|
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. |
10th February 2008, 07:54 AM | #11281 |
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 |
|
10th February 2008, 08:31 AM | #11282 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 79
|
Oh, you have some sasquatch flesh to show us?
Where?! Oh, wait...you're referring to Bob in a suit. Never mind. :rollseyes
Quote:
Are you talking the pad demonstration? Sorry, it moved. Oh, no...you're referring once again to the "Where is Dfoot's suit!?" Straw Man. Because -- hey! -- why argue about facts when you can just make crap up so much more easily! Reminds me of the old Star Trek: Voyage fan song: Bounce a Positron Particle Beam Off the main deflector dish That's the way we do things, lads We're making **** up as we wish. The Klingons and the Romulans Pose no fear for us, 'cause if we find We're in a bind We just make some **** up.
Quote:
Walk, Bob, walk. Avindair |
10th February 2008, 09:18 AM | #11283 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
|
10th February 2008, 09:40 AM | #11284 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
I am now preferring Option #2 over #1. It took a couple days and some sleep to decide that. I think Greg was right after seeing the two different rotations I presented. This photo must have had some cropping because it is not a 35mm aspect ratio. IOW, with only this cropped photo, we may not be able to determine if the camera was originally held in a horizontal or vertical position.
There is still a problem with wolftrax's wireframe grid applied to this. I'm seeing an illusion created by it that suggests the topography of a raised impression... Option #2; now preferred by me... Option #2 with wireframe; do not like... |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
10th February 2008, 10:40 AM | #11285 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
Not exactly apples and oranges... Apples and pears would be a better approximation.
A hair or fur- covered costume with a person inside, or a puppet, or a stop-montion miniature will have seams; a static character will also have seams, but, its static while the previous examples are not. So far we agree. But from beyond this point I disagree with him- If you can hide the seams at the junctions in miniatures (stop-montion figures and puppets) when the character is shown in focus, under the propper exposure conditions with a steady camera and filling the screen, doing the same with a full-size figure under PGF (small size, shaky camera, exposure problems, etc.) conditions is far from being a problem. This is the point where the comparisson becomes valid. The point, again, is- if you can hide it in small figures, filmed in focus, using a steady camera, correct exposure and with the subject filling the screen, you can also hide it in shaky footage of a full-sized figure shown at a small corner of the screen. On a side note, I think a museu-quality static figure problably will be of a better quality than a FX prop. The flaws in the prop can be hidden (or minimized) using lightining, filming angles, among other things. So, again, Munn's arguments seem problematic, at least for me. I think Munns, as well as many pro-PGF folks overstimate the ammount of detail that can be seen at PGF; they also underestimate the role pareidolia may have when it comes to "seeing" details such as muscle movement, opening mouth, moving fingers, etc. Well, FX tends to get worse while they age. We become used to it and the tech evolves. Its unfair to compare his work with top CGI creatures. I say top, because the crappy CGI stuff sci-fi channel repeats every now and then... A similar feature happens with me and PGF- the more I see it, the crappier it looks. |
__________________
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… |
|
10th February 2008, 11:06 AM | #11286 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
|
I've certainly been reading Bill's posts (although with nine pinned threads I'm sure I've missed something). He is clearly very knowledgeable. But would you be in a position to refute anything he said if he made a technical error? Do you have access to anyone you could ask if you suspected something was questionable?
If and when Bill finally finishes I may well have some further questions. But every time I think he has it's just been a pause for breath . However it was your response here that interested me. Hence the question . |
Last edited by JohnWS; 10th February 2008 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Counted the pinned threads again & typo |
|
10th February 2008, 01:24 PM | #11287 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
WIth regards to static and stop action figures vs live moving figures the issue of having to put a human being inside and convincingly hide the sections posses the biggest problems. Munns posts concerning attaching the head demonstrated this well. After just seeing a Janos Gorillia suit in operation its clear why he preferred long fur which as stated by Bill Munns hides a multitude of sins. Gumby and Pokey on the other hand seem to have transended all of this in fine fashion.
|
10th February 2008, 05:57 PM | #11288 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
The history of Bigfootery is quite interesting, but not easy to find. Much can be learned about the present by looking into the past.
I have been exploring the archives of the CBC, and it is a real treasure. These archives begin with a radio interview featuring Rene Dahinden in 1957, then move periodically to 1984. The CBC is from Canada and Dahinden is represented throughout. We will also see Bob Titmus, and even hear from Bob Gimlin. The starting location is around Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia. This was the area that had Dahinden, Titmus, John Green and other significant Bigfooters (then and now). Bigfootery has evolved in many ways, but in some ways it hasn't changed a bit. You will hear the evolution of what this mythical creature is called, from Sasqua to Bigfoot. You will hear the accounts of classic and now-famous Bigfoot encounters and evidences. After 1967, the PGF takes center stage in many ways. When Dahinden was interviewed in 1957, at the age of 26, the term Bigfoot had not been invented yet. Dahinden could have called it Sasquatch (an English derivation first appearing in 1929), but the young Swiss mountaineer immigrant instead says Sasqua. In later archives you will hear him use Sasquatch, but he does not ever seem to use the term Bigfoot. Dahinden pursued Bigfoot for most of his adult life but never did see one. His obsession cost him his marriage, and you will hear about it from him and his ex-wife. Besides the overall charm of hearing and seeing modern Bigfootery at its beginnings and through its earlier years, there are fascinating and important factual elements found in these archives. This was a time before the Internet and YouTube. Communication amongst Bigfooters would have been by a personal visit, telephone, mail or an occasional conference. Find some time to devote your attention to these episodes, and enjoy a trip into the old days. If you love this legend and the PGF as much as I do, you might want to have a tissue nearby for some of this... Episode 1) This is audio only. Young Rene Dahinden is interviewed and is introduced as an anthropologist (I don't think he was college educated). The interview sounds fully scripted on both sides. His wife says a few words as well. Dahinden is quite committed to his quest for the creature. His immediate concern is to find a sponsor for his searching trips. This was a time when many people still got their news and entertainment from radio. There may have still been a chill in the March air, and I like to think that some listeners would have heard this by a fireplace. Trailing B.C.'s Hairy Giants. March 21, 1957. Episode 2) This is our first audio-visual archive. We are back with Dahinden again, 19 years after his radio interview above. He now uses the term Sasquatch. The Patterson-Gimlin Film is now over 9 years old. He says he has been searching for 20 years, finding footprints here and there, and will keep searching "until I find the damn thing". He carries two cameras and a rifle. He doesn't want a typical life of making a full-time living with only a given vacation period. He only wants to work to earn enough money to survive and search for Bigfoot. Dahinden is now seperated from his wife. It seems that he was not cut out for being a husband and father. Instead, Bigfoot was his only goal in life. A driven man who gave up almost everything else. He wasted no time on the Internet in Bigfoot forums - it didn't exist yet. When he was in an armchair, he was reading about Bigfoot and responding to his letters. He calls encounter stories like Albert Ostman's Bigfoot abduction "a classic". Little did Rene know that we would now call him a Classic Bigfooter. Native American totems are shown, and we are told that in the mid-1950's Sasquatch was considered nothing more than Indian folklore. "And even Dahinden himself thought at first that he was looking for some demented and presumably hairy Indian turned wild in the bush." We are treated to a scene where Rene shows the reporter the PGF from a small projector. This is the real deal, and students of the PGF will want to pay close attention to this. The image projected on the wall is small because the cameraman (for this episode) is behind Rene and the reporter. Then he zooms in to fill the episode screen and we even see some slow-motion. You are seeing Rene Dahinden's copy of the PGF in full glory, and it appears to be something like 'full frame'. This is not the LMS DVD at all. Dahinden sells the creature to the reporter as being authentic. Little has changed about this 'salesmanship' in modern times. He focuses on the knees flexing ("which isn't a human walk"), and the estimated great weight. I noticed an occasional array of scratches that look very much like those on the plaster pour still frames. Keep that in mind for future discussions in this thread. A scientist skeptic is shown and he gives his views on Bigfootery. Ray Pickens (sp?) shows how to fake Bigfoot tracks using huge wooden feet affixed to boots. The "commercial goldmine" of Bigfoot is mentioned and we learn what Dahinden thinks of this. His bitterness and hostility is evident and he says so. Yet, he wants a piece of that action. Rene Dahinden wants revenge on all the scientists that have been scoffing at him. After some prodding, we also learn that he "wouldn't even get out of bed" for less than one million dollars as his reward for finding Bigfoot. These last few minutes are dramatic and revealing. Has anything really changed in Bigfootery? Tracking The Sasquatch. Dec. 21, 1976 Episode 3) This is audio only. We are in Vancouver. Jay Ingram, the scientist newsman, has just seen the PGF at a local BC Sasquatch conference/film festival. He is excited and impressed. Russian Bigfooters are on the scene. You will hear his interview with Bob Gimlin (Roger Patterson is now dead). Listen for differences in what he says about the encounter as compared to what we read and hear within modern Bigfootery. Sasquatch Caught On Film. May 12, 1978. Episode 4) Back to audio-visual. A Harrison Hot Springs resident tells of his encounter. There is a rare interview with Bob Titmus, who tells us that his first sighting was in 1942. He mentions that he has tracked them "hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of times, over a period of 26 years". You will see the late Marjorie Halpin (anthropologist and curator of the Museum of Anthropology at the University of BC) surrounded by Native American totems and masks, as she asks us "...how can a being of the mind leave a footprint in the earth?" You may be reminded of archaeologist Kathy Strain's statements on MonsterQuest. We see a portion of the PGF; some is full-frame, and some zoomed. We see the "Dahinden Cibachrome" of the famous Frame 352, which would end up being published for the first time by Halpin in her 1987 book, "Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence". Another eyewitness tells his story. At the end, reporter Marion Coomey shows us a recommended way to find a Bigfoot. Let it find you. Sasquatch Cannot Be Dismissed. Oct. 8, 1984. There are other interesting archives that can be found at those links. I think I found all of the ones specific to Bigfoot. These should offer much for discussion in this thread, and also in Kitakaze's Native American/Bigfoot thread. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
11th February 2008, 06:01 AM | #11289 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
All one has to do is look at pictures of your typical "Charlie-in-the-suit"..... ....and ask yourself...."what's the chance that both Joyce and her daughter were fooled by one of those?? I'd give it about a .0001% chance, or probability. (That equates to a 99.9999% chance they saw, if anything, a real Bigfoot. ) Just watch any of the joke Bigfoot videos on Youtube, and you can see how laughable a typical Bigfoot suit is. Remember, Joyce told me that when they first saw it...her daughter said, in a shocked manner, "What the f___ is that?!" They then watched it walk away from them for approx. a couple of minutes, in broad daylight. I think it would have been rather obvious to them if they were looking at a guy in a cheap shaggy-haired suit. But, if it makes you feel good, kitakaze...you can give it a '100% probability' that they were hoaxed, and totally convinced they saw a real wild creature, when in fact they were watching one of those baggy, shaggy-haired suits. kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
(There are the Adirondacks not too far to the north....with a few million acres, roughly, of wilderness.) I haven't studied the region....but I have driven through that area many times over the last 25 years. My ex brother-in-law, coincidentally, lives only 1 mile from Joyce, in East Greenbush. E. Greenbush is only a 10 minute ride from the city of Albany, yet the town has many acres of undeveloped forested land. There is a lot of wilderness in that region for an intelligent human-like animal to avoid humans, if they wanted to. |
__________________
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." |
|
11th February 2008, 07:12 AM | #11290 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
The analysis done by wolftrax on the Blue Creek Mountain Road (Onion Mountain) tracks has focused on the right foot. It's the one with the distinctive crack near the heel. Unfortunately, the photo used of this track is taken at an angle and does not offer the best possible comparison. Even still, it shows that that right-foot track was made by the right-foot Wallace Alderfoot.
But what about the left foot? The photo of this one was taken at BCM from a much better position for comparison. It is still not a perfect comparison because there is some apparent angle to the camera position (the camera is not directly above the track). Below I have shown the photo of the BCM left foot track. Alongside is the cropped and horizontally-flipped photo of the left-foot Wallace Alderfoot. There were no changes by me to the size or aspect ratio of this image. You can see that they are a virtual match. Again this Alderfoot was not pressed deeply into the substrate. The full expression of the surface topography of the Alderfoot is not revealed because of this. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
11th February 2008, 07:16 AM | #11291 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
The distinctive shape of the little toes can be matched up in the prints also .
The double ball of the left foot ( no crack ) is more pronounced .. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
11th February 2008, 07:29 AM | #11292 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Yes. The two Alderfoots (L&R) carved by Ray Wallace do not match each other. They have very obvious differences. The outside edge of the left foot is distinctly different compared to the right foot (w/crack). The left is much more 'hour-glass' shaped than the right.
There is no rational doubt that these BCM tracks were made by those Alderfoots being displayed by Dale Wallace. Those wooden tools were there at Blue Creek Mountain Road. Whether Ray Wallace himself was there for the creation of the hoaxed tracks is a question that remains. It could have been anyone using those tools, but it certainly was those tools. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
11th February 2008, 08:53 AM | #11293 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
Last time I checked Gumby had no fur or hair cover.
Of course longer hairs can be used to cover the seams. But I think one should ask "how long the hair must be to mask the seams?" and "will the seams be easily seen in a short, shaky footage with incorrect exposure settings which shows the costume as a small figure?" Take these two examples: How easilly can the seams be seen? How long are the hairs? How would they look if filmed at conditions similar to PGF? Now look at this one (its flaws are easy to spot at other stills and footage): Are the hairs long enough to cover the seams? Can you spot them? How would it look if filmed at conditions similar to PGF? And at last, but not least, lets compare these ones (I think all of them are costumes): First, lets look the three costumes at the bottom; forget for a moment the different heads and the baggy appearance of the lower middle one. Focus on the seams. Can you see them? Now remember that the images at the bottom have higher resolution and better focus and exposure than the two Patty stills. Could you spot the seams if the images were of similar quality? Can you see in Patty's images lines that could be compared to seams? I think answer for the first question would be "barely", and the answer for the second, "yes". Again, Munns, I think, overengineers Patty because he overestimates PGF resolution and underestimates the effects that personal bias and pareidolia can have in the interpretation of this footage. |
__________________
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… |
|
11th February 2008, 11:32 AM | #11294 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
I asked on BFF, but does anyone have a timeline of who visited the PGF site from the time of the filming, to the time that Titmus arrived there? I'm just curious why their footprints weren't noted by Titmus, and also, if there was 'Bark' covering up the best tracks, wouldn't they have removed the bark to see for themselves? It seems there would have been footprints everywhere, if there were researchers, curious loggers, etc... yet Titmus could manage to see BOB & ROGERS horse prints all over the site.
Also, Titmus says, he backtracked patty to see where she came into the Creek bed. And that he assumes she came down the 'hard road' but he couldn't see any prints. Isn't this just another way to say, the prints just appeared out of nowhere at the creek? |
__________________
"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 |
|
11th February 2008, 12:04 PM | #11295 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
Several people went there with still cameras, including Roger, but no one apparently bothered to photograph what would likely be the most convincing footprint evidence of all. The prints where the alleged sasquatch was standing by the creek, and then turned and walked away up the bank, would be very interesting to see. One would expect that the beastie might have been crouching and may have even put a hand down to steady itself a time or two. These prints would be the most convincing, imo. However, there is no mention of anyone seeing these "turn and walk away" prints. I suppose it's possible that Roger filmed them when he filmed the trackway, but... Being near the bank, they could have been erased by the flood, but then the flood didn't seem to bother any other tracks... |
__________________
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? |
|
11th February 2008, 12:34 PM | #11296 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Titmus' map seems to indicate that he found the both the spot where Roger encountered Patty, and the spot where Patty was standing. I presume he found the spots via tracks, which would indicate that Patty's initial footprints were still visible.
|
__________________
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? |
|
11th February 2008, 02:38 PM | #11297 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
[quote=Correa Neto;1140012]Some random thoughts on the above still:
(1) The animal seems to have black or dark gray fur. Bigfeet are supposed to have brownish hues, usually reddish-brown; (3) The animas has a hairy butt. Again, if my memory is not failing, most primates (specially the bigger ones) don´t seem to have such feature. BTW, would such hairy butt fit with the supposed "butt print"? Looks like a hairy Gorillia butt to me. |
11th February 2008, 02:47 PM | #11298 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Titmus' testimony and map is nonsensical until you consider him as being part of the PGF hoax. When you switch to that kind of thinking, most of the strangeness becomes logical and understandable.
Laverty and his crew's spontaneous appearance on the scene was an unexpected surprise to the hoaxers. Titmus didn't know how to deal with seeing bold-tread work boot tracks amongst the Patty tracks. Those tracks would have been the most fresh of all that he saw. He chose to not mention them at all. Titmus was in communication with Patterson before and after going to Bluff Creek to see the Patty tracks. Do not make the mistake of characterizing him as simply a capably observant and objective witness that arrived on the scene to accurately document the visual evidence. The Pattycakes do want you to think that about him. Titmus was a Classic Bigfooter from the Golden Age. These guys were in the business of bringing folk tales to life. His report from Bluff Creek after the Patty encounter does not make sense unless you understand what is at the heart of Bigfootery. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
11th February 2008, 02:56 PM | #11299 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
|
11th February 2008, 03:03 PM | #11300 |
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. |
|
11th February 2008, 03:07 PM | #11301 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
|
11th February 2008, 03:10 PM | #11302 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
Edited to prevent double post
|
11th February 2008, 03:11 PM | #11303 |
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. |
|
11th February 2008, 03:17 PM | #11304 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
Willaim I'm not a costume designer. There are however a few of costume designers working on that right now. Dfoot, Bill Munns and Longtabber on BBF. Why are you asking me?
|
11th February 2008, 03:22 PM | #11305 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
There's something wrong with this track that Roger is casting.
It's apparently in mud. Anyway, it has all sorts of debris piled up around it's perimeter as if it were dug out. Look at the video near the very end. Compare the cast track to the track just before it. The cast track's perimeter is very different looking from the one just before it. We can also see the next print, which doesn't look too far away. http://www.orgoneresearch.com/roger_patterson.htm Also look at this video: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/bluffcreek.rm http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/pgf_sequence.htm I also think it's clear that we are not looking at much of a stride length here. |
__________________
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? |
|
11th February 2008, 03:24 PM | #11306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
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? |
|
11th February 2008, 03:58 PM | #11307 |
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. |
|
11th February 2008, 05:06 PM | #11308 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
Well I watched a film of Janos P. and how some of his costumes went together as well as looking into some of the commericial sostumes. Bill Munns posts have offered a lot of information too.
I know Defoot got banned but while I don't think he'll come up with a suit he's presented some really interesting information about the personalities surrounding Roger Patterson. |
11th February 2008, 06:25 PM | #11309 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
What I've read about Mr. Titmus doesn't exactly paint a picture of a mentally stable man (Used tampon bait, anyone?). Doesn't it make as much sense for Titmus to be a person whose belief in Bigfoot overwhelmed his crtical thinking skills/someone who grossly overstates his tracking credentials? After all, he wasn't a professional tracker and he even admitted to not being able to find the tracks on the first day. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he thought that Laverty & co's tracks were made by Roger Patterson. I suspectthat details about human tracks would be mostly ignored by a hardcore Bigfoot proponent, who'd (presumably) focus almost entirely on the "Bigfoot tracks."
Your point about Patterson being in communication with Titmus is quite interesting. Is it not also possible that Patterson used the opportunity to plant ideas in Timus' head and/or figure out what sorts of details would impress him the most? |
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
11th February 2008, 07:13 PM | #11310 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
I must respectfully disagree. The type of mask used for that costume doesn't have overhanging "bib" portions, as evidenced in this video. Granted, he doesn't move his head like Patty did, but I think my point is clear.
Sweaty, I've noticed that you seem to think that someone in a storebought costume can't trick people into thinking they've seen a real animal. I feel that I should inform you that is not the case. Heck, this guy fooled people for two summers using only a gorilla mask! Since I'm on a gorilla suit links kick, here's a video on the guy who played the gorilla in the famous Cadbury ad. The person who uploaded that also uploaded this interesting video on gorilla suits. Wait a second...isn't Patty's head turn so special because "her" upper body moves instead of Patty simply turning "her" neck? Patty's neck does seem to twist a little, but (in my opinion) the upper body movement makes the "look back" sequence seem more impressive than it really is. |
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
12th February 2008, 02:28 AM | #11311 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
|
Dfoot isn't a professional costume designer and has been clear in pointing that out. Longtabber isn't either as far as I'm aware. He's just approaching it from the engineering point of view.
That leaves Bill Munns and academy award winner Chris Walas. You've read Chris' thread? |
12th February 2008, 02:46 AM | #11312 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
|
Agreed.....
I've been running 'the look back' sequence back. I also came to the conclusion that the upper body rotates more dramatically with the head during the look back. On the return the head snaps back more independantly IMHO. This would of course be where any material already under compression or folded would unfold rather than bunch up.
I'm far from convinced there's not some weirdness going on there. There seems to be a curious dark 'hump' (neck hackles, I know) at the back of the neck and I sometimes think that I see the back of the head sliding underneath this. |
12th February 2008, 10:44 AM | #11313 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Is there any mention of Bob and Roger running into anyone at Bluff Creek in the 1-2 weeks before the Filming? i.e. Are there any stories of other Bigfooters stopping by the area and running into Rog and Bob?
|
__________________
"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 |
|
12th February 2008, 10:55 AM | #11314 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
I didn't say that people can't be fooled by someone in a baggy gorilla suit.
Here is part of what I said in my post....
Quote:
As for those links you provided, AMM....those sighting reports are not comparable to Joyce's. Here are two quotes from the link about the guy fooling people with JUST a mask....(WOW!) ....
Quote:
Quote:
Joyce had no doubt at all that what they saw was a real creature. When I was talking to her on the phone, and in the middle of stating why I thought Bigfoot may well exist, she enthusiatically cut-in with... "Oh yeah, they're real!" She stated it very definitely, without the least bit of hesitation, or uncertainty. The combination of her certainty, coupled with the sun-lit, out-in-the-open conditions of the sighting, make it highly improbable that she and her daughter were fooled by a man in a cheap, baggy suit. |
__________________
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." |
|
12th February 2008, 11:51 AM | #11315 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
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? |
|
12th February 2008, 12:01 PM | #11316 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
JohnWS where is Chris Walas thread, here or BFF? In a way having the input of Dfoot, Longtabber, Bull Munns and Chris Walas is presenting a good cross secton of suit possibilities. If Dfoot isn't a pro and makes a decent suit then that puts Roger Pattersonin in the running as making the Bluff Creek suit. If only Bill Munns and Chris Walas come up with a good scenerio and or actual suit then this points to the Bluff Creek suit as having come from a pro. And that if nothing else ties in the cast of characters Dfoot has been uncovering. |
12th February 2008, 12:27 PM | #11317 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 243
|
It's over there. I'll send you the details there - not over keen of cross posting (that's just me ).
I don't mean to sound abrupt BTW, it's just I tend to type things as I'm thinking. Later when I review it I sometimes think - Hmmm that could've sounded better . |
12th February 2008, 02:46 PM | #11318 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
[quote=SweatyYeti;3427918]I didn't say that people can't be fooled by someone in a baggy gorilla suit.
Ah, I interpreted that as you saying that it was "extremely improbable" for someone to be fooled by a suit.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and since I have your attention, I'd like to thank you for posting this image: Why the thanks? Because it shows someone in the type of suit Crowlogic and I were talking about in a Patty-like pose without showing a "lobster bib." |
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
12th February 2008, 02:59 PM | #11319 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Sweaty, I find your credulity to be staggering. Your desire to try and rationalize your bigfoot beliefs is utterly transparent. I think it's about time to put the Joyce-capade to bed.
Thank you Atomic, you gave the exact same link that I was keeping in mind. Your wince-inducing credulity aside, Joyce and her daughter seeing a man in a suit (which you have no idea if it was baggy or not) in a cow pasture at the corner of NY 203 and State Farm Road in Valatie 25 years ago is far more probable than a living bigfoot and I'm going to explain it to you in explicit detail. After I've done so I'm quite sure you will continue to believe she saw a bigfoot and this will of course be nothing more than clear evidence that your desire to believe in bigfoot comes well before trying to exercise any manner of real critical thinking. Assumption. Joyce claimed the event to have happened in 1983 and submitted her report to the BFRO in 2002. That's 19 years after the fact. She described the sighting as being less than five minutes. A woman's judgement of time for an event she claims occurred 19 years prior is going to be vague at best. It could have been 15 seconds for all we know. It's interesting and very telling how you say the reports are not comparable and talk about the difference between a day and night sighting when you only know the Winnipeg incident involving the woman occurred at night. You were conspicuously silent about the 1977 bus hoax. I'm going to post Bigfoot Encounters entire entry on it and bold the best parts just for you:
Quote:
It's pretty obvious how credulous but let's just see how out in the open Joyce's sighting was. You said:
Quote:
Joyce claims that in May of 1983 between 5:30 and 6:00 pm that she and her daughter observed a hairy man-like beast at least seven feet tall in a cow pasture at the corner of NY 203 and State Farm Road in Valatie, New York. She said "He was getting up from what appeared to be from a crouching position to a standing position. I stopped the car suddenly. It glanced our way and then took off in the oppositite direction through the cow pasture." She described the creature's hair color as light brown and said "the hair covered his face except for his eyes and mouth." First let's get oriented. Map of New York highlighting Columbia County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...bia_County.svg Let's see where the Adirondacks are relative to Columbia County: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...achiansMap.jpg Let's see some pictures of Valatie: http://www.bettysproperties.com/Images/valatie.jpg http://www.lindenwald.com/album/home/valatiea.jpg http://www.css.cornell.edu/research/...%20167x293.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyarm/34721893/ Hey cows, you see any bigfoots around? Now let's get a good look at Route 203 and State Farm Road: http://www.valatie.presbychurch.org/.../direction.htm http://www.berkshiremaps.com/ And here's a heap of info, maps, and images of Valatie: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genIn...?locIndex=1831 You should now have a good idea just how probable Joyce's claim is. It is so ludicrous that for all intents and purposes I consider it impossible. Now, Sweaty, if you want to continue believing that Joyce and her daughter saw a bigfoot at the corner of NY 203 and State Farm Road and that bigfoots will appear in such places yet still remain unclassified that is certainly your right. If you continue to do so please don't use words like 'high probability' and the like. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the Joyce-capade for all rational people. For Sweaty, not so much. |
__________________
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 |
|
12th February 2008, 03:13 PM | #11320 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
You beat me to it again, Atomic. I've been spending way to much time looking at pictures and maps of lovely Valatie.
I'm going to go ahead and steal Sweaty's chance to obfuscate by bolding the parts that I know he'll want get windy about in his next post. He'd say that the nature of Joyce's report rules out ghillie suits and bears because of the mention of the lack of hair around the eyes and mouth and the way the 'creature' left. |
__________________
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|