Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

I pointed you to this board, didn't I? Whatever was I thinking of?

Oh well.....you had good intentions, Lu! That's all that matters.

Fortunately, we have the Mid-America Board to go to when we're in the mood for discussing the evidence with open-minded people.

 

[tyr_13]

Oh well.....you had good intentions, Lu! That's all that matters.

Fortunately, we have the Mid-America Board to go to when we're in the mood for discussing the evidence with open-minded people.

That's right, we're close minded for disagreeing with you. Poor thing.

Seriously though, if we were close minded we wouldn't even be listening to what you are saying. And if you really wanna claim that we aren't listening, that's your opinion. But if we weren't, we wouldn't be able to dismantle your claims so well.

So instead of being grateful that some skeptical people are actually taking the time (and a freaking lot of time) to think through and examine what you are saying and challenge you to do your best to support your claim, you can keep complaining.

We'll keep listening.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Not only proof, reliable evidence also. Given what we are told of Bigfoot by Bigfoot enthusiasts we should have both. You know the difference. Here is a post from about a month ago where I mopped the floor with your attempt imply that proof and reliable evidence are the same:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3944783#post3944783

I don't think you liked that post very much. Never touched it. Never went back to it. You've been asked repeatedly to address but one month later and still no dice. Seems like Sweaty would rather pretend it's not there, wait a while, and try the same crap again.

Not to fear, kitty....I'll respond to your "Reliable Evidence vs. Proof" post.
I just re-read it, and I'll respond to it soon...probably on Saturday.

As I've stated before....you can't find a question, or a specific issue, that I'll ever refuse to answer, or respond to.
It may take me a long time to reply, on occasion, but that's completely different from refusing outright to answer a question. (Something which I've had skeptics on this board, and on the BFF, do many times. )

Right, you ask for alternate explanations, people spot you, and you mock them when they do. Honest debate, right?

Yup. I'll happily ridicule any explanation which sounds ridiculous, to me.
And, if the explanation is, in fact, not ridiculous, then the "skeptic" who proposed it is free to support and defend his screwy theory.

Let's take LTC's... "Patty's finger-bending is an illusion caused by blobs of background color".

...

No "alternate explanation" could be more idiotic. Patty's hand is partially isolated from the background by her leg. Her finger-bending cannot be related to the background colors.


So...I happily make fun of the proposal....and LTC defends himself by taking offense at me, rather than standing up and supporting his own foolish thoughts.

Do I feel bad for LTC?? No, I don't.


The person who's not engaging in honest, intelligent debate is LTC...not me. He can't defend his own proposals.

(BTW, LTC...I did ask for 'alternate explanations'...but I didn't ask for impossible ones.)


In like manner....Longtabber can't support his own proposals....and Dfoot seems to be having a little trouble supporting his own proposal, that Patty is just an ordinary "cheap suit", and he can replicate it.


This is a pattern with the "skeptics" here.



kitakaze wrote:

I see a foot moving but I see nothing in the manner of an articulated movement within the foot itself.

Nothing at all in the manner of what may or may not be occurring in Patty's right foot.

Kitakze sees nothing at all.......

Enlarging it a little...

See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

See Kitty. See Kitty pretend.

 

[Crowlogic]

Not to fear, kitty....I'll respond to your "Reliable Evidence vs. Proof" post.
I just re-read it, and I'll respond to it soon...probably on Saturday.

As I've stated before....you can't find a question, or a specific issue, that I'll ever refuse to answer, or respond to.
It may take me a long time to reply, on occasion, but that's completely different from refusing outright to answer a question. (Something which I've had skeptics on this board, and on the BFF, do many times. )





Yup. I'll happily ridicule any explanation which sounds ridiculous, to me.
And, if the explanation is, in fact, not ridiculous, then the "skeptic" who proposed it is free to support and defend his screwy theory.

Let's take LTC's... "Patty's finger-bending is an illusion caused by blobs of background color".

...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove2ag.gif[/qimg]


No "alternate explanation" could be more idiotic. Patty's hand is partially isolated from the background by her leg. Her finger-bending cannot be related to the background colors.


So...I happily make fun of the proposal....and LTC defends himself by taking offense at me, rather than standing up and supporting his own foolish thoughts.

Do I feel bad for LTC?? No, I don't.


The person who's not engaging in honest, intelligent debate is LTC...not me. He can't defend his own proposals.

(BTW, LTC...I did ask for 'alternate explanations'...but I didn't ask for impossible ones.)


In like manner....Longtabber can't support his own proposals....and Dfoot seems to be having a little trouble supporting his own proposal, that Patty is just an ordinary "cheap suit", and he can replicate it.


This is a pattern with the "skeptics" here.



kitakaze wrote:



Kitakze sees nothing at all.......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif5Slow.gif[/qimg]


Enlarging it a little...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif7AAA.gif[/qimg]




See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

See Kitty. See Kitty pretend.

If I'm seeing this correctly the toes of the right foot are bending upwards. Is that so? Sure seems to me it is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Are you suggesting rubber doesn't bend ?

 

[tyr_13]

See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

See Kitty. See Kitty pretend.

1) Your gif plainly shows Patty walking in front of the dark spot, covering it with 'her' leg, so I don't know what you're on about.

2) Ahem, FAKE FEET BEND.

And no, Crowlogic, you aren't seeing it right, because you can't see toes. You can see a dark blob which could be all the toes together, but if you can make out an individual toe you are seeing things.

 

[GT/CS]

Not to fear, kitty....I'll respond to your "Reliable Evidence vs. Proof" post.
I just re-read it, and I'll respond to it soon...probably on Saturday.

As I've stated before....you can't find a question, or a specific issue, that I'll ever refuse to answer, or respond to.
It may take me a long time to reply, on occasion, but that's completely different from refusing outright to answer a question. (Something which I've had skeptics on this board, and on the BFF, do many times. )





Yup. I'll happily ridicule any explanation which sounds ridiculous, to me.
And, if the explanation is, in fact, not ridiculous, then the "skeptic" who proposed it is free to support and defend his screwy theory.

Let's take LTC's... "Patty's finger-bending is an illusion caused by blobs of background color".

...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove2ag.gif[/qimg]


No "alternate explanation" could be more idiotic. Patty's hand is partially isolated from the background by her leg. Her finger-bending cannot be related to the background colors.


So...I happily make fun of the proposal....and LTC defends himself by taking offense at me, rather than standing up and supporting his own foolish thoughts.

Do I feel bad for LTC?? No, I don't.


The person who's not engaging in honest, intelligent debate is LTC...not me. He can't defend his own proposals.

(BTW, LTC...I did ask for 'alternate explanations'...but I didn't ask for impossible ones.)


In like manner....Longtabber can't support his own proposals....and Dfoot seems to be having a little trouble supporting his own proposal, that Patty is just an ordinary "cheap suit", and he can replicate it.


This is a pattern with the "skeptics" here.



kitakaze wrote:



Kitakze sees nothing at all.......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif5Slow.gif[/qimg]


Enlarging it a little...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif7AAA.gif[/qimg]




See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

See Kitty. See Kitty pretend.

Sweaty, Sweaty, Sweaty. Talk about someone pretending not to see things. That wrist band is sure popping right out of the photo you again posted. How many times are you going to do this?

Oops, sorry. I meant to say, "Sweaty #27"!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Crowlogic wrote:

If I'm seeing this correctly the toes of the right foot are bending upwards. Is that so? Sure seems to me it is.

You got it, Crowlogic!

It's only the "skeptics" who don't see it as part of Patty's foot...and offer up other explanations to explain it away, as something other than the front part of Patty's foot bending upwards.


Thanks tyr, for providing yet another wacky explanation for that mysterious dark spot.
It'll make a great addition to my collection...for a later summary of the "duck, dodge, run and hide" routine you're all engaging in.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Are you suggesting rubber doesn't bend ?

No....I would never do that.

 

[captain koolaid]

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove2ag.gif[/qimg]

That is what Footers are getting excited about? A moving glove? It's an empty or partially filled glove. It is hitting the padded thigh. Furthermore, does Patty now have unique bone and joint structure in the hand, as well as the foot? A "midtarsal" hand break?

The glove is forming a square shaped, backwards letter "C". Like this.... ] The bend is formed by the knuckle, and the last joint on the finger. The first joint is not bending. Only the knuckle, and the 2nd joint. Try to replicate this movement with your own (non rubber) hand. The fingers, if really being "flexed' by an honest-to-god-it's-real Bigfoot, should form a ")" not a "]" shape. Or is Patty being captured, on film, co-incidentally at that very second, practising a neato doublejointed party trick or something?

In like manner....Longtabber can't support his own proposals....and Dfoot seems to be having a little trouble supporting his own proposal, that Patty is just an ordinary "cheap suit", and he can replicate it.

Dfoot has demonstrated quite enough. At least to a rational observer. Is Longtabber uttering heresies?
Sounds like he is running the risk of becoming a "Suppressed Person".

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif5Slow.gif[/qimg]

Enlarging it a little...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif7AAA.gif[/qimg]


See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

I don't see any "toes". Could be a swim flipper or something. Who knows with this blurry mess?

 

[LTC8K6]

Let's take LTC's... "Patty's finger-bending is an illusion caused by blobs of background color".

I suggested it as one possibility to explain what you claimed to see. I also gave other possibilities. I never said it was a fact. Please stop making stuff up.

 

[tyr_13]

Crowlogic wrote:



You got it, Crowlogic!

It's only the "skeptics" who don't see it as part of Patty's foot...and offer up other explanations to explain it away, as something other than the front part of Patty's foot bending upwards.


Thanks tyr, for providing yet another wacky explanation for that mysterious dark spot.
It'll make a great addition to my collection...for a later summary of the "duck, dodge, run and hide" routine you're all engaging in.

It's only the bigfoot believers who see it as part of Patty's foot. What is your point? "The skeptics are skeptical." Wow, you think?

If you think that fake feet bending is a 'wacky' explanation for that dark spot, it is safe to assume you're too heavily biased to have an open mind. You insist that the 'toes' bending is proof that it isn't a suit. However, if it was a suit, the fake feet would in all likelihood bend.

Your summary of our, "duck, dodge, run and hide," is further proof you have a very closed mind. We are addressing your points specifically, yet you keep saying that we are running from them? Why are you calling it a mysterious dark spot when we didn't? You are the one claiming it is evidence of something. You are the one making the claim. None of us seem to think it is mysterious.

I would add this to the list for the summary of your, "say it till it sounds true," routine you are engaged in, but why bother? I could just link to all your posts.

Your bias is painful. It seeps through everything. Keep saying things over and over thinking they are true or address something we actually said. Why wouldn't a fake foot bend for example? Why wouldn't a shadow move with the object causing the shadow? You can ignore it all you want, but sir, I must inform you, you are coming across like an idiot.

But let me guess, "only the skeptics" think you are coming across like that. Imagine that.

 

[captain koolaid]

Why wouldn't a fake foot bend for example? Why wouldn't a shadow move with the object causing the shadow?

What with the way the blockfeet have cartoon heels, bizarro floppy feet is not much of a shock.

 

[Correa Neto]

What did I distort, Correa?

Drew already answered the okapi-related part of this question.
I would add to this the opinions of most skeptical people who post at this board and the opinion of a least on proponent who post here also.

Not to mention that, in my opinion, when one is presenting cherry-picked bits of information that he/she believes support his/hers position while ignoring the rest, one is distorting information. Lousy research is also distortion IMHO.

And distortion Sweaty, is one of the trademarks of bigfootery; the other is intimate asociation with hoaxers. Wanna be taken seriously? Drop it all.

I did not say that every aspect of the two subjects compared equally to each other.
Those differences do not change the point that I just stated above, and in my earlier post.

Sweaty, you clearly tried to start that old fallacious line of defense "pandas, coelacanths, gorillas"... Wanna be taken seriously? Drop it.

Want to stick to imagery?
OK, compare the available images of okapis with the available images of bigfeet. Here is the enhanced, improved selection, which I think is a good sample of bigfoot imagery:

Is there a single image among the above not suspected of being a fraud, or known of being a fraud or being just a pareidolia-induced blobfoot? And how they compare with the quality of okapi imagery?

Want to dig deeper? OK. Go to the Zoological Society of London's site. There you will find that they started to work in 2007 (another team started in 2006). It took them only one or two years to get these images. So, how old is PGF? For how long you footers say bigfeet are around NA?

Got reliable evidence?
No.

You are the one who has trouble understanding, Correa.

Nope.
I can see clearly though your worn-out debate tactics. Wanna be taken seriously? Drop it all.

In the absence of reliable data to back your position, you produce "gems" like this:

Oh well.....you had good intentions, Lu! That's all that matters.

Fortunately, we have the Mid-America Board to go to when we're in the mood for discussing the evidence with open-minded people.

Wanna be taken seriously? Drop it.

Now, please go to MABRC forum discuss with BulletMaker. Remember to be open-minded when it comes to Noah, the universal flood, YEC, bigfoot at his backyard, etc.

The above must not to be interpreted as a declaration that everybody at MABRC is a BulletMaker-like type. Its just a reminder of one bigfootery aspects which contributes to keep it as a fringe subject.

 

[Drewbot]

GTCS - As soon as I saw the gif Sweaty posted, I knew you were going to jump in with #27. That wristband is just sitting right there, it alsmost looks like a gardening glove with hair glued to it.

 

[LAL]

Speaking of Okapi's, I thought there was no fossil record for them. Has that changed?

"Okapi’s are interesting for a number of reasons. First of all, they weren’t known to science until an expedition organized by British explorer Harry Johnston discovered them in 1901. (Like many things not know to science, local people knew of their existance.) That story alone is an interesting one. Reports started coming out of Africa in 1890 of the creature, and Johnson set out to discover them some ten years later. He sent back partial pieces of the animal’s hide to Britain, where scientists prematurely announced the discovery of a new species of zebra."

http://www.ocellated.com/2005/12/19/okapi/

They use infrasound.

John Green used slides from the PGF and his camera's viewfinder to line things up. This shows the slight difference for one shot:

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/mcclarin.html

Rick's point was that at a distance it doesn't make much difference. Questions about his trig should be addressed to him. Again, the proportions are more important than actual height and width measurements. The IM index is just one.

One of the hoaxed pictures Correa posted was of a model. The source was Cliff Crook who claimed a ranger took them. You forgot Freeman 1994, Correa.

For those interested in Daegling's work, see this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJ...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

and this:

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/screen.html

Why don't we have mass hysteria over pink unicorns? Are they out of style? Are multiple witnesses reporting flying dragons or finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a piece of toast?

Sometimes people who don't know each other report the same individual, and many of these sightings are backed up by physical sign. Isn't it just remotely possible they're accurately reporting what they saw?

 

[Correa Neto]

I did mean Kong 1 as The King Kong of the 1932? Yes it was stop motion but the animal depicted does not represent an accurate gorilla.

Crow, it was not clear from your original post. That's why I wrote "lets make sure we are talking about the same things". Patty was a costume, not a stop-motion miniature. We can compare them when it comes to certain issues (examples- can we see seams?), other not (example- motion).

Most of the photos we a simple web hounds have to work with are copies of copies of scans of dubs of god only knows what. I have seen better stills of the PGF than you have posted. I have better stills then the one you posted.

Then send me and I will, as I said before gladly change the image comparisson. However, I don't think that using MK Davis's manipulations is of any help. Check this:

Kong still wins and for a big margin.
Note that I think the comparisons must be made with material which suffered the smallest possible amounts of manipulation for obvious reasons. We have actually no idea if certain features were or not selectively enhanced.

Yet I understand the rational that if one is taking a certain stand on an issue that it is unlikely that they will produce the best quality evidence that may run contrary.

Crow, I try to avoid any bias. That's why, again, comparisons must be made with material which suffered the smallest possible amounts of manipulation.

That said with regards to the PGF backstory we now live in an age where just about any side of a position on an issue can be presented and there will be a mass of information supporting that side. The PGF backstory has not one single shred of hard evidence to back up either side. At the end of the day its all heresay. This is why the film and not the backstory is the only thing open to scrutinity. Personally I think the entire cast of characters were at that point in their lives little more than beer swilling yahoos.

I disagree.
Focusing only on the film will not only keep unanswered questions - it will avoid these questions to be made. Important issues are ignored if one focus only on the film. Problems on film development tale, the strange story of footprints covered in bark, profit motivations, etc.

The film itself can not be called "hard" evidence, since we do not have the originals; all we have are stills and sequences in various types of media and with variable amounts of uncontrolled manipulation.

 

[GT/CS]

GTCS - As soon as I saw the gif Sweaty posted, I knew you were going to jump in with #27. That wristband is just sitting right there, it alsmost looks like a gardening glove with hair glued to it.

Yet Sweaty and others can't see it. Or at least they claim to not see it. I find it to be a fascinating study in denial. Since that one little detail completely proves Patty to be a bloke in a suit their brains refuse to see it and/or acknowledge it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Speaking of Okapi's, I thought there was no fossil record for them. Has that changed?

I have the impression we already been through it.
There are fossils of similar animals, not the same species, though. It’s the paleotragus, IIRC. That's the reason of the awful "living fossil" label.

Anyway...
Got a similar record for bigfeet?
Got any reliable evidence of bigfeet's reality?

One of the hoaxed pictures Correa posted was of a model. The source was Cliff Crook who claimed a ranger took them. You forgot Freeman 1994, Correa.

Not on the last compilation, some four or five posts above.
And if you read what I wrote, I said if forgot to add Freeman, MDF, Redwoods... Now, there they are.

Why don't we have mass hysteria over pink unicorns? Are they out of style? Are multiple witnesses reporting flying dragons or finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a piece of toast?

Yes, pink unicorns are out of style, unfortunately even the invisible ones.
But we still have mass hysteria over UFOs, ghosts and Mary! And multiple witnesses too!
Are they real?
No. False analogy, LAL…

The analogy with the FSM is even worse because Pastafarians do not actually believe on it. I think that if you use the "search" function here (or some googling) you will find the FSM in food pieces.

Sometimes people who don't know each other report the same individual, and many of these sightings are backed up by physical sign. Isn't it just remotely possible they're accurately reporting what they saw?

Of course it is. Few would say "impossible". We would say something like “highly unlikely” and “not supported by available reliable evidence”.
The link below will point you towards a discussion on bigfoot’s possibility/plausibility. I suggest you and other footers to read it’s content carefully (especially posts 4, 40, 47 and 62) before making sweeping statements regarding our alleged close-mindness. We are a mixed lot, you know…
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121684&highlight=unicorn
Bring reliable evidence and we’ll change our minds. Attempts to sell the current poor-quality stuff as good will not.

 

[kitakaze]

Not to fear, kitty....I'll respond to your "Reliable Evidence vs. Proof" post.
I just re-read it, and I'll respond to it soon...probably on Saturday.

I understand that it might take you an awful long time to figure out some way to distort what's in that post. It spells out the difference between reliable evidence and proof very explicitly. It will be interesting to see how you plan to continue asserting that they are the same thing.

kitakaze wrote:

I see a foot moving but I see nothing in the manner of an articulated movement within the foot itself. Nothing at all in the manner of what may or may not be occurring in Patty's right foot.

Kitakze sees nothing at all.......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif5Slow.gif[/qimg]


Enlarging it a little...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif7AAA.gif[/qimg]




See Patty. See Patty's toes bend.

See Kitty. See Kitty pretend.

When I am talking about the left foot and how it does not display the same possible movement that may be occuring in Patty's right foot why would you show again the image featuring Patty's right foot and attempt to make it appear as though I was talking about the right?

Dishonest representation or retarded reading comprehension?