Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[William Parcher]

Ninety-four pages of troll dance...

And so skillful at that. Always in circles and never once letting us see a back step. A true master.

This suggests that SweatyYeti is the troll responsible for everything. He's not. This forum contains several Bigfoot threads that account for a relatively small number of Bigfoot believers who found it within themselves to visit JREF and engage in argument. Each one of them could be examined and declared a troll. But they really are not trolls in an important sense. Each has brought their own combinatorial culmination of personal and overall Bigfoot belief. Each has brought their own best weapons as well as the collective weaponry of Bigfootery in general. Even I have declared Sweety a troll; but he is only a singular representative of a significant faction of Bigfootery itself. There are many others who think and behave just like him and are never considered trolls among their own minions.

Belief in Bigfoot requires two things at the minimum. First is a personal idea of what Bigfoot is, and what it does. Secondly is an internal dossier that involves ways and means to argue against Bigfoot skeptics. Those two things must be selectively flip-flopped in their priority, and also adaptable to specific changes on-the-fly. What does that mean? It means that because Bigfoot cannot be confirmed, the believers have absolutely nothing to do but argue against those that think they are full of crap. Is it any wonder that all of them are going to look like trolls?

The description of Bigfoot can be changed at any moment. We never knew that this creature could hear the internal mechanisms of cameras or sense their infrared sensors until Bigfooters told us all that they are essentially unphotographable. Who would have guessed that a primate could not be shot, before being told that they smell or see guns and then somehow know what is potentially about to happen? Even when they don't seem to avoid the gun itself, we suddenly learn that humans themselves are hesitant to shoot them because they think the beast looks humanish or are scared that nearby Bigfoot comrades will rip you to sheds after you kill their buddy. This is the nuts and bolts of Bigfootery theories. The avid Bigfooter must always anticipate the skeptical argument and find a way (or look at previous arguments) to nullify the notion that Bigfoot simply doesn't exist. If everything seems to fail, you just say that thousands of eyewitnesses cannot possibly all be mistaken or lying.

A genuine belief in Bigfoot is not even necessary to form and use stereotypical types of arguments against Bigfoot skeptics. One can simply play the Bigfooter game. I don't have to believe that Mario is a real life moustached Italian dude in order to get him through Level 3 of Donkey Kong. I only need to know what he is supposed to "do" when a runaway barrel rolls towards him. I think this may be much of what Bigfootery is about. Think about a fantasy game; not about a genuine and really massive stinking bipedal primate living amongst us in our own forests and glades.

Whether you are paying the bill for your internet service provider or dropping a quarter in an arcade video game, you then have full rights to engage in game playing. Is Sweety extra smart, a troll, or another gamer?

 

[William Parcher]

Just creating a long list of 'possible explanations' without providing ANYTHING at all in the way of science or logical reasoning to back them up doesn't amount to anything of value.......it's only IDLE speculation.

... because when science and logic are applied to the "Bigfoot question", then Bigfoot always ends up as a real animal. You don't even need science and logic. When a person actually sees a real Bigfoot, everything comes together into a focused beacon of reality. Bigfoot exists because Bigfoot exists.

 

[tube]

Think about a fantasy game; not about a genuine and really massive stinking bipedal primate living amongst us in our own forests and glades.

One of my fantasy games is predicting the future. I guess I'm trying to imitate authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur Clark, who had a big impact on me way back when.

I predict that DNA testing will come down in price and increase in availability, to a huge degree. In fact, I believe there will come a time when birth certificates include a DNA based identification as a customary characteristic. While I'm sure that RFID chips will increase in popularity, I predict that one of the first really popular uses of DNA identification will be as non-invasive pet identifications! Consider this, if all you need to do to identify an animal, a mammal at least, is to pluck a few hairs and submit them for a DNA test, you won't even need to implant an RFID chip or worry about a missing dog tag. If you found a lost dog without a dog tag, you could identify the dog and match it to the owner, assuming of course that there was some sort of large database that could be accessed for that purpose.

Where I'm going with this with regards to Bigfoot is this: While DNA testing of hair is possible now, I believe that within 20 years it will be kind of like taking your camera's memory card out of the camera, bringing it to the drug store, and having a machine automatically print out a paper-based print: simple, cheap, and commonplace.

Right now, Bigfootery has a well-worn set of excuses as to why we don't find Bigfoot fossils, we don't find Bigfoot's bones, why Bigfoot never becomes road kill, and why he never gets shot by a hunter.

I predict that in 20 years a new apology will come about for Bigfootery; Why NO hair found in the woods ever comes back as unidentified primate.

Can you tell that I'm running out of truly novel things to contribute to the subject of Bigfootery?

 

[fsol]

That tends to do just the opposite of what legitimate, scientific analysis does....which is to bring a picture into better focus, by determing some kind of likelihood, or probability, for different explanations being true.

Just creating a long list of 'possible explanations' without providing ANYTHING at all in the way of science or logical reasoning to back them up doesn't amount to anything of value.......it's only IDLE speculation.

OK cool, show your maths.

 

[Correa Neto]

I guess everyone is running out of new stuff.

Specially the defenders. Its all about recycling decades-old stuff... And when it fails, most of them appeal to the same tactics: ad homs, diversion, obfuscation, semantics, appeals to authority, appeals to pity, argumentum ad ignorantiam, etc.

Very boring.

There has been a single exception in these forums, and she seems to have gone AWOL.

ETA- Just read these lines from billydkid:

There are some people in here genuinely trying to get at the truth and there are other's engaging in obfuscation. Bulls**ting is all fine and good, but at a certain point a person might consider saying "I don't care what the truth is. I want to believe what I want to believe." Things are either so or they are not so and people can choose what they want to believe is so based on reality or they just decide to believe things willy nilly. A person is free to believe things willy nilly, but they shouldn't go around pretending they have legitimate reasons to believe them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499909&postcount=392
Emboldening by me.
I think the above describes pretty well what we are seeing here. Some bigfoot believers should think about it before posting.

 

[Belz...]

I think the fingers bend....

Bolding mine.

So now it's just an opinion ? I thought it was obvious just two days ago.

So... why not simply come right out and say you have no clue whether or not they bend ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

So now it's just an opinion ? I thought it was obvious just two days ago.

It is obvious that the fingers bend.....except to a skeptic.

Here you go, belz.....I'll explain my position on this, just for you....

I VERY CLEARLY see the fingers change shape......they bend.
I do think that they bend.
I can even extend that to "I know that they bend".

"Knowing" something includes "thinking" something.
It's not a contradiction in the least.

It's incredible how idotic a skeptic can be, on this board.
Simply hard to believe.


BTW...I still expect answers to my questions. I'll get back to them later.

 

[SweatyYeti]

fsol wrote:

OK cool, show your maths.

in response to my statement...

scientific analysis does....which is to bring a picture into better focus, by determing some kind of likelihood, or probability, for different explanations being true.

Sure, no problem.

LTC8K6 wrote:

That could simply be blobs of color merging into and out of the background colors, appearing, when blinked back and forth, a bit like a hand curving.

Probability of that being true = 0%

Reason:
In these two frames...the hand is NOT surrounded by background...therefore the fingers cannot be 'random background colors'.
Patty's leg is seen directly behind part of the hand....so the fingers are, IN FACT, what they appear to be...part of the hand...not part of the background.

Could LTC8K6 figure this out on his own?
Did he try to figure this out on his own? Apparantly not.

Again....imagining "possibilities" without providing any reason whatsoever for believing they may be likely explanations amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

Unless you call bullshi_ something!


Later we'll analyse this little golden nugget.....

(Actually...maybe I should call it a 'dropping'.)

It may be that with this costume, the fingers bend a little with certain arm-swings due to the design of the costume. A strap may occasionally snag inside and pull on the hand/arm little.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

A person is free to believe things willy nilly, but they shouldn't go around pretending they have legitimate reasons to believe them.

Emboldening by me.
I think the above describes pretty well what we are seeing here. Some bigfoot believers should think about it before posting.

I think some skeptics ought to think about that too, before they post their imaginary explanations.
Wouldn't you agree, Correa?

 

[Hitch]

fsol wrote:

Again....imaging "possibilities" without providing any reason whatsoever for believing they may be likely explanations amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

I'm sorry. I thought this was obvious. The reason it's likely that Patty is a man in a suit is simple.

Let me illustrate by way of example. If I showed you a picture of the Easter Bunny (I hope) you'd be likely to say, "That's just a man in a suit."

When you show us Patty, we say the same thing... for the same reason.

BIGFOOT ISN'T REAL.

I don't have to prove it. I already have -- well beyond the standards of your "proof" to the contrary.

 

[fsol]

Again....imagining "possibilities" without providing any reason whatsoever for believing they may be likely explanations amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

LIke imagining the possibility that what's on the film is bigfoot?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's try this here , since it was pretty much ignored at BFF..


If the fingers are bending, why is the size of the wrist bulge changing ?



There are no ' wrist muscles ' that flex the fingers..


On the other hand, if the suit wearers fingers are in the wrist area, and flexing to extend the rubber fingers, the bulging wrist could be accounted for..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=295121

The fingers barely bend at all. The type ( rubber ) of hand being being suggested, had bent fingers when at rest, and would un-bend when the fingers of the wearer were extended in the wrist area, where we see an unnatural bulge that expands and contracts, in the same frames of your example.
Note the bulge is larger when the fingers are bent, i.e. the wearer has made a fist ..

 

[Correa Neto]

I think some skeptics ought to think about that too, before they post their imaginary explanations.
Wouldn't you agree, Correa?

You are talking about the skeptics who are posting in this thread or about skeptics in general?

Let me tell you what I consider as immaginary explanations and poor reasoning:

I VERY CLEARLY see the fingers change shape......they bend I do think that they bend. I can even extend that to "I know that they bend".

When you say this, you IGNORE the following facts: The frames are not consecutives and at each one, Patty is at different distances from the camera, at slightly different angles, her arms at different position, and frankly, the alleged movment is not exactly spetacular. The frames have poor resolution and the focus is far from good, among other issues. Despite all of this, you KNOW they bend, CHOOSING TO IGNORE parallax.

Despite having seen that a simple child's toy could be used to create grabbing hands and a non-human IM at a gorilla suit, you CHOOSE TO IGNORE this. You say

its a not a very likely, or very probable one [explanation], because of the lack of it's use in the steady portion of the film.

You CHOOSE TO IGNORE the fact that at shaky blurred non-consecutive frames, parallax effects could easilly be responsible for the effect, even if Patty's hands were rigid. Despite the above, you KNOW they bend, and its EVIDENCE Patty is a real bigfoot. You also seem not to notice that your explanation requires a PGF hoax planned frame-by frame...

You CHOOSE TO ACCEPT Patty's IM is not human, despite the fact that IM chalculations at PGF frames will inevitably have a large margin of error, not only due to different perspectives of the subject's arms and legs in respect to the camera but also due to the inadequate resolution of the frames. So, these errors will be large enough to render the measures meaningless, but you CHOOSE TO NOT ACCEPT this. You also CHOOSE TO IGNORE the fact that costumes can be designed to masquerade human proportions. Only after making all those CHOICES you can accept the IM measures as EVIDENCE that Patty is a real bigfoot.

You also CHOOSE TO IGNORE all the fishy details about PGF (timeline, contradictions, suspect events, etc.). Only then, after all those choices, you can BELIEVE PGF subject is a real bigfoot.

You CHOOSE TO IGNORE all the issues presented by skeptics. You try to engage in diversion, obfuscation, evasion and semantic games. You try to attack the skeptics instead of their arguments.

So, SY, its time for you to reconsider your tactics. Its time for you to say

"I don't care what the truth is. I want to believe what I want to believe."

instead of trying to convince us there are reliable pieces of evidence for bigfeet being real creatures, because

A person is free to believe things willy nilly, but they shouldn't go around pretending they have legitimate reasons to believe them.

You'll have plenty of time to consider the above and think of an answer. I will be doing some field work for two weeks or so and will have no access to WWW. I hope when I return I will not see you wasted time and bandwidth with diversion, obfuscation, evasion and semantic games as make-belive answers.

On a brighter side, follow the link below and you'll see the Easter Bunny bending its fingers and doing much more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPb0po2jzfg
So, its gotta be the real deal!

Oh, BTW, carcharodon still needs to prove his accusations against me. Two more weeks should give him all the time he needs to gather his evidence. Or to write an "I'm sorry" post.

 

[Hitch]

Interesting Diogenes, but useless.

I believe it was Sweaty's claim was that finger movement was clearly shown indicating that Patty must be a real creature, not a suit.

But, then he backpedaled (excuse me, sidestepped, never back off any claim) and said the finger movement was only noticeable in the blurry, shaky part of the film, not the clear stable portions. So it was not "clearly" shown.

Skeptics have pointed out how easy it would be for finger movement to be part of a costume, by any of several different means. So finger movement does not preclude a suit.

So, "cleary" = nothing and "can't be a suit" = nothing. Question what does 0+0=?

Oh right, once again, we see that:

0+0=BIGFOOT!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting Diogenes, but useless.

I believe it was Sweaty's claim was that finger movement was clearly shown indicating that Patty must be a real creature, not a suit.

But, then he backpedaled (excuse me, sidestepped, never back off any claim) and said the finger movement was only noticeable in the blurry, shaky part of the film, not the clear stable portions. So it was not "clearly" shown.

Skeptics have pointed out how easy it would be for finger movement to be part of a costume, by any of several different means. So finger movement does not preclude a suit.

So, "cleary" = nothing and "can't be a suit" = nothing. Question what does 0+0=?

Oh right, once again, we see that:

0+0=BIGFOOT!

Now that someone has pointed it out, I believe the angle changes and reveals bent fingers ( as well as making the wrist appear to bulge )..

The outermost digit never appears to bend at all, and it is the only digit visible in the first frame ....

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

If the fingers are bending, why is the size of the wrist bulge changing ?

Can you actually show a change in size of the wrist bulge, Greg...by highlighting the frames?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

You try to attack the skeptics instead of their arguments.

I've pointed out the stupidity of skeptic's arguments plenty of times.

A few posts ago I pointed out the stupidity of LTC's proposed explanation......and did anyone refute that, and defend his "explanation"?
No they didn't......because it can't be done.

It was an idiotic, worthless suggestion....by a skeptic.

The outpouring of ridiculous and unsupported imaginary explanations for the bending fingers seen in the 2-frame animation is the best demonstration yet of the true motivation of the skeptics on this board....which is to simply be skeptical for the sake of skepticism itself...and not a desire to find the truth.

The bending of the fingers is as clear as day....the skeptics here can see it.....they just can't acknowledge it.
And it's not because of a lack of intelligence...it's because of a lack of personal integrity...and honesty.

It's as simple as that.

If I wanted to, I could get 2 consecutive frames of the fingers bending, from that portion of the PG film....but it would accomplish absolutely nothing...in this forum....because the same group of sleezy skeptics would gather round it and spew more nonsense.

Here's a simple challenge to the skeptics.....go put together a 2-frame animation using a frame that's within 1-3 frames of the one in which the fingers are curled-up....and I guarantee that the fingers will still appear to bend in that animation.

 

[fsol]

The outpouring of ridiculous and unsupported imaginary explanations for the bending fingers seen in the 2-frame animation is the best demonstration yet of the true motivation of the skeptics on this board....which is to simply be skeptical for the sake of skepticism itself...and not a desire to find the truth.

The bending of the fingers is as clear as day....the skeptics here can see it.....they just can't acknowledge it.
And it's not because of a lack of intelligence...it's because of a lack of personal integrity...and honesty.

So people are acknowleging the bending of the fingers by offering explanation for it, and then they are not acknowleging the bending of the fingers. All in the same breath? That's gotta take some doing.

As for posters honesty? I'll leave that for the reader to decide.

 

[SweatyYeti]

fsol wrote:

So people are acknowleging the bending of the fingers by offering explanation for it, and then they are not acknowleging the bending of the fingers. All in the same breath?

Well, here's one explanation, by LTC8K6, not really acknowledging the finger movement...

That could simply be blobs of color merging into and out of the background colors, appearing, when blinked back and forth, a bit like a hand curving.

More examples later.

 

[fsol]

fsol wrote:


Well, here's one explanation, by LTC8K6, not really acknowledging the finger movement...


More examples later.

I am sure that you realise that by giving an explanation of the apparent movement of the fingers he is actually acknowledging that there is something to explain? You know, the apparent movement of the fingers which his explanation acknowledges? I hardly see him denying that there seems to be movement there. You may not agree with his explanation, but I see no reason why you might elevate your own interpretaion of the frames above it in the manner that you do.