I seem to remember you were quite adamant about the Wah Chang mask at one point.
Feeling that there may be something to an argument and being frank and forthright about its reliability are two different things. What you see is me taking care to note that.
I don't buy the skeleton any more than you guys bought Steindorf's done with reverse kinematics. It's certainly not broad enough. I guess "innacurate" is okay for IM ratios if they fit within human range.
You understand the difference between making up skeletons as an artisitic and speculative endeavour and applying a known skeleton which happens to match both Bob Heironimus and Patty, can't you?
Please feel free to demonstrate any inaccuracies with the Poser 7 overlay. As I have demonstrated with many images as well as others, the perceived broadness of a subject can easily be altered by the costume worn.
Uh... no, Lu. I am not trying to support the PGF as a suit by what most people think of it. Please try to keep up. This exchange started with
you making the appeal to the majority:
The PGF is unambiguous except to people who support Bob Heironimus, some other guy in a suit and/or Wah Chang masks.
You are saying that the PGF is easily recognizable as a Bigfoot except to those who think it's BH or some other guy in a suit. Not only is it an appeal to the majority but it is also a poorly thought one which in actuality is portraying the minority view as predominant.
The Bigfoot enthusiasts don't think it's a man in a suit then? How many of these people were aware of the proportions?
From the very beginning scientists have recognized that Patty has human proportions and moves like a human. Views to the contrary are a recent footer invention. Patty's proportions being human and on top of that a good match for BH has been proven here. I welcome you to counter the proof.
As an astute poster once remarked any hairy upright hominoid would look like a man in a suit to us.
That is a copout. Like trying to pass off the crappy nature of all Bigfoot images as a result of the fact that Bigfoots look like men in suits. We have joked about that so it's that much funnier that someone might seriously suggest it. Try applying that statement to the various images of orangutans and Biliapes I've referenced.
The double standard seems to be that we aren't really allowed to say anything while you're free to use terms like "garbage" and "silly". I wasn't aware those are scientific terms.
Again this fails. How do I counter the assertion that you aren't really allowed to say anything? There is a right way to be a Bigfoot believer. It comes from being intellectually honest about problems with the evidence submitted thus far. If words like "garbage" and "silly" bother you in reference to the Bigfoot images submitted as evidence thus far, you are free to post them on a different site for discussion of science and critical thinking and see what you get. I can use "insufficient" and "human-looking" if you like.
What would you consider unambiguous? A sasquatch that doesn't look like a sasquatch, perhaps?
I really feel like you're not engaging this discussion in a sincere way. If you are really uncertain as to what qualifies as unambiguous, try looking at the OP as I have requested you do many times and look at any of the videos I posted there. The videos of the kermode bears on Princess Royal Island showing wildlife photographers discussing their efforts and experiences to film an animal so elusive and so rare (only a few hundred individuals) are an excellent start. While watching those videos please keep in mind your assertion that most wildlife photography is staged.
If a dead female is found and she's thinner than Patty what would that mean?
When a dead female sasquatch is found and it is thinner than Patty, I'll be happy to think about it. Until then I would suggest you worry more about the finding of one.
A couple of thousand Orangutans were just "discovered". Not as impressive as the 150,000 Lowland Gorillas, maybe, but large animals can and do escape detection.
I particularly enjoy when proponents try using flawed arguments such as this. I get to then set out on a search that takes only minutes in which I am always confident I will find the information from the example the Bigfoot enthusiast used is easily used against them. Like this (bolding mine):
A large population of orangutans has been documented by conservationists conducting a survey in a remote part of Indonesia Borneo.
A team of researchers led by Erik Meijaard, a senior ecologist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), counted 219 orangutan nests, suggesting a population of 1000 or more of the critically endangered species of red ape in the heart of a 2-million-acre forest area in Sangkulirang limestone mountains in East Kalimantan Province. The newly discovered population is a rare subspecies known as the black Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio). Overall 50,000 to 60,000 orangutans survive in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra, but these are increasingly threatened by habitat loss from logging, fires, and expansion of industrial tree plantations and oil palm estates.
How do you think this story realistically applies to a massive land mammal that allegedly lives across two major industrialized nations at least? That story comes complete with a video that even with some foliage between camera and subject is absolutely unambiguous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKnIA2x2RAQ
I suppose it would be an appeal to authority to mention Daris Swindler, Jane Goodall and Russ Mittermeier? I sort of thought they were rational people.
Smart people aren't immune to wishful thinking. Neither am I.
Swindler: Looking at the knee impression of an elk lay and breathlessly exclaiming "My god, it's Giganto" referring to a pleistocene ape for which there is no post-cranial material.
Goodall: Openly refers to herself as a romantic who wants to believe they exist and says that maybe they don't.
Mittermeier:
“I’m not one to pooh-pooh the potential that these large apes may exist,” Mittermeier said. “I guess you could say I’m mildly skeptical but guardedly optimistic. Whoever does find it will have the discovery of the century.”
http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/83-bigfoot-believers
So what's the big deal there?
Do you honestly think Northern California is covered in trail cams? <refrains from using the word "silly">
I'm not talking about littered with trail cams. Nevertheless, Northern California has extensive animal detection arrays. If you doubt me and want to know the extent, look at the links and see for your self. The marten and fisher study catalogues the locations in the 90's in exhaustive detail.
