I find track casts to be some of the most compelling and fascinating evidence out there.

I also find many of the highly publicized cast photos to be....well......bunk.

But what do I know? I'm no expert.

With that said....lets play "Fake or Real.....and Why?"

(disclaimer...the views expressed in this thread should not be construed so as to reflect upon the individuals who cast these tracks...but rather whoever -or whatever - actually made the tracks)

First up:

Measuring at a staggering 19 inches and originating from beautiful Southern Ontario in 1977 (cast unknown to me)...



Ohh ohh! Me first! Me First!

FAKE

Why? - It appears as if the area between the toes and the ball of the foot has a unnatural deep "wood carved" quality. The toes also appear "wood carved" as opposed to organic. In general...too rigid.

With that said....I only looked at the photo and can be pursuaded by compelling arguments to the contrary.

Next up!

Hailing from a logging landing in Grays Harbor County Washington in April 1992. Measuring in at somewhere near 17 - 18 inches long and discovered by Grays County Deputy Denny Hereford (photos by Henner Fehrenbach)



Dude....freaky...this one keeps me up at night and tipping firmly towards the " skeptical believer" side of the fence.

my .02 cents:


REAL

Why? - How the hell could you fake this? I mean really? Organic looking to the Nth degree....you can see how the weight was dispersed differently throughout the bottom of the walking foot, just as a normal foot print would appear.

The toes are not "connected" to the ball of the foot, but rather "float" ahead of it, like a normal human track would look.

Weird...and gives me heap-um big hope.

Hi

I think the first one is a fake because it lacks any curves and is very unnatural looking, The second looks like a real print cause is has character, Sorry i don't have any anatomy type response if it don't run on gas and oil i am out of my field, I am basically going by years of seeing foot prints on the local beaches and ponds ~

Peace
Tim

I agree.

Scroll back and forth between the two images. When you do that, the first almost makes you chuckle....and then grumble when you recall that people still point to it as "evidence".


Next up:

Courtesy of master taxidermist / bigfoot tracker Bob Titmus from Skeene River British Columbia:



OOOhhh tough one.

Very organic looking but lordy do they look big....suspiciously big.

Not to mention the indents in each of the ball of the foot areas are kinda weird.

However, the way that the toes seem to naturally flatten under the weight of the step leads me to say:

90% chance REAL - 10% chance FAKE

(is that cheating?)

1) fake...too generic looking, pinkie toe way too big and all toes at an unnatural angle to the foot
2) very intriguing, I've never seen that one looks pretty human, except for the length, but especially the width of the foot. Do you have a link to the story behind that one?
3) They look fake unless the BF was standing still when those were made, they don't look like a stride type print?

Let's see some more.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Next up:

A cast by Paul Freeman (unknown year) located on Stan Courtney's website. Most likely from Washington.



I have always marveled at the fact that Paul Freeman always seemed to stumble across tribes of sasquatches that had fingers for toes (sarcasm alert)

Seriously, the toes always look like to me they were actually made by fingers. It would make me feel alot better if other people across the region or nation found tracks that look like Freeman casts, but they just strike me as having a certain "style" to them. It seems to me that evidence of a living breathing animal should not have a "style" that just so hapens to always cooresponds with one person finding or being connected to the evidence.

FAKE, FAKE, FAKE (The extra fakes are in advance of any future Freeman casts that we may also post)

But once again....just my opinions....I can be swayed with strong arguments to the contrary.

I think it would be easy to pretty much prove beyond a reasonable doubt that BF tracks are real, and not faked. If in a given trackline, the footprints are different, as in the toes are curled on one, and less on some others, some toes slipped or dug in more, the foot flexed differently due to the terrrain. It would be pretty hard to fake that. A hoaxer would have to change casts, keep the stride correct, and not leave any tracks or mess where he changed casts AND have to have several convincing casts in different foot positions. Finding that in the middle of the woods somewhere would convince me.

Nice thread!

I always wonder about the diversity of alleged sasquatch footprints.

The Grays Harbor County print looks REAL to me too.

I don't know if they are really, if you clench your feet up you do tend to cup in that area.

SHHHH!!!
You're points are great, but you describe them in too much detail. You could be inadvertantly training a hoaxer...

Ok Rex then let me throw in these bad Boys from Bossburg, WA from 1969 in which there were a total of 1,089 counted added to the fact that at one point the Creature stepped over a 43-inch, five-strand wire fence that would have been impossible for a human without leaving additional traces. On the fence Ivan found three long hairs that were sent to England for analysis, and reportedly could not be identified with any known animal AND was found in 2 different/seperate Environments, in Mud & Snow ??

& yes, for anyone that isn't familiar with these, the left one is also crippled & to get Technical & i use Dr Krantz study's of the Casts for this info, the Injury to the Crippled Foot was caused by a seperation of the Cuboid Bone away from it's normal placement..

Edit : for some strange reason the Pictures won't load so i'll add them at work tomorrow..If you not that patient & are not aware of them, Google " Bossburg Cripple Foot " & you just might be impressed..

I lashed out on both the Left & Right foot Casts recently ( aswell as Patty ) & i'll add the Pics at work tomorrow..

The first looks fake like somebody carved "feet" out of wood and used. The second not a fake track but think it might be a large bear. You could almost see the faint impression of claws on the big and second toe, there are impressions of claws on the third and fourth ones. The third one Might be real but the arch and ball region look a little fake. (Of all I would say this is the real one). The fourth one looks fake.

Claws, or possibly untrimmed toenails?

on deck.....this oldie but a goody that I found on Jeff Meldrum's website (unknown location or date...but I supect early 60's)



FAKE

Too flat and lifeless. Too rigid. Too uniform in weight distribution. Too perfect in the toes.

text book fake wooden foot in my non-scientific layman's opinion.

uhhh..nope. not seeing a resemblence



bear tracks



possible BF track

Just thought I would post these pics of my sons foot print for reference and illustrate a detail. His foot measures 11 in. by 4.75" wide. Note the dipped appearance of his track inpression. We had him stand with all his weight on one foot stationary to make the impression in filtered sandy loam soil. In my opinion, confex suraces within the foot impression is a result of the soil firming up under pressure causing a fatty pad on the bottom of the foot to take this shape.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

He's got some honkin big feet dont he!

I sure do like #2 slabdog. Real.

So when the hell is this whole bigfoot thing gonna break open? I wanna see something along the lines of the PGF....but way better.

C'mon researchers. Play along with us.

Please throw your track casts that you have found in the field into the mix.

Maybe the rest of us might learn something.

Oh I see, the soil in the middle can only be compressed downward so packs up first, whereas the soil round the edges can go sideways a bit and so is more compliant... I guess it could be exaggerated too by rebound after the weight is off.

What kind of casting agent is the second one done in?

Looks like Quaker rice cakes smooshed into a compound. Whatever works!

It was a cheap hydrocal, I dont remember the number on it. I'm not the casting expert in my group...LOL



I think you have the idea.

Ok, here's the Pics, please excuse the Flip Flop lines on my feet..

Those are REAL!!! I know because I have those same flipflop marks on MY feet!


...oh, hang on, we're talking about the casts, aren't we...?

Bobby O, who added the bones? Really well done. Great visual aid.

They Guy who i bought them from, a job well done too..

Here they are without the Bones visible in one Picture but it seems as if most Pictures i come accross seem to have the Bone Structure added to the specific cast, which is great in my opinion.

Very interesting pictures. The last set and the second picture are the most 'authentic' looking. The rest seem very.. generic?

I would really like to have been able to see what had made those prints. I just need to find a flux-capacitor that'll mount in my car...

Those casts bring up the image of a large rock (or boulder) coming down and smashing the foot. Not too pleasant, but it helps illustrate the possible resiliency of these animals.

Click to view attachment

Those look interesting to me Comncents

what's the story behind them?

The one on the left looks rather natural in appearance

they are approximately 15 x 5. Don't know the story for sure...just part of my collection.

any more thoughts? I'm not sure either way.

Wouldn't that be the right foot that's the crippled one?

The Right one looks good to me P, pretty sure it's the left Mate that's crippled.

The right foot was the crippled foot.

I never thought tracks were proof because it's well documented that people have made fake prints.
The only time I pay attention to prints is if they are part of a eye witness account.
If someone finds a print and casts it, that's fine but it doesn't prove anything since you don't know what made it.

I agree 100% its fun to see prints but you can make some of your own or buy them. http://www.madeandsoldinamerica.com/

Is that right BM, is it my imagination then or does it look like it's the other way around ??

I think that, if I'm correct in thinking that the bone markings are on the soles?, they mean that Bigfoot's right foot was the crippled one, not the right cast in the photo's.

Excellent casts BTW! I'd love to have a set myself.

Cheers,

Kraig

Aha, of course, then that'd make sense of course..

Sorry for being the Board Duffous..

Yeah and I never thought the apollo program got anywhere near the moon 'coz film makers had been faking it since the 1920s...



(That was sarcasm, not the opening for a "we didn't go to the moon" debate)

It depends on which side of the cast the drawing are on. If the skeletal drawing was on the top of the plaster then the image is of the correct foot (as matched to the human one).

IF the drawing is on the imprint side of the cast, then it is the opposite foot pictured.

Either way, they had a hard time finding a pair of matching shoes.

The bones are illustrated on the plantar side of the cast. I have a copy myself.