Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just doubt very much that Roger got what he wanted on the first try if he created this hoax, WP.

Maybe he got the suit and the take right on the first try. If so, that's pretty good. Hats off to him.

There are all sorts of possibilities and variables that can be considered, and I've already talked about most of them many times over.

I have no idea if BH played Patty, and frankly little interest in who might have worn the suit. It doesn't really matter much to me.

I am really getting tired of being expected to do the work that should be done by those who think the PGF is film of a sasquatch.

I am also getting tired of being drawn into battles of irrelevancies by the likes of Sweaty Yeti.

Most of my reasons for doubting the film are not in the film anyway. They are in the events surrounding the film.
 
Second version of Kenfoot, without flash, handheld camera (which creates a pleasingly blurred effect):

54246292ce8259e4.gif


1. This shows a narrower profile looking more flexed than a wider profile.

2. I know this does not prove that the image cobbled from non-consecutive frames of the Patterson film appears to bend because of the same illusion. I never said that it did--I mentioned this as one possibility.

3. This is only one of the many explanations of the "finger bending" that does not require belief in an unlikely and improbable animal. There are a host of others, as seen in this thread.

4. I jump through no more hoops. If supporters of bigfoot want to prove something, let them prove it--if they can.

Thank you all for your patience.
 
SweatyYeti said:
kitakaze wrote:

Well, since I said it yesterday......that would be TODAY.


The reason why I can tell Patty's hand isn't turning, thereby creating the illusion of 'fingers bending'....is because, as anyone can plainly SEE....though apparantly not on their own....when the hand turns from an edge-on view towards a more face-on view.....the hand becomes wider.....


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/DollHand2.gif[/qimg]


Patty's hand does NOT become wider in the frame in which her fingers are more curled-up............not in the least.


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]


Not one skeptic could figure this out on their own.

Probably because they're either all idiots....or victims of "wishful thinking".

"If the fingers bend.....you MUST pretend." :D
Click to expand...
Mmmmmm hmmmm mmmm mmmm hmm hmm... Oh! I'm sorry! Was I humming? I was just savouring the moment. Hey Stimpy, guess who looks not so smart.:cool:
 
desertyeti said:
After several years of examining casts of purported Bigfoot footprints, buttprints, handprints, and knuckleprints, it dawned on me that the whole reason any of these are considered legitimate is that somone gave them a "thumbs-up" as being real prints. John Green (a journalist), Grover Krantz (a physical anthropologist), Jeff Meldrum (another physical anthropologist), and Jimmy Chillcut (a fingerprint specialist) are the most-quoted, and most revered figures in Bigfoot lore, yet none of them is actually a specialist in animal tracks and sign.

Hmmmmmmm says I. There are any number of animal tracking certification programs in existence, and the Shikari Tracking League is among the best. To be certified, a tracker is evaluated by a panel of expert trackers on basic field tracking abilities, identification, etc. These specialists can judge weight, age, and even gender of the animal being tracked in some cases. But what does it take to be a Bigfoot "expert?"

My long-winded monologue is gearing up for this proposal: What say someone (I'm happy to be involved if anyone's interested in actually doing this) devise a simple set of exercises using casts, photos, and/or footprint sites of real human tracks, and fake ones (made using say, a manikin's feet, or other prosthetics)? The object will be to see if any of the self-proclaimed BF "experts" can, as they claim, differentiate between prints made by real feet, and prints made by forgeries. If, as they claim, these master trackers can actually pick out real from false prints, hoorah! If not...well...

Any of the BF-supporters here want to try it and see if this is worthwhile? If not, perhaps we can design the test and start to formally request that the "experts" show us how easy it is to tell real from fake prints. Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
FOrgive me fi this has alrady been coverd, but I'm not going to read though the who 50+ pages of posts...
So, let me get his st8.
You know of a whole FREAKING society of trained trackers and you want to ignore them entirely and waste time talking to people who just claim to be trackers?:jaw-dropp
 
As always, following what seems to be the standard proceedure of a great percentage of bigfoot defenders that showed up at JREF, your answer to the reasonings presented were nothing but evasion attempts and ad homs. Such folks enter here as bigfoot evangelizers and end up as bigfoot crusaders, trying to impose their faith by force...

SweatyYeti said:
I've pointed out the stupidity of skeptic's arguments plenty of times.

...snip...
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.
Click to expand...
Want some examples of "outpouring of ridiculous and unsupported imaginary explanations"?
-IM is evidence of not being a suit
-Smooth hair is evidence its not a suit
-Finger movment would take a very complex and expensive mechanism
-There's no doubt the fingers move
-A Patty suit would be too expensive and not possible in the late 60s
-The gait can not (or would be very hard to) be reproduced by humans
-Since the effect is shown at shaky part of PGF then the fingers probably really move.

Want me to show more arguments of similar dubious quality?

Who's really not trying to find the truth here?

SY, its time for you to reconsider your tactics. Stop the ad homs. Its time for you to say
billydkid said:
"I don't care what the truth is. I want to believe what I want to believe."
Click to expand...
instead of trying to convince us there are reliable pieces of evidence for bigfeet being real creatures and Patty a real bigfoot, because
billydkid said:
A person is free to believe things willy nilly, but they shouldn't go around pretending they have legitimate reasons to believe them.
Click to expand...

Of course, you always have the option of presenting reliable evidence and sound reasonings to back your claims. Got any of these for a change?

SweatyYeti said:
The bending of the fingers is as clear as day....the skeptics here can see it.....they just can't acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Nope, its not clear. Its far from clear. So far nothing you or any other pro-bigfoot poster presented so far convinced me the "bending of the fingers is as clear as day".

Not to mention that, as pointed out before by myself and other posters, even if PGF showed clear images of Patty's hand closing, it would not be uncontestable evidence pointing towards the footage being of an authentic bigfoot.

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

It's as simple as that. :)
...snip...
Click to expand...
I think the effect is most likely caused by the hand being shown at different angles at each image combined with the poor quality of the frames. I don't "see" bending fingers.

Now,
Are you claiming I don't have personal integrity?
Are you claiming I am dishonest?

Three other pro-bigfoot posters here tried similar moves. They never backed their accusations. They spewed flat-out lies. If you are trying this move now, you'd better have something to back your claims. If say I am dishonest and lack personal integrity, then I call your bluff. Show your cards. No smileys required, just evidence .

And even if your words were not directed towards me, you should back the accusations aniway. And again, I call your bluff. You made accusations, you attacked people calling them dishonest and without integrity. Now its time to back them. Can you?

If you can't, you must do the right thing and remove the accusations.
 
Last edited:
Looking at these images, I've noticed a distinct difference in the rigid doll hand and Patty's not-so-rigid hand.

First the doll hand....

DollHand1ag.gif
Handturn1ag.gif



Patty's hand flexes distinctly in two spots....

handmove1ag.gif


In addition to the fingers changing shape down near the end, they bend very distinctly higher up, at the first joint.
I highlighted that angle with the arrow....

Pattyhand4OL.gif
Pattyhand5OL.gif


On the doll hand images, that angle doesn't change at all. It's too STIFF.

But don't let that stop your imaginations, folks. Dream on! :D


"If the fingers bend....you MUST pretend." :)
 
A distinct difference !! NO !!!! :jaw-dropp


Any idiot can see that Patty's palm rotates so that it becomes more visible, just like the doll hand.

And of course the fingers aren't bent the same.

We have some rubber gorilla hands and some plastic doll hands..

But any idiot can see that too ..
 
Correa Neto wrote:
I think the effect is most likely caused by the hand being shown at different angles at each image combined with the poor quality of the frames. I don't "see" bending fingers.

Now,
Are you claiming I don't have personal integrity?
Are you claiming I am dishonest?
Click to expand...

I think that anyone who sees the comparison of a doll's stiff hand with Patty's hand, and says they think Patty's hand is a rigid hand, and the finger-bending is an illusion...is either just plain stupid, or they're being dishonest.

I'll be happy to change my opinion as far as that goes, if someone can show that a rigid doll hand can replicate that degree of bending, at two joints, with an edge-on view of the hand.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Correa Neto wrote:


I think that anyone who sees the comparison of a doll's stiff hand with Patty's hand, and says they think Patty's hand is a rigid hand, and the finger-bending is an illusion...is either just plain stupid, or they're being dishonest.

I'll be happy to change my opinion as far as that goes, if someone can show that a rigid doll hand can replicate that degree of bending, at two joints, with an edge-on view of the hand.
Click to expand...

I think that anyone who has read this thread, and says they think other people are saying Patty's hand absolutely is a completely rigid hand, and the finger-bending could only be an illusion...is either just plain stupid, or they're being dishonest.
 
I think that anyone who has read this thread, and says they think other people are saying Patty's hand absolutely is a completely rigid hand, and the finger-bending could only be an illusion...is either just plain stupid, or they're being dishonest.
Click to expand...

When did I say that "other people have said it can only be a doll-hand illusion"?
Show me a quote. If you can't....then YOU'RE the true idiot.

I'm comparing Patty's hand to a rigid doll hand simply to try to determine if the finger-bending can possibly be a "doll-hand illusion".

From what I can see in these comparisons, it doesn't look like it's even a possible explanation.
 
Last edited:
Diogenes wrote:
Any idiot can see that Patty's palm rotates so that it becomes more visible,
Click to expand...

O.k. Greg....so you're saying that this image is more FACE-ON than the other image.
Note the fingers are STRAIGHTER in this one....


hand1.gif


And, according to you, this image is a more EDGE-ON view.
The fingers are BENT at two distinct spots, or joints....


hand2.gif



But....in this frame, we're seeing Patty's hand EDGE-ON, and the fingers are STRAIGHT.....

Pattyhand3.gif



This sure is one TRICKY little rigid hand, isn't it??? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Correa Neto wrote:


I think that anyone who sees the comparison of a doll's stiff hand with Patty's hand, and says they think Patty's hand is a rigid hand, and the finger-bending is an illusion...is either just plain stupid, or they're being dishonest.

I'll be happy to change my opinion as far as that goes, if someone can show that a rigid doll hand can replicate that degree of bending, at two joints, with an edge-on view of the hand.
Click to expand...

You still haven't looked at your own hand. You can show exactly what you're asking for from the comfort of your computer chair. It takes 10 seconds.

And again, the entire argument is worthless. Even if you're right and the fingers bend, it doesn't help determine whether Patty is a suit or an unknown primate.
 
SweatyYeti said:
When did I say that "other people have said it can only be a doll-hand illusion"?
Show me a quote. If you can't....then YOU'RE the true idiot.

I'm comparing Patty's hand to a rigid doll hand simply to try to determine if the finger-bending can possibly be a "doll-hand illusion".

From what I can see in these comparisons, it doesn't look like it's even a possible explanation.
Click to expand...

Oh, was I talking to you? Show me the quote with your name in it. Otherwise... well, you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom