ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

Notices


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 , Bob Heironimus , patterson gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film

Closed Thread
Old 14th November 2009, 03:21 PM   #2521
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by Careyp74 View Post
Just to clear up for anyone reading this quoted post, the idea being conveyed is not that the guerrillas couldn't be faked, but that they looked like guerrillas, and no one would say, "Hey, could be men in monkey suits." On the other hand, this video being discussed, and others similar to it, all look like people in monkey suits. This logic seems to fall short with some people.
Well, to some, it looks fake, to others, it doesnt. Popular opinion, regardless of either position, should not affect the authenticity of the film
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 01:03 PM   #2522
Careyp74
Illuminator
 
Careyp74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,407
Why would there be any authenticity to a film that looks like a guy in a monkey suit? The only supposed authenticity is a bunch of skewed comparisons of the monster in the film, with measurements from his nipple to his elbow.
Careyp74 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 02:05 PM   #2523
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by Careyp74 View Post
Why would there be any authenticity to a film that looks like a guy in a monkey suit? The only supposed authenticity is a bunch of skewed comparisons of the monster in the film, with measurements from his nipple to his elbow.
It looks like, to SOME people, a guy in a suit. To others, it does not, so what does that mean? It's interpretation is not clear cut, so no common sense is used when it comes to viewing the film.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 02:53 PM   #2524
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Well, to some, it looks fake, to others, it doesnt. Popular opinion, regardless of either position, should not affect the authenticity of the film
The PGF has no established authenticity. It hasn't been proven to be a real creature, nor has it been proven to be a man in a suit. Popular opinion can't affect an authenticity that doesn't exist.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th November 2009, 09:07 PM   #2525
Careyp74
Illuminator
 
Careyp74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,407
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
It looks like, to SOME people, a guy in a suit. To others, it does not, so what does that mean? It's interpretation is not clear cut, so no common sense is used when it comes to viewing the film.
We can't use common sense because some are fooled? Where did you get that rule?
Careyp74 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 08:02 AM   #2526
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
The PGF has no established authenticity. It hasn't been proven to be a real creature, nor has it been proven to be a man in a suit. Popular opinion can't affect an authenticity that doesn't exist.
Nor can it influence a hoax that does not exist.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 10:15 AM   #2527
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
It's interpretation is not clear cut, so no common sense is used when it comes to viewing the film.
Huh? If I approach the PGF with an open mind, common sense tells me that the PGF was likely a hoax. The evidence supporting the PGF as a hoax is more compelling and that conclusion is more logical, primarily, but not solely, because there ISN'T any conclusive evidence to support the alternative.

In your opinion, the interpretation is not clear cut. To a larger number, though, who DO use their common sense, their interpretation of the film is very clear cut: It is a hoax and nothing more.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 10:54 AM   #2528
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Nor can it influence a hoax that does not exist.
Okay, then please share your conclusive evidence that proves it isn't a hoax.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 11:00 AM   #2529
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Odinn wrote....in the "PG Film Part 3" thread:

Quote:
Actually, I see a really obvious mismatch with the Morris suit.

Good observation, Odinn.

In this comparison of kitakaze's...he located Patty's elbow too high on her arm...






Here is a comparison of two images of Patty....showing exactly where Patty's elbow is....and where it is not...




Part of the mis-match in the elbows is due to a difference in the positions of the arms, in their swings...but not all of the difference is due to that.


This comparison confirms what Odinn's comparison also showed...that kitakaze highlighted Patty's elbow incorrectly.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 11:31 AM   #2530
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Huh? If I approach the PGF with an open mind, common sense tells me that the PGF was likely a hoax. The evidence supporting the PGF as a hoax is more compelling and that conclusion is more logical, primarily, but not solely, because there ISN'T any conclusive evidence to support the alternative.

In your opinion, the interpretation is not clear cut. To a larger number, though, who DO use their common sense, their interpretation of the film is very clear cut: It is a hoax and nothing more.
What evidence of a hoax? A bunch of hicks saying Roger was a liar, based on no evidence, only anecdotes, Bob H wanting to make a quick buck, etc. You call that evidence?

Inconsistencies in Roger and Bob's testimony can be due to memory loss of the event
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 02:12 PM   #2531
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
What evidence of a hoax? A bunch of hicks saying Roger was a liar, based on no evidence, only anecdotes, Bob H wanting to make a quick buck, etc. You call that evidence?
Do you ever actually read and attempt to comprehend the posts you reply to?

No, I didn't call it evidence. I didn't mention it at all. No clue where you are getting that from.

Quote:
Inconsistencies in Roger and Bob's testimony can be due to memory loss of the event
I didn't cite Roger and Bob's testimony as evidence, either. No clue where you are getting that from.

What I actually did say was, using common sense, the conclusion that the PGF is a hoax is logical, mainly because there is NO evidence that supports the alternative, i.e. the existence of Bigfoot.

Please share your conclusive evidence that proves it isn't a hoax, and I'll reconsider my opinion that it is.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 03:21 PM   #2532
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
In this comparison of kitakaze's...he located Patty's elbow too high on her arm...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...yBobWrong1.jpg



Here is a comparison of two images of Patty....showing exactly where Patty's elbow is....and where it is not...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...lbowWRONG2.jpg

Part of the mis-match in the elbows is due to a difference in the positions of the arms, in their swings...but not all of the difference is due to that.

This comparison confirms what Odinn's comparison also showed...that kitakaze highlighted Patty's elbow incorrectly.
Here, let me help you. Your red line on the right doesn't continue to the left image for some reason. Oh, wait a minute. I know why that is and so do you. It's because if we continue the line, suddenly Patty's elbow's literally a few inches from her wrist...



You mean Patty has a morphing arm as well as a morphing head? Crazy!
__________________
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
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2009, 05:31 PM   #2533
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,274
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
What evidence of a hoax? A bunch of hicks saying Roger was a liar, based on no evidence, only anecdotes, Bob H wanting to make a quick buck, etc. You call that evidence?

Inconsistencies in Roger and Bob's testimony can be due to memory loss of the event
You keep mentioning some hicks. What is a hick and how do you know the people you call this name are such?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2009, 07:05 AM   #2534
Careyp74
Illuminator
 
Careyp74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,407
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
You mean Patty has a morphing arm as well as a morphing head? Crazy!
This would have all been avoided had someone gotten the right sized suit from the Halloween store.
Careyp74 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2009, 06:51 AM   #2535
Careyp74
Illuminator
 
Careyp74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,407
how will we go about measuring the elbow distance then? More skewed pictures? You going to draw a yellow line from his arm to his ear, and hope no one notices?
Careyp74 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th November 2009, 11:26 PM   #2536
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,169
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Here's a comparison using a padded costume, that AtomicMysteryMonster linked to, earlier...in another thread...
Let's not forget that the costume in question was a rejected prototype that was only used for publicity pictures...and is possibly being posed without anyone inside the costume (notice the guy behind it and the woman being held up with rope).

Speaking of publicity pictures, why is inn using a picture of the Morris suit that has clearly been "touched up" when asking about material flaps?

Also:

Originally Posted by inn
IMO, the head looks a bit overscaled if a helmet and costume head were placed over the Poser's head.
Quick correction: According to Bob H.'s story, the interior of the costume head resembled an old-fashioned football helmet. He did not say he was wearing a mask on top of a football helmet.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 05:30 PM   #2537
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Sweaty, please examine the following images very closely. What do you think they demonstrate?

__________________
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
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 06:52 PM   #2538
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
You keep mentioning some hicks. What is a hick and how do you know the people you call this name are such?
Bob Heironimus and his grandma Opal, both who can't remember a darn thing if there live was dependent on it! That is not evidence: Evidence would be 100 percent consistency in Bob H's testimony, a suit, having Bob walk with the suit on and duplicating the film figure, having Gimlin admit it was a hoax.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 06:53 PM   #2539
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,655
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post

What I actually did say was, using common sense, the conclusion that the PGF is a hoax is logical, mainly because there is NO evidence that supports the alternative, i.e. the existence of Bigfoot.
That is weak, sorry. Just because there is no solid evidence for bigfoot, you jump on the hoax conclusion, despite their being not one piece of credible evidence that makes the hoax theory a certainty.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2009, 07:13 AM   #2540
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
That is weak, sorry. Just because there is no solid evidence for bigfoot, you jump on the hoax conclusion, despite their being not one piece of credible evidence that makes the hoax theory a certainty.
Show me the credible evidence that establishes, with certainty, that Patty was a real Bigfoot.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 08:52 AM   #2541
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Taking a closer look at one of the "questionable images" in kitakaze's 'shopping cart'......





....we can see that the Poser 7 skeleton that Mangler produced has a Major problem....


First.....here is what happens....(in the REAL world)....when an object is viewed at a significant angle...(in this case, 40 degrees)....

...it's width becomes fore-shortened...or, 'compressed'...






The number .64, in the comparison above, is the equivalent of the cosine of the angle-of-view.
Looking-up that figure in a Trig Chart tells us that the angle associated with it is 40 degrees.

(That angle, btw, is exactly what Grover Krantz estimated Patty's angle-of-view is, in the middle part of the film.)


Now....here is what happens when the angle-of-view of Mangler's Poser 7 skeleton changes ....from straight-on, to approximately 40 degrees...






NOTHING happens. It Violates a law of physics that REAL-world objects obey.

It's width doesn't fore-shorten, or compress.....as it would, if it accurately represented REALITY.


Yet again, the skeletons are SHOWN to conflict with, and contradict how REAL, physical objects behave.....in the REAL world.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 04:28 PM   #2542
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Sweaty, I don't know what you were trying to do but you've made two significant errors that unfortunately renders your attempt there to be in vain.

1) The image that your are saying is Bob viewed at 40 degrees and the image of the Poser 7 skeleton that you are saying is approximately 40 degrees are significantly different. You can not say the P7S is about the same as Bob. Bob is quite close to profile while the P7S is closer to being straight on.

2) You are using the wrong images. Here, let me help you...



You might want to try running the numbers again.
__________________
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
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2009, 09:21 AM   #2543
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
You are using the wrong images.

Actually.......NO, I'm not.


You use those images in your collection of junk images.....so it's perfectly correct, and appropriate to take a critical look at them.


Let's do some more of that....here are 4 things which are incorrect, or flawed, in this skeletal comparison...






First....the body-width only fore-shortens by a couple of pixels, despite a significant difference in the angle-of-views, between the two images.


Secondly....the upper-arm bone fore-shortens by a large amount, despite only a small change in the arm's position, in it's swing-arc.


Thirdly....the pelvic bones are mis-aligned by a few inches.


And, fourthly....as for Patty's 'walking height'....here is another foot-ruler measurement, using a different frame...(where Patty and Roger are on the same ground level...hence, no 'height fore-shortening' of Patty, as in Frame 72).....which gives a height of approx. 6'3".....7" taller than the Poser 7 skeleton shows, for her walking-height...







Bottom line.....the Poser 7 skelly's are "Gobbledy-Gook".


GARBAGE.


Bonus flaw in the Poser 7 skeleton comparison.........in the overlay of Patty, it's several inches short, in it's "apparent upper-torso width".......which translates into an even greater width-shortage, when corrected for the angle-of-view.

Maybe someday I'll do some measurements, and add that FLAW into the graphic.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 13th December 2009, 11:28 AM   #2544
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,459
I don't know if it matters, but the head isn't right. There's too much of Bob's head visible around the CGI skull. The human scalp is only a thin layer over the skull.
Attached Images
File Type: gif BH skull.gif (45.4 KB, 0 views)
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 13th December 2009, 11:57 AM   #2545
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,932
Here's what's happening in Sweaty's post 2543.

1. 98 pixel humerus ---> 85 pixel humerus
Foreshortening. In the 85-pixel image you can see that foreshortening is occurring, not only by the reduction in measurement, but also by dint of the visible underside of the radial-ulnar conjunction (ie the wrist). As I've tried to explain before, if you will hold in front of your eyes a cylinder, such as a can or paper towel tube, straight on, ie perpendicular to your line of sight, then turn it into a foreshortened position so that you can see the cylinder's underside, you'll understand what is happening with Bob's arm. If you can not understand this principle, and continue to argue that some technical error is occurring in the software, then you are merely arguing from ignorance and you have failed to comprehend a very simple visual phenomenon that you can read about in any book on perspective or figure drawing.

2. Pelvic bone doesn't align
The figure with the lower pelvis is crouching. Once again, you can repeat this exact phenomenon by standing up straight in a full-length mirror, marking where the pelvic crest is with a marker on the wall or mirror, or even by placing your own hand at the line, then bending at the knee. As you bend, you'll note that your pelvis drops accordingly. Failure to understand this phenomenon is another instance of argument from ignorance. Simply because you cannot grasp the concept does not mean that something paranormal or extraordinary is occurring.

3. Walking height 72" ---> 5'8"
The height drops when the figure bends or crouches. This is related to 2., above. If you will mark the top of your head while standing erect, then bend at the knees, you will note that your height drops accordingly. This is an incredibly basic geometrical concept.

4. 87 pixel ---> 89 pixel shoulder-to-shoulder reduction; if foreshortened, why is the reduction so minimal?
Measuring tool imprecision; inaccurate placement of said tool; difference in measurements more or less expected; imprecision of software image placement relative to underlying photo image. First, the measuring tool you're using -- a white line created with basic Paint software -- is blocky and imprecise; second, your placement of that blocky line is subjective, overlapping certain features of the anatomy (namely, the acromion of the scapula) in one image, while falling short of those features in the other image; third, a two-pixel difference in measurement is not too far afield of what I would expect given the slight shift in the angle of the torso from the first image to the second; and fourth, the Poser 7 skeleton, haphazard and imprecise as it is, likely does not accurately match the precise angle of tortion evident in the underlying photo.
__________________
"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
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2009, 09:38 AM   #2546
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Vortigern wrote:
Quote:
4. 87 pixel ---> 89 pixel shoulder-to-shoulder reduction; if foreshortened, why is the reduction so minimal?
Measuring tool imprecision; inaccurate placement of said tool; difference in measurements more or less expected; imprecision of software image placement relative to underlying photo image. First, the measuring tool you're using -- a white line created with basic Paint software -- is blocky and imprecise; second, your placement of that blocky line is subjective, overlapping certain features of the anatomy (namely, the acromion of the scapula) in one image, while falling short of those features in the other image...

third, a two-pixel difference in measurement is not too far afield of what I would expect given the slight shift in the angle of the torso...

from the first image to the second; and fourth, the Poser 7 skeleton, haphazard and imprecise as it is, likely does not accurately match the precise angle of tortion evident in the underlying photo.

Here is what's wrong with Vort's explanation......and his 'expectations'...


To start with, Patty's 'angle-of-view' is approx. 40 degrees...not a "slight shift in angle", as Vort describes it.
(I can demonstrate this, later.)

And, using the cosine value for a 40-deg. angle-of-view....we know that the fore-shortening, or, compression, of Patty's width.....(and the Poser 7 skeleton's)....should be about 24%.

In other words, the "apparent width" should be about 24% less, or 76%, of the subject's "actual width".

Far beyond a mere 2 or 3 pixels......as Vort would expect to see...






So, with regards to Patty's and Bob's body-widths....here is what's wrong with the Poser 7 skeletal "Match"....( )...

1) The skeleton doesn't even cover Patty's full apparent width.

2) The skeleton is even further short of Patty's actual width.

3) The skeleton doesn't compress, or shorten, by 24%......or anywhere near that amount.


And, then there's the discrepency with Patty's "walking height".....(of approx. 7")....which Vort didn't address.....at all.

More on that.........lay-ta....
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 1st January 2010, 09:48 PM   #2547
lucaschorak
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 33
Me

Hi everybody I am new to this.I came here for one thing I talked to Bob Heironimus on the phone.Any questions?
lucaschorak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2010, 07:40 PM   #2548
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by lucaschorak View Post
Hi everybody I am new to this.I came here for one thing I talked to Bob Heironimus on the phone.Any questions?

Sure....when did you talk to him? And, did you ask him many questions about his alleged performance, as Patty?

If so, was there anything noteworthy in any of his answers?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 4th January 2010, 04:18 AM   #2549
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,424
Mod InfoThis thread is being taken off moderation. Due to the length it has reached, it has been restarted as an unmoderated thread here.
Posted By:Cuddles
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

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 04:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.