Studies of the trackway as noted by Titmus.
Patterson is reported to have filmed the trackway and cast some prints the same day
as the sighting and filming. But Patterson is not reported to have actually documented the trackway and it does not appear in the
main PG film, A small portion of it appears in footage generally attributed to be "second reel" footage. I have scanned 202 frames
of this footage personally.
The primary trackway data source is a map by Bob Titmus made a reported nine days after the filming
reported on Oct. 20, 1967. A heavy rain was reported on Oct. 21, 1967 and possibly days after as well. Consideration of how the trackway
information may integrate with my site model requires first that we consider the options for how this trackway came to exist and be
documented.
The options for the trackway include all the following:
1. The trackways were made by the subject seen walking in the PG Film,
on the filming day, and were sufficiently preserved even after the rain to be studied and cast by Bob Titmus nine days later.
If
so, this data has relevance to the site model and some effort should be made to integrate that data into the model analysis.
2.
The trackway Bob Titmus found and cast prints from may have been made by the same subject as seen in the film, but made days later
after the rain, but before Titmus arrived. Note that the subject in the film is walking away from the camera, apparently intent on
getting away from Patterson and Gimlin. If the intent is to get away, to hide, why didn't the subject go to its left during the first
segment, into the woods immediately to its left, the shortest route to go into the forest and hide effectively? One possible explanation
is that something fleeing or choosing to evade will choose a path the subject is confident about, a familiar path. Can the trackway
path be a 'familiar path", and so the subject went that way confident it would take the subject to a safe place to hide?
If so,
then the subject may reasonably be expected to have walked that path enough times to be familiar with it, before the filming day.
If so, walking that same path after the filming day is an option to consider, as a repeat of an established behavior (the hypothetical
in the first sentence).
3. The trackway was made by actual walking, but by an entity other than the filming subject, after the
rains, before Titmus arrived, perhaps related to the film subject and thus also familiar with the path.
4. The trackway may
have been manufactured (some method other than the actual footprints of real feet walking), but by whom and for what intent we can
only speculate, and such speculation does not negate the prospect the filming event is real even if the trackway Titmus reported was
manufactured. There are many hypotheticals here, limited only by one's imagination.
All of these are theoretical options to consider.
Until all these options are evaluated to the extent that the Option #1 above can be conclusively determined as the certifiable fact,
issues of trackway discrepancy with the digital site model and lens study cannot negate the site model or lens conclusion.