Comparison of Black Bear footprints with Sasquatch footprints
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by William Jevning (@bukwas01), 38 year veteran sasquatch investigator, and author of "Notes From the Field, Tracking North America's Sasquatch". Read more about Jevning at his Bigfoot blog, Bigfoot Researcher.For many years, people have made the claim that person's finding what they said were Sasquatch footprints were actually seeing overlapped bear footprints. Obviously many people are not aware of what the difference is between the two, both in the past and today. I placed the cast on the right from my collection of a 17 inch Sasquatch found and cast on the Laird Mountain road above Bluff Creek California in 1964, next to three bear tracks of which the top portion of my cast here is actually a front and hind foot overlapped with another hind foot close behind. To an inexperienced eye, the rough shape and size is similar to this 17 inch sasquatch track. The details are obvious though, as the bear tracks show the toes from each foot and often times the claw marks, and even when overlapped each foot is distinguishable. The Sasquatch print shows details as well and look nothing like the overlapped bear tracks.
This next photograph is of another set of bear tracks I cast in 2008 in Northern California.
This is part of a line of bear tracks I photographed near Mt. Adams in Southwest Washington in 1995. Adult black bear hind feet are typically around 7 inches in length, and the front and hind foot prints are approximately 12 inches apart in this line.
I took some of the footprint casts from my collection here to show the actual size relationships of A- an adult human male foot, B- this 14 inch Sasquatch footprint cast near Bluff Creek California in 1963, C- are the 14 inch Sasquatch footprints cast by Roger Patterson in 1967 at Bluff Creek after he filmed the creature, D- are black bear tracks I cast near Bluff Creek in 2004, E- are Elk tracks I cast, and F- is a deer track.
The photograph above is a closer look at the bear tracks I cast at Bluff Creek in 2004. Bear tracks are nowhere as long or wide as Sasquatch footprints. Distinguishing one from the other is very easy.
Wow, that was one of my favorite posts! I am so glad you addressed this and so thoroughly and intelligently. It can be hard in this field of insanity that is BF World these days to hear reasonable and well thought commentary. You have a fan.
ReplyDeleteYep. What she said.
DeleteI gotta say this is one of the better articles that has been posted on here. Great stuff! This is the kind of stuff that we need more of and is a far cry from the lunacy that has been posted on here.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I love the comparison photos.
ReplyDeleteYou know there will still be skeptics wearing their skeptics glasses that will argue otherwise. I think skeptics' wear glasses similar to beer glasses, except they are not drunk, just ignorant.
ReplyDeleteChad W
Even a fool can tell the difference!
ReplyDeleteVery good post! I nominate it for best post of the year.
ReplyDeleteI agree--I ordered his book immediately.
DeleteI think it's amazing the length we have to go to in order to convince people that we know the difference! Great post!
ReplyDeleteDavid from the PAC/NW
Notice the arch on the human foot print!
ReplyDeleteCast B, from Bluff Creek 1963 is NOT a sasquatch print, but a cast from a Ray Wallace fake foot!
ReplyDeleteR
still doesnt mean its a bigfoot print, they can be faked too easily to ever be considered real evidence
ReplyDeleteGreat post. would someone please pass this onto Alex Hearn and Mitch Waide the Mogollon Monster guys. all of their cast are of bears and they won't listen to anybody that tells them differently.
ReplyDelete