Jump to content

Sasquatch Track Features - Are We Wrong ?


NathanFooter

Recommended Posts

I have been thinking about tracks and the features the standard model we have show but are we wrong or is there more than one type, one even more human like from head to the toe.

 

  I and 6 or 7 other researchers who operate in wild and dense areas have run across these odd tracks that seem to disagree with the mid tarsal break theory because they have a hint of a arch.     They show a larger , flat and slightly wider version of a modern human structured foot with flat lying toes.  Some also say that the mid tarsal break may be an artifact on tracks produced by the longer stride witch may tighten the levered angle of the shin in relation to the push off point in the forefoot therefore pushing the soil back into the track to leave the look of a break in the track.    

 

What are your thoughts, what kinds of prints have you found and what features have you noticed ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not being sure who "we" are, I tend to go with scientists of relevant expertise who have examined lots of tracks.

Sometimes things that appear anomalous can show up in a trackway. But the broad characters so far identified can stand, I think, until a lot of further information shows them invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I found a track line in '74.   I don't actually remember the tracks, I remember some facts about them I set to memory.   They were not stereotypical bigfoot tracks, they were at the upper end of the scale for length but were comparatively narrow without a lot of taper along their length.  5 toes but I don't recall how long the toes seemed.   The arch area was funny, seemed minimal enough the tracks almost looked slightly curved.   I don't recall a mid-tarsal break but that doesn't mean anything.   The step length, from right foot to left foot, was *immense*.

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's a lot of variation in human feet too.

 

What stuff like this tells me is:  scientists might want to take more interest in this topic so we can start sorting things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Some of what you're suggesting was done quite a long time ago.  Are you familiar with Henner Fahrenbach's track data analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  It's only one of several such reviews indicating a potential natural source for sasquatch evidence.

 

It's just that we very clearly don't have the critical mass engaged in the question that I think is needed to move forward toward proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I'm not looking for proof.  I already know, don't need to know x 2.  I've moved on to seeking understanding.  That's a different thing.  I've studied the BF community.  I know in advance that once I have what I'm looking for I may not be able to share.   I've seen the bigfoot community turn on people who seem to have found what I'm after and tried to share it.  Unless the overall pathology within the BF community changes, I won't fare any better.   Why subject myself to that?

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tracks I had found last year in an area I scouted looked like the greys harbor prints but without the tarsal bones showing off the side of the foot , the size was 12 , 1/2 inches in length by 5. , 3/4 inches wide and in the middle of a vast cedar swamp following this creek.   There was thorny blackberry brambles and nettles everywhere, no person in there right mind should have been back there barefoot. 

 

I photographed the 2 prints but I lost them when our laptop crashed { backing up everything now } , I sat there scratching my head for about 20 minutes . 

 

Several times since I have come across other tracks like this and they where in places where people should not be walking, let alone barefoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan, have you seen Sasquatch Ontario's channel on Youtube? He has photographed a huge number of tracks, and the quality of the photos is great (he's a professional photographer). Anyway, many of the tracks have the characteristics you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about tracks and the features the standard model we have show but are we wrong or is there more than one type, one even more human like from head to the toe.

 

 What are your thoughts, what kinds of prints have you found and what features have you noticed ?

 

I think there must be more than one type, too. The few I have found here are much more human like, but much wider that most human feet would be. The dermal ridges run lengthwise, rather than across the heel like ours.

 

I got some pictures of a track that a friend found near their stock pond, & it had that "almost curved look" that MIB mentioned. It had the appearance of hair impressions around the heel. The BF appeared to have jumped up on a mound of dirt, slipped, & landed mostly on it's heel, leaving no toe prints with the track. It was still a very interesting print.

 

The pictures are posted on several threads here. Here's a link:  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/965-bigfoot-makes-house-calls/page-25#entry26650

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think there must be more than one type, too. The few I have found here are much more human like, but much wider that most human feet would be. The dermal ridges run lengthwise, rather than across the heel like ours.

 

I got some pictures of a track that a friend found near their stock pond, & it had that "almost curved look" that MIB mentioned. It had the appearance of hair impressions around the heel. The BF appeared to have jumped up on a mound of dirt, slipped, & landed mostly on it's heel, leaving no toe prints with the track. It was still a very interesting print.

 

The pictures are posted on several threads here. Here's a link:  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/965-bigfoot-makes-house-calls/page-25#entry26650

 

 

Just so you know, the two features you cite (wider than human in proportion to length and lengthwise dermal ridges) are common to sasquatch tracks accepted as potentially genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another thread where I posted the pictures, but can't find it at the moment, Damndirtyape seemed to think the track was likely to be genuine. (Although a few skeptics thought "somebody made it with their thumb).  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

NathanFooter -

 

Sort of a tangent ... Jaime Avalos reports somewhat the same thing, large, more human tracks, I think in the Sierras.   Might be worth trying to talk to him.  

 

MIB

 

PS: Thanks for asking this question ... you've triggered some questions about patterns I don't know how to answer ... yet.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NathanFooter,

 

By a bit of an arch, could it be the hourglass shaped tracks.

 

An what of the other tracks, you said you've come across them several times since, any photos of them ? 

 

The mid tarsal break is also suggested by the half tracks found, which just so happens to correlate with the mid foot pressure ridges found in some tracks, an is also visible in the P/G filmed sasquatch.

 

Pat...

post-279-0-71209200-1368734748_thumb.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...