Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Pgf Described In New Book " Abominable Science "

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

^

 

Oh look...on the Local Radar....'Puffy Clouds' moving-in!... :) ...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyFingersBending/F61-F307FingerBendRotatedAG3.gif

 

 

It doesn't take a photographic expert to see that the fingers of the hand were bent differently between these two images, thus it calls for a rational and logical explanation from those who deny that the finger movement occured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

I am missing the significance of the hand movement. Why is it evidence against a costumed man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It does just the opposite - it would show that the arm on the creature is too long to be that of a humans. The use of some sort of extension inside a suit is then considered to achieve the arm length of the creature in the PGF, but as Sweaty Yeti has made clear is that the elbow - wrist - and finger joints bending would be non-exsitent with a mere arm extension.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It doesn't take a photographic expert to see that the fingers of the hand were bent differently between these two images, thus it calls for a rational and logical explanation from those who deny that the finger movement occured.

 

 

Sure, Bigfoothunter...the difference in contour of the fingers is significant, and as clear as day. :)

 

One thing that does require an explanation...and replication....is how they were able to get the distinctve bending...(of an 'apparent joint')....so close to the end of the finger.

There would have to have been some type of device in the "hand extension", to cause the fingers to bend at that point.

 

 

And, with all of this sophistication, in the alleged "Patty suit"....why has the creator of the "suit" never come forward to take credit for it's elaborate design, in all these years???

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I am missing the significance of the hand movement. Why is it evidence against a costumed man?

 

 

Because of the combination of the exceptional length of Patty's arms...along with the bending of the fingers.

 

Patty's arms are just a few inches longer, (proportionally speaking), than an 'average human's'....so a 'hand extension' would have been needed, on most humans, to achieve that arm length. And with an extension...you then need some type of device in it, to cause the fingers to bend.

 

Another factor to consider, is that, with Patty's arms being only a few inches longer than the actor's arms....the actor's fingers would end-up being located within the palm of the 'suit hand'....and that would make it rather difficult to operate a remote-control device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Thus we must have Patterson being not only a genius suit maqker, but also skilled in hand digging footprintsprints by hand - be a master at hand troweling a sandbar so to make the substrate wavy while littered with debris - and highly skilled in robotics ... and all before his time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's about right, BFH... :) Although, someone else besides Roger could have, potentially, designed/made "the Patty suit".

 

 

But, what I find very odd, is that nobody has ever come forward to take credit for this extensively engineered, one-of-a-kind "suit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sighting reports are more than "just stories"....there are 'probabilities' associated with them, and other examples of evidence related to the subject of Bigfoot. Those probabilities have meaning.

Here is something, about the probabilities of 'beating a polygraph exam'...

"The subject's physiological responses to these questions are meticulously calibrated. Then, when the operator gets around to the core questions, the responses to those questions can be measured and compared to the responses produced by the neutral and control questions. It's true, a lot of devils can live in the space of relative anxiety measurements, but numerous independent tests have indicated an accuracy rate in the 80-90% range"

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lie-detector-tests-tell-truth-29637.html

Yup...being 100% certain of what you say you saw, and passing a polygraph exam......that's a wonderful combination. :)

Those studies are a joke. Polygraphs are entirely dependent on the subjective interpretations of the examiner. Moreover, the reactions measured by the polygraph can be altered by any number of factors. For instance, someone with untreated hypertension is going to have a higher blood pressure than normal, indicating deception where none exists. Similarly, someone taking beta blockers is not going to show a reaction to questions, even where they're lying. See e.g. the Nat'l Academy of Sciences study on polygraphs available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=1#p200062449970001001. Among other things, note that the "independent studies" you reference were largely organized by the American Polygraph Association. And of course, you're assuming monsters quest was being honest about the polygraph.

The Mountain Gorilla, the Panda, and so on. These started as stories that many dismissed as folklore and/or Hoax. It doesn't make it science. It does make us ask why are they saying this? What did they see? What could explain it? These and others turned out to be true.

Fun fact: the very first European expedition into the Virunga, the mountain gorill's habitat, brought back a specimen. And that was a military expedition; they weren't even looking for gorilla. I would question what that says about the lack of if foot specimens.

Dmaker and anyone else who truly believes it's a suit, what do you say to Bill Munns, a professional suit builder of 40 plus years, who is 100% convinced it is impossible that it is a suit?

I consider myself an expert on three-wheelers and quads. If someone told me "Hey, that's a 1991 Honda TRX250R". I'd say, no its not, they did not make a 1991 250R. Not the best example, but you get my point.

How can Bill be THAT wrong in his years of researching Patty??

I would say, that's great, but there are plenty of other costume makers who say otherwise. Why should I believe you and not them? Like Phil Morris, for instance. Edited by leisureclass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

It doesn't take a photographic expert to see that the fingers of the hand were bent differently between these two images, thus it calls for a rational and logical explanation from those who deny that the finger movement occured.

 

Take a look at Tube's gif. He has it on PB somewhere.

 

It's the one where he makes the fingers of an empty glove move.

 

None of this has to do with the book in question, btw.

 

Is it still in publication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^ Since it came out this week, I'm sure the authors hope it's still in print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Those studies are a joke. Polygraphs are entirely dependent on the subjective interpretations of the examiner. Moreover, the reactions measured by the polygraph can be altered by any number of factors. For instance, someone with untreated hypertension is going to have a higher blood pressure than normal, indicating deception where none exists. Similarly, someone taking beta blockers is not going to show a reaction to questions, even where they're lying. See e.g. the Nat'l Academy of Sciences study on polygraphs available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=1#p200062449970001001. Among other things, note that the "independent studies" you reference were largely organized by the American Polygraph Association. And of course, you're assuming monsters quest was being honest about the polygraph.

Fun fact: the very first European expedition into the Virunga, the mountain gorill's habitat, brought back a specimen. And that was a military expedition; they weren't even looking for gorilla. I would question what that says about the lack of if foot specimens.

I would say, that's great, but there are plenty of other costume makers who say otherwise. Why should I believe you and not them? Like Phil Morris, for instance.

leisureclass,

 

Fun fact :

 

 

[New Latin, from Greek Gorillai, a tribe of hairy women, perhaps of African origin.]
Word History: Two traditions of exploration come together in the history of the word gorilla, which also illustrates how knowledge of the classics has influenced scientific terminology. Dr. Thomas S. Savage, an American missionary to western Africa, first scientifically described the gorilla in 1847, giving it the New Latin name Troglodytes gorilla. In doing so he was using his knowledge of Greek literature, in which there exists a fourth-century b.c. translation of a report written by Hanno, another visitor to western Africa. This Carthaginian navigator, who voyaged before 480 b.c., went as far as Sierra Leone in his explorations. In the Greek translation of his report he tells of seeing Gorillai, the name of which he allegedly learned from local informants and which he thought were members of a tribe of hairy women. In fact they were probably the same creatures that Thomas Savage described about 24 centuries later.
 
Have you seen this one he came up with ?morrisbigfoot.jpg

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is it still in publication?

This is your second post about this

1). have you read the book?

2). do you actually think there's any chance they will stop printing this book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...