Hiker convinced they've found Bigfoot proof with muddy footprint

Dramatic footage claims to show new sighting of Bigfoot – so do ...
Nv Tv

A hiker who stumbled across a large footprint believes it could be evidence of the existence of Bigfoot.

On the Bigfoot subreddit, where people share images and videos of possible sightings of Sasquatch, user habanereo posted an image of what appears to be a sizable and deep muddy footprint, with the hiker placing their foot alongside the print in order to give a size comparison.

Bigfoot is a large, hairy, ape-like creature supposedly found in north-western America, though most scientists have historically dismissed its existence and say "proof" people find is a result of folklore, misidentifying it for a different animal and hoaxes.

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

In his post, the hiker was keen to hear people's thoughts on what he had discovered and wrote: "Footprint found at the top of a hike in Big Sur, CA. What do you guys think?"

Bigfoot sleuths quickly chimed in to share whether they believe this image to be the mysterious ape-like creature.

Some believed that this footprint "isn't clearly a bear" and actually is proof of Bigfoot passing through.

One person said: "This is the first imprint I have seen that isn't clearly a bear. Good find! I wish the print was more fresh but this really does look more like a bigfoot track I don't notice the double step of a bear. It could have been human but I don't notice tread marks or shoe marks."

from bigfoot

"Definitely sasquatch," another person wrote before elaborating on their verdict, "The upper foot impression is relative to the lower width and diameter of the depth. I'd reach out to the local BFRSO in your area asap."

Someone else added: "What a solid print!"

However, there were others who weren't convinced this was the footprint of the elusive Sasquatch.

One person wrote: "It’s a booted boot print. Next to a weirdly socked foot."

"Looks just like a washed out boot print," another person said.

Someone else replied: "It doesn't look CRAZY large compared to your foot, at least length-wise, which makes me lean towards human."

But added: "It is oddly wide though, and there's no tread I can see. The ground doesn't look too conducive for capturing fine details, but you'd still expect some evidence of tread somewhere in the track."

"Hahaha fair enough! Just thought it looked peculiar so I figured I’d see what others had in mind," habanereo wrote in the comments section after his photo spurred the debate.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

The Conversation (0)