Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[William Parcher]

William...do you think Patty's fingers are actually bending in that little animation?

Shoot, I don't know what the hell I'm seeing. It looks like Patty's butt suddenly drops. It also looks like a tree suddenly appears in front of her and all the background colors suddenly change. Are these actually two sequential film frames? I think I would want to see a real sequence of about 20 real film frames to get a better opportunity to see if the fingers might be flexing. Is this two-frame clip an MK Davis Production? Again, are these actually two sequential film frames? If so, why does the background suddenly become so obviously different?

Maybe Beckjord is half right. She changes her morphology right in front of your eyes (as he knows), and she changes the environment around her (which he hasn't postulated...yet).

 

[SweatyYeti]

Welcome folks...to the premiere episode of "Everybody Laughs at Raymond"...

The heartwarming story of the little boy who couldn't answer questions....though he tried....sort of.

Back on the 9th, I asked RayG a few questions, in post #1539...

I asked Ray this question....

What is the criteria that needs to be met for some piece of Bigfoot evidence to carry some weight...for it to have some small degree of probability, or likelihood that it MAY have been created by Bigfoot?

Ray wisely responded:

There ya go with your logically-impaired questions again, mixing probabilities and possibilities.

I inquired:

Ray...do you have any idea what the meaning of that question is?

Ray brilliantly replied:

The way you have your terminology intermixed? No. Stick to one or the other, or don't bother asking.

Do you really have no idea at all what it is that I'm asking you, Ray?
That's hard to believe.

How about if we take just the first part of the question......
"What is the criteria that needs to be met for some piece of Bigfoot evidence to carry some weight..?"

Do you have any idea what the meaning of this question is, Ray?
I highlighted a few key words in it for you.

Do you understand what "weight" means with regards to evidence? If so...can you explain it?

Can you show me exactly where I mixed "probabilities" and "possibilities" and why that means this particular question cannot be answered?

I'm not getting your point, Ray.

And from post #1541...

I agree...as far as determining evidence "definitely came" from a Bigfoot....but can we determine there is a "degree of probability that it came" from a Bigfoot?
Is there any area in-between PROOF and NOTHING when it comes to the weight of a piece of evidence?

Since then...Ray's responses to me, and about me, have been these statements.........
RayG wrote:

Not from diapers, from school.

How about giving us your definition too... you know... if you're not too busy at the playground...

Wow, the boastful SweatyYeti, hiding behind LAL's skirt.

I'll toss my hat in that ring too. He certainly hasn't given us any evidence to believe otherwise.
Sweaty, how old are you, when did you graduate, and from where?

And I was supposed to feel bad for calling SweatyYeti a troll?
His ranting, incoherent, illogical statements only prove my point.

You weren't asked for his age LAL, just confirmation whether he's an adolescent or not.

Not surprising since you engage in playground behavior.
I presently have 11 children, ranging in ages from 6 - 26 years of age. Your behavior most closely parallels my 14 year-old.

And this little GEM...

YES, the unwillingness of both Sweaty and LAL to ANSWER the question speaks volumes.

Yes, Ray....your unwillingness to answer questions, but instead to obssess over my age...for some unknown and completely worthless reason...SPEAKS VOLUMES about your true motivation for posting here and your intellectual abilities.

You ask me what grade I'm in, Ray....but YOU are the one who can't answer simple questions.

Pardon us while we laugh.....you fool.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Are these actually two sequential film frames? I think I would want to see a real sequence of about 20 real film frames to get a better opportunity to see if the fingers might be flexing.

I don't think those are sequential frames. It doesn't matter though, they are close together in the film.
We're looking at the fingers....they are clearly bent in the second frame of the animation.

There's no need to wonder. (Unless you're a skeptic.)

Shoot, I don't know what the hell I'm seeing.

You're seeing a Bigfoot's fingers bending. Deal with it.

 

[kitakaze]

We probaby shouldn't give Sweety to many difficult questions so he has a time to catch up with his inconsistencies.

We're waiting.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't think those are sequential frames. It doesn't matter though, they are close together in the film.

WTF? You mean we aren't seeing sequential frames that demonstrate finger flexing? It doesn't matter if they are in sequence? What is going on here? Are PGF skeptics being scammed by those who hold and control the physical evidence (real copies of real film frames)?

We're looking at the fingers....they are clearly bent in the second frame of the animation.

Are they as clear as the MK Davis frames that show observable scars and feces caked on the butt hair?

There's no need to wonder. (Unless you're a skeptic.)

Yeah, nobody really wonders about Bigfoot except skeptics. What idiots they are.

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, Ray....your unwillingness to answer questions, but instead to obssess over my age...for some unknown and completely worthless reason...SPEAKS VOLUMES about your true motivation for posting here and your intellectual abilities.

You ask me what grade I'm in, Ray....but YOU are the one who can't answer simple questions.

Pardon us while we laugh.....you fool.

This is an example of the kind of little tells in Sweety's posts that make me fairly certain we are not speaking with an adult.

Anyway, still looking forward to his willingness.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, Kevin, just to help refresh your memory about unwillingness to answer questions this is only the seventh time I've brought this up. You are a liar or victim of faulty memory. Will you keep ignoring that or is it not relevant to bigfoot in your mind?

 

[William Parcher]

Hey kitakaze, ease up on SwetYet. He might be a Bigfoot Woo, just like I am a Heironimus Woo. I didn't answer questions/comments about BH's testimony because much of it doesn't matter to me. I have good memory and am not much of a liar - but I do ignore many questions about Bob only because I am all woo about him being Patty. Can you sleep knowing that?

At some point, you gotta let a woo be a woo.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

You mean we aren't seeing sequential frames that demonstrate finger flexing?

What we're seeing is two frames from the same part of the film, in which the fingers are clearly different in shape. In the first frame...the fingers are only slightly curved....and in the second frame, the fingers are bent more sharply, and in addition, they are bent at places commonly refer to as "joints".

When we put the two frames together....something magical happens. The fingers LOOK like they move, in a manner commonly refered to as "bending".

This all for today's lesson... "How to see fingers bend".

 

[LTC8K6]

Did the glove bump into the thigh pad and cause the fingers to bend or something?

How quickly do the fingers bend?

Does it take one frame, two, three,.....

 

[RayG]

Yes, Ray....your unwillingness to answer questions, but instead to obssess over my age...for some unknown and completely worthless reason...SPEAKS VOLUMES about your true motivation for posting here and your intellectual abilities.

Kevin, you pre-pubescent, pointy-headed troll, I am unwilling to answer your childish, imprecise, logically-flawed, grammatically tortured questions, until you've proven to my satisfaction you've made it beyond elementary school. And you can quote me on that.

You've come here and exhibited the same infantile behavior as you did over on the BFF, and we all know how well that worked out.

Now, go ahead, stamp your feet and run to mommy (or LAL), I'm sure they'll pat your head and read you a good bigfoot story.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6:

How quickly do the fingers bend?

Not quick enough for a skeptic, I guess.

RayG wrote:

I am unwilling to answer your childish, imprecise, logically-flawed, grammatically tortured questions,

"Unwilling to answer" was exactly the point of my "Everybody Laughs at Raymond" post.

'Tis amazing how BLIND and MUTE skeptics can become when faced with:

1) A clear, simple 2-frame animation....and...

2) A few simple questions.

The skeptics on this forum are...simply put...a COMPLETE joke.

 

[RayG]

I am unwilling to answer your childish, imprecise, logically-flawed, grammatically tortured questions,

"Unwilling to answer" was exactly the point of my "Everybody Laughs at Raymond" post.

Kevin, you pre-pubescent, pointy-headed troll, your quote-mining left out quite a portion of what I actually said. Here, I'll repeat the punchline:

Kevin, you pre-pubescent, pointy-headed troll, I am unwilling to answer your childish, imprecise, logically-flawed, grammatically tortured questions, until you've proven to my satisfaction you've made it beyond elementary school. And you can quote me on that.

I realize your observational abilities are quite lacking, so I've highlighted the important bits, just so you don't miss them.

Not sure how much simpler I can make it for you. As soon as you present a question that's not childish, imprecise, logically-flawed, or grammatically tortured, and prove to me that I'm not dealing with an elementary school dropout, I will gladly answer. Otherwise, you'll be treated like the juvenile you appear to be.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Blah blah blah...semantics!!

If you actually believe that a Bigfeetsus roaming free across the hinterlands of North America is NOT an extraordinary claim than we'll always be at an impasse on this Wu...err...I mean LU...err...I mean LAL.

It's a lot easier to call me names than to engage in intelligent discussion, isn't it?

You simply cannot equate the fact that we the critical thinkers of earth need to be proved to that something exists with us needing to be proved to that our food isn't poisoned...it's a hamfisted analogy Wu....errr...I mean Lu...and should be beneath even the loopiest of Woos.

Double that cyanide. Just as you accept without proof the food isn't poisoned you accept that Bob Heironimus was the guy in the suit (and that there was a suit with a guy in it) without proof. So what does that make you?

It's been 40 some years....and all you have is the fact that you WANT Bigfeetsus to be there so bad that you are willing to take people at their word,23 yrs after the fact...well that's just not good enough for us.

40 years since what? The PGF was filmed in October, 1967. There was plenty going on before that.

I didn't even know about the phenomenon forty years ago. I understand most sceptics these days get their ideas from a highly biased media, but you might want to check this out a little more before being so sure.

I wouldn't think much of Joyce's story if there weren't others from New York. A friend of mine researched in Whitehall and, until I met him, I was dismissive of anything east of the Missississippi (except Georgia). Now I'm not so sure. I need to get some confirmation on a story he told me involving six police officers, but I'm finding out my ignorance of activity doesn't mean there's nothing going on.

Even after Giant Pandas were found to not be native myth after all, it still took 60 years for an expedition to actually capture one. We haven't had forty years worth of expeditions out to bring in a sasquatch.

Face it Wu...you are a romantic Hairy Biped fan,a Tru Bleever of the highest order...you are beyond reason,you are beyond thinking critically...and most importantly you are beyond help.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something? Should confirmation come in your lifetime, you'll just be another close-minded scoftic sharing in a liberal serving of crow.

Your Bigfeet Fandom will last till the last tree on earth is felled and there isn't a Hairy Biped behind it...

Ever hear of reforestation?

even than you will probably lament that it had gone extinct before it was proven to exist. It's all part of your delicately peiced together worldview...and I guess if you sleep better Bleeving in Bigfeetsus ...well more power to ya I guess.

It doesn't matter to me one way or another if this is confirmed. In fact, if and when it is, I'd be disappointed. I'd have to find another hobby; it's more fun to argue about it than to say, "I told you so".

I don't think they're in any danger of extinction.

I sleep better reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which is what I'm currently doing at bedtime. Your attempts to portray me as a complete nincompoop don't really work, do they?

I've been meaning to ask: Is the "Mad" in Mad Hom mad in the sense of angry or in the sense of mad as a hatter?

 

[LAL]

I'm not confident that the fingers did wiggle (or flex). I bet you saw the same two-frame animated clip (by MK Davis?) that is supposed to show finger movement. I think it may be a simple change in the position/angle of the hand/fingers that gives the impression that the fingers are moving independent of the palm. Whenever I can see the hands/fingers clearly, they always seem to be in a fixed cupped position.

Then check out the left hand:

 

[LAL]

There's no need to wonder. (Unless you're a skeptic.)

You're seeing a Bigfoot's fingers bending. Deal with it.

The hand built for a recent bigfoot horror movie cost $10,000. And that was just one hand.

Roger Patterson had to borrow money from his brother-in-law to get to California. At the time, his only source of money was from DeAtley, who apparently was none too happy about it. He paid for the book to be published too. Yet in the interview with Long he made no mention of providing money for building, buying or renting a suit. He just had a vague idea Roger had pulled a hoax (which didn't prevent him from profiting from it) but offered no evidence for his belief.

I suspect that people who think it's a suit, and a bad one at that, haven't taken a good look at it. I've noticed on some of the documentaries and TV shows they play it too fast, which gives an awkward, jerky "human" look to the gait. At the proper speed, it's natural and fluid, not the sort of thing that could be acomplished in bulky padding (which would have had to be on the outside of the shoulders to get the width).

So maybe some of our scoftics are basing their opinions on a minute or two of seeing the footage on television and don't really know what it looks like. That would explain a lot.

 

[kitakaze]

It's a lot easier to call me names than to engage in intelligent discussion, isn't it?

Your mini-me seems to think so.

Pardon us while we laugh.....you fool.

Sweety, who do you mean by we?

 

[Mad Hom]

It's a lot easier to call me names than to engage in intelligent discussion, isn't it?

It ceased being an intelligent conversation once you brought up your poison food analogy. That analogy is a piss poor attempt to undermine the basic tenant of Skepticism...which is to question your world. There are though a multitude of things I don't question and take pretty much at face value...the fact that my food is not poisoned is one of those things...along with gravity,the rising and setting of the sun,death and taxes among other things...Bigfeetsus though is not one of those things....therefore your analogy pretty much stinks on ice.

Double that cyanide. Just as you accept without proof the food isn't poisoned you accept that Bob Heironimus was the guy in the suit (and that there was a suit with a guy in it) without proof. So what does that make you?

Allow me to turn that around right backatcha Wu. If you are so willing to buy into any old Bigfeetsus story lying around..than why not Bob H's?? My guess is because Joyce's story fits neatly into your worldview...and Bob H's disrupts it...he is after all the Anti Foot. Joyce just needs to say "I saw it" and "it looked like__________." and you are off and running with it. Bob H on the other hand needs to produce the suit,have corroboratibing testimony from at least 7 people,signed in triplicate with clear photos of him donning said suit,among countless other things....If you were insinuating that I may be a hypocrite...well...........pot....meet kettle.

40 years since what? The PGF was filmed in October, 1967. There was plenty going on before that.

The only thing that even remotely resembles anything anywhere near the ball bark of proof is the Con Man's Flick (CMF for now on) anything that happened before it is a campfire story...therefore irrelevant to the conversation.

I didn't even know about the phenomenon forty years ago. I understand most sceptics these days get their ideas from a highly biased media, but you might want to check this out a little more before being so sure.

I have been interested in the Bigfeetsus phenomenon since the 70's when I was in school. Back than I was a Hook in Mouth Bleever just like you...than I grew up.

I wouldn't think much of Joyce's story if there weren't others from New York. A friend of mine researched in Whitehall and, until I met him, I was dismissive of anything east of the Missississippi (except Georgia). Now I'm not so sure. I need to get some confirmation on a story he told me involving six police officers, but I'm finding out my ignorance of activity doesn't mean there's nothing going on.

Oh Wu...when will you and the rest of Bigfoot Nation realize that anything Bigfooty that happens outside of the PNW...is hurting your cause. The thing just cannot be everywhere and nowhere at once. There is NO animal of this things size that has the type of range that this Bigfeetsus of yours seems to have. The whole world (sans the poles) is impossible for a creature like this to have spread out to....when you people insist that upstate NY is in on the Bigfeetsus game you do nothing but hurt your cause....keep the big furry bastard where he belongs .....in the PNW...maybe than you'll make some headway.

Even after Giant Pandas were found to not be native myth after all, it still took 60 years for an expedition to actually capture one. We haven't had forty years worth of expeditions out to bring in a sasquatch.

Fudd was fond of falling back on Gorillas and Pandas as well...this just in these animals went uncaptured for so long because of the time in history when they were being sought. The 1800's was a totally different ballgame than nowadays...I mean I could make a list of all the technical advancements since the Giant Panda or the Gorilla were captured...but I'm going to give you credit for being able to figure it out on your own. No way an animal the size of the Panda goes 60 years without being captured nowadays. One good unambiguous picture of a Giant Panda doing something that a human in suit couldn't do for proof and we'd have it in a bamboo cage inside of a week tops...maybe two.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something? Should confirmation come in your lifetime, you'll just be another close-minded scoftic sharing in a liberal serving of crow.

Why am I the close minded one here...I think it is you who has closed your mind to the facts...and those facts are....there ain't no monkey...it's about as stone cold a lead pipe lock as you can get.

It doesn't matter to me one way or another if this is confirmed. In fact, if and when it is, I'd be disappointed. I'd have to find another hobby; it's more fun to argue about it than to say, "I told you so".

So very telling that statement.....in your mind is doesn't matter one way or the other...in fact better if the phenomenon lingers on ad nauseum for as long as you live...that way at least you'll still have a hobby huh?

I don't think they're in any danger of extinction.

I sleep better reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which is what I'm currently doing at bedtime. Your attempts to portray me as a complete nincompoop don't really work, do they?

I've been meaning to ask: Is the "Mad" in Mad Hom mad in the sense of angry or in the sense of mad as a hatter?

The simple fact that you give Bigfeetsus as much possibility of existence as you do is more than enough to portray you as a nincompoop Wu...I'm just piling on.

 

[LTC8K6]

I suspect that people who think it's a suit, and a bad one at that, haven't taken a good look at it.

I'd love to get a good look at it.

There's no way to tell if that is actually the fingers bending. One can easily be fooled with such low detail and such selectiveness.

At one point you can see a fake foot slip backwards if you want to.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

Your posts consist of nothing BUT blather, MH. Ranting and raving against "bleevers".

Examples:
ANY post by Mad Hom....take your pick!

Hey Sweety I'm not the one hanging his hat on a 23 year old story told to you over the phone of a Bigfeetsus sighting from upstate New York.

You buy into a story...a Bleef....you have very little in the way of proof...you just choose to Bleev because it makes you sleep well at night or whatever. You strike me as the type who made up his mind that Hairy Bipeds inhabit the vast uncharted hinterlands of North America than set out to confirm his Bleef by latching onto whatever half a$$ shred of evidence he could find....say for example...Joyce's 23 year old Bigfeetsus yarn.

Sweetster..you bring absolutely nothing to the table so I want you to back away from Mom and Dad's computer right now..and go do your homework...than I want you to clean your room.