new Algonquin bigfoot Track

Just found this in our winter camping trip. 2nd time out in that area and 2nd time finding a track.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xsbgfmK6fX0



EDIT: if you look at my previous video at around :55 the print is almost identical visually to this new one we just found.

There was only one track??

Squatchmaster G wrote:There was only one track??

Why do you care since any TRACK is NOT Evidence to you!

Squatchmaster G wrote:There was only one track??

There was only 1 track that we could find in that area, it's a dense forest and loaded with snow. Our preposed destination that day didnt allow us to just go anywhere willy nilly looking for other tracks, but in that immediate area we took time to search and there was nothing else that looked similar that we could find. I have another video from a few months ago in the same provincial park where I found a load of tracks, it's assumed that those were bear tracks, however the print we found this time is absolutely NOT a bear, but it does look almost exactly like the other tracks I found before.

Thanks for the update! Supplemental data is always important when you're logging a find.

Please help me to understand how something only leaves one track. Was it wearing a jet-pack?

It was 1 foot print found in the snow.
They didn't spend time looking around for any other prints to see if it was several prints.

I am sure they were not able to tell how old the print was so weather could have caused the others to vanish.

relic wrote:Please help me to understand how something only leaves one track. Was it wearing a jet-pack?

I agree, and we were also questioning that (and still are). I do not know the answer to why there is only one print. However, here are the facts. According to the weather and other animal prints found in the same area this (supposed)track would only have been a matter of up to 24 hours old, it could be argued only a few hours old. Although very difficult to tell in the video, the print had distinct digits where toes would be. Its heel was also very distinct. The outline of the ` foot` was also easily distinguishable. The area of the toes and heel were packed down well. Although outlined in the snow the rest of the foot (area in between the heel and toes) were not as packed. This is also a characteristic of the prints found earlier in the year, shown in the other video. In the coming week I will be making some measurements to find out the size of both, the prints found in fall and the most recent track. Comparing the two.

He could have also been a jueivy Squatch and had just come out of a tree and transferring to another tree if the weather is not the answer.
Without knowing the terrain there, there could be all kinds of natural reasons there was no successive track. The next step could have been on a log or rock that they couldnt see because of the dense foliage or lighting. It could have been a running track in which case the stride length could have taken it anywhere. What ever the reason there are many that we could ask without jumping to the Hoax answer.

CMcMillan wrote:It was 1 foot print found in the snow.
They didn't spend time looking around for any other prints to see if it was several prints.

Maybe you should go back and read his reply again- "but in that immediate area we took time to search and there was nothing else that looked similar that we could find."

Stop reaching people, it's most likely a pile of snow fell off an overhanging branch. Happens all the time.

It's inconclusive either way unless someone can find further corroborating evidence. We can't say it's a genuine track with any certainty but we also can't 100% say it's a fake.