Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:

That's just it, you don't ever have to prove it exists,

You're right.......I don't have to prove it exists.

....we can never prove it doesn't exist.

You're right....you can never prove it doesn't exist.


Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!!!

Drewbot, you seem a little unhappy about this state of affairs....would you like me to send you a lollipop?

 

[kitakaze]

Which question have I refused to answer?

At the very least thus far the four things I asked of you in post #9396.

You've confused me with kitakaze.

I described the challenge, (for skeptics to create a video as realistic as the PG film)

Did he actually think we wouldn't notice?

more specifically....and stated that the subject should be out in the open so that the subject's body proportions could be measured....and kitty promptly changed the subject by asking me what Patty's body proportions were.

How is trying to get you to acknowledge that you are not aware of the proportions of Patty changing the subject? It's absolutely central to it.

Also, kitty refuses to answer a simple "Yes" or "No" type question.....repeatedly. He will not answer it, period. (He does have some really good excuses for his refusal, though.)

Sweaty, did you feel even the slightest amount of shame when writing this blatant lie?

Let's break it down:

You say that Patty is realistic. Many others, bigfoot believers included, say the opposite. That in it's very nature shows that the realism you claim is subjective in it's nature. Do you understand?

Now you've asked me to say if I can see a difference in the realism of the legs of the subjects of both images. I have explained the problem and asked you to define that realism you claim and how it excludes my submission of the Harely Hoffman movie. I'm pointing out to you the erroneous nature of the question. Think about this- Does one leg being shaggier make it less realistic? Do living creatures never have shaggy legs? The yes or no answer to your flawed question is 'no'. There is nothing about the BBC subject's leg that disqualifies it from being a real leg in comparison to the PGF. IMO, you understood this point from the first time I alluded to it and your are simply being obtuse.

There is simply nothing about the question to run from and once again you are projecting your own behaviours on to others. Do you deny having avoided answering questions for extended periods of time?

Regardless, I have answered your question as you requested it to be answered. I now expect you to answer the things I have asked of you at least prior to this post. If you do not you will confirm to all the people following this thread, believer, skeptic, fence-sitter alike, that you are completely without integrity and a detriment to your cause.

Thanks for showing everyone your true colours, Sweaty.

 

[Drewbot]

Drewbot wrote:
I nominate you for the new O.J. jury, Drewbot! You're blind enough!
If you understood the meaning of the word "evidence", you wouldn't have to ask such a question.

Avoid logical response, divert attention to respondent's physical flaws, end post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have the ol' take quote out of context, make a joke that only you will laugh at, end post.

Drewbot wrote:

That's just it, you don't ever have to prove it exists,

You're right.......I don't have to prove it exists.

....we can never prove it doesn't exist.

You're right....you can never prove it doesn't exist.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!!!

Drewbot, you seem a little unhappy about this state of affairs....would you like me to send you a lollipop?

 

[kitakaze]

Hey Drew, here's some Sweaty gold:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88189

BTW, the first thing in getting a good handle on Sweaty's games is comparing what he does respond to to what he doesn't.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
He STATES what the outcome will be, if done properly. But since this is his proposal, or analysis, it's up to him to do the measurements, and up to him to show the results of his measurements....to demonstrate his point.

Is there something wrong with that??

On my part, I know that there are people inside those suits, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm quite sure that a properly-sized, and proportioned, human outline could be drawn inside those suits. It's simply logical.

OK, since you are still having problems understanding the point, I'll show you an example. Here we have Redking, as an example:

The red circles with the central dots mark possible locations of articulations. The central dot is my best guess, the circle, possible locations. The yellow lines would be the fore and upper arm. The orange lines are the possible limits of where the forearm could end.

Now some observations:
1. The possible measurement errors, created by the doubts regarding the location of the joints, are quite evident.
2. The upper arm is considerably shorter than the forearm, a proportion that could be deemed "inhuman". But we know redking is nothing but a bloke in a monster costume. How can we explain this? The simples explanation is that forearm and the upper arm were not at a plan paralell to the camera. They were at an angle and its just a perspective problem. The other option would be the use of some sort of prosthetics to increase the lengh. Even partially wearing redking's gloves would be enough.
3. Depending on how you scale redking's image, a human figure may or may not fit inside it.

The bottom line is that drawing and measuring lines over a image, without the propper calibrations will never be good science. By extension, drawing bones over an image and claiming its an accurate anatomic representation is not good science also.
Reductio ad absurdum, such methodology can prove Marvin the Martian is a real flesh-and-bones being...

Sweaty, face it. The best one can say about such things is that its inconclusive. Usually, its just junk.

 

[Aepervius]

Pot, kettle.

If you understood the meaning of the word "evidence", you wouldn't have to ask such a question.

If you really understood the word evidence you would not post half baked post about a film made 40 years ago. You would be actively hunting in the wood for a big foot corpse, or trying to kill one, or trying to find big foot scat. DNA. That is evidence. And I am not talking about DNA denatured through 5 years of weather, which could be anything from moose to mice or even human, I am talking your conclusive-not-denatured-DNA type. You have nothing of the sort. YOu have no evidence. , only wishful thinking.

Footprint and film are not evidence of anything, too easily faked. both of them.

If you really want to prove big foot exists , stop dusting stuff which has already been marked as inconclusive or as "not an evidence" and go gather them. Discussing with us about "how idiotic and imbecile we are" to not understand how nice the amount of anecdote you have will not change anything.

If you are not trolling, go gather real evidence. If not , continue posting here, but be aware that for passer by you are only making yourself more ridiculous by the minutes.

 

[Drewbot]

Correa Neto, I maintain that a human could NOT fit into Redking's costume, the neck is an impossble reach to get to the head. Therefore, Redking is a real monster. (unless there was some little person riding on the shoulders of the primary costume wearer or something like pulleys and cables)

By the way, Kitakaze, that Mars Civilization thread was Gold, GOLD I say.

 

[Correa Neto]

Its Michelinsaurus nipponicus.

 

[kitakaze]

(BTW...there is something in that 2-frame animation which shows beyond all doubt that it's not a doll-hand illusion. I'll demonstrate it someday....for now I'll let the skeptics here scratch their heads over it. You boys will never find it on your own!)

Ooo... Deja vu:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2534573#post2534573

Classic Sweaty. Asked countless times to make a point about fingerbending from the very first time he brought up the idea at the end of the doll hand episode he finally gave these two posts and turned tail for a couple months:

Diogenes wrote:

The fingers bend .

You win !

Your point ?

Thank you.

My point. I don't have time right now to get into that.

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.

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!

SweatyYeti, stop insulting people.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

Playing silly games trying to score points on dirty skeptics... Sweaty's got loads of time.

Make a point and engage in honest discussion... "I don't have time right now to get into that."

 

[SweatyYeti]

At the very least thus far the four things I asked of you in post #9396.

How is trying to get you to acknowledge that 'you are not aware of the proportions of Patty' changing the subject? It's absolutely central to it.

'Whether or not I'm aware of Patty's proportions' has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject.

There were, actually, 2 subjects....the original one was "what aspects of a video are necessary for the video to be considered "comparable" to the PG film. (for the purpose of judging "realism")

The 2nd subject was closely-related...."is "realism" a subjective or objective thing?"

From your post #9363.....

Quote: SweatyYeti:
Show us a comparable realistic-looking video in which body proportions can be SEEN and MEASURED, like Patty's can be.

Whoops! There they go again. Tell us, Sweaty, what are Patty's body proportions?

Quote: SweatyYeti:
No, it's not subjective. Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

I see a diaper butt and ridiculous hairy cans in one picture and the BBC's botched embarrassment of an attempt to recreate the subject in the other.

The subject of 'what would constitute a comparable video' is in NO way dependant on what I think Patty's body proportions are.

If you don't have the brains to understand that, kitty....you're an idiot. An absolute IDIOT.


kitakaze wrote:

The yes or no answer to your flawed question is 'no'.

This is just too good!! It's Christmas come-early!!

Kitty has gone completely brain-dead....

My question:
"Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above?"

Kitty's answer:
"No."


Pardon me while I laugh...(to be continued)...

 

[kitakaze]

You finally made an attempt at a decent reply, Sweaty. Congratulations.

1) Thanks for your typical partial and selective response to my recent posts addressing you in which I quickly and easily expose and dismantle your games.

2) Thanks for the admission that you are not aware of the proportions of the PGF subject and you made the ability to measure the proportions of the compared subject a stipulation in putting forth a comparable movie.

3) Feel free to laugh at my 'no' answer. Good luck qualifying your amusement.

4) No apology or comment on another typical Sweaty embarrassment. This time arrogantly claiming that I had not and could not answer your erroneous question with the 'yes' or 'no' you demanded when I clearly had and you just couldn't be bothered with actually reading posts. Evidence of Sweaty's desire to score points on skeptics, pure and simple. Intellectual cowardice and a complete lack of integrity, IMO.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

You're right....you can never prove it doesn't exist.

Just as you can never prove unicorns don't exist.

 

[Marcus]

Excuse the interruption, I just wanted to say that of all the questions Sweaty refused to answer, my favorite was " If the fingers bend, what must we pretend?" I believe that was shortly before he left the board for good.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

4) No apology or comment on another typical Sweaty embarrassment. This time arrogantly claiming that I had not and could not answer your erroneous question with the 'yes' or 'no' you demanded when I clearly had and you just couldn't be bothered with actually reading posts. Evidence of Sweaty's desire to score points on skeptics, pure and simple. Intellectual cowardice and a complete lack of integrity, IMO.

I'm sorry that I made a mistake in saying you wouldn't answer my question, when you had already answered it. I didn't see your answer...buried in the middle of all your babbling. I'm sorry about that.

I'm overjoyed at your answer, though...I must say!
I can't believe you actually said you don't see any difference in the realism of the 2 legs. But I'll take it....it'll come in handy for future use!!

....and you just couldn't be bothered with actually reading posts.

BTW, the first thing in getting a good handle on Sweaty's games is comparing what he does respond to to what he doesn't.

These posts are excellent examples of your obnoxious attitude, kitty.

You somehow think you know WHY I missed your post....and why I haven't responded to all the many comments and questions directed at me.
Even though I've clearly stated in a recent post of mine that I simply don't have the free time available, at the moment, to respond to everything.....you somehow can tell that I "just can't be bothered" to read posts.....and am deliberately avoiding answering questions....

Another quote....

Do you deny having avoided answering questions for extended periods of time?

You are the epitome of arrogance, kitakaze.
You think you know things that you don't really know, and have no way of knowing. But that doesn't stop you.....you go right ahead and talk out of your as-, anyway.

Here's how you can help me prove to the world that what I'm saying is the absolute TRUTH. Why don't you send Lu a PM, and ask her about our conversations over the last several months via email.

We had been having friendly conversations pretty steadily for quite a while, but in the last few months, I haven't had the time to keep corresponding in a timely manner.
She can confirm what I've said here, on more than one occasion, that I simply haven't had much free time, at all. I'll even send you copies of our emails, if you'd like.
Ask her anything you want, obnoxious one, about our conversations. Then report back here, and apologize for your false accusations against me.

Again.....I've never refused to answer anyone's questions....unlike many skeptics I've talked to on these boards, who have outright refused to answer questions.


More from the obnoxious one:

Intellectual cowardice and a complete lack of integrity, IMO.

Here's your chance to show your PERSONAL INTEGRITY, kitty.
Talk to Lu, and let us know if your assessment of my intentions in not responding to all the questions asked of me was right, or wrong.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It looks like we need another lesson on how a costume can disguise the true proportions of its wearer, with a special focus on shoulders. Some of you might remember my previous look at this particular topic.

Here is a picture of Steve Calvert. Here is a picture of him wearing (most of) his gorilla suit. Look at those shoulders!

Here's a special Calvert bonus: According to this picture, the mask for his suit had a moving mouth and dilating nostrils! I should also note that I got the pictures from this page.

Similarly, here is a picture of Ray "Crash" Corrigan in a cowboy outfit and here is a picture of what is believed to be Corrigan with a gorilla suit on. Note the difference in size and proportions. Here's a bigger, less cropped version.

Also, I was rather amused that the article I got those pictures from made a connection between cowboys and people in gorilla costumes.

Bonus videos:

Here are the fullscreen and widescreen versions of the sasquatch scene from "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny." Notice the large shoulders. Also, would it be possible for anyone here to take a screencap of this to compare the length of the sasqautch's arms to that of Patty's?

According to their respective IMDB profiles, Jack Black is 5' 7" and
John C. Reilly is 6' 1½". I should note that this is the same John C. Reilly that's starring in "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story." Maybe pictures from that movie can be used to determine how much of the sasquatch's bulk was due to padding?

This segment from the series "Creepy Canada" features a Bigfoot costume with some leg muscles (about 7:31 into the video).

This video has a Bigfoot costume with some "Myakka-ish" facial features (Seen about 1:30 into the video).

This video offers more proof that Bigfoot/gorilla masks can have moving mouths.

 

[manofthesea]

Just as you can never prove unicorns don't exist.

Do you have any sighting reports, photographs, anecdotes,...?
Anything tangible?

 

[Correa Neto]

There are myths about unicorns...
There are myths about bigfeet...

Same type of evidence.

*awaits the usual "not many recent unicorn sighting reports" line*

 

[Cuddles]

*awaits the usual "not many recent unicorn sighting reports" line*

I saw one yesterday.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thanks for all the great links, AtomicMysteryMonster.
Those videos and pictures will be very useful in the future!

In this picture, notice how vertical the forehead is...even though Gorillas have an extremely sloped forehead....

Finding a Gorilla or a Bigfoot costume with the same degree of forehead slope as Patty's seems to be a very difficult thing to do.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I saw one yesterday.

I know someone who saw a unicorn in his garden, eating roses.