Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

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:

That is a casting artifact created by someone that poorly trained in casting.     Too much material dumped too rapidly.     According to the Cliff B school of casting, the initial layer of plaster has to be carefully applied or you get such artifacts or even what looks like dermal ridges.  Cliff  gingerly sprinkles hydrocal into the impression with his fingers trying to prevent the falling material from distorting the impression before actually beginning to pour the material.   The thick plaster or hydrocal is quite capable of distorting soft sand or damp soil materials if poured directly and too rapidly.     

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

If the substrate was more compacted under that track, it could result in the plantar fatty tissue of the foot compressin' more, givin' that flattened out appearance. Have you the chance to examine one of the casts ? They really are massive, I have a copy of that particular cast that shows the MTB ridge, the one Laverty photographed. I believe you are suggestin' loose material in the gap between a cowboy boot heel an the forefoot would allow a ridge of dirt to remain, producin' what we refer to as the pressure ridge. I just can't see how. Just in front of the ridge is where the track is deepest, where the foot bent an its full weight was applied creatin the ridge.

 

The image above is of scanned casts. Here are some of the casts, an image of that particular cast with space from ridge.

 

Pat...

 

 

ps I seem to recall Titmus was running out of plaster, an I believe he even used toilet paper in some, thus the poor condition of some. Not 100%, would have ta recheck, as it's been a bit.

post-279-0-85651800-1438209186_thumb.jpg

post-279-0-70917500-1438209352.gif

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

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.    

Well as  the  bigfoot  researcher you claim to be I can either say that your powers of observations are par for the bigfoot course, or maybe poor or perhaps just not well thought out.  But here's a couple of photographs of some well known personalities in the world of bigfoot who just happen to be wearing cowboy boots.  Now can you make out anything under the jeans they're wearing that is tipping the observer off that there's a boot top extending up the calf under the jeans?  I can't.  Now imagine some jeans under a big bulky padded monkey suit and then think of how much a boot top might show.

 

rp_zpsq6wvyxam.jpg

 

post-39-1116488099_zpsdhbl1tdp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

If a cowboy boot was within a costumed foot, don't you think when the foot was placed on softer substrate that allowed the natural contours of the toes an heel to be visible as we see in some of the other casts, don't you think it would have the same effect on a boot, I would expect to see the actual heel shape, the outline of the forefoot. An with that, how do you explain the natural depths from heel to toes ? 

 

Pat...

ps Notice the depth of the partial boot print to the right of the track.

5957df1ce2f7d0bd926671362399dc525g.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the logical question would then be why dont we see a "boot heel" strike with all of the prints? If Patty is having a "wardrobe malfunction" then then it too should be consistent.

and who is wearing these cowboy boots under this costume? Andre the Giant?

Detros western wear outside of Omak, Wa actually has a pair of custom made cowboy boots made for Andre the giant on display in the store.

I think your on to something Crow, i think a rigid boot made for riding in a stirrup would be my first choice for making fake Bigfoot feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Well as  the  bigfoot  researcher you claim to be I can either say that your powers of observations are par for the bigfoot course, or maybe poor or perhaps just not well thought out.  But here's a couple of photographs of some well known personalities in the world of bigfoot who just happen to be wearing cowboy boots.  Now can you make out anything under the jeans they're wearing that is tipping the observer off that there's a boot top extending up the calf under the jeans?  I can't.  Now imagine some jeans under a big bulky padded monkey suit and then think of how much a boot top might show.

 

Your point is noted, but meaningless on several levels.

 

You first need to establish that what you think you see is not an illusion based on light and shadow.

 

Next you must give a rational explanation why a boot heel would show up in one track and not another either before or after.

 

Then if you still think that what you see is a boot was inside a fake foot, then you must explain how that person made tracks 6x deeper than a 200 to 250lb man could make. This is why Kitakaze and other cynics try so hard to say the prints were hand dug because they understand that a man even in his boots and in a fur suit could not account for the weight needed to make such deep impressions in the ground.

 

Think like an investigator and not as a skeptic.

I think your on to something Crow, i think a rigid boot made for riding in a stirrup would be my first choice for making fake Bigfoot feet.

 

But then that would take away the dynamics of the foot bends seen by Patty on the film which causes the additional track depth that the men in stiff rigid foot-ware soles were not able to achieve.    :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a casting artifact created by someone that poorly trained in casting.     Too much material dumped too rapidly.     According to the Cliff B school of casting, the initial layer of plaster has to be carefully applied or you get such artifacts or even what looks like dermal ridges.  Cliff  gingerly sprinkles hydrocal into the impression with his fingers trying to prevent the falling material from distorting the impression before actually beginning to pour the material.   The thick plaster or hydrocal is quite capable of distorting soft sand or damp soil materials if poured directly and too rapidly.     

 

I know. I was being facetious and doing a Crow Logic when I said it looked like it had just busted out of a giant egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crowlogic,

 

If a cowboy boot was within a costumed foot, don't you think when the foot was placed on softer substrate that allowed the natural contours of the toes an heel to be visible as we see in some of the other casts, don't you think it would have the same effect on a boot, I would expect to see the actual heel shape, the outline of the forefoot. An with that, how do you explain the natural depths from heel to toes ? 

 

Pat...

ps Notice the depth of the partial boot print to the right of the track.

5957df1ce2f7d0bd926671362399dc525g.jpg

Something is responsible for the look of that particular print.  I'm not the lone creator of the observation.  Other people have noted it too.  So let's ask why do some of the prints show a very scooped out center and others don't?  If a person s going to argue that the print is an authentic organic imprint of a real foot let them explain the anomaly.  One explanation is that it's the boot heel inside of a fake foot that showed through the latex layer of the costume foot.  We can look at a hundred of human foot prints in similar circumstances and they are likely not to show the anomaly of possible boot mark and scooped out mid section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because a living foot flexes and looks different with each step. somewhere on this website i posted several photos of my sons trackway on a beach on the pend oreille river.

they certainly didnt all look the same. but he was being more variable in his gait than patty. when he started to run you could see the pressure discs under the ball of the foot that meldrum talks about with humans.

if i came across a bigfoot trackway on a beach in which the tracks were identical with each step? id suspect a hoax.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

I Have held casts from patty, provided by Dr. Meldrum, and there is no Arch present, like humans. If you look at the cast you can see how the foot pushed off with a ridge right behind the toes, totally unlike a human. A human pushes off with the Ball of the foot, thus creating the Arch impression. To each his own on what you want to believe.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is responsible for the look of that particular print.  I'm not the lone creator of the observation.  Other people have noted it too.  So let's ask why do some of the prints show a very scooped out center and others don't?  If a person s going to argue that the print is an authentic organic imprint of a real foot let them explain the anomaly.  One explanation is that it's the boot heel inside of a fake foot that showed through the latex layer of the costume foot.

Sorry, but the boot print is a total red herring. You only need to look at the level of distortion on the other casts to realize it could be due to any number of things, which you seem to be selectively ignoring. You are also ignoring follow-up questions re the ramifications of your "boot in the bigfoot" hypothesis. But you also aren't following thru by outlining the boot over any of these casts. And this..

 

We can look at a hundred of human foot prints in similar circumstances and they are likely not to show the anomaly of possible boot mark and scooped out mid section.

How the heck do you know this? You can't rationalize pareidolia with speculation. You need to do more experimenting and less speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

I agree with most of your assertions,as we know Bigfoot does not exist. I do however,do not believe that is in fact a boot  mark.

It would be most illogical to assume it would show up in just one track. Now, I know that tracks  can be very different and appear to be what they are not. Thank you for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Something is responsible for

Something is responsible for the look of that particular print.  I'm not the lone creator of the observation.  Other people have noted it too.  So let's ask why do some of the prints show a very scooped out center and others don't?  If a person s going to argue that the print is an authentic organic imprint of a real foot let them explain the anomaly.  One explanation is that it's the boot heel inside of a fake foot that showed through the latex layer of the costume foot.  We can look at a hundred of human foot prints in similar circumstances and they are likely not to show the anomaly of possible boot mark and scooped out mid section.

 

:o     huh!   Patty's foot hinges each time she takes a step, so its the loamy condition of the substrate she walked on that allows her stepping dynamics to be seen.

 

The appearance of what you interpret to be a heel mark has been explained. Contact someone who has the cast and see if you can rule out lighting and shadow as being the cause - unless you don't wish to rule it out.    :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

Ok Crowlogic.     I said it was unlikely anyone would wear boots under a costume.   You claim it was done.  As you are so fond of saying, provide some evidence of that in pictures of Patty since that is what we are talking about.     What difference what someone wears under a costume has, if it was a costume.    You cannot prove it was a costume but now you are deciding what was worn under it?       So you insult me as a researcher over a point that is meaningless just to get a reaction from me.   .    That is trolling.        Keep it up.  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Crowlogic is probably scratching his head and wondering how he can get that weight issue figured out for a heel mark in a track as he thinks happens kills the hand-dug trackway theory and makes it impossible for a man to achieve the track depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...