Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
You weren't talking just about Wiscinsin....you stated "brutal northern winters".

 
 
So, again.....you have given two very different 'probabilities' for Bigfoot existing.....within the PNW.

 

Earlier today, you described it as a "reasonably good probability".

 

On JREF....you described it as "unlikely in the extreme"....and..."completely ridiculous".

 

Which is it???  :popcorn:   It can't be both. 

 

 

He has double-talked himself so much that he sounds more and more like Kerry did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Yup....his arguments are on a par, with Kerry's. ;)

 

 

Here is how someone expresses their assessment, that there is a "reasonably good" probability that Bigfoot exists...(written in response to my post about Brian Gosselin's sighting report)...

 

"You will forever be confronted with a 21st century society that no longer invests in gobbledy-goop folklore."

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-141

 

 

In kitakaze world...."gobbeldy-goop folklore" equates to "good reason" to think something is true. :wacko:

 

To the rest of the world....it's BS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It's always struck me that the subject walks very quickly across a deeply sandy and rocky area. While I'm no geologist, I have walked many a creek bed, river bed, sandy beach and rocky beach and have never seen someone walking that smoothly and quickly...especially weighted down and with an obstructed view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

Certain,

Thanks for adding some common sense to the discussion. I agree with your thinking. We know what real life teaches us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always struck me that the subject walks very quickly across a deeply sandy and rocky area. While I'm no geologist, I have walked many a creek bed, river bed, sandy beach and rocky beach and have never seen someone walking that smoothly and quickly...especially weighted down and with an obstructed view.

 

 

:good:

 

..and big fake feet on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
MODERATOR

In regards to Patty's footprints being faked.

I read this on the internet a couple of weeks ago but I can't remember where and I can't find it again. I'm sure others know about this and can fill in.

A Russian scientist (it may have been Igor Bourtsev) was studying still frames of the PGF and was looking at the frame that shows the bottom of the left foot. That was the frame pictured next to the article.The article said he noticed a detail in the foot shown in the still frame and that the same detail was also seen in one of the plaster casts.

Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
MODERATOR

It's always struck me that the subject walks very quickly across a deeply sandy and rocky area. While I'm no geologist, I have walked many a creek bed, river bed, sandy beach and rocky beach and have never seen someone walking that smoothly and quickly...especially weighted down and with an obstructed view.

 

You bring up a good point; walking in sand/dirt is not easy for something heavy. It's hard for me to imagine a 400lb human walking in dirt/sand as smoothly and as athletically as Patty did.

I don't know what Patty's weight was estimated to be but Bob G. said he weighed 165lbs and did not make near as deep an impression as Patty did so I used 400lbs.

Edited by OkieFoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

In regards to Patty's footprints being faked.

I read this on the internet a couple of weeks ago but I can't remember where and I can't find it again. I'm sure others know about this and can fill in.

A Russian scientist (it may have been Igor Bourtsev) was studying still frames of the PGF and was looking at the frame that shows the bottom of the left foot. That was the frame pictured next to the article.The article said he noticed a detail in the foot shown in the still frame and that the same detail was also seen in one of the plaster casts.

Is this correct?

It looks to me like the foot that made the track.  I made this many years ago and it was just my estimate to how big her foot would be to make that print.  It seemed to fit pretty well considering they don't seem to be in exactly the same plane.  I was using the foot ruler method to measure her so the little toe being tilted further back didn't matter..

 

I don't know what the Russian was referring to but the toes are pretty distinct as is the overall shape.  This isn't the left foot and I don't recall seeing much detail on the left foot except in some of the more recent enhancements.  I don't think I had seen a decent left foot image when I made this 10 years ago. PattyFoot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
MODERATOR

It looks to me like the foot that made the track.  I made this many years ago and it was just my estimate to how big her foot would be to make that print.  It seemed to fit pretty well considering they don't seem to be in exactly the same plane.  I was using the foot ruler method to measure her so the little toe being tilted further back didn't matter..

 

I don't know what the Russian was referring to but the toes are pretty distinct as is the overall shape.  This isn't the left foot and I don't recall seeing much detail on the left foot except in some of the more recent enhancements.  I don't think I had seen a decent left foot image when I made this 10 years ago. PattyFoot.gif

 

Unfortunately, it didn't specify just what the detail was that the Russian scientist noticed that was also noticed on the plaster casts. It sure would have been nice to know. It must not have been something very obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
OkieFoot
MODERATOR

It was Bayanov that made that claim.  I think you'll find your answer in this paper: http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/BAYANOV-P2a.pdf

b

What he saw was that the sole is actually "hourglass" shaped (reference frame 265).

 

Thank you, that was it.

I also remembered the part about their determination of the actual film speed by studying the vertical oscillations in the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

I've added  The Upright Ape: A New Origin of Species by Dr Aaron Filler to my reading list and can't wait to get to it.  Last night while doing some online research on the book, I stumbled upon this: http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/bipedalism-and-human-origins

 

It is well worth the time to watch the individual presentations to gain some understanding of what it means to be bipedal.  I'd like to have a discussion relative to Patty/Sasquatch based on some of what they present!

 

The significance of the mid-tarsal break means that at some point, Sasquatch is arboreal.  Is that plausible?  Does that explain why so few sightings of juveniles?  It's interesting that the evidence is there for some species to start out arboreal and then become terrestrial with age/weight.

 

And the whole issue of Patty being hairy is problematic for some.  The presentation on body fat is worth discussing.  I'm puzzling over it.  I'd love to hear Matt Cartmill's take on Patty.  My suspicion is that he'd consider it implausible, but I'd still like to hear his reasoning.  As he starts out, fur is for insulation and thermal regulation - it's in all the textbooks.  His presentation is not for the immature individual.

 

Has anyone read Dr. Filler's book?  Your thoughts?

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...