Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't write that they were found in North America.
But only a fossil bipedal ape that coehxisted in North America with the ancestors of Native Americans can be taken as a reliable evidence for bigfoot. A non-bipedal (as far as we know) fossil species living thousands of km from Alaska is not a match. Thousands of Km is not a shooting distance, as someone (not you) once claimed, unless one is thinking about using an ICBM.

There are, however, some options that I will post as soon as I find wich would be the most appropriate thread and have some more spare time.

That claim of mine is also true.
Well you claimed people are reporting them. That's correct, but by no means it is evidence they are seeing actual animals. So, no reliable evidence.

They are there, it is physical evidence, and again, my claim was true.
This claim, as the above ones, might be true only if you consider unreliable evidence as worthy of a starting point for the investigation.

But if you are saying there is evidence for hoaxing and mistaken ids...

Then, because you find sasquatch evidence invalid, you then admit that there is no evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?
It may be because English is not my first language, but I fail to see any logic on the above sentence...

And, yet, you support publically funding SETI at a rate of millions per year?
Sure.
They use no pieces of evidence that may be hoaxed to back their case, after all.

"Indicate"?

Now you like "indications"?
In the context below:
DNA analisys indicating an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies
Yes.

Got some?

I
will immediately after you show me your reliable evidence that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Nope.
Show me your reliable evidence for bigfeet first.

But I guess you've got none...

No.

I mean the comparison of funding equity between ivory-billed bird, sasquatch, and intelligence extraterrestrial life inquiries.

When you adequately address the inequity, the "SETI game" will end.
The inequity, Huntster, is because the claim "bigfeet are real" is backed by unreliable and hoaxed evidence.

You may not agree. But this is my take, and the only way you can change my opinion is by showing the evidence for bigfeet are at least of the same quality of the evidence backing SETI and search for the ivory-billed woodpeker. Your "SETI game" will not make it.

I understand that English isn't your first language, so I will repeat the words:

I do not contest.
Oh, I got it now.
You can't contest it.

Oh, I just remembered...
What about that claim of yours on zoologists not collecting specimens of large dangerous animals in Alaska?

And I provided information regarding where one of them were when he found sasquatch sign himself.
Where's the footage or films?

Why he or someone else has not continued the work?

Oh, and I asked for wildlife photographers...

F-u-n-d-i-n-g ! ! !

T-i-m-e ! ! !
U-n-r-e-l-i-a-b-l-e e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e!!

If I called in one of the few guys who might be able to do something about it (Meldrum?), he probably wouldn't even have the money to invest in flying up here to look at it.
Because investing money on a quest based on unreliable and hoaxed evidence is not very attractive?

Meldrum photographed and casted several footprints in a trackway. As a professor of primate locomotion, he wrote a scientific essay on what he found.
Huntster, I was talking about footage or stills from a bigfoot made by a professional whose reputation would go down the drain if he/she was caught -or suspected of somehow being involved in- a hoax.
Meldrum has personaly taken pictures or footage of a bigfoot?

BTW, his assay was published exactly where? The discovery of such creature is certainly Nature-level stuff...

No inquiry whatsoever from the appropriate wildlife agencies.
Maybe because they considered the evidence presented as unreliable?

So just what is your problem, anyway?
You asked my opinion.
I presented it.

Here it is again:
Unless there is reliable evidence, such as:
-Fossil remains of a bipedal ape (not H. sapiens) from North America within a time frame coincident with human colonization;
-DNA analisys indicating an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies;
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances, it could even be "proof".

Without any of the above, I would consider a quest for bigfoot a waste of my tax money.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
I didn't write that they were found in North America.

But only a fossil bipedal ape that coehxisted in North America with the ancestors of Native Americans can be taken as a reliable evidence for bigfoot.

There are claims of bipedal apes all over southcentral, southwestern, and southeastern Asia. This isn't exclusively an North American phenomenon.

Further, humanity only dates back on this continent 10,000 years. That's a blink of history's eye.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That claim of mine is also true.

Well you claimed people are reporting them. That's correct, but by no means it is evidence they are seeing actual animals. So, no reliable evidence.

It's evidence.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They are there, it is physical evidence, and again, my claim was true.

This claim, as the above ones, might be true only if you consider unreliable evidence as worthy of a starting point for the investigation.

But if you are saying there is evidence for hoaxing and mistaken ids...

It's only evidence for the possibility that you like?

Yeah. You're a scientist, all right...........

Originally Posted by Huntster
Then, because you find sasquatch evidence invalid, you then admit that there is no evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

It may be because English is not my first language, but I fail to see any logic on the above sentence...

Got some evidence of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

Originally Posted by Huntster
And, yet, you support publically funding SETI at a rate of millions per year?

Sure.
They use no pieces of evidence that may be hoaxed to back their case, after all.

They use no evidence at all to justify the funding.

If that's incorrect, please correct me.

And since there is more evidence for the existence of sasquatch than there is for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, sasquatch research and discovery should be funded for the appropriate wildlife management agencies.

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Indicate"?

Now you like "indications"?

In the context below:

Quote:
DNA analisys indicating an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies

Yes.

Got some?

Lot's.

Footprints like those found by Freeman/Meldrum, like the Bossburg prints, and like the PG film prints indicate that a bipedal ape made them.

The PG film subject is an indication of a bipedal ape, because the IM index is out of the range of humanity, the subject looks too real to be a man in a suit, and good quality footprints were found on the site where the subject walked.

How many indications would you like?

I've got even more of them than evidence.

Like you............

Originally Posted by Huntster
will immediately after you show me your reliable evidence that there is intelligent extraterrestrial life.

Nope.
Show me your reliable evidence for bigfeet first.

But I guess you've got none...

Goodbye, "scientist".

I'm not playing this immature game with you.

You are as denialist as they get.

You are playing all manner of games to even deny funding for a first ever appropriate study by the appropriate entities.

I don't have time for fools like you.
 
Hello everyone, this is my first post here. I'm probably the dimmest bulb perusing these Patterson Film/Bigfoot threads, and I have no problems understanding SweatyYeti's points (in another thread) about evidence and possibilities/probabilities. Based on my experience, In my opinion, he's absolutely correct in most, if not all he has said. I don't see where he's being a "troll". I don't mean to diminish the scientific method, and I understand the importance of having strict criteria for gathering and analyzing evidence, but it seems to me that it is better suited for known quantities. However, if there is more mystery involved, it seems silly to me to out-of-hand dismiss weak, or "unreliable" evidence. Somewhere, someone mentioned "inconclusive" evidence as "unreliable", and as Huntster has pointed out before, if it was conclusive, it wouldn't be simply evidence, it would be proof. It also seems to be consistently forgotten by the opponents that the proponents here have been saying the evidence points to a possibility that these creatures might be real. Anyway, here is a true story that seemed appropriate here.

About 10 years ago, Two co-workers and I attended a homicide scene investigation seminar that was put on by the Cuyahoga County Coroner's Office, that was to include a mock homicide scene investigation. The seminar was held at a relatively small (perhaps 10-20 acre) metropark that had a toboggan run and a lodge and parking area. There were approx. 30 students total from different locales. The first half of the seminar was classroom stuff, taught by two Coroner's assistants. After the class portion, the Coroner's assistants briefed us about the mock investigation, and we broke for lunch while they prepared the scene. Upon returning, the remaining time of the seminar was for the mock homicide investigation, and I and a co-worker were chosen as the "first responders" to the scene. From there, we were instructed to do things how we would were this a real crime scene. In places where we would call for back-up, or for supervisors, evidence techs, or detectives, they would send in more of the students to join in the "investigation". They would do this until all students were involved. Everyone stood by the sidelines observing until, more people were "called" to the scene.

The assistants told me and my co-worker that there was a call at the metropark of a suspicious van parked in the lot. My partner and i (and the rest of the class) walked over to the parking lot where an old, VW bus was parked in a loop in the road at the south end of the parking area. I approached the van cautiously, as it was of the "panel van" variety, making it difficult to see in the back. There appeared to be no one in the front seats. Walking around the van, I noticed "blood" leaking out the side, sliding door and alerted my partner to this. We cautiously opened the door and discovered two "bodies" inside. (the bodies were a male and a female mannequin...we later learned that the Coroner's assistants used a real gun to shoot the mannequins to inflict their "injuries") Looking at the bodies, closest to the door was a male who held a revolver in his hand, and was somewhat sitting up. He had one bullet wound to his head. By him was a note ( I don't remember the exact text but was to the effect of "I'm sorry, but I love her and no one else can be with her") Lying down more toward the rear of the van was a female who also had one bullet wound to her head. We "called for back-up" and for a supervisor to come to the scene. I looked more closely around the van and it appeared to be a construction worker's van, as there were many tools inside and bags of chemicals and compounds. When the other guys arrived, we briefed them and discussed what we thought may have happened. It seemed, clearly, to be a murder/suicide. We checked for ID's and worked on gathering more info about the bodies, and more and more students were called to the scene. I began looking around the grassy area to the south of the van while students taped off the crime scene in an approx. 100 ft. diameter circle around the van. Eventually, the "Coroners" were called to the scene, and the Coroner's assistants joined in with now the entire class "working" the scene. Of course, so many people would not typically trample a real scene, but for the sake of the class...

As I mulled about in the grassy area looking for anything unusual, something was nagging at me about the van, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. After several minutes of looking, I stepped outside the caution tape and looked further down the grassy area. At one point, I turned and looked back at the van, with all the people mulling about it. I looked at the yellow tape I had exited and I got a strong feeling that we were all focusing too much around the van, and I wondered if there could be more than met the eye. Again, I sensed i saw something in the van but didn't register it properly, so I returned to the van and looked more closely at the contents. By this time, the bodies had been removed. I looked at the bags of compounds and tools, which appeared to be typical for concrete workers, and the compound bag closest to where the female had been was a bag of lime. Also lying on the floor next to where the girl had been was a shovel. It clicked in my mind, and I wondered if the man had originally intended on killing her but not himself, and had intended on burying her body. The bag of lime was not opened, and looking more closely at the shovel, there was no fresh dirt on it. It did not appear to have been used any time recently. Weighing possibilities, It appeared the murder suicide was a spur of the moment act, but perhaps he had given it more forethought. What if he had dug a grave previously? I walked away from the van again and looked around, still weighing possibilities. There really wasn't much to indicate such, but I had a strong feeling there could be more. I thought I should probably look for a grave dig, but thought I would look a fool if nothing was there, especially when I should be working on the crime scene. I knew the nagging wouldn't go if I didn't at least look into the possibility. I scanned the surrounding area and speculated, where might the murderer dig a grave? If he had previously dug a grave, I surmised it would stand to reason that he would park the van near to it. I scanned the woods adjacent to the grassy area I had checked. The woods were relatively dense and it rose uphill to a high ridge. I thought "the path of least resistance", and I again left the boundaries of the police line and found the nearest thinned-out area of foliage to enter the woods by.

As I trundled through the woods, I made considerable noise, breaking twigs and crunching old leaves. This apparently caught the attention of some of the guys back at the scene. Behind me, I heard someone ask another guy, "Where's he going!?" Another voice responded, "I don't know." The first voice called out, apparently to me, but sounding more for the benefit of the guys at the scene, "Hey buddy! the crime scene's over here!" This was met by chuckles from a large number of the guys. It stung a little, but I continued on, scanning the forest as I went deeper in and started ascending the hill. Further now from the guys at the crime scene, they continued shouting things to me, but their words were muffled. Their laughing was apparent though. It sounded as if all were now laughing at me. Finally, at a point perhaps 500 ft. away from the "crime scene", I stopped and scanned the surrounding forest floor in an area that seemed to be a little more sparsely green. Then I spotted, about 100ft. to the east, I pile of brush and dirt, and I could just make out a human hand sticking up from the ground.

The two Coroner's assistants gleefully exhumed the 2 more bodies, and got to the business of teaching us how they do "their thing" at a homicide scene. It was a shame that only 2 other class members joined us at the other scene to hear and observe their teachings. They later explained that the murderer had planned to kill his ex-girlfriend and bury her. However, two hikers, who's car was parked at another park many, many miles away, had come to the wrong place at the wrong time and paid the ultimate price. The murderer panicked, and ultimately killed himself after leaving a brief note.

Later, as we all returned to the lodge for debriefing, two guys walked up behind me and commented to one another in voices loud enough for me to easily hear, "Some people think their so smart!" "Yeah, I hate those guys who think they know everything!" Actually, I don't think that way at all, but I do like to consider possibilities. Of course, those other two bodies were not supposed to be found. THey were intended to be an explicit lesson to the class...to illustrate the importance of sometimes thinking outside the box. To look beyond the boundaries that we set upon ourselves, or that others try to impose on us. If you don't even entertain possibilities, you never know what you might miss. The Coroners,... the doctors, understood the value and importance of this.

BTW, Huntster, you are a national treasure!
 
Welcome to the board, Leo! I totally agree with you about Huntster and you are the first poster ever to openly understand what SY's getting at. Bravo! Great story, too.You're certainly no dim bulb.

Researchers such as Drs. Meldrum and Bindernagle have left "Are they real?" far behind and have progressed to, "What are we going to do about it?"

The proponents position, generally, is that there's already enough evidence to warrant a full-scale scientific investigation. Of course, that was true forty years ago, too.
Still waiting.

""There are so many problems," agrees Swindler, who six years ago told a USA Today reporter to count him among the skeptics.

But as he examines the Skookum Cast on a rainy December afternoon in this Seattle suburb, Swindler points out landmarks in the lumpy landscape: a hairy forearm the size of a small ham, an enormous hairy thigh, an outsized buttock, and a striking impression he feels confident was made by the Achilles tendon and heel of a creature that is not supposed to exist.

"Whatever made this was very well adapted to walking on two feet," he said. "It's not conclusive, but it's consistent with what you'd expect to see if a giant biped sat down in the mud."

Swindler hopes that his assessment of the Skookum Cast, and a Discovery Channel documentary set to air Thursday, will generate support for further research.

The key, Schaller said, will be finding dedicated amateurs willing to spend months or years in the field with cameras. "So far, no one has done that," he said."

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfootbelievers.html

That was only four years ago.
 
Last edited:
Leo113 wrote:
Based on my experience, In my opinion, he's absolutely correct in most, if not all he has said. I don't see where he's being a "troll".
Welcome to the board Leo! :)
Thanks for your comments....I really appreciate it!

and as Huntster has pointed out before, if it was conclusive, it wouldn't be simply evidence, it would be proof.
Absolutely true.
The skeptics are attaching a false requirement to the word "evidence"...by saying that until evidence is verified...PROVEN to be correct...it can't legitimately be called evidence.
That's not the case.
"Evidence" allows for incomplete knowledge...it only indicates probabilities... odds...of something being true (in most cases). Verification is not a requirement.

Thank you, Lu! ;)
 
It would appear that those who don't side with the scoftical, ridiculing, insulting, immature posters on JREF are automatically "trolls". This is an improvement, actually. We used to be "wackos", "woos" and :credulloids".

I think we've been promoted.
 
.....Of course, those other two bodies were not supposed to be found. THey were intended to be an explicit lesson to the class...to illustrate the importance of sometimes thinking outside the box. To look beyond the boundaries that we set upon ourselves, or that others try to impose on us. If you don't even entertain possibilities, you never know what you might miss. The Coroners,... the doctors, understood the value and importance of this.....

Thank you for this excellent example.

An analysis of the bigfoot threads on this forum and expecially the resistence to funding research by the appropriate entities should clearly show that there are people here who are beyond simple failure to entertain possibilities. They actively resist the possibility of discovery.

I wonder why?
 
It would appear that those who don't side with the scoftical, ridiculing, insulting, immature posters on JREF are automatically "trolls". This is an improvement, actually. We used to be "wackos", "woos" and :credulloids".

I think we've been promoted.
Lu, I respectfully, emphatically, and totally disagree with that statement. I offer the entire body of my contributions on this board and reactions to them as proof to the contrary. I have never once since the first day I joined ever been referred to as a 'troll'.

I urge you but very specifically the newer BF proponent members posting in these threads to have a look at this thread I started quite a while back for consideration to that end:

Bigfoot: Fence Sitting vs Good Skepticism- Big Difference?
 
....I offer the entire body of my contributions on this board and reactions to them as proof to the contrary. I have never once since the first day I joined ever been referred to as a 'troll'.....

That's because you're a good skeptic; neither a denialist nor proponent.

You are a small item of flotsam amid a sea of denialism here.

May I offer this as a reference to identify those who are denialists?:

TEN COMMON TRAITS OF THE PSEUDO-SKEPTIC

1) A strong desire to “debunk” a particular phenomenon, yet having no discernable rational reason or motivation for doing so.

2) An unwillingness to perform even a cursory examination of the data available.

3) An unwillingness to subject debunking claims to the same critical analysis they give to the “suspect” phenomenon itself.

4) An unwillingness to recognize that coming up with an alternative explanation to a phenomenon does not automatically make that explanation the correct one, no matter how much more reasonable the alternative may seem.

5) Double-standards applied in logical reasoning.

6) The inability to distinguish assumptions from logical deductions.

7) Arrogance and a tendency toward demeaning condescension in their manner.

8) A strong unwillingness to recognize or acknowledge limitations and shortcomings in conventional scientific method and thought.

9) A tendency to consider science a philosophy rather than a methodology.

10) A belief that they alone can properly determine what “suspect” phenomenon is and what isn’t.
 
Hello everyone, this is my first post here...
Hi Leo113, and welcome to the board! Great first post, I enjoyed your anecdote very much; certainly food for thought.

If I might be forgiven for making a gross over-simplification of your story it would be to say that you encourage that with the BF phenomenom we entertain the possibility that there may be a real creature and to 'think outside the box'. I can only echo Diogenes' statement that that's exactly what we've been doing for so long.

Proponents often make the assertion that if BF was a criminal investigation a verdict in favour would have been delivered long ago. In line with the murder investigation analogy that you gave about entertaining the possibilities and unorthodox thinking what conclusion are you led to feel is the most likely?
 
That's because you're a good skeptic; neither a denialist nor proponent.

You are a small item of flotsam amid a sea of denialism here.

May I offer this as a reference to identify those who are denialists?:
While completely an unwarranted feeling I'm still not at the point where being called a good skeptic doesn't feel somehow like being asked to carry a purse, don't ask why.:D

IMO, beyond being an international treasure (I don't think the place would be the same without you;) ) I would ask you to consider a reason beyond persistence for why people continue addressing you're posts (LAL, also).

I think the parameters for denialism can easily with little or no alteration be applied to many who consider themselves proponents.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
That's because you're a good skeptic; neither a denialist nor proponent.

You are a small item of flotsam amid a sea of denialism here.

May I offer this as a reference to identify those who are denialists?:

While completely an unwarranted feeling I'm still not at the point where being called a good skeptic doesn't feel somehow like being asked to carry a purse, don't ask why.:D
I got over that bit of machismo not long after having to carry diaper bags around.

That was a long, long time ago..........

IMO, beyond being an international treasure (I don't think the place would be the same without you;) ) I would ask you to consider a reason beyond persistence for why people continue addressing you're posts (LAL, also).

Because I'm their ideological enemy.

Good luck to them trying to address LAL. She's an encyclopedia.

I think the parameters for denialism can easily with little or no alteration be applied to many who consider themselves proponents.

No doubt about it. There is extremism on all sides of every issue.
 
I got over that bit of machismo not long after having to carry diaper bags around.

That was a long, long time ago..........
Purse in the left hand, diaper bag in the right, proudly do I march where my wife tells me not.:D
Because I'm their ideological enemy.
Do you ever wonder if feelings of enmity obstruct observations of objectivity?
Good luck to them trying to address LAL. She's an encyclopedia.
Luckily for 'them' she's as fallible as you, me, and the rest.
 
Thank you for this excellent example.

An analysis of the bigfoot threads on this forum and expecially the resistence to funding research by the appropriate entities should clearly show that there are people here who are beyond simple failure to entertain possibilities. They actively resist the possibility of discovery.

I wonder why?
Huntster, does it ever instill the slightest amount of pause in you that throughout the entire history of the naturalist study of the wildlife of the North American continent no unintentional encounters by said naturalists with glaring sign of something attributable to sasquatch has been reported?

In the age of BF cultural phenomenom I can imagine a reluctance by a bewildered naturalist to report such an encounter but what about times prior? I remember in the infancy of my interest in BF looking at National Audobon Society books and wondering if one of the contributors was patiently observing some beavers or what not when a curious sasquatch made it's presence known.
 
Quote:
Because I'm their ideological enemy.

Do you ever wonder if feelings of enmity obstruct observations of objectivity?

No wonder about it for me. This forum is excellent "evidence" of that.

Quote:
Good luck to them trying to address LAL. She's an encyclopedia.

Luckily for 'them' she's as fallible as you, me, and the rest.

No doubt about that, but where she shines, she shines bright.

She's on this forum big time with links galore. Memory. Longevity. Pounding it out with folks who are on her like rain.

She's got a lot more class than I ever had, too.
 
Huntster, does it ever instill the slightest amount of pause in you that throughout the entire history of the naturalist study of the wildlife of the North American continent no unintentional encounters by said naturalists with glaring sign of something attributable to sasquatch has been reported?

Yes and no:

1) No modern biological study of other species has reported sasquatchery (to my knowledge), but
2) No official modern attempt focused on these creatures has been undertaken.

It shouldn't be tough to at least have an investigative response to reports.

In the age of BF cultural phenomenom I can imagine a reluctance by a bewildered naturalist to report such an encounter but what about times prior?

Yet while there is no Lewis and Clark entry (even secondhand from the natives), there is mention by David Thompson, a similar Canadian explorer.

I remember in the infancy of my interest in BF looking at National Audobon Society books and wondering if one of the contributors was patiently observing some beavers or what not when a curious sasquatch made it's presence known.

Do you think such a person would report it?

I had such an experience. But I'm not a wildlife or science professional.

Consider all the reports from other folks in the outdoors; timber cruisers and loggers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, berry pickers, miners, etc......

Now, does it influence you that aboriginal peoples widely have even oral histories of such creatures?
 
Last edited:
Lu, I respectfully, emphatically, and totally disagree with that statement. I offer the entire body of my contributions on this board and reactions to them as proof to the contrary. I have never once since the first day I joined ever been referred to as a 'troll'.

Perhaps that's because you aren't a "bigfoot enthusiast". I respectfully would ask you do do a search and see what happened when I first joined. Diogenes favorite word seemed to be "obtuse".

When Huntster joined, it was, "Oh, good, another wacko". It's gotten subtler, but it still goes on.

Some of your posts were a bit abrasive, I thought, but I'm glad you apologized for the one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom