Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

Starling
33 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

"But that reel 2 image doesn't look like a mid-tarsal break. It looks a lot closer to a normal human footprint. It's clearly NOT at the same level as the shot with that has the twig next to the print. "

 

Side by each...

LeftFootprintssidebyside.jpg

 

For a moment you almost had me convinced there. But then I saw the heel of your comparison print was inches below that of the other one. Obviously we're looking at an oblique angle here but even so, surely you can see you've had to move the heel down in order to make the ridges aligned. So I stand by my statement: that footprint from reel 2 looks pretty human to me. And I'm not sure any of the others are any different. 

 

You didn't address my point about Green's 'stick' comment. Why would he even suggest such a thing if it was evident that practically all the prints displayed this mid-tarsal break? Doesn't that seem odd?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Starling you should check out the 'Pattys Feet & the Footprints' threa, or whatever its called in the archives. 

 

Pretty sure this was covered 'round and 'round some time ago.

 

I've got a pic of a PGF track with a set of tinsnip next to it. For scale. It's documented as the large one fwiw :)

 

I'll post it later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Look at how the heel slid into the Laverty track photo, visible in the cast by Titmus.  This characteristic is visible in his other cast, it's why some casts appear a little longer, been discussed before.

 

My guess would be the Laverty photo shows it the best, an it is a actual photo. I don't know if John or anyone had stills made from the reel two film, they bought rights to certain uses/showings. I'm sittin' here still tryin' to explain the tracks to you because I've a understandin' of what is now know of this particular anatomical characteristic, back then...no idea about it, so no, it does not seem odd in the slightest. What seems odd to me is that some folks don't recognize just how important that is, it wasn't even known until a few years ago a bipedal primate would have such a characteristic. Matter of fact, there were scientists who argued against the MTB suggested in the sasquatch tracks because they believed it was a characteristic only found in quadrupedal primates. 

 

 

footprintscan.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bigyear1.jpg

 

Squatchy McSquatch,

 

Hope it's not this pic, cause this has nothin' ta do with the PGF. It was tracks found by Al Hodgson in Bluff Creek in 1963. The snips are 10 1/2 inches long for scale.

 

Lookin' forward to seein' your pic..."I've got a pic of a PGF track with a set of tinsnip next to it. For scale. It's documented as the large one fwiw :)

 

Huh...funny...I can't help recallin' you recently quotin' my response post to you...followed with your vague reply..." I disagree with misinformation and poor documentation." I say vague Squatchy McSquatch, because I asked what you felt was misinformation an poor documentation...got nothin', go figure ! ;);) 

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling
Quote

 

Spoiler

PBeaton:

Quote

 

What seems odd to me is that some folks don't recognize just how important that is, it wasn't even known until a few years ago a bipedal primate would have such a characteristic.

 

 

 

Okay, I admit this is quite compelling.

 

BUT I'm still not convinced that other than that one Laverty photo (with the twig) I see this characteristic anywhere else in the photo record. Your Reel 2 photo-fit comparison simply doesn't match so either you are mistaken with that or being disingenuous in the alignment of your comparison.

 

And, I'm sorry, why would Green suggest that the one single ridge could be explained by a buried stick if ALL the tracks had the ridge in that place? That makes no sense at all. You still haven't addressed this.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I can't help what you see. You also seen the 14 1/2 inch reel 2 track as a match for Patterson foot. I've shown multiple example that suggests the MTB. 

 

"And, I'm sorry, why would Green suggest that the one single ridge could be explained by a buried stick if ALL the tracks had the ridge in that place? That makes no sense at all. You still haven't addressed this." 

 

That statement makes no sense...at all ! Clearly ALL the tracks don't have the ridge ! Did you read what I just wrote or look at the evidence your talkin' about ?

 

An you're suggestin' I'm...".. mistaken with that or being disingenuous.." !

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

I suppose I can't help what you see, either but I don't understand why you're struggling with my question.

 

Okay, so the ridge/s don't appear on ALL the prints. Just this one Laverty photographed? 

 

One single example. That's the only reason Green would  feel the need to suggest an anomalous reason to account for it. And you can't think of any other  explanation that doesn't involve bigfoot's now famed mid-tarsal break?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

"..why would Green suggest that the one single ridge could be explained by a buried stick.." Like I've already said, it is the clearest example, back then he had no idea about the MTB. An it wasn't that long ago I was discussin' the same thin' with someone else tryin ta argue the same, it looked to them like it stepped on a stick. 

 

"Okay, so the ridge/s don't appear on ALL the prints. Just this one Laverty photographed?" Really ? Did you already forget I just posted the image above with the two tracks an what I just said in the post you're respondin' to. How many times must I repeat myself. Even you said "The problem is the only print that this 'pressure ridge' appears on definitively is in that one you've illustrated." with regards to the reel 2 print just before I introduced the Laverty photo ! 

 

What you refer to as "..bigfoot's now famed mid-tarsal break.." is actually a perfectly natural anatomical characteristic found in primate feet, an I am of the opinion this characteristic is visible in much of the evidence regardin' the PGF films, photos by Laverty an visible in the Titmus casts. The correlation between these pieces of evidence combined the the filmed subjects foot, suggest this to be the case, so no, I can't think of another explanation. 

 

Quick an rough, think it shows the similarity easy enough.

 

 

 

midfoot ridge two tracks.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks as always for explaining. 

I really appreciate  the information when it comes to this remarkable film. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^ ! Thanks for the appreciation, an you're welcome. I'll surely second that, absolutely fascinates me to no end.

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

 

Yes, thanks Pat, for the continued patience.

 

Quote

Like I've already said, it is the clearest example

 

 

But, sigh, again, you've shown that you've failed to understand my question. How can I make this clear enough?  If the above is only the clearest example then that suggests that there were many more where this feature was evident, right. You yourself say...

 

 

Quote

I am of the opinion this characteristic is visible in much of the evidence regardin' the PGF films, photos by Laverty an visible in the Titmus casts  

 

So if these breaks were visible in 'much of the evidence' and not just one single print then what compelled Green to speculate that this one print was an anomaly caused by the creature standing on a stick? This suggestion makes no sense if it was clear that there were plenty more prints displaying this feature!

You see? You can't have it both ways. You can't say this was just the 'clearest example' and then have Green (regardless of whether or not he was ignorant of mid-tarsal breaks in primates) be so struck by that one print he went out of his way to theorise how it was formed. If 'much of the evidence' was like this, then he wouldn't have done that. Or did he think 'Hmmm Bigfoot sure stood on a lot of sticks here.'

 

The comment makes no sense unless you take this into account. It indicates that to this eye witness the ridge only appeared on ONE print. Easily explained by any number of things, Green's suggestion being just as good as any other.

 

 

Another problem is your 'clearest example' isn't a clear-cut match with the reel 2 print no matter how 'quick and rough' you say your placing your lines.

 

I've seen many skeptics called out for just these kind of discrepancies and fail to see why you should get a pass. You say you can see how the cast would slide into the reel 2 print - no, sorry, I don't see that. I suppose t may, at a push, be possible that that is how it was formed but I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge and...it's still misaligned!  Also the angle the reel 2 print is photographed from would suggest that if seen from directly above the positioning of the heel may not appear so pronounced. I maintain this looks pretty human.

 

Quote

I am of the opinion this characteristic is visible in much of the evidence

 

 

Your choice of words here is telling. You were forced to add 'I am of the opinion' because you know the record is assuredly not clear cut.

 

If I was willing to admit these images may on the surface seem compelling, surely you can admit that the reason you have to say your conclusion is only opinion because you can't say for certain.  

 

You choose to lecture me on knowing the evidence but the more I familiarise myself with it the more it becomes clear that you are highly selective in what evidence you accept and what evidence (not to mention expertise) you dismiss. You're really pushing it here if your learned opinion is that

this mid-tarsal break is seen all over the site. The casts make it no clearer.

 

I'm really trying hard to see why this is MORE than just compelling to you. But you repeatedly you fail to ask the critical follow up questions and that is why you are mistaken in this case.    

 

 

 

So what you're left with is a theory with some (IMO) only slightly compelling photographic imagery to back it up and plenty of reasons to think it's wrong.

  

If you disagree with this then you're just being plain dishonest.

Edited by Starling
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
15 hours ago, Starling said:

 

Yes, thanks Pat, for the continued patience.

 

Is gettin' tryin'...

 

Quote

But, sigh, again, you've shown that you've failed to understand my question. How can I make this clear enough?  If the above is only the clearest example then that suggests that there were many more where this feature was evident, right. You yourself say...

 

I don't believe it is I who has failed to understand your question, rather your continued failure to grasp what I am sayin' an showin' ! 

 

Quote

So if these breaks were visible in 'much of the evidence' and not just one single print then what compelled Green to speculate that this one print was an anomaly caused by the creature standing on a stick? This suggestion makes no sense if it was clear that there were plenty more prints displaying this feature!

 

As I've repeatedly said, the Laverty photo is the clearest example. An as I've repeatedly said, my opinion there is evidence of the MTB in much of the track evidence. You somehow failed to remember your seein' it in the reel two track before I introduced the Laverty photo, here. I've quoted you on this already, "The problem is the only print that this 'pressure ridge' appears on definitively is in that one you've illustrated." it is in the post above. Your words, your recognizin' it, you said "definitively" ! You also said..."With the rest of the surviving track stills it's not nearly as clear cut."  As I've said...again...repeatedly, not as clear as the Laverty track photo ! 

 

Quote

You see? You can't have it both ways. You can't say this was just the 'clearest example' and then have Green (regardless of whether or not he was ignorant of mid-tarsal breaks in primates) be so struck by that one print he went out of his way to theorise how it was formed. If 'much of the evidence' was like this, then he wouldn't have done that. Or did he think 'Hmmm Bigfoot sure stood on a lot of sticks here.'

 

You yourself recognized the same characteristic in two separate tracks, only questionin' the one after the clearer Laverty photo was introduced. I'll include another image for you to ponder.

 

Quote

 

The comment makes no sense unless you take this into account. It indicates that to this eye witness the ridge only appeared on ONE print. Easily explained by any number of things, Green's suggestion being just as good as any other.

 

I don't believe... "..it indicates that to this eye witness the ridge only appeared on ONE print.", those are your words, not his. 

Below you'll see the Laverty track that shows the MTB, you'll also see that same characteristic in a track that the rains got to an isn't as clear...an example of what I've been sayin'. An no, a stick does not account for it in the track in question, nor the other evidence of the MTB. 

Lavertyphotos.jpg

 

Quote

 

 

Another problem is your 'clearest example' isn't a clear-cut match with the reel 2 print no matter how 'quick and rough' you say your placing your lines.

 

Clearly I disagree, my opinion it is quite close. I would love to see you take the time to at least present somethin' to support your views. Feel free to show the differences.

 

Quote

 

I've seen many skeptics called out for just these kind of discrepancies and fail to see why you should get a pass. You say you can see how the cast would slide into the reel 2 print - no, sorry, I don't see that. I suppose t may, at a push, be possible that that is how it was formed but I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge and...it's still misaligned!  Also the angle the reel 2 print is photographed from would suggest that if seen from directly above the positioning of the heel may not appear so pronounced. I maintain this looks pretty human.

 

That goes both ways, but you have failed to present anythin' to show these discrepancies. An I didn't say "..see how the cast would slide into the reel 2 print.." , I said I believe they show the same midfoot pressure ridge, one clearer than the other. 

"I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge.." "Adjusting" implies alterin', I've done no such thing, I just put that image together, both tracks vertical, white line below big toe an small, black line just anterior the ridge an at back of heel. Show where I've adjusted any lines !

As I said, I think they're aligned pretty good in my opinion, but feel free to present your version so we can critique your observations for once.

Your maintainin' it looks pretty human is your opinion, so far you've said..."Who's to say those tracks weren't simply made by Patterson's own bare feet in soft clay-like sand?The sleigh- of-hand no one seems to be seriously considering is that boot prints may be a smaller scale than that of an adult's boot and were placed individually and lightly by hand. I've offered this child's boot theory before and received only mockery but I've yet to hear any logical objections as to why this could not be the case!" , could have been someone else's human footprint, could have been made by a stomper an more recently..." So my fall back theory is that 'ridge' could simply have been caused by the hard edge of a cowboy boot pressing down through a semi-flexible stomper. " You fail to grasp these tracks are 14 1/2 inches long an 1 1/2 inches deep, an were witnessed by other witnesses, no matter how hard you try an believe this didn't happen...it happened. 

 

Quote

Your choice of words here is telling. You were forced to add 'I am of the opinion' because you know the record is assuredly not clear cut.

 

"Forced"  hahaha ! Chose, but it's funny because I followed that by "The correlation between these pieces of evidence combined the the filmed subjects foot, suggest this to be the case, so no, I can't think of another explanation." As I said, I'm confident in my opinion as apposed to your clear uncertainty in yours.
 

Quote

 

If I was willing to admit these images may on the surface seem compelling, surely you can admit that the reason you have to say your conclusion is only opinion because you can't say for certain.

Do you even realize I just said "my opinion" ? You just tried to say I was somehow forced to say it ! haha ! An as I said, I'm confident in my opinion based on the evidence we have. If you find the images compellin' or not, is up to you. I've presented the known evidence to support my opinion, whether you or anyone else finds it complellin' is out of my hands, while you have not presented me with anythin' compellin'...in my opinion.    

 

Quote

You choose to lecture me on knowing the evidence but the more I familiarise myself with it the more it becomes clear that you are highly selective in what evidence you accept and what evidence (not to mention expertise) you dismiss. You're really pushing it here if your learned opinion is that

this mid-tarsal break is seen all over the site. The casts make it no clearer.

 

I chose to address your opinion more so for others, than yourself. Perhaps when you become more familiar with the known evidence, you won't be so quick to flip-flop or dismiss the evidence. An actually, the films, photographs an casts do make it clearer...in my opinion.

 

By your claim of me bein' selective an dismissin' of evidence are you referrin' to Napier ? I addressed my reasons for that to you already, or are you bein' selective an dismissive ?

An while we're talkin' bout Napier, you made these claims..." Could you respond to Napier's dismissal of the tracks as being connected to the subject in the film?"  as well as this one..." The size and depth had Napier (a better expert than you or I ) completely rule out the tracks being connected to the 'creature.'Can you please provide where Napier rules out the tracks bein' connected to the filmed subject, far as I recall he said the feet were to big for the estimated height of the subject, thus his thinkin' the filmed subject a likely hoax. 

 

Quote

I'm really trying hard to see why this is MORE than just compelling to you. But you repeatedly you fail to ask the critical follow up questions and that is why you are mistaken in this case.

 

You say I have failed when you've just said the more you familiarize yourself with the evidence. You fail to realise I've spent years familiarizin' myself with the evidence an tryin' to understand it...your failure to recognize that is yours an yours alone.  

 

Quote

So what you're left with is a theory with some (IMO) only slightly compelling photographic imagery to back it up and plenty of reasons to think it's wrong.

  

If you disagree with this then you're just being plain dishonest.

 

It's funny, because I have used the photographic evidence to support my opinion. What have you presented to show ."Who's to say those tracks weren't simply made by Patterson's own bare feet in soft clay-like sand?The sleigh- of-hand no one seems to be seriously considering is that boot prints may be a smaller scale than that of an adult's boot and were placed individually and lightly by hand. I've offered this child's boot theory before and received only mockery but I've yet to hear any logical objections as to why this could not be the case!"  Nothin'...

"Sorry Pat. I call B.S. on this. If the only way you have to link those photos to tracks documented in reel 2 (which conveniently disappeared from the chain of evidence) is cos someone said they're linked then all you have is word of mouth." You don't even recognized the reel two images as bein' from reel two.

 

"Your Reel 2 photo-fit comparison simply doesn't match so either you are mistaken with that or being disingenuous in the alignment of your comparison."

"..I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge.." 

"If you disagree with this then you're just being plain dishonest."

 

If you think I'm not bein' genuine or honest...there's not much reason to continue the conversation. So here endith the lesson as they say. 

 

ps:Sorry for the long post folks, just figured I'd address his claims.

 

 

Lyle Laverty track photo.jpg

TrackwaycompositeWIP.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pat wrote:

Quote

 

ps:Sorry for the long post folks, just figured I'd address his claims.

 

 

I hate to say it, Pat.....but I'm sorry to see it, too.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I very much appreciate that post Pat, as I'm sure others appreciate it and more will continue to appreciate it, as this is read, on-going!  Your comments in regard to the PGf and to the PGf track-way are among the best and most informed anywhere and you comment in a very nice and patient way.  Thank-you, friend!  :drinks:

 

Unfortunately, some who post here are apparently a lost cause.  They are compelled to argue about the PGf ad-nauseum from a biased, mis-informed and ignorant point-of-view and never learn anything.  But, many of us know from being here for many years that they have nothing to debunk the authenticity of the ANIMAL seen in the film.  And, that means Bigfoot are Real so...  8  )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
On 2/20/2018 at 3:13 PM, Backdoc said:

I would ask a Q  to skeptics and those who feel strongly the PGF is a man in a suit:

 

Did the man in the suit (Bob H or otherwise) leave any footprints traces- in the Bluff Creek soil during the PGF event???

 

Yes                                 No

 

 

 

Yes I'm sure the man in the suit left some impressions throughout the walkthrough.

 

Nothing connects the film to the casts or tracks.

 

I'm also sure that the same man in the suit's  prints/impressions  didn't result in this print...second-film-footprint-animation-stabilized (1).gif 

I'm also sure that the above track doesn't match these casts...

 

cast display.jpg

 

And I'm also sure the same foot wasn't responsible for these either...

 

bluffcreektinsnips.jpg

 

 

^^^ BTW Starling, there's your 'to scale comparison' right there. A large size pair of tin snips. Evidently there was a 'smaller' version of the tinsnips... But this is the documentation and that's how it all went down... :)

 

'Footers also have a pic of Dadhinden's pipe on the ground, for scale  :)

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×