Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

I have stated the grounds for why I believe your location not to be the 'sunlight reflection' location Long spoke of whereas he went on to say that only a glass eye could produce. 

 

 

Again....what "Long spoke of"....is irrelevant.  First and foremost, this is Bob Heironimus' claim.

 

Heironimus claims that his 'glass eye' can be seen reflecting sunlight...and there is only one white spot in Patty's right eye area, on the original film.  And what is circled/highlighted in your report is not that white spot.`It is a speck of dust, or debris that got onto the image, at some point along the line.

 

 

 

 

The white area you are talking about could be made of painted wood and be illuminated, which still has nothing to do with sunlight light reflection and/or be added to light reflecting off of glass.. If you have evidence that Greg Long specified the location you speak of, then I would be interested in reading it as it was not pin-pointed in his book from what I recall.

 

 

 

Again....I don't care what Long was looking at. If he was looking at a copy of F350 that has a speck of dust within the eye area.....good for him.

 

The only thing that matters is what is on the original Film.....and, in this case....the relevant detail is located at the bottom of the eye socket...and it is not circled, or even mentioned by you, in your report.

 

You missed it, Bigfoothunter....and this statement of yours gives an incorrect impression, to readers...

 

 "High magnification brings out the many more artifacts
     that were randomly scattered across the film frame"

 

It gives the impression that a 'reflection' visible within Patty's right eye is nothing more than an "artifact of noise".....when that is not the case.

 

It is a real detail which exists on the Original Film....it is significant in size, it's larger than a 'few grains of film'....it appears in at least 4 Frames....and is always in the exact same location, at the bottom of the eye.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Again....I don't care what Long was looking at. If he was looking at a copy of F350 that has a speck of dust within the eye area.....good for him.

 

The only thing that matters is what is on the original Film.....and, in this case....the relevant detail is located at the bottom of the eye socket...and it is not circled, or even mentioned by you, in your report.

 

I am starting to feel like I am talking to Cervelo.

 

What Greg Long was talking about is very relevant as it was Long's statements that my article addressed. To say that what Long was looking at is irrelevant is totally mind boggling when my article was written in response to the things Long said. I do not recall "Sweaty Yeti" appearing in Long's book. The only thing Bob H said came as an after thought when Long went back to him and mentioned that he saw a sunlight reflection in the area of the eye to which Bob H responded that it was probably caused by the glass eye Roger had glued into the alleged mask.

 

For starters - you, nor I, nor Greg Long ever had images from the original film to view. The brown fur colored image I used was the one Long had posted on the Rense Show. I have asked you to show me where Long referenced anything other than the spot that I circled as the light reflection he was talking about and you have not produced that information other than to come back and basically say that whatever spot location Long was talking about is irrelevant.

 

Those who saw the original film said the creature looked very dark/black. Later copies were brightened so to better illuminate the creature, but in doing so, borders will and do expand, unless you want to believe the foliage such as the leaves on the bushes were also semi-round.

 

I personally believe the spot you refer to was the same color as the hide of the face as the eyes were deep set according to Bob Gimlin who I have spoken with in great detail on the face when working on the Sasquatch Replica Project for Harrison Hot Springs. Here are the eyes and how they appeared to Bob Gimlin ...

frontalfaceview2copy6copy_zps3c85589f.jp

 

As I have said before, the area you are talking about is on the face in my view ... maybe the area where some people would have bags under the eye. That area, like the nose has been exaggerated by the adding of contrast and brightness unless someone wishes to believe the creature had a semi-rounded nose as well. But make no mistake about it, that location and its misshapen borders are irrelevant when it comes to my article as I only critiqued the things Greg Long had to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Here is a modern suit attempt from the commercials, "Messing with Sasquach"    Notice the lack of muscle movements in the legs.  You can't see the flex and contract action of muscle groups and so on.

 

http://youtu.be/cV_vVm7CSvw

 

 

Patty looks real,  This looks like a suit and it happens to be one.  Looks at  the legs as he bends his knees.  Then, look at the patty knees.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true.

 

Oh it's very MUCH true.  Skeptics LOVE the "Columbo" approach to argumentation.  "Just one more thing, sir..."

 

"Moving goal posts" is a specialty with the Skeptical community.

 

I also worked as a family theme park mascot mime for a summer in university and I can assure you, as Ollie the Otter, that it is factually possible for a human in a costume to wear said costume for more than several minutes in the great outdoors  without risk of personal injury. It's not comfortable, but it was a job.

 

Any film of Ollie the Otter walking like the Patterson creature?

 

 

Let alone in a true wilderness setting, not the generally open smooth, stable and level confines of a  theme park?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

From Mulder:  " Skeptics LOVE the "Columbo" approach to argumentation.  "Just one more thing, sir..."

 

"Moving goal posts" is a specialty with the Skeptical community"

 

 

You are so right!  It would be good to be able to say, 'what 10 things do I have to show you or answer for you to have you consider the PGF is real?"   After answering those 10 things, there will always be 10 more.

 

Like I have always said, I as a Patty= Real guy ask only one thing.  it is the same thing I will always ask:  Show me how it was done and duplicate it in a near similar way.

 

A magician can claim to bend spoons with the mind and we can choose to believe or not.  But, if another magician can do the exact same thing and explain it is just a trick and they duplicate it exactly and then point out how the other guy is holding the spoons in a suspicious way, then we can at least conclude it Could be fake or it is still a guy with psychic powers.  Before the exposure, maybe 50% might think the guy is a psychic.  After the exposure, I'll bet 95 % would then say "the demonstration was enough to make me understand this man is fooling us with a simple trick" 

 

Backdoc



Show us how it was done.  Are 2 cowboys smarter than Hollywood's best?!

 

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking additional questions does not move the goal post.  The goal post is where it is.  It is fixed.  The truth is.

 

A skeptic realizes touchdown passes aren't thrown every time.  There is a progression to the goal, but the goal post doesn't move.

 

You don't know what a skeptic is, or you're misrepresenting or misusing the word.  Maybe you also don't understand logical reasoning or the term moving the goal posts.

 

A skeptic realizes the truth "is," and asks how we get there.  That doesn't mean the goal posts move, it means we carry the ball down the field in increments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
A skeptic realizes the truth "is," and asks how we get there.  That doesn't mean the goal posts move, it means we carry the ball down the field in increments.

 

And most of the time they are sacked for a loss of yardage!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^^^ 

I have seen instances where that was highly questionable. For truth to be one's goal, then one must first learn to accept he truth when they have found it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
To Remove Quoted Content From Directly Above
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^^ 

Not before thoroughly analyzing all the evidence.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
To Remove Quoted Content From Directly Above
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Since this thread is about the Munns Report, I am curious how many have observed it from start to finish.  I have and I must say I am very impressed.  Now I am in the Patty is real camp.  The points Mr. Munns brings out in the report a strong.  

 

#1  Shouldn't the 'Suit Patty' have to address each point, point by point, in order to counter with another fact or theory the Munns Reports.  (Why is there no Bob Heronimus report?)

 

#2  How many 'suit patty's have honestly watched all of it?

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And not accept before?

 

Not before thoroughly analyzing all the evidence.

 

You defined skepticism.  Thank you.  You are now a skeptic.

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