Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

LTC, of course, didn't refuse to answer any of Sweaty's questions, and Sweaty cannot point to any posts to show that he is telling the truth about this, except one, and he will take that one out of context to try and prove his point, as if the rest of us won't notice.

 

[Astrophotographer]

By the way, you are incorrect in claiming there is "0" evidence that is convincing. Plenty of people are convinced. This is why the subject does not go away and why you and people like you have to try and argue against it on a daily basis. You are fighting a losing battle. Bigfoot is not going away and there is nothing you can do about it.

A lot of people think that nobody went to the moon, JFK was killed by more than Oswald, aliens crashed at Roswel, Elvis is alive, etc.. Those people have convinced themselves but it does not make those things true. This appeal means nothing. What matters is proof that can be verified and not wishful thinking. Like the other events I just mentioned, it does not go away because a small group of individuals do their best to keep it alive. It is a myth but that does not mean I have to believe it. Deliver the goods. Show me the body, show me a captured bigfoot, show me clear and convincing proof and I will change my opinion. However, if the PGF is the best you got, then you are not going to convince anyone outside of those that believe in bigfoot already.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Bigfoot/sasquatch ain't THAT far removed from some bona fide species KNOWN AND PROVEN to have existed at some time on planet Earth.

Hmmm...which species looked like bigfoot and when did they exist?

What you are suggesting is the bigfoot existed long ago but nobody in the past 100-200 years has been able to "bag one". Nobody has found a body, grave, or any other physical evidence that proves that bigfoot is real. The best we have for evidence is the PGF, which is the only real proof being offered in the past 40 years. I am curious as to why proponents have not come up with better evidence. If this is your argument, that the fossil record supports bigfoot, then you are very shaky ground. You might as well be talking about finding a dinosaur wondering about in the northwest.

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah, I've been having some fun with the skeptic's here...did you see my debate with LTC, about their beloved "default position"? The 'default position' which means absolutely nothing!
LTC had to, as other skeptics have before him, refuse to answer my questions...as things got a little sticky for him. He had to "get out of the kitchen", so to speak.

Nice delusion. We know you're having fun but that's all you're doing. Maybe Lyndon will help you out with any number of the debates I've been handing your purse back to you.

There's page #305. There's me sending off your "I'm not a believer" routine. There's me putting to bed your long evaded answer to the Hoffman question. Follow these links for loads of fun. Show 'em you're a tiger.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3514733#post3514733

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3489529#post3489529

 

[Drewbot]

Could somebody please translate this example of Sweaty 'Running Rings' around the skeptics? Maybe Lyndon could explain exactly what Sweaty is saying in this post. It's either way over my head, or a convoluted version of Woo-speak, that I just can't decipher.

The HH suit isn't seen well enough (i.e. "out in the open") to determine that it's a suit...based on such things as body proportions, body contour, and flexibility. None of those things can be measured, or evaluated, with the limited view of the subject.

But it can be easily determined to be a suit, based on the nature of the video itself.
Specifically...the fact the video is so short, despite the fact that the guy shooting the video was only a matter of 20-40 feet away from an unconfirmed APE-MAN ....and also the fact that the guy made no attempt to get a more complete view of the creature (APE-MAN ) out in the open.
The video is an obvious hoax....based on that alone.

If this suit was videotaped in a comparable way to the Patterson subject....in full view...so that body proportions, body contour, and apparant muscle movement could be measured and evaluated...then it would be, as they all are, easily determined to be a suit based on the characterisitcs of suits themselves.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

What matters is proof that can be verified and not wishful thinking.

That's not exactly an accurate statement, Astro.

On a discussion board...or thread, in this case...Proof is not needed in order for evidence to be discussed, analysed, and weighed.

Evidence doesn't need to rise to the level of proof for it to carry weight.

Are you aware of this, Astro?

The highest goal of a member of a discussion board is to help analyse, and weigh, the evidence....while the lowest goal is for a member to sit back, fold his arms, and say "Where's the proof, got a body?"

 

[Astrophotographer]

The highest goal of a member of a discussion board is to help analyse, and weigh, the evidence....while the lowest goal is for a member to sit back, fold his arms, and say "Where's the proof, got a body?"

I see using bold is common for proponents to try and make their point. Your "highest" goal is to weigh the evidence honestly. I stated there is no evidence of bigfoot and he counters that plenty of people are convinced. Unfortunately, this is not a "public opinion" discussion and that is not how one should justify that bigfoot is "real".

The discussion here is the PGF. The two dominant opinions are:

1) This is a hoax = Man in a suit
2) This is a bigfoot = Man not in a suit

The evidence of the film is argued back and forth endlessly with each side providing "experts" to suggest their opinion is correct. However, in the end it revolves on the "reality" of bigfoot. For over 40 years, is this the best evidence that proponents can present? If you throw in a thousand footprints, a buttprint, some tapes of strange noises, and a lot of anecdotal stories about people seeing or hearing bigfoot tromping around, that is about it. For proponents to prove their case and the hoax story incorrect will require more evidence than the film and what has been presented is just not going to cut it.
You can show all the highly subjective enhancements of the PGF you want but it is not proof that it isn't a hoax. All it is doing is just finding the data to make it suit your needs. If you call that the "highest goal", I think you have a rather elevated opinion of yourself and your "research". Maybe you should spend more of your time and money pursuing bigfoot for real. After all, it is your position that he is an actual creature. If so, then it would be time and money well spent.

 

[GT/CS]

Wow, it looks like Sweaty may be correct. There has been solid proof of Bigfoot since at least 1971. How can we ask for anything more than a skeleton with a unique feature found only on (in?) bigfoots.

Bigfoot Skeleton

And don't forget about his guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTCZtPNnzQ&feature=related

 

[LTC8K6]

I have the camera manuals.

Intermediate fps speeds can be set.

Shutter opening angle is 165 degrees

Shutter speeds are 1/20 for single frame then 1/35, 1/50, 1/70, 1/100, and 1/140 for 16/24/32/48/64 fps.

Putting in a new roll of film is not a simple operation.

You can load the camera in daylight.

It can take single frames.

It has a tripod socket.

It can be hand cranked forward and backward if you buy the crank.

It can be motor driven if you buy the motor drive shaft and supply your own motor.

 

[kitakaze]

Astrophotographer wrote:



That's not exactly an accurate statement, Astro.

On a discussion board...or thread, in this case...Proof is not needed in order for evidence to be discussed, analysed, and weighed.

Evidence doesn't need to rise to the level of proof for it to carry weight.

Are you aware of this, Astro?

The highest goal of a member of a discussion board is to help analyse, and weigh, the evidence....while the lowest goal is for a member to sit back, fold his arms, and say "Where's the proof, got a body?"

Since Astro already gave Sweaty's purse back I'll only add this:

There is no reliable evidence for bigfoot.

There is no strong evidence for bigfoot.

There is no evidence of significant weight for bigfoot.

Currently, anybody who says otherwise is a woo, a believer, a bigfoot enthusiast, a weak coffee fetcher for The Boss of the Woods, and critically thinking impaired.

In addition, any person who says that the PGF is more or as likely to be a living bigfoot than a man in a suit is all of the above.

What there is is a subculture of people who have faith in bigfoot. They are like a weird cult. They are no different than UFO enthusiasts, Scientologists, and 9/11 'Truthers'. They thrive on perpetuating irrational beliefs that they present as logic and reason. They are very strange.

 

[GT/CS]

Please excuse this brief derail but will someone please post a link(s) to the most moderate bigfoot or crypto web-site(s)? For example the guy that helped us with Creek's photos seemed a lot more level-headed than some others from other sites.

Thanks

 

[MoonDragn]

I not feeling up to reading the 300+ pages in this thread. Just wondering about something. In the film posted by the original poster, something seemed strange to me. This bigfoot is a wild creature that roams around in the forests and wilderness etc. So how did he managed to get his fur so shiny and clean. Look at it, it doesn't have any branches, leaves or dirt on it.

 

[kitakaze]

Please excuse this brief derail but will someone please post a link(s) to the most moderate bigfoot or crypto web-site(s)? For example the guy that helped us with Creek's photos seemed a lot more level-headed than some others from other sites.

Thanks

GT, you are referring to Darkwing from the MABRC forum. He conducted himself very admirably when dealing with freak's issues hear. Unfortunately, many would argue that the MABRC is one of the least moderate bigfoot sites. There is a freak clone WP and I have referenced here before called Bullet Maker who has his own section at the MABRC. Some would sight that as an example of their not being moderate.

 

[kitakaze]

I not feeling up to reading the 300+ pages in this thread. Just wondering about something. In the film posted by the original poster, something seemed strange to me. This bigfoot is a wild creature that roams around in the forests and wilderness etc. So how did he managed to get his fur so shiny and clean. Look at it, it doesn't have any branches, leaves or dirt on it.

If you are referring to the film that this thread is about, it depicts what is supposed to be a female bigfoot. I'm sure if you looked you could find some nice shiny gorillas. Also maybe the big girl was just having a bath in the creek.

 

[Crowlogic]

I not feeling up to reading the 300+ pages in this thread. Just wondering about something. In the film posted by the original poster, something seemed strange to me. This bigfoot is a wild creature that roams around in the forests and wilderness etc. So how did he managed to get his fur so shiny and clean. Look at it, it doesn't have any branches, leaves or dirt on it.

The short answer is the film resoloution and general blurriness won't allow any details of dirt, or other forign matter to be seen in the fur. That said last week I was driving along a rural wooded road and a Red Fox slowly ambled its way across the road. Said fox was not covered in dirt, branches, leaves or excriment.

 

[MoonDragn]

I dunno, some of the pictures on that webpage looked pretty clear to me. You can positively see the sunlight glinting off the shiny fur. Animals lick their fur to keep it clean, I suppose a big foot can do the same thing. However the last time I saw a fox on the side of the road, it wasn't too clean, not outright dirty, with leaves but you can see minor particles on his fur.

 

[LTC8K6]

MoonDragn, this has been argued many ways. The fur does look neat, but is it really? It's difficult to say.

Why wouldn't the hoaxer just roll around on the forest floor a bit before they started, to look realistic?

The short answer is the film resoloution and general blurriness won't allow any details of dirt, or other forign matter to be seen in the fur.

What!!!???

 

[Crowlogic]

I dunno, some of the pictures on that webpage looked pretty clear to me. You can positively see the sunlight glinting off the shiny fur. Animals lick their fur to keep it clean, I suppose a big foot can do the same thing. However the last time I saw a fox on the side of the road, it wasn't too clean, not outright dirty, with leaves but you can see minor particles on his fur.

Primates spend a great deal of time grooming each other. Unless Bigfoot is solitary its reasonable to expect typical primate grooming. But the question arises whether or not Bigfoot exist in groups. Since we can't produce an individual instanceof Bigfoot producing a group is really stretching it.

 

[MoonDragn]

MoonDragn, this has been argued many ways. The fur does look neat, but is it really? It's difficult to say.

Why wouldn't the hoaxer just roll around on the forest floor a bit before they started, to look realistic?

What!!!???

You have any idea how much it costs to dry clean that outfit? After all they have to return it to the costume shop.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I see using bold is common for proponents to try and make their point. Your "highest" goal is to weigh the evidence honestly. I stated there is no evidence of bigfoot and he counters that plenty of people are convinced. Unfortunately, this is not a "public opinion" discussion and that is not how one should justify that bigfoot is "real".

The discussion here is the PGF. The two dominant opinions are:

1) This is a hoax = Man in a suit
2) This is a bigfoot = Man not in a suit

The evidence of the film is argued back and forth endlessly with each side providing "experts" to suggest their opinion is correct. However, in the end it revolves on the "reality" of bigfoot. For over 40 years, is this the best evidence that proponents can present? If you throw in a thousand footprints, a buttprint, some tapes of strange noises, and a lot of anecdotal stories about people seeing or hearing bigfoot tromping around, that is about it. For proponents to prove their case and the hoax story incorrect will require more evidence than the film and what has been presented is just not going to cut it.
You can show all the highly subjective enhancements of the PGF you want but it is not proof that it isn't a hoax. All it is doing is just finding the data to make it suit your needs. If you call that the "highest goal", I think you have a rather elevated opinion of yourself and your "research". Maybe you should spend more of your time and money pursuing bigfoot for real. After all, it is your position that he is an actual creature. If so, then it would be time and money well spent.

I'll respond to your post later this evening, Astro....but for now...I noticed you didn't answer this very simple question...

Evidence doesn't need to rise to the level of proof for it to carry weight.

Are you aware of this, Astro?

How about a simple "yes" or a "no"?