Jump to content
salubrious

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 2

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch
7 hours ago, salubrious said:

 

The thing is, BF really is proven. Its another matter entirely if you or anyone else will accept it.

 

In order to make the claim that BF is not proven or does not exist, you have to explain why Patty's joints don't line up with a human's joints. Bill Munns did an excellent analysis on this (available on YouTube); maybe you could start be debunking that. Please show your work- a simple 'I don't buy his explanation' is 100% insufficient.

 

 

 

The thing is BF has not been proven. Each time you parrot that mantra you do the Forum a Disservice.

 

Bigfoot has not been proven. Patty/PGF creature has not been proven.

 

Not once, not ever, not in 1967 or recent times.

 

Bill Munns did an analysis, wrote a book and walked away. Didn't even bother to calculate the lens size or height of the 'subject' but let's trust Bill because he made a consciously poor suit. (see bottom pic for Bill's best book effort)

 

 

 

Here's an IM index for you: look at those arms. Couldn't be a guy in a suit.

 

Think

 

 

 

barney.jpg

bill.PNG

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

The thing is BF has not been proven. Each time you parrot that mantra you do the Forum a Disservice.

 

A disservice to the forum ... is that anything like claiming all one needs to do it step harder while wearing enlarged rigid carvings on their feet so to make deep prints in the ground that other men can only walk atop of?

 

 

2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Bill Munns did an analysis, wrote a book and walked away. Didn't even bother to calculate the lens size or height of the 'subject' but let's trust Bill because he made a consciously poor suit. (see bottom pic for Bill's best book effort)

 

Munns was the one who did calculate the creatures size against Roger's camera lens size in the National Geographic study.

 

And if you'd read the forum more thoroughly you would find that Munns has not just walked away from anything.Your statement could not have been any more misinformed than if had you have said after five years following the PGF - Patterson just walked away.

 

 

2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 

Here's an IM index for you: look at those arms. Couldn't be a guy in a suit.

 

Think

 

 

 

barney.jpg

 

 

That is a fine example of the level of evidence you bring to the discussions here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
18 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

The thing is BF has not been proven. Each time you parrot that mantra you do the Forum a Disservice.

 

Bigfoot has not been proven. Patty/PGF creature has not been proven.

 

Not once, not ever, not in 1967 or recent times.

 

Bill Munns did an analysis, wrote a book and walked away. Didn't even bother to calculate the lens size or height of the 'subject' but let's trust Bill because he made a consciously poor suit. (see bottom pic for Bill's best book effort)

 

 

 

Here's an IM index for you: look at those arms. Couldn't be a guy in a suit.

 

Think

 

 

 

barney.jpg

bill.PNG

Seriously??

If you were to place a human by that purple thing you could line up the joints once you got the sizing right. Bill's suit is designed for a human. Its about as good as anyone is going to come up with once you have a good mask, gloves and footwear.

 

Saying that Bill, not knowing the height of the subject or the actual lens as a means of discrediting him in some way is the definition of obfuscation. The simple fact is he did do the analysis and you can duplicate it (repeatability is a big deal with science FWIW), and the result is proof (because of that repeatability thing) that Patty is the real thing. Again, just because you don't accept that does not change that simple fact.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA
On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 2:41 PM, salubrious said:

 

The thing is, BF really is proven. Its another matter entirely if you or anyone else will accept it.

 

In order to make the claim that BF is not proven or does not exist, you have to explain why Patty's joints don't line up with a human's joints. Bill Munns did an excellent analysis on this (available on YouTube); maybe you could start be debunking that. Please show your work- a simple 'I don't buy his explanation' is 100% insufficient.

 

 

ALL OF THE LIVE EVIDENCE points to the existence of the animal.  NO evidence points to its nonexistence (or, more accurately, to the conclusion that all the evidence adds up to a false positive).  When this happens in science...PROVEN, for all intents and purposes. There is no reason, in other words, to believe that this animal isn't real, because any "reason" in science must be backed up by evidence...and all the evidence says:  real.

 

Once again:  proof is being misused here.  The only reason scientists get proof is to convince the ignorant...which from a pure scientific standpoint there is no reason to do.  (From a practical standpoint:  scientists, in general, get paid by ignorant people.)

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
On 10/26/2016 at 4:28 PM, salubrious said:

Seriously??

If you were to place a human by that purple thing you could line up the joints once you got the sizing right. Bill's suit is designed for a human. Its about as good as anyone is going to come up with once you have a good mask, gloves and footwear.

 

Saying that Bill, not knowing the height of the subject or the actual lens as a means of discrediting him in some way is the definition of obfuscation. The simple fact is he did do the analysis and you can duplicate it (repeatability is a big deal with science FWIW), and the result is proof (because of that repeatability thing) that Patty is the real thing. Again, just because you don't accept that does not change that simple fact.

 

 

Obfuscation could also considered as Bill having studied, spoken and self-published several times on the subject. All the while having failed to determine the physical measurements required to support his claim.

 

I'm not arguing that BobH was Patty.

 

But if you insist on Bigfoot having been proven, especially wrt PGF, you sound rather foolish, imo.

 

Good thing it's a closed part of the forum :)

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^What specific physical measurements required to support his claim are you talkin' about ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
9 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I'm not arguing that BobH was Patty.

 

But if you insist on Bigfoot having been proven, especially wrt PGF, you sound rather foolish, imo.

 

I must say that you could be considered the expert when it comes to sounding foolish -  but when it comes to understanding what Salubrious said you have not demonstrated nor shown any examples that you understand the points he has made that Bigfoot cannot be a human based on what is seen on the film and left behind at the scene. Just as you stated that all one needs to do is take harder steps in order to make footprints deep into the ground that only other men could walk atop of .... you can't find any evidence to support what you have said. It ends always ends up being just more Jibber-Jabber on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
On 10/28/2016 at 8:22 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Obfuscation could also considered as Bill having studied, spoken and self-published several times on the subject. All the while having failed to determine the physical measurements required to support his claim.

 

 

Do you think that determining Patty's height or which lens was used makes a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
21 hours ago, salubrious said:

 

Do you think that determining Patty's height or which lens was used makes a difference?

 

 

 

A note about Munns determination  on the lens and size of Patty:  His findings were not withdrawn because he had any significant errors in his work, but rather because a third possibility for a third lens had been introduced after the fact. For his paper to be totally scientific - he explained to me that this third lens option must be ruled out like one of the two others had been. This would mean to do a 3D model for the new lens option as well. I applauded BIll Munns for taking this approach even though I believed it to be futile considering he had already found the lens that aligned the background up of the film site to his 3D model ... while the other did not. I compared it to having three totally different cut keys and wanting to know which one fit a certain lock. Only one of the keys can work and after the first one failed and the second one opened the lock - realistically then the third key cannot possibly open the lock either.

 

The new lens option certainly was not mentioned anywhere in the invoice for Patterson's rental. The new lens options was never mentioned anywhere in the complaint either. And because it is also not the size of the lens that did match the 3 model, then there is no logical reason to think it is somehow going to magically work with the 3D model as well. In fact, it should prove to be mathematically impossible just as the other lens that didn't match the 3D model. Munns did the right thing by wanting to also test the new lens option because that is what good scientific research would want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
4 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

... Munns did the right thing by wanting to also test the new lens option because that is what good scientific research would want.

 

Bill Munns is a man of exceptional intellectual integrity, and a cautious scholar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

if the skeptics would put out a Munns-like effort to show patty is a man in a suit, I would take a look.   Munns efforts are impressive and the skeptics just talk.  Doesn't mean munns is right.  It just means the opposition are weak intellectual lazy cowards.

 

lets seem the Anti- Munns.  Until then I guess bad bad Leroy Blevins will have to entertain us all.

 

BD

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
9 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

A note about Munns determination  on the lens and size of Patty:  His findings were not withdrawn because he had any significant errors in his work, but rather because a third possibility for a third lens had been introduced after the fact.

 

 

Bill retracted his 15MM finding, Bill...because it was in error.....plain and simple.

 

Here is one recent statement of Bill's...regarding the 15MM Lens option...

 

Quote

The 15mm lens is out. Contenders are 20mm and 25mm. Still a lot of conflict in the data so the final determination is affected by the need to resolve the conflict.

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/50663-the-munns-report-3/&page=6#comment-928282

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
On 11/1/2016 at 11:36 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Bill retracted his 15MM finding, Bill...because it was in error.....plain and simple.

 

Here is one recent statement of Bill's...regarding the 15MM Lens option...

 

The 15mm lens is out. Contenders are 20mm and 25mm.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/50663-the-munns-report-3/&page=6#comment-928282

 

 

I will be interested in discussing this statement with Bill because he said only one lens out of the two he had tested matched the 3D model of the film site and that it was the lens that gave him the 7'6.5" height. And when the other lens showed the creature to be smaller - he said that this lens had all the landmarks out of place, thus he ruled it out. And I think we all have some understanding as to how a different lens bends the image. I now want to know how does one say a lens is the wrong one for the height if it matches/aligns all the trees and stumps correctly? I will contact Bill and ask for a clarification in the event he misspoke or I misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

I will be interested in discussing this statement with Bill because he said only one lens out of the two he had tested matched the 3D model of the film site and that it was the lens that gave him the 7'6.5" height. And when the other lens showed the creature to be smaller - he said that this lens had all the landmarks out of place, thus he ruled it out. And I think we all have some understanding as to how a different lens bends the image. I now want to know how does one say a lens is the wrong one for the height if it matches/aligns all the trees and stumps correctly? I will contact Bill and ask for a clarification in the event he misspoke or I misunderstood.

 

 

My understanding of the situation with the camera lens issue, Bill....is as follows... :) ...

 

Bill retracted his finding...(that the camera had a 15MM lens on it).....after Gigantofootecus' review of the finding showed that it was in error...and could not possibly have been 15MM.

 

After that, Bill looked into the 20MM size lens, as a possibility. AFAIK, Bill's re-worked solution has led him to conclude that the 20MM Lens was the size of the lens that was on the camera.

 

But I don't think that is correct, either. Giganto, and myself....think that the lens on Roger's camera was what was stated on the rental document.....a 25MM Lens.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Glass Eye:

 

Each human eye sees vision in both fields of vision.  Each persons experience with a health problem can be unique.  That all being said, I have to wonder about Bob H and the glass eye thing.

 

I talked to a lady who had a glass eye.  Talk about in her experience how hard it was to walk over ground out of fear of falling.  This does not mean her depth and other vision issues represent all people with a glass eye. It does tell us it can be an issue though.  The good eye sees primarily in one field and to a varying degree some of the other filed.

 

For Bob H to have one eye and wear an ape costume (with one eye blocked) and walk across terrain he had never walked before and did not know what to expect...... Hmmmm.  Seems a little bit of a long shot.  Possible certainly as we know he wore the Ewok suit with no glass eye in it for the Morris demo but had just one good eye then to. He did not fall down then.   When you look at how smooth Patty moves you never get the sense if someone is in the costume there is any struggle to perform in it. 

 

This one lady who told me her struggles does not represent Bob H's same level of adaption.  However, It is something to think about. 

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...