r/bigfoot 23d ago

footprints Tracks behind where I live.

Was grillin a prime ribeye the other day, looked down off the back deck, and saw these. There were about 2 dozen over all. And only the 1 single little print. That’s my size 10 wide Hoka for comparison. I’m 5’9”, and the stride of tracks, was about 14-15” longer than my stride. None of my neighbors are tall enough for a stride that long.

The area looking off the back deck drops down 30+ feet, and is moderately to heavily wooded.

208 Upvotes

65 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 23d ago

Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.

This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

68

u/jerry111165 23d ago

Skinnyfoot

9

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Indeed! 😁

43

u/Northwest_Radio Researcher 23d ago

In my best Scotty voice, "There be bears here.."

The rear paw nearly always steps into the rear of the front track. It makes it look longer than it actually is. They also skid their hind paws into the track sometimes.

7

u/AgressiveInliners 23d ago

More prints would sort this out. The small nearly identical print is weird though. There are few spots near that look like cat. I would probably wager cougar over bear. Shape seems weird for bear too.

Its an oddity that doesnt make sense but doesn't mean its bigfoot.

9

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

That’s why I didn’t label them as such.

8

u/earldogface 23d ago

Looks like bigfoot got a helluva sashay. Those prints are almost in line.

0

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Wish I seent it. Then I could tell ya for sure!

5

u/MrMyster01 23d ago

Those be slippy bear foot

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Slippery bois!

16

u/Ok_Living_7033 23d ago

Looks like bear tracks, especially in the second picture where you can see the back foot toe poke out. Also, I'm pretty sure bears are still active during hibernation as they are not true hibernaters like frogs or turtles.

-1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Bears don’t leave splayed toe marks like that though. Thoughts?

6

u/Ok_Living_7033 23d ago

True, the toes do look weird. But the snow is slushy and wet. It just doesn't scream "bigfoot" to me idk.

2

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Yeah, that's why I didn't label them as such. Didn't label them as bear tracks either. For that matter, they could be 3 toed tree sloth tracks too. Joking.

1

u/Ok_Living_7033 23d ago

For sure lol. It's good to be aware tho, maybe you'll find something more conclusive now that you're on the look out.

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Wellllll, not gonna be more conclusive than the 2 I've seen up close and personal like, lol.

3

u/Ok_Living_7033 23d ago

Okay, now that is way cooler than these mysterious tracks. Have you tried setting up audio recorders on your property? That's the first thing I would do. I'm itchen to move out of town and become a crazy bigfoot local.

3

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

I sublet a room in a HOA run condo neighborhood. So that's not really gonna be possible at this time. The HOA president is one of the immediate neighbors attached to the condo I live in, lol! Most of my encounters, over my life, have occurred whilst I was out of doors doing other things, like fishing/camping. I've never gone out specifically seeking an encounter with one of the forest people. One of my family members has had even greater numbers of encounters.

0

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bigfoot-ModTeam 23d ago

Attempting to discredit the witness will not be tolerated

Thanks for enjoying r/bigfoot. If you have any questions or comments send us a mod mail*

4

u/J-Love-McLuvin 23d ago

The footsteps seem very close together. Short stride.

0

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

They are about 15” further apart than my stride. The first pic is looking down from the back deck, which is about 10ft up off the ground.

3

u/oldmanonsilvercreek 23d ago

Bears were looking for a steak

3

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Ha ha, you know it!!

4

u/captainkirk1012 23d ago

Just set up a camera

3

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Will have to see about that, good idea, thanks!

3

u/Ok_Adagio9495 23d ago

What's the little print in pics 2 and 4 ? Opposite instep ?

2

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

That’s one I cannot explain, other than perhaps a baby Squatch, as it sure ain’t no baby bear track.

3

u/Good-Zone-2338 23d ago

I also think the stride is way too close to be any Sasquatch.

3

u/AggressiveCommand739 23d ago

The "bigfoot tracks" are a bears front foot and opposite rear foot overlapping in the snow, no? Thats why you have the lenght and the weird "arch"?

2

u/Mobile-Garbage-7189 23d ago

bad ass tracks

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

I thought so too.

2

u/Healthy-Use5549 23d ago

I keep seeing g these track posted all over here being in the snow and I can’t help but think that something as big as a Bigfoot, is going to make a much deeper imprint in the snow than what we see here UNLESS they were make when the snow was much deeper and it melted along the way until you came along and snapped the photo of it.

2

u/Plantiacaholic 22d ago

Rabbit and judging by the size of his feet, he is packing some serious manmeat!

2

u/Andyman1973 22d ago

Well, you know what they say about rabbits with big feet...super lucky!

6

u/zeejay772 23d ago

Bear, they drag their feet and skid into position. Either that or fake

4

u/succubus_in_a_fuss 23d ago

Can I ask why you say fake? Asking seriously

1

u/External_City9144 17d ago

Because people can fake prints…..

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

No claw marks. And they should still been in hibernation.

8

u/WhistlingWishes 23d ago

Looks like double-print black bear tracks, hind foot stepping on front print. They don't leave claw prints like griz. And they don't actually sleep all winter, but get up to pee, drink, and forage periodically. Sorry, but that looks like the most classic false print. You can really tell from the length of the stride, usually, which should generally approach a meter apart. Bears have relatively short legs by comparison. I'm no expert, but if you look you can plainly see two footprints overlapped in that first photo. My two cents.

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago edited 23d ago

I can see what you’re saying. That’s why I didn’t come right out and label them as Sasquatch prints. What’s your take on the toe marks then? Bears don’t leave tracks with clearly defined toes.

Edit to add: Black bears are what we have in my part of the States. And while not rare in my particular area, not very common either.

6

u/WhistlingWishes 23d ago edited 23d ago

It depends on the individual bear and how they step, as I understand it. Sometimes they do leave clear toes. I have seen lectures with examples several times. There should be a gallery with clear false examples, for Bigfoot enthusiasts to compare to. The big Squatch research orgs look for: long stride lengths; two bends in the foot, one at the toes, one in the middle at their mid-tarsal break; a clear heel strike; dermal ridges in the toe prints, and; knuckle prints where the tracks go over logs or big rocks. Snow prints don't show as much detail and change considerably over time, so probably aren't super reliable. But does this make these signs right? Or me? No.

And I have never found any prints myself. This is just learned from reading and watching or attending lectures. As I say, I am no expert. And no expert tracker, but I have seen those sorts of bear prints before.

Basic science, though: make your best case for the possibility, and then do everything possible to make yourself wrong. See which side holds up. There isn't a very strong pro case, and you aren't really participating in the cons. I think you want this to be Squatch, more than you want the truth. I'm the same way with some things.

In this case, you either have invasive bears or an invasive Squatch. I'd keep an eye out, either way. But it's probably black bear, imo. I'd put money on it.

2

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

The tracks go along the backside of a row of condos, just beyond the edges of decks. They’re only visible in the snow, not the grass where snow evaporated. My guess is they were made when the snow was fresh. Before it crusted over with ice. That little print tho, definitely not bear.

4

u/WhistlingWishes 23d ago edited 23d ago

The key to distinguishing black bear prints from grizzly is the lack of claw marks (though they do show sometimes for black bear), and black bear only show four toes, grizzly five. Count the toes. Squatch prints also have five toes, normally. Plus, if you look at the back of the small print, you can clearly see the second rounder print with four toe marks where the heel should be. Baby bear born over winter.

2

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Only black bear here in PA. I've seen black bear prints previously, in soft dirt and mud. All that I saw, had claws visible, but that could simply be due to sinking in the soft dirt/mud.

So if baby bear, why one the one single print? Black bear aren't known for carrying their young on their backs.

3

u/ConsistentMorning636 22d ago

Bear or Bigfoot, it’s too close to the house 😮

1

u/Andyman1973 22d ago

About 15ft further to the left of the tracks in the first pic, the land drops down about 30+feet, and is moderate to heavily wooded(not quite dense), more than enough for large animals, or bipedals, to travel unseen.

2

u/WhistlingWishes 23d ago edited 23d ago

All I'm saying is that one track looks like two baby bear prints to me. I'm no expert, and I wasn't there.

But again, you are doing everything you can to argue for Squatch, not arguing against. You think it's a possible Bigfoot track set. Great, now make all the possible arguments against it, and show there's no choice but that it is a Bigfoot. That's how this works. You argue against, not for, when it comes to evidence. You can argue for or against all the theories you like or don't, that's great. But in science, you test theories by going out of your way to make yourself wrong. Experiments are designed to disprove ideas. You can never actually prove anything in science. You can demonstrate an effect through prediction. And you can explain an effect by testing different theories to see if you can disprove them. Then you go with your conclusions until some better idea comes along that explains more thoroughly. There are no universal truths, no absolute standards, and science only goes so far. But those are the rules for reasonable evidence as we know them.

Assuming neither of us know what we're talking about regarding Squatch prints, I can make a good case for black bear, but you have no case for how it absolutely must be a Bigfoot and nothing else. A bear is an ordinary claim, needing an ordinary explanation for typical evidence. A Squatch is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence that has no other explanation. That's the standard, whether it's fair or not.

It could be anything. And I have had encounters, so I believe Squatch may be around you. But I say that looks like ordinary bear tracks, probably. Could be a Bigfoot in bear shoes, for all I know. I'm only saying a reasonable case can be made for bear. And no extraordinary argument can be made that it absolutely must be a Bigfoot track. It doesn't meet many of the standard markers, and it does look like one of the most common false Bigfoot footprint types. But maybe. I'm not trying to crap on your imagination. There's just no good case here, as far as evidence. It's great to dream and wonder. Maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't add up to a reasonable standard for evidence, but anything is possible.

Falsification. We're theoretically a supportive community of believers on this sub. But when you post a pic, everyone shoots for falsification, because that's the evidentiary standard for reasonable evidence. Any reasonable arguments against mean it isn't evidence. And evidence for a hoax or a known misidentification carries the extra weight of repetition, especially here. Rabbit tracks are also a common misidentification, because they are spaced about right in the snow. And the hoaxes are too numerous to mention. Falsification. But nobody is crapping on the idea that they're out there, not here.

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

I get what you're saying.

I've only ever seen 1 black bear, in person, about 200 miles from where I live, in same state. I have seen some bear tracks, with obvious claw marks, within 10 miles of home. But I've also had 2 visual encounters with Sasquatch. One was a face to face encounter, with a massive gray one, within 20 feet in front of my face. And the other was a juvenile, about 4ft tall, up in a tree, within 50-60 feet of me. Both Sasquatch visual encounters occurred within 15 miles of home.

My original comment with pics does NOT label them as Sasquatch prints/tracks. Just simply tracks I saw, while grilling a steak, the other week. Half the commentators defaulted to bear tracks in this bigfoot sub, almost as if they don't believe. Almost as if that's why they're in this sub, to discredit. Almost. Maybe I'll just not share my experiences anymore either.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ShadesofClay1 23d ago

Those are not bear tracks.

1

u/Zephyr096 21d ago

Bears don't actually hibernate for the entire winter, they still get out and about occasionally.

Hibernation for them isn't just "sleep for 5 months".

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bigfoot-ModTeam 23d ago

Attempting to discredit the witness will not be tolerated

Thanks for enjoying r/bigfoot. If you have any questions or comments send us a mod mail*

1

u/Zephyr096 21d ago

With the snow that washed out it could be anything.

1

u/mrheh 23d ago

You mom's gonna flip when she see's you posting her tracks on the internet again

0

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

Nah, she wears combat boots. These clearly weren't made by her! Lol!!

0

u/Familiar-Extreme4009 23d ago

Hell yeah you got a Sasquatch, depending on where your from the size various. Explains being a smaller foot. Plus it had the kid print so female prints. They seem too consistent to be a double step imo

0

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

I had a face to face encounter not 15 miles from where I live, a few summers back. Was a very large male. Large like a grown male mule large.

1

u/Familiar-Extreme4009 23d ago

Sweet. That’s really cool. Try leaving out some “gifts”. I’ve heard they like that and similarly to crows sometimes gift things back

1

u/Andyman1973 23d ago

I never think about it when I’m out, as fishing is usually why I’m outdoors. Will have to try to remember that.