Footprints in stone

Because of the "Bigfoot" columns the Ozark (Arkansas) Spectator has been running for some time, I have received some interesting e-mails and telephone calls. One series of e-mails concerned humanoid tracks found in the surface of a sandstone rock outcrop in the southern part of the Ozark Mountains. Since that rock solidified from clastic ocean sediments during the Pennsylvanian Period (about 300 million years ago) there should not have been any humanoids strolling along the beach back then.

One Monday (Jan.23, 2006) I drove to NW Arkansas and met the person who had made casts of two of the tracks and photographed the tracks in the surface of the sandstone. I photographed the plaster casts she had made and was given two of the photos of the tracks in the rock.

The tracks were reportedly found in a very rugged and remote part of the Ozark mountains. The tracks were reportedly found in rock within a few feet of a small stream, although at a high elevation in the mountains. The person who cast the tracks took them to the U of Ark. some time ago and was was reportedly told by a Professor the tracks could not possibly be real, and that the Indians had probably ground out the rock to make the tracks. If not Indians, then some early settler's mischievous children.

I plan to visit the site in late February to see for myself what is actually there. The strange part is that the photographs and casts made by the witness actually show at least three different size impressions. A very small foot that can just barely be seen, an 8" long track that is a little deeper, and the big one which is 12" long and nearly 1/4" deep. That large track is 7-1/2" wide across the ball of the foot. Its width and big toes makes the track look like many of the Bigfoot track casts many of us have seen.

According to modern science there should not have been humanoids walking across that sediment before it solidified, and science may be right. But it is hard for me to believe that anyone would have spent that much time in such a remote place making these fake tracks, and having been smart and careful enough to make the depths proportional to the weight indicated by the feet size. There are no compression ridges visible around the perimeter of the impressions, but damp sand would not have left the ridges anyway. But of course no geologist, archeologist or paleontologist would ever be interested in looking at the site. To them, the footprints are fake. Period, end of discussion.

The photos are described as follows:

RFP06-001 The large and medium size track in the rock surface.

RFP06-002 The large size track in the rock surface.

RFP06-003 Both casts.

RFP06-004 Large cast-measuring length

RFP06-005 Large cast-measuring across ball of foot

RFP06-006 Small cast

The person who made the casts had smeared Vaseline on the surface of the rock and the stuff left ridges in the finished mold, but the person stated - and the photos show - there are no gouge or scrape marks in the indentations.

In March I hope to have my own latex casts, photos and a report of what I found at the site.

Tal H. Branco

January 26, 2006