Now these are only assumptions, but it’s makes me question tracks that are too abundant or too “perfect”. I am more impressed by the partial track found in conjunction with or near the same time of a sighting. A set of tracks, standing alone leaves too much to be debated. If I were to catalogue track data, I would give a credibility rating that gets higher marks if tracks can be related to a sighting.

The next time I set out pancakes for Patty, I’m putting them smack dab in the middle of a muddy field. Then I’ll have tracks of my green-jacketed big-headed turban-wearing bigfoot to compare with the Wallace fakes. Or not, she may be wearing Chacos.

We consider the footprints as evidence of what we do for these reasons:

1. Bears make prints. Other animals do too.

2. The P/G film subject left prints that look a lot like the other ones found; and that film shows what looks, pretty clearly, like a bipedal primate.

What would be more logical? “Nothing passed this way, because we don’t have a foot?”

Having spent a lot of time outside and looked at a lot of tracks I can tell you, when it looks like footprints, it is.

What we say is: “A bear passed this way.”

Shouldn’t we have a foot to match to the prints, before we make assumptions (or wishes) about what made them?

At least in the case of the Wallace feet, we do have a match.

As John Hart said in the hiking guide that got me intrigued enough to visit the California Siskiyou 21 years ago (I saw what could have been tracks, but they were too old to be sure): the sasquatch could have been dismissed by scientists long ago, but “what gets in their way is the footprints.” The volume and location of these trackways means much more, in terms of my initial assessment of the animal’s viability, than the sightings do.

My point is that we’ll never suss the species of the animal - or if there even is an unknown animal making the tracks - as long as we limit ourselves to the tracks. The continued appearance of trackways still serves as a guide to the search; examining their provenance can increase the strength of the case against all this being a hoax.

It’s just that sightings need to be factored in much more than they have been in terms of deciding where research should be conducted.

Yes, there are fake tracks. but that does not mean they ALL are, and tracks mean a great deal to a hunter. The mere fact that some people are not hunters does not mean that other people cannot tell a great deal from tracks. This includes the Physical Anthropologists such as Krantz.

Merely saying “(whatever) means nothing to me” means nothing to anyone else who happens to know a thing or two about the subject.

Should there be anyone out there who wants to put this to the test in a serious manner but is prevented by lack of financing I can be reached at and will be happy to discuss arrangements.

I will just add that my 49-year quest has been to find out what it is that makes such tracks, and it will be successfully completed if anyone can prove they are of human origin. I won’t like having my books made irrelevant of course, but I’ll be glad to have lived long enough to learn the answer.

Some people have said that hunters, or people with SAR dogs, don’t want to risk their valuable animals by letting them chase after Bigfoot. But those dogs are usually worked on leashes, so the risk to the dogs would be minimal.

Maybe it’s just a matter of putting the two together: getting someone with a tracking dog, or better yet a brace or a pack of dogs, to the right place at the right time, when a sighting has occurred, to track the Sasquatch before the trail gets too cold.