Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[makaya325]

I'll consider anything......but I'll only put weight on opinions that have some--thing supporting them.


As far as people's unsupported opinions go....there are 3 basic ways of looking at, and dealing, with them...

1) Everybody's opinion is wonderful, and deserves some kind of prize...like a gold star on the forehead. That's the kindergarten approach. (Everybody's "right".)

2) We let The Great Kaze (because he posts a lot, and 'powns' everyone ) decide exactly where everybody's opinion ranks....his being at the top, of course. And nobody argues over his or her ranking.

3) We treat everyone's unsupported opinion equally.....it's worth 2 cents. Effectively, weightless.......until they support it with something of substance.

Kitz is treated no differently than any of the other members here. The reason why you are treated the way you are is because you do not even consider a probability to the skeptical explanations, which are usually correct.

 

[kitakaze]

That will be followed, as long as Sweaty considers other people's opinions.

Little mak, I think what you mean to say is something to the effect of heeding the warning and making an effort to keep the discussion clean and civil.

 

[kitakaze]

I'll consider anything......but I'll only put weight on opinions that have some--thing supporting them.

Let's try this again. I laid down the gauntlet in post #1850 to your claim regarding Patty's arms. You flippy-flopped around but did not pick up that gauntlet. Let's try this again...

Here's the claim:

Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking.

Here's the destruction of that claim (with your own words included):

...Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person...

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

Now it's your turn.

As far as people's unsupported opinions go....there are 3 basic ways of looking at, and dealing, with them...

1) Everybody's opinion is wonderful, and deserves some kind of prize...like a gold star on the forehead. That's the kindergarten approach. (Everybody's "right".)

2) We let The Great Kaze (because he posts a lot, and 'powns' everyone ) decide exactly where everybody's opinion ranks....his being at the top, of course. And nobody argues over his or her ranking.

3) We treat everyone's unsupported opinion equally.....it's worth 2 cents. Effectively, weightless.......until they support it with something of substance.

Option #1 is pretty funny. Regarding #2, I think there is something to be said about this. There are often opinions flying around and I think each should be evaluated according to its merits and implications. I think a sort of general quality level can be established for various people's contributions and opinions. I think in general I can expect Sweaty to have opinions that reflect his intense close-mindedness. I know I certainly wouldn't place myself at the top but I think I've been able to establish that I will put careful thought into things I discuss in an unbiased manner. This can be shown by the number of times I agree with or or put myself in the shoes of a person who comes from a very different perspective than I do.

Let's say we were discussing photography and measurments... wait, no. We don't need to imagine that because that is exactly what we are doing. So in these circumstances I am going to put a lot more value in Astrophotographer's opinion than yours. Astro simply has a superior experience, understanding, and ability in this regard. We're at the tracks and I'm putting my money on the badass-looking horse with the snorting and the rippling muscles and the stamping hooves over the weirdo Mr. Ed one that is walking around in circles talking to itself. I will do the same for any person such as Spektator or EHocking or mangler or whomever the person might be who consistently demonstrates superior skills at research and analysis. When it comes to Bigfoot, I would absolutely rate my opinion higher and more valuable simply because of my attention to detail and open-mindedness versus your obsession with non-existent and irrelevant details and hardcore close-mindedness.

Let me give you one final example of when a person whom you expect weird things from comes out and says something smart that surprises you. Here's a post that log wrote at BFF:

At last I've managed to download the full Munns Report!

The biggest potential torpedo of the entire effort IMO comes on page 10 during the discussion of the lens. Bill mentions that the police report and camera store documention states that Patterson's K-100 was equippped with a 25mm lens as rented to Patterson.

While it is not imposible that Patterson could have changed to a 15mm lens there remains the quesiton of why would he have done so? There is no indication that Patterson was astute enough to appreciate a 15mm lens over a 25mm lens for the purpose he was intending to use the camera.

Since there is no documentation of any person or business entity having supplied Patterson with a 15mm lens the stated standard 25mm lens seems an extremely difficult detail to dispose of.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=26439&st=0

Hey, look at that! Log blew me away. Got to be careful about not totally writing somebody off, yes? Ol' log there, I never expected her to flat-out, off the bat, disagree with Bill Munns. She's a fan, a supporter, a Munnster. Who saw that coming? She just had a little poop there in Bill's 15mm theory. Holy moley, man! Looks to me like log is having a lucid moment or I don't know what. Point is, there you go. People can surprise you. If log can say that and little mak can drop the game, there may be hope for... well, come on now. I'm sure you didn't expect me to say you but you know, somebody like that.

 

[makaya325]

Little mak, I think what you mean to say is something to the effect of heeding the warning and making an effort to keep the discussion clean and civil.

In other words, Yes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hey, look at that! Log blew me away.

Except that Log is wrong...I didn't say anything about a police report, Roger Knights did, and Roger was wrong about the lens mentioned in the warrant,

There is no indication in the warrant of the type of lens, just a Serial Number which I was able to trace to the year 1954. The SN gives no immediate indication of what lens it was.

 

[kitakaze]

Except that Log is wrong...I didn't say anything about a police report, Roger Knights did, and Roger was wrong about the lens mentioned in the warrant,

There is no indication in the warrant of the type of lens, just a Serial Number which I was able to trace to the year 1954. The SN gives no immediate indication of what lens it was.

Thank you for the clarification, LTC. I didn't read that thread fully. It just struck me that Bigfoot enthusiasts such as log were openly doubting Bill's ideas. Log, in particular with her unwavering support of Bill. I think it says a lot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I think a sort of general quality level can be established for various people's contributions and opinions.

Exactly as I stated in an earlier post......

arguing over who's opinion is worth the most.

(That's the road you and The Great Kaze promote, and prefer.)

Cool.....why don't you make-up a list, ranking eveybody's opinion values....oh Great and Powerful Kaaz.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The world is not quite that simple, Astro.

Sigh......resorting to these tactics is a diversionary attempt from the real point. I asked you to demonstrate Bob's head was too big and you have yet to do it, which means it is only your biased opinion that produces this claim. Don't tell me you are too busy nonsense either. You provide multiple posts in this forum every night, which means you do have the time. The answer to my question is apparent to everyone. No, you can't prove that Bob's head is too big with actual measurements.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Here's the destruction of that claim (with your own words included):

And here is the claim....re-inflated......

Direct comparisons....especially directly to Bob himself, without the assistance of a suit....are fun!



As for this quote of mine....

Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person...

You've completely changed......distorted......misrepresented....the meaning of what I said, by omitting the last part of it...

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.

A 'person'....and a 'person in a suit' are 2 different things.

Kaze's Sewer Fountain continues to spew forth...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sigh......resorting to these tactics is a diversionary attempt from the real point. I asked you to demonstrate Bob's head was too big and you have yet to do it, which means it is only your biased opinion that produces this claim.

Don't tell me you are too busy nonsense either.

You provide multiple posts in this forum every night, which means you do have the time. The answer to my question is apparent to everyone. No, you can't prove that Bob's head is too big with actual measurements.

I didn't have time last night to re-read these posts of yours, (and write a thoughtful response to specific things you said in your posts) that you mentioned...

See posts 1857 and 1871.

Do you know what I was doing, last night, Astro?

 

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, you keep posting those same pictures, as though I have not refuted them time and time again. In brief:

1. Bob's arm is foreshortened toward the camera, as evinced by the overlap of drapery, the oval of the wrist-cylinder, and the visible shortness of the arm compared to other known photos of Bob.

2. Bob's hand is tilted at an extreme oblique angle, which artificially brings up the baseline of his apparent arm-length

3. Bob's arm is angled farther back and therefore higher up at a point along the arc-circle (which controls arm length) than the P-G subject's arm, which is more vertical and therefore lower on the arc circle

4. The P-G subject is crouching slightly more so than Bob, which artificially brings down the baseline of "its" apparent arm-length

5. The baseline under the feet of the P-G subject is conjectural and may not be accurate, throwing off any attempted comparisons

6. The lens sizes of the cameras and enlargers which captured and developed these photos, and the digital compression of both pics when scanned into a computer, are unknown and can further throw off any comparisons between the two pics

Please address these direct refutations of your assertions before posting them again as though they are valid and accurate. Thank you.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You are wasting your time. Sweaty recycles the same pics and the same claims over and over. He does not address any refutations because he does not understand and does not 'do math'. He must figure that if he posts them often enough people will start to believe them.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Please address these direct refutations of your assertions before posting them again as though they are valid and accurate. Thank you.

Darth Vort, how is that hole coming?

I bet your wall now looks like the event horizion from the Star Gate hit it

 

[Drewbot]

Vort will soon understand.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

He must figure that if he posts them often enough people will start to believe them.

No, not at all. Because......


This is Jref...

"Where nothing means anything!!"

 

[Vortigern99]

It took me five minutes this morning to type out the same 6 refutations to Mr. Yeti's pics hat I've posted, without any response from Mr. Yeti, several times before.

If Mr. Yeti continues to post those same pics, I will continue to answer them with the same direct refutations.

If Mr. Yeti posts new pics, I will address those with the level of intelligence and detailed logical analysis that they deserve.

In closing, I would like to ask why LONGTABBER, Astrophotographer et al. do not bust Kitakaze's proverbial chops when he elects to engage with Mr. Yeti in a debate, or posts refutations of Mr. Yeti's assertions. Why, may I ask, am I the only one who receives questions concerning the size of the hole my head is metaphorically making, or suggestions to leave off addressing Mr. Yeti's misstatements and errors, because I'm supposedly wasting my time?

Is Kit wasting his time, or making a hole with his head? Is Astro? I realize you guys are trying to help me out, doing me a favor, offering me sound advice with respect to the pointlessness of logically engaging Mr. Yeti. But if you don't mind, I respectfully request that you cease doing this. I'm a grown man, a big boy, with a mind and conscience of my own, and I can make my own decisions on this and all other scores.

Mr. Yeti will either address my refutations of his errors, or he will hang himself by his own lack of response. Thank you.

 

[Drewbot]

Kit understands he will not get an answer. As long as you understand that, feel free to continue, but most of us have given up on trying to lock down an answer from Sweaty Yeti.

 

[Blackdog]

I gave up trying to get civil and thoughtful response from him a couple of years ago on BFF when he was Coolfoot.

 

[Brawniac]

Mr. Yeti, you keep posting those same pictures, as though I have not refuted them time and time again. In brief:

1. Bob's arm is foreshortened toward the camera, as evinced by the overlap of drapery, the oval of the wrist-cylinder, and the visible shortness of the arm compared to other known photos of Bob.

I missed the photogrammetery study to show Bob's arm is foreshortened toward the camera, as well as the detailed comparison between this picture and other photos of Bob. I find it ludicrous that Bob is walking with his arms angle out to a degree it would have much of an effect, given the video of him doing the "BF walk" doesn't indicate his arms flailing out like that.

2. Bob's hand is tilted at an extreme oblique angle, which artificially brings up the baseline of his apparent arm-length

Yes, the line should be at the wrist. Not sure how that would help Bob out though.

3. Bob's arm is angled farther back and therefore higher up at a point along the arc-circle (which controls arm length) than the P-G subject's arm, which is more vertical and therefore lower on the arc circle

The arc is still pretty much a horizontal line through the angle range you're describing...it might buy Bob a pixel at best. But if your assertion that his arm is angled towards the camera is correct, then it won't buy Bob much of anything. You can't have both, in other words.

4. The P-G subject is crouching slightly more so than Bob, which artificially brings down the baseline of "its" apparent arm-length

Meaning if Patty "straightens up", the shoulders moves up. Then the hands might then align, but the shoulders wouldn't. That doesn't help Bob.

5. The baseline under the feet of the P-G subject is conjectural and may not be accurate, throwing off any attempted comparisons

If you can infer Bob's arms are longer based on comparing it to other photos, then one can infer Patty's right foot location by comparing it to the left leg. Even more so, since they're in the same shot.

6. The lens sizes of the cameras and enlargers which captured and developed these photos, and the digital compression of both pics when scanned into a computer, are unknown and can further throw off any comparisons between the two pics

You're saying you can't actually assert Bob's arm is foreshortened toward the camera by comparing to other known photos of Bob?

Please address these direct refutations of your assertions before posting them again as though they are valid and accurate. Thank you.

Indeed.

 

[GT/CS]

Yes, the line should be at the wrist. Not sure how that would help Bob out though.

Ha, what a perfect opportunity to post the famous wrist band photo!!!!