Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Footprint in Cleveland Nat. Forest
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media
Lycurgus
Here is a link to a story about a fossilized large footprint found in Cleveland National Forest near San Diego-http://www.kfmb.com/topstory.php?storyID=8805

Found it on www.theanomolist.com
bipto
This, IMHO, is nothing short of amazing. No, it doesn't prove that bigfoot walks today, but it should be very simple for trained eyes to determine if the footprint is faked or not. An amazing find...
bipto
So all weekend I was thinking about this. The fact that the footprint was found in granite bothered me. I mean, if it had been sandstone or something, then fine, but granite is not exactly the kind of rock that you'd expect to find fossilized animal tracks in. Not to make me sound all that smart or anything, but wouldn't you know, good old BFRO had this to say about the 'fossilized' print:

QUOTE
This footprint-shaped rock formation is most likely a natural formation and not a fossilized footprint. It was probably caused by rounded stones embedded in the granite when it formed. Other photos of this formation on Gowers Mountain show other disconnected round impressions in the granite which resemble the "toes" of the "foot" impression. The granite slab is pockmarked with these holes. Thus a cluster of these holes formed a pattern that appears similar to a bigfoot track.


Although fossilized footprints of animals and humans are occassionaly found in sandstone formations or petrified volcanic ash, one would not expect to find footprint preserved in granite rock. Granite is formed deep in the earth at very high temperatures. Footprints can only be preserved in surface soil, and only under rare conditions -- when certain types of soft soil become covered by other sediments soon after the tracks are left, and the whole thing becomes petrified over time. The fossilized tracks reappear when the overlying layer is eroded away many years later.


Oh well...
Fishbone35
But I'd still like to hear a bona fide geologist say that the rock is indeed granite. So far, the only ones I heard that said it were the prospector that found it and/or the TV reporter who did the story.

I can't help it. I'm a hopeless optimist. icon_redface.gif
RB
Has anyone heard any updates to this story lately? Did any real scientists examine this "fossil / footprint"? Any conclusions? Any opinions?
bipto
Can't say that I've heard any more about it, but I did see a website somewhere selling a cast of the 'print'. I'll have to look around for that again.

I still say that granite is never in a state where a mammal could leave a print in it...
Arkansan
My take on this is this.
The so called fossilized footprint is nothing but a coincidental grouping of designs in soft rock. Kinda like the duck formations in the clouds but not really. Like if you take pollen and drop it on the floor and it falls in the similar pattern of a butterfly, it doesn't mean a butterfly covered in pollen landed there. You get my meaning anyway... :roll:

Boy that camping trip really fried my brain! Bare with me guys! I am not running on 100% yet! icon_confused.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.