Jump to content

The Boot Mark Print?


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

 

How could an artificial foot be malleable enough to permit a boot heel to show through, yet be stiff enough for the toes to dig into the substrate?  Look at the entire series of prints --- there is no consistent "boot heel".  The second frame shows a fading-superimposition of two right footprints. No sign of a boot heel in the other. Its likely just differential compaction of the substrate beneath the heel pad.  Lateral displacement to the limits of the fascia could produce "edges." Press your finger hard against a plate of glass and you'll observe a similar effect.

Jeff Meldrum, PhD

Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology

Dept. of Biological Sciences

Idaho State University

921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007

Pocatello, ID 83209-8007

208-282-4379

 

There is no consistent mid tarsal break either.  Most of the prints are rather flat footed.  How does something that flat get to look that  pushed in and still be made of bone,tendons etc?   

I am surprised that Crowlogic has not offered these Redneck Cowboy boot sandals as evidence to explain how someone wearing cowboy boots could leave toe prints too.      Very chic in cowgirl circles but not around over 40 years ago. 

 

attachicon.gifredneck.jpg

You'd wear them well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

As I said earlier, most of the PGF casts do show evidence of the MTB in my opinion, and multiple images of the tracks from the site show the same.

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

There is no consistent mid tarsal break either.  Most of the prints are rather flat footed.  How does something that flat get to look that  pushed in and still be made of bone,tendons etc?  

 

It's almost as if you haven't followed any of the threads on Patty's bi-pedal locomotion in varying substrate textures. Are you not aware that people with flat feet have more flexation in their feet than those with arches. Have you not read any literature on the hinge points displayed in the cast and ground prints Patty made. If not, then you should instead of trying to start in the middle with no understanding of the causes for track depth.

 

Can you see where Patty's foot hinged in this cast?

RPfootcastdynamics_zps2a28a35b.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Crow, the job of untangling your world is one way above my current pay grade. I swan, as soon as you return from a sojourn down your latest rabbit trail, you sail off on another. If you can't figure out the basic geometry of a cowboy boot heel, I am certainly not going to spend a minute helping you out. I just get amusement from the whole hot mess you are. 

 

Really.

 

Keep going. 

Ok you win.

 

It's almost as if you haven't followed any of the threads on Patty's bi-pedal locomotion in varying substrate textures. Are you not aware that people with flat feet have more flexation in their feet than those with arches. Have you not read any literature on the hinge points displayed in the cast and ground prints Patty made. If not, then you should instead of trying to start in the middle with no understanding of the causes for track depth.

 

Can you see where Patty's foot hinged in this cast?

RPfootcastdynamics_zps2a28a35b.jpg

Ok you win you can wear the crown.

Crowlogic,

 

You're thinkin' the ridge is created with the foot flat on the ground(I think?), when the ridge is actually created after the heel is already elevated, thus there is absolutely nothing to obstruct the formation of the ridge itself as you suggest. You can see in examples showing the ridge that it is created by force bein' applied down an pushing back durin' toe off of the swing phase. We can an do often create a similar ridge, the difference is where in the foot it bends an thus generates the force from.

 

And you earlier mention we bipedal humans don't exhibit such a feature, when in fact this characteristic does still occur in our feet. You also asked why such a feature in such a large bipedal primate like sasquatch, could it have somethin' ta do with the compliant gait, could it simply add a greater surface area to bear its full weight durin' toe off instead of all that weight an force bein' applied to just the toes. 

 

 

 

Pat...

The sole of the foot as in the cast pic I posted  is not showing that there is a ridge of soil displaced from the motion of the foot.  it appears as if the foot stepped onto a protrusion in the ground and that protrusion forces the surface of the sole to be "tent poled" up/into the foot.  There was one hell of a lot of displacement going on at that moment and the only accounting for it I can think of is an artificial hollow space within a fake foot.  I don't expect proponents to consider it.  But if ever a foot print looked made of rubber it's that print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowlogic,

 

I understand what you are talkin about, an I understand it's what it looks like to you. But in my opinion the displacement of the soil from the motion of push-off is actually quite visible in a few images of the tracks, as well as visible in the cast in question. Note the pressure cracks at the back of the ridges, they indicate the direction of the force applied, a force applied from above would create a "stamped out" impression, in my opinion. Notice in the images I provided above of the PGF site track and the human track, notice how the force that creates the ridges is created from the forward push-off of the foot, the displaced soil bein' pushed back in the same direction the force is bein' applied(down an back).

 

I've considered it Crowlogic, as I've had a conversation with one that used to be here, he thought it was a singularity, like it stepped on a stick. So in all honesty, I have considered it.    

 

Pat...

 

ps:  "The sole of the foot as in the cast pic I posted  is not showing that there is a ridge of soil displaced from the motion of the foot."    Not the pressure cracks at back of pressure ridge in photo of track before it was cast indicatin' the direction of force applied, in my opinion.

 

pps: As I mentioned earlier, note the depth of the humans footprint to the right of the track in question, how do you account for the differences in depth ?

post-279-0-96612600-1438391967_thumb.jpg

post-279-0-17419400-1438392091.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no consistent mid tarsal break either.  Most of the prints are rather flat footed.  How does something that flat get to look that  pushed in and still be made of bone,tendons etc?   

 

 

If you look at the first post in the 'Patty's Feet...And The Footprints' thread, Crow....you will see a correlation I noticed between how Patty's feet lift off of the ground...and which footprints display evidence of a mid-tarsel break...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/

 

 

In short....Patty's left foot lifts-up sharply, and the left prints show the mid-tarsel break....while her right foot lifts-up at a shallower angle, and the right prints do not show the mid-tarsel break.

 

This correlation is very strong evidence linking Patty's feet to the footprints at the scene. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

roguefooter,

 

No, but both display the mid foot ridge created from push off as I'd mentioned. (Notice the trackway I posted earlier)

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not the same tracks are they?

 

5957df1ce2f7d0bd926671362399dc525g.jpg

 

LeftFootprint1Lined.jpg

Nope. But the question is how do you make these tracks with fake bigfeet? Because it seems we are all in agreement that Patty made the tracks whether Patty was a real sasquatch or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Did Roguefooter mean both footprint photos from the same trackway or were the same track?

 

The push off is not only apparent in the ground prints, but this one particular cast Roger made demonstrates the hinge points and push quite well. 

 

RPfootcastdynamics_zps2a28a35b.jpg

 

Note the stages that the foot hinges:

 

Sec. 1)   The heel of the subject strikes the substrate in a forward/downward direction and digs deep into the loamy soil.

 

Sec.2)    The mid-foot represents the moment that the foot was flat on the sandbar. The weight is most evenely spread across the entire foot, thus Sec. 2 became the most shallow part of the track.

Foot_zpsb4fec147.gif

 

Sec.3)    Starting with section 'C' ...  the slope down from B - C begins as the subject's weight has lessened in the heel and shifted to the forefoot. The hinging point is just ahead of the ankle which is supported by how much of the forefoot is bearing the subjects weight at the time hinging of the foot takes place. The forefoot in Section 'C' shows little change in achieved depth variance from the beginning to the end of that phase.

bendingpoints_zps6eb67c11.gif

 

Sec.4)    Section D is most remarkable. I recall the Science Journal on the dynamics involved in contributing to track depth concerning the pushing off with the toes. Like with Hydrolics - the muscles and tendons brings about additional forces on the substrate so that the toes create the deepest part of the ground impression. In other words there is more force being applied to the substrate in the toe-off phase than there was during the heel strike that preceeded it. This is represented by the toe depth achieved in section D

 

 

Slowed clip showing forward foot falls flat to the substrate as the trailing foot is hinging to the forefoot. The main body of the subjects weight is between the two feet.

footdynamicsinthesteppingprocess_zpse18c

 

 

 

The outline of the forefoot starts just ahead of the ankle. Also, there was little depth variance in the forefoot area as the subject moved forward.

lavertyPG_film_site_photo_zpsf3062ce3.jp

 

 

The process in motion:

Pattys%20foot%20dynamics%20in%20motion_z

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Most of the prints are rather flat footed.  How does something that flat get to look that  pushed in and still be made of bone,tendons etc?   

You'd wear them well.

There you go folks.     The skeptics clamor for science to look into BF yet when someone does,  our resident MS in Earth Science argues with a PHD Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology over an anomaly in a footprint.      Perhaps testing lake water in New York for acidity gives one special insight and experience to analyze footprints?      How many has Crowlogic converted to denial today with this thread?    He claims about 92 lately.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum members sit back and take an objective look at what we just saw on this thread and the half century thread since they are related. On this thread a footprint anomaly was discussed and I suspect Bigfoothunter asked Dr Meldrum to take a look at it and give his opinion. Rather that be glad that Meldrum take the time to weigh in and shed some light as most of us did, the resident denialists discount his opinion, disputing it with their response, then on the half century thread, start a character assassination campaign against him, with named and unnamed smears. It has to be obvious to anyone with any sort of objectivity that the denial bunch could care less about science, truth, analysis, or anything positive but seek to tear this forum apart by any means available. For them to go after a PHD like this, it is obvious in spite of their claims, they fear scientists actually weighing in and being involved. One after another they have driven people out who are doing real BF research. That is their objective but I have no idea what motivates that. If forum members want the forum to continue we have to address these destructive agents that seem bent on destroying the forum.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If forum members want the forum to continue we have to address these destructive agents that seem bent on destroying the forum.

 

 

My approach is to ignore 'em. :)

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many Forum members like to engage hard-core skeptics like kitakaze, kerry, squatchy...and the like. There's never any agreement reached, in any of these discussions. 

 

 

With regards to engaging kitakaze in two-way conversation....I limit mine to questions about his 'POOF' :haha: claims, and his self-contradictions. I won't bother debating the strength of the evidence for Bigfoot with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.........................On this thread a footprint anomaly was discussed and I suspect Bigfoothunter asked Dr Meldrum to take a look at it and give his opinion. ............

 

I'm super glad..... where is the info from Meldrum. 

 

Is it a Q & A format?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...