salubrious Posted September 16, 2012 Moderator Posted September 16, 2012 1-big toe is crazy big 2-smaller toes round back like human toes do from shoes... BF toes do not. 3-for an animal that places its foot flat, the deepest impression is from the heel and big toe??? Would not be a solid heel strike.. 4- no clear pressure ridge of ANY kind from the mid-tarsal area Sorry friends... I could def.be wrong, but this is what I see.. don't mean to bash by any stretch, just trying to be subjective If the print was made while fox-walking, there would be no heel strike- the toes would be leading. Thanks for the photo post. There appears to be an argument for a MTB. Interesting. This photo is nice to look at but has a lot of problems from an analysis point of view! If you get more opportunities to take photos, here are some tips: * do not put the track in shadow as in this example! * Never place an object in the track itself. Place it to the side! * Take the shot by standing to the side of the track and make a landscape rather than portrait shot. Never set foot in-between tracks; always walk beside the trackway! * try to shoot the track with sunlight at an angle- 10:AM and about 3:PM are good times. Noon is bad. This will improve highlights in the track. * Take one photo that shows the entire track and every thing around it for at least a foot. Take a second shot that has the track fill the screen. If you can take two additional shots, one the front half and the other the rear half. The more detail the better. * An additional shot with the track between the camera and the light source, with the camera off to the side of the track and close to the ground can be really helpful. So in all each track should get 5 shots. * if the track can be preserved it is better to shoot it in sunlight than on a cloudy day. If not possible, wait until the light is low and use artificial light and time delay. IOW you want to avoid overhead light and ambient (cloudy day) light. All tracks contain information about where to find the next track. Try and find it. In this case the creature was looking slightly to the left when this foot was on the ground. The next track is about 5 feet after this one, almost directly ahead (not to the right and ahead but directly ahead). It was looking to go in the direction it was looking. It was moving slowly and trying to be quiet. That is all I can make out on this one. If the lighting was better there might be a lot more info available.
Guest Vann Johnson Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 salubrious, please know that the photo posted was one of the first tracks we encountered. At that time, we weren't prepared for our future discovery. Long story short...this all started when an associate of mine, an independent biologist was contracted to document a migration of wolves into a certain area. I supplied the horses and pack mules on the first explority trip (she wasn't carrying along all of her high tech equipt, it was more of a reconnaisance mission to scout out area for future base camp) Wolves not found, but something else was. At that time, the only camera along was my little pocket diggie. Subsequent missions had all the tools and gizmos. Let me tell you something weird: the creatures we encountered did not seam to overally fear us or the horses UNTIL we were horseback. My associate theorizes that the combination of horse-rider might of appeared like a much larger and threatening thing to them. The horses didn't seem to mind the creatures, the mules went batsh!t crazy though
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Very interesting. Could it be that humans riding on horses seem disturbingly unnatural to them? It's definitely not something they would see in the forest on a day to day bases. How about posting some of the good stuff now?
Guest Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 A low res pic with a watermark posted here makes us all witnesses to the fact that the image is your legal property. Go for it..
VincentGrimore Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Thanks for sharing! I can give you no better advice than what has already been said. Do what you think is best and I look forward to seeing more if/when you decide to share it. I'd love to see what you have just as much as everyone here, but detailed descriptions would be appreciated as well. Good luck to you.
Guest spasticskeptic Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Some folks have suggested staying away from the skeptics. To be honest, if the footage is truly as remarkable as it sounds, my very first inclination would be to discreetly offer to show it privately both to the sympathetic professionals like Melrum and Bindernagel as well as some serious-minded skeptics (Randi? Or maybe Radford? Or maybe Saskeptic? I'm not up on exactly which skeptics would best ones to contact for such an issue). Personally, I would want to know ASAP what a qualified but open-minded skeptic had to say about the footage. To my mind, this seems to make good sense.
Guest Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 If I may speak for my fellow forum members, we are all, totally, like, dying to see what you are talking about. A watermarked, grainy still ....omg, just anything. ( I don't sound desperate or anything, do I?)
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Vann, if you do decide to share images more openly on this forum I would appreciate a backstory or report of how each image came about, your field report so to speak. It might be worthwhile to start your own thread in the Sightings forum or the Film/Video forum so we can isolate discussion in an arena for the overview of your work. This particular thread is a great discussion on what other witnesses with video or photographic evidence might consider in terms of their options and a good reference for people out there that have great stuff.
beerhunter Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Good Post Vann and if you have "the Goods" then good job! I am drooling to see what you have if you a so inclined to share. I am curious what you saw that was different than the the Patterson Creature. I am fascinated in the subject, and I hate reading that there is such great evidence out there that people withhold in private collections - and I believe this has been the case in the past. I believe that the more evidence that is out for the public to see, the more folks will refrain from fearing/shooting these creatures. Education of the masses really needs to be done for Bigfoot protection.--->IMHO
Guest MikeG Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 I have bumped up the contrast in that photo, in Photoshop, then based on the stated length of the pocket knife added an inch scale (when are you lot going to start working in millimetres, for goodness sake?! ) in Autocad. I can tell you that the footprint measures 391mm or 15-3/8" long by about 165mm or 6-1/2" wide (measured at the widest part of the foot excluding the toes). Mike
scoobiestkn Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 I just wanted to add my thanks to Vann for posting the pic of the footprint and to add that an additional pic of a creature would much appreciated,preferably not too grainy tho lol. Im over in Scotland so anything posted is appreciated.. Scott
Guest Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) It sounds to me like the independant biologist is the one that has ownership of the pics and video since it was with her equipment that all this was documented and you were hired by her. Wouldn't an independant biologist that has been contracted for her services documenting wolves also have the appropriate contacts in wildlife publication to handle the BF discovery?? I would think the last place she would need to come is a web forum for such advice. I would think she already has legal representation from past projects she could use. Edited September 16, 2012 by Titleist1
Guest Cervelo Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) ^^^ That guy/gal must be a lawyer and a good one Edited September 16, 2012 by Cervelo
Guest VioletX Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 If I may speak for my fellow forum members, we are all, totally, like, dying to see what you are talking about. A watermarked, grainy still ....omg, just anything. ( I don't sound desperate or anything, do I?) No...perfectly normal, perfectly normal. It sounds to me like the independant biologist is the one that has ownership of the pics and video since it was with her equipment that all this was documented and you were hired by her. Wouldn't an independant biologist that has been contracted for her services documenting wolves also have the appropriate contacts in wildlife publication to handle the BF discovery?? I would think the last place she would need to come is a web forum for such advice. I would think she already has legal representation from past projects she could use. If I am not wrong, Vann did not say the footage was obtained during that trip, he did say there were subsequent missions, so maybe it was not the biologists equipment??
Recommended Posts