• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I kinda got that nostalgic feeling with all this old stuff.
So I got diggin through some old records I have.

283964997efdd2cf9e.jpg
 
Aepervius wrote:
patty looks wider than BH from 1966

To which you will get the very logical answer :

2) costumes fillings
Click to expand...


Said like a true "believer", Aepervius! ;)


It's not quite as simple as that.
Patty is several inches wider than Bob H., and the best way to determine whether or not a 'padded suit'....to the tune of "several inches of added chest width"....can allow for this kind of natural arm movement...


Pattywalk55A.gif



....is to actually replicate the actual dimensions of Patty with a padded suit, and see how it looks in motion.


The best way to carefully, and thoughtfully, analyse the film evidence is not by using the Super-Simple, No Thinking Required.. "Aepervius Method"...


AperviusMethod1.jpg



Thinking..........in Critical condition.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Aepervius wrote:



Said like a true "believer", Aepervius! ;)


It's not quite as simple as that.
Patty is several inches wider than Bob H., and the best way to determine whether or not a 'padded suit'....to the tune of "several inches of added chest width"....can allow for this kind of natural arm movement...



....is to actually replicate the actual dimensions of Patty with a padded suit, and see how it looks in motion.


The bestway to carefully, and thoughtfully, analyse the film evidence is not by using the Super-Simple, No Thinking Required.. "Aepervius Method"...
Click to expand...

I'm curious, are you really that ignorant or are you just stirring the pot?
 
Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Its obvious that this is textbook proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There is another who I pretty much acknowledge DOES know the subject matter but his claims are deliberately misleading and intentional.

I was just wondering which camp you were in.

Unlike the other, I see nothing that indicates to me that you have enough technical knowledge to be considered as having a legitimately valid premise.
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Its obvious that this is textbook proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There is another who I pretty much acknowledge DOES know the subject matter but his claims are deliberately misleading and intentional.

I was just wondering which camp you were in.

Unlike the other, I see nothing that indicates to me that you have enough technical knowledge to be considered as having a legitimately valid premise.
Click to expand...


Well, LT...all that really matters is what can be demonstrated, or shown to be true.
It doesn't mean anything when you simply state your opinion...

"I see nothing that indicates to me that you have enough technical knowledge to be considered as having a legitimately valid premise...".

This principle applies to everybody's unsupported opinions.


If you can provide some counter-analysis, or show specifically where there's an error in my analysis....then what you're saying can, potentially, have some actual meaning/significance.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Aepervius wrote:



Said like a true "believer", Aepervius! ;)


It's not quite as simple as that.
Patty is several inches wider than Bob H., and the best way to determine whether or not a 'padded suit'....to the tune of "several inches of added chest width"....can allow for this kind of natural arm movement...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk55A.gif[/qimg]


....is to actually replicate the actual dimensions of Patty with a padded suit, and see how it looks in motion.


The best way to carefully, and thoughtfully, analyse the film evidence is not by using the Super-Simple, No Thinking Required.. "Aepervius Method"...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/AperviusMethod1.jpg[/qimg]


Thinking..........in Critical condition.
Click to expand...



I have seen someone moving with so much added padding. And she was moving quite well. Sure it wasn't padding quality from 1967 but a more recent children costume, but there isn't anything intrinsically impossible.

So now we are not down to "impossible" but down to "was it impossible in 1967" ? Well from the few horror and sf flick I saw from the period, it does not seem impossible to me.

But even THEN it is the wrong question. The true question is : was it a real animal. You offer no proof of it *YOU* keep asking an article of faith it was one (for the last what years ?). We can't really prove a negative (aka: it wasn't a real animal) all we can tell is that the possibility exists, and there are a lot of hint of hoaxing. Therefore the burden of proof of proving a REAL animal is on you. Bone. Blood. Squat. CORPSE. Ever heard of it ? But noooooo, you keep coming up with the fallacy that skeptic prove nothing. No **** sherlock, you are the one with the claim. Ever did a bit of science ? I did. You aren't even on shacky ground, there is no ground at all on your assertions.

Since you keep asking us to prove it ain't a real bigfoot, I will keep asking you to prove it ain't padding. Good luck on that. And by the way, it could also be somebody ELSE than BH, somebody with a large fat mass. Then by your own admission, you have a bit longer arm, which can be faked with gloves. So by your own admission you have nothing.


By the way, this is the same reason I keep telling Munn he is on the wrong footing. Even if he proved all costume technics he knows were not used, this would not prove anything on "patty is real". All it would prove is that all costume technic Munn *knows* were probably not used. For what it matters it could also be an alien in recon, an evolved ape in time machine, or somebody very difform. Even if Munn proved this was not that, This is NOT mathematic where you prove the contrary of an expression to get a theorem proof, and proving non existence of entity A , does not prove this is entity B.


But I guess I am only speaking to fellow skeptic here, well ground in reality. Sweaty is so far off the scale, that if reality was hitting him with a hammer he would not bleed.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Well, LT...all that really matters is what can be demonstrated, or shown to be true.
It doesn't mean anything when you simply state your opinion...

"I see nothing that indicates to me that you have enough technical knowledge to be considered as having a legitimately valid premise...".

This principle applies to everybody's unsupported opinions.


If you can provide some counter-analysis, or show specifically where there's an error in my analysis....then what you're saying can, potentially, have some actual meaning/significance.
Click to expand...

>>>all that really matters is what can be demonstrated, or shown to be true.
It doesn't mean anything when you simply state your opinion...

Yes sweety, I well know the process. See, I actually DO it in both professional and legal settings and have for decades. Any yes, the "opinions" of a recognized SME carry more weight than those of a layman because as being recognized as an expert witness, we are allowed to conduct experiments and formulate theories and draw conclusions from said data.

The problem here is that you havent demonstrated the expertise for your opinions to be considered valid. In fact, they are easily demonstrated to be both false in both method and conclusion as has been shown many times.

What you exhibit is the DENIALIST argument because in your claims, the science is established,documented and well known. You simply ( and deliberately) refuse to acknowledge it because it conflicts with your worldview and personal wishes.

>>>"I see nothing that indicates to me that you have enough technical knowledge to be considered as having a legitimately valid premise...".

This principle applies to everybody's unsupported opinions.

I agree and the same applies to Meldrum,Bindernagle, Fahrenbach and their pseudoscientific claims as well. Those of us who HAVE "supported" their claims with hard facts and data know very well how that works.

>>>If you can provide some counter-analysis, or show specifically where there's an error in my analysis....then what you're saying can, potentially, have some actual meaning/significance

This is where I dont cater to trolls or bog myself down in their infinite cries to "show them" when the FACT is ( see the above comment regarding those of us who actually do this) that I and others have done it REPEATEDLY both here and at the BFF. The information is there, is as scientifically bulletproof today as when it was originally posted and the facts never change. All you need to do is search. Nothing is deleted or hidden from view.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it or dont have the technical background to comprehend the significance of the information isnt my problem. It doesnt alter the bottom line.
 
Longtabber wrote:
This is where I dont cater to trolls or bog myself down in their infinite cries to "show them" when the FACT is ( see the above comment regarding those of us who actually do this) that I and others have done it REPEATEDLY both here and at the BFF.

The information is there, is as scientifically bulletproof today as when it was originally posted and the facts never change. All you need to do is search. Nothing is deleted or hidden from view.
Click to expand...



I see.....the counter-analysis, and the information which points-out the specific errors in my analysis is..........."out there....somewhere".

Thank you, Longtabber.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Longtabber wrote:




I see.....the counter-analysis, and the information which points-out the specific errors in my analysis is..........."out there....somewhere".

Thank you, Longtabber.
Click to expand...

Let me give you an azimuth and distance to assist you.

I personally cut your crap to shreds in the 411 thread and like arguments to shreds in the PGF section at the BFF.

Its easy to point out the errors in this delusion you are attempting to pass off as an analysis. All one has to do is go line by line.

"Denial" isnt just a river in Egypt.

See, I would be more "sensitive" if it wasnt so painfully obvious ( and visible in numerous threads) that this has been shown to you literally hundreds of times by a dozen or so posters. Thats more than enough "counter analysis" than you deserve.
 
Longtabber wrote:
the "opinions" of a recognized SME carry more weight than those of a layman because as being recognized as an expert witness, we are allowed to conduct experiments and formulate theories and draw conclusions from said data.
Click to expand...


That's good, Longtabber.....for what it's applicable to...namely, your profession.


But on a public discussion board, the only thing that carries weight is something of substance....the science contained within the analysis.

"Analysis" by way of 'unsupported personal opinion' has no value........here.
 
Longtabber wrote:
I personally cut your crap to shreds in the 411 thread and like arguments to shreds in the PGF section at the BFF.
Click to expand...


I see.....the counter-analysis, and the information which points-out the specific errors in my analysis is..........."out there....somewhere".

Thank you, Longtabber.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Longtabber wrote:



That's good, Longtabber.....for what it's applicable to...namely, your profession.


But on a public discussion board, the only thing that carries weight is something of substance....the science contained within the analysis.

"Analysis" by way of 'unsupported personal opinion' has no value........here.
Click to expand...


>>>That's good, Longtabber.....for what it's applicable to...namely, your profession.

Yes and what is a common tool used in many facets of Engineering, you guessed it- photogrammetry

Yes and what is a common tool used in Military Intelligence, you guessed it- analysis of photographs

>>>But on a public discussion board, the only thing that carries weight is something of substance....the science contained within the analysis.

I know, thats why I gave that too. ( especially in response to you in the 411)

>>>"Analysis" by way of 'unsupported personal opinion' has no value........here

Agreed, thats why I assign your analysis as somewhere between null and zero. ( even that thats giving it credit for more accuracy than it actually contains because i'm still working on a whole number with a value of "less" than zero)
 
SweatyYeti said:
Longtabber wrote:



I see.....the counter-analysis, and the information which points-out the specific errors in my analysis is..........."out there....somewhere".

Thank you, Longtabber.
Click to expand...

Come on now sweety, dont tell me you cannot even comprehend what you read. Thats just plain "M-barrassin' "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom