It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US: Bigfoot prints found in Whiteriver

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
www.wmicentral.com...




Quote from source:
Whiteriver - It did not take long after the snow began melting for Bigfoot to make his/her emergence from the hills surrounding Whiteriver.

A.K. Riley, former lawman in the community and renowned Bigfoot investigator, found a cache of new prints in the hills surrounding the area, saying he discovered them about middle of last week.

Riley gave The Independent exclusive access to the prints, which came out of the dense, brush-covered hills overlooking Whiteriver onto an extremely rough dirt trail/road, leaving around 20 feet of them before crossing over to the other side and continuing for about another 30 feet or so and then disappearing into the woods.

Riley said he was in the area performing his normal searches for signs of Bigfoot when he came upon the fresh prints, indicating the creature may be on the move again with the snow melting and it being easier to move about in the rough terrain.

Pointing down at the prints, Riley showed where curiosity seekers had already found and destroyed some by leaving their own prints either alongside Bigfoot's or inside to show the difference in size. He said it is natural for people to be curious and he often finds the same conditions when he comes across Bigfoot prints, but the problem is that after people leave their own shoe-clad impressions in or beside Bigfoot's and walk all over the area, it compromises the scientific integrity of the prints, often rendering them useless as evidence.

"You can see where they have put their feet beside them to show how much bigger they are, but it messes up the prints and makes them hard to see sometimes," Riley said while pointing down at the tell-tale impressions.


You know what I love the most about skeptics is that they will say that this is a Bigfoot tracker and of course he found footprints. I find that logic unfathomable. Of course a Bigfoot enthusiast will find them because he is looking for them. It is like saying new particle was fake because it was found by a particle physicist.


Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
for a creature that is supposedly quite tall, those prints sure are close together.


you'd think the distance between them would be a lot longer.



maybe it was a depressed bigfoot mopey type walk.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
maybe it was a depressed bigfoot mopey type walk.


Almost snorted my water.. Holy cow!
On topic: I noticed the same thing. The strides seem so close together.
I look forward to seeing some other possible explanations. Till then,
i can only scratch my head.


Also: Thank goodness the guy is pointing at the tracks, cause he half looks like
the possible creature in question.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by keepureye2thesky]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
for a creature that is supposedly quite tall, those prints sure are close together.

i was thinking the same thing
but then had a thought

maybe Bigfoot was doin the peepee walk



I think hoax



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
They look like Bear tracks to me. The curvature does not look like bigfoot tracks I have seen in most photos.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Quick note about stride:

I won't tell the entire story (for it isn't my story to tell) but I do know someone (whom I trust implicitly) who once had a similar encounter - and the stride was far enough apart that a guy who is 6'3" could not walk right foot to left foot in one of his own strides... So, that says something to me about this photo...





[edit on 31-3-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
for a creature that is supposedly quite tall, those prints sure are close together.


you'd think the distance between them would be a lot longer.



maybe it was a depressed bigfoot mopey type walk.


Bingo, my point too. For a creature thats supposed to be either the Gigantopythisus or a very close relative, a 7 to 9 foot tall at least quarter ton creature would have a bigger and longer stride (did you notice that almost none of the footprints had any drag marks on them, I guess bigfoot was moving his feet up and down) than a geisha stride (if you never seen a geisha and how they walk you should). This is fake big time and the idiot "tracker" needs to do a little bit more homework on making a set of tracks match said person or being.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   


Also: Thank goodness the guy is pointing at the tracks, cause he half looks like the possible creature in question.






OK, I live somewhat close to this area, and have friends who hunt there exclusively. I have hunted the unit next to this area, but only driven through it a handful of times. That area is DEFINITELY wild, forested, and mountainous enough to house a breeding herd of bigfoots. This is connected to the MT Hood National Forest, and their is thousands of miles of steep canyons and dense forests. There have been many reports of bigfoot in and around that area, and a quick search should provide a ton of info.


With that said, I also find it odd that the tracks are so close together. I also find it interesting that there are "contaminated" human footprints following the tracks. Could these have been left as the hoaxer was walking along "making the prints"? With only the one photo, its hard to tell for sure. I can see that the tracks are very well defined, meaning that they are very recent, and look a little too perfect to me. I wish there was some close-ups of individual tracks, oh well.

Interesting story, thanks for posting!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I seem to recall seeing bears walking with that unusual "feet pointing in" style on the TV. I can't imagine Bigfoot walking like that, although I guess anything's possible....



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Not only are they close together, but they do not appear to have any ridges in them (someone wearing shoes).

It is possible that ole Sasquatch was looking for prey or something in the woods, but the close stride is a red flag.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Why isn't anyone mentioning it? I think the sasquatch was a little retarded.


Ok It's mean but really handicap people walk funny what makes you think that a sasquatch couldn't walk like that?



Pred...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Hey Hey! I was just driving through whiteriver yesterday

Those prints must be from the drunk hitchhiker i gave a lift

But seriously, I've seen big ass birds and ginormous kitties out there but im pretty sure there isn't any bigfoot

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Hondahawk]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


Maybe it hops? That's a very big possibility.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Looks like bigfoot had a broken leg or something or an extra foot..
They just look off...
Oh well...
Maybe one of these days when an eyewitness actually shoots him instead of running off we will have proof...
Till then..



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by antmax21
 


That's what I find so funny. In B.C. sasquatch is actually a protected animal. If you should one you face criminal charges. Funny for an animal the doesn't exist.

I think it would be hard to shoot one anyway. But I would have a hard time killing any animal.


Pred...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by antmax21
 


That's what I find so funny. In B.C. sasquatch is actually a protected animal. If you should one you face criminal charges. Funny for an animal the doesn't exist.

I think it would be hard to shoot one anyway. But I would have a hard time killing any animal.


Pred...


How ironic



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hondahawk
 


Ok which one the fact you cannot kill it or the fact that I said I couldn't kill an animal?


Pred...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


The fact you couldnt kill an animal

you are no longer worthy of the username predator0187



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hondahawk
 


I got my name from the movie, and he doesn't kill anything defenseless. He hunts for sport and only anything that is worthy. I don't know I loved the movie when I was a kid an still to this day I could watch it over and over again.

And how do you know what Predator means? I could be a priest and it could be in different context.


Pred...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


priests praying on countless innocents isn't funny

For Realz

But seriously i doubt bigfoot is defenseless - i mean look at the guy in the picture he obviously got mauled by sasquatch

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Hondahawk]

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Hondahawk]

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Hondahawk]




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join