Here is an 18 page investigation of tracks seen on the Eagle River by Keith Foster. He has given me persmission to show the entire report/investigation here on the BFF. I began to paste and copy, then just decided to attach it instead. There are photos and one that is incredible. All parties involved, including the Eagle County Sheriffs Office and the CDOW, determined the tracks were not made from a bear and were not a hoax, but rather from a real, biological animal that must not have been documented yet. Anyway, this is one investigation that is very thorough. A much shorter version is on the BFRO.

Looks as if Foster may be getting some funding for a helicopter to be at a moments notice to film/track fresh tracks made in the snow in Colorado.



EAGLE RIVER COLORADO TRACK SERIES
EVALUATION REPORT
By; Keith Foster

Incident
Eagle, Colorado resident Bill Brice discovered 4 large human-like tracks while fly fishing along the south shoreline of the Eagle River approximately 1 mile east of the city of Eagle Colorado on 4/4/2000. Mr. Brice took notice of the tracks because another Colorado fisherman (Vern Parson, Grand Junction Colorado) had found a line of 18 to 20 inch long human-like tracks, and reported his track find to the Vail Trail Newspaper. The tracks Parsons found were on a sandbar/silt/gravel area just west of Gypsum on the Eagle River on 3/21/2000. That track series consisted of from 25 to 40 tracks. Gypsum is approximately 7 miles west of the city of Eagle.
Vail Trail Newspaper staff writer Kathy Heicher had written a news article of Parson’s track find in that publication in the 3/28 edition and Brice thought someone should know that he also had found tracks along the river to confirm Parson’s track find. Brice wanted no publicity and so did not report the find to the newspaper, but rather to the Eagle County Sheriff Department. Mr. Brice also submitted a report of the track find to the “Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization� (BFRO), via their web site, of which I was one of a number of “curators�, on the recommendation of Eagle County Sheriff Department Sergeant Don Kaufman, who knew of the BFRO website. The report was submitted to me to do a follow-up investigation, as I was a field researcher in Colorado at the time. Follow-ups include phone calls to make sure the reports are legitimate and collection of any evidence available. I telephoned Mr. Brice, Mr. Kaufman, Mrs. Heicher, and Mr. Parsons to confirm all the details. I called Mr. Brice almost immediately after receiving the report to the BFRO to make sure that photos were taken of the tracks, with a tape measure for scale. Mr. Brice took photos with tape measures in place for accuracy on 4/5/2000, and I urged that plaster casts should also be taken. Mr. Brice also stated that he thought the tracks were around 14 inches long, as he did not see the heel impressions in the best of the tracks, mistaking the mid-foot pressure ridge for the heel end of the foot track. No plaster casts were made because of natural degradation and accidental destruction (somebody with the SO evidently partially stepped on them while looking for them). I live a 10 hour drive from the Eagle River location and did not want to drive that far to look at what I figured would probably turn out to be large bear tracks made even larger by exaggeration, though the extreme size reported sounded intriguing. I ask Mr. Brice for two sets of the photographs taken of the

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act...st&id=31541

Maybe that will work too?

Excellent! Thanks for sharing that, COGrizzly. i would love to see Foster's strategy and tactics pay off.

If anyone is interested, I can email pics that are larger. Just shoot me a PM. Anyone else having trouble with seeing the pics?
Thanks

these possible sasquatch footprints are interesting but the people who found the tracks realy need to be contacted etc by researchers here to get further info.. thanks bill

Bill - FYI - I have spoke with the entities that investigated them including the Eagle County Sheriffs office, CDOW (Bill Heicher) and a close friend of the guy who found them....and they were found in a very inaccessible area. All parties involved agreed on a few things....one - not likely to be hoaxed and not hoaxed by the guy who found them....two - tracks were of a living animal....and bipedal and not from a bear. Coincidentally, there were other reports/sightings in that same area at the same rough timeframe of 2 hairy creatures...one even of them walking in the river.

hey cogrizzly wow very interesting return above update reply to me regarding these footprints & activity. please keep us informed ok. do you have a photo where the creature crossed a river. good evening bill

Hi

Here ya go Bill and Everyone, Grizz said it was ok to put these up

Peace
Tim

hey redrat wow those are awesome new above photos of colorado sasquatch footprints. very interesting indeed. updates as they continue. good evening bill

Great stuff and difficult to find tracks. I'm always amazed at how well the toes line up like little soldiers in some of the tracks.

Thank you for posting the pictures, Tim and Grizz!

Edit to add: Is there a pic of track 1?

In the middle pic,doesnt it look like a smaller footprint directly over the large one? Almost as if a smaller squatch had stepped directly onto the other track. Look closely and see if you guys can see what I can? Maybe its just my eyes playing tricks on me from seeing too many blobsquatch and scuff marks on the ground..LOL.

About 2-3 inches below the big toe..the smaller prints big toe is there. Of course,I am probably just reading way too much into this. I would be interested to know if he found any juvie tracks nearby?

I see exactly what you are talking about. Who knows what that could be. Could be a Juv. Could be leaves or shadows. I am certain they did not find any other tracks than those posted and discussed.

However, what is interesting is that right around that same time, two different people saw two "large hairy creatures" walking IN the Eagle river. Both sightings at night. Both sightings a few days from one another. Both saw one seemed to be much larger than the other.

The one guy kinda went nuts. He saw a different Squatch on the way to Leadville that same year. Use to work at the Town of Vail info center. I knew people who knew him and they all said he essentially went nuts. Could not talk about anything else except what he saw. There is a BFRO report on what he saw.

I'll ask Keith what he thinks about that.

Longtabber - "You want it confidentially or in the thread? its a hoax and very obvious"

Since you're back and have some time, care to elaborate on this quote?

Hey Griz, I went back and looked, but I don't see anyone mentioning all the other tracks surrounding those 3 focused on. And there is an 8 inch print inside the larger print, middle pic.

Do you see all the other prints, going in various directions in the sand? They're of various ages, and it seems to be a regularly visited spot.

Graz

In the middle picture, doesn't it seem that the toes are of all the same length? My eyes aint that great, so maybe it's just me?
I went back and zoomed in on the toe area, it almost seems that the toe prints are of equal depth. I'd wonder why the little toe's depth is the same as that of the big toe.

You can find your answers below....thanks.

Analysis of Track #2

Track #2 is the clearest and most complete track of the three photo documented tracks. The photos of this track are best viewed in a large black and white photo, as the relative height of soil/gravel within the track and around the track is better viewed without the colors of the gravel interfering with interpretations. It is also helpful to view a computer generated negative photo in analysis of shadow.
Track#2 first appears to be the track of a very large five toed human with a foot of about 18 inches in length, with differences being that this track is relatively wider in comparison to length than is expected in a normal human foot. The track itself is almost 19 inches long from the anterior tip of the great toe to the posterior portion of the pressure ridge left by the heel. The first toe digit (great toe) soil impression appears to be about 2.25 inches wide and about 3 inches long. The second digit impression appears to be about 1.75 inches wide and 3 inches long. The third and fourth both appear to be about 1.5 inches wide and three inches long. The fifth digit (little toe) impression appears to be just over 1 inch wide and 2.5 inches long.
The best and clearest photos of this track has a tape measure laid along its inner edge, partially covering the outside edge of the first phalange, the inner metatarsal portion of the foot and some distance behind that location. The shadows left by the tape measure somewhat interfere with interpretation of the foot’s inner edge, but these can be viewed and measured in some of the other photos of this track. The toe prints in this track are made in a thin layer of decaying vegetable matter overlaying a soil and angular gravel mixture. There is some natural cave-in of this vegetable matter around the toe print marks, but they are clear in outline. There is a soil area adjacent to the fifth digit (little toe) that appears to be another depression indicating a possible sixth toe, but closer inspection reveals that this is shadow of a ridge of the dark colored vegetable matter debris pushed laterally by the fifth toe when the track was made.
That an active and flexible foot made the foot print is evident in track #2, by several factors. In the heel portion of the foot, there is a small ridge of gravel raised at the 12.5 to 14 inch marks that peak at about 13 inches from the tip of the great toe. This ridge that transverses the track is the natural result of subtle heel strike when the foot is placed during normal walking motion, in that the heel throws up a small pressure ridge of soil material when it comes in contact with the ground. The foot then rolls over the ridge, thereby compressing it somewhat as weight is applied. It is also evident in the photo that one of the angular stones in this ridges apex was also pushed backward about ¼ inch after it had been pushed forward by the heel as the springy nature of the foots sole rebounded as the weight of the creature was lifted during the step. This is a natural occurrence when the spongy/elastic sole or pad of a soft-footed animal lifts its foot while propelling the animal forward in a gentle slow step. The ground substrate at this location is a blend of soil matter and stones that are angular and thereby less compressible than water rounded stones or sandy soil would be.
This particular soil/gravel mixture is hard to see tracks of soft footed animals in, but is also particularly good at recording the horizontal action of the foot, because downward compression forces generally impact less than initial strike forces and record subtleties of pressure ridges that are normally erased as a result (water action and gravity tend to cause the angular stones to stratify horizontally, making them slide easier on the horizontal rather than the vertical, by offering less resistance in that direction). This track indicates a footfall in which the heel struck first, pushing up the ridge anterior to the heel strike, and not completely erased because of the bottom of the foot evidently being soft/cushioned/padded. This is an indication of a real foot being involved. The anterior and posterior ridge placement is perfectly located and semicircular shaped, indicating direction of forces on the soil material during heel strike phase. The anterior heel area recorded by the pressure ridge and the posterior heel area recorded by the shape of the heels posterior edge ridge.
Track 2 also shows rearward forces being applied to soil by the toes during the step-off phase. The toe and anterior foot pad edge area pushed up a pressure ridge of underlying gravel/soil mixture during step-push-off to some degree. There is no indication that the ridge behind the toes was scraped out of the toe area, but it is decidedly rather a natural upheaval resulting from downward and rearward forces in front of it at and near the toe area. This track indicates toes were strong and useful during step-off phase while walking, especially behind the first three toes (toes two and three in particular) where the pressure ridge apex is highest and most apparent.
(Note; Hoax tracks made with rigid feet make a small and distinctly sharp pressure ridge just behind the toes anterior tips, which is different than in these tracks. In a natural sasquatch or human track in soft soil, this forward pressure ridge resulting from rearward energy forces is displayed as a wide ridge posterior of the metatarsal, but in less compressible substrate, this ridge is nearer to the toes. This is easily demonstrable through reconstruction using a walking human volunteer in differing ground condition types, although humans step-off with more forces near the great toe rather than all across the toes anterior line. This action evident in track 2 also indicates a living and flexible foot, with foot muscles providing natural forward momentum by downward and rearward forces. A hoaxer designing a hoax track would have to know these things prior to making a hoax track, and it would be very hard to make it look natural. The harder the ground substrate, and less compatible it is, the farther forward the anterior pressure ridge will appear in a normal human or other plantigrade track. All of this to a point depending upon foot design.)
It is very easy to see in this track that no one “drew” the foot on the ground as would be evident by signs of soil scrapes in the track interior. It is also evident that substantial forces have been applied downward in the very hard packed and rocky soil surface at the location of this particular track. Probably about the same forces “per square inch” occurred in this track as those exhibited by a bare foot human track in the same location, but with this foot being many times larger in total area compressed. (Note; Roughly 5 pounds per “rough rectangular” square inch foot weight load is average on a large human male with a foot being 4.25 inches wide at the ball and 11.25 inches long and leaving tracks 4.5x11.5. If the man weighed 200 pounds it would equal the 5 pounds per “rough” square. Actual foot loading is somewhat less, because men don’t have perfectly rectangular feet). When extrapolated to tracks with a rough square of 9.5 inches by 19 inches might mean the creature needed to make this particular track would weigh about 900 pounds (9.5”x19”=180” squared x 5=900#). This is a rough figure, but not unexpected for a hominid with the size of feet exhibited in this track. 1200 to 1500 pounds would not be an unreasonable upper limit. Kodiak Island grizzly males can weigh up to 1500 pounds. Bears support their weight on 4 feet instead of 2 feet though, and so foot load bearing capacity comparisons to humans is more reasonable in my opinion. Track 2 appears to be within expected limits using human weight/foot square extrapolations. We can not compare foot length to foot length extrapolations, because the sasquatch foot appears to be about 1/3 wider relative to length than human feet. Track #2 looked naturally deep for the conditions at the site if the animal that made it weighed between 600 and 1200 pounds.
Conclusion of Evaluation of Track 2
Track 2 is the result of a living muscled foot. The track itself recorded many actions of this foot in its motion, to the point that hoax would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible by any means. Track 2, if it were the only evidence at the scene, would be proof enough to this experienced tracker that an animal with a human-like but uniquely not human foot was involved. Track 2 meets all criteria as far as length to width ratios, toe arrangement, and track bio-mechanical dynamics to constitute me being of the very strong opinion that a sasquatch with a foot approximately 18 inches long was involved in making the 19 inch track. I have no logical or reasonable doubts that track 2 is a sasquatch track.

Interesting...I just got done reading this article before I saw this thread:
source: Life as a wave-maker from Vail Daily



At least there's consistency. Foster says there had been something published about a previous find, which if Heicher ivestigated these in 1999 and Foster's investigation was of something from 2000 it fits.