Twist Posted November 16, 2015 Author Posted November 16, 2015 Alligator would make sense. I just googled alligator prints and they do closely resemble what most 3 toed BF casts look like.
Shelly Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 A lot of the three toed prints I have seen, especially in the South, look like alligator tracks. They are about the size of them too. I think if someone came in with a 18" three toed track I would have to consider it being a fake. For four toes,, and, I guess three to a lesser degree, you could be seeing either an injury where bigfoot lost a toe or two, or just all of the toes didnt make contact for a particular print. There are some reports of tracks more like Yeti tracks with what seems like an opposable big toe, more like a Gorilla.
jayjeti Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) The other possibility is that the BF was born with the proper amount of toes and that injury, disease, or snake bite made some toes fall off. Injury could result in four toes, but in cases where there is a track way showing both feet with four toes then injury is improbable. I just wonder how many of these three, four, or six toed prints are just a single footprint, and where these other factors such as injury, abnormal birth, or two toes appearing as one, or other factors might leave a false impression. Edited November 17, 2015 by jayjeti
JDL Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 They could actually be five toes with a splay between the fourth and fifth toe, and the pair of toes on either side leaving a combined impression. Depends on he quality of the tracks and of the tracker.
Guest DWA Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 There are a number of reasons all five toes won't print (foot deformity, many of which are minor; toe flex during the step; substrate; contact not made with all five digits; etc.). There are a number of reasons the animal might not have all five of the toes it was (or should have been) born with.
Guest Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 The other possibility is that the BF was born with the proper amount of toes and that injury, disease, or snake bite made some toes fall off. Injury could result in four toes, but in cases where there is a track way showing both feet with four toes then injury is improbable. I just wonder how many of these three, four, or six toed prints are just a single footprint, and where these other factors such as injury, abnormal birth, or two toes appearing as one, or other factors might leave a false impression. I'd argue that there might be some kinds of injury that could happen more or less symetrically. I'm thinking frostbite, if your outer toes on one foot get cold enough to be damaged, odds are the toes on the other foot are experiencing the same conditions.
SWWASAS Posted November 18, 2015 BFF Patron Posted November 18, 2015 Good point but I don't think deep frostbite is too much of a problem in Florida anyway. Winters in Michigan and Minnesota are a different story. I have no idea how BF could avoid winter frostbite there on their feet and hands.
Twist Posted November 18, 2015 Author Posted November 18, 2015 I would assume their feet would be plenty protected by thick pads. Most animals in the northern areas adjust, dogs for example. I think it's probably safe to assume human feet were at one time much more robust than they are now since the advent of shoes.
Guest DWA Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 It's simply a matter of adaptation. Caribou feet are different from chital feet; sun bear feet different from polar bear. It's reasonable to presume this critter wouldn't have what, say, a chimp or a gorilla would. (Or us, our adaptations taking a different route thanks to our material culture.)
Guest Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Right, I'd imagine that they are fairly frostbite resistant. If they encounter extreme cold and haven't got themselves denned up or otherwise sheltered it could be an issue though.
jayjeti Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) I would assume their feet would be plenty protected by thick pads. Most animals in the northern areas adjust, dogs for example. I think it's probably safe to assume human feet were at one time much more robust than they are now since the advent of shoes. Twist, that's an interesting point about shoes. The following article briefly mentions how wearing shoes may have played a role in reshaping our feet over the years. It's an article claiming 1 in 13 humans have a midtarsal break to varying degrees. The midtarsal break exhibited in sasquatch feet is not foreign to hominids. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-feet-primates-science-research-anthropology-study-apes-humans/ Edited November 19, 2015 by jayjeti
Twist Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) We as humans have done a lot to change a lot of what would be considered normal evolution. Back in the day evolution was driven by a need to survive. A dinosaur would over the course of a thousand years develop a longer neck to reach leaves. This created dinosaurs such as a brontosaurus. In humans our evolutionary change came as a result of surviving and passing on genes but via a means of brain power and thought. We developed fire to cook food. We developed a society and culture so the few could protect and provide for the many via cognitive thought. We advanced from a being that evolved physically to survive to a being that figured out how to survive. We find ways around issues vs. through issues. This is what sets us apart from the rest. Perhaps BF is the happy medium between man and animal?? Edited November 19, 2015 by TWlST
SWWASAS Posted November 19, 2015 BFF Patron Posted November 19, 2015 I would assume their feet would be plenty protected by thick pads. Most animals in the northern areas adjust, dogs for example. I think it's probably safe to assume human feet were at one time much more robust than they are now since the advent of shoes. We see some of that adaptation or difference between human male and female feet because of their footwear. Women do not wear socks as much and their feet actually are typically harder and thicker skinned than men. Part of a pedicure is to grind or shave off that hard skin on the heels and ball of the feet. Throw in that women wear high heels, the smallest shoe they can get their feet in, and their shoes often have pointed toes depending on the current fashion trends and you get foot deformities like bunions and hammer toe more often in women than men. Certainly the feet of humans that have never worn shoes in their lives are different than the feet of humans who have. You see it mostly in the toes.
Guest DWA Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Two women of my close acquaintance - one current, one my first steady GF - have soles soft as a baby's behind. I asked the current one, how do you manage this? presuming I was going to hear all about grinding and filing and maintenance. Her answer? "Sensible shoes." She says she has heels but almost never wears them; I've never seen her in them. Thinking back to my GF....yep. Sensible shoes. And she didn't wear socks on any day of the year she could get away with it (I think my current acquaintance wears them more).
Twist Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 As a kid growing up I never wore shoes unless we were around the animals or cleaning stalls. When we were playing we went barefoot. My feet were pretty tough back then, I remember it being nothing to run up and down the gravel driveway barefoot. Now that I'm grown and it's less socially acceptable to be barefoot my feet have gone soft.
Recommended Posts