Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe Neanderthal Man Didn't Go Extinct

There are enormous areas of Canada, Russia and Alaska that are uninhabited. Herds of Mammoths could still roam there undetected. Perhaps the Neanderthals were pushed out of their normal habitats by a changing climate and competition with the Cro Magnons and into these areas where only small bands still survive. Occassionally a clan migrates into remote and nearly uninhabited areas of the American west
Hence the sightings

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How about the quasi religious frenzy of the scoftics and debunkers? I mean, don't they have anything better to do? What are they so bothered and upset about? Why should they care so much?

Why should you care if they care ?

Got better things to do with my life.

Enjoy..

 

[Huntster]

There are enormous areas of Canada, Russia and Alaska that are uninhabited. Herds of Mammoths could still roam there undetected.

Let me assure you:

There are no herds of mammoths roaming the steppe/tundra/taiga.

Perhaps the Neanderthals were pushed out of their normal habitats by a changing climate and competition with the Cro Magnons and into these areas where only small bands still survive.

I do believe that was the case.

Occassionally a clan migrates into remote and nearly uninhabited areas of the American west
Hence the sightings

What is being sighted isn't a Neanderthal.

If Neanderthals survived, they assimilated.

Sasquatches can't. They aren't human.

I believe sasquatches are going extinct. It has been going on for quite a while.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by carcharodon
How about the quasi religious frenzy of the scoftics and debunkers? I mean, don't they have anything better to do? What are they so bothered and upset about? Why should they care so much?

Why should you care if they care ?

Because if the pseudo-scientists are turning science into a religion, it affects us all.

 

[LAL]

Lu, what do you mean when you say, "DeAtley, McClarin and Green saw the 'true original'"? Do you mean they saw the film exactly as it came out of Roger's camera with no cutting & splicing?

No, it was developed first. Geez.

DeAtley took Roger to his basement for the first (unless DeAtley saw it earlier) showing. Then it was shown to Green and then to the others when they arrived. (Dahinden went to Willow Creek, met McClarin there and went with him to Yakima when they learned P&G had already left.)

We have been presented with a montage of still frames from "Roll 2". This includes scenes of horseback riding. Were riding scenes from before the Patty encounter spliced into Roll 2? If not, why do the stills from Roll 2 show pre-Patty horseback riding?

Ask Murphy.The photos are from the Murphy File on Hancock House forums, aren't they?

There's nothing to indicate there was any splicing done to any original footage. Taking stills from both rolls (or 1st generation copies thereof, presumably Green's or stills now owned by Dahinden's son) years later and making a montage of them hardly indicates skullduggery. Who made the montage?

Dahinden cut 10' from the second roll, the part showing Roger casting the prints. The BBC didn't return the rest of the second roll. That's the only cutting I now of. I don't know if John Green's first generation copy has been cut at all.

There was no splicing or other tampering when the original first roll was examined by Kodak lab techs.

A student of the PGF is also left wondering about a few postings on BFF. Some have said that there was film footage viewed of RP making plaster castings of faked footprints that he had made. This footage is described as being a demonstration that was intentionally filmed by RP to show the process of gathering Bigfoot evidence. Where is this footage? What "roll" is it on? Should students of the PGF seek out any detailed information on the history of this "footprint casting demonstration footage"?

What's your source? Roger cast actual tracks in a farmer's field prior to the filming. This is mentioned in his book.

If he did a demo at some point for the documentary he was making what would be wrong with that? The prints they were finding earlier on the trip were too deteriorated to be of use.

Roger Patterson had made some fake plaster Bigfoot footprints and showed them to a camera shop owner to get his opinions about them prior to filming Patty. Is this true? Did RP actually make fake plaster castings of Bigfoot footprints before filming Patty?

Perhaps the camera shop owner wanted his 15 minutes of fame? Long seemed to have a knack for interviewing liars. Patterson supposedly said he slammed fakes into the ground to make deep prints. Unfortunately, there were no spatter marks at Bluff Creek.

I don't know if he said they were plaster. I'll have to look that up. But what hoaxer worth his salt would tell a camera store owner anything?

Roger was not in the area when the Blue Creek/Onion Mountain tracks were found. These evidently were the trackways Al Hogson called Patricia Patterson about; she informed Roger when he and Gimlin returned from Mt. St. Helens. (Green and Abott investigated those.) P&G then made the trip to California.

Have you read Long? Note how he made a big deal out of Gimlin's not remembering th name of the place from which they sent the film, but didn't seem concerned about DeAtley's repeated memory failures on the topic of how the film was sent.

 

[LAL]

Perhaps the Neanderthals were pushed out of their normal habitats by a changing climate and competition with the Cro Magnons and into these areas where only small bands still survive.

Some of the Russian scientists think that's what the Almasty are, due to the similarity of their prints to preserved Neandertal footprints, but the Neandertalers had a sophisticated toolkit, made clothing, ornaments and possible musical intruments and used fire.

Sasquatches do none of the above.

Krantz thought the Almasty were surviving Paleolithic hunters, fully modern Homo sapiens.

The debate goes on about whether there was interbreeding. The DNA is thought to be too different for viable offspring, but there are a couple of suspected hybrid skeletons and some traits (such as red hair) thought to be remnant Neandertal traits in our species.

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't know, and I'm not too interested in performing the search to figure it out.

Then, why the issue seems to disturb you so much, since every now and then you complain about?

When was the "last time you checked"?

Got some names and numbers?

You can do the search by yourself, but since you just wrote you are not interested... Aniway, if you really read and understand what the people who oppose your POVs wrote, you know who they are. Every now and then people write that they are not closed to the possibility bigfeet are real. However, the evidence and reasonings presented so far are dubious and fail to convince them.

All it takes is realiable evidence, good data handling and round reasonings. Got some to offer?

Yup. You just don't accept it.

Evidence quality standards, Huntster. Present reliable evidence and I'll -as well as the other people around here as well as those you claim to be isolated at their "ivory towers" will accept.

Got some to offer?

Including species which there is lots of testimony and other evidence that indicates their existence, but which science hasn't accepted.

The evidence you are talking about is unreliable. To be acceptable, one would need to downgrade data quality criteria, among other things. To do so, would be a recipe for disaster. With current standards, every now and then there are problems. Now, imagine with lowered standards.

Its up to the defenders of the claim to adjust their quality standards to acceptable levels -if they can.

Wanna play a game?
You've gotta play by its rules.

Wanna be accepted by "mainstream science"?
You've gotta play by its rules.

But the evidence of their scarcity was not reliable, and millions were spent and a dam project killed with the lousy "science":

First, there are reliable evidence the fishes are real.
Second, there are no reliable evidence that bigfeet are real.
Third, lousy science is to lower data handling and quality requirements to the point of accepting a blend of anedoctal data, hoaxes and inconclusive evidence as "reliable".

Not at all. It's the standard statement of "scientists" when they don't know what it is.

In other words, it means "I don't know", but it isn't interpreted that way by many.

Nope.
Read again what I wrote on the "unidentified DNA" and "the negatives were not tampered lines". And try presenting arguments refuting it if you can.

They tested hair and fecal samples found next to a "nest" which one of the biologists stated resembled gorilla nests he had seen in Africa. There were claw marks on the tree next to the nest.

Seems pretty obvious to me, but when the sample didn't match any known native species, the result was "inconclusive" (or, in layman's terms, "we don't know what the hell this is").

Huntster, can you see the obvious problems with what you wrote?

Yes it was.

I stated that I don't know if botanists give a damn about apes.

You sure have interesting comprehension and interpretation skills. Would you call them "scientific"?

Read back the posts on their propper context, please.
Can you conter what I wrote with arguments?

You have no points. All you have is doubt.

A highly questionable claim. I eagerly await to see what you've got to back it, for it should include material regarding my posts on subjects other than bigfoot.

BTW, having doubts is very healthy. I do have them. Lots of them, all the time. They make me think and constantly re evaluate my positions. I consider its better to have doubts than suffering the delusion of being absolutely correct about something.

Oh, the fact that resorting to ad homs is a useless strategy remains.

They have certainly not done so on a "peer review" basis.

You have papers on the description of the genus and the several species proposed, published at peer-review journals. You have Grove's paper on the taxonomy of the genus explaining this quite well.

And you have zero evidence pointing that the existence of gorillas was challenged by anyone after Savage's work.

You asked how zoologists get their specimens. I answered, and quite correctly.

Reasoning has nothing to do with it. I know damned well how zoologists get Alaskan brown bears and polar bears.

You are wrong.
If not, prove it, instead just saying "I know damn well".

How about the same investment as what is being given the ivory-billed woodpecker?

Already answered by other posters here. Please check their posts.

BTW, IF evidence and reasoning as reliable as the avaliable for the ivory-billed woodpecker existed for bigfeet, than it would be worthy spending much more time and money. But I am not aware of any reliable pieces of evidence backing the claim "bigfeet are real".

Got some?

That answer is even more pathetic.

And can you counter it, instead of just calling it "pathetic"?

So my insistence that science gets off it's ass and look into the matter is part of the reason they don't?

I think you are overstating your importance.
All defenders of any claim who rely on frequent ad homs and show poor data handling skills are not helping their causes.

When it comes to this forum, the tactics you use here are not helping your cause. And if one day one of the "ivory towers" scientists happens to stumble on your posts here, he/she will get a good impression.

Another mistake of yours: You can't say "science is not looking or has not looked in to it". Scientists did looked and are looking at it, if you read this very thread fully you know it. However, they are not finding the answers you would like to be seeing. You might say you would like see more scientists investigating it. But still, you would strike a dead end, since the quality of evidence avaliable so far and the poor data handling skills coupled with frequent ad homs from some of the defenders of the claim keep many people away.

The major obstacles are not the skeptics, or "mainstream science." Unrelibale data, poor data handling skills and frequent appeals to ad homs are the real obstacles. And, at very core of the discussion, once you remove the unreliable data, what will the claimants be left with?

Your answers get more pathetic with each stroke of your computer keys.

But are you able to counter them?

Please, be my guest and expose your counter arguments. I haven't seen them yet. Just saying they are "pathetic" is completely useless.

If you bless the investment of $5 million in the continued two year search for an ivory-billed woodpecker, or the multi-million dollar SETI program, and reject a similar (or even much smaller) investment in the very first government search to discover the truth about sasquatches, you are either a hypocrite or a denialist.

It all boils down to the fact that the evidence and reasonings used to back SETI and the search for the woodpecker were way better than the evidence and reasonings used to beck the existence of bigfeet.

This is my position.

And its ready to be changed if someone manages to present reliable data backing the claim.

Got some?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by William Parcher
Lu, what do you mean when you say, "DeAtley, McClarin and Green saw the 'true original'"? Do you mean they saw the film exactly as it came out of Roger's camera with no cutting & splicing?

No, it was developed first. Geez.

DeAtley took Roger to his basement for the first (unless DeAtley saw it earlier) showing. Then it was shown to Green and then to the others when they arrived. (Dahinden went to Willow Creek, met McClarin there and went with him to Yakima when they learned P&G had already left.)

I'll ask again ... ( maybe someone could pass this on to Lu )

How did anyone ( besides Patterson ) watching the ( alleged ) first showing of that film, know it was an uncut, un-edited 100 ft ( developed ) reel of film, just the way it came out of the camera ?

Saying whatever else was on the reel with Patty doesn't matter, because those who saw it would have said something if there was anything suspicious, is bullspit ..

There is no way to know what else was on that reel, before it was shown to anyone,
particularly whether or not the film actually ran out as Patty walks away.

We only have Pattersons word for it, and he was a liar and a cheat .

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't know, and I'm not too interested in performing the search to figure it out.

Then, why the issue seems to disturb you so much, since every now and then you complain about?

I simply don't know how many there are, and I'm not interested in performing a search to count them for you. If you want to know how many there are, count them yourself.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. You just don't accept it.

Evidence quality standards, Huntster. Present reliable evidence and I'll -as well as the other people around here as well as those you claim to be isolated at their "ivory towers" will accept.

What quality evidence was presented to interest so many scientists in SETI, and to interest the government to fund SETI to the tune of millions of dollars?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Including species which there is lots of testimony and other evidence that indicates their existence, but which science hasn't accepted.

The evidence you are talking about is unreliable. To be acceptable, one would need to downgrade data quality criteria, among other things. To do so, would be a recipe for disaster. With current standards, every now and then there are problems. Now, imagine with lowered standards.

Its up to the defenders of the claim to adjust their quality standards to acceptable levels -if they can.

Wanna play a game?
You've gotta play by its rules.

Too bad it's being treated like "a game."

Wanna be accepted by "mainstream science"?
You've gotta play by its rules.

Actually, I'm not too impressed with "mainstream science" in a number of areas.

If they want to exclude themselves from "the game", so be it.

But later, if these creatures are established as real, I'll be there, and I'll be talking ◊◊◊◊ as loud as I can.

I'll be pointing out the ones who were recorded as skeptics and those who were recorded as denialists.

Originally Posted by Huntster
But the evidence of their scarcity was not reliable, and millions were spent and a dam project killed with the lousy "science":

First, there are reliable evidence the fishes are real.
Second, there are no reliable evidence that bigfeet are real.
Third, lousy science is to lower data handling and quality requirements to the point of accepting a blend of anedoctal data, hoaxes and inconclusive evidence as "reliable".

You're downplaying the event.

"Science" either screwed it up, or played an ideological game to achieve a political end.

Which was it?

What is it now, in the case of sasquatchery?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not at all. It's the standard statement of "scientists" when they don't know what it is.

In other words, it means "I don't know", but it isn't interpreted that way by many.

Nope.
Read again what I wrote on the "unidentified DNA" and "the negatives were not tampered lines". And try presenting arguments refuting it if you can.

No.

I have no intention of reading your posts twice. If you refuse to address my points (like science refuses to address the sasquatch issue), so be it.

I don't play "the game."

Originally Posted by Huntster
They tested hair and fecal samples found next to a "nest" which one of the biologists stated resembled gorilla nests he had seen in Africa. There were claw marks on the tree next to the nest.

Seems pretty obvious to me, but when the sample didn't match any known native species, the result was "inconclusive" (or, in layman's terms, "we don't know what the hell this is").

Huntster, can you see the obvious problems with what you wrote?

Yes:

No official, recorded, or responsible inquiry by the appropriate agencies, even after representatives of those agencies were called onto the scene by the private native corporation who owned the land, and who stood to lose timber income if the right thing had been done.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You have no points. All you have is doubt.

A highly questionable claim. I eagerly await to see what you've got to back it, for it should include material regarding my posts on subjects other than bigfoot.

Oh, I don't claim you have no points whatsoever in life. I'm sure you're a pretty smart feller.

But all you have with regard to the sasquatch phenomenon is doubt. You have brought no points to the table that I have seen.

BTW, having doubts is very healthy. I do have them. Lots of them, all the time. They make me think and constantly re evaluate my positions. I consider its better to have doubts than suffering the delusion of being absolutely correct about something.

I have so many doubts I'm often called cynical.

Most of my doubts regard people. I have no reason to doubt that a bipedal ape has been able to avoid discovery by science.

And you have zero evidence pointing that the existence of gorillas was challenged by anyone after Savage's work.

I have posted, linked, and quoted the July 1903 National Geographic article several times now. I will not do so again if you reject it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You asked how zoologists get their specimens. I answered, and quite correctly.

Reasoning has nothing to do with it. I know damned well how zoologists get Alaskan brown bears and polar bears.

You are wrong.
If not, prove it, instead just saying "I know damn well".

This will be yet another useless exercise with you (like the Du Chaillu affair), but I will entertain you just a bit here.

My claim is that zoologists acquire animals from adventurers and outdoorsmen who find them abandoned or orphaned (especially brown and polar bears). (BTW, I have been both personally and professionally involved in such events). You appear to refute that, but haven't yet written down what you believe, or why you even want to go there.

So here is some evidence of my claim:

Sea Otters:

Sea Otters:
The Zoo now owns one sea otter, but he is not in Minnesota yet.

Our otter, an orphaned male pup called “Capers,” was just two weeks old when he was spotted alone in Kachemak Bay, Alaska, on May 29. He was immediately taken to the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward where he was cared for by rehabilitation staff. He was transferred to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago on June 30. Minnesota Zoo staff are working with staff at Shedd Aquarium to care for and teach Capers to groom, eat and "be an otter."

Brown bears (same site; Minnesota zoo):

Bears:
This summer the Zoo acquired three orphaned bear cubs. The first was a female found near a landfill in Kotzebue, Alaska, in June 2006. Rescued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, they named her “Sadie” after the Sadie Creek near where she was orphaned. She was transferred to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC) in Portage Glacier, where she will stay until coming to Minnesota in 2008.

Funny. Sadie isn't the first brown bear sent to a Minnesota zoo:

A brown bear actually broke into the Alaska zoo in Anchorage two or three times before it was captured and put in an exhibit enclosure. It was sent to a zoo in Minnesota, I think either Duluth or Minneapolis. This was several years ago.

How's this one:

In Alaska, indigenous groups permitted by the government to hunt the federally protected walrus for their own subsistence have attracted a surprising scavenger: zoos -- which go on the hunts in order to "save" orphaned animals. But critics worry that the zoos end up actually choreographing the hunts.

A publication of the Cincinnati Zoo once recounted how "three little orphaned walrus pups were rescued." What it didn't explain was how the zoo paid Native Alaskans $25,000 for expenses and to go along with them on a May 1996 "rescue" expedition. The hunters killed four female walruses with pups. Three pups were retrieved for the zoo and a fourth was killed after zoo employees said it was the wrong sex.

Originally Posted by Huntster
How about the same investment as what is being given the ivory-billed woodpecker?

Already answered by other posters here. Please check their posts.

No answer yet from anyone, certainly not you.

Please cite one of these "answers".

BTW, IF evidence and reasoning as reliable as the avaliable for the ivory-billed woodpecker existed for bigfeet, than it would be worthy spending much more time and money.

What "evidence and reasoning" is reliable regarding the current ivory-billed search? There have been seven claimed sighting and a single, grainy, inconclusive film of several seconds in length.

Try again.

But I am not aware of any reliable pieces of evidence backing the claim "bigfeet are real".

Got some?

Hundreds of footprint casts, a film that is every bit as good as the ivory-billed film, and a whole hell of a lot more sightings.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So my insistence that science gets off it's ass and look into the matter is part of the reason they don't?

I think you are overstating your importance.

I'm not overstating my importance.

You are.

All defenders of any claim who rely on frequent ad homs and show poor data handling skills are not helping their causes.

Get real. "Science" has no intention of investing anything into this issue. They'll sit on their asses until Joe Sixpack shoots one and delivers it. Then they'll jump up and down screaming for funding to study it, like they've been the authorities all along.

My "ad homs" have no effect whatsoever, except to piss apologists like you off.

When it comes to this forum, the tactics you use here are not helping your cause.

Like people on this forum can do anything to "help" me?

And if one day one of the "ivory towers" scientists happens to stumble on your posts here, he/she will get a good impression.

You think I give much of a damn what "ivory tower" scientists think?

Another mistake of yours: You can't say "science is not looking or has not looked in to it". Scientists did looked and are looking at it, if you read this very thread fully you know it.

Yes. A few have, especially immediately after the PG film.

Even today some are looking into it. There is a primatologist who is active on the Bigfoot forums, and who maintains strict anonymity (he isn't afraid of "us", but of his "industry"). He has told us that he can speak frankly about the subject with some of his colleagues.

But in terms of scientists active in the phenomenon?

A half-dozen..............maybe. And it's "part-time", because they can't get the funding/support to go at this full time.

Cornell and the ivory-billed? Already over two years of searching with a team of scientists. Millions in funding.

SETI? Years of broadcasting without a single reply. And they're still lobbying Congress for more funding. They'll get it, too. Millions.

However, they are not finding the answers you would like to be seeing. You might say you would like see more scientists investigating it. But still, you would strike a dead end, since the quality of evidence avaliable so far and the poor data handling skills coupled with frequent ad homs from some of the defenders of the claim keep many people away.

That's a bunch of crap. My "ad homs" don't keep scientists away from the phenomenon. Crap like this does:

Meldrum holds a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences and is a tenured professor of anatomy at the school, and also one of the world's foremost expert on Bigfoot,the mythical smelly ape-man of the Northwest woods. Many scientists at the school are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure.

My ad homs?

The major obstacles are not the skeptics, or "mainstream science." Unrelibale data, poor data handling skills and frequent appeals to ad homs are the real obstacles. And, at very core of the discussion, once you remove the unreliable data, what will the claimants be left with?


Originally Posted by Huntster
Your answers get more pathetic with each stroke of your computer keys.

But are you able to counter them?

Please, be my guest and expose your counter arguments. I haven't seen them yet. Just saying they are "pathetic" is completely useless.

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you bless the investment of $5 million in the continued two year search for an ivory-billed woodpecker, or the multi-million dollar SETI program, and reject a similar (or even much smaller) investment in the very first government search to discover the truth about sasquatches, you are either a hypocrite or a denialist.

It all boils down to the fact that the evidence and reasonings used to back SETI and the search for the woodpecker were way better than the evidence and reasonings used to beck the existence of bigfeet.

You are shameless, aren't you?

Please point out any evidence used to justify the millions of dollars invested in SETI.

This is my position.

And I will remind you of it often.

And I await the evidence of extraterrestrial life with great anticipation.

Please provide it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hundreds of footprint casts

And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no foot to compare the casts to ..

....a film that is every bit as good as the ivory-billed film, and a whole hell of a lot more sightings.

There is one small difference .. The IB's existence was an established fact, before it was believed to be extinct ..

You make a few good points from time to time.. These ain't two of them ...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Hundreds of footprint casts

And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no foot to compare the casts to ..

No, you keep ignoring the fact that if we had a foot to compare the casts to, we'd have proof, not evidence.

Is this a game you're playing, or are you really that dense?

Quote:
....a film that is every bit as good as the ivory-billed film, and a whole hell of a lot more sightings.

There is one small difference .. The IB's existence was an established fact, before it was believed to be extinct ..

So?

Maybe you really can't get beyond the need for proof of everything.

Evidence just doesn't register, does it?

You make a few good points from time to time.

Thanks.

I wish I could say the same for you.

 

[Huntster]

.....The major obstacles are not the skeptics, or "mainstream science." Unrelibale data, poor data handling skills and frequent appeals to ad homs are the real obstacles.....

More evidence to show your pathetic apologism is all wrong:

The French dispatch steamer Alecton was cruising off the Canary Islands late in November of 1861 when its crew spotted something unusual in the water. It looked like a large sea monster with many arms and a long tail. The gunboat, firing cannon and musket at the strange apparition, pursed it until they could get close enough to throw harpoons into it's body. The harpoons wouldn't stay in the flesh for long, but finally the crew managed to get a noose around the tail of the monster. As they tried to pull the thing aboard, the rope tightened and cut though the animal. Most of the creature sank into the sea, but the ship's captain, decided to take the tail of the thing back to the French Consul at Tenerife. From there the tail, and a report about the creature, made its way to the French Academy of Sciences.
At the Academy the report was widely ridiculed. No serious scientist could believe in such a creature. As one member said, It was against the laws of nature.
Against the laws of nature or not, the creature seen by the Alecton's crew did exist. Today we call it the giant squid......

Some things never change.................

 

[carcharodon]

There is no way to know what else was on that reel, before it was shown to anyone,
particularly whether or not the film actually ran out as Patty walks away.

Personally, I don't see what difference it would have made either way. The subject was gone and Patterson didn't run after it. He could have had 10,000 ft of film left in that camera and he wouldn't have gotten a better shot THAN HE ALREADY GOT. In fact, he wouldn't have gotten any more useful shots. The subject was disapearing even when he still had film left in the camera.

We only have Pattersons word for it, and he was a liar and a cheat .

No, we don't only have Patterson's word for it. You are forgetting Bob Gimlin as well. He was there. He was witness to Patterson running out of filming. Is he a liar and a cheat too???

 

[LAL]

(or 1st generation copies thereof, presumably Green's or stills now owned by Dahinden's son)

Correction: sons. Excuse the typo.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Personally, I don't see what difference it would have made either way. The subject was gone and Patterson didn't run after it. He could have had 10,000 ft of film left in that camera and he wouldn't have gotten a better shot THAN HE ALREADY GOT. In fact, he wouldn't have gotten any more useful shots. The subject was disapearing even when he still had film left in the camera.

Only if you believe the story ...

No, we don't only have Patterson's word for it. You are forgetting Bob Gimlin as well. He was there. He was witness to Patterson running out of filming.

How did he witness Patterson running out of film ? Wasn't he busy with the horses ?
Just like you and me, Gimlin only had Patterson's word that he ran out of film..

Where has Gimlin ever related what he saw in the entire 100 foot reel as it came out of the camera ?

You do know he didn't even sit in on the first screening, don't you ?

" Hey we just filmed the first ever Bigfoot ! Wanna see it ? "

" Nahhhh... I think I'll take a nap​

..."

Is he a liar and a cheat too???

I am not aware of of any evidence that he is a cheat..
It seems to me he could be lying about the circumstances of the filming..
If there is no Bigfoot, he must be ...

 

[Correa Neto]

I simply don't know how many there are, and I'm not interested in performing a search to count them for you. If you want to know how many there are, count them yourself.

You are the one who seems to be annoyed by them...
You were the one who asked...

What quality evidence was presented to interest so many scientists in SETI, and to interest the government to fund SETI to the tune of millions of dollars?

What about doing some research by yourself? SETI site would be a good place to start.
Here's the link:
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025

SETI is based on suppositions, reasonings and arguments based in hard data; it is also backed by the importance the discovery of an alien civilization would have to us. It was considered good enough for private and government funding, even with infinitesimal odds of a hit.

All the sighting reports, all the footprints casts, PGF and the reasonings based on it are considered as not being enough to trigger a project due to a single reason: They are unreliable.

If you wish to discuss what backs SETI in depth, open a thread at Science and Technology subforum.

Too bad it's being treated like "a game."

Too bad some people can't play the game and try to change the rules...

Actually, I'm not too impressed with "mainstream science" in a number of areas.

If they want to exclude themselves from "the game", so be it.

OT comments:
The "mainstream science" you try to downplay beats any other alternatives in all areas.

And most "mainstream scientists" are very unimpressed with the "evidence" and "theories" presented so far by the defenders of the claim...

But later, if these creatures are established as real, I'll be there, and I'll be talking ◊◊◊◊ as loud as I can.

I'll be pointing out the ones who were recorded as skeptics and those who were recorded as denialists.

I will not hold my breath waiting for your loud talk...
I suggest you should also not hold your breath waiting for the time you will be speaking as loud as you can...

My opinion?
This moment will never happen.

You're downplaying the event.

"Science" either screwed it up, or played an ideological game to achieve a political end.

Which was it?

What is it now, in the case of sasquatchery?

None of the above.
The fish is know to exist. There are reliable pieces of evidence baking its existence.

There are no reliable data backing the existence of bigfeet.

In the snail darter case, if someone "screwed up" something or played some political game, it was not "science". It was someone who used information obtained by "science" for his/her own purposes.

There's no analogy between both situations.

No.

I have no intention of reading your posts twice. If you refuse to address my points (like science refuses to address the sasquatch issue), so be it.

I don't play "the game."

Oh, I have already addressed at several occasions -including at this very post. I'll address it again, since it seems you missed it.

You can't really say "science refuses to address bigfeet". I'll write again: Chances are "mainstream scientists" already have looked in to the issue. Unless Krantz and Meldrum are hermits, they have discussed the issue with their colleagues at symposiums, meetings, coffee breaks at their institutions, etc. And they failed to attract them to their cause. Why? Because the evidence they rely on is flimsy.

Now, if you don't want to read and think about what I wrote on the "inconclusive DNA" and the "not tampering of PGF negatives", its your problem. If you want to keep repeating the same useless and flawed arguments, its your problem. All I can do is try to show where your mistakes lie in the best possible and polite way. Hopefully, someone else will understand and avoid making the same mistakes.

Yes:

No official, recorded, or responsible inquiry by the appropriate agencies, even after representatives of those agencies were called onto the scene by the private native corporation who owned the land, and who stood to lose timber income if the right thing had been done.

Are you somehow trying to invoke some sort of conspiracy theory to keep the truth about bigfeet hidden? You'd better be able to back this... But please, do it at the conspiracy theories subforum...

Aniway, are you sure you don't see the problem with the original quote? Something inconsistent with bigfeet lore?

Oh, I don't claim you have no points whatsoever in life. I'm sure you're a pretty smart feller.

But all you have with regard to the sasquatch phenomenon is doubt. You have brought no points to the table that I have seen.

Oh, really?

I disagree. Choose a subject we discussed and lets discuss it again.

I have so many doubts I'm often called cynical.

Most of my doubts regard people. I have no reason to doubt that a bipedal ape has been able to avoid discovery by science.

Well, I have no reason to doubt that the odds of bigfeet being real are very small.

I have posted, linked, and quoted the July 1903 National Geographic article several times now. I will not do so again if you reject it.

I have also already posted links exposing my points. If you reject them, its your problem. Or perhaps mine for not making myself clear enough for you to understand.

The fact that Du Chaillu's problems were related to the accounts on his book, and not to some refusal of scientists to accept gorillas as real animals stands, NG's article can not change this situation. There is no possible analogy between the "discovery" of gorillas and the "undiscovery" of bigfeet.

This will be yet another useless exercise with you (like the Du Chaillu affair), but I will entertain you just a bit here.

My claim is that zoologists acquire animals from adventurers and outdoorsmen who find them abandoned or orphaned (especially brown and polar bears). (BTW, I have been both personally and professionally involved in such events). You appear to refute that, but haven't yet written down what you believe, or why you even want to go there.
...snip...

My claim is that zoologists do get their specimens living or dead by their own. They capture and when needed tag them. Yes, in some cases they will not refuse specimens obtained by others. But by no means they rely just on other people.

To back it, I present this link:
http://bscit.berkeley.edu/mvz/
At this specimen database, you'll find among a myriad of information, the collector's names.

And BTW, I have been involved personally in more than one field work to acquire specimens. I am married with a biologist, I have several friends that are biologists, I helped them on many occasions to collect specimens (bats, monkeys, birds, rodents, arthropods, fishes, scat, etc.). Some -women included- are much more hardened than many "outdoorsmen".

No answer yet from anyone, certainly not you.

Please cite one of these "answers".

Please feel free to scroll up and down a bit.
Please also make sure you´ve read DesertYeti's posts. I may be wrong, but I guess RayG also made some comment on this.

What "evidence and reasoning" is reliable regarding the current ivory-billed search? There have been seven claimed sighting and a single, grainy, inconclusive film of several seconds in length.

Try again.
Hundreds of footprint casts, a film that is every bit as good as the ivory-billed film, and a whole hell of a lot more sightings.

As far as I know, the subject of the film that is supposed to show the ivory-billed woodpecker is not suspected to be some guy wearing a gorilla suit... A mistake, another type of woodpecker, yes, that might as well be the case, but is it suspected to be a hoax? No, at least as far as I know. What about PGF?

As far as I know, there are specimens of ivory-billed woodpeckers, we know the species exist(ed). We know there are other species of woodpeckers in North America. What about bigfeet? Any bigfoot-like creatures are known at North America at any time? As far as I know, no.

Hundreds of footprint casts, suspected of being cases of mistaken IDs and hoaxes mean very little if anything at all without a foot...

A pile of sighting reports that are nothing but sighting reports... If you really cared to read about the woodpecker's film story, you'll see a major difference, its called repeatability, reproducibility. Something that's missing when it comes to bigfeet.

I'm not overstating my importance.

You are.

Prove it.

Get real. "Science" has no intention of investing anything into this issue. They'll sit on their asses until Joe Sixpack shoots one and delivers it. Then they'll jump up and down screaming for funding to study it, like they've been the authorities all along.

Useless ad hom.

If the evidence were reliable, there would be investiment, from governmental and from private sources.

My "ad homs" have no effect whatsoever, except to piss apologists like you off.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I no longer feel offended by your ad homs. Ad homs backfire, Huntster... Your position, your image, your credibility suffers a blow every time you make one. They hit you, not me.

Like people on this forum can do anything to "help" me?

Yes. You can learn a lot here. We all can.
Open your mind. Have you checked that link on the "open mind"?
Here it is, again:
http://www.theskepticexpress.com/The_open_mind.php

Yes. A few have, especially immediately after the PG film.

Even today some are looking into it. There is a primatologist who is active on the Bigfoot forums, and who maintains strict anonymity (he isn't afraid of "us", but of his "industry"). He has told us that he can speak frankly about the subject with some of his colleagues.

But in terms of scientists active in the phenomenon?

A half-dozen..............maybe. And it's "part-time", because they can't get the funding/support to go at this full time.

They cann't get it because the evidence used to back the claim is unreliable and entangled with hoaxes.

And now you just spoke about scientists who looked in to the subject. What means your claim scientists do not look in to it is flawed.

Cornell and the ivory-billed? Already over two years of searching with a team of scientists. Millions in funding.

See above and below...

SETI? Years of broadcasting without a single reply. And they're still lobbying Congress for more funding. They'll get it, too. Millions.

See above and below...

That's a bunch of crap. My "ad homs" don't keep scientists away from the phenomenon. Crap like this does:

Already discussed here, Huntster. Read what people wrote about it.

And you know what lies at the bottom of it all?
Unreliable data backing the claim. With reliable evidence, there would be no questioning of that type.

You are shameless, aren't you?

Please point out any evidence used to justify the millions of dollars invested in SETI.

An ad hom... What about presenting some arguments instead of ad homs?
Please go to SETI site.
At http://www.badastronomy.com/ you may also find some help on the subject.

Oh, need I to remind you of the differences between the circunstances surrounding the ivory-billed woodpecker and those surrounding bigfeet?

And I will remind you of it often.

And I await the evidence of extraterrestrial life with great anticipation.

Please provide it.

Oh, please, feel free to remind me.

I'll write again:
There's more backing to SETI than to bigfeet, because the reasonings presented to back SETI are more reliable than the reasonings presented to back the claim "bigfeet are real".
And I'll add: SETI has no involvment with UFOs.

I'll add something more:
I think I will not see a signal made by an intelligent alien lifeform in my lifetime. I think maybe someone in the future will, but we two will not be here to check this.
I think I will not see comprobation of bigfeet being real in my lifetime. I think chances are in the future there will be no comprobation, but we two will not be here to check this.

And something else:
If SETI guys got their $$$ and bigfoot guys did not, blame it on the bigfoot guys... Specially if the evidence backing bigfeet is as good as they say...

Please open a new thread on what backs SETI if you are really interested on further discussion. Actually I belive there are some already right here at JREF. Just bump it if you are really interested.

BTW, why am I supposed to provide evidence for extraterrestrial life?

Oh, merry Xmas, I hope Santa Claus will bring you some reliable evidence on bigfeet...

 

[Correa Neto]

More evidence to show your pathetic apologism is all wrong:



Some things never change.................

Yes, some things never change...

More ad homs and another flawed analogy.

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Mollusca

Class: Cephalopoda

Subclass: Coleoidea

Order: Teuthida

Suborder: Oegopsina

Family: Architeuthidae
Pfeffer, 1900
Genus: Architeuthis
Steenstrup in Harting, 1860

Species
Architeuthis dux Steenstrup, 1857
?Architeuthis hartingii Verrill, 1875
?Architeuthis japonica Pfeffer, 1912
?Architeuthis kirkii Robson, 1887
?Architeuthis martensi (Hilgendorf, 1880)
?Architeuthis physeteris (Joubin, 1900)
?Architeuthis sanctipauli (Velain, 1877)
?Architeuthis stockii (Kirk, 1882)

Your source is terribly mistaken, since the incident happened in 1861, but the giant squid was already known to science back in 1857 if Wikipedia is correct...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid

Better luck next time.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I simply don't know how many there are, and I'm not interested in performing a search to count them for you. If you want to know how many there are, count them yourself.

You are the one who seems to be annoyed by them...

Yup. It doesn't matter how many there are.

They all seem to be here............

Originally Posted by Huntster
What quality evidence was presented to interest so many scientists in SETI, and to interest the government to fund SETI to the tune of millions of dollars?

What about doing some research by yourself?

I have.

There is absolutely, positively no evidence whatsoever of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Do you know of any I don't know of?

Yet the US government is spending gads of money on trying to contact them.

So do you still say that a sasquatch investigation by the appropriate wildlife agencies is asking too much?

SETI site would be a good place to start.
Here's the link:
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025

Been there.

You?

SETI is based on suppositions, reasonings and arguments based in hard data

What "hard data"?

it is also backed by the importance the discovery of an alien civilization would have to us. It was considered good enough for private and government funding, even with infinitesimal odds of a hit.

So, discovery of a bipedal ape today, as rare as it must be if it exists, isn't "important"?

All the sighting reports, all the footprints casts, PGF and the reasonings based on it are considered as not being enough to trigger a project due to a single reason: They are unreliable.

So, where are the "reliable" guys?

If you wish to discuss what backs SETI in depth, open a thread at Science and Technology subforum.

What a sorry, pathetic backpedal.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Too bad it's being treated like "a game."

Too bad some people can't play the game and try to change the rules...

Who wrote the "rulebook", Mr. Scientist.

Where is the rulebook?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, I'm not too impressed with "mainstream science" in a number of areas.

If they want to exclude themselves from "the game", so be it.

OT comments:
The "mainstream science" you try to downplay beats any other alternatives in all areas.

I'm not looking for "alternatives".

I'm looking for action.

And most "mainstream scientists" are very unimpressed with the "evidence" and "theories" presented so far by the defenders of the claim...

Most "mainstream scientists" are sitting on their asses pontificating.

And they don't matter, anyway.

I want the government biologists. They're the ones responsible to act.

Originally Posted by Huntster
But later, if these creatures are established as real, I'll be there, and I'll be talking ◊◊◊◊ as loud as I can.

I'll be pointing out the ones who were recorded as skeptics and those who were recorded as denialists.

I will not hold my breath waiting for your loud talk...

Don't.

I'll likely be long dead before this creature is found.

I suggest you should also not hold your breath waiting for the time you will be speaking as loud as you can...

My opinion?
This moment will never happen.

Oh, it will happen. It might happen after the last one is dead, but it will damned sure happen.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You're downplaying the event.

"Science" either screwed it up, or played an ideological game to achieve a political end.

Which was it?

I believe it was "scientists" on the "side" of the snail darter (environmental lobby).

What is it now, in the case of sasquatchery?

I'm not fully sure, but they're damned sure fools.

The fish is know to exist. There are reliable pieces of evidence baking its existence.

Yup. In a strategic place. And they claimed nowhere else.

There are no reliable data backing the existence of bigfeet.

There's plenty of evidence backing the existence of bigfeet.

In the snail darter case, if someone "screwed up" something or played some political game, it was not "science". It was someone who used information obtained by "science" for his/her own purposes.

Are you stating that "scientists" didn't testify (under oath) regarding the rarity of the snail darter in court to block the construction of the Tellico Dam?

There's no analogy between both situations.

There's this one:

Rare creatures are the responsibility of government to protect, the courts have standing in the situation, and government biologists are ultimately responsible to verify the health of a species.

You can't really say "science refuses to address bigfeet". I'll write again: Chances are "mainstream scientists" already have looked in to the issue.

Give us some evidence of these "chances".

Unless Krantz and Meldrum are hermits, they have discussed the issue with their colleagues at symposiums, meetings, coffee breaks at their institutions, etc. And they failed to attract them to their cause. Why? Because the evidence they rely on is flimsy.

That's your claim, Einstein.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No official, recorded, or responsible inquiry by the appropriate agencies, even after representatives of those agencies were called onto the scene by the private native corporation who owned the land, and who stood to lose timber income if the right thing had been done.

Are you somehow trying to invoke some sort of conspiracy theory to keep the truth about bigfeet hidden?

Nope.

It's more like a comedy of errors.

Aniway, are you sure you don't see the problem with the original quote? Something inconsistent with bigfeet lore?

Nothing inconsistent about it.

In fact, it's very consistent.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, I don't claim you have no points whatsoever in life. I'm sure you're a pretty smart feller.

But all you have with regard to the sasquatch phenomenon is doubt. You have brought no points to the table that I have seen.

Oh, really?

I disagree. Choose a subject we discussed and lets discuss it again.

Oh, please.....................!

Are you trying to bore me to death?

Originally Posted by Huntster
This will be yet another useless exercise with you (like the Du Chaillu affair), but I will entertain you just a bit here.

My claim is that zoologists acquire animals from adventurers and outdoorsmen who find them abandoned or orphaned (especially brown and polar bears). (BTW, I have been both personally and professionally involved in such events). You appear to refute that, but haven't yet written down what you believe, or why you even want to go there.
...snip...

My claim is that zoologists do get their specimens living or dead by their own. They capture and when needed tag them. Yes, in some cases they will not refuse specimens obtained by others. But by no means they rely just on other people.

"Zoologists" have never collected specimens here in Alaska to my knowledge, unless it was bugs.

The captures and darting here has been done by wildlife managers, funded by government, and I have been involved. No "zoologists" were in sight, nor were they sought.

And BTW, I have been involved personally in more than one field work to acquire specimens.

Me, too.

Big ones. Dangerous ones.

I am married with a biologist, I have several friends that are biologists, I helped them on many occasions to collect specimens (bats, monkeys, birds, rodents, arthropods, fishes, scat, etc.). Some -women included- are much more hardened than many "outdoorsmen".

Mrs. Huntster hasn't done the helicopter/darting/transporting/wrestling thing with me, but she's a damned good huntress in her own right.

Great shot. She's like her older brother. One shot seems to do it every time.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No answer yet from anyone, certainly not you.

Please cite one of these "answers".

Please feel free to scroll up and down a bit.
Please also make sure you´ve read DesertYeti's posts. I may be wrong, but I guess RayG also made some comment on this.

Are you going to answer, or are you going to dance?

Originally Posted by Huntster
What "evidence and reasoning" is reliable regarding the current ivory-billed search? There have been seven claimed sighting and a single, grainy, inconclusive film of several seconds in length.

Try again.
Hundreds of footprint casts, a film that is every bit as good as the ivory-billed film, and a whole hell of a lot more sightings.

As far as I know, the subject of the film that is supposed to show the ivory-billed woodpecker is not suspected to be some guy wearing a gorilla suit...

Correct.

It is claimed to be a pileated woodpecker.

A mistake, another type of woodpecker, yes, that might as well be the case, but is it suspected to be a hoax?

It damned well better not be.

At the tune of $10.2 million in funding, a "hoax" of this magnitude is a big-time felony.

Get it?

No, at least as far as I know. What about PGF?

At worse, it's noo financial fraud.

Cause not a single, red cent of public money has been spent.

Hundreds of footprint casts, suspected of being cases of mistaken IDs and hoaxes mean very little if anything at all without a foot...

If I had "the foot", I damned sure wouldn't need a "scientist".

I'd need lawyers.

Hell, the government "scientists" at that point would be descending on me like I had WMD's.

A pile of sighting reports that are nothing but sighting reports... If you really cared to read about the woodpecker's film story, you'll see a major difference, its called repeatability, reproducibility. Something that's missing when it comes to bigfeet.

Absolutely nothing has been "repeated" in the ivory-billed search.

Despite the funding, and despite the full-time search for the past 2 years.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm not overstating my importance.

You are.

Prove it.

Here you go, King Forgetful:

Unrelibale data, poor data handling skills and frequent appeals to ad homs are the real obstacles.

You claim that my "ad homs" are significant factors with regard to the phenomenon.

I say they aren't.

Thus, you lend importance to me. Certainly a hell of a lot more than I lend scientists (who are clearly not even with the program).

Thus you overstate my importance. In desperation. In frustration.

Because you're essentially neutered.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Get real. "Science" has no intention of investing anything into this issue. They'll sit on their asses until Joe Sixpack shoots one and delivers it. Then they'll jump up and down screaming for funding to study it, like they've been the authorities all along.

Useless ad hom.

True to the last letter.

If the evidence were reliable, there would be investiment, from governmental and from private sources.

And when Joe Sixpack delivers the goods, the lowlifes will be on it like maggots on rotted flesh.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like people on this forum can do anything to "help" me?

Yes. You can learn a lot here. We all can.

Oh, I learn lots from y'all.

I've learned never to be like you.

And now you just spoke about scientists who looked in to the subject. What means your claim scientists do not look in to it is flawed.

What a desperate attempt to feel justified.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Cornell and the ivory-billed? Already over two years of searching with a team of scientists. Millions in funding.

See above and below...

SETI? Years of broadcasting without a single reply. And they're still lobbying Congress for more funding. They'll get it, too. Millions.

See above and below...

What I see are your lame attempts to avoid the truth:

Other questionable searches are funded to a great extent. Even a multi-million dollar search for little green men.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You are shameless, aren't you?

Please point out any evidence used to justify the millions of dollars invested in SETI.

An ad hom... What about presenting some arguments instead of ad homs?
Please go to SETI site.

Pathetic..............

There's more backing to SETI than to bigfeet, because the reasonings presented to back SETI are more reliable than the reasonings presented to back the claim "bigfeet are real".

Again:

GIVE ME EVIDENCE OF THIS BACKING!!!!

I repeat:

GIVE ME EVIDENCE OF THIS BACKING!!!!

I repeat again:

GIVE ME EVIDENCE OF THIS BACKING!!!!

BTW, why am I supposed to provide evidence for extraterrestrial life?

To justify the reason why those scientists are funded to the tune of multi-millions of dollars if there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
More evidence to show your pathetic apologism is all wrong:



Some things never change.................

Yes, some things never change...

More ad homs and another flawed analogy....

....Your source is terribly mistaken, since the incident happened in 1861, but the giant squid was already known to science back in 1857 if Wikipedia is correct...

Wikipedia is fine.

As usual, it's you who are flawed. You've sucked up on the events which occurred before scientific discovery, but didn't start nearly early enough.

Here's a Wikipedia article with a list of giant squid finds. As even you might see, they started hundreds of years before Verrill described them.

Your beginning is here:

Serious study of the giant squid began in 1874 when Rev. Moses Harvey of Newfoundland put on display a specimen caught by local fishermen. Top cephalopod specialist Professor A E Verrill of Yale University provided the first scientific description.
In 1861, just off the Canary Islands, crew on the French steamer 'Alecton' spotted a many-armed 'sea monster'. They tried to capture it but succeeded only in slicing off its tail. The tail and a report of the incident were sent to the French Academy of Sciences, who dismissed the whole thing as nonsense. Author Jules Verne was more impressed, incorporating a "squid of colossal dimensions" into '20 000 Leagues Under the Sea'.

Better luck next time.

Thanks, but it isn't luck.

It's the usual...............

 

[carcharodon]

Only if you believe the story ...

What do you mean "only if you believe the story"? Whether it was a living sasquatch or a man in a suit, the fact is that the subject was dissapearing from sight even before the film ran out.

How did he witness Patterson running out of film ? Wasn't he busy with the horses ?
Just like you and me, Gimlin only had Patterson's word that he ran out of film..

Gimlin has never refuted that Patterson ran out of film and didn't change to another roll of film at the film site. Gimlin has never said Patterson lied there, or was mistaken. Gimlin has never said Patterson didn't change a roll of film. Patterson said he ran out of film and Gimlin seems to have seen evidence of this.

Like I said, this whole running out of film question is a red herring. It's totally meaningless in the context of the story. Too much is made of it by the scoftics who can't find anything else. It doesn't really matter. Patterson could have had another half reel of film left and all he needed to say was "I switched the camera off to save film in case I saw it again!". Big deal.

Where has Gimlin ever related what he saw in the entire 100 foot reel as it came out of the camera ?

Where has Gimlin ever related that Patterson didn't run out of film and was telling fibs?

You do know he didn't even sit in on the first screening, don't you ?

Yes, he was dead beat and couldn't keep his eyes open.

"<b> Hey we just filmed the first ever Bigfoot ! Wanna see it ? "

" Nahhhh... I think I'll take a nap​

..</b>."

He already saw it in the flesh with his own eyes. The film wasn't going anywhere. He could see it again later.....as he did.

I think when you have been as close as 30ft to something like that in real life and seen it walk away then watching a home movie can wait a while.

I am not aware of of any evidence that he is a cheat..
It seems to me he could be lying about the circumstances of the filming..
If there is no Bigfoot, he must be ...

Exactly. If there is no bigfoot, he must be lying. I'd like to know what exactly he would be getting out of lying for the last near on 40 years and I'd like to know why, seeing as Patterson cut him out and they had a falling out, he didn't splill the beans and make a bit of cash for once.

The complicated hoax stories are far more problematic than accepting P & G's version of events. This is even without the difficulties of the 'suit' and the 'fake trackway' and the shadowy third party now that it's almost certain BH can be ruled out.