Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[clayflingythingy]

Just how many people do you think there are combing the forests looking for bones, especially off road and off trail?

There's no hope of getting thru to you, is there?

Bigfoot is reported coast to coast. Each year tens of millions hunt, trap, birdwatch, hike, camp, and just roam in the woods because they like to do so. Someone would have found remains by now LAL.

Your MABRC has a thread with a photo of a Ky bigfoot. As a resident of Ky who has hunted and camped from one end of the state to the other I can assure you if bigfoot existed we would have documentation of it by now. You see LAL there is no place in Ky that can be considered remote enuff to hide bigfoot. Just isn't possible.

Patty is a bloke, probably BH, in a suit LAL.

 

[Crowlogic]

I nominated you for this one Crow ... It makes an interesting and poignant point...

Thank's.

 

[tyr_13]

Better qualified? Probably am, because I've seen these big boys up close on a number of occassions, and one of the few people to ever see an entire clan together at one time as they crossed a field.

I also spend on average about 80 days and nights in the woods researching.

Well then do us all a big favor and learn to use a digital camera, and take it with you. Seriously. It doesn't even have to be an expensive high end one. I can even find you a nice, easy to use, Kodak Easyshare for under $150, and that is with the rechargeable batteries. Then next time you see one of these 'big boys' you can take a flipping picture of it and we can all see that it's just poachers, a bear, or maybe even an unknown primate because your word means roughly two things as evidence. (And the end of that joke is, "And Jack left town.")

You saw an entire clan crossing a field, and you couldn't find one good hair or skin with DNA? You're in the woods that much 'researching' and you don't know how to use tweezers and a Ziplock baggie? Heck, even a cigar tube can work.

 

[LAL]

Bigfoot being nocturnal is highly unlikely, maybe a form of crepuscular, cathemeral activity is possibly exhibited but I doubt they are nocturnal. It is believed that they show a few nocturnal traits but that certainly doesn’t make them nocturnal. One of many arguments against it would be the use of facial expressions as a form of communication.

Deer and elk are largely diurnal, but they're obviously active at night. I don't think they do a lot with facial expression.

I said largely nocturnal. Unreported sightings I know about were mostly at night or at least late in the evening.

Here's one for the math buffs:

"Nocturnality

The nocturnality of the sasquatch has been questioned on occasion. This trait can be considered from a statistical standpoint. Take a hypothetical area randomly seeded with sasquatches, evenly distributed during day and night. Their apparent temporal distribution will depend on them being seen by human observers. Assume a very conservative ratio of such alert observers during daylight as compared to the hours of total darkness in the mountains to be 20:1. A daylight observer will have a circular observational area with a radius of, say, 500’, over which recognition of the subject will be unambiguous, roughly 800,000 square feet. A nighttime observer has at best the expanding cone of headlights in one direction with recognition of a grey object at 300’ and an expanding width of illumination to 100’, a sector with an area of about 15,000 square feet. Factoring in the number of observers produces a ratio of 800,000 X 20 : 15,000 X 1, or better than 1,000 : 1. This 99.9% : 0.1% ratio describes how sightings should be distributed between day and night, a number that will get more extreme if flashlights or moonlight is the alternative illumination.

An actual ratio cited by Green consists of 735 daytime sightings (58%) and 540 during the night (42%), or a ratio of 1.38 to 1. If only sightings on roads are considered, the ratio shifts to 58% in favor of night sightings. This discrepancy can be interpreted as activity by the sasquatch that exposes it to being seen about 1,500 times more often at night than an even distribution would predict."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

 

[RayG]

Well if they weren't there wouldn't be "hundreds of U.S. sightings reported every year".

If they were I would expect thousands instead of hundreds. Not all the reported sightings are recent.

You say on the one hand:

"Who's supposing they're in close proximity to humans on a regular basis?"

Which seems to imply you think they're not, yet you also say there are "hundreds of U.S. sightings reported every year."

When I logically point out that if they weren't in close proximity to humans there wouldn't be hundreds of sightings each year (as you yourself stated), instead of agreeing with that logic you're now suggesting there should be thousands of sightings? I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Better qualified? Why, because he has a bigfoot hat?

No, because he heads up a research organization and spends time in the woods.

Exactly how does that make him better qualified to answer questions about bigfoot?

Didn't you check it out before you joined the forum?

Check out what, his qualifications? He doesn't have any when it comes to bigfoot. Nobody does.

RayG

 

[LAL]

This is the very last part that is universally censored by Bigfooters who use her interview (recorded and transcripted) as an example of BF support by a famous person.

She would have given the keynote address at the Willow Creek Symposium 2003 but had to go back to Africa. John Green filled in. Her taped comments can be seen on the DVD. She said she hoped it would make you think.

Two of Murphy's books say Laverty and crew found the tracks the next day. Since Monday, not Saturday, was the next working day I assume this was an error. Was there a big Murphy roast on JREF and I missed it? Just why was I supposed to know that "by now"?

 

[RayG]

Better qualified? Probably am, because I've seen these big boys up close on a number of occassions, and one of the few people to ever see an entire clan together at one time as they crossed a field.

Forgive me, but I don't accept claims from anyone without sufficient evidence.

Besides, I've seen dozens of things in my lifetime but it doesn't make me qualified to speak with any authority on them.

I also spend on average about 80 days and nights in the woods researching.

And that makes you qualified regarding bigfoot because...?

RayG

 

[LAL]

You say on the one hand:

"Who's supposing they're in close proximity to humans on a regular basis?"

Which seems to imply you think they're not, yet you also say there are "hundreds of U.S. sightings reported every year."

I don't think they're living on the fringes of cities or doing much in the way of dumpster diving. Note how many sightings are well away from human habitation.

When I logically point out that if they weren't in close proximity to humans there wouldn't be hundreds of sightings each year (as you yourself stated), instead of agreeing with that logic you're now suggesting there should be thousands of sightings? I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Reported sightings - some of the reports are decades old. The BFRO, e.g., was getting about 400 a year, but that doesn't mean there were 400 sightings in the same year.

If they were living in close proximity to humans instead of in remote, mostly roadless areas, I'd expect many more encounters than there are. Am I writing in English yet?

Exactly how does that make him better qualified to answer questions about bigfoot?

The questions were about field work and why this, that and the other thing hasn't happened. He knows what it's like out there.

You guys seem to think all it takes is a trek in the woods with the right camera or bone detector or high-powered weapon and, bingo, you're Nature's cover story.

Check out what, his qualifications? He doesn't have any when it comes to bigfoot. Nobody does.

Check out the organization. Didn't you look to see what kind of forum you were joining? You haven't posted, have you? Why not?

The forum has some great features. I can frame whole pages, upload without having to go through Photobucket and embed videos from YouTube. We have unusual smilies. The board runs fast and is seldom down. We even have an official skeptic.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think they're living on the fringes of cities or doing much in the way of dumpster diving. Note how many sightings are well away from human habitation.

That's funny, but I could swear that there was the story of a guy who did a stakeout of a dumpster behind a mall and ended up shooting at a 'bigfoot' (scared as hell hobo more likely), and it even showed up on one of those Bigfoot programs. That is at least one report of bigfoot dumpster diving.

*edit* Also, saying that you expect there would be more sightings if the big bf lived close to human areas doesn't discredit the fact that there are enough sightings that there should be a body by now. Just because there aren't 100,000 sightings doesn't mean 1,000 isn't enough to show some skepticism as to why we have no good evidence.

 

[LAL]

There's no hope of getting thru to you, is there?

With what? The same old simplistic arguments I've been seeing on this thread for the last three years?

Nope.

 

[LAL]

That's funny, but I could swear that there was the story of a guy who did a stakeout of a dumpster behind a mall and ended up shooting at a 'bigfoot' (scared as hell hobo more likely), and it even showed up on one of those Bigfoot programs. That is at least one report of bigfoot dumpster diving.

I know. I have the DVD.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Reported sightings - some of the reports are decades old. The BFRO, e.g., was getting about 400 a year, but that doesn't mean there were 400 sightings in the same year.

Presumably there are more sightings, perhaps many more, from people who don't report them because they don't feel a need too, or are afraid of ridicule, or don't know who to contact.

A decent number of people are seeing the squatch, at least.

It's a quandary for a 'footer. On the one hand, there's enough evidence that this creature exists; it's not made up out of thin air. Yet it's too obscure of a beastie to pin down harder evidence. It dwells in the shadows between something and nothing.

I don't really have a point here. Next...

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

You guys seem to think all it takes is a trek in the woods with the right camera or bone detector or high-powered weapon and, bingo, you're Nature's cover story.

I'm not counting on dedicated Bigfoot researchers to turn one up. No disrespect to them. They're just vastly outnumbered by people roaming the woods for other reasons. Those people will recognize a highly unusual animal if they see it.

You'd think somebody would have accidentally shot one by now. It happens every year in the first week of buck hunting here (rural PA). The reports roll in of people who take a shot at something, only to find out it wasn't a deer they've killed. Often it's another hunter; that gets the most press. But they hit cows, dogs, bears - you name it, it gets accidentally shot. Except a certain hairy hominid.

 

[RayG]

I don't think they're living on the fringes of cities or doing much in the way of dumpster diving.

Other animals are, why not bigfoot?

Note how many sightings are well away from human habitation.

Now we're making progress.

Reported sightings - some of the reports are decades old. The BFRO, e.g., was getting about 400 a year, but that doesn't mean there were 400 sightings in the same year.

It might have helped had you clarified that earlier. So are you saying there aren't hundreds of fresh/new sightings each year?

If they were living in close proximity to humans instead of in remote, mostly roadless areas, I'd expect many more encounters than there are.

And yet there are numerous sightings of bigfoot crossing the road, or being observed from a moving vehicle. Why, if bigfoot is as intelligent as some imply, and able to live in areas so remote that humans seldom, if ever, visit, why so many sightings on or near roads?

Am I writing in English yet?

Your English is fine, it's your logic I'm wondering about.

The questions were about field work and why this, that and the other thing hasn't happened. He knows what it's like out there.

The questions that were posed were these:

"Why can't it be tracked and captured? Or hunted and killed? Or just documented in its natural habitat, nature film style?"

How is anyone qualified to answer those?

Check out the organization. Didn't you look to see what kind of forum you were joining?

Kind of forum? It's a bigfoot forum isn't it?

You haven't posted, have you? Why not?

At present I seldom visit or post anywhere other than here and the BFF. If you know anything about me, you'd know I've been following this mystery for about 40 years now, that I had one of the first bigfoot websites on the net back in the mid 90's, and that I was a member of quite a few bigfoot message forums when they first sprang up. I've also met John Green for some one-on-one back in the early 80's, and I lived in British Columbia for five years, but that doesn't make me anymore qualified about bigfoot than someone who knows nothing.

We even have an official skeptic.

The real test is whether or not you have true freedom of speech. The JREF is one of the few exceptions.

RayG

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

A friend recently pointed out a "concavity of form" on that Lost in Space costume that I linked to awhile back:

I double-checked the .gif and it sure seems to be a consistent feature. You can look for yourselves here.

Speaking of details on a costume, I've been pondering the (possible) flattened cranial top/cap issue. I must admit to not being up on my skeletal structures and Google wasn't too helpful, so I'd like to know if such a feature can be seen on this suit from "The Mysterious Monsters":

or on the costume in this video. That video also offers most creative/nonstandard method of creating a Bigfoot costume I've ever seen.

 

[LTC8K6]

BG and RP both had scabbards attached to their horses. So Bob taking off with camera in hand is fine, so long as he remains on horseback, or remains within arm's reach if dismounted.

My point was more about what Gimlin was going to do should the purported male bigfoot suddenly appear with fire in it's eye and personal defense on it's mind?

 

[LTC8K6]

Or along the road where tracks wouldn't show.

Why wouldn't the tracks of a very heavy biped show in a little used dirt road?

In those famous photos of John Green with the yardstick and the line of tracks in the soft dirt on the edge of the road, we can clearly see that human tracks show up well in the hard road surface itself. So, Patty's tracks would have been obvious on the road.

 

[mangler]

Lu,

You got me on that “largely nocturnal”; I don’t know what that means. Is it basic bigfooting where you just pick and choose what you want then throw it into a made-up category? Primates and the use of facial expressions as a form of communicating seems to have flown a little over your head.

Think about all the reports that mention facial expressions, for instance. . .

“he made many human like facial expressions”,
“while squinting toward Jones with a stern facial expression.”,
“I was close enough I could see his facial expressions”,
“The detail of the animal's movement, facial expression and breasts captured on the film make it the most believable evidence to date”,
“but his facial expression was not very convincing that he had understood!”,
“Mouth is closed, lips drawn tight and slightly apart. Eyes are usually unsteady and darting about. This behavior is usually displayed toward human observers and not other apes. ( According to some researchers, this is the expression displayed by the animal in the Patterson film).”

. . .now ask yourself what possible reasons could there be for a nocturnal (or even as you so eloquently put “largely nocturnal”) animal to exhibit facial expressions? Bigfoot is described as displaying the vast majority of its activity at night (nocturnal), hence all the frickin snipe hunts. Maybe you should read some Ian Tattersall in reference to cathemeral activity and then we can have a discussion about the different meanings of diurnal, nocturnal, crepuscular and cathemeral. Google the above quotes if you want the links.


Lu, do you really think that you can learn me anything about elk and deer traits that I don’t already know? Deer and elk aren’t largely anything. Last time I checked deer and elk were crepuscular. Learn about real animals first, then we’ll discuss fantasy animals if you like. Check factors like habitat transitions, daily, monthly, seasonal cycles, read papers/books, sit in on and/or read field studies of collared animals where you can view a 24 hour cycle of pulse rates, hangout with big-game guides or professional trackers, meet local game wardens, tag along with field biologists then add all that information to your own practical experience, oh wait a minute that’s me, never mind. BTW, during modern firearm seasons throw everything out the window, neither deer nor elk act very natural during this time period.

FYI, at night most elk and deer pretty much just hangout, graze and ruminate, this doesn’t make them nocturnal. Generally speaking about 70-80% of their daily activity (24 hour period) will be spent during 30% percent of that day, 0430–0830 and 1830-2230, AKA Crepuscular, exact times will vary with the seasons. During the day they’ll head for cover, sack-out for a while and do most of their ruminating. There’s other bimodal distribution on things like conception dates, foraging habits, blah, blah, blah. This stuff is mostly cut and dry, I believe I have used the term habitual before. Animals are habitual once they have a territory it’s point a to point b, point b to point c, point c back to point a. Survival of the species equals food, sleep, sex end of story.

If bigfoot is real it’s alien to the animal kingdom.


m

 

[LAL]

. . .now ask yourself what possible reasons could there be for a nocturnal (or even as you so eloquently put “largely nocturnal”) animal to exhibit facial expressions?

I'm not an adaptationist. There's no reason and animal adapting to a nocturnal lifestyle (perhaps to avoid competition with bears, particularly Cave Bears) would lose characteristics inherited from a diurnal ancestor. The large eyeballs would admit plenty of light, so there wouldn't be a need for much change at all.

If they're not active at night, our researchers need to see if they can get a refund on all that NV equipment.

 

[Drewbot]

The reason Bigfoot is seen by truck drivers, campers, people driving down rural roads in the middle of the night, is not due to an Unclassified, Hairy, Bipedal primate being adapted to operating at night. It is due to people being tired and more prone to 'see things' in the middle of the night.