Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

^^

 

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.

 

Sweeping tracks away is not the only possibility. You struggle with this as a Bigfoot believer in the refusal to think like a hoaxer. Never making footprints in the first place is also an option for a Bigfoot hoaxer. Things can be worn or attached to the foot to prevent making any tracks.

 

Bigfoothunter, Gimli says it was pouring rain on the night of the 20th and that he got up in the night to cover the tracks. He was wearing cowboy boots, yes? Hello, where are those tracks? If Gimlin really covered the tracks, they should have cowboy boot prints around them.

 

Oh noes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Bigfoothunter, Gimlin says it was pouring rain on the night of the 20th and that he got up in the night to cover the tracks. He was wearing cowboy boots, yes? Hello, where are those tracks? If Gimlin really covered the tracks, they should have cowboy boot prints around them.

 

Oh noes.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the second reel footage shot October 20th. I'm referring to the scene as reported by Lyle Laverty and Bob Titmus. If Gimlin had gone and covered the tracks to keep the rain off them, his cowboy boot prints should have been all around those tracks he covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

^^

 

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.

 

How would a scientist know you test is valid?  Should he take your word for it?

No.  And I won't either, I'd like to see a link to your experiment, and some field notes, maybe some details on your control, and how you determined that the mud you were walking in was anything like the mud at Bluff creek in Oct. of 1967.

 

I'm sure none of your supporters here would begrudge me an opportunity to look at the actual experiment or paper you did. would they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Regarding footprint depth, I conducted a little experiment walking on the beach yesterday. First, I stepped forward very lightly...and left only a small depression in the sand. Then I stepped forward with a stronger push-off, and drove me heel into the sand...and left a much deeper impression.

 

Result of experiment....'footprint depth' was not simply a result of 'body weight'. There was an additional factor....the force generated by the trailing leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

A bowling ball works partly by the use of Angular Momentum picking up momentum off the ground as the ball 'spins' having a different of more violent effect on the 10 pins.  The same weighted ball thrown with little or no spin to 'slide' on the oil of the lane may bounce off the head pin even though it is 1) the same weight  2) hits the pins with more speed.  One key reason is It is Not Spinning.  Usually then multiple throws will result in example one having more 'action' and knocking down more pins than example two.

 

The footprint thing is a bit like that.  There are multiple variables which don't seem obvious or make much sense at first glance.  That is why I don't blame people who make the first snap impression regarding the Footpints=Weight.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

So an apeman's footprint is deeper than a horses, because Bowling balls and walking on beach sand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

 

At this point I think the best I can do is direct you to the previous thread I suggested before which covered this footprint issue in some detail.   See my post #148 of this thread for directions on that.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to the second reel footage shot October 20th. I'm referring to the scene as reported by Lyle Laverty and Bob Titmus. If Gimlin had gone and covered the tracks to keep the rain off them, his cowboy boot prints should have been all around those tracks he covered.

 

Actually, Gimlin said it started to rain. Titmus said he saw the mens footprints. Unfortunetly we don't have but a few tracks in a clip and only the pour track shows ground disturbances, which debunks your nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So an apeman's footprint is deeper than a horses, because Bowling balls and walking on beach sand...

 

 

There can be a difference due to the manner of stepping forward....i.e...how much force is generated by one, or more trailing legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

How would a scientist know you test is valid?  Should he take your word for it?

No.  And I won't either, I'd like to see a link to your experiment, and some field notes, maybe some details on your control, and how you determined that the mud you were walking in was anything like the mud at Bluff creek in Oct. of 1967.

 

I'm sure none of your supporters here would begrudge me an opportunity to look at the actual experiment or paper you did. would they?

 

What my supporters would say is to test it for yourself, unless you do no t trust yourself. The Scientific Journal' article was written by experts in the mechanics of bi-pedalism. They stated all the forces of bi-pedalismthat come into play when it comes to track depth, so I followed their writings and went and tested it for myself. So far you have not bothered to even read the information presented in the thread, nor have you said you conducted your own field test - so why waste our time. I shared the images and the results. Steenburg filmed the affair. The ball is in your court now - need me to find your a horse?

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

 

You can't have it both ways. A horse weighs less than a Abrams tank. One weighs very little even with a rider.  The tank weighs tons even without a crew. Yet, it is a fact the tracks made by the Running horse (or even a solder walking along side the tank at times) can leave tracks deeper than the Tank. 

 

You ignore this fact and focus on the nit picky issues on BFH experiment not being science or good math or whatever. 

 

Do you agree a racing horse can leave tracks deeper than an Abrams tank?  Yes or No

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Backdoc, I really hate to see an Abrams tank being dragged into this dispute.  I mean...for goodness sakes...leave poor Mr. Abrams, and his tank alone. :beach:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I prefer the Challenger 2 tank anyway. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I haven't heard much about that one, Neander.....other than "it was built like a tank". :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^

 

Backdoc, I really hate to see an Abrams tank being dragged into this dispute.  I mean...for goodness sakes...leave poor Mr. Abrams, and his tank alone. :beach:

 

So true!  :sarcastic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...