Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Correa Neto]

I think we've made some progress here. Your outlines, independent of any specific education in human anatomy, indicate the correct positioning and shape of the triceps and biceps muscles. Your top of the (red) triceps muscle goes up a bit far -- you'll see that your drawn shape includes a shadowed area at the top, which is rather the bottom line of the muscle atop the trcieps -- but other than that I'd say you're about spot on. The biceps is correct as you've indicated it.

Though you don't mention it, I would point out that the shadow that cuts obliquely across the biceps is a known and demonstrable feature of that muscle.

Well, if you consider noticing that skeptics can figure out the patterns you are pointing out as progress... Skeptics do see the patterns just like skeptics do know about bigfoot evidence. We, however, interpret the material on a manner which is different -and to this moment more rigorous- than yours. As a sidenote, note that one does not have to "disbelieve" in bigfoot to follow a similar path.

I've pointed out a number of times before that one thing is to "see" patterns; interpreting the patterns is another issue. Presently I do not interpret the light and shadow patterns seen at PGF as muscles or even as paddling deceiving muscles; I do however acknoweledge that some might be explanied as paddling (intentionally or not) passing as muscles. I can merely state that there are patterns which may be interpreted in various ways. Check my post regarding the possible costume seams for more detail.

I see you noticed that the triceps I drawn had the wrong shape; as you probably remember, I mentioned problems in locating propperly the shoulders in the image. This has a direct implication on muscles' placement - because of this fact I can't also precisely locate the deltoid, so... As you see, its a chain, its error propagation.

You probably also noticed my mentions to the weird shadow the triceps shows and to the very unsual end of the biceps. If those features are paddling mimicking muscles, then they are flaws; if they are some other costume flaw (loose fabric for example), then they are just flaws, but if they are real muscles, they are very very weird. Here enters Occams razor. The remaining option is that we are overinterpretating the data. In this case, its a draw, its inconclusive, its a dead end.

Sorry for the typos, drunk one too many beers before posting. Yep, they were OK.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the film and its various video versions might be too cluttered with noise to serve as evidence toward any proposition, except that there is an unidentified being lumbering through a small section of northern California. The figure has features that would seem to indicate it might be a suit, and it has features that would seem to indicate it might be a living creature. "Inconclusive" is the word that is gradually becoming more distinct in my mind.

That said, I'm certainly not willing to give up my investigation, and I hope none of you are either.

I'm curious about the quality of that investigation and to what end

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

No, let's use the good Doctor as a guide, by all means. He's a CG creation but to my eye he has very accurate muscular definition. If in the course of our analysis I discover an area of his CG body which I feel does not adequately reflect real surface anatomy, I will say so.

Also, I suspect that you have not read my latest post, directly above this one, in which I question your comprehension of the rules of scientific inquiry. If this is an unfounded criticism, I apologize.

I question YOURS and I'm not apologizing.

Your "eye" is seeing shadows on an altered photograph. How you think this is a "scientific" conclusion of any sort is borderline heresy.

 

[JcR]

This shows Butt wear and tear?
Never mind the appearance of an elongated heel here.
Well, at least we have real creatures here.
That Poop, get diseases, shed, and have living habits.
And need to eat something else besides garlic from Janice's farm.
Though we would not know a Bigfoot's natural eating habits.
Insects, Larvae, Toad stools etc. But whatever goes in must come out.
Maybe they have a unique Toiletry system in the woods.

 

[Vortigern99]

I have no agenda or purpose here, other than to investigate this film with an eye toward determining what its subject is.

I would like some day to be able to say definitely, "yes" it's a person in a costume, or "yes" it's a living animal. At this moment, I am unable to make a definite determination, one way or the other.

When I examine the footage I am not seeking to interpret it in any particular direction, either toward a costume or toward a living animal. Rather, I want to examine each feature of the film and consider, where possible, the likelihood that it is artificial or biological in origin, each feature on its own merits as a data sample.

When I observe what I perceive to be accurate human-like muscles in the footage, I am not stating that those feature mean that "yes" it's a person in a costume or "yes" it's a living animal. I'm merely offering my observations toward the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the subject, whatever that truth may ultimately be revealed to be.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I have no agenda or purpose here, other than to investigate this film with an eye toward determining what its subject is.

I would like some day to be able to say definitely, "yes" it's a person in a costume, or "yes" it's a living animal. At this moment, I am unable to make a definite determination, one way or the other.

When I examine the footage I am not seeking to interpret it in any particular direction, either toward a costume or toward a living animal. Rather, I want to examine each feature of the film and consider, where possible, the likelihood that it is artificial or biological in origin, each feature on its own merits as a data sample.

When I observe what I perceive to be accurate human-like muscles in the footage, I am not stating that those feature mean that "yes" it's a person in a costume or "yes" it's a living animal. I'm merely offering my observations toward the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the subject, whatever that truth may ultimately be revealed to be.

>>>I would like some day to be able to say definitely, "yes" it's a person in a costume, or "yes" it's a living animal. At this moment, I am unable to make a definite determination, one way or the other.

I saw your first "determination" and it was sadly lacking

>>>When I examine the footage I am not seeking to interpret it in any particular direction, either toward a costume or toward a living animal. Rather, I want to examine each feature of the film and consider, where possible, the likelihood that it is artificial or biological in origin, each feature on its own merits as a data sample.

Your own words betray you. You make drawings over shadows on a modified image and claim you "see" something. You have yet to produce anything of legitimate merit

>>>When I observe what I perceive to be accurate human-like muscles in the footage, I am not stating that those feature mean that "yes" it's a person in a costume or "yes" it's a living animal.

Your implications speak for themselves

>>>I'm merely offering my observations toward the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the subject, whatever that truth may ultimately be revealed to be

I'm not convinced of that

 

[GT/CS]

[qimg]http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/bigfoot_patterson041.thumbnail.jpg[/qimg]

EDIT: [Inserted source pic.] The close-up, below, is of an area of the arm between the shoulder, at top right of the pic under discussion, and the forearm, at bottom left of the pic under discussion. The breast can be seen at bottom right. Hope that clarifies, and that your "rats ass" generosity returns to you forthwith.

It looks like a shadow. I now see why you didn't want to post the original photo, but thank you for doing so.

 

[Vortigern99]

Well, if you consider noticing that skeptics can figure out the patterns you are pointing out as progress... Skeptics do see the patterns just like skeptics do know about bigfoot evidence. We, however, interpret the material on a manner which is different -and to this moment more rigorous- than yours. As a sidenote, note that one does not have to "disbelieve" in bigfoot to follow a similar path.

As I understand it, skepticism is an attitude of approaching data -- all data -- with an eye toward scientific principles (controlled experimentation, error analysis, peer review, etc.), not an inflexible position with regard to a specific set of data or against a specific conclusion.

I too am a skeptic regarding any and all claims of evidence, either for or against any definite conclusion.

That skepticism works both ways: I will not accept a claim of "costume!" simply because the claim has been made, just as I will not accept a claim of "animal!" simply based on the claim. All information is equally subject to scrutiny and rational consideration.

Currently, I am observing the visible forms evident on the P-G figure, and applying my knowledge of muscular anatomy to determine whether or not the perceived shapes conform to human musculature. So far, many of them appear to do so. Once more: I am not asserting this means the figure is a living animal.

So, please, can we stop the accusations that I have an agenda, that I have preconceived notions backwards from which I am building a case, and that I'm seeing pareidolic patterns which I'm purposefully trying to fit into human muscle groups in order to prove that "Patty" is a real, non-human, uncatalogued animal?

Thank you.

I've pointed out a number of times before that one thing is to "see" patterns; interpreting the patterns is another issue. Presently I do not interpret the light and shadow patterns seen at PGF as muscles or even as paddling deceiving muscles; I do however acknoweledge that some might be explanied as paddling (intentionally or not) passing as muscles. I can merely state that there are patterns which may be interpreted in various ways. Check my post regarding the possible costume seams for more detail.

I see you noticed that the triceps I drawn had the wrong shape; as you probably remember, I mentioned problems in locating propperly the shoulders in the image. This has a direct implication on muscles' placement - because of this fact I can't also precisely locate the deltoid, so... As you see, its a chain, its error propagation.

You probably also noticed my mentions to the weird shadow the triceps shows and to the very unsual end of the biceps. If those features are paddling mimicking muscles, then they are flaws; if they are some other costume flaw (loose fabric for example), then they are just flaws, but if they are real muscles, they are very very weird. Here enters Occams razor. The remaining option is that we are overinterpretating the data. In this case, its a draw, its inconclusive, its a dead end.

Sorry for the typos, drunk one too many beers before posting. Yep, they were OK.

I agree, and have agreed numerous times, that the shapes I perceive as muscles might be the result of suit padding. However, I do not believe this is the result of accidental, haphazard, lumpy, unskilled padding. If it is a suit, these shapes are the result of intentional, skilled, well-formed padding. If it is an animal, the muscles are real living tissue. I cannot say which at the moment, but I hope to be able to do so one day.

I don't know what you mean about the "unusual end of the biceps" or "weird"-shaped muscles in the arms. The biceps looks normal to my eye, conforming to the expected shape, apart from the addition of hair, which distorts the far right edge. Also, I for one see a clear demarcation between the top of the triceps (illuminated) and the base of the deltoid (shadowed) above. Their positions and shapes conform to the expected position and shape of the equivalent forms on a human being of comparative size and development.

 

[Vortigern99]

It looks like a shadow. I now see why you didn't want to post the original photo, but thank you for doing so.

This is an inaccurate assessment of the event. Initially all I had was the close-up, which someone else (Diogenes, I think) posted a few pages back. When you asked for the medium shot for the purposes of clarification, I did a google search, found the shot on cryptomundo, and posted it.

Your bolded statement above seems to imply that I was declining to share information that I had in my possession, which is untrue.

Please stop using this kind of dismissive and mildly defamatory language. Thank you.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

As I understand it, skepticism is an attitude of approaching data -- all data -- with an eye toward scientific principles (controlled experimentation, error analysis, peer review, etc.), not an inflexible position with regard to a specific set of data or against a specific conclusion.

I too am a skeptic regarding any and all claims of evidence, either for or against any definite conclusion.

That skepticism works both ways: I will not accept a claim of "costume!" simply because the claim has been made, just as I will not accept a claim of "animal!" simply based on the claim. All information is equally subject to scrutiny and rational consideration.

Currently, I am observing the visible forms evident on the P-G figure, and applying my knowledge of muscular anatomy to determine whether or not the perceived shapes conform to human musculature. So far, many of them appear to do so. Once more: I am not asserting this means the figure is a living animal.

So, please, can we stop the accusations that I have an agenda, that I have preconceived notions backwards from which I am building a case, and that I'm seeing pareidolic patterns which I'm purposefully trying to fit into human muscle groups in order to prove that "Patty" is a real, non-human, uncatalogued animal?

Thank you.



I agree, and have agreed numerous times, that the shapes I perceive as muscles might be the result of suit padding. However, I do not believe this is the result of accidental, haphazard, lumpy, unskilled padding. If it is a suit, these shapes are the result of intentional, skilled, well-formed padding. If it is an animal, the muscles are real living tissue. I cannot say which at the moment, but I hope to be able to do so one day.

I don't know what you mean about the "unusual end of the biceps" or "weird"-shaped muscles in the arms. The biceps looks normal to my eye, conforming to the expected shape, apart from the addition of hair, which distorts the far right edge. Also, I for one see a clear demarcation between the top of the triceps (illuminated) and the base of the deltoid (shadowed) above. Their positions and shapes conform to the expected position and shape of the equivalent forms on a human being of comparative size and development.

Dude Phlueeeze

>>>As I understand it, skepticism is an attitude of approaching data -- all data -- with an eye toward scientific principles (controlled experimentation, error analysis, peer review, etc.), not an inflexible position with regard to a specific set of data or against a specific conclusion.

Horse *****. Skepticism is nothing more than lets see the data. Its called "show me"- that doesnt mean arguing in circles gives you legitimacy

>>>I too am a skeptic regarding any and all claims of evidence, either for or against any definite conclusion.

I saw your first article. Either you are the worst scientific thinker/researcher on record or you are promoting an agenda in "flowery terms" as not to get struck down immediately. Which one is it?

>>>That skepticism works both ways: I will not accept a claim of "costume!" simply because the claim has been made, just as I will not accept a claim of "animal!" simply based on the claim. All information is equally subject to scrutiny and rational consideration.

Thats an idiotic argument from the beginning. What you "accept" is meaningless. What you can PROVE may not be. A "claim" doesnt mean anything. ( I can claim patty is CG but that claim is unsupported by facts) Then, who are "you" to "accept" anything? Your PhD is in what? Your field is "what"?

>>>So, please, can we stop the accusations that I have an agenda, that I have preconceived notions backwards from which I am building a case,

Your conduct speaks for itself

>>>and that I'm seeing pareidolic patterns which I'm purposefully trying to fit into human muscle groups in order to prove that "Patty" is a real, non-human, uncatalogued animal?
you have done nothing but so far and we are counting

>>> agree, and have agreed numerous times, that the shapes I perceive as muscles might be the result of suit padding. However, I do not believe this is the result of accidental, haphazard, lumpy, unskilled padding. If it is a suit, these shapes are the result of intentional, skilled, well-formed padding. If it is an animal, the muscles are real living tissue. I cannot say which at the moment, but I hope to be able to do so one day.

heard that before. It cant be a suit because I see "X" and its just another unqualified opinion

>>>I don't know what you mean about the "unusual end of the biceps" or "weird"-shaped muscles in the arms. The biceps looks normal to my eye, conforming to the expected shape, apart from the addition of hair, which distorts the far right edge. Also, I for one see a clear demarcation between the top of the triceps (illuminated) and the base of the deltoid (shadowed) above.

you see shadows and lighting on a grainy modified film. It could just as easily be "clouds in my coffee" from Carley.

 

[Vortigern99]

>>>I would like some day to be able to say definitely, "yes" it's a person in a costume, or "yes" it's a living animal. At this moment, I am unable to make a definite determination, one way or the other.

I saw your first "determination" and it was sadly lacking.

As I myself discovered when I read through this thread and found counter-arguments I had never heard or read before. Hence, my presence here.

When I examine the footage I am not seeking to interpret it in any particular direction, either toward a costume or toward a living animal. Rather, I want to examine each feature of the film and consider, where possible, the likelihood that it is artificial or biological in origin, each feature on its own merits as a data sample.[/B]

Your own words betray you. You make drawings over shadows on a modified image and claim you "see" something. You have yet to produce anything of legitimate merit

In what sense do "my own words betray me"? The drawings are meant to indicate where I'm perceiving a muscle group according to my expertise. The drawing does not come before the perception, as your sentence above bewilderingly suggests. And your criticism of my lack of production is duly noted.

>>>When I observe what I perceive to be accurate human-like muscles in the footage, I am not stating that those feature mean that "yes" it's a person in a costume or "yes" it's a living animal.

Your implications speak for themselves

I make no implications apart from those which you erroneously choose to apply to my comments. The muscles might be the padding of a skillfully made suit, or they might be the real muscles of an living animal. What "implication" am I making here, in your mind?

>>>I'm merely offering my observations toward the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the subject, whatever that truth may ultimately be revealed to be

I'm not convinced of that

Nonetheless it is a true and accurate statement, as I hope you'll permit me to demonstrate.

Is it possible to have information considered in this thread in a fair and unprejudiced way, or are all of my critics here operating from an already-decided upon premise, namely that bigfoot does not exist as an uncatalogued animal, and that therefore all evidence of its existence must be hoaxed? If so, need I point out that this is not a "skeptical" position at all, but in fact just the opposite? You're rejecting information based on a presupposition, exactly as you accuse "footers" (which I am decidedly not) of doing. I am examining all evidence with an open mind, with no prejudices or pre-decided conclusions.

Once more: Maybe it's a suit and maybe it's an animal. Let's find out together which one it might be, shall we?

 

[Vortigern99]

I will no longer address posts like the one below.

I'm interested in the data and in a rational analysis of that data.

I have no presupposed opinions and only want to investigate this film for whatever information it may yet yield.

I will not respond to emotional outbursts or false accusations against my character, personal ethics or qualifications.

I will gladly accept criticism of my methods, my data or my conclusions.

Dude Phlueeeze

>>>As I understand it, skepticism is an attitude of approaching data -- all data -- with an eye toward scientific principles (controlled experimentation, error analysis, peer review, etc.), not an inflexible position with regard to a specific set of data or against a specific conclusion.

Horse *****. Skepticism is nothing more than lets see the data. Its called "show me"- that doesnt mean arguing in circles gives you legitimacy

>>>I too am a skeptic regarding any and all claims of evidence, either for or against any definite conclusion.

I saw your first article. Either you are the worst scientific thinker/researcher on record or you are promoting an agenda in "flowery terms" as not to get struck down immediately. Which one is it?

>>>That skepticism works both ways: I will not accept a claim of "costume!" simply because the claim has been made, just as I will not accept a claim of "animal!" simply based on the claim. All information is equally subject to scrutiny and rational consideration.

Thats an idiotic argument from the beginning. What you "accept" is meaningless. What you can PROVE may not be. A "claim" doesnt mean anything. ( I can claim patty is CG but that claim is unsupported by facts) Then, who are "you" to "accept" anything? Your PhD is in what? Your field is "what"?

>>>So, please, can we stop the accusations that I have an agenda, that I have preconceived notions backwards from which I am building a case,

Your conduct speaks for itself

>>>and that I'm seeing pareidolic patterns which I'm purposefully trying to fit into human muscle groups in order to prove that "Patty" is a real, non-human, uncatalogued animal?
you have done nothing but so far and we are counting

>>> agree, and have agreed numerous times, that the shapes I perceive as muscles might be the result of suit padding. However, I do not believe this is the result of accidental, haphazard, lumpy, unskilled padding. If it is a suit, these shapes are the result of intentional, skilled, well-formed padding. If it is an animal, the muscles are real living tissue. I cannot say which at the moment, but I hope to be able to do so one day.

heard that before. It cant be a suit because I see "X" and its just another unqualified opinion

>>>I don't know what you mean about the "unusual end of the biceps" or "weird"-shaped muscles in the arms. The biceps looks normal to my eye, conforming to the expected shape, apart from the addition of hair, which distorts the far right edge. Also, I for one see a clear demarcation between the top of the triceps (illuminated) and the base of the deltoid (shadowed) above.

you see shadows and lighting on a grainy modified film. It could just as easily be "clouds in my coffee" from Carley.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I will no longer address posts like the one below.

I'm interested in the data and in a rational analysis of that data.

I have no presupposed opinions and only want to investigate this film for whatever information it may yet yield.

I will not respond to emotional outbursts or false accusations against my character, personal ethics or qualifications.

I will gladly accept criticism of my methods, my data or my conclusions.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

>>>I will no longer address posts like the one below.

You havent addressed the first one yet

>>>I'm interested in the data and in a rational analysis of that data.

I've seen your "data" and "rational analysis" and its sadly lacking.

>>>I have no presupposed opinions and only want to investigate this film for whatever information it may yet yield.

Not according to what you have said so far

>>>I will not respond to emotional outbursts or false accusations against my character, personal ethics or qualifications.

I see you like to argue strawmen. Theres nothing "emotional" in my statements and they are hardly "outbursts" but a flair for the dramatic suits a straw argument. I have made no false "allegations" of any sort. ( need more straw yet?) I havent addressed your "character" but simply your PERFORMANCE and I have seen no qualifications of merit.

I'm a PhD and Investigator with over 3 decades of real world experience- your "qualifications" are....? Your experience is "what"? Your accomplishments in the field are....?

>>>I will gladly accept criticism of my methods, my data or my conclusions

You havent gotten to first base yet. Your data isnt worthy of critical analysis yet, much less criticism. Your conclusions are the "opinion" of an unqualified layman. Your "methods" ( based on your comments here about how much you didnt know) are about useless.

You wanted a peer review. There it is.

 

[LTC8K6]

You can see thumb flexion and finger flexion in :27 to :30 of this enhanced P-G video:

That has already been debunked a few times, IIRC. No thumb is actually there. The hand merges with background colors for a moment, vaguely resembling an opening hand.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

As I myself discovered when I read through this thread and found counter-arguments I had never heard or read before. Hence, my presence here.



In what sense do "my own words betray me"? The drawings are meant to indicate where I'm perceiving a muscle group according to my expertise. The drawing does not come before the perception, as your sentence above bewilderingly suggests. And your criticism of my lack of production is duly noted.



I make no implications apart from those which you erroneously choose to apply to my comments. The muscles might be the padding of a skillfully made suit, or they might be the real muscles of an living animal. What "implication" am I making here, in your mind?



Nonetheless it is a true and accurate statement, as I hope you'll permit me to demonstrate.

Is it possible to have information considered in this thread in a fair and unprejudiced way, or are all of my critics here operating from an already-decided upon premise, namely that bigfoot does not exist as an uncatalogued animal, and that therefore all evidence of its existence must be hoaxed? If so, need I point out that this is not a "skeptical" position at all, but in fact just the opposite? You're rejecting information based on a presupposition, exactly as you accuse "footers" (which I am decidedly not) of doing. I am examining all evidence with an open mind, with no prejudices or pre-decided conclusions.

Once more: Maybe it's a suit and maybe it's an animal. Let's find out together which one it might be, shall we?

>>>As I myself discovered when I read through this thread and found counter-arguments I had never heard or read before. Hence, my presence here.
So much for the quality of your research. A google search would bring you here

>>>In what sense do "my own words betray me"? The drawings are meant to indicate where I'm perceiving a muscle group according to my expertise. The drawing does not come before the perception, as your sentence above bewilderingly suggests. And your criticism of my lack of production is duly noted.

Let me spell it out for you. Your "perception" aint worth a tinkers damn. You are applying make believe and wishful thinking to a film that is generationally deteriorated and enhanced. You dont even have a baseline for your "data"

>>> make no implications apart from those which you erroneously choose to apply to my comments. The muscles might be the padding of a skillfully made suit, or they might be the real muscles of an living animal. What "implication" am I making here, in your mind?

Spare me your tripe. I see the theme of your posting.

>>>Nonetheless it is a true and accurate statement, as I hope you'll permit me to demonstrate.

I cant wait

>>>Is it possible to have information considered in this thread in a fair and unprejudiced way, or are all of my critics here operating from an already-decided upon premise, namely that bigfoot does not exist as an uncatalogued animal, and that therefore all evidence of its existence must be hoaxed?

That doesnt apply to me and stop whining. I'm a BF "believer" so I "believe" but I didnt check my intelligence or experience at the door. BF may be real but your argument tanks so far.

>>>If so, need I point out that this is not a "skeptical" position at all, but in fact just the opposite? You're rejecting information based on a presupposition, exactly as you accuse "footers" (which I am decidedly not) of doing. I am examining all evidence with an open mind, with no prejudices or pre-decided conclusions.

You havent convinced me you understand the methods of "examining" anything yet. You do tap dance very well tho.

>>>Once more: Maybe it's a suit and maybe it's an animal. Let's find out together which one it might be, shall we

No. "lets" show factual data that can be seen to support your position. "Lets" dont argue shadows and try to "make believe" them into something they clearly cant positively show.

Thats your lesson in science for this post.

 

[LTC8K6]

I can't find the post now, but Mangler killed that "thumb" clip a while ago.

 

[Vortigern99]

I have just begin the process of building a set of data with the intent of examining it, of sharing it with other knowledgeable persons in various fields, and of one day drawing some conclusions about it.

I've reached no conclusions to date, but am in the process of forming hypotheses which I intend to test. You can either believe that or not.

I recognize that my initial study was flawed, chiefly by a lack of information and error analysis of my main source (the NASI report), both of which I have helpfully found here. It may also have been flawed by improper application of skeptical principles. Where I have erred in that area, and where I may do so in the future, I hope that others will indicate it so that I may adjust my thinking accordingly.

I no longer believe/conclude/think that the P-G film shows a real living uncatalogued animal. It might, but I do not "believe" that it does, and in spite of what LONGTABBER seems to think, I am not in any way attempting to work toward proving or establishing that conclusion.

Rather, I am interested in examining the data. If this is the sole definition of skepticism, then I fully adhere to that singular tenet. Show me the data. I'll do my best to explain it according to my expertise and my critical thinking abilities, but once more I have no pre-supposed conclusion in mind.

I have never described my qualifications as anything other than a Baccalaureate in Fine Arts with a minor in Anthropology and a lifelong interest in human anatomy and primatology. I understand that does not equate to a PhD and that it is not a scientific accreditation. However, to the best of my ability I hope to apply my expertise in the stated areas -- which is considerable -- in order to ascertain the truth of the P-G figure's origins, if possible.

All of these statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and I assert again I have no pre-made conclusions which I'm trying to "fit" the data into. If anyone believes I am doing this, I would invite them to demonstrate when and where I have done this, and if they are correct then I will apologize and seek to become a better skeptic/amateur scientist/bigfoot researcher than I was before my error was indicated.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Ya know, the stills that were posted started to look pretty good. Then I saw the video again and, poof, guy in a suit.

I think, for me, it's the back. There just is the kind of movement I would expect. We should be able to see the smooth, rolling movements of the shoulderblades under the skin. Instead there is just a big, static patch of fur. It reminds me of carpet more than anything else.

Also, the feet bother me. Big, flat, humanlike feet seem unlikely. Our feet are pretty unique amongst mammals because we are the only one adapted for bipedal running. Of higher primates, we are the only one capable of toe-walking, which gives us the ability to sprint. Bigfoot seems to lack this ability, yet he still has the humanlike, forward facing toes, which are another sprinting adaptation. This a curious combination, as splayed, more gorilla like toes would probably give him extra stability without the need for such ludicrously huge feet.

Now, this could be a quirk of evolution. However, it seems a rather convenient one, as it is the exact type of foot that a hoax is likely to create. The human style footprint is immediately recognizable, while the flat shape lends itself well to being cut from plywood.

Finally, compliant gait refers to the gait of a non-biped walking bipedally. Since Bigfoot is supposed to be a true biped, the term doesn't apply to him.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I have just begin the process of building a set of data with the intent of examining it, of sharing it with other knowledgeable persons in various fields, and of one day drawing some conclusions about it.

I've reached no conclusions to date. You can either believe that or not.

I recognize that my initial study was flawed, chiefly by a lack of information and error analysis of my main source (the NASI report), both of which I have helpfully found here. It may also have been flawed by improper application of skeptical principles. Where I have erred in that area, and where I may do so in the future, I hope that others will indicate it so that I may adjust my thinking accordingly.

I no longer believe/conclude/think that the P-G film shows a real living uncatalogued animal. It might, but I do not "believe" that it does, and in spite of what LONGTABBER seems to think, I am not in any way attempting to work toward proving or establishing that conclusion.

Rather, I am interested in examining the data. If this is the sole definition of skepticism, then I fully adhere to that singular tenet. Show me the data. I'll do my best to explain it according to my expertise and my critical thinking abilities, but once more I have no pre-supposed conclusion in mind.

I have never described my qualifications as anything other than a Baccalaureate in Fine Arts with a minor in Anthropology and a lifelong interest in human anatomy and primatology. I understand that does not equate to a PhD and that it is not a scientific accreditation. However, to the best of my ability I hope to apply my expertise in the stated areas -- which is considerable -- in order to ascertain the truth of the P-G figure's origins, if possible.

All of these statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and I assert again I have no pre-made conclusions which I'm trying to "fit" the data into. If anyone believes I am doing this, I would invite them to demonstrate when and where I have done this, and if they are correct then I will apologize and seek to become a better skeptic/amateur scientist/bigfoot researcher than I was before my error was indicated.

>>>I have just begin the process of building a set of data with the intent of examining it, of sharing it with other knowledgeable persons in various fields, and of one day drawing some conclusions about it.

Heres your next lession in REAL science. Lets see this "data" and the process of how you scrub it and validate it to ensure it actually means something. Lets make sure these "knowledgable" persona have both names and relevant degree fields and dont rest on a reputation of being a "bigfoot researcher" as the sole claim on their CV.

>>>I've reached no conclusions to date. You can either believe that or not.

I read your first round "conclusions" and saw the flawed methodology. I'm not confident in your "conclusions" or the methods of how you reach them

>>>I recognize that my initial study was flawed, chiefly by a lack of information and error analysis of my main source (the NASI report), both of which I have helpfully found here. It may also have been flawed by improper application of skeptical principles. Where I have erred in that area, and where I may do so in the future, I hope that others will indicate it so that I may adjust my thinking accordingly.


You "may" have been flawed? I'll certainly indicate it for you.

>>>I no longer believe/conclude/think that the P-G film shows a real living uncatalogued animal. It might, but I do not "believe" that it does, and in spite of what LONGTABBER seems to think, I am not in any way attempting to work toward proving or establishing that conclusion.

Lets test that

>>>Rather, I am interested in examining the data. If this is the sole definition of skepticism, then I fully adhere to that singular tenet. Show me the data.

Let me help you out. The PGF has a questionable background. The original is not available for analysis. The subsequent scene investigation was worthless. What "data" are you going to get from that?

>>>I'll do my best to explain it according to my expertise and my critical thinking abilities, but once more I have no pre-supposed conclusion in mind.

Which tenets of your "expertise" qualify you for any type of legitimate forensic analysis?

>>>which is considerable -- in order to ascertain the truth of the P-G figure's origins, if possible.

OK

>>>All of these statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and I assert again I have no pre-made conclusions which I'm trying to "fit" the data into. If anyone believes I am doing this, I would invite them to demonstrate when and where I have done this, and if they are correct then I will apologize and seek to become a better skeptic/amateur scientist/bigfoot researcher than I was before my error was indicated

Thats easy, show me how you intend to falsify your hypothesis and how you plan to test your "conclusions" against that falsification.

 

[Vortigern99]

The last page or so has been excruciating to say the least. All I want to do is research and analysis, and to post my findings to the community so that others may review them and point out flaws or possible progress, but instead I'm having to constantly address these bizarre accusations regarding my "agenda" and more understandable ones regarding my qualifications. As a result I have little time for actual research, which deficit of production fans the flames of criticism from those who seem to be under the impression that Rome was built in about a week and a half.

What I'd like to do is take a step back from this thread for awhile, conduct some research and analysis on my own, and return here to post my findings. Then the members here can demolish, exalt or ignore me as they see fit.

EDIT: I posted the above before I read LONGTABBER's latest post. LT, I appreciate your more reasonable tone and your guidance in the areas of proper scientific methodology. I trust you'll keep me on my toes as I continue to conduct research to the best of my ability.