East Texas Bigfoot Track Find Investigation
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 27th, 2012
Investigation of track find last month by Bigfoot Researcher Rob Gaudet of Shreveport, LA as detailed here and here on Cryptomundo.
The Patman Prints show four barefoot prints walking out of the inlet of Lake Wright Patman. The area where the prints were found is only accessible via a three mile boat ride.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Reading the other threads, I am seeing a lot of people who are nitpicking tracks but not reading the report.
In this case, that a human left those prints is the “extraordinary claim.” That one faked this? Even more so.
I’m pretty sure the field will make no advances as long as people think that edge-of-possibility-to-impossible feats are somehow more “mundane” than an animal that a ton of evidence says is not only real, but quite plausible.
“Probably a Sasquatch print”…yeah not so fast.
I’m 6′ 1″ and have big feet. Size 13 EE in normal shoes and sometimes 14 EEE in sports footware. My bare feet are 12″ long so I easily leave bare prints over 12″ long. I just did a quick try and from heel to heel I could manage a long, though not leaping, stride of 54″ and very easily made a 47″ heel left foot to heel right foot stride. In fact, taking a standing, one stride leap – I was able to span almost 72” heel to heel and this is not running. Being a soccer player, I have too “toe issues” and would probably also leave an odd print in the sand. The only real difference between my bare footprint and the 11″ one shown above is that my foot is bigger and I have very high arches but even they would not be apparent when sunk a little in the mud of a river bank.
I’m not saying these prints are not Sasquatch prints…I’m just saying not so fast.
From what I could tell I did not see any distinct toe prints which one would expect to see in actual mud. Also, as the camera panned away from the speaker I was sort of shocked to see a guy standing out in the water behind and to the right of the guy being interviewed. If the water was 40 degrees, why would this yahoo be standing out in it? What was the point of that even if he had rubber wading boots on it still had to be cold. I just think this could have been made by anyone with a big set of boots and a small foot shaped board strapped on them, or maybe just with some non-treaded boots.
Cool footprints! I have no doubt that it’s real.
One still has to explain
(“If the water was 40 degrees, why would this yahoo be standing out in it?” Particularly given the weather at the apparent time the tracks were made)
why someone would put these tracks in a place where, face it, it was very unlikely that someone would just stumble across them (a situation true of many trackways found). That someone happened to do that is a situation that happens often with animal tracks. Fact is, though, a hoaxer is going to put tracks where they are sure to be found. Nobody is going to risk – particularly under these conditions – the high probability that the tracks will be gone before anyone finds them “to make it look more realistic.”
The quality of the videos you see on Youtube? Obvious wood feet?
That’s what hoaxers do.
It’s not reasonable to say “nothing to see here” on this one. That a hoax occurred here is an extraordinary claim.
The foot Length is not that great, but the width of the print is much more than a humans.
And who said you can’t see the toes? WHAT!???
I think these could be real…
Besides most hoaxers would make the print much bigger.
I’d love to see someone just once take their shoe off and make a footprint right next to the suspected Sasquatch track.
We’d see how far in it went, the differences and similarity’s all in one shot.
We’d know the weight of the person making the comparison print etc…
If we take for granted the credibility of the gentlemen who found these…that is, that they themselves were not the perpetrators of a hoax… it is indeed extraordinary to claim these prints are not genuine.
Cumulative evidence, in compelling amounts, must always be grouped and considered with all other similar correlated evidence. Failing to do this is the inherent error in logic applied by those skeptical of Sasquatch. This is not just a set of purported tracks in some bog in Texas. These tracks are just one of the more recent manifestations of evidence that includes all other tracks ever discovered and documented, and all other evidence associated with similar tracks which are, in turn, consistent with all other evidence that includes: Sound recordings, photo, video and film images, DNA analysis, olfactory and other sense impressions, anecdotal accounts, and the oral history of indigenous peoples.
But, for those so inclined, each set of footprints reported (or any other type of evidence for that matter) are the only ones ever found, and have no association with, or to, any other evidence. For the life of me… what is up with that?