Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

...no I don't see fingers bend, I see a little red x.

Sorry about that...here are the fingers bending....

What does kitakaze see now?

 

[William Parcher]

This sasquatchresearch.com clip claims to show flexing of the buttocks, wrist, hand and fingers...

Sweety's flexer (from a posting on BFF)...

The one is from Lu (I think she made it)...

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Sorry about that...here are the fingers bending....

What does kitakaze see now?

kitakaze has already seen that and couldn't care less if the fingers bend. kitakaze also fails to see how that supports the PGF as that of a sasquatch. kitakaze does see some pretty lame deflection from an adolescent. kitakaze would like to see Sweaty account for his inconsistencies, offer his thoughts on reliable evidence as he said he would, and try to explain to Huntster why bigfoot does exist in New York State.

ETA: Of course, kitakaze has no expectation for any of that to happen but is quite sure another drive-by troll fart of Sweety's is forthcoming.

 

[William Parcher]

...and try to explain to Huntster why bigfoot does exist in New York State.

Because if Bigfoot does not exist in New York, then every single report is either a misidentification or a hoax.... down to the very last one.

 

[kitakaze]

Because if Bigfoot does not exist in New York, then every single report is either a misidentification or a hoax.... down to the very last one.

*cough* And Iowa. *cough*

 

[RayG]

You'll probably find a Jeff Glckman in a prison, too, if you look hard enough.

Yeah, but would it be the same Jeff Glickman as the one that made guesstimates regarding the Patterson film?

Okay, what books besides Krantz have you read?

Does it really matter? I've read most of the stuff written on bigfoot, big deal. While reading bigfoot books may make one more aware of the stories, anecdotes, and superstitions floating around out there, it won't get you any closer to solving the mystery.

Both the film frame and the photograph showed a dead tree. By lining up this tree (making both images the same size), the creature in the film frame could be compared with the measurable object (person) in the photograph, and a height calculated. His only problem was film fuzz.

His only problem? How did Glickman ensure the Patterson subject and the person were standing in the same spot? Did he have film frames of both sitting in the dead tree? Holding the tree? Climbing the tree? Cutting the tree? (hopefully you can see where I'm going with this...)

Lining up a dead tree in the film frame doesn't automatically mean the living objects were lined up correctly.

Does Glickman not think Patterson was being truthful with regards to the footprints?

...calculation made using the foot size and/or camera distance are not scientifically valid.

But isn't Glickman relying on camera distance when he implies lining up dead trees is more scientifically valid? While I can understand that Glickman wants to use actual facts and not unknowns, his method of height measurement seems no more accurate than the one employed by Dr. Krantz. (Krantz went on the assumption that Patterson was telling the truth, and the foot we see in the PGF actually caused the footprints that were later cast. Using the 14.5" foot measurement, Krantz came out with a walking height of just over 6'.)

Why exactly should I believe Glickman's guesstimates are accurate?

RayG

 

[RayG]

I now think Patty Glickman and Mars Glickman are two different people. The Hoagland lecture review offers the email for Mars Glickman. It's from 1998 and shows an email address at the College of Santa Fe. Patty Glickman seems to have no association with that school, but a professional photographer named Jeff Glickman did.

Yes, it seems they are two completely different people. I stand corrected, my bad.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Because if Bigfoot does not exist in New York, then every single report is either a misidentification or a hoax.... down to the very last one.

Step down Confucious.......you've been replaced!!!!!

Give this man a college degree...please.

 

[William Parcher]

I wonder if Glickman would estimate the weight of this lowland gorilla around 400 lbs. You can see quite clearly that it has substantial mass. That woman must have been terrified, but I can't tell if she has a rifle (like Gimlin) in her right hand.

 

[RayG]

Those interested in reading Glickman should also read Daegling.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Why would Glickman see foot dimensions as problematic, but not?:

1) A huge fold or crease that reveals itself on the thigh.
2) A "diaper" or "pillow" butt.
3) A thigh that seems to "tuck under" the butt when walking.
4) Donut-shaped muscles on the arms.
5) Rigid breasts that seem to be improperly located on the chest.
6) Blockish or "paddle-like" feet.

Probably because those things are only seen by sceptics on message boards.

They've all been addressed here and on BFF.

I don't understand all of this "peers would ride roughshod" stuff. The Bigfoot "experts" seem almost immune to any real repercussions from their errors.

Oh? Taking an interest at all hurt Dr. Krantz' career.

Chilcutt said his reputation would be ruined if he was wrong about the dermals. But exactly how is his reputation supposed to be destroyed?

I don't know. I'd never heard that. He staked his reputation on the animals being real.

His reputation is so secure all he gets is a little ribbing sometimes.

Many PGF believers and skeptics think that Glickman's estimates are way off. Why? What did Glickman do wrong that resulted in these errors? If Murphy is correct that Glickman elimated the "foot size problem" and therefore provided a proper analysis; then why do so many think he was wrong? He said Patty weighs almost a ton.

He used a fomula, already noted. His height and weight estimates differed from Krantz', but otherwise his findings agreed. Krantz was more conservative in his estimates.

 

[LAL]

Because if Bigfoot does not exist in New York, then every single report is either a misidentification or a hoax.... down to the very last one.

Non sequitur.

 

[Hairy Man]

Hairy Man, one other thing that struck me in review of the last several pages of this thread was this post...(bolding is mine)...I must admit being a little curious about your reference to yourself as a Native American. This is you, is it not? (Kathy Moskowitz- head of AIBR). I hope you aren't offended by this but I'm having trouble seeing a photo of a Native American. When calling yourself a native did you mean as a caucasian who has a Native American relative? Also, would it be fair to say that an interest in bigfoot since childhood was the reason you became an anthropologist?

I am completely offended. Not only do I know my heritage, but I also understand genetics. Would you like a note from my mommy?

 

[RayG]

I am completely offended. Not only do I know my heritage, but I also understand genetics. Would you like a note from my mommy?

I don't get this "offended" business. Offended by what? You should be proud, not offended.

You may know your heritage, but others don't. I've read a great many of your posts but didn't realize you were Native American (or maybe I read it, but it didn't click/register). What tribe are you?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

I am completely offended. Not only do I know my heritage, but I also understand genetics. Would you like a note from my mommy?

It's unfortunate that you choose to take such offense and I regret that given that in your claiming to be Native American I'm only drawing attention to an image of you which shows an obviously caucasian person. You seem like a very nice person, if you like I can apologize for my confusion. What is your tribal lineage?

 

[William Parcher]

Probably because those things are only seen by sceptics on message boards.

Probably because a belief in Bigfoot causes a certain kind of blindness.

They've all been addressed here and on BFF.

Yep, and all that stuff is indicative of a costume worn by a person.

Oh? Taking an interest at all hurt Dr. Krantz' career.

Was Krantz fired for believing in Bigfoot? Was all of his work on non-Bigfoot stuff thrown in the trash after he was known to believe?

I don't know. I'd never heard that. He staked his reputation on the animals being real.

I thought he staked his reputation on those lines being real dermal impressions. If they really aren't dermals, how is Chilcutt going to pay on his losing wager? Did he make a bogus bet that he will never really pay, even if he is a loser?

His reputation is so secure all he gets is a little ribbing sometimes.

So, when Chilcutt said his reputation was at stake it was something like a big joke on Bigfooters.

He used a fomula, already noted. His height and weight estimates differed from Krantz', but otherwise his findings agreed. Krantz was more conservative in his estimates.

Glickman's formula resulted in an absurdity. If Krantz somehow was in agreement with Glickman, then he also produced an absurdity. How can Krantz come up with a different height/weight and still be in agreement with Glickman anyway? What kind of an agreement? Just basically agreeing that it wasn't a guy in a Bigfoot suit?

 

[Mad Hom]

kitakaze wrote:

Sorry about that...here are the fingers bending....

What does kitakaze see now?

Sweat Boy are you EVER going to produce that Big Boy list of "Reliable Evidence" or what??

Mad Hom see's someone avoiding him.

 

[LAL]

Probably because a belief in Bigfoot causes a certain kind of blindness.

That's really too funny

Yep, and all that stuff is indicative of a costume worn by a person.

There's no "diaper butt". She's shows a cleft as she walks away. Soarwing posted a picture showing a gorilla with "donuts" on the thread Greg started on BFF. All the lines thought to show fakery were shown to occur on real animals. Still got the problem of those shoulders being a third wider than human shoulders, the IM index, the slope of the forehead and muscle movement.

Dfoot took his pictures off BFF. We may never get to see that suit he was making that was going to prove how easy this is.

Was Krantz fired for believing in Bigfoot? Was all of his work on non-Bigfoot stuff thrown in the trash after he was known to believe?

It had to do with promotions and pay raises. As he said, "My university supports my work.They don't fire me."

I thought he staked his reputation on those lines being real dermal impressions. If they really aren't dermals, how is Chilcutt going to pay on his losing wager? Did he make a bogus bet that he will never really pay, even if he is a loser?

Are you talking about what he said on LMS?

I don't think you understand what he's saying. Lines aren't enough. The characteristics have to be there too. Pouring lines aren't what he's talking about.

In some cases the lines ran along the foot then took sharp turns and went across. How does plaster run at an angle and leave lines like that?

Aside from spending three days in Idaho, he took casts home and studied them further.

Based on what he saw, he's convinced the animals are real.

So, when Chilcutt said his reputation was at stake it was something like a big joke on Bigfooters.

Well, not if he's being misquoted.

Glickman's formula resulted in an absurdity. If Krantz somehow was in agreement with Glickman, then he also produced an absurdity. How can Krantz come up with a different height/weight and still be in agreement with Glickman anyway? What kind of an agreement? Just basically agreeing that it wasn't a guy in a Bigfoot suit?

Read them both.

If the weight is an absurdity it's because the formula doesn't work for that species. Her prints were deep indicating great weight. John Green weighted himself down to weigh 450 lbs. and couldn't press in that deeply. Some of the prints were still visible as dents when he and Jim Mc Clarin did the reenactment .

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Because if Bigfoot does not exist in New York, then every single report is either a misidentification or a hoax.... down to the very last one.

You can extend that a little bit and say..

" If Bigfoot does not exist at all, then ... "


I'm sure you get the picture....

 

[RayG]

Sweat Boy are you EVER going to produce that Big Boy list of "Reliable Evidence" or what??

Now, now, give him time. He's working on his pointyhead experiment. How's that going Sweaty?

There's no "diaper butt". She's shows a cleft as she walks away.

Claiming there's no diaper butt don't make it go away. I've not seen any clear evidence of a cleft as Patty walks away. Is this more liberal interpretation like, you know, seeing teeth, and other types of things that don't actually exist?

Still got the problem of those shoulders being a third wider than human shoulders, the IM index, the slope of the forehead and muscle movement.

Let's see.... shoulders a third wider than any human? Pure and utter droppage from the south end of a north-bound bull. My own experiment put that claptrap to rest.

IM index? Please explain how anyone was able to accurately measure an IM index without actual bones.

Sloped forehead? Gah, that seems to be the latest bandwagon to jump on. Where is your evidence of a sloped forehead? Sweaty still hasn't shown us any pinhead experiments or results.

Muscle movement? Which ones?

Jeebus, 40 years later and we've still got people clinging to the inconclusive PGF as proof of bigfoot. Time to move on, find better evidence, quit fudging with height/weight/IM index/shoulder width guesstimates in an attempt to create an animal of non-human dimensions.

Bottom line, NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN FROM THE PGF.

Dfoot took his pictures off BFF. We may never get to see that suit he was making that was going to prove how easy this is.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway. Unless Dfoot reproduced Patty exactly, his work would be criticized as not looking like Patty. It doesn't matter that witnesses have described creatures that don't look like Patty, any reproduction has to look exactly like Patty.

In some cases the lines ran along the foot then took sharp turns and went across. How does plaster run at an angle and leave lines like that?

In some cases? Were these same lines found in consecutive tracks?

Aside from spending three days in Idaho, he took casts home and studied them further.

It wouldn't matter if he slept with them, it's still possible he's mistaken. A possibility you don't seem willing to admit.

Based on what he saw, he's convinced the animals are real.

Did he experiment? Did he actually create any casts? Might he have made up his mind without having all the information?

Read them both.

Neither is very entertaining or informative. If you like guesstimates, speculation, and conjecture, you'll find lots.

If the weight is an absurdity it's because the formula doesn't work for that species.

Yeah, it's not possible his calculation/formula is absurd.

Her prints were deep indicating great weight. John Green weighted himself down to weigh 450 lbs. and couldn't press in that deeply. Some of the prints were still visible as dents when he and Jim Mc Clarin did the reenactment .

Try to detach your mind from only one solution and you may see how it was possible. Of course it's absolutely impossible for hoaxers to be imaginative. They can create complex crop circles, but are unable to fake footprints? Ok, if you think so.

RayG