Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LTC8K6]

I'm delighted to learn that we can see the fine texture of Patty's hair, though.

We ought to be able to see her eyes as if in High Definition video then I guess.

Unfortunately, I am unable to locate this HD video of Patty's afternoon tea stroll through the placid woodlands of the PNW.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

I'm delighted to learn that we can see the fine texture of Patty's hair, though.

And you'll also be delighted to see this suit , made from shag carpeting.....note the long, coarse hair....

 

[SweatyYeti]

Notice how Patty's hair is shorter and finer.

Look at the bright, smooth midsection area...with no dark shadows between hairs...very UNLIKE the suit above.

Notice also the very SMOOTH edge along the backside of her leg.....no sign of long, jagged hair.

Delightful...isn't it?!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here is just ONE question that you have failed to answer, belz....

(We'll take them one at a time.....maybe that will help.)

Quote:
Is there a real difference in the meaning of these two statements?....

A) The evidence for Bigfoot is "worthless"

and....

B) The evidence for Bigfoot does not have "ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

If there is a difference...concerning the WEIGHT being given to the evidence, could you explain what it is?

You say you've answered my questions.

WHERE is your answer?

 

[LTC8K6]

Smoothness is typical with a lack of resolution and with blur. All you can see are undefined blobs of blown up colors, actually. You have no idea if Patty's hair is shorter or longer, better looking, or worse looking, than your shag carpet example.

The midsection you speak of is simply an unresolved brighter area. You would not see the shadows you spoke of, even if they were there. The area simply becomes a uniformly brighter area because of the lack of resolution and the blur.

 

[LAL]

LAL wrote:



Whooaaaa....you must be some kind of Angel or something, Lu!

I'm a ghost.

 

[Belz...]

A ghost ? Well, that explains the lack of actual evidence.

 

[Belz...]

No...you did NOT answer my questions.

I'll go over them again, when I have the time to.

Take your time. I have a post just waiting to be linked to again.

Is your brain functioning, belz?

Apparently. But yours seems to have problem reading posts when they contain answers to your questions.

It's all very convenient: you ignore answers, become generally annoying with your claim that those answers don't exist, and jump around in victory when people leave, having decided you're not worth their time.

 

[LAL]

Yes, at least reliable evidence.If you think it's tiresome for people to expect some reliable evidence of an 8ft primate living all across the continent than I don't know there's anything that can be said to reason with you. I realize your not physically fatigued.

Actually, I am.

I was referring to arguments Correa put forth, such as "should be fossils", "should be road kill", "should be clear shots by now". You're beginning to sound like him.

You made a dramatic statement so I treated it as such.

I didn't think it was dramatic.

No:

That was rather out of context, wasn't it? Did you have a problem with the statement I was replying to?

"So, if the competition for resources have been tilted in Big Foot's favor, why don't hunters out killing BF's competators ever seen one and shot it (with gun or camera)? Why aren't there more of these beasts as they grow with the lack of competition? "

How about some of these opinions stated as fact?

"The NASI analysis is absurd."

"Mad hom, it seems like several of the hoaxers were quite bold. Freeman would make the tracks, discover them, and call up people like Meldrum to sell the idea that they were sasquatch tracks. There was little fear that anyone would call them hoaxers or expose them as frauds. They knew that footers were quite gullible. Even if they were shown to be fakes, it did not diminish their credibility anyway. The next claim they make is considered as if they never hoaxed a thing."

"Who, but a blind believer, would not recognize flat wooden feet:"

And so on. Called any of the other posters on not throwing in enough qualifiers?

Would a link be to much to ask?

Yes. Did you see the photos DDA posted on BFF at John Green's request? I can't link to them because he removed them when he left the board. There are a few of John's photos in Jeff's book.

I don't think there are any casts or tracks which show toe movement consistent with a 'living foot'.

Then I suggest you try to find a link and do some more reading.

I thought it was one of those simple things where someone would promptly show otherwise considering it's proponents next fallback when 'dermal' claims are shown otherwise.

They haven't been shown otherwise.

I'm beginning to be quite sure it is an amorphous bigfootery myth.No casts, missing photo. Got it.

No, you don't "got it".

I've ordered a replacement for the book. It should be here the 6th. I'm not sure that's where I saw the photo, but I'm not finding it in my other books. I'll be happy to give the page number if and hen I find the photo.

I guess it would be better to not flatly state 'they're on the beaches' if all you have is testimony because, you know, by that measure we can also say 'witches fly in the sky on brooms'. Oh, wait... there's video.

There is?

Read Alley. A lot of the "testimony" has to do with beaches. Not all trackways are photographed, let alone cast. This is an article from Tofino Time Magazine:

http://www.tofinotime.com/main.htm?articles/A-T510-14frm.htm~BDfrm

I'm not trying to make you say anything. I would try to encourage being a little more forthright about the nature of the evidence. You say you're a skeptic but when it comes to wildman claims I just don't see it.

I think you'd jump for joy if I started saying things like, "Of course it's not conclusive, but..." I think some of the evidence is indeed conclusive and I'm not going to say otherwise. I'm very sceptical of some of the sceptical arguments, but you may have noticed that.

By ruling out bigfoots.

Here's the Iowa Department of Natural Resources reports on bobcat, mountain lion, and black bear status in the state:

http://www.iowadnr.com/wildlife/pdfs/2001_cats_bear.pdf

That's very interesting, but it doesn't really answer the question, does it?

What does it take for a sighting to be confirmed?

If Iowa has habitat for black bear and mountain lion, it has it for sasquatches too, doesn't it?

BTW, Thomas said, "I could not explain why those rocks were there; there hadn't been a slide or anything. They were on top of the ridge, so they couldn't have come down from anywhere."(Sasquatch:The Apes Among Us, by John Green, pg. 422)

IOW, no avalanche.

I do appreciate it when you say you're wrong and I'd like to give you every opportunity to do it again.

 

[LAL]

This suggests that people already have an opinion about Bigfoot before they view the PGF. That may be true in some cases, but it would seem to also apply to BF believers.

I saw the film in a theater. I was struck by the absolutely natural movement. It certainly didn't look like a guy in a suit to me.

My former stepson saw it on TV and said, "It's a guy in a suit, obviously."

I read the analyses many years after seeing the film. He didn't read anything.

I don't know what to say about that. A seven year old might notice and point out the hernia, while an adult misses it.

In fact, it seem everybody missed it until the making of LMS. It showed up
on the digitlized version made from John Green's copy.

Are you saying that you feel that anyone who thinks the PGF is a hoax is acting like a child?

No, but I don't think letting a seven-year-old do one's thinking qualifies as thoughtful analysis.

Of course PGF believers would think that. Refuted how? Showing a photo of a gorilla with a line across its thigh somehow refutes the proposition that Patty is showing a costume flaw?

He showed that everything Dfoot was taking as signs of a costume actually occurs on known animals.

If I then present a photo of a movie gorilla costume with a material fold on the leg - does it refute the refutation?

I'd like to see it.

PGF believers are not going to satisfy critics by only showing photos of real animals with features similar to Patty. That won't be regarded as debunking of the skeptical claim (guy in a costume).

I don't think anything will satisfy critics.

Bother is the key word.

IOW, you haven't read him? How do you know what he had to say?

When anyone has the best available physical evidence they are in the best position to analyze it.

Does that include Dr. Meldrum who has about 200 footprint casts, Rick Noll who has the Skookum cast and John Green who has a first generation copy of the PGF?

He was working on making a costume that was supposed to replicate Patty.

He said he was leaving on a project and later disappeared from BFF, taking his pictures with him. We never did get to see the finished product.

Those are debatable features. I understand that a proper IM index cannot be easily derived from a film of a hairy subject.

It would take joint to joint measurement on an actual skeleton to be exact, but a good approximation can be made by measuring some of the frames and the result was independently confirmed when Steindorf did the digitalized skeleton.

** seems very close. NASI (Paul Glickman) did it anyway. He also came up with a fantastic estimated weight for Patty.

He used a standard formula that works for other apes. He calculated using a height of 7'3". Krantz got a standing height of 6'5. Did you read the rest of the report or just glom on to the weight?

The NASI analysis is absurd. Yet PGF believers will use it as a reference and a supposed debunker of the skeptical PGF debunking.

Glickman only spent three years on it.

It's possible he did sorta get tired of the situation. PGF skeptics often learn that the believers are resistant to rationality and reason.

I think we find the same about the critics.

<snip>
I thought Dfoot was cool in many ways and I do miss him.

He put up a great defense of the PGF against Chris Walas. He was brilliant in why it is not a costume. When he changed he went way overboard with scenarios of Roger going to Hollywood and Janos Prohaska being in on the great suit-making conspiracy without a thing to substantiate any of it. He was downright libelous about Bob Gimlin.

I miss Dfoot too. He was hilarious.

 

[LAL]

I ONLY PUT THIS OUT HERE TO SEE IF I AM WORTHY TO BE ALLOWED MEMBERSHIP IN THIS FORUM!

No. You're not obnoxious enough.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....the result was independently confirmed when Steindorf did the digitalized skeleton.

And the Steindorf skeleton has Patty at 5' 7" ..

How do you reconcile Glickman, Kranz and Steindorf ?


( Someone please quote, so Lu may respond .. Or better yet, use my words as your own, so she can't use me as an excuse to avoid the hard questions. )

 

[LAL]

A ghost ? Well, that explains the lack of actual evidence.

There are many eyewitness sightings that suggest I exist.

 

[Correa Neto]

Its sooo easy just to say the arguments are "there should be" and ignore them... <-sarcasm

Again, in many cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Lets suppose the existence of phenomena "A". If phenomenon "A" is real, then it would be expected a number of effects that could be measurable or demonstrable to exist. So, in this case, an absence of evidence (predicted effects) is an evidence for absence (phenomenon "A").

The absence of a given effect (or a certain number of effects) on the list of predicted effects per se can not be taken as a major blow agains the hypothesis "phenomenon A is real". Reasonings can be created that may handle this. But when the majority of the expected effects are not present and/or the effects that the propenents claim to exist are under dispute, then the hypothesis "phenomenon A is real" suffers a major blow. The reasonings to explain the absence of so many expected effects become nothing but excuses.

This is exactly the case with the "bigfeet are real" hypothesis. List the expected pieces evidence that would be avaliable if these beasts were not a myth. The expected evidences are not there or are suspected of being hoaxes or misdentifications. And this is a major and undeniable blow to the claim.

Anyone please feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Belz...]

There are many eyewitness sightings that suggest I exist.

Actually, the most revealing evidence is that you post here.

Of course, my (bad) joke was that, since you are a ghost, and ghosts don't exist, it is logical to assume that you, beign non-existent, would not have any proof of Bigfoot's existence.

Okay, so it wasn't very good.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Smoothness is typical with a lack of resolution and with blur. All you can see are undefined blobs of blown up colors, actually. You have no idea if Patty's hair is shorter or longer, better looking, or worse looking, than your shag carpet example.

The midsection you speak of is simply an unresolved brighter area. You would not see the shadows you spoke of, even if they were there. The area simply becomes a uniformly brighter area because of the lack of resolution and the blur.

I had posted that 'shag carpeting suit' picture on the BFF several months ago.....and I also posted a blurred, de-focused version of it...because of that same argument...."It's too blurry".
But even when it's out-of-focus, the coarseness is still apparant, along with the jagged edges.

I'll post that picture later.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

LTC8K6 wrote:



I had posted that 'shag carpeting suit' picture on the BFF several months ago.....and I also posted a blurred, de-focused version of it...because of that same argument...."It's too blurry".
But even when it's out-of-focus, the coarseness is still apparant, along with the jagged edges.

I'll post that picture later.

Way to go Sweety.. Your evidence for Bigfoot is a costume that is obviously a costume ...

Got any more ..


I'm glad you keep reminding us with your sig, that there is no evidence ( so far ), for the existence of a non-human North American primate...

Carry on ..

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll post that picture later.

Don't bother, since blur is not the main reason you can't see the fine texture of anything about Patty. Also, out of focus blur is not the same as motion-blur, or camera shake blur.

The main reason you cannot see any detail at all about Patty is that the film was not capable of recording such details.

The idea that you can see the fine texture of Patty's hair is pretty farfetched. I don't think I've heard that claim before.

Her fingers and toes have little definition at all, and I'm supposed to marvel at the fine texture of her hair?

Her whole left hand cannot be found at the end of her left arm at times...

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Don't bother, since blur is not the main reason you can't see the fine texture of anything about Patty. Also, out of focus blur is not the same as motion-blur, or camera shake blur.

Your point is completely irrelevant.

Roger was holding the camera very steady during the time Patty turned to look back. There is no 'camera shake' distortion in that frame I posted.

The main reason you cannot see any detail at all about Patty is that the film was not capable of recording such details.

If Patty's hair was as coarse and as long as the hair on that suit, it would be noticeable.

The idea that you can see the fine texture of Patty's hair is pretty farfetched. I don't think I've heard that claim before.

What I said was that there's NO indication of long, coarse, shaggy hair on Patty...and no jagged edges on her body limbs like the ones on the suit I posted a picture of.

The visible edges on her arms and legs are very smooth...indicating short, fine hair. At least finer than any suit I've seen from the 60's....and from just about any gorilla suit that you'll see, anywhere.

 

[William Parcher]

If Patty's hair was as coarse and as long as the hair on that suit, it would be noticeable. What I said was that there's NO indication of long, coarse, shaggy hair on Patty...and no jagged edges on her body limbs like the ones on the suit I posted a picture of.

Put that gorilla suit as far away from the camera as Patty was, before you make any judgements. It also needs to be shown as an image from a 16mm film frame. Any other comparison is meaningless. Besides that, Patterson was said to have trimmed and brushed the hair on his modified gorilla costume (Patty).