FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS SCENARIO, IF YOU AREN'T IN THE FIELD, YOU SHOULD BE TRAINING Options

[HOLDMYBEER]

Seems like there are some people In this forum that have some expertise on analysis of tracks. In the name of spreading the wealth, I want to present a scenario and let those of us that need the education partake from the skills and experience of those that know what they are talking about. I am going to present a scenario and supply a photograph in the hopes that those of you that have knowledge in this arena will share it.

I would ask that forum members limit their comments to observations of the photograph and their reasoning behind the observations. You will find the scenario lacking in some details....I am not soliciting investigative leads.

SCENARIO: You receive an early morning phone call from a personal friend who happens to be a foreman on a logging crew. They have been working on private property in a fairly remote location in the Pacific Northwest. This morning his crew noticed some tracks in fine dust along a forested logging road. The foreman says the prints are "all over the place, you can't miss'em". He gives you the location and says he's got to get back to work. You get out of bed, make a cup of coffee, grab your gear and head up to the property.

When you arrive at the described location you find a total of maybe 10 footprints. The prints are in the form of a trackway that makes a tangent on the outside shoulder of the road as it curves through the area. All but one of the prints are destroyed by trucks that have gone through the area since your friend called. You find one complete print and it measures to 13.0 inches. You take a photograph. Other than truck tracks and boot prints of the loggers, nothing else is in evidence.

For the purpose of this scenario you are left with only the attached photograph. What are your observations?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[longtabber PE]

You have a print made by a wooden foot- there are several telling indicators

1) there is no evidence of any real dimension of the parts of a foot ( all flat and uniform- a stamping basically)

2) The toes are too short relative to the foot

3) the "throw" ( dirt slung from removal) is directly in front of the toes ( not normal from flexing feet)

4) The plant media at the hear is the same arc as the print and "cut" accordingly with a small piece in the print indicative that it was "sheared" as the object went into the ground such as a board with an edge where a normal foot wouldnt have cut it

5) no indication of any mechanical motion at all

[jimf]

Pretty much what LT said. Hard to tell from just the photo alone without any form of measurement ( If you're there to specifically look at Bigfoot tracks shouldn't you take a tape measure? )

It does look, to me anyway, like there is also a "double indent" at the heel area and a line in the middle of the heel that looks to be an un-natural type of marking of some sort. The same kind I've gotten before using my own fake feet in the garden testing them.

There is also no toe push off and the way the toes slide to make a somewhat scraping like area at the toes , is from what I've noticed, also indicates a fake foot since the toes area does not grab like a real or flexible foot , but tends to slide more during push off from that area.

[Hitechhunter]

LT, you're good!

[wolftrax]

Also the shape of the toes, while smoothed a little, follow a geometric pattern indicative of the person who made the foot cutting across the ball first and then making the smaller cuts between the toes. This makes the toes more squarish and uniform despite the slight attempts to make them separately curved. Also note the "monolithic margin" as first identified by Tube, the general curve that runs at the front of the toes, and the one inside of the toes that shows that front stiff edge of the wooden toes digging in.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Good comments. I want to ask more comment about two areas. #1: The mid-foot area at the top. The granular profile seems out of place. Wouldn't that have been compressed into the base of the track? Why is the granular dirt falling down into the track at that point? Looks almost like an arched sole (but on the wrong side). #2: What are the theories behind the line running left to right in the heel? Jimf says he has seen that show up before. How does that occur?

[wolftrax]

Krantz talked about in his experiments with fake feet about the tetter-totter effect, basically in the midfoot doesn't compress as deeply as the heel or toes. Of course some people take this to be the midtarsal break.

[jimf]

#2: What are the theories behind the line running left to right in the heel? Jimf says he has seen that show up before. How does that occur?

Couple of different things can cause that , IMO. From a pic it's hard to tell exactly but one reason is there is a score in the wood that was used to make it.

Second one is if it's raised something under the soil that would end up being more compressed into it.

And third, if it's a depression it could be that debris was removed before the pic was taken.

A series of pics ( though I know that's not the parameters given) even if partial would clear that up if one of the above is the case.

[Bitter Monk]

Spent more time photoshopping than analyzing. These were just some quick notes.

1. Stress cracks consistent with an object being stamped into the ground vs the natural dispersal of weight in a living foot.

2. Pressure ridge created by heel moving in a lateral fashion. Stress cracks within ridge indicate ridge was created by a striking force and not weight shifting.

3. Pebble in posterior toe imprint. If a living toe the pebble should show a drag mark where the toe made contact and then forced the pebble backwards towards the ball as the toes leveraged off with the step.

4. Pressure ridge created by toes moving forward. The rest of the track doesn't indicate forward slippage of the foot. Combined with the pressure ridges indicates a hard surface being pressed into the ground.

5. Loose debris back filling into track. Not necessarily inconsistent with a living foot. However, a form driven into the ground would create a weakness in the surrounding soil, causing it to collapse back inwards when the supporting foot was removed from the soil. The direction of the backfill would seem to indicate no lateral force applied during the foot lift, which is inconsistent with a step.

IMHO of course.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[wolftrax]

Hey Jim,
in your experiments where you got that line in the heel, did they have that same teeter-totter effect in the midfoot?

[jimf]

The first set I made , yes. The middle was raised from trying to use different techniques to push it into the ground either by rocking front to back or from side to side.

The newer set though doesn't have that problem as much though, I used a dremel to round out the edges some ( need to work more on that at some point) and get more definition and separation between the toes.

IMHO , if you didn't know what you were looking for exactly and stumbled across them out in the woods you'd probably think they were the real deal. Most of the problems don't become noticeable unless you have your face right in them and know at least some of what to look for ( thanks to everyone who helped me with that over the years ). I'll probably try to refine them at some point and let you know if I find anything new.

[wolftrax]

Yeah, I was wondering if that line in the middle could be caused by side to side rocking.

[jimf]

or if thin enough, like the original 1/4 inch OSB board I used , broke apart a bit creating a fracture in that area.

[wolftrax]

Funny how those cracks seem to happen in the heels, you know, the track does resemble quite a few tracks that are considered real, and those similarities are the things that are being identified in this thread as indicating a wooden foot.