Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 I posted else where but This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 The blurryness of the film allows people to match any hominid skull they want to her head, but if you look at eyewitness drawings and a clear copy of frame 350, all of them look human and not like any Australopithecus.
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei I don't think the film is blurry; if that were one of your siblings you'd know which one. It is about as clear as any movie film could do of a subject at that distance. This point to point comparison is actually pretty reasonable, and to me shows that one really *can't* just match up anything to that image. Edited December 31, 2015 by DWA
Bodhi Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 you don't think that the above frame is blurry? Seriously? 1
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) That frame is WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY blown up...and still provides the attachment points for the comparison. Which can be seen in much lesser magnification, as well; but why downsize the skull illustration when this makes it easier to see? The film, as shot, provides everything needed to determine what - at least broadly if not taxonomically - that is. If it is blurry...all movies shot in 1967 were blurry for every subject at that distance, which we know isn't the case. "Blurry" is just another red herring. The film...isn't. Edited December 31, 2015 by DWA
norseman Posted December 31, 2015 Admin Posted December 31, 2015 Well I can see from that photo that Patty does not have a head shaped like any human i have ever seen. I can see a very pronounced brow ridge and a very peaked head. And she has no neck......none, even Schwarzenegger is jealous.
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 I think you are doing vision wrong Whatever that means. And whatever it does mean...we know that that subject is an animal that science doesn't have a decent handle on yet, other than: probable hominid.
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 The frame is blurry even us none science, non maverick thinker types can see it's blurry. So if we can see it why can't those science embracing, heavy thought types seem unable to see it? I promise you if you assigned me to deliver a clear photograph of your dog and I gave you something like that Patty head you'd sue me.
norseman Posted December 31, 2015 Admin Posted December 31, 2015 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGS5V_xbnpg
ShadowBorn Posted December 31, 2015 Moderator Posted December 31, 2015 I posted else where but Meldrum.jpg This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei There is nothing in our evolution tree that matches to what I saw or to what Patty is. So in my opinion it is like these creatures are set apart from our own evolutionary tree. So instead of there being two splits or three splits there four splits or maybe five ,six. I just think that their genes are different from APE and Chimps.
Rockape Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 The frame is blurry even us none science, non maverick thinker types can see it's blurry. Show me a BF photo that isn't blurry. So if we can see it why can't those science embracing, heavy thought types seem unable to see it? Because you haven't read all of those reports. I promise you if you assigned me to deliver a clear photograph of your dog and I gave you something like that Patty head you'd sue me. It wouldn't look blurry to him though. Keep up now. 1
Incorrigible1 Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 Imagine how much less traffic BFF would have without the science-peddling report-reader. 1
hiflier Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Hello Incorrigible1, Why not toss in the ones who debate non-existence as well just to be fair. The Forum's post would be smaller by half just by eliminating the hard for and the hard against. Oh but the boredom would destroy the rest IMO. It's much more fun just the way things are. Happy New Year BTW! Edited January 1, 2016 by hiflier
JDL Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGS5V_xbnpg Am I looking for a bigfoot in this, or is it an example of 60's video quality for reference and comparison?
Recommended Posts