JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 13th April 2008, 07:25 AM   #1
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
Bigfoot on video? Memorial Day 1996

This thread is for the continued discussion of what is called the Memorial Day Footage (MDF). Discussion on this began recently in the Patterson-Gimlin Film thread, but this subject deserves its own thread to prevent significant hijacking of the PGF.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 08:45 AM   #2
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
You say that my analysis is not a "careful and critical evaluation of the evidence", Astro....but I noticed that you didn't point out even one specific flaw in any of my statements concerning what the evidence shows.
I have. I have asked you to prove your claim that it is an infant. You refuse to do so. Instead, I get....

Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
For instance....I said that the 2-frame animated gif unambiguously shows the lifted object moves upward after the visible arm can be seen moving downwards.
Is that not true? Is the line in the second frame higher than the line in the first frame?
This is your interpretation of the film. Can you provide me with measurements and values that can be quantified to demonstrate it is an infant being held up in the air by it's mother. That in itself defies logic. I am unaware of any mother primate (except maybe a human), that takes its own infant and holds it up in the air as it is running like a football player about to score a touchdown.


Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
There are several other things I could ask you about....but I won't, because it simply doesn't matter what your opinion is about the MD Video.
All that really matters is what someone has to contribute in the way of actual analysis...or counter-analysis.

Apparantly you're not interested in doing that.
Feel free to provide an actual analysis and not some animated gif you took off a website or video. Give numbers and figures to demonstrate what you say is true. For instance, how long is the arm and how tall is the bigfoot. From that one might be able to draw the size of the "infant".

To me it all looks like blobs and your animated gifs don't shown anything to convince me that it may be something else. For me to provide a counter-analysis, you need to provide an ACTUAL analysis with some values and figures to examine. Saying this is what you see in two very blurry frames, is not an analysis. It is an opinion and nothing more.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 09:00 AM   #3
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
Here is the MDF (minus soundtrack).

This copy is not high-quality, but still gives the casual viewer a general sense of what was captured on full-frame video. There are also some zoomed (enlarged) versions.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 09:36 AM   #4
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
This enlarged looping clip looks like a running person to me. They seem to be removing some sort of upper apparel (jacket, sweater, etc.) as they run. It's not a pullover thing, but instead opens at the front. The runner starts removing it by dropping it down off the shoulders, then to the elbows and forearms (sleeves would come off last). I don't think the garment is fully removed in this loop.





This comes from Bigfoot Encounters, where there is much information about the MDF and other clips.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 11:42 AM   #5
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
[reposted from the PGF thread]

There's no use arguing with Sweaty, his mind is made up, it has been for a long time and it can't be changed. Bows and flows of angel hair and all that.....
After all if Noll says it's a bigfoot that's good enough for him.

One question Sweaty.
What do you think of the idea that there was a pod of BF's up there that day?
According to Lori's father, per his conversations with Owen, there had to be in order for the witness statements to be true.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 11:47 AM   #6
Spektator
Dog Who Laughs
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,432
If I recall correctly, on the "Best Evidence" show a human runner very significantly outpaced the "creature," dispelling the notion that it moved inhumanly fast. Then, too, a direct size comparison resulted in the conclusion that the "creature" was somewhere around five and a half feet tall, despite the photographer's estimate that it was "huge" and "over seven feet tall."
__________________
Even when you keep piling them up, lies never compress to become the truth.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 12:03 PM   #7
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
For some background on my previous post this is what I posted on the BFF a while back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Noll
...Owen assumes that the subject seen in all three instances (woman and son sighting, Owen sighting and video) are in fact the same subject.
Not according to Lori's father who posts as bbcoug;

[removed broken link]



Originally Posted by bbcoug on Melissa'a forum
It was the info in this second post however, that validated what my son-in-law Owen has said from the beginning. The creature running across the mountainside was NOT the creature he had seen. The primary reason was the size. The one on the hill looked smaller.

[removed broken link]

Originally Posted by bbcoug on Melissa'a forum
Lori and Owen's sighting actually occurred in 3 phases.
The first, is when Diane in their group saw the "man in a dark suit" run 600 feet down the mountainside to where it stopped in some trees by a fence line.

The second phase, Diane called to Owen to come quick because she (now) thought it was Bigfoot. Owen ran to the uphill side of her camper and looked right into the face of the creature. They were about 100 yards apart. Owen estimated it was around 6.5 to 7 feet tall. They looked at each other momentarily and it ducked back into the trees. I often tease Owen about who scared who the most in that incident. I reminded him that it was the animal that ducked.

The third phase is when they called to Lori to bring the camcorder. She immediately started to take pictures of the hill. Nothing. The creature was now nowhere in sight. She kept on shooting and suddenly it made an appearance about at the same location we thought that it came down from in phase 1. Lori got about 22 seconds of the creature running across the hill. Later analysis indicated that the creature running across the hill was only 5.5 to 6 feet tall. Now think about this a minute, why the discrepancy on heights? Either Owen miscaculated or, there was another adult in that sighting. Please keep in mind that if it was the mother, she would have had to have the kid with her, or she would have left the child by itself under the trees. You see how all of this is starting to tie in. This is a loop hole, but miracles do happen. The BFRO site was sent a report of another sighting just a few days ago. This sighting happened almost 11 years ago, at the same lake, about the same location we think, only that occurrence happened 7 days earlier than the Memorial Day sighting. In this later report, he estimated that the animal stood 6.5 to 7 feet tall, using the cattle fence as a height comparison. Now all of a sudden Owen was right. This was another creature in that area. They were obviously looking at a Sasquatch family. By the way, the witness in the later sighting looked at the creature for about 5 minutes thru binoculars. About an hour later it came out a second time and he looked at it somemore with the glasses.

bolding mine

And here

Originally Posted by bbcoug
Owen always insisted that the thing behind the fence was somewhere around 6.5 to 7 feet tall. The thing running across the hill was around 5.5 to 6 feet.

These are fairly recent posts that contradict your point. Maybe Lori's dad is making stuff up or isn't privy to Owens true thoughts but there is a contradiction. Who is right? Maybe we'll never know if we don't ask questions.

I honestly don't think anyone can say that this is inconsequential when we're continually discussing the validity of eyewitness accounts.

This post has been edited by Paul1968UK: Apr 4 2008, 12:17 PM Reason for edit: Removed broken links
The posts that were referenced as a broken link and removed by Paul Vella were redirecting to Melissa's forum (Search for Bigfoot Forum). She recently purged a bunch of people from her forum and closed it down from public view during a recent dust up and I can no longer view her board to know if the links are actually broken or just inaccessible. They were direct quotes from bbcoug who claims to be Lori Pate's father.

Noll suggested that what Lori's father said should not be given much credence because he wasn't there during the filming and therefore what he had to say was a second hand story. On the other hand Noll (who wasn't there either) wants everyone to take his second hand story as gospel.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 12:07 PM   #8
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Spektator View Post
If I recall correctly, on the "Best Evidence" show a human runner very significantly outpaced the "creature," dispelling the notion that it moved inhumanly fast. Then, too, a direct size comparison resulted in the conclusion that the "creature" was somewhere around five and a half feet tall, despite the photographer's estimate that it was "huge" and "over seven feet tall."
You are correct sir! That was on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Some people (like Sweaty) think that actually lends credibility to the video.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 01:58 PM   #9
Spektator
Dog Who Laughs
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
You are correct sir! That was on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Some people (like Sweaty) think that actually lends credibility to the video.
Thanks for the correct title!
__________________
Even when you keep piling them up, lies never compress to become the truth.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2008, 03:14 PM   #10
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,169
Post #177 by wolftrax in this thread has for a mundane explanation for the "lift," along with some .gifs to back it up.
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 07:04 AM   #11
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Astrophotographer wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
SweatyYeti wrote:
You say that my analysis is not a "careful and critical evaluation of the evidence", Astro....but I noticed that you didn't point out even one specific flaw in any of my statements concerning what the evidence shows.

I have. I have asked you to prove your claim that it is an infant. You refuse to do so. Instead, I get....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
For instance....I said that the 2-frame animated gif unambiguously shows the lifted object moves upward after the visible arm can be seen moving downwards.
Is that not true? Is the line in the second frame higher than the line in the first frame?

This is your interpretation of the film.

You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

If you can't demonstrate that....then you haven't given me, or anyone else, any reason to think that I'm wrong in saying the object continues to lift up higher in that sequence of frames.

I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.


Quote:
Can you provide me with measurements and values that can be quantified to demonstrate it is an infant being held up in the air by it's mother. That in itself defies logic. I am unaware of any mother primate (except maybe a human), that takes its own infant and holds it up in the air as it is running like a football player about to score a touchdown.

I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".

What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...




In this version I paused one frame, which I think shows the infant initially being lifted up...to then be placed down onto the subject's shoulders...




In this 3-frame gif....I placed lines at the top of the subject to show the change in height...from higher (infant being initially lifted-up), to lower (infant lowered onto the shoulders), and then higher again (infant sitting upright)...




One significant detail to notice is that during the entire lift sequence, the shape of the subject's head continually changes. The reason for that is simple....the lifted object is being moved around.

It's not due to "background noise", as someone suggested....because in the entire first segment of the video, when the subject is running....the shape of it's head does not change.
If it was due to background noise, the head would be changing shape throughout the video.


One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )



That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.

The way I see it...if skeptics here can't readily admit that Patty's fingers bend...when it's very clear that they do...they'll never have anything constructive to contribute to the analysis of this video.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 14th April 2008 at 07:13 AM.
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 09:46 AM   #12
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,506
How many times does a skeptic have to concede that a hand bends before Sweaty will stop saying that they didn't concede it?

I personally conceded the point more than once so that the issue could be discussed, and I know others did as well.

Even when we give in to Sweaty so there can be a discussion, he still lies about it.

Why does anyone bother?

We can see the pattern emerging again with the MDF, too.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 10:05 AM   #13
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher. You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!


Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.
Yet in post #13819 of the PGF you stated the following:

The fact of the matter is.....the explanation which best fits all the many details of this event, is the Bigfoot w/infant explanation.

Yet now you are not even sure it is a real bigfoot. So are you suggesting a person was running around with an infant tossing them up on their shoulders as they ran/walked across a field? How much farther is that from say a guy in a suit with something they lifted up that, because of the blur in the video, appears to be alive to you but is not?


Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".
But you did say it was the most likely explanation based on how you interpret the event. If you are going to say the mother is not "running", I stand corrected but you still claim that it is probably/most probably/most likely/etc.(take your pick) a mother lifting an infant up on its shoulders.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...
Or there can be other explanations not yet explored. Again, if it is an infant, what allows you to generate this theory? Where is the infant when the subject is in the open?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )
How long do you think it takes to take off a mask when exhausted after running across an open field in a hot suit? What if the mask is a bit snug and is fastened in someway? Many things could delay taking off a mask but in your world, those factors are not even considered because it might indicate it is a mask. The fact remains that the film is too blurry for you to draw such conclusions and make such assumptions. Did you ever wonder what type of ground was behind the hill and what effect it can have on the subject height?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.
Which is not really an analysis at all is it? It is your subjective interpretation of the information in a very blurry video, where you complete ignore possible other scenarios (focusing only on the mask as your strawman). I asked for some numbers, you give me a bunch of gibberish. How can one counter a subjective opinion? We might as well be discussing a belief in something that can not be proven.

It appears you do not understand the term analysis and how to quantify anything. What about the rest of the video? Where is your analysis where the subject is clearly in the open and easier to see? Instead you give us these few frames which are hard to evaluate because of the degree of blur and the lack of details. From this you arrive at your most likely explanation with little, if any evidence to back it up. Again, you fail to convince anyone that this is not somebody in a suit seen from a distance with this kind of "evidence" and "argument". Next thing you are going to do is tell us the gait is too long, the height is too big, the arms are not in proportion, etc to be a human.

Last edited by Astrophotographer; 14th April 2008 at 11:37 AM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 12:07 PM   #14
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,258
Sweaty-
What did the other 95 people on the hill that day say they saw?
What?
Only the 5 people who thought they saw a bigfoot were interviewed?
Oh. OK
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:12 PM   #15
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Astrophotographer wrote:
Quote:
Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher.

In actual fact, Astro....you had previously stated nothing about the two lines in that animated gif.
You've conveniently ignored my question, and comments about them. Now, at least, you're agreeing that one is higher than the other.

As for your question..."So what?"......the fact that the 2nd line is higher than the first line means something very significant....and unambiguous. That is....the object has continued to lift-up higher, after the subject's hand has let-go of it.
And, since we never see the subject's other hand coming down from the head area....it's reasonable to think that the object has lifted-up completely under it's own power.
There is, in fact, NO evidence whatsoever that the subject used either hand to lift up that object.

You're free to disagree with that assessment of mine....but I think that it's a logical, and reasonable assessment.

If you can find something in the stills to give me a reason to think otherwise....go ahead and post it. I'm all eyes.


Quote:
You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!

One last time, Astro......object lifts-up....without the benefit of the subject's hands.....you do the math.

As for my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario...on what I just talked about, and ALSO on many additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:29 PM   #16
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
It looks to me as if the subject is just as tall at the beginning of your clip as it is at the end, it's in the middle that it's shorter.
What is the left hand doing?

What "additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event"?

Last edited by Blackdog; 14th April 2008 at 03:31 PM.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:30 PM   #17
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Astro wrote:
Quote:
Many things could delay taking off a mask but in your world, those factors are not even considered because it might indicate it is a mask.

The "mask theory" is dead, Astro.
The stills, and logic, finished it off a long time ago....I'm happy to report.

Problems with the mask theory are as follows...

1) A mask would be too small to account for the apparant size of the lifted object.

2) The object first lifts up, then down, and then quickly up again. Why??

3) The object lifts up without the use of any hands. How??

4) The object can be seen, in a few stills, to be slightly behind the subject's head. (Exactly where an infant would be seen, if it were sitting on the subject's shoulders...btw.)

5) The subject's head/face never changes color, even after the supposed mask is taken off.

Lastly...an upcoming problem for the mask theory...a re-creation video will show that a simple mask, at that distance and low-res, would, in fact, be barely visible. It will not match the overall mass of the object seen in the video.

Is that enough for you, Astro?
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:39 PM   #18
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
It looks to me as if the subject is just as tall at the beginning of your clip as it is at the end, it's in the middle that it's shorter.

It is...because the object is being lifted up by the main subject, right at the start of the long animated-gif. The object then lowers, and then lifts-up quickly at the end of the sequence.


Quote:
What events?
I don't have the time...nor the interest (on this board)...in going over all the other pieces of evidence which are part of the eyewitness testimonies from that day.

I only replied to your post, Blackdog, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I'm ignoring you.
But I can't continue discussing and debating this video, here, because of the extremeness of the skepticism on this board. This video is just too easy to "spit on", so to speak.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:46 PM   #19
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
You can't discuss it with me anywhere else. There's always BFD but you won't discuss it there either. The only place you would possibly discuss it is in a place where no one disagrees with you. That's called being an intellectual coward Sweaty.

I think you know you'd be destroyed if you did try to get more in depth, that's why you won't reply to my earlier post about Lori Pate's father.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 03:55 PM   #20
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
One last time, Astro......object lifts-up....without the benefit of the subject's hands.....you do the math.

As for my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario...on what I just talked about, and ALSO on many additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event.
Really? Can you show where BOTH hands are located in these images? Feel free to demonstrate.

As for all your additional pieces of evidence, feel free to display them. So far you have not. You keep muttering about all sorts of stuff but nothing concrete. All I keep seeing is your ridiculous animated gifs of blobs. To me that is not very convincing for your "bigfoot w/infant" theory.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 04:02 PM   #21
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Astro wrote:

The "mask theory" is dead, Astro.
The stills, and logic, finished it off a long time ago....I'm happy to report.

Problems with the mask theory are as follows...

1) A mask would be too small to account for the apparant size of the lifted object.

2) The object first lifts up, then down, and then quickly up again. Why??

3) The object lifts up without the use of any hands. How??

4) The object can be seen, in a few stills, to be slightly behind the subject's head. (Exactly where an infant would be seen, if it were sitting on the subject's shoulders...btw.)

5) The subject's head/face never changes color, even after the supposed mask is taken off.

Lastly...an upcoming problem for the mask theory...a re-creation video will show that a simple mask, at that distance and low-res, would, in fact, be barely visible. It will not match the overall mass of the object seen in the video.

Is that enough for you, Astro?
No, it is not. In such a blurry image, how can you be sure?

1) the apparent size of the "lift" is suppoed to be only 8-inches from what I read. I asked for numbers. You refused. To me 8" is not very big and within the reasonable expectation of a mask. If you can show it is larger than 8" feel free.

2) I am not sure but it could have something to do with the ground beneath the individual since we can not see it. Do you have a topographical of the area we can look at?

3) How do you know there aren't any hands? Can you identify BOTH hands in the images. Feel free to do so.

4) So....How does that mean it would be an infant? How do you know where a bigfoot would put an infant? Considering the blurriness of the image, it could be just about anything.

5) The subjects head is extremely small. Resolution of features is almost impossible at that point. There could be makeup, a beard, or maybe the head is turned away and you are seeing the back of the head.

Feel free to post your recreation video. I can hardly wait....Tick..Tock...The world wonders.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 04:08 PM   #22
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I don't have the time...nor the interest (on this board)...in going over all the other pieces of evidence which are part of the eyewitness testimonies from that day.
Oh...pretty please with sugar on top?

To me that translates into, "I really have nothing but this is a good copout so I don't have to demonstrate that I really have no evidence whatsover for my "bigfoot with an infant" theory."

You started this nonsense about the video. Why not finish it if the evidence is so darn convincing? However, if you are going to provide evidence I suggest you give it to the forum in full and not edited down. Either that or present a source so we can fact check you because right now it appears to be a lot of hot air.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 08:00 PM   #23
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Astro wrote:
Quote:
To me that translates into, "I really have nothing but this is a good copout so I don't have to demonstrate that I really have no evidence whatsover for my "bigfoot with an infant" theory."

I've posted quite a bit about the MD Video on the BFF, under the username "Coolfoot"....and I've posted some more about it at the Mid-America Bigfoot Forum. I'll continue to analyse it, as much as possible, over there. You're welcome to join that board, and I'll discuss it all you want, there.
It just ain't a-happenin' here!


Quote:
Why not finish it if the evidence is so darn convincing?

Why not? Simple...because of comments like this, from you....

Quote:
All I keep seeing is your ridiculous animated gifs of blobs.

Like I said earlier...this video is too easy for rabid skeptics to spit on.
You provided an excellent example of that, Astro.


Blackdog wrote:
Quote:
The only place you would possibly discuss it is in a place where no one disagrees with you. That's called being an intellectual coward Sweaty.

That's not true, Blackdog. I discussed it in the past with 'anyone and everyone' over at the BFF....and I'll discuss it with any member of the Mid-America Board.

I just won't continue to waste a lot of my time discussing it here, where the only response I get is "it's a blob...it could be anything".
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 08:10 PM   #24
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Astro wrote:
Quote:
To me 8" is not very big and within the reasonable expectation of a mask. If you can show it is larger than 8" feel free.

I'm quite sure that a re-creation video, with someone lifting up a mask...shot at the same distance, with the same dark-colored subject, using the same type (and model) camcorder...will show a distinct difference in the apparant size of the mask.

It's one more bit of analysis that can be done to this video....and will be done, someday......though it could be a while.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2008, 09:17 PM   #25
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Astro wrote:
That's not true, Blackdog. I discussed it in the past with 'anyone and everyone' over at the BFF....and I'll discuss it with any member of the Mid-America Board.

I just won't continue to waste a lot of my time discussing it here, where the only response I get is "it's a blob...it could be anything".
That's the same answer you got at BFF.

Like I said, you are a coward.
At Mid-America you have people that won't challenge you because they believe just about anything. You are the one that brought it up here and now you're afraid to back up your claims.

Your position on this video is toast and you know it, that's why you won't discuss it here or anywhere else.
When was your last post about this on MABRC?

How about Lori's dad? Simple question.
Noll never even gave me a straight answer so I guess I shouldn't expect one from you.
Blackdog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 04:48 AM   #26
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,258
It's a paintballer.

Morgoth's enhancement showed the guy taking off a mask.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 15th April 2008 at 04:48 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 05:23 AM   #27
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
Watch the "pants". The leggings look baggy all the way to the feet.

__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 05:25 AM   #28
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil
Posts: 7,802
Astro's posts have a line which summarizes my opinion on all this "the lift" stuff.

This"the lift" sequence may have been created by the film's subject raising his/hers arm. How can this possibility be excluded given the film's extremely poor resolution? Simple, it can not, it was not.

All this "the lift" discussion, all the arguments created to defend the "climbing bigfoot baby theory" seem to be quite silly IMHO... Actually, the whole MDF film is silly…
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 06:40 AM   #29
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I'm quite sure that a re-creation video, with someone lifting up a mask...shot at the same distance, with the same dark-colored subject, using the same type (and model) camcorder...will show a distinct difference in the apparant size of the mask.

It's one more bit of analysis that can be done to this video....and will be done, someday......though it could be a while.
What??? I was under the impression that you meant a recreation had been done. That tells me:

1) You have not done any real analysis since you can not refute the 8" value being provided by others.

2) That all you have to go on is your gut feel on what you believe the video shows. There is nothing else.

You were the one who came into this forum proclaiming the most likely/best/probable solution to the MD footage was a bigfoot with an infant and your efforts to show any evidence that is convincing is lacking. If you want to run away to the BFF feel free. I just thought that if the evidence was a lot better you could provide a more sound argument. I guess this is why some BF proponents consider this a hoax. At least they are not as gullible as some.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 06:47 AM   #30
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I've posted quite a bit about the MD Video on the BFF, under the username "Coolfoot"....and I've posted some more about it at the Mid-America Bigfoot Forum. I'll continue to analyse it, as much as possible, over there. You're welcome to join that board, and I'll discuss it all you want, there.
It just ain't a-happenin' here!
In other words, you have nothing other than these animated gifs just as I suspected. Your "analysis" and refusal to answer my questions/requests for more evidence demonstrates you have nothing or practically nothing. I will ask again:

1) Topographical map of area/geographic location - I am sure you can provide that if you really are analyzing this event.

2) Lists of eyewitnesses and their testimonies that confirm your theory that it is a bigfoot with a baby. It is never mentioned as the images are being videotaped.

3) Actual analysis that shows where the arms are located, height, distance covered, gait, landspeed. I know these have been calculated before but if you were doing a real analysis, you would want to confirm it with your own math.

I am not going to waste my time wandering about on other forums trying to locate all this information. We are right here waiting for you to make your case. The problem is, you have no case.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 06:50 AM   #31
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
If you want to run away to the BFF feel free.
He can't. He was banned from that forum. The screen name was Coolfoot.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 09:02 AM   #32
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He can't. He was banned from that forum. The screen name was Coolfoot.

Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 09:07 AM   #33
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,227
Sweaty, this clip halts at the maximum "lift" of something. What happens to that something next (after the clip halt)?

__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 10:01 AM   #34
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,891
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you are staying, then I say tick..tock... Still waiting for responses to my many requests. You demand I answer questions but dodge mine like the plague. Go figure.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 11:05 AM   #35
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,790
Honestly all that looks like is some pixilation caused by the subjects head turning. Using my digital camera I have often noticed that objects that are far away will sometimes seem to momentarily grow larger when they move. I think I have some footage of bald eagles near the San Juan islands that demonstrates this that I will look for.
__________________
“... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2008, 11:46 AM   #36
remirol
Senior Wrangler
 
remirol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Etlanna, Jawja
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
How can this possibility be excluded given the film's extremely poor resolution?
Given the resolution of the film, I can't exclude the possibility that this is actually the land-based cousin of the Loch Ness Monster.

It's a black blob with things that could be arms and things that could be legs moving from left to right across the landscape. Everything else is an attempt to see what simply isn't present -- because the detail in the film simply isn't present.

Quote:
Actually, the whole MDF film is silly…
You misspelled "Blurry" up there. Blobs != Bigfoot.
__________________
Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb
remirol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 05:05 AM   #37
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Sweaty, this clip halts at the maximum "lift" of something. What happens to that something next (after the clip halt)?

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...eteLift1AB.gif

After that point, the subject/lifted object continues to look basically the same, for several more steps as it disappears into the trees.

Here is another short animated-gif, which shows the object bending forward, as the subject's arm is swinging. The clip is 4 frames....it first runs forward, and then in reverse....




The first frame...




Here it is enlarged, darkened, and outlined...

__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 05:21 AM   #38
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you are staying, then I say tick..tock... Still waiting for responses to my many requests. You demand I answer questions but dodge mine like the plague. Go figure.

I was only joking about "running away", Astro. But, I have a very limited amount of time to post here. I'll try to respond to more of your comments and questions....but you'll have to patient.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 05:37 AM   #39
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
What??? I was under the impression that you meant a recreation had been done. That tells me:

1) You have not done any real analysis since you can not refute the 8" value being provided by others.

I sure have done some analysis, Astro. I've yet to see anything in the way of counter-analysis from you, though.

I'm not refuting that 8" figure....I think it's a good approximation of the lift height.


Quote:
2) That all you have to go on is your gut feel on what you believe the video shows. There is nothing else.

No....I've based my assessment of the 'most likely' scenario on many pieces of evidence surrounding this video/sighting. I won't go over it all again, right now.....but I will respond to specific questions about my analysis, when I have the time to do so.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 06:06 AM   #40
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,258
Just to clarify Sweaty's position-

1. 95 People on that hill didn't see bigfoot
2. The thing was slower than a human
3. You can see a jacket flopping behind it
4. You can see it remove a mask

And you think the 'Most Likely' explanation is that it is an Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal, Adolescent, Babysitting, ELUSIVE, primate, running across an open hillside, in broad daylight?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 16th April 2008 at 06:07 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.