Things that point to a Sasquatch hoax: 1. Reports of dissappearing tracks. Just because a non expert tracker loses a trail doesn't mean much. They may have entered water, climbed bluffs, cliffs, or trees, or just passed over hard packed ground. 2. Mention of long fangs or claws. Sasquatches do not have claws. They have nails. They don't have fangs either, but de_script_ions indicate that their eye teeth are sometimes longer than the other teeth, and an honest observer might overestimate that characteristic. 3. Sasquatches using caves or having homes. There seems to be a natural tendency to assume that sasquatches use caves. There is nothing to indicate that sasquatches have homes of any sort, any more than any of the other great apes. 4. Stories of tracking sasquatches through the woods, or being able to find them at will. Quite a few have made such claims, but none has yet been able to show proof. Sasquatches supposedly captured , or filmed, but for some reason the animal or film can't be produced right now A man claimed he had captured a sasquatch and had thousands of feet of film of it. The world is still waiting to see either the animal or the film. 5. Communicating with sasquatches in any way. Never demonstrated. 6. Exchanging things with sasquatches. Again, never demonstrated. 7. Secret methods of attracting sasquatches. The only way to prove the effectiveness of any method for attracting sasquatches would be to actually attract some. Anyone who succeeded in doing that should have something to show for it. 8. Reports of paranormal activity associated with sasquatch reports. There are virtually no credible reports of sasquatch associated with unmeasurable, non-proven powers like ESP, mind reading, intangiblility, poltergist activity, or invisiblity.

Things that point to a Sasquatch hoax: 1. Reports of dissappearing tracks. Just because a non expert tracker loses a trail doesn't mean much. That was one of the most damaging pieces of evidence observed in the 'Mill Creek Footprints' on which much of Dr. Grover Krantz's (purported) dermal ridge evidence rests. When investigators from the US Forest Service and US Border Patrol (which included expert tracking specialist Joel Hardin) were called in the Official Memorandum by Joel Hardin dated July 28, 1982 states: the tracks appeared and disappeared on the trail with no sign leading to or away from the area.  In addition US Forest Service Wildlife biologist Rodney L. Johnson entered more damaging testimony regarding the trackway when he stated: It appeared that the fine forest litter had been brushed aside prior to making the track and In several cases it appeared that the foot had been rocked side to side to make the track.

 In addition US Forest Service Wildlife biologist Rodney L. Johnson entered more damaging testimony regarding the trackway when he stated: It appeared that the fine forest litter had been brushed aside prior to making the track and In several cases it appeared that the foot had been rocked side to side to make the track. Again, you enter only the partial facts. The rest of the facts about Dr. Rodney L. Johnson and and the tracks in question are as follows:  He _base_d his report on the criticisms that were made by Mr. Hardin, who also filed a report that contained almost the exact information. (coincidence?) Johnson, however, ended his report with some comments on how difficult it would have been to fake these tracks, and how the only method he could could imagine was contradicted by other information. He supposed that a cast must have been made of an actual foot to produce these tracks, but thought this cast should have shown other creases from that foot. He did not address the problem that a seperate cast was needed for each footprint, nor how that size and shape of foot could have been obtained.

The US Forest Service did indeed take a special interest in the sightings and tracks you mention. You should not selectively give credence to evidence in order to support/promote your belief system. In other words you can't have it both ways. Here, I'll break it down for you: A. You determined one on the primary indicators of a Sasquatch Hoax are: Reports of disappearing tracks (your words) B. Disappearing tracks were observed at the Mill Creek Watershed by qualified United States Employees. C. The late Dr. Grover Krantz's purported dermal evidence introduced to support the existence of an unknown biped in the PNW is _base_d on the disappearing tracks at the Mill Creek Watershed. D. If Dr. Krantz's evidence is _base_d on faulty data, supported by your contention that disappearing tracks points to a hoax, his conclusions are flawed. Understand ?

Understand ? I am beginning to understand that you feel obligated only to give points to bits and pieces of evidence in attempts to argue points.

I am beginning to understand that you feel obligated only to give points to bits and pieces of evidence in attempts to argue points. That's one way to look at it. However someone else might see it as the restrictions imposed by time allowances which  permit me to only address bits and pieces of subject matter... and if you see it as something else so be it.