Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

Here's a frame that needs some discussion.  What exactly is the footprint that's been circled?  It clearly appears to be a bigfoot type print and yet there it is right next to a "genuine" Patty print.  Take note the print is very very shallow, essentially human shallow and given it's size it's about 2/3 rds as large as Patty's yet it's barely as deep as little Roger's.  Where is the legendary weight and depth of print some claim make for real bigfoot prints?     However why is there no mention of this thing?  

 

A%20Strange%20foot_zpsud3cybim.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I guess it never dawned on you that the debris on the sandbar are above the soil and casting shadows. Let us call this the sandbar malfunction. Here is the only other response I will give to this latest silliness of yours ....

 

bull1_zps7g3hs5uw.gif

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

^ Hmmmm a sandbar malfunction shadows?   Bahahahaha Miller it's one of YOUR frames.  But sure if a footprint needs to be a sandbar malfunction in order for biggie to be livin' wild and free in the great out there then so be it.  In the meantime maybe some better minds will have something better than BFH blather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

The 5x deeper claim is hasn't been verified in any way that I can see.

Did they run some kind of tests?

If so where is the data?

No more this footer said such and such.

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

^^

 

Men there estimated that their tracks didn't go but 1/4" into the sandbar. The cast I have that Roger made are 1.5" at their deepest point. It takes 6 quarter inches to make 1.5".  Hopefully you follow the math to see how the 5X deeper can be stated with a certain level of accuracy.

 

RPfootcast_zps6ce4c3d1.jpg

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

^ Hmmmm a sandbar malfunction shadows?   Bahahahaha Miller it's one of YOUR frames.  But sure if a footprint needs to be a sandbar malfunction in order for biggie to be livin' wild and free in the great out there then so be it.  In the meantime maybe some better minds will have something better than BFH blather.

 

Don't be silly ... there is no sandbar malfunction as it was a reference to your one step costume malfunction concerning that ridiculous boot-heel nonsense that you came up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^^

 

Men there estimated that their tracks didn't go but 1/4" into the sandbar. 

 There is the problem. No real measurements.  Titmus when to investigate the tracks and didn't even take a tape measure of any kind... right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

So your point is that those men didn't know what 1/4" looked like? How about if they were wrong and their tracks were 1/2" deep ....  Patty's was 3X deeper. So are you saying that this proves Bigfoot is real in your view? 

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

All you are going by is the word of a suspected hoaxer and those eager to validate the scene.

No real measurements. No soil tests. No training.

Wallace had been fooling the same people for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

In my view - Wallace only fooled the fools. Furthermore - you have no evidence that Laverty was eager to validate evidence. Nor do you have evidence that anyone who was ever there had said the estimate of 1/4" was not accurate. It's just you talking. And everyone agreed that their tracks didn't sink as deep as the Creature's.

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

All you are going by is the word of a suspected hoaxer and those eager to validate the scene.

No real measurements. No soil tests. No training.

 

What soil test do you need make so to know what caused the track in the middle to be deeper?

13%20inch%20track%20depth%20compared%20t

 

  

 

     f00da011-1b2f-4413-bef6-62e64f261489_zps                The statement that "no real measurements - no soil test - no training" to know whether 1/4" is anything like 1.5" is just whacked in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

BH, is a hard and dusty BCM road print photo relevant in a wet, sandy PGF footprint discussion?

 

Also, going by the tape measure, what length is indicated to you for that track?

 

I would also think one would want to establish in an image like the above if the boot prints were simply men putting their feet beside the print or actually trying to drive their foot down with force to try and make a deeper impression.

 

BCM also has boot prints deeper than really, really real Bigfoot prints...

 

Bigwallace18-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^^The problem with this picture is obvious to someone who has live on a dirt road.

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

BH, is a hard and dusty BCM road print photo relevant in a wet, sandy PGF footprint discussion?

 

Also, going by the tape measure, what length is indicated to you for that track?

 

I would also think one would want to establish in an image like the above if the boot prints were simply men putting their feet beside the print or actually trying to drive their foot down with force to try and make a deeper impression.

 

BCM also has boot prints deeper than really, really real Bigfoot prints...

 

The laws of Physics are still the same whether on BCM or Bluff Creek are they not. The barefoot track went deeper into the ground than the men who stepped next to them. Are you going to help Martin explain how the compaction of the ground below each one is different or can we agree that they were more than likely the same in the square foot of substrate.

 

Stepping vs standing:  Not sure how you would know if the men stepped next to the print or stood next to the print. But while you are playing that game ... how much deeper do you think the boot tracks could have gone if the men wearing them were pressing down as hard as they could?

 

And yes - in dust against a hard surface there is little to no resistance to test for weight. The same would apply to a light powdery snow cover. Even the men's shoe tracks in the dust on the road are as deep as the vehicles that left tire tracks impressions. Wouldn't be much in the way of critical thinking not see the problem with that scenario. However, the same cannot be said in track comparisons made off the road where there is an obvious variance in track depth in the photo I posted where soil compaction obviously existed. The same can be said about this photo below as well which no one has intelligently and realistically been able to explain away since the day it was first posted. Remember - It came about concerning the observations John Green wrote about when you said to 'show one ... just one photo ... where the tracks were deeper where other men could only walk atop of the ground'.

track%20depth%20compared%20to%20shoe%20p

Edited by Bigfoothunter
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...