Is Hiding Tracks Instinct or Learned?

[Believer57]

Hi,

 

There have been some interesting scenarios where it seems the Sasquatch went out of its way to hide its own tracts. One example may be the Skookum imprint and another was a video I saw (I'll look for it again) of a possible Sasquatch jumping from rock to rock to either play or keep footprints out of the snow. In general, it seems that Sasquatch footprints are rare and that the creature would rather remain hidden.

 

If we assume that Sasquatch are trying to hide their tracks, what causes this behavior? It seems that they lived for many centuries with the Native Americans or First Nations people. Did this behavior start when the Europeans arrived and eventually expanded to the West with wagons, trains, and roads?

 

Is there evidence of hunting the Sasquatch where they have learned to hide themselves deeper into the woods? I remember watching a video called, "A Race of Giants" and how they were killed or covered up. There are many of these videos on YouTube. Are they all crap?

 

If they are hunted, would we would see a couple Sasquatches that have been taken to a Taxidermy?

 

I have more questions than I have a foothold on the subject so I invite your experiences. 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Believer57 said:

If they are hunted, would we would see a couple Sasquatches that have been taken to a Taxidermy?

 

The hunter that delivered it either direct, or through a broker, to the Taxidermist would be a rich individual indeed. The next rich person in the chain would be the Taxidermist themselves. Especially if the $10 million Bigfoot Bounty show is any indication. That $10 million purse was for just for having the best evidence for the creature's existence. So, based on that, one could imagine having such a specimen in one's private collection would have cost the owner quite a large sum of money.

Edited December 18, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Believer57 said:

Hi,

 

There have been some interesting scenarios where it seems the Sasquatch went out of its way to hide its own tracts. One example may be the Skookum imprint and another was a video I saw (I'll look for it again) of a possible Sasquatch jumping from rock to rock to either play or keep footprints out of the snow. In general, it seems that Sasquatch footprints are rare and that the creature would rather remain hidden.

 

If we assume that Sasquatch are trying to hide their tracks, what causes this behavior? It seems that they lived for many centuries with the Native Americans or First Nations people. Did this behavior start when the Europeans arrived and eventually expanded to the West with wagons, trains, and roads?

 

Is there evidence of hunting the Sasquatch where they have learned to hide themselves deeper into the woods? I remember watching a video called, "A Race of Giants" and how they were killed or covered up. There are many of these videos on YouTube. Are they all crap?

 

If they are hunted, would we would see a couple Sasquatches that have been taken to a Taxidermy?

 

I have more questions than I have a foothold on the subject so I invite your experiences. 

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/e_walker.html

 

Indians had problems with these creatures as well. All of the telltale behaviors And traits supposedly exhibited by these creature Is right there in that 1840 letter written by Walker.

 

If your walking down into the valley to steal fish or children and you have a foot and a half long track? Supposing that your a higher primate and your brain is self aware? Your going to want to hide your tracks as best you can. Because the Indians you are wreaking havoc with are probably going to want retribution from you.

 

Assuming one is shot? It’s never going to a taxidermist in Podunk, USA. It’s going to the Smithsonian. After a type specimen I would guess the authorities would pass laws protecting the rest of the population.

 

I go out with a rifle. I would not claim that I’m hunting them, because I’ve not had any interactions that I’m aware of. I just keep my eyes peeled and go about my business.

 

[Foxhill]

Hiding of tracks is a behavior trait created to explain no tracks, the skookum print is obviously an elk lay.

[Foxhill]

Oh and one other suggestion as it relates to tracks, do just a little research on foot morphology.

 You will be able to make some very interesting conclusions about most tracks presented as Bigfoot tracks, there is a huge "tell", which almost all display as to the origin of the track.    

[Madison5716]

I think it's both, but it has to be instinct at a base level. Otherwise they'd screw up more if it was due to occassional inadequate teaching and learning. 

 

This is one of my favorite video explanations. 

 

The Case for Sasquatch - YouTube

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by Madison5716

[NatFoot]

16 hours ago, Foxhill said:

Oh and one other suggestion as it relates to tracks, do just a little research on foot morphology.

 You will be able to make some very interesting conclusions about most tracks presented as Bigfoot tracks, there is a huge "tell", which almost all display as to the origin of the track.    

 

As someone who doesn't get out in the field as often as most, Id love to know what this tell is. If you'd prefer not say on the open forums for obvious reasons, send me a PM. I completely understand.

[wiiawiwb]

I think he is talking about the same thing Dr Meldrum talks about on shows. A footprint should reflect the action of a moving creature's foot.  It shouldn't be a flat, stamped footprint. Ideally, there should be a mid-tarsal break with toes leaving an imprint reflecting they are reaching and digging into the substrate.

 

That is exactly what I look for when out in the woods. A very clever hoaxer might be able to create a fake footprint that mimics that but it would be exceedingly difficult. It's also another reason why I prefer to follow a feeder creek rather than just look around a pond. If someone is going to go to exorbitant lengths to prepare a fake footprint, they want their artistry seen. The more you go upstream along the feeder creek, especially a good distance from the pond, the less chance a hoaxer would be involved. Ditto with muddy areas way off the beaten path.

Edited January 10, 2021 by wiiawiwb

[Foxhill]

46 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

I think he is talking about the same thing Dr Meldrum talks about on shows. A footprint should reflect the action of a moving creature's foot.  It shouldn't be a flat, stamped footprint. Ideally, there should be a mid-tarsal break with toes leaving an imprint reflecting they are reaching and digging into the substrate.

 

That is exactly what I look for when out in the woods. A very clever hoaxer might be able to create a fake footprint that mimics that but it would be exceedingly difficult. It's also another reason why I prefer to follow a feeder creek rather than just look around a pond. If someone is going to go to exorbitant lengths to prepare a fake footprint, they want their artistry seen. The more you go upstream along the feeder creek, especially a good distance from the pond, the less chance a hoaxer would be involved. Ditto with muddy areas way off the beaten path.

All good points but, you wouldn't have to be clever at all, nor go to the trouble of emulating a mid-tarsal break, lets just say the bar is pretty low for what's accepted as a "genuine"  bigfoot track.....laughable so. Maybe go back and review the Elbe trackway thread, that was some hilarious stuff.

 

 You might be jumping the shark with how much trouble it would be to hoax a print, my assumption is most print's are presented by the people that made them, any others are just confirmation bias run amuck. 

 

As I've suggested and it's what I do, take any claim and do a little research outside the world of footery,  not trying to send you on a snipe hunt, just trying to encourage a little independent thinking beyond the echo chamber one can get caught up in at times.  

[hiflier]

9 hours ago, Foxhill said:

....my assumption is....

 

You said it best.

[wiiawiwb]

18 hours ago, Foxhill said:

All good points but, you wouldn't have to be clever at all, nor go to the trouble of emulating a mid-tarsal break, lets just say the bar is pretty low for what's accepted as a "genuine"  bigfoot track.....laughable so. Maybe go back and review the Elbe trackway thread, that was some hilarious stuff.

 

 You might be jumping the shark with how much trouble it would be to hoax a print, my assumption is most print's are presented by the people that made them, any others are just confirmation bias run amuck. 

 

As I've suggested and it's what I do, take any claim and do a little research outside the world of footery,  not trying to send you on a snipe hunt, just trying to encourage a little independent thinking beyond the echo chamber one can get caught up in at times.  

 

I disagree. I'm not talking about a human-size footprint--I'm talking 14+ inches. I think it would be very difficult to fake a track that large that emulates a mid-tarsal break and shows toes that are fluid and moving.

 

No doubt it can be done by someone sophisticated and determined. Dr Esteban Sarmiento showed how a fake track could be left showing dermal ridges. A large fake track made by your average Joe in his, or her, basement, isn't going to fool a keen eye that knows what to look for.

Edited January 11, 2021 by wiiawiwb

[Foxhill]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

You said it best.

Well until you got a Bigfoots foot, its really a fact  

[Foxhill]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I disagree. I'm not talking about a human-size footprint--I'm talking 14+ inches. I think it would be very difficult to fake a track that large that emulates a mid-tarsal break and shows toes that are fluid and moving.

 

No doubt it can be done by someone sophisticated and determined. Dr Esteban Sarmiento showed how a fake track could be left showing dermal ridges. A large fake track made by your average Joe in his, or her, basement, isn't going to fool a keen eye that knows what to look for.

I hear ya......but just like my response to Hiflier until you've got a foot to compare it to, its really all conjecture, which is fun and what the purpose of this site is, that discussion of what could be.

Sorry but I can't buy into your, only the experts on the study of mythological creature's anatomy have keen enough eye to id "real" footie tracks.      

[hiflier]

Since you can't prove the creature is mythological why use the term? Though you may think its use as being somehow necessary, I see it as an unnecessary disrespect to the Forum. You can have a nice conversation and get still your point across without the unveiled sharp stick. 

[Believer57]

To me, the mid-tarsal break was as similar an odd find as seeing breasts on Patty. Both are things that a hoaxer would never have thought of in the 60s. These items, and more, ended any thought of creature mythology.

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Believer57