Footprints

[Guest ShadowPrime]

We often return to the subject of what is "reasonable skepticism" - and I am all for it. However, while I think there is some validity to the "just because you don't know how it can be faked doesn't mean it can't be faked" school of thought, I think there is also a danger, with that kind of thinking, of using that as a means to dismiss anything and everything short of a body. And even there, hey, if that is your standard, all well and good. But I don't think it is the only REASONABLE standard. If it is difficult to explain how something could be faked, think you have to be at least open to the possibility that it WASN'T faked, versus simply saying "Well, I don't know how it could be faked, but I am sure it could be". IMHO.

To me, it is hard to imagine evidence that PROVES the existence of BF, short of a body or body part. However, I find much, short of that, to be supportive of the POSSIBILITY of BF being out there, perhaps even the PROBABILITY of BF being out there, which is why I have an interest in the subject, why I devote some time to it.

As to the footprints... if it was "just" the matter of strapping on some big carved oversize feet and stomping around, I wouldn't be as intrigued. And yes, I am aware that at least some prints have been faked in just this way, and that some probably continue to be. I also am sure that such prints could fool many, especially the inexperienced. However - as I noted above - I find the dynamic nature of many of the prints, the features reflecting changing toe orientation, gripping and pushoff, interaction with the substrate, etc, to be compelling, and I find it interesting that many such features have been observed in older casts, while having gone largely without comment whent he casts were taken. The dermal ridges also intrigue, but I am aware that at least some folks suggest these are actually casting artifacts, so in that case, I am staying on the fence until I hear more. Just saying, with the footprints, I think we have physical trace evidence of a pretty compelling nature. To me.

And Hairy Man - very jealous of your trackway experience. I don't live in a "BF area" myself, so I have to be satisfied with reading reports online. Very very cool - thanks for sharing.

Shadow

[Guest]

Well said Shadow. I am very appreciative of this thread.

Edited December 31, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

I don't think bigfoot tracks look like human tracks. I'ld like to see the person that has a smaller version of a foot similar to bigfoot. It would seem like it would be obvious in looking at it that it wasn't human. Determining whether it was a hoax would be harder.

[Guest]

With this track find, did you rule out human adolescent shoes making what appear to be toes? Click on pic to see what I am talking about.

[Guest]

Question.

What is the purpose of casting prints? What scientific application can be used in the study of alleged Bigfoot casts that will help progress the "research" of this phenomenon? Without a specimen foot to compare these prints to, the only use I have seen for them are "trophies" for investigators. Even the work of Dr. Meldrum is full of guess work and theory.

[Guest tirademan]

Mmmmm...fresh footprints.

Found this the other day...dark clothing and hat, wading in January, uh...sasquatch.

Footprints do provide some conundrums!

tirademan

[indiefoot]

DDA, if they were small shoe prints I would expect to see others near by.

The problem I have with photos of footprints is that I want to see context, show me photos of the area where the print was found. Show me whether I should expect to see other footprints near by and whether they are indeed there. If there are other prints, what do they look like?

One cropped photo doesn't tell me enough about the evidence as a whole.

Maybe it's the photographer in me but show me, don't tell me. Lot's of pictures.

[Branco]

Here's a point to consider. The tightrope effect could be the result of a person walking on stilts. Stilts will give you an added stride length as will as resulting in a less straddled walk.

"Tightrope effect"? In-line, bipedal tracks are those left by experienced woodsmen,hunters and hikers, clothed or hirsute.

Of all the areas in the fifteen states I have prowled for nearly forty years,and followed a lot of BF tracks, none of those track lines could have been made by a "person walking on stilts". Had a person even tried, there would have been physical evidence of that endeavor, i.e., blood, skin fragments, eye balls left on blackjack oak limbs, splintered stilts between boulders, or at least one noticeable impact indentation.

This was an interesting and informative thread until those stilts walked in.

[Guest]

Branco, it still is and even more so with the post you just made.

[Guest vilnoori]

LOL! Hippies and stilts. What silly ideas. One set of tracks I saw were made in early winter, not far from the snow line. Some were in the water and some on sand. They were exceedingly deep and wide and it looked like the maker was trying to conceal their tracks to some point. They were made far from the (very bad) road, a hike in of an hour or so. Yes, people do hike here, but not barefoot in December and especially not weighing upwards of 400 pounds, to create the depth of track that I saw. I am a big lady over 250 pounds and my (booted) tracks in the same area created tracks only a fraction of the depth. There were also clear bear tracks in the same substrate that were only half as deep as those tracks. That was a very, very large so called "hippie." How many people on stilts weigh that much? And this was an impromtu trip, I told no one (except my babysitter) of my destination that day and was not too specific about where exactly my hike would be at the destination. It was certainly not faked. The only reason those tracks did not totally convince me is that there were only two of them, the rest of the trackway seems to have been deliberately concealed by the maker, most falling in the stream leading to the beach of a lake.

[Guest]

Which seems to be part of the puzzle time and time again... concealment. So in your mind, what options do we have regarding the weight mass potential of the footprint maker ? My Q: HOW were they made? Options ? And can I ask the approx size of the prints ? Would not someone on stilts work especially hard to present the work to provide the observers with the slyness of his or her craft? (providing fake footprints to have fun with us..)

[Guest]

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

I just had to respond to this.

I have found (in my own personal experience) for the skeptic, I do not ask enough questions - or they are the wrong questions. For the firm believer I ask too many questions and maybe I should just "believe". Often times I hear what I should think, regardless of what I said.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere.. I haven't found it yet.. LOL. It should also be pointed out, there are different "levels" or "forms" of skepticism. I think the one we see or notice most often is the most critical form of skepticism. Skepticism has its place, but if skepticism hinders discovery, I must ask myself if its helpful or more of a road block to the end goal of what we are all trying to do.

I will never stop being skeptical, but I am not as "hardcore" as some.

On another note, JC. Excellent question. Ever seen the inside of a "evidence locker" at a police station? There you will find many "Trophies" or items just waiting to be connected to a specific person or crime. Do the police throw these things out simply because they are not the "proof" necessary to solve the crime or make an arrest? No. These things are kept, and preserved, because in time new evidence may surface or a person may be arrested and that "trophy" may turn into "evidence" that brings forth an outcome or a more indepth study of the situation. You might be shocked at the kinds of items that are taken in as evidence by police during an investigation of a crime. Sometimes, what is gathered seems pointless.

It is up to us, the researchers, to make sure that we use the best techniques for gathering evidence and preserving it. Granted, there are some who simply do not care, but for those who do, this material down the road may serve a greater purpose.

That is just my opinion.

[Guest squatchrider]

IMO there are surely hoaxes out there. People love to play jokes on other people and see how far they can take it. These people do this for the thrill though. There is not going to be much thrill in going in to a VERY remote area, making sure you leave no tracks or evidence that you have been there, hoax some tracks, then get out of the area leaving no trail, and then hope that someone finds these tracks before they degrade to unidentifiable. People want more of a reward from their efforts than this is likely to give.

Stilts? Really? I have seen some pretty amazing circus/street performer acts on stilts and even with all of their skill and talent they require a very stable footing to perform on stilts and not bust their necks. I want to see the stilt artist who can walk up an uneven leaf and rock covered damp slope in a very remote area with fake feet on the bottom of their stilts leaving believable or even somewhat believable organic footprints. I'm pretty sure that if someone has these skills they will be putting them to better use than faking Bigfoot tracks in remote wooded areas in hope that they will be discovered.

[17x7]

LOL! Hippies and stilts. What silly ideas.

I've seen a lot of hippies. It's true that they seem to have a fondness for bare-footedness (as well as just plain old bareness), but I've never encountered one with 17" long feet. I suppose it could happen, but goodness sakes that's a lot of foot.

Now, as to "can it have been faked?" The one clear track I've found could have been. The problem is that it was off the road. There was a game trail that was hard packed and dry. It had one mole hill of fresh soil on it. In that one spot of fresh, soft soil was the track. You would not have seen it from anywhere other than if you had been walking that pathway. BUT, it could have been faked. It just seemed very unlikely that there is some guy spending his free weekends walking around random deer trails looking for a dirt pile to fake a print in, just hoping that somebody will walk down that trail, see it, recognize it, and care. That part makes me confident that it was real. I guess that's the point that I would make: Almost anything can be faked. The question is "Does the probability of it having been faked make us confidence that it wasn't?" That won't win any articles in Scientific American, but it does give me confidence.

17x7

[Guest UPs]

Question.

What is the purpose of casting prints? What scientific application can be used in the study of alleged Bigfoot casts that will help progress the "research" of this phenomenon? Without a specimen foot to compare these prints to, the only use I have seen for them are "trophies" for investigators. Even the work of Dr. Meldrum is full of guess work and theory.

I am no expert in tracks or casting of such, but one of the benefits that I could see from properly casting footprints is the ability to compare prints from different areas and time periods. Someday, IMHO, bf will be discovered and by using a database with footprints (documented by casting) there is potential to learn much more about them. For example, a bf body is found, studied, and its feet were cast. These casts matched tracks cast in an area 10 years prior and 500 miles away.

This data could eventually be used to figure out a way to study them by learning their about their movements. After reading LMS, it was obvious to me that the casts studied by the author cemented his belief that bf is a real animal. Imagine a single database containing casts of all footprints found and what that data could lead to including a better understanding of its movements, percentage of hoaxing, etc.

I believe discovery of this animal may require data as opposed to discovery leading to data. By this statement I mean that gathering enough data may allow science to formulate a plan that leads repeated observation. Personally, I have never seen a bf print but would love to cast my own and hang it on my log cabin wall. Since I am not entirely convinced they inhabit my area, that may never happen. UPs