Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[makaya325]

Great rant, William. Too bad it don't mean ----.



For anyone who wants to answer...


What is the most likely explanation (with specific details) for how this footprint, from the PG trackway, was formed?.....and why...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/LavertyFoot2.jpg[/qimg]

It is due to the rubber foot of the costume Bob wore in the film

 

[SweatyYeti]

Rigid fake (carved in wood?) foot pressed over wet mud or silt. Rear part of the foot was pressed first, front part later.

If the foot was rigid, then how did the middle of this rigid board manage to push the soil backwards, leaving such a sharply-defined ridge behind??

Do you think you could replicate this feature with a wooden foot, Correa?

I asked why a proposed explanation would be the most likely one to be the actual, real-life explanation...(as opposed to just "whatever explanation a skeptic can dream up").....so, what makes you think this "rigid wooden fake foot" is the most likely one to be correct?


Also, regarding the depth of the heel....how was that accomplished, with this rigid fake foot?
Was it simply caused by the 'guy-in-the-suit's' normal body weight....approx. 160-200 pounds? Or do you think he had to carry a hundred pounds (or so) of weight on his back as he walked?



I requested a detailed explanation.....only because that's the best way to try to find the truth.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What is the most likely explanation (with specific details) for how this footprint, from the PG trackway, was formed?.....and why...

It is unlikely that it is a footprint ..

Bring us a foot and we can discuss how it was made..

 

[Vortigern99]

Krantz (1992, p.23) reports:

Turns that are made in walking direction will impress one part of the foot more deeply than another, and just which part depends much on where int he stride the turn is being made, as well as how abrupt the turn is. Even movements of the upper body, such as turning to look at something, can be reflected in footprint variations. These motions may be seen in pressure ridges where the foot, or some part of it, pushed slightly to one side or the other.
​

So, this can explain the depth of the heel, even if the foot were a rigid construct. We don't need to resort to a living, flexible foot in order to explain the data visible in the pic.

As far as the mid-print dirt-mound, if you're a disciple of Krantz, you most likely will opine that this is evidence of a flexible foot and therefore a living one. My rebuttal to this contention is threefold:

1. It could be a man-made flexible foot -- constructed of rubber or latex -- rather than the usual, Wallace-style rigid board.

2. The dirt mound could have been placed there purposefully in order to present the illusion of a flexible, living foot.

3. Krantz could be mistaken in his opinion that a living, flexible foot is the only kind that could leave a mid-print dirt-mound.

Since we don't have any type specimen for the animal that supposedly made this print, we cannot say with any authority that one of the above bits of fakery, or some other I have not yet imagined, does not account for the illusion of a living foot.

 

[makaya325]

It is unlikely that it is a footprint ..

Bring us a foot and we can discuss how it was made..

It it likely that it is a footprint...a fake latex one that is.

 

[kitakaze]

For anyone who wants to answer...


What is the most likely explanation (with specific details) for how this footprint, from the PG trackway, was formed?.....and why...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/LavertyFoot2.jpg[/qimg]

I requested a detailed explanation.....only because that's the best way to try to find the truth.

You've got to be kidding me. What a joke. Why should anybody answer your questions or give you a detailed explanation of anything?

Hello, desperado. Nothing about the PGF is more likely to indicate Bigfoot than something else. Stop being so fanatical and always trying some desperate crap to push Patty as good evidence.

Fake Feet and "Monolithic Margins"

The Tracks, Man, The Tracks...

 

[makaya325]

You've got to be kidding me. What a joke. Why should anybody answer your questions or give you a detailed explanation of anything?

Hello, desperado. Nothing about the PGF is more likely to indicate Bigfoot than something else. Stop being so fanatical and always trying some desperate crap to push Patty as good evidence.

Fake Feet and "Monolithic Margins"

The Tracks, Man, The Tracks...

Sweaty, who believes the pgf to represent bigfoot, doesnt have any evidence for it being genuine, so he is playing the "Show me your evidence" game, when, in fact, No one else here should give you anymore. Kitz, Mangler, Correa, And Vort have went to great lengths to help you understand the real truth, but since you are so close minded, you cherry pick your evidence and play games with everyone. Unless you have something substantial to bring to this discussion, you should stop demanding evidence.

 

[makaya325]

Krantz (1992, p.23) reports:

Turns that are made in walking direction will impress one part of the foot more deeply than another, and just which part depends much on where int he stride the turn is being made, as well as how abrupt the turn is. Even movements of the upper body, such as turning to look at something, can be reflected in footprint variations. These motions may be seen in pressure ridges where the foot, or some part of it, pushed slightly to one side or the other.
​

So, this can explain the depth of the heel, even if the foot were a rigid construct. We don't need to resort to a living, flexible foot in order to explain the data visible in the pic.

As far as the mid-print dirt-mound, if you're a disciple of Krantz, you most likely will opine that this is evidence of a flexible foot and therefore a living one. My rebuttal to this contention is threefold:

1. It could be a man-made flexible foot -- constructed of rubber or latex -- rather than the usual, Wallace-style rigid board.

2. The dirt mound could have been placed there purposefully in order to present the illusion of a flexible, living foot.

3. Krantz could be mistaken in his opinion that a living, flexible foot is the only kind that could leave a mid-print dirt-mound.

Since we don't have any type specimen for the animal that supposedly made this print, we cannot say with any authority that one of the above bits of fakery, or some other I have not yet imagined, does not account for the illusion of a living foot.

I also forgot to mention that MOST (Yes, i said the majority) of Discovered tracks are not even impressions made by a bigfoot or a fake foot. They are discovered when people "see what they want to see". They are laughable, and certaintly would not originate from a hoaxer, since they would make the tracks more elaborate.

Deep square impression: Cant be anything else, must be bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

If it's o.k. with you, though....I'll continue to analyse the print itself, in an attempt to weigh the probabilities of different potential explanations.

You have a photo of an impression taken in 1967. What potential do you have for quality evidence of Bigfoot?

One way of weighing the probability of the 'hoax' explanation is to try to replicate the footprint, with all of it's details, as closely as possible....and see which method does that best....such as a flexible foot, or a rigid foot.


I'll continue the conversation over in the 'PG Film' thread.

You should really check the links I gave you.

 

[makaya325]

Sweaty, for ONCE, I want you to just consider the Skeptical analysis's (IMO, they are less biased and more exact on the issue than the true believer links). Kitz has provided you with very insightful links. The least you can do is to read them. If you fail to read those links, you are 1 step closer to the "After-woo"

 

[makaya325]

Sweaty, just PLEASE answer my question.

Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human? Yes or No? It is simple as that. If yes, please elaborate.

I am a little sick and tired of your crayon drawing, Irrationalism and your question dodging self. Many of us have tried to help you see the light, but it appears that you would rather stay in the darkness of Pseudoscientific delusion. Come on Sweaty, i thought you were smarter than that.

 

[makaya325]

Sweaty, I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to extract rational answers from your alleged well-being. I guess I am falling short.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti:
I will never REFUSE to answer a Bigfoot-related question.....outright. There is no Bigfoot question that I am afraid to answer.

Sweaty, Sorry to rain on your little parade. Can you answer 2 simple questions?

Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a Homo Sapien?

If so, can you show Exact measurements, backed up by Scientific data, and Individual Analysis's concluding the same thing?

When you said Patty's arms are longer than a humans how did you take measurements of people or compare it to decide that?

Do you even have EXACT measurements for your "Impossible arm length" claim?

Jack Davis, Mangler, Astro, Ghettosven, and Gigantofooticus all have similiar if not identical Conclusions, concluding that not Only is Patty's height shorter than 6 ft 5, but that her Arms are a PERFECT fit for Gimlins Neighbor.

Why cant you just answer the question?

Why cant you show us your measurements of Patty's arms that conclude they are too long for a human?


Another insightful link you should look at Sweaty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQlPAFV6yaI

Look at the "Foam Muscle Suit Test" part of the clip. Those Costumes, designed by Rick Baker, show VERY CONVINCING "Muscle Movements". Not only were those suits available during the 60's, but they were light years better than the crumby Patterson costume.
Im waiting Sweaty

Why cant you just answer the question?


I already have answered that question, makaya.

Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking.

Sweaty, just PLEASE answer my question.

Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human? Yes or No?

It is simple as that. If yes, please elaborate.

I'll elaborate on my reasons for saying that, makaya....but, for now, I just wanted to give you an answer to your question, since it seemed like you were about to pee your pants if I didn't answer you right away!

I am a little sick and tired of your crayon drawing, Irrationalism and your question dodging self.

Too bad, mak.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here's an interesting clip from the thread kitakaze linked to....courtesy of MK Davis....showing Patty's foot bending in the middle...

And, from tube....

It is clear that mid-foot pressure ridges can be produced by a fake flexible foot. But are they consistent with the Laverty track?

To me the Laverty track pressure ridge looks "sharper" and more peaked than the pressure ridges on my fake feet

 

[makaya325]

I already have answered that question, makaya.

Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking.



Are you kidding me Sweaty? The TRUTH is that everyone on this forum thinks that not only are you Irrational, but that you will go through anything to get your way. That is consistant with a spoiled brat, not Real Science. If you ever want to follow REAL, Thorough, Scrutinized scientific posts, Please check out Jack Davis's, Ghettosven, Mangler, Gigantofooticus, ETC.

I advise you not to listen to Munn's wooful pro-patty agenda.




I'll elaborate on my reasons for saying that, makaya....but, for now, I just wanted to give you an answer to your question, since it seemed like you were about to pee your pants if I didn't answer you right away!






Too bad, mak. [/QUOTE]

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's an interesting clip from the thread kitakaze linked to....courtesy of MK Davis....showing Patty's foot bending in the middle...

Are you saying rubber doesn't bend ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Are you saying rubber doesn't bend ?

Absolutely not, Greg...I would never say such a thing!


But if Patty's 'fake feet' are made of rubber...(and actually made the tracks at the filmsite)...the question would then become...how did Patty's fake feet...with loosely-hinged toes, as long as these....

....make deep impressions in the hard-packed soil....and, impressions as close to the ball of the foot, as seen in this track?...

That's quite a feet .....for a fake rubber foot, with long, loosely-hinged toes, that would have no visible means of applying pressure into the ground.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Another detail, visible in this animated-gif....which Meldrum points out in his book...

....is that Patty's left foot must be bending in the middle, since....if it wasn't bending in the middle....her foot would be sticking approximately 6-8 inches into the ground.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here is an animated-gif of a fake foot...purported by skeptics to mimic Patty's bending-toes...

For now, I'm just using one frame from it, to compare with Patty's apparently bending toes.


Here they are....side-by-side...

There is a distinct difference in the angle between the front of the leg, and the top of the foot.

The angle is much sharper, with Patty's foot....while pretty much just a 90-degree bend in the fake, stiff foot...

The sharper angle of Patty's bending foot indicates that what is seen bending is actually her toes, and not just simply her foot bending at the ankle.

 

[kitakaze]

But if Patty's 'fake feet' are made of rubber...(and actually made the tracks at the filmsite)...the question would then become...how did Patty's fake feet...with loosely-hinged toes, as long as these....


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif6Repeat.gif[/qimg]


....make deep impressions in the hard-packed soil....and, impressions as close to the ball of the foot, as seen in this track?...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/LavertyFoot3.jpg[/qimg]


That's quite a feet .....for a fake rubber foot, with long, loosely-hinged toes, that would have no visible means of applying pressure into the ground.

1) We see Patty's toes from the bottom in the PGF. They are not as long as the blur we see in your animation. If what we see is Patty's foot, it's not the toes but rather the foot itself freakishly bending upward in a clownfoot manner the way a suit does.

2) You can't prove the impressions cast were created by Patty.

3) Multiple casts of what are supposed to be Patty's feet show no toe movement. Weird thing for your "loosely-hinged" toes to be doing. My toes are close together and do not spread out easily. If I walk in the dirt or sand, I can see individual movement of my toes. People probably look at me like an idiot on the beach staring intently at my own footprints.

Result - another desperate attempt by Sweaty to give Patty some hope.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.