IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 23rd April 2012, 06:06 PM   #8201
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yeah, I think Roger keeps the suit.

He's a cheapskate.

It's really no danger to him. His supporters will accept whatever he says to explain the suit if it's found.

Of course it's possible that the suit didn't actually belong to Roger. That never stopped Roger though, apparently.
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
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 23rd April 2012, 06:10 PM   #8202
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander View Post
Ray Wallace didn't destroy his stompers.
This is an excellent point. He also went to his death bed without an admission. Peggy Marx is a sweet old grandma who to this day will tell you she and her husband filmed Bigfoot. She's a female version of Gimlin.
__________________
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 23rd April 2012, 07:36 PM   #8203
AttorneyTom
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 !

Last edited by AttorneyTom; 23rd April 2012 at 08:07 PM.
AttorneyTom 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 23rd April 2012, 08:06 PM   #8204
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
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.

Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
I understand how frustrating it is, Vort. I am squarely aware of the irony of the situation. I am working on now what is the best way forward with the situation. I am also seriously considering giving everything over to a newspaper to have them see it through. I need resources and abilities right now that I don't have.

I've just sent a group PM to five of us seeking advice. I will be happy to PM you the details of the situation and then CC you that PM. I very much need to be closing my mouth more publicly than opening it. You're a friend and I trust you and I'd be happy to explain in private why.

You're also more than welcome to continue giving it to me both barrels. I have become so entrenched at the BFF and in dealing with believers, that I have had little time to be back in the company of skeptics and face their questions. Also, this may sound a bit strange, but my PM box being constantly full has made itself an obstacle to participating here more. I have just cleaned out a large enough amount of space to speak privately with the regulars following the PGF and I'm more than happy out of respect and trust and friendship to include you. I'm not looking for any free passes, so as long as you keep what we discuss between us, if you still feel the same way after, don't ease up on any criticism.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Vortigern99; 23rd April 2012 at 08:09 PM.
Vortigern99 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 23rd April 2012, 08:12 PM   #8205
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
There is no "suit". Just like there is no BF !
AttorneyTom 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 23rd April 2012, 08:23 PM   #8206
AttorneyTom
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.

Last edited by AttorneyTom; 23rd April 2012 at 08:37 PM.
AttorneyTom 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 23rd April 2012, 09:15 PM   #8207
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Just say no.
__________________
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 24th April 2012, 07:55 AM   #8208
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Unhappy

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:
Pommefritt ----> 58km
I was stunned! How the heck could I have made something up, that actually exists?!?!

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...
wheunis 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 24th April 2012, 08:02 AM   #8209
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
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
Drewbot 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 24th April 2012, 08:24 AM   #8210
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
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:


I was stunned! How the heck could I have made something up, that actually exists?!?!

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...
I'm skeptical of this post. 97% sure but on the fence?

Then a challenge.
tsig 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 24th April 2012, 08:32 AM   #8211
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by AttorneyTom View Post
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 !
He's been vaguely referring to a project he has going for some time now. Posting about why you can't post has been the MO of every woo on the board.
tsig 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 24th April 2012, 08:39 AM   #8212
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
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…
Correa Neto 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 24th April 2012, 08:41 AM   #8213
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I'm skeptical of this post. 97% sure but on the fence?

Then a challenge.
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...
wheunis 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 24th April 2012, 04:05 PM   #8214
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
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
DennyT 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 24th April 2012, 04:53 PM   #8215
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
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.
Wait, whut?

I thought it had already been established that the only way the distances and everything made sense on a 25mm, was if BF was a midget?!
...
A midget in a suit!
...
A gorilla suit...
wheunis 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 24th April 2012, 05:18 PM   #8216
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
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

Last edited by DennyT; 24th April 2012 at 05:21 PM.
DennyT 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 24th April 2012, 05:28 PM   #8217
Óðinn
Muse
 
Óðinn's Avatar
 
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.
Óðinn 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 24th April 2012, 05:41 PM   #8218
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Óðinn View Post
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.

Guess you missed the post above.
tsig 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 24th April 2012, 05:41 PM   #8219
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
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.
I'm a republican and not a W guy, generalization fallacy, cmon parn yer better than that
BravesFan 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 24th April 2012, 05:49 PM   #8220
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
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
DennyT 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 24th April 2012, 05:53 PM   #8221
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Guess you missed the post above.
I didn't miss it. I stopped writing responses after I finished my textberg on Dahinden and Green. I have a life. oh, wait....someone is wrong on the internet, gotta go....
__________________
"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

Last edited by DennyT; 24th April 2012 at 06:05 PM.
DennyT 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 24th April 2012, 05:54 PM   #8222
Óðinn
Muse
 
Óðinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Guess you missed the post above.
Nope, are you kidding? Did Dahinden examine Roger's K-100 camera? Otherwise, how would he know?
Óðinn 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 24th April 2012, 06:08 PM   #8223
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
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.
I interpreted it to mean "protective and apologetic" not "forgets existed"

My bad, I have a lousy batting avg today on the boards


ETA: psssssst, if you didn't all notice, I had my username changed to something a little less easy for trolls to attack

Last edited by BravesFan; 24th April 2012 at 06:12 PM.
BravesFan 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 24th April 2012, 06:09 PM   #8224
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
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
RayG 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 24th April 2012, 06:14 PM   #8225
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Óðinn View Post
Nope, are you kidding? Did Dahinden examine Roger's K-100 camera? Otherwise, how would he know?
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:
"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on." --proverb.
__________________
"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
DennyT 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 24th April 2012, 07:00 PM   #8226
Óðinn
Muse
 
Óðinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
dodger.
I know you are but what am I?

Quote:
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...
I'm not anti-Munns and I don't believe in bigfoot. But I also don't ridicule "bleevers" as a passtime. So what does Dahinden's opinion have to do with Munns, or yours? I've always been an advocate of a 25mm lens. I even think I can prove it. Victory for me is the truth, how about you?
Óðinn 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 24th April 2012, 07:36 PM   #8227
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
He's been vaguely referring to a project he has going for some time now. Posting about why you can't post has been the MO of every woo on the board.
I think that is exactly what these postings are. Woo.. and nothing but.

Just my opinion.

Which is worth nothing.
AttorneyTom 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 25th April 2012, 12:01 PM   #8228
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Óðinn View Post
Nope, are you kidding? Did Dahinden examine Roger's K-100 camera? Otherwise, how would he know?
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?
wheunis 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 25th April 2012, 12:06 PM   #8229
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
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?
IIRC, the receipt for the camera lists a 25mm lens with serial number.
__________________
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 25th April 2012, 12:12 PM   #8230
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
IIRC, the receipt for the camera lists a 25mm lens with serial number.
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.
wheunis 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 25th April 2012, 12:18 PM   #8231
BravesFan
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.
BravesFan 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 25th April 2012, 12:26 PM   #8232
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I will be back in a few, ima go do some rudimentary work on calculations, assuming a 18mm lens.
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?
wheunis 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 25th April 2012, 01:52 PM   #8233
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
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.
Correct.

The distance from the camera is completely unknown so Munns' calculations are total garbage no matter which lens he uses.
He adjusted the facts to meet the desired outcome.
__________________
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 25th April 2012, 02:07 PM   #8234
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Wink

Originally Posted by Óðinn View Post
I know you are but what am I?


I'm not anti-Munns and I don't believe in bigfoot. But I also don't ridicule "bleevers" as a passtime. So what does Dahinden's opinion have to do with Munns, or yours? I've always been an advocate of a 25mm lens. I even think I can prove it. Victory for me is the truth, how about you?
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

Last edited by DennyT; 25th April 2012 at 02:08 PM.
DennyT 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 25th April 2012, 03:10 PM   #8235
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
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
jhunter1163 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 25th April 2012, 06:30 PM   #8236
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
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.
No, You have it right . That is the best anyone has done so far, Jh.
AttorneyTom 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 26th April 2012, 12:55 AM   #8237
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Originally Posted by AttorneyTom View Post
No, You have it right . That is the best anyone has done so far, Jh.
Good to know my memory hasn't failed me. And of course, a gorilla-suited Bob Hieronimus would fall smack in the middle of that size range.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 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 26th April 2012, 07:34 AM   #8238
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
Good to know my memory hasn't failed me. And of course, a gorilla-suited Bob Hieronimus would fall smack in the middle of that size range.
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.

Last edited by wheunis; 26th April 2012 at 07:35 AM.
wheunis 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 26th April 2012, 07:55 AM   #8239
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Why did they need horses at all ?
__________________
Maybe later....
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 26th April 2012, 07:56 AM   #8240
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
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.
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
jhunter1163 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

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 08:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.