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...