Jump to content

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


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

^^^

 

Crow,

 

Your preconceived notions are fine.  I don't understand in your case why they keep you from discussing any point brought up.  It seems to me anyway your posts are just designed to say, "HA you idiots you can't see this is fake"  That is the continued and total content.   

 

Point on this Q:  We know Gimlin has stated he got up when it started raining that night and wanted to cover the tracks.  Gimlin claims Roger  (having had the evidence already in the film and so on) felt no need to get up in the middle of the night.  Gimlin got up at near daybreak and went back. The cardboard he had for that attempt was too wet.  He claims he went there anyway and used big pieces of bark to try to cover up some tracks. 

 

All I am asking is if this one piece of the Gimlin story has any other support.  If someone arrived on the scene soon after and saw some bark over some tracks then it implied Gimlin is telling the truth about covering some tracks.  It does not tell us if the tracks were real or even if he went back and covered them, or when he did.

 

It is possible the site of the tracks was so unusual it did not dawn on anyone finding it some of the tracks were covered with bark.  Those witnesses might report not seeing anything like that as they were focused on the tracks they saw.  We don't see what is covered when other things not covered get our attention and focus.

 

In order to piece the PGF events together, it does require asking Q like this.  Asking the Q does not make the tracks real and it does not make them fake.  It is simply a Q. 

 

Everyone benefits when we find out answers to Q like this.

 

No one benefits when we have posts such as "Bigfoot is Real- Get over it"  or  "Bigfoot is fake- Get over it"

 

Post how you feel, but I would prefer you actually add to the discussion so we all can learn from each other.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backdoc,

 

In Meldrum's book it mentions Titmus examining the tracks "..Roger and Bob had covered a few of them with slabs of bark etc., and these were in excellent condition."

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pat. 

 

I hate taking folklore and other things 'I heard somewhere' when I can get more info.

 

This makes me think if they pulled a hoax they would not cover the tracks. The rain would wash away traces of the hoax working to their advantage. 

 

If they had the sighting as a real event I see some sense in Gimlins story for both Roger and Bob which makes sense.

 

Roger was tired and did not want to get up and dismissive of the rain coming.  He has in the story the actions of someone who had caste the tracks already and got the sighting on film.  I can imagine it is reasonable he was laying there saying in his mind, "It's late, we got casts of these tracks and probably got the creature on film.  I am tired.  Go back to bed"

 

Gimlin who up until that time claims he did not believe or was not a bigfoot guy has actions that night as well.  He claims he was laying there and heard the rain and the rain was picking up. I can see Gimlin as a former doubter think, "I know we may have got this thing on film and we have some plaster prints we made, but I want others to see the tracks so they believe us. They may be doubters like I was and I don't want them doubting me.  Roger may not have captured this on film.  We need to save any trace we can so people don't think I am nuts"  

 

Gimlin was motived to get up and cover the tracks that night/early AM where Roger was not in Gimlin's story. 

 

To me, the fact Gimlin tried to cover the tracks is a similar thing to consider as Roger going through money to see the Thiland Bigfoot.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^^OTOH there was a track line with really really deep really really real bigfoot tracks and there were concerned "experts" that came to see the site.  Consider the bark covered tracks would have stood out breaking up the continuity of the really really deep really really real bigfoot track line and as such should have garnered attention.  Unless of course the investigators were bumblers who wouldn't have noticed even if Gimlin had been able to paint the bark with day glo safety orange.

 

Your talking foolish like you did in post 191 when claiming Gimlin went out in pitch black darkness to find the film site. Do you not ever get tired of being shown to just be an uniformed mouth-piece! Titmus who heard of the film being made while he was visiting his folks in California went looking for the film site. Titmus saw the tracks and then removed the bark from the tracks he had cast. I know this because I recall it being mentioned in a letter Bob Titmus had written John Green to report what he had just seen while there.

 

It may be worth emailing Perez to see if Laverty mentioned the bark covered tracks as well. In fact, Laverty is on record saying that he found nothing at the site that didn't support what had been reported to have taken place there.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

On Monterquest Gimlin gives and interview where he states someone brought an impression gauge of some sort to bluff creek after the fact (encounter) putting the weight of Patty at 750+ lbs.   

 

Anyone know anything about this impression gauge thing?

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

To faenor - dmaker - etc..

 

I have hunted and tracked for 4.5 decades. I have studied the best cast that came from the PGF site and viewed  the best images from the track-way. I have on many times over the years have done field test to know what happens in the process of making tracks and what time does to them over time.

 

dmaker has not offered any explanations based on the evidence surrounding the PGF site tracks. The PGF site was not made of deep snow or mud. The site was made of sand made up of various textures which the subject in Patterson's film left tracks double the depth of a 1400lb quarter horse and 5 to 6 times deeper than other men who walked amongst them. The sandbar was not flat but very uneven with dunes and ridges formed by various weather conditions. If you have an idea as to how those tracks were made in any other way than by the subject seen walking over that sandbar in Patterson's film, then by all means you can post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could point out you weren't there, there are very few images remaining of the trackway, and we cant go and inspect the tracks now. Also how there have been several reasonable explanations for how fake bigfoot tracks were created including those of the pgf. But your right they have to be real and so do all bigfoot tracks. Humans cannot fake bigfoot tracks its never been done. Lets all put are fingers in are ears and close our eyes like bigfoot hunter and pretend a bigfoot trackway is an impossible feat.

We can also close our minds to logic and pretend that the 5-6 times depth than that of a man doesn't actually point to a hoax that the figure in the film could not have created. We can ignore all this and look at an elementary school science fair exhibit about a man walking behind a horse creating deeper footprints and bring up science journal we don't understand and claim "the pgf must have created these footprints because a man created deeper footprints than a horse once and science journal talked about the dynamics of footprints. Even though I actually have no way to bring anything relevant from it to support the pgf magically creating footprints 5-6 times deeper than a man"

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

 

Faenor,

 

 

We know from watching the PGF Patty was at Bluff Creek. There is not doubt about the exact spot in the film.  There is not doubt the Patty figure walked on Bluff creek soil.  This is on the film as well.  The Patty Figure left some tracks.  Tell me please WHY someone would have to go fake tracks after the event.

 

All we ever hear from skeptics is the generic truth that some generic track can be faked.  We never hear in the specific instance of the PGF WHY there would be any need to fake such a track.  I don't even want to hear how you think this may have occurred.  All I am asking is WHY someone would need to go out and fake some tracks after the event.  This does lead to another Q as to Why someone would then need to remove or change the tracks that were the original result of Patty walking in the first place.

 

Please convince me.

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wanted deep tracks to emphasize the size of the creature. Hence gimlin doing the jump test. Bigfoot is supposed to be large and should leave deep tracks. A man in a bigfoot costume isn't going to leave tracks deep enough to sell the con.

"Look at the size of these footprints boys no human could make prints this deep watch as I jump off the stump in my high heels. Bam not as deep as the monster! Hey look where your walking the monsters tracks are 5-6 times deeper than yours! Some guys going to repeat this 5-6 times thing constantly in the future and i'll sit back and laugh everytime"

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets look at the figures briefly so take a man 150 to 200 lbs if a similar man was to create footprints 5-6 times as deep with the same exact sized foot its going to take a 750-900 or 1000-1200 lb man. Of course comparing the pgf figure to a human is much different.

PGF prints have a much greater surface area the force of the footfall will decrease in proportion to the area coming in contact with the ground.

According to dimitry donsoky and Jeffrey meldrum the pgf figure displays a gait which would decrease the peak ground forces on footfall.

I was at the elementary school science fair the other day and I noticed a neat exhibit by a student who walked behind her horse and noticed her footprints went deeper than her horse. Being only 8 she didn’t bother to do much work like look into how much force goes into a horse and human footfall and then create theoretical models to determine the difference in peak forces between the two. No the student only did their field test so to speak. The student also failed to think about what the implications of this phenomenon were. That a horse being a large animal would evolve a gait and hoof which would minimize the forces having such a large mass would impart.

That being said the supposed Sasquatch is reported, from credible vetted reports mind you, of heights reaching at least 12 feet! It would appear the Sasquatch would have also evolved to diminish the force of such mass. Hence the gait as well as the large feet.

On top of this footprint depth is not linear. The greater the force applied does not give a proportional greater depth. At a point the depth decreases with the increase of force and compaction of substrate.

By this logic the pgf figure would need a much greater mass than simply a scaled up human with the same shoe size, 750-1200lbs, to achieve a foot print 5-6 times as deep.

If we accept the work of giganto as a certified photogrammetrist, as say the bigfoot hunter did, than we must accept the height estimate of what 6’5†or so.

I think we can all safely assume that the mass would be too great for what we see in the film for a 6’5†figure.

It doesn’t matter how the footprints were created or why. If it is not possible for the figure in the film to create footprints at the depth described the how and why are unimportant.

If the foot don’t fit you must admit…it’s a fake!

To prove me wrong fill in the blanks and work out all the math otherwise sorry it looks like fake footprints and a hoax. It’s also possible, maybe easier, to work back from the gimlin high heel hop

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but...the tracks..they are 5 to 6x deeper. Let me say that again, in case you haven't seen it before...5 TO 6 X DEEPER. Deeper than the mere mortals who walked around the tracks. 

 

That's science. Nuff said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets look at the figures briefly so take a man 150 to 200 lbs if a similar man was to create footprints 5-6 times as deep with the same exact sized foot its going to take a 750-900 or 1000-1200 lb man. Of course comparing the pgf figure to a human is much different.

On top of this footprint depth is not linear. The greater the force applied does not give a proportional greater depth. At a point the depth decreases with the increase of force and compaction of substrate.

By this logic the pgf figure would need a much greater mass than simply a scaled up human with the same shoe size, 750-1200lbs, to achieve a foot print 5-6 times as deep.

To prove me wrong fill in the blanks and work out all the math otherwise sorry it looks like fake footprints and a hoax. It’s also possible, maybe easier, to work back from the gimlin high heel hop

 

 

How much force did you estimate for Patty's massive thighs, Faenor?? :popcorn:

 

They create energy/force...which increases the impact of the foot on the ground, above-and-beyond the force generated by the subject's 'body weight'. 

 

You also need to account for the flexibility of the foot. 

 

So, why don't you put all the numbers together, and get back to us? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

There's several problems with the track depth argument. One is that you're relying on the idea that Bob's estimate is correct and that he wasn't exaggerating. Another is that you're assuming that Patty weighs as much as you think she looks. Also, if you walk along a creek bed, you'll notice the depth that your foot sinks into the ground often varies depending on where exactly you're stepping. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

We can also close our minds to logic and pretend that the 5-6 times depth than that of a man doesn't actually point to a hoax that the figure in the film could not have created. We can ignore all this and look at an elementary school science fair exhibit about a man walking behind a horse creating deeper footprints and bring up science journal we don't understand and claim "the pgf must have created these footprints because a man created deeper footprints than a horse once and science journal talked about the dynamics of footprints. Even though I actually have no way to bring anything relevant from it to support the pgf magically creating footprints 5-6 times deeper than a man"

 

Congrats for having a talent for talking a lot without actually saying anything.  You also managed to not address how such deep tracks were made at the film site. And while I was not there ... I know people who saw the second reel of film on the 25th of October in Vancouver. Gimlin was filmed walking his horse next to the tracks while sitting atop of it and Bob was also filmed jumping off a stump and sticking the heel of his boots next to the subjects footprint. We also have some of the track-way on film that can be viewed. Laverty, one of the first to see the film site after Patterson had left it, had said that there was nothing visible at the site that would make him think that the event did not occur just as Roger and Bob had described it. I know of no one who was present when the second reel was screened were ever heard saying that what was reported was not what was viewed on the second reel.

 

Because we are talking about a loamy substrate where many of the tracks were made - and the fact that it was uneven with ridges and mounds that offer no sign that anyone walked up to those prints ....no broken ridges or crushed mounds .... we are left with the only option that the subject seen in the film made them. Again this is based on the evidence as a whole. To claim the tracks were made in an artificial manner other than walking over the site calls for a rational alternative. The sandbar might as well of been covered in a fresh fallen snow for to walk over it without leaving imprints in the ground doesn't pass the laugh test. To date there has not been a single rational explanation as to how those deep tracks could have been made anyone other than by the subject seen in the act making them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets look at the figures briefly so take a man 150 to 200 lbs if a similar man was to create footprints 5-6 times as deep with the same exact sized foot its going to take a 750-900 or 1000-1200 lb man. Of course comparing the pgf figure to a human is much different.

On top of this footprint depth is not linear. The greater the force applied does not give a proportional greater depth. At a point the depth decreases with the increase of force and compaction of substrate.

By this logic the pgf figure would need a much greater mass than simply a scaled up human with the same shoe size, 750-1200lbs, to achieve a foot print 5-6 times as deep.

To prove me wrong fill in the blanks and work out all the math otherwise sorry it looks like fake footprints and a hoax. It’s also possible, maybe easier, to work back from the gimlin high heel hop

 

 

How much force did you estimate for Patty's massive thighs, Faenor?? :popcorn:

 

They create energy/force...which increases the impact of the foot on the ground, above-and-beyond the force generated by the subject's 'body weight'. 

 

You also need to account for the flexibility of the foot. 

 

So, why don't you put all the numbers together, and get back to us? :)

The force from the supposed massive thighs is the force required to lift the figure off the ground in its gait. The force is dependent on the mass of the figure and the height of lift in its normal gait. You estimate this the same way you would do so for any creature variables being mass and height of step. The force of the thighs is no more than what is required to lift the figure through each step as seen in the film.

Sweaty yeti there was a fellow named newton who came up with some laws you should check it out. We are assuming the pgf obeys these laws yes?

The flexibility of the foot would allow for more even distribution of pressure and decrease peak forces see meldrums theoretical Bigfoot compliant gait.

I threw down the gauntlet mister yeti believer its your job to run the numbers and prove me wrong.

Are you suggesting ontario Bigfoot that true blue salt of the earth Gimlin would lie or be mistaken? For shame.

I agree with you if the pgf is an alien, as per your beliefs, than all bets are off.

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...