Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

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.

It would be most illogical to believe a boot print would appear on only one of several tracks.  It would also be illogical of me to assume that bigfoot does not exist when on July 11, 2011, I heard two approaching and one nearly ran over me.   Oh I know,  I was probably imagining it.    But I cannot figure out why my imagination would produce an image of a BF in a camera during the encounter.    Could you explain that scientific process to me?       Does that work like ghosts on photographs?    

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

^^

 

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.

Nope,   Crowlogic is not scratching head but is probably reading and wondering:    "Trolling (purposely posting messages designed to alarm, antagonize, or provoke other users) will not be tolerated. The staff -- not the users -- will determine if someone is trolling."     He is hoping the staff does not conclude that calling me a "poor researcher" over wearing boots under a costume,   apparently just to antagonize me,  meets the definition of trolling.   Crowlogic has yet to show any picture evidence of Patties legs,   that suggests boots being worn.  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

^^

 

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.

No actually I was responding to observations others have made with that print.  Go back to where I first posted about it and you'll know the motive.  With regards to the PGF it's  no longer possible to have a discussion about it as the is a population of proponents who's lives seem to revolve around the film.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Moderator

It would be most illogical to believe a boot print would appear on only one of several tracks.  It would also be illogical of me to assume that bigfoot does not exist when on July 11, 2011, I heard two approaching and one nearly ran over me.   Oh I know,  I was probably imagining it.    But I cannot figure out why my imagination would produce an image of a BF in a camera during the encounter.    Could you explain that scientific process to me?       Does that work like ghosts on photographs?    

 

Exactly; it's amazing how it looks when you apply a little common sense. As BFH said earlier, why didn't the boot mark appear in the tracks right before or after it? Why didn't it appear on other tracks?

As also said earlier; if it truly was a cowboy boot in a costume, why didn't the track show the curved outline of the boot's sole at the ball of the foot? As the foot goes through the completion of a step, there's a lot of pressure on the ground from the ball of the foot when you push off.

 

Here's something else that makes no sense. Assuming the whole thing was a hoax,and it was truly a fur suit, it was so sophisticated and head and shoulders beyond anything else at the time. It was so sophisticated no one has been able to duplicate the suit since.

But despite such a sophisticated suit, no one even bothered to think about what a pair of cowboy boots inside the foot might do to the tracks appearance. Must have slipped their minds. ;)

Imagine doing all that planning of a hoax, and with a suit of such sophistication it's fooled many people, and getting a person that could perform a walk that has also fooled many people; only to be done in by a pair of cowboy boots. :o

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

 

What he said!


 With regards to the PGF it's  no longer possible to have a discussion about it as the is a population of proponents who's lives seem to revolve around the film.  

 

Why did you start this thread then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

Good question.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

No actually I was responding to observations others have made with that print.  Go back to where I first posted about it and you'll know the motive.  With regards to the PGF it's  no longer possible to have a discussion about it as the is a population of proponents who's lives seem to revolve around the film.  

 

You are the one who I have addressed and you have not addressed any of the points I have made. It cannot be both ways. Either the costume foot malfunctioned and a boot print came through and then continued to do so (which it obviously did not) or it was a man in a suit wearing boots that managed to sink his tracks 6X deeper than what 250llb men were able to do. All roads point to a flawed theory based on the evidence - what did you expect others to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

It would be most illogical to believe a boot print would appear on only one of several tracks.  It would also be illogical of me to assume that bigfoot does not exist when on July 11, 2011, I heard two approaching and one nearly ran over me.   Oh I know,  I was probably imagining it.    But I cannot figure out why my imagination would produce an image of a BF in a camera during the encounter.    Could you explain that scientific process to me?       Does that work like ghosts on photographs?    

Thank you for the witty answer. It made me smile. Now, I will answer . First of all I would need to see the photograph before I could comment and or dismiss it. Most likely, misidentification  or hoax. Imagination would certainly explain   a mere  sighting but, if you have photographic evidence ,well that is another story.  I am from a chemistry background. I am certainly no expert on ghostly photographs. How ever, I am quite sure they are easily explained by much more qualified experts than me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone just slip something over a boot and walk on some dirt and show us this is even possible? I highly doubt a boot inside a rubber foot would do this. Let's see it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No actually I was responding to observations others have made with that print.  Go back to where I first posted about it and you'll know the motive.  With regards to the PGF it's  no longer possible to have a discussion about it as the is a population of proponents who's lives seem to revolve around the film.

The PGF = He ain't heavy, he's my brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

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.

Indeed but so does a latex costume foot.  The Patty casts/photos that show an extremely displaced mid section appear to me to be beyond the limits of living tissue displacement mid tarsal break not withstanding.  It's not so much of the look of foot flex but of the center section of the foot to have had the structure shoved up and in.  But there's nowhere for it to go in a real foot.  But a fake flexing rubbery foot lacking the structure and stiffness of bone might deform in such a manner.  Consider the depth of the deformation seen in that cast/photo.  Then consider that the biped animal weighting several hundred pounds evolved up on two legs with feet that are that predisposed to deformation.  The mid tarsal break as in other primates is an attractive idea except that bigfoot is not arboreal walks on two legs and is heavier than everything else.  Think about it what does it need a mid tarsal break for?  It needs one as much as we do and we don't have one or the need for one.

 

Copy%202of%20titmuscasts_zps9e20d2ca.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

With regards to the PGF it's  no longer possible to have a discussion about it as the is a population of proponents who's lives seem to revolve around the film.  

 

I think rational discussion is welcome. I thought it rational for you to think you saw a footprint in a track, so I took you serious and went and had a look for myself. By seeing that particular photo - I understand why you raised the possibility of it being a heel print, but that is as far as you can run with it if you are not able and willing to sensibly and rationally discuss the issues raised for the one time artifact.

 

Two major issues:

1)  Explain how the track depth of a man wearing boots inside a 40lb costume was able to s

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed but so does a latex costume foot.  The Patty casts/photos that show an extremely displaced mid section appear to me to be beyond the limits of living tissue displacement mid tarsal break not withstanding.  It's not so much of the look of foot flex but of the center section of the foot to have had the structure shoved up and in.  But there's nowhere for it to go in a real foot.  But a fake flexing rubbery foot lacking the structure and stiffness of bone might deform in such a manner.  

 

 

The footprint does not necessarily represent the shape of the foot itself, Crow...it shows the shape of the ground underneath the foot....as it was affected/altered by the foot.

 

Just look at the variation of shapes left in sand, with human footprints. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...