Bigfoot tracks are often reported to be sunk deep into the dirt or sand where they were found. Sometimes claims are made that no man of normal weight could have made such an impression. Remember the story about Bob Gimlin jumping from a log to see if he could make a track as deep as the ones that were found at Bluff Creek?
But this makes no sense. If a bigfoot's feet were relatively bigger than a human's feet, then they would sink less deeply into the ground, because the ratio of surface area to mass would be greater. In other words, a bigfoot might weigh more, but the weight would be spread over a relatively larger foot, and push on the ground with less force.
A large foot might actually be a biological adaptation to hide tracks.... What am I missing here?
Full Version: Why are bigfoot tracks deep?
Just doing a quick estimate..for example say a human male has a foot size of 11" x 4" = 44" sq. in. and weighs 200 lb. This is 4.5 lbs/sq in. Now a bf male with an 18" x 6" = 108 sq in. foot weighing 1000 lbs applies a force of 9.3 lb/sq in. If they both stood on 1 foot, the bf track would sink twice as deep. Gimlin is a smaller man, and Patty is a smaller bf. Probably works out about the same.
QUOTE(Gigantofootecus @ Feb 21 2007, 10:05 AM) 
Just doing a quick estimate...
So the reason the tracks are deep is because mass increases on the cube, and surface area increases on the square?
Yes :icon14: exactly.
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Feb 21 2007, 01:31 PM)
So the reason the tracks are deep is because mass increases on the cube, and surface area increases on the square?
Thats easy for you to say!!! :icon_abduct:
I would have to ask you this. When walking on a beach who's track is deeper, me or my 5 yr old son?
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
QUOTE(seadog @ Feb 21 2007, 08:36 PM)
I would have to ask you this. When walking on a beach who's track is deeper, me or my 5 yr old son?
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
The answer is that you do not plant your foot down flat. Walking in sand and you would probably use the same gait as is using shoes because of the soft ground; so you plant your heal first. The size diffence between your heal and your sons heals are probably not that large.
This is probably why the BF print was som much deeper than Gimlins: he probably jumped planting both feet flat and with some distance between them. The area to use in the calculation is not the area of one foot but the area covered by both feet and the area between them. This would be larger than the heal or even the flat foot planted by a BF to compare with the obvious weight difference. In addition the compliant gait makes the toeing off very much more forcefull than our simple rolling and lifting of the foot, increasing the print deapth even further. The power of the toe off might also make up for some of the backwards heaping seen in the middle of some tracks interpreted as a midfoot flexibility.
The feet may also be flexible and not all impact at the same time. The foot steps my brother Jim and I heard at Bluff Creek sounded like a car tire rolling as it approached us very slowly.
I have pretty darn big feet for a human, and I'm pretty heavy - I am often surprised at how deep my footprints on a beach are compared to my wife - I haven't gone into the mathematics, but I would have expected my snowshoe style feet to compensate for the extra weight.
"Probably works out about the same". Come on Gigantofootecus are you serious?
Are you knowledgeable in the study of plantar foot shapes and weight bearing loads? Now I can not personally claim to know anything of sasquatch foot-length vs. foot-width vs. height vs. weight, but I do understand the value of determining the shape of a foot and how it not only changes under the bering of weight but also the variation of terrain. Having a man jump off of a stump and then comparing it to tracks that were made by something walking is of no value, in my opinion. Where exactly did you come up with 18"x6" and one thousand pounds? I believe the numbers I have read are closer to 18" and 650-700 lbs. but who the hell knows since it's all really speculation, I suppose your guess is as good as Krantz, Meldrum or Fahrenbach.
m
Are you knowledgeable in the study of plantar foot shapes and weight bearing loads? Now I can not personally claim to know anything of sasquatch foot-length vs. foot-width vs. height vs. weight, but I do understand the value of determining the shape of a foot and how it not only changes under the bering of weight but also the variation of terrain. Having a man jump off of a stump and then comparing it to tracks that were made by something walking is of no value, in my opinion. Where exactly did you come up with 18"x6" and one thousand pounds? I believe the numbers I have read are closer to 18" and 650-700 lbs. but who the hell knows since it's all really speculation, I suppose your guess is as good as Krantz, Meldrum or Fahrenbach.
m
I have no clue as to the mathematics behind it. But with the feet I crafted last year walking along with my 180lbs my impressions in the sand we're approximatly 1/4 in. deep. Walking the same path with 500+ lbs of weight only accounted for an additional 1/16th- 1/4 in. of depth despite more than double the original weight.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
QUOTE(jimf @ Feb 21 2007, 04:40 PM)
I have no clue as to the mathematics behind it. But with the feet I crafted last year walking along with my 180lbs my impressions in the sand we're approximatly 1/4 in. deep. Walking the same path with 500+ lbs of weight only accounted for an additional 1/16th- 1/4 in. of depth despite more than double the original weight.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
I was wondering how you duplicated the experiment with the 500+ additional weight?
Have a 300+ lbs teenager sling you over his shoulder and start walking. 
I think it would have been 320+ lbs. of additional weight. Still a hell of a big load. Knees wobbel a bit?
m
m
QUOTE(seadog)
I would have to ask you this. When walking on a beach who's track is deeper, me or my 5 yr old son?
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
I am 5'11" 209 lbs and have 10 1/2 feet
My 5 yr old son is average size at a little over 40 pounds and has little kid feet.
I leave much deeper tracks. According to your theoury they should be the same depth.
More specifically it's some undetermined allometric relationship for a human's mass versus the surface area of their soles. This relationship probably changes as we grow. You'd have to actually measure the surface area of your son's feet but I'd wager they apply a bit less force per square inch to the ground when he walks. The way you walk and apply the forces are also at work here, but I can't imagine that you walk much differently than your son to account for the differences.
Glickman attempted to do the same kind of thing for estimating Patty's weight from estimating her chest perimeter. I think the main point here is that a bigfoot's feet exert more force per square inch as it's body becomes more massive since the mass increases exponentially w.r.t. the surface of the soles of the foot. This is strictly from a "flat foot" perspective and doesn't take into account how a bf applies the forces to it's feet. But then I never claimed it did.
QUOTE(MANGLER)
"Probably works out about the same". Come on Gigantofootecus are you serious?
Are you knowledgeable in the study of plantar foot shapes and weight bearing loads? Now I can not personally claim to know anything of sasquatch foot-length vs. foot-width vs. height vs. weight, but I do understand the value of determining the shape of a foot and how it not only changes under the bering of weight but also the variation of terrain. Having a man jump off of a stump and then comparing it to tracks that were made by something walking is of no value, in my opinion. Where exactly did you come up with 18"x6" and one thousand pounds? I believe the numbers I have read are closer to 18" and 650-700 lbs. but who the hell knows since it's all really speculation, I suppose your guess is as good as Krantz, Meldrum or Fahrenbach.
m
Are you knowledgeable in the study of plantar foot shapes and weight bearing loads? Now I can not personally claim to know anything of sasquatch foot-length vs. foot-width vs. height vs. weight, but I do understand the value of determining the shape of a foot and how it not only changes under the bering of weight but also the variation of terrain. Having a man jump off of a stump and then comparing it to tracks that were made by something walking is of no value, in my opinion. Where exactly did you come up with 18"x6" and one thousand pounds? I believe the numbers I have read are closer to 18" and 650-700 lbs. but who the hell knows since it's all really speculation, I suppose your guess is as good as Krantz, Meldrum or Fahrenbach.
m
Yep and nope. Not saying anything profound here. I'm just offering an opinion why Gimlin made his claims re how deep Patty's tracks were relative to his own. You can disbelieve him if you like. But only great weight will create deep tracks with big feet. It's all relative of course and it's all about weight bearing and how much surface area is in contact with the ground as the load shifts. I never intended to account for those specifics. The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet.
Regardless of what the dynamics of the foot are this is all about weight distribution over the soles of the feet. It sounds like you think a bf makes a track significantly different from a human which makes their tracks extra deep.
My example wasn't intended to make any claims how heavy a bf actually is, but we do know how big their feet supposedly are and by some accounts a bf can exceed twice the size of a 500 lb gorilla. All speculation of course. Where did you get your 650-700 lbs estimate? Allometry? Track deepness?
As far as Patty goes, her foot size wasn't so much bigger than a large human's yet I'm convinced she outweighed any human her height. If this was the case then how could her feet NOT sink deeper in the sand?
QUOTE(jimf)
I have no clue as to the mathematics behind it. But with the feet I crafted last year walking along with my 180lbs my impressions in the sand we're approximatly 1/4 in. deep. Walking the same path with 500+ lbs of weight only accounted for an additional 1/16th- 1/4 in. of depth despite more than double the original weight.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
I think it has more to do with the substrata than the weight involved , but that's jmo.
I agree. It's probably not a simple relationship such as twice the weight=twice the depth. Each substrate likely has its own compaction characteristics. The deepness of a track should be able to indicate the weight applied, exactly how you claim.
QUOTE(jimf @ Feb 21 2007, 09:46 PM)
Have a 300+ lbs teenager sling you over his shoulder and start walking.
It is probably fair to say that a 300+ lb teenager carrying a 90lb weakling like Jim (sorry, couldn't resist) would probably be walking more carefully and deliberatly.
I know when I'm carrying one of my kids, who weigh about 35lbs, my walk changes, and I'm a lot mre careful about where and how I place my feet.
When I'm carrying something heavier, then my walk changes considerably, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if a 'natural' 500lb'ers footprints were deeper than your 300+200 lb experiment.
Even so, an interesting result - if nothing else, it helps disprove the accusation that deep footprints can be made with wooden feet.
QUOTE(Paul1968UK @ Feb 22 2007, 02:27 AM)
Even so, an interesting result - if nothing else, it helps disprove the accusation that deep footprints can be made with wooden feet.
Unless it was a troupe of acrobats and the bottom guy was wearing the feet while seven of his team-mates were all carefully balanced on his shoulders. Then they might sink a little.
It does sort of remind me of when I was a kid and at times in the winter the snow would form a crust on it. My younger brothers, both with smaller feet as well as being smaller in stature could easly walk across the top of the snow. Me with bigger feet and of larger stature would plod along in snow up to my knees, because I'd simply crash through the crust.
Nothing personal Gigantofootecus.
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
There is more to weight load/track impressions than simply weight. It has to do with the amount of pressure/force that is placed on each foot as something walks/runs, pressure/force which is caused by and directly related to bone structure, muscle (musculoskeletal system), ligament, attachment points, flexibility, rigidness, transverse plane range, body mass, proportions of body-parts, etc. This can all be directly related to how deep an impression is. I can change the impression of depth my feet make by simply walking two different ways (using different muscles and applying force at different points) I'm fairly certain (well I know for a fact) if I changed shoes a professional tracker without dogs would see two different people.
If all we have to go by are impression casts, a couple of possible track-ways and a few frames of enhanced film I simply do not see anything much other that a questionable (at best) educated guess. Hell can we tell for sure that an increase in weight increases the contact area, foot length, foot width, rear-foot width, does it decrease average height, arch height, arch angle, like in a humans? We do know many of the differences in regards to planus, cavus and rectus vs. pes planus feet in humans, for instance invertor moment, push-off points, restraint of motion, etc. Flatfeet (pes planus) are not frickin snowshoes and sasquatchs are not frickin human. If guessing works for you have at it.
As long as it's the guessing game hour I'm inclined to ask, why are their feet flat in the first place, is it because of change to their posterior tibial tendon, is it evolution related, is it asymptomatic related, how much does their environment have to do with it or is it something completely different?
I have an incredible amount of respect for not only Meldrum who I have heard speak on many occasions (not just about sasquatch) but also most everyone that packs Ph,D onto their name, but the bottom line is at this point in time it's all simply an educated guess.
IMO it's not simple. Am I missing something????
m
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
There is more to weight load/track impressions than simply weight. It has to do with the amount of pressure/force that is placed on each foot as something walks/runs, pressure/force which is caused by and directly related to bone structure, muscle (musculoskeletal system), ligament, attachment points, flexibility, rigidness, transverse plane range, body mass, proportions of body-parts, etc. This can all be directly related to how deep an impression is. I can change the impression of depth my feet make by simply walking two different ways (using different muscles and applying force at different points) I'm fairly certain (well I know for a fact) if I changed shoes a professional tracker without dogs would see two different people.
If all we have to go by are impression casts, a couple of possible track-ways and a few frames of enhanced film I simply do not see anything much other that a questionable (at best) educated guess. Hell can we tell for sure that an increase in weight increases the contact area, foot length, foot width, rear-foot width, does it decrease average height, arch height, arch angle, like in a humans? We do know many of the differences in regards to planus, cavus and rectus vs. pes planus feet in humans, for instance invertor moment, push-off points, restraint of motion, etc. Flatfeet (pes planus) are not frickin snowshoes and sasquatchs are not frickin human. If guessing works for you have at it.
As long as it's the guessing game hour I'm inclined to ask, why are their feet flat in the first place, is it because of change to their posterior tibial tendon, is it evolution related, is it asymptomatic related, how much does their environment have to do with it or is it something completely different?
I have an incredible amount of respect for not only Meldrum who I have heard speak on many occasions (not just about sasquatch) but also most everyone that packs Ph,D onto their name, but the bottom line is at this point in time it's all simply an educated guess.
IMO it's not simple. Am I missing something????
m
QUOTE(MANGLER)
Nothing personal Gigantofootecus.
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
There is more to weight load/track impressions than simply weight. It has to do with the amount of pressure/force that is placed on each foot as something walks/runs, pressure/force which is caused by and directly related to bone structure, muscle (musculoskeletal system), ligament, attachment points, flexibility, rigidness, transverse plane range, body mass, proportions of body-parts, etc. This can all be directly related to how deep an impression is. I can change the impression of depth my feet make by simply walking two different ways (using different muscles and applying force at different points) I'm fairly certain (well I know for a fact) if I changed shoes a professional tracker without dogs would see two different people.
If all we have to go by are impression casts, a couple of possible track-ways and a few frames of enhanced film I simply do not see anything much other that a questionable (at best) educated guess. Hell can we tell for sure that an increase in weight increases the contact area, foot length, foot width, rear-foot width, does it decrease average height, arch height, arch angle, like in a humans? We do know many of the differences in regards to planus, cavus and rectus vs. pes planus feet in humans, for instance invertor moment, push-off points, restraint of motion, etc. Flatfeet (pes planus) are not frickin snowshoes and sasquatchs are not frickin human. If guessing works for you have at it.
As long as it's the guessing game hour I'm inclined to ask, why are their feet flat in the first place, is it because of change to their posterior tibial tendon, is it evolution related, is it asymptomatic related, how much does their environment have to do with it or is it something completely different?
I have an incredible amount of respect for not only Meldrum who I have heard speak on many occasions (not just about sasquatch) but also most everyone that packs Ph,D onto their name, but the bottom line is at this point in time it's all simply an educated guess.
IMO it's not simple. Am I missing something????
m
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
There is more to weight load/track impressions than simply weight. It has to do with the amount of pressure/force that is placed on each foot as something walks/runs, pressure/force which is caused by and directly related to bone structure, muscle (musculoskeletal system), ligament, attachment points, flexibility, rigidness, transverse plane range, body mass, proportions of body-parts, etc. This can all be directly related to how deep an impression is. I can change the impression of depth my feet make by simply walking two different ways (using different muscles and applying force at different points) I'm fairly certain (well I know for a fact) if I changed shoes a professional tracker without dogs would see two different people.
If all we have to go by are impression casts, a couple of possible track-ways and a few frames of enhanced film I simply do not see anything much other that a questionable (at best) educated guess. Hell can we tell for sure that an increase in weight increases the contact area, foot length, foot width, rear-foot width, does it decrease average height, arch height, arch angle, like in a humans? We do know many of the differences in regards to planus, cavus and rectus vs. pes planus feet in humans, for instance invertor moment, push-off points, restraint of motion, etc. Flatfeet (pes planus) are not frickin snowshoes and sasquatchs are not frickin human. If guessing works for you have at it.
As long as it's the guessing game hour I'm inclined to ask, why are their feet flat in the first place, is it because of change to their posterior tibial tendon, is it evolution related, is it asymptomatic related, how much does their environment have to do with it or is it something completely different?
I have an incredible amount of respect for not only Meldrum who I have heard speak on many occasions (not just about sasquatch) but also most everyone that packs Ph,D onto their name, but the bottom line is at this point in time it's all simply an educated guess.
IMO it's not simple. Am I missing something????
m
Yeah, I was just kidding. :biggrin: Actually, I stand by my initial comments. I don't expect you to buy any of it, since I'm not Dr. Meldrum, but maybe you can quote something from Meldrum why a bf's tracks are so deep. I realize that weight isn't the only consideration in how a track is made, but how much variance do you get with differing walking styles? If the variance is low, then the weight differences are key. Look at your own tracks in the sand for consistency.
I'm doubtful that the dynamics of the foot is the reason bf tracks are deeper. Maybe if there was evidence that they stomped around but I doubt that walking compliantly accounts for why creatures with bigger feet are also leaving deeper tracks. Could be I suppose. But since by all accounts bf are very massive creatures, how much of stretch is it to attribute deep tracks with a heavy animal?
I doubt you could merely change your shoes to make deeper tracks. The tracks may look different but I'll bet their avg depths would be exactly the same, indicative of your weight. I'm not saying that a bf can't change the shape or depth of its tracks. But IMO the question wasn't that specific. Why would a flat-footed bf leave deeper tracks than a human? I just went for the obvious answer. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but claiming it is doesn't make it so. I agree that there are lots of variables and unanswered questions here and it's still all just speculation. But I thought that was a given. I kid you not.
I just wanted to follow up on the math. I still don't see why a bigfoot would sink much deeper into the mud than I would.
Say I am 200 lbs and 6 feet tall with a 12 inch foot. Then a bigfoot might be 9 feet tall with an 18 inch foot, scaled up 50% from my size. But what is his weight? First, assume that my body shape is perfectly spherical, or close enough, with a radius of 3 feet. No jokes, please, this is science. Then:
Surface area of a sphere = 4 * Pi * R squared
Volume of a sphere = (4 / 3) * Pi * R cubed
My volume would be about 85 cubic feet which produces my 200 pounds of weight. But bigfoot's volume would be 286 cubic feet, resulting in a relative weight of about 673 pounds, assuming equal density for each of us:
bigfoot volume = ((4/3) * PI * 4.5 * 4.5 * 4.5) = 286 cu feet
human volume = ((4/3) * PI * 3 * 3 * 3) = 85 cu feet
bigfoot weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 286) = 673 lbs
The assumption about spherical bodies produced a relative weight calculation of 673 pounds, which seems reasonable. For example, a human todler who is 3 feet tall has this volume and weight:
todler volume = ((4/3) * PI * 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5) = 10.6 cu feet
todler weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 10.6) = 25 lbs, roughly correct
Then calculating the downward force of the foot, my foot would push down 4 pounds per square inch and bigfoot's foot would press down about 6 pounds per square inch:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
So there you have it. A bigfoot track would only sink 50% more into the dirt than my track.
Say I am 200 lbs and 6 feet tall with a 12 inch foot. Then a bigfoot might be 9 feet tall with an 18 inch foot, scaled up 50% from my size. But what is his weight? First, assume that my body shape is perfectly spherical, or close enough, with a radius of 3 feet. No jokes, please, this is science. Then:
Surface area of a sphere = 4 * Pi * R squared
Volume of a sphere = (4 / 3) * Pi * R cubed
My volume would be about 85 cubic feet which produces my 200 pounds of weight. But bigfoot's volume would be 286 cubic feet, resulting in a relative weight of about 673 pounds, assuming equal density for each of us:
bigfoot volume = ((4/3) * PI * 4.5 * 4.5 * 4.5) = 286 cu feet
human volume = ((4/3) * PI * 3 * 3 * 3) = 85 cu feet
bigfoot weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 286) = 673 lbs
The assumption about spherical bodies produced a relative weight calculation of 673 pounds, which seems reasonable. For example, a human todler who is 3 feet tall has this volume and weight:
todler volume = ((4/3) * PI * 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5) = 10.6 cu feet
todler weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 10.6) = 25 lbs, roughly correct
Then calculating the downward force of the foot, my foot would push down 4 pounds per square inch and bigfoot's foot would press down about 6 pounds per square inch:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
So there you have it. A bigfoot track would only sink 50% more into the dirt than my track.
Now, let's consider the case of a hoaxer wearing bigfoot feet. Based on the previous example, the downward force is:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
hoaxer downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 1.85 (lbs / sq inch)
So a hoaxer would have to exert over three times the downward pressure of his or her normal footstep to correctly fake a bigfoot track.
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
hoaxer downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 1.85 (lbs / sq inch)
So a hoaxer would have to exert over three times the downward pressure of his or her normal footstep to correctly fake a bigfoot track.
First of all Gigantofootecus, and again, nothing personal. You may want to lighten up on statements like these.
"I doubt you could merely change your shoes to make deeper tracks. The tracks may look different but I'll bet their avg depths would be exactly the same, indicative of your weight."
You seem to be fairly close to saying my intention is to make a false statement, I could personally care less if you want to question my integrity via the internet but others might find it a bit offensive. I'm not going to go take pictures and make impression casts of what I know to be fact and show them to you, because there is no way for me to prove that I didn't put someone else in the shoes. So I will give you that one.
So what you are saying is that pressure distribution and propulsion have nothing to do with track depth? That people of the same weight will leave the same depth impression? What if I was to say that you could take a person at age 30 and impression cast their track, then take the same person with little weight change at age 60, do the same thing and get a different depth in the impression cast, would you believe me? How about if I was to say that older people have a lower maximum pressure for the medial and lateral calcaneal which results in a lower propulsion, which affects the heel-touch/initial contact and toe-off/propulsive periods, would you believe me? If I was to say that weight and impact are two different things, would you believe me? If I was to state that the percentage of the initial contact period of a foot as well as the mid-stance period and propulsive period made a difference in the depth impression, would you believe that? No answer required.
Good numbers Morgoth. I'm inclined to ask what you see in the photos below?
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I speculate that the boot print was made by one of the group casting, possibly the man below, though it is entirely possible that a three hundred + pound road crew member made it. Lets assume the former for argument sake. Real or fake?
Click to view attachment
"I doubt you could merely change your shoes to make deeper tracks. The tracks may look different but I'll bet their avg depths would be exactly the same, indicative of your weight."
You seem to be fairly close to saying my intention is to make a false statement, I could personally care less if you want to question my integrity via the internet but others might find it a bit offensive. I'm not going to go take pictures and make impression casts of what I know to be fact and show them to you, because there is no way for me to prove that I didn't put someone else in the shoes. So I will give you that one.
So what you are saying is that pressure distribution and propulsion have nothing to do with track depth? That people of the same weight will leave the same depth impression? What if I was to say that you could take a person at age 30 and impression cast their track, then take the same person with little weight change at age 60, do the same thing and get a different depth in the impression cast, would you believe me? How about if I was to say that older people have a lower maximum pressure for the medial and lateral calcaneal which results in a lower propulsion, which affects the heel-touch/initial contact and toe-off/propulsive periods, would you believe me? If I was to say that weight and impact are two different things, would you believe me? If I was to state that the percentage of the initial contact period of a foot as well as the mid-stance period and propulsive period made a difference in the depth impression, would you believe that? No answer required.
Good numbers Morgoth. I'm inclined to ask what you see in the photos below?
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I speculate that the boot print was made by one of the group casting, possibly the man below, though it is entirely possible that a three hundred + pound road crew member made it. Lets assume the former for argument sake. Real or fake?
Click to view attachment
Here is a nice article, with a lot of information about track depth:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/coon.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/coon.htm
Morgoth;
I've read that paper many times in the past but thanks for the link, it's all speculation without anything to compare it to.
So are you implying that the tracks are fake because the boot impression is obviously as deep, if not deeper than the supposed creature tracks?
Here is what Green and Coleman have to say;
February 21st, 2007
"Strolling along on a deep layer of dust over a hard surface the Blue Creek Mountain track makers did make more uniform sets of tracks than most, but some tracks were not on the road and there were plenty of shapes that no single fake foot could produce."
John Green
and Coleman;
February 21st, 2007
"Obviously, variation would occur in the tracks left, discovered, and photographed due to the fact that variation in placing the fake prints is part of a normal hoaxing process involving changes in motion, pressure, angle, and substrata. Just as the foot of an animal would be recorded differently for more reasons than due to the mobility of an animate foot, so too would the variety of variables also impact the leaving of fake tracks."
Loren Coleman
It saddens me that I'm beginning to see Green and other Professionals as people who can't or will not admit to the possibility that they have been deceived not only in this particular case but others as well.
m
I've read that paper many times in the past but thanks for the link, it's all speculation without anything to compare it to.
So are you implying that the tracks are fake because the boot impression is obviously as deep, if not deeper than the supposed creature tracks?
Here is what Green and Coleman have to say;
February 21st, 2007
"Strolling along on a deep layer of dust over a hard surface the Blue Creek Mountain track makers did make more uniform sets of tracks than most, but some tracks were not on the road and there were plenty of shapes that no single fake foot could produce."
John Green
and Coleman;
February 21st, 2007
"Obviously, variation would occur in the tracks left, discovered, and photographed due to the fact that variation in placing the fake prints is part of a normal hoaxing process involving changes in motion, pressure, angle, and substrata. Just as the foot of an animal would be recorded differently for more reasons than due to the mobility of an animate foot, so too would the variety of variables also impact the leaving of fake tracks."
Loren Coleman
It saddens me that I'm beginning to see Green and other Professionals as people who can't or will not admit to the possibility that they have been deceived not only in this particular case but others as well.
m
QUOTE
First of all Gigantofootecus, and again, nothing personal. You may want to lighten up on statements like these.
"I doubt you could merely change your shoes to make deeper tracks. The tracks may look different but I'll bet their avg depths would be exactly the same, indicative of your weight."
You seem to be fairly close to saying my intention is to make a false statement, I could personally care less if you want to question my integrity via the internet but others might find it a bit offensive. I'm not going to go take pictures and make impression casts of what I know to be fact and show them to you, because there is no way for me to prove that I didn't put someone else in the shoes. So I will give you that one.
"I doubt you could merely change your shoes to make deeper tracks. The tracks may look different but I'll bet their avg depths would be exactly the same, indicative of your weight."
You seem to be fairly close to saying my intention is to make a false statement, I could personally care less if you want to question my integrity via the internet but others might find it a bit offensive. I'm not going to go take pictures and make impression casts of what I know to be fact and show them to you, because there is no way for me to prove that I didn't put someone else in the shoes. So I will give you that one.
Mangler, surely you jest. It is never my intention to question anyone's integrity. But no matter who you are, what you know as fact is just hearsay for the rest of us. My comments aren't intended to offend you, and you don't need to prove anything, but if you make claims as fact you've got to be willing to back them up to make your point. I wouldn't go out of my way to disbelieve you, but I'd just like to see some evidence before I take your word for your claims. It's nothing personal.
QUOTE
So what you are saying is that pressure distribution and propulsion have nothing to do with track depth?
Never said that. I'm saying that IMO, gravity is the dominant force at work here. Certainly not the only one, but if the same walking pattern created 2 sets of tracks, then I'd assume the difference in track depth would be weight related. Some evidence to the contrary would convince me otherwise.
QUOTE
That people of the same weight will leave the same depth impression?
Not necessarily, but IMO if they walk the same way in the same substrata they likely will. I could be wrong. I don't mean the same track shape, just the same total volume displaced, such as the amount of casting material required to fill the track.
QUOTE
What if I was to say that you could take a person at age 30 and impression cast their track, then take the same person with little weight change at age 60, do the same thing and get a different depth in the impression cast, would you believe me?
Should I? Why even make a claim like this without a reference?
QUOTE
How about if I was to say that older people have a lower maximum pressure for the medial and lateral calcaneal which results in a lower propulsion, which affects the heel-touch/initial contact and toe-off/propulsive periods, would you believe me?
I believe it, but how much difference would there be? Have you actually measured these differences? And what exactly is your definition of track depth? Is it the average depth, maximum depth? Since the depth of the track varies as the foot impacts, rolls then pushes off, isn't there a point somewhere in the walk cycle where a section of the foot is bearing only a weight load? I'm sure this section isn't too difficult to determine in a track. So why don't we arbitrarily assign this point to be the "reference depth" of the track where we KNOW the dominant force involved is weight?
QUOTE
If I was to say that weight and impact are two different things, would you believe me?
I never suggested they were the same. But how much impact would you have without momentum? How much momentum would you have without mass?
QUOTE
If I was to state that the percentage of the initial contact period of a foot as well as the mid-stance period and propulsive period made a difference in the depth impression, would you believe that? No answer required.
Are you implying that the forces involved in creating a track are so complicated that there's no way to estimate the weight behind those forces? I'd like to see it demonstrated before drawing this conclusion. In the meantime, I'd rather agree to disagree instead of continuing with the "nothing personal" comments since they tend to steer us off topic.
GF
QUOTE
I just wanted to follow up on the math. I still don't see why a bigfoot would sink much deeper into the mud than I would.
Say I am 200 lbs and 6 feet tall with a 12 inch foot. Then a bigfoot might be 9 feet tall with an 18 inch foot, scaled up 50% from my size. But what is his weight? First, assume that my body shape is perfectly spherical, or close enough, with a radius of 3 feet. No jokes, please, this is science. Then:
Surface area of a sphere = 4 * Pi * R squared
Volume of a sphere = (4 / 3) * Pi * R cubed
My volume would be about 85 cubic feet which produces my 200 pounds of weight. But bigfoot's volume would be 286 cubic feet, resulting in a relative weight of about 673 pounds, assuming equal density for each of us:
bigfoot volume = ((4/3) * PI * 4.5 * 4.5 * 4.5) = 286 cu feet 382
human volume = ((4/3) * PI * 3 * 3 * 3) = 85 cu feet 113
bigfoot weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 286) = 673 lbs 676
The assumption about spherical bodies produced a relative weight calculation of 673 pounds, which seems reasonable. For example, a human todler who is 3 feet tall has this volume and weight:
todler volume = ((4/3) * PI * 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5) = 10.6 cu feet
todler weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 10.6) = 25 lbs, roughly correct
Then calculating the downward force of the foot, my foot would push down 4 pounds per square inch and bigfoot's foot would press down about 6 pounds per square inch:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
So there you have it. A bigfoot track would only sink 50% more into the dirt than my track.
Say I am 200 lbs and 6 feet tall with a 12 inch foot. Then a bigfoot might be 9 feet tall with an 18 inch foot, scaled up 50% from my size. But what is his weight? First, assume that my body shape is perfectly spherical, or close enough, with a radius of 3 feet. No jokes, please, this is science. Then:
Surface area of a sphere = 4 * Pi * R squared
Volume of a sphere = (4 / 3) * Pi * R cubed
My volume would be about 85 cubic feet which produces my 200 pounds of weight. But bigfoot's volume would be 286 cubic feet, resulting in a relative weight of about 673 pounds, assuming equal density for each of us:
bigfoot volume = ((4/3) * PI * 4.5 * 4.5 * 4.5) = 286 cu feet 382
human volume = ((4/3) * PI * 3 * 3 * 3) = 85 cu feet 113
bigfoot weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 286) = 673 lbs 676
The assumption about spherical bodies produced a relative weight calculation of 673 pounds, which seems reasonable. For example, a human todler who is 3 feet tall has this volume and weight:
todler volume = ((4/3) * PI * 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5) = 10.6 cu feet
todler weight = ((200 lbs / 85) * 10.6) = 25 lbs, roughly correct
Then calculating the downward force of the foot, my foot would push down 4 pounds per square inch and bigfoot's foot would press down about 6 pounds per square inch:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
So there you have it. A bigfoot track would only sink 50% more into the dirt than my track.
Morgoth, scaling up a bf as if they were just a big human might be a stretch (sorry). This would only work if bf and humans had the same body proportions. And are you sure you can equate a 50% increase in size to a 50% increase in the radius of a sphere? Maybe. That aside, your numbers appear to be a bit off.
bigfoot volume = ((4/3) * PI * 4.5 * 4.5 * 4.5) = 382 cu feet
human volume = ((4/3) * PI * 3 * 3 * 3) = 113 cu feet
bigfoot weight = ((200 lbs / 113) * 382) = 676 lbs
However, this didn't appreciably affect your est bf weight and downward pressure calculations.
If we assume a bf's body structure is say 20% broader than ours, then a 9 ft bf is 70% larger than you (by your criteria), then its weight is 983 lbs and its downward foot pressure comes to 9 lbs per sq. in. This is more than double yours. The depth of the track would then depend on the physical properties of the substrata and the way a bf track is created. IMO, estimating a bf's weight relies a bit too much on an accurate volume estimate of a hypothetical animal that's scaled up like a big human.
Here's a link to another discussion estimating Patty's weight
QUOTE(MANGLER @ Feb 21 2007, 02:30 PM)
.....Having a man jump off of a stump and then comparing it to tracks that were made by something walking is of no value, in my opinion....
Then your opinion has "no value" to me, "in my opinion".
If there are "questionable" prints in a specific location, and people with cowboy boots jump from heights right next to them to show the depth, that has much more value than any opinion; yours, mine, Gigantofootecus, your best "scholar", or the bum down the road.
QUOTE
Where exactly did you come up with 18"x6" and one thousand pounds?
Where do you come up with anything to refute that estimate?
QUOTE
I believe the numbers I have read are closer to 18" and 650-700 lbs. but who the hell knows since it's all really speculation, I suppose your guess is as good as Krantz, Meldrum or Fahrenbach.
And as good as yours.
Maybe better.
QUOTE(MANGLER @ Feb 23 2007, 04:23 PM)
Nothing personal Gigantofootecus.
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
"The question wasn't that complicated, it was about whether we should expect the tracks to be deep with big flat feet."
Are you kidding?
Sorry but that is a very complicated question one that can not be intelligently answered without detailed analysis from (the creatures) physical properties so I'm inclined to ask, where is this evidence/data? Oh, right there isn't any.
Are you kidding?
Are you prepared to explain to us how a man with oversized, wooden sandals (snowshoe effect) creates footprints deeper in the same strata as a man wearing cowboy boots?
I'm prepared to read it.............
QUOTE
IMO it's not simple. Am I missing something????
Yes. I think you are.
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Feb 25 2007, 09:43 AM)
I just wanted to follow up on the math. I still don't see why a bigfoot would sink much deeper into the mud than I would.....
Ans I damned sure can't figure out how a man wearing oversized "sandals" could do so.
Please..............fill me in.................
QUOTE(Gigantofootecus @ Mar 1 2007, 09:39 AM)
If we assume a bf's body structure is say 20% broader than ours, then a 9 ft bf is 70% larger than you (by your criteria), then its weight is 983 lbs and its downward foot pressure comes to 9 lbs per sq. in. This is more than double yours. The depth of the track would then depend on the physical properties of the substrata and the way a bf track is created. IMO, estimating a bf's weight relies a bit too much on an accurate volume estimate of a hypothetical animal that's scaled up like a big human.
And then the same heavy individual must propulse itself. It can choose to just role and lift the foot without adding considerable amount of downwards/backwards pressure, merely letting gravitation do its job, or it could push the ground back. In the latter scenario, the pressure of the mass*gravity must be added to the pressure angled down into the ground. IMO it's obvious a compliant gait leaves deeper prints, at least for the forefoot.
Isbjörn
Below is a footprint submitted by Tube during an honest attempt on reproducing a compliant gait (p21 http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...527&st=500). The knee bend during the attempt became somewhat exaggerated and the stride length too long, implying too much force was put into the toe off. I would expect the print to be a little more distorted than necessary by this, but will nevertheless suffice for demonstration. You can see the difference from what would a footprint using non-compliant gait would be expected to look like.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
QUOTE(Huntster @ Mar 1 2007, 12:47 AM)
And I damned sure can't figure out how a man wearing oversized "sandals" could do so.
Right, that is what the analysis show, that it would take over three times the pressure of a man's normal foot fall to correctly fake a bigfoot track, Giganto says even more is necessary. But here is a quote from a "tracker" about the new prints found up in Maryville, CA last week:
QUOTE
"The closer I got and looked at the prints, the more I could see the detail and the movement in the foot. As a tracker you see how things move the weight and all that stuff. The complexity of the footprint made me go whoa!” he says.
What really impressed Scot was the force of the Bigfoot print which rippled the ground around it. Scot's footprint next to it hardly moved the earth.
What really impressed Scot was the force of the Bigfoot print which rippled the ground around it. Scot's footprint next to it hardly moved the earth.
So, if you had a heavy mallet, and you pounded a wooden cutout down into the earth, then this kind of cracking is what I would expect. I think Mangler is right when he emphasizes dynamic forces, these can cause force spikes way above my baseline calculations.
Here's another track, what do you think about this one?
Click to view attachment
Morgoth;
Since the photo in question was taken not far from a heavily used trail in the Eagle Creek Benches area between the Salmon Trinity Alps and Scott Mountains IMO the hoax value is high with only one photo.
I do not know what a bigfoot impression looks like I have never seen one make one so I will reserve absolute judgment till a later date. I can only present evidence that at best is one possible indication of what may or may not have happened.
First off this spoor/track seems to be that of the yet unclassified bipedal primate known as bigfoot, which may or may not exist. The track seems very fresh, I see very little deterioration in it. Heel-to-Ball seems within range of supposed bigfoot impressions. I have problems with the area where the inner sesamoid should be, seems like too clean of a cut into the earth. I would expect to see a more defined toe impression in this kind of topsoil, I also have problems with the clump of grass (June or Bluegrass???) in the toe-off area, it should be a bit more molested, IMO. The inner heel/calcaneus area looks good but I would expect it to since there is a root system right there that would help dislodge that earth, though, I would expect the outer heel area to produce more than one crack in the surrounding soil since this area (heel) is a main/crucial contact point. I see an extremely slow gait with this track or maybe it's walking backwards.
This top soil is perfect for absolute track identification the problem is I see no photo of a track-way, or other imprints for that matter, which again weighs heavily toward hoax. Basically what I'm saying is I get the feeling if the person with the camera was to take pictures of the surrounding area whatever left the impression may very well be in close proximity.
But hey, for all I know it could be a cowboy jumpin out of a tree. What the hell, I had to bite!
BTW Hunster my sandals would not be wooden. Please explain to me why you think they have to be wooden. How many bigfoot track impression hoaxer's are you aware of that use/used wood, two, maybe three? Wood significantly limits ones ability to change variables in the substrata, it can be done, but there are other materials that work far better.
m
Since the photo in question was taken not far from a heavily used trail in the Eagle Creek Benches area between the Salmon Trinity Alps and Scott Mountains IMO the hoax value is high with only one photo.
I do not know what a bigfoot impression looks like I have never seen one make one so I will reserve absolute judgment till a later date. I can only present evidence that at best is one possible indication of what may or may not have happened.
First off this spoor/track seems to be that of the yet unclassified bipedal primate known as bigfoot, which may or may not exist. The track seems very fresh, I see very little deterioration in it. Heel-to-Ball seems within range of supposed bigfoot impressions. I have problems with the area where the inner sesamoid should be, seems like too clean of a cut into the earth. I would expect to see a more defined toe impression in this kind of topsoil, I also have problems with the clump of grass (June or Bluegrass???) in the toe-off area, it should be a bit more molested, IMO. The inner heel/calcaneus area looks good but I would expect it to since there is a root system right there that would help dislodge that earth, though, I would expect the outer heel area to produce more than one crack in the surrounding soil since this area (heel) is a main/crucial contact point. I see an extremely slow gait with this track or maybe it's walking backwards.
This top soil is perfect for absolute track identification the problem is I see no photo of a track-way, or other imprints for that matter, which again weighs heavily toward hoax. Basically what I'm saying is I get the feeling if the person with the camera was to take pictures of the surrounding area whatever left the impression may very well be in close proximity.
But hey, for all I know it could be a cowboy jumpin out of a tree. What the hell, I had to bite!
BTW Hunster my sandals would not be wooden. Please explain to me why you think they have to be wooden. How many bigfoot track impression hoaxer's are you aware of that use/used wood, two, maybe three? Wood significantly limits ones ability to change variables in the substrata, it can be done, but there are other materials that work far better.
m
the last footprint photo looks to uniform in shape, impression to be real. I think its faked.
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Mar 1 2007, 08:21 AM)
...So, if you had a heavy mallet, and you pounded a wooden cutout down into the earth, then this kind of cracking is what I would expect. I think Mangler is right when he emphasizes dynamic forces, these can cause force spikes way above my baseline calculations.
If a mallet and wooden template are used, would a uniform number of strikes be necessary?
Do you think such an operation wouldn't leave sign itself?
How much pounding into the Earth could a pair of wooden templates take?
QUOTE
Here's another track, what do you think about this one?
It looks huge.
Were there more?
QUOTE(MANGLER @ Mar 1 2007, 04:49 PM)
....BTW Hunster my sandals would not be wooden. Please explain to me why you think they have to be wooden.
I don't, except that I believe a metallic sandal would leave sign of such. Wood is much easier manufactured into a dynamic shape. However, it is also prone to leave crack marks, and is more easily scarred by sharp pebbles. And they certainly wouldn't last long if "pounded" into the soil with a mallet.
QUOTE
How many bigfoot track impression hoaxer's are you aware of that use/used wood, two, maybe three?
I'm aware of none.
I'm aware of claims of such. Ray Wallace claims to have used wooden sandals (not templates).
QUOTE
Wood significantly limits ones ability to change variables in the substrata, it can be done, but there are other materials that work far better.
Such as?...................
And how do they work better: as a template, or as a sandal?
On the topic of the depth of tracks suspected to be made by bigfoot creatures, I'll contribute the following story and photograph to this discussion.
This photograph was taken by a law enforcement officer who witnessed a large creature walking along the ocean coast at night. The creature's footprints are on the left, and his footprints are on the right.
What amazes me most is the depth and stride length of the creature's tracks in the sand compared to that of an adult man. And unlike with many other suspicious tracks that are found, photographed or cast, the witness saw the creature that made these tracks.
During the past couple of weeks, the BFRO site has been locking up and crashing my Internet Explorer. This technical issue (as well as concerns about the BFRO database remaining accessible), I will go ahead and post the a copy of the report that accompanies this track photograph:
SOURCE: BFRO report #13653
This photograph was taken by a law enforcement officer who witnessed a large creature walking along the ocean coast at night. The creature's footprints are on the left, and his footprints are on the right.
What amazes me most is the depth and stride length of the creature's tracks in the sand compared to that of an adult man. And unlike with many other suspicious tracks that are found, photographed or cast, the witness saw the creature that made these tracks.
During the past couple of weeks, the BFRO site has been locking up and crashing my Internet Explorer. This technical issue (as well as concerns about the BFRO database remaining accessible), I will go ahead and post the a copy of the report that accompanies this track photograph:
QUOTE
Report # 13653 (Class A)
Submitted by witness on Wednesday, January 25, 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dusk sighting by a US Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer on the beach south of Tillamook
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR: 1995
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 14
STATE: Oregon
COUNTY: Tillamook County
LOCATION DETAILS: [Removed from report]
NEAREST TOWN: Tillamook
NEAREST ROAD: 101
OBSERVED: Back several years ago, I reported this sighting to Peter Byrne, who took it very seriously. I agreed to talk on camera, to "Good Morning America" back in 1996. My conditions were that only my voice would be used, and not my name. They interviewed me, but then showed me completely. I felt betrayed by "Good Morning America".
I and my girlfriend were both in law enforcement at the time. I was, at the time, a US Forest Service Officer (Law Enforcement LVII) and later a police officer. Now I have been out of the field for 3 years, and I want to tell my story and show the photos.
On August 14, 1995, my girlfriend and I were camped on a beach in Oregon, north of Lincoln City and south of Tillamook. We were on vacation, and we were the only people on that beach.
We had a good fire going and dusk was approaching around 21:00 Hours. We were camped on a bluff about 7 ft above the surf and had a clear view of the beach north and south. We were set back on the bluff around 100 ft from the shoreline.
I noticed a figure which I thought was a person, standing south of us on the beach, I guess around 100 yards from our location, standing near the shoreline, looking in our direction. At that distance I thought it was strange the person was covered in black clothing, so we thought. I was a bit alarmed thinking someone may be planning to harm us. We also thought it was strange because nothing was down the beach except rugged beachline, to at least Lincoln City, 20 Miles to the south. When I lost sight of it I was a bit uneasy, wondering what the person was up to.
Later, we saw the person come back, but not stop. It kept walking in our direction, to a distance of about 50 yards. It stopped, turned around, and headed back to the south. Again, 5 minutes later, the person came back, this time it kept walking to a 90 degree angle to our location, and turned around and headed back south. By now the sun had set but the moon was full or close to it. It was a very bright twilight, with the sand and ocean.
The "person" in question again came back, following closer to the shoreline this time. It walked directly by us and past to the north now. We noticed the person was very large and seemed to be as tall as we were on the bluff. It was jet black and had the forward posture with the long swinging arms. We also noticed the person almost seemed totally uninterested in our presence and looked like it was looking for something on the beach, stopping occasionally and starting up again. The person turned around and went directly back at a quicker pace and headed at a fast walking speed (guessing 4-6 mph) to the south. We were amazed at how unusual the scene was. The pace, the fact the motion was more fluid, and not bouncing as we walk or jog. Also, all black. There was no other color, from head to toe. The head was pointy. The "person" now headed south quickly, and went out of sight.
I grabbed my mag-light and ran down to where my girlfriend told me to stop, so I knew where to look for prints. Just before that point I nearly tripped on a track, and was amazed at how deep it was. It was at least 10 inches down. I pressed down maybe a inch or two at most in the sand as I walked.
I yelled for my girlfriend to come down to see what I was looking at. She reluctantly came down. When she got close she immediately said, "Oh my God!" The tracks where at least 16" long and 10 inches wide. As we were focusing on the tracks, my mag-light went out. I told her not to worry. I had a spare bulb in the back of the flashlight. As I was fumbling to change the bulb, in bright moonlight, she yelled, "It's coming back!" I dropped the bulb in the sand and I just stared as it approached us at a fast rate. From the south, at 100 yards, at a fast clip.
She pulled my arm and tried to drag me back up to camp. I told her I was staying and wanted to find out what it was. She became frantic, screaming, "come on!!" as she headed to camp. I stood there and I was stunned. At a far distance of 80 yards or so, this thing was taller then me, at a level field. As it got closer I started yelling "You better stop! I am going to shoot!" I was unarmed. It kept coming, directly at me, like I didn't exist. Its shoulders seemed to be at least 4-5 ft wide, with no neck. I started to notice hair all over, and started to make out the face. At that point I realized, and I said out loud, "Oh My God, it's not a human!" I couldn't move for a moment. When I got control again I ran like hell, toward my girlfriend, who was screaming, "Run!" I ran fast, thinking it was coming for me.
I got to the top, and was happy to see it kept walking past where I had been standing. It walked beyond where I was standing, then turned around and walked back to the south, out of sight. We then ran over the hill to the rental car. I yelled at her, "Where are the keys??". We realized they where back down on the beach in the tent, in my bag. We hesitated and then went back. We grabbed them and were going to leave everything else. After a few moments we calmed down and decided to go back to our things. Then we decided to stay through the night, after my girlfriend started saying that it didn't hurt us and it could have. We decided to stay, and I got the video camera out of the car. I kept the fire going all night, staying up. She didn't make it all night, and fell asleep. I didn't see it again.
As soon as day break came, I took the film camera and took pictures of the footprints, heading both north and south on the beach. Luckily they where not very degraded due to the wind. I followed the tracks and used items and myself to give depth and distance. I noticed the tracks all went to the east at a point. This was the direction I assumed the creature went. After I took several photos of the tracks I ran back to camp.
We left Oregon, drove to Seattle and caught our flight back to Colorado. After a few weeks, I did a bit of reasearch and contacted Richard Greenwell [deceased], of the International Society of Cryptozoology. He interviewed me and had me get in contact with Peter Byrne in Portland. Byrne contacted me and wanted me to come back out and show him the location of the sighting and the trail. I couldn't get back out due to vacation time availability. He found the location and looked around, but nothing was found.
Later that next year, Byrne gave me a call and said "Good Morning America" wanted to do a story on my sighting. I told him I could not, due to my employment position. He assured me that I would be off-camera, and they would only use a voice-over. I agreed to do the interview. My girlfriend, who was a deputy sheriff, decided to stay far away from the media, in case things got out on identity. I reluctantly agreed to do the interview. I did this also to help Peter Byrne, so he could possibly get some funding for his organization, knowing it would help his cause. Later the tape was aired, showing me on camera and speaking. Not good! ...
Since that time, in 1996, I have been back to this area a few times to look around, but have not contacted anyone else about it. I will be happy to send pics but do not see how to do it here. If you want the entire collection you can contact me.
ALSO NOTICED: It was non violent. It acted like we where nothing. Ignored us it seemed.
OTHER WITNESSES: 2 eating
OTHER STORIES: None to the time of the sighting
TIME AND CONDITIONS: 9:15PM started. Ended around 10 PM.
ENVIRONMENT: Ocean beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Caroline C.:
Spoke to the witness by phone. Estimated height was 7 1/2 to 8 feet tall. Its speed made it appear to be jogging and its smooth movement resembled a roller skater.
He and his girlfriend stayed the night after all, but he didn't sleep, staying up all night with a video camera. She slept in the car.
In the intervening years he has returned to the area a few times to look around, but has found nothing significant.
The submitted photo shows the size and depth of the footprints compared to his.
Submitted by witness on Wednesday, January 25, 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dusk sighting by a US Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer on the beach south of Tillamook
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR: 1995
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 14
STATE: Oregon
COUNTY: Tillamook County
LOCATION DETAILS: [Removed from report]
NEAREST TOWN: Tillamook
NEAREST ROAD: 101
OBSERVED: Back several years ago, I reported this sighting to Peter Byrne, who took it very seriously. I agreed to talk on camera, to "Good Morning America" back in 1996. My conditions were that only my voice would be used, and not my name. They interviewed me, but then showed me completely. I felt betrayed by "Good Morning America".
I and my girlfriend were both in law enforcement at the time. I was, at the time, a US Forest Service Officer (Law Enforcement LVII) and later a police officer. Now I have been out of the field for 3 years, and I want to tell my story and show the photos.
On August 14, 1995, my girlfriend and I were camped on a beach in Oregon, north of Lincoln City and south of Tillamook. We were on vacation, and we were the only people on that beach.
We had a good fire going and dusk was approaching around 21:00 Hours. We were camped on a bluff about 7 ft above the surf and had a clear view of the beach north and south. We were set back on the bluff around 100 ft from the shoreline.
I noticed a figure which I thought was a person, standing south of us on the beach, I guess around 100 yards from our location, standing near the shoreline, looking in our direction. At that distance I thought it was strange the person was covered in black clothing, so we thought. I was a bit alarmed thinking someone may be planning to harm us. We also thought it was strange because nothing was down the beach except rugged beachline, to at least Lincoln City, 20 Miles to the south. When I lost sight of it I was a bit uneasy, wondering what the person was up to.
Later, we saw the person come back, but not stop. It kept walking in our direction, to a distance of about 50 yards. It stopped, turned around, and headed back to the south. Again, 5 minutes later, the person came back, this time it kept walking to a 90 degree angle to our location, and turned around and headed back south. By now the sun had set but the moon was full or close to it. It was a very bright twilight, with the sand and ocean.
The "person" in question again came back, following closer to the shoreline this time. It walked directly by us and past to the north now. We noticed the person was very large and seemed to be as tall as we were on the bluff. It was jet black and had the forward posture with the long swinging arms. We also noticed the person almost seemed totally uninterested in our presence and looked like it was looking for something on the beach, stopping occasionally and starting up again. The person turned around and went directly back at a quicker pace and headed at a fast walking speed (guessing 4-6 mph) to the south. We were amazed at how unusual the scene was. The pace, the fact the motion was more fluid, and not bouncing as we walk or jog. Also, all black. There was no other color, from head to toe. The head was pointy. The "person" now headed south quickly, and went out of sight.
I grabbed my mag-light and ran down to where my girlfriend told me to stop, so I knew where to look for prints. Just before that point I nearly tripped on a track, and was amazed at how deep it was. It was at least 10 inches down. I pressed down maybe a inch or two at most in the sand as I walked.
I yelled for my girlfriend to come down to see what I was looking at. She reluctantly came down. When she got close she immediately said, "Oh my God!" The tracks where at least 16" long and 10 inches wide. As we were focusing on the tracks, my mag-light went out. I told her not to worry. I had a spare bulb in the back of the flashlight. As I was fumbling to change the bulb, in bright moonlight, she yelled, "It's coming back!" I dropped the bulb in the sand and I just stared as it approached us at a fast rate. From the south, at 100 yards, at a fast clip.
She pulled my arm and tried to drag me back up to camp. I told her I was staying and wanted to find out what it was. She became frantic, screaming, "come on!!" as she headed to camp. I stood there and I was stunned. At a far distance of 80 yards or so, this thing was taller then me, at a level field. As it got closer I started yelling "You better stop! I am going to shoot!" I was unarmed. It kept coming, directly at me, like I didn't exist. Its shoulders seemed to be at least 4-5 ft wide, with no neck. I started to notice hair all over, and started to make out the face. At that point I realized, and I said out loud, "Oh My God, it's not a human!" I couldn't move for a moment. When I got control again I ran like hell, toward my girlfriend, who was screaming, "Run!" I ran fast, thinking it was coming for me.
I got to the top, and was happy to see it kept walking past where I had been standing. It walked beyond where I was standing, then turned around and walked back to the south, out of sight. We then ran over the hill to the rental car. I yelled at her, "Where are the keys??". We realized they where back down on the beach in the tent, in my bag. We hesitated and then went back. We grabbed them and were going to leave everything else. After a few moments we calmed down and decided to go back to our things. Then we decided to stay through the night, after my girlfriend started saying that it didn't hurt us and it could have. We decided to stay, and I got the video camera out of the car. I kept the fire going all night, staying up. She didn't make it all night, and fell asleep. I didn't see it again.
As soon as day break came, I took the film camera and took pictures of the footprints, heading both north and south on the beach. Luckily they where not very degraded due to the wind. I followed the tracks and used items and myself to give depth and distance. I noticed the tracks all went to the east at a point. This was the direction I assumed the creature went. After I took several photos of the tracks I ran back to camp.
We left Oregon, drove to Seattle and caught our flight back to Colorado. After a few weeks, I did a bit of reasearch and contacted Richard Greenwell [deceased], of the International Society of Cryptozoology. He interviewed me and had me get in contact with Peter Byrne in Portland. Byrne contacted me and wanted me to come back out and show him the location of the sighting and the trail. I couldn't get back out due to vacation time availability. He found the location and looked around, but nothing was found.
Later that next year, Byrne gave me a call and said "Good Morning America" wanted to do a story on my sighting. I told him I could not, due to my employment position. He assured me that I would be off-camera, and they would only use a voice-over. I agreed to do the interview. My girlfriend, who was a deputy sheriff, decided to stay far away from the media, in case things got out on identity. I reluctantly agreed to do the interview. I did this also to help Peter Byrne, so he could possibly get some funding for his organization, knowing it would help his cause. Later the tape was aired, showing me on camera and speaking. Not good! ...
Since that time, in 1996, I have been back to this area a few times to look around, but have not contacted anyone else about it. I will be happy to send pics but do not see how to do it here. If you want the entire collection you can contact me.
ALSO NOTICED: It was non violent. It acted like we where nothing. Ignored us it seemed.
OTHER WITNESSES: 2 eating
OTHER STORIES: None to the time of the sighting
TIME AND CONDITIONS: 9:15PM started. Ended around 10 PM.
ENVIRONMENT: Ocean beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Caroline C.:
Spoke to the witness by phone. Estimated height was 7 1/2 to 8 feet tall. Its speed made it appear to be jogging and its smooth movement resembled a roller skater.
He and his girlfriend stayed the night after all, but he didn't sleep, staying up all night with a video camera. She slept in the car.
In the intervening years he has returned to the area a few times to look around, but has found nothing significant.
The submitted photo shows the size and depth of the footprints compared to his.
SOURCE: BFRO report #13653
Just a side note about the photo Morgoth posted. I had some dialogue with the guy who took it and these are his replies.
"This is the only photo I have that turned out. I took the photo in late July 1977 during my PCT thru-hike of 2,500 miles. Never saw anything like it before or since. I heard low voices above me the night before and packed up my camp and moved. Camped 5 miles down farther down Bloody Run in Marbles of North Cal. In morning along Eagle Creek , near the Eagle Creek Benches, I climbed 20 yards off the trail to refill my water bottle and saw what looked like a herd of elk dropping into and climbing out of creek. In the small creek was a small sand bar and this print. I hadn't seen anyone for 4 days before or after on trail. I think if it was a hoaxer , they would put the track along the trail to be seen.. Anyway, I think the track could be real and know many of the locals in the area believe this north American is real and maybe it's last stronghold. Sorry, this is all I have. I tried to take a photo of my foot next to track for size comparison ,but at 19 year old, you don't think to do other shots. I now believe that at least at once time , there were a few left. Monte"
"Just heading out the door. I was on the Pacific Crest Trail " Old Route" and it wasn’t' traveled much at all. Trail quite overgrown and only 18 people thru-hiked the trail that year and many skipped the Marble Mts. and hiked straight up from Mt. Shasta. If you go north of Dunsmuir and follow route , look at a map to find a small creek called " Bloody Run" this is where I hear something on each ridgetop on each side of the creek. I was cooking with my Optimus 8R which is quite noisy, but heard is low what I thought were voices . I thought it may be some " Pot Growers" or something, so decided to move my camp. It morning near Eagle Creek,down stream from bloody run confluence, I found the tracks. I will try to find my maps and give you a pinpoint. The area suffered a large fire in the late eighties, and is cattle are all over the place these days. Back later, Monte"
"Great maps and yes that is the spot. Yes on west of Dunmuir. I haven't been back there since to hike and never have had any of encounters even though I am out summer and winter hiking, paddling and hunting. The tracks were sliding down into the small feeder creek and boggy muddy coming back up and out of creek. I wish I would have shot those as well but didn't. I have a friend Deems B who lives in Happy Camp and he has lived there since the 70's. He knows a few older native Americans that lived there their whole life and have a few good stories. I also have another friend who filmed one in the area about 10 years ago and was shown on A&E T.V. >I believe there are still a few remaining in a pocket in that area and possibly North Oregon. I will CC to these folks and you may be able to trade info. Good luck, Monte"
Note: I was in this area in the early 80's and there was quite a bit of human activity on the trail between Horse Flats and Eagle Creek Benches but apparently this was not so in 77. Regardless the impression still looks man made to me.
m
"This is the only photo I have that turned out. I took the photo in late July 1977 during my PCT thru-hike of 2,500 miles. Never saw anything like it before or since. I heard low voices above me the night before and packed up my camp and moved. Camped 5 miles down farther down Bloody Run in Marbles of North Cal. In morning along Eagle Creek , near the Eagle Creek Benches, I climbed 20 yards off the trail to refill my water bottle and saw what looked like a herd of elk dropping into and climbing out of creek. In the small creek was a small sand bar and this print. I hadn't seen anyone for 4 days before or after on trail. I think if it was a hoaxer , they would put the track along the trail to be seen.. Anyway, I think the track could be real and know many of the locals in the area believe this north American is real and maybe it's last stronghold. Sorry, this is all I have. I tried to take a photo of my foot next to track for size comparison ,but at 19 year old, you don't think to do other shots. I now believe that at least at once time , there were a few left. Monte"
"Just heading out the door. I was on the Pacific Crest Trail " Old Route" and it wasn’t' traveled much at all. Trail quite overgrown and only 18 people thru-hiked the trail that year and many skipped the Marble Mts. and hiked straight up from Mt. Shasta. If you go north of Dunsmuir and follow route , look at a map to find a small creek called " Bloody Run" this is where I hear something on each ridgetop on each side of the creek. I was cooking with my Optimus 8R which is quite noisy, but heard is low what I thought were voices . I thought it may be some " Pot Growers" or something, so decided to move my camp. It morning near Eagle Creek,down stream from bloody run confluence, I found the tracks. I will try to find my maps and give you a pinpoint. The area suffered a large fire in the late eighties, and is cattle are all over the place these days. Back later, Monte"
"Great maps and yes that is the spot. Yes on west of Dunmuir. I haven't been back there since to hike and never have had any of encounters even though I am out summer and winter hiking, paddling and hunting. The tracks were sliding down into the small feeder creek and boggy muddy coming back up and out of creek. I wish I would have shot those as well but didn't. I have a friend Deems B who lives in Happy Camp and he has lived there since the 70's. He knows a few older native Americans that lived there their whole life and have a few good stories. I also have another friend who filmed one in the area about 10 years ago and was shown on A&E T.V. >I believe there are still a few remaining in a pocket in that area and possibly North Oregon. I will CC to these folks and you may be able to trade info. Good luck, Monte"
Note: I was in this area in the early 80's and there was quite a bit of human activity on the trail between Horse Flats and Eagle Creek Benches but apparently this was not so in 77. Regardless the impression still looks man made to me.
m
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Feb 21 2007, 10:36 AM)
Bigfoot tracks are often reported to be sunk deep into the dirt or sand where they were found. Sometimes claims are made that no man of normal weight could have made such an impression. Remember the story about Bob Gimlin jumping from a log to see if he could make a track as deep as the ones that were found at Bluff Creek?
But this makes no sense. If a bigfoot's feet were relatively bigger than a human's feet, then they would sink less deeply into the ground, because the ratio of surface area to mass would be greater. In other words, a bigfoot might weigh more, but the weight would be spread over a relatively larger foot, and push on the ground with less force.
A large foot might actually be a biological adaptation to hide tracks.... What am I missing here?
But this makes no sense. If a bigfoot's feet were relatively bigger than a human's feet, then they would sink less deeply into the ground, because the ratio of surface area to mass would be greater. In other words, a bigfoot might weigh more, but the weight would be spread over a relatively larger foot, and push on the ground with less force.
A large foot might actually be a biological adaptation to hide tracks.... What am I missing here?
You have a good point but one must consider the soil that is being walked on. Being a landscape architect, most buiders know sand will give very little and is used for building foundations. A BF print and human print will show little difference. Loam will show more of a difference. Moist clay will show a much deeper difference.
One must consider the length of time the foot stays on the soil. Soil gradually compacts as the foot remains in place. A BF standing will leave a deeper print. One walking fast will leave a shallow print.
We also need to cosider the animal. I've read of starving BFs who are skinny.
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Feb 25 2007, 08:59 AM)
Now, let's consider the case of a hoaxer wearing bigfoot feet. Based on the previous example, the downward force is:
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
hoaxer downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 1.85 (lbs / sq inch)
So a hoaxer would have to exert over three times the downward pressure of his or her normal footstep to correctly fake a bigfoot track.
bigfoot downward foot pressure = (673 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 6.23 (lbs / sq inch)
human downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (12 * 4)) = 4.16 (lbs / sq inch)
hoaxer downward foot pressure = (200 lbs / (18 * 6)) = 1.85 (lbs / sq inch)
So a hoaxer would have to exert over three times the downward pressure of his or her normal footstep to correctly fake a bigfoot track.
The PSI ratings are accurate above in my opinion. I agree that a 18" x 6" BF print would be an animal to about 700 LBS.
The following is approximate and the factors are estimated. Each being healthy are walking the same proportional speed.
Take moist clay: 4.16 PSI / 6.23 PSI (BF) = .5" deep print (human) / R R = .75" x a factor of 2 for the soil type. BF print is now 1.5 inches deep while the human is .5 inches deep BF print is over 300% deeper.
Firm dry rocky loam: 4.16/6.23 = .5/ R R= .75" x .8 = .6 of an inch deep In this soil a BF print is only slightly deeper or about 8% deeper.
Ask a registered civil engineer who does foundations for exact figures. My factors may be off.
Elder
If you can, try to get a copy of Scott Herriot's documentary "Walk."
The guy goes on camera - very credible. I believe he is telling the truth.
If you can, try to get a copy of Scott Herriot's documentary "Walk."
The guy goes on camera - very credible. I believe he is telling the truth.
QUOTE(escAPEe @ Mar 2 2007, 04:01 PM)
On the topic of the depth of tracks suspected to be made by bigfoot creatures, I'll contribute the following story and photograph to this discussion.
I think a good number of us are convinced those are hoofprints from a horse, and not a bigfoot. It was discussed here before.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry306361
It's been made mention of that the Sasquatch seems to make alot less noise when walking thru the woods than a person would, unless they want to be heard I guess. When I first started hunting, my hunting buddy said that when I walked thru the woods, it sounds like a herd of elephants marching thru. What I realized was that I was using a "regular" walk and not one that would allow me to make alot less noise. Alot of folks tend to drag their feet when they walk, and so did I. Now, I've trained myself to lift my feet straight up, and place them straight down when I walk. If this is how the Sasquatch walks so it doesn't make a ton of noise, would this straight up and down stepping somehow make the tracks deeper? All the weight distributed evenly over the whole foot as it comes down. Just a thought.
Corey
Corey
QUOTE(DevouredbyVermn @ Mar 18 2007, 09:26 PM)
It's been made mention of that the Sasquatch seems to make alot less noise when walking thru the woods than a person would, unless they want to be heard I guess. When I first started hunting, my hunting buddy said that when I walked thru the woods, it sounds like a herd of elephants marching thru. What I realized was that I was using a "regular" walk and not one that would allow me to make alot less noise. Alot of folks tend to drag their feet when they walk, and so did I. Now, I've trained myself to lift my feet straight up, and place them straight down when I walk. If this is how the Sasquatch walks so it doesn't make a ton of noise, would this straight up and down stepping somehow make the tracks deeper? All the weight distributed evenly over the whole foot as it comes down. Just a thought.
Corey
Corey
No generally that would probably make them more shallow.
QUOTE(Morgoth @ Feb 21 2007, 10:36 AM)
Bigfoot tracks are often reported to be sunk deep into the dirt or sand where they were found. Sometimes claims are made that no man of normal weight could have made such an impression. Remember the story about Bob Gimlin jumping from a log to see if he could make a track as deep as the ones that were found at Bluff Creek?
But this makes no sense. If a bigfoot's feet were relatively bigger than a human's feet, then they would sink less deeply into the ground, because the ratio of surface area to mass would be greater. In other words, a bigfoot might weigh more, but the weight would be spread over a relatively larger foot, and push on the ground with less force.
A large foot might actually be a biological adaptation to hide tracks.... What am I missing here?
But this makes no sense. If a bigfoot's feet were relatively bigger than a human's feet, then they would sink less deeply into the ground, because the ratio of surface area to mass would be greater. In other words, a bigfoot might weigh more, but the weight would be spread over a relatively larger foot, and push on the ground with less force.
A large foot might actually be a biological adaptation to hide tracks.... What am I missing here?
From the figures we have come up with in regards to a BF foot print: 6.23 pounds per square inch for BF 4.16 and PSI for a human, the BF print should be about 1.5 times as deep on standard sandy loam soil. If a human bare foot is 1" deep then a walking BF should be 1.5" deep. People seem to focus on the print size first then the depth. Many times the BF print is compared to the humans close by with shoes on that exaggerates the depth.
..
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.