Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

One bit of evidence that supports the idea that Patty made the prints is frame 72, shown on p. 247 of Murphy's Bigfoot Film Controversy. The sole is completely embedded in the sand, to a depth of at least an inch. So P&G would have had to erase those tracks (which might leave suspicious sweep marks) and them impress new tracks, taking care to use a different foot-length for the fake impressions. It seems unparsimonious to prefer that explanation.

(And that sand is not white, fluffy beach sand, as BH has contended. It's structure and substance is different, and it doesn't displace deeply under the weight of a human.)

It seems un-parsimonious to conclude the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ...

You don't know the sole is embedded in the sand, and not obscured by foreground clutter, or some other film anomaly ..

[wolftrax]

Nothing at all. I don't feel you're against me. You're just against any and all opinions that may support the authenticity of the film. Sometimes without merit, IMO.

Only that you select individual frames to base your arguments, and never averaged measurements. That's all.

Then use examples.

[Drew]

Very significant point. Rain obviously wouldn't have obliterated the tracks. Degraded them perhaps. But this wasn't beach sand, which implies that Bluff Creek sand was less compliant and more weight would be required to sink into it.

Which leads us back to the question, how many pounds/sq. inch of foot area, is it assumed Patty had that caused her to be able to sink deeply in to this non-compliant 'sand'?

Hypothetically, if Patty weighed 500 lbs. and her one-foot surface area was 87 square inches (14.5"x6") that would be 5.75lbs/sq. inch.

and BobG weighed 200 lbs, and his foot was approx. 50" sq. inches (11" x 4.5") that would be 4lbs/sq. inch.

Can anyone ask a soil expert (maybe the one Roger cited above, is it Murphy or Perez?) how much farther 5.75 lbs vs 4 lbs / sq. inch would sink in this less-compliant sand?

[Guest]

Then use examples.

I can't show examples of what I don't think exist. Why don't you show some examples that I missed. That is, where you have used averaged measurements to make your arguments. Personally, I think we've hijacked this very significant thread enough. Unless your examples pertain to Bill's Creature Suit Analysis.

Which leads us back to the question, how many pounds/sq. inch of foot area, is it assumed Patty had that caused her to be able to sink deeply in to this non-compliant 'sand'?

Hypothetically, if Patty weighed 500 lbs. and her one-foot surface area was 87 square inches (14.5"x6") that would be 5.75lbs/sq. inch.

and BobG weighed 200 lbs, and his foot was approx. 50" sq. inches (11" x 4.5") that would be 4lbs/sq. inch.

Can anyone ask a soil expert (maybe the one Roger cited above, is it Murphy or Perez?) how much farther 5.75 lbs vs 4 lbs / sq. inch would sink in this less-compliant sand?

Little BobG weigh 200 lbs? Doubt it. Way too many unknown variables here anyways and foot dynamics is not so simplistic. But it would be interesting to do some tests.

[wolftrax]

I can't show examples of what I don't think exist. Why don't you show some examples that I missed. That is, where you have used averaged measurements to make your arguments.

Ok, so you don't have examples of me against any and all opinions that may support the authenticity of the film, Sometimes without merit; or me selecting individual frames to base my arguments, and never averaged measurements. I sincerely doubt you would have seen anybody with true averaged measurements, as in going through each and every frame and measuring every body part.

Personally, I think we've hijacked this very significant thread enough. Unless your examples pertain to Bill's Creature Suit Analysis.

You have that choice.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Drew states Bob G weighing in at 200lbs? Maybe he means Bob H who quite rightly would have weighed 200lbs. Perhaps a survey of photos of different foot prints on a beach can give an idea of depth between a small 60lb child and 170 lb adult. There's gotta be photos of multiptle beach prints.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Crowlogic

[Roger Knights]

The depth-of-track-per PSI problem was one of Daegling's best points. But maybe Patty's flexible foot sort of gripped and scrunched the substrate and therefore made a deeper impression.

Another possibility is this: The points in her trackway where the deepest prints were made were composed of substrate more compressible / displaceable than the substrate elsewhere. After all, P&G, and most of the Bigfoot investigators who went down there, were looking (at least unconsciously) to maximize the relative depth of Patty's tracks--so they may have cherry picked their data.

Edited May 23, 2008 by RogerKni

[Drew]

Drew states Bob G weighing in at 200lbs? Maybe he means Bob H who quite rightly would have weighed 200lbs. Perhaps a survey of photos of different foot prints on a beach can give an idea of depth between a small 60lb child and 170 lb adult. There's gotta be photos of multiptle beach prints.

I was just offering an example, I wasn't claiming BobG weighs 200 lbs. I am making no claims to his actual weight, I just picked numbers to illustrate my hypothetical.

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Gigantofootecus:

There is a strong argument to be made that Patty did leave the tracks.

There may be a strong argument that a foot ( real or otherwise ) similar to the one seen in the film, was used to make prints that were later cast and photographed.

But that is based on the shape, size and scaling you have presented.

Not that we see any prints being made in the film ..

[Guest Remember November]

quote name='Skeptical Greg' post='462945' date='May 23 2008, 01:16 PM']Gigantofootecus:

There may be a strong argument that a foot ( real or otherwise ) similar to the one seen in the film, was used to make prints that were later cast and photographed.

But that is based on the shape, size and scaling you have presented.

Not that we see any prints being made in the film ..

But we do know that Patterson captured a footprint if not more during this encounter, showing that the footprints were made at the same time or before the film capture.

[

Edited May 23, 2008 by Remember November

[Guest MANGLER]

But we do know that Patterson captured a footprint if not more during this encounter, showing that the footprints were made at the same time or before the film capture. RN

And how do you know this, because the caption says so?

One can’t be certain that the impressions were made on the day the subject was filmed. It can’t be said for certain they where filmed in the same week. Hell, because of the dry conditions that summer and fall as well as other environmental factors, like the fact that drought tends to speed up the color change in leafs one can’t even say for certain the subject was filmed in Oct.

So again, how do you now this?

m

[Guest Remember November]

But we do know that Patterson captured a footprint if not more during this encounter, showing that the footprints were made at the same time or before the film capture. RN

And how do you know this, because the caption says so?

One can’t be certain that the impressions were made on the day the subject was filmed. It can’t be said for certain they where filmed in the same week. Hell, because of the dry conditions that summer and fall as well as other environmental factors, like the fact that drought tends to speed up the color change in leafs one can’t even say for certain the subject was filmed in Oct.

So again, how do you now this?

m

I agree with everything you just said. The problem with this line of reasoning though is it's rooted in paranoia.

We are talking about history here, no one can be certain that any event in history did indeed play out the way it was documented.

If Jeff Meldrum's (an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State)

research can’t be trusted, than we cannot accept anyone’s research. All history must be thrown out, because we cannot be CERTAIN.

Again, this reasoning is rooted in paranoia.

The only way for me to be CERTAIN that the print in the above image is indeed from the Patterson film is to get a copy of the film and find the frame myself.

I do not have the time or the money to accomplish such an effort, so until then I will take Dr. Meldrum's word for it.

[Guest longtabber PE]

I agree with everything you just said. The problem with this line of reasoning though is it's rooted in paranoia.

We are talking about history here, no one can be certain that any event in history did indeed play out the way it was documented.

If Jeff Meldrum's (an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State)

research can’t be trusted, than we cannot accept anyone’s research. All history must be thrown out, because we cannot be CERTAIN.

Again, this reasoning is rooted in paranoia.

The only way for me to be CERTAIN that the print in the above image is indeed from the Patterson film is to get a copy of the film and find the frame myself.

I do not have the time or the money to accomplish such an effort, so until then I will take Dr. Meldrum's word for it.

>>>I agree with everything you just said. The problem with this line of reasoning though is it's rooted in paranoia.

Its rooted in cold hard FACT- there isnt a shred of verifiable proof that track ( or any other) was made by the film subject.

>>>We are talking about history here, no one can be certain that any event in history did indeed play out the way it was documented.

you just affirmed the above

>>>If Jeff Meldrum's (an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State)

research can’t be trusted, than we cannot accept anyone’s research. All history must be thrown out, because we cannot be CERTAIN.

No, his word isnt an "authority" nor it it an absolute. There are more holes in his science and analysis than fizz in a shaken coke.

>>>Again, this reasoning is rooted in paranoia.

No more than the opposite is rooted in wishful thinking in the face of the facts

[Guest Remember November]

LT:

I am not saying that still proves the subject made the print, Im saying if that print is indeed on the same film as the subject (and if its not from the film then where the hell did it come from?) then we know that the prints were not made after the film was shot.

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

We are talking about history here, no one can be certain that any event in history did indeed play out the way it was documented.

Sorry, but that is simply without merit ...

Im saying if that print is indeed on the same film as the subject (and if its not from the film then where the hell did it come from?) then we know that the prints were not made after the film was shot.

If, If , If ..

We have been shown ~ one minute of film that does not include any prints, being made or otherwise..

Dr. Meldrum has not presented any evidence to the contrary ..

Bring us the evidence, and then we can discuss it ..

Edited May 24, 2008 by Skeptical Greg