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 Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 10th January 2009, 12:28 PM   #41
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,501
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
I was told? What do you mean I was told? What is this potty training? Well I went though photos I've posted and yes there are two photos where I highlighted the forearms of Patty.

IMO bristling.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...73eb843497.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...740ca033c5.jpg
All I see are furry, blurry photos. You are seeing things that are beyond the limit of resolution.

"One of these laws defines the resolution limit of any optical system, any camera lens, even a perfect one with absolutely no lens errors. ......So, even a perfect lens with no lens errors is limited in its resolution! (Such a perfect lens does not exist. Even the most sophisticated lenses on this planet, the Carl Zeiss S-Planar lenses for the semiconductor industry are only approximations to the perfect lens, although very close ones.) Thus the term "diffraction-limited" has become the synonym for lenses that are so good their only per-formance limit is the law of diffraction. According to this law no camera lens used in photography, still or motion, can produce resolutions higher than given in the following table (Approximate, rounded off values for white light spectrum of even energy distribution. In unevenly distributed spectra of gas discharge light sources somewhat higher resolutions may be achieved.)


f-no......................resolution
.............................(line pairs per millimeter)
.45.............................35
.32.............................50
.22.............................70
.16...........................100
.11...........................140
...8...........................200
5.6...........................280
...4...........................400
2.8...........................560

In practical photography other limitations of resolution occur, too. The existing depth-of-field concepts, for example, lead to a limit at 30 line pairs per millimeter, simply because they assume that the image of a sharp point may be considered sharp as long as the unsharp disc it actually is (called the "circle of confusion") grows no larger than 1/1000th of the focal length of the respective standard lens. In 35 mm photography only 1/1500th is allowed. 1/1500 th of the 50 mm standard focal length equals 1/30th mm. So 30 fit into one mm, which means, we are talking 30 line pairs per millimeter (CLN 1 has more details in "Depth of Field An Insider's Look Behind The Scenes", an article that meanwhile has been reprinted in many publications around the world). This is about the same limit set by diffraction for f/45 which was an aperture setting quite popular with 5 x 7 inch large format photography, producing images that can be viewed without any subsequent magnification.
"(Camera Lens News No. 2, fall 1997)

Last edited by tsig; 10th January 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason: add info
tsig 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 10th January 2009, 02:15 PM   #42
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Thank you for the blue bear pictures. We dont find them at high clips, like we find deer, despite deer are 30 million
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 13th January 2009, 01:22 PM   #43
Jeff Wagg
Eponymous
 
Jeff Wagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,083
And thus we begin part 3....
Jeff Wagg 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 15th January 2009, 05:05 AM   #44
Jeff Wagg
Eponymous
 
Jeff Wagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,083
And now I've even unlocked the thread! My generosity never ends..

(sorry about that!)
Jeff Wagg 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 15th January 2009, 10:11 PM   #45
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,210
Patty Nopoops sat on a stump.
Patty Nopoops had no Dumptys to dump.
All the Anthropologist and all the Footer's men.
Couldn't find Dumptys nor Patty again.
JcR 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 15th January 2009, 11:28 PM   #46
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
ROTFLMAO!!!

Oh, that would make a fine sig. JcR, you should use that. Patty Nopoops! I love it. Better than Patty McLumpy!
__________________
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 16th January 2009, 12:43 AM   #47
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,210
Done. and
Thank you.
JcR 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 January 2009, 05:18 AM   #48
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 411
If (a bif if) the PGF is the high water mark for evidence of the existence of BF, how many years must pass without proof positive before you conclude BF doesn't exist?

Is the 40+ years long enough for us to conclude BF is a cultural myth or must we wait 50 years? 100 years? How long without evidence before BF proponents give up?
clayflingythingy 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 January 2009, 07:29 AM   #49
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,210
It will go beyond that even time itself will dare not travel.
Until the Universe collapses onto itself.
Beyond even the most outer fringes of our Imaginations.
Beyond...
Beyond...
Beyond...

Last edited by JcR; 16th January 2009 at 08:05 AM.
JcR 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 January 2009, 10:28 AM   #50
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,694
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 16th January 2009 at 10:31 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th January 2009, 10:58 AM   #51
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )
Hmmm... I don't think Bill Munns matters anywhere nearly enough to do that. I'd call it maybe a 2-3 year boost tops among BFF members who don't leave their forum long enough to find out how well that opinion does beyond its nursing area.
__________________
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 16th January 2009, 11:02 AM   #52
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,530
At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.
LONGTABBER PE 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 January 2009, 11:28 AM   #53
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.
Why?

I mean, as long as nobody ever looks at the film to see what it really does and does not show, Bigfoot enthusiasts can claim anything they want. It's not like the PGF actually exists any more than the Bigfoot it supposed to show.
Hitch 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 January 2009, 11:32 AM   #54
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,501
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )
That's happened to me at some jobs.
tsig 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 January 2009, 11:37 AM   #55
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,501
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.
Not as long as long as there are wind bags like Meldrum who can pontificate forever about nothing and prove that what you never saw is proof it was there.
tsig 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 January 2009, 05:38 PM   #56
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )
It has been clear that Munns was going to declare Patty a real BF from early on at his BFF postings. At least that has been my take on Munns.

Altho it has been a long time since I read Krantz, didn't he say the longer we went without a body, that was a promblem for BF proponents? Or am I remembering wrong?

The BFF members have been using Munns to bolster their "Patty was a real BF" from early on.

The lack of BF evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that BF doesn't exist as a real animal and that BF is a clutural myth. How else could they be undiscovered eating pancakes in KY?
clayflingythingy 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 January 2009, 05:39 PM   #57
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
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 January 2009, 05:40 PM   #58
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Clay, the lack of a body. We have other forms of evidence
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 January 2009, 05:43 PM   #59
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
Are you debating Bigfoot (and by extension, the PGF) without knowing who Bill Munns is?
Hitch 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 January 2009, 08:29 PM   #60
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,694
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
( What hitch said ... but, since you asked .... )

Best I can tell, he's got some super-secret glasses that enables him to see an extremely well made costume, when all I can see is a cheesy monkey suit that is starting to fall apart..


This, must just be a coincidence .. No wait ! I know .. Charlie Gemora modeled his suit after a real Bigfoot ....
Attached Images
File Type: gif buttcomp.gif (38.9 KB, 102 views)
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
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 Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 04:30 AM   #61
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,210
They say things come and go. But I still gotta wonder sometimes.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ThisMayPass.JcR..jpg (84.4 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by JcR; 17th January 2009 at 04:37 AM.
JcR 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 January 2009, 04:59 AM   #62
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
I am happy to see the thread go on. I think I might be a little addicted and fascinated at the discussion here. *wear pom pom bigfoot costume* Please big foot enthusiast come here and discuss more ! I need my fix !


Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Clay, the lack of a body. We have other forms of evidence
Normally Before you try to cite those evidence I would advise you to read the other thread to see how far those evidence are either :
* utterly destroyed
or
* not an evidence of anything in the scientific sense

but I need a FIX this week end so please provide your so called evidence. it will be entertaining to see them destroyed another time again (and i bet for some of what you think are evidence it will be the 14th or 15th time they get trashed to nothingness).
Aepervius 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 January 2009, 08:04 AM   #63
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,210
Here is my demonstration... That crap is left in the woods.
The cycle of Poo.
Attached Images
File Type: gif Bear-Eat-Poop..gif (46.8 KB, 196 views)
JcR 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 January 2009, 08:07 AM   #64
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,694
I think some people get confused about evidence .

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.

A print is evidence that something made a print. An elk, perhaps ? A joker with a wooden foot ?

A film is evidence that someone had a camera and film ..


We have to understand why a non-human North American primate is not even on the B list ..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
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 Back to Top
Old 17th January 2009, 08:36 AM   #65
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,454
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
I think some people get confused about evidence.

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.
I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.
__________________
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 17th January 2009, 02:08 PM   #66
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

That is the proper way to make an appeal to authority.
__________________
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 January 2009, 02:11 PM   #67
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.
I agree completely and thats one of the reasons Rock and i stayed on them.

I dont rule out that a large portion are legitimate misidentifications or simply honest errors and I dont rule out the small possibility some may have seen a real BF but i CERTAINLY dont rule out the PROBABILITY that a large percent are people who make them up.

You could have people who just want attention ( Florida and beans come to mind as well as garlic) or want to say they experienced one to be part of a crowd or simply because its "unusual" and may give them some kind of "status" or just to be "cool".

If youtube is an accurate representation, making a "bigfoot" story seems to be pretty popular.
LONGTABBER PE 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 January 2009, 02:27 PM   #68
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?
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 January 2009, 02:31 PM   #69
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?
Yes, makaya, what about him?
__________________
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 January 2009, 02:33 PM   #70
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Kita, i remember him in an interview about the pgf. He said its unlikely to be a man in a suit, and if it were a suit, he said "its the best i have ever seen"
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 January 2009, 03:48 PM   #71
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
So what's your point? If we're going to make appeals to authority, doesn't it mean that the person with the bigger, better authorities wins?
__________________
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 January 2009, 03:49 PM   #72
jayman
Thinker
 
jayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 200
A Good Response

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?
jayman 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 January 2009, 03:52 PM   #73
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by Josh111485 View Post
What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?
Ask him who "proved it" and how and if it is proof positive, why hasnt BF been officially recognized as its own species by any official body.

That should stimulate the conversation PDQ
LONGTABBER PE 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 January 2009, 04:02 PM   #74
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,151
Originally Posted by Josh111485 View Post
What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?
That they have a very bad understanding of what constitutes proof.
__________________
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 January 2009, 05:04 PM   #75
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?
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 January 2009, 05:12 PM   #76
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Crowlogic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
[quote=kitakaze;4354730]No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.
__________________
Words are weapons, sharpen the knives!
Crowlogic 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 January 2009, 05:14 PM   #77
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Crow, Munns is definitely no woo, like some people here contend he is. Does anyone here know more about fx effects and costumes more than Munns here?
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 January 2009, 05:15 PM   #78
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Kitz, its not proof, but it COULD qualify as POSSIBLE evidence, yet thats unlikely
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 January 2009, 05:37 PM   #79
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?
I dont dismiss anything, I'm open to everything.

I dismiss these things because I AM a scientist and I KNOW how research is done properly and as such can show where this crap being passed off as science is utter BS because I have evaluated it.

I do not argue my NOT SURE encounters as valid other than the fact the incidents happened. I have NEVER said they were CONCLUSIVE of a BF. I have NEVER said they WERE a BF.

Thats how science actually works. I reported the sightings and the facts as they were and what little we did. Results were inconclusive in both. Inconclusive does NOT default or contribute to the possibility of BF existing.
LONGTABBER PE 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 January 2009, 07:09 PM   #80
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 792
[quote=Crowlogic;4355130]
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.

Do you not understand that people who manufacture quality suits have the experience to see where the usual problems and identifiers of a suit are most likely to be found - and then look for those give-a-ways?

It is Like Randi watching a fraud who trying to pretend he is something other than an illusionist.
Randi does not have to be able to do what the fraudster does better than the fraudster - he just has to look for the usual tricks of the trade that give the hoax away.
Once he identifies the simple tell-tales - the hoax is exposed.

That is what Baker, Walas and Langdon have done. They looked for the tell-tales of a suit. Once they spotted the tell-tales - they did not have to do anything else.
The suit is busted.
rockinkt 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 07:33 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.