Comments on: New BC Sasquatch Cast

By: sschaper

sschaper — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:08:20 +0000

Not to mention that the guy in the picture is smirking.

By: gridbug

gridbug — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:56:43 +0000

Worst. Footcast. Ever.

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:13:52 +0000

One more thing I forgot to mention in my above post – Even though the print itself raises some questions because of its appearance, you have to consider (or I do, you don’t necessarily have to) all the other recent evidence that has came from this area as of late. The “New BC Sasquatch Sighting” thread is a good example. I thought that was a great eye-witness account that was followed up with a field investigation and yielded some potentially great evidence. While the track itself wasn’t great, I was really impressed with the eyewitness account of the events and her description of the sas and the physical references she used to demonstrate the height of the sas. That’s just my take on these recent sightings.

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:05:55 +0000

I’ll have to agree with DWA, it does look questionable, but you can’t throw it out solely based on a photo alone. I had similar thoughts regarding the 4 toes, it could simply be a partial print, but at the same time I wonder if that’s really possible given the depth of the impression and the definition of the rest of the track, but maybe the other toe landed on a rock or some solid vegetation, etc, so still a question mark there. As far as the heel is concerned, I think I can see (very faintly) an outline of the ball/heel in the photo, but I’m not sure. Hard to tell from a photo of a cast of a track.

By: CWatkins

CWatkins — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:39:04 +0000

I agree, no natural variations to the foot, toes are all the same, no arch. Kinda reminds you of a cartoon character’s footprint!

By: Artist

Artist — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:15:06 +0000

Back in the mid-70s, researcher Bob Chance tracked 19-inch, 3-toed prints (“kinda like a big swim-fin”) all over northern MD and southern PA, while across the Susquehanna River in Delaware 4-toed prints were found, so these aren’t all that strange.

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:37:55 +0000

Cashel/OceansBlue: Not so fast. Although I do get these points:

1) The toes are a bit come on, now.

2) He DOCTORED IT? (Although it does sound as if he took off overspillage, which is hard to fault.)

3) All the cloak/dagger BS, about a cast ferpetesake.

Guess what I’m saying is that the guy himself isn’t the issue, and I try to look past the people to the evidence. Practically everyone in this field is an amateur, and they almost uniformly can’t deal well with evidence. Some of them act like they’re hoarding the Holy Grail, even though without scientific followup a same-size pile of forest duff is worth as much. If the evidence looked more like other tracks I’ve seen (which it doesn’t) I’d cut a bit more slack here.

I try to filter out the circus surrounding the sasquatch, and just look at the evidence presented.

Although sometimes, believe me, it’s hard.

No arch? Not an issue; the most intelligent speculation on possible sas foot structure says it doesn’t even have one. Four toes? Could be an incomplete track; a harmless, common mutation; or the occupational hazard of being wild and barefoot. Heel? Heels of most tracks seem a lot narrower than that one, and the heel in general considerably narrower than across the ball of the foot.

Toes like those? Um, well, you gotta show me before I’ll buy that.

Let’s just say that I’m not mounting an expedition to find what made that.

By: OceansBlue

OceansBlue — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:20:18 +0000

Absolute fake and footprint casts like this make the otherwise interesting subject a laughing stock to many if not most readers of this site.

By: Cashel

Cashel — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:04:04 +0000

Why are all of the toes the same size?

There’s no arch, heel, or ball either.

The fact that he even admits to grinding on it, and that he won’t give any real details is just plain silly.

This is a fake.