Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the links! I read through both of them & saved them to my computer as well. Good stuff!

Yes, it is good stuff!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Meldrum has been pretty firmly in the Gigantopithecus camp and tends to believe this is a case of bipedalism evolving independently. Weidenreich (in 1940) thought G. blacki was a human ancestor because of the teeth. Both Krantz and Meldrum have argued Giganto could have been a biped. Wouldn't it be interesting if it was actually closer to the hominids than to orangutans? Per David Kreger fist and knuckle-walking evolved independently in the three Great Ape lines. I have no problem with bipedal primates being the norm a few million years ago with differing styles of walking and variations on a flat foot. Advanced upright walking was around 400,000 years before "Lucy".

Dr. Meldrum's chapter on Giganto begins on page 89. Note the e-book that can be had instantly for a mere ten bucks. I'm currently reading Other Origins by Russell Ciochon, John Olsen and Jamie James. There's a gallery of hominids and hominoids from China here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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...

Sure, Pat, I can do that...a little later on tonight. :) I think I know which images you're referring to....I'll have to look them over, and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of other questions that are related to the tracks, if anyone can answer them:

1.) Did the tracks at the PGF site have dermal ridges in them? Were casts or tracks checked for dermal ridges that far back, or is that a fairly new thing since Jimmy Chilcutt started investigating the phenomena? I do understand that one post on this thread mentioned a rain in the vicinity shortly after the filming, which could possibly have erased some of the detail.

2.) What was the soil type and relative density where the subject walked and was filmed? How deep were the tracks? Did anyone take note of how deep the prints of other investigators sank into the soil in the days afterward? How much did Bob H. or any of the others suspected of hoaxing the film weigh? What shoe size did he wear and how tall was he? (just covering the bases)

Some great questions.

1- There is no observable ridge detail in any of the impressions associated with the PGF IMO nor can I recall anyone ever making this claim. From memory, the earliest an impression that was allegedly attributed to the Sasquatch that also allegedly exhibited ridge detail was a hand print discovered by Ivan Marx during the Bossburg incident in 1969. That was observed by Krantz. The second incident that involved ridge detail being observed at the time of discovery were the "wrinkle foot" impressions discovered by Paul Freeman in the early 1980's. Those were also first noticed by Krantz. At least one other cast was later claimed to exhibit ridge detail decades after it was discovered.

2- Unfortunately there is no way to definitively answer this question in regards to DD. It's unfortunately not just a matter of going to the site, and augering up a few samples, and cooking and shaking the samples through a set of sieves to get definitive answers in regards to DD and classification. The nature of the substrate at the filmsite is no longer the same. The 1964, 1000 year flood event that created the filmsite was a freakish occurrence that goes far beyond the typical elevated flow scenario even for 100+ year open channel flow regimes. The consensus opinion is that slash and woody debris that had washed into the stream channel formed a massive impromptu dam that caused the streamflow to back up behind it. It grew as the flow added more debris and created a massive lake behind the impromptu dam. When it finally let go, Bluff Creek changed its course forever.

I've got no doubt that the substrate present circa 1967 was highly stratified as the HGL rapidly dropped when the dam gave way. Discussed in more detail here in post 632:

Just how big was this impromptu dam that formed somewhere in the watershed? It was big enough to cut the canyon that is visible where Bluff Creek currently flows into the Klamath @ route 96 in a matter of hours when it finally broke. If you "drive" the 360 degree street view on google maps from Weitchpec towards Orleans you'll see the current Bluff Creek Canyon. You can also see the old Bluff Creek stream channel if you look south as your "driving" between the current Aikens Creek Bridge and the turnoff to Aikens Creek Campground.

I think you could say with a high level of certainty based on how it was deposited, that the top layer of soil present at the filmsite in 1967 was a silty clay.

Assuming that the nature of the sedimentation in Bluff Creek was similar to the sedimentation on the gravel bars that we saw all up and down the Klamath during the 1997 flood, I'd take a guess that "grab sample" DD would be somewhere in the 80-85pcf ballpark; and that 100% would pass a #40, 10-15% would be retained by a #100 and 50-70% would pass a #200. That's just a guess.

Don't know the "Tale of the Tape" for Bob H, but for whatever it may be worth, I think the "educated" skeptical opinion is that if faked, the faking of the film and the faking of the trackway were mutually exclusive events that occurred several days apart.

I've seen 1 gen copies of the impressions and they range in depth to about 0.6" to 0.7" at the deepest points if memory serves. Those patterned impressions in the Laverty photo are from steel caulks which I'm assuming were manifested by Laverty or one of his crew for comparative depth.

I think you answered your own question in regards to available "unbiased" opinion in regards to these impressions. Daegling's book IMO is one of the best skeptical books on the subject but he totally drops the ball on the chapter about these impressions IMO. Mike Dennett's article on these impressions is without question the worst, steaming pile of skepticism I've ever read by far. The "expert" proponent arguments are as equally as comical IMO. All we've got in print thus from both sides proverbial "experts" is irrefutable proof that none of the "experts" are remotely as advertised when it comes to soil mechanics or the concept that a "print" isn't a mirror image of a real foot or a fake one; and that a "print" is the totality of the resultant forces and interactions of a foot, real or otherwise, with the substrate.

I'd recommend reading everything from both sides and drawing your own conclusions about these impressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate all of the information that everyone is giving me. I especially appreciate that I am not being treated inferior or being slammed with "Do a search newbie!" comments simply because I am not as up on all these details as many of you longtime investigators. Though I have met a very few argumentative folks on here, I must say that the overwhelming majority of folks have been very helpful and nice!

An observation I will make is that it seems unlikely to me that a separate trackway was made after the film, and I will explain my reasoning:

If the film was hoaxed, the actor in the suit would have assuredly left tracks. If a trackway of faked BF tracks was made after the filming took place, the tracks of the actor would have had to be eliminated, because though fake BF tracks could have been laid over some of them, it is not possible for fake tracks to be laid over all of them in order to achieve the reported stride length, which apparently was noted by other independent researchers later. It is incredibly difficult to erase all evidence of tracks from a sandbar. Some kind of evidence of the ground being disturbed will remain. It isn't like in the woods where you can cover them up with leaves, etc.

Another observation is that I am 6'2.5" and weigh 235 lbs (lost wt since I've been sick), and I don't leave tracks as deep as what has been noted above in silty clay, loamy clay, etc. I'll sink in hydric soils, of course, or very wet sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the images in question is that the camera is from behind the figure. I took a sequence from a different angle in the film, scaled to size, and put them up together to compare:

beatonsfootbendcomp2.gif

As we can see from the different angle, the shadow that supposedly indicates a midtarsal break is much lower than how it appears from behind. Take the more side view, line up where that flexion is supposedly taking place, and match it up to a frame showing the length of the foot, and it's not in the location of the midtarsals.

mtbcomp.jpg

But again, look at the top animation. The feet are obscured by the ground plane when in contact with the ground, while the foot is planted you cannot see the top of it. This is an obstacle in trying to observe where flexion is taking place exactly, but we can see from this that the "Shadow" is not in the location of the midtarsals.

Added to that, the Laverty photo and the corresponding cast that came from that looks very geometric, it looks like a pole running diagonally across the foot. Regardless, it is not impossible at all to make an impression that looks like a midtarsal break with a fake foot:

IMG_4981%5B1%5D.jpg

http://orgoneresearc...d-tarsal-break/

I believe that if something like what Tube is wearing in your picture were to have been worn in the PGF it would be blatantly obvious. Just what is the size of that thing on his foot? If it is the same length as PGF's trackway there would have had to been some very heavy, hot bulking around the ankles. That would mean less articulation with the foot there, maybe even some rubbing against the other when swinging forwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any reports of independent verification of the stride.

In a radio interview with Green and Gimlin, it was acknowledged that P&G's tracks were all over the scene and trackway.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

This leaves all kinds of options for how the tracks could have been created after the filming.

Acording to Titmus he saw Patterson's and Gimlin's tracks all over in the general area, as though they were moving about and searching. If a hoax why would they be moving about so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Btw, if that is Bob H. in the suit in the referenced pic, unless the angle (which is nowhere near the PGF angle) is terribly concealing the distance between his feet, then his stride length is no where near the PGF subject, proportionately or otherwise, at least in that one pic. I will say that there are some similarities in the suit, but there are also some differences. My stance thus far has been to give the film the benefit of the doubt as far as authenticity until clearly proven a hoax. In doing so, I must say that it would be relatively easy for a costume designer to create a similar suit after the fact, though I cannot imagine what his motives would be or how he would profit from it.

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

Well, if Roger was anything like the rest of the pack back then, they would brush the casts they made very hard so as to make it easier to replicate them. John Green did this with most of his original casts. If there were dermals or skin details in those they may have gone unnoticed and then destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Btw, if that is Bob H. in the suit in the referenced pic, unless the angle (which is nowhere near the PGF angle) is terribly concealing the distance between his feet, then his stride length is no where near the PGF subject, proportionately or otherwise, at least in that one pic. I will say that there are some similarities in the suit, but there are also some differences. My stance thus far has been to give the film the benefit of the doubt as far as authenticity until clearly proven a hoax. In doing so, I must say that it would be relatively easy for a costume designer to create a similar suit after the fact, though I cannot imagine what his motives would be or how he would profit from it.

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

Well, if Roger was anything like the rest of the pack back then, they would brush the casts they made very hard so as to make it easier to replicate them. John Green did this with most of his original casts. If there were dermals or skin details in those they may have gone unnoticed and then destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

I believe that if something like what Tube is wearing in your picture were to have been worn in the PGF it would be blatantly obvious. Just what is the size of that thing on his foot? If it is the same length as PGF's trackway there would have had to been some very heavy, hot bulking around the ankles. That would mean less articulation with the foot there, maybe even some rubbing against the other when swinging forwards.

The foot was made out of a semi-rigid plastic foam.

IMG_4981%5B1%5D.jpg

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/

It's lightweight and can be made to fit a shape, like the inside of a costume foot. No bulking around the ankles.

Personally I find that if a person was hoaxing, and wanted special attention obn the tracks, they would make the tracks after the filming just to concentrate on it's realism.

Well, if Roger was anything like the rest of the pack back then, they would brush the casts they made very hard so as to make it easier to replicate them. John Green did this with most of his original casts. If there were dermals or skin details in those they may have gone unnoticed and then destroyed.

These don't look like they've been sanded smooth.

dccb13e3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Acording to Titmus he saw Patterson's and Gimlin's tracks all over in the general area, as though they were moving about and searching. If a hoax why would they be moving about so much?

Or moving about hoaxing tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

These two images are about as far apart as night and day (and I mean a really dark night and a very bright day) and yet, some will say there are similarities between the two. I really don't get that at all but, to each their own I guess:

post-131-013832200 1311129763_thumb.jpg

:guitar:

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