Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

That is such a cop out. We did not have enough cameras?

Who's this "we"? I wasn't there. The cameras were set up on "Ridgetop" with a view of what they thought was a good approach. They were hoping to get clear footprints in the mud.

The idea that it is too expensive is a load of nonsense and just an excuse IMO.

Only one organization that I know of has a money man behind it. I don't think he was equipping the Skookum expedition.

What is the point of setting out bait if you aren't going to figure out what took the bait?

See above.

Isn't it odd that one of the traps that did not have a camera was the one that got the print?

No, because from what I can remember from the field notes the cameras were covering the approach, not the bait traps. There was equipment failure, including one inverter and Rick's alternator. He thought he could film from his truck.

Real scientists would never allow their work to be subject to interpretation this way.

Who said they were scientists? Dr. Fish was a zoologist and wrote it up for publication. He was skeptical until the trip. Drs. Meldrum and Swindler wrote up the cast for publication but the paper was rejected on grounds of "You can't tell anything from an imprint" or something like that (per Owen Caddy).

Pseudoscientists constantly work this way in order to perpetuate a mystery.

Assuming a lot there, aren't you? The only scientist who's received any funding for investigation is Meldrum. The amateurs are on their own time and their own dime. Many have no training in any related field. As long as science continues to turn a blind eye, the field trips are mostly in the hands of amateurs and amateurs make mistakes.

A good surveillance camera runs about $700. Add wiring and you're easily into $1000. It helps to have a power source.

This is why there are "distant howls", "stick scraping", broken twigs/branches, "footprints" are used as "evidence" instead of the real thing.

Aberrant coyote, elk rubbing antlers, wind or ice, overprinted cow tracks. Tell me about it.

BTW, if you don't have much hope for trail cameras, then you must believe there is an extremely small population of bigfeet, which is much smaller than the implied population from all the sightings reported across the US.

No, trail cam shots tend to be too blurry if the object is in motion. Swishing animal tails can give an appearance of an arm or leg. They seem to be good at catching grazing deer and elk and a mangy bear. Shots from a couple of expeditions (as seen on TV) show plenty of elk, but no rabbits, squirrels, or even coyotes, which are abundant in the area.

If this is the case, are all these individuals reporting their sightings of bigfoot liars or simply confabulating?

It's not the case.

Two witnesses I've talked with seemed very straightforward and sure of what they saw, but a friend who claims he was abducted by aliens and won't consider sleep paralysis as an explanation, seems very straightforward too. When people from widely separated parts of the country report the same details and those details hold up anatomically, it's difficult to ascribe it all to confabulation. I've worked for a while in mental health and have had three or four friends who have schizophrenia. They see a lot of things, but no bigfeet.

I can think of a couple of liars in the "field" but not of anyone who still takes them seriously.

 

[tyr_13]

Can you state for certain that the costume is responsible for the gait we see in PGF? How does one equate the hunched forward gait of the PGF with the bolt upright gait of McMlarin? Its worth investigating what Bob H says about the nature of his walk when he claims to have worn the suit. According to Bob, Patterson instructed him to walk a certain way. Patterson didn't say "Just put the suit on and walk normal." Whoever/whatever is on that film either walked as it naturally does or it was a human in a suit walking in an instructed manner. Since probability favors a human in a suit its a human trying not to walk too much like a human.

Your Phelps argument is invalid. Phelps ability to swaim fast only makes him the fastest human swimmer. I'm confident that if you were filmed walking side by side down the street with Phelps that nobody would mistake either your anatomy and movements with anything other than being human.

No I can't say for certain, nor did I make that claim. I brought it up because it is yet one factor footers can't be sure of. I didn't say you could compare their walks, and in fact, said it meant nothing.

Wait, let me look...yup, I bolded, italicized, and underlined that point.

What does intention have to do with it? Some people may naturally walk that way, others may be able to purposefully, others with training. That is why the Phelps argument is valid, both are still an ability within the human range. My walk has been compared to a cat's, so if I put on a costume and walked in the woods, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would certainly mistake my movements for those of an animal. Walking down the street I'm sure no one would mistake it, but that again, doesn't mean much.

 

[kitakaze]

The TBRC has run a long-term well funded camera trap project in prime alleged Bigfoot territory and as expected no mythical man beasts have been captured on tape.

Bigfoot otaku have lots of excuses for this, it's what they do.

 

[LAL]

Elk have very similiar hairflows as one another,incidently.

So you think the other butt print is from an elk?

 

[LAL]

I think this is a fantastic summation of the flawed reasoning of 'voice of reason' Meldrum.

Sir Issaac Newton was an alchemist. Gregor Mendell and Roger Bacon were monks. L.S.B. Leaky subscribed to Sir Arthur Keith's overly long timeline for evolution of the human brain and Sir Arthur supported Piltdown Man. Raymond Dart was correct in thinking A. africanus was a biped but wrong about the osteo-dento-keratics culture.

I suppose that because the scientific method was devised by an apparently religious man who may have believed in angels and arks of gold we should just reject his "flawed reasoning".

Heck, Correa and I can't even agree on which logical fallacies we're using.

 

[LAL]

Skookum...

Buttprint, testicleprint, kneeprint, armprint, legprint, hairflow...

Since its claimed by some footers that Swindler, after seeing it, though it was from a gigantopithecus, there must be a very good lower jawprint also. That's all we have from those critters. Would he extrapolate anatomical data taken from a jaw to the point of creating a mental model of the critter which was good enough to be compared with the cast and result in a positive ID? Considering that it may be from an unknown bipedal primate is one thing. Stating genus is another completley different thing.

Seems another fishy footer tale. Second-hand accounts, quote cherry-picking, distorted statements, anedoctes, etc. Normal pseudoscience stuff. Bigfootery will continue to be pseudoscience as long as these practices continue.

It's unfortunate Daris is no longer alive to see your comment. After examining the cast four times he was visually shaken and exclaimed, "It's Giganto" (which, incidently, was originally identified from a single tooth), according to Owen Caddy, who was present.

On national television, for all to see, he said it's the imprint of an unidentified North American hominid primate.

Since the man who built the reconstruction of Gigantopithecus for Russ Ciochon is here, perhaps we could ask him how they got all that from three (still three?) jawbones and 1100 teeth.

 

[kitakaze]

Only one organization that I know of has a money man behind it. I don't think he was equipping the Skookum expedition.

BFRO has money, funding, and no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

TBRC has money, funding, and no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

Meldrum has money, funding, and no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

Biscardi has money, funding, and no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

People live and work everyday in Bigfoot territory and no Bigfoot.

I miss when you used to imply that reliable evidence was available but you weren't at liberty to divulge it.

As long as science continues to turn a blind eye, the field trips are mostly in the hands of amateurs and amateurs make mistakes.

Science is not turning a blind eye, there simply is no reliable evidence for Bigfoot to look at. If Bigfoot were real they would be found. Period.

Two witnesses I've talked with seemed very straightforward and sure of what they saw, but a friend who claims he was abducted by aliens and won't consider sleep paralysis as an explanation, seems very straightforward too.

Lots of people will tell you they saw an angel and be sure of it. Lots of people will tell you they saw an apparition and be sure of it. Lots of people will tell you they saw an alien and be sure of it. Lots of people will tell you they saw a Dog Man and be sure of it. Why do you rely on faulty reasoning to argue Bigfoot?

I can think of a couple of liars in the "field" but not of anyone who still takes them seriously.

Lots of people took Biscardi seriously. Ditto Coleman, Kulls, Moneymaker, Freeman, etc.

 

[kitakaze]

Sir Issaac Newton was an alchemist. Gregor Mendell and Roger Bacon were monks. L.S.B. Leaky subscribed to Sir Arthur Keith's overly long timeline for evolution of the human brain and Sir Arthur supported Piltdown Man. Raymond Dart was correct in thinking A. africanus was a biped but wrong about the osteo-dento-keratics culture.

I suppose that because the scientific method was devised by an apparently religious man who may have believed in angels and arks of gold we should just reject his "flawed reasoning".

Heck, Correa and I can't even agree on which logical fallacies we're using.

Meldrum has a consistent record of subscribing to fringe beliefs and using flawed methodology to support them. His Bigfoot book which we've both read is full of flawed methodology.

If Bigfoot is discovered tomorrow Meldrum still has to account for his shoddy science.

 

[kitakaze]

After examining the cast four times he was visually shaken and exclaimed, "It's Giganto" (which, incidently, was originally identified from a single tooth), according to Owen Caddy, who was present.

I love this anecdote, just love it. This is a great little ditty that Bigfoot otaku pass around to eachother and completely miss how dumb it is. We are invited to believe that he was convinced by what he interpreted as the Achilles tendon of an animal we know of only from teeth and jaw fragments.

It's Giganto!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Who's this "we"? I wasn't there. The cameras were set up on "Ridgetop" with a view of what they thought was a good approach. They were hoping to get clear footprints in the mud.

The "We" I refer to is the people who make excuses for why the "expedition" could not conduct real scientific work. The placing of the cameras is completely backwards. It allows for anyone or anything to produce the print in question.

No, because from what I can remember from the field notes the cameras were covering the approach, not the bait traps. There was equipment failure, including one inverter and Rick's alternator. He thought he could film from his truck.

So it was poorly set up. Why bother presenting the buttprint if you can not verify it was an actual bigfoot that produced it? More pseudoscience.

Who said they were scientists?

They were conducting scientific work. Amateurs populate many scientific fields and conduct good science because they understand what they are doing. Are you suggesting that the people who conduct bigfoot research are just real amateurs and have no clue as to what they are doing?

Assuming a lot there, aren't you? The only scientist who's received any funding for investigation is Meldrum. The amateurs are on their own time and their own dime. Many have no training in any related field. As long as science continues to turn a blind eye, the field trips are mostly in the hands of amateurs and amateurs make mistakes.

Do you mean amateurs like amateur astronomers who conduct very good research on their own time and with their own money? Or do you mean amateurs as in a couple of guys in a pickup truck driving out to the woods, screaming, hanging up glitter, and listening for rubbing sticks to proclaim they had a bigfoot encounter?

A good surveillance camera runs about $700. Add wiring and you're easily into $1000. It helps to have a power source. .

Not exactly right. In 1988, a friend of mine purchased a surveilance camera for astronomical work that worked well in low light. It cost him less than $300 (including power supply, cables, etc). I bought my meteor camera for far less in 2003. It is much more sensivite and came with power supply and lens. Cost was <$200. I record faint meteors (down to +3-+4) and the occasional animal (bats/birds/etc) that cross my Field. I am sure a better camera can be purchased for a bit more.

If amateur bigfoot hunters wanted to conduct real research, they would put the money out because the gain would be astronomical if they can provide real proof of bigfoot. The cost is minimal. Amateur astronomers spend $5000-$10,000 for some of their equipment. Are bigfoot enthusiasts afraid they are going to waste their money on their adventures?

 

[Correa Neto]

It's unfortunate Daris is no longer alive to see your comment. After examining the cast four times he was visually shaken and exclaimed, "It's Giganto" (which, incidently, was originally identified from a single tooth), according to Owen Caddy, who was present.

Yes, it’s too bad. Especially because I am questioning the accuracy of Caddy's report. Bigfootery accuracy record usually is not very good.
I don't think Swindler would do such a thing. Especially when one considers that gigantopithecus probably were not bipedal (no need to write about Krantz's opinion - we've been through this more than once before and I am very far from convinced). Even if one assumes a more bigfoot-friendly position and considers it may have been a biped, one can not escape from the fact that they may have not been bipedals. So, the good practice would be to adopt a more cautious approach, something along these lines - "It may be from a large unknown bipedal primate". Speculation beyond this point should not cross the limits of the following sentence -"the closest thing we know would be gigantopithecus IF they were bipeds".

On national television, for all to see, he said it's the imprint of an unidentified North American hominid primate.

Remember what I wrote? Considering that it may be from an unknown bipedal primate is one thing. Stating it belongs to a given genus (a genus defined by pieces of lower jaws and teeth) is a completely different thing. It’s stretching too much the interpretation limits. It’s a leap of faith.

Since the man who built the reconstruction of Gigantopithecus for Russ Ciochon is here, perhaps we could ask him how they got all that from three (still three?) jawbones and 1100 teeth.

How Ciochon set the guidelines for the giagntopithecus reconstruction? We both know where this info can be found.
I wonder if Ciochon would look at the Skookum cast and say "its giganto!"... I guess he would not. He does not think bigfeet are real.

Maybe he would say “Its elk!”

 

[Crowlogic]

Please keep in mind that Crow has told us numerous times that she thinks Patty is a bloke in a suit, but for some odd reason keeps arguing from the other side of the fence.

The McClarin tree knot photo is a great example of opponents "gold plating" evidence that if it were presented by propoents would be dismissed otherwise. Can anybody seriously contend that the frame showing McClarin was captured with McClarin in the identical position as the PGF subject, with an identical camera using an identical lense also being operated from the exact position that Patterson was in when filming his subject? Can we be assured that the environment haden't changed in any way that might have effected any of the variables that could effect the outcome of the McClarin film? Because that's what is needed to stand behind the contention that the tree knot photo confirms McClarin's height that can be accurately measured against the height of the PGF subject.

IMO size height actual realitive positions of subject and backround has long been considered unverifiable. That said things like movement and posture can be deduced from the film an other motion studies. Its a pity that we don't have the Morris recreation in actual motion film to compare with the PGF.

 

[Crowlogic]

No I can't say for certain, nor did I make that claim. I brought it up because it is yet one factor footers can't be sure of. I didn't say you could compare their walks, and in fact, said it meant nothing.

Wait, let me look...yup, I bolded, italicized, and underlined that point.

What does intention have to do with it? Some people may naturally walk that way, others may be able to purposefully, others with training. That is why the Phelps argument is valid, both are still an ability within the human range. My walk has been compared to a cat's, so if I put on a costume and walked in the woods, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would certainly mistake my movements for those of an animal. Walking down the street I'm sure no one would mistake it, but that again, doesn't mean much.

Hmmm.... walks like a cat huh? Yet did you not say that your grandfather said you walk like an Indian. So what is it? Cat or Indian? Perhaps an Indian cat?

Once again please research a little of Bob Heronimous and his accounts of the PGF. If he's telling the truth then he states that Roger Patterson instructed him to walk a certain way during the filming. Now either Bob did walk as Roger requested or he's a liar. So is Bob Heronimous a liar or did her actually walk as Pattterson instructed?

 

[Crowlogic]

Like this one?

[qimg]http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/billmiller13.gif[/qimg]

Looks to me she's leaning more forward than McClarin in the tree knot shot and her head is down where his is up.

I've never seen that frame before. Who is the human? I notice he's wearing a long sleeve shirt as opposed to the T shirt that McClarin is wearing. Whoever mde the photo seems to have gotten the framing perfectly.

 

[LAL]

What? You want me to do your homework for you? The very important aspect about that very entertaining interview is that it clearly establishes that Philip Morris is a dishonest individual. He chucked his claim at the PGF for the publicity.

Plus it's much better than listening to Owen Caddy mumble through a bunch of pseudo-science.

I enjoyed Caddy's show. I had to go do something before it was over, but I did catch the part about how the enhancements were done.

I have no doubt Morris is dishonest, but Heironimus went right along with it.

If I wanted you to do my homework for me I'd have PMed you my design for modification so I wouldn't have to be spending my day off waiting to get the prototype out of the Edinburgh etch.

How do you explain BH's assertion Roger filmed him from horseback?

 

[William Parcher]

Once again please research a little of Bob Heronimous and his accounts of the PGF. If he's telling the truth then he states that Roger Patterson instructed him to walk a certain way during the filming. Now either Bob did walk as Roger requested or he's a liar. So is Bob Heronimous a liar or did her actually walk as Pattterson instructed?

It's easy to create some confusion on this point. BH talks about RP instructing him at Bluff Creek on where to walk (his course), and where/when to do the turn-to-look.

My impression of BH's testimony on the actual gait/arm swinging is that he himself is largely responsible for how it looks. Patterson approved of his locomotion style when he walked in the suit. BH said that it is mostly how he normally walks anyway. I'm sure the huge fake feet also forced certain aspects of the gait. At the minimum, he has to lift the feet to clear the ground (toes not dragging) as he strides.

Patterson's instructions to BH out on that sandbar were about where to walk and about the look turn, not about how to walk. That part was already established back in Yakima.

 

[William Parcher]

How do you explain BH's assertion Roger filmed him from horseback?

I explained it to you last year. Did you forget about it, or didn't like the answer?

 

[kitakaze]

How do you explain BH's assertion Roger filmed him from horseback?

Can you provide the original comment? I'm not really worried about it. Roger may have started filming Heironimus from horseback and that's the way he remembered it. How do you explain a guy with three separate instances of connection with Patterson and Gimlin in connection to the film claiming involvement in a Patterson hoax?

Considering you still refuse to accept the reality of the MIM gaff, I'm guessing it's not any cause for alarm to you. Ignorance is bliss they say.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sir Issaac Newton was an alchemist. Gregor Mendell and Roger Bacon were monks. L.S.B. Leaky subscribed to Sir Arthur Keith's overly long timeline for evolution of the human brain and Sir Arthur supported Piltdown Man. Raymond Dart was correct in thinking A. africanus was a biped but wrong about the osteo-dento-keratics culture.

I suppose that because the scientific method was devised by an apparently religious man who may have believed in angels and arks of gold we should just reject his "flawed reasoning".

Heck, Correa and I can't even agree on which logical fallacies we're using.

Let me see... In that particular post quote above, there can be the following fallacies:
Affirming the consequence
False dichotomy
Hasty generalization
Incorrect cause
Strawman
Denying the antecedent

I'm feeling too lazy rigth now to keep looking in to the logical fallacies list.

Just for the record, again- this is my position:
I am not saying that Meldrum's reasonings are flawed because he is religious man as you seem to be implying. I am saying his reasonings regarding bigfoot are flawed. I say this is probably because when belief is at stake, he may loose objectivity and impartiality. I back this with his article on DNA and Mormonism. Instead relying on evidence, instead using logic 101 and Occam's razor, whose outcome would be "not real", he choose the Book of Mormon's account. I draw an analogy with bigfeet here. I think the very same thing happens - choosing belief instead of what the evidence points towards. Both cases are examples of bad science IMHO. Of course, this applys to the subjects I wrote about above- I have no reason to doubt the quality of his works with the locomotion of real primates, for example, since I would be making a false induction.

I would greatly appreciate if you do not misrepresent my position again, making one more logical fallacy. You should be able to attack my position without misrepresenting or misquoting it.

But I do acknowledge Meldrum has something in common with the people you cited- at a certain point, they all supported something which is not real.

 

[tyr_13]

Hmmm.... walks like a cat huh? Yet did you not say that your grandfather said you walk like an Indian. So what is it? Cat or Indian? Perhaps an Indian cat?

Once again please research a little of Bob Heronimous and his accounts of the PGF. If he's telling the truth then he states that Roger Patterson instructed him to walk a certain way during the filming. Now either Bob did walk as Roger requested or he's a liar. So is Bob Heronimous a liar or did her actually walk as Pattterson instructed?

I'm assuming that your second paragraph isn't directed specifically at me because I wasn't ever addressing what Bob or Patterson said.

However, in your first paragraph are you actually suggesting that different people can't describe something in more than one way? Perhaps someone would say Indian cat, but that one I've never heard. Is it a stretch that different people would describe the same thing in different ways, especially when both things have many attributes in common?

Are you seriously suggesting that my credibility be question because I 'changed' the description of my walk? What does that have to do with people having different walks?