Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Belz...]

If they are real animals, you get real bodies. It really is that simple.

Ridiculous. A bigfoot's lifeless corpse decomposes completely in less than 18 seconds.

 

[Belz...]

Science wants a body.......and then they'll want a couple more to confirm.

Are you saying that asking for a body is not a rational way to approach the problem of bigfoot's alledged existence in the complete and total absence of any form of reliable evidence whatsoever despite the endless ramblings and theorising of bigfoot believers who think that eyewitness accounts are always accurate and that tracks and films cannot be hoaxed by those who would exploit such ignorance and naiveté ?

 

[LAL]

Yes, I also have evidence pointing to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Let's not get silly, okay? It's usually werewolves, fairies and leprechauns.

Yes, but we have always managed to get loads of specimens of smart, nocturnal animals living in inaccessible terrain before. Why not this Bigfoot? Why is he so special as to be unobservable?

Unobservable by whom?

It took sixty years after their "discovery" for a Giant Panda to be brought in, and that was with expeditions trying to collect them for zoos.

There's been no full-scale well-funded scientific expedition for sasquatches.

If they are real animals, you get real bodies. It really is that simple.

And just how do you do that?

You'd be satisfied with no bodies? Oh wait. You are.

I'm satisfied there's a breeding population in the Pacific Northwest, at least. I think it might be useful to bring one in in order to establish their existance in order to assess their situation to see if they need protection.

This is easier said than done.

See Krantz for difficulties in trying to tranquilize one. There are many reports of them being in groups (although the average sighting is of a lone "rogue" male), and one account I've seen of one hauling an apparently injured companion from the path of a truck. So, merely killing one wouldn't necessarily result in the specimen being collected.

It might result in some unforseen consequences, though.

 

[LAL]

Are you saying that asking for a body is not a rational way to approach the problem of bigfoot's alledged existence in the complete and total absence of any form of reliable evidence whatsoever despite the endless ramblings and theorising of bigfoot believers who think that eyewitness accounts are always accurate and that tracks and films cannot be hoaxed by those who would exploit such ignorance and naiveté ?

No, I'm saying it will take a body, or a sizeable chunk of one, and then, to assure it's not an anomaly, a couple more for proper identification and classification.

I take it you think all the evidence so far is unreliable?

There are all sorts of accounts that seem more in the realm of hallucinations than sightings, but the people I've known, with one exception, who've had friends or relatives with encounters of some sort of encounter themselves told straightforward, almost mundane stories. Many sightings are backed up by physical evidence.

I don't see how people can dismiss things like 7 miles of double trackways in snow, but they do.

Saying something could be hoaxed doesn't make it so.

There've been hoaxes, transparent and easily exposed. The Marx film hoax was exposed by children, e.g., and an investigator.

Story here:

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/news.php

Trying to characterize researchers as naïve "believers" doesn't really work, does it?

 

[LAL]

Ridiculous. A bigfoot's lifeless corpse decomposes completely in less than 18 seconds.

Could you suspend the mockfest temporarily?

Animals dying of natural causes conceal themselves, when possible. I had a mare's corpse decompose almost completely in a year. Coyotes first, bacteria last. I did find a few vertebrae covered in algae and moss, but I knew where to look.

Bones are scattered, and even those are eaten (by mice for calcium).

 

[LAL]

Does this happen often?

I don't know, but Skamania County has the highest # of reports published in Washington and Washington's highest in the country (BFRO figures). I know they don't have them all.

 

[kitakaze]

Lu Ann Lewellyn, huh? Lovely name. I'll get back to your previous points momentarily but I wanted to address these first.

There's been no full-scale well-funded scientific expedition for sasquatches.

We've made it quite clear many times that that is irrelevant. Bigfootery is encouraging us to accept a pan-continental 8ft primate. What do you think Gifford Pinchot National Park staff know or don't know about the truth of bigfoot? Nevertheless, IIRC China has had a number of full scale well-funded scientific expeditions. No dice.

I don't see how people can dismiss things like 7 miles of double trackways in snow, but they do.

Wasn't it established last time you mentioned this that after we checked into it it turned into 7 miles from town? No? Does anyone remember an investigator/hoaxer confession I posted sometime back detailing a long series of tracks made with special snow shoes? Lu's memory is waaay better than mine.

 

[kitakaze]

snip... Lu, are you some kind of slimey weasel for saying these things? ...You already know this. Are you being a weasel?

Are you calling me something I can report you for?

I think/hope WP was referencing Mr. Personality/Lyndon's fantastic spaz in which he referred to me as a small time weasel (along with pathetic f*g**t). Anyway, Patterson had some dough and he was a bright fellow.

I don't think the PGF qualifies Patterson as a master hoaxer if it is indeed a hoax. It's either a man in a suit or it isn't. That it hasn't been established one way or the other doesn't make him Einstein. What we do know is that the year prior in his only book he was dreaming up a female bigfoot. Heironimus says it was him in the suit. His story has inconsistencies as does P & G's. Patterson was using Heironimus' horse. Heironimus agreed to meet Gimlin face to face for Biscardi's radio show and Gimlin turtled. These things stick out to me

 

[kitakaze]

Not the reputable ones. You're refering to Freeman, I assume. Who else?

Are/were Paul Freeman, David Shealy, Ivan Marx, Cliff Crook, Matt Moneymaker, Mary Green, or Tom Biscardi reputable? (Thanks for sparing me the typing, Ray.)

Does BH really look like Patty?

When he walks it's a dead ringer. That ridiculous recreation? Not at all.

Answers the question why hair isn't found in nests, anyway. In that case it was.

Bigfoot is supposed to be a wood ape, right? It should be making nests, right? It's often reported with long shaggy hair about the head, arms, and legs, yes? You know where I'm going.

 

[LAL]

Lu Ann Lewellyn, huh? Lovely name.

Thank you, but you spelled it wrong. It was Anglicized many years ago by some ancestor hoping to avoid persecution by the Brits.

I'll get back to your previous points momentarily but I wanted to address these first.We've made it quite clear many times that that is irrelevant. Bigfootery is encouraging us to accept a pan-continental 8ft primate. What do you think Gifford Pinchot National Park staff know or don't know about the truth of bigfoot?

Ask them. Maybe they'll talk to you.

Nevertheless, IIRC China has had a number of full scale well-funded scientific expeditions. No dice.

Too bad, but that says nothing about sasquatches in NA.

Wasn't it established last time you mentioned this that after we checked into it it turned into 7 miles from town? No?

No. There were several track events that year. I got the story straight from the co-discoverer. He can be seen on The Mysterious Monsters. The trackways, several days old, were found near a teacher's summer cabin North of Carson, Washington. They went up inclines the people had to climb "like two machines". Ed is nearly 6'4" and had to jump to equal the stride. He, Roy Craft, owner of the paper, and a camera crew from The Columbian (Vancouver) followed the trcks for seven miles in snow before losing them in the forest.

This is the sighting that got me really interested:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1621

The story was on the front page of the Columbian. Our land was just a few miles from Beacon Rock above the Bridge of the Gods. Later I got to know the waitress who urged Cox to report it to the sheriff's office, and the sheriff and deputies who investigated, as well as Ed and Roy.

This one's about another track find. It describes the casting technique used and sizes:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1620

See photo of Sheriff Bill Closner with one of the casts below.

Does anyone remember an investigator/hoaxer confession I posted sometime back detailing a long series of tracks made with special snow shoes? Lu's memory is waaay better than mine.

No, but the Snow Walker hoax was enhanced with special snowshoes. That's how Meldrum got 9' (using a formula) before he exposed the hoax.

 

[RayG]

Too bad LAL doesn't engage in debate with everyone.

Yes, I also have evidence pointing to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Let's not get silly, okay?

Whaaaaat? Silly? With apologies to Andy Parsons, Ph.D.,

"The riducule of FSMism by believers in bigfoot is a beautifully ironic hypocracy. It is a classic case of faith-blindness and the worst of intellectual behaviour that can be observed in bigfootdom. In this instance the believers in bigfoot run roughshod over the believers in FSMism by claiming their ‘Faith’ is correct and decrying the FSM ‘Faith’ as wrong. It is not possible to scientifically qualify ‘Faith’ and thus a comparison of ‘Faith’ in this fashion is meaningless and offensive. If no evidence can be provided to support either then both are equally valid or invalid, regardless of how angry or indignant the supporters may be."

.

It took sixty years after their "discovery" for a Giant Panda to be brought in, and that was with expeditions trying to collect them for zoos.

And how many digital cameras, cellphones, automobiles, highways, chainsaws, helicopters, infrared sensing devices, GPS systems, inflatable boats, portable heaters, or generators existed in China between 1869 and 1913?

There's been no full-scale well-funded scientific expedition for sasquatches.

Why is that required?

I'm satisfied there's a breeding population in the Pacific Northwest, at least.

After 30 years of keeping tabs on this mystery I disagree with your assessment.

I take it you think all the evidence so far is unreliable?

Yes. The closer/longer I look the less I'm convinced.

There are all sorts of accounts that seem more in the realm of hallucinations than sightings, but the people I've known, with one exception, who've had friends or relatives with encounters of some sort of encounter themselves told straightforward, almost mundane stories.

Fill a truck with stories if you want, it doesn't confirm the existence of bigfoot.

Many sightings are backed up by physical evidence.

And none of that physical evidence has ever been removed from a real live bigfoot. In fact, some of the physical evidence has been shown to come from sources other than bigfoot. Bison hair, dynel, etc.

I don't see how people can dismiss things like 7 miles of double trackways in snow, but they do.

If people can find trackways in the snow, they can leave trackways in the snow. What is it with bigfoot proponents underestimating the ingenuity of the human mind? I've seen proponents agrue that Patterson is 'hokey', a 'rural bumpkin', an 'average horse wrangler', or 'plain wasn't smart enough'. Similar arguments from personal incredulity are not hard to find.

Saying something could be hoaxed doesn't make it so.

Saying something's real doesn't make it so either.

There've been hoaxes, transparent and easily exposed. The Marx film hoax was exposed by children, e.g., and an investigator.

There are certainly no shortage of hoaxes and hoaxers.

Trying to characterize researchers as naïve "believers" doesn't really work, does it?

No more than trying to characterize researchers as naive "skeptics".

RayG

 

[LAL]

Are/were Paul Freeman, David Shealy, Ivan Marx, Cliff Crook, Matt Moneymaker, Mary Green, or Tom Biscardi reputable?

Do you think they are? How about Noll, Green, Steenburg, Meldrum, Krantz.......

I think both Marx and Freeman brought in valid evidence. Marx was trying to stay on the payroll and Freeman was apparently trying to keep Grover interested. Neither manufactured everything that was found near Walla Walla, Tollgate or Bossburg.

(Thanks for sparing me the typing, Ray.)When he walks it's a dead ringer.

Only if you don't analyze the gait. The .gif is missing some frames, but he certainly didn't have the same walk as the film subject there.

That ridiculous recreation? Not at all.

But it was created to show BH was the man in the suit. That's Bob Heironimus in the suit. The suit was even made by Philip Morris, who claimed he sold one to Roger Patterson and suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands.

How could Morris make Patty in 1967 but not for the recreation?

Bigfoot is supposed to be a wood ape, right? It should be making nests, right? It's often reported with long shaggy hair about the head, arms, and legs, yes? You know where I'm going.

No. Go ahead and go there. (Nests with hairs should be found all over? Just a wild guess.)

 

[LAL]

Too bad LAL doesn't engage in debate with everyone..

I got tired of you a year ago, Ray.

I've never called anyone a "skeptic".

 

[LAL]

What we do know is that the year prior in his only book he was dreaming up a female bigfoot. Heironimus says it was him in the suit. His story has inconsistencies as does P & G's. Patterson was using Heironimus' horse. Heironimus agreed to meet Gimlin face to face for Biscardi's radio show and Gimlin turtled. These things stick out to me

Gimlin's been putting up with Heironimus for as long as they've been neighbors. I think the Gimlin's are bloody sick of it.

He'd been building fences when he was asked, hadn't he? He's had major heart surgery. Maybe he just didn't feel like it. He's been telling his story for nearly 40 years and issued a statement through his attorney when the BH story first broke. Gimlin considers himself a Christian. Maybe he didn't want to call BH a liar on the air.

What's your source on the horse?

P&G were in the area for about three weeks. What was Heironimus doing all that time while waiting for a day's filming at Bluff Creek?

A little history from Henry May:

"In March 2004, a book came out called The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story written by Greg Long which purported to expose the famous Patterson/Gimlin film as a hoax. The so-called "guy-in-the-suit" was an individual by the name of Bob Heironimus, a former Pepsi truck driver who actually tried to come out with his story of the alleged hoax in 1999, but somehow couldn't find the right avenue other than the Yakima Herald. Heironimus was a bit evasive with Long, who was told by several people in the Yakima area that Heironimus was the "guy-in-the-suit" in the P/G film. Long went and interviewed Heironimus but didn't get much out of him other than, "Well, maybe I was in the suit, maybe I wasn't." This was in 1998, shortly before Heironimus came out with his story. Heironimus than told Yakima Herald reporter David Wasson that he was the guy in the suit, but was not identified in the story. Heironimus had seen a special called "World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed" on Fox which showed a gentleman named Jerry Romney who was identified as the guy in the suit because he is tall, nearly 7 foot. Romney flat-out denied that. The news story really didn't go anywhere until 2001, when Long reinterviewed Heironimus and Bob finally admitted that he was the alleged guy in the suit. He described how it was done, with a 3-piece horsehide suit Patterson skinned. He alleged he slipped it over like a t-shirt and wore it in the film. He also alleged that both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were in on it; interestingly enough, Gimlin lives only a few doors down from Heironimus. He also claimed that he would practice the walk in Patterson's backyard in the suit, with Gimlin and Mrs. Patterson looking on. Heironimus is 6'0" tall; the creature in the film has been measured as standing at least 7'3" tall. How can Heironimus be the guy in the suit? Anyway, Heironimus made his worldwide debut on the Jeff Rense radio program on March 1, 2004. The book by Long debuted a few weeks later. Unfortunately for Heironimus, several facts emerged that contradicted his story; for instance, Philip Morris in the book said that the suit was in 6 pieces and made of Dynel. Also, Heironimus claimed in the book he wore some kind of slippers for the feet, but on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann he said he was in his stocking feet. He also went along with the Morris story on Countdown. He then went on to KATU-2 in Portland, Oregon and was quoted as saying that the suit designer for Planet of the Apes, John Chambers, designed the "Patty" suit. Then, it was revealed that Heironimus' sister had called Mrs. Patricia Patterson and asked her to go along with a story of her brother wearing a grey horsehide suit in the film so they would all make money off it. Besides this, Heironimus could not even remember the most basic things about how long it would take to get from the main road to the film site, which is not a half-mile as he claimed, but 22 miles over rough mountain roads. Besides all this, it was Bob Gimlin's idea to go to the film site to begin with, so how could it have been a hoax, especially if Roger Patterson was supposed have been the guy planning it with Bob H.? So the title of this essay, "Is Bob Heironimus telling the truth?" can be answered with a definitive "No!" "

And here are those danged proportions again:

 

[LAL]

I don't think the PGF qualifies Patterson as a master hoaxer if it is indeed a hoax. It's either a man in a suit or it isn't. That it hasn't been established one way or the other doesn't make him Einstein.

Einstein didn't know much about biomechanics either.

What we do know is that the year prior in his only book he was dreaming up a female bigfoot.

Dreaming up? He included pictures drawn from eyewitnesss accounts, including one of a male wrestling a bear. I posted all but the Old Woman, which had already been posted, on BFF on the Where are the Convincing Suits thread. Didn't you see them?

Heironimus says it was him in the suit. His story has inconsistencies as does P & G's. Patterson was using Heironimus' horse. Heironimus agreed to meet Gimlin face to face for Biscardi's radio show and Gimlin turtled. These things stick out to me

What's your source on the horse?

Gimlin had been building fences when he was asked, hadn't he? He's had major heart surgery. Maybe he didn't feel like it. He's told his story many times over the decades and has had to put up with over 30 years of Bob Heironimus. He issued a statement through his attorney when the story broke. I think the Gimlins are bloody sick of it.

Gimlin considers himself a Christian (one reason he's given for not debating Heironimus); maybe he didn't want to have to call BH a liar on the air.

Some History from Henry May:

"In March 2004, a book came out called The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story written by Greg Long which purported to expose the famous Patterson/Gimlin film as a hoax. The so-called "guy-in-the-suit" was an individual by the name of Bob Heironimus, a former Pepsi truck driver who actually tried to come out with his story of the alleged hoax in 1999, but somehow couldn't find the right avenue other than the Yakima Herald. Heironimus was a bit evasive with Long, who was told by several people in the Yakima area that Heironimus was the "guy-in-the-suit" in the P/G film. Long went and interviewed Heironimus but didn't get much out of him other than, "Well, maybe I was in the suit, maybe I wasn't." This was in 1998, shortly before Heironimus came out with his story. Heironimus than told Yakima Herald reporter David Wasson that he was the guy in the suit, but was not identified in the story. Heironimus had seen a special called "World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed" on Fox which showed a gentleman named Jerry Romney who was identified as the guy in the suit because he is tall, nearly 7 foot. Romney flat-out denied that. The news story really didn't go anywhere until 2001, when Long reinterviewed Heironimus and Bob finally admitted that he was the alleged guy in the suit. He described how it was done, with a 3-piece horsehide suit Patterson skinned. He alleged he slipped it over like a t-shirt and wore it in the film. He also alleged that both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were in on it; interestingly enough, Gimlin lives only a few doors down from Heironimus. He also claimed that he would practice the walk in Patterson's backyard in the suit, with Gimlin and Mrs. Patterson looking on. Heironimus is 6'0" tall; the creature in the film has been measured as standing at least 7'3" tall. How can Heironimus be the guy in the suit? Anyway, Heironimus made his worldwide debut on the Jeff Rense radio program on March 1, 2004. The book by Long debuted a few weeks later. Unfortunately for Heironimus, several facts emerged that contradicted his story; for instance, Philip Morris in the book said that the suit was in 6 pieces and made of Dynel. Also, Heironimus claimed in the book he wore some kind of slippers for the feet, but on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann he said he was in his stocking feet. He also went along with the Morris story on Countdown. He then went on to KATU-2 in Portland, Oregon and was quoted as saying that the suit designer for Planet of the Apes, John Chambers, designed the "Patty" suit. Then, it was revealed that Heironimus' sister had called Mrs. Patricia Patterson and asked her to go along with a story of her brother wearing a grey horsehide suit in the film so they would all make money off it. Besides this, Heironimus could not even remember the most basic things about how long it would take to get from the main road to the film site, which is not a half-mile as he claimed, but 22 miles over rough mountain roads. Besides all this, it was Bob Gimlin's idea to go to the film site to begin with, so how could it have been a hoax, especially if Roger Patterson was supposed have been the guy planning it with Bob H.? So the title of this essay, "Is Bob Heironimus telling the truth?" can be answered with a definitive "No!" "

And:

"Robert Emory Gimlin was born October 18, 1931 in Missouri. Eventually he moved to Yakima, Washington where he lives to this day. Gimlin was and still is a rancher who breaks in young horses-at the age of 74! He has lived an interesting life in and around the Yakima area. His neighbor is a rather notorious fellow by the name of Bob Heironimus-notorious because Heironimus claims to be the "man in the suit" of the famous Patterson/Gimlin film. Gimlin is of Indian descent, Chirokowa Apache to be exact. From Robert and Frances Guenette's book Bigfoot: The Mysterious Monster is this:
Gimlin's reputation is that of a mild, honest man. I have talked to him, several times. He still lives nearby Yakima with his wife, Judy. He has a somewhat embittered attitude about the whole matter; he is angry at the insinuations that he either compromised his honesty to perpetrate a hoax, or indeed was the prime dupe of one. He has repeatedly said that "there is no question about what was out there..." describing the creature and explaining the incident over and over again in detail. In all his pronouncements, he has not changed his story. He believes he saw a Bigfoot that October 20th at Bluff Creek. I am only one among many who offered Gimlin large amounts of money to "tell the truth" about what "really" happened that day. His answer to me was, "I'm already telling the truth." His wife, Judy, told me that she suffered rather than gained, from the whole experience. She was working at a bank at the time; she became the butt of many jokes and found herself ridiculed by even her closest friends. She says she urged her husband to quit looking for Bigfoot, to withdraw him from the field. In a large way, Bob Gimlin has, existing now only on the perimeters of it, kept there by the fact of his presence that day in 1967 when Patterson shot the film and by the other Bigfoot hunters, all of whom use his name freely, calling him an associate even if he isn't. He is, in fact, the foremost living Bigfoot investigator, even if he is now inactive, even if he was only a passive partner of Patterson's. Everyone awaits the day when he will re-enter the field. Gimlin met Patterson between 1955 and 1959, and Patterson thrilled Gimlin with many stories and accounts of sightings. The two would go out on pre-expeditions in search of the creatures. Patterson and Gimlin were in the Mount Saint Helens area in September 1967, when they received a message from Mrs. Patterson that Al Hodgson that there were Bigfoot tracks in the Six Rivers National Forest area in northwestern California. Patterson and Gimlin went down there, stayed for 3 weeks and filmed a Bigfoot. They also cast tracks of the creature. Gimlin pretty much dropped out of the Bigfoot field after that, except for occasional appearances at conferences (the first one he ever attended was the 1978 Conference on Humanlike Monsters at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). In the early-'70s, Gimlin took part in lawsuits to get rights to the film. Eventually, Rene Dahinden got about 51% of the film rights (the still photos from the film) and Patricia Patterson, Roger Patterson's widow, got 49% (the actual film rights). Gimlin really didn't want a whole lot to do with the film itself, so he sold his portion of the rights to Dahinden for $26.00. For nearly 30 years, Gimlin stayed mostly out of the Bigfoot spotlight. A few years ago, he began to be invited to different conferences. He spoke briefly at the 2003 Willow Creek Bigfoot Symposium and was an honored guest there. He also spoke at the 2004 Crypto-Conference in Conroe, Texas. He appeared at the 2005 Bellingham conference and also the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries in June 2005. Bob Gimlin is a very honest individual who seems to be telling the truth about what he saw that day 38 years ago, and he has no motive to lie now or come forward with a "hoax story". Many Bigfooters believe his story to be accurate and truthful, and there's no reason to doubt his story. Bob Gimlin should be highly regarded by all."

http://southeastsasquatchassociatio...d-max=2006-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&max-results=8

P&G were in the area for about three weeks. What was Heironimus doing all that time while waiting for a day's filming at Bluff Creek?

 

[RayG]

Do you think they are? How about Noll, Green, Steenburg, Meldrum, Krantz.......

Why, do you think they're hoaxers? Who implied they were?

I think both Marx and Freeman brought in valid evidence.

Another opinion I don't share with you.

Neither manufactured everything that was found near Walla Walla, Tollgate or Bossburg.

Because they said so?

How could Morris make Patty in 1967 but not for the recreation?

Why not ask him?

No. Go ahead and go there. (Nests with hairs should be found all over? Just a wild guess.)

How about hairs should be found all over in the nests.

I got tired of you a year ago, Ray.

Yeah, yeah, cry me a river. I get just as tired re-reading the same lame arguments and unsupported stories from proponents. Read Krantz, read Meldrum, David Thompson, Ape Canyon, PGF, Bossburg, Skookum cast, etc. etc. Been there, done that, ain't convinced. Bigfootery is no further ahead now than it was 40 years ago.

I've never called anyone a "skeptic".

Lighten up Francis. Since you seemed to be speaking generally, so was I.

RayG

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm saying it will take a body, or a sizeable chunk of one, and then, to assure it's not an anomaly, a couple more for proper identification and classification.

Wouldn't you ?

I take it you think all the evidence so far is unreliable?

Indeed.

There are all sorts of accounts that seem more in the realm of hallucinations than sightings, but the people I've known, with one exception, who've had friends or relatives with encounters of some sort of encounter themselves told straightforward, almost mundane stories.

Irrelevant. Without actual evidence it doesn't matter how believable the story is, especially when an extraordinary claim is made.

Many sightings are backed up by physical evidence.

Pray tell, which "evidence" would that be ? DNA ? Or tracks ?

I don't see how people can dismiss things like 7 miles of double trackways in snow, but they do.

It's easy: there's no bigfoot at the end of the track; and it's not like walking 7 miles is such a difficult feat for a human with bigfoot boots, either.

Saying something could be hoaxed doesn't make it so.

No, but following Occam's Razor usually works.

Saying something could exist doesn't make it so, either.

There've been hoaxes, transparent and easily exposed. The Marx film hoax was exposed by children, e.g., and an investigator.

Good. I assume you can also easily expose the Patterson film ?

Trying to characterize researchers as naïve "believers" doesn't really work, does it?

Yes, it does.

 

[Starrman]

And here are those danged proportions again:

[qimg]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7484/2007/320/post-1-1081312863.jpg[/qimg]

Sorry to jump into the middle of this - but is this supposed to show that he was not in the suit? To me it shows that he very easily could have fit into it.

Besides - the 6th red segment down goes from Patty's upper, rear leg right into the middle of Bob's butt cheek, why is that? Everything else seems to line up pretty well - for what you would expect for a guy gettying into a very bulky suit.

 

[Belz...]

Could you suspend the mockfest temporarily?

Only with great difficulty. When someone believes in the unproven, I can forgive that, but after years and years without anything solid or, in the case of bigfoot, centuries, there is no excuse for continuing to clutch to the disproven.

Take me, for example. When I was younger, I used to think that I could "bust" clouds, that street lights would flicker when I walked under them, etc. It's only when I started noticing the times when that didn't work that I realised I was wrong about these, and more.

At one point, one has to come to terms with reality. For what it's worth, it would be awesome if some new creature such as bigfoot were discovered.

Animals dying of natural causes conceal themselves, when possible.

Perhaps, but not those hit by cars. Bigfeet are allergic to asphalt, it seems.

Coyotes first, bacteria last. I did find a few vertebrae covered in algae and moss, but I knew where to look.

Why aren't those bigfeet or their lairs somewhere at the end of the much-vaunted tracks ?

 

[Gbob]

It seems Bigfoot supporters have trouble understanding why the rest of world requires a higher standard of evidence than they've been able to collect after decade upon decade of fruitless searches. Let us try a thought experiment. Imagine that all memory and knowledge of bears vanishes overnight, along with 80% of the bear population. The only remaining evidence that bears ever existed were a few collected folk tales.

How long do you think it would be before proof of bears existence surfaced?

10 years?

5 years?

2 years?

1 year?

Less?

Having encountered many bears in my time, I find it hard to believe that within a week we wouldn't have a corpse from a hunter, a quality photograph, a live sample. Look at any book on nature photography and see the crisp, clear pictures of species that have far less a breeding area than Bigfoot is reported to have.

Do you really think that after 60 years nobody would have any real evidence of bear?

Really?

Understand this, and you can understand why evidence that can be faked (and without that much difficulty) and an overwhelming lack of any evidence we would expect with a live animal would make nearly impossible to believe in Bigfoot.