I'll write down the story another time under sightings.

Location: NH, Coos county. Town confidential

Witnesses: Two (Myself and an uncle, his property)

One twisted tree, Maple two inches thick

One broken branch, nine foot high, set aside.

Tracks: 14 1/2 inches ; raised arch visible ; 7 inches at widest point

Time: 2PM (approx.)

conditions: overcast, light rain on and off.

Later discovered we walked right in between two of them, which was later revealed by tree knocking communications. Never got a visual, but was able to track it for about 100yds, till I lost the trail. Had headed into a rasberry patch next to a natural spring, where it left adruptly, which is when it must have realised we were on it's trail. Will be going back out, will fill you in more later.

The track is what really got me. Besides the raised arch, the shape.

You know what, that top pic came out like junk. Sorry.

Scout, what was the length of the track?i have heard of a few cases where an arch or tapering of the foot were seen in the tracks.it may go back to the adaptation theory of different tracks/gaits vs. terrain and area.

Scout, I tried to clean it up a little for you. Hope it's closer to what you wanted now...

bipto Thanks for that touch up! That was nice of you.


jimf The tracks were 14 1/2 inches long. I didn't know that some tracks
were found with arches. Thank you.

Good Job Scout Keep us updated !!

What was the date?
What were the measurements (across, side to side) of the heel, and the measurements of the ball of the foot?
How did the animal "leave abruptly" ? did it run? take to the trees?
What track did you find at that point?
Any vocals when he knew you were following him, if so what?
Where did the second animal go ?

Just goes to prove a point about tracks and foot variences. I always disagreed with Dr Krantz on this topic ... i've seen too many that wernt atypical PNW track , .. and some that didnt look like sasquatch at all !! But still, all the descriptions are alike, tall, hairy, bipedal ... *scratches head*

you're wlecome the one thing that grabbed me was the width at 7" from what I've read and heard from other researchers this is actually for some reason(though I dont know what it is )harder to fake than length and less likely to occur naturally in humans who just have large feet,something to do with weight distribution and if present dermal ridge overlapping or shuffling or rocking marks from side to side would be my logical guess.

I think we only have to look at the huge variations in human feet to see that sasquatch could also have incredible variations.

That of course is assuming that we are only talking about one species of bigfoot - i'm coming around to the idea that there might well be several.

The problem with some of Krantz' writing is that he wants to sound authorititive - he didn't like the idea of the scientific community pointing at him and saying - you really don't know much about these sasquatch do you ? as a result, he seems to have filled in many of the blanks to suit his own theories.

Also bear in mind that some researchers reject certain evidence because it didn't match the norm. Maybe rare or aberrant footprints get tossed out. Doesn't mean they don't exist. In some cases it might be that the print maker only made a partial due to substrate or because that was a choice.

Is anyone else besides me concerned about scout's disappearance after these postings?

Should we start a search party to look for his bones?

For real...hasn't it been since summer that we last heard from him?

Agreed.

Hey... he never answered my last questions Men.. AND Women
RB - thanks for bringing this up, I always wondered about it and have always watched for possible reports that were in this area. Also RB normally I love your posts, but I was hoping it was Scouts instead :wink: