Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever notice how Sweaty rarely has time for making a point that isn't a simple insult?

Or that once he's had a day or more to dream up his next stupid claim, it gets picked apart with a few seconds of actual thought?

You'd think he'd learn eventually. (I hope he doesn't -- it's too much fun watching the troll scream and dance.)
 
Hitch said:
Ever notice how Sweaty rarely has time for making a point that isn't a simple insult?

Or that once he's had a day or more to dream up his next stupid claim, it gets picked apart with a few seconds of actual thought?

You'd think he'd learn eventually. (I hope he doesn't -- it's too much fun watching the troll scream and dance.)
Click to expand...

My theory is that he has to go find someone to help him think about it.

SweatyYeti wrote
I'll be happy to change my opinion as far as that goes, if someone can show that a rigid doll hand can replicate that degree of bending, at two joints, with an edge-on view of the hand.
Click to expand...

Experiment yourself. It doesn't take much effort--and I never said that the "Patty" hand was rigid, like the one-piece doll hand. I'm sure it is not rigid. The change in angle/perspective is only one of the many mundane explanations for the "bending" put forth--any one of which is more believeable than the notion that a gigantic unknown ape is roaming the woods.

To praphrase The Princess Bride, "The weight of evidence is greatly against the PGF film showing an actual wild animal instead of a man in a suit, and you think a little finger jiggle is going to make people into believers, hmmm?"
 
Last edited:
spektator wrote:
The change in angle/perspective is only one of the many mundane explanations for the "bending" put forth--
Click to expand...


Maybe you didn't notice Spektator....but that mundane explanation was just shot down. :D

But please, feel free to defend it some more........IF YOU CAN. :D
 
SweatyYeti said:
spektator wrote:



Maybe you didn't notice Spektator....but that mundane explanation was just shot down. :D

But please, feel free to defend it some more........IF YOU CAN. :D
Click to expand...

If someone could just manage to shoot down a bigfoot...I won't hold my breath.
 
tconley2019 wrote:
And again, the entire argument is worthless. Even if you're right and the fingers bend, it doesn't help determine whether Patty is a suit or an unknown primate.
Click to expand...

Actually it does....but just how much is debatable.

But considering how long it took...on this sewer of a discussion board...to show something as simple and obvious as Patty's fingers bending...attempting that would simply be another HUGE waste of my time.

I enjoyed watching the skeptics here cough-up anything and everything they could to explain the OBVIOUS finger-bending as something else.....it was a true pleasure.
(It was as if they had a NEED to....for some strange reason.)

LTC's interview for the "Skeptical Scientist" magazine was one of the highlights! :)

But, fortunately...there are much more pleasant boards to discuss things on than this pit.

Bye bye.....you skeptical idiots! :D

SweatyYeti, stop insulting people.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have unusually long arms:

IMG_5285.jpg


But if I put on this welder's glove, bend my knees, and allow the tips of the glove to stick out about an inch and a half from the tips of my fingers, it looks like this:

IMG_5298.jpg


Even with this rather soft and flexible glove, I can still bend the glove quite a ways inward even though my fingertips are an inch and a half away from the ends of the glove:

IMG_5297.jpg


It works if I'm walking with a bent-knee gait too:

IMG_5308.jpg


IMG_5309.jpg


I just don't buy the notion that the apparent finger-bend seen on the film is beyond what a guy-in-a-suit could do.

Interestingly, I didn't notice an additional feature until I looked at the photos; note how the long glove bulges out to the side when I clench my fingers inward. This might account for the characteristic that Diogenes has pointed out, namely the strange bulge seen above the wrist.
 
How not to win a debate:

1. Point out an apparent anomaly and ask for any possible explanations other than the one you've decided upon.
2. When people respond, insult them and insist that they are wrong for reasons you'll soon think up.
3. Change your claim about the anomaly constantly. Make fun of those who try to explain what you're doing wrong.
4. Insult the board in general.
5. Claim that you've dealt with the alternate explanations...when you haven't.
6. Repeat 4.
7. Announce you are leaving for good.
8. Return in a day or two and begin again.

Honestly, if SY even tried to understand what just might be wrong with his "arguments" he might be worthy of a modicum of respect. However, some people simply don't want to be bothered.
 
William Parcher said:
Lu, it is you who didn't do the homework. BH answers questions (in a 3-hour radio program) coming from guest Bigfooters and those that call in.
Click to expand...

There you go assuming again. Another poster sent me the link weeks ago and I listened to the first half. I haven't had time to get back to the second.

I can't provide names of confessors because Green doesn't give them, but he's said someone would pop up every couple of years. People confess to murders they didn't commit, too.

Doesn't it seem odd that Heironimus didn't "confess" right after the he tour and sue Roger for his cut when Roger had the money? Or that he didn't know where the film site was, or that he named three different creators of the suit? Or that his account isn't born out by Titmus' investigation of the site? Or that he won't take a lie detector test from an independent investigator?

If you want to believe this self-agrandizing liar, that's your choice, but it's mine to believe the Disney and Universal experts of the time, the Russian biomechanics experts, Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and my own eyes.
 
LAL said:
Or that his account isn't born out by Titmus' investigation of the site?
Click to expand...

Not to worry, Patterson and Gimlin's accounts aren't born out by the Titmus investigation either. They claim they tracked 'Patty' for three and a half miles, unable to catch her... meanwhile Titmus finds evidence that 'Patty' is sitting less than 200 yards away watching them? Something don't smell right, and it ain't bigfoot.

Or that he won't take a lie detector test from an independent investigator?
Click to expand...
While he's at it maybe he should have the bumps on his head read by a phrenologist.

355px-1895-Dictionary-Phrenolog.png


If you want to believe this self-agrandizing liar, that's your choice, but it's mine to believe the Disney and Universal experts of the time, the Russian biomechanics experts, Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and my own eyes.
Click to expand...
Personally I neither believe nor disbelieve BH, I go where the evidence leads, and so far it hasn't led to bigfoot.

RayG
 
SweatyYeti said:
tconley2019 wrote:


Actually it does....but just how much is debatable.

But considering how long it took...on this sewer of a discussion board...to show something as simple and obvious as Patty's fingers bending...attempting that would simply be another HUGE waste of my time.

I enjoyed watching the skeptics here cough-up anything and everything they could to explain the OBVIOUS finger-bending as something else.....it was a true pleasure.
(It was as if they had a NEED to....for some strange reason.)

LTC's interview for the "Skeptical Scientist" magazine was one of the highlights! :)

But, fortunately...there are much more pleasant boards to discuss things on than this pit.

Bye bye.....you skeptical idiots! :D
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. An unknown primate could certainly exhibit the range of motion claimed. So could a guy in a suit. Finger bending doesn't exclude either explanation. It doesn't matter whether the bending occurs in a part of the film you think it shouldn't. The finger bend doesn't help distinguish between the two explanations. It's useless as evidence.

If you really have moved on, good luck. May you find that perfect bigfoot board where noone ever asks questions. I hope one of these days you'll take the time to look down at your hands. It would be awful to live in fear of what they might show you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom