The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

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.

Sweaty, what is the point of the question? Astro has answered the most fundamental issue regarding the question. I have answered your idiotic question on post #1137. The answer is no.

This is a fine example of your intellectual dishonesty. Only you, Sweaty, would be so slimey as to dither with such stupid asinine questions. It's fall-down stupid. Instead of dealing with the flaws of your comparisons you flitter off on a sidetrail about whther or not it is wrong to think you may be right. It's total debate tactic filth. Why do you do that? Because you are afraid. Very, very afraid.

Simple question (notice a pattern?) - Is there a functional difference between you asking 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...

or if it is incorrect to think the world may be 6000 years old after reading the Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell.

Yes or no.

You are a very devious footer and insincere debate participant. In a competitive debate people people like you would be booed off the stage.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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".

Look at the way you worded your question. You stated based on this comparison . Since it is based on this flawed analysis (and all the other flawed analyses you have posted), then it is wrong to think that way.
Apparently, you don't even understand your own question.

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.

Because my "frightened friend", your question IS worded based on your comparisons. Therefore, I need to clearly state why your thinking is wrong.

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.

You are doing it again. You are stating there is something you see in the images that makes you want to think that way. Therefore, you are thinking this way based on your analysis. The analysis is flawed and therefore you are wrong to think this way.

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.

Apparently, you do not even understand your own question. I tried to explain it to you. Let's make it clear what I have stated so far:

1) If you are asking me if it is wrong for you to blindly believe/think/suspect anything about the PGF, I don't think it is wrong as long as you don't want me to blindly believe it as well.

2) If you are asking me if it is wrong for you to believe/think something about the PGF BASED ON ANY ANALYSIS OR COMPARISON THAT IS CLEARLY FLAWED, then it is wrong. You are using bad/poor analyses to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Again, if you want to show me a comparison or analysis that is NOT FLAWED or incorrect, feel free to do so. To date, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you have presented can not be explained due to improper scaling, misunderstanding of what is in the image, or within the margin of error for resolution of the image. Those are just the few flaws I have pointed out to you in the past. I am sure there are more.

Since you have so much time to keep hounding me about a question I have already answered (well, maybe not clearly for you since you fail to understand you own question), why not take the time and explain yourself by answering my questions for once.

 

[kitakaze]

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?

I think Astro mops the floor with Sweaty and I love to watch.

Goes like this...

SweatyYeti: Patty's arms are inhumanly long. Bob Heironimus' head simply can not fit within Patty's. It's too large.

Astrophotographer: Actually, no, Sweaty. Check these simple measurements. Bob's head is not too large at all nor are Patty's arms inhumanly long. They are, in fact, about the same length as BH's.

SY: Ummmm... Is it wrong (blah blah blah)

A: Dude, check the measurements. The comparisons are wrong. Can you just deal with those, please?

SY: You are scared! Is it wrong blah blah may be blah?

A: *facepalm* I've already explained this to you, Sweaty. You are the one not answering simple questions.

Not once does Sweaty even begin to address the flaws. What a lame manuever.

Sweaty is like a schoolyard bully only if you have bullies that you can walk up to and ask what their problem is and watch them flee in panic.

He must be in some kind of stupor to accuse other people of evading him when he is the greatest evader here.

 

[kitakaze]

Tip of the iceberg cornerhuddlers for Sweaty moving on to page #30 now:

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4588103&postcount=1146

 

[Vortigern99]

It occurs to me we're no longer even talking about bigfoot, or the PGF or its subject, or the possibility of BH being the guy in the suit... because there's nothing (or very little) left to discuss. We've jumped the shark here, beaten the bush till the birds have flown, waved at the ship as it sailed away. Now all that's left to do is bicker about ridiculous inconsequentials, like whether or not someone is "wrong" for believing in something when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I reiterate: WHO CARES?

Compare the last three pages of this thread to the enthralling and vigorous exchange that was going on prior to my arrival in February/March, and you'll see what I mean. Maybe something will happen that will re-invigorate the debate (possibly Munns' forthcoming announcement this August), but as it stands now... dammit, I'm bored.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Because my "frightened friend", your question IS worded based on your comparisons.
Therefore, I need to clearly state why your thinking is wrong.

It's clear that you don't understand my question, Astro.

I'm not talking about just "my comparisons" of Bob and Patty.

From my previous post...

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.

I'm refering to ALL of the images, and comparisons, of Bob's SQUARISH head and Patty's CONEY-ISH head.

 

[kitakaze]

Compare the last three pages of this thread to the enthralling and vigorous exchange that was going on prior to my arrival in February/March, and you'll see what I mean. Maybe something will happen that will re-invigorate the debate (possibly Munns' forthcoming announcement this August), but as it stands now... dammit, I'm bored.

I wish you had better, Vort.

When someone is arguing if it's wrong to be wrong, you know they're struggling to keep their head above water.

If Sweaty could muster some courage, integrity, and intellectual honesty, things with him might be different. All you can do inspite of that is point out all the flaws and weasel maneuvers he uses.

 

[kitakaze]

Astro wrote:



It's clear that you don't understand my question, Astro.

I'm not talking about just "my comparisons" of Bob and Patty.

From my previous post...





I'm refering to ALL of the images, and comparisons, of Bob's SQUARISH head and Patty's CONEY-ISH head.

1) Why don't you address Astro's measurements?

2) Have any profile shots of BH with no hat?

 

[Vortigern99]

I wish you had better, Vort.

When someone is arguing if it's wrong to be wrong, you know they're struggling to keep their head above water.

If Sweaty could muster some courage, integrity, and intellectual honesty, things with him might be different. All you can do inspite of that is point out all the flaws and weasel maneuvers he uses.

Alack, alas, my upcoming article is really just a re-hash of all the points we've already covered, page after page, in this and the PGF3 thread; the best thing about it will be that it gathers the most salient points (IMO) into one scathing review. Not much new except for some more in-depth analysis of the material folds I've mentioned in the PGF3 thread, which have largely gone unnoticed and received little comment.

 

[kitakaze]

It's clear that you don't understand my question, Astro.

I'm not talking about just "my comparisons" of Bob and Patty.

From my previous post...

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.

I'm refering to ALL of the images, and comparisons, of Bob's SQUARISH head and Patty's CONEY-ISH head.

Busted. You are being a conniving weasel trying to play games with Astro. You know Astro has you by the jewels so you dither about and change your game on the fly. You think this was going to slip by me?

It's clear Astro doesn't understand your question? He understands it, the games it represents, and the real issue behind it just fine. You are just pulling a sneaky little maneuver trying to slide some changes by.

Here the question you asked him:

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)??

Guess the fault lies with you, doesn't it, Sweaty?

 

[kitakaze]

Alack, alas, my upcoming article is really just a re-hash of all the points we've already covered, page after page, in this and the PGF3 thread; the best thing about it will be that it gathers the most salient points (IMO) into one scathing review. Not much new except for some more in-depth analysis of the material folds I've mentioned in the PGF3 thread, which have largely gone unnoticed and received little comment.

I do look forward to that. I was thinking I wish you had some better proponents to discuss with than this guy and his weasely games. They're getting scarce.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm refering to ALL of the images, and comparisons, of Bob's SQUARISH head and Patty's CONEY-ISH head.

It doesn't matter. Your comparisons are what you have presented. Once again, these are YOUR words:

based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)

There are no other images you have presented and I have yet to see anything that you have presented to indicate the claims you have made are not false.

Addittionally, you now state that Bob has a square head (before it was "too large"). Feel free to show the measurements on said "square head" to demonstrate what you say is true. Is it really square (i.e. flat on the sides of equal or approximately equal lengths) or is it just you belief that it is square? As for "Aunt bunny's" conish head, only the tippy top has a cone to it. That could be a simple function of the suit. Demonstrate this with measurements as well and not simply "I think (aka believe)" this is the case Sweaty. Otherwise, it continues to be wrong that you make these claims based on nothing more than "I think this might be the case therefore it must be".

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wroto:

you now state that Bob has a square head (before it was "too large").

I actually said...

Bob's SQUAR----ISH head

"Squarish" means resembling a square....not necessarily exactly square.



Also, regardless of which images, or comparisons you thought I was refering to...(or I was refering to)...there was still no reason why you couldn't have answered my simple question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', the first time I asked you.

The question is a very simple one....and can apply to any and all comparisons and images of Bob and Patty.....and only asks about whether there is REASON to think that something MAY BE. (not whether something definitely is.)


The amount of typing you've done to avoid answering such a simple, easy question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', is absolutely laughable, Astro....and shows that you are not interested in carrying on an honest, intelligent and friendly discussion.


It's okay...you don't have to answer the question.

 

[Correa Neto]

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


Contrary to your own statements...





.......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...






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...


[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.

Sweaty, thank you very much for once again showing how to not build an argument. Once again you failed to provide the required analysis criteria. And your excuses, ofuscations and evasions are yet another fail.

Check this out- uglyness is in the eye(s) of the beholder(*)! Ironic, eh? Why do you think everybody must agree with your statement that the beholder is ugly? You think its ugly? OK, but its your personal subjective impression. Actually I think that rendering is quite cool! On the other hand, I think crab spiders are ugly. However, I know people who find them beautifull. I also think geckos are beautifull. However, I know people who think they are icky and ugly. Who's right and why?

So, you attempt to ascribe a definitive character for a subjective perception (Patty's realism) based on another subjective perception (the beauty or uglyness of the beholder) is flawed.

Yes, you need to explain why my impression of low level of realism in Patty is less accurate than your impression of high realism. Yes, you need to establish non-subjective criteria and methods which, if employed by different people with the same input, will create similar results. You need to remove subjectivity from the equation if you want to use the alleged realism of Patty as an argument.

By the way, have you checked how realistic is the sheen of the hairs in the gorilla costume pic you posted?

(*)Actually there are relatively well-defined criteria for establishing beauty, especially when it comes to the human body.

 

[Astrophotographer]

"Squarish" means resembling a square....not necessarily exactly square.

Feel free to demonstrate it is "squarish". However, to be proper you need to demonstrate that his head is more "squarish" than the average person. BTW, you never mentioned "squarish" in your original question. You stated his head was too big.

Also, regardless of which images, or comparisons you thought I was refering to...(or I was refering to)...there was still no reason why you couldn't have answered my simple question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', the first time I asked you..

I did answer your question but you did not like the answer. At least I made an attempt to answer your question. Can you state the same? I think not. You still haven't answered my three questions.

The question is a very simple one....and can apply to any and all comparisons and images of Bob and Patty.....and only asks about whether there is REASON to think that something MAY BE. (not whether something definitely is.

And I satisfactorily answered the question. You just did not like the answer. You want a "yes" or "no" answer to a "loaded" question. You want me to state it is OK or not OK for you to think. I have said, repeatedly, it is OK to think whatever you desire. However, you cross the line into being wrong when you want me or anybody else to believe what you think based on flawed reasoning. You might as well ask me if it is reasonable for you to think the world may be flat or may be only 6,000 years old. I would give you the same answer for that one.

The amount of typing you've done to avoid answering such a simple, easy question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', is absolutely laughable, Astro....and shows that you are not interested in carrying on an honest, intelligent and friendly discussion.

I haven't "avoided" anything because I keep giving you the answer. It is one you don't like because you can't use it for your own personal agenda to make it appear that I am the one being unreasonable.

You are also being dishonest in that you refuse to answer any of the questions I asked. For some reason it bothers you to admit your own failures and, possibly, your own dishonest attempt to pass off poorly scaled and cropped images to make you argument appear correct. Your silence on this is deafening.

 

[kitakaze]

And I satisfactorily answered the question. You just did not like the answer. You want a "yes" or "no" answer to a "loaded" question. You want me to state it is OK or not OK for you to think. I have said, repeatedly, it is OK to think whatever you desire. However, you cross the line into being wrong when you want me or anybody else to believe what you think based on flawed reasoning. You might as well ask me if it is reasonable for you to think the world may be flat or may be only 6,000 years old. I would give you the same answer for that one.

Once again, my dishonest, frightened friend, Astro has answered your asinine, quibbling, loaded question. You can understand by Astro's careful explanation that a yes/no answer to the following 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)??"

...is no, it's not wrong for you to think it may be so if you like. However, if the question was as follows...

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

...then the answer is yes, it's wrong. You may try to weasel out of this but that is exactly what you did before polluted this discussion with an idiotic sidetrail about whether or not it's wrong to be wrong. You stated the above as well as Patty's arms being inhumanly long as fact. You did this in kneejerk fashion based on your own flawed comparisons and your will to believe. Rather than dealing with solid measurements and detailed counter-analyses, in a totally intellectually dishonest manner you evaded questions on the subject and ran down a rathole nattering Astro you be followed.

You do this because you are frightened, cowardly, and not interested in the truth, or any kind of sincere debate. You are basically demonstrating in perfect form the reason why Bigfoot enthusiasts and skeptics alike shun at so many boards.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is not a matter of "may be" or "is" IMO. The reason I consider it a loaded questions is because if I give a flat answer of "Yes", I get labeled as a close-minded skeptic not willing to look at the evidence or I am telling Sweaty he is not allowed to think. If I give a flat answer of "No", Sweaty can state that I must think it is possible that Bob's head is too big or too "squarish". Sweaty thinks he can trick me into give a one word answer so he can use it against me. This is why I have to elaborate in my answers. Sweaty does not like this because it does not give him the little bit of ammo he thinks he can acquire.

Sweaty's "thinking" is clearly based on what he WANTS to see in the images. It is not him exhibiting a skeptical thought like "I wonder if Bob's head is too big, I will find out by carefully examining images of him and the PGF subject and see if this is true". It is more like "Bob's head MUST be too big because I know that the PGF is a real bigfoot therefore, I think his head may be too big when I find what I want in image comparisons". There is a difference in methodology. One is an examination of the evidence and trying to make sure this is the case. It involves making sure the values are accurate. If it is not clear (as it appears to be in this case), then one can not conclude anything. The other is cherry picking based on trying to support a belief. That being, "Aha this head LOOKS too squarish or too big and therefore it must be the case." There is no double checking or trying to scrutinize the comparison for potential errors. It is driven by finding evidence that supports a belief and disregarding anything else.

Now Sweaty is stating I am not interested in honest debate. This will give him the excuse he desires not to answer any of my questions. Actually, I never really expected for him to answer my questions. He can't bring himself to admit his faults. This happens all the time with him.

 

[kitakaze]

I have to say that I agree with Vort in being disappointed with the direction of the discussion. Instead of having a lively and engaging debate about Bob Heironimus and Patty, we are mired in the intellectually dishonested ditherings and games of a Patty fanatic that seeks at every turn to obfuscate the questions that should be examined.

Here are a couple of statements by Sweaty:

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

That's all.

The amount of typing you've done to avoid answering such a simple, easy question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No', is absolutely laughable, Astro....and shows that you are not interested in carrying on an honest, intelligent and friendly discussion.

By these statements we can see that Sweaty is portraying himself as a person only interested in an honest, intelligent and friendly discussion about what the evidence for Bigfoot actually weighs.

I observe quite to the contrary. I observe Sweaty is a hardcore fanatical believer who is intellectually dishonest and cowardly. I observe that he uses flawed reasonings and arguments and when given detailed information countering his belief borne proclamations, he evades and runs away. I think he uses underhanded tactics in debate and lacks the integrity of character needed to participate in an actual sincere debate.

So here are two claims...

1) Sweaty is an honest debater seeking only to weigh the evidence for Bigfoot in an unbiased manner.

2) Sweaty is an intellectually dishonest Bigfoot believer whose arguments are driven by the will to believe in Bigfoot and a refusal to admit flawed reasonings.

I have observed countless evidences that support the second claim and will present some of those relevant evidences in upcoming posts. It is an objective question that I think can be proven one way or the other.

 

[jhunter1163]

I also think geckos are beautifull. However, I know people who think they are icky and ugly. Who's right and why?

The people who disagree with you. Because geckos ARE ugly.

 

[kitakaze]

Also I would like to get this conversation back on track to an examination of the veracity of Bob Heironimus' claims of being Patty. To this end there are some points we can settle and move forward.

1) Bob Heironimus' head is not too big to fit within Patty's. By measurements of Astro we can see that Bob's head measurement in a suit is in fact very close to Patty's.

2) Patty's arms are in no way inhumanly long. They are, in fact, when measured very close to the length of Bob's arms when in a Bigfoot costume.

3) When one attempts to scale a photograph of Patty and BH in a suit in the same stance as accurately as possible, we quickly see that Patty and BH are in fact pretty much the same height.

4) All of these above points were already proven by mangler's Poser 7 skeletal overlay. I have actually five sources that put Patty's height around 6 ft.

5) The attempt to make it seem that mangler has hoaxed us by using different skeletons has been destroyed and shown to be the dishonest manuever of a fanatical believer. The attempt to make it seem that Patty's head was too small to be BH and the arms inhumanly long were likewise destroyed.

6) The argument that Patty's upper torso is too wide and would restrict arm movement if it was in fact BH in a suit has also shown as a believer's ploy.

Now then, with these important things established we can then move on to the truly important issues. Bob Heironimus is the only person ever to have claimed to be Patty. Bob Heironimus is a longtime friend and neighbour of Bob Gimlin. Bob Heironimus lives within easy walking distance of Patterson and Gimlin. Bob Heironimus was involved with Patterson and Gimlin at the time the PGF was made. Bob Heironimus as the same proportions as Patty. Patterson had money which he swindled from the Radfords to pay for a suit at the time of the PGF. The subject looks very comparable to an artistic representation of the female Bigfoot from the William Roe story that Patterson ripped off and presented in his book as his own. The book came out only the year before the PGF and the Roes story plays like a storyboard for the Patty encounter as detailed by Patterson.

These are the issues and they are glaring. Let these be debated and discussed and the fanatical believers who try and distract from these issues be swept aside and treated as the intellectual douchebags that they are.