Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like who?

I can think of Meldrum, Farenbach, and Mionczynski who are qualified to submit evidence for peer-review. Anybody else you can think of who are presently even interested in the phenomenon?

Of the three, how much grant assets have the three recieved? What kind of time do they have to invest? What kind of assets do they have at their disposal for long-term time spent in good possible habitat? What kind of photography equipment do they have at their disposal? What kind of photography experience do they have? What kind of hunting experience do they have? Etc.?

Fudd I'm not talking strictly about peer review....I'm talking about people qualified to be getting out there and looking for Bigfeet....

Of course.............now.

Later, when Joe Sasquatch gets a photo, has a sighting, casts a track, what do you say then? He isn't qualified? He doesn't know what he's doing? Etc?

And what does National Geographic or the Association of Wildlife Agencies say to Joe?

I guess it's up to Moneytaker and his safaris to get the job done than huh?

And isn't that a sad state of affairs?

Tell me this Fuddnik...if people WERE out in the woods looking for H.B of U.S and had been for some time and still there was no proof....would your 95% assuredness that Bigfeets were real be any lower?

That would depend on where they looked, how they looked, how long they looked, etc.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
.....then they won't go.

The more people, gear, and other assets that are needed, the less chances they will all be brought to bear.

Which is exactly what is happening.

No wildlife photographer would let the opportunity to capture such animal on film, video or bits n' bytes. If they considered the "pro" evidence relevant, I guess they would flock at Meldrum's door begging for a opportunity to work together and obtain the first razor sharp bigfoot imagery.

But, again, they aren't.

Their lack of interest on the subject should raise some red flags.

Yes, it should. It does with me.

I'm afraid you're looking at a white flag, thinking it's red.

 

[Mad Hom]

Of course.............now.

Later, when Joe Sasquatch gets a photo, has a sighting, casts a track, what do you say then? He isn't qualified? He doesn't know what he's doing? Etc?

And what does National Geographic or the Association of Wildlife Agencies say to Joe?



And isn't that a sad state of affairs?



That would depend on where they looked, how they looked, how long they looked, etc.

Fudd...I have never said anything about qualifications with regards to people who have found evidence. My comments are only about quality of the evidence that they found.

 

[Huntster]

Fudd...I have never said anything about qualifications with regards to people who have found evidence. My comments are only about quality of the evidence that they found.

Qualifications have been consistently used to deny that evidence is "evidence", along with train of custody, documentation, lack of comparative evidence, etc, ad nauseum.

The point here is that no matter what is done (short of a corpse), it hasn't been good enough, nor will it, and too few are seeking, equipped, or willing to obtain a corpse.

 

[RayG]

Moose, Bear, and other big game Hunters seem to have no trouble carting their equipment around, so I don't see why that aspect of it would be more difficult if hunting bigfoot.

Each year dozens of Moose, Bear, and other large North American animals are killed by hunters. No bigfoot though.

The table on this page, supports the fact that bears are hunted and killed each year in Southern California. I've never hunted bear, but I'm assuming numbers might be similar for other parts of North America, and I'm guessing one does not just stumble about with a rifle and little else while hunting them.

Other than Patterson, how many hunters have actually departed looking for bigfoot and found him? Since we can't trap, catch, track, entice, call, follow, find, or contact bigfoot on demand (or even using hunting methods), how is anyone supposed to bag one anyway?

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Moose, Bear, and other big game Hunters seem to have no trouble carting their equipment around, so I don't see why that aspect of it would be more difficult if hunting bigfoot.

Do you know how much it costs for such equipment?

Do you know how the bulk of that equipment grows exponentially or re-supply is necessary the longer one is in the field?

Got an Argo handy? A floatplane? A boat? Horses?

Each year dozens of Moose, Bear, and other large North American animals are killed by hunters.

For those not equipped, do you know what such an outfitted or guided big game hunt costs?

Go ahead.......................give it a whirl. Just a single 10-day hunt.

The table on this page, supports the fact that bears are hunted and killed each year in Southern California. I've never hunted bear, but I'm assuming numbers might be similar for other parts of North America, and I'm guessing one does not just stumble about with a rifle and little else while hunting them.

You musta' missed it; from your own link:

The population estimates from various editions of TOTA are:

1971, 1976 and 1979: "Rarely seen in the San Gabriels is the black bear; naturalists estimate that fifty are left, and the number is decreasing."
1984: "Rarely seen in the San Gabriels is the black bear; naturalists estimate that 40 are left, and the number is decreasing."

1990 and 1998: "Rarely seen in the San Gabriels is the black bear; naturalists estimate that 150 are left, and the number is decreasing."
At a class taught in 1988, Pat Sullivan, director of the Eaton Canyon Nature Center, who is also a fish and game warden, gave the number as 40-50, which may have come from the same source used by Robinson.
Despite Robinson's comments about "the number is decreasing", even in the face of an increase in his reported numbers with time, there seems little doubt that the numbers are in fact larger in 1998 than they have ever been, as reflected in the current estimates by ANF biologists.

Notice that even the biologists don't know how many bears are in the San Gabriel Mountains. (BTW, the San Gabriels were my old stomping grounds, where I twice ran across the rare desert bighorn sheep, and at close range; never saw a black bear there).

The counties cited in your link are not heavily forested. They are very open chaparral areas, with noticable evergreens only between 6,000 and 9,000 ft. elevation.

Coastal Northern California is an entirely different forest, as is the Sierra Nevadas, both areas boasting higher black bear numbers and densities.

Other than Patterson, how many hunters have actually departed looking for bigfoot and found him?

None that I know of.

Since we can't trap, catch, track, entice, call, follow, find, or contact bigfoot on demand (or even using hunting methods), how is anyone supposed to bag one anyway?

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that those trying it now aren't successful, those trying it now do not have scientific credentials, and those trying it now are essentially "weekend warriors."

 

[RayG]

Do you know how much it costs for such equipment?

Not really, no, I don't hunt. I do know there are big game hunters that already have the equipment necessary to find, kill, and bring back evidence of bear, moose, and other big game. Seems rather strange that year after year these big game animals are bagged, but never a bigfoot.

Do you know how the bulk of that equipment grows exponentially or re-supply is necessary the longer one is in the field?

Why soitenly, I spent some time in the field while serving in the military. What I'm trying to point out is that these big game hunters who traipse all over the countryside, bagging moose, bear, and an assortment of other large beasties, NEVER bag a squatch. (regardless of how much or how little equipment they're carrying)

Got an Argo handy? A floatplane? A boat? Horses?

And these are absolutely necessary for hunting large animals in North American wooded areas?

For those not equipped, do you know what such an outfitted or guided big game hunt costs?

Does it matter? How many of them have come back after bagging a squatch?

Go ahead.......................give it a whirl. Just a single 10-day hunt.

You mean a single 10-day hunt, where they're almost guaranteed of coming back with whatever big game they're pursuing? I've never been on one, but it seems rather curious that none ever result in a bagged squatch, even by accident.

You musta' missed it; from your own link:

Nope, I didn't miss it, it wasn't relevant to my point -- that black bears are killed each year in Southern California. That had nothing to do with how many bears there are or aren't living there.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that those trying it now aren't successful, those trying it now do not have scientific credentials, and those trying it now are essentially "weekend warriors."

Why is it necessary that hunters have scientific credentials? I would think a hunter or 'weekend warrior' would have a greater opportunity to bag a squatch than some nerdy science guy anyway.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Do you know how much it costs for such equipment?

Not really, no, I don't hunt. I do know there are big game hunters that already have the equipment necessary to find, kill, and bring back evidence of bear, moose, and other big game. Seems rather strange that year after year these big game animals are bagged, but never a bigfoot.

I've been a hunter and fisherman all my life, and I've never seen one. I've even lived remote for over a year. I've seen footprints once.

Also, remember that hunters are aware of game laws, and in most areas, shooting anything that doesn't have a listed season is illegal.

What's more, shooting something walking like a man would be a difficult thing for most folks to do. William Roe specifically stated that, after having one in his sights.

Quote:
Do you know how the bulk of that equipment grows exponentially or re-supply is necessary the longer one is in the field?

Why soitenly, I spent some time in the field while serving in the military. What I'm trying to point out is that these big game hunters who traipse all over the countryside, bagging moose, bear, and an assortment of other large beasties, NEVER bag a squatch. (regardless of how much or how little equipment they're carrying)

Ray, these people are not hunting for sasquatches. They're hunting for moose, bear, and other large beasties.

There are reports of hunters shooting and even killing sasquatches after having mistaken them for other animals, but they are just reports. No physical evidence was retrieved.

Quote:
Got an Argo handy? A floatplane? A boat? Horses?

And these are absolutely necessary for hunting large animals in North American wooded areas?

Up here they sure are.

You can do the roadside thing, but you'll likely see more campers than animals.

And if you hope to bring a carcass back out, you'd better have one. A moose field dressed weighs from 500 to 800 lbs, and just the hide, skull, and paws from a brown bear will weigh well over a hundred pounds.

Quote:
For those not equipped, do you know what such an outfitted or guided big game hunt costs?

Does it matter?

It is if you don't have your own equipment and hope to bring anything back out except photos for the JREF crew to put the bad mouth on.

A guided brown bear hunt in Alaska starts at $15,000. The average is $20,000. That's for a 10 day hunt, and includes bush plane flight, a campsite all set up, and an assistant guide to go out into the field with you and help pack out your hide and skull.

How many of them have come back after bagging a squatch?

None.

And I don't know how many have not come back after bagging a squatch.

Quote:
Go ahead.......................give it a whirl. Just a single 10-day hunt.

You mean a single 10-day hunt, where they're almost guaranteed of coming back with whatever big game they're pursuing? I've never been on one, but it seems rather curious that none ever result in a bagged squatch, even by accident.

Oh, and BTW, there are no guarantees with that $20,000 bear hunt.

Quote:
You musta' missed it; from your own link:

Nope, I didn't miss it, it wasn't relevant to my point -- that black bears are killed each year in Southern California. That had nothing to do with how many bears there are or aren't living there.

It most certainly does. What's more, there is no data there indicating how many hunters harvested those bears.

Try the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Harvest Database. It's searchable, and will provide much more complete data.

Quote:
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that those trying it now aren't successful, those trying it now do not have scientific credentials, and those trying it now are essentially "weekend warriors."

Why is it necessary that hunters have scientific credentials? I would think a hunter or 'weekend warrior' would have a greater opportunity to bag a squatch than some nerdy science guy anyway.

I agree, but nobody with scientific credentials will get it even into the vaunted Halls of Science, let alone through them.

And a corpse shouldn't be much of a problem. If you've got one, there will be plenty of "scientists" who will then be "believers", and will want on the band wagon.

A photo? Film? Footprints? Hair samples? Etc.?

Forget it. Even if you have the credentials, it isn't likely to even get reviewed (like the Swindler/Meldrum/Skookum affair indicates).

 

[carcharodon]

Not really, no, I don't hunt. I do know there are big game hunters that already have the equipment necessary to find, kill, and bring back evidence of bear, moose, and other big game. Seems rather strange that year after year these big game animals are bagged, but never a bigfoot.

Not really. Bear hunters are expecting to shoot bears. Deer hunters are expecting to shoot deer etc etc. As Huntster already said, it's a far cry from expecting to shoot a bear/dear to shooting something altogether different when it pops up in your sights. There are quite a few reports from hunters who haven't been able to shoot a squatch from an emotional standpoint. I don't think there are very many people out there who are mentally equipped to automatically blast to bits anything that walked in front of their gun, regardless of how it looks.

A good such report is the encounter by Mike MacDonald. I can't give an external link here just yet but google 'Mike Macdonald bigfoot' and you'll find it. It would appear his encounter is a 'typical' hunter's encounter with a sasquatch.

Why soitenly, I spent some time in the field while serving in the military. What I'm trying to point out is that these big game hunters who traipse all over the countryside, bagging moose, bear, and an assortment of other large beasties, NEVER bag a squatch. (regardless of how much or how little equipment they're carrying)

Traipse 'all over the country'? Exactly how far do they usually go off the beaten track, off trails or from their parked cars/trucks though? Do they venture into the deep dark damp woods miles and miles over ridge after ridge? No they don't because they have to get their trophies back somehow. Very very few hunters actually traipse all over the country far off the beaten track away from their vehicles. Add to that the relative scarcity of sasquatch, it's obvious higher intelligence, the emotional state of the hunter and there's your answer.

You mean a single 10-day hunt, where they're almost guaranteed of coming back with whatever big game they're pursuing? I've never been on one, but it seems rather curious that none ever result in a bagged squatch, even by accident.

For reasons I have stated, it's not as curious as you might think. There are plenty of hunter's reports of encountering a sasquatch.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, here we have again the old "no-one-is-looking-for-them" line.

As most of the reasonings attempting to explain why no specimen was obtained, this one is also flawed. Anyone who subscribes to it is either showing a biased POV and/or has little experience at the wilderness.

Why?

Simple. Its unpredictable. You go there looking for bears and may find only elks. You don't have to be looking for bigfoot to find them, if they do exist.

Among the people "out there", there are biologists, hunters, wildlife photographers, etc., all of them with the propper gear to grab one, be it on tape, film, digital media or a specimen itself. But only if they are real.

The "oh-they-don't-go-far-in-to-the-woods" reasoning is also flawed, since there are sighting reports from areas that are far from remote, rough, heavilly forested, etc. Again, even a weekend hunter could get lucky - but only if the critters were real.

Oh the size! You'll need a big off-road truck to transport the body... Oh, please... Cut the head off and put it at your back pack. Of course, you can't cut the head of an immaginary beast.

Too expensive... Of course it is. But still, there are plenty of people making outdoors activities that potentially could result in a specimen or good footage.

Oh, bigfoot is just too big! People are afraid of it! Heck, if a rifle can crack a grizzly's skull, it can crack a bigfoot skull. Unless its an immaginary skull. Rifles can be used to kill -or sedate, you choose the ammo- moose, hippos, rhinos and elephants. Why should someone be afraid to pull the trigger? Oh, there may be more than one. Come on... This is real life, if there's another one around, it'll flee as soon as it hears the shot. Or reload and shoot again. The shot was not fatal? Go and get a blood sample. But bullets's can't harm mythlogical creatures...

Oh, they look too human. Fellows, if PGF shows the real deal, that's an upright gorilla. Pull the trigger. Its not human.

Oh, the law... We've been to it, haven't we? Pull the triger.

There are reports of hunters who shot them... What happened to the bodies? Why not chop the head or a hand and bring it home? Or a blood sample?

So, again, why wildlife photographers are not flocking at Meldrum's door offering help?

Why seasoned hunters are not flocking at Meldrum's door offering help?

Its plenty of red flags. But yeah, Huntster do has a point, the flags may be white. White for those who think chances are the critters most likely are not real. But red for those who think it is real.

 

[LAL]

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that those trying it now aren't successful, those trying it now do not have scientific credentials, and those trying it now are essentially "weekend warriors."

You mentioned Mionczynski (geez, how did you spell it correctly?); there's a wildlife biologist. He had an encounter as a U.S. Forest Service bear researcher (story here:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfootbelievers.html)

and has been working on a method to snag some testable DNA. (See History Channel's Giganto: the Real King Kong.)

Due to constraints of having to make a living, even the serious researchers are "weekend warriors".

BTW, I'm glad to say the Great Smokies National Park has a healthy Black Bear population of about 1500, largest in the east. A wildlife biologist reported vocalizations while he was camping there that were unlike any he'd ever heard. Mountain lions don't officially exist around here either, but they don't seem to know that.

 

[LAL]

Each year dozens of Moose, Bear, and other large North American animals are killed by hunters. No bigfoot though.

Don't be too sure. There are a number of reports of them being shot or shot at, some quite recent.

 

[William Parcher]

It's quite difficult to rationally explain why Bigfoot would exist and yet no physical confirmation or acceptable photo/video evidence has been presented. It forces the outspoken believer to create a stream of excuses that are tailored to address any possible skeptical inquiry.

Any event that would bring about a confirmation certainly does not require that being a goal. Nobody that kills a deer with their car was out to confirm deer as being real animals. They aren't doing that either when they take pictures or video of deer.

We know that nearly all sightings of Bigfoot come from people who weren't looking for one. That means something. It could favor the odds of confirmation coming from someone who wasn't even looking for Bigfoot. Anyone can smash one with a vehicle, shoot one with a gun, photograph or film one in a highly-convincing way (not a true confirmation) or just find a carcass or body part.

Therefore, it is really wrong to suggest that the lack of confirmation is directly related to the relatively low incidence of dedicated "Bigfoot searches or hunts". The lack of confirmation must honestly always be associated with the sum total of all human presence in "Bigfoot country" (focus on the PNW if you want). It's boggling to think of the number of humans over time that have been in the PNW and never produced any confirmation. Think of settlers, loggers, explorers, tourists, hunters, residents, organized search-and-rescues of lost or missing people, etc. Native Americans have not produced physical evidence (such as a bone or other body part) in spite of many generations of residence.

In general we say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we would be dishonest to not give much weight to the sum total of opportunities for confirmation which have not resulted in a confirmation. I don't know how anyone could quantify that, but it is a real data set nonetheless. This means something and can be viewed as powerful evidence of the non-existence of Bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

Gigantofooticus from BFF wrote:

Shadows can tell all kinds of interesting things.

Bluff Creek runs West to East at the PGF site. Since it was shortly after noon, the shadows in the film are practically pointing North/South. Patty was travelling approximatly 15 degrees East of North. Roger Patterson was facing approximately 26 degrees West of North when he shot the film. Does this check out with Gimlin's story? The 2nd reel supposedly shows Roger casting a track that same day, filmed a few hours later. The weather was sunny and sunset was at about 4 o'clock. Does the 2nd reel show all this? Using the shadows in the frame showing Roger casting a track and the shadows in the PGF (1st reel), we can construct a sundial.

The track Roger's casting shows Patty's direction of travel, 15 deg NE. The shadows in the PGF at 12:00 PM are N/S, the shadows in the 2nd reel as Roger casts a track appear to be 2 to 3 hours later in the day. This is exactly what Gimlin claims.

I'm still trying to understand this still frame and if it supports the account of events told by P&G. How does GF go about establishing what he says about the time of day that this was taken? Even if this was taken around 2-3pm, why should we accept that as a realistic time of day for the plaster casting?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't be too sure. There are a number of reports of them being shot or shot at, some quite recent.

Gotta' love them anecdotes ..



Hang in there...

 

[Huntster]

....There are quite a few reports from hunters who haven't been able to shoot a squatch from an emotional standpoint. I don't think there are very many people out there who are mentally equipped to automatically blast to bits anything that walked in front of their gun, regardless of how it looks.

A good such report is the encounter by Mike MacDonald. I can't give an external link here just yet but google 'Mike Macdonald bigfoot' and you'll find it. It would appear his encounter is a 'typical' hunter's encounter with a sasquatch......

I thought I'd provide a link and a quote for you:

Standing in front of a crowd of about 50, Mike McDonald explains that up until two weeks ago he didn't believe in Bigfoot. That was, he says, before he saw one of the legendary creatures while hunting near Spuzzum. "I don't even know where to start," McDonald, 33, nervously told the crowd gathered at the fifth annual International Sasquatch Symposium in Vancouver on Sunday.

He was hunting brown bear, he said, and believing he had found one, set the sights of his gun on it. The creature had its back to McDonald, so he waited and watched through the gun sight for the bear to turn around and give him a good shot. "Six or 10 seconds later it stood up and it was definitely not a bear," he said. "My heart started pounding. I was so scared." He waited until the creature left, then ran to his truck for his camera. When he returned, the creature was nowhere to be found......

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that those trying it now aren't successful, those trying it now do not have scientific credentials, and those trying it now are essentially "weekend warriors."

You mentioned Mionczynski (geez, how did you spell it correctly?)

I always have to check it before typing it!

...there's a wildlife biologist. He had an encounter as a U.S. Forest Service bear researcher (story here:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfootbelievers.html)

and has been working on a method to snag some testable DNA. (See History Channel's Giganto: the Real King Kong.)

I think he is probably the most impressive of "professionals" who believe in sasquatch's existence, and spend some time in the field. He was a bighorn sheep biologist (I think), and has spent lots of time in the woods.

Due to constraints of having to make a living, even the serious researchers are "weekend warriors".

Yup.

 

[Huntster]

...Therefore, it is really wrong to suggest that the lack of confirmation is directly related to the relatively low incidence of dedicated "Bigfoot searches or hunts".

That is not the only factor which has resulted in the lack of proof. There are reports of people shooting sasquatches, hitting sasquatches with vehicles, finding bones, etc. But these reports are very rare (like, I believe, the creatures are themselves) and end up not being verified, and thus unbelieved.

The lack of confirmation must honestly always be associated with the sum total of all human presence in "Bigfoot country" (focus on the PNW if you want).

I strongly agree.

It's boggling to think of the number of humans over time that have been in the PNW and never produced any confirmation. Think of settlers, loggers, explorers, tourists, hunters, residents, organized search-and-rescues of lost or missing people, etc. Native Americans have not produced physical evidence (such as a bone or other body part) in spite of many generations of residence.

Actually, it's not boggling at all.

What's mind boggling is to realize that some 1.7 million people reside in King County, Washington, and so few of them spend any measurable amount of time in wilderness areas.

In general we say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we would be dishonest to not give much weight to the sum total of opportunities for confirmation which have not resulted in a confirmation. I don't know how anyone could quantify that, but it is a real data set nonetheless. This means something and can be viewed as powerful evidence of the non-existence of Bigfoot.

I agree with your paragraph, but having seen a convincing trackway myself, I'm a bit beyond merely weighing the report, print, and photographic evidence available today.

The lack of proof or extremely high quality evidence is proof enough for some that these creatures don't exist, and this forum demonstrates that many of these people are very passionate in their doubt. However, I think such passion is shortsighted.

 

[Huntster]

...I'm still trying to understand this still frame and if it supports the account of events told by P&G. How does GF go about establishing what he says about the time of day that this was taken?

Gigantofootecus is one of the best posters at BFF (although I haven't seen any fresh postings by him in quite some time).

Searching his posts there and reading them would be a great education.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....

A good such report is the encounter by Mike MacDonald. I can't give an external link here just yet but google 'Mike Macdonald bigfoot' and you'll find it. It would appear his encounter is a 'typical' hunter's encounter with a sasquatch.
...

That's a typical squatch encounter period ...

We're waiting on the a-typical one....