Sasquatch Footprint & Blood

Here's an interesting article. I don't think it has been posted already so forgive me if it has but I did

A paranormal researcher in northwestern B.C. claimed on Wednesday he has photographic evidence that sasquatches exist. Brian Vike said he has a photo of a very large footprint along with samples of hair and blood from the mythical creature.

n't find any thing.

Source below.

www.princegeorgecitizen.com...

Well Brian Vike appears on many radio shows and seems to be primarily a UFO researcher, i dont know if hes mentioned this on radio recently but i guess that could be checked on easily.

brianvikeonair.blogspot.com...

I wouldnt mind hearing the blood test results but i wouldnt hold out for much more than some turkey blood.

Be warned,
It's almost too easy to make a
fake Sasquatch footprint

reply to post by SuperSlovak


I agree, especially in the snow.

I would love for this to be good evidence, but no doubt it will turn out to be another hoax. Good find nonetheless OP. S+F to tyry and get some more interest.

tO

Just looking at the photography they've provided... it looks like it was pushed straight into the snow.
At that depth, you'd think there'd be some drag marks. There's no makrs where the balls of the feet or the toes dug in deeper as it moved either, at least from what I can see.
I wonder if he took pot's of the trail? That'd be as important as a close up of the footprint.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Just looking at the photography they've provided... it looks like it was pushed straight into the snow.
At that depth, you'd think there'd be some drag marks. There's no makrs where the balls of the feet or the toes dug in deeper as it moved either, at least from what I can see.
I wonder if he took pot's of the trail? That'd be as important as a close up of the footprint.

Also, the article says:

"But there were footprints, 17 1/2 inches in length, that went on for a long ways."

So there were 17 footprints, and he got a pic of only one? or where are the pics that show the entire trail, that would be more convincing that just a pic of a single footprint that doesn't exactly look like a footprint.

When i see there's an article on some web site, but there is no more information, not even directly from the researcher, the only impression i get is that this is just another noise/money maker 'finding', as usual, or how can this first make it to some random website than the own dude's site?

I guess people these days don't care for proper research anymore.

I don't believe this is true, lately it seems nothing good comes out anymore.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Kaifan]

Originally posted by Kaifan

"But there were footprints, 17 1/2 inches in length, that went on for a long ways."

So there were 17 footprints, and he got a pic of only one?
[edit on 13-3-2009 by Kaifan]

You fool. It means the footprints were 17 AND a half inches. Not 17 seperate footprints.

Originally posted by Liamoville

Originally posted by Kaifan

"But there were footprints, 17 1/2 inches in length, that went on for a long ways."

So there were 17 footprints, and he got a pic of only one?
[edit on 13-3-2009 by Kaifan]

You fool. It means the footprints were 17 AND a half inches. Not 17 seperate footprints.

Well yeah, i really didn't notice i was wrong when i wrote that, after all it was too early and i may have been too drunk.

But do not call me fool because of that. everyone makes mistakes. and if you are too quick to pass judgment like that, maybe you are not as smart as you think you are.

And I really don't care so...

I'm out of here.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by Kaifan]

I've always wondered why never see trails, just a signal footprint.
I know trails exist, but the work on the seems lacking in response to footprints.