The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Akhenaten]

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

Well, I guess the next question almost asks itself then, doesn't it?

Before it does though, I'll ask you what name you use to describe rubbish that people post to internet message boards even though they know it's useless and unwanted? Most of the grown-ups seem to call it spam, and I was just curious about whether you'd heard of it before. Apparently it's very unpopular.

Anyway, the self-asking question is: Why?

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

No this isn't "Jref" This is actually Earth. I think I've spotted your problem.

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

Okay, so we've definitely established that it's spam then. That was quick and easy.

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

So you would be . . . a spammer?

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.

Not sure what you mean by "belief war". Wouldn't there need to be two sides for that? It seems that all the skeptics are pretty much on the same side here, and there isn't another side. It's obvious that you can't take part because all you have is spam, as we've established, so I'm left wondering, who's fighting this war of which you speak?

(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.)

I thought we covered this. It's spam and people make comments on it all the time. They say it's rubbish, which sounds to me as though it's not even very good spam.

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

Today is your lucky day. I have the answer you seek.


See this dot: .


It's much heavier than the evidence.

That's all.

For now. But you really should think about this spamming habit before you get a reputation for doing it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

A lot of people, including myself, have shown how flawed your analyses are. You choose to ignore the criticism, not answer questions, or turn a blind eye to the flaws that are pointed out.

Take the latest effort to use two improperly scaled images to make it appear that Bob's head was too big. A little effort on your part would have revealed the improper scaling. When you got the data point you desired, you proclaimed it as proof instead of checking your work. This is either sloppy analysis or an analysis based on a belief that Bob's head must be too big. The reason you want to believe Bob's head is too big (like the other false claim of his arms being too short) is because it means that Bob can't be in the suit. You want Bob not to fit into the suit so bad that you will do anything, including using a flawed analysis, to try and prove that point. This is why I state you "believe" things. I have yet to see any of your analyses not blinded by this will to believe.

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

That's all.

Thow out the PGF and Bigfoot has absolutely no good evidence. Recently Brian Dunning stated, "As I often say, you can stack cowpies as high as you want, they won’t turn into a bar of gold. Good evidence is composed of good evidence, not lots of bad evidence.". Footprints and buttprints can be faked, "nests" can be faked, "howls" can be faked, people can lie for all sorts of reasons, and people can mistake various "creatures" of the forest that do exist as being an actual bigfoot. The weight is practically nothing. The PGF is the linchpin in the Bigfoot evidence and if it turns out to be a hoax (and there is circumstantial evidence to suggest this is true), then the bigfoot evidence collapses like a house of cards.

It is up to the proponents that state Bigfoot is a living breathing animal/being/whatever to provide evidence to support the claim. Until you (and all other proponents) provide solid evidence to support the film, the PGF will always be a guy (Bob or somebody else) in a suit.

 

[kitakaze]

A lot of people, including myself, have shown how flawed your analyses are. You choose to ignore the criticism, not answer questions, or turn a blind eye to the flaws that are pointed out.

Take the latest effort to use two improperly scaled images to make it appear that Bob's head was too big. A little effort on your part would have revealed the improper scaling. When you got the data point you desired, you proclaimed it as proof instead of checking your work. This is either sloppy analysis or an analysis based on a belief that Bob's head must be too big. The reason you want to believe Bob's head is too big (like the other false claim of his arms being too short) is because it means that Bob can't be in the suit. You want Bob not to fit into the suit so bad that you will do anything, including using a flawed analysis, to try and prove that point. This is why I state you "believe" things. I have yet to see any of your analyses not blinded by this will to believe.



Throw out the PGF and Bigfoot has absolutely no good evidence. Recently Brian Dunning stated, "As I often say, you can stack cowpies as high as you want, they won’t turn into a bar of gold. Good evidence is composed of good evidence, not lots of bad evidence.". Footprints and buttprints can be faked, "nests" can be faked, "howls" can be faked, people can lie for all sorts of reasons, and people can mistake various "creatures" of the forest that do exist as being an actual bigfoot. The weight is practically nothing. The PGF is the linchpin in the Bigfoot evidence and if it turns out to be a hoax (and there is circumstantial evidence to suggest this is true), then the bigfoot evidence collapses like a house of cards.

It is up to the proponents that state Bigfoot is a living breathing animal/being/whatever to provide evidence to support the claim. Until you (and all other proponents) provide solid evidence to support the film, the PGF will always be a guy (Bob or somebody else) in a suit.

Fantastic. Bravo.

Astro, your analyses, arguments, and illustrations of Sweaty's flawed reasonings and desperate will to believe are excellent as always. I know Sweaty's intellectually dishonest tactics in debate very well and I can preemptively predict his response to that post. He will intentionally disregard everything but the parts I have bolded.

The first bolded sentence he would respond to thanking you for admitting that the PGF is good evidence thought you meant no such thing. This will be followed with one of these:

The last sentence he will utterly enjoy as it gives him an excuse to continue ignoring addressing his garbage arguments and proclamations. He will sidetrack into an argument about how the PGF is not a man in a suit by default but rather an unknown commodity. He will ignore the fact that the PGF is now and always has been easily explained as a man in a suit. Any of the glaring indicators of hoax he will dismiss as ratholes and sidetrails. He might even be dumb enough to cite the issues that yourself and the rest of us have destroyed such as the big head, long arms, and wide torso as trumping holy crap problems such as Bob Heironimus' involvement with Roger Patterson at the time the PGF was made.

There is only one thing that Sweaty's crap arguments and desperate attempts to proclaim his fanatic beliefs real deserves...



*flush*

 

[kitakaze]

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...

You can not define and qualify your subjective opinion and you know it. If Patty is so realistic, why does nearly everyone who looks at it dismiss it as a fake? That would be including some of the greatest fx masters in the business.

Also, I dare you to name on person here who has been intellectually dishonest to you (projection much?) and quote the post in which it occurred. You are known throughout many hubs of Bigfootery for your intellectual dishonesty and underhandedness so this is pretty ripe coming from you.

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.

How do you know the Harley Hoffman video is unambiguously fake?



How do you know the Paris Roubaix Studiodrome videos are unambiguously fake?





How do you know the Bigfoot photos at 00:21 and 00:31 are fake?

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.

Name three very intelligent people that think Patty most likely is a real Bigfoot that haven't been fooled by know Bigfoot hoaxes.

I'll give you a head start - Bill Munns. (Yes, Bill. I'm saying you're intelligent.)

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


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/gorilla1-1.gif[/qimg]


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.

Bad example. Crap example. Intellectually dishonest example. Let's see the Bronston DeLone Bigfoot filmed under the same conditions as Patty or the Jack Link's sasquatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5I6HgA-CI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2-dz32CcK4&feature=related

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

Until you (and all other proponents) provide solid evidence to support the film, the PGF will always be a guy (Bob or somebody else) in a suit.

The subject of the film IS 'whatever it is'.....regardless of whether Bigfoot proponents ever prove it to be a real Bigfoot, or it's ever proven to be a hoax.

You're more than welcome to 'believe' that Patty is a Bob-in-the-suit, Astro. It's fine with me.



On a related note.........kitakaze wrote, a few days ago, something about me giving Crowlogic a "free pass" on her thoughts, that Bigfoot doesn't exist in Upstate New York.

He's absolutely right....I have given Miss Crow a free pass to think whatever she wants to think about Bigfoot's existence, along with everybody else in the entire world.......including Astro, Greg, kitty, and the rest of the "Give me Proof" crowd.


I've stated before, more than once, that I think people are entitled to have their own opinions, and thoughts, regarding the evidence for Bigfoot.
That doesn't mean that "everybody is RIGHT" in what they think, only that they have "the right", or the freedom, to think whatever they want to.

I'm not trying to twist anybody's arm, and make them say "Uncle"....or "I believe".


While I would prefer that Crow agree with me about Bigfoot in NY, I certainly ain't a gonna throw a 'nutty'...(like the Great Kaze does, in all of his posts (Edited to add a fresh example, from the Great One......."There is only one thing that Sweaty's crap arguments and desperate attempts to proclaim his fanatic beliefs real deserves..."

") ).....if she doesn't "fall in line" with my way of thinking.


Astro.......enjoy your "belief in Bob"!

 

[Astrophotographer]

You're more than welcome to 'believe' that Patty is a Bob-in-the-suit, Astro. It's fine with me.

The difference in our "beliefs" is that I don't try to prove it is Bob that is in the suit. To me it is a guy in a suit but it does not have to be Bob. There is circumstantial evidence that Bob could be the guy in the suit. He claims to be the guy in the suit. To date, despite your protestations, it has not been shown he could not be the guy in the suit. Your efforts so far have failed because your analyses are flawed for various reasons.

I am on the high ground here if you have not figured it out. My "beliefs" take no great leaps of faith or assume anything extraordinary. There is no good evidence to date that a real bigfoot exists. This means that the PGF is:

1) A real live unknown animal that nobody has photographed conclusively in the past forty years
2) A guy in a suit.

Choosing #1 means you "believe" that Bigfoot exists the same way people used to believe in elves, fairies, sea monsters, etc. As I always have stated, provide me with good evidence and I will change my opinion. This is the difference between scientific reasoning and belief in pseudoscience. I am willing to change my "beliefs" the instant I get good evidence that Bigfoot exists. What will it take to convince you that Bigfoot does not exist and/or the PGF is a hoax?

P.S. Still not answering questions Sweaty? Just in case, I will remind you and have added one more:

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?
4. Why did you use improperly scaled images to try and demonstrate that Bob's head was too big?

Also there is the question above about what would it take for you to change your "beliefs" about bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

What will it take to convince you that Bigfoot does not exist and/or the PGF is a hoax?

To be convinced (100% certain) of those things...I would need to see proof of those things.

Is that not logical?


To think that there is simply a chance...a percentage of probability...some odds......that those things are true, I would need to see evidence which carries some weight., (which, co-incidentally, is measured in terms of "chances", "odds", or "probability factors".)

We do have evidence of Bigfoot's existence....and based on that evidence, I think there is a good chance that Bigfoot does exist...though I'm not 100% convinced that it does.

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?

Do the phrases in bold, above, mean that your answer to my question is...."No"?

P.S. Still not answering questions Sweaty? Just in case, I will remind you and have added one more:

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?
4. Why did you use improperly scaled images to try and demonstrate that Bob's head was too big?

I'll answer those questions as soon as I can.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Akhenaten wrote:

I'll ask you what name you use to describe rubbish that people post to internet message boards even though they know it's useless and unwanted?

Most of the grown-ups seem to call it spam, and I was just curious about whether you'd heard of it before. Apparently it's very unpopular.

The value of analysis doesn't lie in whether or not a 'Jref skeptic' believes it or not....it lies in the correctness of the analysis, itself.


You are equating those two things....a Jref 'skeptic' accepting, and believing some analysis, and the analysis being correct.

Occasionally, Jref skeptics have disagreed with each other's assessments of the analysis....so, therefore, those 2 things cannot be equated, as a general principle.


Bottom line....just because a Jref skeptic doesn't "accept" some bit of analysis, doesn't mean that that analysis is wrong, and has no value....or is "Spam".

You're either very confused, or very dumb.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

We do have evidence of Bigfoot's existence....and based on that evidence, I think there is a good chance that Bigfoot does exist...though I'm not 100% convinced that it does.

What "evidence" is that?

 

[Vortigern99]

Anyone is free to believe anything s/he likes. The recently-created religions of The Flying Spaghetti Monster*, the Church of the Sub-Genius**, Russell's teapot***, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn**** are all excellent examples of, and testaments to, this axiom.

But science and skeptical inquiry are held to higher degrees of evidence than mere belief. Belief requires no evidence; indeed, faith in the unseen thrives on, and is predicated by, the very absence of evidence. A scientific hypothesis, on the other hand, requires data, analysis of that data according to known quantities and observable phenomena, sound conclusions based on that analysis, error analysis and finally peer review, before a hypothesis can be accepted as a working theory.

So far nothing distinguishes SweatyYeti's assertions from the purely faith-based and often satirical baloney on display in the above-listed mock religions. Murky data, flawed analysis, erroneous conclusions and worst, a refusal to accept peer review, mark Yeti's approach to the broad question of bigfoot's existence, and specifically the subject of the P-G film, as hopelessly wrong, prematurely self-congratulatory and irrevocably dunder-headed.

I for one will not entertain his nonsense a moment longer. Either Yeti revamps his approach to the material, or I will decline further comment on his posts.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius ("The Church claims that true SubGeniuses are not actually human, but rather are descendants of the Yeti." )
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

[Astrophotographer]

To be convinced (100% certain) of those things...I would need to see proof of those things.

Is that not logical?

Yes, it is. However, you do not apply it to the reality of the creature called Bigfoot. There is no proof that is good. Therefore, you rely upon "belief" to get you to accept the idea that Bigfoot exists.

We do have evidence of Bigfoot's existence....and based on that evidence, I think there is a good chance that Bigfoot does exist...though I'm not 100% convinced that it does.

The evidence is very poor otherwise, scientists would be more willing to accept it. The evidence is all based on a preconceived notion/belief in bigfoot. Try this one on for size. List five pieces of evidence you find most convincing for why Bigfoot exists. I am not talking about ambiguous things like the northwest is so vast it can hide a population of bigfeet, I am talking about real concrete evidence.

Do the phrases in bold, above, mean that your answer to my question is...."No"?

I have answered your question numerous times in various ways. You just can't comprehend my answers. Based on the way you rephrased your question, you are wrong because your comparisons are wrong.

I'll answer those questions as soon as I can.

These are not difficult questions. They require very little thought since they are questions based on what you have stated or presented. I won't hold my breath because I know you will never answer them.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The value of analysis doesn't lie in whether or not a 'Jref skeptic' believes it or not....it lies in the correctness of the analysis, itself.

People have clearly showed how flawed each of your analyses are wrong. Instead of providing counterarguments or discussing the flaws, you have ignored the criticisms. It is a game you play. You hope that nobody will notice that you are avoiding the problems with your analyses. The problem is, a lot of people notice and it makes you appear frightened" of the fact that you do not know what you are doing.

 

[kitakaze]

The subject of the film IS 'whatever it is'.....regardless of whether Bigfoot proponents ever prove it to be a real Bigfoot, or it's ever proven to be a hoax.

Thank you for not disappointing. Simple question - is the PGF far easier explained by a man in a suit? Yes or no. If not, why?

You're more than welcome to 'believe' that Patty is a Bob-in-the-suit, Astro. It's fine with me.

Simple question - is there good reason for me or anybody to believe Bob Heironimus was Patty?

He's absolutely right....I have given Miss Crow a free pass to think whatever she wants to think about Bigfoot's existence, along with everybody else in the entire world.......including Astro, Greg, kitty, and the rest of the "Give me Proof" crowd.

What about the "Give me reliable evidence" crowd or the "Give me an unambiguous video or photo" crowd? You keep dishonestly painting us as only interested in proof.

I've stated before, more than once, that I think people are entitled to have their own opinions, and thoughts, regarding the evidence for Bigfoot.
That doesn't mean that "everybody is RIGHT" in what they think, only that they have "the right", or the freedom, to think whatever they want to.

(Edited to add a fresh example, from the Great One......."There is only one thing that Sweaty's crap arguments and desperate attempts to proclaim his fanatic beliefs real deserves..."

") )

Think of me like Gretzky. All my slapshots are going right through your arguments. Let's be frank, though. I called your arguments crap. Which weren't? Simple question - were your arguments about Patty's head and arms correct? Yes or no.

Astro.......enjoy your "belief in Bob"!

Bob Heironimus' proportions match Patty's. All your attempts to say otherwise have faceplanted. Bob is the only one ever to have claimed to be Patty. Bob lives within shouting distance of his friend Gimlin and Patterson. Bob was involved with Patterson at the time the PGF was made.

Simple question - given these facts and that all the points you said trump these facts have turned out to be false, is it simply a matter of belief that BH was Patty or is there strong information to indicate he was in fact Patty? Yes or no.

 

[kitakaze]

The value of analysis doesn't lie in whether or not a 'Jref skeptic' believes it or not....it lies in the correctness of the analysis, itself.

Simple question - was your proclamation that BH's head could not fit inside Patty's or that Patty's arms are inhumanly long correct? Yes or no.

Bottom line....just because a Jref skeptic doesn't "accept" some bit of analysis, doesn't mean that that analysis is wrong, and has no value....or is "Spam".

You're either very confused, or very dumb.

Bottom line - an analysis being based on flawed information that makes erroneous conclusions like BH's head was to big or Patty's arms are inhumanly long makes it wrong.

You are either very confused or very dumb.

 

[kitakaze]

What "evidence" is that?

For Sweaty it is...

1) PGF

2) MDF

3) Joyce

4) Freeman footage.

 

[kitakaze]

Preemptive Sweaty predictions...

Yes, it is. However, you do not apply it to the reality of the creature called Bigfoot. There is no proof that is good. Therefore, you rely upon "belief" to get you to accept the idea that Bigfoot exists.

Sweaty quibbles use of the words "no proof that is good" and asks what kind of proodf is bad followed by one of these: This will of course disregard the point that all evidence for Bigfoot submitted is weak.

I have answered your question numerous times in various ways. You just can't comprehend my answers. Based on the way you rephrased your question, you are wrong because your comparisons are wrong.

In a intellectually dishonest manner Sweaty will take the two answers of yes and my answer of no as being confusion regarding his facepalm-stupid loaded question. This will conveniently disregard the fact that his comparisons were in error.

These are not difficult questions. They require very little thought since they are questions based on what you have stated or presented. I won't hold my breath because I know you will never answer them.

Run, Sweaty. Run. We know exactly what his "later" means.

 

[xblade]

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)??

Based on that comparison, Patty is small enough to fit inside Bob's suit. So, how is it that Patty is too big to be Bob, yet Patty is small enough to fit inside a suit worn by Bob? Have we just uncovered yet another ability on an endless list of bigfoot abilities?

 

[Akhenaten]

The value of analysis doesn't lie in whether or not a 'Jref skeptic' believes it or not....it lies in the correctness of the analysis, itself.

This statement would have an air of truth about it but for the phrase "Jref skeptic believes". As you know, Jref skeptics seem to believe both everything and nothing at the same time, thus rendering belief wonderfully useless to them in their pursuit of a correct analysis.

You are equating those two things....a Jref 'skeptic' accepting, and believing some analysis, and the analysis being correct.

Why do you guess when you could just as easily ask me and end up with the right answer. You had about a million-to-one chance of guessing two things that I would equate, and needless to say you got it worng^CF. Now you'll have to post again and ask nicely in order to get the right answer. That's not very efficient, is it?

Occasionally, Jref skeptics have disagreed with each other's assessments of the analysis....so, therefore, those 2 things cannot be equated, as a general principle.

Yeah that's why I wouldn't try to equate two dissimilar things. Since you seem to understand the principle it's a little difficult to figure out why you don't put into practice. Or at least it would be, if I was interested in figuring out why you do things.

Bottom line....just because a Jref skeptic doesn't "accept" some bit of analysis, doesn't mean that that analysis is wrong, and has no value....or is "Spam".

Perhaps it doesn't, but when all of them disagree with you I'm entitled to draw some conclusions. I'm fairly sure I could obtain a consensus opinion on that view, if I had to.

You're either very confused, or very dumb.

More than likely both, as a matter of fact, but that doesn't help your arguments one iota, now does it?

.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

I have answered your question numerous times in various ways.

Since you won't even clearly state whether or not your answer to my question is a 'Yes' or a 'No'...I'll ask you the question again....

Is it wrong (incorrect, without reason) 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)?


I'm not asking you if "I am correct, in my analysis".
I have no idea why you keep making reference to that, when it has nothing to do with the question I've been asking you.


I'm simply asking you if it is incorrect (without reason) to look at the images of Bob's and Patty's heads, and think that there is a chance that Bob's head may be too large to have fit inside of Patty's sharply-angled conehead.


Do you understand the meaning of my question, Astro...or would you like a more in-depth explanation?


I'm more than willing to try to make the question even easier for you to understand, if need be.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yeti, you're behaving like a schoolyard bully. It's unattractive at best, and doesn't exactly inspire a willingness to engage in debate with you. The especial irony here is that while you decline to answer question after question after question, and ignore rebuttal after refutation after error analysis, you badger and hound poor Astrophotographer with your incessant and irrelevant questioning of his opinions regarding the morality of your belief system.

The only correct answer is WHO CARES?