Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

Drew

Where is the link to Bigfoothunter BM's study?

 

Is it here at BFF? or in the RHI?

 

I'd love to read about how torque enters into the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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?

 

You cannot use the entire surface of the foot for a simplistic psi calculation. How much area does the heel cover, which is driven into the sand with long heavy strides before rolling and pushing off? A dynamic foot has a much different distribution of forces that are concentrated over smaller areas increasing the psi, while a horse essentially walks flat hooved. It doesn't roll its rigid hooves like an ape foot does. Patty's tracks did not have uniform depth except for the hardpan tracks that Roger cast. But Gimlin was not referring to those tracks being deeper than a horse's since they obviously weren't.

 

This isn't even about whether a puny human can leave deeper tracks than a horse. But if it can be demonstrated that this is the case, then the deepness of bigfoot tracks is a no brainer.

 

ETA: the ultimate experiment would be to create a graph showing the weights of a walking horse and human vs their track depth. Conduct all the tests under the same conditions as described by Gimlin. Had he done this experiment at Bluff Creek beside Patty's tracks, we could refer to the graph and estimate her weight much more accurately than Glickman's method of deriving Patty's dimensions from the film and applying them to a formula for estimating the weight of gorillas. No wonder est over 1000 lbs if he thought Patty was >7' tall. Wrong height and wrong formula.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

This is for the benefit of Drew in case he was pre-occupied during the weeks and months that Kerry unsuccessfully argued that he knew more than the Scientific Journals while never demonstrating it.

 

This is the Patterson Creature driving its right foot heel into the substrate as its weight is moving forward. This is followed by the right forefoot hitting the ground before the creature's weight passes over the stepping foot.

 

Next if we draw our attention to the stepping off sequence which is visible with the left foot - the heel comes off the ground and the creature's weight is passing over the forefoot. The last thing that happens is the push-off with the toes.

footdynamicsinthesteppingprocess_zpse18c

 

The exact same sequence is witnessed when closely examining the cast Patterson made. A first generation copy cast is seen below in profile.

RPfootcastdynamics_zps2a28a35b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

The weight isn't fully transferred to the front foot at the time the heel hits the ground.  

 

This is a silly made up Believer Story to appeal to the Pattyphiles.  It has no scientific basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The weight isn't fully transferred to the front foot at the time the heel hits the ground.  

 

This is a silly made up Believer Story to appeal to the Pattyphiles.  It has no scientific basis.

 

Drew,

 

You make no sense in what you just said. Was the animation not slow enough for you. Are you saying Patty only walks on her heels - really?

 

In the animation I posted - the front foot is not seen as the creatures weight passes directly over it because the gif doesn't run that long and is why I then brought your attention to the left rear foot as the heel rises from the ground for its in the last processes of stepping off.

 

Below is Patty as her left foot is leaving the ground and going to its next step. Her weight is now in the process of being supported by her right foot which can be seen flat on the ground. That foot will eventually have its heel come off the ground as her weight moves forward and pushes off during its stepping process. The Scientific Journal article explains how the muscles and tendons in the pushing off process adds to the track depth.

SEQUENCE4_zps5cfad1de.gif

 

I suggest you study Patty's whole stepping process while watching a slowed down version of the film. At some point her weight must pass over her foot which then means as the heel comes off the ground, then her total weight is then only on the front portion of her foot in front of the ankle, thus adding to her track depth. The push off with the toes adds that little bit extra depth as they are the last thing to come off the ground as her foot is all but verticle by that time.

 

I am a bi-ped as well. Here is what happened when I got off my can and actually tested what the Science Journal said should happen.

trackdepthtest1_zpsb1d72782.jpg

 

I also suggest you go back to the thread that Backdoc mentioned to you and read the "Scientific Journal" article about the dynamics involved in track depth when it comes to bi-pedalism. And so you know - The Scientific Jounal is a magazine written by experts who deal with the world of science and the word "Bigfoot" or "Pattyphiles" are not mentioned anywhere.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

More than weight is involved as well. There is kinetic energy. The faster the pace, the more kinetic energy coming at the ground, initially focused on the relatively small heel. Mathematically, the analysis will probably prove to be difficult. Empirically, through experiment, this can be examined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Links to a couple of scientific studies have already been posted, in another thread, Mike.

 

The studies determined that 'footprint depth' is a very complex issue....and is not a simple indicator of 'body weight'.

 

 

And, you are right, regarding 'kinetic energy' being involved in determining the depth of the impressions. In addition to the energy due to the subject's 'body weight'....there is energy created by the subject's leg (thigh) muscles...and transferred to the ground, via the foot. 

 

And as we can clearly see...if Patty is a real creature....she has very well developed thigh muscles. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

The funny thing is the mind trap the skeptic gets into on this foot depth thing. 

 

In one breath they say a man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse.  Then they say Patty is a man in a suit.  They admit Patty DOES IN FACT leave tracks deeper than a horse.  Thus, since they say a man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse, they MUST have the tracks come from hand digging them.  Otherwise, if the tracks were not hand dug or stomped by some unknown method, the tracks would have to come from a man (in a suit) leaving tracks deeper than a horse when he walks.

 

Add to all of this nonsense the fact they can't give a good reason why the tracks would have to be faked in the first place from a hoaxing perspective.  Faking them requires Roger going back and destroying the original tracks.  But the theory REQUIRES this step since they cling to the first premise:  A man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

^^^

The funny thing is the mind trap the skeptic gets into on this foot depth thing. 

 

In one breath they say a man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse.  Then they say Patty is a man in a suit.  They admit Patty DOES IN FACT leave tracks deeper than a horse.  Thus, since they say a man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse, they MUST have the tracks come from hand digging them.  Otherwise, if the tracks were not hand dug or stomped by some unknown method, the tracks would have to come from a man (in a suit) leaving tracks deeper than a horse when he walks.

 

Add to all of this nonsense the fact they can't give a good reason why the tracks would have to be faked in the first place from a hoaxing perspective.  Faking them requires Roger going back and destroying the original tracks.  But the theory REQUIRES this step since they cling to the first premise:  A man cannot leave tracks deeper than a horse.

 

Backdoc

 

All of the attempts at explaining track fakery are absolutely incoherent.

 

Sad that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

 

 

 

I am a bi-ped as well. Here is what happened when I got off my can and actually tested what the Science Journal said should happen.

trackdepthtest1_zpsb1d72782.jpg

 

You did a study on footprint depth, and all we get is 4or5 cropped photos of your feet walking in an area muddier than the horse tracks are in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Drew,

 

Your nonsense is as ridiculous as Kerry's was. I stepped within an inch of the path the horse stepped. There was no difference in the soil condition where I stepped in relation to the horse. You were not there and have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Steenburg actually filmed the process.

 

To prove what we did was valid - I invited Kerry (or anyone else to do the same) and if he did not know where to find a horse .... I offered to find one online near his location so he could conduct his own field test. Kerry never bothered to take the offer, nor did he ever post that he attempted to verify the field test. Now the ball is in your court - either crap or get off the pot! Just don't waste my time giving me your uninformed photographic interpretations.

 

By the way, I believe you will find more photos in the thread this discussion went on in, but you'll have to look for them. I would do it, but I would only get peeved if I found that you were posting in that thread which means you're just fishing for a better term of saying it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You did a study on footprint depth, and all we get is 4or5 cropped photos of your feet walking in an area muddier than the horse tracks are in? 

 

So what exactly are you offereing for a rebuttal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

You did a study on footprint depth, and all we get is 4or5 cropped photos of your feet walking in an area muddier than the horse tracks are in? 

 

 

Drew,

 

For you to be correct what BFH was able to accomplish could not BE accomplished.  Anyone can in fact go out and repeat the test. That is what science is.  Something repeatable by others.

 

Can't you just cry uncle and say, "fine guys, I made some assumptions on this issue which on the surface to me seemed like common sense.  Now, I realize there is more involved and the science can be very complex.  At times I see science can be a paradox to my views I thought were common sense and expected.  I still think the PGF is fake for many other reasons but I finally see what you are saying."

 

Now, that would save us all a lot of time and I must say potential egg- on- your- face in future posting if you continue to go down that path.  Please consider going back to the 'Footprints' thread as I mentioned before where much of this has been offered and debated well by both sides.  I think you will actually think it has been done in a fair manner.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Like Kerry - Drew cannot admit the test was vaild for then the tracks on the sandbar were far deeper than a man in a monkey suit could make. This is why the ridiculous theory was proposed by Kitakaze that Roger beat the Wallace carving into the damp packed sand and all one would need to do to restore the sandbar back to its natural wavy state was to swoosh a tree branch over it so to hide he and/or Gimlin's tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

The foresight and effort needed to pull off this hoax is one of the things that makes the Patty sighting even more real. Seeing the skeptics come up with all their cockamamie explanations just makes things easier for me to believe that a real creature was filmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...