Finally clear evidence that the PG film is a hoax!

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Umm you misunderstood what he was saying. The slope of the forehead goes at too severe an angle directly behind the brows to the sagittal crest in order for a human head to fit in it.

The photo you showed has a vertically sloped forehead above the brows...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Umm you misunderstood what he was saying. The slope of the forehead goes at too severe an angle directly behind the brows to the sagittal crest in order for a human head to fit in it.

The photo you showed has a vertically sloped forehead above the brows...

Jaden

No, I understood, but I disagreed.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Maverick7

didn't patterson say that when he saw it, it was standing there looking at him before he started filming and then left when he did.
pretty sure he did.

and who says cryptids don't stand like that, so me evidence that they stand in any particular way. as far as i know there aren't that many pictures of them or any studies in the wild.

People went to the area shortly after and looked at the tracks. Yet no one, not Patterson/Gimlin at the time, nor Green who documented it nor anyone else ever found or mentioned tracks leading up to where "Patty" was first noticed, only where s/he exited the sandbar for the camera...

Did "Patty" simply materialise out of thin air onto a Sandbar? Patterson was inventive, but this seems like something he overlooked. There had to be tracks leading on to the sandbar, "Patty" had to get there somehow, but there wasn't.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Oh ok, so you understood but used a photo and counter argument that is in no way relatable to the point he was making??? That seems pretty stupid to me.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Oh ok, so you understood but used a photo and counter argument that is in no way relatable to the point he was making??? That seems pretty stupid to me.

Jaden

That's because you don't understand it.

I used nice clear photo with a claim, to refute another more blurry a photo with a claim.

There is nothing about Patty that precludes a modern human in costume. This is the overwhelming opinion of scientists and why they didn't descend on Bluff Ck originally, and also why it hasn't convinced many that bigfoot exists.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

LOL, do you not realize you make yourself look more foolish with each post.

Someone posted a screen shot depicting a cranium with a severe angle to the forehead sloping back just above the brow, stating that it appears unlikely that a man could wear a prosthetic like that unless his name is bubba and he's from the back woods of the Appalachians in Kentucky and you attempt to counter it with a photo of a man in a gorilla suit that has a nearly vertical forehead that goes directly up from the brows countering an argument that wasn't even made by stating that this gorilla costume looks more realistic than the PG film depicts.

Then when I point out that the picture you attempted to use to discredit the original argument doesn't show what you're attempting to insinuate it does while making a straw man argument, you claim you KNOW this..

Then, when I point out that that makes you seemingly not understanding of the reality here, you say NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, nanner nanner boo boo.

LAUGHABLE!!!!!!

LMFAO

Jaden

My "vote" it that it's authentic, just going by overall realism.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

LOL, do you not realize you make yourself look more foolish with each post.

Someone posted a screen shot depicting a cranium with a severe angle to the forehead sloping back just above the brow, stating that it appears unlikely that a man could wear a prosthetic like that unless his name is bubba and he's from the back woods of the Appalachians in Kentucky and you attempt to counter it with a photo of a man in a gorilla suit that has a nearly vertical forehead that goes directly up from the brows countering an argument that wasn't even made by stating that this gorilla costume looks more realistic than the PG film depicts.

Then when I point out that the picture you attempted to use to discredit the original argument doesn't show what you're attempting to insinuate it does while making a straw man argument, you claim you KNOW this..

Then, when I point out that that makes you seemingly not understanding of the reality here, you say NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, nanner nanner boo boo.

LAUGHABLE!!!!!!

LMFAO

Jaden

Your personal credulity and gullibility doesn't make the claim correct.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I NEVER claimed that the claim was correct, LOL, I merely claimed that your attempted refutation was invalid. I haven't really given anything but a cursory glance to his original claim and vaguely compared it to the photo you provided in an attempted refutation. The funny thing is, you didn't even ADDRESS his "claim", yet you believe you refuted it...lol

Jaden

oh BTW, your ad hominem attacks on me and your strawman attempted refutations do NOT help your case...lol

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Did "Patty" simply materialise out of thin air onto a Sandbar? Patterson was inventive, but this seems like something he overlooked. There had to be tracks leading on to the sandbar, "Patty" had to get there somehow, but there wasn't.

Not trying to make excuses or anything, but it might have been too rocky in any place other than the sand bar for there have been any decent footprints. My grandfather had a ranch up in the Rockies that I would visit as a kid, and I'd sometimes keep my eye out for Bigfoot tracks. Unfortunately "Rockies" is an apt description, and I could often not even see my own footprints on that kind of ground.

OMG Blue Shift, why are you questioning this!?! Cogito has just proven why bigfoot tracks are hoaxes – this is big! If you can’t follow the tracks back to where they began, then the only explanation other than a hoax is that the bigfoot materialized out of “thin air.” And we all know that living creatures do not materialize out of thin air. The logic is so pure that only the most simple minded won’t see the truth in it. You seem to be under the impression that tracks are left when something heavy steps onto something soft.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Did "Patty" simply materialise out of thin air onto a Sandbar? Patterson was inventive, but this seems like something he overlooked. There had to be tracks leading on to the sandbar, "Patty" had to get there somehow, but there wasn't.

Not trying to make excuses or anything, but it might have been too rocky in any place other than the sand bar for there have been any decent footprints. My grandfather had a ranch up in the Rockies that I would visit as a kid, and I'd sometimes keep my eye out for Bigfoot tracks. Unfortunately "Rockies" is an apt description, and I could often not even see my own footprints on that kind of ground.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Did "Patty" simply materialise out of thin air onto a Sandbar? Patterson was inventive, but this seems like something he overlooked. There had to be tracks leading on to the sandbar, "Patty" had to get there somehow, but there wasn't.

Not trying to make excuses or anything, but it might have been too rocky in any place other than the sand bar for there have been any decent footprints. My grandfather had a ranch up in the Rockies that I would visit as a kid, and I'd sometimes keep my eye out for Bigfoot tracks. Unfortunately "Rockies" is an apt description, and I could often not even see my own footprints on that kind of ground.

That's the point Blue Shift. There are no other tracks other than those leading away from where "Patty" was first seen, which is in the middle of a sandbar bordered by a creek. It's reasonably well documented (as well as anything about it is). "Patty" had to get to the middle of this sandbar (which is obviously made of sand), this would have left tracks in said sand. There were none. There was nothing at all in this same sand that supposedly left tracks leading away, to indicate "Patty" walked to the position where first seen.

Seems to only leave two likely possibilities. One that has been proposed, is that "Patty" travelled in the creek itself and stepped out of it onto the sandbar at the exact point where first noticed. This is obviously possible but doesn't seem consistent with what is on the film. The lower legs don't appear wet, the feet don't seem to have obvious debris stuck to them etc. Though it is a very poor quality film.

The other is that "Patty's" tracks were fake. This is consistent with the research showing Maclaren following "Patty's" tracks, because path he takes is inconsistent with the path taken by "Patty" in the film. This is also consistent with Hieronimus' claim that the actual film itself was taken long before Oct. 20th and why Patterson always refused to divulge when and where it was processed. Also why no one has ever scrutinized an original film to know. It's very possible the only thing achieved on Oct. 20th was the hoaxing of tracks.

a reply to: tiger_tts

You keep looking after those crops tiger.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I NEVER claimed that the claim was correct, LOL, I merely claimed that your attempted refutation was invalid. I haven't really given anything but a cursory glance to his original claim and vaguely compared it to the photo you provided in an attempted refutation. The funny thing is, you didn't even ADDRESS his "claim", yet you believe you refuted it...lol

Jaden

oh BTW, your ad hominem attacks on me and your strawman attempted refutations do NOT help your case...lol

No, of course you didn't.

You claimed it needed refuting, inferring that it was a legitimate claim, obviously with an inherent likelihood that could be accurately deduced to begin with. That was never demonstrated, it was simply claimed and believing it was is really quite gullible. It doesn't need refuting because you think so. It is a blurry pic with an accompanying opinion. Nothing more. I doubt the person who put it up ever meant it to be more than a relevant and interesting personal opinion. I simply gave another opinion.

So to reiterate, your credulity and gullibility still adds nothing to the claim.

If you can't understand this and need a more specific refutation to the same standard, read on... The claim is nonsense. There, done.

I could put the exact same pic and simply make an opposite unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim, but at least my clear pic shows a decent costume, it has that much going for it.

In fairness to the person who originally provided it, it seems it was offered as a personal opinion, but if you would like to take over promotion of this claim as more than that, please do. Let's start by seeing what method you used to arrive at any accurate sizes and dimensions...then how and why you can accurately arrived at a height to width ratio..how many different frames and angles were sampled in your study...to begin with, before we go further into the subject of optics and their possible effects...for starters.

This type of claim is fine for an opinion, but if offered as fact amounts to a "plea to ignorance". Where people simply make unsupported and unlikely claims that will never be definitive and probably can't be falsified. The only claims that offer the possibility of being refuted and therefore taken seriously, have been refuted at a frequency of 100% so far.

If you really want a refutation, offer something that can be refuted, supply the mask and show how no human can fit in it lol. In lieu of that, anything that can be genuinely analysed with any likelihood of being definitive will do fine.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Sorry EHHHH, I didn't claim it needed refuting. YOU DID, by attempting to refute it. I merely pointed out that your refutation was not logically valid and did NOT refute the original claim.

You really should stop while you're behind.

Jaden

Oh Cogito, I try to throw you some much needed support and you hit me with a strawman photo.

But I do love the irony! Just a few posts above you were accused of making "strawman" arguments. We can also add to that your Elves/Leprechaun strawman on your recent IMAX posts.

Or, perhaps this is your new avatar?


a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Sorry EHHHH, I didn't claim it needed refuting. YOU DID, by attempting to refute it. I merely pointed out that your refutation was not logically valid and did NOT refute the original claim.


Jaden

If you are going to rightfully and understandably apologise, it would be best if you curbed the nonsense, to go along with the apology.

You did a little more that that. You insisted, quite persistently, and you still are.

If you also ponder the validity of the original claim, something might be apparent to you. Or not. At any rate, you have yet to demonstrate why the other image is irrelevant, to support your own claim, to be consistent with the standards you seem willing to impose on others. Quite the sagittal crest on that fella.

You really should stop while you're behind.

Oh no, foiled by the blurry bigfoot intelligentsia once again. We might have to start drawing squiggly lines on it next.

originally posted by: tiger_tts
Oh Cogito, I try to throw you some much needed support and you hit me with a strawman photo.

But I do love the irony! Just a few posts above you were accused of making "strawman" arguments. We can also add to that your Elves/Leprechaun strawman on your recent IMAX posts.

Or, perhaps this is your new avatar?


a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Can you explain how Elves or Leprechauns are less relevant to the Imax footage? You know, if we're claiming it must be a creature with no known existence (imaginary)? People have seen them too so they must be real, they have a much longer history than bigfoot, and they are known to thrive in similar cold climates (Iceland is literally crawling with Elves).

Why is it more likely to be a bigfoot?

You seem to have a large and inherent bigfoot bias along with no appreciation for sarcasm. It is a person in that footage.

My avatar is fine, obviously someone in a gorilla costume.

Any thoughts on why "Patty's" tracks might begin in the middle of a sandbar?

On why it's basically impossible for the film to have been taken and developed when claimed?

On why Patterson refused to divulge when and where it was developed?

On why no one has ever scrutinised an original film?

On why the incident that led them to the area, the Blue Ck Mt tracks, contain obvious Wallace fakes?

On why DeAtley and Patterson visited bigfoot fount of knowledge, Wallace, previous to their expedition?

On why Ginlin thinks they were there 3 weeks, and Patterson 1 week?

On why Patterson thought his horse fell on him trapping his leg and crushing the stirrup (that he used as a prop to show people). While Gimlin claims it never happened?

Why Gimlin thinks the tracked "Patty" for "400 yards or so", yet Patterson thinks they tracked it "for about 3 miles" losing it in rugged terrain?

On why Gimlin told several conflicting stories about the horses that were used, when in fact he was riding the horse of the only man to publicly claim to be in the "Partysuit", his friend Bob Heironimus?

On why Patterson never ever returned to Bluff Ck, instead forming a company "bigfoot enterprises" with DeAtley (his sponsor, according to Gimlin) and taking his show on the road, making much money, then finding time to go "bigfoot huntin'" in Thailand (LOL)?

Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It's useless conversing with someone who seems incapable of logical evaluation. They are not comparable because the point of the post you reponded to was the degree of slope of the forehead JUST above the browline heading towards the sagittal crest in his screen shot.

You posted a photo of a man in a suit that in NO WAY approximates the same slope of the forehead just above the browline and instead goes straight vertical for several inches. That you think it is in ANY way comparable shows a complete lack of genuousness or ability to evaluate evidence. Either way, it's pointless to discuss this further with you. Your inanity establishes itself with your every post.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It's useless conversing with someone who seems incapable of logical evaluation. They are not comparable because the point of the post you reponded to was the degree of slope of the forehead JUST above the browline heading towards the sagittal crest in his screen shot.

Yes, of course it is, that's obviously why you persist.

You seem to be under two illusions. Firstly, that the original image demonstrated anything relevant to the accompanying claim to begin with. Also, that the supplied counter image isn't equally valid as a rebuttal. Let's take a look at your impeccable "logic" a bit closer...

You posted a photo of a man in a suit that in NO WAY approximates the same slope of the forehead just above the browline and instead goes straight vertical for several inches.

So you keep saying. You are wrong because I say so as per accepted bigfoot "scientific method". This is how bigfoot works. Claims are made and....well....that's about it. Unless you back your claim with some method (comparative analysis, measurements, distances, angles, explanations for various perspectives etc. with full explanation of acceptable methods) to demonstrate that the original image is consistent with the claim that accompanied it (which is necessarily implied), or that the other image is irrelevant (for which you have yet to supply more than hot air), you are simply making more empty claims. That you don't get that, is illogical.

Generally claims need to be not only demonstrable, but usually falsifiable, to be more than hot air/opinion. That you seem to think your own opinion is fact, and take it seriously, is also more than a little illogical (possibly delusional).

What you seem to be missing out on here, is that everything put forth so far amounts to empty claims. Including yours. The reason for this is that there are no real bigfoots to make real claims about. 'Twas ever thus..

That you think it is in ANY way comparable shows a complete lack of genuousness or ability to evaluate evidence. Either way, it's pointless to discuss this further with you. Your inanity establishes itself with your every post.

Jaden

Here you go, to stop the nonsensical bleating...

The above is a fake, although too poor quality to show the seams and so on, the face is obviously western male modern human and the crest consistent with an old style football helmut. Thusly it is debunked to the same standard it was put forth (simply by claiming it is so). That's how bigfoot logic works.

Unless you can debunk the debunking in an acceptable way, bigfoot is a hoax lol. Not only has the original claim been debunked, but a supporting image has been used (displaying a probable costume that you have yet to demonstrate irrelevance with anything other than hot air, or how a person can fit into re sagittal crest). So, with the simple reverse application of "bigfooter /Jaden illogic", it has been successfully and doubly debunked. There, that was easy.



Above is a more realistic scientific height evaluation of "Patty", using other creatures known to inhabit the Bluff Ck. area in the same numbers as bigfoot. "Patty" isn't much over 5'. It must be accurate, because I say it is. That's all we require. That's bigfooter logic 101 right there.

Here is a far more realistic counter claim for you...bigfoot does not exist.

Debunk that if you can.

ps. for "lack of genuineness", the word you are looking for is usually written as disingenuous. Something that I construed from your first post. Bigfoot is a fantasy, approaching that of a religion. It must be fun to believe (yes, yes...I know you didn't say you believe...).

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I"m sorry your attempt at obfuscation in NO WAY negates what I've said. YOU are the one who brought up a photo of a person in a gorilla suit and claimed it negated the op's (of the post in question) claim.

I merely pointed out that every point in your rebuttal post failed to address the point of the ops post.

You are failing miserably in the logic department here.

It would be like if I said here's a picture of venus it is approximately the same size as earth... Then you showed a picture of Jupiter and said, Jupiter is BIGGER than earth...

It simply doesn't pass logical muster...

Jaden

p.s. am I saying that the op in question properly backed up his claim? No, in fact all he did was make a post with a pic and described his interpretation of said pic. He could've diagrammed human anatomy and slope of forehead along with distance of browline above eyes and did a comparative analysis and would've had a much stronger claim.

That he didn't in NO WAY makes your attempted rebuttal of his opinionated claim any more valid...