Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAL said:
...I respectfully would ask you do do a search and see what happened when I first joined. Diogenes favorite word seemed to be "obtuse".
Click to expand...

What does he know?

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

It has?

Those who consider me a "wacko" are still here.

I can't prove them wrong, but I've got opinions on them I can't prove, too.
 
Guys and Gals,
Thank you for the kind welcoming. I just spent 2 hours of typing responses and somehow I got logged-off and my post text disappeared when I submitted it. I will try and re-type it all again tomorrow,...time for bed now. Sorry.
 
Leo113 said:
Guys and Gals,
Thank you for the kind welcoming. I just spent 2 hours of typing responses and somehow I got logged-off and my post text disappeared when I submitted it.....
Click to expand...

I hate when that happens..............
 
Huntster said:
Do you think such a person would report it?
Click to expand...
Well, I would like to think that in a time before BF became a tabloid cultural phenomenom that an intrepid naturalist in the field would report an encounter with a sasquatch but I think one also has to admit in conjunction with the fact that there's a long and well established history if papers in NA publishing fantastic 'wildman' accounts with less than subtle disbelief and just how alarming such an encounter with a real sasquatch would be that a pronounced reluctance to share the experience would certainly be expectable.

I just simply feel that for a real creature to be involved this can't continue to be the case everytime and if so has been the case for far too long.
I had such an experience. But I'm not a wildlife or science professional.
Click to expand...
As you know, so did I and neither am I. I just personally in the end am unable to conclude that it was beyond a doubt with sasquatches.
Now, does it influence you that aboriginal peoples widely have even oral histories of such creatures?
Click to expand...
More so than if there were none. However, I feel I must also consider the fact that there are many oral traditions for say, thunderbird (any Cryptomundo fans want touch that?). Correa has also suggested the possibilty of those traditions being extremely old and having there origins long before humans migrated into NA which has it's merits too not to mention the fact that there are hairy giant wildmen traditions the world over.
 
Leo113 said:
Guys and Gals,
Thank you for the kind welcoming. I just spent 2 hours of typing responses and somehow I got logged-off and my post text disappeared when I submitted it. I will try and re-type it all again tomorrow,...time for bed now. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Huntster said:
I hate when that happens..............
Click to expand...
Ditto. Especially when you type like you have a hoof for one hand and a hook for the other.:D
 
LAL said:
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.
Click to expand...
I could get into semantics too and say that I'm enthusiastically interested in the topic of bigfoot but in any case, agreed about some of my posts. I'll be mindful of that in the future.
 
Huntster said:
Good luck to them trying to address LAL. She's an encyclopedia.
Click to expand...

Why thank you. <tries to cram self into bookshelf next to Krantz , Green and Dahinden/Hunter>

I was expecting some discussion on the photos of the original and the copy of the SC. Does anyone else think the copy looks rather like a child's Play Doh project next to the original?
 

Attachments

  • skookum 1.jpg
    skookum 1.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 68
  • skookum 2.jpg
    skookum 2.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 68
  • Skookum Cast Copy smaller.jpg
    Skookum Cast Copy smaller.jpg
    50.4 KB · Views: 68
kitakaze said:
However, I feel I must also consider the fact that there are many oral traditions for say, thunderbird (any Cryptomundo fans want touch that?).
Click to expand...

Sure. I saw a Condor once. The California Condor once ranged from southern British Columbia to Baja California. I don't know if there were ever Condors on the Olympic Peninsula (no fossils? ;)), but the description rather fits:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/quillayute.html

Could have been a small whale. :)

"The California Condor fossils discovered in western New York state, near the village of Byron in Genesee County, are especially interesting because they date from a time (9000 B.C.) when flora and fauna were reoccupying the land following the melting of Ice Age glaciers. Boreal, coniferous vegetation, characterized by spruce (Picea sp.) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana), dominated the area at this time, and the climate is believed to have been cold. Fossils found in association with those of the California Condor at this site include extinct mastodonts (Mammut americanum), caribou (Rangifer sp.) and wapiti (Cervus elaphus).

These findings demonstrate that the California Condor was "able to live in a colder climate and in a boreal, coniferous setting at a time when appropriate food (large mammal carrion) was available (Steadman & Miller 1987)." Synder & Snyder (2000) point out that the presence of California Condors fossils in such far-flung localities as New York, Florida, the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest suggests that this species has "very wide habitat and climatic tolerances." Their conclusion is also supported by the wide distribution of the California Condor in western North America at the beginning of the nineteenth century, a range that included the Pacific coast region from British Colombia to Baja California, and inland to the Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain regions."

http://www.ecology.info/condors.htm

The Cherokee Rose is evidently a Chinese species. It's not known how it got to this country, but the Cherokee have an explanation:

http://www.rosecity.net/tears/trail/rose.html

Respectsnothing had an exellent post on BFF (before she was banned) on what "giant" means to Indians. They're not the Jack-and-the-Beanstalk variety. A taller tribe could look down into the lodges, but the lodges were low.

It's thought the legend of the Cyclops was inspired by elephant skulls eroding from cliffs, but I don't think we need to go looking for Griffins.

A myth may be based on something real, but one thing mankind has evidently had throughout history is imagination.

Seen the Hairy Man legend from the Hoopa?

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/mayak_datat.html

Compare to modern sightings. Myths tend to teach, to illustrate, to explain. How does that fit with a possible sighting of an 8' bipedal animal crossing the road?

What was your experience? I missed that.
 
Last edited:
Leo113 said:
Guys and Gals,
Thank you for the kind welcoming. I just spent 2 hours of typing responses and somehow I got logged-off and my post text disappeared when I submitted it. I will try and re-type it all again tomorrow,...time for bed now. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I hate it when that happens too. Some of my best work went into cyber space. Sometimes I'll save a copy in Notepad if it looks like the board is being glitchy, but I've never had much warning when AOL disconnects. It always apologizes, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
I can't prove them wrong, but I've got opinions on them I can't prove, too.
Click to expand...

I'm enjoying the knock-down-drag-outs here. BFF has gotten far too "nice" lately. I'm fairly good with the insults sometimes, I think, and it's fun to sharpen my claws on people I'm sure are so insensitive they'll never feel them.

I'd rather have intelligent discussions, though. I learn more that way.
 
kitakaze said:
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?
Click to expand...

Interesting thread. You thought this was a great post?

"I suspect with Footers vs. Skeptics, the frustration on the skeptic side is probably half the time just about the damn sloppy thinking on some of the Footers side--you know, the acceptance of tracks by somebody known to have faked other tracks, the blobsquatches, the claims that the PNW is a dense and untrackable wilderness,...the sheer absurdity of some of the claims (do I need to mention the testicle prints?)...it just adds up and it becomes not so much that about whether there's a Bigfoot as about wanting to grab the Footer in question and beat critical thinking skills into their skull with a blunt object."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1622457&postcount=14

Has your opinion changed any since you've actually debated with some of us?
 
kitakaze said:
Ditto. Especially when you type like you have a hoof for one hand and a hook for the other.:D
Click to expand...

carcharodon said:
Tst. Friendly ridicule. Is that any better than friendly 'gossip'?

No?
Click to expand...

LAL said:
He said he'd be mindful in the future................after he posted that. ;)
Click to expand...
Wow. I didn't imagine when writing that bit of a self-effacing attempt at levity that one might seek to misconstrue the message entirely by taking the 'you' literally.

So then 'hey, you know when you get a paper-cut, don't you just hate that?' and the like in precaution of misinterpretation should be written 'hey, I know when I get a paper-cut I just hate it'?

Okey-doke, lemme' just rephrase the offending post accordingly-

Yes, I agree. I (being me, kitakaze) type very slowly and awkwardly.
 
LAL said:
Interesting thread. You thought this was a great post?

"I suspect with Footers vs. Skeptics, the frustration on the skeptic side is probably half the time just about the damn sloppy thinking on some of the Footers side--you know, the acceptance of tracks by somebody known to have faked other tracks, the blobsquatches, the claims that the PNW is a dense and untrackable wilderness,...the sheer absurdity of some of the claims (do I need to mention the testicle prints?)...it just adds up and it becomes not so much that about whether there's a Bigfoot as about wanting to grab the Footer in question and beat critical thinking skills into their skull with a blunt object."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1622457&postcount=14

Has your opinion changed any since you've actually debated with some of us?
Click to expand...
I thought that was one paragraph of Ursula V's thoughtful and quite humourous post that I show in full here:
I think I'd consider Good Skepticism openess to being proved wrong, more than anything else. But then again, I'd consider a good believer someone open to being proved wrong, too, so what's sauce for the goose...

Now, I'm pretty argumentative, (try to hide your shock, people) and I don't really think there's a Bigfoot out there, but...thing is, what aggravates me really isn't people-who-think-there's-a-Bigfoot so much as sloppy thinking. It's the goddamn sloppy thinking that kills me and makes me froth. (I suspect I'm not alone in this.)

I suspect with Footers vs. Skeptics, the frustration on the skeptic side is probably half the time just about the damn sloppy thinking on some of the Footers side--you know, the acceptance of tracks by somebody known to have faked other tracks, the blobsquatches, the claims that the PNW is a dense and untrackable wilderness,...the sheer absurdity of some of the claims (do I need to mention the testicle prints?)...it just adds up and it becomes not so much that about whether there's a Bigfoot as about wanting to grab the Footer in question and beat critical thinking skills into their skull with a blunt object.

Nevertheless, I don't know any skeptics who, when a Bigfoot corpse was hauled out and dumped at their feet, wouldn't go "Huh! Well, shows what I know. Cool! Somebody get me the bonesaw and the camera!"*

So in that regard, yeah, it's akin to fence-sitting, in that a skeptic knows everything is subject to more data. But I suppose the skeptical position on Bigfoot would be something like "There is no current evidence that I consider convincing, and many valid arguments for why there probably isn't one." But of course, when the current evidence changes, this position is also subject to change.

Fence sitting, on the other hand, strikes me as more "I don't know if there's a sasquatch." So I think there's a difference, even if it's just the difference between "I don't know," and "I don't know, but at the current time, given all available evidence, I consider it highly unlikely."


*Okay, not all of us would go for the bonesaw....
Click to expand...
I often miss her input these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom