Everyone knows patterson was a shady dood so how can you believe it?
Here are 2 issues (of many) that I have
Has anyone ever analyzed what Gimlin said about how his horse tracks were not as deep as the Patty prints?
He said his horse weighed 1,200–1,300 pounds (plus a 165lb Gimlin). If one simply takes the square inch area of a horse print and compare it to a wide and long Patty foot
it does not work. It is simple physics
“I rode the big horse” “The horse that I was riding was around 1,200–1,300 pounds. I rode him along side the [Bigfoot] tracks with this new film in the camera [and] Roger took pictures of how deep the horse’s prints were in the soil compared to the creature’s tracks. Then I got up on a stump, which was approximately three to four feet, you know? We didn’t measure it, probably should have. Anyway, I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my footprint went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot, and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene.”
Gimlin, “The horse tracks were not as deep as the Sasquatch tracks of course. I just walked the horse through. I walked him as slow as I could but you figure he is distributing his weight on four feet. The tracks were better than half as deep but they weren’t as deep as the tracks of the creature.”
Comparatively Patty would have to weigh 2300 Lbs PLUS to make the deep impressions the casts represent.
Also they all claim patty was 6'6 to 7' tall
If you take the patty still photo and stack the 14.5inch (alleged) foot size you get appox 6' tall.
Has anyone ever explained these things?
Stacking 5 feet give you slightly over 6 feet tall.
Suggesting a millimeter taller than 6' is ridiculous.
Edited by stryq, 14 October 2012 - 11:08 PM.