Comments on: Carolina Creature Sightings

By: Finleyjohnson

Finleyjohnson — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:03:59 +0000

Chief Parkman is a former chief in Columbia, Mississippi, not Columbia, South Carolina.

By: potsonna

potsonna — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:33:40 +0000

They look like raccoon tracks to me.

By: Bigfootfinder

Bigfootfinder — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:47:18 +0000

I counted four toes on the first picture and five on the racoon picture.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:04:28 +0000

I’m with Loren on this one–are we even sure this track is associated with the rash of sightings? Or was this track just found and snapped off because somebody was excited and thought they had something cool?

Do we even have any size info on this track…was it a mutant sized raccoon (maybe 9 feet long with big, sharp nasty teeth…), or a BF with petite feet…

By: Roaming Tigress

Roaming Tigress — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:29:34 +0000

Just a big ol’ raccoon.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:08:06 +0000

When animals walk, sometimes their feet slip and slide a little which can alter the shape of the track. The type of soil and the moisture content in it can also impact the quality of the print. That’s why a “trackway” is important. Usually you will find a few pristine tracks but the majority will be far less than perfect. This looks like a “grade b” raccoon track to me. The fact that there is nothing in the photo to give the scale of the track or even context of the track should tell everyone that something is “afoot”.

As for size, most adult raccoons are in the 20-30 pound range. However adult boars in excess of 40 pounds are not unknown and the record weight is 62 pounds. The rear foot of a standard adult male would leave a track about 4 inches long by 3 1/2 inches wide. You might add a 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch for a really monster boar raccoon.

By: tropicalwolf

tropicalwolf — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:30:28 +0000

Raccoon…moving on…

The main reason people don’t use a “scale” in their photos is because they are:

A: Either faking a photo
B: Trying to make it look like it’s something it’s not
C: “Forcing Perspective”
D: Idiots

Anyone who does not use some type of “scale” in a photo MUST be written off as a sub-standard investigator (and I use the term investigator loosely) and their “evidence” as lacking of ANY true research validity.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:14:54 +0000

Good post, Loren.

I admit it looks like a raccoon. Though from my perspective the toes are broader than the raccoon track shown. But that is just my point of view.

Let’s see if more evidence turns up so a more definitive identification can be made.

I wonder what one would call the hominids in South Carolina?

Napes? Skunk Apes? Doesn’t look like Pacific Sasquatch to me.

By: Insanity

Insanity — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:01:17 +0000

Definitely looks like a raccoon print.

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:33:51 +0000

gkingdano: actually, the main reason the footprint evidence is taken so seriously – some scientists consider it the backbone of the evidence – is that so many trackways are so long, and laid under such circumstances, that a fake or misidentification is extremely unlikely.

This one? Looks raccoon to me. One thing I don’t understand is why anyone would consider that one photograph, with nothing for scale, demonstrative of anything but a known (little) critter.