IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 16th April 2008, 06:22 AM   #41
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I was only joking about "running away", Astro. But, I have a very limited amount of time to post here. I'll try to respond to more of your comments and questions....but you'll have to patient.
To be honest my patience is pretty thin on your responses. You seem to repeat the phrase that you will get back to me but never seem to do so. We will be here....waiting....tick...tock...the world wonders.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 06:28 AM   #42
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I sure have done some analysis, Astro. I've yet to see anything in the way of counter-analysis from you, though.
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.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I'm not refuting that 8" figure....I think it's a good approximation of the lift height.
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).
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 06:54 AM   #43
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Astrophotographer wrote:



You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

If you can't demonstrate that....then you haven't given me, or anyone else, any reason to think that I'm wrong in saying the object continues to lift up higher in that sequence of frames.

I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.





I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".

What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...eteLift1AB.gif


In this version I paused one frame, which I think shows the infant initially being lifted up...to then be placed down onto the subject's shoulders...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...eteLift1AA.gif


In this 3-frame gif....I placed lines at the top of the subject to show the change in height...from higher (infant being initially lifted-up), to lower (infant lowered onto the shoulders), and then higher again (infant sitting upright)...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...i/MDlift23.gif


One significant detail to notice is that during the entire lift sequence, the shape of the subject's head continually changes. The reason for that is simple....the lifted object is being moved around.

It's not due to "background noise", as someone suggested....because in the entire first segment of the video, when the subject is running....the shape of it's head does not change.
If it was due to background noise, the head would be changing shape throughout the video.


One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )



That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.

The way I see it...if skeptics here can't readily admit that Patty's fingers bend...when it's very clear that they do...they'll never have anything constructive to contribute to the analysis of this video.
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......
mikeyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 10:49 AM   #44
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Astro wrote;
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
I'm not refuting that 8" figure....I think it's a good approximation of the lift height.

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).

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."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 16th April 2008 at 10:50 AM.
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:12 AM   #45
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
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.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:30 AM   #46
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
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.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:37 AM   #47
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:42 AM   #48
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Yes...I said I think the object appears too large, or massive, to be a simple mask.
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.
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?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
It looks to be roughly about the same width as the subject's head.
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.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:43 AM   #49
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Here are some of the pictures I put together for the MDF way back in the day.


__________________
"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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 11:44 AM   #50
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Parcher, Your MSPAINT skills are rivaling my own.
I must commend you

It definitely gets the point across and his skills are probably better than mine. I have a problem drawing straight lines with the line tool!
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 12:13 PM   #51
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
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.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 01:00 PM   #52
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
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.
I would add
2A) A person with no intent to look like a Bigfoot (A hoax on the part of the viewers)
__________________
"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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 02:03 PM   #53
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
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.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 03:32 PM   #54
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Astrophotographer; 16th April 2008 at 04:08 PM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2008, 03:50 PM   #55
Biscuit
Philosopher
 
Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,929
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Just to clarify Sweaty's position-

1. 95 People on that hill didn't see bigfoot
2. The thing was slower than a human
3. You can see a jacket flopping behind it
4. You can see it remove a mask

And you think the 'Most Likely' explanation is that it is an Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal, Adolescent, Babysitting, ELUSIVE, primate, running across an open hillside, in broad daylight?
Oh! When you put all the evidence together I guess Sweaty is right.
__________________
“... 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
Biscuit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2008, 04:51 AM   #56
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
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.

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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2008, 07:05 AM   #57
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....

Where all the fringe element have their fun....
mikeyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2008, 07:08 AM   #58
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Hey, I can always run away to the Mid-America board....

Where all the fringe element have their fun....
mikeyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2008, 06:05 PM   #59
zooman63
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?
zooman63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 11:46 AM   #60
TjW
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.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2008, 07:04 PM   #61
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by zooman63 View Post
What was the decision on the Hoffman Footage?
Fake. After all, it was being used to promote a movie about a "scientific investigation" of Santa Claus.

Also, I love how the first line in Sweaty's .gif clearly goes through the background object that "merges" with the head in the third frame.

__________________
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
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 02:24 PM   #62
zooman63
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??
zooman63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 05:30 PM   #63
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by zooman63 View Post
I actually meant Freeman footage...
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

Last edited by AtomicMysteryMonster; 20th April 2008 at 05:33 PM. Reason: Typo correction
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 02:40 AM   #64
cyclonic
Muse
 
cyclonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 975
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
This enlarged looping clip looks like a running person to me. They seem to be removing some sort of upper apparel (jacket, sweater, etc.) as they run. It's not a pullover thing, but instead opens at the front. The runner starts removing it by dropping it down off the shoulders, then to the elbows and forearms (sleeves would come off last). I don't think the garment is fully removed in the loop
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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
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.
cyclonic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 09:06 AM   #65
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster View Post
Fake. After all, it was being used to promote a movie about a "scientific investigation" of Santa Claus.

Also, I love how the first line in Sweaty's .gif clearly goes through the background object that "merges" with the head in the third frame.

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."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 02:44 PM   #66
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
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....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 05:06 AM   #67
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
You need to show us how you determined where the shoulders are.

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."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 05:39 AM   #68
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
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.

Are you guys happy now, now you've got him posting his pixelated blobs? Oh the pain.....
mikeyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 06:27 AM   #69
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
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?
You are mistaken ..

It has been shown, that what you are claiming to be the arm, extended straight out, is actually the hood ( or whatever ) that the subject just removed from their head ..



Still waiting on some wisdom from you, so I can add it to my sig...
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 08:30 AM   #70
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
How many inches above his head is that baby sitting?

__________________
"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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 03:00 PM   #71
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
You are mistaken ..

It has been shown, that what you are claiming to be the arm, extended straight out, is actually the hood ( or whatever ) that the subject just removed from their head ..

Nice try, Greg...but you're wrong. I'll explain why, in detail, later.


For now....here is a still which shows, very nicely, that the thing we see swinging is, in fact, the subject's arm......without a mask, or a hood, or anything of substantial size being held onto....





__________________
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."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 06:20 PM   #72
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Nice try, Greg...but you're wrong. I'll explain why, in detail, later.
I am not going to hold my breath. Promises....Promises...Tick...Tock...The world wonders.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2008, 08:36 PM   #73
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Nice try, Greg...but you're wrong. I'll explain why, in detail, later.

For now....here is a still which shows, very nicely, that the thing we see swinging is, in fact, the subject's arm.....
What happened to the extended height ?


Your fact is still a line of dark pixels ..

Your explanations are pointless without evidence ...


I think it's a toilet brush ..

Prove that it's not ...



P.S.

Where is the long flowing hair that Tom Lines said he saw ?
__________________
Maybe later....

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 22nd April 2008 at 08:38 PM.
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 06:41 AM   #74
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
For now....here is a still which shows, very nicely, that the thing we see swinging is, in fact, the subject's arm......without a mask, or a hood, or anything of substantial size being held onto....

Last time I checked, I had TWO arms. Are you suggesting that this blob only has one?
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 08:16 AM   #75
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Diogenes wrote:
Quote:
Your fact is still a line of dark pixels ..

Your explanations are pointless without evidence ...


I think it's a toilet brush ..

Prove that it's not ...

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:
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?

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."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 09:00 AM   #76
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Nice try, Greg...but you're wrong. I'll explain why, in detail, later.
Thats the same line you've used on EVERY other BF forum prior to banning. Pixelated crap is not proof. You have no proof.

Quote:

For now....here is a still which shows, very nicely, that the thing we see swinging is, in fact, the subject's arm......without a mask, or a hood, or anything of substantial size being held onto....


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...oMaskhere3.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...oMaskhere1.jpg
[/quote]

Show some proof or shut up already.
mikeyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 09:13 AM   #77
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
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....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 09:37 AM   #78
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
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...
But where is the other arm? Amateur magicians would love you since you seem so focused on one arm and not even interested in the other one. Slight of hand would be no problem.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 12:59 PM   #79
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
But where is the other arm? Amateur magicians would love you since you seem so focused on one arm and not even interested in the other one. Slight of hand would be no problem.

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."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2008, 01:41 PM   #80
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
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....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.