Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Crowlogic]

What's in a name or perhaps who's in a suit? Since Bob H was the most plausable guy working up a sweat in that thing why not Bob. Or maybe since the suit is a female Roberta or Bobbi is as appropriate as Patty.

 

[LTC8K6]

It seems to me that if Patty was near the creek and squatting, and stood up and turned to walk away, those prints would be the most interesting to just about everyone. The story is much better with those prints on record.

Jeff Meldrum should be very interested in those prints. Krantz should have been too.

Such prints are much harder to fake convincingly, which is probably why you never see such bigfoot prints.

The main reason I believe the film is a hoax is that there are no prints of Patty arriving at the creek bank, and no record of the various prints she would have made at the bank.

Remember too, Roger had a still camera with him, yet we have no stills of the tracks. The still camera was the best way to document the tracks and the trackway, yet it wasn't used.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's in a name or perhaps who's in a suit? Since Bob H was the most plausable guy working up a sweat in that thing why not Bob. Or maybe since the suit is a female Roberta or Bobbi is as appropriate as Patty.

Not every skeptic who posts here thinks BH wore the suit for the PGF, though.

 

[William Parcher]

Funny thing is, about Bob Titmus - if he were a modern Bigfooter, he would probably be blown in the weeds by his peers as being a hoaxer and/or liar. He has an incredibly huge resume of track findings, handprints, encounters and whatnot. With a straight face (during a CBC archive interview), he told the reporter that he had tracked Bigfoot "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds" of times over 26 years. After all of that, he never did show that the creature is not a myth.

He might be banned from various BF forums. Bungle in the PNW Jnugle.

 

[Crowlogic]

Clearly Patterson and Gimlin did very little to document the secondary elements of the encounter. Its either because there weren't secondary elements such as the marks of the creature's activity at the creek or they were unschooled in proper data collection. Whereas Roger was a clever guy I don't think he was the brightest lightbulb in the box. A good photo essay of the uprooted tree and photos af virtually every track and trackline there would have helped his cause even if it was a hoax. So in that regard they failed field research 101.

 

[William Parcher]

Clearly Patterson and Gimlin did very little to document the secondary elements of the encounter.

They did. But any shortcomings (or missing stomp test, etc.) don't appear to have hampered the PGF Gravy Train and subsequent belief cult.

Its either because there weren't secondary elements such as the marks of the creature's activity at the creek or they were unschooled in proper data collection.

Or that stuff is just not necessary to fool the suckers that are born every minute. As a hoax, it was good enough. I don't hear anyone say, "I would believe that Patty is real, if only Roger had taken pictures of the creek squat tracks."

Whereas Roger was a clever guy I don't think he was the brightest lightbulb in the box.

Looks like his various Bigfoot dealings were his highest-paying "jobs".

A good photo essay of the uprooted tree and photos af virtually every track and trackline there would have helped his cause even if it was a hoax. So in that regard they failed field research 101.

The uprooted tree turns out to be a big jumble of wood flotsam. Titmus drew it on the map as a descrete fallen tree with attached root system. You can see it is much more than just that. Titmus wasn't much of a bright bulb either. These Classic Bigfooters were gittin' er done and paying some bills. Motivated dimwits seem fairly common in Bigfootery. Even the smart ones like Krantz & Meldrum have some kind of doofus blood running in their veins. What do they get for it? They are very proudly declared as famous and respected Bigfooters. Doh!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Blackdog wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
...when I have stated more than once, that if someone really wants an answer to a certain question, all they need to do is ask me again, and keep after me, until I do get around to answering it.
I have NEVER refused to answer a question....and I NEVER will.

But yet you don't. You never have and never will. How many answers do you owe, any idea at all?

I think I owe about a million and a half, maybe three-quarters...answers, my barking friend.
If you can be patient, I'll git around to answering some more questions....especially the ones people keep after me about, like kitty does.
(Actually, even if you're not patient...I'll answer more questions.)

Have a great evening!

 

[Aepervius]

I'll git around to answering some more questions....

(snipped)

That would, frankly, be the first time in this thread you would really answer question when you are asked them.

I would really like to see you answer of some of the question posed by LTC or GT/SC or Kitakaze, some 60, or maybe 100 pages ago. Many many many question, none answered by you.

 

[GT/CS]

(snipped)

That would, frankly, be the first time in this thread you would really answer question when you are asked them.

I would really like to see you answer of some of the question posed by LTC or GT/SC or Kitakaze, some 60, or maybe 100 pages ago. Many many many question, none answered by you.

Ha, yeah right!!

Trolls don't answer questions or do anything useful. They just live under bridges or, as in this case, in their parent's basements and play in the mud.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Aepervius wrote:

Many many many question, none answered by you.

I most certainly have answered many questions. Perhaps you're too stupid to realize that.

Why don't you go find the questions that you would like answered the most...and re-post them? I'll answer them.

Just a suggestion....maybe you could choose the questions that you think I'm the "most afraid" to answer, and post them first.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It took me months of countless posts to get you to finally admit that simple contradiction. Why, man?

One reason why I took a long time to respond to that contradiction, was because I was thinking about it, trying to straighten-out the conflict in the statements I had made. I decided that the word "plausible" was the more appropriate word to be used in one of the statements, instead of the word "possible". (I explained it in detail, in my response.)
The other reason was because I knew that there wasn't really any big problem with what I had said...and you were trying to make a 'big deal' out of a 'very little deal'. It wasn't part of a debate we were having...so I just wasn't very motivated to answer it right away.
Nevertheless....at that time, I did tell you that I was going to answer it....and I did.

BTW....that's the "best" example you could find, in your collection of my statements....you can't find an example of me refusing to answer a Bigfoot-related question, outright. I never have, and I never will.

 

[RayG]

I most certainly have answered many questions. Perhaps you're too stupid to realize that.

Bada-bing bada-boom bada-bang. Nice ad hom.

Why don't you go find the questions that you would like answered the most...and re-post them? I'll answer them.

Would you answer questions from anyone? How about this question (highlighted so you don't miss it):

Can you please share with all of us a list of evidence (affirmation, confirmation, corroboration, data, declaration, information) for bigfoot that, in your opinion (consideration, belief), is the most reliable (authentic, certain, decisive, dependable, solid)?

It was asked over a year ago and we're still waiting.

Just a suggestion....maybe you could choose the questions that you think I'm the "most afraid" to answer, and post them first.

Answer the one above and we'll go from there.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I said .. You said ..

Where is the Bigfoot Roger filmed that day ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Can you please share with all of us a list of evidence (affirmation, confirmation, corroboration, data, declaration, information) for bigfoot that, in your opinion (consideration, belief), is the most reliable(authentic, certain, decisive, dependable, solid)?

It was asked over a year ago and we're still waiting.

The concept of "reliable evidence" is one that I've tried to get a clear, concise definition of from kitakaze.

He defines it as evidence which is not "easily attributable" to mundane explanations.
I don't recall if he has thoroughly explained how "easily" is determined when attributing evidence to something.

I did find this statement of his...in post #11899...

You can't understand 'easily attributable'? Not my problem.
It takes me very little time to look at the PGF and easily attribute it to a man in a suit. Do I know it as a fact that it's a man in a suit? No I don't. Does that matter? No it doesn't. You know why? Because nothing about it can't be accounted for by a man in a suit. Therefore it is not reliable evidence.

But as far as evidence for Bigfoot's existence being "certain", or "authentic", or "decisive"....those are terms which equate to "proof".
We don't have 'proof positive' of Bigfoot's existence....so the evidence may not rise to the level of "reliable".
I still need to see a more thorough definition of "reliable evidence", on how if differs from "proof".

There is, though, very strong evidence for it's existence, in the way of sighting reports, footprints, the PG film, the MD Video, hair samples, and vocal and wood-knocking sounds at night.

One more thing on "easily attributable"....

As for attributing Joyce's sighting report to something....I can't easily attribute it to both Joyce and her daughter being screwy enough to make-up the sighting...given the fact that her husband supports her story (did she decieve her husband, too...or are all 3 of them in on the deception?), and the fact that years after-the-fact, she called me to tell me about it (what did she gain by making the call?).

Kitakaze can easily attribute it to some explanation like that...but I can't.

So...how can "easily attributable" be defined so that it's not just a matter of "personal opinion"?
There should be a scientific method involved in it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Where is the Bigfoot Roger filmed that day ?

My guess is that bigfoot go so upset about being filmed that it threw some culverts at a constructions site around. After drinking some diesel fuel, it then found a cache of dynamite sticks, began chewing on some, and then blew up into very tiny pieces that were so small no DNA could be retrieved. This is why no bodies are ever found. They have learned over the centuries to find ways to destroy themselves completely. The latest seems to be by chewing on or playing with dynamite sticks.

 

[RayG]

The concept of "reliable evidence" is one that I've tried to get a clear, concise definition of from kitakaze.

He defines it as evidence which is not "easily attributable" to mundane explanations.

I don't recall if he has thoroughly explained how "easily" is determined when attributing evidence to something.

But as far as evidence for Bigfoot's existence being "cetain", or "authentic", or "decisive"....those are terms which equate to "proof".
We don't have 'proof positive' of Bigfoot's existence....so the evidence may not rise to the level of "reliable".
I still need to see a more thorough definition of "reliable evidence", on how if differs from "proof".

.
You were provided one -

reliable evidence of sasquatch = information that is not easily attributable to a mundane answer that helps form the conclusion sasquatches do indeed exist(ie. quality photo unsuspected of being fabricated)

proof of sasquatch = factual information that verifies a conclusion (ie. actual sasquatch body)

How much more thorough a definition do you require?

There is, though, very strong evidence for it's existence, in the way of sighting reports, footprints, the PG film, the MD Video, hair samples, and vocal and wood-knocking sounds at night.

.
So these are things which have led you to believe in bigfoot? Things that may have more mundane explanations?

One more thing on "easily attributable"....

As for attributing Joyce's sighting report to something....I can't easily attribute it to both Joyce and her daughter being screwy enough to make-up the sighting...given the fact that her husband supports her story (did she decieve her husband, too...or are all 3 of them in on the deception?), and the fact that years after-the-fact, she called me to tell me about it (what did she gain by making the call?).

.
What did she gain? Support from another believer.

Kitakaze can easily attribute it to some explanation like that...but I can't.

.
No you can't, that's because to you it was bigfoot until proven otherwise.

So...how can "easily attributable" be defined so that it's not just a matter of "personal opinion"?
There should be a scientific method involved in it.

.
I'm not convinced you're familiar with the scientific method. You never seem to use it.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

You were provided one -

reliable evidence of sasquatch = information that is not easily attributable to a mundane answer that helps form the conclusion sasquatches do indeed exist(ie. quality photo unsuspected of being fabricated)

proof of sasquatch = factual information that verifies a conclusion (ie. actual sasquatch body)

How much more thorough a definition do you require?

Re-read my post above, Ray....I explained it there.

The phrase "easily attributable" is what needs further defining.

.So these are things which have led you to believe in bigfoot? Things that may have more mundane explanations?

I don't "believe" in Bigfoot.

As I've stated before....I think the weight of the evidence indicates a high probability that they exist.
I don't know for a fact that Bigfoot exists.

Read that two or three times, Ray, if you don't understand it....maybe it'll sink in eventually.


The fact of the matter is.....ALL types of Bigfoot evidence can potentially carry a lot of weight....the fact that other "mundane explanations" exist for all the various types of evidence, doesn't mean that those 'mundane explanations' automatically out-weigh the 'Bigfoot explanation'.

Every piece of evidence needs to weighed on it's own merits....scientifically.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

What did she gain? Support from another believer.

"Support"? For what? Can you explain what you mean?


Actually, you have it backwards, Ray.

She provided support for me....when she interjected "OH YEAH, THEY'RE REAL!", while I was telling her why I thought Bigfoot most likely exists.


It's o.k., Ray....we all get it wrong, sometimes!

 

[RayG]

I don't "believe" in Bigfoot.

Ah, then you've changed your mind? Or maybe you're just lying? Which is it Sweaty?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
...there HAS to be a reason...and there are ONLY 2 possible reasons....
1) To share an amazing experience with someone [SweatyYeti] who also believes Bigfoot exists...and who she would get a positive response from...

....while I was in the middle of telling her why I believe Bigfoot does exist...

Or do you have some alternate definition for believe that doesn't really mean you believe?

No, you've made it quite clear you believe bigfoot exists, and that belief is based upon wishful-thinking and faith, not upon any analysis of evidence.



Read that two or three times, Sweaty, if you don't understand it....maybe it'll sink in eventually.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Or do you have some alternate definition for believe that doesn't really mean you believe?

No, I don't. I don't use the word anymore.

I have recently said, in a post with a lengthy explanation, why I don't use the words "belief" and "believe" anymore, in refering to my thoughts about Bigfoot.

The word "believe" carries a connotation of "faith"..(as you just demonstrated in your post...I quote..."and that belief is based upon wishful-thinking and faith, )...and that connotation is misleading.
In that post, from a few months ago (I believe it was ) I said that people shouldn't use the word "believe" in describing what they think about the possibility, or likelihood, of Bigfoot's existence.
It's natural to use the word...most people do....but it's not the best way to state your thoughts.


Here is an excerpt from a new article about Bigfoot evidence...

In contrast to the dismissive attitude of most scientists toward Bigfoot and other such “anomalous events and objects,” Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest. Goodall also admitted to being “a romantic,” and said, “I always have wanted [Bigfoot] to exist.”

That, said Roush, is “an extremely mature attitude.”

“The funny thing is how ridiculed this is,” she said. “I mean, these may not be a cast of Bigfoot. But having such a species would fit very nicely into our scheme of things. It doesn’t threaten evolution. We know that there was an ape, Gigantophithecus, that could possibly have gone over the Bering Strait and so might exist in the Northwest Territories. There’s nothing outlandish about that idea. It may be false. But there's nothing outlandish about it . . . It’s an open question.”

A link to the article...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2008/02/27_bigfoot.shtml