The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

You're wrong.

And thus Sweaty deteriorates into the "nuh-uh" state. "Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking" and yet my own measurements, BH's, Astro's, tube's refute this. Heck, even Sweaty's own material refutes this...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Check this out...I modified the Vision Realm Patty skeleton....putting it's arms straight out...and compared them to an average human's skeleton...



Notice any difference??? (Hint: Look at the Elbows.)

Length of Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff skeleton's humerus on screen: 2cm

Illustration of human skeleton's humerus on screen: 2cm

Length of Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff skeleton's radius/ulna on screen: 1.5cm

Illustration of human skeleton's radius/ulna on screen: 1.5cm

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Originally Posted by makaya325

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Humerus length on Patty skeletal overlay - 1.2 cm

Radius/ulna length on Patty skeletal overlay - 1.1 cm

Humerus length on Heironimus skeletal overlay - 1.2 cm

Radius/ulna length on Heironimus skeletal overlay - 1.1 cm

Complete nonense Kitz. Show us how you arrived at those figures please. (Non-biased sources would be nice).

Kitz argues that the footage is too crappy to extract data from, yet it is ok to extract data to support his agenda?

You tell him, Mak!

Tell me what, Sweaty? How I arrived at those measurements? That thing I explained exactly when I posted them for you? psst... *whisper* The tape measure was the source. Anyone can check for themselves. *whisper*

Also, I'm not measuring any blurry images there. I am measuring the arm bones overlayed on Patty and those overlayed on Bob to prove that they are the same and not changing length in some digital meltdown. That proves that that comparison is valid and saying Patty's arms are inhumanly proportioned is not. Try to keep up.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Also, I'm not measuring any blurry images there. I am measuring the arm bones overlayed on Patty and those overlayed on Bob to prove that they are the same and not changing length in some digital meltdown.

Yet you fail to realize that measurements can be skewed when being applied to a fuzzy film. No body knows the exact distance, or even the real track length. All we have is anecdotes. Please, do not cherrypick data and ignore Giganto's data

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Yet you fail to realize that measurements can be skewed when being applied to a fuzzy film. No body knows the exact distance, or even the real track length. All we have is anecdotes. Please, do not cherrypick data and ignore Giganto's data

Wow, that is exactly the point. A film of somebody wearing a padded monkey suit (of unknown thickness) shot from a distance and not completely in focus, by somebody hand holding the camera is not going to produce pristine images that can be used for deriving precise data about the ratios of various body part lengths. It will always be possible to make what you want to make out of the blurry, low resolution images in the PG film.

All that kitakaze and others in this thread have done is show that there is nothing in the images that can rule out the man in the monkey suit hypothesis. They have done that categorically and comprehensively in case you missed it.

For me, the images in the PG film look so much like a man in a monkey suit that in the absence of all other data, I would still have been very skeptical that it was a wild animal. I took some videos of bears on my last backpacking trip. If I saw those videos completely out of the context where I knew I had photographed them I would still have almost no doubt that they were videos of wild animals. Wild animals don't look like men in monkey suits. The creature in the PG film looks like a man in a monkey suit.

But of course there is a sea of external data with regard to the PG film and the possibility of a bigfoot creature. And all of it strongly supports the idea that there is no bigfoot and that the PG film is of a man in a monkey suit.

Avindair provided a nice overview of why this is so.

This thread can go on for another 50 pages and at the end of it all the bigfooters will have to support the idea that the PG film is not a hoax is some cherry picked image measurements that only provide evidence that it is possible that the PG film is not a man in a monkey suit. And that really doesn't take any effort to prove at all. I will concede right now that the PG film might be a movie of a genuine wild creature. However, I use the word "might" in the philosophical sense where nothing is quite knowable for certain. In the real world, where practical certainty is usually the best we can do, the PG film is a movie of a man in a monkey suit. It is time to move on I think.

[neltana]

Originally Posted by davefoc

This thread can go on for another 50 pages ...

I bet we get there by the end of next June at the latest!

Originally Posted by davefoc

In the real world, where practical certainty is usually the best we can do, the PG film is a movie of a man in a monkey suit. It is time to move on I think.

As long as there is pop culture and poorly researched books and documentaries, we will need to keep debunking this film. If we move on, who answers the endless string of "shocking new discoveries that prove its a real creature?"

They won't stop cropping up just because we go home.

[makaya325]

davefoc

Quote:

All that kitakaze and others in this thread have done is show that there is nothing in the images that can rule out the man in the monkey suit hypothesis. They have done that categorically and comprehensively in case you missed it.

No, they insist that it MUST be a hoax.
.

Quote:

Wild animals don't look like men in monkey suits.

That is how you view it, which is different from others.

Quote:

In the real world, where practical certainty is usually the best we can do, the PG film is a movie of a man in a monkey suit. It is time to move on I think.

No, Until you or someone else provides a suit, this debate will go on

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by neltana

I bet we get there by the end of next June at the latest!


As long as there is pop culture and poorly researched books and documentaries, we will need to keep debunking this film. If we move on, who answers the endless string of "shocking new discoveries that prove its a real creature?"

They won't stop cropping up just because we go home.

Some people have some agenda against a Dead man

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by makaya325

davefoc

No, they insist that it MUST be a hoax.
...

For the record I suspect there is no practical distinction between what I believe and what they believe.

Exactly what I believe:
1. The evidence available from the PG film and its analysis does not rule out the possibility of a man in a monkey suit.

2. It is unlikely that any kind of analysis done on the PG film could rule out the possibility by itself that the film is of a genuine wild creature.

3. The evidence just based on viewing and analyzing the film points strongly to the possibility that it is a man in a monkey suit.

4. Given the evidence directly surrounding the PG film combined with the highly suspicious PG film itself, it is wildly unlikely that the creature portrayed in the PG film is anything other than a man in a monkey suit.

5. Given the evidence beyond the PG film that there is not a large primate roaming North America combined with the lack of significant positive evidence for a large primate by the PG film, it is, for practical purposes, a certainty that the PG film is of a man in a monkey suit.

I suspect that there are no practical differences between what I believe about the PG film and what most of the non-bigfooters in this thread believe about the PG film.

If there are differences they are of a semantic or philosophical nature. I will easily concede that the available analysis doesn't rule out the possibility that a genuine wild animal is portrayed in the PG film. But that may not mean that I have a practical difference of opinion with somebody that believes strongly that the PG film is a hoax. I believe it's a hoax. Philosophically I concede that it may not be possible to know anything for certain and beyond that I concede that an analysis of the film isolated from the surrounding evidence can't rule out the possibility that an actual wild animal is portrayed. Nobody knows what an unknown wild animal looks like and if we discount all external evidence with regard to the existence of bigfoot maybe bigfoot is a real creature that looks like the animal in the PG film.

But there is no need to ignore all external evidence when trying to decide if the PG film portrays a real creature. And given that this evidence points so strongly away from the validity of the PG film I think it's reasonable to conclude that the PG film is a hoax.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by davefoc

For the record I suspect there is no practical distinction between what I believe and what they believe.

Exactly what I believe:
1. The evidence available from the PG film and its analysis does not rule out the possibility of a man in a monkey suit.

2. It is unlikely that any kind of analysis done on the PG film could rule out the possibility by itself that the film is of a genuine wild creature.

3. The evidence just based on viewing and analyzing the film points strongly to the possibility that it is a man in a monkey suit.

4. Given the evidence directly surrounding the PG film combined with the highly suspicious PG film itself, it is wildly unlikely that the creature portrayed in the PG film is anything other than a man in a monkey suit.

5. Given the evidence beyond the PG film that there is not a large primate roaming North America combined with the lack of significant positive evidence for a large primate by the PG film, it is, for practical purposes, a certainty that the PG film is of a man in a monkey suit.

I suspect that there are no practical differences between what I believe about the PG film and what most of the non-bigfooters in this thread believe about the PG film.

(snip)

AFAIC, your suspicion is correct. Well said.

[SweatyYeti]

davefoc wrote:

Quote:

Nobody knows what an unknown wild animal looks like and if we discount all external evidence with regard to the existence of bigfoot maybe bigfoot is a real creature that looks like the animal in the PG film.

There is deep wisdom in that statement.............somewhere....


Thanks, Dave!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

davefoc wrote:



There is deep wisdom in that statement.............somewhere....


Thanks, Dave!

Yes, there is. And for someone with such a tentative grasp on reality to think the attemp at sarcasm is effective is no surprise. You are attempting to distort Dave's message by seletively quoting and removing the context of his message. Here is the proper statement again...

Originally Posted by davefoc

If there are differences they are of a semantic or philosophical nature. I will easily concede that the available analysis doesn't rule out the possibility that a genuine wild animal is portrayed in the PG film. But that may not mean that I have a practical difference of opinion with somebody that believes strongly that the PG film is a hoax. I believe it's a hoax. Philosophically I concede that it may not be possible to know anything for certain and beyond that I concede that an analysis of the film isolated from the surrounding evidence can't rule out the possibility that an actual wild animal is portrayed. Nobody knows what an unknown wild animal looks like and if we discount all external evidence with regard to the existence of bigfoot maybe bigfoot is a real creature that looks like the animal in the PG film.

But there is no need to ignore all external evidence when trying to decide if the PG film portrays a real creature. And given that this evidence points so strongly away from the validity of the PG film I think it's reasonable to conclude that the PG film is a hoax.

Dave is simply conceding for argument's sake that all things aside, yeah, maybe Patty is a Bigfoot and Bigfoots just really look like men in suits. Maybe Patty McLumpy really is a Bigfoot. The loose fitting arms, the diaper butt, the wooly tummy rocks, the crazy subducting thigh, the morphing head and wrong jaw/skull anatomy... maybe these jst really look like things on a bad suit but are by crazy fluke real features of a Bigfoot. Maybe Patterson did have the astronomical luck to encounter exactly the scenario he wrote and illustrated in his book the year prior...

Meanwhile, those without footer dementia are unafraid to talk about it.

[makaya325]

Exactly what I believe:

Quote:

1. The evidence available from the PG film and its analysis does not rule out the possibility of a man in a monkey suit.

Nope, Not at all. I agree here

Quote:

2. It is unlikely that any kind of analysis done on the PG film could rule out the possibility by itself that the film is of a genuine wild creature.

Well, yes and no

Quote:

3. The evidence just based on viewing and analyzing the film points strongly to the possibility that it is a man in a monkey suit.

Some say fake, some say real. Again, it depends on the person viewing

Quote:

4. Given the evidence directly surrounding the PG film combined with the highly suspicious PG film itself, it is wildly unlikely that the creature portrayed in the PG film is anything other than a man in a monkey suit.

What evidence? Blurb farts by Hicks in Yakima, Bob H wanting his fame, etc?[quote]

Dave, even though we may disagree on things, we can agree to disagree!

[makaya325]

Quote:

kitakaze

Quote:

Maybe Patty McLumpy really is a Bigfoot. The loose fitting arms, the diaper butt, the wooly tummy rocks, the crazy subducting thigh, the morphing head and wrong jaw/skull anatomy

All of that you see is not seen by others, and is a simple case of Paradolia in your case. You are just as hypocritical as the rest of the footers on the BFF. [/quote]

[davefoc]

davefoc's point 4:

Quote:

4. Given the evidence directly surrounding the PG film combined with the highly suspicious PG film itself, it is wildly unlikely that the creature portrayed in the PG film is anything other than a man in a monkey suit.

Originally Posted by makaya325

...

What evidence? Blurb farts by Hicks in Yakima, Bob H wanting his fame, etc?

I can probably only give a tiny fraction of the evidence surrounding the PG film that points to hoax, but I'll take a shot:

1. The wildly improbable scenario where somebody rents a camera with borrowed money and a deal in place to sell the film and succeeds in taking pictures of a bigfoot creature when thousands, perhaps millions, of people after him armed with all sorts of cameras have never caught a hint of the creature.

2. The limited credibility of the participants.

3. The failure to provide the original film negative for evaluation and the apparent loss of that film.

4. The fact that somebody has come forward and admitted to being the man in the monkey suit and that no facts have surfaced to challenge the plausibility that he was the man in the monkey suit.

5. The admission of the man who may have originated the rise of the modern bigfoot mythology that he faked evidence prior to the creation of the PG film.

6. Inconsistencies in the stories of Patterson and Gimlin.

I'm sure this and more has all been heard by everybody that is participating in this thread, but since I was asked I thought I'd provide a list of what I was thinking about when I mentioned evidence directly surrounding the PG film. I did not understand the reference to "blurb farts by Hicks in Yakima". My apologies, if I have exaggerated my knowledge of bigfoot minutia but I don't know who the Hicks referred to is.

Quote:

Dave, even though we may disagree on things, we can agree to disagree!

That is true, I hope.

[makaya325]

[quote=davefoc;5223858]

Quote:

1. The wildly improbable scenario where somebody rents a camera with borrowed money and a deal in place to sell the film and succeeds in taking pictures of a bigfoot creature when thousands, perhaps millions, of people after him armed with all sorts of cameras have never caught a hint of the creature.

Not everybody carries a camera and looks for bigfoot at the same time. That is a very small number.

Quote:

2. The limited credibility of the participants.

And Bob Heironimus is considered credible?!

Quote:

3. The failure to provide the original film negative for evaluation and the apparent loss of that film.

Can't disagree with that

Quote:

4. The fact that somebody has come forward and admitted to being the man in the monkey suit and that no facts have surfaced to challenge the plausibility that he was the man in the monkey suit

.

The guy who came forward has hole after hole in his credibility, and is likely looking for money. He has many inconsistencies in his story, and couldn't even remember the location.

Quote:

5. The admission of the man who may have originated the rise of the modern bigfoot mythology that he faked evidence prior to the creation of the PG film.

Nope, Sasquatch was around WAY, WAY longer than you could imagine. Besides, Wallace's track do not match several different tracks tooken in different parts of the continent.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by davefoc

4. The fact that somebody has come forward and admitted to being the man in the monkey suit and that no facts have surfaced to challenge the plausibility that he was the man in the monkey suit.

Dave, this one I think bears expanding upon. Let's look at Bob Heironimus' claim for a moment without getting into any issues with what we see with Patty. We often here from footers and various Bigfoot shows tha over the years many people have claimed to be Patty. The fact, however, that the total number of people that have claimed to have been the man in the suit is 0. Not one person beyond Heironimus has ever claimed they were Patty.

So who is the person doing this? Oh, it's a personal friend of Bob Gimlin, the "G" in PGF, who lives nine houses away from Gimlin. Oh, and BTW, he was there alongside Gimlin and Patterson in the Bigfoot escapades at the time the PGF was shot and is on Patterson's film...



Patterson and Gimlin really liked Heironimus' horse. Here's Roger on it...



It was there when Patty was filmed. Gimlin only waited to tell us about it until about 40 years after it happened, 30 years after Heironimus started telling people he was Patty, and somebody directly asked Gimlin about it....

So, this guy who was there and is the only one ever to claim to have been Patty, why is he doing this if he is lying? He's trying to make some money? OK, I'll just wait here while someone quotes me the grand total of dollars Heironimus has made from claiming to be Patty...

*crickets*

Now, how much have Patricia and Bob gotten from the film? BTW, if you're going to make a false claim to score some cash, isn't it pretty stupid to to do it by making up a story about your friend who lives nine houses away and can mosey on over in under 60's seconds to have a chat about it? Also, if you're going to make up a lie about your friend and neighbour for cash, isn't it a terrible idea to take not one, but two polygraphs? If you think polygraphs are a reliable way to catch liars, exactly what the heck are you doing? Also, isn't it a terrible idea if you are ling about your friend for cash to offer to meet him on air for an interview? That would be monumentally stupid, right? How do you prepare for that.

You know, none of these things are proof that Bob Heironimus was in fact Patty, but for people with any common sense, it is a glaring indicator that there is something to the idea. That's before looking at the other stuff and it really goes south.

Bigfoot enthusiasts simply say "show me the suit" and they have us there. No, we can not give them the suit that was used for the 1967 hoax. We can only tell them that any hoaxer who was not an total moron would think it a good idea to get rid of the incriminating evidence. So, no, at present we do not have proof that Bob Heironimus was telling the truth. We're just going to have to make due for the time being with common sense and glaring indicators that it was the case.

[davefoc]

kitakaze,
Thanks, there were several things in your post that I wasn't aware of. The most interesting I thought was that Bob Heironimus was around when the PGF film was shot.

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure I understood it completely. Were you saying:

1 that Heironimus appears as himself someplace on the PGF film? Or that his presence was documented in some other way?

2 Heironimus' horse appears in the PGF film?

3 Gimlin stated that Heironimus was with Patterson and Gimlin when the film was made?

I looked around trying to find evidence of what you said there, but I was probably not looking in the right place. I realize that you have probably provided those kind of links someplace else in this thread, but could you do it again for me. Thanks.

I certainly agree with the general point of your post that it would be difficult to mount a false claim that one was the individual in the monkey suit that would be credible and the fact that Heironimus' story has remained credible through the years is strong evidence that he was telling the truth. I did notice however, in reading through some of the on-line literature, that Heironimus' stories about this have not been completely consistent.

makaya325 said this in response to davefoc's comment that "thousands, perhaps millions, of people after him armed with all sorts of cameras have never caught a hint of the creature"

Originally Posted by makaya325

Not everybody carries a camera and looks for bigfoot at the same time. That is a very small number.

I mostly disagree with the intent of this comment. There are millions of people that venture forth into the woods with cameras. There are millions of people that live on the periphery of the woods that have cameras or camera cell phones readily at hand. There are probably thousands of automatic trail cameras deployed every year. I stumble across a few of them every now and then on my limited forays into the woods. This is a vast array of people that take pictures of all kinds of wildlife that have never taken a picture of a bigfoot creature that could be positively identified. This, just by itself, is powerful evidence that bigfoot creatures, if they existed, are extremely rare. The chances that somebody on a simple day outing into the woods to film a bigfoot creature would discover one is extremely low. So low that this is close to a smoking gun by itself that the film is a hoax.

I agree with the comment in that I agree there are vast tracts of very sparsely inhabited wood lands that are rarely if ever visited by humans and one might still argue that some kind of large creature that for some reason completely restricted its existence to these sparsely populated areas would be difficult to detect.

[SweatyYeti]

Davefoc wrote:

Quote:

The most interesting I thought was that Bob Heironimus was around when the PGF film was shot.

What's even more interesting is the difference in body proportions.....as revealed by the elbows........between Patty, and your 'average' human...






The elbows are only off by several inches......nothing to be concerned about.

[SweatyYeti]

Like Tube.....Like Bob..........


One thing to note, in this comparison....is that Patty's arm-length is fore-shortened, due to the fact that her arm is swung out away from her body, and forward......while Bob's arm is straight down...






Don't forget, kids......the position of the elbow, in Patty's case (as opposed to Godzilla's, or Barney's), is not altered by suit padding.

It is precisely where it appears to be.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

And thus Sweaty deteriorates into the "nuh-uh" state. "Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking" and yet my own measurements, BH's, Astro's, tube's refute this. Heck, even Sweaty's own material refutes this...



Length of Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff skeleton's humerus on screen: 2cm

Illustration of human skeleton's humerus on screen: 2cm

Length of Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff skeleton's radius/ulna on screen: 1.5cm

Illustration of human skeleton's radius/ulna on screen: 1.5cm

More of kitto's BS...


Here are enlargements of the two skeleton's arms....with pixel measurements...









The SAME length??? No, they're not.

Again, kittles plays his usual game of "smoke and mirrors".....by using smaller-sized images, and twisting the truth.........just enough.

Just enough to fool the kiddies on JREF....

Avindair wrote:

Quote:

Kitakaze? You freaking rock.

kita-loser.....you freakin' rot!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

More of kitto's BS...

Here are enlargements of the two skeleton's arms....with pixel measurements...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...thNumbers1.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...thNumbers1.jpg

The SAME length??? No, they're not.

Again, kittles plays his usual game of "smoke and mirrors".....by using smaller-sized images, and twisting the truth.........just enough.

Just enough to fool the kiddies on JREF....

Avindair wrote:

kita-loser.....you freakin' rot! http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...crapAG333c.gif

Sweaty, you really always make things much too easy for me. Man, where's Gigantofootecus?

*sigh* Right, then...

1) Were my measurements wrong? Going back and doing them again, I get the same results. Anyone can check by simply taking a ruler, measuring tape, whatever, and sticking it on their screen.

2) You enlarged the images? Did you do it right? Are they scaled OK? Because, you know... those computers, they can do anything!

3) Now #3 is really important here. What am I about to measure again? Oh, that's right, I'm about to measure an anatomical illustration and a piece of conceptual art by Vision Realm. WTF? Why? This is science? These are direct comparisons? What a joke. Let's just see what Sweaty has to say about this conceptual art that I'm about to measure again...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Sorry, kitty....but I'm just not interested in proving the VR skeleton's validity....to the "skeptics"....(scoftics, actually)...of Jref. From the overlays of the skeleton over Patty....in LMS....it looks to me to be a very good fit.

Huh. So interesting. Sweaty is not interested in proving the validity of the conceptual art he's using to make what are supposed to be reliable measurements. Well, OK then. But hey, it looks like a good fit to Sweaty...





Well, let's get to it and measure these things that are not physical objects. First thing, though, let's use a standard form of measurement that everyone can replicate and check for themselves. Sweaty's giving us pixel counts and not everybody can check for themselves what he did.

Here's the measurements along with the proportional percentage (radius/ulna>humerus)

Skeletal illustration:

• Humerus - 5.7 cm

• Radius/ulna - 4.5 cm

78.94%

Vision Realm conceptual art:

• Humerus - 6.5 cm

• Radius/ulna - 5 cm

76.92%

OK, so there we have it. Skeletal drawing's 78.94% vs Vision Realm's conceptual art's 76.92%. This mean's that Vision realm's unverified fanatsy creation has a humerus 2.02% longer than an anatomical drawing, proportionally speaking. Well, 2%, there you go. Is that some kind of signifigant difference? I should have some kind of sample base, shouldn't I? Since we've started with the complete fail of measuring art, shouldn't we do what Sweaty implores, and use real, physical objects?

I know, I'm a physical object. I have real arm bones to measure, so let's see how I stack p against an anatomical drawing and conceptual art...

kitakaze:

• Humerus - 38 cm

• Radius/ulna - 28 cm

73.68%



Holy crap! Once again I am more squatchy than Patty! Or... at least... I am more squatchy than a conceptual rendering of what might be inside Patty. VR's 76.92% vs my 73.68% means that my humerus is a whopping 3.24% longer, proportionally speaking, than what is supposed to be Patty. Wow!

I win again!

Well, tell you what I'm going to do. Since the only physical object that actually got measured there was me, I'm going to, for the sake of reliable scientific measurements put up ten images of real skeletons to be used as a sample base from which to make comparisons. That way, if Sweaty wants to say something just plain untrue, like "Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking," we have more of a sample base to draw from than just measuring me, tube, Heironimus, etc..

http://www.biology.iastate.edu/Cours...keletons/human

http://www.all-science-fair-projects...x-Skeleton.jpg

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...thal.widec.jpg

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/homm...285&size=Small

http://www.a3bs.com/imagelibrary/A10...ller-stand.jpg

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto...-main_Full.jpg

http://www.dorlingkindersley-uk.co.u...ge_body001.jpg

http://www.brightminds.co.uk/product...arge/j5264.jpg

http://www.cynmar.com/images/items/zoom/HUM13249.jpg

http://www.a3bs.com/imagelibrary/A15...ller-stand.jpg

Yet another Sweaty faceplant.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Sweaty, you really always make things much too easy for me.

Here's 'easy' for you, kitty-poo......



First.....HIGHLIGHT exactly where Patty's ("Bob's) elbow is located, in this image....and, then......SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this comparison...






Here's 'easy' for you, kitta-loser...


SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this transfer of Bob's skeletal frame onto Patty's ("Bob's) body...






Here's 'easy' for you, kitzo...


SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this comparison of body proportions...







Here is the ULTIMATE in 'easy' for you, Mr. Inepto...


SHOW exactly where there is an error in my previous post.



GO AHEAD..........SHOW THE WORLD...........YOU LOSER.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Question #1) Sweaty, simple yes or no question, was your bold claim "Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking" correct?

Question #2) Did my demonstration show that the Poser 7 skeleton's humerus and radius/ulna are the same length? Yes or no?

Question #3) Did I or did I not demonstrate a serious flaw in the idea that measuring fingertips to feet is a valid measurement? Yes or no.

In response to the three questions above, Sweaty told us three flat-out lies...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Yes.

No.

No.

Those lies are detailed here...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

The statement "Patty's arms are longer than the average human's arm length....proportionally speaking" can not possibly be correct when Patty's arms are not longer than the average human's. Why are you lying to people here?



Really?

Humerus length on Patty skeletal overlay - 1.2 cm

Radius/ulna length on Patty skeletal overlay - 1.1 cm

Humerus length on Heironimus skeletal overlay - 1.2 cm

Radius/ulna length on Heironimus skeletal overlay - 1.1 cm

You know, though you apparently don't, other people here do have tape measures and can verify that you are lying now. Why would you do such a thing?



Yet, my having the distance from my fingertips to my feet when held at my sides being 35.81% of my total body height beats Patty by over 4% and yet I am not slouched over.

What's with the fibbing, ol' Sweat?

1) Patty's arms, as I have shown again and again, are not longer than the average human's, proportionally speaking.

2) I proved that the skeletal overlay referred to above is using the same skeleton, has the same humerus/radius/ulna measurements, and shows Bob having arms of similar proportions as Patty.

3) By showing that the length from my fingertips to my feet is 35.81% of my total body height, 4% better while not slouched and standing fully erect, I proved that Sweaty's fingertips to feet is meaningless.

So why is Sweaty continually lying? Why can't Sweaty address these facts? Why is it Sweaty who is throwing out smoke and mirrors and dodging the real issues?

One answer: footer dementia.

[SweatyYeti]

Two things to notice, about kita-klueless's posts...


First.....the twisted distortions he uses.....constantly.

He wrote:

Quote:

Well, let's get to it and measure these things that are not physical objects.

....Implying that I'm being hypocritical in measuring Patty's computer-generated skeleton.

Quite to the contrary.......here is what I just recently said about the Patty VR skeleton...

Quote:

These measurements of Patty's 'apparent skeleton', of course, don't mean...or prove...that Patty's skeletal structure is actually the same as the skeleton depicts.

I've been consistent. Computer-generated skeletons, and animations of them do not necessarily accurately depict real-world objects, and movements.


Another beautiful example of kitakaze's rotten sewage.



And the other thing to notice, about kitzo's twisted posts, is that they consistently revolve around the computer-generated Fric and Frac skeletons.
He won't touch the REAL-WORLD images, and comparisons.


EDITED to add:

See kit's latest......just above.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Here's 'easy' for you, kitty-poo......

First.....HIGHLIGHT exactly where Patty's ("Bob's) elbow is located, in this image....and, then......SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this comparison...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...pCombined1.jpg

Here's 'easy' for you, kitta-loser...

SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this transfer of Bob's skeletal frame onto Patty's ("Bob's) body...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...nArmsOOPS1.jpg

Here's 'easy' for you, kitzo...

SHOW exactly where, and by how much, the error is, in this comparison of body proportions...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ElbowComp1.jpg

Here is the ULTIMATE in 'easy' for you, Mr. Inepto...

SHOW exactly where there is an error in my previous post.

GO AHEAD..........SHOW THE WORLD...........YOU LOSER.

Oh, how wonderful! Sweaty has decided to accept the deal! He turned down the deal before. He chose cowardice over a fair and equal exchange. That's great, Sweaty. I'm glad that you've indicated a willingness to behave in a fair and reasonable manner by extending your side of the arrangement again. Well, here's mine again...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

3) Would you like me to provide you with some measurements of your misscaling? Well, I can absolutely do that, but the thing is Sweaty, we're going to have to work out an arrangement here. See, as point #2 makes quite clear, giving something for nothing is just plain stupid. Why take the time when I know you'll just be the coward that you are?

No, we need to have an exchange. You want me to give you some scaling measurements for your latest faceplant? Sure thing, I'll get it done today and hold on to it. I've already given you lots of measurements to deal with. What you will have to do to have your request granted is just go right ahead and take these three images...



Now what I'd like you to do is whip out one of your crayons and first put a big fat dot on Bob's right elbow in the shot of him playing Bigfoot with Patterson. Next I'd like you to go to the Patty and Bob-in-suit comparisons and put big fat dots where you think the right elbows are in each shot. That way we can assess how correct or incorrect you actually think my statement was when I said Patty and Bob's eyes, elbows, and knees line up fine.

If you fail to honour your end of the exchange, I will take it as a concession that you in fact know that my statement about Patty and Bob lining up is correct. If you continue to say that I can't support my claims when I have shown exactly how I already have and how I will do so even further to your exact request for measurements, then I it will be taken as a blatant lie and a concession of your own inability to back your own claims.

This is how things must work when I deal with a person who I know to be conniving and intellectually dishonest. If you have a problem with that, chastize yourself for always being so weasely in debate.

Deal or no deal, Sweaty?

Remember, if you live up to your part of the bargain and I do not, you score the biggest point on me ever. If you turn this deal down, you pants yourself and show you cowardice for everyone to see.

Now, remember, I am going to require that you fill your end of the deal first. You'll remember that last time not only did you cower away from the deal, you also failed to live up to your end of another deal when I explained to you in precise detail exactly where I thought Patty's elbow was in the picture you indicated.

So, just go right ahead and put those dots on where you think the elbow is in the pictures I supplied you with. Don't forget, if you do that and I back out of my end of the deal by not giving you a precise demonstration of the errors in your flawed comparison, you, Sweaty, will be able to say that I am a liar, a deal breaker, intellectually dishonest, cowardly, etc. Wouldn't that be wonderful? You could totally make me look like a loser then. OK, let's do this, Sweaty. Let's deal!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

....Implying that I'm being hypocritical in measuring Patty's computer-generated skeleton.

Quite to the contrary.......here is what I just recently said about the Patty VR skeleton...

I've been consistent. Computer-generated skeletons, and animations of them do not necessarily accurately depict real-world objects, and movements.

Except for the fact that you are using conceptual art that has no established validity or verification and any fool can see fits terribly with anatomical drawings to try and make statements and reliable measurements about a physical object, i.e. Patty.

Quote:

And the other thing to notice, about kitzo's twisted posts, is that they consistently revolve around the computer-generated Fric and Frac skeletons.
He won't touch the REAL-WORLD images, and comparisons.


EDITED to add:

See kit's latest......just above.

Except for the fact that I don't just use mangler's Poser 7 (which I proved the validity of by matching humerus/radius/ulna measurement) that Sweaty has a kind of extreme paranoia in calling separate skeletons.

I use also neltana's Daz Studio animation that is double confirmed proof of what is already proven.

Except that I use also my own physical proportion measurements.

Except that I use the physical proportion measurements of multiple physical subjects, including various living subjects and Patty.

Oops for you.

I can do this all day anytime, dear ol' Sweat.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

There's not much you can do for people like Sweaty. He will respond to this with some mess of nonsense on blobs and conceptual art. What he will never do is actually address the major flaws in his belief in Bigfoot or deal with the glaring indicators that point to Patterson having pulled off a hoax. No, I don't want to deal with any of that, thanks. Have you seen my latest comparison? and out come the scribbles.

Originally Posted by davefoc

The most interesting I thought was that Bob Heironimus was around when the PGF film was shot.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

What's even more interesting is the difference in body proportions.....as revealed by the elbows........between Patty, and your 'average' human...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ElbowComp1.jpg

[SweatyYeti]

kitzo has just SHOWN the world...(yet again).....he can't DEAL.............with REAL.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by davefoc

kitakaze,
Thanks, there were several things in your post that I wasn't aware of. The most interesting I thought was that Bob Heironimus was around when the PGF film was shot.

Unfortunately, I am not quite sure I understood it completely. Were you saying:

1 that Heironimus appears as himself someplace on the PGF film? Or that his presence was documented in some other way?

2 Heironimus' horse appears in the PGF film?

3 Gimlin stated that Heironimus was with Patterson and Gimlin when the film was made?

...Snip

Dave, Kit is apparently sidetracked with Sweaty so I'll take a shot at this for you.

#2 is correct. Bob H's horse 'Chico' was used by P&G at the Bluff Creek film site.

Regarding #1; Bob H is in the (in)famous publicity photo of the line of cowbows on their horses, along with Gimlin and Patterson.

[makaya325]

Kitz, Why do you keep posting the same damn pictures OVER AND OVER? I think some people are getting tired of your agenda.

[makaya325]

Davey says

Quote:

I mostly disagree with the intent of this comment. There are millions of people that venture forth into the woods with cameras. There are millions of people that live on the periphery of the woods that have cameras or camera cell phones readily at hand. There are probably thousands of automatic trail cameras deployed every year. I stumble across a few of them every now and then on my limited forays into the woods. This is a vast array of people that take pictures of all kinds of wildlife that have never taken a picture of a bigfoot creature that could be positively identified. This, just by itself, is powerful evidence that bigfoot creatures, if they existed, are extremely rare. The chances that somebody on a simple day outing into the woods to film a bigfoot creature would discover one is extremely low.

Either they do not exist, or are Extremely rare. I take the first option, but It is hard to let go/dismiss the 2nd option too

Quote:

So low that this is close to a smoking gun by itself that the film is a hoax.

The film itself is irrelevant to the issue of lack of photographs of bigfoot

Quote:

I agree with the comment in that I agree there are vast tracts of very sparsely inhabited wood lands that are rarely if ever visited by humans and one might still argue that some kind of large creature that for some reason completely restricted its existence to these sparsely populated areas would be difficult to detect

I agree here too. Again, Perhaps bf sightings in the more smaller states are copy cat versions of real sightings.

[LTC8K6]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Dave, Kit is apparently sidetracked with Sweaty so I'll take a shot at this for you.

#2 is correct. Bob H's horse 'Chico' was used by P&G at the Bluff Creek film site.

Regarding #1; Bob H is in the (in)famous publicity photo of the line of cowbows on their horses, along with Gimlin and Patterson.

Thank you, GT. Re: #1 - Along with the cowboys photo in which Gimlin is sporting his wig and Indian tracker getup (Heironimus is on the far right), the image I posted above of the man riding a horse down an embankment is Heironimus riding Chico. The image is a still from Patterson's film.

Many Bigfoot enthusiasts offhandedly dismissed BH's claim as that of yet another random huckster trying to make a quick buck by claiming to be Patty until these images were uncovered. If ever you come across a PGF fan that says BH was just one of many that claimed to be Patty, ask them to name a single other person. They will be unable to give you one.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitzo has just SHOWN the world...(yet again).....he can't DEAL.............with REAL.

How's that, Sweaty? In what way?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

How's that, Sweaty? In what way?

You ignore measurements that go against your agenda.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Kitz, Why do you keep posting the same damn pictures OVER AND OVER? I think some people are getting tired of your agenda.

Mak, Why do you keep humping the leg of someone who has you on ignore OVER AND OVER? I think some people are getting tired of your crush.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Mak, Why do you keep humping the leg of someone who has you on ignore OVER AND OVER? I think some people are getting tired of your crush.

He ignores me Because he does not want to face criticism, and would rather live in his own freaking one-sided world.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Mak, Why do you keep humping the leg of someone who has you on ignore OVER AND OVER? I think some people are getting tired of your crush.

Don't you even get tired of Kitz posting the same crappy pictures over and over again?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Don't you even get tired of Kitz posting the same crappy pictures over and over again?

I get a lot more tired of Sweaty forcing Kit to post the same pictures over and over again.

[davefoc]

Perhaps it's just the old fart in me (I'm 60) but this thread seems to be unnecessarily mean spirited. It is conceivable that the banter is meant in good fun and in which case, never mind.

It is interesting how we come to believe things and how we come to cling to views even when significant evidence is presented that they are incorrect. I doubt there is a single human that is completely objective at all times. I suspect if there is such a human he hasn't posted in this thread, so while, at least from my perspective, some people have latched on to an idea that is wildly unlikely to be true, I wouldn't want to be too critical since, being human, I've got my own set of ideas that I might cling to with a little too much zeal.

Originally Posted by davefoc

So low that this is close to a smoking gun by itself that the film is a hoax.

Originally Posted by makaya325

The film itself is irrelevant to the issue of lack of photographs of bigfoot

My point was that the lack of photographs of bigfoot given the massive number of people who have been in a position to take a picture of one is very strong evidence that they are very difficult or impossible to take pictures of. The possibility that Patterson and Gimlin succeeded on their first attempt to take pictures of a bigfoot means that they accomplished something that is indistinguishably close to impossible or the film is a hoax. Given how wildly difficult it has proved to be to take a picture of a bigfoot creature far and away the most likely situation is that the PG films is a hoax. A wild ass guess might be that there have been 10 million opportunities for somebody to take a picture of a bigfoot creature in roughly the area and under roughly the conditions that Patterson and Gimlin took their picture. And yet out of those 10 million opportunities not one person has succeeded. That fact, without any other information, is compelling and might be considered a smoking gun.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Thank you, GT. Re: #1 - Along with the cowboys photo in which Gimlin is sporting his wig and Indian tracker getup (Heironimus is on the far right), the image I posted above of the man riding a horse down an embankment is Heironimus riding Chico. The image is a still from Patterson's film.

Many Bigfoot enthusiasts offhandedly dismissed BH's claim as that of yet another random huckster trying to make a quick buck by claiming to be Patty until these images were uncovered. If ever you come across a PGF fan that says BH was just one of many that claimed to be Patty, ask them to name a single other person. They will be unable to give you one.

From my perspective, this is very strong evidence that Heironimusis telling the truth. It is one thing to continue to argue for the validity of the PG film based on one's analysis or particular beliefs about the available evidence. Disparaging comments about Heironimusis in the face of such strong evidence that he is telling the truth passes into unethical. It is also intellectually dishonest. To use the conclusions from one's bigfoot analysis as a basis to assign malevolent motives to everybody that provides facts that don't support those conclusions is circular reasoning.

A general comment on the various efforts at body proportion determination:

I think there is a kind of asymmetry to the situation that SweatiYeti does not seem to be aware of. Yes, it is possible to show that a creature with non-human body proportions might be shown in the PG film. But this is not as probative as it might seem. Nobody disputes that the PG Film could be a wild creature if the only evidence available was from the film. Even without your analysis this might be true. There isn't much that can be tested with regard to the film to support the proposition that it is a wild animal. Nobody knows what the hypothetical wild animal looks like so it could look like the creature in the PG film.

However, the man in a monkey suit hypothesis makes a testable prediction. The creature in the PG film needs to be close enough to what a man in monkey suit would look like that it is reasonable to conclude that it could be a man in a monkey suit. It appears to me that kitakaze and others have accomplished this. It is possible to show that using different assumptions than kitekaze et. al. did about the images that a creature with non-human body proportions might be portrayed. But this just isn't all that important as to the issue of this thread. The images are low resolution, blurred and with difficult to interpret shadows. Clearly, given different assumptions different determinations might be made about the body proportions of the creature in the PG film. The important fact is that it could be human.