Jump to content

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


SweatyYeti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

I'm at a loss for words when I see skeptics spending so much time on a subject they claim not to believe in and only coming up with sand ferry theories as to how someone could fake such deep tracks in packed loamy sand and not leave any signs of their deed behind.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

If nothing else the Bluff Creek trackway is consistent in that all the tracks look like they came from the same set of feet.  If Patterson was stomping tracks and then modifying them to his liking I don't see how he could have made that many tracks appear natural and unmodified.  That would have been difficult enough.  Add to it hiding all evidence of his work would make it nearly impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 

I'm at a loss for words when I see skeptics spending so much time on a subject they claim not to believe in and only coming up with sand ferry theories....

 

 

I'm at a loss for words when I see proponents spending the same amount of time on the same proposal, that they claim is ludicrous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing else the Bluff Creek trackway is consistent in that all the tracks look like they came from the same set of feet.  If Patterson was stomping tracks and then modifying them to his liking I don't see how he could have made that many tracks appear natural and unmodified.  That would have been difficult enough.  Add to it hiding all evidence of his work would make it nearly impossible.

 

 

That's a very good point, Crow.  :)

 

One analogy that I've thought of before, regarding how smooth/natural the footprints appear...is a person's handwriting. A person's own handwriting tends to look smooth, and natural....while a forged signature...if written slowly, often tends to look jerky, and unnatural.

 

Patty's footprints have the appearance of being made by a foot that moved steadily along, from heel to toe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

I'm at a loss for words when I see skeptics spending so much time on a subject they claim not to believe in and only coming up with sand ferry theories as to how someone could fake such deep tracks in packed loamy sand and not leave any signs of their deed behind.

 

I never claimed i didn't believe i said it was incredibly unlikely, no bodies no DNA no bones or body parts, but i think it is POSSIBLE.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting seriously screwed up.

 

BH needs to prove nothing.  The evidence speaks for him.

 

IF IT IS SO SIMPLE, DO IT.  IT IS YOUR COCKAMAMIE THESIS AND THUS ALL ON YOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

BH needs to prove nothing.  The evidence speaks for him.

 

IF IT IS SO SIMPLE, DO IT.  IT IS YOUR COCKAMAMIE THESIS AND THUS ALL ON YOU.

 

Urkelbot is an army of one who doesn't want to except the witnesses descriptions of the trackway - Munns analysis of the ground conditions around the tracks - or conduct field test to first know the difficulty in pounding fake prints into various sandy substrate conditions that replicate the film-site so to know if what he says is even plausible. In a thread on the possibility of a suit Vs a real creature .... Munns gave this summary about Urkelbot's comprehension (or lack of it) on the topics he wishes to debate before offering his opinions on the evidence.

 

Munns:  Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:20 PM

star_big.png

POPULAR

Urkelbot:

 

let me see if I understand the essence of the last rounds of discussion:

 

You do not know why makeup effects designers, and not costumers, make creature costumes. Nor apparently do you know the difference between these two professions.

 

You do not know why there aren't any prior published scientific discourses on how costume technology can be applied to questions of suspected biological hoaxes of cryptozoological claims.

 

You certainly do not know about any kind of animation technology for costume animatronics, masks, or other performing fabrications.

 

You don't know what is and is not physically possible for odd ways to put people into costumes and make them look non-human.

 

You do not know why the PGF can be analyzed as an event unto itself, and why fossils or DNA or other event evidence would not be imperitive to any proof of what the PGF contains.

 

On the plus side, you have a fertile immagination.

 

Sadly, the plus doesn't make for a compelling analysis of what the PGF contains. (END)

 

Sound familiar? Urkelbot invents in his mind a contraption that he believes will keep Patterson and Gimlin's tracks off the ground, but forgets that the alleged man in the suit is also leaving tracks that would have to be filled in and covered over without leaving any sign of a disturbance left on the substrate. Nor does he feel the need to demonstrate that Patterson or Gimlin was educated on the dynamics of bi-pedalism so to know how to sculpt each print to coincide with the varying substrate changes along the trackway. Instead he demands wide angle images of the trackway that won't address any of the other hurdles he merely walked around. Rather than to better educate himself on the evidence he can see - he wants to focus on things he can't see which he thinks gives him the freedom to speculate with wild unproven theories even if they are void of evidence to support them.

 

Simply mind-boggling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm specifically talking about creating the tracks without leaving behind evidence.  I said nothing about how the shape of the tracks, depth, or howe exactly they were created.  Just that it would be possible in the pgf scenario to create these tracks without leaving behind obvious evidence of a hoax.  

 

 

You have to determine how they were made before you can determine if any evidence can be left behind. The more difficult and elaborate it is to create the tracks, the more possibility of leaving behind evidence. It's not a simple yes or no scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urkelbot is an army of one who doesn't want to accept the witnesses descriptions of the trackway - Munns analysis of the ground conditions around the tracks - or conduct field test to first know the difficulty in pounding fake prints into various sandy substrate conditions that replicate the film-site so to know if what he says is even plausible. In a thread on the possibility of a suit Vs a real creature .... Munns gave this summary about Urkelbot's comprehension (or lack of it) on the topics he wishes to debate before offering his opinions on the evidence.

 

 

 

Urkelbot is only an 'army of one', Bigfoothunter....in an 'army of millions' of people who are highly skeptical of Bigfoot's existence. So...who cares what he thinks??? I certainly don't. :)

 

After Urkelbot, are you going to wrestle every skeptics' brain to the ground, trying to get them to agree with you? There is a never-ending supply of them, you know.

 

 

 

 

Sound familiar? Urkelbot invents in his mind a contraption that he believes will keep Patterson and Gimlin's tracks off the ground, but forgets that the alleged man in the suit is also leaving tracks that would have to be filled in and covered over without leaving any sign of a disturbance left on the substrate. Nor does he feel the need to demonstrate that Patterson or Gimlin was educated on the dynamics of bi-pedalism so to know how to sculpt each print to coincide with the varying substrate changes along the trackway. Instead he demands wide angle images of the trackway that won't address any of the other hurdles he merely walked around. Rather than to better educate himself on the evidence he can see - he wants to focus on things he can't see which he thinks gives him the freedom to speculate with wild unproven theories even if they are void of evidence to support them.

 

Simply mind-boggling!

 

 

Urkelbot is correct...he does have the freedom to speculate with wild, unproven....even unsupported....theories. It may not be right...but he has that freedom. 

 

Learn to deal with it....and accept it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You were shown that the same left foot that you claim was made by a wooden Wallace carving had toe angle changes that had taken place between steps. It seems that if you are going to continue claiming that the Wallace carvings were used to make the BCM trackway, then you should offer a rational explanation for the variances as wooden feet are like rubber stamps - therefor each track would look the same. 

 

1fecfc6f-43d4-4ff6-b0db-316d17f9cde3_zps

 

bcm4_zps632d0ccc.jpg

 

You're showing shots of prints taken at totally different angles and offering it as evidence of toe movement.

 

You shouldn't do that. No, really...

LavertyPhoto-TitmusCast-SameFoot1_zpsc12

 

Four years apart, same stomper...

 

Bighodgsonwallace.jpg

 

BTW, did this happen?

 

I thought for a moment that Kitakaze was maybe setting up a easy field test to demonstrate how much of an angle change would be needed to have a certain effect on the vertical spacing in section A of my illustration, but I see he was just playing with Youtube edits. So tomorrow I will shoot some examples using a single casting against itself along with some other examples and share it with everyone.

 

Bigfoothunter

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

Urkelbot is an army of one who doesn't want to except the witnesses descriptions of the trackway - Munns analysis of the ground conditions around the tracks - or conduct field test to first know the difficulty in pounding fake prints into various sandy substrate conditions that replicate the film-site so to know if what he says is even plausible. In a thread on the possibility of a suit Vs a real creature .... Munns gave this summary about Urkelbot's comprehension (or lack of it) on the topics he wishes to debate before offering his opinions on the evidence.

 

Munns:  Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:20 PM

star_big.png

POPULAR

Urkelbot:

 

let me see if I understand the essence of the last rounds of discussion:

 

You do not know why makeup effects designers, and not costumers, make creature costumes. Nor apparently do you know the difference between these two professions.

 

You do not know why there aren't any prior published scientific discourses on how costume technology can be applied to questions of suspected biological hoaxes of cryptozoological claims.

 

You certainly do not know about any kind of animation technology for costume animatronics, masks, or other performing fabrications.

 

You don't know what is and is not physically possible for odd ways to put people into costumes and make them look non-human.

 

You do not know why the PGF can be analyzed as an event unto itself, and why fossils or DNA or other event evidence would not be imperitive to any proof of what the PGF contains.

 

On the plus side, you have a fertile immagination.

 

Sadly, the plus doesn't make for a compelling analysis of what the PGF contains. (END)

 

Sound familiar? Urkelbot invents in his mind a contraption that he believes will keep Patterson and Gimlin's tracks off the ground, but forgets that the alleged man in the suit is also leaving tracks that would have to be filled in and covered over without leaving any sign of a disturbance left on the substrate. Nor does he feel the need to demonstrate that Patterson or Gimlin was educated on the dynamics of bi-pedalism so to know how to sculpt each print to coincide with the varying substrate changes along the trackway. Instead he demands wide angle images of the trackway that won't address any of the other hurdles he merely walked around. Rather than to better educate himself on the evidence he can see - he wants to focus on things he can't see which he thinks gives him the freedom to speculate with wild unproven theories even if they are void of evidence to support them.

 

Simply mind-boggling!

I was discussing the creation of tracks in soil without leaving behind obvious evidence. Not actual creation of the track morphology and certainly not any other aspect of the event involving the gait or suit of the figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Urkelbot

You have to determine how they were made before you can determine if any evidence can be left behind. The more difficult and elaborate it is to create the tracks, the more possibility of leaving behind evidence. It's not a simple yes or no scenario.

I gave several examples that were not elaborate all based on simple misdirection and there are undoubtly many more techniques that could be used. Again there are only 20 tracks.

I am not even arguing this was how it was done nor that the whole event was a hoax. Just that it would be possible to put 20 tracks into the ground while leaving behind no obvious evidence.

Considering not all Bigfoot tracks and trackways are authentic hoaxes exist. Footprint hoaxes have fooled before. Even Bigfoot expert cliff barakman was fooled for awhile from the Elbe trackway. It took him a few trips and several days to figure it out. Fake trackway without obvious evidence of a hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^You have not given any reasonable alternative for the Patty tracks until you replicate it.  You may think you have, but any scientist worth his degree would shut you down instantly if you couldn't - how dey say in Le Science? - rrrrrrrrrrrrrrreplicate ze experrrrrrrrriment.


Sometimes zat Beegfoot Skepteeceesm bites back, mais non...?


Watch heem as he - how you say - perform Le Dodge on ce question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

You're showing shots of prints taken at totally different angles and offering it as evidence of toe movement.

 

All these months and that was the best you could come up with.    :)      Actually, I meticulously made certain that the two prints were being seen at the same angle to each other from heel to toe. If you don't believe it, then rotate the toe angles to both be pointing in the same direction and see how much you had to rotate one of the feet to get them to match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...