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.”
Ummm.... if you say so. (though you seem to be doing it
again here and now. Roger, everytime you post a rejoinder you strengthen my observation that the evidence must be very weak indeed to expend this much time and energy debating an
artistic representation of a film frame.
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)?
Why? In a nutshell -- because you're debating a
carving, NOT any actual evidence.
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:
Bourtsev
WAS inexperienced, and MY point in all of this (I'll spell it out yet again) --
the evidence must be quite poor indeed if we are reduced to debating a carving/statue.
Each post you make defending your decision to
discuss the carving/statue adds further weight to MY point.
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.)
What you perceived as a personal attack against Bourtsev and all bigfooters in general, I perceived as someone dangling a
carving/statue out there as an argument against the possible validity of the film. You not only took the bait, you ran with it.
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.
Maybe the best way to 'forestall a comeback' would have been to point out it's only a carving/statue, that the sculptor was an inexperienced newbie, that it represents one film frame out of many, and that it came with no guarantee of authentic scaling/measurements. What you did instead, was to launch a defensive rebuttal about the carving/statue, addressing things such as thigh bulges, butts, and breasts (and now the honesty of the sculptor and all of bigfootdom).
I stand by my original point --
the evidence must be quite poor indeed if we are reduced to debating a carving/statue.
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.
I don't recall saying that you 'just like to ramble', but I
have pointed out (a number of times now), that the evidence must be very weak for us to engage in such a prolonged debate about a
carving/statue.
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.
As I said, my point was, is, and always has been,
the evidence must be quite poor indeed if we are reduced to debating a carving/statue.
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.)
And I have pointed out a couple times that you had used the thumbnail image to further strengthen your case regarding the
carving/statue, which we have been debating, and which I find quite pointless. The carving/statue does NOT lend any authenticity to the original film in any way shape or form. It is pointless to discuss thigh-bulges, butts, or breasts on the
carving/statue because they are merely
artistic representations and
NOT accurate reproductions.
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.
You included a thumbnail image to show that Bourtsev hadn't carved a dishonest or inappropriate statuette thigh, yet the only comparision that can be made is to the original film source. That may be perceived as some as an attempt to use the carving to help authenticate the film. How did you determine that Bourtsev
didn't carve an inappropriate thigh if you didn't compare it to the film?
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.)
You made reference to the thigh-bulge on the statue, even giving possibilities for what it might be -- hernia, costume fold, or anomaly. The only point of reference is the PGF. I voiced my opinion that the evidence for Patty must be very weak if we are debating a
carving of Patty. My opinion has not changed
Question 3: With what words (QUOTED) did I use the statuette as “evidence for Patty”?
Though you have not specifically said,
'I am using the carving/statue as evidence to support the authenticity of the PGF', actions speak louder than words. Repeatedly using features from the carving/statue, like hernias, butts, and breasts, when your only reference point is the PGF, certainly SEEMS like you're using the carving/statue as support for the authenticity of the PGF.
RayG
