• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murphy would have to include every issue from Long's book and interview all of the antagonists as well as the protagonists. It may act as a counterpoint to Long's book but is bound to fan the flames. My head hurts already.
 
Anyone else pick up on the Cryptomundo comments about the "Georgia Gorilla" that went something like this: "if it's a hoax it's an expensive one?"

A $449 costume is well within the means of someone with a steady job and the desire to pull off a good gag.

This hoax, or gag, whatever you want to call it, should enlighten those who believe the PGF had to be some elaborate production that cost a bunch of 1967 $. It should, but it won't.
 
Last edited:
Bill Munns said:
As I noted above, I've got the ASC Manual on order, and that's more or less the definitive source for film and camera documentation. Hopefully will have it soon, and can cite from it.

(snip)
Click to expand...

Thanks! Although I should note that I was being a bit cheeky when I posted that (hence the smiley).
 
SweatyYeti said:
So....you're saying that 'reliable evidence' for Bigfoot indicates a 100% likelihood, an absolute certainty, that Bigfoot exists.

Well, by definition.....any piece of evidence which indicates a 100% likelihood (an absolute certainty) that something exists, or is true, is called proof.


But just the other day, you said this...:confused:...





Where is the distinction, kitty?? Both equate to proof, according to you.


Evidence which does not rise to the level of 100% certainty (proof), indicates only a chance of something being true....a 'percentage of probability' below 100%. Even if a piece of evidence indicates a 90% chance that something is real, or true, that something (Bigfoot's existence, in this case) may not be real, or true.

In other words, there can be strong evidence for Bigfoot's existence...without such a creature even existing. It would be highly unlikely, but still possible.
Click to expand...

Sweaty, I'd like to apologize for not getting to your post earlier but I've been preoccupied with my trip home to Japan. I have thought about our exchange regarding your question about reliable evidence for Bigfoot without Bigfoot. I answered that there could be no such evidence if Bigfoot did in fact not exist. I think to be accurate we should be saying "yes, but it's extremely unlikely."

For a certainty there are countless examples in the history of scientific inquiry where we have had a body of evidence supporting a particular hypothesis or theory that needed to be revised or discarded because of the discovery of new conflicting evidence. And, to be sure, that is not the type of situation we're discussing here regarding Bigfoot. It's important that we remember we're not going to get into arguing a negative. You should know better than to ask us what evidence we have that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Let's cover the basics, shall we?

Proof vs Reliable Evidence of Bigfoot

1) Proof -

Proof regarding the existence of Bigfoot should be a no-brainer. What is required is a type specimen or a significant portion of one. In other words we need a body or enough of one that allows us to make a clear determination of what it is.

Why don't we have this? Why don't we have a type specimen for what is alleged to be one of the biggest land mammals in North America that we are told inhabits the four corners of the continent and between? For a creature that acts as brazen as we are often told it does this thing should have been stuffed and mounted many many times over.

2) Reliable Evidence -

Reliable evidence of Bigfoot, I'm sure you'll recall, is that which is very difficult to account for without the animal in fact existing. Let's be clear that very difficult does not mean impossible. Let's review what should constitute reliable evidence.

Let's imagine for a moment a scenario where we actually did in fact have documented examples of alleged Bigfoot tracks that displayed successive matching dermatoglyphics. Well, right off the bat trying to explain them as casting artifacts goes out the window. Now let's say that on top of that more than one person who could be considered an expert on primate dermatoglyphics examined the tracks and the findings of these experts were subjected to peer review, at the end of which we could satisfactorily rule out hoaxing and that the patterns in the tracks are inconsistent with those of humans.

Is that proof of Bigfoot? For some hopeful believers, maybe, but certainly not to those whose opinions matter. Not without a type specimen, as in some Bigfoot feet to look at. And yes, once we have had some Bigfoot feet to look at the spore become absolutely acceptable evidence for the presence of the creature. Not before.

How about some other things that would qualify as reliable evidence for Bigfoot? I know you haven't forgotten that video taken under the right circumstances would be great. A video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating its liver or making poopy from the right people and things are looking up.

And speaking of poop, you as a PGF fan should be able to have some input on this. 'Fingers bend' Patty seems to have a very robust jaw and a pronounced sagittal crest reminiscent of a gorilla(unless you like Medrum's suggestion that it's just her do). Yes, I know, the skeptics call modified gorilla suit and Patty fans say upright ape. Let's spot the Patty fans. But wait... All that chewing equipment like a gorilla should point to a gorilla-like diet full of tough vegetation. You know, the type that you hang around a lot base your movements on its location. Anyway, I guess you'd end up pooping a lot like a gorilla too. Where's the poop, dude?

Or maybe they do eat a significant amount of meat, like salmon and deer an juicy rabbits. They must leave some very unique kills. Those would be great to look at.

And the hair! These shaggy beasts - we're in no shortage of claims of nests and tree breaks and dens. We shouldn't be having this paucity of hair to examine, one would think. I know they don't prove bigfoot exists and even if the DNA does come up as inconclusive some consistency in a sample base would be a great start. I know you wouldn't try a Henner reference, right?

So where does that leave us? Well since we have none of those things or anything else that qualifies as evidence that is very difficult to account for without a species of massive bipedal non-human primate currently existing in North America, it looks very much like Bigfoot can stay on the shelf between the Greys and chupacabra in the social construct/modern myth section of the woo emporium.

The final conclusion IMO is that in the case of proof and reliable evidence it is absolutely reasonable to expect to have both as Joycefoot is described to us. We can also consider the lack thereof to leave us with a claim on par with those regarding extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth and ancient ruins on Mars, which, as most of us are well aware of by now, Sweaty is a believer of.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Don't worry about the ketchup, Lu. It looks like Parcher killed it with this link:

http://thehorrordome.com/HDSHOPPINGPROPS/SasquatchLARGE.htm

Further death blow:

http://thehorrordome.com/HDSHOPPINGPROPS/SasquatchHeightComparisonLARGE.htm
Click to expand...

I believe the BFRO board scooped Parcher on that. I'll have to bring up the old MABRC board to check, but we had a costume shop in OSSIE that featured that and other suits. Can't remember who posted it. It was probably me, unless it was Lyndon or Sweaty. None compared with the PGF.

I'm wondering about the DNA. If it doesn't come up Biscardi with a chimpanzee nucleotide, maybe I could spring for some mustard.

If you've been following the Bigfoot boards, you should know almost no one's taking this very seriously. There was a rumor to this effect, that a southern group had a body in a freezer, well over a year ago.

At any rate, it's international news now. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I wonder if they thought to stick meat under the body for a rotting effect?
 
Last edited:
Nobody scooped JREF on the direct linking of the freezer Bigfoot and the HorrorDome costume. Any claims of such should be backed up with time-stamped posting evidence.

This silly non-starter argument should be taken to the Georgia Bigfoot thread.
 
Congrats on exposing the apparent hoax attempt. If JREF was running at the time of the PGF, my guess is a lot of questions that exist today would have been answered at the time (i.e. film development, suit availability, etc). Perhaps it would also have been exposed as a hoax.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Oh, really now? I love how people started out fairly skeptical of this obvious hoax and eventually convinced themselves it could be real.
Click to expand...

Did you read the poll?

What is the chance these boys have a bigfoot?
0% [ 84 ] ** [67.74%]

The other one divides about like creation and evolution.

I only checked BFF while getting updated on Tim Cullen, but the comments I saw were pretty scathing.

The only compelling cast from the east I know of is from Georgia. Georgia's not a bad place for a body to actually show up. One of the guys is a cop (cops are honest, right?). Announcing something on YouTube instead of in Nature isn't necessarily a total shot in the foot. I'm sure more people in the US know about YouTube than about Nature. Seems to me that there was hope, or at least the benefit of the doubt, right up until Biscardi got involved and the pictures were published, but I can assure you there was scepticism from the beginning. Officially, MABRC took no position. Unofficially is a different story.

I can time stamp the link to BFRO from MABRC. The suit pictures were up on Cyptomondo soon after I posted the original article with the "leaked" photos. It was almost impossible to raise the site after that. Somehow I don't think William was the only one to remember that suit, especially since the picture of it was posted on at least one message board well over a year ago.

And it still doesn't look like Patty <cleverly dances back to the topic>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom