Comments on: New Maine “Bigfoot” Cast: Info Updated

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:28:09 +0000

Pardon Sweetsusiq for messing up your name.

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:49:48 +0000

mandors:

I think that the appearance of an arch may come from the inadequate quantity of casting material. I’m not sure it shows an arch at all. I mean you’re right; the evidence obtained thus far appears to support a foot structure that, although superficially similar to ours, is really much more like that of the known apes, just with considerably more hallucial convergence (unsurprising, given the ichnotaxonomy of fossil hominoids). That would mean: you see an arch, you might be thinking human.

The location might also raise Sweetsuisq’s question: what’s a barefoot human doing out there?

This is simply yet another example of what proponents need to keep doing: increasing the inventory of trackway evidence, to say nothing of the other forensic evidence that has so far tended to be rejected without review. You just keep going until the critical mass of open-minded scientists is reached and the concerted review finally happens.

By: Sweetsusiq

Sweetsusiq — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:32:42 +0000

Well, I agree that the print looks human, but why would anyone be out in that area barefoot? That is why I’m open to the idea that it could be a young, like a preteen, or a teenage Sasquatch.
If this had been discovered almost anywhere else I would agree it is human, but out in the wilds where it was found?

By: mandors

mandors — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:08:54 +0000

The print seems to show an arched foot. I thought “real” bigfoot prints supposedly did not have arches, because their foot structure is different.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:34:30 +0000

The person sharing the cast miscommunicated the info at the museum; revised it later.

Bill Brock wasn’t there. Mike Merchant was.

By: MountDesertIslander

MountDesertIslander — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:45:44 +0000

The first report I read here located the print as taken from near Holden, Maine. The update locates the print from near Moosehead. There’s a huge distance between those areas. Can we get clarification?

By: cryptokellie

cryptokellie — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:40:47 +0000

I have size 13 feet. My bare foot is just about 12 inches long. EEE as well. This is someone’s footprint with maybe a little slippage fore or aft or just a person with big feet. I know a guy in my sports league with size 15 shoes. He’s 6’6″. I don’t think this is a Bigfoot print…not wide enough. My heel print width is wider than this print.
BTW…having big feet is a real pain in the – well…foot.

By: TimmyRyan65

TimmyRyan65 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:08:00 +0000

Assuming that ruler is 12 inches, then this foot is like a Size 12 or 13 shoe. Totally within Human range. I know people with feet that big.

By: semillama

semillama — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:59:30 +0000

there appears to be a pressure ridge along the exterior side, similar to what you’d expect from a human foot as well. Inconclusive at best.

By: Sweetsusiq

Sweetsusiq — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:17:05 +0000

The footprint being so narrow makes me wonder if it was a young teenage male or female Sasquatch because human young men and women can have thinner feet that widen over the years so perhaps this is a young Sasquatch print. The length alone make me think it’s not human unless the above comment about someone slipping in the dirt, but who would be barefoot out there in that terrain? I think that a young male or female Sasquatch may be the answer.
This is a good and unusual find, so well done guys!