• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vortigern99 said:
Sweaty, let's keep in mind that you challenged the legitimacy of the Poser7 and DAZ images (posted by Mangler and Neltana, respectively) on the basis of your opinion that an arm, regardless of its position, should extend to the same point along a flat line.

I then showed you, using examples from noted anatomists Leonardo da Vinci and Burne Hogarth, that the joints of the limbs are correctly placed along the points of a circle, not a line.

You then neglected to acknowledge that you had grasped this information in any way, despite your assurances that your aim was to understand how this principle worked.

Now you're barraging AMM with questions about what his linked images show, when it's perfectly clear that the images reveal the exact arc circle principle we've been discussing, and which you bewilderingly pretend doesn't exist.

Are you paying attention? Do you really care about this discussion? Do you really care about the acquisition of knowledge? Or are you intentionally posting obtuse messages and willfully ignoring all evidence that contradicts your phenomenally uninformed presuppositions?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.
Click to expand...



That's a good idea, Vort, not holding your breath waiting for my replies. :)


I'm extremely busy at the moment, moving.....and it looks like I'm going to have to extend the deadline for getting my part-time business moved, pushing it back, another week.
Part of the reason for that is because of the time I've spent posting here, instead of moving stuff.

But, with some patience, there doesn't need to be any real problem continuing the discussion, and analysis.


From what you said in your post, it seems like you've seriously misunderstood some things I've said about the skeleton animations.
I'll try to clear things up, later.
 
You've bolded and responded to the wrong portions of my post. Sweaty. Here, let me help you:

Vortigern99 said:
Sweaty, let's keep in mind that you challenged the legitimacy of the Poser7 and DAZ images (posted by Mangler and Neltana, respectively) on the basis of your opinion that an arm, regardless of its position, should extend to the same point along a flat line.

I then showed you, using examples from noted anatomists Leonardo da Vinci and Burne Hogarth, that the joints of the limbs are correctly placed along the points of a circle, not a line.

You then neglected to acknowledge that you had grasped this information in any way, despite your assurances that your aim was to understand how this principle worked.

Now you're barraging AMM with questions about what his linked images show, when it's perfectly clear that the images reveal the exact arc circle principle we've been discussing, and which you bewilderingly pretend doesn't exist.

Are you paying attention? Do you really care about this discussion? Do you really care about the acquisition of knowledge? Or are you intentionally posting obtuse messages and willfully ignoring all evidence that contradicts your phenomenally uninformed presuppositions?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.
Click to expand...
 
Vortigern wrote:
Sweaty, let's keep in mind that you challenged the legitimacy of the Poser7 and DAZ images (posted by Mangler and Neltana, respectively) on the basis of your opinion that an arm, regardless of its position, should extend to the same point along a flat line.
Click to expand...


That's completely wrong, Vort......in 2 ways.


First....I question the legitimacy of the skeletal animations based on a discrepancy between what they show, and what direct-comparisons of Bob and Patty show.


Like this direct comparison...which somebody else did, on another Board....in a galaxy far, far away...


BobComp1.jpg




That's only one of many examples I could supply, showing similar results.

Since every direct comparison of Patty and Bob shows the same thing....that either Bob's arms are shorter than Patty's arms, or his head is larger than Patty's head, (depending on which points on their bodies are used to scale their images)......and the skeletal comparisons show their body dimensions all match-up, very closely.....there is, apparently, a discrepancy.

Hence.....my questioning. :)




Secondly.....you've misrepresented what my opinion actually is, in your bolded statement above.

I've never stated, or implied, what you wrote.
 
Vortigern wrote:
Now you're barraging AMM with questions about what his linked images show,
Click to expand...



I asked AMM 2 questions.

Are you aware that this is a discussion board, Vort....and that it's

ok.jpg



to ask someone more than one question??? :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:
 
SweatyYeti said:
Since every direct comparison of Patty and Bob shows the same thing....that either Bob's arms are shorter than Patty's arms, or his head is larger than Patty's head, (depending on which points on their bodies are used to scale their images)......and the skeletal comparisons show their body dimensions all match-up, very closely.....there is, apparently, a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

A false statement as I have demonstrated time and time again. It is false because only you seem to be able to see it. Measurements have shown it to be false and your crayon drawings have never produced a measurement that has refuted it. When I corrected your "square head" drawings (See post #1275), it turned out that Bob's head fit nicely into "Bunny's". You never refuted this and just kept on repeating your false claim.
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
A false statement as I have demonstrated time and time again. It is false because only you seem to be able to see it. Measurements have shown it to be false and your crayon drawings have never produced a measurement that has refuted it. When I corrected your "square head" drawings (See post #1275), it turned out that Bob's head fit nicely into "Bunny's". You never refuted this and just kept on repeating your false claim.
Click to expand...

I dont see how Heironimus's story is flawless. His story is just as bad as P and G.
 
Astro wrote:
It is false because only you seem to be able to see it.
Click to expand...


Sure, Astro. ;)


I just did a little search on Google.

I typed in the words..."patty long arms"....without the word 'Patterson', or 'Bigfoot'....and, despite no specific reference to the PG Film, the 3rd result on the list was this...

From the BigfootForum...


I'm not sure what you look like, but Chabal does not appear to have incredibly long arms.
His slumping shoulders, long hands, and short torso(?) may make him look like he does, but I estimate an IMI of about 77 for him, which would put him in the high end for humans, but well below most estimates of Patty.
Click to expand...


Link:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21273&pid=429963&mode=threaded&start=#entry429963


And as for the other part of my statement, concerning the size of Bob's head, relative to Patty's....other people on the BFF have mentioned the same thing that I have.

Your statement that......."only you can see it"......is flat-out wrong, and nothing short of idiotic. :)

Given the idiocy of that observation, by you....we can put your other "observations" into their proper perspective.



Oh, while I'm at it......here's another example of your brilliant observations!

In debating the "ambiguity" of Patty.....you stated that this suit proved your point of how "other suits" can also be ambiguous....:boggled:...


sonoma.jpg




I guess it didn't 'click' in your head that I was talking about suits which had some visible details! :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
Nobody is saying Bob's story is flawless. What I keep saying is that nobody has been able to falsify that Bob is not the guy in the suit to date. Sweaty has attempted to do this with his crayon drawings and claims of Bob is not big enough, his arms are too short, his head is too big, his head is too square/not pointy enough, or his chest isn't big enough (I think those have been the claims to date). So far, all of these claims have failed yet Sweaty keeps repeating them as if they were facts.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Your statement that......."only you can see it"......is flat-out wrong, and nothing short of idiotic.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have mentioned that I was referring to this forum but I didn't so I will concede that you can find somebody somewhere that believes the same thing you do. If you want to include the rest of the "believers" who blindly repeat the standard mantra, feel free to do so. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that your claims are true. So far you are batting 0.0000.
 
AMM wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:

IOW.....which arm is appearing longer than it truly is?
Click to expand...




As I recall, you once said that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking." The first image clearly shows Dfoot with an arm length that matches up to Patty's. So either you have to accept that it's an illusion or admit that Patty's arms aren't longer than a human's since Dfoot has arms of the same length.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question, Atomic.

Can you support your claim, using those pictures that you linked to?



The first image clearly shows Dfoot with an arm length that matches up to Patty's.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't...because we can't see all of Dfoot's body. We would need to see him from his Dhead-to-his-Dfeet, in order to make a meaningful comparison.
 
SweatyYeti said:
In debating the "ambiguity" of Patty.....you stated that this suit proved your point of how "other suits" can also be ambiguous
Click to expand...

Hmmm....I am not sure what I am looking at. Perhaps you can clear things up. Is this from the Sonoma footage that fooled some bigfoot proponents? Sounds pretty ambigious to me. Where some saw a fake, others saw something that coud be real. That is the definition of ambiguous (being open to interpretation), isn't it?
 
Astro wrote:
I will concede that you can find somebody somewhere that believes the same thing you do.
Click to expand...



Hey, when "Plan A" fails.....go straight to "Plan B"! Insult everybody's ability to THINK. ;)


The fact remains....other people SEE what I SEE......and your statement was wrong, and idiotic.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Given the idiocy of that observation, by you....we can put your other "observations" into their proper perspective.
Click to expand...

I am so touched by sweaty that he has to resort to this kind of name-calling. A least I have used some values to back up my points. I know how to measure things and I don't post deceiving images that are improperly scaled. I actually have been measuring the objects you post and showing how your claims are erroneous. These are things you do not refute by showing the values are wrong. Either you can't demonstrate they are wrong or don't know how to show they are wrong. I guess if I am an "idiot", that makes you........
 
SweatyYeti said:
Hey, when "Plan A" fails.....go straight to "Plan B"! Insult everybody's ability to THINK.
Click to expand...

Another swing and a miss. A lot of people think that evolution is wrong. That does not make them correct. Present facts and measurements not what you want to believe.

Also, notice I did not state "everybody".
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
Nobody is saying Bob's story is flawless. What I keep saying is that nobody has been able to falsify that Bob is not the guy in the suit to date. Sweaty has attempted to do this with his crayon drawings and claims of Bob is not big enough, his arms are too short, his head is too big, his head is too square/not pointy enough, or his chest isn't big enough (I think those have been the claims to date). So far, all of these claims have failed yet Sweaty keeps repeating them as if they were facts.
Click to expand...

You can not prove Mclarin, Gimlin, or anyone wasnt in the suit. The burden of proof lies on the Claimant, so if you claim its bob, provide proof. It works both ways
 
makaya325 said:
You can not prove Mclarin, Gimlin, or anyone wasnt in the suit. The burden of proof lies on the Claimant, so if you claim its bob, provide proof. It works both ways
Click to expand...

I think I have made it clear, that it may or may not be Bob. My point was nobody has been able to show it was not Bob. Sweaty keeps trying and missing. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests Bob could be involved. This kind of claim can not be proven. It can only be shown to be false.

You can compare the claim about Bob and Bigfoot with the analogy about dirt and gold. If I told you I had a mound of dirt in my yard, you would not really want to see it. You would assume that I probably do have a pile of dirt in my yard. If I told you I had a mound of gold, you would question that and want to see it.

As I continuously point out, we are left with two possibilities for the film. The first is a guy in a suit. The second is a real bigfoot. Nobody has shown bigfoot to really exist, therefore it is most likely a guy in a suit. Only one person has stepped forward claiming to be the guy. That is Bob. Until somebody shows it can't be Bob, then the most likely scenario is that the subject in the film is Bob in a suit.
 
Astrophotographer said:
I think I have made it clear, that it may or may not be Bob. My point was nobody has been able to show it was not Bob. Sweaty keeps trying and missing. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests Bob could be involved. This kind of claim can not be proven. It can only be shown to be false.

You can compare the claim about Bob and Bigfoot with the analogy about dirt and gold. If I told you I had a mound of dirt in my yard, you would not really want to see it. You would assume that I probably do have a pile of dirt in my yard. If I told you I had a mound of gold, you would question that and want to see it.

As I continuously point out, we are left with two possibilities for the film. The first is a guy in a suit. The second is a real bigfoot. Nobody has shown bigfoot to really exist, therefore it is most likely a guy in a suit. Only one person has stepped forward claiming to be the guy. That is Bob. Until somebody shows it can't be Bob, then the most likely scenario is that the subject in the film is Bob in a suit.
Click to expand...

That is true Astro. We have zero evidence for Bigfoot, but we know Hollywood costumes exist, and that people hoax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom