Indian army mountaineering expedition team find mysterious footprints

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: bally001

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: skido

Interesting, although I'm having trouble with the measurement.
32x15 inches seems too big, now if it was 32x15 centimeters, it makes more sense.

Hmm, dunno, 32cm by 15cm is about the size of a Snowboot. (size 10) That doesn't sound that big to me. Wouldn't be anything to get excited about.

My thoughts,

kind regards,

bally

Hey Bally, I hear ya..I'm just thinking there isn't any current land animal on the planet that leaves a 32" print, I can't imagine a giant living up there, due to the amount of food required to support a large animal.
Other posters have noted snow melt will make a track look bigger, and that's worth noting.
You are right a size 10 snowboot is nothing to get excited about, but what about a 13" bare foot print.

To my reckoning that makes more sense.



bally

originally posted by: gort51
Not sure about this one......On the long photo, the "Footprints" are in a line......do Homos walk with one foot ahead of the other in a straight line through snow?

Looks more to me like a smallish animal, dog or some other local creature, that has leaped from one spot to another in a running motion through the snow........this has been shown many times on tv, with foxes and wolves etc jumping across snow.

The more I've looked at these, I think you're dead on. The prints are in a straight line, this is not how a person or BF/Yeti walks, there should be a little definition of a left to right stride. It looks to be an animal that's landed from a jump to me. I'll try and explain why I think so.

If you notice in the first and third pic I posted, the "print" has a deeper imprint on the right side of print, you don't see a deeper imprint that a left print would make on a left side print, they're all the same.

I know a few have said that they may have confused their measurements, but after pulling out a tape measure, I think the distance between the "prints" is a little more than 32". They also look to be about 2 1/2 times time the length of the human prints in comparison, which would put them really close to 32". There also about double in length that they are in width, which would also put them at about 32" if in fact they are around 15" wide and they appear to be. This would make their measurements close to accurate but I strongly refute their analysis of what made them.

Just my two cents on the subject.

a reply to: skido

Have you given any thought whatsoever as to how large 32 inched actually is? Come on, now. Let's not be silly...