Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I feel like Babe Ruth...



Quibbles n' bits.

Really, Sweaty, help those of us who don't have your vice-like grip on semantics understand what the difference between refusing to answer a question for four months because you think it's relevant and failing to answer the question because you think it's irrelevant.

When you say that Patty's arms are longer than a human's in proportion, the sample base of human's you've compared to to make the claim valid is the most relevant thing of all.



And then fall down when they see this...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...a772b378c7.jpghttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...3451fc1ffb.jpg



That destroys your comparisons with your own methods and actual detailed measurments. Comparing Patty to Bob out of a suit is neato but comparing Patty to Bob in a couple of suits where his hands are in the gloves and he's in the same position as Patty is the most powerful evidence of all.







Thank you for finally answering that question you were so loathe to answer for the last four months. It's obvious why you were so resistant to answering it. Three humans. Wow. All it took for you to boldly pronounce that Patty has proportionally longer arms than a human was three people. Wow. Very stringent analysis. LOL! You have the most severe case of confirmation bias ever. So BH and Jim McClaren is two. Who's three?

Wasnt Lyle Laverty (Who used the yard stick) the SAME EXACT size as patty?

Sweaty, you are royally pissing me off, badly. WHY, oh, WHY, cant you just accept, no, why cant you even consider Kitz's, astro's, manglers anaylsis's (I feel the big three are light years ahead of you, both in credentials, common sense, and critical thinking) instead of your pseudoscientific analysis to support your own damn conclusion? You are not trapped in a corner...you are Demolished...daily. Just accept the fact that you are wrong.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Wasnt Lyle Laverty (Who used the yard stick) the SAME EXACT size as patty?

That is a rather redundant question. Isn't it impossible to unequivocally state that anyone is or was the "same exact size" as Patty? It's not as if she voluntarily hiked up to a ranger and allowed herself to be measured. The best anyone can do is an educated guesstimate.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by desertgal

That is a rather redundant question. Isn't it impossible to unequivocally state that anyone is or was the "same exact size" as Patty? It's not as if she voluntarily hiked up to a ranger and allowed herself to be measured. The best anyone can do is an educated guesstimate.

There is no estimated size for Patty. There is an EXACT size for patty, which is in the range of 5ft 10 to 6ft 2, PERFECTLY matching Bob H's size.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by makaya325

There is no estimated size for Patty. There is an EXACT size for patty, which is in the range of 5ft 10 to 6ft 2, PERFECTLY matching Bob H's size.

5'10 to 6'2 is not an EXACT size. It's an estimate.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by desertgal

5'10 to 6'2 is not an EXACT size. It's an estimate.

An estimate gathered by 6 highly qualified individual sources. Please, it is not just a hypothesis anymore. It is a near fact.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Comparing Patty to Bob out of a suit is neato but comparing Patty to Bob in a couple of suits where his hands are in the gloves and he's in the same position as Patty is the most powerful evidence of all.

Comparing Patty's body proportions to Bob's body proportions is the only way to determine if Bob's body dimensions truly match Patty's.


A comparison to "Bob-in-a-suit",....especially when we don't know to what degree the suit is extending his arm length.....is meaningful only to a desperate skeptic who can't handle the fact that Bob's dimensions never match Patty's.....in direct comparisons.

Enjoy your time in make-believe land, Sewer Boy.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Comparing Patty's body proportions to Bob's body proportions is the only way to determine if Bob's body dimensions truly match Patty's.


A comparison to "Bob-in-a-suit",....especially when we don't know to what degree the suit is extending his arm length.....is meaningful only to a desperate skeptic who can't handle the fact that Bob's dimensions never match Patty's.....in direct comparisons.

Enjoy your time in make-believe land, Sewer Boy.

That's just plain wrong, Sweaty, and you're now just projecting your own silliness on to me. Just repeating yourself isn't helping you. First of all, again and again and again you ignore the detailed measurements that Astro made showing that Patty's or not at all inhumanly long. They show a maximum difference of only 1 - 2 inches with Bob out of a suit and Patty. You're the only one with your eyes wide shut around here.

Second, the comparison is not meaningless. When we know that when Bob's hands are in the gloves of two different suits, there are no extensions being employed, and it matches Patty - and on top of that measurments out of the suit show minimal difference - it means you are screwed. Your try-hard comparison with different angles and poses with Bob's arm foreshortened goes up in flames.

Try bringing it to me, Sweaty. Try dealing with the details and the debate in front of you. Repeating yourself and ignoring the data is the true sign of desperation so don't try your projection garbage with me. Give me your best, Sweaty. Not this lame stuff you're doing now.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:




Comparing Patty's body proportions to Bob's body proportions is the only way to determine if Bob's body dimensions truly match Patty's.


A comparison to "Bob-in-a-suit",....especially when we don't know to what degree the suit is extending his arm length.....is meaningful only to a desperate skeptic who can't handle the fact that Bob's dimensions never match Patty's.....in direct comparisons.

Enjoy your time in make-believe land, Sewer Boy.

Sweaty, We have debunked your arguements time and time again. You are one against all of us skeptics.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Thank you for finally answering that question you were so loathe to answer for the last four months.

Actually, I answered your question 4 months ago...

Quote:

Enough humans, for my liking.

At the time you asked the question....you already knew that I had only done a few comparisons.....and, in addition, my answer alluded to that, very plainly, and very clearly.

My original answer didn't contain a precise quantity....but what it meant was obvious....."enough for me, but not for you". It clearly alluded to a small quantity.

You knew full well what my answer meant, Sewer Fountain.



What is significant, though, is the comparisons themselves. They stand on their on '2 feet', so to speak.
The results are always the same....in every comparison to Bob, and in every comparison to other people, Patty's arm-length appears longer than the human's arm, proportionally speaking.




So, here's the deal.....Mr. Sewage, you can continue to play your 'false accusation' game, using more "examples" of your questions which I have failed to answer, for various reasons...but you will never find ONE of them, that you can ask me now, (as an example of a refused question), that I won't be willing to answer, in short order.


To prove this...I'll give you 7 questions.....7 attempts to show the world that I am actually afraid to answer, and refusing to answer, your questions.
(Surely, given that many attempts...you can find ONE question that I am TRULY afraid to answer......right? )

After those 7 questions are answered, (quickly).....I'll then have a perfectly clear rebuttal for your future accusations.....and I will post those questions and responses every single time you falsely accuse me of "refusing" to answer questions.

The more you accuse me of refusing to answer....the longer my rebuttal list/post will become....and I will post it, and re-post it, in my own defense, after every single accusation.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Sweaty, We have debunked your arguements time and time again.

That part is true.

Quote:

You are one against all of us skeptics.

That part is not true and I really think you shouldn't try using intimidation tactics on Sweaty or any other proponent. There are other people like log who support some of Sweaty's thinking. The way to approach the situation is to deal with the flawed arguments and disqualify them with better ones. Trying to cow Sweaty that way doesn't help us and gives Sweaty an excuse to dodge arguments while he takes the rest of his evening choosing individual colours for individual letters of the post where he takes the moral highground on you.

Little mak, we address the arguments, not bully the person who makes them.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Repeating yourself and ignoring the data is the true sign of desperation

You have repeatedly posted those Poser 7 skeletal comparisons. According to you, you must be desperate.


I will continue posting more comparisons of Patty with Bob....and they will continue showing the same result.....Patty's arms reaching down closer to her feet, than Bob's do, to his.

Never will there be a comparison that shows the opposite. To see that happen....you have to live in a land of make-believe.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Sweaty, you are royally pissing me off, badly. WHY, oh, WHY, cant you just accept, no, why cant you even consider Kitz's, astro's, manglers anaylsis's (I feel the big three are light years ahead of you, both in credentials, common sense, and critical thinking) instead of your pseudoscientific analysis to support your own damn conclusion? You are not trapped in a corner...you are Demolished...daily. Just accept the fact that you are wrong.

Little mak, thank you for the support but please...

1) Once again... serenity now!

2) Where it concerns me, I would say Sweaty's critical thinking and common sense falls far short compared to the three of us you mention. However, Astrophotographer and mangler have better credentials when it comes to image analysis than Sweaty but not I. We're both equally qualified in that regard and it becomes a matter using our our intellectual abilities as best we can to deal with the arguments regarding image analysis. What Sweaty really should do is try and heed better the arguments of a person like Astro who makes detailed measurements and has the training and skill to do it properly. Instead he just ignores them and runs away.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

You have repeatedly posted those Poser 7 skeletal comparisons. According to you, you must be desperate.

Nice try. That makes me persistent, not desperate. Of course I will post the images again and again if you continually evade accounting for what they show. Oops for you.

Quote:

I will continue posting more comparisons of Patty with Bob....and they will continue showing the same result.....Patty's arms reaching down closer to her feet, than Bob's do, to his.

1) Explain the relevance of that. The distance from you arms to your feet isn't variable?

2) Please provided a measurment in inches or centimeters the variation between Patty and Bob. You know, like the 1 - 2 inches Astro ofund.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Please point out in that post you where I say that the effect is responsible for what may be happening with Patty's fingers.

Right here......

Quote:

Holy cow, wolftrax, that is an awesome redux of Spektator's doll hand demo.

"Why.....that doll-hand redux isn't just good ....it's downright... "awesome!!!"

Absolutely AWE-inspiring!!

Now, of course....this doesn't mean it has any relevance to Patty's hand.......it's just that the doll-hand redux......to look at.....is, simply...


....."awe-awe-awesome!!!"



And, kitakaze's "opinions" are as smelly as everything else he says in his posts.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Nice try. That makes me persistent, not desperate.
Of course I will post the images again and again if you continually evade accounting for what they show.

The same goes for me, with my comparisons, Sewer Dude.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Actually, I answered your question 4 months ago...

I was hoping you might say that. Four months ago you gave me what you refer to as a non-answer. "Enough" is not a sincere answer, is it?

Quote:

At the time you asked the question....you already knew that I had only done a few comparisons

That's almost right. I knew you had made flawed comparisons to Bob Heironimus and Jim McClaren who had there arms in different positions and at different angles to Patty. I knew that only a flailing jackass with serious confirmation bias would flat-out claim that Patty had arms clearly longer than a human's based on a sample base of two. That's why I asked the question. I know how to make you dodge and which questions will do it. That was an excellent one. I knew there was no way you'd just out and admit something that would show how crap you are at critical thinking and analysis. It is not hard to manipulate people who are not intellectually honest when you know the way they maneuver.

Quote:

My original answer didn't contain a precise quantity....but what it meant was obvious....."enough for me, but not for you". It clearly alluded to a small quantity.

You knew full well what my answer meant, Sewer Fountain.

Yes, I did. It was a matter of making you admit it explicitly. Two or three maybe enough of a sample base to declare Patty's arms are inhumanly long for a fanatical footer with a fervent desire to believe but not for the rest of the world that retains the ability to think clearly and unfettered by belief.

Quote:

What is significant, though, is the comparisons themselves. They stand on their on '2 feet', so to speak.
The results are always the same....in every comparison to Bob, and in every comparison to other people, Patty's arm-length appears longer than the human's arm, proportionally speaking.

Appears to you, yes. In direct comparisons using a single human skeleton it is just fine. 1 - 2 inches is the difference between Patty's and Bob's arms. Suck it up, Desperado.

Quote:

So, here's the deal.....Mr. Sewage, you can continue to play your 'false accusation' game, using more "examples" of your questions which I have failed to answer, for various reasons...but you will never find ONE of them, that you can ask me now, (as an example of a refused question), that I won't be willing to answer, in short order.


To prove this...I'll give you 7 questions.....7 attempts to show the world that I am actually afraid to answer, and refusing to answer, your questions.
(Surely, given that many attempts...you can find ONE question that I am TRULY afraid to answer......right? )

After those 7 questions are answered, (quickly).....I'll then have a perfectly clear rebuttal for your future accusations.....and I will post those questions and responses every single time you falsely accuse me of "refusing" to answer questions.

The more you accuse me of refusing to answer....the longer my rebuttal list/post will become....and I will post it, and re-post it, in my own defense, after every single accusation.

This is excellent, Sweaty. Now you're showing some intellectual cahones. I applaud that. I'll get right on that. I think if you actually answer the seven questions I will ask of you, I will be very impressed and I will no longer say that you evade questions. I'm quite prepared for this, BTW. I use various methods to make my posts easily searchable. For example, keeping track of questions I think you have evaded is easy because all I need to do is search "simple - question - Sweaty". I use those words in every such post so that I'll be able to find it instantly later. I'll get right on that.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

That part is true.



That part is not true and I really think you shouldn't try using intimidation tactics on Sweaty or any other proponent. There are other people like log who support some of Sweaty's thinking. The way to approach the situation is to deal with the flawed arguments and disqualify them with better ones. Trying to cow Sweaty that way doesn't help us and gives Sweaty an excuse to dodge arguments while he takes the rest of his evening choosing individual colours for individual letters of the post where he takes the moral highground on you.

Little mak, we address the arguments, not bully the person who makes them.

You may want to take a look in the mirror.

Even though Sweaty is an annoying troll you tend to berate him beyond what is necessary. You even berate him when he concedes a point, rubbing his nose in your victory instead of graciously accepting it.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

You may want to take a look in the mirror.

Even though Sweaty is an annoying troll you tend to berate him beyond what is necessary. You even berate him when he concedes a point, rubbing his nose in your victory instead of graciously accepting it.

Do you you really think so, GT? I will accept that criticism. I can see how that impression might come across. Let me try and explain a little where I'm coming from. Based on all the time I have known Sweaty through his posts he tries to make skeptics look unreasonable and close-minded. Like as though we're in a kind of grumpy stupor that prevents us from seeing the real wonder in the world. He constantly tries to ensnare skeptics in his games. He dances around and gloats whenever he thinks he's succeeded in making a skeptic look like an idiot. His essential goal is to try and score points on people here who criticize the underlying reasoning of his beliefs regarding Bigfoot (and to a lesser extent alien visitation to Earth and Martian civilizations).

I figured out long ago as Vort is just beginning to figure out now that Sweaty doesn't respond to rational thinking and reasoning that go against his preconceived beliefs. Rather then burn my wheels out trying to reason with Sweaty I take a somewhat different approach. I keep my basic arguments in tact but I emulate Sweaty and the way he reasons and behaves. He doesn't speak the language of critical thought very well so I talk to him in Sweatish. I find it effective and quite funny. I like it much better than being in a prolonged state of exasperation with him or being enfuriated with his nanner-nanner-poo poo games.

Here is a post that I think you may have had in mind when you wrote your above post:

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

...Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It's possible to make a SUIT with arms as long as Patty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at those. Aren't they a pretty pair? I just want to get them framed or engraved on a plaque or I don't know what. They're just really special, aren't they? Sweaty concedes that by using his very own crayon method that the length of Patty's arms can be equal to that of a person.

I win, Sweaty loses, and it's a sunny day.

Wow. It's like being a Sweaty clone. I'm using the same smilies the way he does and I'm just flat-out gloating. I'm kinda taunting him like a cocky SOB. Please note there, GT, that Sweaty wasn't making any real concession. He hasn't conceded and given up the deeply flawed claim that Patty's arms are inhumanly long. If Sweaty once ever made any type of concession or admission of error, I would never rub his face in it. I would accept it graciously as you would. Sweaty just recently told me he made a mistake in assuming I was talking about Bob and Patty definitely being suits when I was actually talking about the different occassions that BH has donned a suit. I could have pounced on him then and did the whole routine but I didn't as I had no desire to take it to that kind of level. I want to trip up Sweaty when he tries to make skeptics look foolish and illustrate his agenda but I don't want to sacrifice my principles to do it.

I think it's wild to use Sweaty's own words and methods or at least the semblage of it to disqualify his flawed arguments. I assume that people get that I'm doing that. If people could read that post I made and not realize that I was channeling Sweaty but rather genuinely being a dick and normally behave that way to everybody, then maybe I should rethink the concept. I don't think it's cool to go to a place where I'm not channeling Sweaty that but rather trying to shut him up with the threat of numbers against him. That whole concept sucks to me and there's no wit or humour in it at all.

If anyone else didn't get I was emulating Sweaty or thinks I'm bullying him, please speak up.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The same goes for me, with my comparisons, Sewer Dude.

Actually, no. I'll explain why. Persistence is trying to get someone to address an argument and not giving up no matter how long they try and pretend it's not there.

Desperation in the context we are discussing is seen when you have an argument that you put forward, it is clearly refuted and carefully explained to you how, and yet you just bring it back again. That's the action of a person who has no recourse other than admitting their error or simply repeating it.

You make a comparison with Bob and Patty and claim it as evidence that Patty's arms are inhumanly long, and then your own method is used to show that the comparison is flawed and (this is a big and) detailed measurments are provided that show the difference between Patty's arm and Bob out of a suit is negligible. If you then disregard those detailed measurments that show Patty's arms are a good match for Bob's and well within the confines of human proportions and quibble about Bob being in suits in those comparison images (as though it has some relevance to whether or not a human in a suit could be Patty) while simply reposting your own comparison that has been explained in great detail to be invalid, then you are behaving in a desperate and ineffectual manner.

It should be pretty simple...

Step 1 - Person "A" makes an argument.

Step 2 - If the argument is flawed Person "B" presents a counter-argument addressing each of the individual flaws of the original argument.

Step 3 - Person "A" concedes the error of the original argument or provides a rebuttal addressing each of the flaws of the counter-argument and how they do not apply to the original argument.

This process repeats itself and may include the modification of thinking by both parties.

Step 3 should never simply be Person "A" repeats Step 1 and ignores essential parts of Step 2. That is not a sincere debate. That is exactly what you did by ignoring Astro's measurments of Bob out of a suit and introducing a non-issue about the images of Bob in a suit. That is the desperate behaviour of a person unwilling to modify or revise their thinking based on new and better information. That is the behaviour of a fanatic rather than a critical thinker.

Do you understand how that applies to the discussion we've been have about your claim of Patty having inhumanly long arms and how that in turn applies to a human in a suit being able to be Patty?

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, I think post #1974 is a good example of what I think is intellectual dishonesty on your part as well as the shrill, irritating, and flailing behaviour. I am loathe to fully quote your post because I'm simply tired of seeing giant bold and italicized red text with triple exclamation marks. However, I think we would benefit from another look at the following posts:

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Please point out in that post you where I say that the effect is responsible for what may be happening with Patty's fingers. AFAIC, like I said to log...

Concept - the fingers of the suit might be moving because they have fingers in them.

I'm movin' on up!

The part in italics is the part you ommitted from your response here:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Right here......

(snip)

And, kitakaze's "opinions" are as smelly as everything else he says in his posts.

The irony is that you accused me of misrepresenting you and distorting the truth when I emphasized the part where you said Patty's arms could be as long as a human's while leaving out the part about being in a ratty suit yet you just there did the same thing to me as well as having done it to Spektator earlier. He said he wasn't saying the doll hand effect is responsible for the perceived bending of Patty's fingers in the non-linear gif, only that it could be. You left out the first part and responded to the latter as though that was all that was said.

Regardless, you know perfectly well from the many images that I post and my explicit statements that I believe any finger bending could easily be accounted for by fingers in a glove of a suit. You know that I have never stated the doll hand effect to definitively be responsible for what's in the gif. The intellectual dishonesty comes in when knowing that, you post my compliment of wolftrax's redux of the doll hand effect demo as the proof of me stating the belief you know I don't hold. You manically flail over my use of the word "awesome" while de-emphasizing that I was stressing I'm not saying it's definitively responsible. That's not cool, man. That's a misrepresentation of what I'm saying big-time and a distortion of the truth. Complimenting wolftrax on his demonstration on the quality of his demonstration in no way equates agreement with it definitively, particularly when I have explicitly stated my own favoured theory.

Here's the kicker, though. Spektator's doll hand demo and Wolftrax's effective, clear, and awesome redux of it still absolutely have the possibility of being responsible for the perceived finger-bending.

Check this out. Here wolftrax explains to you exactly why your counter-argument with images was flawed in response to his redux (you know, Step 2):

Originally Posted by wolftrax

Sweaty, the angles might not be an exact match, that could cause more of the shadowed area being shown in the dolls hand. However, comparing the two Patty images, there is more exposure of a shadowed area in one frame vs. the next, this would indicate some rotation.

He gives you precisely the reason why the doll hand effect is still a valid possibility. Here's the hilarious part that is so typical of you. Wolftrax just put the disarmed your grenade and threw it back to you and all you had to say was this:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I'll look into that theory, later.

ROFL! That is so damn funny! I find that hilarious. Sweaty doesn't have time to check out the important Step 2 and go to Step 3. He's got bolding and italicizing and huge fonts and triple exclamation marked and individually coloured text rants to make. He is to busy prancing around and mocking people in weak Jim Carey fashion to actually function effectively in a debate.

That is why I think you are intellectually dishonest and why so many people think you are about as welcome as a fart in the shower.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by makaya325

An estimate gathered by 6 highly qualified individual sources. Please, it is not just a hypothesis anymore. It is a near fact.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the 5'9 to 6'2 estimate was hypothetical, nor did I say it was inaccurate. There are a number of ways to arrive at a reasonably accurate estimate of Patty's height, and I have little doubt that the estimate is reasonably accurate. But it IS just that: an estimate. My point was that you can't make the claim that anyone knows Patty's exact height. An estimated 5 inch difference in height is hardly exact.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The more you accuse me of refusing to answer....the longer my rebuttal list/post will become....and I will post it, and re-post it, in my own defense, after every single accusation.

Are you ever going to answer my question or are you refusing to answer a bigfoot question?

[SweatyYeti]

Another misrepresentation of what I've said, by Sewer King...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

...Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
It's possible to make a SUIT with arms as long as Patty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at those. Aren't they a pretty pair? I just want to get them framed or engraved on a plaque or I don't know what. They're just really special, aren't they?

Sweaty concedes that by using his very own crayon method that the length of Patty's arms can be equal to that of a person.

This is what I actually said...

Quote:

Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person who has been unlucky enough to become engulfed in ratty, re-cycled carpeting.......a suit.

So, re-capping......I have said these two basically identical things...

Quote:

It's possible to make a SUIT with arms as long as Patty.

Quote:

Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person who has been unlucky enough to become engulfed in ratty, re-cycled carpeting.......a suit.

This is just one more example of Sewer Boy's twisted distortions of things that I've said.

It'll be added to my collection......a long, growing collection, which I will be posting in these threads, over and over again.

kitakaze wants to continue with his sewer posts.....fine. Then they'll pollute this forum.

[wvbig]

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by wvbig

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

What current evidence?

You dont think the "real BF" version has holes in it you can drive a truck thru?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Are you ever going to answer my question or are you refusing to answer a bigfoot question?

Sure. I've been busy, enjoying the long weekend.

My son and I had front row seats at the Providence Bruins game last night. We saw a great hockey game.......except that the Bruins lost in overtime.



The short answer is.....No, I don't think that I have absolutely proven, beyond all doubt, that Bob's head is too large to have fit inside Patty's....but I think the comparisons show there's a very good chance....a high probability....that his head is too wide, all around, to have fit.

(Again....and as always....nobody can ask me a Bigfoot-related question that I am afraid to answer, or will respond with an outright refusal to answer that particular question.)


As for those two posts of yours that you mentioned, I'll read them and respond to them later, when I have time to.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by wvbig

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through.

Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

Very good point, WV!

I've recently made that same point. It applies to Bob Gimlin....who, allegedly, could write a tell-all book, detailing the whole event.

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The short answer is.....No, I don't think that I have absolutely proven, beyond all doubt, that Bob's head is too large to have fit inside Patty's....but I think the comparisons show there's a very good chance....a high probability....that his head is too wide, all around, to have fit.

This is not really an answer. Are you stating that you have no measurements to demonstrate your claim is true? This was the context of my question. If this is true then you can not make the claim. It is based SOLELY on your subjective opinion (with flawed "comparisons") and not by any objective measurement. Actually, my measurements show the head's width on the comparison image I posted to be about even. You never refuted that and then shifted the argument to is head was "too square" or "not pointy enough".

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by wvbig

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

False reasoning. A suit can exist. A person can wear a suit. Therefore, it is probably that a guy in a suit could be the subject in the film. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe this is a film of a creature that has never been proven to exist in any way for 40 years since the film was made. It seems highly unlikely that the subject in the film is an actual bigfoot and it is more likely that it is a man in a suit. Argue all you want about producing the suit (which could have been destroyed or lost) and that Gimlin keeps to his story (didn't the surgeons photo hoax stand for many decades without anyone admitting it was a hoax?). Instead the argument should be "where is the good evidence that bigfoot exists"? Until that is shown, the best solution remains that it is a guy in a suit.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Very good point, WV!

I've recently made that same point. It applies to Bob Gimlin....who, allegedly, could write a tell-all book, detailing the whole event.

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

But haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the film in detail concluded that it's a guy in a suit?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....

List please.

Quote:

Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

Potentially... and yet Greg Long made how much off his book? On top of that he gets to die with the legacy of being a hoaxer and spend the rest of his years being mauled by rage-filled disillusioned Bigfoot geeks. I think it's understandable he just shows up at the odd convention, wears a cute scarf, and soaks up the love from people who'd never dare ask him an uncomfortable question.

[Vortigern99]

Gentlemen, there is a thread for the Memorial Day footage. It's currently on page 1 of the Gen. Skep. forum. I come to this thread to read about the PGF and matters attendant to its discussion. Please, will you take this sidebar discussion to the appropriate thread? Thank you.

[Blackdog]

I have to agree with Wolftrax (and I usually do), I'm sure he has a point here because he, and I, have a long history with Sweaty and his tactics, much longer than anyone here. Also a little side track to a 50 page thread (the 3rd of 3 so far) rehashing the same old junk can only be a good thing IMO.

A little advice Vort, first calling wolftrax "junior" only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject of the internet bigfoot world, his knowledge on the subject vastly eclipses yours. Since you don't know how old he is I have to assume you believe yourself to be his superior.
Also you are wasting your time arguing with sweaty and trynig to get any concessions out of him. You have to catch him in his contradictions and double speak.

[Vortigern99]

Bottom line is, this thread is about the PGF. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

[Blackdog]

If you think this has gone too far off topic contact a moderator, last I looked you aren't one.

Like I said maybe wolftrax' point is relevant, but you'll never know unless you let it play out.

[jhunter1163]

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

The majority have- yes

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

Chris Walas, Stan Winston and Rick Baker have all gone on record as saying it's a guy in a suit. Winston said, and I quote, "It's a bad hair suit." Also, Janos Prahoska initially said he didn't think anyone could make such a convincing suit, but then in the same interview, when asked directly, opined that it would take "about six hours" (I think he said six) to glue on all the hair.

Are there any others that anyone knows specific details about?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Chris Walas, Stan Winston and Rick Baker have all gone on record as saying it's a guy in a suit. Winston said, and I quote, "It's a bad hair suit." Also, Janos Prahoska initially said he didn't think anyone could make such a convincing suit, but then in the same interview, when asked directly, opined that it would take "about six hours" (I think he said six) to glue on all the hair.

Are there any others that anyone knows specific details about?

Verne

[wvbig]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

The majority have- yes

I know some have said they could do it. Then when they tried, they failed miserably. The late Jonas Prohaska(sp?), who was an actor who portrayed various apes in movies, said he didn't think it was a person in a costume. But if it was, it was the best costume he'd ever seen. This is where I think the idea of it being a guy in a suit, runs into direct conflict with what has been reported about Roger Patterson. That he was broke. I would think if it was a guy in a suit, it would've been debunked years ago unless it was a very very good custom made suit. Very very good custom made suit=$$$$$$$$$$$ So how would a guy who was broke come up with that caliber of costume?