ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 10th August 2013, 04:43 PM   #721
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Sorry to disappoint but you are incorrect about this as well. My name is Chris Bennett of the Bigfoot Research Project of Kentucky.Co-host Squatchdetective Radio and former Admin of the BFF. My phone number is on the home page of my website.
Hi there, Chris. Been a while. Good to see you here.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 05:28 PM   #722
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Wow, talk about aggression. Did Bill Munns run over <pablum snip> the subject's breasts in the film.
I don't know, maybe he did.

Joke son.

So anyway, aggressive bored is the more apt term. Aggressive Bored with ProBigfooters like you running their same ole number, "Yeah I saw one blah blah so you'll never change my mind." Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. As soon as you bring one in and show us, I'll eat all the crow you can supply. Too unreasonable? Okay I'll do it with just a good snapshot. Preferably from a Kodak™ Brownie™ camera. You know, to be faithful to the technologies of 1967 and stuff. 'Cause you know, 1967 is considered by most other galactic federations to be Earth's Year Of The Bigfooter. True story. Although the intergalactic newsmagazine LightYear™ headlined it best I think: 1967: Bigfoot's BIG Year.

Aggressive Bored yet?

Additionally, I think I'm really aggressive bored with you guys pretending you're seeking the Bigfoot 'truth'. How could you possibly be seeking Bigfoot truth when even the simplest of actual Bigfoot truths espoused here are virtually impossible for you (your ilk) to accept? How can we believe you're 'seeking truth' when you regularly deny the most basic of realities pertaining to the entire phenomenon? So much so you don't even argue them really, you simply discount them from the equation when they get in the way of allowing your version of Bigfoot to pencil.

Oh and I'm also really aggressive bored with Bigfoot never being the same 'beast' in any two stories. He's 10' tall, he's 6' tall, he's 8' tall, he's average, he's partly hairy, he's really hairy, he's average, he's furry, he's muscular, he's thin, he's average, he's white, he's black, he's fast, he's average, he's slow, he's red, he's handsome, he's average, he's caring, he's menacing, he's stealing my car, etc. etc. etc. The range of human beings isn't as diverse and there's 6 billion of us! Furthermore, the range in sizes and configurations of purported footprints is even more diverse so I won't even go there. Seriously, no two Bigfoot are the same. Hmmm. It's almost like Bigfoot is exactly the beast any one random person would THINK it is without the benefit of seeing one.

So do you have any idea how to get rid of all this Bigfoot aggression boredom you and your ilk regularly bring down upon us (me)?

I'll bet you don't.


ETA: Ahoy KK. Nice to see you here.

Last edited by HarryHenderson; 10th August 2013 at 05:29 PM.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 05:48 PM   #723
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
You too, Harry.

Speaking of aggression, the sense that I get from what I have seen of Bigfootery lately (which admittedly is not very much), is that there seems like some sort tacit understanding that Bigfoot isn't actually real outside of stories told amongst each other for entertainment purposes, and that the frustration that comes from that knowledge leads to a lot of the bizarre antisocial behaviour that you see within the subculture. Sometime ago I was added by someone on Facebook to a Bigfoot group called Bigfoot Warz which I recently unadded myself from. The thing which was of the greatest interest whenever these guys would pop up in the news feed is how very little to none of what they discussed had anything to do with Bigfoot or promoting belief in it. There actually seemed to be very little discussion period, and almost exclusively what I saw was people swearing at each other and having Tourette's fits about who was gay, who was a liar, etc.

I think Facebook is a new bastion and frontier for Bigfoot enthusiasts that allows them to dispense with the formalities and get right to the gong show behaviour which is apparently so much more entertaining.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:00 PM   #724
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Surely you must have seen the photo of Patterson with his many plaster casts - and that is just one example of how the most incredibly stupid and far-out caricatures of feet are taken as being real by the bleevers.
After all - Saint Roger and Salt o' the Earth Gimlin would never lie.
Here's an interesting example I can share of Gimlin doing the used car salesman routine he's so good at and just completely fabricating things on the spot.

Last year when I was still deeply involved in the PGF and participating at the BFF, a topic that I was heavily pursuing was the true circumstances surrounding the when and where of the filming of the scenes from the second reel, the plaster pour scene, the cast display scene, and the trackway scene. There was a regular member at the BFF by the name of Pat Beaton that would have the nail on chalkboard habit of typing every post in a feigned southern accent. So Pat calls up Gimlin regarding the trackway and plaster pour scene and Gimlin tells him that yes, that was him that filmed those scenes and they were just after they had encountered Patty. This is in 180 contradiction of Gimlin emphasizing that no way did he ever touch the camera nor did he even know how to use one that he discusses here...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


So after getting Gimlin turning around and saying that he did in fact film the trackway and plaster pour scenes on Patty Day, I was immediately wanting to get his commentary on the cast display scene that you see here beside the plaster pour...



Here's the actual plaster pour footage...



And here is the cast display scene...



The reason all of this is relevant, of course, is because of the prominent beard growth that Patterson has in the cast display scene compared with the clean shaven plaster pour scene. PGF proponents have tried to explain it away saying it was a night shot and that the lighting is from a spotlight or that it was taken back in Washington after returning from the trip to Bluff Creek.

So what I did was to go straight to Gimlin with the cast display footage. Because of my involvement in exposing the film as a hoax Gimlin would not speak with me, so using a contact who was connected to Gimlin, I had a person who knows Gimlin question him about the cast display scene. I was highly of the impression at this point that Gimlin had been made aware by "Gimlin Guard" associates (Bigfoot enthusiast people who defend and shield him from critical scrutiny) of the beard issue.

So what does Gimlin say about the cast display scene? Does he say he filmed it along with the plaster pour and trackway scene he says he filmed right after Patty?

No.

This is where it gets very interesting. Gimlin goes and says that he in fact did not film that scene at all, but it is Bluff Creek. Here's the catch. He has a very specific answer for where, when and how this was filmed. Gimlin says that it was not he who filmed the scene, but rather Rene Dahinden who filmed it and that it was filmed nearly a year later when Dahinden and Patterson returned to Bluff Creek together in August/September 1968 and that Dahinden and Patterson had returned there numerous times! This tidily removes Gimlin from any involvement in the scene as well as apparently discarding the beard growth issue.

But Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek.

The only mention anywhere ever of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek is his nutty brother Les Patterson saying they mounted a giant expedition which he was part of (never happened). I checked this personally with John Green and Jim McClarin who confirmed to me that Patterson never once returned to Bluff Creek. Green told me he had always found this odd. This immediately puts Gimlin's statement about Roger returning the following year in doubt, especially considering that is the same time that Green and McClarin went to Bluff Creek to film McClarin trying to estimate Patty's path.

But here is what makes it an outright fabrication by Gimlin. Nevermind that Roger is wearing the same hat, shirt, jeans and boots in the plaster pour scene and cast display scene, complete with matching plaster splotches on Roger's left leg. Proponents explain it away by simply saying the scenes must have been filmed on separate days and that Roger just didn't change his clothes. What makes it impossible that the cast display footage was filmed one year after the plaster pour scene lies in the casts themselves, specifically the right one. You see, in the cast display scene on the right corner of the right cast is a protruding piece of plaster of spill over when the cast was made. Yet as early as October 26, 1967, only six days after the alleged filming, that protruding plaster has been chiseled off the cast. Here are Gimlin and Patterson displaying the PGF casts along with two others belonging to Patterson on October 26th, 1967 shot in the Tudor Room of the Georgia Hotel in downtown Vancouver at a showing of the film there...



Note the date on the newspaper.

The following is a far clearer shot...



The two held by Patterson and Gimlin are supposed to be Patty's. The one held by Gimlin is the cast that has been altered to remove the excess plaster. The following is a later shot that also show clearly the plaster has been removed from beside the small toe...



The final image shows the cast display in which the excess plaster can clearly be seen. Gimlin was lying when he said this scene was filmed the year after the PGF and was filmed by Dahinden with Patterson on a return trip to Bluff Creek. From everything I have researched, I think that the scenes were staged at Bluff Creek weeks after the actual filming of Bob Heironimus in the week leading up to October 20th and pretending they had just filmed Bigfoot on that day.

(click to enlarge)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bigrogercastdisplay1.jpg (149.0 KB, 14 views)
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:30 PM   #725
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
It doesn't matter what Munns says, and no one needs to rebut him in order to dismiss the PGF. I've already asked you what you expect from us, and I still wonder.



I want to see some evidence for bigfoot, and there is nothing anywhere that's even close to good enough. The PGF fails to convince just about everyone, because it looks so fake. How is anything that I say self-serving?

Do you think that I have an interest in the nonexistence of bigfoot? I couldn't care less either way, but if you want to convince me that bigfoot exists, you have to show me, and it seems very clear that you cannot even begin to do that.
My expectations include a little common courtesy. I realize you want to see some genuine evidence for bigfoot, but I'm not here to provide that for you. Indeed I can't provide that for you and have never claimed otherwise.

It seems very clear because I have made it very clear that it is not my intention to try to convince anyone of anything. I simply wanted to hear what the rebuttal was on Munns' presentation. And to see if that rebuttal would be based on fact and testing or opinion.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:32 PM   #726
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Hi there, Chris. Been a while. Good to see you here.
Thanks Kit, good to see you.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:38 PM   #727
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by STRONG LIKE BEAR View Post
Chris, I feel that HarryHenderson's post is worth reading again. Do you think he is spiteful just because? Just feels like being hostile to Bill? Try to diffuse yourself from his remarks and just consider what Harry is saying and what Bill is doing.

You claim that you have read both Bob H threads, and the previous three parts of the PGF megathreads. You must then know that the claim that Patty is some kind of masterpiece suit is a hollow one, because there are numerous examples of suits that are just as good, from the same time or earlier. You must also know that there is good reason to reject any claims of discernible tissue movement because of the limitations of the film.

So, what gives?
Where are the suits from the same time or earlier that are just as good?
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:51 PM   #728
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
One Million Years BC from 1966...







Patty looking "good" is something you immediately come to understand as completely subjective once you step beyond the boundaries of mutual backpatting society in Bigfootery. Patty looks terrible to many people, including primatologists and award winning FX artists Chris Walas and Richard Smith.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:56 PM   #729
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,760
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Where are the suits from the same time or earlier that are just as good?
The Patty suit isn't good (per se) because it reveals itself as being a suit in various ways which have already been pointed out here. But for some reason it has fooled a tiny minority of the world.

The PGF hoax is like many others in that it only requires a small percentage of believers to crank out a profit for the producer. More so, it continues to create profits for those who promote it. It's like Patterson lit a torch that is carried by a cult of weirdos. I think he recognized a society that had people who liked the idea of Bigfoot existing as a fantasy and he gave them what they wanted. But I don't think he was a believer. I think he knew better.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:57 PM   #730
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I simply wanted to hear what the rebuttal was on Munns' presentation. And to see if that rebuttal would be based on fact and testing or opinion.
I would be glad to address a specific point if there is one you would like me too.

I would ask you, why would an experienced professional suit creator when going to see if he can make breast movement with prosthetic breasts take the time to create a device to replicate the impact of striding, yet...

a) Rely on a single two frame gif to demonstrate what may or may not be neglible breast movement.

b) Use unmoving materials to make the breasts - slip rubber, polyurethane, latex foam? If I was a director and I asked my FX guy to give me an ape suit that had moving breasts and he came back with something that featured materials that won't move, I'd find a new FX guy, no?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 07:58 PM   #731
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Here's an interesting example I can share of Gimlin doing the used car salesman routine he's so good at and just completely fabricating things on the spot.

Last year when I was still deeply involved in the PGF and participating at the BFF, a topic that I was heavily pursuing was the true circumstances surrounding the when and where of the filming of the scenes from the second reel, the plaster pour scene, the cast display scene, and the trackway scene. There was a regular member at the BFF by the name of Pat Beaton that would have the nail on chalkboard habit of typing every post in a feigned southern accent. So Pat calls up Gimlin regarding the trackway and plaster pour scene and Gimlin tells him that yes, that was him that filmed those scenes and they were just after they had encountered Patty. This is in 180 contradiction of Gimlin emphasizing that no way did he ever touch the camera nor did he even know how to use one that he discusses here...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


So after getting Gimlin turning around and saying that he did in fact film the trackway and plaster pour scenes on Patty Day, I was immediately wanting to get his commentary on the cast display scene that you see here beside the plaster pour...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...rogerbeard.jpg

Here's the actual plaster pour footage...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...lasterpour.gif

And here is the cast display scene...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...astdisplay.jpg

The reason all of this is relevant, of course, is because of the prominent beard growth that Patterson has in the cast display scene compared with the clean shaven plaster pour scene. PGF proponents have tried to explain it away saying it was a night shot and that the lighting is from a spotlight or that it was taken back in Washington after returning from the trip to Bluff Creek.

So what I did was to go straight to Gimlin with the cast display footage. Because of my involvement in exposing the film as a hoax Gimlin would not speak with me, so using a contact who was connected to Gimlin, I had a person who knows Gimlin question him about the cast display scene. I was highly of the impression at this point that Gimlin had been made aware by "Gimlin Guard" associates (Bigfoot enthusiast people who defend and shield him from critical scrutiny) of the beard issue.

So what does Gimlin say about the cast display scene? Does he say he filmed it along with the plaster pour and trackway scene he says he filmed right after Patty?

No.


This is where it gets very interesting. Gimlin goes and says that he in fact did not film that scene at all, but it is Bluff Creek. Here's the catch. He has a very specific answer for where, when and how this was filmed. Gimlin says that it was not he who filmed the scene, but rather Rene Dahinden who filmed it and that it was filmed nearly a year later when Dahinden and Patterson returned to Bluff Creek together in August/September 1968 and that Dahinden and Patterson had returned there numerous times! This tidily removes Gimlin from any involvement in the scene as well as apparently discarding the beard growth issue.

But Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek. (snipped for brevity)

I spoke to Gimlin personally about two years ago and he said he filmed the plaster pour scene of Patterson at Bluff Creek. I asked because of the mistake Patterson made with that footage showing he faked the footprints. I've never seen any documentation of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek after the claimed events on Oct 20.

Gimlin is very careful about what he says and doesn't say these days.

Welcome back kitakaze. At this point I'd like to see any proof of the claims you've made regarding the alleged suit being found. At one time you claimed to have seen some images made by a cell phone and that you had made contact with a relative of the person holding the suit. After you abandoned the cause, it seems a lot like empty claims made by others on the opposite side of the issue.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY

Last edited by River; 10th August 2013 at 08:05 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:28 PM   #732
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Actually, there is a point in the film where the right boob bounces and the left one doesn't.

Another flaw that is easily spotted, is that as the right arm swings back, it should pull the breast ( pec muscle ) back with it.. It doesn't . I'm not sure how Munns explains this, if at all..

Putting together a visual would be a waste of my time, besides we have been over it all before and even pointed these things out to Munns, which he manages to dismiss for one reason or another..

Chris, Did Munns explain the disappearing upper thigh ?

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...ps108b59a3.gif

Did he explain why patty has do-nut like shapes circling the arms, instead of long muscles that run the length of the arm like every other animal on the planet that has arms and legs ?

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...psef0989eb.gifhttp://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...pse50fab4b.gif


Did Munns explain why the shoulders have the underlying shape of shoulder pads, instead of the shape that real deltoid muscles have..
http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...psb1e74876.gifhttp://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...psf228ca73.gif

Chris, if you will give me the time-stamp in the Munns' presentation where he explains these things, I will give it a look, and we can discuss further..


P.S.


Here is another illustration that indicates the shape of shoulder pads under the fabric of the costume..

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...ff/newone4.gif

No Problem, I've marked the specific areas that interested me. For quick reference:


Armpit structure starts around 14:30 with chimp comparisons at 17:14

For the top of the leg and the notch starts around 34:30
The human model comparison starts around 39:30

Subduction is specifically addressed at 43:25

The shockwave discussion. It starts around 20:26 Two frames were used and put in motion. 23:15 starts the comparison of the prostetic breasts

I've never had any issue with Patty's deltoid and arm muscles.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:38 PM   #733
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
I would be glad to address a specific point if there is one you would like me too.

I would ask you, why would an experienced professional suit creator when going to see if he can make breast movement with prosthetic breasts take the time to create a device to replicate the impact of striding, yet...

a) Rely on a single two frame gif to demonstrate what may or may not be neglible breast movement.

b) Use unmoving materials to make the breasts - slip rubber, polyurethane, latex foam? If I was a director and I asked my FX guy to give me an ape suit that had moving breasts and he came back with something that featured materials that won't move, I'd find a new FX guy, no?
A) We know Bill has some of the highest resolution scans of the PGF. The film is not that long, I would guess these are the best two frames to show the same movement of the shockwave experiment.

An experiment showing left and right movement would also be possible IMO as this movement is also demonstrated in the PGF.

B) The nonmoving prostetic breasts should not have been considered for the comparison. A couple of bladder type devices filled with water would have been a better comparison as I think most can agree no matter if Patty was a suit or a living creature, the breasts show movement.

edited to add: He may have used the nonmoving breast prostetics for those that do not see movement of the breasts on the PG subject?

Last edited by ChrisBFRPKY; 10th August 2013 at 08:43 PM. Reason: added info
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:39 PM   #734
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I realize you want to see some genuine evidence for bigfoot, but I'm not here to provide that for you. Indeed I can't provide that for you and have never claimed otherwise.
I thought that you were promoting the idea that the PGF was genuine evidence for bigfoot.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:52 PM   #735
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
A) We know Bill has some of the highest resolution scans of the PGF. The film is not that long, I would guess these are the best two frames to show the same movement of the shockwave experiment.

An experiment showing left and right movement would also be possible IMO as this movement is also demonstrated in the PGF.
You are supposing these to be the best images of alleged breast movement. I can show gifs which make Patty's skull appear to move. This could as easily be play of light and dark and if your only evidence is the milliseconds of only two consecutive frames, you're not bring sufficient data to back the claim.

A woman hairy or not with breasts that large walking along at a good clip is going to have some significant bouncing going on and you wouldn't need to be strapped with only two frames to maybe kind of hope to show it.

Quote:
B) The nonmoving prostetic breasts should not have been considered for the comparison. A couple of bladder type devices filled with water would have been a better comparison as I think most can agree no matter if Patty was a suit or a living creature, the breasts show movement.
No, I don't think you have that agreement at all. Patty's fingers move? SO what? Patty's breasts move? If at all it's near negligible.

But yet this is the expert. A former professional FX guy can't come up with better solutions to make fake breasts move than to use static materials. Why? Because they were available at the time? Was sand not available at the time? Or flour? Or oil? Or water? Isn't an FX artist supposed to be a natural improvisationalist? I could get two whoopie cushions, some lard and some fake fure and do better than that. You can't show that to anyone outside belief culture who's going to look at that and not see an experiment that was obviously designed to fail for the purpose of making believers nod and clap like trained seals.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:57 PM   #736
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
I edited to add in that last comment Kit, that Bill may have used the nonmoving breasts for those that cannot see movement.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:03 PM   #737
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by River View Post
I spoke to Gimlin personally about two years ago and he said he filmed the plaster pour scene of Patterson at Bluff Creek. I asked because of the mistake Patterson made with that footage showing he faked the footprints. I've never seen any documentation of Patterson returning to Bluff Creek after the claimed events on Oct 20.

Gimlin is very careful about what he says and doesn't say these days.

Welcome back kitakaze. At this point I'd like to see any proof of the claims you've made regarding the alleged suit being found. At one time you claimed to have seen some images made by a cell phone and that you had made contact with a relative of the person holding the suit. After you abandoned the cause, it seems a lot like empty claims made by others on the opposite side of the issue.
Hi, Ben. yes, I remember you speaking with Gimlin. I don't think that's an unfair assessment at all and it's perfectly expectable if one were to think up anything I have said about finding the suit. I essentially gave up on trying to get the suit into public view when I left North America and returned to Japan. The only access I had was never directly through the owner, but I have never claimed to be in possession of photos of the suit. If I had such images, I would have posted them for good or ill a long time ago.

I expect that unless someone continues where I left off and gets better results than I did, the suit won't be shown in public before either Patricia Patterson or Al DeAtley passes away. There is enough rumour and speculation on the subject for anyone with the time, resources and connections to try and get farther than I did.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:08 PM   #738
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I edited to add in that last comment Kit, that Bill may have used the nonmoving breasts for those that cannot see movement.
LOL, I like that. But seriously, why do something like use static materials unless you very obviously intended to fail? Neither of us are FX people and even so we both came up with better solutions to showing movement in prosthetic breasts. Now why couldn't a seasoned professional think better than you or I if not to say look how hard I tried and see this contraption I built and look, that polyurethane is not even moving an inch!

If I wanted to make bouncy boobs, I would not use the same material as for skateboard wheels.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:18 PM   #739
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
LOL, I like that. But seriously, why do something like use static materials unless you very obviously intended to fail? Neither of us are FX people and even so we both came up with better solutions to showing movement in prosthetic breasts. Now why couldn't a seasoned professional think better than you or I if not to say look how hard I tried and see this contraption I built and look, that polyurethane is not even moving an inch!

If I wanted to make bouncy boobs, I would not use the same material as for skateboard wheels.
I agree Kit, but some do say Patty's breast do not move. That's my guess as to the nonmoving prostetics used.

To me, I see movement, so the comparison with living models was what I needed to see. I would have made the tests with moveable prostetics. To suit my own idea of what the comparisons should be.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:28 PM   #740
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Oh wow, I though that was a joke. No, if you watch the presentation, Bill was very obviously working under the pretext with his shock rig a three separate materials available at the time that he was trying to make a replication of what he was saying was the breast movement. Check it out yourself from 21 minutes...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Whole point was ok, let's try and make the shaking with things available in 1967. Slip runner, polyurethane, latex foam. 3 strikes, you're out. You were meant to be out, this was meant to fail.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:33 PM   #741
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,407
I read descriptions of those breasts as flopping, or being pendulous, or hanging down, but in the PGF, I see nearly rigid breasts.

This is one of those items that I have brought up several times where I wonder if people are looking at the same PGF.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:41 PM   #742
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Oh wow, I though that was a joke. No, if you watch the presentation, Bill was very obviously working under the pretext with his shock rig a three separate materials available at the time that he was trying to make a replication of what he was saying was the breast movement. Check it out yourself from 21 minutes...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Whole point was ok, let's try and make the shaking with things available in 1967. Slip runner, polyurethane, latex foam. 3 strikes, you're out. You were meant to be out, this was meant to fail.
Exactly, the rigid materials used for the prostetics failed. The live models matched the movement shown in the frames.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 10:05 PM   #743
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
I don't know, maybe he did.

Joke son.

So anyway, aggressive bored is the more apt term. Aggressive Bored with ProBigfooters like you running their same ole number, "Yeah I saw one blah blah so you'll never change my mind." Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. As soon as you bring one in and show us, I'll eat all the crow you can supply. Too unreasonable? Okay I'll do it with just a good snapshot. Preferably from a Kodak™ Brownie™ camera. You know, to be faithful to the technologies of 1967 and stuff. 'Cause you know, 1967 is considered by most other galactic federations to be Earth's Year Of The Bigfooter. True story. Although the intergalactic newsmagazine LightYear™ headlined it best I think: 1967: Bigfoot's BIG Year.

Aggressive Bored yet?

Additionally, I think I'm really aggressive bored with you guys pretending you're seeking the Bigfoot 'truth'. How could you possibly be seeking Bigfoot truth when even the simplest of actual Bigfoot truths espoused here are virtually impossible for you (your ilk) to accept? How can we believe you're 'seeking truth' when you regularly deny the most basic of realities pertaining to the entire phenomenon? So much so you don't even argue them really, you simply discount them from the equation when they get in the way of allowing your version of Bigfoot to pencil.

Oh and I'm also really aggressive bored with Bigfoot never being the same 'beast' in any two stories. He's 10' tall, he's 6' tall, he's 8' tall, he's average, he's partly hairy, he's really hairy, he's average, he's furry, he's muscular, he's thin, he's average, he's white, he's black, he's fast, he's average, he's slow, he's red, he's handsome, he's average, he's caring, he's menacing, he's stealing my car, etc. etc. etc. The range of human beings isn't as diverse and there's 6 billion of us! Furthermore, the range in sizes and configurations of purported footprints is even more diverse so I won't even go there. Seriously, no two Bigfoot are the same. Hmmm. It's almost like Bigfoot is exactly the beast any one random person would THINK it is without the benefit of seeing one.

So do you have any idea how to get rid of all this Bigfoot aggression boredom you and your ilk regularly bring down upon us (me)?

I'll bet you don't.


ETA: Ahoy KK. Nice to see you here.
Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for civility.


You are sure and secure bigfoot does not exist. That's great for you. What do you expect from me? If you live nearby and wish to go out trekking let's go. I'm not for hire and I don't make deliveries. If you wanna solve the bigfoot mystery for yourself you'll need to put in the time and mileage trekking to do so. I have a great area available and you are welcome. Or you can sit by your computer and continue thinking someone should solve the mystery for you. I won't. But if you agree to put in say 18 months or so of effort there's a very good chance you'll solve it for yourself.

The easy way is to just deny everything and never make the effort to solve the mystery. If that's for you that's great. I'm of a different opinion.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 11th August 2013 at 01:06 PM.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 10:28 PM   #744
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Exactly, the rigid materials used for the prostetics failed. The live models matched the movement shown in the frames.
That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 10:42 PM   #745
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I read descriptions of those breasts as flopping, or being pendulous, or hanging down, but in the PGF, I see nearly rigid breasts.

This is one of those items that I have brought up several times where I wonder if people are looking at the same PGF.
Exactly. I don't know how one looks at this and doesn't see a trainwreck suit, especially at the legs and waist...

__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 02:19 AM   #746
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,742
My favorite part of Patty is the visor effect around the eyes, like they just sawed that part of the faux fur out with a knife so the poor guy could see.

The diaper butt and hip waders are tied for second place.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 02:48 AM   #747
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
What do you expect from me?
Hey, I'm glad you asked. I expect you to not make low-effort requests for high-effort responses. The PGF was a joke 46 years ago, and nothing has changed. Munns has really tested nothing, his presentation is a dog and pony show, and he's not worth rebutting. Still, some will oblige you because, well, it's the internet.

And some people will be bored. I expect you to expect that.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
If you wanna solve the bigfoot mystery for yourself you'll need to put in the time and mileage trekking to do so.
That's hilarious.

I'll skip the spirit walk and wait for objective evidence, thanks. I mean, it's not like I needed to trek the veldt to solve the mystery of lions.

If there's any mystery to solve, it's why some people still think the PGF is anything but a guy in a suit.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 06:14 AM   #748
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,920
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Exactly. I don't know how one looks at this and doesn't see a trainwreck suit, . . .
I've read allusions recently about Patty's head looking "too small" for her massive girth, apparently leading the feeble-minded to conclude that there could not be a human head in a mask of some kind in that image. In these frames, however, Patty's head looks quite large, kind of like a gorilla's. It's almost as if one cannot extrapolate too much fine detail from this film . . . or it conclusively demonstrates that bigfoot is indeed a shape-shifter!
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 07:08 AM   #749
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,456
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 07:28 AM   #750
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )
Munns says that they are "compressed vertically" and "widen horizontally" and "separate slightly" and uses a 2 frame loop to demonstrate this (slight and perceived) movement. I am not persuaded and feel the hi-lited explanation more convincing, particularly when viewed in comparison to Munns demonstration of real breast models on his step-stand-thingy...
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 07:28 AM   #751
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,907
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/...ast-bounce.gif
That Gif certainly highlights the top of the hip wader
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 12:36 PM   #752
Chris L
Graduate Poster
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by eerok View Post
My favorite part of Patty is the visor effect around the eyes, like they just sawed that part of the faux fur out with a knife so the poor guy could see.

The diaper butt and hip waders are tied for second place.
I liked the visor thing too. It makes Patty look like a furry ninja to me. Quite funny really.
__________________
"The lie is different at every level."
Richard C. Hoagland
Chris L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 12:40 PM   #753
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
That gif... there's a clear seam between the "top of the pants" to the "bottom of the jacket".
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 01:07 PM   #754
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
That gif... there's a clear seam between the "top of the pants" to the "bottom of the jacket".
That gif is high contrast, which tends to simplify forms, and that makes it easy to see the lines on the suit. For example, there's that couple of inches between the bottom of the diaper and the top of the waders--plain as day.

The waist of the diaper is very clear--actually the whole thing is.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 11th August 2013 at 01:09 PM.
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 01:25 PM   #755
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,456
I just love this .gif.. It Use to be ( Bob?) Zenor's avatar at the old BFF..



This is a slowed down version that provides more clarity to the movement features..

Another feature this .gif illustrates so well, is that as the arm swings back, it doesn't pull the breast back with it. But we do see that distinctive line that looks like shoulder pads underneath..

Did Bill show a real human, or even a model where to top of the breast area ( underlying pectoralis major ) did not get pulled to the rear as the arm swings back ? Chris? Anyone ?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 04:33 PM   #756
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Starting about 20:24 of the presentation I think significant movement is shown on Patty, then later that movement is replicated on the human models.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 04:51 PM   #757
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,995
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )
I see movement of the breasts, some do not. To me it's there and that's why I would like to have seen a comparison of moveable prosthetic breasts instead of the rigid material prosthetics that were used.

However IMO it was probably the desire to make the "fakes" out of the available materials of the period that led to what was seen. I'm not second guessing the intent or the presentation. There will be many opinions as to why Bill used those materials.

I think it was a clever test and comparison but to satisfy every angle it may have been better to use some sort of moveable prosthetic breasts as Kit and I had discussed above. Surely something holding water or Gel could have been considered? Admittedly, I cannot do a better job than Bill Munns has. For what was shown, I personally am impressed.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 04:54 PM   #758
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
There will be many opinions as to why Bill used those materials.
Only one right one. He picked whatever he thought would give his argument the best chance and ignored everything else.

He's doing the same thing the fundies do. Making your mind up regardless of the facts, then cherry picking and twisting arguments to support your position and ignore everything else to the contrary.

He's not doing an investigation or engaging in science. He's engaging in a fundraising activity via the sale of snake oil.

That's it.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 05:05 PM   #759
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,760
Bigfoot lives in California and Kentucky?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 05:06 PM   #760
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I see movement of the breasts.
Please tell me how the "breast movement" is any different from this group of frames which show Patty's head morphing. Or this post by Romano at BFF which I believe you were directed to earlier, which show the same thing over a different set of frames.

Seems to me that there is a better case for Patty being a shape-shifter than there is for her breast movement.
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.