Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

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.

Ah, an individual might have problems getting the permits.

But a group of individuals linked to a bonna-fide institution such as ISU would?

Heck, you don't even need a specific project for going after a bigfoot.
It can be piggybacked at some major project. Put it under the umbrella of something like "Big mammals from North America" and go ahead.

For you?

Okay.

It doesn't seem that I am the only one who considers the avaliable evidence as flimsy and surrounded by hoaxes.

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.

Big deal? Maybe, but enough to serve as a starting point. Get two persons willing to provide this ammount of money and now you have 100K dollars to back you "bigfoot-hunting" expedition. That may not involve a specimen (dead or alive), but merely footage, DNA, etc.

Now, if the evidence to back the "bigfeet are real" is flimsy and surrounded by hoaxes, who will invest?

Sure. They may be right.

And they may be wrong.........."don't you think"?

Yes. I may be wrong, and maybe there are real bigfeet around. However, the evidence so far avaliable to back their existence as real animals is inconclusive at best.

Of course not. Most folks do.

How about you?

Of course not. As long as the dialogue is productive and polite. There's always the hope of learning something new.

No, they don't "have to be." They might.

Let me expand a bit.

If the data is good enough to obtain reliable data on the creature's behavior, as some claim, then the patterns I mentioned should be recognizable.

Unless the data is not that good.

They do, with respect to climatic precipitation and black bear habitat.

And maybe that's exactly what's the data and its interpretation are all about. The relationship between black bear population and anual rainfall...

That would be a very valuable pattern, and such patterns may or may not appear within sasquatch reporting data.

See above.

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.

Well, given the quality of the avaliable data, honestly, I can't blame them. Tracking a myth is not the stuff biologists do.

They are. It's just a matter of collection, identification, classification, storage, and study.

Well, as I -and other posters around here- have already written, the fact that no reliable evidence has been obtained so far is a major obstacle. The many hoaxes are also an embarassment for those who defend the claim.

But I doubt any biologist, ranger, geologist, wildlife photographer, hiker, hunter, mountaineer, [add outdoor activity here] would have missed a bigfoot corpse. And you don't need to be looking for something in the wilderness to find it.

Charcarodon & LAL:
"Unidentified" means unidentified, and that's as far as it can go. It may or may not be from a yeti or bigfoot.
But look at the quote:

"We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything else we have so far been able to identify. It's a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn’t recognize before."

It means they were not able to say where it cam from!!!
Note that the "not human, not a bear nor anything else" may also mean "not primate". They could at least figure out if the DNA sample was from a primate. Now, this would be interesting. But the actual situation is that as always, its inconclusive at best.

Again, if the evidence were as good as some claim it is (PGF included) people would be flocking at Meldrum's door offering help. But, so far...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.........

Maybe if you knew what you were typing about, you would know that one cannot traipse about in the woods with a tranquilizer gun without the proper permits.

Of course one can.. Since when do laws keep people from doing things they want to do anyway..

You keep talking about meese and bears, when the subject is Bigfoot ..

Do you really think if someone had the chance to tranquilize a Bigfoot, but they lacked the proper permit, they would just keep on walking ?

Stop being so contradictory.. You scream that there is not any serious government
or scientific attention to this phenomenon, then you weasel around the idea that
no one would jump on the chance to bag a Squatch 'cause they don't have
a permit...

It's just your lame excuse for the fact that no one has dropped one yet; while we all really know the most likely reason..


Enough of the denial ..
Stop being goofy ..

 

[William Parcher]

Being the first person to confirm Bigfoot ought to make anyone a millionaire. That doesn't seem to change anything however. Bigfoot always has a million dollar bounty on his head. Most folks don't act like does. You'd think the forests would be swarming with people wanting to be an instant winner.

 

[Huntster]

Oh dear lord. Sorewing is here on JREF.

Yup.

Howdy, soarwing.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

Ah, an individual might have problems getting the permits.

But a group of individuals linked to a bonna-fide institution such as ISU would?

Precisely, at least in the state of Alaska, I'm sure with U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands, and likely with most other states and provinces.

So the point remains; without qualifications and credentials, the attempt to use a tranquilizer gun isn't legal without permitting, and it's very possible to get caught by the authorities if in the woods with a tranquilizer gun or snitched out by others if one was to try it.

Heck, you don't even need a specific project for going after a bigfoot.
It can be piggybacked at some major project. Put it under the umbrella of something like "Big mammals from North America" and go ahead.

It doesn't matter if one is hunting sasquatches, extraterrestrial aliens, moose, or coyotes with a tranquilizer gun. It will require permitting, and that will require qualifications and credentials.

Originally Posted by Huntster
For you?

Okay.

It doesn't seem that I am the only one who considers the avaliable evidence as flimsy and surrounded by hoaxes.

Correct. There are plenty of like-minded people here who share your views.

Mad Horn, for example.......................

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

Big deal? Maybe, but enough to serve as a starting point. Get two persons willing to provide this ammount of money and now you have 100K dollars to back you "bigfoot-hunting" expedition. That may not involve a specimen (dead or alive), but merely footage, DNA, etc.

The point here is that a hunting guide, who provides such things as camping equipment, remote transportation, fuel, gear, and food in addition to knowledge of the quarry and guidance in the field isn't cheap.

And there are no hunting guides that I know of that have enough knowledge and expertise to guide sasquatch hunters, because if there were, discovery would have taken place.

Now, if the evidence to back the "bigfeet are real" is flimsy and surrounded by hoaxes, who will invest?

Very few, if any.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sure. They may be right.

And they may be wrong.........."don't you think"?

Yes. I may be wrong, and maybe there are real bigfeet around. However, the evidence so far avaliable to back their existence as real animals is inconclusive at best.

Correct. Inconclusive. We have evidence, but not proof.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, they don't "have to be." They might.

Let me expand a bit.

If the data is good enough to obtain reliable data on the creature's behavior, as some claim, then the patterns I mentioned should be recognizable.

Unless the data is not that good.

Apparently the data is not yet that good.

However, it is good enough to show that areas with high precipitation and high black bear densities produce greater frequencies of sasquatch reports.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They do, with respect to climatic precipitation and black bear habitat.

And maybe that's exactly what's the data and its interpretation are all about. The relationship between black bear population and anual rainfall...

However, these sightings involve creatures that look, behave, and walk differently than black bears.

Originally Posted by Huntster
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.

Well, given the quality of the avaliable data, honestly, I can't blame them. Tracking a myth is not the stuff biologists do.

Nor are they able to discern the difference between myth and reality in this case.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They are. It's just a matter of collection, identification, classification, storage, and study.

Well, as I -and other posters around here- have already written, the fact that no reliable evidence has been obtained so far is a major obstacle. The many hoaxes are also an embarassment for those who defend the claim.

And as other posters have pointed out, some evidence hasn't been established as hoaxed, even though attempts to do so haven't borne fruit.

But I doubt any biologist, ranger, geologist, wildlife photographer, hiker, hunter, mountaineer, [add outdoor activity here] would have missed a bigfoot corpse. And you don't need to be looking for something in the wilderness to find it.

I believe any have, because I have yet to discover a bigfoot corpse.

I've never found a wolverine or polar bear corpse, either.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
.........

Maybe if you knew what you were typing about, you would know that one cannot traipse about in the woods with a tranquilizer gun without the proper permits.

Of course one can.. Since when do laws keep people from doing things they want to do anyway..

Since after being caught, one is usually "disciplined."

Of course, some aren't. They're known as "criminals."

You keep talking about meese and bears, when the subject is Bigfoot ..

With regard to the use of tranquilizer guns, it doesn't matter if we're talking moose, bear, sasquatch, or squirrel. You need the permit, or you're breaking the law, just like if you're hunting them with a firearm you need a hunting license, permit, conduct the activity during the regulated season, and follow a myriad of other regulations.

You're lack of understanding this is obvious and telling.

Do you really think if someone had the chance to tranquilize a Bigfoot, but they lacked the proper permit, they would just keep on walking ?

Do you really think people are wandering the woods with a tranquilizer gun because of the possibility of tranquilizing a sasquatch?

I have a virtual armory of hunting firearms. I do not have a tranquilizer gun, have never had one, and if I did, I wouldn't be dragging it out in the woods with my other gear.

Stop being so contradictory.. You scream that there is not any serious government
or scientific attention to this phenomenon, then you weasel around the idea that
no one would jump on the chance to bag a Squatch 'cause they don't have
a permit...

You're playing games.

What does "jump on the chance" mean?

It's just your lame excuse for the fact that no one has dropped one yet; while we all really know the most likely reason..

You are illustrating the primary reasons no one has "dropped one":

ignorance and/or denial, on top of the sheer difficulty.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Hey, no snappy comment on the UNIDENFIFIABLE DNA gathered at the scene of a Yeti sighting in Bhutan, which matches nothing else?? Dr Sykes ("one of the world's leading experts on DNA analysis") said he has NEVER before come across DNA he cannot identify.

Is that 'evidence' enough for you? Or do you choose to ignore it because your stubborn closed mind chooses not to 'bleev'?

I'm sorry, unidentifiable DNA doesn't necessarily point to a Yeti or a Sasquatch.

 

[soarwing]

Yup.

Howdy, soarwing.

- - Howdy howdy.

Yeah Right is right.
Unidentifiable DNA does not mean that the Yeti or sasquatch exists.

Seems that most of the skeptics are attacking the tabloid bigfoot strawman around here. I can understand that - we've been fed a steady diet of the "I shot bigfoot" types in the supermarket rags, but I'm not sure why cryptozoologists are considered "fools" because of it.

Crucifying cryptozoology in general because of a predetermined opinion about what can and what cannot exist is the foolish thing. Even Randi acknowledges this and points out that cryptozoology has produced results.

But back to the DNA.

Even if the DNA was from a yeti or whatever, it's still not enough. We need a specimen (if they exist) to make it stick. Even then, there would be difficulty because there is always the possibility of a "freak" of nature or whatever the case may be.

But the fact remains that bigfoot-like creatures are real. They lived and died and left fossils to study. The question is whether they're still around, not whether they're real or not.

"Bigfoot" as a phenomenon is tainted with hoaxing and charlatans and media hacks, but I think it is a mistake to base one's view of the subject one way or the other based on what the Weekly World News is reporting.

Bigfoot enthusiasts get put into the tabloid pigeonhole without a second thought most of the time.

 

[LTC8K6]

But the fact remains that bigfoot-like creatures are real. They lived and died and left fossils to study.

Negative, Ghostrider....

 

[soarwing]

[FONT=&quot]Ever hear of Australopithecus afarensis, africanus, robustus or boisei ? –

Bigfoot-like creatures are as real as anything else in the fossil record. They might not have been as large as some of the bigfeet in the reports have claimed, but they are real, bigfoot-like animals. This is as undeniable as the existence of gravity.

Bigfoot - if it exists - could be one of them or a very close relative.[/FONT]

 

[LTC8K6]

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any bigfoot-like creatures, present or past.

There isn't even a set description of bigfoot in the first place.

Look at all the different kinds of feet it apparently has, for example.

And no, I don't mean alligator-foot.

 

[Huntster]

...I'm sorry, unidentifiable DNA doesn't necessarily point to a Yeti or a Sasquatch.

Correct.

It establishes that there was DNA found that cannot be matched to known fauna of the area.

 

[Huntster]

....Crucifying cryptozoology in general because of a predetermined opinion about what can and what cannot exist is the foolish thing. Even Randi acknowledges this and points out that cryptozoology has produced results.

It may be valuable to differentiate between a skeptic and a denialist.

 

[Correa Neto]

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any bigfoot-like creatures, present or past.

There isn't even a set description of bigfoot in the first place.

Look at all the different kinds of feet it apparently has, for example.

And no, I don't mean alligator-foot.

Hmm...

In this case he may have a point, depending, of course on how he defines bigfoot-like creatures. If the criteria are just "big ape" then Gigantopithecus is a match. If its just "bipedal ape", Australopithecus and some other genus (including some species from the Homo) are a match.

Now, a tighter (and more usefull) definition would include size, bipedalism and geographic distribution (it could be fine-tunned to include a better definition of the creature's looks). And in this case, there are no matches.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

[FONT=&quot]Ever hear of Australopithecus afarensis, africanus, robustus or boisei ? –

Bigfoot-like creatures are as real as anything else in the fossil record. They might not have been as large as some of the bigfeet in the reports have claimed, but they are real, bigfoot-like animals. This is as undeniable as the existence of gravity.

Bigfoot - if it exists - could be one of them or a very close relative.[/FONT]

That is certainly possible Soarwing, but surely you realize that is not the thrust of the debate here, or at BFF.. Particularly where the PGF is concerned.

The platinum evidence for Bigfoot are clown feet prints .. Nothing like any known creatures past or present, unless you want to count Bozo ..

_____________

Belated welcome. I hope you will venture out into some of the other discussions here. I'm confident you could make a worthwhile contribution.

 

[Correa Neto]

Precisely, at least in the state of Alaska, I'm sure with U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands, and likely with most other states and provinces.

So the point remains; without qualifications and credentials, the attempt to use a tranquilizer gun isn't legal without permitting, and it's very possible to get caught by the authorities if in the woods with a tranquilizer gun or snitched out by others if one was to try it.

It doesn't matter if one is hunting sasquatches, extraterrestrial aliens, moose, or coyotes with a tranquilizer gun. It will require permitting, and that will require qualifications and credentials.

In case you have not noticed, the type of expeditions I proposed include qualified people. There would be no permit problems, be it to sedate one or to actually kill one. Not to mention that there's no need for a permit to shoot pictures...

Permits are not the problem. The problem is the nature of data. Flimsy evidence and wild speculations mixed with hoaxes will not attract people with the required qualifications.

Correct. There are plenty of like-minded people here who share your views.

Mad Horn, for example.......................

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance of the sentences above to the case in point.

The point here is that a hunting guide, who provides such things as camping equipment, remote transportation, fuel, gear, and food in addition to knowledge of the quarry and guidance in the field isn't cheap.

And there are no hunting guides that I know of that have enough knowledge and expertise to guide sasquatch hunters, because if there were, discovery would have taken place.

Ain't cheap but ain't impossible.

If the data were as reliable and as significant as its claimed, then speculations could be made that would help finding the critters. They're supposed to be animals, remember? Predictable.

The local guide would just need to be used to the region and to the "known" animals.

Very few, if any.

Correct. Inconclusive. We have evidence, but not proof.

AFAIK I never said there was no evidence. I say the avaliable evidence is flimsy, inconclusive, of poor quality, entangled with hoaxes...

Apparently the data is not yet that good.

If the data is good anough to allow some to draw inferences about the creature's behavior, that it should be good enough to detect such patterns.

Unless the data is not really good. I think this is the case.

However, it is good enough to show that areas with high precipitation and high black bear densities produce greater frequencies of sasquatch reports.

However, these sightings involve creatures that look, behave, and walk differently than black bears.

Creatures that reportedly look, behave and walk differently from black bears.

Note that there are many other variables that we have not touched here.

Eventually, if needed, we might dive deeper in to it.

Nor are they able to discern the difference between myth and reality in this case.

Yes, but this coin has two sides. The people who consider the myths back the existence of the creature might as well be those who are having a hard time to separate fantasy from reality.

And as other posters have pointed out, some evidence hasn't been established as hoaxed, even though attempts to do so haven't borne fruit.

Yes, some evidence have not been proved to be frauds. But there are evidence that some of those considered to be the most important ones might be, what invalidates them. Other evidence are not frauds, but might as well be mistakes.

I believe any have, because I have yet to discover a bigfoot corpse.

I've never found a wolverine or polar bear corpse, either.

Hey Huntster, check zoos and museums! Plenty of specimens of wolverines and polar bears. Not to mention the avaliable footage...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Precisely, at least in the state of Alaska, I'm sure with U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands, and likely with most other states and provinces.

So the point remains; without qualifications and credentials, the attempt to use a tranquilizer gun isn't legal without permitting, and it's very possible to get caught by the authorities if in the woods with a tranquilizer gun or snitched out by others if one was to try it.

It doesn't matter if one is hunting sasquatches, extraterrestrial aliens, moose, or coyotes with a tranquilizer gun. It will require permitting, and that will require qualifications and credentials.

In case you have not noticed, the type of expeditions I proposed include qualified people.

Outstanding!

Do you have any qualified people in mind?

Do you have a source of funding?

There would be no permit problems, be it to sedate one or to actually kill one. Not to mention that there's no need for a permit to shoot pictures...

That is all correct, but I suggest that any effort to acquire photographs would be rather foolish, as it would only fuel more division, and resolve nothing.

Permits are not the problem. The problem is the nature of data. Flimsy evidence and wild speculations mixed with hoaxes will not attract people with the required qualifications.

And so?

Originally Posted by Huntster
The point here is that a hunting guide, who provides such things as camping equipment, remote transportation, fuel, gear, and food in addition to knowledge of the quarry and guidance in the field isn't cheap.

And there are no hunting guides that I know of that have enough knowledge and expertise to guide sasquatch hunters, because if there were, discovery would have taken place.

Ain't cheap but ain't impossible.

Sorta' like the issue overall: "Ain't proven, but ain't impossible either."

If the data were as reliable and as significant as its claimed, then speculations could be made that would help finding the critters. They're supposed to be animals, remember? Predictable.

They're not predictable with precision since we lack conclusive data, and they are also clearly very rare.

The local guide would just need to be used to the region and to the "known" animals.

In other words, the guide provides the camp, logistics, remote transportation, etc., and the "experts" use their own knowledge or data to conduct the actual hunt.

That sounds good, except you haven't ascertained where the $2,000 per day for that logistical support will come from (not to mention the other expenses that will occur).

Originally Posted by Huntster
Very few, if any.

Correct. Inconclusive. We have evidence, but not proof.

AFAIK I never said there was no evidence. I say the avaliable evidence is flimsy, inconclusive, of poor quality, entangled with hoaxes...

That may be correct. It may have only been your contemporaries on this forum who have claimed that there is "no evidence."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Apparently the data is not yet that good.

If the data is good anough to allow some to draw inferences about the creature's behavior, that it should be good enough to detect such patterns.

Unless the data is not really good. I think this is the case.

That may be true, or it may be true that the data is just incomplete, or the low density of the animal makes such data nearly worthless.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nor are they able to discern the difference between myth and reality in this case.

Yes, but this coin has two sides. The people who consider the myths back the existence of the creature might as well be those who are having a hard time to separate fantasy from reality.

Regardless of which side of the coin one is beholding, this is true:

It has not been established as fantasy or reality, thus any attempt to quantify it as either is false.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And as other posters have pointed out, some evidence hasn't been established as hoaxed, even though attempts to do so haven't borne fruit.

Yes, some evidence have not been proved to be frauds. But there are evidence that some of those considered to be the most important ones might be, what invalidates them. Other evidence are not frauds, but might as well be mistakes.

"Might be"?

The PG film "might be" a hoax?

Why, yes. It "might be."

It also "might be" a genuine film of an uncatalogued animal, also.

And those are the only two options with regard to that piece of evidence, unless you are willing to propose that it is a black bear, an extraterrestrial alien, a robot, or a giraffe.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I believe any have, because I have yet to discover a bigfoot corpse.

I've never found a wolverine or polar bear corpse, either.

Hey Huntster, check zoos and museums! Plenty of specimens of wolverines and polar bears. Not to mention the avaliable footage...

We switched rather freely and quickly from your "corpse" discussion to "zoos".

 

[soarwing]

That is certainly possible Soarwing, but surely you realize that is not the thrust of the debate here, or at BFF.. Particularly where the PGF is concerned.

The platinum evidence for Bigfoot are clown feet prints .. Nothing like any known creatures past or present, unless you want to count Bozo ..

_____________

Belated welcome. I hope you will venture out into some of the other discussions here. I'm confident you could make a worthwhile contribution.

- - -

I don't think the platinum evidence for bigfoot is the track evidence. The tracks are curiosities and not much more - in of themselves. The PGF creature seems to display the "clown feet" that are typically found when one is talking about "bigfoot tracks". While I agree that the foot size of the bigfoot might be larger than anything else we know about, I'm not prepared to rule out bigfoot because they are reported to be taller and have larger feet than say, any known A.Boisei.

In other words, if any one of these trackways is legit, the bigfoot has feet that are morphologically like human feet, except some specimens apparently have huge feet. It's not as if the feet are somehow "alien" or of absurd design. The difference is of size not basic form and design. Big deal. (The 3-toed bigfoot tracks and others are absurd in my opinion, because in these cases there really isn't any fossil record of 3 toed, bipedal apes)

The PGF creature displays feet that are very much like other known animal's feet. In fact I know a few humans that are less than 7' tall that have 14.5" + feet that also display little or no arch. Shazam! Just like a real bigfoot. Should we be skeptical of these people's existence because of their big feet?

There's nothing extraordinary about the vast majority of physical descriptions of bigfoot when looked at in light of animals we already know to have existed. Zero..... : other than the fact that we thought that animals very similar (if not in fact a known species), were extinct.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention the "tabloid" version of bigfoot. You guys are fighting against the CONCEPT of bigfoot, when the CONCEPT of bigfoot is a proven fact of nature. I don't know if "bigfoot" is real - - - just that animals very much like bigfoot are as real as you and me.

Thanks for the welcome.

- SW

 

[soarwing]

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any bigfoot-like creatures, present or past.

There isn't even a set description of bigfoot in the first place.

Look at all the different kinds of feet it apparently has, for example.

And no, I don't mean alligator-foot.

- - -

If you exclude the random 3 toed prints and some of the other absurd swamp monster stuff, bigfoot tracks are basically the same. Like big (and small) human tracks.

I know, I know..... why exclude the 3-toed swamp monster stuff, you ask? Easy - - - because these "designs" actually have no fossil or current support among known bipedal primates or mammals.

As far as "set descriptions" go, I think you'd have trouble positing one for the human being.... what with all of their varied superficial (and sometimes very unusual) characteristics.

"Bigfoot" might not be real - but a rose by another name still smells like a wet dog.

If you want to define bigfoot as The Weekly World News mostly does, I'd agree that it's a hard pill to swallow. IF you define bigfoot as a fairly large, hairy, bipedal and quasi-human creature, then there is no question of existence.... just current and living existence.

 

[carcharodon]

I'm sorry, unidentifiable DNA doesn't necessarily point to a Yeti or a Sasquatch.

You mean it doesn't PROVE it is from a Yeti. When it is in conjunction with an eyewitness encounter then it does POINT towards it, no matter how much your deep rooted psychological refusal to accept it clouds your view. What we have here is an unexplainable mystery and an animal who's DNA cannot be identied. In essence, it's an animal that is uncatalogued by science but described by eye witnesses. Sound familiar?

At the very least it is interesting and very curious.