Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

Guest jtaylorcubsfan

Im new on here so I know I havent built up a reputation yet, but I just want to say to the mods.....GOOD JOB!!!!! You guys have your hands full and you have to go through a lot of crap from people and I, being a new member appreciate it.

Happy Thanksgiving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I would have thought it was obvious that track depth would vary depending on the type of substrate. In Bluff Creek alone there would have been the hard road, the stoney gravel like area, the soggy sand/dirt close to the creek, the less soggy sand/dirt further away from the creek on the sandbar, and the drier substrate on the forest floor etc with many variables/differences in between probably from patch to patch even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Besides the tracks themselves looking unbearably, unbelievably false (IMHO mods) I do have to admit that the depth of the tracks itself depends more on the soil... Was this covered /discussed already? Like I said I'm new to the pgf controversy and not contaminated by the freemans, meldrums and other spinsters and WOOsters... But I'm guessing soft or wettish soil might just leave deeper footprints. Or wood foot prints.

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

I never said it would. But the dynamics of a foot versus a hoof are quite different. Besides, what part of the prints were measured as the depth? The deepest part? The average depth? What the hell are we talking about here anyway? Rather subjective, isn't it? Especially since Patty's tracks were highly varied in depth. So which track then?

You've seen the Laverty cast of the foot in motion, haven't you? Probably the deepest parts were the heel and ball. How much surface area is a heel compared to a hoof? About the same? At one point in the stride, the heel takes all the forward momentum and downward force from long compliant steps. A slow walking horse, however, puts 3 hooves on the ground at a time. I doubt that Gimlin's horse "dug in" very much at that pace. Already this puts 450lbs into 1 print for a horse and 500lbs on the heel print of a bigfoot. This is about the deepest part of each track, isn't it? The bigfoot also has much more downward walking force than a slow stepping horse.

I'm not saying this was how it happened, but there have been no experiments to demonstrate that it was impossible either. The only way to disprove the "deeper impressions than a horse" contention is to get 2 huge men and a horse on a creek bed and conduct some experiments. Have 1 man piggy-back the other in Shaq sized shoes and reproduce the Patty walk. Then measure the depth of the heel prints. THEN let's talk. :)

That said, unless we get access to the 2nd reel footage of Gimlin's stomp test showing the horse prints beside the trackway, this whole exercise is moot.

Giganto, when you say "500 lbs on the heel print of a bigfoot," you seem to be suggesting that the subject may have been 6 feet tall and weighed 500lbs. Is that what you're saying? Now, I read in wikipedia that a gorilla could be that size, but when you scale the PGF subject down to 6 feet tall, he/she really doesn't look that massive, imho.

My second question is how do you account for what Gimlin said about the depth of the tracks, vs his stomp and the horse tracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

As a courtesy, I thought I'd let you know you have some questions I asked in another thread you might not have looked in on. They are at:

Posts 3 and 4 I believe.

I'm sure you will agree that if you want to ask other members of the forum to elaborate or clarify their remarks, you must be willing to do the same with your remarks.

Thanks for your response, in advance.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Giganto, when you say "500 lbs on the heel print of a bigfoot," you seem to be suggesting that the subject may have been 6 feet tall and weighed 500lbs. Is that what you're saying? Now, I read in wikipedia that a gorilla could be that size, but when you scale the PGF subject down to 6 feet tall,

Not, Giganto, but replying: various biometric calculations have been done based on both height and body dimensions and indicate a creature ~400-800lbs.

he/she really doesn't look that massive, imho.

Assuming a 6' height, even compared to a human of that height, patty is clearly much more massive in the torso, and has much "beefier" arms and legs (which would be expected for a creature that was very heavy.

My second question is how do you account for what Gimlin said about the depth of the tracks, vs his stomp and the horse tracks?

That he was ballparking it in casual conversation, not writing a science paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Not, Giganto, but replying: various biometric calculations have been done based on both height and body dimensions and indicate a creature ~400-800lbs.

That he was ballparking it in casual conversation, not writing a science paper.

I agree that you aren't Giganto, but I don't know of these calculations you speak of, based on a 6 foot subject; can you link to them? wouldn't you say that a six foot Bob H in the red costume looks more massive than the six foot PGF subject?

2ynqjb8.jpg

On what basis do you say Gimlin was engaged in casual conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But I'm guessing soft or wettish soil might just leave deeper footprints. Or wood foot prints.

Actually, prints made by wood forms on human feet would be SHALLOWER even than human tracks in the same or similar substrate, because of the "snowshoe effect".

Oh, and nice cheap shot. Holding a show's title against the evidence it presents...

]I agree that you aren't Giganto, but I don't know of these calculations you speak of, based on a 6 foot subject; can you link to them? wouldn't you say that a six foot Bob H in the red costume looks more massive than the six foot PGF subject?

I think he looks like an overstuffed Ewok suffering from gigantism. That costume is so pathetic as to be a non-starter. It has none of the definition and anatomical subtlety Patty displays.

On what basis do you say Gimlin was engaged in casual conversation?

On the basis that he was engaged in a conversation with another human being, not writing a paper for some journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But I'm guessing soft or wettish soil might just leave deeper footprints. Or wood foot prints.

Actually, prints made by wood forms on human feet would be SHALLOWER even than human tracks in the same or similar substrate, because of the "snowshoe effect".

Oh, and nice cheap shot. Holding a show's title against the evidence it presents...

]I agree that you aren't Giganto, but I don't know of these calculations you speak of, based on a 6 foot subject; can you link to them? wouldn't you say that a six foot Bob H in the red costume looks more massive than the six foot PGF subject?

I think he looks like an overstuffed Ewok suffering from gigantism. That costume is so pathetic as to be a non-starter. It has none of the definition and anatomical subtlety Patty displays.

On what basis do you say Gimlin was engaged in casual conversation?

On the basis that he was engaged in a conversation with another human being, not writing a paper for some journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

you mean, this program called "AMERICAN PARANORMAL?"

Definition of "Paranormal".

"Lying outside the range of normal scientific investigations etc."

Paranormal isn't a dirty word Parnassus. It just means its out of the 'norm'.

You are aware the word "Para" (besides meaning what my avatar shows LOL) simply means:

"Beside, beyond".

The programme took a scientific look into the subject with modern technology and did NOT come to the conclusion it was likely a hoax.

Don't be so put out that a recent serious documentary on the National Geographic Channel DIDN'T conclude what you and your fellow amateur JREF armchair scoftics believe.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Definition of "Paranormal".

"Lying outside the range of normal scientific investigations etc."

Paranormal isn't a dirty word Parnassus. It just means its out of the 'norm'.

You are aware the word "Para" (besides meaning what my avatar shows LOL) simply means:

"Beside, beyond".

The programme took a scientific look into the subject with modern technology and did NOT come to the conclusion it was likely a hoax.

Don't be so put out that a recent serious documentary on the National Geographic Channel DIDN'T conclude what you and your fellow amateur JREF armchair scoftics believe.

There's tons of paranormal shows "fact or faked" etc... They come to all sorts of stupid conclusions like "well we tested, can't explain the light in the sky so it must be aliens"(dear mods this is NOT a real Quote, but a Repräsentation of The types of quotes One heard on These Shows)

Anyway mate, you might want to Not use paranormal tv Shows As proof of bigfoot. You are doing true Open minded believers like myself a Great disservice, more than patterson did with His Fake .

And of course its all IMHO

Ps it Looks like you Attributed The "cheap Shot" to

Me, when it was infact said by another poster.

Although He was right.

Imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I agree that you aren't Giganto, but I don't know of these calculations you speak of, based on a 6 foot subject; can you link to them? wouldn't you say that a six foot Bob H in the red costume looks more massive than the six foot PGF subject?

2ynqjb8.jpg

Different argument but can we see beefed up Cow Camp Bob H actually MOVE and compare his MOVEMENTS to those of Patty for a change? Patty isn't just a still. Patty is MOVING FOOTAGE. Patty doesn't look encumbered/restricted or stiff despite her beefyness and she moves in a seemingly fluid and very comfortable manner.

I'm guessing that beefed up/padded Bob H moved like Mr Blobby and that's why we never did get to see him 'in action'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

There's tons of paranormal shows "fact or faked" etc... They come to all sorts of stupid conclusions like "well we tested, can't explain the light in the sky so it must be aliens"(dear mods this is NOT a real Quote, but a Repräsentation of The types of quotes One heard on These Shows)

It appears you didn't even bother to watch the documentary. I thought as much the first time I posted it when you replied and dismissed it so quickly. The programme didn't say it "must" be anything.

Anyway mate, you might want to Not use paranormal tv Shows As proof of bigfoot.

When did I say it was 'proof' of bigfoot?

I said the serious National Geographic Channel documentary did NOT come to the conclusion it was a likely hoax. The two things are very different.

Now I asked you before about all this evidence proving it was a hoax so where is it? If a non biased serious National Geographic Channel documentary didn't find it then who has?

Can you answer my question this time? You avoided answering it before. Where is all this evdience of proof it's a hoax? What is it? Who has it? Etc.

You do know that there is not even anything tangible placing Bob Heironimus anywhere near Northern California in October 1967, right?

Ps it Looks like you Attributed The "cheap Shot" to

Me, when it was infact said by another poster.

Huh? I never wrote any such post attributing a cheap shot to anyone.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^ I did...editing error in one of my posts crossed part of one of Parnassus' posts with Vincent's. My apologies to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...