Jump to content
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

BC witness

The long trackway I came across in the snow, going through a high mountain pass in SW BC three plus decades ago, was not perfectly aligned, but certainly had much less stagger than my own tracks in the same snow. I'd describe the offset as the inner edge of each left-right pair just slightly overlapping. Step distance heel to heel was between 40" to 44", depending on the grade of the old logging road, where I could only manage 30" steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

JFK~those are intriguing points concerning Patty' s possible age, ones I had never considered before. Interesting observations to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

 The issue has to do with how long the stride is; seems that the longer the stride the more inline the resulting trackway.

 

 

 

No, the main issue in this discussion is whether sasquatches create an in line gait because they use a fox walk as you claim.  Those with more expertise studying the Patterson/Gimlin film view Patty as putting the whole foot down flat, not first stepping on the front of the foot in a fox walk (the ball and toes first).  Actual observation on film of how they walk usurps whatever you think you see in tracks laid down.

Edited by jayjeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Well you learn some thing new all the time here that's for sure. I did not even know that this is what I am using when I am on a stalk on a deer and it seems natural for me since it works. But fox walking is some thing that might of been in us from our past and no I do not believe that it has anything to do with the inline step,  but has to do with how we step our feet as we walk. As you will read from this article, http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/index4.html but it is funny how things can be used .

 

In my opinion I still believe that these inline tracks are done by female Bigfoots and the ones that are staggered are males, as you an see that Patty was a female and that there is no denial in that part since her body parts confirm this.  But what also confirms this is what she left behind and that is her foot falls , that shows she walked inline which is in the track line. Now this one can not deny since the proof is in the film and the way she was walking , showing the odd feature of her steps. 

 

I have posted the difference between the way a human male and a female walk, and have observed this naturally in humans as they walked on fresh snow. I did a so call test where I observed males and females walking on snow and notice their track way and observed that yes females do leave an inline track way. This led me to that I could track these creatures knowing whether I am following a male creature or a female creature whether it be a child or a grown up. Now I know that this does not mean much since  I am no expert and naturally my opinion mean nothing to no one hear since every one already have the answers. So take it for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

^^^ Seeing women walk there are in general differences because of the wider pelvis.     A lot of women tend to have legs that are not as straight laterally because of those wider hips as well as some differences in foot alignment.   Some knee alignment issues like knock knees run in families.      A parent with bad knees in old age will gift that problem to some of their children.      I spend a lot of time at the coast and find bare footprints in sand  that can tell you a lot about humans and differences in their footprints.    In general men tend to duck walk with feet pointed out and women tend to walk with their feet more in line with the line of travel.       It is a touchy subject but human women may unconsciously or consciously create hip movements as our society promotes that sort of thing because of movies etc.   A sultry walk has to create some difference in footprints too.     Some of this may be applicable to female BF.   Not having seen a male and female BF side by side I have no basis for hip width comparison.    Perhaps someone else has?  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 

 The issue has to do with how long the stride is; seems that the longer the stride the more inline the resulting trackway.

 

 

 

No, the main issue in this discussion is whether sasquatches create an in line gait because they use a fox walk as you claim.  Those with more expertise studying the Patterson/Gimlin film view Patty as putting the whole foot down flat, not first stepping on the front of the foot in a fox walk (the ball and toes first).  Actual observation on film of how they walk usurps whatever you think you see in tracks laid down.

 

 

JJ, you might want to consider that expertise works in a variety of ways in this conversation. First, its blatantly obvious that you've not tried it. Its also blatantly obvious that trackers were not analyzing Patty's tracks.

 

And finally, you are not considering that Patty is an expert at walking barefoot. She has to be to have survived.

 

I've been working on my foxwalk for about 9 years. It was hard at first now its natural. The thing is, a foxwalk can be done without it looking obvious that the toes are leading in the track, once you are fluent; it looks very smooth and natural. If you don't know what to look for in the track, you won't see it. The obvious thing of it though is that there will be an inline trackway. So the people who looked at Patty's tracks saw that, but not being trackers they missed the more subtle details in the tracks themselves. In the film, it looks like you describe, but if she left an inline trackway, she's foxwalking. That's how it works.

 

Again, go out and do the foxwalk yourself- that is if you want to learn something here. Its a useful skill- if in the woods, you see a lot more creatures that way because they don't hear you coming so easily.

 

The bottom line is a human makes an inline trackway whether male or female when foxwalking. Any tracker can tell you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

You are right about Patty being an expert in foot placement.    The fact that a BF can move in a forested area so quietly without breaking deadwood is remarkable.    They have developed foot placement skills to a great art.    It is truly remarkable to experience their stealth mode of movement.   The only thing that can give them away is the soft heavy thuds that they sometimes make because of their weight.   When I attempt the same thing now and then I inadvertently break deadwood.  

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

They are not that quiet though Swwasasqautchproject, dogs can hear them, our ears might not hear them but a dog ears can. But here we do have a example of one of these creatures walking and you can see the fluid motion of it's movement. The creature that was around or sneaking around our camp seemed to be hoping from spot to spot.. My dog reacted to it's movement by positioning it self towards the movement, we learned in the morning that the dog was not wrong. What we did not hear was it hopping and that was strange since some thing huge one would figure one would feel it.

 

Patty walk was casual and she was in no hurry and one would figure that that this creature would want to get out of there quickly but it did not. But the fox walk would be a challenge for anyone and if it took nine years to perfect for a human then maybe Dr.Meldrum might be right about the midtarsal break that I seem to be on board with and explains the flat foot ness and the wideness. I keep trying to do the inline step while I walk in the woods and as I walk on narrow trails. All I can say that it is not an easy task with out placing focus on it. Then to keep the distance that they do between their heel to heel stride, it is an of balance walk and not easy to perform. So when I see or hear that some says that it is fake or a hoax then you have to test the hoax to see how easy it is to perform this hoax.

 

Patty's prints must have been amazing to see in real life, and to measure them and the stride. The stride had to have been consistent through out her step  or line of track. If we were to compare the Wallace track way to patty's track way I wonder what we would find out about the two. What difference would be? would the two track ways add up to be the same? I mean Wallace was being pulled by a car in order to make the longer stride, but as we see on the film with Patty there was no car or rope or nothing pulling her to make her long strides. So were Wallace track way strides consistent from heel to heel knowing that he was pulled from a car? or were they not consistent ? If we knew this then we would have a way to compare track ways and we would be able to tell if they were made by these creatures or if they were hoaxed. Base lines is what we should be looking for Just my opinion not that it matters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

Salubrious wrote, "In the film, it looks like you describe, but if she left an inline trackway, she's foxwalking. That's how it works."

 

...................

 

You're speaking of the film where Bill Munns, Dr. Meldrum, and others clearly see, as anyone else can, that Patty lands the foot flat, not a fox walk that lands the foot on the front ball and toes of the foot, but nevertheless you say if her track way was in line, which is was, "she's foxwalking. That's how it works."  You're the only expert you're sighting.  You are sighting yourself as an expert tracker as the source that if Patty has an in line gait she has to be fox walking, that its the only way its possible for Patty to perform an in line gait, irrespective of actual video showing that was not the case.  

 

We don't know enough about sasquatch anatomy to say why sasquatches have an in line gait.  Regarding Patty's leg motions I previously linked to another video where Dr. Jurgen Konczak, a professor at the University of Minnesota who studies motor control looked at the Patterson/Gimlin film and noted the odd leg motion that Patty made while walking.  Moreover, they tried to have a person mimic the way Patty walked and he was unable to perform the same leg motion.  So, it might be an error for you to apply human leg motion to sasquatch leg movement.  Here's that video.  Note the 12:50 - 14:30 minute mark 

 

 

 

As far as sasquatches being so stealthy they avoid breaking dead wood, that's not been my experience in SW Oregon.  When they come around our camp we can hear sticks snapping.  There is so much dead fall under the forest litter it's hard to walk without snapping sticks which are not even visible due to the forest litter.  I've heard bipedal footfalls too.  

 

 

Edited by jayjeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

Personally, I've had arthritis in my knees since my mid twenties, and often assume a compliant gait as it seems to be less traumatic on longer walks. So I've also tried out various step alignments relative to a centerline, and found that for myself lining up left middle toe at center then that of the right on the following step is a bit tricky, while doing so with my right and left big toes proves far easier, better balanced, and more sustainable. My usual trackways show the inner edge of each foot nearly on the center line. Don't know if that has much bearing on the topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Is absence of a heel strike a toe strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 

Patty walk was casual and she was in no hurry and one would figure that that this creature would want to get out of there quickly but it did not. But the fox walk would be a challenge for anyone and if it took nine years to perfect for a human then maybe Dr.Meldrum might be right about the midtarsal break that I seem to be on board with and explains the flat foot ness and the wideness. I keep trying to do the inline step while I walk in the woods and as I walk on narrow trails. All I can say that it is not an easy task with out placing focus on it. Then to keep the distance that they do between their heel to heel stride, it is an of balance walk and not easy to perform. So when I see or hear that some says that it is fake or a hoax then you have to test the hoax to see how easy it is to perform this hoax.

 

If you want to practice the inline step, practice a foxwalk. The thing is, we modern humans have worn shoes all our lives and so never really learned how to walk in a natural fashion. Once you do it for a while, it comes really easily because it is after all, natural. Its also a lot easier on the entire skeletal structure. 

 

Y'all might want to read a book called 'Born to Run' by Christopher McDougall. Its easy to find and was a best-seller.

 

 

Salubrious wrote, "In the film, it looks like you describe, but if she left an inline trackway, she's foxwalking. That's how it works."

 

...................

 

You're speaking of the film where Bill Munns, Dr. Meldrum, and others clearly see, as anyone else can, that Patty lands the foot flat, not a fox walk that lands the foot on the front ball and toes of the foot, but nevertheless you say if her track way was in line, which is was, "she's foxwalking. That's how it works." 

 

 

You really have to learn how to foxwalk and it wouldn't hurt to get some tracking classes under your belt. Then you would see how ridiculous this statement really is. Lacking that though, the statement seems entirely reasonable (but leads to some basic understanding of why BF walks the way it does). That is why I say that Munns and Meldrum obviously don't have tracking skills, nor would I expect them to. Its just that when you have taken a few basic classes, a different picture emerges in the world of tracks. Quite literally, you don't look at the ground in the same way again.

 

Patty is actually foxwalking. She looks like she is placing her foot flat because its a natural don't-have-to-think-about-it sort of thing to do (although she is still leading with her toes but the soil does not require that her feet be pointed down to do that; once you have some experience foxwalking you will know exactly what I mean), and that is for two reasons- she has fair confidence of the soil and knows that her soles can handle it (if you were to walk for only a week outside without shoes you might be quite surprised to find that your soles get a lot tougher such that shoes become less important). The obvious this is, if you look at the film, you'll see that Patty isn't looking down at any time. Look at the photos of humans walking in the same place and you will see that they are looking down at where they are walking; that is because they don't understand that they have to foxwalk to create the 'compliant gait'. Our unconscious brain knows that something is up (not natural) when we wear shoes and causes you to look at the ground unless you consciously redirect it. This is so obvious to anyone who has tracking skills! I'm by no means an expert yet this stuff just screams at how obvious it is.

 

I understand though that without such training the average person won't see it. That is why they often hire trackers to find lost people.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

salubrious, you wrote, "Patty is actually foxwalking. She looks like she is placing her foot flat because its a natural don't-have-to-think-about-it sort of thing to do (although she is still leading with her toes but the soil does not require that her feet be pointed down to do that. . . . ."

 

.......................

 

My answer: The video where Munns, Meldrum, and others study Patty's gait takes special note of her foot falls.  They have the ability to enlarge and look at the frames in which her feet are clearly visible as she walks and they say the foot lands flat.  You say it only looks flat.  Well, if it looks like flat foot falls I think it is.  If she landed on the toes and then the heel it should be visible to them, you, and everyone else.

 

I've asked you to provide a link to someone else saying Patty fox walks.  It seems this is your invention, not a view held by others. You've also stated that sasquatches do not have a midtarsal flex or break, but its the fox walk that creates the raised ridge seen in bigfoot tracks.     I think experts like Meldrum (who specializes in primate gaits) got the midtarsal flex and flat foot falls right.

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

Having gone barefoot for at least 90% of the last 15+ years, as well as the whole arthritic knees thing, and having experimented quite a bit with alternate ways of walking, I can tell yo straight out that one can produce inline trackways without requiring the "Fox walk". As a matter of fact, you can do it with heel first steps, ball of foot first, whole foot down at once, or even rolling front to back or back to front on the outer edge of one's feet and produce in line tracks.

Simply put, it's not about how you land your feet, but rather where, as the inline tracks can be produced in a number of ways.

I do believe that in their case, the compliant walk does lend itself well to inline trackways, perhaps especially so when used in conjunction with the "whole foot down" manner of stepping. To really get a sense of it, one needs to focus on the whole system, and keep doing it for a good while. One way I worked on it was to walk with a compliant gait along the 4-6" edge of curbs, both uphill and down, after a couple months it'll be second nature. Of course resultant knee pain is a great motivator to find and implement alternate potential means of walking about, and the compliant gait has been the most effective(relatively painless) form I've tried.

I've also found that by leaning my torso forward a bit, I gain some measure of that falling forward imbalance which when combined with the compliant gait not only seems to add some speed but also facilitates a longer stride length which also contributes to the potential for inline step placement which while using this technique lends to a more centered balance in the plane of one's shoulders, sorta like on a bike once up to speed moving in a straight line rather than in a more serpentine left right left right that leads to overall instability as momentum increases.

In the Fox walk video, the fellow speaks of the advantage of feeling the ground as you walk, allowing one to adjust the step far more effectively than when wearing shoes. While this is certainly true, I think there's more to it. As I watched the clip, he stepped on the branch, then pulled back, stating that being shoe-less allowed him to sense it before breaking it(somehow I think he knew it was there beforehand...) and it was then I had the thought that the old mid-tarsal break would certainly facilitate stepping on such a fallen branch and instead of pulling back one's foot or at least shifting it's placement mid-step, it would allow the foot to form around the branch without necessarily breaking it.

I myself have done similar sorta stuff being barefooted when there were kittens in the house that would rest under bedcovers and sheets hanging down off the bed yet still within foot space and in the course of a potentially cat crushing step, sensing it underfoot and shifting my step so as not to put my weight down on it. So I could easily see that, with a lifetime of practice, these guys could walk and step in most any manner they chose.

Just out of curiosity, are there any trackways of length where the sasquatch was moving on all fours? It might prove interesting to see the placement and alignment of the feet, not only in relation to the placement of the hands, but also in contrast to their bipedal format.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

Having gone barefoot for at least 90% of the last 15+ years, as well as the whole arthritic knees thing, and having experimented quite a bit with alternate ways of walking, I can tell yo straight out that one can produce inline trackways without requiring the "Fox walk". As a matter of fact, you can do it with heel first steps, ball of foot first, whole foot down at once, or even rolling front to back or back to front on the outer edge of one's feet and produce in line tracks.

Simply put, it's not about how you land your feet, but rather where, as the inline tracks can be produced in a number of ways.

 

 

I made a similar comment earlier in this thread, that I can walk in line without doing a fox walk.

 

 

 

I've also found that by leaning my torso forward a bit, I gain some measure of that falling forward imbalance which when combined with the compliant gait not only seems to add some speed but also facilitates a longer stride length which also contributes to the potential for inline step placement which while using this technique lends to a more centered balance in the plane of one's shoulders, sorta like on a bike once up to speed moving in a straight line rather than in a more serpentine left right left right that leads to overall instability as momentum increases.

 

 

That's interesting.  As you probably know sasquatches have a slight forward lean.  I saw one running (side view) and it leaned well forward, much more than when walking.  It ran straight through the undergrowth, not around the bushes, just straight through them.  I don't know if running through the bushes like it did was why it was leaned so far forward.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...