Jump to content

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


SweatyYeti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Urkelbot, face the reality, the burden of proof is on you. You desperately want to turn that around, but you can not. Your going to have to demonstrate effectively how they where hoaxed, or deal with what your stating is nothing more than opinion. So state your opinion, and leave it at that, I cannot believe these guys are even giving you the time of day, rather than simply put you on ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Urkelbot,

 

Your proposal is totally whacked with the Saturday morning cartoon realism of an ACME apparatus construction like the Coyote would use to try and catch the Road Runner. There is no evidence that Gimlin and Patterson had the motive - means - or opportunity to have conducted and carried out such a far fetched deed. Maybe in your mind, you may think what you have suggested makes sense, but in the real world and the evidence described by those who were there or went there after the fact .... it's pure speculative hogwash.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urkelbot, face the reality, the burden of proof is on you. You desperately want to turn that around, but you can not. Your going to have to demonstrate effectively how they where hoaxed, or deal with what your stating is nothing more than opinion. So state your opinion, and leave it at that, I cannot believe these guys are even giving you the time of day, rather than simply put you on ignore.

 

I actually have him on Ignore. The beauty of it is that you can take someone off it to beat him over the head.

 

I echo you. I think SweatyYeti already said that. The Pattyskeptics have nothing. The case for the film gets stronger with everything they say.

 

I'd never attempt to argue technical points with any of these people.  They say there's no incentive to prove their point...when the incentive to prove their point grows by the second.  The question is:  who - THE HECK!?!?!?!?!? - would have wanted to do this in 1967?????????

 

The proof is in:

 

Patty.

 

And she did.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urkelbot,

 

Your proposal is totally whacked with the Saturday morning cartoon realism of an ACME apparatus construction like the Coyote would use to try and catch the Road Runner. There is no evidence that Gimlin and Patterson had the motive - means - or opportunity to have conducted and carried out such a far fetched deed. Maybe in your mind, you may think what you have suggested makes sense, but in the real world and the evidence described by those who were there or went there after the fact .... it's pure speculative hogwash.

Actually, "pure speculative hogwash" dignifies it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yea that's why the second guy cleans up after. There would be no evidence, it would be a hoax after all not a good idea to leave behind evidence befor the rubes come around.

 

Definition of Rube:
1  :  an awkward unsophisticated person   2  :  a naive or inexperienced person   3 : a country bumpkin
 
I guess in this case, the "rubes" would be anyone interested in seeing the site for themselves, especially if nothing looked fake to them about it, right??  That's some sad 'Science. 8 / 

 

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.

 

There should only be a few million grains of sand or so to individually stack back in place exactly as they were before, what's the big deal?  :crazy:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urkelbot, you're just jerking our chains, right? Are you suggesting that Roger suspended some 800 lb cantilevered animatronic foot using logs, fulcrums and pulleys to create the trackway? And he did it without leaving a trace of the contraption used to make them? Or did he use a contraption that suspended him over the sand and he sculpted out the trackway? If so, then I have nothing left to say except to suggest you take a couple of hours out of your day to video yourself doing just that and showing us how it was done. This isn't about what was possible, it's about how it might have happened and rejecting absurd scenarios.

One last question for you before I put you on ignore. How would your contraption simulate real walking feet like the track that Laverty photographed:

Laverty_Track_Cast_Views.jpg

Face it, this track was created by a walking foot, not an 800lb cantilevered animatronic foot, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^Wait, you missed where he said:

 

"The issue is not over how the morphology of the tracks could be created stop trying to side track."

 

Translation:

 

"I'm gonna give you some Rube Goldberg dodge; and then accuse YOU of sidetracking."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

Urkelbot,

 

Your proposal is totally whacked with the Saturday morning cartoon realism of an ACME apparatus construction like the Coyote would use to try and catch the Road Runner. There is no evidence that Gimlin and Patterson had the motive - means - or opportunity to have conducted and carried out such a far fetched deed. Maybe in your mind, you may think what you have suggested makes sense, but in the real world and the evidence described by those who were there or went there after the fact .... it's pure speculative hogwash.

The motive means or opportunity to lash together a few tree limbs?  Yes i think they had the opportunity to cut down a few straight limbs or find them on the ground and  lash them together.  Place it across a fulcrum consisting of a rock or a log.  Its a lever one of the simplest machines known to man.  Wow Saturday cartoon stuff there straight from the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?  Someone is suggesting that logs or limbs were laid out... so that foot prints would not be left while making - by hand - foot impressions?

 

Walking a balance beam.. maintaining balance.. all while digging?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^You're making the prints when you do the stuff you leave prints to do while you're leaving prints to do the stuff that erases the prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

Changed my mind.  I'm killin' a rabbit.

 

Faking the Patterson tracks is impossible.  Until you or someone else proves it isn't.  46 years now?  says:  IMPOSSIBLE.

 

Haven't you heard this enough times?  If it cannot be duplicated IT CANNOT.  Not duplicating it reinforces the reality.  Way life is.  Tough, I know.

So if someone duplicates it say next year magically it goes from impossible to possible?

It's called misdirection. In the event of a hoax Patterson wants all witnesses looking in a certain direction right at the tracks. No one is going to be looking 5+ feet away from the tracks where all manner of soil disturbance would occur any way due to investigating, covering, pouring, or where natural objects or firm soil may lie. 5+ feet away all manner of techniques could be deployed to make a mark or track in the soil without leaving any obvious evidence behind. I suggested a simple lever that could be crafted from local material in a short time. Whoever is making this mark would lie or sit at the end of the lashed wood and make a the print however they choose to do so.

Some pictures surrounding all 20 prints would do me in with my wild idea that it is possible to make 20 fake prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

The motive means or opportunity to lash together a few tree limbs?  Yes i think they had the opportunity to cut down a few straight limbs or find them on the ground and  lash them together.  Place it across a fulcrum consisting of a rock or a log.  Its a lever one of the simplest machines known to man.  Wow Saturday cartoon stuff there straight from the future!

 

You forgot to also include they would have done all this near a road that Laverty claimed to have been up and down all Summer. And seeing how it would be so simple for Patterson to erect - you do it and post the results. Until then you are just spitting in the wind (for a kind way of saying it) and stop wasting everyone's time with these ludicrous sand ferry type allegations.

 

Let me make a prediction .... you'll never do this so-called easy feat because you can't.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

No one is going to be looking 5+ feet away from the tracks where all manner of soil disturbance would occur any way due to investigating, covering, pouring, or where natural objects or firm soil may lie. 5+ feet away all manner of techniques could be deployed to make a mark or track in the soil without leaving any obvious evidence behind.

 

There were people there who said they looked around for tracks to see how it got there, so you are making more unfounded assumptions by saying no one would look more than 5' from the tracks. There comes a point when trying to salvage a bad claim with even wackier theories to try and revive a dead horse only defeats your purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - Do you agree that a hoaxed event using Wallace stompers was what had P&G at Bluff Creek?

 

2 -  I'm not saying Patterson modified Wallace stompers, I'm suggesting modified tracks in the ground starting by using Wallace stompers.

 

1. You already know how I feel about the BCM tracks. Once again you're trying to paint an association like it's supposed to mean something.

 

2. Demonstration? Stiff stompers aren't going to make tracks like we see at Bluff Creek, neither will modifying stiff tracks by hand.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...