Devil's Footprints / Hoofprints

[ghostdog19]

Rabbits don't leave a 'walking' track because they don't use a 'walking' gait, they leave a 'hopping' track,

If in reasonable health, though I doubt that ill health would allow it to leap up onto a rooftop.

Ah, but don’t forget we are discounting that testimony, because it doesn’t fit the explanation.

:?:

 

[wembley8]

If in reasonable health, though I doubt that ill health would allow it to leap up onto a rooftop.

Do we have any reports of footprints on rooftops?

 

[Sthenno]

If in reasonable health, though I doubt that ill health would allow it to leap up onto a rooftop.

Do we have any reports of footprints on rooftops?

As I've already posted, the London Times reported them as such. I realise this isn't first hand evidence, but it's as valid as anything else in this case.

 

[wembley8]

Essential reading for comparison purposes on hoaxing tracks: the Giant Penguin Hoax.

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/florida%2 ... 20hoax.htm

"If made physically by a man, either with devices strapped to his feet or on stilts, how did he carry a ton on each leg - the absolute minimum that the road engineers said could have made the imprints even in soft ground? He manifestly could not..." Sanderson also described how some engineer friends were asked to design a machine which could duplicate the tracks, but they were unable to do so.

A giant, 15-foot tall penguin, Sanderson concluded, must be the explanation, one which “would obviously have to be a wanderer in Florida, out of its natural element and perhaps lost.”

“That any man or body of men could know so much about wild animal life as to make the tracks in just the manner that they appear, but that they also should be able to carry this out time and time again at night without anybody seeing them or giving them away… is frankly incredible.”

And yet, that is exactly what happened.

(I just felt we needed a 15 foot penguin to liven things up).

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Rabbits don't leave a 'walking' track because they don't use a 'walking' gait, they leave a 'hopping' track,

If in reasonable health, though I doubt that ill health would allow it to leap up onto a rooftop.

Ah, but don’t forget we are discounting that testimony, because it doesn’t fit the explanation.

:?:

:lol:
I think that was a sarcastic response from ogopogo3's earlier post saying;

Yep, I'm dismissing the "fact" that tracks were found on rooftops. This legend has already shown to be rife with other exaggerations and falsehoods, so I feel no guilt or hesitation about doing so.

Of couse we can't discount any testimony, even stuff reported in a newspaper.
But, this begs the question....how could tracks on rooftops be hoaxed? It'd help if we knew what type of roofs we're talking about or if there were any overhanging structures, but failing that, we must assume they were the standard 45 degrees, slated or even thached (of which Devon has quite a lot) roof. Any ideas folks?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Essential reading for comparison purposes on hoaxing tracks: the Giant Penguin Hoax.

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/florida%2 ... 20hoax.htm

"If made physically by a man, either with devices strapped to his feet or on stilts, how did he carry a ton on each leg - the absolute minimum that the road engineers said could have made the imprints even in soft ground? He manifestly could not..." Sanderson also described how some engineer friends were asked to design a machine which could duplicate the tracks, but they were unable to do so.

A giant, 15-foot tall penguin, Sanderson concluded, must be the explanation, one which “would obviously have to be a wanderer in Florida, out of its natural element and perhaps lost.”

“That any man or body of men could know so much about wild animal life as to make the tracks in just the manner that they appear, but that they also should be able to carry this out time and time again at night without anybody seeing them or giving them away… is frankly incredible.”

And yet, that is exactly what happened.

(I just felt we needed a 15 foot penguin to liven things up).

Absolutely BRILLIANT! :lol: :lol:
That's made my day that has.

 

[ghostdog19]

Nobody reported thuds on roofs etc or any other bumps in the night did they?

 

[ogopogo3]

Ah, but don’t forget we are discounting that testimony, because it doesn’t fit the explanation.

Yeah um, because that's usually how people like lawyers and police officers conduct investigations.

Nickell said that no one explanation fits all of the supposed "facts." I can agree with that. That's when you have to winnow the likely scenarios and testimonies from the unlikely ones. Juries do it every day.

Unless you're assuming all testimony is automatically valid with no need for any critical analysis whatsoever. Using this logic, there were 83 different shooters in Dealy Plaza on the day JFK was killed. Nah, let's not use logic. Testimony has been recorded! It must be true!

I'm simply saying that if you take away the tracks found on the rooftops (which could easily have easily begun as a rumor whispered among neighbors), this thing gets a whole lot less mysterious. There's not anything a wayward phantom demon beast could have done in a night that dozens of apathetic rabbits during a quick thaw and subsequent refreeze couldn't have done equally well.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Ah, but don’t forget we are discounting that testimony, because it doesn’t fit the explanation.

Yeah um, that's usually how people like lawyers and police officers conduct investigations.

No it isn't, any testimony is never completely discounted until it can be proven to be false.
I do agree with you that the rooftop footprints were probably just a rumour, but it could have been something else. It might have been a large bird with ice on it's feet or something dangling from a balloon, or, if it was a hoax, the hoaxer could have found a really novel way of putting the tracks there, after all something like that would make the hoax that bit better and would probably leave people talking about it for quite a long time....say...150 years later, which is the point of a really good hoax anyway.
Sherlock Holmes said that 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' (yes I know he's just a fictional character, but it's still a damned good quote) We have by no means ruled out 'tracks on the roofs of buildings' as impossible.

 

[ogopogo3]

No it isn't, any testimony is never completely discounted until it can be proven to be false.

Um, no. Ever been on a jury?

It might have been a large bird with ice on it's feet or something dangling from a balloon, or, if it was a hoax, the hoaxer could have found a really novel way of putting the tracks there
...
Sherlock Holmes said that 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

Hi, I know the definition of irony. Do you?

Once again...rabbits.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

No it isn't, any testimony is never completely discounted until it can be proven to be false.

Um, no. Ever been on a jury?

Yes, which is how I found out how any type of evidence, no matter how improbable, is treated. That's why alibies are taken so seriously in law. If everything, apart from solid evidence, points to someone being responsible for a crime, and then if that person has an alibi, someone who says they were wih them at the time the crime was carried out, then it's your duty to find them 'not guilty.'
The police, investigators and the lawyers/solicitors do use the 'likeliest suspect' approach in order to send someone to court, which is why they like to have a solid case against them, but the jury has to deal with just the definate facts.

It might have been a large bird with ice on it's feet or something dangling from a balloon, or, if it was a hoax, the hoaxer could have found a really novel way of putting the tracks there
...
Sherlock Holmes said that 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'

Hi, I know the definition of irony. Do you?

Yes, it means 'like iron' making it 'irony.' If it was gold it'd be goldy.
If you're looking for the meaning of the word in a dictionary it means 'the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.'
I just haven't figured out what the opposite of 'rabbit' is.

Once again...rabbits

Rabbits have been eliminated as impossible as rabbits don't have a walking gait so would leave the wrong type of tracks, no matter how the snow thaws.

 

[ogopogo3]

Rabbits have been eliminated as impossible as rabbits don't have a walking gait so would leave the wrong type of tracks, no matter how the snow thaws.

Oh really? By who?

Cite, please.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

Rabbits have been eliminated as impossible as rabbits don't have a walking gait so would leave the wrong type of tracks, no matter how the snow thaws.

Oh really? By who?

Cite, please.

By me. I cite myself. A person who has kept rabbits, studied them and been taught about rabbits from his Grandad who used to own a rabbit farm.
Even when ill or moving very slowly, a rabbit's back legs move in unison. They use their front legs to take their weight while they bring both their back legs forward together, same as kangaroos. Whether it's skeletal design or a mental block or just the shape and size of it's back legs, something that's taken millions of years of evolution makes it impossible to propel themselves in any way using a standard 'walking' gait.
Which eliminates rabbits as being responsible for any tracks that leave a walking gait.
OK? 8)

BTW, hares can move using a walking gait, (although they tend not to when moving quickly) but not rabbits. That's one of the main differentiating features between them.

 

[Sthenno]

Once again...rabbits.

You still haven’t answered my earlier question – why do you feel able to decide today that it was rabbits when the people at the time weren’t able to conclude that? I’d venture that 17th century rural Devonians might know a little bit more about the habits of their local wild animals than you do.

If it were rabbits, why did none of the naturalists at the time suggest this, but happily suggest badgers or kangaroos?

Are you basing this claim on the case in Cleveland, Ohio in 2000, where they ‘determined’ similar prints came from a rabbit? The comparison has been made by many people, admittedly, but each one seems to have completely ignored the fact that these tracks followed a stride of four feet – the only similarity between these and the Devon prints is a slight similarity in shape. Of course, we mustn’t let something like testimony get in the way of a neat explanation…

 

[ghostdog19]

BTW, hares can move using a walking gait, (although they tend not to when moving quickly) but not rabbits. That's one of the main differentiating features between them.

Aha!!! Hares and rabbits... as common a mistake as calling monkeys and apes etc, or calling a person from Lancaster a Yorkshireman

So are we ruling out Hare's too?

Maybe there was a tortoise involved and it was a race?

 

[ogopogo3]

Once again...rabbits.

You still haven’t answered my earlier question – why do you feel able to decide today that it was rabbits when the people at the time weren’t able to conclude that? I’d venture that 17th century rural Devonians might know a little bit more about the habits of their local wild animals than you do.

You still haven’t answered my earlier question – why do you feel able to decide today that it wasn't penis-stealing vampires when the people at the time weren’t able to conclude that? I’d venture that 21st century rural Africans might know a little bit more about the habits of their local wild animals than you do.

 

[wembley8]

, a rabbit's back legs move in unison. They use their front legs to take their weight while they bring both their back legs forward together

...and so the two legs together create what looks like a single hoofprint, and the successive double marks are taken as evidence of a walking biped.

(I think this is the theory).

In any case, lots of locals may have said it was hares, rabbits, badgers, sheep or whatever and been ignored - who's going to bother recording that?
Whereas the kangaroo - which really is silly if you accept any of the descriptions of the prints - is the one that gets recorded because it's a good story.

 

[Sthenno]

You still haven’t answered my earlier question – why do you feel able to decide today that it wasn't penis-stealing vampires when the people at the time weren’t able to conclude that? I’d venture that 21st century rural Africans might know a little bit more about the habits of their local wild animals than you do.

You're right. Obviously, it was rabbits.
:?

 

[ghostdog19]

You still haven’t answered my earlier question – why do you feel able to decide today that it wasn't penis-stealing vampires when the people at the time weren’t able to conclude that? I’d venture that 21st century rural Africans might know a little bit more about the habits of their local wild animals than you do.

You're right. Obviously, it was rabbits.
:?

Queensbury rules, chaps, come on. Let's not get too hung up on one another's opinions on the matter and keep things moving. If ogopogo is satisfied, then so be it, equally, if Sthenno isn't then lets press on with discussing the possibilities, improbable or otherwise.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

BTW, hares can move using a walking gait, (although they tend not to when moving quickly) but not rabbits. That's one of the main differentiating features between them.

Aha!!! Hares and rabbits... as common a mistake as calling monkeys and apes etc, or calling a person from Lancaster a Yorkshireman

So are we ruling out Hare's too?

Maybe there was a tortoise involved and it was a race?

:lol:

Well, as I said, hares can walk with a standard gait but only do so occasionaly and when they do it's a slow way for them to move. I suppose it's possible that one decided to keep up this unusual manner of walking for 80 miles or so, if there was maybe something physicaly wrong and then if something had happened to make it decide to travel so far away from it's normal territory, which is highly unusual behaviour in itself, but I can't see one covering this distance, moving in this way, in the time span given.

Anyway, here's the latest reply from the Met office about the weather at the time.

Hello again,

I have consulted the Private Weather Diary that we hold for Exmouth to find the information you were looking for.

The entries for 6th - 9th February 1855 were as follows:

6th Feb

It was a frosty day with some snowfall mixed with rain. There was a north easterly moderate wind. Temperatures were recorded as 36F (2C) at 9am; 37F (2-3C) at 3pm and 34F (1C) at 9pm. The mean average temperature was given as 35.5F (1-2C).

7th Feb

A cloudy day with some rain. A moderate north easterly wind. Temperatures of 39F (4C) at 9am; 36F (2C) at 3pm and 32F (0C) at 9pm. The mean average temperature was 34F (1C).

8th Feb

Snow showers, but with some rain as well. North easterly, moderate wind. Temperatures of 29F (-1C) at 9am; 32F (0C) at 3pm and 27F (-2C) at 9pm. The mean average was given as 29F (-1C).

9th Feb

Cloudy with some rain. A high wind during the morning. An east, north east strong/brisk wind. Temperatures were recorded as 32F (0C) at 9am; 32F (0C) at 3pm and 28F (-1 to -2C) at 9pm. Mean average temperature of 30F (-1C).

Sadly, there is no mention of fog on these days. However, the 5th saw a foggy morning and it was bitterly cold. There is no mention of snowfall during the 5th, but there had been some snowfall earlier in the week (2nd) and so there may still have been some ground coverage by the 5th (although I am afraid that there is no way of knowing for certain).

I hope this new information helps.


Kind Regards,

Kate Strachan
Assistant Archivist

Kate also asked me to put a link to the Met Office web site on here in return for the info, so here it is.

National Meteorological Library & Archive webpages: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/library


So, it's still a possibility that on the morning that the footprints turned up in Lympstone, there may have been a fog for a hoaxer to work under, but it's by no means a definate. Still, a decent snow fall can obscure the sight almost as good as fog, but then if you were leaving footprints in such conditions, they wouldn't last very long.
It's interesting to note how much rain there was at the time too, looking at the information, you wouldn't think there'd be much snow left around at the time, but then, today's snow doesn't seem to fall as heavily, or last as long as it used to do.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

, a rabbit's back legs move in unison. They use their front legs to take their weight while they bring both their back legs forward together

...and so the two legs together create what looks like a single hoofprint, and the successive double marks are taken as evidence of a walking biped.

(I think this is the theory).

In any case, lots of locals may have said it was hares, rabbits, badgers, sheep or whatever and been ignored - who's going to bother recording that?
Whereas the kangaroo - which really is silly if you accept any of the descriptions of the prints - is the one that gets recorded because it's a good story.

But that would leave a set of footprints in a straight line like this ...... as if the rabbit was walking on a tightrope, instead of normal walking prints like this '.'.'.'. unless the rabbit decided to jump to the left, then the right, then the left, then the right, ect. for 80 miles or so.
The kangaroo theory is even sillier when you look at how cold it was at the time, this being a creature evolved to live in a very warm climate like Australia.

 

[ghostdog19]

Still, a decent snow fall can obscure the sight almost as good as fog, but then if you were leaving footprints in such conditions, they wouldn't last very long.
It's interesting to note how much rain there was at the time too, looking at the information, you wouldn't think there'd be much snow left around at the time, but then, today's snow doesn't seem to fall as heavily, or last as long as it used to do.

great work, Quazi. Have clicked the link.

Okay, so how were they able to trace these tracks for such a distance to be able to say 'these tracks went from point A to point B'? They would surely have been racing against the clock given the actual weather conditions?

 

[ogopogo3]

Once again:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17849133.html

The prints were discovered over a wide area and they were observed by hundreds of people. No one observer tracked them all.

And I highly doubt there were relay teams strategically placed at checkpoints along the "trail" to make sure it remained unbroken.

 

[ogopogo3]

I cite myself. A person who has kept rabbits, studied them and been taught about rabbits from his Grandad who used to own a rabbit farm.
Even when ill or moving very slowly, a rabbit's back legs move in unison. They use their front legs to take their weight while they bring both their back legs forward together, same as kangaroos. Whether it's skeletal design or a mental block or just the shape and size of it's back legs, something that's taken millions of years of evolution makes it impossible to propel themselves in any way using a standard 'walking' gait.
Which eliminates rabbits as being responsible for any tracks that leave a walking gait.

Again, from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17849133.html

The notion of the unswerving line seems to have originated from accounts that mention the tracks appeared in a straight line, with one print directly in front of the next. And various animals, such as the donkey, fox, and cat, for example, can leave trails that resemble a single line of Imprints. As well, rabbits, hares, rats, and squirrels can leave hopping tracks that not only appear in a straight line but, with their four feet held together, "can form a pattern similar to a hoofmark" (Dash 1994). In any case, one newspaper reported that the tracks were alternate of each other like the steps of a man and would be included between two parallel lines six inches apart" (Knight 1950).

 

[ghostdog19]

And I highly doubt there were relay teams strategically placed at checkpoints along the "trail" to make sure it remained unbroken.

So, basically, what you have is a series of reports from towns in the area... someone looked at a map and drew a line connecting all the towns and viola... long line theory, whereas what you have is clusters of activity in each area, not a line, strictly speaking.

 

[ogopogo3]

Seems to me this is another Marie Celeste story where the legend gets juicier upon each telling. In reality, no, there wasn't blood on the walls. No, there wasn't warm food still on the table.

Here...no, it wasn't a straight unbroken line of tracks. No, the tracks weren't uniform in width or length or space between them, even though those paperback books published in the 1950s entitled Totally Goddamn Impossible...Yet It Happened, I Swear! said so. I maintain the tracks on the rooftops scenario was either local heresay or added for juiciness.

On the other hand, truth be told, I lived behind woods for 20 years and have never seen rabbit tracks that looked like that. Not that I was ever paying a lot of attention to them, mind you. Maybe the freak melt/refreeze idea isn't so crazy and IS exceedingly rare, thus confusing people.

And goddamnit, who's to say some local hunters/trappers didn't express their quite valid opinion at the time only to be dismissed by a hysterical and sensationalist media?

 

[QuaziWashboard]

I cite myself. A person who has kept rabbits, studied them and been taught about rabbits from his Grandad who used to own a rabbit farm.
Even when ill or moving very slowly, a rabbit's back legs move in unison. They use their front legs to take their weight while they bring both their back legs forward together, same as kangaroos. Whether it's skeletal design or a mental block or just the shape and size of it's back legs, something that's taken millions of years of evolution makes it impossible to propel themselves in any way using a standard 'walking' gait.
Which eliminates rabbits as being responsible for any tracks that leave a walking gait.

Again, from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17849133.html

The notion of the unswerving line seems to have originated from accounts that mention the tracks appeared in a straight line, with one print directly in front of the next. And various animals, such as the donkey, fox, and cat, for example, can leave trails that resemble a single line of Imprints. As well, rabbits, hares, rats, and squirrels can leave hopping tracks that not only appear in a straight line but, with their four feet held together, "can form a pattern similar to a hoofmark" (Dash 1994). In any case, one newspaper reported that the tracks were alternate of each other like the steps of a man and would be included between two parallel lines six inches apart" (Knight 1950).

So, in your case for rabbits being responsible for the whole thing, you cite a web page that puts the whole thing down to lots of different creatures making tracks (a more likely scenario IMO) and then quote a section of that page that includes a newspaper report that basicaly says that it couldn't possibly be rabbits because the prints were 'alternate of each other like the steps of a man'?
Earlier you asked me if I knew the meaning of irony. Now THAT'S ironic.

 

[ogopogo3]

So, in your case for rabbits being responsible for the whole thing, you cite a web page that puts the whole thing down to lots of different creatures making tracks (a more likely scenario IMO) and then quote a section of that page that includes a newspaper report that basicaly says that it couldn't possibly be rabbits because the prints were 'alternate of each other like the steps of a man'?
Earlier you asked me if I knew the meaning of irony. Now THAT'S ironic.

It'll make more sense once you sober up. Trust me.

 

[QuaziWashboard]

So, in your case for rabbits being responsible for the whole thing, you cite a web page that puts the whole thing down to lots of different creatures making tracks (a more likely scenario IMO) and then quote a section of that page that includes a newspaper report that basicaly says that it couldn't possibly be rabbits because the prints were 'alternate of each other like the steps of a man'?
Earlier you asked me if I knew the meaning of irony. Now THAT'S ironic.

It'll make more sense once you sober up. Trust me.

Is there really any need for this kind of reaction? I'm not drunk, I'm simply having trouble understanding how you are supporting your claim of 'rabbits' by citing a web page that basicaly says it wasn't rabbits? Instead of trying to suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is drunk or stupid, or attacking them in any other way wouldn't it be more constructive to actualy make sense in the first place?

 

[ghostdog19]

And goddamnit, who's to say some localhunters/trappers didn't express their quite valid opinion at the time only to be dismissed by a hysterical and sensationalist media?

Good point. I'm inclined to agree.