Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[carcharodon]

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

How many weekend warriors do YOU know who could pull the trigger on a gorilla? In THIS day and age (not 150 years ago).

 

[carcharodon]

Thanks.

Thanks for the link to Mike Macdonald's encounter Huntster. I've also seen him interviewed as well. Now there are two options. He either saw a sasquatch or he is lying. That's all there is to it. It's one or the other. There is no way he was simply 'mistaken' or that he 'dreamt' it all.

I wonder how many of these scoftics here would tell him he is a liar to his face? I'm guessing none. Even the interviewer who Macdonald took to the location of the sighting (a confirmed skeptic...Chris Packham) didn't accuse him of being a liar. All Packham said was "I don't know what Mike Macdonald saw"....and that was it!! He didn't accuse him of lying...yet if he didn't really see a sasquatch then he WAS lying.

Skeptics......legends in their own living rooms.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for the link to Mike Macdonald's encounter Huntster. I've also seen him interviewed as well. Now there are two options. He either saw a sasquatch or he is lying. That's all there is to it. It's one or the other. There is no way he was simply 'mistaken' or that he 'dreamt' it all.

I wonder how many of these scoftics here would tell him he is a liar to his face? I'm guessing none. Even the interviewer who Macdonald took to the location of the sighting (a confirmed skeptic...Chris Packham) didn't accuse him of being a liar. All Packham said was "I don't know what Mike Macdonald saw"....and that was it!! He didn't accuse him of lying...yet if he didn't really see a sasquatch then he WAS lying.

Skeptics......legends in their own living rooms.

Who called anyone a liar ?

And no, if he didn't see a Sasquatch, he wasn't lying; he could have been mistaken..

One thing is for sure; if there are no Sasquatches, he didn't see one ...

 

[LTC8K6]

Was it a Class A report, though?

Were pigs involved?

Did someone fail to shoot, follow, photograph, etc.?

I probably ought to read Huntster's post.....

 

[Mad Hom]

Thanks for the link to Mike Macdonald's encounter Huntster. I've also seen him interviewed as well. Now there are two options. He either saw a sasquatch or he is lying. That's all there is to it. It's one or the other. There is no way he was simply 'mistaken' or that he 'dreamt' it all.

I wonder how many of these scoftics here would tell him he is a liar to his face? I'm guessing none. Even the interviewer who Macdonald took to the location of the sighting (a confirmed skeptic...Chris Packham) didn't accuse him of being a liar. All Packham said was "I don't know what Mike Macdonald saw"....and that was it!! He didn't accuse him of lying...yet if he didn't really see a sasquatch then he WAS lying.

Skeptics......legends in their own living rooms.

Yeah no one has ever told a convincing lie.......ever. Ok Caracharodon whatever fits into your worldview!!

I'm not saying the man is lying either but just because...some dude who interviewed him didn't call him one doesn't mean he wasn't....LYING!!

Still though all this is is just another one of myriad sightings....so go ahead and just throw it on the pile with the rest of them ok.

 

[Mad Hom]

How many weekend warriors do YOU know who could pull the trigger on a gorilla? In THIS day and age (not 150 years ago).

If I told you that I would blow it's head clean off it's shoulders in a heartbeat....would you even believe me?!?

Didn't think so.

This "no one will shoot one cuz they look to human" is an excuse Bigfoot Fan likes to use to explain away the reason why no one has shot one yet (confirmed)....it's about as lame as Roge and Bobby G "Agreeing" not to shoot one in advance.

Lemme see if I got this straight...

They look to human...so no one will shoot one....or at least no one that we can confirm.

No one seems to have the ability,the money or the wherewithall (oh or IMO the interest) to actively seek one out.

They seem to have an uncanny ability to avoid being filmed (except for ol lucky Roge)

They never leave any of their DNA anywhere.

They are rare to the point that finding one has proven to be very difficult.... yet are seen often enough to keep people interested.

They are said to be nocturnal...which seems to buck the trend for most primates.

Is that about it?

Seems a little to....conveniently mysterious if you ask me.

 

[Huntster]

....Still though all this is is just another one of myriad sightings....so go ahead and just throw it on the pile with the rest of them ok.

This one is in the pile, too.

Not one, but no fewer than 5 peace officers in on this one.

Liars? All of them?

 

[Mad Hom]

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

Yeah I saw an interview with Mike McDonald on Bigfoot: Fact or Fantasy?

Seems typical...apelike,definitely not a bear yada yada.....my favorite part though was...

"....I watched it for 5-6 minutes than I realized I left my camera in the truck..."

D'Oh!??!?

 

[Huntster]

Another lying cop?:

Gray's Harbor Sighting
August 7, 1969
In Spotlight At Close Range
Deputy Gives Detailed Description of Sasquatch (July 26, 1969)

A statement issued last week by the sheriff of Gray's Harbor County, Washington, that one of is deputies had admitted seeing a female bear, not a sasquatch, is completely contradicted by this interview with the deputy recorded by John Green last Thursday.

Mr. Green interviewed the deputy in company with two physical anthropologists from the University of Washington.

Q. To begin with, could we get your name on the tape?
A. My name is Verlin Herrington.
Q. Where do you live?
A. I live at Copalis Beach, Washington.
Q. How old are you?
A. Thirty years old.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a Deputy Sheriff for Gray's Harbor County.
Q. Now, the incident we've been discussing, could you give us the date when that took place?
A. Yes, It was July 26, it was on a Sunday.
Q. And the year?
A. 1969.
Q. And what time?
A. It was 2:35 a.m.
Q. What were you doing at that time?
A. I had been on an incident at Humptulips and I was en route by way of Deekay Road, by Grass Creek Road, to the beach and into my residence.
Q. You were working at that time?
A. Right !
Q. What was it that happened while you were making that trip?
A. As I was going down Deekay Road I rounded a corner, and my first impression was of a large bear standing in the middle of the road. I either had to stop for the bear or hit him so I decided to stop, put on the brakes, came to a screeching halt, and coasted up the slight grade as far as I could without startling the animal as I was looking at it as I was going towards it. This animal in my opinion was not a bear, because you could see by the way it was standing that it had no snout, it had a face on it. Its eyes reflected, and when I came to a complete stop I could see in the headlights of my car that it had feet on it instead of paws, and it had breasts. When I centered my spotlight on the patrol car on it, it walked to the edge of the road, it didn't fall down on all fours like a bear would, it walked upright as a person would. It walked to the edge of the roadway and stopped; turned, still looking at me. I re-adjusted the spotlight on my car so I could look at it better. Its feet had hair down to the soles but you could see tile outline of the foot, it did have toes. Its hand was in a position where it was spread out, and it did have fingers. After I'd re-adjusted the spotlight, I rolled tile window down, pulled my revolver and crawled out of the door. I aimed my revolver at it and as I cocked the hammer on it the animal went into the brush. I got back in my car and drove off. Reported the next morning back to the scene and went through the area, found where the animal had gone into the bush and where it had come back out on to the roadway.
Q. Did you find any tracks at all?
A. Yes, I found one indention in the ground. I did take a photograph of it, it wasn't such a print that you could pour a cast of.
Q. How big was it?
A. I measured the track, it was 18 1/2 inches. The animal itself was around seven to seven and a half feet tall, weighing approximately 300 to 325 pounds.
Q. How far away were you when you were looking at it?
A. 75 to 80 feet.
Q. How long would you say you were able to observe it before it left the road?
A. Approximately a minute or a minute and a quarter, maybe a minute and a half. This was from the time that I came to a complete stop. I was observing it as I coasted towards it. So maybe overall - 2 minutes.
Q. And in that time it was standing erect on its hind legs?
A. Yes it was. As it went off into the brush it was still on its hind legs.
Q. Where it went into the brush, that's down quite' a steep little bank isn't it?
A. Yes it is.
Q. And could you see that it remained erect as it went down the bank?
A. Until it went out of the spotlight, yes.
Q. Had it started to descend the bank in the spotlight or was it gone from the spotlight?
A. It went down the bank and approximately half way down it went out of the spotlight, still in an erect position.
Q. Just to sort of go over it from top to bottom - can you tell us anything about the shape of tile head? For instance, your first impression was a bear. Did it have a snout?
A. No it didn't have a snout. I couldn't say that it has a nose like a person would have. I believe that there was no hair on its face. It had a dark leathery look.
Q. Did you get any impression of the length of hair on the head or on the rest of it?
A. I would say about 3 to 4 inches on the head.
Q. It didn't have long hanging hair at all?
A. Longer on the head than on the body, yes.
Q. What sort of a neck did it have?
A. No neck.
Q. You mentioned, I think, that it had breasts.
A. Yes.
Q. Where on the body were they located?
A. Like a human person's. They were also covered with hair except for the nipples and they were skin.
Q. Did you mention the color of the hair?
A. No, I didn't. It was brownish black, dark colored.
Q. You say you saw a hand with the fingers extended.
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell how long the arms were?
A. I would have to guess at how long they were. The arm that I was looking at was in a bent position like you catch someone startled.
Q. You couldn't at anytime see how far down the body the arm would come?
A. No
Q. Comparing it to a human, would you say that it had long legs or short legs?
A. Long legs I would say long muscular legs.
Q. Did it take long strides? A. No, it seemed like it took small steps as it walked. It was watching me as it walked to the edge of the road. They would be large steps for a normal human but for this animal they were short steps. About three steps from the center of the road to the edge:
Q. Did you notice any difference in the way it walked and the way a human would walk?
A. Same type of position and same type of walk as a human being.
Q. Any other details that you can recall that you noticed about it?
A. Really, that pretty well covers it.
Q. You didn't see the teeth I guess?
A. No.
Q. Did it taper at the waist? Did it have h narrow waist?
A. It was a big body - a big stout body - that's the best I remember it was - It could have been thinner at the waist - I don't remember.
Q. It was pretty heavily built?
A. Yes.

 

[Mad Hom]

This one is in the pile, too.

Not one, but no fewer than 5 peace officers in on this one.

Liars? All of them?

No I believe they saw exactly what they said they saw Fudd....tracks.

Now who or what left them....that's to be determined.

 

[Mad Hom]

Another lying cop?:

So cops don't lie Fuddster?.....no cop as have ever lied...ever. Is that what you'd have us believe?

I say.......Bullschlitz!

Here's some links..

http://http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/20/247/54256

http://http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell47.html

http://http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/etc/boyer.html

And I'm sure there many,many many more Fuddster...so go ahead and assume that this...Cops Don't Lie...take of yours...is pathetic.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Anything since 1969 Huntster ? I wonder what happened to that Bigfoot that police officer was so sure he saw in 1969 ?

 

[Huntster]

Anything since 1969 Huntster ? I wonder what happened to that Bigfoot that police officer was so sure he saw in 1969 ?

Maybe experienced by others since or before.

There are literally dozens of reports in Gray's Harbor county as well as the surrounding counties: Lewis, Jefferson, Mason, Thurston, and Pacific. In fact, this areas has among the highest number of reports than most areas of the continent.

The above counties include some 8,760 sq.mi. and has a human population of 477,000 people.

 

[carcharodon]

Who called anyone a liar ?

Well, if sasquatch doesn't exists (as the skeptics here believe) then Mike Macdonald was lying. There is no other way around it. It's a simple as that.

I merely wondered how many of the skeptics would tell him to his face that he is a liar.

And no, if he didn't see a Sasquatch, he wasn't lying; he could have been mistaken..

Not if you read his full encounter report or hear his interviewed statement. This wasn't a fleeting encounter. The alleged sasquatch was in clear view of his rifle scope for quite a while and Macdonald noted specific details he allegedly saw. There is no way he was mistaken. He either saw a sasquatch....or he made the whole story up.

One thing is for sure; if there are no Sasquatches, he didn't see one ...

...........and that would make him a liar.

 

[carcharodon]

Yeah I saw an interview with Mike McDonald on Bigfoot: Fact or Fantasy?

Seems typical...apelike,definitely not a bear yada yada.....my favorite part though was...

"....I watched it for 5-6 minutes than I realized I left my camera in the truck..."

D'Oh!??!?

What difference would a camera have made? The subject was 150 yards away on the other side of a riverbank in amongst bushes. It would have been yet another blobsquatch picture that none of you would have looked twice at.

If I told you that I would blow it's head clean off it's shoulders in a heartbeat....would you even believe me?!?

Didn't think so.

No. I do not believe you if you were to tell me that you would "in a heartbeat" blow the head clean off the shoulders of a gorilla if you happened to stumble across one in the woods.

This "no one will shoot one cuz they look to human" is an excuse Bigfoot Fan likes to use to explain away the reason why no one has shot one yet (confirmed)....

What about when the 'excuse' doesn't come from 'Bigfoot Fan' but from hunter who had no interest in bigfoot prior to his encounter?

it's about as lame as Roge and Bobby G "Agreeing" not to shoot one in advance.

How is that lame? Patterson thought they (squatches) were some kind of giant human. It was therefore a fairly reasonable agreement to make. Gimlin was supposedly a bit of a skeptic who didn't have a great deal of opinion either way.

Lemme see if I got this straight...

They look to human...so no one will shoot one....or at least no one that we can confirm.

Something like that. I think stumbling upon an upright, bipedal ape/humanlike animal when you are not in any way expecting to do so would have a lot of mental/emotional connotations, particularly when it all happens so fast before you have time to pull yourself together. Now Mike Macdonald had time to gather his thoughts and to weigh up the situation. This isn't typical though. Mike's thoughts allegedly turned to his own safety. He allegedly started to feel some fear after he got over the initial shock of what he was looking at. It was a long way back to his truck after all and he was alone. If he shot it, would he kill it? Would it come after him? Were there any others in the area? Any on his side of the river? Any of them watching HIM at that very moment? Etc etc etc.

No one seems to have the ability,the money or the wherewithall (oh or IMO the interest) to actively seek one out.

I would go more with the money and more importantly the TIME. Patterson and Gimlin were encamped in the 'general' area for three weeks straight and doing daily patrols on horseback. How many sasquatch 'hunters' can afford to spend so much time in one area doing the same kind of things? I lean towards the more time you spend in a localised area, the higher your chances. If consistent time was spent in, say, the coastal estuaries and tidal inlets and flats of British Columbia/south east Alaska then it likely will achieve better results, but I don't know anybody who does this. I'm talking months here. This is the way to go.

They seem to have an uncanny ability to avoid being filmed (except for ol lucky Roge)

How do we know one hasn't been filmed again? There is lots of footage of 'alleged' squatches out there. We don't know if some of these pieces of footage are real or not. Some are obviously fakes, but some remain inconclusive and too far away or obscure to tell either way. That doesn't mean, much less prove, a sasquatch has never been filmed since the P/G footage.

They never leave any of their DNA anywhere.

Do you include the Yeti here? I ask this because there was DNA that could not be indentified from an expedition in Bhutan a couple of years ago. It's unknown. It doesn't match anything. It IS DNA though. DNA that is a mystery.

They are rare to the point that finding one has proven to be very difficult.... yet are seen often enough to keep people interested.

I don't accept most reports. I don't believe they are seen as often as some would like to wish (mistakes, wishful thinking, lies and hoaxes probably account for most reports). I don't believe they are as widespread nor as in as healthy a state as some proponents like to think.

They are said to be nocturnal...which seems to buck the trend for most primates.

I don't believe they are truly nocturnal. That being the case, there wouldn't be very many daytime reports. They are possibly more active at night (at least, lone males might be) but I've never accepted them as being truly nocturnal.

Is that about it?

Seems a little to....conveniently mysterious if you ask me.

LOl, that's because you are a skeptic. You are bound to have that attitude. Sasquatch has a lot more going for it than most of these 'mysteries'.

 

[Mad Hom]

What difference would a camera have made? The subject was 150 yards away on the other side of a riverbank in amongst bushes. It would have been yet another blobsquatch picture that none of you would have looked twice at.

It's called corroborating evidence Carky ol boy. Than he would have had his neato story AND a picture...which is still far shy of what we would have had if only he would have just manned up and shot the thing....but the story will just have to do huh? Imagine, this guy had the END of this argument in his gunsights...and he dropped the ball....and this does nothing to deter Bigfoot Nation....cuz neato stories are always better than actual proof right?

Oh and PS...he mentioned it in his own interview...I didn't say "he should have had a camera"

No. I do not believe you if you were to tell me that you would "in a heartbeat" blow the head clean off the shoulders of a gorilla if you happened to stumble across one in the woods.

...And I don't believe that most people would NOT if given the chance. You are speculating wildly when you say I would or would not shoot a gorilla...or a Bigfeet....or whatever....you have no idea one way or the other.....you're guessing.Looks like a case of agree to disagree here ....huh?

What about when the 'excuse' doesn't come from 'Bigfoot Fan' but from hunter who had no interest in bigfoot prior to his encounter?

You know that he had no interest in Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size how? Because he said so?

How is that lame? Patterson thought they (squatches) were some kind of giant human. It was therefore a fairly reasonable agreement to make. Gimlin was supposedly a bit of a skeptic who didn't have a great deal of opinion either way.

So the M.K Davis take has been around for awhile than huh? A giant human!?!?! 8ft tall,weighing in at well over 700lbs,covered in hair/fur from the tip of it's melon to the ends of it's toes...and it may have been some kind of giant human!?!?

There's a word for that ya know...it's called Bull Schlitz!!

Something like that. I think stumbling upon an upright, bipedal ape/humanlike animal when you are not in any way expecting to do so would have a lot of mental/emotional connotations, particularly when it all happens so fast before you have time to pull yourself together. Now Mike Macdonald had time to gather his thoughts and to weigh up the situation. This isn't typical though. Mike's thoughts allegedly turned to his own safety. He allegedly started to feel some fear after he got over the initial shock of what he was looking at. It was a long way back to his truck after all and he was alone. If he shot it, would he kill it? Would it come after him? Were there any others in the area? Any on his side of the river? Any of them watching HIM at that very moment? Etc etc etc.

Well if it was a head shot...yes he would have killed it...which answers the next question...no it wouldn't have come after him. Were there others in the area? If he was that worried about it he could have at least marked his way back to the truck or something..that way he could return for the stiff with reinforcements or whatever. Farfetched?? Sure it is...but anything is better than just another lame story. When are you going to get it through your skull...anecdotal evidence is useless.

Or how about this...one skull piercing dome shot...lop off a hand,a foot... whatever...hike back to the truck...drive into town...call the impotant sounding institution of his choice.........and Science is set on it's ear........OR...

Sit there and gawk at the thing for 5 minutes and return with yet another story about Bigfeet...yeah stories are better.

I would go more with the money and more importantly the TIME. Patterson and Gimlin were encamped in the 'general' area for three weeks straight and doing daily patrols on horseback. How many sasquatch 'hunters' can afford to spend so much time in one area doing the same kind of things? I lean towards the more time you spend in a localised area, the higher your chances. If consistent time was spent in, say, the coastal estuaries and tidal inlets and flats of British Columbia/south east Alaska then it likely will achieve better results, but I don't know anybody who does this. I'm talking months here. This is the way to go.

Sounds reasonable....but my question is...how did Roge and Bobby G do it than? From what I understand Roge was broke....or at the very least well below rich.....and he pulled it off.....allegedly.My guess is that most people don't do it because they know it's a sucker bet...."Oh we believe and all...we're just not going to quit our jobs or blow all of our vaction time off to prove it...is what we're saying."

How do we know one hasn't been filmed again? There is lots of footage of 'alleged' squatches out there. We don't know if some of these pieces of footage are real or not. Some are obviously fakes, but some remain inconclusive and too far away or obscure to tell either way. That doesn't mean, much less prove, a sasquatch has never been filmed since the P/G footage.

Filmed AGAIN!??! Carky...go ahead and assume that we still don't know if one has been filmed.....AT ALL.

Do you include the Yeti here? I ask this because there was DNA that could not be indentified from an expedition in Bhutan a couple of years ago. It's unknown. It doesn't match anything. It IS DNA though. DNA that is a mystery.

Surely you have a link correct?

I don't accept most reports. I don't believe they are seen as often as some would like to wish (mistakes, wishful thinking, lies and hoaxes probably account for most reports). I don't believe they are as widespread nor as in as healthy a state as some proponents like to think.

Basically the only thing Bigfeet has going for it...is the sheer enormity of the number of sightings...oh and all those wastes of perfectly good plaster laying around at Jeffy Meldrum's crib. So 'MOST reports are false than eh? Care to slap a percentage on that guesstimate?

I don't believe they are truly nocturnal. That being the case, there wouldn't be very many daytime reports. They are possibly more active at night (at least, lone males might be) but I've never accepted them as being truly nocturnal.

You sure throw the phrase THEY ARE around alot in association with a creature that hasn't even been proven to exist. We have no reason to believe that there actually is a THEY in the first place.

LOl, that's because you are a skeptic. You are bound to have that attitude. Sasquatch has a lot more going for it than most of these 'mysteries'.

Ummmm....no....not really but you keep clicking your heels there Carky ok and maybe just maybe if your real faithful...a Bigfeetsus will suddenly appear out of thin air.

 

[LAL]

Skeptics......legends in their own living rooms.

Thanks for making my morning. That was better than the coffee.

 

[LAL]

For those who thinks the word of a 7-year-old is better than an analysis:

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/11/frame-352-and-all-that.html

 

[Correa Neto]

How many weekend warriors do YOU know who could pull the trigger on a gorilla? In THIS day and age (not 150 years ago).

How many YOU know that would NOT pull the trigger?

As a slightly OT digression, an extra problem for bigfoot's "cousins" is that they live at places where people have little problem shooting apes and monkeys. Oh, just got it! There are no specimens of "Asiatic bigfeet" because they were eaten... OK, back on topic.

And regarding the cops' reports...

First. Who is calling anyone a liar? One thing is to say "Sir, your story is a lie". This is calling someone a liar. To say, "Sir, you may have made a mistake" or "Sir, you may have experienced a daydream, not unlike some UFO tales" is by no means calling someone a liar. Its just to say someone made a mistake.

Second. Appeals like

I wonder how many of these scoftics here would tell him he is a liar to his face?

Won't help. Every now and then someone tries to use such an emotional appeal or veiled threat. "Sheriff John Brown would not like to hear you are calling him a liar". Pretty useless. And will not help Sheriff John Brown's situation, also...

Third. Cops are flawless? They never make mistakes? And why not ask... They never lie?

Oh, BTW, none of the above helps to answer the questions I originally posed; Here they are, 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? No need to kill one, use tranquilizers.

To the above, I shall add...
If there are dozens reports in Gray's Harbor county and its surroundings, why all the avaliable pieces of evidence are just the sighting reports?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, if sasquatch doesn't exists (as the skeptics here believe) then Mike Macdonald was lying. There is no other way around it. It's a simple as that.


It must be nice to live in such a simple world..


I merely wondered how many of the skeptics would tell him to his face that he is a liar.

Why would you wonder such a thing. Do you live in a world where people call others a liar, just because they feel the other person may be mistaken about something ?



Not if you read his full encounter report or hear his interviewed statement. This wasn't a fleeting encounter. The alleged sasquatch was in clear view of his rifle scope for quite a while and Macdonald noted specific details he allegedly saw. There is no way he was mistaken. He either saw a sasquatch....or he made the whole story up.



...........and that would make him a liar.

If he made it up, yes, that would make him a liar. But so far, you are the only one limiting him to only two possibilities;

That either he is a liar, or Sasquatch exist . No one here on the skeptical side, is doing that .



Your disdain for skeptics is totally understandable.. You have no ide what a skeptic is.