• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

hominids

Second digit from the left in the A photo clearly shows a claw mark. Probably the third does also but is covered by the measuring tape.
 
If I wasn't being mindful of the number of Bigfoot threads, I would start a "post photos of brain-hurt stupid Bigfoot tracks/casts here" thread.
 
I remember those were from an old discussion with LAL - not sure if its worthy spending my time digging for the original post, given the recent trends of this thread. The (D) pic is incredibly weird and sometimes shown as evidence for dynamic feet with moving toes. IIRC, my comment to number 9 was something like "ouch!". Not sure if its from a bear, hoax or something. Toe placement is just very strange; I suspect it was tampered, with detail being "reinforced" for more "detail" and "clarity" in the field. I have difficulties figuring out how someone could say its from a primate with feet similar to ours. Note that NONE of those casts show a toe -or foot- configuration similar to ours and to those attributed to Patty.

Since DesertYeti is with us again, I would really like to know his opinions.
 
Last edited:
I think it is good to bring back these Bear prints.
Since I believe that most BF prints are of the Bear or Faked.
Sometimes the Rear prints of Big Bear's can look eerily like a human foot
to someone who doesn't know any different.
It would be a great thing for the Bear if hunters misidentified their prints
for Bigfoot's, or we have some funny and smart Bears foolin with us.
"D photo" looks like it could be an overlay print.
They look like Grizzly prints to me. The Rear foot prints anyways.
If I only saw these prints alone without the front foot impressions.
I would be mighty confused. You can always tell a black bear print from a
grizzly or brown because a black bear's print has more of an toe arch to them.
Also some of the times the little toe does not show in the prints I've seen.
I was kinda thinking "B photo" is an overlay of the rear over the front.
But usually with bear tracks in the mud or sand, you will see the front print
quite close to the rear one.
I would show a picture but they don't appear for me now.
"OK" Now it seems like my pictures are working.
First two pics are of a grizzly and the last one is a Black Bear print.
Notice the front prints behind the larger rear ones. "Ok" the pics were in the preview now there
gone again so I will give up. It's funny I clicked on my edit button and it took me to someone's
Else's profile.
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
Since DesertYeti is with us again, I would really like to know his opinions.
Click to expand...


Hey Correa!
Just popping back in for my once a year Bigfoot fix, so I'm only going to be around for a short spell.
Those tracks above are clearly bear. Kitz is right about the claw marks (interpreted as toe drag by the footers). Some of the prints appear to have been modified by Freeman to look more presentable as BF prints. He may have smudged out the toes of the rear foot and done other cosmetic work on them.
In my opinion, plenty of bear prints are misidentified as BF prints. Many of the tracks in snow or loose sand shor leaping deer, rabbits, coyotes, or other animals that leave single-file, large, relatively amporphous prints. The rest are hoaxes.
Here's an example of a leaping quadruped in the snow:
awtr021807-24-bigfoot-sasquatch-footprints-tracks-in-snow.jpg
 
Cool, thank you.

BTW, those are prints from?

Let the short spell be pleasant!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the good tidings Correa!
The tracks above are probably from a deer or other ungulate (you can see what looks like cloven hoof imprints at the front end, away from the viewer). I stole the image from another site, so I'm only basing this supposition on what I can see in the image.
 
desertyeti said:
Those tracks above are clearly bear. Kitz is right about the claw marks (interpreted as toe drag by the footers). Some of the prints appear to have been modified by Freeman to look more presentable as BF prints. He may have smudged out the toes of the rear foot and done other cosmetic work on them.
In my opinion, plenty of bear prints are misidentified as BF prints. Many of the tracks in snow or loose sand shor leaping deer, rabbits, coyotes, or other animals that leave single-file, large, relatively amporphous prints. The rest are hoaxes.
Click to expand...
The mud print Kit referred to in Correa's post is supposed to be a bear. A,C are bear print/cast and B,D are supposed to be bigfoot/hoaxer print/cast. No?
 
I realize now that they are all supposed to be attributed to BF, but isn't there another print almost overlapping A? Isn't this why bear prints are mistaken for BF? A BF would have to studder-step to make those tracks or is the claim that there were 2 BF?
 
Why cant any of you consider the 3rd option: a bigfoot, not a hoax (unless hes 800 lbs) or bear.
 
I realize now that they are all supposed to be attributed to BF, but isn't there another print almost overlapping A? Isn't this why bear prints are mistaken for BF? A BF would have to studder-step to make those tracks or is the claim that there were 2 BF?
Click to expand...

Well, as you might guess, these tracks have been discussed here quite a bit. I have always maintained that they are clearly bear tracks, except for the obvious splay toed hoax track. A is clearly a front and back bear foot to me. Others stated that A was clearly a hoax due to the toes on the larger track.

At any rate, Meldrum has pronounced them all bigfoot tracks.

Here is an enlarged version of the trackway where you can clearly see it's a quadruped, imo.

002.jpg


You can also see that the humans were leaving footprints just as deep or deeper, makaya.
 
Lt, but what about tracks that arent bear, and too deep for humans, unless they are 500 plus lbs humans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom