Pic of Cast showing Four Toes; from West VA.

[norseman]

I see reddish fur with a hump.

Its certainly interesting and worthy of further investigation.

[JKH]

The report states that the reddish subject in the photo was walking away, estimated at least 8 feet tall.

[ShadowBorn]

On 11/3/2022 at 8:09 AM, Twist said:

With no disrespect meant, I 100% disagree.   Zooming in shows none of that to me.  Frankly I can’t even grasp how you claim to see features such as brows in this picture.  I’d personally chalk that up to pareidolia.

Twist, I know you meant no disrespect. Sure, I agree that it is pareidolia. But I might have had some type of a flashback when I see the photo. Something just clicked in me to see this face. It is not like it spooked me but caught me off guard. Whatever I seen was pure evil. So, no I did not take it the wrong way. I knew the creature was walking away. But what caught my attention was noticing a ear that was small.  But then again this could have been to what I saw before in my encounters in blocked memories.

[Twist]

Very possible,  traumatic events like that can pop up without notice and suddenly.   

[MarkGlasgow]

For what it's worth @ShadowBorn when I zoom on I can see dark patches where eyes and a month would be. I can see however that these are created by pareidolia. The twigs in the foreground add to the effect. It's the back of the creature for sure but it seems like a fairly solid photo. Great casts too. I've seen many casts that display only 4 toes but this one suggests deformity, if genuine of course, rather than anything else.

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

 

For what it's worth @ShadowBorn when I zoom on I can see dark patches where eyes and a month would be. I can see however that these are created by pareidolia. The twigs in the foreground add to the effect. It's the back of the creature for sure but it seems like a fairly solid photo. Great casts too. I've seen many casts that display only 4 toes but this one suggests deformity, if genuine of course, rather than anything else.

@MarkGlasgowWhen I go back to look at the picture, I just do not see the face like I did before. So, I thought that that was strange. So yes, it could have been a little bit of both.  The pareidolia and something of what I might have seen in real time that my mind had shut off.

 

As for the prints, I feel like they are real good impressions of a true animal that made them. But I am not an expert on prints, so this is just my judgement call. It is not that often that you get prints and a possible picture of the creature that made them. So, this does make this report very special. This is a great report OkieFoot.

 

Yes, I know that it is walking away from the subject. But just look at its neck and how big it is. That neck is the same size of its head. But it does not say that you cannot place a bullet in the back or even in the front of it head. A nice, placed shot will bring one of these creatures down. Depending on the caliber one uses. I would not even think about a center of mass shot. Since I believe that it would do no good there. But this is for a different topic. 

[OkieFoot]

On 11/13/2022 at 4:38 PM, MarkGlasgow said:

For what it's worth @ShadowBorn when I zoom on I can see dark patches where eyes and a month would be. I can see however that these are created by pareidolia. The twigs in the foreground add to the effect. It's the back of the creature for sure but it seems like a fairly solid photo. Great casts too. I've seen many casts that display only 4 toes but this one suggests deformity, if genuine of course, rather than anything else.

 

I had done the same as you and zoomed in on the pic; I went to about 300% or a little higher. You probably noticed the same thing I did; at about 300%, the "left eye" started losing any distinctiveness as an eye. It looked like it was really just a part of a bit larger somewhat darker area, likely caused by the uneven hair.

 

The figure does look broad shouldered; I wish the witness had tried taking another photo or two, even if they might not have shown very much. Maybe one could have shown the whole figure.

[Twist]

1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

 

I had done the same as you and zoomed in on the pic; I went to about 300% or a little higher. You probably noticed the same thing I did; at about 300%, the "left eye" started losing any distinctiveness as an eye. It looked like it was really just a part of a bit larger somewhat darker area, likely caused by the uneven hair.

 

The figure does look broad shouldered; I wish the witness had tried taking another photo or two, even if they might not have shown very much. Maybe one could have shown the whole figure.

Id venture a guess that at 300x what your seeing is probably not much more than the computer/phone trying to represent what’s their. It filling in details.   I’d be surprised if there was much legit detail at all at that level of zoom.  Of course as always I’m open to being wrong.   
 

I only mention this to point out that even current technology has limitations and zooming in on pics at some point loses actual detail and we are seeing photographic artifacts put there by the device.  

[guyzonthropus]

When I first zoomed in on it I saw facial features, but then realized that it what I saw was it's face, then this fellow had the tallest sagital crest on the planet, like some uber-silverback. I must confess, pareidolia has always been a specially! Lol  but in zooming back out, it does seem far more likely that it's seen from behind and that it's the left shoulder and back of the head. It seems like the guy is still pretty close to the creature, so I can understand not running after it, as it does look quite sizeable. But it would have been cool to have corresponding prints following such a sighting!

 

I've always wondered about the 3 & 4 toed prints. One would think that with homo lineage, most any of the potential species would still hold to the five toe standard, unless there had been significant inbreeding at some point in time, but one might think that if foot structure were so effected that there would be other manifestations of recessive genes as well. What I consider a plausible alternative to at least some of these occurrences is snake bite during the animals early years. There are a good few species of venomous snakes whose toxins are geared much more towards cold blooded prey, and thus aren t deemed overly virulent for mammals, yet still have some effect. Therefore it a youngster got bit on the toe by say a copperhead, or massassuaga, it's possible it could lose the toe and then over time for the configuration  of the foot to adjust, compensating for the earlier loss to maintain functional balance. This may not account for every such less than five toed print but I'd think it does account for some of these. Walking around barefoot in such habitats is going to pose certain hazards, hidden venomous snakes are apt to be one they encounter occasionally if not regularly depending on the season and locale. 

[Arel3]

I see 4 toes on one print and 5 on the other. Where is the 3-toed cast photo?