Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I think that your problem is that early societies proposed all sorts of fanciful creatures, some completely made up and some highly distorted versions of real creatures. Dating the original stories of Bigfoot to the BC era makes it even more problematic that they have never been actually proven to exist over thousands of years of people looking, whereas many other rumored creatures (lions, elephants, etc) were proven to exist long ago.

I've not argued that the Yeti is a real creature. I don't know either way real or not. What I have done is disputed ABP's comment that the Yeti legend was born in the 1950's as a tourist/climbing attraction. Real or not, the legend is much older than that.

Since I don't investigate Yetis, I really don't have a dog in that fight.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

For documentaries, costumes would only be used during a recreation scene. Was that the case with Gimlin? Hard to call something a documentary when you are filming a misrepresentation of the truth.

I've never seen the documentary Patterson was making. I've only viewed clips and stills of some of the footage. As far as I know it was never completed and was pieced off. I personally believe the mockumentary "Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot" was based partly on Patterson's documentary work. But that is my personal opinion. The characters are very similar between the two.

Obviously, there is a need for entertainment value in such a production. We're not talking about an episode of "NOVA" Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

We only know that image from the cover of Argosy Magazine. Patterson is sitting on Heironimus' horse named Chico.

Heironimus and his brother were also in the documentary from what I've read.
That image is undoubtedly from a clip/photo taken during the documentary filming.
Chris B.

 

[Castro]

Thank the Lord that Loren Coleman is alive to set the record straight once and for all. Here I was imagining a warband of Yetis charging infantry formations, completely unscathed by the slingers and javelinmen, and crashing into the phalanx line in a heroic and most savage display to fight off the invaders. Maybe they werent just hairy dudes though, they probably are distant relatives of a yeti tribe that was displaced thousands of years before. Call Dr. Sykes

..

 

[dmaker]

I've never seen the documentary Patterson was making. I've only viewed clips and stills of some of the footage. As far as I know it was never completed and was pieced off. I personally believe the mockumentary "Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot" was based partly on Patterson's documentary work. But that is my personal opinion. The characters are very similar between the two.

Obviously, there is a need for entertainment value in such a production. We're not talking about an episode of "NOVA" Chris B.

I find documentaries about animals that actually exist to be quite entertaining. Even without fake Indian scouts.

 

[comncents]

Yes, Bob was acting in Patterson's documentary shot near the South Fork. And what of it? You do know actors use props and costumes when making films right? If that's the biggest gripe you have with Gimlin that he wore a wig for a documentary film shoot, you really don't have much against his character.
Chris B.

Watch some of the Youtube vids of Gimlin doing his dog and pony show. In one (or more), he claims that the step length from the front of the back foot to the back of the front foot is 41" (i.e. 54" toe to toe.) He has this marked off on the floor and has an audience member try to duplicate it - which results in a fail. He then goes on to say this matches Bill Munns 7'4" height calculation. IOW he changed his story - again.


"According to Gimlin, he never saw any ape suit. Neither for the documentary or the Bluff creek footage". Chris B.

"According to Gimlin..." if you are going to analyze this from a non-biased POV, you have to ignore anything Patterson or Gimlin says...I don't understand why so many proponents don't get it.

 

[Giordano]

I've not argued that the Yeti is a real creature. I don't know either way real or not. What I have done is disputed ABP's comment that the Yeti legend was born in the 1950's as a tourist/climbing attraction. Real or not, the legend is much older than that.

Since I don't investigate Yetis, I really don't have a dog in that fight.
Chris B.

Aren't we cutting it kind of thin to argue that Bigfoot is almost certainly real, and yet Yeti isn't? And wasn't it you who proposed that sightings of Big Hairy Humanoids go back many years, citing the early accounts of Yeti in support of your claims that claims of big hairy creatures such as Bigfoot have a long history? Now somehow they are completely separate issues? This is like your post claiming that extending the discussion to include videos is a significant change of topic in a discussion of still pictures.

In any case, my comment stands: the longer that people have been looking for Big Hairy Creatures without finding any, the more likely they do not exist.

I will just bring up one more time the recent study that of 30 different samples that had been attributed to Bigfoot or Yeti humanoids, but none were humanoid when tested. That is pretty telling- that after all these years we have no physical evidence of Bigfoot: every sample thought to be Bigfoot/Yeti, but scientifically tested, proved to be a wrong identification. That is a large sampling size that strongly predicts that even the additional samples attributed to Bigfoot, but not yet tested, would almost certainly yield the same negative result.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Could someone point me in the direction of this "documentary"?
Assuming it's something I haven't seen it would be interesting to learn how Chris's interpretation of the word "documentary" seems to differ from the real meaning.

 

[William Parcher]

Heironimus and his brother were also in the documentary from what I've read.

I haven't heard that Howard Heironimus was in the documentary.

That image is undoubtedly from a clip/photo taken during the documentary filming.

It has been said to be a still camera image taken by Patricia Patterson.

 

[William Parcher]

Could someone point me in the direction of this "documentary"?
Assuming it's something I haven't seen it would be interesting to learn how Chris's interpretation of the word "documentary" seems to differ from the real meaning.

It's a really weird subject and it really belongs in the PGF thread. Maybe Chris will answer you there.

 

[ComfySlippers]

It's a really weird subject and it really belongs in the PGF thread. Maybe Chris will answer you there.

How so? It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread.
I'm asking for clarification in this thread on things that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[William Parcher]

Right but the PGF has its own thread and we really should discuss it there (I'm guilty too).

 

[ComfySlippers]

Right but the PGF has its own thread and we really should discuss it there (I'm guilty too).

My mistake. I didn't realise that documentary=PGF.

 

[William Parcher]

It can be challenging to stay on thread topic for Bigfoot discussion because we start talking about the PGF (which has its own thread) and we start talking about Yeti (which has its own thread) and we start talking about BLAARG (which has its own thread - currently locked), etc. etc.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

. Though I don't have a reference "In the Greek" I assume the reference to this was checked by National Geographic prior to publishing.

There ISN'T a reference. It can't be "checked out" when no reference is given.

It is highly suspect because Alexander the Great wouldn't be using terms of modern origin like Yeti.

The campaign they refer to makes it most likely the Greek Translation I sourced is where it originally comes from. There doesn't appear to be any original source other than this.

So you use it, then claim it isn't something you are arguing? BLAARG away!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There ISN'T a reference. It can't be "checked out" when no reference is given.

It is highly suspect because Alexander the Great wouldn't be using terms of modern origin like Yeti.

The campaign they refer to makes it most likely the Greek Translation I sourced is where it originally comes from. There doesn't appear to be any original source other than this.

So you use it, then claim it isn't something you are arguing? BLAARG away!

The National Geographic link I supplied did not mention anything about a battle with Yetis and neither did I. The claim is that Alexander the Great was the first Westerner to inquire about the Yeti, nothing more.

I suppose the term "Yeti" is as ancient as the creature it supposedly describes.

If you surmise that one battle description is everything available on Alexander the Great's military campaign and adventures in total, I suppose you could be right, but I doubt it.
Chris B.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Dating the original stories of Bigfoot to the BC era makes it even more problematic that they have never been actually proven to exist over thousands of years of people looking, whereas many other rumored creatures (lions, elephants, etc) were proven to exist long ago.

Wonderful catch, and you see that University of Bigfoot is learning how to game with one answer at a time. Nothing need be consistent with anything else.

That demonstrates it is not a belief system. A belief system integrates components into a whole. That's why he has no reservations about saying Yeti goes back to Roman times, but he is not arguing for Yeti.

This one's alleged birthing into bigfoot was claiming to live on a migration path. But it is merely a stand-alone game play, not part of a belief system.

A migration path requires a place they are coming from and a place they are going to, with motivations like going from spring salmon run to fall berry picking. That brings about all kinds of problems like the highways, towns, etc. they have to navigate and why nobody sees them doing it.

When you are gaming there is no necessity to build a cohesive whole out of all the parts. There is no belief about living on a migration path because were it really a belief it would require a whole spider-web of interlocking parts that are too easily defeated. You are merely using it as a platform to game from.

 

[Agatha]

Some posts discussing the Patterson Gimlin film have been moved to the appropriate thread HERE. Please try to discuss bigfoot subtopic issues in the threads appropriate for them. Thank you for your cooperation.

Posted By: Agatha

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Wonderful catch, and you see that University of Bigfoot is learning how to game with one answer at a time. Nothing need be consistent with anything else.

That demonstrates it is not a belief system. A belief system integrates components into a whole. That's why he has no reservations about saying Yeti goes back to Roman times, but he is not arguing for Yeti.

This one's alleged birthing into bigfoot was claiming to live on a migration path. But it is merely a stand-alone game play, not part of a belief system.

A migration path requires a place they are coming from and a place they are going to, with motivations like going from spring salmon run to fall berry picking. That brings about all kinds of problems like the highways, towns, etc. they have to navigate and why nobody sees them doing it.

When you are gaming there is no necessity to build a cohesive whole out of all the parts. There is no belief about living on a migration path because were it really a belief it would require a whole spider-web of interlocking parts that are too easily defeated. You are merely using it as a platform to game from.

The existence of the Yeti during the time of Alexander the Great is a National Geographic claim from their site. If you have evidence to support your proclamation that the Yeti first popped into existence in folklore during the 1950's as a tourist attraction for climbers, by all means, you should let them know how wrong they are and prove it to them.

As far as my opinion about living on a migration path, I had said that opinion has changed over time. I no longer believe in a North/South migration but rather some sort of ranging activities account for the seasonal activity.

I don't operate on a belief system. That would be you. You believe there is no such thing as Bigfoot and that's perfectly fine. I know they exist because I've seen them. While I cannot prove a sighting it makes no difference as I've seen what it took to convince me personally on multiple occasions. The fact that you have not is unfortunate for you. While I do hope everyone can eventually have a sighting of their own for their own personal benefit and knowledge it makes no difference to me whether you believe I've had one or not.

It's interesting that you tend to label all Bigfooters that come here as "BLAARGERS" not just some, but all. Isn't that an odd thing? If someone differs in opinion from your own personal beliefs they're automatically a "BLAARGER"

Perhaps you should analyze that, it seems kinda paranoid IMO. Chris B.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The existence of the Yeti during the time of Alexander the Great is a National Geographic claim from their site. If you have evidence to support your proclamation that the Yeti first popped into existence in folklore during the 1950's as a tourist attraction for climbers, by all means, you should let them know how wrong they are and prove it to them.<snip for focua>

I wonder if you are aware of the extent to which this represent equivocation.