Jump to content

Can we corroborate the stride length seen in the film with the length measured onesite?


Recommended Posts

Twist

Any hostility I may display towards you is solely based on past interactions with you and has no bearing on my belief in BF.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Taller Patty vs "Normal" 6ft Patty

 

Conventional Wisdom might suggest the taller Patty is, the more likely she is to be a real creature.  I would think this applies if Patty nears higher ranges like a 7foot range.  A 7ft tall or taller Patty seems to nearly lock-up the chances she is a real creature and not a hoax.   I wonder if a Patty is barely 6ft tall makes it MORE likely she is actually a Real creature.   Hear me out for a second:  It is my understanding the stride length between the Bluff Creek footprints was pretty long.   A longer stride length might be really difficult if not impossible for some 6footer to accomplish.  Even if it could be achieved could it be achieve from just the fast walk we observe on the PGF or would a 6 footer need to strain, jump, or stretch and bound from step to step.  Obviously a taller walker could be expected to achieve a longer walking stride with less to no effort.  The taller the person the more likely they can easily leave a longer stride and still look natural doing it.  Patty seems to smoothly and easier walk along that sandbar with a bit if ease and grace.

 

If Patty is shown to be 6ft tall then how could she achieve a longer- than- expected stride length?

 

The 2 issues here are:

 

1)   How certain can we know accurately the bluff creek stride length?

 

2)  How certain do we have a basis on what a stride length should be for someone 6ft, 61/2 ft, and 7 ft tall?

 

If when all the numbers come in Patty is 6 ft tall but leaves a stride length someone a lot taller, then it points to a real creature doesn't it?  Finally when one wears a costume, esp one with feet, doesn't that force the wearer to actually decrease the natural stride a little bit?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, Twist said:

Any hostility I may display towards you is solely based on past interactions with you and has no bearing on my belief in BF.   

 

Your hostility towards me is based on you being a skeptic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
3 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Your hostility towards me is based on you being a skeptic. 


That’s an incorrect conclusion you have made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 minutes ago, Twist said:


That’s an incorrect conclusion you have made. 

 

I have posted on a few Bigfoot-related discussion forums, over the last 15-20 years...including the Sewer known as "Jref".  I've encountered many skeptics....and your hostility towards me...and your garbage "contributions" look, and reek...of a skeptic. ;) 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

Taller Patty vs "Normal" 6ft Patty

 

Conventional Wisdom might suggest the taller Patty is, the more likely she is to be a real creature.  I would think this applies if Patty nears higher ranges like a 7foot range.  A 7ft tall or taller Patty seems to nearly lock-up the chances she is a real creature and not a hoax.   I wonder if a Patty is barely 6ft tall makes it MORE likely she is actually a Real creature.   Hear me out for a second:  It is my understanding the stride length between the Bluff Creek footprints was pretty long.   A longer stride length might be really difficult if not impossible for some 6footer to accomplish.  Even if it could be achieved could it be achieve from just the fast walk we observe on the PGF or would a 6 footer need to strain, jump, or stretch and bound from step to step.  Obviously a taller walker could be expected to achieve a longer walking stride with less to no effort.  The taller the person the more likely they can easily leave a longer stride and still look natural doing it.  Patty seems to smoothly and easier walk along that sandbar with a bit if ease and grace.

 

If Patty is shown to be 6ft tall then how could she achieve a longer- than- expected stride length?

 

The 2 issues here are:

 

1)   How certain can we know accurately the bluff creek stride length?

 

2)  How certain do we have a basis on what a stride length should be for someone 6ft, 61/2 ft, and 7 ft tall?

 

If when all the numbers come in Patty is 6 ft tall but leaves a stride length someone a lot taller, then it points to a real creature doesn't it?  

 

 

Regarding your statement highlighted in blue, Backdoc….if Patty's walking height was only 6' 00"....then her true, full standing height would be about 6" taller….about 6' 6"

 

That is a tall stature....and such a person, or sasquatch...would be able to walk with the stride length seen in the PGF trackway.

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I have posted on a few Bigfoot-related discussion forums, over the last 15-20 years...including the Sewer known as "Jref".  I've encountered many skeptics....and your hostility towards me...and your garbage "contributions" look, and reek...of a skeptic. ;) 

My downvote.

 

Jeebus, the man was completely honest in his reaction to you, Sweaty, and you managed to take offense at that. Get over yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
27 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

My downvote.

 

Jeebus, the man was completely honest in his reaction to you, Sweaty, and you managed to take offense at that. Get over yourself.

 

I'm just being open, and honest, Inc. That's all. I'm not here to play games....(as so many skeptics/scoftics are). :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
On 2/25/2020 at 8:27 AM, SWWASAS said:

Well a body on a lab table would certainly kill the myth too.  

 

Whose slab?

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
17 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Taller Patty vs "Normal" 6ft Patty

 

Conventional Wisdom might suggest the taller Patty is, the more likely she is to be a real creature.  I would think this applies if Patty nears higher ranges like a 7foot range.  A 7ft tall or taller Patty seems to nearly lock-up the chances she is a real creature and not a hoax.   I wonder if a Patty is barely 6ft tall makes it MORE likely she is actually a Real creature.   Hear me out for a second:  It is my understanding the stride length between the Bluff Creek footprints was pretty long.   A longer stride length might be really difficult if not impossible for some 6footer to accomplish.  Even if it could be achieved could it be achieve from just the fast walk we observe on the PGF or would a 6 footer need to strain, jump, or stretch and bound from step to step.  Obviously a taller walker could be expected to achieve a longer walking stride with less to no effort.  The taller the person the more likely they can easily leave a longer stride and still look natural doing it.  Patty seems to smoothly and easier walk along that sandbar with a bit if ease and grace.

 

If Patty is shown to be 6ft tall then how could she achieve a longer- than- expected stride length?

 

The 2 issues here are:

 

1)   How certain can we know accurately the bluff creek stride length?

 

2)  How certain do we have a basis on what a stride length should be for someone 6ft, 61/2 ft, and 7 ft tall?

 

If when all the numbers come in Patty is 6 ft tall but leaves a stride length someone a lot taller, then it points to a real creature doesn't it?  Finally when one wears a costume, esp one with feet, doesn't that force the wearer to actually decrease the natural stride a little bit?

 

 

Backdoc, I don't know if this really helps you or not with the underlined parts but I thought I'd go ahead and reply to you anyway.

 

This is copied from a writeup on the 2010 Texas Bigfoot Conference where Bob Gimlin was a featured speaker. It's part of the second paragraph below the picture of Patty. I've posted this a few years ago on here.

"I was, and always have been, more interested in the stride length of the creature. Gimlin said the length of the stride from toe to heel varied from 42"-46". This indicates a very large individual made the track way. Keep in mind that the creature was walking, albeit briskly, and not running. I stand 6'3" in height and my stride length on a flat surface is 29"-31" when walking briskly. What I hadn't heard before is that the stride length changed once the creature was out of site of the pair. Gimlin stated that, based on prints found at the site, the stride increased to over 60" in length shortly before ascending the embankment. Gimlin speculated that the creature started to run at this point." 

(this is a little later in the same paragraph:) "All of these numbers were verified later by the likes of Bob Titmus, John Greene, et al."

 

http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2010/11/bob-gimlin-at-2010-texas-bigfoot.html

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I have heard Bob speak many times but never heard him theorize what I have alway suspected, that Patty was trying to lead them off or get to a juvenile before they did.   That she was lactating indicates she had a young one someplace.    Since they carry the little ones around they would be nursing,   she must have stashed the little one nearby for some reason.  

 

I don't remember if Bob has ever estimated the size of Patty.    Surely he must have at some point.  Anyone have that estimate?    That estimate might even be more accurate than the estimations of height due to nearby trees or stride.     Bob is a short guy.  In general shorter guys are very sensitive to the height of those around them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
44 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I have heard Bob speak many times but never heard him theorize what I have alway suspected, that Patty was trying to lead them off or get to a juvenile before they did.   That she was lactating indicates she had a young one someplace.    Since they carry the little ones around they would be nursing,   she must have stashed the little one nearby for some reason.  

 

I don't remember if Bob has ever estimated the size of Patty.    Surely he must have at some point.  Anyone have that estimate?    That estimate might even be more accurate than the estimations of height due to nearby trees or stride.     Bob is a short guy.  In general shorter guys are very sensitive to the height of those around them.  

 

Sure, Bob Gimlin has given estimates of Patty's height, over the years. 

 

From what I recall, I think his early estimate was around 6 - 6 1/2 feet. That would have been Patty's 'walking height'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

He was horse mounted during the encounter but being a life long horseman,  he would have seen enough humans of a size known to him when he was mounted, to estimate the size of Patty.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

post-735-0-66102000-1444964748.jpg

 

Patty’s walking height is taller than 6.5 feet. Jim McClarin is 6.5 feet. And I know some of you don’t like this comparison. Well I think it lines up better than other comparisons I have seen by far.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...