Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

Drew

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?

 

Did you record Weights, foot area, gait, soil composition, moisture, etc?  And where can I see this information ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^Did Dennett do any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Did you record Weights, foot area, gait, soil composition, moisture, etc?  And where can I see this information ?

 

 

Did Issac Newton weigh the apple and record the air temperature that day vs the barometric pressure at sea level or was it enough he could observe the apple fell down each and every time and not up?

 

I get what you are saying.  It would be nice to have a more exact picture of any idea put out there by skeptic and believers alike.  Yet, it is clear BFH easily was able to do what many have said was impossible to do simply by testing it from a demonstrative point of view.

 

Can't you at least admit that.  Tell ya what lets do this:

 

Did BFH conduct and experiment where he was able to walk with a horse and show his tracks were deeper than the horse he had with him?

 

Yes or No.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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.

 

Without talking about what one can do in fine dust on a hard packed trail, which that BS clip you introduced as proof a while back was talking about - tell us what can be placed on the bottom of a foot that can step upon a wavy sandbar and not break down any of the high places?

 

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.

 

 

I spent a week in Bluff Creek and yes it rained, but not everywhere. Gimlin mentioned it raining where he and Roger were camped, but for the sake of the discussion - let us assume it also rained at the film site. Titmus remarked that he could see the mens footprints. The problem for you is that the few film frames we have of the 2nd reel shows only four or so tracks and they are filmed not from directly up close and overhead, but at a distance off to the side of the trackway. Once again you have proposed a theory that cannot be supported by the evidence as it stands.

IMG_0166_zpsvtgeskdo.jpg

IMG_0129_zps0l0wpuxq.jpg

 

Some people have suggested bags over the shoes, but the bags on the shoes nonsense makes about as much sense as a woodpecker needing a rubber beak. Roger and Bob were justified to have walked right up to the tracks, but they obviously didn't in the frames I have viewed. And obviously the ones Gimlin did manage to cover with tree bark or cardboard are not in the short sequence of tracks we have viewed. So eitherway - it would have been justified for either man to have walked right up to each of the tracks the creature had made, thus there would be no need to concern themselves with hiding their own tracks. Your even mentioning Gimlin covering tracks (In the dark) means little per the evidence on the second reel as it came much later into the early morning hours before daylight. Those tracks were referenced by those who had come upon the film site.

 

Like I said - as nutty and poorly thought out as Kerry's suggestions were - they demonstrated more thought than you have demonstrated to your response as Kerry knew there could not be any ground disturbances left behind considering the uneveness of the sandbar.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If I was to think like a hoaxer, I'd make a film of a bigfoot and then never return to the same site.  Making false footprints makes no sense at all, and bringing other people to the film site also makes no sense at all.  It would be like asking to get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Did you record Weights, foot area, gait, soil composition, moisture, etc?  And where can I see this information ?

 

You can see that information in the thread that was recommended to you. There are no shortcuts here. I might add that it reflects poorly on you to ask for information whhen you won't bother bringing yourself up to speed by first reading what has been presented. Had you bothered to read the thread, then you would have found that the horse weighed 3X+ times my weight. The foot area and gait distances can be measured in the photos if you so desire to do so. The soil composition was a mixture of soil and sand. The moisture is seen in the photos .... in one instance the horse stepped into a track my sandal had made previously. If you bothered to study the photos, then you would note that the horse actually stepped closer to the still standing water than I had and yet my bare foot managed to make a deeper print than the horse.

 

The Scientific Journal article concerning the causes for track depth when it came to the dynamics involved in bi-pedalism was presented along with our field test in the same thread. And so you have the correct order of things - the science article on foot dynamics and its effect on track depth was read first - then the field test was done later so to verify if what the article said was correct.

 

Now would you like for me to find a horse near your place of residence so you could conduct your own field study as I would be happy to help you in that regard. The same offer was made to Kerry, but he seemed to only be interested in playing games and fishing for reactions for he never bothered to do a simple field test of his own. Although to his credit - he did appear to have read the thread and had glanced through the articles provided.

If I was to think like a hoaxer, I'd make a film of a bigfoot and then never return to the same site.  Making false footprints makes no sense at all, and bringing other people to the film site also makes no sense at all.  It would be like asking to get caught.

 

Your observation makes perfect sense and one our resident skeptic critical thinkers may have over-looked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

You can see that information in the thread that was recommended to you. There are no shortcuts here. I might add that it reflects poorly on you to ask for information whhen you won't bother bringing yourself up to speed by first reading what has been presented. Had you bothered to read the thread, then you would have found that the horse weighed 3X+ times my weight. The foot area and gait distances can be measured in the photos if you so desire to do so. The soil composition was a mixture of soil and sand. The moisture is seen in the photos .... in one instance the horse stepped into a track my sandal had made previously. If you bothered to study the photos, then you would note that the horse actually stepped closer to the still standing water than I had and yet my bare foot managed to make a deeper print than the horse.

 

The Scientific Journal article concerning the causes for track depth when it came to the dynamics involved in bi-pedalism was presented along with our field test in the same thread. And so you have the correct order of things - the science article on foot dynamics and its effect on track depth was read first - then the field test was done later so to verify if what the article said was correct.

 

Now would you like for me to find a horse near your place of residence so you could conduct your own field study as I would be happy to help you in that regard. The same offer was made to Kerry, but he seemed to only be interested in playing games and fishing for reactions for he never bothered to do a simple field test of his own. Although to his credit - he did appear to have read the thread and had glanced through the articles provided.

 

 

You are being evasive.  Did you record the info I requested?  Do you have a link to the data?

It is so easy in this day and age to link to the data (if you have it), Please don't try to make me look bad because you won't provide a link to the study you claim to have done.

 

If you did not record those measurements, and cannot provide a link to the data, I would suggest that next time he get some help in planning executing, recording and analyzing your data.  Making rude remarks and shifting the blame to someone else, is not going to make up for your inability to provide a link or reference to the information.

 

PROTIP: A collage of 4 cropped photos, does not a study make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

I think the footprints are the easiest part of the event to hoax. If you refuse to accept the possibility of a false trackway you are either a denialist or have no imagination.

I kind of think the tracks are too deep for the figure if it is in fact 6-6.5 feet. If the stomp test and other comparisons are to be taken as fact i dont think the figure could have the mass to make prints that deep. Maybe sometime ill do the math

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Based on what? A 5' 6" Silverback Gorillia has been recorded to weigh 776lbs. And tracks may be easy to fake in mud and snow, but the subject in the PGF walked over a very uneven wavy sandbar that only allowed men weighing as much as 250lbs to sink into the ground 1/4". Merely saying something would be easy is easy - but offering a sensible and rational solution to how it could be achieved has not been forthcoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Fenor,

 

I can only direct you to the same thread (the footprints thread #1 which is locked) where this was all covered in great detail.

 

The mass has little independently to do with this as it is only one factor.

 

The same diver from the same height may have one dive as a perfect 10 making little splash. The the exact same dive where he goes in imperfectly causes a score of 7 and a big splash.  Same height, falling speed and so on.  The difference is how he interacted with the water.  In this case how the foot interact with the 'sand'

 

I agree with you footprints can be faked. The issue is if they were faked in this case.  If so, what one man can do another can do.  

 

So please:

1)  Show us HOW they were faked.

2)  Tell us WHY would there be a need to fake prints at all?  After all, a man in a suit leaves prints already.

 

I understand you are saying faking is possible.  I agree it is possible to fake tracks.  But again, were they faked in this case?

 

We can agree a man can wear and ape suit.  2001 showed us this was 'possible'   In this case though it only matters if a man could wear a suit by fitting into a Patty suit and moving as patty moves completing that result.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

You are being evasive.  Did you record the info I requested?  Do you have a link to the data?

It is so easy in this day and age to link to the data (if you have it), Please don't try to make me look bad because you won't provide a link to the study you claim to have done.

 

If you did not record those measurements, and cannot provide a link to the data, I would suggest that next time he get some help in planning executing, recording and analyzing your data.  Making rude remarks and shifting the blame to someone else, is not going to make up for your inability to provide a link or reference to the information.

 

PROTIP: A collage of 4 cropped photos, does not a study make.

 

Maybe some definitions are in order ... for you obviously have not read the referenced Scientific Journal article in the thread you were asked to get up to speed on.

 

Had you actually read through the thread, then you would find that what I, Steenburg, and John Myles (the man with the horse) did was a field test. The data on the additional factors to achieving track depth related to bi-pedalism was thoroughly laid out in the Scientific Journal article linked in the thread that you obviously have not bothered to read.

 

Our field test was conducted for those who either couldn't comprehend the information presented in the scientific article - were too lazy to read it - or were too busy to read it. So we simplified things by merely showing the process with images and invited anyone and everyone to test it for themselves. We followed Gimlin's description of how he slowly walked his horse near the tracks of the creature. The horse I used had a 5" shoe. It was said by its owner to weigh 750lbs - 800lbs. I first made a track while wearing a sandal where the horse would be walking. The horse's owner then slowly walked the horse over the substrate. I then stepped in the same substrate and found that I too could leave a deeper track than a horse who weighed more than 3X my own weight of 260 to 275lbs.

P1010185_zps90601f31.jpg

 

Like Kerry, you have been given the offer of assistance in locating a horse near you so you can duplicate what we did and confirm that the scientific journal article is correct. There are no short cuts here. How serious do you wish to appear is up to you.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

1)  Show us HOW they were faked.

2)  Tell us WHY would there be a need to fake prints at all?  After all, a man in a suit leaves prints already.

 

 

Backdoc

Ill counter with

Wheres the bodies?

wheres the dna?

Pretty stupid huh? Wanna repeat some more stupid questions that give no satisfying answers. If you cant show me a bigfoot body bigfoot must not exist. If you cant show me how bigfoot has avoided dying around people or being captured bigfoot cannot exist. It can go on forever. If you cant show me another video at least as good as the pgf to the same scrutiny all humans are compared against patty and gets a pass the pgf must be fake. Show me how it would be impossible for humans to create the pgf with all the creativity and ingenuity that humanity has demonstrated or the pgf must be fake. One could come up with stupid questions and statements all day.

Gimlin jumps 4 feet off a stump weighing what 150 lbs wearing high heel boots. Patty is at best 400-500 lbs, probably less. Patty doesnt look like a silverback gorilla she looks like a guy in an ape suit or something close but not human depending on who you ask. Andre the giant would be much more massive than the rather human pedestrian height of patty and he weighed 540. Plus walking with extremely large feet and using the compliant gait, which minimizes the force over time. Do the math. Makes you wonder why that second film magically disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^

 

Based on what? A 5' 6" Silverback Gorillia has been recorded to weigh 776lbs. 

And they don't have legs like Patty either. It's mostly upper body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Ill counter with

Wheres the bodies?

wheres the dna?

Pretty stupid huh? Wanna repeat some more stupid questions that give no satisfying answers. If you cant show me a bigfoot body bigfoot must not exist. If you cant show me how bigfoot has avoided dying around people or being captured bigfoot cannot exist. It can go on forever. If you cant show me another video at least as good as the pgf to the same scrutiny all humans are compared against patty and gets a pass the pgf must be fake. Show me how it would be impossible for humans to create the pgf with all the creativity and ingenuity that humanity has demonstrated or the pgf must be fake. One could come up with stupid questions and statements all day.

Gimlin jumps 4 feet off a stump weighing what 150 lbs wearing high heel boots. Patty is at best 400-500 lbs, probably less. Patty doesnt look like a silverback gorilla she looks like a guy in an ape suit or something close but not human depending on who you ask. Andre the giant would be much more massive than the rather human pedestrian height of patty and he weighed 540. Plus walking with extremely large feet and using the compliant gait, which minimizes the force over time. Do the math. Makes you wonder why that second film magically disappeared.

 

 

I will  respond when I have some time but let me say I am sorry I misspelled your name earlier.  Response coming soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Makes you wonder why that second film magically disappeared.

 

If they wanted it to not be seen and to disappear then why did they show it to lots of people and then lend it out to the BBC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...