Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

Sure, but I'll have to look a few things up. No dermatoglyphics noted in Patty's prints. Conditions weren't right or nobody noticed. Sanding casts to make them look better was standard practice at the time. Krantz was the first to note them, I believe, in casts from Washington State.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

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.

From what I found:

"Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel."

Argosy Magazine February 1968 (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys! I wonder if any of this was verified by any of the folks who came in the subsequent days or weeks and investigated the area & tracks themselves? Can you guys recommend any good non-biased reference material I can check out that may answer some of my more detailed questions & concerns? I understand that "unbiased" may be asking too much in regard to this particular subject, lol!

Honestly, I am completely in the middle as far as the film goes, and it does not bother me if it the subject is real or hoaxed. I would like to check it out further, though!

Thanks,

Shawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

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!). 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.

Surveyor,

Have you had a chance to check out Reasons Not To Consider Pgf A Hoax thread regardin' the midtarsal break ?

I don't know how to do the computer stuff, so not sure bout your measurement an findin' the shadows to be the same. As I mentioned to wolftrax, the shadow he points to is further down, an is also visible further down on foot in frames I'm talkin' bout that show the MTB. You can see it in second to last frame (on left), it is further down than the actual midtarsal break, as MTB occours just above the shadow in image on left.

In the image wolftrax is usin', view from back an from side, when red line appears, heel on right appears higher than heel on left. Happens kinda quick, so hard to say a 100%, can we freeze those/that frame an mark heels with line to confirm they are actually level ?

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

These images all show that the foot is obscured when in contact with the ground, and point of flexion is obscured as well. Add that depth to these images:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gif

mtbcomp.jpg

And the point of flexion is nowhere near the midtarsal region.

wolftrax,

Frames between trees, surface of ground is visible, subject is walkin' on it, look at the shadows on the grounds surface. Your other images does have the ground plane obscurin' grounds surface as we can't see any shadows on the grounds surface. Point of flexion is visible an is at midtarsal region in frames between trees.

Pat...

ps: Can you explain the it looks like it a pole/broom stick across track photo/cast, I'm at a loss to understand where you're goin' there ?

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surveyor,

Have you had a chance to check out Reasons Not To Consider Pgf A Hoax thread regardin' the midtarsal break ?

I don't know how to do the computer stuff, so not sure bout your measurement an findin' the shadows to be the same. As I mentioned to wolftrax, the shadow he points to is further down, an is also visible further down on foot in frames I'm talkin' bout that show the MTB. You can see it in second to last frame (on left), it is further down than the actual midtarsal break, as MTB occours just above the shadow in image on left.

In the image wolftrax is usin', view from back an from side, when red line appears, heel on right appears higher than heel on left. Happens kinda quick, so hard to say a 100%, can we freeze those/that frame an mark heels with line to confirm they are actually level ?

Pat...

Pat,

I haven't yet, but I will definitely do it! I'm going to have to do a lot of research about this foot thing to have a halfway decent understanding of it, to be honest. Of course I will still not be able to carry on a conversation about it with the likes of Dr. Meldrum or any other actual expert, regardless of how much lay study I do, lol.

Really, the computer comparisons are subjective too, even thought they are more accurate than just "eyeballing" the pictures. When I viewed the gifs that have been shown on this thread, they appear to have normal foot flexion and the foot also seems to have an arch like a normal human foot. Of course, three obvious disclaimers are that 1) the footage is pretty grainy, 2) the gifs are very short and by no means represent the preponderance of footfalls of the subject, and 3) the subject is at an odd angle to the camera.

- Shawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Pat,

I haven't yet, but I will definitely do it! I'm going to have to do a lot of research about this foot thing to have a halfway decent understanding of it, to be honest. Of course I will still not be able to carry on a conversation about it with the likes of Dr. Meldrum or any other actual expert, regardless of how much lay study I do, lol.

Really, the computer comparisons are subjective too, even thought they are more accurate than just "eyeballing" the pictures. When I viewed the gifs that have been shown on this thread, they appear to have normal foot flexion and the foot also seems to have an arch like a normal human foot. Of course, three obvious disclaimers are that 1) the footage is pretty grainy, 2) the gifs are very short and by no means represent the preponderance of footfalls of the subject, and 3) the subject is at an odd angle to the camera.

- Shawn

Shawn,

I was able to talk SweatyYeti through evenin' out the heels an drawin' a line across to next frame to help show what I was talkin' bout in other thread, shows it pretty plane an simple. As I said, I know nothin' when it comes to computers. As for computer bein' more accurate, I'd think or expect, just the same, I still think my ol' eyeballs serve me well. An like I said, it happens quick, to glimsp at heel at left compared to heel at right when red line comes up, but my ol' eyes are still makin' me think heel on right is higher. An like I said, shadow wolftrax points to is also visible in frames on left, in frame after the one I believe shows the midtarsal break, you'll see it is actually lower down near the ball of the foot.

Never underestimate yourself Shawn, knowledge is knowledge, you may not have a DR infront of your name, doesn't mean the knowledge you attain is any less.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so far I've only read abstracts from 5 scientific papers that have to do with the mid tarsal break and foot joint stability.

I googled "Mid tarsal break", and that is where I found the links to the papers. I picked those first because they had nothing to do with Bigfoot, so I assumed they would be more objective.

The papers state the following:

1) The mid tarsal break is a trait of quadrupedal primates (non-human, as there are no scientifically documented bipedal primates besides us).

2) Apes and other primates that have been trained to walk bipedally (having the mid tarsal break) use 20-30% more energy walking thus than when walking quadrupedally.

3) Hominids have exhibited a stable mid-foot region (no mid tarsal break)for the push off phase of bipedal locomotion for at least 3.2 million years, according to the fossil record. (That should speak volumes to those who see BF as a hominid!)

4) The lack of the mid tarsal break and evolution of the longitudinal arch in early hominids is considered the mark of moving from arborealism to terrestialism (from tree-dwelling to ground dwelling).

5) A mid tarsal break is considered inefficient for full-time bipedal locomotion (many reasons are listed above, and apparently are why non-human primates are only occasionally bipedal), while the lack of a mid tarsal break causes the foot to become a rigid lever for propulsion, using less energy and foot musculature for locomotion.

Keep in mind that this information comes from several different papers about several different aspects of foot anatomy, evolution, locomotion, etc.

Also, I have a lot more reading to do!

One more observation (not sure if I am correct in this, though), is that it would seem that if the foot flexed in the middle, there would not be a mound pushed up in the middle of the track, since weight was placed there after the heel was raised, but there would be a mound behind the middle of the track, behind where a mid tarsal break would be, if the creature had one. It would be interesting to see some pics of gorilla tracks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn,

I was able to talk SweatyYeti through evenin' out the heels an drawin' a line across to next frame to help show what I was talkin' bout in other thread, shows it pretty plane an simple. As I said, I know nothin' when it comes to computers. As for computer bein' more accurate, I'd think or expect, just the same, I still think my ol' eyeballs serve me well. An like I said, it happens quick, to glimsp at heel at left compared to heel at right when red line comes up, but my ol' eyes are still makin' me think heel on right is higher. An like I said, shadow wolftrax points to is also visible in frames on left, in frame after the one I believe shows the midtarsal break, you'll see it is actually lower down near the ball of the foot.

Never underestimate yourself Shawn, knowledge is knowledge, you may not have a DR infront of your name, doesn't mean the knowledge you attain is any less.

Pat...

Thanks Pat! It's tough to see anything on the left until I blow it up on Autocad. After a little while, everything in my den looks like it's bending in the middle, lol! I'm getting to where I have to enlarge everything now. My eyesight is changing because I have MS, so I guess I'm going to have to break down & get some glasses. I can see better far away than I can up close now. A month ago I could see fine. Crazy, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Thanks Pat! It's tough to see anything on the left until I blow it up on Autocad. After a little while, everything in my den looks like it's bending in the middle, lol! I'm getting to where I have to enlarge everything now. My eyesight is changing because I have MS, so I guess I'm going to have to break down & get some glasses. I can see better far away than I can up close now. A month ago I could see fine. Crazy, huh?

Shawn,

Sorry to hear bout the MS, my best to you an yours with all that comes with it. My eyes are changin' as well it seems, never could see at a distance, but never wore my glasses as a pup, one of the reasons I believe why I notice thin's more, movement, shapes etc., I think. Now days I wear contacts, but lately I have the darndest time seein' anythin' close with them in, case of the "oh well" I reckon.

Regardin' the MTB(midtarsal break), Jeff Meldrum has stuff you'd find interestin', his book is a great read. Just one little quicky for ya, a primate the size of sasquatchs would be of impressive wieght, the MTB would afford much more area to distribute the wieght durin' toe off. If bend occoured at ball similar to ours, subjects wieght would be consintrated over toes alone.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

SweatyYeti,

You should bring image of frames showin' MTB with lines here. Be cool to show wolftrax image (with red line) side view along side, heel even. Just a thought. Interestin' stuff. Gotta head out for bit.

Cheers !

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Surveyor,

Have you had a chance to check out Reasons Not To Consider Pgf A Hoax thread regardin' the midtarsal break ?

I don't know how to do the computer stuff, so not sure bout your measurement an findin' the shadows to be the same. As I mentioned to wolftrax, the shadow he points to is further down, an is also visible further down on foot in frames I'm talkin' bout that show the MTB. You can see it in second to last frame (on left), it is further down than the actual midtarsal break, as MTB occours just above the shadow in image on left.

In the image wolftrax is usin', view from back an from side, when red line appears, heel on right appears higher than heel on left. Happens kinda quick, so hard to say a 100%, can we freeze those/that frame an mark heels with line to confirm they are actually level ?

Pat...

Not true, the foot is lined up by the ground level and heel, also the top of the shadow is lined up as well. The knees are lined up as well to reduce error. Here it is frame by frame.

beatonsfootbendframescopy.jpg

and:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gifmtbcomp.jpg

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

wolftrax,

Frames between trees, surface of ground is visible, subject is walkin' on it, look at the shadows on the grounds surface. Your other images does have the ground plane obscurin' grounds surface as we can't see any shadows on the grounds surface. Point of flexion is visible an is at midtarsal region in frames between trees.

Pat...

No, this has been shown numerous times. The heel is obscured by the ground when it is in contact. You even admitted this.

mtbgroundlevelcopy.jpg

This is the frames your sequence is from. It is heavily obscured by trees and shadows. You have no idea what is going on here, what shadows are coming from where, to make judgements like shadows on the grounds surface of under the foot and what they mean.

beatonsfootbendtotal.gif

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...