Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

xspider1

Thank-you, chelefoot.  This topic reminds me to remember that the more I look at this film, the better it looks!  8  )

 

Heel gets elevated without forefoot, suggestin' the mid foot flexibility...

 

PattyInTreesLeftFootLiftAG4CropLarge1.gi

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

And not a single skeptic has been able to realistically come up with a sensible solution as to how a man in the fake suit was able to leave deep impressions in the substrate that other men who looked at the tracks could not come close to doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

And not a single skeptic has been able to realistically come up with a sensible solution as to how a man in the fake suit was able to leave deep impressions in the substrate that other men who looked at the tracks could not come close to doing.

Neither a man in a costume nor a 6-7ft bigfoot could have created those tracks. Too deep sorry the proof is in the math.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does make sense, what Faenor is claiming.  As Patty is seen in the PGF, assuming her feet are the same size as a humans, her weight alone would have to be 5-6 times that of a normal human, which the average American is 180lbs.  So Patty, as we see her, to lay down tracks 5 - 6 times would be on average 900 -1080lbs. Seems awfully heavy for what I see in the film.  That is not taking into account BF feet, hence the name are larger than human feet, thus her weight would need to be heavier yet to lay down tracks that deep.  This is all armchair math but seems plausible to me using common sense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ That has been covered many times here.  Her gait (compliant) is very different from say an average human and that causes her feet to contact the ground differently (please see above).  Sorry but that is not an opinion or special pleading, it is based on what the film shows.  Just watch her thigh react as her foot contacts the ground and tell me that isn't a very heavy animal walking with authority.  Or don't... whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Does make sense, what Faenor is claiming.  As Patty is seen in the PGF, assuming her feet are the same size as a humans, her weight alone would have to be 5-6 times that of a normal human, which the average American is 180lbs.  So Patty, as we see her, to lay down tracks 5 - 6 times would be on average 900 -1080lbs. Seems awfully heavy for what I see in the film.  That is not taking into account BF feet, hence the name are larger than human feet, thus her weight would need to be heavier yet to lay down tracks that deep.  This is all armchair math but seems plausible to me using common sense.  

 

Patty had larger feet than the 5'6" tall silver-back gorilla I posted and it weighed 776lbs at death and had not eaten for three weeks prior. Muscle mass, speed, strength, and the dynamics involved in bi-pedal locomotion is what determined Patty's track depth.

 

man in suit - 200lbs - 225lbs - shallow tracks

 

Sasquatch - 800lbs+ - deep tracks

bill%203_zpslxxcvypz.jpg

 

6' tall man in monkey suit - 185lbs

04screams_zps5efc5e73.jpg

 

5' 6" tall gorilla - 776lbs

phil_zpsa23e3fe0.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That has been covered many times here.  Her gait (compliant) is very different from say an average human and that causes her feet to contact the ground differently (please see above).  Sorry but that is not an opinion or special pleading, it is based on what the film shows.  Just watch her thigh react as her foot contacts the ground and tell me that isn't a very heavy animal walking with authority.  Or don't... whatever.

 

What the film shows is open to interpretation, it ( the film )  is not PROVEN to be factual, therefore the film PROVES nothing.  Without even any training, I would surmise that a heavy animal, such as a BF is purported to be, would not have a gait that would increase the force applied to the ground when walking, aka increase the track depth at 5 to 6 times that of a normal man.  What would be the benefit of a creature that is considered by most hardcore proponents to be the "Ninja of the Wood" to increase its impact on the ground.  Wouldn't that make a walking bigfoot be louder by 'stomping" around?  I would anticipate the larger the animal the more its gait would minimize the impact as to reduce the possibility for injury ant thus keep track depth proportional to its foot size.  This is just my opinion, as this thread is 23 pages long I am asking you to provide a link to the post that gives scientific proof  as to BF gait and its impact on track depth.  And I want scientific PROOF, not proponent speculation.  Please provide, if you fail to or skirt around the subject I will take it as a concession you have no scientific proof. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

That's great that you want scientific "PROOF",Twist!    We've never heard that one before.  :victory:

 

"What would be the benefit of a creature that is considered by most hardcore proponents to be the "Ninja of the Wood" to increase its impact on the ground."

 

I dunno, did she do that to intimidate the two hairless monkeys that surprised her by riding up on their giant deer?  hahah

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great that you want scientific "PROOF",Twist!    We've never heard that one before.  :victory:

 

"What would be the benefit of a creature that is considered by most hardcore proponents to be the "Ninja of the Wood" to increase its impact on the ground."

 

I dunno, did she do that to intimidate the two hairless monkeys that surprised her by riding up on their giant deer?  hahah

 

You tell me Xspider, some of the hardcore proponents here make claims based off this film that they pass off as irrefutable evidence, such as mouth movement, calf movement and overall validity of this video, You may have heard the need for proof before but still you do not seem to have delivered anything more than conjecture. 

 

I see nothing in the video that suggest that BF is doing anything but walking thru the area, surely no signs of her "stomping" her feet.  Unless that is another magical ability of BF ( like avoiding trail cams, or using portals ) that she can stomp thru the woods at a leisurely pace and implant tracks twice as deep as her normal tracks. 

 

I feel like a Vikings field  goal kicker here, are those goalposts always on the move or just when I'm looking at them? 

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

 

That's great that you want scientific "PROOF",Twist!    We've never heard that one before.  :victory:

 

"What would be the benefit of a creature that is considered by most hardcore proponents to be the "Ninja of the Wood" to increase its impact on the ground."

 

I dunno, did she do that to intimidate the two hairless monkeys that surprised her by riding up on their giant deer?  hahah

 

You tell me Xspider, some of the hardcore proponents here make claims based off this film that they pass off as irrefutable evidence, such as mouth movement, calf movement and overall validity of this video, You may have heard the need for proof before but still you do not seem to have delivered anything more than conjecture. 

 

I see nothing in the video that suggest that BF is doing anything but walking thru the area, surely no signs of her "stomping" her feet.  Unless that is another magical ability of BF ( like avoiding trail cams, or using portals ) that she can stomp thru the woods at a leisurely pace and implant tracks twice as deep as her normal tracks. 

 

I feel like a Vikings field  goal kicker here, are those goalposts always on the move or just when I'm looking at them? 

 

Twist - Not that all impressed with your analogy. Even if the PGF was crystal sharp as if shot by National Geographic ... there would room to argue one way or the other as to whether the subject is real or someone in a monkey suit based on a few observations seen on the film. But when the evidence is taken as a whole and systematically evaluated - the scale does lean in favor of the authenticity of the film depicting a real flesh and blood creature.

 

I agree that some claims of mouth movement and such when based on multi-generation details riddled with motion and panning blur can be misleading and rightfully open to criticism. However, no one argues that the subject in the film has not a head - shoulders - arms - hands - legs - feet - and toes that are a result of a lack of seeing them and where they can be seen on its body. In other words there is still information in the film along with evidence found at the film site that when combined ... they tilt the scales away from the film being a hoax. Perhaps someone with little to no expertise in film photography would choose an altered copy photo as showing what he or she perceives as a cowboy boot heel protruding from a film site cast to argue a theory with will be sure not to see or understand some of the details discussed ... where someone with the expertise of Dr. Dmitri Donskoy may recognize things that people without his expertise might have missed and still don't understand. Of course there are those who won't want to see it and understand it. And one of the reasons for this is because Dmitri viewed nothing less than a 1st generation copy of the PGF before it had deteriorated so badly. This is why when I talked about facial movement seen in the PGF, I used the slides made directly from the camera original as they are images taken before the film could deteriorate and were preserved in the form of slides. You may have seen when I first posted those images that it was a skeptic that quickly shouted that the images I used have been doctored (PhotoShop'd) and the proof of this was his posting the very multi-generation virtual mud images of the subject's face without any consideration as to which came first - the clear images before deterioration or the virtual mud images after deterioration. Someone's lack of knowledge concerning the history of the PG film(s) images is not a rebuttal, but rather a testimonial of their inability to discuss these types of issues in an informed manner. I had been lucky to have worked in a dark room in the early 70's to see how using film works and what happens to images during the processing of the development of that film. There can be no truer images than those made directly off the camera original film. And there can be no truer comparable details made from those same images when the quality of the image is unchanged between those images being used for comparison.

 

^ That has been covered many times here.  Her gait (compliant) is very different from say an average human and that causes her feet to contact the ground differently (please see above).  Sorry but that is not an opinion or special pleading, it is based on what the film shows.  Just watch her thigh react as her foot contacts the ground and tell me that isn't a very heavy animal walking with authority.  Or don't... whatever.

 

What the film shows is open to interpretation

 

Interpretation is only as good as the data used and the qualifications of someone to utilize it. One example would be to understand which weighs more - 6' x 3' box of feathers or 6' x 3' box of sand. This is where the film site evidence comes into play with what is seen on the PGF and whether its a really well muscled creature or a mere man in a fake suit. There is no doubt what-so-ever that skeptics understand which box is heavier as that is why all the wild theories about scaffolds must have been built over the sandbar, or the track-way must have been hand-dug somehow. To go to the effort to incorporate such a level of silliness to which there is no evidence for is little more than someone being willing to say anything to avoid recognizing that the subject in the film is exactly what Bob and Roger believed it to be.

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

 

 

That's great that you want scientific "PROOF",Twist!    We've never heard that one before.  :victory:

 

"What would be the benefit of a creature that is considered by most hardcore proponents to be the "Ninja of the Wood" to increase its impact on the ground."

 

I dunno, did she do that to intimidate the two hairless monkeys that surprised her by riding up on their giant deer?  hahah

 

You tell me Xspider, some of the hardcore proponents here make claims based off this film that they pass off as irrefutable evidence, such as mouth movement, calf movement and overall validity of this video, You may have heard the need for proof before but still you do not seem to have delivered anything more than conjecture. 

 

I see nothing in the video that suggest that BF is doing anything but walking thru the area, surely no signs of her "stomping" her feet.  Unless that is another magical ability of BF ( like avoiding trail cams, or using portals ) that she can stomp thru the woods at a leisurely pace and implant tracks twice as deep as her normal tracks. 

 

I feel like a Vikings field  goal kicker here, are those goalposts always on the move or just when I'm looking at them? 

 

Twist - Not that all impressed with your analogy. Even if the PGF was crystal sharp as if shot by National Geographic ... there would room to argue one way or the other as to whether the subject is real or someone in a monkey suit based on a few observations seen on the film. But when the evidence is taken as a whole and systematically evaluated - the scale does lean in favor of the authenticity of the film depicting a real flesh and blood creature.

 

I agree that some claims of mouth movement and such when based on multi-generation details riddled with motion and panning blur can be misleading and rightfully open to criticism. However, no one argues that the subject in the film has not a head - shoulders - arms - hands - legs - feet - and toes that are a result of a lack of seeing them and where they can be seen on its body. In other words there is still information in the film along with evidence found at the film site that when combined ... they tilt the scales away from the film being a hoax. Perhaps someone with little to no expertise in film photography would choose an altered copy photo as showing what he or she perceives as a cowboy boot heel protruding from a film site cast to argue a theory with will be sure not to see or understand some of the details discussed ... where someone with the expertise of Dr. Dmitri Donskoy may recognize things that people without his expertise might have missed and still don't understand. Of course there are those who won't want to see it and understand it. And one of the reasons for this is because Dmitri viewed nothing less than a 1st generation copy of the PGF before it had deteriorated so badly. This is why when I talked about facial movement seen in the PGF, I used the slides made directly from the camera original as they are images taken before the film could deteriorate and were preserved in the form of slides. You may have seen when I first posted those images that it was a skeptic that quickly shouted that the images I used have been doctored (PhotoShop'd) and the proof of this was his posting the very multi-generation virtual mud images of the subject's face without any consideration as to which came first - the clear images before deterioration or the virtual mud images after deterioration. Someone's lack of knowledge concerning the history of the PG film(s) images is not a rebuttal, but rather a testimonial of their inability to discuss these types of issues in an informed manner. I had been lucky to have worked in a dark room in the early 70's to see how using film works and what happens to images during the processing of the development of that film. There can be no truer images than those made directly off the camera original film. And there can be no truer comparable details made from those same images when the quality of the image is unchanged between those images being used for comparison.

 

^ That has been covered many times here.  Her gait (compliant) is very different from say an average human and that causes her feet to contact the ground differently (please see above).  Sorry but that is not an opinion or special pleading, it is based on what the film shows.  Just watch her thigh react as her foot contacts the ground and tell me that isn't a very heavy animal walking with authority.  Or don't... whatever.

 

What the film shows is open to interpretation

 

Interpretation is only as good as the data used and the qualifications and/or ability of someone to know how to utilize it. One example would be to understand which weighs more - a 6' x 3' box of feathers or a 6' x 3' box of sand. This is where the film site evidence comes into play with what is seen on the PGF and whether its a really well muscled creature or a mere man in a fake suit. There is no doubt what-so-ever that skeptics understand which box is heavier as that is why all the wild theories about scaffolds must have been built over the sandbar, or the track-way must have been hand-dug somehow must be pulled out of thin air. To go to the effort to incorporate such a level of silliness to which there is no evidence for is little more than someone being willing to say anything to avoid recognizing that the subject in the film is exactly what Bob and Roger believed it to be.

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

You may have heard the need for proof before but still you do not seem to have delivered anything more than conjecture. 

 

And, what is it exactly that you are "delivering"?

 

"I see nothing in the video that suggest that BF is doing anything but walking thru the area, surely no signs of her "stomping" her feet.  "  Who said she stomped her feet?  I said "Just watch her thigh react as her foot contacts the ground and tell me that isn't a very heavy animal walking with authority."
 
post-131-0-87486600-1453393711.gif
 
"I feel like a Vikings field  goal kicker here, are those goalposts always on the move or just when I'm looking at them?"
I can see why you might feel that way but; I can assure you that neither that goalpost nor the one here was moved.  8 )~
Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Again ... its in the quality of the film source being used. Can't even see in the hide and chest muscle movement in that latter print.

 

Images from slides made from the original print -

greenarrow-1_zpsbpxwsrb2.gif

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...