|
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. |
16th April 2008, 06:22 AM | #41 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
16th April 2008, 06:28 AM | #42 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
I have not done a single bit of counter-analysis simply because what you have presented so far is subjective interpretation of a blurry video. I keep asking for numbers and you keep claiming you do analysis, which is subjective. You also claim there is more evidence but you refuse to present it here in this forum.
Wait a sec....didn't you say it was too massive to be a mask? How is something only 8" tall "too massive"? Seems to me, a mask would be right about that height. It appears you have drawn a false conclusion in your subjective interpretation then (that it is too massive to be a mask). |
16th April 2008, 06:54 AM | #43 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
No, you are wrong, if not delusional. You were on BFF, SFB, and all the other places that banned you cuz they gotten sick of your pointless obsession with pixelated video, blobs and your condescending attitude....
You can look at what little resolution there is and tell the thing on the guys back is a back pack, and nothing more. Your so called analysis has only done thing, reinforce your tinfoil hat theory because it's obvious you see what you want to see, not WHAT'S THERE...... |
16th April 2008, 10:49 AM | #44 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Astro wrote;
Quote:
Yes...I said I think the object appears too large, or massive, to be a simple mask. Here's one still that gives me a reason to say that... A mask worn on the face is usually on the thin side.Does the object, in that frame...seen from the side...look very thin to you? It doesn't to me. It looks to be roughly about the same width as the subject's head. If, on the other hand, it was an infant sitting on the subject's shoulders...then it's head would probably extend up above the subject's head by several inches (maybe 8" or so), while it's lower body would blend in with the subject's shoulder area. |
__________________
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." |
|
16th April 2008, 11:12 AM | #45 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
This is terrible analysis, Sweaty. The "infant" (blue) is much too large to be sitting on a shoulder of the running figure. If you measure the infant from the bottom of its butt (on the shoulder) to the top of its head - that measurement is about the same height as the length of the runner's right arm. This means that the infant is nearly as tall (standing) as the running subject.
It can't be an infant because it is too tall. The shoulder is not big enough for the huge 'infant' to sit on. That 'infant' is big enough to run alongside the main subject. This is ridiculous! |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
16th April 2008, 11:30 AM | #46 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
That's one hell of an infant you've got there, Lady Bigfoot.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
16th April 2008, 11:37 AM | #47 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Parcher, Your MSPAINT skills are rivaling my own.
I must commend you |
__________________
"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 |
|
16th April 2008, 11:42 AM | #48 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
If you lay a mask flat, it looks pretty wide. What prevents the mask from being held in such a way that it appears broad to the camera?
Hmmm.....If the object was as wide as the subject's head, might it not fit "over" the subject's head? Doesn't this mean that it might be (gasp) a mask? Instead, the "logical" deduction you reach is that it is too massive to be a mask and is, therefore, not a mask. The only person you seem to be convincing so far is yourself. |
16th April 2008, 11:43 AM | #49 |
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 |
|
16th April 2008, 11:44 AM | #50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
16th April 2008, 12:13 PM | #51 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
It seems like the options for the running figure are these:
1) A person intending to look like a Bigfoot (a hoax). 2) A person with no intent to look like a Bigfoot (not a hoax). 3) A real Bigfoot. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
16th April 2008, 01:00 PM | #52 |
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 |
|
16th April 2008, 02:03 PM | #53 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Right, but that falls under the options for the viewers, not the runner.
I really can't tell what I am seeing, but some enlarged still frames from the LMS DVD look fairly clear. For me, it does look like the subject is removing some piece(s) of apparel and holding or swinging the item(s) after reappearing from behind the hill. Looks like the various posters in this thread have chosen all three options for the runner (hoaxer, no hoax intended, and Bigfoot). I'm stuck between option 1 and 2. I'd need much better animations and stills before deciding that the runner was definitely trying to look like a Bigfoot (hoaxer). Drew, I know you put work into your paintballer theory, but I think you are into "MK Davis territory" with that. Patty has a hair braid, and your runner wears a Stetson hat. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
16th April 2008, 03:32 PM | #54 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
I agree. Trying to read too much into these blurry videos is taking a leap from scientific analysis towards pseudoscientific analysis. These clips are not going to confirm anything. It can be considered a more likely possibility than a bigfoot with an infant because we know that paint ballers do exist. However, I would not go any farther than that. It is too much like seeing faces in the clouds. You see what you want to see.
|
16th April 2008, 03:50 PM | #55 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,929
|
|
__________________
“... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson |
|
17th April 2008, 04:51 AM | #56 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
The Paintballer Theory was developed in order to show the ABSURDITY of these people thinking they were seeing a bigfoot. Of course you can't determine what type of person is running across the hill, but me adamantly defending the paintball theory was intended to paralell the defense of the Bigfoot argument. Someone would get an email saying paintball is illegal on the hill, and I would get statements from Paintballers saying it is done, and from park rangers saying things like 'as long as youre safe it's fine'. Someone would say look at the baby being lifted and I would show them a sharpened picture next to a Paintball mask. Either way, now, the MDF is basically not considered evidence of bigfoot even by most proponents. |
__________________
"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 |
|
17th April 2008, 07:05 AM | #57 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
|
17th April 2008, 07:08 AM | #58 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
|
18th April 2008, 06:05 PM | #59 |
Student
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 47
|
I thought this footage was debunked ages ago..To me it looks like a human in a baggy furry suit, running , not very athletically, across the field. The resolution is too poor to
make out anything worthwhile. It's not moving very gracefully, and it moves exactly like a human. What was the decision on the Hoffman Footage? |
19th April 2008, 11:46 AM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
If you reach over behind your neck with one hand to get at the neck of a mask or hood, your elbow can stick straight up.
Reaching across in front will tend to obscure your vision, because your elbow winds up in front of your eyes. Probably not a good idea while you're running. Peeling a hood off, your elbow would come down, but your hand and the hood have to go a little higher than your head. I think it's a guy in a ghillie suit, possibly with a short cape attached to the hood, peeling off the hood because he was getting hot after running. |
19th April 2008, 07:04 PM | #61 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
20th April 2008, 02:24 PM | #62 |
Student
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 47
|
I actually meant Freeman footage..I had a girlfriend in High School with big feet named Beth Hoffman..coinsidence??
|
20th April 2008, 05:30 PM | #63 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
That's a fake as well. Even if you ignore that the Freeman Bigfoot looks similar to the costumes shown here and here (00:37) in the "normal view" and has some similarities to the costumes shown here, here (00:26), and here (02:34) when seen in an enlarged view of the film, there's still the fact that Freeman is an admitted hoaxer. The BFF folder on the film is full of problems with the film and Freeman's reputation. I especially like how a poster there, quoting either Grover Krantz or Jeff Meldrum, tried to gloss over how Freeman faked tracks in his old neighborhood and was apparently involved in a hoax involving a costume (Post #63).
I love claims that Freeman didn't have enough money to afford such costumes. This 1989 newspaper article notes that Freeman made around $2,000 off of his interest in Bigfoot (mostly due to a commercial he was in). The Freeman footage was filmed in the early 90's. I think you can figure out where I'm going with this... |
__________________
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 |
|
21st April 2008, 02:40 AM | #64 | |||
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 975
|
yes it looks EXACTLY like a man running to me,, and removing clothes too.
he should have talked to this guy and got some pointers of him, i think this is the snow walker hoax of an himilayen yeti ? looks better then patty or mdf.
|
|||
__________________
All of these 9/11 conspiracy sites on the internet have museum-grade idiots stating what 'obviously' happens at velocities and temperatures that they are flat-out incapable of understanding. Not only are these people too stupid to understand the physics involved with what they are bloviating about -- they are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are. |
||||
21st April 2008, 09:06 AM | #65 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
That dark spot in the background doesn't have any significance to it at all, AMM. The subject's head is clearly much different looking after the lift, than it was before the lift. In this animated-gif, the object can be seen...clearly....bending forward... In addition to that, the top of the subject cannot be the subject's head, because it extends too far above the subject's shoulders. |
__________________
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." |
|
21st April 2008, 02:44 PM | #66 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
You need to show us how you determined where the shoulders are.
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
22nd April 2008, 05:06 AM | #67 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
When your arm is extended straight out, horizontally...like the subject's arm is in the animated-gif...your shoulder is right in line with your arm. Is that right......or am I mistaken? Since we see the subject's arm raised to a horizontal position, we know exactly where it's shoulder is.........don't we? Later today I'll post a couple of comparison stills of the subject, before and after the lift, to show the difference more clearly. |
__________________
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." |
|
22nd April 2008, 05:39 AM | #68 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
|
22nd April 2008, 06:27 AM | #69 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
22nd April 2008, 08:30 AM | #70 |
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 |
|
22nd April 2008, 03:00 PM | #71 |
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." |
|
22nd April 2008, 06:20 PM | #72 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
22nd April 2008, 08:36 PM | #73 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
23rd April 2008, 06:41 AM | #74 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
23rd April 2008, 08:16 AM | #75 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Diogenes wrote:
Quote:
Wow....another brilliant bit of counter-analysis from Greg. Here is the response that it truly deserves.... If you have something intelligent to say, Greg, I'll be happy to reply to it in a more intellectual way. If you honestly can't tell that the 'thing' that's seen swinging in the video, as the subject walks off into the woods, is it's arm... ....then you're hopelessly lost in dum-dum land, Greg....and there's nothing I can say to you to help you understand what's going on in the video. Here's another animated-gif of the lift, with a few more frames added in... Backing-up a bit....yesterday I had written...
Quote:
Greg's response was completely irrelevant to the question I had asked....(naturally ...it's what Greg does.). Here is a clearer example of what I was refering to.... The subject's arm, in a horizontal position...tells us exactly where the top of the subject's shoulder is, height-wise (vertically). Sionce we can see the MD subject's arm swing up to a horizontal position, we know right where the top of it's shoulder is, in that side-view of the subject/lifted object. |
__________________
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." |
|
23rd April 2008, 09:00 AM | #76 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
|
23rd April 2008, 09:13 AM | #77 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Here are the first and last frames of your .gif Sweety ..
The line is drawn through a reference object in the background .. Where is the height increase Sweety ? I'm sure the MABRC can't get enough of this stuff.. Why don't you start a new thread over there, and call it your latest and greatest analysation .. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
23rd April 2008, 09:37 AM | #78 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
23rd April 2008, 12:59 PM | #79 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
I've mentioned this before, but I think that it's probably holding onto the infant, keeping it steady on it's shoulders. Kinda like what this guy is doing.... Here's the image shrunken, and then blown-up, with much lower resolution.... It seems very odd to me that only one of the subject's arm can be seen swinging, for the whole time that it's in view, after the lift. And, again, if it's simply at the subject's side the whole time....then how did the "mask" lift up, after the other hand had let go of 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." |
|
23rd April 2008, 01:41 PM | #80 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Why isn't the subject with the infant on it's shoulders, not any taller than it was before the lift ?
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|