Jump to content

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


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't think you have even read "science journal" much less understand what is within it. You can not even pick out a section of this "science journal" that goes against anything I have said or demonstrates that the pgf figure some how creates such massive footprints. How many times have you utterly failed to bring forth anything from this fabled "science journal" What's more there are 1000s of other papers on footprints out there and scientists that specialize feet and gait mechanics. But you bizarrely fixate on this one paper which you can't even provide any relevant information from.

They are fake. It doesn't matter how or why but it would be impossible for the figure in the film to create those tracks at those depths. You can provide math or some other proof counter to this.

Actually anyone please work out the math that shows the pgf figure would have mass necessary to create footprints deeper than gimlins lindy hop and 5-6 times deeper than that of a man.

If the bigfoot don't fit you must admit...Its a dude in a suit

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

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.

 

An equal and opposite reaction occurs by hitting two pool balls together ... not in the way you described it. This is something you made up without offering a source for where you got that information. The Forensic Science Journal Article spoke of the mechanics of the foot during the stepping phase and how those dynamics add to achieving a greater track depth. The results of those forces can be seen in this particular profile of a foot cast below.

RPfootcastdynamics_zps2a28a35b.jpg

 

 

How many times have you utterly failed to bring forth anything from this fabled "science journal" What's more there are 1000s of other papers on footprints out there and scientists that specialize feet and gait mechanics. But you bizarrely fixate on this one paper which you can't even provide any relevant information from.

 

The information that you claim does not exist is cited throughout the thread that you were linked to. You are only making yourself look bad by not bothering to read it so in some twisted fashion that allows you to think that if you refuse to read it, then it does not exist.

 

And if nothing else - just stare at the pretty photo below and maybe it will eventually start making sense to you.

tracknumbers1b_zps612c4712.jpg

 

trackdepthtest1_zpsb1d72782.jpg

 

 

Actually anyone please work out the math that shows the pgf figure would have mass necessary to create footprints deeper than gimlins lindy hop and 5-6 times deeper than that of a man.

 

The math was just done through photographic documentation. The horse was more than 3X my own weight and I was able to make a deeper track than it did. The Forensic Science Journal explains how that works - go read it!

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my god!

Look up newtons third law. The foot presses down on the substrate the substrate pushes back on the foot substrate deforms foot lifts mass. middle school science

"The Forensic Science Journal Article spoke of the mechanics of the foot during the stepping phase and how those dynamics add to achieving a greater track depth. The results of those forces can be seen in this particular profile of a foot cast below."

Yea what mechanics exactly and how do they apply to the compliant gait and specifically to the pgf footprint. What dynamics and how exactly are they achieving a greater track depth? You have provided nothing this is generic gobligook. You fail again to bring forth anything specific form your fantasy "science journal". What specifically about the gait and foot of the pgf figure allows such a deep footprints as provided by the paper and what seems to go against what meldrum proposes in with his compliant gait mode of pgf locomotion?

Based on meldrum and daegling the footprint photo you provided is an example of a foot which would create a shallower and more evenly distributed footprint. The large foot with the compliant gait will dampen the peak forces seen in a normal human gait creating a relatively shallower footprint.

For the last time your elementary science experiment was a horse and a man. Not a man and a sasquatch. What more it provides evidence completely against your stance and you don't even realize it. The horse is a much greater mass than youself and yet it created shallower footprints. Hummph why would that be? Maybe large animals seek to diminish large forces in their gait which is reflected in relatively, to mass, shallower footprints. And it is not math!

I put some actual math out there with a theoretical minimal weight, at least 3000lbs, required to create the tracks at the depths described. Prove what is wrong with the math or come up with your own theoretical model which demonstrates a pgf figure could create footprints as described.

Honestly talking to you and sweaty feels like explaining things to my 2 year old. Im going to have a huge melt down like giganto here any minute your making me nuts.

No there are no magical thigh forces . The force form the thighs is reflected in the vertical oscilliation of the figure and the subsequent footprints.

Walking behind a horse and noticing your footprints are deeper than the horse does equal pgf footprints being deeper than a 165lb man jumping off a 4 foot log and 5-6 times deeper than a man.

Pgf foot prints fake im sorry you've wasted your life studying footprints pgf bigfoot whatever. Move on I guess take up gardening or origami maybe.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Wrong, Faenor .... The issue is about the mechanics involved in bi-pedal walking. The hinge points, muscles, and tendons of the foot are all involved in addition to the forward speed and weight of the subject. And I have spoken to Meldrum about the dynamics discussed in the Science Journal of Anthropology pertaining to track depth and he understood it perfectly and agreed with it.

 

You are acting like someone who thinks they can look at a books cover and then be able to give a qualified report on it. It's absurd and only demolishes your credibility in claiming to only be searching for the truth. In case you didn't notice - Patty is bi-pedal and walks upright like a man. The thread I have referenced thoroughly discusses her hinge points and how they apply to the tracks she left behind.

 

And lastly - like Kerry did before getting banned from the BFF - you are not only uniformed about the Science behind the track depth, but you are also trying to make an argument without addressing the most basic rules of Physics by not explaining how the tracks were left on the sandbar if not by the subject seen walking on it. As whacky as Kerry was - he at least came up with an idea that a giant scaffold was built over the site so Roger and Bob could hand dig tracks without disturbing the surface of its substrate. As absurd as his theory was - you have not bothered to come up with anything better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. 

 

 

 

Wrong, Faenor. There is some force applied to the forward leg by the trailing leg....as the foot lands on the ground.

 

You may not realize this....but you can actually create deeper footprints than you normally do, by pushing harder with your trailing leg. You can try the experiment yourself sometime.

 

I did. It was amazing...I was actually able to make deeper footprints...with the same 'body weight' I had only moments earlier. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to get away from forces and talk about pressures.

 

Requires an understanding of the area of the foot at a particular time.

 

(A woman in high heels creates more pressure than an elephant for example).

 

What is our challenge here is to understand exactly how the BF foot contacts the ground and the angle at which Bob's feet impacted the ground. (Did he land with both feet or just one?  Did he lead with his heel or land flat footed?)

 

I have no hope we can answer those questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Gimlin landed with both feet - stuck his heels into the ground - and did not land flat footed. Gimlin's test, while thinking he was doing it right, was not all that related to the way Patty made her deep impressions in the ground. Despite what skeptics think about the genius of Bob and Roger and their ability to sculpt tracks-ways with the detail of another Michelangelo ... the two men were not that informed about what should have been done to better compare Patty's track depth to their own. Gimlin should have taken his shoes off and walked barefoot by one or more of the tracks. Gimlin would be the first to admit that they were inexperienced and were little more than a couple of simple cowboys who didn't put much thought into what they did afterwards to document the film site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

 

Gimlin landed with both feet - stuck his heels into the ground - and did not land flat footed. Gimlin's test, while thinking he was doing it right, was not all that related to the way Patty made her deep impressions in the ground. Despite what skeptics think about the genius of Bob and Roger and their ability to sculpt tracks-ways with the detail of another Michelangelo ... the two men were not that informed about what should have been done to better compare Patty's track depth to their own. Gimlin should have taken his shoes off and walked barefoot by one or more of the tracks. Gimlin would be the first to admit that they were inexperienced and were little more than a couple of simple cowboys who didn't put much thought into what they did afterwards to document the film site.

 

Or they didn't want to do real tests or..... or...... or....... just sayin.

 

Is there any film or photos of the heel print stomp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand the dynamics of the science journal of discussed in the "science journal" which is why you can never actually explain anything from the paper relevant to your argument. "muscle tendons forward speed and weight of a subject all affect foot print size" Yes we covered this several times over. This is not something specific from the paper which supports your argument. Its generic and these factors can work for or against creating a footprint of what appears to be an impossible depth

 You have demonstrated again and again you don't actually understand what is in the "science journal". You just mention dynamics and other variables without giving any details of which would support your argument.

You have a bizarre obsession with this Kerry fellow I feel sorry for him/her and now myself for ever taking the time to engage you.

Im done with you until you can put forward some math which demonstrates the footprints are possible. Im sorry to crush you bigfoot dreams but yes the footprints appear to be faked get over it.

Edited by chelefoot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see these people trying to apply science in a way they feel matches their position.  There are at times more complicated factors needed to consider which are often overlooked.  'Newtons Law' and  this or that sounds impressive.  Yet, there are other factors to consider such as angular momentum and so on.

 

To keep it simple: a bowling ball which is thrown with a twist rotates off the ground and picks up angular momentum changing the dynamics of the pin hit.  The oversimplification which occurs on this thread assumes things which are not true.  Out of 2 throws the one which is thrown faster --in their mind--must cause more Bang to hitting the same pin spot.   In reality it is the slower ball which is spinning off the ground.  Add to even more complicating factors such as [e] and so on and things get even crazier.  The ball which flies down there might actually bounce off the headpin.

 

The whole key to the footprint dynamic is the twist.  The twist of the foot or foot action is no diff than a person jumping off a diving board.  The person who goes in cleanly has less interaction with the water than the person who goes in less cleanly and twisting or tumbling.  The jump in both jumps from the same height (and fall at the same speed) and yet there is a completely different effect.  In one case the SPLASH is small (perfect dive) and the other there is a big splash (less than perfect dive from same height by the same weighted diver).

 

Those who wish to oversimplify newton might sound cool in science class but there is so much more to it.  Sorry.

 

They can even reassure themselves some misinterpreted study or application of the math gives them some pep in their step.  It just ain't so.

 

The way this math is thrown around and the application of fancy words like Newtons Laws are like the math expert who drown in the river because on average it was only 2 feet deep.

 

Trying to apply simple math to complex systems is one of THE biggest signs the math will end up being not just wrong, but will lead to the wrong conclusions.

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Backdoc,

 

Don't you find it odd that Faenor has openly admitted that he has not read the article cited in the Science Journal of Anthropology and in the same breath he tells me that I do not understand what the article is trying to say.


 

^^

 

Gimlin landed with both feet - stuck his heels into the ground - and did not land flat footed. Gimlin's test, while thinking he was doing it right, was not all that related to the way Patty made her deep impressions in the ground. Despite what skeptics think about the genius of Bob and Roger and their ability to sculpt tracks-ways with the detail of another Michelangelo ... the two men were not that informed about what should have been done to better compare Patty's track depth to their own. Gimlin should have taken his shoes off and walked barefoot by one or more of the tracks. Gimlin would be the first to admit that they were inexperienced and were little more than a couple of simple cowboys who didn't put much thought into what they did afterwards to document the film site.

 

Or they didn't want to do real tests or..... or...... or....... just sayin.

 

Is there any film or photos of the heel print stomp?

 

 

As previously stated - the deed was documented on the second reel of film and was witnessed by those who watched that film footage on occasions before Roger's death in 1972. I am sure that John Green regrets not having copied the entire reel when Roger loaned it to him.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Wrong, Faenor. There is some force applied to the forward leg by the trailing leg....as the foot lands on the ground.

 

You may not realize this....but you can actually create deeper footprints than you normally do, by pushing harder with your trailing leg. You can try the experiment yourself sometime.

 

I did. It was amazing...I was actually able to make deeper footprints...with the same 'body weight' I had only moments earlier. :)

In a normal human gait there are two peak forces on the foot when it pushes off and when it lands. Look at the force graph in figure 3.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/206/9/1437

If I purposely push harder, dig in, or stomp my foot I can create deeper footprints, with the same body weight, but that's not what is witnessed in a normal gait.

Notice the compliant gait force graph it demonstrates how the peak forces are minimized leading to a smoother graph with a mostly single peak. It illustrates what meldrum, daegling, donskoy describe when explaining the compliant gait in the film and how it minimizes peak forces. Oh yea and perfectly illustrates my point that the pgf figure should have relatively, to mass, shallower footprints than a person.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Or they didn't want to do real tests or..... or...... or....... just sayin.

 

Roger and Bob are lucky to have done all they had before leaving for Willow Creek and even at that it was dark before they got there. While there Roger called to try and get a tracking dog brought down and some scientist to come and inspect the film site. The two men never got back to camp until after midnight. By morning they were forced to leave the area due to heavy rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see these people trying to apply science in a way they feel matches their position.  There are at times more complicated factors needed to consider which are often overlooked.  'Newtons Law' and  this or that sounds impressive.  Yet, there are other factors to consider such as angular momentum and so on.

 

To keep it simple: a bowling ball which is thrown with a twist rotates off the ground and picks up angular momentum changing the dynamics of the pin hit.  The oversimplification which occurs on this thread assumes things which are not true.  Out of 2 throws the one which is thrown faster --in their mind--must cause more Bang to hitting the same pin spot.   In reality it is the slower ball which is spinning off the ground.  Add to even more complicating factors such as [e] and so on and things get even crazier.  The ball which flies down there might actually bounce off the headpin.

 

The whole key to the footprint dynamic is the twist.  The twist of the foot or foot action is no diff than a person jumping off a diving board.  The person who goes in cleanly has less interaction with the water than the person who goes in less cleanly and twisting or tumbling.  The jump in both jumps from the same height (and fall at the same speed) and yet there is a completely different effect.  In one case the SPLASH is small (perfect dive) and the other there is a big splash (less than perfect dive from same height by the same weighted diver).

 

Those who wish to oversimplify newton might sound cool in science class but there is so much more to it.  Sorry.

 

They can even reassure themselves some misinterpreted study or application of the math gives them some pep in their step.  It just ain't so.

 

The way this math is thrown around and the application of fancy words like Newtons Laws are like the math expert who drown in the river because on average it was only 2 feet deep.

 

Trying to apply simple math to complex systems is one of THE biggest signs the math will end up being not just wrong, but will lead to the wrong conclusions.

 

BD

Newtons law is taught to elementary school students.

The math to determine if the footprints are real or fake is basic algebra learned in middle school.

The physics equations necessary to do the math are taught in high school.

This is not rocket science

You have a basic falling object, gimlin log jump, the work done by gimlins luxurious high heel must be equivalent to the footfall of the pgf figure. Its not that complicated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Faenor

You have a basic falling object, gimlin log jump, the work done by gimlins luxurious high heel must be equivalent to the footfall of the pgf figure. Its not that complicated

 

You cannot be serious. Which when used with the same force will make a deeper cut - striking an axe against a tree or a ball bat? The point of Gimlin's heels cannot be compared to the rounded heels of a bi-ped.

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...