Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sweaty wanted possibilities, so I gave him some. With the blobby quality of the film, who can really say whether the calf reaches the fingers? It could be hitting the fingers, thus bending them slightly and pushing the arm outwards and forwards slightly as well.

Maybe we need to enhance the enhanced copies of the enhanced version of the PGF?
 
BearinTreeChasedbyCat.jpg
 
Looks as if the whole hand is turning at the wrist, so the thumb in the second, "finger bent", position is closer to the body and the pinky is farther away. The camera sees the hand at a different angle, and that makes the fingers apper to be curved more in the second shot. Didn't Uri Geller use a similar switch of position to make a bent spoon look more bent (curved) than it actually was?
 
Patty's weight is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a human head could possibly fit inside Patty's head.

Her weight is irrelevant? Are you saying that her weight is not related to the size of her head? A one ton hominoid would not have a very large head? Have you ever seen the head on a 1,000 pound Kodiak bear?

It's simply a matter of body proportions. I'm still working on my analysis...very slowly but very surely. :)

Simply? You are going to have to decide how big her head actually is, aren't you? If you want to show that a human head cannot fit inside of Patty's head, you are going to need the outside dimensions of a human head as well as Patty's head. If you somehow succeed, you will simultaneously disprove the NASI report. Are you ready for the reactions to that from your fellow Bigfooters? Lu likes NASI-Glickman and you might make her cry or something. You see Sweety, NASI needs a massive Patty head because they put her weight at one ton. When your Bigfoot weighs that much, you can probably fit two human heads inside of hers. That's ok with me, because it's quite obvious that the NASI report is a goofy abomination that makes a mockery of real analysis.

You might want to consider how your PGF cult buddies will react to your head project. Don't expect them to tell you that you are full of crap. PGF wackos are pretty hesitant to criticize each other on matters like this. If they don't reference your head analysis after you present it, that will tell you how good it was for them. They'll pretend that it's cool and just leave it at that. Someone will say that you did "good work" and just leave it at that. You see, the quality of analysis done by PGF believers is secondary to the quantity of analysis. The most important thing is to fling as much stuff as you can at the skeptics regardless of how incoherent it is. So you'll get some points for that, even if your results are complete trash.

Parcher: 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!

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

The point is that a Bigfoot costume can look like a real Bigfoot. A fake rubber Bigfoot foot can look like the real deal to some folks. Patty looks like a real Bigfoot to some folks. Patty was a man inside of a Bigfoot costume, and yet she looks real to some folks.

Your PGF buddies are not going to warn you that you are walking on thin ice. They may not even realize it themselves. They probably don't care one way or the other. It's a very strange little group of people. But you can bet that they are watching you here on JREF. Another one bites the dust.

Nah, that's just a joke. No PGF believer ever really bites the dust no matter what they do or say, unless they switch to PGF skepticism. That's when you become a fool in their eyes. ;)
 
Just as I figured, the hand never flexes at all, and we are just looking at artifacts manipulated by Sweaty.

Lollipop Boy didn't make that 2-frame gif. It was made by somebody else, and he got it from BFF. I suspect MK Davis put it together, but I'm not sure about that.
 
Along the bigfoot threads we saw that PGF's "remarkable features" can be (sometimes easilly) debunked and/or proven inexistent. The claims and reasonings presented by its defenders were shown to be wrong or false. However, some people still consider PGF as "compelling evidence", "not debunkable" etc.

Yes, as a matter of fact, PGF is compelling evidence. Compelling evidence of how gullible believers can be.
 
Last edited:
Take a close look at how blurred the trees and everything else in this frame is:

017.jpg


Maybe the hand has changed position, maybe it hasn't.

Personally, I never got around to looking into this until it was pointed out just now. At this point promoting the two frame animation as strong evidence of finger flexion is untenable. But it's a sure bet that for the Bigfooters this little demonstration will live on, just like the claim that the "lower level leg lift" is an "inhuman" characteristic, that only "one in a million" humans could perform....
 
Hey I can post a gif, just like Sweety did.

Bob Heironimus meets Patty...


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/183d6f64.gif[/qimg]

That proves it. Bob H could not be inside the Patty suit. The bill of his cap sticks too far forward.

Is that good PGF analysis?
 
William Parcher wrote:
Simply? You are going to have to decide how big her head actually is, aren't you? If you want to show that a human head cannot fit inside of Patty's head, you are going to need the outside dimensions of a human head as well as Patty's head. If you somehow succeed, you will simultaneously disprove the NASI report. Are you ready for the reactions to that from your fellow Bigfooters? Lu likes NASI-Glickman and you might make her cry or something. You see Sweety, NASI needs a massive Patty head because they put her weight at one ton. When your Bigfoot weighs that much, you can probably fit two human heads inside of hers. That's ok with me, because it's quite obvious that the NASI report is a goofy abomination that makes a mockery of real analysis.


Take a pill, Will....and see me in the morning. :)
 
William Parcher wrote:
The point is that a Bigfoot costume can look like a real Bigfoot.
How do you know that?
Do you have any evidence to back that up with?

Patty was a man inside of a Bigfoot costume...
How do you know that Patty was a man-in-a-suit?
 
Okay, your little two frame animation has become tiresome. (Pretending for a moment that it was ever not tiresome.) I'm reminded of this image that I grabbed off some other forum. I don't remember the context, except that it was about Bigfoot (probably the PGF).

nonconfusingframe.jpg


Yeah, I can see how that totally clears up any confusion.
 
Hitch wrote:


It's fun watching skeptics react to this lovely little animation....

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


"If the fingers bend....
You MUST pretend" :D

Who's pretending?

If it were a suit there are several ways to make the fingers bend as shown. That's not pretending, that's just stating the obvious.

Of course if by pretending you are referring to yourself pretending not having seen the explanations already shown in this thread...Do you really want to seem that closed minded?
 


The crystal-clear resolution of the PGF demonstrates that Patty has toes on her right foot but lacks toes on her proportionally over-sized left foot. Why would a hoaxer make a costume with toes on one foot but not on the other? (Sure it's possible that a hoaxer would do so, but what's the probability he would do so?) Clearly the creature depicted in the film must be a genuine bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom