Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
masterbarber

Was It A Suit? (2)

Recommended Posts

norseman

Something weird is going on with his shoulders.

13 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Oh I've got lots more.

 

How about a side by side comparison with a photo of a real Bigfoot. Just for the heck of it.

 

Can you do that Norse?

 

Do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Norse call me when you kill one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

No offense....but if that ever happens? You would be one of the last I would call.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
14 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

How about a side by side comparison with a photo of a real Bigfoot. Just for the heck of it.

That was actually super easy...

Patty split with real bigfoot.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

The idea of Patty being real isn't disturbing to me. I find the notion ridiculous, but not disturbing.

 

comparison2.jpg

 

I had thought that this set of images had been debunked.

 

Squatchy, where do you think Patty's elbow is? As far as I can see, its pretty obvious the line is **above** her elbow. Bigfoothunter does make an interesting point: that there are no allowances for a human to be inside the shape that is Patty, given that the suit would have to have some thickness to it.

 

The bottom red line does not seem to line up either. Its pretty clear its at the bottom of Tom's shoe, but its also obvious that its not at the bottom of Patty's foot.

 

I want to draw your attention to the two poses. Tom's leg is not at the same high  angle as Patty's, but the line is there at the back of her left foot as if it is. This makes the knees appear to be correct.

 

Also look at the shoulder, again there is a subtlety, but what we see it that the line is lower on Tom's shoulder.

 

Humans have really variable torso lengths, so maybe this can be excused. The problem here is that the top of the heads are the same, there is again some sort of difference that is problematic.

 

I personally think the dilemma will never be solved. BF is far too rare and apparently smart enough that good photos are rare (the PGF being the best of them) and people think its absolutely hilarious to hoax Bigfoot, which can be done effectively because our dimensions are not the far off.

 

But here's a problem for you. The easy way to tell the real thing is how a BF has their head well forward and down compared to a human who cannot duplicate the pose even in a slouch. But there don't seem to be any photos of Tom taken from the side, which would allow us to see what this difference is really all about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
53 minutes ago, salubrious said:

 

Squatchy, where do you think Patty's elbow is? 

 

 

Oh boy, I can hardly wait to see Squatchy's answer. :popcorn:

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill
22 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Do all your cryptids mentioned have similar evidence...?  

Yes, they all have eyewitness accounts. As far as I know many may have multiple sightings of different cryptids. That's just one reason why I can't treat them as evidence and why you can't either.

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 For instance, there could be a scientist who does not believe in bigfoot but might believe in lake monsters.

Their belief should mean nothing if it's based solely on eyewitness reports, how do they know who is telling the truth?

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 I am more than open to the idea bigfoot may not exist and the PGF could be a hoax.

As I'm open to the possibility of bigfoot, as I have stated numerous times. 

 

22 hours ago, Backdoc said:

You  wish to group all these unrelated sets and subsets togather which seems foolish to me.

Eyewitness reports are nothing but eyewitness reports in the absence of evidence. Are fairy witnesses somehow less human than bigfoot witnesses? How are the witnesses of cryptids different in your opinion and how do you rank them in terms of reliability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
47 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

Yes, they all have eyewitness accounts. As far as I know many may have multiple sightings of different cryptids. That's just one reason why I can't treat them as evidence and why you can't either.

 

Name some of those witnesses???

Share this post


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

 

Name some of those witnesses???

 

Would you like him to give you internet message board names?  Maybe something like unicorn hunter?  :lol:  :lol: 

 

p.s. This is a joke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

Your cousin's girlfriend's childhood friend's boyfriend's foster dad? Which anonymous witness would you like me to name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
54 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

Eyewitness reports are nothing but eyewitness reports in the absence of evidence.

 

You ignore eye witness reports even even when there is no absence of evidence, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

Treating them equally is ignoring them in your world? If you'd like to continue the conversation please explain how you feel the anonymous witnesses for different cryptids are different, how you would rank them for reliability and why. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
12 hours ago, Redbone said:

That was actually super easy...

Patty split with real bigfoot.jpg

Now that is funny. Outstanding.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
48 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

Treating them equally is ignoring them in your world? If you'd like to continue the conversation please explain how you feel the anonymous witnesses for different cryptids are different, how you would rank them for reliability and why. 

 

 

 

I don't need to explain anything further than what was flawed in what you said. Eye witness reports are interesting, but they are just stories being handed down. In the case for Bigfoot - we are way past there not being corroborating evidence and you appear to ignore it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

If you can't clearly articulate why one anonymous witness of a cryptid is to be trusted more than another anonymous witness claiming a separate cryptid sighting there's really nothing to talk about. I will just have to hope backdoc has an answer...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...