Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Sasquatch should be prospering and should always have been prospering. It has been under no pressure whatsoever. No one hunts it, nothing eats it, it has abundant woodlands to roam and feed in, it's at the top of the food chain.

It's unaffected by roads and railroads, since it never gets hit by cars, trucks, or trains.

It can apparently eat anything.

It is apparently intelligent enough to almost totally avoid humans.

It is apparently intelligent enough to almost totally avoid leaving signs of it's presence.

In short, if sasquatch is as described by believers, it's at the top of the food chain, it's intelligent, and it has no competition.

So why aren't we overrun with them?

Why aren't the vast forests chock full of them?

Suddenly they are subject to human diseases? Then they'd have been wiped out when humans showed up on the continent, which was a very long time ago.

 

[manofthesea]

You know, she stated that bigfeet 'gurgle' when they talk. Maybe they're actually asking her for 'honey' (or something), and instead she gives them garlic.

 

[Mad Hom]

Sasquatch should be prospering and should always have been prospering. It has been under no pressure whatsoever. No one hunts it, nothing eats it, it has abundant woodlands to roam and feed in, it's at the top of the food chain.

It's unaffected by roads and railroads, since it never gets hit by cars, trucks, or trains.

It can apparently eat anything.

It is apparently intelligent enough to almost totally avoid humans.

It is apparently intelligent enough to almost totally avoid leaving signs of it's presence.

In short, if sasquatch is as described by believers, it's at the top of the food chain, it's intelligent, and it has no competition.

So why aren't we overrun with them?

Why aren't the vast forests chock full of them?

Suddenly they are subject to human diseases? Then they'd have been wiped out when humans showed up on the continent, which was a very long time ago.

To me Bigfeet extinction is Bigfoot Fan's illogical way of admitting that the evidence to date pretty much ....ummm....sucks...so they fall back on the old extinction excuse....that way they can continue their..."Do you think Bigfeets migrated to Florida in the winter" discussions without the necessity of any actual proof.

It's as if they're saying....ok maybe Bigfeet doesn't exist anymore...but they used to ....dammnit!!

 

[clayflingythingy]

I borrowed my Brother's copy of Big Footprints and while skimming the chapter on the PGF I came across this statement by ole Grover on page 120:

"In my judgement of his character, Patterson might have tried to fake a film of this kind if he had the ability to do so."

The book has a copyright date of 1992 and AFAIK RP had not been widely exposed as a con man then. So Krantz presumably reached this conclusion from his meetings with RP. Krantz's judgement about RP's character did not lead to his taking a more skeptical look at the PGF.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

First....whether or not Bigfoot exists, is irrelevant to the question I asked you. So, therefore, proof is also irrelevant.

The question is simply...can a person intelligently give the evidence some "weight". "Weight" only means that there is a "percentage, or degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists (something between 0 and 100%)....in other words, a 'reasonable chance'. It doesn't mean that Bigfoot does exist.


You say that it's not possible for anyone to intelligently give any of the evidence for Bigfoot any weight whatsoever...or, at best...a microscopic amount of weight.

That's quite a narrow-minded assessment of the weight of the evidence, Mad Hom....considering how VAST the wilderness areas are in the countries where Bigfoot-type creatures are reportedly being seen, and where there are cultural legends of it's existence going back hundreds, or thousands, of years.

How have you been able to "intelligently" determine that there is only "a snowball's chance in hell" that creatures like that exist, or have existed, in all those millions and millions of acres of land....across the globe...over hundreds of years??

Are you using Santa's crystal ball that he uses to see all the little boys and girls around the world...to see into those heavily-forested areas?

If not....then how can you intelligently determine that the probability of it existing is so extremely low that it's negligable? Is there a scientific method that you've used to weigh the evidence?

Personally, I think it's simply because you're living in your own little fantasy land....where only things you can see and touch actually exist.

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

It's such a silly suit......so silly, in fact, that nobody seems to be able to re-create it.

Don't forget, Mad Hom....it's extremely easy to say Patty is a "silly suit".....yet so ridiculously tough to reproduce!

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 be completely 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?

How true, Mad Hom....and also, how completely meaningless those statements are.

Of course, it's possible that all the evidence for Bigfoot is due to "mundane explanations".....but it's also possible that some of the evidence is due to the existence of a real creature.

The question that needs to be answered is not "what's possible?"...but instead..."what's most probable?". (What is the true weight of the evidence?)

As for the reason why "Bigfoot Fans" continue to give the evidence a good deal of weight....it may be because some of us are intelligent, thinking people who have open minds to, not only the possibility of Bigfoot's existence, but also to the probability of it's existence.

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?

In addition to 'blind faith'...there is 'open-minded, and thoughtful consideration of the evidence'.
As long as people continue to report seeing Bigfoot, and other types of evidence continue to be found....there will continue to be a chance, with some degree of probability, that Bigfoot exists.

 

[Drewbot]

Scene set- shortly after filming the famous PGF footage, Bob Gimlin starts to follow the beast.

Roger, knowing that there were at least Three different sets of bigfoot tracks seen in this location earlier in the month, yells for Bob to come back.

So here is Roger, afraid of the lurking beasts, calling back Bob Gimlin who was chasing what would have been the greatest discovery in NA wildlife in the 20th century, because he was afraid of the others.

Yet, that same morning, Roger had gone off by himself and didn't return until 10 AM or so. So was he really afraid? or was he really fine, and just putting on a show for Bob?

 

[Astrophotographer]

The question is simply...can a person intelligently give the evidence some "weight". "Weight" only means that there is a "percentage, or degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists (something between 0 and 100%)....in other words, a 'reasonable chance'. It doesn't mean that Bigfoot does exist.

Despite this repeated claim by you, I have yet to see you once demonstrate how you carefully weigh the evidence. So far, it is just your subjective opinion that the PGF looks real. There is not one bit of analysis in your "carefully weighing" the evidence of the PGF.

That's quite a narrow-minded assessment of the weight of the evidence, Mad Hom....considering how VAST the wilderness areas are in the countries where Bigfoot-type creatures are reportedly being seen, and where there are cultural legends of it's existence going back hundreds, or thousands, of years.

It is interesting how you are calling somebody "narrow-minded", which is always the appeal when nobody has any real evidence for the claim. It is ok to open your mind but filling it with garbage just makes a person look silly.

Again, we have yet to see how you really "weigh" evidence. As for legends, there are sorts of myths and legends that have no substance to them. The evidence, in this case, carries no weight. 10000000000 X 0 still equals "0".

How have you been able to "intelligently" determine that there is only "a snowball's chance in hell" that creatures like that exist, or have existed, in all those millions and millions of acres of land....across the globe...over hundreds of years??

And not one iota of physical evidence can be found to link to this creature. That in itself says volumes.

It's such a silly suit......so silly, in fact, that nobody seems to be able to re-create it.

Don't forget, Mad Hom....it's extremely easy to say Patty is a "silly suit".....yet so ridiculously tough to reproduce!

What is the point of reproduction? No matter how good a reproduction is, you will never accept it. Wonderful logic and you criticize people for wanting something tangible like a body or a skeleton.

In addition to 'blind faith'...there is 'open-minded, and thoughtful consideration of the evidence'.
As long as people continue to report seeing Bigfoot, and other types of evidence continue to be found....there will continue to be a chance, with some degree of probability, that Bigfoot exists.

So much for "carefully" weighing the evidence. Stick to PGF, which is what this thread is about. Come on, I know you can do it. Demonstrate how the subject in the film can be conclusively shown not to be a man in a suit.

 

[William Parcher]

That is the only possible conclusion ???

I can think of at least one other ...

How about "23.4 Feet of film was all Patterson wanted us to see, because the last ten feet show BH jumping into a hole and taking the hood off..."?

Assuming that BH is telling the truth, I don't think he could take the hood off himself. He says that after he jumped in the hole he yelled, "Get this thing off me!" He may not have easily removed the headpiece without assistance. The hands on the suit may have been useless for grabbing anything, and the shoulders/arms might not have allowed reaching up for the removal.

RP may have caught the hole jump on camera because he wasn't expecting it. He could cut that from the end of the walk scene and tell the audience that he just ran out of film. Why else would you stop filming a Bigfoot that is still in view?

BH also mentions something else that may have been cut from the Patty walk footage. He says that at the very start of Roger's filming he was mounted on a horse (it was Chico) and shaking the camera... presumably he then dismounts and continues filming. We only see footage of Roger on the ground and Patty is already some distance away from the creek. RP may have decided not to show the very first part of the walk scene (which starts with him filming from horseback). He would have had options for what kind of story he wanted to tell for the moment of encounter and getting to the camera. If he likes the first part where he is mounted, he can say that his horse did not rear up (or throw him) and he grabbed the camera from the saddlebag. He still has the shakey cam action to represent a real and chaotic experience. Then he dismounts and continues filming on foot. That would have been acceptable to an audience if he presented it that way. But maybe the suit just looked too fakey in the opening scene because it was much closer to the camera and possibly walking directly away. Remember how LTC1&2 shows a fakey profile when shot directly from behind?

A few months ago at a recorded Q&A, Bob Gimlin said that when they first saw Patty she was 18" from the creek.

 

[Correa Neto]

On Patty's alleged realism...

So, it seems that some of the criteria for the alleged "realism" of Patty are:

-Seams joining the costume parts are not present, despite the short hairs
-The fingers move
-It has inhuman proportions
-The mouth opens!
-It mover as a majestic, powerfull, heavy but gracile animal
-Some features can be intepreted as muscle movment

OK, so according to these criteria, these creatures may be real!

Where are the seams? The fingers and the mouth move! I can see muscles! The arms, no human can have such arms!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amaLkmQFdTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNDmvSzOGEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQjVgZafkic
See how majestically it moves, you can see the flesh bouncing, it must be heavier than Patty! And it seems to dance, no one wearing a clumsy suit could do that!

There's a chance, eh?
This evidence must have some weight, after all...
Can I start drawing its skeleton?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Despite this repeated claim by you, I have yet to see you once demonstrate how you carefully weigh the evidence. So far, it is just your subjective opinion that the PGF looks real. There is not one bit of analysis in your "carefully weighing" the evidence of the PGF.

I gave you one quick example of my analysis, Astro...concerning Patty's right leg. Why don't you refute my analysis with your own analysis?

There are plenty of PG Film threads on the BFF, loaded with analysis of the film, some of which favors the 'real animal' explanation, and some of which favors the 'hoax' explanation.

Feel free to read them.

It is interesting how you are calling somebody "narrow-minded", which is always the appeal when nobody has any real evidence for the claim. It is ok to open your mind but filling it with garbage just makes a person look silly.

It will always be an appeal, Astro....as long as there are millions upon millions upon millions of acres of wilderness on this planet, within which Bigfoot creatures could live.
It's a HUGE planet we live on....narrow-minded thinking is not the best way to view it.

A few days ago, you objected to this statement of mine, concerning 4.5 billion people....

Astrophotographer wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
4.5 billion people across the globe, that's who.

Really? Have you counted them and interviewed all of them?

Well, the SAME PRINCIPLE applies to billions of acres of forests, and declaring, as a fact, what does and what doesn't live within those many acres.

Have you walked through all those countless acres of wilderness land, and seen everything living within them?? Has anybody?

And not one iota of physical evidence can be found to link to this creature. That in itself says volumes.

That's not true, Astro....there is physical evidence for Bigfoot's existence...such as hair samples, footprint evidence, and video evidence.

What is the point of reproduction? No matter how good a reproduction is, you will never accept it. Wonderful logic and you criticize people for wanting something tangible like a body or a skeleton.

The point of a silly reproduction would be, to show just how silly the PG "suit" really is!

Again....so silly...so lame...so obvious....so damn difficult to reproduce.

So much for "carefully" weighing the evidence. Stick to PGF, which is what this thread is about. Come on, I know you can do it. Demonstrate how the subject in the film can be conclusively shown not to be a man in a suit.

I'll repeat what I wrote at the start of my previous post, Astro...

First....whether or not Bigfoot exists, is irrelevant to the question I asked you. So, therefore, proof is also irrelevant.

Proof...for either a hoax, or a Bigfoot...is unnecessary, and therefore irrelevant, for the evidence to simply indicate probabilities concerning either explanation for the PG film.

 

[kitakaze]

The question is simply...can a person intelligently give the evidence some "weight". "Weight" only means that there is a "percentage, or degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists (something between 0 and 100%)....in other words, a 'reasonable chance'. It doesn't mean that Bigfoot does exist.

This question is not simple, it's flawed. It's poorly thought. It comes from the mind of a person who has a warped understanding of science and who's judgements concerning the notion of bigfoot are clouded by the will to believe in the absence of reliable evidence. Something between 0 and 100% is not in other words 'a reasonable chance'. They are not synonymous. And still you do not explain how you measure these probabilities. We'd love to hear your math but you won't give it because you don't have it.

The only conclusion that one can come to concerning the submitted evidence for the claim of bigfoot's existence is that in every case it is insufficient, unreliable, and in no instance points more towards a living bigfoot than a mundane cause. One can not hope to combine this poor evidence in an effort to create strong. You are in denial of weak coffee.

You say that it's not possible for anyone to intelligently give any of the evidence for Bigfoot any weight whatsoever...or, at best...a microscopic amount of weight.

That's quite a narrow-minded assessment of the weight of the evidence, Mad Hom....considering how VAST the wilderness areas are in the countries where Bigfoot-type creatures are reportedly being seen,

I have already dismantled this erroneous argument here. Much of the body of the alledged bigfoot reports come from areas that see significant human activity. Many bigfoot reports come from human inhabitated areas. We've seen at least three members here that report bigfoots in the immediate vicnity of human homes in well populated areas. The quality of these reports is no more reliable than any report that comes from a more remote area. You yourself put faith in Joyce's alledged claim of encountering a bigfoot at the corner of State Farm Rd. and US 203 in Valatie, New York. Your warped judgement causes you to think that bigfoot was the most likely answer even in the face of detailed instruction on why that is not the case.

...and where there are cultural legends of it's existence going back hundreds, or thousands, of years.

I have made a detailed examination of indigenous NA myths and traditions. I have found not a single one that reliably correlates to bigfoot. I and others contributing to that examination have completely debunked many of the claims regarding this subject.

The wicked irony is that you are telling us we are narrow-minded for disregarding these alledged cultural legends of bigfoot's existence when you yourself said:

I've never looked into the Native American stories...so there's nothing I can say about them.

Busted! What a complete joke. You're sure saying something about them now. Yet another golden Sweaty moment. Eat it up.

How have you been able to "intelligently" determine that there is only "a snowball's chance in hell" that creatures like that exist, or have existed, in all those millions and millions of acres of land....across the globe...over hundreds of years??

I myself have determined the likelihood of bigfoot's existence to be extremely unlikely given the extreme poor quality of the evidence thus far submitted. That determination at the very least requires reliable evidence to be changed in favour of bigfoot's existence.

Are you using Santa's crystal ball that he uses to see all the little boys and girls around the world...to see into those heavily-forested areas?

Ah, the 'no stone left unturned' fallacy. I see all I need to do to get you to start thinking rationally is drop every tree in every place you think bigfoot might be?

Is there a scientific method that you've used to weigh the evidence?

What scientific method have you used? And what degree of probability has it yielded? Give us a detailed explanantion. Or is it just a 'rough assessment'? Since I've already shown that you are a believer I'd say your assessment would be so rough as to be flat out wrong.

Personally, I think it's simply because you're living in your own little fantasy land....where only things you can see and touch actually exist.

Spoken like a true believer to a tee. In lieu of reliable evidence, try projection.

It's such a silly suit......so silly, in fact, that nobody seems to be able to re-create it.

Don't forget, Mad Hom....it's extremely easy to say Patty is a "silly suit".....yet so ridiculously tough to reproduce!

Busted! Back five spaces! 1000 footer points deducted! You think you can just try slipping that by again? You are absolutely desperate to try that again.

You know full well that this tactic is unacceptable without first identifying how many concerted efforts have been made to reproduce the PGF and it's subject. Also you have yet to specify how this could be accomplished given the lack of resolution, how to measure a success, and how you define the 'realism' you attribute to Patty. You, Sweaty, are absolutely one of the weakest debaters I have ever seen.

Of course, it's possible that all the evidence for Bigfoot is due to "mundane explanations".....but it's also possible that some of the evidence is due to the existence of a real creature.

The question that needs to be answered is not "what's possible?"...but instead..."what's most probable?". (What is the true weight of the evidence?)

Show me one instance of a claim of bigfoot evidence where a mundane cause is not more probable than one involving a living bigfoot. Don't even try the PGF until you've substantiated your empty arguments.

As for the reason why "Bigfoot Fans" continue to give the evidence a good deal of weight....it may be because some of us are intelligent, thinking people who have open minds to, not only the possibility of Bigfoot's existence, but also to the probability of it's existence.

Bigfoot enthusiasts continue their beliefs out of a will to believe. They are ignorant. Sometimes sincerely, sometimes willfully. Many like you have deluded themselves into thinking that their imparted beliefs are based on reason and logic. Many fancy themselves to be sorts of maverick thinkers. To be thinking outside the box. They are wrong. They are ensnared in woo, nothing more.

In addition to 'blind faith'...there is 'open-minded, and thoughtful consideration of the evidence'.
As long as people continue to report seeing Bigfoot, and other types of evidence continue to be found....there will continue to be a chance, with some degree of probability, that Bigfoot exists.

The exact same chance as for ghosts and Greys.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I gave you one quick example of my analysis, Astro...concerning Patty's right leg. Why don't you refute my analysis with your own analysis?

What analysis? Do you demonstrate that it can not be a shadow, or a change in film grain pattern? You are talking about something that may or may not be below film resolution and may be due to copying, overprocessing, or myriad of other possibilities. It is only your subjective opinion that it demonstrates muscle movement.

There are plenty of PG Film threads on the BFF, loaded with analysis of the film, some of which favors the 'real animal' explanation, and some of which favors the 'hoax' explanation.

Feel free to read them.

In other words, you are just parroting the party line. I have read some of those forums and some of the "scientific" analysis, and I find them wanting and inaccurate. Feel free to demonstrate how you are carefully weighed the evidence and not just mimicing what all the other proponents are saying.

It will always be an appeal, Astro....as long as there are millions upon millions upon millions of acres of wilderness on this planet, within which Bigfoot creatures could live.
It's a HUGE planet we live on....narrow-minded thinking is not the best way to view it.

We might as well say there is a saber tooth out there as well. For that matter we might as well add some dinosaurs, alien beings from other worlds, elves, fairies, etc. There is just as much evidence for them to be in the northwest as bigfoot.

Again....so silly...so lame...so obvious....so damn difficult to reproduce.

Not as difficult to produce as the one bit of quality physical evidence that suggests bigfoot even might exist. You are in the wrong league. It is not up to the skeptics to produce a replication that proponents will obviously never accept as an accurate reproduction.
It is up to the proponents to show that what is in the film is not a man in a suit. So far, you try and divert attention away from this inconvenient bit of information by suggesting it is up to the skeptics to satisfy you with an "authentic" reproduction of the PGF.

Didn't dfoot use some of the PGF footage in another setting and proponents declared it a fake? Didn't some proponents buy into the Penn and Teller footage because it looked real? If so, so much for the realism angle.

Proof...for either a hoax, or a Bigfoot...is unnecessary, and therefore irrelevant, for the evidence to simply indicate probabilities concerning either explanation for the PG film.

Yet you ask for proof of a suit by demanding that skeptics produce a reproduction that will satisfy you (even though it is obvious you will never accept a reproduction no matter how accurate it is). So much for carefully weighing the evidence. Keep parroting the party line but proponents won't get others to believe it until they produce something better than what has been presented so far. Until that day arrives, it will always be considered that it is extremely likely a man in a suit by anyone objectively observing the film.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
The question is simply...can a person intelligently give the evidence some "weight".

"Weight" only means that there is a "percentage, or degree of probability" that Bigfoot exists (something between 0 and 100%)....in other words, a 'reasonable chance'. It doesn't mean that Bigfoot does exist.

This question is not simple, it's flawed. It's poorly thought.

It comes from the mind of a person who has a warped understanding of science and who's judgements concerning the notion of bigfoot are clouded by the will to believe in the absence of reliable evidence.

Something between 0 and 100% is not in other words 'a reasonable chance'. They are not synonymous.

Your response is flawed, kitty. That's because your thinking is clouded by your prejudiced mind against the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.

Here is an excerpt from an article about the legal definition of "Probative" as it applies to 'Evidence carrying weight'....

probative

Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Wikipedia
Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving.

When a legal controversy goes to trial, the parties seek to prove their cases by the introduction of evidence. All courts are governed by rules of evidence that describe what types of evidence are admissible. One key element for the admission of evidence is whether it proves or helps prove a fact or issue. If so, the evidence is deemed probative.

Probative evidence establishes or contributes to proof.

Probative facts are data that have the effect of proving an issue or other information. Probative facts establish the existence of other facts.

They are matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them.

They are admissible as evidence and aid the court in the final resolution of a disputed issue. For example, in the case of a motor vehicle accident, a witness's testimony that she saw one automobile enter the intersection on a red light is a probative fact about whether the driver was at fault.

Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue.

The question "Can a person...using his intellect, rather than his emotions....give any of the evidence for Bigfoot any weight?"....is not a flawed question in the least, kitty. It is, in fact, a relevant and important question.
Because, if the skeptics on this board cannot aknowledge that any of the evidence for Bigfoot carries any weight whatsoever....then it's simply a waste of everybody's time to try to analyse and weigh the evidence, here.

A couple of excerpts from another interesting article, about weighing evidence....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3D61330F93AA15752C1A962958260

The nearly one-third of jurors whose decision-making was most flawed, the study found, also tended to be the most vehemont about their certainty, and tended to argue for the most extreme verdicts during the jury's deliberation.

That's you, kitty!

...the jurors who are better at reasoning weigh many possibilities against the evidence.
But the poor decision-makers see their task as that of identifying a single truth and convincing others on the jury to agree, instead of weighing alternatives whose absolute truth may never be known with certainty.

"Bigfoot" is one alternative explanation for some of the evidence presented....and, while it's not "known with certainty" to exist...there is a reason, or two, to think it may exist....and hence...a 'reasonable chance' of it.

 

[kitakaze]

Your response is flawed, kitty. That's because your thinking is clouded by your prejudiced mind against the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.

Here is an excerpt from an article about the legal definition of "Probative" as it applies to 'Evidence carrying weight'....




The question "Can a person...using his intellect, rather than his emotions....give any of the evidence for Bigfoot any weight?"....is not a flawed question in the least, kitty. It is, in fact, a relevant and important question.
Because, if the skeptics on this board cannot aknowledge that any of the evidence for Bigfoot carries any weight whatsoever....then it's simply a waste of everybody's time to try to analyse and weigh the evidence, here.

A couple of excerpts from another interesting article, about weighing evidence....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E3D61330F93AA15752C1A962958260




That's you, kitty!




"Bigfoot" is one alternative explanation for some of the evidence presented....and, while it's not "known with certainty" to exist...there is a reason, or two, to think it may exist....and hence...a 'reasonable chance' of it.

I'll make you a deal, Sweaty. You respond with counter arguments to all of my post that you are quoting from and I'll respond to all of this one. You're not mentally chicken so I know that won't be a problem for you. I don't want to feel like I'm engaging someone who isn't interested in having a sincere critical debate or incapable of not being intellectually dishonest when discussing something like bigfoot. I'm sure you understand. Just go ahead and do that and then I'll oblige you by taking the legal controversy and bigfoot post down to Chinatown with extra kung pow. Don't you worry, it'll be easy. I'll do it lickity-split. You address my points and I'll adress yours. It'll be like an actual debate. How 'bout it?

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty-
You base your evidence somewhat on sighting reports.

How do you rationalize statements like this, being cited in these sighting reports? Are these the kinds of statements that make you think bigfoot is a real living beast?

Taken from actual sighting reports:

"It is the opinion of this investigator that the video depicts a Female bigfoot carrying an infant"

"Possible sasquatch tracks were found at the sight"

Do you think your belief that the MDF footage is depicting a female sasquatch carrying an infant, in any way affects how your position on PGF is translated?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Because, if the skeptics on this board cannot aknowledge that any of the evidence for Bigfoot carries any weight whatsoever....then it's simply a waste of everybody's time to try to analyse and weigh the evidence, here.

I keep asking for an analysis and all I get is "it looks real". I just want to see one bit of evidence that everyone can agree upon when it comes to the PGF (other than it is a film of something). Subjective claims like "it appears real", can not be quantified, analyzed, or weighed.
Perhaps if you demonstrated using the film that "Patty" was 10 feet tall, we could actually analyze how you arrived at that value and have a thought provoking discussion. Someone might even agree with your analysis and that might eliminate the guy in the suit hypothesis or at least put a greater probability of it being a bigfoot. All I ask is for some numbers to back up your analysis. Is that too much to ask?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/lux-hoax/

An example of how a crappy costume doesn't look quite so crappy on film?

Luxembourg bigfoot videos revealed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/lux-hoax/

An example of how a crappy costume doesn't look quite so crappy on film?

Luxembourg bigfoot videos revealed.

I notice that MK Davis partly bit on this one (comparing it to the PGF). Overprocessing and looking for artifacts at the limit of resolution do not make for very good research. Something I read a few years ago about amateurs working with digital images came from William G. Hyzer, who is an expert at examining and performing analysis on photographs In this case, he was talking about UFO photographs but it can apply equally well with images taken from the PGF.

There is a certain commonality that exists between some statisticians and digital-image-processing aficionados:

'Tell me what you want them to hear and I will produce a statistic to support it."

"Explain to me what you want them to see and I will create an image to buttress that perception."

The power to alter images is a cause of great concern among forensic image examiners and by those who depend upon their images to convey impartial information regarding a scene or object. Elements within an image can be fabricated, enhanced, distorted, shifted, cloned, erased and/or transferred to another image with a precision that virtually defies detection...digital image processing, even in primitive form, is a highly manipulative process capable of changing an image into something it isn't in order to highlight certain features and/or subdue others at the personal discretion of the operator.

... Photography has evolved over the past 150 years to become by far the most accurate medium known to man for recording the real world as we humans actually see it. Tampering with these images for the intended purpose of revealing things that are not visually apparent in them is an exercise that can easily lead an overzealous photo analyst out of reality and into the realm of pseudo-science. ("William G. Hyzer responds" MUFON journal July 1992 p.15-16)

Everyone should listen to these words before we start looking for details that may or may not be present in digital images taken from the PGF.

 

[kitakaze]

From LTC's cryptomundo link:

windigo responds:
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Great. Now the skeptical communities can rant once again on how believers were fooled into subscribing into something that few contemplated was real in the first place.

DWA responds:
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
windigo:

See, that shouldn’t matter to any of us, should it?

The so-called skeptical community are:

1) rubes when it comes to the evidence;
2) ineffective at arguing their case;
3) not worth paying much attention to.

True Believers - including the kind of folks who would get taken in by stuff like this, and the kind of people who say the sasquatch is phony, but can’t give a decent reason why they think that - aren’t the kind of people any of us should be concerned with. They think what they want. What should it matter to us?

Calm exposition of evidence - such as is being practiced by such as the TBRC - is what will win the day here. The so-called skeptical community continually worries the same five or so pieces of evidence. Doesn’t this say something for the strength of that evidence, that no one’s been able to debunk it in the decades it’s been lying there? (Nod.)

The skeptical case against is pretty much not there. But they always will be. Better not to be concerned with them, I say. Donkeys bray, whether they get fed or not, right?

I find the trend in bigfootery where certain bigfoot enthusiasts try to convince eachother they are not believers very amusing. It must be nice for DWA that cryptomundo helps keep his world simple for him. I'd love for him to come and tell us about which five or so pieces of evidence we continually worry about or how the suit used and a detailed confession from Gimlin not being forthcoming strengthen the PGF's quality as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Unfortunately it would seem preaching to the choir at cryptomundo and trying to convince himself he's not a poseur is about as much mental strain as he can handle.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I find the trend in bigfootery where certain bigfoot enthusiasts try to convince eachother they are not believers very amusing. It must be nice for DWA that cryptomundo helps keep his world simple for him. I'd love for him to come and tell us about which five or so pieces of evidence we continually worry about or how the suit used and a detailed confession from Gimlin not being forthcoming strengthen the PGF's quality as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Unfortunately it would seem preaching to the choir at cryptomundo and trying to convince himself he's not a poseur is about as much mental strain as he can handle.

Nothing new here. He states the videographer as the worst ever because he could not stabilize the camera. Hmmm.....where have I seen shaky and blurry footage before? That guy was pretty bad with a camera as well.