Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Belz...]

stop ing please.

 

[LTC8K6]

Can someone please explain why the midtarsel break seems readily apparent in some tracks, yet conspicuously missing in others?

What midtarsal break?

 

[RayG]

What midtarsal break?

The one that only shows up in a select few instances. An obvious ridge/fold/flexibility area that shows up here

yet shows no trace of any ridge/fold/flexibility area here

here

here

here

or here

Any point on my body that has a flexible bone connection either has an obvious fold in the skin at that location, (fingers, hands, wrists, knees, elbows, toes, etc.) or a pronounced change of angle from one body part to another (head-neck, neck-shoulder, foot-ankle, etc.).

Gorilla feet have both flexible feet and the corresponding folds:

Bigfoot however, seems to have neither folds nor pronounced angles, yet somehow possesses a foot with a flexible bone in the middle. This flexibility remains hidden EXCEPT on the rare occasion when bigfoot chooses to utiliize this flexible foot joint and leaves a tell-tale priint.

I just don't get it.

RayG

 

[fsol]

tube wrote:



Making the arms of a suit longer is a very easy thing to do.

Rigging up the fake fingers so they can bend is a little tougher.

Explaining why the fingers in the PG film only bend during a shaky part of the film, and not at all in the steady part is a WHOLE LOT tougher thing to do.
And skeptics like to avoid even attempting it.

Pathetic.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that Laverty photo doesn't show a midtarsal break at all, so I must ask again.

What midtarsal break?

What other creatures have a midtarsal break for reference and comparison purposes with the Laverty track?

Your hand has a "midtarsal break". See what kind of prints you can make with it...

 

[LTC8K6]

Where is Meldrum's evidence showing that the Laverty photo is the track you'd get from the foot of a large biped with a midtarsal break?

 

[RayG]

Well, that Laverty photo doesn't show a midtarsal break at all, so I must ask again.

What midtarsal break?

Yes, I should have said alleged ridge/fold/flexibility area that shows up, and not obvious ridge/fold/flexibility area that shows up.

What other creatures have a midtarsal break for reference and comparison purposes with the Laverty track?

The gorilla perhaps?

Your hand has a "midtarsal break". See what kind of prints you can make with it...

Exactly why bigfoot proponents should be asking why this 'fold' doesn't show up in the vast majority of casts.

RayG

 

[tube]

Exactly why bigfoot proponents should be asking why this 'fold' doesn't show up in the vast majority of casts.

RayG

Yes! I've been suggesting this for some time now, I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder about this rather basic issue.

Flexible foot + thick foot pad = very deep and pronounced flexion creases; MUCH more coarse and deep than what we see in humans.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I just raised this question again over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16440&view=findpost&p=380389

 

[William Parcher]

This website shows how simple it is to give the illusion of muscles beneath a costume skin by using foam.

The pads will give the illusion of muscle definition and added bulk. Shown here is the torso, but we could imagine Patterson doing this sort of thing anywhere he chose with the Patty suit.

Muscle Suit

Simply put, these materials were used making the foam padding undersuit that gives the illusion of musculature.

$3.00 - 2" wide elastic straps (3')
$1.50 - 3/4" wide elastic straps (3')
$7.00 - Duck Fabric (6')
$0.70 - Nylon needlepoint mesh (2 @ $0.35)
$5.00 - Polyester batting filler (15')
$3.00 - Thread

Muscle Suit total - $20.20

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Greg promptly produced this WONDER of intelligent analysis:

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/wristchg1.gif[/qimg]

Since Greg missed the basic point of the request... ...to SHOW and HIGHLIGHT the CHANGE IN WIDTH of the arm....

I highlighted the width of the arms myself......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/wristchg2.gif[/qimg]

I drew two lines of the exact same length....one on each arm.

Where is the difference in the width of the arm???

Can Greg come to the rescue and SHOW us? I doubt it.

YOU are the one with no clue, Greg.

We are overwhelmed ..

You can draw two lines of equal length, and overlay them over two frames that are not the same scale and claim they show something in the frames is static.


Your genius humbles us all..

Dazzle us all with your analysis of how the butt doesn't change size between the two frames ..

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

You can draw two lines of equal length, and overlay them over two frames that are not the same scale

And the lines show that there is no apparant difference in the width of the wrist between those two frames.

Can you show us that those 2 frames are NOT the same scale?

Can you show us how you determined there's a "wrist bulge", Greg.....because there's absolutely no evidence of it that I can see.


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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And the lines show that there is no apparant difference in the width of the wrist between those two frames.

Can you show us that those 2 frames are NOT the same scale?

I need to show you ?

How are you determining where the wrist begins and ends in those shadows ?

Can you show us how you determined there's a "wrist bulge", Greg.....because there's absolutely no evidence of it that I can see.

Again, what do I need to show ?
The wrist plainly changes shape .. Either apparently or actually ..

I believe the difference in camera angle actually accounts for the change in shape, as well as the bent fingers ..

 

[tconley2019]

Lurker decloaking off the starboard bow!

In frame 2 of that animation, it's easy to see that the elbow has bent more than the first frame. The forearm is thus angled away from the camera, and the apparent size of the wrist should be smaller. Since SweatyYeti has shown that that the apparent size of the wrist is the same in both frames, it follows that the wrist must be larger in the second frame. In other words, SweatyYeti has demonstrated that the wrist bulges.

SY, I'm confused as to why you're emphasizing this issue. The observed motion of the fingers is well within the range that even a very simple wooden dowel assembly could do. So even if you can show that the fingers do bend, the motion would be consistent with either Patty-as-creature or Patty-as-man-in-a-suit. So why bother? It seems that the line of questioning about whether Patty's head is big enough to contain a human head would be a more fruitful avenue of inquiry.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Lurker decloaking off the starboard bow!
...So even if you can show that the fingers do bend, the motion would be consistent with either Patty-as-creature or Patty-as-man-in-a-suit. So why bother?

..

Hey! Welcome aboard !

Now for the A$$ chewing ..

Go back and read every word of this thread before posting again !

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2504351&postcount=3788

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

Just kidding ..

-------------------------------------

And, as I mentioned in the linked post above, the genesis of the significance of the finger movement, was that it was representative of expensive animatronics; beyond the expertise and technology available in 1967 .. ( uh, huh )

I think that somewhere in all this, sweaty has forgotten what the point is supposed to be; if he ever had one at all.

 

[Belz...]

Lurker decloaking off the starboard bow!

FIRE PHASERS !!!

 

[Belz...]

I think that somewhere in all this, sweaty has forgotten what the point is supposed to be; if he ever had one at all.

I think his point is to delay actual discussion as long as possible. It makes it easier to claim, many weeks later, that no "skeptic" answered his points.

 

[tconley2019]

Now for the A$$ chewing ..

Go back and read every word of this thread before posting again !

(link removed because I don't have enough posts for them.)




Just kidding ..

-------------------------------------

And, as I mentioned in the linked post above, the genesis of the significance of the finger movement, was that it was representative of expensive animatronics; beyond the expertise and technology available in 1967 .. ( uh, huh )

I think that somewhere in all this, sweaty has forgotten what the point is supposed to be; if he ever had one at all.

Eh, think of it as a 90+ post reminder. A twitch is beyond 1967 technology, huh? I saw Lal's posts pointing out the $10,000 sasquatch hand, but that thing can probably sign out ASL readably. I'd think you could MacGyver a sasquatch hand that could pass Patty mustard out of dowels and duct tape. MacGyver probably wouldn't need the dowel. He'd use an egg or something.

That doesn't establish Patty as a man-in-a-suit, but it does show that the man-in-a-suit explains that aspect as well as an unknown creature, without having to assume the existance of said creature.

Now, the Bear holding a Shark? No way that could be a guy in a suit.

 

[Hitch]

The actual $64 question is: Why, in the 40 years since the PGF was shot, haven't Bigfoot supporters come up with any better (and by "better" I mean remotely plausible) evidence supporting their fantasies?

 

[Spektator]

I don't have the skills to animate these images, but I would like to thank my daughter for allowing the use of one of her dolls--one with rigid plastic fingers, by the way.

I shot these two pictures moments ago, in the wilds of the guest bathroom upstairs (the towel rack provided a nice support for Kenfoot). I rotated the doll slightly and stepped back a little bit for the second image.

Do the fingers appear to flex?