Register

News:

Forum has been successfully updated.

New Gretna Footprint

6518 9 normal post

megapod

May 07, 2009, 07:25:23 AM
Jr. Member Posts: 53
Can't wait to see what this print looks like. Any idea when you will have it posted?

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 53

Re: New Gretna Footprint

megapod Reply 1 May 12, 2009, 03:28:55 PM

OK, where's the print ??? We don't get much on this board, throw me a bone here. I'll take a good photo of a misidentified bear track at this point ;)

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 53

Re: New Gretna Footprint

megapod Reply 2 June 04, 2009, 08:01:28 AM

Anyone have any opinions on the pic that was posted with this report? I discussed it with DV and we both agreed that it looks human. We also though it looked suspect for other reasons. There is nothing that can be used as a reference to determine size. It appears a bit too perfect as though it were deliberately placed. If a heavy individual were to step in a soft substrate ,as that is presumed to be, you would expect a much deeper print. The arch of the foot appears to be quite pronounced like a human. Experts in the area of biomechanics have proposed that the foot of such a heavy creature requires an anatomy different from humans and the high arch would not be expected. I am interested in hearing other opinons.

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 72

Re: New Gretna Footprint

benny Reply 3 June 04, 2009, 08:06:34 AM

I can't really judge the size due to no comparision but it looks awefully human! but why in the world anyone be out in that kind of area barefoot boogles my mind. it looks almost to perfect only if he made a cast of it as well so we could judge the size compared to a known human foot print. just my opinion.  hey at least he took a photo!

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1

Re: New Gretna Footprint

PinelandsResearcher Reply 4 June 05, 2009, 03:43:19 PM

Guys - I am right there...please have the photographer email me...
wsundermann@prsdnj.org

Thanks.

Will

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1

Re: New Gretna Footprint

lordpiney Reply 5 June 05, 2009, 08:36:56 PM

ive always thought that area of new gretna (oak island) had b.f. frequenting it.  there's a ton of remote areas along the mullica river there. miles and miles of swamp and woods.

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 97

Re: New Gretna Footprint

NJBigfoot Reply 6 June 06, 2009, 07:20:52 AM

Visit the report, the photo has been posted in the follow-up.

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 72

Re: New Gretna Footprint

benny Reply 7 June 08, 2009, 07:07:26 PM

This is just my two cents but looking at this photo it seems to me that if a Sasquatch placed his foot down in the what looks like mud with stone mixed through kinda of resembiling wet cement there would be more indentation or imprint into the soft material of the shore line. It looks like it might only be imprinted about a half inch but like I said you can't really tell from just the photo. Without going down to the area and testing the ground for it's density and how much resistance it has to stepping on it.

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 53

Re: New Gretna Footprint

megapod Reply 8 June 09, 2009, 11:36:29 AM

I AM POSTING THIS HERE AS WELL AS THE OTHER FORUM

Here is the reply I received from Dr. Jeff Meldrum. I am hard pressed to think of anyone more qualified to evaluate the print.


Yes, it does look human -- toe configuration, well-developed ball and arch -- and in spite of the witness's assurance that there was no one else there, a picture of a human-appearing footprint, lacking any reference to scale, should probably be considered human until additional evidence indicates otherwise.----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Meldrum
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: Footprint question

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 72

Re: New Gretna Footprint

benny Reply 9 July 09, 2009, 01:18:11 AM

agreed!