Guest JiggyPotamus Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I believe there are probably many more "normal," five-toed bigfoot tracks found than anything else. I think anything else is extremely rare. However, such abnormalities are actually to be expected within a population. Perhaps it means that the sasquatch population is quite large, as there must be enough individuals for such variations to come about in the first place. Or it could mean the sasquatch population is rather small, and that these tracks are the result of inbreeding within the population. If that were the case however I would think that such abnormal variations would be much more common than they seem to be. But I'm not a footologist, animalologist, geneologist, or proctologist, so I cannot be certain that I'm correct. I do not subscribe to the idea that variation in the number of toes is an indicator of species either. Also, I have wondered in the past whether a larger percentage of three or four-toed tracks are hoaxes as compared with five-toed tracks. Although I would think that as more information has become public over time where sasquatch is concerned, that modern hoaxes are more likely to be of the five-toed variety, while hoaxed tracks from earlier decades, such as the 60's, would have a greater chance of having something other than five toes. Whatever the case, it should be expected that hoaxed tracks have been discovered that possess a varying number of toes, but that the number of these hoaxed tracks are not at all likely to be large enough to make a statistical difference.
Woodslore Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Wasn't a bigfoot track but I have seen first hand Dog, and Coyote tracks that had only part of the foot or toes. Had a dog once lost big chunk of one of his pads on his back feet from stepping on glass. Scene Coyote tracks, and some from traps where they had lost a toe completely for whatever reason. Could some of the 4 or 3 toed tracks be something like that? Maybe just lost a toe.
Guest DWA Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Definitely; and other reasons equally plausible have been put forth here. In short: happens.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 I believe there is a cryptid that is large and would leave a three toed print and could be mistaken for a BF if it stood on it's hind feet, it also likes water. I saw one, I think, it looked a lot like a bigfoot and was a few feet from my car. Big brown haystack of hair with a single yellowy eye about 5 feet tall but not a bear. It had a cone shaped head but perhaps it was pointing it's snout straight up and looking at me from the side. For the reasons of protecting such things won't go into too much more detail.
jayjeti Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 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. There was a scientific paper a while back claiming that the human race is de-evolving it's intellect since no longer do the smartest and brightest have the best odds of survival. Society takes care of its dim whits to where survival is not dependent on being the fittest (the smartest or most able); thus the overall gene pool is now more equally mixed with substandard intellects. Edited December 2, 2015 by jayjeti
Twist Posted December 2, 2015 Author Posted December 2, 2015 I can definitely believe that. We have measures now that prevent against Darwinism! Like guard rails at the Grand Canyon!!!
Guest DWA Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 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. There was a scientific paper a while back claiming that the human race is de-evolving it's intellect since no longer do the smartest and brightest have the best odds of survival. Society takes care of its dim whits to where survival is not dependent on being the fittest (the smartest or most able); thus the overall gene pool is now more equally mixed with substandard intellects. You know there could be much to that. I mean, Steven Hawking wouldn't have lived to tell us 1/10 what he has in an earlier time, and who knows about Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. So Selecting for Nerds might actually be modern times. Which would boost the IQ number, if nothing else. Then again, I've always wondered whether Hollywood actors, pop stars, pro athletes, Playboy bunnies, SI swimsuit models, etc. aren't actually the smartest among us, on average. Having been raised in a world Selecting for Nerds through the educational system, they've just bypassed that due to lack of interest, and focused on what they *wanted* rather than what the society *made them do.* Look at elk; look at antelope; moose; wolves; bears; lions; etc. The fittest to survive are almost invariably the biggest strongest most beautiful. Who says smarts aren't part of that package, and that there are dimensions to smarts that we don't measure? MJ could watch the whole court while moving the ball, and Larry Bird could throw a pass to somebody no one on the other team saw cutting to the hoop. Contrast this with a computermath nerd I played half-court with once, who...could...not...bounce...the...ball...if...he...was...not....LOOKING...RIGHT...AT...IT... . I think athletic talent is significantly an unmeasured component of intelligence. So is trading on one's looks for riches...or choosing to use one's beauty in other ways. That said: We do - and it's not just the educational system - seem to be encouraging less smarts, less awareness, more conformity. So...shoot, who could tell how the numbers balance out?
Guest spurfoot Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 I have closely examined a high quality footprint cast done by Bob Chance of Conowingo Maryland. The footprint was in mud and was carefully cast, thereby giving high resolution. Bob is the former mayor of Conowingo and is also the local high school science teacher. He still retains the cast so far as I know. Bob is a dedicated Bigfoot researcher. The cast showed what seemed superficially to be three toes. Close examination of the very high quality cast showed that the creature actually was a five toed creature where two pairs of toes were grown together in a medical phenomenon called syndactyly. The "seam" between two adjacent toes was evident in the cast. The seam occurs prenatally. Syndactyly is not all that rare in normal humans. It more commonly occurs in inbred populations such as would surely be the case with bigfoot. It is fruitful to inquire into embryo development. First a flat club like foot develops. Then it forms five areas of cartilage. Second, then the webbing between the toes diminuates, leaving five toes. Failure to complete any of those two steps of development results in syndactyly.
Recommended Posts