View Single Post
Old 14th April 2008, 10:05 AM   #13
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher. You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!


Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.
Yet in post #13819 of the PGF you stated the following:

The fact of the matter is.....the explanation which best fits all the many details of this event, is the Bigfoot w/infant explanation.

Yet now you are not even sure it is a real bigfoot. So are you suggesting a person was running around with an infant tossing them up on their shoulders as they ran/walked across a field? How much farther is that from say a guy in a suit with something they lifted up that, because of the blur in the video, appears to be alive to you but is not?


Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".
But you did say it was the most likely explanation based on how you interpret the event. If you are going to say the mother is not "running", I stand corrected but you still claim that it is probably/most probably/most likely/etc.(take your pick) a mother lifting an infant up on its shoulders.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...
Or there can be other explanations not yet explored. Again, if it is an infant, what allows you to generate this theory? Where is the infant when the subject is in the open?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )
How long do you think it takes to take off a mask when exhausted after running across an open field in a hot suit? What if the mask is a bit snug and is fastened in someway? Many things could delay taking off a mask but in your world, those factors are not even considered because it might indicate it is a mask. The fact remains that the film is too blurry for you to draw such conclusions and make such assumptions. Did you ever wonder what type of ground was behind the hill and what effect it can have on the subject height?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.
Which is not really an analysis at all is it? It is your subjective interpretation of the information in a very blurry video, where you complete ignore possible other scenarios (focusing only on the mask as your strawman). I asked for some numbers, you give me a bunch of gibberish. How can one counter a subjective opinion? We might as well be discussing a belief in something that can not be proven.

It appears you do not understand the term analysis and how to quantify anything. What about the rest of the video? Where is your analysis where the subject is clearly in the open and easier to see? Instead you give us these few frames which are hard to evaluate because of the degree of blur and the lack of details. From this you arrive at your most likely explanation with little, if any evidence to back it up. Again, you fail to convince anyone that this is not somebody in a suit seen from a distance with this kind of "evidence" and "argument". Next thing you are going to do is tell us the gait is too long, the height is too big, the arms are not in proportion, etc to be a human.

Last edited by Astrophotographer; 14th April 2008 at 11:37 AM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top