Elbe Trackway

[Bitter Monk]

This is probably just going to muddy the waters but I'll give it a shot. A rigid foot has no individually moving parts, even if the toes are sculpted. They operate as a single pressure force. Imagine taking your fist and pressing it knuckles first into the dirt.

A real foot (or a good prosthetic with fully formed toes) strikes the ground as five individual pressure points. Even if the toes spread and come into contact with one another, each is uniquely represented in the print. Spread your hand and press it palms down into the dirt.

Look at these toes (no monolithic margin)

vs these toes

(classic monolithic margin).

 

[GT/CS]

Crayons
Assuming I correctly understand the concept.

 

[Bitter Monk]

He worked harder than I did but yeah that's the gist of it.

 

[tube]

Yes, you guys have it.

Noll posted a photo of one of the tracks he numbered 1993 over on Bigfoot Forums. That track seems to be exhibiting this effect.

 

[The Shrike]

I get that, but why couldn't this be a monolithic margin?

 

[GT/CS]

The fact that the ends of the toes are in a straight line is not what Tube is referencing.

His point is that carving individual toes all the way through the board will not work because the toes will break off. For that reason the hoaxer carves only half-way through the board leaving an uncarved edge near the top, so when the board goes deep into the soil the uncarved portion shows up in the print.
That's why it works fine for shallow prints but most hoaxers aren't satisfied with shallow prints. They want to make a PRINT so they expose themselves by making the prints too deep and creating a more-or-less uniform line with the uncarved portion of the board.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

[The Shrike]

At least that's how I understand it.

Me too. The problem I'm having is that I can't see it. I'm not at all confident in my ability to look at a print and see one if it's there. Without red lines I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for; with red lines I'm worried about the subjectivity of where a line has been placed.

I promise I'm not trying to be a pill here, I'm just trying to develop a better sense of how to evaluate footprint photos myself and, of course, help other people reading these threads do the same thing.

 

[DennyT]

Reading Thom Powell's website, it seems that the thing that struck him as obviously hoaxy was the shallow evenness of the imprints toe to heel. Maybe he will revisit the famous Blue Creek Mountain tracks. Lol

 

[tube]

Me too. The problem I'm having is that I can't see it. I'm not at all confident in my ability to look at a print and see one if it's there. Without red lines I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for; with red lines I'm worried about the subjectivity of where a line has been placed.

I promise I'm not trying to be a pill here, I'm just trying to develop a better sense of how to evaluate footprint photos myself and, of course, help other people reading these threads do the same thing.

If you take a serrated-edge knife and repeatedly run the edge on a belt sander, it will become as a "regular-edged" knife. Each pass on the belt sander causes a subtle transition.

I'm not suggesting this is a binary, black-or-white, on or off thing, I'm suggesting it's a matter of degree.

Not sure how else I can explain myself. Other individuals seem to get what I'm talking about.

Look carefully at how straight the toe is in this Bluff Creek track under the red line. Compare with REAL human footprints deeply pressed in a compliant substrate and you should see that REAL toes create curved leading marks AT GRADE.

 

[River]

Me too. The problem I'm having is that I can't see it. I'm not at all confident in my ability to look at a print and see one if it's there. Without red lines I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for; with red lines I'm worried about the subjectivity of where a line has been placed.

I promise I'm not trying to be a pill here, I'm just trying to develop a better sense of how to evaluate footprint photos myself and, of course, help other people reading these threads do the same thing.

A fun experiment for you might be to make a rigid prosthetic stomper that mimics your own foot. Find a good substrate for leaving imprints and then do your natural foot and then the stomper. I think you'll be able to pick out the stomper imprints easily. Especially so if there are many prints made for comparison.

 

[tube]

I get that, but why couldn't this be a monolithic margin?View attachment 26658

No, that would be like a line drawn from the tops of the peaks of a series of mountains in a range. It ignores the contours of the valleys.

Also, notice on the real human track the substrate BETWEEN THE TOES is either left in place or has squished up to grade. In the fake tracks made with a Wallace-style prosthetic, where the clefts between the toes do not run from plantar to dorsal surface, the substrate will not do that.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Let's say that you made a stomper by taking a cast of an actual human footprint then enlarging it. Would that produce a more realistic track? Instead of crafting a fake foot and trying to make realistic looking footprints with it, you'd be imprinting a legitimate footprint.

 

[rockinkt]

Shrike - I'm not trying to be a jerk - but what you need is real life experience.

The best way to learn about tracking is to actually do some tracking in different soils with different moisture levels. I know you spend a lot of time out in the bush - but you need to set up some way of experimenting with known soil conditions and time-lines.
The best way to do that is in ground that you prepare yourself whether that be in your yard or somewhere that is convenient to clear the ground and bring watering can (so you can wet the ground evenly) and a rake too.

You need a spot where you can make at least 8 steps in your normal stride. That is - two before your prepared area and two after. You want to get in at least 4 steps as this will show how your weight distribution during normal walking is reflected in the tracks.
So - get some soil ready by raking away the upper debris, take off your shoes and socks, and give it a try.

Take a good look at the tracks you left. Look and see if there was any indication of movement in your toes and ball of your foot. Look for movement and spreading in the toes. Note any differences in depth across the entire track. Look at the outline of the tracks. Do they change?Compare your left and right foot prints to and with each other. Most people walk with more pressure on the outside of their foot - do you? Look for flexion creases or dermal ridges. Can you see any?

Try raking the dirt a little to make the strata softer and go through the above steps again. Note the differences as the soil gets softer and the tracks get deeper.

Now try wetting the soil a little - not too much at first.

I'm sure you get the idea of how to change the soil conditions using the rake and the water.

Make some notes (no doubt you will be doing this as you are a scientist). Take some photos if you want - but you will find them lacking unless you get the lighting and the different angles and heights just perfect.

I'm sure your imagination can come up with different scenarios to try.

Once you have done this - you will be heads above the vast majority of people who call themselves trackers. Seriously.

 

[The Shrike]

Look carefully at how straight the toe is in this Bluff Creek track under the red line. Compare with REAL human footprints deeply pressed in a compliant substrate and you should see that REAL toes create curved leading marks AT GRADE.

Well I see the same-sized, tiny toes as the most obvious fail in that Bluff Creek print. What do you think of this photo of a human footprint in sand? To me it shows the monolithic margin you're describing. Am I out to lunch on this?

 

[The Shrike]

Once you have done this - you will be heads above the vast majority of people who call themselves trackers. Seriously.

That's great, but we're not talking about the variability in multiple prints made by the same hypothetical foot. The most common prints I encounter in varied substrates are those of deer, raccoons, and dogs. I feel like I have a great appreciation for differences in appearance of the same foot under different conditions, but that's not where I'm getting hung up. I'm after what people are keying on in a single, static photograph.

For example, tube has stressed the importance of material that is extruded between the toes and whether or not it is present at grade. I think that's what I'm having trouble interpreting from photographs. I see material between the toes even in his obvious example of the stomper print in "powder", but it's very difficult for me to look at the photo and determine if that material is at grade or not.

 

[tube]

Yes, good point, as I say it's a matter of degree. Even some BCM-OM tracks look quite good. I also suspect, but can't prove, that the human track you've posted is much more shallow than the deeper tracks of Bluff Creek, or a few of the new Elbe tracks.

 

[tube]

Simply by running a Google image search for "footprint" I can pull this up. It looks to me to be somewhat deep, and the toes are certainly scalloped at grade. I suspect, but can't prove that scalloping of the toes at grade is function of TRACK DEPTH.

 

[tube]

For example, tube has stressed the importance of material that is extruded between the toes and whether or not it is present at grade. I think that's what I'm having trouble interpreting from photographs. I see material between the toes even in his obvious example of the stomper print in "powder", but it's very difficult for me to look at the photo and determine if that material is at grade or not.

This is one of my Wallace-style prosthetic impressions. The powder between the toes is not at grade as I didn't cut the clefts between the toes from plantar surface to dorsal surface.
The powder CAN'T flow between the toes.

 

[The Shrike]

Don't sue me now, tube!

I've placed red arrows where I see material between the toes that looks "at grade" to me. How can I tell that this stuff is not at grade?

 

[LTC8K6]

View attachment 26665
Don't sue me now, tube!

I've placed red arrows where I see material between the toes that looks "at grade" to me. How can I tell that this stuff is not at grade?

Well, since there shouldn't be anything there to stop it rising...