|
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. |
8th April 2010, 09:54 AM | #841 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
OK, I'll provide some advice for Sweaty too. When you complete the work Odinn suggests and decide to post it here, please limit your fonts to a single size and color and refrain from using exclamation points. Do not use the word "irrefutable." Do not take the occasion as an opportunity to make a snide remark toward Kit or anyone else. Just make a mature, reasoned, and dispassionate presentation of your exact methods, analysis, and results. If you can do that, I'll read it and consider your work very carefully.
|
8th April 2010, 10:29 AM | #842 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Evidence stands on its own merits. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm not convinced BH was in the suit and I'm only reasonably certain that the figure is a person in a suit. If there is some data, any data, that challenges that reasonable certainty I for one will be thrilled to examine it.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th April 2010, 10:31 AM | #843 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th April 2010, 10:53 AM | #844 |
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 |
|
8th April 2010, 10:59 AM | #845 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
I do not believe BH was in the suit and have never held that position.
Sweaty has been dishonest in his dealing with me, imo, and that is the reason he is on ignore and gets the reception he gets. Way back when, Sweaty would ask me to take a position for the sake of the discussion, and would later post as if the position was my own and that I believed it. |
__________________
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? |
|
8th April 2010, 10:59 AM | #846 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I would be perfectly happy for Sweaty to move from scribbling on 2D images of 3D objects and start working with physical models. A change would be delicious.
Yes, but if anyone wants to play ping pong with reasons why we should/shouldn't thinks so, I'm game. |
__________________
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 |
|
8th April 2010, 11:00 AM | #847 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
8th April 2010, 11:22 AM | #848 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Get the real data if you really want it.
WADR, Sweaty most certainly does NOT have the same proportions as Bob H. had 43 years ago. Perhaps you could verify that, if you think he does.
Unfortunately, you don't have the ability to know when Bob's shoulders and arms are foreshortened and when they aren't. You apparently don't know functional human anatomy..."facing the camera" is virtually meaningless as far as determining foreshortening of the shoulder girdle and arm. Shoulder pads obviously have no effect on the length of the humerus. Are you trying to say they make the upper arm appear shorter? That is generally also incorrect, if you are referring to the appearance in a poor photo of a decent costume. Shoulder pads make the upper arm appear longer, because they make the shoulder appear higher, without affecting the position of the elbow. It is apparent to me that Sweaty/you think the Corvette photo shows that Bob H. had a clavicle/shoulder and arm that are short. To someone who doesn't understand the functional anatomy of the shoulder girdle, in that so-called frontal view his arm probably appears as shrunken as if he had a birth defect. He doesn't. He actually has long arms for his height. He's just holding his shoulder and arm in such a way that the multiple foreshortenings make it appear that way. Now, you can keep drawing lines on that photo and maybe it will give Sweaty something to do, but pretending that either that photo of Bob or one of some standin like Sweaty or his neighbors reflect Bob H.'s actual dimensions in 1967 is beyond naive, imho. If you want to measure limbs or bones, you have to measure the actual limbs or bones. What you are trying to measure, I am guessing, is the distance from the midline to the tip of the acromion, and YOU CAN'T DO IT on either "Patty" or Bob H from these photos. Now, certainly Sweaty could pose a bunch of his friends and play with their shoulders and arms...he might learn some functional anatomy. But if Sweaty wants to know what Bob H.'s dimensions really are, it's easy, he can go up to Yakima and talk to Bob H, who, unlike Bob G., will talk about the film. Sweaty can tell him he's a liar. Then Sweaty can ask to measure his shoulder and arm. I'm not so sure Sweaty would like to hear what he has to say; Bob might even take him over to neighbor Bob G's house and he could watch Bob G. run out the back door in terror of being confronted with the truth. And I'm sure you wouldn't like the results of the measurements if Sweaty got them. And you still wouldn't have that measurement on "Patty" to compare. But if you got the real data, you'd at least understand that Bob H. has nice long arms and clavicles. Oh, one more thing, the validity of "measurements" doesn't depend on the receptiveness of the audience. Why don't you have Sweaty propose this elbow scheme to an anatomist like Jeff Meldrum and see where it gets him? |
8th April 2010, 11:56 AM | #849 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
Just to get Sweaty on the right track, he must calibrate any images from the PGF that he uses for measurements. He has to demonstrate to us that the aspect ratio is correct for these images because very few images on the internets are. Some DVD players distort the aspect of frames extracted from the LMS. This makes any IMI measurements invalid.
But there is an easy way to correct and confirm that the aspect is true. There is a Rosetta Stone available for this, which is a scan of a full size frame from the PGF. Bill Munns has lots of them but Glickman published a full measured frame from the PGF for his paper, "Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon". The resolution of that digital image is pretty crappy, but the aspect ratio is accurate. And that's all that matters. Now we can superimpose a frame from the LMS to fit, which calibrates the image and corrects the aspect ratio. It turns out that the LMS version is a 50% zoomed copy of the original. I also had to compress the horizontal ~8% because my DVD player distorted the aspect. But now this image is calibrated for measuring. We know what the vertical angle of view is for a full frame from the PGF, so now we can determine the vertical & horizontal views for the LMS version of the PGF. We can then scale all the frames from the LMS accordingly to obtain a complete sequence from the PGF, which Sweaty can measure legitimately. |
8th April 2010, 12:12 PM | #850 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
parnassus wrote:
Quote:
My body proportions are closer to Bob's, circa 1967, than Bob's own dimensiions are, today. At least around the mid-section. But, from comparing my measurements to the measurements I've made from his '67 image...it looks as though our dimensions are very close...within an inch or two, for the most part. Thanks for the suggesstions, and comments...Odinn, Shrike, and company. I'll respond to them later on tonight, when I get some free time. |
__________________
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." |
|
8th April 2010, 12:21 PM | #851 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
How do you know that? I doubt there's much difference and if Sweaty fits inside the suit, then what's the objection?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th April 2010, 01:56 PM | #852 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
I do have enough time to respond to this...
parnassus wrote:
Quote:
I'm planning on doing exactly that, hopefully in the near future. Odinn wrote:
Quote:
I'll agree that, at times, my method of delivery can make it a little more difficult to accept......BUT......has any piece of 'Bigfoot evidence' recieved any acceptance....(i.e....been given any "weight")....by the "skeptics" here, over the past several years??? I don't think so. It's not really the 'delivery' that's getting in the way of the evidence being acknowledged to carry any weight...it's the word "Bigfoot" that's preventing it. |
__________________
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." |
|
8th April 2010, 02:47 PM | #853 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
No, it's the delivery. When people write in colors, boldface, and exclamation points, it vastly diminishes my confidence that they have anything of substance to contribute. It's sort of like the stereotype of the dude in the flashy car compensating for something . . .
|
8th April 2010, 03:00 PM | #854 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
Are you saying Sweaty has a.... Nah you wouldn't say that.
|
8th April 2010, 07:04 PM | #855 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 182
|
I'd have to say it's the substance, every time I've seen the guy post any images he starts playing with the aspect ratio, fudges measurements, playing with the colors and changing the image to try to prove his point.
So you say delivery, I say substance, how about we settle on the whole package? lol! |
8th April 2010, 09:14 PM | #856 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 538
|
When was Roge planning on breaking it out? After Patty swanned off the set? Oh, right...
RP shoots all but seconds, of half his supply, on filler, for a film he never actually bothered to finish, then goes to Patty HQ? Why? If the 2nd roll is adequate, for the task, why not finish off the last seconds of roll 1, on more horsey stuff, then load up a full roll before the date with destiny? What was he doing? Just shooting whatever? Patty's going to show up, anyway, so just shoot stuff, and she'll waltz into shot, then hang around for a roll change? The thing with RP, and the narrative from Footertown, about the PGF is that Roge is either an astute "artiste", or a simple cowpoke... Depending on which is needed to explain a contradiction, or logic hole. If he was an experienced enough film maker, to be employing the stop-start to conserve vital seconds, while under pressure, he shouldn't have been caught with the end of the roll for Patty's big scene. Here's a guy, that actually conducts drills in dismounting and camera extraction- in order to "be prepared" for the moment of truth... But when it comes to actually doing the shoot, it's- "like, whatever..."? The whole account of the trip, and what happened, when and why, is just weird. All of it. But he did run out of film, from shooting background scenes. As good as, anyway, with so little left on the roll. Changing the film wasn't a snap. Yes, it might be just a case of bad timing, maybe. But damn, how many oddities, contradictions and coinicidences can pile up in this story? And that still camera? Tres strange it wasn't used. I hear that. |
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian) |
|
8th April 2010, 09:46 PM | #857 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
No....it's the pre-determined judgement of some of the "critical thinkers" here, on this forum... William Parcher wrote:
Quote:
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
And there's plenty more where those came from...(just check out my signature line, for another sparkling example )... Vort wrote:
Quote:
That's true.....analysis of any of the evidence for Bigfoot can be checked, and tested, to determine if it's legitimate...or to see what 'degree of error' there may be, in it. It's actual SUBSTANCE...(the analysis, itself)...that carries WEIGHT.......not a 'slick, smooth sales pitch'. |
__________________
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." |
|
8th April 2010, 11:28 PM | #858 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Yeah, that's what I'm expecting...for the most part. But, I do think there are a few resident skeptics who have enough intellectual honesty, and integrity, that they'd be willing to acknowledge a certain point is correct.
Quote:
I plan on doing that. I can take a couple of pictures of any particular pose....from different angles-of-view, one at the same 'angle-of-view' as in the Film...and one from either directly behind, or directly from the side...whichever one is appropriate for that bit of analysis. Then the 'degree of error' introduced by the (40-deg.) 'angled-view' can be precisely...and unambiguously....determined.
Quote:
I agree with your (highlighted) point, Odinn. One specific example of it would be the 'Arm Gap' measurements. If Bob's...(in a suit)...maximum 'arm gap triangle' Area is less than Patty's minimum...then it's pretty much 'all over' for Bob. We have Bob's maximum...so we only need Patty's minimum number. And.....that can be determined.....we have the technology.... That's all I have time to respond to, right now. Thanks for the advice/info. |
__________________
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." |
|
9th April 2010, 04:29 AM | #859 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Unfortunately, whether Sweaty uses a 2D photo, or a 3D model, his lack of mathematical abilities, coupled with his inability to write a statement without his emotions bubbling over in the form of Colors, Giant Letters, and Angry Rants, would lead to the same result.
And it has nothing to do with whether BH is in the suit, it's the execution of the measurements/execution of the BIG FONTS and FUNKADELIC COLORATION, not the focus of the argument that makes me gag. Examples: Is Drewbot gagging because Sweaty is saying BH isn't in the suit, or because of the ridiculousness of the following claim?
Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
|
__________________
"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 |
|
9th April 2010, 06:48 AM | #860 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Drewbot wrote:
Quote:
I stand by that claim/statement of mine....100%. Patty is allegedly "Bob-in-a-suit".....so, therefore, one should be able to produce a picture of Bob.....padded-out, in a suit....which replicates exactly the dimensions that we see with Patty...(Patty's apparent dimensions). kitakaze will NEVER produce such a picture. It's not wrong for me to think, or to say, such a thing...because I base it on measurements that I've made. kitakaze can prove me wrong, if he wants.........if he can. |
__________________
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." |
|
9th April 2010, 07:01 AM | #861 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
A person's bare arm is never going to measure the same as a person's arm in a costume. How can you argue that?
Of course no one is going to find a photo of a buff BH padded out in a suit, and furthermore, the chance of him being at the same angle as Patty in the photo is even more remote. |
__________________
"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 |
|
9th April 2010, 09:53 AM | #862 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Well, he had 25% of the roll left. The rolls are roughly 4 minutes at normal frame rates. You can only run about 40 feet of film at a stretch anyway. Less than 2 minutes. Then you have to wind her up again.
That's assuming you remembered to wind it up fully before you had to start filming. If not, you only have however many feet are shown on the gauge, regardless of what's left on the roll of film. If you were already filming background scenes, and then sasquatch suddenly appears, you'd only be able to film for however much spring power you have left. Roger was fortunate to have enough film left in the camera, and to have the camera wound up enough, when he encountered Patty. I suppose it's barely possible to wind while you film, but that adds another level of acrobatics to this game. It apparently doesn't take long to load that camera at all. Not that you'd want to be caught with an empty camera when sasquatch sashays slowly across in front of you. If only we could see a few of these original rolls, and learn how much film was used and when. |
__________________
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? |
|
9th April 2010, 10:00 AM | #863 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
With regards to the 'elbow reach', relative to a person's backbone....padding can't alter that length, by any significant amount. But regardless of how much it can, or can't alter that length....what I'm saying is that kitakaze will not be able to produce a picture of Bob....padded, or unpadded...that exactly...(or, within a very small percentage difference)...replicates the apparent 'elbow-reach' of Patty...(as it appears in the image I've been using, with the approx. 40-degree angle-of-view).
Quote:
The angle-of-view that Patty is seen at is approximately 40 degrees....so, knowing that, there isn't any reason why an extremely close replication of the image in question can't be produced. All kitakaze would have to do is to take pictures of Bob at several different angles...(at small, 5 degree increments)...with him in the same pose....and one of them would be a near-exact replication. This is a pretty simple thing to accomplish. It's only people who are looking for a reason why it can't be done, who would propose that the "chances are remote", that it ever could be. |
__________________
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." |
|
9th April 2010, 10:15 AM | #864 |
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 |
|
9th April 2010, 10:16 AM | #865 |
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 |
|
9th April 2010, 10:21 AM | #866 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
9th April 2010, 10:58 AM | #867 |
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 |
|
9th April 2010, 11:29 AM | #868 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
While I don't find anything hoaxy regarding the funny little oddities with the various copies of the PGF, or Dr Patty WHO doing funky time loops (hang on my toast is burning) skipping back a few grooves, like an old record player that needs a few more coins taped to the needle arm. I am fine with that. I am sure it is all just splicing anomalies added somewhere along the copying process. (Hang on! I wasn't making toast?)
I see Gimlin's face on Patty's arm, almost as crazy as a 20 foot Gimlin back in the trees. I hear Patterson was quite gifted at making things |
9th April 2010, 09:31 PM | #869 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
Originally Posted by wolftrax
Originally Posted by William Parcher
Originally Posted by Óðinn
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
10th April 2010, 08:30 PM | #870 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
|
11th April 2010, 08:18 AM | #871 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Here is a better look at the comparison of the 'Arm Gap Triangles'....posted side-by-side, and downsized by 75%...
I arranged them left-to-right in order of increasing area of the largest triangles, in each image. In Bob's case, the large triangles represent the arm at a 45-deg.angle...and, in Patty's case, the arm is somewhere close to 45 degrees. I've circled the areas of the largest triangles. The area of Patty's triangle should be equal to 'Bob-in-a-suit's' triangle....but it's not even close....instead, it's significantly larger. The reason for that would be due to either one of two scenarios.... 1) distortion of the numbers, due to Patty being viewed at an angle...or... 2) Patty being an un-padded animal..(human, or Bigfoot), with an unusually long humerus bone. Personally...I'm betting on the latter scenario being the reason. A physical model will show just what the actual reason is....with 100%.....(reliable)....certainty. |
__________________
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 April 2010, 10:50 AM | #872 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
The primary assertion is that Sweaty and Bob H. have the same proportions. It is a priori unlikely. That is what keeps tailors in business and makes clothing stores carry a lot of different sleeve lengths, etc. You bear the burden of proving it. The entire issue is proportions, are you are begging the question.
Well then why don't you come to my home and do it, instead of trying to find somebody who by all odds doesn't have my exact proportions? And you will never know what the actual dimensions of the suited person were anyway, because you don't know the thickness of the padding or how it fit the person in the suit. actually the shoulder is one of the worst parts of the costume, along with the ridiculus butt and the thigh and the leg and Roger's boobs, and ...well, gee, just about the whole thing. As you know, the subject in the film wasn't raising his arm, so you won't see maximal distortion. Even as we see it, the supposed deltoid muscle is the wrong shape and makes a squarish bulge over the humerus, the scapula is the wrong shape. You can't show me a "muscle" that contracts. The entire arm looks like a game of ring toss. Most of which you can see here. Of course, you can't "see" that, partly because you don't know anatomy and partly because you're blinded to the evidence, imho. How can you "measure points of articulation"? a point of articulation is not a distance or an angle or a mass. Tell me how you measure a point? I'm sure mathematics can use such a revolutionary concept. I think of "them" as bones because that is what "they" are. How can you find the olecranon in a photo of a blurry padded costume? You are trying to make padded blurred blobs, "about 40 degree" angles projected onto a single plane, stand-ins, and foreshortened photos into actual inches on a human body. Now, if you want to get inches, you can measure the length of bones on Bob H., specifically the distance from his midline to the acromion and to his olecranon and wrist and tips of his fingers. That is about all you can put much reliance on. If you are trying to address the issue of proportion, rather than measurement, then I think that issue was put to bed a long time ago, by Bill Munns among many others, including people here, and you're just wasting everyone's time. "validity" of his measurements? are you playing with words or don't you know what they mean? valid? you mean can he use a ruler? well, kind of...do his rulers and measurements and lines have any meaning in this context? of course not... even you admit that. He thinks, or at least says, that he proved something. Even you obviously don't agree, do you? In that sense, his conclusions from his measurements aren't valid and even you admit it. |
11th April 2010, 11:25 AM | #873 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Long story short, what Sweaty is trying to do is somehow obfuscate the fact that the subject of the PGF has normal human bony proportions.
He/she/it tries to do this by dragging in some fantasy about angles and "width" , to make it seem as if this "width" is somehow not determined by the length of the involved chain of bones from the vertebral column/sternum through the clavicle, scapula, humerus, ulna and radius to the tips of the fingers. Mathematically, geometrically, trigonometrically (sp?), anatomically, this "width" does not exist as an entity separate from the length of the articulated bones. |
11th April 2010, 12:06 PM | #874 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
SweatyYeti......wrote:
Quote:
Gee...parnassus uses big words. I'll elaborate on my earlier graphic, later. |
__________________
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 April 2010, 12:08 PM | #875 |
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 |
|
11th April 2010, 12:20 PM | #876 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I don't think Sweaty has the mental clarity to recognize that the ransom note posts do little more than irritate normal adults.
|
__________________
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 |
|
11th April 2010, 12:38 PM | #877 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Sweaty, in the above post you made it clear that my statement was unreasonable and also made without having first examined the situation. I said your head would catch on fire before you could explain why what you believe in is not insanity. Here's a promise...
You can't do it. You are unable. You won't do that because while you have severe fortean addiction, you do maintain enough self-awareness to realize that if you try to go ahead and rationalize the Bigfoot-Bigfoot-everywhere nonsense, your tenuous grasp on reality will quickly present itself. |
__________________
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 |
|
11th April 2010, 12:40 PM | #878 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Here is one little .gif I put together that I believe shows the independent movement of the upper arm and shoulder ..
Plus, see how goofy the shoulder looks .. ( As noted by parnassus.. ) Here is another .gif that captures the shoulder problem .. Here is another angle on the ' Ring Toss ' arms ... Our suit expert, Bill Munns, has explained that this is a dead give-away for padding .. ( From the Munns Report ) |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
11th April 2010, 01:01 PM | #879 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
If Roger Patterson did not film Bob Heironimus in a Bigfoot suit at Bluff Creek, why does Bob describe the trip almost perfectly and in such a way only possible by someone who actually has been to Bluff Creek in 1967?
|
__________________
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 |
|
11th April 2010, 03:39 PM | #880 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
excellent images.
see the middle diagram of how the deltoid should taper into a point as it comes down from the acromion onto the insertion on the lateral aspect of the humerus. now see this image, showing "Patty's" concave (!!!) insertion of the "deltoid:" http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fa...cp_1697700.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
|
|