Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That depends on the substrate and how it is distributed. Do you know both those variables? Or better yet, even one? And if the individual is running. Running would do two things: increase the depth as well as increase the stride giving the illusion of something big walking normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Couldn't the Bigfoot have walked that road, and specifically in the softer substrate, on purpose, to insure his footprints would be the most visible? Perhaps it was a subtle kind of warning to the 'invaders' that he and his family were not happy with all of the construction in their territory. If they break tree limbs and throw rocks to warn people that they are too close, I don't have a problem believing that such an intelligent creature would leave so many tracks as a warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Couldn't the Bigfoot have walked that road, and specifically in the softer substrate, on purpose, to insure his footprints would be the most visible? Perhaps it was a subtle kind of warning to the 'invaders' that he and his family were not happy with all of the construction in their territory. If they break tree limbs and throw rocks to warn people that they are too close, I don't have a problem believing that such an intelligent creature would leave so many tracks as a warning. Would that be typical behavior for a female and young? I don't know. Territorial male, very possibly, IMO, but the male apparently had vanished by then. Maybe they were just curious and looking to see if the invaders left any lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This is the first time I've seen this information and as you can see from this thread it's a pretty hot topic. IMO and this is just a complete gut feel from seeing this for the first time. Is it possible a bunch of guys got together made some fake feet and drove down this road and by whatever method started laying down tracks while downing a few cold ones just for s@"# and giggles and then it a little out of hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Thanks for that acknowledgement. It pretty much settles any question on your "side". and what side is that, Hunster? And you do not have any reliable evidence that those wooden feet were created in the year the tracks were found, you have no reliable evidence that those wooden feet made the tracks, and you have Green discounting the possibility that wooden feet made all the tracks, if any. You don't think the photos comparing the feet and the tracks match? Agreed. I'd love to see some, if they exist. I've seen others from another trackway that clearly illustrated dynamic footprints, and you (among others) pooh poohed those, too. What tracks would that be? What do you mean by "pooh poohed"? It's the same, old pattern from "your side". what pattern and what side? I don't have them, don't know if they exist, and will not seek them. I don't need to. I accept Green's statements. I believe him. If you don't, perhaps you should find them. Yup. And/or continued speculation, sniping, doubt, denial, etc. Or both. Oh, ok, well sounds like you enjoy that, have a good time with that. Edited February 20, 2011 by wolftrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 You misunderstand, Mulder. Wolftrax made a clear attack on you with his "sides" statement. I called him on it. He quickly replied that his statement was, indeed, an attack on you (the arguer) and not on the argument. I wanted to acknowledge his admission as honorable, which I think it was. Fair enough, huntster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 And if the individual is running. Running would do two things: increase the depth as well as increase the stride giving the illusion of something big walking normally. Running. While wearing wooden sandals which are poorly attached to ones foot. Not only on the road, but (as Green and others testified and documented) in a creekbed. Stated by a person (or his family stated that he stated that) who was known for dishonesty. Yeah. Right. You may believe that, but I don't. I believe Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This is the first time I've seen this information and as you can see from this thread it's a pretty hot topic. IMO and this is just a complete gut feel from seeing this for the first time. Is it possible a bunch of guys got together made some fake feet and drove down this road and by whatever method started laying down tracks while downing a few cold ones just for s@"# and giggles and then it a little out of hand? Think about all that would have had to be done to pull off this hoax: make many many foot forms (3 sizes, multiple toe positions and other anatomical details, etc) lay down not one but 3 distinct trackways along the road and off it do this in the middle of the night (it would take many hours, we are talking about literally 100s of tracks total) do it with a minimum of additional equipment do it without getting caught I could probably add more stipulations relating to conditions on the ground at the time if I wanted to, but it would only further hammer in the point that this was not the sort of endeavor that a bunch of Jimmy Joe Bubba Bobs would get together on a lark and just go do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 do it without getting caught Well that would apply to both hoaxers and bigfoot, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Hey just my first reaction to the pictures posted nice soft looking dirt and a road. But obviously you've put a lot more though into this than us Bubbas and I am quite sure as evident by your numerous and exhaustive posts you could baffle me easily with your pretzel logic and your assumptive grasp of science and of course your always charming condescending attitude. But I digress thank you Mr. Mulder for clearing that up for me I don't know what I was thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Well that would apply to both hoaxers and bigfoot, right? For the bf it's a simple matter of just walking down the stretch of road in question in the dark...which they do all the time (walk in the dark, not necessarily down a road). Takes all of maybe a couple of minutes to lay down the 100s of tracks. The alleged hoax would take several hours to pull of at a minimum even assuming more than one person worked on it. And the hoaxers would be FAR more conspicuous than a bf, needing lights, making noises, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 A sasquatch walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints. A hoaxer puts on wooden feet and walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints. How would this be different in time length? Different toe positions have not been shown. What other anatomical details have been shown besides square toes, unusual double ball with a huge instep, and a crack in the heel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 A sasquatch walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints. A hoaxer puts on wooden feet and walks down a road at night leaving 100s of footprints. How would this be different in time length? Different toe positions have not been shown. What other anatomical details have been shown besides square toes, unusual double ball with a huge instep, and a crack in the heel? there was an infinite amount of variation. No one of the many people who saw them while we were there ever suggested any possibility of hoaxing, nor have I heard of anyone who saw them suggesting it since. John Green, email, 2011 For the last time, your proof he is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 That was for the last time? Ok. So far what we have been shown, there's no reason to think this wasn't out of the realm of possibility for Wallace to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 What's your proof he is right? (yawn) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts