Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Belz...]

"If the fingers bend....
You MUST pretend"

Do the fingers bend ? Obviously ?

This is the same as 9/11 CTers who say the collapses of the towers are "obviously" signs of control demolition.

Just because you think it's obvious, doesn't prove a thing. Not even to you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
How do you know that? Do you have any evidence to back that up with? How do you know that Patty was a man-in-a-suit?

I smell a semantical charade coming. I will not bite that bait.

I smell Bullshi_.

It's a discussion board....yet Will REFUSES to answer questions......along with belz......and RayG......and kitakraze.....and on the BFF....scotto....wolftrax....RayG again....Volsquatch....etc.

Each with their own good "reasons", too.

Poor little skeptics....a wee bit lame in the brain.

 

[Belz...]

It's a discussion board....yet Will REFUSES to answer questions......along with belz......

You're not very good at reading, Slippery. I've answered your questions pages ago.



Either that or you're lying, again.

 

[Correa Neto]

First time I saw PGF, back in the mid-70s I was deeply impressed. I kept this feeling for a long time. However, when I began to learn more about FX, photography and biology, this feeling begun to vanish.

What impressed me?

Well, it was featured at a show, and the narrative, pointing to features (most of them the same still proudly shown by PGFfers), saying it was the real deal and even featuring a scientist legitimating it (Krantz) were more than enough for me by then.

I saw the Ultraman series and I knew what monster suits looked like and what they could do or not! PGF's subject turned its head and stared the camera. Hell, no way a man in a monster suit could do that! They always have to turn the whole body! There were no apparent seams or zippers! And these could be seen at most monster suits! And I saw gorilla suits personally in sideshows, those women who became gorillas. They were nothing like Patty... And Patty had that smooth natural-looking hair.

Then by sheer chance in my early 20s I saw "Africa Screams" -again- on TV. And well, that gorilla is as good as Patty! And its an old movie! I then remembered Tracy from "Ghostbusters" and that I had seen "Africa Screams" before. I then remembered 2001's australopithecines, Dino de Laurentis' King Kong, and Planet of the Apes (the movies and the TV series). Why I never realized a Patty suit was possible? Maybe because when I saw those films and series I was a child who had lots of fantasies about monsters and later a gullible romantic teeneager...

And then I started to grow a passion for photography and FX effects. As a sideffect, it confirmed a Patty suit was possible and more - due to the way PGF was shot, some costume flaws would be hard to detect. Shaggy entangled hair would look like smooth natural hair, for example.

But, so what? Why would I doubt PGF was the real deal?

Then I entered the university. And started to learn what science was really about. My woo beliefs started to slowly worn out and disappear one by one. I learned about biology and paleontology. I started to make a lot of field work, getting in closer contact with wildlife. I realized it was quite unlikely that these animals would remain undiscovered. But still, it was possible and it has to be the case, since there was PGF and all those footprints...

Then came the final blow. Hoaxes. I had never heard about them in cryptozoology (how naive I was). But I read about hoaxes in UFOlogy before and there was that cool Randi guy exposing Geller & Co. I started to look for non-cryptozoological sources and... BANG! PGF is under suspect of being a fraud. It is very smelly, actually.

Oh, well. No reason for me to conclude it is the real deal. Lets move on. Another woo belief that goes to the garbage can. By then I was so used to dumping woo beliefs that it was automatic and painless.

Underdeveloped critical thinking skills, gullibility and ignorance were actually the causes of my woo past. And I don't miss the naive woo teenager / young adult I was. I feel much better now.

Maybe some will understand why I wrote the above. Yes, moving from believer to skeptic may cause problems with some of your woo friends. You will no longer be so popular with them. Some will consider you a traitor.

But what are they? Your friends or religious zealots?

And you? Whats your choice? Tender cozy false beliefs or face the reality?

 

[drapier]

And you? Whats your choice? Tender cozy false beliefs or face the reality?

But ..., but ... the hand bends. The hand bends!!

 

[William Parcher]

Sweety has completely demolished the BF skeptics by explaining and showing that Patty is a real Bigfoot. But at least we can still have fun after now knowing that Bigfoot exists. When God made all the creatures, he used some similar design themes. We can see some of these on a living Bigfoot...


Notice how the skin on Patty's upper thigh tucks underneath her hip when she walks. You can see that exact same thing happening with turtles...

Now look at Patty's flat platform foot. You can see that exact same thing on an elephant...

 

[drapier]

Sweety has completely demolished the BF skeptics by explaining and showing that Patty is a real Bigfoot. But at least we can still have fun after now knowing that Bigfoot exists. When God made all the creatures, he used some similar design themes. We can see some of these on a living Bigfoot...


Notice how the skin on Patty's upper thigh tucks underneath her hip when she walks. You can see that exact same thing happening with turtles...

I think biologists call it converging evolution. I wonder what environmental pressures caused bigfoot to develop such an adaptation. Perhaps bigfoot spends much time wading in lakes and rivers in order to collect food. Such prolonged exposure to water might favor a tougher, more waterproof hide on bigfoot's legs (compared to the hide on the animal's torso) thus resulting in a "hipwader" effect. Just a thought.

 

[Belz...]

Sweety has completely demolished the BF skeptics by explaining and showing that Patty is a real Bigfoot. But at least we can still have fun after now knowing that Bigfoot exists. When God made all the creatures, he used some similar design themes. We can see some of these on a living Bigfoot...

Notice how the skin on Patty's upper thigh tucks underneath her hip when she walks. You can see that exact same thing happening with turtles...

Now look at Patty's flat platform foot. You can see that exact same thing on an elephant...

Isn't it amazing how bigfoot walks just like a man in a suit ? You'd swear... oh, never mind.

 

[Hitch]

I don't know where you get this nonsense about Patty walking like a man in a suit. I have it on good authority that she walks like Groucho Marx... and it's a well known fact that no human being can walk like Groucho Marx.

 

[Belz...]

My mistake, then.

 

[Spektator]

I don't know where you get this nonsense about Patty walking like a man in a suit. I have it on good authority that she walks like Groucho Marx... and it's a well known fact that no human being can walk like Groucho Marx.

The Bigfoot Song

Hello,
I must be going.
Yes, it's a fact,
I must make tracks,
I must be going.

Just shoot your roll
To get my stroll
As by you I am blowing--
I cannot stay,
I must away,
I
must
be
Going.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, back on track, just read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6518527.stm?ls

The single toe bone which was unearthed seems to suggest the individual wore shoes, pushing back the earliest known evidence for footwear by about 10,000 years.

An earlier study by Professor Trinkaus shows that human small toes became weaker during the stage of prehistory known as the Upper Palaeolithic, and that this can probably be attributed to the adoption of sturdy shoes.

The invention of rugged shoes reduced humans' reliance on strong, flexile toes to grip and balance.

If the above is valid, how can one explain the fact that bigfoot footprints show small toes very similar to ours? Ah, yeah, someone will pull the line "Meldrum says bigfeet toes tend to be longer". Sorry, it will not be enough. Show me the raw data he used to conclude this. Show me the methodology, the graphs, the statistics, the error margins, standard deviations, etc. And explain why footprint pics do not show this feature. On the contrary, quite often they resemble the work of someone with poor carving skills (OMFG!!! Its PROOF for ID!!!111!).

Oh, got it! Bigfeet use shoes! We can only recognize their footprints when they are walking barefeet! Clever, very clever beasts... It also explains why they can not be tracked! They wear their bigfeet shoes and *POOF* trackers are no longer able to follow them, for the trail is disappear!

 

[SweatyYeti]

fsol wrote:

Who's pretending?

Well...let's see....

tube is:

Maybe the hand has changed position, maybe it hasn't.

LTC8K6 is:

Just as I figured, the hand never flexes at all, and we are just looking at artifacts manipulated by Sweaty. All we see is an indeterminate handlike blob.

And LTC again:

It may be that with this costume, the fingers bend a little with certain arm-swings due to the design of the costume. A strap may occasionally snag inside and pull on the hand/arm little.

And LTC again...again...

The fingers are hitting the top edge of the thigh pad and bending.

Spektator is:

Looks as if the whole hand is turning at the wrist, so the thumb in the second, "finger bent", position is closer to the body and the pinky is farther away. The camera sees the hand at a different angle, and that makes the fingers apper to be curved more in the second shot.

Hitch is:

Just serving to illustrate my point that nothing is "clearly" shown in those two frames.

Hitch again:

There probably are fingers there. They might even move.

Bozo the Clown:

It's an illusion, I'm tellin' ya'.......I'M an illusion...YOU'RE an illusion...etc....

And YOU are:

I'd wager that any flexion you see in the film, is a result of the wrists natural rotation as the arm swings, the direction the light is coming from, and a crappy out of focus low resolution piece of film.

Does that answer your question?


Here's what I think is going on...

I think the fingers bend....

Yes.....it is a laugh and a half to see what happens to a bunch of skeptics when something comes along that upsets their apple-cart.

"If the fingers bend....you MUST pretend"

 

[Hitch]

Sweaty, your problem is reading comprehension. Skeptics tend to engage in little thought experiments and speculation. Looking at something and imagining what it might be to facilitate and understanding of it. We tend to qualify our statement with "might" and "could" to show they aren't absolute. You seem to think anything posted on an internet forum should be a pronouncement from on high and quote mine other people's posts to make them sound like that. Unfortunately for you, most people have sense enough to go back and read the original posts in context and see through your attempts at deception.

So, they see what you do and point and laugh. I know it hurts, but just maybe a little suffering will help make you a better person. (Not really, but some of us are cruel enough to enjoy a good troll dance.)

 

[fsol]

I think the fingers bend....

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


Yes.....it is a laugh and a half to see what happens to a bunch of skeptics when something comes along that upsets their apple-cart.

"If the fingers bend....you MUST pretend"

Going by your own fairly odd defiinition of pretend, you yourself are doing the exact same thing. Strange how you don't see that. Oh well.

 

[William Parcher]

I think biologists call it converging evolution. I wonder what environmental pressures caused bigfoot to develop such an adaptation. Perhaps bigfoot spends much time wading in lakes and rivers in order to collect food. Such prolonged exposure to water might favor a tougher, more waterproof hide on bigfoot's legs (compared to the hide on the animal's torso) thus resulting in a "hipwader" effect. Just a thought.

I don't know where you get this nonsense about Patty walking like a man in a suit. I have it on good authority that she walks like Groucho Marx... and it's a well known fact that no human being can walk like Groucho Marx.

What is all this talk about converging evolution and isolated reaching resemblances to dead comedians? The theories of evolution are for scumbag heretics who oppose what actually happened. Further, Bigfoot is nothing like an Upper East Side NYC Jew.

Among his many creations, God made three different creatures as complete beings:

1) People
2) Bigfoot
3) Groucho Marx

 

[trvlr2]

Ninety-four pages of troll dance...

 

[Hitch]

And so skillful at that. Always in circles and never once letting us see a back step. A true master.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hitch wrote:

Sweaty, your problem is reading comprehension.

There's nothing wrong with my refrigerator...what are you talking about?

Skeptics tend to engage in little thought experiments and speculation.
Looking at something and imagining what it might be to facilitate an understanding of it.
We tend to qualify our statement with "might" and "could" to show they aren't absolute.

And I do exactly the same things....but in addition to just "imagining possible explanations"...I back up what I suggest with logical reasoning and/or examples.
Skeptics don't do that.

Like I wrote in a post 2 days ago......

True scientific analysis of the PG film is not SIMPLY a matter of sitting down and imagining as many "possible" explanations as you can....like skeptics do.

It's a matter of estimating (weighing)....using both science and logical reasoning....the probabilities of different, possible explanations being true.

And then I gave an example of what I was talking about....

As for a mechanical hand of some sort.....it would be a more probable explanation if the fingers were seen flexing during the steady part of the film...when Patty looks back at Roger. But they don't flex at that point in the film.
The one or two frames in which they DO flex is in the early, shaky part of the film. (About 4-5 seconds into the film on the LMS dvd.) It just happened, by sheer luck, that the camera steadied enough, for about a second or so, to catch the flexing.
The flexing is not even close to noticeable watching the film at normal speed....you have to look at the frames individually to see it.

The "mechanical hand" explanation is not a very likely, or very probable one, because of the lack of it's use in the steady portion of the film.

Intelligent discussion, involving analysis, requires more than just using your imagination to cook up as many explanations for something as possible.

That tends to do just the opposite of what legitimate, scientific analysis does....which is to bring a picture into better focus, by determing some kind of likelihood, or probability, for different explanations being true.

Just creating a long list of 'possible explanations' without providing ANYTHING at all in the way of science or logical reasoning to back them up doesn't amount to anything of value.......it's only IDLE speculation.

 

[Hitch]

Dance, Boy, dance!

Yes! It makes much more sense to only look at the things you can only see if you make them up and combine frames from different parts of the film as if they were consecutive. Don't look at the film itself and see there's nothing there. Look at the invisible unicorn in my "enhanced" frames. How can you not see the TRUTH?

And a quick turn and a sidestep and another corner danced out of.