Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Mad Hom

I'm not a believer where did you ever get that idea? Now you've got me wrong but perhaps I've got you pegged correctly as someone that shoots from the hip. Go back and read my posts both here and on BFF and there is nowhere you will find me maintaining status as a believer. As Buggs would say "What a maroon."

I think you've got some Tater Tots in your pocket:

I am a skeptic. I lean more towards Sasquatach/Bigfoot no longer existing. Do I believe that such creatures did once coexist with modern man and perhaps into the 20th century? Yes.

 

[RayG]

Green: That movie that you took, comparing the depths of the tracks, that
would be the one that you showed at the University of British Columbia?
Gimlin: Yes. That is the one shown in British Columbia...

LTC, is that just a little scenario you cooked up, or an actual conversation that took place? If so, linky please.

RayG

 

[Babylon Sister]

I just exited the thread only to come back on after thinking of this theory: Maybe the account of a Bigfoot being dropped off here in Wisconsin, from a spaceship, is the way the Earth was and maybe IS being seeded. We blow this off as nonsensce, but maybe aliens ARE and HAVE been at work on our planet. This would go a long way in explaining the stuff in Peru, the drawings on cave walls with men in spacesuits, Ezekials sighting in the Old Testament about seeing a wheel within a wheel, up in the sky, and numerous sightings by even pilots, crop circles, etc...and creation!

Originally Posted by Iamme
Maybe the account of a Bigfoot
...and creation!

Originally posted by manofthesea
That's the first time bigfoot has been associated with the creation of the universe. Cheers!

David Patten, an early leader of the Mormon church, believed that he had encounter a Bigfoot in 1835 and discovered that Bigfoot was the biblical Cain and is "condemed to walk the earth for eternity".

Now it all makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

RayG,
That is from the 1992 Green interview with Gimlin ..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

 

[RayG]

Thanks, LTC has been penalized and sent back three spaces for failing to provide a source with his original quote.

RayG

 

[Crowlogic]

I think you've got some Tater Tots in your pocket:

Believing that something once existed is not the same as believing that something still exists. I believe that rigid airships once existed but no longer exist. Sure there's lots of old photos of airships but photos can be faked and eyewittnesses can lie. I used to like watermelon but I don't like it anymnore. So does that mean I'm eternally branded with having to be saddled with liking watermelon? And what exactly does having tater tots in ones pocket mean? Is that some silly slurr that you good folks use when below the decks in Japan? Since we're talking about the Patterson Gimlin film in the present of 2008 I will say once again just for you. I do not believe that Bigfoot exists here and now that it has gone extinct most likely in the early part of the 20th century. I am however of the opinion that this place would be a better place if you went extinct!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

you always seem to have a Pro....hence your obvious desire for Bigfeet to be really for real....which is why I stated you seemed like a Tru Bleever to me.

Mad Hom, is it possible for someone to look at the evidence for Bigfoot, and think that there is some 'amount of probability' (i.e. weight to the evidence) that the creature does exist....(or, in other words, that there is a 'reasonable chance' of it's existence)....without that person having a "faith-like belief" in it's existence?

Put more simply..."Can the evidence be thought to carry some weight, on an intellectual basis, as opposed to a blind faith basis?

Is that possible, in your opinion?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Crowlogic wrote:

I am however of the opinion that this place would be a better place if you went extinct!

Good one, Crowlogic!

But if not kitakaze....then who is gonna post a million words a week, just to keep repeating "got any reliable evidence"???

 

[kitakaze]

Believing that something once existed is not the same as believing that something still exists. I believe that rigid airships once existed but no longer exist. Sure there's lots of old photos of airships but photos can be faked and eyewittnesses can lie. I used to like watermelon but I don't like it anymnore. So does that mean I'm eternally branded with having to be saddled with liking watermelon?

And "I believe bigfoot used to exist." is totally different from "I used to believe bigfoot exists." The former is a woo belief and the latter is an admission that one previously but no longer prescribed to one. Lots of members here used to believe in all sorts of wacky crap and nobody saddles them with anything. You are a believer. Like Sweaty is a believer. You believe something quite strange. That bigfoot existed in North America and then went extinct in the early part of the twentieth century. How odd. But just like believing as Sweaty apparently does that bigfoot continues to exist, both beliefs are formed without reliable evidence (eat it up, Sweaty). I believe dinosaurs existed and I'm sure I don't need to explain why. You pretending to not be a believer is like George Michael pretending to be straight. You might like the look but eventually you gotta give it up.

And what exactly does having tater tots in ones pocket mean?

It was a reference to WP's Napolean Dynamite reference, which I happened to find pretty darn funny. Plus it sounded better than asking if you're pretty good with a bostaff, enjoy tetherball, or if you voted for Pedro. Nevermind.

Is that some silly slurr that you good folks use when below the decks in Japan?

No slur. BTW, not that you should care but it says 'behind the decks' not 'below the decks'. The former being a musical reference and the latter a maritime reference. Not a sailor, thanks.

I am however of the opinion that this place would be a better place if you went extinct!

Dude!

 

[kitakaze]

Good one, Crowlogic!

But if not kitakaze....then who is gonna post a million words a week, just to keep repeating "got any reliable evidence"???

Got any reliable evidence?

 

[kitakaze]

Mad Hom, is it possible for someone to look at the evidence for Bigfoot, and think that there is some 'amount of probability' (i.e. weight to the evidence) that the creature does exist....(or, in other words, that there is a 'reasonable chance' of it's existence)....without that person having a "faith-like belief" in it's existence?

Another poorly thought Sweaty original. No, of course not. The evidence thus far submitted is very poor and unreliable. None of it indicates a reasonable chance of bigfoots existence. To think so is unreasonable.

Put more simply..."Can the evidence be thought to carry some weight, on an intellectual basis, as opposed to a blind faith basis?

Is that possible, in your opinion?

Again, poorly posed. The weight of the evidence is very low. It's all very unreliable. It can not be thought to be anything otherwise based on logic and reason.

Your are a believer. I've a;ready shown that to be the case. You offered no reasonable refutation. I'd say your faith blinds you. It makes you say silly things like:

If two people look at the same piece of evidence, and analyse it completely differently...someone is RIGHT, and someone is WRONG.

It's as simple as that.

Faith, not reason, is what leads you to think the most likely cause of Joyce's account was a living bigfoot.

 

[Astrophotographer]

...is it possible for someone to look at the evidence for Bigfoot, and think that there is some 'amount of probability' (i.e. weight to the evidence) that the creature does exist....(or, in other words, that there is a 'reasonable chance' of it's existence)....without that person having a "faith-like belief" in it's existence?

I asked previously on how you weighed the evidence of the PGF. The only thing you could provide was it was too realistic to be a man in a suit (or words to that effect). In other words, in your subjective opinion it looked "real". You provided very little details otherwise on how you arrived at this on an intellectual basis other than providing us with all sorts of clear images of people in gorilla suits. Against this, you compare the blurry, low resolution image from the PGF. That does not seem very "intellectual" other than setting up some straw men to knock down. If that is the best you can do concerning the PGF, then it must be very weak evidence indeed.

I would think somebody who has concluded that the PGF is too real to be a man in a suit, could provide some hard data to back up that claim. I keep waiting but I don't see it. Tick....Tick....Tick.....

 

[Crowlogic]

And "I believe bigfoot used to exist." is totally different from "I used to believe bigfoot exists." The former is a woo belief and the latter is an admission that one previously but no longer prescribed to one. Lots of members here used to believe in all sorts of wacky crap and nobody saddles them with anything. You are a believer. Like Sweaty is a believer. You believe something quite strange. That bigfoot existed in North America and then went extinct in the early part of the twentieth century. How odd. But just like believing as Sweaty apparently does that bigfoot continues to exist, both beliefs are formed without reliable evidence (eat it up, Sweaty). I believe dinosaurs existed and I'm sure I don't need to explain why. You pretending to not be a believer is like George Michael pretending to be straight. You might like the look but eventually you gotta give it up.

It was a reference to WP's Napolean Dynamite reference, which I happened to find pretty darn funny. Plus it sounded better than asking if you're pretty good with a bostaff, enjoy tetherball, or if you voted for Pedro. Nevermind.

No slur. BTW, not that you should care but it says 'behind the decks' not 'below the decks'. The former being a musical reference and the latter a maritime reference. Not a sailor, thanks.

Dude!

There's no reason why Sasquatch could have not existed at one time. The ancients who first reported Sasquatch types were hardly the simple minded dolts that we "enlightened" modern types seem to think they were. We have a fossil record that shows many, many types of pre/semihuman creatures. New specimens are discovered fairly often these days. So there's more of a case for a Sasquatch like creature to have existed than there is for it never to have existed. Now if you're uncomfortable with the idea that a relic population managed to survive long enough to inhabit the reportages of fairly modern cultures well that's your problem. But do I think that going out into the woods today and knocking on wood and howling god knows what is going to produce a Sasquatch? No I don't unless its going to raise the dead. Am I informed enough to dismiss the past existance of such creatures no I'm not and neither are you. Now with regards to the Patterson Gimlin film the lure for me concerning it is to unravel how it was done and to understand its ability to evade a conclusive answer to the question raised by its existance.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

I would think somebody who has concluded that the PGF is too real to be a man in a suit, could provide some hard data to back up that claim. I keep waiting but I don't see it.

I haven't concluded anything, Astro. Why would you say that I did?

Until the PG film is proven to be either legit, or a hoax, I won't come to a conclusion on exactly what Patty is. In the meantime....it's a matter of weighing the odds of one explanation versus the other.

I'd be happy to give the "suit" explanation the heavier weight, if someone could produce a video of a suit in motion which comes close to the realism of Patty......but nobody can seem to do that......including Dfoot.

I asked previously on how you weighed the evidence of the PGF. The only thing you could provide was it was too realistic to be a man in a suit (or words to that effect). In other words, in your subjective opinion it looked "real".

The opinion that Patty looks real enough (realistic to a certain extent) so that she may indeed be a real wild creature goes FAR beyond just my opinion, Astro. The popularity of all the 'PG film' threads, on this and on the BFF, attest to that. The threads about Patty leave the Harley Hoffman, and other 'joke video' threads in the dust! There's a reason for that, Astro.
What do you think that reason is?

As to how I've weighed the evidence in the PG film...it's a rough assessment (I haven't put an actual "percentage of probability" number on it), based on many little details about Patty....details which appear more like a real live animal than a man-in-a-suit.
The flexibility and movement on Patty's right leg, compared with the stiffness of Dfoot's padded-leg video, is just one example.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The opinion that Patty looks real enough (realistic to a certain extent) so that she may indeed be a real wild creature goes FAR beyond just my opinion, Astro. The popularity of all the 'PG film' threads, on this and on the BFF, attest to that. The threads about Patty leave the Harley Hoffman, and other 'joke video' threads in the dust! There's a reason for that, Astro.
What do you think that reason is?

How can you equate "popularity" of a thread to "looking real enough"? So, if the BFF feels it looks real enough, that means it is? To me that is a popularity contest and not an evaluation that has merit. I suggest you drop this argument because it has no weight in evaluating evidence.

As to how I've weighed the evidence in the PG film...it's a rough assessment (I haven't put an actual "percentage of probability" number on it), based on many little details about Patty....details which appear more like a real live animal than a man-in-a-suit.
The flexibility and movement on Patty's right leg, compared with the stiffness of Dfoot's padded-leg video, is just one example.

So a part of your opinion boils down to a few frames in a film clip that show details near or below the limit of resolution of the film that you compare to a hastily rigged up demonstration that DFoot posted here? Is there nothing else that sticks out in a big way that we can all evaluate with an uncritical and objective eye? It is simply amazing that this is what you use to define what you consider "real".

As for the statment about what "appears more like a real live animal", what are your qualificatons in this area to make such an assessment? If one is going to weigh the evidence based on what considers to be "real" based on a subjective measurement as what something "appears to be" then that evidence can not be very good at all.

 

[kitakaze]

There's no reason why Sasquatch could have not existed at one time.

I think by this post of yours you've removed any possible doubt of you being a believer. Nevertheless, I have never said that something matching the general description of sasquatch (giant 8ft bipedal hairy primate) could not have existed at one time in the world during the history of primate evolution. Making the leap from there to saying that you believe that such creatures did exist and existed in North America up until the early twentieth century is what solidifies your status as a believer. The evidence for such a notion is no better than that for the claim of extraterrestrial visitation of Earth.

The ancients who first reported Sasquatch types were hardly the simple minded dolts that we "enlightened" modern types seem to think they were.

Straw man. You pick a funny place to say something like that. You should go check out the history section. Nevermind that though. Who are these ancients you are talking about? What's your protocol for defining sasquatch types?

We have a fossil record that shows many, many types of pre/semihuman creatures.

A whole lot of archaeology and paleontology going on in North America for quite a while now and not one sasquatch bone.

New specimens are discovered fairly often these days

New specimens of human ancestors? No.

So there's more of a case for a Sasquatch like creature to have existed than there is for it never to have existed.

Stay focused, log. Your supposed to be explaining why you are not a believer but rather came to the conclusion rationally when it comes to the concept of bigfoot having existed in North America up until the early twentieth century. This is not the way to do it. There is a far stronger case to explain the bigfoot phenomenom as a social construct than a real species.

Now if you're uncomfortable with the idea that a relic population managed to survive long enough to inhabit the reportages of fairly modern cultures well that's your problem.

Uncomfortable? And you think I'm arrogant. Maverick thinker lady sure has a thing for straw men. Relict population? Sounds like fun! Got any reliable evidence?

But do I think that going out into the woods today and knocking on wood and howling god knows what is going to produce a Sasquatch? No I don't unless its going to raise the dead.

Your writing is strange, log. Why are you asking and answering questions to yourself like that? You believe bigfoot went extinct, we got that part. Why that is and how it's not based on imparted faith but rather reason is the question.

Am I informed enough to dismiss the past existance of such creatures no I'm not and neither are you.

I'm getting hay fever, all this straw in here. I'm absolutely informed enough to say that given the current state of the evidence submitted for the claim that anything resembling bigfoot ever existed in North America, it is highly unlikely to be true. I'm also informed enough to be able to soundly dismiss your claim of not being a believer.

Now with regards to the Patterson Gimlin film the lure for me concerning it is to unravel how it was done and to understand its ability to evade a conclusive answer to the question raised by its existance.

Informed PGF skeptics accept your unspoken thanks for disavailing you of the belief that it was a real bigfoot. Now why do you think it's mysterious that we are currently unable to conclusively identify it as a hoax?

 

[Crowlogic]

I think by this post of yours you've removed any possible doubt of you being a believer. Nevertheless, I have never said that something matching the general description of sasquatch (giant 8ft bipedal hairy primate) could not have existed at one time in the world during the history of primate evolution. Making the leap from there to saying that you believe that such creatures did exist and existed in North America up until the early twentieth century is what solidifies your status as a believer. The evidence for such a notion is no better than that for the claim of extraterrestrial visitation of Earth.

Straw man. You pick a funny place to say something like that. You should go check out the history section. Nevermind that though. Who are these ancients you are talking about? What's your protocol for defining sasquatch types?

A whole lot of archaeology and paleontology going on in North America for quite a while now and not one sasquatch bone.

New specimens of human ancestors? No.

Stay focused, log. Your supposed to be explaining why you are not a believer but rather came to the conclusion rationally when it comes to the concept of bigfoot having existed in North America up until the early twentieth century. This is not the way to do it. There is a far stronger case to explain the bigfoot phenomenom as a social construct than a real species.

Uncomfortable? And you think I'm arrogant. Maverick thinker lady sure has a thing for straw men. Relict population? Sounds like fun! Got any reliable evidence?

Your writing is strange, log. Why are you asking and answering questions to yourself like that? You believe bigfoot went extinct, we got that part. Why that is and how it's not based on imparted faith but rather reason is the question.

I'm getting hay fever, all this straw in here. I'm absolutely informed enough to say that given the current state of the evidence submitted for the claim that anything resembling bigfoot ever existed in North America, it is highly unlikely to be true. I'm also informed enough to be able to soundly dismiss your claim of not being a believer.

Informed PGF skeptics accept your unspoken thanks for disavailing you of the belief that it was a real bigfoot. Now why do you think it's mysterious that we are currently unable to conclusively identify it as a hoax?

OK you win I believe in Bigfoot Sasquatch Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin, Bluff Creek and every shadow and bump in the night as being DA BOSS OF DA WOODS! There are you happy? You have your little victory. And your little victory entitles you to be Lord Of The Flies. Well Lord Kitakazie as far as I'm concerned you're just another methane belcher!

 

[kitakaze]

OK you win I believe in Bigfoot Sasquatch Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin, Bluff Creek and every shadow and bump in the night as being DA BOSS OF DA WOODS! There are you happy? You have your little victory. And your little victory entitles you to be Lord Of The Flies. Well Lord Kitakazie as far as I'm concerned you're just another methane belcher!

No need to get flustered, log. I know you are skeptical of modern bigfoot, Joyce's tale, the PGF etc. But think about this. It was recently and here that your position on the PGF changed, was it not? After seeing the same information that the rest of us here were looking at you were rational enough to accept that you could no longer sustain that belief. You're not a hopeless woo, I hope.

As much as people with chips on there shoulder like Sweaty would like to portray some kind of war of ideologies, we don't gain anything by you changing teams. I don't get any Randi points for taking down footers. The one that gains is you. I don't know about you but I'd personally like to be free of as many erroneous beliefs as possible. I'd like to strive for a clearer understanding of the world around me. I don't think I could do that if with a willingness to believe Joyce or the knowledge of the ancients regarding bigfoot. Part of the appeal of bigfootery is that people get to join a club where they feel like they're thinking outside the box. Like they are championing an oppressed or ignored truth. They get together and complain about the arrogance of the evil 'scoftics' but all I see is ego stroking.

I'd rather not say for the millionth time how awesome many of us think it would be for bigfoot to be real but it always seems to be necessary with those who think we're somehow affronted by the concept. It's just I would rather think about what is real and appreciate the real mysteries. I'd like to think about what Giganto really was like. Or Homo floresiensis. Or platypus evolution. As long as you think my purpose is to badger you then there is no victory for me. All I'm saying is that if you can be skeptical of bigfoot existing now or of the PGF then is it really such a big deal to extend that to your current belief regarding bigfoot? I would think that somebody that chooses the handle 'Crowlogic' would want to consider these things sincerely.

If you do feel that your beliefs on bigfoot are reasonable then please, can you give one good reason for us to consider your position?

 

[Iamme]

David Patten, an early leader of the Mormon church, believed that he had encounter a Bigfoot in 1835 and discovered that Bigfoot was the biblical Cain and is "condemed to walk the earth for eternity".

Now it all makes sense, doesn't it?

I am not quick to discount things flipantly. Ya never know. There is lots of things, when especially taken aggregately, that we do not understand, and we make fun of. It is odd that we have so MANY oddities where there are even credible witnesses.

I still wonder about the Giza Pyramids. People building them in the droves, they theorize, must have had voratious appetites and would have required farmers to work overtime you'd think. Who can work that hard in the heat day after day? I wonder if the stones are hollowed out? I wonder if the pyramids are stacked without stones in the middle,and each block stays put by the offset, or if sand is used instead? Anybody check? Who in their right mind would think they go could go hundreds of feet up in the air with rocks weighing tons each, without the assistance from aliens pointing anti-gravity beams at them?

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry, I thought those two quotes were well known enough not to need attribution!

The second one is from Murphy's history of the PGF.