|
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. |
23rd April 2012, 06:06 PM | #8201 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
My favourite suggestion so far is that Roger had a female Bigfoot suit because he was just trying to lure Bigfoot so don't worry about it. The one I have anticipated the most is that it is simply a replica. Either way, the suit along is not enough. This is ironic given that many fundamentalist Bigfoot believers feel that a single body of Bigfoot would not be enough and we would dismiss it as just some freak of nature.
|
__________________
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 |
|
23rd April 2012, 06:10 PM | #8202 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
23rd April 2012, 07:36 PM | #8203 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
She sang !
Edit: I would like to believe your story, Kit. But I dont. I think you are into getting some attention from the members of this Forum. It is interesting to follow your vague references and claims. What got me was the last time you came on the Forum and then there was a rash of BFF folk and if you look at the history of that.. well.. that is what seems to happen. If I came upon such a find I would find an atty.. and I would plan privately for the acquisition of such an item. I would not be talking about newspapers and articles. I also would not be posting here about these things and then saying that I should not be posting about them.. and then post multiple times about your issue. So.. Now you have my attention. Have I given you enough attention ? Tom It is a alot of fun though ! |
23rd April 2012, 08:06 PM | #8204 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Well, Kit, I was only pointing out the obvious, not intentionally "givin' it to ya both barrels". At any rate I was mainly responding to Tontar's post #8188 in which he, a third party unaffiliated with your efforts, cautions us against even discussing the topic.
If the cat's out of the bag, it's out. Discussing which way the cat went and who supplied such a cheap bag is just after-the-fact chatter. I can't see how discussing a known factor -- that you let slip the suit's putative existence -- is going to affect the alleged owner's decision to torch the suit. But of course I don't know everything, and you like to hold your cards close. I don't need to widen the circle by having you PM me, too. Just keep doing what you're doing and know that I support you 100% whether I'm giving you both barrels or not. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
23rd April 2012, 08:12 PM | #8205 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
There is no "suit". Just like there is no BF !
|
23rd April 2012, 08:23 PM | #8206 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
There is no bag. no cat.. no suit.. You must believe !... you are a Bleever. ?
I cant understand why we have been taken in by this lame claim. |
23rd April 2012, 09:15 PM | #8207 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Just say no.
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
24th April 2012, 07:55 AM | #8208 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Maybe not as weird as the sky turning pink, nonetheless, lurking non-member creates account to attempt to join the discussion...
PGF is in my own view a 97% probable fake. But something about the whole topic fascinates me regardless. Never could much pressure to what that was. Until last night. kitakaze said something. Moreover the irony of finding the suit vs finding a body. How one group wouldn't accept the other's outcome, regardless of the conclusion stemming from it. So I got to pondering a little bit over the entire BF debate. On one hand I find it fascinating that in recent years, I have come to learn of many strange creatures being "discovered". Even in this thread's early pages, someone linked to some rat-looking little blighter with poison teeth. So I got myself asking: "Did I doubt for even one second that this footage/find was fake?" Hell no. Didn't even slap me as odd for a single moment. Not once did I do closeups of the creature to see if the teeth may have been dental implants. Not once did I analyze it's gait to see if it truly is that of a rat of same size. Why then is BF so hard to prove/disprove?! And that's when it creeped in on me. The phenomena has gone so far beyond it's creator, that it no longer needs the creator to be deemed valid. Very much like the UFO and Abductions phenomena - even if the original creators of the phenomena stepped up and said that it was all a hoax, "here's the costume, have a nice day", the phenomena would continue to evolve with or without their support/belief. Does the invalidation of any piece of major evidence prove or disprove anything? Lets assume that I have just produced a fake discovery RIGHT NOW, all on my own. I worked hard, did some rudimentary research on something, made a pretty grainy and shaky film of it, etc. Lets assume that this fakery I did was some distant cousin of the Taz.Devil. Lets assume that this leads to some fanatical base of people coming out of the woodwork to claim that they have seen it to. Lets blow it up to massive portions. Does my "coming out" as a faker change the concept that the exact creature I faked, could actually exist? Are the odds so infallable that I may have just made up something that actually did unknowingly exist? Anecdotal Evidence Warning! Many years ago, as a young child, I often made fun of small towns. The kind of towns with a population of 6. The kind where the bottlestore and church are in the same building (Church at front door, booze at back). In some moment somewhere, I decided to name this fictional town of mine. No research, just some word popped into my head - and I named my little fantasy town. I named her "Pomfrit". Before the story goes further, I was a child. I did not watch news or read papers. If it wasn't in cartoon form I probably didn't even stop to notice. I also went back years later to this event and scoured news reports and papers to find any mention - just to see if I may have subconciously picked it up. No such was found to date. Anyway-- decades later, I was on a trip with my dad. We were traveling a little... And lo and behold. A roadsign. The sign read:
Quote:
And now I turn this in on the BF debate. Could the birth of the BF epidemic be false, but the phenomena itself very real? Random coincidence and all that? The larger question at play however is this: Considering that the BF phenomena might be real; Does the proof of authenticity/fakery of one sighting or another contribute in the greater scheme of uncovering the truth? And the better question than that, even: Even if you believe that proof of authenticity/fakery of one sighting is of utmost value, why THIS one?! This is one of the most ambiguous sightings in the history of ever! Nothing can be said with certainty either which way. The footage is far too questionable in quality, scope, speed... HELL even the actual original is unknown to even be in existence! And with all that said, consider the next at the same time: IF BF EXISTS: Why can't we find him? Now, I know the answer is about to come in the form of "One or very few creatures, such a large possible area, dense vegitation" and more blahblah. And thus I ask about the "Man of the Hole". The last single survivor of a uncontacted Tribe in the Amazonian Rainforests. So here's the caveat. If we can find ONE lone man in the middle of the rainforest, and do so without alerting him to our presence... We can't find a gorilla-man almost double the weight, in claimed abundance? I am sitting the fence on this one. Mostly as a heavy skeptic, but with some sort of reverence to the coincidental fakery of a possibly-existing previously-unknown creature. Point of it? What exactly is it that makes YOU so sure of your stance, that no other possibility is even remotely plausible? And I ask this of both believers and skeptics. Show me where you got your clarity. Show me that piece that you found so utterly damning to the whole thing that your mind is rock solid. I need to understand how people become so sure of themselves... |
24th April 2012, 08:02 AM | #8209 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
If a Bigfoot ever lived in Northern Michigan, it would have been killed and eaten along with every other large animal in the area. Loggers are a hungry bunch.
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
24th April 2012, 08:24 AM | #8210 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
24th April 2012, 08:32 AM | #8211 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
24th April 2012, 08:39 AM | #8212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
I have a friend who's quickly climbing the mountains of the academic world. Sometimes he stumbles in to very interesting and promissing things. Sometimes these things turn out to be nothing, dead ends, etc. Sometimes, however, these things can trigger debates and eventually challenge well-established ideas.
The interesting thing about him is that he can't keep his mouth shut when he finds one of those things that may be, so great is his enthusiasm. He starts giving tips and hints before the work is completed (as if there was such a thing as a complete work in science). It turns sometimes out he has gold in his hands, sometimes he has crap. Can you spot the similarities? |
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too |
|
24th April 2012, 08:41 AM | #8213 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
97% sure reffers to PGF being fake. I am pretty sure that they did not film an actual creature.
On the fence however on the whole BF debate. Does BF Exist? Is it all imagination? Please don't pull an Ancient Aliens on me, gluing together pieces that have no business on the same side of the puzzle... |
24th April 2012, 04:05 PM | #8214 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
well, a simple statement that Dahinden established that Patterson used a 25 mm lens has created quite the tempest in a teacup amongst the Munns-BiFFers.
All in all they seem to be having a bad day, what with that, and with Ketchum claiming to be doing a veritable Midsummer Night's Dream with the bigfoots... I guess you are used to going through rough patches when you're a footer. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th April 2012, 04:53 PM | #8215 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
|
24th April 2012, 05:18 PM | #8216 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
yes, 4 ft something, that was what Munns calculated right there in living color on the television program, in front of some large number of Americans and ships at sea. He's pretty sensitive about it, of course, and the footers can't let anything trouble him.....
Sort of like Republicans are now about W...like W/the 4+footer Munns fiasco never existed. Somebody else brought it up, pretending that I had, so they could throw stones at me, in the usual strawman way that they have over there...they have put "do you still beat your wife?" in the shade. The greatest chuckle is the one you get from their new wave of attacking "unsubstantiated claims." As if.... p. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th April 2012, 05:28 PM | #8217 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
So you think it was a 25mm lens for no other reason than it supports your anti-Munns position. Then what parameter was wrong and why? I'll give you hint if you like.
|
24th April 2012, 05:41 PM | #8218 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
24th April 2012, 05:41 PM | #8219 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
|
24th April 2012, 05:49 PM | #8220 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
I said "sort of like," and its true. The Republicans don't mention him this year on the campaign trail. That's not partisan or a generalization. It's true. google mention bush.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntre...readID=2156787 for example. I am exactly as good as that. You are better than that. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th April 2012, 05:53 PM | #8221 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th April 2012, 05:54 PM | #8222 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
24th April 2012, 06:08 PM | #8223 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
|
24th April 2012, 06:09 PM | #8224 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
Wouldn't surprise me. Dahinden did just about everything except sleep with Patterson didn't he?
RayG |
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
24th April 2012, 06:14 PM | #8225 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
dodger.
so was Dahinden anti-Munns? You've got nothing to say but dodges and dives and ad homs. Do your homework and others won't have to do it for you. If you can disprove the 25 mm nominal then do it. Tilt at your windmill. Be a hero to the footers. The burden is on you. The record speaks, and it says 25mm. Hope you can show it varied by a mm or two and claim victory. As if...
Quote:
|
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th April 2012, 07:00 PM | #8226 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
I know you are but what am I?
Quote:
|
24th April 2012, 07:36 PM | #8227 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
|
25th April 2012, 12:01 PM | #8228 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
What kinda knocks me a little on this topic is the following:
The K-100 was capable of using a 16, 18, or 25mm lens. The DEFAULT for the camera is 25mm. When the distances etc etc etc are done assuming a 25mm lens, the figure is between 4 and 5ft tall. Midget in a suit story... When distances etc etc etc are done assuming a 16mm lens, the figure is between 7 and 8ft tall. Patterson's story... What smacks me is that I have yet to see any analysis on the material based on the assumption of the 18mm lens. Seems to me it would (logically) come to somewhere around 6ft tall. Wouldn't that be a pretty average outcome for the "Normal Dude in Monkey Suit" story? |
25th April 2012, 12:06 PM | #8229 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
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? |
|
25th April 2012, 12:12 PM | #8230 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
I have not seen or heard of this evidence myself.
Assuming that I accept the existence of such, it only stands to prove the equipment in possession, not that it is what was used. That said, if he did use the 25mm as the receipt would circumstantially imply, the best conclusion that could occur from that is that Bob H. was a liar. Bob H. sure as poodleshoes was not 4-5ft tall... I will be back in a few, ima go do some rudimentary work on calculations, assuming a 18mm lens. |
25th April 2012, 12:18 PM | #8231 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
Unless they are mistaken on the distance which would alter the height, IMO, there is no way that patty is under 5 foot tall, the comparison pictures with green show Patty to be similar to my calculations using the foot as ruler method to between 6 foot and 6 foot 6.
|
25th April 2012, 12:26 PM | #8232 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Ok.
Working on the assumption of a 18mm lens, very rudimentary calculations result in a figure roughly 5'8". This does not include checking FOV or any other such factors, just rough work assuming a 18mm lens. IF Patterson used an 18mm, that would make Bob and himself fakers. The 18mm theory would suggest any average height person in a suit. What height was Patterson's wife? |
25th April 2012, 01:52 PM | #8233 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
25th April 2012, 02:07 PM | #8234 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
what a laugh. Read, boy... I asked if DAHINDEN WAS anti-Munns!!!
You can decide what Dahinden's opinion/finding means for yourself. I have tried to give you some background, over there, and you can read the Dahinden paper for yourself now that you realize you overlooked it in your passion for me, which is your "passtime" [sic]. So you say you favor the 25mm; now, over HERE!! over THERE you play along with whatever is the feverish excuse de jour, currently the 20mm. That's why you get no respect from this quarter. Speaking of which you must not have much respect for the bleevers, if you think they need you as their white knight. As if parnassus is the cause of their woes. Here's a flash, odie: the cause of their woes is a bunch of charlatans who lead them on with promises and pseudoscience and half truths and manipulation and outright lies, meanwhile extending the "offertory plate"/open palm at every chance. Why doesn't the great white knight/protector (that would be you LOL) of the footers tackle THEM? Chuckles, p. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
25th April 2012, 03:10 PM | #8235 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Patty was estimated to be between 6' 0" and 6' 6" based on comparisons with objects of known height in the area that were done shortly after the filming. I could be totally wrong or misremembering though.
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
25th April 2012, 06:30 PM | #8236 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
|
26th April 2012, 12:55 AM | #8237 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
26th April 2012, 07:34 AM | #8238 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
I'm just not sold on Bob, personally.
Paint me green and tell me to leaf, but I just don't buy into any part of Bob's story. Parts of Patterson's story, we believe. Such as "I was at this place on this date, with a camera rented from that guy, along with my friend over here" See, that information we can confirm, and actually prove to be correct. I do believe that monkeysuit is the answer, I just don't believe that it was Bob. Nothing Bob says can be shown, proven, or corroborated properly; apart from extremely circumstancial. Example of one of my doubts: Why wouldn't there be 3 horses for 3 men? Surely you are not about to suggest that a man as large as Bob can share a horse with another man AND CAMERA EQUIPMENT PLUS MONKEYSUIT over that specific terrain... Even just the 2 men on the single horse is a bit of a stretch, imo. |
26th April 2012, 07:55 AM | #8239 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Why did they need horses at all ?
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
26th April 2012, 07:56 AM | #8240 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
Again, you'll have to forgive my lack of proof to hand (I'm only a very occasional poster in these threads) but IIRC there's a pic of the whole gang on horseback, one man per horse. I'm not sure if that pic was taken on filming day, but I'm pretty sure there were horses for everybody out there that weekend.
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|