Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab


Recommended Posts

Guest 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.

LTPE,

Context is everything and you take things out of context alot. Even if we agree on something you want to make it look like there is disagreement! I will state something plainly to get to a point. This thread is not a scientific journal. There is no peer review process here. Bill, in that context has presented ideas that give much weight to showing probability high for not being a suit. You will not acknowledge that. It will take a scientific endeavor that will require years to satisfy you. That is fine. By that time, however we may just have a body or a specimen.

My main point which you didn't follow was simply that. Nothing more (except that in current biological research NA apes do not fit the current evolutionary model and have been more or less on that basis alone discounted). Nothing less.

Soundman

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
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?

?????????????????? Theres nothing to address ( other than using this as a prime example of someone reading words and relaying misunderstandings that are factually incorrect and misrepresented)

I made no such claim I shot a BF. I listed 2 accounts I have had in the "NOT SURE ENCOUNTERS" thread a few months ago. ( emphasis on the NOT SURE part) and they are both there in detail from start to finish.

Please take time to review them both at your leisure and you will see that no such claim was ever made by me. I did have an encounter with a living animal ( which as stated at the TIME of the incident was believed to be a bear as BF didnt even enter our mind) but it wasnt until an article in a paper way later with BF prints along the same river ( totally unrelated to ours and several miles away) that the thought even went to a BF. But, "bears" arent very common and not native to coastal SC so its a "not certain" as the incident occured literally at daybreak.

We did however fire and ( from the howling and change of direction and all the commotion) did hit it.

How that became I "claimed to have shot a BF" is beyond me. But just guessing, another prime example of taking something that had nothing to do with the claim and trying to make it something it never was

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg

SoundMan:

.... Bill, in that context has presented ideas that give much weight to showing probability high for not being a suit. ...

He did no such thing .. Not in this thread, anyway ..

He showed a couple of non consecutive frames of film and claimed it exhibited features ( in motion ) of fat

under skin that would be difficult to duplicate with a suit ..

If one is going to claim certain features cannot be duplicated; it only seems reasonable to give an actual

example of the feature being claimed ..

Edited by Skeptical Greg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work, Bill! I encourage you to keep it comin'!

Just ignore all the pathological arguers... it's starting to sound like a special ed remedial philosophy debate in here!

Pretty soon they'll arrive at "Cogito ergo sum" because nobody can really prove anything, right??

"NO! That's not I said because you ignored my point of the inability to juxtapose matter that diligates on the triaxial sphere! But you can't prove my underwear is blue even if it looks llike it is blue! That's un-scientific!!" Shheeesh. Time to GAL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
?????????????????? Theres nothing to address ( other than using this as a prime example of someone reading words and relaying misunderstandings that are factually incorrect and misrepresented)

I made no such claim I shot a BF. I listed 2 accounts I have had in the "NOT SURE ENCOUNTERS" thread a few months ago. ( emphasis on the NOT SURE part) and they are both there in detail from start to finish.

Please take time to review them both at your leisure and you will see that no such claim was ever made by me. I did have an encounter with a living animal ( which as stated at the TIME of the incident was believed to be a bear as BF didnt even enter our mind) but it wasnt until an article in a paper way later with BF prints along the same river ( totally unrelated to ours and several miles away) that the thought even went to a BF. But, "bears" arent very common and not native to coastal SC so its a "not certain" as the incident occured literally at daybreak.

We did however fire and ( from the howling and change of direction and all the commotion) did hit it.

How that became I "claimed to have shot a BF" is beyond me. But just guessing, another prime example of taking something that had nothing to do with the claim and trying to make it something it never was

From you post at "NOT SURE ENCOUNTERS":

We didnt know whether it was man or beast and since we shot "up" ( at ducks) we didnt believe we shot somebody.

we called to it- no answers but it was basically still- then Robin got smart and challenged it ( as if it were a man saying he was trespassing and fired another shot in the air)- it hit the creek and it was CLEAR it was sloshing water and coming in our direction ( estimated 30 yards when we saw the "huge' outline with the daybreak and sun behind us)

I wont lie to you- we were scared shitless and literally opened up with a hail of #4 shot from 2 automatics- dead center mass of the incoming "thing"- it kinda slowed

Robin said F@ck this and loaded up with 00B ( we always carry 5 rounds or more when duck hunting for the occasional creek deer and the browning A-5 allows to change the chamber round)- he said if it came any closer he was going to kill it. he yelled that he had buckshot now and if it came [ still thinking this was a man but maybe a bear- even tho there are none in SC]

it took about 2 steps, Robin saif OK MF and fired 3 rounds center mass- ( i was now ready for round 2 if needed)- we heard "thocking" ( as if shot striking trees and maybe a body) and this thing went "apeshit" ( no other way to describe it) except this time it went right ( to us but its left) and was making all kinds of fuss and growling, screaming and cleared the creek ( about 25 ft) with a big splash spraying wayer all over and was coming down the creekbank ( in our general direction but there was a long lazy turn)

Let me understand this....so you opened up with a hail of bullets on something you weren't sure what it was? It could have been man or it could have been an animal but you just tore up the landscape without knowing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill-

Please go to 2:34 of this video. Note the back of the black gorilla. Note the rippling effect of the costume.

This movie was made in 1945

Could this be the same effect you are seeing in the PGF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skeptical Greg
Just ignore all the pathological arguers...

In other words; no matter how flawed the evidence is, lets just go along with it anyway,

because I agree with the conclusion ..

Nice ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew:

Thank you for the reference. It's enchanting as a perfect example of early suit technology. And the length of the hair is typical of what is necessary to obscure suit flaws and limitations. On the black gorilla, his head rotation shows the obvious disconnect from the body typical of suits and noted in my notes on neck seams (Number 7, I believe)

As for the back, I vaguely caught a bit of rippling around the waistline in one brief segment where the person inside was crouched down and the leg was presing up toward his belly. Looked consistant with what I expect of a costume fold. But it is a totally different posture than a figure standing and walking bipedally. So it would be easy to dismiss as not relevent simply because the postures are so different and different postures do in fact cause different bunching of cloth (on a suit) and tissue (on a real creature). I actually don't want to dismiss it that easily. On the contrary, I think what you found has fine potential to help us understand things better.

Now, hear's the problem, between you, me, and our dear friend, Skeptical Greg. The analysis of what a costume fold looks like as compared to real flesh folds needs to be taken out of the level of mere opinion. It hasn't been done so far by anybody yet. I hope to do that (if I can get a research concept funded). I'm working on the proposal outline and criteria now.

If we can take the issue out of the level of mere opinion, and be able to offer actual facts, data and experiments which can show the potential and limits of cloth folding dynamics, we may be able to say with more scientific assurance "cloth can't do this because. . ." (followed by some factual crtietia, instead of someone saying, in my opinion).

And if I can pull this off (the research), what you've found would be a splendid source of data on real suit characteristics and motion dynamics, and I'd definitely factor it into the study.

Where do we stand now? We're still at the opinion point. My opinion is, everything I saw in the film re-afirms my thoughts, notes and expectations of what a suit could do back then, and how a suit had to be designed to try and hide it's construction constraints.

And you may respectfully form your own opinion of what you feel it shows or afirms. I'm not going to try to claim my "professional opinion" should prevail over your "personal opinion". Actually, only you can choose to accept mine over your, if you have confidence in what I've written and illustrated. And you have every right to hold onto your opinion even if it disagrees with mine. I won't say "trust me because I'm an expert". I always get real suspicious when somebody says that to me.

Trust the ideas, independent of the person offering them. The ideas must stand on their own merit. If they do, embrace them. If they don't, refuse them. That's why I try so hard to offer ideas as factually and systematically as possible, so you can seperate the facts from my opinions, and see if the idea, the facts, and the material realities make sense.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killain

Let me understand this....so you opened up with a hail of bullets on something you weren't sure what it was? It could have been man or it could have been an animal but you just tore up the landscape without knowing?

Not very scientific, is it? Why would one fire in the general direction of an unknown thing that could be a man when no threat has been established? I'd dearly love to read the post, but can't seem to find the thread. Search challenged, I am.

K

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
From you post at "NOT SURE ENCOUNTERS":

We didnt know whether it was man or beast and since we shot "up" ( at ducks) we didnt believe we shot somebody.

we called to it- no answers but it was basically still- then Robin got smart and challenged it ( as if it were a man saying he was trespassing and fired another shot in the air)- it hit the creek and it was CLEAR it was sloshing water and coming in our direction ( estimated 30 yards when we saw the "huge' outline with the daybreak and sun behind us)

I wont lie to you- we were scared shitless and literally opened up with a hail of #4 shot from 2 automatics- dead center mass of the incoming "thing"- it kinda slowed

Robin said F@ck this and loaded up with 00B ( we always carry 5 rounds or more when duck hunting for the occasional creek deer and the browning A-5 allows to change the chamber round)- he said if it came any closer he was going to kill it. he yelled that he had buckshot now and if it came [ still thinking this was a man but maybe a bear- even tho there are none in SC]

it took about 2 steps, Robin saif OK MF and fired 3 rounds center mass- ( i was now ready for round 2 if needed)- we heard "thocking" ( as if shot striking trees and maybe a body) and this thing went "apeshit" ( no other way to describe it) except this time it went right ( to us but its left) and was making all kinds of fuss and growling, screaming and cleared the creek ( about 25 ft) with a big splash spraying wayer all over and was coming down the creekbank ( in our general direction but there was a long lazy turn)

Let me understand this....so you opened up with a hail of bullets on something you weren't sure what it was? It could have been man or it could have been an animal but you just tore up the landscape without knowing?

>>>Let me understand this....so you opened up with a hail of bullets on something you weren't sure what it was? It could have been man or it could have been an animal but you just tore up the landscape without knowing?

Let me explain it to you ( pay attention to the words you yourself posted- and read them carefully)

>>>>>we called to it- no answers but it was basically still- then Robin got smart and challenged it ( as if it were a man saying he was trespassing and fired another shot in the air)-

it was called to, WARNED off, CHALLENGED ( as informed on private property and to identify themselves) and even accompanied by a warning shot

At that point, disregarding all the above- it proceeded forth in a speedy and what we viewed as a threatening manner.

At that point, ID was of no consequence. When I have a weapon and am facing a potential predator/tresspasser/whatever- If I call to you ( and you fail to acknowledge) I then warn you and challenge you ( no response) and then give you a courtesy shot in the air to "reinforce" my position and to let you know this is no drill.

After that- you still approach- Be ye man or beast, you will be killed- period! Any necessary ID at that point can be done by the coroner.

I dont know where you are but in the South- thats all it takes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killain

Found it. "Thats why this is a "not sure" encounter. I can effectively rule out a man in a suit ( unless he had a death wish and was interested in 'suicide by duck hunter")"

You can't "effectively" rule out anything...from any point of view you have expoused on this or the other threads concerning PGF. Scientifically speaking, you are offering nothing but opinion, backed by a significant lack of facts. "Your" observations are not "our" facts.

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

Killain-

I can't think of the right expression but I think you and I are agreeing but not really hearing each other- or something like that. Yes, most wild animal, including apes, have a perfectly normal layer of fat that varies according to all the expected variables. I don't dispute that. But Bill introduced the term "flab" and tried to demonstrate what he perceives as literally rolls of fat bulging out and folding up on the figure's waist and back as it moves- that is what stretches my imagination. It takes a pretty fat animal to show rolls of fat (versus normal wrinkling like the silverback a few pages back) in a relatively normal, untwisted position. My issue here, and it's a minor one, is basically the degree of fatness.

But like I told Bill, I presume he overly exaggerated the rolls to make his demonstration. And if we're just talking about some creasing and wrinkling (which is all I think one needs to explain the observations and which I also think raises problems for the costume argument) then I'm fine with it.

I honestly didn't mean for this to be a big issue and I hope I'm not being lumped in with the chronic "arguers" because that's really not my intention. I just think Bill could refine this a little without having to invoke an abnormally fat (in my opinion) animal. (And also better separate the shadow lines from the fat lines in his illustration.)

I'll try to put some pics together to better explain what I can't seem to get across....

Q- for our human physiologists and medical people: Does the specific shape of human love handles have anything to do with us wearing pants (even slightly)? What I'm wondering is if this fat would normally be more evenly distributed (lower) if not for the compression/friction/etc. of wearing tight waisted cloths?

Didn't mean to sidetrack the latest exercise in futility. Word of advice to those that haven't already learned: though most of the rest of us all see it, he's not going to acknowledge any fault, or you winning any argument, so save yourself the frustration.

Apeman

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
I dont know where you are but in the South- thats all it takes.

Really, so that's what it is, a southern thing, huh? I don't buy that. Sounds to me like it's shooting out of trembling fear at whatever is approaching.....even if it could be an extraordinarily large 16-yr old child who doesn't take kindly to commands. Nice!

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