Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

I could just see a campout of skeptics. Just a conglomeration of Devil's advocates around the campfire.

Skeptic A- Wow, look at those stars
Skeptic B- How do you know those are stars? I mean do you really know?
Skeptic A- Well, yeah you dolt, it's common knowledge
Skeptic B- Whatever man, I can't sway your emotional attachment to stars being flaming orbs in the Universe.
Skeptic C- Hey B, Check the freaking planetarium.
Skeptic D- What about them faking the moon landing?
Etc...

Boring...

 

[Crowlogic]

Hey, Mr. Gorillacostumebuilder, here's 700 bucks for a bigfoot costume. As soon as I make a million bucks from my bigfoot movie, I'll pay you, say, 1000 more.

Woha big fella slow down! Nobody in Hollywood is going to agree to that deal. Unless perhaps they'd just arrived in town after having fallen off the back of a pumpkin turck. Its hard enough getting paid from legitmate customers for services let along a hick cowboy even if his brotherinlaw has a few dead presidents in his wallet.

 

[kitakaze]

Log has time for posts like this:

Bigfooters are a church! No they're a subculture! ...

Posts like this, however, seem to be difficult:

You claimed to be a skeptic. You claimed not to be a believer. Surely it should not be a difficult thing to explain the basis of your opinion you deem logical regarding bigfoot having gone extinct.

Why is it so hard to get bigfoot proponents to substantiate the views they say are based on logic and not imparted belief?

 

[Crowlogic]

Then you'd have blown off the Burbank monster as well...

Clearly, Chambers would not have blown Patterson off.

Can you offer direct and specific proof that Chambers would not have blown off Patterson? Or is this your opinion based on the mythology?

 

[Crowlogic]

Log has time for posts like thisosts like this, however, seem to be difficult:

Why is it so hard to get bigfoot proponents to substantiate the views they say are based on logic and not imparted belief?

Mom I wanna debate Crowlogic about Crowlogic's Bigfoot has gone extinct postion but Crowlogic won't debate with me! But mom I wanna debate! I wanna, I wanna, I wanna!

We don't always get what we want dear!

 

[kitakaze]

Can you offer direct and specific proof that Chambers would not have blown off Patterson? Or is this your opinion based on the mythology?

How ironic.

 

[kitakaze]

Mom I wanna debate Crowlogic about Crowlogic's Bigfoot has gone extinct postion but Crowlogic won't debate with me! But mom I wanna debate! I wanna, I wanna, I wanna!

We don't always get what we want dear!

Absolutely. I would like to know on what you base your opinion that bigfoot existed and went extinct. Particularily due to the fact that you refuted your position being one based on belief. That is to be expected at a skeptical forum.

No, you will not articulate the basis of that position. I find that also to be interesting. I find that behaviour to be the same as Sweaty's. I have found it to be typical behaviour for bigfoot proponents. You can emulate a temper tantrum from me that has never happened, but it only looks all the more ironic given some of your recent posts.

Your frustration has been noted.

 

[LTC8K6]

Can you offer direct and specific proof that Chambers would not have blown off Patterson? Or is this your opinion based on the mythology?

I already explained why it's unlikely that Chambers would have blown off Patterson and I gave examples.

Asking me to prove that Chambers would have done the work is incredible coming from you, crow. Just how would anyone prove or disprove it?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm mocking both. But where is the disagreement here within the overall position of the posters here? At the end of the day you're all towing the party line.

That's nothing but a lie, crow. We can start with the fact that I don't believe BH wore the suit.

BTW, it's toeing, not towing.

 

[kitakaze]

I could just see a campout of skeptics. Just a conglomeration of Devil's advocates around the campfire.

Skeptic A- Wow, look at those stars
Skeptic B- How do you know those are stars? I mean do you really know?
Skeptic A- Well, yeah you dolt, it's common knowledge
Skeptic B- Whatever man, I can't sway your emotional attachment to stars being flaming orbs in the Universe.
Skeptic C- Hey B, Check the freaking planetarium.
Skeptic D- What about them faking the moon landing?
Etc...

Boring...

Yeah, Drew. Even if I wasn't on the other side of the planet, the idea of getting together for events with these guys is a little... meh. I mean seriously, you wanna get close to this guy?:

I always want to see them as big big big. Gimmee gimmee more more. Meaty, beaty, big and bouncy.

 

[Crowlogic]

..

 

[Crowlogic]

Crow, do you realy think that an opinion (or a speculation) built over reliable evidence has the same value of one based in nothing?

I don't think so.


A family campout, but when and where?
How reliable is their report?

The opinions here carry no weight except within the online community of JREF. JREF is not exactly a household word with regards to shaping world opinion. So the opinions expressed here are of limited value except within the confines of JREF.

In my personal life and profession my opinions and decisions carry weight with regards to my own well being and the well being of those who are connected to my decisions professional/personal. If you are of the opinion that your contributions here are somehow effecting the course of humanity fine but I've encountered enough "small ponds" and the "big fish" who populate them to know how "big fish" in "small ponds" opinionate about the importance of thier small pond opinions.


Now with regards the family picnic where a relic realitive of H. Erectus might inadvertantly encounter a few humans lets set the stage as follows

Year -1872
Place- 20 miles SE of Rosenberg Oregon
Environment- Edge of Alpine meadow elevation 3,200ft

Humans
Male age 41 Father, Railroad worker
Female age 36 Mother
Children 2 males ages 12 & 13

Circumstance of sighting. At 1:30 on bright sunlight afternoon in early June family wittnesses an adult male human sized animal which appeared from the forest and stood on two legs and watched the family for a period of a minute. The animal then turned and strode back into the forest. The father estimated that the distance between the family and the creature was the distance of the lenght of a Pullman Coach. They later reported the sighting to the Rosenberg Gazette. All four family members described the animal as looking like a large monkey with dark greyish brown fur that walked upright.

There you have a circumstance. Be advised its not a real report but you did request.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm mocking both. But where is the disagreement here within the overall position of the posters here? At the end of the day you're all towing the party line.

If the " party line " is:

" There is no reasonable evidence that a creature like the one seen in the PGF exists - so it is reasonable to assume it's a hoax ... "

Then yes, I think most of us are toeing the party line ..

On the other hand, there is certainly disagreement about how the hoax was scripted and how the costume came to be..

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, then the believers are just toeing the party line, too.

The opinions here carry no weight except within the online community of JREF.

Nope, the same opinions are posted on many other boards as well, a fact which you are aware of, Crow.
Some of the opinions are shared by people who don't post at JREF. The opinions are discussed and debated, so they must carry weight.

Heck, we discuss Sweaty's opinions about bigfoot here, which tells you that Crow is being dishonest.

We discussed Sweaty's, Historian's, Creekfreak's, Beckjord's, etc., claims.

If we were simply toeing a party line, those discussions would not have occurred.

JREF members actually took the time to research and refute the claims. They weren't merely dismissed offhand.

 

[LTC8K6]

Be advised its not a real report but you did request.

It's just as real as any of the other anonymous and uncheckable reports that we have in the bigfoot files. A pig flinging incident comes to mind...

 

[Drewbot]

The opinions here carry no weight except within the online community of JREF. JREF is not exactly a household word with regards to shaping world opinion. So the opinions expressed here are of limited value except within the confines of JREF.

Are you saying Bill Munn's opinions carry no weight anywhere but here?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Small T-rexes in Utah.

So much for 'no sightings of T-Rex in recent history'. It is even close to the northwest. Maybe they managed to make it across the state line into that vast wilderness of the NW where they can pal around with all the bigfeet running amok out there. I guess the fact there are sightings of these guys means it is now to be considered just as "plausible" as bigfoot. Right?

Nice try, Astro....but when I used "T-Rex sightings" in my post, I was refering to a T-Rex, the BIG and scary kind...as in.....

Length - 40 feet (12.4 m) long
Height - 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6 m) tall
Weight - 5 to 7 tons


This is from an article about your supposed "T-Rex in Utah"......

It doesn't seem to be all that big.
Three to three-and-a-half feet high, witnesses say. Roughly five feet long measured nose to tail. Sucik avoids using the d-word: "Dinosaur".


Jeff Thulin runs a tourist stop called Reptile Reserve.
He says he's heard the baby dinosaur stories for years. He's skeptical but not ruling it out.
The description does fit foreign critters like the Monitor Lizard.

And locally, the Collared Lizard, although that's only just over a foot high.
The sightings date back to the 1930s. But the new burst of interest makes at least one skeptic, extra-skeptical.

Link to article:

http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/local/leapin_lizards.php


Again....the "plausibility" of any cryptid animal's existence depends on a mulitude of factors. Physical size is one of those factors.

Are there people claiming to have seen 20-foot tall, 40-foot long dinosaurs stomping around the Pacific Northwest, or any other part of North America??
If so....how many are claiming this?


If you're not interested in intelligently discussing how a sighting claim can be judged to be "far-fetched" or not, that's fine. Just don't pretend to be, Astro.

 

[Crowlogic]

Absolutely. I would like to know on what you base your opinion that bigfoot existed and went extinct. Particularily due to the fact that you refuted your position being one based on belief. That is to be expected at a skeptical forum.

No, you will not articulate the basis of that position. I find that also to be interesting. I find that behaviour to be the same as Sweaty's. I have found it to be typical behaviour for bigfoot proponents. You can emulate a temper tantrum from me that has never happened, but it only looks all the more ironic given some of your recent posts.

Your frustration has been noted.

And what exactly do you do with all of the "noted" events that you seem to catalogue. I'm beginning to think you're in some kind of stiuation room you've constructed with graphs and pins sticking in maps and dossiers on everyone. Well stick this post in your file on me.

 

[Crowlogic]

If the " party line " is:

" There is no reasonable evidence that a creature like the one seen in the PGF exists - so it is reasonable to assume it's a hoax ... "

Then yes, I think most of us are toeing the party line ..

On the other hand, there is certainly disagreement about how the hoax was scripted and how the costume came to be..

Yes you're right. Now yesterday I sent off some PGF frames to a close friend who is a retired Naval photo analyst/intelligence officer. His initial reply concerns the prosthetic seeming nature of the hands.

 

[clayflingythingy]

If I was Chambers at the height of my powers during POTA and a guy like Patterson walked in I would have blown him off.

How does the suit making industry in Hollywood work? If POTA was done and a guy came in and wanted a quickie suit, cobbled together from pieces parts, would you really blow him off if he had hard cash American money in hand that you didn't have to report to Uncle?

What I am driving at is how much "quality" work was there for a suit guy in late 1960's Hollywood? Was it feast or famine? How many "big time" movie productions each year needed a suit guy? How much competition was there for the work? IOW, would hard cash look inviting to a suit guy even tho he had just finished POTA, especially since the movie hadn't been released yet?

Would cash, that perhaps went unreported to Uncle, look inviting?

Perhaps Dfoot and Bill Munns will have some perspective to offer on this.