Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

MikeZimmer

1) What kind of math is needed when you say'do the math'  involving the tracks? 

 

2) What do you think is so unbelievable about the tracks?  Are you saying the tracks being deeper than a horse is in some way unbelievable?

 

Backdoc

 

 

Seems to me that the experimental work by Bigfoothunter a year or so ago on tracks should have settled this, for anyone interested in empiricism and logic. This indicates a total failure to appreciate some basic stuff about, weight, pressure, foot dynamics, and soil dynamics, in favor of a simplistic, and incorrect, analysis.

 

Sad that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

In Bigfootdom, is anything ever settled? :spiteful:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

Some principles of science are settled and just happen to apply to the PGF. What is not settled into the world of reason are the viewpoints of those who reject the principles. BFH walking experiment and other science EASILY establishes the fact a man can leave tracks deeper than a horse. There is no science out there saying this is not the case.

Other don't think so because they don't like what the settled science suggests.

A man can leave tracks deeper than a horse or even a military tank for that matter.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

A man can make tracks by hand deeper than a horse, or even a military tank.

 

Just use the weight per foot on the ground, and divide the square inches of the foot.

 

Is a horse's weight on two 36 sq. inch feet going to be greater than a 300 pound hairy primate, standing on one, 70 sq. inch foot ?

 

Do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

A man can make tracks by hand deeper than a horse, or even a military tank.

 

Just use the weight per foot on the ground, and divide the square inches of the foot.

 

Is a horse's weight on two 36 sq. inch feet going to be greater than a 300 pound hairy primate, standing on one, 70 sq. inch foot ?

 

Do the math.

 

I have driven a Ford Explorer in the damp packed sand and the tread marks is all that was visible with only 1/8th of an inch (if that) tire track depth. So how do you propose the PGF site tracks were made - hand dug - wearing wooden cut-outs and carrying 100's of lbs - or pounded into the damp packed sand?

^^^

Some principles of science are settled and just happen to apply to the PGF. What is not settled into the world of reason are the viewpoints of those who reject the principles. BFH walking experiment and other science EASILY establishes the fact a man can leave tracks deeper than a horse.

 

And it wasn't a matter of my weight being greater than a horse's, but rather the dynamics of a flexible working foot that doesn't occur with using a stiff wooden cut-out.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

A man can make tracks by hand deeper than a horse, or even a military tank.

 

Just use the weight per foot on the ground, and divide the square inches of the foot.

 

Is a horse's weight on two 36 sq. inch feet going to be greater than a 300 pound hairy primate, standing on one, 70 sq. inch foot ?

 

Do the math.

 

 

For your consideration Drew:

 

"All examples are approximate, and will vary based on conditions

 

Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi)

Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi)

M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi)

Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)

Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)

Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi)

Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi)

Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)

Road racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)

Stiletto heel: 3,250 kPa (471 psi)

Note: Pressures for Man and Horse are for standing still. A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure. A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi). The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure."

 

 

To go by your 'Math' Drew, a Car, an adult horse and a women's stiletto heel would always weight more than an Abrams Tank at only 15psi.  That is, they could never leave deeper tracks than the military tank.  So I did the math.  Oh, and here is something else I found which I already knew:  "A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure"    Thus a human STANDING pressure is 8psi.  If they are WALKING it is more than double.  8x2= 16.  So a walking person would have more psi than a Abrams tank and could in fact leave deeper tracks. Based on your logic, this cannot be as the tank weighs more than the person.  But Math tends to be a pesky little thing when you 'do the math'  Also, Gimlin told how they carefully moved their horses near the tracks.  Patty was not standing still but was walking fast away on UNEVEN VARIED surface. 

 

It should be noted the type of surface and the spin or torque on the substrate is a factor as well but we won't go there.  Just keep it simple.

 

Tell me all about your math. I am really curious to learn more and am open to the discussion.  Like they told me in school, "please show me your work so I know how you arrived at the answer"

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Oh, and here is something else I found which I already knew:  "A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure" 

 

And that same rule would apply to an 800 to 1000lb bi-ped, which would certainly explain the track depth Patty achieved 6X over the men who walked over the PGF site.

 

And in case I have never shared this - John Green told me more than once that Rene Dahinden went to Bluff Creek expecting to prove a hoax had taken place, but was unable to it when all the evidence was taken into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For your consideration Drew:

 

"All examples are approximate, and will vary based on conditions

 

Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi)

Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi)

M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi)

Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)

Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)

Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi)

Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi)

Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)

Road racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)

Stiletto heel: 3,250 kPa (471 psi)

Note: Pressures for Man and Horse are for standing still. A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure. A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi). The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure."

 

 

To go by your 'Math' Drew, a Car, an adult horse and a women's stiletto heel would always weight more than an Abrams Tank at only 15psi.  That is, they could never leave deeper tracks than the military tank.  So I did the math.  Oh, and here is something else I found which I already knew:  "A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure"    Thus a human STANDING pressure is 8psi.  If they are WALKING it is more than double.  8x2= 16.  So a walking person would have more psi than a Abrams tank and could in fact leave deeper tracks. Based on your logic, this cannot be as the tank weighs more than the person.  But Math tends to be a pesky little thing when you 'do the math'  Also, Gimlin told how they carefully moved their horses near the tracks.  Patty was not standing still but was walking fast away on UNEVEN VARIED surface. 

 

It should be noted the type of surface and the spin or torque on the substrate is a factor as well but we won't go there.  Just keep it simple.

 

Tell me all about your math. I am really curious to learn more and am open to the discussion.  Like they told me in school, "please show me your work so I know how you arrived at the answer"

 

Backdoc

 

Plussed! Well done BD and kudos to BFH for actually experimenting with this and posting his results. It's certainly more than Dennett ever did, however, it doesn't seem to matter what slam dunk analyses you present or what facts you establish, the skeptics will dismiss it because it doesn't support their views. And when they lose an argument they go for a stalemate instead. Pseudo-skeptics are inconvincible unless you slam a dead BF over their keyboards so they can't inform us that BF is just a big hairy leprechaun.

 

Drew regurgitated Dennett's uninformed simplistic opinion re the track depth without actually putting the "math" to the test. Same thing for Daegling. These big name skeptics overstepped their areas of expertise without presenting any formal analyses. With a single refutation, they're done, which BFH has presented. Yet I see his analysis continues to be ignored because he is considered a biased proponent.

 

So we continue to spin our wheels... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Drew regurgitated Dennett's uninformed simplistic opinion re the track depth without actually putting the "math" to the test. Same thing for Daegling. These big name skeptics overstepped their areas of expertise without presenting any formal analyses. With a single refutation, they're done, which BFH has presented. Yet I see his analysis continues to be ignored because he is considered a biased proponent.

 

Exactly correct, Gigantofootecus! I invited anyone and everyone to recreate my field test. To date: no skeptic has bothered to find out for themselves and/or if they did .... they didn't like what they found enough to not share it with the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

A standing Ape Man would be 8psi, or doubled if walking to 16psi

 

A horse is 25psi standing. or if trotting 50psi

 

which one would make a deeper imprint in the sand.

 

What kind of math are you referring to Giganto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

The walking man will make deeper prints than the walking horse as our field study proved it to be 100% the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

The horse was not trotting. Nice way to double your math. Nice try.

A standing ape is not listed. Apes do not stand for the most part so how was this measurement done? Where do you come up with a measurement for the rare event of an ape walking or standing? Also you do understand an ape has hand like feet and not human feet like feet right?

A walking biped will AT MINIMUM would double standing pressure. A walking bigfoot being an actual biped would be pretty high as well.

Again, the factor you ignore is the multiplier of force with the torque of rolling into the substrate with the foot vs the standing foot.

A man would make at minimum 8 standing. A 700lb biped would have much more than 8 and much more when walking. The x2 multiplier is AT MINIMUM.

your desperation is showing.

Extra credit q: We know for a fact a man walking does often leave tracks deeper than a Abrams military tank in spite of the fact a tank weighs tons and that man weight 200 lbs or so. How could this be if your thinking was correct ? Again, please show your work to receive full credit.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

( We covered many of these topics on track depth and faking tracks on the Footprints thread #1 ---the locked one--- at about the #2900 posts and beyond.  It is a good read by both skeptics and non- skeptics.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

And that same rule would apply to an 800 to 1000lb bi-ped, which would certainly explain the track depth Patty achieved 6X over the men who walked over the PGF site.

 

And in case I have never shared this - John Green told me more than once that Rene Dahinden went to Bluff Creek expecting to prove a hoax had taken place, but was unable to it when all the evidence was taken into consideration.

 

 

BFH,

 

I know you are basing the 800-1000lbs weight on actual weight of a zoo gorilla but I mention this so people don't think we are pulling numbers out of thin air.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Not just the 5' 6" silverback that is built much like Patty in muscle bulk and taller, but also on the same estimate that those experienced woodsmen and hunters estimated the weight of the subject who made the  tracks at the film site.

 

Anything being pulled out of thin air is coming from those who think little Roger Patterson erected a scaffold over the site and hand dug each track to perfection or was able to swoosh a magic stick over damp packed wavy sand and somehow restored it back to its natural condition so to hide their own tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...