kitakaze's responses have
de-volved into meaningless babble.
That'll make a nice addition to my signature line.
Yes, that's excellent. I encourage you to do that right now. Add to your signature the line about the fact that Bob Heironimus has a proven very close connection to Patterson and Gimlin as well as there being significant evidence that Roger faked Patty's tracks. I'm waiting for this change.
I'll sum-up my thoughts about Heirony again...
I am 100% cert-tane...(that's a goofy variation on the word "certain")....that he's full of...............oh, what's the word....
Ummmmmm........it'll come to me...
Sweaty, you're not fooling anyone. All your squirming does nothing to distract from the fact that I am not asking you to address a single specific thing Bob has said about being Patty.
Let me put up my post you are trying so hard to evade reformatted to be more comprehensible to the eyes of Sweaty...
What..........do YOU.......think.........of the FACT that the 
only person who has.....EVER......claimed to be Patty was FRIENDS with Bob Gimlin at the time the PGF was made and appears at various points on Patterson's film? WHAT do.....YOU....think about the..........F A C T......that Bob Heironimus lives only NINE doors from Bob Gimlin and has done so since the PGF was made??
What DO you think about THE......fact
that Bob Gimlin has NEVER taken......ANY.....legal action against the man whose testimony threatens his credibility to people....ALL OVER THE WORLD....who see him as a hero and endangers his personal profit from the film?? What do you think about the fact that Bob Heironimus has PASSED 
2TWO2 ...........separate........ polygraphs concerning his involvement with the PGF?? What do you think of the.........fact.......that Heironimus confirms that HE is STILL FRIENDS
with his neighbour, Gimlin, and sees him on occasion in which there is..............NO.......discussion about Bigfoot at all??
Do you not find it 
troubling at all that the only PERSON to ever claim to be Patty is that closely associated with Patterson and Gimlin??
Phew! Typing Bigfoot fanatic is a pain in the butt!
Oh, as far as the trackway being faked....that suggestion is ludicrous.
The prints were simply too deep to have been made by a person...( a fully-modern Human, that is)...walking.....each footprint would have to have been made individually, by hand.
And that notion becomes ludicrous when you consider the fact that the trackway went on much further than the spot where the filming stopped...and, if someone was making them by hand....they would have had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to continue making a long, extended trackway....when they could have simply 'turned left', and taken the short route into the forest.
This is fantastic. Yes, let's do this. Let's talk Patty tracks. I'm going to do this crazy thing right now. Let's call it a KK Frontside 180° Logic Flip With a Twist to Bigfoot Fanatic Faceplant 911 Call My Mom. Here goes...
You can't show that it's possible for the casts of Patty's showing morphologically very different left feet to actually come from one real animal foot, can you, Sweaty. All you can do is talk but you can't SHOW anything to disprove the evidence.
Oh my goodness, that was fun. Now let's address that load of fail that you just wrote. There's no reason whatsoever to continue making an extended trackway when they could have taken a short rout into the forest? You level a credulity amuses the heck out of me...
1) What are you talking about short route into the forest? Sweaty, man, that is not what they filmed! The PGF shows Patty walking off into the distance from behind. They have to make tracks for that.
2) Why would they make an extended trackway when a shorter one would be easier. Hmmm... Yes... Why would they make such an effort more believable. It's almost like they were trying to make people believe them...
Palm on the face.
Sweaty, you do raise a very interesting point about the tracks - there depths. Except, what you don't realize that this is one of the very factors that makes a hoax even more likely. You see, in their zeal for effect, they went too far. There's a post you've ignored that I kept linked to my post about the evidence of the tracks being hoaxed. The post was made by River and had an excellent article by the late, great Michael Dennett for the
Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
Here again is River's post with a link to Dennett's article...
You're of course
assuming a few things here. For one: the feet of the subject left the imprints that were cast. Two: the frames that you were using as references show quite different size foot when in comparison to the percentage of body height. In other words, is the foot stretching/shrinking? Perhaps the films ability to enlarge a subject of that size (in relation to the full frame percent) as well as factors such as motion blur could account for a substantial variant in a height estimate that
only uses the "foot as a ruler" method of getting a height estimate.
One of the classic problems with this film is that using photogrammetry to get scale on the subject (using distance from camera to subject, lens focal length and percentage of full frame) have not been corroborated by the "foot as a ruler" method. Many people have done the same experiment you attempted above with the measuring of pixels and compariing them to the 14.5 casts taken from the film site. Some of the estimates are much lower than yours (from 5' 10" to 6' 3" standing height) using the "foot as a ruler" method. The problem is using the distance from camera to subject, focal length and full frame percent
does not corroborate these numbers. In fact it would put the subject seen on film well within human range, and even below Heironimus height. It would put the height right around the range of Patterson and Gimlin both though. Interesting isnt it?
The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated. Another good indicator is the track depth. Without going into detail, the tracks were too deep to have been left by a subject of that size. To quote Gimlin "Deeper than the horses tracks" and he goes on to describe the size of the horse and estimates the weight. The rest isnt very hard to figure out.
Heres a great article by Michael Dennet that goes into a little detail about that for you.
Theres also the little issue of Patterson mentioning to Krantz that he had filmed himself just days before casting a fake bigfoot track. (which according to the timing of it - must've been in the bluff creek area) So wheres the other film of Patterson casting this fake bigfoot track? There are scenes of what appear to be Patterson casting bigfoot tracks, but those were represented as "real" from the subject seen on film by Patterson. Funny enough, many have speculated that this film may have been shot at an earlier date than reported. Maybe a few days earlier? A week? How long would it have to be to match up with what Patterson told Krantz? Interesting little tidbit about footprints and matching them up to the subject seen on film
Gimlin admits he was riding Heironimus' horse, Chico. Gimlin told John Green that Chico weighed 12-1300 lbs and that he weighed about 165 lbs. How did Patty's big flat feet sink in deeper than almost 1500 lbs on four small hooves? Whaaa???
What Bob heironimus told me directly was that Roger and Bob had Chico for eight days. Eight days is plenty of time to fake Patty's tracks.
*
)
