The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[xblade]

Astro wrote:



OH MY GOD!!!


It's worse than I thought....


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


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Wacky_bunny.gif[/qimg]

It is pretty bad. I mean, you're basically trying to argue here that Bob is too big to be Patty, a bigfoot that, according to footers, is a 7 foot tall bigfoot that weighs, by some footer estimates, 2,000 lbs., while also trying to tell us the back of the head is actually the forehead.

It's sad to watch as a person slowly loses their mind.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

The problem with your thinking is that this is not an analysis at all. It is just my demonstration where the actual "crest"/"peak"/"cone" of "Bunny" is located. In your crayon lines in post 1235, you want to place the cone towards the front of "Bunny's" head so it can be aligned with Bob's forehead. As I have tried to show here, this "tapering" of a point does not happen that close to the forehead since the peak of the head is in the back. You apparently missed that.

If it were an actual analysis, you would see me rattling off pixel sizes and angles so others can look at what I write and determine if they are accurate or not. This is hard to do in these images simply because of the slope of Bob's head is not visible in any images I could find. Additionally, "Bunny's" head appears to somewhat "bumpy" and hard to measure. Each image appears to give a different slope, which probably has to do with the viewing angle. However, nothing in any of the angles I measure appeared so severe as to suggest Bob's upper half of his head was not pointy enough or too big. Drawing subjective 3-D lines on a 2-D image is not analysis (esp. when you don't scale them properly as is in the most recent case). Without actual measurements (something you never seem to provide) or something that gives value to the images, it is wishful thinking at best and deceitful at worst. When you are willing to put down crayons, scale images properly, conduct actual physical measurements of the images, and attempt to be objective in what you do (i.e understand how perspective and viewing angles can alter the appearance of a subject), then you can call it analysis. Until then, you can keep coloring and doodling lines to convince yourself you are right but you are the only person that is being convinced. Your arguments fall like a house of cards.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

then you can call it analysis

The comparisons I've done most certainly are 'analysis', Astro....as long as the 'degree of accuracy' of them is within a reasonable range.

In principle, comparisons don't need to be 100% accurate to legitimately qualify as 'analysis'.


The comparisons may indeed need a little adjusting.....and you are free to make any adjustments to them that you like...or, to just point out specifically where you think the errors in them are.


Ultimately....I don't need, or seek, your approval of anything I post here, Astro....and I don't care if you're 'convinced' of anything.

I'll continue posting images...and comparisons....and calling it analysis..., for as long as I feel like. (Or until I get booted off the board. )

 

[SweatyYeti]

xblade wrote:

you're basically trying to argue here that Bob is too big to be Patty,

No, I'm not. I've never stated that.


What I think the comparisons show, is that when images of Bob and Patty are scaled so that their body heights (feet and top of heads) match-up, Bob's head is too large to fit inside of Patty's head.....especially if you add the extra width of some type of helmet onto his head.

In one of the comparisons, I matched-up 2 other points....the eyes and the tops of their heads.....and, in that case, Bob's arm length appears to be considerably shorter than Patty's...and also, as Vort pointed out...their body heights don't match-up. (Bob's body height is too short.)


So, it seems that whenever you match up certain points on their bodies...other points, which should also match-up, don't...and by a significant amount.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The comparisons may indeed need a little adjusting.....and you are free to make any adjustments to them that you like...or, to just point out specifically where you think the errors in them are.

Many people have pointed out errors in your "comparisons" in the past. You either ignored them or just did a "handwave" comment. I know I have been VERY SPECIFIC giving you angles and pixel measurements. I just pointed out your placement of "Bunny's" conehead should be at the back and not the middle of the head (or at the forehead area). You just laughed it off with the typical handwave you always perform. You keep posting the same old images in an effort to convince yourself (because you aren't convincing many people here to change their minds) that you are right.

The "will to believe" is how you "create" your comparisons and not through objective measurements, which everyone can agree upon is reasonably accurate. This is why values work in an analysis and subjective opinions/drawings do not.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So, it seems that whenever you match up certain points on their bodies...other points, which should also match-up, don't...and by a significant amount.

Actually, I have done it twice with Bob in a suit and everything seems to match up pretty well. Mangler also has never seemed to have a problem with his skeleton It is only when you try and do this are there problems. This is because your choice of images are not in similar poses and the limbs are not quite correct. This results in "other points" not matching up. The problems of perspective and positioning of limbs has been pointed out to you several times. You ignored these comments or made the typical handwave comment because it does not agree with your preconceived notions.

 

[Blackdog]

It's been said "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results", so by definition everyone arguing with Sweaty and actually expecting anything other than his usual drivel is actually quite insane.

On the other hand Sweaty must be quite insane also, thinking that the same old color crayon drawings are going to convince anyone of anything.

"I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this."

 

[Vortigern99]

I for one respect Astrophotographer and kitakaze their tenacity in debating SweatyYeti, as I find I simply lack the stomach for his delusional drivel. I began a discussion with Sweaty in good faith, but once he began to use the phrase "make believe" in reference to the skeptical position on the PG film (you know, the position built on logical analysis and independent corroboration of facts?), I chose to bow out. The stamina of A. and k., and their capacity to patiently debate Sweaty's clouded thoughts, is astonishing.

I think the poster who wrote that Sweaty is engaged in a Kaufman-esque piece of anger-inducing performance art must have hit it pretty close to the mark. There is simply no way a rational human being capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality would post the sort of over-reaching silliness that he posts, including square-shaped heads (?) and improperly-scaled comparison photos, while ignoring the many objections raised as though they did not exist, and accusing his debaters of his exact brand of immature chicanery.

In short, like LONGTABBER, I am done arguing with SweatyYeti.

 

[kitakaze]

It's been said "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results", so by definition everyone arguing with Sweaty and actually expecting anything other than his usual drivel is actually quite insane.

On the other hand Sweaty must be quite insane also, thinking that the same old color crayon drawings are going to convince anyone of anything.

"I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this."

Preemptive Sweaty post prediction...

Sweaty quotes his previous post:

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.

And reiterates his intellectually dishonest straw man that we are only interested in proof of Bigfoot.

ETA: So why does Sweaty continue spamming us with his scribbles when it has been proven that Bob Heironimus' proportions match Patty's?

 

[kitakaze]

The stamina of A. and k., and their capacity to patiently debate Sweaty's clouded thoughts, is astonishing.

I would like to debate Sweaty but he is afraid of me.

I think the poster who wrote that Sweaty is engaged in a Kaufman-esque piece of anger-inducing performance art must have hit it pretty close to the mark. There is simply no way a rational human being capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality would post the sort of over-reaching silliness that he posts, including square-shaped heads (?) and improperly-scaled comparison photos, while ignoring the many objections raised as though they did not exist, and accusing his debaters of his exact brand of immature chicanery.

In short, like LONGTABBER, I am done arguing with SweatyYeti.

Drapier is very smart.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

It is only when you try and do this are there problems.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


Bob's body proportions simply do not match-up with Patty's....in direct comparisons.... no matter who does the line-drawings.....and no matter which images are used.

There have been many similar comparisons done on the BFF over the years, by other people, with the same basic results.



It's interesting to see how the focus of the skeptic's posts now are "attack the messenger", rather than the message itself....


But, it doesn't matter....there's more crayon-work on the way!



Vortigern wrote:

I chose to bow out.

No problem, Vort.

Anybody says something like this...as you did...

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.

....has nothing of any meaning to contribute, anyway.



BTW....that statement of yours would make a great rebuttal to your upcoming article on your new "findings"....your purely subjective findings, that is.

 

[kitakaze]

Bob's body proportions simply do not match-up with Patty's....in direct comparisons.... no matter who does the line-drawings.....and no matter which images are used.

hahaha Look at the wish-I-may-wish-I-might desperate, fanatical believer waving his arms. Sorry, Sweaty, the destruction of that lie was outlined post #1180.

Direct to you, Sweaty, this truly direct comparison:





Keep lying about mangler all you want. We know you are a liar.

And more pictures that scare the crap out of you:

Enjoy the view from a fanatic's willful ignorance and self-delusion:



SweatyYeti - True blue woo.

 

[SweatyYeti]

The problem with your thinking is that this is not an analysis at all. It is just my demonstration where the actual "crest"/"peak"/"cone" of "Bunny" is located.
In your crayon lines in post 1235, you want to place the cone towards the front of "Bunny's" head so it can be aligned with Bob's forehead. As I have tried to show here, this "tapering" of a point does not happen that close to the forehead since the peak of the head is in the back. You apparently missed that.

I don't understand exactly what you mean (in the highlighted text above) with regards to these images, Astro...

If you can explain what you mean, in a little more detail, then maybe I can respond to it.

If it were an actual analysis, you would see me rattling off pixel sizes and angles so others can look at what I write and determine if they are accurate or not. This is hard to do in these images simply because of the slope of Bob's head is not visible in any images I could find. Additionally, "Bunny's" head appears to somewhat "bumpy" and hard to measure. Each image appears to give a different slope, which probably has to do with the viewing angle. However, nothing in any of the angles I measure appeared so severe as to suggest Bob's upper half of his head was not pointy enough or too big.

Drawing subjective 3-D lines on a 2-D image is not analysis (esp. when you don't scale them properly as is in the most recent case).

In those two images, above, the scaling is very close to what it would have to have been if Bob was Patty.
Basically, Patty's head would have to be a little taller than Bob's head, due to Patty's sharply sloping head.


But, if Bob's image is undersized in that comparison (since you're saying they weren't properly scaled), then increasing the overall size of his image will also increase the length of the red line...(the width of his forehead/upper head)....which, in turn, would mean that the red line....being longer....would then have to be placed lower on Patty's head.

So.....how would you propose to make Bob's head appear to fit any higher up into Patty's head???

It can't be done by increasing the size of Bob's image....or by decreasing the size of Patty's image.

 

[kitakaze]

But, if Bob's image is undersized in that comparison (since you're saying they weren't properly scaled), then increasing the overall size of his image will also increase the length of the red line...(the width of his forehead/upper head)....which, in turn, would mean that the red line....being longer....would then have to be placed lower on Patty's head.

So.....how would you propose to make Bob's head appear to fit any higher up into Patty's head???

It can't be done by increasing the size of Bob's image....or by decreasing the size of Patty's image.

Bob's head fits fine. For proof just look above your post there.

BTW, why not use an image of BH in profile without hat? Please don't ignore the first sentence.

 

[Astrophotographer]

If you can explain what you mean, in a little more detail, then maybe I can respond to it.

It is simple. Your lines are inaccurate. They form a rapid taper at the top of "Bunny's" head. You have no idea what kind of tapering occurs on this two dimensional image. Views from the side indicate the point is in the back of the head and not towards the front. Therefore, your drawing lines are invalid.

As for the scaling, I disagree with your statement that this is the size Bob's head had to be to fit inside the head. This is also incorrect. This is where you continue to fail in your subjective line drawings and desire not to use measurements. The width of the eyes is how you would attempt to get an approximate scaling. The result is "Bunny's" eyes are too far apart when compared to Bob's. Therefore, I had to rescale Bob upwards to 25%. This makes the length of the red lines as 53 for Bob and 44 for Bunny. You may state I am now showing you to be correct. However, it is not the case.

Your arbitrary lines are inaccurate and are drawn based on what you think is the shape of the head in a two-dimensional image. The length of the lines is also an arbitrary value because Bunny's head is turned at further away from the camera than Bob and therefore, the line is missing the perspective issue. Correcting for this is difficult and I choose to leave that out there implying the line would have to be longer but there is more.

The line for Bunny's forehead is not at the appropriate angle. It is not parrallel to the eyes the way Bob's is. When you correct for the angle of the eyes and scaling, the length of the red line is 53 for Bob and 50 for "Bunny". A three pixel difference is not that significant as far as measurements go. It is a fraction of an inch. However, there is more to this.

We then have the arbitrary blue lines used for the end points. The middle line does not converge to the point in the back of "Bunny's" head. It heads to a point about 4-5 pixels to the right. If you shift this to the left, we suddenly have Bunny's red line slightly longer than Bob's.

The point of this little exercise is to demonstrate that your drawings have errors you are not aware of and if you do not recognize them, you will draw false conclusions. This is why it is important to get good measurements on such small scale images, which is another reason I wanted you to present high resolution images.

 

[Vortigern99]

I chose to bow out.

No problem, Vort.

Anybody says something like this...as you did...

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.

....has nothing of any meaning to contribute, anyway.



BTW....that statement of yours would make a great rebuttal to your upcoming article on your new "findings"....your purely subjective findings, that is.

Any analysis of a blurry film, whose subject is so tiny within the picture frame as to represent less than 5% of the total image, necessitating expansions which introduce errors into the photographic information, and whose film stock, speed and developing procedures can only be guessed at, is going to be a subjective analysis. However, that does not mean that logic and rationality must perforce fly out the window when looking at the film.

Subjectively, I can see muscles and muscle movement in the figure's shoulders, back and right arm, but unfortunately this does not constitute evidence that such muscles actually exist, since there are many others who do not or cannot perceive this musculature. It is a subjective opinion on my part.

Further, and also subjectively, I can see material folds in the figure's legs, but apparently very few skeptics agree with me, since I've got little comment and no agreement on my reported findings in this area. One person with whom I'm in contact opined that the "folds" I'm seeing could be plays of light and shadow, or film artifacts; I tend to disagree, since such shapes would not recur over multiple frames as the figure moves across a space with a fixed light source, unless they were real and actual elements of the figure's surface features.

Still, we don't have the body or the suit in front of us, so we cannot say with any degree of certainty that those shapes are not some kind of loose-hanging skin (which would be unique among primates). All I can do is deliver my subjective opinion of what those visible shapes probably represent. Then everyone else is free to opine, also subjectively, what they think of my observations.

The problems with your (SweatyYeti's) postings are as follows: 1) They are technically flawed (eg mismatched size comparisons); 2) They are illogical (eg "square-headed Bob"); 3) They are rebutted by everyone who looks at them.

As to my own research, I consider it and myself to be utterly beholden to my peers in the skeptical community. If flaws in my reasoning or methods are indicated, I do whatever I can to address those flaws, and re-approach the material to see if my observations can survive in the face of those objections. Where my observations cannot survive, I am willing to discard my previous notions as flawed, mistaken, erroneous, insupportable.

That is the difference between our methodologies.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Further, and also subjectively, I can see material folds in the figure's legs, but apparently very few skeptics agree with me

There is a very distinct detail, on the back of Patty's left leg, which doesn't seem like it could co-exist on a suit-leg that also has "material folds" on it, due to a loosely fitting suit.


Check out the calf muscle area on Patty's left leg....and notice how, while the calf area bulges by a significant amount....there is an area directly to the right of the bulge which doesn't move, or bulge, in the least...

I highlighted the area I'm talking about (that area that doesn't move) in yellow...

Here are just two frames of that gif, showing the degree to which the bulge changes...

The main point being, if the 'suit' is loose-fitting enough (at the leg) to have distinguishable folds in it, then how could that same general area of 'suit' also exhibit the ability to stay tight against the back of the actor's leg?....especially as the 'suit' all around it is bulging??



Here's another un-suitlike thing, happening on Patty's right leg...

The 'pop-up bulge' appears as Patty's leg is in the air, and bending at the knee joint......but, then....only a scond or two later, as her foot hits the ground hard, something ripples in the thigh area, in the very same area as the pop-up bulge.....yet there is no sign of that bulge re-appearing.


This is...clearly, and unambiguously, complex behavior of that small area on Patty's thigh.....and so, the question which needs to be addressed is.......which scenario better explains such complex behavior.....simple padding inside of a pant-leg, or a complex arrangement of muscle tissue and flesh??

My money is on the complex flesh and muscle of a Sasquatch leg.



If anyone thinks that it is most likely simple padding movement....I'd love to see that person attempt to re-create it.

It should be a simple task.


Oh, lucky us....here comes Dfoot now, with his version of Patty....aptly named Stiffy...

One would be hard pressed to find any ripples, pop-up bulges, or calf muscle bulges in that very fine piece of construction!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Any analysis of a blurry film, whose subject is so tiny within the picture frame as to represent less than 5% of the total image, necessitating expansions which introduce errors into the photographic information, and whose film stock, speed and developing procedures can only be guessed at, is going to be a subjective analysis.

I.......see.........details......

 

[kitakaze]

The main point being, if the 'suit' is loose-fitting enough (at the leg) to have distinguishable folds in it, then how could that same general area of 'suit' also exhibit the ability to stay tight against the back of the actor's leg?....especially as the 'suit' all around it is bulging??

Sweaty, this is an example of how you recycle poor deflated arguments after some time has passed with other bad arguments of yours being destroyed. Please see post #806 in this thread from a few weeks ago to have the bad argument addressed.

The 'pop-up bulge' appears as Patty's leg is in the air, and bending at the knee joint......but, then....only a scond or two later, as her foot hits the ground hard, something ripples in the thigh area, in the very same area as the pop-up bulge.....yet there is no sign of that bulge re-appearing.


This is...clearly, and unambiguously, complex behavior of that small area on Patty's thigh.....and so, the question which needs to be addressed is.......which scenario better explains such complex behavior.....simple padding inside of a pant-leg, or a complex arrangement of muscle tissue and flesh??

My money is on the complex flesh and muscle of a Sasquatch leg.

Again you blatantly demonstrate your will to believe. Another flawed argument recycled to be once again shot down. In that gif you've posted in the few frames we see of Patty massively blown up there is a virtual kaleidoscope of artifacts happening. I won't even try and argue a padding explanation for something you call complex muscle movement because I don't even think I'm looking at something physically happening and not an image artifact.

If anyone thinks that it is most likely simple padding movement....I'd love to see that person attempt to re-create it.

It should be a simple task.

Hey, answering easy questions should be an simple task, too.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/stiffpadding2.gif[/qimg]


One would be hard pressed to find any ripples, pop-up bulges, or calf muscle bulges in that very fine piece of construction!

I love when you heckle Dfoot. And how are your efforts coming, Sweaty? I like that image, though. The one you posted is tiny but it looks a lot like Patty's leg.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

The one you posted is tiny but it looks a lot like Patty's leg.

.....without the flexibility and complex movements of Patty's leg.