A hiker reckons he's got some fresh proof of Bigfoot's existence, with 'experts' having already ruled out that it isn't from a bear.
While this isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, sasquatch 'sighting', these photos have got the internet debating if it's legit.
The anonymous person uploaded a photo of the footprint on Reddit page r/Bigfoot and captioned it: 'Footprint found at the top of a hike in Big Sur, CA [California, US]. What do you guys think?'
The snap shows a deep foot imprint lodged in some mud, while the hiker compares it with his own foot, to show the size difference. As expected, some were more into it than others.
Advert
One wrote: '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.'
Another said: 'Definitely Sasquatch. The upper foot impression is relative to the lower width and diameter of the depth. I'd reach out to the local BFRSO [Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation] in your area asap.'
Advert
'What a solid print,' added a third.
Others were not as convinced and argued that the outlined foot was simply one of a human boot.
'It’s a booted boot print. Next to a weirdly socked foot,' one person joked. Another wrote: 'Looks just like a washed-out boot print.'
A third said: 'It doesn't look crazy large compared to your foot, at least length-wise, which makes me lean towards human.'
They 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.'
Advert
In case you're not sure what Bigfoot looks like, the BFRSO have given a description of the so-called beast.
They say its skin colour 'ranges from the deepest black or charcoal to deep brown, 'sunburned' reddish brown, and gray. Some areas, like the nose, appear at times in a shiny, oily black color.'
The BFRSO also claim that 'the sasquatch is covered with hair, not fur'. They explain: 'Fur has guard hairs and an undercoat, while primate hair consists of one type of hair alone. The sasquatch, being a primate, does not molt its hair, but it is replaced one hair at a time, hence is not found in wooly batches.'
And, if you manage to get up close and personal with a sasquatch, apparently they absolutely stink.
Advert
'About 10-15% of close encounters are connected with an intense, disagreeable stench, comparable to the odour of smegma.' Lovely.
If you have a story you want to tell, send it to UNILAD via [email protected]