I was thinking about this recently. If, as has been suggested many times, the large footprints that are discovered regularly in remote areas are in fact the results of hoaxing, it stands to reason that there should be a whole spectrum of 'hoax quality' out there. It's been established that it isn't that easy to fake convincing prints. Large wooden feet spread out the pressure and thus don't easily make an impression with a human's weight on them, and don't flex or deform realistically. Stride, also, is not easy to fake beyond human length, either by wearing fake feet or by creating tracks another way (as you'd have to hide your own footprints, among other things).

Yet if the footprints are fake, and there are as many widespread fakers as there would have to be, there should be many poorly faked tracks to accompany the compelling ones. Indeed, there should probably be _more_ poorly faked tracks than good ones.

To be clear, I'm referring only to clear tracks, not to 'poor quality' tracks in the sense that they are degraded by weathering or on a substrate like grass that obscures detail.


I think this would be an interesting question for skeptics to consider. Surely, if all tracks are fakes, there should be a nice bell curve of track finds from the really crude fakes to the mediocre fakes (the majority) to the really sophisticated fakes that actually look somewhat compelling to experts?

Instead, it seems that the quality of cast tracks ranges from inconclusive to convincing depending on the quality of the cast and the track condition/substrate. There are (as far as I know) fairy few clear casts of obvious fakes being found.

Thoughts?

Who makes the determination whether a track is fake or not?

Have sufficient attempts been made to replicate tracks, faked or otherwise?

RayG

I hate that question. I am a skeptic; however, I've found three prints (right, left, right foot) that made a "track" (stride) and a single print in a different area (still in the general area). The prints don't "compute" with me because I can't figure out what could make them. It just doesn't make sense. The "tracks" would be so difficult to fake in such a remote area to have hoaxed that they have to be from an animal (although I can't say that I believe in bf). The other print was in a less remote area, but in a place that would probably leave a print longer (softer, silty dirt without weather). Anyway, I hate the question because I'd rather just say I found some prints and leave it at that. If I have to really think about it and consider what made them I get a bit anxious or something (I'm a very black and white kind of person and don't like the idea of something I can't explain).

To answer the question more directly though... Something, other than a hoaxer, made three 17.5" human like prints in stride. One print I found may have been hoaxed, but it would be a weird place to do it and there were additional circumstances (a large animal was in the area that made A LOT of noise when I came up on it and it ran through heavy underbrush...could have been a bear in the underbrush, but it was not a bear print).

What makes 17.5" human-like prints in remote areas of the forest, I don't know. Because I don't "know" though, doesn't mean it was bigfoot.

Three prints (tracks) were not hoaxed and one print may have been.

Ray and Yeti, I think it's whoever's looking at it makes the determination, then others can agree or disagree. I bet you know some things to be true that I don't. Probably has to do with your experience and judgment vs mine.

I think that's an excellent question Ray! All we would have to go on is if the finder actually casted the print and then sent the cast to someone to identify. I'm betting that the vast majority of prints seen are not casted.

Well, i think one of the implicit assumptions that anybody who takes tracks as a body of evidence seriously is that they have been examined and determined (by somebody, on some level) to be convincing. If you are suggesting that there is no way to distinguish reliably between crudely hoaxed wooden foot imprints and a genuine track (if that exists), then we may as well throw out all track evidence.

Assuming that it is possible to tell the difference between certain types of fake tracks and more convincing tracks (be they real or still faked), the question is relevant.

edit: I made a response to a post not directed to me...deleted.

Yes, though I didn't mean crudely made wooden feet, even those can produce seemingly squatch-type results.

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_an...c%20Margins.htm
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/monolithic-bf/

RayG

Another "home run," Robo.

Another "home run," Robo, for original thinking.

On the other hand, I've argued at cross-purposes to you (In an article called "Who'd Fake a Forgettable Footprint" in the March 2006 issue of Bigfoot Times—I posted it here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=351925 ): That hoaxers would avoid making poor tracks, because they wouldn't be convincing and rattle those who came upon them and make the news. (By the same token, they'd tend to avoid planting fake prints in rarely traveled areas.) Therefore, they'd try to make clear, full-size (not "partial"), well-spaced tracks. They'd avoid faint or blurred or "partial" tracks. I don't think they'd leave poor-quality tracks in the wild--they'd leave their poor-quality efforts in their testing sandbox--presumably their backyard. Therefore, it seems to me that the existence of many poor-quality footprints implies their authenticity.

RayG wrote:





http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_an...c%20Margins.htm


http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/monolithic-bf/

I have only found one clear, convincing track. I have seen 'impressions' that I wondered about, but only one clear, obvious footprint. I was deer hunting in the Central OR Cascades at just over 5000ft elevation. I was off the road, walking through a meadow in the forest. I was following a game trail that was hard, dry dirt. As I walked along, I saw a fresh pile of dirt that had been pushed up by some tunneling critter. In that pile of dirt was an obvious, clear, human-looking footprint. I had no camera or casting material (I was deer hunting). I carefully measured the track against my boot (I placed my boot heel next to the track heel and marked where my boot ended and then placed my boot heel where my boot toe had ended and used my knife to scratch a mark into the leather of my boot where the track toe ended. I measured the width the same way.), looked around and got the correct amount of goose-bumps, and continued my hunt. When I got home and had a tape measure, I reconstructed the measurements using the marks on my boots and determined the track had been 17" long x 7" wide (hence my name here).

I didn't see what made the track, so it could have been faked. I think it easy to argue that any track could have been faked. The issue for me is not could it have been faked, but what are the odds that it was? Why would someone go to the trouble of hiking off into the woods in a remote area, find a mole hill out in the middle of a meadow, and fake a track in it? Very few people walk those woods. I have hunted that area for years and never seen another hunter in that area. I have only found boot tracks once or twice in the area, in fact. If someone wanted to fake tracks, why do it out there? The odds of them ever being seen (why fake tracks unless you want someone to see them?) are next to nil. Put them along a roadway where people pass.

So, I have found one track. My opinion is that it is quite unlikely that it was faked due to location.

17x7

I fully agree with everything you said and here has always been my problem- its the number of tracks.

If BF ( or any other animal) moves from point A to point B- there has to not just be tracks but a trail.

So, if theres "a" track- there should be tracks/trail leading to it and away from it ( there would have to be- faked or not) so then its a question of surveilling the area to pick up the trail ( its got to be there in prints, depressed foliage, broken foliage) and even if one looses it periodically, it still has to be there and an area recon should find some evidence of passage.

Yes, I know thats often difficult ( sometimes not worth the effort even) but there still must be a trail- and if it exists, it can be discovered and followed.

We hear this from skeptics regularly, and it just isn't the case. That can be seen with the trackway of other animals, especially soft-footed (non-hoofed) animals.

This website from Meldrum should show this. The 40 individual prints found were in soft mud. That may not have been the case when the animal came out of the woods and into the field. The terrain in the woods may have had a harder, less muddy, vegetative floor, and may not have shown prints.



What would that prove? That faked individual tracks can fool people? And that is supposed to determine something?

I think Meldrum did a fairly good job documenting this trackway. And from it, "peers" have several casts of individual tracks to examine. But they cannot examine the trackway, which is critical to determine whether or not it was a living foot or not that made the tracks.

I'd like to see the sandals that made these prints:

I would check out this site...


http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_an...c%20Margins.htm

Link's not working...

Just fixed it...thanks



Here it is again...




http://www.orgoneresearch.com/fake_feet_an...c%20Margins.htm

Thanks Roger

The thing about hoaxers avoiding poor tracks makes sense in a way, but in my mind it makes the questionable assumption that all or nearly all the people who have the time and inclination to fake bigfoot tracks are competent and conscientious about their efforts. If we take a look at a different kind of hoaxer, the video hoaxer, it's clear that most of them are sloppy and none too clever - they obviously haven't spent days refining their techniques in their backyards before heading to the local park with suit and camcorder.

Ray - the wooden foot impressions do look interesting, but they would only work on the very softest of substrates, and stride would still be an issue, i think. They can make a striking single imprint, though, for sure.

>>>We hear this from skeptics regularly, and it just isn't the case. That can be seen with the trackway of other animals, especially soft-footed (non-hoofed) animals.


apparently, you didnt read the entire post or didnt grasp it

It most certainly IS the case ( altho comparing a BF to a smaller softer animal os hardly applicable) ( Yes, i track animals and fully know the difficulty involved)

I'm not just referring to a track but the entire trail- a track is just PART of the evidence of passage ( and its a no brainer that some terrain is to hard or rocky to leave tracks)BUT, if a creature the size of this actually moves thru terrain, it would leave tracks, bent grass, crushed vegetation, moved or broken vegetation etc.

In short, it would leave other signs of passage and it would leave them literally from point of origin to point of destination.

Yes there would be some areas where there would be little to no evidence ( hard ground with sparse to zero grass or rocky) but still- he had to enter and eventually exit that area thus back to leaving trail evidence so a good perimeter search should be able to pick the trail up again.

So, look beyond just a "track"- look for the other evidence of passage as well.

As you've already pointed out, it would determine that faked individual tracks can fool people.



Is there a clear squatch print that shows up in something other than a soft substrate?

RayG

You're referring to trace evidence that proves nothing, even as clear footprints and trackways prove nothing. Are you referring to tracking the creature down to obtain a specimen or photograph?

Yes, I'd say man has the technology to do that. Too bad it hasn't been done.



There are other evidence of passage as well. And even when combined they apparently mean nothing. In the case of the PG event, we have years of footprint evidence in that area matching the footprint cast at the film site, we have the film, we have two individuals involved, we have independent witnesses coming as early as the next day to photograph the footprint evidence.

I think most people miss the tracks and other sign of forest life, in general, not specific to bf. I think most people aren't used to it and therefore don't see a lot of what's there. Break that down farther and a person finds a print, they get excited and look for other prints, but they wouldn't necessarily see "signs" of tracks. I'm in search and rescue and it's very often brought up that those that are trained in search and rescue aren't necessarily trained "signcutters" and miss the evidence of passage. If you don't do it, or don't practice, you won't be able to keep doing it. It's a skill or art.

People are lucky to find prints, they'd almost never find and be able to follow evidence of passage. That takes training. That's like asking a lawyer to build a bridge. A lawyer may be good in the court room, and may have a very detailed mind, but it doesn't mean he knows how a slide-rule works. The "common" person isn't going to find and follow tracks, unless they are deep impressions that show a heel and toes.

Longtabber, the number of people that can follow "evidence of passage" is much smaller than the number of people in the woods, off the established trails; which I think is miniscule anyway compared to the amount of land to cover and the number of possible animals being looked for. The numbers are so small, of people qualified to follow "tracks, that it isn't going to happen. Besides, what's the point? Something can walk up or down stream, lose the tracker, or just keep walking creating distance between the "subject" and the follower.

The best we can hope for is a footprint in dirt. Forget finding a trail that can be followed.

I think one needs to think about the differences in types of hoaxing. A footprint hoaxer needn't "stand behind" his hoax (or find a front-man to lay it before the public) the way a photo hoaxer must. (Possible exception: "Zack Hamilton"--I can see his leaving a "Bigfoot" photo at a photo-developer and not picking it up and letting it be "discovered" as similar in style to a footprint hoaxer's act.) Instead, a footprint-hoaxer can lurk in the background, chuckling. This would seem to imply fairly different personality types: outgoing vs. retiring. This may mean, according to our stereotype or common knowledge about such types, that the latter are more perfectionistic.

Regardless, both of them, I think, want to make an impact. For instance, Wallace, who apparently hoaxed some footprints, did it where they would be seen and made sure they were full-size (non-partial) and distinct. Pickens (I think it was) made sure of the same, by hoaxing in the snow (near where they'd be seen I suspect). And probably Mullens did the same. I haven't read details of the types of locations he preferred. If someone would put together a summary of known or strongly suspected footprint-hoax cases, I think it would show that such prints were distinct and full, even if many in the vicinity weren't. Anyway, I think a hoaxer who noticed that his tracks didn't look convincing would keep making them until he got at least one clear print, even if he weren't a terribly careful person. And yet most trackways (if you can call three or four prints a trackway) lack even that one good print. Therefore, to my mind, that weighs against the likelihood of them being hoaxed.

I would disagree to the fullest. Meaning no offense, but IMHO opinion it is this "look for prints to cast" rather than "find the print maker" mentality that is part of what is hamstringing the efforts to resolve this mystery.

I've used the analogy before but I don't know a single deer hunter that congratulates himself on the excellent hoof print he found or casted.

While I agree with that statement, I must note that deer hunters shoot the deer dead, then take it's picture.

I must also note that I much more enjoy finding bear tracks or seeing the bear from afar with binocs over actually "catching" the bear.

We were tracking something once through a bottom. Couldn't tell what it was until I found a small limb brake with a tuft of bear hair attached, followed shortly by a fresh set of prints from a sow and cub. Needless to say that's when the tracking stopped and the "let's go in the opposite direction" started.

What I was trying to say is that people can't follow a trail, not that we should stop looking. When I say this, I mean 99+% of the people can't follow a trail. How many people do you know, or better yet (since you have an interest in this and probably therefore more experience or motivation) think of your big city cousin or someone like that (just an example, I don't know if you have a big city cousin), and think of how many of them would go into the woods and notice a flat spot in grass.

I don't mean we shouldn't try, or shouldn't try to be good trackers of outdoorsmen (or women ) I was just emphasizing that most of US that get into the woods or outside have a distinct advantage over the majority of the people, and most "day hikers" are going to find a print and not see any of the sign around them. Most of the people in the woods aren't going to get off the established, hard packed, probably paved or gravel trail.

Just this morning I went out, saw something odd in the grass and started to make a circle around it that I could look for additional sign (thinking of the length of a possible stride). I increased the circle a couple of times and realized I wasn't going to find evidence of passage so I went home. I don't know a single person (not that I know THAT many people) that would have noticed the grass the way it was. By the way, I'm the deer, grouse, quail hunter that congratulates himself on finding sign (I enjoy following a trail, but I know I'm the exception). I have often let something go for the sake of a picture.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say we shouldn't look for sign or trails, but I doubt anyone is truly going to follow one right up to a bf sitting there in the forest. I think, if it's a real animal, it'll be an "accident" that one is found or brought in.

Point taken and well said. I like finding game sign myself.

Well, I said 'the softest of substrates', not just any soft substrate. I recall hearing comments about tracks found on soil where the human footprints barely registered, but the possible sasquatch prints had sunk in several centimeters, so i would call that a not-too-soft substrate. Presumably a person wearing fake feet would sink in even less than a normally shod human foot since the weight would be distributed more.

I have seen several tracks over the years and at least one of them was on a boulder that was rounded and the single footprint did follow the slight curve of the top of the rock.

There was a thin layer of fresh snow on the rock and the footprint was just about perfect as far as detail goes.

By the time a got a camera though it had melted away, about a half hour.

Sam

Whoops forgot to answer the question about the ratio. I think all the tracks I have stumbled across were not faked.
It/ they were made by something very VERY big and heavy.

I think most of the tracks that have been "discovered" and reported to the media (around here anyway) were fakes.