Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bigfoot enthusiast photographs huge five-toed print in West Virginia


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

 

Looks to me like a small seep coming out of the ground there. Used to see them by creeks and roadsides all the time as a kid in Southern Oregon.

The "toes" are where the water is seeping up from under that mud. And the "foot" part is where that water ran off and took the mud with it.

Fill the "print" in with the same kind of mud, and come back in three days, and it will have mysteriously returned.

Edit: If someone stepped right next to it, their foot would likely go an inch into that soft mud.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does bigfoot always leave 1 or 2 prints? Does he leap from place to place? 

 

Beyond the fact that they, apparently, have no skeletal system, do not excrete waste and have a permanent blur force field.

Edited by esoteric_toad
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

Why does bigfoot always leave 1 or 2 prints? Does he leap from place to place? 

 

Beyond the fact that they, apparently, have no skeletal system, do not excrete waste and have a permanent blur force field.

Footie has a hovercraft, and it's full of eels.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The footprint is the focus of the event, got it.  Some physical context would be useful, however, such as a photo of the larger area.  Perhaps this portion sand is just a bar of sorts, wherein the area to the left of it is just water (seems to be the case) and to the right is just water, justifying the lack of other footprints; the cryptid was walking through the water and happened to plant his foot right there, and that was the only area above the waterline that could maintain the depression.  Plausible.  What you don't do, then, is exactly what this guy did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strange looking footprint, HeHummm.

Anyway, this caught my eye: "Why only one print ?" 

Yeah. what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

"Why only one print ?" 

cyclops.thumb.png.84ddc04c62afc70c1990a7ec5902a6ed.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/9/2023 at 1:21 AM, Nicolette said:

That isn't a footprint...

Sadly, it will be placed in the list of bigfoot evidence and used for decades to come as a piece of proof of its existence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2024 at 4:19 PM, Myles said:

Sadly, it will be placed in the list of bigfoot evidence and used for decades to come as a piece of proof of its existence.

I doubt it... it very clearly isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 hours ago, Nicolette said:

I doubt it... it very clearly isn't.

Oh I don't know, there are some in these very forums that will still try.

Have you heard of the Papa-meter?

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nicolette said:

I doubt it... it very clearly isn't.

They put everything in there even if it is debunked.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

What he had found was a large five-toed footprint measuring approximately 9 inches in width.

tenor.gif?itemid=15970871

Harte

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2023 at 5:21 PM, Nicolette said:

That isn't a footprint...

Agreed.  That's run-off in mud.  A simulacrum of a large foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2024 at 2:15 AM, Myles said:

They put everything in there even if it is debunked.  

Which is admirable.  There's nothing like a complete record to draw upon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2024 at 2:00 AM, Trelane said:

Oh I don't know, there are some in these very forums that will still try.

Have you heard of the Papa-meter?

Yeah I have been here talking to you about your silly assumptions and hypotheses you call debunking for a long time... I know the identity change was hard to follow but I was nnicolette lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nicolette said:

Yeah I have been here talking to you about your silly assumptions and hypotheses you call debunking for a long time... I know the identity change was hard to follow but I was nnicolette lol

Silly assumptions? Debunking? About BF? Not once in and BF-related thread have I done either.

I haven't tried to debunk anything and certainly have not proposed or assumed anything. I have simply stated that the creature (as described) does not exist. That is an opinion. One based on science and reason.

Now I will admit, I have asked a lot of challenging questions that no one from the believer side wishes to answer. I get that though because attempting to answer the specific items I propose opens a whole can of worms.

Oh no, following you was easy since your profile picture didn't change lol. I'm not that dumb lol. Anyway, I was being mostly sarcastic about the Papa-meter. It's notorious for showing the heavy bias which goes to the extreme of belief even when some things are blatant hoaxes and stuff.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

Silly assumptions? Debunking? About BF? Not once in and BF-related thread have I done either.

I haven't tried to debunk anything and certainly have not proposed or assumed anything. I have simply stated that the creature (as described) does not exist. That is an opinion. One based on science and reason.

Now I will admit, I have asked a lot of challenging questions that no one from the believer side wishes to answer. I get that though because attempting to answer the specific items I propose opens a whole can of worms.

Oh no, following you was easy since your profile picture didn't change lol. I'm not that dumb lol. Anyway, I was being mostly sarcastic about the Papa-meter. It's notorious for showing the heavy bias which goes to the extreme of belief even when some things are blatant hoaxes and stuff.

The Papa-meter is not based on any discernable, reliable, repeatable, objective metric, but rather on the fee-fees of its credulous author.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.