Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


You're right, MH.....I was applying logic to the event....and I wasn't there.

Very good!
Now explain exactly what is illogical about what I said earlier.

Applying...YOUR logic...Sweaty. Applying what YOU would have done...that's my point Mensa.

The fact of the matter is, you can't....because what I said was indeed logical.

Your "logical reasoning" skills suck, also.

No Brain Donor...The fact of the matter is....your animation sucks. RayG beat me to it but the more I looked at that thing...the more it appeared to be a pretty piss poor attempt at fabricating bending fingers...the background completely changes...what's with that??

BTW...do you still stand behind your analysis that the mis-match in angle makes the comparison images meaningless??

Yes I still stand behind it...hell I'll stand next to it....in front of it even. To me A.) the angle is still off a little and B.) You are comparing Bob H's arm length with and without his suit on....so yes Sweetsy it's Fricken...meaningless

Sure, that is a possibility.
But analysis is all about weighing probabilities....not just imagining possibilities.

Probabilities?!?!? I am going to go over this ONE more time...there are people...we have proven they exist and that they walk bipedally. There are also...silly arse monkey suits...proven to exist in most every costume shop from San Dimas to Kalamazoo...now given the fact that both people and silly gorilla suits definitely have been proven to exist...and Bigfeetsus definitely has not...why on earth would Bigfeetsus as real flesh and blood creature.........EVER be more probable....all the crayon scribbles and doctored up animations notwithstanding.

It's logical to assume that Roger, after working on his "creation" for years, probably would have had Bob rehearse the walk, once or twice...before putting it on film. That rehearsal would.....logically....have included the use of the remote-control gadget.

ASS out of U and ME..."Probably" means nothing ...your speculating...people who haven't been able to progress the Bigfeetsus Game beyond bison hair,potholes in the mud, and crappy animations are not afforded the leeway of assumption.....

....B-O-D-Y...do you have one yet??

Therefore, there is a low 'degree of probability' that Bob would have forgotten to use the gadget.
A rehearsal doesn't eliminate the possiiblity of a mistake...but it does, in fact, lower the probability of it happening.

Objection your honor...Sweetsy is speculating...again.

These statements by Mad Hom highlight the complete lack of interest in logical and scientific analysis of the evidence by skeptics here.

There is never any mention of probabilities by them.......only possibilities.

All the skeptics here seem capable of doing is spouting "well, it's possible...."

That is not true analysis of the evidence.....it's actually the exact opposite of it.

Anyone can sit and imagine all kinds of possibilities, with regards to anything......but only a person with a scientific, analytical mind can narrow 'possibilities' down to what is most 'probable'.

The probability of Bigfeetsus being a really for really live animal are somewhere around .0000000001%...the possibility of Sweetsy being off his freekin meds and using Nurse Ratchet's computer while she's away 99.9%

 

[Mad Hom]

That's pretty perceptive of you.
One of our members had the same idea, and took a couple of shots of a rigid plastic doll hand ..

[qimg]http://www.gatzstuff.com/images/Bigfoot/DollHand.gif[/qimg]

Surprise ! Surprise !

Of course, we never have been able to get Sweety to tell us exactly what the significance of slightly bending fingers is ; whether we are looking at rubber or flesh ..

The actual genesis of this particular question, arose out of the claim by some Pattycakes, that the subject exhibits sophisticated finger movement, that could have only been accomplished by elaborate prosthetic appliances.

The two frame animation you see is all they could come up with, and it hardly supports their contention.

Exactly...Sweetsy insists he's Mr Super Science and how he's examing the probabilities BLAH BLAH BLAH.... That animation he presented showing what he ASS-U-ME's to be finger bending could be anything...could be a rubber glove on extensions...or it could be a crappy doctored up animation...than he scolds ME for not wearing my logical pants.Geeeeeeesh!!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

why on earth would Bigfeetsus as real flesh and blood creature.........EVER be more probable...

Dear Mad Balls... ...

A really really LIVE creature becomes more probable than a suit when NOBODY can either produce the "suit".....or reproduce the "suit"....in 40 years...and counting.

It's that simple.

To boot.....the advantage the suitniks have over us Bigfeetie lovers is that suits don't run away and hide from humans.

40 years.....and nobody can find one on a shelf which comes close to Patty.....or throw one together.
BTW......how's Dfoot's suit coming along???
Does anyone know?

You ask "where's a body?"...but we ask "where's a suit?". Both questions are fair, and reasonable to ask.

Mad Hom wrote:

...that animation he presented showing what he ASS-U-ME's to be finger bending could be anything...could be a rubber glove on extensions...or it could be a crappy doctored-up animation...then he scolds ME for not wearing my logical pants.Geeeeeeesh!!

As I said before....Mad Hom and company have no interest in intelligently, and carefully, analysing the evidence...to help determine it's true weight.

All they are capable of doing is exactly what Mad Hom just did.......look at the evidence and say "goo goo gaa gaa...it could be anything... ..goo goo gaa gaa...got a body?.. ..goo goo gaa gaa...."

OH....Sir James Randi himself wants to say something.......

Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe. Join the Internet's largest skeptical community....and listen in as Mad Hom says "Goo Goo Gaa Gaa...it could be anything"...aaaaaaaaaaaall day long."

Please, Mad Boy... ....continue your brain-dead rant...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

You're right, MH.....I was applying logic to the event....and I wasn't there.

Very good!
Now explain exactly what is illogical about what I said earlier.

Applying....YOUR logic...Sweaty. Applying what YOU would have done...that's my point Mensa.

You failed to answer my question, Mad Hom.

Just because I said something is logical, does not necessarily make it illogical.....and by the same token....neither does it necessarily make it logical.

If you're stating that my logical reasoning is not logical......then it's up to you to explain exactly why it doesn't make sense.

The happy fact of the matter is.....YOU CAN'T!

You can't elaborate on your claim...because you put NO THOUGHT into it.....and that's because you have NO THOUGHTS....other than the typical...."Goo Goo Gaa Gaa....Got a body?".

You, very simply....have contributed absolutely nothing to the analysis of the evidence...........and you never will, Pea-brain.

Can you prove me wrong???

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, but why would anyone's body measurements appear to be the same both in and out of a bulky bigfoot suit?

 

[William Parcher]

40 years.....and nobody can find one on a shelf which comes close to Patty.....or throw one together.

Nobody can scrounge up a Memorial Day Footage costume either. LOL. That one might be more difficult to replicate because you also need a fake baby Bigfoot climbing on the hoaxer. LOL.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/images/photos/mk_davis_042006/MKwithcolorpatty.jpg

I ask you now, what does Patty's fur look like here?

It does not look real at all. This is what Heuvelmans was talking about with the way the fur lies.

In all furry animals the hair has a definite pattern, that is, on each area of the body the hairs are oriented in a certain direction. For instance, on a chimpanzee's arm, or even on a man's if he is hairy, they go down from the shoulder to the elbow, and up from the wrist to the elbow. This definite hair pattern can be seen even on photographs of animals from the way the light shines on their fur.

On the creature shown on Patterson's film there is nothing of the sort. As can be seen from the way the hairs shine, giving the fur a speckled appearance, they point in all directions (compare the blowups of the film with photographs of gorillas or, better, of certain bears, which have 'short, shiny, black hair', and you will see that in the latter, the shine on the fur shows that on each part of the body the hairs all point in the same direction).

The aspect of the hair of the creature in the film is exactly what should be expected from artificial fur--whether thick velvet or nylon fur--in which all threads (not actually hairs) are attached uniformly on some canvas base. When you stroke this material in different directions, the artificial hairs get bent in these directions and remain so until you brush them all carefully in the same direction.

Patterson adds--which is also seen in the film-that 'even her big, droopy breasts' are covered with short shiny black hair. This would of course be possible in some unknown species of man, but it would be rather improbable to say the least. In all larger apes the breasts have a slight tendency toward swelling, and even dropping a little, when the female is nursing its baby or if it has been nursing many of them, but even in such hairy primates the chest is almost naked.

I want to add that this (to me) obvious hoax does not shake at all my firm conviction that some large unknown human-like primate lives in the northwest of the United States and in the western provinces of Canada, not to mention of course certain mountain ranges of northeastern and central Asia."

 

[superbu]

A really really LIVE creature becomes more probable than a suit when NOBODY can either produce the "suit".....or reproduce the "suit"....in 40 years...and counting.

It's that simple.

But doesn't the fact that no one has reproduced the footage in 40-plus years lean towards the opposite conclusion -- that it IS a man in a suit?

How likely is it that, in 40-plus years of continually shrinking wilderness and dozens, if not hundreds, of expeditions by Bigfoot hunters, no one else has ever captured one on film? That seems near-impossible to me.

That simple reason is why this former believer (me) now seriously doubts that there ever was a Bigfoot. I wouldn't say I'm a disbeliever, either -- there is some intriguing evidence -- but the fact that no one has come up with anything solid in 40 years outweighs the small amount of evidence, at least to me.

But I do still find the topic interesting, because I hope I'm wrong.

 

[SweatyYeti]

But doesn't the fact that no one has reproduced the footage in 40-plus years lean towards the opposite conclusion -- that it IS a man in a suit?

You're right, superbu.....it does lean in that direction. Put another way.....the lack of compelling Bigfoot videos takes away from or lowers the likelihood, or probability that the creature exists.....but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

The sighting reports still carry some weight....simply because of their sheer volume. If thousands of people living today say they've seen a Bigfoot...then there is a reasonable chance, likelihood, or 'degree of probability' that some of them are indeed telling the truth.
The higher the percentage of the population there is that says they've seen one.....the higher the "degree of probability" is that some of them actually did.

The question which needs to be addressed......and which is NOT addressed on this board....is "what is the true weight of the evidence for Bigfoot?".

Here's a brand-new, shiny, doesn't-get-any-better-than-this example of how 'ANTI-analysis' the attitude is on this sewer of a board...
....courtesy of Mad Butt....."Science, directly from the ass"....(hold your nose)...

Sweetsy insists he's Mr Super Science and how he's examing the probabilities BLAH BLAH BLAH.... That animation he presented showing what he ASS-U-ME's to be finger bending could be anything...

Yup..."it could be anything"....

Gee, maybe it's a veener schnitzel. It could be!

How likely is it that, in 40-plus years of continually shrinking wilderness and dozens, if not hundreds, of expeditions by Bigfoot hunters, no one else has ever captured one on film? That seems near-impossible to me.

That's not necessarily the case, superbu.

The Memorial Day video may well be a video of a Bigfoot, with an infant on it's back and/or shoulders.
There's actually less evidence of it being a hoax, than there is of it being a legitimate Bigfoot video.

That simple reason is why this former believer (me) now seriously doubts that there ever was a Bigfoot. I wouldn't say I'm a disbeliever, either -- there is some intriguing evidence -- but the fact that no one has come up with anything solid in 40 years outweighs the small amount of evidence, at least to me.

But I do still find the topic interesting, because I hope I'm wrong.

It's nice to hear a skeptic here talk about the evidence in terms of weight...and not just in the extreme of "all or nothing".

 

[drapier]

Hell, if Sweaty Yeti can produce two frames that show fingers bending, then there must have been a civilization on Mars. Just ask Joyce.

 

[bruto]

You're right, superbu.....it does lean in that direction. Put another way.....the lack of compelling Bigfoot videos takes away from or lowers the likelihood, or probability that the creature exists.....but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

The sighting reports still carry some weight....simply because of their sheer volume. If thousands of people living today say they've seen a Bigfoot...then there is a reasonable chance, likelihood, or 'degree of probability' that some of them are indeed telling the truth.
The higher the percentage of the population there is that says they've seen one.....the higher the "degree of probability" is that some of them actually did.

The question which needs to be addressed......and which is NOT addressed on this board....is "what is the true weight of the evidence for Bigfoot?".

Here's a brand-new, shiny, doesn't-get-any-better-than-this example of how 'ANTI-analysis' the attitude is on this sewer of a board...
....courtesy of Mad Butt....."Science, directly from the ass"....(hold your nose)...



Yup..."it could be anything"....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]

Gee, maybe it's a veener schnitzel. It could be!



That's not necessarily the case, superbu.

The Memorial Day video may well be a video of a Bigfoot, with an infant on it's back and/or shoulders.
There's actually less evidence of it being a hoax, than there is of it being a legitimate Bigfoot video.



It's nice to hear a skeptic here talk about the evidence in terms of weight...and not just in the extreme of "all or nothing".

I don't think weight and volume are equivalent. Volume is not nothing at all, but a thousand anecdotes are still anecdotes. How do the numbers of bigfoot sightings compare, for example, with those of angels, leprechauns, or the Virgin Mary?

One could also make the counter argument that the more apparent sightings there are, the less excuse there is for the lack of better evidence to corroborate them. After all, if there are that many bigfeet out there, and they're showing up so often, how come nobody seems to be able to come up with physical evidence?

Whatever you're piling up, size makes it more impressive, but it doesn't necessarily improve the smell.

 

[LTC8K6]

All of the anecdotes would mean there are lots of bigfoot out there if you are going to accept the anecdotes as evidence.

There cannot be lots of them out there, and no film, no roadkills, no shootings, etc. after 40 years.

If you accept the anecdotes as evidence, then the lack of physical evidence is a huge problem for you, imo.

In 40 years at least one should have been hit by a car or a train, one should have been shot, one should have been filmed clearly, one should have had a disease that affected it's judgement and attacked a family out camping, a bigfoot cub should have gotten away from it's mother, one should have been driven by a forest fire into contact with humans, etc., etc., etc.

You can't accept the anecdotes and accept the lack of evidence, imo.

 

[William Parcher]

Additionally, Bigfooters commonly make a claim meant to bolster confidence in Bigfoot that turns out to do the opposite. Many of them will confidently tell you that the 'thousands of eyewitness reports' are only the ones that were reported in some formalized sense. They say that there are thousands (tens of?) more that go unreported because the witness fears ridicule, job loss or whatever.

You can understand why this would be mentioned in order to ratchet-up the significance and scale of encounters. But it certainly also exaggerates the problem with no primary evidence ever being acquired. IMO, it would be more acceptable if the number of witness reports were as low as possible while still retaining believeability. But it's too late for that already, and new reports continue to stream in. Reminding people that the true number of eyewitnesses is probably twice (or more) as high as is reported ought to be very troublesome.

You can't accept the anecdotes and accept the lack of evidence, imo.

But if you do, you get to call yourself a Bigfooter. Anyone who believes this creature exists automatically must accept that the situation is exactly as it appears. Bigfoot really does exist in spite of everything and against all odds. This must be true for any believer.

 

[Hitch]

I love when this picture gets thrown around as "proof" of anything.

All the colored lines running every which way seem to show something. But if you look, the top of Bob and Patty's heads are pretty close to even. Now look lower. See the bottom of Bob's right foot? Compare that to where Patty's right knee would be if you could see it. The scale of the two images is way off. It's as useless as ever other piece of "evidence" the bigfooters have presented.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, WP. I forgot about those who would see a foot and not report it. The number of sightings must indeed be much higher than the number of reports, making the necessary foot population much higher yet.

Still squat for physical evidence 40 years after the PGF.

 

[William Parcher]

I think this comparison has some merit, but not because of the dots or lines. What impresses me is that when you compare a moment in time (the stills of these two subjects) in the striding, they are nearly a match. I think that means something. When I saw the footages of BH walking in street clothes, I was instantly struck with seeing a walk that is very much like Patty. We still hear that Patty doesn't walk like any human being. But it's quite compelling to me to know that the only person to confess to being Patty also walks just like her. The arm-swinging along with the cadence and posture are amazingly similar to Patty.

I think the only clip to be found on the web now is of BH walking in street clothes and is produced by Darkwing (MABRC). It's shortened and also the wrong speed (too fast). I think this was done intentionally to reduce the rather obvious similarity when you see the proper clip.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Dear Mad Balls... ...

A really really LIVE creature becomes more probable than a suit when NOBODY can either produce the "suit".....or reproduce the "suit"....in 40 years...and counting.

It's that simple.

No it's this simple...you dullard....it has been 40 years and all Bigfoot Nation has to hang their hats on is a film that proves very little of anything either way...skeptics can't seem to find the suit and Bigfeetsus Bleevers can't seem to find Bigfeetsus...the huge...and I mean huge as Rosie O'Donell's arse difference is Bigfoot Nation want's....THE suit...and all we the skeptical people of earth want....is A Bigfeetsus...any Bigfeetsus really....hell we'll even settle for some DNA from A really for really Hairy Biped of Unusual Size...but Bigfoot Nation can't seem to find any...why is that??

Could it be because you waste time pimping the PGF across the interweb running off at the piehole about finger bending,intricate muscalature,Mid Tarsal breaks,compliant gait yada yada yada...blah blah blah ad nauseum rather than cutting bait on what basically amounts to a 40 year old ambiguous pareolia (sp?) enthusiasts wet dream.

You claim you want a reproduction....yet hold any reproduction done to impossibly high standards...not to say any of the reproductions to date are great...but just that NO reproduction will EVER satisfy you...deny that if you want...but everyone knows it's reality.

To boot.....the advantage the suitniks have over us Bigfeetie lovers is that suits don't run away and hide from humans.

Geeeeesh........Sweetsy was your school bus much shorter than everyone else's?? This just in simpleton....Bigfeetsus's can't be thrown away,burnt to a charred cinder,thrown in a woodchipper or buried underneath the septic tank...they also don't rot and fall apart...any of which MAY have been the ultimate demise of the original suit.

You are asking skeptics to recreate to almost exact measurement the original suit or produce the actual suit...admittedly a tall order. We on the other hand just want one dead Bigfeetsus,or some actually useful DNA or some film of one doing something that couldn't possibly be a guy in a suit.

It's really this simple Gibroney.....film can be faked or doctored up post op by Bigfoot Nation and suits can be produced....Now I'm sure you are not going to like this but to bad...

B-O-D-Y.....got one yet??

40 years.....and nobody can find one on a shelf which comes close to Patty.....or throw one together.
BTW......how's Dfoot's suit coming along???
Does anyone know?

You ask "where's a body?"...but we ask "where's a suit?". Both questions are fair, and reasonable to ask.

As I said before....Mad Hom and company have no interest in intelligently, and carefully, analysing the evidence...to help determine it's true weight.

That's mostly because....the evidence....now wait for it...






...SUCKS!!

All they are capable of doing is exactly what Mad Hom just did.......look at the evidence and say "goo goo gaa gaa...it could be anything... ..goo goo gaa gaa...got a body?.. ..goo goo gaa gaa...."

You're right that's what we say...it could be anything..and you know what...we are incorrect....anything would mean that it actually could be a real live really for really Hairy Biped of Unusual Size...and that my paint chip chewing chum.....just couldn't be further from reality.

 

[Mad Hom]

I think the only clip to be found on the web now is of BH walking in street clothes and is produced by Darkwing (MABRC). It's shortened and also the wrong speed (too fast). I think this was done intentionally to reduce the rather obvious similarity when you see the proper clip.

What?? Bigfoot Nation doing anything intentionally to skew the evidence in their favor?? C'mon Parch...say it isn't so.

I guess the next thing you'll try to tell me is that the LMS isn't a pure pristine copy of the original film...with only a few filtering effects done...you know to clear things up a little.

 

[kitakaze]

Yay! Go Vancouver Island! Here's some fine new Wn'W idiocy making the rounds.

Bigfoot filmed in Sooke, obscured by man shoveling snow.

As always, comments far more interesting than clip.

 

[kitakaze]

A really really LIVE creature becomes more probable than a suit when NOBODY can either produce the "suit".....or reproduce the "suit"....in 40 years...and counting.

Why?

You failed to answer my question, Mad Hom.

How many strikes before you're out, turtle boy?

Just because I said something is logical, does not necessarily make it illogical.....and by the same token....neither does it necessarily make it logical.

If you're stating that my logical reasoning is not logical......then it's up to you to explain exactly why it doesn't make sense.

The happy fact of the matter is.....YOU CAN'T!

I did. Took about two minutes (most of which was finding a suitable straw man image).

The sighting reports still carry some weight....simply because of their sheer volume. If thousands of people living today say they've seen a Bigfoot...then there is a reasonable chance, likelihood, or 'degree of probability' that some of them are indeed telling the truth.
The higher the percentage of the population there is that says they've seen one.....the higher the "degree of probability" is that some of them actually did.

So extraterrestrials and ghosts are more likely than bigfoot?