|
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. |
22nd June 2012, 07:19 PM | #8521 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
No xray vision required. My claims made in the article are accurate and duplicable. So why isnt Gimlin or Pat Patterson chasing down these scoundrels that make such accusations? Sounds like an easy libel suit if my claims were bogus. Gimlin chooses words very carefully when describing the PGF. (all IMHO of course) I'd love for them to take me to court on this basis and be able to prove to a court that the film was faked. Like I said, bring it on. The PGF is a hoaxed film. Gimlin told me personally that he filmed that scene of Roger casting the track. He had to be "in" on it. |
23rd June 2012, 11:01 AM | #8522 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
24th June 2012, 05:54 PM | #8523 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
|
You seem to misunderstand who has the burden of proof here. Given the fact that physical evidence for such a creature (no, footprints don't count as they can be easily faked) has never been found, it is the folks claiming that the PGF is real who have to provide evidence. That PGF is a hoax is actually the operating assumption until evidence is provided for its authenticity.
|
__________________
"The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland |
|
24th June 2012, 06:15 PM | #8524 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
If you come back OS,it might be good to listen to both sides of the story. However, you can find the same information in the PGF threads on the BFF. Here or there, it's worth a read if you are interested.
I wasn't interested enough to research the technical talk on camera work and some other things to really appreciate the issues. You need to do your own research to see if what someone is saying is accurate, don't just take the information at face value. |
24th June 2012, 06:28 PM | #8525 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
Well. that is it. It is annoying but more than that just silly ! Folks show up here and make claims that they cannot provide proof or any evidence and then.... Then they complain and get upset that we do not buy into it !
Why would someone that believes in BF even bother with this Forum under such circumstances ? |
25th June 2012, 08:40 PM | #8526 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I believe Patty was some kind of human. Not a gorilla like what Phillip Morris said. One of the best pieces of evidence for it was her foot.
Phillip Morris and BobH sound believable until one actually looks carefully at the film. I know one guy who made it his mission to prove she was a fake without even analyzing the actual footage. |
25th June 2012, 08:48 PM | #8527 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Yes, because a costume maker would neglect the feet.
|
__________________
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 June 2012, 08:53 PM | #8528 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Oh wait...
|
__________________
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 June 2012, 09:05 PM | #8529 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Please tell us what "analysis" of the film means...the distance between the sprocket holes? and tell us how this "analysis" of the film proves it's real. I don't think even Bill Munns makes that claim. Cause he admitted his "analysis" of the film had produced the wrong result, and not so long ago he said he needed $75,000 more just to try to prove it. Do you know something we don't know? Was he lying? had he already proved it, told you and no one else, and was just trying to con the others out of more money?
I know MORE than one guy who decided the film wasn't a hoax without ever reading The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long. How about 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 |
|
25th June 2012, 09:11 PM | #8530 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
The toes disappear in a few of the frames, but they are in fact there.
|
25th June 2012, 10:05 PM | #8531 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 538
|
|
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian) |
|
25th June 2012, 10:11 PM | #8532 |
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 June 2012, 10:23 PM | #8533 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
And how did we get from perfectfoot to blockfoot in only 11 frames? We have a perfectly rendered right foot, and 11 frames later we have an amorphous block blob of a left foot.
|
__________________
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 05:59 AM | #8534 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Is that from the original film or from the retouched Cibachromes?
Here are some original frames, see any toes here? http://themunnsreport.com/pgf%20ref_...20sequence.jpg Here is the best copy of perfectfoot, DDA posted it at BFF, however, Bill Munns has not posted the original as far as I can tell anywhere. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 06:32 AM | #8535 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Sorry - late to the party. Has it been suggested that toes seen on Patty were added in by folks "enhancing" the film? I just assumed such toes could be seen because, of course, I'd put them on my costume bigfoot feet.
|
26th June 2012, 07:22 AM | #8536 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
If the footprints have toes, and the film shows no toes, someone must have taken it upon themselves to add toes.
Or it is part of the stick in the background. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 08:12 AM | #8537 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
So you can't see any toes in the original?
|
26th June 2012, 08:23 AM | #8538 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
IIRC, you can only see actual toes on the Cibachrome print copy of frame 61.
Perfectfoot is from frame 61, when Patty is far away, and blockfoot is from frame 72, I believe. So we seem to have detail when Patty is farther away from the camera, and no detail when Patty is closer. Or maybe not. |
__________________
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 08:28 AM | #8539 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Someone calculated the limits of resolution for the film and as I recall it would seem to be about 1-2 cm on the body of the subject.
The separate toes are made visible only by the width of the shadows between them, which depend on the "lateral" angle between the sole and the sun. When the sole of the foot faces the sun, you will not see separate toes, because there is little or no shadow between the toes; when the sole is oblique to the sun, the shadow becomes wider, and you might see these inter-toe shadows, hence the toes look separate. The visibility of the ends of the toes obviously also depends on the background. So it is not surprising that toes are seen in some frames but not in others. You might argue that for normal people, this angle doesn't change much during the stride. True enough, but PattyBob has an abnormal rotation of the foot, about the long axis if the leg, caused by the long feet. This is the ground clearance issue mentioned by Meldrum in that Best Evidence segment at the Stanford Gait laboratory. In other words, he walks like he is wearing swim fins. Long story short, the sole of blockfoot is facing the sun, hence no resolvable inter-toe shadows, while the sole of perfectfoot has swung out of the en face position, so the toe shadows are big enough to be seen. No doctoring of the film is necessary, imho. Of course, keep in mind that I dreamed up this explanation at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 08:37 AM | #8540 |
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 08:50 AM | #8541 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 08:52 AM | #8542 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 09:07 AM | #8543 |
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 09:18 AM | #8544 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Red Herring, no? If no toes are discernible, you chalk it up to resolution. If toes are discernible with better resolution, that proves nothing either. What moron wouldn't put toes on his fake bigfoot feet?
|
26th June 2012, 09:23 AM | #8545 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
If you are making the prints separate of the trackway, you don't need toes in the costume.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 09:32 AM | #8546 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Why does John Napier say that Patty's feet were not visible to him when he was evaluating the PGF way back when?
They must not have shown him much of the film. He does, however, note the gait is that of a man as are the proportions.
Quote:
|
__________________
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 09:35 AM | #8547 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
And Heuvelmans dismissed it outright as a hoax because of the obvious artificial fur.
|
__________________
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 09:57 AM | #8548 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
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 |
|
26th June 2012, 10:01 AM | #8549 |
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 |
|
26th June 2012, 10:06 AM | #8550 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Well, the subject is pretty small when you see a full frame...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5215 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=19 Even then, we may be looking at a copy that's blown up a little. I doubt we see any frames from the original PGF film, whatever that really is, very often. Look for a lot of scratches. |
__________________
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 10:58 AM | #8551 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
I've always thought Fahrenbach's 2" resolution estimate was off the mark. It seems that the scant details we do have -- the dot of light inside the dark eye socket, EG -- would not register if the resolution were that large.
It would be nice to get a second opinion on this matter from a photo expert, but alack I am not that person. |
__________________
"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 |
|
26th June 2012, 02:47 PM | #8552 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
26th June 2012, 02:52 PM | #8553 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
26th June 2012, 03:09 PM | #8554 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
26th June 2012, 03:19 PM | #8555 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
That article is suggesting more than 100X blow-up of the PGF - well beyond the most basic features of a figure discernable in detail. Almost as if the director didn't want you to see those details.
Such an amazing coincidence that a guy practicing filming a hoax happens to have encountered bigfoot as if it were staged just perfectly for a hoax. |
26th June 2012, 03:24 PM | #8556 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
|
26th June 2012, 07:17 PM | #8557 |
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? |
|
26th June 2012, 07:19 PM | #8558 |
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? |
|
27th June 2012, 11:31 AM | #8559 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
If we are to somehow solve one problem, there are still others. One problem is the actual walk that can't be exactly replicated. Another is building such a suit with technology that is from the 60's. And the biggest problem is actually getting a typical human to look like that. The limb proportions seem to be most impossible to replicate with a modern human.
|
27th June 2012, 11:42 AM | #8560 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Wow dude - do some reading. You'll find such "problems", and more, thoroughly addressed right here on the JREF.
Your post reminds me of someone walking into the main lobby of the American Lung Association proclaiming, "I know a guy who smoked his whole life and never got cancer, so this whole cigarette thing you're doing is wrong." |
Thread Tools | |
|
|