Forums

Why not?  If the tracks were clumsy obvious fakes, you probably would say we CAN use those tracks to make a conclusion. That is, assume the tracks were horrible and a poorly done hoax.  By what you are saying even if the tracks were some obvious fake we cannot consider these for ONLY because the tracks produced cannot be seen directly being made by the figure filming walking in the PGF.    The idea the track "can't be used as evidence" is wrong.  To my thinking, the tracks BY THEMSELVES should not be solely considered as evidence.   Here is why:   We have many ancillary components to consider about the PGF incident.  The tracks are just one component.  Even then the tracks have many links.  Those links make the tracks so much more than just tracks.  The tracks were photographs the next day By Lyle Laverty.  We have those photos.     We have his impressions any anyone with him that day if/when they were willing to talk.   We have the PGF film whose exact landmarks match exactly to those who arrived the next day, the next week and the next spring.  We have the casting done on that trackway.  We have the residual ring of plaster left and observed by others on those same tracks and trackway.    The tracks are a dynamic impression recording dynamically what the maker of the track was doing.       There is nothing about the track impressions which conflicts with anything we see on the film.  There hasn't been a single think coming forward which suggests anything other than the PGF figure/walker (Real or hoax) made the resulting tracks found at bluff creek.   There is also no evidence at all ever suggesting there was a mulligan (second attempt) effort to erase some original tracks and then place tracks somehow over the same trackway.       No credible well-credentialed scientists have ever appeared on these Discovery Channel -level shows ever suggesting this on camera               Only one something left the footprints at Bluff Creek that day.  The walking figure.  That figure is either a man in a suit (leaving those tracks) or a unknown creature leaving those tracks.      See point below...     No, it couldn't.   That's the stretchiest stretch of all the stretches I have ever seen.   I would say it is true the PGF could be a hoax, yet Bigfoot separately could exist.  But... to follow what your logic we would have to believe: -Roger and Bob arrived at Bluff Creek to hoax/fake a film with a suit.  -Then they faked and filmed of a man in a suit somehow hovering above a recent, previous trackway in that exact spot left by a real actual living bigfoot.       IN SUMMARY:   The tracks are not Just the tracks.  The are not the sole evidence piece but an important component to the PGF event.  IF Patty is a hoax that walking hoaxer in a suit left those tracks.  IF Patty is real, that walking creature left those tracks.      

They can in my opinion, which is impervious to yours. Yours is fully valid for you, but it cannot control mine.

🤔   Do creatures leave tracks when they walk? Yes.   At some point? You have to invoke Occam’s razor.    You can’t make the stomper trackway first because it may show up in the film. So the costume goes first and then you have to rake out all the costume tracks and then go a second time with the stompers. Unless the costume person was wearing stompers and did it all in one go. Which is unrealistic. Wearing big heavy stompers a person would notice in the film. But raking out an entire creek bed seems unrealistic as well.   The simplest explanation is to take the film at face value. A large heavy creature walked across that sandbar. It was filmed doing so and its resulting trackway was cast.   The other supporting evidence is the mid tarsal break. It’s evidence of a living foot and not a stomper. And in 1967 no one knew what a mid tarsal break was. It was championed much later by Meldrum. And as far as he is concerned? The film shows the anatomy of a flexible foot that is creating the mid tarsal break as Patty walked in real time on the film.   So I say the trackway ABSOLUTELY supports the film and the film supports the trackway. To say otherwise is disingenuous unless the person is suggesting Patty floated across the sand bar with gravity booties.   Of course again with the required caveat that none of this matters to science……. If Bob Gimlin had shot Patty in 1967? Science would have the foot instead of the cast and all of this would be moot. But here we are.

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF because there is no continuous film showing that those footprints were made by Patty. Even if those footprints were genuine(made by an actual bigfoot), that doesn't necessarily mean that they were made by Patty. It could be that Patty was actually just a person in a costume, but those tracks were made by an actual bigfoot. It could be that Patterson and Gimlin faked those tracks, but Patty was real. The point is, those tracks can't be used as evidence for Patty being a real Bigfoot because there's no film footage to show that they're connected. And any reasons can be given as to why there's no footage of Patty being the one that actually made those footprints, but they're all irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you like this or not, that's just how evidence works.     However, the footprints CAN be used against some claims, regarding Patty. I posted a link in the PGF section of this forum that demonstrates how it can be used to do that.