Here's what one of the members wrote:
He was the asked: "That's awesome Erik! Did it look like the "standard" North-american bigfoot? Or more like "The Abominable Snowman" you think? Would be interesting to know."
And answered: "You would be surprised to hear it looked like the dude in your post up there , that cartoonist is pretty damn close . I know the lake well like the back of my hand and all the forest surrounding it for miles , to judge the size I would give a rough estimate of two meters tall but tricky enough as it was hunched over when walking , the only thing that makes me think they are not big foots is the other two mates that swore their troll was a large rock/boulder that turned into a troll and stood up and walked off away from where they were . The guys mentioned in both stories are people a trust my life with ."
This is the cartoon he's talking about
As to the creature looking like a rock or a tree stump before it moved, that occurs in North American Bigfoot stories. Apparantly the creatures can sit very still indeed in hops of escaping notice and with their backs turned sitting down, they do not immediately look like living humanoid creatures.
Another Troll image is provided on the cover of the book:
Troll tracks are also traditionally printed around town in chalk during festivals and one of the representations in chalk is shown below the ordinary track outlines (This has only three toes but preserves the very broad and square outline of the tracks)
I have seen enough of these that I think it can be said these are not unusual or atypical representations-the idea is that Troll Tracks really are supposed to look that big and squared off (One site used a typical Bigfoot footprint cast from Texas to illustrate the Troll Tracks)
The same sort of tracks are also associated with the usual European "Wildman" representations and so there is likely continuity through that tradition also.Ultimately the traditonal tracks seem to come by way of tracks represented by being pecked into stone surfaces as ancient rock art. (Compare Troll footprint design charm bead as pictured below in a copied form according to the originating site)
I´m a Swede that have studied folklore for a couple of decades and there are some points to make about trolls.
The trolls in the pictures are very typical of the type found in childrens books from the nineteenth century uptil today. That has become the "official" version of them today. However that kind of troll are not like the trolls people actually believed in. These trolls are actually pretty human, wear clothes, have language, live in societies, have laws, cook their food etc. They are not hairy monsters, nor apelike. To the contarary they looks like ordinary humans, sometimes even more beutiful than real humans.
So there is no similarities at all between bigfoot or other cryptids and trolls. To make a case of that based on modern portraits removed far off from real folklore, created by artists who see them as strictly fairytale creatures,are not good science.Try learn from the real folklore instead,since people actually believed that was true stories. Kittelsen or Jon Bauer did not.
These illustrations have had a huge impact and undoubtly affected people to "know" what a troll should look like, but again that is neither traditional nor ancient.
So there is no old traditions about Bigfoot-type creatures in
Äring och fred.
On the other hand there is another kind of misconception here at work as well, I am not saying that Trolls would be the same as the Sasquatch portrayed in the Patterson-Gimlin Film, I am something much more akin to the Siberian ChuChuunaas, and the track as illustrated by the CryptoCrew is also like Siberian tracks found more recently. CuChuunaas are described as sometimes using tools and spears, weasring hides and sometimes footwear, and having a primitive language.
Your error is in categorising these things in broad classifications, saying the broad classifications are typically one thing or the other, and in contrasting them. The problem is that both Trolls and Bigfoot are generic terms which mean more than one thing. Bigfoot includes but is not limited to the Patterson film Sasquatch, and Trolls include but are not limited to the Elves or Faerie-Folk (more properly Moundfolk or Hiddenfolk) nwhich you aree describing. It is because we are working with such inaccurate categories that many arguments are started unnecessarily. "Bigfoot" can include a type of ape very like an orangutan and "Trolls" can also include goblins or Dwarves (in Mythology both the Alvar and Svartalvar). That does not mean we should consider the terms limited to only those definitions, what we need to do is recognise that the categories are useless to base such statements such as these upon such arbitrary and general categories.
Best Wishes, Dale D.