Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

It was mentioned by another poster that they saw a boot mark in one of Patty's prints.  Years ago I noticed this too in possibly the same collection.  Whether or not this is the same example needs the other person to weigh in on it.  But to my eye it does not look organic in nature and  sure looks like a cowboy boot heel pressing from inside of what would then be a fake foot.  Also why doesn't the mid tarsal break show up in all of the prints?  It is as anomalous as the possible boot mark.

 

Copy%20of%20titmuscasts_zpsmfnm252c.jpg[/uR

 

titmuscasts_zpstyjfjz2u.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

Actually, I see evidence of the MTB in most of the casts based on the shadows.  I wish Jeff's Digital archive was workin'.

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bootprint mark? Even if it is, so what? Those tracks were lying there for over a week before they were cast and a number of people visited the site. There were quite a number of tracks at the site (plus evidence of the site visitors) so I wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody stepped in one of them. Titmus had the aim of casting a number of consecutive prints, not the best prints he decided to pick out. If one of the prints had a boot print in it then I don't see what the big deal (or heel) is.

Can somebody explain it for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Bootprint mark? Even if it is, so what? Those tracks were lying there for over a week before they were cast and a number of people visited the site. There were quite a number of tracks at the site (plus evidence of the site visitors) so I wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody stepped in one of them. Titmus had the aim of casting a number of consecutive prints, not the best prints he decided to pick out. If one of the prints had a boot print in it then I don't see what the big deal (or heel) is.

Can somebody explain it for me?

However the way the potential boot mark shows could only have come from the inside forcing out.  A boot heel impressed into one of the prints would have a very different appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realise that is the underside of the cast you are looking at right? Not the top?

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Pat. I wonder how thick he thinks said cowboy boots inside a fake foot would make that overall foot look?

 

Thicker than this you think?

 

Patty-Feet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Neanderfoot,

 

Crowlogic is suggestin a cowboy boot within a costumed foot.

 

Pat...

Pat this is what that photo suggests.  I has I've learned been observed before and from observers independent of my own observation.  Actually  the way the bottom right photo shows the pronounced indention across it's width could imply that the high heel of a cowboy boot inside created an unsupported gap between the heel and ball to allow for the terrain to force it into that hollow section that gets tagged as a mid tarsal break.  That is one heck of a lot of distortion for an organic foot to go through mid tarsal break or not..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Yes Pat. I wonder how thick he thinks said cowboy boots inside a fake foot would make that overall foot look?

 

Thicker than this you think?

 

Patty-Feet.jpg

Gee how thck do you think I think the costume foot was?  What do you think gives that print that appearance?  Hmmmm?

You realise that is the underside of the cast you are looking at right? Not the top?

Yes Virginia  I/we all know what we're looking at and what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its a boot print then obviously somebody stepped into the print after it was made, rather like that Bindernagel track. I mean, what you see as a heel isn't even in the middle of the foot. Its off to the side. Now who on earth would construct a fake bigfoot foot with a cowboy boot inside it and yet not have that cowboy boot in a central location for ease of locomotion??

Why locate the cowboy boot inside the fake foot off to the side???


 

 


Yes Virginia  I/we all know what we're looking at and what they are.

 

I don't think you do. And don't call me Shirley!!

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

However the way the potential boot mark shows could only have come from the inside forcing out.  A boot heel impressed into one of the prints would have a very different appearance.

 

Is this statement above based on your experience in field testing such things?

 

And would it not be protocol to examine or speak to someone who can examine this particular cast to see if this isn't the result of light and shadows. After all, it is a moot point that could be explained away if for no other reason than it's absent from the other cast and ground print images, This alone removes it from being a consistent feature affiliated with the actual foot. So why not contact someone who has the cast and see if what you think you see is actually there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cowboy boot worn inside a costume would be plainly visible looking at the legs of a costume.   Just as boots worn underneath jeans are visible in the legs of the jeans.   You could design a costume around that, to mask the boot outline, but why would you do that?     It would be easier to build adequate foot covering materials into the costume rather than design around a cowboy boot worn underneath.    Still waiting for anyone, in or out of the movie industry to make a costume that does not look like a costume and is comparable to Patty.   Probably the best I have seen is in "Letters to the BIg Man" and that still looks like a man in a costume.    The face in that movie is pretty good but the body and musculature is just wrong.     Two cowboys could not pull off a costume that has yet to be duplicated even by professional costume makers more than 40 years later.    

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

I mean, what you see as a heel isn't even in the middle of the foot. Its off to the side. Now who on earth would construct a fake bigfoot foot with a cowboy boot inside it and yet not have that cowboy boot in a central location for ease of locomotion??

 

You will come up with far more questions to make a point than Crowlogic will have rational answers. The Skeptic Heironimus story has a shoe slipped into a bedroom slipper made with foam toes. All the tracks show toe impressions - many deeper than the track itself as the toe is the last part of the foot to push off the ground. I had a pair of slippers called 'Bear Paws' and can tell everyone that foam toes have no strength for pressing into the ground in the stepping process.

 

If such a foot has a rigid bottom so to prevent such a thing as a heel from showing through, then its flexibility is nonexistent.

 

If the boot is inside a larger fake foot, then it must be affixed to the center or else there would be a great lacking of ground pressure present on one side of the track. Again, this is not something that is reflected by the cast or the ground images that were taken.

 

The reason a mid-tarsal break shows and then doesn't show involves the density of the substrate under the foot. A firm packed substrate may offer a flat appearance to the track as it would restrict ground pressure where a loamy substrate may allow the hinge point of the foot to manipulate the substrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the third cast in the picture looks like it has just busted out of a giant egg. What are we to make of this? That Patty stepped on an ostrich egg hidden on that sandbar? :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...