Jump to content

Best Footprints


Patterson-Gimlin

Recommended Posts

Admin
4 hours ago, BC witness said:

I can't seem to copy the pics or the url from that thread to this one

 

Here you go...

 

post-23759-0-38606200-1412487791_thumb.j

post-23759-0-37819100-1412487803_thumb.j

post-23759-0-37765200-1412487820_thumb.j

 

post-23759-0-99665100-1412487850_thumb.j

post-23759-0-67430300-1412487866_thumb.j

grays-harbor-1982.jpg

post-23759-0-21389500-1412487883_thumb.j

post-23759-0-28286700-1412487900_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor featured this topic
1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

Cool. Almost seem too perfect though!

 

Will be amazing when we get one of these on a slab to study someday.

 

They do appear pretty perfect and do not seem to display what I would expect toes to look like in such a robust creature, imo.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Gigantor -

 

Thanks for providing the Gray's Harbor track pix.    Looking just ahead of the heel where our arch would be, does that "structure" appear to go clear across the bottom of the foot like a hinge rather than just one side like a raised arch in a generally inflexible part of a human foot?   (This is important .. to me.)

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
4 hours ago, MIB said:

Looking just ahead of the heel where our arch would be, does that "structure" appear to go clear across the bottom of the foot like a hinge rather than just one side like a raised arch in a generally inflexible part of a human foot? 

 

I believe you are referring to the mid-tarsal break.  It's funny how people are now complaining that the footprint cast is too good!  :lol:

 

 

meldrum.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Mid tarsal break should be at the tarsal - metatarsal "joint" which is almost immobile in our feet and ahead of the ankle.    I'd expect it to be a bit farther forward ... but maybe not.

 

Here's where I'm going (my own personal quest for understanding) ... in 2015 or 2016 I went back to a lake where I'd noticed some tracks in the mud under a foot or two of clear water.    These are very deep tracks and punch through 8 inches or more of very thick mud, so thick it supports my weight before I hit rock bottom below it.   It's only by stepping in the bottom of a track that I can reach the hard substrate below.    These tracks had a distinct heel pocket and high arch-like structure, then a deep pocket for the ball of the foot.   The thing about that "arch" is it wasn't an arch, it went side to side clear across each track and it was higher than my very high arches.  

 

I had been discounting these tracks as bigfoot tracks thinking the raised area in the arch was too far back for a midtarsal break, but maybe I was wrong.    If I remember right, my foot is about 4 inches at the ball and right on 10 inches long.    There was at least 3/4ths of an inch of width beyond both sides of my track.   They were at least 13 inches long because I moved my foot forward and backwards at least 3 inches from having my heel down in the pocket to having the ball and toes of my foot down in the forward pocket.    The "arch" (non-arch) in the tracks was smooth / rounded front and rear, no vertical drop or sharp break like a boot heel.    I never felt toes (nor treads) in the front.  

 

If my toes were only going into the front of the ball of the foot, not into the toes, because of whatever position I was in or the vertical shaft of the leg and firmness of the mud not allowing me to go far enough ahead, all of the sudden the picture changes.    If that raised section were exaggerated a bit, maybe because of standing in mud instead of hard ground, those tracks might change context.   Rather than something really weird and unknown, maybe I was standing in the standard 5.5" wide, 15.5 inch long bigfoot tracks I've found around the area off and on for 6 years. 

 

Dunno.   Looks like I need to go back and examine further.     It's frustrating to have to wait but the conditions aren't really right 'til around Labor day.  

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

 

I believe you are referring to the mid-tarsal break.  It's funny how people are now complaining that the footprint cast is too good!  :lol:

 

 

meldrum.png

 

I'm not complaining at all, just making a comment. It's a near perfect cast. The toes look very human and smaller than what I would imagine.

 

That's why I said it will be incredible when we actually have one to study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BC witness said:

My "best" is the 1982 Grays Harbour cast that Thomas Steenburg has in his possession. It was made by a deputy sherriff answering a prowler call, and has incredible detail, including some visible dermal ridges. I'll try to find a photo to attach. 

 

 

 

I have that cast in my collection.  When you add contrast to the casting it shows a lot more detail.  This was found by Deputy Dennis Heryford while in an area West of the Capital Forest area near Elma WA.  I like this cast because it shows the phalanx areas of the foot between the interphalangeal and the metatarsophalangeal areas.  It is also has depth where you expect it to have depth and a lighter imprint in the areas that are expected.

100_1083.JPG

100_1082.JPG

100_1080.JPG

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

^^^ that's just pure speculation by "AJ", whoever that is.

 

He presents absolutely nothing that would indicate the prince were fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...