Thanks to all who chose to take the footprint challenge.
The results are…all are real and from the same individual and same trackway.
Where: Tidal flats outside of Anchorage, AK
When: Late June, 2006
How: I saw a fellow walking with his dog on the flats while I was wandering around watching the birds. I noticed that he was walking normally, then slipped a bit, before proceeding in a more careful walk, with a very deliberate, foot-lifting, small-stride walk. Immediately, I walked out to investigate the tracks he left. I didn’t know this guy, nor did I tell him to do anything weird as he walked, and I didn’t modify the prints in any way. They’re approximately 5-10 minutes old in these photos.
The first shows the most slippage, where the person was walking at a normal pace. The tremendous deformation of the substrate evident around the heels and toes represents the areas with the most force being applied during the stepping action. The toes automatically clench during slippage, and also in very deep or slippery mud. This is to allow the foot to be lifted clear of the substrate with minimal surface area being dragged up and out.
The second print shows only a moderate amount of deformation, mostly around the toes, since again, as the toe-off commenced, there was great force exerted upon the toes (especially the first toe). Smearing is apparent. But the overall shape of the foot is clearly outlined.
The third shows where the person was walking very carefully and lifting rather than toeing-off in order to avoid slippage. A nearly perfect foot outline is preserved, and what some took to be a monolithic margin is actually where the toes clenched and dug in. Different from a true, monolithic margin, there is no spray or ejecta apron of material anterior to the cranial margin (front) of the print. This shows that a flexible, animated foot was involved rather than a rigid, plow-like prosthetic.
Some interesting and informative things came from this:
1) One outspoken person immediately formed an opinion as to how the prints were formed, and even went so far as to recommend to me how to redesign the experiment…without even knowing the basics of this one.
2) Another tried to find abnormalities and suggested that I had manipulated the prints, and that there was a distinct “hour-glass” shape to the second one, possibly suggesting that I had tried to forge a Bigfoot print.
3) Two people out of 8 were unsure of the prints’ authenticity and said only that they could be either/or.
4) Five out of 8 thought that 2 of the prints were forgeries but one was real.
5) Two thought all 3 were forgeries (one later modified that opinion to match another’s).
6) Three declined to take the challenges, and two offered excellent reasons for it, but one simply ignored requests to participate.
So, what did this “prove”? Well, it shows that deciding whether a single print is real or forged based only on a photograph is probably not possible. Anyone can form a convincing-looking print and cast or film it. What’s better is to have several prints. But as in this case, all 3 look different despite being from the same guy! So, similarity isn’t a good criterion. The most helpful insight might be that the interaction of the foot with a particular substrate can offer clues as to its authenticity, but not confirm or deny it. A series of tracks in mud with no slippage would be very suspicious indeed. And toes that don’t clench in a viscous substrate are also cause for skepticism. Finally, it should be evident that guys like Grover Krantz who boldly proclaim that they can tell whether a print or cast is real or not simply by examining a photo or plaster cast are full of it. Thank you and happy Friday!
In fact, the majority very quickly recognized the imprint as being a resting elk, but only the die-hard Noll fan-club carried on and on and on...hey....like here!
