|
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. |
4th March 2010, 04:22 PM | #361 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Cheers, Óðinn. I get all Jeff Goldblum just thinking about it. BTW, if I was a government, I'd want you for the opposition.
Quote:
There is also the fact that BH has always been a fairly quiet fellow. If he really was looking to get attention and soothe his wounded ego, you think he would have rocked the boat a lot harder. He didn't do that. He kept it limited to a few people in his wee little town. He kept acting like a guy waiting for the $1000 dollars he was promised and then acted like a guy that wasn't overly go get 'em when he he didn't get that money. Makes sense to me.
Quote:
Shortstop and Tonto and Slim and Tex and Cooter and the rest, those are your boys. So Shortstop and Tonto take a break from the Bigfoot movie they're putting you in and take your great big horse Chico down to California for like a whole month and come back jumping up and down with an actual female Bigfoot on film (which looks just like the one drew in his book last year). You're all screwed up with jealousy and dagnabit, you miss Chico, and you go ahead and start telling people that you were the ladyfoot. Don't you expect Shortstop and Tonto and Slim and Tex and Cooter and the rest to come roll over you like a ton of bricks?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Working title is 9 Doors Apart... |
__________________
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 March 2010, 06:08 PM | #362 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
|
Kit:
Wishing you success in interviewing Bob H. Questions you may want to ask Bob H. 1. Could you describe the parts of the suit and the sequence of dressing into it? Also, can you describe these particulars: a. head mask, was anything inside it, or was it just a thin rubber mask? b. body suit, was it in one or two pieces, and if more than one piece, what part of the body did each piece cover, and which piece was worn first? c. gloves, where there any and were they separate from the arm sleave or attached to the sleave? d. feet, were they separate from the leg fur or attached? e. Was there any inner padding, or football shoulder padding, worn under the fur? 2. What were you wearing when you put the suit on? example: Normal clothes (like jeans and shirt), long johns, socks, shoes, boots, ? 3. Was the costume loose fitting or snug when you wore it? 4. Were various suit pieces connected and held together by zippers, buttons, hook & eye devices, snaps, or velcro? 5. Hip waders have been mentioned as being in the suit. If so, were they put on before the fur suit, or were they fixed in the fur suit so your foot and leg slipped into the wader as it went into the costume? 6. When you were dressed up, and Roger had the camera ready to film, who decided how you should act and move? Who chose the path that was eventually walked? Was there any reason why none of the footage showed you fully facing the camera before walking away? The film shows you just walking and walking further and further away. How did you know when to stop walking and that the filming was done, so you could turn around and walk back? 7. Why did you look back at the camera? 8. Did your walking while being filmed make the trackway footprints later cast by Roger and Titmus, or were those added later? 9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? 10. Did you try the costume on before that day, to see how it would fit, and if so, where and on what day? 11. Did you breathe through the mask nose or mouth? Aside from the holes around the eyes to see out of, were there any other holes in the mask face? 12. Could you remove the face mask by yourself, after you were done, or did you need one of the other guys to help you get the mask off? Bill |
4th March 2010, 06:09 PM | #363 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Here's a question for you, Sweaty. How's your Ballzheimers?
Answer: bad. Remember this?
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Of course not. Let me help you... Howard Heironimus, Bob's brother, said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse. Those are words coming from Roger Patterson, not Bob. So the answer to your poor attempt at discrediting Bob would be he doesn't know, that's just what his brother said he heard from Roger. Oops for you, Sweaty faceplants again. Try to keep up, old boy...
Originally Posted by William Parcher in 411 PGF
|
__________________
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 March 2010, 06:09 PM | #364 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
I'd love to see any documentation on that, even a newspaper article where Patterson says that. I think this is one of those types of rumors that grew legs on it's own. I thought you were a man of facts? You aren't getting all Sweaty on us are you? |
4th March 2010, 06:24 PM | #365 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Thank you for the questions, Bill. They are all good. Regardless of our perspectives on the PGF, I'm thinking our Bigfootery lives are about to get very interesting. You'll be interested to know that I will also be speaking with Philip Morris, Greg Long and a number of other people very soon. I will also be approaching some publishing and production companies to discuss my interview project.
|
__________________
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 March 2010, 10:29 PM | #366 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Well, according to John Green...these are Heironimus' words...
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...esponse_si.htm Even if Bob H. was wrong about the 'horse-hide' construction, there's still a serious problem with his claim that the "suit stunk". Because...if Patty was a suit.....the suit would have to have had an inner core....specially designed....due to it's bulk...(front-to-back, and side-to-side)...and it's distinctively curved contour. Notice the smoothly curved shape of the upper back, all the way up to the back of Patty's head....and the contour of the shoulder blade area....along with Patty's extreme upper-torso width....all of which would have been designed features, requiring an 'inner core muscle suit', underneath the fur... An inner core, this sophisticated, would have most likely been designed by a professional...and, thus, would have been rather costly. So, it makes absolutely no sense that the suit would have "stunk", at all....(due to either the nature of the material used, or to it being allowed to get wet, and become moldy.) One likely material to be used, which would have been inexpensive, and rigid enough to hold it's shape, would have been some kind of foam rubber....but that material doesn't normally have a bad smell. So...why would it have stunk?? Also from the article...
Quote:
There is, also, a major problem with Heironimus' claim that he "didn't know what the suit was made of"... Given the nature of the alleged "suit"....(having a specially-designed inner-core, with it's massive bulk, distinctive contour, and flexibility).....along with the "fact" that Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironimus took this very long trip together, out into a mountainous wilderness, to make a movie with it.....how could it be that Roger NEVER, at any point in that trip....ever mentioned anything to Bob Heironimus about the construction of such an impressive suit??? Was it NOT note-worthy????? Roger NEVER ONCE thought to say to Bob..."Hey, check this thing out..." And, in addition to that, HOW could Bob have NOT NOTICED it, while putting it on??? It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that something like that ever actually happened. |
__________________
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." |
|
4th March 2010, 10:48 PM | #367 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Look in the mirror, kitakaze....as you huddle in your little corner, going nowhere near any of my measurements of Patty's and Bob's elbows....in total fear of REALITY. I noticed that you failed to address the elbow-reach measurements, yet again...in this post of yours. You can't show 'where, and to what extent', there are any significant errors in my measurements of Patty's, and Bob's elbow-reaches....can you? From kitakaze... "Let's put aside elbows for a moment"... |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 01:46 AM | #368 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
These are the words of Heironimus according to Heironimus...
"Roger told my brother Howard he made the whole thing out of horsehide. Roger had skinned a red horse and attached or glued fur from and old fur coat onto the horsehide skin." "It weighed maybe twenty, twenty-five pounds. It was a little heavy. Nothing to make me uncomfortable or anything. You could feel the weight. Horsehide would be heavy." "It was dark, real dark brown." "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse" Bob also said that the suit was stiff from his waist to his shoulders. Do your homework.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Heironimus says they went the next day to the film site about half a mile from the campsite. They shot the film in one take. After they returned to the camp they spoke for a while before Patterson and Gimlin said they had to return to make the tracks. They then drove Heironimus in Gimlin's truck back to Heironimus' car and gave him the suit and the film which he was to mail in Eureka. Bob H drove to Eureka where he mailed the film, stayed the night and drove back to Yakima the next day. According to BH's story he was with RP and BG for a short time in the evening and the early part of the next day at Bluff Creek. Your special pleading that there must have been an inner core muscle suit and all your giant text and boggled smilies about Roger not discussing the design of said inner core to Bob in all that very long time they were together is complete garbage. Once again the skeptic knows the fact better than the Bigfoot enthusiast. Try doing your homework before you go on your giant text, smiley-abusing flights of fancy. Oops for you, another faceplant. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 02:14 AM | #369 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 03:33 AM | #370 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Bob Heironimus on the suit the first time he wore it from The Making of Bigfoot...
"It was made of three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head." "Yeah. I sat down on a log and took my boots off and slipped my legs into the legs of the suits, which felt like they were hip boots or wading boots, you know, those long boots that go up to your waist. My feet slipped into the feet of the suit. I think the feet were made of those old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them. They had wrinkles on the bottom of them, you know" "Yeah. All I can say is it felt like rubber boots." On the day Patterson filmed him... "We dismounted and unloaded the sack. I had to kind of sit down an pull it [the suit] on. It was stiff from about here [he gestured from the waist up]. They kind of helped me up and put the top on." |
__________________
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 05:48 AM | #371 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
This comparison shows the significantly different lengths of Bob's and Patty's 'upper arms', in proportion to their body heights...(Patty's, of course, being longer )...
This comparison is consistent with...and supports...what the elbow-reach measurements for Bob and Patty show. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 06:00 AM | #372 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 06:03 AM | #373 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Neither of those two posts SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are any errors in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach. You can't deal with those measurements DIRECTLY....so you resort to your little Poser 7 dollies. Nice work, kitakaze! When you get a minute, can you shake your Poser 7 skelly at that graphic I just posted......and make Bob's elbow "all better"!! |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 06:07 AM | #374 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
The graphic shows that when the length from Bob's and Patty's 'eyes to their elbows' are matched-up....their knee joints are then significantly mis-matched. Those points....the eyes, the elbows, and the knees...are all unaffected...(and un-movable)...by padding. So the difference must be due to a difference in skeletal lengths/proportions. (If Patty and Bob were re-scaled, to make their eyes and their knees match-up...then their elbows would be significantly mis-matched. Either way....Bob loses.) |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 06:11 AM | #375 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 06:20 AM | #376 | |||
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
The simple concept of making two-dimensional degree measurements on a three-dimensional subject as if it were a stick man eludes you. After you've had some coffee stick your hands in your pockets and move your elbows back and forth to see if it dawns on you.
I can talk elbows. Can you talk about Bob H's connection to Patterson and Gimlin? Can you talk about the siginificant evidence Roger faked Patty's tracks? Is it really that hard to even try or what?
Quote:
Oops for you. |
|||
__________________
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 |
||||
5th March 2010, 06:40 AM | #377 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
The length from the eye to the elbow is unmovable?
Tylenol. Extra strength. Make it so. Just for 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 |
|
5th March 2010, 07:26 AM | #378 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 10:15 AM | #379 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
Yep, I like the facts. And I have no idea whether Patterson actually passed a polygraph exam. There are indications that he did, like BH. But I haven't seen an independent review of BH's tests either. It is my understanding that he hasn't released them, so what good are they? No better than RP's "alleged" polygraph, IMO. When we get the facts maybe that will change. In the meantime...
I did a very quick search on the BFF for "Polygraph+Patterson" and here's an early reference by David Murphy to RP taking a polygraph.
Originally Posted by MoMoMurphy May 18 2005, 01:30 AM
Where's the link to the results of BH's polygraphs? Just the facts please. |
5th March 2010, 10:22 AM | #380 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Yup. In Patty's case......the 'length from the eyes to the elbow-joint'...for any particular arm-angle...(in any direction)....could not have been changed, or altered by padding. This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located. (The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.) Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding...then the length 'from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor, must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles. In Bob's case....they don't match. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 11:59 AM | #381 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
I never claimed, or supported the claim, that BH either took or passed a polygraph.
There's a fact for ya. This business about RP's alleged polygraph test seems to be nothing more than another weak attempt to bolster the story, in fact unlike some of the other anecdotes this one only seems to come up when the claim of BH’s polygraph is mentioned. |
5th March 2010, 12:28 PM | #382 |
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. |
|
5th March 2010, 12:30 PM | #383 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
blackdog wrote:
Quote:
Likewise....in Bob's case, it would also be WEAK evidence in bolstering his story. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 12:33 PM | #384 |
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. |
|
5th March 2010, 12:50 PM | #385 |
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. |
|
5th March 2010, 01:06 PM | #386 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
|
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
5th March 2010, 01:07 PM | #387 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
A-ha. Fascinating...
Simple question, Sweaty, just for clarity's sake about the central concept here for the point you're attempting to score... If I stand in profile from a distance of a point of observation, person, camera, whatever, and I move arms outward away from my body, would the distance between my eyes and elbows appear to change? Yes or no.
Quote:
Sweaty, as you can see I have no fear whatsoever engaging you on elbows or any other point you'd like to discuss. Could you please address the point and questions I've posted about BH's connection to Patterson and Gimlin, as well as the evidence of Roger faking Patty's tracks? |
__________________
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 01:24 PM | #388 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Sweaty, let's try a quick experiment to test your claim that "the eye-to-elbow length is unmovable".
Go ahead and lower your head on your shoulders without moving your arm or elbow. I'll wait for a moment while you do this. Did you notice how your eyeline -- entrenched in the middle of your head as it is -- moved downward when you moved your head downward? Would you agree, then, with the observation that this downward movement of the eyeline reduces the distance between the eye and the elbow? Do you see now what Kitakaze, and everyone else with a rational mind capable of grasping reasonable concepts, is talking about? And it doesn't matter if you introduce the adverbial phrase "by padding" into this observation, since in the two pictures you insist on comparing, the subjects' heads are located at different points on the shoulders. It's got nothing to do with padding. |
__________________
"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 |
|
5th March 2010, 01:25 PM | #389 |
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. |
|
5th March 2010, 01:29 PM | #390 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I'm assuming it was for affect. You know, use a great big picture, cut off a foot... whatever gets the affect you're after. Just like he did here...
We can always rely on Sweaty to cut corners (or feet!) and manipulate things to fit his preconceived notion. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 01:42 PM | #391 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
|
WP:
"Nearly all of your questions have already been answered by Bob. You really have stayed away from everything surrounding the PGF and only focused on the thing seen on the film. " It's my understanding that a good investigation does ask a person the same questions asked previously, to test the continuity or consistancy of the interviewee's testimony. Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? " WP: "Would Bigfoot costume feet ever be smaller than the wearer's feet? " The alternative to costume feet larger than your own is costume feet the same size as your own. |
5th March 2010, 01:43 PM | #392 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Vort resorts to insults.....of course. It's the JREF way. Vort....I am not claiming that the length between a person's eyes and their elbow cannot change. Of course it does. But, it cannot be altered with padding....(in this particular case, that we're dealing with.) In the comparison graphic I posted earlier today...Bob's and Patty's arms are at slightly different angles, in their swing...and those different angles create an 'error factor'.....which can be easily corrected for. The same thing holds true if the heads are held at different angles. Any minor error factor can be adjusted/corrected for, in these comparisons. But, nonetheless.....the principle I explained earlier...
Quote:
....still holds true. Like it or not. Now, since Vort is using the "lawyer speak" defense.........to hold on to his "Bobby Dream".....I'll add to that statement...
Quote:
Happy now? Vort wrote:
Quote:
Now what do I do??? Can I raise it now, Vort.....I need to go to the bathroom....... |
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 01:47 PM | #393 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 01:56 PM | #394 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
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." |
|
5th March 2010, 01:59 PM | #395 |
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 |
|
5th March 2010, 02:04 PM | #396 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
|
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
5th March 2010, 02:25 PM | #397 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Rock, I saw other mentions of Bundy passing polygraph (even passing twice) but none had any references. Maybe it's a myth.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
5th March 2010, 02:29 PM | #398 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
So Bill - since you seem to now understand this very important point - why do you pretend that the analysis of the film is of any importance when the facts are that Gimlin's and Patterson's own words show them to be liars?
Their stories changed in major points in pretty well each telling and they contradict themselves and each other in huge, glaring ways. The multiple and impossible lies regarding how the film was sent for developing must shake you to the very core. Or - are you only interested in applying your new found investigative skills to everybody except Patterson and Gimlin? |
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
5th March 2010, 02:33 PM | #399 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
Rambling thoughts:
* Any photo comparisons must ensure that each photo has the correct aspect ratio. When pictures get digitized and cropped they have a funny habit of getting stretched. You need the full frame and camera specs to confirm the aspect ratio is true. None of these images have this. * These are 3D objects projected onto a 2D surface. If there is ANY foreshortening that cannot be accounted AND corrected for, then the comparisons lie. * Horizontal lines cannot be used to connect/compare body parts unless they are in the EXACT same 3D orientation, which is very tricky to confirm. * All comparisons MUST use the LENGTH of a body part where the ends are points of articulation. These endpoints must be determined using body markers that are tracked over MANY frames as the body articulates thru the walk cycle. * The Posers can NOT approximate the orientation of Patty if there is any foreshortening of her body parts (which of course there is). Any Poser overlay on an "undistorted" frame from the PGF, that does not fit exactly tells us they do not match. This is the only information that can be gleaned from a scaled comparison. You can only claim that the Poser dimensions match Patty's if EVERY frame fits, perfectly. That has never been the case here. * The Posers can ONLY be used as a tool to test a model against Patty. A Poser that doesn't have the same dimensions as Patty can still be made to fit over her foreshortened body parts. The fact that some frames didn't fit shows the failing of this approach. You can't prove an average sized human would fit in the suit this way, even with an animation. However, with a single frame you can demonstrate that an averaged sized human does NOT fit. * Only "unforeshortened" body parts should be used for photo comparisons. We need to track a body part and measure where it's length is at it's greatest relative to the height (constant). At that point there is minimal foreshortening. Track all the body parts this way to build your 3D model. * The 1st step is to scale "up" each frame to simulate a const distance from the camera because Patty's images get smaller as she moves away from the camera. MK Davis (or Rick Noll) did this for the sequence that MANGLER used for his animation, but I don't trust MK's stuff. And who knows what the aspect ratio is for those images? They were microscoped. * In summary, IMO the best bet for photo comparisons between Bob H and Patty is to find similarly foreshortened images of their limbs and scale them to match their LENGTHS (not vertical diff or height off the ground, etc.). The same body parts must be used, which must match in 3D orientation. They also must be the same approx. distance from the camera and shot preferably with the same camera. And of course they must have the correct aspect. A reliable comparison is already pretty restrictive. Which limb bone would be best for this? Arms can be disguised in a suit, but not so much the elbow. Patty's elbows articulate enough to identify them, IMO. But the premise of a limb comparison should be: "Here is the limb inside the suit and here is the actor's limb outside the suit. We can scale them to the same size if they are similarly foreshortened. When you do that, you're left with the size of the suit the actor wore. So then howz the fit?" Rambling off.. |
5th March 2010, 02:37 PM | #400 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
I too have seen references to him passing lie detector tests - but I don't remember any actual first person reporting of same.
I took a senior level investigator course many years ago in which his taped interviews were part of the curriculum. I don't remember any discussion of him taking a polygraph. But - like I said - my memory could be faulty. |
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|