Jump to content
Admin

Kitakaze's Patty Suit Bombshell (2)

Recommended Posts

dmaker

 

^So does Gimlin also get a meh? And if you don't give a crap about Kit's suit claim, then what are you doing here?

 

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'Don't feet the .... !'  Drew doesn't give a **** about Kitakaze having to give any details as to why he thought he was looking at "The Suit" because he could care less. While on the other hand - he cares as to whether or not you are certified in Photogammetry even though he has nothing to show that your figures and methods were in error. He is about as subtle as that cat that peeks out from under a coffee table and thinking you can't see him.

 

My bold.  THAT is precisely the point, and why confirming credentials can be worthwhile. Don't you get that? Or would you rather just accept that someone is the expert they claim they are, and that the information coming from them is valid and accurate?

 

It's not that hard a concept, BH.  When you were an amateur JFK investigator, did you just take someones expertise at face value? And, consequently, anything they said afterward?  I doubt it.

"ps. How old are you guys anyway? "   LOL, says the guy who uses "pwned"

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

dmaker, would you out yourself on a bigfoot forum to show a bunch of footers that you knew what you were talking about? Rhetorical.

 

ps. what do you kids call pwned these days?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

So, you don't feel you use your alleged position as a professional photogrammetrist to bolster your statements?   Then what was that whole " I'm all you got" speech you gave to me recently?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

You post a verifiable analysis of the evidence and the flock claim that makes you paranoid. You question whether Kitakaze has been honest in his actually seeing a cell phone feed of 'the suit' and the flock calls it you being paranoid. All the while keeping in mind that they are always wanting proof of your credentials to post Phagammetry 101 formulas and offering nothing that disputes the accuracy of your work. Simply mind-boggling as Dahinden used to say.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

You say there is much more to learn. You note how we do not have a consensus on the body dimensions of Patty and then you jump to a conclusion without the required knowledge you mentioned we do not have.  How can you state as a fact that Bob was not in the suit?

 

The only reason we don't have a consensus is because there has been no peer review of the many informal analyses on the interweb. And I doubt anyone would get more than my review on a bigfoot forum. As far as I know I am the only certified photogrammetrist that has examined the PGF who has taken the time to familiarize myself with the provenance of the film imagery. And for the record, Glickman was not a certified photogrammetrist.

 

I'll leave it to you to search for the more than a dozen comparisons I have posted that unequivocally demonstrate that Bob H could not have been in the suit, without a doubt. Double that number since you have a premium membership and can search BFF 1.0. Trust me, cuz I'm all you got. 

 

Again, my bold.

 

Don't look now, G, but here you are using your alleged expertise as a "certified photogrammetrist" to support your analysis of the PGF.  It seems that this one escaped Drews search somehow. 

 

 

 

And BH, in case you missed it the first time, allow me to reiterate my thoughts on Kits bombshell claim: I have none. Until, or IF, Kit ever produces some actual evidence to look at, there is nothing to examine or discuss. I don't know how much more clear I could be on this.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

  What is your problem with my quoted statement? You didn't really say. Is it because I am one of the few photogrammetrists to have studied the PGF? The rest of them don't seem to give a crap. Does that make me a fraud? You're 12, aren't you? Let me know.

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I never said I had a problem with your quoted statement, except that it contradicts what you just recently said:

 

TWIST: "Have you or have you not, used your expertise as a photogrammetrist on this site to support the PGF video as legit and portraying a real creature? "

 

Gigantofootecus: "No"

 

 

I guess you forgot about our little exchange a week ago? Yeah, that is probably what happened.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Yes, we are 12, evident by the fact we use the word pwned.....ohh wait........

 

What is your stance Giga, as a photogrammist, you have viewed the PGF, is it a BF  or a person in a suit.  Easy answer, either Suit or real creature.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ I've asked the same and not received an answer. Giga swears he is "not a footer". Whatever that means is pretty unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

And..?

 

I never said I had a problem with your quoted statement, except that it contradicts what you just recently said:

 

TWIST: "Have you or have you not, used your expertise as a photogrammetrist on this site to support the PGF video as legit and portraying a real creature? "

 

Gigantofootecus: "No"

 

 

I guess you forgot about our little exchange a week ago?  Yeah, that is probably what happened.

 

How does our exchange a week ago change anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ You need that spelled out for you?

 

You highlight the fact that you are the only certified photogrammetrist to have have studied the PGF. Even quick to point out that some other person is not a certified photogrammetrist, although you don't often use that term, or so we are told. You didn't seem to mind throwing it around in that quoted post, though. You then claim to have done more than a dozen comparisons that unequivocally show that it could not have been Bob H in the suit. 

 

You don't think that is using your "weight" as a certified photogrammetrist to bolster your claims here regarding the PGF? In this specific case, that it could not have been Bob H in the suit? How can you possibly deny that you are using your alleged credentials here to try to impress upon me your point about Bob H?

 

Let me ask you this, then. Since you are 100% sure, as a certified photogrammetrist, that Bob H could not have been in the suit,  could anyone have been? Or is Patty a really, real bigfoot?  

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^

 

You post a verifiable analysis of the evidence and the flock claim that makes you paranoid. You question whether Kitakaze has been honest in his actually seeing a cell phone feed of 'the suit' and the flock calls it you being paranoid. All the while keeping in mind that they are always wanting proof of your credentials to post Phagammetry 101 formulas and offering nothing that disputes the accuracy of your work. Simply mind-boggling as Dahinden used to say.

 

What flock?? Who here has backed Kit?

 

Here is my statement:

"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."

 

DMAKER:.

 

And BH, in case you missed it the first time, allow me to reiterate my thoughts on Kits bombshell claim: I have none. Until, or IF, Kit ever produces some actual evidence to look at, there is nothing to examine or discuss. I don't know how much more clear I could be on this.

 

What flock do you speak of?  Is the flock anyone that does not blindly follow and agree with your every post? The only other poster on here I can think of that disagrees with you on this thread is Drew and I didn't bother to find  his posts.  Is one person now a flock? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

  What is your problem with my quoted statement? You didn't really say. Is it because I am one of the few photogrammetrists to have studied the PGF? The rest of them don't seem to give a crap. Does that make me a fraud? You're 12, aren't you? Let me know.

Someones melting down

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

 

  What is your problem with my quoted statement? You didn't really say. Is it because I am one of the few photogrammetrists to have studied the PGF? The rest of them don't seem to give a crap. Does that make me a fraud? You're 12, aren't you? Let me know.

Someones melting down

 

I hope not.  While I may not have "credentials" or a college edumacation!!!  I do have things that require my time daily as a lil ol' blue collar worker, I for sure do not have time to double my real estate and take up time in Giga's head!!!! 

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, we are 12, evident by the fact we use the word pwned.....ohh wait........

 

What is your stance Giga, as a photogrammist, you have viewed the PGF, is it a BF  or a person in a suit.  Easy answer, either Suit or real creature.   

 

Who cares? Get back to me when you have done your homework.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...