 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: First Bigfoot(Sasquatch) photo. |
| From: | |
Ursustyrannis
|
posted
Fri, Oct 23 2009, 2:23pm
|
|
your name is apt, now add "flat" to it. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: First Bigfoot(Sasquatch) photo. |
| From: | |
Ella
|
posted
Thu, Nov 12 2009, 1:40pm
|
|
This time, I say give Falls the benefit of the doubt. That print could be a Bigfoot print, although if so, an immature BF--or it could be a large man's footprint who was walking barefoot in the thick woods of SE Oklahoma, why, I don't know. But it looks like the footprint of a man or manlike creature. :) |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
