Jump to content

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


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

^^

 

You do know do you not that not all human feet look the same either. Once again you are supposing something that you have no knowledge about. It's just another 'diaper-butt' claim IMO.

 

Oh gee I didn't know that.  So does this mean some humans have a double ball foot or some bigfoot have 14 toes and triple ball feet.

 

 

Your comments are as rational as someone who is currently having a massive stroke.  Why would you ask for a connection between human feet that are not heavily padded to something like a Sasquatch whose feet seems to be heavily padded. I would expect them to have very different looking tracks when pressed against a hard surface.

 

 

 

 If anything there are small numbers of bigfoot and what are the odds of finding such different feet in such close proximity in location and time?

 

I do not know how small or large the population numbers are for Bigfoot. For me personally, I would feel like a fool to even try to make someone think that I had such data to rely on.

 

It would also make me feel even sillier to have people thinking that I was too narrow minded to consider that there are species of animals that while low in population numbers - they travel in the company of their own species.

 

 

Then there is the most famous double ball feet belonging to Ray Wallace stompers.  Roger at least was leaning on known biped biology.

 

Please explain as I didn't know that you finally picked which position you wanted to argue for -  the alleged man in a suit made the tracks - or Roger made his own carvings to make the PGF track-way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

 

 

^^

 

You do know do you not that not all human feet look the same either. Once again you are supposing something that you have no knowledge about. It's just another 'diaper-butt' claim IMO.

 

Oh gee I didn't know that.  So does this mean some humans have a double ball foot or some bigfoot have 14 toes and triple ball feet.

 

 

Your comments are as rational as someone who is currently having a massive stroke.  Why would you ask for a connection between human feet that are not heavily padded to something like a Sasquatch whose feet seems to be heavily padded. I would expect them to have very different looking tracks when pressed against a hard surface.

 

 

 

 If anything there are small numbers of bigfoot and what are the odds of finding such different feet in such close proximity in location and time?

 

I do not know how small or large the population numbers are for Bigfoot. For me personally, I would feel like a fool to even try to make someone think that I had such data to rely on.

 

It would also make me feel even sillier to have people thinking that I was too narrow minded to consider that there are species of animals that while low in population numbers - they travel in the company of their own species.

 

 

Then there is the most famous double ball feet belonging to Ray Wallace stompers.  Roger at least was leaning on known biped biology.

 

Please explain as I didn't know that you finally picked which position you wanted to argue for -  the alleged man in a suit made the tracks - or Roger made his own carvings to make the PGF track-way.

 

My argument is as follows.  All claimed bigfoot prints are manufactured by human beings.  The methodology of making them can vary as can materials.  

 

Since bigfoot does not exist it isn't traveling in any numbers with or without company.

 

As for feeling silly just take a look around bigfoot world and without having to make excuses for crazies ask yourself if it's a reasonable thing for grownups to believe in.  

This quote cannot be correct about Patty's feet from Wiki:

 

"Esteban Sarmiento is a specialist in physical anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. He has 25 years of experience with great apes in the wild. He writes,[205] "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."[206] His most original criticism is this: "The plantar surface of the feet is decidedly pale, but the palm of the hand seems to be dark. There is no mammal I know of in which the plantar sole differs so drastically in color from the palm."[207] 

 

 

I am surprised if this is a real quote.  Clearly fake or real the bottoms of the feet are covered with soil from bluff creek which is light grey on a bright day.  He should know this.

 

 

 

And the rest of the quote from Wiki:

But see Meldrum, 170–71.) His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."[208] "Body proportions: ... In all of the above relative values, bigfoot is well within the human range and differs markedly from any living ape and from the 'australopithecine' fossils."[209] (E.g., the IM index is in the normal human range.) And: "I estimate bigfoot's weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs."[210]"

 

Where does that 240 max estimate come from?   And as low as 190lbs?  Again, can this be a correct quote?  What is the basis of this?  Clearly if it a man in a suit it would be man-weight.   But how is this determined by the doctor?

 

Backdoc

Have any of the "bigfoot scientists" gone to Bluff Creek site to make tests of how well the soil might stick to the soles of a natural bare foot or even a fake foot?  The oh it must be soil is unproven.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

^^^

 

Drew,

 

I don't really know if this has been tested.  First we would need Bluff Creek soil vs some dirt or sand just anyplace to be more accurate. None of us has a 1967 time machine and a humidity tester.

 

When my kids are outside barefoot it sure seems to me the bottoms of the feet are the color of the dirt of the environment they are walking in/ playing in.  Those feet, now a diff color than the tops, are diff than the color of the palms of their hands.

 

Dr. S is a very smart man.  I should think though it is a reasonable consideration to think of the soil coloring the bottoms of Pattys feet.  Doesn't it make sense a barefoot biped would be expected to have a foot color more resembling the ground they are walking on unless the feet are made with Teflon and washing them every few steps?

 

Was Patty walking in the creek and now had wet feet just prior to Roger and Bob's arrival.  Would the exit walking path now be with wet feet on dry grey soil.  Many Q here.  All still point to a reasonable chance the feet were colored by the walking conditions vs created that way.

 

Let me ask you this:  If Patty was a suit, why would the makers CHOOSE to have the bottoms of her feet light color and the hands a different color?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Crowlogic

 

My argument is as follows.  All claimed bigfoot prints are manufactured by human beings.  The methodology of making them can vary as can materials.  

 

Since bigfoot does not exist it isn't traveling in any numbers with or without company.

 

As for feeling silly just take a look around bigfoot world and without having to make excuses for crazies ask yourself if it's a reasonable thing for grownups to believe in.

 

 

Each one of your "arguments" above start with a pre-determined view that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or not and that is why you often appear foolish when the things you say are easily shown to be false. If you get the reputation for saying things that simply are not true, then why should anyone believe that anything you say is accurate.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crowlogic

 

My argument is as follows.  All claimed bigfoot prints are manufactured by human beings.  The methodology of making them can vary as can materials.  

 

Since bigfoot does not exist it isn't traveling in any numbers with or without company.

 

As for feeling silly just take a look around bigfoot world and without having to make excuses for crazies ask yourself if it's a reasonable thing for grownups to believe in.

 

 

Each one of your "arguments" above start with a pre-determined view that you have no way of knowing to be accurate or not and that is why you often appear foolish when the things you say are easily shown to be false. If you get the reputation for saying things that simply are not true, then why should anyone believe that anything you say is accurate.

Negative.  It is a view that evolved from belief to unbelief after having spent several decades looking at the issue.  Having determined that the chaff is without wheat I drew my conclusion.  It requires no excuses and no eye squinting at over pixelated examples of manipulation.  It only required seeing where it had been,  seeing where it is and seeing where it is likely to be going based on the previous two offerings.  When something perpetually fails to deliver for a couple of hundred years it's time to write it off to myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Oh come now .... I know better than that because I have reviewed some of your past responses in which you demonstrated rational thinking. For example:

 

Crowlogic: 

Posted 26 May 2012 - 06:54 AM

 

Let's not forget this is all happening in 1967. I does not matter what was to come in the future. Everyone on the planet now could have a pair of perfect slip on Bigfoot feet made of super polymers. Unless it existed in 1967 it's a moot point.

 

 

Crowlogic:

13th September 2008, 03:44 PM

 

So now we have Patty in the mansion in the hands of a wealthy collector. Five will get you ten that there is no Patty suit in that mansion if there is even a mansion at all. But assuming there is it is as difficult to accept how that could have stayed below the radar this long. Somebody should tip Bob H off and he can add the in the mansion somewhere to his story. Hmmm maybe that collector would like a replica of Bob too.

 

Several members have pointed out that your theory of a man in a monkey suit and wearing boots could not merely make ground impressions 6X deeper than a man wearing boots who is not wearing a monkey suit. Explanations were given as to why your claim was lacking factual data to support what you say. It appears that if anything evolved - it was your one time ability to call into question things that do not make sense.

 

Your evolution has taken you from being critical of those who make claims without proof to finding it acceptable for you to do the same thing. In fact, you went a step further and merely made up things that you did not know to be true. One of the most recent examples that has come back to bite you in the rump (pun intended) whereas you made the claim that no living species gets the diaper-but effect despite a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon telling you different. You demonstrated that you are willing to post anything to appear correct even if it means you just making it up. So the separating the wheat from the chaff remark (to select only that which is of value) hardly seems to be something that you do these days. The use of an over contrasted image so to invent a heel print in a cast is hardly representative of 'separating the wheat from the chaff' in my view. 

 

So it appears that it wasn't really a view that evolved from belief to unbelief as much as it was a decision to throw your research ethics aside and just make things up when ever necessary.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Oh come now .... I know better than that because I have reviewed some of your past responses in which you demonstrated rational thinking. For example:

 

Crowlogic: 

Posted 26 May 2012 - 06:54 AM

 

Let's not forget this is all happening in 1967. I does not matter what was to come in the future. Everyone on the planet now could have a pair of perfect slip on Bigfoot feet made of super polymers. Unless it existed in 1967 it's a moot point.

 

 

Crowlogic:

13th September 2008, 03:44 PM

 

So now we have Patty in the mansion in the hands of a wealthy collector. Five will get you ten that there is no Patty suit in that mansion if there is even a mansion at all. But assuming there is it is as difficult to accept how that could have stayed below the radar this long. Somebody should tip Bob H off and he can add the in the mansion somewhere to his story. Hmmm maybe that collector would like a replica of Bob too.

 

Several members have pointed out that your theory of a man in a monkey suit and wearing boots could not merely make ground impressions 6X deeper than a man wearing boots who is not wearing a monkey suit. Explanations were given as to why your claim was lacking factual data to support what you say. It appears that if anything evolved - it was your one time ability to call into question things that do not make sense.

 

Your evolution has taken you from being critical of those who make claims without proof to finding it acceptable for you to do the same thing. In fact, you went a step further and merely made up things that you did not know to be true. One of the most recent examples that has come back to bite you in the rump (pun intended) whereas you made the claim that no living species gets the diaper-but effect despite a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon telling you different. You demonstrated that you are willing to post anything to appear correct even if it means you just making it up. So the separating the wheat from the chaff remark (to select only that which is of value) hardly seems to be something that you do these days. The use of an over contrasted image so to invent a heel print in a cast is hardly representative of 'separating the wheat from the chaff' in my view. 

 

So it appears that it wasn't really a view that evolved from belief to unbelief as much as it was a decision to throw your research ethics aside and just make things up when ever necessary.

It was my view at one time.   Opinions change as new information is digested and new novel situations arise.  I make no secret that the Ketchum affair was on of the major nails in the coffin of belief.  Todd Standing was not only a hoaxer but the fact that they (the bigfoot conference community)  allowed him a place of prominence in spite of the fact that there were serious red flags going up about him.  So yes it was an indictment of the system as well.  I reached the point most non believers do where the weight of hoax garbage and dysfunction outweighs that which in ordinary circumstances might have value.  However at virtually every turn there is a red flag.  Mathew Johnston seemed extraordinarily credible a few years back.  A classic solid professional person.  So what happens he morphs into portal boy and hearing bigfoot voices in his sleep.  Skookum Cast was an eyebrow raiser from the start and even through my believer's rose ting glasses it was stretching things a bit far.  We don't even need London Track way to deflate the myth but that's on the way to the scrapheap now too.

 

There isn't anything left of substance.  There is however all of the back biting and dysfunction that's always been and a few new parlor tricks have been added to the mix.  Sad to say the PGF will forever remain a double edge sword than can neither be dulled to ineffectiveness nor sharpened to cut through the veil of speculation and into  hard and fast reality.  All of the studies and all of the recreations  and enhancements do not bring the creature to life.  They do not tell us what it was, where it came from where it was going , or why it was there in that place in time.  It doesn't tell us what it ate, what it thought, if it thought, if it was young, old, deaf, smarter than average, more stupid than average, faster, slower, bolder or wiser than anything it's said to be related to.  So enjoy the film but there's nothing definitive about it.  Surely it's most prominent feature its feet aren't even able to be considered as typical.  But most telling is the entire PGF enterprise can't be used as a blueprint for capturing a like performance by such a thing.  The myth is tired and long in the tooth.  Some get that and some don't 

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

It was my view at one time.   Opinions change as new information is digested and new novel situations arise.

 

 

Who cares about your views - the post was about your research ethics where you stopped looking for alternatives and just started making stuff up to give the impression that you had a point to make. BTW, your view didn't change from decades of research as you were still mocking skeptics as late as 2012.

 

Now what about the track-depth issue and how a cowboy wearing his boots was able to make ground prints 6X deeper than anyone else in their boots. Got anything?

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id say the tracks are too deep for a 6'3" figure roughly the shape of a man. Someone needs to find the volume and estimate the weight of the figure. How they did it if the films a fake they made fake tracks.

Larger foot and compliant gait would make for much shallower tracks than a 6'3" man of similar build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

This stuff was put to rest in the thread concerning Dennett's observation that Patty's larger foot should not have made a deeper track than the horse did. A Science Journal study on bi-pedal locomotion demonstrated two important things to address the issues involving track depth.

 

1)   A rigid foot makes less of a ground impression compared to a bare foot.  That a shoe drastically reduces the additional dynamic forces that greatly adds to track depth.

2)   It is the mechanics of a shoe-less foot during the stepping process that was the difference in achieving the greater track depth.

 

This was verified when Steenburg, John Myles, and Myself conducted a field test whereas I followed John's horse through a damp sandy substrate. Our results were posted to this site with an invite for anyone to test it for themselves. One BFF member at the time could not accept this information and immediately responded that it must have been hoaxed by those of us (including the horse) who conducted the test despite the event being filmed while it happened.

 

The Science Journal article and our field test was offered once again when Crowlogic came up with a theory that someone wearing cowboy boots inside a monkey suit made the deep tracks across the sandbar. Crowlogic has never posted anything to make me believe that he bothered to read the Science Journal data. Instead, Crowlogic continues to rely on an obvious altered image rather than to admit that there is a track depth problem between what the subject in the film accomplished and what a mere man wearing shoes could do.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

BFH,

 

I wanted to echo a point you made on the Bigfoot Reflections documentary.  (I watched it again the other night on Netflix)

 

People will talk about how this or that track is faked.  Often people will find track in the deepest part of the middle of nowhere.  To assume this track was faked assumes the faker went way out in the middle of nowhere to do the faking where it would never be discovered.  If they want to fake they should do it near a campground or something where there are people who would find the faking.  I am not saying this proves the tracks are real.  We just don't take into consideration the effort needed to make such a hoax track.  Just getting  to the spot took effort and peril.  Like milk in the kitchen the track has a shelf life.  At some point the elements would erode it.  If the purpose is to fake people out, then why do it somewhere so remote the track would have eroded before human eyes could see it.

 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

BFH,

 

I wanted to echo a point you made on the Bigfoot Reflections documentary.  (I watched it again the other night on Netflix)

 

People will talk about how this or that track is faked.  Often people will find track in the deepest part of the middle of nowhere.  To assume this track was faked assumes the faker went way out in the middle of nowhere to do the faking where it would never be discovered.  If they want to fake they should do it near a campground or something where there are people who would find the faking.  I am not saying this proves the tracks are real.  We just don't take into consideration the effort needed to make such a hoax track.  Just getting  to the spot took effort and peril.  Like milk in the kitchen the track has a shelf life.  At some point the elements would erode it.  If the purpose is to fake people out, then why do it somewhere so remote the track would have eroded before human eyes could see it.

 

 

 

Backdoc

without a cast or photo the report is just a report.  If there is a cast or photo the person making the report may also have made the track i  the first place.  It's nice to say that people are basically honest however people are also known to be dishonest petty and vindictive.  

  Now here's something that's been bothering me for a while.  In a great majority of prints found away from open sandy bare areas much the ground cover of grass and other debris  is conspicuously absent.  Why is this.  I can assure anyone that taking a stroll in the woods barefoot even if the walker weighs 500 lbs isn't going to leave bare soil behind where they walked.  Expect to see compressed ground cover but not denuded soil.  It appears that the for the game to work of course the print must be visible so the print maker clears enough of the detritus away then stomps the print makes photo and presto look ma I got a photo of a bigfoot print.  Yes many prints are logically showing natural ground cover compression but a whole heap of them are not.

 

bigfoot-sightings-footprints2%201_zps4qn

 

bigfootprint_zps8h13f0g7.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Now about this Patty print.  Here's that giant rubber mid tarsal break that impresses the impressionable.   It's been said that Patty stepped on a branch or something that caused her mid tarsal break to show the indent.  Well where is the branch or object she stepped on that produced the deformation?  It was obviously big but where did it go and why is there no indication of it anywhere in the photo?  And while we're on the subject what is that engineered straight line off to the right?  Could it be the edge of a stomper?  It's often said that a human being couldn't make such deep tracks.  Well not all of the Bluff Creek tracks are as deep as this one or as deformed.  But the way one person can make a deep track is to have two stompers obviously a left and a right.  The walker places the first stomper down then steps onto it placing both feet onto the upper surface of the stomper.  Stomper made large enough to accommodate both feet.  The walker now with the stomper bearing full weight is further driven deeper by the controlled movement of the walker manipulating the stomper.  After track is made the opposite foot is laid  down and the walker/walkers repeat the process until the track way is complete.  By not havint the stompers attatched to the feel the walker is free to make the strides longer than they could have by having stompers worn on the feet.  The completed track way will show no signs of human prints.  Roger wasn't alone at Bluff Creek and would have had some assistance to insure that his progress across the area was successfully accomplished.

 

018_zps7mjyw9so.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

BFH,

 

I wanted to echo a point you made on the Bigfoot Reflections documentary.  (I watched it again the other night on Netflix)

 

People will talk about how this or that track is faked.  Often people will find track in the deepest part of the middle of nowhere.  To assume this track was faked assumes the faker went way out in the middle of nowhere to do the faking where it would never be discovered.  If they want to fake they should do it near a campground or something where there are people who would find the faking.  I am not saying this proves the tracks are real.  We just don't take into consideration the effort needed to make such a hoax track.  Just getting  to the spot took effort and peril.  Like milk in the kitchen the track has a shelf life.  At some point the elements would erode it.  If the purpose is to fake people out, then why do it somewhere so remote the track would have eroded before human eyes could see it.

 

 

 

Backdoc

 

Those are great points.

Post #98 (by DWA) in the "5 Most Compelling Pieces of Bigfoot Evidence" has a link to a BFRO article on a line of footprints found on Mt. Baldy, MT (the 2nd report) and it fits what you're saying to a T.  

An elk hunter found a line of tracks in snow on the side of a mountain ridge that he estimated to be about 6-7 inches longer than his 12 inch boots and twice as wide as his 4.5 inch wide boots, and did say snow melt may have enlarged them a little. He did take one photo of a track.

 

If we consider;

He said he had hunted there many times before and had never encountered another human. He said "This place is literally in the middle of nowhere."

The nearest road was a dirt road 15 miles away.

The altitude was 7,500' and the tracks went diagonally uphill, with a roughly estimated 5ft stride length.

The country was described as rugged, with mountain ridges, forests and deadfall. 

 

Going by what the witness said, a hoaxer would have had to:

Hike, in snow, or ride horseback 15 miles, put on fake feet, walk diagonal uphill, and would have to leap, one leg at a time, about 5 ft. to make the next track, which he said were long and clean. He said his stride wasn't even close. 

The hoaxer would then have to hike or ride horseback 15 miles back over the same rugged country to get back to his vehicle. How long would this take? It's not like walking on a city street.

Would a person go to all this trouble and hard work to leave fake tracks that very possibly would never be seen by anybody?

 

A hoax scenario just doesn't make sense.

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...