Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

wolftrax

LeftFootprint1Lined.jpg

Come on now, this isn't some far away shot, and yeah uncropped may give a better idea, but the whole "Long arm" thing doesn't make a difference if the guy is wearing fake feet. Anyways, the whole point being this wasn't a totally P&G track free area as claimed by posters in this thread, and he does say they were close to the tracks.

Green: You know when you walked around the tracks…when you took that movie, your boot tracks were there too, weren't they?

Gimlin: Yes, right! We walked around it quite a bit trying to stay out of the tracks as much as possible.

Green: But still you would have been close then?

Gimlin: Oh yeah, just walking, we were close but the boot prints lacked a whole lot going as deep, considerable amount going as deep as the creatures tracks were.

The same interview he talks about how they followed the tracks for awhile until they were just scuff marks.

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Encore.....Encore...

Kerchak wrote:

kitakaze wrote:

PGF propnents can rely on the word of Bob Titmus if they like but I personally prefer using observers with more competence in their observational skills.

You mean like when ol' Bob H says the soil was white, like when ol' Bob H says he walked across the dry creek, like when ol' Bob H says that Roger was filming from the horse, like when ol Bob H claims it's his keys/wallet making the 'hernia' bulge halfway down the leg????

Etc etc.

....Etc......I think Bobby claimed that he both 'drove straight home' and 'stayed overnight in a motel', after the filming. :lol:

Kerchak wrote:

Thanks mate. Been busy house renovating in Germany.

Sounds like fun.. :)

Haha I'll try and keep my 'Caps' usage under control. After all apparently that's the sign of a fringe bleever and where you start spiralling into madness, or so I've been told.

But of course... :wacko: It couldn't be something more benign.....like the sign of a lively, enthusiastic personality... :rolleyes::)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time Chris Murphy wrote this Bob weighed 219 lbs. (probably less in 1967) and said the costume weighed 25 lbs..

Please provide this costume for all to see,Even a decent facsimile of said costume will do for me.I may even accept seeing her feet only from this costume.

That will solve all the questions, otherwise, I think that Patty was a genuine BF actually caught on film by 2 very lucky, or perhaps not,yahoos/cowboys, who will always be remembered for getting the first film of a living female BF.

Last I heard a few months ago was that Canada had confiscated the costume, or aliens(ETs) got it? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Encore.....Encore...

Kerchak wrote:

....Etc......I think Bobby claimed that he both 'drove straight home' and 'stayed overnight in a motel', after the filming. :lol:

Kerchak wrote:

Sounds like fun.. :)

But of course... :wacko: It couldn't be something more benign.....like the sign of a lively, enthusiastic personality... :rolleyes::)

Sweaty, You have proven to me through your diligent research that Patty was a living creature.

I sincerely thank you for all of your research and hard work to prove the validity of the PGF.

All of these issues regarding the feet and the footprints seem to me to be from people who do not believe that the PGF is genuine, and are looking for any way to discredit it, even though it seems to me that some of the issues they raise are just smoke and mirrors because there is no way to fully validate the footprint issue 40+ years later.IMVHO.

:( How can anyone make claims about these issues without any proof due to the years intervening since the PGF was filmed?

Until a body or the DNA evidence is revealed as genuine, that will allow believers to say that we always knew the PGF was real, all the way down to her footprints.

I'm still looking for the evidence of a costume, are you still looking also? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

So... you don't see a ridge in the middle of both tracks?

wolftrax,

I almost forgot, but I was still wonderin' bout your thinkin' it looked like it stepped on a pole/broom stick or somethin' to that effect ?

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable rationalization. I once rationalized similarly myself. I agree that in most cases you would get some definitive sign of strange goings on if the film and the tracks were hoaxed as mutually exclusive events.

Just some things to consider:

1- It would be difficult for a dude in a monkey suit to resolve enough force to manifest these impressions in the substrate present to the depth that we see. That becomes much less of an issue if they're created via separate events. It definitely provides a more reasonable explanation for how the film got developed for a Sunday viewing than the comically impossible PG delivery and development timeline does.

2- If the film and the trackway were faked as mutually exclusive events, the sign left by the proverbial dude in the monkey suit ages during the period the film was shot and the "bigfoot trackway" is manifested, making it less discernible.

3- The fact that there may have been evidence that indicated that the film and the trackway were created via mutually exclusive, independent events really hinges on the fact that someone with the requisite skill set to make that determination has to have examined the filmsite shortly after the fact. Patterson knew all the footers and knew full well there was no one in that group that remotely came close to having those skills.

4- This event "happened" right before the biggest rainstorm of the winter season which helped wash out any potential evidence of hoaxing. Coincidence or design? If you've got any of the Green books that show the uncropped "Laverty Photo", you'll notice the caulks make a distinct pattern but the boot print itself is barely discernible. It was probably manifested by Laverty or one of his crew minutes before the photo was taken. Considering the level of degradation that we see in the Titmus casts, I seriously doubt any impressions left by Roger or Bob's flat bottomed cowboy boots would have been discernible after that storm event.

I do think the trackway from the PGF is one of only two trackways in all of bigfootery that isn't completely comical and does at least pass the basic litmus test of exhibiting traits and characteristics that seem consistent with a real living foot to me. The PGF and the trackway is one of the few things that leave me thinking there's a slim chance bigfoot could be real.

However, Roger got awfully lucky that day. He catches an animal that's supposed to be nocturnal not in the falling light of approaching dusk or shrouded in the morning fog, but dead smack in the middle of the day. Not only that, but he catches it right out in the open, where he's able to maintain line of sight on the subject for well over 400+ feet. Consider that there were only a few places in the Bluff Creek watershed where he had the sight distances necessary to shoot nearly a full minutes worth of continuous film and the whole thing starts to reek of being manufactured. At least it does to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest there likely would have been better/more ideal hoaxing locations down the feeder creeks. Ones that would have been less likely to have possible interruption. Up and above the PG film site the field of vision is considerable (as we see from the Dahinden overhead shot).

If P and G were scouting the feeder creeks for the 'ideal' hoax spot then why choose where they did, back on the main creek right by the "hard road" (as Titmus called it)? That's not 'ideal' for a hoax at all. I very much doubt that would be the best place in that entire creek system to try a hoax. ;)

I think that's a catch-22. There was no doubt numerous locales in the watershed where they were less likely to be observed. But as sight distance drops to nothing in the dense, mixed growth forest of Bluff Creek and its even thicker undergrowth, your film duration drops off to a few seconds. A "wide open" filmsite becomes suspicious, IMO not for the reasons you cite, but simply because there were so few locations fitting the bill to give 58 seconds of footage where Roger could have encountered bigfoot at Bluff Creek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

However, Roger got awfully lucky that day.

The 'luck' was a result of a number of contributing factors. Without any individual one of those factors he might have got nothing at all. The three major ones are these.

1. He and Gimlin were in the area for a considerable time and diligently searching the area daily.

2. He and Gimlin were on horseback.

3. There was a downfall treejam right at the creek, giving decent cover for any shy animal that wished to stop for a drink en route from point a to point b.

He catches an animal that's supposed to be nocturnal not in the falling light of approaching dusk or shrouded in the morning fog, but dead smack in the middle of the day.

There are lots of reports of sasquatch being sighted in the day. Ergo it's doubtful if they are 100% nocturnal.

Not only that, but he catches it right out in the open,

See above. Not out in the open. Hanging around near the cover of a downfall treejam....while creeping up on it (unbeknown) on horseback and with the sound of the stream probably acting as a muffler.

where he's able to maintain line of sight on the subject for well over 400+ feet. Consider that there were only a few places in the Bluff Creek watershed where he had the sight distances necessary to shoot nearly a full minutes worth of continuous film and the whole thing starts to reek of being manufactured. At least it does to me.

On the contrary. The worst way to hoax something is to give it plenty of viewing time in relative closeup.

It's better to either hoax a bigfoot at greater distance or to hoax a bigfoot where you see next to nothing and it is mostly obscured behind trees. It's certainly not a good idea to hoax a bigfoot film and show the subject out in the open about 100ft away and then half turning round to look back.

I don't understand the argument that hoaxing a bigfoot film out in the open in relative close up and in decent view is a desirable thing to aim for. It's actually the opposite for a hoaxer. At least a serious hoaxer. That's why they just don't do it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I think that's a catch-22. There was no doubt numerous locales in the watershed where they were less likely to be observed. But as sight distance drops to nothing in the dense, mixed growth forest of Bluff Creek and its even thicker undergrowth, your film duration drops off to a few seconds.

All of the above sounds PERFECT for a hoax. Much better than the film site.

A "wide open" filmsite becomes suspicious, IMO not for the reasons you cite, but simply because there were so few locations fitting the bill to give 58 seconds of footage where Roger could have encountered bigfoot at Bluff Creek.

Conversely the wide open area of that particular part of Bluff Creek probably presented the only time P and G could have spotted Patty going about her daily business. They were allegedly in the area for a considerable time before getting the film. For all we know, or they know, P and G might have been near to Patty on other occasions on days previous, or had actually been observed by her and had no idea about it because Patty was in the cover of the forest. Perhaps even Patty had gotten used to P and G in the vicinity and seeing as they didn't appear to be a threat and were pretty quiet fellas out in the bush (I haven't heard of them getting drunk and shooting beers cans) relaxed her guard and hence the result was the footage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kerchak,

Post 83, I agree, not to mention how impressive the variation is in that trackway.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

IMG_4981%5B1%5D.jpg

http://orgoneresearc...d-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.

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

dccb13e3.jpg

Thats because they were made and saved by Titmus, several days later, after a rain and hardening of the top surface of the soil.

Edited by damndirtyape
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty, You have proven to me through your diligent research that Patty was a living creature.

I sincerely thank you for all of your research and hard work to prove the validity of the PGF.

Thank you very much, Susi... :) ...it's a real pleasure bringing you, and everyone else, some positive results, indicating Patty is a real, live Sasquatch... :ph34r::wub:

Have you 'heard' the latest??....Patty's mouth moves...

PattySasquatch2.gif

PattySasquatch3.gif

All of these issues regarding the feet and the footprints seem to me to be from people who do not believe that the PGF is genuine, and are looking for any way to discredit it, even though it seems to me that some of the issues they raise are just smoke and mirrors because there is no way to fully validate the footprint issue 40+ years later.IMVHO.

:( How can anyone make claims about these issues without any proof due to the years intervening since the PGF was filmed?

Until a body or the DNA evidence is revealed as genuine, that will allow believers to say that we always knew the PGF was real, all the way down to her footprints.

I'm still looking for the evidence of a costume, are you still looking also? ;)

Not so much, anymore... ;):)

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Sweaty, why do you not post the images unedited? As seen in the "Reasons Not to Consider the PGF a Hoax" thread, your "Enhancements" tend to mislead people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'luck' was a result of a number of contributing factors. Without any individual one of those factors he might have got nothing at all. The three major ones are these.

1. He and Gimlin were in the area for a considerable time and diligently searching the area daily.

2. He and Gimlin were on horseback.

3. There was a downfall treejam right at the creek, giving decent cover for any shy animal that wished to stop for a drink en route from point a to point b.

There are lots of reports of sasquatch being sighted in the day. Ergo it's doubtful if they are 100% nocturnal.

See above. Not out in the open. Hanging around near the cover of a downfall treejam....while creeping up on it (unbeknown) on horseback and with the sound of the stream probably acting as a muffler.

On the contrary. The worst way to hoax something is to give it plenty of viewing time in relative closeup.

It's better to either hoax a bigfoot at greater distance or to hoax a bigfoot where you see next to nothing and it is mostly obscured behind trees. It's certainly not a good idea to hoax a bigfoot film and show the subject out in the open about 100ft away and then half turning round to look back.

I don't understand the argument that hoaxing a bigfoot film out in the open in relative close up and in decent view is a desirable thing to aim for. It's actually the opposite for a hoaxer. At least a serious hoaxer. That's why they just don't do it.

Well Said, and so true!

No one through the years has ever been able to prove the PGF as being a fake BF.

Back then the BF suits were ridiculous and were obviously fakes.

Our own Sweaty Yeti has done more to prove the validity of the PGF than anyone else here to my knowledge.

People say that it is too expensive to try and recreate Patty, but I'm thinking that it can not be done even today.

Making a suit walk and move like a living creature with a hernia and mouth and eye movements 40+ years ago was impossible, and still is today.IMHO.

People claim it is too expensive to recreate, but The PGF would have cost the same back then as it does in today's dollars.

Patty was a real creature, and those cowboys were the luckiest men on earth at that time.

Patty kept her cool and just walked off.

Patty knew that she was queen of forest, and she was not concerned about those 2 puny compared to her humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Giganto Guru

Well Said, and so true!

No one through the years has ever been able to prove the PGF as being a fake BF.

Back then the BF suits were ridiculous and were obviously fakes.

Our own Sweaty Yeti has done more to prove the validity of the PGF than anyone else here to my knowledge.

People say that it is too expensive to try and recreate Patty, but I'm thinking that it can not be done even today.

Making a suit walk and move like a living creature with a hernia and mouth and eye movements 40+ years ago was impossible, and still is today.IMHO.

People claim it is too expensive to recreate, but The PGF would have cost the same back then as it does in today's dollars.

Patty was a real creature, and those cowboys were the luckiest men on earth at that time.

Patty kept her cool and just walked off.

Patty knew that she was queen of forest, and she was not concerned about those 2 puny compared to her humans.

She was adorable, she was too close to man that day probably showing off her beauty and wanted us all to know for a brief moment in time she was real.

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