|
Post by hbsquatchmay14 on Jun 22, 2014 6:07:08 GMT -5
I had never seen some of those photos of the footprint with the Mid-Tarsal Break, especially the ones from BCM. Amazing stuff, and very consistent with the MTB theory.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Dec 21, 2014 19:23:26 GMT -5
Here is another look at the difference between where Patty's foot hinges compared to that of a human. The first clip shows the heel first rising from the ground. The area from just ahead of the ankle appears to be the part of the foot that is supporting the animals weight. Next watch the left foot only as the heel first rises up from the ground - does it not appear that the forefoot is still in contact with the substrate from the ankle - forward? People like Krantz and Meldrum have rightfully pointed this out and have explained how it differentiates from our own foot. Because humans, unless for some other reason, have a stiff arch so that the moment our heel breaks contact with the ground surface - our weight is immediately transferred to the ball of the foot. This bypasses the arch, thus our foot's hinge point is much closer to the toe line than what the footprint of a Sasquatch often shows.
|
|
rex
No life here!
Posts: 5
|
Post by rex on Aug 19, 2016 20:09:36 GMT -5
Part One. At the Vanguard of sasquatch research, Dr. Grover Krantz once observed that there are a great many topics of conversation that the average man will quickly and without regret stuff into the apathetic category. When a man does not know, he typically does not care either. This observation holds true for virtually any after-dinner debate that might arise with only a few glaring exceptions. And this being Dr. Krantz, sasquatch was on top of his list of firebrand topics. Ask people about politics: They do not care. Ask them about religion: They do not care. But ask them about Bigfoot, and instantly every pseudo expert and faux intellectual crawls out of the woodwork. On this subject, out of so many, everyone stands up as an expert with little to no justification. Well, everyone is obviously not an expert,but that doesn't stop some of the more vocal from standing on their soapbox. In particular, the Hollywood costume industry made it a point to take direct aim at the Patterson- Gimlin (P-G) film footage on its 30th birthday with alleged proof of its fakery. Or barring proof (they didn’t have any), at least bravado claims of how easy such an event would be to fake. The calls of fake were very vocal, but in the end, only a scant few dissenters have actually put fur to glove and put together an appreciable effort to finally put their money where their mouth is. The following review is offered by an experienced make-up and costume artist. Hollywood has never succeeded in duplicating the P-G film. They have made their hairy ape-men, they have deluged our TV screens with furry snarling antagonists,and suffocated a legion of brave actors under a veritable sea of prepackaged yak hair, but they have never duplicated the P-G film. Every costume can only be the sum of the men who created it, and these men cannot help but leave their fingerprints on their work -- fingerprints stemming from a laundry bag of Hollywood monster-making cheats and shortcuts. These cheats can be spotted in everything that they have ever produced, and risk ruining the illusion before it even begins. But the P-G film escapes scrutiny unscathed. No hints of shortcuts, no fingerprints of clever trickery. Hollywood cannot touch it, and we need to ask why. In terms of transforming a man into an ape, there are three obstacles that need to be overcome: hair, limb proportions, and torso width.
|
|
rex
No life here!
Posts: 5
|
Post by rex on Aug 19, 2016 20:13:09 GMT -5
Its a well done hoax.i think it was ray wallace in the body stocking padded suit. Gian Quasar blew up the photo very big and you can see the padding in his arms plus other error giveaways. Recasting bigfoot ( book)
|
|
rex
No life here!
Posts: 5
|
Post by rex on Aug 19, 2016 20:13:56 GMT -5
Part One. At the Vanguard of sasquatch research, Dr. Grover Krantz once observed that there are a great many topics of conversation that the average man will quickly and without regret stuff into the apathetic category. When a man does not know, he typically does not care either. This observation holds true for virtually any after-dinner debate that might arise with only a few glaring exceptions. And this being Dr. Krantz, sasquatch was on top of his list of firebrand topics. Ask people about politics: They do not care. Ask them about religion: They do not care. But ask them about Bigfoot, and instantly every pseudo expert and faux intellectual crawls out of the woodwork. On this subject, out of so many, everyone stands up as an expert with little to no justification. Well, everyone is obviously not an expert,but that doesn't stop some of the more vocal from standing on their soapbox. In particular, the Hollywood costume industry made it a point to take direct aim at the Patterson- Gimlin (P-G) film footage on its 30th birthday with alleged proof of its fakery. Or barring proof (they didn’t have any), at least bravado claims of how easy such an event would be to fake. The calls of fake were very vocal, but in the end, only a scant few dissenters have actually put fur to glove and put together an appreciable effort to finally put their money where their mouth is. The following review is offered by an experienced make-up and costume artist. Hollywood has never succeeded in duplicating the P-G film. They have made their hairy ape-men, they have deluged our TV screens with furry snarling antagonists,and suffocated a legion of brave actors under a veritable sea of prepackaged yak hair, but they have never duplicated the P-G film. Every costume can only be the sum of the men who created it, and these men cannot help but leave their fingerprints on their work -- fingerprints stemming from a laundry bag of Hollywood monster-making cheats and shortcuts. These cheats can be spotted in everything that they have ever produced, and risk ruining the illusion before it even begins. But the P-G film escapes scrutiny unscathed. No hints of shortcuts, no fingerprints of clever trickery. Hollywood cannot touch it, and we need to ask why. In terms of transforming a man into an ape, there are three obstacles that need to be overcome: hair, limb proportions, and torso width.
|
|
rex
No life here!
Posts: 5
|
Post by rex on Aug 19, 2016 20:14:37 GMT -5
Krantz was a joke
|
|
|
Post by Captain Morgan on Aug 19, 2016 21:00:30 GMT -5
Good grief, you sign up for a forum and chose the topic of why the PG footage was not a hoax, and all you can come up with are 2 mis-posts and "i think it was ray wallace" and a stab at Dr. Krantz? Go crawl back in the uneducated hole you just emerged from. You don't sound smart enough to polish Dr. Krantz shoes on a sidewalk, let alone critique his expertise in his field. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 24, 2016 21:48:43 GMT -5
* bump*
|
|