The Trouble with Tracks

With all due respect to the great work of Dr.s Krantz and Meldrum, as well as the whole coterie of bigfoot plaster casters around the world, I have an issue with the nature of many of these purported Bigfoot footprints. Though I have read Dr. Meldrums work on stride analysis, and I have read and reread much of the P/G 'Patty' story regarding the footage and how it may relate to human locomotion, the two points that stick out are 'in line gaits' and 'print depth in substrate.'

Firstly, as a layman, armchair researcher I am not seeking to roil anyone, but only want better explanations for why a creature that is ostensibly larger and heavier than a standing Grizzly bear, leaves footprints in soft soils or mud that do not correspond with a height/weight ratio for that animal. Let's pick an average of 8 feet tall and 350 lbs. to begin. Any engineer or math person will tell you that the a bipedal foot track for human weighing in this neighborhood, in soft soil or mud will sink to a much more noticeable degree than that of a more normal 200 lb.clothed human.

Yet in photo after photo we find these tracks to be nearly equal in depth. The footprints of the surveyor is usually indistinguishable from that of the purported cryptid, except for it's length and to a lessor degree, it's breadth.

The other aspect that does not fit is the gait issue. How can we accomplish a true in line gait, to a degree where a string line may show a near perfect alignment, when this animal we're seeking MUST by sheer physics, possess a pelvis and hipbones that allow for a separation necessary to put two legs to the ground, and hence two feet to the earth, where they should leave prints that are diagonally opposed, at least by a few inches off of center.

Answering this still does not address the problem of the 'disappearing trail,' where whole sets of prints simply vanish in soil or muck that had not ended itself.

I submit the photo above for perusal. I took this picture on a forest service road must above Mud Mountain Dam last Saturday, (an area with at least one sighting according to the BFRO). The print is relatively deep, in soft mud and fairly clearly human, showing a toe pattern, a narrowing at the instep and a rounded heel.

It looks large, so is it evidence of a hairy bipedal throwback to human ancestors?

The answer: No...this print was one of twenty or more in the area, made by people who just enjoyed mucking about in the mud near the White River reservoir just below this set of prints. My point is, it is easy to let your mind run wild, when a simple, much more pedestrian explanation will suffice.

Ok, now it's your turn. Educate me please.

SAR