Jump to content
SweatyYeti

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

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti,

Cooool ! I'd thought in the past to do a little research or studyin' into the movement of her legs, never did get around to it much. As I've said, I think that horizontal ridge across her right thigh is a ol' injury, thought it for years. When Doug Hajicek noticed the possible hernia on right thigh lower down, I thought, sure, may have somethin' ta do with injury further up on thigh(the horizontal ridge). A injury could easily account for variation in movement, flexability etc. Now I'll have to spend a little time lookin' into it, very interestin'.

That's an interesting possibility, Pat. I hope you find some information, in your searching, that can shed some light on the 'thigh bulge' mystery. :)

I was just looking at some old graphics of mine, a couple of days ago, of the 'thigh bulge'...and looking-up images of hernias...trying to get a better understanding of what they are. I'd like to see what I can find out, regarding the thigh bulge.

Maybe we can combine forces, and collaborate on the issue.

Regardin' the midtarsal break, thanks to your help, I think I've been able to explain or show what I see in that section of the film I noticed. Not only is it interestin' the subject has a midtarsal break, but as I've said, that the foot bends where it does, in my opinion makes it highly unlikely...near impossible, a human foot in a costume could replicate it. wolftrax had mentioned a bit back about a size 11 shoe or somethin like that, in a costume would be similar(can't recall exact words, sorry wolftrax if I'm off by much). However, the subjects foot bends just infront of its shin, I'm size 9 1/2, round a 10 inch foot(I think off the top of my head), my foot bends at the ball of foot, like yours, now look at your foot, bend your toes back, notice anythin'...the bend in my foot occours about 4 inches infront of my shin. A persons foot in a costume would still have to bend well ahead of its shin.

Interestin' thread SweatyYeti, lookin' foreward to the observations an comments. :thumbsup:

Pat...

I agree with everything you're saying, there, Pat. :) I don't understand how woltrax can't see it...but Patty's left foot sure seems like it must be bending very close to the shin....with the back half of her foot so vertical, as it starts lifting-up off the ground.

That's all...for now......I'm tired...

Cheers!!... :D .... RootBeer1.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

as explained here:

One of the problems with the images in question is that the camera is from behind the figure. I took a sequence from a different angle in the film, scaled to size, and put them up together to compare:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gif

As we can see from the different angle, the shadow that supposedly indicates a midtarsal break is much lower than how it appears from behind. Take the more side view, line up where that flexion is supposedly taking place, and match it up to a frame showing the length of the foot, and it's not in the location of the midtarsals.

mtbcomp.jpg

But again, look at the top animation. The feet are obscured by the ground plane when in contact with the ground, while the foot is planted you cannot see the top of it. This is an obstacle in trying to observe where flexion is taking place exactly, but we can see from this that the "Shadow" is not in the location of the midtarsals.

Added to that, the Laverty photo and the corresponding cast that came from that looks very geometric, it looks like a pole running diagonally across the foot. Regardless, it is not impossible at all to make an impression that looks like a midtarsal break with a fake foot:

IMG_4981%5B1%5D.jpg

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Meldrum demonstrated in the P/G film where one could see the mid-tarsal area of Patty's foot bending while off the ground.

I once posted that only one set of Sasquatch tracks were left across that sandbar, thus the subject in the film was the most likely suspect.

I also once pointed out that Patty's foot matches the cast that Roger took. I believe it was Kitakaze who replied that they do not match, but he wasn't very specific. Things he didn't seem to consider was the different angle at which the foot was seen in the P/G film, nor did he appear to consider that the pad of the foot with the subjects weight on it, which is the shape seen on the ground, would not be the exact shape seen in mid-air with no weight on it.

And about the toes ... If there was a foot inside of the slippers, then the toes would have no pressing power in my view. A foot inside a slipper for instance would only be pressing into the ground and any unrelated free-floating piece of the foot, such as the toes, wouldn't be equally pressed into the ground ... let alone in damp packed sand.

As far as shades of the foot go - I wouldn't bet the farm when what is being seen is suffering from motion blur, panning blur, and distance to the subject. Even the trees and other objects have shade spots moving around on them when none should have been present in the real world. At least that is the way I would approach it fairly.

I find no reliable evidence that the subject in the film did not make the prints later seen on that sandbar.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

One clear difference between the two 'foot-lift sequences' is the shadow, at the point where Patty's foot is contacting the ground...

FootbendcompAG1.gif

Again...during the first half of the foot-lift...between the combination of...

1) The 'vertical' orientation of the foot, and...

2) The contact between the foot and flat ground...(the front half of the foot isn't in a depression/hole in the ground)...

.....Patty's foot must be bending in the middle.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

The shadows in the image on the left are stronger throughout than the images on the right. The shadow on the heel is stronger as well, yet that isn't touted as evidence that the heel is bent at a weird angle. Regardless of shadows, the images are aligned, where the supposed "Midtarsal break" is occurring is not the midtarsal region.

Your animation conveniently leaves out the first frame where it is apparent, in both sequences, that the ground obscures the foot and where it makes contact is not visible:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gifmtbcomp.jpg

These images you posted support that the foot is obscured when in contact with the ground:

PattyLeftFootLift3Steps.jpg

You also said this in the opening post:

And, if Patty made the footprints....there is a 100% Probability that she is 'the real thing'.....due to the body weight required to make those deep impressions.

Yet now you are changing it that Patty's feet were flat on the ground and did not impress. This is an example of changing the evidence to fit the theory instead of testing the theory against the evidence.

Edited by wolftrax
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Interesting link. It is a good idea to look at things from every possible angle. Even though it is entirely possible that we may never know the truth of the matter with 100% certainty, I believe we should educate ourselves in the arguments of all sides if we are going to comment on the subject with any credibility.

One clear difference between the two 'foot-lift sequences' is the shadow, at the point where Patty's foot is contacting the ground...

FootbendcompAG1.gif

Again...during the first half of the foot-lift...between the combination of...

1) The 'vertical' orientation of the foot, and...

2) The contact between the foot and flat ground...(the front half of the foot isn't in a depression/hole in the ground)...

.....Patty's foot must be bending in the middle.

After importing the two side-by-side gifs into Autocad as images and measuring them comparatively, the shadows do in fact appear at the same place in both pics, and also appear to be at the ball of the foot, forward of the middle. Of course that does not mean the foot doesn't bend in the middle, it just means that those two images capture the foot bending in the same way a human foot does, with the toes forward as the foot leaves the ground. I would suspect that would occur in any biped (I could very well be wrong!). If you look at the pics closely, even though the shadows are in the same position and show the toe areas bending forward, there is an obvious indention in the middle of the foot; an arch if you will, or perhaps a mid tarsal break. I cannot be sure what it is, but it appears very obviously between the heel and the ball of the foot as a slightly darker area on the pic on the far right. Unlike my foot, it appears to go all the way across the subject's foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a couple of other questions that are related to the tracks, if anyone can answer them:

1.) Did the tracks at the PGF site have dermal ridges in them? Were casts or tracks checked for dermal ridges that far back, or is that a fairly new thing since Jimmy Chilcutt started investigating the phenomena? I do understand that one post on this thread mentioned a rain in the vicinity shortly after the filming, which could possibly have erased some of the detail.

2.) What was the soil type and relative density where the subject walked and was filmed? How deep were the tracks? Did anyone take note of how deep the prints of other investigators sank into the soil in the days afterward? How much did Bob H. or any of the others suspected of hoaxing the film weigh? What shoe size did he wear and how tall was he? (just covering the bases)

Observations from tracking animals & people: Due to the biology of the foot as used for normal forward locomotion, animal tracks tend to leave a greater impression at the front of the track, and heavier animals, especially in loose or soft soils tend to show a slight mound behind the front of the foot or, if applicable (for animals with soft feet) behind the ball of the foot as they subtly push off to move forward. Humans do this as well. To remove any doubt, go take a walk on the beach. You will not leave flat, evenly distributed tracks, and neither will your faithful pet, Rover. However, if you strap hard, rigid things to your feet (shoes?) they will leave such prints, except in certain soil types. Additionally, in case you have not noticed, we gain a lot of forward momentum by using our toes. Seldom do our toes remain in the same exact position right in from of our feet, unless we concentrate very hard to keep them there. The faster we walk, the more they will splay to give us traction.

Another bit of trivia is that whites and other non-natives tend to walk heel-first, and then roll the foot forward. This will create a track that has a deep heel print, has a relatively shallow middle, and is a bit deeper at the ball and toes (to push off, as described above). Natives typically walk toe-heel for stealth purposes, as less weight is placed on the ground, and thus greater control is maintained to avoid crunching leaves, twigs, etc., which is essential for sneaking up on game with short-range archery tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The shadows in the image on the left are stronger throughout than the images on the right. The shadow on the heel is stronger as well, yet that isn't touted as evidence that the heel is bent at a weird angle. Regardless of shadows, the images are aligned, where the supposed "Midtarsal break" is occurring is not the midtarsal region.

Your animation conveniently leaves out the first frame where it is apparent, in both sequences, that the ground obscures the foot and where it makes contact is not visible:

These images you posted support that the foot is obscured when in contact with the ground:

You also said this in the opening post:

And, if Patty made the footprints....there is a 100% Probability that she is 'the real thing'.....due to the body weight required to make those deep impressions.

Yet now you are changing it that Patty's feet were flat on the ground and did not impress.

This is an example of changing the evidence to fit the theory instead of testing the theory against the evidence.

Wrong, wolftrax. I haven't changed my thinking, or my claims, regarding Patty's feet.

When I said this...

2) The contact between the foot and flat ground...(the front half of the foot isn't in a depression/hole in the ground)

...I meant that the front half of Patty's foot is not down inside a depression/HOLE...on the order of a few-to-several inches deep.

I had previously made this comparison...(and posted it, in another thread)...to illustrate the idea...

PattyVerticalFootComp1.jpg

My thinking hasn't changed....Patty's foot appears to be bending in the middle, based on the details I've described earlier.

I think she did make the footprints at the scene....and, her feet did impress into the ground by about 1".

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

One of the problems with the images in question is that the camera is from behind the figure. I took a sequence from a different angle in the film, scaled to size, and put them up together to compare:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gif

As we can see from the different angle, the shadow that supposedly indicates a midtarsal break is much lower than how it appears from behind. Take the more side view, line up where that flexion is supposedly taking place, and match it up to a frame showing the length of the foot, and it's not in the location of the midtarsals.

mtbcomp.jpg

But again, look at the top animation. The feet are obscured by the ground plane when in contact with the ground, while the foot is planted you cannot see the top of it. This is an obstacle in trying to observe where flexion is taking place exactly, but we can see from this that the "Shadow" is not in the location of the midtarsals.

Added to that, the Laverty photo and the corresponding cast that came from that looks very geometric, it looks like a pole running diagonally across the foot. Regardless, it is not impossible at all to make an impression that looks like a midtarsal break with a fake foot:

IMG_4981%5B1%5D.jpg

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/

wolftrax,

Wrong, but don't have the time just yet to explain...again.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Wrong, wolftrax. I haven't changed my thinking, or my claims, regarding Patty's feet.

When I said this...

...I meant that the front half of Patty's foot is not down inside a depression/HOLE...on the order of a few-to-several inches deep.

I had previously made this comparison...(and posted it, in another thread)...to illustrate the idea...

PattyVerticalFootComp1.jpg

My thinking hasn't changed....Patty's foot appears to be bending in the middle, based on the details I've described earlier.

I think she did make the footprints at the scene....and, her feet did impress into the ground by about 1".

So the foot does sink. More appropriately though, every set of images posted shows that the feet are obscured when in contact with the ground. It doesn't matter how or why, what matters is that the foot is not on the visible ground level, we cannot see where flexion is taking place, and that flexion is not forced on the midtarsal break, nor is it located in the midtarsal region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Interesting link. It is a good idea to look at things from every possible angle. Even though it is entirely possible that we may never know the truth of the matter with 100% certainty, I believe we should educate ourselves in the arguments of all sides if we are going to comment on the subject with any credibility.

After importing the two side-by-side gifs into Autocad as images and measuring them comparatively, the shadows do in fact appear at the same place in both pics, and also appear to be at the ball of the foot, forward of the middle. Of course that does not mean the foot doesn't bend in the middle, it just means that those two images capture the foot bending in the same way a human foot does, with the toes forward as the foot leaves the ground. I would suspect that would occur in any biped (I could very well be wrong!).

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So the foot does sink.

Sure...if Patty made the footprints...then her feet are pressing into the soil by about .5" to 1".

More appropriately though, every set of images posted shows that the feet are obscured when in contact with the ground.

Not the images where Patty is in the trees. :)

It doesn't matter how or why, what matters is that the foot is not on the visible ground level, we cannot see where flexion is taking place, and that flexion is not forced on the midtarsal break, nor is it located in the midtarsal region.

What really matters, is that neither you, nor anyone else can replicate this odd feature of Patty's left foot....(lifting-up off the ground vertically)...

PattyFootLiftingUpAG7.gifPattyTreesFootSuperStableAG1A.gif

Typical angle of Human foot...

HumanFeetAngles1.jpg

Edited to add: Heironimus...in a Morris Rug....didn't get anything 'quite right'... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Very interesting, Sweaty. I would think that there are many things that can be considered in terms of what you have noticed about the foot/leg movement in relation to the prints. Perhaps Patty favors her right leg due to an injury (hernia)?? Different morphology applies to left and right feet just as it does with left and right hands. Too cool! B)

Dr. Andrew Nelson noted in LMS that the gait would have been compromised in some way due to the soft tissue anomaly. post-1055-071011400 1310950008_thumb.jpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have one more question to add to the list of others that didn't get any responses or answers:

What was the stride length of the tracks that P & G measured after taking the film (if they measured the stride length)? It should be relatively simple to calculate the stride length of Patty (or at least the stride length-to-height proportion) based on the gif that SweatyYeti posted.

Btw, if that is Bob H. in the suit in the referenced pic, unless the angle (which is nowhere near the PGF angle) is terribly concealing the distance between his feet, then his stride length is no where near the PGF subject, proportionately or otherwise, at least in that one pic. I will say that there are some similarities in the suit, but there are also some differences. My stance thus far has been to give the film the benefit of the doubt as far as authenticity until clearly proven a hoax. In doing so, I must say that it would be relatively easy for a costume designer to create a similar suit after the fact, though I cannot imagine what his motives would be or how he would profit from it.

Anyway, does anyone know the answers to any of the questions I have asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Not the images where Patty is in the trees. :)

Sure as shown here:

mtbgroundlevelcopy.jpg

What really matters, is that neither you, nor anyone else can replicate this odd feature of Patty's left foot....(lifting-up off the ground vertically)...

That's a joke right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...