Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

....Someone has time to dig a bit deeper?

Been there, done that.

Check this link.

Sarkis Atamian, the author of "The Origin of Tarzan : The Mystery of Tarzan's Creation Solved" was a personal friend. I attended his funeral just recently. Quite a guy.

Note the National Geographic article, July 1903 issue: Volume 14, Number 7, pages 282-285:

....In the book he told of gorilla, of which he had brought back the first specimens and which he had been the first white man to see and hunt; of the fierce cannibal tribes, the Fans, who filed their teeth to keep them sharp; of the ravages of the Baskouay ants, which marched in dense columns miles in length, and who were marshalled by officers and generals; of hunting elephants with pitfalls; of a new variety of snake, less than four feet long and six and eight inches thick, which lies in the open places in the woods and whose bite is instantaneous death, and of many other equally wonderful sights.

The book was greeted with shouts of laughter and derision from one end of the American continent to the other. Mr and Mrs and Miss Gorilla was the common jest, and the name Du Chaillu became a byword for a fanciful storyteller. Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him, except Harper and Brothers in the United States and the Royal Geographical Society in England, both of whom valiantly and vigorously defended his truthfulness.

In 1863-'65 Du Chaillu made a second journey of exploration to Africa, the narrative of which appeared in 1867 as "A Journey through Ashango Land." This time he discovered the pygmies of the Dark Forest, but his descriptions of the little people were likewise received with incredulity. With this journey his explorations in Africa ended.

Gradually each of Du Chaillu's discoveries was confirmed by later explorers - by Schweinfürth, Stanley, Sir Harry Johnston, and others. Many years ago they were all verified; but the name Du Chaillu none the less still remains to most Americans that of a romance.......

Thomas Savage was the first to successfully submit gorilla skulls to western science, and just 12 years before DuChaillu's return to the west:

During his time in Africa he acquired the skull and other bones from an unknown ape species, which he described in 1847 with Jeffries Wyman with the scientific name Troglodytes gorilla, now known as the Western Gorilla.

Please recall that legends of gorillas preceeded it's acceptance by science by centuries. The African natives learned nothing in 1847 or 1859 except perhaps how hard headed Europeans were.

Finally, the publication of "Origin of Species" was also in 1859:

The Origin of Species (full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British naturalist Charles Darwin, first published on 24 November 1859, is one of the pivotal works in scientific history and arguably the pre-eminent work in biology.....

DuChaillu returned to New York in 1859.

Later, in 1871, came Darwin's "Descent of Man."

 

[carcharodon]

Well, I'm a stickler for people saying exactly what they mean, so technically if you only meant two skeptics out of the many that inhabit this forum, or even this thread, then you should have said some skeptics, a couple of skeptics, or even a few skeptics. Clarity counts.

That so Ray G?

Pst...you were awfully quiet(shhhhhhh, but don't tell anyone mate) when the initial skeptic refered to the 'naive bigfoot believers' but wasn't being exactly specific either. Tee hee hee ol' son, where do ya wanna end with this?

Do only sasquatch proponents have to be specific? Are the skeptics precluded from this?

 

[carcharodon]

Excuse me, what pieces of decent evidence have been presented so far?

Once again, I will say:

Decent footage or stills from a reliable source, such as a mammalogist or wildlife photographer whose carreer and credibility would be destroyed if caught -or just being suspected of being invoved- in a fraud would be very reliable evidence.

Um though not a bigfoot specimen of course, but what about Dr John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist and therefore I would hazzard photographer too) who happened upon a supposed sasquatch activity find....and took stills and a cast from it?????

Perhaps he is ticked off your list?

Why?

 

[bruto]

Um though not a bigfoot specimen of course, but what about Dr John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist and therefore I would hazzard photographer too) who happened upon a supposed sasquatch activity find....and took stills and a cast from it?????

Perhaps he is ticked off your list?

Why?

According to Bindernagel's own site, he found some tracks.

Plaster casts which we made from these tracks provide the only tangible evidence I have for the existence of the sasquatch.

All the rest of the evidence he cites is from others, and it seems pretty much the same old same old.

 

[RayG]

Do only sasquatch proponents have to be specific? Are the skeptics precluded from this?

Nope, I'm a stickler for people saying exactly what they mean no matter who they are, or what position they support.

I think you'll find I'm one of the few skeptics to chastise BOTH sides for name-calling. Do YOU ever speak up when that happens?

RayG

 

[carcharodon]

Nope, I'm a stickler for people saying exactly what they mean no matter who they are, or what position they support.

Then why were you so quiet earlier???

I think you'll find I'm one of the few skeptics to chastise BOTH sides for name-calling. Do YOU ever speak up when that happens?

RayG

I haven't seen any name calling here really. Can you point me to any? Seeing as I haven't pulled up a skeptic about name calling, why should I pull up a proponent?

 

[carcharodon]

According to Bindernagel's own site, he found some tracks. All the rest of the evidence he cites is from others, and it seems pretty much the same old same old.

Nevertheless, John Bindernagel is a wildlife biologist who himself found, photographed and cast suspected sasquatch tracks in the wilds of Vancouver Island.

I am quite sure his reputation and career would have been discredited had he """been caught -or just being suspected of being invoved- in a fraud""

According to Correa Neto a biologist such as Bindernagel coming across tracks and photographing and casting said tracks should be "very reliable evidence".

 

[LAL]

According to Bindernagel's own site, he found some tracks. All the rest of the evidence he cites is from others, and it seems pretty much the same old same old.

Have you read the book or just the website? He approaches the subject with a view to determining if the animals described behave like normal animals. He's got his academic credentials and experience in North America, Africa and Asia.

I've got one of his presentations on DVD. Good stuff.

 

[LAL]

I did recently purchase Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed as sort of a companion piece to Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, which I also recently purchased.

Meldrum and Daegling were roommates in college. I think that's where the companionship ended.

 

[LAL]

That only makes them an authority in their relevant field and NOT an authority on bigfoot.

I'll take Meldrum, a specialist on primate foot anatomy, as an authority on Sasquatch foot anatomy as inferred from the casts and prints. I also take Swindler, the leading authority on primate anatomy, as an authority on what the Skookum Cast actually shows, after four examinations and 30 years of scepticism.

Etc.

Why is it people who are highly respected in their fields suddenly become "crackpots" when they look into this and find there's something to it?

 

[bruto]

Have you read the book or just the website? He approaches the subject with a view to determining if the animals described behave like normal animals. He's got his academic credentials and experience in North America, Africa and Asia.

I've got one of his presentations on DVD. Good stuff.

I was only responding to Carcharodon's original post implying that Bindernagel might have photographed some activity or otherwise found new evidence other than footprints. I googled him in the anticipation of something new and interesting in the way of evidence. Alas, none was found. I'd love to see something really convincing other than casts of prints. Some sign of really competent and diligent field work. I haven't read the book. I imagine that a good biologist will come up with a fine predictive speculation on how a bigfoot would live if it existed, but he doesn't seem to have resolved that big "if" yet. If he's done a good job of figuring out how the squatches live, it should make the hunt easier, and someone should be able to figure out better how either to zero in on one or to lure it to be caught or at least photographed. I'm waiting.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, it looks like I have lots of catching up to do after an almost three month hiatus in Canada (Victoria, BC, not so far from Bindernagel). Didn't see any sasquatches but then again I wasn't looking.

Before I truck through everything I missed I'm just gonna go ahead assume no dead bigfeets have turned up in the last few months. Any bombshells I missed?

Speaking of Bindernagel, I remember the point be raised of continual extensive and extended research being done on Vancouver Island marmot populations and relating that to sasquatch encounters (or specifically lack thereof) as something to think about.

 

[Correa Neto]

Interesting link, Huntster.

However, please allow me to focus on some points.

First we agree Savage's gorilla description predates Du Chaillu's travles and books. Have you checked my link to Grove's paper? I know reading that PDF can literally be a pain in the neck if you don't rotate the text counterclockwise.

However, it provides a very nice account on how we knew about the genus. It says Savage's discovery was published "without fanfarre, without fuss of any kind". The only "fusses" it's been involved were the famous Huxley x Owen debates (that culminated in Huxley's 1867 publication) and Matschie's embroglios.

Thus, there was no major controversy, no skeptcism , etc. from mainstream science regarding the discovery of gorillas.

Du Chaillu's problems happened after the genus was described. And note that even your link does points that DuChaillu's 1861 book was well-received by the Royal Geographical Society. The article you linked indicates the reason for the bad reception had more to do with the way he wrote his account than with any mention to gorillas.

So, to sum up, there was no "poor reception" of the description of gorillas by science, as claimed. Du Chaillu's book received flak, but not the description of the genus, made by Savage and Wyman years before its publication. The analogy with bigfoot's reception by mainstream science is not valid. Continue using this analogy by your own risk.

 

[Correa Neto]

Um though not a bigfoot specimen of course, but what about Dr John Bindernagel (wildlife biologist and therefore I would hazzard photographer too) who happened upon a supposed sasquatch activity find....and took stills and a cast from it?????

Perhaps he is ticked off your list?

Why?

Because all he's got are footprint casts and photographs of footprints. Note that I wrote:

Decent footage or stills from a reliable source, such as a mammalogist or wildlife photographer whose carreer and credibility would be destroyed if caught -or just being suspected of being invoved- in a fraud would be very reliable evidence.

If repeated by other (preferably independent) persons, probably even definitive.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, writing
"Decent footage or stills of a bigfoot from a reliable source".

He´s got some?

Not that I'm aware of.

However, at http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page6.html what do we find?

Photographs of casts. Some of which, such as the one labelled "C", look very suspect to me. Am I the only one who thinks it looks like some poorly-carved wood foot? Check the toes' shapes, among other things. He may have been fooled by a hoaxer.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why is it people who are highly respected in their fields suddenly become "crackpots" when they look into this and find there's something to it?

For the same reason they become crackpots when they decide there is something to UFO's, the Bermuda Triangle, psy powers & etc.

Once respected scientists start writing books and cashing in on such things,
they are crackpots...

There are tons of them out there, you just happen to be sensitve to a couple of them because it touches a nerve..

 

[kitakaze]

Have you read the book or just the website? He approaches the subject with a view to determining if the animals described behave like normal animals. He's got his academic credentials and experience in North America, Africa and Asia.

I've got one of his presentations on DVD. Good stuff.

I read his book years back and enjoyed it. That's not to say it did anything to persuade my thoughts on bigfoot as it doesn't amount to more than the fine predictive speculation bruto mentions. Otherwise he really was rehashing old stuff hoping to lend weight to the presentation with his creds after coming across a track that he judged to be authentic.

I mean no disrespect to the guy as qualified predictive speculation is certainly welcome, especially if it actually does anything to assist detecting the creatures. Just so far it *cough* hasn't.

 

[Orthoptera]

Why is it people who are highly respected in their fields suddenly become "crackpots" when they look into this and find there's something to it?

That's a good question. I've always thought of it as the Hynek Syndrome, after J. Allen Hynek, the UFO debunker who later founded CUFO. I suppose my short answer ( and a couple of very long books could go into all the many variations) is that something very like a religious conversion takes place. For most people, that doesn't signify, but for a scientist the emotional commitment to a particular hypothesis damages the credibility of his or her critical faculties. And the critical faculty, the ability to dispassionately judge good data from bad, is perhaps the prime attribute of a practical scientist. Once that credibility is suspect, the scientist can no longer be completely trusted. And the associations and emotional rewards of the "converted" scientist tend to lead them away from the more rational explanations and deeper into stranger territory, where they become, as you say "crackpots" to the rest of the scientific community.

I should point out that I think Hynek is a sympathetic character-- he was equally vilified by skeptics for giving aid and comfort, and by ET advocates for not taking the plunge.

 

[kitakaze]

Why is it people who are highly respected in their fields suddenly become "crackpots" when they look into this and find there's something to it?

Define something.

Maybe it was a case of the same thing I got, being a case of the 'I openly/secretly/subconciously wish it were true and will add plausibility to the possibility based on unsubstantial evidence' syndrome. Oh believe me, it's catchy, Jack. Hard to shake, too.

 

[RayG]

Then why were you so quiet earlier???

So quiet? If I were to interject every time someone resorted to insults or name-calling, I'd be quite busy indeed. As it is, I have pointed out my frustration at name-calling (by both sides) a number of times.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=1370183&highlight=name-calling#post1370183
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=1455076&highlight=name-calling#post1455076
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=1485716&highlight=name-calling#post1485716
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...?p=2117308&highlight=name-calling#post2117308
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1137641&highlight=hubbard#post1137641
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1370043&highlight=hubbard#post1370043

And that doesn't count the ones from the BFF.

I haven't seen any name calling here really. Can you point me to any?

Then you've not actually read through the threads on this board that pertain to bigfoot. As we used to say up north, 'get some snow on your boots.'

Seeing as I haven't pulled up a skeptic about name calling, why should I pull up a proponent?

If you're ok with kindergarten behavior, good for you. I'm not, I've seen enough of that raising 11 children. It's my opinion, and others I'm sure, that resorting to ad-homs or ridicule only weakens any possible argument.

As I've said a few times on the BFF:

1. Attack the argument, not the person presenting it
2. Don't be ego-strokin' (your own or anyone else's)
3. Be prepared to dig for facts
4. Develop a thick skin

RayG

 

[RayG]

I'll take Meldrum, a specialist on primate foot anatomy, as an authority on Sasquatch foot anatomy as inferred from the casts and prints. I also take Swindler, the leading authority on primate anatomy, as an authority on what the Skookum Cast actually shows, after four examinations and 30 years of scepticism.

As I've said elsewhere, there may be some authorities on bigfoot legends, myths, or purported evidence, and I don't doubt a great many people take bigfoot seriously, but it's hard to be an expert on something that hasn't been proven to exist. Jimmy Chilcutt may be an expert on fingerprints, and yes, even footprints, but that doesn't make him an expert on bigfoot. John Green has authored many books, Matt Moneymaker has organized many expeditions, Peter Byrne has received research money to chase and find bigfoot, Grover Krantz dedicated a great deal of time in the pursuit of bigfoot information, Rene Dahinden dedicated his entire life to the discovery of bigfoot, and yet none of them are/were experts on bigfoot. None of them can make any definitive statements about bigfoot regarding their muscle density, number of teeth, gestation period, diet, mating habits, range, sleeping patterns, or anything else for that matter.

So, if someone claims to be an 'expert/authority' on the real-deal bigfoot, I have no problem telling them they're full of bull.

RayG