SWWASAS Posted December 27, 2013 BFF Patron Author Share Posted December 27, 2013 That reminds me of what Thom Powell mentioned in one of his books or perhaps he told me in person. He had a gifting tree going and was given a piece of bone he could not recognize. He took it to a biologist and they determined it was an emu breastbone. The BF must have found an escaped emu in the woods and thought it was an enormous turkey. They are scary to be around. Will pick an earring right off a woman's ear or grab a button off a mans shirt. They can kill a dog that gets in their pen. They make an enormous booming sound when they are interested in mating. Anyone hearing that in the woods would wonder what it is. Makes me wonder if all the dinosaurs did not die out because they seem to be relic of the population. Getting run down by a herd of emus would be pretty frightening for your movie. Just like one of the scenes from "Jurassic Park" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) Take your left hand, fold your fingers in under your palm. Place the outside heel of your hand over the flattened spot at the top of the photo, aligning your knuckles with the indented rows. It appears to me this is a clear imprint of a primate's hand that was thrown down during a fall, and caught part of his weight on his left hand. Even the mound of soil in the photograph shows exactly where the cupped portion of the hand barely touched the ground. It is also pretty clear that the primate pushed off immediately after falling. This print is nearly identical to some seen in south AR and in Talladega County, AL. The ones in AR were left in the nearly dry mud out the trickle out-flow from a mountain spring in very hot weather, and gritty foot prints were left on the large rocks beside the spring'. In AL, the primate was standing on flat rocks in a small, nearly dry creek bed and put one knuckled hand print down as he leaned over to gather ripe muscadines off the ground. The length and configuration of the hand print in the photo indicates it was not made by a human. Edited March 1, 2014 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Looks a lot like this to me: Overlapping cattle prints that make a larger shape, in this case similar in size and shape to a BF foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) Take your left hand, fold your fingers in under your palm. Place the outside heel of your hand over the flattened spot at the top of the photo, aligning your knuckles with the indented rows. It appears to me this is a clear imprint of a primate's hand that was thrown down during a fall, and caught part of his weight on his left hand. Even the mound of soil in the photograph shows exactly where the cupped portion of the hand barely touched the ground. It is also pretty clear that the primate pushed off immediately after falling. This print is nearly identical to some seen in south AR and in Talladega County, AL. The ones in AR were left in the nearly dry mud out the trickle out-flow from a mountain spring in very hot weather, and gritty foot prints were left on the large rocks beside the spring'. In AL, the primate was standing on flat rocks in a small, nearly dry creek bed and put one knuckled hand print down as he leaned over to gather ripe muscadines off the ground. The length and configuration of the hand print in the photo indicates it was not made by a human. ^^^^^Seriously....are you referring to this photo? Just take the time to utilize some of the simplest photo editing tools to bring out a little more detail..this is a filtered version...obvious boot edges. Edited March 1, 2014 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Yes; seriously. Don't need to "utilize some of the simplest photo editing tools to bring out a little more detail..this is a filtered version". to see that ain't no boot track. No way. How did you discount the rest of the rest of the impression. The flat, compressed part was what part of the boot, If the heel was at the location beside the tape reel, why is there no deep, sharp imprint of it as there should be. What you are calling the heel area has the least pronounced imprint of all, when it should be the deepest. Sorry, you wasted your time and tools. BCwitness, hand prints, not foot prints. (A bull, cow and calf?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Time well spent IMO... its clearly a boot print Maybe you could support your analysis with something other than just declaring it Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Don't need to. The Info in the OP and 65 years of tracking every thing that walks, crawls or falls is a LOT more than anyone would need to to know to tell that was no boot print. Support your position regarding the flat surface above the track; your "boot" guess don't hack it if you can't. I thoroughly explained my opinion as to the WHOLE impression. You picked a part of the impression and based your opinion on that. (It is a BF knuckled hand print; I seen others to compare it to. How about you?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Sorry, Branco, I wasn't saying that the OP's photo looked like a footprint, but that it may have been made in a simlar manner to my "foot"print photo, which was, in fact, 4 cow tracks overlapping. The fact that it is mentioned to have been found at a game trail crossing area would suggest that those distinct edges in the photo could be the edges of hooves, whether cow, elk, moose, or deer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Don't need to. The Info in the OP and 65 years of tracking every thing that walks, crawls or falls is a LOT more than anyone would need to to know to tell that was no boot print. Support your position regarding the flat surface above the track; your "boot" guess don't hack it if you can't. I thoroughly explained my opinion as to the WHOLE impression. You picked a part of the impression and based your opinion on that. (It is a BF knuckled hand print; I seen others to compare it to. How about you?) Ahhhh the woodsman resume....that's a liitle played out....yeah I've spent a liitle time in the woods as well....but I've never mistaken a boot print for a Bigfoot hand print...maybe you need to get out more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 1, 2014 BFF Patron Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) You cannot evaluate the print without putting it in the context of the other evidence she found. The only other prints she found on several miles of frozen and semi-frozen muddy road were her own. If it was human she does not know how it got there. The road had been graded recently and the only tire imprints on the road were the road graders. The access gate was apparently locked after the grader finished. So in her analysis, the road grader operator was the only human that had been there just before her and previous to the imprint being made. The print was made after the road was graded and before the arrival of any other humans by car or on foot. I do not know what it was but do not think it a boot print for reasons I previously mentioned about dimensions. The supposed lugs of the boot print are just too large and would have to have been made by a boot at least 8 inches wide. My boot is 4.5 inches wide at the widest point and I wear a 12. That would have to be a very large boot, somewhere between 18 and 20 inches in length to be able to have a two 4 inch lugs across it. While I do not doubt Dr M's expertise, at times I cannot see the differentiation between what are supposedly human size BF prints and human footprints. I spend some time at the coast and always examine human footprints I find in the sand. I know they are human and often see the maker. There is a lot of variation between people like women who wear tight fitting shoes and men who probably spend a lot of time in sandals or wide toed shoes. I am very flat footed and have long toes so can see where someone might confuse my human size 12 for a BF print. So quite honestly I do not get too excited about a footprint unless it is significantly larger than my own and exhibits other BF characteristics. The larger the footprint the further outside the human norm for footprints and the more likely it to be BF. I am well aware of that norm because any men's shoe size greater than 11 is hard to find in a shoe store. The same norm size reasoning would apply to large hand prints which are even more rare than BF footprints. Randy Edited March 1, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Ahhhh the woodsman resume.... Who did you expect would be more apt to look at the track and try give the OP an opinion; a woodsman or a race car driver?????? that's a liitle played out.... Sorry, it's still working just fine. yeah I've spent a liitle time in the woods as well. Yes, "a little time" are no doubt the optimal and relative words. ...but I've never mistaken a boot print for a Bigfoot hand print... Well, the date of your first post on the OP's thread will be a sad but memorial one for you. maybe you need to get out more Nah, on 10 or 12 occasions just walk a few miles of the rough stuff off the trails, keep your compass or GPS in your pockets, and back track yourself to your vehicle without missing a track. You'll notice and remember what a boot track really looks like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 ^^^^ Well maybe spend a little more time with the photo and sometime outdoors...with boots on stomp around alittle you'll get it....maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) ^^^^ Well maybe spend a little more time with the photo and sometime outdoors...with boots on stomp around alittle you'll get it....maybe Is it really bliss? :-) Edited March 2, 2014 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 That we can agree on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) As I've suggested before I think these are partial boot prints. The area circled in red is the only part of the boot print that's left an impression. The other partial print Maybe Branco can explain what part of a Bigfoot hand makes square edges like these? Edited March 2, 2014 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts