Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Those aren't his casts, are they? "C-cast of a 19-inch-long track from southern Ontario (1977)"

Regarding the prints he found? Or that particular cast?

It doesn't matter if the casts were made by him or not. Its irrelevant to the point I'm making -the casts look fake.

The casts labelled "C", "B" and "D", as well as those from Bob Titmus look very like fakefeet.

If he subscribes to them as being the "real deal", then I say he probably was fooled.

"In 1988, my wife and I found several sasquatch tracks in good condition in the mountains not far from our home on Vancouver Island. Plaster casts which we made from these tracks provided the first tangible evidence I encountered for the existence of the sasquatch. Wildlife biologists such as myself regularly depend on tracks and other wildlife sign as evidence for the presence of bears, deer, wolves, and other mammals, recognizing that tracks constitute a more reliable and persistent record of the presence of a mammal species in an area than a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself."

http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page3.html

What hoaxer would know where they were going to be?

Please note the "not far from our home".

And that misidentification is a viable alternative to hoaxing.

Also, wildlife biologists use tracks as evidence for known animals, animals whose presence at a given area is known to be plausible.

 

[LAL]

To be fair there's been plenty of speculation but I would add to that how come we don't have any nice prestine images of sas hitting a salmon run? Do the bears screw 'em everywhere and everytime or are ground squirrels and marmots just that good?

A couple of Yakima youths saw one playing off their nets in the Columbia, evidently after the salmon.

They didn't get pictures because, a) it was night, b) they didn't have a camera.

Reports have them eating frogs, hibernating rodents (presumably Golden Mantled Ground Squirrels), deer, willow leaves, Carpenter ants, berries.....I don't recall any with marmots.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Read Glenn Thomas' account. He even showed where the rock piles were shifted in Oregon. You've seen the pictures of these rock piles haven't you?

Rock piles ? Let me guess . No identifiable squatch hair in them rock piles.

One account ?



Huntster,carcharodon,
Why don't you start a black bear thread and have at it.


Meanwhile, where's Squatch ?
There is supposedly breeding stock of several different species ...

 

[kitakaze]

Huntster and carcharodon, you have a lot of stuff up there in your exchange so I'm not going to quote everything but I do as an ardent proponent come fence sitter come hopeful irritated by one too many inconsistencies have some points/questions to raise.

If the estimates of many that there are 200 black bears per sasquatch, then there are approximately 3,000 sasquatches in North America.

Huntster, I'm not gonna be the one to doubt your bear knowledge and I'm sure I could speculate but you know I want to ask how those many arrive at that estimation.

carcharodon, while I can't shake the feeling that you're regurgitating what you originally read off the BFRO site you nonetheless have a valid point about wildlife photography. However, a key element of your arguments concerning bigfoot hinge on the remote element of the equation which I think you know in your heart just doesn't pan out when taking into account that a good portion of reports come from areas unremote. As you've stated previously you're only criteria for weighing the validity of reports is that someone has investigated the report and the witnesses interviewed which IMO is more than lacking. I'm sure we don't need to scurry over to the recent reports section of the BFRO for a laugh and confirmation, yes.

Huntster, I would certainly agree after what you said that were sas a real species they must certainly be rarer than brown bears. Therefore, if footage of black bears taking salmon is rather rare than one could surmise the likelyhood of getting sas doing it would be that much more difficult. BUT, I can't imagine sas' ignoring salmon runs as a relatively free and easy protein source as almost everything else takes advantage of it which I still interpret as another parameter for potential contact.
P.S. Hunts, where was it that you were discuss sas activity on an Alaskan island near to the Kodiak islands? Am I mistaken?

 

[LAL]

It doesn't matter if the casts were made by him or not. Its irrelevant to the point I'm making -the casts look fake.

They look fake to you. Don't they all? Have you examined any casts firsthand? Have you come up with a design for fake feet that allows toe movement and a flexible mid foot?

Please note the "not far from our home".

Please note the "in the mountains". It was still wilderness.

And that misidentification is a viable alternative to hoaxing.

Sceptics fall back on that quite a bit. Bear seems most popular.

Also, wildlife biologists use tracks as evidence for known animals, animals whose presence at a given area is known to be plausible.

One of the research areas in Washington has yielded 147 tracks. There may be a mother and two young in the area.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A couple of Yakima youths saw one playing off their nets in the Columbia, evidently after the salmon.

Sure they did .

They didn't get pictures because, a) it was night, b) they didn't have a camera.

They didn't get pictures ! I'm sure this is not a problem since we have lots of other pictures of Sas hitting the salmon runs ..

Reports have them eating frogs, hibernating rodents (presumably Golden Mantled Ground Sqirrels, deer, willow leaves, Carpenter ants, berries.....I don't recall any with marmots.

Reports have them living in people's basements, and tossing around 55 gallon drums.

 

[kitakaze]

It doesn't matter if the casts were made by him or not. Its irrelevant to the point I'm making -the casts look fake.

The casts labelled "C", "B" and "D", as well as those from Bob Titmus look very like fakefeet.

If he subscribes to them as being the "real deal", then I say he probably was fooled.


Please note the "not far from our home".

And that misidentification is a viable alternative to hoaxing.

Also, wildlife biologists use tracks as evidence for known animals, animals whose presence at a given area is known to be plausible.

To be fair when Bindernagel says 'in the mountains not far from our home' one should bear in mind that he lives in Tofino on Vancouver Island so the mountains to which he refers wouldn't be the worst place to find sas evidence and the area has a history of reports largely from motorist travelling on the highway between Port Alberni and Tofino/Ucleulet. That's not to say I disagree with the possibility of error.

 

[LAL]

Lu,
I've never noticed where Meldrum, Green or anyone said much about what Patty would eat..

Any idea, and how much ?

Did you know that mostly sedentary, 400 lb gorillas can eat upwards of 40 lbs a day.

With all the IM index calculations and such, I would think someone would have put the slide rule to calculating the daily calorie requirements of a highly mobile, 500 lb primate..

Where is the evidence of foraging?

I could point you to someone from Georgia on BFF for that, but I don't agree with the interpretation.

Gorillas are vegetarians. Sasquatches are omnivores. Protein in the diet would provide a lot of calories.

I thought you were reading Dr. Meldrum's book? He addresses diet.

The habitat supports 600 lb. Black Bear. They eat the same stuff.

 

[kitakaze]

One of the research areas in Washington has yielded 147 tracks. There may be a mother and two young in the area.

Terrific, maybe it'll yield something a little more tangible of the mother and two young. Any links to have a peek at any of these tracks?

 

[LAL]

Reports have them living in people's basements, and tossing around 55 gallon drums.

Forget Mary Green.

I've read something about the drums (in 1958) being a journalist exaggeration, but it seem a piece of culvert was carried a considerable distance.

 

[LAL]

Terrific, maybe it'll yield something a little more tangible of the mother and two young. Any links to have a peek at any of these tracks?

Missed the post while you were lurking on BFF? There's a shot of some old ones being spotted in the extras section of Sasquatch Oddessy.

 

[LAL]

And I don't think a Hibagon is the same as a Booger but they all make for great reading.

What point? I'd ask if you're always this coy but I know better. The point being we've got a lot of upright hairies dodging us all over the place.If you could come up with a least two ideas as to why, what would they be?

I'm not being coy. You seemed to be saying we have these same animals all over the world. I don't think they're the same.

(Wooleybooger is a NC term. The Hibagon would seem to more gorilla-like.)

Why there are unidentified primates in the world?

Well, 1) because they're there. There were two new species identified last year. They're just not huge.

2) because there are remote areas and suitable habitat all over the world where "relic" hominids can survive and very likely have.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm not being coy. You seemed to be saying we have these same animals all over the world. I don't think they're the same.

(Wooleybooger is a NC term. The Hibagon would seem to more gorilla-like.)

Why there are unidentified primates in the world?

Well, 1) because they're there. There were two new species identified last year. They're just not huge.

2) because there are remote areas and suitable habitat all over the world where "relic" hominids can survive and very likely have.

I'm not saying that we have these same animals all over the world but rather we have accounts of similar creatures (being upright, humaniform primates) from all over yet no conclusive evidence to support them.

Regardless, when you broaden the scope in your first statement to primates in general there can be no disagreement. However, in the second concerning the survival of relict hominids I'm not so sure 'likely' is a word I'd use.

 

[Correa Neto]

They look fake to you. Don't they all? Have you examined any casts firsthand? Have you come up with a design for fake feet that allows toe movement and a flexible mid foot?

Not them all. Just the obvious ones such as the mentioned.
There are also the mistaken ids.

There's no need for fake feet with flexible mid foot or moving toes. Rigid fakefeet and superposed prints can duplicate the alleged mid-tarsal break effect. Not to mention that to prove flexible mid-feet one must have at least one foot. Got one?

And we've been to the mid-tarsal break discussion before. Assuming bigfeet are real, the foot and toe morphology inferred from bigfeet fooprints does not match the ones observed in real primates with flexible feet. The extra flexibility is also unlikely for a bipedal primate that is adapted to walk along great distances since besides not allowing an efficient energy transmittion from the muscles tothe ground also creates an extra wear point.

The "toe movment" seen at casts and prints are dubious when it comes to the morphology.

Please note the "in the mountains". It was still wilderness.

Still wilderness but yet still far from inaccessible... And since its near they home, how come better evidence was not obtained?

Sceptics fall back on that quite a bit. Bear seems most popular.

And?

One of the research areas in Washington has yielded 147 tracks. There may be a mother and two young in the area.

Oh, so many tracks! And good enough to say there were three bigfeet there!

And still no clear realiable stills, footage or a specimen were obtained from such a prime area?

Or from anywhere else?

 

[LAL]

Rock piles ? Let me guess . No identifiable squatch hair in them rock piles.

One account ?

There are "cairns" and "blinds" all over the PNW. There were some on the north end of the land I owned in the Columbia Gorge.

They're attributed to the Cascades tribe, but no one photographed them making them 800 years ago. It's possible some of these aren't from human activity, as Hewkin suggested.

I don't suppose Glenn Thomas thought to look for hair. He might have been a little shook up.

 

[kitakaze]

LAL, may I ask what you at this time believe sas' inhabited range within North America?

 

[LAL]

I'm not saying that we have these same animals all over the world but rather we have accounts of similar creatures (being upright, humaniform primates) from all over yet no conclusive evidence to support them.

Regardless, when you broaden the scope in your first statement to primates in general there can be no disagreement. However, in the second concerning the survival of relict hominids I'm not so sure 'likely' is a word I'd use.

Why? We know Gigantopithecus survived to at least 300,000 years ago. That doesn't mean they all died off at the time. There are three jawbones, transported to caves by water and/or porcupines. Other than those and 1100 there's nothing left (that we know about) of a species that was widespread and endured for at least 500,000 years. In that time there could have been many offshoots and subspecies we know nothing about.

China's not that far from Japan.

BTW, I use "hominid" in this sense:

"hominid

Any member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. Formerly, only humans (with their extinct forebears) were categorized as hominids, and the great apes were categorized as pongids-that is, members of the primate family Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still. As a result, it has become more common among zoologists to consider humans and great apes to be hominids. See also hominin."

 

[LAL]

Not them all. Just the obvious ones such as the mentioned.
There are also the mistaken ids.

There's no need for fake feet with flexible mid foot or moving toes. Rigid fakefeet and superposed prints can duplicate the alleged mid-tarsal break effect.

On Alki beach, maybe. Try that on a firm substrate.

Read Meldrum on mistaken beartracks. He makes the difference quite clear.

There are many examples of prints showing articulating toes. One print viewed in a photo doesn't mean much. It's the variation over a distance that's of interest.

Not to mention that to prove flexible mid-feet one must have at least one foot. Got one?

Got a convincing fake foot?

And we've been to the mid-tarsal break discussion before. Assuming bigfeet are real, the foot and toe morphology inferred from bigfeet fooprints does not match the ones observed in real primates with flexible feet.

They'e not chimps or gorillas, but see below.

The extra flexibility is also unlikely for a bipedal primate that is adapted to walk along great distances since besides not allowing an efficient energy transmittion from the muscles tothe ground also creates an extra wear point.

Meldrum himself shot you down on that one. Shall I find the post?

The "toe movment" seen at casts and prints are dubious when it comes to the morphology.

How many of these have you seen?

Still wilderness but yet still far from inaccessible... And since its near they home, how come better evidence was not obtained?

He cast the prints. Was he supposed to tackle the printmaker?

And?


Oh, so many tracks! And good enough to say there were three bigfeet there!

And still no clear realiable stills, footage or a specimen were obtained from such a prime area?

Or from anywhere else?

There are intriguing trail cam pics. Stay tuned.

 

[kitakaze]

Why? We know Gigantopithecus survived to at least 300,000 years ago. That doesn't mean they all died off at the time. There are three jawbones, transported to caves by water and/or porcupines. Other than those and 1100 there's nothing left (that we know about) of a species that was widespread and endured for at least 500,000 years. In that time there could have been many offshoots and subspecies we know nothing about.

Check my post (#533) in the other thread. I'll consider this counterpoint. Some good points to consider but given the scantness of Gigantopithecus' fossil record we can take things a step further- why bind ourselves and place our chips on Giganto when we simply need to surmise a candidate thus far not represented? Because it's quite meaningless in addressing the question at hand. Searching for an ancestor to fill sas' shoes doesn't distract from the fact we can't find sas.

China's not that far from Japan.

By your reasoning above (I don't have any objections) are you suggesting some form of Giganto as the progenitor for Hibagon?

BTW, I use "hominid" in this sense:

"hominid

Any member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. Formerly, only humans (with their extinct forebears) were categorized as hominids, and the great apes were categorized as pongids-that is, members of the primate family Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still. As a result, it has become more common among zoologists to consider humans and great apes to be hominids. See also hominin."

OK, me too.

 

[LAL]

LAL, may I ask what you at this time believe sas' inhabited range within North America?

The Pacific Northwest, certainly. I was dubious about eastern reports before I moved here. Now I'm getting local reports from mountainous areas and one from the Piedmont (over 2 million acres in WNC are in national forests, park and wilderness- and then there are the swamps). There seems to be pretty good evidence from the Adirondacks as well as the Southern Appalachians. Logging's all but ceased around here, so there's little human activity in the forests, and very few roads. Sasquatches (and Mountain Lions) may be making a comeback.

Then there are the reports from the South, especially Alabama, and the compelling Elkins Creek cast.

The southern variety could be a subspecies; they may be smaller and generally lighter in color.