Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

I said I will highlight Correa's images to show how they don't compare to Patty's hide as far as realism.

Minor correction for you. Yes, we're waiting.

I asked you a question twice, kitty

Yeah, me too. I've asked you questions literally dozens of times with out getting an answer in the past so give the ironometer a break already.

....can you please answer it?

I did. If you can't understand the answer, it's really not my problem.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Edited to remove double-post.

 

[SweatyYeti]

EVIDENCE?

I think the word you are looking for is 'BELIEVIDENCE', you believe that Bigfoot has dermal ridges, you believe that a foot shaped impression in the woods is caused by a giant biped, covered with hair, you believe that the PGF represents a mysterious north American primate, you believe that certain hoots and howls and woodknocks are perpetrated by a babysitting beast, you believe that bigfoot is an omnivore, you believe that bigfoot swims, you believe that bigfoot has a mid-tarsal break, you believe that bigfoot is curious, but shy, you believe that bigfoot is hairy, you believe that trackways are the path of a shy, curious, stealthy foot-ape, you believe that bigfoot is migratory.

Explain how you know what I "believe"....and explain exactly what you mean by "believe".

If you can't, Drewbot...then your post has absolutely NO meaning...whatsoever.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm coming from a search for the truth....pure and simple. I'm not into the "inter-dimensional Bigfoot" BS.

There, there, Neal. Get yourself a tissue. If it's any consolation, your invisible bigfoot arguments have way better outs.

Sweaty, I think Neal's having second thoughts about this:

I nominate SweatyYeti for the following post:
Bravo, accolades, standing up clapping and whistling approval.

 

[kitakaze]

Explain how you know what I "believe"....and explain exactly what you mean by "believe".

If you can't, Drewbot...then your post has absolutely NO meaning...whatsoever.

Please don't, Drewbot. We knew you were making a general statement. If you do, you're just giving Sweaty more dodging oppurtunities. That post was him doing the slippery.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I did. If you can't understand the answer, it's really not my problem.

No, you did not answer the question.

Again.....

Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

You can run from the question, kitty.....but it only shows that your statement....that '"realism" is subjective'.....is indefensible by you.

You say things that you CANNOT back-up, and support.

 

[Drewbot]

While I value your opinion Kitakaze, I was expecting that response from the Sweaty One.
I happened to have this waiting for just such a reply. Sweaty Believes there is evidence which I listed above, These believidenciary reports, casts etc... are what keeps bigfooting alive.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=176&st=80&p=2530&#entry2530

I agree with Oklahoma Squatch....

QUOTE
...however I believe there is plenty of solid evidence. If there wasn't, there would be no warrant for further investigation. Hundreds of people would not be spending thousands of hours in the field, and millions of dollars out of their own pockets if there was nothing that warranted this investigation.

 

[Aepervius]

Right now sweatyeti, there are really nothing I would call evidence for an animal corresponding to the description of bigfoot. We have more evidence for the extinct dodo and dinosaur than for your so called bigfoot.

What you call evidence does not pass the muster of science... No matter how strong you yell it or how big the font you use it to proclaim it...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Please don't, Drewbot. We knew you were making a general statement.

Wrong again, kitty.

Drewbot said this in his post...

By the way, Sweaty, just so you know, I could insert all those things above with one of Beckjord's beliefs, and you would be on the same level as him as far as evidence.

That is directed at me personally.

You are so full of garbage, kitty, that you are one of the chief producers of the "swamp gas" that rises from, and permeates this forum.

You have NO interest in any analysis of the evidence for Bigfoot. Nothing in any of your posts consists of actual analysis...all you can do is make false accusations and mischaracterizations of those who think there is a reasonable chance that Bigfoot exists.

Your posts are a complete waste of people's valuable time. You contribute NOTHING here.

Now...go ahead and babble some more...

 

[kitakaze]

While I value your opinion Kitakaze, I was expecting that response from the Sweaty One.
I happened to have this waiting for just such a reply. Sweaty Believes there is evidence which I listed above, These believidenciary reports, casts etc... are what keeps bigfooting alive.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=176&st=80&p=2530&#entry2530

Thank you for the correction. I see I was mistaken and you were not making a general statement.

Just to let you know, Drew, that link is unviewable for people that don't have memberships at the searchforbigfoot forums such as you or I. For there benefit you may want to clarify how it links Sweaty to the list of beliefs you attributed to him.

 

[Drewbot]

Kitikaze- you are right, I should clarify.

Here I list typical Bigfooter 'evidence' and I relate it to something I coined called 'Believidence', basically meaning evidence that you have to believe in, in order to call it evidence.

EVIDENCE?
I think the word you are looking for is 'BELIEVIDENCE', you believe that Bigfoot has dermal ridges, you believe that a foot shaped impression in the woods is caused by a giant biped, covered with hair, you believe that the PGF represents a mysterious north American primate, you believe that certain hoots and howls and woodknocks are perpetrated by a babysitting beast, you believe that bigfoot is an omnivore, you believe that bigfoot swims, you believe that bigfoot has a mid-tarsal break, you believe that bigfoot is curious, but shy, you believe that bigfoot is hairy, you believe that trackways are the path of a shy, curious, stealthy foot-ape, you believe that bigfoot is migratory.

When sweaty asked me how do I know that he believes all of these things. I quoted the search for bigfoot website, in which, sweaty says "I agree with Oklahoma Squatch" she then cites his statement which is as follows.

"...however I believe there is plenty of solid evidence. If there wasn't, there would be no warrant for further investigation. Hundreds of people would not be spending thousands of hours in the field, and millions of dollars out of their own pockets if there was nothing that warranted this investigation."

Therefore Sweaty believes there is plenty of solid evidence. Which was my point. Beckjord believes that there is plenty of solid evidence of Interdimensional bigfoots, I was saying that it is interchangeable.

 

[kitakaze]

Wrong again, kitty.

Drewbot said this in his post...




That is directed at me personally.

Yes, I see that. I was wrong and stated such. I'm thinking of mangler right now.

As for the rest... proove it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

While I value your opinion Kitakaze, I was expecting that response from the Sweaty One.
I happened to have this waiting for just such a reply. Sweaty Believes there is evidence which I listed above, These believidenciary reports, casts etc... are what keeps bigfooting alive.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=176&st=80&p=2530&#entry2530

You're right, Drewbot...I believe...or, more properly, think that there is evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

That "belief" is based on the meaning of the word "evidence".
I don't "believe" Bigfoot necessarily exists, though, just because there is evidence for it.

In other words...there's a difference in believing the evidence indicates a "degree of probability" of Bigfoot's existence, and believing that Bigfoot exists, as a definite.


In a reply to kitakaze's post a while back about a "default position" of believing that Bigfoot doesn't exist, until proven....I explained my thoughts, that the only correct way of looking at the possibility of Bigfoot's existence is not simply "believing" one way or the other....but rather thinking about it in terms of probabilities....based on the weight of the evidence.
The evidence does carry a certain weight, above the level of zero....and therefore Bigfoot's existence should be thought of in terms of a certain "degree of probability".

Since I wrote that reply to kitakaze's post, I've avoided using the terms "believe" or "belief"". They're misleading...they carry the connotation of "thinking based on faith...or personal preference"....whereas the only proper way of thinking about Bigfoot's existence is that which is based on the true weight of the evidence.

 

[kitakaze]

That is NOT an answer, kitty. Yes or No would be an answer to the question.
Again.......concerning whether or not "realism" is subjective or objective....

Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???


You are the one who avoids standing behind and supporting your own proposals and statements, not me.

No, you did not answer the question.

Again.....




You can run from the question, kitty.....but it only shows that your statement....that '"realism" is subjective'.....is indefensible by you.

You say things that you CANNOT back-up, and support.

First of all, Sweaty, get some manners. The proper courtesy and correct way to avoid looking like a hypocrite brat would be to answer the things I asked of you at least prior to your original question if not up to the post complaining that that question was answered. This is adult conduct. Furthermore, If you are unsatisfied with my response to your question please keep in mind that this is not the first time you have asked poorly thought questions in an attempt to make a point.

Let's break it down:

You say that Patty is realistic. Many others, bigfoot believers included, say the opposite. That in it's very nature shows that the realism you claim is subjective in it's nature. Do you understand?

Now you've asked me to say if I can see a difference in the realism of the legs of the subjects of both images. I have explained the problem and asked you to define that realism you claim and how it excludes my submission of the Harely Hoffman movie. I'm pointing out to you the erroneous nature of the question. Think about this- Does one leg being shaggier make it less realistic? Do living creatures never have shaggy legs? The yes or no answer to your flawed question is 'no'. There is nothing about the BBC subject's leg that disqualifies it from being a real leg in comparison to the PGF. IMO, you understood this point from the first time I alluded to it and your are simply being obtuse.

There is simply nothing about the question to run from and once again you are projecting your own behaviours on to others. Do you deny having avoided answering questions for extended periods of time?

Regardless, I have answered your question as you requested it to be answered. I now expect you to answer the things I have asked of you at least prior to this post. If you do not you will confirm to all the people following this thread, believer, skeptic, fence-sitter alike, that you are completely without integrity and a detriment to your cause.

 

[Thurkon]

There is evidence for this creature's existence. There are discussion board threads where people who take an interest in the evidence discuss and analyse the evidence. Part of 'analysing the evidence' consists of actually doing something which would support one's analysis.

I am familiar with the way a message board works. Thanks for that.

There is no evidence, Yeti. You can produce squatch footprints, buttprints and bloke-in-a-suit movies out the wazoo. You can pontificate and speculate about a creature that may or may not exist until the end of time...until an actual creature is produced this is all useless. Nature photographers and videographers have no problem obtaining photographs and high resolution video of very elusive and rare species. Zoologists have no problem obtaining these elusive and rare species. Why is Foot so blasted unobtainable? Is it because you can't catch a myth in a net?

If you, or anyone else, give all the evidence for Bigfoot's existence ZERO weight...then you, and company, have no real reason to be concerned with the discussion and analysis of the evidence...do you?

This is a skeptics board. If you don't want dissention you have picked a strange place to be. Let's stick to topic, though: Do you honestly believe, with the availablity of video cameras, digital cameras, and digital cameras with video...as well as the preponderance of qualified nature photographers, hunters, animal trackers, and Bigfoot "researchers" that operate in the Pacific Northwest...the best you can produce is a forty-year-old, shaky, grainy film of what appears to be a bloke in a suit? Doesn't it strike you as strange that the best you have is a forty-year-old film shot by a guy who admitted he was out in the woods shooting a Bigfoot documentary?

I'm not playing anything. I have reason to think there is some probability (the weight of the evidence) for Bigfoot's existence...and therefore, I enjoy analysing the evidence.

If you search the history of this thread, I was one of the early contributors. I've analyzed this film to death. Conclusion: hairy-breasted diaper-man is a bloke in a suit. The film just isn't convincing.

Add to that the overwhelming majority of scientists/anthropologists who are qualified to speak of such matters state no such beast exists...that's good enough for me until they actually produce Mr. Foot himself. Ask yourself this: When the evidence is so flimsy, why do you need this creature to exist?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Why is Foot so blasted unobtainable? Is it because you can't catch a myth in a net?

And this brings us to the 'bigfoot can travel to other dimensions' excuse.

 

[doctoratlantis]

My Favorite Thread

This is, by far, my favorite thread on the Internet right now. This is mostly because everything except Jet-Pack Bigfoot has been covered in this one thread.

For your amusement, or perhaps not:

 

[SweatyYeti]

Right now sweatyeti, there are really nothing I would call evidence for an animal corresponding to the description of bigfoot. We have more evidence for the extinct dodo and dinosaur than for your so called bigfoot.

What you call evidence does not pass the muster of science... No matter how strong you yell it or how big the font you use it to proclaim it...

Thank you for your insight, Aepervius. It helped.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thurkon wrote:

When the evidence is so flimsy, why do you need this creature to exist?

My interest continues, in part, because one fine summer day, while watching my son's baseball game, I got a call back from a woman who lives in Upstate New York....and she told me all about her and her daughter's clear, up-close, daytime sighting of a Bigfoot creature, as they drove around a bend in the road. The fact that her husband supported her story 100%, and the fact that she took time out of her day to make a long-distance call to a total stranger to enthusiastically tell me about her sighting left an impression on me that I can't easily dismiss as simply "a screwed-up family".
Her report, and phone call/conversation indicates some degree, or percentage, of probability that the creature does exist. I can't say with a 100% certainty that she, and her family, are lying.....just as I also can't say with a 100% certainty that she's telling the truth.

Now.....how did you determine that I need the creature to exist??

 

[kitakaze]

Conclusion: hairy-breasted diaper-man is a bloke in a suit. The film just isn't convincing.

Oh, my good Thurkon, haven't you heard?:

Wrong....period. Patty is realistic-looking, and may well be the "real thing".

Sweaty said Patty is realistic and your assessment surely can't point to the concept being subjective.

Seriously though, what footers just won't get into their skulls is that while it may give them goosebumps, it is simply unconvincing as alledged bigfoot evidence.

They prefer to dodge the question:

"40 years and that's the best you got!?"