Jump to content
Patterson-Gimlin

Best Footprints

Recommended Posts

gigantor
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor

Cool. Almost seem too perfect though!

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I like snow tracks too

IMG_1318.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
9 hours ago, norseman said:

I like snow tracks too

IMG_1318.JPG

 

Where/when was that, Norse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Not mine. But it looks like the coast.

 

Western red cedar, dusting of snow, newly minted paved roads.

 

Ill see what I can dig up.

http://sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-ep167-that-is-when-the-rock-throwing-started/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Nice pic Old Dog, did you get it with the shading already done or something you added?   Looks much more detailed like you stated.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×