Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints


SweatyYeti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Funny how on other threads there seem to be several more skeptics.  Yet, other than our brave Kerry and a few others, these skeptics seem to be avoiding this thread.  It is being read (as confirmed by the numbers) and yet they seem to be avoiding the footprint topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stan Norton

Funny how on other threads there seem to be several more skeptics.  Yet, other than our brave Kerry and a few others, these skeptics seem to be avoiding this thread.  It is being read (as confirmed by the numbers) and yet they seem to be avoiding the footprint topic. 

 

Would that be because there is no coherent, plausible or demonstrable alternative to counter the assumption that these tracks are made by a real animal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be tough to be that skeptic who views the patty film and thinks. "it has to be a man in a suit"  Then, they loose sleep over many of the informative posts by Sweaty, and Bigfoot Hunter, Bill and so many others.  They seek comfort in the volume of posts that just say, "it's a man in a suit"  Then, the venture over to the Pattys feet...and the footprints thread. Many suddenly become aware of a facts they never heard in Skeptic Happy Land. These include:

 

There is a brief film image of the trackway as shown in the Munns report.

Lyle Laverty not only came across the trackway but also photographed it.

The Mid tarsal break and other Jeff Meldrum - type findings are so hard to dismiss.

The tracks go one for several hundred yards.

Roger and Bob made no effort to hide where this was filmed

The tracks were at least 40-41" stride heel to heel and some were longer

The foot was 14.5" and at least 6" wide

The tracks were deeper than a man's so could it be a man?

 

These skeptics take this in and run away as fast as they can as they feel a case of indigestion.  They retreat to Webster's Dictionary to quickly define the word "science"  and say, "ahhhh there that feels better.  Sure the word 'science ' will preserve my skeptics credo."

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some need to read the academia article again because it's being misinterpreted. If you're able to comprehend the journal you will find that the "depth equals pressure" paradigm still holds true, but without a specific cut off point in regards to accuracy of track pressures in the same substrate. It apparently was written for

locomotor biomechanics in extinct vertebrates

regarding limb motion of the trackmaker. It was

never meant to be cited for comparing horse

print pressures to non-human hominid's. They

use the term hominin footprints that is of human ancestors where as hominid also includes modern and extinct great apes... Without any background in science most would overlook these details.

Edited by Kerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth evidence shows the tracks are most likely a hoax but are not proof of a hoax. In the other hand there is no proof or good evidence the prints came from the figure in the film.

Funny how on other threads there seem to be several more skeptics. Yet, other than our brave Kerry and a few others, these skeptics seem to be avoiding this thread. It is being read (as

confirmed by the numbers) and yet they seem to

be avoiding the footprint topic.

Because they either don't understand or have the patience to explain it. Edited by Kerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand it pretty clear.  What they are basically saying the are many factors to consider. Lets just go with the foot pressure of a man that DOUBLES is they are in stride.  Thus, Standing is NOT the same as walking in STRIDE.

 

All examples are approximate, and will vary based on conditions

Hovercraft: 0.7 kPa (0.1 psi)

Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi)

Rubber-tracked ATV: 5.165 kPa (0.75 psi)

Diedrich D-50 - T2 Drilling rig: 26.2 kPa (3.8 psi)

Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi)

M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi)

Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)

Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)

Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi)

Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)

Racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)

Note: Pressures for Man and Horse are for standing still. A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure. A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi). The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure.

(from Wiki)

 

Are we to say a M1 tank that makes a track at 15 PSI weighs LESS than an adult horse at 25 PSI?

 

Just like in tire pressure, these factors are not LINEAR in charting.  There are many many factors.

Backdoc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many factors that are not in favor of Patty's prints being real. One that we can't calculate without the substrate is even more complex. The creature in the film needed to exert more downward force than the horse because substrate does not compact evenly. As it compacts it actually causes more resistance to penetration in a nonlinear progression. Making her have to weigh even more than our calculated 2254 pound estimate.

Edited by Kerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry writes, "In the other hand there is no proof the prints came from the figure in the film."

 

 

My response:

We do know the tracks were photographed independently by Lyle Laverty not connected to the film.  We do know since we have the landmarks on the PGF such as the 'S' stick, the fallen log, the big tree and so on where the figure walked.  The Patty figure walking would result in tracks being left behind unless it was walking on levitation boots.

 

So we do have proof a figure walked in these spots in bluff creek and the walking was caught on film.   Since others came to the film site we are left to ask 'what happened to the tracks the Patty figure made?'

 

If they were painted over it would have to occur after Roger and Bob left by 4-5 PM and the next day when Laverty came along.  Please consider my above posts.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many factors that are not in favor of Patty's prints being real. One that we can't calculate without the substrate is even more complex. The creature in the film needed to exert more downward force than the horse because substrate does not compact evenly. As it compacts it actually causes more resistance to penetration in a nonlinear progression.

 

Making her have to weigh even more than our calculated 2254 pound estimate.

 

 

You are ignoring the findings of the scientific study...the math is not so simple. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that be because there is no coherent, plausible or demonstrable alternative to counter the assumption that these tracks are made by a real animal? 

 

This reminds me of a guy who was trying to get me interested in a website making a case that the US Government was in on, and maybe engineered, 9/11.

 

The centerpiece of the discussion was a blog similar to this in which physicists, through a number of calculations, attempted to show that no way could airline impacts have produced the 'implosion' collapse we witnessed of the Twin Towers.

 

I said to him:  Um, I'm not a physicist.  The part of this you have to be working on is the US Government engineering this.  Until then...

 

Same here.  I have never seen a non-debatable proposition advanced by a skeptic of this film.

 

Nor have I ever seen a piece of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to suspect a hoax.

 

Until then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few people find the notion of an 8ft, 600 lb apeman running around North America avoiding collection and leaving zero tangible, conclusive evidence of its passing pretty unreasonable as well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't. 

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  - Bigfoot skeptic Carl Sagan

 

And we don't have evidence of absence.  We have lots of evidence of presence, until it is proven to be evidence of something else.

 

Scientists may not want to work that way.

 

Science, however, inisists that they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DWA you are right!  Absence of [a Patty-like suit attempt] is enough! 

 

Thank you.  I knew we were getting somewhere.

 

WHERE IS THE SUIT? 

 

WHERE IS THE SUIT?

 

WHERE IS THE SUIT?

 

Backdoc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...