Best Footprints

[markc]

Is there a way to tell the difference between the foot print of a juvenile bigfoot vs human child?

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

I have small, racing snowshoes which would make them perfect for experimenting in fresh, deep snow. Their abbreviated size would make a more realistic sasquatch foot impression than a typical-length snowshoe. I would bet that someone "jumping" between steps, so as to leave a longer space, would leave a different mark in the snow than a normal step.  Also, as Gigantor showed us, someone might try loooong leg stretches. It would be interesting to see how that footprint in snow looks compared to a normal step.

 

I'll experiment in the next fresh snow and report back.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4mjU47wCJM

Edited December 22, 2018 by wiiawiwb

[Incorrigible1]

11 hours ago, gigantor said:

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

 

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

There's a link, recently posted,  to an older Rolling Stone article. In it, Marx is also implicated in suspected hoaxing.

[NCBFr]

7 hours ago, markc said:

Is there a way to tell the difference between the foot print of a juvenile bigfoot vs human child?

 

 

 

Not 100%, but the presence of a mid-tarsal break in the foot print is a pretty good sign of a juvy BF.  From the world's expert on BF feet:

 

A model of inferred skeletal anatomy is proposed here to account for the distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and “half-tracks” in which the heel impression is absent. In this model the Sasquatch foot lacks a fixed longitudinal arch, but instead exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint. Following the midtarsal break, a plastic substrate may be pushed up in a pressure ridge as propulsive force is exerted through the midfoot. An increased power arm in the foot lever system is achieved by heel elongation as opposed to arch fixation.

[langfordbc]

On 12/21/2018 at 12:16 AM, 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 agree. Bill Miller showed me this cast (I'm assuming it's the same) in September of this year.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing. Looks good 

[BC witness]

Yes, langfordbc, that's a cast of the same print, and the material of that one shows the details even better than Thomas' plaster copy. I've shown that particular cast to many of Bill's clients when driving tours for him.

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

17 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

There's a link, recently posted,  to an older Rolling Stone article. In it, Marx is also implicated in suspected hoaxing.

Do you have a link for that article. I have read several ,but not that one I am sure. 

[Incorrigible1]

7 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Do you have a link for that article. I have read several ,but not that one I am sure. 

From the thread on this section of the  forum,  titled '73 Rolling Stone  article. Here's the quotation:

 

Another citizen of Colville, the Bigfoot hunter Ivan Marx, made a series of phone calls one night in October of 1970. He was in a state of high excitement. A wounded Bigfoot had been sighted near Colville, and in the morning he was going to go out after it with his camera. As might be expected, a crowd gathered and Marx stayed in radio contact with them. At one point he claimed to have sighted the beast and some minutes later said he was actually filming it.

Peter Byrne said Marx offered to sell the film to Byrne’s organization for $25,000. He agreed to buy on the condition that the film could be studied first for signs of a hoax. Byrne says his study showed that the film had been shot about a month previous to the date Marx claimed and that it had been shot in an entirely different area than that claimed by Marx. Armed with this information, Byrne, the sheriff, and some concerned citizens made a visit to Marx’ Colville home. Marx was gone and there was no forwarding address.

He resurfaced a few weeks ago on the television show You Asked for It. He had shot a film, he said, of a large Bigfoot in a snowstorm and had come to You Asked for It, because he was impressed by the show’s reputation. To my layman’s eyes, the film seems an incredibly clumsy fake. Peter Byrne said it was “ridiculous.” In it, the creature is seen white in a heavy snowfall. It walks manlike, toward the camera, jumps around aimlessly, and gives us a view of his front and back sides. The white gorilla suit bags and wrinkles in the ass.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thank you very much. The film is obviously faked and  only the tracks remain a question mark to some people. 

Certainly, not to me. Marx involvement screams  fake loud and clear. 

[norseman]

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thank you very much. The film is obviously faked and  only the tracks remain a question mark to some people. 

Certainly, not to me. Marx involvement screams  fake loud and clear. 

 

The same thing could be said of Roger Patterson and the PGF.

 

But some events defy explanation.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

The same thing could be said of Roger Patterson and the PGF.

 

But some events defy explanation.

Yes, it could and probably did. I just don't have any idea how it was accomplished. What they did is amazing. Bossberg tracks not so much. 

[Huntster]

18 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

..........He had shot a film, he said, of a large Bigfoot in a snowstorm and had come to You Asked for It, because he was impressed by the show’s reputation. To my layman’s eyes, the film seems an incredibly clumsy fake. Peter Byrne said it was “ridiculous.” In it, the creature is seen white in a heavy snowfall. It walks manlike, toward the camera, jumps around aimlessly, and gives us a view of his front and back sides. The white gorilla suit bags and wrinkles in the ass.

 

I saw the film many years ago. Calling it “ridiculous” is being too kind. It’s unbelievable that he thought he could fool anybody with that film. The jumping around and arm waving is downright comical.

[norseman]

14 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Yes, it could and probably did. I just don't have any idea how it was accomplished. What they did is amazing. Bossberg tracks not so much. 

 

I think you dont fully appreciate the  Bossburg tracks. If you tried to recreate it I think that would change.

 

But thats OK, your still my favorite skeptic!

[MIB]

20 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Certainly, not to me. Marx involvement screams  fake loud and clear. 

 

I think that is going too far.    Having a known hoaxer, as Marx is reputed to be, involved or even nearby should rightly raise red flags, but that's all they are, red flags, NOT proof of hoaxing any more than lack of such an individual in the area is proof of authenticity.   A person doing honest and competent science investigating a report is going to be exactly as thorough without a "Marx in the woodpile" as they are with one present because to do any less is not doing their due diligence.   If you consider his presence an indicator of "loud and clear" hoaxing, you're letting your emotions interfere ... not an indicator of doing good science.   My opinion only of course.

 

I don't know what to think of the Bossburg tracks.   I can't prove them authentic or hoax.   The best data I have is interpretation, not raw info, presented by people who have already taken one side or the other of this issue.  I can look at photos but they're not that great.   I can't go back in time, see for myself, examine for the things that might have been missed, examine to address questions raised later.    Best I can do for now is stack them in a very large "hmmmm" box.   Costs me nothing, gains me nothing.

 

MIB