Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

But dont forget, we dont know where the tracks were cast. Roger took just two of the most clearest ones but we dont know the exact spot he took them. They might have been from a spot not in the footage, or not at the spot we see Patty's feet in the footage. Then Titmus took a series of consecutive tracks and a lot of them are blobby. It may be that the substrate that was on Patty's feet was more substantial at one point, then lesser at another point. We just dont see enough of Patty's feet to be sure about this.

 

I still am of the opinion what is on her feet is nothing more than wet substrate, with some of it spreading up over the left heel. She must have had wet feet as according to Titmus it was obvious to him she came down the hard road and crossed the creek onto the sandbar as all her tracks went one way and there were no tracks on the sandbar coming from the opposite direction or anywhere else so the only way she could get to the sandbar was to cross the wet creek. These wet feet likely had more (and less) substrate clinging to them at various points. Her left foot might have stepped in a thicker gloop at one point and that could explain the "blockfoot" appearence to her left foot, although others think it is just motion blur.

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

But dont forget, we dont know where the tracks were cast. Roger took just two of the most clearest ones but we dont know the exact spot he took them.

 

I have never read where anyone said that Patty walked through mud. I have never seen any footcast that demonstrated the subject stepped in mud. There are several tracks seen on some existing footage showing one of the prints with plaster still drying in it. There was wet packed sand to dry sand  in the existing images and the heel is visible in the cibrachrome images and show a similar exposed heel as in the latter frames in question. Of course some substrate could be stuck to the sole of the foot for its visible in the bluish gray color of the two foot cast Roger is holding at the tree. Before the subject crossed the creek it walked over gravel and the creek is made up of stones. If there was something stuck to the heel, then while it could be possible - I just haven't seen solid evidence of it. 

 

By the way, the foot images as seen through the trees were very well done. I don't recall who posted them, but nice job in showing them to everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mud was probably a wrong word for me to use. I'll stick to substrate. Bob Gimlin said the soil was loamy, which is a clay/silt/sand mixture. He also said to John Green that he thinks the bottom of the feet were that light color due to the soil it walked over, i.e meaning this soil adhered to the feet. He also said there could have been variations in the soil at various points.

 

Assuming differently and there WAS a hairless patch making that light area on the heel then the same applies to the rest of the bottom of the feet right? That Patty's skin was very light on the bottom of the feet and its not simply substratum clinging to them there??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I supposed anything coulld be possible to some extent, but I have done lots of footprint test with my own foot and my experience has been that when my foot is wet - the first step or two picks up grains of sand which adheres to the bottom of my foot for a few steps, but nothing caked. The Laverty photos show that the loamy sand was packed flat from the subjects weight with no clumps of substrate being pulled from the print. One of Laverty's photos had shown a crumbled track that was made in very dry sand. Patterson's two cast reflect the same thing or else they would have impressions where clumps of substrated was pulled from the ground as the foot stepped off. The color seen on Roger's cast is tinted sand grains that the plaster picked up. Steenburg has the same thing happen when he duplicates a footprint using sand in his casting box.

 

So all I am saying is that your theory can be tested by looking at the track images and cast to which I can't find evidence that anything other than Patty's hyde is seen. That hyde most likely has fine grains embedded or adhered to the foot. The point is that the same area is seen as bald throughout the film while the available images of the prints left behind appear smooth. Again we are left with what is most probable to which I stated my observations. You may be correct - I just haven't seen evidence of anything being caked on the feet of Patty.    :)

 

And yes, the pigment of the base of the foot would be expected to be lighter than the hyde in other areas of the body.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

There was a logging crew in Bluff Creek around the time of the PGF. Are there any reports they saw footprints around the time of the PGF in areas other than the famous Bluff Creek site?

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

I'm not aware of any. My own opinion is that Patty came down out of the forested hillside, moved across the old hard packed road and then traversed the creek, leaving no footprints until she was on the sandbar. She went for that spot as she wanted a drink and there was the cover of the tree jam and maybe would have gone back the same way, again leaving few prints had she not been interrupted by Patterson and Gimlin and forced to retreat over the softer sandbar, where of course she left many tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

I've always wondered if the soil there was marl especially considering the flooding.  You don't leave tracks when you walk in it if there isn't moisture, but leave high definition tracks where there is moisture.  It's finer textured than sand and it washes away easily unless there are layers upon layers of it like in this area where I took this picture.

post-134-0-34741700-1424614936.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the skeptics tell us if Patty is a man in a suit, are the feet rubber/ costume feet ? 

 

If so, how do the toes extend on the step and observed on the PGF?

 

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Backdoc

Who made the tracks?

 

It seems odd to me we have an assumption made by many skeptics Roger or someone actually dug, stamped, or by some means made the tracks.  This puzzles me.  Is this because of Bob H saying roger faked this tracks?

 

If the tracks were faked certainly the figure of Patty would make some traces or tracks as clearly the Patty figure is walking in the kind of place that would leave traces.  So why the need to fake these tracks.  Why not have a guy in a suit as the source of the tracks? 

 

The most simple thing to do would be to have the guy put on the suit and walk and whatever traces are left are left.  So once again, why the need to fake the tracks?

 

I think there are some that make this assumption because Bob H claims some tracks were faked (after the filming, and Bob did not see this occur).  So thus if they buy Bob H story they buy this part of the story as well. 

 

For the many others, I think the reason they make this "The tracks were faked by Roger the master of everything" is the track evidence is pretty strong in favor of the PGF being real.  That way, they must come up with some method or assertion the tracks were faked.

 

Faking tracks isn't required to pull off a hoax. The truth is, a hoax would be more believable if the rubber feet of the suit left tracks and those involved in the filming claimed those tracks as the tracks. That way there is no Q the tracks would match up with the film. Remember the film was not developed and they had no idea if in fact the film showed the Patty figure leaving traces.  They had no idea if the film showed say 2 tracks about 2 feet away from the S branch. If it did, and the actual tracks Lyle L or other discovered did not show this, it would point to the original tracks being covered up and new ones being manufactured.

 

Yet, in spite of all of this, there just seems to be some reason the skeptics think the hoaxers added a step and removed the original tracks and all traces by some unknown means and then stomped some impression of tracks risking the hoax.  None of that makes any sense.

 

The BFF skeptics is just required to believe the tracks were faked by these means.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Who made the tracks?

 

It seems odd to me we have an assumption made by many skeptics Roger or someone actually dug, stamped, or by some means made the tracks.

 

It's what they say to keep the hoax allegations alive when they have no rational explanations to offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This fake trackway question and a few others made me wonder. Why on earth would Patterson give out the location so soon after filming Patty? A good (effective) hoaxer would not give out the location until time and weather would remove all manmade traces of the hoax. Am I correct that he gave the location to McLarin before the film was even developed? Risky move if you are trying to get rich quick from this video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

He not only made the location known - he invited scientist to come and see it, as well as trying to get someone with a tracking dog to the film site. These calls were made the same day the film was shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Q for the skeptics.  Help me out:

 

If Roger and Bob made a hoax the faking tracks just makes no sense.  There is just no logical reason to fake the tracks.  Why the need?  This involves an extra step to the hoax/ more work.  So basically, under the faking scenario we have to possibilities:

 

1)  Roger and Bob film a man in a suit and the resulting tracks in the ground are the tracks made by the suit feet of the man in a suit.  These are the tracks they make cast of and these are the tracks later photographed by Lyle Lovertry.

 

2)  Roger and Bob film a guy in a suit. Then they go back to the creek bed and now must 1) cover the tracks left by the man in a suit  2) make new tracks by pressing then into the ground by some means.  <--- all of this must occur while they are not being spotted. (oh and you can say they faked them at another location but you would still have to produce some at Bluff Creek since Patty was filmed there, Right?)

 

Scenario #1 seems to make much more sense than Scenario #2. 

 

Can a skeptic tell me WHY would Roger and Bob fake tracks at all? What is the advantage of doing this?

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

If a hoax...why do anythin' regarding the tracks ? Instead, they film them, test for weight comparisons, cast two of them an try an protect them from the rain. If they made the tracks, then they not only knew about mid foot flexibility etc. in primates way before the rest of us, but also incorporated the dynamic features of it into the tracks(an filmed subject) only to not even cast that very feature ! Makes no sense what so ever. 

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Anton Wroblewski, who posted as DesertYeti is the skeptics' heaviest hitter. He is a skeptic re the PGF and has copies of most of the PGF casts. He has a PhD in neoichnology which is the science of modern plant and animal traces, such as foot prints. He was the 1st to claim the Skookum cast was an elk lay. He is NOT a PGF proponent and he believes an "actor" left the prints. IOW, even the skeptics' heaviest hitter does not believe the tracks were fabricated by Roger. He believes they were created by Patty.

 

So are the skeptics throwing Anton under the bus on this one? Do they know something he doesn't? Or do they just not like his conclusions? Because if Bob H made the tracks then Roger didn't go to Bluff Creek on Oct 20th to create a new trackway and cast a couple of the tracks like the skeptics claim. Otherwise, would Roger have filmed Bob H in September and left the tracks there for 3+ weeks then come back Oct 20th to cast a couple of them? Or else remove what was left of Bob H's tracks and make some new ones that were good enough to convince a skeptical PhD that they were real and not dug out or stamped. Face it, they were made by actual dynamic feet and Roger creating the trackway is nonsense.

 

And BTW, how the heck did Roger make Patty's bigfeet with toes and hinged meta-tarsals and mid-tarsal breaks? Isn't that some pretty sophisticated stuff, even for the best creature suit makers in the biz, even by today's standards? And why the heck would Roger put that much effort into the feet?

 

Skeptics, please explain why this isn't checkmate.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...