Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

How would you differentiate between prints left by the hoaxers during the hoaxing (if they indeed made any) and those from people that visited the site later?.....

That all depends on who visited the site before I did. If everybody has been there, I doubt I could differentiate squat.

But Lafferty was there very quickly. He is very independent from the Patterson crowd (at least those who the skeptics try to incriminate with Patterson), and he indicated no sign of manufacture.

...If a person is walking with wooden feet on uneven terrain, he/she will create "dynamism". If the person changes the stride, "dynamism" will also be created....

Really?

You mean the toes on the wooden feet will display various degrees of spreading while walking?

That's a neat trick. I've always wished I could whittle like that.

...How would you differentiate a print made by someone pressing his/hers feet harder on the ground from one created by a heavier person? Both will sink deep in the substrate. Note that the effect can be achieved in a number of ways, adding extra "dynamism"....

At 260 lbs, I will make a deeper impression walking on soft ground than my 140 lb. wife.

Put some "snowshoes" on me, and that will change.

I suggest that a wooden foot as large as what I've seen cast would generate a very effective snowshoe effect.

...Experience and training.
A trained professional has more chances to keep his/hers temper and make a better and precise observation, rather that letting the "Look! A bigfoot!" feeling take over. He/she would be less likely to make a mistake, and maybe that's why they don't see them. With more calm, they just realise the "bigfoot" was a regular animal or some shadow/light interplay...

Sounds good. Let's get all our trained sasquatch experts on the trail.

Which institute of higher learning instructs in this discipline?

 

[Huntster]

...Remember this, too:

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group.

Imagine that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, and if I wrap my feet in burlap or the like, I won't leave any prints....

 

[LTC8K6]

You mean the toes on the wooden feet will display various degrees of spreading while walking?

Where can we see this documented for bigfoot tracks?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But Lafferty was there very quickly. He is very independent from the Patterson crowd (at least those who the skeptics try to incriminate with Patterson), and he indicated no sign of manufacture.

Hunster,
This is the most famous ' Lafferty ' print.

Point out a couple of the distinguishing features that tell us it is a Bigfoot print. ( other than length )

Don't waste our time with the ' mid tarsal break '.. Tube has shown that this feature shows up when humans walk with a compliant gait..

 

[LTC8K6]

I can even see the claw marks in this Meldrum bearfoot print. The print is also much shorter than the ruler.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep. Patty pushed off so hard in that Lafferty pic that she made a big old pressure ridge. Her toes apparently failed to uncurl or splay, though, or push up any dirt.

 

[LTC8K6]

Did you ever see a more obvious enlarged human foot?

 

[William Parcher]

I can even see the claw marks in this Meldrum bearfoot print. The print is also much shorter than the ruler.

Shoot, this doesn't even look like a bear footprint. I see what you are calling "claw marks", but the toe pads look way too narrow for bear.

Would you guys please stop using "Lafferty"? His name is Lyle Laverty

I know all this PGF stuff is a big "laff", but you guys are weirding me out.

 

[Huntster]

You mean the toes on the wooden feet will display various degrees of spreading while walking?

Where can we see this documented for bigfoot tracks?

Here.

 

[Huntster]

Hunster,
This is the most famous ' Lafferty ' print.

Point out a couple of the distinguishing features that tell us it is a Bigfoot print. ( other than length )

Don't waste our time with the ' mid tarsal break '.. Tube has shown that this feature shows up when humans walk with a compliant gait..

I can no more establish that the photo of the print is a sasquatch print than you can establish that it isn't.

The person who took the photo, Mr. Lafferty, obviously didn't think it was a vacationing Norseman skinny-dipping in the creek, or he wouldn't have bothered taking the photos.

I'm willing to accept the men's word after finding no (or insignificant) flaws with their story, and after having viewed the copies of the film.

Obviously you aren't, and no amount of debate will change that.

 

[Huntster]

Did you ever see a more obvious enlarged human foot?

Care to speculate on how one "enlarges" a human foot?

 

[William Parcher]

Here.

View attachment 807

That casting looks like the wonky "toes coming out the side of the foot" footprint that was shown in the still images (from film) I posted here of Patterson making plaster casts under mid-day sunlight.

Huntster, is this a casting from Patty, or what?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Obviously you aren't, and no amount of debate will change that.

How astute of you!

I agree, debate will not change anything.. But evidence will ..

Have any ?

 

[Huntster]

How astute of you!

I agree, debate will not change anything.. But evidence will ..

Have any ?

Nope. Not that you'd be interested in.

But, then, hardcore skeptics will always be the last to know, and that's their right:

...There appears to be two general genres of people of logical thought; those who are open minded and those who feel secure in the presumption that science has provided them with all the answers. Unfortunately the mistake in the reasoning of the latter is that mankind is prone to make errors and science itself is built on human reasoning.....

 

[UrsulaV]

Care to speculate on how one "enlarges" a human foot?

You claim to have studied the evidence for Bigfoot, and you don't know how to enlarge a casting of a human foot?

Jeez, Hunter, even I know that. You can do it with kerosene and latex.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/baird.htm

 

[LTC8K6]

Care to speculate on how one "enlarges" a human foot?

This is well known and well documented and anyone interested in bigfoot should be well aware of it.

 

[LTC8K6]

In order to document the articulation of toes, we would need several tracks from the same trackway showing how the toes articulate according to the terrain.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why would you have splayed toes on a flat print? The reason for the splay ought to be reflected in the casting, as should the effect of the splaying of the toes. All we have here is a flat casting with toes spread out a little. This cast looks nothing like what you'd get in reality, imo.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm willing to accept the men's word after finding no (or insignificant) flaws with their story, and after having viewed the copies of the film.

Never mind what you are willing to accept. Where can we find every photograph that Laverty took of the Patty trackway? How can we learn how many photos he did take? Where can we find original transcripts of Laverty's testimony (story) about what he saw and photographed at Bluff Creek on October 21, 1967?

It is quite obvious that most of the primary evidence that would be used to contemporarily examine and apply inquiry to the PGF will be coming from custodians who are Bigfoot (and PGF) believers. That might not matter much, or it may matter a lot. Many months ago, I likened modern attempts at "debunking" the PGF as being like trying to indict the Mafia while only being able to use physical evidence that the Mafia itself voluntarily provides for your known attempt.

Huntster, you say that the PGF has withstood skeptical scrutiny. I say that skeptics are deprived of some evidence (by various means) that would allow for a quality comprehensive argument (supported by evidence) that the PGF is a hoax. Skeptics are mostly forced to pick through a whole range of disconnected, Internet and literature-dispersed, diffuse and vague information about the PGF that is not easily amenable to forensic examination.

Shoot, we don't even always know (when we are seeing still frames or clips) if what we are seeing is a decent copy of what Patterson's film camera captured. One can start their investigation with the almost-universally agreed upon evidence that Roger Patterson was a slimy, cheating cowboy. He seemed to leave a trail of road-killed people that he defrauded and lied to.

Above all, the burden-of-proof is firmly held and remains held by anyone who thinks that the PGF is authentic or that Bigfoot is a real creature. Rational and reasonable people are not supposed to accept extraordinary claims without detailed and comprehensive evidence that these claims are true. Bigfoot is not yet a confirmed animal. Bigfoot might be mythological and all of the presented evidence is somehow false. If supportive beliefs are based on false evidence, then there could easily be intelligent people thinking that Bigfoot exists when there is no such creature.