Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab


Recommended Posts

Greg:

from your quote (post #78)

"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 .."

Let's see if we can find some common ground for understanding here.

The six frames I showed do have different patterns of light and dark on the back torso of the figure. Light and shadow do reasonably show shapes or contours in relation to the light source illuminating them. So we intrepret 3 dimensional shape from the light dark patterns. If the patterns change on a living creature's body, it may indicate that the contours of the body itself have changed. Such change requires motion to go from one contour to another. So motion is implied, but my argument is more on contour change than issues of motion to accomplish the change.

What I am arguing is that the contours themselves are difficult to make with a furcloth medium. And if you tailor the furcloth to match exactly one specific contour, it's own material dynamics and constraints of motion may prevent it from changing to another contoured shape. So I look at the difference in the shape or contour of the body surface from one image to the next (and order doesn't really matter here), as illustrated by the light and darkness of the body mass, and I see changes in contour. So I reference what I know about the potential for furcloth materials to deform or change contour, and I look at what I have studied about how real living body tissue can deform or change contour, and I see something more consistant with flesh material changes of contour than cloth material changes of contour.

The sequence and how much time occurs between frames doesn't really matter in this case, because the contour is being studied, from one shape to another, and the film more or less conclusively defines the contours we see.

So let me be clear in my "claim" I believe that one tailored suit of furcloth is unlikely to be able to change or deform from one of those shapes to another, so if it is tailored to perfectly match any one image (which can be done), I do not expect or believe it can bend or fold or otherwise deform to match the other shapes in the remaining images.

That said, I will repeat what I wrote in my post to Drew above:

"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)."

:coverlaugh:

Apeman:

Yes, I'm actually on the same page with you and killian on the "fat" thing. Perhaps as you conveyed, we are thinking of the same idea, just expressing it in different words, and there-in lies the misunderstanding.

8O

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
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

"your" facts need a lot of work- then again, thats neither a surprise or anything new- thats right, it was just an opinion, it was stated as such and never elevated to anything it never was.

Also, the process of elimination I used in my "opinion" was at least on par with anything else I have seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
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!

Call it what you will, I'm not interested in what you are buying because I'm not selling. Once again, read the account, I made it clear and present that fear was a motivating factor. I offer no apology for that nor do I make excuse either.

If that 16 year old didnt take "commands nicely" thats where personal accountability comes in- dont argue with a man with a gun.

I'm not a liberal or apologist. When I tell you to stop and ID yourself and warn you that failure to comply can have lethal consequence ( and reinforce it with a strong warning in the sound of a gunshot)- at that point, its NOT a "bluff"- the man/beast is then a threat proceeding WITH warning, it becomes a case of "me V thee" - if you ignore that then you are on your own and will suffer consequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
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? I'd dearly love to read the post, but can't seem to find the thread. Search challenged, I am.

K

Why would one fire in the general direction of an unknown thing that could be a man when no threat has been established?

Let me help you out so you can learn. I love the way this has turned. Its a good diversion from the core issues.

>>>>so you opened up with a hail of bullets on something you weren't sure what it was?

After proper challenge, it was identified, it was designated as THREAT ( dont need a nametag for that)

>>>It could have been man or it could have been an animal but you just tore up the landscape without knowing?

Theres this "selective" omission of critical facts you seem to be famous for ( not to mention twisting things way out of context with no regard for the facts of the account- and you were a Fed?)

We made the challenge as well as warning ( and a warning shot to enforce it) ( you seem to like to forget those parts- why? Have all of your cases been reviewed by a COMPETENT authority?)

After ignoring all warnings- it moved forth- so from your training- when do you reach a shooting solution? ( I cant wait to hear this one) Come on now, you are supposed to be FLE so lets hear the doctrine. ( or do you need me to quote it for you to help you remember?)

>>>Not very scientific, is it?

Theres very little "science" in a tactical threat situation- but I guess if one has never actually been there- one cant comprehend, much less understand. How much of your training required you to "scientifically analyze" something in a real time tactical situation?

Just more ad hom and really decadent coming from a supposed "professional"- Just curious, how many times have you been under fire? armchair expert maybe? Records officer? Desk bound paper pusher? REMF?

>>>Why would one fire in the general direction of an unknown thing that could be a man when no threat has been established?

Its called the perception of threat ( something one might even expect from an alleged FLEO)- Tell me about your agencies doctrine again or do you need me to correct that as well. ( regarding presentation and use of deadly force)- see, we were sure of the target ( as in location) just not a positive ID- after refusing to answer challenge, that no longer matters.

>>>I'd dearly love to read the post, but can't seem to find the thread. Search challenged, I am.

I would argue thats not the only challenge you have

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Longtabber seems to have proven that if the creature exists, it doesn't grok English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill's thread just went out of control.

Hey, all you longtabber haters..........why don't you send him a PM.

I'm sure he's just as good at swatting down your arguments in private as he is in the open forum.

That way, the thread might stay on track and your feelings wont be hurt in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RN:

yeah, I saw that picture comparison (higher up in this thread, I believe). It is a curious similarity, and it's worth looking into more.

No conclusion yet, but merit to investigate.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Bill's thread just went out of control.

Hey, all you longtabber haters..........why don't you send him a PM.

I'm sure he's just as good at swatting down your arguments in private as he is in the open forum.

That way, the thread might stay on track and your feelings wont be hurt in public.

you are entitled to hit the report button to admins whenever you feel things are out of control,

remember? I myself don't think challenging peoples manhood and professionalism is any different

on this thread than on many of the other threads certain people post to, imho, but then again this is an

interesting thread which is going nowhere fast, maybe we could start a new thread re: a foundation

subgroup of bff members wanting to support Bill's research? How can we help further analysis Bill, tell

us what you are up to in regard to proposed grants or the like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
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

Ok, lets calibrate you again

>>>Context is everything and you take things out of context alot.

No, I am quite in context

>>>Even if we agree on something you want to make it look like there is disagreement!

Your "agreement" was in context with your disagreement

>>>I will state something plainly to get to a point.

as will I

>>>This thread is not a scientific journal. There is no peer review process here.

No, but it combined with all sister threads ( in proper context mind you- just so you dont get lost) is an attempt to use the suit discussion to build a scientific argument towards the scienticif issue of BF. Its clearly stated in this thread and others. Since the ideas are in a public forum that invites review and counterpoint. I am simply taking the unpopular side of legitimate science.

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

You need to read upthread in this thread and others. Bill has also referenced using this as the "dreaded" scientific argument. Just because its you, if you cant find the references, I will post them for you.

>>>You will not acknowledge that.

I acknowledge what is- regardless of attempts to avoid the point.

>>>> 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.

Not just satisfy me

The question I have is this- are you more irritated that I see thru the deception or just because I dont fall for it?

Or is it that my counters are valid and that upsets the popular worldview and rather than attempt to discuss them ( or offer legitimate alternatives) it becomes a game of attacking the messenger?

Thats why bigfoot "science" is the literal laughing stock. Theres no science to it- this thread ( and others) is the textbook reason why it is viewed as it is. Dont blame me, I didnt do it.

you are entitled to hit the report button to admins whenever you feel things are out of control,

remember? I myself don't think challenging peoples manhood and professionalism is any different

on this thread than on many of the other threads certain people post to, imho, but then again this is an

interesting thread which is going nowhere fast, maybe we could start a new thread re: a foundation

subgroup of bff members wanting to support Bill's research? How can we help further analysis Bill, tell

us what you are up to in regard to proposed grants or the like?

There wont ever be a grant proposal because no grant allows for "fishing" ( thats the kiss of death) and there cannot be a scientific case for such a proposal without legitimate science, tests, validations being done to support any request ( thats just how it is) so unless its funded by donations or sales, it will never pass muster. ( thats just how grants are)

Link to post
Share on other sites
you are entitled to hit the report button to admins whenever you feel things are out of control,

remember?

No thanks........I'll decline on the snitch option.

I myself don't think challenging peoples manhood and professionalism is any different

on this thread than on many of the other threads certain people post to

What's the title of this thread? "Lets challenge Longtabber's manhood, personal sighting report and professionalism"?

Not the last I checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Thats why bigfoot "science" is the literal laughing stock. Theres no science to it- this thread ( and others) is the textbook reason why it is viewed as it is. Dont blame me, I didnt do it.

There wont ever be a grant proposal because no grant allows for "fishing" ( thats the kiss of death) and there cannot be a scientific case for such a proposal without legitimate science, tests, validations being done to support any request ( thats just how it is) so unless its funded by donations or sales, it will never pass muster. ( thats just how grants are)

Grants are funded by many types of foundations, many of them are private and nongovernmental and every bit as political as refereed journals and their editorial staff.

If Bill seeks to do something of this nature, I have every belief he will be successful. Having just taken a graduate level grantwriting course, I wish you every success Bill. If you need any references to help in this process just PM me and I will do what I can. :coverlaugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest longtabber PE
Grants are funded by many types of foundations, many of them are private and nongovernmental and every bit as political as refereed journals and their editorial staff.

If Bill seeks to do something of this nature, I have every belief he will be successful. Having just taken a graduate level grantwriting course, I wish you every success Bill. If you need any references to help in this process just PM me and I will do what I can. :coverlaugh:

I can only conclude that you have never applied for one, had to present it, defend it or be awarded one. If you had, you would have never made this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man
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

:coverlaugh:

And as I already noted longtabber, grants have already been given to do bigfoot research...TBRC got one and Jeff Meldrum has gotten one as well.

P.S. Everything bipedalist said is accurate about grants and before you challenge ME on if I have ever gotten grants, the answer is yes...every year for the last 15 years.

Edited by Hairy Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MANGLER

mkianni wrote,

Bill's thread just went out of control.

Hey, all you longtabber haters..........why don't you send him a PM.

I'm sure he's just as good at swatting down your arguments in private as he is in the open forum.

That way, the thread might stay on track and your feelings wont be hurt in public.

What he said.

m

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