Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

...Huntster is just a guy on a board......

You, too.

And I have lots of experience with bears and bear tracks.

Enough to know that bears don't drag their rear feet forward, with weight on it, in slick mud.

 

[Huntster]

...The first thing I noticed when I saw the actual photos of the prints at Bluff Creek (which Green said had nothing to do with the Wallace feet) is that they DO match the Wallace feet....

Your evidence, please.

 

[Huntster]

No, but Ivan Marx was there and made a film of a cripplefoot.....

So, there go your 1089 tracks.....

Nope. There goes Marx's film. The tracks are a different presentation of evidence.

 

[Correa Neto]

So be it? I conveyed your thanks on the board. "Done" as in "it is done", not as in "finished".

?
What do you mean?

Wolftrax posted on this (with no prompting from me). I'm not the only one who thinks foot flexibility is a useful trait in mountainous areas. Tree climbing may be useful for the young. I do not agree midtarsal flexibility is some undesirable trait in an habitual biped that would have to be "weeded out".

Seems the same physics arguments have been used with Australopithecines

.

Well, are bigfeet border species?
No.
The species´ geographic range, as infered by alleged sightings, is composed exclusivery by mountainous areas?
No.
Extra articulations would be usefull in mountainous terrain?
Your opinion may be a "yes", but mine is a "no".

Beckjord's name cannot even be mentioned on BFF.

Censorship!!! J/K

What big variability does it take for some individuals to have a thicker plantar pad than others? My own feet have changed over time. My prints today wouldn't match prints I made at thirteen, when I got my height. Does this mean I'm a different species?

How many bigfeet are supposed to exist? How many specimens are supposed to have created the resgisteres tracks? Is such variability reasonable within a say, 6000-individual population?

And we are not talking about mere differences in width, in case you have not noticed yet...

On average.Try a ruler.

What sort of "average"? Geometric? Simple? Harmonics? What about the standard deviation? How many data points?
Try understanding a bit about statistics. Being rude will not help your cause.

What changes? Casts just happen to be slighty larger than an actual print. Any kind of print. A print is not an exact mold, that's all. Pretty close, sometimes, especially in mud, or clayey sand.

Thus it must record prety well the overall shape of the foot. Enough to show its quite different from the real feet with mid tarsal breaks we know...
Remember these?

Quite possibly you're wrong. I e-mailed a specific post (not yours), with a link. Evidently he read more of the board. Are most of the comments here worth his time in your opinion?

A lot of the comments here are worthy of attention, since they point at specific weak spots in the data used to build the hypothesis in question, among wich the most important one is "bigfeet are real". The avaliable data is inconclusive at best.

Inserting a word of caution in a post is not a claim. The word I inserted was "claims". I claim to be female but for all you know I could be a 300 lb. male posing as a female. See what I mean? You said you work for industry, but does that mean you're still a geologist or are you someone with a degree in geology working in a related field? Or an unrelated field? No insinuation intended and no offense meant.

Have I ever wrote that you "claim to be an atheist woman who once lived at PNW and thinks bigfeet are real"?
And note that I offered you a way to check if I am or not a poseur. Your next move will be to?

I threw you a compliment on TBFF, in fact. I called you a worthy opponent, or words to that effect. The poster never showed up, either. Perhaps he decided this board isn't worth his time.

Ah. Among how many other not-so-constructive comments?

I notice you do quite a bit of posting on JREF on other topics. Do you think that's a waste of time? Just curious.

Nope. As I once told you, bigfoot is not my main focus.
Besides JREF, I post only at another board. And I don´t find the other a waste of time also.

Most of times I post at threads where I think I can somehow contribute. And I learned a lot about many issues -from the nature of counsioussness to quantum mechanics- here at JREF. Call this place a waste of time is a prejudiced behavior. The standard fundamentalists and creduloids ususally consider this place as a waste of time, since they fail to obtain new converts here...

 

[Steve]

I believe the Bigfoot - serious, not follies is getting a little unwieldy so I thought I would submit this spinoff.

So, Diogenes, we are now on page 79 of your spinoff. Are you regretting this statement yet?

 

[Dfoot]

Your evidence, please.

I wish I knew how to post larger or multiple images over here. Guess I'd better look that up.


Anyhow... here ya go:

Green tries to cast a Wallace print below.

- Dfoot

 

[Dfoot]

Here we can judge how deep the boot of an average sized guy penetrates the soft soil at the edge of the newly bulldozed roadway next to the Wallace print.

- Dfoot

 

[LTC8K6]

You, too.

And I have lots of experience with bears and bear tracks.

Enough to know that bears don't drag their rear feet forward, with weight on it, in slick mud.

No one attempted to refer to me as an authority....

No one said a bear dragged it's foot forward with weight on it, either....

 

[Dfoot]

And lastly, here is the wooden foot that made the print responsible for the cast being held by newsman Andrew Genzoli and Wallace crewman Jerry Crew.

(*It's also of interest to note that if you check out the papers left by Andrew Genzoli - the man who popularized the term "Bigfoot" to describe a Sasquatch - you'll see that he states he felt all of this was hogwash and that Patterson and Gimlin were two of the biggest liars he'd ever met.)

Reality is worth checking.

- Dfoot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is the shot where you can really see how phoney the tracks and the trackway are.
I can't believe folks didn't bust out laughing at the poor hoax....

Which trackway is that ? Who investigated ? Titmus ? Green ?

 

[Aepervius]

Wonderful Picture

Dfoot, maybe you can upload the full format to a free hosting site, and so only hotlink the picture after ? Because, I am probably not alone, but I can't recognize much from the right side... I could even help if necessary.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nope. There goes Marx's film. The tracks are a different presentation of evidence.

That's a nice opinion, Huntster. I'm not sure it means anything, but it sounds good.

It's too bad that most people are actually interested in the fact of a known hoaxer's presence, and don't dismiss it as readily.

Until the bigfoot believers distance themselves from Wallace, Marx, and Freeman, these guys are forever going to be anchors.

Every time evidence associated with them is brought up, the fact that they are hoaxers is also going to come up, and objective folks are rightly going to question that evidence closely. They will also rightly question those who continue to rely on said evidence.

A ball & chain, if you will.

 

[LTC8K6]

Which trackway is that ? Who investigated ? Titmus ? Green ?

It was only ID'd as 15" barefoot tracks on a mountain road. It appears in a John Green book, On The Track of Sasquatch. That is likely Green's yardstick in the photo.

You can see pretty clearly that the boot prints are just as deep in the fresh soil.

 

[LTC8K6]

Same trackway...?

 

[LTC8K6]

It amazes me how you could take a photo of of one track in a line of forty as a bear track

Does it amaze you that Meldrum takes that one track in a line of forty and uses it to bolster his midtarsal break ideas, Lu?

Meldrum uses this bear print in his pdf report as an example of Bigfoot's midtarsal break. He doesn't use any of the other prints. Just this one.

 

[Correa Neto]

How many traits unique to bigfeet footprints can you find in this trail?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Where is it from? (highlight to see)
Footprints in vocanic ash, left by people fleeingin from Vesuvius AD 79 eruption.
Source: (highlight to see)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4780916.stm

 

[Ashles]

Is this thread now officially the world's leading resource on Bigfoot information?

 

[LTC8K6]

A few more Wallace feet.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ok, I can´t help,I have to ask...

And those spherical things would be his balls?

This would explain the testicles imprints in the Skookum cast...

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't know about that, but we've seen these type clownfeet before...