Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

I thought you just said "bye"...

I meant it, too, if you continue to dodge the point.

And I am the one who makes silly games...

Yup.

Huntster, at http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178905#anchor320509 you'll find some easy to read answers.

Aniway, once again, SETI's backing:

1-The abundance of substances that are called "the building blocks of life" in the Universe;
2-The possible existence of extrasolar planest (nowdays confirmed, 200+ and increasing);
3-Life can appear -and survive- at planets within the habitable zone of stars;
4-There are a lot of stars;
5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the rise of sentient species and these sentient species may survive for long enough to develop technology that result in radio signals;
6-With all those stars, there is a chance that another civilization is out there sending signals (intentionally or not);
7-Our technology has reached a point where we may detect some of these signals if they are there.

Can you refute any of the above?

I have no intention or desire to refute it.

I want you to answer the question:

IS THERE "RELIABLE EVIDENCE" OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE?

Same thing, different words:

Not once can you address the point, can you?

Justify the expenditure of multi millions on SETI, or admit that wildlife management agencies are responsible to determine if sasquatches exist.

Or, how about the last way I asked it?:

So, since their goal is to find evidence, are you now ready to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever to justify the many millions spent so far in the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence"?

The reasons are, IMHO, enough to justify the money SETI received and will receive.

So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

And so far, the evidence and reasonings used to support the claim "bigfeet are real" are not of the same quality IMHO.

There is actual evidence of the existence of sasquatch. There is no evidence whatsoever of intelligent extraterrestrial life, despite years of monitoring, and despite Project Blue Book.

Therefore, isn't it justified for the appropriate wildlife management agencies to begin for the very first time to look into the sasquatch phenomenon?

Now, what about stopping the diversionary tactics

No diversion about it. It is the response for your silly, repeated requests for evidence of sasquatchery. It's there, and I've linked to all manner of it for many, many posts on this thread and others.

Furthermore, my position is that wildlife management agencies are legally charged with the management of rare creatures, and if sasquatches exist, they are clearly quite rare.

And since the federal government has funded a "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" with no evidence supporting the theory that such intelligent life exists, and since there is lots of evidence of the existence of sasquatch, it is appropriate that the funding and study begins.

Care trying to refute some of the below?

Maybe...........

-The "unidentified DNA" is not evidence for an unknown species.

The "unidentifiable DNA" is evidence of a species that wasn't compared against in the DNA test, or it was a corrupted sample/test.

-There are no evidence to back the hypothesis that Gigantopithecus may be bigfeet.

The only evidence to back the hypothesis that Gigantopithecus might be bigfoot is the similar size of the creatures.

Further, there is no evidence that bigfoot and Gigantopithecus are not the same creature.

And answer these ones?

I'll try.

-Why wildlife photographers and mammalogists are not interested in bigfeet if the evidence is so good?

Some wildlife photographers, biologists, primatologists, etc are interested in the sasquatch phenomenon. Review my post above, or if you'd like, I can link you to the statements of such premier primatologists as Jane Goodall or Daris Swindler.

-Why there are no peer-reviewed papers on bigfeet at any major scientific journal if the evidence is so good?

Major scientific journals have a history of refusing to review the evidence. I'm not sure why.

Maybe they have the same frame of mind as people like you?

-Why private (or government) organizations do not provide money for bigfeet reasearch projects if the evidence is so good?

Some private funding has been available. It has primarily been smaller grants, much too little to fund a full time, extended search.

Government is precisely who should be funding study of this phenomenon. Like I've been repeatedly pointing out, wildlife management agencies have the clear and legal mandate to manage all wildlife, especially any and all species that are rare, endangered, or threatened.

I have briefly reviewed the ESA (Endangered Species Act), and have found that private citizens can petition the court to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "assess the health of a species".

This is what might have to be done to get results.

Oh, was Berkeley's database was enough to convince you that your claim "zoologists don't get their specimens by themselves at Alaska" is flawed?

No, it was not, however, I am willing to modify my claim:

Zoologists don't acquire large, dangerous, and/or extremely rare specimens by themselves in Alaska; they universally do so with agency or zoological garden funding.

Before I mentioned "other than perhaps bugs" because I remember you linking to an article where a zoologist got a specimen of insect (or some such little thing) while here in Alaska. I suppose it's true that occasionally they also find rats, rodents, etc.

Zoologists don't collect bears, moose, caribou, etc in Alaska, and even the collection of insects, rats, rodents, etc requires a permit (and such a permit will not be issued without a damned good permit application package; been there, done that, and got the permit).

Now, please answer the question:

IS THERE "RELIABLE EVIDENCE" OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE?

Same thing, different words:

Not once can you address the point, can you?

Justify the expenditure of multi millions on SETI, or admit that wildlife management agencies are responsible to determine if sasquatches exist.

Or, how about the last way I asked it?:

So, since their goal is to find evidence, are you now ready to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever to justify the many millions spent so far in the "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence"?

Or, you may answer the last one I posed after your apologist dissertation above:

So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Pssssst:

That's one of the funniest Bigfoot stories ever!


Famous wildlife documentary producer fails to document Bigfoot evidence !

 

[Huntster]

....Famous wildlife documentary producer fails to document Bigfoot evidence!....

Apparently so. Although I wasn't a "famous wildlife documentary producer", I failed to document the bigfoot evidence I saw. I didn't have a camera or plaster of paris at the time.

Maybe being equipped to film lake trout isn't the best tooling to "document bigfoot evidence"?

 

[Perforatu]

It seems to me that the millions spent on SETI aren't justified by evidence so much as by likelihood. If you run the numbers, there's a very good chance we're not alone out there in the vastness of space - so why not verify this by looking for signs of other civilizations?

Compare that to the chances that Bigfoot exists - in today's increasingly small world. I'm sorry but if I had to choose a destination for my funding, I'd go with SETI every time.

 

[Huntster]

It seems to me that the millions spent on SETI aren't justified by evidence so much as by likelihood. If you run the numbers, there's a very good chance we're not alone out there in the vastness of space - so why not verify this by looking for signs of other civilizations?

Compare that to the chances that Bigfoot exists - in today's increasingly small world. I'm sorry but if I had to choose a destination for my funding, I'd go with SETI every time.

So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

 

[Perforatu]

So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

I'd say not always, no. Of course it depends on a number of other factors - how much it will cost, what the likelihoods of the underlying assumptions and theories are, and whether the project can yield valuable results even if the main theories are disproved.

 

[tube]

I read this interesting article today from the local Seattle paper:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003494807_bears26m.html

"In 2004, the bears left behind identifying hairs at tree rubs and on barbed wire, which researchers collected.

The strands were DNA calling cards for geneticists, who recently determined 545 different grizzlies visited the collection sites."

I don't follow developments in genetics like I probably should, and I honestly don't know much about "trichology", or the study of hair, but this article makes it more than clear that hair collected in the wild can be analyzed for DNA. The days of retired parasitologists looking through microscopes and telling us that Mary Green's latest hair is from a genuine Sasquatch may be coming to an end.

But frankly I don't expect any hairs to come back as "Sasquatch" any time soon via DNA analysis. I suspect that the lack of DNA vetted hairs will simply join the other litany of things 'Squatchy we don't have, like bones, teeth, hides, fossils, or road kill. New apologies will have to be invented for the failure of this class of solid physical evidence to materialize.

 

[carcharodon]

Compare that to the chances that Bigfoot exists - in today's increasingly small world.

I'm betting you are a city boy who doesn't get out much. Small world? The vast, rugged and mostly uninhabited mass of forested mountain terrain from Oregon up to south east Alaska? You call that a small world? Have you actually ever got out of your car in an area such as this and experienced it totally? Have you ever hiked any wilderness areas?? Only those who have never done so can possibly think this is an increasingly small world. Get yourself out to somewhere wild and remote and you will soon start to feel very humble at the sheer scale of wild nature.

Do you have any idea how many major roads cross British Columbia for example???

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Apparently so. Although I wasn't a "famous wildlife documentary producer", I failed to document the bigfoot evidence I saw. I didn't have a camera or plaster of paris at the time.

Maybe being equipped to film lake trout isn't the best tooling to "document bigfoot evidence"?

#3) Only had our Trout cameras with us.

 

[Perforatu]

I'm betting you are a city boy who doesn't get out much. Small world? The vast, rugged and mostly uninhabited mass of forested mountain terrain from Oregon up to south east Alaska? You call that a small world? Have you actually ever got out of your car in an area such as this and experienced it totally? Have you ever hiked any wilderness areas?? Only those who have never done so can possibly think this is an increasingly small world. Get yourself out to somewhere wild and remote and you will soon start to feel very humble at the sheer scale of wild nature.

Do you have any idea how many major roads cross British Columbia for example???

Uh, four?

But you're right, I should've phrased that "decreasingly large world". My point was that since we've been continuously encroaching on Bigfoot territory for quite some time, I'd expect there to be some stronger evidence by now.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Apparently so. Although I wasn't a "famous wildlife documentary producer", I failed to document the bigfoot evidence I saw. I didn't have a camera or plaster of paris at the time.

Maybe being equipped to film lake trout isn't the best tooling to "document bigfoot evidence"?

#3) Only had our Trout cameras with us.

Maybe. I wouldn't know.

And if there were photographs of the prints, would it have mattered to you?

 

[Huntster]

....but this article makes it more than clear that hair collected in the wild can be analyzed for DNA....

There hasn't been any doubt about that for quite some time (unless, of course, you're a denialist).

The days of retired parasitologists looking through microscopes and telling us that Mary Green's latest hair is from a genuine Sasquatch may be coming to an end.

Don't count on it.

But frankly I don't expect any hairs to come back as "Sasquatch" any time soon via DNA analysis.

Of course not. As long as there isn't a base of comparison, they will always come back "inconclusive", and "not a match for any known species" (which is exactly how they have been ruled).

I suspect that the lack of DNA vetted hairs will simply join the other litany of things 'Squatchy we don't have, like bones, teeth, hides, fossils, or road kill.

It has been that way for some time:

"Inconclusive."

New apologies will have to be invented for the failure of this class of solid physical evidence to materialize.

And new apologies are always needed to counter the new denials of evidence that is presented.

Vicious cycle of stupidity, isn't it?

 

[Correa Neto]

I have no intention or desire to refute it.

I want you to answer the question:

Please look at post please read post 5120 at this tread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2206220&postcount=5120 where your question is already answered.

So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

You need to have at least a sound reasoning based on reliable evidence. SETI has it. Please read post 5120 at this tread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2206220&postcount=5120

The "bigfeet are real cretures" claim does not, as far as I can see.

There is actual evidence of the existence of sasquatch. There is no evidence whatsoever of intelligent extraterrestrial life, despite years of monitoring, and despite Project Blue Book.

First, where are the actual reliable evidence that bigfeet are real.

Second, please read post 5120 at this tread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2206220&postcount=5120

Third, Project Blue Book and its predecessors (Sign and Grudge) were created by USAF to probe the UFO phenomena, and not extraterrestrial life. In case you don't know, an extraterrestrial origin was just one of the explanations for the phenomena. Other hypothesis were aircraft from USSR and even the Nazi Germany. Not to mention that if I were responsible for some black project such as D21 drone or Have Blue I would rather have people saying they saw an alien spaceship instead of a secret experimental millitary craft. This is

Therefore, isn't it justified for the appropriate wildlife management agencies to begin for the very first time to look into the sasquatch phenomenon?

Only if they decide the evidence is good enough to carry on such quest.

No diversion about it. It is the response for your silly, repeated requests for evidence of sasquatchery. It's there, and I've linked to all manner of it for many, many posts on this thread and others.

Huntster, I am sorry, but so far no reliable evidence.

Unreliable, you do have lots of.

Reliable, got some?

Furthermore, my position is that wildlife management agencies are legally charged with the management of rare creatures, and if sasquatches exist, they are clearly quite rare.

And since the federal government has funded a "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" with no evidence supporting the theory that such intelligent life exists, and since there is lots of evidence of the existence of sasquatch, it is appropriate that the funding and study begins.

Is there reliable evidence, Huntster?

Care to show some?

Some that can survive after some critical thinking?

The "unidentifiable DNA" is evidence of a species that wasn't compared against in the DNA test, or it was a corrupted sample/test.

Here's what a propper (there was enough DNA at the sample, the DNA was adequately preserved and was not contaminated during collection and transport and no further screw-ups happened at the lab) DNA test would say about a real bigfoot:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae or Ponginae (depending if they are related to Homo, gorillas, australopithecines or orang-utangs).

From this point (subfamily), the assay result would say "unknown". The test in question was not even able to say if the DNA was from a human or from a bear. It was useless. It can not back the claim "bigfeet are not real" neither the claim "bigfeet are real". Its pretty useless.

By the way, if a DNA test provides the result above, it could be a very good and reliable piece of evidence. And I would say, "that's reliable evidence".

The only evidence to back the hypothesis that Gigantopithecus might be bigfoot is the similar size of the creatures.

Further, there is no evidence that bigfoot and Gigantopithecus are not the same creature.

Except from the facts below:
No evidence they ever lived in North America
Chances are they were knuckle walkers
The avaliable reconstructions do not look like Patty
The avaliable evidence points to a specialized herbivore diet, instead the "generalistic opportunistic" diet inferred for bigfeet
Avaliable evidence indicates they became extinct 200Ky ago.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Now, if you want to say Gigantopithecus could be a template for the sasquatch myth (or some of its variants), I would say, yes, it possible that the myth was brought from Asia with the paleoindians. But its unlikely. For a short discussion, please check this typo-filled post of mine:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173058&postcount=4989

Note, it may be a template for sasquatch myth. This is a far cry from actually being sasquatch or bigfoot. Unless its bipedal, large and lives(d) in North America cohexisting with humans, its not bigfoot or sasquatch.

Some wildlife photographers, biologists, primatologists, etc are interested in the sasquatch phenomenon. Review my post above, or if you'd like, I can link you to the statements of such premier primatologists as Jane Goodall or Daris Swindler.

You pointed to one wild life photographer. I asked where are the wildlife photographers. In this case, one would be enough only if he/she managed to obtain some reliable pics or footage. If the evidence is so compelling, why no effort was carried out later?

Again: High-quality pictures or footage, obtained from qualified professionals whose credibility and jobs would be deeply affected by being somehow involved in a hoax would be reliable evidence.

Got some?

What about asking yourself why Goodall and Swindler don't help getting some private or government funding?

BTW, as I already pointed out, The Jane Goodall Institute (http://www.janegoodall.org/) has as goals:

Increase primate habitat conservation
Increase awareness of, support for and training in issues related to our relationship with each other, the environment and other animals (leading to behavior change)
Expand non-invasive research programs on chimpanzees and other primates
Promote activities that ensure the well-being of chimpanzees, other primates and animal welfare activities in general

Don't you think bigfeet -assuming they are real- fit on the above?

Where are the projects?

Major scientific journals have a history of refusing to review the evidence. I'm not sure why.

Maybe they have the same frame of mind as people like you?

Quite possibly we share the same standards for evidence quality.
What is a very good thing, otherwise errors, frauds and hoaxes would be much more abundant.

Some private funding has been available. It has primarily been smaller grants, much too little to fund a full time, extended search.

Government is precisely who should be funding study of this phenomenon. Like I've been repeatedly pointing out, wildlife management agencies have the clear and legal mandate to manage all wildlife, especially any and all species that are rare, endangered, or threatened.

I have briefly reviewed the ESA (Endangered Species Act), and have found that private citizens can petition the court to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "assess the health of a species".

This is what might have to be done to get results.

The standard advise:
Get some reliable data to back your case.

No, it was not, however, I am willing to modify my claim:

Zoologists don't acquire large, dangerous, and/or extremely rare specimens by themselves in Alaska; they universally do so with agency or zoological garden funding.

Before I mentioned "other than perhaps bugs" because I remember you linking to an article where a zoologist got a specimen of insect (or some such little thing) while here in Alaska. I suppose it's true that occasionally they also find rats, rodents, etc.

Zoologists don't collect bears, moose, caribou, etc in Alaska, and even the collection of insects, rats, rodents, etc requires a permit (and such a permit will not be issued without a damned good permit application package; been there, done that, and got the permit).

Your claim is false, Huntster.

After a very quick search at the database, I found specimens of Ursus Americanus, Ursus arctos and Ursus maritimus from Alaska, with the collector's name and links to their field notebooks. Found specimens collected in 1855, 1907, 1961, 1977... Didn't even bothered to look for caribou, moose and etc.

And if you ad to this the specimens that are caught on the "catch-and-release" scheme say, for tagging with radio collars...

Its looking like "denialism", Huntster... But you are not one, are you?

BTW, it seems people with a good backing for their projects have no problem to obtain their permits for collecting specimens...

Got some good backing for such a project?

Now, please answer the question:

Already did. Please check the very begining of this very post and post number 5120 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2206220&postcount=5120).

Now, if you agree with my answer or not...

Or, you may answer the last one I posed after your apologist dissertation above:

See above.
Oh, one last thing:
Congratulations on a post with few (possibly none at all) ad homs.
Is it so hard?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

You need to have at least a sound reasoning based on reliable evidence. SETI has it. Please read post 5120 at this tread.

From your post 5120:

1-The abundance of substances that are called "the building blocks of life" in the Universe;
2-The possible existence of extrasolar planest (nowdays confirmed, 200+ and increasing);
3-Life can appear -and survive- at planets within the habitable zone of stars;
4-There are a lot of stars;
5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the rise of sentient species and these sentient species may survive for long enough to develop technology that result in radio signals;
6-With all those stars, there is a chance that another civilization is out there sending signals (intentionally or not);
7-Our technology has reached a point where we may detect some of these signals if they are there.

I suppose you might call that "sound reasoning", but it is not "sound reasoning based on reliable evidence". There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

 

[kitakaze]

Apology accepted. They're photos of Chimp feet in a print box. I haven't figured out how to imbed uploaded images in the post yet. This was the context:

" 'Quote:
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're not chimps or gorillas, but see below."

When I posed those on BFF Dan Chamberlain said they look like costume feet.

Computer fixed. Well it seems I owe you another apology along with a costumed foot in my mouth and another reason to be mindful of the fallibility of ones sense of perception as I was sure I was looking at poor costume feet. I guess that doesn't bode well for my thinking the PGF looks like a real animal.

 

[William Parcher]

Interesting posting on BFF. It includes a clip from the PGF.

There is talk of Patterson sprinting while filming Patty, but Roger said he was injured so badly from the horse fall that he had difficulty walking on the foot. I also don't see any info on how Titmus was able to determine whose footprints at the site were Patterson and which were Gimlin or Laverty. Titmus must have seen a whole array of human prints going all around the Patty prints. Just how was the Titmus/Krantz map of the filmsite recreated with the position and path of both Patty and Roger?

 

[Correa Neto]

From your post 5120:



I suppose you might call that "sound reasoning", but it is not "sound reasoning based on reliable evidence". There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

I see you still are having problems understanding it all.

When it comes to SETI (as well as the ivory-billed woodpecker case) you do have sound reasoning based on reliable evidence (note that in both cases we have reliable evidence, not proof).

Check again post 5120 at this tread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=5120.

The sound reasoning (6 and 7) is based on reliable evidence (1 to 5). If you do not consider 1 to 5 to be reliable, please tell us why.

Now, one more time: SETI was designed to attempt to probe the possiblity of existence -or not- of alien civilizations sending intentionally or not radio signals. Thus, it needs to be backed with evidence and sound reasonings pro and con the hypothesis "there are alien civilizations sending intentionally or not radio signals and we can receive them".

Evidence and sound reasonings ARE required in a search for the truth. SETI has both of them. Once again: The sound reasoning (6 and 7) is based on reliable evidence (1 to 5). SETI is not backed by a film of what may be a man in a gorilla suit, sighting reports, footprint casts that may be misdientifications or hoaxes and the cast of what may quite likely be an elk lay...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
From your post 5120:

1-The abundance of substances that are called "the building blocks of life" in the Universe;
2-The possible existence of extrasolar planest (nowdays confirmed, 200+ and increasing);
3-Life can appear -and survive- at planets within the habitable zone of stars;
4-There are a lot of stars;
5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the rise of sentient species and these sentient species may survive for long enough to develop technology that result in radio signals;
6-With all those stars, there is a chance that another civilization is out there sending signals (intentionally or not);
7-Our technology has reached a point where we may detect some of these signals if they are there.

I suppose you might call that "sound reasoning", but it is not "sound reasoning based on reliable evidence". There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

I see you still are having problems understanding it all.

When it comes to SETI (as well as the ivory-billed woodpecker case) you do have sound reasoning based on reliable evidence (note that in both cases we have reliable evidence, not proof).

There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth? [/QUOTE]

Check again post 5120 at this tread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=5120.

The sound reasoning (6 and 7) is based on reliable evidence (1 to 5). If you do not consider 1 to 5 to be reliable, please tell us why.

With slight modification, those statements can apply to sasquatch as well as extraterrestrial life:

1-The abundance of habitat that harbor other species (like black bears) in the Pacific Northwest;
2-The possible existence of sasquatch like creatures in other areas of the world
3-Sasquatches can appear -and survive- at various areas within the habitable zone of wilderness;
4-There is a lot of wilderness;
5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the very skiw decline of other hominid species which may not fully have gone extinct yet.

Now, one more time: SETI was designed to attempt to probe the possiblity of existence -or not- of alien civilizations sending intentionally or not radio signals.

And now, for the umpteeenth time, there has been no attempt whatsoever by the appropriate wildlife agencies to fulfill their duty with respect to this possible species, despite the fact that millions have been spent seeking "little green men", of which there is absolutely no evidnence whatsoever.

Evidence and sound reasonings ARE required in a search for the truth. SETI has both of them. Once again: The sound reasoning (6 and 7) is based on reliable evidence (1 to 5).

Evidence my ass. You have the gall to call that "evidence" while attacking the PG film, the hundreds of footprint casts, and the testimony of thousands?

SETI is not backed by a film of what may be a man in a gorilla suit, sighting reports, footprint casts that may be misdientifications or hoaxes and the cast of what may quite likely be an elk lay...

Correct.

It was backed by fantasy alone, (unless there is something the Government isn't telling us...........).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting posting on BFF. It includes a clip from the PGF.

There is talk of Patterson sprinting while filming Patty, but Roger said he was injured so badly from the horse fall that he had difficulty walking on the foot. ...........

According to Gimlin, the horse did not fall ; and we know Gimlin's story is beyond reproach..


I have never understood how anyone saw any tracks in the creek bed after the filming..
If the substrate was complient enough to accept impressions, how did those impressions survive a flowing creek as described by Gimlin ..

Of course if the tracks were made after the rain, that would explain everything...

Not to mention the claim that impressions were still there months later, in the spring, when Green did his recreation ..

 

[Correa Neto]

There is no evidence whatsoever in that list of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

So again:

Evidence is not necessary to expend money in a search for the truth?

[/QUOTE]
Again, since you mised it:

Evidence and sound reasonings ARE required in a search for the truth.

Got some to back bigfoot?

With slight modification, those statements can apply to sasquatch as well as extraterrestrial life:

Lets take a look at this:

1-The abundance of habitat that harbor other species (like black bears) in the Pacific Northwest;

So, if the area has a given species it may have bigfeet? You call this evidence? Why?

2-The possible existence of sasquatch like creatures in other areas of the world

Backed by the same sort of evidence quality (weak and entagled with hoaxes) evidence used to back the claim "bigfeet are real". Its not evidence.

3-Sasquatches can appear -and survive- at various areas within the habitable zone of wilderness;

Again, that's not evidence. Its specuation based in flimsy evidence, since as far as I know there are no reliable pieces of evidence pointing to the possibility bigfeet are real.

4-There is a lot of wilderness;

OK, I agree on this one.

5-Evolution may (note the word "may"; its not "will") result in the very skiw decline of other hominid species which may not fully have gone extinct yet.

You have first to provide a sound reasoning based on evidence that these hominids may be around. Got some?

And now, for the umpteeenth time, there has been no attempt whatsoever by the appropriate wildlife agencies to fulfill their duty with respect to this possible species, despite the fact that millions have been spent seeking "little green men", of which there is absolutely no evidnence whatsoever.

Huntster, SETI is not a quest for little green men, this is one of the fundamental flaws on your argument. Its an attempt to probe the possibility of alien civilizations sending radio signals. You must try getting your facts straight, at least to avoid looking like you don't know what you are taling about...

Evidence my ass. You have the gall to call that "evidence" while attacking the PG film, the hundreds of footprint casts, and the testimony of thousands?

A film showing what might as well be a man in a gorilla suit;
Hundreds of footprints casts that may be mistaken IDs or hoaxes;
The testimony of thousads that might as well be mistakens IDs, hoaxes, daydreams, false memories, etc.

Its a matter of quality. A single DNA assay like the one I mentioned before would be more reliable than all the footprint casts; stills or footage from reliable people would be more important than all the thousands of witnesses. A film of what may be a man in a gorilla suit makes great topic for a discussion at an internet forum. But its not reliable evidence for bigfoot.

Got some?

Correct.

It was backed by fantasy alone, (unless there is something the Government isn't telling us...........).

It was not backed by fantasy, Huntster. If claim it was, please provide evidence, but at a thread on SETI. I will gladly discuss it, and I am certain other posters will also.

Oh, BTW, I falied to find your replys on the following:
-My arguments showing how far-fetched is the idea gigantopithecus are bigfeet (here they are again):

No evidence they ever lived in North America
Chances are they were knuckle walkers
The avaliable reconstructions do not look like Patty
The avaliable evidence points to a specialized herbivore diet, instead the "generalistic opportunistic" diet inferred for bigfeet
Avaliable evidence indicates they became extinct 200Ky ago.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Now, if you want to say Gigantopithecus could be a template for the sasquatch myth (or some of its variants), I would say, yes, it possible that the myth was brought from Asia with the paleoindians. But its unlikely. For a short discussion, please check this typo-filled post of mine:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=4989

Note, it may be a template for sasquatch myth. This is a far cry from actually being sasquatch or bigfoot. Unless its bipedal, large and lives(d) in North America cohexisting with humans, its not bigfoot or sasquatch.

-My questions regarding why wildlife photographers and mammalogists don't seem to be intrested in the issue (here's my last take on the issue):

You pointed to one wild life photographer. I asked where are the wildlife photographers. In this case, one would be enough only if he/she managed to obtain some reliable pics or footage. If the evidence is so compelling, why no effort was carried out later?

Again: High-quality pictures or footage, obtained from qualified professionals whose credibility and jobs would be deeply affected by being somehow involved in a hoax would be reliable evidence.

Got some?

What about asking yourself why Goodall and Swindler don't help getting some private or government funding?

BTW, as I already pointed out, The Jane Goodall Institute (http://www.janegoodall.org/) has as goals:

Increase primate habitat conservation
Increase awareness of, support for and training in issues related to our relationship with each other, the environment and other animals (leading to behavior change)
Expand non-invasive research programs on chimpanzees and other primates
Promote activities that ensure the well-being of chimpanzees, other primates and animal welfare activities in general

Don't you think bigfeet -assuming they are real- fit on the above?

Where are the projects?

-My explanation on why the "unidentified DNA" is useless as evidence (here it is again):

Here's what a propper (there was enough DNA at the sample, the DNA was adequately preserved and was not contaminated during collection and transport and no further screw-ups happened at the lab) DNA test would say about a real bigfoot:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae or Ponginae (depending if they are related to Homo, gorillas, australopithecines or orang-utangs).

From this point (subfamily), the assay result would say "unknown". The test in question was not even able to say if the DNA was from a human or from a bear. It was useless. It can not back the claim "bigfeet are not real" neither the claim "bigfeet are real". Its pretty useless.

By the way, if a DNA test provides the result above, it could be a very good and reliable piece of evidence. And I would say, "that's reliable evidence".

-The many times I pointed your claim "zoologists don't grab their own specimens of dangerous animals in Alaska" (actually its already a modification of the previous "zoologists don't collect specimens" and "zoologists are not in the field" claim) is false.

[QUOTEAfter a very quick search at the database, I found specimens of Ursus Americanus, Ursus arctos and Ursus maritimus from Alaska, with the collector's name and links to their field notebooks. Found specimens collected in 1855, 1907, 1961, 1977... Didn't even bothered to look for caribou, moose and etc.

And if you ad to this the specimens that are caught on the "catch-and-release" scheme say, for tagging with radio collars...[/QUOTE]

I could go on, but that will do for a start.

Happy new year, Huntster.