The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Astrophotographer]

The WIDEST part of Bob's and Patty's foreheads???

The widest part of the forehead is the widest part of the human head we can see from the front (it is slightly wider in the back but we can't really measure that). It is there where the idea of the head being too big/wide will be determined.

You claim that Bunny's forehead is narrower. I measure differently. Even with the scaling being in favor of Bunny having a smaller forehead, the forehead is still larger. What are you measuring? How about defining your measurement points so we can all measure the SAME thing. I am not talking about the funny little curved lines you drew on Bob's head, which can not apply because Bunny's head is not in the same position to the camera (and not scaled correctly anyway).

So why is the scaling off in your animated gif? Is this another question, I will never receive an answer about?

For somebody who has plenty of time to make animated gifs and funny little cartoons, you seem to have difficulty explaining and answering questions about your work.

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty- here are my lines.

Also- The Sweaty Yeti Realism Meter makes an appearance.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

You claim that Bunny's forehead is narrower.

I measure differently.

Sorry Astro baby...
But I just can't

help but thinkthat Patty
McBunny's headis a tad

narrower than Bob's head



Sorry.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

The widest part of the forehead is the widest part of the human head we can see from the front (it is slightly wider in the back but we can't really measure that).

It is there where the idea of the head being too big/wide will be determined.

Wrong.


Again...as I stated earlier...

The WIDEST part of Bob's and Patty's foreheads???


The problem area (for Bob H.) is not in the wider part of the head....it's in the narrower part of Patty's forehead.


More later......

 

[Astrophotographer]

Again...as I stated earlier...

And I proved you wrong by measuring Bunny's forehead. It was larger than Bob's. If you have a specific spot that makes Bunny's forehead narrower, feel free to show us. However, we are working with a 2D image of a 3D head. The further you go up on the forehead, the more we are looking at the top of the head. Once again, the profile presented by Bunny (which is different than Bob) begins to seriously affect the measurements. So go ahead and draw us some more lines. However, make sure you have the images scaled properly because right now, based on the eyes, it isn't.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sorry Astro baby...
But I just can't help but think that Patty
McBunny's head is a tad narrower than Bob's head

Sorry.

Well, that is what you get for thinking. Once again, since you are not paying attention:

1. The profile of Bunny is different than Bob causing false comparisons.
2. The image scaling based on the eyes is wrong. Bunny is scaled smaller than Bob!
3. You have not provided any measurements or where you are measuring. The end result, is your analysis can not be replicated by others and therefore, it is invalid.

 

[kitakaze]

Sure, I can...

1) Different head positions, angles, distances from cameras, and perspectives.

2) Why only one eye dot under the red scribbles? Try making two dots on Bob's eyes and then scaling down the image so that the dots approximate where Pattys's eyes would be. Mind you, it's still flawed because the heads are still in different positions so the eye positions will be affected.

3) No answer to the questions in post #1728 of Astro's which have been hanging there for days, hey, Slippery?

4)

(image code snipped)

It's like you're some type of fanatic who has no idea what he's saying or doing.

It's like.....you can't demonstrate where the error is, in that comparison....


None of those images in your post show where an error is in this comparison...

1,2,3, Sweaty.

#4 Shows that Bob's head fits within Patty's and that Patty is of normal human stature. Please don't ignore 1,2,3. You're not afraid, are you?

It's like......nobody here can demonstrate where the error is, in that comparison!


It's like.....COOL!

It's like you dodge simple questions and addressing fundamental problems and hump the emoticons.

It's like, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

(BTW, David Byrne dances better than you, too. Check 1:45. There's a gif I think I'll make just for you.)

 

[kitakaze]

For somebody who has plenty of time to make animated gifs and funny little cartoons, you seem to have difficulty explaining and answering questions about your work.

This is the core of Sweaty's ineffectual behaviour and intellectual cowardice in debate. Sweaty has provided us with an easy and clear example of his typical flailing. Here is your post with the part Sweaty responded to in blue and essential points and questions unanswered in pink...

The widest part of the forehead is the widest part of the human head we can see from the front (it is slightly wider in the back but we can't really measure that). It is there where the idea of the head being too big/wide will be determined.

You claim that Bunny's forehead is narrower. I measure differently. Even with the scaling being in favor of Bunny having a smaller forehead, the forehead is still larger. What are you measuring? How about defining your measurement points so we can all measure the SAME thing? I am not talking about the funny little curved lines you drew on Bob's head, which can not apply because Bunny's head is not in the same position to the camera (and not scaled correctly anyway).

So why is the scaling off in your animated gif? Is this another question, I will never receive an answer about?

So in response Sweaty went to the effort to give us 25 laughing dogs and the same messed up Bunny/Bob comparison. Let's remove the emoticon avalanche so we can see if Sweaty said anything of substance...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PBHeadCompAG3.gif[/qimg]

Sorry Astro baby...
But I just can't help but think that Patty McBunny's head is a tad narrower than Bob's head



Sorry.

Well, look at that. We have a "nuh-uh". 25 laughing dogs, a "nuh-uh", and no attempt to address blatant measuring and scaling problems raised. What kind of flailing idiot does this? How can any person with any measure of intelligence think that anyone would consider that a worthy and effective contribution to a debate? There you have a prime example of why skeptics and Bigfoot proponents alike revile Sweaty. His posting is basically like the Bigfootery equivalent of Jim Kramer from Mad Money meets Chris Crocker.

Leave Patty ALONE!!!

 

[doctoratlantis]

DNA & PG, etc...

I just posted a new podcast called "MonsterTalk" - available at MonsterTalk.org. Our first episode is an interview with Dr. Todd Disotell, the NYU professor with a mohawk who did the DNA analysis for the MonsterQuest (and in total about 30) "bigfoot samples".

Our next guest is going to be Michael McLeod, author of the new book "Anatomy of a Beast". It tells the story of Ivan Sanderson, Patterson, and the birth of the Bigfoot Legend. (Although I'm sure MANY of the readers of the JREF forums will know most of these details, and perhaps dispute them.) Still, ya might enjoy the show. We certainly got a lot of interesting info out of Dr. Disotell.

Hope y'all like it - you're the target audience.

 

[kitakaze]

I just posted a new podcast called "MonsterTalk" - available at MonsterTalk.org. Our first episode is an interview with Dr. Todd Disotell, the NYU professor with a mohawk who did the DNA analysis for the MonsterQuest (and in total about 30) "bigfoot samples".

Our next guest is going to be Michael McLeod, author of the new book "Anatomy of a Beast". It tells the story of Ivan Sanderson, Patterson, and the birth of the Bigfoot Legend. (Although I'm sure MANY of the readers of the JREF forums will know most of these details, and perhaps dispute them.) Still, ya might enjoy the show. We certainly got a lot of interesting info out of Dr. Disotell.

Hope y'all like it - you're the target audience.

Wow! That is excellent, DocAt. This is just the kind of thing I was hoping would be put together. I had been giving thought to doing a podcast myself when time became more available. I've really enjoyed your youtube videos and have referenced them on a number of occasions.

I often wonder about people like Disotell and MQ. Just last night I was watching MQ with Esteban Sarmiento in India looking for the Monkey Man. You see the guy expressing skepticism at certain points but then you see shows like that or what for me is a classic Bigfoot science moment where Sarmiento is leaning over the Skookum cast with magnifiying goggles and headbanger hair looking for something they can run DNA samples on.



If you haven't read it already, try searching anatomy+beast+McLeod to see what discussions have happened already on his book. Also check the Vanity Fair Bigfoot article thread.

Look forward to listening to these shows.

 

[kitakaze]

DocAt, just checking your Monster Talk website. Looks great. Just a suggestion but maybe under "skeptical links" you could include a link to the JREF, considering how much skeptical discussion of cryptozoology and monster claims goes on here.

ETA: Here's a direct link to Monster Talk #001 with Dr. Todd Disotell:

http://monstertalk.org/wordpress/?p=16

EATA: OK, listening now and I'm to going start a thread for this.

 

[doctoratlantis]

DocAt, just checking your Monster Talk website. Looks great. Just a suggestion but maybe under "skeptical links" you could include a link to the JREF, considering how much skeptical discussion of cryptozoology and monster claims goes on here.

ETA: Here's a direct link to Monster Talk #001 with Dr. Todd Disotell:

http://monstertalk.org/wordpress/?p=16

EATA: OK, listening now and I'm to going start a thread for this.

Doh! That's actually one of the reasons I came over to the site today. I was going to link to the PGF forum - forgetting that I was on the board when it was -erm "put into suspended animation."

Linking now.

 

[makaya325]

Doctor, keep the youtube videos coming! I loved your analysis on the Jacobs photos.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Oh - and to be topical:

Just to sort of highlight the problem here - the faces look similar in their orientation once flipped, but there is still enough difference that you can't get those red lines to accurately line up. And the only features we can be pretty sure are Bob's (if he's in the suit) are the eyes. The other features could be exaggerated due to applied prosthetics.

See how the mouth's too big on Bob? Chances are that the whole head would be larger than Bob's head.

Just look at how much of Bob's left shoulder suit is visible in the brown/red version. These two are not good matches for this kind of comparison.

 

[doctoratlantis]

YouTube

Doctor, keep the youtube videos coming! I loved your analysis on the Jacobs photos.

Thanks - man that's hard work. (Or at least Time Consuming) I want to do a lot more, especially about MonsterQuest and UFO Hunters... just need to find a sponsor so I can quit my day-job.

You'd think the CIA would be beating my door down to hire me... <sigh> If only that were true.

 

[makaya325]

Thanks - man that's hard work. (Or at least Time Consuming) I want to do a lot more, especially about MonsterQuest and UFO Hunters... just need to find a sponsor so I can quit my day-job.

You'd think the CIA would be beating my door down to hire me... <sigh> If only that were true.

I know a man by the name of "EsoxLee" that has debunked both MQ bigfoot episodes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxt6vt2YxM0

This was by far the funniest video, showing the witness who said "I thought we were food". Lol

 

[makaya325]

Thanks - man that's hard work. (Or at least Time Consuming) I want to do a lot more, especially about MonsterQuest and UFO Hunters... just need to find a sponsor so I can quit my day-job.

You'd think the CIA would be beating my door down to hire me... <sigh> If only that were true.

You demolished the "No bears are found" arguement. I was surprised that Krantz still kept his reputation after saying that wildlife officials will tell you that bears are never found.

 

[makaya325]

Radford is completely mistaken concerning the "Bigfoot hair".

 

[makaya325]

Why do they find humor in insulting a dead man in Paul Freeman?

 

[doctoratlantis]

Why do they find humor in insulting a dead man in Paul Freeman?

To be fair:
Describing him as a hoaxer isn't meant as an insult. (At least not by me.) It's certainly not an epithet that I would sling at someone. I think it is true, but it isn't particularly insulting. But like I said, we need to do a show just on Freeman.

There was some other banter in there that augmented the humor but the show was close to an hour and 20 minutes and I had to trim it down. I didn't want to cut Disotell so the three of us got the axe. This led to a couple of places where we laugh inappropriately, or for no apparent reason.

But did we joke about Freeman even though he was dead? Yes.

Is it insulting to suggest that Freeman is now hoaxing bigfoot tracks in heaven or perhaps on some celestial version of the Carson show?

Was Freeman a hoaxer? Mike Dennett - who died much more recently - says that ABC footage shows Freeman admitting to faking prints. (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm)

Is it possible that Mike Dennett is in heaven debunking Freeman? One can hope...

Well you can't amuse everyone.