(NOW a better title occurs to me: “Faking a Poor Impression?”)

As has been pointed out above, and as I mentioned myself, at a hoaxed site there may be “accidentals” that are poor quality, and/or there may be a few smudged prints thrown in to add authenticity, but few hoaxers would leave NO good prints, if they wanted to “make an impression”–and they would. And yet, as John Green mentioned in “The Bigfoot File,” years can go by without a trackway being reported that contains a “good” print.

When one thinks of a terrible trackway, one thinks of a set of prints that lacks even ONE clear, whole specimen. Of course there may be incompetent hoaxers–but I don’t think there’d be many of them who couldn’t even make a distinct and complete track outline. It’s easy to make a basic stomper to create an impression in soft soil (sand, mud, loam) that a hoaxer could subsequently sculpt with hand-tools, as clay might be sculpted, to include dimpled toe-marks, etc. Just photocopy a footprint picture from a Bigfoot book, enlarge it on a photocopier, cut along its outline, lay the cut-outline on plywood (or neoprene—thanks for the tip, Matt), trace its edges with a marker, and cut along the line with a saber saw.

Hoaxers have easy opportunities to practice in their backyards and nearby, so they could do at least a half-decent job. They could then make tracks simply by pressing down on them by hand in soft sand or mud or snow. They would look good enough at first glance to attract enough attention to maybe make the newspaper–or at least to “get a rise” out of the initial passers-by, even if they failed to stand up to analysis, when the paper called in a local Bigfooter to critique them. Getting one of those reactions is what a hoaxer would want.

Daniel Loxton wrote, “But it seems to me that Knights and other crypto folks misstep when they assume that all fake sasquatch tracks should be either very good or very bad.” That’s a bit of a straw-man, at least in my case. My claim wasn’t that hoaxed prints should all be “very good,” but that they shouldn’t all be terrible. Why should nearly all trackways found include nothing but 3-F prints (faint, fuzzy, or fragmented), if they are being hoaxed? One would expect a higher percentage of such trackways to contain at least one print that was unambiguous, or even half-decent. Many hoaxers would TRY to achieve something that would “make an impression”—and the only way to do that is with at least one unambiguous (non-faint, non-fuzzy, non-fragmented) print.

Having said all that, it’s just occurred to me that there’s one set of circumstances where a hoaxer might deliberately create smudged or partial prints: Where one of his neighbors is a known Bigfooter who “follows the creeks” looking for tracks. A hoaxer who didn’t want to go to a lot of trouble, and/or who suspected that he couldn’t create a “good” fake, might make only blob-prints with the sole intention of getting a rise out of his neighbor, and maybe setting him off on a snipe hunt.

Any trackway that exhibits a longer than normal stride for a human – whether he’s being towed by a jeep, a truck or the space shuttle – has to exhibit the earmarks I mention if a man made it.

Until a tracker tells me different.

And in response to Loren’s post, which I saw after my last one: At least one such report was in a roadless area in Alaska, miles from the nearest vehicle. (And to add the unnecessary point: there were no vehicle tracks. And the witnesses were a Special Forces unit of about 11 men.)

I have no idea how this is revelant. I am not saying all Bigfoot tracks are faked, so of course any matter of distractions from the record can be pulled out to show that “no human prints” are next to trackways, or that “no vehicle tire marks” are either.

I was discussing the specifics of the Wallace hoaxing model as a case example for how this could be done, not as a global explanation for all tracks.

Am I missing something by coming into what has turned into a seemingly private conversation?

And I’m not sure Loren’s rendition of their explanation provides for why there aren’t those front and back messes in the track, because that guy getting towed is STILL not performing a normal stride. But I can be enlightened if I’m wrong, tracks not being my specialty.

Which adds (if it isn’t already there) another factor to track analysis. If a human can’t match the stride, and a human can leave tracks here…HOW DID A HUMAN MAKE THESE if there are no human tracks?

In the lawyerly tradition of asking no questions to which you don’t know the answer – and NO I’M NOT A LAWYER – I know of at least several reports of such tracks, made in snow, where a man will ALWAYS leave his own prints.

Fake Bigfoot tracks would go up one way, with no human tracks next to them and with no returns. The faker would merely get into the car or truck, and get a ride home.

Two misconceptions are creeping into this discussion. All Bigfoot tracks are not deeply pushed into the ground. You will note that the dust or dirt in some of the pictured trackways and roads around Bluff Creek, Blue Creek Mtn, and Onion Mtn is lightweight, fluffy, and easily to mistake as “deep.” Same goes for sandbars. Secondly, “hammering down” is relatively easy to spot. Hammering down does not seem to be part of what is going on with the 1967 tracks, for example.

Look at the old photos. See the vehicle tracks? See where the “Bigfoot tracks” are? Look at how rigid and faked they appear, upon reexamination. They are not hammered down fakes; they are impressed fake feet worn by someone, no doubt assisted by the vehicle that tracks have been in the photos all these years.

But I have a question.

Many trackway reports describe prints much farther apart than any human could manage, with none of the fore or aft ground disturbance which would indicate a leap or an unusually long stride.

My question: as it appears unlikely (if not impossible) for someone to create such tracks with prosthetic foot attachments, how would a hoaxer create these tracks without leaving any of his own?