I was just wondering when the last recent incident of prints being found and casted in the US. It seems like it used to happen quite often in the 70s and I don't hear about it really outside of the Skookum (sp) cast.

You can look around these forums as well as other sites and find that they are found all the time. I read a report from someone on here just the other day and they showed pictures of the cast they had of them. I think that post might have been a couple of months old I just do not remember.
Can anyone say that any track cast is of a Bigfoot for sure ? nope not yet. But what is thought to be tracks of them are found I would say daily some place.

Cool, for some reason for me it just seemed like castings don't occur too often and for me it seems like they were on the decline. It almost seems like the only thing in major docs that gets talked about is the Skookum one (granted I wasn't exposing myself to the widest range of information there.

I know of a cast from 2005, is that recent enough?

I think that's just because the Skookum Cast is such a big deal, it sort of overshadows footprint casts.

Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head Thats just what I was thinking. I just wanted to see if my hunch was right.

Where is it from? Who did the casting, if I may ask.

(For sure Paul Freeman didn't do it.)

I think there are quite a few 'interesting' prints found regularly, but the person(s) doing the finding and the casting choose not to share them publically.

JMO

I don't think *any* of the casts, whether they be from 1958 or 2007 are from 'known' bigfoot, since officially bigfoot doesn't exist, and unless someone has a record of seeing something leave a print, they are really just interesting foot-shaped depressions in the ground.


I'm not trying to put a downer on this, I'm just trying to be realistic.

:new_hmmsmiley02:

There are these tracks by my driveway that look like large cat prints but I'm pretty sure their just catfoot shaped depressions on the ground since there is no official report of a mountain lion in my area.....

Sorry for the snottiness :smile:

I think the "known" was just meant to be "documented" or "publicized."

You shouldn't feel compelled to apologize for the common sense exercise of sarcasm

Dan

Just make sure next time you actually make it FUNNY! I'm confident you missed Paul's point anyway. And...nevermind...carry on.

I too feel there are less 'alleged' bigfoot footprints being shown/found these days. Are they just not being found or are they just not being shared? Not sure myself. If I found a real clean print/impression that had clear toe impressions and was in the 15 inch +range I would surely show it here but if I didn't see a bigfoot make it, it would once again just be interesting 'stuff'. Must admit I sure would like to find a clear, clean, extra large footprint in the middle of nowhere!

I think they are found or cast, but maybe not as publicized because they don't prove anything (even with dermal ridges). I cast one a couple/few years ago and have found some last year that I didn't cast. I never thought about "publicizing" it because I don't know that it's a public worthy story, to have found and cast prints. I figure it's no big deal, or is it? Seems they can't be proven to be anything, so what's the difference, except for personal pleasure.

I just bought some casting material so I'll have it on hand, but not because I think I can make a public announcement of having cast prints, or prove to anyone there is such an animal.

Enlighten me?

hey Paul,

I thought that Patterson and Gimlin saw a bigfoot and then somebody went back and cast the prints, no?

Patterson and Gimlin not only saw her, they filmed her. They cast a couple of prints, then Bob Titmus cast ten consecutive prints nine days later.

They didn't bring in the animal, therefore it's still not "known". Of course, it's not "known" it was a hoax either.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

I agree - *if* the Patterson film subject is a bigfoot, then the prints it left behind are remarkable, and are indeed 'known' prints, but even then, the documentation of those prints has been lost for unknown reasons, and evidentially, we are left with casts that people said belong to Patty. That isn't good enough for my standard of evidence. (then again, very little is).

Don't get me wrong, I have seen photos of some very remarkable foot-shaped depressions and casts over the years, that I think have probably been made by feet, but 'probably' isn't the same as 'known'.

What documentation of those prints has been lost?

The film footage from the second reel

As a side note to the Patterson film, because of the article about RB and I in the paper, a gentleman who I have known for a while (retired U.S.F.S. employee) stopped by and told me that he had been the ranger for the Willow Creek area during the time of the Patterson/Gimlin film. He had been sent down to Bluff after all the hub-bub to check it out and see if there was any need for the FS to get involved. He saw the prints and evidence that they had been casted. Between his report and Laverity's, I guess the FS didn't think any further work was needed. I know it's not helpful information, but cool that there are still people around that were there around the time of event.

I just received a report of 'possible sasquatch footprints' found by a hiker in Golden Ears Park near Alouette Lake, British Columbia.
You can check out the possible sasquatch footprints at the following link on West Coast Sasquatch Research:

http://grandcherokee.proboards26.com/index...read=1172712925

Bushman

It looks like there are other shoe prints around that are as large ( long ) as the suspect prints.

What other reason is there to believe these might be Bigfoot prints ?

Yeah, just last month or so someone posted pictures of Snow Prints, I don't recall the specifics though. Beats the Marysville prints anyways.

Still not casts though, can you make casts from snowprints?

those prints appear to be from a jogger if you ask me. They of course increase in size as they melt on the road


the reason for no casts (I think) is that everyone has placed alot less importance in them , so they get passed off as no big deal, and no fuss is made.

It is cool. If true.

And I'm sure the USFS looked into it.

Too bad that "look in" wasn't recorded publically.




I've heard it's possible. I'm not experienced with casting materials, and I'd figure that if somebody was good at it, they could do it.

But I don't know of such a "somebody", and with all the BS "analysis" of what prints have been casted in thawed soil, I doubt it would make any difference whatsoever.

Only a carcass will do.....................

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-hunter/...d-note-part-iv/

Ive tried to cast prints in snow. The casting material melts the snow at the outer edges of the print and the cast doesnt look very pretty. The only detail I've seen in the prints made in snow is just a genral shape of the foot, the toe areas look more like a sock was worn. If not for the size of the print I probably would'nt look twice. I have never seen prints like those of the Shipton quality in the Himalayas.

Supposedly the boot is a size 13... I don't know because I wasn't there and it's a friend of my brother, not a friend of mine, but this was taken while hiking Mt. McLoughlin in Oregon last year. The detail isn't bad, but all prints I've seen in snow have been or gotten distorted by melting, freezing, melting, freezing. I have very similar boots and they are very heavy, so the boot print will be significantly larger than the bare foot; although, I find it weird the person didn't put their left foot/boot next to the print. You can see the boot print in the second pic doesn't go as deep.

I don't trust snow prints myself, but it doesn't mean they aren't real. From what I've read on casting, the materials get hot and melt the snow as it cures.

The scene of Roger casting (in motion) and the horse-leading scene can be seen on the DVD Bigfoot: Man or Beast? with Robert Morgan. Stills are on Murphy's forum on the Hancock House site.

Didn't the BBC supposedly lose the footage at some point? (The part where Bob Heironimous took off the suit is forever on the cutting-room floor. :new_whistle: )

There is no way to know, based on the information we have, when those scenes were filmed or which reel or reels they were part of.

Someone claiming they came from ' the second reel, is just that; a claim.
We have no way to verify that claim.

Patterson supposedly made several reels of film over a period of several months,
of which we have only seen a couple of minutes.

Heironimous taking of the suit or Gimlin taking off his wig are just two possibilities among many,
of things that roger may have filmed..

Were there any other impressions there Ace? And how big was that patch of old snow?

*edit, sorry, just seen that you weren't there yourself.

There are ways to cast in snow, I believe you use the snow as the liquid in your mix to bring the mixture close to ambient temperature then do a splash coat. I've never tried it but with a bit of digging you should be able to find something.

What about this?