Indian Army Yeti trackway

[norseman]

I missed this!
 

 

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/indian-army-finds-yeti-footprints-during-expedition-731376.html

 

 

 

[7.62]

I'm not following the article or dd the writer not explain it correctly ? The track way appears to be in a single straight line which is how it's reported Sasquatch walks.

Or is the article saying it's only a single foot print as in just one foot and not a right and left foot.

 

I'm confused but it doesn't take much 

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing. I remember this . As you know I am not impressed by snow tracks. 

[norseman]

7 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I'm not following the article or dd the writer not explain it correctly ? The track way appears to be in a single straight line which is how it's reported Sasquatch walks.

Or is the article saying it's only a single foot print as in just one foot and not a right and left foot.

 

I'm confused but it doesn't take much 

 

 

 

Its a trackway.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing. I remember this . As you know I am not impressed by snow tracks. 

 

That includes the large in-line prints with a 40"+ distance between heel and toe that go seven miles with no sign of the mess that snow shoes inevitably leave? But I'm sure there is an explanation for those, right? And I'd love to hear yours. If you don't have one it might be enlightening to know why you don't. I mean to say, just because no one is witnessing the making of such trackways, the details do not automatically get negated. Large in and out tracks that are in-line with little or no disturbances in the snow around them is worthy of keeping an open mind. Because those kinds of things have to be taken in context with EVERYTHING and not singled from all else.

 

One could cherry pick hair samples out of context, too, along with a lot of other things but taking things as a whole picture necessitates, at the very least, an open mind. Not saying that say, such trackways, are Sasquatch, only saying that, that no matter one's thinking, they aren't normal. And that, my friend, is enough to give pause. ANYONE can blow off a trackway, but in order to do so one has to also blow off the outlying details that come with it. There are reasons people sit up and take notice when the phenomenon presents itself. No one is blindly say Sasqutch. What they ARE saying is what else could make such tracks? It's a valid question that cannot simply be swept away as you, a scientist, are so easily doing.

 

My opinion? Your skeptical aggression is passive, but it is skeptical aggression nonetheless.

Edited January 18, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing. I remember this . As you know I am not impressed by snow tracks. 

 

I blame this on Florida. What you can fake in a inch of mud versus 3 feet of snow are vastly different.

[Foxhill]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

That includes the large in-line prints with a 40"+ distance between heel and toe that go seven miles with no sign of the mess that snow shoes inevitably leave? But I'm sure there is an explanation for those, right? And I'd love to hear yours. If you don't have one it might be enlightening to know why you don't. I mean to say, just because no one is witnessing the making of such trackways, the details do not automatically get negated. Large in and out tracks that are in-line with little or no disturbances in the snow around them is worthy of keeping an open mind. Because those kinds of things have to be taken in context with EVERYTHING and not singled from all else.

 

One could cherry pick hair samples out of context, too, along with a lot of other things but taking things as a whole picture necessitates, at the very least, an open mind. Not saying that say, such trackways, are Sasquatch, only saying that, that no matter one's thinking, they aren't normal. And that, my friend, is enough to give pause. ANYONE can blow off a trackway, but in order to do so one has to also blow off the outlying details that come with it. There are reasons people sit up and take notice when the phenomenon presents itself. No one is blindly say Sasqutch. What they ARE saying is what else could make such tracks? It's a valid question that cannot simply be swept away as you, a scientist, are so easily doing.

 

My opinion? Your skeptical aggression is passive, but it is skeptical aggression nonetheless.

 

Why would a snowshoe leave a mess but not Bigfoots big foot?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That includes the large in-line prints with a 40"+ distance between heel and toe that go seven miles with no sign of the mess that snow shoes inevitably leave? But I'm sure there is an explanation for those, right? And I'd love to hear yours. If you don't have one it might be enlightening to know why you don't. I mean to say, just because no one is witnessing the making of such trackways, the details do not automatically get negated. Large in and out tracks that are in-line with little or no disturbances in the snow around them is worthy of keeping an open mind. Because those kinds of things have to be taken in context with EVERYTHING and not singled from all else.

 

One could cherry pick hair samples out of context, too, along with a lot of other things but taking things as a whole picture necessitates, at the very least, an open mind. Not saying that say, such trackways, are Sasquatch, only saying that, that no matter one's thinking, they aren't normal. And that, my friend, is enough to give pause. ANYONE can blow off a trackway, but in order to do so one has to also blow off the outlying details that come with it. There are reasons people sit up and take notice when the phenomenon presents itself. No one is blindly say Sasqutch. What they ARE saying is what else could make such tracks? It's a valid question that cannot simply be swept away as you, a scientist, are so easily doing.

 

My opinion? Your skeptical aggression is passive, but it is skeptical aggression nonetheless.

The footprints are real. No doubt. The claims that they are made by  Yeti or any large man apes is the problem I have with them.  No detail  mostly  Easily faked with some type of snow shoes or variation of especially in soft snow. I actually like some of them that are in hard crusted and not easily penetrated. Even they can't be trusted. Melting snow and refreezing distort  them . My favorite snow tracks are from Lord Hunts expedition.  Even his could be bear tracks.. 

I am from Florida ,but I do spend time in the PNW . For the record. I don't report or do down votes. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Patterson-Gimlin

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 

Why would a snowshoe leave a mess but not Bigfoots big foot?

 

You know, Foxhill? That's a really excellent question. One that I wish I had an answer for. And I'm being sincere in saying that. The short response is I don't know. All I do know is that that's what has been shown. When showshoes drop into deep snow the snow falls in on top of the webbing. When the showshow gets pulled out the snow is dispersed around and outside of it's track. The trackways THOUGHT to be from Sasquatch do not show that dynamic. Between that,, the size of the snow prints, and the distances between steps, I have not been able to determine the cause. I just know it is caused by a runner in snowshoes running in deep snow.

 

14 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The footprints are real. No doubt. The claims that they are made by  Yeti or any large man apes is the problem I have with them.  No detail  mostly  Easily faked with some type of snow shoes or variation of especially in soft snow. I actually like some of them that are in hard crusted and not easily penetrated. Even they can't be trusted. Melting snow and refreezing distort  them . My favorite snow tracks are from Lord Hunts expedition.  Even his could be bear tracks.. 

I am from Florida ,but I do spend time in the PNW .

 

Fair enough but we all know about melted prints looking bigger. We ALSO know that snowshoes in deep soft snow will not leave a perfectly defined edge all the way around without snow distributed around the edge from the snowshoe being pulled back out of the impression that it makes. Plus show wouldn't plunge as deep into soft snow. NOR, as you say, frozen snow. It's just not possible for that to occur and still have 3-4 feet between the tracks. So it isn't just the track, it's all three of the details involved about that track or trackway taken together that causes a defined summary. Processes of elimination have been hard at work on those three issue taken together. There's hasn't been much wiggle room left when all is said and done.

Edited January 18, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

4 hours ago, Foxhill said:

Why would a snowshoe leave a mess but not Bigfoots big foot?

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

You know, Foxhill? That's a really excellent question. One that I wish I had an answer for.

 

So lemme take a shot at this.   I think you're mis-imaging the problem.   It comes down to leg length and heel lift.   Walking in deep snow in snow shoes (I assume you've done this?) as your foot comes down, the snow shoe heel drags for maybe 6 inches leaving a clear mark in the snow.   Likewise, when you take the next step, the toe drags a lot on the way out of the track.   The longer the step you attempt, the longer the drag mark is.    Some of these tracks show a 40" or longer step length yet they have no "slide" going into the track and no "drag" coming back out, they just "post-hole" straight in .. straight down, straight back up, no slide or drag.    It as NOTHING to do with snow falling back into the track or not.    The only way this can happen is if the leg is really long so that the amount of snow it punches through is minor, like shin deep snow would be to us.    It also means it is a living foot, not a living foot something attached to the bottom, because the ankle angle using snow shoes doesn't work out to match the actual tracks.  

 

The second piece of "messing up" has nothing to do with the bigfoot's tracks, it has to do with the lack of tracks left by whoever faked the tracks if they were faked.   Thing is, if these tracks post-hole, a human can't make them with the stride length involved, so someone would have to travel alongside the trackway to create the tracks one by one and a person doing that would leave a very clear second trackway which is missing. 

 

After a few year hunting on snowshoes in the winter, I'm pretty convinced these bigfoot tracks in the snow cannot be faked by any means I can imagine without leaving unmistakable telltale signs.

 

MIB

 

[7.62]

Well they would all have to be in it and people talk . The trackway wouldn't be made that high up for the chance someone finds it.

 

Either that whole unit is in on it plus the officer and decided to lie and fake tracks or they are real.

 You think that many guys can keep a secret ... I don't 

[norseman]

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The footprints are real. No doubt. The claims that they are made by  Yeti or any large man apes is the problem I have with them.  No detail  mostly  Easily faked with some type of snow shoes or variation of especially in soft snow. I actually like some of them that are in hard crusted and not easily penetrated. Even they can't be trusted. Melting snow and refreezing distort  them . My favorite snow tracks are from Lord Hunts expedition.  Even his could be bear tracks.. 

I am from Florida ,but I do spend time in the PNW . For the record. I don't report or do down votes. 

Next time your in snow country? Buy some snow shoes and go try it. You will change your mind quickly. Snowshoes force a man to spread his legs wider and sort of shuffle along. Nothing like what we see with snow trackways associated with Bigfoot. Which are spread apart and inline.

 

I can assure it’s not a hoax and it’s not a Bear. Mule deer stot or hop along. Which can look similar but they do not do this for long periods of time. And Mule deer do not reside in the Himalayas. 
 

If you definitively get this figured out with a mundane explanation? Please let me know.

 

 

[Airdale]

I've never been on snowshoes, but began cross country skiing with the family in '93 at age 42 and continued until '01, skipping two seasons when arthritis destroyed my right hip and recovering after the surgery in June of '98. Every place we skied started at over 6,000 feet and some climbed to over 7,000 and by age 50 I was in better shape even than when working on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise during the Vietnam war in my early 20's. The latter was hard work, but it was at sea level or a couple hundred feet above when Stateside at NAS Lemoore, CA; moving through snow at over a mile in altitude, even with slick boards stuck on your feet is serious exertion. Oh yeah, gliding down a half mile of groomed trail is great fun, but you didn't get to the head of that slope on a lift and when you get to the bottom you'll have another hill to duck walk up before that fun glide repeats. Replacing the slick boards with baskets can only make every step harder and you don't get that free ride on the down slopes. To even suggest that something like the track in the photo below from BFRO Report # 37974 was made by someone with fake feet strapped to their boots leaping in five foot steps cross ways up a mountain slope at over 7,000 feet is beyond even my vivid imagination to comprehend! That photo was made just over 31 miles almost due east and about 2,600 feet higher than where I'm sitting in my home office typing. Here is the link to the report: http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974

 

 

[norseman]

24 minutes ago, Airdale said:

I've never been on snowshoes, but began cross country skiing with the family in '93 at age 42 and continued until '01, skipping two seasons when arthritis destroyed my right hip and recovering after the surgery in June of '98. Every place we skied started at over 6,000 feet and some climbed to over 7,000 and by age 50 I was in better shape even than when working on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise during the Vietnam war in my early 20's. The latter was hard work, but it was at sea level or a couple hundred feet above when Stateside at NAS Lemoore, CA; moving through snow at over a mile in altitude, even with slick boards stuck on your feet is serious exertion. Oh yeah, gliding down a half mile of groomed trail is great fun, but you didn't get to the head of that slope on a lift and when you get to the bottom you'll have another hill to duck walk up before that fun glide repeats. Replacing the slick boards with baskets can only make every step harder and you don't get that free ride on the down slopes. To even suggest that something like the track in the photo below from BFRO Report # 37974 was made by someone with fake feet strapped to their boots leaping in five foot steps cross ways up a mountain slope at over 7,000 feet is beyond even my vivid imagination to comprehend! That photo was made just over 31 miles almost due east and about 2,600 feet higher than where I'm sitting in my home office typing. Here is the link to the report: http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974

 

 

Nice find!

 

Someday I would like Alpine Touring skis. Right now I'm on snow shoes. They suck. But better than walking!

[Foxhill]

15 hours ago, MIB said:

 

 

So lemme take a shot at this.   I think you're mis-imaging the problem.   It comes down to leg length and heel lift.   Walking in deep snow in snow shoes (I assume you've done this?) as your foot comes down, the snow shoe heel drags for maybe 6 inches leaving a clear mark in the snow.   Likewise, when you take the next step, the toe drags a lot on the way out of the track.   The longer the step you attempt, the longer the drag mark is.    Some of these tracks show a 40" or longer step length yet they have no "slide" going into the track and no "drag" coming back out, they just "post-hole" straight in .. straight down, straight back up, no slide or drag.    It as NOTHING to do with snow falling back into the track or not.    The only way this can happen is if the leg is really long so that the amount of snow it punches through is minor, like shin deep snow would be to us.    It also means it is a living foot, not a living foot something attached to the bottom, because the ankle angle using snow shoes doesn't work out to match the actual tracks.  

 

The second piece of "messing up" has nothing to do with the bigfoot's tracks, it has to do with the lack of tracks left by whoever faked the tracks if they were faked.   Thing is, if these tracks post-hole, a human can't make them with the stride length involved, so someone would have to travel alongside the trackway to create the tracks one by one and a person doing that would leave a very clear second trackway which is missing. 

 

After a few year hunting on snowshoes in the winter, I'm pretty convinced these bigfoot tracks in the snow cannot be faked by any means I can imagine without leaving unmistakable telltale signs.

 

MIB

 

 

 

 I'm not really concerned about this being made by a snowshoe. But having spent a little time walking in shin deep snow, I'm still perplexed how anything bipedal regardless of how tall it is, would not leave some indication of displacement of snow from either foot drag or just snow falling off. I'm not suggesting its fake, other than the reports of distances that is reported to be followed is impossible to verify.

 I've seen this discussed before, and its the most likely source, something is moving thur the snow most likely hopping or bounding, then the snow melts and/or additional snow falls giving the impression of a giant walking/post holing thru the snow...…...imaginations a hell of a drug LOL!

 

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Foxhill