I was catching up on some of the PGF threads and just getting ready to bash the more ridiculous demands from some of the skeptics when, lo and behold, I discovered that the Topic: 'PG Film Final Analysis by Bill Munns' had been nixed. Do whut!? Well, I guess I'll learn more about that later...

In the meantime:
I did re-calculate the hoax probability (although nobody seemed to care or, maybe nobody 'got it'), using Bill's 13 'Circumstances', and his Premise that the 'usual' is twice as likely to occur as the 'unusual' (which is actually equal to a 1 in 3 chance for the unusual), to be 1 in (3 to the 13th power) or 1 in 1,594,323. So, there's that.

As for the ridiculous demands from some of the skeptics:

You do not define science and you cannot dictate scientific methods; science is more vast than we could ever imagine.
You will never get the 'proof' that you are trying to demand regarding the PGF.
There is only a probability that the PGF does or does not show an unknown Primate.
The probability that it does show an unknown Primate is greater than the probability that it does not, if you do the math.

Have a great week-end,
BFX

Whats the probability that a real live Bigfoot has a butt that looks remarkably like a 1940's gorilla suit ?

Click to view attachment


Great week-end to you ...

90% of statistics can be made to say whatever you want...75% of the time (lol)

Using your math, the "unusual" would be defined as taking a movie of a large unknown creature that has presented no verifiable evidence in the 40+ years since the filming. So 33.33% chance real 66.66% chance hoax. The 13 "circumstances" are really just opinions.

What you should have done is PM tugboatwa to reopen that thread instead of making yet another BM\PG pissing thread.

Now all this bantor will have to be merged to the other thread anyway or this thread will need to be renamed.

Stop being sloppy.


.

Greg I've looked at that photo for as long as its been posted. Now are there any other photos of THAT suit showing those patterns? If you compare the significant pattern being the dark triangle the two triangles are not the same pattern or exact position and size. So at the very least the 40's gorilla suit cannot be what we see in the PGF. In spite of your opinion that we're seeing the base of the PGF suit in that photo. Furthermore it has been demonstrated here and elsewhere that triangle fur patterns such as you've posted can and do appear on living gorillas.

If anyone was to post one single photo of a damning detail of something going against a skeptic argument the skeptics would demand further proof. I'm skeptical of you. So Pumpkin show us some more triangles please.

Conversely, what are the odds that a gorilla costume would have a hairy bubble butt, just like a real live gorilla?


Just sayin'. Not much of an argument on that point, ya know?

Maybe that's not what I 'wanted' to do. Sorry, I should have asked you first. I didn't know that you own the Internet.


Of course they are 'opinions'. But they make infinitely more sense than what you just said. haha

Greg - The idea of a gorilla suit, I think, is to try and make it look like a real gorilla.

Seriously, what the heck happened?

LOL that comparison is no comparison. I don't think the costume maker on the left got the muscle definition and leg contour quite right.....

SG, if you think those two pictures even remotely resemble each other you better high-tail it down to your local ophthalmologist.

My point is that for every "circumstance" Bill lists, there are questions from the other side (such as SG's)

or " what's the probablity that RP would have filmed a creature that matched a drawing he did before-hand right down to the breasts?"
or " what's the probability that they would encounter the creature in an area so open that it was visible for over 300ft - when everywhere else around was thick woods?"
or ...on and on...

as for what the heck happened.....hell, I don't know. Seriously.

Those look "remarkably" the same to you??

Hi. Can you please present the Patterson pre-PGF drawing that 'matches' Patty?


They could not have had a similar encounter in 'thick woods'. In fact, they probably would not have ever seen the Creature if it always stayed in thick woods which, in order to get a drink of water, it couldn't.

Your point: that "for every circumstance Bill lists, there are 'questions' from the other side" probably won't surprise anybody here.

Why don't you do a little searching first. Then, if you can't find it ask again. It's not that difficult to find.

I decided to take a proper look at these photos and drew lines marking the key features being the triangle shapes. Patty's triangles are more complex and not in the same positions and orientations to lay over the 40's gorilla suit. Greg posted elsewhere that the 40's gorilla suit surely must have been incorporated into the suit Patterson is accused of using. I say no.Click to view attachment

Who was talking to you?
I did do 'a little searching' and nope; I don't see a Patterson, pre-PGF drawing that 'matches' Patty.

Patterson's supposed models

Click to view attachment

Thanks, Crow. I was afraid that's what they meant by a 'match'.

Anything can be a match if you're skeptical enough, paranoid enough, dumb enough, and ignorant enough. Its called Skeptic Science lol!

Let's not say paranoid, dumb, and ignorant, ok? Let's just say that we don't think those drawings match Patty. I've been around here long enough to know that many of the PGF skeptics are, in fact, very smart.

The shot is towards the failure of the skeptical community to acknowledge the intelligence of the non skeptical community. I've said it many times there are fine minds on either side of the street.

Hi

So i guess at this point in the festivities we all have a clue as to why ~ Tug ~ didn't open the original thread back up,

Peace
Tim

Crow, that is sad. Really, really sad.

Try this post

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=523213

My bold.

I've often found myself asking that same question. What gives me the right to respond to that question/statement? Then I remind myself that this is a "forum" and that is the whole point of a forum, as long as you adhere to that particular forum's guidelines.

What really shocks me is that very intelligent people look at the PGF and say it is clearly a guy in a suit. To me, it seems almost impossible to say that when you look at the muscle definition on the back and the way the leg moves out before each step. (Among so many other things)

Carolina Dog - Could you please send us a link or at least in the right direction of where to find these models? Thanks.

Edited to add - thanks CDog.

Hi

I've often found myself asking that same question. What gives me the right to respond to that question/statement? Then I remind myself that this is a "forum" and that is the whole point of a forum, as long as you adhere to that particular forum's guidelines.



Peace
Tim

Tim, yer personal icons slay me, hehe.

Question: Are there any other pics of this gorilla suit, other than it's butt, at that angle?

BFX,

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough before. I'm not trying to argue Suit or BF. I just put a couple of examples of items skeptics could use to come up with a mathmatical probability that goes along with their view. Just like the Patterson drawings, you and Crow say "Match? ha ha ha" CD and SG can basically say " how much closer do you want?"

Another example, Bill's first point was the probability of a genderless suit. He gave 1:2 odds that someone would make a gender specific suit. Based on the above drawings, someone else could say the odds were 20:1 that it would be a gender specific suit. IMO all those numbers are just ROOMA data - results = whatever you want to make them...in other words, meaningless.

Now that being said...maybe there should be a thread where everyone lists....nevermind, the thread patrol would get me for duplication.



(ROOMA = "right out of my a__")

You didn't search hard enough(I'm shocked).

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=355255

I know Bob Gimlin....the Patterson/Gimlin film is a living, breathing female sasquatch.....lbattson

How did Bob know it was a living, breathing female sasquatch?

RayG

As to why I didn't reopen that thread...

before I returned from Yakima, even before Bill had given his presentation, this THREAD had been started.

Didn't think we needed two running at the same time.

If this was Patterson's model then the suit maker should have been fired because it is way way off in character from the PGF subject. With all due respects the Roe creature and the artist recreation of the Roe account (not the daughters drawing) are way more accurate towards Patty then Patterson's Ostman drawings.

Why would you be shocked? The picture that you just posted is hilarious, Really. omg

Understood, I wasn't casting blame your direction, I'm referring to now having now a 3rd (30th?) thread about a suit, this one with a mismatch title. I'm just suggesting that everyone pee in the same sandbox and stop making rogue threads. I place the burden of responsibility on the thread makers.

Apparently the BUTT HAIR isn't a pinned topic yet.

How about nostril hair, can we have 5 threads on that next? Any pubic hair fetishists around here want to start a new thread?


.

Thanks, Tug. Can that other thread be the one where people talk tough and mean about the PGF and this thread be the one where people are nice? Some people constantly get upset about this and then they come to every thread and yell at anybody who is still considering it. If you already know all of the answers, there's nothing HERE for you.

Night Stalker - you need a 'warning', to say the least. Make your own Topic: 'Nasty things I say to people who are interested in the PGF'. Maybe you can talk to yourself there instead because no one with any sense could possibly be interested in what you are saying.

*ommmm*

Sorry if you don't like me doggin your thread. You can feel free to report it if you'd like, you can put me on ignore if you'd like. Otherwise, I'm going to comment on proper continuity and netiquette and not opening the bajillionth thread about basically the same thing.

There's only SO many ways to slice this, either there's a zipper or there isnt.

Your title isnt indicative of the topic and what you're discussing could be placed in any number of threads already open, so this is just more clutter. And FYI, there isnt a "tough" thread and a "nice" thread, they're all the same. The same people say the same things over and over and over and . . . You think this thread is going to sing Kum Ba Yah just because you opened it?

I'm not coming here yelling at you so stop hyping it up with all your oppression talk.

I'll kindly let you argue amongst yourselves now.

.

Man, you are really over the edge. I would try to talk you back in but, nah, why bother.
Good luck. (elsewhere)

My topic: 'What the heck happened?' is referring to the cancellation of a different topic called 'PG Film Final Analysis by Bill Munns' which has evidently been replaced by 'Taking A look at the Munns Report'. (Skeptical Greg). And, I was offering a 're-calculation' of the odds to be 1 in 1,594,323 that the PGF was faked.

Can the PGF skeptics present 13 'Individual Circumstances' that are generally known to be at least twice as likely to have occurred than the alternative, which would lend equal credibility to the odds of 1 in 1,594,323 that the film is instead a hoax?

Well said!

I can't see how the PGF debate would ever be resolved either statistically or mathematically, 'BigfootXists' -- it's not a numbers game. It all boils down to empirical evidence. For example, those who have actually encountered Patty's brethren already know that, for the most part, most Sasquatches are already running around out there in their own similar suits, regardless of odds posted either for or against by non-witnesses.

As I have pointed out somewhere else before, those who are witnesses need to have patience and understanding with, and need to learn to honor, the well intentioned ignorance of others who have had no personal experience with BF.

For witnesses, Patty is as real as you or me; for non-witnesses she remains theoretical.

For non-witnesses the arguments for and against will continue to chase their proverbial tails until the cows come home. Only seeing is believing; only seeing makes it actual and real. Unfortunately, in the absence of evidence, the rest of the debate at times seems rather moot; hence the rising clamor for a body.

In the end, serving up odds of probability will change nothing for witnesses and non-witnesses alike. However, I recognize that for the hopeful non-witness who wishes to keep the legend alive -- keep the pot stirring, so to speak -- there is nowhere else to go other than to troop out non-empirical evidence. Sorry to say, but, it's a bit like the old proverb, 'you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse'. Only the purse will do.
Dudlow

Hilarious? You must be suffering from the dreaded Squatchdunnit disease, or the Whine Flu, or a combination of both. I'd recommend you see a specialist ASAP.

Boo-freaking-whoo for you. Someone needs to call the wambulance stat!

There are as many opinions as there are people who have them. If someone else's isn't your cup of tea don't mini moderate the forum just put them on ignore if you can't intelligently debate them. We'll moderate the forum per the guidelines not because we don't agree with what someone said.

those triangles would change depending on position of the right leg.
Notice that in one photo the right leg is back and in the other photo the leg is forward.
That would completely change the shape.

Please, yes, because God knows we need ANOTHER pgf thread to go along with the other ten thousand of them...



Surely you're not suggesting that Night Stalker should leave the forum, correct?



Your topic? You may have started yet another PGF thread, but neither the topic nor the thread are yours once you put it out there on a public discussion forum. Why is it that you seem to think you can dictate how this forum and its members operate??

I often wonder about the logic of comparing early drawings made of the Bigfoot and then the Patterson film purporting to show one. The logic that skeptics adhere to is that the drawings must have been the model a suit was designed after. It could just as well have been accurate observation before actually getting one of the animals on film. Here is a reference showing a drawing of three gorillas before they were recognized by science or any know photographs.

THE GORILLA.

Stories of woolly wild men in Africa, of their great size and fierce courage, were readily believed, as Hanno had reported having seen such creatures, but when Mr. Bowdich, the African traveller, returned to Europe with report of having himself seen an animal, which the natives called ingheena, as large as a man and more powerful than a dozen of the largest monkeys then known to naturalists, everyone was ready to discredit him as a romancer. In 1843 a ship captain stopped on the Gaboon coast and there killed two of these animals, the bodies of which he took to Europe, where they were secured by Prof. Owens for the College of Surgeons. This was the first positive evidence received in Europe of the real existence of the gorilla. A writer (in 1844) describing these specimens and the habits of the animals, says:
"The male is in good [Gorillas --male, female and young] preservation, but the flesh dropped from the bones of the female. The former is nearly five feet high, and three feet across the shoulders; his wrist is twice as thick as that of an ordinary man, and his canine teeth are enormous; his grinders show that he lives upon fruit, and probably roots, and what is singular, he has one more pair of ribs than man possesses. The natives on the shores of the Gaboon river declare that these creatures lurk among the trees, near frequented paths, in order to attack passengers, and that one blow of their hand is sufficient to destroy life. They feed much upon wild honey, and are said to build huts, but live and sleep on the outside; and, from having seen men carrying burdens, they tear down large branches of trees, or pick up tusks of elephants, which they find by chance, and shouldering them, walk about with their load till they drop from fatigue. When their young ones die the mothers carry them about, closely pressed to them, till they fall from putrefaction."
Here is a bad admixture of fact and fiction, not surprising; however, when we consider the wild stories of wild men formerly current, and which must obscure the truth for a time.
______

As to Roger being a really good artist? Yeah Right.

And so they would. Which is EXACTLY why Greg shouldn't have used the PGF frame he did. There are other frames where Patty's leg is in a better position to compare with the gorilla suit. But while we're o the subject of gorilla suits here's a triangle pattern on the hind quarters of a real gorilla. Hunting triangle patterns on gorilla suits vs Patty is IMNSHO negated by the fact that triangle patterns can and do show up on living primates of the kind most closely resembling Patty.

Click to view attachment

I don't put much stock in the triangles but Patty's butt sure has a fluffy stuffed look about it.


just sayin'

Size of the butt can be debated but since the patterns are the contention size will have to matter another day.


I read an interesting article about physiology a number of years ago and the article made some fascinating points concerning the physiques of the races. It would most likely be interrupted as racial if I were to list the differences and the biological/survivability reasons for those differences. But in very short certain races have larger more developed glutes than others because of the nature of the life style surrounding the population over many many generations. The classic example, there is a very good biological reason why Eskimos are short and squat and the Masi (SP) are tall and lean.

I do hope the moderators understand that the above statement is not by any means to be taken as racist for it is not.

The population with the best developed glutes BTW was determined to have evolved that way as to the hunting lifestyle requiring rapid and short sprints after game. This same population happened to have a slightly smaller lung capacity than Western Europeans who it was postulated were hunting in a longer more plodding modality than the sprinters.

As for Patty's butt. I can't say it seems to me to be pretty well in scale with the rest of her. I wonder how much musculature would have been need to get her mass moving and kept moving. Imagine her sprinting, it would have required a fair bit of "horsepower" no?

Thanks for the great info., DDA.

Don't worry, the Forum Administrators can probably get a larger hard drive if this one fills up..

Not my topic? Really?
You have no idea what I 'seem to think'. '

He said he would "kindly let you argue amongst yourselves now" so, I 'calculated' that to mean that he was leaving.

Yep, I would think so.

BM and Volsquatch, you always seem to be lurking around but, I haven't seen either of you add anything worthwhile to these Forums.

Dudlow, sorry, lots of people haven't 'seen' one. I wonder if seeing really would be believing for some.

Happy Father's Day!