Jump to content
Admin

Kitakaze's Patty Suit Bombshell (2)

Recommended Posts

Drew

I'm fine with a Jelly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Takes a lot of research to prove equipment used years in the past allowed what you claim happened. Not an easy task even to figure out when Skype was available in any country or if a particular cell phone 4 years ago would have or would allow a Skype application. I have an ancient 4 years old IPhone. While it does have an up to date operating system it did not have Skype installed when I got it nor does it have Skype on it now. Depends not only on the phone but the operating system installed and what apps have been installed. It is a whole lot easier to just ignore the hard questions. Perhaps that is what is going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Maybe you should mention that when posting

 

Indeed!!

 

It's good of the ... what does Gigantofootecus call them, "High Fiving Trolls"? ... to cover each other's backs.    Lacking that, and "accidentally" leaving off details like it's all hypothetical, a reasonable person might just think they were hoaxing.  

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Why would you pursue those details?

 

He has said he has nothing to back it up.

 

If he says, "I saw the subducting thigh line"

 

The next thing is , do you have anything to back it up?

 

"NO"

 

Ok, I guess we already knew that.

 

"Yeah, I expect no one to believe me without any documentation."

 

I am beyond needing it backed up and going on the notion that his cell feed really happened. So again ... what details did he observe during the alleged feed that led him to believe he was looking at "The Suit"?  If it was just hot air, then let him say so. If it was just a propaganda ploy - let him say so. If it was neither, then it should be easy to say what details did he observe that led him to think he was looking at "The Suit". This is a legitimate question that any investigator would ask if for no other reason than to establish if any of the options are true.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Why not? If the aspect of the frame is correct then it's AOK. I officially notorize this as a certified photogrammetrist :wink: 

 

To fit my agenda eh?  :D My agenda is the truth. I'm also a realist. You don't need site measurements to measure photos. As a certified photogrammetrist, that's my opinion/agenda.

 

 I am a certified thermal image analyst and a photogrammetrist and have always been willing to critique any analysis you brought to the table. I just gave up waiting for it.

 

Bigfoot is my hobby. But I am a certified photogrammetrist and I am confident about it. So stop whining and hire some other fully credentialed photogrammetrist to refute my numbers and out me as a poser. I dare you

 

Bigfoot is my hobby. But I am a certified photogrammetrist and I am confident about it. So stop whining and hire some other fully credentialed photogrammetrist to refute my numbers and out me as a poser. I dare you

 

 

Giganto asking people to trust him because he is a certified photogrammetrist, over the last 4+ years.
 
I haven't said that term until yesterday.

 

If you are asking someone to trust your work based on credentials, and you don't provide that, then no.  Just no.

 

 

 
HA! Drew, I count 3 times in that post, and you even posted the same quote twice. And you didn't even take the time to see what your tally was. Well here it is. I use the term "certified" and "real" interchangeably here because they are both used to discredit me.
 
 
I did, a few posts after I said
"That story only takes place if I provide the certified photogrammetrist with ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS from Giganto."
 
Bigfoothunter, if it doesn't matter if Giganto was actually a certified photogrammetrist, why does he keep bringing up that he is one?
 
If you are going to use the 'certified photogrammetrist in your argument, you need to back it up.
 
If I have Giganto providing credentials, then the fact that he is a die-hard Bigfoot Bleever doesn't enter into the conversation, and even if I screwed up and said Giganto was a Bigfooter, to the photogrammetrist, his professional training hopefully, would cause him to disregard anything but the fact that Giganto is a certified photogrammetrist.
But alas, he is a hobbyist until further documentation.
 
No. That story only takes place if I provide the real photogrammetrist with ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS from Giganto.
If I provide credentials, I would not get that response.
 
If I knew he was a certified photogrammetrist, then yes, that would be a good step to take.  However, when the real photogrammetrist, which I took Giganto's results to, asked me who did this, and I said, "A Bigfooter who claims to be a photogrammetrist did all of this"  and he laughs at me, and says, 'A BIGFOOTER?  did he show you his photogrammetrist secret decoder ring too?, has he shown that there was a 2nd shooter in Dealey Plaza, and that the Twin Towers were taken down by C4?'  and then I slowly back out of his office...
 
If you proved it? I would believe you. 
I wouldn't laugh out loud every time you claimed how you were a certified photogrammetrist, and I wouldn't say to myself, "Wow, look at how they believe Giganto, it must be nice to always have my work not be questioned."
 
It's funny how everyone wants Kit to back up his claims, but is A-OK with Giganto claiming he is a really real photogrammetrist
Maybe it's not funny, maybe it's more like Irony.
 
I understand you say you are a scientist, what are you? a photogrammetrist, or an Astrophysicist or something?
 
I've tried to hire a photogrammetrist.
They want the original film.  In both cases, that is the first thing they asked for.  I said I didn't have it, and they said they couldn't help me.
 
Bill-
Gigantofootecus has confirmed that the lens was 25mm.
(See my bolding below)
How does this information from a photogrammetrist affect your conclusions about the lens size?
 
The main problem is, that we don't know that Patty's foot made the tracks.  If we assume that Patty made the tracks, then the 14.5" foot as a ruler is an excellent measuring tool, as pointed out by our resident photogrammetrist.
 
Bill-
I hope you know I wasn't criticizing this, I was simply questioning the source of the funding, and I found it by myself. I have no issue with you not being a certified photogrammetrist, for the reasons I stated above. I think Odinn has already said he will be reviewing your work, and he is the real deal as far as I know.
BTW does anyone happen to know who was the photogrammetrist they used on Monsterquest to determine the size of the Giant Squid? I thought it was someone on here.
 
Has any of your 'Photogrammetry' work ever been published in a professional journal?
Have you ever done actual measurement of actual photos or film, to an accepted result?
 
What kind of photogrammetrist are you? 
 
I did not know that you were a photogrammetrist.
 
They could save a lot of dough, by not having to pay a certified photogrammetrist to consult. And if there happens to be a Bigfooter who is certified, willing to volunteer his stamp of approval, then I would think that would suffice.
 
Ideally the certified photogrammetrist would not be a bigfooter, but I'm sure there is something in the certification code of ethics that says he promises to be unbiased in his reviews, I do believe Odinn is legit.

 

 

That's at least a dozen times. I like the Boston Cream, thanx. Pwned again!

 

High 5, down low, too slow!

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

So, if someone claims to be a Certified Photogrammetrist, and uses that claim to add gravitas to their work, that there is no reason to verify that that person is indeed a certified photogrammetrist?

 

Seems legit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are obsessed with certification. Photogrammetric work should stand on its own merit. An expert can easily expose a poseur. This isn't rocket science, after all. And you still haven't explained to me how this has anything to do with Kit's Impossible Phone Call. And where's my Boston Cream?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

So, if someone claims to be a Certified Photogrammetrist, and uses that claim to add gravitas to their work, that there is no reason to verify that that person is indeed a certified photogrammetrist?

 

Seems legit.

 

The next time someone tells me that 3 x 5 - 1 + 3 = 17 .... I will be sure to ask them if they are a Photogammetrist, or have a degree in math so I will know if they were qualified to come up with 17 as the answer because without those credentials - 17 may not be the correct answer. And yet you didn't think it mattered to ask Kitakaze what it was he observed that made him think he was looking at "the suit" after he said he didn't have any photos to show you from the alleged cell phone feed.

 

That's not legit - that's just whacked!

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Perhaps so, BH.  However, if someone is going to lean on their alleged credentials as a photogrammetrist, chemical engineer, amateur JFK investigator, or what have you ( in a discussion about an unclassified giant man-ape), then I think a little skepticism is warranted.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Especially when I have seen people on JFK forums claim to be Photogrammetrists, and get called out by an actual expert. People in odd topical forums claiming to be an expert, and using that expertise to try to gain authority, should show their credentials, or stop adding the 'I'm an XYZ certified expert' tag to their claims.

Edited by Drew
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Perhaps so, BH.  However, if someone is going to lean on their alleged credentials as a photogrammetrist, chemical engineer, amateur JFK investigator, or what have you ( in a discussion about an unclassified giant man-ape), then I think a little skepticism is warranted.

 

What the heck has that got to do with Kit's bombshell or ANYONE'S questions to Kit re the Impossible Phone Call? You guys just can't seem to get on topic. Face it, the jig is up, you can stop the charade now. Kit has tapped out.

Especially when I have seen people on JFK forums claim to be Photogrammetrists, and get called out by an actual expert. People in odd topical forums claiming to be an expert, and using that expertise to try to gain authority, should show their credentials, or stop adding the 'I'm an XYZ certified expert' tag to their claims.

 

Maybe it was me who called them out. :D

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

He tapped out when he said he couldn't back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

He tapped out when he said he couldn't back it up.

 

You just don't get it, do you? This is an opportunity to debunk a hoax, not to just let sleeping dogs lie. Imagine if you had Gimlin on the ropes like this. Would you just go meh? No bloody way, hypocrite. 

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Yeah it is off topic but still valid. If you are using your credentials on a forum to back up the validity of your claims, aka being a "professional"  in a certain field, you should be willing  to provide the proof.  This is a BF forum, you could essentially claim it is off topic in any section except the off topic section here, Campfire Chat, but lets be honest, that's not exactly a bustling section that gets regular views or action.  If you make a claim and someone calls you out on it, man up and provide proof or don't throw the claim out there.  The internet is full of liars and fakers, in the interest of keeping things honest around here, asking for verification should be expected.  I for one would have no problem providing validation for any claim I make.  


 

He tapped out when he said he couldn't back it up.

 

You just don't get it, do you? This is an opportunity to debunk a hoax, not to just let sleeping dogs lie. Imagine if you had Gimlin on the ropes like this. Would you just go meh? No bloody way, hypocrite.

 

You make this sounds like a personal vendetta.  Do I believe KIT has proof it was a suit?? Nope sure dont.  Do I care that much to drag him thru the dirt and make sure everyone else knows he is wrong....Nope again.  Drew is right, he made a claim and could not back it up, move on, don't believe him, but to take it so personal that you have allowed him to set up shop in your head is a bit much for me.  

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable text
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...