Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab


Recommended Posts

bipedalist
BFF Patron
Some interesting folds and fur seams on this one

fig22fq1.th.jpg

yes and if we had a full frontal of the lower back, the same flak jacket muscle bulk on either side of midline would appear to be present

based on what I see on the right side of this gorilla, something to think about, gorilla in a fur suit maybe? :coverlaugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
Longtabber:

Clearly you feel that no amount of study or analysis of the film will yield any conclusion, and I certainly respect your right to that opinion, even though I emphatically disagree.

I see many potential areas where I feel the inconclusiveness of the issue rests more in the lack of proper studies and scientific experiments, and so I believe a properly done scientific study can, in fact, yield far more conclusive determinations than have been made thus far, and may potentially yield a fully reliable conclusion. But the only way I can advance my hypothesis is with a funded research program, and that is being explored now.

So for now, you see it your way, and I see it mine. And I plan to keep looking for answers, instead of just writing the whole thing off as unanswerable.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

Partner, lets go down the list

>>>Clearly you feel that no amount of study or analysis of the film will yield any conclusion, and I certainly respect your right to that opinion, even though I emphatically disagree.

Its not a case of reaching a conclusion because conclusions have been reached before- the problem is in the TESTING and VALIDATION of those conclusions. ( thats part of the acid test of science- as heartless and unbending as it is) so any "conclusion" reached will be based on hearsay, opinion or speculation. NONE of those will pass an acid test. That said, the BEST than can be hoped for is an OPINION based on an OBSERVATION. ( thats how science works- so if the effort is 100% successful- the MOST that will be derived is a THEORY supported by circumstantial and speculative evidence)

Thats not me- thats just reality

>>>I see many potential areas where I feel the inconclusiveness of the issue rests more in the lack of proper studies and scientific experiments, and so I believe a properly done scientific study can, in fact, yield far more conclusive determinations than have been made thus far, and may potentially yield a fully reliable conclusion. But the only way I can advance my hypothesis is with a funded research program, and that is being explored now.

This is where I have to vigorously but RESPECTFULLY disagree. For "science" to be valid- science has to be able to produce results. In order to do that, there must be a YARDSTICK to measure against. There is no such thing in existance as a BF "fact" and no amount of study, financing or research is going to change that until there is an impiracle base to establish that "yardstick"

There can be no legitimate "science" at this time because theres NOTHING to gauge and results by. Also, ( regarding the PGF) theres nothing to research- the film itself ( quality wise) and currently existing technology will not deliver a definitive answer ( which is what science hopes to get) against the yardstick. A mountain of "opinion" ( regardless of how well qualified the opinion or resultant theory) does NOT and WILL NOT ever become a fact.

The only "conclusion" possible is to answer the base question is to address the ROOT QUESTION and that question if:

BF live

BF Memorex

Its that simple, if its NOT "live"- its memorex ( no 3rd option)

Again, thats just reality.

>>>So for now, you see it your way, and I see it mine. And I plan to keep looking for answers, instead of just writing the whole thing off as unanswerable.

I'm all for research but as I have stated in other threads- that research ( to be scientifically valid) must pass an acid test and must reach a conclusion that can be proven and measured against all challengers.

Thats a HIGH bar and its high because it has to be. Analysis of the PGF will never reach that bar- much less cross it. Thats not to say to not continue looking for answers but those answers WILL be tested and MUST withstand it

I hate being the harbinger of bad news and i am certainly not disregarding your obvious expertise in your area- but I have to adhere to the tenets of legitimate science and respectfully but vigorously stand you down on this particular issue. ( even when it contradicts my own personal beliefs and experiences)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man
For "science" to be valid- science has to be able to produce results. In order to do that, there must be a YARDSTICK to measure against. There is no such thing in existance as a BF "fact" and no amount of study, financing or research is going to change that until there is an impiracle base to establish that "yardstick"

There can be no legitimate "science" at this time because theres NOTHING to gauge and results by. Also, ( regarding the PGF) theres nothing to research- the film itself ( quality wise) and currently existing technology will not deliver a definitive answer ( which is what science hopes to get) against the yardstick. A mountain of "opinion" ( regardless of how well qualified the opinion or resultant theory) does NOT and WILL NOT ever become a fact.

I've seen you type this several times and it is not entirely true. Scientists study other solar systems, stars, galaxies, etc. by observation without any possibility of truly measuring those systems; paleontologists name entire species on fossilized footprints; archaeologists don't see who left the artifacts at the site, but we hypothesize who left them and what they were doing. The point is you don't have to have a body (or star or dinosaur or human body) to make scientific observations...it's called deductive reasoning. Remember, science is a method not a thing.

I'm all for research but as I have stated in other threads- that research ( to be scientifically valid) must pass an acid test and must reach a conclusion that can be proven and measured against all challengers.

I realize that you don't mean "acid test" literally, but I'd wish you stop saying it because someone, somewhere is going to think that there is going to be some acid applied to all hypotheses.

Edited by Hairy Man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Longtabber:

Quoting you: "I'm all for research but as I have stated in other threads- that research ( to be scientifically valid) must pass an acid test and must reach a conclusion that can be proven and measured against all challengers."

Fine. If I can put together the research plan, that's what I'll aim for. When I'm done, we'll see if I succeed or fail.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

Hairy Man:

Thank you. I concur.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
I've seen you type this several times and it is not entirely true. Scientists study other solar systems, stars, galaxies, etc. by observation without any possibility of truly measuring those systems; paleontologists name entire species on fossilized footprints; archaeologists don't see who left the artifacts at the site, but we hypothesize who left them and what they were doing. The point is you don't have to have a body (or star or dinosaur or human body) to make scientific observations...it's called deductive reasoning. Remember, science is a method not a thing.

I realize that you don't mean "acid test" literally, but I'd wish you stop saying it because someone, somewhere is going to think that there is going to be some acid applied to all hypotheses.

This is where theres a disconnect hairy and no I'm not wrong- not even in the slightest.

Its the difference between hard science and soft science. Thats why paleontologists, evolutionists, quantum physicists call them THEORIES and thats why its the THEORY of relativity and not the LAW of relativity.

The question is BF is a true or false ( no 3rd option)

There is already the "possibility" because since its impossible to prove a negative- "possible" wins by defauly- at that point, its based on evidenciary probability. ( thats how science works)

Science is a method but ALWAYS works to a goal and that goal is measured in tangibles. ( difference between science and junk science)

the FACT is that there is ZERO physical evidence and very little probability ( based on total knowledge) that such a species can exist, much less does- again, thats reality.

That doesnt mean it cant but makes it a high odds against. Again, reality

Its also the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive can be any probability model- the question of BF will never be established on inductive reasoning because theres not a single fact to shore it up- deductive is what actually establishes something because then there are facts on the table to actually "deduce" something from.

There are NO "scientific" inductions regarding BF because there is ZERO evidence to induct a reason from- they are all stories or junk science ( at this point) so no legitimate inductive science applies either.

Right now, its a theory based on campfire tales- hardly a "scientific" case in any venue

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg
Greg:

I'm basing my analysis on the frames I showed in the original post.

Bill

Those frames represent less than one half second of film. Not a very comprehensive data set.

Even moreso since they don't represent change over as series of continuous frames .

How can you rule out a suit for not exhibiting characteristics, that you haven't shown exists for the subject of the film ?

What you call a ' rolling ' change, just looks like one frame is more blurry than the other .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Longtabber:

You say it's real or fake, no other option.

Then you say (in another post) "Inductive can be any probability model- the question of BF will never be established on inductive reasoning because theres not a single fact to shore it up- deductive is what actually establishes something because then there are facts on the table to actually "deduce" something from.

There are NO "scientific" inductions regarding BF because there is ZERO evidence to induct a reason from- they are all stories or junk science ( at this point) so no legitimate inductive science applies either."

So inductive reasoning can be applied to the issue of "fake", because there are facts on the table to shore up what fakes can do, are made of, and thus can be measured, qualtified, tested, and objectively evaluated. If inductive reasoning is applied to the "fake" side, it may allow for "deducing" a fake is not on the film, and if so, by your statement, if it's not one, it's the other.

Unless you have a third option?

Greg:

I made my analysis on the data I had. If you want to say my source data is insufficient to prove any conclusion, Longtabber will buy you a beer.

My notes are what they are, for now. You may take them or leave them, as you like. And I will continue to study the issue and hopefully will increase the quality of the data i base my ideas upon. When I have something more, you are welcome to criticize that as well.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man
Its the difference between hard science and soft science. Thats why paleontologists, evolutionists, quantum physicists call them THEORIES and thats why its the THEORY of relativity and not the LAW of relativity.

There is no difference at all. All science uses the same methods of developing research questions, testing that question, and coming up with hypotheses. A hypotheses, after more testing develops into a theory...then from there a law. Bigfoot, right now, is in the hypotheses stage.

Science is a method but ALWAYS works to a goal and that goal is measured in tangibles. ( difference between science and junk science)

Social Sciences work without tangibles all the time...and they are a science. And I can name several "theories" that aren't the least bit tangible (don't make me bring up Einstein!)

the FACT is that there is ZERO physical evidence and very little probability ( based on total knowledge) that such a species can exist, much less does- again, thats reality.

That's not a fact at all...there is indeed evidence, just not proof. That is why people need to use the scientific method to continue looking for evidence that will prove existance one way or another.

Inductive can be any probability model- the question of BF will never be established on inductive reasoning because theres not a single fact to shore it up- deductive is what actually establishes something because then there are facts on the table to actually "deduce" something from.

There are NO "scientific" inductions regarding BF because there is ZERO evidence to induct a reason from- they are all stories or junk science ( at this point) so no legitimate inductive science applies either.

Right now, its a theory based on campfire tales- hardly a "scientific" case in any venue

Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

Personally, I see no point in discouraging anyone from doing any study they feel like doing. You can't have it both ways...you can't complain that there are no scientific studies and then tell people not to bother cause the study won't be scientific!

edited to remove sarcasm....

Edited by Hairy Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
When thats done- the probability of a suit is well over 90% because by default is theres a weak scientific case for the existance of BF in the first place- the probability of suit is equally strengthened.

LT...if you think it's a 90% chance that what we see in the PGF is a man in a monkey suit then all I can say is........ ...........it left me speechless!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
There is no difference at all. All science uses the same methods of developing research questions, testing that question, and coming up with hypotheses. A hypotheses, after more testing develops into a theory...then from there a law. Bigfoot, right now, is in the hypotheses stage.

Oh really, so every science has a measurable tangible? Social Sciences work without tangibles all the time...and they are a science.

That's not a fact at all...there is indeed evidence, just not proof. That is why people need to use the scientific method to continue looking for evidence that will prove existance one way or another.

Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

Personally, I see no point in discouraging anyone from doing any study they feel like doing. You can't have it both ways...you can't complain that there are no scientific studies and then tell people not to bother cause the study won't be scientific!

Lets go by the numbers

>>>There is no difference at all. All science uses the same methods of developing research questions, testing that question, and coming up with hypotheses. A hypotheses, after more testing develops into a theory...then from there a law. Bigfoot, right now, is in the hypotheses stage.

No argument from me there- if I didnt believe in the possibility of success ( based on my experience) I wouldnt be here in the first place

>>>Oh really, so every science has a measurable tangible? Social Sciences work without tangibles all the time...and they are a science.

Thats why they are a SOFT science based on interviews, projections, studies, questionable data and such- thats why they dont carry the weight of impiracle sciences and are always "changing" and thus not absolutes( also why 1 study with different controls often contradicts other studies). Thats the difference between the 2.

>>>That's not a fact at all...there is indeed evidence, just not proof. That is why people need to use the scientific method to continue looking for evidence that will prove existance one way or another.

Show me ANY "evidence" that has passed ANY legitimate scrutiny and held firm. That I want to see.

>>>Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

sure, now lets review the datasets and see how "probable" the probability study really is. ( lets see how they fare under scrutiny as well- its called GIGO) I know the difference.

>>>Personally, I see no point in discouraging anyone from doing any study they feel like doing. You can't have it both ways...you can't complain that there are no scientific studies and then tell people not to bother cause the study won't be scientific!

I certainly can and will. I'm not discouraging anyone from anything- but with that said, "junk science" or questionable data/metrics wont pass muster. I know the difference and how to slice and dice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I should know better but I can't stand to watch you try to verbally intimidate everyone here....

Its the difference between hard science and soft science.

(Ignoring for the moment that that distinction is really a social construct...) Perhaps, but both are still science, so maybe you need to choose a different term when you make overreaching, and sometimes untrue, statements like:

For "science" to be valid- science has to be able to produce results. In order to do that, there must be a YARDSTICK to measure against.

Apeman

PS- I'm no spelling champ myself, which is why I keep dictionary.com on my personal toolbar (free tip), but you're the first engineer I've known who couldn't come close to spelling empirical... which, I have to say, makes me wonder a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparate

as physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example. The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with

refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate

statistical analyses. And, it is not all GIGO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
I know I should know better but I can't stand to watch you try to verbally intimidate everyone here....

(Ignoring for the moment that that distinction is really a social construct...) Perhaps, but both are still science, so maybe you need to choose a different term when you make overreaching, and sometimes untrue, statements like:

Apeman

PS- I'm no spelling champ myself, which is why I keep dictionary.com on my personal toolbar (free tip), but you're the first engineer I've known who couldn't come close to spelling empirical... which, I have to say, makes me wonder a little.

Thats why I love dealing with you- its so easy

>>>I know I should know better but I can't stand to watch you try to verbally intimidate everyone here....

I'm not convinced you do know better so I'm going to help you in your quest. I find the your use of the word "intimidating" to be unfounded ( unless you consider stating a stronger position against a lesser "intimidating" in which case you have simply devolved to another ad hom insult in a feeble attempt to make a point) With that said- enlighten me, where do you draw the line and what exaxtly do you find "intimidating? If you cant answer that- why did you open your mouth in the first place? I'm interested in hearing this so please enlighten us all about this "intimidating" you accuse me of doing and how my premise is wrong. ( after all, if all I am doing is "intimidating" then my entire premise is faulty[ because intimidation is a weak defense against a stronger argument] and one such as you should shoot thru it with ease)

I'm waiting on this one so please dont disappoint me with your analysis

>>>Perhaps, but both are still science, so maybe you need to choose a different term when you make overreaching, and sometimes untrue, statements like:

I made a correct distinction- you are arguing minutia- is that all you have?

>>>PS- I'm no spelling champ myself, which is why I keep dictionary.com on my personal toolbar (free tip), but you're the first engineer I've known who couldn't come close to spelling empirical... which, I have to say, makes me wonder a little.

Sure, I post on the fly and make mistakes like everyone- if you are talking about things that make one wonder- I can refer you to several threads regarding your comments such as about laws regarding what can and cant be done ( where the LE and others chimed in) that left no room for "wonder" in other areas. How far do we need to carry your "wonder"? Let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man
Lets go by the numbers

Ah...another longtabberism...

Thats why they are a SOFT science based on interviews, projections, studies, questionable data and such- thats why they dont carry the weight of impiracle sciences and are always "changing" and thus not absolutes( also why 1 study with different controls often contradicts other studies). Thats the difference between the 2.

That isn't the definition of soft science. A soft science is a science that doesn't use a mathematical explanation to explain their data. "Soft" science, such as archaeology, anthropology, behavioral science are indeed science. Both mathematical and social sciences can be used to address the same research questions and both are acceptable in their observations and conclusions.

Show me ANY "evidence" that has passed ANY legitimate scrutiny and held firm. That I want to see.

I think you continue to use the word "evidence" when what you want to say is "proof." Native American traditional stories are evidence; footprint casts are evidence; unknown hair is evidence; unknown howls are evidence; witness reports are evidence. What they aren't is proof.

sure, now lets review the datasets and see how "probable" the probability study really is. ( lets see how they fare under scrutiny as well- its called GIGO) I know the difference.

Ask them yourself. I'm sure you are more than qualified with your biology and GIS degrees to subject their methodology to scrutiny.

I certainly can and will. I'm not discouraging anyone from anything- but with that said, "junk science" or questionable data/metrics wont pass muster. I know the difference and how to slice and dice.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that you are the height of encouragement.

Bill...please do continue on with your work. It's intriguing.

Edited by Hairy Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
Ah...another lontabberism...

That isn't the definition of soft science. A soft science is a science that doesn't use a mathematical explanation to explain their data. "Soft" science, such as archaeology, anthropology, behavioral science are indeed science. Both mathematical and social sciences can be used to address the same research questions and both are acceptable in their observations and conclusions.

I think you continue to use the word "evidence" when what you want to say is "proof." Native American traditional stories are evidence; footprint casts are evidence; unknown hair is evidence; unknown howls are evidence; witness reports are evidence. What they aren't is proof.

>>>Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

As them yourself. I'm sure you are more than qualified with your biology and GIS degrees to subject their methodology to scrutiny.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that you are the height of encouragement.

Bill...please do continue on with your work. It's intriguing.

Here we go again

>>>That isn't the definition of soft science. A soft science is a science that doesn't use a mathematical explanation to explain their data.

I said that ( not in so many words)

>>Soft" science, such as archaeology, anthropology, behavioral science are indeed science.

I never said otherwise

>>>Both mathematical and social sciences can be used to address the same research questions and both are acceptable in their observations and conclusions.

sure the same methods apply but the conclusions are another matter. Thats why the "social sciences" have so much contradictory results. See, 1+1=2 and thats hard to argue. In the social set- one study pits its "conclusions" against another- thus the quagmire. Thats science ( in a form yes) but hardly an absolute.

The question on the table is this BF exists or not- theres no "conclusion" there ( as far as theory)- it either exists or not ( thats an absolute)

>>> Native American traditional stories are evidence; footprint casts are evidence; unknown hair is evidence; unknown howls are evidence; witness reports are evidence. What they aren't is proof.

They are evidence alright- just useless evidence leading nowhere. So, how much useless evidence does it take to establish a fact ( BF exists- Y,N) and then what part of this "evidence" has survived any objective scrutiny or are we just supposed to accept it on its face "just because?"

So, what "evidence" is there that amounts to anything beyond a good story at this point?

what do 100+ year old stories establish?

What "unknown" hair/dna is there that demonstrates something?

What "howl" has ever been shown to come from a BF?

What "witness report" has actually been INVESTIGATED ( by any legitimate standard applied anywhere) that has resulted in more than "the witness SOUNDED credible" with nothing to back it up other than an observer opinion?

If I'm missing something, please show it to me

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...