Because most wildlife photographers share your view.
Because most hunters share your view.
They're not. There were casts of the footprints made by the sherrif's deputies.
I have a copy of one.
Ask tube about them...............
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Because most wildlife photographers share your view.
Because most hunters share your view.
They're not. There were casts of the footprints made by the sherrif's deputies.
I have a copy of one.
Ask tube about them...............
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
You mean like the guy in Manitoba recently? Still didn't amount to a hill of beans amongst the skeptics did it?
Yes, he mentioned it. Maybe if he was lying he wouldn't have mentioned the camera in his truck at all? Would have been altogether neater wouldn't it? Would have been much better to never mention that he even had a camera in his truck. If I was lying I wouldn't have even brought up that I had a camera in my truck.
Yes I do. I encounter bravados all the time. There is no way you would ever in a heartbeat blow the head off the shoulders of a gorilla if you encountered one in the woods. You know it, I know. Lets just say I'm a SKEPTIC on the matter.LOL.
And you aren't? When have you ever come across a gorilla in the woods to test out your claim? When you say you don't believe 'most people' would not shoot one, how do you know this? Are you not also guessing as much as I am?
How many people do you personally know who have blown the head off the shoulders of a gorilla? If your answer is none then you are wildly speculating and guessing as much as I am.
Yes. I also know other hunters who had no prior interest in sasquatch before they allegedly saw one. Why would they lie to me? I'm not a researcher. I'm not a novelist. They aren't making money or gaining fame and attention by talking to me.
Well Patterson quite obviously thought they were some kind of giant human. I don't go along with that myself but evidently that's what Patterson thought. You only have to look at his drawings to see this.
How enlightening. Do you mind if I make a note of your wisdom?
What if his aim was even slightly off? What if the shot merely glanced off the head and grazed the skull? I suppose you are now going to tell me no hunter ever misses his mark??
Do you have personal experience to say it wouldn't if it was only wounded?
Huh? What would be the reason for that? He allegedly never told anybody of note until a couple of weeks later. He kept it to himself and his partner and his mother. He never told anybody else until he heard of a sasquatch symposium in Vancouver and decided to go along to find out more about the subject.
Who says it's useless? It's not proof, but it is certainly not 'useless'. In fact, 'anecdoatal evidence' (YOUR words, note the 'evidence' part LOL) is sometimes very interesting. My grandfather told me lots of anecdotes about his time in the British army fighting the Japanese in the jungles of Burma during WW2. None of what he said is proven, but his anecdotes were certainly interesting nonetheless.
Easier said than done. Sure, just blow it's brains out matter of fact like and hack away with no thought about your own mental state or indeed safety. It's sooooooooo easy to blast a 7ft tall manlike/apelike creature and do a Quincy on it isn't it? People can just switch off and act like it's just another mundane animal can't they?
How much money do you need to camp out in the forests for weeks? I would think time is more essential than money. I know when I go camping/hiking I don't spend inordinant amount of money.
I think it would have been cheaper to have camped in the Bluff Creek area for three weeks and film a sasquatch rather than make a brilliant suit that even Hollywood couldn't manage (and no hoaxer or film studio to this day can even replicate, much less better).
What would have cost more money in YOUR opinion? To merely camp out and film a sasquatch, or to camp out and HOAX a movie and tracks etc etc and to pay a third party on top?
Exactly. 'Most' people don't do it.....which is why we don't have a body.
Very true. In the same way, YOU don't KNOW if one hasn't been filmed.
I can't post links just yet. You have to have 15 posts (or something) behind you before you can post an outside link.
Just google in "Bryan Sykes yeti hair".
Dr Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the Oxford Institute of Molecular Medicine, was responsible for analysing the DNA from a mysterious hair found in Bhutan and could not match it to any other sample. It still remains unidentified.
I guess he is lying though huh?
I would 'guess' that possibly less than 10% are genuine. It might even be lower than that.
Speak for yourself. I have reason to believe they exist. I am not speaking for YOU. I am speaking for ME.
So you are saying that sasquatch DOESN'T have more going for it than most of these other mysteries? Wow, if only I knew that before I wasted my time all these years. I must be dreaming that some scientists and biologists speak out in favour of the existance of this animal.
Oh well, I guess you know more than anybody else then.
Last edited:
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
What else is there? He can't have been mistaken. He allegedly watched it for ten minutes and he SPECIFICALLY noted facial features, fingers, hands......and the fact that it was eating leaves from a branch and holding the branch with one hand (not paw) and pulling the leaves off with it's mouth.
Hoax? Not a chance. He either saw a sasquatch or he made the whole thing up.
It really is as simple as that.
'Sceptic:
Person who doubts truth of a doctine, theory etc. Person inclined to question truth of facts, inferences etc'
Sounds like many of the people posting here in this thread. What am I missing then Diogenes? Care to explain?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
This is the report submitted by Dennis Heryford::
"OBSERVED: On numerous dates listed within the report those witnesses listed above and I had occassion to examine "unusual" scenes which, to date, have been undetermined as to the origin of the evidence found.
It should be noted that all materials used to process said scenes were supplied by the individuals themselves and the results thereof are retained personally by said individuals. Copies can be made available on some of the evidence, with consent of the owners. The time involved was donated by the individuals as well - Therefore, this report is merely a documentation of facts observed by myself and includes some comments made by those listed. It is not submitted as an official case report "per-se". This, the Grays Harbor Sheriff Dept. has been asked, and graciously accepted to act as caretaker of this documentation.
On 4-22-82 @ approx. 1609 hrs. I was contacted @ my residence by a private citizen (name witheld @ request) in reference to a number of large tracks found in a fairly secluded area of the eastern portion of Grays Harbor County. The location is known as "Abbott Hill" to the local residents and is rarely traveled or visited.
It consists of a two year old "clear cut" of privately owned timberlands surrounded by second growth timber and a heavily vegetated forest floor. There is presently one road around the clearcut and one dividing the clearcut with short spurs off of each.
I was escorted to one of these spurs and was shown two large, what appeared to be footprints with human features in an area along the base of a fire trail. The tracks were obviously made after the rains and before the sun had dried the mud as there were virtually no "rain pocks" in the major portion of the track. They were approximately 46" apart and the toes of each track pointed the same direction. No other tracks were visible in the muddy area or along the grassy edge.
A distinct trail could be found leading from the top of a small hill, down hill through 8 foot high Salmonberries, Devils club, Blackberries and other intertwined plants. The plants were either broken over entirely or the tops were broken. The trail measured 36" across and was approximately 150' long. It ended on the roadway at the point where the aforementioned tracks were observed.
I photographed both tracks and made a plaster cast of the left foot. The tracks measured 15 1/2" long by 6 3/4" wide @ the longest and widest points. (see attachments for further measurements). At the deepest point into the mud, the track measured 1 1/2" deep. This plaster cast was retrieved as evidence by me. A hair was removed from between the second & third toes of the left track & sent to the "Institute of Cryptozoology", in Tucson, Arizona for analyzation. No results have been obtained @ the time of this writing.
More tracks were observed, photographed, measured and processed @ the end of the "spur" approximately 1/4 of a mile from the first set of tracks. The longest step @ this location measured 9 feet between steps and only the ball of the foot was distinguishable @ the end of each 9' step. From there a trail of broken vegetation & matted grass went down the hillside into rugged clearcut & drainage. The perimeter road was searched for further sign to no avail.
@ the same time I was informed of more tracks located seven miles west of our present location along the Satsop River @ a place called "Worman's Bar". Upon investigation I found two seperate sets of tracks together. Both starting from under the water, traveling westerly and ending in hard packed gravel which made tracking difficult @ best. These tracks were photographed & measured by me. The largest was 17" long by 7 1/2" wide @ the longest & widest points. The smallest was 15 1/2" long by 6" wide @ the longest and widest points. Both sets were made in hard packed river sand and appeared to have been the result of great weight being placed on each foot. The steps measured from 52" down to 39". No casts were made of these due to the lack of plaster of paris. Upon return to the scene with the proper casting materials I found only portions of the tracks due to those made by curiosity seekers.
On 4-27-82 I was informed by Officer Jim Young of the Oakville Police Dept. of numerous tracks discovered along the Chehalis River in an area known as "Elma Gate boat launch." According to Jim, these tracks were followed approximately 1/2 mile upstream. Veryl Hutchinson (Sgt.) and I went to the area where I photographed, measured, and processed the scene. Hutchinson retained the cast of the left foot. The measurement was 15" long by 61/4" wide @ the longest & widest of the left track. Further investigation revealed a trail of approximately one mile. Steps measuring from 59" to 34".
On 5-23-82 I was contacted @ my residence by a pastor of a local church and requested to the Porter Creek area for investigation of large tracks sighted in a fairly secluded area of Capitol Forest. I contacted Mike Behm and we met the Pastor and were escorted to the scene. There were four tracks found in the area, numerous photos were taken of the tracks (slide film) and two casts were made of two tracks. Mike Behm retaining one, I the other. An Aspen tree was scratched in such a way indicating five fingers or like items were used to make marks. The lowest mark was located 72" from the ground and the highest was located 98" from the ground. This portion of the tree was removed and is held as evidence. Numerous branches were broken from 8 feet to approx. 11 feet in the trees. A wad of approx. 12 ferns, minus the roots were found @ the creek along with two new growth portions of Aspen branches.
A subsequent search of the opposite banks of the creek revealed numerous tracks traveling downstream. The area the tracks were located is a sharp bank, covered with ground salal and devils club. the tracks were followed approx. 1.5 miles and were lost @ the edge of a clearcut.
Of the sightings investigated, no two tracks were of the same measurements. The largest distance between the sightings was between the Elma Gate and Abbott Hill, approximately 9 miles. All the sightings indicated something of great weight (600+ pounds) with steps varying from 32" between to 59" between (barring the two of 9' between each). At the Porter Creek and Elma Gate scenes there was evidence of obvious foraging. @ all the scenes there was evidence of great height and weight and a lack of tracks to indicate the evidence was placed there as a hoax.
Followup is continuing.
ALSO NOTICED: Areas date of occurance:
1. 4-22-82
2. 4-22-82
3. 4-27-82
4. 5-23-82
5. 10-12-72
OTHER WITNESSES: Heryford, Dennis E. (Deputy) 206-249-3711
Behm, Michael (Deputy)
Hutchinson, Veryl D. (Sargent)
Whiteman, Ronald W. (Sargent)
P.O. Box 630 Montesano, WA
Young, James (Patrolman) 206-273-5531
Oakville Police Dept., Oakville, Wa."
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2599
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
OK, but why most wildlife photographers and hunters share my view?
This would be the true answer to the following questions:
It would also help to answer this other question:
Why mammalogists are not flocking at Meldrum's door offering help?
Ah. Casts of footprints...
That's not exactly the sort of evidence I would expect from a "hot spot" if the creatures were real. Dozens of reports and no pictures, pieces of footage or a specimen?
Back to square one, eh?
They've spent lots of time in the woods and never seen evidence themselves?
This would be the true answer to the following questions:
They're busy?
They're busy?
Yup.
Why not?
I see bear prints a whole lot more often than I see the bears.
Yup.
I've seen so many bears in the wild I couldn't count the occasions now if I tried.
Got just a few photos in all that time.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Yes, this can be indeed a possibility. They may have never seen a bigfoot or a bigfoot footprint (assuming the animals are real) by themselves.
But don't you think they had plenty of chances to evaluate evidence such as PGF, the reports, casts, etc., since they are not hard to find at all at the internet, cable TV, libraries, DVDs, etc.?
And assuming they evaluated it, why do you think they aren't interested on the subject and flocking at Meldrum's door(*) offering help?
This also raises a variant of the question:
If PGF is so convincing as its defenders say, showing muscles bulging, non-human walk and IM, etc., why it seems wildlife photographers show little interest on the subject?
Yes, these people tend to be very busy. But, in the hunters' case, as you surely know, they always find some time and money to hunt where the good prey is. I could tell you a couple of stories (OK, they are anedoctal, thus they are not top-notch evidence) I heard from two friends who own game farms in Africa...
Heck, I would like to be the one to bring (or one of those who helped bringing) a specimen home (assuming they are real), alive or dead. Call me evil, heartless, brute, etc., but the only case where I would probably not press the trigger would be a female with an offspring. But if the ammo are tranquilizer darts...
I think hunters are not flocking at Meldrum's door offering help just because they are busy. It must be something else, don't you think?
And in the case of wildlife photographers, their money comes from the footage. What do you think that would bring them more fame and money? (a) Yet more hundreds of meters of film (or gigabytes) showing lions feeding on zebras or (b) footage of a real bigfoot, the mythical giant primate from North America, doing whatever they are supposed to do (if they are real)?
So, I would tend to say they are not flocking at Meldrum's door offering help because they are busy. It must be something else, don't you think?
But something tells me you've got much more from bears than just a few photos. Something more... Solid, material... And that some of your photos probably have much credibillity than the best bigfoot pics and footage avaliable.
In both cases, what I would expect from a "hot spot" with dozens of sighting reports if the creatures were real. Not just reports and some footprint casts...
(*)"Meldrum's door" is not being used in the literal sense, but as a metaphor for some bigfoot-"discovery" effort, project, etc. It could be Krantz's door (if he were still alive), BFRO's door, a private effort, a sideproject part of a more abrangent and conventional study, etc.
Last edited:
No doubt, and I'm certain such people have heard of the phenomenon. Perhaps they're of the skeptical mindframe, and never seen evidence themselves even though they've spent considerable time "in the woods" (but perhaps not in prime sasquatch habitat).
Because they don't believe sasquatches exist, and/or they don't have time and/or motivation to invest in such a search.
For all the reasons I outlined above, and probably several more.
Yes, and as has been mentioned, they have an intended quarry, they've obtained all the necessary permits and licenses, and that's what they're hunting for.
I could tell you a couple of stories (OK, they are anedoctal, thus they are not top-notch evidence) I heard from two friends who own game farms in Africa...
Again, there are probably a number of reasons.
Obviously, photographic footage of sasquatches would be more valuable. However, it's a piece of cake to get photographs of African lions feeding. Even brown bears at certain times of the year at certain places are easy to capture on film. In fact, such areas are set up by the government for that very reason, as in the case of National Parks in Africa and bear sanctuaries in Alaska.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Why not?
Yup. I've eaten some of them.
Bear hotspots can contain dozens of bears today, and none tomorrow. What's more, there are likely many times more bears than sasquatches overall.
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
John Waters (a British 'wildlife photographer/cameraman') showed enough interest in the subject to make his own one hour documentary for the series 'To The Ends Of The Earth'. He found the P/G footage convincing and very interesting. He travelled to Oregon and even had a go at trying to perform his own hoax with a guy in a suit to see if he could fool anybody....and failed miserably by his own admission.
That's one 'wildlife photographer' who made an entire programme out of the subject. I have heard and read about others who also have an interest in this topic but do not have the means nor the time to take it any further.
If the likes of Jane Goodall and George Schaller have an open mind to the possibilty then this mystery must have 'something' going for it. It's not as if NOBODY is interested. I don't think any wildlife photograpers or acclaimed biologists speak out in favour of werewolves do they?
Yes they are not interested, most likely because in the main they are not very well informed about the subject (like most people)and write it off as a silly myth more suitable to tabloid newpapers and nothing more.
Yes, it's probably too much trouble. They know where to go to film zebras. They know where to go to film lions. These animals all have established and well known stomping grounds. Footage of such animals will be almost guaranteed. It doesn't take too much effort to locate lions and zebras in the Serengeti. A sasquatch? Where do you start? How long do you wait? When wildlife photographer/cameraman John Waters tried to film a sasquatch in Oregon he knew it was a wasted journey from the get go. He said it was a one in a million chance. He even admitted that he couldn't go and film in the deepest, darkest and dampest forests there in the PNW as he wouldn't be able to film very much as field of vision was severley limited.
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
You are correct sir...yessssssssss...but...a picture and a story is better than just a story.Without the picture all we have is the guy's word...and I don't know this guy...so to me his word ain't worth squat!!
Or maybe if he was lying he definitely WOULD have mentioned it because it would have seemed TO neat not to have. Carky you have no idea how people lie,why they lie...what their thinking is as they construct the lie...none of it...neither do I....so feel free not to guess at their technique would ya? Bigfoot Fan constantly and consistently does this...they guess at motive and they guess at what someone would do while lying,what their lie should sound like,what a good lie sounds like,what a bad lie sounds like etc etc.......mostly I guess because it helps you rationalize the fact that it's still nothing but a story...a tale......useless anecdotal evidence.
There is no way?!?! How do you know this?? You do not know me other than what you have read on this forum and already you KNOW I wouldn't shoot a gorilla or a Bigfeet? Do you Bigfeet apologists jump to conclusions without actual proof to substantiate them in everything you do? Listen Carky ol bean you have exactly as much reason to believe I wouldn't shoot a Bigfeet as you do to believe there even is a Bigfeet. The difference being...
You WANT to Bleev there's a Bigfeet don't ya,but you don't want to Bleev me....isn't that true??
Yes I was guessing....counterguessing actually...it's all guesswork Carky. The point being that you and I have NO IDEA what an individual will do in a given situation....you like to think you do though don't ya?
Now why wasn't this lumped together with the previous excerpt...it's all basically the same topic...methinks you belabor this Gorill-la-la-la thing a bit to much...but I'll play along...
I know exactly zero people who have blown the head off a gorilla...because I know exactly zero people who have come in contact with one outside of our local zoo. You see Carky there's not a whole lot of free range Gorill-la-la-la here in Arizona.If there was though I know at least five (including myself) guys who would blow the head clean off of one if given the chance. Of course this is just our story.....so how about giving us the same leeway you give Mr Macdonald in terms of Bleevin stories...huh.
Yes?? Why because he said so?? Carky given that you Bleev in Bigfeetsus I already know your gullible...but once again you have no idea whether he's lying or not...and then you attach motive or possible motive by saying these hunters aren't seeking attention or money and fame.
Carky my brother a few friends and I are pretty good at doing accents...Canadian,Eastern Bloc Euro sounding,New Yorker,Southern etc we used to do this at parties where the fairer sex was few and far between or just because we were bored. We did this for our own entertainment...mostly to see if we could pull it off. No big production...no look everybody we're from Chicago!! Just common ordinary conversation that one would expect to have at a party.If we convinced people well enough,which was often, we left the party having NEVER let them in on the gag...why did we do it? Just for the hell of it basically. So resist the urge to attach motive to anyone who is lying or deceiving...you have no idea why anyone does it.
Am I saying this guy IS lying? No. I'm saying you may never know if he is or isn't...so why guess at it? Unless your trying to bolster your precarious position of Bigfeet rationalization of course.
Quite obviously?!?! Did Roge ever say that he thought they were? Or are you once again...........wildly speculating??
Yes take note ...an alleged pre-agreement not to shoot smacks of hoax to me...also take note that if they thought that video would be enough than ...well they were either stupid...or making it up. They had a gun,they had a shot...they didn't take it.....that's bullschlitz.
What if a frog had wings Carky?!?! Seems to me all you have been doing is making up reasons NOT TO shoot. You need one shot dead Carky.....or at the very least tranquillized...but either will do,yet you keep trying to explain away why a person shouldn't shoot one....explanations and excuses...that seems to be all you people do. You explain away why they didn't search for the arse and settled for the (alleged) arse Print..even when the arse couldn't have been more than a few hours ahead of them....You explain away why Paul Freeman's involvement with the casts including dermal ridges is ok....you excuse the fact that Cripplefoot basically happened in Ivan Marx's (aka serial hoaxer) hometown....nothing but excuses and rhetoric. Find the stinking ape already would ya!!
No Carky I do not,but that street heads both ways you know.So do you have personal experience to say it would??
Carky?!?!?! I was merely addressing your shoot or not to shoot reasoning.It was just a hypothetical possible thing he could have done. If'n he was a'scurred...he should have shot it and marked his way back to his truck...but he didn't so this...apparently because much like you,Fuddster and the rest of the Rank-n-File...he to thinks stories are good enough...this just in.........THEYRE NOT!!
There is a town here in Arizona where I'm from named Camp Verde. It's about halfway between Phoenix (desert) and Flagstaff (pine forest).For years people have been claiming to have seen Mountain Lion in and around Camp Verde although they are not known to be in this area. Now these are just stories but I tend to give them some credence.Why? Well mostly because Mountain Lions have been proven to exist,we have them in zoos all over the place...they have been observed,classified,studied,shot,cut open,tested etc...heck I've even seen one in the wild...so why not Camp Verde? Just a few hours south of where they are fairly common in Arizona...maybe they got lost or something.
For basically the same reasoning I also believe your grandfather. There is a place called Burma,people from Japan,and WW2 did in fact happen...so yes I would lean towards giving your grandfather the benefit of the doubt in this instance. I mean it's not like he claimed to have been fighting Cylons on Epsilon 7 in the great lightsabre battle of the third age or something outlandish like that.
Carky like I said earlier...believing people are capable of doing just that doesn't fit snugly into your bleef system so you have discarded it. Suffice to say...people who can and will do exactly what you described are commonplace...even if you don't personally know any of them.
Yeah but when youre broke...or poor.....time IS money. If one doesn't go to work one cannot make money....unless they won the lottery or have rich folks I guess. Roge from what I've read...was broke..or least just below poor..he also had a family correct and must have needed money for a few things didn't he... yet he schlepped off into the woods for 3 weeks and(allegedly)filmed a Bigfoot so I was saying...why not others than? Well seemingly because no one can afford to take that much TIME...off their real world jobs to chase after something that at absolute best (and being verrrrrrrry generous here)....is higly unlikely to exist.
Brilliant suit?!?! I guess that's in the eye of the beholder there Carky. I know Bigfoot nation BLEEVS that no one in Hollywood could make a suit like this and that it's real...but Rick Baker,John Vulich and Stan Winston among others all believe differently....so cherry pick your experts all you want it changes nothing.
Ok so camping is cheaper big deal.....what does that prove?
Ahhh yes...BUT...I do KNOW what is more plausible. People and silly suits are proven to exist. Hoaxing has been proven to happen...Bigfeetsus on the other hand has not...here's links for my backup to these outlandish claims..
http://http://www.marianopolis.edu/al/gallery/St_Patricks_Day/admiring%20crowds.JPG
http://http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/pics/dawn11.jpg
http://http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/bigfoothoaxes.html
So which one seems more plausible Carky?
Ok interesting BUT.....They didn't specify what the hair sample was compared to. Did they compare it to animals known to be in the region or to every animal known to science? Also,didn't they dig up a mammoth in Russia that had hair on it? Not that I'm saying it's mammoth hair but did they test all this hair against all the animals that used to inhabit the region as well? The article I read isn't very specific..any insights?
Oh and by the way it's been almost six years since this happened...whatever became of this amazing find by the way?
This of course based on your personal opinion of what constitutes "genuine" right?
Actually you have no REASON to BLEEV they exist...you just elect to.
All Ghosts,UFOs,Crop Circles,Lake Monsters etc have are pictures,video and stories going for them to so.......yes I'm prepared to say that Bigfeet doesn't have more or less going for it than the rest of these woo Bleef's
There ya go guessing again Carky....I've never said anything of the sort. I just have a higher burden of proof than you...or anybody else that Bleevs in Bigfeetsus is all.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
DeAtley, Roger's brother-in-law funded the trip. Gimlin paid his own way.
There are several groups spending time in the field, but there's no ongoing, well-funded expedition at this time that I know of.
The much-maligned Paul Freeman went out about three times a week and brought in quite a bit of evidence, including the 1994 footage. The mere mention of his name is enough to send the scoftics into paroxysms of laughter.
There've been a number of samples that match each other but no known mammal. They have primate charateristics or are simply called "unknown". One was grouped with humans, chimps and gorillas, but was a match for none of them.
In one case, the samples were destroyed in the testing.
I read something recently about the "Yeti" sample. They still hadn't been able to match it and it was the first time they hadn't been able to identify a DNA sample. I'll try tio find the source.
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
Well, we have a story, a picture (or more precisely footage), 2 witnesses as well as track casts in the case of the P/G scenario...............but it still means nothing to you doesn't it? I can't see what difference an obscure picture of a something standing 150 yards away would make to you.
Why? YOU are doing it. YOU are guessing. You just did so in your above paragraph LOL. Is this more board fascism from you? Do you get some kind of weird kick out of deciding for me what I am not allowed to speculate about hehe?? Do you also own a whip as well as a rifle?
Wooooo, slow down skipper. All I said was that if he was lying it would be better to not even mention the camera. That's all I said. That's what I would do.
Anecdotes are not neccesarily 'useless'. In the case of Mike Macdonald's encounter he was at least telling the truth about where he was. We know that much. His descriptions of the area and his journey there were later corroborated by Tom Steenburg. You might find his story 'useless'. Good for you. It isn't 'useless' to me. I find it interesting, especially as it is one of the few alleged encounters where an alleged witness watched one of these alleged creatures for some time (approx ten minutes) and the alleged creature had no idea it was being watched and was acting in a rather natural manner.
Bob Heironimous' anecdote about travelling to Bluff Creek is not 'useless'. He's been busted on it. It's been established by independant parties that the journey to Bluff Creek is nothing like how he described it, suggesting heavily that he was lying and didn't do his homework good enough to fool those savvy enough to follow up on his claims.
Where does 'bigfeet' come into it? The 'debate' was that in no way do I believe you would blast the head off the shoulders of a GORILLA in a heartbeat if you were to encounter one in the woods. Who was talking about you shooting a bigfoot? I wasn't. It was GORILLA that was the debate, not a bigfoot. We'll start off with gorilla and then progress from there ok?
The amount of people (even hunters) who would in a heartbeat blast a gorilla is infinitesimally small. The odds are not in your favour. Bravado is one thing, actions are another. I don't believe you would blast a gorilla in a heartbeat no matter how much you protest that you would.
I don't 'believe' you would blast the head off the shoulders of a gorilla in a heartbeat if you were to encounter one in the woods....so the answer to the second part of your question is yes.
Moving on to bigfoot, no I do not believe you would shoot a bigfoot in a heartbeat. I don't believe you would 'in a heartbeat' have the mental condition and strength to overcome your initial shock and surprise on encountering such a creature to be able to blast it 'in a heartbeat'. By the time you'd gathered your thoughts and got your brain in gear (if indeed you managed to do that at all) it would most likely be too late.
I would have no qualms about claiming via an internet message board that I would make a parachute jump. It's an easy thing to claim. However, as soon as the reality of actually doing it would become evident to me, I probably wouldn't be able to jump out of the plane.LOL.
Then why did you insuinuate that you DO know? This was your earlier comment:
""I don't believe that most people would NOT if given the chance.""
It seemed to be ok for you to speculate and guess but when I do then suddenly it's not cricket. Bizarre!!
Suuuuuuuuuuure you do. Suuuuuuuuuuure you do. It's easy to say this isn't it??
Story? What story? I can't see a story. I can see a pronouncement you made...completely out of left field with no supporting correlation for it. It wasn't a story.
No, not gullible. I don't believe in everything to do with sasquatch. That would make me gullible. Hell, I don't even believe many things to do with sasquatch. I'm actually pretty skeptical when it comes to a lot of sasquatch lore.
Speaking of gullible, if I believed you when you said you would blast the head off the shoulders of a gorilla in a heartbeat then that would make me gullible, but seeing as I don't believe you then I guess I'm not as gullible as you would like to believe. How 'bout that?
Well they aren't.
Why guess at it? Who's 'guessing'? I accept what they have said. No guessing about it. I have no doubts that they are telling the truth.
Look at his drawings. Little or no apelike characteristics. A widely held assumption in the 1950s and 1960s was (I believe) that sasquatches were 'some kind' of giant human. It seems to me that Patterson also had those same views. The evidence of his drawings and sketches would suggest that was the case. It doesn't look to me that Patterson thought they were apelike as others suggest they might be. Green for example believes they are a variety of bipedal ape and are not as human as others have thought. Bindernagel would also seem to share Green's view.
Well I should think everything to do with the P/G footage smacks of a hoax to you.....because you don't BLEEV....and nothing is going to change your mind about it.
Why stupid or making it up? How about naive? Back in '67 I don't think it would have been 'stupid' to think that footage taken from 100 yards away as well as a good trackway would be enough. I can understand Roger for getting excited and thinking he had hit the jackpot and that the movie would suffice.
Not everybody is a killer. You need to get out more and mix in different circles. I think your bloodlust is affecting your perspective.
A flying Frenchman? What a bizarre thought.
No, I've explained why some people armed with guns who have encountered them haven't shot one. It's a fairly logical explanation. You have to get away from this idea that everyone is a born killer who can blast anything in a heartbeat. This isn't the reality of life.
I agree. I am not against it.
No I haven't. I have explained why they HAVEN'T shot one, not why they SHOULDN'T shoot one. I don't believe they SHOULDN'T be shot.
Yeah but you gotta admit, the explanations are brilliant and logical aren't they? You haven't managed to refute them at any rate.
Because it was there in front of them.
...in the mountain forests of the PNW. It wasn't in the deserts of Arizona.
Well was Freeman proven to have been a hoaxer?
With all due respect, Marx was a pretty crap hoaxer. Cripple Foot's tracks were/are anything but crap. Marx's crappy hoaxes were all established.
Then why still be interested in debating these excuses and rhetoric? Haven't you got anything better to do..........like blasting the head off the shoulders of a gorilla in a heartbeat?
Fund me to spend 6 months straight in coastal BC or south east Alaska and I'll have a damn good try.
I didn't say it would though. I suggested it might. You were insinuting that you know as a fact that it wouldn't. There was a difference in our two comments.
People who would as a 'matter of fact like' kill a sasquatch and start hacking away at it's body in the middle of nowhere with no thoughts or worries about anything else are 'commonplace' are they?
Because it's not an easy thing to do. Having said that, I know of a Chinese guy who left home for ten years and lived in the woods of China all that time searching for the Yeren. All he ever had were three brief and obscure sightings I believe and found a few tracks.
Yes, we all know what John Vulich and Optic Nerve came up with for the BBC...Fuzzy Orange Furball Man LOL. Light years ahead of Patty hey?
FX folks talk a great fight. Hell, Bob Mattey convinced Spielberg his mechanical great white shark would do anything he wanted it to do.....and more. Did it in actuality? Nope. Most FX folks, by their very nature, are optimists who believe anything is possible (even when it isn't). There are comparatively very few FX folks who are honest about the situation. I'm sure Rick Baker thought his King Kong suit would look convincing.LOL. Speaking of Baker's '76 King Kong suit and his 1980s Harry suit, face apart, those two suits were dissapointing at best....and that was the best Hollywood could come up with???? Where is the muscle and mass definition on Harry? Where is his bulk?
Why didn't all these Hollywood FX folks use their expertese and come up with better bigfoot suits than they have done? There have been a few recent bigfoot movies. Have you seen any GREAT bigfoot suit yet?
It proves that you didn't have much of an argument because you said he didn't have money so how could he afford to camp out all that time while I countered that it would have been cheaper than hoaxing a film.
Those links aren't working for me. All I'm getting is links to Http something or other.
As far as I know, it was compared to just about everything a hair sample can possibly be compared to, including species native to the area and elsewhere. Dr Sykes appeared on a documentary talking about this. He seemed genuinely stumped and shocked that he coudn't identify it and never would have thought it would have ended up in a mystery.
As LAL said, as far as I know it is still unidentified and the matter has not been resolved. Clearly there is or was an animal with unknown and unidentifiable DNA living in the Himalayas in Bhutan.
On top of what LAL has written about hair samples in the U.S.A there have also been hair samples collected from China that were both analysed by scientific organisations in both China and England and pronounced as primate but cannot be matched to any other samples. In essence, according to the analysis performed in China and England, there is/was an unknown primate living in China that differs from monkeys, apes and humans.
Yes, of course. Personal opinions are allowed right?
I elect to because the REASONS persuade me to.
Any physical evidence for any of the above? I count tracks and hair samples as physical evidence (though not physical proof). Is there consistent persuasiveness about lake monsters for example? If you consider the Loch Ness reports, they are very varied and inconsistent compared to sasquatch.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
As a matter of fact...
Explain how you know this isn't a ' real ' Bigfoot, or why it doesn't look like one.
1) I've seen that suit used in a number of television commercials. Unless the advertisers recruited a bigfoot, taught him to act, filmed those commercials with him so trained, then released the bigfoot back into the wilderness, I'd assume it was a man in a suit.
2) Of course, I could be wrong and that is precisely what happened, but I'm working with common sense here. But call me a skeptic and give me evidence otherwise.
Now let's see a rodeo rider on the current rodeo circuit use that suit (or another suit of like quality) on a riverbank in the wilderness, complete with footprints on site, casted, and with an independent party of timber cruisers visiting on the scene the next day photographing those footprints, and let's see him do it nearly 40 years ago.
Show me.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Very good ... ( Of course you need to show the advertisors didn't do those things, and why would they have had to release it ? )
Now part B ..
Do you think it might look like a real Bigfoot ..
If so, how did the makers of that suit know ?
If not, then why would you think this .....
.... does ?
The bottom line is, no movie or photo would work today; only a living specimen or a corpse ..
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Or maybe they evaluated the avaliable information and considered it as unreliable, inconclusive, surrounded by frauds...
I would say a possibility is that they concluded bigfeet are not real after evaluating the presented evidence. Don't you think its possible?
So, what's stopping some of them to knock at Meldrum's door and say "Hello, I'm an experienced hunter and I would like to help you bringing a specimen".
One of my friends told me the following story: His game farm has a couple of white rhinos. Hunting them is not allowed, but there was this client that would give an arm to hunt one. Owner said OK, but under my terms. The client accepted. He got a rifle with tranquilizer darts and gave it to the client. BANG! Rhino goes ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Vets go and make rhino's periodic check up, happy hunter poses for pics besides his "kill" and happy farm owner now has 50K bucks at his pocket.
I guess you've got the picture.
Then you and/or someone else obtained bear specimens.
Diamonds are more valuable than amethysts. Just because of this people make much more effort to find diamonds than amethysts... And usually people "hunt" diamonds -as well as any mineral commodity- without being sure that they are where they are looking for. And spend a lot of money doing so. The $$$ that will come from a discovery compensates a lot of flawed attempts. But we have reliable evidence that mineral commodities are real. See the analogy?
Bigfeet would be the holy graal, the big diamond, the motherlode, etc. for any mammlogist, wildlife photographers and even hunters. If they considered the "pro" evidence as reliable, they would try to grab it with their teeth if needed. The evidence might seem good for you. But this is a far cry from saying that then it must be good for anyone else.
Now, lets supposed bigfeet are real and much rarer than bears.
What we're talking about when it comes to the "bigfoot hot spot" can only be compared to your example (bears gathering to catch salmon) if the sightings are clustered at a given month of the years. Something like say, within a 5 years period, a statistically significant majority of sightings are from April. Bigfeet would be gathering there at acertain time of the year for some reason (eat a certain fruit, mate, enjoy the season, a rock festival, whatever).
The "bigfeet hot spots" however, does not seem to follow such pattern (no, Green's alleged link with rain is not a similar match). The pattern would be better interpreted as the product of territorial animals. They just are hanging around there. Thus evidence such as pictures, hairs, droppings and an eventual "deceasedfoot" could be produced.
Animals are creatures of habits, and you know that. That's one of the things that makes hunting possible. They use the same trails, have a restricted territory, have the same behavior, they are predictable... This would make possible to capture bigfeet in film, digital media or a critter itself - but only if they were real. An appeal for a "higher intelligence" does not help also, because humans can also be ambushed due to similar traits.
carcharodon,
The above comments also apply to your reply. I will add that I find very strange that a single wildlife photgrapher was interested and that he never managed to get support for a better field trip?
Not only these folks work at places at least as difficult as PNW but also there are lots of sighting reports from backyards...
I don't know if it was a man in a suit or a real sasquatch. That's why I added point two:
So, do you have some evidence that it is truly a sasquatch and not a man in a suit? Please fill me in...............
I don't know. The face is pretty good, but it doesn't mesh with what we've seen in the PG film.
I haven't seen the rest of the subject well enough to comment, especially it's movement.
I don't know what they know or don't know.
Because the body in movement looks more like an animal to me than a man in a suit, especially 1967 suit technology that might have been available to a horse wrangler.
For folks like yourself, that's right.
Well congratulations! You finally got tired of playing cat and mouse and answered your own question to your satisfaction.
Happy now? Is that game completed?
Of course it's possible. This forum clearly illustrates that many people are of that opinion.
The same thing that stops me from doing so:
1) I haven't got the money/assets/etc to invest in such a hunt
2) I don't think Meldrum is of the "kill it" camp
Yup.
The "hunter" is one of those SCI/B&C guys who needs to have his photo taken next to "dead" animals of every type (or even color) to fill their game rooms. I've known lots of them, some of them very well, some of them very famous, and I'm not of the same mold.
So you're asking why some of them don't go hunting for sasquatches? Hell, I don't know. I suppose because they don't believe sasquatches exist, have other priorities, realize that it might require a whole bunch of effort to possibly no effect, etc.
I suppose you'd like to give us your opinion so that we can end this line of questioning to your satisfaction?
Yup. A bunch of other species "specimens", too.
So? Because I haven't eaten a sasquatch means exactly what?
Of course. And that is occurring today in sasquatchery.
Behold Matt Moneymaker and his marketing of bigfoot expeditions. Behold other hoaxers trying to sell bigfoot "evidence".
The moneychangers are there.
So what?
This forum proves that without question.
So?
Yes, Green's observation of sasquatch report frequencies in areas of >20" rain not only is a significant data observation, it also fits with black bear habitat.
Yes, in relation to the total density of such creatures even in their "hottest" locations.
Again, all correct, and in relation to the total density of such creatures even in their "hottest" locations.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
OK, so, wildlife photographers and hunters may consider the evidence pro bigfoot as inconclusive, unreliable, etc. Wildlife photographers seems to consider PGF's subject as unworthy of attention. And they are probably pretty good at detecting muscle movment, etc.
Regarding (1), I bet there are hunters that could potentially invest in such a hunt. And in respect to (2), I think I left clear that use of tranquilizers was an option, so there's no need to kill it.
These are not obstacles. The real obstacles are the quality of evidence and the lingering shadow of hoaxes.
Regardless of our opinions on the motivations of that specific person, the main points are:
a) There are people with enough money and time to engage in such a hunt. That was U$50K alone for shooting the rhino, add to this travel costs and the $$ required for hunting at the game farm (anything from 300 to 3K bucks IIRC).
b) Hunters that could help may be considering bigfeet are a myth. And they may be right, don't you think?
Read above.
Have you ever eaten a monkey?
*OK, here's when the ladies at the audience faint*
I have. Not bad, if propperly prepared, but there are better things to eat. Tips:
For those with weak stomachs, stand aside and do not look at the stages starting at the skinning and ending at the cooking. Just ask someone to bring you a dish with a piece of meat. Oh, make sure the person will not put an arm at your plate... Eating without knowing what it is may be the best way to go.
Now, of course the problem is not if you or I have ever eaten or not some primate, and you know it. The problem is that no specimen has been obtained!!!!
He, and I'm the one who play games
...Who's talking about BFROs's bigfoot "expedition"?
Its an analogy, a parable!
Let me make it even clearer: I'm talking about people who would have real interest on the subject, because its in a way of another related to their proffessional activity. People who would be involved if the "pro" pieces of evidence were better, if there weren't so many hoaxes, and if some "bigfoot-are-real" folks would stop trying to legitimate "evidence" that may be hoaxes and mistakes.
Got a problem with people disagreeing with you?
Nope. The example I gave was about a periodic, seasonal clustering of animals. As I wrote, the sighting reports from the "hot spot" would have to be clustered at a given number of days within each year. Ex: Year 1: 6 sightings at April, 1 sighting at July; year 2: 10 sightings at April; year 3: 3 sightings at April, 1 at March, 1 at May, 1 at November. That's the pattern I'm talking about. If its not present, but what you have is either an homogeneous or an irregular distribution, chances are the number of specimens being sighted remains relatively unchanged through the years. Warning: if the sighting peak coincides with hollidays, then its probably just a bias due to the greater number of potential witnesses.
Got the difference?
So, lets suppose there are just a few individuals at the "hot spot". They've been there for a long time. Their behavior follows a pattern, and if scientists can find and keep track of a few snow leopards at the Himalayas, tigers and orang-utangs at some Jungle at Asia, manned wolves and jaguars at Brazil...
Bigfeet, if they were real, could be tracked. Bigfeet poo, hairs, pics and even specimens would be avaliable.
Uhhhhh..............yeah.
Uhhhh.............maybe.
Regarding #1, those hunters have plenty of scored species to bag before they're "bagged" themselves, and regarding #2, the use of tranquilizers would require the expressed written permission of the government.
For you?
Okay.
Yeah. Big deal. I've already pointed out that harvesting a brown bear in Alaska is a $20,000 deal.
There is no quoted price on the head of a bigfoot. Shooting one in Alaska is against the law.
Sure. They may be right.
And they may be wrong.........."don't you think"?
Not the whole thing, but I got a taste.
I wasn't impressed.
Yeah. I agree.
Of course not. Most folks do.
How about you?
No, they don't "have to be." They might.
They do, with respect to climatic precipitation and black bear habitat.
That would be a very valuable pattern, and such patterns may or may not appear within sasquatch reporting data.
That's right: if scientists can do so with the above mentioned species, they can also likely do so with sasquatches.
To bad they don't, and don't even try.
They are. It's just a matter of collection, identification, classification, storage, and study.
- Status