4-Toed Prints

[frap10]

Thanks Rock - I needed a good laugh today!

[Guest]

Rock, I'll try to check the book for pics this evening. It's a good book BTW. I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

[Guest]

I haven't been there since that time in '78 so it was still very rural then. Don't know what it looks like now but I doubt it's really changed that much.

I was there in 2013. The new highway really makes a difference. It's still not a big town (Fouke) but there is more outspreading and encroachment into the backwoods area than in the 1970s I believe so it feels less remote that it appeared in the movie. There is still a monster mart and a metal sculpture of the Fouke Monster nearby the mart.

I wasn't comfortable going down some dead end forest roads as there were a lot of homesteads around and I felt like I was messing with people's privacy. The person I was with (from Dallas) felt uncomfortable too so we didn't do too much of that.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest]

It's a good book BTW. I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

 

 

Yes it's a good book I agree. My copy is weathered and beaten up after I took it to Fouke for my trip. Wish it didn't get bashed up so bad. Lots of great info in the book that I never knew before.

 

Rock, there is a picture of the track and the cast in the book but they aren't too clear and I don't have a scanner.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Rockape]

Thanks guys, I figured I could find some on the net, and did, but they aren't that great. Here's Loren Coleman and someone holding up a cast at the Bigfoot store/museum in Fouke, looks like a regular print not three toed...

 

 

 

And here's another small photo, looks like a regular print also, but I  see 4 toes.

 

 

I find these three toed prints interesting. It seems like more of a "Southern Squatch" thing, the Fouke Monster, there have been some from Florida I believe, also the Momo in Missouri, plus, the Honey Island Swamp monster from Louisiana.

 

I think at least some of the Honey Island prints were faked or mistakes, they were actually alligator prints...

 

 

 

 

Fouke is getting a little far north for gators, but they are in the area. Missouri though I think we can rule out gators. I found a few other interesting things while searching though, for instance the first Fouke Monster sighting recorded was by a woman in 1908.

 

I also found this photo of the Red River where there was a sighting recently. This looks exactly like where we were camped.

 

 

[Martin]

Honey Island Hoax : http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/suspect.htm

I think someone in Harlan Fords family show J Michael the actual stompers.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Martin

[Guest Crowlogic]

Honey Island Hoax : http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/suspect.htm

I think someone in Harlan Fords family show J Michael the actual stompers.

You mean some dastardly villian made a hoax in that most  noble field of crypto science?  Why hoax something? Why not just go out and catch a real monster, they're out there.

[Rockape]

Honey Island Hoax : http://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/suspect.htm

I think someone in Harlan Fords family show J Michael the actual stompers.

Did they hoax the entire thing? I remember a video too. An ambiguous blob-squatch video, but a video nontheless.

 

You mean some dastardly villian made a hoax in that most  noble field of crypto science?  Why hoax something? Why not just go out and catch a real monster, they're out there.

 

Why don't you give it a rest, m'kay?

[Martin]

Did they hoax the entire thing? I remember a video too. An ambiguous blob-squatch video, but a video nontheless.

If I recall correctly one of Harlan's children was also involved in making the video and confessed. Maybe it was the same one who produced the stomper.

You mean some dastardly villian made a hoax in that most  noble field of crypto science?  Why hoax something? Why not just go out and catch a real monster, they're out there.

Yeah.... go figure.

[Guest]

Why don't you give it a rest, m'kay?

 

Hard to stop somebody who is on a mission.

 

That second pic with the cast looks to be a different cast than the one in Blackburn's book, which is of the 'original 1971 cast'.

 

And yes that pic of the Red River looks like very much similar to where I was too but then a lot of things down there look similar.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

A huge problem in determining the cause of a four-toed sasquatch is the fact that scientists do not thoroughly understand what causes such birth defects in humans, at least 50% of the time. I think that a four-toed sasquatch is born that way. It is simply a birth defect, where abnormal development occurs in the womb. The causes range from exposure to certain toxins to parental genetic abnormalities and infections. The thing about inbreeding is that it would have to occur between relatives more closely related than cousins. Throughout history there was not a stigma on first cousins marrying, as this is more recent. Offspring produced by first cousins only carry an extra 3% chance of birth defects, which is basically negligible...at least in 97% of cases, lol. So basically, the closer the relation, the greater the chance of birth defects. This is known as the coefficient of inbreeding, and it increases the more closely related the copulating individuals happen to be.

 

One of the main problems of inbreeding is the appearance of recessive traits that otherwise would be unlikely to appear. Another important factor is how widespread the inbreeding actually is among the population. If the inbreeding population is relatively small, then certain defects are going to be quite prevalent, but only over a short period of time, as natural selection will work its magic and "fix" the situation, as the recessive alleles that have been running amok will decrease relatively quickly.

 

The reason I mention this is because some believe the population of sasquatch is already very small. If this were the case, then the genetic variation would already be limited, thus inbreeding would serve to further reduce variation, resulting in (most likely) population decline. I believe that it has been shown that inbreeding can reduce fertility, so I imagine that if the inbreeding population accounts for the entire population, that the species would eventually go extinct. IF this is how it works, then it is highly unlikely that the sasquatch population is one large inbred group. If this were the case, obvious defects would likely be apparent to eyewitnesses. Unless that defect was not visible of course.

 

In my personal opinion, I doubt that a four-toed sasquatch is all that common over the whole population. IF it is the result of inbreeding, I personally would expect the effect to be geographically localized, depending of course on the range of the sasquatch and how often they move from one geographic location to another. I just mean that it is not out of the realm of possibility that, only in certain regions, sasquatch may have resulted to inbreeding due to a small population. However, I personally believe sasquatch can cover vast distances in a relatively short period of time, and that this serves to ensure genetic diversity. Perhaps what drives their migration is in fact to seek this diversity and to produce healthy offspring.

 

I have often stated my belief in an increasing sasquatch population, and this would be unlikely if there was not genetic diversity. I arrived at my belief through analyzing sightings across North America, and realizing that only a relatively large population could account for the number of reports. Coupled with the fact that only a small percentage of sasquatch are likely to ever be seen by a human, it makes sense to me that their population must be relatively large. It has been stated that the minimum viable population for sasquatch is around 1,000 individuals. Now, can anyone imagine a population of 1,000 individuals accounting for all the sightings in North America? I can't. My best guess is a population greater than 10,000.

 

I am getting way off topic I suppose, but I just wanted to give a little background into my thinking regarding the idea of the sasquatch population, since it relates to inbreeding, which relates to the idea of a four-toed sasquatch being the result of inbreeding. Of course there are probably other reasons that a sasquatch would only have four toes. Perhaps an accident? Or maybe mother sasquatch have a tendency to bite off their child's toes? It sounds ridiculous, but given what we know at this point it is still a possibility. A weird one, but a possibility nonetheless. For me to actually answer your question regarding the cause, I think I would need to have a better idea of just how many four-toed tracks have been found. From there, we can eliminate a certain percentage of them as being hoaxes, maybe around 10-25%, and then estimating the actual number of four-toed sasquatch based upon the number of five-toed tracks have been found, and comparing the two. If it turned out that a large number of four-toed sasquatch are to be expected, then there would be multiple possible explanations. Everything from a different, four-toed species, to inbreeding. If however we estimated only a small number of four-toed individuals, then explanations such as accidents and isolated cases of inbreeding could be more plausible explanations.

[TD-40]

I found the reference to a 4 toed print in Tribal Bigfoot. Page 225. This occurred just over the California border in Oregon near Grants Pass. On page 226 Paulides gives his opinion on 4 toed prints:

The four-toed print is unusual. The foot was not unusual in its appearance other than it had only four toes. I know there are groups in the bigfoot community that believe any number of toes other than five on a foot is a hoax; I disagree. There have been many legitimate sightings where four-toed prints were found. I don't have an explanation as to why some feet have different numbers of toes.

[Guest]

^^^

That information seems to follow what I posted for Oregon.   I don't see many of them in reports that I read but found it to be curious enough to make mental note of them.