Jump to content

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


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

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. 

 

The track depth test were filmed along with the results, thus there was no estimate to be considered. And while track depth will vary depending on where one steps - this is why Gimlin rode his horse next to the tracks and not at some irrelevant location. The same method was implemented when I stepped within inches of a horse's track. Doing it this way makes the above concerns moot.

 

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? :)

 

 

SweatyYeti,

 

Reading Faenor's response above is testament that he doesn't understand the dynamics of bi-pedal walking concerning the foot mechanics as described in the Science Journal.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Oh my god I must be completely wron you know people who have seen th magically disappeared film. My arguments bankrupt!

Hold still Bigfoot finder. Fake tracks could be created to fool those who are gullible, ignorant, or foolish. It's just a possibility you have to accept.

If you live in a world where it's not possible to fool someone through clever manipulation I'm sorry to inform you we live in such a world.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

The track depth test were filmed along with the results, thus there was no estimate to be considered. And while track depth will vary depending on where one steps - this is why Gimlin rode his horse next to the tracks and not at some irrelevant location. The same method was implemented when I stepped within inches of a horse's track. Doing it this way makes the above concerns moot.

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? :)

 

SweatyYeti,

 

Reading Faenor's response above is testament that he doesn't understand the dynamics of bi-pedal concerning the foot mechanics as described in the Science Journal.

"science journal" again Bigfoot hunter really. If you can't take the time to cite the article provide the title and or author. It reflects poorly on yourself.

Please enlighten us with a passage, not lifted from the abstract please,in your "science journal" which explicitly points out an error I've made regarding footprint depth and bipedal locomotion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faking tracks

 

What it comes down to is this belief they put a man in a suit. Then they either

 

1) removed the original traces of footprints left by Patty and stomped new ones.  This assumes they could do all of this while being unseen out there in the open and spotted by Lyle L and others.  If spotted all the effort and money is lost as well as any future attempt to ever do it again as they would have been known hoaxers if spotted. Also they may not even know they were noticed.  They also do this track faking by leaving no traces of the original tracks, no traces of their presence, and the resulting fake tracks looked real somehow. They had not seen the film so they could not be sure the faked tracks would easily line up with the positions of the original tracks.

 

2) kept the original tracks and somehow dug them deeper in some manner all while not being noticed and not leaving other traces.  Again if just one person saw them doing these things, they would be caught as hoaxers.  Does digging tracks deeper give a great result?   I doubt it.

 

These 2 hoax possibilities seem a bit of a stretch.  

 

The only fake-the-tracks scenario I find even possible would be the tracks were a result of the man in the suit making them with suit feet at the time of the event.  Depth of tracks would be tricky and even an attempt to make them deeper to suggest a larger beast is problematic.  The soil would be varied and varied conditions from step to step.  That is why I don't think a hoaxer would even bother.

 

Even if they planned to try to avoid filming the feet of Patty during the filming, they could not be certain they would miss the feet in the filming.  They basically had one shot.  Then , only later did they even view the film to see what was on it.  We all know Roger was running forward and he was not filming on some fixed tripod.  There was no second take.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Are you serious??  Check-out the forces generated by these people's legs:

 

 

 

Top force....2300 lbs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let’s look at the famous gimlin high heel hop. So gimlin jumps off a stump 3-4 feet in his ridiculous high heel boots and can’t quite match the supposed pgf footprints.

This is pretty easy math converting to metric makes it easier. Ill go with 4 feet considering it says jumping not falling off the log and a weight of 165 lbs.

PE=mgh mgh=mv^2/2 W=(mv^2/2)final-(mv^2/2)initial

Impact force=((mv^2/2)final)/d

PE:potential energy

M:mass

G:gravitational acceleration

W:work

V:velocity

D: distance traveled after impact

H: height

Assumptions: The distance after impact, footprint depth, can be considered equal

It all boils down to (mh)gimlin=(mh)pgf

What is needed to find the mass is the vertical oscillations of the pgf figure in its gait. The height for the pgf figure is from the foot pushing off how and high this lifts the body before falling back down and impacting the ground with the other foot. You could find this by measuring the vertical oscillations of the head seen in the film. A range of vertical oscillations during its gait from 2cm to 20cm this would give a necessary mass of the pgf figure a 4500kg to 450kg.

This of course is assuming that the surface area of the high heel and the portion of the pgf foot coming in contact with the ground at footfall are equal. Which they are not. This is also assuming a bigfoot does nothing to dampen the peak forces and just falls on its foot during its gait which doesn’t appear the case according to meldrum and daegling.

Ive seen figures for the surface area of the pgf prints ranging from around 66 to 83in2 and the high heel around 5 in2. Of course a bigfoot would not step down on its whole foot . Lets say a quarter to a third of the low 60 in2 for a bigfoot foot will impact upon footfall. That gives 15-20in2 3 to 4 times the surface area of gimlins glamorous high heel.

Going with the high oscillating gait of 20cm, or about a 8 in, and the smaller foot estimate the pgf would mass would need to be 1350kg or 2976lbs. Oh dear!

Some more

“The dynamic signature of the footprints concurs with numerous eyewitness accounts noting the smoothness of the gait exhibited by the Sasquatch. For example, one witness stated, "...it seemed to glide or float as it moved." Absent is the vertical oscillation of the typical stiff-legged human gait. The compliant gait not only reduces peak ground reaction forces, but also avoids concentration of weight over the heel and ball, as well as increases the period of double support.â€

Meldrum, Jeffery. Evaluation of alleged sasquatch footprints and their iferred functional morphology.

“First, bigfoot has a flat foot. This means that the pressure it exets on the soil is more evenly distributed across its sole than in a human foot, which is usually arched along part of its length and width. If we use the Patterson film to argue that bigfoot uses a compliant gait, then we can also conclude that the dynamics of the sasquatch stance phase* the way in which the foot contacts and leaves the ground in walking) are also different than the human patter. People don’t walk flat footed in that the heel strikes the ground first and only then does the weight of the body get transferred toward the front of the foot. In a compliant gait, the pressure exerted by the foot is dispersed more evenly across the sole because the heel-strike and toe-off of normal human bipedialism is of a different variety-and greater dispersion of pressure will be more pronounced in a flat foot. In using a compliant gait, bigfoot also has an extended period of “double support†that is, a greater proportion of the stride cycle involves both feet on the ground compared to a human foot. This too will tend to decrease the overall pressure imparted to the ground . Finally, what we would really like to know is how hard bigfoot presses its foot into the soil when it walks , and this is something difficult to get a handle on. What we do know from studies from people when a compliant gait is used the initial impact of the heel is higher but the peak force on the ground is actually lower. Taken collectively these observations suggest that even though the sasquatch foot may be twice the size of a human one in terms of area the overall pressure it exerts might be a mere fraction of a persons.â€

Daegling, David J. Bigfoot exposed: an anthropologist examines America's enduring legend. Rowman Altamira, 2004.

You can play around with the numbers a bit there’s lots of room for variation but the basic point is the prints were made too deep. They are fake as a three dollar bill yall.

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.

 

 

Are you serious??  Check-out the forces generated by these people's legs:

 

 

 

Top force....2300 lbs.

These people are kicking not walking your silly. You make no sense

If you trained a bigfoot I suppose it could deliver a powerful kick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Faenor_

Oh my god I must be completely wron you know people who have seen th magically disappeared film. My arguments bankrupt!

Hold still Bigfoot finder. Fake tracks could be created to fool those who are gullible, ignorant, or foolish. It's just a possibility you have to accept.
If you live in a world where it's not possible to fool someone through clever manipulation I'm sorry to inform you we live in such a world.

 

You have been asked several times to offer a rational sensible example that would fit within the evidence surrounding the film site and while you have no problem spouting rhetoric - you have offered zero when it comes to how someone can make deep impressions into the film site without disturbing the surrounding substrate. Maybe we should remove the word possible to realistic or probable. One could argue that someone could walk along the bottom of the ocean and come ashore on another Continent by simply holding their breath, but that wouldn't make it worth consideration based on the size of the ocean and the underwater distance that would be traveled.

 

So let us start again, shall we .......  The second reel of film did not magically disappear. News reporters and various other people were invited to come and see that film. For several years while Patterson was alive - the second reel was not missing. For example:  John Green had possession of the camera original of the second film reel at one point when he borrowed it from Roger Patterson to take a segment of the track-way footage off of it to place it on his public speaking reel. I might add that portions of that second reel made it onto the News in the Vancouver area following the showing of it on the 25th of October in 1967. I have seen some of that film footage, as well as Thomas Steenburg as we have discussed it several times over the years trying to think of how it came to be so we could possibly trace it down, but it was so long ago that we so far have come up empty for the source. As time and resources allow - I will continue to investigate the matter like Thomas and I had done when we tracked down Kieth Chizzari (the pilot who flew the Green party to California in August of 1967). John Green admits to portions of that Vancouver showing making it onto the TV News, but its been far to many years for him to know exactly which Station(s) carried it. It is unfortunate, but understandable because no one considered at the time that Patterson would relapse and die by 1972 and not have left a record behind of where his films had gone to and when. In other words - Roger's amateur ways of handling these films was most unfortunate in his loaning of the camera original's out and not keeping a record of who had them at any given time. But for several years following the Bluff Creek encounter - those original films were available to those who wanted to use them as Green had done. So as you can see - they did not magically disappear like those bent on making a conspiracy out of everything like to say.

 

Now about faking tracks .... rather than to use the terms you did, I will say that tracks have been made to fool people. The problem is that the Bluff Creek sandbar was unique in the sense that it was a natural formed site that had been sculpted by weather. As stated many times and witnessed in the film - it was anything but flat. This complicates things immensely.

Pattys%20foot%20dynamics%20in%20motion_z

 

The substrate between the tracks is not only uneven, but it also appears to be unaltered. I have yet to hear a single rational explanation as to how someone could walk atop of the loamy uneven sand without crushing the mounds and ridges. The bottom line is that all critics can do is say that anything is possible, but in my view that is a child's game. It's like walking over snow and following tracks while claiming that someone could have faked them in some way other than how the film shows it to have occurred. One may as well make a claim that a rock was thrown and passed through a pane of glass without breaking it. One can say it could be possible, but it's not probable or realistic.

IMG_0166_zpsvtgeskdo.jpg IMG_0129_zps0l0wpuxq.jpg

 

Now I will address the Science Journal Article on the dynamics involved in the causes of track depth. You were asked to go back and read the thread pertaining to it. I know for a fact that you did not do that because you are asking for a citing of the information found in the article when in fact it was cited from many times in the thread. At the time of my posting on it - the article was still online and free. Members like Myself, Roguefooter, Pat, SweatyYeti, Gigantofootecus, and ex-member Kerry were among those discussing it. When you wanted me to prove the article existed - I did that. You were supplied with the link - the thread it was discussed in - and the abstract summary. Because the article appears to now have been archived - there is a minimal fee to get access to it online. If informing yourself isn't worth the $3.00 or so to enlighten yourself, then you are obviously not serious about the track depth issue as you have pretended to be. And if you cannot afford the $3.00 or so, then you can browse the thread and read the quotes taken from it. But there is one other option that will allow you access to the article without spending a few dollars to have it at your disposal and that is to take the information I have provided you and others several times now and go to or call your local library and request it. If the library doesn't have the Science Journal of Anthropology archived in-house, then they can get it on loan from one of the large libraries. I know this because I have done it with other books and magazines. And while they may not allow you to leave the building with it because it being a magazine - they do allow people to make copies by scanning the pages from it.

 

So there you go - I cannot do more for you than what I have done. As the old saying goes ... 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. How thirsty for knowledge  are you?


Faking tracks

 

What it comes down to is this belief they put a man in a suit. Then they either

 

1) removed the original traces of footprints left by Patty and stomped new ones.  This assumes they could do all of this while being unseen out there in the open and spotted by Lyle L and others.  If spotted all the effort and money is lost as well as any future attempt to ever do it again as they would have been known hoaxers if spotted. Also they may not even know they were noticed.  They also do this track faking by leaving no traces of the original tracks, no traces of their presence, and the resulting fake tracks looked real somehow. They had not seen the film so they could not be sure the faked tracks would easily line up with the positions of the original tracks.

 

2) kept the original tracks and somehow dug them deeper in some manner all while not being noticed and not leaving other traces.  Again if just one person saw them doing these things, they would be caught as hoaxers.  Does digging tracks deeper give a great result?   I doubt it.

 

These 2 hoax possibilities seem a bit of a stretch.  

 

The only fake-the-tracks scenario I find even possible would be the tracks were a result of the man in the suit making them with suit feet at the time of the event.  Depth of tracks would be tricky and even an attempt to make them deeper to suggest a larger beast is problematic.  The soil would be varied and varied conditions from step to step.  That is why I don't think a hoaxer would even bother.

 

Even if they planned to try to avoid filming the feet of Patty during the filming, they could not be certain they would miss the feet in the filming.  They basically had one shot.  Then , only later did they even view the film to see what was on it.  We all know Roger was running forward and he was not filming on some fixed tripod.  There was no second take.

 

Backdoc

 

And invited scientist, dog handlers with tracking dogs , and anyone else to go to the film site to investigate the evidence.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another factor to consider. Patty may have walked a path, which differed from where the trackway was fabricated. That path may not have had substrate which left noticeable tracks. This may be the reason Jim McLaren walked so far off from Pattys location. He was following the hand crafted trackway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

This matter was considered. McClarin was at the film site twice with the first time being soon after Titmus went there. Jim saw the tracks and also saw where Titmus had cast ten of them. Before that - Laverty and his crew had been to the film site and seen the tracks prior to the arrival of Titmus. There has never been any dispute as to where Patty had walked by those who went there and seen the track-way.

 

The second time was with Green and Jim said that the plaster residue around the tracks was still visible. All these tracks (according to Jim) were in the opening sequences of the film. Then the sandbar turned into gravel which made the tracks difficult to see, if at all.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

These people are kicking not walking your silly. You make no sense.

 

 

 

The point was, Faenor....your statements are incorrect...

 

 

 

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. The force of the thighs is no more than what is required to lift the figure through each step as seen in the film. 

 

 

Regardless of what type of leg movement is involved....the fact of the matter is, the leg/thigh muscles generate force...which adds to the force created by the subject's body weight/mass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Half a century later and not a single molecule of the beast being confirmed by real science is more than enough to send Patty packing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

 

This matter was considered. McClarin was at the film site twice with the first time being soon after Titmus went there. Jim saw the tracks and also saw where Titmus had cast ten of them. Before that - Laverty and his crew had been to the film site and seen the tracks prior to the arrival of Titmus. There has never been any dispute as to where Patty had walked by those who went there and seen the track-way.

 

The second time was with Green and Jim said that the plaster residue around the tracks was still visible. All these tracks (according to Jim) were in the opening sequences of the film. Then the sandbar turned into gravel which made the tracks difficult to see, if at all.

 

These are they type of details which seem to get overlooked by those who will say, "Maybe it was [this or that]"  All the pieces need to fit under a hoax scenario or a Patty-is-real scenario. 

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Half a century later and not a single molecule of the beast being confirmed by real science is more than enough to send Patty packing.  

 

Your post messages remind me of listening to a Parot talk. It says words it has heard, but hasn't a clue as to what the words mean.

 

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
 
Now how about using a little science to figure out how Patty made such deep tracks in the sandbar that other men couldn't do.
Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are kicking not walking your silly. You make no sense.

 

 

The point was, Faenor....your statements are incorrect...

 

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. The force of the thighs is no more than what is required to lift the figure through each step as seen in the film. 

 

 

Regardless of what type of leg movement is involved....the fact of the matter is, the leg/thigh muscles generate force...which adds to the force created by the subject's body weight/mass.

The thigh muscles provide the force equivalent to lift the mass to whatever height. More force more height. As the figure is walking the force generated by the thighs is enough to lift the figure off the ground the few inches in the film. No more no less. This force is also impacted onto the substrate in an equal but opposite direction creating a footprint. If the figure was applying more force from its creamy massive thighs than it would lift higher and create a greater impact on the substrate. Equal but opposite reaction. This is middle school science sweaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

backdoc

These are they type of details which seem to get overlooked by those who will say, "Maybe it was [this or that]"

 

 

 

 

 

Those details have been posted more times than I can count, so "overlooked" may be the wrong term to use - try purposely ignored.

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...