is awfully hard to read his discussion of the footprint evidence and to dismiss all that is there as some guys running around in carved wooden feet or floppy plastic ones.

He discusses finding dynamic, changing prints that show clear signs of interaction with the ground, of toe-gripping and push off. Of slippage and shifting toes, as one would expect in the prints of a real living animal. Of pressure ridges. He talks about finding cases where the toes are represented in a manner that shows the three-dimensionality of those toes (toes driving into mud so you can 'see' the side of the toe). He discusses elements of the prints that are consistent across decades of time and many miles of space, and of finding sophisticated "anatomical features" reflected in tracks that then show up when he goes back and examines prints made many years before. He discusses some of the "half tracks" that have been found and the possibility of a midtarsal "break", a special accomodation to the size and weight of BF. He discusses how BF prints are NOT simply "large human prints" - scaled up versions of human footprints - but instead reflect proportions and features consistent with the kind of foot a massive bipedal ape would require. He discusses apparent dermal ridges in tracks - and how they appear, again, in tracks from many years ago, where they went largely unnoticed. He talks about finding prints - again separated by time and geography - that are highly suggestive of having come from particular BF individuals. He goes over the intriguing Bossburg tracks.

AND he talks about personally finding tracks with many of these complex features in remote locations where one would have to think it was very unlikely a hoaxer would plant them.

Despite the length of this post, it is not my intent to recreate all the points put forward by Dr Meldrum, here... I am suggesting that if a skeptic really wants to see why someone might be inclined to belief, they carefully read through that chapter on footprints (although the entire book is worth the read) and consider how one explains all of this via hoaxing... an army of VERY sophisticated BF hoaxers, using some sort of hoaxing technique which is presently undemonstrated, remaining anonymous and hidden over decades (while their wooden-foot stamper brethren come to light again and again), across a WIDE range of miles, creating dynamic tracks with sophisticated features (many of which went un-noted at the time of initial discovery), prints that are sophisticated enough to fool someone with a lot of experience in examining primate prints, being planted in many cases in very VERY remote locations?

NOT saying all this to provoke - honestly. As I noted at the start, we spend a lot of time here talking about why we lean one way or the other. Just suggesting that if an openminded skeptic wants a good place to start, Dr Meldrum's discussion of BF footprints is a very good place.

Shadow

Shadow, I agree. After all of the things that happened to us, the icing on the cake for us was finding the track that was very clear. We had found water filled ones with little definition and they had a very long 5 foot stride. But the one track was amazing, like a OMG moment that changed my beliefs.

[Guest]

I agree Shadowprime. The fact that the tracks are different from one another and are so detailed suggests a hoaxer would have to be an expert in anatomy and have the time and money to do a lot of traveling to carry out such a hoax.

[Guest Dudlow]

Shadow, I agree... the icing on the cake for us was finding the track that was very clear.... But the one track was amazing, like a OMG moment that changed my beliefs.

Too true, kbh. Tracks are always a game changer: All of a sudden it's reality in, denial out, especially when the tracks go 'where no man has gone before' because no man could physically manage to go where the tracks lead without sophisticated climbing gear the average hiker is not likely to be carrying, especially in nonmountainous regions. For my money, that's proof in the pudding.

However, what truly makes my day is seeing the almost zero-straddle of their walking style along a lengthy pathway of footsteps they leave behind, most clearly visible in snow. 'Tightrope walking', as others have referred to it, cinches the deal, imho.

Dudlow

[Guest]

The trackway my best friend and I saw when we were teenagers had well defined toes, 18in long prints with a 6ft stride. For us one of the main odd features of the trackway was the tightrope effect. As kids we never thought bigfoot existed anywhere but the pacific north west. Surprise! I sure wish we could have laid eyes on the creature that made them, bet it was a big one.

[Guest ajciani]

I find it amazing that so many "skeptics" proclaim, time and time again, tracks to be nothing more than misidentification and hoaxes. The amateur might mistake a bear fore/rear print combo for a bigfoot print, but the experienced and the expert will not.

As for hoaxes, the "skeptics" like to point out how a footprint and anatomy expert once managed to fool Meldrum with a fake print. Now, I guess there could be footprint experts running around the great outdoors making really good bigfoot footprints to fool other experts, but that sounds kind of silly.

Yes, these creatures leave physical evidence, just like deer, wolves, bears, humans, and every other animal out there.

I would encourage everyone to watch this documentary about the Oregon Caves sighting. It features the comments of a great white hunter, who tracked game and gorillas in Africa. He went out expecting bigfoot to be bogus, and within a day was convinced they exist; the physical evidence was that obvious to him.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Great observations!

And I dont think the question is "Could a footprint/anatomy expert perhaps fool ANOTHER expert (Dr Meldrum in this case) with a particular cast or track" as much as it is "When you look at the total cumulative body of ALL the footprints seen, cast, on record, does it seem PROBABLE that all the more sophisticated tracks were hoaxed, over all that time, over all those circumstances, over all that geographical span"? Respectfully, I don't think so.

And to also clarify... as this seems to come up again and again and again... not saying that a consideration of the footprints closes the door on the BF question. I don't think most of us in the "leaning towards belief" camp think that anything short of a BF body (or part of one) or a captured BF will ever close that door. Saying that when you consider the TOTALITY of the footprint evidence (in concert with the sightings, the few pics, etc), it is VERY compelling, VERY difficult to dismiss (IMHO) and is precisely the kind of thing that (again, IMHO) should shift BF from the "kinda fun, quaint, goofy, lets smirk on the 6 o'clock news" folklore category to the "Hey, maybe we ought to start taking this seriously" category.

IMHO. Just saying.

Shadow

[Guest RayG]

If Dr. Meldrum were to examine an actual foot, I'd be onboard in an instant. So far however, he's only examined imprints in the ground or plaster casts, both of which are not outside the possibility of fakery.

And yes, I've read his book. A casual reader might come away believing some of the stuff he says that are quite unproven.

RayG

[Guest]

I find it amazing that so many "skeptics" proclaim, time and time again, tracks to be nothing more than misidentification and hoaxes. The amateur might mistake a bear fore/rear print combo for a bigfoot print, but the experienced and the expert will not.

As for hoaxes, the "skeptics" like to point out how a footprint and anatomy expert once managed to fool Meldrum with a fake print. Now, I guess there could be footprint experts running around the great outdoors making really good bigfoot footprints to fool other experts, but that sounds kind of silly.

Yes, these creatures leave physical evidence, just like deer, wolves, bears, humans, and every other animal out there.

I would encourage everyone to watch this documentary about the Oregon Caves sighting. It features the comments of a great white hunter, who tracked game and gorillas in Africa. He went out expecting bigfoot to be bogus, and within a day was convinced they exist; the physical evidence was that obvious to him.

Thanks for the Oregon Caves vid, ajciani! Hadn't seen it, and I love how it follows up (a rarity with media coverage of bigfoot) on that famous sighting. The tracks, trackways, and casts are the most compelling of evidence, IMHO. Can they be faked? Absolutely. Could hoaxers fool so many trackers, and hoax tracks in so many isolated wildernesses. Not likely. Do people see things that are not there? All the time. Can imaginary animals make tracks. Never. So either ALL tracks are hoaxes, or misidentifications by inexperienced and experienced trackers alike; OR there is a real creature making some of these tracks. Note: edit for proper props to ajciani and to clarify!

[Guest Biggjimm]

One of the things that I've seen is the change in the tracks in a trackway. One track exhibits a

mid-tarsal break, the toes are spread, and these features are not present in the next track.

Or maybe it stepped on a stick or rock. I have seen this in areas well off the beaten path

where nobody goes. I just randomly decided to go there.

[kbhunter]

I find it amazing that so many "skeptics" proclaim, time and time again, tracks to be nothing more than misidentification and hoaxes. The amateur might mistake a bear fore/rear print combo for a bigfoot print, but the experienced and the expert will not.

As for hoaxes, the "skeptics" like to point out how a footprint and anatomy expert once managed to fool Meldrum with a fake print. Now, I guess there could be footprint experts running around the great outdoors making really good bigfoot footprints to fool other experts, but that sounds kind of silly.

Yes, these creatures leave physical evidence, just like deer, wolves, bears, humans, and every other animal out there.

I would encourage everyone to watch this documentary about the Oregon Caves sighting. It features the comments of a great white hunter, who tracked game and gorillas in Africa. He went out expecting bigfoot to be bogus, and within a day was convinced they exist; the physical evidence was that obvious to him.

Thanks for posting this ajciani. It reminds me of our situation, (me and my family) where we were not looking for this animal, we were just pursuing our favorite pastime, hunting. I have been in the woods hunting and tracking for nearly 40 years and the stuff we found and our experiences did indeed change everything. I completely understand his emotional testimony.

KB

[Guest]

Obviously this doesn't apply to extremely clear prints that show dynamic movement, mid-tarsal breaks, etc., but I often wonder how many tracks are left by hippies out in the woods. Certainly this doesn't explain them all, but it is something to think about. In a lot of these Pacific Northwest forests, or even other forests near metropolitan centers [example: an abundance of Texas sightings are in the counties directly north/northeast of Houston] are going to be the nearest places where people from the city get out into the woods. And some of those people go barefoot. And once your feet get used to it [Johnny Appleseed, anyone? ] you can go almost anywhere barefoot. A certain percentage of the population really feel it's best to be natural and connect with nature by going no shoes, and I've heard ranger stories of the no clothes variety.

Also, with the advent of vibram shoes, there could be people around leaving human-like footprints with minimal effort. Add in some time for the track to deteriorate and lose detail, and viola. 5 toed tracks in the middle of the wilderness.

As I've said, this doesn't explain everything but it's something to consider when you stumble upon tracks out there. I've seen several, but none so large that a human couldn't have made them. And in one area in Sam Houston National Forest I found tracks underneath an obviously artificially constructed shelter. Branches were clearly drug to the site and set up and there were footprints in the mud. But since the prints weren't that much larger than mine and a human could have done the exact same thing, I don't run around exclaiming that it's evidence of sasquatch. And every time people say "nobody goes back here", I think to myself, "you're back there, right?" Maybe the longing to be as far, far away from humans as possible isn't just ingrained in bigfooters, but in other people as well. I loved the wilderness before I was interested in Sasquatch and many others are too. Human activity should always be considered a possibility until you rule it out by being impossible, not just improbable. What I saw that day stretched my mind. Either there really are sasquatches living in SHNF or there are some REALLY odd people living in Houston. Either way, my mind was expanded and that's good enough for me.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Shado:

Its a good point, for sure... one has to be careful in thinking an area is just "too remote" hoaxing or even incidental human presence. It is largely a matter of likelihood, and it is one reason that, for me, the cumulative footprint evidence carries a weight that few individual tracks/trackways do.

However, I think one of your points cuts both ways... that is, how often might folks find footprints of smaller BFs, perhaps juveniles, and not think twice about them, assuming they must be the tracks of humans? While Dr Meldrum discusses features that distinguish BF tracks from human tracks, those differences are not extreme, and to most a BF track and a human track are pretty much the same, visually. SO... if you come across tracks that are in the human range, I suspect you are most likely going to think they are human tracks in a lot of cases.

Shadow

[Drew]

There is a reason Bigfeet look the way they do. They are easier to make.

@ 8:35