Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

It's fun watching skeptics try to dodge the obvious!

The fingers...real or fake...clearly bend.

The combination of extra-long arms and moving fingers is a real dilemma for the "hoax" crowd....some kind of mechanically controlled fingers are necessary to hang onto their belief that it's a man-in-a-suit.

So, to re-cap....here's what happens when skeptics see something they have a real problem with............

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.

That could simply be blobs of color merging into and out of the background colors, appearing, when blinked back and forth, a bit like a hand curving.

It could be a flat paddle from all that shows.

I don't see a finger. There does seem to be some flexation of the hand,

Ahhhhh.....FUN with skeptics!

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Patty's calf is moving pretty much vertically at the point where it could contact the hand, Sweaty.

No it isn't.
The major component of it's motion...almost all of it...is horizontal.

 

[fsol]

It's fun watching skeptics try to dodge the obvious!

The fingers...real or fake...clearly bend.

The combination of extra-long arms and moving fingers is a real dilemma for the "hoax" crowd....some kind of mechanically controlled fingers are necessary to hang onto their belief that it's a man-in-a-suit.

Big deal. Mechanically controlled fingers and arm extensions were not exactly unheard of in gorrila suits of the time, and even before the time that the film was made. Which, by the way, has been pointed out numerous times on this thread and others already.

 

[Correa Neto]

Big deal. Mechanically controlled fingers and arm extensions were not exactly unheard of in gorrila suits of the time, and even before the time that the film was made. Which, by the way, has been pointed out numerous times on this thread and others already.

He, anyone else here remembers those robot hands / claws toys?

Top-notch cutting edge FX tech is (and was) not required for a Patty suit... A child's toy is all that it takes to render IM and moving fingers arguments useless.

Perspective can do some pretty weird things... Keep this in mind when making measurements or seeing movent in sequences of photos.

In the meanwhile, can you locate Tracy's articulations and perform an IM analysis? Please look also at his feet! And his conical head! It's gotta be a real gorilla!

Oh, Gorillas and Girls for RayG, Chewbacca and Princess Lea

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What really cracks me up, is when the Footers claim that the finger movement, if part of a suit, would represent sophisticated animatronics, costing thousands of dollars ..

 

[William Parcher]

Bob Huh?ronimus was not in the "suit".

Two REAL GOOD reasons why:

1) He said he used a helmet....and there's barely (if that) enough room inside Patty's head for a human head (with a forehead, that is)...let alone a human head with a helmet on. Absolutely ZERO chance that it's 'a guy with a helmet on inside a suit'.

There is no "helmet" on Bob's head. The Patty headpiece is a single assembly that fits over the whole human head. It's essentially a professional gorilla costume (made by Philip Morris) that was modified by Patterson. The head comes standard with a rigid internal structure so that it keeps its shape when worn. The term "helmet" comes from the headpiece being a structured "helmetlike" assembly that goes over the wearer's head. It's all one piece. The gorilla costume that RP bought from Morris in May 1967 was very expensive. He borrowed money from a woman to buy it and did not repay her - he was subsequently sued for that. Anyway, the Morris gorilla suit had a helmetlike headpiece to begin with.

If you think a human head could not "fit inside Patty's head", I truly wonder how big you actually think her head is. I bet you don't have a clue and are going to just wing it as you see fit. Glickman & Murphy put her weight around 2,000 pounds and standing about 7'3". Just how big is the head on a one ton ape? Like a hotel room refrigerator? Or would you like to say that the NASI report is crazy town? Will you "fix the situation" by saying Patty was only a few hundred pounds?

2) His arms are shorter than Patty's arms, in proportion to the body.
And since we can clearly see Patty's fingers bending in the film.....they can't be Bob's fingers!

Yeah right. Morris clearly explains how the illusion is accomplished with his gorilla suits from the era. In order to make the costumes look like gorillas, the arms had to be way too long for the wearer. The wearer's hands are not inside the costume hands - because otherwise the gorilla arms look too short. The Dynel fabric arm could be cut (shortened) to fit the wearer if necessary, but should always be kept "too long" so that the illusion is maintained. It was standard entertainment and film stuff anyway, and Morris' gorilla costumes were the best available.

Here's another comparison with a suit.
Note the difference in arm lengths...proportionally speaking.....

Yeah. It may be that the wearer's hands are actually inside the costume hands for the suit on the right.

 

[William Parcher]

Baby Dangling, let's stick with the Hollywood illusion theme. Look at this Bigfoot costume again, but focus on the feet instead of the arms. Do you think that the wearer's toes are actually inside of the costume toes?

The rear foot is in a push-off and appears to be flexing very naturally. How in the world do they do that? Is this possibly a real Bigfoot? I mean... look at the action with that foot!

 

[Hitch]

Baby Dangling, let's stick with the Hollywood illusion theme. Look at this Bigfoot costume again, but focus on the feet instead of the arms. Do you think that the wearer's toes are actually inside of the costume toes?

The rear foot is in a push-off and appears to be flexing very naturally. How in the world do they do that? Is this possibly a real Bigfoot? I mean... look at the action with that foot!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6260&d=1175635574[/qimg]

Actually, that's how we know that costume is fake. Real sasquatches walk with an exaggerated step, like a person walking in swim fins. Probably something to do with the front of their feet being so floppy because of the "mid-tarsal break."

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Will you "fix the situation" by saying Patty was only a few hundred pounds?

Patty's weight is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a human head could possibly fit inside Patty's head.
It's simply a matter of body proportions. I'm still working on my analysis...very slowly but very surely.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

The rear foot is in a push-off and appears to be flexing very naturally. How in the world do they do that? Is this possibly a real Bigfoot? I mean... look at the action with that foot!

What is your point? So what if the costume foot has some flexibility?

 

[vLame]

I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside - run, get outta HERE!.

 

[Hitch]

The blurriness comes from her trans dimensional, teleporting, sometimes-invisible nature. (We had an expert to explain tis stuff, but he got banned.)

 

[William Parcher]

I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside - run, get outta HERE!.

Welcome to JREF, Mr. Plagiarist.

 

[SweatyYeti]

fsol wrote:

Mechanically controlled fingers and arm extensions were not exactly unheard of in gorrila suits of the time, and even before the time that the film was made.

It is possible that Roger built some kind of mechanically controlled hand into the suit. I never said it wasn't a possiblity.

But analysis all comes down to probabilities.....not possibilties.

As I highlighted earlier...with regards to "possibilities"...

So, to re-cap....here's what happens when skeptics see something they have a real problem with............

Quote:
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.

Quote:
That could simply be blobs of color merging into and out of the background colors, appearing, when blinked back and forth, a bit like a hand curving.

Quote:
It could be a flat paddle from all that shows.

Quote:
I don't see a finger. There does seem to be some flexation of the hand,

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.

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.

As skeptics LOVE to say....sometimes "absence of evidence" is "evidence of ABSENCE".

 

[Belz...]

The reason why the finger bending is NOT caused by rubbing against the side of Patty's leg is simply because the fingers curl upward, and the hand does not twist backwards.

Reminds me of 9/11 CTers who "clearly" see special "pods" below the planes on low-resolution, highly-zoomed frames.

But don't let those little details stand in the way of your belief, LTC.....believe what you want to believe.

You're projecting, now.

It's fun watching skeptics try to dodge the obvious!

It's fun watching believers try to bend reality.

The fingers...real or fake...clearly bend.

They seem to be in a different position. There's a short leap to "clearly" bending.

Ahhhhh.....FUN with skeptics!

Would you rather we simply jump around and scream: "THIS IS PROOF" when someone merely claims to have seen a bigfoot ?

But analysis all comes down to probabilities.....not possibilties.

Uh oh, he's losing it, again.

Scientist #1: Sir, I calculate a 62% probability that bigfoot exists, based on the body of evidence!!
Scientist #2: Wow! That's higher than 50% +1 !! It MUST be true, it seems.

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty's calf is not moving horizontally when it is near her fingers, it is moving nearly straight upwards. Just like my own calf does. Now why is Sweaty trying to deny what's on the film?

Now we need to ask Sweaty endless questions about the terms he uses. What does possibility mean? What does probability mean?

I do find it telling that Sweaty asks us to explain something in the film, and then attacks us for suggesting explanations. He doesn't just attack the explanations mind you, but he attacks the very fact that we provided them, when he himself asked for them. He makes fun of us, in fact, for doing what he asked us to do.

That is pretty discouraging to further discourse, Sweaty.

 

[William Parcher]

Yes, I see Patty's calf hit her rubber fingers and bend them.

Don't you mean her thigh?

 

[Hitch]

Don't you mean her thigh?

No. I think he believes the calf hits the tips of the fingers.

Just serving to illustrate my point that nothing is "clearly" shown in those two frames. (Or, in fact, in any of the PGF footage I've seen.)

 

[fsol]

fsol wrote:

It is possible that Roger built some kind of mechanically controlled hand into the suit. I never said it wasn't a possiblity.

But analysis all comes down to probabilities.....not possibilties.

As I highlighted earlier...with regards to "possibilities"...


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.

Well, when you do some "true scientific analysis" be sure to let me know won't you?

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

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.

Why? Because you say so? Well, how very scientific of you.

As skeptics LOVE to say....sometimes "absence of evidence" is "evidence of ABSENCE".

If I were a betting man, 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.

 

[William Parcher]

No. I think he believes the calf hits the tips of the fingers.

Just serving to illustrate my point that nothing is "clearly" shown in those two frames. (Or, in fact, in any of the PGF footage I've seen.)

Maybe he does think the fingers hit the calf. But in this gif, it looks to me like the fingers don't reach the calf. It's all thigh right there.

The big problem with this 2-frame animated gif is that it appears that they are not consecutive frames. I mentioned before that there is suddenly a tree in front of Patty in one of these two frames. Nobody has explained how this gif was put together.