Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Fundamentalism is defined by an attitude where one can not accept or come to grasp that one's own subjective opinion or interpretation is not actually a fact and accepted as such. Where you believe Patty's elbow to be is just that - a belief. There are other equally valid interpretations from the visual evidence...

These images most accurately reflect where elbow is located and bends...

forearmBW.gif

Bigpattymouth6.gif

Bigelbows6.gif

It's the same as waving away the opinions of those Bigfoot believers that argue for s strong comparison between Hoffy and Patty. Just because one Bigfoot fundamentalist believer says they do not compare does not invalidate the opinions of those believers who say it does. Would you like to argue otherwise? Wow, you've just found fundamentalism.

How about we make an effort to return to the subject matter and keep the elbow conversation for the thread on that subject?...

I can't help but feel like I am contributing to gif spamming, and I really would rather not.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit, we are not suppose to derail threads. I am probably guilty enough already of doing that.

And you ask me to talk about my skepticism here? I don't expect you to recall everything i have

posted but i have been critical of certain analyses put out there.

Regarding my assertion that some don't believe in bf and argue accordingly against the pgf

..its my opinion..obviously i do not know what is in individual's heads but i am still entitled to my

opinion based on what i have read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit, we are not suppose to derail threads. I am probably guilty enough already of doing that.

And you ask me to talk about my skepticism here? I don't expect you to recall everything i have

posted but i have been critical of certain analyses put out there.

You're right about this thread being very derailed. This would be an appropriate place to discuss which pro-PGF arguments at the BFF you are critical of...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/872-reasons-not-to-consider-the-pgf-a-hoax/

If you can let me know there which certain analyses you think are way off, it would help me in understanding your position better.

Regarding my assertion that some don't believe in bf and argue accordingly against the pgf

..its my opinion..obviously i do not know what is in individual's heads but i am still entitled to my

opinion based on what i have read.

You are fully entitled to your opinion. Your inference was that there were not just some skeptics here whose position on the PGF is dictated by a decision that Bigfoot doesn't exist, rather than issues with the PGF, but actually many. There's not even one. Not a single skeptic of the PGF regularly posting here that has that position. In fact, a number of the PGF skeptics we've had here are in fact Bigfoot proponents.

You can have your opinion, but your opinion is counter opposite to the reality of the membership of the BFF. It's subjective, it's hmmm I think so, and more than anything, just wrong. It's OK to be wrong. Just please bear in mind in future the the people here that do not accept the PGF as evidence of Bigfoot are not robots and we don't reject the film out of dogma. It's the film and the source of the film that's the problem.

Suggesting many of us reject Bigfoot out of hand and subsequently the PGF is whacking away at one of these...

strawman1.jpg

It's just not any one of us. I can in this one rare instance safely speak for BFF PGF skeptics safely when I say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit, you are very bold in your assertions that no one here does not bring a bias to their arguement

against the pgf. That is not knowable as fact as you seem to be stating. It is my impression and

it is my opinion..never claimed it as fact. And whether i said many or some is irrelevant. I do not think

it many..i think most are not convinced..and that too is my opinion because i have not taken a poll.

It is not clear to me why you are so eager to see my criticism..i am not to eager to oblige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Fundamentalism is defined by an attitude where one can not accept or come to grasp that one's own subjective opinion or interpretation is not actually a fact and accepted as such. Where you believe Patty's elbow to be is just that - a belief. There are other equally valid interpretations from the visual evidence...

It's the same as waving away the opinions of those Bigfoot believers that argue for s strong comparison between Hoffy and Patty. Just because one Bigfoot fundamentalist believer says they do not compare does not invalidate the opinions of those believers who say it does. Would you like to argue otherwise? Wow, you've just found fundamentalism.

How about we make an effort to return to the subject matter and keep the elbow conversation for the thread on that subject?...

I can't help but feel like I am contributing to gif spamming, and I really would rather not.

This animation does not show the true length of Patty's upper-arm....because the Frame which shows Patty's upper-arm not foreshortened...(Frame 362)......is not really visible in it....(it lasts for only about .06 seconds)...

forearmBW1.gif .

This is Frame 362...taken from the animation...

... Elbow9.jpg

In Frame 362....Patty's arm is swinging forward, close alongside her body...in the follow-through of the 'hard impact' of her right foot on the ground...

5StepElbowCompAG2.gif

That Frame shows the true un-foreshortened length of Patty's upper-arm....while most of the other Frames around it show her arm foreshortened...due to it being swung outwards, in the direction of the camera.

kitakaze wrote:

Fundamentalism is defined by an attitude where one can not accept or come to grasp that one's own subjective opinion or interpretation is not actually a fact....

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
Bigpattyelbow4.jpg

kitakaze,

Slide your right arm up to your mouth so your mouth is between you bicep an forearm, even if her hand was at location of the yellow dot...she'd still be able ta have her cheeeeeeese bugger.

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

1992, sightin' by amateur taxidermist from Ketchikan, Alaska.

He spotted it along the shore from his boat, it was squated or hunched down by a creek, he could tell by its breasts it was female, breasts which were almost completely covered by black fur, about the size of dinner plates an breasts weren't floppy. It was about 7-8 feet tall, 5-6 hundred pounds, maybe more. Really broad across the hips an buttocks. The head was somewhat pointed, sloped back from brow ridge, flat dark skinned face with a broad nose, flared nostrils, flat faced with a mouth that protruded further than nose, a wide mouth with no really visible lips, no hair around eyes, nose an mouth. The body was thick set with a very thick neck. Hair/fur on body was about 4 inches long, on back of head an shoulders was longer, almost like a mane. It looked pregnant to him based on her protrudin' stomach. Feet were about 14-15 inches long by 7-8 inches wide, the heels kinda stuck out, it left tracks about an inch deep, his far less(can't recall what he had said at the moment). When he first spotted her, she was hunched down, sittin' on her heels pretty much, at one point she turned towards him, he noticed somethin' of particular interest to me regardin' her foot, "the right heel came up and the whole length of the foot seemed to bend inwards, very strange, it almost seemed to me to make the letter "C". It seemed more flexible than a humans."

He included two drawin's of the sasquatch. When it finally did get up an walk away, he said it walked with a slight forward slump and kind of a waddle from side to side.

This report can be found in Raincoast Sasquatch, a report I've always found quite interestin' .

Pat...

ps: Sorry for goin' astray in previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Pat, In many ways the description seems similar to Archie Matkoluk's. I will try to get a copy of the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tirademan

Tirademan, thank you for the rerail. Let's have a look at what you've shared with his.

Account 1:

Female: Yes.

Receding forehead: Yes.

Covered in short hair: ?

Hair three feet long on the head: Yes. Wait, what?

Screamed then ran?

Sinewy and lithe, IOW skinny and not diaper butt and frump-a-dump.

OK, that one's not in the ball park.

Account 2:

- Long black hair flowing in the wind.

- Body hair is grey.

- Screamed and ran.

- Swinging through the underbrush limb to limb with her arms escaping pursuers. Oh dear.

July 1883 and July 1884. Tirademan, neither of these are anywhere even close to Patty, but aside from that, wild woman escapes from humans after crazy scream with long flowing black hair. It seems some details have been exaggerated from one to the next with now there being body hair, wild chase with half a hundred men, body hair, swinging through the trees. You do know they made stuff like this up, right?

Well Kit, it seems you're not a "forest through the trees" type...but I am.

What makes sense to you will not to me.

tirademan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze,

Slide your right arm up to your mouth so your mouth is between you bicep an forearm, even if her hand was at location of the yellow dot...she'd still be able ta have her cheeeeeeese bugger.

Pat...

Thanks for making that point, Pat... :) I was going to...but, didn't get around to it.

From the measurements I've made so far....it looks like Patty's 'lower-arm'...(forearm + hand)....is approximately 110% of the length of her 'upper-arm'....just slightly longer. (a human's is approx. 140%. A 'human w/hand extension'...an even higher ratio). That alone makes is possible for the hand to reach the mouth.

Add to that, the flexibility of the shoulder, neck, etc.....and, Patty would has no problem hasing a Cheezeburger......or Popscorn.... :popcorn:

The first seven seconds of this video shows Paddy in slow motion, swinging her arms. If you watch the seven second segment without pausing, several times, I believe you can see where the elbow is located. For the best results, view the video full screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdEGrnsYJWY&feature=player_embedded

That short clip of the PGF, Romano....does not show Patty's arm after Frame 352...where it can be seen close alongside the body....un-foreshortened....(Frame 362). :)

Neither kit's high-speed animation, nor that section of the Film shows Patty's arm in a position where it's parallel to the 'Vertical Plane of the camera'...i.e....not foreshortened.

(Note: kit's high-speed animation does not show Frame 362...in the practical sense. It is there...but you can't actually see it....since it displays for only one-half of 1/10th of a second.)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

No Sweaty....... You are showing the only frame of the entire video that gives the illusion that the elbow fits your theory due to the angle and the body mass giving the appearance of a longer forearm. Every other frame clearly shows the elbow in the expected position for a human arm. From what I have gathered in my years of reading interpretations of the film, you are the only person with this theory. It is incorrect, and been shown by other analysts to be untrue.

Edited by Wookie73
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

No Sweaty....... You are showing the only frame of the entire video that gives the illusion that the elbow fits your theory due to the angle and the body mass giving the appearance of a longer forearm. Every other frame clearly shows the elbow in the expected position for a human arm. From what I have gathered in my years of reading interpretations of the film, you are the only person with this theory. It is incorrect, and been shown by other analysts to be untrue.

Exactly! That's why I always say he cherry picks his material. There are only a very few frames that can be used to prove most points,. and he reuses those over and over and over again because all other frames show things contrary to the point Sweaty is trying to make. In the string of images hacked from MK's walking sequence, Sweaty says look only at "this" image, ignore the ones to the left that contradict what's being claimed in that one image in the middle. Anything taken out of context can be made to look a given way, but put that image back into the moving film, and you can easily see where the real elbow bends.

There have always been people that will grab one frame, and make a huge story to go along with whatever it seems to show. Like the one where the background shadow converges with the outline of Patty's head, and the guy claimed it was Patty snapping her mouth open like a frog, for only one frame! Or the funny finger curl when the right hand was swung back, which turned out to be an anomaly on only one copy of the film. There are numerous example of one person or another person latching on to one frame and building a large backstory to support the illusion that one frame creates.

In this case, there's just one point in the arm swing of the entire film that everything lines up in a way that gives the impression that Sweaty perceives as a low elbow. Nothing before, and nothing after confirms that low elbow, and in fact everything before and after contradicts it. But that idea will just not die. Like the angles of the eye to shoulder to elbow graphic. Sheesh! Is it possible to block that image?

1992, sightin' by amateur taxidermist from Ketchikan, Alaska. He spotted it along the shore from his boat, it was squated or hunched down by a creek, he could tell by its breasts it was female, breasts which were almost completely covered by black fur, about the size of dinner plates an breasts weren't floppy. It was about 7-8 feet tall, 5-6 hundred pounds, maybe more. Really broad across the hips an buttocks. The head was somewhat pointed, sloped back from brow ridge, flat dark skinned face with a broad nose, flared nostrils, flat faced with a mouth that protruded further than nose, a wide mouth with no really visible lips, no hair around eyes, nose an mouth. The body was thick set with a very thick neck. Hair/fur on body was about 4 inches long, on back of head an shoulders was longer, almost like a mane. It looked pregnant to him based on her protrudin' stomach. Feet were about 14-15 inches long by 7-8 inches wide, the heels kinda stuck out, it left tracks about an inch deep, his far less(can't recall what he had said at the moment). When he first spotted her, she was hunched down, sittin' on her heels pretty much, at one point she turned towards him, he noticed somethin' of particular interest to me regardin' her foot, "the right heel came up and the whole length of the foot seemed to bend inwards, very strange, it almost seemed to me to make the letter "C". It seemed more flexible than a humans." He included two drawin's of the sasquatch. When it finally did get up an walk away, he said it walked with a slight forward slump and kind of a waddle from side to side. This report can be found in Raincoast Sasquatch, a report I've always found quite interestin' . Pat... ps: Sorry for goin' astray in previous post.

Wow, great sighting. I hate to sound like a cynic, but is there anything at all that has been compiled into the whole collective of bigfoot traits that has been left out? Mid tarsal break, long heel, hairy breasts, breasts that don't bob around, sloping head with a peak on the back, no hair on face. I didn't see a low elbow mentioned, but that's because it hasn't gained enough momentum yet, perhaps? Seriously, is there anything in the collective that was left out of the description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

No Sweaty....... You are showing the only frame of the entire video that gives the illusion that the elbow fits your theory due to the angle and the body mass giving the appearance of a longer forearm. Every other frame clearly shows the elbow in the expected position for a human arm. From what I have gathered in my years of reading interpretations of the film, you are the only person with this theory. It is incorrect, and been shown by other analysts to be untrue.

You are wrong, Wookie.

There are multiple Frames in which Patty's arm is completely vertical....that show the true length of Patty's upper-arm...and the true proportion of the upper-to-lower arm.

I'll post a summary of those in the 'Patty's Arms' thread....sometime soon.

Tontar wrote:

Exactly! That's why I always say he cherry picks his material.

My analysis will move 'onward and upward', Tontar. Your words will live....and die...on this Forum. :) Have a wonderful day!

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar,

The witness was a hunter an ameture taxidermist, someone familiar with animals an who also got a good look at it/one, so I find the details of his description quite interestin'. As I've said, my opinion, many or most reports describe a animal with similar characteristics to the P/G subject. Here we have a sightin' in which the witness got a good look, an bein' familiar with wildlife, took note of the sasquatchs appearance, a compellin' observation that correlates rather well to not only the P/G subject(as requested in the thread), but characteristics described by other witnesses. He mentioned longer hair/fur at back of head an shoulders, I don't personally think that matches the P/G subject, he mentions the kind of waddle as it walked, I don't think it visible in P/G subject. However, I've heard mention this kind of waddle before, an wonder if it could be a result of the sasquatch placin' its feet down in a straighter line than ours, less straddle, that may look unusual to an observer compared to the normal placement of the feet visible in humans. If the sasquatch carried its arms out an away from torso as it moved, also visible in most of the frames of the P/G subject as it walks away, perhaps this may also add to a witness thinkin' the balance of subject was a little off. Speculation on my part of course. The witness also described pink patches of skin on the face, he couldn't understand, however it is somethin' visible on the skin (faces) of chimps.

One of the best descriptions I can recall, as I said, I find it quite interestin'.

Pat...

SweatyYeti,

You're welcome, glad I could help. :bbq:

Cheers !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...