Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Vortigern99]

Its a bloke in a suit

All evidence points to this conclusion. That said, I for one feel it's important to rebut statements of opinion to the contrary, by providing the facts that lead us to that conclusion. We can repeat "it's a guy in a suit!" as often as we like, but if credulous BF proponents continue posting faulty analyses of unsuitable data without a clear rebuttal from the skeptical community, before long other proponents will be using the same unsuitable data to shore up their contentions. I prefer to at least attempt to nip this non-critical thinking in the bud.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

All evidence points to this conclusion. That said, I for one feel it's important to rebut statements of opinion to the contrary, by providing the facts that lead us to that conclusion. We can repeat "it's a guy in a suit!" as often as we like, but if credulous BF proponents continue posting faulty analyses of unsuitable data without a clear rebuttal from the skeptical community, before long other proponents will be using the same unsuitable data to shore up their contentions. I prefer to at least attempt to nip this non-critical thinking in the bud.

Actually, the report of the moment is a textbook example because thats the single weakest link in the chain.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any kind of acceptable photogrammetry analysis without that number.
Thats why it must be defended to the death.

 

[Astrophotographer]

"Look Ma........no numbers needed!"

Wrong...Wrong....Wrong....You need numbers. Your scaling can be off and your failure to recognize the problems with your methodology demonstrates you are not interested in an honest resolution to the problem. I have demonstrated that these comparisons were invalid long ago.

 

[Vortigern99]

Actually, the report of the moment is a textbook example because thats the single weakest link in the chain.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any kind of acceptable photogrammetry analysis without that number.
Thats why it must be defended to the death.

Exactly. And while you, LT, are eminently qualified to rebut the Munns report, I am not. However, I am qualified to address SweatyYeti's errors and misstatements, at least, so that's where I'm currently turning my attention.

 

[kitakaze]

Direct comparisons are fun!!

I win.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, someone's got to do it. Imagine new readers/visitors to the JREF coming in and perusing Sweaty's illogical, desultory nonsense, with no one on the other side to rebut/respond to/question/denounce it. Kitakaze has his methods and I have mine. Factual errors and outright derogation must be addressed.

Vort, you use strictly reason and facts against Sweaty. This is needed and you do it well. This is something which you should not stop doing. The thing is that you're dealing with a person not interested in those things but rather only keeping the barest facade of reason in a manner that supports their personal beliefs and desires. I find the most effective thing against Sweaty are his own words in context used against him. What qualifies as effective against Sweaty? Well, he will never abandon his poor reasoning and arguments such as this very bad one about Patty's arms being inhumanly long. Being effective against Sweaty means sinking his battleship in a way that his facade of reason can't refute so that he basically shuts up about it for a few weeks or months till he thinks it's time to recycle again. I learned long ago that reason and facts vs Sweaty are great but Sweaty vs Sweaty is a riot!

 

[Vortigern99]

Thanks for saying so, kit. My area of "layman's expertise" is in human anatomy, proportion and measurement, so if Mr. Yeti wishes to contend with me in that arena, in which I have 25 years of experience, I will be happy to oblige him, and to call out his continuous errors of perception and measurement.

 

[tsig]

Use the Force

Better yet use the Report button.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Edited by Darat: 

Various breaches of Membership Agreement removed.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Stop talking about "bias" and "assumptions". I've made no such claims regarding your work; I'm addressing it point-by-point, and I expect you to do the same with me, without the accusatory language. I'm analyzing data here, with no preconceptions about whether Bob is in the suit or whether it's someone else, or indeed whether the P-G subject is a large hairy person, with no suit or costume evident at all. Let's stick to the facts, and identify opinions as such, shall we? Thanks.

Subjectively, the top-line of the P-G subject's head could come down a fraction, to where the horizontal slope of the "brow" reaches a plateau before coming up again. This would narrow the distance between the top-line and the eye-line on the P-G subject.

The oblique tilt of Bob's head, whether it's precisely as I've indicated with the admittedly crude MS Paint or whether it's closer to your own recent, slightly less oblique indication, means that there is a greater distance between the top-line of Bob's head and his eye-line than there would be if his head were tilted more vertically. IOW, this distance will narrow if you pull his head straighter. If we could somehow adjust the angle of the head to be more in-line with the P-G subject's, we could then re-size the images to match up more evenly.

In short, the two pics do not lend themselves to a 1:1 comparison.

You can form all kinds of opinions about them as they are, but owing to the numerous discrepancies between head placement, camera lens size, angle of the camera-man, pictoral compression by the processing software, and limb position, it's practically impossible and virtually worthless to compare them or to offer opinions about those comparisons.

Such an exercise in visual data analysis is fun and challenging in its own right, but gets us nowhere with regard to determining the identity of the P-G subject.

And then Vort talks about his abilities, and knowledge....

However, I am qualified to address SweatyYeti's errors and misstatements, at least, so that's where I'm currently turning my attention.

My area of "layman's expertise" is in human anatomy, proportion and measurement, so if Mr. Yeti wishes to contend with me in that arena, in which I have 25 years of experience, I will be happy to oblige him, and to call out his continuous errors of perception and measurement.

(Just a quick reminder)...

"...it's practically impossible and virtually worthless to compare them..."



So, Vort.....if there is a small error in my comparison of Bob and Patty....(in lining-up the 2 well-defined points)....why don't you just make the adjustment which you are so qualified to make...given your years of training......and then show us all how they actually do compare, with the proper scaling?

We're only talking about a minor adjustment, right??



Not to worry, though.....folks....if Vort is unable, or unwilling, to go ahead and make an adjustment to the comparison....I'll be happy to do it.

And then we can see that Bob's arm length still won't be equal to Patty's arm length.

 

[Vortigern99]

Well, Mr. Yeti, I cannot alter the lens size of the camera which captured the P-G film (whether 15 or 25mm), nor the lens size of the enlarger which developed the film, nor the lens size of (video?) camera which captured Bob in mid-stride; nor can I possibly know how much digital compression occurred when the two pics were scanned into a computer; nor can I physically move the arms of two two-dimensional photographic subjects into another position in conjectured three-dimensional space.

If you believe you can do all of that, in order to compare the pics on a 1:1 basis, I invite you to, in the words of the immortal Lumiere of Beast Castle, "Be My Guest."

 

[kitakaze]

Juvenile insult and name-calling such as "sewer boy" and "another spurt of raw sewage", especially without offering any substantial counter-points, is another matter entirely. I am politely requesting that such infantile behavior cease, as it is no way constructive nor purposeful toward an exchange of ideas and facts.

Vort, just to be clear about my personal opinion, none of those things bother me in the slightest.

Calling the JREF a sewer, calling me sewage king, size 7, triple bold text with individually coloured letters, Wizard of Oz tributes, Hillary kicked in the nuts, etc... All these things I find rather amusing. The thing is that while Sweaty is investing substantial effort and time in shouting at you, me, or whoever in ever more garish ways, he is not dealing with the flaws in his arguments. I just gave him three very explicit reasons why his latest bit of desperation with the feet was fundamentally screwed. One, two, three, bada-bing, there you go. Three simple things that Sweaty can lay hands on and grapple with if he's able. He's not going to do that. Sweaty's the wrestling character that runs around the outside of the ring talking smack while the other guy is waiting in the ring ready to rumble. And how many times do I have to post a Sweaty style comparison showing BH in a suit having the same length arms as Patty before Sweaty will man-up and deal with it? Hope you brought the sauce 'cuz I just cooked your goose.

So instead of dealing with those three basic issues we get the sewage references and Hillary hitting a wall of fart. It's great. Knock yourself out, Sweaty. He's only advertising his feebleness to the rest of us so it doesn't bother me none. In Sweaty World the problem is not how to deal with an uncomfortable argument but rather why in the Sam hell don't they have neon green as a colour for letters?? SweatyYeti is the Jim Kramer of Bigfootery. His posts are like an episode of Mad Money. I wish I could say I was the Jon Stewart in that mix but Sweaty doesn't have the beans to get in a real debate with me.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

I cannot alter the lens size of the camera which captured the P-G film (whether 15 or 25mm), nor the lens size of the enlarger which developed the film, nor the lens size of (video?) camera which captured Bob in mid-stride; nor can I possibly know how much digital compression occurred when the two pics were scanned into a computer; nor can I physically move the arms of two two-dimensional photographic subjects into another position in conjectured three-dimensional space.

Thanks, Vort. I can add those things to my list of "Roger's lucky roll".


You know.....the 'lucky roll' which continues to help Roger's hoax, by causing the illusion of Patty's arms appearing longer than everyone else's arms, and causing the other various illusions of muscle/finger/toe movements.

 

[kitakaze]

The 2 points which had to line-up.....if Bob was Patty.....are lined-up. (Those points being the eyes and the tops of their heads.)

Game, set, match - kitakaze.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks, Vort. I can add those things to my list of "Roger's lucky roll".


You know.....the 'lucky roll' which continues to help Roger's hoax, by causing the illusion of Patty's arms appearing longer than everyone else's arms, and causing the other various illusions of muscle/finger/toe movements.

Those illusions aren't luck when they exist only in your head.

Sweaty doesn't want to get into a conversation with me about just how lucky Patterson was. I'll start talking about the astronomical odds of filming exactly what you ripped off from another artist and drew in your book the year before the film and had an encounter that matches on many points near verbatim with the encounter for which that image was an illustration. Saying Patterson was lucky is like saying Scarlett Johansson has breasts.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Vort, you use strictly reason and facts against Sweaty.

Actually.....Vort used the "Exit" door......


"it's practically impossible and virtually worthless to compare them".


Them's the facts.




One other thing.....in your post, Sewer Man, you said... "against Sweaty".

and...

"I find the most effective things against Sweaty are..."

and...

"What qualifies as effective against Sweaty?"



That's a strange way to talk, since there is no battle here between me, and anyone else.
That being the case....there is no reason for anyone to use anything against anyone else.

All we're really doing here is analysing the evidence....and if Vort, or anyone else, sees something in someone else's analysis that needs adjusting, or correcting, they're free to add their input, and hopefully improve the 'clarity of the picture'.


(I know that my using the term "Sewer Meister" in refering to you, kitty, comes across as 'hostile' in nature....but, as I said to Vort earlier, I'm only using it to try to make a point....as strongly as I can....that the vast majority of what you say in your posts is BS, which being ----, is sewage.)

It's not a personal attack.....it's an assessment of the content of your posts.

You, despite your intelligence....are a purveyor of ----.

 

[Vortigern99]

The two pics that kitakaze has posted several times appear to share the same general proportions and measurements. We know for a fact that one of them is Bob in a suit. What does this tell you, Mr. Yeti?

Further, I for one will allow that the P-G subject's arms look to be slightly longer than the suited man we know to be Bob H. I have no qualms about conceding this point because there is a simple, non-bigfoot explanation for it. Apart from questions of lens length and/or digital compression, which I will table for the sake of argument, false gloves that fit the wearer's fingers into the palm of the glove can be manipulated to look like natural finger movement. In other words, with the person's fingers only touching the palm of the glove, the fingers can be flexed, individually or as a group. This can be seen on the Dfoot video that has been posted here many times, most recently by makaya, and/or it can be tested and enacted in your own home, with a $5 pair of rubber gorilla gloves.

 

[kitakaze]

Actually.....Vort used the "Exit" door......

(snip)

All we're really doing here is analysing the evidence....

We are? I am. Vort is. Holy crap, little mak is. Are you?:

(I know that my using the term "Sewer Meister" in refering to you, kitty, comes across as 'hostile' in nature....but, as I said to Vort earlier, I'm only using it to try to make a point....as strongly as I can....that the vast majority of what you say in your posts is BS, which being ----, is sewage.)

It's not a personal attack.....it's an assessment of the content of your posts.

I don't mind you calling me "Sewer King" or whatever. You're intellectually dishonest and cowardly so fair's fair.

You, despite your intelligence....are a purveyor of ----.

1, 2, 3, 4,... OK, four. That's four. You were going to say "funk", right? I'm a purveyor of funk. OK, I'll take that. I'm not George Clinton, I'm not black, and I don't even have rainbow hair but I lay it down funky. Thanks for saying so.

 

[kitakaze]

Longtabber wrote:




Hey, LT....since Bill's paper is, simply, "analysis", and kitakaze's posts are also, supposedly, "analysis"......should not your requirements for 'proper scientific technique' apply also to kitakaze's......a.k.a....."Captain Sewer's"....."analysis"???


Here is a short sampling of kitty's postings....let me know what you think......


*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

I win.

I'm powning you.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

I knew that you could not answer such a simple question with the inevitably correct answer of "no".

I'm powning you.

I win.

I need a twinkie.

Result - another desperate attempt by Sweaty to give Patty some hope.



So, how about kitty's 'scientific method'??! Ain't it the berries?!

That strange, Sweaty, and doesn't seem very honest. You take the time to copypasta various comments of mine (even throwing in one you just made up) and attempt to insinuate that I just make scoffing remarks without any actual substantial engagement of arguments or claims you're making.

Here, let me hold your hand and walk you up to what you're doing. Here is a post that you took one of those comments from with the most important part bolded:

1) We see Patty's toes from the bottom in the PGF. They are not as long as the blur we see in your animation. If what we see is Patty's foot, it's not the toes but rather the foot itself freakishly bending upward in a clownfoot manner the way a suit does.

2) You can't prove the impressions cast were created by Patty.

3) Multiple casts of what are supposed to be Patty's feet show no toe movement. Weird thing for your "loosely-hinged" toes to be doing. My toes are close together and do not spread out easily. If I walk in the dirt or sand, I can see individual movement of my toes. People probably look at me like an idiot on the beach staring intently at my own footprints.

Result - another desperate attempt by Sweaty to give Patty some hope.

*BZZT* FAIL. Next.

It's very typical of you to try what you just did. Those comments you took are the periods at the ends of very clear sentences. You're asking Longtabber why he doesn't critique those statements when you yourself are evading the detailed explanations that precede them. Doesn't it ever feel dirty to act that way?

 

[kitakaze]

The two pics that kitakaze has posted several times appear to share the same general proportions and measurements. We know for a fact that one of them is Bob in a suit. What does this tell you, Mr. Yeti?

I've been trying to get Sweaty to deal with that comparison for a while now. The closest he came to addressing it was here (emphasis mine):

That picture says nothing about how Patty's arms compare to a human's.

All it says is that Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person who has been unlucky enough to become engulfed in ratty, re-cycled carpeting.

He went pretty quiet after that.

Further, I for one will allow that the P-G subject's arms look to be slightly longer than the suited man we know to be Bob H. I have no qualms about conceding this point because there is a simple, non-bigfoot explanation for it. Apart from questions of lens length and/or digital compression, which I will table for the sake of argument, false gloves that fit the wearer's fingers into the palm of the glove can be manipulated to look like natural finger movement. In other words, with the person's fingers only touching the palm of the glove, the fingers can be flexed, individually or as a group. This can be seen on the Dfoot video that has been posted here many times, most recently by makaya, and/or it can be tested and enacted in your own home, with a $5 pair of rubber gorilla gloves.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_896149da772b378c7.jpg[/qimg]

Astrophotographer found a difference of a maximum 1 - 2 inches between Bob's arm out of a suit and Patty's arm. Patty's arm is 26 inches from armpit to fingertips and 35 inches from the shoulder to fingertips. this is in comparison to Astro's measurements of his own body which are 30 and 36 inches respectively with a height of 6'4". Put that in reference to Bob Heironimus' height of 6'2" out of a suit. Astro found that Patty would have had a standing height of roughly 6 feet. Check both these links...

Patty arm length and height measurement of 6ft courtesy Astrophotographer:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3571927&postcount=13474

Patty proportion measurements courtesy Astrophotographer:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3844448&postcount=14692