BG

Thanks for the clarification. Someone might have mentioned that before too. Maybe it would be a good idea to attach a small caption explaining the picture’s origin whenever it is posted to avoid any confusion.

I’ve always been wary of the ‘Zoobie’ type prints. I mean, at least lets filter down to something that looks more hominid.

Such splay-footed tracks remind me of Orangutan prints; the one with the girl’s hand beside it could well be an Orangutan print, with a little shifting in the mud or earth as it was made. Equally plausible is a doubled up or distorted rhino print.

I’ve had some experience with Orangutans. Males can become *extremely* large – their feet and hands quite able to match the scale we’re seeing here, and although knuckle-walkers and thus unlikely to be the source of upright hominid reports in these areas, it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some Orangutan prints mixed in with this other evidence.

The Orangutan foot has an almost vestigial thumb, so it might, under the right conditions, give rise to a four-toed print with no sign of the fifth toe. The remaining Orangutan toes are rather long and slender, though, often ‘clawed’ with very strong nails.

The casting and the bottom print seem more believable, although I see problems with the bottom print too. The area around the bottom two toes seems strange – there’s no impression connecting them to the main track. Could be the lighting or an artifact of the biomechanics of how the track was made, but it seems off.