Footprints

[Guest ShadowPrime]

We recently got a significant snowfall, and I was thinking along these same lines - this would be, I would think, a great time for the BF community to keep their eyes open (not in my neck of the woods, mind you! Not a BF area!)... that is, if you wanted a shot at finding some BF evidence, would have to believe that snow offers a great opportunity to discover tracks that might otherwise not be "put down". Was also thinking that if any BF hunters had access to a private plane (okay, yeah, maybe a VERY long shot!), flying over more remote snowy areas might yield some interesting results re trackways.

Shadow

[southernyahoo]

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.

Good points Shadoangel, The only clear tracks my team has found were only 9 inches long, which would be in the range of an adult human female or adolesent male. If it hadn't been in the location where so much other audible evidence and anecdotal sightings they would otherwise simply be human prints. Imposing a criteria on the size of a print can cut both ways, it can just as easily be a young squatch print as a human particularly if found off trail in the woods. It sure does leave you with the impression there are some people with odd behaviors if not a sasquatch.

This would seem to be a good cover for a young squatch, their tracks just aren't big enough to qualify as non-human.

[Guest]

Drew, Drew, Drew.... you aren't even TRYING with that explanation.

Shadow

I've been beating my head against the same **** wall for weeks with these guys...understand that most of our resident "skeptics" are in fact for all intents and purposes firmly in the "there is no bigfoot" camp and ain't budging short of someone hauling in a dead bf for their dissection table.

No amount of reasoning or logic is going to change that, unfortunately.

[Guest]

So knowing that Mulder, you might let things be..? I have not got the time to expend trying to convince anyone of anything.

Main thing is to have FUN and learn more. There are people all over the place working

in the field now and its great fun to hear what kind of comments they make on what they see.. if they are willing to do so.

Hopefully this thread provides some of that means. REgardless of what percentage think its worthy or not. Without being there

it is difficult to say exactly what is responsible...but some of the tracks show characters along the lines I described in my initial post of trying to revitalize this thread. With factors described with ea discovery, its quite fun.

Edited December 30, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

Actually, it would be more difficult to create a good print with a large bigfoot stamper. The word of the day is pressure. The larger the area, for the same weight, the less it sinks in. It is hard enough leaving a shoe print on even slightly squishy ground; I can't see a stamper being used on anything but mud.

As for myself, I have never found a clear footprint. I have seen where leaf litter and other vegetation has been crushed, and I have seen where sticks have been stepped on, but any imprint into the ground would be faint, maybe only 1/32 of an inch deep. I have seen a partial print on softened clay, but it was really only detectable as a change in the sheen.

Against my better judgment I am going to respond to this.

A few years ago I was approached by Chris Murphy and asked to try and cast wood grain. It had something to do with work he was doing with the wallace feet (I believe it was the Wallace feet). I went to Home Depot and purchased I believe 3-4 different kinds of wood. Some sanded, some unsanded. I pressed the blocks and pieces into the substrate and was (oddly enough) suprised I was barely able to break the surface of the soil. I can only assume that had everything to do with weight distribution on the wood and what is discussed in the post I quoted.

Long story short, I was unable to get wood grain impressions in the finished castings. I tried multiple times, and even burned the surface of the wood to see if that had any effect. No dice.

[Guest]

Good reply M. It just further points out the difficulty in faking tracks in easy accessible terrain compared to the difficult slopes that are often described with humanlike prints that.. are large. Thanks for the relay.

[Guest BitterMonk]

I still have not found a good explanation or technique for faking complex tracks or trackways.

It's the magic trick analogy. Just because you can't figure out how it was done, doesn't mean it was real magic. That doesn't mean that all factors shouldn't be considered. It just means that one's own ability to not understand something shouldn't be used as an argument for legitimacy.

[Guest]

^And just because you dismiss it as a "trick" doesn't mean it is one.

[Guest BitterMonk]

I didn't say that anything should be dismissed.

[Guest]

ajc - Thanks for the reference to the Dr Johnson Oregon Caves vid.

[Guest]

Good reply M. It just further points out the difficulty in faking tracks in easy accessible terrain compared to the difficult slopes that are often described with humanlike prints that.. are large. Thanks for the relay.

You're very welcome.

[Guest]

By Shadoangel via SY :

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

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.

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

Some of the literature on this subject goes over possibilities and traits of what we are looking for. With imprints it obviously clouds the issue.

I am wondering if anyone would be game, like on the Dan Patrick show on the sportsradio (hts & wts given for pants lol )..., to lay out their personal footprint dimensions. I suspect it might be easier to obtain a chart already inscribed with a range of acceptable sapiens print dimensions. My question here is .. HOW EASY or DIFFICULT is it to reasonably determine the difference? Is it beyond our capability ?

1.) obviously following tracks watching where they go and the distance in the stride are factors.

2.) If they do something that is so athletic that a person cannot do it..that is a strong point for being BF.

3.) Perhaps wt of the individual is so much that it doesnt jive with the small dimensions of the footprint observed.

My foot dimension: 3.8 in wide at base of toes (widest part of foot) x 8.75 in (fr end of toe under nail to heel) & heel width: 2.9in.

These measurements are general.. actual dimensions just a tad under likely. Accuracy within .1 in or so

Just some ideas..

Edited December 30, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

I've been beating my head against the same **** wall for weeks with these guys...understand that most of our resident "skeptics" are in fact for all intents and purposes firmly in the "there is no bigfoot" camp and ain't budging short of someone hauling in a dead bf for their dissection table.

No amount of reasoning or logic is going to change that, unfortunately.

Bolding mine

That's not true, because questions are asked now we are all "non-believers"?

The logic is, with the evidence at hand, there's not enough proof that it does exist.

That's simple reasoning

[Guest]

I've been beating my head against the same **** wall for weeks with these guys...understand that most of our resident "skeptics" are in fact for all intents and purposes firmly in the "there is no bigfoot" camp and ain't budging short of someone hauling in a dead bf for their dissection table.

No amount of reasoning or logic is going to change that, unfortunately.

Mulder, who cares if they change their minds? Just do your own thing bro. You can just argue with me about Bigfoot.

[Hairy Man]

I personally have seen five events of tracks (some single, others trackways). The most impressive was in the snow where the individual turned and walked back in it's own tracks, leaving toes at each end of the track. The walking stride was greater than my husband's (who is 6 feet tall) - but at one point whatever it was took off running and the stride nearly doubled. There were no other human prints in the area. The toes were dynamic throughout the event. No one knew we would be in the area and the tracks were fairly fresh. I have a lot of experience with bear prints and have seen double tap bear prints before - these were not bear. I have not had a sighting, but the prints have left me convinced that there is something out there.

Edited December 31, 2010 by HairyMan