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 , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 13th April 2010, 10:03 PM   #921
inn
Muse
 
inn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
Sure they can, many people play two sides of the fence.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=590970
Dude, who cares?

Last edited by inn; 13th April 2010 at 10:13 PM.
inn 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 14th April 2010, 02:11 AM   #922
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
You must, you thought it was worth your time and the readers time at BFF to post what you did. If that isn't pandering to the masses at the BFF, I'm not sure what is.

Is this what your quest for truth is all about?
Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus on BFF
Well, here's the lowdown:

The poster's handle on JREF is Vortigern99 and he started out convinced the PGF was legit and posted to a PGF thread as a believer (kiss of death). Good Lord he got kicked and spat on and beat up real bad for about a week. It was a horrible spectacle of ad hom, condescension AND a belly full of Longtabber telling him his life was beyond worthless. I think Mangler finally broke his will with his poser/skeleton overlays and Sweaty Yeti drove him further away from the light. But it was Kitakaze's relentless counter points to every aspect of bigfootery that got him in the end. Then on 11th March 2009, 08:12 PM he was fully assimilated and became one of them. Resistance was futile. Go softly into the night my friends.
And you call me a drama queen...
Blackdog 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 14th April 2010, 04:52 AM   #923
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,939
Quote:
Good Lord he got kicked and spat on and beat up real bad for about a week.
Really disingenuous of you there, inn...

What was your point, other than to engender yourself to the peanut gallery ?


P.S.

Here is Vort's first post ..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=4495844

Please point out where, in your opinion, the kicking and spitting began ?
__________________
" 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; 14th April 2010 at 05:20 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 05:03 AM   #924
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
a belly full of Longtabber telling him his life was beyond worthless.
Longtabber? You used Longtabber? Why in the world would you do something like that to JREF?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 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 14th April 2010, 07:44 AM   #925
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus on BFF

Well, here's the lowdown:

The poster's handle on JREF is Vortigern99 and he started out convinced the PGF was legit and posted to a PGF thread as a believer (kiss of death). Good Lord he got kicked and spat on and beat up real bad for about a week. It was a horrible spectacle of ad hom, condescension AND a belly full of Longtabber telling him his life was beyond worthless. I think Mangler finally broke his will with his poser/skeleton overlays and Sweaty Yeti drove him further away from the light. But it was Kitakaze's relentless counter points to every aspect of bigfootery that got him in the end. Then on 11th March 2009, 08:12 PM he was fully assimilated and became one of them. Resistance was futile. Go softly into the night my friends.
To clarify, my first post in the PGF3 thread stated that I no longer believed the PGF to be a real animal. The Mangler overlays and the existence of the Gorn suit, a muscle suit of which I had been unaware, convinced me that the film was at least falsifiable.

The members of the JREF seemed not to believe that I could "switch sides" so easily. (I think you guys must have thought I was a 'Footer mole? ) The skeptical community here did indeed excoriate me for pointing out what I perceived to be accurate human musculature on the PG figure, even though I tried to make it clear that these were probably just features molded onto a suit. Any argument I presented showing musculature was virulently beaten down by LT and Skeptical Greg, among others.

And rightly so! Other anatomists and human figure artists, as familiar with human musculature as I am, do not see the muscles that I see on the PG figure. So it's reasonable to conclude that my perception is purely subjective, the result of apophenia (akin to pareidolia). No one "broke my will" or "drove me away from the light" (whatever that means!). I simply came to new conclusions as a result of acquiring information I had previously lacked.

I hope this dispels this discussion, which is a sidebar to the thread topic, and we can all move on now.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 08:21 AM   #926
Spektator
Dog Who Laughs
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,462
Sir, you are a class act. I don't think that there is a real (or fourth-dimensional) bigfoot creature, but if the evidence comes along, may my change of opinion be as graceful and forthright as yours has been.
__________________
Even when you keep piling them up, lies never compress to become the truth.
Spektator 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 14th April 2010, 09:05 AM   #927
LuvGodzilla
Thinker
 
LuvGodzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
I simply came to new conclusions as a result of acquiring information I had previously lacked.
Exactly. If only others could understand that simple meaningful statement.
__________________
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man. BOC 1977. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP)
LuvGodzilla 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 14th April 2010, 01:32 PM   #928
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Here is another study of the bulges in the shoulder area ..



The general shape would seem to support Bob H's recollection of football shoulder pads inside the suit ..

This is something of a red herring, and fish always tastes better with a grain of salt, but IMO the above images don't appear to match up for two reasons:

1. The angles and the poses are different. In the PG figure the deltoid wedge overlaps the teres masses, whereas the anatomy close-up is seen straight-on, with no overlap.

2. Fat and epidermal tissues also contribute to the surface features of real anatomy, which you cannot see on anatomical drawings.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I don't hold the opinion that the figure is a real non-human animal. That said, with my professional experience in human muscular anatomy, I assert that I observe what are IMO accurately-placed human muscles in the back and arms of the figure.

However, at the end of the day, none of the above matters, because the existence of the 1966 Gorn suit (among others) proves that muscle-formed costumes were available at the time. That knowledge falsifies any claim that Patterson could not have obtained such a suit.

On the thread topic, Bob Heironimous' accounts never mention a muscled undersuit. Does this give me cause to reject Bob's claims? Possibly, but I also must acknowledge (as I have elsewhere) that the optical illusion of apophenia (similar to pareidolia) may be occurring here, and that I might be taking shapes, formed by the natural draping of the fabric over the actor's body, as individual muscle groups which do not in fact exist.

Hence the red herring thing I mentioned above.

ETA: Thanks for the love, Spektator and LuvGodzilla.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Vortigern99; 14th April 2010 at 01:39 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 02:24 PM   #929
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,939
I challenge you to show any back and shoulder, at any angle, where we see the vertical bifurcations seen on the PGF subject, as indicated by my blue lines.

Also the circular bulges on the arms ..

I know we have disagreed about this in the past, so I really don't expect it to change; we just don't seem to see the same thing here .. ..

Maybe we can peruse the Watchmen DVD, and see if Doctor Manhattan can accommodate us with a suitable angle to make a more valid comparison .

P.S.


If you don't want to rehash old arguments, I will understand and not consider it a win ..

We can agree to disagree..
__________________
" 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; 14th April 2010 at 02:27 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 14th April 2010, 05:48 PM   #930
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Hmmm....seems like Bob needs a little more than just 2" of padding on his side, to get his upper body as wide as "Patty-Bob".....but, that would reek havoc with the area of his 'Arm Gap Triangle', which is already about 40-50% percent short, area-wise, of "Patty-Bob's" Triangle.

Seems we have a dilemma here...
What is Bob's sleeve measurement?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 06:00 PM   #931
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
So much for kitakaze's explanation as to why Bob never noticed the massive inner padded-core of the suit......that being...(paraphrasing)...

..."Bob didn't notice because he was only there at the film site for a short time. They slapped the suit on him....he did his short walk, and then flew right out of there".


Now we learn that Bob practiced with the suit, beforehand......and, amazingly.....NEVER noticed the massive, custom-formed, inner padded-core...either then, or later, during the filming.
Ballzheimers.

You're all mixed up again. What I said was that you were making a steaming pile of ridiculous special pleading because you were surmising that Bob was with Roger a "loooong" time, and that he must have asked Roger about how the suit was constructed. I told you he was with Roger and Bob for a couple hours at night and then the early part of the next day doing the filming. It's also funny that you think that if Bob asked a lot of questions, Roger would give a lot of answers. Bob was the hired schmuck to not pay.

I also told you that Bob personally told me there was no inner core padded muscle suit. Butt, shoulders, head is what he said.

*yawn*
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 06:06 PM   #932
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
It is possible that Bob could be lying, and the film could still be a hoax.
Yes, it is. However, just one of the great things that show Bob is no liar is the amazing way how he describes his trip to Bluff Creek with excellent detail and in such a way only possible for someone who was actually there in October 1967.

But wait, wait, wait a second. Yeah, it's possible that Bob might be a liar. What is an undeniable fact is that Patterson was a liar and Gimlin as well. You have no problem with the fact that the two prime figures in your Bigfoot fantasy were stone-faced liars. It is to laugh.
*bump*
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 06:35 PM   #933
inn
Muse
 
inn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Really disingenuous of you there, inn...

What was your point, other than to engender yourself to the peanut gallery ?


P.S.

Here is Vort's first post ..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=4495844

Please point out where, in your opinion, the kicking and spitting began ?
Good Lord, lighten up. Sorry you didn't see the humour in that post. Feeling guilty perhaps? My follow up post (which got deleted) was a more serious attempt to tell Vort's tale re the JREF. I respect Vort's opinions and I never intended to dis him.
Mod WarningRemain civil and do not insult other members.
Posted By:Cuddles

Last edited by Cuddles; 15th April 2010 at 02:38 AM.
inn 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 14th April 2010, 08:32 PM   #934
Blackdog
Critical Thinker
 
Blackdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 470
Oh for the... I'm a dick?

There is a good argument that I am and I'm sure many would agree, but in this case I wasn't.
All I did was post what is public knowledge. If you wanted to play both sides you should have been more discrete. It's your fault, not mine.

Now quit backpedaling and blaming others for the problems that you caused yourself. For cripes sakes I feel like I'm talking to my kids.
Now...Pish, posh.



BTW, I thought this was hilarious;
Quote:
I respect Vort's opinions and I never intended to dis him.
I guess you can post something funny once in a while.
Blackdog 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 14th April 2010, 08:34 PM   #935
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Greg, all manner of image searches at google and yahoo yield no pics of the necessary area in the necessary pose. If I may suggest it, please go to a mirror, turn your back to it, and hold your arm close to the body and slightly back, and you'll see the inward-facing line of the deltoid bulge. It's not a back muscle, rather it's part of the arm, the shoulder, the interior curve of the deltoid wedge.

This area is more or less pronounced in different individuals. In "Patty", it's admittedly something of a whopper, but I've seen similar definition in bodybuilders.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I challenge you to show any back and shoulder, at any angle, where we see the vertical bifurcations seen on the PGF subject, as indicated by my blue lines.

Also the circular bulges on the arms ..

I know we have disagreed about this in the past, so I really don't expect it to change; we just don't seem to see the same thing here .. ..

Maybe we can peruse the Watchmen DVD, and see if Doctor Manhattan can accommodate us with a suitable angle to make a more valid comparison .

P.S.


If you don't want to rehash old arguments, I will understand and not consider it a win ..

We can agree to disagree..
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 09:31 PM   #936
wolftrax
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 216
Not seeing it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Shoulderpads copy.jpg (67.2 KB, 4 views)
wolftrax 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 14th April 2010, 09:34 PM   #937
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
Originally Posted by inn View Post
Blackdog's a dick is all.
Oh for the... I'm a dick?
You know, you keep talking about dicks and you guys are just going to bring Samwell around.

Oh god...

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


Too late.

Now let's get back on topic or I swear to god I'm going to start just typing "Odin" and hacking the Old Norse chickenscratch and Blackdog will get an E collar.

Or I'll just post more Samwell...

__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 09:47 PM   #938
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,539
Originally Posted by wolftrax View Post
Not seeing it.
In post #887 I posted images of the type of football pads Patterson probably used and images of where he would have gotten them. I hate getting into this goop, but I when I look at Patty's shoulders, I see a match.

I would spend more time looking closely at Patty, but then I would want to forget it after thinking how many thousands of hours I've already wasted doing that.

And then after that I would remember Duane and Harvey Anderson and Roger admitting hoaxing, as well as Roger doing his Babe Ruth to various people about filming Patty, and I'd just want to smack myself.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 09:51 PM   #939
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,244
These bulges on the back shoulder on Patty (to me anyways) look more like fur and fur lines. I don't believe this represents a muscle at all. That being said ! I am not saying that muscle, fat and skin folds cannot be seen under fur.
I just don't necessarily believe that this bulge in the back of the shoulder represents a muscle.
Light and shadows on fur can play tricks on the eyes.

This is an Gorilla.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2010, 09:58 PM   #940
wolftrax
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
In post #887 I posted images of the type of football pads Patterson probably used and images of where he would have gotten them. I hate getting into this goop, but I when I look at Patty's shoulders, I see a match.

I would spend more time looking closely at Patty, but then I would want to forget it after thinking how many thousands of hours I've already wasted doing that.

And then after that I would remember Duane and Harvey Anderson and Roger admitting hoaxing, as well as Roger doing his Babe Ruth to various people about filming Patty, and I'd just want to smack myself.
What I find odd about that is Bob H says it felt like shoulder pads in the suit, he talks about putting on the suit with a bottom and top, no padding, just the suit, and yet if he was wearing the football shoulder pads he would have had to put them on separately. He would have known for certain he was wearing shoulder pads.
wolftrax 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 14th April 2010, 10:12 PM   #941
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,244
We don't really know what modifications Patterson had done to the suit? He could have taken parts of shoulder pads and sown, glued whatever into the suit. So that might explain why it might have felt like pads in the suit?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 03:08 AM   #942
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,244



ETA:
Originally Posted by JcR View Post
This is an Gorilla. That should be - This is a Gorilla ...Duh
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6978e2f405.jpg

Bigfoot mastocytoma? Does your Bigfoot fondle scratch himself excessively?
This may be a symptom of sexual frustration, but may also be a mast cell tumor. Take your Bigfoot to see a crypterinarian as soon as possible.

Last edited by JcR; 15th April 2010 at 03:50 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 04:08 AM   #943
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,939
Originally Posted by inn View Post
Good Lord, lighten up. Sorry you didn't see the humour in that post. Feeling guilty perhaps? My follow up post (which got deleted) was a more serious attempt to tell Vort's tale re the JREF. I respect Vort's opinions and I never intended to dis him.
Hint: You weren't dissing Vort, you lied about how he was treated here ..

But I'm sure you can lighten up and find the humor in that ..
__________________
" 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 05:00 AM   #944
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post


I also told you that Bob personally told me there was no inner core padded muscle suit.

Butt, shoulders, head is what he said.


Then Bob wasn't Patty.........since, if it was a suit, it must have had a custom-formed inner-core....of significant thickness...






Notice how Patty's wide back narrows smoothly all the way up to the back of the head.....(and, notice the overall bulk....of which there is a lot)...




"No 'massive custom-formed inner-core' to the suit".....no Bob Heironimus.


(Of course, the 'elbow-reach', and the 'Arm Gap' numbers have already shown that that was impossible, anyway. Can't do anything about those numbers.....can you? )
__________________
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; 15th April 2010 at 05:15 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 15th April 2010, 06:00 AM   #945
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,414
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Really disingenuous of you there, inn...

What was your point, other than to engender yourself to the peanut gallery ?

All of those posts were deleted at BFF. Just like Coleman does at Cryptomundo.
__________________
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 15th April 2010, 06:15 AM   #946
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,244
Where and what has happened to Cryptomundo? It hasn't worked (for me anyways) for the past few weeks.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 06:16 AM   #947
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,939
I don't have a problem with editing a page that has gone off topic, the problem I see, was that inn/Gigantofooticus' original nastygram about the JREF, wasn't touched until it was responded to negatively by myself and others.

It's OK to bash JREF at BFF, but its not OK to bash the basher..
__________________
" 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 09:10 AM   #948
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,414
Originally Posted by JcR View Post
Where and what has happened to Cryptomundo? It hasn't worked (for me anyways) for the past few weeks.
Same here. I can access the site about 5% of the time. When I do it seems that it is festooned with more gimmicky advertising stuff than ever before.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg
It's OK to bash JREF at BFF, but its not OK to bash the basher..
The BFF needs all the Bigfoot supporters it can get. Over there, Gigantofootecus/y is counted as a supporter.
__________________
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 15th April 2010, 12:48 PM   #949
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by wolftrax View Post
Not seeing it.
Okay, let me try to be more clear. The bodybuilder pics you've posted are, like the anatomical drawing, viewed straight-on -- at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the left-right axis of the body.

In the pic of Patty under review, the shoulder is seen from the right at a ~120-degree angle (where the left-right axis of the body is 180-degrees). Thus the shoulder overlaps the back muscles owing to the principles of perspective.

Also, the two bodybuilders are holding their arms differently from the PG figure. Held loosely or naurally, the arm tends to hang slightly forward. Patty/MITS has "its" arm close to the body, and angled slightly back. This changes where the deltoid is in relation to the back.

Below I've attached 1) wolftrax's images of the bodybuilders, and 2) my crude indications, in red, of where the segment of the deltoid I'm talking about is.

Try to imagine that, as the arm comes back in toward the body, that red teardrop-shaped segment becomes more vertical. As you step to the right, that segment overlaps the back muscles behind it.

It also helps, again, if you turn your back to a mirror and observe the interior bulge of the deltoid, which is more or less pronounced on different individuals.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Shoulderpads copy.jpg (67.2 KB, 4 views)
File Type: jpg Shoulderpads copy2.JPG (60.6 KB, 3 views)
__________________
"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

Last edited by Vortigern99; 15th April 2010 at 12:53 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 01:13 PM   #950
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Patty's muscles/pads

Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
This is something of a red herring, and fish always tastes better with a grain of salt, but IMO the above images don't appear to match up for two reasons:

1. The angles and the poses are different. In the PG figure the deltoid wedge overlaps the teres masses, whereas the anatomy close-up is seen straight-on, with no overlap.

2. Fat and epidermal tissues also contribute to the surface features of real anatomy, which you cannot see on anatomical drawings.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I don't hold the opinion that the figure is a real non-human animal. That said, with my professional experience in human muscular anatomy, I assert that I observe what are IMO accurately-placed human muscles in the back and arms of the figure.
I must say, the muscle detail is one of the chief claims of those who think this is not a person in a suit. So while you may not think that muscle detail is necessarily evident under the skin, muscle detail or lack thereof AS SEEN is fair game.

The "deltoid wedge?" The Teres group? Well, from what you can see, and what you say, you do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed. So which 'muscles"/pads of the back and arm do you think can be are accurately-placed (and shaped?)
And which if any of these muscles/pads exhibit true contraction?

Last edited by DennyT; 15th April 2010 at 01:17 PM.
DennyT 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 15th April 2010, 02:49 PM   #951
wolftrax
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 216
This is probably the closest that I could find, still not seeing it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg shoulders comp.jpg (139.8 KB, 4 views)
wolftrax 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 15th April 2010, 02:53 PM   #952
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
I must say, the muscle detail is one of the chief claims of those who think this is not a person in a suit. So while you may not think that muscle detail is necessarily evident under the skin, muscle detail or lack thereof AS SEEN is fair game.
I'm having trouble understanding your point here. Can you clarify what you mean by "fair game" and "AS SEEN"?

To clarify my own position, in case you missed this, I'm reasonably certain the PG figure is a person in a suit. The bigfoot threads on this forum catalog my reasons for this certainty. I've also explained, here and elsewhere, that the shapes I'm seeing might be an optical illusion akin to parediolia, and/or the natural draping of the fabric over the actor's body.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
The "deltoid wedge?" The Teres group? Well, from what you can see, and what you say, you do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed. So which 'muscles"/pads of the back and arm do you think can be are accurately-placed (and shaped?)
And which if any of these muscles/pads exhibit true contraction?
Wait wait wait. What do you mean by insisting that I "do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed"? In point of fact, I do contend that. To my trained eye the deltoid, teres group and infranspinatus are all correctly positioned on Patty/MITS. YMMV.

Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled. The triceps, biceps, and the flexors of the lower arm are accurately placed to my eye. There is a bulging, "donut"-like quality to these areas that some viewers find unrealistic, but to my mind the fur is distorting the precise shape so it's hard to tell. The bulging could be the result of a sagging suit, of course, or the fabric is conforming to the body masses of the actor beneath the probable suit.

As to contraction, it's difficult to discern between the fur and the blur. I do see some degree of adduction of the teres major and posterior deltoid wedge in the Patty/MITS pose under review. But again it could be apophenia or just the actor's own mass under the material.

I hope that clarifies. Tit for tat, what do you see on the figure? Malformed lumps and donuts? I'm sure a case could be made from that perspective, but to my eye Patty's/MITS' muscles are accurately placed.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Vortigern99; 15th April 2010 at 02:54 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 03:16 PM   #953
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by wolftrax View Post
This is probably the closest that I could find, still not seeing it.
Hey, that's a good angle! Thanks for finding that.

Contrasted against that ultra-clear color pic, Patty/MITS is such a jumbled mess of black-and-white pixels that it's hard to tell what's what. Also, the lighting is reversed, which confuses the comparison.

That said, the area under review certainly looks to be more "bulging" on the PG figure, but I can see the corresponding area on the athlete. It's in shadow with reflected red light on it, but I do see it.

I don't mean to be obtuse. If the group consensus is against me in this, so be it. But I'm seeing the same shapes on both figures -- lit differently and posed differently, so that they appear different to the untrained eye.

(I know I'm going to get a rapping for that -- Argument to authority! -- but what the heck, I'm sticking to my guns in this.)
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 05:10 PM   #954
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
?expert?

Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
I'm having trouble understanding your point here. Can you clarify what you mean by "fair game" and "AS SEEN"?
My point is that since 'footers cite "normal looking muscles", the "oh THAT abnormal looking muscle is obscured by skin/subQ tissues" or "oh, that's just hair," blah blah are not valid arguments, if viewed as anything other than a concession that the "muscle" in fact DOES NOT look normal.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Wait wait wait. What do you mean by insisting that I "do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed"? In point of fact, I do contend that. To my trained eye the deltoid, teres group and infranspinatus are all correctly positioned on Patty/MITS. YMMV.
my mistake; I interpreted your comments incorrectly. Are you saying that the posterior deltoid looks normal, and you're not commenting on the rest of it? I must say, I strongly disagree that the deltoid is anything like normal. The origins and insertions are both wrong. And that little "kidney-shaped" blob is supposed to be "teres group" and infraspinatus? I must admit to astonishment.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled. The triceps, biceps, and the flexors of the lower arm are accurately placed to my eye.
Well that is as sweeping and unsupported assertion as I could imagine.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
There is a bulging, "donut"-like quality to these areas that some viewers find unrealistic, but to my mind the fur is distorting the precise shape so it's hard to tell.
This is what I was referring to earlier; you think the muscles look good except for the bad parts which you argue are not muscles. This is "special pleading."
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
As to contraction, it's difficult to discern between the fur and the blur. I do see some degree of adduction of the teres major and posterior deltoid wedge in the Patty/MITS pose under review. But again it could be apophenia or just the actor's own mass under the material.
Hmm, again, you use the special pleading; it doesn't look right, so it must not be muscle.
Again, I must suggest you are not really trained in anatomy, as you claim, because no anatomist would use the expression "adduction of the teres major." Muscles do not adduct. They may CAUSE adduction. And this "posterior deltoid wedge" is not an anatomical entity, at least not in the orientation seen on Patty.
I asked about "CONTRACTION." I suspect you don't really know what that means.
And by the way, citing "epidermal tissues" makes me think you are either trying to fool us or you weren't trained very well. The epidermis is the extremely thin top layer of skin, and "epidermal tissues" is a non sequitur.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
I hope that clarifies. Tit for tat, what do you see on the figure? Malformed lumps and donuts? I'm sure a case could be made from that perspective, but to my eye Patty's/MITS' muscles are accurately placed.
And I think you have given away by three errors in one post, the fact that you aren't really an expert in anatomy. An expert in anatomy wouldn't have made any of those mistakes. People can claim anything in a forum I guess...So you may certainly express your opinion, but frankly you don't carry a lot of weight on these issues. As for what I think, rather than making sweeping generalizations, I will post my thoughts on the individual muscles and their function. You can judge my expertise by what I write.
DennyT 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 15th April 2010, 06:57 PM   #955
Vortigern99
Philosopher
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
My point is that since 'footers cite "normal looking muscles", the "oh THAT abnormal looking muscle is obscured by skin/subQ tissues" or "oh, that's just hair," blah blah are not valid arguments, if viewed as anything other than a concession that the "muscle" in fact DOES NOT look normal.
Thanks for the clarification. As I said I'm reasonably certain we're looking at a person in a suit, and I'm reasonably certain bigfoot doesn't exist, so all I'm arguing is that to my eye, the muscles of the torso and arm are accurately placed on the PG figure. (The legs, however, are a mess, with visible fabric folds if one knows where to look.) If you reject that opinion, great! My opinion remains.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
my mistake; I interpreted your comments incorrectly. Are you saying that the posterior deltoid looks normal, and you're not commenting on the rest of it? I must say, I strongly disagree that the deltoid is anything like normal. The origins and insertions are both wrong. And that little "kidney-shaped" blob is supposed to be "teres group" and infraspinatus? I must admit to astonishment.
Yes, I'm saying the posterior deltoid (the "wedge" segment hat attaches to the scapula) looks normal in terms of its location, if somewhat "bulgier" than that of a "normal" human (that is, a human without a Patty suit). In short, the post. deltoid appears to be in the right place, but it looks distorted in size.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Well that is as sweeping and unsupported assertion as I could imagine.
I don't understand where the harshness is coming from. You asked me my opinion: So which 'muscles"/pads of the back and arm do you think can be are accurately-placed (and shaped?) I answered with my opinion: Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled. The triceps, biceps, and the flexors of the lower arm are accurately placed to my eye. Then you criticised my response as "sweeping and unsupported".

Okay, well, yes -- it's an opinion with absolutely no measurements or comparisons to support it. You'll forgive me, I hope, if as a non-BF believer and non-PGF believer I have little interest in spending hours trying to prove that I can see muscles on Patty/MITS. I've said repeatedly this is a red herring. It doesn't change the reasoned conclusion that it's a person in a suit.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
This is what I was referring to earlier; you think the muscles look good except for the bad parts which you argue are not muscles. This is "special pleading."
I think you've got me and my position all wrong. My subjective perception of correct muscle-forms on the torso and arm of the PG figure does not matter one iota. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Patty is a real animal or that we're looking at living tissue. My opinion is that there might be a muscle suit under the fabric suit, but I might be wrong and I might be experiencing apophenia. That's it. Disagree all you like.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Hmm, again, you use the special pleading; it doesn't look right, so it must not be muscle.
You've got me wrong again. I didn't write "it must not be muscle"; I wrote "it could be apophenia or just the actor's own mass under the material". I don't understand what part of that you have a problem with, but your mischaracterization of my assertions is becoming annoying.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Again, I must suggest you are not really trained in anatomy, as you claim, because no anatomist would use the expression "adduction of the teres major." Muscles do not adduct. They may CAUSE adduction. And this "posterior deltoid wedge" is not an anatomical entity, at least not in the orientation seen on Patty.
First, I'm not an "anatomist", I'm an artist trained in human anatomy, with a minor in anthropology (including some primatology) from Texas State. I've never claimed to be an "anatomist", so maybe that's where we're conflicting, since as you've recently arrived you don't know my background. Any differences in terminology between our schools probably derive from the difference between medical/zoological anatomy and artist's anatomy, which is mainly surface anatomy with some understanding of bones and movement.

Second, regarding adduction, professor David K. Rubens describes and depicts the process in relation to the teres group, the deltoid and the pectoral muscles in his 1953 book The Human Figure: An Anatomy for Artists [Penguin Books, 1976]. His opinion conflicts with yours, so I don't know what to tell you.

Also, this wiki page describes the process of adduction in detail, listing all the muscles (including those of the back and shoulder) which perform the action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adduction

Originally Posted by wilipedia
Upper limb

* of arm at shoulder[1]
o Subscapularis
o Teres major
o Pectoralis major
o Infraspinatus
o Triceps brachii (caput longum)
o Latissimus dorsi
o Coracobrachialis

* of hand at wrist[2]
o Flexor carpi ulnaris
o Extensor carpi ulnaris

* of fingers[3]
o Palmar interossei

* of thumb[4]
o Adductor pollicis
Indeed, as we see above, the muscle of the thumb is named "adductor pollicis", refuting succinctly your bolded assertion that "Muscles do not adduct".

In the future, please don't employ an invective tone with me, in matters in which you are demonstrably mistaken.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
I asked about "CONTRACTION." I suspect you don't really know what that means.
I understood it to be an umbrella term that includes extension, flexion, adduction and abduction, possibly including supination and pronation as well. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
And by the way, citing "epidermal tissues" makes me think you are either trying to fool us or you weren't trained very well. The epidermis is the extremely thin top layer of skin, and "epidermal tissues" is a non sequitur.
I think you're being pedantic here. The epidermis is comprised of several layers -- the basal, the cornified, etc. -- for which I employed the layman's term "tissues". If they cannot be said to be true "tissues" in a medical or zoological sense, please replace the word "tissues" with the word "layers" and accept my apologies. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, so please stop accusing me of some hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
And I think you have given away by three errors in one post, the fact that you aren't really an expert in anatomy. An expert in anatomy wouldn't have made any of those mistakes. People can claim anything in a forum I guess...So you may certainly express your opinion, but frankly you don't carry a lot of weight on these issues. As for what I think, rather than making sweeping generalizations, I will post my thoughts on the individual muscles and their function. You can judge my expertise by what I write.
We've seen that my three "errors" are in fact 1) differences in terminology between the medical and artistic, or 2) your own error rather than mine. I am not claiming anything in this matter beyond the reportage of what I subjectively perceive. At the very beginning of this, upthread, I said it was a red herring and to take it with a grain of salt.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2010, 07:35 PM   #956
wolftrax
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 216
The problem I am seeing is what is identified as the Posterior aspect of the deltoid muscle should converge with the lateral and anterior aspects and insert into the deltoid tuberosity of the humerus, overlapping the top of the triceps.

In Patty, the posterior deltoid aspect appears to separate from the lateral aspect and instead insert by the medial head of the triceps.

Last edited by wolftrax; 15th April 2010 at 07:36 PM.
wolftrax 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 15th April 2010, 07:53 PM   #957
manofthesea
2wu4u
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,655
Wow guys, that's alot of scientific medical terminology.

How would we scientifically describe a big fat diaper butt?
manofthesea 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 15th April 2010, 07:59 PM   #958
TSR
Do you know what this notorious criminal did?
 
TSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,788
Originally Posted by manofthesea View Post
How would we scientifically describe a big fat diaper butt?
.
Well, here at my house, the baby calls them bahpants.

In fact, his brother sings to the tune of Beethoven's Fifth: "bah bah bah pants. Bah bah bah pants. BAH BAH BAH PANTS!!!!!!" and then zerbits while Miguel giggles his fool head off....


That, or "Pew! 'Tinky baby!"
.
__________________
My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is.
.
"My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape
TSR 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 15th April 2010, 10:02 PM   #959
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Second, regarding adduction, professor David K. Rubens describes and depicts the process in relation to the teres group, the deltoid and the pectoral muscles in his 1953 book The Human Figure: An Anatomy for Artists [Penguin Books, 1976]. His opinion conflicts with yours, so I don't know what to tell you.
No, it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Also, this wiki page describes the process of adduction in detail, listing all the muscles (including those of the back and shoulder) which perform the action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adduction


Indeed, as we see above, the muscle of the thumb is named "adductor pollicis", refuting succinctly your bolded assertion that "Muscles do not adduct".
Not so.

Muscles do not adduct. They may cause adduction. Get it? Muscles contract and bring the insertion closer to the origin. One doesn't speak of "adduction of the teres minor." etc. One speaks of adduction of bones, sometimes of joints, but not adduction of muscles. Names of muscles don't matter in this issue. This is a matter of common usage, and I understand that you don't understand the distinction, but it is a real one.

In view of your claims, I felt it was important to understand that you are not an anatomist, and your terminology showed it. Sorry if you are offended by my tone. I am sure you are a fine artist. But you are blowing some smoke with your terminology and your claims. And the more you ramble, the more evident it is.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
In the future, please don't employ an invective tone with me, in matters in which you are demonstrably mistaken.
I'm actually not mistaken. Ask an anatomist. Please don't pretend your expertise is greater than it is.
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
I think you're being pedantic here. The epidermis is comprised of several layers -- the basal, the cornified, etc. -- for which I employed the layman's term "tissues". If they cannot be said to be true "tissues" in a medical or zoological sense, please replace the word "tissues" with the word "layers" and accept my apologies. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, so please stop accusing me of some hidden agenda.
You're digging yourself deeper, on the "tissues" thing. Pedantic? You made an enormous blanket assertion about Patty's musculature. Things like that get challenged. When you try unsuccessfully to use technical terminology, it does seem like you're trying to fool someone. I'm glad you're not.

If debating your blanket contentions bothers you, this place is gonna be uncomfortable.
DennyT 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 15th April 2010, 11:11 PM   #960
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,244

Just how tight do you want your suit Lou?


Lou: Just as long as it shows off my bulges.



It's a miracle.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 02:20 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.