While the burden of proof rests with Bigfoot advocates, skeptics recognize that there is a phenomena that is in need of explanation. The best we can do towards this endeavor is construct a plausible chain of events that leads from regional lore (sasquatch) to continental myth (Bigfoot).

I suggest (and can only suggest) that the seminal and founding events (of the Bigfoot story) in the 1950’s were due to the confluence and conflation of the memory of the Ape Canyon incident, Indian lore of the sasquatch, and the stories of the Abominable Snowman from Nepal and other far regions.

You say that a track exists prior to the events of the late 1950’s. This is important because there has been suggestions of hoaxing concerning the Crew events (and any tracks found elsewhere and earlier would aid the advocate’s cause.) However, the date and location of the track you cite (near Eureka, in 1947) does not preclude the possibility of a hoaxed track, given the fact that we do know of hoaxers in that region who said they had been hoaxing tracks for years (prior to the Crew incident). What the skeptic would like is documentation of unmistakable Bigfoot tracks years and years before Crew and in places far away and NOW said to harbor Bigfoot.

I know that Green uses the Chapman track sketch as evidence for Bigfoot prints long before the Crew story, but I’ll leave it to you as to whether this sketch really looks like later Bigfoot prints. (I suppose Green is the pioneer in linking sasquatch lore to “America”s Abominable Snowman” and Bigfoot, although most sasquatch accounts, standing alone, can only be imaginative linked to “America’s Ape”, Bigfoot).

I used to be a “believer” in Bigfoot after reading Sanderson’s accounts. But even then I had a nagging suspicion concerning the tracks. Why an over sized HUMAN print? If this thing was ape-like, like the Yeti, wouldn’t it have, at the least, ape-like feet (similar to Shipton’s “snowman” print)? Or were hoaxers at play, creating “wild man” tracks?

I also suggest that advocates review the history of this mystery themselves to see if it really holds up their belief in a flesh and blood animal. Recently I casually ran across two items of interest that should raise concerns. First, I linked up with an advocate’s site that was touting the idea of Bigfoot in Texas. I’ve lived in Texas all my life and have found this idea rather ridiculous. The site touted the historical event known as the “Wild Woman of the Navidad” as early evidence of Bigfoot in Texas.

Coincidentally, the Dallas Morning News newspaper ran a story last week on the same story (sans Bigfoot) for a “Texas lore” piece. It seems that back in the mid 1830s to the mid 1840s, people living near the Navidad river in Texas reported seeing bare human tracks around farms and ranches. This went on for years, with food stuffs and small farm animals disappearing, apparently in conjunction with finding of bare tracks. No one then thought their neighborhood harbored a giant ape or other inexplicable being. Instead, they sensibly considered the tracks as from orphans or others left homeless from the recent revolution (for Texas independence).

The end result: a naked fellow was finally treed whose feet matched the prints. He was an escaped African slave who had lived in the wild on his own for years.

There was nothing in this story that would compel one to link it to Bigfoot. The tracks were so small, people thought a woman had made them. I grant this: one legendary account had a horseman chase the “wildwoman” and he described her as having body hair. Bigfoot? Not really. He also described her as fully human and with long head hair that reached almost to the ground. (The story may be entirely apocryphal, anyway).

My point: advocates and skeptics alike need to look more closely to pre-1958 Bigfoot events. What can we really find that supports one position or the other. It is an interesting mystery, no matter which side you view it from.

Could you tell us, in your estimation, what is the best Sasquatch track documented before 1958 by photo or plaster cast?

Answer: Yes. But they were filed away as “Sasquatch tracks,” of course.

Are there any documented Bigfoot tracks (photos or plaster castings) prior to 1958?

Same with The Abominable Snowman name in the Himalayas. A catchy name works wonders and automatically gives it more attention than it would have had previously.

In and after 1958, the use of the word “Bigfoot” was employed for the first time by the media, the researchers, and the eyewitnesses universally. This naming has served as an artificial boundary to indicate the “Modern Era” vs the “old one,” full of Sasquatch, Wildmen, Gorilla, Booger, Windigo, and other regionally named creatures that would infrequently appear in journal and articles.