Jump to content

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


SweatyYeti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter,

 

Wow ! He will clearly say what ever pops in his head, without even botherin' to research what he's talkin' bout. He admits it himself, that's what he does ! I'm at a loss...there really is no point addressin' him.

 

I was goin' ta comment on some of his posts, but I think my time would be much better spent havin' a cold one out on the balcony.

 

I did spend a little time on somethin', unlike Kerry, I don't mind actually tryin' to look at things claimed. Regardin' the claim it was Rene's signature pipe in the Laverty photo from the site next to one of her tracks. I looked for images of Rene with his pipe, found a few, will see if I can't find others another time, or perhaps someone can post any if they have them. But when it comes to the pipe images I found, Rene's pipe looks two-tone, unlike the pipe in the Laverty photo. If we can get more images of Rene with his pipe(s), all the better.

 

Pat...

post-279-0-99270100-1393456054_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

First of all where is this 1 untouched track?  I am sure Patterson and Gimlin did KISS.  How many tracks did they walk near during their "initial investigation" of them.  How many to pour the plaster, cover during the rain, etc.  Some you could use a board if the dirt wasn't pristine, windswept, delicate, brittle. 

 

To be able to determine what could or couldn't be done - you shouldn't have to ask the questions you did as you should already have known the answers. I've been on that sandbar in both sun and rain and you do not seem to have a clue as to what its like.

 

Most people have a camera of some type, so make some marks in the sand and try sweeping them out and post your work if you want people to take you seriously.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did imply that we had said it as you stated that we cannot have it both ways. Not admitting you were wrong when you are presented with your own words to the contrary is not a good quality to be known for.

 

 But in post 3070 you said i was the only one that said it was stomping its feet and I know Tontar and Crowlogic have said it was STOMPING so you were WRONG and this is so childish that it's stupid and I'm out of here, have fun kids!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry,

 

Thank you !  Perhaps while you're "out of here", you might wish to look into some of the information available on the subject. Presentin' things like the face in the bushes etc, without ever even seein' them really is quite tellin'. 

 

If you don't understand the bone structure etc. in the subjects "rubber feet", I suggest you familiarize yourself with primate feet, there is plenty of information on the matter.

 

Nothin' wrong with bein' uneducated in this subject Kerry, but I, an perhaps others will have trouble takin' your understandin', knowledge an opinion on matters serious if you don't even bother to look into what you present. Myself, I have looked into a great deal, tried to learn much in relevant fields pertainin' to the subject, anatomy, primates, evolution, accounts from witnesses, etc. etc.,  

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

To be able to determine what could or couldn't be done - you shouldn't have to ask the questions you did as you should already have known the answers. I've been on that sandbar in both sun and rain and you do not seem to have a clue as to what its like.

 

Most people have a camera of some type, so make some marks in the sand and try sweeping them out and post your work if you want people to take you seriously.

In 67 you were there? Every rock every log and sweep of sand was exactly the same. The exact same amount of moisture in the sand? Of course not sand, rocks, logs, water move.

Where's your proof of everything having delicate brittle all around the prints. I am sure it could be done your the one believing in the impossible. Prove to everyone why it would be impossible. Let's see every footprint and the surrounding soil to 5 ft. Every footprint Patterson Gimlin investigated, poured, and covered before witnesses arrived. Those can be ruled out.

I'm just pointing out why its possible the footprints could be hoaxed. It's hard opening closed minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

 But in post 3070 you said i was the only one that said it was stomping its feet and I know Tontar and Crowlogic have said it was STOMPING so you were WRONG and this is so childish that it's stupid and I'm out of here, have fun kids!

 

Just for the record - I was talking about between you, me and Meldrum as Jeff and I were the ones your comment was directed at. What Tontar may have written eons ago - I could care less, nor what he may have said would apply to me or Meldrum having it both ways -  RIGHT!

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

Here's another way to deal with those ever troubling patches of pristine, delicate, wind swept sand patches.  Lash together 10 or 12 foot long limbs,branches, whatever and lash the ends to rocks.  Straddle this over the delicate sand make print then when you move the unit replace the impressions well away from the print with other rocks or logs.   Or just walk around the area like you were investigating the prints.

Misdirection everyone would assume the hoaxer would have to be sitting right next to the prints.  No one is looking 5+ feet to the side of the prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

I'm just pointing out why its possible the footprints could be hoaxed. It's hard opening closed minds.

 

I have done foot prints test and I am very familiar with sandy loamy soil. I have trodden across substrates of all types in all kinds of weather conditions. I have seen the waviness of the substrate around several prints that I have from Roger's film, not to mention the debris around those prints and I saw no sign of someone sweeping away tracks. I would suggest to you to do some test where you walk over dry, damp, or saturated loamy sand and then take what ever tool you like and attempt to eradicate any evidence of your being there. I am certain you will find that no matter what you do - you will not be successful in duplicating what mother nature has done.

 

I have an open mind, but when the sand ferries take to the air, I start losing interest in short order unless the story teller is willing to demonstrate that he has found a technique to support what he or she is pushing.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 67 you were there? Every rock every log and sweep of sand was exactly the same. The exact same amount of moisture in the sand? Of course not sand, rocks, logs, water move.

Where's your proof of everything having delicate brittle all around the prints. I am sure it could be done your the one believing in the impossible. Prove to everyone why it would be impossible. Let's see every footprint and the surrounding soil to 5 ft. Every footprint Patterson Gimlin investigated, poured, and covered before witnesses arrived. Those can be ruled out.

I'm just pointing out why its possible the footprints could be hoaxed. It's hard opening closed minds.

Urkelbot,

 

Asking for what we don't have is easy. Do you have any evidence or images showin' 5 feet around the tracks ? 

 

Why not prove to everyone the mid foot flexibility evident in the tracks as well as the filmed subject itself was common knowledge back in 1967. These are things that are there as evidence, pretty clear if you ask me. Show me Roger or Bob knew about the characteristics of primate foot anatomy prior to filmin' the sasquatch.

 

Here's a good one, when was the mid foot flexibility first suggested to account for what is seen in the filmed subject an it's tracks ? Was it well after 1967 ?

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat wrote:

 

Why not prove to everyone the mid foot flexibility evident in the tracks as well as the filmed subject itself was common knowledge back in 1967. 

 

 

Another aspect of the 'mid-foot flexibility', Pat....even if he did think of such a thing, why would Roger have then gone and made casts of two of the flattest prints in the trackway....and leave the ones showing the 'mid-foot pressure ridge' to fade away, possibly to never be noticed by anyone?? :)

 

Likewise, with the ability of the subject to bend/curl it's fingers. Why would the curling of the fingers only occur during the shakiest part of the Film....for only 1 frame....and not during the long, steady portion???

 

Likewise, with the exceptionally long upper-arms. Why does the subject hold it's arms out to the side when it walks, so they appear fore-shortened in length??? 

 

 

Seems pretty weird to build such features into a suit....only to then make them all but impossible to see, during a normal viewing of the Film. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

The whole concept of Patterson erecting scaffolds so to  dig trackways or creating several variances of rubber foot slippers for a mans foot to slip into is pretty far out there in la-la land when you consider that he and Gimlin only left Yakima in a pick-up truck and pulling a horse trailer expecting to see the 560+ tracks that were said to be on the ground on Blue Creek Mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would scaffolding do?

 

Bigplasterpour.gif

 

Casts2ndreel.gif

 

0_track.gif

 

Even before Laverty and his timber crew showed up to check out the tracks, there were already Patterson's and Gimlin's footprints all around Patty's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

I have done foot prints test and I am very familiar with sandy loamy soil. I have trodden across substrates of all types in all kinds of weather conditions. I have seen the waviness of the substrate around several prints that I have from Roger's film, not to mention the debris around those prints and I saw no sign of someone sweeping away tracks. I would suggest to you to do some test where you walk over dry, damp, or saturated loamy sand and then take what ever tool you like and attempt to eradicate any evidence of your being there. I am certain you will find that no matter what you do - you will not be successful in duplicating what mother nature has done.

 

I have an open mind, but when the sand ferries take to the air, I start losing interest in short order unless the story teller is willing to demonstrate that he has found a technique to support what he or she is pushing.

Let's see these images of waviness. Do you have more than what is commonly available because what is doesnt show much.

I have also mentioned two simple ways to get around this supposed substrate that you have still failed to demonstrate. Both could be constructed in a few hours by a group of boy scouts fom any forested location. A simple weighted lever and logs/trunks/boards over rocks. Both would leave no evidence around the tracks on this substrate. That's just a few ways it could be done there's so much leeway and holes in this whole account there are countless hundreds of other ways to hoax these 20 tracks. One more time 20 tracks.

You do not know where this supposed substrate was located in conjunction with all the tracks, nor the surrounding features around the tracks; gravel, rocks, plants, logs, and all the varying levels of substrate quality. What if any tracks they never got close to or covered up due to the rain. You don't know any of this just some vague notion of wavy substrate around a couple prints. That's enough for you to say impossible I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...