As others have said: once one is used to their anatomy, it isn't difficult to be effortless, even graceful.
Also, as I'm sure many people with female pelvises can tell you: wider hips don't necessarily mean wider step. It isn't difficult to do, at all. That's how supermodels walk the runway, and they do it in heels. I'm not an apelike cryptid, nor do I have notably wide hips, but I often walk with my feet at center line. It's a style choice.
The difference between when I do it and when Patty the Bigfoot does it is that my hips sway when I walk with my feet centered. That's the whole reason why some women do it: it looks 'sexy'. Mechanically, the act of getting my feet at center while walking causes my hips to tilt and sway as the weight is shifted from leg to leg. Patty's do not. If they did, she'd be walking like a sexy cartoon character. Patty walks like a linebacker, not Jessica Rabbit.
I actually find this fact to be proof that there is a man (with narrower hips) in a suit with built-out hips: he walks normally, with his feet at characteristic distance apart, and they appear close together because he's got an ape suit on that adds the appearance of a bigger hips and butt. If the bigfoot was real, there is no way that it would be naturally walking with its feet at center without a very distinct hip sway.
First of all a little housekeeping, as I have stated before and on other threads, it is really helpful to use the tools offered on the forum to help others follow along better. It took me awhile to learn them, as I'm not a computer or software guy. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions on how to use the tools. Just click on my name and there should be an option to send a PM. That goes for anybody else reading this, I know I struggled at first.
When using the tools, such as the EX tags, your post (#465) should look something like this:
the author states:
"Dawson was able to fool the experts of the day by employing the same trick used by successful con artists since time immemorial: He showed them what they wanted to see."
so does the PG case follow the same 'trick' ? Hardly, in fact the opposite. Patterson's film was ignored if not outright derided by the scientific community. They did not want to "see" this. And he acknowledged that the film was certainly not proof. Its interesting that he even attempted to sway them - if his goal was to simply make money, why take on the experts in the field? Just go directly to the public.
as to accomplices (Gimlin in the case of PG) the article states:
"... says the study adds scientific certainty to his and others' conclusions that Dawson alone committed the hoax. "Having an accomplice in this … would have been extremely dangerous, opening the forger up to potential blackmail, or worse, exposure and ridicule,
"The new report confirms the likelihood that the forger, who we can now no longer doubt was Dawson, acted alone."
The quotes that are from an external source, like science.org, are clearly offset so we all know it's from an actual source. It also separates the quoted source from the arguments your making based on it. The offset quote boxes are then followed by the source. In addition, you would indicate if the bold was by the original author or added by you to call our attention to a particular line. This keeps things clean and easy to follow.
Now then.
Correct. Not a heavy animal, an impossibly heavy animal. As Mendel pointed out above, the density and therefore likely weight of any living animal is very similar. Packum came up with 600-800# by comparing the actual cast to Gimlin's claim of it being much deeper than the adjacent horse prints. As the bigfoot track is deeper than the horse prints, it has to weigh more than the horse.
What Packum seems to have missed, as did Patterson, is that the much larger bigfoot foot displaces the weight over a larger area compared to the smaller horse hoof. If bigfoot weighs the same as the horse, the footprint would be shallower due to the larger area of displacement afforded by the size of the foot.
The fact that it is deeper than the smaller hoof print means it weighs far more than the horse and 600-800# is far to lite. That means that the NASI report you mentioned is more in line:
However, 1900# is completely nonsensical as you seem to admit. You go on to claim that Andre the Giant:
Assuming we doubled Andre's weight and he was morbidly obese, he's still nearly 900# less.
If we compare bigfoot to the largest known primate, the lowland gorilla:
Eastern lowland gorillas are the largest subspecies of gorilla and the largest living primates.[8] Males weigh between 150 and 209 kilograms (331 and 461 lb) .... Males stand between 1.69 to 1.96 metres (5 ft 7 in to 6 ft 5 in),
We get 6'5", very close to most estimates of the creature in the film, and 461#. No where near the 800# or more needed to create footprints deeper than the hoof prints. It just doesn't add up.
Yes. It's hardly a complicated task.
Patterson would take out his stomper, likely carved from wood, and place it on the sandy gravel to create the footprint.
Then move the stomper aside and using a small shovel or trowel or likely just his hands, scooped out a bit of the sandy gravel where he had made the print until he had a slight depression.
Once there is a depression shaped like the stomper, he would place the stomper in the bottom and probably stand on it to make the print in the bottom of the depression.
Repeat.
This would seriously take no more than a few minutes per track. Maybe less if he had practiced it. There was something like 10 or so prints? It could have easily been done in 30 minutes or so. I don't know why this sounds so difficult. These are not tracks in lava cap, it's sandy gravel. Conveniently.
Yes. In his mind, bigfoot is a big heavy animal, so it's prints are deeper than the horse. He failed to take into account the "snowshoe" effect caused by the large foot. As did Packum.
so are you saying that in this attachment, the horse (which might weigh 900-1400) is exerting a downward force in the white-dotted area (not drawn in by me, but convenient nonetheless) equivalent to the entire weight of the horse, in the footprint it creates? That doesn't seem right to me. How do the hindquarters (which is a considerable portion of the horse) have any effect on the footprint being made 5' forward? If I had the choice of being stepped on (my chest) by this horse (and remain there) or having Andre the Giant (at a much lighter weight of 500 pounds) step on my chest with both feet and remain there, I'd opt for the former. Am I wrong in my choice?
As for the trackway being hand-dug by Patterson, lets not forget it extended 300', the length of a football field. I've never heard it stated that the trackway consisted of "10 steps" (visible, very deep footprints) and then disappeared the remaining distance. You would think that would have been noted, if the soil was relatively consistent throughout. How could there be this prominent trackway and then no trackway, with the same soil and same 'animal' walking the entire distance? That would have caught my attention, and immediate suspicion of hoax. Everybody who visited the site in the following days missed that I guess.
so are you saying that in this attachment, the horse (which might weigh 900-1400) is exerting a downward force in the white-dotted area (not drawn in by me, but convenient nonetheless) equivalent to the entire weight of the horse, in the footprint it creates? That doesn't seem right to me. How do the hindquarters (which is a considerable portion of the horse) have any effect on the footprint being made 5' forward?
No. This was discussed already. Depending on if the horse print in question was from the horse standing or walking, one front hoof would be supporting between ~360# and ~720#:
Chico is 1,200 # on four feet, that makes 300# per foot right? Not exactly:
The forelimb is complex in the horse, with the head and neck being a crane-like structure that causes 60% of a horse’s body weight distribution to the forelimbs. Therefore, impact is greatest on the front legs (except when pushing off from behind). Content from External Source https://thehorse.com/123412/comparing-humans-and-horses/
So more like 720# for the front feet and 480# for the rear, plus 150# or so for Gimlin spread out. Now if Chico walked over to the tracks, at some point he's putting 1/2 his, and Gimlin's weight onto 1 of his front and 1 of his rear feet, the other 2 are moving. So, 720#+ and 480# + on front and rear foot respectively, correct? Or something close?
If I had the choice of being stepped on (my chest) by this horse (and remain there) or having Andre the Giant (at a much lighter weight of 500 pounds) step on my chest with both feet and remain there, I'd opt for the former. Am I wrong in my choice?
I would think your choice is wrong. You would have four relatively small hooves placing 1400# on your chest as opposed to 500#. Even if the total area of Andre's two feet are equal to the four hooves, it's less than 1/2 the weight.
Even if you saying just one of the hooves was standing on your chest, you would have between 360# and 240# depending on which foot it was. It would be concentrated on the small area of the hoof. Compared to Andre's two feet spreading out 500#, neither one sounds very fun.
As for the trackway being hand-dug by Patterson, lets not forget it extended 300', the length of a football field. I've never heard it stated that the trackway consisted of "10 steps" (visible, very deep footprints) and then disappeared the remaining distance.
I can't find anything that says how long the trackway went for. That is, not how far the creature appeared to walk in the film, but how long the actual tracks go for. But say it's 300', they need only dig out a few as they only cast two:
They went to their campsite three miles (4.8 km) south, picked up plaster, returned to the initial site, measured the creature's step-length, and made two plaster casts, one each of the best-quality right and left prints.
There are supposedly pictures taken the following Monday, but I can't find anything indicating haw far they went or how deep they were:
After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks.
Titmus was supposed to have made 10 casts, but this was 9 days later and we know it rained the day after the encounter, so I'm not sure what he was casting:
Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his sister and brother-in-law nine days later.[77] Titmus made plaster casts of ten successive prints[78] of the creature and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.[79]
Finally, the idea of digging the prints a bit deeper is just a suggestion. They may not have dug them at all, but just used some stompers to make prints in the loose sandy gravel. Maybe they wiggled the stomper a bit to dig it in. The idea that they were made by a very heavy creature is only relevant in comparison to the hoof prints.
As far as I can tell nobody made any casts of the hoof prints to compare to. The idea that the bigfoot prints are deeper than the hoof prints and therefore created by a very heavy creature is solely dependent on Patterson and Gimlin's claim. If they in fact weren't any deeper than the hoof prints, it's all meaningless.
Even if you saying just one of the hooves was standing on your chest, you would have between 360# and 240# depending on which foot it was. It would be concentrated on the small area of the hoof. Compared to Andre's two feet spreading out 500#, neither one sounds very fun.
let's say 400 lbs, carefully applied, crack a rib, then you're safe in both scenarios. Since your ribs then distribute the pressure, it comes down to weight, and half a horse-and-rider weighs more than a whole man.
at around the 5:10 point he begins to discuss how a person tried to follow Patty well after the film site. How could this be done without tracks to be following? He says "... crossed the creek", which again implies there was visible evidence to conclude that. So your theory would necessitate Roger creating more prints well past the film site.
he replied to my question about the print consistency.
Yes consistent for the most part. The tracks were she was moving did seem slightly deeper than the ones close to the water were she wasn't walking. Also the ones closer to the water were in that greyish tinge soil so common along Northern California's creeks and rivers, were further up it was more normal sand. The track way left behind was seen by many onlookers after the event,
so a very abbreviated dug-out / stompered-out trackway of 10 prints doesnt seem to be supported by other facts. Your conclusion would also necessitate the trackway basically stop after the faked prints, since 200 lb. Bob H. could not possibly make comparable tracks to the horse (which were less prominent than the Bigfoot prints themselves)
I'm not convinced that weight is the primary factor for footprint depth. I think there are a myriad of other aspects that create deeper imprints. For instance, I went to the beach a few times this week and noticed a few things.
For reference, I have tiny, delicate lady feet and am a ""healthy"" weight, meaning I'm not particularly skinny or fat. My boyfriend went with me. He weighs more than I do and has big manly feet. We shared the beach with a large assortment of people and dogs doing a variety of activities, both barefoot and shoed.
I was expecting that I would make shallow imprints in the sand compared to my boyfriend, because he weighs more. However, mine were actually deeper. When I walk slowly in the wet sand, my heel goes in first. I generally walk heel-toe, so this makes sense as all my weight transfers directly to a small point. The wider ball of my foot goes in shallowly as the weight rolls onto it. My boyfriend's larger feet spread his weight differently, so he made shallow prints. He also walks diferently than I do, with a less pronounced heel-toe movement. People who were jogging made deeper impressions than walkers. Additionally, wetter sand created deeper impressions than sand that had dried slightly.
My point here is that there are a lot of different factors at play here and we can't use the horse as a reliable comparison to a humanoid footprint. Horses are different than humans in just about every way when it comes to footprint mechanics, from walking style to the shape of the foot/hoof to the number of limbs. We don't know if the Bigfoot print was in the same kind of soil as the horse print. If the Bigfoot print was in a loamy soil patch and the horse print was in a clay patch, there's going to be big differences unrelated to weight.
Does footprint depth correlate with foot motion and pressure?
K. T. Bates, R. Savage, [...], and R. H. Crompton
[...] For example, how strongly does pressure correlate with depth and does it vary across the foot/footprint as substrate properties vary? Is footprint relief more indicative of maximal or time-integrated pressure? These questions remain pertinent and largely unanswered despite over 150 years of research [9,10], during which time experiments into the processes of footprint formation have failed to elucidate the complex relationships between sediment rheology and foot morphology, motion and pressures beyond the simplest level of inference (e.g. higher pressure equals deeper footprints; ‘softer’ sediment equals deeper footprints).
[...]
objective topological comparisons between pressure and depth at the foot–sediment interface suggest that footprint depth is a poor predictor of pressure across a wide range of substrate strengths and loading regimes
The secret is to include "forensic" in the web search.
I wouldn't call it facts. Technically, it's 2nd hand hearsay. It's Mr. Steenburg recalling what he knew about Bob Titmus. If he heard it from Titmus than its 2nd hand to us. If he read about it or heard about it from someone else, it's beyond 2nd hand. But I'll take him at his word that Timus at least thought he was following some tracks further up into an area where he thought the creature sat and watched Patterson and Gimlin:
Of course, this doesn't work with P & G "tracking" the creature for ~3 miles further on as they claimed, or everybody was just confused as to what they were looking at.
Patterson's film of the tracks is long gone. Laverty the Forest service guy took some photos of the tracks on the following Monday. According to Gimlin it rained hard enough Friday night/Saturday morning to make Bluff Creek rise considerably and wash out the road home. He supposedly cover the tracks with bark to prevent them from washing away (and no I'm not reposting the content for these things, they've been posted repeatedly). Each print in the entire 300+' track was covered in bark?
Titmus went to the site and made his casts 9 days after the event (also posted multiple times). After the sighting it rained 7 of the 9 days in the general area prior to his arrival:
So, I'm not sure what he was casting or how much of the track was left for him to follow. The rest of the people like McClairan came after him. They can't be seeing much more than depressions in the ground.
And to reiterate, I was suggesting that Patterson could have made the tracks that he cast a little deeper artificially and that only matters if the horse hoof prints are deeper. The only evidence of that seems to be Patterson and Gimlin's claims. If their claim is wrong, the depth of the prints doesn't matter.
Mr. Steenburg then goes on to describe that Bigfoots have a "midtarsal break" in their big feet:
Fortunately for me my son and his wife were visiting for the weekend. They will both graduate this May with PhDs in Bio Archology. They literally teach sections on bipedal hominid foot evolution. While they looked at a number of studies to humor me, the pointed me to this abstract (bold by me):
The midtarsal break was first described in this journal nearly 75 years ago to explain the ability of non-human primates to lift their heel independently of the rest of the foot
. Since the initial description of the midtarsal break, the calcaneocuboid joint has been assumed to be the anatomical source of this motion. Recently, however, it has been suggested that the midtarsal break may occur at the cuboid-metatarsal joint, rather than at the calcaneocuboid joint. Data compiled from X-rays, dissections, manual manipulation of living primate feet, video of captive catarrhines, and osteological specimens concur that the midtarsal break is a complex motion caused by dorsiflexion at both joints with the cuboid-metatarsal joint contributing roughly 2/3 of total midfoot dorsiflexion, and the calcaneocuboid joint only about 1/3 of total midfoot dorsiflexion. The convexity of the proximal articular surface of the fourth and fifth metatarsals and corresponding concave cuboid facets provide skeletal correlates for the presence of midfoot dorsiflexion at the cuboid-metatarsal joint. Study of hominin metatarsals from Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo erectus, and the metatarsals and a cuboid from the OH 8 foot show little capacity for dorsiflexion at the cuboid-metatarsal joint.These results suggest that hominins may have already evolved a stable midfoot region well adapted for the push-off phase of bipedalism by at least 3.2 million years ago. These data illuminate the evolution of the longitudinal arch and show further evidence of constraints on the arboreal capacity in early hominins.
In a nutshell, if Bigfoot is an evolutionary offshoot of bipedal hominids, they would have lost most of their midtarsal break millions of years ago.
But this is all moot. Despite what you and Mr. Steenburg discussed in the comments to his video, you don't believe in a real physical Bigfoot any more than I do.
So, after nearly 500 posts and 12 pages, according to you we're left with 3 options:
A clever and resourceful huckster created a pretty good hoax with a couple of buddies.
There is, or was, a population of relic bipedal hominids roaming North America for which there is zero physical evidence.
Whoever is programming the simulation we all live in decided to "introduce" a bigfoot like creature into the simulation at exactly the point in time and space Patterson needed it to happen.
Given the choices, I'm going with #1 and I'm open to being wrong about #2 if and when more evidence is provided. Option #3 is discussed here:
(The Pattetson-Gimlin film) has been analysed many times since, but new artificial intelligence has been used to present a clearer image than ever before.
The clip has been stabilised and de-grained, and the results are clearer than ever.
Not sure this will change anyone's mind either way, but the embedded, new and improved clip is the clearest I've ever seen from/of the original film.
(The Pattetson-Gimlin film) has been analysed many times since, but new artificial intelligence has been used to present a clearer image than ever before.
The clip has been stabilised and de-grained, and the results are clearer than ever.
Not sure this will change anyone's mind either way, but the embedded, new and improved clip is the clearest I've ever seen from/of the original film.
We have seen what AI can do in terms of, say, writing a paragraph of text, which makes me a bit leery to accept it at face value. My first thought is "can we trust this to be a clarification rather than an invention?" [My second, after viewing it, is "is this the Patterson-Gimlin film? It doesn't look like it". Edit to add: scratch this bit. The link first showed me one walking the other direction, headed "NEW bigfoot film" without any explanation.] My final thought is "this looks even more human than the other", although not knowing how they did it, was it using human appearance and behavior as any sort of template with which to compare the figure in the film?
I like how the newly enhanced version allows viewers to see the costume bagging up around the knees but that won;t convert true believers - they'll say its inter-dimensional rippling.
I like how the newly enhanced version allows viewers to see the costume bagging up around the knees but that won;t convert true believers - they'll say its inter-dimensional rippling.
To be fair, ifn I was a believer in the PG film, I'd legitimately be skeptical of an AI "enhancement." Not being informed enough on AI to know what was actually done, it just SOUNDS sketchy. AI can create some pretty wild stuff... knee bagginess would be a piece of cake.
The AI is semi-randomly (in that if you do it multiple times you'll get different results) predicting the pixels of a hypothetical higher resolution version based on the pixels of the existing version (as well as it's other training data on what images should look like, any added prompts if it's that kind of AI, etc). This method can produce aesthetically better results than simpler upscaling like an HDTV can do with an SD signal, with crisper edges and clearer shapes.
The thing to note is that the AI is generating new data to fill the gaps. You cant "zoom and enhance" data that wasn't already there.
Here's a video as an example, this is a short clip from a fan made AI upscale of Star Trek Deep Space Nine:
When this scene was produced, hull markings for name and registration number on many of the Starfleet ships, but because DS9 was mastered in low resolution digital, it was never visible. The AI upscale gets the Defiant's markings right because the show made a point to prominently focus on them, even if briefly. But go to 13 seconds, when two Galaxy-class ships fly directly past the camera. The first one's hull markings are visible, but instead of the ship's name it's a mess of nonsense characters. It even turned some of the unlit windows into the same nonsense because they followed the same arc. The information wasn't there to find, so the AI made it up, and the AI doesn't know what a nerd knows about Starfleet ship design so the data it made up is junk.
Now, a more stark example:
Rather than making up pixels between pixels to make a higher resolution image, this AI makes up pixels at the edge to extend a picture.
There's a lot going on with that cat, but let's focus on the birds. The AI didn't "discover" what the birds were standing on, it took a guess, because a little green twig seems like something birds would stand in. But asked again and it guessed a rock. And then a thicker brown stick. They all make sense and they're not bad as AI generated pictures go. But they are all wrong, because the birds are standing on a fence:
It's more immediately obvious that this AI is making things up, and it's more obvious why. But the process is the same, and in fact this AI can also upscale if you want it to. But both ways it's doing the same thing - generating false pixels next to real ones based on patterns of pixels it's seen before.
It's more immediately obvious that this AI is making things up, and it's more obvious why. But the process is the same, and in fact this AI can also upscale if you want it to. But both ways it's doing the same thing - generating false pixels next to real ones based on patterns of pixels it's seen before.
