Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

PGF Research Update

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
39 minutes ago, Bill said:

I'm considering the same, as reason doesn't seem to make any impact or bridge the intellectual divide.

 

 

 

I don't see any downside to it, for you, Bill.....or for myself, in putting him on 'Ignore'.  :) 

 

We don't need the skeptics' input...and their "analysis" doesn't really need to be refuted, at this point. All of us proponents could get by very nicely, without them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I must concede, given the person we are talking about, the words "input" and "analysis" seem strangely out of place. Of course you did put your own quotes around "analysis" so I suspect you as well see the incongruity of the word and the person discussed.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your advice and I'll certainly keep it in mind with this return to the forum environment. One thing I have immense curiosity in is the social media phenomenon, and how it impacts our culture, so seeing social media (which includes forums) in action is an educational experience for me.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Height vs speed.

 

If Patty was really tall it would make a hoax more difficult since obviously a hoaxer has to get a person in the suit.  If the height calculated accurately becomes, say, 6'3" tall then we are still in the height area of the 6' tall hoaxer wearing a costume.  Yes, I know that is not the only factor but for now I am just talking height.  IF the accurate was, say, 7' 4" that makes it much more difficult to fall into that reasonable human range on its face.

 

obviously we are also concerned about the concept of Can a man fit in the pivot points at the elbows and knees of Patty versus a human.  That is of major importance but again for now I'm just talking about height.

most people would not isolate the consideration of Patty to just height but for those who do which are usually skeptics if the height falls into a 6 to 6 1/2 foot range the skeptic that only considers height is not impressed. To my thinking, the reason for this is they can easily imagine a 6 foot man wearing a costume that makes him 6 foot five when he walks.   They would refuse to look at other enhance video to decide if a human could actually fit from a functional standpoint inside the suit. That is lined up correctly.

 

Speed:  we can argue as a person can walk like Patty. You see the shows on TV with a little practice a person may for a few steps walk like Patty under controlled conditions.   It would seem to me that one area to focus on would be the walking speed of Patty. If we know concepts such as how fast the film was filmed and certain distances Patty is walking then reasonable calculations can be made as to how fast or how many steps over a certain distance Patty would have to walk.  This might point to the fact that at Patty speed it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to maintain a Patty walk or maybe even a Jim McClarin walk.     My wild guess would be that Patty is walking smooth as a cat maintaining her walk over very train fairly effortlessly and this would be difficult for someone in a suit to do at the pace that Patty is doing it.  If the facts point in that direction then that should be something that a skeptic cannot dispute or deny.   I just get the feeling that no matter what height is correctly calculate it for Patty the skeptics will always see it as a height reasonable enough for a person to fit into unless somehow Patty was 12 foot tall or some other outrageous height.

 

think there's great value in finding out to the best we can know how tall Patty is. There's obviously great value and a cleaner image so we can see details of Patty.  I keep coming back to what seems to be the most overlooked part of the Patterson film.  For me it is the concept of how fast Patty is walking over a certain number of frames over a certain distance.

 

it may be that further study will show that a person could walk that pace in that time in that way. And that is fine by me if it shows that.  That would not disapprove Patty being a real creature of nature it would only say it could still be a hoax under those isolated set of facts.  But if it were to show that a human could not maintain what Patty maintains in those walking conditions and what else could it mean but Patty is a real picture of nature.  

 

In summary, I guess what I am saying is maybe some of what you are able to do with this new direction of research on the imaging will also squeeze information out in this other area which I imagine will be very telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, Bill said:

I must concede, given the person we are talking about, the words "input" and "analysis" seem strangely out of place. Of course you did put your own quotes around "analysis" so I suspect you as well see the incongruity of the word and the person discussed.

 

 

 

I agree, Bill.....those two words don't completely harmonize, with regards to some, or most, of the resident skeptics here. ;) 

 

For instance...just a couple of weeks ago, Squatchy went on a posting rampage....(in the - "The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?" thread)......posting a slew of garbage graphics. He also included a picture of you. 

 

Squatchy basically emptied his trash barrel in the PGF thread....with the "best analysis" the skeptics have to offer.  :lol: 

 

 

Quote

Anyways, I appreciate your advice and I'll certainly keep it in mind with this return to the forum environment.

 

 

Glad to hear that, Bill.  

 

One thing I've noticed, regarding members putting each other on 'Ignore'.....is that the proponents who post thoughtful/meaningful analysis, with significant findings, have the 'upper hand'.

We can put the skeptics/scoffers on 'Ignore', and then happily forget about them, and their junk "analyses"......while they have trouble putting us proponents....(who post analysis of significance)....on Ignore.   

They need to see our pro-Bigfoot analysis, so they can dump all over it....while their garbage can be much more easily ignored, and left alone.  

 

If several of us proponents united, in putting the more extreme, and out-of-control skeptics on ignore....I would happily join-in on the effort. :) 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danthemandmv

Welcome back, Bill! I wish you all the best in your current endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
3 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

If several of us proponents united, in putting the more extreme, and out-of-control skeptics on ignore....I would happily join-in on the effort. :) 

 

 

I don't make the assumption that some of people posting their "skeptical" diatribes have honest intentions. Quite the contrary.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Like Bill, I find it interesting how they misinterpret, misrepresent or ignore any analysis that supports the theory that the PGF subject is biologically real. Occasionally wanting to clarify these misinterpretations is another reason that I personally don’t put them on ignore. The only advice I can give is avoid reacting to thoughtless mantras like “it looks like a suit” and “still no bigfoot”. If that’s too difficult to do, then the ignore function probably would be helpful

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

backdoc:

 

Another consideration along the lines of your remarks above is that walking in any kind of costume foot larger than the real foot has problems related to pace. In an enlarged false foot, a person can walk slowly okay. As the person speeds up, the walking becomes harded without tripping. No one has ever actually studied how walking speed is affected by enlarged foot prosthetics, and the subject deserves to be studied and analyzed. I hope to do some work on that subject as well.

 

Sweaty:

 

Yes, I saw the picture he posted of me. Apparently he went through a video of me talking and pulled the one frame which showed a facial expression that might be unflattering to me, which can be done of a video of almost anyone talking, and shows intent to disparage or demean. He's made his intent well known a number of times.

 

danthemandmv

 

Thank you for your well wishes for my endeavor.

 

Mike

 

I would concur that with some people, the intentions are emphatically not honest, but willfully dishonest, to support an agenda of demeaning another person.

 

OntarioSquatch

 

Being the optimistic person in general, I cling to the hope that if someone acts toward me with malice or deliberate intent to insult me, and if I respond with reason and not malice, that person might learn to be more fair and considerate. I'm usually disappointed, but I still try. I usually get exasperated however after multiple experiences, and then I concern myself only with trying to rectify the truth of the topic,

 

These concerns about people with deliberate intent to subvert the truth for some personal benefit is a pattern we see increasingly in society at large, not just in this forum, and so it's an issue we must increasingly evaluate and deal with, just to be functional in today's society. Being the "old timer" that I am, I grew up in a culture where there was pride in being truthful and accurate in what we said. People then put a high premium on their word being trusted and factual. I cling to that ideal, myself. Sadly, I see that personal goal being abandoned more and more with the goal of winning something as the new priority.  It's a disturbing phenomenon.

 

I guess I hold on to the hope the pendulum will one day start swinging back to the value of integrity in one's words.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
22 hours ago, Bill said:

...but I hold on to the expectation truth will ultimately prevail...

In my opinion the truth prevailed a long time ago. It seems glaringly obvious there is no such thing as a bigfoot. For proponents, however, the truth will never be accepted. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Dmaker:

 

You are confusing the issues. Your premise is "there is no bigfoot". My premise is that the PGF is not a fake film, and what's in that film is not a human in a costume. Your premise is based on the absense of evidence to refute your premise. My premise is based on abundant empirical evidence to support my premise.

 

There is a difference, and one premise is far closer to the truth than the other.

 

But, of course, I respect your right to express your opinion, as i hold my right to disagree with you.

 

Best regards,

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

One of the common arguments against the PGF is that because there isn’t any evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, the PGF must be a fake. By making that argument, you’re denying the PGF’s qualification as evidence. The only reason I can think of for why someone would do that is that they’ve established a belief that’s dogmatic/anti-scientific to some degree, and can’t be changed with anything short of acceptance by the mainstream community

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:17 PM, dmaker said:

This is what the world thinks of the PGF:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460925/

 

It's a joke. Bigfoot is a joke. The participants of this thread, the proponents at least, represent a small minority of people that are arguing something that the rest of the world has closed the book on. 

 

You really need to understand this simple fact: No one cares about the PGF. As far as the rest of the world goes, it's a done deal. It's a hoax. That you continue to waste your life trying to animate something that no one gives two whits about should tell you something. 

 

Give it up.Get a life already. The PGF is a hoax.  That you will go to your grave fighting for this makes me very sad. You will never be vindicated. Bigfoot will never be proven, and you will have wasted so much of your life on this. I don't even know how to best express this. Stop wasting your life on something that does not exist. I can guarantee every last one of you , proponents, that you will breathe your last breath without bigfoot being proven. I guarantee you that. That you choose to continue arguing otherwise is your prerogative, but at some point you have to realize, there is no bigfoot. I mean you can kid yourself, and argue about what goes bump in the night, but at some point, you have to acknowledge it's all just a game.

 

Look at BH. A self styled Bigfoot Hunter who has never, ever, managed to find even one bigfoot. In how many years? Seriously? Not a single one. 

 

Does that not tell you something? How proponents can still cling to this myth is mind boggling. But I'm done. Have at it. Enjoy your adult pretend game. Who cares? Have fun. I'm done trying to point the way. 

 

Later

 

 

 

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:32 PM, dmaker said:

Yeah, I'm done. One thing I forgot to mention, WSA, you're an idiot. 

 

You won't see me ever again.

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

In my opinion the truth prevailed a long time ago. It seems glaringly obvious there is no such thing as a bigfoot. For proponents, however, the truth will never be accepted. 

 

In my opinion dmaker...if you can't live up to your own words...hopefully you'll find the help you need ! ;);) 

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, dmaker said:

In my opinion the truth prevailed a long time ago. It seems glaringly obvious there is no such thing as a bigfoot. For proponents, however, the truth will never be accepted. 

 

You could make it even more obvious by just doing what 2 cowboys did in a same or similar manner.  To do so would be a credit to your position. To not be unable to easily do so....Well, speaks volumes.

Share this post


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

×