Footprints

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Vilnoori, that's an excellent suggestion. A tape measure can be a valuable asset to have if you run up on some tracks while in the field. I bought a keychain with small tape measure attached at one of the local building supply stores here (Lowes). I transferred my keys to it and it became the tool I can never forget to bring. Once I arrive at my research area, I pull the keys out of the ignition, put them in my pocket, and the tape measure goes along with me automatically every time. Chris B.

[Guest Bullfrog]

Why don't you show us how to create such a flexible foot?

I think I shall.

This project will probably take a little while. I don't know anything about working with rubber or similar materials. But by-golly I'll learn. Be deciding how you like your crow cooked.

[Guest]

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a primer for convincing hoaxes...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Me too Spazmo. My hopes after reading ShadowPrimes account of this thread was to hopefully gather information on the subject from areas around the US that people wouldnt mind sharing. That might be a fraction of what they are finding.

If you read the baseline information on the tracks that detail differentiating characters, then to compare that with

what people find now, to me, is interesting. We seem to have images and comments about tracks that have been both seen and documented in the field in numerous threads. Hoping for a load of that going on here. & to continue to add field tips and comments that apply like Chris and Vil did.

[Guest uprightchimp]

I'm going to throw in another factor to this discussion. What characteristics would look for in an authentic sasquatch trackway that would not be there in a faked one?

Here are some ideas:

1. Sheer distance/length of the trackway. If you are going to have trouble following the track because it will take you a day to do so, then chances are its a good one.

2. Terrain. If the trackway continues up a slope with under story foliage that would be nigh on impossible for a human to go on and through, I would favour it.

3. Uniqueness of each print. Normal bare feet adjust to the ground underneath with weight shifts, toe splaying, toes lifting, etc. If all the tracks are identical it would be a red flag.

4. Remoteness of the location and whether anyone knows a sasquatch researcher will be in the area. Its a good thing to keep at least some randomness in your travel plans, within reason, with safety in mind. Keep a number of possible destinations in hand and at the ready. A hoaxer will have his or her hands full providing tracks for all of your possible locations. Be general, not too specific. This one is not foolproof, but would be a mitigating factor at least.

I'd also say its important to be able to identify false positives such as overlapping bear tracks. Learn to distinguish them.

Anyone else have some points to add?

[Guest uprightchimp]

well, yes I'd say (like I have to many others) is that you must take in account the STRIDE factor, if you have impossibly large footprints ( like anywhere between 15 to 18 inches) in very rough ground but good enough for some good footprints to have been made & they have a VERY long stride of anywhere from 5 to 6 feet long (@ least) & NO evidence of human shoe or otherwise impressions anywhere with them then it's a good bet that it is REAL! it have been proven that humans can NOT make the same EXACT type of tracks, because it is physically impossible for humans to have that kind of stride, with feet that are that big-the human foot may LOOK like sassy's but only from a distance there are some things about their feet that are just not the exact same way as in humans, its been studied & proven that when you do take all this in to account, you will tell (with some expirience) the real footprints from the fake. (case in point: any creature that can climb up near vertical cliffs or in terrain that is otherwise too rough with its BARE feet & with the kind of speed & agility that sassy is apperently able to do on 2 legs just aint human folks-**** near perhaps, but not quite.) the human foot has never evolved to that extreme in that way that sassy's foot has (modern humans that is-assuming that BF may be a prehistoric cousin of man)

Edited January 15, 2011 by uprightchimp

[Guest]

Vil, constantly there are references in the literature regarding how deep those tracks go. Tiny people (anyone under 350 lb... hmmm that might include medium people lol) constantly remark how unusual it is to see the track go so deep into the substrate. When they strike similar tracks in what is presumed to be similar conditions. Note: Certainly time differential and weather conditions and soil types may alter conditions so some alledged similar conditions by the observer(s) may or may not be similar....

Regardless, many people try to similate what they see by adding more weight to themselves or even jumping from a height to try to duplicate what they see. That is my first reaction to your notes. I believe I read that about some of the tracks from Bluff Creek, regarding the reaction that people had to them and how deep some of them were. Upright chimp, thanks for your two cents, appreciated.

Edited January 15, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest]

Anyone seeing anything for 3 or 4 toed prints ? Like to hear about it. GOOB, any guestimates on that small print you saw by the rock cairne on streamside ?

[Explorer]

I saw a web presentation today on how a group of Siberian Tiger researchers used the JMP statistical software to build a database of all tiger tracks found in a targeted area (via photos) and used it to look for similarities/differences/patterns (in key parameters).

The web video is interesting and the idea could be applied to Bigfoot tracks (either photos of actual tracks or maybe photos of the plaster casts).

What I liked about this is that all information on BF tracks collected over the years could be parameterized and embedded into a database where the power of statistics could be use to extract useful information.

For those who might be interested in this, the link to the webcast is below (you need to register to see it).

http://www.jmp.com/a...701a0000000sqwj

Description of Webcast:

Analytically Speaking featuring Sky Alibhai, Zoe Jewell and Stuart Pimm

Expertise: wild animal monitoring using non-invasive approaches, biodiversity, conservation biology

Zoe Jewell and Sky Alibhai founded WildTrack to monitor endangered species via cutting-edge data analysis techniques. Stuart Pimm of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment is a world leader in the study of present-day extinctions and what can be done to prevent them. Together, they explore statistical solutions to the growing problem of animals in peril due to climate change and loss of habitat.

• Tracking the footprints of endangered species – such as Amur tigers and polar bears – as a noninvasive way to monitor their status.
  
• Using mapping capabilities in JMP^® to track the movement of cheetahs in southern Africa.
  
• Analyzing geometric profiles in photographs of diseased animal feet to make predictions about diagnosis, risk factors and healing.
  
• Overcoming technical and practical obstacles associated with these tasks.
  

Edited February 7, 2013 by Explorer

[Guest]

^I like this idea. Enough data to compare could possibly help to weed out hoaxes and perhaps delineate differences between populations of real individuals. Possibly helping to determine if there are really two species or not.

[Guest DWA]

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

Unproven is not the point.

The point is:

Is it reasonable to dismiss all the footprints as hoaxes and misidentifications, and consider "case closed" without further review?

It isn't.

That science hasn't confirmed sasquatch is no major surprise, when one considers the mainstream's attitude and the history of science.

[ohiobill]

Would it be reasonable to dismiss those prints that don't meet the published criteria given to us by scientists who have used empirical data and statistics in their studies? Would it be reasonable to conclude that the most likely scenario for the creation of prints that don't meet the published criteria is hoaxing and that "researchers" who continue to "find" and promote such finds are most likely hoaxers themselves?

[Guest DWA]

^^^OK, that just black-smokes "trick question."

More details before you hear thing one out of me. My post definitely stands unchanged (and likely will).

[ohiobill]

Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Fahrenbach have both published detailed descriptions of what to look for in legitimate prints. Would it be reasonable to expect serious researchers to be familiar with and to use the published data to vet potential tracks? If the researcher isn't familiar with the works would you be skeptical of the researcher's ability? If the tracks don't meet the published criteria should that raise a red flag for the researcher? If the researcher was unable to discern the difference between legitimate prints and hoaxes would it change your opinion of their abilities? Would it influence your thinking as to whether or not to accept their personal sightings, their investigations of sightings, or the conclusions they have drawn about the subject? Would you consider a researcher who repeatedly brought forth tracks that did not meet the criteria a hoaxer?

[Guest DWA]

I'm not a footprint expert.

I'd consider Meldrum about as close as we have to one (that is working this case), and he seems to be rather an expert. His ichnotaxonomy paper seems to lay out things to look for.

Not being an expert and all, my inexpert opinion is, I wouldn't toss out a trackway unless there were obvious signs of human manufacture. I'd want somebody like Meldrum to take a look at every one he could get his hands on. But even an expert can be wrong. Pitching babies with bathwater is not how I'd go about this. Total credulity isn't either. (When a guy shows a footprint cast next to his foot - and it could not be plainer that the cast is of his foot, yes it's happened - well, that's human manufacture.)

If features of the tracks - stride length; no drag marks on tracks in snow; proportions; depth; etc. - appear to be consistent with trackways elsewhere found, and the circumstances seem to indicate that a human might not have made these, then I do what I do with all evidence that isn't proof and can't be found to have been faked: toss it on the pile of stuff that needs explaining.

I'd expect a researcher to lay out his rationale. If he gets hoaxed, um, yeah, it would affect my opinion of his verdicts...but it wouldn't invalidate his opinion of trackways for which it isn't plain, on checking back, that he's wrong. Nobody's perfect, not even in science. "Inconclusive" shouldn't get thrown out; a conclusion should be reached.

Your last sentence would raise a flag marked either "hoaxer" or "following one around."

[ohiobill]

So you're saying that even if footprints don't meet the criteria noted and published by experts they should be presumptive evidence until specifically ruled out by Dr. Meldrum or someone "like" (although I am unclear as to what this means to you?) him?