Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:



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?

Given the quality of the evidence that has been acquired over the span of 40 to 50 odd years? No....not really.

What evidence is there that would cause any reasonable person to think that there is any amount of probability that Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size are in fact roaming every remote corner of the entire world without having been proven to be doing so beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I've said this quite a few times...but for me the very essence of what makes Bigfeetsus so un-believable is the fact that they are bipedal.... people are are also bipedal....people who can don silly looking Wookie costumes and galavant across a creekbed on camera in an attempt to fool the world.

What Bigfoot Nation has is an ambiguous film...which very well could be a guy in a silly suit.

Hundreds and hundreds of eyewitness accounts....which very well could be mistaken identity or just out and out lying.

Indian legends....which have no relevance given that many Indian tribes have quite a few other aspects to many of there legends that are fanciful (for example...shape shifting coyote men)

Oh and of course all those footprints....which also very well could have been faked.

Not a single aspect of this evidence you speak of could ever be said to completey be outside the realm of possible hoaxery....yet Bigfoot Fan persists....so I ask you...what else describes their reasoning for doing so better than simply that they Bleev?

It's been 40 years.....technology has grown by leaps and bounds...science has grown by leaps and bounds....someone should have found something concrete by now....yet still no Bigfoot....so what else is there....other than faith?

 

[Mad Hom]

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?

To me the PGF is alot like the three bears pouridge....some videos are to blurry and nothing can be made out at all.....others are far to clear and the fact that they are obviously faked becomes abundantly clear....but the PGF is...Jussssst Right!!

It's just clear enough....yet at the same time just blurry enough that nothing can really be ascertained from it at all...other than that some figure either flesh and blood creature or man in a suit was filmed walking across a creekbed one October afternoon back in 1967.

And unfortunately for Bigfoot Fan....no amount of heel clicking will ever change that fact.

 

[GT/CS]

Given the quality of the evidence that has been acquired over the span of 40 to 50 odd years? No....not really.

What evidence is there that would cause any reasonable person to think that there is any amount of probability that Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size are in fact roaming every remote corner of the entire world without having been proven to be doing so beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I've said this quite a few times...but for me the very essence of what makes Bigfeetsus so un-believable is the fact that they are bipedal.... people are are also bipedal....people who can don silly looking Wookie costumes and galavant across a creekbed on camera in an attempt to fool the world.

What Bigfoot Nation has is an ambiguous film...which very well could be a guy in a silly suit.

Hundreds and hundreds of eyewitness accounts....which very well could be mistaken identity or just out and out lying.

Indian legends....which have no relevance given that many Indian tribes have quite a few other aspects to many of there legends that are fanciful (for example...shape shifting coyote men)

Oh and of course all those footprints....which also very well could have been faked.

Not a single aspect of this evidence you speak of could ever be said to completey be outside the realm of possible hoaxery....yet Bigfoot Fan persists....so I ask you...what else describes their reasoning for doing so better than simply that they Bleev?

It's been 40 years.....technology has grown by leaps and bounds...science has grown by leaps and bounds....someone should have found something concrete by now....yet still no Bigfoot....so what else is there....other than faith?

But, but, but you don't understand. Bigfoot has been proven because the 'footers have a brilliant scientist like Meldrum on their side, and they also have........um.......hmmmm........well, let's see here........they have, what's his name?.....oh yeah Meldrum. You know, the guy from Idaho who wants to be famous for something.

So what do you have to say about that evidence you pig headed non-believer?

 

[William Parcher]

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.

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

The extinction seems difficult to explain. If N/As really did live with and describe Bigfoot (oral and totems), then we should assume that they also did not hunt or otherwise persecute Bigfoot. Even if you assume that all N/A references to BF are based on a real creature you still have to deal with no references on killing them in any organized fashion. IOW, the Indians didn't cause the extinction of BF by intentionally exterminating them. So what happened? Proper speculation on this would lead to only certain possibilities that do not involve direct human-on-Bigfoot killing.

The biggest problem seems to be that in spite of exponentially advancing human inhabitance of North America, the wild environment still should support these creatures. You propose that they would have gone extinct even before the greatest expansion of modern humans. Cross off poachers, roadkill, etc. from any list of possibilities, because those things produce carcasses and we have never had that.

So if they went extinct then it would have to be something like disease or having an exotic obligatory diet (specific necessary food) that went away. I can't think of any obligatory diet that vanished and subsequently caused BF to become deleted. I thought of the passenger pigeon and bison, but those things don't involve the PNW (the purported epicenter of BF range). But then again, those factors produce Bigfoot carcasses too.

Their extinction is tougher for me to imagine than their actual inhabitance. IOW, it's easier for me to imagine their initial and perpetuating existence than their existence followed by extinction. If we found a 1000 year-old skeleton next week that looked much like the description of Bigfoot I would begin to argue that they probably are not extinct today.

However, all present hypotheses carry the same burden. We have no primary evidence for Bigfoot, and the secondary evidence didn't really start to show up before 1958.

The position on Bigfoot that you have carved for yourself is not compelling. Or rather, it is not informative on anything other than your state of mind.

 

[Crowlogic]

Astronomers long suspected/believed that there is 10th planet in the Solar System because of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. They were able to draw this conclusion not because of the direct observation of the Planet X itself but due to the empherical evidence of the orbits of two known planets which was Planet X's calling card or "footprint." Now if I'm correct Planet X was discovered recently and a Planet Y is also under consideration. Sometimes A does indeed imply B.

 

[Crowlogic]

The extinction seems difficult to explain. If N/As really did live with and describe Bigfoot (oral and totems), then we should assume that they also did not hunt or otherwise persecute Bigfoot. Even if you assume that all N/A references to BF are based on a real creature you still have to deal with no references on killing them in any organized fashion. IOW, the Indians didn't cause the extinction of BF by intentionally exterminating them. So what happened? Proper speculation on this would lead to only certain possibilities that do not involve direct human-on-Bigfoot killing.

The biggest problem seems to be that in spite of exponentially advancing human inhabitance of North America, the wild environment still should support these creatures. You propose that they would have gone extinct even before the greatest expansion of modern humans. Cross off poachers, roadkill, etc. from any list of possibilities, because those things produce carcasses and we have never had that.

So if they went extinct then it would have to be something like disease or having an exotic obligatory diet (specific necessary food) that went away. I can't think of any obligatory diet that vanished and subsequently caused BF to become deleted. I thought of the passenger pigeon and bison, but those things don't involve the PNW (the purported epicenter of BF range). But then again, those factors produce Bigfoot carcasses too.

Their extinction is tougher for me to imagine than their actual inhabitance. IOW, it's easier for me to imagine their initial and perpetuating existence than their existence followed by extinction. If we found a 1000 year-old skeleton next week that looked much like the description of Bigfoot I would begin to argue that they probably are not extinct today.

However, all present hypotheses carry the same burden. We have no primary evidence for Bigfoot, and the secondary evidence didn't really start to show up before 1958.

The position on Bigfoot that you have carved for yourself is not compelling. Or rather, it is not informative on anything other than your state of mind.

William

It takes a sharp knife to carve out a comfortable niche and an even sharper one to keep squatters at bay. The extinction could have happened with or without the help of the Natives. A small relic population of Sasquatch could have easily died out due to the deseases that the Europeans carried with them. Bear in mind that the Europeans in the form of the Spanish were in NA as early as the mid 1500's and thier presence launched the first wave of smallpox that took out most of Mexico and Florida.

If you're sure that Sasquatch and Sasquatch like animals never existed fine wear that hat proudly. In any event as we shuffle electrons across cyber space about this stuff one thing that both your scenerio and mine can rest assured of is that neither you or I have to worry about stepping in Sasquatch dung next time we're out in the woods.

 

[William Parcher]

Astronomers long suspected/believed that there is 10th planet in the Solar System because of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. They were able to draw this conclusion not because of the direct observation of the Planet X itself but due to the empherical evidence of the orbits of two known planets which was Planet X's calling card or "footprint." Now if I'm correct Planet X was discovered recently and a Planet Y is also under consideration. Sometimes A does indeed imply B.

Good thinking, Crow. It also helps to explain why teachers should never give a failing score to schoolboys who say their dog ate their homework. The feces must be examined to see if the boy was correct. We know that the orbits of planets are influenced by each other, and we know that dogs will eat paper.

The kid's explanation is just as mysterious as Bigfoot and the whole solar system. Wow!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astronomers long suspected/believed that there is 10th planet in the Solar System because of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. They were able to draw this conclusion not because of the direct observation of the Planet X itself but due to the empherical evidence of the orbits of two known planets which was Planet X's calling card or "footprint." Now if I'm correct Planet X was discovered recently and a Planet Y is also under consideration. Sometimes A does indeed imply B.

Actually, It was the orbit of Uranus that gave astronomers fits after it's discovery. It's orbit indicated something was tugging on it. When Neptune was predticted and discovered, it was felt that answered the problem. Unfortunately, astronomers of the day did not have an accurate measurement of Neptune's mass and they thought another large planet was out there influencing Uranus. This lead to the discovery of Pluto (the original planet X), which is too small to have much of an effect on either planet.

When Voyager passed by Neptune, the mass of the planet was accurately measured and that pretty much eliminated a need for tenth large planet to create the problems with outer planet orbits. The recent discoveries of "large" (near pluto size) Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) (many small KBOs have been discovered since the early 90s) that are "dwarf planets" have nothing to do with the orbit problem you suggest and astronomers were not looking for them based on that reason.

That being said, your reasoning is false because you are trying to equate two different things. There is no definitive "A" (something concrete that can be measured like variations in an orbit) to imply "B" (another concrete thing that can be measured like a planet) in the case of bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

William

It takes a sharp knife to carve out a comfortable niche and an even sharper one to keep squatters at bay. The extinction could have happened with or without the help of the Natives. A small relic population of Sasquatch could have easily died out due to the deseases that the Europeans carried with them. Bear in mind that the Europeans in the form of the Spanish were in NA as early as the mid 1500's and thier presence launched the first wave of smallpox that took out most of Mexico and Florida.

If you're sure that Sasquatch and Sasquatch like animals never existed fine wear that hat proudly. In any event as we shuffle electrons across cyber space about this stuff one thing that both your scenerio and mine can rest assured of is that neither you or I have to worry about stepping in Sasquatch dung next time we're out in the woods.

When I read WP's post I thought to myself "log is going to say 'disease'."

1) A relict population of hairy 8ft giant bipedal primates going extinct in the early twentieth century in North America due to disease? This leaves bodies for us to find.

2) You still haven't explained what this position of yours has been formed on. Why does log where that hat?

 

[Crowlogic]

I love it when a person can post something around this place in a non threatening none abusive manner and the responses are as often as not purposfully abusive. What's going to happen when you've bludgened everyone out of your "church". Are you going to then devour each other? You win each and every one of you. But that does nothing to change the rancid character of this forum and its members. I'd rather serve in heaven than rule in hell.

 

[William Parcher]

What, is it too much to ask for, or demand, physical evidence that Bigfoot is not a myth?

Crow, I don't think you understand skepticism or skeptics much at all. You really need a much thicker skin to be here with any sort of personal comfort level.

 

[RayG]

Crow, I'm not sure I understand. If there's no evidence [in the scientific sense] bigfoot exists in the first place, what are you using to determine they're extinct?

RayG

 

[Aepervius]

Astronomers long suspected/believed that there is 10th planet in the Solar System because of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. They were able to draw this conclusion not because of the direct observation of the Planet X itself but due to the empherical evidence of the orbits of two known planets which was Planet X's calling card or "footprint." Now if I'm correct Planet X was discovered recently and a Planet Y is also under consideration. Sometimes A does indeed imply B.

There is a difference you seem to have utterly missed. Astronomers suspected another planet because of anomaly which could be reliably measured by ANYBODY without prejudice and those anomaly demonstrated to be existing. OTOH There are no bigfoot carcass. There are no bigfoot skeleton. There is no bigfoot skat/DNA. There are nothing which would remotely look like evidence for a biologist. Again I repeat, there are no evidence whatsoever right now that would make a biologist raise an eyebrow. All the *purported* evidence can be interpreted more easily either as elk, hoax , or delusion (depending on what we are speaking).

You are comparing apple and orange. Not even that. You are comparing apple with a silicate stone.

 

[kitakaze]

I love it when a person can post something around this place in a non threatening none abusive manner and the responses are as often as not purposfully abusive. What's going to happen when you've bludgened everyone out of your "church". Are you going to then devour each other? You win each and every one of you. But that does nothing to change the rancid character of this forum and its members. I'd rather serve in heaven than rule in hell.

I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to take things quite personally. Which post do you think was abusive to you? WP's post was pointing out that non sequitur excuses do not obscure the lack of reliable evidence. Astro's post was pointing out the errors in your analogy. And my post did the same and asked you why you've adopted a particularily unique position. Pointing out the flaws in your reasoning is not bludgeoning. If I was of the opinion that bigfoot existed then went extinct in the twentieth century then I'd hope that my reasoning is solid.

Maybe this environment is not conducive to your manner of communication. Maybe a place where beliefs such as yours are highlighted and questioned is stressful for you. Maybe you need a break, I don't know. If you and the other believers disappear it won't mean I'll turn on Correa or someone. I think your perspective is a little warped. We'll just continue on discussing the PGF and bigfootery in general. It's fun stuff.

Now the 'church' comment is interesting to me. I think it's very easy to make that analogy with the BFF or bigfootery in general. I can't say how many times I've seen a 'keep the faith, brother!' type post there. Some of us take note of how many prominent bigfoot enthusiasts are also highly religious. Please, if you can, do explain how that analogy fits here.

 

[Crowlogic]

So now as prediceted you're all going to take the pious way out and explain how you're all really good boys. But remember "churches" can be found on either end of the street. Sorry the atmospere here speaks for itself you all deserve oneanother.

 

[RayG]

Crow, I'd rather engage in discussion not name-calling, can we discuss the question I posed to you a few posts ago? This one:

If there's no evidence [in the scientific sense] bigfoot exists in the first place, what are you using to determine they're extinct?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

So now as prediceted you're all going to take the pious way out and explain how you're all really good boys.

Actually, you predicted nothing. Nor did you explain which post was abusive to you and why. If you do feel that a member is being abusive to you and you want it to stop then there are simple procedures in place to make that happen. That is what the 'report' feature is for. As I already explained to you, you are not being abused or bludgeoned or however else you choose to dramatize your wounded pride at having your erroneous reasonings and analogies illustrated for you. You see abuse, I see an overly sensitive lady who doesn't like being corrected

But remember "churches" can be found on either end of the street.

I'm sorry. I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. I already asked you to substantiate the comment. It seems to be beyond you.

Sorry the atmospere here speaks for itself you all deserve oneanother.

Ah, the old 'my argument is self-evident' routine. Evasion noted.

 

[Astrophotographer]

A relict population of hairy 8ft giant bipedal primates going extinct in the early twentieth century in North America due to disease? This leaves bodies for us to find.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall reading anywhere where "white men" (if you forgive the term) ever met up with a tribe of bigfoot ever. Not the spanish, not the french, not the english, not the "mountain men", and not Lewis and Clark. The historical record has nothing about bigfoot until 1950 unless you include legends of the native americans. Those legends and tales are so vague it is difficult to determine if there is any truth is behind them.

To me the indian legends are about as good as the one story told on the NG special, where the woman from Tennessee grew up with a family of bigfeet nearby and she regularly communicates with them. It is too hard to believe and just isn't reliable until somebody comes up with something a bit more concrete.

 

[manofthesea]

not Lewis and Clark. The historical record has nothing about bigfoot until 1950 unless you include legends of the native americans.

To me the indian legends are about as good as the one story told on the NG special, where the woman from Tennessee grew up with a family of bigfeet nearby and she regularly communicates with them. It is too hard to believe and just isn't reliable until somebody comes up with something a bit more concrete.

There is a story associated with Clark, however obscured. And Teddy Roosevelt.

There's a thread at BFF that has pictures of newspaper clippings from around the country. 1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's articles of wildmen and apemen. Their reported behaviors are interesting.

As far as JC in Tennessee on NG, did you see the way that the Russian scientist recreated bigfeet's hunting method? What do you think, maybe the garlic is used by bigfeet to "keep the monsters away"?

 

[Astrophotographer]

There is a story associated with Clark, however obscured. And Teddy Roosevelt.

There's a thread at BFF that has pictures of newspaper clippings from around the country. 1700's, 1800's, and early 1900's articles of wildmen and apemen. Their reported behaviors are interesting.

As far as JC in Tennessee on NG, did you see the way that the Russian scientist recreated bigfeet's hunting method? What do you think, maybe the garlic is used by bigfeet to "keep the monsters away"?

I stand corrected as far as these stories. Some of them don't sound like the modern day bigfoot though.

As for the Tennessee bigfoot, I found it interesting how bigfoot just knocks on the persons back door and asks for garlic. I wonder how many bigfoot proponents find this story "credible"? The Russian scientist found it credible but he looked pretty silly recreating "the hunt" IMHO.