Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure where I was reading it, but I was reading about Patty's unusually long heel bone, and that the reason it looked funny when Patty was lifting her foot, as in the left foot in the air and the box-like appearance of the foot due to the long heel, was that bigfoots have extra long heel bones, and when the calf muscle is not flexed, the achilles tendon sags, or collapses inwards towards the ankle. Presumably this retraction would be due to the tension of the ankle skin, pulling the relaxed tendon into the ankle, otherwise what else would cause the tendon to pull into the ankle and expose an unusually long heel bone.

Then I was thinking about why a bigfoot would have such a long heel bone. I think I recall Dr. Meldrum explaining that it needed to be longer to provide greater leverage under such a large animal. Long heel bone (calcanus) for greater leverage, but combined with a hinged foot which has a significantly shorter lever arm. Doesn't seem to fit.

In a human, we have a heel bone which is used as the attachment point for the achilles tendons, and it is long enough to provide adequate leverage when levering the entire foot all the way to the base of the big toe. The heel bone constitutes a much smaller percentage of the lever than the body of the foot being leveraged. In the bigfoot model using an elongated calcanus, and including an MTB, the body of the foot is far less than in a human, and one would think that it would then require far less of a lever arm in the heel to do its job. It seems to me that an elongated heel, to provide greater leverage, is at odds with a shortened forefoot in the MTB model. Why have a long heel to provide greater leverage when the foot is only being levered in the middle, not all the way to the toes? That makes no sense.

As to the need for an elongated calcanus for greater leverage, I'm drawn to other animals for examples of calcanus length and the amount of load and stress applied to them. Dogs pop to mind because we have dogs. race dogs. They have an even smaller percentage of calcanus length to forefoot (hock) length. yet they produce incredible amounts of power with such a short lever arm. Horses likewise have relatively short "heel" bones to leveraged hock/stifle/foot length. Additionally, when they unload their achilles, they generally don't get sucked up flush to the ankle, exposing a long heel. People's achilles don't either. The idea that bigfoots need a long heel for greater leverage is inconsistent with the idea of a mid tarsal hinge. The idea that the achilles is sucked in to the ankle when relaxed is likewise a suspicious theory. Looking for parallels in nature provides evidence that would tend to conflict with those ideas more than confirm them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

The hinged foot theory doesn't make sense for a massive human-like walker who pushes off his forefoot. Think about trying to run on your hands. You would have to push your entire body weight up with your fingers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hinged foot theory doesn't make sense for a massive human-like walker who pushes off his forefoot. Think about trying to run on your hands. You would have to push your entire body weight up with your fingers.

Exactly. It doesn't make sense. Hinging the foot robs it of power, of thrust. The power and thrust then would have to come from the legs alone, without the foot doing much towards propelling the animal forward. Contrast that with the theory that bigfoots can run faster than people, fast enough to catch deer. Makes no sense. Take away the length of the effective foot by hinging it in the middle, and you take away the potential for speed. Hinge the foot in the middle and you lose any possible reason to develop and elongated heel, as no real leverage is then needed.

If Patty has a hinged foot, she wouldn't need an elongated heel. If she has an elongated heel, she should not have a hinged foot. There's no practical reason to have both features. There's no practical reason for a bigfoot to have a hinged foot, for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTB discussion I have always found interesting. Though there are good points raised above, we still don't know the actual mechanics behind the Sasquatch foot. Much less if they even TRULY have an MTB, or elongated heel, or their tendon make-up. Could be that there is an adaptation for tree dwelling, then progessing to the ground in adulthood.

Who really knows. But I think there may be some significant assumptions made about the practicality of the set-up without knowing exactly how the foot is constructed.

Could it be that the bones interlock at time through muscle contractions to remove the effects of the MTB, and only then separate during specific compression/pressure release situations? Sure, but I don't know.

I really find it fascinating and hopefully one day we'll find a severed Sasquatch foot to do some studies on.

Thx

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar,

It's my understandin' the elongated calcaneus was suggested by both Jeff an Grover not only based on thier reconstructions of the foot bones based on tracks, but also visible in the filmed sasquatch. They came to this conclusion based on independant reconstructions, thier two findin's bein' similar is interestin'. The tendon does relax just as ours does. If you place one of you feet out to the side a little while you're sittin' there, when you raise your foot up towards your shin, notice how your achilles tendon becomes tight or straight across, now move your foot pointin' away from your shin, notice how the tendon relaxes an is less pronounced, creatin' a dip or concave appearance above the calcaneus/heel.

The elongated calcaneus would likely help with leverage because of the MTB puts the point of articulation or bendin' of the foot closer to the calcaneus itself.

That the sasquatch is capable of dispersin' its considerable wieght over a greater area, the entire forefoot, would likely be an advantage compared to placin' all that wieght on the ball of the foot durin' toe off as we do.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we can all suppose what we want. Imagination is a seemingly unlimited aspect to sasquatch research. Any time something questionable pops up, we imagine a solution. Any time a problem pops up that might suggest that Patty is not a real sasquatch, imagination fills in the gaps and provides a solution, a workaround to the problem.

That is where common sense and examples taken from nature should prevail, but clearly don't always even get taken into account. For example, where is there any sort of similarly constructed foot to what has been proposed for bigfoot, anywhere in nature, either currently or in the fossil record? Where is there any record of a foot like ours, with inline toes, with a MTB? There is no parallel, and as far as what we have discovered, never has been one. Is it possible that sasquatch could have a totally unique form of foot, with no precedent existing outside of that species? Of course. But is that likely? Not likely, not without some sort of historical record of its development, or of its benefits and environmental drive to develop such a foot.

I don't see the logic behind constructing a situation where there is an advantage for bigfoot to develop a large forefoot with which to drive itself off the ground, versus a smaller ball and toe area only. Seems like it can be made to sound reasonable, a bigger frontal area, sort of like a way to provide adequate surface area to the forefoot so it doesn't sink into the ground under such great beast weight. Sounds reasonable when one is trying to make improbable features work out. But once again, compare that sort of theory to what occurs in nature, and once again you come up with contradictions to that sort of theory. Look at dogs and all of their wild variants. Do they have large feet to support their weight when they push off? Nope. do they push off with great force? Absolutely, dogs and wolves are capable of tremendous speed, and the power they produce to attain that speed, and maneuverability, is substantial. Yet their feet are quite small in relation to their body weight. The same goes for horses, and other hooved animals. fact is, there are very few, if any, examples in nature that would support the idea of a specialized hinged foot such as is proposed in the sasquatch, with the advantage being to provide greater frontal surface area for traction or surface support.

The idea of the achilles tendon relaxing isn't a matter of whether it relaxes or doesn't relax, it is a matter of how significant it might relax, so much so that the entire profile of the lower leg, ankle and foot changes radically to expose an excessively long heel bone. The theory of an elongated heel bone is not something that was derived from examining footprint casts. That idea was formulated as an effort to explain what is clearly visible in the PGF, Patty's left foot most prominently, as well as the right, shows a foot that looks like a child wearing a parent's oversized shoe, where the heel of the shoe extends well out behind the foot. Prior to the PGF being seen, there was no reason to develop such a theory. After seeing the PGF, there came a significant need to develop such a theory, to deal with what appeared to be a really big, and unnatural problem with Patty's heels! If Patty is going to be believed to be authentic, then somebody desperately needs to explain away anomalies that don't make initial sense, and try to develop theories that will make as much sense as possible. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. In either case, none of those theories can be substantiated without an actual specimen to verify anything. And so, theories are created out of thin air, and applied to the subject in the film, hoping to cover all the bases so that the being can be an authentic, biologically practical and functional creature. It doesn't matter that much that some of those theoretical features don't exist anywhere else in the world. It only matters is those theoretical features can exist in a bigfoot.

It gets difficult to make all the various theories dovetail with one another. Since they are all simply manufactured ideas at this point in time, as there is no type specimen to confirm anything yet, any and all are subject to being mistakes. I propose that there are mistakes involved with some of them, and possibly all of them. But specifically, the idea of an elongated heel bone for leverage, with a surprisingly elastic and retracting achilles tendon, and a hinged foot. One, two or all three of those are mistakes. I would wager nearly anything that all three could not possible be accurate. Eliminating the hinged foot would allow the elongated heel bone to be a more practical feature, as there would then be a reason to have such a long heel lever. With a hinged foot, a long heel bone is not necessary, nor practical. If one wants to maintain the MTB foot, then both the elongated heel bone as well as the uniquely pliable achilles tendon would not be necessary nor likely.

When in doubt, refer to what exists in nature for clues. In nature, there are examples of feet that do not bend in the middle and have toes in alignment in a bipedal creature. We already have an existing precedent. We have noting in nature that would support a hinged foot, with aligned toes, and an elongated heel bone. Think also of animals that are capable of achieving high speeds in running. What their anatomy demonstrates. The faster the feet, the more rigid the structures become. If one wants to propose that bigfoots are fast enough to run down deer, you have to give them the physical tools to do that, and giving them flip-floppy hinged feet is going to deprive them of the ability to run much at all. Pick the battles wisely; do they run, or do they not. Then decide what anatomy to put your chips on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

Remember that those theories were developed when the subject of the film was considered to be HUGE. The theories do not hold up with the new research that shows that the subject is really of just xtra large human size.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

6df431b7.jpg

The jeans and boots on that man are not those of a man who just twice (running after Patty then returning after filming) went through a river. Particularly the boots could not have been immersed in water twice and appear that dry in that time frame.

This will now be summarily dismissed as inconsequential to the film's veracity.

kitakaze,

So, how are you able to ascertain the moisture content of Rogers boots an pants ? An just what is the time between filmin' the two pieces of film ?

Thanks !

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Pat, my apologies for not getting to your questions sooner. I said I would answer this morning, but I was busy. I must ask you again to please use the quote function properly. Your post makes my words at the top look like your words. I know who said what, but for members not familiar with you nor I, it can be very confusing. I understand you are not a technically adept person by your own description, which is fine as many people or not, but the forum design makes it incredibly easy to quote properly. It's is literally a matter of simply clicking a single button called "Quote" at the bottom right of every post. In fact, it will be more complex to copypasta my post as you did there. When your posts are coherent and easy to understand, it will be much easier answering any questions you have.

Your first question...

"So, how are you able to ascertain the moisture content of Rogers boots an pants ?"

By using my eyes. Only the toe of Roger's boot appears wet. The creek he allegedly ran through chasing Bigfoot can be seen in the film. Indeed, even the camera he used got wet as evidence by water on the camera in the film. I don't doubt that Roger went through the motions to dramatize his hooax and make it appear more authentic. Roger had a great pention for making things up for the sake of dramatic effect.

An just what is the time between filmin' the two pieces of film ?

Well, this is the central question, isn't it? The plaster pour sequence is on the 15 feet of film for Reel 2. SO is the cast display in which his beard has magically reappeared. By Roger's account of the time of day of filming Patty and the time of day of pouring the plaster and the time of day of the cast display, we can put the plaster pour probably no more than an hour or so after Patty was supposed to be filmed. What I am saying is that plaster pour was not filmed in the timeframe he said it was, and most certainly neither was the cast display. It is impossible for a man to grow his beard so much so quickly. This would be an editing error on the hoaxers part. Such things happen even in major Hollywood productions. Gimlin says the cast display was Bluff Creek. I really encourage you to ask him yourself about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

The plaster pour sequence is on the 15 feet of film for Reel 2. So is the cast display in which his beard has magically reappeared.

What is the source for that information? I have never seen any confirmation that either of those two clips of footage were on the 2nd reel.

By Roger's account of the time of day of filming Patty and the time of day of pouring the plaster and the time of day of the cast display, we can put the plaster pour probably no more than an hour or so after Patty was supposed to be filmed.

What is your source for that highlighted "information"...(that Roger stated what time of the day the 'cast display footage' was shot) ?

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The reporting journalists who viewed the the first showing of the PGF to the media on October 26th, 1967 in the Tudor Room of the Georgia Hotel in Vancouver. I've confirmed it myself but how exactly I have done so is part of material for my documentary that I won't comment on publicly. I know that will frustrate some but that is the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The reporting journalists who viewed the the first showing of the PGF to the media on October 26th, 1967 in the Tudor Room of the Georgia Hotel in Vancouver. I've confirmed it myself but how exactly I have done so is part of material for my documentary that I won't comment on publicly. I know that will frustrate some but that is the way it is.

Regarding these 3 points....that I just asked you about...

1) The 'cast pour' footage....(that's been posted in these threads).....I doubt that that footage was on the 2nd Reel.

2) The 'cast display' footage....that may well have been on the 2nd Reel......and without it being a problem for the legitimacy of the Film...as that footage may have been shot on Saturday night, after Roger arrived back at his home.

3) Is there a source on the Internet, that provides a quote of Roger stating what the time of day was, for the 'cast display' footage??

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

There are a number of reasons why we know that the plaster pour is on the second reel. Firstly, Roger made it clear in an October 26th, 1967 radio interview that he had not, according to him, shot any film footage prior to the 20th. He claims to have been there only a week and not done any filming before filming Gimlin on the afternoon right before Patty. For his film showing in Vancouver on the 26th Roger had only two reels of film developed and shown. The first reel in it's entirety is approximately three and a half minutes long. It shows only footage of Patterson and Gimlin riding around from what is supposed to be there campsite until they get to the film site and in the last ten feet of film capture Patty. The second reel is 15 feet and shows their actions on what is supposed to be that same single day after filming Patty. The second reel contains all of these shots...

Plaster pour scene = PPS

second-film-roger-pouring-cast.gif

Trackway scene = TWS

Casts2ndreel.gif

Cast display scene = CDS

patterson-moves-frames-added.gif

This footage was seen by journalist Jack Webster who referenced it in the same radio interview he did with Patterson and Gimlin on the evening of the 26th after the Georgia Hotel media showing which Webster attended...

W: You scouted around for a while, did you? Well, when did you... were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following here?

R: Yes, because immediately after we went across the creek and immediately after I called Bob back we looked at the tracks and they were, the tracks were there.

W: These are the tracks we saw in the movie tonight

R: That's right.

W: The tracks for which you have the plaster casts tonight

R: Right.

http://www.bigfooten...iopatterson.htm

Roger displayed the two casts he made allegedly of Patty at that media showing. He did not have another set of casts allegedly from Patty. Both of those casts are seen above. It was after this showing that Bob Titmus went to Bluff Creek and cast all the remaining tracks. Impossibly, these tracks in wet sand were preserved and survived the torrential downpour that flooded the area that is unrecorded in local weather records and Al Hodgson himself said it did not rain on either the 20th or the 21st.

PGF scholars such as Bill Munns believe that the second reel is lost. The second reel is not lost. I have found it. Only myself and a small handful of people have knowledge about the true fate of the second reel and exactly what it shows. What is shows will be revealed in my documentary along with the most imprtant information about the PGF ever to be discovered.

If anyone is unsure about the time and placement of any of the above footage, I strongly encourage them to show them to Bob Gimlin. In all cases he will say that all of the above footage was taken at Bluff Creek.

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