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 , Bob Gimlin , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 4th March 2010, 03:22 PM   #361
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by inn View Post
Kudos Kit!!! This would the most significant advancement with the PGF in a long time, and maybe just in time. I'll be PMing you some questions for Bob(s).

As the Devil's advocate...
Cheers, inn. I get all Jeff Goldblum just thinking about it. BTW, if I was a government, I'd want you for the opposition.

Quote:
Because Bob H was always jealous that he was close to the PGF, yet didn't get in on it.
OK, so the idea is that Bob got jealous and claimed to be a part of the film that he was involved with. When he starts claiming to friends in Yakima in '68 that he was in the suit, he opens himself up to litigation by Patterson who is running around all over the place trying to make money with the film.

There is also the fact that BH has always been a fairly quiet fellow. If he really was looking to get attention and soothe his wounded ego, you think he would have rocked the boat a lot harder. He didn't do that. He kept it limited to a few people in his wee little town. He kept acting like a guy waiting for the $1000 dollars he was promised and then acted like a guy that wasn't overly go get 'em when he he didn't get that money. Makes sense to me.

Quote:
No doubt they all knew each other well, which gave Bob H a sense of entitlement.
OK, let's roll with that. You're Bob H. This is your crew...



Shortstop and Tonto and Slim and Tex and Cooter and the rest, those are your boys. So Shortstop and Tonto take a break from the Bigfoot movie they're putting you in and take your great big horse Chico down to California for like a whole month and come back jumping up and down with an actual female Bigfoot on film (which looks just like the one drew in his book last year). You're all screwed up with jealousy and dagnabit, you miss Chico, and you go ahead and start telling people that you were the ladyfoot. Don't you expect Shortstop and Tonto and Slim and Tex and Cooter and the rest to come roll over you like a ton of bricks?

Quote:
On what charges and how could you prove any of it?
Libel. You get your lawyer who gets an inkling of how much revenue the PGF has generated to worry about proving it. Certainly in 2004 Bob Gimlin should have been threatening his neighbour and friend with legal action if he didn't STFU.

Quote:
Patterson passed one too.
Let's drag that one out. Bob's polygraphs are well documented. What about the Roger took? Where is the documentation?

Quote:
They likely can't avoid each other. They know where each other stands. Neither is likely to budge, so why discuss it?
If the Bigfoot film thing was as much of a big deal as Gimlin makes it out to be and everybody knew Heironimus was in the suit, Gimlin could have left Yakima or at least S 90th Ave decades ago. He didn't. He remained friends with Heironimus and they still hang out. Outside wee little Yakima people are debating the film endlessly, but there in town Bob H is the guy in the suit who asked Gimlin to come foreward and Gimlin is the guy who won't because it's too far gone now. There are horses to break in, Chevy's to restore, and pints to have, so why discuss it?

Quote:
He admitted it because it's Gimlin's word against his, and in his mind he should have been the guy in the suit anyways. But he may not even know who or what was actually in the suit.
Let's say Heironimus was lying. Not only was he risking Shortstop and Tonto and Slim and Tex and Cooter and the rest coming to roll over him like a ton of bricks, he risks having the real guy come foreward and making him look like an a lying ass. he certainly didn't think it was a real Bigfoot. But if they really did film Bigfoot, they had every possibility of then going and finding one after the film was made, which again makes BH look like a lying ass.

Quote:
ETA: I smell book deal here for Kit. Ghost writers need not apply.
I smell inn lighting a fire under my ass. LOL

Working title is 9 Doors Apart...
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 4th March 2010, 05:08 PM   #362
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 601
Kit:

Wishing you success in interviewing Bob H.

Questions you may want to ask Bob H.

1. Could you describe the parts of the suit and the sequence of dressing into it?

Also, can you describe these particulars:

a. head mask, was anything inside it, or was it just a thin rubber mask?
b. body suit, was it in one or two pieces, and if more than one piece, what part of the body did each piece cover, and which piece was worn first?
c. gloves, where there any and were they separate from the arm sleave or attached to the sleave?
d. feet, were they separate from the leg fur or attached?
e. Was there any inner padding, or football shoulder padding, worn under the fur?


2. What were you wearing when you put the suit on?

example: Normal clothes (like jeans and shirt), long johns, socks, shoes, boots, ?

3. Was the costume loose fitting or snug when you wore it?

4. Were various suit pieces connected and held together by zippers, buttons, hook & eye devices, snaps, or velcro?

5. Hip waders have been mentioned as being in the suit. If so, were they put on before the fur suit, or were they fixed in the fur suit so your foot and leg slipped into the wader as it went into the costume?

6. When you were dressed up, and Roger had the camera ready to film, who decided how you should act and move?

Who chose the path that was eventually walked?

Was there any reason why none of the footage showed you fully facing the camera before walking away?

The film shows you just walking and walking further and further away. How did you know when to stop walking and that the filming was done, so you could turn around and walk back?

7. Why did you look back at the camera?

8. Did your walking while being filmed make the trackway footprints later cast by Roger and Titmus, or were those added later?

9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them?

10. Did you try the costume on before that day, to see how it would fit, and if so, where and on what day?

11. Did you breathe through the mask nose or mouth? Aside from the holes around the eyes to see out of, were there any other holes in the mask face?

12. Could you remove the face mask by yourself, after you were done, or did you need one of the other guys to help you get the mask off?


Bill
Bill Munns 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 4th March 2010, 05:09 PM   #363
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
kitakaze wrote:



Here's a question for you to ask Bob, kitakaze...


"Did Roger ever "skin-out a dead, red horse", to make his suit with?"

(And...did the suit really stink??)
Here's a question for you, Sweaty. How's your Ballzheimers?

Answer: bad.

Remember this?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg
It has been noted a thousand times, that BH never had any first hand information that the suit was made from horse hide...
Thanks for the info, Greg.
I'll have to do some searching to find out exactly how he described the "suit".
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2106

Of course not. Let me help you...

Howard Heironimus, Bob's brother, said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse. Those are words coming from Roger Patterson, not Bob. So the answer to your poor attempt at discrediting Bob would be he doesn't know, that's just what his brother said he heard from Roger.

Oops for you, Sweaty faceplants again. Try to keep up, old boy...

Originally Posted by William Parcher in 411 PGF
Yes, if his story is not contrived then the jig is up. But even if he has contemporarily added changes and/or new affirmations about the event, it doesn't mean that he wasn't the guy in the suit after all. Maybe Heironimus is too human to work as a fully-convincing confessor. He doesn't strategically slice out the parts that obviously don't make sense or customize the story to perfectly counter the arguments of the Pattycakes. No, he just tells it the way he tells it. If you don't believe him then you don't. He has always been a pretty stereotypical working guy in Yakima, and now he tells us about his experience wearing the suit in the PGF. No matter how much any of us wishes he could produce physical evidence or get his recollective accounts in a better sort of order (Bob, leave out apparently contrary bits, would you please?)... he only just tells it like it was as far as he can remember. Bob seems willing to go on live radio shows and be asked questions that he doesn't know about in advance. He sounds like an average guy that is gonna tell you what he remembers about the event. He doesn't even seem to make stuff up as he goes. Some things he has no knowledge of, nor had opportunity to know and for these you will get a blank from him. If he was a constantly scheming liar, I would expect him to try to spontaneously concoct deadly answers to every question. He doesn't.

If he is a conniving liar trying to convince the world that he wore the suit, why in the world would he tell us that his brother said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse? WTF? That doesn't even sound like something a liar would say. I think we can presume that BH, Howard, RP & BG are not colorblind and that all of them could see that Patty was not red. So why interject some stupid lie that the suit was the skin of a red horse? Because that's not what Bob Heironimus is saying. He can't tell us exactly what materials were used in the suit because he never really knew. He tells us what his brother was told by Roger. You get what you get from Bob. He doesn't even say that Patterson said he took a red horsehide and dyed it black. If Bob speculates that it was a red hide dyed black, it's not because he heard that from his brother or Roger. It would be because he actually thought that Patterson told the truth to Howard, but didn't mention coloring the whole thing black or very dark brown (it always looks like shades of black to me, and never brown).

What are we expected to think of this kind of a crazy addition to a hoaxed confession story when you just decide to talk about your brother being told by Patterson that the suit came from a dead red horse? I mean, you not only gotta make up the story of your brother hearing this from Patterson, but you have to fabricate the color of the skin and you pick RED. WTF?

If Bob Heironimus is lying about wearing the PGF suit, then it is much more than an armchair hoax. It's some kind of unique psychopathy that compels the "victim" to even go as far as implicating his neighbor (Gimlin) as the real liar. I wore the suit and that's the truth. My old buddy Bob Gimlin, who still lives real close to me, has for some reason decided to continue lying about this film. Bob Heironimus is telling us that Bob Gimlin hasn't stopped lying about the PGF right from the start. PGF skeptics already presume that, no matter what they think about BH.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 4th March 2010, 05:09 PM   #364
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
What do you think about the fact that Bob Heironimus has passed two separate polygraphs concerning his involvement with the PGF?
Originally Posted by inn View Post
Patterson passed one too.
He did? You say that like it's a fact.
I'd love to see any documentation on that, even a newspaper article where Patterson says that.
I think this is one of those types of rumors that grew legs on it's own.

I thought you were a man of facts? You aren't getting all Sweaty on us are you?

Last edited by Blackdog; 4th March 2010 at 05:11 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 4th March 2010, 05:24 PM   #365
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Kit:

Wishing you success in interviewing Bob H.

Questions you may want to ask Bob H.

(snip)

Bill
Thank you for the questions, Bill. They are all good. Regardless of our perspectives on the PGF, I'm thinking our Bigfootery lives are about to get very interesting. You'll be interested to know that I will also be speaking with Philip Morris, Greg Long and a number of other people very soon. I will also be approaching some publishing and production companies to discuss my interview project.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 4th March 2010, 09:29 PM   #366
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Here's a question for you, Sweaty. How's your Ballzheimers?

Answer: bad.

Remember this?



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2106

Of course not. Let me help you...

Howard Heironimus, Bob's brother, said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse.

Those are words coming from Roger Patterson, not Bob.
So the answer to your poor attempt at discrediting Bob would be he doesn't know, that's just what his brother said he heard from Roger.

Oops for you, Sweaty faceplants again. Try to keep up, old boy...


Well, according to John Green...these are Heironimus' words...


Quote:
Heironimus, the supposed wearer, says: “It was made in three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head.” “….the legs of the suit…felt like they were hip boots or wading boots…” “They helped me stand up, and Roger and Bob slipped the torso part down over my head and shoulders. I raised my arms up. I kind of wiggled into it. I put my hands and arms into sleeves. It was like putting on a T-shirt.” “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.” “There are bare patches and then hair parts like it was shedding. I remember it had a smell. It could have been horse hide. I don't know.”
and...

Quote:
The nephew even confirmed that the suit stunk.
Article:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...esponse_si.htm



Even if Bob H. was wrong about the 'horse-hide' construction, there's still a serious problem with his claim that the "suit stunk".

Because...if Patty was a suit.....the suit would have to have had an inner core....specially designed....due to it's bulk...(front-to-back, and side-to-side)...and it's distinctively curved contour.

Notice the smoothly curved shape of the upper back, all the way up to the back of Patty's head....and the contour of the shoulder blade area....along with Patty's extreme upper-torso width....all of which would have been designed features, requiring an 'inner core muscle suit', underneath the fur...





An inner core, this sophisticated, would have most likely been designed by a professional...and, thus, would have been rather costly. So, it makes absolutely no sense that the suit would have "stunk", at all....(due to either the nature of the material used, or to it being allowed to get wet, and become moldy.)

One likely material to be used, which would have been inexpensive, and rigid enough to hold it's shape, would have been some kind of foam rubber....but that material doesn't normally have a bad smell.

So...why would it have stunk??



Also from the article...

Quote:
In response to the Skeptical Inquirer’s July/Aug 2004 article titled “Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax” uploaded here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/korff04.htm written by Kal K. Korff and Michaela Kocis comes this response from one of our orthopedic physicians, this one addressed specifically to Michaela Kocis reads:
To: mkocka@hotmail.com Michaela Kocis
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:34 PM
Subject: your outrageous theory


Madam,
I read your absurd assertion that some guy named Hieronymous was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967.
One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Hieronymous; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool. ( )



I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit able to exhibit muscle movement and contraction available.

(Check out the muscle contraction/movement......





Nor would one be easy to create today.

I have attached frame 72 -Prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion, as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. I speak specifically, the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of the upper leg, and the pplantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Hieronymous is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out.

We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist
- - - - -
Here's Bob Heironimus,.....playing RUG - by........with one of Morris' amazing, RANDOMLY-SHAPED RUGS......(don't forget to chuckle!)...(and, notice the realistic calf muscles, too!)...






There is, also, a major problem with Heironimus' claim that he "didn't know what the suit was made of"...

Given the nature of the alleged "suit"....(having a specially-designed inner-core, with it's massive bulk, distinctive contour, and flexibility).....along with the "fact" that Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironimus took this very long trip together, out into a mountainous wilderness, to make a movie with it.....how could it be that Roger NEVER, at any point in that trip....ever mentioned anything to Bob Heironimus about the construction of such an impressive suit???

Was it NOT note-worthy?????

Roger NEVER ONCE thought to say to Bob..."Hey, check this thing out..."


And, in addition to that, HOW could Bob have NOT NOTICED it, while putting it on???


It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that something like that ever actually happened.
__________________
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; 4th March 2010 at 09:55 PM.
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 4th March 2010, 09:48 PM   #367
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
I'm twisting nothing, Sweaty.

You failed in your attempt to rule out Bob. You can try again and this time I would advise you remember that arms to not move confined to two-dimensional planes.

Now let's try something wild and new, Sweaty.

Let's put aside elbows for a moment.




I promise you won't. You will go nowhere near any of that.

fear is the mind killer.


If that is too corner-huddle inducing, maybe you can whip out your crayons and address the evidence that Patterson faked Patty's tracks.

Look in the mirror, kitakaze....as you huddle in your little corner, going nowhere near any of my measurements of Patty's and Bob's elbows....in total fear of REALITY.

I noticed that you failed to address the elbow-reach measurements, yet again...in this post of yours.


You can't show 'where, and to what extent', there are any significant errors in my measurements of Patty's, and Bob's elbow-reaches....can you?

From kitakaze...

"Let's put aside elbows for a moment"...
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 12:46 AM   #368
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Well, according to John Green...these are Heironimus' words... (snip)
These are the words of Heironimus according to Heironimus...

"Roger told my brother Howard he made the whole thing out of horsehide. Roger had skinned a red horse and attached or glued fur from and old fur coat onto the horsehide skin."

"It weighed maybe twenty, twenty-five pounds. It was a little heavy. Nothing to make me uncomfortable or anything. You could feel the weight. Horsehide would be heavy."

"It was dark, real dark brown."

"It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse"


Bob also said that the suit was stiff from his waist to his shoulders.

Do your homework.

Quote:
Even if Bob H. was wrong about the 'horse-hide' construction, there's still a serious problem with his claim that the "suit stunk".

Because...if Patty was a suit.....the suit would have to have had an inner core specially designed due to its bulk...(front-to-back, and side-to-side)...and it's distinctively curved contour.

Notice the smoothly curved shape of the upper back, all the way up to the back of Patty's head....and the contour of the shoulder blade area....along with Patty's extreme upper-torso width....all of which would have been designed features, requiring an 'inner core muscle suit', underneath the fur...

An inner core, this sophisticated, would have most likely been designed by a professional...and, thus, would have been rather costly. So, it makes absolutely no sense that the suit would have "stunk", at all....(due to either the nature of the material used, or to it being allowed to get wet, and become moldy.)

One likely material to be used, which would have been inexpensive, and rigid enough to hold it's shape, would have been some kind of foam rubber....but that material doesn't normally have a bad smell.

So...why would it have stunk??
Blah blah blah... That is a giant pile of special pleading. Good luck getting me to agree there was a specially designed inner core muscle suit. Shouder padding, yes, maybe, but muscle suit? Nice try. I don't know exactly what the suit was made of or how it was made. Going from Bob's description, there is no reason at all to think that the suit could not have stunk.

Quote:
Here's Bob Heironimus,.....playing RUGby...with one of Morris' amazing, RANDOMLY-SHAPED RUGS......(don't forget to chuckle!)...(and, notice the realistic calf muscles, too!)...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...obRugbyAG2.gif
Yeah, that suit matched Patty's arms pretty good. Hey, BTW, why are you addressing me as if I support the claim that Philip Morris made the suit? Really, now, why is that?


Quote:
There is, also, a major problem with Heironimus' claim that he "didn't know what the suit was made of"...

Given the nature of the alleged "suit"....(having a specially-designed inner-core, with it's massive bulk, distinctive contour, and flexibility).....along with the "fact" that Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironimus took this very long trip together, out into a mountainous wilderness, to make a movie with it.....how could it be that Roger NEVER, at any point in that trip....ever mentioned anything to Bob Heironimus about the construction of such an impressive suit???
Not only is your special pleading useless, your ignorance of the facts is embarrassing. You have no idea what you're talking about. Let me help you, Sweaty. Bob Heironimus says that he drove his mother's new blue 1967 Buick from Washington to California (to avoid using his gas-guzzling Corvette) and met Roger and Bob at 5:00 pm in the evening at a mini-service station in Willow Creek. He said he then followed Roger and Bob in Bob's truck to Bluff Creek where they hid Heironimus' car in tall buck brush half a mile north of the campsite which was beside the Bluff Creek road. He said after they arrived at the campsite they spoke for a while and then he went to sleep in his sleeping bag in the over-hang over the cab of Gimlin's truck at about 8:00 pm.

Heironimus says they went the next day to the film site about half a mile from the campsite. They shot the film in one take. After they returned to the camp they spoke for a while before Patterson and Gimlin said they had to return to make the tracks. They then drove Heironimus in Gimlin's truck back to Heironimus' car and gave him the suit and the film which he was to mail in Eureka. Bob H drove to Eureka where he mailed the film, stayed the night and drove back to Yakima the next day.

According to BH's story he was with RP and BG for a short time in the evening and the early part of the next day at Bluff Creek. Your special pleading that there must have been an inner core muscle suit and all your giant text and boggled smilies about Roger not discussing the design of said inner core to Bob in all that very long time they were together is complete garbage. Once again the skeptic knows the fact better than the Bigfoot enthusiast. Try doing your homework before you go on your giant text, smiley-abusing flights of fancy.

Oops for you, another faceplant.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 5th March 2010 at 02:08 AM.
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 01:14 AM   #369
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Look in the mirror, kitakaze....as you huddle in your little corner, going nowhere near any of my measurements of Patty's and Bob's elbows....in total fear of REALITY.

I noticed that you failed to address the elbow-reach measurements, yet again...in this post of yours.

You can't show 'where, and to what extent', there are any significant errors in my measurements of Patty's, and Bob's elbow-reaches....can you?
Ballzheimers.

Here and here. Done.

There is nothing Sweaty will ever post that I can't handle. Meanwhile, Sweaty continues to run...

Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
What do you think of the fact that the only person who has ever claimed to be Patty was friends with Bob Gimlin at the time the PGF was made and appears at various points on Patterson's film? What do you think about the fact that Bob Heironimus lives only nine doors from Bob Gimlin and has done so since the PGF was made? What do you think about the fact that Bob Gimlin has never taken any legal action against the man whose testimony threatens his credibility to people all over the world who see him as a hero and endangers his personal profit from the film? What do you think about the fact that Bob Heironimus has passed two separate polygraphs concerning his involvement with the PGF? What do you think of the fact that Heironimus confirms that he is still friends with his neighbour, Gimlin, and sees him on occasion in which there is no discussion about Bigfoot at all?

Do you not find it troubling at all that the only person to ever claim to be Patty is that closely associated with Patterson and Gimlin?
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
If that is too corner-huddle inducing, maybe you can whip out your crayons and address the evidence that Patterson faked Patty's tracks.
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Secondly, and far more importantly, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that the subject of the Patterson film made any of the impressions Patterson cast. Conversely, there is significant evidence that Roger faked his casts. Those are two left feet. They are not the same feet.

If Patty's feet and Patty's casts are not the same thing, then any comparison you make assuming they are is totally meaningless. To what extent is the degree of error? Pick a number. Based just on the issues you had with Frame 72 before, you'd be off by several inches. What the real extent is can not be reliably measured. All we can say is... Controls not set. Comparison invalid.


Fear is the mind killer.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 02:33 AM   #370
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume.
Bob Heironimus on the suit the first time he wore it from The Making of Bigfoot...

"It was made of three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head."

"Yeah. I sat down on a log and took my boots off and slipped my legs into the legs of the suits, which felt like they were hip boots or wading boots, you know, those long boots that go up to your waist. My feet slipped into the feet of the suit. I think the feet were made of those old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them. They had wrinkles on the bottom of them, you know"

"Yeah. All I can say is it felt like rubber boots."


On the day Patterson filmed him...

"We dismounted and unloaded the sack. I had to kind of sit down an pull it [the suit] on. It was stiff from about here [he gestured from the waist up]. They kind of helped me up and put the top on."
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 04:48 AM   #371
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
This comparison shows the significantly different lengths of Bob's and Patty's 'upper arms', in proportion to their body heights...(Patty's, of course, being longer )...





This comparison is consistent with...and supports...what the elbow-reach measurements for Bob and Patty show.
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 05:00 AM   #372
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,424
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
This comparison shows the significantly different lengths of Bob's and Patty's 'upper arms', in proportion to their body heights...(Patty's, of course, being longer )...


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


This comparison is consistent with...and supports...what the elbow-reach measurements for Bob and Patty show.
What? I really can't see what you are talking about. I try, and try, but don't see where the elbows look different. It looks like Bob, or any other (approx. 6' tall) person could be in that suit. And if not, your example certainly doesn't show it.
__________________
"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 5th March 2010, 05:03 AM   #373
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Ballzheimers.

Here and here. Done.

There is nothing Sweaty will ever post that I can't handle

Neither of those two posts SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are any errors in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach.

You can't deal with those measurements DIRECTLY....so you resort to your little Poser 7 dollies. Nice work, kitakaze!


When you get a minute, can you shake your Poser 7 skelly at that graphic I just posted......and make Bob's elbow "all better"!!
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 05:07 AM   #374
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
What? I really can't see what you are talking about. I try, and try, but don't see where the elbows look different. It looks like Bob, or any other (approx. 6' tall) person could be in that suit. And if not, your example certainly doesn't show it.

The graphic shows that when the length from Bob's and Patty's 'eyes to their elbows' are matched-up....their knee joints are then significantly mis-matched.

Those points....the eyes, the elbows, and the knees...are all unaffected...(and un-movable)...by padding. So the difference must be due to a difference in skeletal lengths/proportions.



(If Patty and Bob were re-scaled, to make their eyes and their knees match-up...then their elbows would be significantly mis-matched.

Either way....Bob loses.)
__________________
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; 5th March 2010 at 05:11 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 5th March 2010, 05:11 AM   #375
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
This comparison shows the significantly different lengths of Bob's and Patty's 'upper arms', in proportion to their body heights...(Patty's, of course, being longer )...


It does? Would you care to grace us with a numerical value for that difference, Sweaty?

Somebody needs some Folgers.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 05:20 AM   #376
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Neither of those two posts SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are any errors in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach.

You can't deal with those measurements DIRECTLY....so you resort to your little Poser 7 dollies. Nice work, kitakaze!
The simple concept of making two-dimensional degree measurements on a three-dimensional subject as if it were a stick man eludes you. After you've had some coffee stick your hands in your pockets and move your elbows back and forth to see if it dawns on you.

I can talk elbows. Can you talk about Bob H's connection to Patterson and Gimlin? Can you talk about the siginificant evidence Roger faked Patty's tracks? Is it really that hard to even try or what?


Quote:
When you get a minute, can you shake your Poser 7 skelly at that graphic I just posted......and make Bob's elbow "all better"!!
Yes. Wait... I feel like using the DAZ skelly. They both work.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Oops for you.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 5th March 2010 at 06:01 AM. Reason: add video
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 05:40 AM   #377
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
The graphic shows that when the length from Bob's and Patty's eyes to their elbows...

Those points....the eyes, the elbows, and the knees...are all unaffected...(and un-movable)...
The length from the eye to the elbow is unmovable?



Tylenol. Extra strength. Make it so.

Just for Sweaty.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 06:26 AM   #378
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,424
I'm on ROMPER ROOM! I can do it too.

Why are you using a Giant picture of BobH in relation to Patty?

They look dead-nuts on his elbow is right where it should be if he is in a costume, same with his shoulder, knee and face. Where do u get this stuff?

__________________
"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 5th March 2010, 09:15 AM   #379
inn
Muse
 
inn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
He did? You say that like it's a fact.
I'd love to see any documentation on that, even a newspaper article where Patterson says that.
I think this is one of those types of rumors that grew legs on it's own.

I thought you were a man of facts? You aren't getting all Sweaty on us are you?
Yep, I like the facts. And I have no idea whether Patterson actually passed a polygraph exam. There are indications that he did, like BH. But I haven't seen an independent review of BH's tests either. It is my understanding that he hasn't released them, so what good are they? No better than RP's "alleged" polygraph, IMO. When we get the facts maybe that will change. In the meantime...

I did a very quick search on the BFF for "Polygraph+Patterson" and here's an early reference by David Murphy to RP taking a polygraph.

Originally Posted by MoMoMurphy May 18 2005, 01:30 AM
I am working on a book about the life of Roger Patterson. This book should be completed around May of 2006. As a result of my research, I found out that in 1970 National wildlife magazine did an article on Bigfoot written by George Harrison. The article states that Roger Patterson passed a lie detector test and that the magazine would not have done the story had he not passed it. In speaking to George Harrison via the telephone, he stated to me that his direct boss and Chief Executive Editor, Dick Kirkpatrick(now dead), attended the polygraph exam with Roger and was told by the examiner that Roger Patterson had certainly passed in his professional opinion.I am currently looking into this matter further. As I see it, at best we have two people who have passed Lie Detector tests. Furthermore, and I don't know if this is true, I was told that Bob H. is on a heart medication that could cause a person to be able to pass a lie detector test. Obviously this should be examined in greater detail. The information I have uncovered thus far in my 20 plus taped interviews out of a total of about 70 scheduled interviews, leads me to believe more than ever before that we are looking at a real Bigfoot when we gaze upon the creature in the P/G film.

David Murphy
I never read his book tho. I just think the "passing polygraphs" claim doesn't hold much for pathological liars, which 1 of them would have to be IF they both passed polygraphs. Neither of which is a known fact.

Where's the link to the results of BH's polygraphs? Just the facts please.
inn 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 5th March 2010, 09:22 AM   #380
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
The graphic shows that when the length from Bob's and Patty's eyes to their elbows...

Those points....the eyes..., the elbows, and the knees...are all unaffected...(and un-movable)...



The length from the eye to the elbow is unmovable...(by padding)?

(NOTE: I added back in my original words, since kk decided to twist and distort what I said, by omitting them. It's what he does best!)

Yup.

In Patty's case......the 'length from the eyes to the elbow-joint'...for any particular arm-angle...(in any direction)....could not have been changed, or altered by padding.

This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located.
(The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.)

Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding...then the length 'from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor, must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles.

In Bob's case....they don't match.
__________________
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; 5th March 2010 at 09:49 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 5th March 2010, 10:59 AM   #381
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by inn View Post
Where's the link to the results of BH's polygraphs? Just the facts please.
I never claimed, or supported the claim, that BH either took or passed a polygraph.
There's a fact for ya.

This business about RP's alleged polygraph test seems to be nothing more than another weak attempt to bolster the story, in fact unlike some of the other anecdotes this one only seems to come up when the claim of BHs polygraph is mentioned.
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 5th March 2010, 11:28 AM   #382
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,003
Some references...

Quote:
85. Harrison, George H. "On The Trail Of Bigfoot." National Wildlife, October-November 1970, pages 4-9. ("[Patterson] instantly agreed to take a lie detector test. The results convinced the experienced polygraph operator that Patterson was not lying).
Quote:
112. Lie Detector. PAX television, Los Angeles, California. May 17, 2005. (Television). Host Rolanda Watts interviews Bob Heironimus, who claims he was the subject in the P-G film. This show indicated Bob Heironimus passed their lie detector test.
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 11:30 AM   #383
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
blackdog wrote:
Quote:
another weak attempt to bolster the story

Likewise....in Bob's case, it would also be WEAK evidence in bolstering his story.
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 11:33 AM   #384
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,003
Critical article...

Quote:
Heironimus submitted to a lie detector test administered by leading polygraph expert Dr. Ed Gelb to try to prove that he was the infamous creature shot on film in Bluff Creek, California, wearing just a modified gorilla costume, which does not match the figure in the Patterson film. Not even close.

Hosted by Rolonda Watts, "Lie Detector" is a provocative series that examines the truth behind real-life stories ripped from the headlines, using the most powerful instrument to detect deception - the polygraph.

Heironimus took the polygraph on live television and passed the test according to Dr. Ed Gelb, proving once and for all that along with passed polygraphs by serial killers like Ted Bundy, Heironimus believes he was the man in the suit to the degree that he too was able to pass the polygraph.
Is it any wonder the polygraph is not admissible evidence in a court of law?
Quote:
Additionally, Heironimus footprints do not match those left by the creature in the Patterson Film and he is unable to duplicate the locomotion of the creature filmed by Roger Patteron in October of 1967. The fundamental nature of Heironimus' statement is phoney. He lied and passed the polygraph anyway, just as serial killer Ted Bundy did all the way down death row to the electric chair.
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 11:50 AM   #385
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,003
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Questions you may want to ask Bob H.
Nearly all of your questions have already been answered by Bob. You really have stayed away from everything surrounding the PGF and only focused on the thing seen on the film.

Quote:
9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them?
Would Bigfoot costume feet ever be smaller than the wearer's 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 5th March 2010, 12:06 PM   #386
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Don't remember Ted Bundy taking a polygraph...can't find any specific details about him taking a polygraph in a quick Google search.
Of course - I'm getting old and forgetful.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt 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 5th March 2010, 12:07 PM   #387
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Yup.

In Patty's case......the 'length from the eyes to the elbow-joint'...for any particular arm-angle...(in any direction)....could not have been changed, or altered by padding.

This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located.
(The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.)
A-ha. Fascinating...

Simple question, Sweaty, just for clarity's sake about the central concept here for the point you're attempting to score...

If I stand in profile from a distance of a point of observation, person, camera, whatever, and I move arms outward away from my body, would the distance between my eyes and elbows appear to change? Yes or no.

Quote:
Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding...then the length 'from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor, must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles.

In Bob's case....they don't match.
A-ha. Fascinating...

Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I'm on ROMPER ROOM! I can do it too.

Why are you using a Giant picture of BobH in relation to Patty?

They look dead-nuts on his elbow is right where it should be if he is in a costume, same with his shoulder, knee and face. Where do u get this stuff?

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7676/pattster.jpg
Sweaty, as you can see I have no fear whatsoever engaging you on elbows or any other point you'd like to discuss. Could you please address the point and questions I've posted about BH's connection to Patterson and Gimlin, as well as the evidence of Roger faking Patty's tracks?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 5th March 2010 at 12:09 PM.
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 12:24 PM   #388
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,845
Sweaty, let's try a quick experiment to test your claim that "the eye-to-elbow length is unmovable".

Go ahead and lower your head on your shoulders without moving your arm or elbow. I'll wait for a moment while you do this.

Did you notice how your eyeline -- entrenched in the middle of your head as it is -- moved downward when you moved your head downward?

Would you agree, then, with the observation that this downward movement of the eyeline reduces the distance between the eye and the elbow?

Do you see now what Kitakaze, and everyone else with a rational mind capable of grasping reasonable concepts, is talking about?

And it doesn't matter if you introduce the adverbial phrase "by padding" into this observation, since in the two pictures you insist on comparing, the subjects' heads are located at different points on the shoulders. It's got nothing to do with padding.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 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 5th March 2010, 12:25 PM   #389
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,003
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Don't remember Ted Bundy taking a polygraph...

The Enigma of Ted Bundy: Did He Kill 18 Women? Or Has He Been Framed?

Quote:
His co-workers remember him as violent, especially toward women. He didn't show up for work on the day Campbell was murdered; the next day he picked up his paycheck and left town. (Subsequently he was given a lie detector test and passed.)
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 12:29 PM   #390
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I'm on ROMPER ROOM! I can do it too.

Why are you using a Giant picture of BobH in relation to Patty?

They look dead-nuts on his elbow is right where it should be if he is in a costume, same with his shoulder, knee and face. Where do u get this stuff?

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7676/pattster.jpg
I'm assuming it was for affect. You know, use a great big picture, cut off a foot... whatever gets the affect you're after. Just like he did here...

Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Nevertheless....here is the same graphic, with a later Frame used as a foot-ruler...and Roger still ends up at very nearly the same...WAY TOO SHORT...height......

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...mWeeRoger5.jpg
My goodness, Sweaty, I am stunned. You once again omitted a central part of my post and failed to address a key point. It is as if you are not able to handle the argument. Here, let me replace what you left out...

Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Secondly, and far more importantly, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that the subject of the Patterson film made any of the impressions Patterson cast. Conversely, there is significant evidence that Roger faked his casts. Those are two left feet. They are not the same feet.

If Patty's feet and Patty's casts are not the same thing, then any comparison you make assuming they are is totally meaningless. To what extent is the degree of error? Pick a number. Based just on the issues you had with Frame 72 before, you'd be off by several inches. What the real extent is can not be reliably measured. All we can say is... Controls not set. Comparison invalid.

Of course, of direct relevance is the post by River concerning foot rulers and track depth that you still haven't addressed. Here's a snip...

Originally Posted by River
The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated.
That's a fun new scribble you made up there. Is there any reason why you cut off Roger's left foot? I'm assuming it was for effect.
We can always rely on Sweaty to cut corners (or feet!) and manipulate things to fit his preconceived notion.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 5th March 2010, 12:42 PM   #391
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 601
WP:

"Nearly all of your questions have already been answered by Bob. You really have stayed away from everything surrounding the PGF and only focused on the thing seen on the film. "

It's my understanding that a good investigation does ask a person the same questions asked previously, to test the continuity or consistancy of the interviewee's testimony.


Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? "

WP:
"Would Bigfoot costume feet ever be smaller than the wearer's feet? "

The alternative to costume feet larger than your own is costume feet the same size as your own.
Bill Munns 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 5th March 2010, 12:43 PM   #392
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Sweaty, let's try a quick experiment to test your claim that "the eye-to-elbow length is unmovable".

Go ahead and lower your head on your shoulders without moving your arm or elbow. I'll wait for a moment while you do this.

Did you notice how your eyeline -- entrenched in the middle of your head as it is -- moved downward when you moved your head downward?

Would you agree, then, with the observation that this downward movement of the eyeline reduces the distance between the eye and the elbow?

Do you see now what Kitakaze, and everyone else with a rational mind capable of grasping reasonable concepts, is talking about?

And it doesn't matter if you introduce the adverbial phrase "by padding" into this observation, since in the two pictures you insist on comparing, the subjects' heads are located at different points on the shoulders. It's got nothing to do with padding.

Vort resorts to insults.....of course. It's the JREF way.


Vort....I am not claiming that the length between a person's eyes and their elbow cannot change. Of course it does. But, it cannot be altered with padding....(in this particular case, that we're dealing with.)


In the comparison graphic I posted earlier today...Bob's and Patty's arms are at slightly different angles, in their swing...and those different angles create an 'error factor'.....which can be easily corrected for.

The same thing holds true if the heads are held at different angles.
Any minor error factor can be adjusted/corrected for, in these comparisons.

But, nonetheless.....the principle I explained earlier...



Quote:
This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located.
(The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.)

Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding, then the length between them...('from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor)....must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles.

....still holds true. Like it or not.



Now, since Vort is using the "lawyer speak" defense.........to hold on to his "Bobby Dream".....I'll add to that statement...


Quote:
Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding, then the length between them...('from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor)....must match Patty's....when the arms....AND HEADS.........are at comparable angles.


Happy now?


Vort wrote:
Quote:
Go ahead and lower your head
Okay....I lowered it...

Now what do I do???



Can I raise it now, Vort.....I need to go to the bathroom.......
__________________
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; 5th March 2010 at 01:04 PM.
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 5th March 2010, 12:47 PM   #393
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,424
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? "
We don't even know if the casts came from the costume's feet. Are you implying that the foot shown in the video is smaller(or the same as)the person who is wearing the costume's foot?
__________________
"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 5th March 2010, 12:56 PM   #394
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
We don't even know if the casts came from the costume's feet.
And we don't even know that there were costume feet!
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 12:59 PM   #395
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,424
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
And we don't even know that there were costume feet!
No, YOU don't know that they were costume feet.
__________________
"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 5th March 2010, 01:04 PM   #396
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Quote:
Previously, while researching a five-part series on Bundy, Walsh discovered that seven other men could be linked circumstantially with some or all of Bundy's alleged crimes. "There are five possible 'Teds' in the Seattle area alone," she says. The list includes a convicted sex offender who was living in Seattle at the time of the murders there. He then moved to Aspen, where he took a job at Snowmass, the resort where victim Caryn Campbell was staying. His co-workers remember him as violent, especially toward women. He didn't show up for work on the day Campbell was murdered; the next day he picked up his paycheck and left town. (Subsequently he was given a lie detector test and passed.)


That passage refers to one of the "five possible Teds" (i.e. other possible suspects in the area) - not Bundy.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt 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 5th March 2010, 01:25 PM   #397
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,003
Rock, I saw other mentions of Bundy passing polygraph (even passing twice) but none had any references. Maybe it's a myth.
__________________
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 5th March 2010, 01:29 PM   #398
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
WP:
<snip>
It's my understanding that a good investigation does ask a person the same questions asked previously, to test the continuity or consistancy of the interviewee's testimony.
So Bill - since you seem to now understand this very important point - why do you pretend that the analysis of the film is of any importance when the facts are that Gimlin's and Patterson's own words show them to be liars?

Their stories changed in major points in pretty well each telling and they contradict themselves and each other in huge, glaring ways.

The multiple and impossible lies regarding how the film was sent for developing must shake you to the very core.

Or - are you only interested in applying your new found investigative skills to everybody except Patterson and Gimlin?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt 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 5th March 2010, 01:33 PM   #399
inn
Muse
 
inn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 612
Rambling thoughts:

* Any photo comparisons must ensure that each photo has the correct aspect ratio. When pictures get digitized and cropped they have a funny habit of getting stretched. You need the full frame and camera specs to confirm the aspect ratio is true. None of these images have this.

* These are 3D objects projected onto a 2D surface. If there is ANY foreshortening that cannot be accounted AND corrected for, then the comparisons lie.

* Horizontal lines cannot be used to connect/compare body parts unless they are in the EXACT same 3D orientation, which is very tricky to confirm.

* All comparisons MUST use the LENGTH of a body part where the ends are points of articulation. These endpoints must be determined using body markers that are tracked over MANY frames as the body articulates thru the walk cycle.

* The Posers can NOT approximate the orientation of Patty if there is any foreshortening of her body parts (which of course there is). Any Poser overlay on an "undistorted" frame from the PGF, that does not fit exactly tells us they do not match. This is the only information that can be gleaned from a scaled comparison. You can only claim that the Poser dimensions match Patty's if EVERY frame fits, perfectly. That has never been the case here.

* The Posers can ONLY be used as a tool to test a model against Patty. A Poser that doesn't have the same dimensions as Patty can still be made to fit over her foreshortened body parts. The fact that some frames didn't fit shows the failing of this approach. You can't prove an average sized human would fit in the suit this way, even with an animation. However, with a single frame you can demonstrate that an averaged sized human does NOT fit.

* Only "unforeshortened" body parts should be used for photo comparisons. We need to track a body part and measure where it's length is at it's greatest relative to the height (constant). At that point there is minimal foreshortening. Track all the body parts this way to build your 3D model.

* The 1st step is to scale "up" each frame to simulate a const distance from the camera because Patty's images get smaller as she moves away from the camera. MK Davis (or Rick Noll) did this for the sequence that MANGLER used for his animation, but I don't trust MK's stuff. And who knows what the aspect ratio is for those images? They were microscoped.

* In summary, IMO the best bet for photo comparisons between Bob H and Patty is to find similarly foreshortened images of their limbs and scale them to match their LENGTHS (not vertical diff or height off the ground, etc.). The same body parts must be used, which must match in 3D orientation. They also must be the same approx. distance from the camera and shot preferably with the same camera. And of course they must have the correct aspect.

A reliable comparison is already pretty restrictive. Which limb bone would be best for this? Arms can be disguised in a suit, but not so much the elbow. Patty's elbows articulate enough to identify them, IMO. But the premise of a limb comparison should be: "Here is the limb inside the suit and here is the actor's limb outside the suit. We can scale them to the same size if they are similarly foreshortened. When you do that, you're left with the size of the suit the actor wore. So then howz the fit?"

Rambling off..
inn 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 5th March 2010, 01:37 PM   #400
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Rock, I saw other mentions of Bundy passing polygraph (even passing twice) but none had any references. Maybe it's a myth.
I too have seen references to him passing lie detector tests - but I don't remember any actual first person reporting of same.

I took a senior level investigator course many years ago in which his taped interviews were part of the curriculum. I don't remember any discussion of him taking a polygraph.
But - like I said - my memory could be faulty.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt 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 01:20 PM.
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.