Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

Roger fully expected scientists to swoop down on the area. They didn't.

One of his first priorities after the filming was to try to arrange for tracking dogs. What hoaxer would take a chance like that?

You really think he expected scientists to swoop down on the area? Isn't it true that almost all of the Magazines pulled out after viewing the film?

Tracking dogs? you mean the ones he 'tried' to get from British Columbia? If you want to call that a try, I guess it's pointless to even argue with you.

 

[William Parcher]

A hoaxer would have no problem with having tracking dogs on the scene. The dogs would have no way of telling anyone that the subject of the film is a man in a suit.

This is simply a failure to understand or imagine how a hoaxer might use certain strategies to give the impression of credibility.

 

[captain koolaid]

Both men were armed. They had an agreement not to shoot unless absolutely necessary. Roger was convinced these were some kind of human and could not be swayed from that POV.

You really cannot fathom any contradictions in all of this? Think the whole affair through, from the VW hurling Uberape (or worse, "man-beast") pre "PGF", the "training with the camera just in case", to "don't follow Patty Bob, my horse is gone and so is my rifle"...

If not, ok. Will just leave it on top of the small mountain of odd contradictions that have accumulated.

 

[Crowlogic]

So Roger Patterson, the Bigfoot hunter and "documentary" film maker, the guy that operated on the belief that Bigfoot was a huge, volatile, unpredictable, aggressive, ninja-like beast- capable of hurling Volkswagens - actually "trained" in getting the camera out of the bag quickly, "just in case"...

Yet didn't bother to to do the same with his rifle, nor even obtain a $2 sling?

It's almost as if he was confident, in the extreme, that only a petite, and tame female would sashay along Bluff Creek?

Fascinating...

Roger had backup firepower. He didn't need a rifle. He also was pretty nervous about not having one when Gimlin wandered off a bit tracking. Of course none of that is valid in the hoax. But under the circumstance you can wield a camera or wield a gun. Patterson bein unarmed is a non issue.

 

[Crowlogic]

William what is Biscardi's take on the PGF? After the GA mess does it even matter what he thinks?

 

[LAL]

You really think he expected scientists to swoop down on the area? Isn't it true that almost all of the Magazines pulled out after viewing the film?

No. National Wildlife had an article (I've linked to it) and so did Argosy. Life was going to do one, but backed off after scientists at the Smithsonian and Museum of Natural History in New York said there was "something wrong" with it. The something's wrong were shot down at length by Dr. Krantz in his book.

Tracking dogs? you mean the ones he 'tried' to get from British Columbia? If you want to call that a try, I guess it's pointless to even argue with you.

It's pointless if you want the support of the only MABRC mod who's stood up for you.

A BC tracking dog (White Lady) was in the area a few weeks earlier and had alerted to the tracks the night they came down and to the last place there'd be scent the next day. She would have been a good choice. Don Abbott decided to wait until he'd seen the film.

Regarding Green's copy, it's already been noted he had the original for a time when he and Dahindenen had the Canadian lecture rights and had a master copy made. There's an interview in Long's book with the man who made copies - more on that later. No proof of sleight of hand there. Sorry.

You know a little; try learning more.

 

[William Parcher]

Did you know John Green made a searchable data base in DOS? He collected about 4000 reports in 40 years before he quit doing that.

Four thousand reports of encounters and not a single piece of biological material to show for the creature. Ever! This is not a real animal. This is a myth. Bigfoot is a legendary creature that does not truly exist.

Ironically, the greater the number of encounters without confirmation, the greater the support becomes for nonexistence. It might actually be more believable if there were only a handful of encounter reports. So elusive that only 75 people have seen them in over 400 years. That sounds much better. A very large and growing encounter database works against legitimacy.

 

[GT/CS]

Come-on LT you know bigfooting is all about guessing and speculation, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have any bigfooting at all, and what fun would that be? This way you don’t need the monkey you just make it up as you go.

BTW, Bravo Zulu to you Sir.


m

Reminds me of the rules to Calvinball.

http://www.simplych.com/cb_rules.htm

 

[Astrophotographer]

One of his first priorities after the filming was to try to arrange for tracking dogs. What hoaxer would take a chance like that?

If the subject who wore the suit and the suit were hundreds of miles away and was not in the area, it is a smart move. The dogs will have nothing to track. They could chase around and find nothing. It would look great on film but it would prove that "bigfoot" could not be tracked and Patterson spared no expense in trying to locate the elusive creature. BTW, has anybody bothered to use tracking dogs since? After all the buttprint should have been full of odors and "smells" for the dogs to go chase.

 

[LAL]

You really cannot fathom any contradictions in all of this?

Nope. It seems quite consistant to me. She was squatting by the stream when they first saw her. She didn't menace them and vice versa. The horses went nuts.

What this VW stuff? Are you referring to oil drums and culvert pipe in 1958? Rock throwing in Ape Canyon? What?

If not, ok. Will just leave it on top of the small mountain of odd contradictions that have accumulated.

It's a very small mountain. Bob Heirionimus' pile is much higher. He even contradicted Bob Heironimus.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The something's wrong were shot down at length by Dr. Krantz in his book.

What? He did not write a paper on it so it could be examined in a scientific setting? Instead he wrote a book to sell? Using the book as the final word is not exactly correct. Now if you can present a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that bigfoot exists, then you might have something.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Time to ask again:

Sweaty, allowing that we see bending fingers and toes in the subject of the film; how does that strengthen the position, that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

As for 'bending fingers'...that "fact", together with arms too long to be an actor's arms.....reduces the likelihood that Patty is a man-in-a-suit, since a remote-controlled device would be required in the suit to cause the fingers to bend.


As for the bending toes....they, much moreso, reduce the likelihood that Patty is a man-in-a-suit....because 'remote-controlled' toes are simply out of the question, as a possible explanation.


Can you put together a fake foot with toes that move exactly the same way we see Patty's toes moving?

Can any skeptic on this board do so??

 

[Correa Neto]

What anecdotal evidence? LMS is one of the few docs that doesn't give us eyewitness after eyewitness.

It uses no anecdotal evidence at all?

The platypus was suspected of being a hoax too, by the Royal Society, a "clever Chinese fake". Suspected hoax would include just about everything, according to skeptics. Suspected doesn't = is.

False analogy.
What's the next false analogy? Piltdown? "Science said heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible"?

Pieces of reliable evidence would withstand critical examination. The evidence presented so far does not.

Suspected means suspected, unreliable. If one wants to use data suspected (and highly suspected) of being a hoax to back a claim, one must first try to demonstrate that the data is not false. Something which AFAIK, so far has not been made.

And if most of the data is suspected of being a hoax, well this is not skeptics' fault. The fault, the methodological flaw, lies over the shoulders of those who choose to accept such evidence as being of good quality.

We've been over the fossil thing already, several times. There are similar fossil animals. They don't have to be on the same continent.

LAL, in case you haven't noticed, I more than once acknowledged that there are fossils of bigfoot-like animals - including with skeptics. However, in North America, not a single trace. And yes, it is an essential prerequisite. Otherwise, its just speculation.

Not to mention that if one compares Patty with available Gigantopithecus reconstructions, there are not many points in common (remember that despite some being shown upright most people who studied them think they were knuckle-walkers)...

Please don't answer with an appeal to ignorance "maybe they were bipedal", "they could have evolved", "they could have reached America". This is not backed by hard evidence. Everything else is speculation at best.

Half a century of excavations in Africa turned up three Chimpanzee teeth in an unexpected place. Chimpanzees live in Africa, last I heard.

How many years of paleontological research in North America?
How many bigfeet teeth?

Please don't fall in to the "no one is looking for" strawman.
Please don't fall in to the "it may be gathering dust at some museum's collection" baseless speculation.

Just how many large Asian mammals migrated over the Bering Land Bridge into North America?

And how many did not?
Got wooly rhinos fossils in North America?
Is it possible that they lived in North America? Yes, its possible, but there are no evidence that they did. Valid speculation must be backed by (good) evidence and never extrapolate certain limits. To use this sort of speculations to back a claim (and a claim which is not backed by reliable data) is to build a castle of cards. Its bad science, its pseudoscience. Its woo.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As for 'bending fingers'...that "fact", together with arms too long to be an actor's arms.....

FACTS are something that can not be denied and are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have constantly asked you to demonstrate the arms are too long. I even provided an image that demonstrates the arms are not too long. Your response was "I don't do numbers" or words to that effect. You then "ran away" and refused to discuss it anymore. Therefore, your "FACT" is not a fact but only your "BIASED OPINION", which is worthless since you can't back it up. Nice try Sweaty. Go back and play with your crayons some more.

 

[William Parcher]

William what is Biscardi's take on the PGF? After the GA mess does it even matter what he thinks?

The Georgia hoax is interesting and topical, but in the big picture of Bigfootery, it is just another footnote. Biscardi had no meaningful credibility at any time prior to the Georgia scam. He is a Bigfoot promoter by trade. Bigfoot does not need to be real for him to make money.

If you listen to his radio show archive with Bob Heironimus, he expresses an apparent "deep concern" that the PGF is a fake. That is supposidly based on the testimony of BH, and even Philip Morris. But we have no way of knowing his true opinion of the film subject. Biscardi mostly seems intent on selling the controversy and hyping himself.

It might be financially dangerous for him to openly discount the PGF even if he does truly think it is a hoax. He constantly reminds his audience that he himself has had numerous unambiguous Bigfoot encounters. The context of that reminder serves to say that it doesn't matter if the PGF is a hoax. Biscardi essentially wants everyone to know (think) that Bigfoot exists even if the PGF is a fake.

 

[captain koolaid]

a remote-controlled device would be required in the suit to cause the fingers to bend.

At just the knuckle and 2nd joint?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Can you put together a fake foot with toes that move exactly the same way we see Patty's toes moving?

Can any skeptic on this board do so??

Can you demonstrate the toes are really moving?
Can you demonstrate that PGF resolution is good enoiugh to show detais such as toes?
Can you demonstrate its not an effect caused say, by montion blur?

Demonstrate the above first, then we'll talk about fake feet with moving toes.

No evasives, no word games, no complaints about how close-minded skeptics are. Just a demonstration. The GIFs you posted won't cut it. No guesses, no pareidolia-induced observations. Just a clear demonstration.

 

[LAL]

Since we're all posting pictures:

 

[Drewbot]

It's pointless if you want the support of the only MABRC mod who's stood up for you.

Are you saying you are not going to support my exposing of hoaxes at MABRC? Are you going to withdraw your 'behind the scenes support'? or are you going to withdraw your public support? Oh wait, you haven't supported me publicly in any MABRC forums. Your public non-support is much more detrimental to 'real bigfoot research'. Or maybe you supported me in one of the public forums and I missed it, If you were really going to support my hoax-busting at MABRC, then you should start with the Yowiie thread. That would be a good place.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is Duckfoot again. This can't really show the toes bent upwards. The bent area is too large (long) to be the toes. It appears to be squared off at the front, and does not show the big toe as being further forward than the rest. It must be an illusion.