Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

AS TO WHAT SWEATY WROTE UP THERE.

 

[sgoodman72]

It's comparison time....thanx to Dfoot......


Here is 'Paddy Stiffy'....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/stiffpadding2.gif[/qimg]


...and here is 'Patty Flexy'......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk56.gif[/qimg]

Hey guys, with regards to the bulge in Patty's thigh (interpretted as either the bunching of padding or some kind of hernia...) I was examining this .gif over and over and over, and do you think it's possible that it's actually just hair that is lifted up and blowing in the wind as Patty walks? Look when Patty's foot stomps the ground, you can see the hair rise and fall all in that same portion of the thigh.

I know it's been discussed before, but in thinking really hard about the whole bulge thing, it really must be 1 of 2 things. It is either the bunching of padding or the rising of hair in the rush of wind as she walks. If it really is a hernia or knot of muscle, it would not be sticking that far out from the thigh. And if it were, then Patty would be hopping away on 1 leg or crawling (have you ever even gotten a mere Charley-horse on the thigh? If so you usually just crumple like a rag-doll, much less walk briskly away. And that's just speaking about Charley-horses, imagine having a herniated muscle...much less walking with it). Also it appears to go away when the leg hits the ground, no trace of it at all, so there's really about a 0% chance it's a hernia or some kind of real growth or bulge.

The way I see it, it kind of has to be a wrinkle in the padding. When I mention it could be hair rising and falling in the wind, I am really just trying to fish for a "realistic" idea that it could be. Because whatever it is, it is NOT a herniated muscle.

In looking at Dfoot's .gif, I see some of the same fabric or padding movements that would be evident in the PGF if it were actually clear and not so blurry, altered, enlarged, enhanced, etc. He isn't even wearing the butt-pad in that one .gif and it almost looks the same. He also just spent 10 minutes and slapped something quick together. Imagine if he had months to perfect it. I love what research Bill Munns is doing with the whole fabric and materials analysis, but it may be overcomplicating it. Especially if you can get the same effect within minutes of just throwing some basic thing together.

On a side note, I have to give Dfoot credit, he was hounded, abused, and berated for his ideas, and still he managed to put pictures together and even animated movements. He's answered what has been required of him from the BFF.

 

[sgoodman72]

Sorry...double post.

 

[Crowlogic]

Crow, I hope your comment on skeptic's reactions to a (reliable) DNA is a joke, since its completely incorrect.

Yes its a joke. I stumbled onto Darren Naishs page quite a while ago and didn't sit bolt upright in my chair and say "by Jove I think he's got it". He's still green and not likely to become a player in this madness.

 

[kitakaze]

Here you go kitty......the question I was "afraid" to answer...

The Harley Hoffman suit...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Hoffman1.jpg[/qimg]


The HH suit isn't seen well enough (i.e. "out in the open") to determine that it's a suit...based on such things as body proportions, body contour, and flexibility. None of those things can be measured, or evaluated, with the limited view of the subject.

But it can be easily determined to be a suit, based on the nature of the video itself.
Specifically...the fact the video is so short, despite the fact that the guy shooting the video was only a matter of 20-40 feet away from an unconfirmed APE-MAN ....and also the fact that the guy made no attempt to get a more complete view of the creature (APE-MAN ) out in the open.
The video is an obvious hoax....based on that alone.

If this suit was videotaped in a comparable way to the Patterson subject....in full view...so that body proportions, body contour, and apparant muscle movement could be measured and evaluated...then it would be, as they all are, easily determined to be a suit based on the characterisitcs of suits themselves.

First, Sweaty, thank you for finally attempting to address my question. Maybe we can start to have an actual discussion on the topic. Now then...

Sweaty, why you gotta rain on my 'foot love, baby? Don't you know the wisdom of the sasquatch? There's a list, you know, of things you're supposed to be quick with in situations like this. Goes like this:

What!? You're dismissing my Hoffman video because it's too short and has obscured details?

1) Do you know how hard it is and how rare it is to get the Boss of the Woods on camera? Most people do not carry cameras into the woods and those that do and are lucky enough to see The Boss are too shocked and the encounter is too brief to get their wits back and start shooting in time. Ask the BFRO. It's true!

2) 20-40 feet away? How do you know how close the person taping was? You've heard of zoom, yes? There was a creek or procession of fleeing panicked forest creatures blocking the way off camera. Or...

3) Why didn't they get closer to the ape-man? 'Cuz it was a frickin' ape-man, dude! I was too busy urinating in my cargos thinking about if The Boss was going to eat my liver. You should kiss the sky I even got anything, scoftic.

4) Wouldn't these things make the MDF instantly recognizable as a hoax? There's no detail. Proportions are human.

5) Look at the Hoffman video. We got apparent muscle movement, short, glossy hair, bulk... I think there's contour. I don't know what you think that means but I'm pretty sure we got it. Footers thought it was comparable to Patty. Realistic, even. I'm pretty sure you can measure something in there. I don't know, an arm or something. Draw some lines. Analyze stuff.

6) Hey, wait. You've measured Patty? We'd love to hear your math. You should compare notes with Munns. He concluded it was in human range.

Sweaty, you don't seem to be interested in being consistent with your standards. Why is that?

 

[kitakaze]

They're going to say that Darren Naish is a simpleton or a pie eyed footer grasping at straws. If a Sasquatch type body is ever recovered and DNA is obtained they'll say that the DNA was produced in a lab somewhere as a hoax.

Crow, I hope your comment on skeptic's reactions to a (reliable) DNA is a joke, since its completely incorrect.

Yes its a joke. I stumbled onto Darren Naishs page quite a while ago and didn't sit bolt upright in my chair and say "by Jove I think he's got it". He's still green and not likely to become a player in this madness.

I don't think log was joking but it was nice of Correa to give her the out.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

No, Sweaty. I do not think you're being dishonest when you say you don't have enough time to respond to all the questions.

What I do know,.....is that you have been evading a question. There are others. There have been others.

So....you think I'm being honest (as I am) when I say I don't have enough time to answer all the questions I'm being asked...by several people here....and yet you say that you know that I'm evading some of those questions.


Let me guess, kitty...you OBNOXIOUS bozo...it's your questions that I'm evading ....and other people's that I don't have time to answer.

Is that right??

The fact of the matter is....I'm not evading anything...I simply don't have enough time to respond to everything.


I answered your question about the Harley Hoffman video...with a clear, in-depth explanation as to my thoughts on it.

If you don't like my answer...that's YOUR problem, not mine.



Again....on the subject of refusing to answer a question....or evading a question....I simply will not do either.
(Only skeptics do that. )

To prove that...I asked skeptics to re-ask any questions which they thought I was refusing to answer, or afraid to answer (evading)....and only got one, from RayG...which I answered, promptly and thoroughly.

 

[Crowlogic]

Hey guys, with regards to the bulge in Patty's thigh (interpretted as either the bunching of padding or some kind of hernia...) I was examining this .gif over and over and over, and do you think it's possible that it's actually just hair that is lifted up and blowing in the wind as Patty walks? Look when Patty's foot stomps the ground, you can see the hair rise and fall all in that same portion of the thigh.

On a side note, I have to give Dfoot credit, he was hounded, abused, and berated for his ideas, and still he managed to put pictures together and even animated movements. He's answered what has been required of him from the BFF.

Dfoot has gained my admiration he did take heat and kept his cool. Now the buldge here is an excellent view of it.



It extends outward forward and aft. As for the little forward buldge that shows up as the hernia I think that's a film artifact. But this is one big artifact.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Look at the Hoffman video. We got apparent muscle movement, short, glossy hair, bulk... I think there's contour. I don't know what you think that means but I'm pretty sure we got it. Footers thought it was comparable to Patty. Realistic, even.

I'm pretty sure you can measure something in there. I don't know, an arm or something. Draw some lines. Analyze stuff.

[edited]

As to your request for me to draw lines on Harley's suit, for the purpose of determining what the heck it truly is...I have to respectfully decline, at this time....due to the fact that I cannot see enough of the subject's body and/or enough body definition to obtain any meaningful measurements.
If this rather unfortunate state of affairs changes at ANY time in the fututre...I will, absowootwy...re-consider your request.

In the meantime...if you think there are meaningful measurements to be had with Harley...then, by all means....go ahead and measure the dude!

Here and below, name calling is not commensurate with the civility guidelines. Please cease and desist.

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

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry for the late answer, Bill. Work overload and many hours aboard planes...

There are issues of "degree of difficulty" but not issues of "posible/impossible", as long as you allow somebody to assist the person in the suit, dressing the wearer into and out of it. Training, skill, practice and talent do raise the odds for possible. Dumb luck leans more to "impossible".

At this point, we must remember that there are evidences that Patterson had some artistic skills; there are also evidences that he may have had some help from people used to build costumes.

From what can be gathered from PGF story and his involvment with bigfoot, he may also have had a lot of time to plan, project and practice. And, why not, make a number of runs before choosing and editing the final version. And at last but not least, whoever wore the suit also had at least one person to assist.

These facts, as well as many others, in my opinion, made the hoax option very possible and plausible. The best option, actually.

There would be tailoring seams on the suit any way you look at it, but tailoring seams can be blended reasonably well. Closure seams (used to get the person into or out of the suit, are harder to hide, but if the suit were custom designed to be filmed exactly as seen, you could put seams in the front, thus hiding them. It's very rare, but possible.

You are correct in that lines on the figure that some people call seams are highly subject to intrepretation, and the graininess of the film raises questions of whether lines are seams, shadows, or film artifiacts. All highly interpretitive.

Now, this is important, and I am glad to see you agree with me. I see many lines that could be interpreted as seams, depending, of course, on how I "project" the suit. The very same lines are interpreted by many proponents as natural features. In other words, looks like we are at dead end.

On the other hand, if you can't see such details due to the low resolution, this also casts doubts over other features of similar size (or smaller) quite often pointed as evidence of PGF subject not being a suit.

A head/neck seam would be perpendicular to hair lay, as would a waist seam (if the shirt and pants split), while a traditional "zipper up the back" would be a parallel seam, and would be vastly better if a zig-zag type instead of straight. This hypothetical back zipper is what the Disney people are reported to have looked for back in the time the film was first brought to Hollywood for appraisal.

Despite the presence of a line that can be interpreted as the cover for a zipper at Patty's back, the suit could have been built without a zipper, what brings us back to my previous considerations about resolution, interpretations and costume projects.

I think there are lines that could be the head/neck and the waist seams. But again, its my interpretation. The same lines, for other persons, are natural features. Once again, resolution, interpretations...

There should also be a tailoring seam down the inside of each leg, but only the left leg shows the inside surface. That would need to be extremely well hidden, because the walking motion ruffles hair in the inside leg surfaces, and ruffled hair tends to expose seams.

Such seams could also be present at the inner parts of the arms and at the sides (or at the front) of the waist. However, I really don't think that tailoring seams would be visible at that resolution. Seams at the unions of the costume's parts, in my opinion, quite possibly yes. OK, I do think I can see them.

The ideal way to try to find out how easy or hard it is to find a seam is to make a suit, and film it under the PG Film conditions of figure to frame size, same sunlight angle, same prime lens, perhaps hand held, duped twice and scanned, and look for the seams you know for a fact are in the suit you filmed. if you can't see any evidence of them in your test, you may assume there can be seams on Patty and you just can't see them because of the film grain, duping, etc. That's the kind of callibration test I mean, as one example.

I think more than a suit would be needed, in order to account for the possible variations on the costume bulding techniques and materials.

Personally, I think its most likely a waste of time and money, since the issue would not be settled, even if one of the reconstructions turns out to be nearly identical to the original. These divergences, despite on how small they would be, would be enough for many people to sustain the "it's not a costume" position. We saw it many times. Its not unlike the "God of the gaps" conception. I'll be back to this a bit later.

On to the breasts:

We agree to disagree on "looks real to me."

Now you take the human model as a direct comparison. But does Patty have a normal human skull or a bit of a sagital crest? Does she have a head/neck posture, hunched over, unlike a normal human. And of course, does a normal human have fur over it's body? If we say "she's not quite human", than the breasts could also be "not quite human" and still be real. So I see a little more range on "normal" than you do, because of this.

First point: I have not compared Patty's breasts only with human equivalent. I included gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orang-utangs also. Female breasts from these animals look nothing like humans or Patty's, or even with something in-between. The "not quite human" line resembles a lot the "its an unknown species" line. The problems with this reasoning were alreasy discussed many times here.

But let's go back to basics. Mammals have mammary glands in bilateral placement on the torso, generally, and always on primates, one pair on the upper torso, which is above the diaphram midline at the base of the lungs. So far, Patty is "normal." Human's tend to have the breast higher, but that is a tendancy moreso than an absolute, and it's specific to humans, not something like a human (which may have more variance). So my perspective is, based on these specifications, I do not see anything I call "unnatural" to the point I'd conclude "unreal". But this only pertains to form, the basic shape. Motion is a seperate element.

Variances within species apart, I don't think Patterson would make a costume with three breasts or breasts located at the back...

Breasts are soft tissue, not muscle, so they have no capacity to tense up rigidly as tensed muscles can. So they tend to move as a female walks, runs, etc. And large breasts do tend to move quite a bit. For the size of breasts in the film, I think more movement would generally be expected. Some people say they see a lot of movement, some say little, some say none. But the breast movement is in part an occillation, a responsive wave-like reaction to an action, and so how smooth the walk, keeping the torso steady, may impact on "bounce".

See? Whose perceptions should we follow?

...snip...I personally am not trying to prove they are not real. I know everything in the film can be faked, if need be, for the breasts. So you are welcome to use any of the anatomical studies and physiological aspects to argue for "not real", but as other's have said of me, "you can't prove a negative". So you have a formitable task to prove, if you use the breast as your object of proof.

Carefull with the "can't prove a negative" line... Its far from being such an absolute! Can you prove there is not a tea pot orbiting the Sun just beyond Mars' orbit?

Not to mention the same would apply to anyone who says it can't be a costume...

A skeptic can simply say, have you studied every woman's breasts in the world to say none can have that shape and exhibit that movement (or lack of, as you prefer to word it)? If you say "no", because if you embark on this noble cause, at least one woman will surely say "no", then the skeptic can say you haven't arrived at "absolutely no women have such breasts." So you go to probability, and then you open the door for your opponent to use probability against you as well.

Bill, you are following a line similar to the "God of the gaps" reasoning. Lets suppose there are say, 1% of human (and other great apes also) females with breasts equal to Patty's. This increases the odds of Patty being real? I don't think so... If they looked like humans or other great apes, or if at least is they looked like Gimlim (or Paterson- can't remember right now) described them, maybe it would not be an issue.

The fact that we are not sure of what it was like before the big bang (or even about the big bang, some would say) is not an evidence that there may be (or maybe there was) a god. For some, there is where lies hope. I think a similar thing happens with most bigfoot enthusiasts. Bigfoot lives in the gaps. Are they big enough? I don't think so. See how similar to the "its an unknown species" line it is?

And I would agree. Small odds. My opinion, just for the record, the breasts will never settle it eaither way. Other parts of the body will, if it is settled. This becomes a research judgmental call, something like "fight the wars you can win". Put your research effort into the issues and arguments you think you really have a good chance to prove, and direct less research resource to the issues that may be the hardst to win. That's why I tend to keep saying things don't matter to me. I have a limited amount of time and resource and want to put it to best use, by setting aside the things I feel just don't impact strongly on my hypothesis.

I understand your position -I may not fully agree- but I understand. I hope you understand my position; there are two separate issues- the possibility of building it and the propper and correct anatomy (or anatomic plausibility) of the figure. Both must be taken in to account when examining PGF - and bigfoot as a whole. Reductio to the absurd: A centaur costume can be built; but is a centaur anatomically plausible?

On Gimlin hoaxed, I don't want to accuse the man, because I know nothing about him. I will just say, with all I know about suits and what it takes to film them, if a suit was filmed, I cannot imagine anybody on the scene who would be unaware of a hoax being filmed.

I understand that you may have reasons for not being explicit on some issues. I think, however, the conclusions are clear for anyone.

In respect to someone being haxed in situ, I agree. Within those conditions, very few would be fooled. At night, or at a greater distance, things could certainly change. And if all you have is a short shaky footage with relatively low resolution, many more can be fooled...

I emphatically agree. I happen to admire people who simply choose to educate themselves, learn all they can, try things, and develop fine skills, even when they are classified as "amateurs". Some of the most masterful people in the world are "amateurs".

The "professional vs amateur" is a generalization, all presumption the pro knows more. Every so often, an amateur comes along and defies the presumption. I applaud them when they do.

Bill

I am again glad to see you agree with me, believe this is something really important to stress.
Many proponents say Patterson -or anyone else not involved with FX tech- would never be able to make anything vaguely resembling Patty. Many repeat the old worn-out "simple cowboy" line. They usually underestimate the talents of amateurs.

Most of the times, I really do not try to change anyone's position. My main objective is just to remove the bad arguments (or at least the worse ones) from both sides. Some proponents reading our interchanges by now must have realized that a number of lines of reasoning, such as the above cited, must be dumped. Either because they are dead ends or because they are just flawed.

 

[tsig]

kitakaze wrote:





So....you think I'm being honest (as I am) when I say I don't have enough time to answer all the questions I'm being asked...by several people here....and yet you say that you know that I'm evading some of those questions.


Let me guess, kitty...you OBNOXIOUS bozo...it's your questions that I'm evading ....and other people's that I don't have time to answer.

Is that right??

The fact of the matter is....I'm not evading anything...I simply don't have enough time to respond to everything.


I answered your question about the Harley Hoffman video...with a clear, in-depth explanation as to my thoughts on it.

If you don't like my answer...that's YOUR problem, not mine.



Again....on the subject of refusing to answer a question....or evading a question....I simply will not do either.
(Only skeptics do that. )

To prove that...I asked skeptics to re-ask any questions which they thought I was refusing to answer, or afraid to answer (evading)....and only got one, from RayG...which I answered, promptly and thoroughly.

Do you need any music with that dance?

 

[kitakaze]

So....you think I'm being honest (as I am) when I say I don't have enough time to answer all the questions I'm being asked...by several people here....and yet you say that you know that I'm evading some of those questions.


Let me guess, kitty...you OBNOXIOUS bozo...it's your questions that I'm evading ....and other people's that I don't have time to answer.

Is that right??

No.

Don't be so predictable. Your insults are a sign of one who is aware of the weakness of their arguments and can't behave in a civil manner. I've asked you lots of questions that have never been answered. I don't consider them to have been evaded. Just fallen by the wayside or you didn't have time or the conversation moved on or whatever. Defining the realism you attribute to Patty is something you've been asked by many (myself included). You've been pressed to define it or to abandon it in your reasoning and simply continued for long of speaking about realism without doing either. Again, you've got time to post excuses but months and months can go by with you dodging.

The fact of the matter is....I'm not evading anything...I simply don't have enough time to respond to everything.

No. How long did you ignore countless requests while making excuses? Brother, can you give me an ear and listen to my story about how I don't have time?

I answered your question about the Harley Hoffman video...with a clear, in-depth explanation as to my thoughts on it.

If you don't like my answer...that's YOUR problem, not mine.

It's cute when you emulate but the 'you don't like - tough' schtick is a pretty obvious bolt maneuver by you. Your answer was flawed and erroneous and I made it very clear why. Keep aping, Sweaty.

Again....on the subject of refusing to answer a question....or evading a question....I simply will not do either.
(Only skeptics do that. )

To prove that...I asked skeptics to re-ask any questions which they thought I was refusing to answer, or afraid to answer (evading)....and only got one, from RayG...which I answered, promptly and thoroughly.

Great! I guess you know which page to go to, then. I'm sure you'll get to it... later.

 

[kitakaze]

Dear Bozo:

As to your request for me to draw lines on Harley's suit, for the purpose of determining what the heck it truly is...I have to respectfully decline, at this time....due to the fact that I cannot see enough of the subject's body and/or enough body definition to obtain any meaningful measurements.
If this rather unfortunate state of affairs changes at ANY time in the fututre...I will, absowootwy...re-consider your request.

In the meantime...if you think there are meaningful measurements to be had with Harley...then, by all means....go ahead and measure the dude!

The sentences you bolded are not meant to be a request. I don't want to tax your precious time and further distract you from a debate you can't handle anyway.

I was making a statement that the same meaningless goop you draw on Patty could be drawn on Hoffy (I'll call it). But please, tell us about these meaningful measurements you've made on Patty. We'd love to hear your math. By meaningful, I mean something that makes a living bigfoot more likely than a man in suit. We've seen other peoples math and it hasn't done anything of the sort.

BTW, I don't look anything like Jack Lemmon and definitely not Walter Matthau so let's drop the 'Grumpy Old Men' routine, shall we? If you'd rather keep going, here's some source material:

Max: "Morning, dickhead."
John: "Hello, moron."
Max: "Why don't you do the world a favor and pull your lip over your head and swallow."
John: "I've laid more pipe in this town than Wabasha Plumbing!"

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

No. How long did you ignore countless requests while making excuses? Brother, can you give me an ear and listen to my story about how I don't have time?

Poor little kitty....whining about his questions not being answered.

You recently accused me of evading your question about Harley's video...but I answered it, just as I said I would.
Your accusation was a false accusation...pure and simple.

Your answer was flawed and erroneous and I made it very clear why.

That's right, kitty.....My answer. That's the significant word in your statement. I answered your question.

Now, feel free to go find another tough, scary question that you think I'm afraid to answer....and I'll answer that one, too.

You will NEVER be able to find a question that I'll evade, or refuse to answer. All you'll be able to do is flood me with questions and then falsely accuse me of evading them.

Do you have one that you just know I'm afraid to answer??

 

[Bill Munns]

Correa:

I thank you for the detailed response.

Somehow I feel you may still be missing the point that I don't feel anything about the breasts even needs to be discussed further. I'm not arguing for real or fake. My position is simply that, if fake, I know they could be made with 1967 materials, absolutely, no debate. If real, and I presume the figure is a mammal, then I don't see anything so odd or unreal that I would think "this can't be a real mammal." So it's a non-issue to me, at this point.

Same for judgments of skill of Patterson, or anybody. As soon as I say "if it's a suit", there is an implied acknowledgement that whoever made the suit had the ability to do so, because we see the result (if it is a suit). So who the suitmaker is, frankly, is also a non-issue to me. If it's a suit, the skill of the maker is evidenced by the result.

So my only concern now is material physical capabilities, and how they are visually represented on a film with low resolution.

Bill

 

[SweatyYeti]

kittybozo wrote:

Defining the realism you attribute to Patty is something you've been asked by many (myself included). You've been pressed to define it or to abandon it in your reasoning and simply continued for long of speaking about realism without doing either. Again, you've got time to post excuses but months and months can go by with you dodging.

I have ALL THE TIME I WANT to defend myself against false accusations, kitty. If it takes a month, or a year...I don't care.

You keep accusing me of evasion....so I'm taking time to show that it is, in fact, a false accusation.


I'm working on a post concerning Patty's "realism". When it's done, I'll post it. In the meantime...you can continue to whine about the amount of time it takes me to respond, and to post. I feel your pain...but I can't do a lot for it. I'm sorry.

 

[GT/CS]

kittybozo wrote:



I have ALL THE TIME I WANT to defend myself against false accusations, kitty. If it takes a month, or a year...I don't care.

You keep accusing me of evasion....so I'm taking time to show that it is, in fact, a false accusation.


I'm working on a post concerning Patty's "realism". When it's done, I'll post it. In the meantime...you can continue to whine about the amount of time it takes me to respond, and to post. I feel your pain...but I can't do a lot for it. I'm sorry.

Reported

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

ATOMIC MYSTERY MONSTER - I looked back at some of the old videos. Maybe this is the one you were asking about. I'm not wearing a butt pad or anything; just some foam on the thigh and calf. I simply wrapped some black faux fur around my leg and used safety pins to hold it in place to see what that would look like.

Yep, that's the one. Thanks! Oh, and the bear costume was a nice find. The fur's resemblence to Patty's is uncanny!

What do you guys make of zoologist Darren Naish's take on the film?

I actually e-mailed Dr. Naish about that last year; I was somewhat puzzled that he was so open to the film being real since his other cryptozoology blog entries usually involved him debunking cryptids and the like. Included was a link to the forum, as I wanted to see if maybe he had missed some of the arguments that were made here. He was kind enough to e-mail me back, but noted that he hadn't seen any new arguments in what little he had read of the thread. I'd imagine that he'd approach things with an open mind if had been able read the entire thread. Hell, sometimes even I'm surprised that I managed to read the whole thing!

 

[kitakaze]

Poor little kitty....whining about his questions not being answered.

You recently accused me of evading your question about Harley's video...but I answered it, just as I said I would.
Your accusation was a false accusation...pure and simple.

Unfortunately, no. Here's why:

Try putting 'Hoffman' and 'Hoffman's' in the search engine here to remind yourself how long and how much you were dodging. You knew that you couldn't continue to post without addressing the Hoffman question when even the bigfoot enthusiasts were looking sideways at you. So it just became a matter of trotting out the answer you know was bunk and saying "If you don't like it - tough." when it immediately gets deflated. No fuss, no muss. You knew that after all this time and so much focus on your dodging that the Hoffman issue was symbolic. You finally got to a point where the answering of the question was more important than the validity of the answer, thus your 'see! I did it.' act now.

That's right, kitty.....My answer. That's the significant word in your statement. I answered your question.

Yes, I'm sure you're very proud of yourself and wiping the sweat off your brow over the aneurysm you gave yourself rewording old broken excuses. So let's see your rebuttal to the point by point post I made illustrating the erroneous nature of that answer.

Now, feel free to go find another tough, scary question that you think I'm afraid to answer....and I'll answer that one, too.

Here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3489529#post3489529

3, 5, and 6 to start.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm working on a post concerning Patty's "realism". When it's done, I'll post it. In the meantime...you can continue to whine about the amount of time it takes me to respond, and to post. I feel your pain...but I can't do a lot for it. I'm sorry.

That's funny, you know, because one would think it wouldn't take a Silmarillion type effort to tell us what makes Patty realistic.

Then again, you have to wonder about the mental gymnastics you're putting yourself through to sell the 'realism' of Patty's shag boobies, diaper butt, leg globs, crease marks, etc.

When you let that beast out don't forget to spare the 'body contour' and 'body definition' gobbledy-gook, let us know what real bigfoots are informing your opinion, and that if the word 'muscle' appears anywhere, I'm gonna come riding Hoffy after you.