Jump to content

Was It A Suit? (2)


Recommended Posts

ohiobill
16 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

My answer is that the "witnesses"  aren't any more or less reliable across all cryptids. The difference is the in the person evaluating the "witnesses" report and just what they are willing to rationalize within their own mind. 

Martin - That's exactly the conclusion I've come to as well. There's no real difference between the witnesses and, in fact, at least some of the witnesses are claiming sightings of multiple types of cryptids even here on BFF. 

 

Norse - I know I've posted this sometime in the past but it's a neat article and directly addresses cyclops fossils. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0205_030205_cyclops.html

 

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

Martin - That's exactly the conclusion I've come to as well. There's no real difference between the witnesses and, in fact, at least some of the witnesses are claiming sightings of multiple types of cryptids even here on BFF.

 

So no thought about witnesses who had supporting evidence to support what the saw?  That is an element that I consider because it would be incompetent of me to ignore it altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

What type of supporting evidence? The only supporting evidence I have ever seen are tracks, and rare occasions something like hair. The tracks could exist without the need for a bigfoot--hoaxed, mistaken, etc. The biological samples always test (whenever they are even tested) to be from a known animal. 

 

So, what supporting evidence are you referring to? In how many cases has supporting evidence proven the original claim? Zero would be the answer to that question. 

 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, dmaker said:

What type of supporting evidence? The only supporting evidence I have ever seen are tracks, and rare occasions something like hair.

So, what supporting evidence are you referring to? In how many cases has supporting evidence proven the original claim? Zero would be the answer to that question. 

 

 

 

Supporting types of evidence, for Bigfoot, are.....footprints....vocalizations....alleged rock throwing....alleged branch breaking.....alleged wood knocking.....and film/video....(of which...the Patterson Film is a great example of 'supporting evidence'......as, you guys have been unable to make a dent in it/refute it......including the guy who claims to have "three Poofy Proofs of a PGF hoax).

 

 

But hey, dmaker....you can always talk. :thumbsup: 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

All that "supporting evidence" and still not a single bigfoot conclusively documented. But, you can still always talk, Sweaty.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
9 minutes ago, dmaker said:

All that "supporting evidence" and still not a single bigfoot conclusively documented. But, you can still always talk, Sweaty.

 

 

 

PattyLadyBlevyBodyContourComp2.jpg

 

 

 

BackofKneeDetail1.jpg

 

 

 

Patty_BasketballPlayer_ArmComp1.jpg

 

 

:popcorn: 

 

Hey dmaker......you can always talk.....and do nothing BUT talk.  Isn't that right?  :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

What do you think you are doing besides talking, Sweaty? 

 

I find limb proportion photos with red lines to be rather silly. Why discuss limb proportions of a costume? Seems rather pointless to me. I could line up dozens of photos of people in costumes that would seem to defy human limb proportions. Because they are a costume. A costume can obfuscate things like limb proportion rather easily, given that they are costumes.

 

We even have Matt Moneymaker touting photos of a known costume as a real bigfoot recently. I'm sure he must have been quite impressed by the limb proportions too. 

 

 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
14 minutes ago, dmaker said:

What do you think you are doing besides talking, Sweaty? 

 

 

Posting comparisons which need little...to no....talk. :) 

 

Try reproducing those exact matches to real, live flesh/muscle body contour, dmaker....using all the suits, padding and hip waders that you like. You never will. 

 

But go ahead....keep talking, instead. It's ALL you can do. Isn't that right? :) 

 

dmaker wrote:
 

Quote

 I find limb proportion photos with red lines to be rather silly. Why discuss limb proportions of a costume? Seems rather pointless to me. I could line up dozens of photos of people in costumes that would seem to defy human limb proportions. Because they are a costume. A costume can obfuscate things like limb proportion rather easily, given that they are costumes.

 

Yak...yak....yak.  

 

Keep up the "good work", buddy. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

BackofKneeDetail1.jpg

 

 

When I see this picture I notice is how skinny Patty's thigh looks compared to her calf. Especially the left thigh. 

 

I also notice how her right "calf muscle" appears to be on the outside of her knee as compared to bodybuilders which appears to be predominantly on the inside.

 

It's pictures like these that sealed the deal for Patty being a costume.

 

16 minutes ago, dmaker said:

What do you think you are doing besides talking, Sweaty? 

 

I find limb proportion photos with red lines to be rather silly. Why discuss limb proportions of a costume? Seems rather pointless to me. I could line up dozens of photos of people in costumes that would seem to defy human limb proportions. Because they are a costume. A costume can obfuscate things like limb proportion rather easily, given that they are costumes.

 

We even have Matt Moneymaker touting photos of a known costume as a real bigfoot recently. I'm sure he must have been quite impressed by the limb proportions too. 

 

 

 

Moneymaker is 0-2. He called Matilda from the Erickson Project real and he called the Walas suit real.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Look at the below limb proportions. No way that can be a person inside that costume. 

 

 

barney.gif

4 minutes ago, Martin said:

Moneymaker is 0-2. He called Matilda from the Erickson Project real and he called the Walas suit rea

The Walas suit is particularly hilarious since it is a known costume.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 minute ago, dmaker said:

Look at the below limb proportions. No way that can be a person inside that costume. 

 

 

barney.gif

 

 

:lol: 

 

That can be easily replicated by a 'man in a suit'. Patty cannot be. Nice try, dmaker....but you lose. :) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I don't know Sweaty, maybe we better get Bill Munns on the case. ;)

 

 

Look at these limb proportions. They fooled even Meldrum:

 

 

 

snow-walker-upn-hoax.jpg

 

What about this one?

 

 

cb2fb143a9ec3c9be0d79e2060ba13bc--finding-bigfoot-bigfoot-sightings.jpg

 

I see conical head, outside of human limb proportions...wow. Must be a really, real bigfoot, no?

 

Here is an even better one:

 

 

 

bigfoot-in-the-field.jpg

 

^ Those limb proportions! Must be a real bigfoot.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 minute ago, dmaker said:

I don't know Sweaty, maybe we better get Bill Munns on the case.

 

 

Or....a first-grade teacher. 

 

Barney can be reproduced with a few dollars...and a few functioning neurons. Why don't you give it a try, dmaker? Think you can do it?! :popcorn: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
6 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There are different ways to evaluate the legitimacy of reports. It can be done individually through psychoanalysis, but also in large numbers for geographical and behavioural patterns that would correspond to a biological phenomenon

 

When you have several hundred reports that you've logically determined to be highly credible, and have geographical and behavioural consistencies to along with it, it can become very obvious that people are in fact seeing what they're describing. 

 

You won't be able to get that with phenomena that is likely non-existent (e.g. biological dragons, leprechauns, unicorns).

 

Long story short, reports can challenging to properly analyze, but it's doable. The idea that they can't be used as evidence is a myth that was misconstrued from the fallacy of accepting something as a result of someone simply saying it.

 

 

 

Please cite one example

 

 

6 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

I  have an answer as well. It is when there is evidence presented for a cryptids existence that holds up to rational scrutiny.  

 

Please cite one example

 

 

44 minutes ago, dmaker said:

We even have Matt Moneymaker touting photos of a known costume as a real bigfoot recently. I'm sure he must have been quite impressed by the limb proportions too. 

 

Now that's a good example.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...