 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
 Posted: March 14th, 2009 08:57 PM |
     |
|
| Yes, in Wi-10 it appeared to us that the sasquatch stood there in one spot as it followed the deer trail. I have one photo that shows it turning direction as it came into the woods but it is very hard to see any detail....too many shadows. The tracks in Wi-10 were in a line and I just walked along and took the photos. I could have taken many, many more and believe me I am kicking myself for not doing that. It was a very overwelming experience knowing that a sasquatch was there just hours before and not knowing if it was still in the area. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: March 14th, 2009 09:28 PM |
|
|
Thank you Navigator for your reply. LIke I stated before, the tracks in Wi 1-2-3 were weird to me and thats why I took those pictures. The deer tracks went up to the fence, stopped and then went over.....which I think is normal animal behavior when coming up to an obstical. The tracks on the right didn't even care that that fence was there. I would think if that was a coyote it would stop before the fence and then leap over just like the deer did.....not start to leap 2-3 feet in front of it and land 2-3 feet behind it. And remember, that snow is at least 18 inches deep. It would take a very powerful and large animal to do what those tracks suggest.
As the navigator said, if anyone has photos like these, I too would love to see them! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scaup76
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 02:28 AM |
|
|
| First off, I live in Wisconsin and I am an avid outdoorsman. I spend alot of time in this state's woods, swamps, and fields and I have seen these "footprints" everywhere. A coyote, and even a deer, running through a powder snow will leave almost the exact same imprint. Now don't get me wrong, I believe the Big Guy is out there, but when tracks are this degraded and indistiguishable, I just can't get excited about them. We still need better evidence to silence the non-believers. (On a sidenote, if everything I've seen are BF tracks, then there must be mllions here.) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 07:52 AM |
|
|
scaup76,
You need to go to the "Read this first" section on the forum home page, read the posting guidelines and post your introduction. Please do that before posting any more comments.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 08:03 AM |
|
|
Before anyone starts trying to pick apart the photos and tell us what they are or are not, go and read the report behind them. Any of you that are true "outdoorsmen" should also know that tracks of any animal degrade at different rates depending on how much sunlight can get to them. These tracks were in the bush as well as out in the open and the shape stayed constant. Add to this the fact that a bigfoot was seen in the area the day before these tracks were found.
Look at ALL of the evidence before discounting them because you think they look like something else. You weren't there to see them. SMARTIN was.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scaup76
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 02:40 PM |
|
|
| My name is Matt M., I work in law enforcement. All I'm am saying is that if the tracks are BF, it is just too hard to tell. I know that some of the photos go along with a class A, but the tracks are too far gone to positively ID as such, and it gives some easy ammo for someone who wants to dismiss them out of hand, i.e. skeptics. Keep searching, we'll get it right eventually. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McGregor
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 201
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 04:04 PM |
|
|
lol...
Anyway hmmmmm if these where seen from the road if I remember right. What would the chances have been of someone seeing the big guy while he was making them? Or is it a remote/private road. And did you see anything that might have indicated he took cover and hid from view of the road?
 would have sacrificed a whole citrus fruit to be there to see em too
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being.
Never reject an eccentric opinion as every accepted opinion was once eccentric.
G'day mate |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 05:59 PM |
|
|
The Wisconsin tracks are a good supporting illustration of why the Patterson/Gimlin film can't be a guy in a suit. You have a normal human stride on the left and a nearly impossible stride for a human to accomplish on the right.
(Edited by Bossburg) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McGregor
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 201
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
And if a guy in a suit did make the tracks. A film of it would resemble a moon walk just trying to get the gait right.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being.
Never reject an eccentric opinion as every accepted opinion was once eccentric.
G'day mate |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: March 15th, 2009 11:29 PM |
|
|
scaup76
One more time. Please go to the "READ THIS FIRST" section on the forum home page read the posting guidelines and introduce yourself before posting any more comments.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rlowery80
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: March 17th, 2009 06:03 PM |
|
|
Smartin-
I would like to thank you for sharing your photos and answering questions! I have none for you at this time, again thanks!
RL
The Watcher in the woods |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
podius
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: March 19th, 2009 10:02 PM |
|
|
| I spent the last 4 months in the boundary water wilderness of MN building a cabin. I stayed on site in a boathouse. I observed these tracks up there and there were 2 different kinds. I saw the footprint ones with distinct toe/heel marks and then there were deer leaps. The deer leaps were spaced just like the others and went from side to side. I followed the deer leaps until they turned to deer tracks, but the other tracks I followed and got a creepy feeling as they entered a dense thicket. These pictures look like foot tracks from what I've personally seen not deer tracks. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jmc303
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: March 20th, 2009 08:00 AM |
|
|
Firstly these pictures are great, it would be great to have a picture of the area once the snow melts (if it hasn't already).
1: Wi 9 looks just like a person's footprint running in the snow should, only with much bigger pads on the front of the foot, a very big 'big toe' and 'webbing' between the other toes. It also looks like the smaller toes are being curled for extra grip on the snow.
2: As I understand it, Olympic sprinters are told to place their feet as close as possible together in the line of running and pointing straight forward, this reduces aerodynamic drag and hence increases efficiency. So people do run with their feet in a near straight line. We just chose not to because we aren't really built for it and its only useful when running at speed.
3: Anthropods with relatively slimmer pelvises to the rest of their body and long legs are said to have ben better at running faster and for longer distances, not just as a result of being able to present a lower aerodynamic profile by having their legs closer together, consequently less tiring and able to run for longer, or much faster in bursts. It goes without saying that lower body muscle build is also a factor in this.
4: These are not the tracks of a canine species, I can attest to this as I have huskies who are very capable in the snow and this is not what their tracks look like! I also know of no species whose habitat I have crossed that is capable of making that print pattern.
5: Looking at my own feet I can see that the thicker skin I have on my feet as a result of climbing (which is by now like thick leather) matches the patterns of this footprint by having a gap in it between the pad behind my big toe and the pad behind the rest of them where the skin is still softer. I'd warrant that the thick pad behind his big toe comes round up the side of the foot and that the big toe is almost totally covered in this thicker skin while only the tips of the smaller toes are.
IN MY OPINION, these were created by something bipedal with well built, proportionally long legs with a slimmer waist than chest, running barefoot. I'd say its legs are between 3'6" and 4'6" long to the hip and it is very good at running and hurdles.
Disclaimer:
My observations as someone who is not an expert in animal tracks nor biology nor anthropology. They come from someone with a lot of outdoors experience in the snow and barefoot climbing. Either way these are stated as my opinion and not as fact!
Thats my mental discussion over you'll be pleased to know.
Cheers!
Jason |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DanBoo
Approved
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: March 20th, 2009 12:52 PM |
|
|
FYI,
The snow in southeast Wisconsin is pretty much all gone as of last week. Northern portion of the state is a bit different with some snow left in areas not seeing the sun as much. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superswamper
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: March 21st, 2009 11:57 PM |
|
|
I'm as open-minded as they come. I would love for someone to finally find some hard evidence on the possibility of BF, but these pictures are nowhere close.
Some of the replys are actually humorous. Have some people never walked in the snow.
It's not amazing that something walked over the fence. As the squares are 6", the fence is 18"above the snow and only about 14" where the tracks crossed.
The snow is 20" deep, yet a BF never sank down in it? A man on snowshoes would sink deeper than those tracks. In wisc. five photo, you can see where the photographer stepped in the snow on the left. He should have taken a photo showing how his tracks looked in the snow stepping over the fence and walking along the other tracks. That would show a great comparison of depths due to weights, stride, etc.
Photos wisc. nine and wisc. ten are clearly rabbit tracks. You can specifically see where the front feet landed. Those are not big, splayed toes. The snow is clearly fresh, yet the tracks have only sank to approx. bunny depth. The tracks stride distance isn't all that impressive when realized it was a rabbitt.
I'm simply stating my observation. I track deer and moose through the snow all season, and have seen these tracks all the time. If I'm wrong, then I must be in the best BF area of all.
All tracks should be compared to other known tracks first, before jumping to conclusions. To say those are BF tracks, they need to be ruled out as being anything else first, then be compared to actual, proven BF tracks.
I'm not a hater, I really hope there may be BF out there. But we need to find actual evidence. I've got strange photos of things found while hiking, but it's not enough for me to say that it must be a BF. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: March 22nd, 2009 12:26 AM |
|
|
superswamper: Please visit the *READ THIS FIRST* section of the forum, read the posting guidelines and then post your introduction.
Thanks,
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
semi p
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 391
|
| Posted: March 23rd, 2009 12:43 PM |
|
|
| Superswamper, those are deer tracks next to the purported Squatch tracks. The history of the report states that clearly. It also states that the sasquatch was actually seen by a motorist where the tracks are. I respect your analytical approach, but when a Class A sighting corroborates tracks, we can learn alot from the situation for future use. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davec46
Approved
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 226
|
| Posted: March 23rd, 2009 02:08 PM |
|
|
i think so too
I'm interested in Bigfoot |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superswamper
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: March 24th, 2009 04:36 PM |
|
|
| I know the tracks on the left are deer. That's plain as day. The tracks on the right are rabbitt. If you've ever seen rabbitt tracks in the snow, that is what that looks like. There is no way that those tracks on the right were made by anything of any size and weight. Simple logic explains that. They are on the snow. If that was a sasquatch, it had to weigh under ten pounds. The track on the left I refered to is in photo five. Clearly, the photographer stepped in the snow. Even the deer sinks in the snow. We need to consider all the factors, such as size, weight, etc. Not just the distance between the tracks. Why is it that anyone who suggests it might not be a BF is so quickly objected to? I would love for it to be a BF track, I really would. I just think the best approach is to rule all other possibilities out first, and then determine what it might be from there. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: March 24th, 2009 08:55 PM |
|
|
After reading some of the comments posted lately I feel I must post a reply to the skeptics and try to clarify a few things about the photos I took.
First, to superswamper and others who doubt these photos. The tracks in Wi-5 between the two deer trails are the exact tracks made by a 6-7 foot tall, jet black, semi long haired bipedal "rabbit" that ran incredibly fast across the road approx.200-250 feet in front of Ricks car in broad daylight. I know for a fact he knows the difference between a rabbit and any other creature in the woods. The Wi-4-9-10 photos are the tracks that were directly across the road from where the "rabbit" ran across and followed a well traveled deer trail that was on the backside of a small knoll and went down into a small valley type area that was somewhat heavily wooded. All the tracks photographed were around 14 inches long.The tracks in the Wi-5 photo were exposed to the elements as that area was more open. These tracks were less than 24 hours old and were somewhat drifted over as we had winds from the north that were in the 10-15 mph range the night before. These tracks had a stride of 6 feet and we do have the photos to prove that. The snow was 8-12 inches deep depending on where you stood. The tracks in Wi-4-9 and 10 were in a more protected area as they were behind a small knoll with alot more trees and brush surrounding them. Based on what I personally saw and Ricks sighting, I will guarantee 100% that these tracks are the real deal. This area was easily accessible to and was plastered with deer tracks and trails (hundreds if not thousands of them) running off in all kinds of different directions. I also found and photographed 3 other spots where something "walked" out of the woods in the immediate area and left very large and deep footprints. These tracks were more deteriorated but very impressive. The BFRO has these photos as well and are more than welcome to post them.
The tracks I photographed in Wi-1-2 and 3 were taken 5.6 miles north of where Ricks sighting took place. As I said before ,I took those photos because the tracks looked "wierd". I cannot positively say that a sasquatch made them as I do not have a witness to verify that fact. The BFRO seems very confident in the fact that these were indeed made by a sasquatch and it wasn't until two weeks later did I learn that there was a sighting 2 months earlier by two witnesses in that exact area. That lends some credibility to what the BFRO is saying and I respect their educated opinion on what made those tracks.
The BFRO is not the only ones who have seen and analized these photos. I emailed them to another friend and he emailed them to several well experienced hunters he knows as well as a DNR warden. I too emailed them to a friend of mine who works at the DNR in Madison,WI. and to date, no one, and I mean no one can positively identify what made those tracks. I am sure that the BFRO has it's own experts who looked at them and I highly doubt they would claim they are something they are not without alot of good, sound advice. After all, they are more experienced in these matters than you or I.
So to sit back and say these are just rabbit tracks without knowing all the facts or being there to actually see them is kinda irresponsible. After all, even a DNR game warden and very experienced hunters (even a big game hunter who goes to Africa once a year) couldn't indentify them......do you have as much outdoor experience as they do??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: March 24th, 2009 09:43 PM |
|
|
A quick follow up to all;
Go to google, click on images, and type in "rabbit tracks snow" and compare those photos to the ones that are posted. Then type in coyote, bear, deer, fox or any other animal you can think of and look at the difference. I'll let you form your own conclusion as to what made those tracks.
One more thing......
My private investigation as to Ricks sighting has led me to find out that the DNR has investigated two reports of an unknown creature in that area in the past few years. The first report wasn't taken seriously but the second one was. Photos were taken of footprints of an animal that could not be indentified and these were taken 2 miles from where Ricks sighting took place. Right now my info is second hand but comes from a very credible source. I also learned from a local about the "marsh monster" he had heard about when he was a little boy and that dates back to the 60's. As my investigation goes forward I will pass any information I find out to the BFRO for their analysis and hope that someday we can prove that bigfoot does indeed live here in southeastern Wisconsin. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdifuplz
Approved
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: March 25th, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
|
Were there any measurements taken of the coyote jumping impressions, like how far apart they were? I've seen coyotes jumping in snow and when it's clear and there is a difference in the distance they can get. Also could a coyote clear that fence without leaving some hair behind?
I hunt ghosts because they can't rip me to pieces. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
Approved
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2400
|
| Posted: March 25th, 2009 09:29 AM |
|
|
Smartin:
I'm curious about the deer trail that may have been used by the 7' Bunny.
The deer trails on my property are usually small--mostly I have to bend over to fit into them.
Was this trail unusually wide up at (human) shoulder height or above?
I believe you about the DNR...but it staggers the imagination, doesn't it, that the DNR actually took an unknown creature sighting seriously? Usually these DNR/DEC/MNR agencies toe the party line on stuff like this.
seeing is believing |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: March 25th, 2009 01:06 PM |
|
|
No, the deer trail wasn't that wide....maybe a foot at most. It seemed to me that as deer entered this area from coming across the road this was the path they created to go between all the small trees and brush to get to where ever it was they felt they had to go. The tracks I photographed followed this trail.
As far as the DNR is concerned, the story I was told was to be considered as "off the record" but it was the investigating warden who told my friend about the incidents. If you look at this logically, say John Doe sees something in the woods that he can't explain and doesn't know who to call to talk about it. I am sure that in alot of cases the DNR would be called and it would be up to any individual wardens if they want to investigate. From what I am told this warden is one who took the report serious enough to check it out. I believe here in Wisconsin the DNR has reports of unknown animals being seen and my conversation with my friend pretty much confirms it. My hope is to contact the warden involved ( I know who it is)and arrange a meeting with him and compare the photos I took to what they have on file. I am hoping they are open to this idea but I have never dealt with the DNR before and being a government agency I might run into alot of red tape. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superswamper
Unregistered
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: March 25th, 2009 11:03 PM |
|
|
Again, Smartin, I have to ask why it is that noone can question anything without being labelled a skeptic. I truly believe that BF may be out there. I think it is entirely possible, and really hope it is. Am I sure? Absolutely not. That is impossible without proof. Until then, I can believe and hope.
And yes, I do have vast outdoor experience. As stated earlier, I spend all the time I can in the woods, and it's alot. And eight months of the year that includes snow. There's not alot of snow in Africa, and knowing elephant tracks doesn't help here.
On the other tracks, you stated that 'noone, and I mean noone can positively identify what made those tracks'. How then can you identify them as BF?
With the main tracks, explain how 'something very large and powerful', as you said it had to be to clear the fence(which is 14" above the snow), never sunk down into the snow? That snow could be frozen on top and a BF of any size would break through.
How you can 'guarantee 100% that these tracks are the real deal' is absurd. Do you have a real BF at home that the rest of the world hasn't seen. You would need 100% real evidence that sasquatch exists to make that claim. And to date, there isn't. No photo or track can provide that. Only a body, live or dead, can.
We know those are deer tracks because we've got endless evidence of deer. As we do of everything else out there that we know what their tracks are.
So by that, no track can be deemed 'authentic'. It can be great information that is gathered and added to additional information. And hopefully enough can be collected to gain more knowledge of possible BF, and maybe one day lead to confirming BF existance. Confirmation is needed though. Without, it is only our belief and hope. And there is nothing wrong with that. But for now, that is what we have. Words of sightings and blurry photos and videos strengthen our belief, but they cannot confirm it.
I'll take you word that they aren't rabbitt tracks. But you cannot 'prove' that they are BF. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ravellette
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: March 25th, 2009 11:13 PM |
|
|
Superswamper; I seen the exact same pattern in my report and when I saw the footprints, it was an hour or so after the person was face to face with the BF. The tracks were in snow and went perfectly straight as in these prints. We followed them for about a mile and we stopped because they were going up into a MT area.
I can assure you that they were the real deal and after looking at the prints on here it was like looking at the prints all over again.
The prints sank in around 3" and ours went about the same depth.
If you build it, they will come! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: March 26th, 2009 03:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
superswamper wrote:
Again, Smartin, I have to ask why it is that noone can question anything without being labelled a skeptic.
I'll take you word that they aren't rabbitt tracks. But you cannot 'prove' that they are BF.
|
Skeptics are welcome here. The problem we have is people that come to the board just to contradict everything we show them. You yourself were so sure these were rabbit tracks just from looking at the photos and ignoring all of the other surrounding evidence. Now that you've been shown that you were wrong you're admitting your mistake but you're still telling Smartin that he's wrong after he gave you a long and very detailed reply as to why he know what made the tracks. Were you there to see them and know 100% that they're not BF tracks? These tracks weren't just sent in to us and posted. The report was investigated very thoroughly before the decision was made to release the photos. It's the BFRO's reputation that's on the line and we won't put something out there that we aren't sure about.
You've made your point. No more arguing.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davec46
Approved
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 226
|
| Posted: March 26th, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
I believe he is out there.But do the wardons
I'm interested in Bigfoot |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMARTIN
Approved
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: March 26th, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
Superswamper,
I do not mind the fact that people will question the photos and expected such from a few. Whenever I look at other evidence from unknown sources I too look at it with skepticism but I keep in mind that there is a possiblity that other evidence out there could be very authentic. I am sure you do the same so I am not condemming you for asking legitimate questions.
The reason I say that Wi-4-5-9 and 10 are the real deal is because of all the circumstances that were involved. Imagine, if you will, that a close friend of yours called you and told you an absolutely incredible story that was totally out of character with him or her. A story that you never talked about in all your years of friendship.Then imagine finding evidence to support such a story. You would tend to believe your friend....right? Well, that's what happened here.....starting with a phone call from a very excited friend, going down there and finding the tracks in the exact spot where it had crossed the road, following the tracks into the woods, taking pictures,talking on the phone with Bernie from the BFRO as we were on sight and describing everything we were looking at, etc.,etc. We knew it was important to let someone, in this case the BFRO, know about this sighting because of how fresh the evidence was. If for one second I would have thought it was a hoax, a prank, or any type of trick, no one would have been contacted and I would have blew it off as a waste of time. But it wasn't and that I am 100% sure of. I'm sorry if the tracks don't match what you had invisioned , and in all honesty, they don't look like what I thought they should look like either. But I stand behind what I said earlier, and that Wi-4-5-9 and 10 are the real deal.
As for Wi-1-2- and 3, it looks to me as if the tracks have drifted over somewhat as we had winds the night before and they are out in the open. I cannot explain what made them because of the fence and the fence is the key issue in these photos. My limited knowledge of animals tells me that they stop when they encounter something in the way and have to figure out a way to go around it or over it. This creature either planned it's steps accordingly (showing intelligence) or just took a lucky jump and missed it all together. The BFRO feels that a sasquatch made these tracks and until someone can show me similiar tracks in a similiar situation I am going to have to error on the side of the BFRO. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: March 27th, 2009 11:47 AM |
|
|
| If there is a question as to weather these track were hoaxed okay. So how were they hoaxed? If you are questioning that they are authentic as claimed that is skeptical. Why would someone who is skeptical not be called a skeptic? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
