Footprints at Sugar Creek Covered Bridge

One day (16th of June, 2011) after a large footprint was found in a backyard in Chatham, Illinois two miles south hikers found a large footprint along Sugar Creek at a historical site known as the Sugar Creek Covered Bridge near Glenarm, Illinois.

Sugar Creek Covered bridge was built in 1880 and is one of a few covered bridges still in existence in Illinois.

GPS Coordinates - 39.64036, -89.66230

A young lady was walking with her teenage nephew along a recently flooded trail when he noticed a large impression in the mud.  He showed it to his aunt who was carrying her camera. They were impressed by the apparent huge size of the print and that the toes were visible.

The footprint was about 18 inches long and 8 inches wide. The teenager’s shoe (which I measured myself) was 12 1/2 inches long. The imprint of the toes is barely visible on the left of the photo.

[Photographs are horrible at showing details of footprints. Then the problem arises, do you show poor quality pictures to the public and listen to a thousand complaints or do you post them anyway for those readers who are intensely interested in what may be happening in their local area?]

The father of the teenager contacted me and we set up a time to visit the area with his family. Several days had passed since the footprint was found and with recent rains the imprint was gone.

This park, although nestled along a heavily wooded creek, also sees a high amount of human foot traffic because of its historical significance in this part of Central Illinois.

Was this footprint from the same individual who left an imprint underneath an apple tree one day earlier two miles to the north? As both prints measured 18 inches x 8 inches it would lead one to think so.

3 Responses to “Footprints at Sugar Creek Covered Bridge”

  1. Judy says:

    Why doesn't anyone ever take a plaster cast of the footprints so they can be studied?

  2. stancourtney says:

    Judy, there are many casts of footprints. I did not cast the Chatham footprint because other researchers were on their way to see the print and I did not want to cover-up the evidence.

  3. Henry says:

    I commented once before here that those tracks look like bear to me, but you don't seem to have added my comment. In the interests of free and open enquiry, don't you think you should? I'm actually a believer in Bigfoot, I just happen to think that's not a Bigfoot track. Look, it has at least six toes! That's an artifact of the hind foot planting over the fore foot, creating the superficial impression of a human-style print.

Leave a Reply


− one = 4