Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
masterbarber

Was It A Suit? (2)

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

^ Out of plusses Backdoc, but ya pretty much nailed it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I've said this before:

Squatchy, sure, you think it looks like a bloke inna suit.

 

The problem is we've shown that the joints aren't right. Yet you maintain that viewpoint. That's fine. I think it looks like a bloke inna suit too. The difference is I caused my hand to move and did the needed analysis that show that its impossible for such to be so (as you know though, my problem is I saw two fairly close up and so am saddled with the knowledge they exist. I hate how crazy that makes me sound).

 

So my question now is, why is it that you won't also do that? Is the idea that Patty could be the real thing in any way threatening (a correct answer is a simple yes or no)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
59 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

^ Out of plusses Backdoc, but ya pretty much nailed it !

 

I'm just out here calling Balls and Strikes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

If Patty looked like a bloke in a suit then there would be a bloke in a suit that looks like Patty.  That's not even logic, it's just: if A then A.   For some reason that doesn't work for PGf detractors though.  They want to take something that does not look like any bloke in a suit ever seen (of which there have been many and that is a fact) and say that there is nothing to indicate that it is not a bloke in a suit.  That's a fallacy, but it's not a "logical fallacy" because there is no logic involved there.  PGf detractors will need to do a lot better if they want to put this to rest in their favor.  And, although there have been many concerted efforts to do just that, we're going on 50 years with no indication of a successful debunk even "in progress" what-so-ever.  (She was/is real.)

Share this post


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

Pat I don't find the PGF convincing. Bob H in his 60s has nothing to do with my opinion

 

 

You don't find physics convincing,  To find something convincing is to understand it and you have not demonstrated the latter in your responses.

the skeptics guide.jpg

8 hours ago, norseman said:

^^^ More meaningless jibber jabber.

 

copy/paste

 

McSquatch only repeats that phrase because Chelefoot once warned him from continuing  doing it had become a form of trolling with him. She has been absent, so he is testing the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Squatchy's right, it looks like a bloke in a suit, but the reality is that they all do, especially at lower film/video resolutions. This is largely a result of their skeletal morphology. Luckily, the Patterson film is in the zone where it's still possible to tell that it's not a costume. The problem is that it's still very difficult to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Squatchy's right, it looks like a bloke in a suit, but the reality is that they all do, especially at lower film/video resolutions. This is largely a result of their skeletal morphology. Luckily, the Patterson film is in the zone where it's still possible to tell that it's not a costume. The problem is that it's still very difficult to do so. 

 

That is why someone like Donskoy didn't bother discussing how the fur looked on film, but rather more about its movements and how it different from human locomotion. It's why Munns didn't car so much how the fur looked on film, but rather what it would take for a human to wear such a suit - its why Sal and SweatyYeti discuss its hinge points and limb ratios on Patty's body compared to humans - and why Pat and I discuss the hinge points on Patty's feet and how it differs from humans. To be a man in a suit has so many other failings and is probably why skeptics ignore them so to argue how its fur should look on film.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Yes, there are a lot of seemingly-small, but unreplicable differences, and it takes an unbiased mind to properly identify them. The differences are small enough that people can be fooled into thinking it's a person in a costume. My point is that it's like that with any Sasquatch.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
10 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Patty wasn't a gorilla. Patty wasn't on old wrinkled lady with no clothes. Patty wasn't a Kardashian.

 

Nobody has a comparison photo of a BF they're willing to share with the class,

 

So I'm going with a bloke in a suit.

 

 

SMS,you should know by now that personal perception means nothing around here. Unless, of course, you are claiming to have seen a bigfoot. Then your perception is perfect and you could not possibly be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
4 minutes ago, dmaker said:

SMS,you should know by now that personal perception means nothing around here. Unless, of course, you are claiming to have seen a bigfoot. Then your perception is perfect and you could not possibly be mistaken.

 

I would disagree.  Perception is important.  I have no problem with those who "feel" or think its a man in a suit.    But, on the point you make here the question would be: are All witnesses the history of Bigfoot reporting all mistaken?   We can agree for Bigfoot to be a hoax/ not exist All their perceptions in all of history would need to be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
31 minutes ago, dmaker said:

SMS,you should know by now that personal perception means nothing around here. Unless, of course, you are claiming to have seen a bigfoot. Then your perception is perfect and you could not possibly be mistaken.

 

Of course I know that D. :) 

 

My trucks are in the shop for brake work. 

 

How have you been keeping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

I would disagree.  Perception is important.  I have no problem with those who "feel" or think its a man in a suit.    But, on the point you make here the question would be: are All witnesses the history of Bigfoot reporting all mistaken?   We can agree for Bigfoot to be a hoax/ not exist All their perceptions in all of history would need to be mistaken.

My point was very simple. SMS says he looks at the pgf and sees a man in a suit. What follows is mockery and derision. Yet when a bigfoot witness recalls their perception it is treated as gospel. Why the double standard? Why is personal perception hailed as an indicator of truth in one instance, and a point of ridicule in another?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Because your on a BIGFOOT forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
43 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Of course I know that D. :) 

 

My trucks are in the shop for brake work. 

 

How have you been keeping?

I'm good, you? Things are going well at the university. Going on a vacation soon, me and Mrs. Dmaker have rented a cottage on an island in the Bay of Fundy--Grand Manan. It will be a week of hiking and sea kayaking and lobster eating. Looking forward to that next month. 

 

Sorry for the temp derail. Please carry on with the usual discussion.

 

 

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

Because your on a BIGFOOT forum.

So, people are just taken at their word?

That still does not adequately explain the double standard, though. Personal perception is the reason reports are lauded as a great source of evidence. But when one person expresses something based on his personal perception that goes contrary to the myth, then it is a source of mockery. 

All you seem to be defending is bias.

 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
20 minutes ago, norseman said:

Because your on a BIGFOOT forum.

 

Even a witness is subject to questioning. But if they  appear to be just trolling, then they will be met with mockery as well. Example - A witness comes here and instead of telling of what he saw that is Bigfoot related - only wishes to chat with someone about how their truck is running instead of using the PM function ... they may be deemed trolls by others and any sincerity they may claim to have to it being an honest distraction probably won't be believed.

 

Share this post


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

×