Bill Posted March 3, 2008 Author Posted March 3, 2008 Mooseman: "In your opinion would the would be maker of the purported PGF suit be so 'unprofessional' as to miss something as obvious as the 'hip joint' flaw that so many point to as being the obvious evidence pointing to hoax? " I'm frankly not sure where you are going with this. You have several hypotheticals in your statement, so I suppose any hypothetical answer could sufffice. I would a ssume a more professional person would deliver a result with few or no flaws, and an amateur might deliver a result with more noticable flaws, as a generality. I've repeatedly said I have no final conclusion on the hip/pelvic area. RN: Not familiar with the motion you described. Can't comment. I'm on another board mostly today to correct their misconceptions of my work. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) Bill: That’s too bad you have to clean up peoples misconstrued interpretations. I know you are on info overload but here is the skeletal animation I am referring to. http://www.visionrealm.com/pattytrack.html The below website explains it more. http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf Edited March 3, 2008 by Remember November
Guest longtabber PE Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 You've not disputed the fact you fired at an unidentified target. Blathering on doesn't change the fact. Soldier on, my friend. Thats correct but in "context"- it was not "unidentified" as in location, range and apparent intent. It was only not "identified" in regard to what it actually was( and if it was an animal, how would you expect it to respond?) Also,dont forget to plug in the fact that prior to the approach that warranted firing on target- it was properly warned and that warning was reinforced with a serious warning shot. While you address my "blathering"- make certain that your "facts" are all inclusive and paint a true picture of the situation, circumstance and perceived level of threat. In addition, dont forget the key points that before the decision was made to fire on target- the subject was given more than ample opportunity to identify itself. Lets dont "selectively" omit pertinant details that dont fit the popular "worldview" to make a proposed point that the totality of the situation doesnt support. So, who here is actually "blathering?" Also, make sure these "facts" you refer to are viewed in proper light Just curious
Guest Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Hmmm, looking at Colobus' picture and thinking back on some of the points brought out by the suitnicks, I say that that is a suit. Where should I start? Look at the difference in the hair pattern on the top of the shoulder between the neck and shoulder and the hair pattern in the outer part of the shoulder itself, patched together. While the hair pattern flows relatively uniformly from the head to the back there is a horizontal line in the hair just behind the ear that cannot be ignored, seam. What is that bulge on the back? Actually two bulges that look very out of place, one is in the shoulder blade area but too low to be a shoulder blade, the other is on the left side of the back of the neck, look directly to the left of the horizontal line in the neck, why are these bulges in the wrong place? Padding. Why would a real animal be holding it's hand as if it had just had a manicure? And the difference in the color between the forearm and the hand/wrist area looks like some kind of gloved extension. This one can't be Bob H. however, because that is definitely not a football helmet kind of head, in fact that looks like where the top of the suit is placed over the person wearing the suit as it is such a distinct line over the top of the head. Probably where the face mask is joined to the rest of the suit. I know that I'm missing some of the finer points here, maybe some of the suitnicks can help me out here. )
Guest longtabber PE Posted March 3, 2008 Posted March 3, 2008 Blathering has worked pretty well for him so far.K Failure to address any specifics and show where the "wrongs" are rather than making aloof statements with no basis in doctrine or refuting the original points shows me how well your patented "post and run" strategy is too. I notice that and I'm not alone in that observation. You post your experience and career, yet you comment contradictory to that- when challenged, you produce nothing. You have been demonstrated incorrect before and you have yet to accomplish any better here. My points still stand, I have explained them in detail yet for some unfathomable reason you seem unwilling or incapable of of refuting them in terms of doctrine or experience. Why is that? See, when one actually knows what they are talking about and has the expertise in an area- thats one thing- yet when another claims the same level but fails to demonstrate same, that shows a different thing. What unfortunately happens is that the discussion goes from a discussion of the facts to an ad hom attack attempting to try to make knowledge appear to be an "ego trip" ( only because one cannot address the points factually) and the "confidence" in that knowledge to be twisted to mean "arrogance" so it can be explained "away" as just "complaining" in feeble hopes to win an argument. You have YET to bring anything to the table ( we both know why) of any substance other than a deliberate attempt to ignore every point I have raised. Thats the difference between those who KNOW what they are talking about and those who want to skirt the issue completely. You specifically have avoided addressing any of those points ( except in an aloof manner)- See, I know the reason why, I also know why you wont and why you havent. So, rather that talk in circles saying nothing and avoiding the critical points- if you have information, lets see it and lets discuss it- if you DONT however- that speaks for itself too. You have had more than ample opportunity in this thread and others. Lets see it. I put my cards on the table
Guest Killain Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) Tabber, you are far too insulting to engage. I have nothing to prove to you, or to the forum. I'll engage when I want, and with whom I want and I won't be baited into an adolescent game of "gotcha" by someone who feels like disparaging other people's service and professionalism at every turn. This is not just me, but anyone who disagrees with you. Your remarks quickly turn from authoratative to condescending to childishly rediculous. You have no idea how adolescent you sounded challenging another poster to validate his experience by producing a CIB or some other proof that he measured up to your estimation of what it takes to be a man. Then googling Col Cooper's writings so that your could author an essay on the man's meaning and intent in your typical condescening manner. Or, perhaps you even have a few of the Colonel's books on your book shelf. My correspondence with the Colonel spanned about 20 years...but you will undoubtedly demand that I scan and produce copies of the letters just to satisfy you. By way of challenging my honesty, you will probably scan and provide copies of yours to goad me into playing your game of one-upmanship. Your service, is your service. Mine is mine. Anyone else who served doesn't have to prove their worth to your liking. You neither deserve that consideration, nor would you appreciate it. Now, this has gone on long enough. I don't see any way out byplay can result in anything other than a distraction from the fine work Bill has done. You reserve the right to challenge that work, and I'll reserve the right to continue to participate where I feel the need. I will quit sniping at you and if you feel like it, you can quit sniping at me. Or not. It's up to you. K Edited March 4, 2008 by Killain
Guest longtabber PE Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Tabber, you are far too insulting to engage. I have nothing to prove to you, or to the forum. I'll engage when I want, and with whom I want and I won't be baited into an adolescent game of "gotcha" by someone who feels like disparaging other people's service and professionalism at every turn. This is not just me, but anyone who disagrees with you. Your remarks quickly turn from authoratative to condescending to childishly rediculous. You have no idea how adolescent you sounded challenging another poster to validate his experience by producing a CIB or some other proof that he measured up to your estimation of what it takes to be a man. Then googling Col Cooper's writings so that your could author an essay on the man's meaning and intent in your typical condescening manner. Or, perhaps you even have a few of the Colonel's books on your book shelf. My correspondence with the Colonel spanned about 20 years...but you will undoubtedly demand that I scan and produce copies of the letters just to satisfy you. By way of challenging my honesty, you will probably scan and provide copies of yours to goad me into playing your game of one-upmanship. Your service, is your service. Mine is mine. Anyone else who served doesn't have to prove their worth to your liking. You neither deserve that consideration, nor would you appreciate it. Now, this has gone on long enough. I don't see any way out byplay can result in anything other than a distraction from the fine work Bill has done. You reserve the right to challenge that work, and I'll reserve the right to continue to participate where I feel the need. I will quit sniping at you and if you feel like it, you can quit sniping at me. Or not. It's up to you. K >>>>Tabber, you are far too insulting to engage. I have nothing to prove to you, or to the forum. I'll engage when I want, and with whom I want and I won't be baited into an adolescent game of "gotcha" by someone who feels like disparaging other people's service and professionalism at every turn. This is not just me, but anyone who disagrees with you. Your remarks quickly turn from authoratative to condescending to childishly rediculous. Well, thats as good an exit strategy as any- still doesnt address the keypoints and is very good at "explaining away" all the points you sought so "diligently" to call me on, yet when challenged, that seems to no longer be important. OK, excuse accepted >>>You have no idea how adolescent you sounded challenging another poster to validate his experience by producing a CIB or some other proof that he measured up to your estimation of what it takes to be a man. more ad hom ( and taken out of context)- where does "adolescent" end and unable to back up a point begin? Is that yet another exit strategy? I didnt bring the point up, I just offered counterpoint. I notice a trend that when that happens and its unpopular, the attacks seem to begin. >>>Then googling Col Cooper's writings so that your could author an essay on the man's meaning and intent in your typical condescening manner. Or, perhaps you even have a few of the Colonel's books on your book shelf. My correspondence with the Colonel spanned about 20 years...but you will undoubtedly demand that I scan and produce copies of the letters just to satisfy you. This had nothing to do with any correspondence you had or didnt- it had to do with the issue and context in this thread. I see this as just another lame attempt to circumvent a point made, a response to an unsupported statement, calibration to same and you still talk in circles. You STILL havent addressed the points and their relevance. Why is that? >>>Your service, is your service. Mine is mine. Anyone else who served doesn't have to prove their worth to your liking. You neither deserve that consideration, nor would you appreciate it. That didnt really apply to anyone but you and I find it funny that rather than address the points brought forth ( from a professional to another) that you cant and wont. That speaks for itself. It wasnt "me" who offered such a "terse' commentary and it wasnt me who refuses to answer said counters. That says what it needs to say right there. I'm not the one ducking and jiving or failing to stand by what I said when challenged.( that also speaks for itself) I guess you think its OK for you to challenge me, as if your word alone means something, then walk away as if you somehow succeded and are somehow unaccountable when you yourself are called to the carpet. Then, you still dont address the issues but only offer yet another circular statement that contains words but say nothing as a justification. Your points have been called and you have failed to answer- thats how it is. Sin Loy >>>Now, this has gone on long enough. I don't see any way out byplay can result in anything other than a distraction from the fine work Bill has done. You reserve the right to challenge that work, and I'll reserve the right to continue to participate where I feel the need. I will quit sniping at you and if you feel like it, you can quit sniping at me. Or not. It's up to you. The old obfuscation defense. Sadly, you are wrong there even. This had nothing to do with Bill. I even PM'd him over the weekend and let him know in advance about my apologies for obscuring his thread and my willingness to help him should he request it before I even responded to some of these comments. ( so much for the anti Bill or his goals argument) I made it clear to him I was going to respond to these statements centering on me and thats what I have done. So, put your fears that this is somehow reflective toward Bill and his thread to bed. I'm not sniping at you, I'm RESPONDING to you. Theres a difference even there too. You are the one doing the sniping- you are just upset that I'm calling indirect fire and tactical air on your position and you are suffering the consequence for your infractions.
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) Hmmm, looking at Colobus' picture and thinking back on some of the points brought out by the suitnicks, I say that that is a suit. ............................. Sarcasm aside ...If Colobus' picture was shot at the same distance and resolution, you might have a point .. As it is, you don't ... Edited March 4, 2008 by Skeptical Greg
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 That picture could show up in a class A report any day now...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Greg what the heck is that thing in the photo you've posted? It looks like a blurry Dopey of the 7 dewafs giving the camera person the finger. Or maybe BobH having a bad day with the press?
Guest Remember November Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Found this photo at the below site. Not that it shows anything. I just think its interesting to see bipedal apes. http://www2.biologie.fu-berlin.de/humanbio/publhof.htm
Guest Killain Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) You want to see some neat bi-pedal apes, google "bonobo chimps." http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/...lphafemale.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...obos-video.html The second video shows the same dominant female, but her walk is longer and slowed down. It's kind of eerie K Edited March 4, 2008 by Killain
Guest Remember November Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Wow, those bonobos better watch out, they're gonna find a big black monolith in their front yard one morning.
Guest Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Wow...very interesting. Even though I've seen it before it always catches my attention. Here's a video of showing an animated comparison of human, australopithecus and bonobo skeletons walking next to one another...it's at approximately 3 minutes into this 17+minute talk. You might find the rest of it interesting as well. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/76
Recommended Posts