oldrover Posted August 29, 2016 #26 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Before we need to speculate about the hoaxers motivations, I think we should first establish that these footprints are being found in remote areas. And if they are, who's finding them? And whether the people finding them are legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted August 29, 2016 #27 Share Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) Yes, these footprints are being found in remote places. All of them were put there in advance so that random people hunting or hiking cross country could find them? All of the redneck hunters who risk their standing in their communities are participating in a hoax, with nothing to gain but ridicule and ostracization? I don't think that's the case. Hmm...nobody spoke to my size estimate based on my son's feet. Let me repeat it then. Son is 6'1", and has feet 13" long and 4" wide at their widest. A BF print measuring 16-18" with a 6-8" width would be expected to be between 7 & 8' tall. And, that's what most people report in eyewitness sightings of the creature. Coincidentally. If they were out for sensation, why not claim the creature was 20' tall and make "fake footprint stamps" 24-36" long and a foot wide? But we find instead a consistent pattern of "hoaxsters" from 100s of years ago to present day all falling within a range instead of the first set of measurements and estimates I gave here. It's just odd how consistent these sensational hoaxsters are in their estimates of height and footprint size. Edited August 29, 2016 by SSilhouette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted August 29, 2016 #28 Share Posted August 29, 2016 6 minutes ago, SSilhouette said: Yes, these footprints are being found in remote places. All of them were put there in advance so that random people hunting or hiking cross country could find them? All of the redneck hunters who risk their standing in their communities are participating in a hoax, with nothing to gain but ridicule and ostracization? I don't think that's the case. Hmm...nobody spoke to my size estimate based on my son's feet. Let me repeat it then. Son is 6'1", and has feet 13" long and 4" wide at their widest. A BF print measuring 16-18" with a 6-8" width would be expected to be between 7 & 8' tall. And, that's what most people report in eyewitness sightings of the creature. Coincidentally. If they were out for sensation, why not claim the creature was 20' tall and make "fake footprint stamps" 24-36" long and a foot wide? But we find instead a consistent pattern of "hoaxsters" from 100s of years ago to present day all falling within a range instead of the first set of measurements and estimates I gave here. Well, I'm not saying I don't believe you about the footprints. I'm saying that I'd like to get some examples. I'd like to know who found them and where. As to your height calculation I don't think it's that accurate. I'm about an inch and a half taller than your son, and my foot is only ten inches long and about 31/2" wide. So having bigger feet doesn't necessarily make you taller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted August 29, 2016 #29 Share Posted August 29, 2016 1 minute ago, oldrover said: Well, I'm not saying I don't believe you about the footprints. I'm saying that I'd like to get some examples. I'd like to know who found them and where. As to your height calculation I don't think it's that accurate. I'm about an inch and a half taller than your son, and my foot is only ten inches long and about 31/2" wide. So having bigger feet doesn't necessarily make you taller. I think you have the logic backwards there. If you have small feet (relatively) and you are 6'3", then if we found a 16-18" print, we'd have to say the beast would be 9-10' tall. Not trying to be smug or funny here, but with feet that small for your height, do you trip sometimes more easily? The simple physics of biology and survival in the wild would dictate that the taller and more bulky the body, the longer and wider the feet would need to be, within reason, keeping with agility and not being clumsy big-foot, in order to keep the beast from falling over: particularly if it is a biped. We are just more unstable than any quadruped for sure. Tripping and falling as a wild creature is a danger and a risk. So evolution would side with BF being taller because the feet are larger. Much larger than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted August 29, 2016 #30 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I'm not sure I've got the logic backwards. As there's no formula for calculating height being offered, it seems to be a simple supposition of the bigger the feet the taller their owner. And in the tiny sample (of two) that we're discussing, that doesn't seem to be the case. And, I manage fine. Size ten is more than enough to balance on. Except Fridays after about eleven. I agree though, that if bigfoot was the sort of size it's been reported at, then yes they'd probably also have huge feet. But that's speculating about an animal which I've got some problems with based on its size and supposed bipedalism. I don't think an animal that size would make a very good biped. Returning to the tracks though, I've heard several times about the remote tracks, but I've never heard of an actual example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted August 30, 2016 #31 Share Posted August 30, 2016 3 hours ago, SSilhouette said: I think you have the logic backwards there. If you have small feet (relatively) and you are 6'3", then if we found a 16-18" print, we'd have to say the beast would be 9-10' tall. Not trying to be smug or funny here, but with feet that small for your height, do you trip sometimes more easily? The simple physics of biology and survival in the wild would dictate that the taller and more bulky the body, the longer and wider the feet would need to be, within reason, keeping with agility and not being clumsy big-foot, in order to keep the beast from falling over: particularly if it is a biped. We are just more unstable than any quadruped for sure. Tripping and falling as a wild creature is a danger and a risk. So evolution would side with BF being taller because the feet are larger. Much larger than ours. So you've developed a formula regarding a creature you have no empirical evidence exists based on your son's foot-size to height ratio? Can you judge the height and weight of a lion based on and antelope print? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSilhouette Posted August 30, 2016 #32 Share Posted August 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Merc14 said: So you've developed a formula regarding a creature you have no empirical evidence exists based on your son's foot-size to height ratio? Can you judge the height and weight of a lion based on and antelope print? No, based on how scientists already extrapolate size based on just a bone fragment they find here or there. I'm not the only person doing that so it isn't "crazy" or "insane" or whatever you're implying here. I don't even know where you're going with the lion/antelope thing. You know from the footprint castings and eyewitness accounts are more like comparing a deer with a large elk; both animals in the deer family with split cloven hooves. Man and bigfoot "hang ten" style prints are obviously from very close lines of primates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted August 30, 2016 #33 Share Posted August 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, SSilhouette said: No, based on how scientists already extrapolate size based on just a bone fragment they find here or there. I think oldrover has already explained to you how very wrong you are with this statement yet you refuse to admit it. He has identified the basic problem with all of Bigfootery, the total lack of empirical evidence. You can't make these assumptions without anything to base it on. Tell me, is Bigfoot an omnivore, carnivore or herbivore and what is your basis for that determination? After 60+ years you should at least know what the thing eats right? Quote I'm not the only person doing that so it isn't "crazy" or "insane" or whatever you're implying here. I don't even know where you're going with the lion/antelope thing. You know from the footprint castings and eyewitness accounts are more like comparing a deer with a large elk; both animals in the deer family with split cloven hooves. I never said crazy so please don't saddle me with insulting you. I have only ever stated that Bigfootery research is based on nothing more than what you guys tell each other is real and then argue about it long enough that no one remembers some knuckle-head just made it up. Quote Man and bigfoot "hang ten" style prints are obviously from very close lines of primates. Please present the bigfoot prints that haven't been proven hoaxes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted August 30, 2016 #34 Share Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Merc14 said: I think oldrover has already explained to you how very wrong you are with this statement yet you refuse to admit it. He has identified the basic problem with all of Bigfootery, the total lack of empirical evidence. You can't make these assumptions without anything to base it on. Tell me, is Bigfoot an omnivore, carnivore or herbivore and what is your basis for that determination? After 60+ years you should at least know what the thing eats right? I never said crazy so please don't saddle me with insulting you. I have only ever stated that Bigfootery research is based on nothing more than what you guys tell each other is real and then argue about it long enough that no one remembers some knuckle-head just made it up. Please present the bigfoot prints that haven't been proven hoaxes Sometimes I wish I could like a post more than once! Cheers, Badeskov Edited August 30, 2016 by badeskov Typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted August 31, 2016 #35 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On 8/28/2016 at 1:03 PM, SSilhouette said: What is the guy standing on ? We can't see his feet. For all we know he could be 6' tall and standing on a 5 gallon bucket. He is standing in Patty's footprints as far as he could tell, many of which were still visible, as were the remnants that were still there from Patterson's casting of the tracks. Gotta make you wonder hey? The tracks follow a different path to what was filmed...no one ever found tracks leading to the area where Patty was first seen, the timeline given by Patterson is not really possible...when asked for further explanation he refused to divulge. This was filmed some weeks previous to the time claimed, as explained by Bob Heironimus. The tracks were the only thing that were fabricated on that day (something we know Patterson was well practiced in), but the film was already processed, probably edited and ready for viewing. Quote Unfortunate for the debunkers that we can't see his feet. I'm calling a debunking hoax. Green (the "Godfather" of modern bigfootery) and McLaren were hardly debunkers. You think they are hoaxers lol? Wouldn't go that far, no doubt Green promoted plenty of hoaxes though (unknowingly or otherwise). Every bigfoot claim that isn't a misidentification, is a hoax of some sort. The photogrammetrist who size corrected these images was hardly a debunker either, somewhat the opposite. Quote Also, indeed, "who was it who said patty's feet measured 14"? My son's feet measure 14". I'd assume 16-18" which seems to be the average for bigfoot print casts That's really quite delusional to rely entirely on your imagination when the track casts themselves are available for measurement, and have been measured. Quote If 16", then "Patty the female BF" is 6.6" if she was standing up straighter. If 18", she would stand right around 7' standing straighter. As the old saying goes...and if your Aunt had testicles she would be your Uncle. But as she doesn't, she therefore isn't, and nor do the actual tracks Patty's feet left in the sand measure anything like the ones of your imagination. Even allowing for the imaginary 16" tracks, how do you get the measurable height in that image to equal 6'6" lol? Quote That would be in keeping with some BF reports seeing families where the "female" looks shorter. Just like in our species, often is the case. Big male BF average 8'. Smaller female 6-7' tall. Younger ones, 5-6' tall. Also regionally, the "skunk ape" often is reported a mere 6 feet or so, maybe a little taller. That's cherry picking. There are enough reports in the 12'-15' range for bigfoot to reinforce exactly how ridiculous the whole thing is. There is no way around this for bigfooters. If the tracks aren't fake, Patty is quite the short-@rse. If Patty is the size bigfooters like Meldrum would like him to be, the tracks are fake. Hieronimus is around 6'1-2". Which should make Patty around 6"4-5" or so, allowing for the prosthetics of the costume (fake sagittal crest and so on). Although it's almost a certainty that Heironimus wore a costume for Patterson, there's nothing to say he used the footage. There was plenty of hoaxing surrounding people Patterson was trying to get interested re bigfoot in Yakima, before the Patty hoax. He obviously had access to more than one costume and it could well be Patterson himself. Though the tracks are fake (like everything else bigfoot) and it is more likely to be Hieronimus in the costume and probably around the correct height if he stood up straight (Mclaren was 6'5"). The only man to publicly claim to be Patty, who knew the principals, who took two lie detector tests (that can be verified), whose story is the only one that is possible re timeline of the film, who has fronted to both skeptics and believers (unlike Gimlin who refuses to meet with skeptics) and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted August 31, 2016 #36 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) double post. Edited August 31, 2016 by Horta 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted August 31, 2016 #37 Share Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) On 8/29/2016 at 0:05 PM, SSilhouette said: I'm not going to second guess the scientist Dr. Meldrum. I'll take him at face value. He admits there are many cases that appear to be hoaxes but some that are genuine in his opinion. It's his PhD, his area of expertise. That's about as convincing as accepting the claims of creationists with Ph.D's simply because they have some sort of qualification. Anatomy is Meldrum's area of expertise, not tracking, of which he seems less adept than most people in general. When you get a bigfoot foot for him to examine, he will be in his area of expertise. He also seems to be extremely gullible in the way he has accepted obvious hoaxes in the past. Not to mention that of the few scientists with any interest in bigfoot (including a sort of scientist ie. podiatrist), they have thrown some doubt on his claims, even pointing out why he is practicing a belief based pseudo science, which he ignores. Amateurs have shown to be far more adept than Meldrum is, one of them even found Meldrum has no understanding of the provenance of one important (to his claims) casts. It's obvious he has nothing, that is why after all of this time he has so far offered exactly 0 to the scientific community (though he offers plenty of Ph.D backed claims for believers lol). The dermal ridges have been dealt with. Leaving alone the Skookum elk lay, snow walker footage, Standing and "blinky bill"...and so on, but if someone offers the following ridiculous split ball, hourglass track claiming it has the dynamics of a real foot and is from bigfoot, there is no need to listen to any further opinions they have or pretend the have any expertise (especially when the stomper is available). Many bigfooters themselves find it an embarrassment. It might be better to take a holiday at the beach, to learn what real hominid tracks look like. Edited August 31, 2016 by Horta 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 2, 2016 #38 Share Posted September 2, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 1:24 AM, Horta said: I think........lololol. This would be the same feller who found Bob Gimlin hiding in amongst the trees, ballistic strikes on Patty, braided hair on Patty, Patty carrying a stick, Patty falling over and showing hemorrhoids...that feller? The only thing he hasn't found in this footage (so far) is Elvis. The pics were taken years apart from different positions (of both camera and subject) and with different cameras. No way to get any accurate measurements, but below is a more realistic comparison. The subject is further away than Patty (towards the bushes) and the camera position was closer when filming Patty (as foreground log shows). All of which should make Patty appear unrealistically larger in comparison, yet even so, the subject (Jim McClaren) is clearly still quite a bit taller than Patty. There is also the "foot as a ruler" method which shows Patty at 5'4". It shows how many of Patty's 1'-2" feet stack up to 7' as opposed to how high he really is (around 5'-4"). So either the tracks are fakes (most likely) or Patty is really quite small (about the same height as Roger Patterson?). I think you are making a lot of sense here. Even if we assume the man is standing on higher ground, it is obvious that Patty isn't 7 feet tall, but is probably similar in height to the man. Also, assuming the tracks that were cast were the same ones Patty made, it does appear that Patty is a bit short for a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted September 2, 2016 #39 Share Posted September 2, 2016 On 8/29/2016 at 8:12 PM, Merc14 said: So you've developed a formula regarding a creature you have no empirical evidence exists based on your son's foot-size to height ratio? Can you judge the height and weight of a lion based on and antelope print? Of course the males would be larger, with organs of equal proportion and would have an enormous schwanstucker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted September 2, 2016 #40 Share Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) That goes without saying. Strangely, the size of the schwanstucker seems directly related to the social organization of the primate. It is theorized that humans evolved to be larger than other primates because walking around erec--ahem, upright--made it more visible, and presumably, attracted the ladies more (this theory may have been proposed by a male scientist). Bigfoot, being mostly a solitary nature nerd, likely doesn't have to worry as much about females competing over him. Edited September 2, 2016 by aquatus1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted September 3, 2016 #41 Share Posted September 3, 2016 11 hours ago, aquatus1 said: That goes without saying. Strangely, the size of the schwanstucker seems directly related to the social organization of the primate. It is theorized that humans evolved to be larger than other primates because walking around erec--ahem, upright--made it more visible, and presumably, attracted the ladies more (this theory may have been proposed by a male scientist). Bigfoot, being mostly a solitary nature nerd, likely doesn't have to worry as much about females competing over him. The question is--could the big galoot tap dance to Putting on the Ritz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted September 3, 2016 #42 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I'm afraid the only partner who could have done justice to that is now lost to us. R.I.P Gene Wilder 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now