The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[makaya325]

I think people taking pictures of gorillas have nothing to hide, they are very clear pictures. No one is even thinking they are men in suits. Now take fuzzy pics and claim ebigfoot..thats the opposite of the millions of wildlife pictures!

That did not answer my question: What features do Gorilla's display that can not possibly be faked?

 

[xblade]

How would anyone know if the photos are unambigious?

By looking at them?

 

[makaya325]

By looking at them?

Ahh, but they can always easily be Faked.

 

[desertgal]

Ahh, but they can always easily be Faked.

You are missing the point. You asked how anyone would know if the photos are unambiguous.

Faked, genuine, unambiguous, ambiguous - the only way to judge if a photo is any of those is by looking at it. You know any other way?

 

[davefoc]

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

Gorillas are not impossible to fake. I think some modern movies have done a very credible job. These involved the use of sophisticated special effects techniques. But it is probably easier to fake a gorilla for a still shot image than a movie and perhaps it would be possible that it could be done by determined individual with a modest budget. As to why it would be difficult to do this, just look at a real gorilla and a human, there are major differences and somebody would have to be moderately skillful and determined to prevent those differences from being obvious in a faked image. Or they could just should a blurry low resolution picture of a fake gorilla and avoid all the difficulties involved in producing a credible fake gorilla.

Are there credible images of a non-human hominid living in North America?

 

[makaya325]

Are there credible images of a non-human hominid living in North America?

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

 

[GT/CS]

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post one so we can tell you how we look at it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

The problem....(the impossibility)....is related to the elbow position of Bob, or any average-proportioned human, not the shoulder.


That little detail is a detail that not one of "Randi's Heroes" can deal with......as was just shown by Vort's and Drew's posts...which made reference to the shoulder, rather than the elbow...


Vort wrote:

Here's a radical hypothesis that would explain why the skeletal dimensions of the PG figure are wholly normative and human with the sole exception being the shoulder width and the crest of the head:

Drewbot wrote:

Sweaty, regarding the EPIC shoulder/centerline sketch...

Much more to follow......on the 'Elbow Position' analysis...

 

[kitakaze]

Physically............Impossible. FOO-FOO on you....kitty-POO-POO.

Physically............Impossible.

For Patty to be a human in a suit? Is that what you are saying? Oh wait...

The problem....(the impossibility)....is related to the elbow position of Bob, or any average-proportioned human, not the shoulder.

You have a sample base? No, you are just trying to slip that by in order to cheat and bypass the moderated status of a thread so that you can start filling this one with the same crap. And...

Well... aaaaaaaaaaaaactually, Vort I posted my opinion in conjunction with the graphic at the end of the previous page........you know, the graphic which shows, with numerical certainty, that Bob's elbows cannot possibly reach the positions that Patty's can.....and did.

Reported.

Sorry, ol' Sweat. I don't really care how often you break your MA with the "chump" and "kitty-POO" and all the rest, but when you cheat to get around the decision a JREF moderator has made regarding a thread, I think you've had more than enough warnings.

 

[Locknar]

Do not by-pass the moderated thread; Bob Heironimus and Patty discussions belong here. Future by-pass attempts may result in infractions and/or your post being summarily removed. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[makaya325]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post one so we can tell you how we look at it.

The Patterson Film, the Klamath footage

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-46-1133504584.jpg

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-hunter/scott-herriotts-video/

 

[davefoc]

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

OK, here's credible to me:
1. A picture of routine quality similar to the quality level for which millions of images of known animals exist.

2. A credible individual that has a credible story about how he came to take the picture.

3. The animal in the picture is is unlikely to be something known, like a bear or a man in a monkey suit.

Some nice to haves:
4. Information from other witnesses that lend support to the photographer's story.

5. Other images that provide independent corroboration of the physical details pictured in the first photograph.

6. The entire set of images that were taken on the CF card or the roll of film.

Let's see how the PG film stacks up on this list:

1. Maybe routine quality for the time, but still a very unclear film.

2. The PG film guys had significant credibility problems

3. Despite SweatiYeti's claims, the animal in the PG film could have easily been a man in a monkey suit.

4. There was more than one witness but two of them had credibility problems and they were acknowledged partners in the hoax if there was one.

5. There have been no other images which lend significant credibility to the PG film

6. The original, unedited film reel has never been made available.

So got any images that can beat the PG film for credibility? The PG film sets a pretty low standard.

 

[GT/CS]

The Patterson Film, the Klamath footage

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-46-1133504584.jpg

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-hunter/scott-herriotts-video/

So you're saying that in your opinion this is quality evidence?

 

[SweatyYeti]

davefoc wrote:

3. Despite SweatiYeti's claims, the animal in the PG film could have easily been a man in a monkey suit.

Not really "easily", dave. The numbers tell us that...

......The numbers that nobody can refute.


As for the 2 measurement points used in this comparison...

The location of the backbones....the center of the body....in both Bob and Patty, is unaltered by padding.

The position, and location within the arm, of the elbow joint is unaltered by padding.


Therefore....the measurement figures are not altered by padding, or any type of suit....and, along with those measurement figures....the difference between them is unaccountable-for by a 'padded suit'......a 'monkey-suit'.....a 'donkey-suit'......a 'make-believe suit'......a 'JREF SCIENCE suit'......or, even a 'davefoc says-it's-so suit'.


What DOES account for the difference is a difference in skeletal structure, between Bob and wide-bodied Patty.

 

[Vortigern99]

Oh, Sweet Mary McGillicuddy.

The problem, as with all such comparisons, is that those pictures are not scaled properly. They do not account for different lenses used in either the capturing of the image on the negative, nor during the enlargement of that negative onto celluloid for film projection, nor on the amount of digital compression during the conversion to a computer-graphic image. Neither do they account for the different angles of view on display in each picture, angles which change the proportions of the figure based on the rules of perspective and foreshortening. In short, the two figures do not match up properly, and so cannot be compared with any degree of accuracy.

Regarding the just-this-week invented measurement of "elbow-span", this fluctuating-by-the-moment method does not account for the fact that an individual can extend his/her arms to a 180-degree position parallel with the ground, and beyond. At any given moment, the elbow may be anywhere along an arc centered at the navel and extending to several centimeters above the crown of the head. This is not an accurate or reliable means of measurement or comparison between two images, especially given the errors listed in the preceding paragraph.

 

[Careyp74]

What is that 143 supposed to represent? The distance from the monster's left elbow to his right nipple?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a comparison using a padded costume, that AtomicMysteryMonster linked to, earlier...in another thread...


Note how, despite the padded shoulders, padded-out chest, and padded arms.......a couple of lines drawn down the center of the subject....(his backbone).....and along the center of the arm.....produce a figure of 14" for the subject's Elbow Span/Reach........from his backbone...

The length of 14" compares very closely to an average human's elbow span....for that particular arm-angle. In Bob's case, it measured 16".


Again....well short of Patty's Elbow Span of approx. 20-23 inches, for a similar arm-angle.


One of the strengths of this analysis, is that it literally cuts-through the padding, and gets down to the heart of the matter.....the actual skeletal structure underneath any and all padding.

 

[Careyp74]

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

Just to clear up for anyone reading this quoted post, the idea being conveyed is not that the guerrillas couldn't be faked, but that they looked like guerrillas, and no one would say, "Hey, could be men in monkey suits." On the other hand, this video being discussed, and others similar to it, all look like people in monkey suits. This logic seems to fall short with some people.

 

[Careyp74]

Again, you go from the monster's left elbow, to his right nipple. And why doesn't the line on the padded costume go straight down towards the belly button? Little skewed if you ask me.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Regarding the just-this-week invented measurement of "elbow-span", ....

I love it...42 years of people analysing the film, and nobody, apparently, has discovered this REVEALING little detail.....until now....

....this fluctuating-by-the-moment method does not account for the fact that an individual can extend his/her arms to a 180-degree position parallel with the ground, and beyond.
At any given moment, the elbow may be anywhere along an arc centered at the navel and extending to several centimeters above the crown of the head.

Actually, Vort.....it DOES.

There is a way to quantify the position, and reach, of the elbow, anywhere along it's arc of swing.....by simply taking measurements in both the horizontal, and vertical direction....measuring the lengths from the elbow joint...to the backbone, and to the top of the head.


Logically.....if a subject's upper-arm bone, and breastbone, are both actually longer than an average human's.....(as Patty's appear to be)....then the differences in those bone-lengths should ADD-UP to a significantly different position....and longer 'reach'....of the elbow-joint, relative to the subject's backbone.

And, that significantly longer reach of the elbow-joint should SHOW-UP in those measurements, since all of the measurement points involved are unaffected by any potential padding.

The 'extra-long reach' of the elbow...cannot be hidden.