The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

Vort, as I and others have pointed out many times (yes, Sweaty, the issue was discussed with Vort's participation many times), the realism you prescribe to Patty is subjective. Still, you find the top part of Patty to have a degree of realism while you find the bottom part to be false looking so... meh.

Yes, kit, which is precisely why I brought it up again: to show that an opinion of photographic materials, even one based on experience with, in this case, primate anatomy, is and must be purely subjective. When I began examining the PGF in earnest, I focused almost entirely on the area that I perceive to be realistic: the right shoulder, arm and back. I was suffering from a kind of tunnel-vision that is perfectly human and totally flawed. But once I directed my attention to other areas, namely the legs, the house of cards came tumbling down on me.

Take the Jacobs game-cam photos as another prime example of this phenomenon; even a PhD in zoology with considerable expertise in bears had doubts about identifying the subject as a juvenile, skinny, mange-ridden bear. Ultimately that zoologist (whose name escapes me; apologies if s/he is reading) opined "bear", but I understand it was something of a hard sell. Even now there is debate about the Jacobs figure because, as kitakaze has astutely noted and I have agreed, photographic analysis alone is insufficient to decide the truth of a claim (especially when the photo is blurry, distant, shaky, muddy, and the camera speed and film stock can only be guessed at) with 100% accuracy.

All we can really do with regard to the PGF and its hirsute subject is to state our opinions, and present any facts that might inform those opinions. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking, IMO.

 

[SweatyYeti]

That is not what you initially stated. You originally stated:

That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...

There was no "think" or "may" about it.


If you want to change your claim to "think" (aka "believe") that it "may" be too big, go right ahead.


However, your original claim is flat out WRONG because we now know it is NOT too big. Go right on "thinking" (aka "believing") all you desire. However, the facts show your "thinking" is WRONG...AGAIN!

I'm not changing my claim, or my thoughts, regarding Patty, Astro.
But whether I was or not is completely irrelevant to the question I asked you.


I asked you a very simple question....and you appear to be afraid to answer it with a very simple yes or no.


One more time...


Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

 

[Astrophotographer]

Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

Considering all the questions I have asked in the past that you failed to answer, I find it interesting you DEMAND I answer such a silly question. I have answered your question twice now and I will try and answer it again. I have stated that you can believe or think all you desire and it is not wrong. That being said, it IS WRONG when you try and tell me that your thoughts/beliefs are true and I should accept them when I can demonstrate they are false. Again, you stated the following:

That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...

Now answer my questions.
1. How did you compute/analyze/determine this statement was true?
2. Can you define "very clearly"?
3. Can you demonstrate that my measurements of the two heads is significantly off or flawed?

 

[Akhenaten]

Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

It would be wrong to think anything based on the comparisons you post, other than maybe "I think someone should take the box of crayons off that kid and start preparing him for life in the real world."

Then again, if it's keeping him quiet, I don't suppose it will hurt to put the hard lessons off until he starts school.

Seems a waste to be ruining all his nice monkey pictures like that though.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa.......you made a very good point with that ugly, scary picture you posted.
Thank you very much!


Contrary to your own statements...

To the date of writing, sweaty and every single PGF-shows-the-real-deal proponent has failed to show a set of non-subjective criteria to define Patty's alleged realism.

A set of criteria, a method which would allow everybody to reach similar conclusions.

.......the picture you posted helps to illustrate the difference between describing and defining certain intangible things.....such as "ugly"..."pretty"...."realistic", etc.,....and knowing them when you see them.


In that picture you posted, Correa, it's "ugliness" is easy to see....yet it can require a lengthy explanation to precisely describe what makes it "ugly".
(You could say having "one eye" makes a face "ugly", but there are many beautiful pictures of beautiful people in which only one eye is seen, in a profile view. That doesn't make the person "ugly", or the picture "scary" to look at.)



So, instead of me wasting many hours of my time trying to describe, define, and defend Patty's "degree of realism" on this board, (where 'intellectual honesty' is a scarce commodity)....I choose to defend it in this much simpler way.....as I did yesterday...

When I talked about Patty's 'realism' before, I made the point that the unique quality that Patty has, that NO other "suit" has, is the ability to be ambiguous.


The fact that Patty's true identity is 'ambiguous', as opposed to 'obvious', is attested to by the fact that some very intelligent people have continued the 'vigorous debate' over the years, thinking that she may be a real Bigfoot.

In principle....."Degree of realism",and 'ambiguity' go hand-in-hand. Without some 'degree of realism', there would be no ambiguity.

Quick example...illustrating the general principle...

This suit has no 'degree of realism' (despite it having all the 'necessary ingredients' to qualify as a real animal).....and therefore....no ambiguity as to whether or not we're seeing a real, wild creature, or a joker in a joke-of-a-suit.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Considering all the questions I have asked in the past that you failed to answer, I find it interesting you DEMAND I answer such a silly question. I have answered your question twice now and I will try and answer it again.

I have stated that you can believe or think all you desire and it is not wrong.

That being said, it IS WRONG when you try and tell me that your thoughts/beliefs are true and I should accept them when I can demonstrate they are false. Again, you stated the following:

That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...

Now answer my questions.
1. How did you compute/analyze/determine this statement was true?
2. Can you define "very clearly"?
3. Can you demonstrate that my measurements of the two heads is significantly off or flawed?

I don't know why you choose to keep dancing around this simple question, Astro.....all I'm trying to do is to make a certain point, in a debate.

A simple answer would move things along.

This statement of yours (highlighted above) is not an answer to my question...

I have stated that you can believe or think all you desire and it is not wrong.

....if what you mean is that "it's right to think whatever you want". (I'm free to think whatever I want, about Patty....but not everything I can possibly think about Patty is "right", or "correct".)

When I say "is it wrong for me to think...", what I mean is "is it irrational....without reason....pure wishful thinking.....fantasy", to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside of Patty's head, based on the comparisons, and images?"

Like this comparison...

And these images...

One more time....my frightened friend......

Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

 

[kitakaze]

I don't know why you choose to keep dancing around this simple question, Astro.....all I'm trying to do is to make a certain point, in a debate.

A simple answer would move things along.

Yes, it is so very often I wonder that with you, Sweaty. Maybe Astro can just say he's not going to follow you down any ratholes.

One more time....my frightened friend......

Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

Hmmm... disrespectful? Maybe Astro should not answer any question from you at all.

BTW, my frightened friend, I've got some scary questions that have been waiting for a simple answer from you too. Hopefully you can muster up the courage to answer them.

 

[GT/CS]

Sweaty, got that suit done yet?

 

[Astrophotographer]

IIs it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

I am so "frightened". I am shaking in my boots over the mighty crayon drawings of the mighty Sweaty Yeti, who hasn't a clue on how to scale or analyze images properly.

The problem with you sweaty is your can not tell the difference between facts, research, and your own belief system. Your question is like "Is it wrong for me to think the world may be only 6,000 years old because the Bible says so". Again, your "trick" question is a request to get me to say that is wrong for you to "think" and therefore I am telling you how to "think". It is not wrong for you to think anything you desire. If you choose to think on a belief, that is your right. It becomes wrong when you try and impose your belief system on others.

I continue to point out that your conclusions are wrong and I have demonstrated it (something you choose not to refute indicating I must be correct or close to correct). To me you are wrong in thinking that Bob's head may be too big and stating, That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head.... You are irrational in pursuing this type of thinking, when the actual measurements show you are wrong but you insist on stating that you "may be" right.

Your past analyses are wrong for numerous reasons I have pointed out in the past (BTW, your bottom drawing of Patty and Bob in a suit is scaled improperly and cropped to hide this fact). Not once have you demonstrated with measurements and properly aligned/scaled imagery that you are right. Various people have demonstrated over and over that your analyses are incorrect. This is irrational and the only person you are fooling is yourself. You are wrong in trying to make people think something is true by presenting evidence that is not an accurate representation of the facts.

This is my answer to your loaded question. If you can not understand it, then that is your problem.

On the other hand, I notice that you dodged my requests. Why can't you answer my questions? Why do you refuse to answer them? Why do you refuse to answer everyone else's questions but try and focus on what I consider wrong and right about your thought process?

 

[Astrophotographer]

And these images...
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/BobBigBrains1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PattySmallBrain1Flipped.jpg[/qimg]

As for Sweaty's recent attempt to make Bob's head look too big, I made the statement that he improperly scaled the images to give the wrong impression. I figure I need to back this up with a properly scaled image here:



Now there may be a few pixels difference between the two but it is the full images showing how they were scaled. Measure the heads across at the eyebrows. I get roughly 74 pixels for BOTH heads. Even if I made Bob slightly too small, the differences are small. Once again, a pixel or two only quantifies to fractions of an inch. So it not "clearly visible" that the head is too big. (Edit: notice the arms are not too long either and the proportions are essentially the same!)

I can only conclude two things from this:

1) Sweaty is resorting to chicanery to make it appear hs is being rational.
2) Sweaty is not very bright.

Maybe Sweaty could answer that.

 

[Akhenaten]

One more time....my frightened friend......

Okay. Will the same answer do? Or should I try another.

Also, since you appear to be projecting your own fear, let me reassure you that there isn't anything to be frightened of. It's just a nasty little fake film and there aren't really any Crayon Monkeys out there. Rest easy, little fellow.

Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??

Yes, it's wrong. Also worng.

What you do is draw random stuff all over your nice monkey pictures and then make up conclusions to explain the scribble. Have you noticed that this clever technique has failed to convince anyone?

Is it wrong of me to point out that you're wasting your time and crayons?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Let's try a slightly different version of the SAME question...

Is it wrong for me......or anybody.....to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??


Can you answer this simple question, Astro?


Again...."wrong"....meaning "incorrect", or "without reason".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Let's try a slightly different version of the SAME question...

Is it wrong for me......or anybody.....to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??


Can you answer this simple question, Astro?


Again...."wrong"....meaning "incorrect", or "without reason".

You are dense. I have answered your question.

You are irrational in pursuing this type of thinking, when the actual measurements show you are wrong but you insist on stating that you "may be" right. Irrational = wrong = incorrect = not factual = without reason!

Your comparisons are invalid and therefore you are wrong.

Prove me wrong. Give me a REAL comparison and not a fake one like the one you posted just recently, where I demonstrated that you were either incompetent or purposefully alterring the images to make it appear that you are correct.

Why aren't you answering my questions? Are you afraid to answer them because they demonstrate your flawed/incorrect/irrational/wrong/without reason thinking?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sweaty, Astrophotographer and Akhenaten are spelled differently. Perhaps you need to get your crayons out and do a comparison.


Eye for detail much?

 

[Crowlogic]

The issue of whether or not Bob H's head is too big is not an issue that can be reasonably argued. The issue is whether or not the Morris recreation head is bigger than the PGF head and it appears to me to be somewhat wider and the crest is not accurate to the PGF. Actually Bob's head could be child sized and it would not matter. What matters is the MR costume head which is misses its mark about as badly as the rest of the suit misses the mark.

That said atleast observers of the Morris recreaton are spared having to look at potential muscle movement which seems a pretty good bet isn't an observable detail, real or imagined.

 

[JohnWS]

Sweaty - seeing as no-one on here is buying into your 'artistic interpretations' and, seeing as you obviously feel that as a result, we must be wrong - have you thought of submitting this ground breaking stuff to NATURE?

I'm sure they will appreciate it for what it really is.

 

[kitakaze]

Let's try a slightly different version of the SAME question...

Is it wrong for me......or anybody.....to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??


Can you answer this simple question, Astro?


Again...."wrong"....meaning "incorrect", or "without reason".

I can answer that loaded question for you, Sweaty.

No, it is not wrong for you......or anybody.....to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons you've posted, also)

You see, the problem is it's like stating the world is only 6000 years old. There maybe be evidence for the claim but it is simply wrong and has been misinterpreted. You are stating unequivocably that Bob's head is too large to fit within Patty's and it is simply wrong:

Patty's arm is clearly, and significantly longer than Bob's arm.....and...I'm happy to report.....the image of Bob cannot be up-scaled any more than it is.....his head would simply be too large to fit inside of Patty's 'costume head'.

That's a statement of fact and it's poop. Try countering Astro's measurements, my frightened friend, and answering his questions. I'm sure you will only run away from the questions I ask you. They're just too darn scary.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Akhenaten wrote:

Have you noticed that this clever technique has failed to convince anyone?

Of course my colorful drawings won't convince any of the "skeptics' here.

This is "Jref"....where NOTHING means ANYTHING, other than "Proof Positive"....i.e..."A Body".

The fact of the matter is.....I've never said that they would convince anyone....and I've never expected that they would.

On top of that.....I've never cared whether they convince anyone, or not.


Because....it simply doesn't matter who "believes" what.......and, that being the case, I'm not taking part in any "belief war" that you and the other skeptics here are.....senselessly.....engaging in.

(I'm amazed how many times people here make comments on "what Sweaty believes", rather than making comments on the specifics of the analysis that I post.)

The only thing that does matter is what the evidence for Bigfoot actually weighs.

That's all.

 

[kitakaze]

Of course my colorful drawings won't convince any of the "skeptics' here.

This is "Jref"....where NOTHING means ANYTHING, other than "Proof Positive"....i.e..."A Body".

Another intellectually dishonest manuever from an incredibly intellectually dishonest footer. You paint an untrue scenario where all skeptics will accept is a body. You do this because you suck at supporting your arguments and dealing with ours. You need to make strawmen. You need to invent unreasonable close-minded skeptics who will accept nothing less than a great big stinky Bigfoot on a slab. Not that it's unreasonable? Why don't we have a type specimen for what would be one of the largest land mammals in North America that lives from coast to coast? Is there any precedent for this, Sweaty? Yes or no. Simple question. Of course you don't mention the fact that we are asking for at the very least reliable evidence. And why no unambigious videos or photos of Bigfoot, Sweaty?

Because....it simply doesn't matter who "believes" what.......and, that being the case, I'm not taking part in any "belief war" that you and the other skeptics here are.....senselessly.....engaging in.

(I'm amazed how many times people here make comments on "what Sweaty believes", rather than making comments on the specifics of the analysis that I post.)

The only thing that does matter is what the evidence for Bigfoot actually weighs.

That's all.[/QUOTE]

People like Vort are winning because it's a winning situation when one gets closer to the truth.

You are a believer. Like a type of fanatic. You know I asked you some questions designed to show whether or not you are a believer. You know what these questions represent and you fear them. You refuse to answer them. You flee from these things because you are intellectually dishonest and cowardly. You want only to remain in Sweaty world where the Bigfoots roam, UFO's fly, and a civilization connected to ours stares at us from Mars.

You are woo. All woo. You are flailingly irrational. It's comical. It is to laugh.

Here are just some of the questions that make you cornerhuddle, Desperado:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4582631&postcount=1117

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4584334&postcount=1123

ETA: Here is a nice piece of Dune inspired music just for you...

Litany Against Fear:

 

[Tyinhell]

As for my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario....MD video

But.....

Now, when we compare that to the back of Patty's knees....we see the exact opposite....loose, separating suit...

'Men in Shaggy Suits' look like 'Men in Shaggy Suits', quite possibly without exception.

Umm Ok, so the shaggy looking, baggy legged figure in the MD video could be just a different species of Bigfoot than Patty.....

*stupid me for not thinking of that*