Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3 - Page 159

parnassus · 12th April 2011, 08:18 PM

Had never heard of this guy. Interesting. Contrary to what the cult will tell you, a number of extensive and expensive expeditions have searched for the mythical beast.

UGottaB · 12th April 2011, 08:25 PM

Theories Theories Theories.
The film tells all. Check out DumDDumDum's channel on youtube.

LTC8K6 · 12th April 2011, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Back in the day Henry Franzoni was about the only well known Serious Bigfooter™ I had any appreciation for. He's officially gone over the edge (and the hedge) now. According to his website he's 'moved on'. Probably a good idea.

I had never read the complete NASI report before. It's a little wackier...

AlaskaBushPilot · 12th April 2011, 10:28 PM

Patterson had too much hair on his gorilla suit boobs.

You'll recognize this gal from the third row on the left in the youtube clip demon posted. I copped a feel off her in the coat room. No implants.

The Shrike · 13th April 2011, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Patterson had too much hair on his gorilla suit boobs.

The PNW of North America is colder than equatorial Africa, bigfoots need hairier boobs that gorillas. Better comparison: How much hair on the teats of a momma moose?

Drewbot · 13th April 2011, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

The PNW of North America is colder than equatorial Africa, bigfoots need hairier boobs that gorillas. Better comparison: How much hair on the teats of a momma moose?

Yes, because native Americans and Eskimos have adapted to hairy boobs.

Aepervius · 13th April 2011, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Yes, because native Americans and Eskimos have adapted to hairy boobs.

Well to be fair Eskimo have adapted by using tool (thick clothing) you don't see them running nacked in the snow (well maybe in Eskimo porn). Same for native American Indian.

Drewbot · 13th April 2011, 06:38 AM

Remember the 'Stomp Test' Bob Gimlin talks about on the 1997 Green interview?

Well John Green is now claiming he did a stomp test.

Originally Posted by The Article below

Just a few weeks after visiting Bluff Creek, Green went to see more tracks near a creek in hard sand that were very clear. He said that to test if those tracks could have been faked he tried jumping off a log. He found he had to land on one heel in order to get a small point of his boot in as deep as the tracks he found.

Read more: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Seeki...#ixzz1JPXVK6bu

Who is telling the truth? Both?

GT/CS · 13th April 2011, 07:04 AM

Neither.

The Shrike · 13th April 2011, 07:31 AM

Here's a stomp test I'd like to see:

Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints.

Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints.

Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression.

Now, in oversized shoes, add weight to subject in increasing increments to determine how much heavier one would have to be to leave a print as deep as the one made by the shoes that fit.

Prediction: it would take a surprisingly large amount of weight to achieve the print depth of the well-fitting shoes.

Interpretation: something with big, flat feet that leaves impressions even deeper than those of average-sized guys (say 200 lbs) in their well-fitting boots must be really heavy, like 1000 lbs. More parsimonious than a 6-7' tall biped weighing 1000 lbs? The prints are faked.

LTC8K6 · 13th April 2011, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Remember the 'Stomp Test' Bob Gimlin talks about on the 1997 Green interview?

Well John Green is now claiming he did a stomp test.

Read more: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Seeki...#ixzz1JPXVK6bu

Who is telling the truth? Both?

As if the only way to fake a deep print is with a lot of weight...or by jumping...

Did Green try carrying 500 pounds, too?

LTC8K6 · 13th April 2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

He found he had to land on one heel in order to get a small point of his boot in as deep as the tracks he found.

Yes, this means the tracks are fake.

LTC8K6 · 13th April 2011, 11:00 AM

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

These tracks are supposedly from a very heavy biped. So heavy that John Green and Bob Gimlin can't duplicate the track depth even if they jump off a high stump.

We have tracks in soft mud that aren't even very deep...

We are supposed to believe that Meldrum could not jump off a high stump and get impressions as deep...

parnassus · 13th April 2011, 11:11 AM

Moved to another thread.

River · 13th April 2011, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Here's a stomp test I'd like to see:

Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints.

Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints.

Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression.

Now, in oversized shoes, add weight to subject in increasing increments to determine how much heavier one would have to be to leave a print as deep as the one made by the shoes that fit.

Prediction: it would take a surprisingly large amount of weight to achieve the print depth of the well-fitting shoes.

Interpretation: something with big, flat feet that leaves impressions even deeper than those of average-sized guys (say 200 lbs) in their well-fitting boots must be really heavy, like 1000 lbs. More parsimonious than a 6-7' tall biped weighing 1000 lbs? The prints are faked.

I've always felt like the footprint evidence was the best physical evidence of a hoax in this case. I've heard things like "rolling the feet" while walking, and all sorts of other excuses to explain the depth+size of the tracks. I'm also still surprised that people try to balk at using those impressions/casts as a ruler for subject size. (for example Munns)

Correa Neto · 13th April 2011, 11:32 AM

Remember that Patty 3D model?

One could calculate its volume for the most accepted height figures; piece of cake with a 3d modelling software. Then with the estimated weight, see the critter's density. Next step- compare with the density of real animals.

William Parcher · 13th April 2011, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints.

Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints.

Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression.

Why go with shoes that are that big? My bare foot is 10.5" long. Patty's foot is 14.5" long.

AlaskaBushPilot · 13th April 2011, 12:22 PM

I've never shot a cow moose so I don't know what the tits look like. (Although I did sodomize one once and was too busy to notice.)

With respect to track depth - everything depends on the water content of the soil medium. When the soil is thoroughly saturated the tracks are deep. When the soil is dry it can be as hard as stone and no impression is left at all.

If the soil has a lot of organics in it, you can sink up to your armpits in thoroughly saturated soil. If there are no organics then you won't sink very far.

So the whole idea about jumping or walking next to the tracks that were made at a different time is stupid to begin with because the moisture content can be completely different. It is also quite true that the moisture and orgnic content of the soil can be completely different a mere foot away from the tracks in question.

Aepervius · 13th April 2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Although I did sodomize one once and was too busy to notice

Mh. Too much info ?

Skeptical Greg · 13th April 2011, 12:39 PM

It still remains:

Deep prints = Real Bigfoot = Nonsense ....

Ignorance of how it was accomplished doth not good evidence make...

William Parcher · 13th April 2011, 01:12 PM

From 1966...

"Patterson figures the depth of the impressions made by his find near Mt. Shasta would indicate a huge creature which could weigh in the 1000 to 1500 pound range. Patterson and his companion Prentice Beck, followed the tracks for about four miles but lost then in a rocky brushy area."

Sounds like the Patty tracking story.

"A conversation with a retired miner in that area proved one of the most interesting Patterson has gathered over the years in his search. The miner claimed he and other members of a mining crew came into contact with such a creature at their mining camp in 1924. "Four or more of these huge creatures stood high on the rocks above our campsite and threw big boulders down at us," the old miner said. "For some time we hid and protected ourselves from the falling boulders and finally had to run for our lives.""

That's the Fred Beck Ape Canyon story. But this time there is a campsite, not a cabin.

LTC8K6 · 13th April 2011, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

From 1966...

"Patterson figures the depth of the impressions made by his find near Mt. Shasta would indicate a huge creature which could weigh in the 1000 to 1500 pound range. Patterson and his companion Prentice Beck, followed the tracks for about four miles but lost then in a rocky brushy area."

Sounds like the Patty tracking story.

"A conversation with a retired miner in that area proved one of the most interesting Patterson has gathered over the years in his search. The miner claimed he and other members of a mining crew came into contact with such a creature at their mining camp in 1924. "Four or more of these huge creatures stood high on the rocks above our campsite and threw big boulders down at us," the old miner said. "For some time we hid and protected ourselves from the falling boulders and finally had to run for our lives.""

That's the Fred Beck Ape Canyon story. But this time there is a campsite, not a cabin.

Amazing...

William Parcher · 13th April 2011, 01:19 PM

Folks were polled on the PGF over at The Bigfoot Show.

71% said it is real or probably real.

7% said it is fake or probably fake.

parnassus · 13th April 2011, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by River

I've always felt like the footprint evidence was the best physical evidence of a hoax in this case. I've heard things like "rolling the feet" while walking, and all sorts of other excuses to explain the depth+size of the tracks. I'm also still surprised that people try to balk at using those impressions/casts as a ruler for subject size. (for example Munns)

Munns avoids it like the plague tho its the obvious way to calculate the height, if u believe that the prints are real. Munns sole purpose in all this has been to prove that Bob H is too short. Now he is realizing he can't do that. So now he's moving to "you cant prove it's a hoax."

Leroy Blevins · 13th April 2011, 04:34 PM

You know when I was talking about the PG film had sound. Well I contact MK Davis and he send me a photo of the strip of film that shows the beginning of the Bigfoot walk and the 16mm film had sound to it. The photo shows the sound mark on the side and this is a real photo of the film strip. The PG film did have sound to it and I have a photo of the 16mm film that shows the sound mark on it.
Now this brings up two questions.
Why did they never play the sound when they shown the film?
And
What camera did Roger Patterson used?
As you know the K-100 camera did not have a mic to it for them to get sound. But, the piece of film shows it had sound to it.

LTC8K6 · 13th April 2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

You know when I was talking about the PG film had sound. Well I contact MK Davis and he send me a photo of the strip of film that shows the beginning of the Bigfoot walk and the 16mm film had sound to it. The photo shows the sound mark on the side and this is a real photo of the film strip. The PG film did have sound to it and I have a photo of the 16mm film that shows the sound mark on it.
Now this brings up two questions.
Why did they never play the sound when they shown the film?
And
What camera did Roger Patterson used?
As you know the K-100 camera did not have a mic to it for them to get sound. But, the piece of film shows it had sound to it.

No. This is not even wrong.

The Shrike · 14th April 2011, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Why go with shoes that are that big? My bare foot is 10.5" long. Patty's foot is 14.5" long.

According to a shoe size chart, one should go even bigger.

foot length U.S. men's shoe size
10" 8
11" 11
12" 14

The chart I found stopped at a size 15 (12.3" foot), but if the scaling pattern is the same such that each 1" increase in length gives you 3 whole sizes larger, then at a minimum we get the following:

13" 17
14" 20

Shaq wears a size 23. Check out Nate Robinson's compliant gait while wearing them.

William Parcher · 14th April 2011, 07:07 AM

I understand that Shrike, but I still think your original statement is wrong and confusing.

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints.

My shoe size is a US male size 10.5. My bare foot length happens to be 10.5". My size 10.5 Nikes have a total length of 12". So my shoes are 1.5" longer than my bare foot.

If I wanted to simulate Patty's feet, I would look for shoes that measure 14.5" long. That shoe would be for a man whose bare foot measures about 13" long. According to your calculations, I would be looking to buy shoes of a size 17. A size 17 shoe is going to be about 14.5" long.

So, I need to go from size 10.5 to size 17 to replicate Patty. That isn't 2-3X bigger.

Leroy Blevins · 14th April 2011, 08:17 AM

I am 6'2" and my shoe size is 12. I am size 12 without my shoes on and with my shoe on my feet size is 13 1/2. The shoes I made for my Bigfoot suit are 14 1/2 and with them on they are only 2" bigger then my feet but wider. And my height is 6'2" and with the suit on my height is 6'7".

The Shrike · 14th April 2011, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I understand that Shrike, but I still think your original statement is wrong and confusing. . . .
So, I need to go from size 10.5 to size 17 to replicate Patty. That isn't 2-3X bigger.

Oh, I see now. Sorry about that. I was using "X" as shorthand for "sizes larger than your own shoesize" not "two to three times larger" which would, of course, be ridiculously large.

Hitch · 14th April 2011, 09:01 AM

With regards to footprint depth, no one seems to want to discuss the possibility of making tracks in soft, wet soil and then letting it dry for several days to get hard before doing a track depth comparison.

I don't know that that's the case. But nobody ever says, "It just shows that ground may have been much softer when these tracks were made."

UGottaB · 14th April 2011, 09:58 AM

How big will the footprints of this bigfoot from the PG Film be. Or maybe she made the Skookum Cast.

Skeptical Greg · 14th April 2011, 11:26 AM

Pareidolia!

AlaskaBushPilot · 14th April 2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Hitch

With regards to footprint depth, no one seems to want to discuss the possibility of making tracks in soft, wet soil and then letting it dry for several days to get hard before doing a track depth comparison.

I don't know that that's the case. But nobody ever says, "It just shows that ground may have been much softer when these tracks were made."

I have. A few times. But there is a conspiracy against me being managed out of the Ark on Mount Ararat.

The soil composition matters in addition to moisture content.

The mechanical energy of the water varies tremendously from one place to another in a stream, so the deposits of matter are not uniformly distributed. Even with very small distances you have big differences in the organic content of the soil being deposited.

So yes, the tracks might be made in wet conditions and later they dry. But in addition to that you can move a mere foot away from where the soil makes shallow tracks and get into some high-organic content soil that leaves deep tracks.

LTC8K6 · 14th April 2011, 07:16 PM

You might even have studied the soil in the area ahead of time.

You might even agitate the soil to loosen it, make your track(s), then wet it, then let it dry. You might even remain mostly on the original hard soil yourself, so you leave none of your own tracks.

You might even experiment with different ways of accomplishing a good looking deep trackway.

But a hoaxer would never think of these things. Only skeptics do.

UGottaB · 14th April 2011, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Pareidolia!

If you saw something in the picture you just disproved your statement. If you didn't see something then you just disproved your statement.

You can't deny the reality that the film contains pornographic materials. No I'm not taking about someone taking off a monkey costume.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bobbieshort · 18th April 2011, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Patty wasn't filmed in the summer. The vine maple leaves are red.

------------------

I would be interested to see a wide shot of frame 352 that has red vine maple in it.

William Parcher · 18th April 2011, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by bobbieshort

I would be interested to see a wide shot of frame 352 that has red vine maple in it.

I've been sorta keeping track of the many things I give to you. I think you owe me up to 20 kisses now.

demonunderyourbed · 18th April 2011, 11:04 AM

wonder what mr bigfoot has too say about all this lol
look at the size of him..huge cone head and forearm he's a beast

BigfootBookman · 18th April 2011, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by bobbieshort

------------------
I would be interested to see a wide shot of frame 352 that has red vine maple in it.

The red you see behind the film subject is not blood, but vine maple.
And, we have yet to find poison oak in the upper Bluff Creek basin.
Fall colors up there are the shrubby understory vine maple in red, and the mid-canopy yellows of the taller ordinary maples.

I would be interested to know what happened to the "Bigfoot Corpse" and film splice essay which seems mysteriously to have disappeared from Bigfoot Encounters.

BFBM

12th April 2011, 08:18 PM	#6321
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Had never heard of this guy. Interesting. Contrary to what the cult will tell you, a number of extensive and expensive expeditions have searched for the mythical beast.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 12th April 2011 at 08:19 PM.

12th April 2011, 08:25 PM	#6322
UGottaB New Blood Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20	The film Theories Theories Theories. The film tells all. Check out DumDDumDum's channel on youtube.
UGottaB New Blood Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20

12th April 2011, 08:53 PM	#6323
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson Back in the day Henry Franzoni was about the only well known Serious Bigfooter™ I had any appreciation for. He's officially gone over the edge (and the hedge) now. According to his website he's 'moved on'. Probably a good idea. I had never read the complete NASI report before. It's a little wackier...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th April 2011, 06:26 AM	#6326
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by The Shrike The PNW of North America is colder than equatorial Africa, bigfoots need hairier boobs that gorillas. Better comparison: How much hair on the teats of a momma moose? Yes, because native Americans and Eskimos have adapted to hairy boobs.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

13th April 2011, 06:34 AM	#6327
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,752	Originally Posted by Drewbot Yes, because native Americans and Eskimos have adapted to hairy boobs. Well to be fair Eskimo have adapted by using tool (thick clothing) you don't see them running nacked in the snow (well maybe in Eskimo porn). Same for native American Indian.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

12th April 2011, 10:28 PM	#6324
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Patterson had too much hair on his gorilla suit boobs. You'll recognize this gal from the third row on the left in the youtube clip demon posted. I copped a feel off her in the coat room. No implants.

13th April 2011, 06:20 AM	#6325
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,808	Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot Patterson had too much hair on his gorilla suit boobs. The PNW of North America is colder than equatorial Africa, bigfoots need hairier boobs that gorillas. Better comparison: How much hair on the teats of a momma moose?

13th April 2011, 06:38 AM	#6328
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Remember the 'Stomp Test' Bob Gimlin talks about on the 1997 Green interview? Well John Green is now claiming he did a stomp test. Originally Posted by The Article below Just a few weeks after visiting Bluff Creek, Green went to see more tracks near a creek in hard sand that were very clear. He said that to test if those tracks could have been faked he tried jumping off a log. He found he had to land on one heel in order to get a small point of his boot in as deep as the tracks he found. Read more: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Seeki...#ixzz1JPXVK6bu Who is telling the truth? Both?
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

13th April 2011, 07:04 AM	#6329
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	Neither.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,591	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

13th April 2011, 07:31 AM	#6330
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,808	Here's a stomp test I'd like to see: Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints. Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints. Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression. Now, in oversized shoes, add weight to subject in increasing increments to determine how much heavier one would have to be to leave a print as deep as the one made by the shoes that fit. Prediction: it would take a surprisingly large amount of weight to achieve the print depth of the well-fitting shoes. Interpretation: something with big, flat feet that leaves impressions even deeper than those of average-sized guys (say 200 lbs) in their well-fitting boots must be really heavy, like 1000 lbs. More parsimonious than a 6-7' tall biped weighing 1000 lbs? The prints are faked.

13th April 2011, 10:46 AM	#6331
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by Drewbot Remember the 'Stomp Test' Bob Gimlin talks about on the 1997 Green interview? Well John Green is now claiming he did a stomp test. Read more: http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/Seeki...#ixzz1JPXVK6bu Who is telling the truth? Both? As if the only way to fake a deep print is with a lot of weight...or by jumping... Did Green try carrying 500 pounds, too?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th April 2011, 10:55 AM	#6332
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Quote: He found he had to land on one heel in order to get a small point of his boot in as deep as the tracks he found. Yes, this means the tracks are fake.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th April 2011, 11:00 AM	#6333
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html These tracks are supposedly from a very heavy biped. So heavy that John Green and Bob Gimlin can't duplicate the track depth even if they jump off a high stump. We have tracks in soft mud that aren't even very deep... We are supposed to believe that Meldrum could not jump off a high stump and get impressions as deep...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th April 2011, 11:11 AM	#6334
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Moved to another thread.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 13th April 2011 at 11:19 AM.

13th April 2011, 11:29 AM	#6335
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,651	Originally Posted by The Shrike Here's a stomp test I'd like to see: Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints. Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints. Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression. Now, in oversized shoes, add weight to subject in increasing increments to determine how much heavier one would have to be to leave a print as deep as the one made by the shoes that fit. Prediction: it would take a surprisingly large amount of weight to achieve the print depth of the well-fitting shoes. Interpretation: something with big, flat feet that leaves impressions even deeper than those of average-sized guys (say 200 lbs) in their well-fitting boots must be really heavy, like 1000 lbs. More parsimonious than a 6-7' tall biped weighing 1000 lbs? The prints are faked. I've always felt like the footprint evidence was the best physical evidence of a hoax in this case. I've heard things like "rolling the feet" while walking, and all sorts of other excuses to explain the depth+size of the tracks. I'm also still surprised that people try to balk at using those impressions/casts as a ruler for subject size. (for example Munns)
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,651

13th April 2011, 11:32 AM	#6336
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,175	Remember that Patty 3D model? One could calculate its volume for the most accepted height figures; piece of cake with a 3d modelling software. Then with the estimated weight, see the critter's density. Next step- compare with the density of real animals.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

13th April 2011, 11:50 AM	#6337
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by The Shrike Walk across soft substrate in normal fitting shoes. Measure depth of prints. Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints. Prediction: the oversized shoes will leave a shallower impression. Why go with shoes that are that big? My bare foot is 10.5" long. Patty's foot is 14.5" long.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

13th April 2011, 12:22 PM	#6338
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	I've never shot a cow moose so I don't know what the tits look like. (Although I did sodomize one once and was too busy to notice.) With respect to track depth - everything depends on the water content of the soil medium. When the soil is thoroughly saturated the tracks are deep. When the soil is dry it can be as hard as stone and no impression is left at all. If the soil has a lot of organics in it, you can sink up to your armpits in thoroughly saturated soil. If there are no organics then you won't sink very far. So the whole idea about jumping or walking next to the tracks that were made at a different time is stupid to begin with because the moisture content can be completely different. It is also quite true that the moisture and orgnic content of the soil can be completely different a mere foot away from the tracks in question.

13th April 2011, 12:33 PM	#6339
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,752	Quote: Although I did sodomize one once and was too busy to notice Mh. Too much info ?
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

13th April 2011, 12:39 PM	#6340
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	It still remains: Deep prints = Real Bigfoot = Nonsense .... Ignorance of how it was accomplished doth not good evidence make...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

13th April 2011, 01:12 PM	#6341
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	From 1966... "Patterson figures the depth of the impressions made by his find near Mt. Shasta would indicate a huge creature which could weigh in the 1000 to 1500 pound range. Patterson and his companion Prentice Beck, followed the tracks for about four miles but lost then in a rocky brushy area." Sounds like the Patty tracking story. "A conversation with a retired miner in that area proved one of the most interesting Patterson has gathered over the years in his search. The miner claimed he and other members of a mining crew came into contact with such a creature at their mining camp in 1924. "Four or more of these huge creatures stood high on the rocks above our campsite and threw big boulders down at us," the old miner said. "For some time we hid and protected ourselves from the falling boulders and finally had to run for our lives."" That's the Fred Beck Ape Canyon story. But this time there is a campsite, not a cabin.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

13th April 2011, 01:17 PM	#6342
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by William Parcher From 1966... "Patterson figures the depth of the impressions made by his find near Mt. Shasta would indicate a huge creature which could weigh in the 1000 to 1500 pound range. Patterson and his companion Prentice Beck, followed the tracks for about four miles but lost then in a rocky brushy area." Sounds like the Patty tracking story. "A conversation with a retired miner in that area proved one of the most interesting Patterson has gathered over the years in his search. The miner claimed he and other members of a mining crew came into contact with such a creature at their mining camp in 1924. "Four or more of these huge creatures stood high on the rocks above our campsite and threw big boulders down at us," the old miner said. "For some time we hid and protected ourselves from the falling boulders and finally had to run for our lives."" That's the Fred Beck Ape Canyon story. But this time there is a campsite, not a cabin. Amazing...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th April 2011, 01:19 PM	#6343
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Folks were polled on the PGF over at The Bigfoot Show. 71% said it is real or probably real. 7% said it is fake or probably fake.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

13th April 2011, 03:25 PM	#6344
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Originally Posted by River I've always felt like the footprint evidence was the best physical evidence of a hoax in this case. I've heard things like "rolling the feet" while walking, and all sorts of other excuses to explain the depth+size of the tracks. I'm also still surprised that people try to balk at using those impressions/casts as a ruler for subject size. (for example Munns) Munns avoids it like the plague tho its the obvious way to calculate the height, if u believe that the prints are real. Munns sole purpose in all this has been to prove that Bob H is too short. Now he is realizing he can't do that. So now he's moving to "you cant prove it's a hoax."
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

13th April 2011, 04:34 PM	#6345
Leroy Blevins Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Kentucky Posts: 368	You know when I was talking about the PG film had sound. Well I contact MK Davis and he send me a photo of the strip of film that shows the beginning of the Bigfoot walk and the 16mm film had sound to it. The photo shows the sound mark on the side and this is a real photo of the film strip. The PG film did have sound to it and I have a photo of the 16mm film that shows the sound mark on it. Now this brings up two questions. Why did they never play the sound when they shown the film? And What camera did Roger Patterson used? As you know the K-100 camera did not have a mic to it for them to get sound. But, the piece of film shows it had sound to it.

13th April 2011, 04:44 PM	#6346
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins You know when I was talking about the PG film had sound. Well I contact MK Davis and he send me a photo of the strip of film that shows the beginning of the Bigfoot walk and the 16mm film had sound to it. The photo shows the sound mark on the side and this is a real photo of the film strip. The PG film did have sound to it and I have a photo of the 16mm film that shows the sound mark on it. Now this brings up two questions. Why did they never play the sound when they shown the film? And What camera did Roger Patterson used? As you know the K-100 camera did not have a mic to it for them to get sound. But, the piece of film shows it had sound to it. No. This is not even wrong.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th April 2011, 06:35 AM	#6347
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,808	Originally Posted by William Parcher Why go with shoes that are that big? My bare foot is 10.5" long. Patty's foot is 14.5" long. According to a shoe size chart, one should go even bigger. foot length U.S. men's shoe size 10" 8 11" 11 12" 14 The chart I found stopped at a size 15 (12.3" foot), but if the scaling pattern is the same such that each 1" increase in length gives you 3 whole sizes larger, then at a minimum we get the following: 13" 17 14" 20 Shaq wears a size 23. Check out Nate Robinson's compliant gait while wearing them.

14th April 2011, 07:07 AM	#6348
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	I understand that Shrike, but I still think your original statement is wrong and confusing. Originally Posted by The Shrike Walk across substrate in shoes 2–3 X bigger than your size. Measure depth of prints. My shoe size is a US male size 10.5. My bare foot length happens to be 10.5". My size 10.5 Nikes have a total length of 12". So my shoes are 1.5" longer than my bare foot. If I wanted to simulate Patty's feet, I would look for shoes that measure 14.5" long. That shoe would be for a man whose bare foot measures about 13" long. According to your calculations, I would be looking to buy shoes of a size 17. A size 17 shoe is going to be about 14.5" long. So, I need to go from size 10.5 to size 17 to replicate Patty. That isn't 2-3X bigger.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

14th April 2011, 08:17 AM	#6349
Leroy Blevins Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Kentucky Posts: 368	I am 6'2" and my shoe size is 12. I am size 12 without my shoes on and with my shoe on my feet size is 13 1/2. The shoes I made for my Bigfoot suit are 14 1/2 and with them on they are only 2" bigger then my feet but wider. And my height is 6'2" and with the suit on my height is 6'7".

14th April 2011, 08:53 AM	#6350
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,808	Originally Posted by William Parcher I understand that Shrike, but I still think your original statement is wrong and confusing. . . . So, I need to go from size 10.5 to size 17 to replicate Patty. That isn't 2-3X bigger. Oh, I see now. Sorry about that. I was using "X" as shorthand for "sizes larger than your own shoesize" not "two to three times larger" which would, of course, be ridiculously large.

14th April 2011, 09:01 AM	#6351
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 861	With regards to footprint depth, no one seems to want to discuss the possibility of making tracks in soft, wet soil and then letting it dry for several days to get hard before doing a track depth comparison. I don't know that that's the case. But nobody ever says, "It just shows that ground may have been much softer when these tracks were made."
Hitch Muse Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 861

14th April 2011, 11:26 AM	#6353
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Pareidolia!
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 14th April 2011 at 11:27 AM.

14th April 2011, 12:54 PM	#6354
AlaskaBushPilot Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,609	Originally Posted by Hitch With regards to footprint depth, no one seems to want to discuss the possibility of making tracks in soft, wet soil and then letting it dry for several days to get hard before doing a track depth comparison. I don't know that that's the case. But nobody ever says, "It just shows that ground may have been much softer when these tracks were made." I have. A few times. But there is a conspiracy against me being managed out of the Ark on Mount Ararat. The soil composition matters in addition to moisture content. The mechanical energy of the water varies tremendously from one place to another in a stream, so the deposits of matter are not uniformly distributed. Even with very small distances you have big differences in the organic content of the soil being deposited. So yes, the tracks might be made in wet conditions and later they dry. But in addition to that you can move a mere foot away from where the soil makes shallow tracks and get into some high-organic content soil that leaves deep tracks.

14th April 2011, 07:16 PM	#6355
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	You might even have studied the soil in the area ahead of time. You might even agitate the soil to loosen it, make your track(s), then wet it, then let it dry. You might even remain mostly on the original hard soil yourself, so you leave none of your own tracks. You might even experiment with different ways of accomplishing a good looking deep trackway. But a hoaxer would never think of these things. Only skeptics do.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? Last edited by LTC8K6; 14th April 2011 at 08:50 PM.

14th April 2011, 08:21 PM	#6356
UGottaB New Blood Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Pareidolia! If you saw something in the picture you just disproved your statement. If you didn't see something then you just disproved your statement. You can't deny the reality that the film contains pornographic materials. No I'm not taking about someone taking off a monkey costume. LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UGottaB New Blood Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20