The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[LONGTABBER PE]

Don't take a dump on the board, and call it "analysis".

I would recommend you heed your own advice. Even back when I was in the 51-49 pro PGF camp by a thread, your "analysis" was a textbook example of how NOT to analyze a picture. I told you that then, showed you your errors and basically wrote you off.

 

[Drewbot]

More crayon lines...with more good news for us Patty fans....

This comparison uses Bob's unsuited head...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PattyHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/BobHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg[/qimg]

If this isn't a complete, and utter face-palm inducing PFAIL!!!111, I don't know what is.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Don't take a dump on the board, and call it "analysis".

No measurements and no values. Still playing with crayons Sweaty? Your argument fails because you are now switching things about. Your initial claim was that Bob's head was too big. It isn't. Now you are stating the tippy top of Bob's head is too square and can not fit into the tippy top of "Bunny's" head. This can be accounted for features in the suit if you haven't figured that out. The top of the head can be round or pointed. In the case of Bob talking about a football helmet, the sides could have been removed and it could have been just on the top of his head. If you have noticed, some of the old style football helmets were pointed at the top! Didn't Bob mention that his eyes were not lined up with the holes in the suit as well? This would put "might be bob in a suit"'s head lower than the eyes indicate.

I actually did measurements. You haven't. You just keep drawing lines on objects that may or may not be scaled correctly. We are quite aware you have done this at least once so why should I trust your scaling of Bob without a suit and "bunny"? You continue to waste everybody's time.

BTW, these are not "high resolution" images. These images in themselves are going to introduce errors because of the pixel size.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

No measurements and no values.

I actually did measurements. You haven't. You just keep drawing lines on objects...

You don't even understand the concept of "measuring".


Measurements can be absolute, or relative.

The comparisons I've done contain relative measurements of Bob's and Patty's body dimensions and proportions.

In the case of Bob talking about a football helmet, the sides could have been removed and it could have been just on the top of his head.

Hey....whatever works! 'Make-believe' can be a wonderful thing!

 

[Astrophotographer]

You don't even understand the concept of "measuring".

Measurements can be absolute, or relative.

The comparisons I've done contain relative measurements of Bob's and Patty's body dimensions and proportions.

Define "Relative" Measurements. List them for everyone here. Show us the values of these relative measurements so we can evaluate your work. Otherwise, you are drawing subjective lines on a photo and guessing. You don't even show the whole body for use to see if you scaled them properly, which, as best I can tell, you didn't.

The problem is you are drawing lines on a 2-d image. To you the line of Bob's head should match the line of "bunny"'s head. However, we don't know if the line is at the same point. Additionally, the perspectives for the two subjects heads are different. This brings into a question of if the lines are a matter of Bob being more face-on than "bunny". It is a subjective measurement at best open to potential errors. You have something better to show us?

BTW, are you EVER going to answer my questions or are you just hoping that everyone will forget?

 

[drapier]

Hey....whatever works! 'Make-believe' can be a wonderful thing!

I can't believe SweatyYeti has fooled you guys for so long. Haven't you realized that he's a performance artist in the mold of Andy Kaufman who strings his audience along with an outrageous fictional persona espousing absurd beliefs?

I have to hand it to him for keeping it up for so long, but come on! Even when he throws out a line like the one above, I bet someone is going to take his arguments seriously.

"'Make-believe' can be a wonderful thing!" This criticism is coming from the same fictional persona that argues that there was a civilization on Mars.

If you have paid attention to Sweaty's postings over the years, you will see that there are plenty of times like this one when Sweaty gives metaphorical "wink" to those who have clued into his act.

Well done, Sweaty Yeti.

 

[Drewbot]

BTW, are you EVER going to answer my questions or are you just hoping that everyone will forget?

I have forgotten your questions to Sweaty. I don't retain them, because I just assume Sweaty won't be answering them. I was right.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sweaty must be laughing his rear end off...

 

[kitakaze]

I have forgotten your questions to Sweaty. I don't retain them, because I just assume Sweaty won't be answering them. I was right.

Here they are...

Tip of the iceberg cornerhuddlers for Sweaty moving on to page #32 now:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1117

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1146

These questions scare Sweaty silly. Going on several pages now.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here they are...

Tip of the iceberg cornerhuddlers for Sweaty moving on to page #32 now:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1117

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1146

These questions scare Sweaty silly. Going on several pages now.

As for post #1117.....that's your post, kitty...(not Astro's).....and I have NO interest in answering your questions, due to the huge amount of garbage (false accusations, misrepresentations, disrespect...and more) that comes along with the legitimate, reasonable questions that are in your posts.

It's not a matter of an occasional accusation, it's the volume of all of the stinking garbage in your posts that leaves me no other option than to simply 'walk away' from your crap.

Put another way....the 'reasonable stuff' gets thrown out with the sewege it's floating in.


As I said last night.....to me, you're nothing more than a ranting, raving joke on this board.



As for post #1146...


Astro wrote:

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.

I've already answered #3....last night.


As for #1...

1. How did you compute/analyze/determine this statement was true?...

SweatyYeti wrote:

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...

Very simple....by looking at the images, I can see that Bob's squarish head is significantly bigger than Patty's cone-shape-ed head.


It may have been inappropriate for me to state, as a definite, that Bob's head was too large, simply judging by the comparison where his head is carpeted.....but two other comparisons I've done....using Bob's unsuited head....support, and increase the likelihood, or probability, that Bob's head is too large to have fit inside of Patty's head.
And they do so, extremely close to the point of proving it.



As for #2...(this is the question that I'm really scared of...)...

Can you define "very clearly"?

Sure...."Very Clearly"......means something is very easy to see, or understand.



As for #4...

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

I don't know that they are improperly scaled....at least not to a degree anywhere near enough to make a significant difference in the relative sizes of their heads.

Can you provide the post number where they were shown to be improperly scaled, Astro?

 

[kitakaze]

As for post #1117.....that's your post, kitty...(not Astro's).....and I have NO interest in answering your questions, due to the huge amount of garbage (false accusations, misrepresentations, disrespect...and more) that comes along with the legitimate, reasonable questions that are in your posts.

It's not a matter of an occasional accusation, it's the volume of all of the stinking garbage in your posts that leaves me no other option than to simply 'walk away' from your crap.

Put another way....the 'reasonable stuff' gets thrown out with the sewege it's floating in.


As I said last night.....to me, you're nothing more than a ranting, raving joke on this board.

Nice try, my frightened friend.

I have defended and substantiated every single accusation I've made of you. I've seen no evidence of any misrepresentations and taken great care to back what I say. Sure, there is disrespect there. You've earned it and you certainly can't use it as an excuse not to answer questions that are legitimate and reasonable by your own admission. I've caught you being disrespectful to neltana, Greg, and Astro after using that reasoning with me so you're just being a hypocrite.

You've always been disrespectful to people you view as against your beliefs so don't try to feed me some whining garbage. You give it as good as you get and very often when you weren't getting it at all.

The questions I have asked are very important to this discussion and the contributions you've made to it so why not just drop the pretense and evasion and answer them?

No excuses needed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is nice to see Sweaty finally get around to answering the simple questions.

I've already answered #3....last night.

No you didn't. The question had to do with the measurements i used on your images. You now have produced new comparison images where you once again use subjective lines on two subjects that are improperly scaled and are not positioned the same. My question had to do with the measurements I made on the images provided. Your silence on this means I was correct. This is why you shifted your claim from Bob's head is too big to Bob's head is not pointy enough.

Very simple....by looking at the images, I can see that Bob's squarish head is significantly bigger than Patty's cone-shape-ed head..

You changed your story. Back on post #1126, you stated that Bob's head was too big to fit inside "Bunny"'s head. Now the problem has to do with the shape of Bob's head.

Sure...."Very Clearly"......means something is very easy to see, or understand.

Obviously, it was not very clear and when measured it was not too big. This is why you changed the focus to the top of "bunny's" head. So far, it is not so obvious.

I don't know that they are improperly scaled....at least not to a degree anywhere near enough to make a significant difference in the relative sizes of their heads.

Can you provide the post number where they were shown to be improperly scaled, Astro?

Lets try post #1126 where you stated:
"And these images..."

The images were clearly out of scale (roughly 30% larger for Bob's picture based on what I had to do to rescale "bunny"). At this point you were stating that Bob's head was too big and not too pointy or too squarish. I described this and gave a closer scaling in post #1130. I guess you missed that post or just chose to ignore it when you realized you were in error.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sure, there is disrespect there.

You've earned it and you certainly can't use it as an excuse not to answer questions that are legitimate and reasonable by your own admission.

I certainly can use it as a reason.


Here's one of the words I highlighted in my post...


'volume'.

Think about it......and enjoy your stay in the corner you painted yourself into, kitty.

 

[kitakaze]

I certainly can use it as a reason.


Here's one of the words I highlighted in my post...


'volume'.

Like I said, Sweaty, whatever excuse you need to keep running. I know you won't answer those questions because they will show your fanaticism. You're just a believer who can't handle real debate.

Think about it......and enjoy your stay in the corner you painted yourself into, kitty.

It is to laugh. What corner would that be, Sweaty? The one where you refuse to answer simple, important questions? That's nothing new. Meanwhile I fear no question you can use your believer's mind to think up.

The area that I am in and you are not is the one populated by rational, intellectually honest thinkers who welcome sincere debate. You can't deal with such people. We all know and we all laugh.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It is nice to see Sweaty finally get around to answering the simple questions.



No you didn't. The question had to do with the measurements i used on your images. You now have produced new comparison images where you once again use subjective lines on two subjects that are improperly scaled and are not positioned the same. My question had to do with the measurements I made on the images provided. Your silence on this means I was correct. This is why you shifted your claim from Bob's head is too big to Bob's head is not pointy enough.




You changed your story. Back on post #1126, you stated that Bob's head was too big to fit inside "Bunny"'s head. Now the problem has to do with the shape of Bob's head.




Obviously, it was not very clear and when measured it was not too big. This is why you changed the focus to the top of "bunny's" head. So far, it is not so obvious.



Lets try post #1126 where you stated:

"And these images..."

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/BobBigBrains1.jpghttp://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty and Bob/PattySmallBrain1Flipped.jpg

The images were clearly out of scale (roughly 30% larger for Bob's picture based on what I had to do to rescale "bunny"). At this point you were stating that Bob's head was too big and not too pointy or too squarish. I described this and gave a closer scaling in post #1130. I guess you missed that post or just chose to ignore it when you realized you were in error.

Just one thing, for now....regarding the statement I highlighted in bold.

I never stated that those two images were "to scale".

That's why I did not refer to those images as a "comparison"...but as "these images"....and that's why I didn't draw any lines from Patty to Bob. They weren't meant to be 'precise, scaled comparisons'.

Those images were posted only to show the difference in the angles of the upper half of their heads.
And that's the reason why I reversed the image of Patty...because it is...exactly....like getting a fresh look at the sharp angle of her head, when it's seen in a very different way.


Also...if you take another look at that post (1126), you'll see that right above those images, is the lined comparison of 'Patty and Bob-in-a-Rug'...and right above it I wrote... "Like this comparison...".

Bottom line....I represented the lined comparison as a comparison.
....and I represented the 'two images' as two images.


Do you understand?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

You changed your story. Back on post #1126, you stated that Bob's head was too big to fit inside "Bunny"'s head.

Now the problem has to do with the shape of Bob's head.

It's like I'm talking to a first-grader.


Astro.....thems is 2 VERY RELATED things.

Bob's head appears to be TOO LARGE....AND....the reason WHY it appears to be TOO LARGE is due to the difference in the SHAPES of the upper halves of Bob's and Patty's heads.


ARE YOU FOLLOWING THIS, ASTRO???
OR SHOULD I START OVER AGAIN, AND GO OVER IT MORE SLOWLY, FOR YOU?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I never stated that those two images were "to scale".

It is grossly misleading. You had stated that Bob's head was too big based on comparing these images (go look at your post again) and then showed these two images. These images were not to scale and could not be used for comparison. I guess the only thing worse than being incorrect or dishonest is trying to spin it to make it appear you were right all along.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Bob's head appears to be TOO LARGE....AND....the reason WHY it appears to be TOO LARGE is due to the difference in the SHAPES of the upper halves of Bob's and Patty's heads.

And once again, you are posting deceptive images. If you look at the side view of "Bunny", the "Cone shape" is on the back of the head and not the front as your deceptive image shows. It has NOTHING to do with the front of Bob's head but the back. As a result, it could be an effect of the suit. Possibly something like an old leather football helmet. Spin it anyway you desire but you are trying to deceive everyone with your image comparisons. They are invalid and you are still being unreasonable and wrong. Keep fooling yourself because that is the only person you are deceiving.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just to make it clear. Sweaty keeps saying that "Bunny's" forehead is coneshaped (in case he wants to deny he said this go look at post 1237 You know.....that CONE shaped area.....also known, on occasion, as Patty's FOREHEAD...). This is totally false. Here are two of Sweaty's favorite images to demonstrate this:

and

Notice in both these images the point of "Bunny's" head is in the back of the head and not the forehead area! Additionally, when you see these against his Bob images, the top of Bob's head is below this pointed section of "Bunny's" head.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Notice in both these images the point of "Bunny's" head is in the back of the head and not the forehead area!

OH MY GOD!!!


It's worse than I thought....


There's only one way that I can counter that superior bit of analysis....