Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Dancing David]

Ray, Most common folk are incredibly naive about a lot of things.

If you think that Kitakaze, LTC8K6, Dfoot, Correa Neto, madurob, Drewbot and/or Locknar are not being paid to be here and RELENTLESSLY post anti-bigfoot propaganda, then in my opinion you are naive. Please note that Dfoot has taken over for Kitakaze, who appears to have been reassigned, hopefully to Afghanistan water boarding Al-Qaida 24/7.

I bet they wish they were doing something that much fun. Intelligence work is real exciting, it looks like accounting and often is. The NSA and FBI often do stuff that looks just like accounting because it is accounting. Isn't that exciting.

The CIA is more into what you are talking about but they are usually more involved in economic destabalization.

But hey I believe that the world is getting better all the time.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, are we talking animal robotics, or animatronics? Animatronics is the term that was applied to the dinosaur exhibit on tour. They made a point of telling everyone how new and exciting this was. I went and saw it. It was okay. They could turn their heads and open their mouths. Let's be clear, concise, and correct in word usage.

I'm a pretty good kite flier. Should I call myself an expert in aeronautics now?

I was just pointing out the common usage of the word by the economic power of Disney Corp.

Gosh you are a tad techy, sorry about that. I didn't mean to yank your chain.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you take offense to that? Has your families' girth doubled then?
Certainly there is gigantism. I pointed it out to CN. You're just a little late to the party.

I may be late but here I am and that is just one of those perceptions I like to poke at. So what evidence is there of giganticism in the NA continent that can not be also found in the record of other continets?

The girth comment is also false, the vast majority of girth expansion has occured in the last fifty years.

 

[Dancing David]

I didn't get it at first. Good joke. It must be a joke. After all of the taunting, mocking, maligning, hatred, abuse, and derision directed at me, I really find this insulting.

Otherwise, I would say that you're slipping to the point of CN and KK.

BTW, donde es kk?

Nah, I will call them as well, you were just the first. Which was a mistake on my part. I apologise to you. I have noted way too many references to delusions and the like. Beliefs not shared by others are what they are, calling them out is not productive.

There are way to many insults and ad homs floating here, sorry they are directed at you. Somewhat like the board was four years ago, and what is going on at scepticsforum.

Critical debate can be polte and neutral, which many people (including myself) often forget.

I have seen many a strange thing and done many a strange thing, but hey I am that weird critter, a sceptical pagan. I can communicate with the forces of nature, spirits and deities and still doubt thier existance.

 

[manofthesea]

I may be late but here I am and that is just one of those perceptions I like to poke at. So what evidence is there of giganticism in the NA continent that can not be also found in the record of other continets?

The girth comment is also false, the vast majority of girth expansion has occured in the last fifty years.

As far as human girth, it's something I added more for shock. But it seems apparent that there is merit to that statement. Whether 50 or 500 years. There's a current study that suggests low iron intake, coincidental with North America's low iron content compared to the rest of the world, may be the culprit. It's recent, and I think it was at Livescience.

But as far as gigantism, I submitted that when comparing North American mammals to African counterparts, particularly during the Ice Age that ours were much larger.
Like the mammoth and mastadon compared to the elephant.
The saber cat compared to tigers.
Buffalo when compared to water buffalo.
Grizzly bears compared to ? (that's the one that gets me, did bears assume the role of primates here?)
We also had a large wolf here during that time.
So, what my assumption was leading to is this, that sasquatch could be a large relative of any african ape, being that it may have gotten larger, and perhaps woolier than its' counterparts. Seriously, woolier, with fangs and all.

There you have it. I left out smaller animals, but I believe it is the same concerning the beaver, rabbits/hares, etc.

The counter argument that was produced by Correa was insufficient in my opinion so I presume to carry on with that assumption until proven otherwise.

 

[manofthesea]

I Agree, But...

Nah, I will call them as well, you were just the first. Which was a mistake on my part. I apologise to you. I have noted way too many references to delusions and the like. Beliefs not shared by others are what they are, calling them out is not productive.

There are way to many insults and ad homs floating here, sorry they are directed at you. Somewhat like the board was four years ago, and what is going on at scepticsforum.

Critical debate can be polte and neutral, which many people (including myself) often forget.

I have seen many a strange thing and done many a strange thing, but hey I am that weird critter, a sceptical pagan. I can communicate with the forces of nature, spirits and deities and still doubt thier existance.

There are many times when the mood is jovial and cordial. But, it's the passion. We may get down and dirty at times, but that's because of the subject we're dealing with and the many differing opinions. And we're dealing with an 'unknown'. I try to get my points across and I try to understand the counterpoints. The best comparison would be to politics, which side is really right? Until we have a body of sasquatch, or a number of bodies of 'misidentified creatures' or 'escaped pets', we'll never know for sure.

But, you are right.

ETA: The only other forum i frequent is a 'soccer/football' forum. I rarely post, but when compared to this forum, they take adhoms to a whole different level. In every post.
The forum is Foxsoccer, one of the tamest of the bunch. I guess politics, sports, and cryptids are something passionately argued about until the last game, vote, or specimen.

 

[manofthesea]

I've Taken No 'Personal' Offense

I can understand the incredulity displayed, even frequently. It would be like one of them door to door proselitizers coming into your house and demanding belief. But the thing is, I got chased (or scared away) by an unknown creature, then witnessed it just observing us. I can't undo that.

Imagine if Silvia Browne (sp) came onto this forum, or Mr. Hansen showed up at the global warming section. The debates would be heated, no?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Since I posted this message to LTC.....in post #10095...

LTC8K6 wrote:

The question is a leading question and therefore has no real answer.

The truth of the matter is, LTC...you can't answer the question.....because you have no backbone....and no personal integrity.


Here are some other questions I've asked you, that you can't answer....

Do you know that Patty is a man in a suit?

If so...how do you know that, without having PROOF which can be demonstrated to the general public?


When have I stated that "I know Patty is inhuman"?

It's a pleasure watching skeptics refuse to answer questions. It happens rather frequently with these "critical thinkers" .....and is a sign of fear...pure and simple.

LTC wrote...falsely:

I have never misrepresented anything sweaty said.

You sure have, pal!

Example #1...

Yet sweaty knows Patty is "inhuman"...which means sweaty has eliminated "human" somehow,

Example #2...

Oh! You meant Patty was a human with an inhuman arm!


Both statements are misrepresentations of what I've said in my posts.

LTC....a true BS artist!

BTW...LTC admitted to misrepresenting my statements, in this quote of his...

I'm sorry. My mistake. I apologize.

....he's disappeared.

LTC.....can you be an HONEST human being....and make an honest accounting for your blatant lies?

Do you have the courage to answer a few simple, relevant questions...about what you claim to know about the PG film?

 

[RayG]

I really don't get the fascination with the PGF and MDF. Neither is exactly recent, and neither has ever been definitively shown to be either squatch or man. Time to move on. Where is the recent, convincing evidence?

RayG

 

[manofthesea]

Evidence

I may be late but here I am and that is just one of those perceptions I like to poke at. So what evidence is there of giganticism in the NA continent that can not be also found in the record of other continets?
.

And then, as evidence, I've posted pictures of my (male) Alaskan Malamute and my (female) Siberian Husky. Note especially, their markings are identical, but he is twice her size and weight. She is not full grown in the picture, but there is still a considerable difference (twice). It would be difficult for me to duplicate their positions as she is 'establishing' herself now.

The pictures are posted at BFF under "Your Pictures" in the member's forum.
Titled 'Siberian Bigfoot Hound and Alaskan Sasquatch Hound'.

 

[LTC8K6]

I still didn't misrepresent anything sweaty wrote. He can repeat it till a sasquatch shows up on his doorstep, but it'll never be the truth.

Heck, I could have left off the quotation marks and still been okay, but I decided to err on the fair side and use them.

I don't believe I have ever claimed to know anything about the PGF, but that won't prevent sweaty from claiming that my "default position" lines are my own claims of knowledge.

I have made observations and given opinions based on what was available to me.
Many of those had to be corrected in light of better info. None of that info came from a bigfoot believer, iirc.

I have stated the default position of the scientific community regarding the subject of the PGF. That is "Patty is a man in a suit until shown to be otherwise."

I have never stated that I know or can prove that Patty is a man in a suit.

I do believe that Patty looks like a man in a suit.

Now, it's entirely possible for a dishonest person to pull things out of context and make claims...as we have seen sweaty do and will likely see sweaty do again.

Technically, I have never seen the PGF.

I am unaware of anyone alive who can honestly claim to have seen the actual full films Roger made of Patty, etc., during those those days in 1967. By most accounts, the films had been edited already when DeAtley first showed them.

Bob Gimlin was so excited about it, that he didn't bother to show up to see what Roger had actually filmed...

 

[GT/CS]

And then, as evidence, I've posted pictures of my (male) Alaskan Malamute and my (female) Siberian Husky. Note especially, their markings are identical, but he is twice her size and weight. She is not full grown in the picture, but there is still a considerable difference (twice). It would be difficult for me to duplicate their positions as she is 'establishing' herself now.

The pictures are posted at BFF under "Your Pictures" in the member's forum.
Titled 'Siberian Bigfoot Hound and Alaskan Sasquatch Hound'.

Where are you going with this?

Malamutes are normally larger than huskies and male dogs are normally larger than female dogs, so a male malamute should be much larger than a female husky.

 

[manofthesea]

Where are you going with this?

Malamutes are normally larger than huskies and male dogs are normally larger than female dogs, so a male malamute should be much larger than a female husky.

I felt it necessary to fully explain my statement when I realized how many posts that guy has. I don't know, he must have some knowledge.
The size relationship originally had to do with explaining the size of sasquatch. His apparent giant-ness may be naturally and easily explainable.
I got one for you, if his feet are big, what about his ----? Maybe we should be looking for a "3 legged cryptid!".

Anyway, a cool site for dogs is at Nextdaypets. They ship puppies, but have information on almost every species. I've never used them, yet.

 

[LTC8K6]

His apparent giant-ness may be naturally and easily explainable.
I got one for you, if his feet are big, what about his ----? Maybe we should be looking for a "3 legged cryptid!".

First we need evidence of this "giant-ness", then we can see about explaining it.

We already have reports of sightings of that "3rd leg".

 

[Dancing David]

As far as human girth, it's something I added more for shock. But it seems apparent that there is merit to that statement. Whether 50 or 500 years. There's a current study that suggests low iron intake, coincidental with North America's low iron content compared to the rest of the world, may be the culprit. It's recent, and I think it was at Livescience.

But as far as gigantism, I submitted that when comparing North American mammals to African counterparts, particularly during the Ice Age that ours were much larger.
Like the mammoth and mastadon compared to the elephant.
The saber cat compared to tigers.
Buffalo when compared to water buffalo.
Grizzly bears compared to ? (that's the one that gets me, did bears assume the role of primates here?)
We also had a large wolf here during that time.
So, what my assumption was leading to is this, that sasquatch could be a large relative of any african ape, being that it may have gotten larger, and perhaps woolier than its' counterparts. Seriously, woolier, with fangs and all.

There you have it. I left out smaller animals, but I believe it is the same concerning the beaver, rabbits/hares, etc.

The counter argument that was produced by Correa was insufficient in my opinion so I presume to carry on with that assumption until proven otherwise.

Well I can see how you might think that but there have been cave bears, dire wolves, irish elk or deer in europe, giant birds in the polynesian islands and large animals in many places.

Usually the 'giganticism' of NA is from looking at a snap shot of geology.

There is a history of large and small animals everywhere and sampling bias could be the culprit.

 

[Correa Neto]

Lets examine your "gigantism" reasoning a bit deeper.

First, lets assume its correct, and North America's fauna during the Pleistocene had an overall tendency to be larger than anywhere else. Presently there are no fossil evidences for any apes (other than humans, of course), large or small in North America (not even in Asia near the land bridge). So, the argument -if its core supposition is correct- is just a speculation.

Now, lets check the core of the reasoning- North America's fauna during the Pleistocene had an overall tendency to be larger than anywhere else. Well, it does not seem to be correct. Yes, there were species that were larger than today's, but the same was valid for other parts of the world not to mention that many species were shared with other places. Mammoths, for example, also lived in Europe and Asia; mastodons also lived in South and Central America. Giant terrestrial sloths lived in North, South and Central Americas and the same is valid for the giant terrestrial predatorial birds. Panthera atrox, the extinct North American lion (whose habitat extended southwards to Peru, BTW), the european cave lion (Panthera leo fossilis) and the European and Asiatic lions provide another example of a widespread genus. Europe and Asia had the Woolly Rhinoceros. To this, we could add bisons and elks, for example.

The specific example you cited, the saber-toothed cats (Smilodon genus) also shows that the argument is flawed. Smilodons were spreaded across the Americas. The largest species (S. populator) was from South America (3m, ~400kg); North American species (S. fatalis) some 30cm smaller. The North American lion could be larger but were of a lighther build (I found estimates varying between 2.5 and 3,5m, but remember that Smilodons had short tails). European cave lions were about the same size.

As a sidenote, some people say that given the bulk composition of the Pleistocene fauna, Africa is the last place in the world where the megafauna (or somehting roughly like it) still lives.

At last but not least, you could argue that the Pleistocene was a time of giants (the name megafauna has a reason, after all). But there's a drawback- setting the standards for "normal-sized". How can one tell, for example, if those animals actually were giants or if the current fauna is mostly composed of dwarves? Large animals quite often appear in the fossil register, after all.

I could go on and talk about other problems with the reasoning. The bottomline is that its core presuptions have flaws (North America's Pleistocene animals were not larger than those from somewhere else and there are no fossil records of apes -other than humans- in North America), and it fails to provide a backing to bigfeet as real animals.

A word of caution- there's no need to "explain" the size of bigfeet. What's needed are reliable evidence to back its existence. So far, none was obtained, as far as I know. Thus, the "not real" option becomes the dominant position.

 

[Drewbot]

MOTS-
Creekfreak has started a new thread, I think you should take your story over there, at least you'll have one person there that believes you actually were chased by a bigfoot.
Here is the link.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102700

 

[SweatyYeti]

I still didn't misrepresent anything sweaty wrote. He can repeat it till a sasquatch shows up on his doorstep, but it'll never be the truth.

I can do MORE than "repeat" it...you liar...I can supply quotes of yours to show that you have.

Here they are, again...

Yet sweaty knows Patty is "inhuman"...which means sweaty has eliminated "human" somehow,


Quote:
Oh! You meant Patty was a human with an inhuman arm!

I've asked you to provide quotes of mine, in which I've taken those positions you've falsely attributed to me.....BUT YOU CAN'T.

I don't believe I have ever claimed to know anything about the PGF...

Really??? Quoting you....

Patty is a man in a suit...

The mystery is, LTC....why would you state, as a definite, that Patty is a human....but then say that "I don't believe I have ever claimed to know anything about the PGF..."

It's very puzzling. Do you know that Patty is a human being?
If not, then why would you state that she IS a human being??

...but that won't prevent sweaty from claiming that my "default position" lines are my own claims of knowledge.

See above.

I have stated the default position of the scientific community regarding the subject of the PGF. That is "Patty is a man in a suit until shown to be otherwise."

Can you elaborate on that, LTC?

I do believe that Patty looks like a man in a suit.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE BELIEVER!!

This is the point behind my questioning LTC....it's to show that skeptics simply take a position based on their preferential belief.

 

[LTC8K6]

The mystery is, LTC....why would you state, as a definite, that Patty is a human

I didn't, I was stating the default position of science and of objective folks.

I have already explained why I said that you know Patty is "inhuman". I see no need to explain it again.

This is the point behind my questioning LTC....it's to show that skeptics simply take a position based on their preferential belief.

Good luck!

My personal position is based on much more than my beliefs, although they are certainly part of the reason for my position. Anyone who has followed the JREF bigfoot threads would know this. They would know how much I have gone over the available evidence, how often I had to modify my ideas, how deep into the different subject areas I went, etc. They would know that I have assumed things to be true for the sake of discussing them with believers, even though I didn't actually hold the position myself.

None of that matters because Patty will remain a man in a suit, by default, until shown to be something else.

What anyone believes matters not a whit, so why would anyone really care about those beliefs? They won't change reality.

We've got at least 2 people around here who believe Patty can disappear at will. Now, if that were true, it would certainly kill the default position!

 

[kitakaze]

Please note that Dfoot has taken over for Kitakaze, who appears to have been reassigned, hopefully to Afghanistan water boarding Al-Qaida 24/7.

I bet they wish they were doing something that much fun.

Yes, that sounds like a barrel of monkies. Unfortunately for Neal, I was only sent on an all-too-short skunkworks op on his side of the pond. By which I mean spending the holidays with family and friends (away from a PC). I'm sure he missed me oodles.

So, has Neal shared his wisdom of posting art as bigfoot evidence yet?