Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Moderator

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.  

 

I'm not too sure about that. I've imagined a supermodel was sitting next to me on the couch many times but I have yet to see one. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Not sure why my post is seen in full immediately after making it to then having most of it missing the next day, but here it is again:

 

1)  Explain how the track depth of a man wearing boots inside a 40lb costume was able to surpass the track depth of just a man wearing boots by 6X?

 

2)  The track artifact should be examined against other photos of the same in various lighting sources to see if the artifact is just a combination of light and shadows. something no one needs to be concerned with if a sensible rational explanation isn't found for point 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

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. 

Hi Sweaty,  That very misshapen foot cast is indeed telegraphing the ground condition.  The walker stepped on whatever no doubt about it.  But the question is the sheer amount of deformation in the foot underwent that is in question.  Where/how did all that tissue get displaced and where did it displace to?  The point in the near dead center is pretty deep even deeper than the deformation that runs across the width of the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only conclusion (which is of a kind with so many of CL's putatively authoritative comments)  is thus:

Crow has never worn cowboy boots, and certainly has never bothered to look at the boot heel of one.

 

Done and "next!" 

 

"Crowlogic:  When you want to know, but want not to know even more."  

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.

Crow-

 

Under your proposition, why would the boot heel not appear flat across the outline of the boot heel edges? It seems to be domed. If the boot heel was able to show an outline, why the dome? what material in a fake foot would lead to the dome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Patron

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. 

Glad you appreciate my attempt at wit.    We need to lighten things up here for the most part.   When a picture is part of the documentation of a physical event with sounds, movements,  great thuds,    and disturbed soil, it is part of a real event not an apparition, likely looking stump,  or digital artifact.      As an aside related to ghost pictures,   I taught photography lab in college and many of the ghost orbs, flairs etc I see purporting evidence of ghostly apparitions are internal lens reflections,   close and out of focus insects or dust specs,  and in some cases dirty lenses.   I asked one such person with a ghost picture, how often they had cleaned their camera lens.     They responded that they never had cleaned the lens as if they did not know that was possible.      However that sort of lens flair cannot be confused with a hairy thing with eyes,   nose,  arm,  and ears.    That has to be something other than a lens flair or flying insect,   and you have to trust the integrity of the person who took the picture.      The funny thing about that is there are proponents who are so convinced that BF photographs are not possible, because they have not succeeded in taking any,  that they (rightly so) are suspicious of any BF photograph.  

 

     . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Hi Sweaty,  That very misshapen foot cast is indeed telegraphing the ground condition.  The walker stepped on whatever no doubt about it.  But the question is the sheer amount of deformation in the foot underwent that is in question.  Where/how did all that tissue get displaced and where did it displace to?  The point in the near dead center is pretty deep even deeper than the deformation that runs across the width of the foot.

 

How do you know the dead center of the print is deeper than the deformation that runs across the width of the foot ..... do you have that cast and have looked at it in profile to determine if it has any points higher than the others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Some boot in rubber/fake foot possibilities.  The boot drawing has the profile of Patty foot cast overplayed.  The green line represents the layer of rubber making  up the bottom of the foot.  Perhaps it would have been 3/16' thick?  It would have softened whatever pressured from within so that perfect cookie cutter indentations wouldn't appear in tracks after the fact if they were to appear at all.  Yet it would not have offered a perfect barrier against them. .Some tracks are without artifacts and some tracks have artifacts.  The red wedge shape is there to highlight the internal gap of support the fake foot would have had if the mime was wearing cowboy boots or pronounced heeled footwear.  It correspond to the position of where the big indent appears in the cast photo posted.  The little photo with the D shaped insert indicates the general shape of a boot heel if there was one pressing out from within.  None of the details we see need to have happened in every step, they didn't but some did and therein is reason to investigate reasons for them.

 

Laverty_Track_Cast_Views_zpsqexsosxe.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic
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.

 

The same can be said about the alleged face on Mars. I have emailed Meldrum for his opinion as he would have a copy and can possibly offer another view under uniformed lighting.

Some boot in rubber/fake foot possibilities.  The boot drawing has the profile of Patty foot cast overplayed.  The green line represents the layer of rubber making  up the bottom of the foot.  Perhaps it would have been 3/16' thick?  It would have softened whatever pressured from within so that perfect cookie cutter indentations wouldn't appear in tracks after the fact if they were to appear at all.  Yet it would not have offered a perfect barrier against them. .Some tracks are without artifacts and some tracks have artifacts.  The red wedge shape is there to highlight the internal gap of support the fake foot would have had if the mime was wearing cowboy boots or pronounced heeled footwear.  It correspond to the position of where the big indent appears in the cast photo posted.  The little photo with the D shaped insert indicates the general shape of a boot heel if there was one pressing out from within.  None of the details we see need to have happened in every step, they didn't but some did and therein is reason to investigate reasons for them.

 

Laverty_Track_Cast_Views_zpsqexsosxe.jpg

 

 

None of which means anything if the track depth cannot be realistically explained. It takes the dynamics of a real working foot to make additional track depth. Footwear like with boots inhibit such dynamics and is why men weighing between 200 to 250lbs couldn't leave an impression that was only 1/6th of the depth that Patty did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

How do you know the dead center of the print is deeper than the deformation that runs across the width of the foot ..... do you have that cast and have looked at it in profile to determine if it has any points higher than the others?

Please see the post of the boot overlay.  I used the cast profile photo.  There are several such available.  Also knowing the length of the cast it's possible to determine how deep the indention is and if it would have been physically possible within the structure of the actual organic foot claimed to have made the tracks.   Since we don't see an arch in most of the tracks Patty appears to have been rather flat footed which makes biological sense owing to her size and great weight.  A question needs to be asked whether or not nature would have designed a foot that could deform so much for an animal of such as we see in Patty.

The same can be said about the alleged face on Mars. I have emailed Meldrum for his opinion as he would have a copy and can possibly offer another view under uniformed lighting.

 

 

The face on Mars was shown to be a natural surface artifact a number of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

The face on Mars was shown to be a natural surface artifact a number of years ago.

 

My point exactly! I will await additional data if you do not mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crow-

 

Under your proposition, why would the boot heel not appear flat across the outline of the boot heel edges? It seems to be domed. If the boot heel was able to show an outline, why the dome? what material in a fake foot would lead to the dome?

A boot heel pressuring from the inside out and into a print would not have the exact appearance of a boot heel.  It's imprint would be softened by the outer layer (the fake foot sole) of leather or rubber thus making it less distinct.  The impression that indicates a possible boot mark is subtle but noticeable.  If there was nothing unusual in the print none of this would be being discussed right now.  Try putting your hand in a glove and making a knuckle imprint in some soil.  You'll recognize as a knuckle print but it will be far more softened in appearance than  a bare knuckle print.

My point exactly! I will await additional data if you do not mind.

We have a genuine mystery.  I wish there were some good renditions of what Patty's internal foot structure it thought to be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Crow continues to scour the internet for photos of higher resolution pictures of boot heels...fails to note fundamental and fatal flaw in theory, because, well....boot heels)

 

I do enjoy this. Keep it up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

We have a genuine mystery.  I wish there were some good renditions of what Patty's internal foot structure it thought to be.  

 

It's a mystery to only those who think 2 + 2 = 44.   Still waiting for an explanation how a boot wearing man sank 6X deeper than other boot wearing men???  Care to address it or just keep ignoring it as if its not important!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

(Crow continues to scour the internet for photos of higher resolution pictures of boot heels...fails to note fundamental and fatal flaw in theory, because, well....boot heels)

 

I do enjoy this. Keep it up.  

Indeed and scouring the countryside for a nonexistent cryptoid is somehow more enlightened or promising?   But while I have you on the line disprove the boot possibility.  Show me how that couldn't happen.  I've shown that it could happen and may have happened.

It's a mystery to only those who think 2 + 2 = 44.   Still waiting for an explanation how a boot wearing man sank 6X deeper than other boot wearing men???  Care to address it or just keep ignoring it as if its not important!

2+2=4 but what are the mechanics for all that apparent tissue displacement in that cast?  You keep talking about these fantastic factors of depth but a reliable depth test was never done at Bluff Creek.  Gimlin said he jumped off a stump but we have no confirmation of this.  Did anybody go back to Bluff Creek site and do an imprint test either then or in modern times?  Or are the figures typical hearsay.  I've shown in diagram how a boot in an artificial foot could have accounted for some anomalous things in the Bluff Creek prints.  Please don't just throw figures at me as I've backed up my position in black and white so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...