Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

It uses no anecdotal evidence at all?

Point blank question: Have you seen it?

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

You seem to have misunderstood me. The platypus was thought to be a hoax until it turned out to be real.

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

In your opinion. There's only film, purported hair, scat, DNA, trackways, handprints, 200 casts that are available for examination and a couple of "buttprints". No one faked the scat, it just didn't yield body cells. One sample showed Asian parasites.

And all those sightings. You may not like "anecdotal evidence", but it's evidence nonetheless.

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.

Oh, I think that's been done.

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.

The evidence suggests there are bodies to found and one day brought to those scientists still alive who stare into the camera and say, "Bring me a body and then I'll look at it."

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 everything fossilizes; you know that. It was "common knowlege" the African Rift Valley was the cradle of mankind until someone thought to look in Chad. No fossil is found until it's found.

There may be fossils somewhere. There could be whole sasquatches (if they didn't get blown to bits) under St. Helens ash. The fact that none have been found yet doesn't mean they aren't there.

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)...
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/gigantos.jpg[/qimg]

Giganto has size and location going for it, but there are several other possibilities, including a subspecies that reverted to a bipedal way of going. (The consensus now is that bipedalism preceeded k-w and fist-walking.)

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.

Is there some reason they couldn't?

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

We already established the beds in the PNW were the wrong age. Fossils of grassland dwellers don't say much about forest dwellers.

Try to find teeth in a forest. Be my guest.

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.

I know there were no excavations going on in one of the "hottest" spots in the nation when I lived there.

Forget museums. There may be a bigfoot vertabra doorstop in a Canadian cabin that someone mistook for a rock.

And how many did not?
Got wooly rhinos fossils in North America?

Got wooly mammoths.

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.

In other words, if we don't know it already, don't bother to investigate.

Okay.

 

[LAL]

I for one would like to hear specifics of Langdon's thoughts.

He's over on BFF making bad jokes about Rosie O'Donnell. Why not PM him there?

 

[LAL]

If the PGF is the Gold Standard proof of bigfoot existance, how many more years must pass without a body before you acknowledge that bigfoot doesn't exist and the PGF must have been a hoax?

If there was any reason to think she was the only one of her kind, I might think she exists no longer, but there's ample evidence she was one of a group near Bluff Creek. There are new reported sightings from California as well as other parts of the country. I really don't think people are seeing non-existant animals.

I'm in no rush for confirmation (obviously, since it's been 40 years since I first read about the phenomenon). I can't think of anything that would make me think the PGF must have been a hoax, body forthcoming or no.

I can't answer your question. Does that answer your question?

 

[William Parcher]

You seem to have misunderstood me. The platypus was thought to be a hoax until it turned out to be real.

The circumstances of platypus skepticism were different than that of modern Bigfoot skepticism. It would not have been unreasonable to be skeptical of descriptions of platypus without any physical evidence. Having a specimen in your hands and then declaring it a fake is a different story.

But, Bigfoot is an entirely different proposition. Here we have a very large creature that has resisted all efforts (intentional or serendipidous) of physical confirmation for over 400 years. The whole time people have been saying it exists. All talk and no confirmation. It didn't happen that way with the platypus.

 

[LAL]

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.

I posted here what I've done about that. Maybe you missed it. It was in answer to your post about leaving you hanging in a section I don't even moderate.

You haven't busted any hoaxes on MABRC that I've seen. I think the figures in question are nothing but light and shadow but there's no indication of hoaxing there. It's matrixing and there's a section in the new photographic analysis manual about it.

I learned on BFF it's best if the mods don't get involved in the debates, at least in the public part of the forums. I try not to openly take sides (behind the scenes is a very different story). I did challenge the "face" on the second "figure", which you can see if you read back on the thread. I've challenged the first "figure", just not where you can see it.

I'll support your right to defend your POV. I will not support anyone who posts in a manner that violates the guidelines. If you're there to "hoax-bust" with absolutely nothing to back that up, I'll be the first to advocate the removal of your account. If you suspect someone is hoaxing you may notify the director via PM. There are laws about Internet libel and we will not be a party to anyone breaking them. There are also things going on that you don't know about, so you would do well to just reign in the attitude and debate like a gentleman.

This is really not the place for this discussion. As I said before concerning MABRC, any questions, PM me.

Now, what was that about the PGF?

 

[LAL]

The circumstances of platypus skepticism were different than that of modern Bigfoot skepticism. It would not have been unreasonable to be skeptical of descriptions of platypus without any physical evidence. Having a specimen in your hands and then declaring it a fake is a different story.

As I understand it, that's what they did.

If someone should lay a bigfoot body on a slab I'm sure there will be those who will try to figure out how the "enthusiasts" genetically engineered the sumbitch.

 

[William Parcher]

What is your point about the platypus? Are you simply trying to say that skeptical people are sometimes wrong?

There is nothing about the platypus legacy that convinces me that Bigfoot exists.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

LAL:

I'm talking to Bill Munns.

As a proponent of the PGF subject being a non-human North American primate ?

Where has Bill Munns gone on record in that regard ?
____________________________


Re. your skeleton pictures.

Are you saying the Steindorf model is accurate ?

Are you of the opinion Patty is 5' 7" ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As I understand it, that's what they did.

If someone should lay a bigfoot body on a slab I'm sure there will be those who will try to figure out how the "enthusiasts" genetically engineered the sumbitch.

I don't think anyone is giving the enthusiasts that much credit..

 

[RandFan]

400 pages and nearly half a million views. Damn. All for something that has never been proven to exist and all available evidence suggest that it doesn't.

 

[Spektator]

Patterson probably got "copyright" mixed up with "trademark." Although it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to titles. The magazine/newsletter "Imagine" has a very informative article on the matter called "Protection of Titles" by Mark Litwak in their September 2006 issue.

Oh, and I should note that Merrit was referring to Nudie Cohn.

Yes, titles can be protected in other ways, but as the article you link states at the beginning, they cannot be copyrighted. And the U.S. Copyright Office, whose opinion on the matter ought to be final, says

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

* Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
* Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

(emphasis mine). -- from "Copyright Basics," http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Yes, titles can be protected in other ways, but as the article you link states at the beginning, they cannot be copyrighted.

Oh, no arguments here. I was just trying to say that movie titles have an interesting protection (or semi-protection) system outside of trademarks and the like. Sorry for not being more clear about that.

On a quick aside, I should note that the "million bucks" guy LAL was referring to is Dale Sheets, a (now) former executive at Universal. So far, I can find no evidence of him ever working in their special effects department. I should also note that, unlike Ken Peterson, I have yet to find anything suggesting that Mr. Sheets had any interest in cryptozoology.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Re. your skeleton pictures.

Are you saying the Steindorf model is accurate ?

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the Steindorf model and analysis. But the skeleton pictures raise some questions. If it's based on analysis of joint movement, how are they getting dimensions for immobile bits like the skull and ribcage? And the top and bottom squatch skeletons don't match. For example, the shoulders are much narrower in the top one.

I'm wary of any attempts to measure the PGF subject like this. It's either a non-human animal, or a suit constructed to present a non-human appearance. It's a given that any analysis of the surface appearance is going to come back "not human".

To look at it another way: What would it look like if Steindorf did the same analysis of some Godzilla footage, going strictly by the outward appearance of the film subject? The tail moves, so you need to take that into account. The jaw moves, so you can analyze the "skull". You'd end up with a skeleton that bears no resemblance to the suit actor we KNOW is inside there.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

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??

You can pull this off with any pair of ordinary shoes. Just lift your toes. The front of the shoe goes up. Now imagine that the tips of your shoes are molded in the shape of toes. Bingo, you're a special effects wizard.

 

[William Parcher]

To look at it another way: What would it look like if Steindorf did the same analysis of some Godzilla footage, going strictly by the outward appearance of the film subject? The tail moves, so you need to take that into account. The jaw moves, so you can analyze the "skull". You'd end up with a skeleton that bears no resemblance to the suit actor we KNOW is inside there.

Welcome to JREF, KK. We've suggested the same thing. Correa Neto has posted some excellent illustrations of the "skeletal structure" of popular cartoon characters.

Another thing we have suggested is for those who have endeavored to assign an IM index to Patty. They tend to come up with an inhuman index. We suggest they assign an IM index to known Bigfoot and gorilla costumes in the same way they did with Patty. This is to serve as a sort of control. We would like to know if humans inside these costumes tend to have a human IM index. Of course, the whole thing is questionable because nobody is able to physically measure Patty. But still, the same methodology could be applied to filmed costumes just the same as they did with Patty.

 

[LAL]

What is your point about the platypus? Are you simply trying to say that skeptical people are sometimes wrong?

There is nothing about the platypus legacy that convinces me that Bigfoot exists.

I'm saying that something that's absurd, like the platypus (or 8' apes in North America) may turn out to be real even though an organization as prestigious as the Royal Society may think (at first) it's a hoax, a cobbled-together bit of fakery.

 

[LAL]

LAL:
As a proponent of the PGF subject being a non-human North American primate ?

Where has Bill Munns gone on record in that regard ?

I don't know that he has.
____________________________

Re. your skeleton pictures.

Are you saying the Steindorf model is accurate ?

Are you of the opinion Patty is 5' 7" ?

No. Tube got that off the not-to-scale digital hairless picture. I don't see why skeptics would want to push that. It effectively rules out Bob Heironimus.

 

[captain koolaid]

Roger had backup firepower.

Bob "American Legend" Gimlin, with a bolt 06? Damn he must have been some kind of shot. Even if ole Bob had of packed a Bazooka, I still would have had my own insurance. That is, if I really believed what RP did.

He didn't need a rifle.

Right. Roger the dodger "didn't need a rifle". In a Bigfoot hunt. The Bigfoot of Ostman, and Roe lore plus other scary tales. This isn't just some Wildebeest or Kodiak Bear. This is Ninja Bigfoot.

He also was pretty nervous about not having one when Gimlin wandered off a bit tracking.

No doubt. After all, there was supposed to have been any number of these things at Bluff creek. RP was so concerned, that he prevented BG from pursuing the find of the century (with a loaded camera). They could have attacked, in some sort of Bigfoot pincer movement, from the tree line, when he was left alone by BG... But Rodge didn't need a rifle. No sir.

Of course none of that is valid in the hoax.

Thing is, either RP didn't think this thing through, or he didn't really believe his own spin about Ninja Bigfoot. Or in Bigfoot period.

But under the circumstance you can wield a camera or wield a gun.

But that's the whole problem. The same guy that is "training" at getting the camera out "just in case", is not putting any thought or preparation, let alone "training", into self preservation. The circumstance was self-created. Either RP wasn't a "Bigfoot hunter's" armpit (despite being a woodsman and ex-army), he did not believe his own spin, or he was 100% certain that the only threat would be a cranky dude in a suit, at Bluff Creek.

Patterson bein unarmed is a non issue.

Sure. Considering Patty is a guy in a suit, in a low budget monster movie.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the Steindorf model and analysis. But the skeleton pictures raise some questions. If it's based on analysis of joint movement, how are they getting dimensions for immobile bits like the skull and ribcage? And the top and bottom squatch skeletons don't match. For example, the shoulders are much narrower in the top one.

I'm wary of any attempts to measure the PGF subject like this. It's either a non-human animal, or a suit constructed to present a non-human appearance. It's a given that any analysis of the surface appearance is going to come back "not human".

To look at it another way: What would it look like if Steindorf did the same analysis of some Godzilla footage, going strictly by the outward appearance of the film subject? The tail moves, so you need to take that into account. The jaw moves, so you can analyze the "skull". You'd end up with a skeleton that bears no resemblance to the suit actor we KNOW is inside there.

That comes from the bigfoot engineering co

Wile E. Coyote, CEO

They specialize in rube goldberg engineering and cartoon physics

 

[LAL]

For example, the shoulders are much narrower in the top one.

Do you mean the one in Correa's post (top) and my post (bottom)?

They're the same, except his is labeled "crappyscience" and mine "skeletons".

If you meant my post only, the top one is Australopithecus afarensis.