← Back to the archive

MYS-039 · Mysteries

Devil’s Footprints

Unresolved means the reviewed evidence does not settle the stated question; it is not evidence of a supernatural cause. Reports, hypotheses and established findings are distinguished.

The case record

What was reported?

Unusual marks in snow were reported around Devon’s Exe Estuary in February 1855. The evidence supports a cluster of puzzling tracks and rumours, not a verified continuous journey by a supernatural creature.

Residents described hoof-like impressions in gardens, fields and allegedly across obstacles. Newspapers combined geographically scattered accounts, leading to extraordinary estimates of total distance. Clergy and correspondents discussed the marks while trying to address local fears.

Dates cover the main overnight report, although later marks were also discussed. The map is an estuary region, not a claimed hundred-mile route.

Reported date
Night of 8–9 February 1855
Witnesses
Historical records, investigators and observers; see case-specific account · Not reliably reducible to a single count
Investigation
Historical and research accounts reviewed from: Mike Dash / Fortean Studies

Evidence in the record

Contemporary newspapersLetters and tracingsSource compilation

Letters, tracings and contemporary newspaper extracts survive in a source collection assembled by historian Mike Dash. Descriptions differ, and no preserved track survey demonstrates that every reported impression came from one agent.

Competing explanations

Official and research context

The historical source compilation presents inconsistent track descriptions and several natural explanations; it does not establish one cause for every reported trail.

Conventional explanations

Hopping rodents, other animals, thawing and refreezing, occasional hoaxes and the merging of unrelated trails could produce the reported variety. Balloon or escaped-animal suggestions need independent corroboration. An unfamiliar footprint does not establish the identity of its maker.

Arguments that remain contested

Individual reported trails cannot all be reconstructed or assigned with confidence.

Locations & timeline

Coordinates are representative. Area and route labels do not imply exact paths or object positions.

  1. Primary reference location

    Exe Estuary region

    Dates cover the main overnight report, although later marks were also discussed. The map is an estuary region, not a claimed hundred-mile route.

    Representative case location · Approximate area radius: 30 km

    50.640°, -3.440° · point · Regional reference only; not survey-grade

Record notes

Map coordinates are representative and do not establish an exact incident position.

Case-specific sources researched 8 September 2026. Evidence, alternatives, dates and representative geography reviewed.

Original dataset status: likely-conventional

The conversation around the evidence

What do you make of the record?

0 case views

Assess the evidence, rather than the people involved. Community votes express reader opinion and do not change the case’s public status.

Discussion & submitted updates (0)

No contributions yet. Start with a question about the evidence.

Moderation & appeals · Corrections and source updates