The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Such a simple thing is difficult so it would seem that once again I need to help Sweaty with his arguments. See, I really want you to catch up here. OK, you said that you have shown that the skeletons are not equal. This is even in the face of the image that proves they are one and the same. But Sweaty can't be bothered to show his work. Well, I can. I remember your attempts to discount my truly direct comparison just fine. That is because they were so hilarious and it was such a riot showing the obvious flaws in your reasoning.

Remember that post #711 in the PGF 3 that I keep mentioning? That is where you last tried to grapple with my magic skeletons and got powned. So here's a link so we can get you up to speed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4425275#post4425275

There you can see that you have in no manner at all demonstrated that the skeletons are not the same. Meanwhile, right here, I've shown in utter simplicity that they are.

So, back to the simple - here's the deal. You agree to actually show why my truly direct comparison showing Patty and BH to have the same skeletal and limb proportions and I'll hit the submit button and show you the problem with your latest scribblefest. That's absolutely fair.

I mean, what the heck would be the chances that finally an actual real Bigfoot was filmed and it just happened to have the same height and limb proportions as a longtime friend and neighbour of the two guys who made the film and the only person to claim to be in the suit? And that same person was proven to be involved with their Bigfoot activities at the time.

You show 'em you're a tiger, Sweaty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'll hit the submit button and show you the problem with your latest scribblefest.

Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.


Again....I AM NOT following you down into your little rat-holes. I'm not playing your games.

I do not care to 'prove myself worthy' to recieve your counter-analysis.


Do whatever you feel like....but take your never-ending BS, and stuff it.

 

[kitakaze]

Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.


Again....I AM NOT following you down into your little rat-holes. I'm not playing your games.

I do not care to 'prove myself worthy' to recieve your counter-analysis.


Do whatever you feel like....but take your never-ending BS, and stuff it.

You may see these things that I cite as ratholes but this is because you've conditioned yourself to dismiss important issues I've raised as such. These are really wallbangers that I keep bringing up, Sweaty, and we can see intellectually honest people do not fear to deal with them.

You have a really messed up kind of logic and pretty much everytime you bust out your latest scribbles it gets pointed out to you. But what you really have a hard time is dealing with straight facts. Facts like BH proven to be involved with Patterson's Bigfoot activities. Facts like his limb proportions and height matching Patty.

You've received counter-analyses, points, rebuttals, and refutations all the time. The thing is that you just flee from them if they're too difficult for you. That's not intellectual honesty or a commitment to the truth. I've just brought it to a point where if you want people to jump through your hoops, you're going to have to do some work yourself and not just the typical run away.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

if you want people to jump through your hoops,

As I said last night...


Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.

There is nothing 'in your way'....no hoops to jump through.

 

[kitakaze]

Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.

There is nothing 'in your way'....no hoops to jump through.

But there is something in the way. We've seen what happens when we spot Sweaty. I don't like trying to have an honest discussion with a person not interested in sincere debate or who would always try to dictate the terms of it. You have something you would like addressed. It's very simple to me and I had no trouble immediately identifying the problems with the comparison you made.

The problem is that you won't in good faith deal with issues that are just as important from outside your perspective. Let's say for a moment that your comparison is flawed. That's what you're using to call BH's claim a joke. But hardly his claim can be called a joke when there are so many glaring issues not the least of which are his known connections with the suspected hoaxers and more specifically their Bigfoot activities at the time of the hoax. Even if your comparison is good, still rather than being a joke, BH's claim would still have some major points in its favour. Some oh-crap whopper coincidences. Surely you can face them if you're confident in your own work.

See, you've long since disqualified yourself from a position where anyone here should just engage you in good faith that you'll participate in an honest discussion. So people like me have learned how to play your game. You want something? Show it's not just take, take, take. Show some courtesy and try addressing some serious issues that people have been waiting for comment from you. It's not so complicated if you're really interested in the truth, Sweaty. If your comparison is a good one, then it shouldn't be an issue explaining the flaws in mine. You've had explanations of the flaws with your line drawings every time you've brought them out. You never face them. You just scuttle away and come back a little while later with something slightly different and try again. That's not cool. That's not how one should try and engage in an intelligent discussion.

So now you are where you are. You want to play ball? Deal with our points and we'll deal with yours. That's all a person like you should get here, which is more than I think you've shown you deserve.

ETA: I really shouldn't even budge an inch with a sneaky snake like Sweaty. But just to show that we can at least accord him some of the good faith that he has ever exhausted I will say this... Just looking at Sweaty's comparison I can immediately identify 6 major problems. These problems relate to the images chosen, what they do and do not show, the quality, how they are presented, how the lines are placed, and the position of the figures... just to name some.

 

[SweatyYeti]

But there is something in the way. We've seen what happens when we spot Sweaty. I don't like trying to have an honest discussion with a person not interested in sincere debate or who would always try to dictate the terms of it. You have something you would like addressed. It's very simple to me and I had no trouble immediately identifying the problems with the comparison you made.

The problem is that you won't in good faith deal with issues that are just as important from outside your perspective. Let's say for a moment that your comparison is flawed. That's what you're using to call BH's claim a joke. But hardly his claim can be called a joke when there are so many glaring issues not the least of which are his known connections with the suspected hoaxers and more specifically their Bigfoot activities at the time of the hoax. Even if your comparison is good, still rather than being a joke, BH's claim would still have some major points in its favour. Some oh-crap whopper coincidences. Surely you can face them if you're confident in your own work.

See, you've long since disqualified yourself from a position where anyone here should just engage you in good faith that you'll participate in an honest discussion. So people like me have learned how to play your game. You want something? Show it's not just take, take, take. Show some courtesy and try addressing some serious issues that people have been waiting for comment from you. It's not so complicated if you're really interested in the truth, Sweaty. If your comparison is a good one, then it shouldn't be an issue explaining the flaws in mine. You've had explanations of the flaws with your line drawings every time you've brought them out. You never face them. You just scuttle away and come back a little while later with something slightly different and try again. That's not cool. That's not how one should try and engage in an intelligent discussion.

So now you are where you are. You want to play ball? Deal with our points and we'll deal with yours. That's all a person like you should get here, which is more than I think you've shown you deserve.

ETA: I really shouldn't even budge an inch with a sneaky snake like Sweaty. But just to show that we can at least accord him some of the good faith that he has ever exhausted I will say this... Just looking at Sweaty's comparison I can immediately identify 6 major problems. These problems relate to the images chosen, what they do and do not show, the quality, how they are presented, how the lines are placed, and the position of the figures... just to name some.

As I said last night...


Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.

There is nothing 'in your way'....no hoops to jump through.

 

[kitakaze]

Feel free to provide any counter-analysis that you like, kitty.

There is nothing 'in your way'....no hoops to jump through.

You'll see what's in the way carefully detailed above. All you have is repetition. You're making it too easy for me. Not only did I explain the situation in clear detail but I even gave you a hint what the problems were. It must suck being an intellectual coward.

 

[kitakaze]

Here is a good quality image of Bob Heironimus walking, taken from a NG show...

Easy question for Sweaty. Yes or no. Is the image you placed the still of BH from the Nat Geo special beside good quality?

 

[neltana]

Okay....back to the fun stuff......drawing lines on Bob and "Bob-in-a-suit"...

A comparison of the lateral distance, or length, between 'the outer edge of Bob's head and the inside of his arm, or, the outside of his chest'...(it's effectively the same measuring point)......and the equivalent length on Patty.......shows a huge, and significant difference in these lengths...shown by the blue arrows...

Okay, I don't think your analysis is valid. I offer up a prettily colored picture of my own to illustrate why.



I scaled my images similar to yours. The red lines show the line up points: from where Bob's shoulder meets his neck to where Patty's does and from Bob's crotch to the bottom of Patty's buttock.

Here's our first problem, these line up points could be off. Patty could be scaled bigger or smaller than she should be and we have no real way of getting this exact. Still, we ended up scaling similarly to my eye.

The blue lines, if you can make them out, are the same length. The one on Bob goes from the outer edge of his chest to the midpoint. I translated this line to Patty to illustrate that it doesn't quite reach the assumed midpoint of her back. However, it isn't too far off and the line on Patty could arguably be moved over a bit.

Here is a second problem: how do we know we have these points accurately. Bob's upper body is canted differently than Patty's and it isn't 100% clear where the outer edge or midpoints are on either figure. However, since the hypothesis is that Bob is inside a Patty suit, we wouldn't expect a perfect match.

The green lines trace the approximate outline of the head and shoulder. Now, since Bob is angling one of his shoulders forward, I did this on the side that was more square with the camera. This is the opposite shoulder than the one you were comparing.

Here is the third and fourth problems with your illustration: the shoulder you are comparing is at an orientation that minimizes its apparent width. The same dimension on the other side of Bob appears larger because of the cant of his torso. Also, the black outline you are measuring is not the same as the one I imposed. Due to the blurriness of the source material, it is very hard to know exactly what the contours of Patty are.

The purple lines are the exact same as the green lines, but they have been translated so that they are next to each other. As you can see, there doesn't appear to be a marked difference between the two.

So that's why I think you haven't made the case that Patty's shoulders are markedly wider than Bob's. They may be, but I think a reasonable person can come to a different conclusion working with the same images.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Excellent points Neltana. The problem with sweaty's crayon drawings is that he is cherry picking points and not being very objective. The "aunt bunny" image is very blurry and is highly enlarged. The resolution of the film is being tested and one can not draw many definitive points on the image. The arm blurs into the side. Is this an accurate measurement of the side? Do the angles of the camera have something do with it? We do not know. Then we have the issue of Bob being outside a suit and not inside one for his frame of reference. Bob's going to be smaller in width without a suit than with one. This is just common sense. We do not know specifically what was used in the suit to make it appear the way it does and padding of any type will affect the width at the shoulders and sides. These are all factors to consider.

This little game of Sweaty's is done to reassure himself that "Aunt Bunny" is a real bigfoot. Until proponents can provide a body or skeleton, "Aunt Bunny" will always be considered most likely to be a guy in a suit. It does not matter if it is Bob or not Bob.

 

[kitakaze]

ETA: I really shouldn't even budge an inch with a sneaky snake like Sweaty. But just to show that we can at least accord him some of the good faith that he has ever exhausted I will say this... Just looking at Sweaty's comparison I can immediately identify 6 major problems. These problems relate to the images chosen, what they do and do not show, the quality, how they are presented, how the lines are placed, and the position of the figures... just to name some.

Okay, I don't think your analysis is valid. I offer up a prettily colored picture of my own to illustrate why.

(snip)

That is an excellent post, neltana, and you covered many of the points that I had noted after first examining Sweaty's latest attempt and hinted at. You, however have put it in a much better illustrated and succinct package than I have prepared. You have accommodated Sweaty with much more than he deserves but the inherent problems of his latest scribbles makes it inevitable that someone will point them out regardless of his behaviour.

Sweaty will now attempt to quibble some points he doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand and then after that fails, slink off for another try at a later time. What he will not do is address any of the glaring problems I've outlined or deal with the major issues he dismisses as ratholes.

Good job!

 

[kitakaze]

Excellent points Neltana. The problem with sweaty's crayon drawings is that he is cherry picking points and not being very objective. The "aunt bunny" image is very blurry and is highly enlarged. The resolution of the film is being tested and one can not draw many definitive points on the image. The arm blurs into the side. Is this an accurate measurement of the side? Do the angles of the camera have something do with it? We do not know. Then we have the issue of Bob being outside a suit and not inside one for his frame of reference. Bob's going to be smaller in width without a suit than with one. This is just common sense. We do not know specifically what was used in the suit to make it appear the way it does and padding of any type will affect the width at the shoulders and sides. These are all factors to consider.

This little game of Sweaty's is done to reassure himself that "Aunt Bunny" is a real bigfoot. Until proponents can provide a body or skeleton, "Aunt Bunny" will always be considered most likely to be a guy in a suit. It does not matter if it is Bob or not Bob.

Quite right, Astro. Now Sweaty is going to yammer to you about something to do with "free arm movement" that he thinks he hit a homer with. I'll be waiting with a request to show where this homer was hit and ready to link to explanations and images showing otherwise.

Sweaty has no real interest in the truth, just keeping Patty Nopoops afloat.

 

[Vortigern99]

For the record, to my eye and according to a visual comparison of an artist's anatomy book, the skeletal overlays are perfectly human in proportion and match up almost exactly with the P-G figure. The "almost" factor can be easily accounted for by the idea that a suit, very probably padded, expands the apparent chest and shoulder size.

As an instructive anecdote, the other night I watched a Star Trek TOS episode called "What Are Little Girls Made of?" in which a tall android played by Ted Cassidy (who coincidentally voiced the Gorn creature AND played the Bionic Bigfoot on the Six Million Dollar Man!) is seen to have arm padding that bulks out his chest, shoulders and arms to look like huge, muscled arms underneath the sleeves of his robe. The arm movement is natural and the shoulders, though massively padded, blend in a naturalistic way into the similarly massive arms.

The episode aired on October 20, 1966. See the next post for pics of the android (named Ruk); you can also watch the episode for yourself on the cbs youtube site. Anyone suggesting that a hair suit could not pad out the chest, shoulders and arms and still allow normal arm movement need only watch this episode to see such notions dissolved.

 

[Vortigern99]

Here is a pic of Ruk from the episode, but unfortunately you can't see his padded arms very well, and they're at an odd angle so you can't see how natural they normally look. (Try to look past the hot brunette in the foreground; this is SCIENCE, people! )

Here's a pic of the same actor, Ted Cassidy, as Lurch on the Addams Family TV show, showing the normal size of his arms.

EDIT: Two more pics of Ruk, showing the massive arms.

 

[kitakaze]

Kirk had something special for that big ol' Ruk:

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Anyone suggesting that a hair suit could not pad out the chest, shoulders and arms and still allow normal arm movement need only watch this episode to see such notions dissolved.

Thanks for posting the information on that video, Vort.


I just downloaded one video of that episode from Youtube. I'll use some stills from it to compare Rukky's padding with Patty and Bob.

WARNING: This may take a day, or two.......so, hang in there!


From what I saw, though, the padded suit did not appear to expand the chest width of Rukko very much....if at all.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty will now attempt to quibble some points he doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand and then after that fails, slink off for another try at a later time. What he will not do is address any of the glaring problems I've outlined or deal with the major issues he dismisses as ratholes.

Time to take your pills, kitty!

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:



Time to take your pills, kitty!

Poor Sweaty, doesn't like those reality pills. They must taste bitter seeing as how this little bit of Bigfoot quality Sweaty logic is SOL:

Bob's claim is a joke.....because there is simply no way that his body could have fit inside Patty's exceptionally wide body, and have displayed the free arm movement that Patty has.

As a result....your questions about why Bob is in certain pictures is also a joke.

Oops for you.

Let's say "hi!" to Bobby H, shall we?

Hi, Bobby! Get real close to your ol' pal Bobby G and rib him about the piece:



Yeah, apparently ol' Bobby G got sick of whole Indian tracker garbage so Rog just hired someone else to do it.

Oh look! There's Bobby H again on Rog's film!



That Rog sure was a card, hey, Bobby?

 

[kitakaze]

I just downloaded one video of that episode from Youtube. I'll use some stills from it to compare Rukky's padding with Patty and Bob.

WARNING: This may take a day, or two.......so, hang in there!

Good luck with that!

*cough* post #886 *cough*

 

[LTC8K6]

Andre the giant played the Bionic Bigfoot.