Sasquatch Track Features - Are We Wrong ?

[NathanFooter]

The other photos of some tracks I had found also got lost from the crash , I just checked to make sure on some of my SD's. I did how ever find a very clear possible track line on May 7 during my solo research trip , I will post about the find when I have more information from Cliff and when I get a complete write up finished, past few days I have been swamped with reports and new information.

Edited May 16, 2013 by NathanFooter

[BobbyO]

Surely we'd be more inclined to think that it was just different sized and shaped feet as opposed to two completely different types of unidentified NA primate because of foot variations in different individuals wouldn't we ?

My bet is they've just evolved a little differently in the different environments that they live in.

Even in only NA aloe, the PNW to the Florida Everglades for example would highly likely require a different set up on the whole for an animal wouldn't it ?

Even down to the foot.

Would an animal that lived in the swampy type climates of the south evolve a different type of foot in time than say the same species that would live in the NW for example ?

Or not would time not allow it that much ?

[NathanFooter]

What has me thinking of that there may be another type VS variation in each individual is that with the mid tarsal break theory the bones are like a hinge in the foot allowing this foot flexion we see in some tracks , in modern humans the foot cannot flex due to the arch bone { witch creates the gap or lack of ground contact on the inside of the foot between the ball and the heel }. 

[PBeaton]

NathanFooter,

 

There is no arch bone, merely the same bones. It's the function of those bones etc. allowin' the mid foot flexibility. The human foot can often loose the arch, becomin' flat footed, same bones.  

 

Pat...

[NathanFooter]

Wow , I feel really dumb right now , for some reason I was under the impression the arch was a fixed single bone that began at the ankle and ran to the digits , I really need to go back over human anatomy.     Thanks for the correction Pbeaton .  

 

I must say though , to me this brings in a new thought to the mid tarsal break , could it is caused after massive size or weight is applied to the bone structure over many years?    If so that may explain why the smaller prints we find { under 13 inches } have a hint of an arch.

[Guest]

 

 

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

 

The ones I've actually seen were around 12" x 4" and a couple that were 15.5" x 5". The width varied a bit from the measurement noted, and narrowed at the heal ball.. like a human foot. The ball of the heal was rounded and deeper, and the most pronounced feature in the tract. The toe area resembled a human foot, but on no occasions.. could detail be seen in the individual toes, due to the terrain the tracts were found in (not ideal).  I could detect, what I think was a slight arch, in the trackway prints.. but this was much less noticeable in a single track found in semi hardened mud. There was a consistent cross ridge, which was either a push off point, or flex point.. that was approx. 1/3 back (length of track) from the front. This was consistent in all of the tracks noted and documented.

Q : Why do I think these were made by something, other than a human ?  

A :  The location , climate, and conditions in where the trackways were found (mossy forest floor, with a light snow cover). In one case,  just a single track in semi hardened mud (out in the open, on a trail). This single track was found in another location, from the trackways.. but was nearly identical to the 12"x 4" tracks. The tracks were all fairy fresh. In one case... there was a 1" branch,  broken down into a track, where that individual appeared to have stepped around a sizable tree. The flex of the foot during this impact, was apparent in the track. If it was a human, and done with phony stompers.. they must have been flexible ones. If it was a barefoot human, he / she must have had one heck of a sore foot.

Edited May 17, 2013 by imonacan

[PBeaton]

Wow , I feel really dumb right now , for some reason I was under the impression the arch was a fixed single bone that began at the ankle and ran to the digits , I really need to go back over human anatomy.     Thanks for the correction Pbeaton .  

 

I must say though , to me this brings in a new thought to the mid tarsal break , could it is caused after massive size or weight is applied to the bone structure over many years?    If so that may explain why the smaller prints we find { under 13 inches } have a hint of an arch.

NathanFooter,

 

No need ta feel dumb, it's all bout learnin', still doin' it myself. 

 

To be honest NathanFooter, I'm not familiar with tracks havin' the hint of an arch, even juvenile prints. Be interested to see some though. Personally. I think the MTB is a natural characteristic of their feet, but that's just my opinion.

 

 

Pat...

[MarkGlasgow]

Very good point Pat.

Nathan, if you were to go shopping for running shoes then you will often see a guide in the store or online showing which shape of foot is suited to each shoe. Some shoes have a very exaggerated instep for those with a high arch and some have virtually none at all for those with a flatter foot.

If human feet can differ so much then we can readily assume that a BFs will also. That is without even taking the nuances between 'species' into account. I guess most of us assume that a Skunk Ape differs in several aspects from a PNW sasquatch?

[Guest DWA]

Well, yeah.  I don't see any reason to rule out more than one species of unlisted NA hominoid.  The evidence does suggest the possibility.

 

If we haven't confirmed this yet, it might be better simply following up on anomalous footprints - regardless what characters they might exhibit - that don't, from their location and terrain in which found, seem to be those of barefoot humans.

[dmaker]

Really DWA? Grover Krantz seems to quite strongly disagree with the notion that there is more than one unidentified primate running around NA. In fact, he feels stating otherwise takes away from the general credibility of the claim.

I would quote him directly, but I am posting right now from my tablet and copy paste is kind of annoying, ,but you can read his comments easily enough in the library section of this forum if you doubt me.

[PBeaton]

I think variations within a species is possible if not likely based on environment.

 

Pat...

[MIB]

dmaker -

 

Grover Krantz was just one man.  Experienced, yes.  Since we don't know what's out there, nobody can truly be said to have expertise in an absolute sense, only more experience or less experience.   His was just an opinion.   His opinions are more than 10 years old now.  Whatever has been learned since is not included in them.   I think it would be a mistake to treat an "outdated", or at least static, opinion as authoritative in a field that is changing so rapidly.

 

I'd suggest there is enough variation that anyone seriously looking into this should consider the possibility there is indeed more than one "thing" out there, however, I don't think anyone should conclude that it is the case.   There is not enough information to base an informed decision on either for or against.   So .. a wise person would leave it as a question, perhaps a curiosity to follow up on when time and growth of our knowledge allow.

 

... just my view on it, though.   "If anyone else wants an opinion they can go get their own, mine is taken." 

 

MIB

Edited May 19, 2013 by MIB

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

While I believe tracks to be one of the greatest forms of sasquatch evidence, this is probably my least knowledgeable area when it comes to these animals. I do not study tracks or casts very much at all, and have not even made up my mind as to what characteristics are authentic and which are likely hoaxes. I would say that part of my problem is that I know there are so many tracks out there. This is a good thing, of course, because the more there are, the greater the chance some are real, statistically speaking. But, we don't know for certain which are authentic, and which are hoaxes. And then, not knowing the variations that could be possible among the sasquatch population, things just get muddier.

 

This is why I have attempted to leave track analyses to those who know more than myself, especially those who are trained in anatomy. To me it just seems there are insurmountable obstacles in this area of research, although I know I could be wrong since I don't know enough about footprints in the first place to make that determination. Common sense tells me that it would be an error to assume that all tracks would be basically identical, except for size. Size, of course, will vary, but that is the least important variable when attempting to determine authenticity, although size can be an indicator of the improbability of the track being deposited by a human in bare feet. 

 

I wonder what could make the footprints of two sasquatch so drastically different though. I mean we have all seen the casts online at least, and know some look way different. Part of this may be because we are looking at a cast itself. A cast is not going to look exactly like the foot, as there is extra material here and there. So basically we are visualizing only a portion of the cast with how the sasquatch foot would look. It can be difficult I would think, this visualization exercise. And then there is the idea that sasquatch vary from one another in different ways. Maybe the shape of their feet can vary with their location, diet, etc. I do not know if there is a precedent for this, especially in the human population, as that is not my area of expertise at all. But if there is quite a bit of variation in the human population, then the same is likely true of the sasquatch population. It may prove fruitful to examine the various shapes of tracks left by chimpanzees and orangutans as well. 

 

But if none of these groups, which are the closest thing to a sasquatch we have, show variation in the form of the feet, then I think we have to start wondering whether many of the "different" casts are hoaxes, or fakes found by honest researchers, which were left there by hoaxers to fool someone. Many track casts are basically the same in their morphology. But as you mentioned in the opening post, the mid-tarsal break is likely an important aspect. What we really need, as if anyone did not know this, is a cadaver. Or, better yet, a live bigfoot. That would be the ultimate specimen, as not only could we study anatomy, but we could also learn a lot about behavior as well.

 

Behavior interests me personally far more than anatomy or anything else about these animals. This is why my favorite sighting encounters are those that involve direct observation of behavior that differs from simply walking away, or lumbering away, as sasquatch are apt to do. Actually, the walk is very smooth, at least what I saw was quite smooth. They do seem to have a "bobble" in their step though, but this is hardly noticeable without viewing the walk in slow motion. By bobble I mean an up and down movement of the top of the head that is more pronounced than it is in humans. All of the videos that I believe to be authentic depict this type of movement in a sasquatch that is walking. Usually one must watch at a slower speed to spot this though, or at least I do. So at the end of the day there are still many questions, and I wish I had the answers. Seeing one in the flesh has just made me more determined than ever to learn and understand just how and why these animals are the way they are, and why they are here yet haven't been discovered. 

 

I have offered many of my hypotheses on these boards, some novel, some not, and I am eternally grateful that I was able to dispel any lingering doubt in my mind by having a sighting of my own. Because of that experience I am able to speak boldly about the hypotheses I believe explain why these animals have remained undiscovered...because if one "knows" they are out there, there "must" be a rational explanation for why and how they have remained hidden. And there are only so many viable explanations for this aspect of their behavior.

[dmaker]

Jiggy, didn't you just say recenty that Sasquatch are apt to flee near humans? Now you are saying they are apt to simply walk or lumber away? Those are not very congruent statements, so I'm a bit confused. Do they flee or do they lumber?

[Guest DWA]

They do all kinds of stuff. They're just like other animals that way. Read the reports.