Here's a link to what I've been able to find from the second reel footage. It shows a short clip of Patterson making the casts, and what "may" be horse tracks in the dirt near the prints the subject allegedly left in the substrate at bluff creek.

http://www.southwestdj.com/patterson.html
(requires quicktime plugin)


Does anyone have more of this footage, or know someone that does? Thanks.

Hmm... This is pretty interesting. Has anyone ever noticed on some of the footage that Bob Heironimus is on it? Also, one of the other men that was photo'd with Patterson in this photo. They are wearing the same clothes as in the photo in the film. (note that patterson is also wearing the same clothes as seen in the photos of him with the casts also, as well as the casting process, and on horseback) The second reel footage was supposedly shot at bluff creek no? Anyone have more info regarding this?

Heironimus is on the far right in the photo. Hes seen riding down the hill on the horse in the film/video. Not sure of the other gentlemans name but hes the third from the left and is also seen riding behind heironimus.


some of the 2nd reel footage


some of that same footage (with heironimus) is on this youtube about the patterson film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgjieI94CDY

Just to clarify ..


There has never been any evidence presented to establish any sequence of filming..

i.e. -- 1st reel, 2nd reel , etc ...

It wouldn't surprise me to see Heironimus. Doesn't he live near, or possibly on the same road, as Bob Gimlin?

Just throwing out a guess...

It looks like these are stills from a movie rather than 2 seperate still pctures. Based on Roger's beard growth, it seems to be much later than the casting pics. Some evidence points to only one roll of film being sent out on 10/20. Could this be from the 2nd reel? If they didn't take the entire 100 ft at the site, they needed to use it up and get it developed for the showing on 10/26 in BC. Could it possibly be taken after driving back to Yakima the next day, possibly at Roger's house?



Click to view attachment

After some research, this is what I've learned. According to Daniel Perez and Chris Murphy those are stills from the 2nd reel showing Patterson display the casts taken on oct 20 1967 at Bluff Creek. Gimlin took the images filming Patterson. Murphy says he has reasonable evidence to support this as well.


So, that of course begs the question... How come in the casting process Patterson shows almost no beard growth? In the stills from the second reel taken of him displaying the casts he has substantial facial hair growth.



Lets also take a look at what appear to be those horse tracks, and the depth of them compared to the tracks left by the subject in the film. You can also compare them to pattersons boot that leaves no visible impression in the substrate. Interesting. Those tracks sure look deep. Deeper than the subject in the film could've possibly left. It would take tremendous force to make them that deep by "walking" with a foot that size.

There is no evidence that the film of Roger holding the casts was taken the same day. Could have been, but not proved. Sorry.


This has been debated ad nauseam in other threads. Somehow I doubt you just noticed this.


Sounds like you're backtracking here.

The whole point is, it would appear they were not. Hence the facial hair growth.



I think its a valid point in considering the timeline.





Nope, not backtracking. Providing some supporting evidence of this. Hence the stills showing the tracks in comparison. Also in another thread I posted these images which show Patterson next to the tracks. He sure doesnt seem to sink at all in that substrate. Looks like those tracks (which appear to be horse tracks, but I'm sure it will be disputed, or which horse made them etc) sure didnt sink very deep either. Even if you ignore what appear to be horse tracks, look at Roger and how deep he sinks. (or rather doesnt, at all) Makes the point pretty clearly I think. A foot that size, would take tremendous force to leave impression of that depth. More than could've been done by any animal walking of the size seen on film.

That's funny, I put together that collage of stills a few years ago. They were extracted from the clip you linked to. No one (except maybe Gimlin) knows which reel they actually came from.


Ignore the alleged horse tracks. I'm wondering if the tracks are so deep, then how did RP make them? You admit that you would need extreme weight to make them. Did they slap on some BF shoes on the horses? If they used 2 foot stamps (right & left), they would surely splash the sand and wipe out any features to go that deep, without extreme weight. Maybe RP & BG piggybacked on BH. Providing the tracks are as deep as you think they are, how would you have done it?

Perhaps it was done like this. They could easily tamp them down to a desired depth.

I swear, there's more debate to the PGF than the whole damn Kennedy Assassinations. Yes, BOTH of them. Before long ya'll will be debating if Patterson had on Boxers or Briefs that day.

I admire you guys determination on it though.





PS: I'm referring to everyone, not just Gigantofootecus & Riverrun.

Wow, if he did this for the entire trackway that Titmus claims he followed, that would be impressive and very time consuming.

I assume there are no frames in which one can see the foot sinking down into the sand . . . ?

omg that was good lol

If you play the video just a bit farther you will find a view of Patterson's face that is not as clean as what the side view might lead you to believe. The entire image is entirely overexposed to the point the shirt's pattern is not visible and textured highlights lost all together. I think an argument can be made that he has several days growth on his face.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Anybody notice something missing from these photos????

I used to argue that in JREF but after all the fantastically innane counters I gave up. Yes Patterson does indeed seem to have a nice growth of beard on his face. He's also filthy as if he'd just fallen off a horse as well a having been wilderness living for a couple of weeks.

Comncents:

"Anybody notice something missing from these photos???? "

I give up. What's missing?



Bill

Click to view attachment

Facial hair

Then we agree to disagree. I say you are comparing images that were exposed very differently....different lighting exposures with the camera, different angles to the light of the sun and certainly different times of day. I am not convinced the comparison of the two photos, by itself, displays an incongruity to the facts.

I am speaking of the photos compared in post 19. The photos in post 20 are essentially the same thing.

edited by HMB as to reference

Just an open question here, since i don't know, but is there any insistance that the footprint casting picture and the Roger by the tree photo were taken the same day? Could they be different days? As I say, I don't know, and am just asking.

Bill

I heard from a couple of sources that they were "supposedly" taken the same day as part of the 2nd reel footage. (both scenes allegedly shot on oct 20) Chris Murphy said he had good evidence to suggest this and pointed out a certain tree behind the trackway that may or may not be the tree Patterson was alleged to be standing in front of. Also he mentioned that Patterson and Gimlin didnt get back to Yakima until after midnight on saturday. If the film of him displaying the casts was taken at a different location it wouldve had to be sunday before they showed up at DeAtleys before 3 pm. (hes definitely wearing the same clothes so that would've been odd for him to put on the same nasty outfit after arriving home) It appears from the sun angle in the cast display photos that this was at least that late in the afternoon. It is also "rumored" that both films were sent in at the same time for processing. We know that the 2nd reel footage was shown in BC a few days later.

That being said, it appears to me that the images (film) was shot on different days. (the casting, and the display images) The growth on Pattersons face appears to me to be more than a few hours difference.


It may or may not be coincidence that Krantz mentions in a book that Patterson told him personally he had faked some tracks in order to film himself casting them a few days before the PGF as we know it was filmed.


Also, I'm having a hard time seeing the tracks past the one that is being cast on the images of Patterson making the casts. It would appear from the angle of the foot that you would be able to see the next one after it. Does the trackway end there? Are there frames in the 2nd reel footage that Green had that show more of the trackway then just the two prints before the one being cast? (as in any after the one being cast)

A great question would be: is there any other footage of Patterson casting tracks from Bluff Creek area? There should be according to Krantz. If not, I think we solved that part of it.

the next two or three footprints........

or a good explanation of why we don't see them. The ground seems smooth and undisturbed. I tried to duplicate the photo with additional footprints in line and 41" apart, the next prints should be visible, IMO.

Comncents,

RR's find in Krantz's book might make an entry in your time-line thread. We don't really know precisely when the foot print casting took place but we know it was before the encounter and we have a pretty good source to tie it to.

I saw RR's theory, but it has always been assumed that this was "2nd roll" footage taken at Bluff Creek. If not, there was alot of time wasted on discussions of sun-angle, time of day etc in other threads. The soil, etc seems to be right, but it could be from a "how to fake a track by RP" as referred to by Krantz. The cast looks very similar in shape to the ones claimed to be from Patty. This is another reason to try to find all the missing film from both rolls, something some people here seem to think is worthless. I hope film of the trackway is posted to compare, especially if it was taken after the plaster was poured. Patterson supposedly poured the best left and right prints only. Maybe time will tell.

Just wondering how you would tamp down the track to get a pressure ridge?

Click to view attachment

Note the depth of the heel vs the rest of the print. That's because for a moment the full weight + forward momentum is concentrated over less than 10 sq.in. of the foot before rolling thru its step. And NOT over the entire foot, which you keep comparing to a horse's hoof.

So how would a stamp simulate an actual dynamic step, where the foot rolls from the heel to toe and creates a pressure ridge? And if 2 stamps were used, wouldn't all the tracks look identical? Do they? Just askin'.

I thought that the track that Roger was casting was the same one in that 2nd Reel footage that matches LeClerc's photos.

Click to view attachment

And I agree, in the sequence of RP casting the track, there aren't any obvious signs of the rest of the trackway. Doesn't confirm that the other prints aren't there tho. We don't know how consistent the substrate was, etc.

Well I see some problems with that print just looking at it. Notice the big toe area leaves a small pressure ridge also, but the other toes do not and they look "pristine" with their imprint. I cant tell you how they may or may not have faked the tracks. I was not there, and I never asked Roger how he did so. The only reference I can give was in Krantz book where he explains how Roger told him he did it. That being said, it would not be hard to fake pressure ridges. Several people have done so with flat wooden or stiff (not bendable) feet even. One could also use their hand to push the soil whatever direction they may choose. The depth of the prints that were documented is a HUGE problem. We can compare them to Patterson standing beside the tracks as well. He leaves no noticable impression in the substrate standing right beside the tracks. Creating a fake pressure ridge would not be a problem, and I'm sure you know this. I'm surprised to see you mention it even... ;-)

Also, if there is not other film from the Bluff Creek area showing Patterson making print casts, this is a HUGE problem with the timeline involed, and the legitimacy of the tracks documented.



I'm hoping someone can produce more footage, or stills showing what parts of the trackways were documented. It would appear to me that the footage of Patterson making the casts was made at an earlier date than the display footage. It also appear to me that the trackway may have stopped just beyond the track he is shown casting in the footage. (maybe to later be "finished" as would be shown in photos depicting the entire trackway) If anyone has photos depicting the entire trackway, or parts of it please post them up.

You are all over the map here. The depth of the prints is a non issue, unless you can back up your claims. You keep talkin' and I'm still waitin'...

I specifically asked how you would TAMP down a DEEP track to create a pressure ridge? Not slip on flexible feet, like some have done. How would they create DEEP tracks doing that? I never claimed the tracks were deep in the 1st place. You're the one who is contradicting yourself with every post.


How so? We don't know exactly what footage is from what reel. Why must the footage of Roger, with the beard, be shot on the same day as the PGF? There was plenty of room on the 2nd reel. What was the timeline for developing that reel?

And answer me this. You claim that Murphy has it on good authority that all the footage was shot on the same day. Huh? You don't believe that, so why do you quote it? Are you suggesting that Murphy was in on the hoax?


I hope so too. Then maybe some of your claims will hold water. Otherwise, you seem too quick to judge based strictly on unconfirmed hearsay and innuendo. How about some facts for a change?

One other thing I was wondering about. If P & G went to Bluff Creek just to create/cast the fake trackway (since the film was already in the can), then why didn't they bring along the casting material? Why did they have to go back to camp for it? Seems kinda stupid not to have brought it when they KNEW they would need it. Odd, don't you think?

So you think that all the tracks were faked? Then Patty doesn't actually have 14.5" feet, right? Then why do you think the foot ruler is a valid way to estimate Patty's height? You seem to want it both ways, as long as it "suits" your claims. Your confirmation bias is sticking out again. Better zip up.

Without tying to any particular image, just the fact that Patterson said he casted a fake print prior to the encounter is an important fact that I don't think many people are aware of.

HMB

"Without tying to any particular image, just the fact that Patterson said he casted a fake print prior to the encounter is an important fact that I don't think many people are aware of. "

Just some thoughts I'd like to include for consideration.

1. Any person looking for real footprints should have knowledge of how fake footprints are made, so they can tell the real from the fake. If i were going out into the field as a researcher, hoping to find footprints, the first thing I'd do is try to make fake ones to see for myself what a faked print looked like to compare to what I found. Or if i found and cast prints, I'd try to replicate them by faking processes to see how closely i could get, to better appraise the potential analysis of the casts. So any claim by Roger about making fake prints could simply be part of that research, developing a way to seperate real from fake, in case people tried to hoax him, knowing he was looking for the real stuff. Somebody might think, "Well, ol' roger is lookin' for prints, so let's make some and call him over, and see if he can be fooled". I'd sure want to be prepared for that possibility.

2. Roger was making a documentary about the Bigfoot phenomenon, and footprints and casts of same are clearly a big part of the subject. So while he might hope to find a real trackway and cast prints, while filming same, just to be sure he's got some "Casting a print" footage, he might make a footprint and then film casting it, just to demonstrate the process of casting. Could his casting footage be that, a mere demonstration of the casting process. If so, it is a factual demonstration of process, regardless of whether the print being cast is real or made by him. Any fraud would be using the resulting casting and claiming it was real, if it were not. But just filming how a cast is made is factual regardless of how the print got into the ground, from a demonstration standpoint.

3. If he and Bob were three weeks into the trip, with little to show for it besides some "riding through the autumn woods" footage, might he not think "well, we're not finding much so far, so let's do a casting a footprint demo so at least we've got footage of that, one more shot closer to a finished documentary."

Just thoughts here, no conclusions, things i wonder about.

Bill

I personally wouldnt tamp down any tracks, or fake them so null point. Patterson has obviously done this before, and knows how to. It wouldnt be hard to do. In Krantz book he mentioned how Patterson did this (or did you miss this part for the third or forth time I posted it? lmao) Seeing as Patterson actually told someone how he faked tracks, I would assume that is likely how he did it. Dug out the tracks, and then tamped down the inside of it. Certainly wouldnt be hard to do, or to fake a pressure ridge. Do you think it would be difficult or impossible to do?


As for the evidence Murphy says about the "2nd reel" footage showing Patterson displaying the casts on oct 20 from Bluff Creek, I already mentioned some of that. I dont want to paste a private email in its entirety on a forum ya know? The things he mentioned were, the tree which he pointed out behind the trackway (as seen during the pgf) on Greens footage of Mcclarin. I can ask him if he minds me posting the image he included regarding it. It shows a comparison between the two scenes and points out which tree he feels is the tree. He also stated that it would've been odd for Patterson to have worn the same clothes being that he got home after midnight Saturday, it wouldve had to been Sunday minimally before he couldve taken the film (remember saturday at bluff creek was raining, and there wouldve been evidence of that in the stills) So You have Patterson arriving at DeAtleys place sometime before 3pm in order to meet with Dahinden and Green. The sun appears to be late afternoon in the stills of Patterson displaying the casts. (Murphy mentioned it takes about 20 or so mins for plaster to dry) Another point he mentioned was the casts appeared to have a damp appearance to them. He stated that casts tend to appear more white (plaster casts) as they dried. He said its a technique often used while casting is to use water to bathe them (not fully dip)to smooth them out. He says hes done this many times himself making casts, and its ovious that Patterson was experienced making casts. Why would Patterson put on the same old nasty outfit after being home already, when meeting up with some people at DeAtleys about the film? It would make sense he wouldve bathed and changed clothes at least. If you need more clarification on what Murphy has to offer on those points I'd suggest contacting him. Hes a real nice guy, and probably would respond to your requests. Much more accurate than asking someone hes emailed about these issues dont ya think? ;-)


Also, who says they went back to get anything from their truck? That "may" all be part of their story, which seems to change infinitely. If you want to get into what parts of the story changed again, I'll pass on that one haha.

I believe the trackway was faked. Yes. I think if you're going to try and present the film representing a real animal, you HAVE to take into consideration the tracks as a decent measure to the subject in the film. If you dont, youre not considering the physical evidence to be real that was left behind. (or relevent) If you've noticed each time I mention the foot as a ruler method, I also mention (usually like this) a statement to the effect of "if you believe the trackway to be real" then the subject would have to be around 6' tall.


The problem with that is, making a height estimate using the historical estimates on distance and what we (should) know is a 25mm lens doesnt add up to the same subject height. And it should corroborate the foot as a ruler method. It doesnt. Thats another example of why the trackway was likely faked. The depth also is. (even though you seem to want to ignore the articles I've linked to that mention this, after doing studies upon horse tracks in comparison to humans) In fact, the "creature" would appear to have very large feet in relation to its height, and as we known from Meldrum sasquatch supposedly have a flat flexible foot. Putting these two things together mean that a sasquatch and a human of the same weight would not leave the same depth prints. We already know (from studies done) that a human and horse of the same weight do not leave the same depth tracks. So, you're left with a big boat of a foot leaving these very deep tracks when the humans and horses at the same scene in the same substrate hardly leave any depth at all track. The humans in comparison dont even make noticble marks on the ground in comparison, and the horse tracks appear to be not even half as deep. Krantz explaination of how Patterson faked his tracks to film himself casting would sure explain why those tracks are too deep to have come from a subject of that size.

Basically, you're way off ;-) I never claimed it "both ways". I've always said the trackway was faked. If you want to believe this to depict a real animal, however... you have to consider the foot as a ruler method. THAT is the whole point.

I see some slight differences in the ground around the two tracks. The small mound of dirt casting a shadow below and to the right isn't apparent in the photo with Patterson and the dirt around the track seems slightly different. The story says 1 left and 1 right (the best) were cast that day. It could be photos of different tracks.

I could believe that the angle of the camera might hide the tracks, but the ground appears relatively flat and visible. As for the substrate changing so much in 41" that one track is an inch deep and the next one leaves no mark... yes it could be, but I have a hard time buying that as a reasonable explanation. Photos of the trackway AFTER the plaster was poured would help.

I just wanted to point out that there appears to be an assumption that the substrate on which Patty is seen to be walking is uniform in density and depth throughout the footage. I've done my share of fishing on rivers and creeks and I can assure you that the consistency of sandbars and other features found on or near rivers are very unpredictable, even within a few square feet. The way the river moves over time and with respect to erosion, flooding etc.. creates a highly variable walking surface. You can be walking on a hardpan one minute and then sinking to your knees in quicksand type aggregate the next. The tricky thing is both types and everything in between can look exactly the same on the surface.

Does "tamping" include pounding an inflexible form with a hammer? This is how I assume "deep" prints are made to create the impression that something very heavy left them. If one uses a hammer to pound out the print, wouldn't the creation of a "pressure ridge" be as simple as pounding the heel and toe ends more heavily than in the center of the form?

I think they are the same casted track. I see Roger's left boot print and his knee print. I think his activities created the mound of dirt. He might have been "pretending" to add more to the cast for the camera tho. The sequence of events is uncertain.


Yes, this is very significant. The print shown before the track Roger casted was obviously in softer sand and Roger claimed he went to cast the flattest tracks. This means Patty was going from soft sand to hardpan, hence the flat cast. So if the footage of Roger casting the track is from the 2nd reel then the unseen tracks could have been on hardpan and difficult to spot from that camera angle.

The facts are, however, that we know little about the 2nd reel footage. The sun angles do suggest late afternoon, which fits with the timeline, but all the other details are fuzzy. It would be useful to know where on the site these tracks were filmed. Also, has everyone that had visited the PGF site while the tracks were visible mentioned the consistency of the trackway? If Patty walked on hardpan then it would be understandable why the footage ends after the casted track. So if this is actual footage from the 2nd reel, then this is the most likely reason why we don't see more tracks after the one Roger is casting.


IMO you would have to roll the foot stamper to achieve a convincing pressure ridge. Of course it depends on the substrate and how much weight you were going for, etc. Like you say, you might be able to recreate it by tamping it at various angles, but the whole thing seems silly to me. Why would Roger go to all that effort to incorporate a feature like a pressure ridge, then go and cast a couple of flat tracks? Somehow I doubt he would put pressure ridges on the fake tracks.

Why go to all the effort to remove the actor's tracks and replace them with "deeper" tracks? Especially when the costume feet match the tracks in size and shape exactly. I think doing that would be ludicrous. JMHO.

Just for the fun of it. These "tracks" are 14" x 4-1/4" and 41" heel to heel.

The angle could be off a little, but it shows were tracks "should" be.

Click to view attachment

Even though it is possible, I don't think the substrate changing from soft sand to hardpan is likely in 41". Not for an animal that makes deeper tracks than a horse. It was a sand bar in a creek bottom. Other people who visited the site reported seeing the trackway, not just a couple of good prints and then nothing. Maybe its a play of light or a hidden dip in the ground, but it seems like a fairly clear view to me.

There was film footage taken of the trackway. I don't know if this footage or stills from it will ever show up, or if that footage would answer the question, but until it does...I would have to put this under the "Red Flag" category.

Great idea comncents! I think the camera is a bit too close tho. I suspect that the cast in front of Roger is longer than 14.5" with all the excess material. This means you need to foreshorten your paper tracks a bit by backing up the camera. This would compress the steps somewhat. Also your shin is shorter than Rogers which indicates that the camera angle is too steep from being too close. But if you did back up a few feet we should see MORE tracks than you've laid out, providing the ground is as level as your floor.

I'm not sure how shallow the tracks would have to be for us not to see them. But I'm not ruling out a patch of hardpan under some sand. Not for the whole trackway of course. Only near the flat tracks, which is what Roger sought out for casting. IF this is actually 1 of the flat casts that shows a soft sand track previously, then it would have to be the transition to harder ground. As mentioned, the substrate on the edge of a dried river bed can be highly variable. This is actually indicated from the various tracks that were cast by Titmus. Who knows what tracks Bob Gimlin was talking about when he claimed they went deeper than his horse. Surely not on any hardpan sections.

That said, I looked at both sections of the footage again and what I'm curious about is where's the long shadow near the casted track? And there looks like some foliage poking into frame from the left that seems to be missing from the panned shot. Maybe they were different tracks (of the 2 that were casted). But judging from the shadows it seemed to be approx. the same time of day.

The deal for me tho is that none of the main players of the PGF has explained what we are looking at. Until then I won't assign any red flags unless I can nail down some contradictions. We need more info for that. Foremost, is this actually 2nd reel footage?

GF:

"Foremost, is this actually 2nd reel footage? "

Probably the single most important question needing an answer.

Bill

Because if all of the prints looked identical the forgery would be more obvious? (This is why I would make prints of varying appearance if I was trying to hoax a trackway.)




You're assuming that the actor/mime left prints that would be difficult to hide. Maybe those 14" bigfoot slippers didn't make much of a print at all. But even if they did and were ultimately hidden (or the prints were made out of sequence with the film, i.e., there were no prints from the mime to remove), the obvious reason to go to the effort of making deeper looking prints than a human (or horse) could make would be to create the illusion that something of great weight left the prints. This strikes me as an obvious thing you'd want to do to help sell the authenticity of the film.

This is a whole new can of worms.

- Is the (combined) picture of two tracks from the same footage as the casting footage? (IMO yes)
- If the casting footage is not from the second reel, what about the two tracks?
- If its not from the 2nd reel, When did it get labelled as 2nd reel footage and by who?
- Did Patterson ever claim these pics as being from the event?
- If its not from the 2nd reel, is it just a coincidence that the soil, sun angle ect, match the event?

For me, hoax or real, I have a hard time believing the footprint and casting footage as being taken anywhere except the event site.

Can anyone convince me that the track RP is casting in these images is the same track with plaster in it in the LeClerc photos/composite?

I don't think it is (any longer). The surrounding terrain (e.g. small rocks) doesn't seem to match and there should be the next track (which is an important one) in the background.

Might this also explain why the plaster "stains" on his pants don't match with the shots of him holding the casts by the tree...which could therefore be reconciled as being from the film day if the bit of him casting is indeed not from the day?

-A

Click to view attachment

Can anyone get the Cryptomundo link of the film to work: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/skeptic-bf/

I just clicked on it and it played just fine.

I'm inclined to agree. The missing tracks are hard to reconcile. Here is what I consider to be the best image of Roger casting this track that I have seen.

Click to view attachment

I have no idea where it came from, but it has some details on it that definitely do not match the panned shot from the 2nd reel. If you ask me, it looks like he's casting a right foot print, not a left. The long shadow and the debris on the left doesn't show up in the panned shot either.

Regarding the panned shot from the 2nd reel, if this is one of the tracks that Roger cast then this track went from a sandy track to a flat track then a sandy track with a pressure ridge. This would be odd, to say the least. So what else could we be looking at here?

Click to view attachment

Maybe

Click to view attachment

I finally got a chance to use red circles and arrows!

Possible source of shadow???

What might be even more interesting is the wetness of the ground where Roger is pouring. It matches nicely the wetness of the foreground seen in frame 352. What are the chances that Patterson would have thought to fake the cast pour ground wetness with the wetness actually filmed at Bluff Creek. It certainly seems to me that the cast pouring site is the actual film site and is in part of the wet spread seen in the full frame image.
Click to view attachment

True, also the same substrate can change behaviour rapidly over the course of a day or two, depending on water content, the stream may only have to run a couple of inches higher or lower overnight to affect this. I have an area of gravel on my property that 80% of the time you won't leave an impression on, then when it's been raining a lot you might go half an inch into it, or in the case of it being VERY waterlogged and loosened up by freeze/thaw cycles you can go up to your ankles in it. I've also noticed on beaches, that right on the waterline, some areas that have been very freshly hit by waves are very soft, but give it 5 minutes with no further waves and you're barely making a surface impression again.

So I find claims of "it shouldn't be that deep", "It shouldn't be that shallow" highly spurious when considering tracks unless it's been thorougly dry for weeks and no watercourse was involved, or it's been steady light rain for days, or you're examining tracks minutes, not hours after you think they were made.