Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[William Parcher]

I am sure that you realise that by giving an explanation of the apparent movement of the fingers he is actually acknowledging that there is something to explain? You know, the apparent movement of the fingers which his explanation acknowledges? I hardly see him denying that there seems to be movement there. You may not agree with his explanation, but I see no reason why you might elevate your own interpretaion of the frames above it in the manner that you do.

The reason that Sweety is trying to seize upon this issue (based on a 2-frame gif) is that it apparently offers a potential opportunity to have PGF skeptics concede something that is of great value to him (as a PGF believer). He wants to "win something" while battling the skeptics. No matter what happens, he will claim a victory and advance that within his viewpoint as being further evidence that Patty is a Bigfoot.

I've looked at possibly every available film clip, still frame and Cibachrome print from the PGF and I still don't really know what to think of the hands. I've never seen them fully resolved to be something coherent in any instance. I do believe it was a costume, but I can't even confidently say that the fake hands had discernable fingers. That is a very strange concept no matter what one thinks about Patty. To me, the hands look mostly "stumpish" across all of the images. To me, the only image that comes close to resolving a hand (be it fake or real) is the classic Dahinden Cibachrome of frame 352. But that hand is a huge "can of worms", because many attribute its form to a film or developing flaw.

I honestly don't know what to think of Patty's hands. I'm a strong PGF skeptic, but I can't even attribute her hands to being standard rubbery "Hollywood gorilla" hands. At least those have something like observable fingers. MK Davis, upon analyzing the hands after enhancing the frames, declared that her left hand was badly damaged (injury). That's because when you look at the left hand in the frame 352 Cibachrome, one can't really figure out how to mentally convert it into a real hand.

It is true that the still frames that make up the 2-frame "flexing fingers" gif look as if we are seeing a semi-cupped row of fingers with only the pinky finger in view. But when we see a broadside view of Patty (such as in frame 352), we don't see fingers or even anything that looks much like hand. Yes, to me it doesn't look like a costume hand or a real hand. It doesn't even look like a balled fist. It's as if everything ends at what might be the wrist. To me, in their best possible presentation, they look stumpy.

So I'm sitting here (as a PGF skeptic) trying to figure out what kind of hand Patterson used on his costume. I never see anything like a set of five fingers. At best, I see what would be the pinky finger in the 2-frame "finger flex" gif, and can only assume that there is also a proper row comprising the other four fingers whether they be fake or real. I just can't find those fingers again in any other version of the film (clips or stills).

Is there any image from the PGF that shows something like a whole hand, be it fake or real?

 

[SweatyYeti]

fsol wrote:

I am sure that you realise that by giving an explanation of the apparent movement of the fingers he is actually acknowledging that there is something to explain?

Yes...I certainly do.
We all acknowledge that there is a change in the 2 frames....something is different.

This is good in-depth analysis of the freakin' obvious...isn't it??!!

You know, the apparant movement of the fingers which his explanation acknowledges?

I said that he, and other skeptics, don't acknowledge the "movement of the fingers".....
I never said they don't acknowledge the "apparant movement of the fingers".

I hardly see him denying that there seems to be movement there.

Good for you, and good for him!
Everybody on the planet would agree there appears to be some movement there.

You may not agree with his explanation, but I see no reason why you might elevate your own interpretaion of the frames above it in the manner that you do.

I don't see a reason to continue to debate the obvious with obviously ignorant people.

The change in the shape...the bending...of Patty's fingers in those two frames is as clear as day......except to ignorant skeptics.


Take my SIMPLE challenge, and see what you come up with for "finger movement".

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes wrote:

Can you actually show a change in size of the wrist bulge, Greg...by highlighting the frames?

 

[William Parcher]

Personally, I'm reasonably familiar with the arguments for and against the existence of the Sasquatch. While there is a great deal of minutea out there, the real core arguments can be summarized rather briefly. As David Daegling pointed out with regards to Bigfoot "the forensic evidence sucks". There was a time for me several years ago that I had real hope that there was good forensic evidence for Bigfoot. This was based largely on the "dermals" stuff and the Skookum cast. In particular, Desertyeti's devastating analysis of the Skookum cast really put a damper on any remaining hope that there was compelling evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. But of course his analysis is devastating in other ways, as it really shows how grossly mistaken the core Bigfoot "experts" really are.

Matt, look at my bolding within your above quote. You were hoping that the forensic evidence (track and butt casts) was showing that Bigfoot is a real creature. How did you then (try to go back in time) reconcile the appearance of this evidence without any real presented physical evidence (biological material)? It would seem that you thought Bigfoot was being shown by secondary traces; in spite of never having confirmation done by a found carcass, skeleton, roadkill, DNA sample etc. You were ready to give the animal a "green light" without any of the conventional scientific methods used for confirmation. I'm interested in learning of your mindset that allowed to you accept this kind of secondary evidence in the absence of primary evidence. Were you actually comfortable with granting meaningful hope, in spite of presumably knowing that nobody had ever produced anything like primary evidence within the centuries of Bigfoot "awareness" and eyewitness claims? Were you ready to accept a living creature that could not really be physically procured either dead or alive?

Matt, I know you shave your head but I am hoping that you will let your hair hang down when you answer this.

 

[fsol]

I said that he, and other skeptics, don't acknowledge the "movement of the fingers".....
I never said they don't acknowledge the "apparant movement of the fingers".

Indeed, you seem to have made your mind up that you see movement of real live flesh and blood fingers regardless of any other explanation that may be put to you.

Good for you, and good for him!
Everybody on the planet would agree there appears to be some movement there.



I don't see a reason to continue to debate the obvious with obviously ignorant people.

The change in the shape...the bending...of Patty's fingers in those two frames is as clear as day......except to ignorant skeptics.

So everyone agrees that there is some movement, and now again you jump to conclusions and call all those who may not jump to those same conclusions ignorant. I would hazard that the ignorant amongst us are those who would discount all other explanations apart from those with which he has formed an emotional attachment. He might also then bandy around terms such as "scientific analysis," all the while providing no evidence that he had in fact carried out such an endeavour.

Now I would imagine that any such analysis of the film from the position of the likelyhood that the movment shows the living fingers of a bigfoot flexing, would have to take into account that we know ape suits exist, that we know that arm extentions with flexible fingers for ape suits exist, and that we don't know that bigfeet exist, there being no body to speak of. And woe is me, I just can't see how it makes any difference to the truth of the film if the fingers bend or not.

Consider;

Maybe it is a bigfoot and it does flex it's fingers.

Maybe it is a guy in a suit and it does flex it's fingers.

Maybe it is a bigfoot and the movement of the fingers is a trick of the light.

Maybe it is a guy in a suit and the movement is a trick of the light.

You haven't shown why any of these is more or less likely than the other and what's more, I don't think you can.

What you seem to be able to do is make some guesses and then call everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sweaty is dishonest as far as I am concerned and not worth a response at all. He should be banned for asking for explanations and using those very explanations against those whom he requested them from. He has just done it again, in fact. He is just playing silly games.

He apparently thinks it's funny, while not bothering to explain anything himself.

Keep in mind that Sweaty has yet to show that Patty's fingers ever bend at all in the PGF. All he has done is show an animation of two frames that are several frames apart and claim that it is Patty's fingers bending. No fingers can be seen at all, in fact. I repeat, no fingers can be seen at all.

The background colors can easily make the "hand" appear to bend, in fact. The dark areas can alter the apparent shape of the hand easily. The hand need not bend at all.

Until Sweaty shows good evidence that Patty's hand and/or fingers bend, there's no point in playing his games, imo.

2 unconnected flashing frames are not evidence of bending fingers. They are deliberately chosen to make it seem like the fingers bend, imo.

One can only conclude that this deception is used because there is no other way to support the claim.

 

[LTC8K6]

The apparent shape of the hand can be altered on the film in a number of ways that have already been discussed a hundred times.

Why bring them up for Sweaty to get his jollies?

Let's just concede that Patty bends her hand and move on to Sweaty's next comedy exercise...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

......................

Consider;

Maybe it is a bigfoot and it does flex it's fingers.
..............

I just occurred to me how silly all of this is .. ( And yes, I am just as silly as anyone who
is wasting their time on this … )

If Patty is a real Bigfoot, of course her fingers bend …


However, to suggest that the apparent finger-bending we see, is in any way evidence that we are looking at a real Bigfoot is ludicrous ..

As I mentioned earlier, the only reason the finger bending is brought up by Footers, is to support the idea that a costume would have required sophisticated animatronics to exhibit this alleged finger movement.
And again, it simply isn’t so ..


So, Sweaty .. If we all concede that there is finger movement; what exactly is your point ?




P.S.

I see that LTC8K6, has expressed the same sentiment while I was composing..

I have a feeling that Sweety has no idea why the bending fingers would be significant..

As WP pointed out, it seems more significant that Patty is apparently wearing mittens..

 

[fsol]

I just occurred to me how silly all of this is .. ( And yes, I am just as silly as anyone who
is wasting their time on this … )

I am quite enjoying the absurdity of the conversation.

If Patty is a real Bigfoot, of course her fingers bend …


However, to suggest that the apparent finger-bending we see, is in any way evidence that we are looking at a real Bigfoot is ludicrous ..

As I mentioned earlier, the only reason the finger bending is brought up by Footers, is to support the idea that a costume would have required sophisticated animatronics to exhibit this alleged finger movement.
And again, it simply isn’t so ..


So, Sweaty .. If we all concede that there is finger movement; what exactly is your point ?

Well this is what I am trying to get at, albeit in a rather obtuse manner. It absolutely makes no difference to the validity of the film if they bend or not.

P.S.

I see that LTC8K6, has expressed the same sentiment while I was composing..

I have a feeling that Sweety has no idea why the bending fingers would be significant..

As WP pointed out, it seems more significant that Patty is apparently wearing mittens..

Is it not possible that bigfeet use their mitten like hands to cover their tracks, before crouching elk-like in the mud and stretching for apples?

 

[Belz...]

It is obvious that the fingers bend.....except to a skeptic.

I'm just going to quote Correa, here:

When you say this, you IGNORE the following facts: The frames are not consecutives and at each one, Patty is at different distances from the camera, at slightly different angles, her arms at different position, and frankly, the alleged movment is not exactly spetacular. The frames have poor resolution and the focus is far from good, among other issues. Despite all of this, you KNOW they bend, CHOOSING TO IGNORE parallax.

I VERY CLEARLY see the fingers change shape......they bend.
I do think that they bend.
I can even extend that to "I know that they bend".

You know nothing. All you can say for sure is that, on those two, non-consecutive frames, irrespective of camera angle, lighting, resolution and other important factors, the fingers SEEM to bend. You "know" because you want to, not because you do.

"Knowing" something includes "thinking" something.

Also sometimes, involves believing.

It's incredible how idotic a skeptic can be, on this board.
Simply hard to believe.

Yes, I'm sure. And I think that convinced me...

BTW...I still expect answers to my questions. I'll get back to them later.

I've answered them before, or weren't you reading ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......
Is it not possible that bigfeet use their mitten like hands to cover their tracks, before crouching elk-like in the mud and stretching for apples?

​

 

[Belz...]

The outpouring of ridiculous and unsupported imaginary explanations for the bending fingers seen in the 2-frame animation is the best demonstration yet of the true motivation of the skeptics on this board....which is to simply be skeptical for the sake of skepticism itself...and not a desire to find the truth.

Spoken like a truther. Oh, no, wait a minute. Wrong forum.

The bending of the fingers is as clear as day....the skeptics here can see it.....they just can't acknowledge it.

I can acknowledge without problem that they seem to bend, but that the pictures are of far too poor quality to make a definitive statement, like you're doing.

And it's not because of a lack of intelligence...it's because of a lack of personal integrity...and honesty.

Of course. Like any believer, you'd rather think that your opponents are doing it on purpose: they can't be that stupid, and it's soooooooooo obvious.

"Wait a minute. A world of experts and smart people think I'm wrong. THEY MUST be dishonest."

If I wanted to, I could get 2 consecutive frames of the fingers bending, from that portion of the PG film....

Do it. One way or another this will provide far better evidence for anything than your ridiculous 2-frame nonsense.

but it would accomplish absolutely nothing...in this forum....because the same group of sleezy skeptics would gather round it and spew more nonsense.

Why does that remind me of something.

"A million dollars ? Sorry, mister Randi. I don't do this for money."

Here's a simple challenge to the skeptics.....go put together a 2-frame animation using a frame that's within 1-3 frames of the one in which the fingers are curled-up....and I guarantee that the fingers will still appear to bend in that animation.

Sorry, bloke. It isn't MY claim.

We all acknowledge that there is a change in the 2 frames....something is different.

This is good in-depth analysis of the freakin' obvious...isn't it??!!

Non sequitur.

I don't see a reason to continue to debate the obvious with obviously ignorant people.

Excellent. Then you'll leave and let us declare victory in this little war of yours ?

 

[William Parcher]

Is it not possible that bigfeet use their mitten like hands to cover their tracks, before crouching elk-like in the mud and stretching for apples?

Heh heh. Funny you should mention this. MK Davis (Primateer on BFF & JREF) is a person who seems to have recent access to first generation copies of the PGF. He puts together animated gifs and enhanced still frames. In his recent radio interview with Tom Biscardi he talks about how he has visual evidence from the PGF showing that Patty drags her heels through the Bluff Creek sand (presumably) in order to conceal her own tracks. It is this same kind of MK Davisesque film analysis that gives us the finger flex from two frames. Did you know that Patty also has a hair braid with a bone clasp? You betcha!

Davis has a new partner and they put together a movie which shows that Patty not a costume, and is instead a "wild human". There are all sorts of isolated bits from the PGF that show a gaping mouth, a braid, track-hiding-foot-dragging, injuries, etc. I saw this stuff when it was posted on Biscardi's website the day he did the interview. That same interview includes the man that wore the Bigfoot suit for Patterson, and you can hear Davis call him a pathological liar right there on the world wide web.

MK Davis' DVD is available at One Step Beyond Reality.

Watch the trailer for the movie. "The proof is in my knowing."

 

[William Parcher]

Watch the above linked trailer again. Take your eyes off of the couple as the woman speaks of Bigfoot ("...we've encountered... we've played back and forth with them before..."), and focus on the background. Look at that tiger rug/tapestry, which is a monumental piece of obstentious kitsch. Where do you even find something like that? Are they sold where you would buy black velvet Elvis artworks? Good Lord. This is Bigfootery.

 

[William Parcher]

These animated gifs can be big fun. Since we are talking about Patty's hands, I thought I'd start a party. Enough of this 2-frame animation stuff. It's time to bring out the 3-frame animation stash. Let's get buzzed on the hands, baby!

Here you see a rotation through two PGF still frames and then that awesome Dahinden Cibachrome print. This is the famous Frame 352 and ones very close to it (sequential?). From Wolftrax on BFF...

Bang Zoom... we've got a really neat right hand all of a sudden. The left hand? Oh, MK Davis says that one must have suffered an injury. It's tough being a Bigfoot who must eek out a living and avoid technologically-advanced humans at the same time. Maybe the best way to photograph a Bigfoot is to bring along an old Kodak film camera on horseback.

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." Donovan Leitch

 

[drapier]

The gesture formed by Patty's right hand is Vitarka-mudra (Sign of Reasoning [and Deliberation])

This gesture signifies intellectual argument or discussion. When used in connection with an image of an historical Buddha, the gesture symbolizes the discussion or argument of the doctrine, dharma. This is the mudra that convinces hearers and leads them to conversion. It is generally made by Bodhisattvas in a composition in which a Buddha is delivering a teaching; it is also made by other secondary figures.

There are many variations of this mudra. Most commonly, a is circle formed with the thumb and ring finger, though the gesture may also be formed with the thumb and index finger.

from Buddhist Iconography

 

[drapier]

Here's the image from Buddhist Iconography.

Maybe Patty is trying to lead us to conversion.

 

[William Parcher]

"So they give a word, and the word is om." Graeme Edge

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey William...are you a Moodies' fan?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What looks to be a curled finger in that shot, has been shown to be background clutter .. Part of some debris ..
Of course, it was proffered as part of the sophisticated animation at one time..