Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

... and thus prove that one option can not exist

Who gets to decide if you have accomplished that ?

Where have you shown that a suit cannot exhibit the properties you claim in the OP of this thread ?

Did I miss where you showed how these lumps on the back of the subject's left leg can't be padding in a suit ?

[Guest SoundMan]

LTPE,

Not to add fuel to the fire (OK, well maybe just a little), but when you speak of "proof" one thing you need to keep in mind is that even with scientific studies that get peer reviewed and published in respectable journals there is a standard that plays into the equation that is not necessarily as empirical as you make it seem. The guard or peers and the those in charge of the journal have a mindset based upon the current theory of the day that acts as a filter for letting some research pass through and other research get blocked. In short, what gets accepted is not so much what is true as what is acceptable to the "guard" - those who control the ultimate publication and trend in the particular field of study.

When you and others speak of scientific evidence it is not so much the quality or extent of the evidence itself as much as it is the mindset and therefore the willingness of the reviewers to accept that evidence.

I cannot prove anything to anyone including you without first knowing what evidence you are willing to accept. I daresay, that had Bill laid out the items in Post No. 50 prior to his thorough analysis of each of those items and there was agreement as to the extent and quality of information to be obtained, that we would all be in agreement at this time that he succeeded in providing sufficient evidence to at least have a high confidence level that it is not a suit.

However, since no ground rules were laid out prior to the effort, the end result is predictable. No one is convinced who simply doesn't want to be. It is not the quality of the analysis as much as it is the willingness or unwillingness of the participants.

And that is why there is a stalemate or quagmire.

Soundman

[Bill]

Greg:

"... and thus prove that one option can not exist

Who gets to decide if you have accomplished that ?

Where have you shown that a suit cannot exhibit the properties you claim in the OP of this thread ?

Did I miss where you showed how these lumps on the back of the subject's left leg can't be padding in a suit ?"

Answers:

To question #1, each person gets to judge for himself/herself.

To Question #2 - I haven't shown it yet. I have offered an opinion, which you are welcome to accept or refuse, as per your preference. I hope to do research that would take the issue out of the realm of opinion and more into the realm of impartial fct or testable occurance, but that plan is simply in an early stage of development now.

To Question #3 - I haven't done any study on the legs yet, so you did not miss anything. I haven't offered any comment or opinion yet specifically about the legs, as much as I recall. One of my ambitions is to demonstrate how padding and fur materials interact, to explore what, if any, motion of the fur can be imparted by the padding. My general advice, based on my experience, and as I've often stated in my notes, is that when the padding tries to create a movement or contour, and the furcloth wants to move a certain way, the furcloth generally wins, and does things its way.

Bill

[Guest]

For those who don't know by now, Longtabber does believe that Sasquatch exists. How do I know? because he posted that he does.

Post #445549

Actually I have had 2 encounters that even by my own standards ( as discerning as they are) by probability a sasquatch rather than any other explanation. On the military incident, given the range, its realistic whatever "it" was was legitimately unaware of us. On the hunting incident, the only reason we are discussing probabilities is because Robin and i were duck hunting rather than deer hunting. We put lead on him then but #4 just doesnt have the takedown power of a 30.06 and by the time we put 00B in, it was too obscured by dense foliage for a clean shot. ( even tho we shot anyway and given the reaction- he took a pellet or 2)

Subsequent to that he posted several other statements

I dont fire a round without being certain of my target and having a legitimate reason for firing. If those 2 exist, it wont get a first thought- much less a second.

from the first quote "probability a sasquatch" must have been a "certainty" according to the second quote.

But then it became an "alleged BF" in another quote

I also have been in the presence of an alleged BF and put lead on him too. Also, when I'm hunting- I am equally armed and normally with MORE potent firepower ( caliber wise) than when in battle.

And this last statement is cause of great concern for every real hunter, game warden, Forrestry Service Officer, Fish and Game Officer or plain old Ranger Rick, just to name a few.

Hunting is no different than war.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?

[Bill]

Longtabber

"(mine)>>>You say there are no facts, no testable ingredients to prove "BF live". You deny that there are testable ingredients to prove "BF Memorex" (the suit) True of False in that film.

You put all the burden of proof on one option, as if the other needs no proof at all.

(yours) Its not denial, its a fact- there is only one burden of proof and thats on the ones offering the theory ( its not a 1 to 1 swap)

My reply - you are mixing apples and oranges here. The burden of proof is on the one PERSON, yes, but not on the one OPTION. In my attempt to bare the burden of proof, as proponent, I choose to enbrace both options as equaly issues subject to proof.

(mine)>>>Sorry, my friend, but proof cuts both ways,

(Yours) -Theres only 1 standard of proof- it is proof or it isnt, I'm not aware of any other ( the question then becomes did one meet the burden and in the case of BF- the burden is 100%- not 99%) BF either exists or not- "proof" isnt a probability model.

My Reply - You are confusing status with direction. Is/isn't is a question of status. Both ways is a the route to the status. Your comment does not refute my statement any more than an apple refutes an orange.

(mine)>>>Ergo: If you can prove what's in the film is not a suit, then it's real.

(Yours) - Wrong, the film subject isnt provable to be real UNLESS and UNTIL its compared to a REAL and known sample of BF- if its not a real BF, its a suit. The film subject can be compared against a suit, tie, double breasted, Rolex or a goldfish but until its measured against a known- it isnt "proved" to be anything.

My reply - Again, LT, you refuse to acknowledge the inverse. If it's not a suit, it is a real BF. Direction and status (see above). You consistantly argue for a one way street, yet you argue for only two alternatives, which are the inverse of the other. That's a two way street.

(Mine) >>>And proving one option true or false would, by your reasoning, prove the inverse for the other. Prove one true, the other is false. Prove one false, the other is true.

(Yours) - In this case, that applies ( BF exists or not)- how does one define "a little bit pregnant" and "almost dead"?- the same standards apply. Its one or the other.

My reply - LT, your words "it's one or the other" and my "Prove one true and the other is false" are the same idea. You're trying to argue against me with the same idea, simply worded differently? And "a little bit pregnant" and "almost dead" are totally irrelivent to what you referenced. You want black and white, all or nothing, fine, I'm on the same page with you. So why do you suddenly throw shades of grey into the mix, when neither of us is agruing for such?

It's late for you. Maybe you should get some rest, so your mind is fresher in the morning.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

[Hairy Man]

QUOTE

I also have been in the presence of an alleged BF and put lead on him too. Also, when I'm hunting- I am equally armed and normally with MORE potent firepower ( caliber wise) than when in battle.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that longtabber claimed to have shot a bigfoot? Please link to this quote exactly.

[Guest]

I am not sure how to post links from another post to this thread so you can find these statements by Longtabber by searching using the post numbers. If that doesn't work then I'm sure that an admin can confirm all of these for you and tell you how to look them up.

Post #445625

I also have been in the presence of an alleged BF and put lead on him too. Also, when I'm hunting- I am equally armed and normally with MORE potent firepower ( caliber wise) than when in battle

Then

Post #445678

I dont fire a round without being certain of my target and having a legitimate reason for firing. If those 2 exist, it wont get a first thought- much less a second.

Also

Post #445625

Hunting is no different than war.

I already posted the encounter quote which again is #445549

Also take a look at

Post #445678 on Feb 16 2998, 02:00 PM

>>>From what I have read, you are not even totally sure what it was exactly that you fired at so it can't have been that clear. If you were sure, you wouldn't be surmising there might not be any sasquatch around......as you have done just in this thread.

given ITS reaction- its pretty clear it was winged. I "surmise" because as i have stated before- not 100% clear view either time. The rules of evidence dont change for my encounters any more than anyone elses.

and for a couple of other statements that he made look at Post #445664

Downright scary if you ask me.

edited to add the information about refering to an admin if the post number search does not work.

Edited February 28, 2008 by urbanshaman

[Guest longtabber PE]

LTPE,

Not to add fuel to the fire (OK, well maybe just a little), but when you speak of "proof" one thing you need to keep in mind is that even with scientific studies that get peer reviewed and published in respectable journals there is a standard that plays into the equation that is not necessarily as empirical as you make it seem. The guard or peers and the those in charge of the journal have a mindset based upon the current theory of the day that acts as a filter for letting some research pass through and other research get blocked. In short, what gets accepted is not so much what is true as what is acceptable to the "guard" - those who control the ultimate publication and trend in the particular field of study.

When you and others speak of scientific evidence it is not so much the quality or extent of the evidence itself as much as it is the mindset and therefore the willingness of the reviewers to accept that evidence.

I cannot prove anything to anyone including you without first knowing what evidence you are willing to accept. I daresay, that had Bill laid out the items in Post No. 50 prior to his thorough analysis of each of those items and there was agreement as to the extent and quality of information to be obtained, that we would all be in agreement at this time that he succeeded in providing sufficient evidence to at least have a high confidence level that it is not a suit.

However, since no ground rules were laid out prior to the effort, the end result is predictable. No one is convinced who simply doesn't want to be. It is not the quality of the analysis as much as it is the willingness or unwillingness of the participants.

And that is why there is a stalemate or quagmire.

Soundman

>>>Not to add fuel to the fire (OK, well maybe just a little), but when you speak of "proof" one thing you need to keep in mind is that even with scientific studies that get peer reviewed and published in respectable journals there is a standard that plays into the equation that is not necessarily as empirical as you make it seem.

Add all the fuel you want- it doesnt alter the outcome. Being peer reviewed ( and I'm familiar with this process from both sides) is as much "political" as it is anything else and all thats required for sucn is to meet the requirements of publishing. A "peer review" isnt evidence or "proof" of anything - its really more of a personal trophy and pimping ones self. If you doubt the above, ask Meldrum if his "peer reviewed" paper on taxonomy actually accomplished anything. A "peer review" is NOT a scientific analysis of ones position.

See, I know how that process works and you seem to think being published/peer reviewed actually means something scientifically- the best of papers might hit the 10% mark.

>>>The guard or peers and the those in charge of the journal have a mindset based upon the current theory of the day that acts as a filter for letting some research pass through and other research get blocked. In short, what gets accepted is not so much what is true as what is acceptable to the "guard" - those who control the ultimate publication and trend in the particular field of study.

I'm glad you said that- scientifically of almost no worth- all politics

>>>When you and others speak of scientific evidence it is not so much the quality or extent of the evidence itself as much as it is the mindset and therefore the willingness of the reviewers to accept that evidence.

Like I said, politics- its nothing more than a popularity contest- you yourself just said it as well.

>>>I cannot prove anything to anyone including you without first knowing what evidence you are willing to accept.

I will be willing to accept anything with a 90%+ probability that has been LEGITIMATELY validated and at least single blind tested.

One example being- dont proffer the non argument that such a suit couldnt be built yada,yada- UNLESS and UNTIL as part of said experiment one has directly comissioned such an effort with that goal in mind and it failed and have the documentation ready to review.After all, if no one has ever tried to exactly replicate it ( and failed) science wont allow one to say "it cant be done"- show me it cant be done. Thats how data is validated for any legitimate study.

Each point of said dataset MUST be equally validated in the same manner and allfindings ( pro or con) have to be explained with an experiment and shown why. ( or why not)

See, even this much touted "probability" has to be validated in some form for it to be considered with any scientific weight- not just arbitrary numbers picked out of the air. ( same as Farenbachs bell curve) it "looks" scientific but doesnt pass muster because too much "protomatter" was used.

>>>I daresay, that had Bill laid out the items in Post No. 50 prior to his thorough analysis of each of those items and there was agreement as to the extent and quality of information to be obtained, that we would all be in agreement at this time that he succeeded in providing sufficient evidence to at least have a high confidence level that it is not a suit.

OK, now explain to me how you are going to define this "high confidence level" and validate same by any legitimate science and how will it be tested? ( this I really want to hear)

>>>However, since no ground rules were laid out prior to the effort, the end result is predictable. No one is convinced who simply doesn't want to be. It is not the quality of the analysis as much as it is the willingness or unwillingness of the participants.

The ground rules were set long before this subject even came up- the problem is there wont be any bending of those rules

>>>And that is why there is a stalemate or quagmire.

Theres neither

[Guest BenThere_2]

Always a new twist

:coverlaugh:

Proceed. 8O

[Guest Killain]

Just in case that was directed at me, I did not say that I doubted any wild animal might display excess fat. What I said was that a fat and flabby wild ape stretches my imagination. I hope you and others realize the difference. And I completely agree that if it were true (that she has rolls of fat), the climate is a likely hypothetical explanation (to some degree). But don't forget that we are generally biased by urban or suburban (overfed) raccoons and to a lesser extent bears, and that at least some apes live in places a little colder than most of North American during at least a large part of our year. The tropics aren't necessarily always warm, especially at high elevation.

Apeman

Apeman

Yes, in fact it was directed at you. I don't look at community park racoons and porkies. I do it in the woods, far from garbage cans and refuse. But that's neither here nor there. One only needs to look at good sized bears to realize that putting on fat is a pretty natural phenomenon for large creatures that might be needing a little extra fat. My comment was aimed at the fact that you threw out rather cavalierly, that you doubted one would find extra fat on a wild ape, when in fact, given climate and continent changes it might actually have a valid explanation (given if there is such a thing as a big foot.) As for "rolls" of fat, I don't see them. I see what appear to be decent definitions of fatty layers growing in places one would expect to see them in a creature that needs to store a little extra fat for winter survival. Heck, babies come out of the womb with extra stores of brown fat in thiose areas just for that reason and they lose it within weeks of birth. Since we all accept evolution and the radical changes it has made to the human animal, we must also ponder what it might mean to other animals.

Interesting, I have the same opinion about those responses claiming to be legitimate science and a valid premise that arent. I guess that makes me the yang to the yin huh?

Tabber

Give us all a break. You don't like to be disagreed with and when you are, you strike the most superior pose in your explanations and your method of addressing the explanations of those who question your perception of your own correctness.

As I'm sure you'll address me...or perhaps you'll just ignore me. I'm certainly not worthy of your attention.

K

[Guest SoundMan]

LTPE,

I think (I mean I know) you just like to argue. If science isn't the scientific method with published papers representing a basis for building upon a theory, with time testing and other research validating, who decides what has passed the muster, so to speak? YOU????

Soundman

[Guest]

LTPE,

I think (I mean I know) you just like to argue. If science isn't the scientific method with published papers representing a basis for building upon a theory, with time testing and other research validating, who decides what has passed the muster, so to speak? YOU????

Soundman

Well said SoundMan!

Obiwan

[Guest longtabber PE]

LTPE,

I think (I mean I know) you just like to argue. If science isn't the scientific method with published papers representing a basis for building upon a theory, with time testing and other research validating, who decides what has passed the muster, so to speak? YOU????

Soundman

LOL, not at all

See, all this talk about this "argument" "superiority" and such is nothing more than throwing a tantrum to avoid the issue at hand. Its what happens in an ad hom state when ones point is so weak, it cannot stand on its owm merit then the attack shifts from the issues to the messenger.

I hear it all the time that everybody wants science to acknowledge, commit resources to, legitimize BF and or whatever- UNTIL science shows up and sets the standard. Then the tapdancing begins. Its now what abstract method or theory can we twist to make it into something beyond what it is then scream from the mountain tops when they effort is crushed.

Use you for an example ( prior post) You acknowledged the fallicy about this "peer review" yet then it devolves from a scientific premise ( requiring the methods of science) to the old default "willingness to accept" ( your words) which has nothing to do with any legitimate science but merely a personal choice. So, is this about a science case or an election?

Also, you asked what standards I would accept- I answered that clearly and in detail. ( and in line with established norms in use for ages)- then all of a sudden, that dropped off. Why? I'll answer that because thats a legitimate scientific method and standard and thats not what some of the masses here want to hear. See, science MANDATES these methods and standards- thats why its science and not a popularity contest. See, sometimes the answer is NO.

I'll tell you what passes muster- evidence that survives the testing/validation method and actually STANDS for something other than conjecture and wishful thinking. Thats not "my" standard ( as you wish it were as if it would further bolster the ad hom comment you wish were true) that is THE standard. I didnt create it nor is it mine.

What this and several other posts have illustrated clearly and succiently is that a portion of people have more than one "face"

They "claim" they want science this and that until the moment of truth.

Scroll up and read for yourself- its there in plain english- gotta attack the messenger and strategically avoid the points of discussion without ever attempting to refute them( much less actually accomplishing it)- so once again, if you or anyone here ever wonders why BF has the stigma it has and why legitimate science all but laughs at it- read the posts and comments upthread. It should become evident pretty quick.

Ray Charles could see it.

[Hairy Man]

I realize this is off topic, and if so, the moderators can move this to a new thread...but Longtabber, care to address the post above by urbanshaman? Are you claiming that you have actually shot a bigfoot?

[Guest meglamom]

The female body ,as I know it. Breasts, size, can be inherited, the more infants born the less likely they will be sml. The mid section, hard to get get rid of ,unless you had a mother who taught you to do sit ups all your life. Legs, walking on all those rocks, boulders, tree limbs, injuries ? The way they walk, what would yours look like ? PG film, Real or Fake ? Its in the eye of her beholder. " as a child you, thought like a child " Our human race is still young, still learning, and science is still making their mistakes . If you are lucky to see a BF, do you worry abought wether or not the world believes you? No, the worry turns to the misfortune of that first one that science gets to kill, cut up, disect, before they can come to their conclusion ; and do you think they would need just one? Meg