Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks quadrupedal to me...

002.jpg
 
One must be taken in to account the circunstances of the finding. Who found the track? When the track was found? How it was described?

Can we trust in the decription of a track line found, say, 10 years ago? Can it be accurate? What sort of details were consiously or not added or subtracted?

What about the finder? Is the person ballanced and unbiased? The individual has the minimum ammount of knoweledge needed to recognize the track as of a bear?

The description of the track, again... Is it first-hand? If not, how faithfull it is regarding the original description?

I guess many track descriptions, such as the fabled "7 miles long track line" may as a matter of fact, be nothing but mistaken identifications coupled with distortions (intentional or not). Remember that some people keep trying to sell an elk lay by an impression of a bigfoot rolling in the mud...
 
Goody, red arrows! I love those! You need some circles, too!

I believe the second arrow from the bottom is pointing to a boot print. Someone with boots on walked alongside the bearfoot tracks, and a left and then a right are cast, imo.
 
I think the second arrow from the bottom is pointing to a boot print. it is smaller and you can see the traction.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, it looks a bit like it has two toes, but they aren't toes of course. The boot print is over top of something.

It also appears to have a line down the middle of it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps everyone should be searching for Bigboot? :boggled:
 
I see 2 sets of boot prints. A large boot and a smaller boot. One of the larger boot prints is half in a puddle.

I also note that in the distance, the boot prints are just as deep as the bearfoot prints.
 
Unless there are more photos available, we are all trying to deal with the typical poor efforts of the bigfooters when documenting things.

Meldrum reports the step length as 1 to 1.3 meters, so I think the casts are supposed to be a sequential left and right foot, but who knows?
 
The Freeman trackway could be a bear.

Now imagine that nobody had a camera but they did have the plaster. This is a cast from that trackway. If you only saw this, I doubt that anyone would speculate that it could be bear (overlay). I guess what that means is... if the Freeman trackway really is bear tracks with no modifications...then you sure can get a casting that does not look anything like an obvious bear overstep. IOW, if this is a bear print then the overall BF cast collection could be chock full of them.

010.jpg


If this is a bear print... do you think that Freeman may have customized it to look more Bigfootish?
 
Last edited:
Those casts look very odd to me, WP. They appear to be rounded across the ball. Convex. Sort of bowl shaped. They also look as though they have been pressed smooth by fingers. That one and 011 as well.

Others appear board flat, like 006.
 
William Parcher said:
The Freeman trackway could be a bear.

Now imagine that nobody had a camera but they did have the plaster. This is a cast from that trackway. If you only saw this, I doubt that anyone would speculate that it could be bear (overlay).
Click to expand...

I agree that most people wouldn't think of that possibility, but this guy says that it could be possible. I think the only way that'll be confirmed is if a trailcam films a bear leaving tracks like this.

I forgot where I saw this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that when bears walk (run?) a certain way on all fours, their tracks can seem like those of a bipedal animal.

If this is a bear print... do you think that Freeman may have customized it to look more Bigfootish?
Click to expand...

That could be the case. I wouldn't put anything past a known hoaxer like Freeman.
 
I found the page where I had read about cases when a bear's overlaid tracks can appear to be that of a giant biped's. I'm inclined to agree. I think that if the bear that made this track in this put its foot down more over to the right, it'd make a good "Bigfoot track." I also found a trackway consisting of bear prints overlaid enough to show how a quadrupedal animal's tracks can seem like those of a bipedal animal, but not overlaid enough to give the impression of a Bigfoot trackway.

Is it just me, or does this supposed Bigfoot track resemble this bear track?

I've found two children's toys designed to create fake bear tracks and this interesting fake foot (although it's not modeled off of a bear's foot). I don't think they're responsible for anything we're seeing here, but I thought that others would find them as interesting as I do.

I've also discovered that these costume bird feet are very similar to this track supposedly left by the Fouke Monster (aka the Honey Island Swamp Monster and the subject of the "Boggy Creek" films).
 
Last edited:
desertyeti said:
After several years of examining casts of purported Bigfoot footprints, buttprints, handprints, and knuckleprints, it dawned on me that the whole reason any of these are considered legitimate is that somone gave them a "thumbs-up" as being real prints. John Green (a journalist), Grover Krantz (a physical anthropologist), Jeff Meldrum (another physical anthropologist), and Jimmy Chillcut (a fingerprint specialist) are the most-quoted, and most revered figures in Bigfoot lore, yet none of them is actually a specialist in animal tracks and sign.

Hmmmmmmm says I. There are any number of animal tracking certification programs in existence, and the Shikari Tracking League is among the best. To be certified, a tracker is evaluated by a panel of expert trackers on basic field tracking abilities, identification, etc. These specialists can judge weight, age, and even gender of the animal being tracked in some cases. But what does it take to be a Bigfoot "expert?"

My long-winded monologue is gearing up for this proposal: What say someone (I'm happy to be involved if anyone's interested in actually doing this) devise a simple set of exercises using casts, photos, and/or footprint sites of real human tracks, and fake ones (made using say, a manikin's feet, or other prosthetics)? The object will be to see if any of the self-proclaimed BF "experts" can, as they claim, differentiate between prints made by real feet, and prints made by forgeries. If, as they claim, these master trackers can actually pick out real from false prints, hoorah! If not...well...

Any of the BF-supporters here want to try it and see if this is worthwhile? If not, perhaps we can design the test and start to formally request that the "experts" show us how easy it is to tell real from fake prints. Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...



Sigh --- insofar as Bigfoot more and more seems to be NOT a zoological
thingy, (as such) there is no point in getting into tracks SINCE MANY OF THEM SIMPLY VANISH OR DISAPPEAR suddenly with no good reason,(in snow or mud) and even on video. Ask Brian Smith, investigator from WALLA WALLA WA.

For that matter, Bigfoot itself, also vanishes in front of people, as per the book,
THE LOCALS by Thom Powell.

You people are out of date..

go read THE HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER, Kolm Kelleher, PhD

be thar or be squar.

El Monstro
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Diogenes said:
Why would someone in a gorilla suit be in any more danger of getting shot than an actual Bigfoot ?

We hear endless excuses regarding why one hasn't been shot ...


( Someone quote this, and see what kind of lame tap dance Lu has for this one )
Click to expand...


reply: person in gorilla suit can die. Bigfoot never dies.

El Monstro
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom