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:
External Quote:
the author states:
External Quote:
"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:
External Quote:
"... 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."
https://www.science.org/content/art...piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes
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:
External Quote:
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),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_lowland_gorilla
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.