Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters
- Thread starter desertyeti
- Start date
- Status
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
LTC8K6 wrote:
You cannot back-up your claim....with anything other than BS.
Highlight some streaks in that image. It should be an easy task.
I did support my claim.
You cannot back-up your claim....with anything other than BS.
Highlight some streaks in that image. It should be an easy task.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Diogenes wrote:
And Bob Heironimus just stood up and said...."Hey, they're talking about ME again!!!"
Actually, the only discrepancy in Roger's two accounts is the difference between (dark) brown hair and black hair.....which does not necessarily indicate a hoax by Roger. It's simply Roger describing Patty's dark-colored hair a little differently.
In his two accounts he says...
1) silvery brown hair all over it's body...The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath...
2) She was covered with short, shiny, black hair...
And you can see how silvery, or shiny, it is on her midsection.
And Bob Heironimus just stood up and said...."Hey, they're talking about ME again!!!"
Actually, the only discrepancy in Roger's two accounts is the difference between (dark) brown hair and black hair.....which does not necessarily indicate a hoax by Roger. It's simply Roger describing Patty's dark-colored hair a little differently.
In his two accounts he says...
1) silvery brown hair all over it's body...The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath...
2) She was covered with short, shiny, black hair...
And you can see how silvery, or shiny, it is on her midsection.
Last edited:
RayG
Master Poster
.
The 'cleaned up' frame from the Patterson film seems to be the standard one available now.
Original, blurry, images aren't nearly as compelling.
While searching for original images that haven't been enhanced, retouched, or otherwise manipulated, I came across a blurb on salon.com that seems to describe true, unflinching bigfoot believers:
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]
RayG
[/FONT]
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Well, actually they are pretty compelling; just not in favor of a real animal .
Note the rectangular patch on the upper thigh; like nothing found in nature.
Note the rectangular patch on the upper thigh; like nothing found in nature.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Are you lost little boy ?Diogenes wrote:
And Bob Heironimus just stood up and said...."Hey, they're talking about ME again!!!"
I think you are looking for the " Is BH Lying ? " thread ..
Wait! We haven't started that thread ..
Why don't you start it, and see who cares ?
Roger Patterson was a liar and a cheat ..
Why not a hoaxer ?
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Diogenes wrote:
If you can make a case for it......go right ahead.
Btw...I don't see a square patch on Patty's leg in the higher-quality Cibachrome image above.....and neither do I see any camera-motion streaks being highlighted by any of our resident ACE skeptics.
Roger may have been a hoaxer.
If you can make a case for it......go right ahead.
Btw...I don't see a square patch on Patty's leg in the higher-quality Cibachrome image above.....and neither do I see any camera-motion streaks being highlighted by any of our resident ACE skeptics.
Last edited:
tube
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 917
As I wait for a car battery to charge, I thought I would occupy my time speculating on something rather tangential to the topic of this thread, being a "Simple Challenge for Bigfoot Supporters". God only knows, no one else in this thread has strayed away from the topic before...
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.
Even if there is a Sasquatch out there, the core "experts" don't seem to have a clue how to properly analyze this stuff. It creates a situation where instead of objective scientific evidence you have endless appeals to the authority of a few individuals, even when these individuals have been shown to be dead wrong in several high profile cases.
So what do I think the future holds for Bigfootery?
1. The Internet is already the dominant force, with TV being a close second. Since the "science" of Bigfoot has never been good enough to get into real scientific journals, the advocates have to take it to "popular" media, like TV and the Internet. This keeps the mythology alive and well for new generations of wishful believers.
I think as far as Bigfoot "evidence" goes, we will see YouTube being the dominant source of original source material, at least for the foreseeable future. People love to be armchair experts, especially when it comes to video, so whether it is an obvious hoax, or something not so obvious, people will want to see it and talk about it.
2. Mike Dennett told me this some time back, and at first I didn't believe him: He told me that in the world of the paranormal, or "fringe science" that nothing really ever goes away, as far as evidence goes. I'm sure that 30 years from now, people on the Internet will still tell us how the Skookum cast is a Bigfoot butt, and how CA-19 exhibits "dermals".
Witness the longevity of the "Jacko" newspaper yarn. This still gets promoted as a true-blue Bigfoot story to this day...
3. Bigfoot Conferences will still take place, with the same core group of individuals being featured speakers. This confused me for a time, as how can you recycle the same stuff, again and again, and again? Well, it's kind of like Freshmen. Every year there is a new crop of freshmen, but the teachers stay the same. And the conferences are by and large a social reinforcement for a particular mindset, and a chance to actually meet the heroes of Bigfootery.
4. I'm in agreement with Ben Radford; the Patterson film, like the Mansi "Champ" photo, is probably as good as the photographic record of these cryptids is ever going to get. As long as Bob Gimlin does not personally confess to a hoax, and this is almost certainly not going to happen, it will continue to be promoted as real INDEFINATELY.
5. I predict that Jeff Meldrum will be the last academic to take Bigfoot seriously and promote it publicly.
The last several years have seen a remarkable series of skeptical criticisms of the Bigfoot topic, as I think that Bigfootery really overplayed its hand by claiming that there was all this solid forensic evidence for the subject. This of course plays well to a popular audience, but for those in academia, not so much. I suspect that any PhD candidate in the biological sciences today who had an interest in Bigfoot would be able to cut to the chase rather quickly and find there really isn't anything there to take seriously.
The recently publicized petition by other University faculty members of Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot activities really highlights the career risk involved in promoting such tenuous "science". With the case for Bigfoot being so flimsy, I doubt future PhD candidates will risk such publicly advocating the reality of Bigfoot.
I could be wrong on this one though...
In short, what you see happening TODAY on the Internet is what "Bigfootery" is going to be FOR THE CONCEIVABLE FUTURE. The "greatest hits" are already behind us, and so Bigfootery is kind of like your "oldies" radio station, you have a finite body of work, which will be endlessly promoted for its emotional value for a core group of followers.
This very thread exemplifies what Bigfootery IS; simply the endless promotion and debate over a core group of well-promoted stories and bits of physical evidence.
Bigfootery for me is kind of like Beavis and Butthead; it had a huge, positive impact on me at the time, and I watched the episodes again and again, but eventually it all wore thin, as I've seen the stuff too many times. In a PM to me, another individual pointed out to me that I don't post here too much. Desertyeti is MIA, and it has been noted that we don't see hide nor hair of DFoot. I can't speak for these other folks, but for me it was kind of like I looked into it really wanting it to be true, but it came up short. You saw this this with Chris Walas, on Bigfoot Forums. After he saw for himself that "Patty" was a guy in a suit, he simply didn't want to participate any more. Soon, I've gotta clean out my basement, and with it all my funky test casts...
I believe that the growth of popular, organized skepticism is very good. I remember how I felt in the mid 1970's being exposed to the claims of Uri Geller and creationism. I was grateful for James Randi's book, and for various books by Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Martin Gardner. Thankfully today, skeptical resources are VASTLY superior, and for the youth of today, it is much easier to find than when I was that age. This is good.
I really wish there was a Bigfoot out there, but I'm pretty sure there is not...
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.
Even if there is a Sasquatch out there, the core "experts" don't seem to have a clue how to properly analyze this stuff. It creates a situation where instead of objective scientific evidence you have endless appeals to the authority of a few individuals, even when these individuals have been shown to be dead wrong in several high profile cases.
So what do I think the future holds for Bigfootery?
1. The Internet is already the dominant force, with TV being a close second. Since the "science" of Bigfoot has never been good enough to get into real scientific journals, the advocates have to take it to "popular" media, like TV and the Internet. This keeps the mythology alive and well for new generations of wishful believers.
I think as far as Bigfoot "evidence" goes, we will see YouTube being the dominant source of original source material, at least for the foreseeable future. People love to be armchair experts, especially when it comes to video, so whether it is an obvious hoax, or something not so obvious, people will want to see it and talk about it.
2. Mike Dennett told me this some time back, and at first I didn't believe him: He told me that in the world of the paranormal, or "fringe science" that nothing really ever goes away, as far as evidence goes. I'm sure that 30 years from now, people on the Internet will still tell us how the Skookum cast is a Bigfoot butt, and how CA-19 exhibits "dermals".
Witness the longevity of the "Jacko" newspaper yarn. This still gets promoted as a true-blue Bigfoot story to this day...
3. Bigfoot Conferences will still take place, with the same core group of individuals being featured speakers. This confused me for a time, as how can you recycle the same stuff, again and again, and again? Well, it's kind of like Freshmen. Every year there is a new crop of freshmen, but the teachers stay the same. And the conferences are by and large a social reinforcement for a particular mindset, and a chance to actually meet the heroes of Bigfootery.
4. I'm in agreement with Ben Radford; the Patterson film, like the Mansi "Champ" photo, is probably as good as the photographic record of these cryptids is ever going to get. As long as Bob Gimlin does not personally confess to a hoax, and this is almost certainly not going to happen, it will continue to be promoted as real INDEFINATELY.
5. I predict that Jeff Meldrum will be the last academic to take Bigfoot seriously and promote it publicly.
The last several years have seen a remarkable series of skeptical criticisms of the Bigfoot topic, as I think that Bigfootery really overplayed its hand by claiming that there was all this solid forensic evidence for the subject. This of course plays well to a popular audience, but for those in academia, not so much. I suspect that any PhD candidate in the biological sciences today who had an interest in Bigfoot would be able to cut to the chase rather quickly and find there really isn't anything there to take seriously.
The recently publicized petition by other University faculty members of Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot activities really highlights the career risk involved in promoting such tenuous "science". With the case for Bigfoot being so flimsy, I doubt future PhD candidates will risk such publicly advocating the reality of Bigfoot.
I could be wrong on this one though...
In short, what you see happening TODAY on the Internet is what "Bigfootery" is going to be FOR THE CONCEIVABLE FUTURE. The "greatest hits" are already behind us, and so Bigfootery is kind of like your "oldies" radio station, you have a finite body of work, which will be endlessly promoted for its emotional value for a core group of followers.
This very thread exemplifies what Bigfootery IS; simply the endless promotion and debate over a core group of well-promoted stories and bits of physical evidence.
Bigfootery for me is kind of like Beavis and Butthead; it had a huge, positive impact on me at the time, and I watched the episodes again and again, but eventually it all wore thin, as I've seen the stuff too many times. In a PM to me, another individual pointed out to me that I don't post here too much. Desertyeti is MIA, and it has been noted that we don't see hide nor hair of DFoot. I can't speak for these other folks, but for me it was kind of like I looked into it really wanting it to be true, but it came up short. You saw this this with Chris Walas, on Bigfoot Forums. After he saw for himself that "Patty" was a guy in a suit, he simply didn't want to participate any more. Soon, I've gotta clean out my basement, and with it all my funky test casts...
I believe that the growth of popular, organized skepticism is very good. I remember how I felt in the mid 1970's being exposed to the claims of Uri Geller and creationism. I was grateful for James Randi's book, and for various books by Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and Martin Gardner. Thankfully today, skeptical resources are VASTLY superior, and for the youth of today, it is much easier to find than when I was that age. This is good.
I really wish there was a Bigfoot out there, but I'm pretty sure there is not...
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
You have been nominated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2479558&posted=1#post2479558
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2479558&posted=1#post2479558
Tube just pretty much expressed exactly how I feel about this whole subject, tho my view is from a different perspective the end result seems to be the same. It's very exhausting to pursue something when there is simply nothing to validate the quest, although the knowledge one gains in the pursuit is almost enough in it's self. Ya I think I know how he feels.
LAL Quote;
"Krantz used a hand crank viewer on a first generation copy. That was probably a lot clearer than anything you can see on your monitor or TV screen."
So what's your point? LAL, do you have any idea how many PhDs and/or D.V.Ms. watched that film in the first two years? Hell I grew up with a family who's dad (D.V.M. Primatologist? among other titles) was pretty much at the top of the ladder at The Washington National Primate Research Center here in Seattle at the U.W. when this film was making it's little (professional) tour. He viewed it for quite some time and seemed to come to a completely different conclusion than Krantz. My point being for every Krantz, Meldrum, Swindler... there are many hundreds, if not thousands of others with the same credentials that say it's a hoax, or at the very least, it's inconclusive, and it's the same with all the frickin impression casts.
You keep saying/quoting Medrum/Krantz... they said this, they said that, granted they are/were both very intelligent (one a bit eccentric) men but why for the life of me someone would bet bank on the opinions/speculation of two mortal men in regards to this subject is beyond me. What make these select few right and everyone else wrong?
IMO if this thing is flesh and blood people like Green need to put their money where their mouth is. They need to find a hot sighting area and hire a couple master trackers, not the clown show that usually shows up but trackers like Masia Wilson, James Minye, Tom Brown, Jr or the man I'd hire, David Scott-Donelan. There is a small group of trackers out there that most people do not know exist, they have no idea what these people are capable of. I have seen guys run at almost full speed while they track, with them it's mostly intuition, others work better in teams. If I ever run across a set of tracks that I think are real I'll call in some high end tactical guys I know and let them give it a shot, but hey, that's just me.
Scholars can speculate all they want but will it get them/us anywhere? Scholars are not the ones that are going to discover this creature if it exists, they will be the ones to examine it, to verify it and that is all. IMO the person who finally puts this thing down is going to be someone we have never heard of. It's either going to be a person who has been tracking one for many years or some guy/girl in the right spot at the right time with big enough balls to go for a head shot.
What would we have if there was no P/G film, or no Meldrum? What if Krantz had never speculated about Gigantopithecus, if Chilcutt never claimed that he could interpret an unknown. Take out one or more of these links and ask yourself what is left. The chain is very, very weak. What these men are claiming is very, very weak.
I wont even go into the Skookum Cast, it's so laughable that it does not even deserve to be discussed. BTW LAL, sign/spoor is left everywhere, yes even on rocks, or should I say that with rocks it's more a lack of something that you are looking for.
As I see it, if this creature exists, the actions/attitudes described below (from 97') are the far too common tactical errors that are continually made. It has been proven time and time again that this kind of clown show will never yield any definitive evidence. Sleep? One does not have the luxury of sleep when one is in the field searching for the find of the century. My god, it's so close that they hear it moving and this is their reaction? My twelve year-old daughter and her girl-friends could/would do better than this group.
Report of the 1997 Six Rivers National Forest Expedition
Amateurs
"The disturbances occurred around the campfire, which was by then practically extinguished, and they were heard about every two minutes. Slack then decided to investigate, but as he unzipped his sleeping bag and the inner and outer linings of his tent, he heard the bipedal steps of two entities running in opposite directions, one towards the east entrance to the camp, and the other from near the campfire westward towards the brush and rocks below the cliff, where he heard the clatter of rocks. (Meldrum, who was not fully awake, heard only rocks falling.) Although there was now daylight, both entities had disappeared by the time Slack got out of his tent.
At 6:35 a.m., Slack heard "muttering" or "grumbling" noises that sounded like muted human conversation coming from the direction of the cliff to the west. He sat up to listen more carefully, and then heard what sounded like a single bipedal entity running from near the campfire through the camp toward the cliff. There were no further camp disturbances, and Slack went back to sleep."
Why not hire people like this and put an end to the speculation?
Professionals
"On the second afternoon of the trip, Liebenberg evaluated Sylvester Makhubela, a young black African candidate for senior tracker status. His test was, basically, to find a lion. Liebenberg, Zorpette, Makhubela, and two other trackers scrambled out of a Land Rover at 3:00 p.m. "The last thing they said to me before we headed into the bush was, 'Whatever happens, don't run unless we tell you to,'" Zorpette recalls.
With Makhubela in the lead, the group trod over tawny clumps of grass and among scattered bush and acacia trees near the N'wetsi River. Between 3:15 and 3:30 Makhubela was on the trail of some lion paw prints; a little after 3:30, he came upon a fresh antelope carcass. At 4:10, Makhubela found what he was looking for: a pride of lions [photo], including three lionesses, a dozen cubs, and a big male lazing nearby.
Liebenberg was delighted. "There are few people alive who can do what we just did," he told Zorpette, clearly proud of Makhubela, who earned his senior tracker stripes that day."
m
LAL Quote;
"Krantz used a hand crank viewer on a first generation copy. That was probably a lot clearer than anything you can see on your monitor or TV screen."
So what's your point? LAL, do you have any idea how many PhDs and/or D.V.Ms. watched that film in the first two years? Hell I grew up with a family who's dad (D.V.M. Primatologist? among other titles) was pretty much at the top of the ladder at The Washington National Primate Research Center here in Seattle at the U.W. when this film was making it's little (professional) tour. He viewed it for quite some time and seemed to come to a completely different conclusion than Krantz. My point being for every Krantz, Meldrum, Swindler... there are many hundreds, if not thousands of others with the same credentials that say it's a hoax, or at the very least, it's inconclusive, and it's the same with all the frickin impression casts.
You keep saying/quoting Medrum/Krantz... they said this, they said that, granted they are/were both very intelligent (one a bit eccentric) men but why for the life of me someone would bet bank on the opinions/speculation of two mortal men in regards to this subject is beyond me. What make these select few right and everyone else wrong?
IMO if this thing is flesh and blood people like Green need to put their money where their mouth is. They need to find a hot sighting area and hire a couple master trackers, not the clown show that usually shows up but trackers like Masia Wilson, James Minye, Tom Brown, Jr or the man I'd hire, David Scott-Donelan. There is a small group of trackers out there that most people do not know exist, they have no idea what these people are capable of. I have seen guys run at almost full speed while they track, with them it's mostly intuition, others work better in teams. If I ever run across a set of tracks that I think are real I'll call in some high end tactical guys I know and let them give it a shot, but hey, that's just me.
Scholars can speculate all they want but will it get them/us anywhere? Scholars are not the ones that are going to discover this creature if it exists, they will be the ones to examine it, to verify it and that is all. IMO the person who finally puts this thing down is going to be someone we have never heard of. It's either going to be a person who has been tracking one for many years or some guy/girl in the right spot at the right time with big enough balls to go for a head shot.
What would we have if there was no P/G film, or no Meldrum? What if Krantz had never speculated about Gigantopithecus, if Chilcutt never claimed that he could interpret an unknown. Take out one or more of these links and ask yourself what is left. The chain is very, very weak. What these men are claiming is very, very weak.
I wont even go into the Skookum Cast, it's so laughable that it does not even deserve to be discussed. BTW LAL, sign/spoor is left everywhere, yes even on rocks, or should I say that with rocks it's more a lack of something that you are looking for.
As I see it, if this creature exists, the actions/attitudes described below (from 97') are the far too common tactical errors that are continually made. It has been proven time and time again that this kind of clown show will never yield any definitive evidence. Sleep? One does not have the luxury of sleep when one is in the field searching for the find of the century. My god, it's so close that they hear it moving and this is their reaction? My twelve year-old daughter and her girl-friends could/would do better than this group.
Report of the 1997 Six Rivers National Forest Expedition
Amateurs
"The disturbances occurred around the campfire, which was by then practically extinguished, and they were heard about every two minutes. Slack then decided to investigate, but as he unzipped his sleeping bag and the inner and outer linings of his tent, he heard the bipedal steps of two entities running in opposite directions, one towards the east entrance to the camp, and the other from near the campfire westward towards the brush and rocks below the cliff, where he heard the clatter of rocks. (Meldrum, who was not fully awake, heard only rocks falling.) Although there was now daylight, both entities had disappeared by the time Slack got out of his tent.
At 6:35 a.m., Slack heard "muttering" or "grumbling" noises that sounded like muted human conversation coming from the direction of the cliff to the west. He sat up to listen more carefully, and then heard what sounded like a single bipedal entity running from near the campfire through the camp toward the cliff. There were no further camp disturbances, and Slack went back to sleep."
Why not hire people like this and put an end to the speculation?
Professionals
"On the second afternoon of the trip, Liebenberg evaluated Sylvester Makhubela, a young black African candidate for senior tracker status. His test was, basically, to find a lion. Liebenberg, Zorpette, Makhubela, and two other trackers scrambled out of a Land Rover at 3:00 p.m. "The last thing they said to me before we headed into the bush was, 'Whatever happens, don't run unless we tell you to,'" Zorpette recalls.
With Makhubela in the lead, the group trod over tawny clumps of grass and among scattered bush and acacia trees near the N'wetsi River. Between 3:15 and 3:30 Makhubela was on the trail of some lion paw prints; a little after 3:30, he came upon a fresh antelope carcass. At 4:10, Makhubela found what he was looking for: a pride of lions [photo], including three lionesses, a dozen cubs, and a big male lazing nearby.
Liebenberg was delighted. "There are few people alive who can do what we just did," he told Zorpette, clearly proud of Makhubela, who earned his senior tracker stripes that day."
m
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
tube wrote:
In addition to Gimlin continuing to stand behind his story....we'll never hear from anyone credible who was "in the suit". (It clearly wasn't Bob "what's my story today?" Heironimus.
)
We'll never see the "suit"......and neither will we ever see a picture of a comparable suit from the 60's.
Dfoot tried and failed to make a close reproduction.....despite spouting off about how laughably obvious the "suit" was.
Dfoot's efforts were the real laugh.
In my opinion...the PG film is not the "ultimate" piece of Bigfoot evidence that will ever exist.
There have been simply too many reported sightings over the years to count them all as "totally meaningless".
They carry some weight as evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The Patterson film will continue to hold-up to any and all scientific analysis.....as it has for about 40 years already.
In addition to Gimlin continuing to stand behind his story....we'll never hear from anyone credible who was "in the suit". (It clearly wasn't Bob "what's my story today?" Heironimus.
)We'll never see the "suit"......and neither will we ever see a picture of a comparable suit from the 60's.
Dfoot tried and failed to make a close reproduction.....despite spouting off about how laughably obvious the "suit" was.
Dfoot's efforts were the real laugh.
In my opinion...the PG film is not the "ultimate" piece of Bigfoot evidence that will ever exist.
There have been simply too many reported sightings over the years to count them all as "totally meaningless".
They carry some weight as evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
The PGF has never been subject to any scientific analysis whatsoever.
In either it's original, or it's subsequent forms.
It was initially seen by a few scientists, most of whom agreed the subject walked like a human.
As for an actual scientific analysis of the film, there is no record of such an analysis.
LMS wasn't one, and the NASI effort was not one either.
Both efforts were also made by believers in the PGF and Bigfoot, rather than by objective organizations.
The gait of the subject was also recently duplicated easily by a beginner.
In either it's original, or it's subsequent forms.
It was initially seen by a few scientists, most of whom agreed the subject walked like a human.
As for an actual scientific analysis of the film, there is no record of such an analysis.
LMS wasn't one, and the NASI effort was not one either.
Both efforts were also made by believers in the PGF and Bigfoot, rather than by objective organizations.
The gait of the subject was also recently duplicated easily by a beginner.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
LTC8K6 wrote:
Now explain why that indicates a hoax rather a real Bigfoot.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Great post mangler!
You seem to have some special insight to this phenomena.
Could you comment on Patterson's failure to further pursue, or get professional help to pursue the creature he had just filmed ?
Of course we have heard all the lame excuses bout how he called someone to bring dogs, but ' lame ' is the key word here..
It is also telling that Green, et al, did not mount an expedition ..
You seem to have some special insight to this phenomena.
Could you comment on Patterson's failure to further pursue, or get professional help to pursue the creature he had just filmed ?
Of course we have heard all the lame excuses bout how he called someone to bring dogs, but ' lame ' is the key word here..
It is also telling that Green, et al, did not mount an expedition ..
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
LTC8K6 wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about...whatsoever
...
You have no idea what you're talking about...whatsoever
...
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Bayanov, Bayanov... hmmm. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, I remember. Mary Green. Not very objective, sucker.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,495
Yes, Glickman calculated Patty's height at 7'3" and her weight at 1,957 pounds. That is absurd and sounds like an April Fool's joke.
The NASI report appears to be scientific, but it is not in that it wasn't properly peer-reviewed and Glickman didn't test his conclusions with known controls.
Lu, it's not about just focusing on the weight estimate. It's when it is combined with the height estimate that we see that Glickman was not paying attention to the real world. His "standard formula" for estimating ape weights failed spectacularly when he tried to apply it to Patty. We have to ask ourselves what the hell was on Glickman's mind? Was he deluded?
I'll use some photos to try to make my points....
This is Hodgson in a series of three comparison shots used in the NASI report. He is 6'0" tall and weighs 150 pounds.
Here Hodgson is compared to Patty with an effort to match the scale. In order for Glickman's weight estimate to be accurate - Patty has to weight 1,807 pounds more than Hodgson. But she is not dramatically larger than him. She is certainly not large enough to represent 13x the weight of Hodgson. But Glickman made the estimate anyway.
Here is McClarin (not from NASI), who was also scaled to match Patty. He is 6'5" and fairly lanky. I don't know what he weighed, but if you use 275 pounds - he is still 1682 pounds lighter than Patty.
Here is Bob Heironimus (recent photo and not from NASI) compared to Patty. Bob was about 6"2" in 1967, and weighed 170-200 pounds. He's probably close to 300 pounds in this photo - he is still about 1,650 pounds lighter than Patty.
I mentioned before that the best animal to compare Bigfoot to (for measurements) would be a standing bear. Glickman should have looked into Kodiak bears when he gave the height & weight estimates for Patty. That is a control that he missed. Kodiaks are really big bears, and when they stand up their overall morphology is not much different from a Bigfoot. A 1000 pound Kodiak bear is heavier than typical, but some can exceed that weight. The standing height of these large bears would be 8-11 feet. We could expect a 1000 pound male to stand about 9' tall. But Glickman puts Patty's weight at 1,957 pounds and only standing 7'3" tall. WTF is that all about? Try to imagine a Kodiak that stands 7'3" tall.... what would it weigh? How in the world can Patty weigh about twice as much as a Kodiak bear, yet still be about 2' feet shorter in height? Is she made out of iron? What was Glickman thinking?
Here is a taxidermy form for a standing Kodiak bear. It's pretty much what the living bear would look like if it were skinned. The basic form is not a whole lot different than Patty.
I don't have any height or weight estimates for the subjects in this picture. It was the only decent picture I could find of a Kodiak bear and person standing next to each other.
The IM index was another big problem for Glickman. If it's a guy in a costume, then he cannot properly locate the joints. But he went ahead and did it anyway, coming up with an inhuman index. He never used a control to see if his method would work on a costumed man. I never saw him give an IM index for a known man in a gorilla suit. That would always calculate as a human IM, right?
Glickman seems to assume it's not a guy in a costume when he tries to locate the joints in order to calculate the IM index. Then he feels the resultant IM index shows it can't be a human. But if Patty is a guy in a costume with headpiece, (football) shoulder pads, pillows in the butt, and padding in various places .... how can Glickman decide to locate the joints where he does?
This is a very bad scientific analysis unless you already know of the design details of the Bigfoot costume and the size of whom might be in it. Yet, the NASI report is often held in high esteem by PGF believers. It's no wonder that many PGF skeptics feel that arguing with the believers is like an evolutionist arguing against biblical creationists. They make you want to bang your head on a brick wall.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
William Parcher wrote:
mangler wrote: "The entire photo is a streak."
LTC8K6 wrote: " Yes, there is (camera-shake dostortion in that frame.)
But when these "scientifically-minded" SKEPTICS are asked to highlight a few streaks in that image.....they go silent....brain-dead....belly-up....flat-line. Get the picture?
It's like talking to a biblical creationist....because all they have is their "belief"......and nothing more.
BTW...I agree with the point of your post, William......that weight estimate is obviously WAY off the mark.
Now...looking at it from the viewpoint of a Bigfoot proponent....
mangler wrote: "The entire photo is a streak."
LTC8K6 wrote: " Yes, there is (camera-shake dostortion in that frame.)
But when these "scientifically-minded" SKEPTICS are asked to highlight a few streaks in that image.....they go silent....brain-dead....belly-up....flat-line. Get the picture?
It's like talking to a biblical creationist....because all they have is their "belief"......and nothing more.
BTW...I agree with the point of your post, William......that weight estimate is obviously WAY off the mark.
Last edited:
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
William Parcher wrote:
Instead she looks very much like a real creature inside it's own hide.
...then Patty would LOOK like a guy in a suit with a headpiece, shoulder pads, pillows in the butt, and lots of padding.
Instead she looks very much like a real creature inside it's own hide.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Some people want us to belive all gorilla suits from the 60s were like this:
For some reason, they neglect these ones:
The youngest gorilla suit is Tracy, from the 1975 Ghostbusters. Most of the others are from before PGF...
Denialism is to say a Patty suit was impossible back in the late 60s.
Here's the source of most of the images:
http://www.gorillamen.com/
I suggest a visit to that site for anyone interested in the issue. It will easilly show how wrong some PGF defenders are.
ETA:
Check IMs and forehead slopes! They've gotta be real gorillas!!!
For some reason, they neglect these ones:
The youngest gorilla suit is Tracy, from the 1975 Ghostbusters. Most of the others are from before PGF...
Denialism is to say a Patty suit was impossible back in the late 60s.
Here's the source of most of the images:
http://www.gorillamen.com/
I suggest a visit to that site for anyone interested in the issue. It will easilly show how wrong some PGF defenders are.
ETA:
Check IMs and forehead slopes! They've gotta be real gorillas!!!
- Status