Footprints

[norseman]

I work in Colville and have tried to get the help of the local newspaper to find old articles about the Bossburg tracks. So far I have not had much luck.

[Guest RayG]

That is correct, is it not, especially since there are numerous reports that they are, indeed, out there?

Correct. It looks like we both agree -- bigfoot is a possibility.

That is incorrect. Reports are evidence supporting the possibility.

You're losing me. We both agree bigfoot is a possibility. How does the number of reports submitted (or not submitted) prove bigfoot does NOT exist? I don't see what's incorrect.

You can't. That is why the existence of bigfoot remains a possibility.

Once again we're in total agreement. You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, and the existence of bigfoot is a possibility.

Sorry, Ray. That's just the way it is.

You don't have to apologize for agreeing with me Huntster.

RayG

[bipedalist]

Hey Ray G and Huntster both think BF is a possibility! (insert thumbs up smiley here)

[Guest vilnoori]

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?

Edited January 6, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest vilnoori]

Oh yeah, and depth of track, age of track, etc. One set of tracks I found were several days old and had leaves in them. Nevertheless in hard sand they were about an inch deep, whereas my own tracks were only less than a centimeter deep. That impressed me some.

[norseman]

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?

I would add depth of the impression. While this can be faked, I think it would be hard to fake it as it travels through different substrates, etc.

I think it's a combination of many different factors, as you've mentioned.

[Guest tirademan]

Well, this is an interesting report because of it's Bluff Creek location and date.

I'd argue you need to take into consideration the witnesses too, in this case an orthopedic surgeon and trained trapper.

Tracks on both sides of a the deep running water. Very specific mention of toes gripping as well.

Tirademan

Edited to say, ONCE AGAIN, I'd love to see those **** photos!

Edited January 6, 2011 by tirademan

[Guest BitterMonk]

I would add depth of the impression. While this can be faked, I think it would be hard to fake it as it travels through different substrates, etc.

I think it's a combination of many different factors, as you've mentioned.

I would add that, from the opposite perspective you could look for signs of hoaxing. No artificial pressure ridges or fracturing, no monolithic margin, and no artificial angles among other things and you might be on to something.

[Guest Spazmo]

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

[Guest BitterMonk]

There's always the risk that any evidence discussion could turn into an opportunity for would-be hoaxers to step their game up.

[Guest]

In chat today, a question came up among us, What were the smallest footprints you have seen? Which is a good question to present to members here. Could you describe the smallest apparent bigfoot footprints you know of or have seen ? For me, I have heard about 4 inches and perhaps a bit smaller but about 4 inches. That was from a private person who found them when measuring some larger tracks. I would love to hear what people have heard of or have seen.

Edited January 14, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest ShadowPrime]

While I guess this could be considered a subset of "uniqueness of each print", I would throw in "interaction with the ground" as another intriguing factor. Say a print where the subject moved up an incline and you could "see" toes digging in or "pulling/pushing" the ground/mud, that kind of thing.

Shadow

[southernyahoo]

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?

Vil, this may go with your # 3 point but real feet have a soft tissue pad and will distinguish itself from (hard cut out stompers) in tilled up soil like someones garden.

[Guest]

Thanks SY, Shadow. There is sooo much experience by board members regarding their experiences with tracks, auditory and some possible obs.. that its a shame to not milk it in this thread. So.. I am going to be trying. Appreciate all comments of any kinds regarding footprints. For me that is a hard experience to get.. impressions are one thing, but the nice detailed track with toe separation and ease of measurements are just rarely seen in many peoples experiences. So.. for those who take these for granted, I would sure like some measurements.. widths and lengths. It would be interesting to compare this across the board from different states.

[Guest vilnoori]

I'd also like to recommend that people start carrying a small dollar-store tape measure. It is the greatest thing when you see a track to pull out the thing and take a decent picture with good measurements instead of chucking in your lighter or your own foot. Let's get a little professional about this. And if you have two tracks you need to measure the distance between them, heel to heel, so you get an idea of what distance the stride is (2x the distance from heel to heel). Measuring from the heel is more accurate since degree of toe scrunching can vary. Approximately double the stride gives you an estimate of the height of the individual. You can test this on yourself.

Stride length is another thing to test for. Stride is amazingly consistent, as long as terrain is unvarying. If there is a lot of variation in stride lengths it could also be a red flag, because a hoaxer has to take a lot of trouble to make sure the steps are going to be the same distance, if he/she has a manual stomper. If its a wheel contraption or something strapped to the feet that is going to give a consistent stride though.