|
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. |
3rd September 2007, 07:18 AM | #7401 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Mad Hom wrote:
Quote:
Here you go..... The same angle. Bob's arm comes up short....again. Any way you compare them....Bob comes up short. It's a shame, isn't it?! You're a sharp cookie, Mad Hom....but your analytical skills suck. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
3rd September 2007, 07:23 AM | #7402 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Just so both comparisons are on the same page.....
|
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
3rd September 2007, 07:30 AM | #7403 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Wow Sweety !
Did you come up with the idea that since a monkey suit arm can be made to look inhumanly long, Bigfeets must be real , all by yourself ? I'm sure the gang at MABRC will be impressed. When can we expect the published paper ? P.S. Drawing lines and circles on a monkey suit, and saying .. " Trust me, the joints are really located inside the suit where I say they are .. " doesn't cut it around here .... |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
3rd September 2007, 07:32 AM | #7404 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
You're excused.
Sweat you're applying logic to an event that you weren't at and that you had no hand in planning so feel free to believe that ANYTHING you say about how good a time for anything to happen is NOTHING but making an ASS out of U and ME. Mistakes can be made Sweat. Let's say Roger told Bob to use the flexy fingery thingee...but Bob H forgot...hmmmmmmm....did that thought ever enter that bowling ball you call a skull?? To the best of my knowledge..this was a one take hoax....err....film....if Bob H forgot to flex the finger flexing mechanism than Roger was S.O.L as far as showcasing it...he just had to settle for the "Check out these fake Titts" turn for the camera. I mean the look at these ridiculous breasts turn for the camera is one of the reasons I feel the thing is a little to hoaxy anyhow...if it would have flexed it's fingers at too perfect a moment...all the more hoaxy. Oh and as long as you have your Mr Big Boy Logic hat on...what's the logical reason for a creature to be flexing it's fingers why it walks anyhow? Flex your fingers alot while you walk Sweaty??? |
3rd September 2007, 07:37 AM | #7405 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Fanfrickentastic! Sweaty's had enough of mutual back-patting and JREF lurking and has come for his bi-monthly PGF hump. With finger bending even! Could we be in for a long shunned answer? Will Sweaty tell us what we must pretend if the fingers bend? Did this suddenly become some long quested for reliable evidence of bigfoot or just reliable evidence of the absence of mannequin hands?
|
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 07:44 AM | #7406 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
40 flippin years and he brings us a finger bending animation.
I'd like to see some more of this finger bending...I mean does this finger flexion take place throughout the film...say in more than what appears to be a few frames...I'd also continue on my previous line of thinking...take a short walk across where ever you are right now...as you do this flex your fingers..does it seem at all natural to you?? |
3rd September 2007, 07:46 AM | #7407 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Re: post 7394 and the close-up of the hand. Does anyone else see the banded piece that connects the rubber hand to the arm of the suit?
|
3rd September 2007, 07:51 AM | #7408 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
We should expect his own arms to be shorter than they appear when he's wearing the costume. One reason is because his own hands may not have fully extended into the costume hands. The other reason would be if shoulder padding was used. This could cause one to locate the shoulder joint in a false position.
I would expect a similar error of illusion if we compared arm length of American football players when suited-up and when not. When the shoulder pads are installed, we have to locate the shoulder joint in a non-intuitive position (it's actually lower than suggested when we view the padded shoulders) because we know there is added height from the padding. If we don't account for this, the arms of NFL players will 'calculate' to be several inches longer when they are playing versus when they are in street clothes. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
3rd September 2007, 07:52 AM | #7409 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
|
3rd September 2007, 08:09 AM | #7410 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Sadly it didn't cut the mustard 40 years ago and hasn't cut much but cheese since. The upswing, mind you, is that it's been more than enough time for throngs of Woods and Wildmen players to draw any numbers circles and squiggles on it and call it 'research'. Maybe severe pariedolia fits cause a lack of common sense or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, we should give Sweaty a hand with the finger bending as he's either given it little thought or a whole lot of warped thought (door number 2?).
Sweaty, as I already said, your finger bending fixation at the most can establish only that a rigid hand shaped extension was not used but nothing in terms of separating squatch from suit. If Patty turned around and flashed some gang signs or started Native American-type sign language (read- extensive, clear digital movement) then maybe you might have something. Now... bupkis. |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 08:17 AM | #7411 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
If Patty would have bolted for the trees like an actual wild animal they might have something.
If Patty would have been filmed ripping an elk's left hind leg off and beating the elk to death with it they might have something. If they had something...anything...other than just Patty and 10,000 plaster casts....they might have something. |
3rd September 2007, 08:25 AM | #7412 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
You still don't understand how camera lenses create illusions of depth and therefore the relative locations of objects shown. The stills you post show debris in Patty's vicinity, but create an illusion of its exact location and composition. Two discrete debris piles (one closer to the camera than the other) can appear to be a single much larger pile. If we don't account for perspective errors at all when we look at these images, it can look as if there is so much substantial debris that the path is unwalkable by a man or a Bigfoot. It could only be navigated by an impala.
Here's an aerial view of the filmsite that was posted here over six weeks ago. Here's a scale model of the filmsite, also posted here before. Here's a film clip of McClarin walking through a section of the filmsite that is relatively free of debris. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
3rd September 2007, 08:29 AM | #7413 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Mad Hom wrote:
Quote:
There are only a few frames, if that, in the entire footage where the fingers can be seen to bend. You're saying that it would be much more likely that an animal would not be bending it's fingers as it simply walks along....and that's exactly what we see in the PG film...with the exception of a frame or two. In 99.9% of the film, the subject's fingers stay in virtually the same position. Are you confused, Mad Hom? Maybe you should just stick to saying "Got a body?" |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
3rd September 2007, 08:44 AM | #7414 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Heh, heh... 'fraid not. That would be speculating on an argument that does nothing for the film.
Quote:
Quote:
Are you confused, Sweaty? Maybe you should stick to saying "If the fingers bend, you must pretend." |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 08:44 AM | #7415 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
First of all Mensa...I inquired as to whether there was more finger flexing...as in it was kind of a flipping question...shall I travel in the way back machine to...oh what is it 6 posts ago..and point this out to you?
Sweety...your finger flexing theory proves exactly...NOTHING AT ALL...other than that a stiff hand appliance was not used....that's it...and that's all. I am saying that...a rubber glove could do that...bounce a bit as Bob H...errr...I mean Patty walked along the sandy bluff....notice I say could do that...not did do that. You on the other hand are bellowing that finger flexing means it's the real deal....which couldn't be further from the truth...but continue bellowing...if it makes you feel good. Also...why is "Got a body?" such an outlandish question? You have finger flexing animations,crayon scribbles,forty eleven hundred plaster casts,bison hair,an arse cast,lot's and lot's of spooky stories,and one completely ambigous 40 year old flick...yet nothing of any real substance....you know like a body...so until such time as you or any intrepid +5 Bigfeetsus Warrior can produce one...the question will always be a valid one..oh and Sweety..this is not something that you have to like,nor is it something that you have to love...but it is something that you should probably learn how to live with. |
3rd September 2007, 09:08 AM | #7416 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I guess we really shouldn't expect too much from someone who considers the images here as evidence of Martian civilization. That's really more of an FYI for any unfamiliar with Sweaty.
|
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 09:11 AM | #7417 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Mad Hom wrote:
Quote:
Very good! Now explain exactly what is illogical about what I said earlier. The fact of the matter is, you can't....because what I said was indeed logical. Your "logical reasoning" skills suck, also. BTW...do you still stand behind your analysis that the mis-match in angle makes the comparison images meaningless??
Quote:
But analysis is all about weighing probabilities....not just imagining possibilities.
Quote:
It's logical to assume that Roger, after working on his "creation" for years, probably would have had Bob rehearse the walk, once or twice...before putting it on film. That rehearsal would.....logically....have included the use of the remote-control gadget. Therefore, there is a low 'degree of probability' that Bob would have forgotten to use the gadget. A rehearsal doesn't eliminate the possiiblity of a mistake...but it does, in fact, lower the probability of it happening. These statements by Mad Hom highlight the complete lack of interest in logical and scientific analysis of the evidence by skeptics here. There is never any mention of probabilities by them.......only possibilities. All the skeptics here seem capable of doing is spouting "well, it's possible...." That is not true analysis of the evidence.....it's actually the exact opposite of it. Anyone can sit and imagine all kinds of possibilities, with regards to anything......but only a person with a scientific, analytical mind can narrow 'possibilities' down to what is most 'probable'. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
3rd September 2007, 09:49 AM | #7418 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
ahem... I think I may be able to help you.
Who said that? And let's not forget from the first quoted post:
Quote:
I guess when skeptics make the simple points you want to ignore it's easier to create the arguments you want to have. At least you know your logic sucks. |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 10:37 AM | #7419 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Mad Hom wrote:
Quote:
You're right, Mad Balls....it doesn't prove that Patty is a real Bigfoot. I never said it does. Every time you speak.....you prove that you're not interested in weighing the evidence. You have not a clue as to what that is...how it's done....or what the word "evidence" even means. Please......continue... |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
3rd September 2007, 11:03 AM | #7420 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
|
This piece of footage seems to be on the sand/gravel bar I was talking about. I see no identifying markers that places the man in the same place as the pictures I have presented...Just look at the ground where these figures are standing and compare it to the sand bar footage you posted. There's a big difference in ground litter.
|
3rd September 2007, 11:22 AM | #7421 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
When were those pictures taken Luminous ?
___________________ Never mind, I found a source.. http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi2.html
Quote:
There's a clue in there somewhere... |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
3rd September 2007, 11:28 AM | #7422 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,632
|
Luminous,
There is no need to form an opinion on whether a man could walk over broken ground in a mask and suit with foot shaped slippers. Just ask someone who has done it. As noted in an earlier post I've spent a good deal of time in a chem warfare suit. This is a bulky, padded multilayer garment worn with big floppy boots, several layers of gloves, a mask and hood. Wearing this garment a man can walk, run, complete a confidence course (obstacle course to outlanders), run through the woods, climb a tree, drive a truck, type on a keyboard (slowly), load and fire a rifle or pistol accurately, preflight and load a C-130, fly a C-130, complete paperwork and numerous other tasks. I know this because I have done it. I've seen others operate heavy equipment, provide first aid, fire crew served weapons and fly helicopters. There was even one woman in our unit who could do a walk-over handstand. I never tried that in a chem suit, because I couldn't do that in gym gear to start with. I can say from a position of experience that I see nothing in Patty's movements on the PGF that is inconsistent with a man in a suit. Robert Klaus |
3rd September 2007, 12:36 PM | #7423 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
You're a funny one, Sweaty. There's an argument in your head that your trying to impose here but you don't really seem to have worked it out beyond the initial proclamation concerning bending fingers. Over uncounted pages, invitations, chances to articulate something beyond that there is always... turtle.
Let's have the discussion you want to have, Sweaty. Let's hear it. Fine, fine, it doesn't prove anything. Let's talk about probabilities. Please substantiate your assertion. Explain how finger bending gives more probability to a living sasquatch than a man in a suit. You wouldn't spend so much effort making a point of it without having formulated your hypothesis, right? |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 02:07 PM | #7424 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Maybe it's just me but I don't see finger bending, I see hand twisting. It looks to me that the fingers are slightly bent by the same amount in both frames. What we're seeing as additional bending is just the arm and hand twisting, showing the slightly bent fingers, and the clearly defined band connecting the glove to the arm.
IMHO the 2 stills are more evidence of a bloke in a suit. |
3rd September 2007, 02:22 PM | #7425 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
|
|
3rd September 2007, 03:38 PM | #7426 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 296
|
Hi Robert,
It's not just the "slippers" I was referring to. It's the debris deposits that litter the ground just after you leave the sandbar. Most people have not seen the entire P/G film. It's usually cut off early. But the whole film shows the figure moving into areas that appear to be more and more rugged. My contention is that no one in a bulky suit and mask could navigate the terrain without stumbling or without getting snagged by the many rocks, sticks, boulders, logs, gravel and so on. That's just my opinion. This figure seems to almost glide through the area, as if it was designed to navigate through such treacherous terrain. It never even looks down. Someone in a mask would be constantly looking down. That, along with the accurate groups of viscus musculature both in the front and back, leads me to conclude that we're looking at a living creature, not a man in a baggy suit. Luminous |
3rd September 2007, 04:24 PM | #7427 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,632
|
Luminous,
First, it's my understanding that no one but Patterson saw the entire PGF. I've seen several versions which purport to be complete. The point I was making is that, with practice, a person in a suit can do most anything they could in normal clothing. It will be more tiring, uncomfortable and hot, but not impossible. I've done much heavier work in worse terrain while wearing a suit than anything that appears in the PGF. This issue is a non-starter, get yourself a suit and try it. The second point about muscle groups is separate and does not bear on the question of what can be done in a suit. It has also been addressed earlier in this thread by those much more qualified than I. Robert |
3rd September 2007, 05:03 PM | #7428 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
3rd September 2007, 05:34 PM | #7429 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
That's pretty perceptive of you.
One of our members had the same idea, and took a couple of shots of a rigid plastic doll hand .. Surprise ! Surprise ! Of course, we never have been able to get Sweety to tell us exactly what the significance of slightly bending fingers is ; whether we are looking at rubber or flesh .. The actual genesis of this particular question, arose out of the claim by some Pattycakes, that the subject exhibits sophisticated finger movement, that could have only been accomplished by elaborate prosthetic appliances. The two frame animation you see is all they could come up with, and it hardly supports their contention. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
3rd September 2007, 06:03 PM | #7430 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Sorry, if I repeated something that was already posted. I suppose on a thread that is 7429 posts long some things will be missed and repeated.
|
3rd September 2007, 06:05 PM | #7431 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
|
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
3rd September 2007, 06:12 PM | #7432 |
Magician
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 861
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that monkey suit had a concrete core.
|
3rd September 2007, 06:26 PM | #7433 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
I hope you realize I was complimenting your observational skills.. I didn't intend for my response to your post to be taken as sarcastic..
The rest of us missed ( early on ), what you seem to have latched onto, quite easily.. Besides, I think the animated doll hand was in the other Bigfoot thread with over 5,000 replies... 99% Of this thread is rehashing old arguments.. Nothing new in the two years since this thread was started.. ( Not to mention the 40 years since the film was made .. ) Any new perspective is welcome.. Please continue to participate.. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
3rd September 2007, 06:37 PM | #7434 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
My fault. I misunderstood the intent.
|
3rd September 2007, 07:55 PM | #7435 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
3rd September 2007, 08:01 PM | #7436 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Sweaty is still thinking that BH's arm should appear to be the same length in and out of a bigfoot suit?
No, he can't be.... |
__________________
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? |
|
3rd September 2007, 09:07 PM | #7437 |
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 |
|
3rd September 2007, 09:14 PM | #7438 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm
Good lesson on perspective with different lenses. Shows how the apparent distance between objects is distorted with different lens focal lengths. |
__________________
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? |
|
4th September 2007, 01:32 AM | #7439 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
It's hard not to get hit by the shrapnel of an ironometer going super nova. A Wn'W joker who sees Martian civilizations in the rocks and lifting babies in the MDF talks about fertile imaginations. It's pretty text book Sweaty. He get's frustrated at the short-comings of his fantasy play and tries to project them on those who point them out.
Sweaty's greatest short-coming though, the one that keeps him permanently at the little table is not so much the spectacular hilarity that comes out when he opens his mouth, it's the silence. The biggest failures and the most telling are the frightened turtle retreats from the simplest of common sense points. Too much Wn'W play may have taken its toll but he still knows common sense when he sees it, IMO. That's why he's desperate to deflect from it. He needs imaginary evil skeptics dreaming up remote controlled devices and DIY animatronics as the only pathetic attempt to counter the profound and compelling display showing sophisticated digital articulation. Surely it shows a living sasquatch for anyone who isn't a complete denialist dunce fearing the sea-change of modern human reality that will come about through the ackowledgement of The Wildmen in the Woods. Unfortunately, in the absence of such people willing to initiate the argument, the game-winner that he sorta kinda has an idea about, he just goes ahead and starts it himself. Pure stick man. Anyone decides to spot him and he couldn't be more gleeful, more relieved at the success of his deflection. Anyone insists on him getting to the point... *crickets* Yes, you're a funny one, Mr. Sweat. A funny one indeed. |
__________________
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 |
|
4th September 2007, 01:48 AM | #7440 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
http://www.roshsillars.com/images/compression.gif
Another good example of the depth problems you can run into. |
__________________
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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|