Matt Moneymaker, I Feel He Is Hurting The Bigfoot Field

[SWWASAS]

I have published this photograph previously on the forum so it is already out there.  I have to correct my stated length.   I should have referred to my field notes.        This is the footprint in the mud I referred to in the previous post.   .   I got this print length  mixed up with another larger find.      This one,   is not the largest I have found.        It is only 15 inches long  and 5.25 inches wide but that requires a human with a size 23 which are not real common.   But one could argue that some NBA player bigger than Shack wanted to wade in the mud.   There are only a few of those humans around.       The tape is opened to about 7 and 3/4 inches.     Hard to see unless you blow it up.      Since then I carry a cloth tape that photographs better.       The smaller footprint above and to left is interesting.   It is 8.25 long and 3 inches wide.       As with the bigger print,  the middle toes extend out further than the big toe.     With most humans,    the big toe,  is the longest part of the front foot.     So the foot morphology suggests non human or certainly human deviant.     Human or not,    since both feet exhibit the same toe morphology,   could it be that the two were related?     Adult and juvenile?    I got that impression at the the time since somehow the smaller print did not repeat even though they should have been evident on the mud flat beyond this print.    It was as if the adult BF helped the juvenile through the muddy area somehow.    It was pretty goopy.      There had been a thunderstorm at 2 AM the morning I found the prints.    

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for the explanation and sharing the picture. 

[hiflier]

A nice find, sir, and thank you for reposting the image. Since the rain was recent it would certainly appear that the pressure cracks would mean you two could have easily crossed paths that day but for the timing. I'm sure that and a lot of other thoughts crossed you mind after you spent a couple of minutes digest the discovery.

[wiiawiwb]

SWWASAS,

 

A few questions if you wouldn't mind:

 

1) Did you cast the footprints?

2) At the site itself, did you look for or notice and dermal ridges?

3) It's difficult to tell from the picture but did you notice a midtarsal break?

 

Toes extending beyond the big toe while not the majority are not that uncommon. Morton's toe is when the second toe extends beyond the big toe. It is somewhere between 15%-20% of the population. Even less common is a square foot most toes are the same length like a paddle or flipper. That is associated with ~9% of the population. In your picture, the toes look more even or square to me.

 

Oddly enough, I've seen a number of pictures of casted footprints, like Patty's below, and noticed many where the big toe was longer than the others. Your print is not like those. I wonder if sasquatch have a foot/toe morphology variation like humans.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[SWWASAS]

I did not cast the prints.    Did not have casting materials.    I did not notice dermal ridges.   Close examination of the enlarged photograph does not either.  The rain may be responsible for that.    I have no idea if the print was laid down before the rain, during it, or after wards.   According to the camp host it was a "cloud burst"   Heavy but short duration about 2 AM.     Mud the right consistency to pick up dermal ridges is pretty rare.     It has to be just the right consistency so as to not flow out like wet paint or stick to the foot.       Those two prints were the only prints there.     There was nothing leading up to or away from the two prints.  It appeared to me that the BF waded out of the lake and was headed towards the campground a half mile away.    .   If so the first few footsteps in the mud would have been watery and may have caused the hardening mud to flow out like wet paint.    That was of some interest to me but there were patches of vegetation that I walked on to avoid the mud to photograph them so assume that who/whatever left the prints did the same thing, trying to avoid stepping in mud.      Neither print obviously shows a mid tarsal break.   Reasons for that might be lack of much of a stride or flexing because of the slippery mud.    The longer the stride the more the midtarsel thrusting would be visible since the foot would flex more.    So walking in the dark on slippery mud would likely be done taking smaller more tentative steps to avoid slipping.     As I recall Meldrum said female BF do not show as much mid-tarsal break.    Most likely because they weigh less.        This is way into Meldrums field and out of my own.      Next time I see him I will ask him about my picture related to that question.    He really chastised me for not casting them.    He wanted them for his collection.    I felt like one of his grad students when I questioned him about the width and had not though it might have been female.  

 

There is more in Olevrec picture than squeezing together of toes.    Notice how the unshod human middle toe extends further forward than the big toe as did my picture.    Human women really mess up their toes by wearing shoes that are either pointed or too small in the toe box    Talk about squeezed together toes.  That black line shows deformity of the big toe which his bent towards the rest of the toes with the shoe wearer.    My recent visit to a podiatrist revealed something about one of my feet.   Looking at the xray he asked me to move my left big toe.     I did it and he said he was surprised I could move it at all.  Said if it had not been broken in the past,    (you could see a separate bone chunk),   he did not think I could move it at all due to arthritis setting in. No wonder the thing hurts as often as it does.   

[Patterson-Gimlin]

11 hours ago, Olevrec said:

Apparently Bigfoot does have an interesting foot morphology similar to humans in a shocking way. 

They appear to be feet that have spent a lifetime wearing shoes, indicated by the toes being packed together. 

The PGF prints are even more notable for the absence to any indication of wear or tear one would expect from a lifetime spent outdoors.

11 hours ago, Olevrec said:

This is a red flag. The reason most of the foot prints documented most likely are human or faked. Appear to be made by shoes wearers. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Patterson-Gimlin

[SWWASAS]

Strange.     PG must be looking at different pictures that I am seeing.      If shod humans have big toes longer than others on their foot and unshod humans or something else have middle toes the longer part of their foot, how is that a red flag or a reason something is made by shoe wearers?.    Looking at my own collection of my own footprint finds,   about half have longer middle toes and half have longer big toes.       The largest finds have middle toes the longest part of the foot.    I presume the largest are male BF.       But I do not have enough finds or data to conclude anything other than foot morphology varies with individuals.   That is hardly surprising when we see the same variance in human shoe vs non shoe wearers and among shoe wearers themselves.       And as I have mentioned,  if a print is withing the range of human norms,   I can never be sure I am not looking at a print left by some human nut job that likes to hike rocky trails with bare feet.    I see one of those padding around the concrete streets of Portland Oregon quite often with bare feet.         While shoes may really mess up human feet,   running around all your life with bare feet has to do some damage to BF feet.       If broken toes are common even in humans that wear shoes,    I have had my share of them,     then they have to be even more common with BF,    with resulting changes to feet and toes that last the rest of their life showing deformity in footprints.  

 

Meldrum has always asserted that mid tarsal break is the defining attribute of BF feet.       But a human study that came out a few years ago shows over 20 percent of Europeans in certain areas show some form of mid tarsal flexing.     That coincidentally is about the same percentage of humans that have Neanderthal  DNA who are concentrated in the same area.    The study did not connect the two.    However what it means that when we see footprints in the field within the human size norm range,   we cannot deduce that all prints made showing some mid-tarsal flexing is something other than human.      In my case I have a very flat foot with associated foot problems and along with that a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA.    I do not know if those are related or it has anything to do with BF.    But just the same I find it interesting.   Could it be that those of us humans having residual traits of different humanoidal species,   or the species themselves,  harbor foot morphology differences that have evolved out of most modern humans?  

[hiflier]

25 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The largest finds have middle toes the longest part of the foot.    I presume the largest are male BF.

 

That would be an interesting determination to investigate. I'm in a bit of a lull right now so I'll see if there is anything to indicate such a possibility. For the record my middle toe is slightly longer than my big toe. 

Edited December 23, 2017 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Strange.     PG must be looking at different pictures that I am seeing.      If shod humans have big toes longer than others on their foot and unshod humans or something else have middle toes the longer part of their foot, how is that a red flag or a reason something is made by shoe wearers?.    Looking at my own collection of my own footprint finds,   about half have longer middle toes and half have longer big toes.       The largest finds have middle toes the longest part of the foot.    I presume the largest are male BF.       But I do not have enough finds or data to conclude anything other than foot morphology varies with individuals.   That is hardly surprising when we see the same variance in human shoe vs non shoe wearers and among shoe wearers themselves.       And as I have mentioned,  if a print is withing the range of human norms,   I can never be sure I am not looking at a print left by some human nut job that likes to hike rocky trails with bare feet.    I see one of those padding around the concrete streets of Portland Oregon quite often with bare feet.         While shoes may really mess up human feet,   running around all your life with bare feet has to do some damage to BF feet.       If broken toes are common even in humans that wear shoes,    I have had my share of them,     then they have to be even more common with BF,    with resulting changes to feet and toes that last the rest of their life showing deformity in footprints.  

 

Meldrum has always asserted that mid tarsal break is the defining attribute of BF feet.       But a human study that came out a few years ago shows over 20 percent of Europeans in certain areas show some form of mid tarsal flexing.     That coincidentally is about the same percentage of humans that have Neanderthal  DNA who are concentrated in the same area.    The study did not connect the two.    However what it means that when we see footprints in the field within the human size norm range,   we cannot deduce that all prints made showing some mid-tarsal flexing is something other than human.      In my case I have a very flat foot with associated foot problems and along with that a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA.    I do not know if those are related or it has anything to do with BF.    But just the same I find it interesting.   Could it be that those of us humans having residual traits of different humanoidal species,   or the species themselves,  harbor foot morphology differences that have evolved out of most modern humans?  

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Strange.     PG must be looking at different pictures that I am seeing.      If shod humans have big toes longer than others on their foot and unshod humans or something else have middle toes the longer part of their foot, how is that a red flag or a reason something is made by shoe wearers?.    Looking at my own collection of my own footprint finds,   about half have longer middle toes and half have longer big toes.       The largest finds have middle toes the longest part of the foot.    I presume the largest are male BF.       But I do not have enough finds or data to conclude anything other than foot morphology varies with individuals.   That is hardly surprising when we see the same variance in human shoe vs non shoe wearers and among shoe wearers themselves.       And as I have mentioned,  if a print is withing the range of human norms,   I can never be sure I am not looking at a print left by some human nut job that likes to hike rocky trails with bare feet.    I see one of those padding around the concrete streets of Portland Oregon quite often with bare feet.         While shoes may really mess up human feet,   running around all your life with bare feet has to do some damage to BF feet.       If broken toes are common even in humans that wear shoes,    I have had my share of them,     then they have to be even more common with BF,    with resulting changes to feet and toes that last the rest of their life showing deformity in footprints.  

 

Meldrum has always asserted that mid tarsal break is the defining attribute of BF feet.       But a human study that came out a few years ago shows over 20 percent of Europeans in certain areas show some form of mid tarsal flexing.     That coincidentally is about the same percentage of humans that have Neanderthal  DNA who are concentrated in the same area.    The study did not connect the two.    However what it means that when we see footprints in the field within the human size norm range,   we cannot deduce that all prints made showing some mid-tarsal flexing is something other than human.      In my case I have a very flat foot with associated foot problems and along with that a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA.    I do not know if those are related or it has anything to do with BF.    But just the same I find it interesting.   Could it be that those of us humans having residual traits of different humanoidal species,   or the species themselves,  harbor foot morphology differences that have evolved out of most modern humans?  

Same pictures. The experts I have spoken with said unshod feet would be spread apart  more . In the case of the  of footprint casts I have seen  or pictures of it looks more like they have been wearing shoes ,

The Patterson  film is one of those. As you know  I am a big fan of the film.  I agree with what you said about injuries and abnormalities. It is my personal non expert opinion most if not all  footprints of the mythical beasts are faked. I was once very intrigued by the crippled Bossberg tracks . Not anymore . I think they were faked by Ivan Marx. 

 

 

 

[dmaker]

Agreed. Faked or simply mistaken human prints. Sometimes distorted in some way to appear larger. Perhaps sinking into soft substrate, etc.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Sometimes distorted in some way

 

Could you clarify, please.

[dmaker]

I did immediately after my comment. I offered an example based on perhaps soft mud, or maybe sand. Or even footwear. I think those shoes you can buy now that have toes in them could lead to a print that might appear bigfoot like to some observers. 

[hiflier]

Agree on the footwear with toes. But not for the size 23 size needed in SWWASAS's photo. I mean a 15 inch print is NOT a small foot by any means. I think if it was faked then it couldn't be faked as a single footstep. This would be where your 'distorted in some way' would be valid.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

I did immediately after my comment. I offered an example based on perhaps soft mud, or maybe sand. Or even footwear. I think those shoes you can buy now that have toes in them could lead to a print that might appear bigfoot like to some observers. 

 

Tracks can't be distorted without leaving some signs of distortion.   It just doesn't work in the real world.   You might, I suppose, find someone who never stepped outside of some big European city and had never seen mud who might not know the difference, but Randy is not such a person.   I doubt 1% of the membership here would see such signs and not clue into it.   So that "some observers" is effectively a fabrication to distract.

 

So far as the "toe shoes", I have a set.   They've been educational.   The tracks would not be mistaken for a biological bare foot.   Several features don't work out.

 

In 2012, on my "death march", I found a lone track.   Fortunately, despite delirium from dehydration, I photographed it along with a tape measure so I don't have to rely on memory.  It has characteristics I'm not comfortable with and yet there's no specific sign of hoaxing.   Whatever made it, made it walking, there was no location it could have been constructed from without leaving sign.   I did some research afterwards and found that it was 3 inches longer than the largest of the "toe shoes" available on the market which definitively removes that from consideration.    That track remains on the "hmmmm" pile.   It can't logically be accepted as bigfoot yet because of the unusual characteristics but it equally can't logically be accepted as a hoax because the evidence for that conclusion is missing.    Sometimes "hmmm" just has to stay "hmmm", anything else would be the antithesis of science.

 

MIB

[dmaker]

I don't live in a big European city, but even I can see how when I stand in wet sand at the beach that my foot sinks in deeper and distorts the print.