Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

without a cast or photo the report is just a report.  If there is a cast or photo the person making the report may also have made the track i  the first place.  It's nice to say that people are basically honest however people are also known to be dishonest petty and vindictive.  

  Now here's something that's been bothering me for a while.  In a great majority of prints found away from open sandy bare areas much the ground cover of grass and other debris  is conspicuously absent.  Why is this.  I can assure anyone that taking a stroll in the woods barefoot even if the walker weighs 500 lbs isn't going to leave bare soil behind where they walked.  Expect to see compressed ground cover but not denuded soil.  It appears that the for the game to work of course the print must be visible so the print maker clears enough of the detritus away then stomps the print makes photo and presto look ma I got a photo of a bigfoot print.  Yes many prints are logically showing natural ground cover compression but a whole heap of them are not.

 

I seldom see such a post that said nothing with so many words.

 

There are countless instances where someone took a photo of a ground disturbance and questioned what may have made it - if anything at all. Some people may not have to be honest or dishonest, but rather just not informed enough to make a correct determination. I don't let such things bother me, especially when there are far more important things to be bothered about - such as how did a man in boots leave ground impressions 6X deeper than other men in boots?

 

I will say that when the ground is damp or wet - a foot can leave a bare spot on the ground when slippage has occurred. What a simple photo taken so close to the ground doesn't tell me is whether the ground mark was on a slope where such things can occur. I know this because I have done it myself with my own foot. But then again it is just a mark on the ground and not evidence that can be thoroughly evaluated from a photo. I am more interested in watching a film and trying to figure out

how did an alleged man wearing boots inside a costume was able to leave ground impressions 6X deeper than other men in boots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

 

without a cast or photo the report is just a report.  If there is a cast or photo the person making the report may also have made the track i  the first place.  It's nice to say that people are basically honest however people are also known to be dishonest petty and vindictive.  

  Now here's something that's been bothering me for a while.  In a great majority of prints found away from open sandy bare areas much the ground cover of grass and other debris  is conspicuously absent.  Why is this.  I can assure anyone that taking a stroll in the woods barefoot even if the walker weighs 500 lbs isn't going to leave bare soil behind where they walked.  Expect to see compressed ground cover but not denuded soil.  It appears that the for the game to work of course the print must be visible so the print maker clears enough of the detritus away then stomps the print makes photo and presto look ma I got a photo of a bigfoot print.  Yes many prints are logically showing natural ground cover compression but a whole heap of them are not.

 

I seldom see such a post that said nothing with so many words.

 

There are countless instances where someone took a photo of a ground disturbance and questioned what may have made it - if anything at all. Some people may not have to be honest or dishonest, but rather just not informed enough to make a correct determination. I don't let such things bother me, especially when there are far more important things to be bothered about - such as how did a man in boots leave ground impressions 6X deeper than other men in boots?

 

I will say that when the ground is damp or wet - a foot can leave a bare spot on the ground when slippage has occurred. What a simple photo taken so close to the ground doesn't tell me is whether the ground mark was on a slope where such things can occur. I know this because I have done it myself with my own foot. But then again it is just a mark on the ground and not evidence that can be thoroughly evaluated from a photo. I am more interested in watching a film and trying to figure out

how did an alleged man wearing boots inside a costume was able to leave ground impressions 6X deeper than other men in boots?

 

Wow talk about saying nothing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

 By not havint the stompers attatched to the feel the walker is free to make the strides longer than they could have by having stompers worn on the feet.  The completed track way will show no signs of human prints.  Roger wasn't alone at Bluff Creek and would have had some assistance to insure that his progress across the area was successfully accomplished.

 

018_zps7mjyw9so.jpg

 

Do you recall what you said in a previous post about ground marks .... the same applies when someone gives a ridiculous scenario for how something can be done without so much as testing it for him or herself.

 

By the way, why the talk about stepping on a stick when the Laverty photo shows the upraised levy of soil that caused the dent in the plaster cast? 

 

And why are you talking about about fake feet being attached to stompers when you have been arguing that a guy in a costume made the tracks while wearing boots?  You are reminding me of the gif showing the gorilla throwing his crap at the wall.

 

And a line being the edge of a stomper - I mean really! The track is deep in the substrate and the edge of a wooden stomper only makes a partial line that most likely isn't a line at all which in either case it destroys your man wearing boots inside a costume claim. I can only recommend that you put more thought into your postings so not to make them appear to be more like someone had utilized the logic of a crow to write them.    :)

Wow talk about saying nothing.  

 

 

Did it deserve more when the first lines said, "without a cast or photo the report is just a report.  If there is a cast or photo the person making the report may also have made the track in the first place.  It's nice to say that people are basically honest however people are also known to be dishonest petty and vindictive."

Crowlogic,

 

Are you serious ?

 

Pat...

 

 

Pat,

 

It sounds like he is seriously confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

 

This stuff was put to rest in the thread concerning Dennett's observation that Patty's larger foot should not have made a deeper track than the horse did. A Science Journal study on bi-pedal locomotion demonstrated two important things to address the issues involving track depth.

 

1)   A rigid foot makes less of a ground impression compared to a bare foot.  That a shoe drastically reduces the additional dynamic forces that greatly adds to track depth.

2)   It is the mechanics of a shoe-less foot during the stepping process that was the difference in achieving the greater track depth.

 

This was verified when Steenburg, John Myles, and Myself conducted a field test whereas I followed John's horse through a damp sandy substrate. Our results were posted to this site with an invite for anyone to test it for themselves. One BFF member at the time could not accept this information and immediately responded that it must have been hoaxed by those of us (including the horse) who conducted the test despite the event being filmed while it happened.

 

The Science Journal article and our field test was offered once again when Crowlogic came up with a theory that someone wearing cowboy boots inside a monkey suit made the deep tracks across the sandbar. Crowlogic has never posted anything to make me believe that he bothered to read the Science Journal data. Instead, Crowlogic continues to rely on an obvious altered image rather than to admit that there is a track depth problem between what the subject in the film accomplished and what a mere man wearing shoes could do.

You can't just say "science journal" said so without the source. What is the magnitude of difference the paper finds? As far as I've seen in "science journal" there aren't that many dynamic forces involved in a footprint with there is a strike force and a push off. What creates the strike force itself could have a near infinite number of variables though. A shod foot will disperse the strike force leaving a shallower print. But the same thing is applied to the larger Patty foot. On top of that if you look in science journal you'll see the compliant gait reduces the strike force and disperses it as well. Gimlins jump test isnt dependent on shod unshod comparisons. If you have gimlins weight, high heel boot sole area, height jumped, and depth the force can be calculated. The strike force in pattys step would have to be greater and one could estimate the necessary weight to achieve the footprint depths.

Forensic scientists and investigators have already worked out the equations for shod and unshod feet and footprint depth. They can accurately determine the weight of a subject based on footprint depth and pace. Although using human feet and assuming normal locomotion. With the compliant gait you could assume a shallower depth.

Other issues involve soil compaction and deformation at a certain pressure the deformation of soil is no longer linear. Meaning to achieve party's 6x depth it might take more than 6x the force.

I haven't worked out the math and don't expect to anytime soon. But I can see how it could be done to achieve a rough estimate. From what I've looked at poking through whatever science journals relaying to footprint depth I could find and get access to I think the patty prints are too deep for the figure if it is in fact 6'3" to 6'5". If someone could get the volume of patty I think good estimates of weight could be determined and the footprint question more easily answered.

Also it doesn't really matter how the footprints were created if you can determine that it was impossible for patty to make the footprints at those depths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

 

 By not havint the stompers attatched to the feel the walker is free to make the strides longer than they could have by having stompers worn on the feet.  The completed track way will show no signs of human prints.  Roger wasn't alone at Bluff Creek and would have had some assistance to insure that his progress across the area was successfully accomplished.

 

018_zps7mjyw9so.jpg

 

Do you recall what you said in a previous post about ground marks .... the same applies when someone gives a ridiculous scenario for how something can be done without so much as testing it for him or herself.

 

By the way, why the talk about stepping on a stick when the Laverty photo shows the upraised levy of soil that caused the dent in the plaster cast? 

 

And why are you talking about about fake feet being attached to stompers when you have been arguing that a guy in a costume made the tracks while wearing boots?  You are reminding me of the gif showing the gorilla throwing his crap at the wall.

 

And a line being the edge of a stomper - I mean really! The track is deep in the substrate and the edge of a wooden stomper only makes a partial line that most likely isn't a line at all which in either case it destroys your man wearing boots inside a costume claim. I can only recommend that you put more thought into your postings so not to make them appear to be more like someone had utilized the logic of a crow to write them.    :)

Wow talk about saying nothing.  

 

 

Did it deserve more when the first lines said, "without a cast or photo the report is just a report.  If there is a cast or photo the person making the report may also have made the track in the first place.  It's nice to say that people are basically honest however people are also known to be dishonest petty and vindictive."

Crowlogic,

 

Are you serious ?

 

Pat...

 

 

Pat,

 

It sounds like he is seriously confused.

 

YES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Faenor:  Posted Today, 03:11 PM

 

You can't just say "science journal" said so without the source. What is the magnitude of difference the paper finds? As far as I've seen in "science journal" there aren't that many dynamic forces involved in a footprint with there is a strike force and a push off.

 

Faenor,

 

The source was not only linked, but quoted from in the thread concerning track depth. Feel free to do a forum search and find it. Images from my field test were also posted.

 

While I take the time to actually find and present such studies for all to read so they not to have to rely on my word for it .... I have not the time to go back and do searches for people who can do them for themselves.  I am less motivated to do your work for you when you jump in talking about Gimlin's jump off the stump which has nothing to do with the dynamic forces involved in bi-pedalism. Go read the thread so you can discuss those forces in an informed way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can't just say "science journal" said so without the source. What is the magnitude of difference the paper finds? As far as I've seen in "science journal" there aren't that many dynamic forces involved in a footprint with there is a strike force and a push off. What creates the strike force itself could have a near infinite number of variables though. A shod foot will disperse the strike force leaving a shallower print. But the same thing is applied to the larger Patty foot. On top of that if you look in science journal you'll see the compliant gait reduces the strike force and disperses it as well. Gimlins jump test isnt dependent on shod unshod comparisons. If you have gimlins weight, high heel boot sole area, height jumped, and depth the force can be calculated. The strike force in pattys step would have to be greater and one could estimate the necessary weight to achieve the footprint depths.

Forensic scientists and investigators have already worked out the equations for shod and unshod feet and footprint depth. They can accurately determine the weight of a subject based on footprint depth and pace. Although using human feet and assuming normal locomotion. With the compliant gait you could assume a shallower depth.

Other issues involve soil compaction and deformation at a certain pressure the deformation of soil is no longer linear. Meaning to achieve party's 6x depth it might take more than 6x the force.

I haven't worked out the math and don't expect to anytime soon. But I can see how it could be done to achieve a rough estimate. From what I've looked at poking through whatever science journals relaying to footprint depth I could find and get access to I think the patty prints are too deep for the figure if it is in fact 6'3" to 6'5". If someone could get the volume of patty I think good estimates of weight could be determined and the footprint question more easily answered.

Also it doesn't really matter how the footprints were created if you can determine that it was impossible for patty to make the footprints at those depths.

 

Faenor,

 

I'll put it quite simple using your own post, bottom paragraph. How is it you think her tracks are to deep based on a guessed height of 6'3" to 6'5" when you haven't even given a guestimate at her weight ? All of the above may sound interestin' to those unfamiliar with tracks...as for myself, not so much. If you'd like, I can go into it further.

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

 You can't just say "science journal" said so without the source.

 

Post 2486

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/page-125

 

There you go, Faenor. I have now done what you didn't do. I had a link for reading the article as I know that I didn't pay for it. You'll have to see what you can find.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't guessing the height i thought that was the general agreed upon height around here.  If not what is the estimated height?  Anyway if the height could be estimated so could the volume or surface area although it would be a bit more difficult. I don't see why gigantofoot couldn't do this with his photogrammetry. Based on either of these calculations the mass could be estimated based on data from mammal weight:volume or weight:surface area ratios. 

 

Im not going to do it myself because im lazy and don't care enough. Im just hoping someone else already has or will to see what they found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Bulk has little to do with whether Patty is a man in a suit. I have posted numerous times a photo of a gorilla said to have weighed 776 pounds at the time of its death, but a man inside a real looking gorilla suit will not weigh but a third as much. If one wishes to play guess what's in the box by merely looking at the box, then watch "Let's Make a Deal" to see how ineffective that can be.   

 

By the way, I hope you cared enough to go read the Science Journal article seeing how you cared enough to ask for it.   :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crowlogic,

 

A simple question, what is the MTB(mid tarsal break) ? 

 

Pat...

What else could it mean in a bigfoot footprint discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is as follows.  All claimed bigfoot prints are manufactured by human beings.  The methodology of making them can vary as can materials.  

 

Since bigfoot does not exist it isn't traveling in any numbers with or without company.

You're using your assertion that "bigfoot doesn't exist" to support the argument that bigfoot doesn't exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...