Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
the13bats

where is just one good picture of a real BF

307 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats
26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Just curious.  When you watched that stabilized version, did you happen to notice the breasts move at all?

No, I was focusing on the hand. I’ll rewatch....

 

 

 

ETA: maybe. It’s hard to tell, the footage is ****e quality to begin with, but maybe. The arm keeps getting in thr way and the general movement, I csn’t say “yes” and I can’t say “no”.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

The claims the guy makes in the video I don't see or agree with. That's all I can really say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I guess I don't really want to argue this point.  So, I'm going to slip out and go play some golf.  I will post this video before I go, at 3 minutes 45 seconds it shows transition from frames 308 - 311 of the film, and I believe it does show the right calf flexing.  Or it certainly appears to.....IMO, fwiw.  

 

Okay to be fair although contrary to your assumptions i didnt i will look at the section you point out, not that i havent seen it many times before,  oops hit post too soon...edit coming...

 

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Guyver, i started just after 3:00 where it shows the bottoms of the feet that do not look like the sole of any primate, bright and flat, and if he sees toes on top which i dont,  i really dont see them on the soles either, dick smith said he would do fancy painting to make the soles look real, i believe where mk sees toes is just the suits foot moving while the actor walks.

But you are wanting feedback on a calf muscle, what i see is a fur suit over a sub suit and a lot of over enhanced reflections and shadows, but still very much looks like a suit or pant leg.

Thanks for posting i had forgotten how the subjects gait is like a person walking in snow shoes or clown shoes which connects to the way the soles look too large and flat, and patterson claims those perfect looking pronts came from those featureless soles, 

I believe mk davis has talant and a lot of free time but its lost in his being a very close minded biased true believer,

I tried to see your calf muscle, i simple do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
On 2/16/2019 at 11:01 PM, Carnoferox said:

While Meldrum might be the only academic who still supports the whole Gigantopithecus thing, it's become "common knowledge" in the bigfoot/cryptozoology community and is inescapable at this point. 

Academics don't make him right....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
26 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Academics don't make him right....

What spoke volumes to me was when meldrum was dead wrong about snow walker he didnt post any kind of humble statement about being human and mistaken he tried to spew something about having his doubts all along, ( what an ego ) , he had zero doubts in the interview i saw him saying it was was real...by his expert analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
49 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Academics don't make him right....

Very true, especially in this case. Really the fact that he is an anthropologist only makes it more disappointing he still supports BIG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
8 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Very true, especially in this case. Really the fact that he is an anthropologist only makes it more disappointing he still supports BIG.

My wife holds a PhD and is a professor at the college, she used to work on contact in the field of applied psychology,  and it help fuel my conclusions,

I really do believe some of these cats get bored and bf even if they get flack for supporting it gives their ego the attention and placating it craves, if they denounce bf they do not get as many show offers, so they go pro,

Ive noticed they are the most biased, close minded and unscientific group, paradoxical?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one.  Christopher Murphy, in his 2004 book entitled, "Meet the Sasquatch" actually has a section devoted to the film where he provides evidence that contradicts your claim here.  

I would also add that the MK Davis segment here demonstrates muscle flexion in a number of places, especially in frame 352, where flexion in the right calf muscle can be clearly seen in comparison with frame 307.  Additionally, muscle flexion in the right triceps and latissimus dorsi can be seen to some degree in earlier frames, as well as clear contraction in the forearm superficial flexors and movement of the fingers. The fact that the hands of the film subject open and close during the sequence demonstrates that any type of arm extensions built into a fake suit would have to be of the variety that allowed for individual control of the finger movements.  This type of technology did not exist in 1967 as far as I know.  

 

 

Rubbish. Nowhere in that video does he point out muscle flexion. That is rubbish, absolute nonsense.

He claims that he used deblurring software. SO what. He probably is clueless as to what that means.

Then he points out a frame and says something like look at the muscles in the leg. I don't see anything that appears to muscles. I see wrinkles in a suit worn by some guy.

Muscle flexion? That video does not show it. Maybe its just some sort of imagination at play here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Did you actually take the time to examine the frames I referenced where muscle flexion can actually be seen in the film?  If not, then your statement above is bogus.  

I took time to look. Your claim of muscle flexion is completely bogus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

I guess I don't really want to argue this point.  So, I'm going to slip out and go play some golf.  I will post this video before I go, at 3 minutes 45 seconds it shows transition from frames 308 - 311 of the film, and I believe it does show the right calf flexing.  Or it certainly appears to.....IMO, fwiw.  

 

I can't see it at all. Not even a hint of any muscle flexion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

So, I read all the responses in this thread and I will say that it seems clear the cognitive predisposition definitely effects perception.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
11 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, I read all the responses in this thread and I will say that it seems clear the cognitive predisposition definitely effects perception.

I simply don't see what he alleges. It's not a predisposition, it's my own interpretation of what is available.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
53 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, I read all the responses in this thread and I will say that it seems clear the cognitive predisposition definitely effects perception.

If i thought that applied to any of us who simply do not agreee with your opinions i would call, "pot meet kettle" but no, you are trying to apply to us what you are guilty of.

 

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

Regardless, a creature the size that Bigfoot is described as simply cannot exist without leaving a footprint (no pun intended) that would be impossible to not have been verified.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

So, I read all the responses in this thread and I will say that it seems clear the cognitive predisposition definitely effects perception.

So you admit it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, I read all the responses in this thread and I will say that it seems clear the cognitive predisposition definitely effects perception.

I was going to offer a proper analysis and gif animation of those frames, and then I looked at them.

Forgive my hysterical laughter - you claim you can see calf flexion??????   Your claim is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.  I note the video makes no such claim...

Why don't you pause the video, take a screen shot (Shift-PrtScr on windows), paste it into your favorite image editor (Paint will do fine), and then draw an arrow at the area where you are claiming there is 'flexion'.  You'll only have to do this a couple of times, and then embed the resulting images into a post.  Then explain your logic, and what assumptions you made.  And then we'll talk, OK?  I'll be happy to go through, in boring and comprehensive detail, why your claim is ridiculous.  But at this point neither I or anyone else can even see what the heck you are claiming, so help us out here....

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Chrlzs,

I was hoping you would give some expertise on this one from your replies about photography on here i am convinced you know far more than mk davis, unbiased too...

How about popping by my other thread see if you can see the creature..if so please help me see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
6 hours ago, the13bats said:

But you are wanting feedback on a calf muscle, what i see is a fur suit over a sub suit and a lot of over enhanced reflections and shadows, but still very much looks like a suit or pant leg.

What sort of sub suit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
31 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

What sort of sub suit?

"Sub suit" was my blanket generic term in this case for something under the fur it could range  from a pair of waffle long johns to a pair of jeans to perhaps padding, the leg just looks like bulky pants on someone walking in clown shoes to me.

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

The Patterson-Gimlin film is really nothing more than circumstantial evidence at this point and indicates no direct evidence of any such creature existing. There is no physical/trace evidence that can be tested to prove Bigfoot, and what little there is has been faked to satisfy the minds of those that do believe he exist. Until there is a body, and I don't mean one in a freezer or a man in a monkey suit this creature is nothing more than a cultural construct designed to give some people (believers) something to hang their hat on. And I do not think that Gigantopithecus ever crossed the Bering Land Bridge and if it did it's not likely it survived for very long.

And as far as pics of this thing there are plenty; only problem is most will not hold up under serious scrutiny of any kind.

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
On 2/17/2019 at 1:07 AM, Gaden said:

 Do you seriously call this a good picture?

Is that what you call a reasonable debunking?
 

44 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

There is no physical/trace evidence that can be tested to prove Bigfoot, and what little there is has been faked to satisfy the minds of those that do believe he exist. Until there is a body, and I don't mean one in a freezer or a man in a monkey suit this creature is nothing more than a cultural construct designed to give some people (believers) something to hang their hat on.

These points are incorrect:

Firstly, DNA would reveal that something is biologically out there. If Bigfoot(s) are out there they are leaving their DNA behind everywhere they go and everything they touch.

Lastly, some people believe in Bigfoot because that is only way to describe what they encountered. Sincere personal testimony is reason enough for many others...

An encounter with Bigfoot is often described as an experience. In the absence of objective evidence perhaps Bigfoot/Wild-man could best be understood as just that - some sort of poorly understood, somehow ingrained, pan-cultural (across cultures but not necessarily universal), very normal, if somewhat unusual, human experience...

Kiinda like night hags (sleep paralysis) but while awake... with the adrenaline pumping or what not...

Edited by Night Walker
addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
16 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

Is that what you call a reasonable debunking?
 

These points are incorrect:

Firstly, DNA would reveal that something is biologically out there. If Bigfoot(s) are out there they are leaving their DNA behind everywhere they go and everything they touch.

Lastly, some people believe in Bigfoot because that is only way to describe what they encountered. Sincere personal testimony is reason enough for many others...

An encounter with Bigfoot is often described as an experience. In the absence of objective evidence perhaps Bigfoot/Wild-man could best be understood as just that - some sort of poorly understood, somehow ingrained, pan-cultural (across cultures but not necessarily universal), very normal, if somewhat unusual, human experience...

Kiinda like night hags (sleep paralysis) but while awake... with the adrenaline pumping or what not...

 
Quote

Firstly, DNA would reveal that something is biologically out there.

Firstly where? And secondly where is the DNA that can be verified by an independant lab without biased?

Quote

Lastly, some people believe in Bigfoot because that is only way to describe what they encountered. Sincere personal testimony is reason enough for many others...

Firstly we as humans are poor data taking devices using a line from Neil Degrasse Tyson....People see what they want to see in order to confirm a biased belief.

Quote

An encounter with Bigfoot is often described as an experience. In the absence of objective evidence perhaps Bigfoot/Wild-man could best be understood as just that - some sort of poorly understood, somehow ingrained, pan-cultural (across cultures but not necessarily universal), very normal, if somewhat unusual, human experience...

 

My experience with the toilet is an encounter but I don't believe at any point it's going to yell you smell like s**t!:ph34r:

Quote

some sort of poorly understood, somehow ingrained, pan-cultural (across cultures but not necessarily universal), very normal, if somewhat unusual, human experience...

I will on the other hand tend to agree with you on this.

Edited by Alien Origins
Add something.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker
1 minute ago, Alien Origins said:

Firstly where? And secondly where is the DNA that can be verified by an independant lab without biased?

I didn't say there was any DNA to be collected. There would/should be if Bigfoot was biologically present. And, yes, DNA testing is becoming even more precise, reliable,  and to independently verify...

Firstly we as humans are poor data taking devices using a line from Neil Degrasse Tyson....People see what they want to see in order to confirm a biased belief.

These points are correct. They apply to you and me and everyone else, too...

My experience with the toilet is an encounter but I don't believe at any point it's going to yell you smell like s**t!

Good for you. I sympathize with you if a toilet experience is what you consider to be a highly significant (perhaps even a life-changing) event in your life...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
15 minutes ago, Night Walker said:

I didn't say there was any DNA to be collected. There would/should be if Bigfoot was biologically present. And, yes, DNA testing is becoming even more precise, reliable,  and to independently verify...

 

 

These points are correct. They apply to you and me and everyone else, too...

 

 

Good for you. I sympathize with you if a toilet experience is what you consider to be a highly significant (perhaps even a life-changing) event in your life...

 
Quote

Good for you. I sympathize with you if a toilet experience is what you consider to be a highly significant (perhaps even a life-changing) event in your life...

Not really..Just trying to be a comedian...Failed miserably I guess..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.