Let’s start from the beginning. Parcher posted:
Yes, lets. Parcher initiated this foolishness by posting his remarks about the statue, and instead of merely pointing out that it was only a carving, and that the sculptor was not very experienced, and leave it at that, you launched into a
defensive ramble [you’re “losing it”--RK] (
post #2616) about possible creases/hernias (pick one), the butt, the upper thigh, the breasts, and the head/face/ears.
Parcher accused the sculptor of deliberately creating a statue that misrepresented Patty in order to make her appear more authentic. He put forward five claims:
• The thigh bulge was missing (I countered that it was visible when viewed from the side);
• The butt was made more natural (I disputed that, saying that the indentation lines above and below it were unnatural, as was the thinner thigh (more humanlike, hence more consistent with a hoax);
• The breasts were moved higher to look more natural (I argued that post-adolescent breasts look more natural in a lower position), and a different shape (which I disputed);
• The head was different (I explained that it was based on a profile view in frame 344, and the difference was not intended nefariously).
• The statuette would look very different if compared to Patty (I disputed this, saying the side-by-side photos on p. 96 of
Meet the Sasquatch were similar).
So I responded in a pertinent fashion; I did not “ramble.”
You stated that I should have “merely point[ed] out that it was only a carving, and that the sculptor was not very experienced, and le[ft] it at that.” In other words, that I should have conceded that Parcher was correct in his characterization of the statuette.
Question 1: But why should I have conceded that Parcher was correct, if he was wrong in asserting that certain differences were present (if they weren’t), or that they made the creature look more authentic (if they didn’t), or that they were significant (if they were only trivial)?
Next, You suggested I should, in effect, have pled
guilty with an explanation, stating that Bourtsev was inexperienced and "it was only a
carving" that was under discussion.
Correction, the issue on the table was Bourtsev’s honesty (and by implication the level of honesty to be expected from Bigfoot researchers generally), which is a very important issue. That was the point behind Parcher’s post, as indicated by his lead-in:
Another example of contemporary modification of Patty to make her look authentic.
Question 2: Should I have conceded the justice of an unfounded attack on the character of Bourtsev, and by implication of other Bigfoot researchers, or was it appropriate for me to respond? (I did so calmly and honestly, conceding points where Parcher was on-target. I defended in a non-“defensive” way.)
At that point it was already a pretty
weak argument to be debating a carving, [no, defending the honesty of Bourtsev et al.] but it was compounded when you brought it up again in your postscript to your
post #2666. There, you spent an additional two paragraphs on the thigh bulge, and whether it may have been hernia, costume fold, or anomaly.
As I stated in my post prior to your response, I spent those paragraphs trying to “forestall a comeback” I anticipated from Parcher: That
Bourtsev should have made the thigh bulge larger. I hoped to avoid one round of wrangling with him, IOW. So my post was not wasted space, as you imply, but the reverse.
You state that I discussed the bulge at length, implying that I was trying to defend Patty’s authenticity thereby, or because I just liked to ramble. But I mentioned that there were three possible explanations for the bulge only to indicate that its nature was unsettled and that therefore making it prominent on the statuette would have been inappropriate. I wasn’t arguing about which of these interpretations of the bulge was correct, or using my interpretation to bolster the authenticity of the PGF, as you have implied.
You even included a thumbnail image to bolster your point.
You imply my “point” was to defend the PGF, but it wasn’t. You won’t be able to find and quote any words of mine to that effect. I posted the thumbnail image of the statuette’s thigh-bulge only because not everyone has a copy of
Meet the Sasquatch, and I wanted to put my evidence on the table by showing what it was that I was seeing. (I should have done so in my first post, but it hadn’t occurred to me to crop the image.)
You made reference to the thigh-bulge on the statue, even giving possibilities for what it might be -- hernia, costume fold, or anomaly. I voiced my opinion that the evidence for Patty must be very weak if we are debating a carving of Patty.
No, I was defending Bourtsev from the implication that he’d carved a dishonest or inappropriate statuette in the thigh area. Nowhere did my discussion of the bulge or my thumbnail image aim at bolstering Patty’s authenticity, as you have charged. My previous response to your statement quoted above was a challenge (below) to you to quote words of mine defending the PGF based on evidence from the statuette:
Where did I do that? Nowhere, that’s where.
(You failed to respond to the above—because you can’t.)
Question 3: With what words (QUOTED) did I use the statuette as “evidence for Patty”?
By your continued discussion on this topic, it appears you DO find it necessary to debate the statue/carving.
No, to clear up your obfuscations.
That answers my question about poor evidence. RayG
Oh, brother.
