duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 6, 2012 18:52:57 GMT -5
i was out on the weekend. i boated up to a fairly remote area. obviously other people can get there also, but it doesn't get alot of traffic, not this early anyway. i was fishing mostly, but always keep an eye on the shorelines for anything strange. i decided to take a break and go stretch my legs. i beached the boat by a creek-mouth. i shed my rain-gear and life-jacket and walked along the shoreline. i always look for strange rocks on the shores. eventually i walked along the bank of the creek. i found multiple depressions in the ground in this one spot. i didn't think much of them at first. but then one was clearly a bare footprint. still, i thought it could easily be someone had done what i had done, and maybe they had children who were playing, the tracks are much smaller than my own. but this wasn't on the beach. (also, i found no bare footprints anywhere on the beach) it was up the creek(without a paddle) and it's not where people would be walking barefoot.
another thing that i then did was step right beside the tracks with my full weight. i am 200 lbs. and a child would be considerably lighter. i barely even sunk in the moist ground. these tracks are sunken a fair bit.
i took photos of them. alone and with my feet placed beside them, and with my print after i had put my full weight down. there is no way that someone that much smaller than me can weigh that much more to make those prints sink so much deeper.
i'll add them to here once i've finished unpacking and remember how to post pictures.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 6, 2012 21:24:20 GMT -5
here are the only two that i could upload. i'm using imageshack. but it says that the rest of the photos are too large to upload to imageshack. they are just over 5 mb to about 6.5 mb. how large an image can be put on here?
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 6, 2012 22:15:18 GMT -5
here's one more that i've been able to upload. the dark area with the green grass along it is where the prints are.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 6, 2012 23:28:56 GMT -5
To play the devil's advocate: What about the tracks do you think makes them possible Sasquatch prints? From my limited vantage point, they appear human in size, and seem to be made from a shoe. The print depth could be accounted for by a change in water content of the soil (more water, easier to get a deeper print). Yes it is a remote area, but as you have gone there, it is entirely possible that someone else did, at an earlier time with their children and made a deeper impression in the wet soil. Just wanted to throw that out there is case you may not have considered it. However as I was not there myself, I am purely speculating, and could easily be wrong. Richard.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 2:16:42 GMT -5
all great questions, richard. and i asked myself those very ones.
i'm not saying these are bf tracks. not sure if you've ever read any of my posts before, but i'm the last person to ever jump to that conclusion. i'm always trying to poke holes in every report i see.
my belief is to first try to dispel that possibility.
i first thought it had to be someone walking barefoot. that's the natural assumption obviously. but upon closer inspection of the entire area, there were more things leading me away from that than enforcing it. 1. there is a sandy shoreline where i beached the boat. people would surely be walking there barefoot if anywhere. there were no footprints there. 2. of all the places to be barefoot in this area, this would be one of the last places. it's a pretty gross, mucky spot. i'd rather walk in the water than step there. 3. the depth that they sunk. this area cannot be more water-saturated than when i was there. it's been raining for days in this area. i went ashore to take a break from sitting in the boat in the rain. and the water, with the run-off right now, is higher than it ever is. this ground is as water-logged as it will ever be. i'm trolling over areas where i'm usually standing on shore and casting from. 4. there hasn't been the weather to even want to walk barefoot anyway. 5. they didn't just walk through that spot. there were multiple tracks in all directions in that spot. if it were a person, and they stepped in that muck the first time, i couldn't picture them choosing to walk through that same crap a second time. 6. just the oddity of it. it's not where one would choose to walk barefoot.
i didn't see these and just take the pictures. they just really struck me as out of place. i walked the whole shoreline then looking for barefeet to convince me a person was enjoying the sand between their toes. there weren't any. the more i looked the area over and tried to find the obvious explanation, the more i decided i'd get my camera from the boat and get some photos.
these weren't shoed prints. if i can find out how to get the rest to upload, it's very clear they are bare. and i even thought of the fact that maybe my tracks weren't sinking as deep because they are a flatter surface and disperse my weight more evenly. like i say, i always try to come up with any other explanation over a bf. i would never have sunken anywhere near as much even without my shoes. and, i'm wearing a whole lot of extra clothing that is pushing my weight way over my 200 lb. natural weight. my boots are water-logged. i'm wearing my full-size waders, heavy socks, thick army-issue sweat-pants, a long-sleeved sweater, and my heavy hoodie over that. plus a hat and my camera.
yes, nowhere is ever remote enough to rule out another person. i've hiked through crazy stuff before to get to a mountain-top while hunting. when you reach the top and sit down to enjoy the spectacular view, which you begin to think maybe you're the first one there, you look over and see an old beer can lying there. i've found this in the most insane places. basically, if you've been able to get there, then someone else surely has also. and i know that people come to this area. but not generally many before the weather starts getting warmer. it was snowing right up the hill from this spot on saturday. i was watching it. i'm 100% positive that i wasn't the first person ashore in this area this spring. well, not 100%. i didn't see anyone. but i'd put money on it. but the weather just hasn't been nice enough to be shedding the shoes there. and even so, i'd be walking on the sandy shoreline and not where this was. still, there's always a chance it was a very, very overweight smaller person who's feet were hot that particular day and they hate the ticklish feel of the sand so they chose the mucky, rocky, bush area instead. that's not impossible.
one thing i don't get that you mentioned. you said they appear human in size. are bf all super-large? do they not have young? or teens? that's another thing that's troublesome about all the bf reports. there's almost never any variance in size, they are all just over-sized, huge tracks. so-much-so that i've seen melted spots in the snow and rabbitt depressions in deep snow claimed to be abslolute bf tracks. simply because they are large depressions.
i'm not saying these are bf prints. they are bare prints that i came across that left me scratching my head a bit. and not much does that. i'm the first to question things. i hold hope that there could be such a thing as bf out there. but i'm growing more of a skeptic with the complete lack of evidence and numerous shaky reports.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on May 7, 2012 14:13:54 GMT -5
Awesome find Duallie!
I am going to fire off some questions...
Where there any toes that were visible?
Any break in the footprint, where it looked like it pushed off to propel itself forward?
Can you show us on a Google map where this was located so we can log it? Maybe there have been sightings in the past or sightings in the future that we can relate it to.
Too bad you didn't have some dental stone to cast it. Frequently more detail shows up with casting.
What do you estimate the length and width to be?
Aloha,
Jason
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 16:18:05 GMT -5
hey jason.
yes there were definite toes. some of the pics clearly show them.
and i took shots of before i placed my foot beside for comparison, as well as after i had put my full weight on one foot, to show the difference in depth.
i didn't notice any break in the prints. they appear as if they were made by something that was just maybe standing around that spot. they aren't in a straight stride pattern, more just this way and that mulling around.
i measured those boots i'm wearing, and they are 13 inches long. so, i'd guess the tracks to be 10 - 11 inches? the other photos reeally show everything much better.
is there a better site for me to use to upload the photos? i'm pretty computer-stupid and have just mastered the cut-and-paste. i'm using imageshack. it will only do up to 5mb photos on the free version. i could break down and pay for the premium i guess, unless there's another solution out there.
i don't really want to divulge the spot. not because of the tracks at all, but because it's one of my favourite fishing spots. and it's pretty secluded and private, i've always had it to myself when fishing there. it's a bit of a haul by boat, and i'd hate to have this spot spoiled. i'm the type of guy who never tells where i caught my fish or what i used. same with hunting, i never share what i've seen or where i was. it doesnt take much for word to spread and a spot is ruined. i've seen it happen too often.
i'll work a little more at trying to upload those other photos. they show much more and answer many questions.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 22:06:23 GMT -5
here are two more. this shows the size beside my foot and then the depth difference after i put my entire weight on one foot. this is another. with my full-wighted print beside it. this is an idea of the multiple tracks. they are just all over in every direction.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 22:07:33 GMT -5
why are those so small?
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 22:44:25 GMT -5
is this bigger?
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 23:07:18 GMT -5
if this isn't larger then i give up. i'm using photobucket and the images are large, but they come here as thumbnails. hope this works.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 7, 2012 23:44:22 GMT -5
1. my foot beside for size comparison. 2. again, but with a seperate print. 3. this is picture #1 but after i've put my full weight on one foot. 4. another showing the depth difference. 5. showing the random pattern of the prints. 6. another showing the depth difference. 7. same print as #2 but just the print. 8. repeat of #7. oops. 9. same print as #1 and #3 but print before i stepped beside it.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 8, 2012 0:21:27 GMT -5
OK - you got me stumped ... which isn't normal :-)
They appear to be young human (aged 10-12) footprints - barefoot.
I cannot say WHY in God's good earth anyone would walk around those parts barefoot ... just doesnt make much sense.
They do appear to have standard human-like toe pattern, and appear (given the state of the vegetation inside the print) to be a few days old (2-3 if I would hazard a guess).
Why though they would be walking around barefoot is a mystery: assuming that it wasn't a hoax. Given the remote location and the recent weather not being in favour of swimmers, I'd say you have a potentially good set of prints.
How far apart were they spaced?
Richard
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 8, 2012 10:58:47 GMT -5
see, and how much would a 10 -12 year old weigh? that's what has me confused. not a teen's weight ;D, but the depth that these prints sunk for their smallish size. that ground was completely water-logged. i can't see it being any more saturated than it was.
the spacing wasn't significant. they weren't a strided pattern as if on a course. they were more varied. like if you were waiting for something, you look here then turn and look over there, then step here and there.
and the picture where there are multiple tracks in the dark ground that is covered in pine needles. that ground is very spongy. i stepped there and didn't even leave a print, yet those tracks are quite deep.
i can let go of the oddity of someone walking around that area barefoot. there are very odd people out there. but what doesn't add up is the smaller size of the prints combined with how much deeper they sunk.
i'm very eager to get back to that area. and not even for the tracks so much. i want to get back there at least one more time before the fishing dies down. if i'm able to, i'll study this area more. i'll comb the surrounding area more thoroughly and maybe even slip my own boot off and walk through there to see just how deep i might sink. the water keeps rising every day, so it's not drying up in there any time soon. there is still alot of snow just up the hill that will be melting for awhile yet. i don't have the patience to bother with making casts.
maybe i should just go back there in the dark and look for glowing red eyes in the trees. ;D maybe i could get lucky and get a blurry, shaky image of something also. ;D ;D
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 11, 2012 14:53:53 GMT -5
i think i'm going back there on sunday/monday. if everything works out that is.
the weather is improving so i'll definitely remove a shoe and step in there. there's not much else to do really. some more photos and a better look around trhe area.
i'm hoping my feet sink significantly and explains that it's simply a person walking in weird areas. that's what i'm expecting anyway.
|
|