Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

..
If other possibilities are ruled out, the evidence that they are the footprints of a sasquatch become stronger.

Sasquatch is not even a candidate until you establish that it exists...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
..
If other possibilities are ruled out, the evidence that they are the footprints of a sasquatch become stronger.

Sasquatch is not even a candidate until you establish that it exists...

You write that and claim not to be a pure denialist?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You write that and claim not to be a pure denialist?

Where have I made such a claim ?

If I knew what one was, I would be happy to make a decision, though ..

Can I find more info on that over at Wiki ? A search didn't turn up anything..

# 7 It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You write that and claim not to be a pure denialist?

Where have I made such a claim ?

I'm not sure, but I am fairly certain that you have denied being a denialist. Must I perform the search?

Or perhaps you'd like to set us all straight right here and now?:

Are you a denialist?

If I knew what one was, I would be happy to make a decision, though ..

A denialist is one who denies:

verb (used with object), -nied, -ny·ing.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.
3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information.
4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar.
5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods.
6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments.
7. Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept.
—Idiom8. deny oneself, to refrain from satisfying one's desires or needs; practice self-denial.

Can I find more info on that over at Wiki ? A search didn't turn up anything..

Try a common dictionary.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sure I'm one of those.. Looks like you are too.. Can't think of anyone who isn't..

Can you?

 

[RayG]

Krantz is an authority now, Ray? How nice.

Now LAL, you know there are no 'authorities' on bigfoot.

Nay, I'm just pointing out that even one of the Four Horsemen of Bigfootdom (Green, -->Krantz,<-- Byrne, & Dahinden) admits it's up to proponents to show their claims are true, not for skeptics to show they're false. Krantz is not the only scientist/person to subscribe to that 'burden of proof' rule.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

Judging by his comments, Krantz obviously understood who is repsonsible for providing 'burden of proof' when it comes to evidence.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Sure I'm one of those.. Looks like you are too.. Can't think of anyone who isn't..

Can you?

Yup.

Me.

I deny little.

 

[carcharodon]

Oh, really?
Who do you think is making money selling bigfoot memorabilia to skeptics? Or bigfoot expeditions? DVDs? Books?

Ohhhh let's see now.......Greg Long, Daegling, Chris Packham etc etc. They are selling books or DVDs.....and the skeptics lap them up.

Again, what should happen to evidence suspected of being false?

Such as what (concerning the PGF)?

Nope.

What do you mean 'nope'? Are you now saying it hasn't been confirmed and corroborated that Patterson and Gimlin didn't leave when they said they left for Bluff Creek? Are you saying it hasn't been corroborated that Patterson and Gimlin were in the general area of Bluff Creek for three weeks? Are you saying it hasn't been corroborated that their horse tracks were almost everywhere up creeks and rivers, suggesting Patterson and Gimlin did indeed search high and low in that area? Are you suggesting it hasn't been confirmed that Patterson wanted Green to get to the area as soon as he could with a tracking dog? Are you suggesting it hasn't been confirmed that the 'scene of the crime' was found and examined by two independant parties and no evidence of a hoax, or indeed, that a third (human) party was active at the scene of the crime? Are you suggesting it hasn't been corroborated that both Patterson and Gimlin never once wavered in their insistance that what they filmed was a real animal? Are you suggesting etc etc etc..................................?

There is more to the PGF story than just the footage itself. It's all the other little details before and after. Very very little of it which is 'fishy' I might add.

But again I shall ask:
If PGF is so good, why mammalogists and wildlife photographers are not flocking at it?

Because Patty looks like a guy in a gorilla suit?
Because the story is fishy?
Because its suspect of being a fraud?
Because since then no corroborating evidence was found?

Because by and large, they aren't even looking at it. Contrary to what you might think, outside a tiny proportion of people including mammalogists and wildlife photographers, most are not even thinking of sasquatch. I would vouch that most haven't even studied the footage properly for themselves.

How many mammalogists and wildlife photographers have flocked to Bryan Sykes door and skipped over to Bhutan to find and photograpth this mysterious, uncatalogued owner of the recovered DNA sample???? This doesn't mean there is nothing to it.

There are some wildlife photographers and biologist and scientists who HAVE studied the PGF footage and been very interested in it at the least.

First, its not a "belief". its a conclusion based on what was presented as evidence.

Ahhhh I see. So when sasquatch proponents conclude the opposite based on what has been presented as evidence then it's called BLEEEVING, but when a skepted reaches a different conclusion it's not???

Second, data handling 101 says if the data is bad, then to the garbage can it goes. You'd better get used to the idea of seeing it down there.

Why? It's not down there and I doubt it ever will be.

Third, the dedicated scientists -as well as the amateurs- haven't managed to bring credibility for it even after all those year.

Speak for yourself. There are quite a few people I know who have seen LMS and/or some of the other documentaries on the subject over the years and find the footage very interesting. None of them had any real interest in sasquatch before. The footage does have some credibility to it. This is why it endures. This is why the Marx footage doesn't. I do not know of too many people who claim LMS has no credibility.

The "event" was not reproduced. It has not been repeated. Why?
Extreme luck? Not only the guys were lucky to film one but to actually see three? And no one else managed to repeat it?

I don't believe too many people have been encamped in a localised area for weeks, used horses as a mode of transport and managed to accidentaly sneak up one from the other side of a downfallen log pile right next to a running stream. I believe that THESE set of circumstances have not been replicated since.

'See three'? What are you refering to here? Who saw three? Patterson and Gimlin didn't see any others. Other researchers saw what they believed was evidence of others in the vicinity and Patterson had the opinion that there must be a couple others in the area.

"Oh they were ahead of their time". Come on... No one used their notes, methodology, etc.?

Like I said, I don't know of any others who did exactly what P and G did.

I'll repeat what I said before. Discussing the same old things over and over about such weak piece of evidence is not worthy of my time. Bring something new and we may go ahead. But the same old lines? They've been beaten to death and I haven't seen any convincing argument or evidence that the film shows the real deal.

Watch any other piece of footage of any upright bipedal ape suit (whether hoax or from a documentary or movie) and point out to me any which even remotely compare to the PGF. The fact that NONE of these can (though many have tried) is a convincing argument for the PGF's authenticity. One that cannot be demonstrated as a flawed argument.

Of course not! There's still plenty of money to be made by the perpetuation of the hoax!

There would have been far more money to have been made by 'revealing' the hoax. Bob Gimlin is not making buckets of cash off the PGF. He would be able to make buckets of cash by 'selling his story' though. It would be quite substantial. At the very least Gimlin would have made more money by 'coming clean' than he has made off the footage these last 40 years.

Answer me this. When Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson had a serious falling out and Bob Gimlin was cut out of the deal, why didn't Bob Gimlin come forward and make some money by 'revealing all' and why did Patterson have the nerve to know Gimlin wouldn't talk? Did he have pictures of Gimlin in some stockings and suspenders and a pot of peanut butter as a bargaining tool?

 

[carcharodon]

#9 ... I had my rifle, but I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger ..

And I suppose just like brutal killer of everything that walks he-man Mad Hom, you WOULD hey Diogenes?

#8 Thermal camera batteries drained within one hour (per battery). Recharging took longer than battery drainage, so thermal camera had to be used sparingly -- only when sounds were heard.

Sounds about right to me.

# 7 It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by.

It's not a stretch to think that sometimes leaving tracks is unavoidable, even for a rather intelligent primate..

 

[carcharodon]

Nay, I'm just pointing out that even one of the Four Horsemen of Bigfootdom (Green, -->Krantz,<-- Byrne, & Dahinden) admits it's up to proponents to show their claims are true, not for skeptics to show they're false. Krantz is not the only scientist/person to subscribe to that 'burden of proof' rule.
RayG

Your link says this:

""Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.""

Isn't a skeptic making a claim (such as the PGF is a hoax and shows a man in a suit) no different to anybody else claiming the opposite? A claim is a claim is a claim, whether for or against. The fact that there is no proof either way for the PGF would mean that BOTH sides are making claims. It is therefore just as much up to the skeptic to demonstrate it was a man in a suit as it is up to proponent to demonstrate it wasn't.

I'll say again, Krantz's reasoning was flawed. The only person who doesn't have to demonstrate anything is the person not making any claims.

 

[Huntster]

Hmmmmm.........

There appears to be some aggressive pro-realists on this thread.

It's nice to have some balance here.............

 

[LAL]

Now LAL, you know there are no 'authorities' on bigfoot.

Joke, son, but I think there are.

Judging by his comments, Krantz obviously understood who is repsonsible for providing 'burden of proof' when it comes to evidence.

And I think he thought he'd done that. Collegues handed his casts back as though they were contagious. The fingerprint experts were more open, because if dermal ridges could be faked, that had serious implications for their field.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. If there's evidence the PGF was faked, it should be better than mere slurs on Patterson's character.

 

[LAL]

I would actually pay to see those two original rolls of film in a theater as part of a sasquatch documentary.

Too bad you missed the tour.

I would definitely pay $29.95 for a DVD with the 2 rolls on it.

But then they'd be copies again, wouldn't they?

The BBC might do the DVDs if they ever find the footage they kept. Not sure what you expect to find in the scenery, but good luck looking, if it ever shows up.

Green saw the original on Oct. 22, 1967. I think he would have noticed any changes between it and his first generation copy.

 

[carcharodon]

The BBC might do the DVDs if they ever find the footage they kept. Not sure what you expect to find in the scenery, but good luck looking, if it ever shows up.

It might do one of these days. You never know. The BBC periodically finds previously thought 'lost' episodes of t.v series.

 

[William Parcher]

The BBC might do the DVDs if they ever find the footage they kept. Not sure what you expect to find in the scenery, but good luck looking, if it ever shows up.

Green saw the original on Oct. 22, 1967. I think he would have noticed any changes between it and his first generation copy.

The true original footage would be the developed film as it came out of Roger's camera. I don't think anyone can say that they ever saw this. If P&G put together a hoax, it's likely that the film got edited (spliced). That includes each of the rolls. What could possibly be "found in the scenery" is evidence of editing, discontinuities, timeline problems, etc.

The 2nd Reel is described as containing riding scenes (before the encounter) and the tracks & casting of them (after the encounter). But we often think of the 2nd Reel as the one Roger loaded after he ran out of film after Patty. It shouldn't contain scenes from before the encounter unless it was edited, right?

 

[LTC8K6]

But then they'd be copies again, wouldn't they?

As long as they aren't enhanced, or enlarged, etc. I've never objected to copies.

Why couldn't John Napier see the action of Patty's feet in the PGF when Jeff Meldrum can?

What version of the PGF excludes the action of Patty's feet?

 

[bruto]

Too bad you missed the tour.



But then they'd be copies again, wouldn't they?

The BBC might do the DVDs if they ever find the footage they kept. Not sure what you expect to find in the scenery, but good luck looking, if it ever shows up.

Green saw the original on Oct. 22, 1967. I think he would have noticed any changes between it and his first generation copy.

LAL, forgive me if I've lost track after all these pages, but did Green see the complete, unedited original, that is, all 100 feet or whatever it was of the two reels, or did he see only the pertinent parts of the original? If he had a first generation copy, was it a copy of both reels complete? Were any such copies made?

Whether or not you believe the film is a hoax, you must admit that it's an area where the possibility of hoaxing is obviously a valid question, and a great deal of the doubt surrounding the film would be resolved if we could see the entire two reels, including the material that was deemed irrelevant. Without it, suspicion will always remain.

How many people currently alive, and not directly connected with the production of the film or with the people who made it, have seen the entire two rolls, extraneous material and all?

 

[Huntster]

.....Why couldn't John Napier see the action of Patty's feet in the PGF when Jeff Meldrum can?...

Technological advance in the past 39 years.

Catch the clue............that's one of the reasons why folks lend credence to the PG film; it's asking way too much to believe that a rodeo rider produced such a film in 1967.

 

[Huntster]

....Whether or not you believe the film is a hoax, you must admit that it's an area where the possibility of hoaxing is obviously a valid question, and a great deal of the doubt surrounding the film would be resolved if we could see the entire two reels, including the material that was deemed irrelevant. Without it, suspicion will always remain.....

"Film", original or not, isn't going to cut it. Krantz came to that conclusion rather early.

Evidence isn't enough. This forum perfectly illustrates that.

It will have to be a corpse.

 

[Correa Neto]

I never stated that the PG film 9or any othere evidence) is bonafide by default.



It is inconclusive, but it's my opinion that it is bonafide.

Oh, please... Decide yourself!

Considering the odor these creatures are reported to emit, it might be painful for the noses that get rubbed, too.

Not to mention the egos attached to the noses...........

Well, all I can say is that I will not hold my breath waiting.

"Raise the required quality level?"

So, as the quality of the evidence rises, so too do the denials?

And thus it is that only a corpse will do.

Hunster, if a certain subject is constantly plagued by frauds and mistakes, I think you would want to make a detailed examination of any new and possibly important piece of evidence, eh?

This is raising the quality level.

Would you acept a bigfoot movie by Biscardi without a detailied investigation, even if it looked pretty good?

Like I stated above, I have no responsibility whatsoever to establish whether or not these creatures exist.

State and federal wildlife agencies are specifically responsible for the management and welfare of wildlife. Period. It's their responsibility. Period.

Try convincing them.

Pssst.: Better obtain better data.

Maybe so. And maybe that's the next step.

Then, what's keeping you folks to do so?

Perhaps the poor evidence quality?

Perhaps not being certain the critters are real?

Correct. You cannot fly like Superman, but an uncatalogued primate is.

Agreed. An unknown lemur species at Madagascar is quite plausible. A 3m tall bipedal ape at North America, I would say quite unlikely.

Nope.

Now please illustrate some "con evidence."

Again?
Re-read the threads, please.

The same evidence that will be presented in the above mentioned trial would be presented in a similar sasquatch trial, except more such evidence exists for sasquatches.

In the ivory-billed trial, there are eyewitness testimony and a single, blurry film which is controversial.

In a sasquatch trial, there are hundreds more eyewitness testimoy (including law enforcement officials on official investigations) as well as many footprint casts, and including at least one blurry film which is controversial.

Then go ahead.

1) Not all sasquatch proponents agree with this point, and
2) Funding

Regarding (1), do you folks need some sort of collective agreement?
Regarding (2), if you've got no money, that's mainly because the sheer weakness of the evidence presented. There are a lot of potential sources.

The legal precedent has been already set. It's just a matter of manipulating it for some good instead of using it to halt development or forward environmental propaganda.

Yes, if you have reliable evidence. So far, you don't.

False evidence of all kinds go through the legal system every day. I'm going to hear some in just a couple of hours.

So what?

Its still not allowed.

Frankly, I think the sasquatch researchers that are into the phenomenon seeking fame and/or fortune are the ones people like yourself focus on, and that degenerates the overall effort.

Like the ones who filmed what they claim to be a bigfoot at the ate 60s and tried to make mopney out of it?

Are you united with Mad Horn?

I'm certainly not united with Beckjord.

Again, what's the relevance of this line to the discussion?

But no, I'm not united with him. I'm straight and married. But this is irrelevant to the main discussion.

However, there are a couple of relevant points I would like to add:

(1) "The film was not tampered". This means absolutely nothing and has zero relevance when it comes to provide backing to the position "PGF is not a hoax". Why? Simple. Photographic labs analysis will detect "tamperings" similar to the following ones: double exposure, photographic montages and collages. None of the above would be required to create a PGF hoax. All it would take is P and G to film a fellow wearing a gorilla suit. Again, the "tamperings", double exposure, photographic montages and collages are not required to create a PGF-like movie. Actually they would be quickly found. The most efficient way is to film a fellow in a gorilla suit. The lab will not detect this as "tampering". Want to defend the position "PGF is not a hoax"? OK, go ahead, but at least try to present relevant arguments.

(2) "Unidentified DNA". Sorry, it is not evidence of an unknown species. It may be because contamination, problems on the collection and/or transport of the sample, assay problems or just that the DNA at the sample was already too deteriorated to be of any use. Of course the DNA of a bigfoot (assuming the critetrs are real) will return an "unidentifed" label from an assay. DUH! They must be from a completely new genus or from a genus supposed to be extinct, in both cases, no known DNA will be a perfect match. However, a good assay from a good sample will return something like "unknown species or genus, but with the following information:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae (if bigfeet are related to Australipithecus, Gorilla, Homo and chimps) or Ponginae (if bigfeet are related to orang-utangs and Gigantopithecus)

This could be very relevant evidence. Depending on the source and the circunstances, enough for me to say "WOW, it seems I was wrong".

Want to defend the position "bigfeet are real"? OK, go ahead. But at least try to present relevant arguments. Just "unknown" or "unidentified" DNA is as irrelevant as a pro-evidence as to say PGF negatives were not tampered.